845 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Mikato Soul, on 11 June 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

Link engine size to base maneuverability again: This improves the viability of many IS chassis as they can better twist off the longer burns of their clan counter parts. Being able to twist off damage is super important for any kind of brawl or mid range trade.

They were desynced for a reason. Taking a smaller engine before hand was crazy, as you lost heat dissipation from enhanced in engine heat sinks (for engine 250+), slower movement speed... and on top of that slower twisting speed? That was a triple penalty system... which wasn't a very good idea. Made large engines a must. Now? Now I can go with a smaller engine and be okay, rather than completely screwed.

So no. I disagree with you here.

Mikato Soul, on 11 June 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

Consider 8 vs 8 in queue: High alpha builds would be more readily countered by higher DPS focused mechs. A hot high alpha mech won’t do as well without 11 other mechs worth of pug armor to hide behind.

It's already being considered.

Mikato Soul, on 11 June 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

Remove the target tracking of the command wheel: This feature is way more powerful than you think, and skilled players use this to help line up high alpha burns. New players don’t realize how easy it is to be locked and will poke in the same place.

Agreed. Never should have been in the game in my opinion. (Then again, I think the same for consumables, but they are here and so they shall remain as of the moment.)

S O L A I S, on 11 June 2018 - 06:22 PM, said:

Remove IS armor super quirks and go ahead.

That might make it work.

I think that is the end goal...

[Vxheous]

El Bandito, on 11 June 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

Personally I am of the mind that TTK should be increased, and most balance changes should strive towards that--especially regarding big Clan alphas, and IS dual HGR. I will have better feedback once PGI decides exactly on what to do.




Exactly. My Deathstrike can alpha THREE times, back to back, thanks to its 29 DHS and Coolshots. Seems PGI's own system is biting them in the arse.

That's the 2x Gauss + 6xCERML build, which is a 72 alpha, not the big 80 (which you can do twice with a coolshot), or the dreaded boogeyman 94 (which you can also do twice with a coolshot).

[Tesunie]

A Headless Chicken, on 11 June 2018 - 06:31 PM, said:

In simplified image form for ease of understanding...

Problem with "only buffing" is eventually everything starts to become "one hit KO", unless you also continue to buff health...

Many times, a single nerf is more important than a dozen buffs. If there is one item out of line, it's better to nerf the offender than to buff everything else.

[Lt Blackthorn]

Hmmmmm...

[Kamikaze Viking]

Like many other people here I would like to see the Community Balance Proposal tested publicly in its entirety. Please don't pick and choose from it as that undermines the wholistic approach that was taken in creating the document. If you think that it skews the 'power creep too high from centre' (Although I believe NavidA1's versions of your graphs show that its not really power creeping at all) then make an adjustment across the board that keeps everything in the community proposal still balanced relative to itself (thankyou to whoever suggested that earlier in the thread. Edit: Panicbutton).

Regarding PTS:
It NEEEDS to not rely on a complete fresh install of the client. this dissuades many from testing, along with the lack of rewards. I would LOVE to see a WEEK LONG PTS EVENT on the LIVE servers. Run a patch to put the changes in, and then have the patch revert to previous as soon as the event is over. Big Bright Labels on everything that its "Community Balance Test" everywhere, and give out event rewards aimed at keeping the servers as active as possible all week (or a weekend if you must keep it short, but i feel a week gives more time to test variety and see what meta's evolve since some people test new experiments, and others test to verify if old metas work.)

Mikato Soul, on 11 June 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

Remove the target tracking of the command wheel: This feature is way more powerful than you think, and skilled players use this to help line up high alpha burns. New players don’t realize how easy it is to be locked and will poke in the same place.

I like this idea but i think that reducing the time that the target is marked would probably be enough. It needs to be long enough that people see the called target, but not long enough that you can use it for tracking them out of LOS.


PGI Please Please give me a reason to buy some new $tuff, and use the hundreds of dust covered mechs I already own.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 12 June 2018 - 10:19 PM.

[Stinger554]

Andi Nagasia, on 11 June 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

personally,

id like to see option 2 for C-Gauss,
i feel decreasing the Damage or other Stats will hurt the weapon too much,
thats not to say it shouldnt be balanced, giving it a shake could very well balance this,

Option 2 in practice does nothing....it doesn't affect Hgauss builds and it won't affect cgauss builds.

So congrats on supporting something that does nothing.

[A Headless Chicken]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 06:45 PM, said:

Problem with "only buffing" is eventually everything starts to become "one hit KO", unless you also continue to buff health...

Many times, a single nerf is more important than a dozen buffs. If there is one item out of line, it's better to nerf the offender than to buff everything else.

Buffing or nerfing will make little difference when gameplay is slow paced and TTK in my humble opinion is already relatively high compared to most other shooters - people just need to learn to twist off damage and position well. If i take a 96 damage clean burn on my CT, its not on anyone, the game or anything. Only my bad position and lack of awareness.

EDIT: On the topic of nerfs, we've seen mostly nerfs for the past few years. Look where we are now. Buffing doesn't have to be on damage only either. Heat sinks, base mobility, engine mobility, weapon DPS, DPH, range adjustment, minor heat tweaks for viability. There's plenty of variables to judge by and PGI's approach of "LOL 1 TON 7 DAMAGE MUST BE OP" is not cutting it.

Edited by A Headless Chicken, 11 June 2018 - 06:58 PM.

[Tesunie]

A Headless Chicken, on 11 June 2018 - 06:55 PM, said:

Buffing or nerfing will make little difference when TTK in my humble opinion is high - people just need to learn to twist off damage and position well. If i take a 96 damage clean burn on my CT, its not on anyone, the game or anything. Only my bad position and lack of awareness.

But if it wasn't possible to get that 94 pt alpha... TTK would be even better.

Sigh. I remember the days when a 40-60 pt alpha was considered game breaking. Oh hex PPC Stalker... I think we miss you now.

[Summin]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 06:45 PM, said:

Problem with "only buffing" is eventually everything starts to become "one hit KO", unless you also continue to buff health...

Many times, a single nerf is more important than a dozen buffs. If there is one item out of line, it's better to nerf the offender than to buff everything else.

Well what would you say is the best time to kill? Is it too low? Is it too high? I feel it's too high with many weapons because the IS advantage of more durability is too strong for many clan weapons (excluding laser vomit builds. They are fine as they are.)

The issue doesn't lie within the minimum amount of buffs or nerfs you have achieve "balance" with but the optimal state of the game btw.

[thievingmagpi]

I've got a risky solution

Maps.


Yeah, people are getting tired and cranky because this game is hemorrhaging skilled players and everyone is bored of the same handful of maps. It's not high alpha boats that people find un-fun.

All these minor spreadsheet adjustments are just poor bandaid fixes.

New maps and UI/QOL improvements are what players need. Balance is fine.

Something tells me we won't get that and all we'll get is continued wankery until everyone is smacking each other with rubber mallets for 15 minutes on the same 2 maps.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 11 June 2018 - 07:00 PM.

[A Headless Chicken]

I did edit in a little rant about repeated nerfing since it's killed quite a few mechs and playstyles already above.

[IronEleven]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 06:45 PM, said:

Problem with "only buffing" is eventually everything starts to become "one hit KO", unless you also continue to buff health...

Many times, a single nerf is more important than a dozen buffs. If there is one item out of line, it's better to nerf the offender than to buff everything else.

Buffing underperforming weapons won't decrease TTK, it'll just give you different ways to die in a similar timeframe.

[Tesunie]

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 06:56 PM, said:

Well what would you say is the best time to kill? Is it too low? Is it too high? I feel it's too high with many weapons because the IS advantage of more durability is too strong for many clan weapons (excluding laser vomit builds. They are fine as they are.)

The issue doesn't lie within the minimum amount of buffs or nerfs you have achieve "balance" with but the optimal state of the game btw.

Seen as I've been 1v1 one hit KOed in my Riflemen (no skills, newly bought)... I think it's up to high. And no, it's happened more than once.

What that magic number might be, I have no idea. I just think it's too high at the moment.

[Dracol]

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 06:56 PM, said:

The issue doesn't lie within the minimum amount of buffs or nerfs you have achieve "balance" with but the optimal state of the game btw.

well.... PGI stated what their "optimal state of the game" they are going for and have proposed ways to achieve them, all of them nerfs. Highly doubt at this stage anyone is going to convenience PGI that the game's TTK kill needs to decrease to increase "fun" (ie. implement Community Balance Proposal).

[El Bandito]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 06:56 PM, said:

But if it wasn't possible to get that 94 pt alpha... TTK would be even better.

Sigh. I remember the days when a 40-60 pt alpha was considered game breaking. Oh hex PPC Stalker... I think we miss you now.

Now now, those 40-60 alphas were PPFLD, which means they could potentially screw over Lights/Mediums even more than Deathstrike's 94 alpha.

[Tesunie]

IronEleven, on 11 June 2018 - 07:01 PM, said:

Buffing underperforming weapons won't decrease TTK, it'll just give you different ways to die in a similar timeframe.

BUT, if we nerf the few over performing weapons, it WILL increase TTK, and we can still eventually buff the under performing ones.

It's about practicality. If LPLs are the only out performing laser, than you nerf that one. If the ERSL is the only laser under performing, you buff that. You don't buff all the lasers to perform at LPL levels, nor do you nerf all of them to ERSL levels. (As a random example.)

[Dracol]

IronEleven, on 11 June 2018 - 07:01 PM, said:

Buffing underperforming weapons won't decrease TTK, it'll just give you different ways to die in a similar timeframe.

This is just incorrect.... With the exception of the Clan AC, all weapons are being utilized within the game at some level of play. Buffing any weapons (Clan AC excepted) will decrease average time alive. There is no way around this. Might be very, very minimal. But the fact is, a buff to any weapon decreases TTK.

[MechaBattler]

This is the most direct attempt at player feedback at a core balancing decision in recent years. And people are just asking for what they want. Not providing feedback for the proposed changes. PGI would be better served by putting up polls for each of the proposed changes. Since mostly people are demanding the community panel changes or using this thread as their person soap box for their own opinions.

Clan Gauss change I would go with the recoil change. The damage change would turn it into the IS light gauss, which is not considered especially good.

For lasers I think lowering damage and improving other attributes is the better way to go. Though heavy lasers have so much damage, not sure how that's going to play out.

Edited by MechaBattler, 11 June 2018 - 07:11 PM.

[A Headless Chicken]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:

Seen as I've been 1v1 one hit KOed in my Riflemen (no skills, newly bought)... I think it's up to high. And no, it's happened more than once.

What that magic number might be, I have no idea. I just think it's too high at the moment.

I'd like to raise the point that the Rifleman is squishier than most IS mediums and requires plenty of finesse by abusing the high mounts via hill humping and taking high ground. Also, do remember that the game isn't exactly well-optimized, or even balanced at all for 1v1.

Edit:

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 07:10 PM, said:

It's about practicality. If LPLs are the only out performing laser, than you nerf that one. If the ERSL is the only laser under performing, you buff that. You don't buff all the lasers to perform at LPL levels, nor do you nerf all of them to ERSL levels. (As a random example.)

And if Timber Wolves are overperforming, we nerf them into the ground, as with the Kodiak and Hunchback IIC, right?

Edited by A Headless Chicken, 11 June 2018 - 07:13 PM.

[Lt Blackthorn]

IronEleven, on 11 June 2018 - 07:01 PM, said:

Buffing underperforming weapons won't decrease TTK, it'll just give you different ways to die in a similar timeframe.

This. Combine buffs to underperforming weapons with a general buff to agility and adjustment of some mechs' hp quirks to make them tankier. TTK will increase, along with fun and the number of viable playstyles. Then do teeny, tiny micro-nerfs to stuff that is still a bit OP