845 replies to this topic

[BARRY SHlTPEAS]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 06:43 PM, said:

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.

Couldn't disagree more. Engine desync is awful, and I suspect was another clandestine nerf to Clan tech, or more accurately clan OmniMechs.

[Summin]

Verticorda, on 11 June 2018 - 08:00 PM, said:

Couldn't disagree more. Engine desync is awful, and I suspect was another clandestine nerf to Clan tech, or more accurately clan OmniMechs.

Engine desync was fine, allows for more builds in terms of engine size, however what came with it was the agility nerfs.

If we kept the desync and the same agility the game would be in a much better shape then it is now.

[El Bandito]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 07:36 PM, said:

And we replaced that with a ghost heta cap of 20/30 damage. Meanwhile, we now also have a 50 PPFLD dual H Gauss in the game... So...

I'm just saying that if overall damage was reduced, than overall TTK would become better. It doesn't have to become "throwing wet noodles at each other" low, but a bit lower would still be nice from where it is now.

Of that, I agree. Which is why in my previous posts I advocated changes towards higher TTK, especially against builds such as dual HGR.

[TheVikingArtist]

Ok so I'm going to start off saying that I don't look into the meta I just make builds that seem fun so I had to go look into things to get a sense of the problem.

So wow I can get a 108 alpha strike out of my Rancor if I put all HLLs on it that's a lot of damage but I had to remove a lot of heatsinks and I was already running too hot for my liking fully skilled with all ERLLs with my alpha at 66. I think it would be suicide to actually attempt the alpha with 6 HLLs and even in 3 weapon groups firing them all is going to make you retreat to cool down for a long while before you can fire again. Maybe there are others out there with better heat quirks that can make a good go of it but personally I feel our heat pretty strongly caps us from outputting our full alpha strike potential very often.
That being said I do like some of the trade offs from laser option 1. Lower heat sounds good even if we have to sacrifice our burst advantage to do it. But that means added face time with the much tankier IS 'mechs before we can knock them out and I think we would need either faster burn times so damage can't be splashed as much or a bit more armour to compensate.
Now option 2 sounds like we'll be melting ourselves faster than the enemy with the amount of heat we'll generate if we try anything but the slowest of chain firing which defeats the point of calling our damage an alpha strike.
It's not fun to melt yourself constantly so I'm leaning towards option 1 so you can keep firing.

As to the clan gauss rifles
Option 1 doesn't feel right. These are supposed to pack a pinpoint punch at long range and we need that to prevent IS 'mechs from closing to the point where they run us over.
Option 2 and 3 sound functionally the same. Don't fire your other weapons while firing gauss or you'll be penalized. And I'm fine with that I take gauss for sniping not slug fests.

[BARRY SHlTPEAS]

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 08:02 PM, said:

Engine desync was fine, allows for more builds in terms of engine size, however what came with it was the agility nerfs.

If we kept the desync and the same agility the game would be in a much better shape then it is now.

Really? I'm not saying that your wrong I just remember engine desyc hit the game and lots of my OmniMechs went from viable to hot garbage in short order. My other issue with engine desyc is that you tend to fit engines at the 'break points' (250/275/300 etc) anyway to maximise crit space so the overall effect on builds is somewhat minimal.

[Tesunie]

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 07:44 PM, said:

The balancing isn't considering the average TTK of all builds. It's looking at a TTK for each build which will both support clans and IS and their builds evenly. As IS has the durability advantage and clan does not. Clans will need a higher alpha by default, or a stronger DPM because they are more flimsy. You have to keep that in mind. bringing both alphas in line for clan and IS will cripple clan mechs.

I'm not really a fan of the 80-94 alpha builds myself as well, but I consider the overall balance of the game a crime at this point.
I'd rather choose a potentially un-optimal TTK (although I don't really believe it to be the case) with the community balance update rather than PGI's choices.

The devs seriously need to start paying more attention to the top end of players, they are the folks that know how to min max and get the most out of builds and optimal play. They know best how to balance the game because they generally know best in what ways the game is broken. This results in more feasible builds. The more builds that are feasible the better. That's what I believe is fun. Variety.

You forget, IS have health quirks. I do believe one of PGI's goals was to remove most health quirks, so they aren't relying on just them for balance. If they decrease Clan alpha power, then IS will probably no longer need the health quirks besides on a few out lining mechs.

The goal for this game's balance should be to actually remove most if not all quirks. It may never happen, but if we never let the possibility even try because "it would ruin Clans because IS have so much health", then how can we even try to remove that extra health?

A Headless Chicken, on 11 June 2018 - 07:49 PM, said:

If you get one shot via facetanking against a who-knows-what loadout, you're probably playing the 'Mech wrong, or facing off against some assault you have no hope of winning against to begin with. Exceptions if you got headshot, or a back gib.

Do you pilot a Timberwolf? I don't think so. It's an inferior pick compared to almost every other heavy out there. The only reason it "overperforms" is because people load LRMs on it and farm ineffective damage.

I wasn't face tanking. I got a few shots from hiding, rounded a corner, saw the assault, shot and twisted and died from CT in one shot (HSR seems to like to ignore the fact I twisted as it compensates for lag). Literally a single alpha to my CT (with twisting) from a single enemy mech. Heavy vs an Assault. Yes, I probably was going to lose, but I shouldn't have died in one hit either. If a single hit KO is acceptable for a heavy mech... That probably should indicate an issue.


For the record, the Timberwolf was at one time a very powerful mech to play in. It had nothing to do with LRMs. Now there are several different choices to go with, and many of them are just as good. And no, I don't have a Timberwolf... though I don't exactly know why I don't. Just been so many other mechs I was more interested in instead.

Also, as I said, IF the Timberwolf was out performing all other heavies, then yes. It probably should be nerfed at least a little. As you've stated, if it ISN'T performing better than other heavies, than it shouldn't be nerfed. If it's being out performed by most other heavies, then it should be buffed.

AKA: If the Timberwolf was out performing, it should be nerfed rather than buffing all other heavy mechs. then in reverse, if the Quickdraw was under performing compared to other heavies, then it should be buffed, rather than nerfing all other heavies. That is the nature of balancing.

Also, nice trap...

[Kin3ticX]

You guys take too long to roll balance changes out. The last laser nerf that was brought and then backpedaled means we have to wait months for the next attempt.

As far as the OP goes, I generally agree with it and it boils down to

1. Clan tech is better but corners were cut to shave the tonnage / critspace, for purposes of balance

2. Inner Sphere is bulky / overengineered instead of old / garbage, for the purposes of balance instead of following muh lore.


The OP writeup is seemingly solid but I am skeptical about execution and how long we have to wait. The game is somewhere past its prime and approaching twilight years and I think you guys don't have the time piece meal anymore. That last laser nerf that PGI backpedaled wasn't something they came up with that week, it was probably 2+ months old at a minimum.

Make your changes and hold your ground just like with this bizarre Stock-only mode tournament, just hold your ground and make us begrudgingly take it or leave. Waiting sucks more.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 11 June 2018 - 08:18 PM.

[Stinger554]

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 07:44 PM, said:

The balancing isn't considering the average TTK of all builds. It's looking at a TTK for each build which will both support clans and IS and their builds evenly. As IS has the durability advantage and clan does not. Clans will need a higher alpha by default, or a stronger DPM because they are more flimsy. You have to keep that in mind. bringing both alphas in line for clan and IS will cripple clan mechs.

I'm not really a fan of the 80-94 alpha builds myself as well, but I consider the overall balance of the game a crime at this point.
I'd rather choose a potentially un-optimal TTK (although I don't really believe it to be the case) with the community balance update rather than PGI's choices.

The devs seriously need to start paying more attention to the top end of players, they are the folks that know how to min max and get the most out of builds and optimal play. They know best how to balance the game because they generally know best in what ways the game is broken. This results in more feasible builds. The more builds that are feasible the better. That's what I believe is fun. Variety.

Any kind of balance changes should take into account the average TTK of the game because pushing it one way or the other isn't fun and could easily lead to stupid levels of power creep or a stupidly high TTK where killing a mech takes 60 secs.

IS durability came about because of high Clan damage.....not the other way around. If their damage gets evened out then armor quirks would not be necessary; excluding mechs with **** geometry of course.

Current TTK is pretty good on average, with the exception of the 80+ alphas, crappy SPLs, and LRMs(at least off the top of my head).

[Luminis]

Five damage cERML? Fine, turn them into IS ERMLs with .5 more heat and .1 longer duration to compensate for the range, might even be useful on some builds. CGauss? Meh, it's probably not gonna get the reticule shake (most sensible nerf imho) but a numbers nerf or GH linked so it's going to be dead.

Question is, we all know that DPS is no replacment for upfront damage, especially on comparatively squishier Mechs, so what are the compensatory buffs? Maybe not the Deathstrike that - apparently - is the root cause of the issue, but the other Clan Mechs that use Gauss Rifles and ERMLs? Agility buffs? Armour quirks?

Right, probably nothing. RIP.

Be that as it may, it baffles me that this is such a high priority issue while matchmaking and the useless PSR system is kinda flying under the radar, resulting in one-sided matches that are perfectly predictable by looking at the average match score totals of the two teams. But hey. Clan Gauss Vomit - bigger deal.

[A Headless Chicken]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

I wasn't face tanking. I got a few shots from hiding, rounded a corner, saw the assault, shot and twisted and died from CT in one shot (HSR seems to like to ignore the fact I twisted as it compensates for lag). Literally a single alpha to my CT (with twisting) from a single enemy mech. Heavy vs an Assault. Yes, I probably was going to lose, but I shouldn't have died in one hit either. If a single hit KO is acceptable for a heavy mech... That probably should indicate an issue.


For the record, the Timberwolf was at one time a very powerful mech to play in. It had nothing to do with LRMs. Now there are several different choices to go with, and many of them are just as good. And no, I don't have a Timberwolf... though I don't exactly know why I don't. Just been so many other mechs I was more interested in instead.

Also, as I said, IF the Timberwolf was out performing all other heavies, then yes. It probably should be nerfed at least a little. As you've stated, if it ISN'T performing better than other heavies, than it shouldn't be nerfed. If it's being out performed by most other heavies, then it should be buffed.

AKA: If the Timberwolf was out performing, it should be nerfed rather than buffing all other heavy mechs. then in reverse, if the Quickdraw was under performing compared to other heavies, then it should be buffed, rather than nerfing all other heavies. That is the nature of balancing.

Also, nice trap...

So an unskilled Rifleman has 76+40 total CT HP with 6 back armor, assuming a quirkless variant. I wonder what could eat through 116 hp in a single shot. EDIT: Without being seen, to boot.

Secondly, i don't think you get my argument about PGI's nerfing always being too heavy handed, seeing as to how you're going off on a few irrelevant tangents like "paid mechs" and "performance nerfs are relative". Timby is currently meme-tier, has been ever since the engine desync, and this is the result of overkill PGI nerfs in the same vein as what they are trying to pull with weapons now.

Edited by A Headless Chicken, 11 June 2018 - 08:29 PM.

[Tesunie]

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 07:57 PM, said:

Last I heard WoW balancing isn't good either. The time to balance a game depends entirely on it's feedback loop, which is pretty short compared to WoW, which also isn't exactly a competitive game if I recall right. I'd rather we stick to the topic of MWO.

You are the one whom said "for this games age". I presented an older game, which continues to also make balance passes, with nerfs AND buffs commonly.

Verticorda, on 11 June 2018 - 08:00 PM, said:

Couldn't disagree more. Engine desync is awful, and I suspect was another clandestine nerf to Clan tech, or more accurately clan OmniMechs.

That is the beuty of things. We can disagree. We each have a right to our own opinions. (Just realize you are wrong. )

If anything, mechs should have an agility pass done on them, and some of them probably should be buffed to better match what they need. I wouldn't have it assigned to the engine, as that was honestly (my opinion) a bad choice to start with. Makes smaller engine sizes even more painful than they already are.

To talk about damage and stuff, having rotation speed also linked to engines (again) means that smaller engines mean slower speeds (less able to dodge), less cooling (if it's under 250 in size) from less in engine heat sinks, AND THEN less twisting ability which once more hits on the ability to not only twist damage around but ALSO the ability to keep your weapons on target...

That is why I feel engine desync is good. It doesn't mean it's implemented perfectly, but I think it is better than when it was based on engine size.

Which then loops into that high alpha, and the ability to twist damage around...

[Luminis]

A Headless Chicken, on 11 June 2018 - 08:22 PM, said:

Timby is currently meme-tier,

Just wanna remind people that - on top of low free tonnage and crit slots, a squishy profile and plenty low-slung hard point and terrible agility - the TBR STILL HAS ITS GOD DAMN NEGATIVE QUIRKS!

[BARRY SHlTPEAS]

I think it's critical that we nerf clan lasers into the ground before the Hellfire is added to the game. Wouldn't want those folks who pre-ordered that mech to have fun with it now would we? If nobody buys the Incubus we should buff cSPLs a bit I suppose.

[Punished Venom Prawn]

So I had an idea for the laser alpha problem while playing HBS Battletech (where each laser rolls to hit different components when fired together), and I just thought I'd throw it out there. What if there was a second form of diminishing returns around laser convergence. If you have more than 4 lasers (and maybe gauss could count toward this) they could become less pinpoint accurate and instead hit an area around the crosshair - I'm imagining them shooting straight forward in the shape of their hardpoints but whatever form of dimished accuracy would work. You could even have different levels of targeting computers help counteract this, which would increase the weight cost of boating lasers.

Up close, you could still get six lasers all on one component, but at range they'd splash across more, just like every other weapon that's fired in groups. It'd hurt bigger mechs more, because their hardpoints are farther apart, and compact lights should feel it the least. Basically, you gotta invest in fire control systems if you want to have a bunch of lasers perfectly track a target.

Edit: It would also help make arm mounts a little more valuable, since they tend to mount things closer together and you could use the arms to manually converge more lasers.

Edited by Lazy Prawn, 11 June 2018 - 08:41 PM.

[S O L A I S]

Dear PGI,

Please answer this question. Will these purposed changes increase the population in any appreciable way, and if so how? Respectfully where I am sitting as a die hard CW scrub who enjoys team work but not committed enough for comp play, I am seeing appreciable loss in players. People I know are leaving the game. Lots after skill maze dropped, and engine desynch. More and more each week.

Large units like MS and HHoD are a thing of the past. Despite Russ's assurances the wait times seem up in both CW and quick play group queue. Match quality has absolutely deteriorated with low population and current PSR system, and in CW the rag tag groups of units considered high skill continually roll players seemingly completely ill equipped to compete at a very basic level.

Again with respect, consider why I would want to continue to support this game if instead of announcing new content that people actually want and will play, instead on the horizon is another set of nerfs?

This late in this game's product cycle, I don't expect as a customer miracles or droves of new players. If we are in the down cycle, it would make sense to me to want to retain player base. Is this a clear message that you won't listen to input from the guys playing this game at a level most of us can only dream of? Is the retention now squarely aimed and focused to those with bad mechanics and understanding of the game because that is where the vast majority sit?

It really seems off to me to pander to the mediocre. In my opinion in makes more sense even from an altruist point of view to aspire to greatness, and keep the integrity of the game based on the very best playing it. The direction things are moving seems like you are trying to make chess into checkers for everyone. Starting by removing the queen because it is OP....

[A Headless Chicken]

Lazy Prawn, on 11 June 2018 - 08:29 PM, said:

So I had an idea for the laser alpha problem while playing HBS Battletech (where each laser rolls to hit different components when fired together), and I just thought I'd throw it out there. What if there was a second form of diminishing returns around laser convergence. If you have more than 4 lasers (and maybe gauss could count toward this) they could become less pinpoint accurate and instead hit an area around the crosshair - I'm imagining them shooting straight forward in the shape of their hardpoints but whatever form of dimished accuracy would work. You could even have different levels of targeting computers help counteract this, which would increase the weight cost of boating lasers.

Up close, you could still get six lasers all on one component, but at range they'd splash across more, just like every other weapon that's fired in groups. It'd hurt bigger mechs more, because their hardpoints are farther apart, and compact lights should feel it the least. Basically, you gotta invest in fire control systems if you want to have a bunch of lasers perfectly track a target.

Now try to swat that light eating your back out. Lights OP!

Or try to kill that guy pelting you with LRMs, AC2s or any other form of ranged weaponry 500m out.

[Johnathan Tanner]

Luminis, on 11 June 2018 - 08:27 PM, said:

Just wanna remind people that - on top of low free tonnage and crit slots, a squishy profile and plenty low-slung hard point and terrible agility - the TBR STILL HAS ITS GOD DAMN NEGATIVE QUIRKS!

It has negative quirks because its the most OP of the OP clam mechs!

[Summin]

Verticorda, on 11 June 2018 - 08:09 PM, said:

Really? I'm not saying that your wrong I just remember engine desyc hit the game and lots of my OmniMechs went from viable to hot garbage in short order. My other issue with engine desyc is that you tend to fit engines at the 'break points' (250/275/300 etc) anyway to maximise crit space so the overall effect on builds is somewhat minimal.

Yeah, when deciding the agility for the engine desync they set a low bar for the overall value. I'm not sure agility values were even correct across this baseline because you had cases like the gargoyle having the same agility profile as the nova.

the concept was fine but the implementation was horrid.

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

You forget, IS have health quirks. I do believe one of PGI's goals was to remove most health quirks, so they aren't relying on just them for balance. If they decrease Clan alpha power, then IS will probably no longer need the health quirks besides on a few out lining mechs.

The goal for this game's balance should be to actually remove most if not all quirks. It may never happen, but if we never let the possibility even try because "it would ruin Clans because IS have so much health", then how can we even try to remove that extra health?

Then where is the consideration of the IS health quirks in PGI's posts? I haven't seen any. The procedure is all wrong.

Why isn't there a PTS with the removal of IS health quirks and the Clan nerfs at the same time? Why upset the community with one but no mention of the other in the same breath?

Stinger554, on 11 June 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

Any kind of balance changes should take into account the average TTK of the game because pushing it one way or the other isn't fun and could easily lead to stupid levels of power creep or a stupidly high TTK where killing a mech takes 60 secs.

IS durability came about because of high Clan damage.....not the other way around. If their damage gets evened out then armor quirks would not be necessary; excluding mechs with **** geometry of course.

Current TTK is pretty good on average, with the exception of the 80+ alphas, crappy SPLs, and LRMs(at least off the top of my head).

Well, I'm unsure if the average TTK is at a good spot then, I don't think it will be decreased by that much with the community patch however.

Well, yes but why isn't the durability quirks being removed in the same patch? Why not, as I've said before in the post, have a grand PTS where we can iron out what works and what does not.

Why not have a PTS for the community patch as well while we are at it?

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 08:25 PM, said:

You are the one whom said "for this games age". I presented an older game, which continues to also make balance passes, with nerfs AND buffs commonly.

It's older sure, but it isn't exactly a pure pvp competitive game now is it. I'm not sure if the two games are exactly comparable in terms of balancing purely based on age because they are too fundamentally different.

[Tesunie]

A Headless Chicken, on 11 June 2018 - 08:22 PM, said:

So an unskilled Rifleman has 76+40 total CT HP with 6 back armor, assuming a quirkless variant. I wonder what could eat through 116 hp in a single shot.

Secondly, i don't think you get my argument about PGI's nerfing always being too heavy handed, seeing as to how you're going off on a few irrelevant tangents like "paid mechs" and "performance nerfs are relative". Timby is currently meme-tier, has been ever since the engine desync, and this is the result of overkill PGI nerfs in the same vein as what they are trying to pull with weapons now.

That is my question. I have NO idea what happened, but it happened in two different matches, one right after the other. I changed nothing on my mech between the matches, yet it was happening. I suspect massive crits, which increased damage to the CT once it's armor was breached... I feel crit chances has been an issue for some time recently. I don't know when or what changed, but all weapons seem to be doing higher crits...


Oh, I'm not saying that a nerf may be heavy handed at times. However, it doesn't mean that we should only ever buff.

I'm just saying what people around the forums complain about. Make a change to a mech that was "paid for" and they use that as an excuse (then threaten to demand their money back). That is the kind of people that PGI has to deal with a lot... All I'm saying there.

As I said, at one point the Timberwolf was "king mech" in the game. So it may have been hit a little hard. Maybe it is time for it to be buffed... or maybe other mechs need to be nerfed instead. Remember, I'm saying as examples. I have no data to work with, and I'm using your example of a Timberwolf. Was not saying if the Timber needed to be nerfed nor buffed. Just, if it was an out performer, than it might need to be nerfed. Goes for any mech, not just the Timberwolf. In reverse, if another mech is an under performer, it might need a buff, rather than nerfing all other heavy mechs.

As I stated in a post literally after yours, maybe it's time to do another agility pass, and give each mech more unique agility traits. Maybe many of those need to be buffed. Maybe even a few need to be nerfed. No idea, as I don't have the data. But it probably is due for a pass anyway.

[Tesunie]

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

Then where is the consideration of the IS health quirks in PGI's posts? I haven't seen any. The procedure is all wrong.

Why isn't there a PTS with the removal of IS health quirks and the Clan nerfs at the same time? Why upset the community with one but no mention of the other in the same breath?

You don't want to decrease health until you know it needs to be done. But yes, PTS is absolutely the place to do these kinds of test before they go live. Problem is, not many people actually play the PTS, mostly because there are no rewards when you do so. If more people played the PTS, it certainly would be more viable...

If I was PGI, and as people keep yelling about things, I wouldn't want to make laser changes and health changes in the same patch. Maybe give it a month... Would it suck that the Clans may have a problem for a month (or couple of weeks)? Certainly. But it may be a needed step to truly help balance things out.

I know any suggestion I make for balance would be aimed with the intent of trying to remove IS health quirks. Honestly, they felt more like a bandaid fix to address Clan high damage. Even then, damage out does armor, as damage happens every time the trigger is pulled and can multiply with the number of mechs. A mech's armor last till it's hit, and then is gone. So damage almost always out performs armor in a game like this (where there is no healing). Yes, I do realize enough armor... but as an average damage typically out performs armor.

I completely agree. PTS this. See if it works before going live. The PTS should be getting utilized a lot more often, and probably would result in better balance passes if they used it more.

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

Well, I'm unsure if the average TTK is at a good spot then, I don't think it will be decreased by that much with the community patch however.

Well, yes but why isn't the durability quirks being removed in the same patch? Why not, as I've said before in the post, have a grand PTS where we can iron out what works and what does not.

Why not have a PTS for the community patch as well while we are at it?

Agreed. No argument here. We should do a PTS for this. And, maybe after a single PTS, consider if armor quirks need a pass as well from the data. Then PTS it again with less armor quirks. I agree. The PTS should be used much more than it has been so far.

Now if we could just get a population of testers over on it when it is running... I still think a small incentive of MC per match played (with a cap limit, so people don't earn too much of course) on the PTS might solve the problem...

Summin, on 11 June 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

It's older sure, but it isn't exactly a pure pvp competitive game now is it. I'm not sure if the two games are exactly comparable in terms of balancing purely based on age because they are too fundamentally different.

It has PvP in it, and they balance the game for PvP as well. They are different, but all I'm saying is it's an older game that sometimes still does large balancing passes, much like what MW:O does. I might even dare say MW:O is harder to balance overall, because of the nature of the game combined with the lore and it's expectations.

WoW has less lore and it is being developed as they go, so they can still do anything they want with it and just explain it away. Here though we have 30 (or close to? More? Less?) years of lore written in novels, TT games, other MW related games... Even if we toss some of it aside for balance (which I may love my lore, but lore =/= balance all the time), we still have to keep at least some of it, otherwise it no longer becomes a Battletech/Mechwarrior game, and just becomes "some game with mecha/giant stompy robots". Certainly doesn't make the job any easier.


I'll never claim to know everything, or even how or what to fix. But I am willing to try anything for the name of balance. Of course, I'd love to try it in a PTS rather than in live matches first...