845 replies to this topic

[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...

[Tarogato]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Clan Gauss Rifles

The 3 less tons needed to equip Clan Gauss rifles need to come with meaningful give and take compared to their heavier IS equivalents. Off of two clan Gauss rifles, the 6 saved tons over their IS counterparts is often plenty of tonnage to compliment the weapons with payloads that their IS counterparts are often strapped to compete with. This will be adjusted to offer fairer give and take between the two tech base's rifles.

Right now I feel Clan Gauss is slightly underperforming. Have you noticed that over the past year the amount of mechs that equip Clan Gauss has diminished significantly?

These are mechs that we used to see regularly equip cGauss:

- Hunchback IIC
- Stormcrow
- Hellbringer
- Ebon Jaguar
- Timber Wolf
- Night Gyr
- Warhawk
- Maruader IIC
- Supernova
- Dire Wolf
- Kodiak



Here are the mechs that I see regularly equipping cGauss these days:

- Night Gyr
- Mad Cat Mk.II
- . . .



... what happened?

Gauss explosions happened. March 2017, cGauss item health was reduced from 10 HP to 5 HP. Because of this change, cGauss is more of a liability than an asset. The only mechs that mount cGauss these days are the mechs that can tuck them away safely in rather small arms. This was just the nail in the coffin after the cGauss cooldown was nerfed in 2016. cGauss has not been fun on its own merit since then, it was only redeemable in the GaussPPC combination until that was brutally murdered out of the game.

cGauss needs to have its 10 HP back, otherwise it will continue to be a frustrating piece of kit that people avoid equipping once they realise that it's just a timebomb that starts ticking every single match.

Buff Clan Gauss health.





Now, the comparison between Clan and IS Gauss. Whereas Clan Gauss is performing slightly under par, the IS Gauss is just outright bad. You can not nerf cGauss damage, because people will just stop taking it. The alpha damage it deals is perfect. The DPS it deals is acceptable. Instead, the IS Gauss needs to be buffed. I would suggest a Cooldown buff. Here is why:

On the Clan side, cGauss is typically paired with laservomit (thus the term, gaussvomit). The cooldown of cGauss is 5.0sec, plus the 0.75sec of charge time, so the total recycle time is about 5.75sec. Clan laservomit (the cERML for instance) recycles in 5.75sec. Exactly the same as cGauss, so barring human error they are perfectly synchronised.

On the IS side, when you pair IS Gauss with laservomit, the Gauss still recycles in 5.75sec, but your laservomit recycles in 4.40sec or 4.90sec depending on what you pair it with. So they are not synchronised. You can get two laser volleys out, but you still have to wait approximately an entire second to get your second Gauss volley off. This feels like crap. With a IS Gauss cooldown of approximately 4.15, it will at least sync with ERML, and this will provide a satisfying 17% DPS boost to builds (like the Jager) which can't afford to mount weapons in addition to their Gauss.

Buff IS Gauss cooldown.

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Option 1:

• Upfront damage reduced to something more in-line for the tonnage invested in the weapon, Other attributes adjusted to keep the same current DPS.

Clan Gauss is not overperforming in terms of alpha damage or DPS output. You nerf this aspect and more people will just get pissed off and stop using this weapon altogether. Don't do this.

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Option 2:

• The Clan Gauss rifle is given a recoil effect similar to, but not as intense as, the Heavy Gauss rifle. No other attributes are changed.

This is ineffective. The recoil mechanic is extraordinarily easy to circumvent. You fire your other weapons first, and then the Gauss. You can still achieve a synchronised alpha. Don't do this, it won't work.

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Option 3:

• The Clan Gauss Rifle and all Clan Large Class Lasers are linked into the same heat penalty group.

This kills innocent builds. EBJ and TBR come to mind. 1x cGauss + 2x cLPL (or cHLL) is not game-breaking. They are rather fun, satisfying builds, which perform barely average. Also, this linkage does not address some of the worst offending builds like the MCII-DS which run 2x cGauss + 6x cERML. That is an exploitable loophole and I don't like the inconsistency. PLUS, this kills the gaussvomit Dire Wolf. What is the point of the DWF having so many energy hardpoints if you can't use them? The DWF is not even overperforming, despite its possible 108 alpha damage. Let me repeat that in case it sounded like a typo: the 108-alph Dire Wolf is not overperforming. The dakka builds are actually more versatile, and perform better on average. (in fact, they perform about... average.)

The main problem I have with this ghost heat linkage, is that it kills build diversity. We already literally deleted GaussPPC from the game. Why must we continue to commit playstyle genocide? It kills peoples' will to play this game. Stop it.

Quit deleting playstyles.

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Clan Lasers:

While the popular adage sees the belief that only a handful of 'mechs consist as "problem" 'Mechs, the reality is that as a whole, the overall performance of even an average clan 'Mech can put up are often consistently higher then what the average IS 'Mech can put up provided they have access to a certain number of energy hardpoints.

Yes, I agree. The problem is fundamentally with the weapons themselves. As you really only need 5 energy hardpoints for a Clan build to generally start to be more rewarding than most IS builds.

Quote

This will be a change that is targeted to either raise the skill cap needed to utilized mass Clan laser fire, or will be reduced to a level that does not completely overshadow the IS equivalent weapons.

I like the former idea. Raise the skill cap. Just do not do it by introducing new ghost heat limits, thinking you are encouraging people to chainfire or splitfire. You are not. Instead of splitting fire, people will just build their mechs around the limitation entirely, thus you have reduced build diversity. Similar to what happened with GaussPPC, the introduction of new ghost heat limitations is tantamount to removing those combinations from the game altogether. All it will do is piss off your playerbase.

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Option 1:

• Upfront damage is reduced to IS equivalent levels. Superior range values are kept.
  
• Instead of superior upfront damage, we can reduce the cool-downs, heat, and other attributes to move the natural boosted per-turn damage that the Clan weapons are historically known for in the fiction, as a higher rate of fire leaving them overall where they are now, but shifting the added damage perks away from Boosted Alpha strikes and more towards higher overall DPS. Keeping closer alpha damage

I have two problems with this.

1. with lowered damage, the role is shifted more toward DPS. People will just double down on the DPS role, they will lower alphas, stack heatsinks, and just abuse the superior sustain. The results will not be pretty.

2. this is literally applying the IS philosophy straight to Clan weapons. The IS philosophy is "our weapons deal less damage, but more often". By applying this mantra to clan weapons, you are essentially taking what makes the two factions different... and just erasing it. Making them the same. If people want to play low alpha, fast recycle... they play IS. If people want to play high alpha, slow recycle, they play Clan. I like this dichotomy, I think it is engaging, fun, and successful. It's also imbalanced at the moment, but we'll get to that...

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Option 2:

• Clan Laser's heat scale triggers set to 30 damage caps similar to their IS counterparts. All other weapon attributes remain unaffected.
  
• This will keep the superior damage for the weapons as it is now, but mass lasers will come with a higher skill ceiling in order to effectively utilize the entire payload in combat.

This is essentially the same as Option 1, except instead of it being a paradigm shift, it is a straight up nerf. The same result will happen, Clan players will just remove weapons from their mechs, stack heatsinks, and abuse the high sustained output. Again, this is making Clan behave similar to IS, it is removing the difference that makes the two factions distinct from one another. I do not like it. Do not do this.




Option 3:

• Increase offending Clan Laser durations by anywhere between 10% and 20% of their present values

1. this attenuates all builds equally (no ghost heat loopholes like the MCII-DS and HBR)
2. has a meaningful impact on the quality of damage delivered (whereas most damage nerf suggestions are just a drop in the bucket and won't really achieve anything substantial enough)
3. maintains diversity in the game (ghost heat or alpha caps would just remove builds from the game = anti-fun)
4. doubling down on what actually distinguishes clan style weapons from the IS style (instead of making the sides more similar)
5. easy to compensate for with quirks (ex.: think the IFR doesn't deserve duration nerf? Give it duration quirk.)
6. doesn't impose any new arbitrary limits that aren't mirrored on the IS side = more intuitive to the end user
7. the first 10% merely brings durations back to where they were before the Skill Tree duration nodes were introduced, the actual nerfs don't really begin until beyond that. Until then, it's 100% familiar territory.

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

... intended goals of reducing Clan upfront damage alpha from its current 94 damage peak, to instead peak off closer to the 60-65 damage peak the IS reaches

For the record, one of best performing builds in the game tops out at only 52 damage. I find it amusing that you've set a rough goal of 60-65 damage, which completely ignores one of your chief perennial overperformers.

Edited by Tarogato, 11 June 2018 - 10:12 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

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.

How many mechs can do 94pts? 3 or is it 4 IIRC. This is a nice/edge scenario at best.

Mind you it was also a build secretly buffed last patch by PGI by giving the DWF armour quirks which it needed but NOT the omnipods that got a buff, they got that buff wrong, very wrong. It made the build quite good (Where previous it was definately a one-hit-wonder).

These are the finer points many here keep missing here.

40-60, overall is where most Alpha's are and have been for the better part of 2 years and - still are, they are still there.

This is a knee jerk to less than 10 mechs from about 10 people.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 11 June 2018 - 09:31 PM.

[LucidInsanity]

If you guys are nerfing clan mechs again, what's the point of even having them in the game?

[Rydiak Randborir]

Tarogato nails it perfectly. Please, Chris/Paul, heed his ideas.

[AlphaPiAlpha]

Beating a dead horse... Do you even play the game, PGI? I mean, like really in a unit with strong people in FP against another premade good unit?

IS has armor quirks, the weapons shoot faster (damage over time, much more important than high alpha ), and run sooo cool (yeah we played both sides in FP, but if you want fast drops, choose clan as SO MANY PLAY IS cause it is soo more convenient)

High alpha on clan side is NOT a problem, as is is achieved by an insane burn duration! (and HEAT HEAT HEAT) The cooldown takes ages, too. So any IS mech that is not standing still (but many noobs do), does get the damage spread ALL over his mech.

And, btw, talking about HIGH ALPHA: So IS Heavy Dual Gauss is NOT a problem? There is no chance to torso twist or avoid it for clans, IS pushes and shoots ya, one shot- kill... No penalties whatever. It was fun doing that on IS side... (total damage output in the end seems lower, as you dont strip the enemy mech apart but just instant kill)

IS has nice autocannons, that dont shoot tons of bullets and each bullet doing fractions of damage, no, if it hits, it does the full ****. Clan has to deal with those "salvo" style ********, while having lower armor, too.

Range? Did ya see a battlemaster with like 4-6 er large lasers and TC? Go to a private game and test it with a friend on alpine, you will be surprised against a clan er large laser mech. And no claner can carry 6erlarge and fire em, like IS does.

Nah, you nerfed clans hard enough and enough is enough. Stop beating a dead horse. (Not even getting into ridiculous armor quirks).

Teach the people how to play, cause if I see an IS mech standing still, shooting his M lasers at 800 meters at me, yes I ALPHA HIM with zoom in and do a lot of damage. But that is the players fault! If he does not understand the game mechanics and weapons!

You seem to listen to those BEEEP players, so honestly, you never seem to play your own game enough to understand that there is NOTHING LEFT TO BALANCE! You added so many screws and adjustment possibilities and playing with em like a little kid in a toy story without any common sense that it is SCREWED now and none of your suggestions show an understanding of the current state the game is in!

FP examples:
-12 urbies / Assassins just rushing a 12 man premade of assaults on clan side. Guess the outcome? (Talking about premade against premade)
- 12 Annihis and Cyclops just rushing
- 12 battlemasters+ stalkers with erlarge (alpine)
...
Nothing on clan side can provide sth against this and it has been shown and proven so many times. Clan has no amazeballs lights or assaults left. You nerved the heavies like the timber to death... the Kodiak is useless and soft, like all clan assaults.

Now you want to nerf stuff LIKE A CLAN GAUSS? What is wrong with you, PGI? No more money from me until you REALLY fix and balance stuff and everyone unhappy with the game mechanics should follow that example!

[Elizander]

My humble suggestions:

• Implement Group Chain Fire so we can stagger fire without macro usage. Ideally the CD between shots would be above GH penalty limits. If you still value manual timing of it, make it at 0.60 or 0.75 seconds per group fired and more 'skilled' players can manually time it for more DPS while skirting the GH timer.
  
• Allow quirks to increase GH and Gauss Charge limit of certain weapons on specific mechs. This can allow specific mechs to fire more than the usual GH limit by PGI's selection. These two will allow you to lower the GH limit across the board to avoid outliers at the top.
  
• With #1 and #2 in place, you can now crash the base GH limit on weapons while maintaining builds that are within acceptable levels. Gauss Rifles/Heavy Gauss Rifles limited to 1, Clan Medium Lasers limited to 4 (3 is just a bad number) and so on. Now you can allow mechs like the HBKIIC to have the quirk "Charge Limit on Gauss Rifle +1" which allows it to fire 2 GR. Same for the Fafnir if you want it to fire 2 HGR, but not give it to the Annihilator so it's limited to 1 HGR per charge

So the effects of these changes or the goals of these are:

• Lower the baseline limit of GH/Gauss Charge to acceptable levels.
  
• Select specific chassis/variants to increase the GH/Gauss Charge limit through quirks. If the Dire Wolf or Blood Asp doesn't get the +1 Gauss Charge quirk, then it can only fire 1 Gauss at a time. A smaller mech with less firepower can get this quirk and do Dual Gauss. The IS Awesome can get +1 PPC Ghost Heat so it can alpha with 3 PPCs while everyone else can only do 2.
  
• Players will have a tool to adapt to the changes in the form of group chain fire. Elite players will get more DPS manually timing (or using macros) to fire closer to the 0.50 second ghost heat limit while the default group chain fire is less dps at 0.60-0.75 seconds per group shot. At 0.75 seconds per group chain fire, a good player firing at 0.50 seconds will do 50% more DPS, but the potato player will be less frustrated with the system. Think of this as "Auto Combos" in fighting games. They are fine for what they are and allow new players to mash a button for a combo, but better players will do higher damage more complicated combos. Skill floor lowered, ceiling maintained.

For the record, I'm not in favor of making Clan lasers just like IS. That's already too much similarity to IS for me and a change like that seems a bit to boring. I'm not a top elite player. I'm just a casual scrub potato that enjoys playing both Clan and IS mechs in Quick Play.


If a Dire Wolf/Death Strike/Blood Asp config with a lot of energy hard points isn't given the +1 Gauss Charge quirk then that immediately cuts down their Alpha by 15 damage and would instantly drop Deathstrike to 65 Alpha unless the player adds a UAC/10 (which is totally possible and probably what I would do). It would drop DireGauss Alpha to 79 which is close enough to the Annihilators 72 Dual Gauss Vomit build (assuming the Annihilator is allowed the +1 Gauss Charge quirk. To limit clan mechs, you can add the +1 GH/Gauss Charge quirk to set bonuses to ensure that it can only do so if it isn't decked out in B and E hard points.

Edited by Elizander, 11 June 2018 - 09:53 PM.

[GweNTLeR]

Noones going to listen to me, but I will say that both factions have their pros. The balance is fine ATM.

[Tesunie]

justcallme A S H, on 11 June 2018 - 09:30 PM, said:

How many mechs can do 94pts? 3 or is it 4 IIRC. This is a nice/edge scenario at best.

Mind you it was also a build secretly buffed last patch by PGI by giving the DWF armour quirks which it needed but NOT the omnipods that got a buff, they got that buff wrong, very wrong. It made the build quite good (Where previous it was definately a one-hit-wonder).

These are the finer points many here keep missing here.

40-60, overall is where most Alpha's are and have been for the better part of 2 years and - still are, they are still there.

This is a knee jerk to less than 10 mechs from about 10 people.

All I know is I see alphas going up up up. I would like to see it go down a bit, and make TTK a little nicer/longer.

I don't have any mechs with anywhere near 94 alpha, but I do know when facing off against mechs, Clan mechs still (on average) seem to hit very hard and very often. However, I also believe that the Annihilator is also out performing itself, or all other assaults are just under performing. (And yes, you can probably kill me now from all the flame I'm gonna get calling a chassis out that is probably "working just fine". It seems to have too much health coupled with too much damage, especially when i compare it to mechs like the King Crab and the Atlas... but this may be just me.)

I'm a medium mech pilot, so my alphas tend to be more in the 30 ball park, unless I'm taking something like LRMs which opens a whole different story. I'm sure my Huntsmen with LRMs isn't considered to have it's actual alpha damage as it's true full damage, seen as it's a bracket build and all...

I will definitely agree that clan lasers seem to be a bit too powerful. They have been for some time, especially at the more mid ranged (CERML). Between their weight, range and damage... They are my go to damage boosters on basically any of my clan mechs, and I do like paring them with HLLs as it seems very effective. For IS, the best counter build I seem to be able to utilize is either mixed LL and ERML, or LPL and ERML... which can't get up to the same damage values.

I don't think the Clan Gauss feels overly powerful. Then again on the note of Gauss, I don't like them at the moment. Only Gauss I seem to do well with are Lt Gauss. I've seen people do well with H Gauss, just not me. I've tried it, didn't like it.


I'm not going to presume what the fixes for these things may be. All I know is that something does seem wrong with Clan lasers and have seemed that way for some time. Maybe they need to be nerfs, or IS lasers need a buff. Not sure.

AKA: I do not out right disagree with your assessment at this time.

[slide]

Changing specs on a weapon here and there won't change anything. People will just move to the next, best combination starting the whole process over again with what ever the next meta is that comes out. We have seen it before. I remember a time when a 7 MPL Awesome was to be feared, or the AC40 Jaeger.

Power creep has been more a result of mechs with large numbers of hard points than any inherent problem with the weapons themselves. Being able to combine 3-4 or more weapons into a pinpoint super weapon is what inherently breaks this game and it always has been.

If you want to change the high alpha meta you need to change the game mechanics. As multiple convergence points is not a possibility due to coding limitations then you need to reduce alphas by other means in an effort to spread damage around more. Anything else is just spinning ones wheels and achieving nothing but smoke.

My Suggestion:

Go back to the idea of a 30 point (or smaller) damage per weapon group, with any combination of weapons in a given period, lets say 1 second for now. This allows you to fire 2 weapon groups for 60 damage over 2-3 seconds (depending on burn time). With the exception of a few big damage weapons like the MRM40 any shots over 30 gets a ghost heat penalty that goes up exponentially to a point where a 50 point alpha will shut your mech down.

To keep the Alpha as it's intended last resort feature, make it a consumable. You get 1 max alpha per game with no ghost heat, use it wisely.

[Y E O N N E]

Tarogato, on 11 June 2018 - 09:25 PM, said:

Right now I feel Clan Gauss is slightly underperforming. Have you noticed that over the past year the amount of mechs that equip Clan Gauss has diminished significantly?

These are mechs that we used to see regularly equip cGauss:

- Hunchback IIC
- Stormcrow
- Hellbringer
- Ebon Jaguar
- Timber Wolf
- Night Gyr
- Warhawk
- Maruader IIC
- Supernova
- Dire Wolf
- Kodiak



Here are the mechs that I see regularly equipping cGauss these days:

- Night Gyr
- Mad Cat Mk.II
- . . .



... what happened?

Gauss explosions happened. March 2017, cGauss item health was reduced from 10 HP to 5 HP. Because of this change, cGauss is more of a liability than an asset. The only mechs that mount cGauss these days are the mechs that can tuck them away safely in rather small arms. This was just the nail in the coffin after the cGauss cooldown was nerfed in 2016. cGauss has not been fun on its own merit since then, it was only redeemable in the GaussPPC combination until that was brutally murdered out of the game.

I doubt it's Gauss health. More likely is that the ability to instantly fire off your volley with a pure laser-boat that has comparable damage to a Gauss-vomit boat which requires a charge delay and some skill with deflection made the Gauss builds less desirable. You see it on the Gyr because the Gyr has more tonnage than slots for DHS to cool a laser boat. You see Gauss on the MCIIs and DWFs because they have tonnage to spare to put the Gauss on top of the big laser volley and still cool it. You still see it on the MAD-IIC, but not as much because the MCII does it better. Quad-Gauss KDK-3 are the only other KDKs I see regularly these days if it isn't a DakkaBear. Everything else? Far and away more effective to boat hyper-efficient lasers and stack DHS, ignoring the ballistics.

This is what I was saying in the other thread with regard to the cUAC/20; note that the only Clan ballistics you regularly see are MCII-B dakka boats and Piranhas. Why should I take anything except Clan lasers? They offer the best mix of range, alpha, and sustain.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 11 June 2018 - 09:56 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Rydiak, on 11 June 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

Tarogato nails it perfectly. Please, Chris/Paul, heed his ideas.

100% agree, as usual.

Nothing over the top - just a lot of common sense and highlighting a bunch of stuff that seems to have somehow been overlooked/not thought of.

This is why people from the outside can often help businesses improve by giving feedback from angles not thought of.

[GweNTLeR]

If you want to nerf clan lasers - disable the override button. The biggest problem I see with clan vomit is that it can press override and make a suicide kill (or just suicide). Trust me, It will change the overall quality of gameplay to a much better state.
Or you can make a force shutdown al like 115% of heat even with override.

Edited by GweNTLeR, 11 June 2018 - 10:00 PM.

[johntherussian]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 13 June 2018 - 01:31 PM.
unconstructive

[Cerulean Knight]

Of the options provided, Chris, I think option 2 and option 1 are your best bets to try.

The Clan Gauss feels okay... I don't think it needs any kind of nerf. Option 2 gives it some flavor without hurting it much. For the lasers, increasing their DPS but decreasing their total damage seems a good trade off in my mind.

Might not be a bad idea to consider reducing the shot amount for clan ACs by one (so they would be in line with IS UACs shot counts) as well. This might make them a more viable cannon for the clans to use.

[SaltiestRaccoon]

Well, literally every one of those things seems like a horrible idea.

Does anyone seriously consider those mechs with the high alphas to be sustainable? I would argue that 70-80% heat is not sustainable, not in any way, and can easily be defeated by a coordinated team willing to close distance and engage said mech in a brawl where it can't cool quickly enough. At best every one of these ideas throws the baby out with the bathwater. If you're trying to nerf a couple rare, niche builds, nerfing every single clan mech that uses energy weapons is a completely nonsensical way to do it.

Nerfing clan lasers nerfs literally the only thing that they still have keeping them even close to on-par with Inner Sphere mechs. I think it's already been pointed out that Inner Sphere can lay down ACTUALLY sustainable 80 damage alpha-strikes.

You're talking about power creep, but in fact you are actually causing it, just power creep of defensive quirks, high armor and structure. The weaker weapons get, the more pronounced the power disparity between Clan and IS will get, since IS has far more armor and structure.

I took a break from this game for 5 years and only recently came back, and my reason for leaving was partially the absurdly long TTK that feels nothing like tabletop and allows for too many bad decisions without appreciable punishment. The more damage is lowered, the less pronounced individual skill in the form of positioning, shot placement and use of cover becomes. I should add that this power creep of defensive abilities is VERY present, as things like PGI's new skill tree allows for even more armor and structure than before.

From what I have seen, IS already dominates faction play. IS mechs have higher sustainable DPS, so given that advantage, what, exactly, is wrong with Clans having higher burst/alpha damage?

[Y E O N N E]

Cerulean Knight, on 11 June 2018 - 09:58 PM, said:

Might not be a bad idea to consider reducing the shot amount for clan ACs by one (so they would be in line with IS UACs shot counts) as well. This might make them a more viable cannon for the clans to use.

Clan UACs are already the more viable ones; the IS ones get used primarily on 'Mechs with gratuitous armor quirks so they can weather the hits through being heat-capped all day. That's actually a pretty huge issue and has been since the CW patch; for similar firepower it's too damn hot. An MCII brings five or so extra DHS, an ANH brings two, tops, and if we're looking at 2x10 + 2x5, then ammo supply is also a problem.

[justcallme A S H]

Tesunie, on 11 June 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

All I know is I see alphas going up up up. I would like to see it go down a bit, and make TTK a little nicer/longer.

I don't have any mechs with anywhere near 94 alpha, but I do know when facing off against mechs, Clan mechs still (on average) seem to hit very hard and very often.

I do, I have a few with 94 etc. Do I play them regularly? No. Why? ... The are one-trick ponies. If you can pull off a great game you'll crack 800dmg and 4-5 kills... But even at the level I play at, I cannot do that every game, far from it actually... So it is inherently balancing itself based on the fact that its one in every 4-5 matches.

I have more consistent wins/performance in a 50-60pt Alpha build because they are cooler, more mobile and so on.

The (94pt Alpha)0 builds really are not over-performing in my eyes and that is coming from me, I'm well above the average. There is no way, an 'average' player is going to be able to use these builds hence they are neither common not prolific in their existence.

You literally risk a LOT to pull it off. It is feast or famine, and I can tell you I've had many a game in a 94pt DWF with less than 250dmg cause thats just the nature of the build.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 11 June 2018 - 10:31 PM.

[Thrudvangar]

Consider this:

First: clans laser burntimes...
Second: high laser alphas are NOT PINPOINT DAMAGE...
Third: clan autocannons are NO PINPOINT DAMAGE...

So all these high alphas on the clan side are only going to happen if the enemy stands still OR the one
who's firing has very good aiming...

Fourth: IS armour/Strucutre quirks...

You can throw away your plans, really... implement the weapon changes from the community made spreadsheet
AND increase the overall armor points on every mech by, lets say 20% of the current non-skilltree affected
value on each mech. If you really wanna increase TTK, wich i would appreciate.

But god damn, leave the weapons alone, what means: no desync, no gauss shaking and all this crap...

Clan weapons are not the problem... in most cases, the players are...

[Y E O N N E]

All lasers are pinpoint. What they aren't is front-loaded.

And that said, the damage-tick is so damn high, especially with the instant 15 or 30 from cGauss, that even the short IS laser duration doesn't quite make up for it. That's why the IS just dakka rush; most Clan skittles are coming loaded for trading or LRMs (kinda like IS skittles) and then get steamrolled when a coordinated ballistics team can just out-DPS them the entire way through.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 11 June 2018 - 10:17 PM.