845 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Drunk Canuck, on 12 June 2018 - 02:17 AM, said:

How about getting on the level of about half the players in this thread before commenting on balance with asinine ideas that aren't helpful?

So, because I don't play in comp play competitions, I have no say? Sounds like a well formed counter point.

It was a random idea, which could be considered. It's an alternative way to balance a weapon. If the C Gauss' ammo count is adjusted, then you need to take an extra ton or two of it to "be effective" or be "sustainable". Now, the Clans can't take as many other pieces of equipment as they could before hand without giving something up.

It could fit into what PGI was looking for from their description. Even if it's just a single slug or two per ton, bringing it from 10 shots to 8 or 9 per ton, might be enough to make it that little bit more difficult to mix.

Then again, maybe it wont work at all and it makes Gauss less viable because of such low ammo amounts for the cost making it too heavy...

If PGI wants to change the weapon, this suggestion could fall into their acceptable fix without touching any weapon stats.


I will question: What do you not like about this concept? You decided to insult me directly, rather than the concept.

Also, what "level' is the "level of about half the players in this thread"? That's very vague.

Drunk Canuck, on 12 June 2018 - 01:33 AM, said:

Engine desync hurt every Mech that can utilize them, and nerfed those with large fixed engines.the worst. The Warhawk used to have amazing agility and doesn't have much tonnage to pack into it, not to mention has undesirable weapons mounts. Yet it was viable before engine desync, as we're the Gargoyle and Executioner. Now all three are fringe assaults hampered by large fixed engines. In trying to balance one or two Mech's at the time that were over performing, the majority got thrown in the dumpster. Smaller engines have never been viable, and never will be. There is zero reason to take a 250 if you can take a 275 or 300, because hard point volume is finite for IS chassis and more robust for Clan Omnis.

Those Clan mechs with large fixed engines where becoming a problem because they where too agile for their weight, especially in cases of the Gargoyle (which was becoming a top mech when teams had the tonnage to spare). The Executioner was becoming a problem when it engaged MASC, but was never a top mech from my recollection. I've never heard of the Warhawk being "amazing", and was always considered an under-performer when compared to other Clan assaults, of particular note the Dire Wolf (despite it's low speed).

As I've stated numerous times already, we are probably over due for an agility pass. We've only had small tweaks since the system was released, and I do recall PGI saying they would adjust it more shortly after it's release... Which I also don't recall happening... Hey! PGI! Did you forget this, or did I miss something? Or is this like the Urbanmech's release where it literally was forgotten when it was time for it to be released for C-bills (yes, that happened).

As far as engine size, I try not to drop beneath a 250 engine, not for crit slots (necessarily), but because of the boost the first 10 fully in engine heat sinks get (which they shouldn't get). I have several mechs with sub 200 engines. Blackjack has a 200 engine in it. Hunchback 4J only has a 225. My Uziel 3Ps has 200 and 225 engines... Those are just my Medium mechs. I would make mention.... WEIGHT is also finite... And resyncing engines to torso twist speed will hurt mechs and diversity. Going slower should be the only penalty for having a smaller engine. It prevents you from dodging damage.

I am not disagreeing that agility could use a helping hand. However, I don't believe resyncing it back to engines is a good idea. If anything, agility just needs to be looked into again and readjusted on a per mech biases.

justcallme A S H, on 11 June 2018 - 10:12 PM, said:

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.

Kinda like the 100+ damage mechs for the IS, which typically are LRM mechs with almost no ammo, or MRM mechs with much the same, plus spread. But the fact that it can do it and still actually be viable (if risky) out does many similar IS counterparts, which normally can't.

To be honest, I do not know the builds in question. I know my Maruader IIC has a heavy punch, maybe too heavy of a punch. Sitting with two HLLs and six ERMLs, it can alpha them several times before needing to cool down, and it cools down rather quick. And that's an alpha of 78 damage with a cooling of 1.3 (via mechlab stats), and I think that is too high of a sustainable alpha. My favorite Linebacker build (two HLL and four ERML) is 57 alpha for 1.3 cooling, and I think it's borderline too much (even if I like it a lot).

D V Devnull, on 12 June 2018 - 03:00 AM, said:

Anyway, I've looked at your options, PGI Staff... I hate to say it, but they MISSED some INNER SPHERE designs which get away with IGNORING Ghost Heat...

• King Crab and a STAGGERING 100 ALPHA that it CAN do. Try 2 Gauss, 3 Large Pulse, and 4 MRM 10, to start.
  
• Annihilator and an 80+ ALPHA that it CAN do. Try 2 LB20-X, 2 LB10-X, and at least 4+ Medium Lasers.
  
• Annihilator OR Mauler, also with a DEADLY 86 ALPHA that it CAN do. Try 2 Heavy Gauss, and 6 Medium Pulse Lasers.
  
• Fafnir and a MINIMUM 90 ALPHA that it CAN do. Try 2 Heavy Gauss, 2 MRM 10 (or Larger), and 4 Medium Lasers.
  
• HighLander and a MINIMUM 84 ALPHA that it CAN do. Try 3 MRM 20, and 4 Medium Pulse Lasers
  
• Anything INNER SPHERE with 3 ROTARY AC2, including the Dragon and RoughNeck, blowing WELL BEYOND A 90 ALPHA as well.
  
• RoughNeck and a POSSIBLE UNHOLY 138 ALPHA that it MIGHT do. Try 3 Rotary AC2, with 4 MRM 10 to do the seasoning. (YEOWCH!!!)
  
• Anything INNER SPHERE with 2 ROTARY AC5, such as the BushWacker, WarHammer, and/or Thanatos, blowing WAY OUT PAST THE 100 ALPHA LINE, DEFINITELY FURTHER INCREASED BY ANY WEAPON.

H. Gauss probably is a problem, as it's being decried as too powerful (look at the FP forums, hear a lot about dual H. Gauss Annihilators and Clan's "inability" to deal with them). Not sure what might be able to be done about it, but dual H. Gauss is 50 PPFLD... which is a problem on it's own. Forget when coupled with other weapons.

MRMs tend to spread their damage, making much of their "alpha" value inconsistent and/or nearly irrelevant. They aren't exactly known for dealing all their damage into a single location... Thus they are alpha number increasers, much like LRMs can be.

RACs of any class tend to also spread their damage, which isn't exactly an "alpha". It's more direct-able than MRMs are and can kill, but that can be a lot of stare time and heat... They tend to take so long to deal their damage, most mechs can slink back into cover before much is actually done (unless poor positioning, etc). Not saying they aren't deadly, but triple AC2s don't exactly strike the fear of God into me... (Heavy Gauss does though. )


I also would have to ask, how many of those builds are actually playable and sustainable?

[Revenant Kitsune]

Tesunie, on 12 June 2018 - 07:31 AM, said:

H. Gauss probably is a problem, as it's being decried as too powerful (look at the FP forums, hear a lot about dual H. Gauss Annihilators and Clan's "inability" to deal with them). Not sure what might be able to be done about it, but dual H. Gauss is 50 PPFLD... which is a problem on it's own. Forget when coupled with other weapons.

RACs of any class tend to also spread their damage, which isn't exactly an "alpha". It's more direct-able than MRMs are and can kill, but that can be a lot of stare time and heat... They tend to take so long to deal their damage, most mechs can slink back into cover before much is actually done (unless poor positioning, etc). Not saying they aren't deadly, but triple AC2s don't exactly strike the fear of God into me... (Heavy Gauss does though. )


I also would have to ask, how many of those builds are actually playable and sustainable?

As I stated in an earlier post I agree the Heavy Gauss is an issue. It's forced an arms race on the clan side to try to keep up so more people are picking up the high alpha laser vomit.

Also the RACs while they do spread damage also have that annoying side effect of if they are shooting you in the front side torsos you can't see anything with all the explosions.

Edited by Revenant Kitsune, 12 June 2018 - 07:40 AM.

[thievingmagpi]

Lol, only in the brown sea are racs an issue

[Tesunie]

Revenant Kitsune, on 12 June 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:

Also the RACs while they do spread damage also have that annoying side effect of if they are shooting you in the front side torsos you can't see anything with all the explosions.

Yeah... It's blinding to be shot at by RACs. A little more than ACs should do, seen as they aren't exactly suppose to explode like they do... It's been a subject that bugs me to no end as it is...

[0111101]

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

Chris, Paul,

Nerfing weapons won't fix this issue no matter how hard you try. It only serves to further limit the variety of effective builds out there and reduces the enjoyment players find in using those nerfed weapons with whatever practical options each new constraint leaves.

Laser vomit is so prevalent now because of the lack of agility across the board. Lasers must be held on a component for the full duration in order to deal their damage. Torso twisting quickly while receiving fire was the main method of mitigating this, and now mechs on the receiving end can't twist fast enough to shift the laser burn across different components. They can't step in and out of cover fast enough to avoid return fire in general either.

A 60-damage laser burn focused on the center torso of a mech could be successfully mitigated to 20-20-20 across the CT, ST, and arm of the defending mech in the past but now the full 60-damage goes CT because they can't twist fast enough to throw off the attacking player's aim.

Another way of combating laser vomit was to bring Gauss+PPC where the front-loaded pinpoint damage allowed you to get your shot off and duck back before taking any return fire under ideal conditions. Outside of that best-case scenario it allowed the player to duck back fast enough to avoid part of the laser burn while torso twisting defensively to spread the damage received like I described above.

Another item to consider - Small pulse lasers. The perfect foil to ranged trading (laser vomit's MO) is BRAWLING. Small pulse lasers used to be the ideal weapon for that. Get in the laser boat's face, maybe you'll take a shot or two from him on the way, but from that moment on he's riding the heat cap while you're putting on the pressure in your heat-efficient brawler. Can't do that anymore though, because the massively increased face time the new small pulse requires in addition to the lack of agility I mentioned above brings the build archetype's survivability down to zero.

In short, the last twelve months of balance passes have turned an issue entirely dictated by player skill into an issue of the game's declining health via nerf-filled balance passes that missed the mark. You have removed entire archetypes of mech builds from the playing field by making their use impractical. You have directly magnified the issue of high alpha laser builds by reducing the effectiveness of its counters. That's why the weapon balance changes put forward by the community are set up the way they are, that's what you're not seeing, and that's why we're angry.

Please, make changes, but please don't nerf anything. We've been on that trip for 12 months now and we want off this crazy ride. Make the game fun again with some buffs, kindly provided to you by the community through 1500+ comments distilled into the community balance panel. Our continuing interest in your game depends on it.

Edited by 0111101, 12 June 2018 - 07:56 AM.

[Tesunie]

thievingmagpi, on 12 June 2018 - 07:51 AM, said:

Lol, only in the brown sea are racs an issue

1: I don't know where this "Brown sea" expression came from... It's been something I've suddenly seen everywhere...

2: Racs are only an issue where they blind you from my stand point. They can do good damage, but it's a little niche. A little too much stare time and wind up time...

[0111101]

Tesunie, on 12 June 2018 - 07:54 AM, said:

1: I don't know where this "Brown sea" expression came from... It's been something I've suddenly seen everywhere...

It's called the Brown Sea because the regulars who seem to have PGI's ear spend more time posting on the forum than they do playing the game.

It's called the Brown Sea because those same people pull out every logical fallacy in the book to downplay the opinions of people who know what they're talking about.

It's called the Brown Sea because there is no voting system to push bad posts or comments down and lift good posts and comments up.

[lazorbeamz]

Changes that result in Desynced fire.

I dont really like that. There are far too many clan mechs that have the ability to carry large amounts of lasers. EBJ, EXE, HBR, HBKII, MADII, Nova and probably some others. Originally desynced fire was something like an exception to the game rules and it should not become standart for every clan mech. Right now any build that is forced to stagger fire is pretty close to unviable in my book because beam durations become irrelevant and you have to fire for 2 seconds+ to activate all of your weapons. For example anything like that is 100% impossible to use in S7 i think it is pretty obvious that this change is going to work against the original spirit and gamedesign.

I d like to see changes to damage or heat and cooldown on clan lasers instead. Option 1 every time for me. We also shouldnt buff DPS for the lasers because at some point they are going to beat cannons and srm at dps and given the fact that they are hitscan it will be a big advantage.

Also as an option remove those coolshots.

Edited by lazorbeamz, 12 June 2018 - 08:25 AM.

[Tesunie]

0111101, on 12 June 2018 - 08:06 AM, said:

It's called the Brown Sea because the regulars who seem to have PGI's ear spend more time posting on the forum than they do playing the game.

It's called the Brown Sea because those same people pull out every logical fallacy in the book to downplay the opinions of people who know what they're talking about.

It's called the Brown Sea because there is no voting system to push bad posts or comments down and lift good posts and comments up.

I've never heard it called that till recently, and now it seems to be everywhere...

I don't know who has PGI's ear. Not I...

I've had many people (whom might be considered "good" or "skilled") pull many logical fallacies out on me. Just in this thread someone told me to "get onto the same skill level of over half the people posting in this thread" as one example. I tend to also see a lot of "raising the bar" or "moving the goal post" arguments on these forums... So there is plenty of that to go around.

I don't get how a voting post/thread system would exactly lead to a "brown sea" comment... I would also note that a thread voting system has been used on other forum based sited, and abused to down trodden an idea or a person because of the amazing thing call "alternate accounts". I'm just saying that. Here, we have the "like" system, which is kinda like a post upvote system. Like a post? Then press the button and support that post's idea.


For the record, I do believe it's probably a bit of an insult to those of us who use these forums to call it the "brown sea"... It kinda seems to assume things about anyone who uses the forums... which of course not all of us are like that.

[SHIN BRODAMA]

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.

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.







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.




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.




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.








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.


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.






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...



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.








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.

Just bumping up this comprehensive post from someone who has spent hundreds of hours reviewing spreadsheets, community feedback, etc.. Please heed this advice ChrisPaul.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6113114

Edited by SHIN BRODAMA, 12 June 2018 - 08:26 AM.

[Korz]

Wow how can you guys be so wrong with your information. You talking about high clan alphas vs low IS alphas. Are you kidding me? I have an atlas with 74 alpha and 198 ct armor 154 st armor vs my kodiak with a 30 alpha 136 ct and 88 st armor. Now I can play with the alpha some on both and move it up or down on both but the armor ( all skilled survival tree). Doesn't change. So if I got parity in damage between the two and traded shots the kodiak is toast. Now you think this disparity in alphas is due to a guass rifle ( which I don't use due to how messed up they are with charging)?

First off your fix suggestions will not fix the issues so they are broken right out of the gate. Or even if on the surface you think they will fix anything they will cause more issues later on. So not fixing the issue.

I read both threads a couple of times. I really don't think you guys are playing the same game as the rest of us.

Why do you feel the need to make all the sides the same? That is not, nor has it ever been the main point of the game.

If you want to balance clan and IS then balance them with the way they should be. Clan get 10 IS get 12. Now fight.

Still not balanced for QP? Fine use BPV to setup QP drops. Or Balance QP with clan and IS drop ques based on mech and setup 12 v 12 IS fights, 10 v 10 clan fights and 12 v 10 clan fights. Now QP only has three ques to build fights from and less wait time for everyone.

Still think IS needs a reason to play it? Fine with then change the hard point system for IS mechs. The current chassis will still have quirks. All IS chassis will have all hard points of all chassis across a line. Now IS mechs can boat like champs and have the most customization in the game. This will easily take care of alpha issue.

But clans still can laser! Fine then fix heat. Add in penalties. Lower speed when heat is X. Make vision choppy or distorted at X heat. Slow response time of mech when heat is X etc. The game had things in it from the start to balance things out and you have left half of that to the side. Look at the PNP/board game again and use the tools already there to balance with. But also make double heat sinks double.


Also be very aware balance is not something you can do in this type of game. Unless every weapon does 1 damage, same amount can be mounted on each chassis and each only does one heat. And everyone has the same armor. But you can achieve some parity with pros and cons.

So my vote is stop trying to fix stuff that no one is complaining about and fix the stuff people are complaining about.

PSR, Match Making, FP. Those should be the priorities and in your case your main and only focus. Your track record has been easy quick "fixes" on things people don't deem as important while leaving the big issues laying around not addressed and not fixed.

[SneekiBreeki]

Dogstar, on 12 June 2018 - 07:28 AM, said:

Well 18 pages in and Clan Crocodile Tears has had a good old rampage through the thread, is anyone from PGI still listening? Because not everyone has had a chance to put forth their opinion.

Do you realize that the majority of the people that complained about the nerfs to clans are mainly IS loyalists/mercs or are you that oblivious?

[lpmagic]

Not using a document that already polled over 1500 participants, most of them higher tier players, is disingenuous at best. While I laud the need and realization to tweak the "alpha" problem, I truly feel that this document has a better handle on things than seems to be supposed.

Many things in this game need to be changed to "level" the playing field, but the simple fact remains, there will ALWAYS be those whom are able to look at the science and find the most productive mech and load out and go with it, there is no "vanilla" build that makes things "even" and there shouldn't be.

for instance, you want to change the alpha status? change the DPS instead, take the Guass charge off of IS mechs and leave it as is on Clan mechs, of course, that comes with caveats, as in the DS and highlander would once again rule the world, though speed of projectile (I.E. PPC and AC/5) de-synch will have helped that somewhat in the long run.

I am STILL thinking that everything needs to be zeroed out, we are fixing fixes over and over again, tweaking a tweak never works in real life, I mean, I can only put so many pieces of duct tape on a leaky pipe until it is just to chubby to be effective, this is effectively what is happening....

once again, please don't stop looking, we appreciate it, we really do, but, honestly, don't take the "Dev" title and hold it over the spreadsheet warriors heads, you know code, these dudes, they know the game as it exists today and many of them, how it has existed since day one, they have intimate knowledge that can't be extrapolated from raw numbers only, they have high level game play, if you get lucky, someone might actually even tell you something is going to be exploited before it even happens, you need high level PLAYERS to tell you some things, and heck, maybe even show you why.....

Edited by lpmagic, 12 June 2018 - 09:09 AM.

[BARRY SHlTPEAS]

We need these nerfs so the upcoming unreleased 'Mech Packs will be more desirable.

Edited by Verticorda, 12 June 2018 - 08:58 AM.

[KhanBhacKeD]

I'm adressing this message to the Pgi staff, and more than this @Chris Lowrey.

I know many people should have say that, i read with attention all you have said.

I have to maintain my position : The community weapon balance document (https://docs.google....2xIIfVKM4o/edit) seems to me the fairest way to actually balance the game.

You can just use it with the value filled in and i think you have a great base to plan anything.

This adjustment give to each weapon a "place" without seeming to kill any other.

I don't say it's perfect but it's on my opinion the best base you can get before wanting to do anything else about ttk.

Nerfing alphas mech are not gonna to send back in line outpowered chassis, Beacause the real problem of 90% of this chassis are : Hitboxes, Hardpoints placement, Geometry, Cap engine, Agility and many some other points wich remain untouched by limitng alphas damage.

So this is my proposal :

Step 1 : Deploy a patch to give the game a good base according to the "community weapon balance document"

Step 2 : Give you 3month to collect informations about what's seems not in line with the help of the people who mades the previous and really good document.

Step 3 : then you can adjust by touching on ghost heats and on some chassis maybe structural and weapon quirks (taking it by the highest order (so just nerfing best chassis but not a big nerf and in the same time do the a small buff on less effective chassis)

I know it's not gonna to make the baddest mech good again but step by step you can get a well rounded thing i think. (it's a 6 to 7 months solution but could be good.)

I hope you can hear that from a player who just adapt itself patch after patch (and prefer playing and doing "mechlab" than just just come to discuss on a forum) but start to be afraid and want to keep his pleasure (I know and understand you can't content everyone) but you get many "top tier competitive players" who want to make the game great for everyone and participating on the elaboration on documents about balance. so if you don't listen to one man, Listen to the people who understand the actual mechanics of games.

PS : Sorry for the long post and the numbers of mistakes it contain.

Edited by Uan Harox, 12 June 2018 - 09:04 AM.

[Ghost Paladin117]

Inner Sphere mechs CAN compete with clan mechs. If you're simply worried about CLAN alpha capability you're going to piss off a load of people because then IS mechs will have closer damage, less duration, less heat, and most importantly of all they will still have superior armor. So it would need to be more of a massive overhaul of damage values and armor quirks on both sides. Nerfing just the clan side has seemed to become the go-to move though. Nerf clans for the memes

[Weeny Machine]

94 damage alphas were mentioned as a problem. I think even 72 points are too much. You see less and less medium and light mechs in the game. And this insane damage power creep is the very reason for it

[thievingmagpi]

I agree that power creep is an issue.

I think what i'd Like to see is a two stage adjustment.

1) parity between weapon systems. I don't want IS/Clan to be equal in stats, I like the difference between cooler, faster firing IS weapons, and longer range/hotter/damage/long duration clan. That's a good dynamic. But buff stats until they perform well and are equally viable as playstyles.

That may lead to some powercreep yes, but get all the weapons up to an appropriate performance level.


2) the second phase is a system wide nerf of all weapons so they remain roughly equal in viability but do less damage overall

[Tarogato]

sorry for tangent:

lpmagic, on 12 June 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

Not using a document that already polled over 1500 participants

Several people have said something along these lines. Mind you, 1500 comments is does not mean 1500 individual people, nor does it even mean that every person who commented's opinion is reflected (that is, quite plainly... impossible to achieve.)

[N Y G E N]

Clan Gauss:
Don't change anything apart from Cooldown. Increase it to 7-8 seconds.
Lazors:
Drop Ghost Heat for them. Switch to:

• Higher heat for weapons (esp. lasers, but same for peps)
  
• Less heatcapacity for clanmechs
  
• "much" higher heat dissipation
  
• decrease cooldown for lasers (weird isn't it? Btw. increase cd for peps )
  
• drastically increase penalties for overheat (f.ex. faster damage, and if shutdown let the mech stay shut down until heat is below 10%)

Effects:

https://mwo.smurfy-n...5f7e11f2b69af53

A build like shared in the link above is absolutly playable, though I am not up to date if it fits the current meta. Anyways, if you change the system like I mentoined it should not be possible to alpha this. Let's say you can only choose to fire ERML or HLL. In either case it should bring up your heat (depending on map, etc.) to almost close to shutdown. This would cap the damage output of lasers. For the engagement after the first alpha, now the increased cd of the CG comes in. Either you wait until your CGs are ready and pair them again with lasers (which lowers dps), or lasers and CGs are really desynched (which they are now as well if you count in the exact figures, but what's the difference now? like 1.5s?).
The purpose behind the decreased cd for lasers is, it would make it more difficult for players to show discipline in terms of heat management, esp. if you are almost immediatly heatcapped, but your weapons are ready again. The risk to suffer drastically from overheat would bring in a need for skilled heatmanagement.
And lastly, this system would fit perfectly with lore/clantech. Their weapons had more range/damage, as well as more heat. And their ability to dissipate more heat fits in there as well.

regards

Edited by Nygen, 12 June 2018 - 09:36 AM.