845 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Drunk Canuck, on 11 June 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

Nope, people quit because the game has stagnated and PGI has not shown enough interest in both balancing the game as well as creating a game with fun game modes and new maps. 16 maps in 5 years. 6 game modes in 5 years, and the majority of players don't want to play 2 of them because they are dumb and detract from the player vs player aspect of the game. Faction Play is dead and hasn't seen a new map in almost 3 years, and it died because PGI broke their promises from the initial plans for what Community Warfare was supposed to be way back after the game came out of beta. Spending over a year to make a mediocre game mode isn't acceptable, and once the novelty wore off, the player base started tapering off. I used to play nightly, now I only play one or two nights a week because I can't stand how stagnant the game is and how bad the match making is compared to what it was 3 years ago.

My retort was to players saying that good players are quitting because of potential balance changes. Not that the game became stale, not fun or whatever for them.

On the subject of balancing weapons, too many times "good players" get upset when their preferred weapon system get a nerf, even if it's a small one. Too many people have said in this thread that "good players" are leaving because of balance changes which is somehow "boring". Hence, I kept asking "what is boring about the game".

Do recall, FP was forced out by IGP in a scramble when they realize they couldn't delay the subject any longer. Too much of this game was shaped by early decisions probably brought on by IGP. I even feel the Cryengine this game uses was probably bought by IGP, despite it not being the best engine for this style of game. IGP probably bought it for PGI, thinking "shooter game, shooter engine"... Hence a lot of the coding in this game had to be reworked.


But I digress. This is no longer on topic, as were my original comment and all other comments related to that one. Probably best to drop this unless it is in direct relation to the topic: How to balance Clan lasers and their high alpha values in comparison to IS equivalents. (Which I personally hope leads to "it's time to remove IS health quirks".)

[Lances107]

The problem here is once again you guys are acting as this purely a clan problem. Assuming I copy and pasted the right link from the mechlab. Here is a 85 point firepower anh ANH-1X

The Mark II, The Blood Asp, The ANH, and the Fafnir all share this same problem. Stop trying to pretend this is strictly a clan issue. The build I posted was basic Twin Heavy Gauss, with multiple er medium lasers.

Furthermore exactly how is a 14 point damage, with a charge up, and a optimal range of 700 meters or lower op? It fires one round blast. Now the heavy gauss wait for it does 24 points of damage at close range. Better then the clan lbx 20 by a long shot, and a hell of allot better then clan ultra ac 20. So exactly why are you picking on the only weapon that can come close to the heavy gauss as a counter at 14 damage. Also anyone who runs that big bad 94 point damage is using multiple heavy large lasers, er medium lasers, and two gauss. In a push by the enemy in faction play the only thing they will be doing is dying and shutting down allot. If you want to balance the game then do so, but do so from all perspectives, and stop pretending this is merely a clan issue. Furthermore do keep in mind while you have been nerfing clans these past severl many months for the most part, you have been buffing structure, armor, and hit points on most IS mechs. So exactly how are we supposed to break through all that tankage after you take a nerf bat to unnecessary items like a regular clan gauss rifle? One word for you warhammer. Stop pretending this is about balance cause reading that op sounded like a strick attack on the clans without considering all the other angles involved.

[Jonathan8883]

My background:
-I've been playing for close to a year, but have prior experience with every 'Mech game since Activision's MechWarrior 2.
-I have about 60 'Mechs, split between Clan & IS. I do not drive assaults or most Clan heavies because they are too sluggish and unresponsive (engine desync) to be fun. My favorite mechs tend to be in the 40 to 65 ton range, with a balance of speed, firepower, maneuverability, and durability.

General Opinions:
In general, I agree that toning down the high alphas is almost definitely a good idea; I do see Ultra autocannons as doing more damage than Gauss rifles (deathstrike and various other mechs), but their damage is not pinpoint, and not heat-neutral.

I do not like the ghost heat mechanism, as it punishes new and returning players (it's not well-documented), as well as breaking a number of stock builds. The proposed nerf last month would have made my 36-alpha/long burn/long/recharge/hot-running Ice Ferret completely worthless (2 HLL, ECM, no pod space for anything else at all). Ghost heat also makes my Boomhammer (Warhammer with 2 AC20s and nothing else) run unreasonably hot; a 40 point alpha with slow projectiles at short range in exchange for slowish speed and no backup weapons is not too much to ask on a 70-ton Heavy.

I also think that we should be willing to move away from Tabletop values when it comes to weapon damage, tonnage, and critical space (I'm looking at the IC ACs in particular when I mention crit space).

Gauss Rifle:
I haven't really used gauss rifles much. They are hard to use, and offer inferior damage compared to a UAC10 or any of the AC20 options, unless you have the skill to hit pinpoint components reliably. I do not.

Unfortunately, adding a longer charge time or decreasing the time the gauss rifle holds the charge both penalized newer and unskilled players (such as myself), while likely not bothering existing gauss experts. The same, I assume, goes for recoil.

Thus, I support Option 1. Don't do a full tonnage link; cutting 1 point of damage and adding 0.5s to 1s of cooldown is probably enough. Too much reduction and you'll kill the weapon like cSPLs or LPLs apparently have been. You could also consider a slightly larger charge time (0.1s) and reduced "hold charge" time nodes on the skill tree (to 0.5s).

Clan Lasers:
In general, I support option 1. However, how do you do this to Heavy Lasers without taking away their utility? I suppose stepping the HLL down from 18 to 16 damage isn't too bad, as it's still better than ERLL or puny LPL damage. Drop HML from 10 to 9? See how that goes on the PTS.

You may want to give LPLs a minor boost.

I play D&D. 5% and 10% changes (+1s and +2s) are a big deal over time. Make small, incremental changes of 1-2 points of damage on the big weapons, and 0.5-1 damage on the small weapons.

Try boosting 1 underperforming weapon each time you reduce two overperforming ones, and you'll get less salt.

You may also want to consider some hardpoint inflation on select IS mechs (Spiders come to mind), as part of the IS/Clan imbalance is hardpoint-related. You have the stats, I don't, but I expect that the Clans typically have an average of 2 to 5 more hardpoints available in a given weight class.

Edited by Jonathan8883, 11 June 2018 - 05:36 PM.

[Tesunie]

Here is an idea for the Gauss Rifle that may help balance it (or be completely crazy). What if, instead of changing any stats on the Clan Gauss Rifle, what if we reduced it's ammo count per ton? That way, we force Clan Gauss users to spend more weight in ammo, rather than that other support equipment/alternative weapons?

Just a random concept.

[Admiral_Korean_Jesus]

I would like to start by prefacing that the Community Panel Document is already a well vetted and common sense approach to balance. If you don't do anything else, put those changes into a PTS and let it fly.

These suggestions attempt to emphasize the rock, paper, scissors approach to balance, from the perspective of a comp/WC player.

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

Increase clan er medium burn times, in small increments: Please do not over react with a crazy change, just a tiny bit at a time. This alone could help further the Rock Paper Scissors mentality. Laser damage can help be negated when spread across a twisting mech.

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

Bring direct fire weapons inline with laser vomit: Direct fire weapons can out trade laser vomit. Consider a slight roll back to the gauss PPC ghost heat combo to 3 from 4. Consider buffing other direct fire weapons, ACs, LBX, etc. to help balance the burn time of lasers with the instant punch of direct fire.

Rework IS ghost heat or base heat for several weapons: Allow up to two IS AC20s before hitting ghost heat, reduce IS AC 5 heat back down to what it was before. Why is IS medium laser ghost heat limits the same as clan? Same for PPCs? Should IS tech not have a higher limit to compensate for their already lower burst damage?

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

I am against the proposed heavy large nerfs almost implemented in the last patch: Heavy large are a niche weapon already, and you should take baby steps in balancing them. Changing their ghost heat values or pairing their ghost heat with other clan large lasers seems a bit over board considering the other smaller tweaks you can make.


All weapons should have both strengths and weaknesses. With this is in mind, balance should come from a more top down approach. Reason being is, you’ll never be able to make Johnny Potato Dumpling learn to torso twist away from even a low alpha burn, or stop him from wondering into a firing line of enemy mechs, or be able to consistently hit the broad side of a barn with projectile weapons. You have to balance at mid to high level for anything to be constant or quantifiable. Next, your limited solutions of option 1-2-3 for each issue is just not logical. You need to take a look at it in a more "big picture" approach. This kind of approach could have many facets including those you may not be comfortable with, or are those you already are trying to take off the table such as purely buffing some IS tech. Please keep an open mind, and listen to your more skilled players.

[thievingmagpi]

can we stop nerfing stuff?

it's so dumb and reactionary.

I've got a crazy idea... Make other stuff better. Like IS lasers. Like small lasers (Is and clan) like SRMs (Is and clan). Minor agility buffs to assaults...

Work on making other things better instead of turning more things we like into hot garbage.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Lances107, on 11 June 2018 - 05:33 PM, said:

The problem here is once again you guys are acting as this purely a clan problem. Assuming I copy and pasted the right link from the mechlab. Here is a 85 point firepower anh ANH-1X

The Mark II, The Blood Asp, The ANH, and the Fafnir all share this same problem. Stop trying to pretend this is strictly a clan issue. The build I posted was basic Twin Heavy Gauss, with multiple er medium lasers.

Furthermore exactly how is a 14 point damage, with a charge up, and a optimal range of 700 meters or lower op? It fires one round blast. Now the heavy gauss wait for it does 24 points of damage at close range. Better then the clan lbx 20 by a long shot, and a hell of allot better then clan ultra ac 20. So exactly why are you picking on the only weapon that can come close to the heavy gauss as a counter at 14 damage. Also anyone who runs that big bad 94 point damage is using multiple heavy large lasers, er medium lasers, and two gauss. In a push by the enemy in faction play the only thing they will be doing is dying and shutting down allot. If you want to balance the game then do so, but do so from all perspectives, and stop pretending this is merely a clan issue. Furthermore do keep in mind while you have been nerfing clans these past severl many months for the most part, you have been buffing structure, armor, and hit points on most IS mechs. So exactly how are we supposed to break through all that tankage after you take a nerf bat to unnecessary items like a regular clan gauss rifle? One word for you warhammer. Stop pretending this is about balance cause reading that op sounded like a strick attack on the clans without considering all the other angles involved.

300+ alpha RL Archer also exists

[El Bandito]

Lances107, on 11 June 2018 - 05:33 PM, said:

The problem here is once again you guys are acting as this purely a clan problem. Assuming I copy and pasted the right link from the mechlab. Here is a 85 point firepower anh ANH-1X

No DHS at all? It's alpha is far less sustainable than that of Deathstrike, so you are giving a wrong example. You are only supporting Paul's comment that "IS mechs must make big concessions to get their alpha as high as that of Clans"--and in your case, sustainability.

Edited by El Bandito, 11 June 2018 - 05:59 PM.

[Ensaine]

I wonder why X-Mech has 6 energy hardpoints? What's the point? Shall I run one of each size?

Really, this nerf stuff is about it for me....been here since the beginning.....but now we're getting balanced by a guy with 19 games under his belt, supervised by a guy who most likely hasn't logged in in a long time.....

Play some clan mechs. Really take em out.....yeah, nice alpha, then you gotta run around rocks and bushes until you cool off.

I really wish those in charge of balance actually played their game.

My vote? Take the community balance sheet to the PTS, in it's entirety.

[Kraegan]

I've been reading this and even the community response document...so the big thing seems to be that Clan Mechs have higher potential Alphas versus IS mechs so...here's one idea that might help nudge things in a right direction without upsetting the teatable too much:

Buff Heat Sinks all together, if not just Double Heat Sinks. Make them function abit more like how one would presume, twice the efficiency of regular standard heat sinks in terms of heat threshhold and dissipation but for increased size and weight instead of just additional 30% efficiency.


Now for the 'hold my beer' stupid suggestion:

Let players opt to 'upgrade' the technology base of their IS mechs to use Clan technology for a hefty price of Cbills. Its been done in lore where IS mechs have been built with clan tech and such. I say as a trade off make it either IS or Clan tech, not both.

[Brain Cancer]

Lurch98, on 11 June 2018 - 05:25 PM, said:

That face when the balance guy thinks he needs to focus on Clan Gauss and not Piranhas. GG

PIR's explode very quickly, assuming anyone actually shoots at them.

It's the most potent example of a chassis that gets more and more dangerous the longer it's allowed to survive in a battlefield where everyone's armor is being gradually eroded away, since it's most lethal when someone else either distracts or cuts away armor for it to chew through the guts.

On the other hand, the number of dead PIRs I see that get caught early is hilarious, as they break when sneezed on by anything save glancing laserfire.

[PobbestGob]

Kraegan, on 11 June 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

I've been reading this and even the community response document...so the big thing seems to be that Clan Mechs have higher potential Alphas versus IS mechs so...here's one idea that might help nudge things in a right direction without upsetting the teatable too much:

Buff Heat Sinks all together, if not just Double Heat Sinks. Make them function abit more like how one would presume, twice the efficiency of regular standard heat sinks in terms of heat threshhold and dissipation but for increased size and weight instead of just additional 30% efficiency.


Now for the 'hold my beer' stupid suggestion:

Let players opt to 'upgrade' the technology base of their IS mechs to use Clan technology for a hefty price of Cbills. Its been done in lore where IS mechs have been built with clan tech and such. I say as a trade off make it either IS or Clan tech, not both.

buffing heat sinks only makes high heat high alpha play more of an issue, not less. and having mixed tech would severely upset the balance, you'd have IS mechs with quirked durability and clan weapons, there'd be no reason to take clan mechs at all.

[Matthew Ace]

Araara, on 11 June 2018 - 03:43 PM, said:

Ok so...from a beta tester and a world champion team member, this is going to be my ONLY comment in this god forsaken thread.


I'm going to propose to you, as a bet, a wager, a slap in PGI's face to wake them up, to implement
the community panel weapon balance document changes (ALL of it) in a test server and have them test it.

Heck, you could even test it in a 8v8 setting as well as a 12v12 setting.

Guarantee you that the game will be more fun not only for high tier but also low tier.


Because right now? There's a reason a lot of the high tier players/old players are leaving the game. It's just unfun at every balance patch.

With the loss of high tier comments on balance and population, do you feel confident enough to balance to game from the bottom up? Do you feel confident enough to reach to more new players and transform them into long term players to offset the loss from the old players?

Seconded. I say go for this.

[S O L A I S]

Remove IS armor super quirks and go ahead.

That might make it work.

[MechTech Dragoon]

Rework quickplay. Change to a 2 slot drop deck with a max of 100ton drop weight. This would allow for a more dynamic team game. Alternatively could use a battle value system instead of drop weight, this would give value to non optimized mechs, where you could pack 2 stock mechs for the price of one non stock for a rough example.

Rework weapons, increase weapon spread, decrease pinpoint capabilities.

[Gazbeard]

Sorry Paul and Chris, but I think your proposed changes are like trying to bandage an amputation with a bandaid - you're looking in completely the wrong place for the answers.

First off - fix the PSR and extend the number of ranks from 5, to 9 or 10, and a lot of the alpha damage complaints will evaporate as players will be more closely aligned in battle with players of similar skill levels ... hey, it was you that mentioned skill levels first in your posts.

Secondly - fix Quick Play by making it IS v Clan, not the random mish mash we have now - that's the only way to truly shake the cobwebs off any perceived imbalances between the two sides. Even if you only run this for a 3 month evaluation period, it will still be your best source of balancing data - as someone posted already, it's not IS mechs suffering against Clan alphas, it's other Clan mechs.

Thirdly - Do not nerf Clan weapons any further without nerfing IS quirks too. Clan have been nerfed every month for 18 months and it's getting old already. We all know Russ is an IS-phile and despises Clans beyond the money he gets from their mech packs.

Lastly - as others have said, return viability to under performing / underused weapons - there's a reason why people don't use them, and it seems that only you guys at PGI cannot see those reasons.

For the record - I've played Mechwarrior on computer since the 1990s and MWO for two years. 12 months ago I started a twitch channel based around streaming an "MWO Lunch Bunch" every day. This last month I've found myself accepting any excuse to not stream MWO because the game has become not-fun. I have over 100 mechs with a roughly even split of IS & Clan. The fun has been lost because previously viable mechs have been nerfed into the ground.

And for the love of whomever you pray to - make the Cougars and Thanatoses the beasts that they were in MW4 instead of the xp-pinatas that they are in MWO.

Edited by Gazbeard, 11 June 2018 - 06:25 PM.

[MechTech Dragoon]

and last but not least, test and do what your team feels is right to make your game as fun as possible.

[A Headless Chicken]

In simplified image form for ease of understanding...

[Kraegan]

Kill2Blit, on 11 June 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

buffing heat sinks only makes high heat high alpha play more of an issue, not less. and having mixed tech would severely upset the balance, you'd have IS mechs with quirked durability and clan weapons, there'd be no reason to take clan mechs at all.

Well in my haste to post I would say as a tradeoff have them loose any durability quirks or reduced durability in exchange for such an upgrade.

[BARRY SHlTPEAS]

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

I would like to start by prefacing that the Community Panel Document is already a well vetted and common sense approach to balance. If you don't do anything else, put those changes into a PTS and let it fly.

This.