657 replies to this topic

[SaltiestRaccoon]

Reno Blade, on 26 June 2018 - 12:01 PM, said:

If you want to play CS, COD, Unreal Tournament, or Quake to oneshot people, please don't try to get a Mechwarrior game to do the same!
I want to have long battles with tons of fire, twisting and manouvering... something I can currently only get with stock Mediums, because everything else is too strong. There you have it, that's my personal goal.

We want to play Mechwarrior. I don't understand how people have such a skewed memory of how this series has worked over the years. Look back at the older games. They used all TT values. MWO already has double the armor and structure, just right off the bat. Then add to that double armor and structure more armor and structure in the form of bonuses to chassis (Mostly IS chassis.) Then, nerf all heatsinks so the damage is lowered further. Then, add in add further weapon damage nerfs and the TTK in this game is HUGELY higher than any previous game in the series, and it's had it since day one. So stop the argument that people want to play a twitch shooter when they want lower TTK, you're only displaying your inexperience with the series or your willful ignorance.

I believe Clan and IS mechs at this point are honestly pretty close in power level. I have friends that moan about how Clan mechs are much weaker, and they might be a little, but the gap is slight. The point of view that Clan mechs are already weaker is well-supported looking at player data. We simply don't see Clan mechs performing at the highest levels of play. The Clan laser vomit builds are common because it's one of the few things that Clans actually do well and puts them on par with IS mechs.

So CLEARLY the correct answer to alpha strikes that are deemed 'too high' is not a blanket nerf to all Clan lasers, because that damages literally ever Clan mech and WILL create a more meaningful power disparity between Clan and IS. First, I'd like to know what level of alpha is 'too high.' Because there are IS mechs that can come very close to that 94 point alpha, probably even pass it. Are we also planning on nerfing the weapon systems that those mechs utilize? But then other mechs will have high alphas... I mean there will still be 70's and 80's out there, right? So where is the line of WHAT constitutes an alpha-strike that is too high?

Clans do not need more nerfs, if you take issue with the abilities of several chassis, then nerf those chassis, do not nerf virtually every Clan mech. But you have to set the bar of what level of alpha is too high and you need to be evenhanded about addressing outliers, further, you will need to avoid releasing mechs in the future that can be built to surpass that alpha damage. Throw a few chassis debuffs on some Dire Whale Prime bits, the Deathstrike, then call it a day. If you don't like the 94 damage alpha strikes, then you shouldn't have allowed those variants that can build them in the game and you also owe the players that bought those mechs a full refund if desired post-nerf. That was your fault for your lack of forward-thinking and internal playtesting.

Edited by SaltiestRaccoon, 27 June 2018 - 12:41 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 27 June 2018 - 11:51 AM, said:

That's because ED hasn't been seriously discussed since 2016. I'm not going to waste my time rehashing everything out again. It was an interesting idea that ended up playing like garbage, and its gone.



Recoil is a dumb mechanic and I want it gone, regardless of Clan vs IS balance. Balance some other way please. I would prefer making IS Gauss less useless instead of adding recoil to CGauss.

Gauss vomit is already getting nerfed with the laser damage.

Also, the Dire Wolf is an unfortunate victim of all these nerfs. The mega alpha build is the only thing that makes that mech worth playing.

No, CLasers are getting nerfed. They need nerfed. They needed nerfed half a decade ago. CGauss is still flat out superior.

Recoil.... well, it's another balancing leg. I don't mind it. It reduces the ability to mix low heat/high heat weapons for a bigger alpha than you can otherwise sustain at range. I prefer it by a mile over energy draw or the like.

Dire Whale was a victim long ago when it was being designed. It's huge, ugly, crappy mobility and hitboxes and mounts. Do you want me to make you a list of other mechs in that same boat?

[Weeny Machine]

SneekiBreeki, on 27 June 2018 - 10:40 AM, said:

i'm glad to notice that you can recognize where the problem actually lies in regards to the percieved "short TTK", what i'm arguing about is the way people want the issue to be dealt with.

Implementing gauss recoil would not accomplish anything significant and would possibly make the weapon just an annoyance to use which would in turn make it an unpopular choice on several chassis. This would also make the dual gauss ebon jag which is already weaker than it's IS counterpart a chore to play when compared to it's stronger direct competitor: the dual gauss warhammer.

Also the low torso twist speed isn't "a bit" of an issue, reduced mobility compared to the pre-engine desync state of the game is the real issue here. Give mechs back their original mobility and i can assure you that TTK will indeed go up for the ones that can actually torso twist. Even better, rescale mechs like the poor firestarter and jenner and you'll see even more of an improvement within the game balance.

TL;DR: This game was in a better state one year ago pre-skill maze/SPL nerf/engine desyinc and was in an even better state during 2016 pre KDK release.

Bring it back to it's old glory and it'll become more fun to play tenfold.

The most catastrophic thing was the universal re-sizing. Take the light mech class for example. Some mechs are too tiny and hitreg obviously doesn't really work often on them while others, mostly 35t mechs, are too large and get hit far too easily

[MischiefSC]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 27 June 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

We want to play Mechwarrior. I don't understand how people have such a skewed memory of how this series has worked over the years. Look back at the older games. They used all TT values. MWO already has double the armor and structure, just right off the bat. Then add to that double armor and structure more armor and structure in the form of bonuses to chassis (Mostly IS chassis.) Then, nerf all heatsinks so the damage is lowered further. Then, add in add further weapon damage nerfs and the TTK in this game is HUGELY higher than any previous game in the series, and it's had it since day one. So stop the argument that people want to play a twitch shooter when they want lower TTK, you're only displaying your inexperience with the series or your willful ignorance.

I believe Clan and IS mechs at this point are honestly pretty close in power level. I have friends that moan about how Clan mechs are much weaker, and they might be a little, but the gap is slight. The point of view that Clan mechs are already weaker is well-supported looking at player data. We simply don't see Clan mechs performing at the highest levels of play. The Clan laser vomit builds are common because it's one of the few things that Clans actually do well and puts them on par with IS mechs.

So CLEARLY the correct answer to alpha strikes that are deemed 'too high' is not a blanket nerf to all Clan lasers, because that damages literally ever Clan mech and WILL create a more meaningful power disparity between Clan and IS. First, I'd like to know what level of alpha is 'too high.' Because there are IS mechs that can come very close to that 94 point alpha, probably even pass it. Are we also planning on nerfing the weapon systems that those mechs utilize? But then other mechs will have high alphas... I mean there will still be 70's and 80's out there, right? So where is the line of WHAT constitutes an alpha-strike that is too high?

TL;DR: Clans do not need more nerfs, if you take issue with the abilities of several chassis, then nerf those chassis, do not nerf virtually every Clan mech. But you have to set the bar of what level of alpha is too high and you need to be evenhanded about addressing outliers, further, you will need to avoid releasing mechs in the future that can be built to surpass that alpha damage.

If you think Clan mechs are overall weaker and say it's 'supported by player data' please show me the competitive matches between the best players in the game that are mostly IS mechs.

However balance is closer than it's been in a long time; however that's achieved by having a handful of super quriked chassis on IS side trying to make up for flat out inferior everything else. That's **** balance that keeps you from having a wide range of available mechs.

Yes, Clan lasers need nerfed. That's been getting said for a long time - except clan Small and now SPLs, that need a bit of a buff.

[SneekiBreeki]

Bush Hopper, on 27 June 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:

The most catastrophic thing was the universal re-sizing. Take the light mech class for example. Some mechs are too tiny and hitreg obviously doesn't really work often on them while others, mostly 35t mechs, are too large and get hit far too easily

Hit reg doesn't work really well at all lmao, also 35 tonners are desperately in need of being scaled down.

TFW a firestarter is as tall as a medium or an heavy and handles worse than a 60t dragon...

[Scout Derek]

MischiefSC, on 27 June 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

If you think Clan mechs are overall weaker and say it's 'supported by player data' please show me the competitive matches between the best players in the game that are mostly IS mechs.

However balance is closer than it's been in a long time; however that's achieved by having a handful of super quriked chassis on IS side trying to make up for flat out inferior everything else. That's **** balance that keeps you from having a wide range of available mechs.

Yes, Clan lasers need nerfed. That's been getting said for a long time - except clan Small and now SPLs, that need a bit of a buff.

I think what I disliked the most is the widespread nerfs - it's not just for specific mechs it's just blanketed.

Best example is the Kodiak over buff. Instead of just nerfing the over-performers, ALL were brought down to the same level. This is also around the same time UAC boating took a hit - wasn't just for the Kodiak-3, it was for all mechs. Like... what? Is it impossible to nerf the Kodiak-3 specifically? Or other mech/omnipods that allow ballistic boating?

Is it that hard to do? Is it?

I really don't know anymore. We used to get devblogs. Now we don't. Weekly updates? No more.

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 27 June 2018 - 12:32 PM, said:

No, CLasers are getting nerfed. They need nerfed. They needed nerfed half a decade ago. CGauss is still flat out superior.

Recoil.... well, it's another balancing leg. I don't mind it. It reduces the ability to mix low heat/high heat weapons for a bigger alpha than you can otherwise sustain at range. I prefer it by a mile over energy draw or the like.

Dire Whale was a victim long ago when it was being designed. It's huge, ugly, crappy mobility and hitboxes and mounts. Do you want me to make you a list of other mechs in that same boat?

Its superior because IS Gauss is bad though, which is an important distinction.

[Skanderborg]

Navid A1, on 26 June 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

I can get behind this... I need numbers though
An example of bad numbers was what you did to clan small pulses... you overdid it there











So... where do I start.
how about...
STOP IT!!!

This is a clear example of changing things without even having a clue about the effect it has on gameplay.

Answer me this... Do you have any idea how many clan mechs use just a SINGLE gauss rifle?

Do you realize that the changes you are making is going to ANNIHILATE those mechs?

Of course you don't.

The thing that feels like a slap in the face is that Gauss rifles are not even the problem in the case of the 94 alpha strawman example.
In your quest to nerf the 94 strawman, you are KILLING the gameplay

I say strawman, because the 94 alpha mech you keep referring to is an imaginary problem. Its not a sustainable build... even on a direwolf. its only a problem in your spreadsheets!

CHRIS... STOP IT!



STOP IT!

I use a Dire Wolf gauss vomit build that sports 5 ERML , 2 ERLL , and 2 Gauss rifles with 23 heat sinks. I can alpha strike twice for 84 damage in a row before I have to cool off for a considerable time, granted that I get full laser burn which is unlikely given how cumbersome the DW is. The build shines in group scenarios but it's very vulnerable when caught by itself or in low numbers. I feel as if this build is only useable on a Dire Wolf , which has the reputation of being one of the hardest mechs in the game to use effectively. I can't even imagine how hot a 94 damage alpha build would be coming from any lesser chassis, and in a actual game scenario it would be way too hot to use.

I don't see why clan gauss vomit is a problem, clan ER lasers are already terribly difficult to use due to their long burn time, and are very ineffective in a brawling scenario where the damage can easily be distributed by a competent twisting player.

I'm much more afraid of the close to pin point damage that comes from the very low burn duration of quirked and talented inner sphere laser vomit builds, which deliver much more useable effective damage than clans.

These days the Inner Sphere is much scarier in the damage department, with Heavy Gauss Rifles , massed MRMs, and much more useable lasers and autocannons. In my opinion, the Clans only have Gauss and Laser vomit left as a viable play style. Autocannons jam too often and for too long, and Inner Sphere brawlers are absolutely better than Clans due to heavily quirked mechs.

[Agent of Change]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 27 June 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

We want to play Mechwarrior. I don't understand how people have such a skewed memory of how this series has worked over the years. Look back at the older games. They used all TT values. MWO already has double the armor and structure, just right off the bat. Then add to that double armor and structure more armor and structure in the form of bonuses to chassis (Mostly IS chassis.) Then, nerf all heatsinks so the damage is lowered further. Then, add in add further weapon damage nerfs and the TTK in this game is HUGELY higher than any previous game in the series, and it's had it since day one. So stop the argument that people want to play a twitch shooter when they want lower TTK, you're only displaying your inexperience with the series or your willful ignorance.

Respectfully you shouldn't call up teh specter of TT knowledge to use as a cudgel to beat folks with if youare going to leave out a huge factor that kinda invalidates your point. The TT game was built around 10 second turns.

An AC2? 2 damage in 10 seconds.
An AC 20? 20 damage in 10 seconds.

I mean that's just the start of it. You can't argue "all these values are higher so stop complaining" and expect that to be the end of it. WE cannot use TT as a direct reference any more since a game of TT didn't have teh ability to reliably aim all your weapons at a single component and hit. we have to look at this game as "inspired by" at this point and then adjust from there. If you wanted players to beable to fire more than once every ten seconds then fire rate had to go up, if players could fire an AC20 faster than once every ten seconds then armor had to go up... all these changes follow a logical progression to a point.

The singular thing that MWO has that TT doesn't is pilots that can aim more reliably and with exact convergence and that single mechanic changes a lot and requires so much else to be adjusted in design. It also, if nothing else changed, would make TTK's ridiculously short using even strict TT rules. take a look at Battletech where a fully skilled pilot in the right assault at close ranged can alpha and kill just about any heavy mech in one aimed ct shot.... that is a single alpha kill in a game based far more close to TT than MWO is. That can work in a squad based game but in a multiplayer FPSish game... that is the exact thing you want to avoid.

Edited by Agent of Change, 27 June 2018 - 01:09 PM.

[1TracE1]

Ugh, C-Gauss is the last thing that needs a nerf. It's barely viable even in the dual configuration at this point. And lets not even get started on how awful the Blood asp turned out to be. Enlaged the side torsos so they are like 90% of the hit box but not armor them? And force the weapons to mount on the bottom of the sail? It's like it was intended to die easy. Now they are further dimishing the effectiveness of C-Guess when it's already outpaced by heavy and light gauss? Why? Why are you taking all my fun away? I'm going to stop buying mechs for a while.

[Conner Ward]

Skanderborg, on 27 June 2018 - 12:59 PM, said:

I use a Dire Wolf gauss vomit build that sports 5 ERML , 2 ERLL , and 2 Gauss rifles with 23 heat sinks. I can alpha strike twice for 84 damage in a row before I have to cool off for a considerable time, granted that I get full laser burn which is unlikely given how cumbersome the DW is. The build shines in group scenarios but it's very vulnerable when caught by itself or in low numbers. I feel as if this build is only useable on a Dire Wolf , which has the reputation of being one of the hardest mechs in the game to use effectively. I can't even imagine how hot a 94 damage alpha build would be coming from any lesser chassis, and in a actual game scenario it would be way too hot to use.

I don't see why clan gauss vomit is a problem, clan ER lasers are already terribly difficult to use due to their long burn time, and are very ineffective in a brawling scenario where the damage can easily be distributed by a competent twisting player.

I'm much more afraid of the close to pin point damage that comes from the very low burn duration of quirked and talented inner sphere laser vomit builds, which deliver much more useable effective damage than clans.

These days the Inner Sphere is much scarier in the damage department, with Heavy Gauss Rifles , massed MRMs, and much more useable lasers and autocannons. In my opinion, the Clans only have Gauss and Laser vomit left as a viable play style. Autocannons jam too often and for too long, and Inner Sphere brawlers are absolutely better than Clans due to heavily quirked mechs.

Don't forget that RAC2s are probably the most "broken" weapons in the game at the moment, but I do not want to see them nerfed, rather I would like to see them balanced out by giving Clans HAGs.

[Navid A1]

Reno Blade, on 27 June 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

TL;DR of my Balance suggestions and to answer your question:

GH max for Large Lasers raised to 3x for both factions
GH max for PPCs raised to 3x for all PPCs
GH Large and Med Laser grouped, so the max you can build is:
3x combination of ANY Large+Med, or only 6x Meds without Larges (as right now).

Some tweaks (similar to Community panel, but more focused on bringing OP stuff down than average stuff up) and few basic changes (e.g. all ACs using burst).
Heck, I even buff laser cooldowns and bring in new gameplay style with fast pulse lasers.

Adding more GH groups eliminates more builds... builds that are not even a problem... 2xLPL+2xML? you want to eliminate that?

Reno Blade, on 27 June 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

I don't think you know my mentality, and it doesnt matter or belong here.
I don't play Atlas with LRMs, and I dislike most of my Assault mechs, because as a PUG, I often are too reliant on the other Puggers movement/coordination.
That said, I had some great games in my Mad Cat mk2 or Blood Asps and also some very bad ones, due to obvious mistakes in positioning and lacking team coordination.

Your mentality is to make MWO like reading a BT novel. MW is not a novel. MW is not battletech.

Reno Blade, on 27 June 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

But what is worst is to do mistakes in a brawling Medium mech, or my PPC/Gauss Marauder and leave the match with 50 dmg or something.

I don't want to face tank all day long (or I would take a Dakka Assault with RAC5s/UAC5s).
I want to play a game where it's possible to survive long enough to actually use my weapons, without waiting in the back of my team in a brawling medium mech until they are dead and I can "clean up" or die trying, just because otherwise I will eat one volley and get crippled ("one shot").

right there...
you are making a mistake... you are paying the price. If you are dying with only 50 dmg done, then it is far from making a mistake. It is committing suicide on purpose to assist the enemy.
your whole argument here is to make MW more forgiving to making mistakes. That is the basic definition of balancing around the bottom end.
That is not how you create an enjoyable experience. FUN comes from having an effect in the game. It comes from shooting and taking out the enemy.

In my opinion TTK is already high. Even right now, I don't think the price of a mistake is even high enough to warrant a consideration!!!

One of the key skills in surviving a brawl is sharp situational awareness to know what is rotating behind you and how you should move around to block them from the rear shot. If you are failing that, consider adding more back armor and be more conservative up front. Thats it.

Reno Blade, on 27 June 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

That might be the reason why Lasers are better than PPCs now, but it doesnt change the fact that they are better and need to be aligned again.

If the GAP between the 80% and 20% is larger than the gap between all the 80%, then that's a huge gap to be closed.</p>
If there is any more Gap inside that is &quot;large&quot;, there will be another round of nerfs/changes, but if the gaps are then smaller and smaller, there is much more room for buffs.

The major problem is that the weapons in the top 20% are mostly ok and balanced (save for a couple). That giant gap has been created by unreasonable nerfs to almost everything this game once had. The right way is to bring that useless 80% trash pile back up.

Yes, you are going to be punished by mistakes. You will learn to make less mistakes and also learn to get out of a sticky situation alive and continue fighting.

Reno Blade, on 27 June 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

If you don't bring a heavy/assault with armor quirks (that's barely enough bonus for 2 med lasers)... you will get killed exponentially faster!

That statement is just wrong. I'm sorry, but its wrong. Dead wrong.
I personally know its wrong since I play brawler light/meds both in competitive matches and solo/group queue.

Reno Blade, on 27 June 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

Again TL;DR:
I prefere a game where it's possible to survive longer, so the battles are longer.
- Higher % of BATTLE time &gt; match time &gt; waiting time = best buff (many dislike Solaris because the waiting and battle time is nearly equal).
- If a single Elite player can &quot;carry&quot; the game by taking out targets fast because he is using the strongest build (which is 20% better than other builds) instead of because he is just better player, the game is ot balanced enough!
- Elite players should not be feared because they bring 70-90dmg Laser Vomit meta, but because they can be deadly bringing ANY build (e.g. Summoners with PPCs or UAC20).

Elite players are already feared in any mech they pilot.
I know its gonna surprise you, but the elite players I know don't even play those boogeyman builds everyone is scared about. They carry matches in locusts, urbanmechs, LRM boats... they carry matches in every trash mech you throw at them.

It is how it should be RIGHT NOW!!!

That is why Russ is so wrong about this MWO 2018 WC being stock mode. You can not nerf good players by taking away good mechs from them. All you will accomplish is creating frustration and dragging out their inevitable win!


I'm really tired on people trying to make MWO into a roleplaying game based on novels, where it takes a book chapter for a pilot to go through all the drama of firing one Autocannon.
MWO is not goignto create that experience. never. Hell, even BT is not going to be that experience.

Edited by Navid A1, 27 June 2018 - 01:40 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Can you please try to integrate changes to the IS PPC series along the line of these? Not exact numbers, but only following the spirit. It's just PTS after all.

The6thMessenger, on 20 June 2018 - 06:11 PM, said:

Quote

PREFACE:

The Rework aims to redefine the PPCs roles, for them to better fit niches and at the same time work well with other weapons. Leave the meta behind, the PPCs as I try to redefine them is more than just for pokes. If you're going to argue from the standpoint of poking (except for PPC Capacitor, then you're missing the point.

Quote

ER-PPC

Damage: 10
Speed: 2100
Heat: 12.5 (From 13.5)
Range [m]: 810 - 1620
Cooldown [s]: 4.5
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)

There's simply just little instance of where ERPPC is kinda useful. Sure it's good for long range where it's supposed to be, but long range is rarely the range. PPC is quite adequate for most distances, that the extra heat isn't necessary. And PPC is not even that much of a choice when talking about PPFLD cause HPPC.

With extra projectile speed offset by longer cooldown, it's further cemented to long range role. Being able to deliver 30 damage from afar is really important.

Quote

PPC

Damage: 10
DPS: 2.5
Speed: 1200
Heat: 9 (from 9.5)
Range [m]: 90 - 540 - 1080 [Progressive Damage Min-Range]
Cooldown [s]: 4
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)

PPC currently has little to offer. It doesn't hit as hard as HPPCs, sure it's cold but it's still pretty hot. It has minimum range that further mitigates it's close range use. It's at an awkward place that it doesn't suck or excel at something, that it doesn't give much reason to be picked over other in specialized fields. The increase in GH limit allows it to compete with HPPC, as trading for 1 ton is - 1s of cooldown time. HPPCs is for better convergence and heat overtime, but PPCs could compete with better firing rate and DPS.

Quote

SN-PPC

Damage: 10
Speed: 950 (from 1200)
Heat: 8 (From 10)
Range [m]: 270 - 720 (from 270 - 630)
Cooldown [s]: 3.5
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)

SN-PPC is just too damn hot for it's short range, and it deters use with close-range builds where it's supposed to shine over the PPC. The extra range is there for the fact that it's supposed to be a bit longer range still. But the reduction in projectile speed is supposed to be the counterbalancing factor to make sure that it is still limited to short range despite increase in range, in addition of it being the relatively coolest PPC in terms of heat/damage. The reduced cooldown also makes this competitive against medium lasers.

Quote

LPPC

Damage: 5
DPS: 2 (from 1.25)
Speed: 1200
Heat: 5
Range [m]: 90 - 540 - 1080 [Progressive Damage Min-Range]
Cooldown [s]: 2.5 (from 4)
GH Limit: 4 (From 3)

LPPC is literally blah, it's not that good on its own nor within it's GH Limit. And the target demographic mechs of the LPPC such as lights, won't have much use for it because of low damage/ton and most likely will just be scoffed at over other more sensible choice like ER ML.

By reducing CD, this becomes a bit more viable weapon, and the difference from other PPC behavior geared towards ACs would provide a uniqueness that would open up for different strategies, and would make LPPCs synergize with ACs.

Yes, PPCs are not supposed to be ACs, but all things considering, the difference in what role they could take up would allow them to have a niche in the field, as opposed of just which PPC hits harder in which invariably the rest of the PPC would be left out.

Quote

HPPC

Damage: 15
DPS: 3
Speed: 1200
Heat: 13 (from 14.5)
Range [m]: 90 - 540 - 1080 [Progressive Damage Min-Range]
Cooldown [s]: 5

HPPC is relatively fine. In fact, the point of PPFLD is to dump most damage at a single point, in which HPPC does exceptionally well. The problem is the diversity (lack there-of) of roles within the entire series, it's just a matter of which dumps the most damage with what, and just a bit playing of heat and range, and because HPPC results the MOST damage dumped, then it will be invariably be picked with respect to meta.

Additional Notes:
- Difference in Projectile Speed is there to disturb PPC convergence between different sizes of PPC.
- LPPC and PPC no longer has dead-zone, but progressive damage min-range like HPPC. That they still do damage, but reduced as closer the target is with respect to minimum range.

[Jman5]

Mystere, on 26 June 2018 - 07:22 PM, said:

That sounds to me like punishing even more Mechs that are already being punished for having equipment they cannot even remove.

Well first off, I would argue that however you implement a heatsink boating penalty it would be way more precise in targeting the problem builds than a blanket-wide nerf to weapon systems. Those effect literally every single mech that can equip clan lasers. Ice Ferrets get hit just as hard as Hellbringers.

Still, there are a ton of ways you can implement a heatsink boating nerf in an even more precise manner. I briefly checked and it seems most of the big clan mechs have something like 14-16 heatsinks they can't remove. The warhawk was the one exception at 20. Here are a few ways I could think of:

1. You have heatsinks work normally until you hit a certain number. Say 20. Then every one after that loses effectiveness steadily.

2. You implement a sort of step system. So your first 10 DHS are true-DHS, next 5 are a step down and act as regular external DHS, next 5 after that maybe only work at 50-75% capacity of an external DHS, and so on. I prefer this method because the game already does this with internal DHS/External DHS. It's just a further extension of an already implemented system. Plus you could always adjust this up or down by 1-2 DHS.

So something like this: (forgive the MS PAINT!)



3rd way is you do a gradual decline from the get go with external DHS, but it's gradual and only ramps up after 20 or so.

4th way is you have them work just fine until 20 heatsinks then they just fullstop do nothing.

5th way is you create some sort of dissipation or threshold cap at a certain number of heatsinks.

While I have my preferences, I think any of these could work effectively. But I need to stress again this is a much more precise nerf against large mechs with super-alphas than simple damage nerfs. Damage nerfs hurt everything. A nerf to heatsinks beyond 20 only hurts builds that equip 21+ heatsinks. Which are generally the problem builds we're talking about nerfing in the first place.

And it's worth mentioning that you can be as cautious and conservative as you want. You can make it do nothing until 15 heatsinks, you can make it do nothing until 20 heatsinks. All this is tunable and can be refined over time.

Another reason I prefer this idea over damage nerfs is because no matter how you alter weapon balance down the line this system would always act as a sort of natural counterbalance against excessive large alphastrikes.

Edited by Jman5, 27 June 2018 - 02:18 PM.

[SaltiestRaccoon]

Agent of Change, on 27 June 2018 - 01:08 PM, said:

Respectfully you shouldn't call up teh specter of TT knowledge to use as a cudgel to beat folks with if youare going to leave out a huge factor that kinda invalidates your point. The TT game was built around 10 second turns.

An AC2? 2 damage in 10 seconds.
An AC 20? 20 damage in 10 seconds.

I mean that's just the start of it. You can't argue "all these values are higher so stop complaining" and expect that to be the end of it. WE cannot use TT as a direct reference any more since a game of TT didn't have teh ability to reliably aim all your weapons at a single component and hit. we have to look at this game as "inspired by" at this point and then adjust from there. If you wanted players to beable to fire more than once every ten seconds then fire rate had to go up, if players could fire an AC20 faster than once every ten seconds then armor had to go up... all these changes follow a logical progression to a point.

The singular thing that MWO has that TT doesn't is pilots that can aim more reliably and with exact convergence and that single mechanic changes a lot and requires so much else to be adjusted in design. It also, if nothing else changed, would make TTK's ridiculously short using even strict TT rules. take a look at Battletech where a fully skilled pilot in the right assault at close ranged can alpha and kill just about any heavy mech in one aimed ct shot.... that is a single alpha kill in a game based far more close to TT than MWO is. That can work in a squad based game but in a multiplayer FPSish game... that is the exact thing you want to avoid.

That's not what I'm saying is that we should necessarily use tabletop values. What I am saying is that people are complaining that 'Low TTK is not mechwarrior.' And they are patently wrong. I am using tabletop values as an example, because that was what was used in previous iterations of mechwarrior and, as such, the TTK was far lower than in MWO. I have heard the argument no less than three times that 'Mechwarrior is not about low TTK.' People saying that are not clearly not familiar enough with the franchise to make any statement about what Mechwarrior is about.

What drove me away from the game in the first place and made me take a literal 5 year hiatus was the absurdly high TTK that makes positioning not feel rewarding.

[Tarl Cabot]

Weight savings and space allotment. The base foundation are not close enough.

Clans have it, IS do not have it or it comes with severe penalties once damaged,

• isXL - loss of one side torso = dead mech - Take a LFE for less weight savings and slower speed. Clan STD would still benefit due to other components being lighter and taking up less space.
  
• Endo/Ferro 14 slots each vs 7 slots plus Clans gain more benefit (do not see any actual change to these items)
  
• DHS - is 3 slots vs clan 2 slots.
  
• Most IS weapons are heavier and take up more slots.
  
• IS has more humanoid mechs with low hanging fruit on arm mounted weapons. Both IS/Clan humanoid mechs would benefit some w/ability to temp raise one arm at t time to fire said weapons. Then crit actuators would have meaning.

[SaltiestRaccoon]

MischiefSC, on 27 June 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

If you think Clan mechs are overall weaker and say it's 'supported by player data' please show me the competitive matches between the best players in the game that are mostly IS mechs.

However balance is closer than it's been in a long time; however that's achieved by having a handful of super quriked chassis on IS side trying to make up for flat out inferior everything else. That's **** balance that keeps you from having a wide range of available mechs.

Yes, Clan lasers need nerfed. That's been getting said for a long time - except clan Small and now SPLs, that need a bit of a buff.

You can view the first thread on this, citing all the Solaris results and divisions, along with championships, streamers, and so on. I'm not going to repost it for you. I see a pretty diverse set of mechs on both sides, but I see a lot more diversity on the IS side, to be honest. Both are about the same as far as assaults go, but IS has a lot more diversity in EVERY weight class lower than that, and it tends to be because of the lack of viability in most Clan mechs.

Look at the two, IS has chassis bonuses that add more hitpoints, more range, lower cooldowns that totally make up for any lack of damage or range on their basic weapons. Their weapons innately have lower cooldowns, lower beam duration (which also improves cooldown.) Their weapons have better shot patterns in tighter SRM and LBX groups and single AC shots over a 3 round burst. IS gets RACs which are the best sustained DPS option in the game if you're not forced to twist. What you should have realized by now is that the TTK is no different between Clan and IS mechs. IS are more durable. Clan deals more damage. IS has better DPS. Clans have a higher alpha. That's absolutely fine. That provides diversity of options and a CHOICE for players as to what kind of playstyle they prefer. Yes, if you want to play a high damage alpha glass cannon? You're probably going to be disappointed with Inner Sphere, but likewise if you want to play a brawler that can just dive into a team and engage in some thuggery? You're going to be disappointed with Clan. The fact of the matter is that the balance is just fine now and a blanket Clan nerf is going to hurt more than it helps.

Tarl Cabot, on 27 June 2018 - 02:42 PM, said:

Weight savings and space allotment. The base foundation are not close enough.

Clans have it, IS do not have it or it comes with severe penalties once damaged,

• isXL - loss of one side torso = dead mech - Take a LFE for less weight savings and slower speed. Clan STD would still benefit due to other components being lighter and taking up less space.
  
• Endo/Ferro 14 slots each vs 7 slots plus Clans gain more benefit (do not see any actual change to these items)
  
• DHS - is 3 slots vs clan 2 slots.
  
• Most IS weapons are heavier and take up more slots.
  
• IS has more humanoid mechs with low hanging fruit on arm mounted weapons. Both IS/Clan humanoid mechs would benefit some w/ability to temp raise one arm at t time to fire said weapons. Then crit actuators would have meaning.

IS generally has higher weapon hardpoints than Clan, and when Clans do get decently high hardpoints they are nerfed to oblivion. Look at the TBR-A side torso. They didn't even give the Warhawk its canonical single bunny ear, in favor of a lower mount on the arm for the missiles. Some Clan mechs are completely useless for their intended role due to the lower hardpoints, in fact like the Adder which is actually just a worse version of the Cougar in MWO. If you think that IS lower hard points is a problem, we can look at any given weight class and I will name double the IS mechs with high hardpoints capable of peeking that are not penalized for those high hardpoints.

Inner Sphere DHS are better than their Clan counterparts, which, considering there are ten integral engine heatsinks means that most IS builds will have better heat management.

Clans often cannot use the extra tonnage these provide and have to switch to standard structure/armor/engine to make space for additional weapons. Additionally Omnimechs will generally have very (intentionally) inconveniently placed fixed slots that further limit their builds.

I would happily spend the extra tonnage to mount some Inner Sphere weapon systems with their improved ghost heat groups, shot patterns, cooldowns and damage.

Edited by SaltiestRaccoon, 27 June 2018 - 03:19 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

These threads always amazed me at just how many people do not truly understand balancing in a video game...

Increase TTK, nerf this to make the game fun...

You people must be being purposefully obtuse... People can't be that ignorant, surely?

[The Lighthouse]

justcallme A S H, on 27 June 2018 - 03:42 PM, said:

These threads always amazed me at just how many people do not truly understand balancing in a video game...

Increase TTK, nerf this to make the game fun...

You people must be being purposefully obtuse... People can't be that ignorant, surely?

The main cause is that PGI firmly believes that increasing TTK will close the gap between good and bad players.


....Pretty much everyone who knows about game design tells us that increasing TTK will WIDEN the gap between good and bad players.

My experience during HoN also tells me same thing. You increase TTK, you will help good players regarding making mistakes, letting them dominating lesser players.


This always boggles my mind that PGI is not only ignorant of this simple fact, but they also refuse to learn from others.

[Andi Nagasia]

The Lighthouse, on 27 June 2018 - 04:00 PM, said:

The main cause is that PGI firmly believes that increasing TTK will close the gap between good and bad players.

....Pretty much everyone who knows about game design tells us that increasing TTK will WIDEN the gap between good and bad players.

My experience during HoN also tells me same thing. You increase TTK, you will help good players regarding making mistakes, letting them dominating lesser players.

This always boggles my mind that PGI is not only ignorant of this simple fact, but they also refuse to learn from others.

not always increasing TTK doesnt always widen the skill Gap, often this has very little impact on the Skill Gap,
what higher TTK does is allow for players to survive mistakes in a single life game, which is what MWO is,

what will decrease the Skill Gap is tools to help less Skilled players stand against High Skill players,