127 replies to this topic

[Moira]

Sorry to derail / off topic here abit.

Has the Streaks hitrate been changes in the last 4 months or so ? Because I dismounted my high riding LURM boats and went for something different for week and Im noticing some odd stuff. AMS or ECM isnt in effect and I seem to be missing roughly 30-40% of my missile like they just pass the target from left right up or hit the ground when I actually have perfect line of sight and the distance shouldnt be issue due I was these from 100m away.

Second question about Streaks is the "firing pattern" almost the same every time like it doesnt matter are shooting a tny light or Big arse assault, since Im noticing that landing Streaks tend to land similary like from arm to arm and "well general" shotgun =)

Just asking ...

Moira from [LURM]

[Brenden]

I do not like this. Clan technology is suppose to be stronger than the Inner Sphere's by a large degree. Instead of nerfing their damage, why not buff the latest tech the Inner Sphere got?

[LordNothing]

is weapons are in a better state of balance over all. what i mean is lasers arent so flat out superior than other is weapons. theres good parity there. a few weapons still suck, or dont really have a good niche. but in general one weapon system does not completely dominate the others.

on the clan side the lasers overshadow everything. the clans have superior ppcs, ton for ton superior ballistics (which are seen as inferior by most because the lasers are so damn good), and superior streaks. i generally like mrms over atms, though atms certainly are an improvement over the inferior though lighter clan lerms. is srms are still harder hitting. then on top of that the gh groups are so much more messed up on the clan side. like how a 30 point cspl alpha is verbotten yet you can double it with a huge moderate range alpha with a mix of hll and erml with no penalty at all.

that is whats wrong with clans. they are just so inconsistent. my is drop deck is a mix of fun mixed builds, but to do well on the clan side, i have 4 boring vomit builds all in a row. and because everyone else uses them, i have to use tactics that favor vomit, and the best way to do that is with my own vomit. id love a wider array of viable tech on the clan side, but all the good weapons are lasers.

Edited by LordNothing, 28 June 2018 - 01:27 AM.

[yrrot]

Asym, on 27 June 2018 - 03:55 AM, said:

It appears that people complaining about TTK in Solaris and other places has PGI's attention. Many of us predicted that PGI needed to "de-evolve" weapons effectiveness for Solaris to work over a year ago now. And, they are still working towards close, long lasting battles because that's what Solaris needs to be a "simple and long lasting experience".... That's what sells mechs......

Soon, there will be not much left to fight with and I've jokingly said "you'll have melee weld on weapons" soon..... Maybe, that will be sooner than later.....

Changing clan alpha damage doesn't really have that much to do with solaris. It isn't (typically) going to 1-shot your opponent, and then you are running hot and under pressure from a cooler DPS IS mech. The reason IS mechs are typically floating up int he Solaris leaderboards is because DPS and brawling are their game, and that's what works well in 1v1.

High alpha is only really a problem in a team game where you can peek, drop 90+ damage, then retreat and cool down. Even the ~76 damage alpha on the HBK-IIC makes a pretty damn good can opener.

Lowering the alpha damage just opens up more counter play, without making the burn time obscene.

[Dogstar]

Brenden, on 27 June 2018 - 09:31 PM, said:

I do not like this. Clan technology is suppose to be stronger than the Inner Sphere's by a large degree. Instead of nerfing their damage, why not buff the latest tech the Inner Sphere got?

Can we just shoot this argument in the head for once and all please!

Firstly, when each player in the game has one mech and each mech is meant to be as equally valid as another mech then it's blatantly unfair for one mech to have a much superior technology.

Fair gameplay has to overrule 'lore'.

Secondly if you want to accept that lore > fair play then you have to include all the lore not just pick and choose the bits you like - which means clan players need to 'bid down' and we have to have asymmetric matches. But clan fans don't want that, they just want to treat this like a single player game and wreck face.

******* clans have ruined Battletech and every game derived from it.

Edited by Dogstar, 30 June 2018 - 12:46 AM.

[latinisator]

Dogstar, on 30 June 2018 - 12:45 AM, said:

which means clan players need to 'bid down' and we have to have asymmetric matches. But clan fans don't want that,

Sorry, I do not feel you there. Asymmetric matches would have been a great fun but: PGI would not include a binary vs a company in CW, for that would have caused a major buff for the Clans (near Clan introductory levels; also it would have meant a major workload in programming if mind serves). That however, would have broken the PQ. And PQ was/is/will be sacrosanct.

As for balance in general, I do not feel that either side is OP right now. Some Mechs on both sides may excel "a bit", but nerf them, not the weapons.

[Mystere]

Dogstar, on 30 June 2018 - 12:45 AM, said:

But clan fans don't want that ....

Nobody wants than? Nobody?

Also, you are aware of the results of the early IS vs. Clan tests, right? Or is that an inconvenient truth?

Edited by Mystere, 30 June 2018 - 04:07 AM.

[Bud Crue]

latinisator, on 30 June 2018 - 01:16 AM, said:

As for balance in general, I do not feel that either side is OP right now. Some Mechs on both sides may excel "a bit", but nerf them, not the weapons.

So now we've come back to the main quandary of PGI's "balance" efforts.

- A few mechs that over perform "a bit" (e.g. the 94 point alpha builds that only 3 mechs are capable of doing (or is it just 2?), but which is apparently the prime motivator for PGI's latest balance fixation).
- PGI considers quirks the great evil so they balance first and foremost by broad brush changes in weapons that affect every build using such weapons.
- Changes in weapons may in fact nerf the mechs that are, perhaps, over performing "a bit".
- But, alas, changes in weapons, also derivatively nerf ever base line performer and under performer that happens to use the weapons that were just nerfed.

And so all these sorts of nerf accomplish is:
- maintain the relative status quo of performance for those mechs using the nerfed weapon;
- force folks to rebuild their mechs to something else; and
- make a diverse swath of mechs that were not targeted by the nerfs in question, less fun to play.

All because of -in this case, three- mechs that were supposedly over performing "a bit".

****ing ridiculous.

I swear, this last year of apparent "focus on the outliers but break as much as possible" theory of "balance" damn near makes me long for the good ole' days of the dart board just randomly hitting things. It sucked, sure, but it wasn't nearly so mind numbingly depressing.

Edited by Bud Crue, 30 June 2018 - 04:38 AM.

[Asym]

yrrot, on 28 June 2018 - 07:01 AM, said:

Changing clan alpha damage doesn't really have that much to do with solaris. It isn't (typically) going to 1-shot your opponent, and then you are running hot and under pressure from a cooler DPS IS mech. The reason IS mechs are typically floating up int he Solaris leaderboards is because DPS and brawling are their game, and that's what works well in 1v1.

High alpha is only really a problem in a team game where you can peek, drop 90+ damage, then retreat and cool down. Even the ~76 damage alpha on the HBK-IIC makes a pretty damn good can opener.

Lowering the alpha damage just opens up more counter play, without making the burn time obscene.

tactically, you have a point but, strategically............

Someone earlier was talking about "small changes".... Small changes are part of the evolution of the entire game. Small changes "compound" errors in the game play that then compound other issues as well..... We, as a game are there, at the end of the "mature cycle" of all games in a small niche market.... Why is this important? Because as you distill down the population to those 'who want to stay", VALUE becomes very important.

Take as an example engine dysync..... A change that caused something I greatly valued, an entire new mech series, that I purchased with real money, to become far less than what I started with...... As a customer, did I have a say? A sales gimmick to boost sales changed my entire attitude towards the game itself... I haven't spent a penny with PGI since May 2017..... VALUE relates to cause and effect.

A change in established "value" in a small niche market is a very dangerous thing.... Any value..... See my point?

[MischiefSC]

FupDup, on 26 June 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

TL;DR: Clan lasers are getting lower damage (with other attributes maybe adjusted to compensate) and Clan Gauss is getting a recoil effect like the HGR.

For the Clan lasers I support the general direction but I need to know the exact numbers PGI is going with (the little details matter a lot) but for the CGR I'm not really feeling it. Maybe if they buffed the CGR health at the same time* then we could see the CGR get used on more than just a few special chassis (because right now its super fragility makes it a liability on many robots).

*IS Gauss Rifles should also get more health

If it was small and impacted 2xcgr only, plus cgauss got a health boost that's great.

Then give IS Gauss no recoil and, I dunno, a pony. Also no recoil on 1xhgauss.

[C E Dwyer]

Bud Crue, on 30 June 2018 - 04:37 AM, said:

So now we've come back to the main quandary of PGI's "balance" efforts.

- A few mechs that over perform "a bit" (e.g. the 94 point alpha builds that only 3 mechs are capable of doing (or is it just 2?), but which is apparently the prime motivator for PGI's latest balance fixation).
- PGI considers quirks the great evil so they balance first and foremost by broad brush changes in weapons that affect every build using such weapons.
- Changes in weapons may in fact nerf the mechs that are, perhaps, over performing "a bit".
- But, alas, changes in weapons, also derivatively nerf ever base line performer and under performer that happens to use the weapons that were just nerfed.

And so all these sorts of nerf accomplish is:
- maintain the relative status quo of performance for those mechs using the nerfed weapon;
- force folks to rebuild their mechs to something else; and
- make a diverse swath of mechs that were not targeted by the nerfs in question, less fun to play.

All because of -in this case, three- mechs that were supposedly over performing "a bit".

****ing ridiculous.

I swear, this last year of apparent "focus on the outliers but break as much as possible" theory of "balance" damn near makes me long for the good ole' days of the dart board just randomly hitting things. It sucked, sure, but it wasn't nearly so mind numbingly depressing.

This guy gets it.

You nerf/buff the Mech, not the weapon system.

this game has always had, and it seem P.G.I and a few others, are incapable or unwilling to grasp that it is boating of weapons with a complimentry weapon system that causes this games biggest issues.

[FupDup]

Cathy, on 30 June 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

This guy gets it.

You nerf/buff the Mech, not the weapon system.

The issue is figuring out WHAT to nerf on mechs that don't have glaring design flaws. For example, the Mad Cat Mk. 2. Do we nerf its agility even further and make it a budget DWF? Do we give it negative armor quirks? Slower weapon cooldowns? Higher heat generation?

There's also the point that if we stuffed quirkless top Clan mechs full of IS guns and engines and stuff, they suddenly wouldn't be all that great anymore. Thus, it's not just a matter of "Clan tech is balanced, those specific mechs are just too stronk." Frankly it's the opposite way around where the non-top Clan mechs just have enough innate design flaws to counteract the strengths of Clan tech and thus create the facade of balance.

Furthermore, with new chassis being released it's only a matter of time until a new mech could replicate the power of an older mech that used to be OP. For example, 2 ERPPC + 2 Gauss originated on the Dire Whale but eventually moved to the Kodiak, Mad Cat Mk. 2, and even Night Gyr to an extent. Laser vomit went from SCR and TBR to the HBR and MAD2, Gauss vomit went from DWF to MC2, so on and so forth. Going only for the chassis has resulted in a game of whackamole.

My philosophy is that a top-tier quirkless chassis that lacks glaring design problems should be considered a baseline unit. It's just a clean slate to build off of. If it overperforms then it's because of the guns slapped onto it. The average and outright crappy chassis need quirk lovin' instead of leaving baseline tech too stronk to compensate for their design flaws.

Edited by FupDup, 30 June 2018 - 10:01 AM.

[MischiefSC]

FupDup, on 30 June 2018 - 09:07 AM, said:

The issue is figuring out WHAT to nerf on mechs that don't have glaring design flaws. For example, the Mad Cat Mk. 2. Do we nerf its agility even further and make it a budget DWF? Do we give it negative armor quirks? Slower weapon cooldowns? Higher heat generation?

There's also the point that if we stuffed quirkless top Clan mechs full of IS guns and engines and stuff, they suddenly wouldn't be all that great anymore. Thus, it's not just a matter of "Clan tech is balanced, those specific mechs are just too stronk." Frankly it's the opposite way around where the non-top Clan mechs just have enough innate design flaws to counteract the strengths of Clan tech and thus create the facade of balance.

Furthermore, with new chassis being released it's only a matter of time until a new mech could replicate the power of an older mech that used to be OP. For example, 2 ERPPC + 2 Gauss originated on the Dire Whale but eventually moved to the Kodiak, Mad Cat Mk. 2, and even Night Gyr to an extent. Laser vomit went from SCR and TBR to the HBR and MAD2, Gauss vomit went from DWF to MC2, so on and so forth. Going only for the chassis has resulted in a game of whackamole.

My philosophy is that a top-tier quirkless chassis that lacks glaring design problems should be considered a baseline unit. It's just a clean slate to build off of. If it overperforms then it's because of the guns slapped onto it. The average and outright crappy chassis need quirk lovin' instead of leaving baseline tech too stronk to compensate for their design flaws.

Quoted.

For all the truths.

If you're talking about nerfing the MC MKII because it overperforms with no quirks then you've missed the obvious in that situation.

If Anni, Cyclops, Fapnir, Mauler had 0 quirks of any sort would HGauss still be a top performer? If so, why? If not.... Why not?

That's the smart balance questions to ask.

Edited by MischiefSC, 30 June 2018 - 10:33 AM.

[Bud Crue]

FupDup, on 30 June 2018 - 09:07 AM, said:

The issue is figuring out WHAT to nerf on mechs that don't have glaring design flaws.

My vote, would be to NOT nerf a mech without glaring design flaws, because doing so simply results in some other mech that isn't nerfed replacing it. See for example: nerfing the Kodiak-3 into the ground via a combination of weapons nerfs and more significantly mobility nerfs, vs its current replacement in the meta of the MC-II-B with similar build potential. Destroy one, something elsse replaces it...until of course PGI nerfs the something else as well. Heaven forbid they BUFF those that are crap compared to the best. The mech lacking design flaws ought to be the baseline and everything brought to its level for the sake of game play "balance".

Oh but what about power creep?

PGI has you covered. They identify, via some super secret formula, their "internal target values" of what a given variant/mech/build "should be" (without sharing that formula or that basis of belief with their consumers. Apropos, Chris is on record a few months ago stating that the MC-II was NOT a top tier mech from a competitive point of view (I am not joking) and yet here we are with a balance PTS being proposed due to the Deathstrike being 1 of a few mechs capable of the dreaded 94 point alpha...I wonder what changed?), and adamantly refusing to share those values with their player community who, in their turn has no clue (stats-wise, at least) at all what is supposedly the "base line" of performance (from PGI's perspective anyway) and then they go out and start nerfing things (often lots of things...sometimes everythings), buff a select few others (be they weapons or mechs) and assert hat it is all being done in the name of "balance" but they keep that definition just as secret as all the rest.

Oh, my head.

I'm having a vison! Yes I see the future! Lo! I speaketh unto you...that the 94 point alpha mechs that Chris is fixated on are not a problem. Yet ,PGI WILL apply nerfs to a wide swath of mechs, via weapons nerfs, all in order to reduce the alpha of these select few mechs ffs.

But here's the thing: Does the Dire have glaring design flaws? Oh, it does? Its slow as hell and bigger than a barn? Well tough ****, its still going to get a nerf.

PGI doesn't care if it has flaws or is not actually OP. PGI has decided that it needs a nerf so that is what will happen, but they will also nerf dozens, perhaps scores of other mechs and builds because nerfing scores of mechs and builds is apparently preferable to nerfing a couple of variants.

Absurd.

[Jackal Noble]

What a bunch of horse dung.
That’s fine, Incubus is my last purchase and after a few runs of shooting weapons that are worse then they already are, I’m done with this never evolving game.

[Y E O N N E]

Draven Knightfall, on 27 June 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

Longer beam duration introduced counter-play to lasers and an actual weakness, especially with higher damage lasers. And on top of it, it started punishing bad decisions instead of rewarding it, and that was unacceptable to the laser fan crowd. We can't have any drawbacks to lasers, now can we? They have to compete or be better across the board with weapons that rely on ammo and have additional drawbacks lasers don't or never will.

Lasers need to have a certain amount of duration to them, true, but we're already there. I can rip out 90 damage from ballistics in the time it takes a Clan Heavy Large Laser 'Mech to expose, fire, and return to cover, and the bulk of it will go to CT. PPFLD options exist which can dump between 20 and 50 damage at 500+ meters.

You don't really have any additional room to be further increasing duration on lasers.

Quote

Right now the only real counter to lasers are moar lasers. This is exactly why we're in the laser arms race today, and going to stay in for a while. Numbers won't be drastic enough to change that.

That is just flatly un-true. Ballistic boats have been acquitting themselves favorably against lasers for awhile now. MRM boats up close, too.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 30 June 2018 - 05:41 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 June 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

Lasers need to have a certain amount of duration to them, true, but we're already there. I can rip out 90 damage from ballistics in the time it takes a Clan Heavy Large Laser 'Mech to expose, fire, and return to cover, and the bulk of it will go to CT. PPFLD options exist which can dump between 20 and 50 damage at 500+ meters.

You don't really have any additional room to be further increasing duration on lasers.




That is just flatly un-true. Ballistic boats have been acquitting themselves favorably against lasers for awhile now. MRM boats up close, too.

So what do you think (short version) would get us back to that pre-KDK sweet spot?

Edited by MischiefSC, 30 June 2018 - 05:54 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2018 - 05:53 PM, said:

So what do you think (short version) would get us back to that pre-KDK sweet spot?

For starters, we are at a similar sweet-spot right now; the difference is that almost everything just feels awful to use.

But assuming you want it to actually be more like it was, the changes ought to be self-evident, should they not? Look at what has changed since late 2015, early 2016:

• Mechs got bigger
  
• Mechs got more sluggish
  
• Ballistics got hotter and more jam-prone
  
• Missiles got more spread
  
• Mid-range IS laser builds got alpha nerfed (LPL nerf) and marginally hotter (4.5 heat ERML vs. range-quirked 4 heat ML, LPL nerf again)
  
• Everybody got the ability to shorten their laser duration
  
• Gauss+PPC was removed as a viable alternative in any format
  
• Equipment is more fragile
  
• Crit-seeking weapons have multiplied
  
• DHS were made to behave the same between factions and more potently than before
  
• Heavy large lasers

...all in some vain effort to drive a higher raw TTK instead of trying for higher effective TTK through player options. That's the difference between before and now: TTK then was up to the player ability and not enforced at some arbitrary baseline.

So, in my opinion? The first broad strokes we should take are:

• Smaller and/or more agile 'Mechs almost across the board for improved damage spreading
  
• Revert the Artemis IV nerf
  
• IS ERML heat from 4.5 to 4.2 and cool-down to 3.75
  
• Gauss+PPC limit from 2 to 3
  
• Remove laser duration nodes and re-assess what each laser needs for its bracket

Figure it out from there.

[MischiefSC]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 June 2018 - 06:58 PM, said:

For starters, we are at a similar sweet-spot right now; the difference is that almost everything just feels awful to use.

But assuming you want it to actually be more like it was, the changes ought to be self-evident, should they not? Look at what has changed since late 2015, early 2016:

• Mechs got bigger
  
• Mechs got more sluggish
  
• Ballistics got hotter and more jam-prone
  
• Missiles got more spread
  
• Mid-range IS laser builds got alpha nerfed (LPL nerf) and marginally hotter (4.5 heat ERML vs. range-quirked 4 heat ML, LPL nerf again)
  
• Everybody got the ability to shorten their laser duration
  
• Gauss+PPC was removed as a viable alternative in any format
  
• Equipment is more fragile
  
• Crit-seeking weapons have multiplied
  
• DHS were made to behave the same between factions and more potently than before
  
• Heavy large lasers

...all in some vain effort to drive a higher raw TTK instead of trying for higher effective TTK through player options. That's the difference between before and now: TTK then was up to the player ability and not enforced at some arbitrary baseline.


So, in my opinion? The first broad strokes we should take are:

• Smaller and/or more agile 'Mechs almost across the board for improved damage spreading
  
• Revert the Artemis IV nerf
  
• IS ERML heat from 4.5 to 4.2 and cool-down to 3.75
  
• Gauss+PPC limit from 2 to 3
  
• Remove laser duration nodes and re-assess what each laser needs for its bracket

Figure it out from there.

If you want to increase TTK (and I do) you do it by a flat reduction on firepower across the board. You can't do it by nerfing mobility and trade builds and uberquirks because that just creates swinging imbalances.

Move IS Gauss + regular PPC to 3. That seems like a really good option to me. It would be almost ironically enjoyable to see a poptart Phract 3D or Dragon Slayer today. Still very vulnerable to the push but at least it would have some bite. I'd also be okay with regular IS PPC going to 3.

I think we've proven pretty effectively via stats that the mobility nerfs across the board only hurt smaller mechs and skewed TTK in a bad way. Not longer TTK under fire - shorter TTK under fire, just that you spend longer trying to get into a ******* position to shoot other robbits. I get you wanting to be constrained but...

why not just roll the whole suite of agility nerfs back? IS has the Anni now. BlAsp. MC MKII. A handful of HGauss builds and big dakka builds. The KDK3 isn't in a league of its own. It doesn't have to absolutely suck to pilot.

I think most heavies and assaults could get mobility buffs and the mediums and lights should get strong ones. FFS the Jenner needs to move like a a sugared up 5 year old to make up for those hitboxes.

If ERMLs get a cooldown buff the same one should go to regular MLs and smalls. Then give Gauss/Cgauss a tiny cooldown buff. Cooldown is a bad way to manage TTK. I've come to the conclusion that if you want to increase TTK make it a global armor buff (easily done by just increasing the value of armor nodes in skill tree even) or a small damage buff (just knock almost everything down 0.5 pts).

The attempt to make everything slow and inaccurate made playing every match a fight as much against your mech as the other guy. The myriad of wonky quirks and Weapons Behaving Badly tweaks didn't so much extend TTK in a useful way as make applying damage effectively a fight against the games mechanics.

That's just not a good design.

[Y E O N N E]

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me; some of what you said is an elaboration on implications I made and some of it seems to be placing me on the opposite side of an argument than I really am. Like this:

Quote

If you want to increase TTK (and I do) you do it by a flat reduction on firepower across the board. You can't do it by nerfing mobility and trade builds and uberquirks because that just creates swinging imbalances.

Ignoring that the first sentence belies a gross misunderstanding of what TTK represents, we are not disagreeing on the second sentence.

As for why I don't just roll everything back: the engine desync, rescale, and skill tree complicate it, because they didn't exist in the Goldilocks Era. It's easier just to start where we are and say "increase it" than it is to sort out the implications of "roll it back". You asked me for a succinct set of changes I would make, and I replied accordingly.