28 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

The Clan Laser problem:

Quote

Clan Laser's problem is precisely the damage. Stop dancing around the problem, like simply increasing the duration. This isn't much of a problem to veterans and/or specific mechs like the hellbringer that could let out beams from out of nowhere. Sure it hurts the efficiency of comp people, but ultimately there's the entry-level and mid-level people that will still be affected by the problem because they are still susceptible to the very same high-damage alpha you maintained.

You can approach this two ways, nerf both damage and beam duration, although effecitvely nerfing just the damage while retaining the beam duration means you already nerfed the duration as well.

Please, just do this:

Spoiler

The6thMessenger, on 25 July 2018 - 09:07 PM, said:

Quote

CLAN:

- ERuL Damage: 3
- ERuL Heat: 1.35
- ERuL Duration: 0.75s
- ERuL Cooldown: 1.65s
- ERuL Range: 150m - 300m
- ERuL GH Limit: 10
- ERSL Damage: 5
- ERSL Heat: 4
- ERSL Duration: 1.0s
- ERSL Cooldown: 3.0s
- ERSL Range: 250m - 500m
- ERML Damage: 6
- ERML Heat: 5.4
- ERML Duration: 1.25s
- ERML Cooldown: 3.5s
- ERML Range: 400m - 800m
- ERLL Damage: 10
- ERLL Heat: 9.5
- ERLL Duration: 1.45s
- ERLL Cooldown: 4.0s
- ERLL Range: 720m - 1440m

- uPL Damage: 3
- uPL Heat: 1.0
- uPL Duration: 0.4s
- uPL Cooldown: 1.40s
- uPL Range: 100m - 200m
- uPL GH Limit: 10
- SPL Damage: 5
- SPL Heat: 2
- SPL Duration: 0.6s
- SPL Cooldown: 2.4s
- SPL Range: 180m - 360m
- MPL Damage: 6
- MPL DPS: 6
- MPL Heat: 4
- MPL Duration: 0.8s
- MPL Cooldown: 3.0s
- MPL Range: 360m - 720m
- LPL Damage: 10
- LPL Heat: 8.5
- LPL Duration: 1.0s
- LPL Cooldown: 3.6s
- LPL Range: 540m - 1200m

- HSL Damage: 7
- HSL Heat: 5
- HSL Duration: 1.15s
- HSL Cooldown: 3.5s
- HSL Range: 150m - 300m
- HML Damage: 9
- HML Heat: 7
- HML Duration: 1.35s
- HML Cooldown: 4.5s
- HML Range: 270m - 540m
- HLL Damage: 16
- HLL Heat: 14
- HLL Duration: 1.55s
- HLL Cooldown: 5.5s
- HLL Range: 450m - 900m

Quote

IS:

- SL Damage: 4
- SL Heat: 1.25
- SL Duration: 0.6s
- SL Cooldown: 2.4s
- SL Range: 150m - 300m
- ML Damage: 5
- ML Heat: 3.4
- ML Duration: 0.8s
- ML Cooldown: 3.0s
- ML Range: 270m - 540m
- LL Damage: 9
- LL Heat: 7
- LL Duration: 1.0s
- LL Cooldown: 3.6s
- LL Range: 450m - 900m

- SPL Damage: 5
- SPL Heat: 1.65
- SPL Duration: 0.5s
- SPL Cooldown: 1.8s
- SPL Range: 120m - 300m
- MPL Damage: 6
- MPL Heat: 3.80
- MPL Duration: 0.6s
- MPL Cooldown: 2.4s
- MPL Range: 220m - 540m
- LPL Damage: 10
- LPL Heat: 7.25
- LPL Duration: 0.7s
- LPL Cooldown: 3.0s
- LPL Range: 360m - 900m

- ERSL Damage: 4
- ERSL Heat: 2.0
- ERSL Duration: 0.6s
- ERSL Cooldown: 3.0s
- ERSL Range: 200m - 400m
- ERML Damage: 5
- ERML Heat: 3.8
- ERML Duration: 0.8s
- ERML Cooldown: 3.5s
- ERML Range: 360m - 720m
- ERLL Damage: 9
- ERLL Heat: 8
- ERLL Duration: 1.0s
- ERLL Cooldown: 4.0s
- ERLL Range: 600m - 1200m

Large Laser is balanced by itself with respect to other laser weapons within the faction.

Small Lasers compensate better DPS over Medium Lasers, but Medium Lasers have waaay more range. Small Lasers are just completely lame so I made them near the same damage output as Medium Lasers. The Medium Lasers would still have the immensely longer range component, which is in my experience exactly the reason why people upgrade from Smalls to Meds in the first place.

The Clan Micro-Lasers are handled by having equivalent DPS with Clan Small-Lasers. This is to make sure that Clan Small-Lasers will only be better in terms of range and alpha, because sure as hell Micro-Laser's problem is precisely range which is completely enough to deter use. They also have greater GH limit.

Clan Pulse Laser is approached by being an ergonomic version of Clan Lasers through lesser heat, faster cooldown and beam duration, they are literally the standard-laser of Clans, but they have longer range -- and you pay more for them so it's kinda fair. Now if there's a concern with ER vs Pulse, it is handled by ER being pokey long-range for passive playstyles, while pulse is DPS at mid-range which will fit aggressive playstyles.

IS Pulse Laser is approached as it was before, higher damage faster ROF lasers. They will still yield the best DPS versus Clan lasers, it's just the Clan has objectively farther reach. However to compensate, the IS Pulse Lasers have the same maximum range as the standard lasers, this is so that they are still competitive at a range. Still, standard lasers still have better damage/ton at longer ranges if one isn't going to maximize the damage efficiency of pulse lasers anyways.

Also, reducing the armor and structure quirks of the IS in response to the damage reduction of Clan Lasers, effectively nullifies the changes you did to the Clan Lasers depending on how much it is handled, and brings up other weapons at play. Just implement the damage changes first, and then change the IS armor quirks accordingly.

The LRM problem:

Quote

You were on point with the LRM problem, that they are low-effort weapons to begin with, that they are force-multipliers that could easily overwhelm enemies with proper application.

Now addressing it by nerfing the Artemis, and the lock on is a sad joke. The real problem is the mechanics, so change this accordingly. You can do a few things, but bottomline is to value it as a Direct-Fire weapon, but devalue it as an Indirect-Fire weapon.

I suggest to make LRMs direct-fire only. Narc and Tag would be needed for indirect-fire. This allows both LRMs to be buffed at the desired powerful level, yet be powerful for the indirect-fire role. The specialization of Narc and Tag working exemplary with LRM batteries would mean that spotter builds, would be adequately rewarded.

As for the balance spectrum that is "either it works for high-tier or low tier", here is my answer. Reduce the spammability of LRMs. Double both Cooldown and Damage, and adjust missile health, ammo, and velocity accordingly. This would be a sure-fire way to have it balanced both for the higher tier and lower tier, precisely because it maintains the mechanics for the lower tier and at the same time reduces the suppression ability of LRM batteries that causes Noob-PTSD, while it provides a good punch that the experienced players would value because their skill in landing LRMs is adequately rewarded. LRM boats with their low rate of fire means they are relegated to a more supportive role that LRM boats are supposed to be, that forces players to bring major direct-fire weapons, but not necessarily lose a lot of fire power in the process.

As for the problem of Radar Deprivation, i would argue that it's just another symptom of LRM's problem of needing line of sight. While that is not inherently bad, simply having so much loops to jump makes LRMs problematic to land. Make LRMs pseudo-fire-and-forget, by needing only allied locks but not sustained missile locks to land a target, just need missile locks to launch homing missiles. This still provides the line-of-sight factor for the weapon, but it wouldn't be that debilitating for the system.

Do those things, voila -- you have a capable, if not powerful LRM systems that still caters both to veterans and newbies.

The CoolShot problem:

Quote

The problem as you put it, is the instantaneous cooling down. I agree to that, however 14 heat for 3 seconds? I suppose it's something, but that really challenges why on terra is it even there? Clan Lasers have longer combined burn and recycle time, it's still relatively instantaneous 14 heat removed that still allows quick high-damage alphas.

I say increase the cooling from 14 to around 24 to 30, but have it dissipate said heat over 10-12 seconds or more, modify the mechanics to be toggleable and only cool while the heat is above 0 so it's not wasteful. This provides Coolshot the necessary cooling factor worth our money and effort to be put, while not that instantaneous cooling that becomes a problem with high-heat builds.

The Mobility problems:

Quote

So you're finally giving back a bit of mobility? Good.

Kodiak was not as OP as it was before, the nerfs it sustained that stands right now is just not justified anymore. The Dire-Wolf, the guy needs either mobility, or armor-quirks -- which is not really a choice for Clanners, so just make it mobile. Unlike battlemechs however, the Dire, and other omnis for that matter, are STUCK at their engine size, and the Direwolf at a pitiful speed.

Giving it EXE level mobility won't really be that OP but just effective, mainly because we will still see Dires getting left behind and getting killed precisely with that 48-52 KPH speed it is stuck with. Apply this to other assaults and heavies with slow move speed. Regardless of their mobility, when you're under 65 KPH and below, chances are the team will leave them to to die.

Lastly, the Timberwolf could use some more love. The engine desync hit it pretty hard, and it wasn't even that OP before, it was just a simple jack of all trades that could do a lot of things decent. Now it's just a jack-of-all-trades that does things okay, and is not really a choice over actual specialists.

The TTK problem:

Quote

So you don't want MWO just like COD, where people just die in 2 to 3 hits? I agree, I don't want that. But the problem i see is that, the GH loopholes.

The GH loopholes allow stacking so much damage without that much heat penalty. This leads to people just maximizing their alpha per ton, by stacking not-linked weapons together such as ERML and Large-Lasers.

Certain people would say that it's good because weapons synergizes with one another, that weapons see the light because they are fillers that synergizes with other weapons. But how is that really meritable? Just a quota to be filled? They are just being stacked together for massive damage, to be played the same pokestyle, which is the Clan Laser problem we face.

Hows about scrap the GH system right now, and implement an Exponential Heat-Scale system that incentivises Chain-Firing like you wanted, but still makes alpha-ing possible and adequately rewarded. Every weapon is linked, people have to put more tonnage to maximize damage/heat by minimizing the amount of weapons being used thereby preventing the abuse of filler weapons.

Sure, it allows boating once more, but at least it's not extremely discouraged to the point of stupidity. It increases the TTK like you wanted, it even values bracket builds with mixed non-synergistic builds, like the actual MWO you wanted.

Spoiler

The6thMessenger, on 30 July 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

Here's an idea, what if every weapon has 1 ghost heat? Basically you can only fire 1 before hitting ghost-heat. But the catch is that, the heat penalty isn't really that high.

Or rather we eliminate the heatscale system, but add a corresponding heat penalty for every extra weapon in the set. Every weapon is LINKED.

The 6 CERML produces 37.8 heat yeah? What if, firing 3 CERML after another 3 CERML produces even lesser heat? that as opposed of the expected 18.9 heat, it would have been only 16.065 heat?

That means you can have more damage/heat when you are chain-firing.

I'm not that good with math, but here's transform values. Subject to change. The transform values is just there to translate current heat, to the new system, but it does not mean the new heat value, and the heat penalty should be just directly translated.

Quote

New Heat Value = [(Current GH) x (Current Heat)] / [Current GH x NHV Constant]

For example, CERML at GH of 6, and at 6.3 Heat. HNV constant is 1.5.

37.8 / 9 = 4.2

So 4.2 is now the heat of each individual CERML.

Now while that may seem OP, that really only means that you are only doing 4.2 Heat when shooting only 1 CERML at a time.

Quote

Static Weapon Heat Penalty = [(Current GH X old heat Value) - (Current GH X new heat Value)] / (Current GH^2)

To figure out the new Heat Penalty that goes with the new system, the difference of the new and old heat values at the old GH is divided to the square of the current GH.

With CERML doing 38.7 heat before, now 25.2:

12.6 / 36 = 0.35

And now the new Heat Penalty is 0.35

Quote

Heat Penalty System:

Each weapon will produce extra heat multiplied to the amount of weapons fired within a single volley.

Quote

Individual Heat Penalty = [(Weapon Group Count x Static Weapon Heat Penalty]

This is how we calculate individual heat penalty. This applies the heat penalty with the square of the current weapon group that was shot.

Suppose that CERML fired two, that means each CERML will incur 0.7 heat, or a total of 1.4 heat penalty, at a total of 9.8 heat.

Simmilarly, Three CERMLs would produce 1.05 heat each, and will net heat penalty of 3.15, or a total of 15.75 heat.

Now at 6 ERMLs, it would produce 2.1 heat for each, and will net 12.6 penalty heat, at a total of 37.8 heat -- which is the same as the original CERML.

Now here's the catch, while the old system would produce 7.06 extra heat for firing 7 CERML, at a total of 51.16, the new system would be cooler;

7 x .35 = 2.45 x 7 = 17.15 extra heat. 29.4 + 17.15 = 46.55. It's waaay cooler than before right?

Also when firing 12, you incur 118.19 extra heat, at a total of 193.79 heat. but with my system it would be at 12 x .35 = 4.2 x 6 = 50.4 + 50.4 = 100.8 heat. It's literally waaay tamed than it was before.

As you notice, why am i not just squaring instead? Because the system takes account of weapon differences. Lets say 2x CGauss + CERPPC.

Current system would put the heat at 61.77, regardless of whether you are shooting 2x CGauss, + CERPPC, or 2x CERPPC + Gauss.

CERPPC New Heat = 29 / 3 = 9.6667
CERPPC SWHP = 2.4168

Individually, the CERPPC should still produce 9.6667 heat, but would produce total of 29 heat when firing two. But when firing 3, would net 7.2504 heat each, and produce a total of 50.7513 heat. Compare that to the 61.77 as with before. Firing 4, would make each CERPPC do 19.3339 heat, and produces 77.3356 heat, compare that with 106.72.

Now what about gauss?

CGR New Heat = 2 / 3 = 0.6667

CGR SWHP = 0.1668

Simmilar case before, that at 2 Gauss Rifles, it would still produce 2 Heat.

But what I am interested to show you is that, how could the 2x GR + PPC and 2 PPC + GR would work.

Quote

GR Extra Heat = SWHP x Group Count
0.1668 x 3 = 0.5004

PPC Extra Heat = SWHP x Group Count
2.4168 x 3 = 7.2504

That means, 2x GR + PPC, would only produce 1.0008 + 7.2504 = 8.2512 Extra heat, at a total of 19.2513 heat.

But the 2x PPC + GR would produce 15.0012 extra heat to the system, at a total of 35.0013 heat.

Compare that to the static 61.77.

Quote

GR Extra Heat = SWHP x Group Count
0.1668 x 4 = 0.6672

PPC Extra Heat = SWHP x Group Count
2.4168 x 4 = 9.6672

Now lets suppose 2x Gauss + 2x PPC:

The heat penalty would be (19.3344 + 0.6672) x 2 = 20.6688 heat penalty + 20.6668 = 41.3356 heat.

Now compare that to the static mind-numbing 106.72 heat with GH. But as opposed of just having 31 heat when there's no heatscale, there is still penalty of 10.3356. If that's the case, we can assume that Gauss Rifle is no longer heatless as it does 6.16373 heat instead of just 1.

What about if we did 6x ERML + 2x HLL?

Quote

CERML New Heat = 38.7 / 6 = 4.2
CERML SWHP = (38.7 - 25.2) / 6 = .35
CHLL New Heat = 32 / 3 = 10.6667
CHLL SWHP = (32 - 21.3333) / 4 = 2.666675

Total of 8 group would mean that each ERML would produce 2.8 extra heat, simmilarly the HLL would produce 21.3334 extra heat.

25.2 + 21.3333 + (6 x 2.8 = 16.8) + (2 x 21.334 = 42.668) = 106.0013 - that is the total of 6x ERML + 2x HLL.

Originally, that would have been 32 + 38.7 = 70.7 heat. This means, now you can't just rely on the old GH limit to stack so much weapons to get so much alpha.

Suppose that we do 4x ERML + 2x HLL instead?

A total of 6 group would mean that ERML would produce 2.1 extra heat for every ERML, while the HLL would produce 16.00005 extra heat for every HLL:

That means the total is such.

16.8 + 21.3333 + (2.1 x 4 = 8.4) + (16.00005 x 2 = 32.0001) = 78.5334. Compare that to 57.2 heat as it was before.

Now i know, this will completely discourage laser-vomiting. But i suppose that HLL, in that mix would at least have lower heat penalty to adjust.

In Conclusion

This system incentivizes chain-firing by having exponential heatscale in place, by making weapons more heat efficient when fired in volleys than all at once. This should put a much more tamed heat-scale, discourages boating but not outright eliminate it, and as opposed of creating loopholes in which people can make the most efficient weapon combinations due to different GH limit by stacking different weapons, this only calculates weapons all fired at once.

Now i understand, what about those with 0 Ghost heat limit? As in like the iSL or iERSL, or the LBXs? I think they can have arbitrary GH for the sake of calculation. Maybe the 1 GH limit, would result into simply doubling the heat -- well their GH should be adjusted in the first place.

Given to newbies, as opposed of having to show the heatscale table, we can just say "Weapon will do x extra heat for every weapon in your volley". Sure, it's less intuitive than Energy Draw, but at least we eliminate the loopholes in Ghost-Heat, does not completely discourage boating with extreme heat penalty and is neutralized by being incentivized in chainfiring in the first place.

What do you think?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 August 2018 - 07:21 PM.

[Vellron2005]

The6thMessenger, on 07 August 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

The LRM problem:


The CoolShot problem:

1) As far as the LRM "problem" goes, I think that making LRM less indirect and more direct (and only indirect with NARC/Tag), would effectively turn LRMs into ATMs, and would completely defeat their purpose, while simultaneously killing all the fun of using them.

It's unfair to hinge a player's success, builds and entire playstyle on other people that would need to bring specific builds to help. I know it's a team game and all, but that's really just pushing it.

Also, even if you make them fire and forget, ATMs would be clearly superior because of the increased damage. Also, note that there are many many mechs in this game that are, if going for LRM use, completely dependent on LRMs alone, cannot mount any other significant weapons. And then, there is still ECM, AMS and Stealth Armor. It would make LRMs simply terrible. So to play LRMs as indirect, I would have to bring a supporting spotter, which would make my gameplay entirely dependent on someone else, or bring my own and stay on the front line to use tag - which is basically how you play ATM. So why would I ever use LRMs over ATMs? Or MRM for that matter?

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Making LRMs direct fire would kill the system's purpose entirely.

2) As far as the cool shot problem goes, the "instant cool" nature of the coolshot has been such in literally every iteration of MechWarrior videogames. It is literally splashing water over a fire type thing. It usually allows you to fire one more alpha or full salvo on chain fire. Nothing more. Any you can have two of those, and then you're done.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

if you want to make them less effective, but still useful, make them so as to cool you from "gonna blow up in a second" to "zero heat cool as a cucumber" instantly, but having a loooong long time between using the second one.

So like 100% heat removed instantly, no additional effect, but can't use the other one for 2 minutes..

[razenWing]

I disagree with every single points. But then, given our history, not much of a surprise.

Clan laser is only a problem if it's a problem reflect through FP. Ever since the last major laser nerf and IS buff, there has not been a problem in FP imbalance. Even in regular play, you see a strong shift of elite players to play only IS mechs. This includes proton (you can catch him 3 days a week during eastern day time), arguably the world's best player, stating multiple time on stream on how IS is simply superior. So I see no need to address this ATM.

Besides, if damage is really the issue, why would you need to nerf IS buff at the same time? Isn't that just double redundant? And besides, isn't the whole point of Clan/IS difference is to have some sort of differentiation? If you nerf everything back the stone age, isn't that even more imbalance with Clan just being a lighter more efficient IS? Honestly, if you ask me, this game need more diversity and more unique features that sets different mechs/factions apart, not more blanket changes that is starting to feel like Barbie Dress-up.

LRM Change: Whatever the mechanics they going to change is never going to satisfy anyone. The problem is squarely in intel warfare. Unless the elephant in the room is addressed... indirect dire, color change, and all those ideas are simply not fixes.

Direwolves need weapon quirk. It's the Gray Death. Personifying that name by reminding people not to facetank one would be a good place to start.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

razenWing, on 08 August 2018 - 05:30 AM, said:

Direwolves need weapon quirk. It's the Gray Death. Personifying that name by reminding people not to facetank one would be a good place to start.

If it needs anything it's agility and/or defensive quirks. DWFs are plenty strong offensively.

[Tom Sawyer]

Not going to pound the lore vs online game but my biggest beef with coolshots is this:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Coolant_Pod

They are a giant tank on your mech HIGHLY susceptible to getting blown off and your mech taking the equivalent of an ammo explosion.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Man, so many overnerfs to lasers which aren't even that problematic.......reduce damage and increases to mobility is overkill. Cool shots also just nerf damage output for everything since even dakka boats benefit from them, I know my 4 AC10 Anni does.

[Chados]

You might as well take LRMs out of the game if you make them direct fire only and NARC/TAG dependent for indirect fire. They already have the most counters in the game and the most spread. The arc alone makes them problematic for direct fire duels as a ballistic or laser purpose built outfit will slay it every time. Artemis ought to tighten spread and flatten trajectory with a sight lock.

[Viking Yelling]

Quote

The TTK problem:

First of all, TTK is a measurement used to evaluate DPS in a mostly theoretically optimal condition. IE. 6x AC2, 12x MGs, ect. these weapons have no distinct alpha consideration and are more considerably measured with the effective time it takes to result in a kill. this does not effectively apply to lasers. They do have a duration, but the theory of TTK implies that clicking the button once will result in a kill. Just the fact that each component has individual health make TTK measurements inefficient because they are mostly applied to CT values.

Quote

The Mobility problems:

I dont really think there's anything wrong with mobility. Increasing mech speeds is unnecessary as a blanket application. bigger mechs are supposed to move slower. Lighter mechs have less mass to move. As for torso twist and turn speed, the Skill tree gives a ~15% boost to these stats. If you need more than that, then you're probably doing something wrong.

I would support mobility changes to mechs that had the worse off hitboxes or mech shape. There's no point in buffing an assassin's mobility, when no one even uses the cicada. (Also, make the Cicada's arm shield things bigger. No Really)

Quote

The CoolShot problem:

Okay, first off, stop implying this is a clan only thing. HBK-4p benefits from cool shots just as much as any clan laser vomit. Frankly, it does it better cause of the brawling nature of IS lasers. Reducing the instantaneous cooling effect could work, but then why not just pause and wait for my heat sinks to work?
How about changing Coolshots to just temporarily buff Heatsink dissipation? It's then dependent on your heatsinks on the lower scale, and would be a more gradual dissipation.
I'm not against changes to these systems, but I would rather the entire consumables system be re-evaluated as they currently stand as 40,000 Cbill hacks.

Quote

The LRM problem:

Working as intended??????????
I'm sometimes annoyed with LRMs when they start keeping locks because of things like target decay, and massive sensor boosts only being brought by the skill tree(and more importantly, Only countered by the Skill tree).
Direct fire makes them too much like MRMs, sooooo.....

Quote

The Clan Laser problem:

Clan Lasers? I mean, they are the only weapons not similar to IS weapons. Most other Clan weapons only benefit from slots and tonnage. I do support most of the balance changes that keep clan lasers at least 1 damage point above IS weapons, but also have corresponding duration and heat changes. These values seem inherently bound to each other to me.

Most definitely power creep should come down in some regards. I know clan lasers are the focus of discussion, but lowering power creep generally involved nerfing the upper efficiency, and buffing the lower efficiency. Changing Clan medium laser ghost heat to 5 takes 7 damage entirely off of clan laser alpha. you can still mount 6 CerML but you have to fire them out of sync. Making dual H-gauss only able to charge one gauss rifle takes off 25 points, but doesn't change over all damage output.(it only increases TTK when you consider DPS) These are changes players probably wont want (cause who doesn't want to fire more guns) but they increase play-ability without affecting output.

Edited by Viking Yelling, 08 August 2018 - 08:32 AM.

[SFC174]

No, no, and no. (Nothing personal). Weapon balance is a decent state right now. Any tweaks should be small (1-5% change max) and largely focused on underperforming weapons.

And may I say that I find it really offensive that in order to see where the devs are thinking of going in the game requires me sitting through a crappy NGNG podcast (or monitoring lush Russ' twitter account).

PGI - communicate to your players on the tools you have such as the forums.

[Spheroid]

I thought it was an interesting podcast. The most important take away is that artemis is currently conveying benefits to lurms to which they are not entitled to while fired indirectly. I don't see how people are bothered by this "nerf" when it is just correcting a design oversight.

The language used in in the podcast was lurm snowball, which accurately describes the gameplay on maps such as polar on a missile heavy team. The force multiplier effect is indeed to rapidly applied.

Generally people obsess over spread and tracking, but to me width of reticle tracking field and lock acquisition time are the interesting stats. I like the idea that lurm scurbs need to work harder in IDF mode. I mean IDF in tabletop resulted in vast majority of the shots missing, which is far from the case here.

Honestly the changes sound fairly reasonable. We will see if and when they are implemented.

Edited by Spheroid, 08 August 2018 - 08:57 AM.

[Dogstar]

I'm sorry 6th but I really don't think that any of your suggestions or solutions would be good for the game. Every time I see a post from you with a raft of tweaks and fiddles I always come to the conclusion that you just have no good ideas on how to balance things.

[The6thMessenger]

Spheroid, on 08 August 2018 - 08:49 AM, said:

Honestly the changes sound fairly reasonable. We will see if and when they are implemented.

Well, they're nerfing Artemis, which is precisely what makes LRMs okay at direct-firing. If they wanted to nerf the snowballing effect of Indirect-Fire, that's not the right way.

Dogstar, on 08 August 2018 - 08:50 AM, said:

I'm sorry 6th but I really don't think that any of your suggestions or solutions would be good for the game. Every time I see a post from you with a raft of tweaks and fiddles I always come to the conclusion that you just have no good ideas on how to balance things.

You not liking them =/= to not being good. You can always explain why they won't work though, or not a good idea. It's less rude than just dismissing other people.

Chados, on 08 August 2018 - 07:38 AM, said:

You might as well take LRMs out of the game if you make them direct fire only and NARC/TAG dependent for indirect fire. They already have the most counters in the game and the most spread. The arc alone makes them problematic for direct fire duels as a ballistic or laser purpose built outfit will slay it every time. Artemis ought to tighten spread and flatten trajectory with a sight lock.

The entire problem stems from Indirect Fire, take that away and we have a massive leeway to buff the LRMs.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

1) As far as the LRM "problem" goes, I think that making LRM less indirect and more direct (and only indirect with NARC/Tag), would effectively turn LRMs into ATMs, and would completely defeat their purpose, while simultaneously killing all the fun of using them.

And how fun are they are now when they are practically dead weight as PGI put it?

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

It's unfair to hinge a player's success, builds and entire playstyle on other people that would need to bring specific builds to help. I know it's a team game and all, but that's really just pushing it.

I don't think you understand the point at all. Turning LRMs effectively into direct-fire with TAG and NARC as requirement for Indirect Fire precisely will shift the balance into Direct-Fire use as in a playstyle all on it's own, thereby it's even less reliant on others.

But if you mean that parasitic LRM playstyle which you just indirectly fire all match long, i can't help you with that, it's already hinging on the other's lock for success to begin with.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

Also, even if you make them fire and forget, ATMs would be clearly superior because of the increased damage.

Well, yeah, duh. But considering that's just under 270m, and the LRMs would be rather superior at longer ranges. As in ATM6 that does 12 damage between 271m and 540m, at the same weight as an LRM15 that does 15 damage, and that's just the change to Direct Fire! I'm still pushing the 2-damage/missile version, hell just 1.5x damage and 1.5x CD would be nice. Don't get me wrong, the 270m range with it's 3 damage/missile has merit, but that only really provides a different niche.

Now you might be wondering, if LRMs have 1.5x damage and 1.5x CD, what is left for ATMs? Well they could remove the minimum range like the HE ammo is suppose to be. Just sayin'.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

Also, note that there are many many mechs in this game that are, if going for LRM use, completely dependent on LRMs alone, cannot mount any other significant weapons. And then, there is still ECM, AMS and Stealth Armor. It would make LRMs simply terrible. So to play LRMs as indirect, I would have to bring a supporting spotter, which would make my gameplay entirely dependent on someone else, or bring my own and stay on the front line to use tag - which is basically how you play ATM. So why would I ever use LRMs over ATMs? Or MRM for that matter?

So don't play LRMs indirect. Play them like you would with other weapons. Having them balanced with Direct-Fire in mind means they are more effective when boated now -- assuming that Direct-Fire-only has been compensated properly with increases in stats. If it's just approached with merely removing Indirect-Fire without adjustment values, now that's the nerf.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Making LRMs direct fire would kill the system's purpose entirely.

Funny, because TAG and NARC would have an even stronger purpose, while having LRMs at a Direct-Fire level firepower, used indirectly would mean it's actually a stronger Indirect-Fire. If only you get that.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

2) As far as the cool shot problem goes, the "instant cool" nature of the coolshot has been such in literally every iteration of MechWarrior videogames. It is literally splashing water over a fire type thing. It usually allows you to fire one more alpha or full salvo on chain fire. Nothing more. Any you can have two of those, and then you're done.

As far as the history of terra goes, there's been a lot of genocides, war, and tragedy. So if i go to a murder spree, that should be fine right?

Alright, being a lot more serious now. As far as I'm concerned, this is a problem, and whether other MechWarror games have this is irrelevant. This is MWO, we have different environments, we have the god damn MechLab that allows fine-tuning of mechs.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

I don't see anything wrong with that.

You wouldn't.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

if you want to make them less effective, but still useful, make them so as to cool you from "gonna blow up in a second" to "zero heat cool as a cucumber" instantly, but having a loooong long time between using the second one.

So like 100% heat removed instantly, no additional effect, but can't use the other one for 2 minutes.

That's practically stronger than what it is right now. Shoot a 78-damage Alpha, coolshot, then shoot it again. That's 156 damage in under 10 seconds.

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that only Clans have this problem, but as far as I'm concerned it's still a problem. I'd rather have them do 24 to 30 heat over the course of 10 to 12 seconds, assisted cooling, still worth our money.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 August 2018 - 02:07 PM.

[Jackal Noble]

Who cares. Core game never really changes.

[Thorqemada]

If you want LRM less effective in indirect fire increase the Basic spread and simulatenously make Artemis clustering tighter - now you have a weapon that is less effective in indirect fire and with a LOS and Artemis the LRM-Launchers with then tight clustering can deliver a direct fire Punch.

Also make IS LRM have no longer a hard min range but the same soft min range that Clan LRM have - now the weapon is not totally useless under 180m.

And to call a weapon with the most counters in game low effort - well that is simply Agitation!

Edited by Thorqemada, 08 August 2018 - 02:21 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Thorqemada, on 08 August 2018 - 02:20 PM, said:

If you want LRM less effective in indirect fire increase the Basic spread and simulatenously make Artemis clustering tighter - now you have a weapon that is less effective in indirect fire and with a LOS and Artemis the LRM-Launchers with then tight clustering can deliver a direct fire Punch.

Also make IS LRM have no longer a hard min range but the same soft min range that Clan LRM have - now the weapon is not totally useless under 180m.

Bandaid, but it's actually okay.

[VonBruinwald]

The6thMessenger, on 07 August 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

I suggest to make LRMs direct-fire only. Narc and Tag would be needed for indirect-fire.

Whilst I do like the sentiment, Narc and Tag are rarely taken in QP where 90% of matches occur which means this would further cripple a weapon system that already boasts the highest amount of counters. You also need to massively buff LRMs as they are bottom of the barrel for direct fire weapons so when someone does get narcing they'll become massively OP.

If you want to put some 'logic' in there, those missiles are tracking friendly locks, locks which provide a precise location and range, all the telemetry a missile needs. If you want to stop them providing indirect fire you're going to have to remove that square, the same red square many pokers hide behind a hill waiting for, trust me, those meta-pokers will cry loud when they lose their crutch.

[The6thMessenger]

VonBruinwald, on 08 August 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

Whilst I do like the sentiment, Narc and Tag are rarely taken in QP where 90% of matches occur which means this would further cripple a weapon system that already boasts the highest amount of counters.

But now, because LRMs will be decent, there's an excuse for Indirect-Fire to be powerful while not unbalanced. And because Direct-Fire LRMs is powerful, that same power for indirect-fire is enough of a reason.

VonBruinwald, on 08 August 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

You also need to massively buff LRMs as they are bottom of the barrel for direct fire weapons so when someone does get narcing they'll become massively OP.

Why would they be OP? Just because LRMs are now powerful? Being powerful =/= OP, and being a powerful combination is precisely what will give NARC and TAG their use.

VonBruinwald, on 08 August 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

If you want to put some 'logic' in there, those missiles are tracking friendly locks, locks which provide a precise location and range, all the telemetry a missile needs. If you want to stop them providing indirect fire you're going to have to remove that square, the same red square many pokers hide behind a hill waiting for, trust me, those meta-pokers will cry loud when they lose their crutch.

No, actually with that statement i don't trust you anymore. Targetting is part of information warfare, making people peek just to find anyone isn't conducive to team play.

[VonBruinwald]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 03:31 PM, said:

No, actually with that statement i don't trust you anymore. Targetting is part of information warfare, making people peek just to find anyone isn't conducive to team play.

Pokers can still use the minimap, the only difference is now they'll have to aim after they poke rather than before.

[The6thMessenger]

VonBruinwald, on 08 August 2018 - 04:12 PM, said:

Pokers can still use the minimap, the only difference is now they'll have to aim after they poke rather than before.

Nope, still not conducive to team play. Lets not lower the bar please, lets just raise the poor performers.

[Thorqemada]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

Bandaid, but it's actually okay.

Well, literally they asked for bandaid solutions - probably bcs they cant effort changes to the game code for reasons™.