42 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

If the changes in this PTS were introduced to the live game, I would immediately want a full rollback of all changes. I do not like these changes.

Thank you for running the PTS to experiment with such extremely drastic changes, at least we didn't have deal with this mess happening on the live client for a month or more.




Gauss Recoil - BAD
This is clunky, and it has a loophole. It's not an effective nerf if I can get around it, and it just adds frustration to the weapon and removes one of the styles to using it. It already has a charge mechanic (and an explosion mechanic), we don't need to add any more complication to it.

If you want to prevent Gauss from being fired with other weapons, then ... don't.
The best way would probably be to add it to all relevant ghost heat groups, but I don't like the idea that a heat-free weapon gets ghost heat penalties, that just seems incredibly dumb and unintuititive to me.



ClanERSmallLaser - VERY BAD
This weapon, imo, does not need to be nerfed, at all. It was already nerfed in the June 2017 rebalance, then again in July 2017, then again in February 2018.

If anything, I expect this weapon to receive a buff, because I feel it has been slightly overnerfed.



ClanERMediumLaser - BAD
The damage was nerfed WAY too much. It now has only 5% more damage than the IS version, and that is not enough of a differential. The absolutely lowest I would go is 6.0 damage, but I would prefer 6.5. Right now, the cERML is almost universally inferior to the IS ERML, and if you want to improve it without raising damage, than you'll have to buff heat, cooldown, or duration, which means just making it more similar to the IS version, leading to symmetricalisation of the two factions in a game where they are supposed to be balanced asymmetrically.

Rather than nerfing the damage, I would nerf the duration. If this were on live I would start with a 10% nerf, but since you are running PTS, I would go for a 15% nerf. (remember, SkillTree reduces laser durations by 10%, so a 10% nerf is effectively nullified by SkillTree)



ClanERLargeLaser - MOSTLY BAD
The damage reduction isn't that bad, but I think it tips the balance way too far in favour of the IS ERLL. So to compensate for this, you will have to reduce the cooldown, heat, or duration. Which leads to undesirably symmetricalisation of the factions.



ClanMediumPulseLaser - BAD
I don't see the need to nerf this weapon's damage. It isn't used all that frequently, due to the two-ton requirement. A nerf to the cERML duration might see more people switch to cMPL, and put us in a better place to assess whether the cMPL needs nerfs or not. If anything, I might increase the duration on cMPL to something like 1.0 if absolutely necessary.



ClanLargePulseLaser - OKAY
The cLPL was, imo, probably the weakest of Clan large family, just due to its extra tonnage cost. This damage nerf could make that probably even worse in that regard.

However, before the introduction of cHLL and buffs to cERLL, the cLPL was the strongest, and it definitely was a step above most other weapons in the game. So I do support a slight nerf to this weapon. However, I think 10 damage is a bit weird, because that makes it the same as the IS LPL. It should deal more damage than IS, imo.



ClanHeavyMediumLaser - BAD
I don't think this weapon needs any nerf. It already has extremely short range, extremely high heat, and extremely long duration. I personally don't use it that much. I would rather use an IS Medium Laser, which at the same limited range at least it can keep shooting. If anything, I expect buffs for the cHML.



ClanHeavyLargeLaser - OKAY
16 damage is the lowest I would go for this weapon. It might be okay like this.

It needs to be unequivocally the longest duration laser in the game (large lasers have longer duration than smaller ones, and heavy lasers have longer duration than other types) and as you reduce the damage on this weapon, you may need to reduce the duration on it, which goes counter to its design philosophy.



Triple Large Ghost Heat - BAD
This is too much of a buff to a loadout which you are trying to reduce the alpha effectiveness of. It also opens the doors for easier boating of cERLL and cLPL. It is also a prime example of symmetricalisation between the factions. I do not like this change in any way whatsoever. Ctrl+Z.







What I would like to see

Try nerfing duration instead for the offending weapons:

- cERML
- cERLL
- cHLL
- cLPL


Try buffing all the weapons that have been unduly nerfed over the past year, which serve as counters to laservomit:

- SRM spread
- SPL / cSPL damage
- UAC heat
- IS Medium cooldown


Try buffing all the weapons that have almost always been awful and could serve as counters to laservomit:

- UAC20s
- Clan ACs
- IS Small / ER Small
- Micros
- Light Gauss
- IS PPCs

Edited by Tarogato, 18 July 2018 - 06:09 AM.

[Navid A1]

Agreed with the general approach presented in the vid.

I'd argue that balancing clan lasers can be a combination of changes to all aspects (damage, heat, duration) instead of just 1 aspect. By choosing just one aspect you'll have to push into impractical extremes to meet your goal sometimes.

As an example, I think a 6.5 (-7%) damage C-ERML with 1.37 (+10%) duration and 5.8 (-7%) heat would be a change which preserves the key characteristics of the weapon while moving towards your goal of less concentrated damage.

In addition, the (now) justified heat reduction can be a great help to numerous clan mechs that are struggling with tonnage and heat limitations, allowing them to use one of the the key back up weapons in the game which is various types of medium lasers.

Edited by Navid A1, 20 July 2018 - 06:48 AM.

[Alilua]

I don't think you could spell things out in a more simple manner. I quite agree with nearly everything you presented and talked about.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The best way to balance gauss: actually give it heat. Otherwise all you are left with is Writhen's suggestion, reduce how many you can charge at once or linking it to everything in ghost heat which both seem a bit....hamfisted.

Everything is spot on with your appraisal of the issue with this PTS and what to do with lasers. Though I would disagree slightly about heat not being a suitable nerf either given Clan laser vomit boats typically had stronger DPS because of how many DHS they can stack to counter the heat, at least on the medium/large boats but that's minor.

[justcallme A S H]

The amount of time you must have spent scripting/thinking this thought is nothing short of amazing.

It is the most basic & logical explanation of what is going on right now. It also hits the nail on the head about the game become extremely 'generic' feeling. All the weapons feel the same and the PTS is just, not achieving what the stated aim is, not even close.

Lets hope PGI really do sit down and take note of this as well as all the other stuff. Soooo many high profile players / streamers / top level people have quit over the past 4-5 months it's making me ill. And they have quit because of this blandness that has crept into MWO since Skill Tree was introduced.

[Solahma]

This flawlessly represents my personal opinions too. Well done. I hope PGI takes a moment to consider everything said and the fact that you have been an outstanding community leader on this front. Many people agree with you even if you say it's just your opinion.

Edited by Solahma, 18 July 2018 - 08:53 AM.

[Jarl Dane]

PGI

HEAR THIS MAN!!!!!!!

[omnomtom]

I agree that Duration should be the primary lever for nerfs on clan lasers. Forcing those pokes to be longer nerfs the peek n poke builds without making the clan lasers feel like IS weapons but with more heat.

I also totally agree with buffing those weapon systems which can counter laser vomit, and I'd add one more important factor you mentioned in the video but on on the text post - Mobility. Having 'mechs be able to shield and roll laser damage across your mech gives an additional counter to those long clan laser burns. It also buffs brawl to also counter laser vomit - and mobility is fun. Buffing mobility might also break up the AC/2 turret meta in the higher Solaris divisions, but that's a separate topic. Mobility skill tree is supposed to let you do this, but because it's a proportional increase, 'mechs with bad mobility still have bad mobility even if you invest tons of skill points. Increase mobility across the board and laser vomit has a lot more counters.

[Tarogato]

omnomtom, on 18 July 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

Buffing mobility might also break up the AC/2 turret meta in the higher Solaris divisions, but that's a separate topic. Mobility skill tree is supposed to let you do this, but because it's a proportional increase, 'mechs with bad mobility still have bad mobility even if you invest tons of skill points. Increase mobility across the board and laser vomit has a lot more counters.

It won't do that, lol.

I'm honestly not sure what to do about the AC2 meta in Solaris. I mean, you can ban the ANH-2A from Solaris, but there's still the problem that AC2 is still the best option for most RFL, JM6, DWF, etc. And I'm not sure that AC2s need a nerf in the grand scheme of the game. It's only really problematic in Solaris. I haven't put much thought into it.

[Marmon Rzohr]

Navid A1, on 18 July 2018 - 06:52 AM, said:

Agreed with the general approach presented in the vid.

I'd argue that balancing clan lasers can be a combination of changes to all aspects (damage, heat, duration) instead of just 1 aspect. By choosing just one aspect you'll have to push into impractical extremes to meet your goal sometimes.

As an example, I think a 6.5 (-7%) damage C-ERML with 1.37 (+10%) duration and 5.8 (-7%) heat would be a change which preserves the key characteristics of the weapon while moving towards your goal of less concentrated damage.

I see it this way as well. Nerfs focused on only one aspect of the weapons have a tendency to prove either ineffectual or make it very one dimensional.

There are other ways for Clan tech to demonstrate character other than just raw damage. Clans could have more DPS for example. The issue is that MWO's general mid-range meta means that stats like DPS are quite a bit less valueable than raw damage. This means that while the two factions have different character, one has the far more desirable character. Hence the difference in character needs to be a bit smaller (or demonstrated in a less polarizing way).

For instance, while you do mention the duration nodes in the Skill Tree, the CERML's duration has been nerfed since the Skill Tree so that now it's duration is only 0.025 sec shorter than it was before the Skill Tree (1.125 vs 1.15). While a further duration nerf might be necessary so that the duration after ST bonues goes up to say 1.2 or 1.25, I like the idea of a damage nerf a bit more because then the weapon becomes a bit too unwieldy to be used except in vomit builds, though that might be just fine, not every weapon needs to fit every role. Clan mechs that need less duration for cqc can just migrate to CERSLs or MPLs etc.


All of this being said I don't think you've missed this point or a suggesting an extreme view. The community proposed change to Clan laser alpha damage as well as buffed other stats would be very likely to hit the mark very well.

+1 for a good video and nice logical breakdown. I support your message.

Tarogato, on 18 July 2018 - 11:30 AM, said:

It won't do that, lol.

I'm honestly not sure what to do about the AC2 meta in Solaris. I mean, you can ban the ANH-2A from Solaris, but there's still the problem that AC2 is still the best option for most RFL, JM6, DWF, etc. And I'm not sure that AC2s need a nerf in the grand scheme of the game. It's only really problematic in Solaris. I haven't put much thought into it.

Mobility buffs won't hurt certainly, but I think a good direction to explore would be altering the design of the game mode/maps. Instead of nerfing AC2s the game mode it might be worth exploring a feature meant to force your opponent out of a fully static camping/hiding position, like a cap point or a battle royale circle or something like that. This might also deal with weaponless mechs running away to force draws against legged opponents, as well as giving you a concede option etc.

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 18 July 2018 - 11:53 AM.

[Tarogato]

Marmon Rzohr, on 18 July 2018 - 11:42 AM, said:

it might be worth exploring a feature meant to force your opponent out of a fully static camping/hiding position, like a cap point or a battle royale circle or something like that. This might also deal with weaponless mechs running away to force draws against legged opponents, as well as giving you a concede option etc.

And that cap point will be in the middle of the maps, and you won't be able to get to them before being AC2 spammed to death. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Navid A1]

something I noticed in the video...

You you mentioned "extremely long duration" as one of the main drawbacks of heavy medium lasers.

A 20% increase of C-ERML duration means 1.5 seconds.... does that mean you want heavy mediums to have longer duration than 1.5?... right now they are 1.45

Edited by Navid A1, 18 July 2018 - 12:07 PM.

[Tarogato]

Marmon Rzohr, on 18 July 2018 - 11:42 AM, said:

For instance, while you do mention the duration nodes in the Skill Tree, the CERML's duration has been nerfed since the Skill Tree so that now it's duration is only 0.025 sec shorter than it was before the Skill Tree (1.125 vs 1.15).

You're right. I thought about fact-checking this, and then... didn't. Thanks for reminding me.

However, it doesn't change much. We still have option to play with or without the duration nodes. Personally I do not often use the duration nodes, because I think the clan durations are plenty fine the way they are without them. But even if you do use the duration nodes (which most people do), you can unequip them, and see what a 10% nerf would feel like. It's an almost imperceptible difference, if you ask me. You might spread damage a little more, but you won't really notice it. It's not enough of a change to alter how you play, or increase your exposure time on peeks (because you can only decel/accel so fast). So I think 15% is a minimum effective nerf.

[Tarogato]

Navid A1, on 18 July 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

something I noticed in the video...

You you mentioned "extremely long duration" as one of the main drawbacks of heavy medium lasers.

A 20% increase of C-ERML duration means 1.5 seconds.... does that mean you want heavy mediums to have longer duration than 1.5?... right now they are 1.45

This kinda points how how bad the cHML is, imo, if nerfing the cERML to a balanced state results in it having the supposedly "characteristic long duration" of the equivalent heavy laser. I'd still like to see cHML able to fire five without penalty, with a longer duration and maybe higher heat and maybe longer cooldown. Otherwise, the cERML (42) still has a higher alpha than the cHML (40).


My perfect world might be something like

cERML--- duration = ---------- 1.45 ---- max alpha = 42.0 (7 per weapon)
cHML ---- duration = at least 1.55 ---- max alpha = 50.0 (10 per weapon)
cHLL ----- duration = ---------- 1.75 ---- max alpha = 36.0 (18 per weapon)

[Nightbird]

IS Mediums lasers = bad I guess, since PTS clan lasers are better aligned with them.

[Stinger554]

Tarogato, on 18 July 2018 - 12:18 PM, said:

This kinda points how how bad the cHML is, imo, if nerfing the cERML to a balanced state results in it having the supposedly "characteristic long duration" of the equivalent heavy laser. I'd still like to see cHML able to fire five without penalty, with a longer duration and maybe higher heat and maybe longer cooldown. Otherwise, the cERML (42) still has a higher alpha than the cHML (40).


My perfect world might be something like

cERML--- duration = ---------- 1.45 ---- max alpha = 42.0 (7 per weapon)
cHML ---- duration = at least 1.55 ---- max alpha = 50.0 (10 per weapon)
cHLL ----- duration = ---------- 1.75 ---- max alpha = 36.0 (18 per weapon)

I'd be willing to try it, but considering there are people who feel current HLL duration is too long I don't know how well that'd go.

where's cERLL on this? 1.55? or were you going to make cERML have a longer duration than cERLL?

Making the laser duration longer may end up making it feel worse to play.

EDIT: For clarification this is without skill tree nodes right?

Edited by Stinger554, 18 July 2018 - 12:33 PM.

[Navid A1]

Tarogato, on 18 July 2018 - 12:18 PM, said:

This kinda points how how bad the cHML is, imo, if nerfing the cERML to a balanced state results in it having the supposedly "characteristic long duration" of the equivalent heavy laser. I'd still like to see cHML able to fire five without penalty, with a longer duration and maybe higher heat and maybe longer cooldown. Otherwise, the cERML (42) still has a higher alpha than the cHML (40).


My perfect world might be something like

cERML--- duration = ---------- 1.45 ---- max alpha = 42.0 (7 per weapon)
cHML ---- duration = at least 1.55 ---- max alpha = 50.0 (10 per weapon)
cHLL ----- duration = ---------- 1.75 ---- max alpha = 36.0 (18 per weapon)

Well, one of the reasons heavy medium lasers are bad is that for their range, both the duration and cooldown time are horrible. Increasing ghost heat penalty offers you something in compensation... but you are paying a large heat cost, which is not a good thing to have with 270m optimum range.
Besides... PGI took the same approach with C-ERLL and C-LPL. Increasing ghost heat limit is only beneficial to mechs that have tonnage to load up on heatsinks.

I'd like to see changes that focus on a main aspect while having other aspects adjusted along with it.

In case C-ERMLs, instead of going all the way with duration nerf (which can create way more face-tanking problems for smaller and lower armored mechs) you can unload some of it on raw damage.

For example, if you only increase C-ERML duration by 15%, you'll reduce damage per tick to 4.86
However, if you limit the duration nerf to 10% and reduce damage to 6.5 (-7%), then you'll reduce damage per tick to 4.72 which is the same result but requires less face time by smaller mechs

Lower damage can also justify a small decrease in heat which is again beneficial to smaller mechs with lower tonnage.

And note that 6.5 damage is still 30% more damage compared to IS counterparts that corresponds to clan damage superiority

Edited by Navid A1, 18 July 2018 - 01:17 PM.

[Reno Blade]

I like most of the video.
Best part is the "analysis" of the best way to nerf laser (focusing on beam duration).

And while I like to see some buffs to the lower weapons, I would still keep most of the damage nerfs on lasers to get the overall damage level lower.
But my preference is actually to increase burn AND have meds+larges combine (max of 3 with larges combined or max of 6 meds only as we have now).
And at some point in time to have Energy Draw replacing this GH workaround.

When you mention the same "Clan weapons should be harder to master" part and list stuff like burst-fire ACs and stream-fire Missiles and more spread... I still wonder why having SRMs with medium spread (and also the UAC20) is called "underpowered" in the same context then...?

Anyways, most of this is what I posted often enough and most people called me crazy for suggesting longer burns.
Seems the ppl just need more famous leaders to be convinced

Feel free to check my last summary here:
https://mwomercs.com...nt-suggestions/

Spoiler

Reno Blade, on 15 July 2018 - 07:21 AM, said:

I will also leave my feedback here for the PTS1 after roughly 30 games.

1. Overall TTK
Opinion:
Feeling with the 4vs4 it's too hard to see a difference. Battles are often over in few good shots when everyone is brawling.
Others might feel that lasers didn't do much dmg...

I feel like the performance of my Clan mechs dependet greatly on the speed of the engagement.
Once the brawling starts, you either had to use smaller lasers, pulse lasers, or go back to SRM builds because of the high heat build.

Fights with only Clan mechs on both sides were more exiting on brawls with Light/Mediums (Nova/Crow/Cougar) and more risky with the hotter builds in heavies/assaults.
Long range 3xERLL snipers felt dangerous enough to not ignore.

IS mechs (especially fast brawlers) were dangerous when pushing.
This was partly because of the brawling lasers (Pulses) were also reduced and most test builds were focused more on ER/Heavy laser boating and less on heat performance.


2. Gauss Shake
Fact:
The Shake will spread your damage a lot if you fire it while your lasers are still burning.
It limits laser+Gauss build to be either:
- Charge Gauss (0.5-1.x sec with skill), Release Gauss, wait (0.5-1s shake), fire lasers (1.x sec burn)
- Fire lasers (1.x sec burn), Charge Gauss (0.5-1.x sec with skill), Release Gauss right after beams are over.

Opinion:
In most cases, depending on the situation (e.g. if you have the time to pre-charge gauss without the target noticing it), you will decide how to fire the Gauss, but using the second option will still deliver the damage of the Gauss right after the Laser beam is done.
The pacing of the shots is helping a twisting target to survive a bit longer by reacting to the initial damage.
-> So skill will be more important for both sides of the gun.
On the other hand, I was thinking of increasing the heat and increasing the charge time of the Gauss (2.0 heat, 1.0s charge) and Heavy Gauss (3.5 heat, 2.0s charge) instead of shake.


3. Lasers in general
Fact:
The current ratio of dmg/heat for Clan Lasers are reducing the performance for large+med laser builds aswell as smaller mech builds with less hardpoints or less tonnage to use for DHS.

Opinion:
The Dmg / Heat is deffinitely an issue for any size of build.
Even light mechs having issues with heat.
Balancing IS light/med vs Clan light/med with laser builds come much closer than SRM builds (because of Clans having 50% ton/slot advantage on SRMs).
The current change will make Clan light/meds need a lot more skill for heatmanagement than what we have now and is moving closer to the IS mech performance (for laser only builds).

I would prefere a more strict GH limit with linking Large+Meds, so that smaller groups of lasers are performing better than boats (e.g. light/med mechs vs assault boats).

I would keep the long cd and beam duration to counter weight/range/dmg advantage.
The heat should be only slightly worse than IS counterpart if the damage is slightly higher and to balance the DHS advantage of the Clan Mechs.

General Laser Beam Duration Concept:
Std or ER Laser should be above 1.0 second duration.
Pulse Lasers should be between 0.5 and 0.8 for both factions.

Where the average difference between the classes and types are:
micro->small->med->large should be 0.2s apart
STD->ER->Heavy should be 0.2 apart
PULSE should be about half duration of STD (and also half dmg, half heat and 1/3 cd)


4.) Ghost Heat limits vs Alpha builds
Fact:
The 3x ERLL and 3x LPL increase provides some new options for long range builds.
Even with the dmg reduction, the the combo dmg is increased from about 24 to about 30, but at the same time reqire another 4 or 6 tons for an ERLL/LPL.
This puts the Clan tonnage and DHS investment closer to the IS builds for similar dmg output.
Opinion:
With the very high heat/dmg values, the Lasers are much closer to the PPCs.
This also affects builds with few lasers as backup or with low tonnage/slot available
I would prefere a better performance with lower number of lasers and a GH penalty using large boats.

So my suggestion would be to keep the 3x ERLarge /LPL limit, but reduce the base heat of all lasers and link Large+Medium laser classes together to reduce the Alpha potential without reducing the overall performance of the lasers dmg/heat.

Suggested GH Limit changes aiming for about 30-40 dmg:
BOTH limits for IS AND CLAN
Large (STD/ER/Pulse) max = 3
Large Heavy max = 2
Medium (all) max = 6
Small (all) max = 10
Micro (all) no max, no sharing

5.) PULSE Laser class
Opinion:
I think the pulse laser class has a hard time to get a role, even with the shorter CD and beam duration.
This is especially noticable on Clan LPL.
I would prefere that all pulse lasers have 1/2 dmg and heat values with 1/3 cd and a average beam duration of 0.5-0.8s to be a dps energy weapon.


6. IS vs Clan laser balancing
Opinion:
Imho, I think the IS lasers could need a little duration nerf in gernal as it is currently too easy to deliver laser damage for both sides.
No Std/ER Laser should be below 1.0 second duration (outherwise the pulses are not standing out enough vs STD/ER).

Aiming for a 1.0 DPS (incl. duration) per ton of the std medium laser would make the starting point
suggested values:
ML = 5dmg, 3.33heat, 3.8s cd, 1.2s duration = 1.0 dps and 1.5dph and 1.0dps/ton
ERML = 5dmg, 4.5heat, 4s cd, 1.4s duration = 0.9259 dps and 1.11dph and 0.9259dps/ton
CERML = 6dmg, 5.0heat, 4.6s cd, 1.6s duration = 0.9677dps and 1.20
dph and 0.9677dps/ton
CHML = 10dmg, 8.0heat, 6.0s cd, 1.8s duration = 1.28 dps and 1.25dph and 1.28dps/ton
MPL = 2.8dmg, 1.6heat, 1.0s cd, 0.6s duration = 1.75 dps and 1.75dph and 0.875dps/ton
CMPL = 3.0dmg, 1.7heat, 1.1s cd, 0.7s duration = 1.67 dps and 1.76dph and 0.833dps/ton
This would mean that CERML being better at dps and dph than IS ERML, but less efficient than the IS STD ML.
The HML would be better than CERML in dmg/dps/dph, but trade it off with long cd, beam and lower range, but would require facetime less often (but longer).
The Pulse lasers can deliver more dps and dph with a trade-off being tonnage and range and the dps behavior requiring facetime more often.


My overall balancing suggestion with many weapon value changes for both sides can be found here:
https://docs.google....#gid=1170158779

[SFC174]

I generally support most of your balance suggestions Taro, going back to the original document.

That said, it's hard to get behind even bigger increases to clan laser duration. While it might make sense on paper, at some point certain mechanics just become no fun to play. I think that getting past 1.5 sec durations is just too much. I'd rather see some mobility buffs to allow skilled players to better roll damage.

Other than that, thanks for putting this together.

[IronEleven]

Nightbird, on 18 July 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

IS Mediums lasers = bad I guess, since PTS clan lasers are better aligned with them.

PTS clan lasers have none of the advantages, and all of the drawbacks clan lasers have over IS ER lasers. IS lasers are more heat efficient and faster, and having a shorter beam duration. Taragato is suggesting emphasizing clan lasers' drawbacks more instead of lowering their alpha.