19 replies to this topic

[Reno Blade]

I think that most of the power-creep with laser vomit builds (even including Gauss-Laser-Vomit) comes from the GH loop-hole where you can mix Large and Medium laser classes together.

So my suggestion - and question to the other players, if they agree - put Large and Medium Class Lasers into the same GH group, similar to the shared groups of Mediums and Small Lasers.

With shared GH, the "nerfs" do not need to be too hard and we might agree easier with PGI and Players together.
This would keep smaller mechs with less alpha to be more viable while reducing the alpha power by spreading the shots to prevent GH penalties.

As an alternative, we could have Energy Draw rework, but that's currently unlikely and requires more work than the "quick GH change", so I will not go into more detail for an ED suggested version.


Details of the suggestion
GH limits aiming for about 35-40 dmg:
BOTH limits for IS AND CLAN
Large + Medium Laser in same GH group
Small + Medium Laser in same GH group (unchanged)
Large (STD/ER/Pulse) max = 3
Large Heavy max = 2
Medium (STD/ER/Pulse) max = 6
Medium (Heavy) max = 5
Small (all) max = 10
Micro (all) no max, no sharing!

While it is not as consistent as Energy Draw would be with the mixing of multiple weapons, it would achieve the "goal" of reducing the vomit alpha power without reducing the weapon stats (or reduce the amount of nerfs required)

See here for the Live-PTS-comparison including my suggested energy changes (for poll #7):
https://mwomercs.com...and-improvments

Let me know what you think.

[Reno Blade]

Need more votes.

[justcallme A S H]

Reno... Plz stop.

[Ensaine]

Agreed, just stop this... poll isn't doing so well either ....

[Reno Blade]

justcallme A S H, on 30 July 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

Reno... Plz stop.

Ensaine, on 31 July 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Agreed, just stop this... poll isn't doing so well either ....

Do you expect me to understand what you mean with your half-liner? I'm really struggling with different possible interpretations...

Do you want me to give up, because PGI will never listen to you/us?
Or do you want to say that nobody cares about PTS anyway and I should not waste my energy in good will?
Or maybe you try to insult me somehow and I don't understand it...
But probably you wanted to say my "suggestions" or the GH change would be worse than what Chris/Paul did on PTS1/1.1 ... then you could just say so and vote.

Why would someone stop a poll if the "results" from few people are showing "negative" choices? This is a poll with multiple possible options for every kind of player type and is not biased in my opinion. If you think otherwise, I can add another option, you would just need to say so.


Or you just want to show me that the community is only able to reply in such a way as you did and PGI will have the same problem understanding 99% of the replies, because they are not in a format that is usable as an easy answer (e.g. in a poll).

[Y E O N N E]

Well, at least the correct option is leading the poll.

[Reno Blade]

The question remains if PGI will consider "keep everything as is" as a valid option...
or if they just discard anything in that direction and then look at the remaining voices.

At least it would explain the "we listened to the feedback" that people always complain about is not matching with the actual voiced QQs.

I find it hypocritic if people say that players leave because of "too much changes like this"... while most people complain about lack of content and lack of changes in general.
Heck, even the community created suggestion (Taro's) has nerfs and buffs, but it seems all the toxic negative comments will even push all the effort to the backyard.

I think that the outcry that removed InfoTech and EnergyDraw was the biggest mistake of the community.
But now, we got simple changes and the community is already giving up with QQs instead of good feedback on the second PTS session... shameful.
Only few people actually bother with structured feedback or suggestions and it's a big slap in the face to get replies like here from people who don't care...

[Y E O N N E]

No, it's really that nobody really wants to play your version or PGI's PTS version of the game. The community gave them an instruction manual and PGI is tossing it out or gaslighting us with it. That's what's shameful.

[Jackal Noble]

Hey Reno, I think linking large and medium lasers is actually a decent idea. Thanks for taking the time to throw this together.

Granted, we get our frigging damage back.

Edited by Jackal Noble, 31 July 2018 - 10:55 PM.

[IronEleven]

Let's just take a look at all those mixed laser builds that putting Meds/Smalls/Micros in the same GH group already gave us.
...
...
Anyone else hear crickets?

[Battlemaster56]

Yea I say no, it stupid enough that gh have linkage (micros, smalls, and mediums) plus it removes what little weapon combos and variety that is left. And the problem is not the combo but the obivious outliers that needs to be addressed, and not these halfassed hail maries we got right now.

[denAirwalkerrr]

[MechaBattler]

I think they should have kept tweaking the first iteration of changes. Except for small laser changes.

But they should buff C-ER Medium with less heat. This would make it better for lights and mediums. With the low damage keeping it from being over used on the high end of the weight spectrum.

Eh, just my two cents.

[justcallme A S H]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 July 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Well, at least the correct option is leading the poll.

Thankfully.

Reno your idea is quite simply bad, lacking the biggest picture understanding, one dimensional against lasers etc. Same as a lot of your posts.

Such suggestions will never go anywhere mate. You need to get on the level.

[Khobai]

justcallme A S H, on 01 August 2018 - 03:18 PM, said:

Such suggestions will never go anywhere mate

and yet PPC/Gauss got linked for ghost heat lmao.

I definitely would not put it past PGI to link medium and large lasers too.

It is very much a PGI solution.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 02 August 2018 - 12:39 AM, said:

and yet PPC/Gauss got linked for ghost heat lmao.

I definitely would not put it past PGI to link medium and large lasers too.

It is very much a PGI solution.

It's also very much a you solution.

[Khobai]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 August 2018 - 06:16 AM, said:

It's also very much a you solution.

Right... thats why I said they shouldnt do it. And why I suggested they lower damage on clan lasers and raise agility instead.

Linking med/lrg lasers for ghost heat is way too crude and doesnt solve the problem of loopholes in the ghost heat system.

I have always liked the concept behind energy draw though. Just not PGI's implementation. Although I wish PGI hadnt given up on that so easily.

[Reno Blade]

justcallme A S H, on 01 August 2018 - 03:18 PM, said:

Thankfully.

Reno your idea is quite simply bad, lacking the biggest picture understanding, one dimensional against lasers etc. Same as a lot of your posts.

Such suggestions will never go anywhere mate. You need to get on the level.

What exactly do you mean with biggest picture, and one dimensional ?

I refined my overall re-balancing concept over the past years that takes every weapon into consideration not only lasers.
Sure I am not the community and I am not PGI, but I've seen worse suggestions (being it too strong or just too onesided) from the community.

And most of my changes include suggestions that are logical steps considering many negative comments.
E.g. this linking would keep the power of the weapons intact, but reduce the alpha potential.
you could even BUFF weapons, as many demand.

Using split groups such as 3x large + 3x large is already normal now with the some mechs (e.g. BMaster or the PTS SuperNova) using 6x large.
it would just makes it stronger to fire 3x large + 6x meds in separate group than to fire everything together (because of GH penalty).

I would prefere Energy Draw instead of this GH linking stuff.
Using the last Energy Draw PTS as base and then have the penalty heat spread over 5-10 seconds to reduce the spiky behavior would be tons better than the current GH.

but with the current situation the game is stale and balance is pretty boring.
I want change and the easiest change comes from simple balancing that can be done without much effort rather than waiting another year with the same random deathball games.
- granted I only pug now so the overal game experience compared to FP or coordinated GP depends on all the other 23 random puggies.

[Khobai]

Reno Blade, on 02 August 2018 - 11:05 AM, said:

I would prefere Energy Draw instead of this GH linking stuff.

then maybe you should suggest that instead of GH linking

energy draw makes a whole lot more sense since it actually shuts down all the loopholes present with ghost heat

whereas linking weapons in the same ghost heat group just punishes certain combinations and forces everyone into using the next best combination that circumvents ghost heat.

I would love to see energy draw 3.0

Unfortunately there are a lot of players that love their big alphas and are vehemently opposed to energy draw because it would shut down that whole playstyle. But now that it looks like PGI wants to shut that down anyway, so maybe they can revisit energy draw.

Edited by Khobai, 02 August 2018 - 04:36 PM.

[Daurock]

Khobai, on 02 August 2018 - 04:31 PM, said:

then maybe you should suggest that instead of GH linking

energy draw makes a whole lot more sense since it actually shuts down all the loopholes present with ghost heat

whereas linking weapons in the same ghost heat group just punishes certain combinations and forces everyone into using the next best combination that circumvents ghost heat.

I would love to see energy draw 3.0

Unfortunately there are a lot of players that love their big alphas and are vehemently opposed to energy draw because it would shut down that whole playstyle. But now that it looks like PGI wants to shut that down anyway, so maybe they can revisit energy draw.

You could in theory make the GH buckets broad, but simple to understand, and still create the "removing loophole" effect.

For example, ALL lasers in one bucket, ALL PPFLD / AC weapons in a second, and ALL Missiles in a third.

The downside is that it would require a bit of re-adjustment of the actual GH limits. (Likely bringing up the ghost heat limits of most lasers to 35-40 or so, or adding some GH to some PPFLD pairs, like the HGR, as a couple of possible examples) The plus side is that it would encourage builds that dip into multiple TYPES of weapon system, not just multiple weapons of the same type, that just happen to not share ghost heat. (Like Large and medium class lasers, or PPCs and gauss, or SRM 4/6s and SRM2s) Additionally, it should be easier to understand, and be somewhat easier to balance, due to similar weapons sharing similar GH pool restrictions.

Edited by Daurock, 03 August 2018 - 11:18 AM.