605 replies to this topic

[Korz]

If you want to fix lasers and high alphas. Then use a heat system that is closer to the book. Add in penalties to movement, sight, have ammo cook off. Now going high in heat means something. So sure bring out your alpha and watch yourself cook. Right now I can go to 90% heat in one alpha with no penalties. Then cool down and repeat. This is a heat issue not a to many weapons or to much alpha. This would also increase TTK as people will have to better use heat.

Give lasers areas they are good at example:

Pulse; fast quick damage able to repeat quickly but lower damage then other lasers. So no duration poke shoot damage on point.

ERlasers/ Lasers: Standard damage, burn time these are your base level lasers ER more heat but longer range.

Heavy lasers: longer duration and more heat but more damage.

Example damage for these for medium: pulse 3 damage, med and ermed 5 damage, heavy med 10 damage.

Now once base line is established then you can make clan and IS different. Examples: Longer duration higher damage no change to heat for clan. Or Less damage and heat for IS but lower burn time. Or any possible combination.

Clan are suppose to be better and stronger then IS. Learn this and live with it.

[Ruutah]

I've recently started playing again after a 2 year hiatus. To say the game has changed is a mild understatement. If you want to slow the big alpha/las vomit mechs down. (I'm going to catch no end of crap for this but....) bring the heat levels back to table top levels. IS ERLL produced 12 heat each time it was fired for 8 damage. LL was 8/8 heat/damage. ERLL on my Stalker in game is 8/9 H/D. Heat is the great equalizer. The salty tears are real when I work up to a X12 multiplier and drop it on a Terra Therma vote. "why TF would anyone vote for this map? Keep your finger over the cool shot button." these are all heard/typed on those drops. That's just one example.

On top of bringing heat production back up, have heat cause issues with movement. Lower top speed if you're over 60-75% heat threshold. If it "scaled back" your engine size in relation to heat being produced, it would also in turn, slow your mechs movement/twisting. Even more reason to balance your build and not use EVERY hard point. That big alpha might have deleted someone from the match, but now not only are you heat soaked, you're heat soaked, and your motor isn't happy about it.

My .02

[Gierling]

I just want to thank you guys for coming out and having this discussion.

So I'll offer my perspective as someone who unabashedly likes LRM play and having weapon systems that are more about decisionmaking and acumen then raw reflexes.

It's a fairly complex issue with a lot of facets, I personally wouldn't mind having multiple fire modes but I do know that can be problematic. Is there anyway you could just have LRM's behave like MRM's when fired without a lock and maintain the current arc when fired with a lock? They'd still be inferior to MRM's when fired without a lock, but the versatility wouldn't pigeonhole them into only being fire support.

Furthermore, I'm concerned about the NARC, TAG and Artemis changes because the 2nd order effects of that makes those systems even less rewarding (and thus less likely to be equipped) which in turn makes LRM's less useful across the board, rinse repeat.

Frankly you should consider giving NARC and TAG functionality outside of pure missile play so that more people would be inclined in bringing them and you could factor that into any LRM dcisions you make.

My recommendation would be to make it so that NARC and TAG provide a critical hit % bonus for ANY weapon system fired against the marked target (you may need to make it not apply to the Tagging mech). This gives light and support mechs an exciting and interesting new role as buff-givers to their whole team. It also allows you to be reasonably confident that there will be TAG and Narc around and balance LRMS to that end.

So my total idea as someone who deeply enjoys LRM play and would like to see it not just discarded wholesale would be the following:

- Buff locked LRM direct fire to the point that it is not insane and suicidal
- Make non-lock LRM Fire behave like MRMs
- Remove the ability to use teammates targets for indirect fire unless Tagged, Narced, UAV OR locked by a friendly with Command console installed.
- Buff TAG, NARC, and even Command Console so they provide some across the board benefits to every weapon system (so they can be more present) in addition to allowing indirect fire and their current bonuses.

Do you guys think some/all of those provide any interesting options?

I like LRM's, I don't play them exclusively but I enjoy them often and I genuinely don't want to see the game lose the nuance they provide, likewise I don't want them to start warping the experience in mass and I hope to find some way where we can keep their identity as something that rewards decisionmaking and especially rewards teamwork.

Thank you.

[MisterSomaru]

Metachanic, on 07 August 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

Personally, I think a negative quirk or two, carefully applied, would be a net positive for balance. Negative laser cooldown or added heat on the Deathstrike, pushing it further into its big-alpha role and making it more vulnerable to short-range, high-DPS builds. Negative energy range or added heat on the Hellbringer Prime's left torso, so it's no longer the near-universal choice for high-performance Hellbringers. Negative machine gun rate of fire on the Piranha 1, so there's a reason to even consider other variants and its glut of hardpoints have at least some drawback. Those aren't necessarily perfect options, but they are options I'd be interested in testing.

Historic opposition to negative quirks, I think, was mainly focused on the fact that the community didn't think the Timber Wolf was unbalancing enough to require negative quirks in a world with gauss and PPCs sharing a ghost heat link. Mechs that are generally viewed as overperformers will probably get a more reasonable response, even in a nerf-weary community.

Continuing in that vein, I would be keen to see some older mechs get another look at their quirks and hardpoints. Loyalty mechs are welcome additions to various chassis' available options, but they're infrequent, and a hardpoint here or there, the addition of jump jets, or changing a single stat could rescue a vast number of mechs and variants from near-irrelevance.

Hm, a Spider with actual hardpoints would be nice.
In all seriousness, there are some mechs that are *very* hardpoint starved. a revision on some of the mechs with so few hardpoints, and especially ones without the tonnage to feasibly shove a big boomstick into should see a revision.
And it seems agility buffs have been under universal concensus wherever I ask, so I imagine few people would truly complain. we're not asking for CoD, Armored Core, or Hawken style twitch gameplay (although something close might really assist with lights) but we'd like our mechs to move better. This also appeals to a greater audience of players too.
Now certain mechs can get away without better accel decel like the annhilator, which is a moving, walking brick shithouse of a turret, and I'd be fine with it staying that way, but stuff like the atlas should be like a street fighter brawler, able to twist things off and blast them.

[Drasari]

The high heat cap is a huge issue here. If that was but to 30 with no or minimal way to increase it, the Alpha problem goes away.

Then after that is around for a while we do more precise changes to mechs and weps.


Duncan

[Gierling]

Korz, on 07 August 2018 - 05:50 PM, said:

Clan are suppose to be better and stronger then IS. Learn this and live with it.

We need to have it so that an IS Mech can contribute just as much as a Clan mech. Otherwise we invalidate half the content in the game. They need to have seperate identities and still be relatively even in terms of overall effectiveness.

[Paul Inouye]

Gierling, on 07 August 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

I just want to thank you guys for coming out and having this discussion. So I'll offer my perspective as someone who unabashedly likes LRM play and having weapon systems that are more about decisionmaking and acumen then raw reflexes. It's a fairly complex issue with a lot of facets, I personally wouldn't mind having multiple fire modes but I do know that can be problematic. Is there anyway you could just have LRM's behave like MRM's when fired without a lock and maintain the current arc when fired with a lock? They'd still be inferior to MRM's when fired without a lock, but the versatility wouldn't pigeonhole them into only being fire support. Furthermore, I'm concerned about the NARC, TAG and Artemis changes because the 2nd order effects of that makes those systems even less rewarding (and thus less likely to be equipped) which in turn makes LRM's less useful across the board, rinse repeat. Frankly you should consider giving NARC and TAG functionality outside of pure missile play so that more people would be inclined in bringing them and you could factor that into any LRM dcisions you make. My recommendation would be to make it so that NARC and TAG provide a critical hit % bonus for ANY weapon system fired against the marked target (you may need to make it not apply to the Tagging mech). This gives light and support mechs an exciting and interesting new role as buff-givers to their whole team. It also allows you to be reasonably confident that there will be TAG and Narc around and balance LRMS to that end. So my total idea as someone who deeply enjoys LRM play and would like to see it not just discarded wholesale would be the following: - Buff locked LRM direct fire to the point that it is not insane and suicidal - Make non-lock LRM Fire behave like MRMs - Remove the ability to use teammates targets for indirect fire unless Tagged, Narced, UAV OR locked by a friendly with Command console installed. - Buff TAG, NARC, and even Command Console so they provide some across the board benefits to every weapon system (so they can be more present) in addition to allowing indirect fire and their current bonuses. Do you guys think some/all of those provide any interesting options? I like LRM's, I don't play them exclusively but I enjoy them often and I genuinely don't want to see the game lose the nuance they provide, likewise I don't want them to start warping the experience in mass and I hope to find some way where we can keep their identity as something that rewards decisionmaking and especially rewards teamwork. Thank you.

Wow... wanna borrow my flameproof suit?

We are looking at the LRM issue from 2 fronts. 1) Bring it into a position of viability. 2) Stop letting it be something where you sit back lobbing the entire match. There should be proper give and take with any weapon system and LRMs are going through their adjustment period.

[Gierling]

MrSomaru, on 07 August 2018 - 05:55 PM, said:

Hm, a Spider with actual hardpoints would be nice.
In all seriousness, there are some mechs that are *very* hardpoint starved. a revision on some of the mechs with so few hardpoints, and especially ones without the tonnage to feasibly shove a big boomstick into should see a revision.
And it seems agility buffs have been under universal concensus wherever I ask, so I imagine few people would truly complain. we're not asking for CoD, Armored Core, or Hawken style twitch gameplay (although something close might really assist with lights) but we'd like our mechs to move better. This also appeals to a greater audience of players too.
Now certain mechs can get away without better accel decel like the annhilator, which is a moving, walking brick shithouse of a turret, and I'd be fine with it staying that way, but stuff like the atlas should be like a street fighter brawler, able to twist things off and blast them.

I think a lot of people are just disappointed that Engine Desync never saw any real iteration after the fact.

We very realistically could identify which mechs need more agility (and what kind, some could use twist, others could use accel etc, theres actually a lot of levers that can be tinkered with).

I wonder if we could come up with a Community Agility values project where we try and come up with reasonable values that are appropriate to each mech and add to their identity.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Jman5, on 07 August 2018 - 05:36 PM, said:

The TL;DR is where all the links are! The rest is just my justification.

To be clear what I'm suggesting is pretty open ended based on what you guys think is best. You can bring down Heat Capacity or Heat Dissipation, or both once you've equiped X amount of heatsinks. (and in a variety of different ways. see links) This way small mechs aren't effected at all, but the larger assault and heavy mechs running hot builds are the ones who effectively need to reduce the size of their alphastrike.

To be honest, there already are diminishing returns on energy boat assaults, there is a reason they have faultered in the comp scene in usage, not enough DPS despite the punch. That said, not sure why the focus is still on 94 point alphas and why these are global weapon nerfs when 2-3 mechs are the only real problem. No one is complaining about the Whale and its alphas.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 August 2018 - 06:06 PM.

[Jman5]

I just wanted to add a few thoughts on some things mentioned in the podcast.

1. Why people hate LRMs

Since LRMs have a special place in my heart, I've thought a little bit about this. One thing I've noticed when watching people on Twitch is that there is only specific moments where players start flipping tables and ranting about how much they hate LRMs. It's when they find themselves in a position where they are getting absolutely rained on and they feel like there is nothing they can do but just take it until they die.

I think it's a feeling that the player has lost agency that leads to frustration about the weapon system. You see this most pointedly when a player is NARC'd.

So IMO, the key to getting people to soften up to LRMs is to somehow address that situation where the player is just getting rained on for like 20 seconds straight.

I don't know if I have the answer, but I just wanted to steer the conversation about LRMs in the direction that I see as the root of the hate.

Perhaps some sort of lock resistance builds up over time so they can get hammered a little, but there is a limit. Or maybe require the LRM-Boat to re-acquire locks periodically giving the player a little breathing room. Just food for thought.

2. Concern over Agility Buffs

There was some talk in the podcast of buffing agility of big mechs like the Atlas. You mentioned you want the Atlas to at least be able to get some damage on target. My big concern about this is that there is a huuuuuuge gulf in agility within the Light weight class. Everyone focuses on the locust or piranha, but there are 35 tonners that are positively sluggish compared to them.

A while back I made a little spreadsheet for myself because I just wanted to get a handle on how all the smaller mechs stack up with one another agility-wise. It's a rough general guide. I know some mechs have variants that are faster/slower. But if you want to see it, click here.

You can see the huge difference in turnrate between the light mechs. My concern is if you buff Assaults and Heavies agility so they can keep up with Commandos what is that going to do for the Firestarter, or Cougar?

Edited by Jman5, 07 August 2018 - 07:05 PM.

[Ridingwolf1]

Think of it this way Paul. If you have 2 surgeons, 1 is the best and the second is bad, you don't make the scalpels worse or better. You take the bad surgeon out and give him the job he has the skills for.

The same concept applied here. Making weapons better or worse will never account for the pilot skill level because of the number of players getting into higher tiers by attrition.

But go with weapon changes. It won't ever address the issues at hand, specifically high damage alphas and LRMs, but it does provide busy work.

[Dracol]

Thank you for the pod cast and follow up discussion.

In regards to engine desync and mobility, bringing mechs up to pre-dysnc levels is not happening because the investment into the mobility does not out way the new benifits of the defense tree at the assault and heavy weights. Instead of a blanket buff across the board to agility stats, I suggest looking at increasing the benifits from the mobility skill tree. Give heavy mechs some buffs, assaults even more, to the % each node provides.

Make it a trade off between extra armor and torso twisting. If a dead side heavy build could actually work, a dead arm and torso is more armor/structure then what the defense tree can provide. But, it needs fast torso twist speeds to do it.

Bonus, currently agile heavies and assaults would see the largest boost from this as well, helping mechs like the Exe.

Edited by Dracol, 07 August 2018 - 06:10 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

Heading out for today.. back tomorrow. Will continue the discussion then. Thanks for the discussion so far.

Edit:

Summary of key notices:

1) Agility buffs incoming
2) Any type of Clan laser changes are going to be small in scope and will also result in any type of heavy hit to lights/meds getting quirks to counter the change.
3) LRMs are going to be investigated further beyond the August changes Chris mentioned.

Edited by Paul Inouye, 07 August 2018 - 06:12 PM.

[Gierling]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 06:01 PM, said:

Wow... wanna borrow my flameproof suit?

We are looking at the LRM issue from 2 fronts. 1) Bring it into a position of viability. 2) Stop letting it be something where you sit back lobbing the entire match. There should be proper give and take with any weapon system and LRMs are going through their adjustment period.

Someone needs to be willing to express the unpopular opinion so this doesn't degenerate into a small loud subset of the community imposing their will on people that care just as much about the game but don't enjoy being shouted down and insulted.

Even still, I think the ideas I offered are more then fair and while still keeping the indirect fire role raise the teamwork commitment required to the level that people will find it less objectionable. On top of that I offered a buff that affects their playstyles as well (the TAG Narc increasing crit chance against marked targets for direct fire weapons).

I think that anyone asking for LRM's to be made unviable can't be taken seriously, but I'm more then willing to engage with the people who are at least willing to give the issue a fair look.

[Chris Lowrey]

Gierling, on 07 August 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

I think a lot of people are just disappointed that Engine Desync never saw any real iteration after the fact.

We very realistically could identify which mechs need more agility (and what kind, some could use twist, others could use accel etc, theres actually a lot of levers that can be tinkered with).

I wonder if we could come up with a Community Agility values project where we try and come up with reasonable values that are appropriate to each mech and add to their identity.

While I won't get into the reasons as to why its taken until now to look into it, it is something that we will be looking into with the next PTS. So as Paul has said in other posts, post what you feel needs it the most and we'll look into it for testing.

[XX Sulla XX]

Since it is only a tiny number of clan mechs and builds that are a problem why not concentrate on those instead of making changes that effect all of the clan mechs that are not over performing?

[Navid A1]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 05:14 PM, said:

The reason I ask is because everyone can view it here.. it's easy to reference instead of trying to skip through a video to find anything... and it's focused in this area which is where we're monitoring.

Chris Lowrey, on 07 August 2018 - 05:18 PM, said:

I'll need to see exactly what you are pointing to in regards to the video in order to respond so I'll keep my eye out for it. The current investigation coming in the next PTS will cover this area, so feel free to pass along the relevant info and we will look it over and see what we can implement for testing.

We'll make a presentable version quickly... along with a write up

[Paul Inouye]

XX Sulla XX, on 07 August 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

Since it is only a tiny number of clan mechs and builds that are a problem why not concentrate on those instead of making changes that effect all of the clan mechs that are not over performing?

denAirwalkerrr asked this earlier. Which brought up my question about thoughts on negative quirks.

[General Solo]

Please don't nerf narc into uselessness
somethings gotta keep those direct fire boys honest
I'm OK with the cool down increase.

[Chris Lowrey]

OZHomerOZ, on 07 August 2018 - 06:16 PM, said:

Please don't nerf narc into uselessness
somethings gotta keep those direct fire boys honest
I'm OK with the cool down increase.

Same logic for LRM buffs applies to NARC as well. Intent is to reduce the amount of dead weight in the 'Mechlab, but the recent buffs to baseline LRM's have defiantly put their current capabilities under the microscope. Especially their ability to NARC a full team in an incredibly short amount of time without their ability to respond.

That's going to be it for me for the day as well, I'll pick this up tomorrow.