605 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 08:53 PM, said:

These changes are TERRIBLE. Why are you nerfing Artemis and NARC? That makes no sense.

Artemis only buffs direct LRMs which arnt the problem AT ALL. Its indirect LRMs which are the problem.

In case you haven`t noticed:
Artemis decreases missile lock time for all lock-on weapons: LRMs, ATMs and SSRMs

[Khobai]

Kmieciu, on 07 August 2018 - 10:58 PM, said:

In case you haven`t noticed:
Artemis decreases missile lock time for all lock-on weapons: LRMs, ATMs and SSRMs

obviously. I was talking about LRMs specifically. those other weapons are irrelevant in an LRM discussion.

there is no reason to nerf artemis as far as LRMs are concerned. because direct LRMs arnt the problem, indirect LRMs are.

nerfing direct LRMs is completely illogical when LRMs are already inferior to virtually every other direct weapon. the only thing LRMs can do that those weapons cant do better is indirect fire, and thats what makes LRMs a problem.

youre just making LRMs even worse at something theyre already bad at while not making them worse at the thing that actually makes them a problem. Why do you feel the need to do that?

Edited by Khobai, 07 August 2018 - 11:08 PM.

[prtN_spz]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

The fact that you 'delete' someone using that build (even though not sustainable) is the problem. This is what we're trying to address. If you listen/read about the podcast, we are looking at ways to address this without using the large numbers seen on PTS. If you read the post I made initially here, we know we're not going to pull the massive Alphas down in any significant manner with the current implementation of duration/damage... but there's a starting point where we can do a minimal adjustment to start closing the gap and we will be looking elsewhere to find a better solution that doesn't penalize on global scale and such high deltas.

This is not a problem of weapon system or loadout this or that mech is using. 80% of the time players are getting *DELETED/REDACTED* by laser vomit because they simply stop moving and keep staring at the target for a duration of ~10 seconds w/o making a move or twist torso. Quad LBX mechs *DELETING* stationary mechs easily, does that need nerf? UAC boats, Heavy Gauss/Las Vomit, SRMs(if registered), AC40... ANYTHING WILL DELETE mechs that pretending they are a turret.

LRMs. You buffed the velocity, Fine. You looking for increasing cooldown on Narc, why?. If you do, than bring ECM to the point we had it 2 years ago, make single AMS worth it without making me run triple/quadriple ams mechs which are mostly have firepower of a potato cause weapons systems like LPLs/SPLs etc are nerfed due to one single mech being able to boat lots of them. There is literally no counter for LRMs on maps like polar, alpines specificaly unless you get lucky with teammates having DOZENS of ECM/AMS and staying together most of the time, if none of that is on your team and you are in the brawler/midrange, have fun... Now imagine if you have a light mech narcing constantly the enemy team that has 0 ams or ecm... Again, if you do that, make AMS/ECM WORTH IT.

The DATA you guys are refering to DOES NOT SHOWING A TRUE PICTURE of what exactly happening in the game. Go around the streams on twitch, play the game more often yourself, you will see the true image of the game balance state right now.

No one wants to get salty, but recent changes and direction you guys took are causing that inevitably for the majority of players in MWO. So many people tried to help you guys with making the game fun, but most of them wasted their time cause simply most of the suggestions got ignored multiple times.

You guys are seeing the game from the depth of it most of the time, but you have to come out on the surface much more often where we are EXPERIENCING the game AS A PLAYERS.

Im B3autifuL AKA prtNspz AKA Proton.
Thank you.

<3 Chris.

Edited by B3autifuL, 07 August 2018 - 11:16 PM.

[Kurbeks]

Best way to deal with LURM's in solo pug queue is take out of rotation a badly designed Polar map. Thus viability of Lurms are reduced and there will be less lurming.

Problem is when half team takes them and as AMS haven't really been buffed it is just too easy and good weapon if used en masse. That isn't a problem in group queue where you can get your 12 man each bring AMS.

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:

• It has never been the intention of MWO online to have Time to Kill in a state where you can destroy a mech in only a handful of shots.

PIR-1 kills any mech in 2-3 seconds. It's ok for group queue where team actually communicates, but WAY OP for pug queue.

Edited by Kurbeks, 07 August 2018 - 11:26 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

obviously. I was talking about lrms specifically.

there is no reason to nerf artemis as far as lrms are concerned. because direct LRMs arnt the problem, indirect LRMs are.

There is only one lock-on mechanism in MWO. Has been that way since 2012.

Removing the Artemis lock-on buff is the reasonable thing to do, since rewriting the underlying code is out of the question.

SSRMS+Artemis+TAG combo is too cheesy IMHO. Still not effective against 50+ tonners, but it hits the light mechs too hard.

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 August 2018 - 12:25 AM.

[Khobai]

Kmieciu, on 08 August 2018 - 12:20 AM, said:

There is only one lock-on mechanism in MWO. Has been that way since 2012.

Removing the Artemis lock-on buff is the reasonable thing to do, since rewriting the underlying code is out of the question.

there is nothing reasonable about nerfing direct LRMs since direct LRMs are already inferior to most other direct weapons. And certainly other weapons shouldnt suffer just to nerf LRMs.

DIRECT LRMS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. And if anything Artemis should be buffed not nerfed. TAG and NARC should be buffed as well to encourage their use.

its indirect LRMs that need to be nerfed. indirect lrms are what enable parasitic behavior and letting players do damage without sharing armor with their teammates.

Indirect LRMs should be nerfed so theyre only effective if the target is tagged or narced. But tag and narc should also get buffed so theres more incentive to use them.

Edited by Khobai, 08 August 2018 - 12:31 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:

o ECM getting a range boost.

• wants to nerf lurms

• nerfs streaks and atms

[Tzinjo]

Chris Lowrey, on 07 August 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

This along with the removal of the Lock On boosts through Artemis will mean you will need to keep your bead on your target tighter, and longer then what many are used to under the current system.

Sorry if this was said before. I dont want to scim 9 pages. This change does not do what you seem to expect. The idea to bind locks to the mechs own mobility is nice. The problem here is that locks can be held by the arm reticle. Arm movement is incredible fast for 90% of mechs in MWO. Outmanuevering that is impossible as long as you arent directly in the face of the streak mech and can move out of the FoV. If you would change the lock on to torso aim only, the change would be great.

Edited by Tzinjo, 08 August 2018 - 12:28 AM.

[Khobai]

Tzinjo, on 08 August 2018 - 12:26 AM, said:

Sorry if this was said before. I dont want to scim 9 pages. This change does not do what you seem to expect. The idea to bind locks to the mechs own mobility is nice. The problem here is that locks can be held by the arm reticle. Arm movement is incredible fast for 90% of mechs in MWO. Outmanuevering that is impossible as long as you arent directly in the face of the streak mech and can move out of the FoV. If you would change the lock on to torso aim only, the change would be great.

There is also no reason to make streaks worse at the exactly one thing theyre supposed to do: kill lights.

[Lurm God]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

This is why we are investigating the use AND counters of LRM gameplay. As for competitive builds, we pull telemetry from top tier players and the loadouts they use. This is where Chris is getting the information about what is being used at high end gameplay.

My comments about the community balance project was that it was an uphill balance pass pushing that alpha/laser vomit game wider as well as bringing TTK and DPS to a level that would require adverse quirks in a manner that would cause all kinds of weird stuff in gameplay. I also mentioned that there are numbers in the community project that do work and work in an overall balance approach that we will be implementing as we move forward.

The fact that you 'delete' someone using that build (even though not sustainable) is the problem. This is what we're trying to address. If you listen/read about the podcast, we are looking at ways to address this without using the large numbers seen on PTS. If you read the post I made initially here, we know we're not going to pull the massive Alphas down in any significant manner with the current implementation of duration/damage... but there's a starting point where we can do a minimal adjustment to start closing the gap and we will be looking elsewhere to find a better solution that doesn't penalize on global scale and such high deltas.

That's what we said we're doing in the podcast. Specifically Assault class agility. If there are 'Mechs that will need a bump in agility, they will be investigated and given the quirks they need.

Again, we can buff underperforming weapons as long as those buffs don't widen that gulf between Clan and IS.


As stated in the podcast.. there are more levels to balance other than just the energy issue we are currently focused on. We ARE listening to the community and this is why this is a discussion and not just a post of what's to come.

The pilots most commonly deleted are of a lower calibre. No matter how hard you try I don't think you can balance around a variable skill level. Half the players I see in the game are flat out keeping an assault locked with lrms while standing still. This is likely why your LRM statistics are so misguided.

We are here to help you if you want to use some players (of a high calibre) you trust and share our experience and recommendations with you. I get that a lot of them are salty but there are many who are still not and remain open minded. Someone like my leader in 228 is a good example of such a pilot.

Reading Matt's run down of the podcast makes it sound like you are still not able to utilise much of a targeted approach to groups of weapons. In essence I see no way around the fact that you cannot simply target a 94 alpha. At a certain point do you say we will only tweak before worlds and once worlds client is up and locked, plan a balance remodel that might be radical but at least an easier way to deal with issues? In other games sometimes if the baseline is broken and the meta exploited you wait for important events to clear and radicalise the game and create a new base balance.

People are pissed it seems with the lack of understanding with the people in charge of the game and balance. I myself have felt this way as some of it truly boggles the mind, but if you have a vision stop please treading water, just do it. Don't tease us or renege because its making the team appear confused and pointing at each other from our perspective.

Final part if someone is of an important role for PGI can they stop memeing and antagonising us it is very embarrassing and just looks unprofessional. If you want to redact that please just this paragraph but pull your head in mate we all know who I am talking about.

Edited by Lurm God, 08 August 2018 - 12:51 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Khobai, on 08 August 2018 - 12:21 AM, said:

Indirect LRMs should be nerfed so theyre only effective if the target is tagged or narced. But tag and narc should also get buffed so theres more incentive to use them.

I strongly agree but you should understand that PGI is unwilling to do any coding changes to the lock-on mechanics. The code has been written 6 years ago by people who no longer work for the company.

All they can do at this moment is to adjust the XML values like missile tracking , missile spread and lock on time.


https://mwomercs.com...0089-breakdown/

[Khobai]

Kmieciu, on 08 August 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

I strongly agree but you should understand that PGI is unwilling to do any coding changes to the lock-on mechanics. The code has been written 6 years ago by people who no longer work for the company.

All they can do at this moment is to adjust the XML values like missile tracking , missile spread and lock on time.

Its pretty simple:

Nerf the tracking/spread of LRMs

Buff artemis/NARC so it completely cancels out the above nerf

Now only indirect LRMs without NARC and direct LRMs without artemis suffer the nerf.

You dont have to rewrite any code. You just have to nerf LRMs and buff artemis/narc. It can all be done in the XML.

The only downside to that is artemis becomes even more compulsory, but its already compulsory anyway

Edited by Khobai, 08 August 2018 - 12:54 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Nema Nabojiv, on 08 August 2018 - 12:21 AM, said:

• wants to nerf lurms

• nerfs streaks and atms

Even sadder. They're going to nerf the direct-fire component, when they think that the indirect-fire is the problem.

[Dark Wooki33 IIC]

Good to the see the devs, finally, interacting more with the players. Looks promising.

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 02:34 PM, said:

What are your thoughts on negative quirks to bring specific outliers into line?

Jenner treatment.

Let me explain.
Not long ago you tried to buff the jenner and some other mechs due to moving around armor from certain components into others that needed it more while keeping the max amount of armor the same.(in the jenners case it failed)

By example how you could treat the deathstrike. Move 10 armor from each arm into each leg and 5-8 armor from each side torso into the ct. It would hurt, but not so much that it would take away the fun.
The "mobility" nerf on the night gyr did make it unfun.


And regarding lrms:
Alot got already said, the problem is the boating and the indirect fire that makes for boring games.

I suggest to give lrms the atm trajectory.

Would be an elegant solution. People would contribute more to the team effort, it would also make backup weapons more viable/worth brining (at the moment their is no need to have them at all, in the "best" case you wont see the enemy in the worst they wont help you against lights), allow other players/victims to shoot back and it would still leave the wide open maps as their strenght/forte.

As a sidenote the artemis nerf may not be a good move ...

Edited by Dark Wooki33 IIC, 08 August 2018 - 01:05 AM.

[GweNTLeR]

Regarding LRM nerf: instead of boosting ECM, nerfing Artemis and reducing circle which could potentially kill useage of streaks (ECPECIALLY FOR IS) and ATMs, with high impact on overall gameplay thanks to potential jesus box v2, with minimal actual nerf to inderect LRM problem, a better and easier option is to reduce LRM health.

Edited by GweNTLeR, 08 August 2018 - 01:41 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

GweNTLeR, on 08 August 2018 - 01:09 AM, said:

Regarding LRM nerf: instead of boosting ECM, nerfing Artemis and reducing circle which could potentially kill useage of streaks (ECPECIALLY FOR IS) and ATMs, with high impact on overall gameplay thanks to potential gesus box v2, with minimal actual nerf to inderect LRM problem, a better and easier option is to reduce LRM health.

So basically, make AMS even better in countering, an already ****** weapon system?

Well, in terms of what PGI wants to do, this will probably work. But why though? LRMs are the last thing in this game that needs a nerf.

[Kaeseblock]

Thanks for taking our feedback and actually responding to some of us.

As you stated in the podcast, limiting the efficent Alpha Strike is difficult task, since players will find a way to work around it. Heat limits the sustained DPS a mech can do.

Some thoughts regarding limiting efficent alpha strikes:

Currently there is no system in place limiting alpha strikes directly. Ghost heat works somewhat but only limits certain weapon combinations which leaves loopholes that can be exploited by mechs with the right combination of hardpoints and free tonnage.


My suggestion:
Keep the heat dissipation as it is on the live server right now and use weapon heat to limit the sustained DPS a mech can put out (heat already does that).
Remove ghost heat and unearth the fast refilling energy draw bar for limiting alpha strikes (e.g. it could refill in 1-2 seconds). Shooting a weapon consumes energy. When your energy bar is empty, your mech shuts down (just like it does with excess heat). With overrride shutdown is enabled, you take damage in a similar way to overriding the heat shutdown.

That's a daring step, but has a clear visual indicator (the energy bar) and is a system that is easy to explain to new players and easy for veteran players to get used to (since it's really similar to the existing heat mechanic).


An example: 31 Points of available energy by default. Assuming the energy draw of a weapon equals the damage a weapon can put out (just as an example) this limits the alpha strike to 30 damage, no matter which combination of weapons you use. Weapons that spread damage, e.g. missles, could have a reduced energy draw to account for the damage spread.


This would help with the following point:

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:

• One of the core balance points that has to be under observation in MWO is the spread between 20 to 100 ton 'Mechs and the capabilities that they bring to the table.

Using an energy bar makes it easier to bring the high alpha builds into line without affecting light and medium mechs, that use the same weapon systems, since lighter mechs usually have a lower alpha strike.


The few outperforming mech variants, that have a too good combination of durability (armor, structure, hitboxes), firepower and mobility can be put back into line by variant specific negative quirks. Underperforming mech variants in turn can be buffed to be on par with the other mech variants.

Edited by Kaeseblock, 08 August 2018 - 03:48 AM.

[GweNTLeR]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 01:12 AM, said:

So basically, make AMS even better in countering, an already ****** weapon system?

Well, in terms of what PGI wants to do, this will probably work. But why though? LRMs are the last thing in this game that needs a nerf.

Basically yes, without nerfing other missile systems.
I will say my opinion as a mostly FW player. LRMs do break games on polar or alpine or even boreal. Everyone knows what they will play so full lances of LRM orions and supernovas are pretty common. As a IS player, you dont have much mechs with ECM, so a single AMS is your best option in many cases. Having in mind recent LRM velocity(each missile is less vulnerable to AMS fire due to lower flight time) and heat buffs(which basically leads to bigger amount of missiles in a single volley, reducing relative AMS efficiency) , it is just logical to give some boost to the most common counteroption.
On a clan side there are some mechs that are already powerful AMS platforms. I agree that they dont really need a boost, so to compensate LRM health decrease you will need to...reduce quirks (like nova's AMS ROF), which totally makes sense.
Keep in mind that this is not a direct nerf to LRMS since not everyone use AMS on their mechs, so it is unlikely that overall LRM efficiency will decrease dramatically for a lurms user if he choose his targets wisely.

Edited by GweNTLeR, 08 August 2018 - 01:39 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:

LRMs:
• Another core point we balance against is the choices within the 'Mechlab. We do not want there to be dead weight within the 'Mechlab.
• Prior to the velocity buffs the LRMs where a sub par weapon system at most levels of play. And even with the most recent buffs to the weapon system, they are still a fairly sub-par weapon system over the general lineup.
• With buffs to the baseline equipment, the ease of use and the force multipliers have come under the microscope.
• Coming August patch, we will be hitting the ease of use of the weapon as well as a number of the force multipliers for the weapon. Including:
o Around a 50% tightening of the weapon lock angle.
o Artemis boosts to lock on times and tracking removed. For LRM's it will only tighten the spread on the missile launchers.
o NARC seeing a 100% increase in cooldown.
o ECM getting a range boost.
• Open to further changes post August patch provided those changes are not made with the intent to simply remove the weapon from the overall weapon roster.
• Weapon system changes never off the table as a discussion point, but it is not something that we can definitively state.

Please stop dancing around the problem. Hell, you could even achieve that without intensive changes in the system, but just an XML tweak: make LRMs indirect-fire only useful for stationary targets via incredibly low tracking strength. Have NARC and TAG provide substantial tracking-strength bonuses that makes it a must for Indirect-Fire. No need to nerf artemis, in fact it needs the spread nerf rolled back.

Boom, problem solved, and we get to buff LRMs as a tradeoff because indirect fire is only practical with dedicated spotters using TAG and NARC, but it's still possible to be used for Indirect-Fire against stationary (probably noob) targets.

Preferably 2x Damage but 1.75x CD as well for less spamability. Less PTSD for noobs while still noob-friendly, while more rewarding for higher-tier.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 August 2018 - 01:50 AM.

[MechWarrior414712]

Just dropping in to give my observation about LRM;

Currently this is the ONLY Mechwarrior game where LRM are indirect weaponry. Sure MWLL has indirect LRM weaponry, but that's about the same thing as if I made my own Mechwarrior game and made LRM go in an arc. It's a fan game. Also LRM there need direct visual on the target so you couldn't throw them from behind a hill, unless narc was provided. Narc also made MW4 LRM being able to be fired indirectly.

What i'd propose is;
-Buff LRM damage by quite a bunch, think closed-beta LRM damage (pre-artemis), I think they were 2 damage each, I feel that's too much, maybe 1.5 damage per missile.
-Slow then down by quite a bit, talking about a 30% slowdown to make them behave more like closed-beta LRM in terms of speed, which also makes AMS more effective (but this is also countered by the fact that missiles do more damage, and makes 20's the best launcher, as they should be).
-Very minimal arcing or none at all, should be max half of a mechs height, enough to go over maybe a small rock. I'd suggest a minimal arc as they might look ugly (lol) if they don't
-Lock-On not possible if you do not have direct visual on the enemy mech
-If target is tagged/narced, LRM gains their old arc and are able to lock-on without visual on target

And on top of all this, LRM should not have a minimum range, but they would do half the damage if under 180m, scaling linearly back to their original value.

Horrible ideas, I know but I'd like to see something like this tried out, if only internally @ PGI.

EDIT: And to add up I think you can keep in the lock-on from behind cover as that only would hurt streaks more than LRM/ATM, and would make the missile coding a hassle (I presume all missiles run on the same basis). You don't really have an use for a lock if you can't even hit the target as we no longer have an arc. Still, tag narc would give that arc back.

Edited by I O O percent KongLord, 08 August 2018 - 02:06 AM.