605 replies to this topic

[Dark Wooki33 IIC]

I O O percent KongLord, on 08 August 2018 - 01:42 AM, said:

-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.

Nice ideas.

Edited by Dark Wooki33 IIC, 08 August 2018 - 01:52 AM.

[MiZia]

Just my 2 cents, if u want to change LRMs in order to be more a direct fire Weapon u have also to change how Target lock works cause u cant pop out of cover and shoot like u would do with ballistic/laser/srms and get back in. So the idea of sharing armor lurmboat is a bit off current state cause u cant do it w/o lock. If u want em there u got to make Target lock almost instant...

[Guile Votoms]

[Redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 08 August 2018 - 10:15 AM.
STAFF ABUSE/INSULT

[Yushi]

Cruor vult, on 05 August 2018 - 03:11 AM, said:

1. Introduction skilltree > outflow of players
2.Adding QP maps and modes in the FP> outflow of players
3.Nerf armament, imbalance in armor / weapons> outflow of players
4.Polovlennye declared events> outflow of players
5. Desinck engines rated> outflow of players
and you will sell killing the desire to play an auxiliary weapon as compared to the basic weapon (nowskill weapon). The easiest solution to these problems is:

There is a difficult decision to change the situation, which is unlikely to go to the PGI, the rollback of all changes over the past 1.5 years, but with access to the already introduced weapons, equipment and interface changes.
I.e :
1. Remove Quickcard and modes from FP
2. Set the threshold of entry into the invasion, say - 3 tier , in the scout - 100 games
3. And MAIN, do not change the rules in the course of actions or events.
4. Optionally, you can add the various changes already proposed before me to attract players for entry, to be in units.
If it seems to you that the balance at that time was not ideal, enter changes to the drop deck, the Clan VS IS - 10x12 with the same tonality,IS VS IS -12x12 with the same tone, Clan VS Clan -10x10 with the same tone.

[redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 08 August 2018 - 10:52 AM.
nonconstructive

[Rathnor1]

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

Lasers are being focused because of said gulf between Clan and IS as to what can be brought to the battlefield when boated. Yes, it's a couple of assaults on the extreme edge of things.. but even in lower tonnage classes, the discrepancies are there.

That being said, we're toning down the nerf substantially to make any sort of trickle down less punitive to the lighter weight classes.

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

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd much prefer targetted negative quirks against a narrow band of high performing mechs with specific loadouts vs across the board weapon nerfs. For example, if you wanted to nerf the laser vomit hellbringer an appropriate negative quirk would be on energy heat, energy duration, energy cooldown and/or energy range. Nerfing a universal attribute, such as agility or torso pitch, would reduce the viability of all loadouts on that mech, with unintended consequences.

Plus, it would be easier to selectively nerf the top 10 performing variants than nerfing an entire weapon class and affecting 300 variants.

Edited by Rathnor1, 08 August 2018 - 03:06 AM.

[Nimnul]

Paul Inouye

I want to convey two simple thoughts how to balance the game with little blood. Make a penalty tied to an alpha strike above 50. Say 55 will be a small penalty. And 90 is big. Such a fine can be explained by physics, in a science fiction game. The theory of large loads in a short period of time. When the energy release increases not linearly, but exponentially. And the value after which the penalty goes must depend on the weight. 20 \ 30 \ 40 \ 50 for light \ medium \ heavy \ assault. Due to the thermal inertia, which gives the mass of any substance.

Second give more Quirks for bad mechs. All not vomit mech's are bad....

Edited by Nimnul, 08 August 2018 - 04:56 AM.

[Horseman]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 05:17 PM, said:

Well it has nothing to do with weapon balance... but PSR is something that needs adjusting for sure. (...) However, PSR is a subject that needs it's own thread and discussion. Sorry to say this thread isn't the place.

But we will be having that discussion very soon, right?

Jman5, on 07 August 2018 - 05:21 PM, said:

So my answer is that first I would fix this problem. Split it up into three values instead of the one nonsense value we have now. Heat per second, Dissipation Rate, and Capacity. Then I would clean it up so Rocket Launchers and LAMS are not factored in, UAC’s double tap is, and make sure pilot skills/quirks are.

Long overdue.

Quote

Next you can do the same thing you do with Heat penalty. Put a little icon pop up at the top of the mechlab explaining you have hit a threshold. Either way they can always refer back to their 3 heat values displayed to see how it’s changing.

One catch... you'd need to indicate HPS without Ghost Heat and how much HPS does GH add. Some builds go for alpha despite GH, others mitigate it with volley fire.

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

However, I just want to note.. your suggestion is kinda the reverse of what the community originally suggested long ago.
Previously: Lower/maxed cap, higher dissipation
Yours: Higher cap, locked down dissipation
We can investigate both.. but just wanted to clarify.

Way I see it, higher capacity goes hand in hand with higher alphas. Capping the maximum heat capacity would bring more focus on sustained DPS over high burst.

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.

In lore, yes. Also in lore, you'd more often than not see those advantages countered by the size of the opposing force. Clan FP would then be 5 Clan pilots against 12 IS pilots.
However, if you want any semblance of gameplay balance in a PvP game with equally sized opposing teams, that simply cannot happen and Clan mechs and weaponry have to be rendered less powerful than lore would dictate them to be.

Edited by Horseman, 08 August 2018 - 04:58 AM.

[Tarogato]

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

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

podcast 7:00min "the K2 is too tanky because of these quirks" ..............

..... no......... its alive because its a 65 ton mech that was rescaled to the size of a 40-45 ton mech while other 75 ton mechs (black knight) were rescaled taller than 100 ton mechs

Exactly, it's got the size benefits from the rescale and like you said, the torso spreads. Does it need those extra points in armor? Not likely.

I would sooner like to see the Catapult rescaled properly to be sized like a 65-ton mech instead of the ~50-ton mech that it is now. (and the missile ears require significantly more arm durability quirks, while we're at it.)

You know, back when the community was crying about mech scaling (and I was a huge part of that), we only were looking at the clear outliers. You even put up official polls for us to vote on them.

We didn't ask for you guys to reassess literally every single mech in the game. It's great that you did, but when you decided you were gonna do it, you took the whole project to your private shed out back and didn't let us see anything you were doing with it until it was all over and done with. And the end result from our perspective was undesirable. Whereas we cried that so many mechs in the 40-55 ton range felt too large, the final rescale left them unchanged, and made nearly everything else around them bigger instead.

I'm really peeved by this, because I understand it's something you can't easily go back on. What's done is done. And that gives me the sads. Because it could have been so much better.

Edited by Tarogato, 08 August 2018 - 05:23 AM.

[Hellfire666]

kjubert, on 07 August 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

a while ago there was a thread and i didnt say anything salty and it still got redacted by a mod.
it was civil feedback

all i see so far is. u do your own things. mainly listen to the brown sea, ignore long time players (especial those who actually understand whats going on) and make the majority of players leave because they get tired. So whats left? a somehow dying game with many people leaving.

Paul Inouye, on 07 August 2018 - 04:36 PM, said:

I don't know what happened in your previous thread.. but this thread is a discussion thread. If things are constructive, they stick around and more importantly become part of the discussion. I get it that there are angry people out there. I just ask that people keep it civil and let's talk it through.

The problem is for those of us who have been around a long time, This is seen as to little to late. So many people have tried to help for so long and it all went ignored while we get called "cheapskates". Paul even went so far as to make cracks at Taro and Dane for trying to bring this to their attention like it's a joke. Now that the game is hemorrhaging players and no new players are coming in it's time to have a discussion? Now you actually find us worthy to interact with?

Here is a thought - try not looking at the numbers as your only source of information. Try getting in a mech and playing some matches once in a while at ALL tier levels. Try watching some of the video's out there on youtube. SEE how the game is being played. Numbers on a spreadsheet only tell you so much.

How about actually fixing the PSR system which is nothing more than an EXP bar? It's been in place so long that people who are in Tier 1 don't actually belong there including myself. I know I'm a tier 2 or 3 player yet here I am in Tier 1 where only the best of the best are supposed to be? Getting similarly skilled players grouped together properly makes for MUCH better play all around even if there are balance issues.

I can go on but honestly, what is the point? At the end of the day you will do what you planned to do all along like you always do.

Edit: Fixed a few typos

Edited by Hellfire666, 08 August 2018 - 05:40 AM.

[Ensaine]

First off, thanks Paul and Chris for the dialogue......

Honestly, a lot of this good intent is very late in coming. Over the years, the community has given scores of input and suggestions, which have been ignored. Now that us rats are leaving this burning ship, we get a rush of what we have now.....

Now into the topic....

I'd like to see a few things.

1: a concise list of the offending mechs with this bogeyman 94 point alpha, besides the Direwhale, and the Deathstrike.
Those two builds are NOT sustainable. One alpha, and they're done, can go make a sammich while they cool down. Both mechs are taken down easily when focused by ONE good pilot, or two average pilots.

WHAT other mechs are there?

2: You, and Chris, putting in time on the live servers, visibly, and consistently. In the bogeyman high alpha builds. Russ too. Time to see these dev's actually playing the game. The rare occasions Paul has dropped in over the years can be counted easily, and Chris needs to spend some visible time in PUG matches, not dropping with Sean_Lang...... all of you need to get out, and get dirty.

3: a pts based on the community balance sheet. ONLY the balance sheet, 100% of what it calls for. I don't see any reason on earth why this can't be done. Just follow the dots down the list. Lets put this document to rest, or full use, asap.

4: The Trinity (Russ, Paul, and Chris) also needs to be on the PTS, visibly, and consistently. Stop testing with spreadsheets. The community will take you guys more seriously if they see you taking hits with the rest of us. I'm not sure if you guys know, but this is NOT the case now.

Seriously, you guys need to start playing your own game. Some of these changes are not based on any reality I'm aware of.

We've been following your lead for 6 years. Now here we are, trying to keep this thing alive. We see it, even if it's not getting a nod.
Maps. We had several good mappers offer to make maps, where all we had to do was vet them on a PTS. You'd have a LOT of playable maps by now.
You guys said No Thanks. And today, still, many places on these very forums, people decry the lack of maps.

That's not listening.
You'd have many, FREE maps made, which would have gone a good long way to keeping this game in the black as far as retention goes.

So, lets see this list of offending mechs, let the community help you guys get this right. Time to stop using a thermonuclear device to fix things when a toothpick is all that's needed.

Lastly, I'm sorry about the salt, in my, and other peoples posts. Honestly, you guys earned it. I highly suggest a thicker skin be put in place until we get over this. We just didn't all wake up one day/week/month/year/partial decade and decided to be salty to you guys.

If you guys were just the end user like us, I'd find it difficult to believe that by now, none of you guys, who paid a good amount of money over the years, would NOT be salty, and would even risk sprinkling it around in some forum posts.

At the end of the day, it's not our Steak Dinner at risk. Letting this fail will not look good on a resume. You have loyal IP fans, a great resource. Use us. We're here, and we care.

For now.

Edited by Ensaine, 08 August 2018 - 06:37 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

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

Such is why LRMs got the attention they did when they did. They where considered by many to be hands down the worst weapon system in the game to the point that players where being openly hostile to friendly team members for bringing them into a match. That is a place we want no weapon in the game to be in. While it could be argued that many would want any other weapon system to get the treatment more then LRM's, because they where the heaviest offender in this regard compared to all other weapon systems, it was the squeakiest wheel that got the grease.

This does not mean that we are ignoring other weapon systems or feedback. As Paul said, we implement focused changes on a monthly basis and will not do wide balance shifts across the entire weapon roster for the many reasons we bring up in the podcast. There are a number of other weapons systems, including ones in the community doc that are also being observed that will undoubtedly come up soon enough. What we said about LRM's equally applies to everything else. LRM's are being targeted now because they are the heaviest offender when it comes to their overall place in the game. Once we get them into a state that we are satisfied with, we will move onto the next thing that come up as the heaviest offender. But that means that we intend to get them into a place where they are not a total non-factor in the game. As we have said, we are open to further changes past the ones that are being pushed in August, but we intend to ensure that the weapon does have a place amoung the other weapons in the roster and isn't just relegated to a complete non-factor.


No disagreements. It is why we are pushing a constriction of the lock on mechanics this month. Here is a better illustration of the incoming changes to the lockon angles:


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.

This will also affect Streak and ATM launchers. In fact, this change was something that was initially investigated to look into streaks' behavior against Light 'Mechs back when we where looking into the missile hit location changes, but was heald off because it would have put LRM's, then the worst weapon system in the game, into an even bigger ditch then they where. Again, we are open to making further changes, but they have to come from a place that sees them as another usable option within the wider weapon roster. Yes that equally applies to all other weapons out there. But they where not as far into the ditch as LRM's where, which is why they got the attention when they did.

Streaks over perform because they don't miss while with in range with no obstacles between them and the target, and that they spread damage, so instead of doing 130 damage or so to kill a 'mech, they deal 300-400 damage to a 'mech, over a longer period of time. If you are a heavy/assault being farmed by streaks, the fault is your own, focus your fire and kill the enemy because they can't target individual components. If you're a light mech, you'll get vaporized by lots of things, not just streaks. Streaks are your counter, you should use your speed to get out of their 310 meter range, period. If a light 'mech is circling a streak boat, they deserve to die. If over tune the lock on zone, you're going to have issues with them not being able to used at all, lights already teleport around the screen because of the net code, with out enough cushion it will make it frustrating to use at all.


LRMs are are a problem now, and it's mostly due to the heat and velocity changes. Why not simply revert these changes, or even revert them and increase ghost heat penalties for people using 4x20's, 5x20's, 6x20's 4x20+2x15's etc... Now the volume LRM boats and velocity changes have cause issues with the incoming missile warning system to bubble up to the surface, with warnings coming only as missiles are already upon you from even reasonably long distances.


The nature of LRMS at this point is rewarding low-effort, low-skill play styles of firing from behind cover, from ~800M, with big damage numbers that lots of these players have never achieved before. They are getting a false signal that this gameplay is effective and helping their team. Yeah, it's super annoying to get obliterated by coordinated 100-200 LRM tubes + NARC at range, but it's also annoying to have 6 LRM assaults on your team sitting behind a hill, using their teammates for locks and as armor shields... In solo queue quick play and small groups, this loses.


It's important for the data you collect to have context and also to be free of external influences. As long as matchmaker will still stack teams with no regard to actual player performance, and events are running which make people do unconventional things, your data will be skewed. I feel like we're simply spinning our tires in the mud until we have better matches and normalized gameplay, in order to see what actually needs to be balanced and how.


In addition, you can't chase increasing TTK when players run out in front of a 8-12 man firing line and get obliterated. Doesn't matter how much you nerf big alphas, 8-12, slightly smaller alphas, will still bring their HP to 0 just as quickly. If you want matches to last longer so people get more playtime for their queue wait time, then you simply need rounds, best of 3, best of 5, swapping spawns. In the podcast they mentioned that they don't think lights should be able to stand face to face with an assault, but now with their pitch, may lights can stand against an assault and be outside of your ability to aim at them, assaults and heavies desperately need pitch. This is not an issue in tabletop, and so much of this game is based on table top, it's incredibly frustrating to have these pitch deadzones with face hugging lights or going up / down hills which has all been compounded by speed/mobility nerfs.


You have to consider map geometry and how it contributes to balance and meta direction, if you can see the enemies from far away, long range will be superior. As long as maps are asymmetrical and non-flipped, one spawn will always have an advantage. You can solve this with rounds that swap spawns. Even mining and HPG, while fairly well (but not totally) mirrored, they are still not flipped, so one side has an advantage in the inevitable counterclockwise nascar. And having charlie spawns across from each other rather than diagonal on Mining make it so much worse.

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 08 August 2018 - 06:58 AM.

[SilentScreamer]

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

Balance Podcast - Aug 2018:
...
...
Future PTS'
• Looking into doing another PTS centered around baseline heat thresholds and dissipation rates based on community proposals.
• Looking to get it out fairly quickly but nothing definitive yet.

Thank you for keeping the community updated Paul.
Looking forward to future matches on PTS.

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

Such is why LRMs got the attention they did when they did. They where considered by many to be hands down the worst weapon system in the game to the point that players where being openly hostile to friendly team members for bringing them into a match. That is a place we want no weapon in the game to be in. While it could be argued that many would want any other weapon system to get the treatment more then LRM's, because they where the heaviest offender in this regard compared to all other weapon systems, it was the squeakiest wheel that got the grease.

I think you need to go a bit deeper on LRMs here Chris. The negative attitude on LRMs is not due to the weapon itself, but how the "typical" LRM-Boat pilot operates. Just like the stereotypical used-car-salesman is loathed...here is why-
LRM pilots typically :
- loadup an assault mech with only LRMs and ammo. No long-range direct fire
- hang out 800m to 900m behind the front line, where they do not get their own locks or share armor/hits with teamates
- brag about their damage total after match and call teammates "useless"

So instead of the proposed changes, why not make changes to discourage the behavior/playstyle that has given LRMs a bad reputation by removing or more heavily penalize Indirect Fire of LRMs and/or lower range from 900m to 630m?

***edit I see Kill2Blit already brought this up on page 2***
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6145247

Edited by SilentScreamer, 08 August 2018 - 07:48 AM.

[Metachanic]

Jman5 said:

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.

I've heard it suggested that NARCs should fall off after a mech has taken a given amount of damage. Not sure if this could be implemented, but it strikes me as a solid idea, especially in a world with NARC duration quirks.

Jman5 said:

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.

Another excellent point. There's broad agreement that 35-tonners are in a rough spot, with the Firestarter's abysmal torso pitch touted as a primary example. Only the Night Gyr has worse pitch, and even if the Firestarter's model clips, it could use some mobility boosts. No current reason, apart from personal preference, to take one when the Wolfhound exists.

Gierling said:

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 as a card-carrying never-LRMs pilot, I agree with this. Variety is the spice of this game. However, I think the pendulum swung too far with the most recent changes. Looking forward to the ECM buff and NARC nerf to see where we stand.

Yeonne Greene said:

Clans and IS in MWO are supposed to be equal but different.

Many excellent points in Yeonne's post, as usual.

Felbombling said:

I'd say the solution for this would be to limit each chassis to maybe four engine ratings [standard, XL or Light] and force players to really think during the design process. Allow for us to make some tougher decisions.


Stripping one or both arms completely of armour to have that extra laser, heat sink or ammo bin makes a difference, but doesn't really make much sense. If the armour value on the right arm is pumped up to max, the left arm should automatically match that value. Don't let players min-max that crap.

Can't say I agree with this. Interesting, but a massive reduction in variety, and quite awkward for some mechs with arbitrarily high engine caps. It would cause a hell of a lot of mechlab fiddling for minimal benefit.

Felbombling said:

If you could, remove a critical slot from the Clan and Inner Sphere LB20-X AC.

Supported for the IS only, and suggested in the community balance proposal. There are several IS lore mechs running LB20X ACs in their arms, and we did not believe the LB20X was a sufficiently lethal weapon to be problematic when deployed with lower arm actuators.

Felbombling said:

I am one of the people pushing for purple Clan Heavy Large Lasers and orange Clan Heavy Medium Lasers.

Yes. Rule of cool, quality of life, etc. Very helpful to know exact what's firing at you.

Felbombling said:

A contrail colour for Narc and a new colour for ATMs would also help the situation.

NARC contrails or a visible exhaust plume are an interesting idea for tracking their source, especially when most NARC mechs are mounting ECM.

Felbombling said:

Light Mechs can and have abused hugging tactics for years without being properly addressed.

Hugging isn't abusing, outmaneuvering mechs with 3-5 times your tonnage is the only way to survive against them. AoE damage mechanics strike me as a terrible idea. Low-skill, and heavily weighted against lighter mechs, which are already struggling (with notable exceptions).

Felbombling said:

The time required to get to 91 isn't as bad as you think, and I imagine if you go look at your stats for any Mech you've just hit 91 skill points on, it probably reads something like 35 matches or less actually played.

This assumes you're earning 2.6SP per match, or 2,080XP. A little tricky to maintain that average for many or most players, especially without premium time or consistent win streaks. This is outside the scope of balance, but a major reason the grind is so strong is that it drains your XP and your CB.

Quicksilver Kalasa said:

Yeah, NARC durations are absurd. The fact they don't fall off after a certain amount of damage or a section falling off is absurd as well.

This is a good suggestion, one I meant to raise in earlier posts, and which is supported by some of our LRM-favoring pilots.

Khobai said:

And NARC is barely used as is. There needs to be MORE of a reason to use NARC, NOT LESS.

Factually untrue. NARC is the factor that can turn LRMs from annoying to lethal. NARCers are ubiquitous in LRM-focused FP and QP drops.

Khobai said:

And 50% tightening of the lock angle? Why dont you just make it so we cant fire LRMs at all.

Over-reacting much? Needing to keep a reticle over a target to gain the advantages of a high-DPS, long-range, indirect-fire weapon? Heaven forbid.

Khobai said:

Buff Artemis, TAG, and NARC

Yes for SRM brawlers, no, and no. TAG and NARC are already ubiquitous, because they're quite useful. Further improvements are decidedly unnecessary.

GweNTLeR said:

could you please clarify how artemis currently works and will work with LRMs in terms of spread?

Yes, please. Excellent topic for a wiki article, but hearing the present status in detail would help us provide more in-depth feedback on proposed changes.

KingJ00 said:

Would the communicating process be any easier if a group (like the group of pilots that spearheaded the community balance document? They have already shown how dedicated they are to the topic) took all the community ideas and provided a unified on topic source of input to work with PGI.

I would like to think that our work collating several thousand community comments on our first-round document to produce the second-round document is a major reason we're having this discussion at all. Still, we want to make sure that PGI's discussions are with the community, so our goal is to keep the feedback as broad as possible. Taro, Navid, denAir, yours truly, and the rest of the crew are not omniscient, so keep the feedback coming.

Tzinjo said:

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.

It will still be more difficult to maintain a lock, since the margin for error is considerably narrower. Worth testing to see if locks feel any easier to break, especially for lights and mediums getting ruined by Streaks.

Tarogato said:

I would sooner like to see the Catapult rescaled properly to be sized like a 65-ton mech instead of the ~50-ton mech that it is now.

Agreed. Another modest round of rescales would go a long way. Just a few outlier mechs, like the massive Black Knight, Executioner, Firestarter, and a handful of others.

Hellfire666 said:

Now that the game is hemorrhaging players and no new players are coming in it's time to have a discussion? Now you actually find us worthy to interact with?

"Hey, check out this gift horse's mouth!"


Going on a bit of a tangent, there are things beyond weapon balance and mobility I'd like to see tested in a future PTS, if such suggestions are welcome at present.

-Armor quirks for the Kodiak and Dire Wolf.
-Add map markers for incoming air and artillery strikes.
-AC20, CAC20, UAC20, and CUAC20 velocity buffs.
-Reduced or eliminated ghost heat penalty on twin AC20s and CAC20s.
-Medium lasers returned to faster cooldowns than large lasers within their respective tech bases (with associated damage reductions on the Clan side).

[Jman5]

r0b0tc0rpse, on 08 August 2018 - 06:35 AM, said:

Streaks over perform because they don't miss while with in range with no obstacles between them and the target, and that they spread damage, so instead of doing 130 damage or so to kill a 'mech, they deal 300-400 damage to a 'mech, over a longer period of time. If you are a heavy/assault being farmed by streaks, the fault is your own, focus your fire and kill the enemy because they can't target individual components. If you're a light mech, you'll get vaporized by lots of things, not just streaks. Streaks are your counter, you should use your speed to get out of their 310 meter range, period. If a light 'mech is circling a streak boat, they deserve to die. If over tune the lock on zone, you're going to have issues with them not being able to used at all, lights already teleport around the screen because of the net code, with out enough cushion it will make it frustrating to use at all.

Streaks also overperform because they get a free Artemis upgrade. It significantly improves lock time for no tonnage or slot cost. I would really like to see this addressed.

[Jman5]

Metachanic, on 08 August 2018 - 07:13 AM, said:

Another excellent point. There's broad agreement that 35-tonners are in a rough spot, with the Firestarter's abysmal torso pitch touted as a primary example. Only the Night Gyr has worse pitch, and even if the Firestarter's model clips, it could use some mobility boosts. No current reason, apart from personal preference, to take one when the Wolfhound exists.

Some 35 tonners, but it's really all over the place. Take a look at that spreadsheet I linked. Some of them really surprised me, once I ranked everything. I had no idea how incredible the Jenners were for agility.

What also surprised me once I saw everything stacked up was how many 40 and 45 tonners were blowing lights away in the agility department.

Edited by Jman5, 08 August 2018 - 07:25 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 August 2018 - 09:15 PM, said:

Changing jamming mechanics to just not be stupid would be a better option, undoing jam nerfs just makes mechs that already strong because they boat them even stronger. Not that changing jam mechanics will actually change much but making the jam mechanics not completely RNG would definitely help the "feel" of single/double UACs. For the most part though, almost every weapon has that problem where only one or two of them feel like a waste, and buffing them so that boats get all the advantage too will do nothing but keep the game borked.

Agreed that boating any weapon tends to allow for OP. We have GH restrictions to somewhat deal with laser boating. Because of the lower heat of ballistics and Gauss it does not do as good a job with controlling Gauss or ballistics. Energy Draw was supposed to help with that but it failed. I would like to see something like a Ghost Reload (for lack of a better term) that would increase the cooldown time of boated ballistics because the Mechs ammunition feed could not keep up with multiple weapons of the same class thus increasing the amount of time to reload the weapon represented by increased cooldown time. A system like that could work on any ballistics and missile systems.

[Ridingwolf1]

Again, Chris and Paul read these postings. The issues are NOT in the numbers and spreadsheets and equations. The issues you are facing are first in the PSR/matchmaking system and second in the separation of pilot skill levels. The tier system is broken and nothing you do to weapons and mechs is going to fix the problem when you have pilots that can target a 94 point alpha on one torso fighting pilots that can't. The current tier system, and your insistence on having win/loss as part of the primary calculation, is what is wrong.

Streaks: Good light pilots run from them. Plain and simple. We might get deleted by one occasionally, but as a light pilot myself, the answer to them is running. Any problems from this are because of the HUGE gulf in skills between what is a good light pilot and a bad one. The tier system, PSR calculations, and experience bar are the cause of this. Pilots that shouldn't be in T1 are in T1 because of this failure.

94 point alpha: Only a problem for pilots that do not torso twist enough or stand still and play turretwarrior online facing pilots that can hold a crosshair on a single component and move to spread return fire. This is a pilot skill level issue caused by the PSR/Tier system, not the mechs or weapons.

LRMs: Pilot skill level. Highly skilled people with LRMs are not the problem, they stay with their teams and properly support the unit. It's the unskilled or low skilled pilots with LRMs that are causing the problems. Again, this is a problem from the PSR/tier system.

Fix the PSR/Tier system first, then after the separation of skill levels into the pilots ACTUAL skill level has happened, then address weapon systems, mechs, and mechanics. I can't iterate this enough to you, ANYTHING you do to weapons and mechs will never bring balance you want until pilot skill levels are addressed.

Please, please, please read these posts. Nearly everyone here is telling you this. It is not the weapons and micro analysis of the issue will not solve the problem. This is a macro analysis kind of issue and it all comes down to the current PSR/Tier system.

Edited by Ridingwolf1, 08 August 2018 - 08:03 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rampage, on 08 August 2018 - 07:42 AM, said:

Agreed that boating any weapon tends to allow for OP. We have GH restrictions to somewhat deal with laser boating. Because of the lower heat of ballistics and Gauss it does not do as good a job with controlling Gauss or ballistics.

Huh? I know I avoid ghost heat even on ballistics. Why else would people run mechs like the 2 UAC10/2 UAC5 dakka boats? Or the quad AC10 Anni where I avoid ghost heat for a majority of shots? Gauss also has the charge up limit instead of ghost heat (even though it should have heat instead of the stupid charge up limit) to keep it in check.

Rampage, on 08 August 2018 - 07:42 AM, said:

Energy Draw was supposed to help with that but it failed. I would like to see something like a Ghost Reload (for lack of a better term) that would increase the cooldown time of boated ballistics because the Mechs ammunition feed could not keep up with multiple weapons of the same class thus increasing the amount of time to reload the weapon represented by increased cooldown time. A system like that could work on any ballistics and missile systems.

Just....no. Heat is fine at controlling damage, if you want lower burst damage, lower max heat. If you want lower sustained, lower dissipation.

[Chados]

You just made Artemis irrelevant, Paul. Why invest a ton and crit slot per launcher for nothing more than a spread bonus when the weight savings means I can simply bring a bigger hammer and/or more ammo? Plus better ECM and harder to get locks, meaning you’re rewarding boating and laying back at the map edge spamming and not working tactically and sharing armor. You’re pushing the worst and most hated form of LRM play, and that’s just senseless.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Metachanic, on 08 August 2018 - 07:13 AM, said:

I've heard it suggested that NARCs should fall off after a mech has taken a given amount of damage. Not sure if this could be implemented, but it strikes me as a solid idea, especially in a world with NARC duration quirks.



Another excellent point. There's broad agreement that 35-tonners are in a rough spot, with the Firestarter's abysmal torso pitch touted as a primary example. Only the Night Gyr has worse pitch, and even if the Firestarter's model clips, it could use some mobility boosts. No current reason, apart from personal preference, to take one when the Wolfhound exists.



Even as a card-carrying never-LRMs pilot, I agree with this. Variety is the spice of this game. However, I think the pendulum swung too far with the most recent changes. Looking forward to the ECM buff and NARC nerf to see where we stand.



Many excellent points in Yeonne's post, as usual.



Can't say I agree with this. Interesting, but a massive reduction in variety, and quite awkward for some mechs with arbitrarily high engine caps. It would cause a hell of a lot of mechlab fiddling for minimal benefit.



Supported for the IS only, and suggested in the community balance proposal. There are several IS lore mechs running LB20X ACs in their arms, and we did not believe the LB20X was a sufficiently lethal weapon to be problematic when deployed with lower arm actuators.



Yes. Rule of cool, quality of life, etc. Very helpful to know exact what's firing at you.



NARC contrails or a visible exhaust plume are an interesting idea for tracking their source, especially when most NARC mechs are mounting ECM.



Hugging isn't abusing, outmaneuvering mechs with 3-5 times your tonnage is the only way to survive against them. AoE damage mechanics strike me as a terrible idea. Low-skill, and heavily weighted against lighter mechs, which are already struggling (with notable exceptions).



This assumes you're earning 2.6SP per match, or 2,080XP. A little tricky to maintain that average for many or most players, especially without premium time or consistent win streaks. This is outside the scope of balance, but a major reason the grind is so strong is that it drains your XP and your CB.



This is a good suggestion, one I meant to raise in earlier posts, and which is supported by some of our LRM-favoring pilots.



Factually untrue. NARC is the factor that can turn LRMs from annoying to lethal. NARCers are ubiquitous in LRM-focused FP and QP drops.



Over-reacting much? Needing to keep a reticle over a target to gain the advantages of a high-DPS, long-range, indirect-fire weapon? Heaven forbid.



Yes for SRM brawlers, no, and no. TAG and NARC are already ubiquitous, because they're quite useful. Further improvements are decidedly unnecessary.



Yes, please. Excellent topic for a wiki article, but hearing the present status in detail would help us provide more in-depth feedback on proposed changes.



I would like to think that our work collating several thousand community comments on our first-round document to produce the second-round document is a major reason we're having this discussion at all. Still, we want to make sure that PGI's discussions are with the community, so our goal is to keep the feedback as broad as possible. Taro, Navid, denAir, yours truly, and the rest of the crew are not omniscient, so keep the feedback coming.



It will still be more difficult to maintain a lock, since the margin for error is considerably narrower. Worth testing to see if locks feel any easier to break, especially for lights and mediums getting ruined by Streaks.



Agreed. Another modest round of rescales would go a long way. Just a few outlier mechs, like the massive Black Knight, Executioner, Firestarter, and a handful of others.



"Hey, check out this gift horse's mouth!"


Going on a bit of a tangent, there are things beyond weapon balance and mobility I'd like to see tested in a future PTS, if such suggestions are welcome at present.

-Armor quirks for the Kodiak and Dire Wolf.
-Add map markers for incoming air and artillery strikes.
-AC20, CAC20, UAC20, and CUAC20 velocity buffs.
-Reduced or eliminated ghost heat penalty on twin AC20s and CAC20s.
-Medium lasers returned to faster cooldowns than large lasers within their respective tech bases (with associated damage reductions on the Clan side).

IS LB20X is already 11 slots, making it 10, would only allow it to go in arms with no lower arm actuators.

clan is 9 ? IIRC

IS 2/5/20 LBX, and all clan non ultra AC and LBX are broken, here's why

in table top the LB10X was 1 crit smaller and 1 ton lighter, because it used the LRM10 hit table, and that was fine. When they introduced ammo swapping, firing a slug made it an AC10, for a ton less and a crit smaller. Intent not to make the same mistake again, they made them larger and heavier in table top but left the LB10X alone. MWO copied these numbers, but doesn't have the ammo switching, so why don't the 2/5/20 get a bit smaller/lighter instead?