605 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Bidetlol, on 09 August 2018 - 09:18 AM, said:

Hello,

what are your plans for subpar or jsut average clan mech (about 60% of clans mech in fact imo), if you nerf clan weaponry in any way?

I understand that you want to nerf the differences between IS and top tier clan laser vomit, but the others are just bad or average with the current values, so how are you going to nerf the actual situation without killing all the others?

At least one aspect mentioned in the balance podcast was to provide some mechs with quirks to aid in offsetting the disproportionate negative consequences that such mechs would suffer as a result of the forthcoming energy nerfs.

[Sjorpha]

I really like the idea of trying a lower heat cap as the way to tone down huge laser alphas, it's a much more interesting approach than weapon nerfs. A maximum heat cap of 50 would probably be interesting to test out.

And please, when trying out big ideas like this from now on, test ONE(1) THING AT A TIME!!! Don't slap a bunch of minor nerfs and buffs to stuff in the same testing round, just do the one important change and see what happens.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Did any one even mention reducing heat cap before Paul posted about it being in the next PTS? It just wasn't one of the big things the community talked about, yet seems to be the only real change in this PTS.


I saw a very interesting idea about lasers damage being applied non-linearly throughout the burn, so the DPS ramps up toward the end of the burn, which would mean people could twist off more damage to other components once they see a damage indication, and also it would open up the idea of starting a burn on a part of the 'mech to get the pilot to twist in a way to dump the damage on a more critical part, which would be a very high skill tactic indeed. Coupled with increased duration, this would help with the big laser alphas while still giving something to high level play.


It just seems that the heat cap idea was a foregone conclusion regardless of what was discussed in this thread. /shrug.

[process]

r0b0tc0rpse, on 09 August 2018 - 10:01 AM, said:

Did any one even mention reducing heat cap before Paul posted about it being in the next PTS? It just wasn't one of the big things the community talked about, yet seems to be the only real change in this PTS.

Many have been asking for that for years. I think most of us just figured it would never happen as it is such a major change to the game mechanics.

[Daurock]

Sjorpha, on 09 August 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

I really like the idea of trying a lower heat cap as the way to tone down huge laser alphas, it's a much more interesting approach than weapon nerfs. A maximum heat cap of 50 would probably be interesting to test out.

I wouldn't expect the alphas to go down with a 50 point cap, so much as just have players switch from PureVomit over to GaussVomit. You can easily obtain a 68 point alpha on a mech like the Jag, and only generate about 48 heat. Add in all the perks from the tree, and the natural dissipation during the burn, and I'm not even sure a 40 point cap would shut that mech down should it alpha from cold. Switch that HLL for another ERML or LPL, and you still generate around 60 alpha for about 40 heat.

Remember the bottom line - so long as a set of clan medium lasers can alpha for 42 points, people can and will tack on a gauss rifle to it to create excessively high alphas. Unless that equation changes somewhere, (They lower the heat so far that even a clan light can't fire that many, the alpha gets dropped to levels seen on the PTS, or the gauss gets a heavy nerf, for a few examples) they're still going to do their thing.

[Metachanic]

Ridingwolf1 said:

No Chris. Numbers and mechanics changes will not do anything to remedy the problems.

Saying that you don't want one problem solved because another problem exists strikes me as counter-productive. Even if the sequence doesn't fit your preferences, why the objections to addressing one of the game's major struggles?

MechaBattler said:

I actually found the triple LL change to be a good idea. It puts it firmly in the assault and heavy spectrum. Forces people to wait on longer burn times. Combined with recoil, it can really spread the damage out for gauss+LL builds. Though I suppose people will just go LPL. But then you have a range trade off at least. Which would put them closer to where the IS range is.

The increased CERLL and CLPL ghost heat limits also gave further advantages and long-range firepower to some of the game's strongest mechs, while reducing the alpha potential of smaller mechs that don't necessarily need the hit, or couldn't even carry those lasers to being with. While I think the CLPL ghost heat limit change could be a good idea, simply because the CLPL isn't an unbalancing weapon at present, but for the CERLL? Present ghost heat limits are wiser.

r0b0tc0rpse said:

A 2 RAC5 bushwhacker can stare down any assault and burn it to the ground while blinding it with in cockpit explosions, but hey, big laser alphas need to be fixed.

It's possible for both of those to be true. Worth noting that the 2x RAC5 Bushwacker is in really deep trouble the second one of its RACs jams. And it can't sustain its DPS very long. High-alpha Clan laservom boats are certainly more unbalancing at present.

Generic Internetter said:

Based on what you said this will only enhance light mech spam (eg: PIR-1).

The PIR-1 is an outlier, and only truly problematic in the hands of skilled pilots. How great a threat are other light mech chassis? If light mech spam is truly problematic, why does the queue skew toward heavier mechs?

Imperius said:

The MK II will be excluded from the torso twist / agility buffs. Speculation I know but I’m rarely far from the mark on my observations. It was nice ammo per ton got looked at though I haven’t checked any of the changes in a long time.

Possibly, yes. It is the strongest assault mech in the game at the moment, and a good chunk of its firepower (or all, for typical MCII-Bs) is in the arms, anyway. LRM variants can maintain locks with their arms, Deathstrikes prefer long-range engagements anyway.... And the current agility numbers are not unusual among 90-tonners.

Weagles said:

The weapon balance is not a factor to play....

The first sentence along boggles my mind, never mind the rest of this post. There simply isn't anything accurate stated here, and I hope the entirety of these suggestions receive no attention whatsoever.

0Jiggs0 said:

Yes. This. When determining which values to use, ask yourselves, "Is this too much?". When the answer is yes, add 10% and use that number. I gotta go fast.

I like your spirit, sir. Some mechs do not need agility buffs post-desync, but there are certainly a lot that could use massive improvements.

Regarding several posts on flamers; I tend to agree that they're in a decent spot for QP, as Ash says. But they're quite heavy on IS side. Muhlore reasons aside, they would find many more uses if IS variants matched the half-ton weight of their clan counterparts, or gained higher heat damage to offset their doubled weight.

GweNTLeR said:

Dont forget about IS small caliber LBX, LPPC, SPL, LPL, MRM10, ERSL...I'd even say AC5 and PPC... They all deserve a tune.

Quoted for truth.

[NUMBERZero1032]

Weagles, on 08 August 2018 - 03:25 PM, said:

The current play is so well balanced I don't notice any weapon or group of weapons as having an advantage on most maps. I see some tactics as having advantages in certain situations which is tough to overcome without teamwork. Improving or nerfing any weapon will not stop this.

This is factually, historically, and evidently wrong. PGI have their concerns, and so do the vast majority of players. There has only been this much discussion on it recently because of what's been done, especially since 2016.

Weagles, on 08 August 2018 - 03:25 PM, said:

The biggest improvement in years was the LRM and ammo buffs. LRMs are still weak weapons but the nature of the weapon requiring targeting gets pilots to focus fire more often then not on a single target. It is the focus fire effect that makes them seem OP.

First half of this is false. LRM's can afford some mechs an incredible amount of DPS. IS and Clan mechs can approach 14 or even 15 DPS, even up to 18 DPS with skills. Average DPS for most other mechs is below 10. But the ability to focus fire is apparent because you don't actually need line of sight in order to fire at a target. Non-LRM users focus fire too, but there are many other factors including objects, terrain, friendly, and enemy forces in the way.

Weagles, on 08 August 2018 - 03:25 PM, said:

Final note on balancing:
If the community spent more time playing the game, developing team work, and tactics and less time whining in the forums to get an advantage to their way of playing, the game would naturally balance.

Also factually wrong, and borderline arrogant of you to say. I issue you a batchall to retract that. Hit me up in-game.

Edited by NUMBERZero1032, 09 August 2018 - 10:31 AM.

[process]

Daurock, on 09 August 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

I wouldn't expect the alphas to go down with a 50 point cap, so much as just have players switch from PureVomit over to GaussVomit. You can easily obtain a 68 point alpha on a mech like the Jag, and only generate about 48 heat. Add in all the perks from the tree, and the natural dissipation during the burn, and I'm not even sure a 40 point cap would shut that mech down should it alpha from cold. Switch that HLL for another ERML or LPL, and you still generate around 60 alpha for about 40 heat.

Remember the bottom line - so long as a set of clan medium lasers can alpha for 42 points, people can and will tack on a gauss rifle to it to create excessively high alphas. Unless that equation changes somewhere, (They lower the heat so far that even a clan light can't fire that many, the alpha gets dropped to levels seen on the PTS, or the gauss gets a heavy nerf, for a few examples) they're still going to do their thing.

Gauss is definitely an outlier in these discussions. Maybe it's time to give it heat in exchange for removing charge up.

[Kin3ticX]

I dont know about drastically lowering heat caps. Mechs are going to reach shut down faster and its going to further contribute to making this game slow as molasses.

I see the problem as

-PGI introduces power creep into the game and doesn't spread that power creep fairy dust, then later applies nerf bats (KDK-3, NGT, and on and on). The aftermath of prohibitive weapon combo restrictions removes a fun aspect from the game.

-MWO has mechs that are so soo bad, a good deal of them are outright unquirkable short of silly in magnitude quirks like 50% cooldowns etc etc. Silly quirks distort the game too much.

So in short, the tech gap has to be closed so that 20% or smaller quirks are ideally the biggest to call upon. In situations where a mech is unquirkable, think about perhaps adding just 1 hardpoint for example, something which a quirk cant fix.

MWO needs to be 1 notch more a spiritual successor and 1 notch less a Battletech lore sim, else I think the balance woes will continue. There are too many sacred cows like 1 heat gauss and 7 damage ERML. I don't understand why its more preferable to develop a stupid recoil effect over just fixing the glaring 1 heat low hanging fruit. The heat bar is just a power bar in reverse.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 09 August 2018 - 10:44 AM.

[LanXang]

HOW TO FIX LRMS -
I made a simple diagram with a few little details for you (Paul and Chris):

[Daurock]

process, on 09 August 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

Gauss is definitely an outlier in these discussions. Maybe it's time to give it heat in exchange for removing charge up.

To be honest, I don't have a problem with the Gauss in general - The weapon has a very specific, but still very potent niche right now - that niche being, "Exclamation point for a high heat build." I'm OK with it having that niche, as in other aspects, it's inferior to standard autocannons - the DPS/Ton of the weapon is very low compared to most dakka type loadouts, and the charge time makes it less useful than them for fleeting, or snap shot type of firing. The only problem it really has is how FAR it can boost an otherwise acceptable alpha, and is very specific to clan mechs. (IS GaussVomit tops out at 50ish damage for most builds, almost entirely due to weight and space issues inherent to most IS chassis.) It's a scaling issue - not a mechanic one. It simply scales too well with lasers, and is too easy to fit onto too many clan chassis. The clan version simply needs to have its alpha lowered to match its weight. That doesn't solve the "Pure Vomit" problem, but at least it makes it so that the nerfs to those builds need not be as harsh as the first couple of PTS passes.

Edited by Daurock, 09 August 2018 - 11:26 AM.

[Chris Lowrey]

So going back through the Tuesday to Wednesday gap to see if there Is anything unique I can comment on. As most of the big points are still actively being discussed, in cases where the discussion is on-going I will be using the more current posts so people don't have to back track a bunch of pages to see what I am referring to.

Gierling, on 07 August 2018 - 06:37 PM, said:

Would you consider giving NARC some benefit beyond just to LRM's, that way you could nerf the LRM Functionality a little and not have everyone stop using it (thus providing a double whammy to LRM's)

I'm not against core changes to NARC or any other weapon or piece of equipment, but as Paul said, any kind of feature change is something that we have to consider when the resources are available.

We aren't against examining changes and we do have many discussions about these things internally, but as Paul said in the podcast, resources are limited so when we do dedicate resources to feature changes, we want to make sure it will have a positive impact on the game.

[Chris Lowrey]

Bosseen, on 07 August 2018 - 07:00 PM, said:

Has there been any discussion about how the actual maps are designed and could be influencing different weapon balancing issues?

Yes. Its one of the reasons we have an entire forum thread dedicated to map feedback here.

Map specific questions would have to go to Jon since he is the one that has a more direct hand in making that happen, but myself an others do provide feedback to him to highlight a number of things that we see on our end. Different tactical / weapon metas being one of the many things we do discuss.

[Chris Lowrey]

GweNTLeR, on 07 August 2018 - 09:53 PM, said:

@Paul @Chris could you please clarify how artemis currently works and will work with LRMs in terms of spread? There have been some indications(mostly based on feelings and old topics) that artemis doesn't currently reduce spread (or does at a reduced rate?). Does it require LOS? Noone from devs touched this topic for a long time, so it would be great to clarify.

Artemis currently provides a flat 25% spread reduction with SRM's and LRMs and further stacks with what you can unlock through the skill tree for a total of a 30% spread reduction over the base model.

There is no current restriction on how Artemis interacts with LOS, or any other piece of equipment like ECM. As it is currently implemented, it is a straight 25% spread reduction. Currently, the upgrade also halves the lockon time and doubles the tracking rate on Missiles, and both the lockon time and the tracking boosts stack with Lockon time and tracking boosts from both TAG and NARC systems, but these will be removed from Artemis with the August patch for a number of reasons as said in the Podcast.

[Verilligo]

Chris Lowrey, on 09 August 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Artemis currently provides a flat 25% spread reduction with SRM's and LRMs and further stacks with what you can unlock through the skill tree for a total of a 30% spread reduction over the base model.

There is no current restriction on how Artemis interacts with LOS, or any other piece of equipment like ECM. As it is currently implemented, it is a straight 25% spread reduction. Currently, the upgrade also halves the lockon time and doubles the tracking rate on Missiles, and both the lockon time and the tracking boosts stack with Lockon time and tracking boosts from both TAG and NARC systems, but these will be removed from Artemis with the August patch for a number of reasons as said in the Podcast.

Wait, wait, hold up. LRMs gain their Artemis SPREAD buff even without LoS to the target?

[Chris Lowrey]

Verilligo, on 09 August 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

Wait, wait, hold up. LRMs gain their Artemis SPREAD buff even without LoS to the target?

To my understanding as currently implemented, yes.

[Verilligo]

Chris Lowrey, on 09 August 2018 - 12:31 PM, said:

To my understanding as currently implemented, yes.

That is actually gamechanging and runs completely counter to everything that I have heard since I started playing. I mean it doesn't make LRMs any better or worse, but it does mean that all those guys sitting the back lobbing their LRMs without exposing themselves were... not really paying any penalty for having done so. In fact, exposing themselves really was the worse option.

[Tarogato]

Verilligo, on 09 August 2018 - 12:42 PM, said:

Chris Lowrey, on 09 August 2018 - 12:31 PM, said:

To my understanding as currently implemented, yes.

That is actually gamechanging and runs completely counter to everything that I have heard since I started playing. I mean it doesn't make LRMs any better or worse, but it does mean that all those guys sitting the back lobbing their LRMs without exposing themselves were... not really paying any penalty for having done so. In fact, exposing themselves really was the worse option.

Can corroborate. I've always heard that Artemis LRMs do not get the spread bonus without direct line of sight. Like, this has been commonly accepted knowledge for ... I think as long as the game has existed.

Though, I've never tested it myself. Taken it for granted.

NUMBERZero1032, on 09 August 2018 - 10:31 AM, said:

Weagles, on 08 August 2018 - 03:25 PM, said:

If the community spent more time playing the game, developing team work, and tactics and less time whining in the forums to get an advantage to their way of playing, the game would naturally balance.

Also factually wrong, and borderline arrogant of you to say. I issue you a batchall to retract that. Hit me up in-game.

<--- Exhibit A: somebody who prefers playing clan laservomit and is supporting slight nerfs to that playstyle.
Yeah, not everybody is a selfish "my playstyle should be the best" whiny c***.
And you should take him up on that batchall.

Edited by Tarogato, 09 August 2018 - 01:39 PM.

[HammerMaster]

Verilligo, on 09 August 2018 - 12:42 PM, said:

That is actually gamechanging and runs completely counter to everything that I have heard since I started playing. I mean it doesn't make LRMs any better or worse, but it does mean that all those guys sitting the back lobbing their LRMs without exposing themselves were... not really paying any penalty for having done so. In fact, exposing themselves really was the worse option.

Agreed. This is counter to what the knowledge was being put out there for quite a few years.

[Sezneg]

Kin3ticX, on 09 August 2018 - 10:40 AM, said:

I dont know about drastically lowering heat caps. Mechs are going to reach shut down faster and its going to further contribute to making this game slow as molasses.

I see the problem as

-PGI introduces power creep into the game and doesn't spread that power creep fairy dust, then later applies nerf bats (KDK-3, NGT, and on and on). The aftermath of prohibitive weapon combo restrictions removes a fun aspect from the game.

-MWO has mechs that are so soo bad, a good deal of them are outright unquirkable short of silly in magnitude quirks like 50% cooldowns etc etc. Silly quirks distort the game too much.

So in short, the tech gap has to be closed so that 20% or smaller quirks are ideally the biggest to call upon. In situations where a mech is unquirkable, think about perhaps adding just 1 hardpoint for example, something which a quirk cant fix.

MWO needs to be 1 notch more a spiritual successor and 1 notch less a Battletech lore sim, else I think the balance woes will continue. There are too many sacred cows like 1 heat gauss and 7 damage ERML. I don't understand why its more preferable to develop a stupid recoil effect over just fixing the glaring 1 heat low hanging fruit. The heat bar is just a power bar in reverse.

On the subject of "distorting" the game - large quirks were interesting and fun. Did the 50% cooldown/duration LPL spider 5k really make the game worse? Did the 30% range 30% duration 30% cooldown spider 5v make the game worse? These quirks made these mechs playable and gave them character that was fun.

Balance is good. Fun is better. Balanced fun is best.

I don't doubt that somewhere on a spreadsheet the current setup looks more "balanced" to someone, but it sure as hell is not fun to play.