605 replies to this topic

[Chris Lowrey]

50 50, on 13 August 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

Hi Chris.
This paragraph made me wonder if there was an alternative thought on progression for LRMs as it does seem a shame for any weapon in the game to become obsolete.

What I am curious about is what the impact might be if LRMs were a direct fire weapon. Perhaps as an effect upgrading to the Artemis.
The reason I ask is that the LRMs share the lock mechanic of Streaks (and ATMs) which affords the weapon that ability to home in on the target but when using Artemis it also lets you fire 'at the cross hairs'.
Given the extra tonnage and cost for upgrading to Artemis, would changing the missile trajectory to a direct path (and removing the lock on) when it is equipped give the weapon life in the higher levels and have that similar sort of skill progression as compared with your example of Streaks to SRMs?

I'm not opposed to changes that have to do with LOS and indirect fire, but as Paul indicated earlier, this would be considered a feature overhaul which makes it a much bigger change then what our monthly weapon changes bring. Not to mention go through the technical review process for a solution that works efficiently in-game. This doesn't mean we'll never consider it. But as Paul said, these are much larger asks that would take time to both review internally and implement if we feel it can be done without breaking anything else in-game.

If those options become available to me for tuning in the future, I'll defiantly put them to good use. But until then, I need to work with what I have.

[Chados]

Chris Lowrey, on 16 August 2018 - 01:33 PM, said:

I've been hearing you as well as everyone else who has commented here. I'm well aware of how steep the learning curve of the game is. As well as the arguments both in defense of the current mechanics of LRMs and those against them as they are currently implemented. I've heard the posts about the incoming changes in regards to how this will amount to nothing being changed, as well as those that say it will ruin the whole weapon system. But at this point, the verdict is still out on how much this actually affects gameplay since the actual impact of these changes is at this point theoretical based on their "on paper" changes.

Make no mistake, we want to make things accessible for newer players, but this also comes with the notion that we don't want mechanics to ONLY exist for new players. Deciding to move from one weapon to another because it is more optimal at the playstyle you wish to focus on is one thing, but having a tactical hard wall where a player can progress no further with the skills that they acquired utilizing a weapon they have enjoyed is a much larger issue on our end.

We can monitor these change's effects on the lower skill population just as much as the higher skill population. But one thing I would want to note is that we want just as much of a level playing field at low skilled tiers as we do on high skilled tiers. And the LRM's potency at lower skill levels is very much an often complained about topic that is almost never absent from the first page of the New Player Forums. So as much as we would love to preserve the experience you are noting here with how you massively enjoyed LRMs at that level when you first came to the game, we also do not want them to be so oppressive at that level that players who enjoy alternative play styles like mass DPS Dakka or PPC sniping aren't turned away when they are constantly under LRM bombardment and cannot figure out a solution on their own. (As keep in mind, only a very small percentile of the player-base even peaks into the forums.) So this is something that we will monitor, but it is a bit premature to render a verdict on the changes at that level of play prior to their actual release. We will observe and make further changes if it is not achieving the intended results or if it swings the dial to the other side where LRMs are suddenly not a viable option.

Thanks, Chris. It’s just very frustrating to see this-if these changes had been implemented in August 2015, I’d have uninstalled the game and gone to something else. I had a Jägermech A then, and I just got slaughtered in any kind of dakka or direct energy game. I just didn’t have the understanding of the maps and positioning, and I hadn’t trained myself now to handle the mechs yet. Back then, I’m sure you remember, it was right into the solo queue with no training first. I was going down seconds after first contact. MWO is paced faster than any other Mechwarrior game I’ve ever played, and there just was no *time* to learn *anything.* It literally was drop, contact, press ‘fire’ once, and die. The LRM5 on a Cicada X5 pointed me to the Catapult-I literally sold every mech and every piece of equipment I had, including the X5, to buy that C1 in one last chance for this game before I gave it up as a twitchfest I’d never understand. Noob LRMing slowed the game down, let me learn, gave me time to read the minimap, to listen to comms-VoIP was new in MWO then-and read the chat messages, and get a feel for the flow of the game. I got better when I joined a unit, but I got turned down for one before the one I joined because I just was so bad back then. Today I’m a total whale- I’ve qualified for the ultimate reward in the 2016 and 2017 loyalty programs (I even bought the Ultimate Flea for one account and the Collector Flea for the other, me in lights, who’d ever have thought it?) and that never would have happened without that one Catapult C1 and the ability to shoot a few LRMs over time.

Please consider that as you move forward. I can live without the Catapult and without the LRM, after the patch drops I’ll just park them, strip the LRMs off all my usual mechs, drop Artemis, and run something else. But new pilots will go play Armored Warfare. We don’t want that outcome.

Edited by Chados, 16 August 2018 - 02:27 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 13 August 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:

what? theyre only cooler because they do less damage

But they're still cooler. *shrugs*

Khobai, on 13 August 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:

but the damage per heat is pretty much the same (its 1.11 for both ISERML and CERML)

so what youre saying doesnt really make any sense

No, you're looking at this all wrong. As in, IS lasers are far more manageable than Clan ones. I don't know if you heard this but: "Ergonomics".

Increasing heat capacity for them via buffed DHS only increases the frequency of their laser-vomit poke, but nonetheless each poke deals comparatively paltry damage.

Khobai, on 13 August 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:

clans still get way more damage throughput because they get similar damage per heat in addition to way better dissipation. and both IS and clan lasers are ghost heat limited at the same amount. IS never wins in that situation.

rather than nerfing clan lasers into the dirt id rather just see IS DHS get buffed. address the problem directly instead of in some goofy roundabout way. nobody likes repeated nerfs and clan players are sick of it.

Lol, you want to address problem directly, but you wouldn't want to nerf Clan Damage, and instead go on a tangent and buff IS mechs.

So you increase IS DHS capacity? They're still doing lesser damage per poke, but now they have a buff that they didn't needed in the first place. Guess what, they still don't win over that situation, so that still doesn't solve things.

Khobai, on 13 August 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:

IS DHS should be better than CDHS because they cost more (3 crits vs 2 crits). if youre not going to make things worth their cost then whats the point of even trying to balance anything at all?

Clans should be objectively superior, because muh lore. JK

Seriously though, what about how they fit and serve the faction instead? This 1:1 balance is childish and misses the bigger picture. IS heat is fine, it's the Clans that's an Issue. Now i will grant you this, better heat capacity and dissipation will help IS immensely, but it doesn't address Clan superiority.

Yeonne Greene, on 13 August 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

Wrong. So very, very wrong,

(Link is to a table of common laser builds and their performance metrics, with two additional tabs showing what happens when you increase IS dissipation first by 10%, then by 20%)

Well, i have to give you credit, given equal damage/heat, the IS builds yielding lower heat-cap is something. Also faster dissipation on lighter mechs is too.

That being said, considering ergonomics, as in IS lasers are easier to handle, so yeah, them being hot isn't much of an issue. While i understand that you are pointing as the balance between Clan and IS heat dissipation with the builds they allow and I acknowledge that it is, that hardly addresses what I'm actually saying.

The IS lasers isn't much of an issue concerning heat, they are a lot more manageable. The problem is the imbalance between Clan and IS. I was literally pointing out that IS Lasers is fine, which would make them the baseline, and at an extent implies that Clan is over performing from that baseline.

Concerning Clan Laser-Vomit imbalance, IS Heat capacity isn't exactly a direct way to do it. Your spreadsheet only shows that this is a Clan issue than IS one. Increase the DHS for IS, now they are even more ergonomic, but they're still doing worse damage per poke than Clan. They're a lot more brawly that's for sure, but while it buffs specific and more aggressive playstyle for IS side, well Clans are still deleting components from afar with just several clicks.

I'll say it again. Considering that IS lasers are generally cooler, this isn't really much of an issue. You know what the real issue is? Clan lasers, and clan as a whole.

We can, and we should buff IS DHS, but that won't address the fact that Clans could still mass more DHS, which would end up ridiculous when we balance based on the extremes. But it's far more prudent to just take clans down a notch.

Yeonne Greene, on 13 August 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

Furthermore, the only IS lasers that are tangibly colder for the damage are:

• IS Small Laser
  
• IS Small Pulse Laser
  
• IS ER Large Laser
  
• IS Large Pulse Laser

The first two are so pathetic in terms of damage that nobody cares, and the second two are so heavy that they can't bring enough heatsinks for that heat advantage to actually count; that's why letting the cERLL also fire in groups of 3 without ghost heat is such a horrible idea, because they become ridiculously heat efficient by comparison.

Well, props for being honest.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 August 2018 - 07:38 PM.

[50 50]

Chris Lowrey, on 16 August 2018 - 01:49 PM, said:

I'm not opposed to changes that have to do with LOS and indirect fire, but as Paul indicated earlier, this would be considered a feature overhaul which makes it a much bigger change then what our monthly weapon changes bring. Not to mention go through the technical review process for a solution that works efficiently in-game. This doesn't mean we'll never consider it. But as Paul said, these are much larger asks that would take time to both review internally and implement if we feel it can be done without breaking anything else in-game.

If those options become available to me for tuning in the future, I'll defiantly put them to good use. But until then, I need to work with what I have.

Understood and thank you for the reply.

There seems to be a few discussions here about the LRMs (also acknowledging the other weapon systems as being discussed).
1 - being their use in the higher tiers as compared to lower tier play and the point made about becoming obsolete.
2 - how they are used/the style of play indirect fire falls into.
3 - being the actual effectiveness (or not) of the weapon and perhaps as part of that, the experience of being hit by them.

Point 1 ties in with point 2 as using something like Artemis to change the weapon to a direct fire weapon will create a new play style while still retaining the unique 'artillery' nature they currently have if it isn't equipped. It becomes a player choice, but also then a more acceptable weapon choice in the context of team play and armour sharing that goes along more with direct fire weapons.

I would not at all be surprised that if there were other indirect fire weapons in the game that they would also have sort of criticism.

Point 3 is more on the subject of balance however.
IF the weapon is seeing a lot more use at the moment, have they actually become more effective?
It might be reasonable to think so and that it may no longer be a sub standard selection option.
I would then ask if that is the case, then are the effective counters such as AMS balanced against them and it should be noted that the AMS is also a system that becomes a bit obsolete in the higher tiers even though it has use against the other missile weapons.
Directly increasing the effectiveness of AMS by adjusting it's stats might see an uptake in that system being equipped as a result but this might need to be monitored against it's impact on the other missile weapons.
AMS could also be indirectly buffed by decreasing the health of the missiles which would allow the system to be specifically balanced against LRMs.
A small off shoot benefit of this is that by virtue of adding a support system such as the AMS it takes up tonnage that might otherwise be used for other weapons which could have a small impact on the Alpha discussion.
The unpleasant experience of being bombarded to death by LRMs is probably just as bad as being rattled to death by RACs or multiple AC/LBx 2 builds. Increasing the effectiveness of AMS would help alleviate this somewhat against the LRMs.

The Laser AMS is really too hot to be used, especially in greater numbers. It may be a more accepted option if the system had a 'jam/overheat' period similar to the RAC instead of heat so that it provided protection for a limited time allowing a mech to change position and get cover before it does shut down.
I've tried using combinations of ballistic and laser AMS to manage this as well as manually shutting them down to manage the heat, but this is awkward as the shut down for AMS is an all or nothing.... which raises a couple of little questions:

@Chris
1. I don't believe it to currently be the case, but are the AMS systems affected by weapon nodes in the skill tree (range/heat etc)?
2. Would it be difficult to change the AMS to function on a weapon group or have individual toggles (which the weapon group would do)?
3. Is there the possibility of changing the Laser AMS to use the RAC overload function instead of generating heat?

Personally I enjoy the support play style and team benefit AMS creates and the triple AMS NVA-S has been my go to mech for years. So in that sense, an uptake in weapons such as LRMs creates the opportunity for a support role to emerge and shine.

Edited by 50 50, 16 August 2018 - 04:36 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Chris Lowrey, on 16 August 2018 - 01:49 PM, said:

I'm not opposed to changes that have to do with LOS and indirect fire, but as Paul indicated earlier, this would be considered a feature overhaul which makes it a much bigger change then what our monthly weapon changes bring. Not to mention go through the technical review process for a solution that works efficiently in-game. This doesn't mean we'll never consider it. But as Paul said, these are much larger asks that would take time to both review internally and implement if we feel it can be done without breaking anything else in-game.

If those options become available to me for tuning in the future, I'll defiantly put them to good use. But until then, I need to work with what I have.

This dancing around the problem is exactly why LRMs aren't getting fixed.

We want it fixed, you want it fixed, but you (PGI staff) don't want to put in the much needed time and effort to do so. Don't get me wrong, I value time, I understand that people are busy, but at this point you might as well leave a facebook like for the starving children of *name an african country*.

Sentiments don't doesn't help.

tl;dr - What you "have" (being current lrm mechanics) is ****, that's why it doesn't help.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 August 2018 - 04:02 PM.

[Stinger554]

The6thMessenger, on 16 August 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

I'll say it again. Considering that IS lasers are generally cooler, this isn't really much of an issue. You know what the real issue is? Clan lasers.

....that's the issue; IS lasers do not run cooler overall. Individually they are cooler, but in practice they run hotter because of the discrepancy in DHS.

[The6thMessenger]

Stinger554, on 16 August 2018 - 06:11 PM, said:

....that's the issue; IS lasers do not run cooler overall. Individually they are cooler, but in practice they run hotter because of the discrepancy in DHS.

Don't get me wrong, I get that IS is lacking many ways, and a buff to IS DHS would go a long way. But compared to Clan, IS lasers are far more manageable, sure it's attributable to lower damage/heat, but it is manageable.

It is exactly a comment to the IS lasers generally, as in not just your average laser vomit, it's literally about how IS Lasers are also paired with other weapons that aren't similarly poke.

I have no delusion that IS builds are equal to that of Clan's.

Once we get to really min-max builds, of course we see considerable discrepancies. Clan Mechs have more leeway for more cooling, for builds that are colder for the same setup as IS mechs, for them to do more damage for lesser weight.

But when it comes down to that, that's far more than just an issue for DHS to solve, it's a lot of compounding variables such as generally lighter Clan equipment, lasers have more damage, with CXL to boot, with smaller FFA and Endo-Steel, ******* heavy-lasers, and so on and so forth. Increasing the DHS, while isn't unwelcomed, it won't be much of a balancing factor because the rest of the Clan **** is OP.

That being said, once we get down to it, it's not IS mechs that are the issue, they are fine, they handle okay.

However, the real problem is that, in comparison, the Clan is just op: Buff IS DHS, you're still looking at Heavy-Lasers that maximizes damage/ton, ACs and missiles that are lighter, all of it compounds to a lot of CDHS, it's just the reality of Clans being able to mass so much equipment.

If we account for the min-maxes, then it will have cascading effects on the lower end. It's an argument about where the baseline is. So when I say that "this isn't really much of an issue", means there's far more pressing issues that we're not addressing, Clan is the issue, not the IS.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 August 2018 - 07:54 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Chris, what about bringing the XL engines, especially isXL in line to where it has all the benefits of the cXL, ie surviving the loss of one side torso? Using only part of the engine crit system to spell death for the isXL w/one side torso was put into the game as a placeholder for when PGI would add an actual full fledged engine crit system. Russ said it every time, including when they finally added the first heat dissipation penalty to the cXL months after Clan release, over a year later when movement penalty then again when they upped the heat dissipation from 20% to 40%. Then finally when the Skill Tree when live last year you had noted you were evaluating the engine setups.

Edit. Lets not forgot IS Omnimechs...if PGI does mechpacks for them, how well is that actually going to go over?

Or lets say PGI had used the flavor of engine crit but set up both isXL and cXL (then also LFE) to die with the loss of first side torso? How well would that have gone for the Clans? Wait, have many forgotten that the Clan Omnis were introduced with out any non-lethal penalties w/1st ST loss for several months?

And do not forget IS equipment is heavier and takes up more slots.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 16 August 2018 - 07:51 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 16 August 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

Increasing heat capacity for them via buffed DHS only increases the frequency of their laser-vomit poke, but nonetheless each poke deals comparatively paltry damage.

And at the same time, IS can put greater pressure by leaving smaller gaps in the firing line.

It worked fantastically in 2015.

Quote

Seriously though, what about how they fit and serve the faction instead? This 1:1 balance is childish and misses the bigger picture. IS heat is fine, it's the Clans that's an Issue. Now i will grant you this, better heat capacity and dissipation will help IS immensely, but it doesn't address Clan superiority.

Decreasing Clan output results in a more 1-to-1 scenario than increasing IS dissipation would.

Quote

Well, i have to give you credit, given equal damage/heat, the IS builds yielding lower heat-cap is something. Also faster dissipation on lighter mechs is too.

Be careful with that table; it's only showing you averages. Like, damage over duration for the longest beam is actually less DPS than is delivered moment-to-moment. Same for cyclic DPS, it will actually be even higher if you just hold your triggers down.

Quote

That being said, considering ergonomics, as in IS lasers are easier to handle, so yeah, them being hot isn't much of an issue. While i understand that you are pointing as the balance between Clan and IS heat dissipation with the builds they allow and I acknowledge that it is, that hardly addresses what I'm actually saying.

They really aren't. I made a whole thread about it in the PTS subforum, and I've linked to it no less than three times in this thread, but at the end of the day both Clan and IS lasers put you at about the same percentage of your heat-cap per alpha for their respective bread-and-butter combos, take within the same ballpark to cool down enough to fire again (and Clans actually take significantly less time the bigger both volleys get), and the Clan laser bundles do about the same damage in the same amount of beam duration when you actually break down how much damage per second is being delivered according to the segment of the burn we are talking about (i.e. the DPS is higher when both cERML and HLL are going than when the cERML are done and it's just the last 0.3 seconds from the HLL).

It's only on fast Lights where IS lasers are more "ergonomic," which is something I've been pounding on as well and which PGI even alludes to in the OP of this thread. Clans can't get the critical mass of firepower or any extra cooling to exceed IS beam intensity or cooling efficiency on fast Lights because everybody is tonnage limited instead of slot-limited.

Quote

I was literally pointing out that IS Lasers is fine, which would make them the baseline, and at an extent implies that Clan is over performing from that baseline.

Agree to disagree on that. IS lasers were in a better place in 2015-16 when the "ERML" was a 4-heat IS ML quirked to 350 meters and with a 10-20% heat gen quirk applied, a 3 second base cooldown, and the LPL still did 11 damage. Ever since CW, IS laser volleys have gotten smaller because of heat and damage nerfs while Clan volleys have grown larger.

Give me back the ability to realistically field a 58-63-point, rapid-fire alpha on a Black Knight and this whole "superior Clan alpha" problem evaporates.

Quote

Concerning Clan Laser-Vomit imbalance, IS Heat capacity isn't exactly a direct way to do it. Your spreadsheet only shows that this is a Clan issue than IS one. Increase the DHS for IS, now they are even more ergonomic, but they're still doing worse damage per poke than Clan. They're a lot more brawly that's for sure, but while it buffs specific and more aggressive playstyle for IS side, well Clans are still deleting components from afar with just several clicks.

I'll say it again. Considering that IS lasers are generally cooler, this isn't really much of an issue. You know what the real issue is? Clan lasers, and clan as a whole.

We can, and we should buff IS DHS, but that won't address the fact that Clans could still mass more DHS, which would end up ridiculous when we balance based on the extremes. But it's far more prudent to just take clans down a notch.

You buff IS DHS to 0.25 dissipation per sink and you undo the nerfs to IS ML/ERML and the IS LPL, and I promise Clan laser alphas will not be a problem.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 16 August 2018 - 08:19 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

And at the same time, IS can put greater pressure by leaving smaller gaps in the firing line.

It worked fantastically in 2015.

How would new tech fit in this? How would new mechs too? What about the Skill-tree and engine-desync?

Don't get me wrong, something like Piranha needs nega quirks, just as IS mechs need quirks. But maybe just going all member-berries isn't the right way to go.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

Decreasing Clan output results in a more 1-to-1 scenario than increasing IS dissipation would.

Well, I'm down to decreasing clan output. But honestly it should be more nuanced than just simply making it 1:1. Nerfing Clan is another matter. Lets not apply that to Clan Gauss Rifle either as Khobai has been suggesting over and over again.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

Be careful with that table; it's only showing you averages. Like, damage over duration for the longest beam is actually less DPS than is delivered moment-to-moment. Same for cyclic DPS, it will actually be even higher if you just hold your triggers down.

I'm well aware.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

They really aren't. I made a whole thread about it in the PTS subforum, and I've linked to it no less than three times in this thread, but at the end of the day both Clan and IS lasers put you at about the same percentage of your heat-cap per alpha for their respective bread-and-butter combos, take within the same ballpark to cool down enough to fire again (and Clans actually take significantly less time the bigger both volleys get), and the Clan laser bundles do about the same damage in the same amount of beam duration when you actually break down how much damage per second is being delivered according to the segment of the burn we are talking about (i.e. the DPS is higher when both cERML and HLL are going than when the cERML are done and it's just the last 0.3 seconds from the HLL).

I get that IS lasers have equal damage/heat. But again, they are colder, because they do less damage, and that was the point. Given that IS has lower output in the first place, it ends up doing lower damage per weapon, needing less heatsinks for the same amount of weapons. And that is what I was referencing.

I'm not disagreeing with the claim that IS needs DHS boost, i'm simply arguing that with the less generated heat per weapon, it's not much of an issue compared to something like the Clans being totally OP.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

Agree to disagree on that.

Sure I guess. I'm just not into power-creep.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

IS lasers were in a better place in 2015-16 when the "ERML" was a 4-heat IS ML quirked to 350 meters and with a 10-20% heat gen quirk applied, a 3 second base cooldown, and the LPL still did 11 damage. Ever since CW, IS laser volleys have gotten smaller because of heat and damage nerfs while Clan volleys have grown larger.

I wasn't here for that. But considering that there's a lot of changes with additional tech, with engine-desync, i don't think it would translate well.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

Give me back the ability to realistically field a 58-63-point, rapid-fire alpha on a Black Knight and this whole "superior Clan alpha" problem evaporates.

Or similarly, just nerf the god damn clans. Works better. Other builds would also be viable instead of just one poke vs another.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

You buff IS DHS to 0.25 dissipation per sink and you undo the nerfs to IS ML/ERML and the IS LPL, and I promise Clan laser alphas will not be a problem.

"You"? Balance ain't in my hands.

Besides, that's only solving the faction lasers, what about versus other weapons? Where you're coming from seems to be just IS Laserboats vs Clan Laserboats. What I am trying to consider is other weapon builds, for other builds to go toe to toe with laser-vomits.

"Promise"? I don't think we're in any position to make promises.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 August 2018 - 10:22 PM.

[Horseman]

Tarl Cabot, on 16 August 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

Chris, what about bringing the XL engines, especially isXL in line to where it has all the benefits of the cXL, ie surviving the loss of one side torso? Using only part of the engine crit system to spell death for the isXL w/one side torso was put into the game as a placeholder for when PGI would add an actual full fledged engine crit system. Russ said it every time, including when they finally added the first heat dissipation penalty to the cXL months after Clan release, over a year later when movement penalty then again when they upped the heat dissipation from 20% to 40%. Then finally when the Skill Tree when live last year you had noted you were evaluating the engine setups.

An engine crit system would drastically increase decrease TTK. And no, ISXL cannot be made equal with CXL - if it was then there's little to no reason to take LFEs.

EDIT: Meant decrease.

Edited by Horseman, 17 August 2018 - 11:45 AM.

[Jatix]

"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."

THEY GET IT!

I have been very sad with the current state of the game, but I am glad that you guys are at least trying. Just remember, some people might quit when they get nerfed. But more people are quitting from bad gameplay.

Quirks were bad before but quirks done right are what we really needed. Some mechs are just bad and need them, like the spider. We just dont need ttk quirks like the dragons 50% ac5. We just need armor and stuff mixed with some smaller offence ones. Minus the extremely weak mechs like the spider, they can get a stupid op offence quirk. for obvious reasons lol.

[Ardney]

Chris Lowrey, on 16 August 2018 - 01:49 PM, said:

If those options become available to me for tuning in the future, I'll defiantly put them to good use.

It keeps happening so I gotta say it at least once...

It's "definitely", as in "definite", not "defiantly", as in "defiance".

Carry on

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 16 August 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

How would new tech fit in this? How would new mechs too? What about the Skill-tree and engine-desync?

You'd probably have to increase the heat on MRMs and RACs, otherwise everything else is fine; Clan 'Mechs with dakka and missile carriers already carry more DHS than their IS counterparts, too.

None of the new 'Mechs do anything that couldn't be done on older 'Mechs.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, something like Piranha needs nega quirks, just as IS mechs need quirks. But maybe just going all member-berries isn't the right way to go.

Piranha is fine, crits in general are not. {GI nerfed the hell out of item health, then added a bunch of buffs to weapons that do crits, all under some misguided belief that crits are a fantastic gameplay mechanics that is widely desirable.

Quote

Well, I'm down to decreasing clan output. But honestly it should be more nuanced than just simply making it 1:1. Nerfing Clan is another matter. Lets not apply that to Clan Gauss Rifle either as Khobai has been suggesting over and over again.

That's my point; if you decrease Clan output, you make them more like the IS. If you increase IS damage, you make them more like the Clans. If you increase IS dissipation and decrease their cooldowns, you make them play decidedly different but in a way that's still effective.

Quote

I'm well aware.

Had some dude on Reddit who wasn't and was misinterpreting the data, hence the bumper sticker.

Quote

I get that IS lasers have equal damage/heat. But again, they are colder, because they do less damage, and that was the point. Given that IS has lower output in the first place, it ends up doing lower damage per weapon, needing less heatsinks for the same amount of weapons. And that is what I was referencing.

But you still need the same amount of heatsinks for the same amount of constant output because the heat and damage reduction are, broadly, proportional relative to the Clan versions.

The number of guns is honestly irrelevant, what matters is whether or not the bundles are competitive with each other. Clans only need 6 hardpoints to get a competitive alpha, IS need 8.

Quote

I'm not disagreeing with the claim that IS needs DHS boost, i'm simply arguing that with the less generated heat per weapon, it's not much of an issue compared to something like the Clans being totally OP.

See above. It's still an issue because, contrary to popular belief, IS laser vomit is actually easier to push on.

Quote

Sure I guess. I'm just not into power-creep.

Not really power creep when it's matching what's already there. Also not really power creep if the resulting threat level forces more cautious play, resulting in a longer average TTK over the course of a match.

Frankly, I have no interest in increasing raw TTK any more from the current point; the game is already too much of a mindless DPS zerg rush.

Quote

I wasn't here for that. But considering that there's a lot of changes with additional tech, with engine-desync, i don't think it would translate well.

You missed out. Widely considered the best period in the game's history, balance-wise.

Engine desync itself isn't a problem, PGI's selected values are a problem. Agility needs to go back up so players can actually spread the damage without the guns having to be turned into clumsy lightsabers.

New tech also isn't a problem, as mentioned up top. The LFEs don't even matter, everything was using XL back then and they would start using XLs again because the threat level you earn by doing so becomes worth it.

Quote

Or similarly, just nerf the god damn clans. Works better. Other builds would also be viable instead of just one poke vs another.

Evidently not.

Quote

"You"? Balance ain't in my hands.

Figure of speech, c'mon dude.

Quote

Besides, that's only solving the faction lasers, what about versus other weapons? Where you're coming from seems to be just IS Laserboats vs Clan Laserboats. What I am trying to consider is other weapon builds, for other builds to go toe to toe with laser-vomits.

Plenty of other builds already go toe-to-toe with laser vomit, though. Laser vomit is not the current meta, dakka spam is, with a side of H/cGauss-vomit and missiles.

Quote

"Promise"? I don't think we're in any position to make promises.

Having already experienced what I suggested, it's a very safe bet.

[Khobai]

yep clan weapons arnt really any hotter than IS weapons as far as damage per heat.

clan mechs just run hotter because CDHS let them have a higher damage throughput, which in turn costs more heat.

but clan mechs can always choose to lower their damage throughput to match IS mechs, and they would then run no hotter than any IS mech.

CDHS allow clan mechs to maintain a higher level of dps than any IS mech is capable of. And thats one of the biggest imbalances in the game ATM.

The6thMessenger, on 16 August 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

I get that IS lasers have equal damage/heat. But again, they are colder, because they do less damage, and that was the point. Given that IS has lower output in the first place, it ends up doing lower damage per weapon, needing less heatsinks for the same amount of weapons. And that is what I was referencing.

but thats also a huge imbalance. because it means clans will always have more firepower and IS can never match them. you cant balance a game like that, and its no surprise MWO's balance has failed miserably.

ISDHS need a buff. they cost more than CDHS so they should be better than CDHS. it really is that simple.



Also the ghost heat limits should be equalized. Using the ERML as an example...

CERML should be lowered to 6 damage. And the ghost heat limit should be 5. 6x5 = 30

ISERML should stay at 5 damage. And the ghost heat limit should stay at 6. 5x6 = 30

now ghost heat is equalized at 30 for both

Edited by Khobai, 16 August 2018 - 11:31 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 16 August 2018 - 11:20 PM, said:

yep clan weapons arnt really any hotter than IS weapons as far as damage per heat.

But it's more than that.

Khobai, on 16 August 2018 - 11:20 PM, said:

clan mechs just run hotter because CDHS let them have a higher damage throughput, which in turn costs more heat.

but clan mechs can always choose to lower their damage throughput to match IS mechs, and they would then run no hotter than any IS mech.

Yeah but, IS needs less DHS for the same amount of weapons, needs less DHS for the same amount of tonnage.

Khobai, on 16 August 2018 - 11:20 PM, said:

CDHS allow clan mechs to maintain a higher level of dps than any IS mech is capable of. And thats one of the biggest imbalances in the game ATM.

True. But hardly an IS issue, it's more of Clan issue really.

Khobai, on 16 August 2018 - 11:20 PM, said:

but thats also a huge imbalance. because it means clans will always have more firepower and IS can never match them. you cant balance a game like that, and its no surprise MWO's balance has failed miserably.

True. But again, Clan issue.

Khobai, on 16 August 2018 - 11:20 PM, said:

ISDHS need a buff. they cost more than CDHS so they should be better than CDHS. it really is that simple.

Sure, never really disagreed that it did. However compared to Clan Lasers just plainly OP, it's just a more pressing matter.

Reduce the amount of damage, so that Clans need more tonnage for more alpha than DHS, there's probably an impact.

Khobai, on 16 August 2018 - 11:20 PM, said:

Also the ghost heat limits need to be equalized. Using the ERML as an example...

CERML should be lowered to 6 damage. And the ghost heat limit should be 5. 6x5 = 30

ISERML should stay at 5 damage. And the ghost heat limit should stay at 6. 5x6 = 30

now ghost heat is equalized at 30 for both

Laser Vomits like Hellbringer, doing 2x HLL + 4x ERML isn't affected. They're still stacking a lot of damage for all we care.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

You'd probably have to increase the heat on MRMs and RACs, otherwise everything else is fine; Clan 'Mechs with dakka and missile carriers already carry more DHS than their IS counterparts, too.

None of the new 'Mechs do anything that couldn't be done on older 'Mechs.

I don't think RACs should get any more heat nerfs. Hell, they're already hard to use with other weapons right now because of the heat.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Piranha is fine, crits in general are not. {GI nerfed the hell out of item health, then added a bunch of buffs to weapons that do crits, all under some misguided belief that crits are a fantastic gameplay mechanics that is widely desirable.

Crits is one thing. But hardpoint-inflation, allowing a small boat is a different story.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

That's my point; if you decrease Clan output, you make them more like the IS. If you increase IS damage, you make them more like the Clans. If you increase IS dissipation and decrease their cooldowns, you make them play decidedly different but in a way that's still effective.

I'm more for a different types of playstyles, but that would only really define IS lasers vs Clan lasers. It still does not account for Clan Lasers being the meta go-to.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

But you still need the same amount of heatsinks for the same amount of constant output because the heat and damage reduction are, broadly, proportional relative to the Clan versions.

Yeah, but IS is generally not exactly capable of outputting the same amount of alpha for the same amount of efficiency. While sure, that is an issue, but if it's really impractical then why defend it? It's like PGI's 94-point alpha, funny that Dire could do 108.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

The number of guns is honestly irrelevant, what matters is whether or not the bundles are competitive with each other. Clans only need 6 hardpoints to get a competitive alpha, IS need 8.

Numbers is irrelevant when we're only talking about builds vs builds, and we couldn't deviate from it. We have the damn mechlab. Don't get me wrong, i am not defending idiocy like LRM80 annihilator, or Direstar. It's irrelevant to potency, just viability.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

See above. It's still an issue because, contrary to popular belief, IS laser vomit is actually easier to push on.

Clan alpha is still a bigger issue. I honestly don't mind pokers being easy to push, the point was is that they punish passive play, and people holing up.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Not really power creep when it's matching what's already there. Also not really power creep if the resulting threat level forces more cautious play, resulting in a longer average TTK over the course of a match.

Frankly, I have no interest in increasing raw TTK any more from the current point; the game is already too much of a mindless DPS zerg rush.

Nope, still power creep. Depends on the baseline. And i wouldn't put Clan on the base.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

You missed out. Widely considered the best period in the game's history, balance-wise.

Maybe. I liked pre-civil war, last august i think. Mech the Dane called it golden-era of balance.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Engine desync itself isn't a problem, PGI's selected values are a problem. Agility needs to go back up so players can actually spread the damage without the guns having to be turned into clumsy lightsabers.

Yeah but, it's another experimentation that we could also use different values for either the mobility, and the previous values, so may end up different after all.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Evidently not.

Evident from what? The reject of PGI's attempt? ****'s poorly executed, not to mention that it's not exactly the same environment -- as in 12v12s.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Figure of speech, c'mon dude.

Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Speech is protection from being silenced.

That being said, i'm just being a local grammar-{Godwin's Law}, ignore that.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Plenty of other builds already go toe-to-toe with laser vomit, though. Laser vomit is not the current meta, dakka spam is, with a side of H/cGauss-vomit and missiles.

I don't know, Gauss and Laser vomit is still potent. Besides, what is used frequently isn't the same as being meta. At this point, I'd like to have that Night-Gyr 2x-Gauss PPC back.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 August 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Having already experienced what I suggested, it's a very safe bet.

With confounding variables (look up experiments), I doubt that.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 August 2018 - 11:36 PM.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 16 August 2018 - 11:31 PM, said:

Yeah but, IS needs less DHS for the same amount of weapons

and as weve been repeatedly telling you, this is blatantly false.


for example compare 7 ERMLs vs 5 CERMLs. both do 35 damage. both are 31.5 heat.

and if you factor in ghost heat, the IS mech is actually generating MORE HEAT to do the same 35 damage, while also having considerably less range. not to mention the whole inferiority of ISDHS vs CDHS. the IS mech will always run that loadout inferior to a clan mech. the problem is made even worse by the fact most IS mechs dont even have the 7-8 requisite energy hardpoints to match their clan counterparts for damage.


your thinking is backwards. Its not clan weapons that run hot and require CDHS to be better. its CDHS being better that allow clan mechs to run hotter, more damaging loadouts.

and again, ISDHS at 3 crit slots should be better than CDHS at 2 crit slots. That is how you balance the game properly. The more something costs the better it should be. All external ISDHS should be 2.0

But also the CERML needs to be knocked down to 6 damage. 7 damage makes it way too good per tonnage.

Edited by Khobai, 17 August 2018 - 02:12 AM.

[Cruor vult]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 17 August 2018 - 04:21 AM.
insults, unconstructive, replies removed

[Shaggath]

Balance it's impossible the nerf have a goal to move the meta to a better position with more room for light and brawl.

But clan player oppose the faction balance.

I think it's impossible nerfing without nerfing this require political skill.

Actual IS minicampaign event was really intresting and i play just to play using light and brawl.

Where Clan was really awful and i do the minimum to claim reward.

Clan was all time a 10 first minute dead with only potatoes lasor build waiting the error and a blue sky of lrm.

The conclusion is simple the overall balance in IS weapon is far better then Clan, lrm are less powerfull and boating them make you more vulnerable without extra weapon, it's why there was less present.
Range and damage are more limited with laser giving the time to close gap for brawl, heavy alpha build have little range puting the mech who use that vulnerable with high cooldown in cqc.
PPC have an utility aka range pinpoint weapon for poptart with better damage at long range then ERLL but you need to hit.

Some weapon need tweak to give them distinct utility like light gauss who need extrem range like in the tabletop game, or rac 5 who require less jam duration and only five slot to open build into arm and light engine combo on torso.
Introduce Gauss minimal range like in tabletop can also be a good improvment.
But the overall balance is really better.


So for an easy temporary or not solution make this permanent giving the player the possibility to choose the game rule IS only, Clan only or both.

I can understand clan player can love that meta but personnaly i found this stupid waiting for a patch who nerver come so please give me the choice.
i don't care about waiting more too find a game if at the end i can have something more intresting.

Edited by Shaggath, 17 August 2018 - 05:25 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 01:56 AM, said:

and as weve been repeatedly telling you, this is blatantly false.

for example compare 7 ERMLs vs 5 CERMLs. both do 35 damage. both are 31.5 heat.

You say that it is false, yet you prove otherwise by pointing out that IS allots 7 ERML vs 5 CERML. Oh the irony.

Again, I am not saying that IS have lower damage/heat, I am saying that IS is ergonomically fine, it's the Clans that are overperforming. The issue is the gulf between the two techbases, not whether IS lasers isn't that viable.

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 01:56 AM, said:

your thinking is backwards. Its not clan weapons that run hot and require CDHS to be better. its CDHS being better that allow clan mechs to run hotter, more damaging loadouts.

Wrong, you aren't even understanding where i am coming from. As I have been pointing out, IS lasers are kinda fine. It's the Clan tech that's OP. We can buff the IS DHS sure, but it's inevitable that Clan could mass a lot more of the technologically same stuff, that's the reality, and we'll inevitably see insane amount of alpha, and insane amount cooling.

Backwards thinking my ***.

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 01:56 AM, said:

and again, ISDHS at 3 crit slots should be better than CDHS at 2 crit slots. That is how you balance the game properly. The more something costs the better it should be. All external ISDHS should be 2.0

Wrong, this 1:1 approach isn't as nuanced. If we're thinking of actually properly buffing IS DHS, it should also do a lot more cooling than just 3-CDHS=2iDHS, mainly because every other equipment in the IS directory is pretty much heavier, so even if it's equal in terms of slots, you'd still be putting less because of other equipment taking so much tonnage, and that's not even including the slot-eating FFA and ESS.

If you want to buff DHS, do it right. Else just nerf the damn Clans.

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 01:56 AM, said:

But also the CERML needs to be knocked down to 6 damage. 7 damage makes it way too good per tonnage.

So far, the only thing you understood right about my sentiment.