605 replies to this topic

[Chados]

This is kind of my point-the Artemis nerf is only going to encourage even more Turretwarrior.

[Mister Maf]

Daurock, on 08 August 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

My thoughts in general -

On LRMs
-snip-

Now that I think about it, actually, you're right. The only change here that really does anything is the ECM boost. Nerfing Artemis and tightening the lock angle only hurts the players who join the fight with their team and does nothing to the players sitting behind cover under no threat, relying on allied locks for indirect fire. The better way to do it would be to nerf the missiles themselves, and then buff Artemis so that the LRM mech would have to actually participate in the fight to be effective.

Edited by Mister Maf, 08 August 2018 - 10:13 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Mister Maf, on 08 August 2018 - 10:12 AM, said:

Now that I think about it, actually, you're right. The only change here that really does anything is the ECM boost. Nerfing Artemis and tightening the lock angle only hurts the players who join the fight with their team and does nothing to the players sitting behind cover under no threat, relying on allied locks for indirect fire. The better way to do it would be to nerf the missiles themselves, and then buff Artemis so that the LRM mech would have to actually participate in the fight to be effective.

Yep.

Again, a knee jerk reaction to the problem. Make a change? Problem. How to fix the problem? Make another change. New problem? Change something else. The first reaction should be to reverse the change the occurred before the problem. Maybe LRM's need a buff, but a *different* buff than the one they got. That would be the scientific approach. Change one variable at a time, not every dial all at once, and then more dials with the first dials fall off. I do not understand the aversion to reverting changes that were a mistake. I cannot remember a single time a change was reverted. Which is why we really need to respond quickly and decisively when things start going a bad direction.


Artemis nerf will certainly bolster the behind cover play style and render artemis useless for everything but brawl assaults with tons and crits to spare.


PS: Didn't guided missiles have a base chance to miss entirely in battletech? Why doesn't that translate?

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 08 August 2018 - 10:39 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Also, if you're looking at FW for IS v Clan balance data, you might as well forget it, unless you ONLY look at 12v12 premades of units that know what they're doing. Plenty of matches over these last few events with people who pull only a couple hundred damage across 4 'mech's. That is not representative. So much of this game is in the mechlab, if people bring junk, they bring junk. You can't make crummy builds viable, nor should you try because you'll upend every part of the game in the attempt.

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 08 August 2018 - 10:48 AM.

[Paul Inouye]

Just a heads up.

For next PTS:

- Full reset to what is on live servers right now.
- We will be looking at the effects of a locked heat cap and faster dissipation proposal from long ago.
- Spectrum of 'Mechs will be buffed in terms of agility/mobility and that list will be provided prior to PTS going up.

What we hope to gain:
- Is the heatcap/faster dissipation route something that is a feasible net gain for the laser vomit issue?
- The agility/mobility buffs to the selected 'Mechs, is it buffed enough/too much? While we'll be doing a small subset of the 'Mech line-up, we are going to be targeting the slowest performers and a few suggested by the community to set a standard to address the rest of the 'Mechs.

While LRMs are being covered in a few changes in August's patch, we will be investigating other items that the community has put on the table as well. This will be tested in a subsequent PTS after the above. We are not going to stock pile a bunch of changes into a single PTS as there are too many variables at play to have proper testing coverage.

[Daurock]

thoughts Pt 2:

Clan Lasers / Gauss Vomits -

I personally think that Laser/Gauss vomits are far to prevalent on the clan side of the aisle. Whether the reasons for that being that clan chassis are bad, forcing that type of playstyle, or whether it is that other clan weapons are simply bad, the fact remains, that Laser/Gauss vomit is the prevailing type of build for nearly half of clan mechs. Since a widespread buff to many clan weapons is mostly out of the equation, that leaves us with the need to reduce the power of these types of builds. (Assuming we want to see more diveristy in builds, clan side.)

I like the fact that you looked into it pretty deeply on the 2 test servers - They brought a few things into focus, namely that the "Holy Trinity" of Alpha, Damage/Tic, and Sustainability (A function of alpha, heat, and number of heatsinks), that clan laser builds possess can be attacked in several ways. Regardless of whatever the correct solution is, it's good its being looked into.

From here, i think we are at a good point to to ask the following questions internally, and have a clear goal in mind after answering them. (The community will obviously be very divided on these things) In order to have a clear plan, you need clear goals

A few good questions to ask internally -
- What advantages should a clan Laser build have, when compared to a similarly sized IS mech?
- Do those advantages apply to all mechs in the same fashion? If not, are you prepared to buff those mechs accordingly?
- What penalty should they have for that advantage? Is this penalty an actual penalty, or is it simply a "paper" penalty, like the durations on live currently are?
- Does the Penalty effect all mechs equally? Are these the same mechs that the Advantage would apply to, or is this making the weapon doubly bad on mechs that can't use that advantage? Can those mechs hurt by it be worked around, either in the mechlab, or via quirks to make a viable mech?

Bottom line -
Once we got through all of that, we can get back to asking the basic question at the top of the list - How do we bring down the very large clan alpha, while not torching the viability of the lighter clan chassis?
I think it's important not to over-think this one - if you want to bring down alpha, bring down alphas - Add stats in elsewhere where needed. In the case of clan laser and gauss alphas, the community document probably hits somewhat close - ERML damage to 6, HLL Damage nerf, cGauss DAMAGE nerf, instead of shake. Couple that with some respectable buffs to clan mediums and lights, and you've effectively reduced the alpha of the bigger clan mechs, while not entirely torching the lighter chassis. Doing that potentially drops the "Boogeyman" 84 point Deathstrike down to 72. (and more importantly, drops the alpha of the 72 point deathstrike down to 62, and the HBR 64 point vomit down to 56) Clan chassis deficiencies, and IS weaponry ease-of-use can make up for the rest. They'd still maintain an alpha advantage, feel the same as live, but open up the various chassis for actual buffs.

Edited by Daurock, 17 August 2018 - 08:21 AM.

[process]

Paul Inouye, on 08 August 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

Just a heads up.

For next PTS:

- Full reset to what is on live servers right now.
- We will be looking at the effects of a locked heat cap and faster dissipation proposal from long ago.
- Spectrum of 'Mechs will be buffed in terms of agility/mobility and that list will be provided prior to PTS going up.

Oh man I hope I'm not out of the country when this goes live. I've been wanting to try this for years.

[Jman5]

Paul Inouye, on 08 August 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

Just a heads up.

For next PTS:

- Full reset to what is on live servers right now.
- We will be looking at the effects of a locked heat cap and faster dissipation proposal from long ago.
- Spectrum of 'Mechs will be buffed in terms of agility/mobility and that list will be provided prior to PTS going up.

What we hope to gain:
- Is the heatcap/faster dissipation route something that is a feasible net gain for the laser vomit issue?
- The agility/mobility buffs to the selected 'Mechs, is it buffed enough/too much? While we'll be doing a small subset of the 'Mech line-up, we are going to be targeting the slowest performers and a few suggested by the community to set a standard to address the rest of the 'Mechs.

While LRMs are being covered in a few changes in August's patch, we will be investigating other items that the community has put on the table as well. This will be tested in a subsequent PTS after the above. We are not going to stock pile a bunch of changes into a single PTS as there are too many variables at play to have proper testing coverage.

I'm looking forward to trying it out. Do you guys feel it's necessary to buff dissipation rate? Would be interesting to put capacity at 50 (30+20 from 10 internal DHS) and then just leave dissipation rate as it is on the live server. I feel like dissipation rate is already high for the sorts of builds you guys are looking to bring down a peg.

Edited by Jman5, 08 August 2018 - 11:23 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Paul Inouye, on 08 August 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

- We will be looking at the effects of a locked heat cap and faster dissipation proposal from long ago.

Roughly the same effect as increased duration, since people will just stagger fire them and take advantage of the heat dissipation. So damage spread to more components over a greater period of time, while reducing skilled players ability to capitalize on openings. Agility has a more direct effect on if a 'mech feels good to play and allows players to spread damage by moving, if you look at the most played variants of any 'mech, or mechs of any weight class, I think you'll find they are typically the most agile, provided they aren't giving up hard points/massive quirks against their competition.

Why pursue reducing big alphas and increasing time to kill at all?

Increasing time to kill does not necessarily have a direct correlation to improving matches or player enjoyment. Dying slowly is just going to be increased agony, but maybe the bit of extra damage they do will be a consolation. Rather, increasing match making quality will increase time to kill because players will be amungst peers or at least in more balanced matches. Overall increasing player experience and retention. Most online games buff new players stats behind the scenes, because they discovered that if a player doesn't get a kill on their first multiplayer match, they don't sign in ever again. Some games make the last 1% of health worth 10%, again behind the scenes, to create more exciting "clutch" moments which increases player experience. Not sure if we could/should do that here, but the science has been done. There is more to what people get out of a game than spread sheet values.

TTK is not a valid metric for determining if the game is moving in the right direction. I think the game is at a critical impasse and there is little latitude for delay or misstep at this point.

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 08 August 2018 - 11:21 AM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Jman5, on 08 August 2018 - 11:12 AM, said:

I'm looking forward to trying it out. Do you guys feel it's necessary to buff dissipation rate? Might be interesting to put capacity at 50 (30+20 from 10 internal DHS) and then just leave dissipation rate as it is on the live server. I feel like dissipation rate is already high for the sorts of builds you guys are looking to bring down a peg.

Nothing is final yet, so feel free to continue the discussion with your own opinions on the matter. On my side, I am pushing for it.

Dissipation affects lasers, but it also affects a number of other weapons that can be leaned on for DPS. Like we said in the podcast, global changes don't affect all things equally, and as much as lasers are quickly pointed to as being the most affected by a change like this, this would be something that affects all builds. PPC's, Mass MRM and SRM, and many other builds rely on those heat reserves just as much as lasers do and will be as much under the microscope as lasers are, everything will need to be tested in these cases.

[HammerMaster]

From my other post

HammerMaster, on 07 August 2018 - 05:14 PM, said:

Tag NEEDS to be rewarded as THE USER IS IN LINE OF SIGHT!
ARTEMIS needs to be rewarded THE USER IS IN LINE OF SIGHT
OUT OF LOS (secondary) locks DO NOT GET REWARDED!
HOW HARD IS THIS?!?!?!?!?!?!?
NARC? well debatable.
Lock Zone NEVER NEEDED THE PREVIOUS NERF
ECM in its current application is an abortion/aberration and NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN THE WAY IT IS NOW (Null Signauture)
The recent velocity buff WAS NEEDED.
The proliferation does NOT MAKE THEM OP!
Its just another ebb in the ebb and flow.

[process]

r0b0tc0rpse, on 08 August 2018 - 11:17 AM, said:

Roughly the same effect as increased duration, since people will just stagger fire them and take advantage of the heat dissipation. So damage spread to more components over a greater period of time, while reducing skilled players ability to capitalize on openings. Agility has a more direct effect on if a 'mech feels good to play and allows players to spread damage by moving, if you look at the most played variants of any 'mech, or mechs of any weight class, I think you'll find they are typically the most agile, provided they aren't giving up hard points/massive quirks against their competition.

Why pursue reducing big alphas and increasing time to kill at all?

TTK in this context means not being able to "delete" an enemy in just a few alphas. A low heat cap means that skill manifests in being able to manage your heat and place shots more consistently than your opponent. Is that not the essence of a mechwarrior game?

Theoretically removing high laser alphas means we can reduce laser duration and diminish the need for ghost heat.

There is really no accounting for team dynamics and focusing fire. Running into a lance of mechs will likely end in your deletion.

I agree that player enjoyment is paramount, but obviously that can't come at the expense of other players i.e. the deleted.

Edited by process, 08 August 2018 - 11:35 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Jman5, on 08 August 2018 - 11:12 AM, said:

I'm looking forward to trying it out. Do you guys feel it's necessary to buff dissipation rate? Would be interesting to put capacity at 50 (30+20 from 10 internal DHS) and then just leave dissipation rate as it is on the live server. I feel like dissipation rate is already high for the sorts of builds you guys are looking to bring down a peg.

IMO, with enough dissipation, you may see a MADIIC or SNV with 6ERML and 2HLL being able to spit fury even more, since they boat so many heatsinks. It will probably hurt the lighter 'mech's the most, since they rely mostly on engine heatsinks, and often times don't even have a 250, so they're already at a disadvantage.


But the elephant in the room remains, matchmaking. I bet many of the issues with balance will vanish with better matchmaking.

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 08 August 2018 - 02:23 PM.

[Hiten Bongz]

I'd like to see some actual buffs to ATMs. All this farting around with LRMs and no attention is ever paid to ATMs, they need more missile health, and/or higher velocity and more ammo per ton. AMS completely wrecks the viability of ATMs in so many cases. And get rid of that horrible minimum range.

That said, AMS needs some tweaks too. I'd like to see a higher range with more ammo per ton to balance out all these LRM boats.

Edited by Hiten Bongz, 08 August 2018 - 11:35 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

process, on 08 August 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

TTK in this context means not being able to "delete" an enemy in just a few alphas. A low heat cap means that skill manifests in being able to manage your heat and place shots more consistently than your opponent. Is that not the essence of a mechwarrior game?

Theoretically removing high laser alphas means we can reduce laser duration and diminish the need for ghost heat.

There is really no accounting for team dynamics and focusing fire. Running into a lance of mechs will likely end in your deletion.
I agree that player enjoyment is paramount, but obviously that can't come at the expense of other players i.e. the deleted.

This will just ram forward the face staring, low skill, high dps play style we have seen increasing lately.

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.

[Felbombling]

There were a bunch of posts made between when you two logged out last night and this morning. Are you going to go back and address any of them? Just curious.

Edited by Felbombling, 08 August 2018 - 11:39 AM.

[process]

r0b0tc0rpse, on 08 August 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

This will just ram forward the face staring, low skill, high dps play style we have seen increasing lately.

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.

Depends on what other factors are tweaked in the process. Improved agility would help in those situations, since that Bushwacker is the most dependent on face staring. Is it possible that's also an issue with RACs specifically?

Edited by process, 08 August 2018 - 11:42 AM.

[Jman5]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 August 2018 - 11:27 AM, said:

Nothing is final yet, so feel free to continue the discussion with your own opinions on the matter. On my side, I am pushing for it.

Dissipation affects lasers, but it also affects a number of other weapons that can be leaned on for DPS. Like we said in the podcast, global changes don't affect all things equally, and as much as lasers are quickly pointed to as being the most affected by a change like this, this would be something that affects all builds. PPC's, Mass MRM and SRM, and many other builds rely on those heat reserves just as much as lasers do and will be as much under the microscope as lasers are, everything will need to be tested in these cases.

Certainly. However, it's also worth pointing out that by in large non-energy builds do not run as many heatsinks as energy builds. Their guns are just too big/heavy or it's just unnecessary. When I look at a lot of my non-laser builds I often only have 1 or 2 external heatsink.

This is why I've been trying to aim for something that essentially keeps the core values intact (base + 10 internal heatsink) because that essentially represents most of the heat needs for a lot of the the non-energy builds out there.

If you start jacking up the base dissipation rate we might wind up turning this laser tune-down into a major buff for everything else. Then you have to start monkeying with the heat values of all the weapons.

Granted I don't know what sort of numbers you guys are planning. If you're going to drop it down to 30 capacity, or the dissipation buff is mild then I have no idea how that's going to turn out. I just think it would be easier on you guys balance-wise if you capped it at something like 50 and left dissipation rate as is.

I think if you capped capacity to something reasonable like 50, and then ran the test with normal dissipation we could see if that works out. If it doesn't, THEN we'll all know it wasn't enough and we can be confident that we also need to buff dissipation rate.

Edited by Jman5, 08 August 2018 - 12:01 PM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

process, on 08 August 2018 - 11:40 AM, said:

Depends on what other factors are tweaked in the process. Improved agility would help in those situations, since that Bushwacker is the most dependent on face staring. Is it possible that's also an issue with RACs specifically?

yeah, 1 rac 5 shouldn't have as much DPS as 3 AC10's.

[Generic Internetter]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 August 2018 - 08:08 AM, said:

The Angle reduction will also make it harder to acquire / maintain locks on fast moving targets up close.

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

Since you're in the spirit of game balance, what are you going to do to address the issue of light mech spam with the above-quoted lock-on nerf?