258 replies to this topic

[GweNTLeR]

My two cents about the proposed changes:
1. I like how you are planning to separate SHS and DHS. This is a cool way of doing it, and I'm already thinking about some IS lights with SHS.
2. I think that the target dissipation is a bit too high. I can assume you put is so high trying to normalize gauss vomit and pure vomit, but TBH I don't find gauss vomit TOO OP, since it is a very high risk weapon*, with a few exceptions that can use it purely in hands (Hello DEATHSTRIKE!). I think dissipation should be put somewhere lower. As for the DEATHSTRIKE, I think you should just give it negative gauss CD quirks or simply remove case from hands(or lower its effect, from complete damage transfer nullification to..halved damage transfer?)
* credits to finding this video goes to denAirwalkerrr

[Dago Red]

denAirwalkerrr, on 08 September 2018 - 01:10 AM, said:

Please reconsider calibrating your analising functions and look at these graphs again:

First of all I don't run these sort of builds myself generally so I'm curious what the engine type and top speed situation is between these setups. IE in the I.S. mechs seem like theygoing to have to go slow or run an XL and make themselves far more fragile in comparison to achieve these results so it feels like some relevant data is missing here.

Also for people who do run stuff like this at what range would those two respective sets of builds start to consider the damage worth the heat? That battlemaster build looks on paper looks it should be getting wildly outranged by the MAD-IIC whereas the Hellbringer vs the Warhammer looks way closer unless I'm missing some quirk stacking tricks.

So I'd also like to see what range bracket these are tuned at as opposed to assuming they'll both be standing in the open at the optimal of the lowest range weapon listed the whole time.

Graph 1: So the WHM is bursting higher 5 seconds, they're dead even by 8 seconds and the HBR starts pulling pretty heavily ahead by 22 ish seconds which if everyone is using cover properly and twisitng they really should both be seeing and or their first target is dead by then and they can put that higher DPS towards shooting other targets. Sounds about right.

Graph 2: Is a bit of a mess but overall frankly more close than is should be given how much that MAD-IIC outranges the Battlemaster.

Graph 3: What does a 2 ERPPC ACW have to do with a comparison on laser vomit of mechs that mount mediums exclusively as opposed to er mediums plus heavy larges or ER mediums plus dual guass? Do it again for say a 6 er medium Nova and I'd be interested.

God I hate reading graphs. I find Rydiaks breakdowns about 5 times more readable than this.

Edited by Dago Red, 08 September 2018 - 03:00 AM.

[MiZia]

Dago Red, on 08 September 2018 - 02:40 AM, said:

First of all I don't run these sort of builds myself generally so I'm curious what the engine type and top speed situation is between these setups. IE in the I.S. mechs seem like theygoing to have to go slow or run an XL and make themselves far more fragile in comparison to achieve these results so it feels like some relevant data is missing here.

Also for people who do run stuff like this at what range would those two respective sets of builds start to consider the damage worth the heat? That battlemaster build looks on paper looks it should be getting wildly outranged by the MAD-IIC whereas the Hellbringer vs the Warhammer looks way closer unless I'm missing some quirk stacking tricks.

So I'd also like to see what range bracket these are tuned at as opposed to assuming they'll both be standing in the open at the optimal of the lowest range weapon listed the whole time.

Graph 1: So the WHM is bursting higher 5 seconds, they're dead even by 8 seconds and the HBR starts pulling pretty heavily ahead by 22 ish seconds which if everyone is using cover properly and twisitng they really should both be seeing and or their first target is dead by then and they can put that higher DPS towards shooting other targets. Sounds about right.

Graph 2: Is a bit of a mess but overall frankly more close than is should be given how much that MAD-IIC outranges the Battlemaster.

Graph 3: What does a 2 ERPPC ACW have to do with a comparison on laser vomit of mechs that mount mediums exclusively as opposed to er mediums plus heavy larges or ER mediums plus dual guass? Do it again for say a 6 er medium Nova and I'd be interested.

God I hate reading graphs. I find Rydiaks breakdowns about 5 times more readable than this.

Well, the whm usually runs lfe 300 which gives him same durability as hbr.
Initial burst is ihmo more valuable than long term dps since most engagements rarely go over 20 seconds (u either dead or killed the other). So being able to put 2 alphas instead of one may be of an advantage.

[Pelmeshek]

My 2 cent:
1) Dont decrease dmg for cmpls; This weapon are fine, not needed to change.
2) Decrease dmg for cmls and cerlls are okey but dont forget decrease heat and duration for this lasers too.
This roadmap looks all well on paper, much better than early idiotic ideas.
And i still sad, no changes for duration and heat of hmls.

Edited by Pelmeshek, 08 September 2018 - 03:32 AM.

[Appogee]

Marmon Rzohr, on 08 September 2018 - 12:14 AM, said:

Why ? This is literally a buff.

Yeah but there's no pleasing those guys

[Mindbastard]

Won't the heat changes just make heat LESS of an issue for already strong mechs, and do nothing to make currently irrelevant mechs have better options? It's nothing like the strongly capped PTS version, where the overall landscape of gameplay changed dramatically and there was a change for new breakout meta.

[MechTech Dragoon]

why....you could have tweaked 2.0 slightly abd removed ghost heat (that thing everyone hates)
.....you guys keep saying you want to increase the TTK but your not doing that. stop beating around the bush.

[Kalleballe]

Previous balance guy was throwing darts, new is borderline trolling.

[East Indy]

ForceUser, on 07 September 2018 - 11:27 PM, said:

Basically what I interpret from your graphs is that the changes will slightly nerf burst while buffing and encouraging bigger brawls due to higher sustains.

Just though that this POV would be interesting.

It is interesting, and the one possible bank shot of the new design: basically, that dissipation for brawling is high enough that after a few months player culture changes. Teams have more CQC builds, and confidently push a team that's moved toward the middle to medium range but trying to poke.

The real question is whether the numbers that should favor historically disadvantaged brawlers also favor, in one way or another, the usual suspects.

[Korz]

My first question is when will these changes be on PTS so we can test them before your bring them live so we can either get on board with them or use the data to show you how much you missed the boat by?

Why do you guys insist on pushing out a patch with out testing the exact changes on PTS first? Is that not what PTS is for?

Run PTS for a week or two before patch time. Let us try it out we might find we agree with you ( hey anything is possible).

[Y E O N N E]

denAirwalkerrr, on 08 September 2018 - 01:10 AM, said:

Please consider recalibrating your analising functions and look at these graphs again:

His eyes are calibrated fine, the Battlemaster graph is a bad graph, ML vs. cERML? Lolno.

Otherwise, graphs show IS have to spend more time hiding, which means easier to push on.

I'll have a more substantive response to the OP later, but I'm essentially aligned with Quicksilver. The only thing in this patch that does anything to reduce the gap between Clan and IS vomit is that straight nerf to cERML and cMPL damage, and that isn't saying much.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 08 September 2018 - 06:19 AM.

[Bud Crue]

"Time to begin ramping down some of the more aggressively quirked mechs"

Good bye IV-4.
So long you over performing Cataphracts.
Adios you meta Vindicators.

Good bye any reason to play even more mechs. F***

[Tiewolf]

How? PTS was a beacon of hope! A good start to pull things in the right direction. But what is this? Low heat cap was great! Haven't calculate the numbers but this looks like a buff for heat management and with that all heat dependent builds like laser vomit? Really? Why and how is it even possible to propose such changes? I am not a good or dedicated player and even I can't understand these changes nor why we should need em to improve the gameplay. So how can someone come up with such out of touch conclusions?

[Tarl Cabot]

Grus, on 07 September 2018 - 08:16 PM, said:

And do my eyes deceive me? They are looking into making IS XL survive st loss? Well thats just.... dandy....

Nope, sadly not even close. The last time Chris or anyone at PGI brought up anything close to that was when they introducing the new Skill Tree going live.....

[Shadowomega1]

Navid A1, on 07 September 2018 - 09:47 PM, said:

Wrong.

PGI nearly destroyed MWO in PTS 2.0, because of only 4 mechs.

People who complained saved it and we got PTS 2.1

2.0 wouldn't have destroyed MWO it would have only destroyed the bulk of Alpha spam, spreading the damage over time. This would give many of the sub 100 kph lights and sub 90 kph medium mechs the ability to survive on the current battlefield. Many of those mechs are very often the target of these huge alpha as either their deleted from the field or lost most of their fire power and suffer from a heat penalty. Heavies are favored by most of the player base due to the balance of speed, fire power, and armor, when you have all of that and can obliterate those lighter mechs with easy why play them at all? Haven't you figured why the most popular lights or mediums are fast with small profiles? Or why the least popular are the slow ones that pack load of firepower, its the fact it goes pop the moment those high alpha mechs even look at it.

[Thorqemada]

Thx for posting your findings from the PTS!

Seems i will get almost 50% more non Engine DHS dissipation while having almost the same if not a higher threshold (if i understand that right i will have a higher threshold than b4 by ~10% for my currently used Mechs) and if so that would be quite a buff to my DPS and i can even Alpha more often.

I am very curious if this will make my Mech better relative to the other Mechs or worse - i have no idea yet.
(Though as usually most Clan Mechs field a quite higher amount of external DHS i expect to fall further behind).

Expecting Mediums and Lights have a comeback facing heavyweight competition that have more DPS and no lower (but maybe less) Alphas and generally increased mobility seem to adress the daring ones of the Pilots.

Interesting times ahead!

Happy Weekend!

PS: Have read again through it and thought over what they meant to say and probably i am a tiny bit under my previous threshold and >10% to <25% higher Dissipation depending on how many 3 Slot DHS i can cram into my Endo + (sometimes) Light Ferro IS Mechs whch is between 12 and 14.
My defunct Battlemaster (i am not a fan of Assaults) had 16 DHS while my defunct and sold Storm Crow (bcs i hate Clan) had 17 DHS (and already a higher W/L + K/D) which paints a picture in which sides favour this will probably go.

Edited by Thorqemada, 09 September 2018 - 12:54 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Shadowomega1, on 08 September 2018 - 12:13 PM, said:

Haven't you figured why the most popular lights or mediums are fast with small profiles?

This is true for lights, not really mediums. The HBK-IIC has been THE medium mech since it came out and that hasn't changed outside of when brawling became popular (first Nova, then Assassin/Bushi). Even before that it was the Shadow Hawk, Stormcrow, Wolverine, etc. Basically for mediums going the biggest mech with the most firepower over speed was the best plan of action.

The reason why that's true for lights is because lights don't have much armor. Forcing out burst damage won't magically make the slow lights good because dakka still obliterates them. Their problem is that they simply need more armor/firepower because they aren't actually lights mechs, they are pseudo-mediums.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 September 2018 - 01:26 PM.

[Navid A1]

Shadowomega1, on 08 September 2018 - 12:13 PM, said:

Haven't you figured why the most popular lights or mediums are fast with small profiles?

Meanwhile the most popular light mech in the game is the IS wolfhound. reasonably fast... but the size of a medium.

And the reason is armor quirks.

[Shadowomega1]

Navid A1, on 08 September 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

Meanwhile the most popular light mech in the game is the IS wolfhound. reasonably fast... but the size of a medium.

And the reason is armor quirks.

Height of a medium width and depth of a light with small side torso's over 100 kph and very good armor quirks that stack very well with the skill tree. Turn that mech side long to the enemy and watch a lot of shots miss.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 September 2018 - 01:14 PM, said:

This is true for lights, not really mediums. The HBK-IIC has been THE medium mech since it came out and that hasn't changed outside of when brawling became popular (first Nova, then Assassin/Bushi). Even before that it was the Shadow Hawk, Stormcrow, Wolverine, etc. Basically for mediums going the biggest mech with the most firepower over speed was the best plan of action.

The reason why that's true for lights is because lights don't have much armor. Forcing out burst damage won't magically make the slow lights good because dakka still obliterates them. Their problem is that they simply need more armor/firepower because they aren't actually lights mechs, they are pseudo-mediums.

While I will not dispute the Hunchback IIC's popularity, it has vastly declined with the increase of builds that will tear it's torso off in one attack. I have stopped using my IIC-B with quad SRM-6a's due to how fast those side torso disappear while trying to get in close even at its 94 kph speed. The only one I still pilot regularly is the one I built for scouting with its 2 UAC 10s as it can keep out of range of a good chunk of the instant missing side torso killing builds, coupled with going deep into the survivability tree, and mobility tree.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Shadowomega1, on 08 September 2018 - 02:51 PM, said:

While I will not dispute the Hunchback IIC's popularity, it has vastly declined with the increase of builds that will tear it's torso off in one attack. I have stopped using my IIC-B with quad SRM-6a's due to how fast those side torso disappear while trying to get in close even at its 94 kph speed.

I like how you claim it is declining because of how it falls apart and you picked the worst one that no one ever cared about to begin with.....

2 ERLL and 4-6 ERML has been pretty much the staple Hunchback for a while. Outside of that you have the 2 LBX20 for drops where brawls are ensured and then you have 4 UAC2 or 4 ERLL for long range poke fights. 2 ERPPCs for the occasional pop-sniping if need be. The IIC-B has always been the worst of the bunch because the Hunchback IIC just isn't built for in your face sort of fights.