258 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

I am okay with heatsinks adding ontop of the heatscale, and prior to Chris' post I had said as much, along with HS adding either 0.5 or 0.25/HS, to allow HS to add that buffer. Though I had proposed both I had noted I preferred the 0.25, though between two different threads I had floated between the 30-45 heatscales.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6155111

But that does not mean it is written in stone though. PGI could revisit it, esp the percentage of the threshold cap.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 10 September 2018 - 10:54 AM.

[Stinger554]

Jman5, on 10 September 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

I think you guys are making a mistake increasing dissipation rate so much and allowing capacity to scale infinitely. I thought 0.2 h/s was a touch too high for externals+internals, but 0.22 is going beyond that. You have to remember that most players who are boating hot builds are also maxing out Heat Gen, Coolrun, Heat Containment, and Coolshot skills.

All this together, I worry that we could actually see an increase in alphastrike damage as players are able to bring an extra weapon or two with their dramatically increased dissipation rate. 6 nerfed Clan Medium Lasers does more damage than 5 current C-MPL. In fact I would say this will almost certainly happen on the Inner Sphere side as their weapon stats have been mostly left intact. Then we're back to the original issue where you're going around nerfing individual weapons and destroying off-target builds in the process.

If weapons like PPCs and AC/20s were heat spiking too hard, I would have looked at tinkering with their heat, or selectively quirking certain mechs rather than just buffing the pants off the 2.1 heatsinks.

My hope is that after this comes out you guys are still willing to come back to this problem and adjust heatsink values if it isn't turning out like you expected.

Well said I agreed that PPCs spiked just a tad too much during the 2.1 PTS(didn't use AC20 so I can't comment there) but I was expecting them to reduce the heat a bit to compensate. Not to pull this cluster**** lol. Someone was being very inflexible for them to come up with this solution instead of adjusting the weapon heat values.

Edited by Stinger554, 10 September 2018 - 11:26 AM.

[Fluffinator]

You realize this whole patch reads ...for the 24th time in arrow we are going to nerf clan mechs and buff IS mechs.
What has been the biggest issue for 2 years is you have taken all the quirks from clan mechs like the kodiac and others while piling on ridiculous amounts to things like the IS atlas and annihilator far beyond any reason so the only way to play an assault the way it was meant to be played is to play an IS mech with crazy def buffs. So clans became higher DPS...ok each has a role. But over the last 2 years every patch has been to bring IS mechs more in line with clan...not counting the huge IS quirks that were already making the IS ones stronger. If you are going to do this patch you need to completely wipe out all quirks on the IS assaults or they willing be taking out whole lances solo.

Also don't think for a minute we haven't noticed the # of times that a new clan mech has lost most or all of it's quirks the same exact patch or within 1 week of it becoming available for noncash. Kodiac-3 comes to mind along with lots of others.

PS> Let me get this straight a single heat sink increases heat capacity in this patch by MORE than a double? WTH

Edited by Fluffinator, 10 September 2018 - 11:46 AM.

[Mighty Spike]

Chris Lowrey, on 07 September 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

omes to balancing the 'Mechs against one another within the context of a PvP first person shooter.
and if the Light and Medium chooses their fights carefully, they can stand toe to toe with much heavier chassis.

aha....so much for the thinking mans shooter and all the other bla bla and lies you guys told us over the last years from CB on
YOU CANT BALANCE ALL weight classes to be equal against each other and that is GOOD So, because Thats exactly your problem .... and the biggest $%&§#%& that you try that.. 20 tonners who kill 100tonners in seconds and then you talk bout BT^^.... just........

Edited by Mighty Spike, 10 September 2018 - 02:36 PM.

[Daurock]

Fluffinator, on 10 September 2018 - 11:37 AM, said:

You realize this whole patch reads ...for the 24th time in arrow we are going to nerf clan mechs and buff IS mechs.
What has been the biggest issue for 2 years is you have taken all the quirks from clan mechs like the kodiac and others while piling on ridiculous amounts to things like the IS atlas and annihilator far beyond any reason so the only way to play an assault the way it was meant to be played is to play an IS mech with crazy def buffs. So clans became higher DPS...ok each has a role. But over the last 2 years every patch has been to bring IS mechs more in line with clan...not counting the huge IS quirks that were already making the IS ones stronger. If you are going to do this patch you need to completely wipe out all quirks on the IS assaults or they willing be taking out whole lances solo.

Also don't think for a minute we haven't noticed the # of times that a new clan mech has lost most or all of it's quirks the same exact patch or within 1 week of it becoming available for noncash. Kodiac-3 comes to mind along with lots of others.

PS> Let me get this straight a single heat sink increases heat capacity in this patch by MORE than a double? WTH

I'm not sure where the clan tears are coming from. I see exactly 4 Clan weapons getting a nerf. (Specifically, MPL, HLL, ERLL, and erML) Those 4 weapons on live wildly out-pace their IS equivalents, which is something anyone paying any remote amount of attention has seen as a long-standing imbalance. Note that the 6xERML+Gauss Deathstrike is losing a grand total of 3 damage, which is honestly barely going to be noticed.
Toss into that, the Heatsink change being a net benefit to Clans over IS, (Heatsink buff+clans having more sinks = Clan buff) and the notes about incoming IS chassis nerfs, and clan mechs will be just fine. Clan mechs using missiles and Dakka will probably be even better than live, when compared to IS stuff, actually.

And SHS having a larger effect on Cap than DHS is something done to attempt to keep them remotely relevant. (Which they frankly aren't, now, and won't likely be post patch either, except for some IS assaults)

[Ph03n1x1985]

Daurock, on 10 September 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'm not sure where the clan tears are coming from. I see exactly 4 Clan weapons getting a nerf. (Specifically, MPL, HLL, ERLL, and erML) Those 4 weapons on live wildly out-pace their IS equivalents, which is something anyone paying any remote amount of attention has seen as a long-standing imbalance. Note that the 6xERML+Gauss Deathstrike is losing a grand total of 3 damage, which is honestly barely going to be noticed.
Toss into that, the Heatsink change being a net benefit to Clans over IS, (Heatsink buff+clans having more sinks = Clan buff) and the notes about incoming IS chassis nerfs, and clan mechs will be just fine. Clan mechs using missiles and Dakka will probably be even better than live, when compared to IS stuff, actually.

And SHS having a larger effect on Cap than DHS is something done to attempt to keep them remotely relevant. (Which they frankly aren't, now, and won't likely be post patch either, except for some IS assaults)

the thing is: only the clan weaponry got really nerfed in the last 18 months, while IS mechs stil keep their tankyness and their countless quirks. so if u keep on nerfing the **** out of clan weapons, u also have to reduce the survival skills of the other side. and reducing the heat treshhold of dhs on both for 66% is just ridiculous!

[Tarl Cabot]

Ph03n1x1985, on 10 September 2018 - 01:18 PM, said:

the thing is: only the clan weaponry got really nerfed in the last 18 months, while IS mechs stil keep their tankyness and their countless quirks. so if u keep on nerfing the **** out of clan weapons, u also have to reduce the survival skills of the other side. and reducing the heat treshhold of dhs on both for 66% is just ridiculous!

Because PGI had barely touched IS weapons. Quirks, especially IS quirks which were introduced when Clans were released, are just a bandaid that can be changed at anytime, and has changed dramatically over the years, range, heat, cooldown, etc, instead of rolling the standardized quirks into the weapons themselves, then use quirks to actual give flavor, never mind the actual worthless quirks. Example, battlemasters have ballistics quirks with their ballistic hardpoints, in the arms, arms that are low hung and no ability to actually raise said arm to a higher elevation. Then one of the things Chris said they did not want to do was to increase the base armor /structure value, which would have been a partial way to go, but then they would definitely have to revise IS/Clan armor/structural quirks as well as the Skill Tree nodes.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 10 September 2018 - 02:07 PM.

[Chris Lowrey]

So after reviewing the weekends worth of feedback regarding this topic, want to throw a few points out there.

While finding a solution that works for all weapons was the last thing I commented on regarding the rationale for the final tuning,its not the sole reason. (Apologies, I was trying to post something at 11 PM my time in the middle of family time on a weekend night.) Among the other concerns we had was that while PTS 2.1 felt good for various load-outs when you consider maximum skill point investment in all of the skill nodes, we were not satisfied with what you got out of the baseline level accounting for "fresh" 'Mechs with zero skill point investments, as well as a number of other points that we had under review. While we did weight as much as we felt we could as close to the PTS 2.1 numbers, we couldn't ignore what we saw when it came to not only how certain weapons operate, but both how the effects scaled from zero skill effectiveness to fully mastered effectiveness, as well as considering various other things that will affect players who will be coming into these changes blind. (As please keep in mind a majority of the playerbase does not participate in the forums, PTS', or listen to podcasts or twitch streams.)

These baseline changes where made to support the base game as best we could, including all weapons, zero skill tree investment, and many other internal points on our end. But we fully recognize the feedback put forward in regards to how these numbers are when a 'Mech is fully Mastered at the high end of play. Because of this, we may look at the current scaling within the skill tree and 'Mech quirks to attempt to find a middle ground between baseline values that best supports the widest amount of weapons / skill investment levels, and what the final values look like once a 'Mech is fully mastered out. Since a major change such as this to the base game will almost inevitably impact the value propositions of heat based nodes within the current skill tree as well as currently assigned heat based quirks.

At the moment, this is something that we will only be monitoring upon the release of these changes, but I want to put it out there now to get a dialogue going as far as seeing these final values for what they are, baseline values to support the base game. Past that, we are more then open to receiving feedback regarding current scaling of the abilities through 'Mech quirks and the skill tree to possibly make it to where the final values once a 'Mech is fully skilled out is closer to some of the numbers that have been floated around as "ideal final values" feedback here.

[Fluffinator]

That is a step in the right direction but in no way solves the issue that the annihilator has so many def buffs that it can almost take on a whole lance now if it has a good pilot and build...and you want to nerf clan assaults even more.

You must do something MAJOR about the def buffs on the IS side if you are bringing their DPS up to match.

[Chris Lowrey]

Fluffinator, on 10 September 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

That is a step in the right direction but in no way solves the issue that the annihilator has so many def buffs that it can almost take on a whole lance now if it has a good pilot and build...and you want to nerf clan assaults even more.

You must do something MAJOR about the def buffs on the IS side if you are bringing their DPS up to match.

As said in the initial post, that was an aspect of PTS 1.1 that we will be looking to roll over into the final release. (PTS 1.1 saw the Annihilator and others receive debuffs to its defensive quirks.) Exact values are not worked out yet, but we plan on moving in that direction.

As to it's offensive buffs, as mentioned before, these changes are aimed at the baseline balance of the systems, outside of any currently assigned quirks. If these changes make it to where the currently assigned quirks suddenly become an issue on certain 'Mechs, we are more then willing to look into if particular quirks have overstayed their welcome under the new baseline changes. This would be something that we would more then likely monitor as potential future updates, and not something that we would hit upon initial release. But we are more then open to hearing about where those problem spots may form and what might need to change if we affect the baseline.

[Fluffinator]

Willing to see how this goes. You have my attention now

Edited by Fluffinator, 10 September 2018 - 03:12 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Daurock, on 10 September 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

And SHS having a larger effect on Cap than DHS is something done to attempt to keep them remotely relevant. (Which they frankly aren't, now, and won't likely be post patch either, except for some IS assaults)

This isn't quite correct, SHS do get to have a higher bonus to capacity (rather than lower compared to DHS), but the discrepancy between dissipation becomes starker between them and DHS with the suggested changes, enough so that SHS are actually worse than what they are now (because 25% higher heat cap is not worth something like an 18% drop in DPS). Sorry, that may be a bad comparison because that is Clan DHS vs SHS.

Chris Lowrey, on 10 September 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

Among the other concerns we had was that while PTS 2.1 felt good for various load-outs when you consider maximum skill point investment in all of the skill nodes, we were not satisfied with what you got out of the baseline level accounting for "fresh" 'Mechs with zero skill point investments, as well as a number of other points that we had under review

Sorry, but this smells like the skill point values needed to be changed rather than changing the system. Of course the skill tree values would need to be changed given how much the underlying system is changing, the idea that this is part of the excuse for throwing all of that out of the window seems baffling to me. Keep in mind I wasn't even the greatest fan of the PTS2.1, but I would prefer that over the "final" changes because of how much they miss the point (especially since many of the best mechs actually get buffed). I'm also willing to bet that the cERLL/cHLL nerfs swing the Gauss vomit mechs back to using cLPL.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 September 2018 - 04:21 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 September 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

... Among the other concerns we had was that while PTS 2.1 felt good for various load-outs when you consider maximum skill point investment in all of the skill nodes, we were not satisfied with what you got out of the baseline level accounting for "fresh" 'Mechs with zero skill point investments, ...

Because of this, we may look at the current scaling within the skill tree and 'Mech quirks to attempt to find a middle ground between baseline values that best supports the widest amount of weapons / skill investment levels, and what the final values look like once a 'Mech is fully mastered out. ...

It's an interesting balance between "fun at zero skill", "worth the time, CB and XP investment to spend on the skill tree", and "OP at fully mastered". If an unskilled 'mech gets 3 full alpha strikes before hitting max heat threshold, how many would that same build get with max heat gen, heat dis, and cool run nodes? Is 4 too much of a buff for an investment of 24 nodes (that costs a minimum of 48 to unlock)? (Probably not.) Is five alphas before overheat too much? (Probably.)

I've still got a large boatload of GSP in the tank from the conversion, so this really doesn't affect me (re-skilling a 'mech doesn't cost me anything in terms of playing time), but the few individual skill nodes that you earn per match really don't feel like they're worth the effort. (I think they should.)

[Y E O N N E]

Navid A1, on 09 September 2018 - 09:16 PM, said:

I asked people for builds that are popular to make a comparison. You are just nitpicking on a single case. There are tons of other examples out there to show that IS do not have comparable mid-range laser vomit for mid-range poking. Look at HBK-IIC or HBR vs anything. BLR is the closest example IS has to a usable mid-range laser vomit. Holds its own against the top laser mechs and at the same time not a one-trick pony.

Whoever your sources for 'Mechs are, they are consistently off-point for the IS builds; had a similar issue with the WHM and running too few DHS.

As for nit-picking a single case: the BLR-1G is, in its entirety, a single case. You are cherry-picking one 'Mech that has managed to retain quirks from 2015 almost intact, and it still ends up losing because the other qualities not displayed in this graph (i.e. range) put it in a position where it's subpar to the competition on either side of its range bracket.

I don't disagree that the BLR in general is the best IS pick for a Laser Vomit Assault, I disagree with your discipline in choosing which builds to show on a comparison. You need to be isolating builds that actually compete head-to-head, not builds that pass each other filling a role in different range brackets.

Quote

The graphs may have led you to believe that IS laser vomit might be on common grounds with clans.
They are not. Because the most dominant clan laser mechs have other advantages that compliments their range and damage despite running hotter. Advantages like mech profile, speed and hardpoint location.

And advantages like actually running colder per meter of range...

Remember, this BLR-1G vs. MAD-IIC is still an apples-and-oranges comparison.

Quote

The times you are looking for are between 5.3 to 5.5 for the BLR-1G and 6.3 to 6.5 for the MAD-IIC

EDITED: Corrected earlier math which had 5x ML down to 4x ML on the BLR-G.

No, they are actually 5.64 and 6.15 for the BLR-1G and MAD-IIC, respectively, having had time to actually put them in the processor instead of doing napkin math. That's with max Heat Gen, max Cool Run, max Laser Duration, and the BLR-1G heat quirks (which only apply to the MedLas). That's also accounting for heat dissipated during the laser burn, and not just raw heat divided by dissipation rate.

When you are toeing 100% heat, the rate you can fire is the same as the rate at which the remaining heat after firing can be dissipated, unless your guns cycle slower than that.

Math:

BLR-1G with 3x LPL + 4x ML + 20 DHS

Spoiler

BLR-1G MedLas Heat = 3.4 * 0.95 = 3.23
LPL Heat = 7.25
Total base heat = (3*7.25) + (4*3.23) = 34.67

IS Heat gen is 10.5%.
Max heat after Heat Gen = 34.67 * 0.895 = 31.03

IS Laser Duration is 15%.
Longest duration after max = 0.9 * 0.85 = 0.765 s

Max Cool Run is 10%.
Dissipation after max = 20 * 0.22*1.1 = 4.84

Net Heat after firing = 31.03 - (0.765*4.84) = 27.33

Time to dissipate remainder = 27.33 / 4.84 = 5.65 seconds

MAD-IIC with 2x cLPL + 6x cERML + 31 DHS

Spoiler

cER MedLas Heat = 6.3
cLPL Heat = 10
Total base heat = (2*10) + (6*6.3) = 59.55

Clan Heat gen is 8.4%.
Max heat after Heat Gen = 59.55 * 0.916 = 54.55

Clan Laser Duration is 10%.
Longest duration after max = 1.25 * 0.9 = 1.125 s

Max Cool Run is 10%.
Dissipation after max = 32 * 0.22*1.1 = 7.502

Net Heat after firing = 54.55 - (1.125*7.502) = 46.12

Time to dissipate remainder = 46.12 / 7.502 = 6.15 seconds

If you are getting something else, I'd love to see your algorithm because I can't see anything that I missed that would further reduce those numbers other than firing off a cool-shot. End of the day, the MAD is pushing a constant 10.24 DPS through its alpha-strikes while the BLR-1G is only managing 8.85.

Quote

I would love to see a MAD-IIC poke "over and over" like you describe and fire all of its weapons without exposing fully... and I'd love to time that poke as well. Its still one of the best laser vomit mechs. But lets not pretend its low and distributed firepower and slow accel/decel suddenly disappears when it fits the narrative.
Removing one (er) med laser on the arm does not affect the BLR performance in the long run... letting you fire the high mounts constantly

The MAD-IIC corners better than a BLR, and corners (combined with longer range) allow greater use of parallax to further reduce exposure time because ridges have tighter terrain limitations.

The MAD-IIC is certainly more sluggish than a BLR (nominal accel is half, decel is 4 kph slower, but remember these are both on curves and you only need the front part of the curve to poke), but the above items, combined with a superior shape for rolling incidental (unaimed) damage means it's a wash for exposure risk at mid-range. Even at long-range, the BLR's mounts are not a definitive trump-card unless the map only features vertical exposures (i.e. Polar Highlands). The longer range and better heat efficiency of 5x cERLL fired 3+2 typically offers greater utility across a wider range of scenarios than the better mounts of 6x isERLL, and that's without even getting into the durability discussion.

The "over and over" part has to do with the actual firing; would you rather be pushing 50 damage every ~6 seconds while you ride that heat line, or 63?

Quote

However ,you are correct that IS mechs with no quirks can not compete in terms of laser build potency. Its not between MAD-IIC and BLR. Clans have many more laser vomit mechs with no answer from IS.

This is the entire crux of my beef with your diagram; you picked a BLR-3M build that has a massive disadvantage in range and still loses on damage and, when I called BS on that one, you then flipped to a heavily quirked BLR-1G that still loses on range, and barely holds its own on damage, certainly not enough that you would ever use it competitively.

You haven't shown anything useful if your goal is to get PGI to wake up to what they are doing.

Quote

Oh, now you are comparing it to an MPL boat?... a build that is made to brawl?

1. cMPL do not brawl, they push. All brawls are pushes, but not all pushes are brawls.

2. You are trotting out an IS 'Mech that shares a range bracket closer to cMPL (which has more than enough heat efficiency to throw on a moderately large TC and still come out ahead) and trying to tell me that it's competing with a cERML poke boat...

Pot, kettle? I'm trying to steer us toward more realistic comparisons.

Quote

When you hear that a mech CAN brawl "if required" does not mean that its the best option for the task. It means that you can't catch it with its pants down the way you can do to a laser vomit MAD-IIC

You most definitely can catch that BLR-1G with its pants down. It's less powerful at and below 380 meters than that cMPL+cLPL pulse boat, and above 380 meters it's less powerful than the cERML+cLPL MAD-IIC.

What, exactly, is the role this 'Mech is going to perform? If you have the choice of any 'Mech you want, why on Earth would you fill an Assault slot with this mid-range BLR-1G when, knowing the map ahead of time, two different builds of MAD-IIC can do what it does better?

Quote

Both clan and IS have better mid-range assault mechs than laser vomit MAD-IICs and BLRs. So I don't think my drop commander would be saying something like that.

Exactly, he'll tell you to go get into something with HGauss or Dakka, or something infinitely better at sustaining than laser spam. But if you are doing laser spam, he's not going to tell you to play an Assault 'Mech that is a barely glorified Heavy.

Quote

I should also clarify that I personally liked it in PTS2.1. That was in my opinion the closest we have been to a meaningful change. higher dissipation with even higher cap in October will only make matters worse with already dominant UAC boats.

Sure, but kind of not the point, here. Main point is that PGI has done zip to reduce the gap between Clan and IS laser vomit, failing one of their stated goals, and that the BLR comparisons you've made obfuscate that because they do not directly display the critical contextual information qualifying the noted trends; they are not like-for-like builds, and I am concerned that PGI will not recognize that when they look at them.

In fact, PGI may just look at that and decide the BLR-1G needs a nerf...which it bloody well doesn't.

Quote

btw... when did the black knight get high mounted torso hardpoints?

When did a 310 meter Medium laser build become at all comparable to a 460 meter cER Medium laser, per your original BLR-3M build?

(And for the record, see previous statement on corners; mid-range BK was at least competitive at one point while mid-range BLR never was, low mounts and all).

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 10 September 2018 - 05:17 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 September 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

At the moment, this is something that we will only be monitoring upon the release of these changes, but I want to put it out there now to get a dialogue going as far as seeing these final values for what they are, baseline values to support the base game. Past that, we are more then open to receiving feedback regarding current scaling of the abilities through 'Mech quirks and the skill tree to possibly make it to where the final values once a 'Mech is fully skilled out is closer to some of the numbers that have been floated around as "ideal final values" feedback here.

Is further tuning of the equipment itself on the table? To Quicksilver's earlier point, this heat system revamp is a broad change impacting everything, and doesn't really address the specific deficiencies between Item A and B or Clans vs. IS.

[Chris Lowrey]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 September 2018 - 04:55 PM, said:

Is further tuning of the equipment itself on the table? To Quicksilver's earlier point, this heat system revamp is a broad change impacting everything, and doesn't really address the specific deficiencies between Item A and B or Clans vs. IS.

Depends on what you define as the "equipment itself."

Typically, we never take any option completely off the table. But this also doesn't mean we are quick to attack certain characteristics of any equipment we do decide to tune. As mentioned in the initial post as well as elsewhere, we have a number of large points that will always be under the microscope of any change we push, how things scale from 20 tons to 100 tons, how things are tuned / balanced against one another through the factions, as well as keeping the overall gameplay as approachable as it can be given the unavoidable complexities already worked into the game. We can bend on some points more then others depending on how closely you touch on the core gameplay flow / raw mechanics.

[Y E O N N E]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 September 2018 - 05:22 PM, said:

Depends on what you define as the "equipment itself."

Typically, we never take any option completely off the table. But this also doesn't mean we are quick to attack certain characteristics of any equipment we do decide to tune. As mentioned in the initial post as well as elsewhere, we have a number of large points that will always be under the microscope of any change we push, how things scale from 20 tons to 100 tons, how things are tuned / balanced against one another through the factions, as well as keeping the overall gameplay as approachable as it can be given the unavoidable complexities already worked into the game. We can bend on some points more then others depending on how closely you touch on the core gameplay flow / raw mechanics.

The weapons, the engines, the faction-specific heatsinks...

There are a number of reasons certain combinations of faction and item are strong, consistently so. Clan lasers are stronger than IS because they give you much larger alpha strikes, more range, similar damage per second of duration, and cool just as quickly because of the massed cDHS. The changes proposed for October do not address this.

As Navid and I have been more or less both saying the same thing and sparring over how to best demonstrate it to you (PGI), when you compare baseline builds that are in similar brackets (i.e. a BLR-3M with 3x LPL + 5x ERML + 20 DHS + TC1 vs. a MAD-IIC with 2x cLPL and 6x cERML + 31 DHS), you'll see that one of them pushes 55 damage at ~420 meters and takes 7.4 seconds to cool that off entirely. The other pushes 63 from 460 and takes only 6.15 seconds to cool it off entirely. Even if we look at duration, the Clan 'Mech will have pushed 53 damage in one second, which is basically your window to react, with another 10 waiting in the wings.

Where is the give and take, here? The shorter IS cooldown doesn't even count for much, because it runs so hot and because the user is dependent upon the enemy exposing in order to shoot at it. The Clan version has more range, more damage, more sustainable DPS. For any engagement where you need to trade at ~450-600 meters, the IS are simply out-classed, running way too hot for that damage. Instead of trading, the IS just grab the biggest-armored 'Mechs and out-last the enemy. That's certainly a solution, but it also means 'Mechs that don't have that armor and can't mount the high-sustained weaponry needed to play that way are rendered to the bin.

This isn't an issue for just lasers, it's just that lasers are the most apparent and the impetus for this entire balance effort. Clan SRMs are in a really rough place, and with the IS armor you guys have had to add to make them less-terrible at the trading game...Clans in general just get smashed up close.

The equipment baseline is fundamentally broken. You guys are reluctant to make any changes because it's going to make the quirked or hardpoint outlier 'Mechs too good, and that's fair, but you can also always change quirks if you need to. At the end of the day, a vanilla IS 'Mech gets shredded by a vanilla Clan 'Mech (BLR-3M is a good study on that, since it has so few quirks; Nightstar, too).

Edit: cleaned up some wording.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 10 September 2018 - 05:50 PM.

[FupDup]

Somehow I managed to miss this thread for half a week. Derp I'm slow. My thoughts:

-As people have pointed out, having both higher dissipation and an increasing heat cap (even if slightly lower) is going to cause more damage to be pushed out across the board. This seems to be at odds with your general theme of wanting TTK to not go down.

-Giving Clan and IS DHS the same cooling and cap properties is problematic because, also as people have mentioned, the former can be spammed in way higher numbers than the latter. Something you could've tried, for example, was leaving Clan DHS at 2.0 and letting the IS have the proposed 2.2 and do something similar for capacity.

-SHS are getting the shaft big time here because the dissipation gap between them and DHS is going to get a lot wider while the capacity is not enough to offset this.

-Speaking of TTK, reducing IS durability quirks does not make sense when DPS is going up across the board (and in general many of those mechs depend on these quirks because they lack innate design strengths).

-I don't like the ERLL nerfs for either faction, particularly the Clan one having significantly higher heat than damage. I'm fine with bumping its damage down, but the heat should not exceed the damage.

-I actually agree with the hesitation on mobility buffs because most of the people asking for them fail to consider (or they just don't care) the impact these buffs would have on mechs who have to rely on mobility to stay out of trouble (like tiny lights). I think the list could still be longer, though, particularly in the medium class that currently doesn't gain enough mobility over heavies to be worthwhile.

-Speaking of mobility, how about modifying stuff like torso twist limits and torso pitch limits? Stuff like Accel and Decel are nice and all but some mechs like the Shadow Hawk and Blackjack feel like they're wearing a straight jacket despite being in the medium class (because they have such a narrow twist radius). The Firestarter's pitch is so bad it can't even aim its torso weapons on a Piranha that gets close (it's fine for an assault or heavy to have that weakness but for a light mech that's unacceptable). Etc.

-On a lesser note, I don't feel like the CMPL really needed to take a hit, however small that hit may be. Maybe throw in a wee little duration buff as a consolation prize?

-CERML and HLL nerfs are fine, but with the dissipation buffs this is probably going to be offset entirely.

Edited by FupDup, 10 September 2018 - 06:30 PM.

[Sereglach]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 September 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

*snip*

First off, I'll echo the sentiment of others that if certain weapon combinations were creating too high of heat spikes, then PGI should address only the outliers in this case. We shouldn't be tacking heat capacity onto heatsinks when all that's needed is adjusting the Ghost Heat values for things like PPCs and AC20s. The fact that PGI is going about it in the completely opposite direction (adjusting core functionality to compensate for a few outliers), seems completely backwards to the intent of the PTS runs and goals for a patch release.

That said, the pretense of balancing base values without the skill tree is where I have a huge point of contention that I'd love to see addressed; and PGI is already halfway there in the 2.1 PTS, as well as their desired goals. The skill tree was seen as addressing the core prospect of CHOICE in building mechs, by combining the old skill tree and weapon modules into one set of distinct choices, but now you're completely bypassing it when you KNOW the end-game goal is to skill out a mech to make it stronger . . . to perform at its peak.

You should be setting baseline values so that if people actually want to push their mech to a desired outcome, the skill tree is how they get there. While building up a mech a person might be more inclined to add more DHS to their build instead of a few extra medium lasers, or AMS until they have radar dep., etc.; and those are decisions that people should be making as they skill up their mech. It should be expected that an unskilled mech just isn't going to perform as well as a skilled up mech, but that there are options to compensate while building up said mech. The fact that it's all about choices, and that you can't have everything, should be emphasized.

However, if you are going to set the base values of mechs to be "desirable" at zero skill, then why are we concerned about the skill tree "choices"? Meta is all about min-maxing; and starting something at a "desirable" state just leads to stagnant choices that exacerbate the core issues of gameplay and desire to min-max. The fact that the prior heat capacity for Alpha Laser Vomit was so good, it just encouraged the meta to push it as far as possible. Take into account the lack of viable choice in the skill tree, and then combine this with the fact that, in MWO, damage is king, and it just exacerbates the problem. You have a chance to rein it in . . . do it. Force people to make conscious choices in their mech builds and skill trees. The best way to start that is not hold back on truly going the distance and pushing out something as close to PTS 2.0/2.1 as possible.

After that, then you can move on to addressing the lack of viable choice in the skill tree, which is also a large contributing factor. Granted, the skill tree and some related equipment have issues *cough*jumpjets*cough*, but that shouldn't stop PGI from taking the opportunity to reign in the Alpha Vomit issue before them. It's one facet of the greater problem; and as Paul keeps reiterating, "incremental steps." A PTS 2.0/2.1 type release should be just one step in many.

Most of the meta choices on the skill tree are the way they are because the issues it has leave the non-meta choices as essentially meaningless OR investing in that tree doesn't have the desired impact. What's more is that it's all directly linked to PGI's recent PTS runs covering Alpha Vomit and Mech Agility. Let me try to give a few examples:

- Granted, some mechs need base agility tuned (my poor, poor Firestarter . . .), but if a Heavy/Assault mech wants more/better openings to snapshot lights (and some mediums), then they should be encouraged to invest heavily in the agility tree. They shouldn't outright rely on base agility to accomplish that. The whole reason they make those demands is so they either don't have to invest into those facets of the skill tree or investing into that facet of the skill tree doesn't grant the desired results. If investing heavily into the agility tree doesn't give the heavies and assaults the desired results, then maybe that facet of the skill tree (or the individual chassis) needs investigating. If it does grant the desired result, then people should be aware of that and it gives people an actual CHOICE . . . more firepower for nuking other heavies/assaults, or the agility to more reliably hit lights/mediums.

- As stated, jump jets and the jump jet tree are essentially meaningless right now. If jump jets got the buffs mentioned a number of times over the years (even in incremental doses), then the tree might be more desirable for going from modest hops over a single enemy or low-ridge pop-tart to superman-esque leaps to flank enemy movements, to get to sniping positions on large terrain features, or to pop-tart over high terrain features. Right now people -mostly- just throw on a jump jet or two to scale hills, if they use them at all.

- In the Operations tree, most people avoid speed retention because it caps out at 50kph and it's a few nodes saved for the firepower tree. On the other hand . . . what if it didn't? Would it be so bad if a mech could increase it's retained speed to 50% max speed? It'd actually give them a chance to escape a legging and survive to rejoin their team, especially for lights or faster mediums; and that provides an actual choice instead of, "If I'm legged then I'm going to die, basically guaranteed."

Those are just the few glaring issues that quickly come to mind, but I'm sure there's more that add to the issues.

Regardless, the Firepower tree, in combination with facets of Operations (cool run and heat containment), was all about getting the absolute biggest and most efficient Alpha possible that you could spam as much as possible. However, 2.0 and 2.1 actually gave people more options and potential choices. It opens up opportunities for more efficient builds to explore other areas of the skill trees, as those "meta" choices could be shifted away from being an absolute must. On the other hand, yes, it makes some of the hotter vomit builds forced to go into the same meta skill trees to try to get as close to what they had as possible; but in the end it still curbs everything PGI wants to curb and not a single weapon change is needed.

However, if some of the glaring issues in the skill tree are fixed AND we have the opportunity to make meaningful choices, which PTS 2.0/2.1 was heading towards, then baseline tuning should be just that, baseline tuning. Baseline tuning shouldn't be done in absence of the skill tree, but acknowledging that the skill tree should give options and choices in mech development that weren't available in the previous skill system. Yes, a mech should be functional with zero skills, but it shouldn't be performing at optimal capabilities in any regard, including their weapon systems and heat management.

[Sable Dove]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 September 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

So after reviewing the weekends worth of feedback regarding this topic, want to throw a few points out there.

While finding a solution that works for all weapons was the last thing I commented on regarding the rationale for the final tuning,its not the sole reason. (Apologies, I was trying to post something at 11 PM my time in the middle of family time on a weekend night.) Among the other concerns we had was that while PTS 2.1 felt good for various load-outs when you consider maximum skill point investment in all of the skill nodes, we were not satisfied with what you got out of the baseline level accounting for "fresh" 'Mechs with zero skill point investments, as well as a number of other points that we had under review. While we did weight as much as we felt we could as close to the PTS 2.1 numbers, we couldn't ignore what we saw when it came to not only how certain weapons operate, but both how the effects scaled from zero skill effectiveness to fully mastered effectiveness, as well as considering various other things that will affect players who will be coming into these changes blind. (As please keep in mind a majority of the playerbase does not participate in the forums, PTS', or listen to podcasts or twitch streams.)

These baseline changes where made to support the base game as best we could, including all weapons, zero skill tree investment, and many other internal points on our end. But we fully recognize the feedback put forward in regards to how these numbers are when a 'Mech is fully Mastered at the high end of play. Because of this, we may look at the current scaling within the skill tree and 'Mech quirks to attempt to find a middle ground between baseline values that best supports the widest amount of weapons / skill investment levels, and what the final values look like once a 'Mech is fully mastered out. Since a major change such as this to the base game will almost inevitably impact the value propositions of heat based nodes within the current skill tree as well as currently assigned heat based quirks.

At the moment, this is something that we will only be monitoring upon the release of these changes, but I want to put it out there now to get a dialogue going as far as seeing these final values for what they are, baseline values to support the base game. Past that, we are more then open to receiving feedback regarding current scaling of the abilities through 'Mech quirks and the skill tree to possibly make it to where the final values once a 'Mech is fully skilled out is closer to some of the numbers that have been floated around as "ideal final values" feedback here.

Could you possibly just... make the skill tree not be a massive time-sink? I mean, it used to just be an experience grind, then it was updated to be an experience and c-bill grind. Why not do something like get rid of the grind? Give new mechs 91 skillpoints from the getgo, then balance based on a fully-skilled mech instead of trying to balance for all 92 levels of skilltree completion. If players want to change their skill setup, it will cost them still, but at least a new mech won't be intentionally worse than what other players are using.

I mean, I get that the grind is there to sell Premium Time and EXP conversions, but it's clearly having a detrimental effect on gameplay when you can't balance the game because you're trying to balance 92 tiers of mech with a huge number of possible builds all at once. The idea that you have to grind or pay to get a fully-capable mech would be just fine in a co-operative game, but in a competitive setting, giving new players (or just players with new mechs) a demonstrably-worse mech than other players isn't exactly a great idea for retaining a population.

The skill tree could stand for some improvement in general; certain pieces of equipment are borderline useless without the associated skills, and it heavily encourages boating one type of weapon (laser boating has 4 specialized skills, Ballistic boats generally have 2 or 4 skills, and missile boats have 6 skills, but any build that mixes is going to be less effective overall because they need to either spend the skillpoints for each weapon type, or take less-effective nodes instead of the specialized ones).

Or just remove the skill tree. Treat mechs either like they have no skills, or all the skills. That would be fine too.