400 replies to this topic

[Adette]

ccrider, on 19 March 2021 - 10:54 PM, said:

I'm not going to crap on the idea of weapon changes suggested by ya'll, but if TTK is directly linked to agility buffs and re-scale, wouldn't it be better to petition that the PTS be delayed until all 3 things can be implemented into it at once? If you truly want unbiased feedback, buffing weapons without the other corresponding changes just seems counter-intuitive. Currently, certain mechs are so big and sluggish that any increase to damage output is going to further the idea that they are trash. If peoples favorite robots seem like trash, everything else will be judged against that standard and changes people may be fine with will instead be viewed in a negative light. If the PTS makes it seem like only certain mechs are viable, a lot of people will immediately respond that the weapons are bad and all that work goes for nought. I'd caution against rushing into a test that only includes 1/3 of the variables; I know it's exciting to think PGI is giving you a shot to prove your numbers but going in without all variables on the board is just knee capping yourself before a race.

The proposed weapon changes shouldn't affect current TTK, because it's meant to bring sub par weapons up to useful category. For instance, right now clan SPL are pretty useless, so unless you're playing only faction where you're stuck to picking IS or clan, there's no reason for me to play an Arctic cheetah when the wolfhound with MPLs, or Vulcan with MPLs does the same role as the Arctic cheetah far better. Buffing clan SPL means I can now choose to play an Arctic cheetah as opposed to using the wolfhound, but my killing power in match should stay about the same (meaning I could've just played a wolfhound in game, but now the arctic cheetah can make the wolfhound damage output, so more viable choices).

[dario03]

ccrider, on 19 March 2021 - 10:54 PM, said:

I'm not going to crap on the idea of weapon changes suggested by ya'll, but if TTK is directly linked to agility buffs and re-scale, wouldn't it be better to petition that the PTS be delayed until all 3 things can be implemented into it at once? If you truly want unbiased feedback, buffing weapons without the other corresponding changes just seems counter-intuitive. Currently, certain mechs are so big and sluggish that any increase to damage output is going to further the idea that they are trash. If peoples favorite robots seem like trash, everything else will be judged against that standard and changes people may be fine with will instead be viewed in a negative light. If the PTS makes it seem like only certain mechs are viable, a lot of people will immediately respond that the weapons are bad and all that work goes for nought. I'd caution against rushing into a test that only includes 1/3 of the variables; I know it's exciting to think PGI is giving you a shot to prove your numbers but going in without all variables on the board is just knee capping yourself before a race.

Theres no rushing, agility could be added to the first pts already. But thats not how PGI wants to test it. They want to test in phases.

Players that try the pts will need to account for the fact that it is a test for part of the plan and provide feedback with that in mind.
So if you find the weapons to powerful but think higher agility would fix it then say so.
Also remember that its a test so try out the weapons on mechs that are quirked and not quirked for the weapons you are using. If a weapon was greatly buffed then of course it will be strong on mechs that currently have big quirks for that weapon, if its only to strong on big quirked mechs don't say the weapon is op, say the quirk needs reduced.
Agility and quirks have already been theory crafted but once the weapon changes are actually tested on a pts it will probably need adjusted and will be a great time for others to give feedback and suggestions.

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

Navid A1, on 19 March 2021 - 09:35 PM, said:

anywhere between 4 to 4.5 would be ok... we'll probably test a 4.25.

Also remember that Light Gauss would no longer be linked in ghost heat system... so you can fire them along PPC family at the same time with no heat penalty...
Also Gauss is heavier and larger than LGR... so.

I suppose. I just wish I didn't need 7-14 tons of other guns to make LGRs worth bringing.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hauptmann Keg Steiner, on 20 March 2021 - 04:55 AM, said:

I suppose. I just wish I didn't need 7-14 tons of other guns to make LGRs worth bringing.

Well, we can see how it goes. Smaller mechs can bring dual light gauss, and you also can put two light gauss in the same component which you can't do with regular gauss.

[Krasnopesky]

Hauptmann Keg Steiner, on 20 March 2021 - 04:55 AM, said:

I suppose. I just wish I didn't need 7-14 tons of other guns to make LGRs worth bringing.

Light Gauss Rifles have received one of the largest buffs in this PTS:
+25% damage per shot
+17.3% optimum range
+46.6% maximum range
+10% velocity

They were only nerfed in one area: -34.6% cooldown

That means they have around the same DPS they do now, but are more accurate (velocity buff), can do more damage at greater ranges (improving their role as a sniper weapon), and require less face time to do so.

If they are still completely not viable to use except when boated with other weapons we can look at further modifications to the weapon (such as reducing the cooldown to improve DPS) when we do some modifications to the PTS.

[Antares102]

Krasnopesky, on 20 March 2021 - 09:44 AM, said:

Light Gauss Rifles have received one of the largest buffs in this PTS:
+25% damage per shot
+17.3% optimum range
+46.6% maximum range
+10% velocity

They were only nerfed in one area: -34.6% cooldown

You forgot to mention one of the greatest buffs it (most likely) will receive. Unlinking them from Ghost heat.
This means something like this will be possbile:
https://gulag.nav-al..._d911d689_FNR-5

Edited by Antares102, 20 March 2021 - 10:23 AM.

[Navid A1]

Antares102, on 20 March 2021 - 10:23 AM, said:

You forgot to mention one of the greatest buffs it (most likely) will receive. Unlinking them from Ghost heat.
This means something like this will be possbile:
https://gulag.nav-al..._d911d689_FNR-5

Even 2xLGR + 3xERPPC is possible now... although a bit hot due to ERPPC ghost heat on itself (which is also tuned to have less penalty)

2xGauss+2xERPPC would be an instant shutdown for example.

[Gas Guzzler]

Yeah and you can do 2 LGR and 2 ER PPC on a Marauder, so that's pretty nice.

[Gagis]

I'm thinking 1LGauss+3PPC warhammers.

[Wid1046]

The one weapon system that I'm concerned about is the heavy medium laser. It was already a bit of a niche pick and with the buffs being made to ER medium lasers, I don't think that they'll be able to compete without at least a small decrease to their heat. I've theory crafted a few build on the Gulag version of Mech DB, and ERMLs now have almost as good sustained dps along with all their other advantages. I don't think that the currently planned HML buffs will be enough to keep them viable, but I'll keep an open mind when the PTS drops.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 19 March 2021 - 02:04 AM, said:

I don't like how the Light Gauss and normal Gauss are right on top of each other in terms of range (880 vs. 810). There's no practical difference there, the regular GR is still out-damaging the LGR at the LGR's range.

I agree. The Gulag believes the Gauss needs to be a long-range sniper weapon, because at mid-range the laser- and gauss-vomit configurations are currently out-classed by dakka. I think the logic makes sense as long as you are tracking against live, but it doesn't hold up when measured against the whole of the Gulag changes; the buffs to the lasers make laser vomit feel incredibly potent again and I don't think the Gauss needs to be pushed out so far to be able to compete.

If we really want to shunt Gauss into long range, I think a better compromise solution is to give LGauss and Gauss (incl. C-Gauss) 3x max range while pushing the optimum on the Gauss down to 720 meters or so. Then, LGauss can enjoy a more tangible absolute range advantage and Gauss is still useful at a distance.

Quote

I also don't agree with the regular PPC having a ghost heat cap of 3 because then that puts it in direct competition with the HPPC instead of making them different from it. They're now competing for the same 30-PPFLD role and one will inevitably be better than the other.

Depends; HPPCs let you bring more weapons to bracket your min range since you don't have to give up an extra hardpoint for that main battery. I don't think the issue here is "one is better than the other" so much as there's no real flavor to be had:

LPPCs are good filler weapons with no min-range and a higher rate of fire.
ERPPCs are easier to aim, have more range, and have no min-range.
SN-PPCs are significantly colder, are lighter, have no min-range, and have an extended long range that starts eating into PPC territory.
HPPC hit harder per-hardpoint and weigh one ton less per 30-points of damage.

PPC is well-rounded and that's why it fails.

Quote

I definitely don't like the HMG sharing the same range as the regular MG. Now they have the same role, and one will be directly superior to the other instead of there being a trade-off. If you boost HMG range, regular MG needs more range too.

Most of the other stuff is good though. I'll nitpick some more later.

The HMG is a massive investment for IS; there are only three 'Mechs I would say that can make good use of them: the BJ-A, JVN-11F, and FS9-E. Of those three, two have to squeeze for the HMGs and are very squishy. The BJ-A doesn't have to squeeze, but it does not have the speed on tap to reliably get close and it is also squishy.

Gulag might disagree, but I think the IS MG family ought to have the Rate of Fire bumped up from 10 to 11, the ammo buffs dropped to the Clan levels, and (being greedy here) another 20 meters on the standard MG to keep differentiation with HMG. Given that the MG 'Mechs setting the bar for performance are all Clan 'Mechs with hilarious weapon counts, these look like no-risk buffs.

[FupDup]

Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 12:15 PM, said:

I agree. The Gulag believes the Gauss needs to be a long-range sniper weapon, because at mid-range the laser- and gauss-vomit configurations are currently out-classed by dakka. I think the logic makes sense as long as you are tracking against live, but it doesn't hold up when measured against the whole of the Gulag changes; the buffs to the lasers make laser vomit feel incredibly potent again and I don't think the Gauss needs to be pushed out so far to be able to compete.

If we really want to shunt Gauss into long range, I think a better compromise solution is to give LGauss and Gauss (incl. C-Gauss) 3x max range while pushing the optimum on the Gauss down to 720 meters or so. Then, LGauss can enjoy a more tangible absolute range advantage and Gauss is still useful at a distance.

I'd put Goose around 720 or so but no 3x range because that means you'd probably have to go out past 2000 meters for the LGR to start doing more damage. I'd push LGoose to 900 or higher optimal and let it have 3x range. Maybe tack on a little bit more velocity too. Regular IS Goose can get a cooldown reduction as discussed by others in this thread.

Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 12:15 PM, said:

Depends; HPPCs let you bring more weapons to bracket your min range since you don't have to give up an extra hardpoint for that main battery. I don't think the issue here is "one is better than the other" so much as there's no real flavor to be had:

HPPC hit harder per-hardpoint and weigh one ton less per 30-points of damage.
PPC is well-rounded and that's why it fails.

For lack of creativity on my part, I'd just give the regular PPC a little bit better damage-per-heat efficiency and velocity than the HPPC but keep the Ghost Heat cap at just 2. I guess also give it the old min range scaling instead of instant 0 damage so it's more flexible.

Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 12:15 PM, said:

The HMG is a massive investment for IS; there are only three 'Mechs I would say that can make good use of them: the BJ-A, JVN-11F, and FS9-E. Of those three, two have to squeeze for the HMGs and are very squishy. The BJ-A doesn't have to squeeze, but it does not have the speed on tap to reliably get close and it is also squishy.

Gulag might disagree, but I think the IS MG family ought to have the Rate of Fire bumped up from 10 to 11, the ammo buffs dropped to the Clan levels, and (being greedy here) another 20 meters on the standard MG to keep differentiation with HMG. Given that the MG 'Mechs setting the bar for performance are all Clan 'Mechs with hilarious weapon counts, these look like no-risk buffs.

I'd rather bump the HMG up to 1.75 DPS or higher so it can justify its weight without taking away the range advantage of the normal MG. Let it absolutely shred faces off but keep it restricted to melee range.

As for Clans vs. IS flavor I'd let Clans have a token range advantage (since all their stuff has more range) but IS having better anti-armor damage.

Edited by FupDup, 20 March 2021 - 12:33 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 20 March 2021 - 12:28 PM, said:

I'd put Goose around 720 or so but no 3x range because that means you'd probably have to go out past 2000 meters for the LGR to start doing more damage. I'd push LGoose to 900 or higher optimal and let it have 3x range. Maybe tack on a little bit more velocity too.

I might actually agree with that...except for the C-Gauss. In the Gulag PTS, IS have the ability to deliver 40 PPFLD at 1000 meters firing 2LGR+2ERPPC together without ghost heat (2LGR+3ERPPC on some 'Mechs, even). The Clans have nothing comparable to that unless you give the C-Gauss range; then they can at least build to eat the ghost heat and take a TC to improve the sync.

I'm not against Gauss and C-Gauss having more than token differences in how they work. The whole conceit of IS tech vs. Clan tech is that the latter can do it all and the former have variations on the theme that can collectively do it all, but not with just one option.

Quote

For lack of creativity on my part, I'd just give the regular PPC a little bit better heat efficiency and velocity than the HPPC but keep the Ghost Heat cap at just 2. I guess also give it the old min range scaling instead of instant 0 damage.

Don't think that's going to do much; if I'm just taking 2 PPC and I can't fit HPPCs, I'm probably taking ERs since I can cool them just fine in the Gulag environment on any reasonable 'Mech.

Radical idea, but adding splash to one or some of the PPC variants might be interesting. It's a little bit of a pepega thought, especially given the recent patch, but letting the HPPC stay at its 14.5 heat in exchange for gaining some extra damage (3 splash?) would let the standard PPC have some breathing room with HSL+1 and maybe extra velocity. Then you would choose precision and heat efficiency vs. raw damage and hardpoint efficiency.

Quote

I'd rather bump the HMG up to 1.75 DPS or higher so it can justify its weight without taking away the range advantage of the normal MG. Let it absolutely shred faces off but keep it restricted to melee range.

At 100 meters, the Firestarter can't dance, the Javelin will lose its arms hella quick, and the Blackjack will be dead or nearly dead unless the enemy is full pepega (which, QP, I guess).

[ccrider]

Adette, on 19 March 2021 - 11:03 PM, said:

The proposed weapon changes shouldn't affect current TTK, because it's meant to bring sub par weapons up to useful category. For instance, right now clan SPL are pretty useless, so unless you're playing only faction where you're stuck to picking IS or clan, there's no reason for me to play an Arctic cheetah when the wolfhound with MPLs, or Vulcan with MPLs does the same role as the Arctic cheetah far better. Buffing clan SPL means I can now choose to play an Arctic cheetah as opposed to using the wolfhound, but my killing power in match should stay about the same (meaning I could've just played a wolfhound in game, but now the arctic cheetah can make the wolfhound damage output, so more viable choices).

I play almost entirely faction so that's the lenses I judge with. I've read the spreadsheet, I follow the forums so I know that these changes are meant to be looked at as a whole but how many people do that? The forums are primarily the same 40ish players commenting; the majority of the player base doesn't come here so I think you need to either A. Somehow let everyone know the parameters they need to judge the PTS is on or B. Test everything at once. Someone testing without advance knowledge of what they are looking at is most likely to just think "my mech melts instantly, these changes are bad." If you want honest feedback from players who don't read the forums or haven't looked at the gulag documents, that's your best bet. I don't have a horse in this race; I honestly just like running around vomiting srms on people in FP but if the goal is to change a wide variety of weapons you need to make sure that everyone is open-minded and partial tests utilizing players who don't understand what's actually happening is not a good idea.

[ccrider]

dario03, on 20 March 2021 - 12:41 AM, said:

Theres no rushing, agility could be added to the first pts already. But thats not how PGI wants to test it. They want to test in phases.

Players that try the pts will need to account for the fact that it is a test for part of the plan and provide feedback with that in mind.
So if you find the weapons to powerful but think higher agility would fix it then say so.
Also remember that its a test so try out the weapons on mechs that are quirked and not quirked for the weapons you are using. If a weapon was greatly buffed then of course it will be strong on mechs that currently have big quirks for that weapon, if its only to strong on big quirked mechs don't say the weapon is op, say the quirk needs reduced.
Agility and quirks have already been theory crafted but once the weapon changes are actually tested on a pts it will probably need adjusted and will be a great time for others to give feedback and suggestions.

I've read your documents, I read the forums; I'm the minority. Most players dont; testing a third of the changes is going to result in negative feedback. We all play certain modes the most; I play FP, you guys are comp but most players are solo casualty players who log in, shoot robots and never look at forums or anything else. Testing and hoping they realize they need to judge with an open mind is a nice thought but it's not going to happen. I'm willing to test with an open mind even though I don't use most weapons because it's not worth it to me to use things I don't enjoy in the 3 hours a week I play. I am fairly certain I will be in the minority. I seriously believe that testing all variables together gives you the best chance to implement your changes; a partial test will be judged by most players as the only change and lower TTK will be a deal breaker for a lot of players.

[Y E O N N E]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 March 2021 - 10:51 AM, said:

Yeah and you can do 2 LGR and 2 ER PPC on a Marauder, so that's pretty nice.

Warhammer will do it better, unfortunately, like literally anything you would want to put on a Marauder.

[Gas Guzzler]

Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 01:20 PM, said:

Warhammer will do it better, unfortunately, like literally anything you would want to put on a Marauder.

Ah yeah that's right.

[The6thMessenger]

Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 12:15 PM, said:

The HMG is a massive investment for IS; there are only three 'Mechs I would say that can make good use of them: the BJ-A, JVN-11F, and FS9-E. Of those three, two have to squeeze for the HMGs and are very squishy. The BJ-A doesn't have to squeeze, but it does not have the speed on tap to reliably get close and it is also squishy.

Gulag might disagree, but I think the IS MG family ought to have the Rate of Fire bumped up from 10 to 11, the ammo buffs dropped to the Clan levels, and (being greedy here) another 20 meters on the standard MG to keep differentiation with HMG. Given that the MG 'Mechs setting the bar for performance are all Clan 'Mechs with hilarious weapon counts, these look like no-risk buffs.

Honestly, I think MGs has a whole just needs more range. For me, I don't really like going for HMGs despite their DPS due to range, I'd be in knife-fighting distance, and if they are used as backup I barely get to use them anyways, and that is despite their tonnage allotment. I like MGs in MW4 better, it's actually useful to pad damage at a distance.

Just remove the crit-BS and frontload damage, increase range.

[Zigmund Freud]

Can I post a suggestion here?
Suggestion:

Remove Arty and Airstrikes!

This is just free damage you can drop on people from a mile away without exposing yourself to return fire, without even being noticed half of the time. Some people don't like LRMs for being "free damage from safety", but strikes are so much worse - massive damage potential, no way to avoid if the smoke happened to land out of your field of view, takes 0 tons and slots. And cost Cbills, making them more easily available to players who already know how to play, and already dominate rare new players even without magic free damage button.

Or make it some sort of NARC-like beacony weapon, that would be fine too

[MyriadDigits]

Zigmund Freud, on 20 March 2021 - 02:44 PM, said:

Can I post a suggestion here?
Suggestion:

Remove Arty and Airstrikes!

This is just free damage you can drop on people from a mile away without exposing yourself to return fire, without even being noticed half of the time. Some people don't like LRMs for being "free damage from safety", but strikes are so much worse - massive damage potential, no way to avoid if the smoke happened to land out of your field of view, takes 0 tons and slots. And cost Cbills, making them more easily available to players who already know how to play, and already dominate rare new players even without magic free damage button.

Or make it some sort of NARC-like beacony weapon, that would be fine too

I nuked a Hellfire last night with arty. Just instant death, on a heavy mech. The player in question didn't even get to fire a shot.

Strikes at least need a nerf, because that's honestly pretty messed up.