400 replies to this topic

[YiffyInAJiffy]

Really sucks to see so many missile types get their health buffed as AMS can be a hard sell to bring in alot of QP matches anyway (even as a guy who loves bringing ams despite assurances I really shouldn't) Especially with SRMS as they have such a short travel time that the ams often feels like it doesn't have much room to work anyway, and if anything, it encourages closer combat for the srm guy to then counter the ams?


That being said I'm guessing that what is the case for QP is probably not the case for actual competitive play, which is what this is targeted at? Happy to accept my own inexperience and default to the guys with more experience even if it means something I dig gets the nerf hammer, happy at the very least to see laser ams being given some attention.

[Gagis]

Runecarver, on 19 March 2021 - 09:20 AM, said:

"Attempt at balancing." Right, sure.

If you couple this sort of velocity reduction with the general mobility increases the "gulag" has been proposing, the LRM weapon system will be hit far too harshly. Do the mobility testing first, then look at whether or not LRMs are still so scary that they need nerfing.

Lurms were just buffed 4 times in a row, resulting in an unprecedented absurdly high velocity and enough power you even see them in competitive play by now. They need the velocity taken down a notch.

[Krasnopesky]

YiffyInAJiffy, on 19 March 2021 - 09:25 AM, said:

Really sucks to see so many missile types get their health buffed as AMS can be a hard sell to bring in alot of QP matches anyway (even as a guy who loves bringing ams despite assurances I really shouldn't) Especially with SRMS as they have such a short travel time that the ams often feels like it doesn't have much room to work anyway, and if anything, it encourages closer combat for the srm guy to then counter the ams?


That being said I'm guessing that what is the case for QP is probably not the case for actual competitive play, which is what this is targeted at? Happy to accept my own inexperience and default to the guys with more experience even if it means something I dig gets the nerf hammer, happy at the very least to see laser ams being given some attention.

This PTS is aimed at all gamemodes and skill levels.

One of the current overbearing aspects of LRMs is that they have very high velocity, making it difficult for larger, slower 'Mechs to avoid them at all, even when they are standing next to adequate cover, once targeted. As LRMs now travel slower they are more susceptible to AMS, so we gave them an increase in missile health to compensate.

Currently I find AMS performs very well (sometimes too well) against certain missile types such as clan LRMs and ATMs. This creates a 'feast or famine' situation where the lock-on user either does a huge amount of damage due to no AMS existing on the opposing team, or they do very little damage because the opposing team has a pair of quad AMS Corsairs.

As I have mentioned before, the most important part is trying out the PTS with an open mind and providing us with your honest feedback afterwards.

[Runecarver]

Gagis, on 19 March 2021 - 09:28 AM, said:

Lurms were just buffed 4 times in a row, resulting in an unprecedented absurdly high velocity and enough power you even see them in competitive play by now. They need the velocity taken down a notch.

Absurdly high is a bit hyperbolic, considering they're only 210m/s which is still slower than ATMs and less than half of MRMs. Any mech in the current live game with actually good acceleration and deceleration numbers can quickly duck back behind cover to completely invalidate them. That is why if the plan is to also introduce general mobility changes, try those out before you fall into the same pitfall trap that PGI has stepped in before, where you change things bit by bit forgetting the bigger picture that affects the weapon system.

As for competitive, that you can see them in competitive is a good thing, isn't it? Previously they were only brought as a joke, to signal to your opponent that you are trolling. From what I see they're still generally thought of that way.

And before the "four consecutive buffs" they were in such a disastrously poor state that they were essentially non-entities as a weapon system. Even now, despite being "so powerful" they're touted as being nothing more than annoying and still easy to counter. But perhaps its exactly because they've made their existence known that people are still angry about them, after never having to think about them as an actual threat.

[Krasnopesky]

Runecarver, on 19 March 2021 - 09:36 AM, said:

Absurdly high is a bit hyperbolic, considering they're only 210m/s which is still slower than ATMs and less than half of MRMs. Any mech in the current live game with actually good acceleration and deceleration numbers can quickly duck back behind cover to completely invalidate them. That is why if the plan is to also introduce general mobility changes, try those out before you fall into the same pitfall trap that PGI has stepped in before, where you change things bit by bit forgetting the bigger picture that affects the weapon system.

As for competitive, that you can see them in competitive is a good thing, isn't it? Previously they were only brought as a joke, to signal to your opponent that you are trolling. From what I see they're still generally thought of that way.

And before the "four consecutive buffs" they were in such a disastrously poor state that they were essentially non-entities as a weapon system. Even now, despite being "so powerful" they're touted as being nothing more than annoying and still easy to counter. But perhaps its exactly because they've made their existence known that people are still angry about them, after never having to think about them as an actual threat.

How would you suggest LRMs are balanced? Would you keep them the same as they are now or would you recommend they are buffed in a certain way?

[Grus]

Navid A1, on 18 March 2021 - 07:59 PM, said:

Crosspost from reddit here

As advised by Daeron in the last 24-48hrs there is a full PTS is on its way with the Gulag values fully uploaded.


You can find more details/our aims from the MWO Comp Website (hold shift to scroll left to right)
Full List of changes: Full List
Join the feedback on MWO Comp Discord
There is also MechDB GULAG version NOW ONLINE

The changes listed above are considered for the initial PTS pass. They include weapon changes, MASC adjustments (assuming pre-march patch), and a change to IS CASE which makes it zero tons and allows it to be equipped in arms and legs too

further adjustments will be done in subsequent iterations to the PTS, including a new approach to the Ultra auto cannon system described here:

Spoiler

Currently UACs are the definition of a feast or famine system. If you don't jam, you're technically firing two normal ACs with the price of one with no drawbacks, effectivly doubling your mech's already high DPS and fire power. However, if you do jam, you're going to be a sitting duck going to the chopping block. In this game where controlling angles, and winning trades are key, tying your ability to shoot to a random number generator is counter intuitive and backwards (RNG is bad... F* RNG)

As a solution, I was thinking about getting rid of jam system completely (%0 jam chance) and at the same time balance their damage output using weapon cooldown and heat per damage.
***You will be able to double tap without jam... but the weapon will take longer to cooldown for the next shot.***

As an intial starting point, the following values can be considered for a test run in a second PTS iteration:

UAC2: heat=0.7 -- Cooldown=1.1
UAC5: heat=1.75 -- Cooldown=2.5
UAC10: heat=3.5 -- Cooldown=3.3
UAC20: heat=7.0 -- Cooldown=5.75

C-UAC2: heat=0.7 -- Cooldown=1.1
C-UAC5: heat=1.75 -- Cooldown=2.4
C-UAC10: heat=3.5 -- Cooldown=3.3
C-UAC20: heat=7.0 -- Cooldown=5.9

The above changes will make UACs to consistently have 30% higher DPS than their standard counterparts while generating 40% more heat per point of damage.

This preserves the burst nature of UACs, while making them reliable and keeps them in check with heat and cooldown.

Meanwhile the standard ACs will benefit from higher velocity, less shells fired, faster cooldown and much lower heat. Opening them up to being good combos with PPC family, and/or high dps almost heat neutral options.

Here is a video showcase of the proposed system in action:

MWO Comp will also run a competition, league or something during the event by way if Private Lobbies. We will cast the matches. Talk to players etc. Will be a big day.

We have a whole host of significant agility buffs across the board in store... One step at a time.... If PGI keeps working with us.

That and re-scale (that's actually happening in the coming months) are going to help the state of the game a lot.

Spread the word.

Oh please tell me they are making the commando smaller...

[Runecarver]

Krasnopesky, on 19 March 2021 - 09:41 AM, said:

How would you suggest LRMs are balanced? Would you keep them the same as they are now or would you recommend they are buffed in a certain way?

Personally, I would keep them as they are for now, introduce those desired mobility changes, and then review. With increased mobility, the ability to break line of sight to any spotting unit and trigger the lock decay reduction from radar deprivation will become much more prevalent at nullifying LRM volleys.

After that and the laser AMS heat change, depending on how prevalent AMS' overall becomes, look at whether or not they need more missile health. As it is, against a 3 AMS nova or 4 AMS corsair anything at 40 tubes or less for clans just gets utterly nullified by passive AMS fields. Which has led to this situation where you only see LRM boats with 60, 70, 80, 90 or more missile tubes, both IS and clan, because you need that many missiles to punch through a potential quad AMS umbrella to maintain cost effective DPS (and to concentrate enough DPS towards center mass to have any form of efficiency when it comes to actually killing someone due to how large the spread patterns on the weapon systems are).

Edited by Runecarver, 19 March 2021 - 09:54 AM.

[Nightbird]

Krasnopesky, on 19 March 2021 - 09:41 AM, said:

How would you suggest LRMs are balanced? Would you keep them the same as they are now or would you recommend they are buffed in a certain way?

Double AMS DPS, half AMS range, so that individuals taking one AMS will find it more effective, but if you want to overlap AMS bubbles you'll have to be so close together that you impede each other's movement and risk massive strikes. This would be more a QP change, not really considering comp.

[dario03]

Grus, on 19 March 2021 - 09:45 AM, said:

Oh please tell me they are making the commando smaller...

This test only includes weapons, masc, and case. Plenty of other things have been planned, but PGI wants to test in phases to see how different categories of changes effect the game. Maybe a rescale pts will come later, but Commando most likely stays the same.

[Krasnopesky]

Runecarver, on 19 March 2021 - 09:53 AM, said:

Personally, I would keep them as they are for now, introduce those desired mobility changes, and then review. With increased mobility, the ability to break line of sight to any spotting unit and trigger the lock decay reduction from radar deprivation will become much more prevalent at nullifying LRM volleys.

After that and the laser AMS heat change, depending on how prevalent AMS' overall becomes, look at whether or not they need more missile health. As it is, against a 3 AMS nova or 4 AMS corsair anything at 40 tubes or less for clans just gets utterly nullified by passive AMS fields. Which has led to this situation where you only see LRM boats with 60, 70, 80, 90 or more missile tubes, both IS and clan, because you need that many missiles to punch through a potential quad AMS umbrella to maintain cost effective DPS (and to concentrate enough DPS towards center mass to have any form of efficiency when it comes to actually killing someone due to how large the spread patterns on the weapon systems are).

Thanks for your feedback.

Originally we were hoping to have a PTS with all the The Cauldron's suggested changes, but at this stage PGI has offered a weapons balance PTS so we are taking it. Many of the weapons balance decisions were made with other balance changes in mind such as a quirk rebalance, "mech rescale, and agility passover.

As the first version of the PTS is 'locked in' currently we will be able to initially test the velocity nerf and health increase suggested. Should it seem balanced for this version of the game we will specifically test LRMs (and other lock-on weaponry) against faster moving and more mobile 'Mechs to see if LRMs are now underperforming.

We also plan on providing video evidence to back up our claims once the PTS is underway, so everyone can both participate in the PTS and view our logic on weapon balances.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 22 March 2021 - 11:02 AM.

[Grus]

dario03, on 19 March 2021 - 09:55 AM, said:

This test only includes weapons, masc, and case. Plenty of other things have been planned, but PGI wants to test in phases to see how different categories of changes effect the game. Maybe a rescale pts will come later, but Commando most likely stays the same.

If they make it smaller... my TDK is going to be so much fun!

[Runecarver]

Krasnopesky, on 19 March 2021 - 10:12 AM, said:

Thanks for your feedback.

Originally we were hoping to have a PTS with all the Gulag's suggested changes, but at this stage PGI has offered a weapons balance PTS so we are taking it. Many of the weapons balance decisions were made with other balance changes in mind such as a quirk rebalance, "mech rescale, and agility passover.

As the first version of the PTS is 'locked in' currently we will be able to initially test the velocity nerf and health increase suggested. Should it seem balanced for this version of the game we will specifically test LRMs (and other lock-on weaponry) against faster moving and more mobile 'Mechs to see if LRMs are now underperforming.

We also plan on providing video evidence to back up our claims once the PTS is underway, so everyone can both participate in the PTS and view our logic on weapon balances.

You may find that after projectile velocity and mech mobility changes the LRM weapon system would likely need to be reverted back to previous lock-on timers and missile spread patterns in order to have a chance against most other instant delivery weapons. As it stands, the long range locks are really only feasible against slow mechs stuck out in the open. And short range, direct line of sight locks can still be easily countered by an opponent aware that you have missiles that require that ~1 second timer to achieve lock before firing by beginning to move back into cover.

Edited by Runecarver, 19 March 2021 - 11:09 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Honestly, I am happy for the lock timer to be shortened up if the retention of the lock when the unit returns to cover is cut off at the knees. That it is as long as it is today is what makes LRMs frustrating to play against regardless of their efficacy; homing, indirect fire should never be a viable option without the assistance of a NARC or a spotter. If you don't have either of those, you should be forced to wait for the target to expose just like with any other weapon system and your shots should be compelled to miss if the target escapes to cover before they connect...also just like with any other weapon system.

Yes, I am aware my preference makes the Radar Deprivation and Target Retention nodes superfluous. That is by design.

[Gas Guzzler]

Y E O N N E, on 19 March 2021 - 11:17 AM, said:

Honestly, I am happy for the lock timer to be shortened up if the retention of the lock when the unit returns to cover is cut off at the knees. That it is as long as it is today is what makes LRMs frustrating to play against regardless of their efficacy; homing, indirect fire should never be a viable option without the assistance of a NARC or a spotter. If you don't have either of those, you should be forced to wait for the target to expose just like with any other weapon system and your shots should be compelled to miss if the target escapes to cover before they connect...also just like with any other weapon system.

Yes, I am aware my preference makes the Radar Deprivation and Target Retention nodes superfluous. That is by design.

Agreed 100%.

[Nightbird]

Gas Guzzler, on 19 March 2021 - 11:34 AM, said:

Agreed 100%.

I agree that's how it should work IRL. In the game though, it would make LRMs less effective against mediocre skilled players and above, so there's no chance of it happening. At least radar derp works and at 100% the lock is lost instantly when LoS is lost, regardless of how many retention nodes the other side has.

Edited by Nightbird, 19 March 2021 - 11:38 AM.

[MyriadDigits]

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.

Went through, haven't seen other responses to this. LGR would be unlinked from any ghost heat groups, meaning it would have the advantage over normal Gauss of being able to be fired together with PPCs. So builds like this: https://gulag.nav-al...c4f33a7_CPLT-K2 or this https://gulag.nav-al...8164d3e3_KGC-KJ would be able to work without tangling with ghost heat, but similar builds exchanging LGR for normal GR would still tangle with ghost heat.
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.

[Gas Guzzler]

kapusta11, on 19 March 2021 - 04:19 AM, said:

So how's your spreadsheet better than that of PGI?

Right off the bat:
- Clan MPL range nerfed massively? Any reason why? Are they that oppressive?
- Clan Heavy large buffed across the board. More damage, less duration. I mean I don't mind, if people want the return of gauss vomit, sure, whatever. cER meds and Gauss buffed too so I see where this is going.
- PPC ghost limit increased to 3. I prefer PGI's approach of giving them better punch per ton and be meaningfully different from other weapons as opposed to, what it looks like a design approach of this whole spreadsheet of "this weapon generates 1 more heat and that weapon deals 1 more damage and this one has 0.5 sec longer cooldown but they all do more or less the same thing and in the end it doesn't matter because GAUSS VOMIT IS BACK BIТCH".
- Rotary AC5s nerfed? Lol, I guess RAC5 meta was a thing.
- IS Medium laser heat decreased by 4.42%. Nice meme.

Unfortunately it seems the goal of helping underperforming weapons fell prey to buffing author's prefered play style and ultimately failing to address the core issue of certain weapons not having a niche to fill because it's already filled by a weapon with better stats and no amount of number juggling is going to fix that.

The goal is balance without the cost of fun. The "author"? You mean ALL of the Authors have the same favorite playstyle? Oooookay.

Nightbird, on 19 March 2021 - 11:37 AM, said:

I agree that's how it should work IRL. In the game though, it would make LRMs less effective against mediocre skilled players and above, so there's no chance of it happening. At least radar derp works and at 100% the lock is lost instantly when LoS is lost, regardless of how many retention nodes the other side has.

Eh.

I'd settle for at least having an indication of whether or not I'm still being spotted (by another player, UAV, etc) so I don't get to cover and think I'm in good shape just to continue to get rained on.

kapusta11, on 19 March 2021 - 04:19 AM, said:

So how's your spreadsheet better than that of PGI?

Right off the bat:
- Clan MPL range nerfed massively? Any reason why? Are they that oppressive?
- Clan Heavy large buffed across the board. More damage, less duration. I mean I don't mind, if people want the return of gauss vomit, sure, whatever. cER meds and Gauss buffed too so I see where this is going.
- PPC ghost limit increased to 3. I prefer PGI's approach of giving them better punch per ton and be meaningfully different from other weapons as opposed to, what it looks like a design approach of this whole spreadsheet of "this weapon generates 1 more heat and that weapon deals 1 more damage and this one has 0.5 sec longer cooldown but they all do more or less the same thing and in the end it doesn't matter because GAUSS VOMIT IS BACK BIТCH".
- Rotary AC5s nerfed? Lol, I guess RAC5 meta was a thing.
- IS Medium laser heat decreased by 4.42%. Nice meme.

Unfortunately it seems the goal of helping underperforming weapons fell prey to buffing author's prefered play style and ultimately failing to address the core issue of certain weapons not having a niche to fill because it's already filled by a weapon with better stats and no amount of number juggling is going to fix that.

Also, from where I'm sitting both RAC5s and Clan MPLs are getting buffed, so not sure what you are referring to. More damage, less heat, at the cost of range because they are supposed to be more effective up close (yet damage falloff is now slower so it has a higher max range).

[ghost1e]

Runecarver, on 19 March 2021 - 10:51 AM, said:

You may find that after projectile velocity and mech mobility changes the LRM weapon system would likely need to be reverted back to previous lock-on timers and missile spread patterns in order to have a chance against most other instant delivery weapons. As it stands, the long range locks are really only feasible against slow mechs stuck out in the open. And short range, direct line of sight locks can still be easily countered by an opponent aware that you have missiles that require that ~1 second timer to achieve lock before firing by beginning to move back into cover.

well, so you want a weapon that can both free-farm mechs while not even being seen as well as win brawls?

might have to ask yourself who's buffing his own playstyle here...

[Gas Guzzler]

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 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.

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.

With range skills that gap becomes wider, and you can also fire 2 LGauss with 2 ER PPCs without ghost heat which ALONE gives it a role. I'm not saying its okay as is and maybe LGauss should have more range or more velocity or something, but I'm still seeing a give and take here.

Regular PPCs at 3, are hotter, heavier, and take more slots but have more DPS because of shorter cooldown. There is a slight trade off there that makes sense in some cases and not in others.

I like that IS HMGs have the same range because they are twice the tonnage investment of a regular MGs, so essentially, it makes MG boating more viable on more chassis, rather than having to rely on 6+ B hardpoints to do MGs, since currently the low HMG range makes it currently very difficult to use. I mean its a ONE TON machine gun. They also need more ammo tonnage investment. All in all, I think its a good change.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 19 March 2021 - 12:02 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

So the only concern I have is the IS Gauss vs Clan Gauss. It looks like they are exactly the same again. Are there any thoughts on how to differentiate them given that the IS one is larger and heavier?