166 replies to this topic

[Alexandros]

And for the people that call me a lier (1) The GULAG PTS is coming, soon : OutreachHPG (reddit.com) go on comments you ll find many nice gems.

Edited by Alexandros, 21 March 2021 - 06:41 AM.

[Alexandros]

Antares102, on 20 March 2021 - 10:29 AM, said:

And how would your enjoyable game look like if I may ask? I am curious now.
(Or did you post that already and I missed it?)

1.Old limping of mechs (breaking of legs) OR at least give a chance of breaking them.
2.A simplified skill tree with Offensive / Defensive / Utility bars that grade 1 to 10 (and not this maze we have)
3. No charging for gauss (Give to it a huge CD instead)//Flamers to do ACTUAL DMG
4. Doubling the armor/internals of Mechs so we feel we pilot MECHS and not paper boats.
5. FIXED engines for each chassis. (tree would provide min maxing of each engine via Utility) (only select standard light or XL version of that engine.)
6. Unique bonuses of each chassis/variant according to manufacturer's included features and not quirks.
7. Stability health on mechs. (they tend to fall you know as bipedal)
8. The ability for interchange of weapons (clan weapons on Is mechs and vice versa)

You see? My ideas would make it an unplayable game for someone else.

Edited by Alexandros, 21 March 2021 - 07:07 AM.

[Lucian Nostra]

The6thMessenger, on 20 March 2021 - 11:58 PM, said:

That's still min-maxing, that's still a really high reward within such unreasonably small rangeband. I don't like that. It just screams of the same elitist entitlement like I told before.



It already have increased missile health. Of course you can also increase velocity.



At 2.5/2.0/1.5 damage/missile, it still rewards those that are patient and don't waste their ammo, but it doesn't mean that it's a debilitating step between distances. There are plenty of other weapons that have superior damage/ton too, but the point of ATMs is that you aren't limited like SRMs are.

If you're still concerned with the 30 damage under 245m, why not increase it to 270m? Surely there's no point in leaving it at 245m after outright damage nerf?

It still stands that the only thing your improving is the long range by 6 damage if all missiles impact, medium stays the same which still isn't worth firing but now the close up firepower has been reduced. It doesn't change the fact that the close up 120-270 range is still the best place to fire ATMs, all that's been achieved is a nerf to that damage.

It's not min-maxing it's literally the only useful zone for ATMs now and with a 2.5/2/1.5 nerf it will continue to be the only useful zone for ATMs just with nerfed close range power. Mid range shots with ATMs are already of very questionable usage and that isn't proposed to change under this, why would shooting ATMs at long range suddenly been seen as worthwhile?

Like I'm sorry you don't like that ATMs are really only of value at 120-270 but that's just how it works because the only way to lessen the "min max' would be to increase long range damage, for instance PGI could change it to 3/2.5/1.5 but I don't think many people would advocate for homing missiles doing that much damage out to 500m to increase the value of the weapon beyond 270.

Dropping ATM close range power isn't 'evening the playing field' its nerfing the weapon for a buff that is of almost zero value

It's not elitist entitlement, its just looking at the facts of how the weapon functions inside it's basic parameters, tonnage and slots won't change nor it's lock on mechanics so you need to look at damage and such as your adjustments and those proposed changes under the tonnage/slots/lockon mechanics where seen as poor because they are poor adjustments, it would just lead to ATMs getting binned like LGRs are binned atm

Edited by Lucian Nostra, 21 March 2021 - 07:53 AM.

[Gagis]

Well, its a weapon that is outperforming and needs a nerf. The gulag proposal doesn't seem to go as far as suggesting the 2.5/2/1.5 spread but I'd be in favour if it comes up in some future testing pass. The 1.5 long range damage is far less significant of a buff than 2.5 short range is a nerf, but it still makes sense to soften the blow like that.

[Lucian Nostra]

Gagis, on 21 March 2021 - 07:53 AM, said:

Well, its a weapon that is outperforming and needs a nerf. The gulag proposal doesn't seem to go as far as suggesting the 2.5/2/1.5 spread but I'd be in favour if it comes up in some future testing pass. The 1.5 long range damage is far less significant of a buff than 2.5 short range is a nerf, but it still makes sense to soften the blow like that.

Sorry I don't see how they are outperforming, LRMs are better beyond 270 with better refire rates, more ammo per ton, and the ability to indirect and close up SRMs yield 8 damage per ton to the ATMs 5.14 with a projectile speed of nearly double what ATMs cruise in at. SRMs require more skill to land than ATMs because of the lack of lock and will take 3 hardpoints to equal the alpha of a ATM 12 but will only weigh 4.5 tons and have 20% more ammo per ton.

I don't see outperforming I see a fairly decent balance being tread, 120-270 range profile and more ease of use and hardpoint efficiency compared to SRMs, for less damage per ton, less dps potential and the ability to be totally shut down sub 120 against an SRM user. They are good for sure but I don't see them having overshadowed LRMs or SRMs

[Antares102]

Alexandros, on 21 March 2021 - 07:00 AM, said:

1.Old limping of mechs (breaking of legs) OR at least give a chance of breaking them.
2.A simplified skill tree with Offensive / Defensive / Utility bars that grade 1 to 10 (and not this maze we have)
3. No charging for gauss (Give to it a huge CD instead)//Flamers to do ACTUAL DMG
4. Doubling the armor/internals of Mechs so we feel we pilot MECHS and not paper boats.
5. FIXED engines for each chassis. (tree would provide min maxing of each engine via Utility) (only select standard light or XL version of that engine.)
6. Unique bonuses of each chassis/variant according to manufacturer's included features and not quirks.
7. Stability health on mechs. (they tend to fall you know as bipedal)
8. The ability for interchange of weapons (clan weapons on Is mechs and vice versa)

You see? My ideas would make it an unplayable game for someone else.

I appreciate your response but I think you are missing the mark with what Gulag wants to do i.e. fiddling with XML files and what you want implemented i.e. fundamentally changing certain game mechanics
The former can be done supported by the community while the latter requires PGI
investing development resources to change the code which won't happen.

Let's go into detail about your wishes:

1.In general this would not affect balance as long as the mech can still move. So it would only be aestetics.
Most likely would require code changes even if it was available in the past.
2.A simplifid skill tree is what many people want but would mean code changes
3.Perhaps could be done by XML file changes but then Gauss is just another AC. Why do you want to get rid of it? Is it so hard to use?
4.We already have double the armour/structure of battletech but could be done by XML changes.
5.This sounds like a hardcore battletech lore request. Perhaps the only request I would say makes the game more "fun" only for you if you want to have less options for playing around. Perhaps possbile with XMl changes.
6.Would require a fundamental code change.
7.We had that earily in the game (2012) and it was removed because it was too easily exploitable.
If you want more than what was already implemented it would require code change.
8.Perhaps possbile with XMl changes

So again, various things you want CANNOT be achieved by Gulag,
thus your statement that you arent not represented is at least partially makes no sense.
The only things from the above list that Gulag could do for you is 3 and 4 as well as perhaps 5 and 8.

Edited by Antares102, 21 March 2021 - 09:50 AM.

[Navid A1]

Alexandros, on 21 March 2021 - 07:00 AM, said:

1.Old limping of mechs (breaking of legs) OR at least give a chance of breaking them.
2.A simplified skill tree with Offensive / Defensive / Utility bars that grade 1 to 10 (and not this maze we have)
3. No charging for gauss (Give to it a huge CD instead)//Flamers to do ACTUAL DMG
4. Doubling the armor/internals of Mechs so we feel we pilot MECHS and not paper boats.
5. FIXED engines for each chassis. (tree would provide min maxing of each engine via Utility) (only select standard light or XL version of that engine.)
6. Unique bonuses of each chassis/variant according to manufacturer's included features and not quirks.
7. Stability health on mechs. (they tend to fall you know as bipedal)
8. The ability for interchange of weapons (clan weapons on Is mechs and vice versa)

You see? My ideas would make it an unplayable game for someone else.

1- Old limping of mechs means even lower time to kill. You got legged?... you die regardless.

2- 100% agree on a simplified skill tree. We have our proposal on this, which we hope can get through to PGI

3- Gauss charge isn't bad. I was against it when they introduced it... but now, I feel more comfortable with it --- Flamers don't need to be any better than what they are now. Flamers are borderline OP at the moment

4- I agree with more armor... yet mechs in the game already have double values compared to BT. I'd say have additional armor using skill tree. Interestingly, a major flaw of BT rules is how little armor gain is on heavier mechs compared to smaller ones (example: a 65 ton mechs gains very little armor compared to a 60 tonner... and it gets worse as you go up)

5- Engines are a big part of customization. Taking that away just makes building mechs more frustrating and un-approachable by new players. Resulting in more sub-par builds.

6- sorta agree... but in lore most mechs have negative flaws, rather than having positive features. Why would you want to add negative traits on a mech that might not even be a good one in the first place

7- Fall down is just not for PvP. you might as well die... since there would not be any difference between laying on the ground, and being a corpse.

8- opens a big can of worms. And coupled with your fixed engine idea, it means good bye IS weapons.... forever. At least now you can give IS mechs survival, agility, and weapon quirks to compensate for their heavier weapons.

Edited by Navid A1, 21 March 2021 - 10:23 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lucian Nostra, on 21 March 2021 - 07:46 AM, said:

It still stands that the only thing your improving is the long range by 6 damage if all missiles impact, medium stays the same which still isn't worth firing but now the close up firepower has been reduced. It doesn't change the fact that the close up 120-270 range is still the best place to fire ATMs, all that's been achieved is a nerf to that damage.

But isn't that the point? What I didn't like is the further min-maxing. As Sjorpha said, min-maxing is what makes meta, it's the flaws in the game, it's what is leverage and exploited, abused.

Lucian Nostra, on 21 March 2021 - 07:46 AM, said:

It's not min-maxing it's literally the only useful zone for ATMs now and with a 2.5/2/1.5 nerf it will continue to be the only useful zone for ATMs just with nerfed close range power. Mid range shots with ATMs are already of very questionable usage and that isn't proposed to change under this, why would shooting ATMs at long range suddenly been seen as worthwhile?

It's min-maxing in a sense that it's specialized in an incredibly thin use, it's that deliberate direction to specialized at the risk of other aspects, for that copious amount of reward. You can't eliminate it completely, yes, but it shouldn't be so bad.

Lucian Nostra, on 21 March 2021 - 07:46 AM, said:

Like I'm sorry you don't like that ATMs are really only of value at 120-270 but that's just how it works because the only way to lessen the "min max' would be to increase long range damage, for instance PGI could change it to 3/2.5/1.5 but I don't think many people would advocate for homing missiles doing that much damage out to 500m to increase the value of the weapon beyond 270.

Yeah, but I advocate for it.

Lucian Nostra, on 21 March 2021 - 07:46 AM, said:

Dropping ATM close range power isn't 'evening the playing field' its nerfing the weapon for a buff that is of almost zero value

That is what a nerf is? I mean the ATMs actually really has it good at the sweet-spot range, even if you're just using the 2x ATM12 setup, it's still pretty devastating to deal 72 each alpha.

Drop that down to 2.5/2.0/1.5, you still get out 60 alpha for 2x ATM12 setup, the 3x ATM9s would deal 67.5 alpha, ATM48s would deal 120 damage. Compare that to 4x SRM6A, that is still 48 alpha vs 60.

If you still want to deal a lot of damage with 2.5 damage/missile at sweet-spot, maybe reduce CD to 4.15s? This would pretty much retain the DPS of the sweet-spot use, but this will also increase the DPS for mid-range and long-range use.

Lucian Nostra, on 21 March 2021 - 07:46 AM, said:

It's not elitist entitlement, its just looking at the facts of how the weapon functions inside it's basic parameters, tonnage and slots won't change nor it's lock on mechanics so you need to look at damage and such as your adjustments and those proposed changes under the tonnage/slots/lockon mechanics where seen as poor because they are poor adjustments, it would just lead to ATMs getting binned like LGRs are binned atm

It's an elitist entitlement in a sense it's just meant to serve the high-end that could position well, and leverage it, and even more so against low-skill. It's that "I like to get rewarded" mentality, that ludicrous amount of reward.

The entire niche of these 7-ton investment revolve around that thin 125m distance that deals ludicrous damage. It's only counterplay is to actually get even closer to the deadzone. It's that it? That is just as dumb as superman's kryptonite, for a gameplay that is stay on an incredibly specific amount of distance.

Lucian Nostra, on 21 March 2021 - 08:18 AM, said:

Sorry I don't see how they are outperforming, LRMs are better beyond 270 with better refire rates, more ammo per ton, and the ability to indirect and close up SRMs yield 8 damage per ton to the ATMs 5.14 with a projectile speed of nearly double what ATMs cruise in at. SRMs require more skill to land than ATMs because of the lack of lock and will take 3 hardpoints to equal the alpha of a ATM 12 but will only weigh 4.5 tons and have 20% more ammo per ton.

The thing with specialization is that it's useful at it's specialized role. As in it's pointless to talk about the ATMs outside of the sweet-spot in comparison to other weapons. Sure as hell you don't bring ATMs to use them at mid-range or long range.

Lucian Nostra, on 21 March 2021 - 08:18 AM, said:

I don't see outperforming I see a fairly decent balance being tread, 120-270 range profile and more ease of use and hardpoint efficiency compared to SRMs, for less damage per ton, less dps potential and the ability to be totally shut down sub 120 against an SRM user. They are good for sure but I don't see them having overshadowed LRMs or SRMs

Sweet spot is actually between 120-245m.

They overshadow LRM and SRMs by the fact that they do sheer amount of damage, to what is basically little amount of aiming. No really, the common veagle with 3x ATM12 does 108 alpha/jump, and you barely have to aim for it. Kind of why it's poptarting use is rather broken. Even the non-poptarts, the ATM48 setups can alpha 144 damage, and still have 4 MPLs for 26 to a total of 170 alpha.

Nevermind that it's pinpoint, it's an overwhelming firepower that you exactly barely need precision.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 March 2021 - 02:32 PM.

[Stonefalcon]

Alexandros, on 19 March 2021 - 04:09 PM, said:

My point is that major changes happen when the "elite" community starts whining. Affecting the rest of us. And yes By Lore PPC does splash damage. (all of them)

Last I checked only the snub ppc does splash damage since it is effectively an energy based LBX. PGI nerfed the clan PPC by adding the splash damage. Clan PPC is supposed to be 15 pinpoint damage but it was so strong it was nerfed with the splash.

A lot of the Gulag have been playing since CB, we've lived through all the changes and damage PGI have done to the balance of the game. there is so much imbalance community organised comps have to introduce heaps of rules just to mix up the chassis and weapons that are used.

The Gulag proposed changes are designed to make every weapon and chassis a good choice, not to just buff the weapons and mechs comp players see fit for purpose in the current meta.

Just by you making this post just shows you are so bloody ignorant of the gulag changes. How about to spend some time to read through them and realise that 7s cooldown PPCs are just a way to drive away new players from the game.

[R Valentine]

Alexandros, on 21 March 2021 - 06:24 AM, said:

Oh great sage enlighten me. I ve been on discords of many communities man. I guess my beef is with the elitists not Gulag
100% but then again some of the elitists are included on this "balance program" which automatically makes it repulsive for me.

That's a very common approach. Judging the idea based on who said it rather than the merit of the idea itself

Quote

And Im not your common man.

All common men say that. Like I said, the Gulag isn't about any single player, but for some reason you want to make it about you. That's just not a reasonable request.

[Alexandros]

Kiran Yagami, on 21 March 2021 - 03:19 PM, said:

That's a very common approach. Judging the idea based on who said it rather than the merit of the idea itself



All common men say that. Like I said, the Gulag isn't about any single player, but for some reason you want to make it about you. That's just not a reasonable request.

I believe that each of us is individual and unique. That is what I mean with the phrase. But of course you can keep that attitude, it will serve you well in your life.

Stonefalcon, on 21 March 2021 - 02:49 PM, said:

Last I checked only the snub ppc does splash damage since it is effectively an energy based LBX. PGI nerfed the clan PPC by adding the splash damage. Clan PPC is supposed to be 15 pinpoint damage but it was so strong it was nerfed with the splash.

A lot of the Gulag have been playing since CB, we've lived through all the changes and damage PGI have done to the balance of the game. there is so much imbalance community organised comps have to introduce heaps of rules just to mix up the chassis and weapons that are used.

The Gulag proposed changes are designed to make every weapon and chassis a good choice, not to just buff the weapons and mechs comp players see fit for purpose in the current meta.

Just by you making this post just shows you are so bloody ignorant of the gulag changes. How about to spend some time to read through them and realise that 7s cooldown PPCs are just a way to drive away new players from the game.

You are a prime example of what I dont like from this community. Calling me ignorant because I have different preferences than you.

[Wildstreak]

Samial, on 20 March 2021 - 06:21 PM, said:

especially as a high ping player, yes thats my fault for playing an online game from Australia but it is a detriment..

Actually no, I believe I said it elsewhere that is the fault of whatever is going on with the telecom connections between Indonesia and Australia that are touched on in topics about the Oceania server.

Alexandros, on 21 March 2021 - 07:00 AM, said:

5. FIXED engines for each chassis. (tree would provide min maxing of each engine via Utility) (only select standard light or XL version of that engine.)

Not going over the whole list but this one I will say is part of MW5.

I actually feel bad for people posting on these forums waiting to get MW5 on Steam and GOG because I am fully convinced when they see fixed engines and other ways Mech customization are even MORE restrictive in that game, their gonna freak and some will even rage quit MW5.

[Crohnic]

A casual read of the gulag document reveals a ton of buffs which has me very worried that ttk will drop drastically. Perhaps I am misunderstanding it.

[Stonefalcon]

Alexandros, on 21 March 2021 - 03:39 PM, said:

You are a prime example of what I dont like from this community. Calling me ignorant because I have different preferences than you.

I called you ignorant cause you posted an opinion criticizing something you haven't even read.

Then on top of that you make this claim which is totally untrue.

Alexandros, on 19 March 2021 - 04:09 PM, said:

My point is that major changes happen when the "elite" community starts whining. Affecting the rest of us. And yes By Lore PPC does splash damage. (all of them)

So ok, the Gulag doesn't represent you, that's fine but don't go criticizing the people trying to help you when you are just waffling.

Edit: You remind me of the same people who criticize Jordan Peterson, they read the first chapter of his book, get the meaning of the chapter totally wrong then write an opinion piece of the entire book they haven't even read, totally missing the point.

Edited by Stonefalcon, 23 March 2021 - 01:40 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Crohnic, on 21 March 2021 - 06:14 PM, said:

A casual read of the gulag document reveals a ton of buffs which has me very worried that ttk will drop drastically. Perhaps I am misunderstanding it.

I think they add this with the Volumetric Rescale further in the PTS in mind.

[Navid A1]

The6thMessenger, on 21 March 2021 - 06:18 PM, said:

I think they add this with the Volumetric Rescale further in the PTS in mind.

Not as far as that one.

somewhere in between.

[ColourfulConfetti]

Since the subject of the sill tree was brought up, I think my biggest gripe with the skill tree system is that some weapons like lasers and ppcs for instance, will benefit greatly from the skill tree. While weapons like Gauss make you feel like the skill tree never considered the weapon or are trying to punish you for it. The only Gauss specific nodes are useless, (charge time window isn't an issue) and the amount of mandatory heat nodes you need to get to reach the cool down nodes are pretty absurd. Other trees, like the amount of useless nodes you need to get cool run in the operations tree makes it a useless skill tree. Similar case with the sensors tree, the amount of redundant/useless nodes you need to grab to reach Ecm or Seismic sensor is silly.

I'd just ditch the whole tree system altogether and use a point buy system personally.
Attach a point value according to the usefulness of a node. Armor nodes IE, would have a much higher point value than a reinforced casing, and so on. Just my take.

Edited by ColourfulConfetti, 21 March 2021 - 09:33 PM.

[Alexandros]

That is how I imagined it:


Offensive Tree: Example Range o o o o o o o o o o (Each dot to give a percentage or tell us the exact values as we drag the mouse upon it)

Offensive Tree:
-Range
-Rearm (CDs)
-Heat
-Velocity
Defensive Tree:
-Armor Plating
-Structure integrity//Critical hit Reduction
-AMS ROF//LAMS HEAT
Electronics:
-Radar Deprivation
-Sensor Range //Seismic
-ECM // Stealth armor CD
UtilityTree:
-Engine Tuning
-Cool Run
-Jumpjets Range
-Consumables


-
-

Edited by Alexandros, 22 March 2021 - 04:07 AM.

[RockmachinE]

Why I don't agree with all the changes proposed in the Gulag document I can get behind 95% of whats in there. Especially skill tree changes.

The document is well thought out and does not represent high skill comp players so much as it represents people who have a lot of experience with mwo and have seen how various changes impact gameplay and the playerbase in general and are honestly looking to make a balanced game.

I'm curious who actually read the whole document before commenting on it.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 21 March 2021 - 06:18 PM, said:

I think they add this with the Volumetric Rescale further in the PTS in mind.

Will pgi do a new volumetric rescale for mwo then?
Or will we just be stucked with lower ttk, making mwo another generic twich shooter?

TTK was discussed often,
most time the comps wanted less ttk, the stompy robots players more, because stompy robots.
So we are back to: Does the gulag represents every player or only the comp players?

Edited by Kroete, 22 March 2021 - 04:46 AM.