704 replies to this topic

[dario03]

ShooterMcGavin80, on 07 April 2021 - 02:06 PM, said:

Well let's just say I disagree. cERPPC's are better than they've ever been before, for a mobile peaking platform. Consider the WHK quad ERPPC build, for instance. Not mobile at all, with crappy low wide hardpoints. Pre-patch, you could waddle out of cover and waddle back to cover, managing to get off 8xERPPC on target because it would take you a full 5-6 seconds to peak. Now, however, you have to spend an additional two seconds out there with your crappy hitboxes blowing in the breeze if you want to get your second volley off. Ditto for the WHM-IIC (although the Wham-IIC is a much better side peaker). So your face peak time is quite a bit longer for 4xERPPC builds. Which is why you're seeing a lot more of the mobile 2x and 3xERPPC builds rather than the less mobile 4xERPPC assault builds post-patch.

With the current cerppc you can take those mechs, walk out, shoot 2+2, walk back, repeat. Instead of standing there to do 2+2+2+2 you just do 2+2 for what is the equivalent of over 5cerppc pre-patch damage and then move back into cover to not take damage and to cool down.

Edited by dario03, 07 April 2021 - 03:21 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

This is all great but what about a new chassis?

[Krasnopesky]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 April 2021 - 03:22 PM, said:

This is all great but what about a new chassis?

I hope we get one sometime! Completely on PGI to provide.

[Gas Guzzler]

Krasnopesky, on 07 April 2021 - 03:36 PM, said:

I hope we get one sometime! Completely on PGI to provide.

Use the vantage of Mount Cauldrolympus to bestow the secret to doing IS omnis without them being DOA

[Albert C]

Yeah I would love to see new mechs and weapon systems like Templar, Hauptmann(both are IS omni) and X-Pulse Laser.

[The6thMessenger]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 April 2021 - 03:47 PM, said:

Use the vantage of Mount Cauldrolympus to bestow the secret to doing IS omnis without them being DOA

If IS XL are locked and still not torso-survivable, I don't see them to be viable without putting so much armor on them that they might as well be heavily armored by one class over.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 07 April 2021 - 04:57 PM, said:

If IS XL are locked and still not torso-survivable, I don't see them to be viable without putting so much armor on them that they might as well be heavily armored by one class over.

That wouldn't actually be that odd though. Lots of mechs have lots of extra armor/structure. And lots of IS heavies and assaults have had good builds that used xl engines. Though another option (that isn't fully opening engine choice) would be to let them change engine but only to the lfe/std size that weighs the same, or the other way around so its same size but you have to free up the weight.

[Heavy Money]

dario03, on 07 April 2021 - 05:03 PM, said:

That wouldn't actually be that odd though. Lots of mechs have lots of extra armor/structure. And lots of IS heavies and assaults have had good builds that used xl engines. Though another option (that isn't fully opening engine choice) would be to let them change engine but only to the lfe/std size that weighs the same, or the other way around so its same size but you have to free up the weight.

This could work, but then would it be done for Clans too? It'd run counter to Lore.

It might be enough to just choose IS mechs that are already going to have decent durability, or where side torso armor quirks would make sense.

[Anomalocaris]

dario03, on 07 April 2021 - 01:19 PM, said:

You will still equip LRMs if you want to use missiles for range and ATMs if you want to hit like a truck. ATMs still do more damage up close and with much less spread.
The extra damage on long range is to buff it at less than optimal usage. We don't expect anybody to shift to actively trying for long range with ATMs, however a buff to less than optimal usage is still a buff. So if somebody is out in a ATM supernova and isn't able to get close to the fight they will now do more damage when firing out of optimal. Its similar to firing a ballistic weapon outside of optimal, you use the same amount of ammo, generate the same amount of heat, you do less damage but yet it does make sense to do it at times.
However the extra damage at range isn't the main buff they got to offset their close range damage nerf. The extra missile health that allows them to get a lot more missiles through is. Like the OP says, against 4ams at close range they will do about 67% more damage than before. The expectation is that more people will bring ams/lams but not a lot more 3-4ams mechs and not enough to cancel out that missile health change. So it should be a fairly large buff and shift to making it less feast or famine. Have to wait and see to be sure though.

I hear what you guys are saying, but I think you're missing the poster's point. Feast or famine was part of the appeal of ATMs. I don't mind high skill cap weapons, but I do think high skill _floor_ weapons need to be tweaked to encourage more players to try them.

The ATM changes are arguably lowering the skill floor (good), but they're also lowering the skill cap (bad).

Any decent player with current ATM builds is going to avoid AMS bubbles at all costs. That's one reason why mobile platforms are so important for ATM builds. You need to be able to reposition if there's a Corsair on one flank. Sure you could drop a few points of damage on them now, but its a waste of valuable ammo if you don't look for a new angle once you see AMS eating up your salvo.

The "more missile health means more opportunities to do damage" argument also depends heavily on boating. Anything running 2 ATM12 (or less), or even 3 ATM9 is still going to lose almost all their missiles to a 4xAMS mech (28 pts of AMS damage per the info post at the beginning of this thread will eat up all but one missile of an ATM24 salvo and leave only 7 missiles from an ATM27 salvo). Yes, they'll do more damage against that AMS mech than before Cauldron changes, but its chip damage at best and still ill-advised. But now there is less reward for actually repositioning to avoid AMS.

I think it was byter that pointed out the conundrum of balancing AMS vs. ATMs (and other lock ons) because it is wholly dependent on how many people bring AMS. If everyone mounts one, there is little point in lock on weapons. Or, if you balance assuming everyone brings it, a few people not equipping AMS will result in a vastly overpowered lock on barrage. In the long run it would be nice to look at saturation effects, or even a vastly reduced damage curve over the AMS umbrella range. I think the Cauldron changes to missile health are in anticipation of a lot more AMS being brought, so I appreciate the logic, but I'm just not convinced its the right solution yet.

[The6thMessenger]

dario03, on 07 April 2021 - 05:03 PM, said:

That wouldn't actually be that odd though. Lots of mechs have lots of extra armor/structure. And lots of IS heavies and assaults have had good builds that used xl engines.

That's true, but as a result, a lot of IS mechs are tanks now. Worst offender, there is the Urbanmech understandably.

Instead of just compromising to have a torso-survivable IS XL that is the staple to many mechs, they opted to increase armor that made mechs ludicrously damage absorbent, and that still does not address the unfun XL mechanic that, that which certain strategies would mean the armor-structure quirk would be invalidated anyways -- as in a torso-blowout.

[Heavy Money]

The6thMessenger, on 07 April 2021 - 05:47 PM, said:

That's true, but as a result, a lot of IS mechs are tanks now. Worst offender, there is the Urbanmech understandably.

Instead of just compromising to have a torso-survivable IS XL that is the staple to many mechs, they opted to increase armor that made mechs ludicrously damage absorbent, and that still does not address the unfun XL mechanic that, that which certain strategies would mean the armor-structure quirk would be invalidated anyways -- as in a torso-blowout.

Agreed. Some overall fix to XL instant death would be preferable. (I recognize that this will be difficult to balance.)

[PCHunter]

Daeron,

I appreciate the effort this patch represents in trying to improve game play, but I think we see this for what it is - progress using whatever minimal resources are available for MWO until the MW5 program is done. So, I am willing to cut you guys some slack and not accuse you of grabbing low hanging fruit to give the impression that PGI is serious about bettering the game play experience. As you are aware, the most pressing issue is fair and balanced game play for players of all levels on all maps for all available game types. We are far from that goal.

So go ahead and roll out these changes - I am sure people will have fun reviewing and hyper-analyzing them with spreadsheets galore as a 1 month extension of the major work still ahead of you and the team. High tier seal clubbing, bad spawn points, unbalanced flawed maps, the overweight influence of groups on matches and drop weight differentials will plague this game and seriously impact fair gameplay until addressed. IMO, everything else is secondary and far less important.

Edited by PCHunter, 07 April 2021 - 06:02 PM.

[Voice of Kerensky]

Krasnopesky, on 07 April 2021 - 04:30 AM, said:

Good news! This is just the first stage in all the planned balance passes.

The other passes that The Cauldron are planning in the coming months (provided this patch is successful and PGI allows us):

• Mobility pass - mobility buffs for Mechs that need it (particularly certain assault Mechs)
  
• Mech rescale - scale reduction for some Mechs that are oversized
  
• Quirks pass - increasing the defensive quirks on underperforming Mechs, reducing the offensive quirks on some key overquirked Mechs and using quirks to introduce more interesting options in Mechs that are rarely utilised

PGI are already working on spawn points for maps. Daeron has said that Tourmaline spawn points will be changed in the April patch and there are some fixes coming for Canyon Network spawn points planned for the May patch. I believe PGI's intention is to do a pass on every map to fix the spawn points and make them far better for Assault Mechs in particular.


Separating the queues would be ideal, but I think PGI must be careful as to the timing. The population definitely needs to increase first for it to be successful. Likewise the group queue would likely need to be 8v8 and ideally involve an 'opt-in' option for solo players to ensure that matches in the group queue flow properly. All that needs more players and ultimately an engineer to implement.

Thanks for the comment. Thanks for all the comments you make in this discussion.
I understand what you are saying. I really want to hope that all these changes will be implemented (and I would like it to happen as soon as possible), that all these changes will lead to an improvement in the game.
I really want to hope for all this because, in my opinion, at the moment the game is in an even worse state than a year ago (before the spring-summer changes). In the spring and summer of last year, the PGI began to change the game, the game immediately broke a new bottom. Game stayed this bottom for a long time, until it broke this bottom with the March patch of this year.
This is why I am cautiously optimistic, constantly reminding myself that PGI can easily make a game worse than it already is.

Aedryel, on 07 April 2021 - 12:41 PM, said:

First you outright crippled LRMs with the lock-time/target-cone/indirect lock nerf, now you're twisting ATMs to their more expensive substitute with a similar niche.
Do tell me what will be the distinction between them aside we'll get very similar dmg per ton, but half the missile count?

• Also HOW do you propose to breathe life into LRMs again? Would make more sense than ruining ATMs too.

It seems to me that you are confusing cause and effect.
If you read your message, you can conclude that the insane amount of LRM Mechs in battles is caused by the appearance of only four Mechs: Prianha, Kit Fox, Nova, Corsair.
However, I am more than sure that this is not the case. People are forced to use multi-AMC mechs due to the fact that the game has become insanely many LRM warriors. This is a defensive reaction. People will not sacrifice the firepower of their mech, its cooling, simply because they want to ride a multi-AMC mech for no reason. People get tired of the endless cowardly fire from behind the hillock. People want to play the game, and not hide behind a stone because the brave Lurm warriors have rolled out their Lurm boats and are playing tensely, poking one button of their mouse, standing in one place behind cover.
I draw your attention to the fact multi-AMS mechs mechs may not be present at all in battles, but at least one frantic Lurm warrior will be found in every battle with a 99% probability.
Currently, the situation with lurm warriors and lurm boats has already reached the point of absolute absurdity. 80 LRM? Yes, they can be placed on medium (!) mech. 90 LRM? Yes, you can take heavy (!) mech for this. 95-100 LRM? An assault mech is perfect for this purpose. And now for Lurm warriors is golden times: you can gather in one group, coordinate in voice chats and have a NARC mech. And you want more buffs for the Lurms? Come to your senses. Stop crazily playing on the mechs that contain all the LRMs in the world, and you will not see multi-AMC mechs on the battlefields anymore.

[Gas Guzzler]

The6thMessenger, on 07 April 2021 - 04:57 PM, said:

If IS XL are locked and still not torso-survivable, I don't see them to be viable without putting so much armor on them that they might as well be heavily armored by one class over.

Yeah I don't see an issue with that? It's not like they can abuse it and change to a more durable engine type.

With side torso durability quirks and good mobility/agility, its not so much of an issue. A mech like the Sunder would do fine with an XL engine.

Blackhawk KU is a 60 tonner with an XL, the Champion is also 60 tons and does well with XL engines.

The6thMessenger, on 07 April 2021 - 05:47 PM, said:

That's true, but as a result, a lot of IS mechs are tanks now. Worst offender, there is the Urbanmech understandably.

Instead of just compromising to have a torso-survivable IS XL that is the staple to many mechs, they opted to increase armor that made mechs ludicrously damage absorbent, and that still does not address the unfun XL mechanic that, that which certain strategies would mean the armor-structure quirk would be invalidated anyways -- as in a torso-blowout.

Urbanmech isn't a good comparison to an IS assault mech with a locked XL engine.

[Albert C]

What I want most is game replay. This will make analyzing failures much easier.

[Tomo Sukesada]

I really appreciate the effort and am looking forward to many of these changes.

But I would very much like to give my feedback on the proposed streak changes. Firstly, remember that streaks are a very new player friendly weapons system as some new players have issues with aiming and such. I have friends who played back when streaks were decent and left when they were turned into garbage (well that an the agility nerfs).

So lets be honest, the current state of streaks delegate them to being good for really one thing, killing lights. So, you nerf that on the clan side by reducing the per salvo damage by a whopping 25%? So now, not so good at doing the one thing they were actually good at? And you just straight up nerf the cooldown on the IS streaks?

Additionally, you cant make streaks a brawling weapon without actually changing what components the missiles focus more on. They can not compete with all the more pinpoint oriented brawling weapons even with a reduced cooldown. IMO, streaks do not need any nerfs. I would remove the damage nerfs on clan side and cooldown nerfs on IS side and start from there.

This may actually make them fun again as well as more new player friendly. Just my 2 cents.

[Krasnopesky]

Albert C, on 07 April 2021 - 06:52 PM, said:

What I want most is game replay. This will make analyzing failures much easier.

This would be awesome. Especially if you could watch other matches, not just your own. Then you might see some streamers reviewing matches that are played too.

Tomo Sukesada, on 07 April 2021 - 07:17 PM, said:

I really appreciate the effort and am looking forward to many of these changes.

But I would very much like to give my feedback on the proposed streak changes. Firstly, remember that streaks are a very new player friendly weapons system as some new players have issues with aiming and such. I have friends who played back when streaks were decent and left when they were turned into garbage (well that an the agility nerfs).

So lets be honest, the current state of streaks delegate them to being good for really one thing, killing lights. So, you nerf that on the clan side by reducing the per salvo damage by a whopping 25%? So now, not so good at doing the one thing they were actually good at? And you just straight up nerf the cooldown on the IS streaks?

Additionally, you cant make streaks a brawling weapon without actually changing what components the missiles focus more on. They can not compete with all the more pinpoint oriented brawling weapons even with a reduced cooldown. IMO, streaks do not need any nerfs. I would remove the damage nerfs on clan side and cooldown nerfs on IS side and start from there.

This may actually make them fun again as well as more new player friendly. Just my 2 cents.

Clan streaks do less damage per shot, but actually have more DPS overall. This makes them a little worse against Light Mechs (they will still beat Lights quite easily regardless, but not just one hit them as easily) but better against other Mechs.

[dario03]

Tomo Sukesada, on 07 April 2021 - 07:17 PM, said:

I really appreciate the effort and am looking forward to many of these changes.

But I would very much like to give my feedback on the proposed streak changes. Firstly, remember that streaks are a very new player friendly weapons system as some new players have issues with aiming and such. I have friends who played back when streaks were decent and left when they were turned into garbage (well that an the agility nerfs).

So lets be honest, the current state of streaks delegate them to being good for really one thing, killing lights. So, you nerf that on the clan side by reducing the per salvo damage by a whopping 25%? So now, not so good at doing the one thing they were actually good at? And you just straight up nerf the cooldown on the IS streaks?

Additionally, you cant make streaks a brawling weapon without actually changing what components the missiles focus more on. They can not compete with all the more pinpoint oriented brawling weapons even with a reduced cooldown. IMO, streaks do not need any nerfs. I would remove the damage nerfs on clan side and cooldown nerfs on IS side and start from there.

This may actually make them fun again as well as more new player friendly. Just my 2 cents.

cssrm change makes the alpha lower but gives more chances to get two shots off before a light gets away. So in some cases its nerfed vs lights but in others its buffed. And its dps is buffed.

[byter75]

Krasnopesky, on 07 April 2021 - 07:58 PM, said:

Clan streaks do less damage per shot, but actually have more DPS overall. This makes them a little worse against Light Mechs (they will still beat Lights quite easily regardless, but not just one hit them as easily) but better against other Mechs.

More dps means they aren't exactly going to do worse against light mechs, as they will now chew through the light mechs hp faster (if they can keep locks). Though yeah, the smaller alpha will not punish light mechs as much if they can bug out in time.
As for bigger mechs, more dps is a bit of a mixed bag with the lower damage per heat, it'll be harder to sustain your dps against the mechs with much larger health pools.
Due to ams being easier to justify on larger mechs, larger mechs often sticking together, streak missile health being quite low and you needing to hold locks (heavier mechs hurt more with return fire) streak mechs will probably still be pushed to attack the flanking mechs, just now we are pushing them to hold locks as they dps them faster than before.

Edited by byter75, 07 April 2021 - 08:59 PM.

[Krasnopesky]

byter75, on 07 April 2021 - 08:45 PM, said:

More dps means they aren't exactly going to do worse against light mechs, as they will now chew through the light mechs hp faster (if they can keep locks). Though yeah, the smaller alpha will not punish light mechs as much if they can bug out in time.
As for bigger mechs, more dps is a bit of a mixed bag with the lower damage per heat, it'll be harder to sustain your dps against the mechs with much larger health pools.
Due to ams being easier to justify on larger mechs, larger mechs often sticking together, streak missile health being quite low and you needing to hold locks (heavier mechs hurt more with return fire) streak mechs will probably still be pushed to attack the flanking mechs, just now we are pushing them to hold locks as they dps them faster than before.

Clan streaks will do worse at one hitting Light Mechs, which was one of the factors currently in game that we wanted to mitigate. In that sense they will perform a little worse against Lights. Of course with better DPS they will still easily kill a Light if engaged in a sustained fight, but they were always doing that regardless.

You're definitely correct that lowered heat per damage will result in Mechs needing more heatsinks to sustain their damage, but many clan Mechs have the tonnage to do so. We will definitely be watching the damage per heat balance when the patch drops to ensure that they are now not too hot.

Streak Mechs were never pushing a group of large Mechs regardless of these changes with a streak boat (although you definitely can with a group of streak Mechs). Streak boats are often skirmishing/flanking type Mechs in matches, we weren't trying to change that role. What we are trying to do is give Clan Streak Mechs a better chance if they run into a bigger Mech while flanking or skirmishing on the flank of their team. The higher DPS should achieve these goals and if it is clear they don't we will evaluate the statistics and feedback and look at other potential ways to balance them.