Jump to content

April Dev Vlog #1


704 replies to this topic

#41 Heavy Money

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:03 PM

View PostJames Hawker, on 01 April 2021 - 08:58 PM, said:


So did IS weapons. I'm not looking at this in a vacuum, I'm looking at it in perspective of everything combined. IS weapons are getting killier, Clan weapons are getting killier. But Clan mechs are still fragile, and IS mechs aren't. This changes nothing but the TTK. Not to mention, how many Clan mechs have PPC HSL quicks compared to IS? Four PPCs are going to hit harder than two c-ERPPCs any day of the week, and even if a mech can't mount four, they can now do the Vapor Eagle thing *better* than the Veagle on some chassis. Inversely, name one thing the Clan can do better than IS after the patch? We didn't get a HSL adjustment on any weapon other than Micro lasers.

See what I mean, now?


Are you forgetting that clan weapons weigh less, take less slots, and generally have more range? And that Clan mech get more efficient endo and ferro, and their Double Heatsinks are smaller?

IS weapons need to be stronger in the comparison you're doing to compensate for all that.

#42 James Hawker

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Warden
  • The Warden
  • 40 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:06 PM

View Postdario03, on 01 April 2021 - 09:01 PM, said:


ATMs have their close range nerfed but long range buffed. They also have more health on the missiles which means they get more missiles through AMS. So even close range is buffed when shooting a 4ams Corsair.

Clan SSRM, narc, and erppc are lighter than the IS versions.

IS case takes a slot, clan case doesn't cost anything. A lot of IS mechs don't have extra slots because ferro/endo/dhs and many weapons all need more slots.



Two of your three points are invalid entirely on the premise that the Clan and IS factions are *not the same*. Clan weapons weigh less because we have oversized engines in most of our mechs that we can't swap out. IS can freely place slower, but lighter engines to make up tonnage for more weapons. IS do have a weightless, arm-capable CASE system... It's called CASE II. I'd legitimately have no issue if they just renamed it and left it at that.

As for missile health and damage, yes. Long range damage did get buffed and missile health did, also, get buffed. That's fine, I suppose. But ATMs are too hot and have too little ammo per ton to be used at long range, something that LRMs (The dedicated long-range missiles) are much better for, not to mention, lighter and more efficient at. All I'm doing is trying to find a middle ground. PGI wants to make close-range ATMs less effective, then emphasize them as being medium-close weapons and give them something unique over LRMs besides being slightly more effective SRM tubes. Keep their long range damage at 1.2 as a penalty for firing too early, give them a 1.0 damage in (point-blank, not close) range, and keep the 2.5 at close. This way they can still be played danger-close, and serve as more of a medium-range platform to fill a similar role as MRMs do for the IS without being punished for a mech stepping a meter too close while they fly.

Edited by James Hawker, 01 April 2021 - 09:09 PM.


#43 GweNTLeR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Universe
  • The Universe
  • 583 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:09 PM

The decisions on buffing missile health are wrong.
Instead of nerfing overall AMS efficiency with health you should have increased DPS of AMS and nerf range.
I explained why here.

Edited by GweNTLeR, 01 April 2021 - 09:10 PM.


#44 Steve Pryde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,465 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:10 PM

From a casual/wannabe tryhard perspective I love those changes. Can't wait for the April patch!

#45 DarkBazerker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 247 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationWaffle House

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:16 PM

Trade you a waffle tomorrow, for a patch today.

#46 TheCaptainJZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The CyberKnight
  • The CyberKnight
  • 3,655 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:19 PM

View PostLockheed_, on 01 April 2021 - 08:16 PM, said:

Not just comp players? I always thought the Cauldron was a mix of players from comp to super casual. That's at least how the Cauldron was always presented in the various posts and vlogs.

Yeah, that's what's been said.
I suppose what I mean is, I hope the Cauldron is not too biased on the perspectives of it's own members. Even the casuals within the group are probably experienced players who know the game really well. But there are other players who play this game who might have other ideas and perspectives. Whether accurate or not, I still have the impression the Cauldron is led by comp players.

Personally, I think I'd like a global damage and cooldown nerf across the board to increase TTK. We have introduced more and more weapons and mechs capable of firing off higher and higher alphas. This is power creep. But the majority of the player base always wants to buff weak weapons instead of nerfing powerful ones. But you can achieve balance by nerfing things too. The meta is UAC weapons? That means they're too powerful. Nerf them. Now suddenly, lasers are more viable. Or something else. I feel like those that play the meta refuse to give up their power so they'd rather make it so everyone else can kill things faster instead of making it so they're just the ones that can kill things slower. I want things to die slower, like they used to. We used to think that 40 damage alphas were too high so ghost heat was added to kick in about that point. Now, we're comfortable with 60 damage alphas? That'll cripple or kill a medium mech in one shot. To me, I'd like to be able to run around a little bit and take hits but not die immediately from 2 mechs firing at me at once, but I guess that's just me.

Edited by TheCaptainJZ, 01 April 2021 - 09:35 PM.


#47 HenryFA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 192 posts
  • LocationHunting down LRM assaults

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:26 PM

My 6 snubnose PPC anni is ready

#48 dario03

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander
  • 3,621 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:28 PM

View PostJames Hawker, on 01 April 2021 - 09:06 PM, said:



Two of your three points are invalid entirely on the premise that the Clan and IS factions are *not the same*. Clan weapons weigh less because we have oversized engines in most of our mechs that we can't swap out. IS can freely place slower, but lighter engines to make up tonnage for more weapons. IS do have a weightless, arm-capable CASE system... It's called CASE II. I'd legitimately have no issue if they just renamed it and left it at that.

As for missile health and damage, yes. Long range damage did get buffed and missile health did, also, get buffed. That's fine, I suppose. But ATMs are too hot and have too little ammo per ton to be used at long range, something that LRMs (The dedicated long-range missiles) are much better for, not to mention, lighter and more efficient at. All I'm doing is trying to find a middle ground. PGI wants to make close-range ATMs less effective, then emphasize them as being medium-close weapons and give them something unique over LRMs besides being slightly more effective SRM tubes. Keep their long range damage at 1.2 as a penalty for firing too early, give them a 1.0 damage in (point-blank, not close) range, and keep the 2.5 at close. This way they can still be played danger-close, and serve as more of a medium-range platform to fill a similar role as MRMs do for the IS without being punished for a mech stepping a meter too close while they fly.


The larger engine in the omni mechs gives a benefit of higher top speed and dhs slots. It also is only an issue in some cases, in other cases like a Blood Asp its really only slightly bigger than what might be the typical build. Blood Asp without locked engines would probably end up typically having a 330-340 engine which would save them about 3 or 4 tons, even a xl300 would only save it 8 tons. However if you look at some typical weapons that go on that mech like uac5 and uac10 those are 2 and 3 tons lighter per weapon compared to their IS versions. So you have to dedicate 3-4 tons over optimal on the engine but you save 9+ tons on typical weapon loadout, plus you save on slots.
Or you could just take a Mad Cat Mkii and run whatever engine you want and still get the lighter weapons since Clan battlemechs have the same engine/hs/armor/structure rules as IS battlemechs.

Yes LRMs are better at long range, but ATM is better at close range, thats the trade off. It isn't optimal to use ATM at long range but if thats your only option that has been buffed. Also close range has been buffed when AMS is around, they do more damage and are harder to completely shut down.

#49 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,244 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:40 PM

That's what I'm talking about!

Can't wait to try this out!

#50 James Hawker

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Warden
  • The Warden
  • 40 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:55 PM

View Postdario03, on 01 April 2021 - 09:28 PM, said:


The larger engine in the omni mechs gives a benefit of higher top speed and dhs slots. It also is only an issue in some cases, in other cases like a Blood Asp its really only slightly bigger than what might be the typical build. Blood Asp without locked engines would probably end up typically having a 330-340 engine which would save them about 3 or 4 tons, even a xl300 would only save it 8 tons. However if you look at some typical weapons that go on that mech like uac5 and uac10 those are 2 and 3 tons lighter per weapon compared to their IS versions. So you have to dedicate 3-4 tons over optimal on the engine but you save 9+ tons on typical weapon loadout, plus you save on slots.
Or you could just take a Mad Cat Mkii and run whatever engine you want and still get the lighter weapons since Clan battlemechs have the same engine/hs/armor/structure rules as IS battlemechs.

Yes LRMs are better at long range, but ATM is better at close range, thats the trade off. It isn't optimal to use ATM at long range but if thats your only option that has been buffed. Also close range has been buffed when AMS is around, they do more damage and are harder to completely shut down.


But at this point ATMs are almost just more compact, longer-range SRM launchers. SRM6 - 12 damage per launcher, ATM 6 is going to only be 15, 3 less than the old value of 18.. With the risk of completely wasting your shot if you miscalculate. This is objectively worse, as ATMs have a worse HSL value and much higher heat, not to mention tonnage. They really are just "long range SRMs" now, with how they fare vs. AMS... I'd rather just take an SRM boat like a Pakhet at this point, rather than keep playing my already risky-as-balls Nova Cat.

As for engine sizes, the BASP also has mandatory ferro and endo, which severely limits it's critical capacity. It might be 'cold' and 'fast', but you really don't have the options you might think you have. Making one weapon system better on mechs that can already boat them just because the counterpart weighs one or two tons less or takes up one or two crits less is a bad argument to make, especially when all of the other differences between Clan and IS are taken into account. Example, the Orion and Orion IIC. Both are BattleMechs. But the Orion has far better base armor quirks, and arguably better layout. The Orion IIC can mount maybe an extra ton or two of ammo, or an extra launcher, but is far less durable as a tradeoff because of PGI's quirk system.

Rifleman and Rifleman IIC have the same issue. Amusingly, the Hunchback doesn't, to my knowledge. But I don't see them often enough to tell, and I'm not buying an IS Hunchie to compare to my meme-tier IIC just yet.

As I said in my original post, I'm not accusing PGI of anything. Not intentionally, and not blatantly, anyway. But it is *incredibly* difficult to not feel like I picked the wrong faction. Clan weapons burn longer for mediocre damage improvements because "they weigh less" and "have more range". Some of that is being addressed, yes. But ever wonder why you don't see many Clan Lights around? Who wants to pilot a 25-armor Mist Lynx when you could have a heavy-armored Wolfhound with 6 MPL? Why take an Incubus when you can take a Flea? Why take a Kit Fox when you could take an Urbanmech? (Okay, that one's more of a joke, but my point stands.) Hell, my Romeo 5K is a better backstabber than my Pirahna Cipher.

#51 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,244 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 01 April 2021 - 09:56 PM

View Postghostrider, on 01 April 2021 - 08:40 PM, said:

Implying that the objective is to standardize TTK across the board, no matter the weapon. Is this the intent?


I think they can only evaluate so many changes at once, so we may have to live with the slightly shorter TTK for a bit. I'm okay with it. REALLY excited to shake things up

#52 Heavy Money

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 10:16 PM

View PostJames Hawker, on 01 April 2021 - 09:55 PM, said:

But at this point ATMs are almost just more compact, longer-range SRM launchers. SRM6 - 12 damage per launcher, ATM 6 is going to only be 15, 3 less than the old value of 18.. With the risk of completely wasting your shot if you miscalculate. This is objectively worse, as ATMs have a worse HSL value and much higher heat, not to mention tonnage. They really are just "long range SRMs" now, with how they fare vs. AMS... I'd rather just take an SRM boat like a Pakhet at this point, rather than keep playing my already risky-as-balls Nova Cat.

As for engine sizes, the BASP also has mandatory ferro and endo, which severely limits it's critical capacity. It might be 'cold' and 'fast', but you really don't have the options you might think you have. Making one weapon system better on mechs that can already boat them just because the counterpart weighs one or two tons less or takes up one or two crits less is a bad argument to make, especially when all of the other differences between Clan and IS are taken into account. Example, the Orion and Orion IIC. Both are BattleMechs. But the Orion has far better base armor quirks, and arguably better layout. The Orion IIC can mount maybe an extra ton or two of ammo, or an extra launcher, but is far less durable as a tradeoff because of PGI's quirk system.

Rifleman and Rifleman IIC have the same issue. Amusingly, the Hunchback doesn't, to my knowledge. But I don't see them often enough to tell, and I'm not buying an IS Hunchie to compare to my meme-tier IIC just yet.

As I said in my original post, I'm not accusing PGI of anything. Not intentionally, and not blatantly, anyway. But it is *incredibly* difficult to not feel like I picked the wrong faction. Clan weapons burn longer for mediocre damage improvements because "they weigh less" and "have more range". Some of that is being addressed, yes. But ever wonder why you don't see many Clan Lights around? Who wants to pilot a 25-armor Mist Lynx when you could have a heavy-armored Wolfhound with 6 MPL? Why take an Incubus when you can take a Flea? Why take a Kit Fox when you could take an Urbanmech? (Okay, that one's more of a joke, but my point stands.) Hell, my Romeo 5K is a better backstabber than my Pirahna Cipher.



Erm, I understand what you're trying to say here, but you haven't presented very good examples. If someone told me a weapon was "SRMs but long range" I'd be like "holy crap, that sounds amazing" because SRMs are good and their main downside is range. Its not much of an argument.

And I don't think that Rifleman comparison is going to support your argument either, considering that the Rifleman is not very good, and the IIC is quite good. So out of the 3 mechs you chose to compare the IS vs Clan versions (Orion, Rifleman, Hunchback), 1 supports what you're saying, one is neutral as you say, and the other is the opposite of your original example.

Also, you bring up light balance, but a large amount of these weapon changes were specifically to help improve what weapons are viable on lights?

Edited by Heavy Money, 01 April 2021 - 10:17 PM.


#53 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 01 April 2021 - 10:18 PM

Can we have PTS after MW5's launch?

I really like to see the 0% Jam UAC in action.

#54 SPNKRGrenth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 184 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 10:19 PM

And just like that, I'm really hyped for the April patch. I'm gonna go wild and try EVERYTHING.

A shame there was no flamer rework, but at the same time, I understand it's a real can of worms to get into.

Love the ATM changes, basically been begging for this from the start. Should do half damage under minimum range though.

#55 doctormanuse

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 10:25 PM

Looking really forward to the April Patch. I can agree with most of the changes and how it will shake up the current state. Adjustement might be requiered later, but thats okay for me.

What makes me really excited is to go back to mech lab and work on all the new and changed builds resulting from this. For me, this is at least 50% of the fun on MWO. My girlfriend will not like this :-)

#56 Rkshz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,866 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationOdesa, Ukraine

Posted 01 April 2021 - 10:26 PM

View PostInnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Heavy Medium Laser (Clan):
Cooldown decreased to 5.0 (from 5.5)
Laser duration decreased to 1.3 (from 1.45)


I like these changes Posted Image

#57 Temporary Axis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 116 posts

Posted 01 April 2021 - 10:36 PM

View PostJames Hawker, on 01 April 2021 - 09:06 PM, said:



Two of your three points are invalid entirely on the premise that the Clan and IS factions are *not the same*. Clan weapons weigh less because we have oversized engines in most of our mechs that we can't swap out. IS can freely place slower, but lighter engines to make up tonnage for more weapons. IS do have a weightless, arm-capable CASE system... It's called CASE II. I'd legitimately have no issue if they just renamed it and left it at that.

As for missile health and damage, yes. Long range damage did get buffed and missile health did, also, get buffed. That's fine, I suppose. But ATMs are too hot and have too little ammo per ton to be used at long range, something that LRMs (The dedicated long-range missiles) are much better for, not to mention, lighter and more efficient at. All I'm doing is trying to find a middle ground. PGI wants to make close-range ATMs less effective, then emphasize them as being medium-close weapons and give them something unique over LRMs besides being slightly more effective SRM tubes. Keep their long range damage at 1.2 as a penalty for firing too early, give them a 1.0 damage in (point-blank, not close) range, and keep the 2.5 at close. This way they can still be played danger-close, and serve as more of a medium-range platform to fill a similar role as MRMs do for the IS without being punished for a mech stepping a meter too close while they fly.




Have you tried aiming?

#58 pacifica812

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 310 posts
  • LocationAt home, at work, or on the stage... mostly

Posted 02 April 2021 - 12:01 AM

Wow, just wow... and tremendous gratitude.

Thank you for this Easter present Matt and Daeron, and Thank you to all the dedicated people at Cauldron for your time and effort,

you guys ... are the best!


GO TEAM MATTKATZ!!!

Edited by pacifica812, 02 April 2021 - 12:05 AM.


#59 evil kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 143 posts

Posted 02 April 2021 - 12:03 AM

I'm excited for these changes. Definetly gonna update mwo and log on to give things a go, which is something I haven't done in months.

There's a lot of stuff here I'm super excited for, some stuff that doesn't make much sense to me, and some stuff I'm indifferent about, but my initially take is largely positive. I'll be sure to give everything a try and post my feedback after 4/20. Hopefully there isn't too much negativity come patch day.

If these changes go through with minimal hiccups it'll definetly be a big bonus towards pgi regaining my trust. I'm looking forward to the agility pass as well as the mechs sluggishness is my largest gripe with the current gameplay.

#60 Lucky Noob

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sovereign
  • The Sovereign
  • 1,149 posts

Posted 02 April 2021 - 12:12 AM

There will be so much happy carnage on the Field when this Patch arives,

All that new Build we will see... cant wait for it.

Great Work Daeron and Matt ( and Cauldron foremost )

I am glad i am here to witness this Patch.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users