704 replies to this topic

[Krasnopesky]

Brownshweiger4, on 14 April 2021 - 03:25 AM, said:

Proposed changes encourage not playing ATM at all anymore because its never was useful in mid or long distance even without any AMS on other side.
ATM have too big mass and low ammo per ton and completely incompetitve vs MRM and have only straight fire arc so it just cannot be fired at long range like LRM.
In tabletop ATM was workng because MRM and LRM were much worse than in MWO. But now ATM just outclassed by them.
Patch completely kills ATM.

I have shown multiple times in this thread that ATMs will be significantly buffed against AMS at short range (and all ranges). In most cases they will do more damage when AMS is present than currently, which is by far their major weakness. ATMs are and will remain competitive weapons. I encourage you to test them when the patch hits.

Should the feedback be overwhelmingly negative in regards to certain weapon changes then we will look at the issues and suggestions in order to rebalance the weapon in May. Already we are looking at alternatives for streaks and the patch is not even live yet.

[DAEDALOS513]

I'm surprised you didn't mention this buff: because matches will become shorter (no question, they will) we can all cut down on the amount ammo we need to equip.. make sure to trade in a ton of ammo for a heat sink, jump jet(s), tc1, bigger engine.. aw ya

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 14 April 2021 - 05:13 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

DAEDALOS513, on 14 April 2021 - 05:00 PM, said:

I'm surprised you didn't mention this buff: because matches will become shorter (no question, they will) we can all cut down on the amount ammo we need to equip.. make sure to trade in a ton of ammo for a heat sink, jump jet(s), tc1, bigger engine.. aw ya

Might not need any extra jump jets, honestly. There's nothing really to jump into since the the sky IS falling, right?

[Lionheart2012]

Krasnopesky, on 13 April 2021 - 06:06 AM, said:

</p>

There is definitely value in approaching the problem from a mathematical viewpoint, but after further examination your proposed changes have many issues, particular because it ignores or undervalues many variables. Even suggesting to increase the strength of IS MPL should be in indicator of the underlying issues. That weapon system is almost equal to none when it comes to meta across all current game modes.

IS AC2 are not seen as much as other weapon systems because of the NASCAR meta in QP. That does not mean they are not an incredibly strong weapon system. Suggesting an increase to their DPS in the form of reducing their cooldown would make them quite oppressive and it is not a change I would suggest or make. IS AC2 (or clan AC2) simply do not need to be stronger than they currently are.

Likewise IS UACs are not seen as often as clan UACs because NASCAR favours faster moving Mechs rather than slower ones. IS UACs are stronger than clan in general, but are balanced through being heavy and slow. You also left out one of the best IS UAC boats, the Cyclops Sleipnir, in your comparison. Showing the Nightstar as an example of an underperforming Mech using UACs does not strengthen your argument, it just highlights the Nightstar as being an underperforming Mech and needing help.

When looking at your IS PPC family suggestions, it is hard to imagine HPPC needing the huge buffs your suggestion has bestowed upon it. HPPCs are already a strong weapon system that we have given a heat buff to in order to make it more viable on unquirked IS Mechs (anticipating potential reductions in the offensive capabilities of some overquirked Mechs). Your buffs turn the HPPC from a strong weapon into an overpowered one. Here are your suggested changes:

Heavy PPC (IS):
Damage increased to 16.75 (from 15)
Heat decreased to 13 (from 14.5)
Cooldown decreased to 3.75 (from 4.5)
Velocity increased to 1400 m/s (from 1200)

(note that currently in game the cooldown of a HPPC is 7, premarch patch it was 5, not 4.5)

Currently (preMarch patch) an unquirked, unskilled HPPC has a DPS of 3. Your suggestion buffs that to 4.46 (a 48.8% increase in DPS) at the same time as buffing the pinpoint damage. One clan ERPPC does 3 DPS including the splash. If you remove the splash and just focus on the pinpoint the cERPPC has a pinpoint DPS of 2. While there are of course many other factors that contribute to the strengths and weaknesses of a weapon these changes alone indicate a problem. Your argument and logic to compare these weapons via tonnage is flawed and would lead to significantly unbalanced gameplay.


Overall your analysis has merits, but many flaws too. Using Mech examples like the Kodiak 3 (a terrible Mech in the current meta) and the Nightstar (has literally never been good) does not support your argument for weapon changes, but rather highlights other problems existing in these Mechs. The suggestions would lead to meta shifts (IS PPC family will just be flat better than clan ERPPCs in most cases for example), far lower TTK (via overbuffing already incredibly strong weapon systems), and invalidation of certain weapon systems (IS LRMs are already better in most cases than clan LRMs, yet they recieve a buff and clan do not).

Unfortunately, this explanation is long on argument and short on evidence. That the IS MPL is almost equal to none in the meta needs support. That IS AC2s are absent from QP because of the NASCAR phenomenon, does not explain why they are also absent from Comp and from FP. Again, we don't see them boated on Maulers, King Crabs, Corsairs, or Annihilators, and for good reason. This weapon does not have a high alpha and requires damage over time. Damage over time means greater exposure. And greater exposure does not fit into the poking meta that dominates play in FP and Comp. Hence, ER PPCs, Gauss Rifles, ER Large Lasers dominate the early game. More data would need to be presented to demonstrate how AC2s are an incredibly strong weapon system. Until then, this fear is unjustified.

Turning to IS UACs, we merely have the bare assertion that they are stronger than Clan, in general. And while the IS versions excluding the UAC2 currently do have a slight DPS advantage because of the burst fire mechanic, the Clan versions are smaller and lighter. Further, Clan technology can also take advantage of both FF armor and Endosteel, smaller heat sinks, and smaller XL engines. IS technology in larger 'Mechs must choose between Endosteel and FF armor, has larger heat sinks and must settle for a heavier "light" engine. The purpose of showing the Nightstar 9P was to demonstrate how this is the lightest 'Mech that can credibly boat the UA5/10 combination in a 2:2 ratio. The Cyclops Sleipnir was offered as a counterpoint, and while such a build is possible (https://thecauldron....#_25d9d0c9_CP-S ...for the memes!), I think that the quad UAC5 Sleipnir was intended. But even then, this is a damage over time build, and doesn't fit in the poking meta for high tier play. In fact, the quad LB10-X Sleipnir and the dual Heavy Gauss Sleipnir are much more common because the former offers greater range and heat efficiency, and the latter offers greater pinpoint, less exposure, and again greater heat efficiency. Again we would need more data to demonstrate how increasing cooldown on IS UACs would break the game, especially because these weapons can only be comfortably boated on 100-ton Fafnirs and Annihilators. By contrast, the Clans can boat them on Direwolves (100t), Kodiaks (100t), MadCat MkIIs (90t), Blood Asps (90t), Warhawks (85t https://thecauldron....90d8908f_WHK-NQ), Marauder IICs (85t https://thecauldron....05383_MAD-IIC-A), and even the Rifleman IIC (65t):

• https://thecauldron....fa949_RFL-IIC-2 (2xUAC5 2xUAC10)
  
• https://thecauldron....c4360_RFL-IIC-2 (4xUAC5)

And while we are talking about a change to DPS, the DPS/ton metric still has the Inner Sphere UACs at a disadvantage to their clan counterparts.


Ultimately, there must be some trade off with the IS UACs being so much larger:

• UAC2 +1 slot/+2 tons
  
• UAC5 +2 slots/+2 tons
  
• UAC10 +3 slots/+3 tons
  
• UAC20 +2 slots/+3 tons

Because the lore points to them being generally later engineered in the Inner Sphere, I can see a justification for the greater weight and bulk as a trade off against higher rates of fire, based on reverse engineering from Clan technology and guidance from the Helm memory core. Leaving these weapons where they are leaves them at a severe disadvantage to Clan technology, especially as it requires +10 slots and +10 tons to compete in the same meta as the Clans. They are just too big, heavy, and hot not to have this buff.


Finally we have the bare assertion that IS LRMs are already better in most cases than Clan LRMs. It is not helpful to an argument when clearly the opposite is true. The best LRM Boats mass Clan LRM systems because Clan LRM systems are smaller and have half the weight. Consider the following:

• Warhammer IIC-2, 95 tubes & 2640 missiles, https://thecauldron....d0b23_WHM-IIC-2
  
• Supernova-A, 80 tubes with Artemis & 2400 missiles, https://thecauldron...._1581811e_SNV-A
  
• Supernova-A, 80 tubes & 3360 missiles, https://thecauldron...._e7d4c3de_SNV-A
  
• Marauder IIC-SC, 80 tubes & 2880 missiles, https://thecauldron....7033_MAD-IIC-SC
  
• Madcat MkII-4, 80 tubes & 3360 missiles, https://thecauldron....9988cf7a_MCII-4
  
• Sunspider-C, Quirked, 60 tubes with Artemis & 2520 missiles, https://thecauldron...._e2d42076_SNS-C
  
• Nova Cat-B, Quirked, 90 tubes & 2400 missiles (Stock), https://thecauldron...._386964c0_NCT-B

• Stalker-5S, Quirked, 80 tubes & 2640 missiles, 265XL, https://thecauldron....9cd3ec12_STK-5S
  
• Nightstar-WP, 80 tubes & 2880 missiles, 265LFE, https://thecauldron....e3914707_NSR-WP
  
• Marauder-4HP, 80 tubes & 2640 missiles, 280LFE, https://thecauldron....1cfaaa9_MAD-4HP
  
• Marauder-4HP, 90 tubes & 3840 missiles, 265XL, https://thecauldron....a5aa160_MAD-4HP
  
• Awesome-8R, 60 tubes & 3120 missiles, 300XL, https://thecauldron....a52ccfc1_AWS-8R
  
• Annihilator-MB, 80 tubes & 3360 missiles, 270LFE, https://thecauldron....994c4d06_ANH-MB
  
• Thanatos-5T, 60 tubes & 2400 missiles, ECM, 280LFE, https://thecauldron....42b5bb26_TNS-5T
  
• Orion-VA, 60 tubes & 2760 missiles, 280 LFE, https://thecauldron....10c7fa8b_ON1-VA

Clan 'Mechs as low as 70 tons can mount 90 tubes and 2400 missiles, and that is with a 280-rated, Clan XL engine. Supernovae can easily mount 80 tubes and 3360 missiles with a 325-rated, Clan XL engine, and the Warhammer IIC-2 can mount 95 tubes with 2640 missiles with the same engine. By comparison, the smallest Inner Sphere 'Mech that can mount 80 tubes is Stalker with 2640 missiles and a 265XL engine. It can't mount the high number of missiles of the Supernova-A, nor the High tube count of the Warhammer IIC, and it is ridiculously vulnerable with the small and fragile IS 265 XL engine. In fact, all of the examples of IS 'Mechs above have some form of disadvantage, either less heat efficiency, fewer tubes, less ammunition, a slower engine, and/or a more fragile engine. Yes, IS LRMs have less spread and fire simultaneously, but the shear volume that Clan 'Mechs can put out on faster, cooler, and more robust 'Mechs overwhelms these disadvantages. Otherwise, we would see more of these IS builds or some facsimile of them on the battlefield. In other words, the player experience would seem to suggest otherwise.

Buffs to the PPC Family, Generally

Turning to PPCs, the reason why the increases to the IS PPC family are necessary is precisely because of the factor that is often overlooked, the 50% splash damage of the Clan ERPPC. Prior to the March patch, IS PPC use was almost non-existent, aside from a few highly quirked 'Mechs, and the Cauldron proposal made a modest attempt to address this. IS pilots favor lighter and smaller ER Large Lasers. The Marauders which are quirked for PPCs are fielded most popularly in the triple RAC2 or the dual MRM30 variants. Even the Awesome that is heavily quirked towards PPCs is a rarity on the battlefield. Consequently, these Inner Sphere variants need significant adjustment to bring them into line with the power of the Clan ER PPC. Yes, the CERPPC has significant splash damage, but it is damage nonetheless. The Inner Sphere versions do not have this bonus and consequently need to do more damage over time to match the effectiveness of the CERPPC. This again presents dual problems of greater numbers of accurate shots on target, statistically a task of diminishing returns, and of exposing more to take those shots.

Heavy PPC Criticism

Specifically, there was a complaint about the HPPC being overpowered. However, even using the Cauldron's numbers, the DPS for a Heavy PPC would be lower than if a PPC and a Light PPC were paired for the same tonnage. Equally, the DPS would be lower than that of the Light PPC paired with a Snub-Nose PPC for the same space and a ton less. This screams for a balancing of the DPS, giving players choices over whether they want to spend 3 hardpoints, 9 slots, and 21 tons on 3 PPCs or 2 hardpoints, 8 slots, and 20 tons on two HPPCs. Greater DPS would favor the PPCs, but better heat efficiency, hardpoint efficiency, and weight would favor the HPPCs. And what if you had 4 hardpoints, and coupled light PPCs with either the standard version or the Snub-Nose version? That is what this buff does, it creates options while making every one of the systems viable.

Snub-Nose PPC Criticism

There was also a complaint about the Snub-Nose PPC becoming too powerful under this proposal. What the analysis failed to do was to look into the dynamic effect of eliminating minimum range for the Light PPC. By doing so, 2 Light PPCs easily substitute for a single Snub-Nose PPC, with longer range and better DPS. Similarly, 2 Light PPCs and a heatsink, easily substitute for a standard PPC, with better DPS and no minimum range. By eliminating the minimum range on the Light PPC, two other weapon systems have become less viable.

Further, there are several weapons that outpower and would continue to outpower the Snub-Nose PPC. Based on DOR, the SNPPC can be massed to be slightly more effective than an IS UAC20 at a cost of massively greater heat and three more tons. The HPPC Awesome did 45 pinpoint every 5 seconds under the pre-March patch numbers, and the 4 PPC Awesome will be able to do 40 pinpoint every 4.5 seconds (using Cauldron numbers). Both of these weapons will still fail to meet the performance of the Clan ERPPC from range under the Cauldron Proposal, and they will continue to out range the Snub-Nose PPC. Finally, 6 MPLs under the present numbers do 36 damage every 3.4 seconds, compared to the 34.5 done every 3.3 seconds with 3 SNPPCs under my proposal, at a cost of less heat and 6 fewer tons. Correct, it is not pinpoint, but the low duration of 0.6 seconds on the MPL is competitive against the reaction times of most people. To make the Snub-Nose PPC viable, it must have a niche, hence the range buff, and it must compete with the Light PPC, the standard PPC, and heavy ballistics, hence the cooldown and damage buffs.

The NASCAR Phenomenon

It may be better to avoid discussing the NASCAR Phenomenon in QP, because it suggests an elitism in the approach made by the Cauldron. QP is where a majority of the player base plays and learns how to play the game. Different play styles in FP and Comp are valid considerations, but if we are talking about making more weapons viable in more modes of play, FP and Comp cannot dominate that consideration.

Edited by Lionheart2012, 14 April 2021 - 08:53 PM.

[Brauer]

Lionheart2012, on 14 April 2021 - 08:05 PM, said:

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-weight: 700; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Evidence Missing&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Unfortunately, this explanation is long on argument and short on evidence. That the IS MPL is almost equal to none in the meta needs support. That IS AC2s are absent from QP because of the NASCAR phenomenon, does not explain why they are also absent from Comp and from FP. Again, we don't see them boated on Maulers, King Crabs, Corsairs, or Annihilators, and for good reason. This weapon does not have a high alpha and requires damage over time. Damage over time means greater exposure. And greater exposure does not fit into the poking meta that dominates play in FP and Comp. Hence, ER PPCs, Gauss Rifles, ER Large Lasers dominate the early game. More data would need to be presented to demonstrate how AC2s are an incredibly strong weapon system. Until then, this fear is unjustified.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Turning to IS UACs, we merely have the bare assertion that they are stronger than Clan, in general. And while the IS versions excluding the UAC2 currently do have a slight DPS advantage because of the burst fire mechanic, the Clan versions are smaller and lighter. Further, Clan technology can also take advantage of both FF armor and Endosteel, smaller heat sinks, smaller XL engines. IS technology in larger 'Mechs must choose between Endosteel and FF armor, has larger heat sinks and must settle for a heavier &amp;quot;light&amp;quot; engine. The purpose of showing the Nightstar 9P was to demonstrate how this is the lightest 'Mech that can credibly boat the UA5/10 combination in a 2:2 ratio. The Cyclops Sleipnir was offered as a counterpoint, and while such a build is possible (https://thecauldron....#_25d9d0c9_CP-S ...for the memes!), I think that the quad UAC5 Sleipnir was intended. But even then, this is a damage over time build, and doesn't fit in the poking meta for high tier play. In fact, the quad LB10-X Sleipnir and the dual Heavy Gauss Sleipnir are much more common because the former offers greater range and heat efficiency, and the latter offers greater pinpoint, less exposure, and again greater heat efficiency. Again we would need more data to demonstrate how increasing cooldown on IS UACs would break the game, especially because these weapons can only be comfortably boated on 100-ton Fafnirs and Annihilators. By contrast, the Clans can boat them on Direwolves (100t), Kodiaks (100t), MadCat MkIIs (90t), Blood Asps (90t), Warhawks (85t &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_90d8908f_WHK-NQ&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_90d8908f_WHK-NQ&lt;/a&gt;), Marauder IICs (85t &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_31705383_MAD-IIC-A&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_31705383_MAD-IIC-A&lt;/a&gt;), and even the Rifleman IIC (65t):&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul style=&quot;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;padding-inline-start:48px;&quot;&gt;
&lt;li aria-level=&quot;1&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;list-style-type: disc; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;&quot;&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; role=&quot;presentation&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:12pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_020fa949_RFL-IIC-2&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_020fa949_RFL-IIC-2&lt;/a&gt; (2xUAC5 2xUAC10)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li aria-level=&quot;1&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;list-style-type: disc; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;&quot;&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; role=&quot;presentation&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:12pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_6b3c4360_RFL-IIC-2&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_6b3c4360_RFL-IIC-2&lt;/a&gt; (4xUAC5)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;And while we are talking about a change to DPS, the DPS/ton metric still has the Inner Sphere UACs at a disadvantage to their clan counterparts.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Ultimately, there must be some trade off with the IS UACs being so much larger:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul style=&quot;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;padding-inline-start:48px;&quot;&gt;
&lt;li aria-level=&quot;1&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;list-style-type: disc; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;&quot;&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; role=&quot;presentation&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:12pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;UAC2 +1 slot/+2 tons&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li aria-level=&quot;1&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;list-style-type: disc; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;&quot;&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; role=&quot;presentation&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;UAC5 +2 slots/+2 tons&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li aria-level=&quot;1&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;list-style-type: disc; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;&quot;&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; role=&quot;presentation&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;UAC10 +3 slots/+3 tons&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li aria-level=&quot;1&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;list-style-type: disc; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;&quot;&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; role=&quot;presentation&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:12pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;UAC20 +2 slots/+3 tons&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Because the lore points to them being generally later engineered in the Inner Sphere, I can see a justification for the greater weight and bulk as a trade off against higher rates of fire, based on reverse engineering from Clan technology and guidance from the Helm memory core. Leaving these weapons where they are leaves them at a severe disadvantage to Clan technology, especially as it requires +10 slots and +10 tons to compete in the same meta as the Clans. They are just too big, heavy, and hot not to have this buff.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Finally we have the bare assertion that &lt;/span&gt;IS LRMs are already better in most cases than Clan LRMs. It is not helpful to an argument when clearly the opposite is true. The best LRM Boats mass Clan LRM systems because Clan LRM systems are smaller and have half the weight. Consider the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Warhammer IIC-2, 95 tubes &amp;amp; 2640 missiles, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_9ebd0b23_WHM-IIC-2&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_9ebd0b23_WHM-IIC-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Supernova-A, 80 tubes with Artemis &amp;amp; 2400 missiles, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_1581811e_SNV-A&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_1581811e_SNV-A&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Supernova-A, 80 tubes &amp;amp; 3360 missiles, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_e7d4c3de_SNV-A&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_e7d4c3de_SNV-A&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Marauder IIC-SC, 80 tubes &amp;amp; 2880 missiles, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_fc277033_MAD-IIC-SC&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_fc277033_MAD-IIC-SC&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Madcat MkII-4, 80 tubes &amp;amp; 3360 missiles, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_9988cf7a_MCII-4&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_9988cf7a_MCII-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Sunspider-C, Quirked, 60 tubes with Artemis &amp;amp; 2520 missiles, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_e2d42076_SNS-C&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_e2d42076_SNS-C&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Nova Cat-B, Quirked, 90 tubes &amp;amp; 2400 missiles (Stock), &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_386964c0_NCT-B&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_386964c0_NCT-B&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Stalker-5S, Quirked, 80 tubes &amp;amp; 2640 missiles, 265XL, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_9cd3ec12_STK-5S&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_9cd3ec12_STK-5S&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Nightstar-WP, 80 tubes &amp;amp; 2880 missiles, 265LFE, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_e3914707_NSR-WP&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_e3914707_NSR-WP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Marauder-4HP, 80 tubes &amp;amp; 2640 missiles, 280LFE, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_01cfaaa9_MAD-4HP&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_01cfaaa9_MAD-4HP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Marauder-4HP, 90 tubes &amp;amp; 3840 missiles, 265XL, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_1a5aa160_MAD-4HP&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_1a5aa160_MAD-4HP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Awesome-8R, 60 tubes &amp;amp; 3120 missiles, 300XL, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_a52ccfc1_AWS-8R&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_a52ccfc1_AWS-8R&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Annihilator-MB, 80 tubes &amp;amp; 3360 missiles, 270LFE, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_994c4d06_ANH-MB&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_994c4d06_ANH-MB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Thanatos-5T, 60 tubes &amp;amp; 2400 missiles, ECM, 280LFE, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_42b5bb26_TNS-5T&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_42b5bb26_TNS-5T&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style=&quot;line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;&quot;&gt;Orion-VA, 60 tubes &amp;amp; 2760 missiles, 280 LFE, &lt;a href=&quot;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_10c7fa8b_ON1-VA&quot;&gt;https://thecauldron.nav-alpha.com/#_10c7fa8b_ON1-VA&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;Clan 'Mechs as low as 70 tons can mount 90 tubes and 2400 missiles, and that is with a 280-rated, Clan XL engine. Supernovae can easily mount 80 tubes and 3360 missiles with a 325-rated, Clan XL engine, and the Warhammer IIC-2 can mount 95 tubes with 2640 missiles with the same engine. By comparison, the smallest Inner Sphere 'Mech that can mount 80 tubes is Stalker with 2640 missiles and a 265XL engine. It can't mount the high number of missiles of the Supernova-A, nor the High tube count of the Warhammer IIC, and it is ridiculously vulnerable with the small and fragile IS 265 XL engine. In fact, all of the examples of IS 'Mechs above have some form of disadvantage, either less heat efficiency, fewer tubes, less ammunition, a slower engine, and/or a more fragile engine. Yes, IS LRMs have less spread and fire simultaneously, but the shear volume that Clan 'Mechs can put out on faster, cooler, and more robust 'Mechs overwhelms these disadvantages. Otherwise, we would see more of these IS builds or some facsimile of them on the battlefield. In other words, the player experience would seem to suggest otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-weight: 700; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Buffs to the PPC Family, Generally&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Turning to PPCs, the reason why the increases to the IS PPC family are necessary is precisely because of the factor that is often overlooked, the 50% splash damage of the Clan ERPPC. Prior to the March patch, IS PPC use was almost non-existent, aside from a few highly quirked 'Mechs, and the Cauldron proposal made a modest attempt to address this. IS pilots favor lighter and smaller ER Large Lasers. The Marauders which are quirked for PPCs are fielded most popularly in the triple RAC2 or the dual MRM30 variants. Even the Awesome that is heavily quirked towards PPCs is a rarity on the battlefield. Consequently, these Inner Sphere variants need significant adjustment to bring them into line with the power of the Clan ER PPC. Yes, the CERPPC has significant splash damage, but it is damage nonetheless. The Inner Sphere versions do not have this bonus and consequently need to do more damage over time to match the effectiveness of the CERPPC. This again presents dual problems of greater numbers of accurate shots on target, statistically a task of diminishing returns, and of exposing more to take those shots.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-weight: 700; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Heavy PPC Criticism&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Specifically, there was a complaint about the HPPC being overpowered. However, even using the Cauldron's numbers, the DPS for a Heavy PPC would be lower than if a PPC and a Light PPC were paired for the same tonnage. Equally, the DPS would be lower than that of the Light PPC paired with a Snub-Nose PPC for the same space and a ton less. This screams for a balancing of the DPS, giving players choices over whether they want to spend 3 hardpoints, 9 slots, and 21 tons on 3 PPCs or 2 hardpoints, 8 slots, and 20 tons on two HPPCs. Greater DPS would favor the PPCs, but better heat efficiency, hardpoint efficiency, and weight would favor the HPPCs. And what if you had four slots, and coupled light PPCs with either the standard version or the Snub-Nose version? That is what this buff does, it creates options while making every one of the systems viable.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-weight: 700; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Snub-Nose PPC Criticism&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;There was also a complaint about the Snub-Nose PPC becoming too powerful under this proposal. What the analysis failed to do was to look into the dynamic effect of eliminating minimum range for the Light PPC. By doing so, 2 Light PPCs easily substitute for a single Snub-Nose PPC, with longer range and better DPS. Similarly, 2 Light PPCs and a heatsink, easily substitute for a standard PPC, with better DPS and no minimum range. By eliminating the minimum range on the Light PPC, two other weapon systems have become &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;less&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt; viable. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;Further, there are several weapons that outpower and would continue to outpower the Snub-Nose PPC. Based on DOR, the SNPPC can be massed to be slightly more effective than an IS UAC20 at a cost of massively greater heat and three more tons. The HPPC Awesome did 45 pinpoint every 5 seconds under the pre-March patch numbers, and the 4 PPC Awsome will be able to do 40 pinpoint every 4.5 seconds (using Cauldron numbers). Both of these weapons will still fail to meet the performance of the Clan ERPPC from range under the Cauldron Proposal, and they will continue to out range the Snub-Nose PPC. Finally, 6 MPLs under the present numbers do 36 damage every 3.4 seconds, compared to the 34.5 done every 3.3 seconds with 3 SNPPCs under my proposal, at a cost of less heat and 6 fewer tons. Correct, it is not pinpoint, but the low duration of 0.6 seconds on the MPL is competitive against the reaction times of most people. To make the Snub-Nose PPC viable, it must have a niche, hence the range buff, and it must compete with the Light PPC, the standard PPC, and heavy ballistics, hence the cooldown and damage buffs.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-weight: 700; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;The NASCAR Phenomenon&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot; style=&quot;line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;&quot;&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;docs-internal-guid-a8055138-7fff-3e64-7a07-6025b116f440&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;&quot;&gt;It may be better to avoid discussing the NASCAR Phenomenon in QP, because it suggests an elitism in the approach made by the Cauldron. QP is where a majority of the player base plays and learns how to play the game. Different play styles in FP and Comp are valid considerations, but if we are talking about making more weapons viable in more modes of play, FP and Comp cannot dominate that consideration.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;

The formatting issues make this really hard to read. You might want to fix it as I know I'm not going to wade through that.

[justcallme A S H]

I am very excited to see the Cauldron's work on this. I come at this partly from bias (I am involved in the group) - I also come at it from the angle of objectivity in that MWO needs this.

MWOs prime in 2015-2017 when mobilty was good, weapons were good, quirks were fun - is where this game needs to head back to.

Just talk of this news I have seen a solid number of old-guard names who left the game in '16-'17 returning to play.

All of these changes will offer a much wider level of variety of gameplay on offer in Quick Play, Faction Play and Comp. This is extremely exciting times for the game and glad to see that the vast majority are getting behind it. There are always going to be a few nay-sayers - the population increases over time as a result of these changes will be the proof.

[Bows3r]

Lionheart2012, on 14 April 2021 - 08:05 PM, said:

Unfortunately, this explanation is long on argument and short on evidence. That the IS MPL is almost equal to none in the meta needs support. That IS AC2s are absent from QP because of the NASCAR phenomenon, does not explain why they are also absent from Comp and from FP. Again, we don't see them boated on Maulers, King Crabs, Corsairs, or Annihilators, and for good reason. This weapon does not have a high alpha and requires damage over time. Damage over time means greater exposure. And greater exposure does not fit into the poking meta that dominates play in FP and Comp. Hence, ER PPCs, Gauss Rifles, ER Large Lasers dominate the early game. More data would need to be presented to demonstrate how AC2s are an incredibly strong weapon system. Until then, this fear is unjustified.
The NASCAR Phenomenon

It may be better to avoid discussing the NASCAR Phenomenon in QP, because it suggests an elitism in the approach made by the Cauldron. QP is where a majority of the player base plays and learns how to play the game. Different play styles in FP and Comp are valid considerations, but if we are talking about making more weapons viable in more modes of play, FP and Comp cannot dominate that consideration.

I would highly recommend watching MWO comp matches on the mwoleagues twitch channel, especially from teams like JGx and Div A teams in general, that will give you the most accurate representation of the meta. You will probably find that many of your misplaced 'assertions' about what the meta supposedly is are actually quite false.

How is talking about nascar 'elitist'? Maybe newer or less experienced players don't know about it or understand it (or maybe they haven't even observed it yet). Ask any player who has some experience at all playing the game, many of them will actively talk about this very same supposedly 'elitist' phenomenon, because it's simply that common.

Edited by Bows3r, 17 April 2021 - 12:31 AM.

[D V Devnull]

Dang, this thread took me a while to get done reading through. Well, I've got a few thoughts for The Cauldron & PGI here, given my personal experience with the following items...



I think I will start off with the Inner Sphere Streak SRMs...

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Streak SRM4 (IS):
Cooldown increased to 3.5 (from 3)

Streak SRM6 (IS):
Cooldown increased to 4.25 (from 3.75)

...which sadly seem like they're being nerfed into the ground to me. Prior to this upcoming April 20th Patch happening, my past use of the I.S. Streaks has been rather restricted because of the overall battlefield situation. Along with the overly restrictive Tonnage that's required to equip these, they don't seem to get a lock fast enough at all, even at point-blank ranges. (Not being allowed the Locking Speed that would have made it useful to the rest of the Team really does not help with even trying to equip and/or use I.S. Streaks in general.) Worse, their Maximum Range of 270 Meters puts them in a thoroughly bad place to start with. I seriously think that the change in Cooldown is completely unnecessary, and will dunk these into a grave forever. If anything would have made a better balance, it would have been to enable Clan Active Probes to be able to Counter ECM like how the info on Sarna's BattleTech Wiki @ https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Beagle_Active_Probe says they're supposed to be able to. Maybe I'm crazy, but it feels like the Clans are unfairly disadvantaged by not having a Full-Sized Clan Active Probe in MWO that is as functional as the I.S. Beagle version.



Then we came to the NARC systems...

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

NARC (IS):
NARC duration decreased to 22 seconds (from 30)
NARC Range increased to 600m (from 450m)
NARC ammo per ton increased to 16 (from 13)

NARC (Clan):
NARC duration decreased to 22 seconds (from 30)

...where I'm seeing what amounts to an OverKill grade of Nerf here. If we're going down the route of taking away so much Duration from a NARC User's Teammates on the battlefields, then why was there no compensation in Cooldown for both Tech Bases to go with this? That current Cooldown of 7 Seconds is way too much for the change to only 22 Seconds of Duration allowed for attacking a Target without LOS-type positioning or having a Teammate keep an eye on it. I would seriously recommend lowering the Cooldown to only 6 Seconds between NARC shots, just in order to keep this system reasonable enough that people will still try using it in order to rack up more earnings on the battlefields. Otherwise, we're looking at a fast decay of people trying to use the NARC at all, and in turn a rapid decay of multiple Lock-On Missile Systems which would pair with it. Worse, last I checked, the AMS can eat a loose NARC shot in midair before it can hit a Target anyway, so it doesn't seem right to push down such a Support-type of item so far.



This finally brings us to the Air Strike implementation...

InnerSphereNews, on 01 April 2021 - 06:36 PM, said:

Air Strike:
Damage per bomb reduced to 10 (from 15)
Total number of bombs increased to 7 (from 6) - longer distance

...and this feeling like somebody was trying to be unnecessarily hateful to it, instead of giving it some reasonable thinking after the Nerfs previously applied by a certain Developer (first name starts with a "C"... you know who I mean) who I would utterly love to nuke on the battlefields. While it was in need of a Longer Distance for sure, there was no real need to knock the Damage down so heavily, as this Consumable has become extremely underused on the battlefields. I rarely use this due to how badly warped of a Nerf that this took, and I rarely see anyone else use it either. Maybe it would be more reasonable to allow this to deal 13 Damage Per Bomb for the 7 Shells that it will be allowed to have? It would then still take on a similar profile to the upcoming version of Artillery Strike in terms of Damage to both Time and Area of the blasting zone, but without feeling like it had been made even more useless than it already is. If it were upped to 8 Bombs dropped, then 11 Damage Per Shell would be a properly suitable setting... and with 9 Bombs laid, then 10 Damage would probably have been about the right number to set it at. Unfortunately, what I'm seeing here for the incoming April 20th Changes will more than likely result in further ceasing of Air Strike use as an option for shaking things up on the battlefields, and that's neither fun nor healthy for MWO's continued existence.





And as a fun side-note before I scram, this post was typed in the middle of the night in my time zone, but before my brain stalled out. I probably missed talking about a number of things, merely because I wanted to catch what seems like the most alarming ones without losing my focus. Plus, I know that applying fixes to things like this will have to wait until after the Next Monthly Patch now, but I already have the weird feeling that I may have hit the nail on the head well prior to any period of possible action.



~D. V. "wanting severely underused items in MWO to not end up completely dead/unused on the battlefields" Devnull





[Quick Edit by Post Author for a missed word that messed up the clarity of their thoughts... Dangit!]

Edited by D V Devnull, 14 April 2021 - 11:59 PM.

[Brownshweiger4]

Krasnopesky, on 14 April 2021 - 04:27 AM, said:

I have shown multiple times in this thread that ATMs will be significantly buffed against AMS at short range (and all ranges).

It not matter bacause ATM just losing any comparison to SRM. ATM heavy and have low ammo and you just removed its only strong side - damage.

[Krasnopesky]

Brownshweiger4, on 15 April 2021 - 03:14 AM, said:

It not matter bacause ATM just losing any comparison to SRM. ATM heavy and have low ammo and you just removed its only strong side - damage.

ATMs and SRMs are such a different weapon system despite being in the same weapon group. It is hard to draw a comparison simply comparing their stats around damage and weight.

I have said it many times, but I will say it again: ATMs do a very large amount of damage, so large in fact that we decided to reduce it somewhat (Medium Mechs are easy capable of doing 80+ damage with good spread values currently). However they are hard countered by even a few AMS, creating a feast-or-famine situation where one hard counter makes far too much of a difference in your performance. ATMs will still be excellent damage weapons that will work well despite the damage reduction in close range. In fact, as I have said many times, they will actually perform better in the many many situations where AMS is present.

[Wid1046]

D V Devnull, on 14 April 2021 - 11:56 PM, said:

Then we came to the NARC systems...


...where I'm seeing what amounts to an OverKill grade of Nerf here. If we're going down the route of taking away so much Duration from a NARC User's Teammates on the battlefields, then why was there no compensation in Cooldown for both Tech Bases to go with this? That current Cooldown of 7 Seconds is way too much for the change to only 22 Seconds of Duration allowed for attacking a Target without LOS-type positioning or having a Teammate keep an eye on it. I would seriously recommend lowering the Cooldown to only 6 Seconds between NARC shots, just in order to keep this system reasonable enough that people will still try using it in order to rack up more earnings on the battlefields. Otherwise, we're looking at a fast decay of people trying to use the NARC at all, and in turn a rapid decay of multiple Lock-On Missile Systems which would pair with it. Worse, last I checked, the AMS can eat a loose NARC shot in midair before it can hit a Target anyway, so it doesn't seem right to push down such a Support-type of item so far.

This seems like it is an enormous buff for IS NARC. While I rarely see NARC being used in QP, when it is used it is almost always IS NARC because of the incredible synergy between NARC and stealth armor. At least previously stealth mechs had to get somewhat close and risk being seen to deploy NARC, now they won't even need to be in the same zip code. Oh, and they also will get a large increase in ammo as well.

I think lowering the duration of NARC to 22 seconds for both sides is a good change and I'm neutral with IS getting increased ammo, but the range buff for IS mechs will leave very little counter-play against stealth NARC mechs.

Edited by Wid1046, 15 April 2021 - 05:38 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Lionheart2012, on 14 April 2021 - 08:05 PM, said:

Unfortunately, this explanation is long on argument and short on evidence. That the IS MPL is almost equal to none in the meta needs support. That IS AC2s are absent from QP because of the NASCAR phenomenon, does not explain why they are also absent from Comp and from FP. Again, we don't see them boated on Maulers, King Crabs, Corsairs, or Annihilators, and for good reason. This weapon does not have a high alpha and requires damage over time. Damage over time means greater exposure. And greater exposure does not fit into the poking meta that dominates play in FP and Comp. Hence, ER PPCs, Gauss Rifles, ER Large Lasers dominate the early game. More data would need to be presented to demonstrate how AC2s are an incredibly strong weapon system. Until then, this fear is unjustified.

It is widely accepted that IS MPLs are one of the strongest weapon systems in the game, hence why I didn't post evidence. Literally all ~20 people in The Cauldron agreed on this point and the vast majority of the feedback we have recieved from the community also follows this agreement.

Your assertion that AC2s are absent from QP, FP, and comp is simply not true, they are used in all those game modes. AC2 Annihilators and Maulers are common and strong enough to be used quite effectively (often in conjunction with an ERPPC). Similarly to the IS MPL, most people in the community find AC2s either fine how they are or even too strong. Very very few people have provided feedback to say that AC2s are underperforming. As I said, they are not seen as much in QP due to the overbearing NASCAR meta that forces people into rotating to survive in many QP games.

Claiming that regular Gauss Rifles dominate anything currently in game is a lot more questionable than claiming IS MPL and AC2s do not need buffing.

Lionheart2012, on 14 April 2021 - 08:05 PM, said:

Turning to IS UACs, we merely have the bare assertion that they are stronger than Clan, in general. And while the IS versions excluding the UAC2 currently do have a slight DPS advantage because of the burst fire mechanic, the Clan versions are smaller and lighter. Further, Clan technology can also take advantage of both FF armor and Endosteel, smaller heat sinks, and smaller XL engines. IS technology in larger 'Mechs must choose between Endosteel and FF armor, has larger heat sinks and must settle for a heavier "light" engine. The purpose of showing the Nightstar 9P was to demonstrate how this is the lightest 'Mech that can credibly boat the UA5/10 combination in a 2:2 ratio. The Cyclops Sleipnir was offered as a counterpoint, and while such a build is possible (https://thecauldron....#_25d9d0c9_CP-S ...for the memes!), I think that the quad UAC5 Sleipnir was intended. But even then, this is a damage over time build, and doesn't fit in the poking meta for high tier play. In fact, the quad LB10-X Sleipnir and the dual Heavy Gauss Sleipnir are much more common because the former offers greater range and heat efficiency, and the latter offers greater pinpoint, less exposure, and again greater heat efficiency. Again we would need more data to demonstrate how increasing cooldown on IS UACs would break the game, especially because these weapons can only be comfortably boated on 100-ton Fafnirs and Annihilators. By contrast, the Clans can boat them on Direwolves (100t), Kodiaks (100t), MadCat MkIIs (90t), Blood Asps (90t), Warhawks (85t https://thecauldron....90d8908f_WHK-NQ), Marauder IICs (85t https://thecauldron....05383_MAD-IIC-A), and even the Rifleman IIC (65t):

• https://thecauldron....fa949_RFL-IIC-2 (2xUAC5 2xUAC10)
  
• https://thecauldron....c4360_RFL-IIC-2 (4xUAC5)

And while we are talking about a change to DPS, the DPS/ton metric still has the Inner Sphere UACs at a disadvantage to their clan counterparts.

Ultimately, there must be some trade off with the IS UACs being so much larger:

• UAC2 +1 slot/+2 tons
  
• UAC5 +2 slots/+2 tons
  
• UAC10 +3 slots/+3 tons
  
• UAC20 +2 slots/+3 tons

Because the lore points to them being generally later engineered in the Inner Sphere, I can see a justification for the greater weight and bulk as a trade off against higher rates of fire, based on reverse engineering from Clan technology and guidance from the Helm memory core. Leaving these weapons where they are leaves them at a severe disadvantage to Clan technology, especially as it requires +10 slots and +10 tons to compete in the same meta as the Clans. They are just too big, heavy, and hot not to have this buff.

The Cyclops Sleipnir can run both 2x UAC10 + 2x UAC5 and 4x UAC5. The former is seen by many as the superior build in fact.

These are the clan Mechs you have identifed: Dire Wolf, Kodiak, Mad Cat, Blood Asp, Warhawk, Marauder IIC, Rifleman IIC.
Here are the IS counterparts: Annihilator, Fafnir, King Crab, Nightstar, Cyclops, Mauler, Victor, Warhammer.

Some perform better on the clan side, some perform better on the IS side. Some of the Mechs on the IS side need help in particular, but we are addressing that through mobility and quirks rather than weapon systems.

Lionheart2012, on 14 April 2021 - 08:05 PM, said:

Finally we have the bare assertion that IS LRMs are already better in most cases than Clan LRMs. It is not helpful to an argument when clearly the opposite is true. The best LRM Boats mass Clan LRM systems because Clan LRM systems are smaller and have half the weight. Consider the following:

• Warhammer IIC-2, 95 tubes & 2640 missiles, https://thecauldron....d0b23_WHM-IIC-2
  
• Supernova-A, 80 tubes with Artemis & 2400 missiles, https://thecauldron...._1581811e_SNV-A
  
• Supernova-A, 80 tubes & 3360 missiles, https://thecauldron...._e7d4c3de_SNV-A
  
• Marauder IIC-SC, 80 tubes & 2880 missiles, https://thecauldron....7033_MAD-IIC-SC
  
• Madcat MkII-4, 80 tubes & 3360 missiles, https://thecauldron....9988cf7a_MCII-4
  
• Sunspider-C, Quirked, 60 tubes with Artemis & 2520 missiles, https://thecauldron...._e2d42076_SNS-C
  
• Nova Cat-B, Quirked, 90 tubes & 2400 missiles (Stock), https://thecauldron...._386964c0_NCT-B

• Stalker-5S, Quirked, 80 tubes & 2640 missiles, 265XL, https://thecauldron....9cd3ec12_STK-5S
  
• Nightstar-WP, 80 tubes & 2880 missiles, 265LFE, https://thecauldron....e3914707_NSR-WP
  
• Marauder-4HP, 80 tubes & 2640 missiles, 280LFE, https://thecauldron....1cfaaa9_MAD-4HP
  
• Marauder-4HP, 90 tubes & 3840 missiles, 265XL, https://thecauldron....a5aa160_MAD-4HP
  
• Awesome-8R, 60 tubes & 3120 missiles, 300XL, https://thecauldron....a52ccfc1_AWS-8R
  
• Annihilator-MB, 80 tubes & 3360 missiles, 270LFE, https://thecauldron....994c4d06_ANH-MB
  
• Thanatos-5T, 60 tubes & 2400 missiles, ECM, 280LFE, https://thecauldron....42b5bb26_TNS-5T
  
• Orion-VA, 60 tubes & 2760 missiles, 280 LFE, https://thecauldron....10c7fa8b_ON1-VA

Clan 'Mechs as low as 70 tons can mount 90 tubes and 2400 missiles, and that is with a 280-rated, Clan XL engine. Supernovae can easily mount 80 tubes and 3360 missiles with a 325-rated, Clan XL engine, and the Warhammer IIC-2 can mount 95 tubes with 2640 missiles with the same engine. By comparison, the smallest Inner Sphere 'Mech that can mount 80 tubes is Stalker with 2640 missiles and a 265XL engine. It can't mount the high number of missiles of the Supernova-A, nor the High tube count of the Warhammer IIC, and it is ridiculously vulnerable with the small and fragile IS 265 XL engine. In fact, all of the examples of IS 'Mechs above have some form of disadvantage, either less heat efficiency, fewer tubes, less ammunition, a slower engine, and/or a more fragile engine. Yes, IS LRMs have less spread and fire simultaneously, but the shear volume that Clan 'Mechs can put out on faster, cooler, and more robust 'Mechs overwhelms these disadvantages. Otherwise, we would see more of these IS builds or some facsimile of them on the battlefield. In other words, the player experience would seem to suggest otherwise.

The last point you briefly mentioned: "IS LRMs... fire simultaneously" is what makes them better. That element is so important it trumps the other advantages that clan LRMs have. Also many of the best IS Mechs have great missile quirks which futher enhances their effectiveness. IS LRM boats can be more difficult to pilot, as they are usually slower, but that does not make them worse than Clan LRMs boats.

Regardless of this, we have left both LRM systems as they are for now so we can see how the coming changes impact them.

Lionheart2012, on 14 April 2021 - 08:05 PM, said:

Buffs to the PPC Family, Generally

Turning to PPCs, the reason why the increases to the IS PPC family are necessary is precisely because of the factor that is often overlooked, the 50% splash damage of the Clan ERPPC. Prior to the March patch, IS PPC use was almost non-existent, aside from a few highly quirked 'Mechs, and the Cauldron proposal made a modest attempt to address this. IS pilots favor lighter and smaller ER Large Lasers. The Marauders which are quirked for PPCs are fielded most popularly in the triple RAC2 or the dual MRM30 variants. Even the Awesome that is heavily quirked towards PPCs is a rarity on the battlefield. Consequently, these Inner Sphere variants need significant adjustment to bring them into line with the power of the Clan ER PPC. Yes, the CERPPC has significant splash damage, but it is damage nonetheless. The Inner Sphere versions do not have this bonus and consequently need to do more damage over time to match the effectiveness of the CERPPC. This again presents dual problems of greater numbers of accurate shots on target, statistically a task of diminishing returns, and of exposing more to take those shots.

Heavy PPC Criticism

Specifically, there was a complaint about the HPPC being overpowered. However, even using the Cauldron's numbers, the DPS for a Heavy PPC would be lower than if a PPC and a Light PPC were paired for the same tonnage. Equally, the DPS would be lower than that of the Light PPC paired with a Snub-Nose PPC for the same space and a ton less. This screams for a balancing of the DPS, giving players choices over whether they want to spend 3 hardpoints, 9 slots, and 21 tons on 3 PPCs or 2 hardpoints, 8 slots, and 20 tons on two HPPCs. Greater DPS would favor the PPCs, but better heat efficiency, hardpoint efficiency, and weight would favor the HPPCs. And what if you had 4 hardpoints, and coupled light PPCs with either the standard version or the Snub-Nose version? That is what this buff does, it creates options while making every one of the systems viable.

Snub-Nose PPC Criticism

There was also a complaint about the Snub-Nose PPC becoming too powerful under this proposal. What the analysis failed to do was to look into the dynamic effect of eliminating minimum range for the Light PPC. By doing so, 2 Light PPCs easily substitute for a single Snub-Nose PPC, with longer range and better DPS. Similarly, 2 Light PPCs and a heatsink, easily substitute for a standard PPC, with better DPS and no minimum range. By eliminating the minimum range on the Light PPC, two other weapon systems have become less viable.

Further, there are several weapons that outpower and would continue to outpower the Snub-Nose PPC. Based on DOR, the SNPPC can be massed to be slightly more effective than an IS UAC20 at a cost of massively greater heat and three more tons. The HPPC Awesome did 45 pinpoint every 5 seconds under the pre-March patch numbers, and the 4 PPC Awesome will be able to do 40 pinpoint every 4.5 seconds (using Cauldron numbers). Both of these weapons will still fail to meet the performance of the Clan ERPPC from range under the Cauldron Proposal, and they will continue to out range the Snub-Nose PPC. Finally, 6 MPLs under the present numbers do 36 damage every 3.4 seconds, compared to the 34.5 done every 3.3 seconds with 3 SNPPCs under my proposal, at a cost of less heat and 6 fewer tons. Correct, it is not pinpoint, but the low duration of 0.6 seconds on the MPL is competitive against the reaction times of most people. To make the Snub-Nose PPC viable, it must have a niche, hence the range buff, and it must compete with the Light PPC, the standard PPC, and heavy ballistics, hence the cooldown and damage buffs.

My statement stands that your suggestions on the IS PPC family, especially HPPC and SNPPC, will make them far too overpowered.

HPPC will just be flat broken if your suggestions were implemented. They are already strong and you take them to overbearing levels.

My analysis understood that LPPC are capped at 3 without ghost heat, amounting to only 15 damage, or half of what 3 Snub Nose PPCs can do. Thus they do not cause viability conflicts with Snub Nose PPCs (although they should combine nicely in certain cases, eg 2 Snub and 1 LPPC where tonnage is an issue for 3 Snubs). The pinpoint nature of the Snub Nose PPC is hugely important and not something you should undervalue as much as you appear to do so. The changes that are coming to SNPPCs (+1 HSL & -30% heat) are large enough already and we shall definitely see a lot more usage and competitiveness from this weapon.

I have also noticed that you are getting some values wrong in your suggestions (like PPC cooldown). You should review that to ensure accuracy.

Lionheart2012, on 14 April 2021 - 08:05 PM, said:

The NASCAR Phenomenon

It may be better to avoid discussing the NASCAR Phenomenon in QP, because it suggests an elitism in the approach made by the Cauldron. QP is where a majority of the player base plays and learns how to play the game. Different play styles in FP and Comp are valid considerations, but if we are talking about making more weapons viable in more modes of play, FP and Comp cannot dominate that consideration.

Discussing NASCAR isn't elitism at all. NASCAR is prevelant in almost all tier 3/2/1 matches in QP, in fact it is so prevelant that many people have simply stopped playing due to it. Discussing something that is extremely defining to the main game mode played by most people is needed and healthy. The Cauldron wishes to decrease (ideally eliminate, although I think this is impossible) NASCAR in QP to provide a more enjoyable experience to everyone that plays this game.

In regards to the balance focus, our main focus is and will be QP. We also look at FP and Comp of course, but those are minor considerations when looking at overall balance. If we simply balanced around comp, the coming changes would look a lot different.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 15 April 2021 - 06:09 AM.

[x Deathstrike x]

Krasnopesky, on 15 April 2021 - 06:06 AM, said:

The last point you briefly mentioned: "IS LRMs... fire simultaneously" is what makes them better. That element is so important it trumps the other advantages that clan LRMs have. Also many of the best IS Mechs have great missile quirks which futher enhances their effectiveness. IS LRM boats can be more difficult to pilot, as they are usually slower, but that does not make them worse than Clan LRMs boats.

Just to give an example here for Lionheart2012:
https://thecauldron....3f4b30b4_TBT-7M
https://thecauldron...._658db2a0_SCR-A

Both mechs are "roughly" equal in terms of maximum DPS, speed hitpoints (including quirks) and such.
Still the Trebuchet wins the because it has the better sustained DPS and of course all 30 IS missiles will hit at the same time and the 45 clan missiles in streams.
Thus with a 25% cooldown quirk (as well as all the others) IS LRM boats defenitly are better than clan LRM boats.

Edited by x Deathstrike x, 15 April 2021 - 06:32 AM.

[Brauer]

Lionheart2012, on 14 April 2021 - 08:05 PM, said:

That the IS MPL is almost equal to none in the meta needs support.

No it does not. IS MPLs have been one of the top weapon systems in the game since 2019. IS MPLs defined the competitive and QP meta in 2019 and 2020 and many many many competitive matches were determined by which team's mpl wolfpack beat the other over this stretch. Saying that IS MPLs are not currently one of the best weapons in the game is an extraordinary claim given all the evidence, so if you want to make that case the burden of proof is very firmly on you.

[Z Paradox]

Wid1046, on 15 April 2021 - 05:36 AM, said:

This seems like it is an enormous buff for IS NARC. While I rarely see NARC being used in QP, when it is used it is almost always IS NARC because of the incredible synergy between NARC and stealth armor. At least previously stealth mechs had to get somewhat close and risk being seen to deploy NARC, now they won't even need to be in the same zip code. Oh, and they also will get a large increase in ammo as well.

I think lowering the duration of NARC to 22 seconds for both sides is a good change and I'm neutral with IS getting increased ammo, but the range buff for IS mechs will leave very little counter-play against stealth NARC mechs.

you know, Narc is not registring hit ~20%-30% of the time ( one game I was 1 vs 1 (rvn vs cp) and I shot him with narc from 130m 3 times and it didnt reg at all, ppl waching me was like wtf...) so more ammo is not a big deal... and btw, I like my rvn without S.Armor and in close range vs enemy...

[Reno Blade]

ECM / AMS / Lock-on Weapons / Teamplay target sharing

ECM:
I think one major flaw in the equasion is the ECM hard-counter.
If you remember the Information Warfare PTS (long ago), they tested to change ECM to soft-counter:
- allows targeting/locking (remove hard-counter)
- keep longer lock time with ecm
- add longer targeting information time

AMS:
If AMS would have smaller optimal range, the efficiency of the bubble would be reduced closer to your own mech.
You could allow skill nodes to trade range for damage, if you prefered support over efficiency.

Lock-on:
Massive LRM is very annoying on the recieving end, especially if you are unable to see/shoot your enemy.
If IndirectFire would get more spread, the efficiency of LRMs would be less annoying or lethal unless both players can see each other.
- Target range/speed could have more depth, see InfoWarfare PTS (mentioned above)

ATM:
What do you think of a LINEAR damage curve of ATMs (e.g. from 3 dmg at 120m down to 1dmg at max range) ?
This would give more damage the closer you get without the 3 platteous, so you could get more out of the launcher than LRMs for more of the range (e.g. up to 500m).
Alternatively, AMS could have some other lower efficiency if missiles are targeting someone else.



TTK considerations
Some more options to balance TTK include:
- More Armor -> might feel save, but once armor is gone, you will be squishy (if structure is not increased also) and it might make weapons feel weaker
- More Structure -> increase survivability a bit, also increases importance of crits and disarming over destroying components. This also boosts IS-XL engine survivability a bit
- More GhostHeat / EnergyDraw -> currently disliked, because of spiky heat and slower battle pacing -> might be able to soften GhostHeat by spreading heat over 2 seconds. overall heat generation could be changed to gain heat over time instead of instantly (see MechWarrior 2), boating reduction
- Heatsink efficiency reduction -> slows down gameplay which is generally not very fun
- Difficulty of hitting your target -> increase of beam/burst/volley/spread, slow velocity, splash damage -> seems to be not liked, as everyone (including couldron) is going for reductions for more "fun".

I guess I'm alone, because I like slower battles, where hits are hard, but difficult to land, while also i dislike "boating".
So my image is to somehow have boats less efficient, so you need to have "backup weapons".

[LastPaladin]

I just hope you finally fix the Griffin's size issue. I love the mech, but when I'm a medium who is a larger target than all the assault and heavy mechs on the team, it's just not viable to play. Needs to be scaled down to be around the same size that Phoenix Hawks, or at least Shadow Hawks are at.

[dario03]

LastPaladin, on 15 April 2021 - 11:29 AM, said:

I just hope you finally fix the Griffin's size issue. I love the mech, but when I'm a medium who is a larger target than all the assault and heavy mechs on the team, it's just not viable to play. Needs to be scaled down to be around the same size that Phoenix Hawks, or at least Shadow Hawks are at.

Don't know how much of a rescale is going to happen but when Navid made his proposal I think the Griffin was the second most scaled down mech.

[Sereglach]

Reno Blade, on 15 April 2021 - 10:28 AM, said:

ECM:
I think one major flaw in the equasion is the ECM hard-counter.
If you remember the Information Warfare PTS (long ago), they tested to change ECM to soft-counter:
- allows targeting/locking (remove hard-counter)
- keep longer lock time with ecm
- add longer targeting information time

Lock-on:
Massive LRM is very annoying on the recieving end, especially if you are unable to see/shoot your enemy.
If IndirectFire would get more spread, the efficiency of LRMs would be less annoying or lethal unless both players can see each other.
- Target range/speed could have more depth, see InfoWarfare PTS (mentioned above)

The infowars PTS series had a lot of good stuff in it that should have eventually made it to live, the ECM changes in particular felt more like how ECM should have been implemented in the first place. Hell, we still have remnants of it in the current UI with stuff like the maximum radar range of mechs showing in the mech lab. It would be nice to see these facets looked at for future balancing, if we ever get the opportunity.

[DAEDALOS513]

Reno Blade, on 15 April 2021 - 10:28 AM, said:

ECM / AMS / Lock-on Weapons / Teamplay target sharing

ECM:
I think one major flaw in the equation is the ECM hard-counter.
If you remember the Information Warfare PTS (long ago), they tested to change ECM to soft-counter:
- allows targeting/locking (remove hard-counter)
- keep longer lock time with ecm
- add longer targeting information time

AMS:
If AMS would have smaller optimal range, the efficiency of the bubble would be reduced closer to your own mech.
You could allow skill nodes to trade range for damage, if you preferred support over efficiency.

Lock-on:
Massive LRM is very annoying on the recieving end, especially if you are unable to see/shoot your enemy.
If IndirectFire would get more spread, the efficiency of LRMs would be less annoying or lethal unless both players can see each other.
- Target range/speed could have more depth, see InfoWarfare PTS (mentioned above)

ATM:
What do you think of a LINEAR damage curve of ATMs (e.g. from 3 dmg at 120m down to 1dmg at max range) ?
This would give more damage the closer you get without the 3 platteous, so you could get more out of the launcher than LRMs for more of the range (e.g. up to 500m).
Alternatively, AMS could have some other lower efficiency if missiles are targeting someone else.

TTK considerations
Some more options to balance TTK include:
- More Armor -> might feel safe, but once armor is gone, you will be squishy (if structure is not increased also) and it might make weapons feel weaker
- More Structure -> increase survivability a bit, also increases importance of crits and disarming over destroying components. This also boosts IS-XL engine survivability a bit
- More GhostHeat / EnergyDraw -> currently disliked, because of spiky heat and slower battle pacing -> might be able to soften GhostHeat by spreading heat over 2 seconds. overall heat generation could be changed to gain heat over time instead of instantly (see MechWarrior 2), boating reduction
- Heatsink efficiency reduction -> slows down gameplay which is generally not very fun
- Difficulty of hitting your target -> increase of beam/burst/volley/spread, slow velocity, splash damage -> seems to be not liked, as everyone (including couldron) is going for reductions for more "fun".

I guess I'm alone, because I like slower battles, where hits are hard, but difficult to land, while also i dislike "boating".
So my image is to somehow have boats less efficient, so you need to have "backup weapons".

You make some good points and have some great ideas.. I don't think you say anything i disagree with. I too share in your belief that battles are more enjoyable when on the slower side.. not chess game slow but definitely less COD speed. Like you, I would prefer matches where you actually put some thought into them and worked as a team.. trading and repositioning, focusing and pushing vulnerable enemies.. watching each others backs.. instead of just nascar'ing or camping one spot.

Once all these buffs hit my fear is that matches will be over too soon to ever come up with, let alone implement any plan.. it probably won't even be worth wasting effort coming up with one.. we shall see..