704 replies to this topic

[Alilua]

Any word on changes to The Sonic Cannon? My corgi mech needs a buff.

[Raydeen]

A mix of good and bad, will have to see how it plays out, the overquirked mechs will continue to dominate, I hate the spreadsheet warrior mentality. this is not played on a flat map with infinite heat capacity. The banshee will still be pretty terrible those orangutan arms don't help and it turns slower than a **** stuck on a hair. Horrible geometry afflicts many mechs and a rescale may not help them if you don't move the weapons from the bottom of the arm to the top or middle. from the bottom of the torso to the middle. You can keep the same mech form. They don't all need high mounts but they would perform better if they weren't mounted so low.

[Krasnopesky]

Raydeen, on 02 April 2021 - 08:13 PM, said:

A mix of good and bad, will have to see how it plays out, the overquirked mechs will continue to dominate, I hate the spreadsheet warrior mentality. this is not played on a flat map with infinite heat capacity. The banshee will still be pretty terrible those orangutan arms don't help and it turns slower than a **** stuck on a hair. Horrible geometry afflicts many mechs and a rescale may not help them if you don't move the weapons from the bottom of the arm to the top or middle. from the bottom of the torso to the middle. You can keep the same mech form. They don't all need high mounts but they would perform better if they weren't mounted so low.

This isn't a simple spreadsheet warrior situation. We have tested these as much as possible in testing grounds with the modified XML files and we wanted a PTS to properly test them in a live situation.

Overquirked Mechs are a large concern of The Cauldron too and something we wanted to address at the same time as these changes. PGI however wanted us to focus solely on weapons for this patch. We will be pushing for a mech quirk pass to happen sooner rather than later and one of the focuses is on Mechs that have too many offensive quirks (they cause TTK to go down a lot and invalidate a lot of other Mechs).

Geometry and weapon mounts are something The Cauldron cannot fix (requires programming and Mech modelling), so that is up to PGI to work on.

[Sereglach]

Sug, on 02 April 2021 - 07:39 PM, said:

MWO flamers were originally like the MW5 ones but people used them to blind other players so the visual was changed to more of a jet than a flame thrower : /

I'm not talking about the visual effects; and I've been acutely aware of the Flamer's progression and changes since way back in early 2013, when I got into MWO. I'm talking about the mechanical function.

MWO uses convoluted exponential scaling mechanics and accelerated heat generation after the expenditure of a "free-fire" window which, while terrible before heat changes, became utterly useless after the heat changes towards faster heat dissipation and comical with the implementation of Ghost Heat on Flamers.

MW5 uses fixed flat values, with a respectable flat DPS value (similar to MWO's machine guns) with modest Heat DPS and comparable HPS. THAT is the facet from MW5 that needs to be brought into MWO. Flamers need to be made viable weapons, like they've always been in Battletech and Mechwarrior (and frankly OP in some of the older MW games).

Edited by Sereglach, 02 April 2021 - 08:31 PM.

[Krasnopesky]

Sereglach, on 02 April 2021 - 08:31 PM, said:

I'm not talking about the visual effects; and I've been acutely aware of the Flamer's progression and changes since way back in early 2013, when I got into MWO. I'm talking about the mechanical function.

MWO uses convoluted exponential scaling mechanics and accelerated heat generation after the expenditure of a "free-fire" window which, while terrible before heat changes, became utterly useless after the heat changes towards faster heat dissipation and comical with the implementation of Ghost Heat on Flamers.

MW5 uses fixed flat values, with a respectable flat DPS value (similar to MWO's machine guns) with modest Heat DPS and comparable HPS. THAT is the facet from MW5 that needs to be brought into MWO. Flamers need to be made viable weapons, like they've always been in Battletech and Mechwarrior (and frankly OP in some of the older MW games).

Do you have more exact numbers to suggest? We can discuss it and look into it more for a future patch.

[Sereglach]

Krasnopesky, on 02 April 2021 - 08:47 PM, said:

Do you have more exact numbers to suggest? We can discuss it and look into it more for a future patch.

LONG ago I was pushing for 1-2 DPS (1.5 is clearly a nice starting point). MW5 I think is 2 DPS and seems a bit OP, but that could be the 3025 setting for much of what I've seen. HPS and Heat DPS should be notably different, inflicting actual net heat damage over heat generated. At the time I was saying 1.0 Heat DPS and 0.5-0.75 HPS gain. Ironically, even after changes in the way the heatsinks work (leaning towards faster dissipation and lower heat caps) and looking at it's closest competitors, the Medium Laser for the IS and Small Laser for Clans, the numbers really wouldn't be much different.

However, for the sake of debating and looking at a quick glance of baseline data, here's a breakdown on a more current take:

IS Flamer, Medium Laser is the closest competitor:
With April changes the ML will have a DPS of 1.56 . . . I don't think asking for 1.4 - 1.6 is too much for the Flamer.

Clan Flamer, ER Small Laser is the closest competitor:
DPS isn't much different on the SL at 1.43 . . . 1.2-1.4 DPS seems reasonable for the Flamer, but whatever value it is should be less than the IS variant, seeing as it's a half ton instead of a full ton . . . if we're balancing via damage (more later).

HPS and Heat DPS could likely be the same across IS and Clan. The base 10 doubles seem to be dissipating approximately 2.3-2.4 HPS now. One Flamer should be a nuisance, two should just about defeat your opponent's base 10 DHS cooling, 3-4 should be dangerous, and 5-6 should be crippling for a short burst (the shooter won't be able to maintain it much longer than the heat damage they do); but if PGI really wants Ghost Heat in the picture then implement it for numbers over 6. However, fixed flat values balance themselves, in the case of the Flamer, because the shooter won't be able to keep heat on the target much longer than the opponent has 90% heat, and then both parties need to retreat to cool. This is even more hazardous for the shooter, as they CAN shut themselves down. Regardless, I'd personally shoot for 1.2 Heat DPS and 0.6 - 0.8 HPS gain.

Now, if you want to balance in a slightly different way, you could keep the DPS the same on both IS and Clan models, and instead make the Clan version less efficient at putting heat on target. It gives you an alternate method for compensating for the 50% lighter Clan Flamer that falls a bit more in line with how the upcoming April patch seems to be handling MGs . . . the IS getting more rounds per ton for their heavier base MGs, but the damage values being relatively the same. Higher HPS on the Clan Flamer would allow equal damage to the IS version, but the heavier IS version handling heat gen better. In this case both could be 1.4 DPS and inflict 1.2 Heat DPS, while the IS version generates 0.6 HPS and the Clan version generates 0.8 - 1.0 HPS.

Hope that helps. The Flamer has been my baby since first playing Battletech in the late 80's, with of course the Firestarter being my favorite mech; and while Flamers have always been decent (if not OP) weapons in other MW titles it's always been disappointing how Flamers have been in MWO. It'd be a glorious day to finally see that changed. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[cougurt]

Raydeen, on 02 April 2021 - 08:13 PM, said:

A mix of good and bad, will have to see how it plays out, the overquirked mechs will continue to dominate, I hate the spreadsheet warrior mentality. this is not played on a flat map with infinite heat capacity. The banshee will still be pretty terrible those orangutan arms don't help and it turns slower than a **** stuck on a hair. Horrible geometry afflicts many mechs and a rescale may not help them if you don't move the weapons from the bottom of the arm to the top or middle. from the bottom of the torso to the middle. You can keep the same mech form. They don't all need high mounts but they would perform better if they weren't mounted so low.

Krasnopesky, on 02 April 2021 - 08:20 PM, said:

Overquirked Mechs are a large concern of The Cauldron too and something we wanted to address at the same time as these changes. PGI however wanted us to focus solely on weapons for this patch. We will be pushing for a mech quirk pass to happen sooner rather than later and one of the focuses is on Mechs that have too many offensive quirks (they cause TTK to go down a lot and invalidate a lot of other Mechs).

i'm curious which mechs you consider overquirked. not that i'm opposed to a quirk balance pass (some mechs could certainly use a bit of love, others may need to be dialed back after these changes go through), but for the most part the mechs with loads of quirks are still just mediocre or niche. the IV4 is the only one that comes to mind for me as being particularly overquirked.

[Albert C]

I understand the reason you guys decide to nerf clan ATMs, but they are extremely hot weapon systems. Reducing maxinum damage potential at close ranges is effectively reducing the damage to heat ratio. Pleas reduce their heat and increase the optimal range(to 300 meters). Also, imo it's better to gradually implement changes rather than changing a lot of stats in a flash.

Edited by Albert C, 02 April 2021 - 10:29 PM.

[JagdpantherX]

Great changes overall, im def going to be playing a bunch more when it releases!

I have a couple suggestions/questions though.

Why are clan AC20s getting the +1 ghost heat limit but the IS ones aren't? Although it is a burst weapon, it is lighter, smaller and has a much longer effective range. Shouldnt the IS also get dual AC20's considering how hard it is for them to mount two?

Has the cauldron discussed LBX5 & LBX20 being unused due to their abnormally large slot size? It doesnt matter how much you buff them because the unlikeliness anyone can actually fit these weapons, especially the LBX20.

[Matthew Ace]

Some questions here.

(1) With IS CASE reducing weight to 0, where will the free weight on stock loadouts using CASE go? Extra ammo?

(2) Can we expect tuning of jump jets (especially for 90ton+) in the near future?

(3) With April patch set to break the precedent of lore tonnage/critical slots, would the team also be open to considering reduced slots for IS Ferro Fibrous / Light Ferro Fibrous? (Thinking 10 / 5 respectively)

(4) Will the team also be open to considering increased damage for the LB-AC family? Or even net damage increase with reduced cluster counts (E.G. LB-10 firing 8 clusters of 1.5 damage each for a total potential damage of 12)?

Edited by Matthew Ace, 02 April 2021 - 11:13 PM.

[SixDeltaEcho]

This is a colossal step in the right direction, I'm looking forward to a fun future with the Cauldron's proposed future changes with mobility/agility.

[Daidachi]

Not interested in brown nosing.

Just posting to say it's pleasing that you're listening to and acting on feedback from engaged players - increased variety is more likely to make me play more often again.

[Laser Kiwi]

was it an april fools joke, cause it was the 2nd over here

[Squishy- Iv4]

I wish there was TTS. But at the same time, lets just ****** send it!

[MW Waldorf Statler]

aonother little Play with Weapons, buffs...nerfs ...a endless Playfield and waste of time and manpower ,and nothing news for the Game thats find more interest.Now the next Fans of the nerfed weapons will cry, and the next Work on it to see.Its not the Weapons ,thast many Folks dying fast in Focus Fire or plays Nascar

[Randuir]

I like most of these changes, at least on paper. I used to really enjoy ATM's, but lately it seems that there's just so much AMS in matches that the ATM's do next to nothing, so exchanging some damage for better AMS survivability is a trade I'm quite willing to make.

Better UAC2 jam chance is also quite welcome. I've got a sunspider with 4 UAC2's, and it happens just a little too often that I lose 3 or more UAC's on my second shot, so this'll hopefully help a bit.

Regarding PPC's, I might actually swap my katana kat to 3-4 LPPC's instead of two normal PPC's now to make better use of the slots and getting rid of the minimum range.

I've got a question regarding the light gauss rifles though. Does the removal of the heat scale penalty mean I could fire more of them together now, or is it still limited to two? The changes are decent either way, but if I could fire all four of them together now on my light gauss Fafnir things would get interesting.

Edited by Randuir, 03 April 2021 - 01:45 AM.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Randuir, on 03 April 2021 - 01:08 AM, said:

I've got a question regarding the light gauss rifles though. Does the removal of the heat scale penalty mean I could fire more of them together now, or is it still limited to two? The changes are decent either way, but if I could fire all four of them together now on my light gauss Fafnir things would get interesting.

Heat scale is not relatted to charge up mechanic. What it means LGR andany isPPCs can be combined without heat penalty. The build you would be looking for is probably 2xLGR+2xERPPCs .

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Matthew Ace, on 02 April 2021 - 11:12 PM, said:

(1) With IS CASE reducing weight to 0, where will the free weight on stock loadouts using CASE go? Extra ammo?

Probably just left, who cares if stock builds are a undertonned when you're not going to leave them stock.

Quote

(2) Can we expect tuning of jump jets (especially for 90ton+) in the near future?

JJ changes are going to happen later in the year.

Quote

(3) With April patch set to break the precedent of lore tonnage/critical slots, would the team also be open to considering reduced slots for IS Ferro Fibrous / Light Ferro Fibrous? (Thinking 10 / 5 respectively)

Why? Giving IS better weight saving is a pretty huge balance change.

Quote

(4) Will the team also be open to considering increased damage for the LB-AC family? Or even net damage increase with reduced cluster counts (E.G. LB-10 firing 8 clusters of 1.5 damage each for a total potential damage of 12)?

LBX/10s are already in a pretty good position, why does it need changing?

[rascje]

Well... Another year to fix all my builds... But it's a pleasure with these changes!

Edited by rascje, 03 April 2021 - 07:23 AM.

[Will9761]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 03 April 2021 - 12:53 AM, said:

aonother little Play with Weapons, buffs...nerfs ...a endless Playfield and waste of time and manpower ,and nothing news for the Game thats find more interest.Now the next Fans of the nerfed weapons will cry, and the next Work on it to see.Its not the Weapons ,thast many Folks dying fast in Focus Fire or plays Nascar

This is nothing worth complaining about. Weapon changes will always happen regardless, so players will either choose to adapt or die. Given how disastrous this patch was, PGI's decision to listen to player feedback and change it was the right thing to do. Sure, you can't please everyone, but it is what it is.

Edited by Will9761, 03 April 2021 - 10:21 AM.