704 replies to this topic

[Beesoldier]

these changes sound really interesting! cant wait!

[DAEDALOS513]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 06 April 2021 - 02:47 PM, said:

Matches regularly hitting a turning point at 3 minutes isn’t the same as matches regularly being over after 4 minutes. Also as has been mentioned, these weapon buffs will have the least impact on tier 1, as players in that bracket already tend to run the optimized setups these new buffs are balanced against.

For the record, I know what tier 1 is like. I was in tier 1 for a long time before they did the reset. I just haven’t bothered to play much given the current state of affairs. You can bet I’ll be back at it after this April Patch.

I dunno bout that.. matches end at the 4-5 minute mark far too many times for mah likin'. As I'm writing this I just had a 4:53 match game on alpine of all maps. Anyway I do believe the changes will affect tier 1 matches as they are mostly buffs to sooo many weapons, including weapons that are ALREADY too strong (see uac2: buffs justified with the idea that they are inconsistent.. meanwhile my uac2 boats are among the stongest in my portfolio.. see atm's: range/health buffs and short range nerfs trying to turn them into lurms, lol; see ac10: unneeded buffs.. what is wrong with the way ac10's now?.. i see ac10's just as much as uac10s on IS side anyway, so i find their justification that uac10 are preferred, tenuous..).

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 08 April 2021 - 05:21 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Corbon Zackery, on 07 April 2021 - 07:46 AM, said:

The use of small lasers, and small pulse dropped off because the engagement distance for a light mech was pushed to 260 meters. This is due to size increases to IS light mechs, LBX cannons, streak missiles, ATM, and LRM.

If I run a Jenner up to 90 meters in front of a double LBX 20. I will lose a leg for sure or get my back blown out running away.

The Jenner is so big right now with speed restrictors you can hit a Jenner with a ER PPC at max range with a zoom lens.

Yes that is definitely part of it. That is why we would like to reduce the size of 35 tonne light Mechs back to the levels they previously were.

[DAEDALOS513]

Corbon Zackery, on 07 April 2021 - 07:46 AM, said:

The use of small lasers, and small pulse dropped off because the engagement distance for a light mech was pushed to 260 meters. This is due to size increases to IS light mechs, LBX cannons, streak missiles, ATM, and LRM.

If I run a Jenner up to 90 meters in front of a double LBX 20. I will lose a leg for sure or get my back blown out running away.

The Jenner is so big right now with speed restrictors you can hit a Jenner with a ER PPC at max range with a zoom lens.

There will likely be many unintended negative side effects, like yours, to all these changes happening at once.. nom nom nom.

[Krasnopesky]

DAEDALOS513, on 07 April 2021 - 08:49 AM, said:

There will likely be many unintended negative side effects, like yours, to all these changes happening at once.. nom nom nom.

You're not understanding what he is saying. He is saying the current problems with the usage of Small Lasers and Small Pulse Lasers are due to a variety of issues that were caused by changes PGI has made over the years. More specifically he uses the example of how large the 35 tonne Jenner is and the issue that large size causes to the Mech.

The Cauldron essentially agrees with his assessment and has plans to address the concerns he brought up in order to make those weapon systems and the Mech viable again.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 07 April 2021 - 09:05 AM.

[3RoyalStar1]

Where is the April free mech?

[Krasnopesky]

3RoyalStar1, on 07 April 2021 - 09:03 AM, said:

Where is the April free mech?

I believe it should be announced sometime this week along with the event.

[Kodan Black]

Appreciate the thorough answers, fast responses, and general high level of effort to communicate Krasnopesky. You are not even a PGI employee and you are here giving feedback and engaging.

[DAEDALOS513]

Lurm God, on 06 April 2021 - 06:12 PM, said:

Hi Daedalos,
You do realise clan PPC's in the current patch are more powerful than they were in the 2 previous years? This will be actively a nerf to clan PPCs and bringing other weapon types towards a more balanced state. Once the weapons are more balanced across the board then they can more effectively work on mobility and quirks. Just thought as someone interpreting the changes as I myself am not in the cauldron/gulag see them. Hell I would buff **** a lot harder if it was my choice. In saying all this I am only familiar in solaris, faction, comp and quickplay to about 50k games also so I may not have enough experience also

No it's not a nerf.. it's bringing clan peeps back to their OP state..

As I mentioned numerous times already.. it makes more sense to nerf the few strong weapons then to buff the other 90%.. that is if we are truly interested in balancing. But I've come to realize we aren't.. we just want bigger, badder, stronger toys to play with.. without exaggerating, all my matches were around the 5 minute mark or less this morning. You would buff harder huh? Good luck with that..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 07 April 2021 - 09:43 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Kodan Black, on 07 April 2021 - 09:34 AM, said:

Appreciate the thorough answers, fast responses, and general high level of effort to communicate Krasnopesky. You are not even a PGI employee and you are here giving feedback and engaging.

Maybe PGI should fix that . You know if Krasnopesky doesn't already like his current job.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

DAEDALOS513, on 07 April 2021 - 09:42 AM, said:

No it's not a nerf.. it's bringing clan peeps back to their OP state..

As I mentioned numerous times already.. it makes more sense to nerf the few strong weapons then to buff the other 90%.. that is if we are truly interested in balancing. But I've come to realize we aren't.. we just want bigger, badder, stronger toys to play with.. without exaggerating, all my matches were around the 5 minute mark or less this morning. You would buff harder huh? Good luck with that..

Clan peeps didn't get a buff this patch. They didn't get any changes at all.

The Cauldron is truly interested in balancing. They just don't agree with your assessment of the most fruitful way to balance the game. You know you can disagree back without insisting you understand their intentions better than they do.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 07 April 2021 - 09:52 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

ShooterMcGavin80, on 06 April 2021 - 05:30 PM, said:

As a top end of Tier 1 player also with a shameful amount of games played (despite nearly always skilling up painful non-meta builds while solo dropping), color me also concerned about buffing pretty much everything.

Glad you feel me.. and I give much respect to you for making non-meta work. Like I said above.. and I think you'll agree.. I've come to realize it's not balance they seek.. they're desperately trying to make the game more fun and give it new life. I can totally understand this. But they're hoping to achieve this by making every weapon stronger, whether it needs to be or not. Being so short, I barely derive any satisfaction from matches as is. I think they're shooting themselves in the foot.. and us along with them.

Jack Shayu Walker, on 07 April 2021 - 09:52 AM, said:

Clan peeps didn't get a buff this patch. They didn't get any changes at all.

The Cauldron is truly interested in balancing. They just don't agree with your assessment of the most fruitful way to balance the game. You know you can disagree back without insisting you understand their intentions better than they do.

They're not reverting clan peeps back to the way they were pre-March patch? Their intentions are to make most weapons stronger to the level of the few strong weapons.. that's their solution to balance. True we will see more variety of builds but at what cost?

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 07 April 2021 - 09:59 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Bad_Wolf, on 07 April 2021 - 07:39 AM, said:

Does the Cauldron have any planes for fraction warfare?

We have lots of ideas, but many of them require an engineer or an entire team of people to implement and as such aren't possible right now.

Some basics things I would like to see (that are possible now) are an increase to the tickets required to win in Conquest, equalising the tonnage between Clans and IS, and a review of the conflicts to ensure the down times that sometimes occur are removed.

A lot of people in The Cauldron play a ton of Faction Play (including myself) and we would be very happy to see work on the game mode.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

DAEDALOS513, on 07 April 2021 - 09:55 AM, said:

They're not reverting clan peeps back to the way they were pre-March patch? Their intentions are to make most weapons stronger to the level of the few strong weapons.. that's their solution to balance. True we will see more variety of builds but at what cost?

Wait you consider the March patch a nerf to clan PPCs? I thought we were all sorta pretending that patch didn't happen? Even these patch notes are based on pre-March numbers.

Good a question. At what cost. The cost to me seems to be a slightly lower TTK at the top end of play and a still mild but more significant reduction in TTK at the low end of play where TTK is already fairly high.

Is an increase in build variety and a spread of weapons that are now more satisfying to use worth such a reduction in TTK. Clearly your answer is no. For me the answer is yes. Faster matches and lower TTK are fine with me, believe me. Maybe some other players will have this rude awakening you speak of, but heck, I miss the time before when PGI did the global weapon cooldown nerf. I like a lower TTK. Not to say I'd like a super-low TTK, but my ideal TTK is still lower than what we have now.

That all said I'm willing to accept that a lower TTK is not what most people want, and good news! As the Cauldron has said, basically all of their changes henceforth will be about raising TTK. It's only because of PGI that we aren't getting some of those TTK raising changes in the same patch, but hey I guess with PGI you can only expect so much.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 07 April 2021 - 10:23 AM.

[Heavy Money]

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

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

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

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

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



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

Thanks for all your hard work Krasnopesky. What's the best way to talk to you guys about the Quirks pass? I've read the current proposal, but it really doesn't go far enough on many of the weaker mechs, like the Marauder II and Rifleman. I'd like to make suggestions, or better understand the current reasoning. I'm worried we'll get one quirk pass implemented, but then many of these mechs will still be left behind and another pass may not come for a long time (if at all.)

Edited by Heavy Money, 07 April 2021 - 10:48 AM.

[dario03]

DAEDALOS513, on 07 April 2021 - 09:55 AM, said:

...
They're not reverting clan peeps back to the way they were pre-March patch? Their intentions are to make most weapons stronger to the level of the few strong weapons.. that's their solution to balance. True we will see more variety of builds but at what cost?

cerppc is being reverted to pre-March patch. This is a nerf since on paper the March change was a buff in all but a few specific cases like if you got jumped by a close range mech right after shooting. However the unintended unlisted change that caused cerppc to have even more damage than listed more than makes up for that.

Heavy Money, on 07 April 2021 - 10:43 AM, said:

Thanks for all your hard work Krasnopesky. What's the best way to talk to you guys about the Quirks pass? I've read the current proposal, but it really doesn't go far enough on many of the weaker mechs, like the Marauder II and Rifleman. I'd like to make suggestions, or better understand the current reasoning. I'm worried we'll get one quirk pass implemented, but then many of these mechs will still be left behind and another pass may not come for a long time (if at all.)

Current quirk pass listed was made a long time ago and when the plan was for everything to happen at once. That will probably get updated once we see the effects of the weapon changes.

[Krasnopesky]

Heavy Money, on 07 April 2021 - 10:43 AM, said:

Thanks for all your hard work Krasnopesky. What's the best way to talk to you guys about the Quirks pass? I've read the current proposal, but it really doesn't go far enough on many of the weaker mechs, like the Marauder II and Rifleman. I'd like to make suggestions, or better understand the current reasoning. I'm worried we'll get one quirk pass implemented, but then many of these mechs will still be left behind and another pass may not come for a long time (if at all.)

Thanks!

Keep in mind the current proposal is very much a work in progress, many members of The Cauldron haven't fully looked into the details of that yet (as we split responsibilities and focuses depending on our experiences and skills). Also remember we very much intend to closely watch and test all the changes made to the game and of course evaluate the feedback. If it is evident that a change is not performing as intended, or there is a part missing we will be able to address those problems in the next month(s) after implementation.

This thread is a good place, as I and others are watching it regularly.

EDIT: We also now have a channel in the Official MW5/MWO discord: https://discord.gg/hUWc3fYDm9

Edited by Krasnopesky, 13 April 2021 - 04:56 PM.

[Aedryel]

It's just me probably, but I get the feeling the barrier between ATMs and LRMs is fading with each patch.
Thinking aside the similar trajectories and Artemis nerf and all these...

Normally, back in the day, if i wanted to shoot missiles far, I'd equip LRMs and if I wanted to hit like a truck under 300, I'd use ATMs.
Point is ATM is all about extremes. Designed for feast and famine by definition. Now, boosting dmg over 500m+ and nerfing under 270m flattens the peaks and valleys in it's dmg curve. More reliable? Yes. More mediocre? Also yes.
You're basically removing the unique traits of many weapons to make them converge towards some sort of generalized average dmg concept which MIGHT help to tip the scales to get closer to the median damage but also essentially terminating roles/playstyles by doing so. Not all by once, the process is as gradual as insidious.

LRMs, at least Clan ones got nerfed to the point they're outright useless if not boated in massive tube quantities, and I'm pretty damn sure the AMS/LAMS boost in terms of ammo and heat generation will compel people to equip them on more of their rigs, emphasising more the issue at hand. A marginal boost in missile HP wont do squat if everyone and their mother waltzes around in double-triple-quadruple AMS mechs which can sustain AMS fire for an extended period of time.
Now as I see and I could be very well a minority here,
ATM is essentially becoming what LRM used to be except it generates a fuckton of heat and has a lower ammo per ton ratio compared to LRMs. For reasons obvious, people shoot them sparingly, when it actually makes sense in the ammo/dmg PoV.
Increasing long range dmg is counter-productive in this regards, since you've ensured AMS will flood the scence so not many people will waste their expensive missiles knowing they will be vapourized if they have to travel a long distance.
First you outright crippled LRMs with the lock-time/target-cone/indirect lock nerf, now you're twisting ATMs to their more expensive substitute with a similar niche.
Do tell me what will be the distinction between them aside we'll get very similar dmg per ton, but half the missile count?

• Also HOW do you propose to breathe life into LRMs again? Would make more sense than ruining ATMs too.
• And also, if you cripple close-range dmg on ATMs you could might as well at least reduce their minimum range or remove it altogether, because guess what, MOST people don't and will not keep them for poking over 1100m. ATM rounds cost way too much for that.

I repeatedly get under the impression you feel obliged to fix what's not broken and leave broken stuff...well, broken.
I can be convinced otherwise, but losing a substantial portion of your playerbase already should be more than an indicative.

The changes regarding lasers will probably work out well.

[dario03]

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

It's just me probably, but I get the feeling the barrier between ATMs and LRMs is fading with each patch.
Thinking aside the similar trajectories and Artemis nerf and all these...

Normally, back in the day, if i wanted to shoot missiles far, I'd equip LRMs and if I wanted to hit like a truck under 300, I'd use ATMs.
Point is ATM is all about extremes. Designed for feast and famine by definition. Now, boosting dmg over 500m+ and nerfing under 270m flattens the peaks and valleys in it's dmg curve. More reliable? Yes. More mediocre? Also yes.
You're basically removing the unique traits of many weapons to make them converge towards some sort of generalized average dmg concept which MIGHT help to tip the scales to get closer to the median damage but also essentially terminating roles/playstyles by doing so. Not all by once, the process is as gradual as insidious.

LRMs, at least Clan ones got nerfed to the point they're outright useless if not boated in massive tube quantities, and I'm pretty damn sure the AMS/LAMS boost in terms of ammo and heat generation will compel people to equip them on more of their rigs, emphasising more the issue at hand. A marginal boost in missile HP wont do squat if everyone and their mother waltzes around in double-triple-quadruple AMS mechs which can sustain AMS fire for an extended period of time.
Now as I see and I could be very well a minority here,
ATM is essentially becoming what LRM used to be except it generates a fuckton of heat and has a lower ammo per ton ratio compared to LRMs. For reasons obvious, people shoot them sparingly, when it actually makes sense in the ammo/dmg PoV.
Increasing long range dmg is counter-productive in this regards, since you've ensured AMS will flood the scence so not many people will waste their expensive missiles knowing they will be vapourized if they have to travel a long distance.
First you outright crippled LRMs with the lock-time/target-cone/indirect lock nerf, now you're twisting ATMs to their more expensive substitute with a similar niche.
Do tell me what will be the distinction between them aside we'll get very similar dmg per ton, but half the missile count?

• Also HOW do you propose to breathe life into LRMs again? Would make more sense than ruining ATMs too.
• And also, if you cripple close-range dmg on ATMs you could might as well at least reduce their minimum range or remove it altogether, because guess what, MOST people don't and will not keep them for poking over 1100m. ATM rounds cost way too much for that.

I repeatedly get under the impression you feel obliged to fix what's not broken and leave broken stuff...well, broken.
I can be convinced otherwise, but losing a substantial portion of your playerbase already should be more than an indicative.

The changes regarding lasers will probably work out well.

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

[ShooterMcGavin80]

Krasnopesky, on 06 April 2021 - 08:16 PM, said:

I'm sorry, it really isn't debatable. Clan ERPPC are just flat out better than they ever have been.

In the current game they do 19.2 damage per shot (12 pinpoint plus 7.2 splash). This means they have better damage per heat, better sustained damage per second, better pinpoint damage, better splash damage, and better alpha (Firing 3 cERPPC). The only thing they don't have better is maximum DPS, but that has never mattered with cERPPC as you heatcap incredibly fast, well before max DPS even matters.

For example the 4 cERPPC Warhammer IIC you spoke about heatcaps before you can get your second 2+2 alpha out in the premarch patch, so it deals more damage for around 2 seconds in a push engagement. The entire rest of the time the current patch is better, even in the case of being pushed.

Pre-March Warhammer IIC (28 DHS): Shoots a 2+2 alpha for 60 damage, waits 5 seconds and shoots a second double cERPPC shot for 30 damage and then has to wait ~1 additional second to shoot the other double cERPPC shot (120 total damage). You are now heatcapped and the build with better sustained DPS wins out (current patch).

Current Warhammer IIC (28 DHS): Shoots a 2+2 alpha for 76.8 damage, waits 7 seconds and shoots another 2+2 alpha again, without even hitting max heatcap (153.6 total damage).

This means that in the one scenario you can find that the pre-March patch cERPPCs are better, they are only better for an entire 2 seconds. In literally all other scenarios and the times outside of 5-7 seconds into being pushed the current cERPPCs are better. This also presumes you are at 0 heat, which is not often the case (If you are higher than 0 heat it is even better for current patch cERPPCs).

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