704 replies to this topic

[DAEDALOS513]

Another heavy laser build but with ecm.. that will only get shnastier..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 08 April 2021 - 03:49 PM.

[Krasnopesky]

DAEDALOS513, on 08 April 2021 - 01:55 PM, said:

You're logic is flawed.. just because walk time is removed from the equation doesn't mean it's ok for a match to last under 3 minutes. If anything it better HIGHLIGHTS how strong weapons are.. open your eyes people.

By your logic walk time adds value to a match? If that's the case, why not make all maps the size of polar.. as long as TTK is increased right? Wrong..

If you remove walk time from the other maps and subtract say 1 minute from the average 4:30-5:30 minute game you're looking at 3:30-4:30 engagement time..

The map is small and the spawn points are visible to each other. That means the area of engagement is forced to be smaller compared to larger maps as there is less area Mechs can physically engage in. I didn't say anything about walk time being a factor, but having space available to move into obviously let's different engagements to occur.

The winning team was stacked with comp players (due to soup queue matchmaker) which ultimately was the main factor that caused the match to go quickly. Matchmaking is definitely an issue and it is something PGI needs to work on fixing.

Yes the winning team was running many cERPPC, which are currently very strong. These weapons will receive a nerf when April 20th patch is implemented. You could easily replace these weapons many other weapons and the results would have been the same.

[Martaloc]

DAEDALOS513, on 08 April 2021 - 03:47 PM, said:

Another heavy laser build but with ecm.. that will only get shnastier..

This is super, i like it . Whats wrong? Youre scared that you OP IS fanboy will be equal with the clans after 3 years IS domination? Bad joke that IS medium can equip 3 ERlargelaser with a couple mediumlaser and can shoot atleast 3 times before overheating with 16 doubleheatsinks . Plus you have on youre IS mechs always heat and laserduration quirks and better laserduration to, 15% IS vs clan 10% laserdurationnods. TTK will be somewhat equal among IS and clan mechs finaly.

[DAEDALOS513]

Krasnopesky, on 08 April 2021 - 03:50 PM, said:

The map is small and the spawn points are visible to each other. That means the area of engagement is forced to be smaller compared to larger maps as there is less area Mechs can physically engage in. I didn't say anything about walk time being a factor, but having space available to move into obviously let's different engagements to occur.

The winning team was stacked with comp players (due to soup queue matchmaker) which ultimately was the main factor that caused the match to go quickly. Matchmaking is definitely an issue and it is something PGI needs to work on fixing.

Yes the winning team was running many cERPPC, which are currently very strong. These weapons will receive a nerf when April 20th patch is implemented. You could easily replace these weapons many other weapons and the results would have been the same.

You did say teams see each other very quickly.. ie. you don't need to walk far to start engagement..

Anyway.. if you factor out walk-times on other maps.. it's pretty much same deal as far as match time.. most matches only use 3 or 4 grids of a map once engagement begins.. so map/terrain plays little part.

Not sure why they didn't hot fix clan peeps if it's just an spreadsheet change? Any insights?

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 08 April 2021 - 04:18 PM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Martaloc, on 08 April 2021 - 04:02 PM, said:

This is super, i like it . Whats wrong? Youre scared that you OP IS fanboy will be equal with the clans after 3 years IS domination? Bad joke that IS medium can equip 3 ERlargelaser with a couple mediumlaser and can shoot atleast 3 times before overheating with 16 doubleheatsinks . Plus you have on youre IS mechs always heat and laserduration quirks and better laserduration to, 15% IS vs clan 10% laserdurationnods. TTK will be somewhat equal among IS and clan mechs finaly.

Meh, you can't compare ERL's with HLL's.. totally different role.. better off comparing IS erl's with clan LPL's.. heavy lasers are a class all their own..

[Anomalocaris]

Navid A1, on 08 April 2021 - 08:27 AM, said:

And to re-iterate what Kras was saying, under-performing weapons have been brought up to a base-line level already established by 4-5 weapons in the game.

I don't agree with ol Daedaloss on just about anything in this game (we clash alot). And I like the general thrust behind the Cauldron changes.

But......

If we agree that Clan UAC5/10, IS MPL, CERPPC, etc. are the meta and what we want to balance to, what does that tell us about the Cauldron's views on lock-on weapons?

Look, I know how high level players view lock-on weapons. And I see the complaints from newbies about getting rained on by untouchable mechs far away. But I also know that amongst the general population lock-on weapons are a big part of being able to play this game.

And in this patch we see buffs to AMS, no changes to LRMs, a nerf to IS Streaks and a nerf to ATMs in the bracket where they are most effective (I think the net effect on CSSRM will be a nerf too, but it's close enough to wait and see).

So given that we are trying to buff underpowered weapons to be closer to the meta, can I assume that lock-ons are considered to be overpowered right now?

I'm not trying to rag on you guys. But your stated goals and the changes to lock-ons don't pass the smell test. Given the dependence many mid-level and lower level players have on lock-ons, it concerns me.

[Navid A1]

Anomalocaris, on 08 April 2021 - 07:37 PM, said:

I don't agree with ol Daedaloss on just about anything in this game (we clash alot). And I like the general thrust behind the Cauldron changes.

But......

If we agree that Clan UAC5/10, IS MPL, CERPPC, etc. are the meta and what we want to balance to, what does that tell us about the Cauldron's views on lock-on weapons?

Look, I know how high level players view lock-on weapons. And I see the complaints from newbies about getting rained on by untouchable mechs far away. But I also know that amongst the general population lock-on weapons are a big part of being able to play this game.

And in this patch we see buffs to AMS, no changes to LRMs, a nerf to IS Streaks and a nerf to ATMs in the bracket where they are most effective (I think the net effect on CSSRM will be a nerf too, but it's close enough to wait and see).

So given that we are trying to buff underpowered weapons to be closer to the meta, can I assume that lock-ons are considered to be overpowered right now?

I'm not trying to rag on you guys. But your stated goals and the changes to lock-ons don't pass the smell test. Given the dependence many mid-level and lower level players have on lock-ons, it concerns me.

Do you consider the lock-on weapons in the game weak at moment?

Most of the people working on these changes consider LRMs to be a really powerful, risk-free or effort-free damage farming option in the game. No change has been made to it so we can assess how they fair against a more level playing field. We might be making some tweaks to it next month though (that includes both buffs and nerfs)

The changes to ATMs actually makes them better and more consistent against AMS. The damage nerf was warranted since deleting assault mechs in one salvo using an auto-aim weapon that can be packed by medium mechs is not ok no matter how you look at it.

Changes to IS Streaks was to set them apart from regular SRMs in terms of dps. They will still be performing considerably better than clan streaks in terms of damage output

Clan streaks is a change that needs to be reviewed after the patch.

Edited by Navid A1, 09 April 2021 - 12:06 AM.

[Runecarver]

Navid A1, on 08 April 2021 - 11:56 PM, said:

Do you consider the lock-on weapons in the game weak at moment?

If the opposing team isn't deliberately letting them have a field day by forgoing any of the myriad counters against said weapon systems, yes. I would consider them weaker than other weapon systems in an environment where their counters are being properly utilized.

Navid A1, on 08 April 2021 - 11:56 PM, said:

Most of the people working on these changes consider LRMs to be a really powerful, risk-free or effort-free damage farming option in the game.

Playing them risk and effort free makes said weapons highly inefficient and only shunts the risk and effort onto teammates. Quite frankly with how long you have to stare at a target to obtain a lock and wait for the slow missiles to reach makes them require more effort than other long range weapons like ERPPCs or ERLLs. And the closer you get to reduce that time until impact, whether in an effort to compensate for opposing team AMS, ECM, radar deprivation or just abundance of cover the greater the risk and effort becomes. Hell for a supposed long range weapon system they require the largest amount of effort to actually deal damage, and that damage is highly spread and thus, like is constantly bemoaned about them, nothing more than damage score point harvesting.

Considering them to be completely risk and effort free is just ignorant of how the weapon system has been changed to function.

Navid A1, on 08 April 2021 - 11:56 PM, said:

The changes to ATMs actually makes them better and more consistent against AMS. The damage nerf was warranted since deleting assault mechs in one salvo using an auto-aim weapon that can be packed by medium mechs is not ok no matter how you look at it.

Riiight. So what about laser vomit, gauss vomit and close range MRM boating that can do that just about as efficiently as ATMs? Or perhaps ultra autocannon boating and LBX boating that can achieve similar time to kill? These weapons loadouts that concentrate their damage far better, will kill an opposing assault just as quickly, if not quicker because of the nore consistent damage per second and greater concentration from better ranges. ATMs front load their damage in that 120m-270m range bracket sure, but they do have their own drawbacks for such an advantage.

As for deleting an assault mech in one salvo, unless that assault mech was utilizing an inner sphere XL engine and managed to turn its side torso so as to absorb most of a 3x ATM12 or 4x ATM12 mechs volley, that one salvo destruction is not guaranteed to happen. Most commonly it takes a minimum 2 full volleys from 4x ATM12s to kill an opposing assault.

Edited by Runecarver, 09 April 2021 - 03:57 AM.

[Antares102]

DAEDALOS513, on 08 April 2021 - 01:32 PM, said:

Sorry but this build is utter nonsense. Why do I come to that conclusion? Because you a wasting a FRACKING 6.5 tons.
If you run a build with more than 0.5 tons going to waste you fundamentally didnt understand what min-maxing is.
Wasting 6.5tons.... Jesus... the audacity to even make a sreenshot of that.
Later you put the almost same build on a hellbringer which makes much more sense.
But with the hellbringer again instead of going through with it and make it 2x HLL and 4x HML you put a ERML on. Why not put a HML in one of the arms. Also you always remove more armour on the hellbringer on arms to squeeze in one more DHS or a TC1. Maybe something like this:
https://thecauldron....131d3_HBR-PRIME

And yes I've seen that you did 1300+ damage with that.
Was that an outlier or did you do 1000+ every 2nd game with that build?
Considering that none on the other team beat 500 damage I would say you got lucky with clubbing baby seals.

If you claim anything heavy laser related to be overpowered it should be this build:
https://thecauldron....7dc2508_MAD-IIC
Which will have a 75 Alpha@400m+ and not these heavy medium laser builds which have way too little range for proper poking. The MADIIC also has the better profile/hitboxes for staring at enemies during the HLL burn duration.

Edited by Antares102, 09 April 2021 - 05:10 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 08 April 2021 - 11:56 PM, said:

Most of the people working on these changes consider LRMs to be a really powerful, risk-free or effort-free damage farming option in the game. No change has been made to it so we can assess how they fair against a more level playing field. We might be making some tweaks to it next month though (that includes both buffs and nerfs)

I honestly see LRMs at their most balanced right now due to the DF angle.

But if anything, I think IDF should only be reserved to targets with the NARC or TAG effect. That "Free-Damage" due to IDF would always feel cheap, low effort, and undeserving, and a massive limiting factor.

[Sixpack]

Gonna look at these changes and voice my opinions on these.

Quote

R Micro Laser (Clan):
Heat penalty is removed

Seems mostly fine as you need enough hardpoints to boat this in the first place. Even so it might be necessary to keep an eye on the mechs that can. So PIR 2 from the top of my head.

Quote

Micro Pulse Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 3 (from 2.7)
Range increased to 130m (from 90)
Heat penalty is removed

Same as above, change looks fine.

Quote

Small Laser (IS):
Damage increased to 3.75 (from 3.25)
Range increased to 160m (from 150m)

Notes: Small Lasers are in a decent spot at the moment, but are lacking some damage and range, especially when compared to their Clan counterparts.


ER Small Laser (IS):
Damage increased to 3.75 (from 3.25)
Cooldown decreased to 2.65 (from 2.75)

Notes: To promote weapon synergy, the cooldown has been reduced by 0.1 seconds to sync with Medium Pulse Lasers which are a common pairing. In accordance with other changes to the ER Small Laser, damage has been increased in order to remain consistent with the rest of the line up.


Small Pulse Laser (IS):
Damage increased to 4 (from 3.5)
Heat increased to 1.55 (from 1.35)
Cooldown increased to 2.1 (from 1.9)
Range increased to 135m (from 110)

Notes: SPLs were traditionally a primary weapon system for lighter ‘Mechs but have since fallen out of favour. Considering the viability of Medium Lasers as a whole for the same tonnage, SPLs should also have a place as a viable primary weapon in closer quarters.

Mostly fine with the changes but would say the range increase on the SL and SPL was unecessary and I noticed no comments in regards to damage fall of range here as well as with the IS SPL.

Quote

Heavy Small Laser (Clan):
Laser duration decreased to 1.1 (from 1.2)
Range increased to 130m (from 115)

Notes: Heavy Small Lasers are decent at the moment, but lack range compared to their primary competition: C-ERSLs. Their increased duration for increased damage is an acceptable trade off.


ER Small Laser (Clan):
Heat decreased to 3 (from 3.5)
Laser duration decreased to 1.0 (from 1.1)

Notes: C-ERSLs are in a good place at the moment. However, they typically fulfill a ‘backup’ weapon role to C-SPLs. With this in mind, heat generation has been toned down a bit. Also, considering its range bracket, beam duration has been reduced for better focus damage output in fast-paced close quarter fights.


Small Pulse Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 5 (from 4)
Range decreased to 160m (from 165)
Cooldown increased to 2.4 (from 1.9)
Max range increased to 320m (from 297)

Notes: Just like the IS SPL, C-SPLs went from acting as a viable primary weapon system to one of defunct status. Considering C-ERMLs are the same tonnage, C-SPLs should be placed in a niche role, too. The biggest hit to the C-SPL was their damage reduction, along with their cooldown and heat decreasing. However, as we saw with live gameplay this turned them to redundancy. It has reduced the viability of the weapon system as a whole. In addition, the damage fall-off curve has been adjusted to be consistent with other laser weaponry, making it more useful at the upper end of its range bracket.

Don't see a need for range increase on HSL but trying to bring the SPL for clan back in to viability is a nice touch. Though I am going to have some words in regards to pulse lasers when we come to the Clan medium ones.

Quote

Medium Laser (IS):
Heat decreased to 3.25 (from 3.4)
Cooldown decreased to 3.2 (from 3.5)


ER Medium Laser (IS):
Heat decreased to 4 (from 4.5)
Cooldown decreased to 3.75 (from 4)

Notes: Compared to IS MLs, ERMLs are too hot despite not having a substantial range increase over them. This change makes them much more viable on Light ‘Mechs in particular.

I do welcome those changes but the reasoning sounds like ******** to me. There is nearly a 100 meter range difference between Medium and ER Medium for the IS lasers giving you more flexibility in chosing your attack position, and this is before any range quirks get involved.

This is a straight up DPS increase for the medium lasers. So it will be viewed as less effective as a hit and run weapon for lights and become better for mechs that stick it out some more like assaults and heavys.

Quote

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

Notes: HMLs are intended as a primarily alpha-focused, rather than DPS, weapon. These adjustments hope to rectify the excessive cooldown and duration that preclude its usefulness.


ER Medium Laser (Clan):
Heat decreased to 5.5 (from 6.3)
Cooldown decreased to 4.0 (from 4.5)
Laser duration decreased to 1.15 (from 1.25)

Notes: C-ERMLs have been modified to make them more accessible to light ‘Mechs. Currently, they are very hot when used on most Clan light ‘Mechs and many mediums which positions them at a disadvantage compared to their IS counterparts. These changes will also assist Laser-based heavies and assaults compete with the current ballistic boats that dominate the meta at mid-range.

I find the changes to the HML interesting as they will likely increase the viability especially for lighter mechs.

It is also nice to see the ER Mediums becoming better overall as they did have quite a bit of a viability issue and was one of the reasons so many clan mechs started using Pulse lasers instead to be able to actually bring the damage on target.

Quote

Medium Pulse Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 7 (from 6.5)
Heat decreased to 4.5 (from 4.75)
Laser duration decreased to 0.8 (from 0.9)
Range decreased to 270m (from 330)
Max range increased to 540m (from 480)

Notes: The biggest outlier with C-MPL is the sharp damage falloff between their high optimal range and short maximum range. To restore C-MPLs to a state of viability and address the steep damage falloff, a decrease to their optimal range has been applied while extending their maximum range. which was what caused their range falloff to begin with. Slight heat, damage, and laser duration buffs make them competitive options to both IS-MPLs and C-ERMLs.

The max range decrease was always due to them being a pretty viable weapon and coming to the forefront with heavy nerfs to the C ERML. Despite the damage reduction and max range reduction they were still perfectly viable. Thanks to range quirks I can already boost ISMPL ranges to 280-290 without issue with better heat, duration and only 1 point less damage (so the issue there is more how many MPL you can get on the mech than anything else).

The range reduction of CMPL is too much here and the improvement in the other aspects is not good enough to counterbalance this the way I see it.

Before you did 6.5 dmg at 330 meters (+ range skill), now you would do 6.5 damage at 289,13 meters (+ range skill). A clear downgrade.

Going to suggest to remove the duration and heat buffs, keep increase damage to 7 and set base range to 300 meters instead which would give you the base 6.5 damage at 321,5 meters.

Quote

Large Laser (IS):
Cooldown increased to 3.5 (from 3.1)
Heat decreased to 6.7 (from 7.0)
Laser duration decreased to 1.0 (from 1.1)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 5 (from 4) – Fire 4 with no penalty

Notes: Currently, IS-LLs have little advantage over their IS-ERLL counterparts. Being able to fire 4 without ghost heat will act as a tradeoff to their ERLL counterpart, while also setting them apart from PPC based weapons. With this ghost heat change, you will now have to make a choice between a higher alpha (by firing 4) and slight duration buff versus more range, as opposed to simply more range.


ER Large Laser (IS):
Heat decreased to 8 (from 8.75)
Cooldown increased to 4.0 (from 3.4)
Range increased to 700m (from 675)

Notes: In the context of the IS-LL changes, it makes sense for IS-ERLLs to have a slight heat reduction since they have a less effective alpha when boated. A cooldown nerf and a range buff ensure that they are made further unique from IS-LLs.

Large Pulse Laser (IS):
Damage increased to 11 (from 10)
Heat decreased to 7 (from 7.25)
Laser duration increased to 0.75 (from 0.67)
Range increased to 400m (from 365)

Notes: Currently, IS-LPLs are not worth the extra tonnage investment over their LL counterparts, especially with LL ghost heat going to 4. Having what will be a substantial damage increase, as well as a slight heat decrease and a noticeable range increase will allow the weapon to compete closely with the IS-LL family. A slight laser duration increase is a fair trade-off for these buffs.

The idea of increasing the Ghost Heat cap in LLs is nice, the other changes makes it harder to have the laser boat setup of 3 larges and a bunch of mediums. So not a big fan of that.

770 meter base range IS ER large lasers where you can fire 3 for 27 dmg vs 2 CERLL that do 22 dmg at 770 meters. All before the skill tree.
I don't think you thought this through. +10% Energy range is a thing.

The LPL changes look fine when taken in to context. Though I would prefer them at 10 damage.

Quote

Heavy Large Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 18 (from 16)
Cooldown decreased to 5.5 (from 5.75)
Laser duration decreased to 1.45 (from 1.55)

Notes: HLLs currently come at a considerable cost to what they offer; increased laser duration, significantly longer cooldown, costing 3 slots rather than 1, and having significantly less range. These factors make them inferior to their laser counterparts. Addressing each of these elements for the better will help position them back as a viable choice.


ER Large Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 11 (from 10.75)
Heat decreased to 10 (from 11.8)
Cooldown increased to 4.5 (from 4)
Range increased to 770m (from 740m)

Notes: as one of the only extreme range sniper options available to clans, C-ERLLs performance falls short when compared to C-ERPPCs and/or inner sphere ERLL, both in terms of upfront damage and the amount of heat output per inflicted damage. To address this, C-ERLLs have received a boost to its damage and a reduction to its generated heat. In return the weapon cooldown and range have been slightly increased.


Large Pulse Laser (Clan):
Damage increased to 13 (from 12)
Heat decreased to 9.0 (from 10)
Laser duration decreased to 1.0 (from 1.09)
Range decreased to 550m (from 600)
Max range increased to 1100m (from 840)
Heat penalty multiplier decreased to x3 (from x4) – Less heat penalty.

Notes: Currently, C-LPLs try to compete with C-ERPPCs and fall considerably short. A slight damage buff, heat buff, and less penalizing ghost heat will ensure the weapon is unique to the C-ERPPC. A slight optimal range nerf acts as a trade-off to having its full 2x damage falloff at maximum range restored.

The HLL changes are interesting as it is pretty much just a reversal of the nerfs it had gotten and it will still be a weapon where you need to be carefull with to use it and HMLs if you don't want to cook yourself. So I am ok with that.

Clan ERLL changes are nice but not enough. In regards to IS ERLL it would require more improvements to be viable in my opinion. Could probably start with Ghost heat cap of 3 to give it a clear damage differential over ERLL spam.

For the CLPL I think the changes to make it more brawlier are nice, expect for the damage increase. And realy the damage increase is simply due to the IS LPL getting it.

Quote

Light PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 4.5 (from 5.0)
Cooldown decreased to 3.0 (from 4)
Velocity increased to 1400 m/s (from 1200)
Minimum range removed.

Notes: Light PPCs are currently a lower tonnage, but higher slot and hardpoint count alternative to IS-PPCs. The goal is to make them a more diverse weapon system worth taking through their own right, or used among light ‘Mechs. Thus a substantial improvement to their DPS has been applied to situate them as backup weapons along with removal of their minimum range. This will provide a very distinct role for them compared to IS-PPCs. A slight velocity buff ensures they are still unique from autocannons.


PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 9.0 (from 9.5)
Velocity increased to 1400 m/s (from 1200)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 4 (from 3) – Fire 3 with no penalty.

Notes: IS PPCs are currently passable but lack uniqueness. We decided to address this by allowing the firing of 3 without ghost heat. This means that they compete with HPPCs and C-ERPPCs by matching their damage outputs - assuming hardpoints and slots availability. PPCs will be worth deploying with three or more to compete with their HPPC cousins. A slight heat buff and velocity boost ensures they stay in-line with other members of the PPC family.


Snub Nose PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 7.0 (from 10)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 4 (from 3) – Fire 3 with no penalty

Notes: Snub Nose PPCs are receiving a large buff as they currently do not effectively fulfill their role as short-ranged brawling weapons. Allowing them to alpha 3 at no penalty will help ensure they are more viable as primary weapons, while a large heat buff will ensure higher use as backup weapons. These changes will distinguish them from their closest competition: the IS-LPL, and the IS-PPC.


Heavy PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 13 (from 14.5)
Velocity increased to 1400 m/s (from 1200)

Notes: Heavy PPCs are currently performing well. They are receiving a heat decrease and velocity increase to make them more usable on ‘Mechs without quirks. Current ‘Mechs with significant PPC quirks will be looked at in a future patch.


ER PPC (IS):
Heat decreased to 12 (from 13.5)
Heat penalty multiplier decreased to x4 (from x7) – Less heat penalty

Notes: IS-ERPPCs are on the cusp of greatness, particularly on ‘Mechs quirked for PPCs. However, they are in direct competition with C-ERPPC ‘Mechs. A sizable heat buff and less penalizing heat penalties when dipping into ghost heat will give them a solid niche over C-ERPPCs especially given their high velocity over that weapon system. Giving them less penalizing heat penalties compared to their Clan counterparts will make shooting 3 IS-ERPPCs a more viable option on larger ‘Mechs with many heatsinks.

The major issue I have with a lot of these changes is that they are built on 30 pin point damage while talking about the CERPPC as if it was a 30 pin point damage weapon. It is not.
So a lot of these changes are built on ******** as far as I am concerned.

So they get a big fat no from me.


BALLISTIC WEAPONS OVERVIEW
CHANGELOG (Previous Values are based on Pre-March Patch Values):

Quote

AC5 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 1.1 (from 1.4) (IS Only)
Heat decreased to 1.25 (from 1.4) (Clan Only)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 5 (from 4) – Fire 4 with no penalty. (Clan Only)
Velocity increased to 1500 m/s (from 1300)
Burst shells decreased to 1 (from 2) (Clan only) --ammo per ton adjusted

Notes: To incentivize AC5s and promote their usage with other complementary weapons, they have gone through an overall heat reduction for both Inner Sphere and Clan variants as well as increased heat penalty limit for the Clan variant. Furthermore, in comparison to the more common UAC5 variants, AC5s have been given a higher projectile velocity to make them more reliable in inflicting their intended damage. Also, Clan AC5s will fire a single shell after the patch to differentiate it from its smaller, more favorable and higher dps UAC5 counterpart.


AC10 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 2.5 (from 2.75) (IS Only)
Velocity increased to 1300 m/s (from 1100)
Burst shells decreased to 2 (from 3) (Clan only) --ammo per ton adjusted

Notes: To incentivize the usage of AC10s and differentiating them from the more commonly used UAC10 variants, AC10s have been given a higher projectile velocity to make them more reliable in inflicting their intended damage near their optimum range. Furthermore, an overall heat reduction has been applied to AC10 to incentivize their usage with other complementary weapons systems. Also, Clan AC10s will fire two shells after the patch to differentiate it from its smaller, more favorable and higher dps UAC10 counterpart.


AC20 (Clan and IS):
Heat reduced to 5 (from 6)
Velocity increased to 900 m/s (from 650)
Burst shells decreased to 3 (from 4) (Clan only) --ammo per ton adjusted
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 3 (from 2) – Fire 2 with no penalty. (Clan Only)

Notes: One of the most noticeable drawbacks of AC/20s in the current state of the game is their slow projectile velocity when fighting targets near the optimal range, often resulting in more missed shots that cost precious ammo and cooldown time. Also, a high heat value for this weapon limits its application further when considering back-up weapons and additional heat sink slot costs. In the case of Clan AC20s, the above mentioned shortcomings are made worse considering the burst fire operation. In this patch AC20s have received a significant boost to their velocity as well as reduced heat. Clan AC20 in particular has received a reduction in number of shells per burst and an increased heat penalty limit in order to incentivize its use.

Changes are pretty much meh across the board. I am expecting to see more light sniping with IS AC 20s though.

Quote

Ultra AC2 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 0.7 (from 0.8)
Jam chance decreased to 14% (from 15%) (IS Only)
Jam duration decreased to 2.5 (from 3.5) (IS Only)
Jam chance decreased to 16% (from 17%) (Clan Only)
Jam duration decreased to 2.75 (from 3.75) (Clan Only)

Notes: UAC2s are often a less preferable choice compared to standard AC2s, due to their inconsistent damage output, and high heat per damage. In this patch UAC2s have received a lower heat generation stats, along with lower jam chance and jam duration to improve upon the above-mentioned shortcomings.


Ultra AC20 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 6 (from 7)
Velocity increased to 800 m/s (from 700)
Jam duration decreased to 6 (from 7.5) (IS Only)
Jam duration decreased to 6.5 (from 8) (Clan Only)

Notes: Despite their significant damage output potential, UAC20s currently suffer from high generated heat, low velocity, and unreliable operation considering the engagement range, which prevents them from being used as main guns in short range fights against other weapons in a similar range bracket. In this patch UAC20s have received velocity boosts, lower jam times, as well as lower heat in order to improve its performance vs tonnage investment.

Yeah, would deffinetly use them over the base variants, at least for clans. IS you still got to decide between pin point damage or just pure burst potential.

Quote

LBX AC2 (Clan and IS):
Spread decreased to 0.25 (from 0.325)
Weapon slot size decreased to 3 (from 4)

Notes: One of main disadvantages of LB 2-X ACs is their large spread around their optimal range, particularly when compared to regular AC/2s. To address this shortcoming directly, the spread value has been reduced. In addition to this a decision has been made to reduce the slot size requirement for the LB2X by 1 based on community feedback and the large disparity when compared to the much more reliable AC2.


LBX AC5 (Clan and IS):
Spread decreased to 0.4 (from 0.62)

Notes: One of main disadvantages of LB 5-X ACs is their large spread around their optimal range, particularly when compared to regular AC/5s. To address this shortcoming directly, the spread value has been reduced.


LBX AC20 (Clan and IS):
Heat decreased to 4.0 (from 5) (IS Only)
Heat decreased to 4.0 (from 6) (Clan Only)

Notes: In accordance to heat adjustments to the rest of the AC20 class lineup, LBX-20AC has received lower heat to maintain its high damage - low heat advantage.

Going to say no to the spread decreases, just going to make it easier to snipe lights.

Quote

Rotary AC2 (IS):
Impulse (cockpit shake) decreased to 0.03 (from 0.04)


Rotary AC5 (IS):
Heat decreased to 3.25/s (from 4/s)
Velocity increased to 1300 m/s (from 1025)
Spread decreased to 0.19 (from 0.23)
Jam ramp-up time increased to 8.0 (from 6.0)
Impulse (cockpit shake) decreased to 0.03 (from 0.04)

Notes: Despite having higher damage output potential compared to RAC/2s , the heavier and bulkier RAC/5 effectiveness is hindered by its wider spread, slower velocity, significant heat generation, and shorter jam bar fill rate. In this patch it has received boosts in all those areas to incentivize its usage over the longer-range and lighter RAC/2 variant. In addition to improvements, the inflicted cockpit shake on target has been reduced for both RAC/2 and RAC/5.

I will just say that considering the pure cockpit blind a rac can do that that should get removed first and we can start talking about changes after that.

Quote

Light Gauss Rifle (IS):
Damage increased to 10 (from 8)
Ammo per ton decreased to 20 (from 25)
Cooldown increased to 3.5 (from 2.6)
Velocity increased to 2200 m/s (from 2000)
Range increased to 880m (from 750)
Max range increased to 2200m (from 1500)
Heat penalty is removed.

Notes: Considering its heavy weight and slot requirements Light Gauss Rifles is in constant competition with other similarly sized ballistic weapons such as AC5s and AC10s. Lack of up from damage and low dps, has put this weapon at a significant disadvantage. The performance gap becomes wider due to them being linked in heat penalty with weapons of similar properties such as the PPC family. To address such shortcomings, Light Gauss Rifles have received a boost in upfront damage and optimal range as well as a significant increase in max range to give it a unique role as an extreme range sniper. The weapon has also been unlinked from the heaty penalty system, allowing it to pair well with other complimentary sniper weapons. The weapon cooldown, velocity and ammo count has been adjusted accordingly along the above mentioned changes.


Gauss Rifle (IS):
Weapon Health increased to 12 (from 10)
Cooldown decreased to 4.75 (from 5.0)
Ammo per ton increased to 12 (from 10)
Velocity increased to 2200 m/s (from 2000)
Range increased to 810m (from 660)
Max range increased to 2050m (from 1320)

Notes: As a heavier, and larger version of the Light Gauss Rifle, Standard Gauss Rifles has gone through a similar set of changes to boost their role as main sniper weapons. As a result, optimal and max range has been increased as well as the weapon velocity. Also, due to their explosive nature when destroyed, Gauss Rifles have been made sturdier to make them more reliable. Moreover, Inner Sphere Gauss Rifle has received another set of boosts to its cooldown and ammo per ton values to compensate for its heavier weight and larger size compared to the clan counterpart.

Yes to the light Gaus, no to the Gaus. That is just increasing old Gaus/ER PPC meta to come back.

Quote

Heavy Gauss Rifle (IS):
Weapon Health increased to 20 (from 15)

Notes: Given their massive slot and tonnage costs, and considering their normal engagement range, Heavy Gauss Rifles have received a health boost to make them more reliable.

Fair enough.

Quote

Gauss Rifle (Clan):
Weapon Health increased to 12 (from 5)
Velocity increased to 2200 m/s (from 2000)
Range increased to 810m (from 660)
Max range increased to 2050m (from 1320)

Notes: Clan Gauss Rifle has gone through the same range increase as inner sphere Gauss Rifle in order to turn them into viable sniper weapons. Also, Clan Gauss Rifle has received a significant boost to its health to make it more reliable considering its 100% chance of exploding when destroyed.

Yes to health increase, but less than IS Gaus. No to everything else. Also PPC/Gaus meta.

Quote

Light Machine Gun (Clan and IS):
Spread decreased to 0.3 (from 0.5) (IS Only)
Ammo per ton increased to 3600 (from 2500) (IS Only)
Spread decreased to 0.4 (from 0.7) (Clan Only)
Ammo per ton increased to 3200 (from 2500) (Clan Only)

Notes: Currently, at the same tonnage cost as the standard Machine Guns, Light Machine Guns are usually at a disadvantage due to their low damage output, and wider spread near their optimal range. In the meantime their current ammo per ton stats puts them at a tough competition against Machine Guns. In this patch they have received significant boosts to their spread and ammo bin capacity to help them perform better against its direct competition.


Machine Gun (IS):
Ammo per ton increased to 2300 (from 2000)

Notes: To compensate the heavier tonnage cost of the Inner Sphere Machine Guns, they have received an increased ammo per ton adjustment.


Heavy Machine Gun (Clan and IS):
Range increased to 130 (from 100) (IS Only)
Ammo per ton increased to 1800 (from 1250) (IS Only)
Ammo per ton increased to 1600 (from 1250) (Clan Only)

Notes: Currently Heavy Machine Guns are in direct competition with standard machine guns due to their heavier weight. On the other hand, low amounts of ammo per ton further hinders their performance. In order to incentivize their usage they are given an increased amount of ammo per ton to help better sustain them. In addition, the inner sphere HMG range has been boosted to match standard machine guns as a means to justify it’s significant tonnage cost versus other strong short-range 1-ton contenders.

Yes to everything that is not the IS heavy mg range increase. Would have to look it up but the HMGs are far better at critting stuff once armor is gone than the other MGs so will melt threw structure.


MISSILE WEAPONS OVERVIEW


CHANGELOG (Previous Values are based on Pre-March Patch Values):

Quote

SRM2 (Clan and IS):
Missile Health increased to 1.4 (from 1.0)


SRM4 (Clan and IS):
Missile Health increased to 1.2 (from 0.8)
Spread decreased to 3.75 (from 4) (IS Only)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 6 (from 5) – Fire 5 with no penalty. (IS Only)
Spread decreased to 4.25 (from 4.5) (Clan Only)


SRM6 (Clan and IS):
Missile Health increased to 1.0 (from 0.6)
Spread decreased to 4.25 (from 4.5) (IS Only)
Spread decreased to 4.5 (from 5) (Clan Only)

Ehhh, I would say the health increases are fine, not so confident on the spread changes but would be willing to try them out for the time being.

Quote

Streak SRM2 (Clan):
Damage decreased to 1.5 per missile (from 2)
Heat decreased to 1.3 per missile (from 1.6)
Cooldown decreased to 2 (from 3)
Ammo per ton increased to 140 (from 120)


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


Streak SRM4 (Clan):
Damage decreased to 1.5 per missile (from 2)
Heat decreased to 2.4 per missile (from 3.0)
Cooldown decreased to 3 (from 4.5)
Ammo per ton increased to 140 (from 120)


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


Streak SRM6 (Clan):
Damage decreased to 1.5 per missile (from 2)
Heat decreased to 3.1 per missile (from 3.75)
Cooldown decreased to 4 (from 6)
Ammo per ton increased to 140 (from 120)

I am going to come out and say no to Clan Streak changes.

1. The damage per ton goes down from 240 to 210.
2. DPS increase goes hand in hand with heat generation increase (the reduction in heat per shot does not counterbalance the heat per second if you use them as they are supposed to with these changes)
3. No change to spread pattern of streaks.

Before these changes clan Streaks had a clear profile of support weapon and good light hunter when boated (and said light did not have stealth armor).
These changes are simply a straight up nerf all around for clan streaks making them overall worse.

Quote

MRM10 (IS):
Volley delay decreased to 0.0128 (from 0.0556)
Spread decreased to 4.1 (from 4.3)
Missile Health increased to 0.7 (from 0.6)


MRM20 (IS):
Volley delay decreased to 0.0128 (from 0.0263)
Missile Health increased to 0.6 (from 0.5)


MRM30 (IS):
Volley delay decreased to 0.0128 (from 0.0172)
Missile Health increased to 0.5 (from 0.4)


MRM40 (IS):
Cooldown decreased to 4.5 (from 4.75)
Missile Health increased to 0.4 (from 0.3)

These changes look good.

Quote

ATM3 (Clan):
Missile Health increased to 1.8 (from 1.6)
Long range damage increased to 1.6 per missile (from 1.2)
Short range damage decreased to 2.5 per missile (from 3.0)
Minimum heat penalty level increased to 7 (from 5) – Fire 6 with no penalty.


ATM6 (Clan):
Missile Health increased to 1.6 (from 1.4)
Long range damage increased to 1.6 per missile (from 1.2)
Short range damage decreased to 2.5 per missile (from 3.0)


ATM9 (Clan):
Missile Health increased to 1.4 (from 1.1)
Long range damage increased to 1.6 per missile (from 1.2)
Short range damage decreased to 2.5 per missile (from 3.0)


ATM12 (Clan):
Missile Health increased to 1.2 (from 1.0)
Long range damage increased to 1.6 per missile (from 1.2)
Short range damage decreased to 2.5 per missile (from 3.0)

While I understand the reasoning I am not fully in support of them. They are missing the ammo per ton changes to keep the total damage you can do per ton at the same level and with the reduced overall lethalness the minimum range should also be brought back down to 90 meters to give the player more room to manouver and fight with. Min range was specifically increased due to 3 damage per missile potential. This is now gone.

Quote

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)

I am ok with these changes. Though maybe put IS Narc at 550 instead.


Now overall I am against these changes.

What they will do is overall increase the gap between skilled and unskilled players and generally decrease TTK across the board.
Increasing agility will not increase TTK with people simply staring at you, making light mechs smaller across the board will also not increase TTK when people can hit Fleas well enough (well, those that can aim)

Thus this change is overall going to be a bad one (with some good elements in them) and simply make the game less enjoyable for less skilled players.

There are parts of these changes I am willing to support (like MASC/AMS/Medium/Small laser changes) bu a lot of these changes just are not realy there yet for me (missiles especially) and would need some rethinking in my opinion.

Edited by Sixpack, 09 April 2021 - 04:04 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Sixpack, on 09 April 2021 - 04:01 AM, said:

Now overall I am against these changes.

What they will do is overall increase the gap between skilled and unskilled players and generally decrease TTK across the board.
Increasing agility will not increase TTK with people simply staring at you, making light mechs smaller across the board will also not increase TTK when people can hit Fleas well enough (well, those that can aim)

Thus this change is overall going to be a bad one (with some good elements in them) and simply make the game less enjoyable for less skilled players.

There are parts of these changes I am willing to support (like MASC/AMS/Medium/Small laser changes) bu a lot of these changes just are not realy there yet for me (missiles especially) and would need some rethinking in my opinion.

Thanks for the detailed feedback.

Lots there, but I will just respond specifically on a few aspects (I have read your entire post and added the feedback to the feedback compendium I am collating).

Clan Medium Pulse Lasers
Clan MPLs have received a buff (in the Cauldron's opinion) and a rebalance towards a shorter ranged skirmishing role. Here is a chart of their damage comparison to now and post April 20 patch:



As you can see there is a range bracket between just under 300m to about 390m where they do less damage than the current cMPL. They will however perform much better outside those brackets, particularly under 290m. This change was on purpose to define them a bit better as a pulse weapon and allow them to compete with IS MPL. The changes to heat and duration help in this regard and also mean they are not just completely nerfed inside the aforementioned range bracket. If they prove to be nerfed or not performing as intended, we can always increase the optimum range as you suggest.

IS PPC Family
We are aware that Clan ERPPC do 10 pinpoint with splash damage as the remainder, we are not balancing around them doing more pinpoint than that. Perhaps we could rewrite the explanation to make that more clear. Clan ERPPC are currently the very top of the meta at this point in time, so buffing the IS PPCs to higher levels is attempting to level the playing field rather than invalidating cERPPC.

In regards to internal balance, currently IS PPC family are either horribly underpowered and underused (LPPC, SNPPC, PPC) or only used well on Mechs with very large offensive quirks (ERPPC, HPPC). We are looking to improve the usability of IS PPC family so the underused weapons have a place and ERPPCs/HPPCs can be better used on Mechs without relying on big quirks.

IS ERLL / 10% range quirk
I have put these together as they are very much connected as you describe. The 10% range quirk which is a very important factor in IS ERLL extreme range traders has an issue: It means that so many other Mechs are invalidated in this role due to not having the quirk. The quirk itself is something The Cauldron wanted to address, as we think that is the root of the problem, rather than the weapon itself.

An early concept for this is to reduce the typical 10% range quirk to 5%, what are your thoughts on this?

TTK / Quirk Pass / Rescale / 'Unskilled' Players
With these changes we wanted to do a quirk pass, which heavily involved increasing the defensive quirks of underused and often fragile Mechs, alongside with reducing the offensive quirks of a few key 'overquirked' Mechs. Should the weapon pass continue to receive a lot of positive feedback (as it has currently), PGI will let us move forward with this.

The Quirk Pass will do two things that both help the enjoyment of unskilled and skill players alike: Improve the viability of many underused, nonviable Mechs, and increase TTK for everyone.

There are no plans for making Light Mechs smaller across the board, the 20 and 25 tonners in particular are changing very little. 35 tonners are currently oversized, particularly Mechs like the Jenners, and they will receive a reduction. Many other larger Mechs in other weight classes are intended to be reduced in size which will definitely help some of them become more viable and increase TTK too.

The combination of planned changes (That we initially wanted to implement together in one PTS) will overall increase TTK for new and old players alike. The Rescale, Quirk Pass, and Mobility Pass all combine in this regard. PGI have directed us towards balancing weapons first, so that is what we have done. We have kept these other intended changes in mind of course, but also ensured should they not happen that the Weapon Pass itself will result in more viable weapon options for people of all skill levels and be balanced on its own accord.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 09 April 2021 - 05:35 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

Navid A1, on 08 April 2021 - 11:56 PM, said:

Do you consider the lock-on weapons in the game weak at moment?

Most of the people working on these changes consider LRMs to be a really powerful, risk-free or effort-free damage farming option in the game. No change has been made to it so we can assess how they fair against a more level playing field. We might be making some tweaks to it next month though (that includes both buffs and nerfs)

The changes to ATMs actually makes them better and more consistent against AMS. The damage nerf was warranted since deleting assault mechs in one salvo using an auto-aim weapon that can be packed by medium mechs is not ok no matter how you look at it.

Changes to IS Streaks was to set them apart from regular SRMs in terms of dps. They will still be performing considerably better than clan streaks in terms of damage output

Clan streaks is a change that needs to be reviewed after the patch.

I didn't say lock-on weapons were weak, as you're well aware. I said that based upon the changes they must be overperforming relative to the top-5 meta weapons that the Cauldron has said we should balance to (and to be clear, I agree on those top-5 weapons and the idea of balancing to them rather than nerfing them).

And you've given your answer which, tbh, really didn't explain the discrepancy between the Cauldron's stated purpose of bringing more weapons up closer to meta standards, and the reality of the changes to lock-ons.

Nerfing IS streaks is still nerfing regardless of how they perform relative to Clan streaks. I mean really, Clan streaks aren't the weapon we should be comparing them to. And differentiating them from SRMs in terms of DPS? They already were heavier, had more spread, were unable to target components and had much slower missile velocity and 7% less dmg (and won't even fire without a lock).

Rather we should be comparing them to the meta. How do they stack up against IS-MPLs for example? 4xSSRM6 and 4 tons of ammo vs. 6xMPL and 8 additional heatsinks. Except for a light hunting role would you ever choose the former over the latter if you were looking to win and contribute your maximum? I'm not saying streaks needed any sort of significant buff. Missile health would've been the only thing I changed. But a straight up nerf just doesn't fit with your own stated agenda.

The last is key here. I'm not trying to hold you to some personal standard of mine - I'm holding you to your own, because all those mech-dads and avg players are going to do the same and the Cauldron is our best chance to actually get **** done properly in this game. If we get a rebellion from a significant part of the player base and you can't point to a coherent rationale for your decisions, then someone like Chris is going to step in and **** things up again.

Note I've only addressed IS streaks in this response. I did so because they are arguably the weakest lock-on weapon and they got nerfed - thus making them the best example for pointing out the consistency issues here. I still have issues with ATM and Clan streak changes too (For ATMs, slow down reload, boost heat/GH, whatever, but don't kill their unique flavor). And I'd really advise you guys to be looking carefully at how you represent to the general populace. When I see language like "risk free, effort free" from top players I can just imagine how a Tier3 or lower is going to view that if the lock-on weapons they play are now less effective after a patch that wasn't supposed to be nerfing anything.

Edited by Anomalocaris, 09 April 2021 - 05:48 AM.

[Sixpack]

Krasnopesky, on 09 April 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

Thanks for the detailed feedback.

Lots there, but I will just respond specifically on a few aspects (I have read your entire post and added the feedback to the feedback compendium I am collating).

Clan Medium Pulse Lasers
Clan MPLs have received a buff (in the Cauldron's opinion) and a rebalance towards a shorter ranged skirmishing role. Here is a chart of their damage comparison to now and post April 20 patch:



As you can see there is a range bracket between just under 300m to about 390m where they do less damage than the current cMPL. They will however perform much better outside those brackets, particularly under 290m. This change was on purpose to define them a bit better as a pulse weapon and allow them to compete with IS MPL better too. The changes to heat and duration help in this regard too. If the prove to be nerfed or not performing as intended, we can always increase the optimum range a bit as you suggest.

IS PPC Family
We are aware that Clan ERPPC do 10 pinpoint with splash as the rest, we are not balancing around them doing more pinpoint than that. Perhaps we could rewrite the explanation to make that more clear. Clan ERPPC are currently the very top of the meta at this point in time, so buffing the IS PPCs to higher levels will be attempting to level the playing field rather than invalidating cERPPC.

In regards to internal balance, currently IS PPC family are either horribly underpowered and underused (LPPC, SNPPC, PPC) or only used well on Mechs with very large offensive quirks (ERPPC, HPPC). We are looking to improve the usability of IS PPC family so the underused weapons have a place and the ERPPC/HPPC can be used on Mechs without relying on big quirks.

IS ERLL / 10% range quirk
I have put these together as they are very much connected as you describe. The 10% range quirk which is a very important factor in IS ERLL extreme range traders has an issue: It means that so many other Mechs are invalidated in this role due to not having the quirk. The quirk itself is something The Cauldron wanted to address, as we think that is the root of the problem, rather than the weapon itself.

An early concept for this is to reduce the typical 10% range quirk to 5%, what are your thoughts on this?

TTK / Quirk Pass / Rescale / 'Unskilled' Players
With these changes we wanted to do a quirk pass, which heavily involved increasing the defensive quirks of underused and often fragile Mechs, alongside with reducing the offensive quirks of a few key 'overquirked' Mechs. Should the weapon pass continue to receive a lot of positive feedback (as it has currently), PGI will let us move forward with this.

The Quirk Pass will do two things that both help the enjoyment of unskilled and skill players alike: Improve the viability of many underused, nonviable Mechs, increase TTK for everyone.

There are no plans for making Light Mechs smaller across the board, the 20 and 25 tonners in particular are changing very little. 35 tonners are currently oversizes, particularly Mechs like the Jenners, and they will receive a reduction. Many other larger Mechs in other weight classes are intended to be reduced in size which will definitely help them become more viable and increase TTK too.

The combination of planned changes (That we initially wanted to implement together in one PTS) will overall increase TTK for new and old players alike. The Rescale, Quirk Pass, and Mobility Pass all combine in this regard. PGI have directed us towards balancing weapons first, so that is what we have done. We have kept these other intended changes in mind of course, but also ensured should they not happen that the Weapon Pass itself will result in more viable weapon options for people of all skill levels and be balanced on its own accord.

First of all thank you for the reply and more in detail explanation on things, that certainly does help out with understanding the overall and long term intent.

To go in to the points that were adressed.
I would disagree with the buff term, it is more of a change. You could say they have been made more forgiving overall but have lost an interesting optimal range bracket that was their niche before.

My main point was more about how they will perform in comparison to their main competitor the IS MPL (though one can adress that also in the ERLL section as it stems from the same issue of range quirks).


PPC family
I still remain unconvinced here. My main concern is the increase of pinpoint damage that can be thrown out by some of those weapons with the changes made.

Light PPCs got improved a lot with the minimum range removal. You can do some nice pinpoint damage at range and also use them easily in a brawl, so they will probably be a better supplement than Snub PPCs.

I can see the reason for wanting to differentiate PPCs and give them a good reason to be used at all if you have ERPPCs. But that just infringes on the dual heavy PPC with your changes.

So I am not convinced. I would instead look at making the snub more brawly by also reducing cooldown on it next to heat instead of allowing to shoot more.
For the lights I would not remove min range to keep snubs and ER more unique (alternatively give the lights a min range of 60 instead to give them more wiggle room)
For the basic PPCs I must admit that it is not easy to come up with something exciting, but I just can't agree with more pin point damage here.

PS: The argument of usage seems to depend a lot of at what tier you play from what I can see, they appear often enough where I am right now.

As for the clan ER PPCs, I think you need to be more specific. Right now they certainly are rather crazy, seeing as they are on 12 damage and do far more splash than intended (which can also hit your back I think).

IS ERLL/Quirk
That is a valid argument in regards to overall effectivness and quirks.

Reducing them to 5% across the board would certainly be an option putting them at 735. I would even go so far as to say to completely remove range quirks at first and then see where they are actually needed. It is easy to overlook but the IS ERSL with range quirks actually outranges the C-ERSL because they both have 200 meters optimal range. (Though in fairness one should look at the weapon in full so include damage, burn time, cool down, heat and if possible other hidden stats).

TTK / Quirk Pass / Rescale / Unskilled Players
I am generaly fine with most of the things being said.

But there is a clear difference between skilled players and unskilled players and both of those exist in this game, it is not simply "new and old players".

There will be clear differences in enjoyment when you can take 20 damage to the leg and still make it out or 30-40 and are dead because you were facing somebody that can aim.

[Z Paradox]

Quote

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)

Nooooooooooo, narc nerfing was not necessary. It is weapon nobody use...

[Anomalocaris]

Z Paradox, on 09 April 2021 - 06:39 AM, said:

Nooooooooooo, narc nerfing was not necessary. It is weapon nobody use...

Nobody uses _well_

Fixed that for you.

Present company excepted of course

[katoult]

Krasnopesky, on 08 April 2021 - 03:50 PM, said:

The map is small and the spawn points are visible to each other. That means the area of engagement is forced to be smaller compared to larger maps as there is less area Mechs can physically engage in. I didn't say anything about walk time being a factor, but having space available to move into obviously let's different engagements to occur.

You need to walk around 400-450 meters on this map to get in a proper engagement position with direct LOS. While yes, that's short, it's still between 20 and 30 seconds at minimum and requires the enemy team moving obligingly into the right direction as well. At that point you then have an engagement range of around 1100-1200 meters, sufficient for cERPPCs.

Krasnopesky, on 08 April 2021 - 03:50 PM, said:

The winning team was stacked with comp players (due to soup queue matchmaker) which ultimately was the main factor that caused the match to go quickly. Matchmaking is definitely an issue and it is something PGI needs to work on fixing.

This is Tier 1. Having a comp team on there is nothing unusual, and something players need to be able to "work with" - on both sides.

For scale for others who don't see the names: The winning team's alpha lance was a comp team of a moderately well-known unit with players with an average Jarl's rating of 97.5% including two 99% players (March 21). The losing team had what may or may not have been a 3-man team of about 95% Jarl's rating, including a 98% player. All other players on both sides average around 70% with very few outliers (downwards) and otherwise little spread (+-10%).

It is in that sense not a matchmaking issue at all. In fact as far as "outside" variables that the matchmaker can actually account for are concerned the matchmaker actually did pretty well.

Yes, the comp team was the main factor in winning - however that was entirely on soft factors (strategy, communication, map knowledge). That is not something that can be fixed, and in my opinion is not something that needs fixing either.

[Krasnopesky]

katoult, on 09 April 2021 - 06:48 AM, said:

You need to walk around 400-450 meters on this map to get in a proper engagement position with direct LOS. While yes, that's short, it's still between 20 and 30 seconds at minimum and requires the enemy team moving obligingly into the right direction as well. At that point you then have an engagement range of around 1100-1200 meters, sufficient for cERPPCs.


This is Tier 1. Having a comp team on there is nothing unusual, and something players need to be able to "work with" - on both sides.

For scale for others who don't see the names: The winning team's alpha lance was a comp team of a moderately well-known unit with players with an average Jarl's rating of 97.5% including two 99% players (March 21). The losing team had what may or may not have been a 3-man team of about 95% Jarl's rating, including a 98% player. All other players on both sides average around 70% with very few outliers (downwards) and otherwise little spread (+-10%).

It is in that sense not a matchmaking issue at all. In fact as far as "outside" variables that the matchmaker can actually account for are concerned the matchmaker actually did pretty well.

Yes, the comp team was the main factor in winning - however that was entirely on soft factors (strategy, communication, map knowledge). That is not something that can be fixed, and in my opinion is not something that needs fixing either.

I was speaking about matchmaking in general as a problem rather than specifically this match. Currently there is no internal match matchmaking, which in my opinion needs to be addressed along with a number of other issues like matchscore calculation etc.

The big issue was stacking top tier Mechs like Vapor Eagles with currently extremely powerful cERPPC (which will be brought back down to their original level), while the other team has taken Mechs that are significantly less powerful. One of our main aims is to make the underperforming Mechs better to alleviate this issue somewhat.

Regardless of all that, the fact remains that this map is one of the smallest in the game and the engagement will happen very very quickly. Despite this fact, I have had plenty of matches that go for 10+ minutes on this map, but as we do not actually know the average engagements (PGI has not released this data to my knowledge) it is hard to ascertain how much the maps impact on match time exactly. There are simply too many variables involved to attribute match time to just weapon balance. Further planned changes will address the concern of reduced TTK from this weapon pass as I have detailed in many posts in this thread.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 09 April 2021 - 07:35 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Sixpack, on 09 April 2021 - 06:32 AM, said:

First of all thank you for the reply and more in detail explanation on things, that certainly does help out with understanding the overall and long term intent.

To go in to the points that were adressed.
I would disagree with the buff term, it is more of a change. You could say they have been made more forgiving overall but have lost an interesting optimal range bracket that was their niche before.

My main point was more about how they will perform in comparison to their main competitor the IS MPL (though one can adress that also in the ERLL section as it stems from the same issue of range quirks).

Always happy to discuss the changes and give reasoning. Very happy to have someone analyse the changes and provide extensive feedback too.

cMPL were significantly buffed up to ~290m. I completely understand your point in relation to the range quirk (which a lot of IS Mechs get but very few clan Mechs get), but removing that concept I believe cMPL will be much more competitive against IS MPL now. We can discuss the range quirk below as you have done.

Sixpack, on 09 April 2021 - 06:32 AM, said:

PPC family
I still remain unconvinced here. My main concern is the increase of pinpoint damage that can be thrown out by some of those weapons with the changes made.

Light PPCs got improved a lot with the minimum range removal. You can do some nice pinpoint damage at range and also use them easily in a brawl, so they will probably be a better supplement than Snub PPCs.

I can see the reason for wanting to differentiate PPCs and give them a good reason to be used at all if you have ERPPCs. But that just infringes on the dual heavy PPC with your changes.

So I am not convinced. I would instead look at making the snub more brawly by also reducing cooldown on it next to heat instead of allowing to shoot more.
For the lights I would not remove min range to keep snubs and ER more unique (alternatively give the lights a min range of 60 instead to give them more wiggle room)
For the basic PPCs I must admit that it is not easy to come up with something exciting, but I just can't agree with more pin point damage here.

PS: The argument of usage seems to depend a lot of at what tier you play from what I can see, they appear often enough where I am right now.

As for the clan ER PPCs, I think you need to be more specific. Right now they certainly are rather crazy, seeing as they are on 12 damage and do far more splash than intended (which can also hit your back I think).

Clan ERPPC have been top meta for the past two years, IS PPC family simply cannot compete. Even the super quirked BJ3 sees less usage when compared to similar Clan mediums with cERPPC that have basically 0 quirks. The March patch buffed them to even higher levels of power. We are reverting cERPPC to the same level they were before the March patch and then looking at improving IS PPC family to better compete with them.

IS Snub noses and LPPC definitely see more usage in lower tiers compared to higher, but that is often because the newer/less skilled players do not know how bad they actually are. We want to make these weapon systems viable so new/inexperienced players do not get punished simply for deciding to use them.

As you have identified making regular IS PPCs have a niche is difficult. We went with increasing the ghost heat limit on them to allow more interesting combos to be made with regular PPCs rather than try and simply compete with HPPC. For example you can do some interesting builds involving: 2x LPPC + PPC, 2x PPC + LPPC, 2 PPC + Gauss, 2 Gauss + PPC, you can even mix Snubs and PPCs if you like (please note this is combining regular IS PPC with IS Gauss, not clan tech). This gives regular PPCs a bit more flexibility and expands on their role as a jack-of-all-master-of-none type weapon within the family.

Sixpack, on 09 April 2021 - 06:32 AM, said:

IS ERLL/Quirk
That is a valid argument in regards to overall effectivness and quirks.

Reducing them to 5% across the board would certainly be an option putting them at 735. I would even go so far as to say to completely remove range quirks at first and then see where they are actually needed. It is easy to overlook but the IS ERSL with range quirks actually outranges the C-ERSL because they both have 200 meters optimal range. (Though in fairness one should look at the weapon in full so include damage, burn time, cool down, heat and if possible other hidden stats).

The range quirks (and all quirks for that matter) are something we are looking deeply at and running a lot of tests/theory crafting. Some Mechs rely on these quirks to be viable at all, so they could have reduced range for example (10% to 5%), but others who are currently very strong can have them removed completely while still remaining strong.

We always take a holistic approach to weapons and look at all the attributes/statistics of them, compare them to similar weapons, weapons that compete in the same range bracket, combination weapons, possible Mech builds, interactions with quirks, typical current usage etc etc.

Sixpack, on 09 April 2021 - 06:32 AM, said:

TTK / Quirk Pass / Rescale / Unskilled Players
I am generaly fine with most of the things being said.

But there is a clear difference between skilled players and unskilled players and both of those exist in this game, it is not simply "new and old players".

There will be clear differences in enjoyment when you can take 20 damage to the leg and still make it out or 30-40 and are dead because you were facing somebody that can aim.

Upon reflection I have noticed that I often use the terminology 'new players', 'inexperienced players' and 'lower skilled players' interchangeably so I apologise for that as they are obviously not the same concept.

The typical pinpoint alphastrikes you will see will not increase hugely. There are currently plenty of combinations that allow very high levels of pinpoint alpha that we are not often superseding. Below I will detail a review I wrote internally at the start of the month (These are comparing preMarch patch values, if you compare current values these are even higher than the April patch will be):

+35 damage frontloaded pinpoint alphas currently possible:
40 damage 2x PPC + 2x AC10 - multiple IS mechs
40 damage 2x Gauss + 1x ERPPC - IS mechs with HSL quirks
40 damage 2x Snub Nose + 1x AC20
40 damage 2x HPPC + 1x AC10 - 32 tonnes, multiple mechs
45 damage 3x HPPC (Awesome) - 30 tonnes
50 damage 2x Heavy Gauss - multiple mechs, can pair with a snub nose for 60 pinpoint and manageable ghost heat
50 damage 2x HPPC + 1x AC20 - 34 tonnes
50 damage 2x AC10 + 2x HPPC - assaults
50 damage 3x AC10 + 2 Snub Nose

These have all been in the game for years and none are a problem from our perspective/experience.

New alphas:
40 damage 2x Clan AC20 - Comes out in three spaced shells (6 total), so not pinpoint. Most likely still rather underpowered.
40 damage 2x LGR + 2x ERPPC - 38 tonnes for just the weapons without heatsinks or ammo, more than HGR and with heat
40 damage 2x GR + 1x Regular IS PPC - 37 tonnes, Large velocity disparity, IS GR + PPC were never a problem
40 damage 3x IS regular PPC + AC10 - 33 tonnes, hot, minimum range
50 damage 3x Snub Nose + 1x AC20 - 32 tonnes, short range, hot (this one in particular we will be closely monitoring)

'Problem' combinations that are still not possible:
Clan ERPPC / Clan Gauss - still have exact same ghost heat
IS AC20 - still have very high ghost heat

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

[Aedryel]

Voice of Kerensky, on 07 April 2021 - 06:27 PM, said:

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

I apologize for the repeated answer, but I gave your argument a second thought and I still believe you're in the wrong here.
You're stating the enchancements on AMS damage and AMS availability on general was created to counter super-massive LRM holes with 60-70-80-100 tube counts, yes?
What you fail to realize is this course of action is affecting those the least whom against it was designed for.
1-2-3, heck, maybe even 4 AMS can be overwhelmed with 100 missiles, but you know who will suffer the most unfairly?
Everyone else who uses missiles as their primary weapons but can't or unwilling to go over astronomic tube counts.
This misconceptual mechanism encourages players to strive for as many missiles as possible, not deterring them from it.
THIS is what is by definition called counter-intuitive. This is not how people will try to diversify their arsenal, this just aggravates the problem at hand and rendering an entire branch of weaponry useless for the majority of players.

It seems to me that you are confusing cause and effect. The AMS fest does not address the abusement of missile weapons, it addresses the missiles themselves. That's the easiest way I can explain it.
The problem is insane missiles count, not the missiles themselves but the changes of AMS outright ignored that.

You know what could have solve this issue? *drumm roll, fanfare* Penalizing higher missiles counts, not the missiles themselves. You know HOW I would do it?

Look, I'm not a dev of MWO so I have 0 insight how it is exactly ticking under the hood, but I do work in the IT/OT sector of things and know my way around databases. I'm fairly sure all weapon parameters are stored in a structured database, Oracle or MSSQL, heck, even a .CSV or JSON array could work out.

The devs, instead of ruining the missiles (most notably LRMs, hence my ranting) with a dozen unlore-like and uncalled for nerfs could have simply added one more parameter to the ghost heat system, namely unique ghost heat delay value for each linked group. You see, the amount of ghost heat is already unique to all weps, the delay could have been modified so as well.
If boating MANY missiles IS the problem, it can be addressed simply by putting an insanely long ghost heat delay on them, let's say 3 secs and also a higher penalty rate.

If you'd have to wait 3-4-5-6 whatever secs to shoot your 3-rd/4th whatever missile rack in order not to fry yourself, you wouldn't waste the tonnage in the first place AND you might even end up diversifying your arsenal a bit. Why would you double your tube count if you can't shoot em faster than you could with only 2? This is how abusing missiles could have been solved, not by penalizing the entire community for a few imbeciles. You're very welcome for the idea, feel free to relay it to whoever is capable of implementing it.

Mechwarrior Online - Weapons, Modules and more stats (smurfy-net.de)