704 replies to this topic

[Brownshweiger4]

Krasnopesky, on 12 April 2021 - 09:23 AM, said:

In regards to ATMs the rebalance was done to make them better vs AMS in close range. ATMs will now perform a lot better vs AMS at all brackets, but especially within their short range bracket. I have posted some examples before, but one particular example is 3x ATM12s shooting into 4 AMS. The ATMs will now do 67% more damage in their short range bracket firing through 4 AMS compared to the current game.

So to make ATMs better in very specific situation of 4 AMS they must become pointless in all normal situations?
Patch making SRM straight much better choise than ATM because destroyed only tactic ATM was useful in.

Huge nerf of damage at same time of boosting of SRMs, lasers and ballistic making ATM incopetitive because now it balanced and patch make it BAD.

Edited by Brownshweiger4, 13 April 2021 - 04:02 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Brownshweiger4, on 13 April 2021 - 04:00 AM, said:

So to make ATMs better in very specific situation of 4 AMS they must become pointless in all normal situations?
Patch making SRM straight much better choise than ATM because destroyed only tactic ATM was useful in.

Huge nerf of damage at same time of boosting of SRMs, lasers and ballistic making ATM incopetitive because now it balanced and patch make it BAD.

ATMs are and will continue to be a very strong weapon system. That was a specific example to illustrate just how strong the buff to ATM missile health is. However that does not mean ATMs will be useless outside of that specific example, ATMs will be stronger in most cases when facing AMS.

ATM burst damage is very high, yet it gets hard-countered vs AMS. We have aimed at reducing the high burst of ATMs, while making them better against AMS. To this end they will become more consistent damage dealers during matches and should, on average, be better in more matches than they are now.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 13 April 2021 - 07:14 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Lionheart2012, on 13 April 2021 - 01:29 AM, said:

Thank you for taking the time to review this alternate proposal. And while this may get into the realm of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, "Mak[ing] more weapon systems viable...." sounds to be more of a goal, and less of a design philosophy. As a philosophy, it is more of a tautology because improving weapons to be more competitive with current top performers is making them more viable. Further, it fails to articulate independent tenets to be applied to the data set and achieve results. By contrast, the analysis I provided points to lore and the varying design philosophies of the Clans and the Inner Sphere as a base. And if lore is not a primary focus of the upcoming patch, then it may be a weakness in the argument being proposed by the Cauldron.

Turning to the specifics of your commentary:

I can get on board with keeping the IS MPL damage at 6.0. The change in damage was only a modest 3.33% increase, and it was intended to keep performance in a close proximity to that of the Clan version. However, by keeping the damage at 6.0 for the IS MPL, it may open a niche for the IS ERML, based on the DOR metric.

We also agree on the CERPPC and that it does not need any changes. I will also agree, following a review of the metrics (Damage/heat, DPS/Ton, and DOR) that the LB10-X does not need any changes, although I never proposed any.

With AC2s, UAC5s and UAC10s, I would very much like to see the data that supports the assertion that they are top performing weapons. My experience in upper tier QP has not seen much use of the IS AC2, where they would necessarily need to be boated on a Mauler, King Crab, Corsair, or an Annihilator. The Clan version is more popular and has been popularized by streamers on the Rifleman IIC-2 and the modified Direwolf Ultraviolet. However, pilots often substitute the Clan LB2-X because of the better heat profile. The UAC5/10 meta is powerful and it has led to frequent use in the Kodiak 3 (not so much recently), the Madcat MkII B, and modified to a 3:1 ratio in a Blood Asp. And while the IS versions could be mounted in an Annihilator or a Fafnir, these mechs predominantly use the Heavy Gauss brawling meta. In fact, the Nightstar 9P can mount these weapons using a 255 standard engine, but this is note even a thing.

https://thecauldron....6d58ef34_NSR-9P

This suggests that the UAC5/10 meta is really a clan phenomenon, especially since it is easier for Clan mechs to mount the Ultra Autocannons. My suggested changes make Inner Sphere Autocannons and Ultra Autocannons more competitive, but do not change their essential bulk. Hence, they do not break the balance. And the data bear this out:

Autocannons Damage/Heat



Even with my suggested values, the heat efficiency of the Ultra Autocannons still falls within a narrow range, and the IS versions only have a modest advantage of the Clan versions. This fits with the philosophy of IS weapons being cooler and compensates for the fact that Inner Sphere 'Mechs will mount fewer heat sinks, generally.

Autocannons DPS/Ton



Using the DPS/Ton metric, my suggested cooldown values keep the Clan Autocannons almost universally in a superior position. The only anomaly is in the Clan Autocannon 20, where the three pellet burst impacts the DPS/ton slightly. However, the Cauldron proposal compensates by allowing Clan pilots to fire two of these weapons simultaneously, while Inner Sphere pilots would fire to Autocannon 20s in quick succession, essentially duplicating the burst characteristic found in Clan Autocannons.

Autocannons DOR



Finally, we see in the DOR, that the cooldown buffs to IS Autocannons don't generally change the superiority of Clan Autocannons because of their range superiority. Inner Sphere UAC5s and UAC10s are exceptions, but the few 'Mechs that can mount the meta on will be significantly slower and less agile than the Madcat MkII and the Kodiak with their larger engines.

For these reasons, the changes are justified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Krasnopesky, 13 April 2021 - 11:49 AM.

[Aedryel]

Krasnopesky, on 12 April 2021 - 09:23 AM, said:

In regards to ATMs the rebalance was done to make them better vs AMS in close range. ATMs will now perform a lot better vs AMS at all brackets, but especially within their short range bracket. I have posted some examples before, but one particular example is 3x ATM12s shooting into 4 AMS. The ATMs will now do 67% more damage in their short range bracket firing through 4 AMS compared to the current game.

I get the feeling I'm right on my way to get on your nerves, but...
My question remains the same - what will happen to the ATM-18/ATM-24 Average Joes post-patch?

We will do less dmg per missile vs more AMS on the market. What's your metric on a 2xATM9 vs 4xAMS scenario? Or just 2?
Up until now, my way to counter AMS was to avoid them.
That no longer remains possible. Whoever has a mech variant capable of wielding AMS will do so.

Doing less damage per missile against an inevitable AMS abusement how exactly will translate to doing more damage in the close range bracket?
Doing less damage in the range where it's needed the most contributes to the fun aspect of the game how?

I have quite unique views on things, among them is I consider a weapon overboated if I carry a ghost-heat-producing amount of it, so...why do you balance (...?) a weapon explicitly and admittedly around overboating if in the past you've justified nerfing it in practically all of it's aspects NOT relevant to overboating to counter overboaters?

Currently I have an 2xATM9 + 1xLRM10 Stormcrow accompanied by 10 micro ERs.
Now I do a respectable, but by no means overpowered 64dmg overall with the missiles assuming none gets shot down halfway and actually connects with the target.
I keep the LRM-10 for added 500m+ flexibility as well as to use as a decoy of sorts against AMS to make it shoot down less of my precious ATM rounds. LRM has a generous missile per ton ratio and a fairly high tube count to make the investment worth it. Unlike ATMs.

Please provide me exact numbers how I fare:
-now vs 1-2-3-4 AMS in all range brackets,
-and how I will after the patch.

To make the changes in their entirety easily understandable (and the basis of your decision-making more transparent, if you will) even by such a mediocre person as me, please be as kind to generate this chart with the updated values.
I'm expecting not less than 6 AMS on an average match on each team, at least 3 or 4 of them having overlapping areas at any given time.



Do tell me in good conscience that the increased missile HP will offset the upcoming AMS flood by at least 16.6%+ so my SCR will remain THIS (or better...laughable thought though, but why not) viable with THIS EXACT setup and please do not give me that "on the other hand, ATM36/48ers will do at least more damage in exchange" line, it's not applicable to the vast majority of the ATM users.

Edited by Aedryel, 13 April 2021 - 08:22 AM.

[Antares102]

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

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

I liked Lionheart2012's proposal especially since he has put so much effort into it and found it interesting.
But many of his proposals would make certain builds totally overpowered. Your example was the HPPC.

My example for an overpowered weapon proposal from Lionheart2012 would be the C-ERML with only 5.05 heat while retraining the 6.5 damage.
This would allow to boat it even more and would make it the best C-ERML we ever had (IMO) because the low damage/heat ratio was the main drawback of this weapon.

Edited by Antares102, 13 April 2021 - 07:53 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Antares102, on 13 April 2021 - 07:51 AM, said:

I liked Lionheart2012's proposal especially since he has put so much effort into it and found it interesting.
But many of his proposals would make certain builds totally overpowered. Your example was the HPPC.

My example for an overpowered weapon proposal from Lionheart2012 would be the C-ERML with only 5.05 heat while retraining the 6.5 damage.
This would allow to boat it even more and would make it the best C-ERML we ever had (IMO) because the low damage/heat ratio was the main drawback of this weapon.

I liked the proposal too, putting in so much effort is awesome and gives us great feedback to work with. Ideally I would love to be able to take proposals like that and properly test out how they feel in a PTS type of environment.

Snub Nose PPCs were another weapon system that would be too strong (despite their short range). The proposal gives them 11.5 damage, 3.3 cooldown and a solid increase to their optimum range. That means SNPPC go from having 2.5 pinpoint DPS to 3.48 each. So a 3x SNPPC medium Mech would go from having 7.5 max DPS to 10.45 with better range and enhanced alpha (34.5 pinpoint damage every 3.3 seconds without quirks or skill tree bonuses applied). A Mech such as this would completely dominate short range engagements and invalidate so many weapons.

[Krasnopesky]

Aedryel, on 13 April 2021 - 07:28 AM, said:

I get the feeling I'm right on my way to get on your nerves, but...
My question remains the same - what will happen to the ATM-18/ATM-24 Average Joes post-patch?

We will do less dmg per missile vs more AMS on the market. What's your metric on a 2xATM9 vs 4xAMS scenario? Or just 2?
Up until now, my way to counter AMS was to avoid them.
That no longer remains possible. Whoever has a mech variant capable of wielding AMS will do so.

Doing less damage per missile against an inevitable AMS abusement how exactly will translate to doing more damage in the close range bracket?
Doing less damage in the range where it's needed the most contributes to the fun aspect of the game how?

I have quite unique views on things, among them is I consider a weapon overboated if I carry a ghost-heat-producing amount of it, so...why do you balance (...?) a weapon explicitly and admittedly around overboating if in the past you've justified nerfing it in practically all of it's aspects NOT relevant to overboating to counter overboaters?

Currently I have an 2xATM9 + 1xLRM10 Stormcrow accompanied by 10 micro ERs.
Now I do a respectable, but by no means overpowered 64dmg overall with the missiles assuming none gets shot down halfway and actually connects with the target.
I keep the LRM-10 for added 500m+ flexibility as well as to use as a decoy of sorts against AMS to make it shoot down less of my precious ATM rounds. LRM has a generous missile per ton ratio and a fairly high tube count to make the investment worth it. Unlike ATMs.

Please provide me exact numbers how I fare:
-now vs 1-2-3-4 AMS in all range brackets,
-and how I will after the patch.

To make the changes in their entirety easily understandable (and the basis of your decision-making more transparent, if you will) even by such a mediocre person as me, please be as kind to generate this chart with the updated values.
I'm expecting not less than 6 AMS on an average match on each team, at least 3 or 4 of them having overlapping areas at any given time.



Do tell me in good conscience that the increased missile HP will offset the upcoming AMS flood by at least 16.6%+ so my SCR will remain THIS (or better...laughable thought though, but why not) viable with THIS EXACT setup and please do not give me that "on the other hand, ATM36/48ers will do at least more damage in exchange" line, it's not applicable to the vast majority of the ATM users.

Always happy to answer your questions.

I will show you the results on your specific build: 2x ATM9 and 1x LRM10 against a Mech with 1, 2, 3, & 4 AMS (the AMS has both skill tree quirks and the missiles have velocity skill tree quirks). This took a while, hence my delay in responding to your post.

This accounts for three cases of firing your missiles:
- If you are firing at close range within the AMS bubble (190m to the AMS mech)
- If you are firing at the edge of ATMs top damage range (~240m chosen for simplicity)
- If you are firing at 500m

(ATM + LRM damage)
4AMS
190m: Current = 11 (6+5 damage) ----- Patch: 17.5 (17.5+0) damage
240m: Current = 0 damage ------------- Patch: 13 (10+3) damage
500m: Current = 0 damage ------------- Patch: 11 (8+3) damage

3AMS
190m: Current = 28 (21+7) damage ----- Patch: 30.5 (22.5+8) damage
240m: Current = 21 (18+3) damage ----- Patch: 26.5 (22.5+4) damage
500m: Current = 15 (12+3) damage ----- Patch: 22 (18+4) damage

2AMS
190m: Current = 42 (33+9) damage ----- Patch: 41.5 (32.5+9) damage
240m: Current = 39 (33+6) damage ----- Patch: 38.5 (32.5+6) damage
500m: Current = 28 (22+6) damage ----- Patch: 32 (26+6) damage

1AMS
190m: Current = 55 (45+10) damage ---- Patch: 50 (40+10) damage
240m: Current = 53 (45+8) damage ----- Patch: 48 (40+8) damage
500m: Current = 38 (30+8) damage ----- Patch: 40 (32+8) damage

No AMS
190m: Current = 64 (54+10) damage ----- Patch: 55 (45+10) damage
240m: Current = 64 (54+10) damage ----- Patch: 55 (45+10) damage
500m: Current = 46 (36+10) damage ----- Patch: 46 (36+10) damage

As we can see you're doing less damage at close range vs 0 or 1 AMS, about the same vs 2 AMS, and more vs 3 and 4 AMS. At mid range you're always doing the same or more damage.

In regards to your claim on the vast majority of ATM users, I personally see between ATM 27 to 36 as the most common builds, or larger numbers of tubes when mixed with LRMs, hence why I used the example I did. In saying that, I completely understand your worry of Mechs that use lower amounts of ATMs. In fact my (personal) original suggestion was to increase missile health on ATMs and increase the ghost heat on large groups of launchers. This would make builds with smaller amounts of launchers more viable and reduce the impact large ATM boats have (which in my opinion are an issue in the current meta). Should the current balance not work as intended I will be pushing to have the ghost heat system implemented.

Those charts you are referencing were created by the same person who just generated the numbers I posted here and is a part of the Cauldron: Navid A1. He also mentioned that those charts are not accurate when considering multi-missile type salvos (just for your information, I wasn't aware of this fact either).

Edited by Krasnopesky, 13 April 2021 - 10:07 AM.

[Aedryel]

Krasnopesky, on 13 April 2021 - 09:47 AM, said:

Always happy to answer your questions.

I will show you the results on your specific build: 2x ATM9 and 1x LRM10 against a Mech with 1, 2, 3, & 4 AMS (the AMS has both skill tree quirks and the missiles have velocity skill tree quirks). This took a while, hence my delay in responding to your post.

This accounts for three cases of firing your missiles:
- If you are firing at close range within the AMS bubble (190m to the AMS mech)
- If you are firing at the edge of ATMs top damage range (~240m chosen for simplicity)
- If you are firing at 500m

(ATM + LRM damage)
4AMS
190m: Current = 11 (6+5 damage) ----- Patch: 17.5 (17.5+0) damage
240m: Current = 0 damage ------------- Patch: 13 (10+3) damage
500m: Current = 0 damage ------------- Patch: 11 (8+3) damage

3AMS
190m: Current = 28 (21+7) damage ----- Patch: 30.5 (22.5+8) damage
240m: Current = 21 (18+3) damage ----- Patch: 26.5 (22.5+4) damage
500m: Current = 15 (12+3) damage ----- Patch: 22 (18+4) damage

2AMS
190m: Current = 42 (33+9) damage ----- Patch: 41.5 (32.5+9) damage
240m: Current = 39 (33+6) damage ----- Patch: 38.5 (32.5+6) damage
500m: Current = 28 (22+6) damage ----- Patch: 32 (26+6) damage

1AMS
190m: Current = 55 (45+10) damage ---- Patch: 50 (40+10) damage
240m: Current = 53 (45+8) damage ----- Patch: 48 (40+8) damage
500m: Current = 38 (30+8) damage ----- Patch: 40 (32+8) damage

No AMS
190m: Current = 64 (54+10) damage ----- Patch: 55 (45+10) damage
240m: Current = 64 (54+10) damage ----- Patch: 55 (45+10) damage
500m: Current = 46 (36+10) damage ----- Patch: 46 (36+10) damage

As we can see you're doing less damage at close range vs 0 or 1 AMS, about the same vs 2 AMS, and more vs 3 and 4 AMS. At mid range you're always doing the same or more damage.

In terms of your claim on the vast majority of ATM users, I personally see between ATM 27 to 36 as the most common builds, or larger numbers of tubes when mixed with LRMs, hence why I used the example I did. In saying that, I completely understand your worry of Mechs that use lower amounts of ATMs. In fact my (personal) original suggestion was to increase missile health on ATMs and increase the ghost heat on large groups of launchers. This would make builds with smaller amounts of launchers more viable and reduce the impact large ATM boats have (which in my opinion are an issue in the current meta). Should the current balance not work as intended I will be pushing to have the ghost heat system implemented.

Those charts you are referencing were created by the same person who just generated the numbers I posted here and is a part of the Cauldron: Navid A1. He also mentioned that those charts are not accurate when considering multi-missile type salvos (just for your information, I wasn't aware of this fact either).

Thank you Krasnopesky for both your time and work invested as well as for:
-having the patience to answer in a collected manner repeatedly despite my tone had an offensive overtone multiple times
-having the patience to crunch the numbers in the details requested

Seeing the before/after state of things brought me a considerable relief, I was beyond concerned my favourite rig would become obsolete.

For what it's worth, You've earned my utmost respect. I'll do my best to keep a cool head as of from now on and looking forward to the upcoming patch with great anticipation.

[Krasnopesky]

Aedryel, on 13 April 2021 - 10:22 AM, said:

Thank you Krasnopesky for both your time and work invested as well as for:
-having the patience to answer in a collected manner repeatedly despite my tone had an offensive overtone multiple times
-having the patience to crunch the numbers in the details requested

Seeing the before/after state of things brought me a considerable relief, I was beyond concerned my favourite rig would become obsolete.

For what it's worth, You've earned my utmost respect. I'll do my best to keep a cool head as of from now on and looking forward to the upcoming patch with great anticipation.

My pleasure! Your respect is of course valued, as are all the people playing this game. We are all here to enjoy MechWarrior after all. I totally understand people's reactions to balance decisions they don't agree with, I have felt the same way about many of PGI's updates over the years (including the recent March patch).

There are some important parts to remember: We are not perfect and we have not had the opportunity to test these changes in a PTS (as we really wanted to). We won't get everything right the first time, but as long as we get most of it right we can fix the parts we missed. If ATMs are suddenly weak and under-performing (I personally do not anticipate this) then we will immediately work on ensuring they are a weapon system that is viable and feel satisfying to use.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 13 April 2021 - 10:54 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

Krasnopesky, on 13 April 2021 - 10:46 AM, said:

If ATMs are suddenly weak and under-performing (I personally do not anticipate this) then we will immediately work on ensuring they are a weapon system that is viable and feel satisfying to use.

I second Aedryel's praise of your composure in this thread Krasnopesky.

It is the last bit I quoted that concerns me most about ATMs (and of course I still cannot justify the IS Streak nerf in a QP environment). The changes, combined with what will likely be a flat to increasing amount of AMS in game, will encourage more long range ATM firing and less tactical repositioning for max damage bracket volleys. There will be far less reason to ever get inside of 270m with ATMs because the reward is smaller for the same risk (or more risk, since there are more viable weapon systems post patch).

That seems very unsatisfying to me and will encourage playstyles, especially among average or below skilled players that tend to be less well received by teammates (e.g. - hide at 400 to 500m and lob mid-damage salvos vs. push to the front and get that big punch in). How do you plan to assess the data post patch? Will be PGI be sharing weapon system usage with you, damage done, etc?

[dario03]

Anomalocaris, on 13 April 2021 - 12:09 PM, said:

I second Aedryel's praise of your composure in this thread Krasnopesky.

It is the last bit I quoted that concerns me most about ATMs (and of course I still cannot justify the IS Streak nerf in a QP environment). The changes, combined with what will likely be a flat to increasing amount of AMS in game, will encourage more long range ATM firing and less tactical repositioning for max damage bracket volleys. There will be far less reason to ever get inside of 270m with ATMs because the reward is smaller for the same risk (or more risk, since there are more viable weapon systems post patch).

That seems very unsatisfying to me and will encourage playstyles, especially among average or below skilled players that tend to be less well received by teammates (e.g. - hide at 400 to 500m and lob mid-damage salvos vs. push to the front and get that big punch in). How do you plan to assess the data post patch? Will be PGI be sharing weapon system usage with you, damage done, etc?

Good concerns, but we think the positives counter them. Pushing in to max damage bracket will still be rewarded with extra damage, in some cases less than before, in some cases more. I also don't think it will encourage more players to sit at 400 to 500m since in the current game that can happen if a lot of ams is around since it basically completely shuts down atms. In the new system even if there is a lot of ams around, the atm mechs will have a better chance of getting damage in. Players are more likely to move in if they can do damage than if they can't.

We will get some data from PGI but exactly how much and how much it will help isn't exactly known. If ams usage increases so much that it hurts lock-ons to much we would look at changing things again. We don't claim the system will be perfect the first time, and already have some plans for issues we think might come up. We used some number crunching and experience playing the game to come up with this initial pass, but ultimately, an initial pass is an initial pass, there will be changes once we see how it actually plays out.

Edited by dario03, 13 April 2021 - 12:36 PM.

[Krasnopesky]

Anomalocaris, on 13 April 2021 - 12:09 PM, said:

I second Aedryel's praise of your composure in this thread Krasnopesky.

It is the last bit I quoted that concerns me most about ATMs (and of course I still cannot justify the IS Streak nerf in a QP environment). The changes, combined with what will likely be a flat to increasing amount of AMS in game, will encourage more long range ATM firing and less tactical repositioning for max damage bracket volleys. There will be far less reason to ever get inside of 270m with ATMs because the reward is smaller for the same risk (or more risk, since there are more viable weapon systems post patch).

That seems very unsatisfying to me and will encourage playstyles, especially among average or below skilled players that tend to be less well received by teammates (e.g. - hide at 400 to 500m and lob mid-damage salvos vs. push to the front and get that big punch in). How do you plan to assess the data post patch? Will be PGI be sharing weapon system usage with you, damage done, etc?

We have been talking/organising with PGI to to provide us with pre and post patch data. As to the quantity and quality of said data, that is completely on PGI to provide us.

Other forms of assessment are direct live testing from members of the Cauldron (as we have been doing theoretically and offline for this patch), collating feedback from various sources (Official forums, Discord, Reddit, Steam, Twitch, social media platforms, and in-game), and finally feedback we directly receive from PGI.

[Krasnopesky]

Great news! With the help of Daeron we now have a discord channel in the official MW5/MWO Discord. All feedback and communication can be received here or there:

https://discord.gg/hUWc3fYDm9

Edited by Krasnopesky, 13 April 2021 - 03:06 PM.

[Anomalocaris]

dario03, on 13 April 2021 - 12:36 PM, said:

Good concerns, but we think the positives counter them. Pushing in to max damage bracket will still be rewarded with extra damage, in some cases less than before, in some cases more. I also don't think it will encourage more players to sit at 400 to 500m since in the current game that can happen if a lot of ams is around since it basically completely shuts down atms. In the new system even if there is a lot of ams around, the atm mechs will have a better chance of getting damage in. Players are more likely to move in if they can do damage than if they can't.

Thanks for the engagement dario and krasnopesky.

If you will look at the example that krasnopesky so kindly put together for Aedryel you can see that the change in missile health is beneficial at any engagement range, so does it really change the benefit for pushing in?

For example, in the case of 4AMS, I do no damage outside of 190m with the current setup, but 11 if I push. That's a huge motivation to either get closer or completely reposition. The rewards for pushing in are similarly changed with almost any magnitude of AMS. Whether you're up against no AMS or 3 AMS, your damage will increase by 40-90% in the current meta if you push from 500 to 190m. (I don't use 4 AMS simply because the dmg increase is infinitely better - divide by 0). For the new patch it will increase by 20-40% if you push in (against 4 AMS it will increase by 60%).

Even looking at the difference between 500 and 240m, the current meta is gaining substantially more by pushing than the new patch will. The incentives are nearly twice as large to push with current stats when looking at absolute dmg gain. The only way the current setup even works against large amounts of AMS is to push (zero dmg outside of 190m against 4AMS), while the new patch will allow you to deliver more damage in standoff. Consider the 3AMS example. More damage at 500m with the new patch than the current meta at 240m.

In every way the proposed changes encourage playing ATMs more as standoff weapons than as close in sledgehammers vs. the current stats. This is not to say people won't push with them, just that the incentives to do so are greatly reduced. I am extremely thankful that these numbers have been posted as an example as it makes it much easier to put some objective stats inline with our feelings.

attempted to edit for clarity

Edited by Anomalocaris, 13 April 2021 - 03:55 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Krasnopesky, on 13 April 2021 - 03:05 PM, said:

Great news! With the help of Daeron we now have a discord channel in the official MW5/MWO Discord. All feedback and communication can be received here or there:

https://discord.gg/hUWc3fYDm9

It's just a rename of the MW5 Discord and additional chat rooms.

[Davegt27]

Krasnopesky, on 13 April 2021 - 03:05 PM, said:

Great news! With the help of Daeron we now have a discord channel in the official MW5/MWO Discord. All feedback and communication can be received here or there:

https://discord.gg/hUWc3fYDm9

says you must give a phone number to post ?

[Krasnopesky]

The6thMessenger, on 13 April 2021 - 03:54 PM, said:

It's just a rename of the MW5 Discord and additional chat rooms.

Correct! But it is more than we have had before, so I see that as a positive step forward.

Davegt27, on 13 April 2021 - 04:43 PM, said:

says you must give a phone number to post ?

That discord is the official one run by PGI, they must have set their Moderation level to 'Highest'.

[The6thMessenger]

Krasnopesky, on 13 April 2021 - 05:10 PM, said:

Correct! But it is more than we have had before, so I see that as a positive step forward.

Yeah but it's kind of annoying that it such a simple no-brainer, but it took so long to be done.

[Brownshweiger4]

Krasnopesky, on 13 April 2021 - 05:16 AM, said:

ATMs are and will continue to be a very strong weapon system. That was a specific example to illustrate just how strong the buff to ATM missile health is.

ATM used ONLY because 3 damage per missile in close range. There NO other uses of ATM.
99% time ATM used vs enemy without AMS.
Patch makes ATM WEAK in its main use and only give them weak boost of damage vs AMS.
Patch completely destroys any point of using ATM.

Worse changes done only to streaks, sreaks will become ridiculously bad its DPM will be even worse than PPC which already twice weaker than current laser configs even before lasers boost.

But patch improving MRM for no reason while its most used missiles already.

Edited by Brownshweiger4, 14 April 2021 - 03:22 AM.

[Brownshweiger4]

Anomalocaris, on 13 April 2021 - 03:51 PM, said:

In every way the proposed changes encourage playing ATMs more as standoff weapons than as close in sledgehammers vs. the current stats

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

Edited by Brownshweiger4, 14 April 2021 - 03:28 AM.