177 replies to this topic

[KursedVixen]

I see alot of let's make omnimechs not ominmechs, what's the point of an omnimech if you can't swap the parts???

tee5, on 21 January 2023 - 05:25 PM, said:

I have not read the couple pages before.

But am I am the only one or does this really read to me:

Clan Mech: removed
Clan Mech: removed
Clan Mech: removed
Clan Mech: removed, but we gave the same quirk we removed to the ****** SO8.

IS Mech: Increased
IS Mech added
IS Mech: more cooldown

PGI has long been anti-clan... at this point in time i think it's time to just drop clan mechs entierly. Guess i'll be taking a longer break than I thoguht from this game.


This is why i do not want PGI to add clan mechs to MW5 they will suck like they do in MWO.

Edited by KursedVixen, 21 January 2023 - 06:57 PM.

[KursedVixen]

Steel Raven, on 21 January 2023 - 09:32 AM, said:

I can't say I like the idea of Clan Mechs getting more squishy. I get that this is a attempt to nerf Clan snipers without nerfing Clan weapons even more but this will just lead to Clan snipers hiding more and doing whatever possible to stay out of brawl.

Welp I guess i'll stick to my inner sphere mechs up front mentalty now if they just want to nerf clans then they can just have IS mechs do the fighting.

[SniperFury]

I am sorry, are they really removing the quirks that effect the only viable weapons for the Incubus and quirking all the heavy and ammo dependent weapons? Bad move cauldron.

[Zader39]

Ah, it's all coming back to me now why I'd left the game for a few years. The constant clan nerfs. I definitely won't put any more money into the game, thanks for the reminder.

You know what's truly balanced? A game that can't afford to keep the servers running. Everything is gone at that point, and thus completely equal. You'd think they would have learned from the previous player exodus, but ... here we are again it seems.

[KursedVixen]

Zader39, on 21 January 2023 - 10:19 PM, said:

Ah, it's all coming back to me now why I'd left the game for a few years. The constant clan nerfs. I definitely won't put any more money into the game, thanks for the reminder.

You know what's truly balanced? A game that can't afford to keep the servers running. Everything is gone at that point, and thus completely equal. You'd think they would have learned from the previous player exodus, but ... here we are again it seems.

same...i'm seriously regreting coming back...or buying mechs, probably be the last time i'll just wait for them to come free, IF i'm even playing anymore i've been tired of this anti-clan bias and it's clear to me it's still
there.


I'm willing to bet the next mech they're making is IS and clans won't get any weapons, it'll probably be another civl war update clan get's no weapons an IS gets like 5.

Edited by KursedVixen, 21 January 2023 - 11:03 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

I actually played quite a bit of table top, but years ago before Catalyst.

Guess what, I played the game since it's inception ... when it was still called BattleDroids

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

I no longer have my old rulebooks, so it is possible that the descriptions of the weapons and the weapon damage was adjusted,

Fact: The weapon damage of (standard) machine guns against mechs was and still is 2 points of damage from the very beginning when the game didn't even have infantry or vehicles (as I already mentioned). The "adjustments" in terms of damage and description came when those things were added to the game and the damage part is a "bonus" that doesn't change the anti-mech capabilities.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

but I recall that MGs were described as primarily anti-infantry / light-vehicle weapons that did minimal damage against Mechs.

And your recollection is simply false or rather ignores the actual facts of the game as far as stats are concerned.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

I do conceded that the original BATTLETECH game did not have rules for infantry or vehicles so the MGs would only be used against Mechs.

... and do the exact same 2 points of damage that they do ever since.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

And, yes, a singular MG does not strip 100s of points of armor off a Mech in seconds,

Nor can 10 as I showed you.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

the problem is that many mechs can easly boat MGS,

And for the vast majority of those the machine guns are pretty much the only option to actually use.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

and the CRAEL can boat a dozen,

10 != 12 ... you should really try more to get your numbers correct

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

so maybe the solution is to add Ghost Heat if you fire more than 6 MGS at a time and remove the Crit damage.

Ghostheat to a weapon that - also in accordance to Battletech - generates no heat by itself is 0.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 22 January 2023 - 03:39 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

C337Skymaster, on 21 January 2023 - 02:24 PM, said:

So while you have done your math correctly, your conclusions are wrong.

I'm not sure that you even understood what my actual conclusions really are because the numbers I presented are just the result of what the person I responded to asked for: machine gun damage that has the same relative damage balance and general effect as they have in the table top (and not even more nerfed values due to incorrect notions of machine guns not being anti-mech weapons or incorrect damage numbers from table top) . Also kindly take note that pretty much my entire text used Conditional 1 tempus which - as the name suggests - hinges on a condition ... here to actually adhere to original relative strength of machine guns when compared against AC/2s. Nothing in my statement said as a conclusion that those number should be used in MW:O.

C337Skymaster, on 21 January 2023 - 02:24 PM, said:

The key is not to increase MG damage to equal AC/2's as they currently stand, but to increase AC/2 cooldowns until they more closely match with MG's. Currently in MWO, MG's do 5 times the DPS as they do on TT (1 vs 0.2).

Now I can sort of throw your first statement right back at you: You did your math right but your conclusions are based on false premises:

1. DPS is a statistical metric that only works within the context of the game that you apply the metric to. So comparing DPS stats between two mechanically different games - here MW:O and table top - is futile / useless from the get go. In this case the table top operates based on abstracted 10 second rounds with a random damage distribution on the target where MW:O - as a shooter style game - has near perfect damage registration on the target with actual aim in a real time environment => You simply cannot directly compare the AC/2's 0.2 dps in tabletop against the 2.78 dps in MW:O because the latter value is already the result of balancing damage values within MW:O.

2. If you want to really argue that AC/2s have too high dps values when making that useless comparison against table top then you'll have to argue that for all weapons. I guess this game would absolute "thrive" with 10s cooldowns on very weapon or a maximum of 2 dps per weapon.

=> So no, "the key" certainly isn't to nerf AC/2 cooldowns in order to get them closer to table top dps values. The same is true for any other weapon system as well.

C337Skymaster, on 21 January 2023 - 02:24 PM, said:

Currently in MWO, AC/2's do 13.89 times the DPS than they do on TT (2.78 vs 0.2). SRM's do 5.38, 3.58, and 2.87, (2's, 4's, and 6's, respectively) times the DPS. etc.

Which should give you some hints:

1. Absolute DPS comparisons between the two games are useless and show that the user has fallen into the pittrap of using statistical metrics without understanding the actual meaning of said metrics or how metrics are supposed to be applied.

2. All Comparisons must ultimately be relative between the two systems as well as releative within the respective game itself and all comparisons between games can only ever go "so far" => If you want to (somewhat) stay true to the original you can only compare the relative strengths within each individual game.

3. The solution to "the problem" (provided that we actually find one that everybody agrees to exist) has to come from within the dynamics of MW:O and can only optionally try to uphold the spirit of the original.

4. When talking about the spirit and realities of the original one should get one's facts correct (like actual damage numbers)

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 02:12 PM, said:

All-in-all, even with doubled or tripled armor, there is more firepower flying around an MWO battlefield, at much higher rates, and much more accurately concentrated, than the armor we carry was EVER intended to withstand.

All direct consequences of the chosen game environment and while you are correct that MWO obviously has increased damage rates and more accurate / less randomized hits the plain truth is: If you were to try to transfer "intended" damage rates and armor rates plus (lack of) accuracy of the table top into a first person shooter game you'd create an even bigger clusterf* of game than what we (allegedly) have here in MW:O

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 22 January 2023 - 03:23 AM.

[Curccu]

C337Skymaster, on 21 January 2023 - 09:00 AM, said:

As for Conquest on Crimson Strait: why was THAT changed? There wasn't anything wrong with Conquest on that map. It's Assault and Incursion that needed looking into, not Conquest.

Conquest spots were totally 1 sided in that map, you could over watch from the island 3 of the caps.

[C337Skymaster]

Curccu, on 22 January 2023 - 03:43 AM, said:

Conquest spots were totally 1 sided in that map, you could over watch from the island 3 of the caps.

You can overwatch 4 of the caps from the island, along with 3/4 of the common combat area, if you move to the right spots. You're also at super extreme range, shooting through obstacles, and having to do all target-finding by Mk1 eyeball, so you're rather ineffective out there. You're more effective shooting targets on and under the platform around the tunnel entrance, which is what island snipers do on both Conquest and Skirmish (and Domination, when they get the chance).

I've won Conquest matches, and lost them, starting on both sides of that map. I've never had any sense of "foregone conclusion", the way I do with Domination on some maps, and with Assault and Incursion on that one in particular. Conquest is very flexible by its nature. Assault and Domination are the ones where the back side team is pinned between their base and the saddle with no flexibility.

Maybe this is an issue for 8v8 comp players, but it has little to no bearing on 12v12 QP matches, and don't Compers only play on Canyon Network anyway?

[C337Skymaster]

Der Geisterbaer, on 22 January 2023 - 02:30 AM, said:

All direct consequences of the chosen game environment and while you are correct that MWO obviously has increased damage rates and more accurate / less randomized hits the plain truth is: If you were to try to transfer "intended" damage rates and armor rates plus (lack of) accuracy of the table top into a first person shooter game you'd create an even bigger clusterf* of game than what we (allegedly) have here in MW:O

The trick is to have stuck to the guns of creating a simulation, not an esport. One of the biggest failings of PGI, and the biggest disservices they've done to Battletech.

The TT rules are meant to simulate humans piloting 'mechs, aiming and shooting at each other.
MWO is meant to simulate humans piloting 'mechs aiming and shooting at each other.

They're meant to be functionally the same thing viewed from different perspectives (top-down vs first person), and the viewing angle is no reason to remove so many shortcomings and limitations which were MEANT to be balancing factors in themselves, the removal of which is part of what has caused the twisted distorted mess that we can hardly recognize as Battletech, anymore.

[Bud Crue]

Late to the party, but...

dario03, on 21 January 2023 - 08:24 AM, said:

-Panthers are buffed.

How is making the Panther's weapon specific quirks general going to in any way act as a buff for the 10P?

As far as I can tell, it will still under perform compared to any of the other similarly hard point limited mechs. E.g. you guys gave the Centurion D a massive combined 40% lbx cooldown quick, and with that it has become a regular sight in QP. I would argue that the only reason it gets played is because of that unique quirk potential. The Panther 10P, despite being an oversized 35 toner, slow, XL dependent, and far more limited in potential builds, can't come close to the same level of performance. Why is the more build limited, more fragile, mech given lesser but more general quirks? Why is the more limited mech specifically quirked to be even more limited than other mediocre (mixed-build, single arm dependent, limited hard point) mechs? It makes no sense to me why this mech has been consistently kept in this state forever. It is out brawled (at best am lb-10 and 2 srm-4s with barely any ammo for each), out sniped (at best a single L-Gauss (yes you can strip the thing for a regular Gauss) or 2 class 2 ACs), out alpha-ed, out damage potential-ed, out everything compared to one or more of the other Panthers, and it gets worse when you compare it to other similarly limited mechs regardless of tonnage, and I just don't understand why this state of affairs is allowed to persist.

[Pz_DC]

C337Skymaster, on 21 January 2023 - 02:24 PM, said:

So while you have done your math correctly, your conclusions are wrong. The key is not to increase MG damage to equal AC/2's as they currently stand, but to increase AC/2 cooldowns until they more closely match with MG's. Currently in MWO, MG's do 5 times the DPS as they do on TT (1 vs 0.2). Currently in MWO, AC/2's do 13.89 times the DPS than they do on TT (2.78 vs 0.2). SRM's do 5.38, 3.58, and 2.87, (2's, 4's, and 6's, respectively) times the DPS. etc. All-in-all, even with doubled or tripled armor, there is more firepower flying around an MWO battlefield, at much higher rates, and much more accurately concentrated, than the armor we carry was EVER intended to withstand.

Yeah and that's how UM survived after 2xHits with HGR and then 2xHits with ERPPC (all in same side torso)... Saw it few sec ago.

Edited by Pz_DC, 22 January 2023 - 05:28 AM.

[Pz_DC]

1312SHR1312, on 21 January 2023 - 06:38 PM, said:

i welcome the change because players in that spot are extremely annoying, especially when they are the last lone alife in a team and shut down at that spot.good luck finding him q(@_@)p

That's "last one" problem, not a spot problem... And it's here only coz BAP is useless and we have no "scouts" as they intended to be... And it's all core problem of game mechanics not balance...

Edited by Pz_DC, 22 January 2023 - 06:20 AM.

[dario03]

Bud Crue, on 22 January 2023 - 05:17 AM, said:

Late to the party, but...



How is making the Panther's weapon specific quirks general going to in any way act as a buff for the 10P?

As far as I can tell, it will still under perform compared to any of the other similarly hard point limited mechs. E.g. you guys gave the Centurion D a massive combined 40% lbx cooldown quick, and with that it has become a regular sight in QP. I would argue that the only reason it gets played is because of that unique quirk potential. The Panther 10P, despite being an oversized 35 toner, slow, XL dependent, and far more limited in potential builds, can't come close to the same level of performance. Why is the more build limited, more fragile, mech given lesser but more general quirks? Why is the more limited mech specifically quirked to be even more limited than other mediocre (mixed-build, single arm dependent, limited hard point) mechs? It makes no sense to me why this mech has been consistently kept in this state forever. It is out brawled (at best am lb-10 and 2 srm-4s with barely any ammo for each), out sniped (at best a single L-Gauss (yes you can strip the thing for a regular Gauss) or 2 class 2 ACs), out alpha-ed, out damage potential-ed, out everything compared to one or more of the other Panthers, and it gets worse when you compare it to other similarly limited mechs regardless of tonnage, and I just don't understand why this state of affairs is allowed to persist.

-10p had 10% missile cooldown, range, velocity, now it will have 25,25,20% and no nerfs.
-8z is getting 10% standard laser range and its duration increased from 10 to 20% and no nerfs.

If those aren't enough, the mechs could be looked at again. But when I said Panthers are buffed I was just going through the list of mechs explaining some nerfs. The Panthers only changes were buffs.

[Bud Crue]

dario03, on 22 January 2023 - 05:44 AM, said:

-10p had 10% missile cooldown, range, velocity, now it will have 25,25,20% and no nerfs.
-8z is getting 10% standard laser range and its duration increased from 10 to 20% and no nerfs.

If those aren't enough, the mechs could be looked at again. But when I said Panthers are buffed I was just going through the list of mechs explaining some nerfs. The Panthers only changes were buffs.

I see where you are coming from in re the 10P's missile quirks, and I certainly agree that this is a buff. My concern remains that even this seemingly substantial quirk adjustment is not much for a mech that can at best carry a single MRM-10 or 2 SRM-4s. Comparatively speaking, it remains below par for similarly situated mechs of all weight classes. I certainly appreciate the buff, but it won't get this POS played anymore than it ever has been, especially when there are other more capable mechs (many only because of quirks) that can perform its same role. I do hope you guys continue to monitor it and give it some more improvements sooner rather than later. Until then, it will remain one of the select mechs for Shi77y Mech Wednesdays.

Edited by Bud Crue, 22 January 2023 - 06:38 AM.

[PocketYoda]

HELLFIRE
HLF-1:

• Removed +5 Structure bonus from LT, CT, RT

HLF-2:

• Removed +5 Structure bonus from LT, CT, RT
  
• Removed -5% Heavy Laser heat

It needed more Nerfs...



CRB-27:

• Removed 10% Energy range
  
• Removed 30% Weapon velocity
  
• Removed -15% STD Laser cooldown
  
• Removed -10% STD Laser heat
  
• Added 60% PPC Family velocity
  
• Added 10% PPC Family range
  
• Added -10% Energy cooldown
  
• Added -10% Energy heat

I still wont use PPCs because they have that "death zone" at close range..

Edited by PocketYoda, 22 January 2023 - 07:18 AM.

[Zader39]

PocketYoda, on 22 January 2023 - 07:13 AM, said:

• Added 60% PPC Family velocity
  
• Added 10% PPC Family range
  
• Added -10% Energy cooldown
  
• Added -10% Energy heat

I still wont use PPCs because they have that "death zone" at close range..

Huh? Heavy PPC's have the min range, but this is for the whole PPC family. Snub doesn't, Light PPC doesn't, ERPPC doesn't, etc. It's not like it's a clan mech and only have the one choice ... this is a massive buff.

[chaosshade2638]

PocketYoda, on 22 January 2023 - 07:13 AM, said:

HELLFIRE
HLF-1:

• Removed +5 Structure bonus from LT, CT, RT

HLF-2:

• Removed +5 Structure bonus from LT, CT, RT
  
• Removed -5% Heavy Laser heat

It needed more Nerfs...

I know what you mean... the Hellfire is fragile as hell in the first place because it's got ****** hitboxes... it really needed those health points.

[Roodkapje]

Zader39, on 22 January 2023 - 07:56 AM, said:

Huh? Heavy PPC's have the min range, but this is for the whole PPC family. Snub doesn't, Light PPC doesn't, ERPPC doesn't, etc. It's not like it's a clan mech and only have the one choice ... this is a massive buff.

You forgot the heat my guy



Anyways...



Now that we have a guy for editing the maps/levels I really hope he will look at the following issues :
- https://mwomercs.com...ll-on-manifold/
- https://mwomercs.com...rbright-effect/
- https://mwomercs.com...istance-change/ and many other similar topics!

Thank you in advance!



P.S. : I really dislike all the nerfing in this patch, but hey... Cauldron crap strikes again I guess... ?!

[simon1812]

Steel Raven, on 21 January 2023 - 09:32 AM, said:

I can't say I like the idea of Clan Mechs getting more squishy.

I get that this is a attempt to nerf Clan snipers without nerfing Clan weapons even more but this will just lead to Clan snipers hiding more and doing whatever possible to stay out of brawl.

The idea of "getting good" at the game is offensive to some out there...so the obvious solution is nerfing everything and then some more.