177 replies to this topic

[Krasnopesky]

Lockheed_, on 21 January 2023 - 09:53 AM, said:

well then it was communicated a bit poorly in the past because it seemed that whenever concerns arose that the cauldron is balancing with regards to comp it was stated that the game is balance for QP only an often in a quite assertive way. The same also happened when people talked about faction play.
I have not necessarily an issue with that (although I personally wish the average player angle would be considered more) or the composition of members, but I feel like the initial representation of the cauldron was quite misleading.
It feels like if the cauldron would have been presented as JGx & friends making decision based on comp and their QP farming results this would have been more honest.

Balance has always been approach top-down by the Cauldron and in my belief that is how balance always should be approached in any game. The former person in charge of balance, Chris Lowrey, did not approach balance in this way.

The Cauldron currently has 19 members, but over the years people have come and gone. Although the majority has always been people who are highly skilled, there has and is a mix of people in there.

I will also point out that this is quirk pass 18 from the Cauldron, so 18 months of quirk changes. The vast vast majority of all these changes (easily +95%) have been specifically towards Quick Play, with very few being a mix of QP and either FP or comp. That mix seems more than fair to me, a person who plays all three modes regularly, but knows most people solely play QP.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 21 January 2023 - 10:19 AM.

[dario03]

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

Thank you for the insight! Although I could read the subtext in most of it (and personally feel like "comp performance" should be weighted very, very low, in the overall decision tree. Faction performance should be weighted double Comp performance, and QP performance should realistically be weighted 5x heavier than FP).

The particular subtext that I found amusing is that Ravens have lost their Narc Duration Bonus, something that was originally unique to them, and which they have been known for ever since quirks became a thing. I also see that they're being compensated with extra sensor and seismic sensor range, and extra Narc ammo and velocity. As in: "fine, you can run around stealth-narcing targets all match. We'll even help you see where they are. But if you want them to stay narced, you'll have to do that, yourself". Close?

QP performance is the main focus, comp got some attention since cs22 just ended. Comp plays very differently than qp and that was brought up and used to remove some other proposed changes. I focus more on qp but if something is strong in qp and also strong in comp than that of course shows the mech is strong.

Raven 3L narc duration removal was so it could get a good amount of other buffs and so that narced enemies don't get locked behind cover for so long. And even without the quirk, narc duration is pretty long. I would like to reduce duration on narc itself but buff it in some other ways. Or ideally make narc fall off after a certain amount of damage like it used to, then it could have longer duration. That way narc could be used to keep track of enemies but not just make it so a narc mech gets lrmed for a minute straight or until death. Unfortunately that isn't possible currently since that part of narc isn't in the files we have access to.

[simon1812]

Ehh...it feels like they want to nerf mech all the way to crap...I dont get it, didn't they realize (PGI) that some players are just good regardless of how much one nerf a mech? It has been a decade I ve been told.

[Staude Coston]

A Mech balance in the QP and in the Comp only plays a subordinate role because I can use all Mechs IS and Clan.
The player will always take the best mech for himself from both sides IS and clan
this is not possible in FP
therefore the balance of IS to clan in FP is of far greater importance
and this is exactly what Cauldron ignores
everyone knows that there will never be a perfect mech balance

[nopempele]

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

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.

What would you suggest to fix it? I personally think that it is just part of the human behaviour. Some people come to have fun and brawl, some are striving to win, and some only see a frag count and do not care about their team at all. I found that a lone sniper drooling over his "high alpha" is a burden to the team. That is unless there are 3 of them in a unit, which is another story...

[simon1812]

Lol balance? Which competitive game doesnt have its forums full of ppl complaining about the lack of balance one way or the other? Something Chess maybe?

It will never be perfect, the more they try the harder they will fail, that if they dont break anything.

A solution? Stop trying to please everyone PGI.

Edited by simon1812, 21 January 2023 - 11:10 AM.

[C337Skymaster]

dario03, on 21 January 2023 - 10:12 AM, said:

QP performance is the main focus, comp got some attention since cs22 just ended. Comp plays very differently than qp and that was brought up and used to remove some other proposed changes. I focus more on qp but if something is strong in qp and also strong in comp than that of course shows the mech is strong.

Raven 3L narc duration removal was so it could get a good amount of other buffs and so that narced enemies don't get locked behind cover for so long. And even without the quirk, narc duration is pretty long. I would like to reduce duration on narc itself but buff it in some other ways. Or ideally make narc fall off after a certain amount of damage like it used to, then it could have longer duration. That way narc could be used to keep track of enemies but not just make it so a narc mech gets lrmed for a minute straight or until death. Unfortunately that isn't possible currently since that part of narc isn't in the files we have access to.

I don't think I ever knew it to be tied to damage. What would make the absolute most sense is for it to be tied to the damage dealt to the component it's attached to (vs overall damage), since NARCs are technically permanent unless dislodged somehow. We lack most of the mechanics for dislodging the beacons in this game, however, thus duration limits.

As for the current base duration, that's borderline, where it sits. As someone who alternates between the KFX-D and ADR-C, the latter needing to be custom built, because it was not added as an in-game variant, the unmodified NARC, while usable, is good for maybe two or three volleys per beacon, due to having to ensure a clear firing arc between yourself and the target (to include terrain, structures, trees, teammates, etc). Only when you catch a 'mech in wide open terrain with zero obstacles and zero cover (hard to find since Francois got his mitts on things), can you get more than two or three missile volleys on target before a standard NARC falls off. The KFX boosted Narc (+10) is good for four or five volleys before it falls off, again limited by the target's ability to get to hard cover and stay there.

In practice, using the Adder, it feels as though you don't have time to even break line of sight and lob missiles before you need to reacquire the target and land another NARC. At least the KFX gives you some breathing room to use the beacon before you need to fire another one.

For 'mechs whose sole role is to place the NARC (Raven 3L, Jenner IIC-3), it makes sense to have a slightly higher duration, because they can't, or typically won't, use their own beacon. They have to place the beacon, then either have to call it away, or wait for it to be noticed, then hope that the other 'mech that actually has the missiles has a clear fire path to the target.

I'll agree, though, that the Raven 3L has a unique mix of extreme NARC quirks, other sensor quirks and stealth armor, which allows it to abuse those quirks much more aggressively than any other 'mech that has them.

Edited by C337Skymaster, 21 January 2023 - 11:06 AM.

[-OUTLAW-]

Far Reach, on 21 January 2023 - 05:19 AM, said:

Can you start nerfing all the blatantly overpowered IS mechs now? Please?
Getting sick of every single decent clan mech being nerfed into the ground, consistently.

Show us on the paper doll where the incubus hurt you.

I play primarily IS Mechs, but I agree that Clan Mechs are not as OP as people think, Clan lasers especially have longer burn times and produce significantly more heat than IS lasers, so they take more skill to use effectively. Also, they nerfed the Crusader 6T, but not the Crael? Actually the Crael is not the problem, OP machine guns are the problem, PGI needs to get MGs closer to what their intended purpose in BATTLETECH was. In BATTELTECH, machine guns were anti-infantry / anti-light vehicle weapons, that did 1 point of damage per turn to Mechs, so PGI should remove the crit damage and scale the damage to: LMG=0.75 dmg / turn (whatever one BATTLETECH turn translates to in MWO), MG=1 dmg/ turn and HMG=1.75 dmg / turn. MGs should not be stripping 100 armor off an Assault Mech in less than 5 seconds from out of their optimal range.

[Steel Raven]

nopempele, on 21 January 2023 - 10:53 AM, said:

What would you suggest to fix it? I personally think that it is just part of the human behaviour. Some people come to have fun and brawl, some are striving to win, and some only see a frag count and do not care about their team at all. I found that a lone sniper drooling over his "high alpha" is a burden to the team. That is unless there are 3 of them in a unit, which is another story...

If I had an answer, I would post it. All I'm saying my making Clan machine more fragile hasn't solved the PPD trouble in the past so I doubt it will now. We are going to see a handful of popular Clan load outs and they will be ether Long Range middle boats or peek and poke snipers, (stop me when this sounds familiar) and some people will still complain about Clan range because that's the only advantage Clan machines still have.

[Saved By The Bell]

HELLFIRE is weak

no need to nerf

well, nobody listen

[An6ryMan69]

Massive push in this patch for squeeze players into using specific weapons and/or SO8 omni points.

Completely the wrong way to go...double thumbs down.

[Der Geisterbaer]

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 11:45 AM, said:

OP machine guns are the problem,

Oh well, another one who claims that machine guns are OP and then proceeds to argue with the Battletech table top while demonstrating that tehy actually have zero clue about the Battletech table top.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 11:45 AM, said:

PGI needs to get MGs closer to what their intended purpose in BATTLETECH was.

Their purpose in Battletech were to be anti-mech weapons that per shot did exactly the same damage to mech armor as an AC/2 or a singular SRM: 2 points of damage.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 11:45 AM, said:

In BATTELTECH, machine guns were anti-infantry / anti-light vehicle weapons, that did 1 point of damage per turn to Mechs,

Get your facts straight. In the table top standard machine guns do 2 points of damage against mech armor just like an AC/2 or a single SRM.
Fun fact: Machine guns did those two points of damage to mech armor before that game even had infantry or other vehicles than mechs and they do those 2 damage points to this very day. Just because they do additional to infantry (which is also true for certain pulse lasers) they aren't any less of an anti-mech weapon.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 11:45 AM, said:

so PGI should remove the crit damage

That's something we could actually agree on.But from here on things get really funny

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 11:45 AM, said:

and scale the damage to: LMG=0.75 dmg / turn (whatever one BATTLETECH turn translates to in MWO),

When compared against the AC/2 (which does double the damage of an LMG per turn in Battletech than the light machine gun) you'd actually have to increase LMG damage to 1.39 dps or 0.139 damage per 0.1s ticks vs. the current 0.85 dps or 0.085 damage per 0.1s ticks

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 11:45 AM, said:

MG=1 dmg/ turn

And here you'd have to actually go to 2.78 dps or 0.278 damage per 0.1s ticks vs. the current 1.0 dps or 0.1 damage per 0.1s tick to equal the AC/2 damage

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 11:45 AM, said:

and HMG=1.75 dmg / turn.

And finally here you'd have to go to 4.17 dps or 0.417 damage per 0.1s ticks vs. the current 1.5 dps or 0.15 damage per 0.1s to have the proper relation to the AC/2.

-OUTLAW-, on 21 January 2023 - 11:45 AM, said:

MGs should not be stripping 100 armor off an Assault Mech in less than 5 seconds from out of their optimal range.

A singular machine gun won't strip 100 armor off an assault in less than 5 seconds even within optimal range. 10 machine guns within their optimal range still need 10 seconds to strip 100 points of armor (currently machine guns have 1 dps against armor => 10x 1 dps = 10 dps; 100 / 10 dps = 10 seconds). Even 10 heavy machine guns within optimal range need 6.66s to remove 100 poinst of armor.

=> What you are describing isn't even possible in the game right now.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 21 January 2023 - 01:45 PM.

[Captain Dictator]

Next patch, buff Supernovas ay lmao

[-OUTLAW-]

Der Geisterbaer, on 21 January 2023 - 01:44 PM, said:

Oh well, another one who claims that machine guns are OP and then proceeds to argue with the Battletech table top while demonstrating that tehy actually have zero clue about the Battletech table top.

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

Der Geisterbaer, on 21 January 2023 - 01:44 PM, said:

Their purpose in Battletech were to be anti-mech weapons that per shot did exactly the same damage to mech armor as an AC/2 or a singular SRM: 2 points of damage.

I no longer have my old rulebooks, so it is possible that the descriptions of the weapons and the weapon damage was adjusted, but I recall that MGs were described as primarily anti-infantry / light-vehicle weapons that did minimal damage against Mechs. 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, yes, a singular MG does not strip 100s of points of armor off a Mech in seconds, the problem is that many mechs can easly boat MGS, and the CRAEL can boat a dozen, so maybe the solution is to add Ghost Heat if you fire more than 6 MGS at a time and remove the Crit damage.

[Meep Meep]

I figured the incubus nerfs were incoming. It's just too strong with lmg and 2 hvy larges with its excellent high hardpoints and speed. You will still be able to use that combo but with no quirk bonus. The saber was especially good with that loadout.

The so8 nerf/buffs were coming for a while to reign in some of the clan laser vomit so no real surprise there. As to the map changes we will have to wait and see if the map fixes are good or bad since there were certainly quite a few catch 22 spots on many maps only certain mechs could get to or you would get stuck if you found them.

[-OUTLAW-]

Denebios, on 21 January 2023 - 08:25 AM, said:

Nerf Clan, pay for Crael to win...

The cynical side of me agrees with you since they nerfed the 6T, but not the Crael. I love my Crusaders, but I don't play the Crael, because there is little skill involved in playing it other than surviving long enough to get in range.

Edited by -OUTLAW-, 21 January 2023 - 02:15 PM.

[C337Skymaster]

Der Geisterbaer, on 21 January 2023 - 01:44 PM, said:

Oh well, another one who claims that machine guns are OP and then proceeds to argue with the Battletech table top while demonstrating that tehy actually have zero clue about the Battletech table top.



Their purpose in Battletech were to be anti-mech weapons that per shot did exactly the same damage to mech armor as an AC/2 or a singular SRM: 2 points of damage.



Get your facts straight. In the table top standard machine guns do 2 points of damage against mech armor just like an AC/2 or a single SRM.
Fun fact: Machine guns did those two points of damage to mech armor before that game even had infantry or other vehicles than mechs and they do those 2 damage points to this very day. Just because they do additional to infantry (which is also true for certain pulse lasers) they aren't any less of an anti-mech weapon.



That's something we could actually agree on.But from here on things get really funny



When compared against the AC/2 (which does double the damage of an LMG per turn in Battletech than the light machine gun) you'd actually have to increase LMG damage to 1.39 dps or 0.139 damage per 0.1s ticks vs. the current 0.85 dps or 0.085 damage per 0.1s ticks



And here you'd have to actually go to 2.78 dps or 0.278 damage per 0.1s ticks vs. the current 1.0 dps or 0.1 damage per 0.1s tick to equal the AC/2 damage



And finally here you'd have to go to 4.17 dps or 0.417 damage per 0.1s ticks vs. the current 1.5 dps or 0.15 damage per 0.1s to have the proper relation to the AC/2.



A singular machine gun won't strip 100 armor off an assault in less than 5 seconds even within optimal range. 10 machine guns within their optimal range still need 10 seconds to strip 100 points of armor (currently machine guns have 1 dps against armor => 10x 1 dps = 10 dps; 100 / 10 dps = 10 seconds). Even 10 heavy machine guns within optimal range need 6.66s to remove 100 poinst of armor.

=> What you are describing isn't even possible in the game right now.

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.

Edited by C337Skymaster, 21 January 2023 - 02:26 PM.

[Sawk]

hmm its seems they are now fixxing the weak side of the timberwolf, the left shoulder using a cannon, so i'll test it, the new META should be 2 ULTRA ac 5, and 5 med lazers, been trying it for years, : )

SAWK ---- maybe clanner JAM RATES are close --- cannons shoot faster, : )

[tee5]

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

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

Gilgamesh Hoi, on 20 January 2023 - 10:32 PM, said:

What's the deal with the massive injection of invisible walls??? We need less invisible walls not more of them, if they have to be put in stop people falling in crevasses on some maps fine but these other maps? the arbitrary aim to stop players from getting to spots? where was the outcry that made this so important? How about PGI takes a second to (hey new map guy welcome aboard) explain where you all got the 'tip' that more invisible walls were needed instead of using all those precious man-hours to fix the random invisible walls that serve only to stop clear fire lines, or just randomly pop up on a slope?

Seriously, where was the outcry? where was the input? where was the great need to block off yet more terrain that can make the game more varied and not the same dang fight every time???

For a simple example let's look at Crimson Strait:

"Crimson Strait~ Invisible wall placed on the center mountain"

This is an enormous mistake and punishes the players who make the investment in JJs, skill points, and time learning how to safely go up and over. Putting an invisible wall there doesn't improve the game experience it instead limits the possibilities pilot who want to use their imagination to break out of the common cycles of nascar and static fight points. This in turn can surprise and open other pilots eyes to the many different things you can do instead of rushing to the center match after match.

Poor form PGI, really poor form, if a change this huge that is going to greatly impact the non-meta mech playing crowd who don't want to run the same mechs and fight in the same locals is going to be made why wasn't there some input solicited from us. We poor potatoes and tier 4-5 guys who like to mix it up and explore and fight? or not run around in circles to the same darn fire positions every match?

What were you thinking? really I'm asking cause this makes no sense in light of no public postings about any of this, help me understand what the rational is, please just explain it. Change for the sake of change without a driver is useless and in this case is going to really hurt the playing experience for a large portion of your lower tier pilots and kill an awful lot of fun and unique matches.

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