48 replies to this topic

[Meep Meep]

Large lasers haven't been meta for a very long time. Even the +4 hsl didn't make them much more attractive. That binary were inserted just moved them even further down. I'd stick them back to how they used to be. Fast firing but a bit hotter.

[pbiggz]

Weeny Machine, on 05 September 2023 - 02:25 PM, said:

The problem is with reflective armour...it makes you more vulnerable to ballistics

Yes, and reactive armor makes you vulnerable to energy. Roll either of them and you reliable cancel out half a sniper's weapons unless they're running hard on energy or ballistic, then its either no benefit, or a massive benefit. The chance of having either on the field massively encourages mixed builds, punishes single-weapon type boating, and effectively cuts alphas in half.

Weeny Machine, on 05 September 2023 - 02:25 PM, said:

Angel ECM? MWO's ECM is basically an Angel ECM

He said non-angel ecm. Also equipment is PGI's opportunity to really elucidate on gameplay. ECM already does non-canon stuff, so introduce more of that, and make it weird and crazy and fun. **** it, get weird and add directional jumpjets to let you dash. Why not? It would be fun. Equipment eats up tonnage that would otherwise go to weapons and reduces the effectiveness of those tons that were already dedicated to weapon. Im quite convinced its THE way to improve TTK without making everything feel like pool noodles as was Chris Lowrey's approach.

Weeny Machine, on 05 September 2023 - 02:25 PM, said:

Apart from that I agree...the TTK is horrible. It also favours sniping btw. Some years ago, you were able to take some shots from snipers and were reasonable well to do some brawling. Today you take simply too much damage if you are active right from the start. Usually you need to sit tight and wait. However, that means your team is basically one mech down for that time.
Anyway, if the September patch doesn't change things, I simply quit till new weapons come out (most likely they will cater to the snipers again, though) and play Baldur's Gate 3 and have some fun.

I think sniping is still easy to counterplay, its just flavour of the month(s) and people like to either follow the mob or panic when the mob does something they dont like. That said, TTK is low, and adding more weapons/nerfing weapons will not fix the problem. We need defensive equipment.

[TheCaptainJZ]

The problem wouldn't be so big if not for the effects of quirks and the skill tree. Having a mech skilled makes it twice as deadly. And changing the skill tree so you could pick only the nodes that were best just buffed every mech with no drawbacks. To compensate for power creep, I think we need a 10% reduction in damage across the board. I don't care how it's implemented--longer cooldown, longer beam times, higher heat, slower dissipation, lower damage numbers--I would have liked to see it happen years ago and the problem is only getting worse.

[foamyesque]

pbiggz, on 07 September 2023 - 04:08 PM, said:

Equipment eats up tonnage that would otherwise go to weapons and reduces the effectiveness of those tons that were already dedicated to weapon.

That's arguably the case for AMS and the hypothetical addition of more armour types, but it's not the case for ECM, JJs, or TCs, all of which enhance the effectiveness of your guns.

[KursedVixen]

foamyesque, on 08 September 2023 - 06:35 PM, said:

That's arguably the case for AMS and the hypothetical addition of more armour types, but it's not the case for ECM, JJs, or TCs, all of which enhance the effectiveness of your guns.

with ther removal of match score for shooting down missiles AMs has become less desirable... honestly i wish it were more like TT where it could totally destroy all incomeing missiles or not.

Edited by KursedVixen, 08 September 2023 - 06:56 PM.

[pbiggz]

TheCaptainJZ, on 08 September 2023 - 03:52 PM, said:

The problem wouldn't be so big if not for the effects of quirks and the skill tree. Having a mech skilled makes it twice as deadly. And changing the skill tree so you could pick only the nodes that were best just buffed every mech with no drawbacks. To compensate for power creep, I think we need a 10% reduction in damage across the board. I don't care how it's implemented--longer cooldown, longer beam times, higher heat, slower dissipation, lower damage numbers--I would have liked to see it happen years ago and the problem is only getting worse.

It is reckless to just say "we need to nerf damage across the board by 10%". There are good reasons designers rarely make changes that dramatic. They might look decisive and exciting to players but they almost always have dramatic secondary effects that can be difficult or impossible to predict. Nerf damage by 10% and you might find an entirely new and even more degenerate meta has evolved.

In fact, we've basically seen that already. Chris Lowrey oversaw a long period of exceptionally low alpha damage; ttk was relatively high compared to now, but only because the meta heavily favoured close ranged DPS brawling to the exclusion of essentially all other strategies. This is not the path forward.

Its also reckless to say that this is entirely the result of the skill tree and quirks. Quirks are essentially mission critical; the vast majority of mechs objectively suck; they might look cool but they have bad hardpoints, low engine caps, unfavourable hardpoints. On their own, there is no reason to run them. Quirks give players the reason. The Awesome was a deathtrap before quirks, now its actually playable, and thats just one example.

No, the trend towards higher alphas is the result of one thing and one thing only; we have gotten lots of guns, and nothing else added to the game. Light Ferro and Stealth armor are the only new armor types we've ever gotten. We need more armor and more equipment; things that you can stack onto your mech to make it tankier, or more mobile, or more usable in ways that don't directly result in bigger alphas.

foamyesque, on 08 September 2023 - 06:35 PM, said:

That's arguably the case for AMS and the hypothetical addition of more armour types, but it's not the case for ECM, JJs, or TCs, all of which enhance the effectiveness of your guns.

ECM is arguable, it indirectly improves your ability to deal damage because it reduces your opponents ability to see you and target you, and therefore deal damage to you.

Jumpjets and TCs I agree on, but only in part. Both improve your ability to do damage, but they come with a tonnage cost, and therefore, they're essentially a tax on your total alpha. You could take a few more lasers or a bigger PPC if you left the jumpjets or the targeting computer off, but with it on, your total alpha might be lower even though the utility of those weapons is improved.

KursedVixen, on 08 September 2023 - 06:53 PM, said:

with ther removal of match score for shooting down missiles AMs has become less desirable... honestly i wish it were more like TT where it could totally destroy all incomeing missiles or not.

It takes literally 3 seconds of thought to realize AMS shooting down 100% of incoming missiles would result in literally nobody running missiles. If I can figure that out, why can't you? Tabletop is not the answer. It never was, it never will be.

Edited by pbiggz, 08 September 2023 - 07:40 PM.

[foamyesque]

pbiggz, on 08 September 2023 - 07:39 PM, said:

ECM is arguable, it indirectly improves your ability to deal damage because it reduces your opponents ability to see you and target you, and therefore deal damage to you.

Jumpjets and TCs I agree on, but only in part. Both improve your ability to do damage, but they come with a tonnage cost, and therefore, they're essentially a tax on your total alpha. You could take a few more lasers or a bigger PPC if you left the jumpjets or the targeting computer off, but with it on, your total alpha might be lower even though the utility of those weapons is improved.

Right: because they're a tonnage tax, they mean you carry less in the way of weaponry/cooling/ammo (which, honestly, I all group together under 'weapon tonnage'), but what they do is allow you to make the most of the guns you do have. ECM and JJs allow for better shooting angles and larger shooting windows, and TComps just flat out make your guns work better (and give you targeting data faster atop, which means you can use your improved precision/range to target weak components faster).

Heck, engines fall into this kind of category too.

With how heavy guns in Battletech are once you start having to pay for their full heat output in sinks, slotting things that are much lighter but that let your guns operate more effectively is often the play that gets you better results, even if the alpha number is less sexy. S'true in tabletop, it's been true in other Mechwarrior games, it's definitely true in HBSTech, and it's true in MWO too

[pbiggz]

foamyesque, on 08 September 2023 - 11:37 PM, said:

Right: because they're a tonnage tax, they mean you carry less in the way of weaponry/cooling/ammo (which, honestly, I all group together under 'weapon tonnage'), but what they do is allow you to make the most of the guns you do have. ECM and JJs allow for better shooting angles and larger shooting windows, and TComps just flat out make your guns work better (and give you targeting data faster atop, which means you can use your improved precision/range to target weak components faster).

Heck, engines fall into this kind of category too.

With how heavy guns in Battletech are once you start having to pay for their full heat output in sinks, slotting things that are much lighter but that let your guns operate more effectively is often the play that gets you better results, even if the alpha number is less sexy. S'true in tabletop, it's been true in other Mechwarrior games, it's definitely true in HBSTech, and it's true in MWO too

I think we're enthusiastically agreeing with each other. Either way, we can also agree running ECM and Jumpjets feels good. Its fun to get that utility. TCs feel ok too, less exciting but still good.

We need more of that. Give me my cool toys. I want them.

[foamyesque]

Makes me wish Artemis did more. It's nominally the same sort of investment as a TComp -- tonnage and crits in exchange for precision -- but it's a much bigger investment because you have to pay per-weapon whereas you can stick a 1-ton tarcomp on and get bonuses for fifty tons of boom. And the bonus isn't really great enough to make up for it; the tighter spread in direct fire scenarios is nice, especially for SRMs, but you're paying an awful lot for it... especially for SRMs.

I am not sure how you tweak it; returning a lockon boost would impact LRM play in undesirable ways (and I'm not sure how it would interact with a mixed boat, e.g. LRMs + streaks or LRMs + ATMs). Boosting the spread reduction for direct fire and/or adding one for IDF is an option, I guess, but it doesn't really feel exciting.

[KursedVixen]

Meep Meep, on 06 September 2023 - 04:19 AM, said:

HAG gets an overall buff. Slightly longer delay between pellets but better dispersion so tighter groupings. The heat nerf of itself won't stop anything but boating it with very hot weapons and even then it will simply reduce sustainability.

great just what we needed Hag should not be a sniper weapon.... it should remain as it is a good mid range weapon and a weapon to poke at sniper at most.

[Meep Meep]

KursedVixen, on 09 September 2023 - 11:40 AM, said:

great just what we needed Hag should not be a sniper weapon.... it should remain as it is a good mid range weapon and a weapon to poke at sniper at most.

It still going to have dispersion. Just not as much so instead of a few shots missing a direwhale at 1200m all of them will hit though not on the same component.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Need to go back to Structure buffs and critting components and weapons instead of this instacheese crap as soon as armor is stripped.

Damage bleedover from losing an arm or torso seems too high as well, even STD engines whether in IS mechs or Clan Battlemechs do not seem to make much difference.

I am quite honestly stumped as to how anyone can keep a straight face and call this current iteration of MWO sustainable.

[pbiggz]

Cyborne Elemental, on 10 September 2023 - 01:23 AM, said:

Need to go back to Structure buffs and critting components and weapons instead of this instacheese crap as soon as armor is stripped.

Damage bleedover from losing an arm or torso seems too high as well, even STD engines whether in IS mechs or Clan Battlemechs do not seem to make much difference.

I am quite honestly stumped as to how anyone can keep a straight face and call this current iteration of MWO sustainable.

lets bring it down to earth here. This is still vastly better than paul balance; wherein we were being collectively emotionally abused by a man who literally decided what to nerf next by logging in, and then nerfing what killed him first/quickest.

It is also still better than lowreybalance; wherein every weapon hit like a wet noodle so the only viable strategy was tanky assault brawling with high dps close range weapons, because literally nothing else had enough throughput to stop that.

This does not mean things cant improve. They can. They should, but lets acknowledge reality here.

Edited by pbiggz, 10 September 2023 - 08:20 AM.

[Curccu]

Cyborne Elemental, on 10 September 2023 - 01:23 AM, said:

I am quite honestly stumped as to how anyone can keep a straight face and call this current iteration of MWO sustainable.

Can you tell me which iteration has been sustainable? I have played since beta and this game has been bleeding players... since beta.

https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/stats

Ups and downs but overall steadily going down.

[Runecarver]

pbiggz, on 10 September 2023 - 08:20 AM, said:

lets bring it down to earth here. This is still vastly better than paul balance; wherein we were being collectively emotionally abused by a man who literally decided what to nerf next by logging in, and then nerfing what killed him first/quickest.

It is also still better than lowreybalance; wherein every weapon hit like a wet noodle so the only viable strategy was tanky assault brawling with high dps close range weapons, because literally nothing else had enough throughput to stop that.

This does not mean things cant improve. They can. They should, but lets acknowledge reality here.

Perhaps its better for you, but clearly not for a large chunk of the remaining players. I'd be all for going back to weapons hitting like a wet noodle because at least then we could survive long enough for the long matchmaking process to not feel like cancer. Tanky high dps close range weapons are also way more fun than mostly stationary, scuttle back and forth from cover to vomit out enough damage to melt a torso section types of gameplay.

And even those had a solid impact in lowreybalance.

Edited by Runecarver, 11 September 2023 - 04:59 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Runecarver, on 11 September 2023 - 04:58 AM, said:

Perhaps its better for you, but clearly not for a large chunk of the remaining players.

Okay, what survey are you citing that "large chunk of remaining players"?

While I don't like what the Cauldron's general philosophy is, and how they have been power creeping, their attempt is still waaay better than what the previous balance overlords ever did. My gripes is largely because not getting what I want.

[pbiggz]

Runecarver, on 11 September 2023 - 04:58 AM, said:

Perhaps its better for you, but clearly not for a large chunk of the remaining players.

Whom you have consulted and speak for? As the6thmessenger said, do you have an ounce of actual data saying its not working for most? Because to me it looks like you don't like it, and your fabricating a mythical silent majority, so that you can pass off your own personal position as a position held by many.

I don't much care for sniping, im not very good at it. Im not pretending that makes me some kind of champion of the people. You are.

Runecarver, on 11 September 2023 - 04:58 AM, said:

I'd be all for going back to weapons hitting like a wet noodle because at least then we could survive long enough for the long matchmaking process to not feel like cancer.

Actually time to kill during that period wasn't all that low, it just took a long time for fights to start because you had to close in.

Runecarver, on 11 September 2023 - 04:58 AM, said:

Tanky high dps close range weapons are also way more fun than mostly stationary, scuttle back and forth from cover to vomit out enough damage to melt a torso section types of gameplay.

I quite like midrange and brawling too. I am not a sniper and don't particularly enjoy sniping as I'm not a great shot.

What you have implied but left unsaid is that because you think snipers aren't fun, nobody should be allowed to play them. You'll probably protest that, but everything you've said suggests it. You don't think snipers are fun, you don't think its a legitimate form of gameplay, and you think having to deal with it is a personal slight, therefore, to you, practicing to overcome snipers is not the solution, as that would legitimize the strategy. Instead, logging into the forums to agitate for their complete removal from the game by any and all possible means is the solution. This is what the anti-cauldron crowd has been doing from the start. Its been 2 years.

Runecarver, on 11 September 2023 - 04:58 AM, said:

And even those had a solid impact in lowreybalance.

I take this to mean you think snipers actually performed during the lowreybalance period? If so, you made that up.



I think the most damaging thing about what you're saying is that you want to roll the game back to a state in which it experienced what is essentially a full blown collapse. Player numbers during lowreybalance were at their absolute lowest, and it was the intervention of PGI in the matchmaker, and the intervention of the cauldron in actual responsive balancing that allowed the game to turn around.

I have said this before, but Free to Play games like MWO do not come back from the dead. Once they are dead, they typically stay dead and the servers dont last much more than a year. MWO DID come back from the dead. That is spectacularly unlikely. Run this simulation again and I promise you 9 times out of 10 the servers would have been shut down before the end of 2021.

By all rights, this was a miracle. You're eager to squander it because getting shot from over 600 meters hurt your feelings.

[TheCaptainJZ]

pbiggz, on 08 September 2023 - 07:39 PM, said:

It is reckless to just say "we need to nerf damage across the board by 10%". There are good reasons designers rarely make changes that dramatic. They might look decisive and exciting to players but they almost always have dramatic secondary effects that can be difficult or impossible to predict. Nerf damage by 10% and you might find an entirely new and even more degenerate meta has evolved.

In fact, we've basically seen that already. Chris Lowrey oversaw a long period of exceptionally low alpha damage; ttk was relatively high compared to now, but only because the meta heavily favoured close ranged DPS brawling to the exclusion of essentially all other strategies. This is not the path forward.

Its also reckless to say that this is entirely the result of the skill tree and quirks. Quirks are essentially mission critical; the vast majority of mechs objectively suck; they might look cool but they have bad hardpoints, low engine caps, unfavourable hardpoints. On their own, there is no reason to run them. Quirks give players the reason. The Awesome was a deathtrap before quirks, now its actually playable, and thats just one example.

No, the trend towards higher alphas is the result of one thing and one thing only; we have gotten lots of guns, and nothing else added to the game. Light Ferro and Stealth armor are the only new armor types we've ever gotten. We need more armor and more equipment; things that you can stack onto your mech to make it tankier, or more mobile, or more usable in ways that don't directly result in bigger alphas.

I mean this in a very broad and generalized way. I don't know what a proper number is. Of course, a blanket number change would be bad because it would have significant effects not easily predicted. But I'd argue that reducing damage overall is equivalent, if done right, to increasing armor. Yes, high alphas do come directly from more and more mechs having more and more hardpoints. But there are contributing causes as well. You can't tell me that redesigning the skill tree didn't contribute a little bit, now that there's almost no give and take between maxing out all the heat decreasing skills and cooldown and buffing armor because you don't have to overstep less desirable skills. Likewise, you can't tell me quirks don't further exasperate the problem when combined with everything else. If we buff armor, which would also be ok to me, then you're going to find a lot of players whining that their mechs and weapons feel weaker and unfun. I'm not saying we do a blanket numbers cut--it has to be well-thought out and I would expect that to take a lot of time and energy and iterations. I'm also not saying we eliminate quirks. They absolutely are needed in some cases, and they can add flavor to variants. But everything together has really decreased ttk and personally, I don't like it. You used to be able to move around the map more, at range, without losing a component from one enemy in one volley. That's much harder or rarer today. I know no one will act on my suggestions because the player base abhors nerfs of any kind but are ok with buffs that actually achieve the same effect. I mean, this game has been power creeping from day 1.

[Duke Falcon]

Buff this, nerf that!
... 1 month (p)asses...
Nerf this, buff that!
... 1 month, well, you know...
Buff this but if possible do not nerf that!
... 1 month, better go on a holiday or down da beach...
Nerf sh!t whatever what we not buffs!
... start to get bored? Me to!...
Nerf buffing and buff nerfing!
Circles within circles. Sometimes triangles or squares to, but yeah...
I mean, if something changes that usually not changes toward the good direction but when one try to fix it, well, just get even worse. Add more values for the equotation would not increase the number of mathematic professors. We could debate here there-n-back better than Bilbo Baggins did, cry for "dumb style, dumb change, dumb whatever"... But I doubt the current engine could provide any sane solution. The new stuffs are nice (well, Blazorz n HAGz sure) but adding newer-new-new stuffs would better done after some code-fixing\adding, what is... Said noone knows how to do among PGI (maybe Gandalf or Elrond)...
Well, it ended a bit more general and empty-meaning as I wanted but at least I not offended anyone this time. Sic transit mundus...

[Cyborne Elemental]

Curccu, on 11 September 2023 - 04:30 AM, said:

Can you tell me which iteration has been sustainable? I have played since beta and this game has been bleeding players... since beta.

I'm thinking pre-clan.

Game balance and gameplay just felt like it was getting decent.
Operation-24 (12v12) matches, and 3/3/3/3 MM could actually balance QP drops.

Then came the clan invasion, after that we should have had a MWO-2 and an entirely different game.

And when the post clan money rake did not immediately shift towards development of this kind of game.