214 replies to this topic

[Der BierVampiR]

Eltyr, on 27 November 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

I can hardly believe the magnitude of the arm movement nerf on the Cataphract. It completely changes the dynamic of playing one. I have definitely noticed easy kills I no longer can get against equally slow targets merely because of this one change. In some situations, the Cataphract is reduced in effectiveness by 50% or more. I know of no one who thought the Cataphract had too much freedom of movement, because it very clearly didn't. At the very least, you should have increased torso twist to compensate, if you were truly unable to fix clipping without nerfing the arms.

And thats a very good idea in my opinion. 10-15% more torso twist would be a decent way to compensate the nerfed arm-movement.

Slanski, on 28 November 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

Indeed, I circled an Atlas yesterday at a substantial cruising speed of 74kph in my Cataphract and the restriction of arm movement made it impossible to decently outmaneuver the lumbering assault while firing. Please add torso twist to compensate for the (art inspired, so the torso gun doesn't clip!) arm movement nerf.

Exactly my experience - basically the cataphract is now a longe range only mech and he is transforming into a helpless victim as soon as enemy mechs (even large ones) are closing up.
But i really like the idea with the greater torso twist, this would solve the problem.

[Karenai]

After several games with different LRM configs I have to say: LRM with Artemis IV does less damage then it did before the patch.
It could be because everyone is using AMS again, but the damage is way worse. Around 20%-30% less damage on target.
Those who complain about the 0.1 damage buff clearly do not use LRM.
It feels like whole salvos go right beside the mechs despite full lock on.

Which is sad, because it is the only usable weapon left for those of us with craptastic FPS. (which btw is the biggest reason why you see so many LRM boats, not because they are op, but because you can use them with substandard FPS)

[Antarius]

ExAstris, on 27 November 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Weapons that are underperforming are:

Machine Guns. They need at least double their current damage. While they generate no heat, their pathetic dps, ammo dependency, travel time, and spread contribute to their being completely useless. They should compete with the small laser in role as they have the same range and similar loading requirements (ammo vs heatsink, one slot for 1/2 ton). It fills a sorely needed spot in the ballistics selection for a backup weapon, and some mechs like the ballistic heavy Cicada variant won't be worth their weight in pixels until this weapon competes with the small laser.

agreed completly, a bit more dps, higher flightspeed, maybe a bit of a random spread to compensate.

Quote

Flamers. They need smarter heat mechanics. Ones that keep the enemy hot, but don't auto-shut him down. They become too powerful when you can flamerboat and force people to shut down, they become useless when they heat you up more than your opposition. This is just the jist of what needs to be done, and I think its something the devs are already working on, so I'll leave the fine tuning up to them as I have not thought out exactly how this weapon would be best implimented

with a linear heatdisposal-system hard to implement. With a non-linear one, with normal heat disposal at 60% trashhold more disposal at higher trashhold, and a fix heat from flamer, it would only set the idle trashold higher --> alpha-striking would shut you down. But dont believe they will change it. (would be more realistic, not that realistics matters, would have advanteges and disadvanteges)

Quote

Small Pulse Lasers. They have the exact same loading requirements as medium lasers, but are outclassed by them in every way. The only advantage to the splas is that it fires its damage over the course of 1/2 second instead of 1 full second. This is no useful advantage, only the lightest of mechs can even possible benefit from this during twitch fights with other lights, other mechs often benefit from the longer fire time because they can correct poor shots mid-beam.

Now, this weapon just lacks a role. With precisely the same loading requirements, it obviously has to be balanced against the mlas. The mlas must keep the advantage of range, while the splas keeps the benefit of a shorter duration. We are still left with burst dps and heat efficiency to consider. A large reason why this weapon is not used is because the mlas beats it in both burst dps and long term heat efficiency. In short, the mlas has better damage, range, and heat, and it has the latter two by a wide margin. I would recommend changing the splas to have a beam duration of 0.25 seconds, and reduce its heat generation to 2.5. The splas will then be 96% as heat efficient, and have 96% the dps of the mlas (up from 80% and 87%, respectively), but have a far more noticable handling difference as it will spew its damage out in a quarter second. This will make the splas a very useful weaopn for, and against, light mechs as well as for brawlers who plan on being at point blank and need to pinpoint their damage. It gives the weapon a role (pinpoint damage for point blank brawlers) without stepping on the small laser or the medium lasers role of ultra-heat efficiency and omni-laser-filler.

Narc. The wieght is not worth the bonus. Even if the bonus lasted for more than 10 seconds, it just would not cut it. This needs to broadcast the enemy location for at least those 10 seconds, probably 15 in order for lights to really consider taking it. It would be a huge advantage to a light to be able to do scouting without having to maintain LOS, and this has the potential to be the perfect tool to do that with, but while visual lock remains required, the wieght and ammo needs in conjunction with TAG having the same operational requirements for the same benefits but with 1/5 the loading requirements and no drawbacks just makes Narc obsolete.

ER LL. The low heat dissipation rate in this game makes high-heat weapons really hard to use. You have to build your entire mech around just a pair of high heat weapons, and then you don't have any spare heat to run the ubiquitous set of medium lasers for your backup array. The highest heat weapons of all have taken the harshest hit, especially given the fact that the prevalence of terrain cover and lack of long range radar makes it pretty darned easy for mechs that want to engage at below 500m able to do so. So the ER large weapons almost never get to use their range, and their heat is way to high a price for that one or two shots you might get to do a bit more damage with because you have the ER version instead of the regular (which would still likely damage your opponent at that range, just at 2/3 or 1/2 the amount). The heat on this weapon needs to be cut by at least another full point to 9. Going to 8.5 might even be better, but testing at 9 is probably safer before changing it too much.

agreed

Quote

ER PPC. Same problem as the erll. Heat doesn't justify the range. However, this weapon is importantly different in that it does not have the minimum range limit that keeps regular PPCs from seeing the light of day (getting to that too). Dropping its heat generation a full two points may be justified because 10 damage for 13 heat is just silly in a game where long-term heat control is so utterly critical. However, this leaves it two heat points away from the regular PPC and without its minimum range problem, meaning we won't see the regular PPC again unless...

PPC. ...we change the way the minimum range works. Right now PPCs actually do damage below 90m, but its pathetically small (maybe one?). Increase the damage inside the minimum range. The exact number is up for grabs, but I'd think 5 damage would make sense. You deal half damage inside your minimum. Its a strong incentive to keep your enemy out of that range, and a strong incentive for them to get in it, but it doesn't render you entirely useless as the current setup demands. Now PPCs get to perform against other weapons in their role, direct fire main energy weapons, especially the large laser, trading a little heat efficiency, some travel time, and half its damage inside 90m for being able to put all its damage in one hit location.

disagreed.
Using both, and together in one mech, one er-ppc for melee, ppc for range.
I testing both quite a while, i believe they or perfect the way they are, not easy to hit with, at long range you spread the dmg over the hole mech, being happy to even hit, this it how it should be.

I would change some other things to make them compete with other weapons, like lasers or gauss.

• Make the damn DHS double again, the ppc/erppc got the biggest hit from it, not the lasers as intented i guess.
  
• give lasers some kind of harder handling, at the moment its the easiest weapon to pinpoint dmg ( dont believe its intented i can core a atlas with me 6ml-jenner in 20secs flat without damaging any other part than ct-rear while he trys to stop me) there are other topics where ideas are exchanged how to implement this "harder" thing
  
• maybe give the gauss a bit of a blowback to give it a bit of a harder handling (ppc you have problems before the shot, shot-delay, with gauss afterwards?) only a idea...

Quote

LBX10. Spread mechanics just are not going to work to balance this weapon. It doesn't matter what spread you give it, it will always be worse than regular ACs that can put all their damage on one location. If you buff its damage per pellet, then it becomes a humping-shotgun as people will ram into point blank to concentrate the damage and use the overall superior dps to face-wreck people.

This weapon needs an entirely different role. Options include: (1) Give its pellets a very tight spread and a super high muzzle velocity so they can hit light mechs and actually deal most of their damage to a target at their maximum range (spread should be less than Atlas sized at max range). (2) Make these weapons haeavy machine guns, instead of firing a cluster shot, then fire a stream of individual LBX rounds at a rate determined by the caliber of the weapon. They will all have better range and minimally better DPS than their AC counterparts, but suffer from needing to be held on target constantly.

hm... simply tighten the spread, and give it the benefits it have in the TT, crit-mashine, every pellet have the chance to crit, but with the actual crit-system (need a overwork, in my opinion) it wouldnt work, because it would only do 1dmg to the component, and couldnt destroy it. Maybe give it a extra crit buff, maybe it do 5x- 10x the dmg to components.

Quote

And finally, a list of weapons that you should never consider buffing past their current performance levels because they may already be too good.

Gauss Rifle, SSRM2, SRM6, Small Laser, Medium Laser.

agreed



About the LRM-Flame-Party here...

i play a lot and all kinds of mechs, never had real problem with lrm (except the 90%-bug they fixed).

• easy to avoid massiv LRM-rain, use cover
  
• check if there are lrm-boats by luring out of cover, after some secs of incomming warning go behind and listen how many lrms hit the rock/building you stand behind to get a feeling how painfull a direct approach is
  
• if you get surprised in the open by lrm fire, you didnt check before or the enemy has brain, but running over open field is never a great idea
  
• if you get the warning on the open field, look how much flying at you (look in the sky) while heading to the nearest cover, and try to move your torso to spread the dmg over your hole mech, and try to protect open compenents (there is no other weapon YOU have so much decision where the dmg hits you, because you got a long time warning)
  
• sometimes its better to run at the enemy instead of running away, because of min-range of there lrms, dont work if he isnt alone and you are

try to follow this "rules" and you shouldnt die more often from lrm fire than from any other weapon

Edited by Antarius, 28 November 2012 - 07:30 AM.

[Rixsaw]

Okay look, headshots are part of the game.

The original Cataphract Headshot was entirely too easy to pop. But since they hot fixed it I was never getting headshot on him after that.

As it stands now I have put 2 guass rounds into a head and it turn dark read but not explode the mech, So basically a headshot it wasted ammo? Maybe we can discuss how hard it is to headshot a mech and how many HP that head really should have?

[EmperorMyrf]

Rixsaw, on 28 November 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Okay look, headshots are part of the game.

The original Cataphract Headshot was entirely too easy to pop. But since they hot fixed it I was never getting headshot on him after that.

As it stands now I have put 2 guass rounds into a head and it turn dark read but not explode the mech, So basically a headshot it wasted ammo? Maybe we can discuss how hard it is to headshot a mech and how many HP that head really should have?

I think that issue will be less prevalent when the lag is reduced. I used to be able to headshot Hunchbacks all day errday, but ever since the lag hit I can't do it anymore. Once the hitboxes are actually lined up with what I can see I think we should be seeing more headshots.

[miscreant]

Hitboxes in this game are overly dependent on ping, so making hit boxes bigger or smaller will have minimal impact for those with great connections.

[Antarius]

Shevchen, on 28 November 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

To MG's:
It is also very hard to shoot with an AC/2 to one spot 10 successive strikes compared to an AC/20. MGs are secondary weapons and should be used like that. They are fast, produce no heat, have a very short range any can take out a location, that got no armor left. I'm fine with that. But for the tons/range ration, is is somewhat like the small laser, so it should behave similar in the dps.

Compared to the small laser:
Better crit chance
Drawback: Needs ammo.

Balance done.

.... no?
not a better crit chance. since you do dmg to components if you make a crit, (depending on the weapon dmg, if i am not mistaken) you do much oftener dmg with mg to components but much less than with a small-laser.

with only one component it should nearly be the same chance with sl and mg to kill a component, with several you should dmg all parts equaly with mg (because of little dmg packets) with sl you have a higher posibility to destroy one, before the others.

Edited by Antarius, 28 November 2012 - 09:15 AM.

[Tolkien]

I just finished a match where I killed four enemies, assisted on a fifth, and used up most of my 5 tons of LRM ammo before getting my centre torso blown out. No limbs missing, just coring of the mech I believe.

In a founders mech with premium time OFF, I received 115k Cbills. repairs were about 170k Cbills.

If this is standard then it is pay to win as normal accounts are going to have trouble keeping up on maintenance. I can't imagine how anyone is expected to field a mech with an XL engine and make a profit.

I again have to propose making it so it is not possible to play a match and lose money - you will always receive your repair and ammo costs plus a consolation prize (10k to 50k) so that you can always feel like you are "making progress".

I believe one of the reasons that Diablo III had such a loss of players before recovering in October was that they had no `sense of progress` to keep people playing. Please don`t let the same happen here.

P.S. As a founder and someone with 90 days of premium time, I think the bonuses for these categories should be reduced, as the gap between the normals and the founders might be too big for game balance sake. Just a thought.

[Zolthar]

170K repair????

Comeon be realistic at least, while I agree with you on the repair bills, don't make people laugh with your once upon a time example.

What I do frequently see is a 115K win with a 70k Repair Bill, leaving me with a 45K profit...

Cataphract
XL300
Dual AC10
2Medium Laser
2Medium Pulse Laser.

Edited by Zolthar, 28 November 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Hayashi]

The main reason why Diablo III lost players was because it wasn't viable to play at Hell or higher difficulties in gear-dependent classes without using the Auction House. It felt like the game existed only so that the AH and by extension RMAH could succeed.

I would prefer if more high level equipment like XL engines, ECM and Gauss, among a few, had significant enough repair costs that if you field enough of them in combination, you would lose money if you lost and died. But any cost that is high enough such that you lose C-Bills if you win and live is a bit over the top IMO.

At the moment, LRMs (especially the Artemis variety) fall in that category.

Zolthar, on 28 November 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

170K repair???? Comeon be realistic at least, while I agree with you on the repair bills, don't make people laugh with your once upon a time example. What I do frequently see is a 115K win with a 70k Repair Bill, leaving me with a 45K profit... Cataphract XL300 Dual AC10 2Medium Laser 2Medium Pulse Laser.

170k is possible for 25% ammo repair of 6+ tons Artemis LRM ammo, plus XL engine and armour costs. Non-Artemis would be about 120-130k.

OP didn't say so specifically, but his ammo costs are very Artemis-like.

Edited by Hayashi, 28 November 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[Verminaard]

The point of high costs on some mechs are because they have expensive weapons, engines etc. To use the top of the line gear, high repairs are needed. Nothing is stopping you from playing a light mech which costs 30k to fix for 2 matches, then play your heavy repairs mech for 3 to keep gaining money.

I have no issues with this at all.

[Elghinn]

LRM+Art is very expensive. However I have an Atlas D that has 2 LRM 20's with Art and even getting it shot to pieces costs me 70k ish. While the 11 tons of LRM ammo with Art costs about 105 to 110. So winning you can make money or break even. But that is the risk v. reward. You want to make money, run a commando, jenner, cicada or raven. Heavy's and Assualts do not make money (or lots of money). This has been like this for months. Been vetted and tuned. I still think the rearm is too high while the repair is on target. Probably about a 15% drop in the rearm cost would be just about right.

[Hayashi]

Elghinn, on 28 November 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

LRM+Art is very expensive. However I have an Atlas D that has 2 LRM 20's with Art and even getting it shot to pieces costs me 70k ish. While the 11 tons of LRM ammo with Art costs about 105 to 110. So winning you can make money or break even. But that is the risk v. reward. You want to make money, run a commando, jenner, cicada or raven. Heavy's and Assualts do not make money (or lots of money). This has been like this for months. Been vetted and tuned. I still think the rearm is too high while the repair is on target. Probably about a 15% drop in the rearm cost would be just about right.

I'd prefer 40% drop for Art and 20% drop for non-Art (such that Art is 50% more expensive to reload than standard, instead of 100% as present). Right now the only thing the rearm system really encourages is to add extra ammo and exploit free reloads - which is not a good state for the game to be in.

Edited by Hayashi, 28 November 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[Buckminster]

I'd like to know the loadout of your mech. Something in there is costing a lot to repair - my guess is an XL engine.

My repair costs for my cats typically run in the 40-50k range. Rearm costs are another 60k on top of that for my Cat with two ALRM15s and 4 tons of ammo.

[DemonGuard]

I also think the LRM buff is weird. LRMs are too powerful atm. And i didn't even try 50 (or more) LRMs or using Artemis on my Mech.
The biggest problem is the awful AMS. Here are a few things they could do to improve it:
1.) Ammo should be 2000 per tonne (double the price so everything else stays the same)
2.) AMS has to be more effective (significantly increased destruction rate of incoming missiles/increased projectile speed to be able to reliably intercept some SSRM too)
3.) Add a key to toggle AMS status (Active/Disabled). If i'm in cover and there are lots of missiles flying in buildings and hills around me, my AMS ammo is still wasted.

At the moment, you need at least 2t of ammo for the AMS, so that are 20t (8x2+8x0,5) for a whole team. If the other team doesn't have LRMs, then your team just wasted the tonnage of a light Mech for the match. That seems to be too much.

[Sybreed]

DemonGuard, on 28 November 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I also think the LRM buff is weird. LRMs are too powerful atm. And i didn't even try 50 (or more) LRMs or using Artemis on my Mech.
The biggest problem is the awful AMS. Here are a few things they could do to improve it:
1.) Ammo should be 2000 per tonne (double the price so everything else stays the same)
2.) AMS has to be more effective (significantly increased destruction rate of incoming missiles/increased projectile speed to be able to reliably intercept some SSRM too)
3.) Add a key to toggle AMS status (Active/Disabled). If i'm in cover and there are lots of missiles flying in buildings and hills around me, my AMS ammo is still wasted.

At the moment, you need at least 2t of ammo for the AMS, so that are 20t (8x2+8x0,5) for a whole team. If the other team doesn't have LRMs, then your team just wasted the tonnage of a light Mech for the match. That seems to be too much.

you do realize that with your suggestion, mechs with only 1 LRM 5, 10 or 15 will be practically worthless. Their 7+ tons of weapons are almost completely countered by 1.5 Tons of AMS?

[Tolkien]

Zolthar, on 28 November 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

170K repair????

Comeon be realistic at least, while I agree with you on the repair bills, don't make people laugh with your once upon a time example.

What I do frequently see is a 115K win with a 70k Repair Bill, leaving me with a 45K profit...

Cataphract
XL300
Dual AC10
2Medium Laser
2Medium Pulse Laser.

It's not a once upon a time example - 5 tons of LRM ammo (w/artemis IV - I don't think Artemis ammo costs more according to cannon, but hey) is 75k on its own. I learned this by watching my Cbills after a match where I used all my ammo but did not take a hit.

It's not too hard to go through 5 tons of ammo with dual launchers (catapult) and that is what a support mech is supposed to do - wait for our brave scouts to paint an enemy target, then rattle it's cage.

Buckminster, on 28 November 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

I'd like to know the loadout of your mech. Something in there is costing a lot to repair - my guess is an XL engine.

My repair costs for my cats typically run in the 40-50k range. Rearm costs are another 60k on top of that for my Cat with two ALRM15s and 4 tons of ammo.

Well I am running a standard engine - I mention XL engine mechs since I am afraid to know what they cost to repair.

My loadout is standard 240 engine, 11 Double Heatsinks, Max Fero Fibrous Armor, Endo-Steel chassis, 2 ALRM 15, 2 Large Lasers.

My concern is that in that match I referenced with the 175k repair bill, I did not lose a laser, I did not lose a launcher, I just used up most of my ammo and had my centre knocked out. Armor on the other locations was still pretty good. I shudder to think what it would cost if they had taken off my lasers and launchers first...

I know 'fancy tech' is supposed to be more expensive, but they hit us with massive up front bills of millions of C bills per chassis VARIANT.

Verminaard, on 28 November 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

The point of high costs on some mechs are because they have expensive weapons, engines etc. To use the top of the line gear, high repairs are needed. Nothing is stopping you from playing a light mech which costs 30k to fix for 2 matches, then play your heavy repairs mech for 3 to keep gaining money.

I have no issues with this at all.

I should have spelled this out better - When I turn on my paid time and run my founders mech I make money with this loadout no matter what. The spread between founders/premium time and normals should not make it a pay to win decision. Right now these 'fancy' add ons make maintenance so high that the only way to keep it fielded more than 50% of the time is to pay for it with real money - not cool.

I say this even as a founder with 90 days of time in the bank - I will be fine but one of my buddies who has the low tier founder pack pointed this out as a pay to win issue. On reflection I have to agree with him.

Hayashi, on 28 November 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

The main reason why Diablo III lost players was because it wasn't viable to play at Hell or higher difficulties in gear-dependent classes without using the Auction House. It felt like the game existed only so that the AH and by extension RMAH could succeed.

I would prefer if more high level equipment like XL engines, ECM and Gauss, among a few, had significant enough repair costs that if you field enough of them in combination, you would lose money if you lost and died. But any cost that is high enough such that you lose C-Bills if you win and live is a bit over the top IMO.

At the moment, LRMs (especially the Artemis variety) fall in that category.


170k is possible for 25% ammo repair of 6+ tons Artemis LRM ammo, plus XL engine and armour costs. Non-Artemis would be about 120-130k.

OP didn't say so specifically, but his ammo costs are very Artemis-like.

I have to agree with the above (about ammo costs and about the DIII experience feeling cynical and exploitive) - I worry that the same type of thing is happening here where double heatsinks, ferro fibrous, and endo steel let alone XL (terribly expensive) are becoming like 'golden ammo' from world of tanks.

Pay for things should be restricted to boosts that make progress faster and skins/visual bling like in league of legends, not pay to win advantages like in world of tanks...

[MustrumRidcully]

Mad Elf, on 27 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Excellent piece of work, and I agree with your conclusions.

One thing though:



...for very loose values of "never". LRMs "never" miss either, by those lights. Missiles (all kinds) can be dodged by fast mechs, and the time-to-lock for SSRMs (which some people have said has got longer this patch) has an effect on "efficiency". Also, AMS doesn't work against any other kind of weapon.

Never missing may be an exaggeration ,butt here is a difference between holding the mouse vaguely near the enemy and actually trying to lead a ballistic or maintain a laser for the full burn time on the weapon. WHile you're aiming your weapon and waiting for the lock, at least you're not wasting heat and damage. There is a difference in effeciency, the challenge is quantifying it reasonably well.

[Tolkien]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 November 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Never missing may be an exaggeration ,butt here is a difference between holding the mouse vaguely near the enemy and actually trying to lead a ballistic or maintain a laser for the full burn time on the weapon. WHile you're aiming your weapon and waiting for the lock, at least you're not wasting heat and damage. There is a difference in effeciency, the challenge is quantifying it reasonably well.

One of the reasons I like playing support is that even turned down to very low I still get very bad stuttering in framerates during combat - in short I can't play front line mechs effectively due to craptastic video performance (core i7, 16 gig ram, HD6990M video card with 2Gig Vram). I'm pretty sure the 6990M is holding me back but it's in a laptop - I can't replace it

Regarding LRMs never missing, it's actually really frustrating on some maps like the winter city - when mechs are in buildings, or cover the lock is lost surprisingly fast, even with artemis IV. So while it may feel like LRMs never miss, a mech that is hugging terrain is actually very hard to damage.

[Asatruer]

Tolkien, on 28 November 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

It's not a once upon a time example - 5 tons of LRM ammo (w/artemis IV - I don't think Artemis ammo costs more according to cannon, but hey) is 75k on its own. I learned this by watching my Cbills after a match where I used all my ammo but did not take a hit.

In canon, to take advantage of Artemis FCS the missiles do have to be upgraded and are more expensive. Similarly, in canon for LRMs to take advantage of a TAG, they have to be upgraded as well, but those upgraded LRMs were not available until 3057... NARC, on the other hand, did not require an upgrade of the missiles of either LRMs or SRMs.