Jump to content

Mcgral's Ideal Public Test Server Complete Rebalance +Iteration (And Spoiler Tags Ahoy), #pgiplz

Started by Mcgral18, Oct 08 2015 07:59 PM
Balance Gameplay Weapons

292 replies to this topic

#1 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 08 October 2015 - 07:59 PM

I'm not very satisfied with the current state, or pace, of weapon and faction balance in MWO. Never really have been. Always something considerably better than anything else, and rarely do they have competition.

Those 'Metas' tend to last for a few Months. Then, suddenly, are murdered by giganerfs to multiple areas concerning it, leading to the next best thing outright replacing it, rather than touching it down so they're both competitive and viable against each other, in different settings.

SRMs were one of those. They took a 40% damage nerf once upon a time, which has been partially reversed, but they're still not nearly good enough for their costs (heat, short range, ammo, spread).


So, I figure I'll write up my ideal changes, addressing most of the weapon or weapon systems in the game. I'll try to keep my adjustments to just .XML edits, but there may be a few outliers or additions.
I want things like this to be tested on the PTS, hopefully this is what the next PTS session will contain, but disappointment is what they tend to herald. Some "Aggressive Weapons Balance" after years would be nice.

I will not touch LRMs, as they require some of those more in depth mechanic changes, nor do I use them enough to have an opinion on them.


Keep in mind while reading that most quirks will be removed, while certain mechs that require them for hardpoint, hitbox, geometry or other valid reasons will still have some, but mainly focused on armour/durability (and not wimpy +5, to the tune of 15-50 armour).

I'll start with Weapons

Added coloured tables!
Listed here, and inside each spoiler at the top. See post for general thoughts and complete code, or here for overview:
Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Ballistics
Spoiler


Energy
Spoiler


Missiles
Spoiler


Engines
Spoiler


PoorDubs
Spoiler


MASC
Spoiler


ECM
Spoiler



TL:DR?
Adjustments to Lasers in general
Slight nerfs to Clan Large and cMed lasers
Big Buffs to isSmalls
Buffs (and cooldown nerfs) to all PPCs
Positive AC adjustments; jam time proportional to UAC size
Buff SRMs
Stream fire (x2) SSRMs (4s and 6s)
XL engine normalization, STD engine buffs
PoorDub fixes
MASC improvements
ECM down to 90M (don't see the important variables, it's something!)


TL:DR
TL:DR?

#PGI PLZ

Edited by Mcgral18, 24 October 2015 - 08:45 AM.

#2 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:19 PM

PGI really really should use their PTS for more aggressive weapon system experiments. All of the above are worth trying out.

It is like PGI's balance department members are dead inside when it comes to innovation and fine-tuning. If I were in their shoes, I would be constantly thinking about how to further balance the outliers.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 October 2015 - 09:27 PM.

#3 Cyborne Elemental

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,981 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:24 PM

If you could get Paul to read this Mcgral, and get him to take it seriously, just about every single thing you have here would make the game absolutely outstanding in terms of not only curbing meta to more interesting and viable choices, but also looks pretty solid at a glance in terms of weapon v weapon balancing.

Especially about getting IS-SL & IS-ML back to their Lore #'s, that just needs to be done.

I also Like what you have mentioned about Truedubs, I'd like to see this as well, would be great for sub 250 engines to get the full effect of DHS on additional external heatsinks up to a limit of 10 to meet 250engine Performance, now codewise making sure that past those 10 heatsinks, you get the reduced efficiency past 10 would be up to some crafty code work.

I stand behind what you have here 100%
Well done.

Edited by Mister D, 10 October 2015 - 12:08 AM.

#4 Homeskilit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 523 posts
  • LocationFlanking

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:46 PM

PPC buffs!

#5 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:47 PM

View PostEl Bandito, on 08 October 2015 - 08:19 PM, said:

PGI really really should use their PSR for more aggressive weapon system experiments. All of the above are worth trying out.

It is like PGI's balance department members are dead inside when it comes to innovation and fine-tuning.
This.

#6 Xenon Codex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bolt
  • The Bolt
  • 575 posts
  • LocationSomewhere Over the Rainbow

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:51 PM

View PostMcgral18, on 08 October 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

#PGI PLZ


Good post, I agree with your conclusions and weapon changes. Weapon balancing should be a full time job, not just some minor tweak they make at every 9 months or so.

#7 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:53 PM

Not bad, thematically similar to my own work.

I think we'll find PPCs remain too hot; even with a faster projectile, missing remains costly because they have both long-ish cool-down and high heat. You would still have to essentially dedicate your entire build to running a pair of PPCs if that's what you want and, given that there remains a drawback below 90 m, that's hard to justify. And, for the IS, that will also often mean running XL to squeeze enough DHS in to cool them without being slow. Clans will just be hot, IS will be both hot and fragile.

To condense my thoughts, the PPCs won't sync up well with anything at all, encouraging players to continue using weapons that synergize better. Lasers with some form of ballistic will continue to be a more reliable option with PPCs remaining extremely niche weapons.

#8 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:58 PM

Unfortunately...


#grumpyPaulsezno #forgetaboutit #canthavenicethings

#9 Scandinavian Jawbreaker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,251 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationFinland

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:59 PM

Good post and overall numbers look good. I wish we could test this...

You're not addressing ghost heat in any way. What are your thoughts about that?

#10 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:07 PM

View Postugrakarma, on 08 October 2015 - 08:59 PM, said:

Good post and overall numbers look good. I wish we could test this...

You're not addressing ghost heat in any way. What are your thoughts about that?


I think it's something more complex than a .XML edit.

Closest I came was reducing (halving, in fact) some penalties or increasing the thresholds so no mech can actually break them (although removing it entirely probably wouldn't break anything...but just to be safe)



I'm trying the KISS approach with this. Something that, theoretically, can work, and be implemented within a day.
Working with what we have available.

#11 Duke Nedo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
  • CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 2,184 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:28 PM

Over all without a doubt a huge step in the right direction. Someone will always disagree on some particular detail, but who cares when the over all result is a huge improvement...

Only small comment is that is-erppc may still be too hot to use without quirks.

Excellent writeup!

#12 CtrlAltWheee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 610 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:33 PM

All looks reasonable.

I think isXL should keep ST death, but I can be convinced otherwise. To me that's one of the most interesting divergences of is/clan tech.

Agree that the cXL engine is outstanding. It's so good that I'd accept greater cooldown nerfs on clan weapons. And accept the proposed speed reduction on st loss.

Keep the flavor of superior clan tech--faster, longer range, lighter weapons, XL durability--but put clanners at a disadvantage in a dps fight. I like the idea of ruggedly durable is STD engines coming with armor/structure buffs.

#13 Mazzyplz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,292 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:35 PM

what... a 40% nerf is not an incremental step iteration? :rolleyes:

#14 Cranial Enigma

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 113 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:38 PM

I really like where you went with lasers for both IS and Clan, it was similar to what I was thinking but I would still slightly increase the range of the clan large laser since it was supposed to have suprior range, maybe by 25 no need to go extreme since it is already better then the IS ER large laser but it should have a slight more range due to the heat generated. Otherwise all the energy changes I am behind.

I like all of the ballistic changes including trying to balance out the gauss rifle issue.

I dislike the need to blanket nerf the clan XL engine. It hurts the weaker chassis more then the outliers. Plus when light fusion engines come out for IS most clanners will complain if those engines don't get the same nerfs that clan engines did and I would rather not see poor IS omnis screwed over like the poor clan omnis are now. More structure to IS XLs and STDs and see how they go from there in my opinion.

I agree with both the poordubs and MASC changes (let me remove it from the Exe when I don't want it on some builds same with the freaking 8 tons of jump jets!!!!!)

Otherwise I agree with 90% and I would love to test out these changes if PGI ever did decide to do massive changes like you propose.

#15 Mazzyplz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,292 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:38 PM

i haven't read the whole thing but i like what i have read btw.

it is similar to ideas many of us have posted several times over; so it's not surprising that we like it..

what would be surprising is if these ideas you post here actually make it into the game

#16 Homeskilit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 523 posts
  • LocationFlanking

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:40 PM

Really though, there should be balance changes every two weeks to a month. There should be no fear of making mistakes with balance in the game because you can always fix it in the next patch (or hotfix if necessary). The meta should not go for months on end without change.

#17 Mazzyplz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,292 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:42 PM

View PostHomeskilit, on 08 October 2015 - 09:40 PM, said:

Really though, there should be balance changes every two weeks to a month. There should be no fear of making mistakes with balance in the game because you can always fix it in the next patch (or hotfix if necessary). The meta should not go for months on end without change.


what? when you have ironed out a piece of something; it doesn't need more striking -

change for the sake of change "to mix it up" sounds terrible.

#18 Homeskilit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 523 posts
  • LocationFlanking

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:48 PM

View PostMazzyplz, on 08 October 2015 - 09:42 PM, said:


what? when you have ironed out a piece of something; it doesn't need more striking -

change for the sake of change "to mix it up" sounds terrible.

Who ever said changing it for the sake of changing? Say they over nerf Clan lasers in the next patch, they should receive small buffs in the following patch or the patch after that at the latest not 6-12 months down the line.

#19 Mazzyplz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,292 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:53 PM

well i think mcgral has come up with a nice balance for the weapons and tech, but there are mechs that still need help like the barndoorsome(aws). why not take a cue from gasguzzler's idea of doing quirks right; instead of using them to create powercreep

and just give some of the larger mechs some more durability quirks.

mechs or variants like the spider with only 1-2 hardpoint can get a small weapon quirk.

and mechs with high mounted hardpoints can be nerfed 5% somehow.


i think this would add to what's posted in the OP, IMO for a stronger balance between chassis and variants

View PostHomeskilit, on 08 October 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

Who ever said changing it for the sake of changing? Say they over nerf Clan lasers in the next patch, they should receive small buffs in the following patch or the patch after that at the latest not 6-12 months down the line.


oh ok, yeah that makes sense. just confused by you saying "paul shouldn't be afraid to make mistakes"
that phrase made me shiver with pure dread

#20 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:56 PM

Quote

what? when you have ironed out a piece of something; it doesn't need more striking -


I agree. If it aint broke dont fix it.

However this game is most certainly broken.
Back to General Discussion · Next Unread Topic →


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users