16 replies to this topic

[Sereglach]

I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking on this. I’m sure PGI has some good ideas of where they want to go with things, given their whole Mech Value system that they have in place. However, they want feedback from US on how to help rebalance the game to provide the best experience for everyone.

Granted, I’m sure not everyone will agree on my generic change recommendations, but they’re -again- generic points that would merely help facilitate other rebalance changes and make them that much easier. Some are quite narrow/specific, and some are rather broad, however I think all will help with gameplay improvements.


Increase Base Structure Values: *Essential*

Spoiler

Increase all internal structure to match the maximum armor values of mechs. Granted, this may be a deviation from TT, but survivability in MWO is a HUGE issue; and I think this is a solid way to address it and prevent the insane levels of structure quirks that nearly all mechs are getting. Now, if certain mechs still need help with specific quirks after that (Hunchback hunch, for example), then they should certainly be added. However, they won't need to be as enormous because of the increased base structure.

Fix Flamers: *Essential*

Spoiler

Fix Flamers (please get this done for the rebalance, I’m begging here). This is a core weapon in Battletech that is currently broken in MWO, and has been broken for a long time. I've had long-standing recommendations for how to do this that can be found in my signature. However, the simplest thing that needs to be done is the removal of "exponential heat scaling" and "heat buildup acceleration" mechanics and replace them with flat values that are reasonably balanced.

Fix AC/2: *Essential*

Spoiler

Adjust AC/2 heat generation to make the HPS drastically lowered, allowing it to be the suppressing fire weapon it should be. It’s one of the coldest running weapons in TT, but in MWO it’s currently one of the hottest. This creates extreme difficulties in mechs running them, especially lighter mechs that cannot spare the tonnage for excessive amounts of heat sinks; which the weapon shouldn't need to support it.

Address SRM Ammunition: *Essential*

Spoiler

Set all SRM ammunition to the same 150% TT value that all the other weapons’ ammunition values are at. This alone helps address a lot of the ammo starved mechs out there -particularly lights- like the Locust missile variants, Commando, and Mist Lynx.

Remove ECM's "Magic Bubble": *Essential*

Spoiler

Fix ECM to not utterly block locks (the effect actually achieved by Stealth Armor), but instead slow target acquisition and locking time, while reducing target retention time (you’ve got the functionality in quirks, now, so it’d be wonderful to put into practice for fixing ECM). This instantly removes the “ECM is automatically best” issue that many chassis run into with variants, as well as removing the absolute necessity for Active Probes on Streak mechs, alleviating a significant tonnage burden for lights in particular that can be reliant on missiles.

Then Address Active Probes to Compensate: *Essential*

Spoiler

Rebalance the Active Probes and retain their relevancy by making them actually give you UAV-esque targeting (no TIG, just basic detection) to anything within the proper 120m radius. Seismic still gives you “pings” further out, so it’s still relevant; and TAG/NARC retain their current function, also keeping things relatively balanced.

Make Information Warfare Affect Weapons: *Essential*

Spoiler

Make IW affect firepower in some way. The proposed “Convergence doesn’t work unless you have a solid lock” method, by wanderer, HERE is an excellent idea. It's one I'd wholeheartedly support; and I think it's far superior to the "damage boost with lock". However, the "damage boost with lock" could be applied to Targeting Computers so that you only receive their bonuses when you have solid locking information.

Address the Command Console Properly, Instead of as a Poor-Man's Targeting Computer (IS does get those, eventually): *Recommended*

Spoiler

Make the Command Console tie into IW better. My personal recommendation is by giving solid boosts to target acquisition (25% less time), retention (2-3 seconds), sensor range (25%), a shared UI indicator of what you’re specifically targeting (turn the targeting triangle aka “dorito” yellow, or something, for your whole team); and then make the boosts work for everyone in a 250m radius, so it’s worth the 3 tons in comparison to a Beagle Probe.

Even if this recommendation isn't used, Command Consoles should still be addressed in some way because the IS does eventually get Targeting Computers, anyway, and right now they're currently -widely considered- filler tonnage if the space is available. There have been numerous great ideas out there.

Look at Engines/Speed for Another Means of Balance: *Recommended*

Spoiler

11. *recommended* Slow the game down! The obsessions over mech speed needs to be stymied. As it stands the #1 thing that everyone looks at (even Assault pilots) is reaching an “acceptable” speed. Also, the fact that so many mechs have such drastic engine caps over anything comparable to what they carried stock has helped fuel this. While I don’t see engine caps getting addressed (as they probably should be), one great place to start would be utterly removing Speed Tweak from the skill trees (when they’re redone) except for a scant few mechs that focus entirely on speed (like the Locust). That alone removes a “magic” 10% speed boost from mechs.

Speed Tweak can actually be the equivalent of 3+ engine sizes (in the costs of millions of c-bills in physical equipment for a mech). That would, in turn, allow you to address the ever-growing “speed” problem without doing much to speed caps or engine caps (as a compromise). On the other hand, I personally STRONGLY recommend going over engine caps of mechs, as those can be used to drastically alter the gameplay and feel of a mech and also can be used to add proper flavor to chassis (like the fact that a Dragon or Quickdraw were meant to be fast while a Rifleman was meant to carry a lot of firepower).

Address Streak SRM Functionality: *Recommended*

Spoiler

Make Streaks in general fire more like IS LRM’s, with straighter flight paths (like Clan LRMs), which allows damage to be focused to the CT if you’ve got a solid bead on it, but still mitigatable by skilled pilots who see them coming. It makes it a more “easy to use, difficult to master” weapon system.

Address Mech Heat Scale (not just the "Ghost Heat" Heat Scale): *Recommended*

Spoiler

Address the heat scale: Allowing such a high heat buildup that promotes the extreme alpha meta (especially PPFLD) should be cut off. This would also allow numerous weapons to have their inflated heat values brought back in line, as well. Something like a fixed 35 point scale with appropriately adjusted cooling rates would cut off most extremely high PPFLD alphas, encourage volley fire, and make chain fire more relevant. Also, SHS could be made relevant by setting all engine heat sinks to “true-dubs”, period, but allowing SHS to increase the heat scale while doubles do not. One promotes higher alphas with slower cooling, and the other promotes better sustained fire.

Now, once those things are done (or at least some of the more basic/essential ones), we’ve got a great basis from which to work on all of the specific chassis and variants. Which, frankly, all variants of all chassis do need individual tuning, contrary to the beliefs of some. Otherwise, we're left with very distinct winners and losers among chassis (not unlike what we have now, even with super-quirks floating around).

I have ideas for just about every IS chassis and variant, and depending on how the next playtest goes I'll be sure to give whatever input I think is needed. As it stands, I'm just keeping notes on hand and awaiting the next play test.

I was a bit apprehensive about posting these concepts, because we were made aware by Sean Lang that the original playtest was merely for basic IW functionality and that much more was planned but still needed to be implemented. Hopefully PGI finds some things within this list useful, or is even already implementing them.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Amerante]

Make Information Warfare Affect Weapons: *Essential*
http://mwomercs.com/...le-its-amazing/

This! Please PGI!

And the rest too!

Edited by Amerante, 11 October 2015 - 05:02 AM.

[Sereglach]

Amerante, on 11 October 2015 - 01:56 AM, said:

Make Information Warfare Affect Weapons: *Essential*
http://mwomercs.com/...le-its-amazing/

This! Please PGI!

And the rest too!

Thanks for the support. I'm glad you like the post. Also, yeah . . . wanderer's concept is utterly amazing. To me it's just the absolute "must do" in order to make Information Warfare work in the grand scheme of things.

[ScorpionNinja]

I like and agree with several of your points, but in the end we all know PGI is going to go in a different direction, often that makes us scratch our heads and be like "WTF".

Pushing more players away, snowballing downhill until there is nothing left!!!

[Sereglach]

ScorpionNinja, on 11 October 2015 - 06:42 AM, said:

I like and agree with several of your points, but in the end we all know PGI is going to go in a different direction, often that makes us scratch our heads and be like "WTF".

Pushing more players away, snowballing downhill until there is nothing left!!!

Whether they go in the exact direction I'm outlining or not I think they're going to end up doing good things.

Take what they've done with the mech lab and mech select screens (and apparently soon to be camo screen) as well as the tutorial. They've actually listened to the community, a lot. To me, they've proven that they're sincere about making it right this time. I don't think that'll happen overnight, but I think we're at least moving in the right direction. There may also be some bumps in the road as things are tuned.

They want input, so I figure the best way to help things move in the right direction is giving as much detailed input as possible.

Edited by Sereglach, 11 October 2015 - 07:44 AM.

[maxdest]

I agree with most of the above.

I would amend 'Increase Base Structure Values' to include an additional buff to ammo , and either add a point here re. critical seeking weapons (LBX and MG) or an additional point later on.

Also i would propose:

Decouple Engines and Agility.
Even if they don't re-evaluate engine caps, that they decouple of Engines and Agility. Should be chassis dependent and would give each chassis flavour and remove some of the extra incentive to 'engine up' in assualts and heavies .

Scrapping Ghost heat
Scrapping of 'Ghost Heat' as it is obtuse, and instead impliment staggered fire on the same basis (i.e. if you shoot 4 IS LL the 4th one would trigger 0.5 secs after the other three). That is probably more controversial though.

[Sereglach]

maxdest, on 11 October 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

Decouple Engines and Agility.
Even if they don't re-evaluate engine caps, that they decouple of Engines and Agility. Should be chassis dependent and would give each chassis flavour and remove some of the extra incentive to 'engine up' in assualts and heavies .

This is actually an extremely good point, and it would solve a lot of problems with the dependencies on engines and speed. It had honestly slipped my mind that engines also dictate the agility a mech has.

As for the rest of the stuff you, I personally wouldn't mind seeing ammunition get a buff across the board, but I felt at the very least, it's essential that SRM ammo needs to be boosted to match the rest of the ammunition in the game. It's one of the things that makes SRMs particularly undesirable, as it currently stands; and it really hurts some of the SRM dependent mechs.

I also already hit on Ghost heat . . . I state the whole heat system in general needs to be addressed. We need, as a game, to get away from the "All Alpha" gameplay style where most people are only using 1-2 weapon groups and those groups are almost always alpha fired all the time (save for when you're doing something like firing arm and torso weapons separately).

[101011]

Plenty of these are good ideas, but I feel that several of your suggestions just miss the mark entirely.

Increasing structure isn't the way to increase TTK, because we've done nothing but buff for nearly a year and the creep is ridiculous. Weapons need to start getting nerfed, starting with Gauss Rifles and CERML.

As for buffing flamers and AC/2's, I really think that at this point, those aren't a priority. It would be great if they were meaningful, but right now missiles and most ballistics are very poor as well, and those are more important systems.

On the topic of SRMs, I don't believe that ammunition is where they run into issues, rather, it is with their inability to have a meaningful impact past 270 meters when most engagements are decided at 400+ meters. Brawling isn't fun because you must spend most of the match waiting for the enemy to close so that you can finish them off.

With regards to slowing down the game: I already spend 4-5 minutes on Alpine just walking to the only useful bit of terrain on the map, and that's plenty long enough for me.

Something to note on the topic of TTK is that the amount of deathballing will be inversely proportional to the TTK: the easier it is for a lone 'Mech to kill another 'Mech, the less 'Mechs need to be able to focus on a single target. Lowering TTK will result in less deathballing. In a related manner, lowering TTK will also make it easier for teams to come back; currently, most matches are decided within the first 2-3 kills. Losing any 'Mechs puts a team at a significant disadvantage because of the loss of firepower.

[Sereglach]

101011, on 12 October 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

Increasing structure isn't the way to increase TTK, because we've done nothing but buff for nearly a year and the creep is ridiculous. Weapons need to start getting nerfed, starting with Gauss Rifles and CERML.

While I think some weapons do need some nerfing, increasing structure across the board will have a significant impact on lengthening TTK; and it will also cause people to actually lose more components inside a mech section before the component is destroyed.

101011, on 12 October 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

As for buffing flamers and AC/2's, I really think that at this point, those aren't a priority. It would be great if they were meaningful, but right now missiles and most ballistics are very poor as well, and those are more important systems.

Any core weapon system of Battletech that isn't working on any sort of functional level is an inherent problem and needs to be addressed. That's not even a point for debate. Other weapons also need attention . . . this is true . . . however all base weapons should at least be in a truly functional state before we start tuning weapons. A basic level of functionality is met, first, and then balance is pushed for.

101011, on 12 October 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

On the topic of SRMs, I don't believe that ammunition is where they run into issues, rather, it is with their inability to have a meaningful impact past 270 meters when most engagements are decided at 400+ meters. Brawling isn't fun because you must spend most of the match waiting for the enemy to close so that you can finish them off.

True, ammo isn't the only thing. However, ammo is one of the quickest and simplest things that can be done before addressing other issues. Once the ammo is addressed, then they can start looking at ranges, velocities, adding a "maximum" range outside the "optimal" range, etc. Regardless, one of the quickest things that can be done is just giving them equalized ammunition with everything else. Then further balancing can proceed from there.

101011, on 12 October 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

With regards to slowing down the game: I already spend 4-5 minutes on Alpine just walking to the only useful bit of terrain on the map, and that's plenty long enough for me.

And there are also people who feel the exact opposite . . . that right now scouts serve no purpose in the game because the maps are so small and enemies engaged so quickly. A balance needs to be struck and Information Warfare should play a valuable part in making sure people are moving to the right places. A layer of thinking and tactics should be involved in a game that's supposed to be team based.

Now, another point brought up was that engines shouldn't be directly linked to agility, which is honestly a very good idea on a solid balancing change they could make. That would put the chassis more in direct control of agility/maneuverability over engine size. For Example: A minimum 325 engine wouldn't become absolutely necessary for a 100 ton assault mech to get "good enough" torso twist speed to track targets.

Also, using the largest map in the game is a poor example when even the developers are chomping at the bit to go back and redo it.

101011, on 12 October 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

Something to note on the topic of TTK is that the amount of deathballing will be inversely proportional to the TTK: the easier it is for a lone 'Mech to kill another 'Mech, the less 'Mechs need to be able to focus on a single target. Lowering TTK will result in less deathballing. In a related manner, lowering TTK will also make it easier for teams to come back; currently, most matches are decided within the first 2-3 kills. Losing any 'Mechs puts a team at a significant disadvantage because of the loss of firepower.

Absolutely not. Lowering TTK is one of the dumbest things they could do.

Mech on Mech combat should be an utter slugfest . . . especially for heavies and assaults. If you decrease TTK (thereby making it quicker to kill targets) then deathballing will become that much more prominent, because it won't take long for people to figure out that they want someone else to take the hits that quickly will kill targets. Also, in PUG matches people will become even more cowardly, knowing that the second they're seen by the enemy they'll be blown to bits.

On the other hand, if you increase TTK (thereby making it take longer to kill targets) then people actually have the ability to recover from a screw-up. People can reposition if they find themselves out of place, they can get back into cover when they round the corner and find themselves staring at the entire enemy team, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I knew that not everyone was going to like the ideas, and your thoughts and feedback are appreciated. We most certainly disagree on quite a bit, here, but such is life. We'll have to see what stances the developers take on things when the rebalance comes back around to the test servers, again.

[Tarl Cabot]

Change how IS XL engines work. TT, engine crits, lost of IS ST w/XL=death was based random hits/crits. Change IS XL engine/loss of one ST does not equal death but give it a greater negative heat effect. Personally I would like to see the loss of a Clan XL/if introduced IS XL ST be change to a loss of speed or add it to the heat effect.

Heat Scale - agree Heat Scale needs an overall hard cap. Current HeatScale is 30 + number of HS (SHS or DHS) and its value= that mechs max HS.

Add to it the balancing half, 2-3 threshold points where the mech's speed and agility takes a negative hit.

The above would see an initial decrease in TTK until behavior changes to not keep alphaing or reduce the number of weapons being fired at any one time except for those extreme times.

[Kmieciu]

I agree with most of the things suggested by the OP.
I would really like to try playing the game with double the internal structure points for every location except head. That would at least make "crit seeking" weapons have a role. And mechs would often loose weapons before dying...

[Lord Auriel]

very good post and so many great ideas!
Increase TTK (by whatever means): yes pls
SLIGHTLY nerf some clan weapons, and gauss in general: yes pls
The convergence-only-with-lock thing is absolutely the best idea since pizza and might even solve the power creep issues without even having to nerf weapons!!

also, less mech packs, more work on core mechanics pls. Seriously. Like, balancing.

[Sereglach]

Tarl Cabot, on 12 October 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

Change how IS XL engines work. TT, engine crits, lost of IS ST w/XL=death was based random hits/crits. Change IS XL engine/loss of one ST does not equal death but give it a greater negative heat effect. Personally I would like to see the loss of a Clan XL/if introduced IS XL ST be change to a loss of speed or add it to the heat effect.

Only one reason why I can't get behind this concept. As the timeline progresses and technology is introduced, eventually the IS will have Light Fusion Engines (or LFE). Those have the same crits and function identically to the Clan XL concept, they just don't have quite the same weight savings as a full-tilt XL engine.

On the other hand, if PGI were to suddenly come out and say that the tech level and timeline is never going to advance, then I'm all for changes like that. However, they've actively stated that once they have this segment of the timeline down, things are at least respectably balanced (always an ongoing things, never finalized), and CW is fully fleshed out/no longer beta then they have every intention of advancing the timeline and adding new tech, IS Omnis, etc.

[Tarl Cabot]

Sereglach, on 13 October 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

Only one reason why I can't get behind this concept. As the timeline progresses and technology is introduced, eventually the IS will have Light Fusion Engines (or LFE). Those have the same crits and function identically to the Clan XL concept, they just don't have quite the same weight savings as a full-tilt XL engine.

On the other hand, if PGI were to suddenly come out and say that the tech level and timeline is never going to advance, then I'm all for changes like that. However, they've actively stated that once they have this segment of the timeline down, things are at least respectably balanced (always an ongoing things, never finalized), and CW is fully fleshed out/no longer beta then they have every intention of advancing the timeline and adding new tech, IS Omnis, etc.

(nods) I should have added IS' LFE in there. Right now Clan XL has its heat reduction, though it really should be both heat AND movement reduction but lets stick with just heat. IS XL would have a greater heat reduction while the LFE would have the same Heat reduction as the Clan XL.

PGI should add movement reduction since it would make many players rethink how often they are firing before moving on. If they keep firing til they are high on the heat scale, with the movement reduction they are not able to extract themselves as quickly, forcing people to make a decision, keep firing and be unable to maneuver, fire fewer weapons or not fire that next salvo, a decision tree similar to whether to fire or not when near the mech's max heat scale, risking shutdown or override, both which could result in damaging the mech.

[That Guy]

regarding increased structure HP, that should only effect standard structure, not endo steel. that way both endo and standard have a place with in the game.

take standard if you want higher durability, and take endo if you want more stuff. simple!

[Sereglach]

That Guy, on 14 October 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

regarding increased structure HP, that should only effect standard structure, not endo steel. that way both endo and standard have a place with in the game.

take standard if you want higher durability, and take endo if you want more stuff. simple!

Kind of like the LFE engine issue, this is another thing I can't support because of later technology. Despite current desires, you need to prepare for impending tech, weapons and equipment because it makes the game easier to balance later.

What you're talking about is accomplished by Composite Internals. They don't have the crit costs of Endo-Steel, but they make the mech frailer. Thusly you then end up with baseline Standard, lighter crit costing Endo, and lighter durability costing Composite (including heavier and even more durable Reinforced Structure and the lighter hybridized Endo-Composite internals in more advanced rules).

Again, just like the LFE issue, the only way I could even consider supporting that concept is if they flat out said that Composite structure will never happen. Even if they said that, I'd still say to make Standard structure match the maximum armor value in a mech section and make Endo Steel 75% of the value, and not 50%. A 25% durability cost would be still quite significant and more than adequate.

Edited by Sereglach, 14 October 2015 - 07:20 PM.

[TerrasFallen]

Hi All,
Long time listener, first time caller. I have been playing the BattleTech/MechWarrior games since around MechWarriors2, loved the card game played some of the table top. Now, I'm not the greatest guru of this game universe by any means and I have seen some darn good ideas on this forum, from ways to fix match making to how to re-balance the combat, but I was wondering if people would mind me tossing a few ideas into the ring.

First off heat. I agree whole-heartedly that there should be a hard cap. However the way it seems to me the larger a battlemech is the more space it has to absorb initial heat so why not have the heat cap tied into the size/tonnage of the battlemech? This way assault and heavy battlemechs can still carry quite a payload and you don't end of with light and medium battlemechs racking ultra-high alphas. In addition you could have the double heat-sinks go back to doing just what their name implies and increasing the cooldown rate. One of the possible side benefits, if I understand the mechanic correctly, would be a limitation to the massed Clan laser volleys as they produce more heat than their Inner Sphere counter parts allowing an Inner Sphere battlemech of equal tonnage to fire one or two more lower power weapons in a give time and even out the firepower disparity (apologies if I'm incorrect here).

Second is the ballistic weapons. Maybe I'm not noticing it because I die quick enough not to see, but I have seen hide nor hair of any mention of ballistic drop on the rounds. It would seem that would make it a slight bit more of a challenge to use and reflect the weight of a round having the impact that it seems to in the game. Another wonder I have is that they are dead accurate regardless of whether the battlemech mounts a targeting computer. I would like to see round deviation when fired from a battlemech without some form of targeting computer.

Third electronic warfare systems. I would personally like to see the ECM as a counter to a C3 system in the game. Introduce a C3 interlink system with all battlemechs capable of equipping a C3 slave but only a few able to mount a C3 control node to link all of their sensors together. If there are no units with a control node then only units either of a lance or in line of site of each other could share sensor data. The ECM meanwhile could be used to mask a single unit, instead of an umbrella, from detection and targeting to a certain range, but also cut it off from the C3 system and make it unable to use it's own targeting systems to that same range. However the ECM should be a toggle able device so that once a unit, lets say a light scout in this case, got around behind the enemy position he could shut off his ECM and reconnect to the C3 giving his team a full readout of the enemy in his sight/sensor range. This could do well to counter the seemly be all end all of the current ECM. Then addressing the Beagle Active Probe, I would say that instead of just over riding the ECM of the enemy unit why not give an indicator that an enemy using one is nearby. That way it is still an effective counter for a good team who could deploy a medium or two to find and kill the ECM unit I used as an example before.

Four weapon mounts. This may seem like a weird idea but I would kind like to see weapon mount sub-types. For example in the energy area I would like to see extra-light (flamer), light (small laser variants), mid-range (medium laser variants), and heavy (large laser variants, PPC, Gauss). Part of this system would be a way to limit builds on various variant and improve variety by allowing you to slightly alter these mounts by combining them or breaking them down. For example you could take a heavy and break down the mount into two mid-range mounts or a mid-range into one light and one extra-light. This could allow a good variety of weapon mounting while keeping a control over how certain variants could use the systems. However if you did breakdown a heavy mount into two mid-range mounts I think a good additional mechanic would be a heat modifier as the battlemech variant was not originally design to mount something that way, say a 1.2x heat multiplayer for weapons fired from that mount to reflect having literally crammed more components than belong in there. Additionally if you took two mid-range mounts and made them a heavy instead of a heat multiplier there would be a damage penalty range depending on how many steps you went (such as extra-lights all the way to heavy) to reflect the loss of integrity from ripping sections out to make room.

Thanks for reading, these are a few of the ideas I have had. Hopefully some of them were useful and not just the ravings of a madman.

Good luck and godspeed tiny dancers!

Edited by TerrasFallen, 14 October 2015 - 08:05 PM.