It had to be done.
Edited by DeadlyNerd, 20 May 2013 - 01:55 PM.
3
Speed May Be The Key To Addressing The Balance Issues- But Even If It Is, Changing That Alone Won't Fix Things
Started by Sephlock, May 03 2013 11:03 PM
28 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,819 posts
Member
Posted 20 May 2013 - 02:04 PM
DeadlyNerd, on 20 May 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:
It had to be done.
Edited by Sephlock, 20 May 2013 - 02:05 PM.
#23
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,819 posts
Member
Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:36 PM
Also, why not tweak Artemis, Narc, and TAG so that they work together (as opposed to Artemis and Narc not working together). If you fire Artemis missiles at a target that is both Narced and Tagged, the missiles should reach their target as fast as they usually do, but taking a super steep arc, even steeper than now >
> >.
> >.
#24
-
- Elite Founder
- 7 posts
Rookie
Posted 27 May 2013 - 04:02 AM
I want to share my 2 cents on the topics that you guys already covered to some extend, and provide my own point of view for an open discussion. Please note that the following lists are in no particular order and just summarize some of my general concerns about this game.
So, let's not wait longer and start with the issues of the current meta.
ISSUES
Issue 1:
Sniper/Alpha-heavy meta, with concentration around PPC/Gauss/AC20 - in general "single-shot-but-hard-hitting-weapons", that destroy one location rather than spreading the damage around.
Issue 2:
LRMS having no real "purpose" in the game - single LRMs in balanced builds tend to get shot down by AMS and missing altogether, whereas LRM-boats are either too easy (not reliant on skill) or doing no damage at all due to the current targeting system. Also, the damage-spread and -progression is not competitive in comparison to other weapons.
Issue 3:
No incentive to use more different 'mechs since they are all kinda same and don't have their unique quirks. And because of that, many players will stick with pop-tarts or the Alpha-configuration-mechs described in Issue 1, since they are easier to use and offer more reward while minimizing the risk/exposure to the enemy.
These are the immediate problems I can think of for now.
There are also some other aspects of the game that influence balance (no collisions for example, netcode/lags), but these are rather factors due to the engine and I expect them to be smoothed out over time.
Now to the propositions made by other players that I like and can endorse as a real way to bring more variety and balance to the game.
Proposition 1:
Add a third layer of equipment-restriction to the mechs. (I REALLY like that one)
Currently, the only limits of mounting a weapon are available hardpoints and slots in that specific location. (To some extend weight also affects the placement, but in general you would be allowed to put an AC/20 even on a Spider or Raven)
Dividing the current arsenal into small/medium/large weapons and adjusting the 'mechs hardpoints to only mount weapons of the respective type and size, one could go a LONG way to prevent boating except for dedicated boat 'mechs (for example the HBK-4P with it's 8 medium lasers).
This system would prevent alot of min-maxed builds like Gauss-Catapults, Gauss-Ravens or stuff.
So let's see how this system could work.
For demonstration I take a STK-3F, a mech with massive Alpha-potential. He could mount up to 6 PPCs or ERPPCs, which then would deliver all their damage to one single location if fired simultaneously. Usually, this destroys that location or at least damages it so severely, that it will be destroyed shortly after.
If we change it's hardpoints to 4 medium energy hardpoints in the arms and 2 large energy hardpoints in the side torso, and if we consider any type of PPC to be a large energy weapon, then that particular Stalker could only moint 2 PPCs and some additional lasers (along with some missiles). this would remove alot of alpha-potential and force the players to use more balanced loadouts.
In general, this system could prevent any kind of (massive) boating EXCEPT FOR 'MECHS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DO SO.
The third limitation for equipment doesn't need to be size only, it could be any other kind of distinction between the weapons, but in my opinion, it would make the most sense.
Proposition 2:
Have different weapons serving for different purposes.
If there would be a way to utilize your loadout in more ways than just shooting at the enemy, this could lead to a more sophisticated gameplay. This could be everything from certain weapons being more effective against certain weight classes to additional targets on the map (tanks, hovercraft, airplanes, heck, even infantry or stationary targets (dropships, turrets, installations) - even terrain to create landslides or avalanches or stuff...). To some extend, the current arsenal already has this feature implemented. Weapons like SLas and SPLas for example are not bad against lights because of their short beam-duration, but with the current hardpoint system it is usually more effective to install several PPCs or Gauss to land one lucky shot to cripple the light mech.
The same can be said about other weight-classes and their respectively mounted weapons.
Proposition 3:
Different chassis should be more distincive from each other in respect to their purpose on the battlefield.
Do not get me wrong: The performance should be equally good - your earnings and XP at the end of a match shouldn't be much different from the average of your team if you all did your job. But so far, I don't see many different 'mechs, mostly because everyone is either piloting an Atlas or a Stalker, or using pop-tarts. Most games are assault-games, and the majority of the remaining games are usually dominated by the heavy-weight 'mechs. Having a balanced approach in terms of weight from both teams is a rare sight.
So, to circumvent this, one could either introduce drop-restrictions, for example not more than 450 - 550 tons per team to limit the amount of heavy and assault mechs within each team and thus make life for mediums and lights a bit more easy and rewarding.
Or you could make mechs with underslung weapons perform better in terms of handling (or in conjunction with Proposition 1 have them a bit more freedom towards their loadouts.) Or create some modules for mediums only (or certain chassis) to give them an edge in certain situations.
Right now, there isn't much room for different roles because the current objectives revolve around elimination of the enemy team, a job where assaults excel (with the help of some scouting/disrupting lights).
The conquest-mode is a step in the right direction, but since the elimination is still a possible victory condition and because you get no incentive to achieve a victory by cap (because you get the resource bonus either way and if you win by elimination, there is a much bigger salvage pool to earn), this mode is just Assault 1.5.
Proposition 4:
LRMs should have a better performance both as complimenting support weapon for dedicated builds and for main armament.
Currently, LRMs need an intense amount of dedication for them to land on their target. They have to overcome so many obstacles to even slightly damage their intended target that it is usually better to pack SSRMs for brawling purposes.
In my opinion, LRMs should be a fire-and-forget weapon where you can change your target under the reticule in mid-flight and don't have to worry about them being able to hit their targets. To prevent them from being noob-shots, certain criteria has to be met though.
1) The 'mech with LRM need either Artemis, BAP or a dedicated module to keep the lock for their intended targets (or everything together).
2) The target must be visible on the radar all the time (or may disappear only for a fraction of a second). You don't have to keep the target under your reticule or targeted as primary target, but once it's signal vanishes, the missiles will target it's last known position.
3) The way LRMs behave has to be revamped alltogether. LRMs need more spread to hit other locations beside the CT, they need a more direct trajectory if the are fired upon a target which is not subjected to NARC or TAG to help the target with evasive maneuvers. Targets which are affected by NARC or TAG should have an incoming missile angle around 70°, whereas direct-fire-targets or unmarked target would have a incoming angle of about 45-55°.
4) AMS need a revamp too. Instead of shooting down X missiles of each salvo, it should reduce the incoming missiles by a percentage, which can go up or down depending of your own sensory equipment and being affected by ECM, for instance.
This would help both dedicated LRM-mechs and second-line mechs with supporting LRMs.
That is all for now, but I will edit this post if the need arises.
So, let's not wait longer and start with the issues of the current meta.
ISSUES
Issue 1:
Sniper/Alpha-heavy meta, with concentration around PPC/Gauss/AC20 - in general "single-shot-but-hard-hitting-weapons", that destroy one location rather than spreading the damage around.
Issue 2:
LRMS having no real "purpose" in the game - single LRMs in balanced builds tend to get shot down by AMS and missing altogether, whereas LRM-boats are either too easy (not reliant on skill) or doing no damage at all due to the current targeting system. Also, the damage-spread and -progression is not competitive in comparison to other weapons.
Issue 3:
No incentive to use more different 'mechs since they are all kinda same and don't have their unique quirks. And because of that, many players will stick with pop-tarts or the Alpha-configuration-mechs described in Issue 1, since they are easier to use and offer more reward while minimizing the risk/exposure to the enemy.
These are the immediate problems I can think of for now.
There are also some other aspects of the game that influence balance (no collisions for example, netcode/lags), but these are rather factors due to the engine and I expect them to be smoothed out over time.
Now to the propositions made by other players that I like and can endorse as a real way to bring more variety and balance to the game.
Proposition 1:
Add a third layer of equipment-restriction to the mechs. (I REALLY like that one)
Currently, the only limits of mounting a weapon are available hardpoints and slots in that specific location. (To some extend weight also affects the placement, but in general you would be allowed to put an AC/20 even on a Spider or Raven)
Dividing the current arsenal into small/medium/large weapons and adjusting the 'mechs hardpoints to only mount weapons of the respective type and size, one could go a LONG way to prevent boating except for dedicated boat 'mechs (for example the HBK-4P with it's 8 medium lasers).
This system would prevent alot of min-maxed builds like Gauss-Catapults, Gauss-Ravens or stuff.
So let's see how this system could work.
For demonstration I take a STK-3F, a mech with massive Alpha-potential. He could mount up to 6 PPCs or ERPPCs, which then would deliver all their damage to one single location if fired simultaneously. Usually, this destroys that location or at least damages it so severely, that it will be destroyed shortly after.
If we change it's hardpoints to 4 medium energy hardpoints in the arms and 2 large energy hardpoints in the side torso, and if we consider any type of PPC to be a large energy weapon, then that particular Stalker could only moint 2 PPCs and some additional lasers (along with some missiles). this would remove alot of alpha-potential and force the players to use more balanced loadouts.
In general, this system could prevent any kind of (massive) boating EXCEPT FOR 'MECHS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DO SO.
The third limitation for equipment doesn't need to be size only, it could be any other kind of distinction between the weapons, but in my opinion, it would make the most sense.
Proposition 2:
Have different weapons serving for different purposes.
If there would be a way to utilize your loadout in more ways than just shooting at the enemy, this could lead to a more sophisticated gameplay. This could be everything from certain weapons being more effective against certain weight classes to additional targets on the map (tanks, hovercraft, airplanes, heck, even infantry or stationary targets (dropships, turrets, installations) - even terrain to create landslides or avalanches or stuff...). To some extend, the current arsenal already has this feature implemented. Weapons like SLas and SPLas for example are not bad against lights because of their short beam-duration, but with the current hardpoint system it is usually more effective to install several PPCs or Gauss to land one lucky shot to cripple the light mech.
The same can be said about other weight-classes and their respectively mounted weapons.
Proposition 3:
Different chassis should be more distincive from each other in respect to their purpose on the battlefield.
Do not get me wrong: The performance should be equally good - your earnings and XP at the end of a match shouldn't be much different from the average of your team if you all did your job. But so far, I don't see many different 'mechs, mostly because everyone is either piloting an Atlas or a Stalker, or using pop-tarts. Most games are assault-games, and the majority of the remaining games are usually dominated by the heavy-weight 'mechs. Having a balanced approach in terms of weight from both teams is a rare sight.
So, to circumvent this, one could either introduce drop-restrictions, for example not more than 450 - 550 tons per team to limit the amount of heavy and assault mechs within each team and thus make life for mediums and lights a bit more easy and rewarding.
Or you could make mechs with underslung weapons perform better in terms of handling (or in conjunction with Proposition 1 have them a bit more freedom towards their loadouts.) Or create some modules for mediums only (or certain chassis) to give them an edge in certain situations.
Right now, there isn't much room for different roles because the current objectives revolve around elimination of the enemy team, a job where assaults excel (with the help of some scouting/disrupting lights).
The conquest-mode is a step in the right direction, but since the elimination is still a possible victory condition and because you get no incentive to achieve a victory by cap (because you get the resource bonus either way and if you win by elimination, there is a much bigger salvage pool to earn), this mode is just Assault 1.5.
Proposition 4:
LRMs should have a better performance both as complimenting support weapon for dedicated builds and for main armament.
Currently, LRMs need an intense amount of dedication for them to land on their target. They have to overcome so many obstacles to even slightly damage their intended target that it is usually better to pack SSRMs for brawling purposes.
In my opinion, LRMs should be a fire-and-forget weapon where you can change your target under the reticule in mid-flight and don't have to worry about them being able to hit their targets. To prevent them from being noob-shots, certain criteria has to be met though.
1) The 'mech with LRM need either Artemis, BAP or a dedicated module to keep the lock for their intended targets (or everything together).
2) The target must be visible on the radar all the time (or may disappear only for a fraction of a second). You don't have to keep the target under your reticule or targeted as primary target, but once it's signal vanishes, the missiles will target it's last known position.
3) The way LRMs behave has to be revamped alltogether. LRMs need more spread to hit other locations beside the CT, they need a more direct trajectory if the are fired upon a target which is not subjected to NARC or TAG to help the target with evasive maneuvers. Targets which are affected by NARC or TAG should have an incoming missile angle around 70°, whereas direct-fire-targets or unmarked target would have a incoming angle of about 45-55°.
4) AMS need a revamp too. Instead of shooting down X missiles of each salvo, it should reduce the incoming missiles by a percentage, which can go up or down depending of your own sensory equipment and being affected by ECM, for instance.
This would help both dedicated LRM-mechs and second-line mechs with supporting LRMs.
That is all for now, but I will edit this post if the need arises.
Edited by Spawnferkel, 27 May 2013 - 04:03 AM.
#25
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,819 posts
Member
Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:47 PM
In addition to my old suggestions (that we should turn the previous map bugs into features- a hardcore no hud mode, a hardcore no map mode, a funky april fools day rainbow map mode, etc)...
I suggest the devs implement a new consumable: Pit traps.
I suggest the devs implement a new consumable: Pit traps.
#26
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,819 posts
Member
Posted 02 June 2013 - 07:18 PM
Make autocannons like machineguns (with a decrease in per-hit damage proportional to their increase in rate of fire), make machineguns fire 5-10x as fast as they do now, and make pulse lasers fire like autocannons currently do (one big shot per trigger pull).
#28
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,819 posts
Member
Posted 09 June 2013 - 04:14 PM
Another thing I'd suggest is: Take the Seismic sensor code and apply it to Narc, so that once attached the Narc beacon causes the targeted mech and anything within 400 meters of it to show up on allied minimaps.
#29
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,819 posts
Member
Posted 10 June 2013 - 03:14 PM
Oh, and make it so that if a mech with BAP makes first contact with an enemy, it automatically pings the maps of the user's teammates (with the ping being centered in the quadrant that the enemy is located in).
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
