29 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

ECM is a band-aid for Artemis and creates such anger that ECM itself requires a band-aid.

The fact that they still aren't adjusting PPC/Gauss might indicate that they think BAP will restore brawling to the game. We all know that won't happen.

On the other hand, it might indicate that they do not care about weapon balance even when the forums are a river of flame and there is only one viable weapon system in the game.

[MaddMaxx]

So what is the solution to weapons balance then? Damage versus Range versus Heat generated? Oh wait...

It seems reasonable to assume that the creators made the weapons so that the littler mechs could have smaller version of those weapons the big guys had Big versions of. AC's damage - 2, 5, 10, 20. AC's weight - 6,8,12,14. AC's crit slots - 1,4,7,10. Same goes for the Lasers and Missiles.

The trend is there. If all everyone wants to use is the BIG BAD damage dealers, then what is to be done. BV also included "everything" that could be put on a Mech. Weapons were just one component.

[Rebas Kradd]

Saltychipmunk, on 07 May 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

That is the list in its entirety , now some people have made extremely specialized builds that work but those are more because the player in question is bored than it is that the weapons they use are good.

Nice try. You don't get to dismiss weapons as unbalanced just because they don't get used ALL the time. If they're viable, there is balance in this game. Period.

[NRP]

I'm confused, is the OP griping about the lack of effective weapons? He actually listed quite a few weapons, from which it is possible to build many different configurations. What's the issue again?

[General Taskeen]

MaddMaxx, on 08 May 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

then what is to be done.

- Fixed Heat Thresholds
- Re-developed SHS and DHS (for heat disappation bonuses only)
- Weapon spread for alpha strike only.
- Removing lock-out feature of ECM -> Redevelop with actual Information Warfare bonuses (Ghost Targeting, information mech readout blocking, BAP cancels information mech readout blocking)
- Improving viability of weapons or underdeveloped equipment in the game ->

• MG's/Flamers (remove stream functionality, apply cool down, increase damage), NARC (autoseek SRM/LRM feature), LB-X (major damage buff/significant decrease in spread/slower cool down)
  
• Pulse Lasers (General Overhaul)
  
• AC's (overhaul idea-> increase fire rate, slight decrease in damage, or increase viability of AC/5 and AC/10)
  
• UAC (remove 'double shot' functionality, remove jam percentage and replace with skill based barrel overheat jam)
  
• SSRM's (Overhaul, introduce minimum turn rates, keeping cursor on target to ensure hit, etc.)

- Jump Jet Balance (cockpit shake on ascent, faster ascent to higher max height or distance for dodging, slower recharge rate, directional jump jetting, generate heat)

I probably left stuff out, but that's the general meat and potatoes of current problem areas.

[Syllogy]

Most of that is already being done in one way or another, Taskeen.

[3rdworld]

Syllogy, on 08 May 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Most of that is already being done in one way or another, Taskeen.

Soon™

[MustrumRidcully]

General Taskeen, on 08 May 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Indeed, I think that's been suggested many times. If weapons can have BV applied to them, the match maker would also determine the BV level of the player's Mech to match an opposing player's actual loadout value. Essentially 'weaker' type stock builds would then (in theory) match up against one another.

The question is - is there any incentive to use poor weapons?

The match-maker might ensure that you only fight other people with poor weapons (simplified). But ultimately, if you can figure out a realistic, useful battle value of a game element, then you have already all the tools to adjust the game element to be balanced.

[MustrumRidcully]

MaddMaxx, on 08 May 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

So what is the solution to weapons balance then? Damage versus Range versus Heat generated? Oh wait...

There are no easy solutions. You will need some hard work on modelling the game balance.
But it's a possible task. Like with all models, you have to refine it as more data comes to light.

For example, I have my model presented here: http://mwomercs.com/...-5th-2013-patch
That model had one big question mark for me - what are "realistic" engagement times? I used to assume times from 15 to 30 seconds, but the current sniper meta suggests that 5-15 seconds could be more representatitive. The next step would be to take the model, alter values that suggest in the model better balance, and see how these values affect the real metagame. The you can go back and refine the model.

It's not a process that is done in one day. It's particualrly a process that needs frequent tweaks and cycles. ANd so far PGI is not fast with rebalances.

[General Taskeen]

Syllogy, on 08 May 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Most of that is already being done in one way or another, Taskeen.

Not really in the way you think, or you or I might hope. And unfortunately many of those issues have existed for well over 6 months that involve not really adding content, but adjusting programming or "numbers."