133 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 29 May 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

I'd say there are definitely 25-30 people I've had conversations with on the board that would have balance at a minimum better than PGI does now.

And probably would be a ton better.

this.
Balance isn't that easy.
Simple because stacking weapons throws anything and everything out of the window.

I have used two weeks (2-3h a day) to create my Spreadsheet weapon balance.
On the paper all looks good, good efficency rating, good DPS.... than I started some "theoretical" test runs.
What happen when I use 2 weapons of a kind...tree, four...

And suddenly althoug the MLAS was so lacklustering in comparison with the ER-Large Laser.... same HPS when using 4 MLAS like the ER-Large....but the MLAS combination did not overheat.... they spit out multiple times the damage of the ER-Large Laser at good range...and did not overheat... then i used a 5th MLAS for mor HPS...and still the Mech did not overheat....

Thats the main problem of balancing multiple weapons. 1x4 PPCs work completely different as 4x1 PPCs - 1 PPC may be equal to 1 LRM 20 but 4 PPCs vs 4 LRM 20 is something complet different. I would say impossible to balance - not without restricting the MechLab - and create balancing arround those couple of possible variants.

---

tl:dr
Balancing multiple weapons on multiple chassis with different perks n quirks is almost impossible.
Best way for MWO - is the introduction of MM BattleValues that can also reflect the superiority of stacking same weapons over mixed weapon loadouts.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 29 May 2013 - 11:07 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Karl Streiger, on 29 May 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

this.
Balance isn't that easy.
Simple because stacking weapons throws anything and everything out of the window.

I have used two weeks (2-3h a day) to create my Spreadsheet weapon balance.
On the paper all looks good, good efficency rating, good DPS.... than I started some "theoretical" test runs.
What happen when I use 2 weapons of a kind...tree, four...

First, I will agree with you entirely: Balance is not that easy. Even if I got a chance to personally edit the database to my tastes, I can absolutely guarantee that it that at most it'd be 90% right tops; probably closer to 80%, and then you'd have to tune from there.

That said, making small changes is not hard, so this goes back to the number one problem. I do not, and have never, wanted sudden and abrupt re-balances.

If they bumped missiles, for example, just .1 on the 4th and promised to re-evaluate them weekly - making similar small adjustments until they reach equilibrium with the other classes of guns - nobody here would be upset. In fact, many of us would be very grateful for that kind of re-balancing. Yes, it could take months to get where we want, but at least it would be moving.

Leaving broken things untouched for months only to wildly and completely re-balance them isn't fixing ANYTHING; this is why "taking your time and doing it right" is not what's happening here. It's "Take forever and do SOMETHING!" right now, and that is why this is really really bad.

Karl Streiger, on 29 May 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

And suddenly althoug the MLAS was so lacklustering in comparison with the ER-Large Laser.... same HPS when using 4 MLAS like the ER-Large....but the MLAS combination did not overheat.... they spit out multiple times the damage of the ER-Large Laser at good range...and did not overheat... then i used a 5th MLAS for mor HPS...and still the Mech did not overheat....

Thats the main problem of balancing multiple weapons. 1x4 PPCs work completely different as 4x1 PPCs - 1 PPC may be equal to 1 LRM 20 but 4 PPCs vs 4 LRM 20 is something complet different. I would say impossible to balance - not without restricting the MechLab - and create balancing arround those couple of possible variants.

---

tl:dr
Balancing multiple weapons on multiple chassis with different perks n quirks is almost impossible.
Best way for MWO - is the introduction of MM BattleValues that can also reflect the superiority of stacking same weapons over mixed weapon loadouts.

I absolutely believe battle values are the way to go for lobbies; I would be OK with a BV modifier for repeated uses of specific weapons if it was slight enough, because that does in fact increase the value of the unit IMO so it's fair; it would allow boats to continue to exist, but now would take more out of the team to do so.

While I think you are wrong on weapon balance - we can have that entirely balanced - just due to the nature of BattleTech they will never, ever be able to make a medium as good as a heavy or assault, or make other builds worthwhile, without a BV system. It just wasn't built that way. Other class games have things like class-restricted weapons and such, as that makes them different enough to make them equals; again, in BattleTech, that's just not going to happen. Sometimes a sub-par 'mech can be worth more than a valuable one just on the virtue of it's price.

A lot of people seem horrified at the idea of seeing a BV system and the end of Assaults 24/7, but seriously, a pack of similar tonned lower-BV units like mediums end up being the majority force on the field, dictating the fight, when you limit these things.

Anyway, overall, I get your points and I agree for the most part. I never said balance is easy but the way they've gone about fixing it is what I have a primary issue with.

[Renthrak]

Victor Morson, on 30 May 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

A lot of people seem horrified at the idea of seeing a BV system and the end of Assaults 24/7

I think we can avoid too much of a problem here by making the BV matching more forgiving. It would require testing to determine how much of a difference between teams is really acceptable, but it could be done. Combine this with scaling match rewards based on the BV of the player's 'Mech and people could still use their assaults if they can't stand doing anything else, but the incentive would be there for everyone else to use lighter chassis.

[Victor Morson]

Renthrak, on 30 May 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

I think we can avoid too much of a problem here by making the BV matching more forgiving. It would require testing to determine how much of a difference between teams is really acceptable, but it could be done. Combine this with scaling match rewards based on the BV of the player's 'Mech and people could still use their assaults if they can't stand doing anything else, but the incentive would be there for everyone else to use lighter chassis.

I think it would be ideal if they moved to a lobby system when CW arrives, either transparently with a list of lobbies or masked behind fluff (like a "Planetary Assault screen").

That way you could have, say, a 600 ton room (or BV equivalent), a 400 ton room, a 300 ton room.. match types for everybody, with everyone on equal footing. If you want to pilot assaults all the time stick to the 600; if you'd enjoy a 8v8 with lights and mediums, hop in the 300. Everyone wins.

If they insist on sticking with a totally automated matchmaker que (A quick match button could serve a similar purpose by dumping you in the first game there's space for you), it's going to be much harder on the player.

[Cyke]

This thread is so full of good ideas that PGI either never thought of, or ideas that they're are afraid of due to to complexity, that I'm getting even more depressed with the game and the direction it's headed in.


Just a while ago, I would have added added a third option (aside from never thought of, or are too complex).. the third option would be "PGI has data that shows them things that we don't know, so they know better than us".

Now, with the recent yo-yo treatment of missiles, the laughable AC5 range boost (anyone even noticed it?), while there's a complete lack of any effective work to promote diversity to break months of over-dominant slanted meta.. it's obvious they're not really sure what they're doing.

Don't get me wrong. They know how to make a computer game. They made MWO. There are plenty of great things about it.
But they don't know how to balance gameplay. Not by a longshot.

[Victor Morson]

I know this is an incredibly unpopular opinion, but I think the biggest problem is they balance around the wrong people.

Instead of taking in the very best players in the game, the old school NBT and Solaris people and such and getting constant close feedback from them on the state of balance, they try to balance around PUGs and PUG data, which is just awful.

A lot of PUGs jump up roughly at this point, esp. before the forum split, and announce great offense to this and thinking the game should be balanced around their thoughts too. It shouldn't be. But this is not the elitism they would accuse anyone supporting this opinion of next, this is because if you have people who really understand weapons and are educated on how they work - including details many casual PUGs haven't even considered - are influencing game balance, that's good for everybody. Even casuals benefit from the hardcore series veterans getting more say in balance.

I will be entirely honest, and that's that many of us have called every single thing that's emerged. I was screaming to the heavens before the missile nerf that if you nerf'ed missiles, the game would become nothing but snipers. I felt like freaking Cassandra, to be honest, because I was just meeting with tidal waves of people insisting I was nothing more than a founder jerk intent on my "noob weapons."

There's not an "I told you so" big enough in the world for these people. I'm hardly claiming unique insight, as the vast majority of good players were right along with me warning of this exact outcome. I do believe part of our concern was we didn't think they'd ever get back to fixing the class for months.. it's safe to assume we were right on that as well.

Edited by Victor Morson, 31 May 2013 - 11:36 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

I believe other games balance for high level play first as well.

Concern for newbies is a massive priority though, but that should come from good handholding for a little while not catering to them directly.

However, without knowing the design goals of PGI which have changed so much since they announced the game I am finding it hard to understand if the balance decisions are made from data, new player concern, forum backlash, or thier own personal opinion. I think it is a mix perhaps but looking at how things pan out in high level play is a very good indicator of long term balance.

Not the ONLY measure mind you, and I think it is important to understand the long term goals of other parts of he game that significantly impact the meta such as game modes, future incentives, map design, matchmaking, and so forth. Balance is such a huge issue it goes beyond just the weapons and I simply want to know if the current state is 'Tweak as we go', or is more 'Things are gona change big time with more features'

The latest ATD had some much better and more informative answers, but weapons balance was missing in any great detail showing they are open about some things but weapons balance is a black box.

[Victor Morson]

Why was this moved to Feature Suggestions? This is specifically related to balance.

The goal of this thread has always been to get a detailed statement or dialogue from PGI because the community is growing increasingly concerned. If some kind of statement is made about our concerns there's no need for the thread, so for a brief moment when I could not locate it, I had assumed that possibly it was removed for that purpose.

None the less, I hope this breathes a second life to this rallying point for our serious concerns with the state of balance.

Edited by Victor Morson, 01 June 2013 - 04:56 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Asmudius Heng, on 31 May 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

The latest ATD had some much better and more informative answers, but weapons balance was missing in any great detail showing they are open about some things but weapons balance is a black box.

That lack of showed concern in the last ATD was a huge red flag and concern for me.

[Karl Streiger]

Victor Morson, on 01 June 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Why was this moved to Feature Suggestions? This is specifically related to balance.

Because FS is the new GD.

No I'm joking - or at least I hope that I'm joking.

Asmudius Heng, on 31 May 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

The latest ATD had some much better and more informative answers, but weapons balance was missing in any great detail showing they are open about some things but weapons balance is a black box.

Well the last ATD felt like: BattleSpace or AeroTech when you launch a couple of Killer Whales - 'Shipkiller' missiles that puch through the defensiv fire, break through armor and ignite the ammunition storrage.

It felt like hitting home, felt like a kill shot - but not in a very positiv way.
You know what I mean - that little sentence:
A: Armor values are based off the TT values.

[MustrumRidcully]

Victor Morson, on 03 June 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

That lack of showed concern in the last ATD was a huge red flag and concern for me.

On the plus side, you got a lot of "Yes" votes for your suggestion.

Not that it means anyhting, but it it's one of the more one-sided answered threads in the Suggestion forums.

[Syllogy]

If you want a statement on Weapon Balance, play the game, try the weapons yourself.

[Kattspya]

Lightfoot, on 27 May 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

What is wrong with the balance other than LRMs are a little weak? Long range works better on big maps, short range works better on small maps. You will really only want a short range focused mech in a city setting or similar. Otherwise you bring some short and some long to medium range.

MechWarrior is a tactical game based on map enviorments because it is a sim-shooter. If you try to brawl on Alpine you will be toast unless you have alot of screening from your team.

What game are you playing? The long range wepons (ppcs) are more efficient than short range weapons at short range. Dps is higher and damage\heat is higher. The only exception is the AC20 which can only be effectively mounted by heavies. Not a single competitive damage over time weapon exists currently. There exists one single effective short range weapon. You can't really talk about long and short range if the same weapons are used

[rgreat]

I agree to all except LRM buff.

LRM are fine, and even a bit too powerfull with Artemis.

Edited by rgreat, 26 June 2013 - 07:34 AM.