59 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

For weapons and equipments only. I realize that even though they had changed damage, heat, RoF and armor values around, PGI still haven't touched the weight of weapons and equipments (actually, by increasing shot per ton, PGI already indirectly changed ammo weight).

I have no clear idea on whether allowing such change will lead to something better or worse but I do know that by allowing flexible TT weight value will open up another avenue for balancing. IMO Pulse Lasers and Narc might need such change.

You thoughts on this matter?

Edited by El Bandito, 31 May 2013 - 03:36 AM.

[LockeJaw]

Unbalanced poll is unbalanced. 0/10, would not recommend.

[Joseph Mallan]

Any change from TT has done very little good for the MechWarrior games. Pretty much every change made that altered from TT has been game breaking.

Double Armor
Increased fire rate
1.4 sinks

All these deviate from TT all have changed how the game playes.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 31 May 2013 - 03:23 AM.

[El Bandito]

LockeJaw, on 31 May 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

Unbalanced poll is unbalanced. 0/10, would not recommend.

How is it "unbalanced"? No explanation at all?

Joseph Mallan, on 31 May 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

Any change from TT has done very little good for the MechWarrior games. Pretty much every change made that altered from TT has been game breaking. Double Armor Increased fire rate 1.4 sinks All these deviate from TT all have changed how the game playes.

I can understand about DHS but how was double armor game breaking? I wasn't in close Beta but wasn't double armor in response to two-shotting mechs with most weapons?

Also, MW2--which was more faithful to TT values was no way balanced for multiplayer.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 May 2013 - 03:30 AM.

[Crimson Fenris]

So far, it will be good to weapon balance, since original unbalances will not exist anymore, and some weapons (Pulse lasers in particular) will become a real tradeoff instead of tonnage-filler...

I just cant imagine why they could change every other TT value (ammo, armor, weapon stats, heat sinks, etc.), but the original tonnage has to be the same... if you change a rule, you MUST modify the others for the sake of balancing.

[LockeJaw]

It is unbalanced because there are 2 options for lowering the weight, only one for raising.

The second option could be paraphrased "Increasing the weight would be stupid, but lowering it is my preference." Just the way I read it. The language seemed loaded to me, and imbalanced in the second question particularly.

Sorry, I haven't had quite enough coffee yet this morning to think, let alone type, coherently.

[Kitane]

The worst mistake this game made during transition from TT was the ability to aim weapons.

You should be forced to tab-target enemy mech and press 1 2 3 4 for randomly assigned damage with a hit chance.

(hey, maybe it wouldn't be as bad as it sounds - I can even imagine the game being more balanced and playable than now...)

[Devil Fox]

El Bandito, on 31 May 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

I can understand about DHS but how was double armor game breaking? I wasn't in close Beta but wasn't double armor in response to two-shotting mechs with most weapons?

So wouldn't the proper response to the current meta be to Quadruple armour?! We already have high alpha builds that are 1-2 shooting every mech on the field. All double armour did was prelong the battles from 2min affairs to longer fights, but that was also a time when the number of boat capable chassis were limited, energy weapons (like the ppc) were strong but balanced by heat and tonnage... oh and everyone still had SHS only to play with.

Any variation from TT weights for weapons just makes the weapon systems a facade, and introduces muliple issues with balancing across the board, from how a chassis will affect boating them, to overall uptake by the community, to how niche weapons may become. All it will do is effectively cause more head-aches then solve them... the issues ain't with the tonnage of weapons, it's with the heat, rof, hit detections, chassis boating... not the tonnage of a weapon. And you don't need to change tonnage to affect a weapons uptake as we've seen with the PPC, drop the heat and RoF then bam taken up enmass.

Oh and bias poll... the main problem is this game is built around an existing system, any deviation from the strict tonnage based system will invariably collapse the game to the point where it isn't really battletech anymore. This game is doing alot to revive the Battletech genre and tabletop gaming. Half baked idea's aren't a solution to the problem many have identified...

[Karl Streiger]

Crimson Fenris, on 31 May 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

So far, it will be good to weapon balance, since original unbalances will not exist anymore, and some weapons (Pulse lasers in particular) will become a real tradeoff instead of tonnage-filler...

They could made Pulse Lasers better....so that they are the short range light mech killer & backstabbing weapon they are supposed to be. For example Medium Pulse Laser deals 7 dmg. (or increase dps)
Howerver with there liniear weapon damage diagramm they will buff them into OP ness very fast... because the MPLAS shouldn't be better as the MLAS beyond 60m.
And the Large Puler not supperior over the ER-Larger beyond 90m

[Joseph Mallan]

El Bandito, on 31 May 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

How is it "unbalanced"? No explanation at all?



I can understand about DHS but how was double armor game breaking? I wasn't in close Beta but wasn't double armor in response to two-shotting mechs with most weapons?

Also, MW2--which was more faithful to TT values was no way balanced for multiplayer.

28+ years of shooting a Jenner with an AC20 in the leg left me with a Jenner with structure damage on the torso. Now to get the same results I have to fire two converging AC20s at the same leg!

Twice the weapon to do the same level of damage.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 31 May 2013 - 04:25 AM.

[mike29tw]

Sooner or later, they'll have to change the weight.

Look at NARC for example, 3 tons for a missile beacon? It's either going to be too heavy to worth it, or too good that it's essentially an instant death sentence.

[Karl Streiger]

mike29tw, on 31 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

Sooner or later, they'll have to change the weight.

Look at NARC for example, 3 tons for a missile beacon? It's either going to be too heavy to worth it, or too good that it's essentially an instant death sentence.

NARC should last longer... there was always the trade off: more as 4 missiles systems on a Mech or multiple missile systems in a lance go for NARC instead of Artemis.

Both systems should do the same... but i think it is complete stupid to allow the Artemis to work anytime and that the NARC works only for moments....

But that is a complete other story.... why Missiles in MWO are a mess, next to why ECM is a mess, or why Heat is a mess or why MM is a mess....

[Ralgas]

at, the bottom line is you don't get further short changed with stock variants. as it is it's just a drag and drop from the tro's, and less balancing work to get a mech into the game

[stjobe]

There's some hard decisions you have to make when translating the TT rules to a real-time computer game - some of these decisions have been good, some bad, and some just plain strange (hello "crit weapon" MG, I'm looking at you).

They decided to go with an increased rate of fire but leaving the dissipation rate on a 10-second cycle; directly leading to the current high-alpha game. The high heat cap we have also means that energy weapons have lost a major balancing factor - and that's one reason the high-heat, high-damage energy weapons are so popular.

They also decided to stick to the TT weapon values for the most part, but it's spotty at best; e.g. the AC/2 got a 20x increase in firepower while most of the other ballistics got less of an increase the heavier they were, up to the AC/20 which only got a 2.5 increase - and the MG, lightest of the ballistics, which only got a 2x increase.

That decision to stick with TT weapon values but increasing rate of fire lead directly to having to double armour values; if instead they had divided per-hit damage by the same factor they increased rate of fire with, they could have kept the TT armour values.

They have their work cut out for them if they ever want this to be a game where a stock 'mech is something else than pure cannon-fodder.

[MustrumRidcully]

Whatever is needed, ultimately, but honestly - why is it not possible to find a weapon damage, recycle rate and heat value that works for, say a 12 ton 7 crit weapon?

It's a bit like saying:

"Hey, I've checked your offerings, and if I spend 5 $, I get 20 Apples, and if I spend 10 $, I get 35 Apples. The latter seems unfair, can you not sell me 35 for 8.75 $? "
"No, sorry, we can't, we only accept money in 5 and 10 $ bills." (Are there even 5 or 10 $ bills? What do I care?)
"Ah, I see. Maybe sell me 40 Apples for 10 $ then?"

If you can't change the tonnage because of stock mechs that suck anyway because of a poorly implemented heat system, why not adjust the other part of the weapon that doesn't match anything from table top anyway anymore?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 31 May 2013 - 05:26 AM.

[Felbombling]

Given their track record, you see a positive outcome resulting from PGI messing around with the weight of equipment in an effort to balance their own game?

[Mechteric]

Gonna vote no, they have all the power of balance they need without messing with crit space or tonnage. DPS, heat, range, special effects, etc is where their balance occurs already!

[SuMMoN]

TBH I don't think the numbers are to bad now. boating should have some effects: when stacking weapons of the same type, say more then two you should have heat penalties, or chance for heat sink overload resulting in heat sink holding heat for x2 or an outright blow out. pop tarting is a fine tactic that can be delt with with some teamplay, the alpha however is game breaking.

Edited by SuMMoN, 31 May 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[El Bandito]

StaggerCheck, on 31 May 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Given their track record, you see a positive outcome resulting from PGI messing around with the weight of equipment in an effort to balance their own game?

Like I said, I don't know what the outcome will be but it will open up another way of balancing.

[Dalziel Hasek Davion]

Let's face it, the tabletop game had some pretty broken ideas about weapons.

Machine guns that can only fire 90m at the most and are only accurate inside 30M.
Autocannons where the range decreased as calibre increased.
"Long-range" missiles that could only go 600m
...
You know what - I'm not going to go on.

These design decisions were made based on the useful size of the game board and - to a degree - they worked. The fluff served to explain these limitations in a way that allowed suspension of disbelief. Those decisions created the game we know and love. The net result was a game full of 'Mech designs that people invested in and got a lot of joy out of.

Any decision to change any of those fundamentals has a risk involved. That risk is that you create a new equilibrium for the game where people no longer recognise the x-factor that drew them to the franchise in the first place. This is not to say that such a change cannot create a good game - or even a better game - but some changes will make a game that fundamentally isn't Battletech. New people to the franchise might not notice - but most of the people braving the open Beta will.

This is a massive challenge for a game designer. To keep the taste and flavour of the franchise, incorporating all of its strange, broken and irrational characteristics from the board game (and subsequent incarnations) and yet incorporate them into an action-based computer game that no longer has the limitations of a hex-based tabletop, but demands both familiarity, balance and other design parameters (duration of match, player retention, progression, pace, reward, skill/luck).

I have been having fun. It's still quite immersive and still feels true to the essence of the tabletop game. If they were to muck around wholesale with weights, ranges, and the like, then it's a risky move. A bit like charging blind through the archway in Forest Colony. It might work...