74 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Well, as others have mentioned, MWO is a weird synthesis of different non-compatible ideas from tabletop and modern FPS games, but what's weird is that some matches can be quite fun, because the players compensate for the weaknesses of the game. Of course, those matches never create the depth that MWO should have, but it gives an impression that there's balance, because people make irrational choices to make the game more fun than it would be otherwise. For example, people play with inferior builds, ignore victory conditions, use alternative tactics, etc.

But if you have no higher ambitions of role warfare or a game that encourages complex strategies beyond AC40 mobbing, I'd say that the game currently offers moments of good and simple entertainment. I'd say I enjoy about 30-50% of my games. I do have higher ambitions though, so it's rather like sating your hunger with a hot dog. Not really a scintillating experience, but it's acceptable.

[Theodor Kling]

I am at oods with that question. The last patch did a lot for balance, and finally brought some gradual changes ( SRM spread reduced, but not eliminated ) instead of only 1/0 changes from other patches..so I would say we are closer then we were before, and if they keep tuning in stead of knee jerking we might get there till " release".

But then there is still so much to do. It's not just weapons. It's also role warfare, where lights generally get less points then the big guys, because both their design and their role on the battlefield allows for less dmg and kills.

BUT for the first time in moths I actually think positive about this, because the combination of UI2.0 and new matchmaking ( lobby , private games) should do a lot fot the game.

[StalaggtIKE]

Keifomofutu, on 09 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

I read that in Sean Connery's voice. Yes that is depressing.

That's hilarious. That's who I had in mind when I typed it.

[KuruptU4Fun]

There will never be balance, because this game will never be chess. Balance is something you have to avoid in MMO gameplay because it gets stale real quick.

Watch this, understand more:
http://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 10 June 2013 - 08:13 AM.

[FupDup]

KuruptU4Fun, on 10 June 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

There will never be balance, because this game will never be chess. Balance is something you have to avoid in MMO gameplay because it gets stale real quick.

Watch this, understand more:
http://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w

When people say "balance" on the MWO forums or any other game, they're not talking about symmetrical stuff like chess where each side is identical. Most people already use the word "balance" in MWO to describe that exact Extra Credits video's point: you can be good at some things but you can't be good at everything. In other words, you've got weaknesses that your opponents can take advantage of. The way most people (including myself) use the word "balance" is literally identical in meaning to perfect imbalance. It just sounds less complicated to say it this way and more people are likely to understand what we're/I'm actually talking about.

When people are asking for, say, PPCs to be balanced, they don't want them to be a reskin of other weapons. Rather, they just want it to have one or more clear weaknesses (which they are currently lacking) to counteract their intended and completely valid long-range strength.

Edited by FupDup, 10 June 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[GingerBang]

StaggerCheck, on 09 June 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

I find it strange that PGI are leaning towards a dreamt up stacking heat penalty for firing similar weapons during the same time span instead of attacking the problem at the root... the core mechanics listed above by Alistair. Their determination to stick with the initial core setup seems incredibly stubborn to me, if only due to the evidence one can plainly see by playing a few matches. I know many people love this one click, one kill style of game play, but I find it rather unsatisfying.

this x1000. OP was right, core mechanics are broken. It wasn't the jump jets that made poptarts powerful, it was 4 weapons all hitting the exact same spot without penalty. It is having the ability to fire at times 6 ppc's at 90% heat and not take any damage. It is having the ability to climb a near vertical wall, fire and alpha strike, and ski back down that hill at 150KPH in your stalker. It is the fact a weapon hard-point the size of a paper towel tube on a mech, can hold a cannon a quarter the size of the mech.


They have been going about this the wrong way since the day when they first doubled the armor values.

Edited by GingerBang, 10 June 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

FupDup, on 09 June 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

The latter.

I would also include the Mech Efficiency skills and modules as something imminently tweakable for better balance.

I also don't see a possibility for all mech classes being balanced in the current state of mission types and role warfare. (Which is what I think will be dependent a lot on modules and mech efficiency if it was done well. I just can't see any other component in the game be able to balance a 50 to 80 difference in firepower and armour).

[FupDup]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 June 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

I would also include the Mech Efficiency skills and modules as something imminently tweakable for better balance.

I also don't see a possibility for all mech classes being balanced in the current state of mission types and role warfare. (Which is what I think will be dependent a lot on modules and mech efficiency if it was done well. I just can't see any other component in the game be able to balance a 50 to 80 difference in firepower and armour).

Speaking of mech efficiency skills, I wouldn't mind the current overall format so much if the actual skills differed from mech/variant to mech/variant. For instance, mechs without lower arm actuators should NOT have the arm swing enhancement, cool run/heat contain should be restricted to energy boats like the Awesome or Hunchback 4P, only speed demon mechs like the Dragon or Treb should get speed tweak, etc.

[Vodrin Thales]

aniviron, on 09 June 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

I feel like weapon balance is getting pretty close to being right, and weight class balance is really far off.

How do you get weight class balance in a game that is based on battletech without diverging greatly from the flavor of the original game? There was no weight class balance in battletech. Assaults were always much more powerful than lights and mediums. You just could not field a full team of assaults.

[Chavette]

FupDup, on 09 June 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Their stubbornness can be used to explain pretty much any of the problems this game has ever faced.

Fupdub tellin em how it is, spittin the truth, giving out the cockeye, you name it.

[FupDup]

Vodrin Thales, on 10 June 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

How do you get weight class balance in a game that is based on battletech without diverging greatly from the flavor of the original game? There was no weight class balance in battletech. Assaults were always much more powerful than lights and mediums. You just could not field a full team of assaults.

Then the solution must be ZZZZZERG RUSH!!!!!!

Our Spiders will blot out the sun.

[scJazz]

FupDup, on 10 June 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Then the solution must be ZZZZZERG RUSH!!!!!!

Our Spiders will blot out the sun.

TTBQFH!

[Lostdragon]

I think changing the way heat and convergence work are going to be required to achieve balance. If heat had a static cap and HS dissipated heat a little more quickly that would be a good start. When you ignore heat and push way over the heat cap there should be consequences.

Firing more than one weapon at once should cause some spread of where the shots land based on the weapons' locations on your mech. If you have a PPC in each side torso and fire them simultaneously the shots should end up slightly left and right of the point of aim. Arm weapons can have perfect convergence if the arms have lower actuators. Or you could go with a random cone of fire that increases the more weapons you fire. Or have an accuracy penalty based on movement. There are many ways to address convergence and it is frustrating that it is treated like a non-issue by the devs.

[DocBach]

very far seeing as half the weapons available in this time period (ie Clantech) aren't in the game yet.

[MaddMaxx]

Sybreed, on 09 June 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

exactly, it's a shame the Awesome gets shafted so much by PGI's system, it's such an iconic mech...

Ummm, sorry, but how did PGI's system shaft the Awesome exactly? It can still carry its default/Stock load-out can it not?

Without customization, PGI could have just made a Stock 3025 game, sans Tier 2 tech and called it a day. Would that have been a better game, really?

[Alistair Winter]

KuruptU4Fun, on 10 June 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

There will never be balance, because this game will never be chess. Balance is something you have to avoid in MMO gameplay because it gets stale real quick.
Watch this, understand more:
http://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w

Ironically, in my poll, my last option was "Here, watch this Extra Credits youtube video". I swear to God.

Those videos are pulled out in every thread like this, like some kind of trump card to end all debate.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 10 June 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[SpiralRazor]

Alistair Winter, on 09 June 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

I was going to start a thread about the AC40 Jager, which is ridiculous at the moment, but I thought I'd start this thread instead. It's not a new idea for a thread, but I haven't seen the question asked since the last patch, and since the last few patches have made some significant changes (PPC nerf and poptart nerf), I think it's worth asking the question again.

How far away are we from good game balance?

It gets tricky as soon as one tries to define game balance, but I think that in a game with about 80 different mech variants and 30 different weapons, we can define balance as a state where players can be approximately equally successful with different mechs (Atlas or Commando), different weapons (LRMs or pulse lasers) and different styles of playing (sniping or brawling).

In other words, do we just need to tweak the LRM damage and the SSRM homing mechanism, or is the whole game in dire need of a a complete overhaul of heat efficiency, convergence, weight class balance, etc?

EDIT: My poll disappeared

This is Battletech...everything is NOT supposed to be equal. That is exactly why you have Tech Levels of equipment, derp.

Lostdragon, on 10 June 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

I think changing the way heat and convergence work are going to be required to achieve balance. If heat had a static cap and HS dissipated heat a little more quickly that would be a good start. When you ignore heat and push way over the heat cap there should be consequences.

Firing more than one weapon at once should cause some spread of where the shots land based on the weapons' locations on your mech. If you have a PPC in each side torso and fire them simultaneously the shots should end up slightly left and right of the point of aim. Arm weapons can have perfect convergence if the arms have lower actuators. Or you could go with a random cone of fire that increases the more weapons you fire. Or have an accuracy penalty based on movement. There are many ways to address convergence and it is frustrating that it is treated like a non-issue by the devs.

Cone of Fire is for CoD derptards, no thanks.

[Alistair Winter]

SpiralRazor, on 10 June 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

This is Battletech...everything is NOT supposed to be equal. That is exactly why you have Tech Levels of equipment, derp.

First of all, we're not talking about the Catholic church. It doesn't matter what some people think this game is "supposed" to be like. We don't have to look things up on Sarna like it's the Holy Bible.

If PGI finds a way to make single heat sinks a viable choice with different advantages and disadvantages compared to double heat sinks, that's cool by a lot of fans.

Second of all, saying "derp" and "tards" doesn't really make your argument any more convincing at all.

[Zyllos]

If you just implemented non-convergence with torso weaponry, some of the more dominate builds would be uneffected (2x AC/20 Jagermech or 5x PPC Stalker).

If you just implemented Cone-of-Fire, some weapons and builds will just be completely nerfed into oblivion (Cicadas with Medium Lasers would be dealing pitiful damage due to lasers just randomly spraying in the Cone-of-Fire).

I personally think you will HAVE to do a multifaceted balance patch that touches and changes multiple things at the same time to get balance correct.

I think making all weapons lose their individual convergence, then let arms physically converge their arm facings to the arm crosshair (making weapons fire in the pattern they are physically mounted on the arms). Torso weapons will fire based on their physical mounts, straight ahead, landing based on a perpendicular line straight out of the middle of the torso sections.

All weapons will fire straight ahead using the above change to convergence. That means you know exactly where your weapons will land, but if all fired at the same time, their physical location they will land will be in different locations, meaning not all weapons will land in a single location.

Normal lasers will act no different than they do now, firing a beam of a certain duration and never change firing path. Pulse lasers should change to fire like Machine Guns, without a Cone-of-Fire, but still act in the same manner as they do now.

All ballistic weaponry (PPCs, ACs, LBX, Machine Guns, and Gauss Rifle) will fire with a Cone-of-Fire, using the center of the cone just like all other weapons. This Cone-of-Fire will be a linear function of movement speed, thus have no Cone-of-Fire if not moving, have 50% Cone-of-Fire when moving 50% of maximum speed, and so on and so forth.

Missile weaponry will also follow the above convergence changes, but have a natural spray, like they do now. I personally would suggest making the spray just a bit smaller than now, up the damage to SRM = 2.0, SSRM = 1.5, and LRM = 1.0, then make SRMs/SSRMs ripple fire at a rate of 0.1s per SRM/SSRM while LRMs will ripple fire at a rate of 0.1s per 5 LRMs. Make LRMs follow the same rules as SSRMs for each grouping of 5 LRMs that were fired (LRM/5 targets one random location, LRM/10 targets 2 random locations, and so on).

Then modify the current heat mechanics in some way to make heat more important instead of just worrying about 100% heat.

Lastly, introduce a few more hardpoint classifications to balance out each mech and their capabilities.

Edited by Zyllos, 10 June 2013 - 11:04 AM.

[Theodor Kling]

I agree with you ( mostly), but Looking at the Sarna holy scriptures IS good. You don have to hae to copy it perfectley, but you should be guided by it . ( Similarities with relgious texts is pureley by chance )

But DocBach had a very important point: No matter how close we get to a (perfectley in-) balanced game, all clan tech is missing so far. And since that is overpowered by design...

Edit: Ageeing with Alistair Winter that is, I just don want to go into the accuracy/coneof fire etc discussion

Edited by Theodor Kling, 10 June 2013 - 11:07 AM.