74 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

MaddMaxx, on 10 June 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

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

In Battletech, the stock loadout of the Awesome is just that - awesome. 3 PPCs, being able to be fired almost continously. Pretty good. The 9M is the same deal, just with LEvel 2 Tech.

In MW:O - Both overheat in 8 second and can be vastly outperformed (not "about equal", vastly outperformed) by a 65 ton mech that fields 2 Gauss Rifles.

[Dayuhan]

There will never be game balance. To balance a game the developers have to assert absolute control over what is available to the players in the game so the players can only use 'mech and weapon variations allowed by the game. An example of game balancing can be found in Starcraft where each faction has a set of units that can be selected; each of those units has different abilities - but the abilities for each unit is set by the game not the player. When PGI gave the player the ability to modify load-outs on 'mechs they put in to play the ability for players to mix and match weapons, armor, and equipment as they like. With each 'mech added the diversity gets wider and the number of options greater and as such the ability to balance the game all the more improbable.

This being said I think game balance is not needed. It is the interplay of differing 'mech designs, player skills, and teams that help define the fluidity of war. There is always going to be a better player , there is always going to be the player that cannot hit a 'mech if were standing still in front of them at 30 metres. There is always going to be a better 'mech and the 'mech that should have never been allowed off the factory drawing board. There is always going to be the team that walks in to the battle field and leaves behind a company of smoking wrecks with barely a scratch, and their is always going to be a team that is that company of smoking wrecks. However, there is always the chance for a player to learn from their past mistakes, make changes, and come back better and stronger than before.

Game Balance, we will never see it. Game changes and game Changers we will always see.

[WildeKarde]

I think there is a fair bit of work to do to get a balance. There is not only issues with just the customising but that a AC40 / twin gauss jager is exactly the same as a stock 6S according to the matchmaker. Balance comes with making a better build cost more to field than the stock ones.

Once you have the even builds you can look at how those weapons perform. Convergence of everything shouldn't happen. The arms should but torso weapons fired together should vary in their impact locations. If you fire a LT and RT laser it should hit same on the target for example, not both twist in to hit the CT.

Also mechs should have differences in modules as well I think, a command mech should maybe has the sensor modules, a light mech the capture accelerator, the LRM mech the zoom, etc. Makes the mech role define what extra's it can use.

[Lostdragon]

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.




Cone of Fire is for CoD derptards, no thanks.

Thanks for the insightful comments, you really contributed to the discussion.

There is a reason that cone of fire mechanics exist on almost every FPS. MWO doesn't necessarily need cones of fire but there needs to be some change to the convergence mechanic. With perfect convergence the best strategy is to use as many of the most powerful weapon you can fit on your mech. That is more CoD derp da derp than anything else and is the antithesis of how the game should play if it is trying to be true to the IP.

[Blackadder]

As others have stated not everything needs to be equal, but everything needs to be viable. Since closed beta all we have seen is various power surges for weapons systems, where one weapons system or a few are at a decided advantage over others. It rotates for a variety of reasons, a big part being addition of new support systems like artemis or ecm, but a lot has to do with various tweeks, and changes the developer is making on a regular basis.

Given the history of the past year, its unlikely we will ever see some reasonable balance any time soon, and once clan weapons and tech is added, 6-9 months from now, things will be a mess again. This is unless pgi can manage to nail down some of the core issues that are plaguing them.

[Victor Morson]

Not far.

A few % more damage here, a little faster ROF there, a few ms off the discharge time over on the pulse... maybe some Strikes that do something strategically and don't look stupid.

We're getting there. A lot was right with the last patch.

[Thuzel]

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

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?

It needed a complete overhaul 6 months ago. Now it just needs a priest.

[Xeno Phalcon]

Balance is a difficult thing to achieve in a game like this as its currently designed, especially with players actively seeking to find and abuse weak spots (Such as jump jet sniping , boating and chainfiring weapons not normally used in that fashion.)

Especially as they are trying to maintain something resembling the tabletop values, a steep bill to fill given they are doing it with out some of the tabletops inhibitors (battle value for example) while at the same time having to deal with the MANY problems that come with creating a shooter that has so many different weapons that in itself creates issues that have to be balanced. (Missile splash is a good example there) Some weapons ended up much stronger then in tabletop simply because they could be grouped up and used in mass ina first person shooter respect and others that were always pretty strong in tabletop (Lbx and SRM) got gutted and are largly regarded as sub par.

In time things will be gradually raised and lowered, creating the sort of sea-saw buff/nerfing weve seen in LRMs in other weapons till a happy medium ground is discovered.

[WildeKarde]

Thuzel, on 10 June 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

[/size]

It needed a complete overhaul 6 months ago. Now it just needs a priest.

At the moment if I don't play a FOTM build it feels like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[Lugh]

Admit it. You all are pissed that the balance you seek is there, but you are CURRENTLY in the wrong mech to combat the Mech Du Jour coming at you.

What this game needs more than anything is drops based NOT on ELO alone, but drops based on ELO, Weight and Build Value.

[Lostdragon]

Lugh, on 10 June 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Admit it. You all are pissed that the balance you seek is there, but you are CURRENTLY in the wrong mech to combat the Mech Du Jour coming at you.

What this game needs more than anything is drops based NOT on ELO alone, but drops based on ELO, Weight and Build Value.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am pretty happy with the mech I am playing currently. But eventually I will get bored with it and want to do something new, so I would like to see as many builds and playstyles as possible be fun and worth using. That just makes sense for the health of the game in the long run.

[Sybreed]

Jake Hendricks, on 10 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

At the moment if I don't play a FOTM build it feels like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

yeah, before the game turned into use-FOTM-or-die I used to have a 3.05 K/D/R in pug matches. Now, it dropped to 2.76... running anything other than a high alpha boat is a pain in the ***

[LethalMezzle]

Very far.

Over half the weapons range from sub-par to practically useless, Double Heat Sinks and Endo-Steel are straight upgrades and there's loads of sub-par mech chassis and variants.

Yeah, it's not going to be balanced. Best we can hope for is to have decent weapon balance. So let's hope SRMs, Pulse Lasers and Machine Guns get some nice buffs.

[HarmAssassin]

MWO and Balance aren't even in the same solar system.

The farther this game moves from TT values, the more broken it becomes.

[aniviron]

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.

You.. greatly diverge from the flavor of the original game. Sorry, but if there is going to be no role for lights or mediums, why are they even being made? What's the point? Are they just there so that clueless new players can pad the stats of vets and make them feel good?

Or could we maybe make it so that mediums and lights are reasonably efficacious in combat and/or have other things they can contribute to the team that are actually useful? (Do not say scouting or fire support; scouting is worthless in this game, and having an assault support an assault is better than having a medium support an assault, meaning there is no role for the medium.)

[FupDup]

aniviron, on 10 June 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

You.. greatly diverge from the flavor of the original game. Sorry, but if there is going to be no role for lights or mediums, why are they even being made? What's the point? Are they just there so that clueless new players can pad the stats of vets and make them feel good?

Or could we maybe make it so that mediums and lights are reasonably efficacious in combat and/or have other things they can contribute to the team that are actually useful? (Do not say scouting or fire support; scouting is worthless in this game, and having an assault support an assault is better than having a medium support an assault, meaning there is no role for the medium.)

What Victor meant was that Battletech Tabletop was fairly skewed in favor of the larger classes. The only reason not to take them was cost for the most part. He completely agrees with us and wants the smaller classes viable, he's just saying we could only do it if we diverged a little bit from original TT rules that caused this skewing.

[100 Tonne]

Im all for a hard point system. Its hard to balance indivdual weapons vers boating them.

[MustrumRidcully]

Jake Hendricks, on 10 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

At the moment if I don't play a FOTM build it feels like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Like this?

Lugh, on 10 June 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Admit it. You all are pissed that the balance you seek is there, but you are CURRENTLY in the wrong mech to combat the Mech Du Jour coming at you.

What this game needs more than anything is drops based NOT on ELO alone, but drops based on ELO, Weight and Build Value.

I am doing just fine with my AC/20 Jagermechs. I like them. It gets a bit stale, though.

Are you perhaps projecting? Just because you feel unable to be objective on balance and would only complain if your favorite mech/build is underpowered, doesn't mean that everyone thinks that way.

Big Grimm, on 10 June 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

Im all for a hard point system. Its hard to balance indivdual weapons vers boating them.

Do I need to get out a list with sarna.net links to show you all the canonical mechs that require "boatable" hard points? Do I need to explain you Clan (and later IS) Omnimech technology?

The two major cost of weapons are:
Weight
Crits
Heat and Ammo affects the effectice weight and crit slot cost of a weapon

The goal of balance is to ensure that a weapon is worth its weight and crit slots (when you account for heat and ammo needs as well), not more, no less. The problem in MW:O is:
- Some weapons are giving you more bang* for your buck (in form of weight and crit slots) than others. This is part a problem of the weapon stats a lone, part a problem of the heat system.
- There are synergies between weapons that shouldn't exist. Convergence together with Group/Alpha fire making you more deadly with boated weapons then with an equal weight mixed weapon loadout.


*) bang being the technical term for damage and range.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 June 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[aniviron]

FupDup, on 10 June 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

What Victor meant was that Battletech Tabletop was fairly skewed in favor of the larger classes. The only reason not to take them was cost for the most part. He completely agrees with us and wants the smaller classes viable, he's just saying we could only do it if we diverged a little bit from original TT rules that caused this skewing.

I got what he was saying. I have played tabletop, but this game is far enough removed from tt that I'd like to see it rebalanced, because it is fairly evident now that cost is not a balancing mechanic in mwo. What I mean to say is that I am okay with making lights stand a chance in combat against heavies if that is what needs to happen, because I would rather have a fun game than one that is accurate to tt lore.

[Theodor Kling]

Blackadder, on 10 June 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Given the history of the past year, its unlikely we will ever see some reasonable balance any time soon, and once clan weapons and tech is added, 6-9 months from now, things will be a mess again. This is unless pgi can manage to nail down some of the core issues that are plaguing them.

Victor Morson, on 10 June 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

We're getting there. A lot was right with the last patch.

I agree with both of you actually
The patch history is a disaster of slow pace changes that were way overboard most of the time, but the last patch did alot of good, and showed that they can make smaller changes as well.
So I am uncertain about the next one.