139 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

MaddMaxx, on 13 June 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

So you blame PGI for the players apparent overwhelming need to carry ONLY the BIGGEST and the BEST weapons? Really? Your solution to change that "overwhelming need" would be what exactly?

Make 1 mech, with 4 hard points, 4 weapons with 4 different feels, but similar, damage profiles? They we all pick our choice.

I have the perfect FIX. Remove the (er)PPC, the LBX10, the Gauss Rifle, the AC20 and the (er)LL, Large Pulse from the game. Now everyone will have to fight over what left for max firepower. Missiles are a crap shoot and can be left in.

Now we have only the 6 damage per, non-missile weapon units left. Surely that will make game play more interesting...

God forbid people disagree with you and think pinpoint alphas of mass damage is a boring mechanic, eh?

The problem I have is with the homogeneous nature of all the high damage weapons, as it is there already really only is three real weapon classes in the competitive side of this game, PPC, gauss, and AC/20. Anything that doesn't put amassed firepower into a single location is inefficient and not suited for high-end play.

There is no need to build a balanced 'Mech, you are disadvantaged. That is a problem because in turn you end up with a game where 2/3 of a drop is carrying nothing but the three weapons mentioned, and people who aren't carrying that are looked upon as a liability by their team and an easy target by the enemy.

My soultion would be one of two things:

1. If we're going to keep the locational damage system of Battletech that only worked because weapons couldn't be amassed and directed into a crucial spot like the CT every time the trigger is pulled, we have to introduce some randomness, at least to grouped weapons or;

2. redesign how damage works completely and make a brand new system instead of using parts of the old Battletech system and breaking it with features like pinpoint aiming and massive alpha strikes as it was never meant to handle such abilities.

Edited by DocBach, 13 June 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

MaddMaxx, on 13 June 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

So you blame PGI for the players apparent overwhelming need to [win]? Really? Your solution to change that "overwhelming need" would be what exactly?

Fixed that for you.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 13 June 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

DocBach, on 13 June 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

God forbid people disagree with you and think pinpoint alphas of mass damage is a boring mechanic, eh?

The problem I have is with the homogeneous nature of all the high damage weapons, as it is there already really only is three real weapon classes in the competitive side of this game, PPC, gauss, and AC/20. Anything that doesn't put amassed firepower into a single location is inefficient and not suited for high-end play.

There is no need to build a balanced 'Mech, you are disadvantaged. That is a problem because in turn you end up with a game where 2/3 of a drop is carrying nothing but the three weapons mentioned, and people who aren't carrying that are looked upon as a liability by their team and an easy target by the enemy.

I have no issue with any disagreement. I am stating, that given the game MWO is based on, and the weapon systems inherent to it, the only "true" solution would be either remove those weapons that are so superior, or the Mechs that can carry many of them.

Which of those 2 that PGI didn't do, was the worse mistake, or were both simply bad decisions?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 June 2013 - 10:12 AM.

[El Bandito]

MaddMaxx, on 13 June 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

I have no issue with any disagreement. I am stating, that given the game MWO is based on, and the weapon systems inherent to it, the only "true" solution would be either remove those weapons that are so superior, or the Mechs that can carry many of them. Which of those 2 that PGI's didn't do, was the worse mistake?

PGI can just add convergence and the problem will go away.

https://mwomercs.com...t-fire-weapons/

Edited by El Bandito, 13 June 2013 - 10:14 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Gaan Cathal, on 13 June 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

Fixed that for you.

Thanks. I do believe that does, in fact, strengthen the point made.

[DocBach]

El Bandito, on 13 June 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

PGI can just add convergence and the problem will go away.

mwomercs.com/forums/topic/116064-battle-tech-novel-inspired-idea-on-balancing-long-range-direct-fire-weapons/

This would be my solution - a cone of fire that is affected by your movement, enemies movement, range, and heat level to simulate the Battlemech's targeting computer adjusting to target and track a dynamic bad guy. It does not become totally random as the player can control his heat level and his movement, and position himself to get in effective range for his weapon systems. Pinpoint accuracy would still be possible, if they player made himself a perfectly stable firing platform, but that would make him vulnerable to enemy counterbattery.



in this example we see the firing 'Mech is at a high heat, is moving slowly, and is firing against a 'Mech that is also moving, the convergeance doesn't reach pinpoint level on to a single point, his shots aimed at the left arm hit with one laser, but the other laser hits the left torso instead as combat circumstances do not allow him to hit the exact same point.

Pretty much weapons stacked in similar locations could still be grouped to hit the same location, but massed fire from every location on a 'Mech would be much harder to land everything into a dime sized hole.

Edited by DocBach, 13 June 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

El Bandito, on 13 June 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

PGI can just add convergence and the problem will go away.

https://mwomercs.com...t-fire-weapons/

So something similar to the "inherent delay" before your guns fired, like was in the CB portion of MWO, that everyone hated so much it was removed... That convergence...

The only players who get affected by any true convergence are those facing off against other Mechs who can return fire, at similar ranges, while also exposed.

A 4PPC Stalker sticks it head out and spots a enemy mech that sadly only has LRM's to return fire from that range. The Stalker waits 1.6 seconds, blast the enemy and steps back as the Missile reach their apogee and then fall harmlessly into the cover the Stalker sought.

Did the "convergence" time (made up number of course) really affect the Stalker ability to zap his ranged enemy? Not whatsoever. Very quickly, the competitive players solution to said issue is for "everyone" to carry "response based" weapons of similar ranges, and thus compounds the problem as you perceive it.

Someone do a Poll please.

"How long should any Mechs guns take to fully Converge?"

Be curious how that turned out... LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 June 2013 - 10:26 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

MaddMaxx, on 13 June 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Thanks. I do believe that does, in fact, strengthen the point made.

We do, for once, agree on this I think.



Personally I have absolutely no issue with 4-PPC Stalkers or 2PPC+Gauss poptarts being viable builds. I have an issue with them being spectacularly better, not with them existing. Part of the problem with these discussions is that you actually have three 'factions' of players. Folks who want their shiney toys and stamp their feet, people who want said shiney toys deleted from the game with extreme prejudice and folks who want lots of viable options (aka balance).

[RG Notch]

Gaan Cathal, on 13 June 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

We do, for once, agree on this I think.



Personally I have absolutely no issue with 4-PPC Stalkers or 2PPC+Gauss poptarts being viable builds. I have an issue with them being spectacularly better, not with them existing. Part of the problem with these discussions is that you actually have three 'factions' of players. Folks who want their shiney toys and stamp their feet, people who want said shiney toys deleted from the game with extreme prejudice and folks who want lots of viable options (aka balance).

Sadly, apparently the first two groups are the most numerous or at least the loudest.

[Galen Crayn]

So, i have red a lot what goes wrong with the whole fixes, the system itself - but what would be THE solution to solve all the problems? Do you have a concept how PGI could solve the problem of balancing? The link with the novel rules is a good beginning. And that PGI needs help of the Pro`s shows the next week fix... I only say how you make a LPL NOT better....

Edited by Galen Crayn, 13 June 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[DocBach]

Gaan Cathal, on 13 June 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

We do, for once, agree on this I think.



Personally I have absolutely no issue with 4-PPC Stalkers or 2PPC+Gauss poptarts being viable builds. I have an issue with them being spectacularly better, not with them existing. Part of the problem with these discussions is that you actually have three 'factions' of players. Folks who want their shiney toys and stamp their feet, people who want said shiney toys deleted from the game with extreme prejudice and folks who want lots of viable options (aka balance).

I don't have a problem with them being viable builds, they have some of the heaviest weapons in the game, they should be deadly; the problem I have really isn't that these builds are viable, it is that other builds in comparison are not viable, at least competitively. We are playing a game that takes a system from a game where damage was dealt randomly, and now allows us to put it wherever we wish; as a result smaller weapons or weapons that spread out damage or do damage over time are much less effective in combat.

[MaddMaxx]

Gaan Cathal, on 13 June 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

We do, for once, agree on this I think.

Personally I have absolutely no issue with 4-PPC Stalkers or 2PPC+Gauss poptarts being viable builds. I have an issue with them being spectacularly better, not with them existing. Part of the problem with these discussions is that you actually have three 'factions' of players. Folks who want their shiney toys and stamp their feet, people who want said shiney toys deleted from the game with extreme prejudice and folks who want lots of viable options (aka balance).

And the issue those three groups face as a whole is that an AC20 x 2, is inherently better at damaging enemy than say 6 ML's , despite the range similarities, or 2 X GR is inherently better than 4 x AC5's, despite the range similarities.

The answer, obviously, is the same as "how BIG is the Universe?" Some seem to think they know, but no one can definitively provide a Real answer, beyond. "Really friggin Big"

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 June 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[Galen Crayn]

So come on, we have now 2 ideas how PGI could make it better, the novel thing and the idea of Doc. Lets see how good you all really are and find THE solution for balancing problem

PS: I love this thread. Really good posts

My solution: I am a big Fan of Battletech since the end 80`s. The rules were good. To adopt it here with randomly hit zones you could make 3 things:

The normal Target cross is swinging as you are moving, as faster as more it swings and it has to depend on the weight of the mech. You can shoot normal without lock-targeting but then shooting a special zone is impossible.

Second you can target-lock the opponent mech to make damage to one zone while you are walking

Third the idea above that for example ppc, ac20 can only be fired without moving for example 500m. For more distance you need a lock. Perhaps you can implement a kickback that moves the targeting cross away so you have to renew the targeting process

Only some ideas

Edited by Galen Crayn, 13 June 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

DocBach, on 13 June 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I don't have a problem with them being viable builds, they have some of the heaviest weapons in the game, they should be deadly; the problem I have really isn't that these builds are viable, it is that other builds in comparison are not viable, at least competitively. We are playing a game that takes a system from a game where damage was dealt randomly, and now allows us to put it wherever we wish; as a result smaller weapons or weapons that spread out damage or do damage over time are much less effective in combat.

Agreed 100%. But with Randomness a very BIG no no. What is left. Convergence is not the solution sadly as it affects those Large heavy hitters less than the poor little guys who do not have the ranged firepower.

[Joseph Mallan]

MaddMaxx, on 13 June 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Agreed 100%. But with Randomness a very BIG no no. What is left. Convergence is not the solution sadly as it affects those Large heavy hitters less than the poor little guys who do not have the ranged firepower.

personally I think a small Bit of random would make it more realistic. Not less.

Tracer rounds, are a perfect example!

[DocBach]

MaddMaxx, on 13 June 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Agreed 100%. But with Randomness a very BIG no no. What is left. Convergence is not the solution sadly as it affects those Large heavy hitters less than the poor little guys who do not have the ranged firepower.

Not necessarily randomness, but using convergence to a wider cone than we currently have. The size of the convergence cone would be based on:

Speed of the shooter, ie if he is stationary, walking or running (greater than 2/3 throttle)
Speed of the target, faster 'Mechs would make the targeting computer harder to get a tight bead on - this gives lighter 'Mechs an advantage
Heat of the shooter, ie add tangible effects to running hot
Range, this would help curb the AC/20's dominance over other autocannons among other things - if the AC/20 was unreliable to put exactly where you want two of them at ranges beyond its effective range it would give weapons like the AC/10 an actual role as a mid range weapon.
C3: Add C3 networks, and allow C3 spotters to relay range information to negate the range penalty to convergeance, allow ECM to block it.

[MaddMaxx]

DocBach, on 13 June 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Not necessarily randomness, but using convergence to a wider cone than we currently have. The size of the convergence cone would be based on:

Speed of the shooter, ie if he is stationary, walking or running (greater than 2/3 throttle)
Speed of the target, faster 'Mechs would make the targeting computer harder to get a tight bead on - this gives lighter 'Mechs an advantage
Heat of the shooter, ie add tangible effects to running hot
Range, this would help curb the AC/20's dominance over other autocannons among other things - if the AC/20 was unreliable to put exactly where you want two of them at ranges beyond its effective range it would give weapons like the AC/10 an actual role as a mid range weapon.
C3: Add C3 networks, and allow C3 spotters to relay range information to negate the range penalty to convergeance, allow ECM to block it.

All totally doable from here, but as for the other end... Heat is a contentious issue but allows some flexibility to be had.

I would add to that list.

Remove, or at least reduce, the Maximum ranges of many of the weapons, or at least increase the drop off rate by 50%.

Only the Lighter ballistics should see 3 fold range distances and others should drop off well before their current 2X ranges. It seemed cool at first but now it seems crazy.

That might help as well. An AC40 @600m still packs quite a wallop (more than it should imo).

[Kunae]

MaddMaxx, on 13 June 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

An AC40 @600m still packs quite a wallop (more than it should imo).

An AC40, @600m does just over 15pts of damage, total. About the same as 1 gauss round, at that distance. And this assumes both AC20 rounds land, and in the same loc.

Edited by Kunae, 13 June 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[DocBach]

MaddMaxx, on 13 June 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

All totally doable from here, but as for the other end... Heat is a contentious issue but allows some flexibility to be had.

I would add to that list.

Remove, or at least reduce, the Maximum ranges of many of the weapons, or at least increase the drop off rate by 50%.

Only the Lighter ballistics should see 3 fold range distances and others should drop off well before their current 2X ranges. It seemed cool at first but now it seems crazy.

That might help as well. An AC40 @600m still packs quite a wallop (more than it should imo).

Being hit by two AC/20's would still hurt, the difference would be it would be hard to concentrate all the damage to one location. The expanded reticle would still provide reference for aiming points, but in some cases like if you are shooting at a profile of a 'Mech, firing two weapons not in the same location could cause one shot to miss wide, making firing in single fire more advantageous to alphaing all the time in some situations .

[Livewyr]

Factors needed for consideration of balancing: (Obviously, IMO- but I think it stands to reason as well.)

Capability vs Cost. (Weapons/Equipment)
-Weight
-Size
-Heat
-Ammo Dependency
-Nullification
-Personal Risk (explosions)
-Personal Risk (exposure)
-Personal Risk (Nullification)
-Requirements to use
VS
-Damage
-Range
-RoF
-Accuracy (Projectile Speed)
-Accuracy (Missile/LBX Spread)
-Accuracy (Duration Spread)
-Unique Engagement Ability (Indirect/Homing)
-Meta Effect on information
-Meta Effect on weaponry
-Meta Effect on area denial

----------------------------------
Things usually used in player considerations for balance:

Do I like to use the weapon?
or
Can I use the weapon effectively?
VS
Does the weapon kill me a lot?
or
Do I think the weapon requires sufficient skill?

Unfortunately.. PGI all too often either; itself thinks the way the players do in regard to balance, or caves to the way players think in regards to balance.