112 replies to this topic

[One Medic Army]

krash27, on 20 June 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

In TT, I don't think any mechs mount 6 PPC's do they? I think the heat would shut the mech down at the very least if not destroy it, in TT. lol

Yes and no.
There are mechs that mount 4 ERPPCs in TT, which have the same heat load as 6 PPCs.
I'm not aware of any which mount 6 PPCs however.

[Steel Claws]

keith, on 19 June 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

pgi has no foresight. as soon as we say the patch notes for jj shake, we knew stalkers were back. they were what was in before highlanders. they were handled because of srms, srms hit like a feathers now. idk y they can't add a tonnage max to drops or to lances would fix most problems. then see if ppc is still main wep around.

Yep congrats, They had them trade out their highlanders and 3Ds for stalkers - said it all along. Is this a "victory". It was the 3Ds that kept the stalkers in line before the Highlander came around for the most part however.

Sprouticus, on 19 June 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Poptarting was a valid tactic, but it was not FUN, nor was it 'mechwarrior-esque'. There is a reason why many people hated it in MW4.

That's a matter of opinion. I found it far more fun than always trying to COD someone. As for not mechwarrior-esque - I can find the tactic used in the novels - again this is YOUR opinion. This debate has raged since at least MW2. It is all a matter of personal play style. Is it right to deny others the right to play the game as they want just because it's not what you prefer? In the end it makes no difference to me, I adapt to what ever happens rather than rushing to the forums to complain - and no I don't run a PPC stalker - have never even built one. My favorite ride of the moment is an AC5 Jager.

As for hating it in MW4 - again that is an opinion. Many enjoyed it and many of us played MW4 until just a year ago. A run of more than 10 years - this game can only hope to do as well.

I really have to laugh at the people who complain about "the long ranged meta". What did you think would happen when bigger maps were introduced? Gee I might have to play Alpine, should I bring the small lasers or something that reaches out further? Long ranged weapons can still be brawled with fairly well if one minds his heat, Short ranged weapons don't work so well to snipe with. Pretty much a no brainer there.

[SickerthanSars]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 18 June 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

I still see a lot of PPC boats (Highlanders/Stalkers/Cataphracts) and now a lot of AC/40 Jagers.

And we are still very top heavy with Assaults and Heavies being most of the mechs in games.

It's still stupid...what are ya gonna do?

as if high alpha boating is something new to mech warrior multiplayer....

Edited by SickerthanSars, 20 June 2013 - 11:04 PM.

[MasterErrant]

Pht, on 19 June 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

This is what happens, of necessity, under the idea of "whack a mole" balancing... where everything is forced into "equality of overall performance."

The really annoying thing about whackamole balance is that you have really only two choices using it ... endless hammering of the latest and greatest setup ... or stopping at some arbitrary point, and letting whatever is the latest and greatest setup simply reign from then on out.

IMO, I prefer a version of gameplay balance that allows for truly variable performance - some things can really suck, some can be really great - built so that, within the bounds of sanity, pretty much ANY form of play can have a chance of success.

"within the bounds of sanity" - you shouldn't try and level the field between someone trying to use 20 small lasers in a slow, hot running assault mech on a hot flat map with great visibility and someone loading a lot of super-long range cool running weapons.


Whack-a-mole balance ... it sucks.

Everything needs to be equal "overall" but only in a statictacal sense.
I've seen poost after post of players claiming that this weapon or that weapon is better and complicated math "proving" the superiority or inferiority of various weapons both here and in the tt...and it's all BS. the original weapons all roughly balanced out. especailly when you consider the ephemeral effects.

[Pht]

MasterErrant, on 23 June 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

Everything needs to be equal "overall" but only in a statictacal sense.

Statistical equality is impossible.

The human variable can never be controlled for nor accounted for.

This is why the TT has had ... what ... combat value, and two versions of battle value so far? Both of which people have always "found a way around."

Quote

I've seen poost after post of players claiming that this weapon or that weapon is better and complicated math "proving" the superiority or inferiority of various weapons both here and in the tt...and it's all BS. the original weapons all roughly balanced out. especailly when you consider the ephemeral effects.

Um ... no .. .they didn't balance out.

How, in any way, is an AC2 equal to, say, a ppc? Or a PPC to a small laser?

Edited by Pht, 23 June 2013 - 05:35 PM.

[The Strange]

FupDup, on 18 June 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

I was intending to disagree with your previous post.

The meaning that I gleaned from it (not necessarily the one you intended) is that you don't think the game is imbalanced because people can just "adapt" around it. My own belief about that is that the game is very imbalanced at the moment because the majority of players only adhere to a few specific play styles--most notably ERPPC/Gauss snipers. They're not invincible by any means, but it's just kind of annoying and boring to face the same thing over and over again. Adapting to the overabundance of those snipers (or other FoTM builds) doesn't make the problem of stale gameplay (due to a lack of variety) go away.

The problem with this, is that no matter what the developers do, the players will always find a single "best" build, and a lot of people will use it. There will always be min/maxing. If you remove this one type of build, another will rise in it's place and people will complain about that, then it will get "balanced" and another will rise etc. Say we get rid of the PPC/Gauss builds, then we get rid of the dual AC20 builds, then we will have to get rid of laser boats, and it keeps going and going and going.

[FupDup]

The Strange, on 23 June 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

The problem with this, is that no matter what the developers do, the players will always find a single "best" build, and a lot of people will use it. There will always be min/maxing. If you remove this one type of build, another will rise in it's place and people will complain about that, then it will get "balanced" and another will rise etc. Say we get rid of the PPC/Gauss builds, then we get rid of the dual AC20 builds, then we will have to get rid of laser boats, and it keeps going and going and going.

Or, instead of getting rid of the "best" builds, perhaps we could just buff the underloved items so that they can compare? (Not being mathematically identical, just having strengths that are good enough to justify their weaknesses).

I don't care how it happens, I just want to see more weapons and tactics being used than I can count on one hand.

Edited by FupDup, 23 June 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[MischiefSC]

FupDup, on 23 June 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Or, instead of getting rid of the "best" builds, perhaps we could just buff the underloved items so that they can compare? (Not being mathematically identical, just having strengths that are good enough to justify their weaknesses).

This is where things like buffing SRMs so that a brawler is better at brawling than a sniper build are going to be helpful.

The truth is DPS designs are never going to compete with high alpha designs because of pinpoint accuracy. ACs except Ultra 5 and AC20, PPCs vs ERPPCs, small lasers vs large lasers, medium pulse lasers, there's always going to be stuff that just doesn't compete to high alpha designs. Fixing that just isn't viable. LRMs are about there. SRMs are a ways off yet. MGs, flamers, pretty much worthless still.

The key is to give high alpha options at the different weight classes. That's what's screwing mediums right now - not fast enough to give them an edge over heavies, not enough armor or weight to dish and take high alpha damage. Give them options with SRMs to at least be a brawling threat to heavies/assaults and you're in business. Give them more speed and suddenly you've got a solid striker design. Currently the mediums all carry very diverse weapon hardpoints (read: inferior), average speed and not enough weight to pack optimal tools.

Give seismic MORE range - depending on the weight of the target vs the weight of who's using it. Think of it like you're making too much noise to hear anything else in a bigger mech. A motionless light might pick up a running assault at 500 or 600 meters while a slow moving light might show up to an assault only at 50m. Suddenly your Raven is back in the scouting business. Not to mention buffing the crap out of NARC. Make that badboy as awesome as NARC - say, make even SRMs more accurate against it, make it last 3 minutes, it's still not going to be as dramatically impactful on tactics as ECM is for half the weight.

Just make brawling viable vs sniping and scouting more effective in a light. Right now you can easily scout in an Atlas - Advanced Long Range sensors and BAP.

[Jonny Taco]

Sprouticus, on 19 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

In the end a lot of the balance issues boils down to PG refusing to acknowledge that hardpoints need size limits. I am not sure WHY they think that, but they do. Many of the more reasonable people on the forums have been saying this forever. I actually suggested it PRIOR to beta, when we were speculating on how hardpoints would work. (not bragging, just saying the idea is kind of obvious if you played MW2/3 and then played MW4

But PGI won't do this so they are using other balancing methods. I disagree with their decision, but I have to live with it so Ill move on and try to suggest other way I think it can be (hopefully) fixed. Heat changes are one of those ways.

You're 100% accurate that hardpoint size limitations are the way forward. Like you said, this is a suggestion that has been around since BEFORE beta even started and was a suggestion commonly proposed durring cb in some form or another.

The reality is that their current system does not work, it simply doesn't. PGI really has two choice when it comes to the current issue with alpha and boating. They can try and fix it with failboat bandaid solutions and be bad as they have been, or they can nut up, **** off the terribad TT fanbois and implement reasonable weapon size limitations...

[MustrumRidcully]

OnLashoc, on 18 June 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

mmmm k..

Adapt or be crushed, your choice.

YOU think it is imbalanced because it doesn't fit the play styles you like. I brawl with my weapons regardless of range when it comes down to it. Sitting 600+ meters away hill humpin just isn't feasable with all the people wanting to be in close, so I take range builds with high heat tolerance, dink and dunk at range, and can fight up close and personal when able to.

Was that way ever since I've played Mechwarrior predating MWO.

I think most of us adapt. There are even posts from players that have adapted saying how much more succesful they are.

Too bad that it turns out that those t hat adapt all look very similar.
Build a PPC boat, optionally with one Gauss Rifle. Or maybe an AC/40 boat.

(It's actually interesting that there are so few people that go two Gauss Rifles, which used to be the go-to OP weapon back in the days. And it's not even limited by heat, it's completely impossible to overheat a Dual Gauss Rifle mech... But it's got at least a 10 points lower alpha than all the AC/40 and PPC builds out there. And no one needs to be able to fire for more than 6 salvos or so to kill something.)

[MustrumRidcully]

One Medic Army, on 19 June 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

It's not about nerfing damage, it's nerfing instantaneous damage, nerfing the amount of damage that can be dealt as soon as someone leaves cover, regardless of the time he remains out of cover.
It's the difference between dealing 40dmg, and dealing 20dmg and then another 20dmg 2 seconds later.

Cutting the heat cap to force people to fire their PPCs in multiple groups is a valid way to do this, though modifying the heat system also affects lasers which are not currently a problem.

I actually put a thread up suggesting cutting PPCs to 5dmg/4heat/2sec (same DPS, decreased alpha, same heat) and got a number of positive responses before the TT players started getting annoyed since "In TT PPCs dealt 10 dmg". I didn't hear them complaining when the LargeLas got boosted to 9 dmg from 8.

One of the problems of balancing MW:O are essentially irrational preferences like this.

Yes, the weapn is called AC/20. No, that doesn'T mean it has to deal 20 damage per shot. It doesn't have to mean anything. It might have meant that in the table top, but we're playing a real time game with mouse aiming. If we don't want to change that, we need to adapt stuff. We can use the table top stats as basis, but we have to think about why they used those numbers, and how to adapt them according to our divergences from the turn based game.
PGI already did this a lot. The fact alone that Lasers have a beam duration (which is actually a counter-measure that also makes boating Lasers less powerful then it would be if they were all hit-scan and instantenous) is a strong divergence from TT, because there was not just no concept of beam durations in that game, it also implies that Lasers should be able to spread damage across locations, which they can't in the board game.

I wonder if COD players demand that the G36 deals 36 damage per bullet, or fires 36 bullets per minute, or whatever...

[Jonny Taco]

MustrumRidcully, on 23 June 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

One of the problems of balancing MW:O are essentially irrational preferences like this.

Yes, the weapn is called AC/20. No, that doesn'T mean it has to deal 20 damage per shot. It doesn't have to mean anything. It might have meant that in the table top, but we're playing a real time game with mouse aiming. If we don't want to change that, we need to adapt stuff. We can use the table top stats as basis, but we have to think about why they used those numbers, and how to adapt them according to our divergences from the turn based game.
PGI already did this a lot. The fact alone that Lasers have a beam duration (which is actually a counter-measure that also makes boating Lasers less powerful then it would be if they were all hit-scan and instantenous) is a strong divergence from TT, because there was not just no concept of beam durations in that game, it also implies that Lasers should be able to spread damage across locations, which they can't in the board game.

I wonder if COD players demand that the G36 deals 36 damage per bullet, or fires 36 bullets per minute, or whatever...

The real issue is that PGI cattered to the TT fainbois early on in a ruse to get them to sign up for founders packages to help fund their over budget project.

The strict adherence to the TT rules demanded by these people has been what's limited this game's potential in reaching any form of actual balance. Now to be fair, PGI has been tweaking these values a bit lately and things have been getting a bit better. That being said... Following the original TT weapon values is what got us into this convoluted mess of shotty game balance from the get go...


Like you said, an AC20 does not HAVE to do 20 damage, it just has to be a big close range gun that does more damage than an ac10 and a gauss rifle. Same goes for a clan ER PPC speculation... I've heard plenty of people say clans will be broken because of their TT weapon values (among other things). What I find amazing about this is that many people are so daft that they are unable to realize that it's not mandatory that PGI mirror TT weapon values... The overall "Feel" of battletech is what PGI should be trying to emulate here while also championing competative and balanced gameplay... An ac20 doing 20 points of damage just as in table top is not what's important...

P.S. I'm not saying that an AC20 is broken atm, I'm just using it as an example.

Edited by lartfor, 23 June 2013 - 11:09 PM.

[Kahoumono]

Well they only have a few more patches to go, no point in sticking around for empty promises afterwards.