471 replies to this topic

[Twisted Power]

The problem is mostly just convergence of weapons. If weapons didn't converge to a single point then pinpoint damage wouldn't 1-2 shot mechs. as long as you are able to alpha 4-6 weapons to a single spot on a mech you will never be able to balance weapons.

[stjobe]

El Bandito, on 24 June 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

For Autocannons and PPCs that is workable since they worked in bursts and streams in lore, instead of one big shot. Gauss though, always functioned like one giant punch in the face. Dunno, how they can go around that. Perhaps adding power limiter on firing multiple Gauss together? That thing draws huge amounts of power to fire.

Easy. Break lore.

I mean, lore is one thing, playability and the spirit of BattleTech another. I'm a BattleTech lore nut, but I'd rather they made a game that feels like BattleTech and plays well than stick 100% truthfully to the lore.

To be perfectly honest, this game feels less and less like BattleTech with every patch.

[80Bit]

Garbage posts and poll results like this make me consider leaving the official forums permanently.

[Roland]

stjobe, on 24 June 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

So here's a radical idea*: Why not do the same with ballistics?

Make all of them burst-fire three to five rounds over say a second, then cool down. Pin-point alpha strikes GONE!

If a 3xPPC, 1xGR alpha is just 10-11 instant damage, with the rest coming in 3-4 more bursts over a second, the target has the same chance to react as it has versus energy weapons.

*not really radical, not really new - I personally have suggested the idea several times on these forums, and so have many others.

Because you're kind of missing the point.

You shouldn't nerf the ability for a Gauss rifle to do 15 points to a single location. Or an AC20. The ability to do a large amount of damage to a single location is the ENTIRE POINT of those weapons. That is why they exist.

The problem isn't that huge weapons do a large hit to a single section.

The problem is that when you combine a bunch of weapons, they ALL hit a single location.

Simply making the big hit weapons do damage over time won't solve the problem.. all it will do is make it such that boating the lasers becomes dominant again.. because you'll still be able to strap a bunch of mediums together and make them into a single uber-laser.

Again, the issue isn't any single weapon. It's not the PPC, or the gauss, or the AC20.

It's the ability to take a bunch of weapons and duct-tape them together into super weapons via perfect convergence. THIS is the issue that lies at the heart of every configuration which everyone has complained about since the dawn of mechwarrior.

4 medium lasers is supposed to do equal damage compared to an AC20, despite weighing far less... the difference is supposed to be that it will spread that 20 damage over 4 locations, while the 20 will kick you in the teeth and possibly kill you in a single shot through your cockpit.

Until you deal with convergence, this fundamental aspects of battletech weapons balance is going to be missing, which means that a system based on that balance is not going to work.

And that in itself is not a problem.. but if that is how we want to take the game, then we need to acknowledge the fact that Battletech balance is not going to work, and that we will need to come up with a totally different balancing system. You can't just use PART of a balance system, and expect it to be balanced.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

80Bit, on 24 June 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Garbage posts and poll results like this make me consider leaving the official forums permanently.

Garbage posters and PGI defense force sackriders like you make me consider leaving the official forums permanently. Its obvious and apparent the community isnt happy with the game, regardless of whatever ******** argument, like them being a "vocal minority" , PGi comes up with.

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 24 June 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[stjobe]

Roland, on 24 June 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

Because you're kind of missing the point.

You shouldn't nerf the ability for a Gauss rifle to do 15 points to a single location. Or an AC20. The ability to do a large amount of damage to a single location is the ENTIRE POINT of those weapons. That is why they exist.

The problem isn't that huge weapons do a large hit to a single section.

The problem is that when you combine a bunch of weapons, they ALL hit a single location.

Fair enough, and thank you for spelling it out.

Roland, on 24 June 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

You can't just use PART of a balance system, and expect it to be balanced.

This. This should be printed out and stapled, taped, pasted, and stenciled all over the PGI offices. It should be their new mantra, their password to be let through the office doors in the morning, their rule above all other rules. It should be the first thing they see in the morning, and the last thing they see when they leave at night.

It's actually the root of almost everything that's wrong with MWO today.

Thank you Roland for putting it so succinctly.

[Roland]

Just to be clear, again.. I'm actually a fan of PGI's work here on MWO.

I recognize the underlying issues at play, but at the same time, I enjoy playing MWO.

And really, MWO is no WORSE in terms of balance than prior mechwarrior titles. Generally, despite its faults, MWO is the best mechwarrior title to date, bar none.

I try to point out these issues, not because I want to throw a tantrum, and make PGI feel bad. I only say these things because I want to do whatever I can to help make MWO better. I honestly do not know what the solution to the convergence issue is, which will actually result in a fun game (and that is all that matters). But I do know what convergence is a key aspect of the core gameplay which cannot be ignored.

[Victor Morson]

Roland, on 24 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

And really, MWO is no WORSE in terms of balance than prior mechwarrior titles. Generally, despite its faults, MWO is the best mechwarrior title to date, bar none.

First off I want to be the very first person to say yes, previous MechWarriors had balance issues. Balance issues that were mostly addressed in expansions - in particular the MW4:Hardcore Mektek fan project. Medium lasers in vanilla made flamers here look good, and the machine guns were even less damaging while weighing almost 2 full tons after ammo each!

I don't have rose colored glasses on. However, what you aren't looking at is things have changed with gaming a lot since MechWarrior 4. Balance patches are now something that could be pushed daily without interruption if they were so inclined, and stuff can be tweaked on the fly. Again, a lot of people still had 28.8 modems in MW4 and this wasn't an option. Patches took hours to get and were difficult to install.

That said, the one reason I will disagree and say that honestly I feel vanilla MW4 was actually more balanced than MW:O right now is that, and this is big, each class of weapon had effective options. Sure small and medium lasers were a joke in vanilla MW4, but the Large Laser was great. Ballistics had LBX/10 and LBX/20 as viable (again, UACs were balanced very poorly in the first incarnation) weapons. LRMs were solid, even if the IS versions were vastly inferior - something we're likely to see again here when the Clans show up, if LRMs are made good in the first place. (I'll be the first to admit 6 ton LRM/20s would absolutely dominate the field right now, unlike the almost double the weight IS versions).

Now, as MW went on, more and more weapons were made viable. Black Knight rebalanced many of them, and Merceneries went on a wholesale cleanup. But again, this was how big patches were done back then: People rather wait for an expansion and buy a disc than spend hours downloading at potentially long distance, by the hour rates. (Sidenote: The 90s/early 2000s kinda sucked like that.)

So yes. Previous games had balance issues, but they also accommodated Snipers, midrange, brawlers and support right out of the box.

Frankly I think I'd have a lot less problem with a few broken guns (I'd still lobby to fix them eventually) if each category was great. If the LBX/10 was awesome, for example, it might do a lot to help brawlers even if the other infighting guns remain inferior. (AC40 will only be a credible threat when the Victor rolls out, if it can support it as predicted.)

EDIT: Another reason I think the community has a unique perspective on why things work / don't work in a MW title is we've been through it all before. While this is a different game, many realities from past games are still here.

Edited by Victor Morson, 24 June 2013 - 01:34 PM.

[Roland]

Ya, but remember Vic, MWO is forced to do something that MW4 didn't need to do.. namely, make IS weapons useful on their own.. and then ALSO somehow balance them against clan tech.

Cause, presumably, PGI has already developed a ton of clan stuff... they are likely undergoing testing as we speak. MW4 never really needed to do this.. the IS stuff was generally just trash compared to the clan stuff in many ways, and most of the player base just used clan stuff all the time. And that was AFTER the IS had already developed level 3 junk like the light gauss.

PGI is between a rock and hardplace... if they make LRM's useful, then the clan LRM's are gonna be OMGWTFBBQ. Same goes for a ton of other stuff.

MW4 had tons of weapons which were just total crap. The IS LRM's are the most obvious, but not the only ones by a longshot.


Actually, now that I think about it, it could definitely be the case that part of why some of the current weapons we're playing with are getting very weird things done with them (or in the case of LRM's, sometimes experience crazy swings that make us say, "How did THAT get past testing?") could be due to the testers actually using clan weapons currently.

[TOGSolid]

80Bit, on 24 June 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Garbage posts and poll results like this make me consider leaving the official forums permanently.

If you think this game is perfectly fine then good ******* riddance because you're basically too stupid to breathe.

Quote

PGI is between a rock and hardplace... if they make LRM's useful, then the clan LRM's are gonna be OMGWTFBBQ. Same goes for a ton of other stuff.

One thing I really liked with Mektek's MW4 overhaul was that a lot of Clan weaponry ran hot as ****. Sure it fit better or flat out worked better like the LRMs, but you paid for it all with heat. It made IS weapons still worth taking even if they were a bit heavier.

Edited by TOGSolid, 24 June 2013 - 01:53 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Roland, on 24 June 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Actually, now that I think about it, it could definitely be the case that part of why some of the current weapons we're playing with are getting very weird things done with them (or in the case of LRM's, sometimes experience crazy swings that make us say, "How did THAT get past testing?") could be due to the testers actually using clan weapons currently.

I really hope that's not the case. I think it's rather apparent given their approach to a TT style mechlab and such that the Clans will be absolutely superior on a 1:1 basis; I honestly think the only way to balance them is to skew the team numbers (i.e. 5v12) or add a BV system to lobbies.

Still I really hope they're not messing with IS vs IS tech to try to preemptively nerf Clans. That's just insane... but not out of the question.

[TOGSolid]

Quote

I honestly think the only way to balance them is to skew the team numbers (i.e. 5v12) or add a BV system to lobbies.

Locking the hardpoints if the pilot wants to mod the internals would do the job too. You either get really flexible weapons, or the ability to change your internals out. Choose, but choose wisely.

[Bunko]

Unfortunately what is happening is what happens with most online games, the game comes out gets attention and then can not grow/change fast enough for it's user base.

PGI needs to listen, learn, understand their players, it's very hard with so much noise. I suggest picking out those players/guilds that have the most hours played and most members to get a feeling of what changes need to be made. Have everything on the table, sure some things will be much more work than others but be willing to think about changing anything, debate about it, and come out with a solution both the developers and the users think is good.

There is nothing that kills a game quicker than a game company having too much pride to acknowledge they were wrong and saw the light too late.

[Tombstoner]

TOGSolid, on 24 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

I think this is part of what makes all of this so infuriating. PGI had two prior multiplayer Mechwarrior games that had very similar problems to go off of. From day one of starting production on this game they should have been asking themselves "how do we avoid repeating this clustefuck a third time?"

But no, instead they went in as if they had never played a Mechwarrior game before in their lives and look at where we're at. It's damn near MW4 all over again only without poptarting.

Not true. PGI has a system in place and its called convergence. i be leave it was implemented correctly and worked the way it was intended but ended up looked fing stupid with some odd quirks. Thus it was removed and left a gaping hole in the game mechanics that is currently making ppc-60's viable weapons. cant wait for 2x ultra ac-20's with 80 point alphas.

you can see convergence still at work in the game. if you just miss with some shots they cross each other just where the mech used to be, most noticeable with lasers. what i think happened is the convergence focal point moves to be on the location your cross hairs are on forming an x. your shots hit the center of the x. when you crest a ridge line and target a mech. the focal point need to move down range to land on your target. if you fire too soon and the focal point is half way between you and the target then all your weapons will hit the focal point, criss cross and subsequently begin to spread out completing the x shape. your weapons will land on the exact opposite side from it location on the mech. so even if you have perfect aim but fire too fast you will miss. worst case you hit your team mates in the back. i think PGI did the right thing by scraping this design. then set the speed the focal point moves at to extremely high speeds. thus you always hit where your looking.
but without a replacement for a missing core element. we get MW 3 and 4 again and the associated problems with multi player balance:cored CT.

In short PGI didn't willingly set out to make MW3&4:online. This all happened more then 1.5 years ago. If PGI was going to fix it something would have happened already. They are well aware of what they built, so the game is almost in its release form. just a couple of more things to add and we are good to go live.

Also we have / had pop tarting up until PGI implemented a crude heavy handed form of cone of fire cause that's what all that shaking is, pure randomization between the player and target, so much for skill based design.

[Tombstoner]

TOGSolid, on 24 June 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Locking the hardpoints if the pilot wants to mod the internals would do the job too. You either get really flexible weapons, or the ability to change your internals out. Choose, but choose wisely.

I think the internals will be locked for all clan mechs as well as the hard points, but each mech will have a prime and 4 alternate hard point configurations, just like it is in the tech readouts.with each configurations acting as a modle type for basic, elite, mastery nodes. then the players can customize by swapping out weapons, ammo and more DHS as they see fit. flexable but restrictive.

[keith]

heres my problem. we know they are testing clan toys. y can't they tell us IS lrms/srms are going to be yadda because of the clan version. we know they screwed the pouch by putting themselves in this time line. the clan missiles system are going to be the most OP, the are basically half the weight for the same punch. their communication skills have been lacking.

[Roland]

keith, on 24 June 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

the clan missiles system are going to be the most OP, the are basically half the weight for the same punch.

They are half the tonnage, for the same punch, with no minimum range.

[Andrew Cranston]

What worries me the most are the Russ twitter posts that essentially say that the balance is the best it has ever been since launch. Something along the lines of "the bottom line is the game has been getting more and more competitive and balanced." I think most organized teams would tell you that definitely isn't the case, that 3 weapons systems pretty much dominate all matches, and that tactics more advanced than "wait for them to come over that hill before firing our broadside of PPCs" or "lets go around the side of that hill to hit them with our 8 AC20's" are non-existent. That's assuming that the advanced tactic of "hill humping" isn't used. No one splits their forces anymore, both sides basically move around to try to gain a sniping terrain advantage but the battles themselves are over in pretty much 30-45 seconds once both forces are committed.

I don't know a large number of people who believe that the game is "getting more and more competitive and balanced" and it essentially reinforces the OP. Some of the coding has definitely been improved; I'd certainly say that overall the game client is probably the most stable that it has ever been. But the best balance and the most competitive? No way. That's my opinion, I'm not saying that everyone agrees with me or that I represent the community at large in any way shape or form but seriously. I'm just picking some names of people not in my own unit that I know to be in competitive units (first names that came to mind, so try hard not to flame me if your name isn't mentioned) DV McKenna, Keith, Glory, Magician, Meatloaf, Legendary Samurai... do any of you think that the game is the most competitive and balanced that it has ever been? Perhaps I'm simply on the same island that Russ mentioned in another one of his tweets.

It feels like to me that they have decided that they can't please the "hardcore" players and that the best way forward is to concentrate on what they feel like the masses are most likely to find pleasing, which for some reason means focusing on UI2.0 and 3PV. There may actually be some business sense behind that; despite the fact that I see most competitive scene teams uninstalling or struggling to field 8 mans Russ also posted on twitter that the player count was way up.

Maybe they will shock and amaze us in a week with July Developers Update with a CW update and some weapon balance ideas that make sense. Perhaps ATD 41 will do the same. I certainly hope that is the case.


***Edit*** Just a note, I'm not trying to flame Russ. I've got a lot of respect for him and Piranha in general for bringing MechWarrior back to us. It's hard not to take what you say though as the general attitude of your development staff/the company when we're hearing relatively little from you on balance aspects of the game in general, which was another OP point and a good one.

Edited by Andrew Cranston, 24 June 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[Sephlock]

Roland, on 24 June 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

They are half the tonnage, for the same punch, with no minimum range.

I play to stay up for at least 24 hours when the Clans are introduced, so I can get every last drop of fun out of the game before the whiners get it nerfed (like they did with LRMs).

[FupDup]

Sephlock, on 24 June 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

I play to stay up for at least 24 hours when the Clans are introduced, so I can get every last drop of fun out of the game before the whiners get it nerfed (like they did with LRMs).

You do realize that there are occasionally items in the game that are (in the case of LRMs, were until the nerf) objectively superior to all others, right? You seem to keep acting like everything is a-okay and people who want more than one viable weapon system are "whiners."

PS: LRMs are very close to being "just right." A small nerf to AMS should do the trick.



Am I understanding your viewpoint correctly or am I getting it wrong?