471 replies to this topic

[Seddrik]

Eh, TLDR.

LRMs are fine except their trajectory is too steep a drop on people's heads. They do NOT need a buff. You have a lot of damage from them all over the affected mech. Its not a pinpoint, 2 shot kill weapon.

Brawling weapons are fine. I use them all the time, SRMs on mediums, etc. Its easy to get 2+ kills and 400-500 damage.

PPCs... only an issue in the high alpha sniping. But I expect PGI to over abuse all weapons that you stack in order to "solve" this.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Karl Streiger, on 23 June 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

One thing makes me wonder.... how do you know that you have achieved balance?
What is balance?
Is it balance to throw with 4 mechs >40dmg at a advancing lance of enemy assaults and beeing capable to kill them in 30secs?
How do you really want to balance a 6 PPC Stalker vs a LRM 60 Stalker vs a Quickdraw with Medium Laser?

To questioning balance needs at first the answer what is balance?

In my opinion, the ideal goal for balance is that all aspects of player skill (piloting, aiming, communicating, building a good mech, teamwork, situational awareness, exploiting weaknesses, recognizing when you should retreat, etc.) are more important than how many FOTM builds your team has on the field.

[TOGSolid]

I am, on 23 June 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

If you don't want mwo to be point and click, then what should it be? What type of weapons should define who is skilled in an fps? If not the aimed ones then the auto-aimed ones? LRMs and streaks? The masses, would hate that. What's fun in a way that attracts people outside of those already playing. That's what they should be asking and implementing. Once you've made a bad first impression with the gaming community at large, how do you recover. That's the second question they should be asking.

You're misconstruing what I'm saying. There is really no skill with MWO's current meta. This isn't Counterstrike where I have to consider potential inaccuracy after rounding a corner or after creeping out from cover to take a shot at someone. You just walk up, click, walk back. That's it. It's incredibly brainless and requires very little effort on the player's part. Fitting your mech requires no thought because there's no variation to combat. The only question you have to ask yourself is "will this work against PPC boats just barely exposing themselves between alphas?" If the answer is no then you don't have a good mech.

I want direct fire combat to be viable but I want it to require skill. Yanno, skill? The thing that requires practice and investment in a game and ensures longevity? Yeah, that.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I used a few terms that seem obvious to me, but I think might need some clarification ...

A "bad" build ... one that has glaring weaknesses, obvious to any moderately experienced player. Most stock 'mechs fall in this category because they are either under armored, slow, under gunned, overly complex, or the heat efficiency sucks (or all that).

A "fun, but ineffective" build ... "fun" is objective, "ineffective" means it doesn't usually impact the outcome of a match. Most experienced players would giggle, and think, "I might try that, just for the heck of it." An example: I really enjoy jumping around in my 4x MG, 1x LL SDR-5K. I've even had a couple of 3-kill games in it, but in most matches, it didn't really make a difference.

A "good" build ... one that two moderately skilled players with different points of view could have a reasonable argument about, and both would be right (and wrong). With it, a pilot with above average skill wins more than he loses, kills more than he dies, has a few great matches, and a few horrible ones.

An "optimum" build ... (aka: a "cheese" build) one that exploits imbalances in the game. Almost every experienced player who looks at the build grins and knows it's OP. There are ways to counter them, but the advantages the build gives usually makes it a dominating factor in determining the outcome of the match (maybe not every match, but enough so that guys who track their stats realize that they have a significant advantage).

At the highest level of play, "optimum" builds will be the most common, because every slight advantage can tip the balance between two top performers. "Good" builds should still be viable at the highest levels of play, but only when piloted by guys who are well-suited to the build's strengths and weaknesses, or just plain talented.

IMO, the game is balanced when the difference between "optimum" builds and "good" builds is reasonably small and players with enough experience to recognize a "good" build and an "optimum" build feel like they have choices.

[Sudden Reversal]

Victor Morson, on 23 June 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

So yeah. This turned out to be more of a rant than I intended it to be.

More of a ramble than a rant, but all of it poignant.

BTW, I'm one of the bull-headed players that insist on playing persistent damage over time mechs rather than alpha-strike dominators.

Getting harder every patch. Good times.

[MustrumRidcully]

Victor Morson, on 23 June 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Agreed, that's definitely part of it. I think their raw damage is questionable as-is at 1.1, but the AMS they buffed to deal with the super missiles and didn't de-buff is rough.

Really I could write a whole other wall of text on that, but what it boils down to is AMS range. I think if the range was greatly reduced so it could only fire on missiles right before impact (also cutting down on the effect of missiles passing over allies with AMS and getting shredded on the way in) it would allow the AMS to remain balanced at it's new damage value.

So yeah. Definitely right on the AMS and I think adjusting it's range is the way to go to fix it, personally.



It turned into far more of one than I started out, honestly. I've been talking to a lot of the remaining unit leaders and this feeling is so thick in the air you could cut it with a knife and I myself have been more than a little frustrated with PPC Warrior lately, and I like PPCs! I don't even want them nerf'ed, but I do want brawlers and support that are viable counters.

Literally the only role worth playing if you're not a scout is sniper.

I think the AMS mechanics just are never gonna be "good" for gameplay (even if they seem to be realistic/logical) if they stick with the damage and shots per second model.

If you'd change AMS to simply intercept, say, x % of every missile entering its range (and consuming y ammo for every missile entering its range), then you would be able to balance it better.
The AMS mechanic as is means that it's very, very ineffective to just use a single LRM launcher. You will lost most of your firepower. But against massed LRM salvos (LRM40+s), AMS appears meaningless.

Going to a percentage based system will allow AMS to be still be useful against LRM40+s, but it will also make LRM5s be useful against AMS users. And as I wrote above - more missiles intercepted also means more ammo consumed. You now just need to find a reasonable amount of ammo count per bin and ammo consumpion per missile, so that it doesn't seem AMS is too cheap for its effect. If you'd need 1 ton of AMS ammo for every ton of LRM reaching you, then massive LRM boats can still exhaust the AMS rapidly - but at least it's not sitting useless intercepting an inconsequential amount of missiles and you're long dead before your ammo could be used up.

Making the interception percentage based also means stacking them has a good effect, but it would never negate all your missiles. And you'd use up a lot of AMS ammunition in the process. Imagine an 80 LRM salvo fired in the middle of a 12 man group, with each AMS generating a 33 % chance of interception. Only 4 % (about 3) of your missiles would come through statistically - but it would consume 5.33 tons of AMS ammunition on the enemy team. An impressive battle of material.
And if you had just fired an LRM 5 - probably nothing would have gotten trhough, but you still took out a lot of their AMS ammo for this "victory".

And if you fight against "reasonable" numbers of enemy mechs with AMS - the LRM 5 will not be completely intercepted.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 June 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 June 2013 - 12:44 AM, said:

If you'd change AMS to simply intercept, say, x % of every missile entering its range (and consuming y ammo for every missile entering its range), then you would be able to balance it better.
The AMS mechanic as is means that it's very, very ineffective to just use a single LRM launcher. You will lost most of your firepower. But against massed LRM salvos (LRM40+s), AMS appears meaningless.

While i dislike - how AMS is actual handled, and I really would be in favour of this idea... the problem is that it seems logical how AMS work - send one missile it spend an ammount of x shots and all of them went for that missile...send 100 missiles...the AMS can hardly handle all of them - so you saturate the AMS.
However it doesen't seem acceptable that you fire 100missiles or 20 and both times only 5 LRMs are shot down.

So basically you have to combine both. The AMS must have a number of "guaranteed" intercepted LRMS plus a percentatge of incoming missiles over that number.

Means you have a guaranteed intercept of 4 missiles (no matter the number of AMS - even twelve AMS can hardly intercept more that thos guaranteed 4 missiles - what ever the reason could be) ..plus the chance to intercept a percentage of remaining missiles. (doesn't sound bad in eighter way doesn't it)

But what about figures:

• 1 AMS - 10-15%
  
• 2 AMS - 20-30%
  
• 3 AMS - 30-45%
  
• 4 AMS - 40-60%
  
• 5 AMS - 50-75%
  
• 6 AMS - 60-90%

So a lance using a umbrella of 6 AMS will be nearly invulnerable towards LRM.... what is on the other hand another balancing problem. A couple of the other balance breaker - PPC Stalker don't have to fear indirect fire.



And that is the real problem - if you just take 2 or 3 things of the same equipment everything looks ok - take more the balance is complete out of the window.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 23 June 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

In my opinion, the ideal goal for balance is that all aspects of player skill (piloting, aiming, communicating, building a good mech, teamwork, situational awareness, exploiting weaknesses, recognizing when you should retreat, etc.) are more important than how many FOTM builds your team has on the field.

Hm - i don't think that you can create numbers to mirror that? It more simpler to nerf - FOTM builds than taking all that things into account.
The problem is - every chance can create new FOTMs - every new Mech can be the next FOTM...and so on.
So the question still remains - how do you want to achieve balance?

Althoug the OP denied TT - and he is right in the most aspects - TT values shouldn't work here.
TT is the only foundation - to find balance values. (not numbers)

A value = 4 Allacorn IV tanks with 3 gauss rifles each - should be able to fend of an Assault Lance of Mechs with short - Medium range weapons:
So - balance aim is: alpha of 4 x 45 in team with Prime targets should able to defeat Assaults in the open - but only 4. With 8 Mechs with long range weapon advancing - they hardly have a chance.

Balance aim: a fight between a C4 and a K2 should be even - as long as both are able to keep out of minimum range.

A companie of Talons (35t fast, 1 ER-PPC, 2MLAS) should lay waste on a lance of AS7-K Mechs - because of their speed - and range

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 June 2013 - 01:19 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karl Streiger, on 24 June 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

While i dislike - how AMS is actual handled, and I really would be in favour of this idea... the problem is that it seems logical how AMS work - send one missile it spend an ammount of x shots and all of them went for that missile...send 100 missiles...the AMS can hardly handle all of them - so you saturate the AMS.
However it doesen't seem acceptable that you fire 100missiles or 20 and both times only 5 LRMs are shot down.

So basically you have to combine both. The AMS must have a number of "guaranteed" intercepted LRMS plus a percentatge of incoming missiles over that number.

Means you have a guaranteed intercept of 4 missiles (no matter the number of AMS - even twelve AMS can hardly intercept more that thos guaranteed 4 missiles - what ever the reason could be) ..plus the chance to intercept a percentage of remaining missiles. (doesn't sound bad in eighter way doesn't it)

But what about figures:

• 1 AMS - 10-15%
  
• 2 AMS - 20-30%
  
• 3 AMS - 30-45%
  
• 4 AMS - 40-60%
  
• 5 AMS - 50-75%
  
• 6 AMS - 60-90%

So a lance using a umbrella of 6 AMS will be nearly invulnerable towards LRM.... what is on the other hand another balancing problem. A couple of the other balance breaker - PPC Stalker don't have to fear indirect fire.

That's why I bring ammo consumption into the balance equation.
Let's say a single AMS has a 33 % chance to intercept any single missile entering its protection radius.
Let's say this consumes 1 ammo unit (irrespective of how many "bullets" these are, and irresepctive whether the missile was actually intercepted or not), and a single ton of AMS contains 180 units. 180 units is the number of missiles per ton of LRM ammo. That means if you fire 180 missiles at an AMS, it will, on average, intercept 60 missiles, and consume 1 ton of ammo.

This might not be the best ratio to use, but it's more for illustrating the possilbiites.
Now, if you stack AMS, you get diminishing returns. 3 AMS don't generate 100 % protection, because percentage chance don't add up, they are multiplicative (though you don't multiply the intercept chance, you multiply the survival chance of missiles). So 3 AMS put you only at 71 % interception chance. But the ammo consumption still rises linearly - you basically need three times as much AMS ammo for basically doubling your chance to intercept missiles.
This kind of stacking behavior is in favor of the missiles, not the AMS user.
But on the side of interception - more missiles also mean more missiles are intercepted, which is in favor of the AMS user - he'll take less damage from such salvos the he would if he just would intercept a fixed number of missiles.

Stacking missiles still has the benefit of dealing more damage, but facing AMS; the benefit scales linearly, it's not like you lose a lot of damage to AMS if you use few missiles, and very few if you many missiles.

What rations in ammo and lrm consumption would actually be fair is something to be figured it out yet.

My guesstimate would be, that one ton of AMS ammo should also completely negate 1 ton of LRM ammo. But since of every given LRM salvo, you only intercept a percentage, you can never completely negate a given salvo of LRM ammo. So if the enemy brought 3 tons of LRMs, you only "need" 1 ton of AMS ammo to get the full benefit of AMS against them - but the full benefit is not complete immunity, it's effectively 33 % damage reduction.

The only problem with this solution is that it will not work so well with LAMS. Ammo consumption would be replaced with heat increases, and I am not sure want a mech to overheat just because 80 LRMs were flying his way and his LAMS got eager. Or do we?

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Karl Streiger, on 24 June 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

Hm - i don't think that you can create numbers to mirror that? It more simpler to nerf - FOTM builds than taking all that things into account.
The problem is - every chance can create new FOTMs - every new Mech can be the next FOTM...and so on.
So the question still remains - how do you want to achieve balance?

You can't really quantify all those aspects player skill. I assume, based on the detailed stats that are available to us individually, that PGI has all these stats and more in a massive database that can be examined to determine trends based on equipment used. When the win-loss ratio starts to trend up for a certain type of build (say, Gauss+PPC+Jump Jets), then they should focus on that for the next balance tweak.

This cycle is why even the most polished games still have balance updates throughout their life ... the developers, quality control, and internal play testers will never be as creative at making new content and balance tweaks as the players will be at finding the next FOTM.

The trick is to keep the new content or balance tweaks exciting enough to keep old players, attract new players, and not make old stuff obsolete. "Good" builds need to be viable in casual play without "optimum" builds being so overpowered that they seem like an "insta-win" button. I don't envy PGI's job trying to keep up with the arms race.

[Karl Streiger]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 24 June 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

This cycle is why even the most polished games still have balance updates throughout their life ... the developers, quality control, and internal play testers will never be as creative at making new content and balance tweaks as the players will be at finding the next FOTM.

Well I think one of the main problems of current balancing is - that they are simple conentrating of tweaking numbers.
But balance could be achieved - even with current "simple" game mechanics - when considering:


-Weapon Convergence - does every Mech need the same time to achieve pinpoint?
- Heat have the threshhold be for every mech the same?
- Armor shouldn't the armor system need a complete overhaul -
- Hard Points - not as restriction but maybe as bonus - a PPC in a PPC slot works better
- Perks n Quirks
- differnet engine cap? why must the 320 be the maximum reactor for every 65t mech?

Actual is the change of 1 dmg or heat point is similar with all those hardcounters to ECM - but there are several soft nerfs and buffs also possible - and its a pitty that they are not in use

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Karl Streiger, on 24 June 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

stuff

Concur, except I think the armor system and hard point/crit slot system are, in general, fine.

Buffs and nerfs to achieve balance can be direct (JJ shake vs. jump snipers) or indirect (seismic vs. ECM).

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 24 June 2013 - 02:57 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

BTW, they could also solve the convergence advantage of boated weapons by improving convergence.

Just have the convergence magic also calculate lead times. Then you can fire an AC/5 together with a Large Laser and an SRM6, and boats have no advantages.

I suspect the only problem that would be remaining is that damage is dealt instantly by Ballistics, and this would prove too powerful if the damage per shot values stay as they are. This would probably the next problem to be solved, but at least you don't need to boat identical weapons anymore.

[Karl Streiger]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 June 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

Just have the convergence magic also calculate lead times. Then you can fire an AC/5 together with a Large Laser and an SRM6, and boats have no advantages.

Hm - doesn't sound that bad for me. the dual PPC combo will still be superior towards a SRM6, LargeLaser, AC 5 combo...simple because its range profile fits better.
But it will remove a disadvantage of combining multiple weapons... I mean i have a Alpha Strike TIC for some of my mechs, firing SRMs, Laser and ballistics in the same moment - but only for short range and only in case of emergency - because precision is ankward.

With that in mind - i really have to ask the question why? I mean this is still a game - and a game is based on fairness and rules - but is it fair when i can create a stupid 4 PPC heavy mech over a well rounded battlemech using the full potential of its "purpose" (4 energy weapon used - 2 ballistic weapons not in use = bad build)

I think they should normalize mixing weapons towards boating - still give boating an edge - but not in such strong manner it is acutal.

[Nimura Nekogami]

Am i happy? uhmmmm....well.
To be honest.....i think PGI still responds on a good level to the community.
(it could be better or far more worse if i think of SWTOR or WOW (those guys ignored u!)

How do i feel MWO is progressing?
I im not sure if its progressing good or bad.......i will tell you when CW is launched.
(till then ists just teamdeathmatch/ domination with mechs)

but im pleased with it....frustrating parts aside. ^^

Weapon Balance:
most of the weapons feel balanced.
yeah.....id like to see a range buff for pulse lasers.
some sort of ppc nerf (only a slight 1 heat max )
maybe a smr dmg buff.

It is still balancing in progress......we will see how it works out. We are still in BETA and we are testers.

[Livewyr]

Really hope they don't launch CWs with the way PPCs are..

my 4PPC/1Gauss RS destroys games.. and after the "boating nerf" it will be my 3PPC/1Gauss 732 that sets up CW to be a "nobody move" standoff..

[Syllogy]

ERMAGERD! PPC+Gauss is so OP! ... Except for the part where they have been in the game as long as the Atlas has.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karl Streiger, on 24 June 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

Hm - doesn't sound that bad for me. the dual PPC combo will still be superior towards a SRM6, LargeLaser, AC 5 combo...simple because its range profile fits better.
But it will remove a disadvantage of combining multiple weapons... I mean i have a Alpha Strike TIC for some of my mechs, firing SRMs, Laser and ballistics in the same moment - but only for short range and only in case of emergency - because precision is ankward.

With that in mind - i really have to ask the question why? I mean this is still a game - and a game is based on fairness and rules - but is it fair when i can create a stupid 4 PPC heavy mech over a well rounded battlemech using the full potential of its "purpose" (4 energy weapon used - 2 ballistic weapons not in use = bad build)

I think they should normalize mixing weapons towards boating - still give boating an edge - but not in such strong manner it is acutal.

The only argument against it would be that we want the extra skill requirement of leading certain weapons.

To phrase it in the Canonical Form of Interdependent Choices:
Lead Time, Convergence, Group Fire. Pick any two.

Syllogy, on 24 June 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

ERMAGERD! PPC+Gauss is so OP! ... Except for the part where they have been in the game as long as the Atlas has.

Nonsense.

PPC were not OP 6 months ago. During the entire CB when we still had only standard sinks, PPCs were completely underpowered and almost no one used them. People would laugh at the K2 and 8Q trials, they were possibly the worst mechs in the existence of M:WO to give to noobs.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 June 2013 - 05:21 AM.

[Tahribator]

Syllogy, on 24 June 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

ERMAGERD! PPC+Gauss is so OP! ... Except for the part where they have been in the game as long as the Atlas has.

. . . and they became a problem when HSR for ballistics kicked in.

[Victor Morson]

Seddrik, on 23 June 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Eh, TLDR.

LRMs are fine except their trajectory is too steep a drop on people's heads. They do NOT need a buff. You have a lot of damage from them all over the affected mech. Its not a pinpoint, 2 shot kill weapon.

I strongly disagree; they aren't dealing enough damage to punish anyone out in the open, since direct fire weapons deal more punishment right now to that situation. They just aren't damaging enough to justify their tonnage and augment systems, in particular since indirect fire is terrible now. Keep in mind I'm not saying they need MUCH of a buff, but they do need one. I think without splash they might need 1.4 total, but we should at least ease up to 1.2 and see how it goes. 1.1 isn't cutting it.. almost. In particular with the super AMS, which is making the situation worse than it might appear to a non-LRM user.

Seddrik, on 23 June 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Brawling weapons are fine. I use them all the time, SRMs on mediums, etc. Its easy to get 2+ kills and 400-500 damage.

SRMs are usable. Usable does not mean good. We use regular SRMs on zombie 'mechs as well, but primarily to get the zombie more than to deal damage. They're alright secondaries but lackluster primaries currently. They badly need a buff to make them back into a primary weapon, because they are the best options for mediums.

Getting 500 damage in a PUG doesn't mean much.

Seddrik, on 23 June 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

PPCs... only an issue in the high alpha sniping. But I expect PGI to over abuse all weapons that you stack in order to "solve" this.

PPCs suffer from being a solid gun in a sea of bad guns. Improve the rest of the weapons and the PPC will feel a lot less OP. I desperately want more viable builds in this game other than "Does it have PPCs? No? It sucks."

[Livewyr]

Syllogy, on 24 June 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

ERMAGERD! PPC+Gauss is so OP! ... Except for the part where they have been in the game as long as the Atlas has.

They've been here a while.. but they weren't as heat efficient as a Medium laser for instant total damage with AC2 bullet speed.

I used PPCs on my K2 before the heat nerf(buff) and they were a challenge to use.. but I liked the unlimited ammo aspects of them.

Now I don't bother with the K2 because I can boat 3 on a 732 with Gauss, and 4 on a RS with Gauss... K2 simply cannot compete.