22 replies to this topic

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

Also posted on Reddit:

I think both PGI and some players are wrong in their beliefs that adding layers of complexity into the game is the solution to balance. The fixes only serve to make the game less accessible and more unattractive to new players. The best solution to the problem is NOT more resource management or added layers of artificial depth. From my experience trying to get people interested in playing MWO, most people who come from WoT or other FPS games already complain that the game is too complicated, hard to understand and not newb-friendly. I understand that to us Battletech fans it doesn't seem that difficult but to a player new it is quite daunting. PGI does not want this.

I enjoy playing this game and I want it to last, I want new players to keep joining and buying MC so that PGI can make money and continue to develop and expand on the game. I don't want it to be a small obscure game driven by the wishes of entitled and elitist hardcore fans.

Let's take a well known example in the F2P gaming community, LoL vs DotA:

DotA is well regarded to its fanbase because of the complex and deep levels of strategy involved. But the downfall is that the systems involved are so esoteric that it is unfriendly towards new players, one needs to learn systems such as denying the opponent CS, leashing jungle camps to reset spawn timers, and complex heros etc which are ESSENTIAL to winning.

LoL is similar to DotA but simplified the model to make it more accessible to new players by removing the more tedious elements and streamlining the interface. This is GOOD because although the game is easy to learn at face value, it is still difficult to master. People start having fun right away and it scales in difficulty as you get better.

Right now the problem is that MWO is difficult to learn and easy-medium to master. New players either can't get past the hump of figuring out how to build a decent mech, or once they figure it out, they get bored because there's nothing to strive for afterwards. Adding a artificial heat limiter (PGI's idea) or a target computer overload value (Player idea) will just add another unnecessary layer of information that will only serve to frustrate and confuse players.

I think that after the initial balance problems, PGI has learned their lesson in that making broad sweeps and big changes results in disaster (ECM, PPCs, LRMs). They have recently taken a much more measured approach to game balance (recent LRM patch) which has been successful in my opinion.

Demanding that PGI make big changes that some random guy thought up is not what I want. I want PGI to keep doing what they are doing, making small balance changes and tweaks and spending their development time on things that matter like CW and 12v12 because that is what will make me spend money on the game. I don't want them to waste time on a new system that may or may not work to improve the quality of my


BOTTOM LINE:
The problem with this game isn't balance, the problem is that there is no endgame or content for people to strive for. People just whine and cry about balance because that is all they have to focus on since due to the nature of how easy it is to max yourself out in this game: all there is to do is endlessly grind c-bills/xp on the same maps over and over again. That's why new content is badly needed.

If the MWO team focuses on constant player requests for balance and implementing complex arbitrary systems it will leave them with less time and resources to expand this game in the areas that it needs to be expanded. If PGI gives in to the wishes of the loudest complainers, then they will be setting a bad precedent of appeasement instead of working on adding content to give veterans something to achieve and streamlining current content to attract new players.

Edited by Duck Butter, 24 June 2013 - 05:09 PM.

[DocBach]

However,

Basic balance between weapons is required before advanced concepts like end game material should be even considered. They still haven't got the basics right, and that needs to be in place; even if there was the most in depth community warfare system ever designed ever it would still be stale if the meta game remained PPC peekaboo.

Edited by DocBach, 24 June 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[Lostdragon]

You had me right up until the last two paragraphs where you actually made your point. I agree with you 100% up to there but if anything is important to a game's success it is balance. If the Zerg had been the obvious best choice over all other factions do you think people would still be playing Starcraft tournaments? Games that are successful are those that achieve balance.

That doesn't mean that every weapon or race or mech or whatever has to be equal in every way. It means that there is more than one or two good choices, that you can be successful with more than one strategy or tactic and you aren't gimping yourself if you don't play a certain way.

If some form of balance is not achieved the game will fail.

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

Lostdragon, on 24 June 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

You had me right up until the last two paragraphs where you actually made your point. I agree with you 100% up to there but if anything is important to a game's success it is balance. If the Zerg had been the obvious best choice over all other factions do you think people would still be playing Starcraft tournaments? Games that are successful are those that achieve balance.

That doesn't mean that every weapon or race or mech or whatever has to be equal in every way. It means that there is more than one or two good choices, that you can be successful with more than one strategy or tactic and you aren't gimping yourself if you don't play a certain way.

If some form of balance is not achieved the game will fail.

I totally agree with you that the balance is off!

The reason why people have so many complaints and that the issues seem more overblown is that there needs to be more content. Balance is good, balance is important, what is more important to me is the long term future of this game and developer priorities. Making drastic rules changes will only serve to alienate new players in an attempt to appease whiners who will never be happy.

I'm glad PGI has taken a more slow and measured approach to balance, and I hope they do not implement this targeting computer or multiple weapon garbage.

Edited by Duck Butter, 24 June 2013 - 05:31 PM.

[DocBach]

Duck Butter, on 24 June 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

I totally agree with you that the balance is off!

The reason why people have so many complaints and that the issues seem more overblown is that there needs to be more content. Balance is good, balance is important, what is more important to me is the long term future of this game and developer priorities. Making drastic rules changes will only serve to alienate new players in an attempt to appease whiners who will never be happy.

I'm glad PGI has taken a more slow and measured approach to balance, and I hope they do not implement this targeting computer or multiple weapon garbage.

The largest problem in this game stems from the fact that PGI has kept certain traits and rules from the board game such as the separate location damage models, then added the ability to group several weapons together and shoot them all at one location. These damage models were balanced for a board game in which weapons hit completely random locations; now that where they go can easily be selected we have created an environment that rewards boating the biggest alpha strike as possible as they are superior in nearly every way to other weapon systems.

To fix it PGI needs to make a decision; is this going to be a simulation of the board game, or a first person shooter skinned with the lore?

If the former, they need to relook how they allow alpha strikes to work. If you fire a single weapon you should have accuracy. If you want to fire off all your guns at once, don't expect the bullets to all fly through the same little hole without some work.

Homeless Bill's system was a good idea, but it was incredibly complicated and over complex when the system has been in the book already the whole time; El Bandito referenced the novels for the feel and I think that a combination of the actual rules and the fluff material would make the convergence issue much better. It would require changing the reticule's behavior somewhat depending on combat conditions.

First, instead of having the center of the reticule be the point of convergence for weapons, make each location of the 'Mech have its own focus point:


The player would still have a reference on where his shot would go, because the various stadia line on the reticle would remain the same.

Next, the reticule would expand or constrict depending on the combat conditions; movement and range profiles of weapons would limit the maximum amount the reticule could constrict; the player would obtain a lock on the enemy by hitting R and then holding the reticule over the enemy; the reticule would visibly constrict over the lock box giving the player clear reference where the various locations weapons would hit if fired at the target. The rate in which the lock constricts would be governed by four things:

- Player's Heat Level - the hotter the 'Mech is, the slower convergence would be applied, giving a real downside to running hot.

- Target 'Mechs movement speed: this would help the survivability of faster 'Mechs, especially medium 'Mechs who are especially vulnerable in the current meta

- Pilot Tree Skills - give Pinpoint something to do, dammit

- damage to Actuators - critical hits to actuators in the arm would slow convergence

To aim a group to pinpoint precision, the firing 'Mech would have to position himself in optimal effective range -- the range profile from the lore rules says 90m is optimal range for medium lasers, 180m is medium range, and 270 is maximum range, lasers fired at 90m would have maximum convergence, 180 and so on would have larger reticules so less damage convergence on a single location -- provide a stable firing platform by not moving, and have the pinpoint skill.



This picture is a mock up of what the convergence would look like - he is moving and though he is at close range for his weapons, his high heat level slowed the convergence spreed of his groups down but he chose to fire a group of weapons anyways - see how the damage would be spread over the enemy 'Mech? Nearly every other shooter has similar systems of expanding reticules to display inaccuracy caused by running, ect so new players familiar with shooter games should have no problem adapting to it, especially as it is not a randomized cone; the reticule has the points of aim for the locations with the stadia lines of the crosshairs.

The player would have to choose - if he wants precision he either has to offer himself up as a stationary target which would allow the enemy's computer quicker convergence on him, or fire a single weapon rather than a large alpha strike. If he wants to put out brutal force, he can fire a group, but the damage would be spread over the 'Mech.

This is a suggestion to help remedy the game if PGI decides they want to keep it true to its Battletech roots; if they want to just make it a Battletech skinned shooter, I don't know what they should do, but they need to do something because as it stands their system is causing the game to be clones of the biggest 'Mechs plodding around with the same high-damage, pinpoint accuracy weapon systems one shotting whoever peeks out of cover and its making the game stale. And it will continue to be stale even if they add end game content like Community Warfare; who cares if virtual planets change color from Red to Blue when you have to play this same game to do so?

Edited by DocBach, 24 June 2013 - 09:37 PM.

[Phaesphoros]

DocBach, on 24 June 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

<snip>

Off-topic, sry.

@OP (Duck Butter):
easy to learn <-> complex
It has some overlap, but it isn't just the opposite. We have silly&outdated training ground videos, a hidden testing ground; no introduction (start the application and find... tons of ad and a friendly attractive LAUNCH button with no description whatsoever), and a non-existing knowledge base. Also, we don't have a master/disciple system (and no higher ranks) where newbies could learn from/ask.

As Homeless Bill has explained, he thinks it is the simplest solution (he and a lot of other people can think of) to balance MWO. And if balance is important, it (i.e. some additional complexity) has to be introduced.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 24 June 2013 - 06:07 PM.

[DocBach]

Phaesphoros, on 24 June 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

Off-topic, sry.

He was referencing Homeless Bill's idea in his OP saying how it was a bad idea; my post was saying that I thought it was a good idea, but overly complicated, especially when the source material of this game already describes what the effects of movement, range, and heat should be on accuracy and that we could deal with the convergence issues by looking more towards the base rules that govern the system than adding completely new systems.

So it may be long, but completely on topic, actually.

[Lostdragon]

I've said it before and I'll say it one more time. There are three ways I think would work to deal with high pinpoint alpha damage, which is in my mind the biggest issue facing the game.

1. Convergence or cone of fire or whatever you want to call it. Doc gives a great example of a way to make this work. I would base it on heat and movement primarily.

2. Heat. Reduce heat cap but raise the dissipation. Make it so 4+ PPCs cannot be fired simultaneously without some real consequences.

3. Restrict hard points. Don't allow an Gauss Rifle to go where a machine gun was, restrict them to a certain number of crits.

I think it will take a combination of at least two of these to get the game on the right track. The third is my least favorite so I hope they use the first two (they seem to be going in this direction already). You don't need a complex new resource system or anything like that. The game has a solid foundation and I think it can be balance by tweaking the underlying mechanics.

Edited by Lostdragon, 24 June 2013 - 06:18 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Reserved =D

[Windsaw]

You are right that PGI should not be make huge changes to their balancing.
But they need huge changes, especially because the whole balancing system is so complex. And it certainly can't be made simpler. Besides that, I have lost my faith that more general balancing measures like a working solution for convergence or knockdowns will anytime soon (if ever): It is simply too late for that.

What they could do and really should do is rethinking their rebalance cycles.
They should take simple, small rebalance measures like head adjustments, damage or projectile speed continuously! With that I mean at least twice a week!
I am a software developer, I know the difficulites of providing a tested release, but nobody can tell me tweaking a dozen single numbers is something that can only be reasonably done once or twice a month!

[PEEFsmash]

But...Dota is clearly the superior competitive title as far as skill-gap between top players and mid-level players, and most often results in skill-based wins. Although LoL isn't awful in these regards, Dota is the superior competitive game.

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

PEEFsmash, on 24 June 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

But...Dota is clearly the superior competitive title as far as skill-gap between top players and mid-level players, and most often results in skill-based wins. Although LoL isn't awful in these regards, Dota is the superior competitive game.

Although I tend to agree with you, LoL is the game with more players and is more successful. DotA is the game that nobody plays other than pro players. I would prefer for MWO to be like LoL and not DotA and I think most people agree.

[mike29tw]

Lostdragon, on 24 June 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

I've said it before and I'll say it one more time. There are three ways I think would work to deal with high pinpoint alpha damage, which is in my mind the biggest issue facing the game.

1. Convergence or cone of fire or whatever you want to call it. Doc gives a great example of a way to make this work. I would base it on heat and movement primarily.

2. Heat. Reduce heat cap but raise the dissipation. Make it so 4+ PPCs cannot be fired simultaneously without some real consequences.

3. Restrict hard points. Don't allow an Gauss Rifle to go where a machine gun was, restrict them to a certain number of crits.

I think it will take a combination of at least two of these to get the game on the right track. The third is my least favorite so I hope they use the first two (they seem to be going in this direction already). You don't need a complex new resource system or anything like that. The game has a solid foundation and I think it can be balance by tweaking the underlying mechanics.

1. Convergence based on movement and heat would basically **** up all light mechs. You would have to either slow down to obtain precision fire, which kills you in 3 sec, or keep 100% throttle and shoot at everywhere you're not aiming at, which kills you in 5 sec. This is part of the reason I oppose convergence change. It will **** up more stuff than it will fix.

2. This is what I would like to see. Couple that with adequate penalty at higher heat(cough...TT...cough), and high alpha build still has its place, but with severe consequences.

3. Not gonna do much. There will always be "optimal build" or "competitive build" that performs miles better than your average build.



*Edit - also a 4th option. Just nerf the ******* weapon. If it is capable of pin-point precision damage, it better comes with some downside, be it lower DPS, short optimal range, heat, min-range, huge ammo dependency, crit-space, etc.

Edited by mike29tw, 24 June 2013 - 11:42 PM.

[Kmieciu]

mike29tw, on 24 June 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

1. Convergence based on movement and heat would basically **** up all light mechs. You would have to either slow down to obtain precision fire, which kills you in 3 sec, or keep 100% throttle and shoot at everywhere you're not aiming at, which kills you in 5 sec. This is part of the reason I oppose convergence change. It will **** up more stuff than it will fix.

I disagree. Jumpjet shake affected the poptarts the most, but a Jenner can still unload all his medium lasers mid air and hit that back torso of an Atlas.

Just make the inaccuracy dependent on the weight of the weapon. Small laser = great accuracy at full speed. PPC = you better slow down or stay still to fire.

Movement - based inaccuracy is a direct nerf against "fast" assaults (HGN with XL325 = 64 kph) firing multiple heavy weapons on the run.

Edited by Kmieciu, 24 June 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[Brilig]

This game could really use a good series of training missions. Getting dumped into any game with little or no direction is rough.

[Karl Streiger]

mike29tw, on 24 June 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

3. Not gonna do much. There will always be "optimal build" or "competitive build" that performs miles better than your average build.

That is were i want to place the crownbar. The Awesome for example - based on the lore, the Awesome is next to the Hunchback the only real MechHunter... its roll is to kill other Mechs.... but the joke is that both Mechs are complete lackluster in performing that task.

I really want to play a game - were even in a Atlas I'm affraid of facing a Awesome - actally i laugh and think by myself - easykill.

Maybe we should think about the Mechs and how to improve them first - before we consider weapon balancing. If a PPC works best at a Awesome - plus he has some better defensive values - the game could allow every mech to become a good - near competive build.

I think it is a pitty that dozen of variants are only played because you need three variants. Create a balance were every varaiant of every mech is worth the afford.

[Adridos]

Duck Butter, on 24 June 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Although I tend to agree with you, LoL is the game with more players and is more successful. DotA is the game that nobody plays other than pro players. I would prefer for MWO to be like LoL and not DotA and I think most people agree.

So the whole gamer population of China and Russia are pros? And I'm pro sa well... thanks.

Face it, LoL is a casual knock off and actually has less players in total, just gets around it with a system that promotes making billions of alts. DotA does not... LoL has to pay people to play the tournaments and assemble those tournaments and give people money/items for those tournaments to actually get a competitive scene... DotA was a simple mod that became popular because of how good it is, not through millions thrown in all directions.

So I think it's safe to say it would be prefferable we are more like DotA than LoL.

And yes, people did play Starcraft competetively even when one of the zerg rushes was unbeatable.

[mike29tw]

Kmieciu, on 24 June 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

I disagree. Jumpjet shake affected the poptarts the most, but a Jenner can still unload all his medium lasers mid air and hit that back torso of an Atlas.

Just make the inaccuracy dependent on the weight of the weapon. Small laser = great accuracy at full speed. PPC = you better slow down or stay still to fire.

Movement - based inaccuracy is a direct nerf against "fast" assaults (HGN with XL325 = 64 kph) firing multiple heavy weapons on the run.

Eh? Since when is a Highlander running fast the FotM? I thought we're addressing the problem where everyone's packing 4PPC/AC40/dual Gauss. I'd like to see the "64kph HGN with multiple heavy weapon" build that you want to nerf.

[Demuder]

Duck Butter, on 24 June 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

BOTTOM LINE:
The problem with this game isn't balance, the problem is that there is no endgame or content for people to strive for. People just whine and cry about balance because that is all they have to focus on since due to the nature of how easy it is to max yourself out in this game: all there is to do is endlessly grind c-bills/xp on the same maps over and over again. That's why new content is badly needed.

If the MWO team focuses on constant player requests for balance and implementing complex arbitrary systems it will leave them with less time and resources to expand this game in the areas that it needs to be expanded. If PGI gives in to the wishes of the loudest complainers, then they will be setting a bad precedent of appeasement instead of working on adding content to give veterans something to achieve and streamlining current content to attract new players.

I can't believe how misguided this post is.

Wait until winning or losing a match means something more than mere c-bills and xp (end game content as you describe it), and then you will see what "whining" about balance really is. Unless of course you don't mind being pigeonholed in a couple of overpowered builds with high pinpoint alpha for the rest of the game's lifetime. Right now, some people play different builds because even if they get annihilated they don't lose anything. This is the only thing that makes some matches a bit more interesting than heavies and assaults standing behind rocks and taking ppc/gauss shots at each other for 5 minutes. Wait until real competition settles in, and that will be the only way to play.

The only reason there's endless threads complaining about weapon balance and/or solutions to it, is because it is so glaring a problem to anyone that has played for more than two hours. The fact that PGI doesn't even acknowledge the problem or throws half-baked solutions to it like the heat penalty, is only exacerbating the problem.

As for whether complexity is desirable or not, your assessment is again, totally misguided. Based on your criteria, the most successful game ever, is tic-tac-toe. Very simple rules and everyone has more or less played it. Success !

In fact, complexity has nothing to do with a game being successful. What matters is rich gameplay. A game can achieve that in many ways, but complexity is a byproduct of the process. No one adds complexity for the sake of complexity, the goal is to achieve a rich and interesting gameplay. If you believe that MWO should stay a ppc/gauss boating snipefest, then you will have a simple yet very boring game. In fact, let's remove all mechs that can't boat those weapons to make it even simpler and thus, more successful.

[TOGSolid]

Jesus christ, the OP's post like watching an arrow get close to a bullseye and then say **** it, turn left, and go out for pizza and beer instead.

The new player experience has nothing to do with "complex systems" and everything to do with there being no support for new players except some videos.

Who'd have thought that a game with no tutorials and a few videos that thrusts people into matches in ****** trial mechs against players with tuned builds would have issues with the "new player experience." It's just as awful as when Planetside 2 would literally drop brand new players into the middle of hot zones with no guidance at all and expect them to just figure out what the **** was going on the hard way.

DocBach, on 24 June 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

The largest problem in this game stems from the fact that PGI has kept certain traits and rules from the board game such as the separate location damage models, then added the ability to group several weapons together and shoot them all at one location. These damage models were balanced for a board game in which weapons hit completely random locations; now that where they go can easily be selected we have created an environment that rewards boating the biggest alpha strike as possible as they are superior in nearly every way to other weapon systems.

To fix it PGI needs to make a decision; is this going to be a simulation of the board game, or a first person shooter skinned with the lore?

If the former, they need to relook how they allow alpha strikes to work. If you fire a single weapon you should have accuracy. If you want to fire off all your guns at once, don't expect the bullets to all fly through the same little hole without some work.

Homeless Bill's system was a good idea, but it was incredibly complicated and over complex when the system has been in the book already the whole time; El Bandito referenced the novels for the feel and I think that a combination of the actual rules and the fluff material would make the convergence issue much better. It would require changing the reticule's behavior somewhat depending on combat conditions.

First, instead of having the center of the reticule be the point of convergence for weapons, make each location of the 'Mech have its own focus point:


The player would still have a reference on where his shot would go, because the various stadia line on the reticle would remain the same.

Next, the reticule would expand or constrict depending on the combat conditions; movement and range profiles of weapons would limit the maximum amount the reticule could constrict; the player would obtain a lock on the enemy by hitting R and then holding the reticule over the enemy; the reticule would visibly constrict over the lock box giving the player clear reference where the various locations weapons would hit if fired at the target. The rate in which the lock constricts would be governed by four things:

- Player's Heat Level - the hotter the 'Mech is, the slower convergence would be applied, giving a real downside to running hot.

- Target 'Mechs movement speed: this would help the survivability of faster 'Mechs, especially medium 'Mechs who are especially vulnerable in the current meta

- Pilot Tree Skills - give Pinpoint something to do, dammit

- damage to Actuators - critical hits to actuators in the arm would slow convergence

To aim a group to pinpoint precision, the firing 'Mech would have to position himself in optimal effective range -- the range profile from the lore rules says 90m is optimal range for medium lasers, 180m is medium range, and 270 is maximum range, lasers fired at 90m would have maximum convergence, 180 and so on would have larger reticules so less damage convergence on a single location -- provide a stable firing platform by not moving, and have the pinpoint skill.



This picture is a mock up of what the convergence would look like - he is moving and though he is at close range for his weapons, his high heat level slowed the convergence spreed of his groups down but he chose to fire a group of weapons anyways - see how the damage would be spread over the enemy 'Mech? Nearly every other shooter has similar systems of expanding reticules to display inaccuracy caused by running, ect so new players familiar with shooter games should have no problem adapting to it, especially as it is not a randomized cone; the reticule has the points of aim for the locations with the stadia lines of the crosshairs.

The player would have to choose - if he wants precision he either has to offer himself up as a stationary target which would allow the enemy's computer quicker convergence on him, or fire a single weapon rather than a large alpha strike. If he wants to put out brutal force, he can fire a group, but the damage would be spread over the 'Mech.

This is a suggestion to help remedy the game if PGI decides they want to keep it true to its Battletech roots; if they want to just make it a Battletech skinned shooter, I don't know what they should do, but they need to do something because as it stands their system is causing the game to be clones of the biggest 'Mechs plodding around with the same high-damage, pinpoint accuracy weapon systems one shotting whoever peeks out of cover and its making the game stale. And it will continue to be stale even if they add end game content like Community Warfare; who cares if virtual planets change color from Red to Blue when you have to play this same game to do so?

Is it ok if I ********** to your post?

This is one of the most elegant and best ******** ideas I've heard so far and you really should kick this into its own thread.

Edited by TOGSolid, 25 June 2013 - 01:44 AM.