721 replies to this topic

[DarkJaguar]

General Taskeen, on 10 July 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Probably not before launch no. But, they did say the Test Server 'realm' would be for testing out their major content features and testing new overhauls that have already made their rounds over and over again on the forums.

No way in heck, realistically, will there be major overhauls on a patch by patch basis for the live servers until it has been tested thoroughly.

I would very much like to see a system closely mirroring my OP tested on the "test" server. That would really be a great place to proof of concept the numbers.

[ReoWatch]

DarkJaguar, on 10 July 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

I would very much like to see a system closely mirroring my OP tested on the "test" server. That would really be a great place to proof of concept the numbers.

Seeing as we will have access to the public test servers tomorrow perhaps they could take certain weekends as test bed weekends to see how alternate balance systems work such as the one you've suggested in the initial post. It would be a wonderful nod to the community’s thinkers who spent time to propose systems such as the one in the OP. I understand this would take a lot of time and effort though and there’s no guarantee that any of the proposed ideas will give us that exact feel we want but it’s better to give alternatives a chance than to just flat out refuse them.

[Khobai]

Its a little ridiculous that theyre testing 12v12 without even addressing the fact damage is absurdly high in 8v8. 12v12 is going to be instant death.

[General Taskeen]

Khobai, on 10 July 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

Its a little ridiculous that theyre testing 12v12 without even addressing the fact damage is absurdly high in 8v8. 12v12 is going to be instant death.

True story, unless there are "other" changes they are not mentioning that will also be present.

[DarkJaguar]

General Taskeen, on 10 July 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

True story, unless there are "other" changes they are not mentioning that will also be present.

Next Tuesdays patch will be interesting, for sure.

[Sereglach]

General Taskeen, on 10 July 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

True story, unless there are "other" changes they are not mentioning that will also be present.

We shall have to see. I look forward to checking out the test server tomorrow.

DarkJaguar, on 10 July 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

I would very much like to see a system closely mirroring my OP tested on the "test" server. That would really be a great place to proof of concept the numbers.

ReoWatch, on 10 July 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

Seeing as we will have access to the public test servers tomorrow perhaps they could take certain weekends as test bed weekends to see how alternate balance systems work such as the one you've suggested in the initial post. It would be a wonderful nod to the community’s thinkers who spent time to propose systems such as the one in the OP. I understand this would take a lot of time and effort though and there’s no guarantee that any of the proposed ideas will give us that exact feel we want but it’s better to give alternatives a chance than to just flat out refuse them.

I certainly have to agree with this and I don't believe it would be as difficult as one would think. Somewhere in the core programming are the stats of the weapons and mechs with all of the variables in place. It might be tedious to go through and redo all the numbers on the variables, but really that's what the rebalancing consists of. The hardest part of it would be QA and bug testing, to make sure nothing else gets screwed up in the process. But then again, that's what the "test" servers are for and we are still, after all, in Open Beta for MW:O.

I personally don't feel that MW:O, as a game, is too far committed to a specific style or set of numbers to potentially have a rather hefty set of rebalancing changes done, such as those mentioned in the OP.

[DarkJaguar]

Sereglach, on 10 July 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

We shall have to see. I look forward to checking out the test server tomorrow.



I certainly have to agree with this and I don't believe it would be as difficult as one would think. Somewhere in the core programming are the stats of the weapons and mechs with all of the variables in place. It might be tedious to go through and redo all the numbers on the variables, but really that's what the rebalancing consists of. The hardest part of it would be QA and bug testing, to make sure nothing else gets screwed up in the process. But then again, that's what the "test" servers are for and we are still, after all, in Open Beta for MW:O.

I personally don't feel that MW:O, as a game, is too far committed to a specific style or set of numbers to potentially have a rather hefty set of rebalancing changes done, such as those mentioned in the OP.

When balance is as bad as it is currently, they almost need to have a sweeping adjustment done.

[jeffsw6]

Sereglach, on 10 July 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Somewhere in the core programming are the stats of the weapons and mechs with all of the variables in place. It might be tedious to go through and redo all the numbers on the variables

No.

These variables are simple #define macros, read in from a configuration file when the server starts up, or similar. There is no reason why anyone would ever bury them "in the core programming," whatever you imagine that means.

[Jack Lowe]

Yippie we're getting test servers finally, maybe we can actually fix things before they go into the game broken. Also just because I noticed some people asking the question. I personally would LOVE to take out an AC/20 with a 10 shot cassette on my Wang and watch the ankle biters run for cover as they get hosed down. Finally just for kicks I'll tell what we need.... more cow bell damn it. Needs more COW BELL!!!

Edited by Jack Lowe, 10 July 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

Jack Lowe, on 10 July 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Yippie we're getting test servers finally, maybe we can actually fix things before they go into the game broken. Also just because I noticed some people asking the question. I personally would LOVE to take out an AC/20 with a 10 shot cassette on my Wang and watch the ankle biters run for cover as they get hosed down. Finally just for kicks I'll tell what we need.... more cow bell damn it. Needs more COW BELL!!!

Another great point, different fire rates would be good for different targets!

[Kmieciu]

Jack Lowe, on 10 July 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

I personally would LOVE to take out an AC/20 with a 10 shot cassette on my Wang and watch the ankle biters run for cover as they get hosed down.

And yet there are some people who still think that rapid fire, damage spreading weapons are effective against fast targets. It's quite the opposite. The best strategy against "ankle biters" is to leg them with one alpha strike, and finish them off with the next alpha. A Jenner pilot is not afraid of enemy lasers and rapid fire autocannons, because he knows he will dodge most of the damage and spread the hits against multiple components. If he gets hit by AC20, you won't be able spread the damage.

Have you ever wondered why the AC20 weights 14 tonnes, and 4 Medium lasers weigh 4 tonnes, despite having the same effective range(270), alpha damage(20) and DPS (5) ? Despite the weight difference, the AC20 is still considered better than 4ML. Like it or not, weapon weight comes straight from Table Top game. Because in TT, as well as in MWO, 20 damage to a single component is so much better than 5 damage to 4 different component.

Therefore, changing the AC20 to fire a 1 second bust would make it underpowered.
AC20: 5 DPS 1.5 HPS @14 tonnes = 0,238095 DPS/HPS per tonne
4xML: 5 DPS 4 DPS @ 4 tonnes = 0,3125 DPS/HPS per tonne

To make them equal you would have to increase the DPS of an AC20 by (0,3125/0,238095)-1= 31,25%
Even with the increased DPS, the medium lasers don't require ammo and have twice the total item HP. And the AC20 is harder to aim without the lower arm actuator. So the AC20 would still be at an disadvantage. So how much DPS would the AC20 need to be equal to 4ML ? 7? 8? 10 ?

Edited by Kmieciu, 10 July 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Because in TT, as well as in MWO, 20 damage to a single component is so much better than 5 damage to 4 different component.

Yes and no. The AC/20 punches armor better to be sure. But the medium lasers critseek better because they hit multiple locations. Additionally the medium lasers are four different weapons and are far less likely to get critted out. For that reason alone, in TT, I would much rather have four medium lasers than an AC/20.

In MWO, the reason the AC/20 is better than four ML is because you get to aim exactly where it hits. That and if you have two AC/20s they both hit the same spot. Where the MLs do damage over time which sucks. But in TT the medium lasers are the clear winner which is the entire reason UACs were added later on to bring parity back to autocannons.

Edited by Khobai, 10 July 2013 - 11:24 PM.

[Benjamin Davion]

This is EXACTLY what this game needs. Brilliantly worked out, brilliantly explained.

[Mxyl]

Great write up, but I think we are all missing the real point, the word balance does not exist in the PGI dictionary, however obstinate certainly does right under 'ignoring your fan base'.

Long Live Mechwarrior! PGI no so much.......

[DarkJaguar]

Kmieciu, on 10 July 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

And yet there are some people who still think that rapid fire, damage spreading weapons are effective against fast targets. It's quite the opposite. The best strategy against "ankle biters" is to leg them with one alpha strike, and finish them off with the next alpha. A Jenner pilot is not afraid of enemy lasers and rapid fire autocannons, because he knows he will dodge most of the damage and spread the hits against multiple components. If he gets hit by AC20, you won't be able spread the damage.

Have you ever wondered why the AC20 weights 14 tonnes, and 4 Medium lasers weigh 4 tonnes, despite having the same effective range(270), alpha damage(20) and DPS (5) ? Despite the weight difference, the AC20 is still considered better than 4ML. Like it or not, weapon weight comes straight from Table Top game. Because in TT, as well as in MWO, 20 damage to a single component is so much better than 5 damage to 4 different component.

Therefore, changing the AC20 to fire a 1 second bust would make it underpowered.
AC20: 5 DPS 1.5 HPS @14 tonnes = 0,238095 DPS/HPS per tonne
4xML: 5 DPS 4 DPS @ 4 tonnes = 0,3125 DPS/HPS per tonne

To make them equal you would have to increase the DPS of an AC20 by (0,3125/0,238095)-1= 31,25%
Even with the increased DPS, the medium lasers don't require ammo and have twice the total item HP. And the AC20 is harder to aim without the lower arm actuator. So the AC20 would still be at an disadvantage. So how much DPS would the AC20 need to be equal to 4ML ? 7? 8? 10 ?

I think you may be missing a few variables as to why the AC20 would be a better choice for some than 4 MLAS


If timing is adjusted, you can balance out the weapons in other ways to better simulate the intent of the TT weapon. In the above examples, I have 4 medium lasers running continuous burn (I.E. they fire indefinitely), and one AC20 firing a 10 round burst of 1dmg shells in one second with a 4 second load time. While the AC20 isn't doing it's damage in one hit, it does it in a shorter time window, making it better for the "pop and shoot" style of play.

[Postumus]

What makes sense about splitting the AC/20 into a stream of fire? That would definitely not do 20 damage to a single location. Instead, just take all the canon damage per volley numbers and multiply by the ratio of their current recycle time over 10. So, AC/20 would be 20 * ( 4 / 10) = 8. This would allow you to use canon armor values as well as damage numbers, without seriously changing weapon mechanics. Eazy peazy.

[Jack Lowe]

Postumus, on 11 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

What makes sense about splitting the AC/20 into a stream of fire? That would definitely not do 20 damage to a single location. Instead, just take all the canon damage per volley numbers and multiply by the ratio of their current recycle time over 10. So, AC/20 would be 20 * ( 4 / 10) = 8. This would allow you to use canon armor values as well as damage numbers, without seriously changing weapon mechanics. Eazy peazy.

Postumus, on 11 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

What makes sense about splitting the AC/20 into a stream of fire? That would definitely not do 20 damage to a single location. Instead, just take all the canon damage per volley numbers and multiply by the ratio of their current recycle time over 10. So, AC/20 would be 20 * ( 4 / 10) = 8. This would allow you to use canon armor values as well as damage numbers, without seriously changing weapon mechanics. Eazy peazy.

stream of fire is useful In many ways it allows burst fire, no one said u had to shoot off the whole cassette in one shot. Burst fire allows for fire suppression, support, aiming assistance, and ammo conservation. In short it allows u the player more control over the weapon as well as diversity in how it's used. As far as not hitting one location well once u get someone "sighted" in u just mash the button hold the target and you'll get ur damage in one spot or at least the vast majority of it. Also the 10 round cassette is only one idea. Remember some autocannons had 5 round clips some 3 there were a few designs that shot a single round like we have now. I want ALL of them not just my flavor, so you can have yours I can have mine and we're all happy. Also I can go with different manufacturers and bring the kind of gun I want to do the job I want. It provides greater flexibility to load outs with ballistics. Not knocking your idea, just explaining mine.

[DarkJaguar]

Jack Lowe, on 11 July 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

stream of fire is useful In many ways it allows burst fire, no one said u had to shoot off the whole cassette in one shot. Burst fire allows for fire suppression, support, aiming assistance, and ammo conservation. In short it allows u the player more control over the weapon as well as diversity in how it's used. As far as not hitting one location well once u get someone "sighted" in u just mash the button hold the target and you'll get ur damage in one spot or at least the vast majority of it. Also the 10 round cassette is only one idea. Remember some autocannons had 5 round clips some 3 there were a few designs that shot a single round like we have now. I want ALL of them not just my flavor, so you can have yours I can have mine and we're all happy. Also I can go with different manufacturers and bring the kind of gun I want to do the job I want. It provides greater flexibility to load outs with ballistics. Not knocking your idea, just explaining mine.

Well said, my chart above was illustrative of only ONE type of AC20, Players may want one that fires once shell every second for 2 dmg each, or one that fires one shell every 5 seconds for 4 damage each. The system allows for a huge variety and just broadens the customization available to the player.

[IdjitKicker]

Love the graphs DJ, one picture is worth many, many words! Concur that the next patch should be MOST interesting

[DarkJaguar]

IdjitKicker, on 11 July 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Love the graphs DJ, one picture is worth many, many words! Concur that the next patch should be MOST interesting

Thanks Idjit, I'm working on a graph that will show projected "burst" rates of all the weapons, and explain "Target Window".