721 replies to this topic

[Mongoose Trueborn]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

I'm not sure I'm tracking on your point? Are you saying that the translation I provided isn't a good one because I'm not as skilled a player as you? Why do you have to be Michael Jordan to understand the rules of basketball? When was the last time Michael Jordan wrote a rule used by the NBA? Doesn't the NBA write rules into it's charter -BECAUSE- of players like Michael Jordan?

On another point, to bring back up the CoF argument (or, as it should probably be better labeled Circular Error of Probability, CEP for short). To draw an analogy with real life, the main gun on the M1A1 has a CEP of 35m at 8000m range. That means that 50% of all shots fired will land within 35m at a range of 8000m. If you reduce the range to say 600m, the CEP is now 2.6m.

That number is actually pretty close to what I recommended, with my ideal situation being WA=R100@MR where WA is Weapon Accuracy, R100 being a radius of 1.65m (diameter 3.3m), and MR being a weapons max optimum range. So, an AC5 would have a R100 of 3.3m @ 600m, a pretty reasonable CEP if you ask me.

I'm saying that the better the player the more they will do things with a mech that a player with less ability didn't think was possible and break what they thought was balanced.

Edited by Mongoose Trueborn, 13 July 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 13 July 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

I'm saying that the better the player the more they will do things with a mech that a lesser playerdidn't think was possible and break what you thought was balanced.

That's a challenge, HOWEVER, starting with a broken system and throwing bandages at it (whys is A*I*D*S censored, seriously?) will not achieve the game we want. It will just continue to be this sluggish mass of gristle and hunks of butcher paper, rather than a fillet mignon.

Starting with a set of values that was actually relatively (not perfectly...) balanced in a competitive tournament setting is a hell of a lot better than the dart board approach tried thus far.

Mongoose, I'm assuming that you consider yourself a pretty good player. Using the system and values that I described in my OP, how would you exploit it? Pointing out a specific problem is much easier to have a discussion about than writing off the system as a whole "because competitive players will find weakness in it".

[AndyHill]

The reason why TT values feel like a good starting point is that they have been used to balance a certain type of game with fair success, whereas MWO values have never been very balanced.

The discussion about translating TT values to a real-time simulation is interesting, but please never use any blanket statements like "of course TT values are perfect because they are" or "tabletop numbers have no use in a simulator". Those have no value in the discussion. I've actually noticed that few people understand what the BTech numbers are and what their significance is in the game.

The weapon values (size, weight, damage, range, heat, other perks), 'mech structure and heatsink efficiency are basically a closed system that defines the weapons' usefulness against each other. In fact, of those only range is something that has real relevance to the tabletop or simulator game mechanics, since it affects hit percentage calculations. In fact, all the other values function very similarly in the TT and in MWO. The real difference is not the weapon numbers, it's the game mechanics. The difference is range based accuracy and throwing dice in a turn based environment against a point and shoot real-time world.

This doesn't mean that TT values would be the absolute best thing ever for a simulator, but if you look at all the commonalities between the TT and MWO, they are quite numerous. It is also vital to realize that the numbers are far from arbitrary, in fact they form a fairly balanced system (with well known quirks) and if you change some of them, this balance will shatter. That's why the translation needs to be done with great care and planning and there needs to be a very clear idea on how every interconnected variable is translated to the target environment.

This is what most of the TT advocates are asking for. Not a few numbers from a tabletop game, but controlled transition to real-time environment. Things like massively increasing heat production and changing the relative damage output of the weapons will demolish the balance, unless there are well understood reasons for every change in the game design. To me it seems that PGI are going about it bass ackwards by changing the weapon balance seemingly arbitrarily by increasing heat tremendously as well as the weapons' relative DPS when they should in fact first take a step back and consider the gameplay elements that are at work all around the weapon balance.

I believe I speak for many when I say that most TT value advocates are actually saying that if PGI went back to TT values and worked on the game mechanics and understanding the translation of the said numbers to a real-time environment in a controlled way they would end up with a more balanced system than what they have now or are likely to have in the future at present course. Not that the numbers themselves would absolutely work in a simulator environment. This is why it's important for the discussion that instead of stating that TT is so different from a simulator that the numbers just can't work there are game mechanics-based explanations on why it is so.

I for example believe that group fire or pinpoint alpha is breaking the gameplay and balancing efforts (if you're actually interested in my views, check this out: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 ), but that's just one thing. If there are fundamentally hard to balance factors in the core gameplay, messing with the numbers will only take you further away from any kind of balance, which is why core gameplay needs to be tackled first.

Edited by AndyHill, 13 July 2013 - 04:12 PM.

[Victor Morson]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

If the AC2 is going to do 10x as much damage and 2.5x as much heat (see here for where those numbers came from...) then EVERY weapon should do 10x dmg and 2.5x heat.

This is a perfect example of why TT balance doesn't work - the AC2 is absolutely horrendous there. It needed a massive buff from it's TT counterpart.

[Unbound Inferno]

Victor Morson, on 13 July 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

This is a perfect example of why TT balance doesn't work - the AC2 is absolutely horrendous there. It needed a massive buff from it's TT counterpart.

Not really. The balancing mechanic in TT leaned towards rewarding larger sized mechs with better firepower - but the mobility of lighter gave them a huge defensive perk that you don't see in MWO.

[Victor Morson]

Unbound Inferno, on 13 July 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Not really. The balancing mechanic in TT leaned towards rewarding larger sized mechs with better firepower - but the mobility of lighter gave them a huge defensive perk that you don't see in MWO.

But that's not really the case either; I was talking about the Autocannon/2, which is essentially among the worst weapons in BattleTech, getting a much deserved reworking here.

But the main advantage of lights in TT is to init sink your heavies so you can move them last and back stab. And any sentence that begins with "Init sink" is positively a bad way to begin a sim translation.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

That's a challenge, HOWEVER, starting with a broken system and throwing bandages at it (whys is A*I*D*S censored, seriously?) will not achieve the game we want. It will just continue to be this sluggish mass of gristle and hunks of butcher paper, rather than a fillet mignon.

Starting with a set of values that was actually relatively (not perfectly...) balanced in a competitive tournament setting is a hell of a lot better than the dart board approach tried thus far.

Mongoose, I'm assuming that you consider yourself a pretty good player. Using the system and values that I described in my OP, how would you exploit it? Pointing out a specific problem is much easier to have a discussion about than writing off the system as a whole "because competitive players will find weakness in it".

That system was balanced on a set of formulas that result from a dice roll. I don't roll dice and will be able to pinpoint the damage much more effective. Unless you try to randomize my shot, then I just won't play because the game will be nothing but crap.

Unbound Inferno, on 13 July 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Not really. The balancing mechanic in TT leaned towards rewarding larger sized mechs with better firepower - but the mobility of lighter gave them a huge defensive perk that you don't see in MWO.

Because we can aim and we aren't rolling dice.

[DarkJaguar]

AndyHill, on 13 July 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

The reason why TT values feel like a good starting point is that they have been used to balance a certain type of game with fair success, whereas MWO values have never been very balanced.

The discussion about translating TT values to a real-time simulation is interesting, but please never use any blanket statements like "of course TT values are perfect because they are" or "tabletop numbers have no use in a simulator". Those have no value in the discussion. I've actually noticed that few people understand what the BTech numbers are and what their significance is in the game.

The weapon values (size, weight, damage, range, heat, other perks), 'mech structure and heatsink efficiency are basically a closed system that defines the weapons' usefulness against each other. In fact, of those only range is something that has real relevance to the tabletop or simulator game mechanics, since it affects hit percentage calculations. In fact, all the other values function very similarly in the TT and in MWO. The real difference is not the weapon numbers, it's the game mechanics. The difference is range based accuracy and throwing dice in a turn based environment against a point and shoot real-time world.

This doesn't mean that TT values would be the absolute best thing ever for a simulator, but if you look at all the commonalities between the TT and MWO, they are quite numerous. It is also vital to realize that the numbers are far from arbitrary, in fact they form a fairly balanced system (with well known quirks) and if you change some of them, this balance will shatter. That's why the translation needs to be done with great care and planning and there needs to be a very clear idea on how every interconnected variable is translated to the target environment.

This is what most of the TT advocates are asking for. Not a few numbers from a tabletop game, but controlled transition to real-time environment. Things like massively increasing heat production and changing the relative damage output of the weapons will demolish the balance, unless there are well understood reasons for every change in the game design. To me it seems that PGI are going about it bass ackwards by changing the weapon balance seemingly arbitrarily by increasing heat tremendously as well as the weapons' relative DPS when they should in fact first take a step back and consider the gameplay elements that are at work all around the weapon balance.

I believe I speak for many when I say that most TT value advocates are actually saying that if PGI went back to TT values and worked on the game mechanics and understanding the translation of the said numbers to a real-time environment in a controlled way they would end up with a more balanced system than what they have now or are likely to have in the future at present course. Not that the numbers themselves would absolutely work in a simulator environment. This is why it's important for the discussion that instead of stating that TT is so different from a simulator that the numbers just can't work there are game mechanics-based explanations on why it is so.

I for example believe that group fire or pinpoint alpha is breaking the gameplay and balancing efforts (if you're actually interested in my views, check this out: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 ), but that's just one thing. If there are fundamentally hard to balance factors in the core gameplay, messing with the numbers will only take you further away from any kind of balance, which is why core gameplay needs to be tackled first.

Very well said Andy. My OP did address pin-point damage, as I wholly agree that it's one of the largest contributing factors to imbalance currently in play. As we speak I'm writing a post solely dedicated to that subject to run in parallel with this topic.

Victor Morson, on 13 July 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

This is a perfect example of why TT balance doesn't work - the AC2 is absolutely horrendous there. It needed a massive buff from it's TT counterpart.

It's still horrible even with it's massive buff because it's playing a DPS game on a high alpha battlefield. TT values still make a better starting point than what has ever been in use by MW:O though.

Mongoose Trueborn, on 13 July 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

That system was balanced on a set of formulas that result from a dice roll. I don't roll dice and will be able to pinpoint the damage much more effective. Unless you try to randomize my shot, then I just won't play because the game will be nothing but crap.

Because we can aim and we aren't rolling dice.

If you can aim, why are you worried about a mechanic that rewards skilled players by making them truly stand out? If you stop playing MW:O, what will you go play? Call of Duty? Team Fortress? Counter-Strike? Battlefield? All of these games use a CoF mechanic, and they don't even have to worry about location based health pools or players wielding 4 sniper-rifles for the ultimate in no-scope one shot killing.

Please address the question I asked, how would you as a high-skill player exploit what I have outlined in my OP.

[Homeless Bill]

It's a very well thought-out and articulated post, but I am in disagreement with most of it.

One big problem I have with all of this: 10-second turns are not what this game should be balanced off of. That's simply a remnant of tabletop days, and thinking it will just magically fit into a realtime game is unrealistic. Think about how much distance can be covered in 10 seconds, and it should become quite apparent that brawling weapons will be the only weapons that matter. I think it could be balanced off of a different timeframe, but I think that's one extremely important number for PGI to have to get right.

Damage and Heat
I have a couple problems with going back to tabletop numbers for damage and heat. First, I think relative weapon balance is pretty close right now with several exceptions:

• SRMs - Weak
  
• SSRMs - CT-coring
  
• LBX - Weak
  
• PPC - Too fast, maybe one more heat for both kinds
  
• LRMS - Close, but needs more damage, less CT-coring
  
• AC/2 - Too hot
  
• MG - Weak (or needs purpose from increased internals health), but who really cares?
  
• Flamer - But who cares?
  
• Pulse Lasers - Need some love (preferably a total re-work)

Now, I'll admit fights are over too fast, but I see no reason to re-balance every single weapon instead of just increasing armor/internal health again. It's a much easier and much less risky way of accomplishing the exact same thing.

I think reverting to TT numbers is a total waste of the close-to-the-finish-line point we're at now. Problems I see with TT numbers (regardless of how it worked on a boardgame, it's just not the same as realtime):

• In General - We're close to relative balance right now. As much as I respect that tabletop was pretty well balanced (hell, I even cite tabletop as the reason for my balance/convergence proposal), its numbers simply don't take into account realtime factors. Even if was close, it would still require a lot of messing around. Why take the chance when they've just got to tweak a few numbers?
  
• Autocannons - I really like how autocannons work right now. I like that the lighter ones are great for fire support and cockpit shake, while the heavier ones are the perfect one-shell punch. I think that's fine for diversity, as opposed to making the damage profiles dependent on manufacturer. I do think manufacturers would be cool to add later as variations in burst fire, recycle time, and other stats, but I also think changing what we have now is a waste.
  
• Ignoring the Rebalancing of the Time Scale - As said up top, I really think it will force fights in close, they'll have to re-balance the timeframe for realtime, or they'd have to slow everything down (which would be terrible). Tabletop numbers simply don't account for realtime gameplay, and I think anyone that won't admit to how important that timeframe balance is for the pace of combat is kidding themselves.
  
• Heat - I'll admit that I like a lower heat cap, but I think this is not the way to approach it. You ignore that while the PPC Stalker will just shutdown immediately, so will anything running single heatsinks. Single heatsinks will become the ultimate cruel joke to new players. The stock Hunchback 4P (8xML + 1xSL, 23SHS) will also shutdown from firing once (8x3 + 1 = 25; 25 > 23 --> shutdown). Anything running single heatsinks will immediately be even worse than they are now. I vehemently disagree with the idea of DHS getting even better than they are now compared to SHS. While you say a stock variant may put out 4 - 5 times as much damage under the current system, a swagged-out 'mech with DHS can only put out about 3 times as much. That artificial addition to the heatcap is the only thing making SHS builds as competitive as they currently are(n't) - without it, they'd be complete ****.
  
• (New) Player Experience - My thoughts on pacing: people should be able to fire all of their weapons a couple times without shutting down. Newbies in particular will have a hard time adjusting to a system so harsh. I'm maybe not a fan of how high the heat cap is, but drastically lowering it (particularly on SHS build) is not the way to go in my mind.

I'm definitely a fan of some penalties for running super-hot, but I'd change a couple things. I would rather they come in around 80% with a higher heat cap than 100% with a lower heat cap. I think it's more intuitive to players to know that at 100%, it's shutdown time unless you override (at which point you start taking damage). I also wouldn't make them as harsh, particularly in terms of speed. I'd rather see a percentage reduction that, at it's worst before shutdown is about 50%.

DarkJaguar, on 01 July 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

Convergence
First, each weapon should be assigned a user viewable Ballistic Complexity Factor. This number is important, as some weapons are easier to aim than others. From that point, the total BCF of a mech’s loadout is taken and compared against the Targeting Computer’s rating. If the total BCF of a loadout is less than the computer’s rating, the percentage difference is then deducted from every weapon’s Cone of Fire. If the total BCF is in excess, the opposite happens, with the difference added to the CoF. The elegance of this solution, is that stock mechs like the Swayback won’t suffer a penalty, as the relatively simple to aim medium laser can realistically be aimed by a basic targeting computer (or maybe the swayback carries a better computer?)

Spoiler

As mentioned before, the user can opt to upgrade their targeting computer. This could be handled in two ways. The simple way is for various raw BCF levels to be available for player purchase. The complex way is for three branches of targeting computers to be available in different levels, specializing in Missiles, Beam Weapons, and Ballistic Weapons.

The next portion of this complex issue is the cone of fire. Many people will vehemently oppose this idea, screaming their protest under the banner of “Don’t nerf skill!”. The problem with this argument is that if every weapon hits pixel perfect, it doesn’t take a ton of skill to hit an enemy at extended range. What should be taken into account is that a baseline cone of fire will still guarantee a hit on a benchmark mech (the hunchback would be an ideal candidate for this) at the weapons max optimal range.

Spoiler

The final factor to help combat the current proliferation of 40dmg alpha strikes hitting the same location is the modification of the convergence system. My favorite solution for this is a two factor approach. First, Torso mounted weapons have a fixed convergence point to account for the minimal azimuth and deflection adjustment available to them. This can either be based on the maximum optimal range of the weapon, or a user selectable value (select convergence in mechlab). Second, arms are given a rating for how well they can converge, meaning that they will always converge on the reticle within a range window, say 200m to infinity, as arm mounted weapons can fire straight forward and never converge, so there’s no reason to have a max convergence.

Convergence
I think your proposal for accuracy goes too far. Problems I have with it:

• Total Loadout vs Weapons Fired - Basing cone of fire on the weapons carried rather than the weapons fired is a bad approach. I might as well not mount a couple medium lasers as backup on a heavy-hitter because their accuracy will be **** no matter what. I think you absolutely have to address what is being fired together, rather than essentially make an arbitrary hardpoint restriction (more like a penalty) system that causes cone of fire.
  
• Convergence - I think setting it manually for each weapon is cumbersome, unfriendly, and difficult to adjust to. Having it fixed gives certain chassis massive advantages while having others assume the position. I think your proposed changes aren't necessarily bad, but they are a huge change in gameplay. I see forcing players to think about convergence as inherently bad, because it will turn off most mainstream gamers. I would be fine with it, I've publicly said I totally support Doc's convergence system, but I think it's ultimately the more dangerous direction for the game to go.
  
• Cone-of-Fire - This basically just goes back to the first point about how it should be based off fired weapons instead of loadout in general. Twitch shots are skilled. Some of the cheesiest kills I've made have been incredibly skillful shots. I should have been rewarded for those - I just shouldn't be able to instagib them. I intensely dislike the removal of pinpoint capability.

Time
I agree that damage-over-time profiles should get some more attention, but, again, I don't think this is the way to go about it. I see a 10-second duration on a laser beam, and I laugh my *** off. Like most things here, I think we're too close for such a drastic change. In terms of damage profile variation, here's what I think the game needs:

• Pulse Lasers - They need a total re-work. I don't care if it's increased rate of fire, decreased beam duration, front-loading damage, or whatever - it just needs a new concept to be different from standard lasers.
  
• Manufacturers - As stated previously, I think slight variations should come down to them adding several styles of each weapon.The damage profiles of most weapons are fine right now; manufacturers are an easy thing to add post-release to increase variation.

Conclusion
I just don't think the game is as radically broken as this proposal seems to suggest. I think we're very close right now, and that with several minor number adjustments, balance will be where it needs to be. Most of your suggestions are radical changes that simply aren't needed. I do think convergence needs to be addressed, but I feel as though your proposal is a step too far in the direction of random. More varied damage profiles would be cool, but it's low priority and should be handled by manufacturers.

[The Cheese]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

If you had truly read the OP you would realize that I didn’t just take TT numbers and plug them into a real time game. PGI did that, and it failed. I translated a 10 second abstract into real time space in a way that keeps every weapon useful, places them in the correct order of DPS and HPS, gets rid of the silly extra 30 heat cap that PGI randomly threw in, and eliminates pin point aiming (having location based health will NEVER work with pin point aiming).
I feel like you’re arguing with me not based on content, but that I based my content on lore, when in reality what I presented was a lore inspired TRANSLATION that better captures the feel of the game. If you feel the numbers/rules I provided wouldn’t work, that’s fine, but if you’re going to argue against them, please offer proof, or even an example, as to why you think so.

And if you'd understood what I was saying, you'd see that your request for proof is misguided. I am not specifically rejecting your suggestions. I am rejecting the idea that numbers, any numbers, are gospel. I am rejecting the whole mindset that "X idea will work because the numbers say it will". Mechwarrior has never been a numbers game.

Seriously, most of the people on these forums can't see the forest for the trees.

Edited by The Cheese, 13 July 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[Bad Andy]

the TT heat scaling is the only part of this post i could agree with. The weapon damage ideas are pretty funny, how are you going to quote canon and then suggest AC20 shouldn't do 20 damage? And PGI has stated they want to look at convergence but it's not easy.

[Unbound Inferno]

Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Now, I'll admit fights are over too fast, but I see no reason to re-balance every single weapon instead of just increasing armor/internal health again. It's a much easier and much less risky way of accomplishing the exact same thing.

Bill, you couldn't be more mistaken.

Increasing Armor does balance out by lowering the damage effects - but it doesn't fix the problem as to why we see mainly PPC over Lasers, or the disregard for SRMs dealing too little damage (and increasing armor makes that worse) let alone the reliance on boating.

Increasing armor again would only serve to drastically push back towards the ridiculous boating problem that led to the current meta of PPC being such a problem. It doesn't help.


The fundamental reason this game is flawed needs to be addressed, and ignoring it by placing yet another band-aid on it won't help.


The heat system needs an overhaul.
The weapons themselves need rebalacning around the heat system to reflect it properly.
The issue of converging grouped weapon fire needs solving, either through forced inaccuracy or chain fire to mitigate the damage.

That needs fixing. Not another Armor push to try and hide it until everyone realizes that at less damage the weaker builds get tossed out because they can't kill as well as the rest.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 13 July 2013 - 06:12 PM.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

If you can aim, why are you worried about a mechanic that rewards skilled players by making them truly stand out? If you stop playing MW:O, what will you go play? Call of Duty? Team Fortress? Counter-Strike? Battlefield? All of these games use a CoF mechanic, and they don't even have to worry about location based health pools or players wielding 4 sniper-rifles for the ultimate in no-scope one shot killing.

Please address the question I asked, how would you as a high-skill player exploit what I have outlined in my OP.

LOL, Who said I was worried? I simply said it wouldn't work. I think you need to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect and take a step back for a min.

You think balance comes from a mathematical formula. The reality is that it is quite more difficult once you factor in what people are capable of.

[The14th]

Sweet, Homeless Bill is here! Please listen to him, as he gets this WAY better than you DarkJaguar.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

The14th, on 13 July 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Sweet, Homeless Bill is here! Please listen to him, as he gets this WAY better than you DarkJaguar.

28th post from Bill's alt forum account.

[Sereglach]

The Cheese, on 13 July 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

And if you'd understood what I was saying, you'd see that your request for proof is misguided. I am not specifically rejecting your suggestions. I am rejecting the idea that numbers, any numbers, are gospel. I am rejecting the whole mindset that "X idea will work because the numbers say it will". Mechwarrior has never been a numbers game.

Seriously, most of the people on these forums can't see the forest for the trees.

MechWarrior isn't a game about numbers? Are armor values numbers? Are weapon damage, recycle times, heat values, and ammo counts numbers? Isn't the heat scale a whole equation based around numbers?

MechWarrior is a game that revolves around numbers, period. Yes, player skill comes into play, and can make all of the difference in the world. In TT this was simulated by your character sheet for your pilot. In MW:O it's now you, the player. However, the current game mechanics add significant curves that break the balance through . . . you guessed it . . . numbers. Look all over the forums at what people are proposing for gameplay balance and suggestions. Their focus isn't on player skill, it's on numbers. They want increased or decreased armor values, weapon damages, heat values, calculations for convergence (a whole series of numbers with a whole series of different approaches and conclusions), and even mech sizes . . . scaling chassis sizes based off of numbers.

When people build mechs in the mech lab they're looking not just at what they want to pilot, but the numbers on the mech. Right now the numbers that garner the most attention are what gives them the highest alpha strike for the least amount of heat. If the game were balanced people would be taking more and more numbers into consideration. Then they would take their own personal skills and tastes into play.

If someone can take a balanced system and say, "I have a crazy idea and know I can pull off some awesome stuff with this," then so be it. Player skill will then come into play to make a difference for them on the battlefield. It won't break the game . . . what it will do is distinguish that pilot from others for his skill and abilities. Unless he's dropping in 8 mans (and soon 12), then his ELO will eventually get so high that he'll be dropping with 7 brand new people and he will more than likely start to lose matches. Oh, and what is ELO based off of? Numbers . . . so numbers are STILL coming into play even when bounced off of player skill.

A balanced system won't remove player skill from the game. What it will do is make player skill a more rewarding factor in the game.

[The Cheese]

Sereglach, on 13 July 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

MechWarrior isn't a game about numbers? Are armor values numbers? Are weapon damage, recycle times, heat values, and ammo counts numbers? Isn't the heat scale a whole equation based around numbers?

MechWarrior is a game that revolves around numbers, period. Yes, player skill comes into play, and can make all of the difference in the world. In TT this was simulated by your character sheet for your pilot. In MW:O it's now you, the player. However, the current game mechanics add significant curves that break the balance through . . . you guessed it . . . numbers. Look all over the forums at what people are proposing for gameplay balance and suggestions. Their focus isn't on player skill, it's on numbers. They want increased or decreased armor values, weapon damages, heat values, calculations for convergence (a whole series of numbers with a whole series of different approaches and conclusions), and even mech sizes . . . scaling chassis sizes based off of numbers.

When people build mechs in the mech lab they're looking not just at what they want to pilot, but the numbers on the mech. Right now the numbers that garner the most attention are what gives them the highest alpha strike for the least amount of heat. If the game were balanced people would be taking more and more numbers into consideration. Then they would take their own personal skills and tastes into play.

If someone can take a balanced system and say, "I have a crazy idea and know I can pull off some awesome stuff with this," then so be it. Player skill will then come into play to make a difference for them on the battlefield. It won't break the game . . . what it will do is distinguish that pilot from others for his skill and abilities. Unless he's dropping in 8 mans (and soon 12), then his ELO will eventually get so high that he'll be dropping with 7 brand new people and he will more than likely start to lose matches. Oh, and what is ELO based off of? Numbers . . . so numbers are STILL coming into play even when bounced off of player skill.

A balanced system won't remove player skill from the game. What it will do is make player skill a more rewarding factor in the game.

Forest for the trees, dude. The point was that the numbers are a means to an end and nothing more. People seem so hung up on making everything fit into a nice clean box that they're missing the point of playing a game.

Why does it matter that an AC20 round does precisely 20 damage when you don't know exactly how much armour is on the yellow CT of that Stalker that you're shooting at? It doesn't. All that matters is that you're about to make that CT armour turn red.

Edited by The Cheese, 13 July 2013 - 08:30 PM.

[LockeJaw]

Does not address boating. 7/10. Needs at least discussion of hardpoint limitation.

[30ft SMURF]

stupid long thread... more responses than I care to read... origional post seems spot on. Weapon balance and the other issues mentioned have been the one thing I hate most about this game. Fix this and I'll pay money to play this again.

[Corbon Zackery]

See if you can get some LRM Curve Trajectory charts from Garth I like to see how messed up they are.

Also if you can get some LRM missile spread charts I like to see if there staying fully clustered out to 1000 meters or if there spreading out due to time to target.