3 replies to this topic

[C12AZyED]

Short Definition

As we should be aware, "fine tuning" is the process of slowly calibrating weapon values and properties individually over the course of time in order to find a balanced relationship between them. Minor adjustments to invididual objects allow for a softer transition into the game itself.

In contrast, standardisation is when one attempts to find a general rule, containing certain principles that affects the values and properties of a group of weapons. The application of a new "standard" can have dramatic effects.

The Problem

Thus far, PGI has largely demonstrated an inclination towards standardisation-eg, SRMs and SSRMs are 1.5 damage, LBX-10 doing 1 damage per pellet(could be doing 1.25 and still contain ten projectiles:still an LBX-"10"), pulse lasers having their heat always around 25% higher than standard lasers.

The problem with this approach is that it has a pendulum effect upon the meta-game ( I know, irksome term right but I have to use it ) and certain weapons get thrown out of balance, for good or for bad. Clearly, sniper weapons like the PPC, Gauss and AC20(sorta sniper ) dominate both at range and in brawling and are now the clear cut loadouts for most.

However, the most recent elephant in the room is the Large Pulse Laser, a favourite of many for whom its bassy pumping noise and slightly superior damage and delivery time, made it a must have for brawling. To date, the Large Pulse Lazer is an unfortunate victim of standarisation, and now has awful heat, huge weight, and damage that simply doesnt compensate for it.

The Solution

Simply put: listen to the community and look at the meta-game in order to exact fine tuning over standardisation. I don't think many people could honestly agree that weapons like the Large Pulse Laser are in an acceptable form right now, so PGI need to look to us and review carefully the values.

I for instance would posit quite reasonably that the Large Pulse Laser should be as follows:

Damage: 10. instead of 10.6
Heat: 7.5 instead of 8.5
Tonnage: 6 instead of 7

Thanks for reading my post and I hope you find at least some aspects of it fairly agreeable. I am keen to hear your comments on this.

Regards,

C12AzyEd

[Deathlike]

You're not going to convince PGI to adjust tonnage or crits/slots for weapons. All you will get flamed for is "TT specs" and/or stock mech specs and those can never be changed.

Everything else however is up for changing (heat, damage, ROF, duration, etc.)

Edited by Deathlike, 05 July 2013 - 06:33 AM.

[Zyllos]

Deathlike, on 05 July 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

You're not going to convince PGI to adjust tonnage or crits/slots for weapons. All you will get flamed for is "TT specs" and/or stock mech specs and those can never be changed.

Everything else however is up for changing (heat, damage, ROF, duration, etc.)

This is just correct, critical slots and tonnage has to be perserved for now and future mech builds.

I think the LBX actually needs to have a mechanic change so that it acts like a real LBX, by firing a flak canister that explodes into a directional (at the target) spray of submunitions. Once that is in game, so it can utilize it's full optimal range, then I say if it still feels weak, then up the base damage.

The pulse lasers, I think, are going to be done into something different. They might be going for machine gun lasers, and so that is why they standardized them to get them to act in the same manner before they change their mechanics. Then they will balance them individually with the new mechanic in place.

Edited by Zyllos, 05 July 2013 - 07:11 AM.

[Deathlike]

IMO, the tonnage/slot rule should be posted somewhere in the balance forums as a sticky, just because people keep wanting to change them (like, increase PPC crit #s, or the awful ECM crit # suggestions from way back, just because they were/are imbalanced).