Jump to content

- - - - -

Heat Scales And General Update - Feedback


1084 replies to this topic

Poll: Heat Scales And General Update - Feedback (2742 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want SRMs buffed to 2.0 damage until the hit detection is fixed?

  1. Voted Yes, please do it, it’s better than nothing. (2007 votes [73.65%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.65%

  2. Voted No, please wait until hit detection is working and balance it to where it’s supposed to be. (718 votes [26.35%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.35%

Vote

#681 ShishiX

    Rookie

  • 4 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:01 PM

View PostLonestar1771, on 12 July 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:


Winning is fun, losing is not, plain and simple. Take your altruistic nonsense somewhere else.

I doubt you will hear anyone say "I love losing!" and truly mean it.


I don't love losing, but I enjoy learning to play underpowered chassis/builds effectively and managing to do decently even though they are not favored by the current meta.

For example, taking a QKD with 4xMLAS 2xSRM4 1xSRM6 and kiting around snipers at close range by hopping back and forth over terrain while hitting them with barrage after barrage of underpowered SRMs is a lot of fun -- the playstyle is more engaging than STKsniping while giving you the satisfaction of blowing a sniper's face off with pilot skill, rather than an overpowered build that requires nothing more than a little patience and a steady hand.

And, on the occasion that I peek my head out in the wrong place and get instantly cored by a 4xERPPC sniper, I can always roll my STK-5S the next round and visit that pain back on everyone else ;)

EDIT: Minor wording change.

Edited by ShishiX, 12 July 2013 - 02:06 PM.


#682 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostWintersdark, on 12 July 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Seriously, this is just like the BAP changes and OMGTHESTREAKCATS. There have been many other background changes that prevent a return of what they once were.


This actually assumes the devs actually are aware of their own meta. ;)

#683 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:09 PM

Quote

The recent changes are going to begin causing internal damage at 100% heat. Previously, going into a shutdown would be the way to safely expel heat at that level.

However, now, a shut down has no impact on it, meaning there is literally no point to ever shutting down. You will be at an advantage if you simply macro "Heat Override" to on, so if you accidentally go over 100%, you can at least still move (at full speed mind you, because adding heat effects... that's just silly, 3PV AHOY!) then.

Goodbye, shutdown mechanic. You will be missed as something unique about MechWarrior.


I just made this post on the Gameplay balance thread, but it'll probably get killed so I'll cover my bases.

So instead of adding heat effects from the lore (slowdown, etc.) they set a hard 100% limit so.. why shutdown now? Ever? I for one am going to set something to just hold the key down indefinitely because there's literally no increased danger from doing so.

The stupid heat system that just keeps on giving.

#684 Teralitha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,188 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:12 PM

View Postarghmace, on 12 July 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

To all those wondering what's the point of not overriding shutdown when CT starts taking damage at 100% here's why:

This CT taking slight damage is a whole new thing. But since forever mechs have been going BOOM when overriding shutdown. Not exactly sure how this old mechanic works but seems to me that if you do not shutdown and linger long over 100% your mech takes pretty serious damage at random sections every now and then. Might even hit an ammo storage and then it's bye bye.

So yes, after 100% you will take slight continuous damage to CT whether you override shutdown or not. But if you override you risk getting huge random damage here and there as has been the case all the way from closed beta. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I personally remember exploding to bits many times due to overheating and overriding shutdown all the way since I've played this game. This new CT dmg mechanic just came out 2 weeks ago.


Prior deaths to heat were simply pilots death from baking in the cockpit.

Edited by Teralitha, 12 July 2013 - 02:13 PM.


#685 hammerreborn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,063 posts
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

View PostTeralitha, on 12 July 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:



Prior deaths to heat were simply pilots death from baking in the cockpit.


You know, thats a good idea. Make the damage to the head, instead of the CT. That way every mech is effected equally, rather than 6 ppc stalkers basically shrugging it off

#686 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:17 PM

View Posthammerreborn, on 12 July 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

You know, thats a good idea. Make the damage to the head, instead of the CT. That way every mech is effected equally, rather than 6 ppc stalkers basically shrugging it off


Well, everyone gets 15 pts of that (even the Locust+Flea). I wonder...

#687 Aim64C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:23 PM

View PostSolis Obscuri, on 12 July 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:


You left out the part where they decided too many n00bs were getting confused by the two reticules, so "Lock Arms to Torso" became the new default mode. (No, of course, that allowing instant convergence with all weapons could've had any role is encouraging the PPC/Gauss boat meta we have now...) ;)


Ah, I completely forgot about that. I logged on one day and was like: "What the **** is wrong with my mech... something doesn't feel right about... why the hell is arm lock enabled? Get that **** out of there."

I generally try and concentrate my weapons in the arms because it gives me a very solid advantage when playing lights and mediums (and a lot of heavies, too, interestingly enough). I see people playing Jenners with it on... and it's really only hurting them, since they've restricted their weapon pitch to whatever their torso limits are.

Quote

But this has me concerned too. Especially with internal damage starting at 100% heat - I mean, isn't the point of a shutdown to save you systems from melting? Now I guess it just lets your structure melt from the inside while your opponents melt you from the outside, while you're immobile and defenseless. Might as well put "Override Shutdown" on a toggled macro, because there's no point in ever allowing the auto-shutdown.


It's development schizophrenia, or something.

"We've got to do something about all of these PPCs."

"I know, let's impose some crazy heat limit."

"You sure you wouldn't rather try and look at PPCs more closely... raise their heat... maybe look at our heat system while we are at it to make sure it's doing its job...?"

"No, no - this is the best way to go about it. I've seen it a couple times on the community forums."

"But people hated that. With a passion."

"Aren't they the ones who wanted the PPC buffed? They don't know what they want."

"I think they wanted a functioning PPC. You gave them a buff because hit detection was terrible. Which is the same thing you're proposing to do with SRMs, right now. Then, when you fixed hit detection, PPCs were never changed."

"There you go with your conspiracy theories again. But there are no aliens in Battletech."

"What... that doesn't even..."

"Hang on - I've just got a new idea for community warfare. We'll introduce aliens. Halo has aliens. It's popular - it's a cynch!"

"... the Clans are ready to be patched in... you know... since they are invading... by the way."

"Bah, we'll get to that after we're done balancing lasers. .... Do you think we should go with organic or siclicoid crystalline type aliens?"

#688 Tombstoner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,193 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:25 PM

View PostDagaz, on 11 July 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:


The same way players learn about good builds in Eve...



EVE players are on a completely different level. MWO players will google/forum search for build, look for cheat codes. The average MWO player couldn't hack EVE even if they liked it. unless its spelled out for new players they will interpret it as what the games is supposed to be like and that very bad in the long term.


View PostOzric, on 11 July 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:


in your opinion. ;)

Repeating the same things over and over is spam.


After reading 27/35 pages many many people agree with him.

View Postarghmace, on 12 July 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Why not make PPC projectiles slower than ER PPC projectiles. Kinda makes sense actually. you achieve more range by making it go faster.


A viable solution for dual usage of ppc/erppc combos. the issue is the speed diferance cant be so great that ppcs are back to useless and that speed margin may be to tight to hit.

#689 Teralitha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,188 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:33 PM

Its not like these ppl at PGI dont realize there are problems with the games balance. They just dont have anyone in charge who knows how to fix them properly. Its probably high time they find someone who can....

For some reason, they dont want to use simple solutions, but prefer to create complex things that just bork things up worse.

They never heard of the KISS system evidently. You know.... the... Keep... It.... Simple.... Stupid, system?

#690 Aim64C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:58 PM

View Postarghmace, on 12 July 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

While I don't like this max alpha heat scale -thingy, some people here make ridiculous points against it.

1. People will just make macros that fire between 0.5 seconds and thus pinpoint alphas are still present. Wrong. That's not a pinpoint alpha, that's more or less like chainfire. You have to keep your crosshair on the enemy for at least half a second or even a second if your macro shoots the weapons in three batches.


Tracking through half a second of lead is not difficult.

Though most players don't alpha on targets that are in that "I am quite possibly going to miss" category. Unless it's a Hail Mary.

Why suffer heat from all weapons and be tied up in a cool-down over one "attack of opportunity" when there are 7 other mechs (or so) that may present a new one for the other half of your arsenal?

Quote

2. Gauss and PPC is just as fine as 2 PPC's for pinpoint alpha. Wrong again. Their projectile speed is different so if you fire Gauss and PPC at a mech moving sideways at a reasonable distance, both projectiles won't hit the same section if even hit the mech at all.


Again - any semi-competent player is going to group the two separately and fire the gauss with a lead slightly ahead of the target, then drop the PPCs.

Quote

Actually the second point gave me an idea. Why not make PPC projectiles slower than ER PPC projectiles. Kinda makes sense actually. We're talking about a bolt of lightning more or less so it will dissipate in time. If the bolt has a certain lifetime, you achieve more range by making it go faster. So ER PPC should go faster than PPC by the same ratio than it has more range.


Particle cannons are not shooting bolts of lighting. Particle cannons are particle cannons. Think CERN (NERV/GIHERN?), except taking that beam and pointing it at something you don't want to be there, anymore. Now make it compact and put it on a walking fusion reactor of death.

That's a PPC.

It's travel time is nearly instantaneous (just under the speed of light) and its "kinetic" aspect is the fact that particles are going to annihilate each other upon contact and result in all kinds of fun exotic radiation. Further, particle cannons have wonky behavior. Because of how highly energetic particles behave, they actually don't interact with the physical universe very much until they get to a certain region of space. Then they dump some 98% of their energy into that region. They can, effectively, shoot through mountains.

Anyway - their damage mechanics should not be instant damage or an instant firing result. Keeping a PPC's accelerator loop "spun up" would generate huge amounts of heat (superconducting coils that need to be cooled with cryogenic liquid gasses) simply to have it on your mech and ready to fire. Thus, I propose that PPCs actually have a charge-up mechanic to their firing process. Hold the button to charge, release the button to fire. Heat builds up as you begin to charge and continues to build as you hold the charge (depending upon how good your heat sinks are).

Then they deal damage like a souped-up pulse laser with more damage being applied in the first two chunks than in the trailing ever-how-many. Damage is hit-scan but requires some tracking to get the full effect (though it is more weighted toward the initial two bursts of energy).

Thus; lasers and pulse lasers are competitive in that they are better reactionary weapons while PPCs are good for taking on harder targets or when playing more offensively.

Some adjustment might need to be made to damage application because of lights - but the charge mechanic is there partially to inhibit the use of PPC against skirmishers. The build-up of heat before the weapon is even fired generates additional shut-down and heat considerations, particularly if going for an alpha.

Weapon damage would be proportional to the charge.

While it sounds somewhat complicated - the result is relatively intuitive as an experience. Hold button to charge, watch heat buildup, release to fire for damage, track for effectiveness.

Rather than: "in this mech you get to fire this many weapons of this type this number of times without an additional heat penalty... In this mech over here... so long as you fire 0.3 seconds apart, you're good..."

That, and it works to balance a weapon that has been fundamentally challenging to balance since MechWarrior began. It's horrible, now, and we haven't even gotten to the CLAN version of this weapon (an energy AC10? lol. It's an Energy Gauss Rifle). You can't balance that thing if you treat it the same way as an energy gauss rifle. You can put TWO on a mech for a QUARTER of the invested tonnage (without ammunition) and a quarter of the invested critical space. And get the same damage with comparable range increments.

A few mechs out there can run two CERPPCs with a CGauss. You may as well just give them the ability to shoot 3CERPPCs without a heat penalty. Because, really... what's it matter at that point? Because the weapons work almost the same - they compete with each other. The PPC needs to compete with other energy weapons and not be nearly so competitive with ballistics.

Quote

Now if we would have PPC, ER PPC and Gauss all having different travel speeds, you couldn't really combine any of them for a certain pinpoint alpha when talking about shooting at a sideways moving enemy. Which would be exactly what people want, right?


You talk as if it's some serious skill involved, there. I shoot the legs out from under Dragons all the time with two AC5s. Two PPCs (of either variety) and a gauss just makes the process even more expedient as I can do in about half a second what takes me a few seconds with AC5s.

Like I said before - any player with any sense is not going to be grouping those weapons together in the first place. They're going to be fired separately. And they're going to be able to drop them where they want them with far more accuracy than you want.

#691 Kin3ticX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 2,926 posts
  • LocationSalt Mines of Puglandia

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:02 PM

To me, hardpoint restrictions and heat penalties are one and the same. Been waiting for them to do something, anything, since coolshots and the ppc buff. No matter what the do otherwise, people will min/max/boat/cheese whatever is least nerfed.

This general approach shows promise to me.

#692 Pinselborste

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:35 PM

there should also be a heat penalty for firing 2 gauss rifles or give them a higher heat value ( 5 heat might be enough), its already bad enough that they are heat neutral with only the engine heatsinks.

#693 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:01 PM

Back on this topic, this is a video I took with SRMs, 2 ML, and 4 flamers (so altogether the "weakest" weapons I can possibly put on a stalker).



I frequently run this as an anti-PPC weapon. It's a brawling rig. It's close range only. One on one, one on two, even one on three (so long as they don't get behind me for too long) with no problem.

#694 OznerpaG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 977 posts
  • LocationToronto, Canada

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:04 PM

kind of a crazy idea and this is going of the BT map a little, but as some sort of extra ''cost'' perhaps some weapons might have to generate heat (similar to how walking and running currently generate heat) in order to stay charged and ready to fire. the ERPPC might add an extra 1 or 2 heat/sec each in order for it to stay charged and ready to fire, and a guass rifle might need the same for the barrel to stay super-cooled.

#695 DarkDesigns

    Rookie

  • 2 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:24 PM

Not a fan of the Large Laser limit being as low as the PPC limit - they are COMPLETELY different types of weapons in every meaningful way, and it's worthwhile to give people an ALTERNATIVE to PPCs! You need to keep the beam on a target for the full duration (longer than the proposed 0.5s cooldown!) to get max damage, which is the exact opposite of the PPC burstfire in the current meta and the upcoming SRM burstfire meta that we may soon be seeing.

I would personally see 4 large lasers and 3 large pulse lasers being the limit, to account for the different speeds with which they deal their damage. 4 large lasers = 36 damage if you hit ALL of it, which is roughly analagous to the 2xPPC 1xGauss 35 damage that we'll be seeing a lot more of soon but takes longer to apply and is NOT pinpoint damage.

I've gathered a few quotes from other posts to support the idea of large lasers being overly limited; an aggregation of others' opinions to hopefully give it a bit more weight. I'm not a fan of this system at all, but if it's going to go in then *PLEASE* raise that large laser limit to 4 or even 3 before the patch goes into effect!

View PostWarHippy, on 11 July 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

As for the weapons personally they all look fine except large lasers and medium lasers. Large lasers should have an alpha cap of 3 and mediums should have an alpha cap of 7.


View PostBarkem Squirrel, on 12 July 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

The restrictions on the lasers I do have an issue with, but lets see how that progresses. Myself I do not run with more than two large lasers and do not have the ability yet, (Oct 15) to run with more than six lasers. If I could hit something consistently with all the damage, yes this nerfing of the lasers would be good, but look at the data on how many people can hit with greater than half of the lasers duration.


View Post80Bit, on 12 July 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

And the 2 number for Large Lasers is off as well. Alpha strikes are much less of a problem with beam weapons. If someone can hold their lasers on one target location for the full beam duration, that should be rewarded. Large Lasers are light, smaller, and hard to damage with than PPCs and should not have the same Alpha cap.


View PostMr G, on 12 July 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Why the same limit on large lasers as PPCs? That just seems like a silly needless nerf to me. PPC's are heavier, have a longer range, do more damage and are instant fire while large lasers have a beam duration. I could see a max alpha or 4 or even 3 as being reasonable, but 2? Come on really?


View PostKamenjar, on 12 July 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

I am not so sure about 2LL penalty. Large lasers require much more exposure out of cover to be effective. IMHO the limit on the large lasers should be probably 4 to give good balance.


View PostKaldor, on 12 July 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

Why are large lasers set to 2 before extra heat kicks in? They are still a high skill weapon with a long beam duration. I would suggest 3 LLs before heat penalties. The 100% heat cap damage factor will control boating on them.


View PostLyteros, on 12 July 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

You did nerf a lot of seapons that were no real problem (large lasers? You have to keep aim for a full second, so you can neither poptart nor jump out of cover, fire an alpha and hide before you get the retaliation)

TL;DR: I dont like it because it fixes nothing - but makes a lot of weapons worse. Weapons which were already weak or not a problem.


View PostVictor Morson, on 12 July 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

EDIT: Also, you're nerfing Large Lasers? Really? The weapon that got overwhelmingly voted as a the perfect baseline? Did MechWarrior traumatize someone as a child that now has a chance to kill the whole franchise and is doing their best to take it?


View PostAim64C, on 12 July 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

It simply doesn't work. Oh - and we can have a 30 point alpha on medium lasers, (35 is too much, though) but the most we get out of large lasers is an 18 point alpha before heat starts strangling us?

It's just so convoluted and ridiculous with the reasoning for including weapons, excluding weapons, and their various 'max weapon' ratings just being downright silly.


#696 Gwaihir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:43 PM

Balance in MWO has long been a contentious subject, on that is difficult to really look at clearly because of the number of factors that interact with each other. There is no one issue, or one single bullet fix, that can patch over the issues currently afflicting the game. It’s a complex integrated system, and there’s three main parts contributing to the current state of play.

Before I get into those three interlocking factors, I need to talk about weapons, and playstyles in a general sense.

What we generally have, are two (and a half, ish) sorts of weapon paradigms.

Weapons that are very efficient damage per ton, but with generally awful damage per heat. (Energy weapons)
Weapons with bad damage per ton, but excellent damage per heat. (Ballistics)
Weapons that fall into the middle ground, with a balance of both, with no extremes either way (Missiles)
There are variations inside the three categories (rapid fire ACs vs AC20s, etc), but Battletech starts with these three base sorts of weapons, and that’s where you need to start with the balance.

The different playstyles want different weapons:
Brawlers want weapons that are very efficient damage per heat- Generally once you are in a brawl, you aren’t able to disengage and spare time for cooling down, so you need to be able to keep up the most efficient damage for as long as possible.

Snipers want the most damage per ton, so they can front load the most damage possible. They generally always have an opportunity to back off and cool down, or rotate out with a friendly team mate.

Missiles fall into a mixed spot, with SRMs being invaluable for brawlers, allowing them to load up with decent damage per ton as well as damage per heat weapons, that are not as weight and size constrained as ballistics. They’re also essential for light mechs to be able to effectively engage heavier targets.

This is pretty simplistic, but that’s what a general overview of weapons should look like, and how they should work. Sooo, the current problems? Going down the list:

Mech health is generally far too low. Snipers rely on being able have enough heat capacity to burst enough weapons fire to critically damage an approaching brawler before their heat cap drastically cuts their DPS down.
For an ideal example, take the typical Highlander 732 with 3 PPC + gauss and 15 dhs, versus an AC20 + 3x SRM6 mech with 18 dhs. The highlander has a much higher peak DPS, almost double that of the brawling mech. However, it can sustain that level of damage for a much shorter time than the brawler can. If a fight managed to go on for 45 seconds, the brawling mech would pump out 500 damage compared to the sniping mech’s 350. Now, back in the golden age of SRMs, around November/December of last year, the brawling mech would have pumped out 780 damage vs the same 400 damage sniper mech.
This leads me to my next point:

All the brawling weapons are broken to unusability. SRMs, which are the bedrock staple of both brawlers and lights alike, are flat out nonfunctional in their needed role. Between hit detection and quite low damage, they just plain don’t work at all. See the above example for the difference in damage levels. That kind of difference between brawler damage over time and sniper damage over time was absolutely necessary to maintain a balance between weapons and playstyles.In addition to SRMs, the smaller ballistics need some serious weight and size reductions to fix the issues they have being useful on anything smaller than 65 tons.

PPCs should also get their speed buff rolled back, and their heat upped to 9 per shot. ERPPCs should keep the current projectile speed. They don’t really need anything other than that though, it’s the other broken weapons that need buffs.


Finally, the matchmaker. The interactions with the matchmaker and the game types just reinforce the existing problems. Since there is no tonnage matching right now, there’s no reason not to go 6 assault 2 fast mover- This also just happens to both almost require a sniper comp, as well as working best with a sniper comp.
The requirement is because, with 6 assaults, you’re going to be slow in general. You require the longer ranged weapons to exert the area control needed, since you can’t quickly reposition like a lighter force can.
The other half of the coin is that snipers work far better the heavier you are, because of their weapon choices- The ideal burst/sniper weapons are the ones that have the most damage per ton. Since their function relies on having enough tons to pack in enough of them for the highest burst, they really only work well on the heavier mechs. A more balanced 2/2/2/2 composition really just does not work out ideally with a heavy sniper composition, compared to 3/3/0/2, or even heavier groups. Anything lighter than 2/2/2/2 practically requires good brawlers, because it just plain does not have the critical mass of sniper burst power necessary to win.

tldr: It ends up being a self-reinforcing cycle of weapons, matchmaker, mech health, and the random map pool all contributing to there being only one viable choice of gameplay right now. However, ALL of it is solvable just with pure numbers tweaks. There is absolutely no need for extra complicated and unintuitive systems layered on top of the base gameplay in order to have a balanced game.



e:
Extra stuff for those that made it through this far- I didn't want to knock people out with any more of a wall of text than this already is.

Health: Along with increasing health in general (I do prefer a greater % increase for internals vs armor, mechs should spend more time alive but damaged and missing weapons), we also need something like Hardened or Modular armor to add real options to armoring a 'Mech. Right now, there's zero choice to armor. You max your head, torsos, and most of your arms (Depending if you have arm shields like atlases or cents, or useless arms like hunchbacks), and generally up to about 49-57 armor on legs. There's no choices involved, this is just what every good player does. Adding the ability to actually sacrifice weapons, engine, ammo, or heat in exchange for much more armor would make for actual choices, which is a good thing.

But what about Lights and Mediums?
The TT health scaling from lights to assaults is really, really out of whack, and translates poorly (Surprise) to MWO, because hitscan weapons exist, and we can aim. I mean, the Locust has a max of 24 armor + 12 internal health on the CT, if it is implemented as planned. It can be one shotted by, well.. Just about anything.
I'd totally want to see lights and mediums get their internal health scaled up a bit so that there's not so large a gap between the heaviest mechs and the lights. I don't think scaling armor is really possible at present- There is only one armor item, and it can only be set to one value for "Number of points per ton." But, internal HP can trivially be set for each individual mech. A hunchback's hunch could have double internals with one number change in the mech definition file.

Weapons: Even with more health, without a re-balance, pinpoint burst weapons will still reign supreme. To be balanced against rapid fire weapons, or DOTs like lasers, the pinpoint weapons need to do considerably less paper DPS. They've got so many advantages outside of DPS, that when you ALSO give them the highest dps (As it is now in MWO), well, the result is obvious. They're better brawling weapons than the actual brawling weapons. Also, ammo needs to go up, as a given with more health. Ballistics have long been handicapped by never getting the 200% ammo that missiles did way back in closed beta. UACs also need to copy MWLL's mechanics if they ever hope to be balanced, but that need is far off down the line.

Matchmaker wise, I can offer no suggestions there. I can identify the current issues with it, but I don't really have any ideas for a fix other than "We need tonnage limited CW drops" or other things that are on the horizon. That said, if the other stuff is fixed, odds are the matchmaker issues won't be as big a deal as they are now. It's only when all 4 of these factors are working together that things get as bad as we currently have them.

Edited by Gwaihir, 15 July 2013 - 06:19 PM.


#697 saq

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 24 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:53 PM

View PostGwaihir, on 12 July 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

Balance in MWO has long been a contentious subject, on that is difficult to really look at clearly because of the number of factors that interact with each other. There is no one issue, or one single bullet fix, that can patch over the issues currently afflicting the game. It’s a complex integrated system, and there’s three main parts contributing to the current state of play.

<snip>

tldr: It ends up being a self-reinforcing cycle of weapons, matchmaker, mech health, and the random map pool all contributing to there being only one viable choice of gameplay right now. However, ALL of it is solvable just with pure numbers tweaks. There is absolutely no need for extra complicated and unintuitive systems layered on top of the base gameplay in order to have a balanced game.


Everyone needs to read this post carefully, this is a really detailed well thought out meta-analysis of the current gameplay system that is MWO.

#698 Gwaihir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:56 PM

There are absolutely a lot of little improvements, systems, and whatnot that would work well, and would fall in to one of the three categories of issues I laid out above- Stuff like introducing hardened and modular armor, copying MWLL's system for Ultra Autocannons so that they don't require an AHK script to use, or many other things. All would be nice.

The other numbers thing to consider is just the current state of weapons vs their tabletop origins. In general, all the weapons do 250%-2000% more DPS than their TT counterparts. However, mechs only have 200% more health than in TT, as well as suffering from the fact that we can aim. A really big health boost should be a no brainer.

#699 Skadi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,268 posts
  • LocationUtgarde Pinnacle

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:16 PM

608 people don't want the meta to change.

Edited by Skadi, 14 July 2013 - 04:32 PM.


#700 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:17 PM

I half expect Paul to pop into this thread and go "GREAT NEWS! THE ALPHA NERF IS COMING :D" and have no idea why everyone is throwing tomatoes at him.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users