118 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

FupDup, on 14 July 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Extended LRMs are Inner Sphere tech.

Sure, but they're part and parcel of the Clan cheese. In my BattleTech, it's still 3025 and there's not a Clanner in sight (Wolf's Dragoons are still just really cool mercenaries with regular IS tech, they haven't been retconned to Clanners yet).

We have enough fighting each other here in the Inner Sphere, we don't need no Clans!

LauLiao, on 14 July 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

The problem with this is that not every weapon system works the same. In theory if you balanced everything out this way, then technically the AC/5 would do the exact same amount of damage as a medium laser. But the reality is quite a bit uglier. The TT values were based on the idea that every weapon except missles and certain advanced ACs did all their damage to a single location. In MWO however, that damage from an AC will all impact a single location, but a laser could end up spreading it's damage over 2, 3, or even more location based on both attackers and defender's movement.

How would you balance this out?

Burst-fire ballistics, as per the lore.

And the PPC becomes a beam weapon, as it should be.

Edited by stjobe, 14 July 2013 - 03:08 PM.

[Steel Claws]

I really wish people would quit trying o make this table top and comparing it to table top. It isn't plain and simple. What may work for TT is not necessarily good for a video game and make no mistake this is a video game. There are no turns here and trying to translate a turn based game into a live action one is an imperfect science at best.

Don't get me wrong - TT is fine. I remember when it was first released so very many yeaars ago - but give it a rest.

[scJazz]

Some of this TT talk totally ignores what made things like the AC2 useful namely Through Armor Criticals aka TAC plus a very forgiving range modifier. Or alternatively, Clan ERPPC supremacy based solely on the fact that the Head had exactly 15 hp which is what a Clan ERPPC did for Damage. Or that a SRM6 generated an average of 4 rolls on the location table which equated to a 4 in 18 chance of either a Head hit or a TAC.

My point being lets not get carried away with TT rules in relation to MWO. Bluntly put, the TT rules SUCK badly when used on TT. MWO needs to execute a complete reboot. Hell, Catalyst Game Labs needs to execute a complete reboot featuring as number one item a shift out of 2d6 and random damage!

NOTE: While writing this I realized that my SplatCat would generate 30 rolls on the Location Table (Artemis = Average missile hit 5 x 6 launchers) so... yeah 30/18 odds of Head hit with pilot damage check plus fall down check or a Torso TAC or Crit Rolls on any location without armor.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Well, with just looking at MWO itself. What is an appropriate amount of damage to dish out?

The big challenge is with how stacking weapons together can give a lot of damage potential in a short period of time. And heat penalties alone doesn't seem like it will be enough for certain combos.

With current Weapon Stats, here are a few examples of some combos I see often enough:

Spoiler

• 3x PPC capable of doing 60 damage at 48 heat over 8 seconds
  
• 6x MLs capable of doing 60 damage at 48 heat over 8 seconds
  
• 2x Gauss capable of doing 60 damage at 4 heat over 8 seconds
  
• 2x AC/2 capable of doing 64 damage at 32 heat over 8 seconds
  
• 3x SRM 6 capable of doing 54 damage at 24 heat over 8 seconds (double on a CPLT-A1)
  
• 2x PPC, 1x Gauss capable of doing 70 damage at 34 heat over 8 seconds
  
• 4x LL capable of doing ~67 damage at ~52.71 heat over 8 seconds
  
• 2x AC/20 capable of doing 80 damage at 24 heat over 8 seconds
  
• 4x LRM 10 capable of doing ~93.87 damage at ~34.13 heat over 8 seconds (assuming they hit a mech)
  
• 4x LRM 15 capable of doing ~124 damage at 37.65 heat over 8 seconds
  
• 3x AC/5 capable of doing 80 damage at 16 heat over 8 seconds

The damage potential grows with boating and so on, so what I was wondering is what if something like increasing cooldown was implemented so that no matter what you are carrying, you cannot dish out more than ~60 damage over 8 seconds? So staying with the above examples:

Spoiler

• 3x PPC would stay the same, more would get an increasing cooldown, (4xPPC 1.333 seconds for example) along with the heat system
  
• 6x MLs no change also, 7x MLs 0.667 increase, 8x MLs 1.333 increase and so on.
  
• 2x Gauss no change
  
• 2x AC/2 barely with adding a 0.034 delay maybe.
  
• 3x SRM 6 no change, 6x SRM 6 a 3.2 delay
  
• 2x PPC, 1x Gauss 0.667 delay and increasing when stacking more PPCs
  
• 4x LL 0.55 delay
  
• 2x AC/20 1.333 increase
  
• 4x LRM 10 2.117 increase
  
• 4x LRM 15 4.55 increase, one of the biggest
  
• 3x AC/5 0.5 increase, 3x UAC/5 could increase 0.9 to stay under 60 damage over 8 seconds

I figured 60 damage over 8 seconds might be a good starting point for discussion. Plus going with that number the cooldown increases average ~1.8 seconds and span at least 65 weapon combos across different mechs currently in the game.

Edit: grammar

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 14 July 2013 - 04:27 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

LauLiao, on 14 July 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

The problem with this is that not every weapon system works the same. In theory if you balanced everything out this way, then technically the AC/5 would do the exact same amount of damage as a medium laser. But the reality is quite a bit uglier. The TT values were based on the idea that every weapon except missles and certain advanced ACs did all their damage to a single location. In MWO however, that damage from an AC will all impact a single location, but a laser could end up spreading it's damage over 2, 3, or even more location based on both attackers and defender's movement.

How would you balance this out?

Personally, 1 damage shots per second. 5 damage over the 5 second turn time if that is what is established.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 14 July 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[XANi]

Tuning realtime FPS by rules in turn and dice-roll based tabletop is probably one of most horrible idea to balancing anything ever. I think even randomly throwing values into code and hoping it would work would be more effective.

Every rule that is based mostly on dice roll simply does not work in FPS, when players can aim and usually do it pretty well. Taking tuning values from TT which is based on idea that pretty much all hits hit random part just result in silly current state with pinpoint accuracy and getting cored from 500m range way too often

And going by "all weapons should have similiar DPS over X time" just plainly doesnt work in FPS, as pure "DPS race" only happens when there are 2 slow mechs with no cover behind pounding on eachother.

Normalising by DPS heavily benefits high-alpha, slow recharge weapons like PPCs and gauss, because you can just pop out the cover, shoot and hide while user of laser or any of "faster" ACs have to stay on target.

I think what should be done is "profiling" each weapon so it have some unique beenfit that makes it afvourable in certain situations. Because at the moment fitting say large laser is "I didn't had enougth tonnage to fit another PPC" thing instead "I picked it before it works better with X tactic"

So for example, from big guns gauss could be "sniper rifle", best alpha, worst overall DPS, PPC would do 50% damage to hit spot and other 50% split between neightboring components and be 0.25s duration beam instead of "more flashy gauss", Large Laser would have higher DPS than those 2 and AC/20 would have most dmg but shortest range.

That way every weapon would have it's little niche its best and and not duplicate functionality like PPC being basically "energy gauss"

[Joseph Mallan]

Don't forget Inferno that a 10 second turn, included both sides fire and heat dispersion. So My weapons fire and venting of heat was only 5 seconds of that 10 second turn.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 July 2013 - 01:57 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

XANi, on 15 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Tuning realtime FPS by rules in turn and dice-roll based tabletop is probably one of most horrible idea to balancing anything ever. I think even randomly throwing values into code and hoping it would work would be more effective.

Every rule that is based mostly on dice roll simply does not work in FPS, when players can aim and usually do it pretty well. Taking tuning values from TT which is based on idea that pretty much all hits hit random part just result in silly current state with pinpoint accuracy and getting cored from 500m range way too often

And going by "all weapons should have similiar DPS over X time" just plainly doesnt work in FPS, as pure "DPS race" only happens when there are 2 slow mechs with no cover behind pounding on eachother.

Normalising by DPS heavily benefits high-alpha, slow recharge weapons like PPCs and gauss, because you can just pop out the cover, shoot and hide while user of laser or any of "faster" ACs have to stay on target.

I think what should be done is "profiling" each weapon so it have some unique beenfit that makes it afvourable in certain situations. Because at the moment fitting say large laser is "I didn't had enougth tonnage to fit another PPC" thing instead "I picked it before it works better with X tactic"

So for example, from big guns gauss could be "sniper rifle", best alpha, worst overall DPS, PPC would do 50% damage to hit spot and other 50% split between neightboring components and be 0.25s duration beam instead of "more flashy gauss", Large Laser would have higher DPS than those 2 and AC/20 would have most dmg but shortest range.

That way every weapon would have it's little niche its best and and not duplicate functionality like PPC being basically "energy gauss"

Fair enough, but I think your wrong when this MWO FPS is based off said TT game using said TT numbers.

The balancing game ins't intended for a per weapon number, but the factor of how many, weight requirements, crit spaces and supporting tonnage comes to play.

On a per weapon number the PPC will out do the ML obviously, but in the factored several ML = PPC its different. That's where the balancing trick hits the pavement - and what we see now. A great disparity between each weapon class and option. Most of it is aggravated by the arbitrary hardpoint system dictating if you can load one weapon it has to be that weapon that is the best, but that isn't all that bad. I just think that needs more work - but that's another can of worms.

Joseph Mallan, on 15 July 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Don't forget Inferno that a 10 second turn, included both sides fire and heat dispersion. So My weapons fire and venting of heat was only 5 seconds of that 10 second turn.

True, part of the balancing act though. But if balanced properly for its intended duration of that defined Turn, it really doesn't matter much outside it. Its just fluff and numbers that make the gears work right.

Destined, on 15 July 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

It should be in feature suggestions honestly, because it's awesome! But as could fit on both... we'll leave it here for now.

Really? Can you talk Paul or whomever leads what should be balance in PGI into reading it? It might help.

[MisterFiveSeven]

It should be stated that one of the things PGI did really well was translating ac2's and 5's.

So why haven't they upped the RoF on the 10, dammit!?

Destined, on 15 July 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Well technically the best place for the devs to see your threads is in feature suggestions, which is why we move some of the threads there. (Other than moving the ones that don't fit the subforum's standard.) The forums are a large, scary place you know? Lots of stuff to read, not enough time to read it... so we consolidate the threads into specific areas for dev review. I can move you there if you like... the catch is that you may not have the same amount of discussion in that subforum as you would gain here, being that the Gameplay Balance is so much more "popular."

also the way you say "popular" sounds like:

****** is the most "popular" form of vd

And is filtered... but you kids can use your imagination lol

Edited by MisterFiveSeven, 15 July 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 July 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Don't forget Inferno that a 10 second turn, included both sides fire and heat dispersion. So My weapons fire and venting of heat was only 5 seconds of that 10 second turn.

No, that's not true. The players took turns, but the action was supposed to take place simultaneously during the 10 second turn. It was was never supposed to be "you go for five seconds then my 'mechs go for five seconds". It all happened at the same time.

[Unbound Inferno]

Destined, on 15 July 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Well technically the best place for the devs to see your threads is in feature suggestions, which is why we move some of the threads there. (Other than moving the ones that don't fit the subforum's standard.) The forums are a large, scary place you know? Lots of stuff to read, not enough time to read it... so we consolidate the threads into specific areas for dev review. I can move you there if you like... the catch is that you may not have the same amount of discussion in that subforum as you would gain here, being that the Gameplay Balance is so much more "popular."

Bah, they should read em anyway, its not that scary. Trust me and tell em - it can't hurt.

[Unbound Inferno]

LauLiao, on 14 July 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

The problem with this is that not every weapon system works the same. In theory if you balanced everything out this way, then technically the AC/5 would do the exact same amount of damage as a medium laser. But the reality is quite a bit uglier. The TT values were based on the idea that every weapon except missles and certain advanced ACs did all their damage to a single location. In MWO however, that damage from an AC will all impact a single location, but a laser could end up spreading it's damage over 2, 3, or even more location based on both attackers and defender's movement.

How would you balance this out?

Sorry I missed answering that.

Yes and No.

The AC-5 would equal the DPS on the full turn level - but you forget the heat cost?

Medium Lasers are 5 damage for 3 heat.
AC-5 shoudl be 5 damage for 1 heat.

Then factor range.

The AC5 has twice the range of the Medium Lasers. The balancing is done between the crit sizes, weight and ammo restrictions. For a longer reaching engagement the AC-5 beats out the ML - which can be a crucial point in certain circumstances.

Sure you loose out then in the ML's weapon range, but that's the risk and the potential reward.

The balancing act is far more than just the simple numbers - its situations and all the other factors together. Battletech worked well with it like the for those specific reasons and if translated properly into MW;O it would do the same here as well.

[Unbound Inferno]

stjobe, on 15 July 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

No, that's not true. The players took turns, but the action was supposed to take place simultaneously during the 10 second turn. It was was never supposed to be "you go for five seconds then my 'mechs go for five seconds". It all happened at the same time.

That is true. But you also weren't supposed to be able to shoot, turn and move all at the same time. You moved so far and shot and that was it - not you move, shoot and move again before you get shot back.

[blinkin]

Unbound Inferno, on 14 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

First off, is the idea that you need tokeep the arbitrary numbers; you don't. To be honest, most of ust that are advocating TT balance into this realize some things need to be tossed out to make it work properly, and the hard numbers aren't going to be one of them.

i can't wait for Pht to find this. he will completely lose his **** and it will be amazing to watch.


as far as the general idea, i like it. i think this is similar to how the weapons balance was done in living legends. however i would prefer it if you didn't remove alpha and just added recoil to the larger weapons (ok maybe with some very minor fire staggering like was in chrome hounds).

[Unbound Inferno]

Depends on the gun.

I'm all for the different classes of different styles of guns being an option - especially for the AC line. Its part of that whole rework the weapons part that's needed.

You can choose between a single shot, multi shot, burst shot... that would be ideal.

However I think we'll still suffer the up-front single-shot big damage over more multi shot DPS intended designs.

EDIT: you also made me realize I wrote that poorly, but it seems my point got across the first time.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 15 July 2013 - 05:29 PM.

[3rdworld]

Isn't the purpose of BV an attempt to balance a very unbalanced TT?

[blinkin]

3rdworld, on 15 July 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

Isn't the purpose of BV an attempt to balance a very unbalanced TT?

that was my understanding, and in closed beta repair and rearm served the same general purpose.

[Unbound Inferno]

Yes. But seriously... looking at how PGI has managed to 'balance' the game so far, I am not so trusting that using a BV or Repair & Rearrm balance would pan out so well right now.

A cheese build that nets enough in a fight would counteract that cost. The result is that is the good build to play.
Make it cost too much and nobody could use it ever, and the game as a whole gets scrapped cause nobody wants to play "pick your choice of these few weapons but you ca't play those" all the time.

I still think its far better to try and balance the basics that cause these problems instead of trying to mend the end of it.


After the core is balanced, then I can see how the BV and Repeair & Rearm costs can come back into play to push the game in a certain direction.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 15 July 2013 - 05:55 PM.

[3rdworld]

Unbound Inferno, on 15 July 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Yes. But seriously... looking at how PGI has managed to 'balance' the game so far, I am not so trusting that using a BV or Repair & Rearrm balance would pan out so well.

A cheese build that nets enough in a fight would counteract that cost. The result is that is the good build to play.

I still think its far better to try and balance the basics that cause these problems instead of trying to mend the end of it.


After the core is balanced, then I can see how the BV and Repeair & Rearm costs can come back into play to push the game in a certain direction.

I am just pointing out that TT was unbalanced thus requiring an objective weighing system. Therefore balancing per TT leaves you with an unbalanced game.

[Unbound Inferno]

3rdworld, on 15 July 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

I am just pointing out that TT was unbalanced thus requiring an objective weighing system. Therefore balancing per TT leaves you with an unbalanced game.

I am not disputing that. But what we have now is a very imbalanced system and mechanics that doesn't work very well. At the very least if we get the system more in tune where it ought to be then adding such a BV system in it can be the final balancing tool to make it smooth.

Until then, we still have a clunky game of PPC twitchfest on our hands.