118 replies to this topic

[The14th]

The OP is the same as almost every other goof (especially DarkJaguar) claiming TT is the perfect balance source, it doesn't take into account that this is the latest in a series of REAL-TIME games. The "solutions" offered always impose some goofy gameplay alterations revolving around adapting the turn-based values directly. Suggesting things like rng-based fire cones (or similar concepts), removing weapon grouping (stupid because you can actually do that on the TT), basing ROF on 5-10 second turns (making for odd gameplay), and demanding the immediate additions of gameplay systems that would take 4-6 months to get releasable. Sure those COULD lead to a balanced game, but in almost all cases the result would not be a FUN game (especially the ideas gutting gameplay features that have long been in the MW series). When are you all going to pack it in and get some real ideas?

Edited by The14th, 17 July 2013 - 07:57 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

The14th, on 17 July 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

The OP is the same as almost every other goof (especially DarkJaguar) claiming TT is the perfect balance source, it doesn't take into account that this is the latest in a series of REAL-TIME games. The "solutions" offered always impose some goofy gameplay alterations revolving around adapting the turn-based values directly. Suggesting things like rng-based fire cones (or similar concepts), removing weapon grouping (stupid because you can actually do that on the TT), basing ROF on 5-10 second turns (making for odd gameplay), and demanding the immediate additions of gameplay systems that would take 4-6 months to get releasable. Sure those COULD lead to a balanced game, but in almost all cases the result would not be a FUN game (especially the ideas gutting gameplay features that have long been in the MW series). When are you all going to pack it in and get some real ideas?

You need to read the post before commenting.

The game is numbers, the balance is numbers - using numbers that are more appropriate for what the game is based off of would make more sense.

If you can't see how 10x AC-2 damage and cost or grouped fire screws over segmented armor then you really need to take your time and read our posts and arguments. Why do you think the MG and Flamer are useless? They aren't anywhere near where they should be.

All you are pointing out is that you don't want your PPC twitchfest to change because you don't care enough to try and see what it is that is making us frustrated. All I grasp from you is that you are fine abusing what is wrong, not fixing it so more people can enjoy it.


We want other builds to be viable. We want the game to be balanced - we want options. Not "use this or die" kind of gameplay. Matches that last 7+ minutes are a blast for us, its rare, but it happens even as it is now.

What we don't want is a direct copy of TT. That will not work - but Battletech had the right idea, and is a good way to start. Not what we have now which is so skewed we need hardpoints, a fake heat penalty and imbalanced systems that still favor one particular up-front alphastrike damage over any other alternative.

This all needs fixing. Not grudginly agreeing with because you can't be bothered to read why it needs fixing.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 17 July 2013 - 08:29 PM.

[stjobe]

The14th, on 17 July 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

The OP is the same as almost every other goof (especially DarkJaguar) claiming TT is the perfect balance source

I don't think anyone is actually claiming that, so good job on that straw man.

What most of the TT proponents are saying is that we'd like to have a game that's closer to TT than MWO currently is - not that we want MWO re-made into an exact TT copy, only in real-time. What matters most to the vast majority of TT proponents is that MWO relates a feeling of being in the BattleTech Universe - and that universe is governed by the TT rules and lore. So any system implemented must feel like it's playing by the TT rules, even if it's not.

Personally, I don't care how they achieve that feeling, but I know for a fact that it can't be achieved the way MWO is currently implemented; it's getting more and more Stompy Robots Online™ each patch and less and less MechWarrior Online.

I think the biggest mistakes they made in translating TT rules to online play were:
* Tripling firing rates without adjusting damage by the same rate, leading to the need to double armour.
* Tripling firing rates without adjusting heat generation by the same rate, leading to the need to increase heat cap.

These two major mistakes are at the root of all our balance woes, and exacerbates the pin-point problem as well.

[MustrumRidcully]

Regarding refire rates and forced chain-fire.

If we go with forced chain-fire, I think we should consider slower recycle rates. If you alpha once in 10 seconds for a gazillion damage, it's a mix of snorefest followed by sudden death. But if you use chain-fire, you will have extended phases of firing individual weapons.

I would probably move on ROFs between 1 to 8 seconds, for example:
1 second: Very Fast firing weapons like AC/2s
2 seconds: Fast firing weapons like Ultra AC/5s and AC/5s and maybe pulse weapons.
4 seconds: Medium fast firing weapons like Medium Lasers, Large Lasers, AC/10s and LBX, SRMs
8 seconds: Slow firing weapons like PPCs, Gauss Rifles, AC/20s, LRMs

If 8 seconds at the top end is too slow:
0.75 -> 1.5 -> 3 -> 6 might also work.

We can base stats around a hypothetical an 8 (or 6) second cycle and just damage and heat per shot for faster firing weapons. (If necessary. For example, I could easily see the AC/10 being balanced against the AC/20 if it had the same DPS, if it had twice the rate of fire. This means less alpha damage for the AC/10, and the difference is otherwise just 2 tons and a bit of range which is marginalized due to the damage drop off ballistics currently enjoy.)

FupDup, on 14 July 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

While that is 100% true, it still feels good to vent on the forums about balancing ideas and momentarily forget that we don't have any impact.

I think it means we haven't given up fully yet. If we did, we wouldn't consider letter-writing campaigns, or post on the forums. We would move on.

But maybe that's okay. As long as our hope is not so great that we still spend money on the game. They can ignore written feedback, but monetary feedback will hit them.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 21 July 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Unbound Inferno, on 15 July 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

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.

The AC/5 I believe is also underpowered in TT (not as badly as the AC/2), but one thing that is important with range in the table top game but doesn't apply to MW:O is the way range affects hit chances. An AC/5 fired in the same range as the medium lasers max range hits much more likely than the ML. That means that until you get into the minimum range area of the AC/5, the AC/5 is still more likely ot hit than the ML most of the time.

But this isn't quite as true in MW:O. Aside from the difficulty of comparing the hit probability of sustained beam vs a projectile, to hit probabilities do not really mirror TT probablities. LL and ML for example might be the easiest to compare. Both lasers have the same range - at 270m, the ML is just as easy to aim as the LL.

Unless we introduce a component that changes this, we will need to either buff long range weapons in some manner, or nerf shorter range weapons

And when it comes to buffing or nerfing based on TT values, I would probably buff/nerf like this:
Buffing:
- Lower heat first
- Then consider raising damage
Nerfing:
- Lower damage first
- Then consider raising heat

Basically when PGI nerfed MLs back in closed beta, they already violated my personal rule - they raised the heat, rather than lowering the damage.
Raising heat means that stock mechs can cool worse, which makes them harder to play, and you really don't want to make starter mechs even harder to play.
Raising damage means that you put more damage output in the game, you risk increasing the pace of the game and making it too fast.

[MustrumRidcully]

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

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

I think BV only really becomes important once we get all the power creep. There are some stinkers in 3025 tech, but the overall balance isn't that terrible. (I'D say some mechanics really suck, though. Ammo explosions are ridiculously dangerous, and coupled with TAC... oh my.)

It might even be that it's okay balanced if you stay within a single tech level. So, 3025 tech is mostly okay.
Level 2 Tech might also be balanced internally, and it might even stay so if you add the 3025 energy weapons (but the 3025 ballistics suck and are underpowered). (That means no SHS, all DHS.)
Clan Tech might also be balanced internally.
Beyond that I have no idea, probably not.

Which is why I personalyl think that PGI should have made a 3025 game first and balanced this right. From there, they could have thought to introduce Level 2 Tech and Clan Tech in a manner that doesn't break balance - that means often outright nerfing it.
Imagine a 3025 tech game that has every weapon in 2-3 different model variants with different refire rates, beam durations or bullet burstsize or whatever. If you had pulled that off, adding "new" tech balanced against this should not be such a hard task anymore, you already know what works and what doesn't.


But, let's say for a moment that Battletech is horribly imbalanced without BV. But if it isn't horribly imbalanced with BV, then that alone might already give us a reason to get some values closer to BT, because then we can use BV for the match-maker to balance matches. But without it,w e're left to guess, and we would have to recreate the entire effort that probably took FASA and Catalyst Lab Games years to implement. (And if I had to guess, they have more guys busy with game design and balance then PGI does.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 21 July 2013 - 03:16 AM.

[stjobe]

MustrumRidcully, on 21 July 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:

I think BV only really becomes important once we get all the power creep.

I agree completely. TRO:3025 equipment isn't all that unbalanced at all - but then comes the Clan cheese... Where every balancing factor is just thrown out the window and the Clan tech is made not only superior, but vastly superior in every metric.

MustrumRidcully, on 21 July 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:

Which is why I personalyl think that PGI should have made a 3025 game first and balanced this right.
[...]
Imagine a 3025 tech game that has every weapon in 2-3 different model variants with different refire rates, beam durations or bullet burstsize or whatever.

I dreamt of this. I still do, sometimes.

I think PGI made a serious error of judgement when they set the game in 3050. Sure, they got the Clan 'mechs to entice all the MW players out there, but where are the Clan 'mechs? Not in the game, and probably won't be for quite some time yet.

It would, in my opinion, have been much better to make "MWO: Succession Wars" first (set in 3025), and then do the current timeline as "MWO: Clan Invasion" as an expansion. Then they could have gone with "MWO: Word of Blake" and "MWO: Dark Ages" if they wanted to (and the game was a success).

As it is, they've put it smack bang into the most difficult to balance era possible: IS has level 2 tech superseding a lot of level 1 tech, and the Clans of course have all their tech vastly outperforming even IS level 2 tech.

Edited by stjobe, 21 July 2013 - 03:46 AM.

[Warge]

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

AC/20 would have most dmg but shortest range.

With single shot AC/10/20 - it's instant death to Flea/Locust.

[CancR]

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.

Stupid and wrong. BT was and still is first and foremost a roleplaying game and TL/BV where only later added so people could play the game like Warhammer 40k. TL/BV wasn't added because the game wasn't balanced, it was added because it wasn't intended to be be play that sort of way.

[Khan Warlock Kell]

I think a simple fix for most of the current issues with weapon, heat, and armour balance is to look at other versions of the pc game. They may not have been perfect, but they did give the sense of being in the BT universe. Mechs felt like big stompy robots with massive firepower that seemed to be able to withstand lots of fire.. Look at the values from the other games. if you look at damage values, recycle rates, heat generation, range. and a myriad of other variables from those games that did them well. Id be all in favour of importing those variables from MW4 mercs and adjusting as needed.

Edited by Zakius, 21 July 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[Unbound Inferno]

MustrumRidcully, on 21 July 2013 - 03:00 AM, said:

The AC/5 I believe is also underpowered in TT (not as badly as the AC/2), but one thing that is important with range in the table top game but doesn't apply to MW:O is the way range affects hit chances. An AC/5 fired in the same range as the medium lasers max range hits much more likely than the ML. That means that until you get into the minimum range area of the AC/5, the AC/5 is still more likely ot hit than the ML most of the time.

But this isn't quite as true in MW:O. Aside from the difficulty of comparing the hit probability of sustained beam vs a projectile, to hit probabilities do not really mirror TT probablities. LL and ML for example might be the easiest to compare. Both lasers have the same range - at 270m, the ML is just as easy to aim as the LL.

Unless we introduce a component that changes this, we will need to either buff long range weapons in some manner, or nerf shorter range weapons

And when it comes to buffing or nerfing based on TT values, I would probably buff/nerf like this:
Buffing:
- Lower heat first
- Then consider raising damage
Nerfing:
- Lower damage first
- Then consider raising heat

Basically when PGI nerfed MLs back in closed beta, they already violated my personal rule - they raised the heat, rather than lowering the damage.
Raising heat means that stock mechs can cool worse, which makes them harder to play, and you really don't want to make starter mechs even harder to play.
Raising damage means that you put more damage output in the game, you risk increasing the pace of the game and making it too fast.

I agree that its a bit imbalanced, but I don't think it should be fine to have the sheer difference in damage we have now.

As it stands the AC-2 AC-5 outclasses a ML by a massive margin between range, double recharge and still lower heat.

As for the heat stuff... if they increased or at least balanced heat around that dissipation better we'd all be better off.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 21 July 2013 - 08:55 AM.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 21 July 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

As it stands the AC-2 outclasses a ML by a massive margin between range, double recharge and still lower heat.

There are a few variables you forgot about when comparing the AC/2 to the ML:

1. It requires you to constantly face the target in order to deal maximum damage, whereas the ML allows to "snap shots" where you can twist to shield damage during the cooldown. If you try that with the AC/2, it will be a waste of tonnage on the mech. because a 2 damage alpha is not gonna impress anyone.

2. The fast RoF also makes the AC/2 one of the hottest running weapons currently in the game at 2 heat per second...the same as a PPC. The ML generates 1 heat per second currently.

3. The AC/2 weighs 6 tons--it's six times heavier! The ML is incredibly efficient and effective for a 1-ton weapon (and in some cases outclasses weapons that weigh more than it does).

4. Ammo dependency (although the AC/2 does provide pretty decent ammo per ton in this game)

Edited by FupDup, 21 July 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Unbound Inferno]

My mistake, shoudla been AC-5.

Was comparing just the damage difference under the sole mount restriction.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 21 July 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

My mistake, shoudla been AC-5.

Was comparing just the damage difference under the sole mount restriction.

Oh. My bad then.

[Unbound Inferno]

But still, an AC-2 does outclass a ML too. Pity on the heat expenditures on that gun tho.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 21 July 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

But still, an AC-2 does outclass a ML too. Pity on the heat expenditures on that gun tho.

Maybe in terms of DPS and range, but really those are the only two advantages it's got. The ML is still overall more efficient in most categories for the small weight it occupies. If you want, we could reduce the ML's heat back down to its TT value (currently 4; this would also give us an excuse to lower the heat on the SL, SPL, and MPL).

[Unbound Inferno]

No arguments there.

The entire Heat (generated vs dissipated) System needs reworking.

Whnever they increased recharge they completley forgot to do something about that heat, and now its a glaring problem that just forces the "kill fast" mentality where the PPC/Gauss/AC40 meta thrives.

[Ranek Blackstone]

Unbound Inferno, on 21 July 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

No arguments there.

The entire Heat (generated vs dissipated) System needs reworking.

Whnever they increased recharge they completley forgot to do something about that heat, and now its a glaring problem that just forces the "kill fast" mentality where the PPC/Gauss/AC40 meta thrives.

Combat in general promotes a "kill fast" mentality. Doesn't matter what game you play, the dude that kills the fastest is king.

The slow heat dissipation is currently the only thing holding the PPC meta is some semblance of check. Should it be easier to drop heat, you can fire MORE alphas with them, and make PPCs even MORE desirable to equip.

[stjobe]

Ranek Blackstone, on 21 July 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

The slow heat dissipation is currently the only thing holding the PPC meta is some semblance of check. Should it be easier to drop heat, you can fire MORE alphas with them, and make PPCs even MORE desirable to equip.

That's why they need to severely reduce the heat cap. Then they can see about increasing dissipation; if the cap is low enough this unfortunate boating kludge they just implemented would become unnecessary.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

That's why they need to severely reduce the heat cap. Then they can see about increasing dissipation; if the cap is low enough this unfortunate boating kludge they just implemented would become unnecessary.

The damage-from-overheat system probably should stay, however (might need tuning). That ensures that your Quad PPC Alpha always hurts, even if you just fell behind cover after the shot and don't need to worry about standing out in the open.