118 replies to this topic

[CancR]

MustrumRidcully, on 21 July 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Ammo explosions to me are always a bit too... random. And they might lead to people rather se no ammo-based weapons at all if the explosion damage is too high.

I would forget the TT rules here and lower the ammo explosion damage significantly. Even at 10 damage per bin it's still a lot (and say you lose one bin for every 20 seconds at heat level ammo explosion I, every 10 seconds at heat level ammo explosion II, and every 5 seconds at heat level ammo explosion IV. The fact that you suddenly have less ammo will probably be painful enough, but if the "pain" is too big, no one will carry ammo based weapons.

In TT you take damage equal to how much the damage value of the weapon is for each shot you have left in that ammo space. SRM ammo explosions spells the end for many a mech.

[stjobe]

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Too close for MWO, imho. Almost instant death to Flea/Locust/Spider(after hitboxes fix)/Commando.

I play Commandos every day, have mastered the Spider, and looking forward to the Flea and the Locust. To my mind it's not "too close".

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

It's a pitty there are no such rules for PC version of BT.

The same rules apply to every incarnation of the BT universe, be it in PC game, console game, novel, board game, or stage play. That some developers choose to ignore them is what makes that incarnation non-canon (and usually rubbish).

It's supposed to be BattleTech. As such, it needs to at least feel like it's using the TT rules, even if it doesn't internally. 'Mechs shouldn't behave in a certain way just because "it's a FPS" or "it's a computer game", they should behave in a certain way because that's how 'mechs in the BattleTech universe are supposed to behave.

And let me tell you, they're not supposed to throw pin-point alphas around without any heat penalties whatsoever.

[Waking One]

everybody seems to forget you have no pinpoint accuracy in TT... you need a whole different set of rules for a shooter

[MustrumRidcully]

CancR, on 21 July 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

In TT you take damage equal to how much the damage value of the weapon is for each shot you have left in that ammo space. SRM ammo explosions spells the end for many a mech.

Yes, and that's why it wasn't a poor idea. There isn't a big reason to use ballistics or missiles in BT - you can cover most of what they do with energy weapons. The only spot missing might be a crit-seeker like the SRM or LBX-10, but considering that crits are also their greatest weakness, that might be a sacrifice to make. CASE might have helped make ammo-based weapon a bit less risky, but even there, the risk is pretty bad - you still lose a section, after all.

[Warge]

stjobe, on 22 July 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

To my mind it's not "too close".

2*AC/20 still an option. No matter heat penalties...

stjobe, on 22 July 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

And let me tell you, they're not supposed to throw pin-point alphas around without any heat penalties whatsoever.

So devs were right with this new "rules"?

[stjobe]

Warge, on 22 July 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

So devs were right with this new "rules"?

They're treating the symptoms, not the underlying illness. I think it's a step forward to have them acknowledge that there is a problem at all.

But the implementation of the boating penalty... Oh my. Convoluted doesn't even begin to describe it.

I'm not a fan of it, but that's because it's stupid, complicated, and a bandaid fix that simultaneously does too much (who was scared of a 9ML Hunch?) and too little (2PPC+Gauss totally unaffected). It also fails to acknowledge that it isn't boating per se that is the issue, it's a combination of the heat system being broken, pin-point accuracy, and some very bad design decisions at the start of development.

[Warge]

stjobe, on 22 July 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

They're treating the symptoms, not the underlying illness.

It's normal practice amongst nonprofessionals.

stjobe, on 22 July 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

it's a combination of the heat system being broken, pin-point accuracy, and some very bad design decisions at the start of development.

What is the conclusion? Someone doesn't fit the role of game designer...

[MaddMaxx]

Geeze, the OP's idea had some merit, until page 1.5 LOL. Then the exceptions started to creep in. Once even one exception to the supposed "perfect" MWO game is made, it is no longer perfect and without perfection theri can be no true Balance.

Nice try though. All we really need around here is a 40 million dollar start-up fund. We have more than enough arm-chair Developers to make the bestest MechWarrior game ever. Could you imagine the start-up Meetings trying to decide how to begin given those who could create a balanced Mech game in 5 minutes with Notepad et all. OMFG!

Edited by MaddMaxx, 22 July 2013 - 09:06 AM.

[Unbound Inferno]

MaddMaxx, on 22 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

Geeze, the OP's idea had some merit, until page 1.5 LOL. Then the exceptions started to creep in. Once even one exception to the supposed "perfect" MWO game is made, it is no longer perfect and without perfection theri can be no true Balance.

Nice try though. All we really need around here is a 40 million dollar start-up fund. We have more than enough arm-chair Developers to make the bestest MechWarrior game ever. Could you imagine the start-up Meetings trying to decide how to begin given those who could create a balanced Mech game in 5 minutes with Notepad et all. OMFG!

Your sarcasm is noted, but could you be more specific?

How would you prefer to have all the perks line up? Cause its not a viable option to have all the benefits with no downsides - we get what' we are suffering now practically.

[MaddMaxx]

Unbound Inferno, on 22 July 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Your sarcasm is noted, but could you be more specific?

How would you prefer to have all the perks line up? Cause its not a viable option to have all the benefits with no downsides - we get what' we are suffering now practically.

Not being sarcastic really, just noting that your system could not even stand up to 2 pages of dissection without modifications due to those "irregular" things popping up. That was without your having even displayed any base #'s...

We all think we can do the impossible. Balance a video game to near perfection. SC2 proved that even a Team that has a long and success base, and 7 more years, couldn't do it. A great game for sure but it pretty much proves that there is no Holy Grail of Balance.

You want true Balance. Play Chess. Same bits for everyone and a game where Skillful thinking and in-depth Knowledge, is the key to victory. I bet it would take longer to explain just the movement rules of Chess to a new player than how to play MWO in it's entirety. The MechLab is a learn as you go area btw...

MWO has lots of benefits versus downsides built in. The fact that the player base, as a general rule, gravitates towards the most maximums for the fewest minimums, is harder to defeat, by any Dev Team, then one would expect.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 22 July 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[XANi]

MaddMaxx, on 22 July 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

We all think we can do the impossible. Balance a video game to near perfection. SC2 proved that even a Team that has a long and success base, and 7 more years, couldn't do it. A great game for sure but it pretty much proves that there is no Holy Grail of Balance.

You want true Balance. Play Chess. Same bits for everyone and a game where Skillful thinking and in-depth Knowledge, is the key to victory. I bet it would take longer to explain just the movement rules of Chess to a new player than how to play MWO in it's entirety. The MechLab is a learn as you go area btw...

That's the problem with balancing team games, it is much harder to make game "feel" balanced than it is in 1v1.

Make chess a team game and half of player will complain "my pawn is useless" rooks and bishops will complain "knight is bullpoo op assasin, nerf it" and queens will say "nothing's wrong guys, it looks totally balanced for me and no 6 PPC queen poptart is not OP at all, any pawn can kill it"

Sounds familiar ? welcome to every team online game ever

I feel that adding lobby and weight limits will improve things a lot, as it stands now there is no reason to not fill most of team with heavies/assaults. "Srs bsns" gamemodes where players can pick their mech based on what your and enemy team have would probably have more balanced matches (compare LoL normal vs. draft pick).

Or it could evolve into ragefests about "I want to play my assault, YOU take light"

I only wish there were more smaller iterations with balance instead "let's change 3 vaguely related things and hope it works"

Edited by XANi, 24 July 2013 - 04:02 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 14 July 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

Everyone that says that seem to conveniently forget it was also the longest-range weapon in TT, out-ranging even LRMs. Sure it did only 2 damage, but it did it with impunity.

And surprisingly, in my hands was a deadly accurate weapon. I have the most TAC ammo hits in a game with a Blackjack.

[Unbound Inferno]

MaddMaxx, on 22 July 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

Not being sarcastic really, just noting that your system could not even stand up to 2 pages of dissection without modifications due to those "irregular" things popping up. That was without your having even displayed any base #'s...

We all think we can do the impossible. Balance a video game to near perfection. SC2 proved that even a Team that has a long and success base, and 7 more years, couldn't do it. A great game for sure but it pretty much proves that there is no Holy Grail of Balance.

You want true Balance. Play Chess. Same bits for everyone and a game where Skillful thinking and in-depth Knowledge, is the key to victory. I bet it would take longer to explain just the movement rules of Chess to a new player than how to play MWO in it's entirety. The MechLab is a learn as you go area btw...

MWO has lots of benefits versus downsides built in. The fact that the player base, as a general rule, gravitates towards the most maximums for the fewest minimums, is harder to defeat, by any Dev Team, then one would expect.

That is part of brining it to light - it discussion and constructive criticism can help refine what we are looking for.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but whatever advantage you give, you need c comparable disadvantage. Take the current Gauss Rifle. its fragile, explodes almost the instant your armor's gone adn its a somewhat slow recharge for decent ranged damage. The only thing I think it lacks now is a min range, which would open up a vulnerability against close quarter fighting.

However, look at the current ERPPC. Moderate heat for one of the highest pinpoint-accurate up-front damage, with no minimum range. The old balancing factor was its incredibly high heat cost, limiting the number that can be used due to the fact you just can't fire them all. That doesn't exist here, so what do we see? its abuse in abundance, along with Gauss' lighter heat it makes for a dangerous match.

Now, assuming we add that Min Range to Gauss, slow down ER/PPC projectile speed an up the heat on ER/PPC - we just killed the sniping combination. Gauss is faster, the two can't be shot at once, and with the heat cost its less likely to be used easily or frequently.That IMO would be more balanced for that particular aspect.

It shouldn't take much to fix it, but for some reason they just drag their heels...

[Khanahar]

stjobe, on 14 July 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Step 1: Find out the TT DPS of a weapon (e.g. the PPC has 1 DPS in TT).
Step 2: Decide on the rate of fire you want for that weapon (e.g. in MWO the PPC has a 4 second CD).
Step 3: For the PPC to have 1 DPS at a 4 second CD, it would need to do 4 damage per shot.
Step 4: Repeat for all other weapons.

The variable you have to play with is rate of fire, DPS is already set by the TT rules as weapon damage / 10.
In the example, the PPC could for instance have
* 10 damage per shot and 10s cooldown.
* 5 damage per shot and 5s cooldown.
* 4 damage per shot and 4 second cooldown.
* 1 damage per shot and 1 second cooldown.

Whichever of these you choose will still be true to BattleTech lore as regards the damage output of the PPC, and it will automatically preserve the damage balance between the different weapons.

Of course, the above also means we'd have to go back to TT armour values, or the weapons would be severely underpowered.

For heat, you do the same; HPS is fixed by TT rules as weapon heat / 10. You need to adjust heat per shot by factoring in the rate of fire, exactly as for DPS.

Then we could go back to a functional heat scale again, and drop the extra heat cap buff.

1) You guys are aware the OPs suggestion was in fact the starting point? TT values were the initial values from which we balanced ourselves to our current position.
2) The level of imbalance in TT was significant. Let's not kid around. There's a reason for BV, and a reason why tourneys didn't let you build your own 'mechs. Certain specific balancing things like the light ACs or PLs were total CFs. Fixing them was always gonna be necessary.
3) About the suggestion above: it's been tried. MechCommander did it pretty exactly... TT DPS and varying RoF generating damage values. And it was imba as sh*t. Great game, but weapon balance borked to hell, with LR weapons and heavy damage weapons dramatically overpowered... which meant you cramed as many PPCs as you could on to the 'mech before you filled out the gaps with LRMs and the odd SRM for point defense.

[Unbound Inferno]

Khanahar, on 24 July 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

1) You guys are aware the OPs suggestion was in fact the starting point? TT values were the initial values from which we balanced ourselves to our current position.
2) The level of imbalance in TT was significant. Let's not kid around. There's a reason for BV, and a reason why tourneys didn't let you build your own 'mechs. Certain specific balancing things like the light ACs or PLs were total CFs. Fixing them was always gonna be necessary.
3) About the suggestion above: it's been tried. MechCommander did it pretty exactly... TT DPS and varying RoF generating damage values. And it was imba as sh*t. Great game, but weapon balance borked to hell, with LR weapons and heavy damage weapons dramatically overpowered... which meant you cramed as many PPCs as you could on to the 'mech before you filled out the gaps with LRMs and the odd SRM for point defense.

Starting point? Possibly - its hardly where we are now.

An AC-2 can compete with an AC-20 on damage.That's hardly what I'd call balanced now.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

An AC-2 can compete with an AC-20 on damage.

I'm starting to get the hint that you really really hate this game's buffed (i.e. somewhat useful for once!) AC/2s.


And no, it can't actually compete with the AC/20 in terms of damage. Rapid fire means that the shots will impact different places and cause low levels of damage all over the mech. AC/20 does it all into a single spot without spread. Why don't we see as much whine for 2 AC/2 Jagers as we did for AC/40 Jagers? The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Buffed? Buffed? LRMs doing 1.5 damage per missile, AC2 is A-Rod Buff!

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

I'm starting to get the hint that you really really hate this game's buffed (i.e. somewhat useful for once!) AC/2s.


And no, it can't actually compete with the AC/20 in terms of damage. Rapid fire means that the shots will impact different places and cause low levels of damage all over the mech. AC/20 does it all into a single spot without spread. Why don't we see as much whine for 2 AC/2 Jagers as we did for AC/40 Jagers? The proof is in the pudding.

An AC-2 outranges an AC-20 on a massive scale.
"Most" mechs that load AC-20 don't have massive speeds. The ammount of damage a "good" AC-2 user can dish out is far superior than what the returning AC-20 could hope to do in most cases via screen shake.

Yes, I hate how OP buffed it is, but I'm not truly calling for a complete nerf. I want it to deal less, yes - but not MG useless less.

[Joseph Mallan]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

An AC-2 outranges an AC-20 on a massive scale.
"Most" mechs that load AC-20 don't have massive speeds. The ammount of damage a "good" AC-2 user can dish out is far superior than what the returning AC-20 could hope to do in most cases via screen shake.

Yes, I hate how OP buffed it is, but I'm not truly calling for a complete nerf. I want it to deal less, yes - but not MG useless less.

Thank you yet again sir.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

An AC-2 outranges an AC-20 on a massive scale.
"Most" mechs that load AC-20 don't have massive speeds. The ammount of damage a "good" AC-2 user can dish out is far superior than what the returning AC-20 could hope to do in most cases via screen shake.

Then why haven't we seen an AC/4 Jagerbomb FoTM going around? Why was the FoTM 2 AC/20 instead of 2 AC/2? If it was really so much superior and so amazingly powerful, why don't more people use it?

(^^Those are rhetorical questions, as I already disclosed the answers in my previous post and I will disclose them again below).

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Yes, I hate how OP buffed it is, but I'm not truly calling for a complete nerf. I want it to deal less, yes - but not MG useless less.

What is your definition of OP? Mine is "something which significantly outperforms most other things." The AC/2 doesn't really outperform many other weapons for the reasons I'm going to list below (you're relying on spreadsheet DPS way too much for weapon balance, try it out in the trenches instead). I'd lump it in with the "average" tier for MWO weapons.

It runs as hot as a PPC, spreads damage all over the target (which means kills take longer, which means more time for the enemy to run away/kill you), and requires the shooter to constantly face the target (leaves your CT vulnerable, because if you twist for shielding you lose the DPS).


If you really really must insist on nerfing something that has not once been a FoTM, then you would have to nerf almost everything else (excluding already bad weapons like the LBX, Flamer, etc.) to a much larger degree than you would the AC/2 or else it becomes useless like it has been since the 1980's.

Edited by FupDup, 24 July 2013 - 07:06 PM.