21 replies to this topic

[Acid Phase]

...and I say issues because I know there are many. I can't name them all, but maybe you guys can consolidate them here. Why this thread? Because it's been a massively long time since open beta, and the roflstomps are still going strong. So what in your opinion needs fixing or needs to be implemented to achieve balance? Unfortunately for me, and several other advocates of hardpoint size limits (restrictions) that is not an option seeing as Paul squashed that idea to sh*t.

[FupDup]

Let's see about the problems:
1. We have TT's multiple hit locations but with the added ability to land all of our shots into the same spot.

2. No penalties for riding at high heat until you shut down.

3. Many weapons are just plain underpowered.

4. Alpha striking is the way to play the game for the most efficient kills.


Solutions:
1. Something along the lines of HomelessBill's idea that allows for some minor pinpoint accuracy but makes it much harder to do all at once (avoid pure randomness of TT).

2. Add slower movement, HUD interference, slower reloads, etc. for running too hot.

3. Buff the underpowered weapons.

4. See #1.

Edited by FupDup, 16 July 2013 - 10:05 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

http://mwomercs.com/...-balancing-mwo/

That covers... most of it.

FupDup, on 16 July 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

3. Many weapons are just plain underpowered.

4. Alpha striking is the way to play the game for the most efficient kills.

Only thing wrong with point 3 is its the opposite. Weapons are balanced horrendously and far above relative TT values if you translate a turn to 10 seconds. The AC-2 is 10x stronger than it should be for example.

because of that, and the rate of DPS, duration and recahrg your 4th point is quite true. Up-front alphastrike damage wins out over DPS due to the lack of that balance.

That also aggrivated by the heat scale not obeying that dissipation rate nor capacity of Battletech rules.


I posted here: http://mwomercs.com/...warrior-online/ A basic 3-step process for PGI to pay attention to sort out that mess.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 16 July 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...-balancing-mwo/

That covers... most of it.


Only thing wrong with point 3 is its the opposite. Weapons are balanced horrendously and far above relative TT values if you translate a turn to 10 seconds. The AC-2 is 10x stronger than it should be for example.

because of that, and the rate of DPS, duration and recahrg your 4th point is quite true. Up-front alphastrike damage wins out over DPS due to the lack of that balance.

That also aggrivated by the heat scale not obeying that dissipation rate nor capacity of Battletech rules.


I posted here: http://mwomercs.com/...warrior-online/ A basic 3-step process for PGI to pay attention to sort out that mess.

Being better than TT =/= being overpowered. In the case of the AC/2, it was perhaps the single most useless piece of crap ever to exist in TT.

Edited by FupDup, 16 July 2013 - 09:58 PM.

[jeffsw6]

MW:O has more issues than Publishers Clearing House.

The time for debate about specific fixes is, I think, over. It's their process that is broken. Every time they do something to the game balance, it is huge fail. Try to tweak missiles? They are either worthless or more deadly than a 12-man of 6xMG Spiders -- that's seventy-two machine guns, for the PGI guys reading (who seem to struggle with basic arithmetic.)

Why? Because they keep repeating the same failed process over and over again:

• simple problem that could probably be fixed by changing simple values
  
• Paul is not satisfied with that, creates complex new system to avoid changing simple values
  
• complex new system doesn't work
  
• they won't remove new system, because money was spent developing it, and removing it would be admitting an error
  
• now the original problem is compounded by another layer of complexity

If you put your hand on the stove, you'll get burned. PGI is like the disabled kid who lacks ability to remember the stove is hot. Paul keeps touching the stove, and they keep getting burned.

You don't fix that problem without fixing the underlying process. In other words, stop adding complexity -- that's the ************* stove!

[Stoicblitzer]

so many issues. economy, matchmaking, in-game voip, weapon balance, small number of maps, lack of end-game content (CW), mech scaling, hit detection, outdated mechlab, horrendous new player experience, arm lock, outdated HUD, ...

that's all i can think for now. some have nothing to do with balance but are just general issues with the game. A combination of the above is what's making this game a horrendous veteran experience too hence the loads of inactive guilds.

Edited by Stoicblitzer, 16 July 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 16 July 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

Being better than TT =/= being overpowered. In the case of the AC/2, it was perhaps the single most useless piece of crap ever to exist in TT.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. However I don't see the reason a AC/2 needs to match a PPC in the per turn damage, with longer range, screen shake even with the ammo cost.

Keep in mind, it also up'd the AC-2 heat further than the PPC is currently. It was supposed to be 1 heat per turn - not 10.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 16 July 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

or, lets just make another troll thread for people that want to rebuild the game from scratch and will never be happy until the neurohelmet is hardwired into their brain.

We need DFA and collisions...badly.

LBX20 for better/more brawling in close

CW

ui 2.0

and some tweaks as it goes.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 16 July 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[FupDup]

Unbound Inferno, on 16 July 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Perhaps, but perhaps not. However I don't see the reason a AC/2 needs to match a PPC in the per turn damage, with longer range, screen shake even with the ammo cost.

The per turn damage being the same doesn't carry over to MWO because they spread it all over the place. The longer range doesn't really help because it's harder to make 5 shots hit one spot than it is for one PPC shot to hit one spot (also, ERPPCs have only 1 hex lower range; in MWO the ERPPC has longer range by 90m).

Edited by FupDup, 16 July 2013 - 10:11 PM.

[pow pow]

hey am I the only one thinking this is a pretty damn good f2p game?


probably the best mech fps out there ever?


there are some issues yes, but only small ones. So why do you keep on complaining? Oh wait you are from the internets and probably know no better.


you want TT? play tt. you want a tt sim, play mwtactics.

[Stoicblitzer]

pow pow, on 16 July 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

hey am I the only one thinking this is a pretty damn good f2p game?


probably the best mech fps out there ever?


there are some issues yes, but only small ones. So why do you keep on complaining? Oh wait you are from the internets and probably know no better.


you want TT? play tt. you want a tt sim, play mwtactics.

hit detection being broken isn't really a small issue. there can't be a successful multiplayer shooter without reliable hit detection. their in-house reinvent-the-wheel solution is not working as intended™ and we are 8 weeks from launch. game balance is suffering because of it. i'm with you on TT; i like when people start comparing TT and mwo, then i can stop reading.

[Aidan McRae]

pow pow, on 16 July 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

hey am I the only one thinking this is a pretty damn good f2p game?


probably the best mech fps out there ever?


there are some issues yes, but only small ones. So why do you keep on complaining? Oh wait you are from the internets and probably know no better.


you want TT? play tt. you want a tt sim, play mwtactics.

This is the best MP version of MechWarrior, yes, but best and good are two different things.

I, though I love TT, do not want it. I want a MechWarrior that feels like Mechwarrior, not COD in 'robot' skins.

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Acid Phase, on 16 July 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

...and I say issues because I know there are many. I can't name them all, but maybe you guys can consolidate them here. Why this thread? Because it's been a massively long time since open beta, and the roflstomps are still going strong. So what in your opinion needs fixing or needs to be implemented to achieve balance? Unfortunately for me, and several other advocates of hardpoint size limits (restrictions) that is not an option seeing as Paul squashed that idea to sh*t.

There are very few high Elo players. In order for the matchmaker to find matches for high Elo players, it has to pull in players from lower tiers.

Balancing does not mean making the game easier for John Q Pubbie, balancing means that there are a variety of viable weapons and tactics--each with their own challenges and rewards.

[pow pow]

Aidan McRae, on 16 July 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

This is the best MP version of MechWarrior, yes, but best and good are two different things.

I, though I love TT, do not want it. I want a MechWarrior that feels like Mechwarrior, not COD in 'robot' skins.

CoD for one thing is much much faster. you can't compare. Maybe hawken can compare a little bit to CoD, but I don't think mwo has that many similarities as you make it sound.

The way I see things, no matter what you make on the internet these days, you are certain that you won't be able to please everyone.

I love this game, so you can understand my outmost frustration reading all these negative nancie comments.

[Unbound Inferno]

Aidan McRae, on 16 July 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

This is the best MP version of MechWarrior, yes, but best and good are two different things.

I, though I love TT, do not want it. I want a MechWarrior that feels like Mechwarrior, not COD in 'robot' skins.

Good way of putting it.

Most of us advocating more of TT balance in MWO do not want an identical TT game. We want it to feel battletech, act like Mechwarrior but feel like the lore.

Not this PPC twitchfest we've got.

[Theodor Kling]

Stoicblitzer, on 16 July 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

so many issues. economy, matchmaking, in-game voip, weapon balance, small number of maps, lack of end-game content (CW), mech scaling, hit detection, outdated mechlab, horrendous new player experience, arm lock, outdated HUD, ...

that's all i can think for now. some have nothing to do with balance but are just general issues with the game. A combination of the above is what's making this game a horrendous veteran experience too hence the loads of inactive guilds.

...buggy movement restriction, performance, role warfare "rewards". I frankly think they should have waited way longer till going into beta, let alone open beta.

[pow pow]

Stoicblitzer, on 16 July 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

hit detection being broken isn't really a small issue. there can't be a successful multiplayer shooter without reliable hit detection. their in-house reinvent-the-wheel solution is not working as intended™ and we are 8 weeks from launch. game balance is suffering because of it. i'm with you on TT; i like when people start comparing TT and mwo, then i can stop reading.

i agree with you. unloading on spiders and not doing any damage is really painful. BUT
every MP game that runs on a server with images sent to clients is bound to have hit detection problems. even more so with a very unfamiliar engine like cry3. Warthunder has hit detection problems, wot has them, every modern fps/sim that doesn't run hit calculations on clients is bound to have this problem and it's not an easy fix. We can only show patience and hope for the best. I mean do you guys honestly think that the coders are happy with the way things are currently? I doubt it, but what I am arguing here is that having random internets reminding them won't make things happen any faster... they just increase thefrustration amongst us.

[Unbound Inferno]

FupDup, on 16 July 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

The per turn damage being the same doesn't carry over to MWO because they spread it all over the place. The longer range doesn't really help because it's harder to make 5 shots hit one spot than it is for one PPC shot to hit one spot (also, ERPPCs have only 1 hex lower range; in MWO the ERPPC has longer range by 90m).

That is fair, and I don't mind some tweaking to make it worth it - but as it is now realistically if you can hold the AC-2 its benefit is actually better than the PPC since its damage rate is identical to the ERPPC damage/range with less cost.

The AC-2 I think should be a tad weaker, far less heat, but not useless.

[Lykaon]

Acid Phase, on 16 July 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

...and I say issues because I know there are many. I can't name them all, but maybe you guys can consolidate them here. Why this thread? Because it's been a massively long time since open beta, and the roflstomps are still going strong. So what in your opinion needs fixing or needs to be implemented to achieve balance? Unfortunately for me, and several other advocates of hardpoint size limits (restrictions) that is not an option seeing as Paul squashed that idea to sh*t.

I fully expect PGI to waste tons and tons of time and money trying to fix things in a fashion similar to the way ECM got "fixed"
Bury the problems under so many layers of band-**** (wow I can't believe **** got edited what if I needed to talk about hearing **** or um..marital **** or gator ****...sigh oh well ) that we can't even tell exactally what the problem is anymore.

Overall nearly nothing was actually done to ECM to balance it.Mostly tons of other unrelated features were co-opted to feed the ECM beast.

I forsee this alpha strike boat issue going down the same track.PGI will spend a great deal of time (and money) adjusting the heat system in an attempt to fix the boating alphas.Each patch adding more and more layers of obfuscation to the actual issue but ultimatley altering very little.

Eventually the developers will need to either admit failure,take another look at hardpoints or as they tend to do tell us everything is working just fine as the game burns down around us.

Edited by Lykaon, 17 July 2013 - 05:23 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Why Boating Rules (short form)
General Synergy
There is always a synergy in not mixing weapons. If everything has the same cooldown, same range, and same projectile speed/behaviour, it's easier to manage then handing weapons that act differently. This is not the biggest deal, however.

For Ballistics and Energy Weapons
Convergence + Group Fire means the best setup for these weapons is to have multiple copies of the same. This way you aim once, but deal damage for several weapons, to one location. And delivering damage precisely is important in a system with hit locations.

For Missiles
AMS rocks against a low amount of launchers, but is overwhelmed by massive lrm strikes. If I want to consider using an LRM, I need to keep this in mind, and you quickly realize that using LRMs as side-weapon will be very ineffective.
Then there is ECM. You need to be able to counter it, which requires either TAG or Narc. Narc is too heavy and too easily broken by a tiny bit of damage, and with its low range, you'd need someone else to bring it on target, but no one can be sure his TAG or Narc is useful in a match unless he knows his team is bringing LRMs. So the best way is to install the counters on an LRM boat.
Oh, and one other factor exists that makes LRM boating more attractive then mixing things up - LRMs use a different targeting mechanism then other weapons.

The form of the Heat System makes balancing weapons difficult
MW:O based the weapon stats originally on table top values, but changed so much around them that their origin are basically irrelevant now for balancing. Weapons produce 2-3 times the heat (some worse) than they did in the table top, but heat dissipation is still as low as in the table top. THat means mechs tend to overheat and cannot really counter the heat they build up.
But what "protects" the player from this is the high heat capacity - you can build up a lot of heat without suffering any drawbacks.
The problem here is - normaly, weapons in Battletech games could be balanced around a simple addition:
Weapon Weight + Weight of Heat Sinks to counter weapon heat + Ammo Weight. Weapons that are equally damaging at equal range should have the same final tally here. But this breaks down if the heat cap is too high and the dissipation is too low. YOu can't really counter all the heat of 6 Medium Lasers, it would require 30 True Double Heat Sinks the way M:WO is set up right now. But there is something else to optimize for: Time To Kill vs Time To Shutdown. If your TTK an enemy is lower than your TTS, you're "cool enough". But this doesn't fit the neatly linear addition described earlier anymore. The formulas involved are more complex, and actually balancing weapons around this is difficult too impossible.


Role Warfare as Endgame doesn't allow decent weight class balancing
Role warfare was supposed to be used to give every mech, no matter the weight, a meaningful role. But if you make the role warfare tools - modules - an endgame focus, then you can't really hope to achieve balance early on, and you end up with certain classes underutilized
That's not all. Modules are in large parts underwhelming with a few outliers like Seismic Sensor that brought its own problems.

Information Warfare underdeveloped
A neat idea, but almost nothing of what might have been imagined in the start exists. ECM is the big information warfare tool, but that is pretty much it. Everyone can act as a spotter, it doesn't require a special action or skill to do it. There are no tools to spread disinformation or confusion. The maps are mostly small enough that you don't even need recon or surveillance (and once you're in range for either, you're also a potential target), the enemy comes the way he always comes. The mission objectives are minor - the enemy comes for the capture objectives he always comes for. There isn't enough variety in a possible battle flow to really allow information gathering to shine.