35 replies to this topic

[valkyrie]

...aka, "The Garth Project." Those of you who listen to our podcast have been hearing us talk about it for a while, and now I'd like to formally present our contributions. A few of Kong's more outspoken players helped put together a document with a long list of thoughts and ideas on balance for MWO, which was requested by Garth and submitted to him shortly thereafter. Will these fixes make it in-game? We don't know. However, I think it's worth sharing with the community to both help foster discussion and help gain support for certain ideas.

The initial letter to Garth with a summarized version of our thoughts can be found here, but it should be noted that this is just that - a summary. For the big picture, it's important to read our raw notes here, which show our individual thoughts on each issue - Kong, after all, is a conglomerate rather than a united entity, and thus we don't always see eye to eye on how we wanted things to turn out, but each system has its own pros and cons.

We welcome feedback on our ideas, as well as submissions of your own. If you have tweaks or other ideas on our balance concepts, post them here - after all, PGI is watching (or so they claim, at least).

[Donnie Silveray]

While I agree on some suggestions listed there, a good bit of the suggestions to alleviate boating are yet again stepping on arbitrary rules and requirements. A pilot should not be forced to not alpha strike or fire off all weapons at once, at all. The High Drain suggestion needs to go and be merged with the overheating penalties. A player must have reason to avoid alpha striking such as when hitting a certain threshold, they start to lose performance and such. An organic consequence that does not directly punish them for the build but punishes for the act. I must be allowed to build a 6 PPC mech (exaggerating) but if I fire it all at once, I should pretty much self destruct if my ability to absorb that heat is insufficient.

Resolving the 3PPC-Gauss build via hardpoints may work but I find it dubious at best, but if it works it works. I just havn't seen enough evidence that it will have a positive impact on the game.

Having reduced dissipation after overheat is interesting as it'd severely dissuade ppc alpha striking, but how would you justify that in regards to builds that run hot but do not boat? My AS7-D can put out a lot of firepower but once things start to get intense it often hits high thresholds, and I often overheat by firing off that AC20 for the last burst of damage. Why should I be penalized for that?

I agree with the PPC Gauss projectile speed. The Gauss is virtually a true sniper weapon, the PPC has too few weaknesses when dealing with ultra long range combat. The velocity difference will make 3PPC Gauss builds less a guarantee of alpha.

I disagree with the cone of fire for Ultra-AC5s. They're too jam prone as it is. I suggest Ultra-AC20 suffer cockpit vibration as well as having a cone of fire on the SECOND shot.

As a modeler and animator, the very thought of having to rescale models is like asking me to throw away week's worth of work and start over. It's not easy and should only be done as a last resort or a massive overhaul when resources permit. While some game engines are flexible enough that not everything blows up when you resize something, it must be handled with extreme care. Rigging is serious business, for a simple human character rig it takes 200-300 pages of step by step work in tutorial books. That's how extensive it is to rig such a thing and takes many hours, even days to create a fully functioning and detailed rig. Mechs may be simpler to a degree, but don't underestimate the work involved.

[Roland]

One thing regarding Hardpoint sizes...

While a very good idea, I think that there is a simpler way to implement it, which I detailed in a post a week or so back.

Basically, instead of needing to add in some additional gameplay feature of "sizes", where you create weapon size types, I think you could achieve exactly the same effect by simply associating a number of slots with each hardpoint.

Then, all you need to do is add an additional "parameter" to each hardpoint, the max number of critical slots that can fit inside that hardpoint.

When a new weapon is placed into the location, in the section of code that currently checks to see if it fits (where it is currently checking things like whether it fits into the free slots in the section, or a hardpoint of the correct type exists), you just add in an additional check to see if there is a hardpoint of the correct type that also has enough critical slots in it.

Then, when the weapon is placed, it just takes up the smallest hardpoint that it fits into.

Honestly, it shouldn't be THAT hard to implement. It doesn't really require any additional explanation to the players... hardpoints just have numbers associated with them.

So, like you have in the mechlab now, for a given section it'll say:

Hardpoints:
Energy: 3

instead it would say something like:
Energy: 3[3,1,1] meaning it has 3 energy hardpoints, one of size 3, and two of size 1.

I think that PGI may be thinking that in order to have hardpoint size restrictions, you'd need to totally revamp the mechlab, into something akin to Mechwarrior 4, but I think it can actually be implemented with virtually zero change to the user interface.

Found the post describing the system here.

Edited by Roland, 20 July 2013 - 07:42 PM.

[Khobai]

I have always supported the idea of hardpoint sizes as a means of differentiating mechs.

However your solution to alphastrikes will not work. At the end of the day the only solution that will work is a convergence fix.

Additionally, ferro-fibrous should not give damage reduction, but I would support ferro-fibrous giving 40 armor points per ton rather than 36. That would make it roughly equal to endo-steel in terms of weight savings.

Most of your individual weapon changes are fine and would help those underused weapons greatly.

And lastly I agree that certain mechs need to be rescaled. Especially the Trebuchet which is as tall as an Awesome.

So I agree 4/5.

Edited by Khobai, 23 July 2013 - 02:38 PM.

[El Bandito]

1. I don't even want to imagine what ECM Spiders and Ravens in their new FF armor can do, with hit registration as borked as is. Otherwise, I fully support FF armor buff.

2. SSRMs are now garbage no one picks, as I predicted. Need to have damage increase to even be noticeable.

3. PPC/ERPPC need to have their original heat back in addition to original speed.

4. Make ECM soft counter. This is THE big deal. ECM being hard counter is one big reason why LRM and SSRM balancing is so hard, in the first place.

Edited by El Bandito, 20 July 2013 - 11:32 PM.

[dario03]

Roland, on 20 July 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

One thing regarding Hardpoint sizes...

While a very good idea, I think that there is a simpler way to implement it, which I detailed in a post a week or so back.

Basically, instead of needing to add in some additional gameplay feature of "sizes", where you create weapon size types, I think you could achieve exactly the same effect by simply associating a number of slots with each hardpoint.

Then, all you need to do is add an additional "parameter" to each hardpoint, the max number of critical slots that can fit inside that hardpoint.

When a new weapon is placed into the location, in the section of code that currently checks to see if it fits (where it is currently checking things like whether it fits into the free slots in the section, or a hardpoint of the correct type exists), you just add in an additional check to see if there is a hardpoint of the correct type that also has enough critical slots in it.

Then, when the weapon is placed, it just takes up the smallest hardpoint that it fits into.

Honestly, it shouldn't be THAT hard to implement. It doesn't really require any additional explanation to the players... hardpoints just have numbers associated with them.

So, like you have in the mechlab now, for a given section it'll say:

Hardpoints:
Energy: 3

instead it would say something like:
Energy: 3[3,1,1] meaning it has 3 energy hardpoints, one of size 3, and two of size 1.

I think that PGI may be thinking that in order to have hardpoint size restrictions, you'd need to totally revamp the mechlab, into something akin to Mechwarrior 4, but I think it can actually be implemented with virtually zero change to the user interface.

Found the post describing the system here.

(I'm just basically going to do a copy and paste from a post that I had in a couple threads earlier this month) I would rather we had a maximum amount of crits be allowed for weapons or per weapon class. Keep the hardpoints in and still allow all of them to mount whatever weapon of that class but the mech as a whole can only use so many crits for weapons or for that weapon class. Also if it was by class possibly have some weapon classes overlap like Gauss and PPC since one is ballistic and one is energy but are similar in use. Or add something else like power draw and assign every weapon a certain amount of draw and each mech/engine a amount of power (possibly have both affect the power). I'm not sure about the power draw system but limiting them by crits probably wouldn't be too hard.

That way stock builds wouldn't have to be affected much (probably could do it so none are at all), every mech could still run every weapon (assuming it has the hardpoints), hardpoints wouldn't need to be lowered. So for example you could still have stalkers with 6 energy harpoints but lets say it can only use 10 crits for those weapons. They could carry 6ml if they want or 5LL, or 3ppc and 1ml but they wouldn't be able to carry 6LL or 4ppc, Or add in the power draw system (or call it whatever) and tweak those numbers to get different limits.

Could help balance some mechs out too, for example maybe do something like let the awesome have more energy potential than the stalker. Something ike a 300 engine gives 300 power and the awesome has a 1.2 multiplier and the stalker just 1x. I think something like that could help the balance and give some more variety because if done right you would have to make more sacrifices and everybody might not pick the same ones.

Edited by dario03, 20 July 2013 - 11:00 PM.

[Egomane]

Cleaned out several posts in this thread. This is a topic about changes to the gameplay balance and not to bash PGI/IGP.

[Lyteros]

Donnie Silveray, on 20 July 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

/snip

the hardpoints will bring better balance due to not beeing able to abuse certain settings anymore. If one particular mech is too strong because it can field X times weapon Y then you can change the hardpoints so it cannot anymore. Like with the stalker who could fit 6 ppcs in its torso and just had to move a bit over the ridge to fire all, while other mechs fire more from the hip and cant do that. Next there is the fact that a mech that is not supposed to do X (like ppc boat stalker) outperforms the dedicated mech that is build only around that concept (awesome)
This is fixed trough hardpoint sizes.

For the cone of fire, read the raw document, the UAC changes are just part of a complete overhaul for all the ACs. I also suggested replacing the static % to jam with a chance depending how much ultra you fired.
Right now the normal acs are just used because we have no ultra for them, when we get ultra ACs for all sizes everything else will cease to exist because they are just the best. Out of the low-ELO tier you rarely see LBX e.g.
I suggested a dedicated role and cons / pros for every AC type.

Roland, on 20 July 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

/snip

That is one of the methods for sizes, yes. I think that particular approach you described was what most of us had in mind. Which one excatly is taken is pretty irrelevant, since they all adress the same issue and have the same result.

Xie Belvoule, on 20 July 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Sadly, members of my unit HeadHunters of Davion, created a similar letter a little while back and it was largely ignored. Their response was that were a vocal minority who are on an Island.

I feared it would end like this, but if you like Battletech you tell yourself: "lets try anyway"...

on FF: I also suggest more armor instead of % absorption, since more armor is just a number change and is practically no work at all. Implementing the new feature of % absorb is quite a bit of work.

On ECM and FF: I additionaly suggested changes to ECM that makes it less broken - we dont get a single ecm capable mech with any update, because they realized how broken it is but still can't step ahead and say "yep that module is not okay so we'll change it".

Edited by Lyteros, 21 July 2013 - 01:24 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

What I would want to be careful with: Don't implement too many suggestions at once. And consider carefully.


Potential Alpha Counter #1: Hard Points and Energy Drain Limitation
The heavy hard point idea is something I'd mix with the "energy drain" limitation.

Certain weapons are "heavy". If you fire a heavy weapon, unless it is installed in a heavy hard point, all other weapons have to wait 0.5 seconds before they can fire. If you fire any other weapon, the heavy weapon has to wait for 0.5 seconds to fire, unless it's installed in a heavy hard point.

Now as a general rule, a heavy hard point is worth two normal hard points of its types. And no mech should generally have more than one heavy hard point of the same type. Yes, that even means the King Crab or the Awesome or the Thunder Hawk or whatever mech in canon might carry multiple heavies of the same type. If a alpha.-boating combo is OP, it's OP regardless of the mech, and if the mech sucks because of its it boxes, we need to fix those hit boxes, because otherwise you shoehorn it into being that alpha-boating abuser and punish anyone that wants to bring a bit variety.

Heavy Weapons: Gauss, AC/20, PPC, ER PPC, LRM20.

Potential Alpha Counter #2: Server Enforced Weapon-Dependent Chain-Fire
Weapons have their normal cooldown, and a chain-fire cooldown. Whenever a weapon is fired, all weapons go on their chain-fire cooldown. Some weapons have a very low cooldown (lasers, AC/2s, AC/5s etc. SRMs, LRMs, LBX) and others have a large one (PPCs, Gauss Rifles, AC/20s, AC/10s). A Medium Laser or an AC/2 chain-fire cooldown might be something like 0.05 seconds, the PPC might have one of 0.25 seconds, and the AC/20 or Gauss one of 0.5. (These values are chosen because this would give no "boating config" the ability to deliver more than 20 damage in 0.5 seconds.)

Group-Fire and CHain-Fire would no longer be seperate mode. You basically always chain-fire, but the delay between shots is the chain-fire delay of each weapon,rather than a fixed 0.5 second value.

The Alpha-Strike option would simply fire all of these weapons in a row as soon as the chain-fire delay allows. (Maybe it could also have a tweak like firing instantly, but without convergence, and all weapons producing 50 % more heat and doubling their cooldowns. E.g. really a desperate measure)

---

Missile Issues
Missiles need to be boated in MW:O because otherwise AMS eats most of your misiles, and you need TAG as support equipment anyway, so you better specialize to make the 1 ton and 1 energy hard point sacrifice worth it.

AMS needs to move from a damage model to an interception chance model
If we want a single or two LRMs still be useful and AMS still be useful against LRM boats, AMS should not basically shoot down a fixed number of missiles, but instead have a chance to intercept missiles. An AMS might have a 25 % chance to intercept missiles. THat means if you use it against a Triple LRM20 boat, you take 25 % less damage from those missiles, and if you use it against an LRM5 boat, you take 25 % less damage from those missiles. If you add multiple missiles together, the effective interception stacks not linearly, so you never get 100 % screen. 4 AMS would add up to a 32 % survival chance for a missile or a 68 % interception chance, for example.

Additional balance dial would now be the ammo consumption. IMO, about 1 ton of used AMS ammo should counter 1 ton of used LRM ammo. Since you "only" intercept 25 % of all missiles, this would mean that to get 25 % damage reduction against a missile user, you need 1 ton of ammo for every 4 tons of ammo he brings.

ECM needs to stop being an anti-missile field
As long as you must bring all the support equipment to deal with ECM, not boating and specializing will never be a good idea. Surveying the battlefield for countered ECM and viable targets takes time and effort and you can only afford this if that is all you gonna do.
ECM could instead also produce an AMS like interception rate (but instead of destroying a missile, the missile veers off, having lost its lock). It might not stack with other ECM. And other than that, it would block Narc, TAG, BAP and Artemis as it should. It should also block gathering target information and maybe even target identification (so you don't even know if you're targeting contact A, B, C etc.).

Heat
I have been an advocate of lowering the heat capacity and increasing dissipation for a long time, and I still am. What I would consider is halving the totalling capacity and doubling the dissipation. Maybe a fixed threshold at 30 would be better than having one half as high as now.

Double Heat Sinks should be "true doubles", except: Engine heat sinks are always single heat sinks. That's a significant divergence of TT rules, but it is also the single most unbalanced benefit DHS provides.

Convergence
Honestly, I wouldn't do anything about it. I know many thing that is a good counter to alpha-strikes, and it might be, but it might come at cost we are not actually willing to pay. Yes, you can add extra cross-hairs for every weapon and so on, but this all sounds like a lot of work and a lot of mental overhead that you don't really want to ask of players (especially not those that PGI is making 3PV for. I know, I don't want 3PV, but we should really not hope on features that PGI or IGP might consider a threat to widening their customer base.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 21 July 2013 - 01:52 AM.

[Red squirrel]

Great suggestions Kong


I like this idea:
"[color=#000000]Make Pulse Lasers a “constant stream” weapon similar to MGs, with adjusted heat and damage values to make them a higher DPS weapon at the expense of range, heat, and weight"[/color]


You could also add a permantent toggle on/off for TAG to your list.

[KhanHeir]

Red squirrel, on 21 July 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

Great suggestions Kong


I like this idea:
"[color=#000000]Make Pulse Lasers a “constant stream” weapon similar to MGs, with adjusted heat and damage values to make them a higher DPS weapon at the expense of range, heat, and weight"[/color]


You could also add a permantent toggle on/off for TAG to your list.

we'll throw that on to custom group/chain fire

[Red squirrel]

About mech size: You really want the Catapult to be larger than the Cataphract?

I think the hitboxes for long noses need further tweaking.
e,g, I always assumed that the Awesome is a barn door from the front and the Stalker should be easy to hit into the CT from the side. But right now if you hit the Stalker from the side you perfectly spread your damage over the side and center torso.

[MustrumRidcully]

Constant Stream weapons like the MGs will never be good, I think. They are at least very difficult to balance well.

If I run an AC/40 Jagermech, even with chain-fire, I have about 3 seconds out of 4 where I can torso-twist, move into or out of cover and all that stuff. If I am running a 6 MG Jagermech, I'd have to stay on target for the entire time I am engaging it, or I lose precious DPS. No defensive torso twisting, no maneuvering.

The fix for MGs at least is do ditch the stream concept. I would turn it into a 0.5 second stream followed by a 1.5 second cooldown, with overall around 0.8 DPS. (That's less than now, if I am not mistaken, but trust me, it will feel like more.)

Okay, that's my first idea, at least. It might need more tweaks.

There is a general problem:

Why we boat

1) Group Fire + Convergence => pinpoint precise damage application for boats. Pinpoint precise damage application is important in a hit-located based system. You don't want to spread your damage all over the target, you want to core or headshot him.
Fixes: Limiting convergence, enforcing more chain-fire can counter this

2) Easy Weapon Rotation
If you boat, all weapons have the same recycle time (duh), that's easy to manage.
Fixes: Standardize recycle times. That doesn't mean all weapons need the same recycle tiem, but they should build up on each other. For example, 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 second, 4 second as recycle times. You can build more complex weapon rotations on this.

3) Only one way to aim necessary
You don't have to consider different lead times when you switch to your next weapon, you don't have to consider different firing behavior. It's all easy.
Fixes: Standardize more weapon properties. Every weapon should have a "non-boat" partner with the same beam duration or the same projectile speed.
(Potential Pairs or Groups. LPL + ER LL; LL + MPL, ML + SPL + SL; Gauss + AC/10 + Ultra AC/5, AC/2 + PPC + LBX-10, AC/5 + AC/20; SRM + NARC). Then you have at least one other potential weapon to combo with.

Boating will still be the easiest way to achieve identity on all these fronts, but you give more non-boating combos options, which means that mechs that can't boat well will also have less of a drawback. I think you can effectively lower the differences down far enough that it might not matter a lot even in highly competitive play.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 21 July 2013 - 02:32 AM.

[John MatriX82]

I see some suggesting hardpoint restrictions, that would be a cure for boating larger weapons, leaving intact many "legit" from TT boats. Heat penalty won't do it and it already breaks things like triple PPC or ER PPC on the Awesomes 8Q/9M, which should instead be encouraged or allowed with the current heat system to render that chassis more respected/viable, preventing other chassis never to go past 2 PPC.

In my sign I have a suggestion for limit the number of carry-able SRMs and LRMs using the limits that already we have with the number of available tubes for each section/hardpoint.

I also agree with those that push for a serious review of the dimensions and hitboxes of certain mechs, such as the gargatuan Quickdraw, but also Awesome, Dragon, Catapult and maybe even the TBT should be looked onto as well.

[General Taskeen]

And why was my post removed? It wasn't bashing at all.

Make ECM do what's supposed to do, not a missile shield. No on/off switches. Redesign heat sinks.

[Orzorn]

In the Remnant, one of my comrades came up with an excellent hardpoint system. Instead of sizes like MW4 did them, or instead of maximum criticals allowed like some have suggested here, it was a simple system where weapons were separated into small, medium, and large hardpoints.

For example:
Mgs and AC/2s were small. AC/5, UAC/5, AC/10, LBX were medium. AC/20 and Gauss were large. Mechs did not tend to get (Although some did for balance reasons) larger hardpoints than they came with. If I recall, there were only a very small few mechs that could mount a PPC, for instance, because it counted as a large energy (Along with ERPPC and maybe large pulse?). The Stalker could no longer use PPCs at all, because it comes with a bunch of medium lasers, which count as small energy, although it kept a strong set of missile hardpoints. The Awesome, on the other hand, was chock full of large hardpoints.

You should see a post about it on QQ Mercs soon, if everything goes well with that. It's an excellent idea, and it really gives all the mechs their true purposes.

[valkyrie]

John MatriX82, on 21 July 2013 - 03:29 AM, said:

I see some suggesting hardpoint restrictions, that would be a cure for boating larger weapons, leaving intact many "legit" from TT boats. Heat penalty won't do it and it already breaks things like triple PPC or ER PPC on the Awesomes 8Q/9M, which should instead be encouraged or allowed with the current heat system to render that chassis more respected/viable, preventing other chassis never to go past 2 PPC.

In my sign I have a suggestion for limit the number of carry-able SRMs and LRMs using the limits that already we have with the number of available tubes for each section/hardpoint.

I also agree with those that push for a serious review of the dimensions and hitboxes of certain mechs, such as the gargatuan Quickdraw, but also Awesome, Dragon, Catapult and maybe even the TBT should be looked onto as well.

I think the heat penalty could have a place, but it NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY STATED. That means something like a tutorial will be necessary and soon. Otherwise, something like the Warhawk Prime, with its 4 Clan ER PPCs, is going to utterly dominate the meta the moment it hits, assuming the Dire Wolf doesn't precede it.

[Aym]

valkyrie, on 20 July 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

...aka, "The Garth Project." Those of you who listen to our podcast have been hearing us talk about it for a while, and now I'd like to formally present our contributions. A few of Kong's more outspoken players helped put together a document with a long list of thoughts and ideas on balance for MWO, which was requested by Garth and submitted to him shortly thereafter. Will these fixes make it in-game? We don't know. However, I think it's worth sharing with the community to both help foster discussion and help gain support for certain ideas.

The initial letter to Garth with a summarized version of our thoughts can be found here, but it should be noted that this is just that - a summary. For the big picture, it's important to read our raw notes here, which show our individual thoughts on each issue - Kong, after all, is a conglomerate rather than a united entity, and thus we don't always see eye to eye on how we wanted things to turn out, but each system has its own pros and cons.

We welcome feedback on our ideas, as well as submissions of your own. If you have tweaks or other ideas on our balance concepts, post them here - after all, PGI is watching (or so they claim, at least).

Always in favor of adding canonical quirks to mechs, like you listed the Hunch G and the PPC Awesomes, hardpoint size is a great idea and I like that you guys gave them a reasonable work around, 3 new hardpoints instead of sizes. This and tonnage matching are absolutely critical and I hope PGI notices it before launch.

[MustrumRidcully]

Orzorn, on 21 July 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

In the Remnant, one of my comrades came up with an excellent hardpoint system. Instead of sizes like MW4 did them, or instead of maximum criticals allowed like some have suggested here, it was a simple system where weapons were separated into small, medium, and large hardpoints.

For example:
Mgs and AC/2s were small. AC/5, UAC/5, AC/10, LBX were medium. AC/20 and Gauss were large. Mechs did not tend to get (Although some did for balance reasons) larger hardpoints than they came with. If I recall, there were only a very small few mechs that could mount a PPC, for instance, because it counted as a large energy (Along with ERPPC and maybe large pulse?). The Stalker could no longer use PPCs at all, because it comes with a bunch of medium lasers, which count as small energy, although it kept a strong set of missile hardpoints. The Awesome, on the other hand, was chock full of large hardpoints.

You should see a post about it on QQ Mercs soon, if everything goes well with that. It's an excellent idea, and it really gives all the mechs their true purposes.

Write the system up, and then play with it. How much options do you really still have with it?

In my experience, that's where this falls flat - if you cannot upgrade any weapons devoted to one hard point, then there is no point in downgrading something else, you just cannot use the weight or crit slots you gained from that for anything. At best you can add some more heat sinks or a larger engine, but that's really limited and boring.

If you look at MW IV and it's hard point system - it still allowed plenty of customization because upgrades where possibles and there were sometimes even unused slots. It also didn't stop boating - you just couldn't boat with every mech (like you still could in MW3). But any hard point system will have trouble with stopping boating as long as it wants to recreate stock mechs. Some mechs are designed as boats, and we might not have seen the most terrifying yet in play.

[Mahnmut]

<div>I'm a fan of hard point restrictions. It's the only way to allow granular balancing of mechs and allow each variant to have it's place. The current system basically dictates which variant is the best simply because it can fit more heavy weapons. A slight hit to customization is worth the overall balance it would achieve.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Combine that with lower heat thresholds, better dissipation and some individual weapon balancing and you can deal with most boating issues without a convoluted heat scale system.</div>