115 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Khobai, on 27 August 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

Which is indicative of poor balance. If you give a player multiple choices, and one choice is obviously better than the rest, then you have failed to balance properly.

Smarter players are simply able to recognize that the choices are not equal. But the imbalance has to exist in the first place for smarter players to take advantage of it.

I'm not saying the game is balanced- it has a way to go before that gets closer..

it never will be completely balanced because:
Different players excel at different things, and one nice thing about MWO is that different weapons require different skill-sets.

Example one:
Ballistic Weapons
The most basic FPS skill- pointing and clicking, accounting for lead or projectile drop if applicable.

A player that is quick and accurate with mouse or joystick is going to make the PPC look like god's middle finger.
A player that is more rounded isn't going to perform as well with the same weapons.

Laser weapons
Basic FPS skill with a twist- pinpoint accurate without needing to account for drop or lead, but must hold on target for maximum damage. (Sorta like using an automatic rifle in many FPS's, only you don't have to worry about weapon-shake with a laser)
A player with a very steady hand and some decent motion prediction will make large lasers look like surgical knives.
A player who is better at meta game, or better at the quick "twitch" ballistic skills will not make the weapon look as good.



--------------A person with both Ballistic and Laser weapon skill proficiency is going to make AC2/sUAC5s seem very much overpowered-----------------------

Missile weapons:
SRMS (Slow motion ballistic skill)
Goes without saying.

LRMs
Heightened situational awareness and some movement prediction.

A person who is great at reading a battlefield in on large scale is able to know where to be and when to make his missiles unavoidable. This player is going to make LRMs seem like the dark cloud that follows you around no matter you go.
A person who just hops into a missile boat may find his missiles don't connect much and make the LRM seem inferior.


Having equal mastery of all of the above skills (as performed in the various roles in the game) is very rare, I might argue impossible. Therefore, no two types of weapons are ever going to be completely balanced as long as they have different properties to be exploited by someone who is skill-adept with that type.

I'm fairly good at making my missiles connect when I'm in a maneuverable missile mech, but my specialty is more with making accurate shots at medium/long range.

[Riptor]

3rdworld, on 27 August 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

a sniper PPC light isn't viable.



rofl. so now if you don't agree with hardpoint restrictions it is because you want PPC gauss meta.

"people always boat what is OP". Yep, and guess how much hardpoint restrictions will help with that?

Alot actually, because mechs that boat in general have huge hitbox disadvantages.

Take the blackhawk for example... gigantic center torso and very thing legs and arms, he would be cored in seconds.

You make it sound like weapons are the only things that count in a mechwarrior game.

Also you have not adressed a single time the argument that doing away with hardpoint restrictions would make 90 % of mechs completly pointless and make mech choice entirely dependand on max tonnage and most favourable hit box.

But yeah only respond to what you think will make you look like youre right and ignore the rest. You should become a politician.

[Wieland]

I say it over and over hardpoint size would be the best way.

[3rdworld]

Riptor, on 27 August 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Alot actually, because mechs that boat in general have huge hitbox disadvantages.

Take the blackhawk for example... gigantic center torso and very thing legs and arms, he would be cored in seconds.

You make it sound like weapons are the only things that count in a mechwarrior game.

Also you have not adressed a single time the argument that doing away with hardpoint restrictions would make 90 % of mechs completly pointless and make mech choice entirely dependand on max tonnage and most favourable hit box.

But yeah only respond to what you think will make you look like youre right and ignore the rest. You should become a politician.

Weapons are all that counts, it should be pretty clear that is true looking at the current meta, with every mech from 50 - 100 tons using gauss & ppcs.

Why do I have to respond to a system which isn't in effect, and that I have never purposed?

[Livewyr]

Wieland, on 27 August 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

I say it over and over hardpoint size would be the best way.

I say it over and over hardpoint size would be the best way to ensure mech diversity drops like a rock.

(People are just going to use the 1-2 mechs that best load their favorite weapons...)

[MustrumRidcully]

[deleted]

I don't believe that the only two options are using the current system or the current system with additional hard point restrictions. Because neither is good enough.

If that are my only options, I am better off posting on the forums while Saint Rows IV updates.

Edited by miSs, 27 August 2013 - 10:40 AM.
quote clean up

[Jesus Box]

It's another thing they couldn't properly learn from MW4. That game, back in 2002 or so, had the good well designed hardpoint system for each Mech, along with a properly balanced ECM/BAP, and no stupid heat scaling. It did so many things right. All PGI had to do was copy it. Now compare all that to this game. It's all screwed up here; because these Devs can't learn from people that have already done it right. They want to instead try to do it all better and "fix" things that didn't need fixing. This is all the result. They've ultimately repeatedly proved that they've no idea what they're doing. I wish this project would go to another developer. If people like Riot had this; it would have been gold. When they made League, based off of Dota1, they didn't wreck everything, they simply evolved it, and made the best F2P business model to date; which is also something IGP/PGI couldn't copy as everyone originally hoped.

[Shakespeare]

The devs have expressed repeatedly that they do not wish to alter the customization system as it stands. It saddens me, yes, but as recently as two weeks ago, the response is always "No, we'll just layer another mechanic over it." That's when there's acknowledgement of the suggestion at all. No mech has had any hardpoints altered since CB - in fact, once a mech is out, it's rare to get so much as a hitbox adjustment, much less anything that has to do with its impact on chassis balance.
Beta isn't beta when there's no leeway to make sweeping changes. But many of us realize that weapon/chassis balance issues would be easier to manage with more mechlab restrictions, but it's a lost battle - there are plenty of people here who, at the HINT of reduction in customization, take the "but it will limit variety!!" bizzarro argument, and of course PGI is in the 'not changing it' camp.
So the rest of us have stopped making the argument.

[Vodrin Thales]

Jesus Box, on 27 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

It's another thing they couldn't properly learn from MW4. That game, back in 2002 or so, had the good well designed hardpoint system for each Mech, along with a properly balanced ECM/BAP, and no stupid heat scaling. It did so many things right. All PGI had to do was copy it. Now compare all that to this game. It's all screwed up here; because these Devs can't learn from people that have already done it right. They want to instead try to do it all better and "fix" things that didn't need fixing. This is all the result. They've ultimately repeatedly proved that they've no idea what they're doing. I wish this project would go to another developer. If people like Riot had this; it would have been gold. When they made League, based off of Dota1, they didn't wreck everything, they simply evolved it, and made the best F2P business model to date; which is also something IGP/PGI couldn't copy as everyone originally hoped.

Are you saying MW4 had good weapon balance and good mech diversity in multiplayer? Because if you are we remember two very different games.

[TexAce]

I've just read the title and all it says is "All the problems you have with your car can be resolved with a motorcycle".

Over and out.

[Jez]

For the most part I agree with the OP. It really comes down to the Devs not creating specific hardpoint categories for PPCs and MGs. Once you start restricting PPCs to their own hardpoints and prevent other ballistics from occupying what was intended to be a MG hardpoint, you begin to reestablish the uniqueness of mech chassis/varients while at the same time shutting down some of the game breaking boat designs.

I have no idea why there is such an insistence to group PPCs into the same category as lasers. PPCs and lasers are so functionally different that PPCs have more similarities to ballistic weapons in practice. Its the opposite with MGs. The MGs are actually more similar to how lasers work than they are with ballistics.

[DegeneratePervert]

Hardpoint sizes simply could not have worked in the early game. Not enough mechs, not enough variety. I feel that hardpoint sizes could work now, but I'd be rather upset if it went through. All of my builds would likely die horrible deaths and I'd have to rebuild 41 mechs... *shudder*...

[SweetWarmIce]

Hardpoint restrictions will just make people take only the BattleMechs that can mount PPC and/or Gauss. It would be even worse.

[Khobai]

Quote

Hardpoint restrictions will just make people take only the BattleMechs that can mount PPC and/or Gauss. It would be even worse.

Exactly.

The problem is hardpoint restrictions wont work unless the weapons are balanced perfectly first. And if the weapons are balanced perfectly, do you really need hardpoint restrictions anymore?

[Jesus Box]

Vodrin Thales, on 27 August 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Are you saying MW4 had good weapon balance and good mech diversity in multiplayer? Because if you are we remember two very different games.

I was not talking about balance. I was talking about hardpoint design; and that one was all around better. Mech hardpoints didn't just have 12 per section, they varied in size in addition to type. The end result would actually be a better balanced game though. The weapon, armor, heat, or other values here are still not the same as MW4. You would have basically gotten the best of both worlds. But instead they gave you the worst of one and none of the other.

[Griffinhart]

Sheesh, this again... No more restrictive hard points would not be an improvement. you would have even fewer variations of mech and weapon use than you would have today. People would use the perceived mech with the Best hard point options with the best weapon load out. And it wouldn't make the game any more fun. People would just start complaining of how we only see mech X. A fairly open mechlab is one of the things that bring a lot of people to the game. you would lose a ton of players if it were to get more restrictive than it is now.

[AC]

Renthrak, on 27 August 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

The very idea that MWO's woes can be traced to a single system is folly. Similarly, there is no single 'magic bullet' that will make the game perfect either.

As for the hardpoint system, there is very little room between additional restrictions and stock-weapons-only, which is no better than no hardpoints at all.

Actually its true. Ghost Heat, and Gauss Delay (in development) are all due to the generic weapon slot system. And to be honest there is tons of solutions that allow us to customize our mechs but restrict the type of issue the game has now. One would be if PGI simply added a critical space limitation to each weapons slot. That alone would allow us lots of creativity with our load outs but prevent the super PPC/gauss alphas we have now. Not to mention all the mechs are starting to be the same. I can build the same config on so many mechs that they have lost their character or personality. They are all generic IMO.

[Zakie Chan]

Livewyr, on 27 August 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

9/10 balance issues are a result of smarter players learning to use what is given to them in the most effective manner.

Pretty sure you're telling people to go FOTM. That only leads to brutally boring gameplay.

[Mycrus]

I'm cool with hardpoint restrictions, please don't nerf convergence

[AC]

I don't understand why we just can try them. It wouldn't hurt anything to try limiting the weapons slots slightly to see if we can improve game balance.