30 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Just want to throw out this question to those who played/play BT TT. I only had a couple of games about 30 years ago so don't really remember much.

If they are balanced in TT why didn't PGI just decrease damage and heat when increasing fire rate by an equal amount? Then all weapons would be balanced, assuming they are balanced in TT.

So, are the weapons balanced?

[frogczar]

They are only marginally balanced through the 3050 tech (level 2). After that it gets pretty crazy. Even with Level 2 tech (ultra AC, pulse, LB-X, double HS, etc) the absolute king of weapons is the Large Pulse Laser. Long range, -2 to hit modifier (this is good), make this the ultimate weapon. I used to play in the Battletech Open at Gen Con and the first time I went, I got torn to pieces in seconds by Large Pulse Laser boats.

[Jestun]

TT is based on moving a specific amount per turn and rolling a dice to see if / where you hit.

You cannot just directly transfer the weapon stats into a real-time FPS where you can fire multiple weapons at the enemy cockpit with pinpoint precision.

Edited by Jestun, 11 September 2013 - 01:08 PM.

[Wolfways]

Jestun, on 11 September 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

TT is based on moving a specific amount per turn and rolling a dice to see if / where you hit.

You cannot just directly transfer the weapon stats into a real-time FPS where you can fire multiple weapons at the enemy cockpit with pinpoint precision.

Well let's be fair here. Being able to aim instead of random hit locations isn't the fault of the weapons.
I don't see how that affects the weapon stats. In that case it's the armour that needs balanced.

It just seems to make sense (to me at least) that if you want, for example, the AC5 to fire 4 times in ten seconds then you decrease the damage by 3/4 and heat per shot by 3/4. If you want the gauss to fire twice per 10 seconds you divide the damage and heat per shot by 2.

Of course this is assuming you don't want to cripple mechs with high heat generation.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Jestun, on 11 September 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

TT is based on moving a specific amount per turn and rolling a dice to see if / where you hit.

You cannot just directly transfer the weapon stats into a real-time FPS where you can fire multiple weapons at the enemy cockpit with pinpoint precision.

Not sure why people keep thinking this.

First you could move and much or little as you wanted in TT. This simulated being able to adjust your speed. Move 1 hex and your going X kph, move 3 hexes and your going Y kph just like pressing a button and moving in MWO.

As far as the dice roll to hit, this simulates how hard it is to hit a moving target while you youself are moving. I mean can you honestly tell me that you have 100% accuracy in ever match you play in MWO, that every time you fire you can hit the head or CT, that you never miss and hit an arm or side torso? I know I can't.

I mean seriously think about it. Enemy mech comes into your field of view, you line up for a CT shot and let loose, just then he twists left and your nicely lined up CT shot, hits the shoulder instead. Opps you rolled a 2 instead of a 1, tough luck. Point is, there is no pin point percision in the game because people miss their intended targets all the time.

Now while TT wasn't 100% balanced throughout its entire life, the Inner Sphere weapons of this time frame were pretty damn close to being perfectly balanced against other. Additional the systems in the TT version lasted through 30 years without significant revision so honestly, it is pretty obvious that they were fairly well balanced. That being said, if PGI would have attempted to stick closer to a direct TT translation I am 100% sure we would have a much better game than we do not and alot more happy fans.

[RandomLurker]

BT was balanced for an environment where you could not aim at specific sections. (cLPL+Targeting computer munchkin fits aside). Most weapons were balanced in this situation. Weapons like LBX and SRM's make much more sense this way- they are designed to spread out damage and get critical hits on armor sections that have been exposed by larger weapons like PPCs. Import those same stats into a FP game, and they are all kinds of broken. That's why MW weapons _must_ have different stats.

Look at the AC/5 vs Medium Laser. In TT, the huge (8 tons + ammo!) fitting difference is balanced somewhat by the huge increase in range and lowered heat. Mlas couldn't be focus fired, combined with the extremely high risk of brawling, made the AC/5 a reasonable choice. (To be fair, it was broken by the release of double heat sinks and completely replaced by the Large Laser at that point. Which is why they made the UAC/5) In MW, that's not enough to compensate, so the DPS (or something) has to go up.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Wolfways, on 11 September 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Of course this is assuming you don't want to cripple mechs with high heat generation.

I think this is where PGI made their mistake. They were so focused on heat being meaningful they allowed themselves to realize just how bad a decision messing with the underlying balance of weapon was in the long run.

PGI absolutely did not want any heat neutral mechs in the game and in fact wanted them all to run hot so that people would be forced to manage heat in each and every mech. Therefore they redesigned the heat system compeletely so it didn't resemble anything from TT. Then they tried to take weapons balanced around TT rules and fit them into this heat system which has ended up being a square peg into a round hole. And here we are.

[Wolfways]

Viktor Drake, on 11 September 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Not sure why people keep thinking this.

First you could move and much or little as you wanted in TT. This simulated being able to adjust your speed. Move 1 hex and your going X kph, move 3 hexes and your going Y kph just like pressing a button and moving in MWO.

As far as the dice roll to hit, this simulates how hard it is to hit a moving target while you youself are moving. I mean can you honestly tell me that you have 100% accuracy in ever match you play in MWO, that every time you fire you can hit the head or CT, that you never miss and hit an arm or side torso? I know I can't.

I mean seriously think about it. Enemy mech comes into your field of view, you line up for a CT shot and let loose, just then he twists left and your nicely lined up CT shot, hits the shoulder instead. Opps you rolled a 2 instead of a 1, tough luck. Point is, there is no pin point percision in the game because people miss their intended targets all the time.

Now while TT wasn't 100% balanced throughout its entire life, the Inner Sphere weapons of this time frame were pretty damn close to being perfectly balanced against other. Additional the systems in the TT version lasted through 30 years without significant revision so honestly, it is pretty obvious that they were fairly well balanced. That being said, if PGI would have attempted to stick closer to a direct TT translation I am 100% sure we would have a much better game than we do not and alot more happy fans.

That's what i was saying (but you said it better )

It just seems to me that if they had adjusted all weapons equally the game would be more balanced, instead of giving different weapon classes different maximum ranges, increasing the damage and heat, etc.
If you increase a weapons fire rate you make it a better brawler weapon (like current AC's), but less useful for using cover.

As for random hits...accuracy is better when being able to aim, and as most people shoot at the torso's armour should be increased there.

[RandomLurker]

Viktor Drake, on 11 September 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Not sure why people keep thinking this.

Multiple weapons could not be (deliberately) focus fired on the same location. There was no such thing as an alpha strike. The two exceptions being the Targetign Computer, widely regarded as being the worst thing to ever happen to the TT, and firing at a shutdown mech. Both of which were only about a 40% chance to actually work anyway.

[Wolfways]

RandomLurker, on 11 September 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

Multiple weapons could not be (deliberately) focus fired on the same location. There was no such thing as an alpha strike. The two exceptions being the Targetign Computer, widely regarded as being the worst thing to ever happen to the TT, and firing at a shutdown mech. Both of which were only about a 40% chance to actually work anyway.

That's another problem with MWO, but the only options i see to fix that are:
1) Cone of fire.
2) Players choose the mech to fire at (i.e. targets it) and the weapons are fired at random areas by the mech.
3) Homeless Bill's solution http://www.qqmercs.com/?p=2780 (which i think is the best ).

Being able to fire all weapons at the same time at a single point isn't a problem with the weapons themselves.

Edited by Wolfways, 11 September 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[AnarchyBurger]

Short answer... No they were not balanced.

Long answer. Aside from the whole dice rolling aspect, many campaigns were played as such. Therefore damage would carry on from battle to battle and things like rearming and repairing were not as simple. Btech was a strategy+role playing game so it was more complex than just quick battles. But without a doubt weapons like gauss, PPC, LRM 20, etc were the big powerhouses and were in no way balanced. A big mech would typically shred light or medium scouts without issue.

[RandomLurker]

You never mastered the Butterfly tactic then Light mechs were just as bad as they are in MWO, assuming the map had cover and you used your initiative rolls wisely.

As for fixing the alpha issue, tying weapon aim to mech movement is the key imo. That way, while in motion, your aim would drift beyond your control. This gives us the tactical choice of moving slowly or standing still to line up a perfect shot, or dodging like a madman. Similar choice the TT gave you, in fact.

[Vodrin Thales]

Wolfways, on 11 September 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Well let's be fair here. Being able to aim instead of random hit locations isn't the fault of the weapons.
I don't see how that affects the weapon stats. In that case it's the armour that needs balanced.

It just seems to make sense (to me at least) that if you want, for example, the AC5 to fire 4 times in ten seconds then you decrease the damage by 3/4 and heat per shot by 3/4. If you want the gauss to fire twice per 10 seconds you divide the damage and heat per shot by 2.

Of course this is assuming you don't want to cripple mechs with high heat generation.

That would work if the TT weapons were really balanced, but they were not at all balanced. Ballistic weapons were far less attractive than energy until the LB-X and ultra weapons became available, and even then they were a bit lackluster (especially when DHS were available).

[Lefty Lucy]

Even with bare-bones 3025 tech TT BT is not well balanced. The PPC and ML are pretty much the best weapons, with AC20, LRMs, and SRMs as weapons with niche roles (pin point damage, indirect fire and LR support, and crit seeking respectively). AC10 and 5 are marginally useful, but are almost always better off being replaced with a PPC plus heat sinks. AC2 is pointless. Large lasers are OK, but generally the PPC is more useful. Small lasers and machine guns are pretty damned pointless.

[Kanatta Jing]

I'm pretty sure the Light AC-2 and Light AC-5 where intended as fixes.

[Eddrick]

BattleTech Table Top weapons were not very balanced. Everything favored the larger Mechs and bigger weapons. There is a reason they made the rules for Weight Limits and Battle Values.

[Wolfways]

Lefty Lucy, on 11 September 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Even with bare-bones 3025 tech TT BT is not well balanced. The PPC and ML are pretty much the best weapons, with AC20, LRMs, and SRMs as weapons with niche roles (pin point damage, indirect fire and LR support, and crit seeking respectively). AC10 and 5 are marginally useful, but are almost always better off being replaced with a PPC plus heat sinks. AC2 is pointless. Large lasers are OK, but generally the PPC is more useful. Small lasers and machine guns are pretty damned pointless.

Okay i have another question then. Assuming no custom mechs were used, were mechs balanced?
All i see in MWO is players stripping small weapons off mechs and fitting the biggest they can get. This seems counter-intuitive to me.
If you have a weapon that does 10-damage, but have the hardpoints to fit two 5-damage weapons then the two 5-point weapons seem the obvious choice. You can decide not to fire one of them if your heat is getting too high, and because you're firing two weapons you have double the chance of getting crits.
At least that's how i see it. (Although i'm tired and having trouble remembering how crits work in MWO )

[Escef]

frogczar, on 11 September 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

They are only marginally balanced through the 3050 tech (level 2). After that it gets pretty crazy. Even with Level 2 tech (ultra AC, pulse, LB-X, double HS, etc) the absolute king of weapons is the Large Pulse Laser. Long range, -2 to hit modifier (this is good), make this the ultimate weapon. I used to play in the Battletech Open at Gen Con and the first time I went, I got torn to pieces in seconds by Large Pulse Laser boats.

To be more accurate, it was the Clan LPL that was stupid good. The Inner Sphere version has never been considered all that outstanding due to its lack of range. (The Clan LPL did a smidge more damage, was a ton lighter, and had twice the range.)

The most powerful weapons in the game overall are the Clan versions of the LPL, ERPPC (lighter, more compact, +50% damage), and LRM (half weight, more compact, no minimum range). The Gauss sneaks in as a low-heat alternative to ERPPCs when you run low on space for more heat sinks. There is almost no reason to use most of the other weapons.

Inner Sphere side, there's a greater variety of weapons for more specialized roles. Snub-Nose PPCs and LPLs get used on close range specialists and fast movers, MPLs are the preferred weapon for dealing with fast movers, PPCs, ERPPCs, and the 3 Gauss rifles (regular, light, and heavy) tend to be your sniper weapons. Most other ballistics exist as mid-range range weapons, except the various 20 cannons (all of which do Bad Things^TM). LRMs and SRMs both have specialty roles, though are slowly being replaced by MMLs (which can launch either) on all-purpose mechs. Streaks rarely see use except as 4 and 6 packs (the 2 has been all but obsoleted). Hell, even SPLs see some use due to their ability to go through infantry like a hot knife through warm butter. MLs are ubiquitous backup weapons on big mechs, main guns on many lights, and sometimes you see mediums boating them because they are straight up disgusting in quantity.

Anyway, yeah, TT is not really well balanced. There's some effort at balancing, but most of that doesn't matter Clan side, because it is so fundamentally unbalanced by design. The Clans were originally meant for use as enemies in role playing campaigns and such. To be the challenge. Unfortunately, clan tech is like taking an unmodified fighting game boss and letting players use it. It's ugly.

[Lefty Lucy]

Wolfways, on 11 September 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Okay i have another question then. Assuming no custom mechs were used, were mechs balanced?
All i see in MWO is players stripping small weapons off mechs and fitting the biggest they can get. This seems counter-intuitive to me.
If you have a weapon that does 10-damage, but have the hardpoints to fit two 5-damage weapons then the two 5-point weapons seem the obvious choice. You can decide not to fire one of them if your heat is getting too high, and because you're firing two weapons you have double the chance of getting crits.
At least that's how i see it. (Although i'm tired and having trouble remembering how crits work in MWO )

Without customization balance is very, very poor. Certain variants such as the AWS-8Q, WVR-6M, MAD-3D, PXH-1D are generally considered to be better because they have close-to-max armor and remove ballistic weapons in favor of either more heat sinks, more energy weapons, or both, since the light-to-medium ballistics are so tonnage inefficient and ammo explosions are so deadly.

[Jestun]

If people don't see the difference between 60 damqge spread throughout the enemy mech and 60 damage all on the centre torso then I honestly don't know how to respond.

that's the difference between a multiple weapon alpha in TT and in a realtime fps.