70 replies to this topic

[Mazikar]

You know what? The developer that buffs weapons that are not a focal point of whines to the same level of the awesome that is the other weapon will have the killer game. I would honestly rather have a choice of 10 working awesome weapons rather than searching for the only one that works this patch cycle.

So rather than nerfing the weapons that work... buff the stuff no one uses to the point of awesome.... then every weapon will be on the same level. Its gotta work better than upsetting everyone that likes a weapon that gets nerfed to poosticks right?

Edited by Lotharian, 15 September 2013 - 01:28 AM.

[D A T A]

Totally agree: my point is that if you downgrade all weapons at the end all roles will be deleted, actually the sniper role is UNDERPOWERED because of gauss downgrade, medium range role is underpowered because of normal ppc excessive heat, noob short range mess is overpowered because of mediumlasers, largelasers, srms, ac 10 and ac 10.

all the weapons need to have more power, but in different places, so there are different roles, now many builds are the same because too many weapons have to be used in the same way

DAMAGE HEAT WEIGHT AMMO RANGE RELOAD SLOTS DURATION
PPC 10 8 7 540 4 3 0
ERPPC 10 11 7 810 4 3 0
LGLAS 9 6 5 450 3 2 1
ERLGLAS 9 7,5 5 650 3 2 1
LGPLSLAS10 6 6 300 3 2 0,4
MDLAS 5 3,5 1 250 3 1 1
MDPLSLAS7 4,5 2 150 3 1 0,4
SMLLAS 3 1,5 0,5 90 2 1 1
SMLPLSLAS 5 2,5 1 70 2 1 0,4
AC 2 2 0,5 5 100 700 0,5 1 0
AC 5 5 1 7 50 600 1 4 0
AC 10 10 2 10 25 450 2 7 0
AC 20 21 6 14 10 270 4 10 0
UAC 2 1,2+1,2 0,75 5 100 650 0,5 1 0,2
UAC 5 3+3 1 7 50 550 1 4 0,2
UAC 10 6+6 3 10 25 400 2 7 0,2
UAC 20 11,5+11,5 7 14 10 240 4 10 0,2
LBX AC2 3 0,5 5 100 500 0,5 1 0
LBX AC5 7,5 1 7 50 350 1 4 0
LBX AC1013 2 10 25 300 2 7 0
LBX AC2025 7 14 10 150 4 10 0
GAUSS 15 0,5 14 15 700 4 7 0
SRM 2 5 2 2 120 300 3 1 0
SRM 4 10 3 3 120 300 4 1 0
SRM 6 15 4 4 120 300 4 2 0
no change on lrms, just on narc, it always remains active for 10 seconds, even if you hit it.

Lbx ac 20 and 10 have big spread, so you can not exploit their huge damage to focus it all in one part unless you are in the range of a small laser.

SRMs spread is reduced by 20%

ultra ac waste 2 ammo per shot, so it is like they have half ammo.

ARMOR DOUBLED, , up to 156 for 70 tons mech on ct

endo steel and ferro fibrous occupy 7 slots

ferro fib efficiency moved from 0.028 to 0.024

ppc have a spread damage formula: suggested formula (x= number of ppc used)
damage on hit part= (9-x)x
damage spread all around [10x-(9-x)x]/6, no damage on head

gauss speed 900, no load time

[OneEyed Jack]

Lotharian, on 15 September 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

You know what? The developer that buffs weapons that are not a focal point of whines to the same level of the awesome that is the other weapon will have the killer game.

It was researched and found that such a course of action would be detrimental to the player base. It would be such a blow to the cognitive processes of the whiners, attempting to figure out which of the many possibilities they were supposed to be whining about, that it would send many of them into a catatonic state, reducing the number of players available for the already over-stressed MM to work with. Since the only known cure would be to create the perception of imbalance, so they'd have something to focus their whining on, and have them play, but they'd be unable to play to receive the cure (being catatonic), it was deemed an unacceptable risk.

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 15 September 2013 - 01:53 AM.

[superteds]

they don't really balance, they just break things to make them unattractive to use.

[zagibu]

IL MECHWARRIOR, on 15 September 2013 - 01:50 AM, said:

noob short range mess is overpowered

Yeah, because sniping requires so much more skill than brawling. You have to zoom in (well, the real pros use 360n0sk0p3z skill), then you have to walk forward to crest the hilltop, then shoot, then back up again. Meanwhile in brawling you have to outmanoeuver your target, twist your torso to spread incoming fire and protect your sensitive parts, focus your fire on the enemies' weakness, keep your heat level in check (because you can't just wait behind the hill until it's fine again), constantly stay aware of your surroundings to not be shot in the back and finally coordinate your moves with your teammates, because if you brawl alone, you're dead.

It's clear that they should rebuff the gauss and the ppc to reward the 360n0sk0p3z 1337 sn1p4z while they should nerf all other weapons, because let's face it, nobody likes an incoming brawler when he's set up atop his hill.

[Livewyr]

weapon versus armor. if you make a bunch of awesome killer weapons, you might as well not have armor.
however since this is an armor game that is intended to have engagements last more than a few seconds, you should probably consider the balance between armor and firepower and not just what enables you to kill the fastest. this is not CoD HC Mode

[Jestun]

Whether all weapons are balanced at a "quality" of 10 or 1 is immaterial, as long as they are balanced. From there it's just a case of updating armour values, etc so that the newly balanced values fit with the expected time to kill.


A nerf of something high is always easier to do than buffing every other item in the game up to the level of a single item. All of those buffs will be different because all of the weapons are different - yet they would all have to increase the effectiveness of the weapons up to the same level.

Making dozens of changes to balance something when only 1 is needed is not a good way to work. If most of the weapons are worse than a few that stand out then deal with the few. Using the same logic if a few are far behind the rest then deal with those few by buffing them.

[The Boz]

The result of buffing weaker weapons is reduced time to kill.
We don't want reduced time to kill.
Solution: nerf the stronger weapons.

[Tor6]

Just make every weapon stupidly overpowered. That's the ticket.

[Wolfways]

Balance has never, and will never exist because it is a matter of personal perception.
To me, right now ballistics far outweigh any other weapon in game, so much that they are not even remotely close to lasers. I'm sure others disagree, and do better with lasers than they do with ballistics.

That's why all online games are a continuous cycle of buffs and nerfs. Every weapon will get its chance to shine at some point. It's a pathetic system but it's the only one.

[Hexenhammer]

Balance! Balance! I want balance!

Define balanced. Spell it out for us people.

[Inconspicuous]

I think they use weapon balancing to sell hero mechs, starting with the Highlander...

[Lydialeera]

One of the major problems with the "buff everything else" approach is that they'd be making hundreds if not thousands of changes all at once. Any one of which could cause a major game-breaking bug. This is probably the reason I have never seen a developer team try it. Ever.

[Inconspicuous]

Lydialeera, on 15 September 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

One of the major problems with the "buff everything else" approach is that they'd be making hundreds if not thousands of changes all at once. Any one of which could cause a major game-breaking bug. This is probably the reason I have never seen a developer team try it. Ever.

Weapon damage should be a series of variables on a spreadsheet, nothing to fear changing.

[Splitpin]

Totally agree. Nerf is by definition a negative. Negatives never gain a single player but certainly loose them. We all have our favourite weapons and play style, as the choices get narrower and narrower not only do you loose your fav play style there's less options to adapt to, not everyone just wants to brawl. I'd much rather see a game where close range, long range and missiles were not only viable but required, I don't think we have that now. Incremental buffs to less favoured weapons/styles won't p*ss off a single player and will please some with each buff. Yes that may lead to point where everything is a little OP, fine, we have an overall mechanic for that - armour, that might be the last required buff. The continual nerf cycle has become nothing but tail chasing where we've ended up now recycling places we've been to before, with a firing delay on Gauss and PPCs too hot.

Edited by Splitpin, 15 September 2013 - 04:10 PM.

[RandomLurker]

The stat inflation train starts now.

Nerfs and buffs both have their place. THe sooner gamers come to understand this the better. Fortunately, a lot more tend to get this now than a few years ago.

[TexAce]

no, reducing time to kill is bad

[OneEyed Jack]

TexAss, on 15 September 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

no, reducing time to kill is bad

^^ Proof of the decline of reading comprehension in the internet age.

If there are weapons that are so bloody OP, and everyone is using them (as the whiners continuously cry about whatever the current whine is), then buffing other weapons wouldn't increase TTK, just spread out the method. If that's not the case, then there's not a huge difference, anyway, and the buffs wouldn't be a big deal. If they were a big deal, survivability could be adjusted based on wherever that point of balance was found.

Now, I could care less if weapons are tuned upward or downward to accomplish balance, but I'm sure sick of moronic mechanics being implemented, so I'd lean toward the former on that basis alone.

The problem is that some random internet yahoo claims some weapon is "the best" (usually based on the fact they just died to it, whether it was primarily responsible for said death or not) and all the sheep that can't figure out the game for themselves flock to it. It becoming popular will, by default, mean that more deaths occur. In turn, the whiners grab their pitchforks and torches and start a campaign to get it nerfed into the ground, because anything that kills them is bad, and it's OK if it's made unplayable, because that's what it deserves and so does anyone that enjoyed the playstyle of using it. Whether it was actually any more powerful than anything else is completely beside the point. The fact that it was actually being used, and they weren't the ones using it is proof that it needed nerfed,

Not that they'd ever admit it. They'll just claim that I'm only trying to protect my favorite OP crutch. The ride I'm digging right now, BTW, is packing LPL and LB-X, and I'm consistently topping the charts with it. Bring it on.

[Sable Dove]

When a handful of weapons are overpowered, it's better to nerf them than it is to buff every other weapon in the game. Especially when the time to kill is already too short.

Nerfing overpowered weapons makes weapons more balanced, but also makes battles more protracted, and more strategic.

[Vassago Rain]

Sable Dove, on 16 September 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

When a handful of weapons are overpowered, it's better to nerf them than it is to buff every other weapon in the game. Especially when the time to kill is already too short.

Nerfing overpowered weapons makes weapons more balanced, but also makes battles more protracted, and more strategic.

You mean 'it takes longer to kill people in boring conflicts?' No matter how bad you make the guns, you're gonna end up with a gold standard that kills faster than the rest.

It's better to have multiple superior builds than just One True Build, because that's predictable, but having only weaksauce builds is even worse.

I don't like the nerfhammer approach to fun. We're heading towards a future where you get to pick between ineffective AC5s, dice rolling UAC5s, and maybe the occasional LRMboat, because all other options are subpar. It doesn't matter if you're a brawler or a sniper - you take these three weapons. Why can't we have more choice?

More choice is strategic. I should have to consider my role and build around it, not brawl with UACs because LBXs and SRMs are horrible at actually brawling.