9 replies to this topic

[Death Mallet]

I was just reading about about to comment on another thread talking about ballistics vs. energy weapons and the balance between them as a result of changes to weapon cycle times in MWO.

However, that thread starts with TT as the standard for weapon balance. . . which makes it a ridiculous argument on its face, and conceals the real issue.

The other cycle time thread has strayed from the important topic at hand.

Cycle times for ALL weapons need to be increased. A good place to start might be by simply doubling every weapon's cycle time, then making adjustments from there.

Increased cycle times will slow down the pace of the game, and allow for more tactics over twitch play.

Right now if a mech of medium - assault size steps around a corner and is surprised by 3 enemy mechs - that mech is dead. There is not enough reaction time for the pilot to get back around the corner before the enemy cores him completely.

Double the cycle time, and that mech will still be hurt severely (as he should be). . . but may have a chance to survive if the enemy isn't packing enough alpha damage.

After doubling cycle times for all weapons. . . cycle times for individual weapons can then be adjusted to tweak the balancing issues. Cycle time is a primary driver of weapon effectiveness and I'm surprised that there hasn't been more adjustments to it as a balancing tool.

Edited by Death Mallet, 31 October 2013 - 06:44 AM.

[Scratx]

That will just reward/promote alpha-based builds, which is in the wrong direction of the desired balance as has been stated/implied by the dev team.

[OneEyed Jack]

It was obvious you were clueless when you started off with "herp, derp, he said TT, so he must be wrong."

Heavily reducing cycle times across the board does nothing but make the game more peek-a-boo centric. That isn't more tactics. It's less. It would literally be the only viable option. Load as many and as big of guns as you can, pop out, fire, hide while your weapons cycle.

Reaction time and tactics are not synonymous (look it up).

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 31 October 2013 - 07:00 AM.

[Khobai]

If by more tactics you mean less tactics because all anyone would do is poptart.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 31 October 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

If by more tactics you mean less tactics because all anyone would do is poptart.

It would give more time to close the distance with said Pop Tarts I'd think.

[Mawai]

As mentioned, increased cycle times will likey just favour alpha builds over DPS ones. There is already this tendency but is it less pronounced since people with alpha builds often won't go try to hide while the weapon cycles since the time is generally too short to make it worthwhile. (On the other hand, look at the days of the 6 PPC Stalker which could very effectively use this strategy).

One aspect of the weapon balancing that has always puzzled me though was the initial numbers they used. They started by using the table top damage numbers but then applied apparently arbitrary cycle times which totally changed the weapon balance from table top. It would have seemed to me more reasonable to start with the damage/10 seconds table top numbers then impose a cycle time for FPS purposes and scale the damage appropriately.

Thus a PPC which did 10 damage every 10 seconds for 10 heat might have a cycle time of 5 seconds ... doing 5 damage and generating 5 heat .... while a medium laser that does 5 damage could have a cycle time of 3,33 seconds ... do 5/3 damage each shot and generates 2/3 (?) heat. This would have been a starting point that retained the TT weapon balance and moved the weapons into a real time environment. The numbers could then be tweaked from there to account for the effects of pinpoint convergence and other effects. Instead, the initial starting point for MWO would seem to have been unbalanced to start with ... though a lot of these balance issues were quite hidden by game issues that were at least partially addressed by HSR and netcode improvements.

[Death Mallet]

OneEyed Jack, on 31 October 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

It was obvious you were clueless when you started off with "herp, derp, he said TT, so he must be wrong."

Heavily reducing cycle times across the board does nothing but make the game more peek-a-boo centric. That isn't more tactics. It's less. It would literally be the only viable option. Load as many and as big of guns as you can, pop out, fire, hide while your weapons cycle.

Reaction time and tactics are not synonymous (look it up).

I played TT for decades. You are a total ***** if you think TT is balanced. Battletech is the poster-child of poorly balanced rule systems.

Sure. . . people can mega-load alpha builds and then sit helpless for ten seconds or so while their weapons cycle. Giving the enemy time to close the distance, round that building, etc.

God help you if you miss with your mega alpha build and are now helpless for a good 20 seconds or so.

Cycle times on the old Battletech simulators they had in Chicago (and other places) were in the 8 - 12 second range, and it worked great. So its not like this is a new idea.

[Homeless Bill]

More tactics? I think you mean more poptarting. Pass.

[OneEyed Jack]

Death Mallet, on 31 October 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

I played TT for decades. You are a total ***** if you think TT is balanced. Battletech is the poster-child of poorly balanced rule systems.

Sure. . . people can mega-load alpha builds and then sit helpless for ten seconds or so while their weapons cycle. Giving the enemy time to close the distance, round that building, etc.

God help you if you miss with your mega alpha build and are now helpless for a good 20 seconds or so.

Cycle times on the old Battletech simulators they had in Chicago (and other places) were in the 8 - 12 second range, and it worked great. So its not like this is a new idea.

I also played TT for decades, and you're a total ******* Hodor of you think rule systems and weapon stats are the same thing. Which has nothing to do with why I said you're clueless, but the fact you didn't know that further illustrates that I was correct.

You're clueless because you're another one of the chattering monkeys that sees any mention of TT in a post and automatically jumps on it as a sign it must be wrong. If TT was so poorly done, it wouldn't have spawned over 60 novels (just counting English), and a whole line of video games, including one made 30 years later. And people wouldn't have played it for decades. Can it be directly ported to real time? Well... let's just say not into this form of real time FPS-style game. But almost every problem this game has encountered has been a direct result of the specifically poor choices in exactly where it diverged from TT, compared to where it held firm. But that's far too long of a discussion, and I don't have the time, nor inclination to explain it to you. Especially since it makes no difference, as this game is now out of beta, and any hope of significant changes to base mechanics is now gone.

I'll just part with saying that the BT simulators were not this game. They were a very, very different game that worked at an entirely different speed. I never suggested that longer cycle times can't work in another game. But they wouldn't work in this game, for a whole host of reasons.

[pwnface]

I think increasing the cycle time of ALL weapons is a terrible idea. I don't think anyone wants to play a game where you shoot once every 8-10 seconds. I would definitely stop playing this game if this ever happened.