99 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

Lefty Lucy, on 14 November 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

It's a myth that repair and rearm ever changed the meta. It simply allowed 8-man pugstompers to play the best equipment all the time, where everyone else had to struggle.

http://mwomercs.com/...tyle-game-mode/

I suggested a game mode a while back that used objective based supply to maintain peak performance of mechs, in addition to regular objectives. Not enough to totally cripple builds, but enough to encourage teams to spread out and take and hold side objectives.

Essentially, put a form of forced resupply into the game play, rather than the back end.

[Silentium]

I don't really see the hidey-peeky play style going away though. Players will always look for ways to make sweet love to terrain features because it minimizes damage. I see this in a lot of shooters, it's just that in this game you can't bunny hop your way to victory out in the open.

More to the point though, I would like to see r&r make a return as a balancing mechanic, just know that it will also hurt players running crazy advance tech gear like XL engines and such. I think you might start to see even more cautious play, or as noted above, a lot of players grinding out c-bills using low tech energy builds. Who knows, you might even start to see more lights and mediums on the field.

[Roadbeer]

FupDup, on 14 November 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

There are some kinks in that plan. Namely, we need to remember that this is a Free2Play game. As such, it allows players to purchase "convenience" items for real life dollars that make grinding earning easier. Basically, people running premium time and/or hero mechs would be a complete advantage over space hobos in terms of weaponry, because they would get to enjoy fearsome dakka dakka while the poors would be nearly forced to run SHS trial Swaybacks most of the time...those non-premium mechs wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Mordor.

RF Greywolf, on 14 November 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

The problem is that you can't fix the economy with so many players sitting on the mountain of C-bills that some are. It will just penalize the players that are new and don't have the disposable income, so to speak. I agree that the economy should be part of the balance, just how to get it right without screwing new players and limiting the players with millions of C-bills laying around...

A fool and his CBills are soon parted. One of the flaws of the old R&R system was that it deducted the cost upon the return to mechlab, so those with premium time did have the advantage because they received their bonuses pre"Tax". if it were put in at the EoM before bonuses were applied, it would look something like this...

150,000 CBills earned, 160,000 in R&R = -10,000 add in premium and hero bonuses are... allow me to paraphrase Jayne Cobb, "Nothing, plus, nothing, carry the two, nothing"

Even sitting on a pile of 200 million CBills, you could watch that burn away really quick if you're spamming ammo like a drunken sailor. Even with these huge piles of C Bills, I don't see Arty and cool shot going off all over the place, because they're expensive to use, like ammo should be.

[Khobai]

Quote

I don't really see the hidey-peeky play style going away though. Players will always look for ways to make sweet love to terrain features because it minimizes damage.

And the problem is the overall game design. Maps have too much terrain to hide behind and assault mechs cant survive long enough to cross open ground.

Its completely stupid that light mechs like the spider can run out in the open and get shot at by the entire enemy team and live. But an Atlas thats caught out in the open can get killed in less than 15 seconds by a ballistic heavy. Its the complete opposite of how it should be.

Assaults should be the tanks and Light mechs should be the ones hiding behind rocks.

Quote

Even sitting on a pile of 200 million CBills, you could watch that burn away really quick if you're spamming ammo like a drunken sailor

Then people wont use ammo weapons. And the ONLY weapon youll see is PPCs. Good job youve balanced the game.

Edited by Khobai, 14 November 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[Silentium]

At that point, they would just move to whatever features are available I would think; I suppose alternatively it could just turn into a contest where the team that can focus the other one down first wins. That doesn't really sound fun to me though.

[Roadbeer]

Lefty Lucy, on 14 November 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

It's a myth that repair and rearm ever changed the meta.

The myth of the flaws with R&R were people didn't want to be penalized for holding down the trigger, then complain that this isn't a 'Thinking mans shooter"

Lefty Lucy, on 14 November 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

It simply allowed 8-man pugstompers to play the best equipment all the time, where everyone else had to struggle.

You mean that it made groups of people bring diverse builds to the field that complimented each other? Yeah, let's not encourage Role Warfare

Khobai, on 14 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Then people wont use ammo weapons. And the ONLY weapon youll see is PPCs. Good job youve balanced the game.

Wait, I thought ballistics were OP, if they are OP, then people should use them at any cost.

Edited by Roadbeer, 14 November 2013 - 06:26 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

At that point, they would just move to whatever features are available I would think; I suppose alternatively it could just turn into a contest where the team that can focus the other one down first wins. That doesn't really sound fun to me though.

Not necessarily. If assaults could tank properly you could cross in the open. Whats not fun to me is an assault mech having to hide behind rocks, because thats NOT battletech. Thats heavy gear.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 14 November 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

ACs never did up front damage in battletech. They did less damage than energy equivalents in most cases and weighed significantly more. ACs were among the worst weapons in the game until ultra autocannons came out. And even most of the ultra autocannons were inferior to energy weapons, but they werent completely unusable like standard autocannons at least.

Autocannons were BAAAAD thats why they had such low BV compared to other weapons. AC/10s had like 2/3rds the battle value of PPCs. They weren't equal to PPCs at all.

MWO unfortunately does not have battlevalue, so we cant have a system of asymmetrical weapon balance like Battletech had. Weapons have got to be equal. And the AC/10 needs to be significantly better than the PPC because of all of its drawbacks.



Yep and the primary offenders are still PPCs and to a lesser extent the AC/20. Those weapons need to be nerfed to spread damage around more. AC/5s may or may not need a nerf as well.

My AC10 on TT did 10 damage to one location (Up front damage) just like a PPC, BV took amount of ammo into consideration a PPC is infinite damage v an AC, but In 28 years of play I ran out of ammo... never, even during a Sanctioned event. They run significantly cooler that their energy equivalent, BV was a broke system that could be manipulated if you could figure out the system. If you wanna match an AC here sure you can match the damage out put. 2 PPCs CAN put out as much damage as one AC10... for 3 times the heat! If you wanna exploit convergence with 4 PPC you can... barring Ghost heat, 40 heat v 24 heat... I prefer to sustain my death and destruction not shut down every 2-3 salvos!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 November 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[Zyllos]

Khobai, on 14 November 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

Not necessarily. If assaults could tank properly you could cross in the open. Whats not fun to me is an assault mech having to hide behind rocks, because thats NOT battletech. Thats heavy gear.

This is an extremely good point.

When the dominate strategy to survive damage is to turn your mech facing away from the target because players can easily place all their damage where they want/need to, this is a sign that the game doesn't fit the MechWarrior/Battletech game.

The reason why this phenomenon happens is because we are using the TT mechanics of armor (how it's applied and takes damage) that assumes damage is applied in a random, distributed fashion but with an aiming mechanic that reduces almost all randomness in the game.

As long as players can easily place their damage onto the location they want, the hide-peek and torso twist meta will stay around. And I find this style of play very disrupting to a MechWarrior game.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

This is one of those cases where a Live action game can break from Canon Fluff. The TT Mechanics of a AC is Up front damage as is a Laser, If we are OK with changing a Laser to a DpS from Canon we can also change the way a AC works from Canon.

But that's the thing; we did change lasers from pin-point to beam duration, but we didn't change ACs. We should change ACs and PPCs too, exactly for gameplay reasons. Pin-point damage is making balance nigh-on impossible, so it has to go.

The fact that the change from pin-point also makes them behave like the canon fluff is really only a bonus; the real benefit will be in gameplay - more skill needed, 'mechs lasting longer, fights needing more strategy.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

The system handles it fine St

No, it doesn't. Double armour and we still die too fast. They're even looking into doubling armour again, for four times the amount of armour that TT has. That's not "handing it fine", that's a broken system. And why? Because you effectively duct-tape all your pin-point weaponry into one mega-weapon and put all that damage in a single spot, something that could only happen by the rarest of chances in the environment the system was designed for.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

ACs have done Up front damage for 30 years, and it has been fine.

Lasers were "up-front damage" in TT for 30 years as well, and the change to beam duration may well have been the best change PGI ever did.

I submit that changing ACs to burst-fire and PPCs to beam duration would be just as great a change. In fact, I believe it would make the game not only more fun, but also make it a lot easier to balance. And the AC/20 would still do 20 points of damage per pull of the trigger; you would just need a modicum of skill to put it all in one location, just like with lasers.

Edited by stjobe, 14 November 2013 - 06:52 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

stjobe, on 14 November 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

No, it doesn't. Double armour and we still die too fast. They're even looking into doubling armour again, for four times the amount of armour that TT has. That's not "handing it fine", that's a broken system. And why? Because you effectively duct-tape all your pin-point weaponry into one mega-weapon and put all that damage in a single spot, something that could only happen by the rarest of chances in the environment the system was designed for.

I have asked twice in ATD about there armor distribution. And afaik they said armor is fine
althoug there were two conflicting statements:

they answered that armor values were taken from TT, and in a later one they told that TT is just a loose guideline. BTW: i believe that is exactly the problem: loose guideline for values that should be more restrictiv and strict adherence to rules that should be handled more generous.

However - I still hope that we are simple unable to see the big picture - and PGI is some how able to deliver an great game during the next year

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 14 November 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

But that's the thing; we did change lasers from pin-point to beam duration, but we didn't change ACs. We should change ACs and PPCs too, exactly for gameplay reasons. Pin-point damage is making balance nigh-on impossible, so it has to go.

And we shouldn't change ACs. Personally I prefer Up front damage for all direct fire weapons, Specially since there is the Whole Dancing the Scars and Precision Weapon thing of the Goliath Scorpions. Lasers are "Elegant" Accurate weapons. And Missiles are the spray and prey.

Quote

The fact that the change from pin-point also makes them behave like the canon fluff is really only a bonus; the real benefit will be in gameplay - more skill needed, 'mechs lasting longer, fights needing more strategy.

It takes more skill to hit with ballistics than with DpS weapons Laser accuracy for me is at the 80% mark, but my ballistics is lower than that, so a ballistic front loaded damage takes more effort to put on target.

Quote

No, it doesn't. Double armour and we still die too fast. They're even looking into doubling armour again, for four times the amount of armour that TT has. That's not "handing it fine", that's a broken system. And why? Because you effectively duct-tape all your pin-point weaponry into one mega-weapon and put all that damage in a single spot, something that could only happen by the rarest of chances in the environment the system was designed for.

To fast is relative. I have had it pounded into me (Literally) that if you are fighting for more than 3 seconds u are going to get hurt. So for me he sooner I kill the enemy the better.

Quote

Lasers were "up-front damage" in TT for 30 years as well, and the change to beam duration may well have been the best change PGI ever did.

I don't really disagree with you. But I need to have my Hammer of the Gods as well as my whirling Dervish weapons.

Quote

I submit that changing ACs to burst-fire and PPCs to beam duration would be just as great a change. In fact, I believe it would make the game not only more fun, but also make it a lot easier to balance. And the AC/20 would still do 20 points of damage per pull of the trigger; you would just need a modicum of skill to put it all in one location, just like with lasers.

I'll just disagree with you on the principal that not everyone want to play games the same way, an there needs to be something for every type of gamer. If you want DpS you have Lasers. I want front loaded damage and I have ACs. And for those who want to saturate an area with damage we have Missiles. That is a good balance.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 November 2013 - 07:11 AM.

[Sandpit]

I can solve this:

If you're good with energy weapons use energy builds
If you're good with ballistics use ballistics
If you're good with LRMs use LRMs
If you're good in lights pilot a light
Stop worrying about what the other guy is driving unless you're plotting a strategy on how to best take out his mech

See? Simple. Balance is subjective and no amount of x+y = z is going to change opinions on that. If the game were truly as unbalanced as some would like everyone to believe you simply wouldn't have people disputing it and you most definitely would not see the weapon systems in question being used on the battlefield. The fact that people do use them, do well, and win just as often as those that don't is in direct contradiction to any "unbalanced or ac warrior, lrm warrior, etc.) ideology

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

And we shouldn't change ACs. Personally I prefer Up front damage for all direct fire weapons, Specially since there is the Whole Dancing the Scars and Precision Weapon thing of the Goliath Scorpions. Lasers are "Elegant" Accurate weapons. And Missiles are the spray and prey.

Lasers aren't accurate, they spread their damage all over during the beam duration. And of course you prefer up-front damage; it is superior in every way.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

It takes more skill to hit with ballistics than with DpS weapons Laser accuracy for me is at the 80% mark, but my ballistics is lower than that, so a ballistic front loaded damage takes more effort to put on target.

Wrong. Your accuracy may be around the 80% mark, but any portion of the beam damage counts as a hit, even if you only do a fraction of the listed damage. Ballistics are always 100% damage per hit.

Go to stats and divide your damage done with number of hits and you might get an eye-opener. I'm at 2.6 damage per ML hit, and 20.2 damage per AC/20 hit.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

To fast is relative. I have had it pounded into me (Literally) that if you are fighting for more than 3 seconds u are going to get hurt. So for me he sooner I kill the enemy the better.

And that's why you prefer the up-front ACs/PPCs - they're simply better at killing the enemy than the beam-duration lasers or missile-spread missiles. It's understandable, but it's also not very good balance.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

I don't really disagree with you. But I need to have my Hammer of the Gods as well as my whirling Dervish weapons.

20 damage over 0.5-1 second is still Hammer of the Gods, you just have to have some more skill to wield that hammer in an effective way.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

I'll just disagree with you on the principal that not everyone want to play games the same way, an there needs to be something for every type of gamer. If you want DpS you have Lasers. I want front loaded damage and I have ACs. And for those who want to saturate an area with damage we have Missiles. That is a good balance.

It is not good balance, since the front-loaded ACs/PPC are strictly better than either missiles or lasers. That's the problem.

Edited by stjobe, 14 November 2013 - 07:24 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Sandpit, on 14 November 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

I can solve this:

If you're good with energy weapons use energy builds
If you're good with ballistics use ballistics
If you're good with LRMs use LRMs
If you're good in lights pilot a light
Stop worrying about what the other guy is driving unless you're plotting a strategy on how to best take out his mech

See? Simple. Balance is subjective and no amount of x+y = z is going to change opinions on that. If the game were truly as unbalanced as some would like everyone to believe you simply wouldn't have people disputing it and you most definitely would not see the weapon systems in question being used on the battlefield. The fact that people do use them, do well, and win just as often as those that don't is in direct contradiction to any "unbalanced or ac warrior, lrm warrior, etc.) ideology

The problem is that when you reach your skill cap with the weapon that you're "good with" you can be disadvantaged against another player who is "good with" a better weapon system.

For example, a player is aces with Large Lasers. He goes up against someone who is middling with AC5s, and he'll win. He goes up against someone aces with AC5s, and he's losing.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 14 November 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

I can solve this:

If you're good with energy weapons use energy builds
If you're good with ballistics use ballistics
If you're good with LRMs use LRMs
If you're good in lights pilot a light
Stop worrying about what the other guy is driving unless you're plotting a strategy on how to best take out his mech

See? Simple. Balance is subjective and no amount of x+y = z is going to change opinions on that. If the game were truly as unbalanced as some would like everyone to believe you simply wouldn't have people disputing it and you most definitely would not see the weapon systems in question being used on the battlefield. The fact that people do use them, do well, and win just as often as those that don't is in direct contradiction to any "unbalanced or ac warrior, lrm warrior, etc.) ideology

An this is why I try to carry all three types of weapons. I revel in trying to beat you guys at your game. I loved back in the day dualing with the enemy Missileboats. The game was see who ducked for cover first! I have pretty good nerves, and I won the day 70-80% o the time!

[Sandpit]

Lefty Lucy, on 14 November 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

The problem is that when you reach your skill cap with the weapon that you're "good with" you can be disadvantaged against another player who is "good with" a better weapon system.

For example, a player is aces with Large Lasers. He goes up against someone who is middling with AC5s, and he'll win. He goes up against someone aces with AC5s, and he's losing.

"Better" is subjective. There's always going to be someone better regardless of weapon systems. I'm merely pointing out that the game is, in my opinion, very well balanced at the moment. I don't step onto a battlefield and ever see a loadout that makes me think "Well I might as well give up now". You've been here long enough lucy that you have seen what actual unbalanced weapons can do. You've been here for things like LRM and SSRM madness and what a truly unbalanced weapon system can do. The current balance is nowhere near that. Will we ever have a "perfect" balance? No, because again balance is going to be somewhat subjective and every weapon has different pros and cons and acts in a different manner. Because of that fact alone you're ALWAYS going to have someone who feels things are "unbalanced" If all weapons performed in the exact same manner then you would have "balance" for everyone. But then you wouldn't have Btech either.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 14 November 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Lasers aren't accurate, they spread their damage all over during the beam duration. And of course you prefer up-front damage; it is superior in every way.

So why do I have 15-20 % more accuracy with Lasers? Lasers let you correct and damage your enemy. Don't forget, I don't Just use ACs. I mix them with my DpS Lasers and Splash damaging missiles. I use all three types of damage whenever I can. Which is another reason I want my Weapons to do different types of damage. A weapon for every occasion.

Quote

Wrong. Your accuracy may be around the 80% mark, but any portion of the beam damage counts as a hit, even if you only do a fraction of the listed damage. Ballistics are always 100% damage per hit.

And thank goodness for that difference. Depleted Uranium Penetrators are a punch a hole in your enemy weapon. We've seen the pictures.

Quote

Go to stats and divide your damage done with number of hits and you might get an eye-opener. I'm at 2.6 damage per ML hit, and 20.2 damage per AC/20 hit.

I rate around 3.5 damage with my Medium lasers

Quote

And that's why you prefer the up-front ACs/PPCs - they're simply better at killing the enemy than the beam-duration lasers or missile-spread missiles. It's understandable, but it's also not very good balance.

And this is why I play the game, To kill you guys. Is that so wrong in a combat game?

Quote

20 damage over 0.5-1 second is still Hammer of the Gods, you just have to have some more skill to wield that hammer in an effective way.

Hammers are not a high skill weapon, A Scalpel cannot be a hammer and a Hammer is not a Scalpel. Boh need their place an time to be used.

Quote

It is not good balance, since the front-loaded ACs/PPC are strictly better than either missiles or lasers. That's the problem.

You see it as a problem, I see it as a solution. I the three weapon types damage in different ways we HAVE a reason to use each.
My Mech Builds:
Sara
Centurion
Trebuchet
Atlas
A small bit of everything cause I can o the most with it.

[Trauglodyte]

You could reduce the impact of ACs without completely neutering them:

AC2 - fires one round, 2 damage
AC5 - fires two rounds, 2.5 damage
AC10 - fires three rounds, 3.3 damage
AC20 - fires four rounds, 5 damage

You're still increasing the bore size of the weapon which means that you're bumping up the caliber which is reflecting in the damage done per round. You're not reducing it to a beam weapon or even a MG. But, you'd add a bit more skill to it already seen in the UAC (it isn't easy putting both rounds on a target that is moving at speed).

Personally, I don't have any faith that they're going to be able to fix the primary issue that is centralized damage. I don't think it is because they can't code it but rather that it really makes little sense that you have a simulator that doesn't let you put damage where you point. TT had seperate locations for hits to mimic what we have in game with torso twisting and terrain/JJ impact on weapons fire. I think we could add more to it by way of heat penalties (been pushing it for a while) but you can't randomize weapons fire while keeping it as a shooter. It just doesn't mix.

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 14 November 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

You could reduce the impact of ACs without completely neutering them:

AC2 - fires one round, 2 damage
AC5 - fires two rounds, 2.5 damage
AC10 - fires three rounds, 3.3 damage
AC20 - fires four rounds, 5 damage

You're still increasing the bore size of the weapon which means that you're bumping up the caliber which is reflecting in the damage done per round. You're not reducing it to a beam weapon or even a MG. But, you'd add a bit more skill to it already seen in the UAC (it isn't easy putting both rounds on a target that is moving at speed).

Personally, I don't have any faith that they're going to be able to fix the primary issue that is centralized damage. I don't think it is because they can't code it but rather that it really makes little sense that you have a simulator that doesn't let you put damage where you point. TT had seperate locations for hits to mimic what we have in game with torso twisting and terrain/JJ impact on weapons fire. I think we could add more to it by way of heat penalties (been pushing it for a while) but you can't randomize weapons fire while keeping it as a shooter. It just doesn't mix.

Even so we need more than just damage per second weapons, I am happy to see Our ACs do damage like a M256 Cannon. with 10-12 rounds a minute.