34 replies to this topic

[D04S02B04]

EDIT: Bumped because I saw the Clan release and I want to know if this area (out of many others...) will be even fixed at all.

Note: Pls correct me where I am factually wrong. I apologise in advance if I am.

I think for this forum to be remotely useful, PGI should explain their Balance policy.

From what I can observe, PGI follows TT value rather closely. What they are willing to tweak however, are range, projectile speed/trajectory and cooldown.

Damage values are rarely touched and Heat may be adjusted slightly.

I think a definitive statement and design philosophy should be laid down officially by PGI to state what the weapons are designed to do, why certain figures are set the way they are and what actions will they consider "balancing" a weapon out.

After going through the patch notes for the past half year (2013 MAR - Present), the changes to the weapons are minimal. This either infers possibilities such as:

1. PGI for whatsoever reason, thinks/believes the current state of weapon balance is perfectly fine or that it matches their design philosophy. I think this to be very likely.
2. PGI does not consider weapon balance to be a priority.

My personal opinion is that this is indicative of a team that does not understand how their game works at competitive levels (which is pretty common). Being able to program/design a game does not equate to being able to balance it and make multiple builds and play styles viable according to situations.

This is not helped by poor universal map design philosophy which encourages a very limited selection of play styles but that is a different topic altogether.

PS: If PGI thinks the current weapon balance is good, then what is the point of discussing balance since it won't get changed?

The balancing for the past year involving weapons are:

*Click on Spoiler to Read*

Spoiler

15 Oct - http://mwomercs.com/...49-15-oct-2013/
Weapons Impact Shake Tweaks - AC5, AC10, AC20, SRM4,SSRM2, LBX
Arty & Airstrike - Damage Increase

1 Oct - http://mwomercs.com/...45-01-oct-2013/
UAC5 Ammo per Ton Increase

17 Sep - http://mwomercs.com/...42-17-sep-2013/
UAC5 - CD & Jam Rate tweaked
AC2 - Ghost Heat tweak (irrelvant to TT lore)
Flamer - Small Range Increase

3 Sep - http://mwomercs.com/...40-03-sep-2013/
SRM2 & 4 - CD Decrease
PPC - Dmg under 90m removed
Gauss Rifle - Firing Mechanic Change, BIG projectile speed increase
PPC/ERPPC - Heat Increase (9 > 10; 13 > 15), Projectile slowed (1500 > 1200)
Where is the ER PPC change from 12 to 13???

20 Aug - http://mwomercs.com/...39-20-aug-2013/
LBX - Spread Reduction (2.25 > 1.3)
MG - Crit Probability reduction
UAC5 - Jam Rate Reduction (25% > 15%)
Streak SRM - Damage Increase (1.5 > 2.5)

6 Aug - http://mwomercs.com/...35-06-aug-2013/
MPL, LPL - Beam Duration reduction (0.75 > 0.6
ER LL - Heat Reduction (9.5 > 8.5)
PPC/ERPPC - Heat Increase (8 > 9;11 > 12 )
SRM6/4 - Ghost Heat Tweak

Note: Change from 8v8 to 12v12

30 Jul - http://mwomercs.com/...33-30-jul-2013/
Ghost Heat further additions

16 Jul - http://mwomercs.com/...23-16-jul-2013/
SRM - Dmg Buff (1.5 > 2)
Streak SRM - Targeting Priority Change
Ghost Heat Introduction

2 Jul - http://mwomercs.com/...29-02-jul-2013/
Overheating Damage

18 Jun - http://mwomercs.com/...27-18-jun-2013/
Flamer - Damage Tweak
MG - Damage Tweak
Pulse Laser - Normalisation / Tweaks

4 Jun - http://mwomercs.com/...26-04-jun-2013/
LRM - Increase to 1.1 Damage
SRM - Spread Reduction
Flamer - Mini Heat Reduction (from firing)

21 May - http://mwomercs.com/...23-21-may-2013/
LRM - Speed and Damage Increase (100>120, 0.7 > 0.9)
AMS - Damage Increase
NARC - Rng, Duration, Ammo Increase
LBX - Spread Decrease (3 > 2.25)
PPC/ERPPC - CD Increase (3>4)
MG - Damage, Range, Crit Chance Increase
AC5 - Range Increase, Small CD decrease
LRM & SRM flight paths changed as per PGI's design
TAG, NARC, ARTEMIS tweaks

Edited by D04S02B04, 13 December 2013 - 06:39 PM.

[Tahribator]

They know the balance is off, but they have stated many times that they like to "wait it out" and see if the things go back to normal after a while. Which is fine, but their timescale is so warped that they wait an absurd amount of time. It hurts this game more than missing features.

It was especially hilarious when we had these 3PPC+1Gauss Highlanders, 4-6PPC Stalkers, 4PPC+1Gauss RS's(lol) one shotting anything smaller than a heavy for 5 months. The only answer we got was that they wanted to wait and Paul was on holidays. I quit MWO for 2 months during that time.

[Karl Streiger]

Tahribator, on 26 November 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

It was especially hilarious when we had these 3PPC+1Gauss Highlanders, 4-6PPC Stalkers, 4PPC+1Gauss RS's(lol) one shotting anything smaller than a heavy for 5 months. The only answer we got was that they wanted to wait and Paul was on holidays. I quit MWO for 2 months during that time.

I did quit for 7 - but anyhow - my mistake was to give them my money anyhow. Not because its a great game - but because its fun to discuss - PGIs view of balancing - and to compare them with my own or the view of this comunity.

I really wish that we could get some information like in the first half year of MWO development. An I really want to know what idea is behind a Medium Pulse Laser - > what should he do better / worser in comparison with the MLAS.
Only damage is hardly a good argument - even "tic" damage isn't a good argument eighter. When you have 2 energy hardpoints remaining - everybody chooses 2 MLAS over a single MPLAS

[Blurry]

Playoffs?
We dont need no stinkin balance - the game has run amuck. It wasnt as bad unless you had no ballistic points. I mean lasers are only good for when you run out of ammo right?. I thought that was by design. I wouldnt want to run a energy boat right now.

Missiles are hit and miss. Sorry some had to say it.

Well what I dont understand is how players here on the forums are really active and care a great deal for the game but the devs have absolute 0 interest in communication. Just a half hour on the forum a day could go a long way but the seem to live in an ivory tower and hold such a alien view of things than what normal players do.

It really seams like a huge disconnect these days that what they think they do and what is done and what is SEEN as done by the community are so vastly different.

They are a small team and take time to do things. OK well then communication is even more important. They have a test there should be a post a few days later saying what the results where. Or the C bill grind killing off players left and right - just step in and say it is where they want it.

Ignoring the issues is what has got it to this point. What are they going to do when the casuals stop buying mechs - balance?

[John MatriX82]

The game has seen increasing nerfs across the board for all the weapons, without accounting the fact that DHSs have never worked as real DHSs since their introduction.

Ghost heat and the current weapon imbalance are a direct consequence of the current weapon hardpoint system. Until they won't bend and admit that this system is broken, finally bringing us to restricted hardpoint dimensions, we'll have to live with an unbalanced game.

Restricting hardpoints would fix SRMs, LRMs (avoiding huge boats like 36 SRMs or 50 more lrms -LRM70-80-90-), it would stop boating of 5/6LLs, 4+ PPCs, dual AC20s and so on unless a variant doesn't have that specific capability.. yes, variants could all be rendered unique, thus improving chassis and variant variability on the battlefield, encouraging brawling and so on.

And quite frankly, it would be quite clear for a newcomer to understand that in the mechlab that you can't mount a PPC instead of a LL, rather than blowing up because he mounted and shot 4PPCs or multiple large lasers, because ghost heat is nowhere explained unless you get here in the forums.

[Tahribator]

John MatriX82, on 26 November 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Restricting hardpoints would fix SRMs, LRMs (avoiding huge boats like 36 SRMs or 50 more lrms -LRM70-80-90-), it would stop boating of 5/6LLs, 4+ PPCs, dual AC20s and so on unless a variant doesn't have that specific capability.. yes, variants could all be rendered unique, thus improving chassis and variant variability on the battlefield, encouraging brawling and so on.

True. PGI gives mechs extra hardpoints compared to TT which opens the way to boating whatever the FOTM is. Why can't they just label hardpoints as "light", "medium" and "heavy"? So that only weapon that fits to that criteria can be mounted on that slot type or lighter. No more PPC's in medium laser slots for example(which will essentially nerf many poptarts).

[Sandpit]

I'm glad someone finally got the nerve to post this

[Lootee]

That's easy.

The policy is: if a proposed change doesn't earn dollars for the company and there isn't a humiliating youtube video of a PGI developer being abused with said broken weapon/mechanic then everything is working as intended.

[Mycrus]

D04S02B04, on 26 November 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

ATTN: PGI - WHAT IS YOUR BALANCE POLICY?

hu u?

[Zyllos]

PGI is attempting to balance weapons without taking a look at their game mechanics and seeing the flaw exists in how they interact. There are several systems all interacting to leading to poor balance:

• Armor System
  
• Aiming System
  
• Hardpoint System
  
• Heatsink System
  
• Critical Hit System

The Armor System is a direct copy from the CBT rules, with only a 2x adjustment in the amounts. Armor is allocated with the same rules. The reason why armor is allocated in such a way is that the system assumes the damage will be randomly applied in a distributed fashion.

The problem stims from the Aiming System interacting with the armor system. When a player can 100% choose were to place it's entire volley, that system circumvents the Armor System's assumption that damage is applied in a distributed fashion. This leads to weapon systems that are perceived as much better than other systems, hence the dominance of ballistics and PPCs. This also leads to ballistics being much more efficient than they should be with their ammo.

This is further compounded by the fact that mechs are still essentially gunbags, but just limited to their specific hardpoint types. What happens is that you will end up finding mechs that are too similar in weapon hardpoints but with much better physical attributes, leading to over selected mechs.

The current Heatsink System (along side the Ghost Heat mechanic) is placing undo pressure to utilize more ammo based weaponry. With DHS providing different values based on their equipped location, this leads to balance issues of attempting to utilize many energy weapons as additional heatsinks beyond the initial 10 are lower in value. This is not an issue that DHS should be 2.0 or lower than 2.0, it's the fact that they are 2.0 inside the engine and 1.4 outside the engine that is leading to the issues. Along side the fact that many weapons are unfairly effected by Ghost Heat.

With this push to use ammo based weaponry, and their efficiency in killing a target, they are relatively safe with only a 10% chance of actually being a drawback for ammo explosions. I can completely understand having a section destroyed only leading to a 10% chance of ammo explosions for all ammo in that section. But, when a weapon does enough critical damage to an ammo bin, it should be at least 50%, if not more. Attempting to get a critical hit on a specific system is already hard enough with the ability of players to "stack" critical slots, why further protect these players by only allowing 10% of the already very low chance to get enough critical damage on an ammo bin to actually lead to an ammo explosion?

All of the combined above is leading to what we are seeing today. And many of these mechanics have existed in their current incarnations since the early days of MW. We have seen how those games had the same problems, so why repeat the same mistakes? We already know the outcome when the mechanics stay the same.

[3rdworld]

PGI's balance thoughts, are:

"Set on our hands until an imbalance becomes wildly apparent. Then come up with some convoluted system that is impossible to explain to new players, that is not documented in the game in any way, and which is incredibly easy to circumvent."

They are just now looking at the dragon's hitboxes. Just now..... Not in CB, when everyone explained the dragon had issues. Not when they released 2 hero mechs for it.... Just now.

They instituted Ghost heat to remove the 4 PPC stalker. So what did we get? AC/20 + PPCx2 Victors & Highlanders, which BTW are much more heat efficient than the stalker was anyways.... Oh and they can poptart. So the net effect of their change (Stalkers are no longer viable).

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 November 2013 - 07:45 AM.

[Ransack]

Quote

Pgi - What Is Your Balance Policy?

All systems nominal. You are on an island...


Somebody had to do it

[Karl Streiger]

OK - its obviously that the OPs question will cause some attacks.
Anyhow: could we please try to stay civil?

I really want to know the answer - although I know it will never happen, as well as the "aggressive" weapon balancing

[Joseph Mallan]

Karl Streiger, on 26 November 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

OK - its obviously that the OPs question will cause some attacks.
Anyhow: could we please try to stay civil?

I really want to know the answer - although I know it will never happen, as well as the "aggressive" weapon balancing

Aggressive Weapon's Balancing... The preferred weapons balance for aggressive players?

[Sybreed]

3rdworld, on 26 November 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

PGI's balance thoughts, are:

"Set on our hands until an imbalance becomes wildly apparent. Then come up with some convoluted system that is impossible to explain to new players, that is not documented in the game in any way, and which is incredibly easy to circumvent."

They are just now looking at the dragon's hitboxes. Just now..... Not in CB, when everyone explained the dragon had issues. Not when they released 2 hero mechs for it.... Just now.

They instituted Ghost heat to remove the 4 PPC stalker. So what did we get? AC/20 + PPCx2 Victors & Highlanders, which BTW are much more heat efficient than the stalker was anyways.... Oh and they can poptart. So the net effect of their change (Stalkers are no longer viable).

you mean stalkers aren't viable because they can no longer boat PPCs? Sorry but I'm glad you're not the one responsible for the game balance. Just look at the Stalker stock weapons, it's actually a pretty solid loadout. It doesn't work in the game's current mechanics, but if we were playing a stock loadout match, a Stalker would be pretty scary and a very good all around fighter.

Edited by Sybreed, 26 November 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[General Taskeen]

The core functionality of stuff would require overhauls. The current game is balanced around the functionality of certain things (that don't work very well), and I don't care to list them anymore.

Edited by General Taskeen, 26 November 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[Sybreed]

General Taskeen, on 26 November 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

The core functionality of stuff would require overhauls. The current game is balanced around the functionality of certain things (that don't work very well), and I don't care to list them anymore.

yup, and no one cares anymore because, well, has PGI listened to anything we told them?

[3rdworld]

Sybreed, on 26 November 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

you mean stalkers aren't viable because they can no longer boat PPCs? Sorry but I'm glad you're not the one responsible for the game balance. Just look at the Stalker stock weapons, it's actually a pretty solid loadout. It doesn't work in the game's current mechanics, but if we were playing a stock loadout match, a Stalker would be pretty scary and a very good all around fighter.

Pretty much. We don't use stock loadouts, and if we did no mech without DHS would be viable.

[Sybreed]

3rdworld, on 26 November 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

Pretty much. We don't use stock loadouts, and if we did no mech without DHS would be viable.

that's another problem that's for sure.

[Almond Brown]

Karl Streiger, on 26 November 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

OK - its obviously that the OPs question will cause some attacks.
Anyhow: could we please try to stay civil?

I really want to know the answer - although I know it will never happen, as well as the "aggressive" weapon balancing

The real answer is simple and yet almost as unobtainable as the OP's rather stupid question.

Get the Community, especially these Forums (who have the Leetest of the Leet in Rock'em Sock'em Robots amongst its ranks, according to them anyways) to agree on something as a whole. It has happened only once (and for selfish reasons best could be deciphered) with 3PV.
The Community got it wrong too. 3RD doesn't **** up the game at all.


Post Polls, well written btw, of wanted changes to single Weapon and single Balance modifications. Then after a healthy discussion on each change, get a 99% agreement within that Thread that says Yes, that is THE fix and we all agree to shut up about that one if THAT fix or change were provide the Community.

Otherwise, the Forum is just continues to blow white smoke out their arse and who could blame the Dev for basically saying, "They have no idea, as they can't even decide amongst themselves ffs" and they would be absolutely correct in that assessment.

Worth a try but I wish everyone Good luck with that... lol

Edited by Almond Brown, 26 November 2013 - 09:35 AM.