1080 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Good tactics can be applied by any and all roles. It is already balanced.

Game balance can be achieved by looking at numerous game play parameters that doesn't mean the need to equalise weapons or lose their character or pecking order in the process.

But if things need changing to afford more game play styles or roles and applied tactics so that there isn't a dominant Meta or FOTM then those are useful and fun changes to help improve diversity and choice.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 30 December 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

so that there isn't a dominant Meta

Your going to fail miserably if this is your goal.

There will always be a dominant meta. It is part of EVERY mmo.

[Almond Brown]

Tesunie, on 23 December 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

stuff

I could agree, and would love, a stock only option. Then we lore people would really be able to play out what we want, a more true to lore play style where stock mechs need to be used. Atlases would be slow and heavily armored again (instead of being so fast). The hunchback returns to being a rather brutal medium infighter. The Centurion comes back as a nice guard mech for your support line (there is a reason it has LRMs on it's chassis). Etc.

That just shows that everyone has a pair of rose colored glasses when they want to wear them. All Stock would take, a week max, before ONLY the BEST Stock Chassis would see use and the same issue arises again. This time though there is no longer any recourse, because you can't NERF a Stock Mech, or its load-out, because then, it is no longer a Stock Mech.

What everyone clamors for is the impossible. We have weapons that do X & Y for Z and yet have a myriad of different players who wish for that same weapon to also be able to do L & M for P and when that does not appear to be happening, they become disgruntled.

Who gets to be the UN-disgruntled? You? Me? Them? Someone always appears to lose. Blame Murphy. It is his Law that screws over everyone.

Edited by Almond Brown, 30 December 2013 - 10:36 AM.

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

That just shows that everyone has a pair of rose colored glasses when they want to wear them. All Stock would take, a week max, before ONLY the BEST Stock Chassis would see use and the same issue arises again. This time though there is no longer any recourse, because you can't NERF a Stock Mech, or its load-out, because then, it is no longer a Stock Mech.

What everyone clamors for is the impossible. We have weapons that do X & Y for Z and yet have a myriad of different players who wish for that same weapon to also be able to do L & M for P and when that does not appear to be happening, they become disgruntled.

Who gets to be the UN-disgruntled? You? Me? Them? Someone always appears to lose. Blame Murphy. It is his Law that screws over everyone.

There was talk of someone trying to put together a league like this... you might check some of the other forums. Stock mech league that is.

[Almond Brown]

Lykaon, on 23 December 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

The issue is not any one weapon it's more like...

AC20+PPC+PPC= 40 damage to one body location applied with one trigger pull in a very short period of time.

There are a number of combinations that are the prime perpetrators.

AC5+AC5+PPC+PPC Highlander
AC10+PPC+PPC Cataphract
AC20+AC20 Jagermech...etc and so on.

What you are describing is not what is done in practice.

What is done in practice is....

AC5+AC5+PPC+PPC poptart fire at apex and apply 30 damage to CT and drop to 100% cover so it doesn't matter what the response weapons are they will be shooting a hill or building or other obstruction because the target is in cover if they are not shooting.Then another poptart jumps from another cover point and puts another 30 damage into the CT the third poptart applied 30 points is a kill shot on anything that isn't an assault mech and even if it is an assault mech it is now rendered combat ineffective by having fewer health remaining than a light mech's baby toe.

Or twin 20 Jager pokes out and shoots hides while the AC's reload and pop out and shoots repeat.Only a total {Dezgra} stands around for 2 full reload cycles being exposed to enemy weapon fire for 8+ seconds.No skilled mechwarrior does what you said they do.

Also,8 seconds? on zero is one shot for 20 damage .5 seconds latter is shot 2 for 20 more,3.5 seconds for shot 3 shot 4 is on second 4.There is no need to load the first shot so the 4 second cooldown does not apply to the first 2 shots. and if you are doing it right you are firing two 20s instantly and under cover for 4 seconds for the reload.


What you describe is "laboratory" conditions what is concerning is "field" conditions where your examples break down.

What is being suggested is to put in place a mechanic that prevents 30-40 point pinpoint alpha strikes applying crippling damage in one trigger pull.

And what most here are proposing is that the Dev fix human nature by making all the weapons have the same range, do the same damage, weigh the same and need the same tonnage of ammo.

That is the ONLY fix and it is not really an option. When even only one factor is "better", and even "better" by the smallest of margins (1%), players will gravitate to it like flies to excrement. It is in their nature and obviously many simply cannot resist that nature.

Btw. You are right. The/any Game is in fact a laboratory of sorts and its Forums are the dictated notes of that laboratories test results. Just because the first 100 tries did not provide the result you thought you'd get, does not mean you should stop trying. Despite "human nature" of course.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Your going to fail miserably if this is your goal.

There will always be a dominant meta. It is part of EVERY mmo.

There are degrees of dominance I can accept, preferably when it isn't so obvious.

This is why we discuss game play balance.

Striving for as much diversity and game play choice is a worthwhile goal and this can retain differences in situational application of variable Meta to be useful for different purposes not just a dominant one. Hence the very idea of "roles".

I don't personally think a paradigm shift is needed to achieve this and may only need subtle changes to encourage a greater balance. So I'm not "afraid" of continuing to fine tune the mechanics in order to help MWO game play.

[Almond Brown]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 December 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

I actually agree here - the AC/2 ROF is so high and damage per shot is so low that I don't think it needs an adjustment there.

It depends on how long you need to aim for each shot, but you can probably deal 40 damage in less than 5 seconds. Leave cover, aim, shoot the first time, torso twist, take aim again shortly before cooldown is over, fire again, go into cover. A Laser in the same scenario would steal you 2 seconds of potential torso twisting time, and in that time you need to maintain your aim to deal damage where you want to do it.

But your scenarios also omit one important aspect: If you actually are in cover and can get back there, there isn't necessarily a reason to fire more than one shot at all. Sure, it's not much damage, but once you dealt damage, it's not going away, and if you keep your exposure very short, you are less likely to take return fire.
Only when you get yourself into a situation where you can't take cover you will want to shoot on cooldown. But even there, you can spend much shorter periods of time facing your enemy if you don't need to maintain 1 second long beams.

The same holds for Lasers as well, if not more so. If you step out and I Laser you and retreat to cover before your "aim" is completed, the same applies. Damage done and permanent.

My noted post was trying to point out that almost all weapons have a "responder" unit in the other side of the "Ledger" so to speak. When faced with a weapon, at certain range brackets, and you do not have a proper "responder", does not immediately make that weapon OP. It dos make it effective against your current "non-responder".

Yes, it is understood that you cannot necessarily carry proper "responder" weapons all the time, but given a more diverse load-out, will always allow a more robust "response" in many more cases.

[Noesis]

Of course response time has no significance to reponse here. *sigh*

[Almond Brown]

Black Ivan, on 24 December 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

ACs and PPCs are definitly the game breakers. Being shot a from moret han 1 kilometer with AC2 is just absurd.
PGI has to balance range and damage of ballistics and PPCs against the other weapons.

And this is where any hope for a continued and quasi sensible discussion just melts away and silliness (metaphorically) creeps in. And the poster got a Like as well.

The AC2 @ 1000m does >/= 1 damage. The other AC's have the same issue. The GR does 50% damage at just over 1000m and the (er)PPC's does 50% at 1000m. The regular PPC does <1 damage at its maximum allowed range of 1080m.

How can anyone take you serious if you post stuff like that. Are you misinformed or simply trolling??

Edited by Almond Brown, 30 December 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

And this is where any hope for a continued and quasi sensible discussion just melts away and silliness (metaphorically) creeps in. And the poster got a Like as well.

The AC2 @ 2000m does .0000002 damage. The other AC's do not even go that far. The GR doesn't even reach out that far and the both PPC's do not even go a Kilometer ffs.

How can anyone take you serious if you post that stuff. Are you misinformed or just trolling??

neither. Its people like this that want us to run around like chickens with our head cut off ignoring cover and holding down the firing stud. Welcome to the 'Balance' section of the forums Almond, an excercise in patience and futility.

[Almond Brown]

Noesis, on 30 December 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Good tactics can be applied by any and all roles. It is already balanced.

Game balance can be achieved by looking at numerous game play parameters that doesn't mean the need to equalise weapons or lose their character or pecking order in the process.

But if things need changing to afford more game play styles or roles and applied tactics so that there isn't a dominant Meta or FOTM then those are useful and fun changes to help improve diversity and choice.

The question then becomes "who gets to decide?" Given that the Forums can't decide at what the best time of day to take a dump might be (anytime you need to is the answer btw) the Dev have to do it.

This of course make the players feel mad as they have been neglected, their idea cast aside, when actually their ideas have never been agreed upon by the majority (which assumes everyone would agree that the majority would win) of the Forum Community in a timely fashion.

Exceptions do happen, but they are not the norm by any stretch.

[Almond Brown]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

There was talk of someone trying to put together a league like this... you might check some of the other forums. Stock mech league that is.

Been there, done that. That is how I already know the inevitable outcome. Not that it wasn't FUN while it lasted, but... facing the same Stock Chassis, Match after Match...

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Been there, done that. That is how I already know the inevitable outcome. Not that it wasn't FUN while it lasted, but... facing the same Stock Chassis, Match after Match...

why I am not doing such things myself. But then I love running across the odd strange intresting and powerful builds people come across. Gives me fun ideas to try myself.

[Almond Brown]

Noesis, on 30 December 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

There are degrees of dominance I can accept, preferably when it isn't so obvious.

This is why we discuss game play balance.

Striving for as much diversity and game play choice is a worthwhile goal and this can retain differences in situational application of variable Meta to be useful for different purposes not just a dominant one. Hence the very idea of "roles".

I don't personally think a paradigm shift is needed to achieve this and may only need subtle changes to encourage a greater balance. So I'm not "afraid" of continuing to fine tune the mechanics in order to help MWO game play.

We are caught in a "Causality Loop" my friend. I think most would say that there are degrees of dominance that they could accept. The secret is to determining where that is for the most players and doing so all at the same time...

[Almond Brown]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

why I am not doing such things myself. But then I love running across the odd strange interesting and powerful builds people come across. Gives me fun ideas to try myself.

And without a MechLab? Those fun ideas would not be possible.

P.S. i edited the post about AC's and PPC's. I had the kilometer @ 2000m before realizing.

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

And without a MechLab? Those fun ideas would not be possible.

P.S. i edited the post about AC's and PPC's. I had the kilometer @ 2000m before realizing.

eh im oldschool. I started playing before there was mechlab, used to write it all out on paper and fiddle with numbers. Mechlab does help though.

[MustrumRidcully]

mania3c, on 30 December 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Well, we all are in "direct damage weapons are flawed" thread... so I assume his reaction on my post was "you are wrong and I can prove it"..

Of course ACs perform better damage wise..it's not too hard to find out why.. ACs have better DPS..just check smurfy..

That's why I said comparing with the "Potential Damage" of the weapon. It's a question of how much percentage of the damage the weapon can possibly deal you actually inflict.

Example from my own personal statistics:
AC/20: 6143 shots fired, 3890 hits, 63.32 % accuracy, 77,146 damage
Medium Laser: 6,651 shots fired, 5,814 hits, 87.42 % accuracy, 16,822 damage.

A Medium Laser deals 5 damage per shot, so each hit should contribute 5 damage to the total damage value. But it does not, because a laser is counted as "hit" when you just touch with a single damage tick on a target, and you can also fire beyond normal range, losing damage. The damage per hit of a ML for me lies by around 2.9 damage (total damage divided by hits.). That is only 58 % of the possible damage.

An AC/20 (using the same math) turns out to deal 19.83 damage per hit. An AC/20 hit is always a real hit, so the only damage drop off that is possible here is the one from range. It's not much, as you see. (Some people also report of seeing damage figures above 20. The theory is that this is the result of the game also counting ammo explosions as damage you inflicted to a target.)

We can continue the math and also test out how much damage per shot fired each weapon inflicts. (In case you want to claim that hits with an AC/20 are harder to achieve and therefore I will have more misses.)
The ML sits around 50.6 %, the AC/20 at 62.8 %. I call this "damage utilization", how much of a weapons potential damage by shots fired you actually inflicted.


From everything I've seen shared in statistics between players, the trend is the same (though many are better shots than me.) And it's not just AC/20 to ML, it is more general trend.
There are other factors influencing damage utilziation. For example, weapons with a faster rate of fire often perform worse than weapons with a slower rate of fire, probably because people have (or at least take) less time to take aim.

[Sandpit]

Accuracy with lasers in my case tends to be much higher than any other weapon. As stated above accuracy with lasers doesn't equate to damage. I can fire off a large laser and hit 5 mechs in one beam. That damage is then spread out across all of them.
That's exactly why total damage done after a match isn't always an accurate state for combat efficiency. 600 damage is decent but if it is spread across 12 mechs not so much. 300 damage on one mech is going to do more in rendering an enemy mech ineffective.
This is also one of the reasons you see op threads pop up when a player gets nailed by focus fire. They get taken down quickly and assume the weapon used to do it is now op

[Broad5ide]

stjobe, on 22 December 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

The instant-damage weapons (ACs, PPCs, GRs) are absolutely dominating the game right now. Care to guess why?

Because it's simply better (as in, it kills more effectively) to put all your damage into one spot instantaneously than to have it spread over a beam duration or by missile spread.

The LB-10X is 1 ton lighter, 1 slot less, 1 less heat, and has longer range than the AC/10, yet the AC/10 is the superior choice. Why? It doesn't spread its damage around, simple as that.

ACs and PPCs need to be re-made to spread their damage around a bit so balance becomes possible, and the easiest and most non-disruptive way of doing that is to make the ACs burst-fire and the PPC a beam weapon.

how about making the weapons that aren't as good better. like say making existing splash weapons work out to more than 100% listed damage when hitting multiple sections or making long duration weapons do exponentially more damage as their beam is held on one section(sort of a risk-reward mechanic). there are plenty of ways to balance besides "everyone uses X so nerf it". That just leads to a revolving door of 1 mechanic is best until all the weapons are so bad the game is unplayable.

[kapusta11]

If SRMs had no hit registration issues people would call them OP as it's 36 damage per 3xSRM6 launchers with a well placed shot. If lasers could fire as fast as ACs (on cooldown) people would whine about instant continuous no escape damage. You're asking to brake the only viable weapon in order balance it agains other broken ones.