1026 replies to this topic

[CtrlAltWheee]

Koniving, on 09 February 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

Great video. The 10-shot burst is such an interesting mechanic.

MWO has so many moving parts that it's a crazy job to balance. If it were me though, I'd do that 10-shot because it would transform the game. At this point I want change.

And secretly think the idea of changing customization so that mech's like the hunch are uniquely able to handle an ac20 has merit. Cheers on the video.

[Appogee]

Hmmm. I paid good money for an un-nerfed Heavy Metal...

[CtrlAltWheee]

Dear Paul,

As a guy who loves putting an AC20 on anything that can hold it, I am 100% ok with taking a hard left turn on hardpoint sizes. Peiper's input here or Koniving's or both. Some mech's that I've paid for with cash or c-bills will seem 'destroyed' but that's fine. Others like the hunch will have a new fun place in the pantheon as truly unique in how they run ACs.

Please consider running these changes on the test server for a week. Thank you.

Edited by CtrlAltWheee, 09 February 2014 - 06:16 PM.

[DrxAbstract]

wanderer, on 06 February 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

Except that for the 30 tonner, the jet weight is .5 ton.

For the 90-tonner, it's two tons. Why would four times the thrust not lift 3 times the tonnage at -least- the same amount, even taking potential inefficiency from a larger jet in mind?

To answer this question, the 2 ton JJs are Mark Is while the ones that weigh .5 are Mark IV and Mark V. As far as tech readouts go in BT the higher the Mark value the more sophisticated/improved the equipment is. Technically speaking, a Mark V is more powerful and efficient than a Mark I relative to size and weight and designed for use on smaller vehicles. Think miniaturization technology; Simply scaling components down rarely produces a smaller, functional piece of equipment much less one that works even remotely close that of the larger source equipment, much less even near relative scale efficiency. Most often different materials, component layout and a slew of other design changes are required to scale down technology to achieve comparable performance to that of the original. What you're looking at with Mark Vs is the combination more sophisticated materials and technology to perform with similar relative size efficiency as Mark Is... While said tech cant be directly up-scaled to make more effective Mark Is just as the reverse couldnt be done initially to make Mark Vs.

So no, it's not '4 times the thrust' simply because it weighs 4 times as much.


As for the 'skillhards' - Skill is not universally applicable. The right combination of elements is what allows 'skill' or innate potential to be realized. Claims that you can be "Put in any mech with any weapon." and still be 'better' than everyone else is a grossly miscalculated statement... because you wont be. There are people in this game that are very clearly better than you in specific Mechs, weights or with certain weapons because that's where their 'stars align'. Just as yours do with specific Mechs and weapons. Your affinity to the HGN proves only that you are competent in that specific Mech, weight class or game play style with those specific weapons; it is a far cry from proof that you're at all capable of running other Mechs, weight classes or styles using different weapons with equal proficiency. So let's stop pretending we are.

"I'm the best Highlander pilot..."
No, I am Spartacus!

[DuncanMechLeod]

kaffeangst, on 05 February 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

I am the best Highlander pilot in the game, and I say - go ahead, nerf away. The people who rely on that specific chassis to be even slightly above-average will fall, not the naturally skilled. Brawling is more fun, anyhow.

Fix SRM's before adjusting... I agree with this notion.

LORD KAFFEANGST
ggclose™

NO YOU ARE NOT!

I AM THE BEST HIGHLANDER IN THIS GAME!

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

[Imperius]

You made an account just to say that +1

[Victor Morson]

DuncanMechLeod, on 09 February 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

NO YOU ARE NOT!

I AM THE BEST HIGHLANDER IN THIS GAME!

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

Connor was way cooler.

[5th Fedcom Rat]

By far the simplest most effective way to fix jump sniping epidemic is not allow PPCs, gauss rifles or autocannons to be fired while jumping. The tremendous kickback from high alpha weapons requires that the mech using them be grounded (or some similar fluff explanation). Jump sniper alpha problem solved instantly, while still allowing mechs like lights and the quickdraw to fire lasers and machine guns in the air. More complicated thorough solutions can be worked on at a later date.

Edited by 5th Fedcom Rat, 09 February 2014 - 10:18 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Victor Morson, on 09 February 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

Connor was way cooler.

Amen to that.

The series was just silly.

[Artgathan]

Koniving, on 09 February 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

The trouble with that is this.
+ 100 random mechs.
Locust, 128. 228.
Jenner D 128, 228.
Jenner F 234, 334.
Hunchback 320, 420.
Thunderbolt 9SE (422 + 10 for stock armor as it cannot equip its stock) = 532.
Stalker (typical variant) 432, 532.
Atlas 608. 708.

Same mechs + 50%.
Locust, 128. 192.
Jenner D 128, 192.
Jenner F 234, 351.
Hunchback 320, 480.
Thunderbolt 9SE (422 + 10 for stock armor as it cannot equip its stock) = 648.
Stalker (typical variant) 432, 648.
Atlas 608. 912.

Locust became worthless.
Jenner D isn't worth bothering with.
3-L became worthless.
Raven 4X and Jenner F is now competing with half of the 55 ton battlemechs on superior terms.
Stalkers and Thunderbolts became Gods.
Atlas is invincible.

100% of competitive players play only the Atlas. All other mechs become extinct. Then there's 100 ton mechs with more armor stock than the Atlas. When they come into play, well the Atlas becomes extinct.

Percentages are what killed the game to begin with. Tinkering with numbers also causes a lot of problems such as lost mech identity. Solid, even, arbitrary values preserve both the game and the mech's identity.

An even upgrade all across the board is basically "stock, but better!" Without any mech getting hurt from the way it was originally intended to be. Engine ratings aren't up + a percentage, just a solid number of engines which only got tweaked due to the armor imbalance of all mechs having identical armor.

I like the ideas you've presented about armor, but I disagree that the "armor buff" would need to be a fixed value (such as 100, as was suggested). Consider that in the case of the Atlas that received a 50% armor buff, it would still have to actually sacrifice 9.5 extra tons to achieve that armor coverage.

The problem I have with the straight +100 point buff is that there's no "consistency" to the degree of the buff. Consider that a CN9-A under this system would receive a ~36% armor buff, while the CN9-AL would receive a ~29% armor buff. In the case of the Locust, the armor is almost doubled, but in the case of the Jenner-F, the armor only increases by ~50%. On something like an Atlas, the buff represents a paltry 16% buff.

Consider too that this buff would make outfitting "lighter" mechs more difficult. An Atlas would have no trouble freeing up the ~3 tons for the +100 armor points, while the Locust would be facing some serious problems. I know that there is a risk-reward dynamic at play here, but it's unpredictable.

That said, perhaps a "sliding scale" would be more appropriate (such as the system we have for engine ratings - adjust the "armor" buff on a per-weight class basis). This would allow the benefits of the buff to be applied more consistently, while allowing for the "flavor" of the buff to still take effect.

[wanderer]

Quote

Mech Rifles where the highest caliber rifle could only do 9 damage from a rifle that weighed 8 tons and could only fire once in a period of 5 or so seconds and generated a LOT more heat.

What's worse is that modern Battletech armor actually handles single-shell hits better in most cases- that "9 damage" heavy rifle does a whopping -6- damage to a Battlemech as they reduce damage from rifles by 3, and light rifles do zero (likewise tanks with modern armor and aerospace fighters). The only real niche they have in the "modern BT day" are on vehicles as a slightly more damaging AC/5.

As noted, single shot AC's are by far the gross exception on a 'Mech, rather than the universal they are in MWO.

[Koniving]

Artgathan, on 10 February 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

That said, perhaps a "sliding scale" would be more appropriate (such as the system we have for engine ratings - adjust the "armor" buff on a per-weight class basis). This would allow the benefits of the buff to be applied more consistently, while allowing for the "flavor" of the buff to still take effect.

The engine rating system we have is originally a fixed value. If you go, pre-light and pre-medium mech buffs, you'll see that engine ratings were exactly the same number of engines above stock value. The changes made were only made because certain mechs that weren't supposed to have good armor then had fantastic armor, completely causing the slow mechs to be blatantly inferior since armor was even throughout.

Percentages would cause problems. I thought of that first and well, even if you trusted PGI to work with percentages the result is endlessly terrifying with some mechs outclassing others that they should never outclass.

The fact is, with a solid, singular number tacked onto every mech it becomes universal stock + 100.

This means what really defines the mech; the stock value, is the true value of the increase or decrease. Not the 100, but the stock.

Spoiler

The Centurion A and D are supposed to be armor-inferior to the Centurion AL. The AL is supposed to be armor superior to the Hunchback, whose Hunchbacks are superior to the A and D who have more diversified weapons, better body twist, and in lore better agility (CN9-A) and speed (CN9-D) than the Hunchbacks even though the CN9-A and the Hunchback have the same engines.

In fact, for most battlemechs, there's typically one that has more armor at the cost of something else aside from a higher price. An example, the Jagermech JM6-A has big missile pods on the arms, making the arms easier to hit. But it's supposed to have more armor too. The Awesome' AWS-9M's ER PPCs are bigger than regular PPCs, it's also expensive, comes with DHS, and starts with more armor to help protect said longer barrels.

But before I continue, lemme stress that structure values will still be universal per weight class.

Yes, a Cicada with 228 armor after the change instead of what they get now as a max (274) sounds like it hurts. It kinda does; but if you ever notice Cicadas run awfully hot and too damn slow. I haven't seen a Cicada run max speed, ever. Never. They're putting too much weight into armor and not enough into engines or heatsinks. Their base structure is by design, superior to their stock armor. 139 is the base structure. That 274 is to account for some other 40 ton mech. Problem is there's 40 ton mechs with more weight in armor than that.

Now, take that Cicada and the Locust and the Jenner D. All 3 have 128, become 228. Yes, Cicada and Jenner just lost some based on stock and original balancing as the result of 20 years of work. What keeps the Cicada going is the high structure and the fact that it's supposed to be faster than the Jenner D anyway. By stock alone it's 129.6 kph. Stock Jenner D is only 113.4 kph. Which means their top speeds if evenly done as originally intended (Cicada can't equip it's proper rated engine because of game limitations caused by HSR at the moment) would be equally separated. Thus, the armor potential of the mechs at first, should also be equally separated.

Later, concessions can be made equal to the concessions forced upon the mechs due to game limitations. For example that Cicada might get an armor boost if it can never equip its proper engine increase.

But percentages.

Okay, a Raven 3-L has 119 structure, 161 armor, and let's say there's a 20% maximum given to it. 193.2 becomes the new maximum.

How are you going to apply it? Armor maximum must be an even number in order to properly apply to the mech. But no matter what you do for a percentage, you can never get that even number. You've already forced compromises. Every result becomes a decimal. So say you round out that decimal. Regardless of where it is, you have to round it to an even number because an odd number cannot evenly apply to a mech unless you give the cockpit more than 18 points.

There's a few situations like that, unfortunately. And it seems that 261 as the new max for it would have a similar issue. Hm.

But anyway. A percentage, even adjustable, still creates an imbalance from stock values. That'd be like taking the engine ratings, and giving the Raven 3-L up to a 315 engine rating because it's 50% more. While the Raven 2X would result from a 175 to a 262.5 due to 50%, and thus gets rounded down to 260. But before the buff to lights to make up for the armor equality we have now, the Raven 2X and 3-L were both exactly 14 engine ratings above stock as their max. Let's check the percentage results? Raven 3-L with 50% boost is 21 engine ratings up. Raven 2X is 17 ratings up.

...Ouch! With a percentage, it's not an even increase within its own weight class and chassis. The Raven 3-L with a percentage engine increase would outclass the 2X. Just like in an armor buff, an even percentage... means an uneven disparity between the Raven 3-L who got the short end of the stick to the 2X who got boosted unfairly.
3-L's 161 armor + 25% = 201.25. 2X's armor + 25% = 260. (260-208 = 52 increase 2X.) (201.25 - 161 = 40.25.) That's unfair. That's gimping the 3-L more than necessary and more than intended by stock.

Percentages cause problems. For example with our thresholds. Mastered mech gets Heat Containment (+10% * 2 = +20%). With a set, locked threshold that's fine. Say 30 from TT. 30 + 20% = 36. Universal number.

But put that on a varied number. Mastered mech gets Heat Containment (+10% * 2 = +20%). MWO's system is 30+heatsink count in its simplest form. We'll use single heatsinks to keep it simple. Random Mech has 20 heatsinks, that's 30 + 20 = 50 threshold. 50 + mastered mech's heat containment (20%) = 60. Seems fair right? Well said random mech has 30 heatsinks. Base value (30+30 heatsinks) is 60. + 20% = 72.

Wait a second, so I carried 20 heatsinks and gained the power of 10. Okay. So by carrying 10 more, (30 heatsinks) after the bonuses I get the power of 12 on top of it!

This would create an armor boosting phenomena. Some mechs would clearly be superior to everything that exists by way of percentage, and a weight class based control on the percentage? Dooms every other mech of the same weight class because of that one overpowered mech.

Percentages cause problems. Terrifying problems. Problems that cause more problems which cause even more problems and result in things like "Ghost heat." In this case, we'll wind up with "Ghost armor" to try and fix some of the craziness that a percentage would cause.

I hope you can understand my position. Game balance isn't as simple as saying add 20% to everything. A percentage to uneven numbers causes even more disparity. The phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is akin to this fact.

• My idea is this.
  
  • Say you give everyone 100 dollars.
    
  • This guy has a dollar.
    
  • That girl has 10 dollars already.
    
  • This guy gets100 dollars + his 1 dollar = 101 dollars.
    
  • That girl gets 100 dollars + her 10 dollars = 110 dollars.
    
    • It's universally even. Their wealth is kept evenly separated.
• Percentages does this.
  
  • Say you increase everyone's money by 20%.
    
  • This guy a dollar.
    
  • That guy has 100 dollars.
    
  • Right now they are 10 times apart.
    
  • The first guy got 20 cents, and now has a total of $1.20.
    
  • The second guy got 20 dollars and now has a total of 120 dollars.
    
    • They are 10 times apart still, but look what you did. The rich got a lot richer. They are not an even amount richer than they were supposed to start.
• What you're proposing if done in the best case scenario is this
  
  • The guy with 35 dollars gets a 30% increase, the other guy with 100 dollars gets a 10% increase.
    
  • Their difference before we start is 65 dollars. The original intention.
    
  • The one with 35 dollars gets 30% and now has $45.5.
    
  • The other one with 100 dollars gets a 20% increase and now has 120.
    
    • The new difference between them is now 74.5 dollars in favor of the person with more money (tonnage and armor).
      
      • That's best case.

The problem is the flavor is already there but you're not seeing it by looking at current armor maxes. The differences that a simple (Stock+100 = new max) increases will bring forth is that flavor. I'm trying to bring the already existing flavor out, not drown it in artificial ingredients. My intention is literally preserving the stock flavor, but allowing you an arbitrary even number for how much more you can tack on at your own expense in weight. And indeed, the light would be hard pressed to use all that added armor. That's what Ferro Fibrous is for, to allow you to tack on more armor per ton. I (that is to say the source of the idea, JustWannaPlay, WaybadMojo, various battletech enthusiasts) just created a use for the most useless upgrade there is.


The concept I used based everything on stock and preserving a more armored stock and its original intentions. Percentages cannot do that. Any losses or gains as a result of preserving an enhanced stock as the new armor maximum are simply additions or removals of problems created by PGI and returning it to the state of how it was originally intended to be.

Percentages, no matter how sliding it goes, create gaps and disparity; huge separation in what's good and what's better that screws with the very fabric of the original intentions.

It's like taking a song, and adding a percentage of mix to the bad parts, and then a different mix to the good parts. And now... the good parts became bad and what originally made the song good is completely lost. Or those good parts become too good, and the bad parts are so awful that the song as a whole isn't appreciated anymore. Instead, it becomes like the excerpt "Drop it". No one likes the whole song. Just what got the best percentage of attention. Even if some parts of the original song were actually better in the original version.

Edited by Koniving, 10 February 2014 - 09:50 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Dracol, on 09 February 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

Autocannons
As a video game, MWO utilizes up front damage on ballistics as a way to differentiate them from lasers. IMHO this difference is important in order to provide the necessary variety the game relies on.

an added layer for differentiating weapons is damage penetration for pulse lasers. The pulse is what lets them penetrate. let them do 10% of there damage to internals with no chance for extra damage but a chance for hitting equipment and you will quickly see brawlers using them as well as lights.

[Artgathan]

Koniving, on 10 February 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

• My idea is this.
  
  • Say you give everyone 100 dollars.
    
  • This guy has a dollar.
    
  • That girl has 10 dollars already.
    
  • This guy gets100 dollars + his 1 dollar = 101 dollars.
    
  • That girl gets 100 dollars + her 10 dollars = 110 dollars.
    
    • It's universally even. Their wealth is kept evenly separated.

I understand what you're saying and your intention. However, consider what this example has accomplished - it's homogenized the people. The "poor" person went from having 10% of the "rich" person's wealth to having 91% of the "rich" person's wealth. Sure, the absolute difference is still $9, but at this point the different in meaningless.

The problem is that this sort of flat increase disproportionately benefits people on the lower end of the scale (in this case, light mechs).

Consider this: you've added 100 armor to an Atlas. This may increase it's TTK by ~10%. Adding 100 armor to a Jenner will increase it's TTK by ~50% - ~90%.

[topgun505]

The problem is not the mech.

The problem is not with the height a single jump jet permits.

The problem is the fact that jump jets can be used to gain altitude and also manage to provide a stable firing platform. JJs could NOT be used in such a fashion in the table top. They were for mobility purposes only (and the occasional death from above).

Make jump jets gradually lose their thrust when you stop firing them (instead of instant off) so that the firing reticle still shakes during the cool down and that's pretty much all you would need to do.

[Lysander Voidrunner]

From what I read, PGI again notices that something is wrong (pop tarting being an overpowered tactic) and goes around to fix it the wrong way. Instead of removing the core issue (poptarting combined with pin-point damage) they look to break an other game mechanic in order to shoe-horn a fix.

I've discussed it with quite a few people over the months and the consensus is that for every benefit there should be a drawback. Want to get more weapons? Great, you'll be more vulnerable thanks to the XL engine etc. In that spirit, why not simply recognize that PPCs and other energy based weapons draw their energy from the fusion reaction, the same place that the jump jets do. With a finite amount of energy to distribute to weapon systems and movement systems, it would be easy to realize that power being drained into JJs would negatively affect the range and power of energy based weapons in a directly proportional manner, therefore, if your JJ "fuel reserve" is at 100% then your weapon damage (and range) will be at peak efficiency. However, if you've exhausted your "fuel reserve" then the potency of your weapon will have a <insert percentage> reduction in potency.

In addition, looking towards the future, if poptarting still dominates the field when community warfare drops, it's not out of the realm of conceivable projecting to assume that people will prioritize mechs like the Victor, Highlander, Shadowhawk 2D2 etc.. to the detriment of others (including HERO mechs) simply because they're more competitive. Seeing as pretty much everything you do in CW will be far more involved and far more important than the present sand-box theater we're presented with, I could see people slowly shifting towards mechs that can efficiently poptart and leaving the rest to gather dust in their mech bays.

[FactorlanP]

The real problem is, and always has been, pinpoint convergence.

[Jabilo]

Do not forget jump jets are meant to be FUN.

Soaring over the battlefield on jets of super heated ion, to take up an advantageous position and blind side your enemy!

Jump jets are already anaemic and nowhere near as effective and as cool as in the literature.

Jets need a BUFF.

If jumping and shooting is the problem then nerf the mechanic of jumping and shooting. Simple!

I would prefer that jets were made more powerful but remove the ability to move and fire at all, rather than water jets down even more.

Jets are an investment in tonnage, they must remain fun and they must still confer some sort of tactical advantage.

If jets are nerfed to the point that no one takes them in assaults then another tactical option bites the dust and the game becomes that much more unexciting.

Some say we have a problem with pop tarting assaults (personally I do not see it myself), but however you proceed do not ruin jets as they are a key part of lore as well as a fun mechanic.

[MavRCK]

FactorlanP, on 10 February 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

The real problem is, and always has been, pinpoint convergence.

Ya because human beings have this tendency to try and hit what they aim for.

We should just make it artificially impossible to utilize skill and physical coordination to hit something.

In fact, at the Olympics they should randomly assign rifles with randomly-aligned sights to shoot their targets.

In fact, we should roll dice to determine which rifle is given to which random biathlete.

Then we should roll dice to determine which rounds loaded into the rifle actually fire and which ones are in fact blanks.

Best ******* Olympics ever -- you know that Biathlete with the gold medal is the most skilled and the most RNG-favoured, dice-rolling-lucky athlete in THE WORLD!

Yes!!

Oh wait, this is sarcasm and it's a stupid idea. Don't take it seriously.

When I beta-tested Counter-Strike years ago, "random" shot arrangements were introduced because the Mp5 was so accurate you could hit a target from across the map.. Eventually players figured out the algorithm and determined the shot spread so they could hit someone across the map with the 3rd shot... It took years before a suitable solution was found and even then, the RNG in these solutions are a considerable source of frustration and controversy in these games.

Be careful what you ask for.

[MavRCK]

This is part of an article I've begun writing and it may be very controversial but I hope the historical aspects help people understand the game in greater context -- as they say, know your history or you're doomed to repeat it.. (for you guys too young to understand: think World War 2 and Concentration Camps, Nanking Massacre, Unit 731!)

Quote

It should be noted that it is not JumpJets per se which make specific mechs overpowered. When the Highlander was introduced, it was not immediately the dominant assault chassis. During the RHOD Season 1, KaoS Legion dominated the competitive tournament to such an extent that the opponents quitplaying en mass. At this point, KaoS was utilizing the Atlas DDC in addition to the Highlander to counter other teams including those that had switched to the Highlander 3 PPC, 1 Guass build. How was this possible? It was because the Slope Mechanic System was not yet introduced.

The introduction of the Slope Mechanic System created a problem of mobility and access that JJ-mechs had a solution for and that non-JJ mechs did not have a solution. Prior to this, KaoS’ Atlas DDCs could walk up, over, and towards their targets with minimal disruption and engage (brawl) as needed. Sniping builds including those with and without JJs were vulnerable to the brawling teams that used intelligence, discipline and bravery to approach sniping groups.

To further compound the new terrain obstacles the Slope Mechanic introduced, random invisible walls of the slightest terrain variations stopped mechs completely in their tracks. JJ-mechs now had a solution to two problems of large terrain / building obstacles and unpredictable invisible walls (pebbles as I like to call them) - the solution being sustain or brief application of JJ, respectively.

Hence, it’s important to realize that it is not Jump Jets which are the main problem in MWO. Rather, to see the forest from the trees, the main issue is the terrain system / Slope Mechanic system which non-JJ mechs do not have a solution for and for which JJ-mechs do. Why is this so important? It is because when balancing MWO, as long as non-JJ mechs lack a solution to the terrain / Slope Mechanic System issue, no matter what balancing is done to Jump Jets themselves, JJ-mechs will always be preferred over non-JJ mechs because the JJs provide solutions for JJ-mechs which non-JJ mechs do not possess. Thus I continue to emphasize a need for the Slope Mechanic System to be adjusted (ie. 10% across the board for all mech sizes: tiny, small, medium, large, assault) such that all mechs can cover most terrain effectively and all invisible walls (pebbles) are eliminated.

Nothing breaks immersion as does unexpected cessation of movement aka invisible walls (pebbles) - this should be the priority to eliminate from MWO.

Edited by MavRCK, 10 February 2014 - 10:57 AM.