216 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Mazzyplz, on 06 March 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

go back 2 pages, i made a solid argument that if all the weapons had the same damage it would be a twitch shooter still.
and it would still require skill.
(though dissenting voices started ignoring me when they saw it made sense - god forbid they take their win button)
and another argument than making some weapons more powerful it's limiting the choice of (some of) the userbase to only those weapons that do massive damage, or is ballistic not the most popular weapon in the game? because from my 3000 drops i'd say it is.. though count it as anecdotal evidence.

that was not what people were ignoring. The point of the matter was when you simply consistently keep nerfing things over and over again based on what the current meta is you create a bad scenario of constantly making weapons more and more the same.

Weapons should not be balanced against once another, they should be balanced in a niche position. And even then you will never achieve perfect balance. Its the state of gaming that it will always rotate with one dominant meta.

[Mazzyplz]

there is no problem with weapons being the same damage wise.
that was the whole point, go re-read.

as long as weapons have different ranges, differ from hitscan/pinpoint, differ between line of sight or indirectly fired, differ in travel times, differ in reload times, differ in heat, differ in ammo usage.

NO - weapons are not the same, and if they were the same damage it wouldn't take skill away at all

what you mean is you want some weapons to be "different" (read: more powerful)

[Kaeb Odellas]

Varent, on 06 March 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

that was not what people were ignoring. The point of the matter was when you simply consistently keep nerfing things over and over again based on what the current meta is you create a bad scenario of constantly making weapons more and more the same.

Weapons should not be balanced against once another, they should be balanced in a niche position. And even then you will never achieve perfect balance. Its the state of gaming that it will always rotate with one dominant meta.

Why does balancing weapons against each other necessitate making them more the same?



None of these rocks are the same. And yet, here they stand.

[Mazzyplz]

but that's not really balance, or difference, or has anything to do with weapons being or feeling the same. it's nonsense

Kaeb Odellas, on 06 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Why does balancing weapons against each other necessitate making them more the same?



None of these rocks are the same. And yet, here they stand.

they don't and he knows it, it's a fallacy

[Varent]

not really.... and did you bother to read the rest of the statement about weapons being balanced in situations as upposed to against one another?

Like they are you know.. in every other shooting game?

[Mazzyplz]

yes i talked about other games and developers also a few pages back, i invite you to read that

all choices should be viable, that's how it is in all games that have classes or choices to be made, like enemy territory, warframe etc.

it's not play this because it's the strongest like an AC is good at nearly all ranges

even if we take your premise the SRM should be the strongest weapon because all the downsides, and yet it's garbage.

[xMintaka]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Varent is trying to point out that all weapons should have their uses. In those roles, they should be "the best".

As an example of the game in it's current state:

There is no competitive reason to use an AC2, LBX or AC10 over an AC5 or AC20. If you want to be competitive (and dont possess supreme skills) it's AC5 or AC20. That's it.

Likewise, why take a Large Pulse Laser when you can take a PPC? If you want to be competitive, you take the PPC. No question.

I won't even mention SRM's.


If this is what Varent is meaning, then I completely agree. What's the point of having certain weapons if they are completely useless when compared to another weapon in the same "class"?

[Mazzyplz]

fine then buff those weapons, or nerf the ppc and ac. it's the same at the end they should all 'have a point'

if they buffed srm, LPL, LBX10 it would be good but matches would be shorter, quadruple armor?

no, just nerf. its simpler.

also ac2 does have advantages that varent is obviously missing because he's focusing on the numbers, but the fact of the matter is when you shoot ac2 and ac5 into the center torso the enemy can't even aim back because the explosions take up all the screen. GG

i have seen stalkers in particular who can't move very well just get cancelled out by having their view completely negated.
i can accept streaks doing that because they're lame but not autocannon, that needs to be balanced.
and it doesn't show up in the numbers, despite being a huge factor

[Varent]

Mazzyplz, on 06 March 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

yes i talked about other games and developers also a few pages back, i invite you to read that

all choices should be viable, that's how it is in all games that have classes or choices to be made, like enemy territory, warframe etc.

it's not play this because it's the strongest like an AC is good at nearly all ranges

even if we take your premise the SRM should be the strongest weapon because all the downsides, and yet it's garbage.

At around 200 meters I assure you its not garbage. You may not be using it correctly if those are your thoughts.

Mazzyplz, on 06 March 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

fine then buff those weapons, or nerf the ppc and ac. it's the same at the end they should all 'have a point'

if they buffed srm, LPL, LBX10 it would be good but matches would be shorter, quadruple armor?

no, just nerf. its simpler.

also ac2 does have advantages that varent is obviously missing because he's focusing on the numbers, but the fact of the matter is when you shoot ac2 and ac5 into the center torso the enemy can't even aim back because the explosions take up all the screen. GG

i have seen stalkers in particular who can't move very well just get cancelled out by having their view completely negated.
i can accept streaks doing that because they're lame but not autocannon, that needs to be balanced.
and it doesn't show up in the numbers, despite being a huge factor

your not experimenting with modules enough I assure you.

[TehSBGX]

This game is under balanced not over balanced -.- Now street Fighter 4, thats a boring over balanced mess that deep down wishes it was half as fun as older SF games.

See OP, over balancing would mean PGI put too much effort into balancing and made the game boring. Which is kinda the opposite, PGI hasn't done nearly enough to balance things out. -.-

[Mazzyplz]

Quote

your not experimenting with modules enough I assure you.

what you mean the gyros? they reduce screen SHAKE... they do NOTHING to curb the lack of vision from constant nonstop ac rounds to the cockpit, you still cannot see out of it - sure it makes it easier to aim in some situations but it doesn't really counteract it

[Varent]

Mazzyplz, on 06 March 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

what you mean the gyros? they reduce screen SHAKE... they do NOTHING to curb the lack of vision from constant nonstop ac rounds to the cockpit, you still cannot see out of it - sure it makes it easier to aim in some situations but it doesn't really counteract it

I have never had this issue at all. It may simply be because I play on the lowest graphic settings, however I have never had this be an issue.

[Mazzyplz]

i should try lowest since i play with the highest, will check it out when i can get a few matches in a few hrs

[Varent]

Mazzyplz, on 06 March 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

i should try lowest since i play with the highest, will check it out when i can get a few matches in a few hrs

I actually tried highest recently... it was... pretty god awful. I usually do lowest settings for most games I play since Im not big into graphics and prefer performance.

[Mechsniper]

Balance has failed in the game due to the following:
Failure t have role warfare.
PGI has listened to light and medium pilots qq'ing that their mechs died too quickly due to(srms, lrms, ssrms,gauss, ppcs,and a/c 20's, pretty much anything that actually kills a mech as it should). Due to lack of another role for lights, such was promised by role warfare, the light mech players think a raven should be able to do fair battle against assault mechs as equals, which has currently been delivered, unbalancing the game. Jump sniping was a problem from several games back. The idea of shake was great, implementation was not so much. Jump shooting inside a couple hundred meters ABSOLUTELY, brawling with jets is great fun and adds to the experience. The poptart meta not so much.
Hardpoint sizes. Ghost heat and poptarting phract squads, etc. were brought about by not limiting the size of a given mech's weapon hardpoints. A spider should not be carrying ppc's. A gaussapault should never have existed(sticking gauss in a machine gun's mount space). limiting the size of hardpoints holds back what can carry these weapons. Would a Highlander poptarting inside a limited range really be OP if his arm cannon was the only one carrying other than a laser or SRM? I think not. Especially now with the terribad slow ascent with full JJ loadouts. PGI chose to come up with ghost heat rather than fix this. This is why it fails.
Limiting # of big guns on a mech
other than the mechs designed specifically as boats lets limit PPC's on most mechs to 2, Gauss to 1 and LL/ERLL/LPL to 3/mech, LRMS to a limit of 40/mech, etc. DONE! Whalla! NO BOATS. (also decrease ammo /tn,lrms really?) Only the mechs meant to carry them would have more.
High Alpha builds:
High alpha vs DPS is absolutely a play style choice and both have their places. Where there is cover, a high DPS mech can lose easily to a high alpha mech that steps in and out of cover using torso twist to spread damage. It is the same choice as brawler vs sniper vs lrm vs srm boats. Battle is like a game of chess(or occasionally rock paper scissors) because chess was modeled from the choices and strategy variety available in war. MechWarrior as well is a chess game. You must allow a certain variety of play choices of which sniper, srm builds and jumping assault/heavy mechs are currently erased from.

My post is not all inclusive and is totally an impromptu rambling, but the facts come out in it should be pushed by those with more time than I to develope them. Not everyone agrees, but having been here since near the beginning, I have heard many in agreement with the above and do not claim to be the first to say about 3/4 of it.

Edited by Mechsniper, 06 March 2014 - 03:25 PM.

[Varent]

Mechsniper, on 06 March 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

Balance has failed in the game due to the following:
Failure t have role warfare.
PGI has listened to light and medium pilots qq'ing that their mechs died too quickly due to(srms, lrms, ssrms,gauss, ppcs,and a/c 20's, pretty much anything that actually kills a mech as it should). Due to lack of another role for lights, such was promised by role warfare, the light mech players think a raven should be able to do fair battle against assault mechs as equals, which has currently been delivered, unbalancing the game. Jump sniping was a problem from several games back. The idea of shake was great, implementation was not so much. Jump shooting inside a couple hundred meters ABSOLUTELY, brawling with jets is great fun and adds to the experience. The poptart meta not so much.
Hardpoint sizes. Ghost heat and poptarting phract squads, etc. were brought about by not limiting the size of a given mech's weapon hardpoints. A spider should not be carrying ppc's. A gaussapault should never have existed(sticking gauss in a machine gun's mount space). limiting the size of hardpoints holds back what can carry these weapons. Would a Highlander poptarting inside a limited range really be OP if his arm cannon was the only one carrying other than a laser or SRM? I think not. Especially now with the terribad slow ascent with full JJ loadouts. PGI chose to come up with ghost heat rather than fix this. This is why it fails.
Limiting # of big guns on a mech
other than the mechs designed specifically as boats lets limit PPC's on most mechs to 2, Gauss to 1 and LL/ERLL/LPL to 3/mech, LRMS to a limit of 40/mech, etc. DONE! Whalla! NO BOATS. (also decrease ammo /tn,lrms really?) Only the mechs meant to carry them would have more.
High Alpha builds:
High alpha vs DPS is absolutely a play style choice and both have their places. Where there is cover, a high DPS mech can lose easily to a high alpha mech that steps in and out of cover using torso twist to spread damage. It is the same choice as brawler vs sniper vs lrm vs srm boats. Battle is like a game of chess because chess was modeled from the choices and strategy variety available in war. MechWarrior as well is a chess game. You must allow a certain variety of play choices of which sniper, srm builds and jumping assault/heavy mechs are currently erased from.

My post is not all inclusive and is totally an impromptu rambling, but the facts come out in it should be pushed by those with more time than I to develope them. Not everyone agrees, but having been here since near the beginning, I have heard many in agreement with the above and do not claim to be the first to say about 3/4 of it.

little iffy on the ghost heat and hardpoint sizes but I like the rest of what your saying. Preach it brother!

[Khobai]

Quote

that was not what people were ignoring. The point of the matter was when you simply consistently keep nerfing things over and over again based on what the current meta is you create a bad scenario of constantly making weapons more and more the same.

And theres nothing wrong with weapons being similar. In battletech a laser did 5 damage to one location just like an AC5. That worked in battletech for 30+ years.

It was MWO that changed lasers to damage over time. And now lasers are underpowered compared to AC5s.

So you could just as easily argue making weapons different has caused balanced problems.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

And theres nothing wrong with weapons being similar. In battletech a laser did 5 damage to one location just like an AC5. That worked in battletech for 30+ years.

It was MWO that changed lasers to damage over time. And now lasers are underpowered compared to AC5s.

So you could just as easily argue making weapons different has caused balanced problems.

the medium laser is supposed to be underpowered compared to the ac5.... with ammo it weights 10-11 times as much and takes up 6 slots compared to one.

[Gruinhardt]

Mazzyplz, on 06 March 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

no, just nerf. its simpler.

Simple solution for the simpleminded. Just nerf everything into the ground. By the time this ends, we will be taking turns firing small lasers at each other.

[Khobai]

Quote

the medium laser is supposed to be underpowered compared to the ac5.... with ammo it weights 10-11 times as much and takes up 6 slots compared to one.

completely wrong. in fact the entire reason long-range weapons like the AC5 had minimum ranges was to help promote combined arms and force you to pair up your long-range weapons with short-range weapons like medium lasers and SRMs. The medium laser was not supposed to be inferior to the AC5; both weapons were supposed to be useful in different situations.