54 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 27 March 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

I consider the Daishi to fit into the "undersized" engine category. It has a top speed of 53.5 kph after speed tweak. It'll pack a huge wallop, but its hilariously slow speed will make it a magnet for attracting fire. Especially LRMs, the Daishi is going to have a lot of issues against Lurms. Maybe arty/air strikes, too. The Daishi is one of those mechs that is hard to decide if it will be "good" or not (most others are clear-cut and easy to tell).

I have an Atlas that is the same speed... I haven't had trouble with Arty or Air... haven't tried it against Missiles, I have to get my Battlemaster skills up to snuff.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

Since when is 1 PPC Overpowered?
Or 1 LRM?
Or 1 Auto Cannon?
Or one Laser?

No one weapon is OP. Each weapon individually has its own strengths and weaknesses. But, it is when you start taking certain weapons enmasse that we see where things break. Boating isn't a problem and is, to a certain point, lore. The real issue is that we're limiting things by way of GH that don't need to be limited but not limiting dangerous game play. One PPC is fine, two PPCs are fine. Hell, three PPCs are fine but are extremely hot in the long run. One PPC is no less dangerous than two PPCs depending on what you have built along with that single PPC. Two PPCs, though, in one location becomes a problem AND allowing players to continually put those two PPCs in that one location time and time again with no constraint makes for bad game play. And in respect to MW:O, we don't have anything to prevent the current game style - alpha till your get killed. As we all know, heat incurred issues on the mech pilot. Poor to-hit modifiers, increased chances of ammo explosions, uncosciousness, shut downs, etc.

Sadly, to answer DONTOR's question, every games has OP segments because designers come up with a grand scheme of how they want the game to be played. They build the maze and put the mice (us) in it. What they always fail to determine is that we mice are smarter than they are in our ability to change the parameters of the game. What was thought to be powerful is dismissed because of its failings and what was thought to be minimal is abused because it can be. Until gaming companies HIRE gamers and even hackers to bullet test their precious gems, things like this will always happen. Unfortunately, companies always view alpha and beta testing as all that is needed while forgetting that the sheer lack of numbers of people in these phases causes their data to be insignificant.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 27 March 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 27 March 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

No one weapon is OP. Each weapon individually has its own strengths and weaknesses. But, it is when you start taking certain weapons enmasse that we see where things break. Boating isn't a problem and is, to a certain point, lore. The real issue is that we're limiting things by way of GH that don't need to be limited but not limiting dangerous game play. One PPC is fine, two PPCs are fine. Hell, three PPCs are fine but are extremely hot in the long run. One PPC is no less dangerous than two PPCs depending on what you have built along with that single PPC. Two PPCs, though, in one location becomes a problem AND allowing players to continually put those two PPCs in that one location time and time again with no constraint makes for bad game play.

Sadly, to answer DONTOR's question, every games has OP segments because designers come up with a grand scheme of how they want the game to be played. They build the maze and put the mice (us) in it. What they always fail to determine is that we mice are smarter than they are in our ability to change the parameters of the game. What was thought to be powerful is dismissed because of its failings and what was thought to be minimal is abused because it can be. Until gaming companies HIRE gamers and even hackers to bullet test their precious gems, things like this will always happen. Unfortunately, companies always view alpha and beta testing as all that is needed while forgetting that the sheer lack of numbers of people in these phases causes their data to be insignificant.

Doesn't help Traug. A few testers can play something 8 ways to Sunday trying to break it. Proclaim it good an with in a hour some player from Hole in the wall Texas figures out a way to break it! I have play tested things for a decade, I have yet to see a "finished" product not need a rewrite

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Doesn't help Traug. A few testers can play something 8 ways to Sunday trying to break it. Proclaim it good an with in a hour some player from Hole in the wall Texas figures out a way to break it! I have play tested things for a decade, I have yet to see a "finished" product not need a rewrite

Pretty much. How players deal with game parameters is one of the things that reminds me of how wonderous life and intelligence really is. There is no box that can't be thought outside of and there is no end to our ability to adapt. "Hit a light, take a right - never lose momentum!" What makes games great is really the developers' abilities to adapt to the changes that the community push. It is the wonderous cat and mouse action of game development and is the hallmark of great titles. It is why Everquest and World of Warcraft lasted so long while other games similar to them flamed out and died.

[ollo]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

I personally think PPCs should have their own HP. In the future we will have 3 more types of PPC... Look at TRO 3075 and see what Boating OP is all about!

Well, if you still play MWO around 17 years from now you might see them!

[Joseph Mallan]

ollo, on 27 March 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Well, if you still play MWO around 17 years from now you might see them!

I played TT for almost 30, I still play AD&D since the late 70's, I am always looking at Final Fantasy titles... I am as much a Dynasty player as I am a Dinosaur

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 March 2014 - 10:41 AM.

[darrencheesecake]

The reason why the LRMs had a speed increase was because they didn't have long range capability and weren't feared as much. but now the weapon is sort of more compatiable at long range as players could fire and get some hits. before they the patch they didn't seem much of a threat.

To be honest, I prefered the original LRMS, slow, large and in accurate (flew in wonky lines which look frickin awesome) but had a strong punch with splash damage. This gave them a very diffined weakness (which most discovered) which was sniping them with PPC and gauses or flanking them and laser hugging there face. This was the reason they stayed at the back of the pack because they had protection from the main battle group.

If they could have different versions of all weapons to suit different play styles but they all were balanced in a way. I reackon this game would be a bit more unpredictable as players would have different versions of a weapon but they would play with a certain style.

PGI seems to be resticting this freedom of how to play with the current weapons and they planning to make different manufactures for each weapon.

[LauLiao]

darrencheesecake, on 27 March 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

The reason why the LRMs had a speed increase was because they didn't have long range capability and weren't feared as much. but now the weapon is sort of more compatiable at long range as players could fire and get some hits. before they the patch they didn't seem much of a threat.

To be honest, I prefered the original LRMS, slow, large and in accurate (flew in wonky lines which look frickin awesome) but had a strong punch with splash damage. This gave them a very diffined weakness (which most discovered) which was sniping them with PPC and gauses or flanking them and laser hugging there face. This was the reason they stayed at the back of the pack because they had protection from the main battle group.

If they could have different versions of all weapons to suit different play styles but they all were balanced in a way. I reackon this game would be a bit more unpredictable as players would have different versions of a weapon but they would play with a certain style.

PGI seems to be resticting this freedom of how to play with the current weapons and they planning to make different manufactures for each weapon.

I don't even know what you're asking for...

[Pygar]

Many of the balance issues MWO has were handed down from the original game itself, and then compounded by the fact that the game happens in real time, instead of being turn based.

[Tincan Nightmare]

FupDup, on 27 March 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

This being said, I think the biggest nerf of all is actually going to be their plans to restrict Omnimech customization, rather than the actual weapons themselves. Slow lights and over-engined heavies (XL350 Thor and XL375 Mad Cat are LOLOLOLOL) won't be able to make very good use of the weapons, no matter how good the weapons turn out to be. Those monster-sized engines in particular actually sort of negative the weapon tonnage advantage, because they eat up so much of that "saved" tonnage.

But a well-built mech like the Ryoken will probably be a beast. Some will suck popsickles, some will be decent, and some will crush all comers.

I keep seeing this put out there, about the 'overengined' Clan heavies, but I don't see the same issues. The Mad Cat has 12 tons of Clan FF armor, giving it max protection for its weight, and carries 2 LRM20's, 2 ER lg. lasers, 2 ER md. lasers, a md. pulse laser, and 2 MG's (and thats only one variant, and one that people haven't min/maxed yet). All this in a 75 ton mech moving at 80+ kph with its 'big' engine. In comparison to the Ryoken, it comes with a stock 15 DHS (to the Ryokens 10), has 2.5 more tons of armor (Clan FF that has much more protection), plus stronger internals, and only gives up about 10 KPH of speed while carrying 4.5 tons more weaponry. Even if PGI gives Clan weapons the same damage and range as IS ones, I don't think Mad Cats are going to be a lame duck due to engine size (especially as Clan XL doesn't kill you if you lose one side torso). The Thor is basically a slightly slower Ryoken (same armor tonnage and only .5 tonnage variance in weapons), but will have JJ's, which the Ryoken doesn't as standard (unsure with their 'rules' on Omni's if you will be able to add them). Not to mention that if they make the Ryoken similar in size to the IS 55 tonners, it will be as large as the Mad Cat and Thor.

[Mcgral18]

Pygar, on 27 March 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Many of the balance issues MWO has were handed down from the original game itself, and then compounded by the fact that the game happens in real time, instead of being turn based.

Well, more the fact that armor was only doubled, while weapons do for the most part 3-20 times their TT values. Heat dissipation was kept the same, but heat generation went up the same ratio as the RoF, so 3-20 times as much heat as well.

This was made worse with the FLD attribute of some weapons, which was in turn made even worse with everything being pinpoint instantaneous convergence. Balance will be nigh impossible with this system.

[Mister Blastman]

OP

Quote

WHY DO SOME WEAPONS SEEM MORE OVERPOWERED THAN OTHERS?

Because they are.

[Alex Warden]

i feel most weapons are somewhat okay by now (although ERPPC are slightly, just slightly too hot imho) , i guess the incoming 160m/s for lrms will be okay, too...

i agree that SRM´s need some work, they are buggy as [badword]... if those would function as they should, that would be good for the game as a whole i guess...

other than that weapons are at a good point lately

what i THINK would be needed is a little more durability of the mechs over all (well, spiders aside ) so that we won´t need to tune down the whole bandwith of guns again and start over with the balancing process at point zero

Edited by Alex Warden, 27 March 2014 - 06:19 PM.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

I had a long post detailing skill gaps, damage"blocking", with examples, and why burst-fire/full-auto ACs would be better for the game in general, but the back button on my mouse got clicked accidentally and it was eaten by the internet.

SO here's the deal, we have 2 weapons.
A shoots 9 every 4.5 sec
B shoots 10 every 5.5 sec
Same tonnage/crit/heat etc. with pinpoint, FLD damage delivery.
B has 10% less dps, but higher burst but misses are more penalizing.
Against a 20 hp component, B takes 2 hits (1 cooldown, 5.5 secs total, before target destruction) while A takes 3 hits ( 2 cooldowns (9 secs total) before target destruction)
Now lets take boat of each weapon: B kills in one shot (no cooldowns before target death) while A needs 2 (and thusly 4.5s min before target death)

In highly skilled hands, B is better despite the apparently worse dps because of a damage "block." Yes can be compeitive but it will still be at a disadvantage against skilled opponents. This a skill gap since misses significantly increase the TTK in both case for weapon B but A is a bit more forgiving. Now let's change them to burst fire or beam damage. Both do the damage over a 1 sec beam whose cooldown takes the beam into account for the same dps as before. B can still possibly kill in 2 shots but that require a very slow target and/or very close range to be reliable so the gap between B and A is less noticeable.

In general the better skilled player with a steadier and more accurate aim will still win but the TTK potential has in most cases been reduced to allow for slightly lower accuracys (that does not look right... what is the plural of accuracy?) to be competitive since a miss not 100% loss in damage necessarily. This is why I feel current ACs need to be burst-fire or full-auto in order to lower the skill gap between lasers, srms etc. and pinpoint FLD weapons. The FLD versions may be able to exist but need to have significantly reduced dps rate compared to the full-auto and to a lesser extent, burst-fire versions.

Skill gaps may be what competitive players want but that can come at creating a less-fun environment for the average player where people feel like they can't win in certain cases. This is BAD for growing/maintaining a playerbase! The more fun it is for everyone, the more successful the game is and the more people will play it! Business 101 people!

Edit: hmm i guess this turned out almost just as long,
Also a reworking of the heat system to encourage greater sustained dps (significantly higher dissipation/sec) and lowered/fixed heat cap (I would think no mechs should get more than 30-40 heat total so boating becomes less of an issue, maybe with added penalties to gettin close to overheating like reduced targeting computer efficiency, slower refire rates, etc.) may alleviate the disparity enough such that FLD weapons can remain as-is.

Edited by Tw1stedMonkey, 27 March 2014 - 07:23 PM.

[Davers]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 27 March 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

Skill gaps may be what competitive players want but that can come at creating a less-fun environment for the average player where people feel like they can't win in certain cases. This is BAD for growing/maintaining a playerbase! The more fun it is for everyone, the more successful the game is and the more people will play it! Business 101 people!

Removing the effectiveness of skill makes for a dull game for everyone. Is it not better for a player to learn to aim? Maybe you would rather we have mechs just auto-attack each other and just compare DPS values?

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Davers, on 27 March 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Removing the effectiveness of skill makes for a dull game for everyone. Is it not better for a player to learn to aim? Maybe you would rather we have mechs just auto-attack each other and just compare DPS values?

Always extremes in people's minds huh? Only remove huh, no such thing as a moderate reduction or a thing called moderation? Is it so terrible to suggest that it might be more fun for everyone if some people's k/d went from a 4 to a 2-3? because for every 4 k/d out there someone has to go .25 k/d, and I bet he sure looks forward to continuing to play/spend money on the game!

Edited by Tw1stedMonkey, 27 March 2014 - 07:40 PM.

[Davers]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 27 March 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

Always extremes in people's minds huh? Only remove huh, no such thing as a moderate reduction or a thing called moderation? Is it so terrible to suggest that it might be more fun for everyone if some people's k/d went from a 4 to a 2-3? because for every 4 k/d out there someone has to go .25 k/d, and I bet he sure looks forward to continuing to play/spend money on the game!

You are right. Better to give out 'Participation Ribbons' and not keep score then ask a player to improve.

I always wondered why the Devs felt the need to dumb down the game, instead of making it more detailed and deep. Why they felt that players couldn't possible be expected to learn any of the lore and factions. I wondered why they felt the need to 'baby' the playerbase, who I believed were looking for something more hardcore and challenging.

Now I met you and I no longer have to wonder.

I now understand why groups had to be eliminated. Because people who want to be competitive have to be kept away from the mass of gamers that want their hands held.

Edited by Davers, 27 March 2014 - 08:01 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

reduction of skill? what??
LOL!

what we could do is give the new recruits some forcefield that soaks up 150 dmg for the duration of the cadet bonus

but then there is no way to control for when experienced players make a 2nd account and get a free 150dmg free pass.

no, there's no way to do what you ask, at least not in a way that isn't completely asinine

Edited by Mazzyplz, 27 March 2014 - 09:24 PM.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

If there is one thing you can count on from the internet is the douchebags that care about no one and nothing but what they want Just because the people clamoring for "more hardcore" or "skill-based" stuff tend to whine about it really loud, doesn't mean they know what is enjoyable for more people. Besides, lasers are FAR from requiring no skill, they just require skills aside from twitch shooting and require consistency. People tend to overreact to changes.

[darrencheesecake]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 27 March 2014 - 09:52 PM, said:

If there is one thing you can count on from the internet is the douchebags that care about no one and nothing but what they want Just because the people clamoring for "more hardcore" or "skill-based" stuff tend to whine about it really loud, doesn't mean they know what is enjoyable for more people. Besides, lasers are FAR from requiring no skill, they just require skills aside from twitch shooting and require consistency. People tend to overreact to changes.

Hopefully you weren't acusing me of been a douchbag because I wasn't. Theres a massive difference between a whining about this game and sharing your honest opinion. Bysides, I wasn't complaining I'm just giving everyone a breif history lesson of this game. I didn't mind the changes I just missed the expience that I felt when I first started playing this game a year ago. This isn't a rant and I was merely expressing my thoughs (on the original LRMs, not suggesting changes) and ideas on little changes (PPC splash damage that only effects ECM) which don't seem like they make anything unbalanced.

However I do known that some of these people who generally compain over the quantity of number of particular weapons a player might equip then assume that it's OP, which is clearly wrong becauses there is a high quantity of weapons than a normal person would equip. Sorry if I acquesed wrongly, I'm meant no offence.