23 replies to this topic

[MrMadguy]

Really. Think about it. I'm sick of this endless whiny threads about balance. Energy, ballistics and missiles should not be balanced against each other. This weapons are intended to serve different purposes, suit different playstyles, be used in different situations, at different ranges, etc. Yea, there should be intersection between this weapon classes, but they should not be 100% equal to each other! People, who screaming something like "nerf ballistics", don't even understand anything about balancing weapons in this game and/or played MMOs too much. Yea... This stupid unreal idea of balancing, let's say, Mage against Warrior. Why can't you understand, that asking to balance ballistics against energy weapons in MWO is the same, as asking to balance sniper rifles against machine guns in Counter-Strike? Go back to your MMOs and ask for "balance" there. MWO is shooter in a first place. The problem is not in ballistics being OP and energy weapons being gimped. The problem is in fact, that players prefer this playstyle - not to close to enemies and keep them on distance instead. Yea, there are several types of weapons in Counter-Strike, but most players ending up using only M16/AK-47 as most universal weapons and completely ignore shortguns and pistols. And this isn't reason to nerf this weapons. It's really sad, that developers listened to this whines and going to nerf ballistics. Balancing ballistics against energy weapons is as stupid idea as trying to balance ballistics/energy against missiles... We shouldn't try to balance weapons - we should try to balance playstyles instead.

[FupDup]

MrMadguy, on 14 April 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

This weapons are intended to serve different purposes, suit different playstyles, be used in different situations, at different ranges, etc.

That's the definition of balance, you dingbat.


The idea that "balance" means to make everything have the same on-paper stats is a myth.

Edited by FupDup, 14 April 2014 - 09:07 AM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

FupDup, on 14 April 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

That's the definition of balance, you dingbat.


The idea that "balance" means to make everything have the same on-paper stats is a myth.

Relax FupDup, the OP clearly just had an extra helping of glue for breakfast.

@OP When people refer to balance, they are referencing all weapons being relevant in terms of effectiveness.

I.E. It would be great if a mech with flamers weren't a joke, or LRMs could be used effectively without needing to boat them in absurd masses.

[Mcgral18]

Current balance: Dakka for low heat high DPS. Lasers for low weight decent damage high heat. PPCs for low weight ballistic, high heat.

SRMs for laughs and maybe tears, good for humiliation.

In fact, dakka can be used at all ranges effectively, from 5 M to 1000M, after which you get considerably reduced returns. They also apply their damage in the most favourable fashion. Really, the only loss is weight.

[Joseph Mallan]

mwhighlander, on 14 April 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Relax FupDup, the OP clearly just had an extra helping of glue for breakfast.

@OP When people refer to balance, they are referencing all weapons being relevant in terms of effectiveness.

I.E. It would be great if a mech with flamers weren't a joke, or LRMs could be used effectively without needing to boat them in absurd masses.

Most Missiles I have seen on a Mech here is 80. On TT most for IS Builds was 60 And on one Clan mech 120... They should never be in the same sentence as Flamers and teh word useful.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 April 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Most Missiles I have seen on a Mech here is 80. On TT most for IS Builds was 60 And on one Clan mech 120... They should never be in the same sentence as Flamers and teh word useful.

Thats the most... however irrelevant to my statement.

A single LRM 20 or 15 is hardly considered a threat by any standard in this game. In others, it was at least somewhat useful.

[Artgathan]

FupDup, on 14 April 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

dingbat.

+1 for hilarious uncommon word use.

Seriously though, in response to the OP, having two weapons be balanced doesn't mean they need to have the same stats. If just means that if I bring a shotgun and you bring a sniper rifle and we fight at range, you should probably win. If we fight at short range, I should probably win.

This is not the case in MW:O.

[Ken Moore]

I agree with Artgathan, there should be some sort of penalty for the small Autocannons at close range!
In TT they had a penalty if used at close range with the AC 2 having issues under 120m and the AC 5 at 90m and even the Ultra had issues under 60m.
LRM's do not work under 180m so why cant some sort of penalty be added for these weapons? Maybe make the hit location more erratic?

[Trauglodyte]

mwhighlander, on 14 April 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Thats the most... however irrelevant to my statement.

A single LRM 20 or 15 is hardly considered a threat by any standard in this game. In others, it was at least somewhat useful.

That is largely the problem we're having in this game vs. table top. Most stock builds came with 1 missile launcher of some sort. A Shadowhawk with a single LRM5 wasn't meant to scare anyone because it was intended as gravy for incoming damage on a target. A single LRM5 in this game is a waste of tonnage unless you're playing idiots that don't take the time to look for where LRMs are launching from before they move and don't bother looking up to see how many are flying. A single SRM launcher is also garbage and the SRM2/LRM5 by themselves are the epitome of laughable.

Ken Moore, on 14 April 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

I agree with Artgathan, there should be some sort of penalty for the small Autocannons at close range!
In TT they had a penalty if used at close range with the AC 2 having issues under 120m and the AC 5 at 90m and even the Ultra had issues under 60m.
LRM's do not work under 180m so why cant some sort of penalty be added for these weapons? Maybe make the hit location more erratic?

You're right except for the fact that the TT penalty was a to-hit thing. You can't do anything to obscure the ability to hit because it is all based on the player's comprehension of what is going on and their ability to adjust for what is going on. Adding in massive screen shake within close range would work but wouldn't make any sense.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 14 April 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

mwhighlander, on 14 April 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Thats the most... however irrelevant to my statement.

A single LRM 20 or 15 is hardly considered a threat by any standard in this game. In others, it was at least somewhat useful.

Bet I could bring my Archer Atlas back with its 2 LRM20 and still be capable. Also a single LRM15 on my Thunderbolt did what it was meant to do. Provide SOME long ranged support.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 April 2014 - 10:14 AM.

[Mechteric]

Balance simply means that on a multidimensional scale various attributes are aligned (but not necessarily exact to the decimal). In Mechwarrior these dimensions are:

Weight
Critical Space
Heat
Damage
Reload Time
Projectile Speed (&Accuracy)
Ammunition
Range
Secondary Effects


As you can see balance is a complicated thing, but nobody is suggesting that a laser should be the exact same thing as an autocannon or LRM. Merely that the pros and cons work themselves out in a varying number of ways that never leads to one option having too many pros versus cons when compared with other weapons.

In many ways its like the classic game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Mayonnaise, Bacon, Spork, Troll, Bridge, or Red Herring.

[FupDup]

CapperDeluxe, on 14 April 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

In many ways its like the classic game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Mayonnaise, Bacon, Spork, Troll, Bridge, or Red Herring.

You forgot Lizard, Spock, and Shotgun.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 April 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

Bet I could bring my Archer Atlas back with its 2 LRM20 and still be capable. Also a single LRM15 on my Thunderbolt did what it was meant to do. Provide SOME long ranged support.

I would certainly hope 18 tons of weaponry + ammo is capable...

[Lykaon]

mwhighlander, on 14 April 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

I would certainly hope 18 tons of weaponry + ammo is capable...

twenty tons + ammo + ECM tax (BAP/TAG/NARC/UAV)

[Karl Streiger]

nice that your brought the weight and crits into the argument

reason is simple - we will have a kind of tonnage rating - not bv or anything else...we have tonnage -

good TT example Awesome vs Charger-"1A5" both have 80tons

...the Awesome can deal more concentrated damage at better range.... but at a specified time - the Charger will have closed the gap thanks to its speed....and the AC 20 and SRMs will turn the Awesome into spare metal in no time. So the Awesome need to keep distance, the Charger have to close. Thats balance. (more important for teamplay - the awesome may need a close range bodyguard like a hunchback, while the Charger may need some LRM support like a trebuchet - again 130t vs 130t balance.

This described tonnage / crit / heat balance was destroyed with the poor implementation of StarLeague Tech - and still we have to pay the price - for this implementation.

[Tekadept]

The person balancing this game should go see a doctor as I think they have an Inner ear infection.

Edited by Tekadept, 15 April 2014 - 02:52 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

mwhighlander, on 14 April 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

I would certainly hope 18 tons of weaponry + ammo is capable...

So you don't have a problem with A20s being a beast in combat right? Cause so many players seem to think that "Heavy Weapons" should not be dangerous!

[Latorque]

Rejoice! They aren't.

[Joseph Mallan]

Never fear Latorque, some of us do rejoice that weapons are not perfectly balanced. To some perfect balance is boring.

[Bobzilla]

Most players taking similar builds due to certain weapons having an advantage is boring.
One side rolling over another is boring.

Imbalance is boring, not balance.

Edited by Bobzilla, 15 April 2014 - 04:18 AM.