Jump to content

A Comprehensive Proposal Addressing The Balance And Gameplay Issues With Mwo.

Balance Gameplay

19 replies to this topic

#1 Radiant Mass

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 29 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 05:24 PM

To those about to read, this will be a very lengthy post.

-The Fundamental Changes-

-Convergence-

To raise the "Time To Kill" aka "TTK" the following changes and additions must be done:

Arm Lock must either be removed or changed so the arms on a Mech are not totally fixated dead center to the Center Torso's cross hairs. This means that the arm cross hair would not stray so far from CT's cross hair. Basically having a more restricted arm movement. The point to this it to maintain damage spread between the arms and CT.

Another issue is the cross hairs them selves. As a Mech moves, the cross hairs remain dead center in the HUD. This must be changed so that the cross hairs follows the Mech's every bob and weave as it moves. This in turn will spread the damage across a targeted Mech 's chassis.

-Sized Hard Points-

To maintain a balance game, this must be implemented. Not only will it bring balance to Mech builds, but it will open up opportunities for un used Mech chassis.

Sized Hard Points will allow and disallow the instalment of certain weapons for a Mech depending on it's Chassis.

This also must result in the removal of the current heat penalty system since cramming many large weapons together will be non existent for all Mechs and only those who were built around such weapons will be allowed to do so. Having the penalties will make those specific Mechs unviable (one example being the "Awesome" AWS-8Q).

The Sized Hard Point System:

Class 1- Used only for small weapon systems.

Class 1 Weapon Systems:
Energy: TAG, Flamer, Small Laser Family, Medium Laser Family.
Ballistic: Machine Gun, AC 2.
Missile: NARC, SSRM 2, SRM 2, SRM 4, LRM 5

Class 2- Used only for average sized weapons. Can accommodate Class 1 weapons of its respective type.

Class 2 Weapon Systems:
Energy: Large laser Family.
Ballistic: AC 5, UAC 5.
Missile: SRM 6, LRM 10

Class 3- Used only for large and heavy weapon systems. Can accommodate any Class 1 and 2 weapons systems of their respective type.

Class 3 Weapon Systems:
Energy: PPC, ER PPC.
Ballistic: AC 10, LB 10-X AC.
Missile: LRM 15

Class 4- Reserved for the largest and heaviest weapon systems and can accommodate all other Class sizes.

Class 4 Weapon Systems:
Ballistic: Gauss Rifle, AC 20
Missile: LRM 20

-Mech List with the Sized Hard Point System-
_____________________________________________________________________
-LIGHT MECHS-
_____________________________________________________________________
Spoiler
_____________________________________________________________________
-MEDIUM MECHS-
_____________________________________________________________________
Spoiler
_____________________________________________________________________
-HEAVY MECHS-
_____________________________________________________________________
Spoiler
_____________________________________________________________________
-ASSAULT MECHS-
_____________________________________________________________________
Spoiler
_____________________________________________________________________

Omni Ports must also follow this system with the exception that they won't be type restricted (energy, ballistic, missile).

-A different approach to Heat Penalties-

To maintain heat as a high risk factor and not just a Mech shut down and minor internal damage risk factor, new mechanics must be added. Amongst the most popular are:

Mech becomes sluggish: This could happen at 50 to 55% heat capacity.

Cockpit electronics on the frits. Increased Mech slow down: This could happen at 55-60% heat capacity.

HUD elements on the frits. Advanced Mech slow down: This could happen at 60-65% heat capacity.

Cockpit monitors and HUD failures. Major Mech slow down: This could happen at 65-75% heat capacity.

Pilot blurred vision. Severe Mech slow down: This could happen at 75-85% heat capacity.

-ECM Changes-

ECM must be changed from a radar stealth field, information and guided missile denial system to an information denial system and guided missile counter measure.

This means ECM will no longer make the user and those around them incapable of being targeted. Instead ECM will deny those who are targeting the user and those within the 180m bubble from transmitting their location information as well as an increase to their time to verify status and loadout as well as missile lock on times.

The systems that denied or bypassed ECM are also to be changed back. UAV, NARC, and Beagle Active Probe will no longer disable and or bypass ECM.
BAP will instead allow the user who has it installed to detect if there is an ECM user near by. This means those who do not have BAP installed will not receive the "Low Signal" warning.

PPCs and another ECM however will still be capable to disrupting an enemy ECM.

ECM will also change how missiles behave. Instead of denying a lock on to LRMs and SSRMs, ECM will disable LRM and SRM ARTERMIS IV equipped enhancements turning them in to standard LRMS and SRMs. While on the other hand, standard LRMs and SSRMs will remain the same, but the moment they enter the ECM field their flight pattern will be scrambled and become erratic, leading to an increase to missile spread or even a possible miss on some missiles.

-Balance to Weapons-

To further increase TTK, all weapons must have an increase to their reload times. A maximum of 4 seconds with an exception on some to maintain balance and viability. In turn most of the weapons values must change in order to reflect this change.

Ballistics:

For a further increase to the TTK, ballistic weapons must also have a fundamental change to them. Their nature as single shot weapons must be changed but not removed entirely.

In order for this to be done right and to make ballistics more defined, the following changes must be made:

Standard Burst Fire mode models:

AC 2: Fires a burst of four rounds dealing 0.5 damage in 0.25 seconds each.
AC 5: Fires a burst of five rounds dealing 1 damage in 0.20 seconds each.
AC 10: Fires a burst of five rounds dealing 2 damage in 0.20 seconds each.
AC 20 Fires a burst of four rounds dealing 5 damage in 0.25 seconds each.

*NOTE: Ammunition will be counted as normal for burst fire ACs. Meaning that one ammo point will be one burst fire salvo.

If and when manufacturers are added, more types of burst fire models could exist.

Mech Quirks will be used to determine which Mech will be capable of utilising the single shot variety.

-Ultra Auto-Cannons-

The mechanics of how UAC's work must be changed. For this to be done it must have a toggleable fire mode key. This will transform the UAC in to a regular ACs until the toggle is activated. Once activated, the weapon will fire its burst/round at half the regular cooldown. The chance to jam will be calculated after the second burst/round is fired at 5% chance to jam, after the third burst/round it will be at a 10% chance to jam and finally after the fourth burst/round is fired it will stay at a 15% chance to jam. When jammed, the weapon won't fire after 5 seconds and will revert back to standard fire mode.

Ballistic Arcing:

Current ballistic arcing barely exists for auto cannons. To further define auto cannons from other weapons, an increase to the ballistic arcing on them must be added.

To make this feature user friendly, auto cannons would begin their ballistic arc once they reach their maximum range and then begin to drop to the ground for every meter on their path to the maximum effective range.

-Missile Weapons-

New launching mechanic:

In order to maintain a consistent damage spread, staggered fire on all missile launchers should be added. This means all missiles launcher types will fire one or more (depending on launcher) missiles every 0.1 seconds after the trigger is pulled.

Missiles launched per launcher:

SSRM 2: 1 missile every 0.1 seconds
SRM 2: 1 missile every 0.1 seconds
SRM 4: 1 missile every 0.1 seconds
SRM 6: 1 missile every 0.1 seconds

LRM 5: 1 missile every 0.1 seconds
LRM 10: 2 missile every 0.1 seconds
LRM 15: 3 missile every 0.1 seconds
LRM 20: 4 missile every 0.1 seconds

To make up for the staggered fire of missiles VS. AMS's range, speeds must go up.

New Missile Speeds:

LRM Speeds: 175 mps
SRM Speeds: 350 mps
SSRM Speeds: 270 mps

To not make LRMs too over powering at 175mps and SSRMs at 270 mps, damage must go down to 1 damage per missile on LRMs, and SSRMs down to 2 damage per missile.

Further LRM changes:
In addition to the new speed and damage, the way the LRMS pick their targets must change to the same way SSRMs pick their target but not as randomized. Meaning each missile will have a designated target upon successful lock on.

LRM Damage Spread:

Standard:
LRM 5: 1 L. Arm, 1 R. Arm, 1 L. Torso, 1 R. Torso, 1 C. Torso.

LRM 10: 1 L. Arm, 1 R. Arm, 1 L. Leg, 1 R leg, 2 L. Torso, 2 R. Torso, 2 C. Torso.

LRM 15: 2 L. Arm, 2 R. Arm, 1 L. Leg, 1 R leg, 3 L. Torso, 3 R. Torso, 3 C. Torso.

LRM 20: 3 L. Arm, 3 R. Arm, 2 L. Leg, 2 R leg, 3 L. Torso, 3 R. Torso, 4 C. Torso.


With ARTERMIS IV FCS:
LRM 5: 2 L. Torso, 2 R. Torso, 1 C. Torso.

LRM 10: 1 L. Arm, 1 R. Arm, 3 L. Torso, 3 R. Torso, 2 C. Torso.

LRM 15: 2 L. Arm, 2 R. Arm, 4 L. Torso, 4 R. Torso, 3 C. Torso.

LRM 20: 3 L. Arm, 3 R. Arm, 5 L. Torso, 5 R. Torso, 4 C. Torso.

There would be 1% chance for each missile to be assigned a lock on to the Head when lock on is achieved, with our without ARTERMIS IV.

Dumb fired LRMs will follow their arcing and straight flight pattern corresponding to their tube.

-New Weapon Values based on the proposed changes-

Energy Weapon Values:













































































Weapon Damage Heat Range Maximum Range Cooldown Duration
Small Laser 3 1 90 180 2 1
Small Pulse Laser 3 2 90 180 1.5 0.5
Medium Laser 5 3 270 550 3 1
Medium Pulse Laser 6 4 200 400 2.5 0.6
Large laser 8 8 450 900 4 1
ER Large Laser 8 12 675 1,350 4 1
Large Pulse Laser 10 10 350 700 3 0.6
PPC 10 10 90-540 1,080 4 -
ER PPC 10 15 810 1,500 4 -
Flamer 0.40 3* 90 90 -


*Flamer's lack of reload keeps it where it stands now with the exception that it will produce 1 heat units per 0.5 seconds on the target and 3 heat units per 0.5 seconds on the user (regardless if the weapon is hitting a target or not). This should prevent stun locks.

Ballistic Weapon Values:































































Weapon Damage Heat Range Maximum Range Cooldown Duration
Machine Gun 0.10 - 120 240 -
AC/2 2 1 720 1,700 2 -
AC/5 5 1 620 1,700 2 -
Ultra AC/5 5 1 620 1,700 2 -
AC/10 10 3 450 1,350 3 -
LB 10-X AC 10 2 540 1,620 3 -
Gauss Rifle 15 1 660 1,980 4 -
AC/20 20 7 270 810 4 -


Standard Burst Fire Auto Cannons:











































Weapon Damage Heat Range Maximum Range Cooldown Duration
AC/2 0.5 1 720 1,700 2 1
AC/5 1 1 620 1,700 2 1
Ultra AC/5 1 1 620 1,700 2 1
AC/10 2 3 450 1,350 3 1
AC/20 5 7 270 810 4 1



Missile Weapon Values:































































Weapon Damage Heat Range Maximum Range Cooldown Duration
SSRM 2 2 per missile 2 270 270 2 0.2
SRM 2 2 per missile 2 270 270 2 0.2
SRM 4 2 per missile 3 270 270 2 0.4
SRM 6 2 per missile 6 270 270 3 0.6
LRM 5 1 per missile 2 180-1,000 1,000 3 0.5
LRM 10 1 per missile 4 180-1,000 1,000 3.5 0.5
LRM 15 1 per missile 5 180-1,000 1,000 4 0.5
LRM 20 1 per missile 6 180-1,000 1,000 4 0.5

-New Numbers for Heat Sinks-

For heat sinks to work properly under the new system the numbers must reflect it.

As it stands now, Single Heat Sinks dissipate 1 heat over the course of 10 seconds, resulting in a heat dissipation of 0.10 heats per second. This is fundamentally flawed, both for the current game and this proposed system.

For the heat sinks to work the numbers must be raised to reflect the re-fire rate of weapons. The new numbers are as follow:

Single Heat Sinks:
1 heat over 5 seconds. A 0.20 heat dissipation per second value.

Double Heat Sinks:
2 heat over 5 seconds. A 0.40 heat dissipation per second value. An alternative to Double heat sinks following the current model that can also work could be 1.75 heat over 5 seconds, a 0.35 heat dissipation per second value.

The values are the same weather the heat sinks are part of the engine or not.

-Comments-

This proposal arose from hours of game play experience in MWO since closed beta, current and past user feedback and the hope to fix the balance problems on the only modern Mech Warrior simulator game.

These proposed changes were made to complement one another. One can't work without the other. So in order for this proposal to work, most, if not all of thes must come out together.

Sources:

Mech and weapon stats:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne.../#module_normal

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page

Heat Sink info:

http://mwomercs.com/...eat-management/

Edited by Egomane, 11 May 2014 - 10:02 PM.


#2 Darian DelFord

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,342 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 11 May 2014 - 05:41 PM

Reserved till I read it and can affirm or deny it :D). Looks thorough though

#3 Jun Watarase

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,504 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 05:55 PM

Uh...just to check, you know PGI wont implement any of your suggestions right? I mean sized based hardpoints were suggested from like, day one of closed beta, and PGI refused to say why they wouldn't do it...

#4 Dymlos2003

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,473 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 11 May 2014 - 06:05 PM

View PostJun Watarase, on 11 May 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

Uh...just to check, you know PGI wont implement any of your suggestions right? I mean sized based hardpoints were suggested from like, day one of closed beta, and PGI refused to say why they wouldn't do it...

Cause it's a horrible idea

#5 Eddrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 1,493 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanyon Lake, TX.

Posted 11 May 2014 - 06:18 PM

No mention of Heat Cap

#6 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 11 May 2014 - 06:18 PM

People need to realize PGI is not going to completely rewrite their game.

#7 Jun Watarase

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,504 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 06:28 PM

View PostDymlos2003, on 11 May 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Cause it's a horrible idea


Becaue it would prevent a minority from using ridiculous meta builds?

#8 Ningyo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 06:33 PM

I think you did not think hard enough about the way these changes would play out in actual gameplay as little respect as I have for Paul's balancing it is better than this.

Size Based hardpoints, actually could be good if done right but opens a lot of cans of worms and there are more important issues.

Convergence: needs to be fixed, but your method makes mechs with all good hardpoints in only arms, or only torso even better than they are now compared to other mechs.

LRM/SRMs Stagger fire: nothing specifically terrible about it, but you would need to fix screen shake first or they would be 10 times worse than they are now.

your heat system and weapon values would about double DPS which would make the game far worse, we need lower dps and lower heat dissipation, not higher.

Many other problems. Kudos for trying to come up with a complete balance fix, but you should rethink most of this.

#9 XX Sulla XX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,094 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 06:37 PM

I would suggest changes need to fit withen what PGI already has. Since they have limited resources and larger goals like CW huge changes to the game will not be done any time soon. Also in general I believe the game can be made better with small changes that can be done. But I do like taking the time to try and solve problems and not just complain like so many do :D

#10 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 11 May 2014 - 07:26 PM

There are two things I'd most like to see:

1 - Dynamic scaling heat penalties. PGI has said they'd like to add these but, given the server-authoritative nature of the game, it'd be very hard to implement so they're putting it off in favor of things like CW.

2 - Dynamic precision reduction. This should be easier than more sweeping heat penalties, as they already have something similar implemented with JJs. I envision it as stacking precision reduction (deviation around the aim point) based on % throttle, % heat load, and stability state (on/off the ground, JJs burning, received Impulse, etc.).

Aside from those, PPC damage arcing is the single change that would contribute most to overall weapon balance, though comprehensive weapon fire rate reductions would also be helpful.

Edited by Levi Porphyrogenitus, 11 May 2014 - 07:27 PM.


#11 Josef Nader

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,243 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 07:36 PM

tl;dr throw out all of your current game mechanics and balancing and start from scratch. That'll fix balance, right?

#12 Shibas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 09:21 PM

Yeah, most of these ideas are pretty terrible.

Hardpoints: They tried this before, it will never get implemented. One thing is it doesn't create balance, it creates conformity. Virtually every chassis will be the same builds, not that they aren't pretty much already, but it won't be a choice it will be the limitation. There already is weapon slot restrictions with ghost heat restrictions, now you want to add weapon grouping restrictions on top of that?

If you want to create a restriction but keep options available, something like a point system or "battle value" system limit on each chassis would work better. Having weapons, armor, upgrades, equipment and other having a point value and the chassis having a max point limit. That way it leaves builds open to whatever slots are available but would create some control over builds. But once again, it creates a limit on top of a restriction on top of a terrible heat use mechanic.

Heat: You can't really do heat penalties like that since heat is dispersed and not negated (like TT). With scaling like that anything with high heat because less useful thus stagnating the customization even more. As well, your idea of things like "75%" having vision blurred would never work. People already complain about the cockpit glass, nobody would accept this penalty.

A better use within the heatscale would be something like lowering the heat cap while increasing the heat dissipation. The lower heat cap makes heat awareness a necessary skill to acquire and would lower spamming of high heat weapons. This in it of itself would lower the TTK as people could not fire as often or end up shutting down more likely.

ECM: There is already enough counters to ECM, your ideas are pretty much turning it into an AMS that blocks your dot on the mini map. It would become essentially useless.

Ballistics: So, you want to make ballistics lasers? Ignoring heat, weight, size, and ammo use, you have a weapon difference of DoT vs Direct damage. I use "direct" as a term for "front loaded" or "all at once damage." With this, you basically turn ballistics into laser DoT damage, making them no different from lasers, if nothing else worse than lasers. What a novel idea for balance; turn everything into the same weapon, hell even your LRM/SRM idea is turning them into DoTs.

The list of your ideas, for the most part, are terrible ideas to increase TTK and weapon balance. It would have to create an overhaul to the existing structure, which may not be a bad thing, but would never happen. A better approach, to increase TTK, would be an increase in Internal Structure. It's also easier to do by the dev point of view. By increasing the damage the internal structure can take (possibly 1.5x - 2x) you not only increase the TTK of all mechs, but you also have a more useful approach to critical hits and crit seeking weapons. Now when armor is gone there is very little time between losing armor and losing the location. Increasing the IS, you actually start to care more about critical slots and losing weapons, heatsinks, and equipment. It would help to create a meta for "crit padding" locations with important weapons/ammo/equipment with less essential items.

TL;DR: Most of the OPs ideas are terrible.

#13 Jun Watarase

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,504 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 09:21 PM

Quote

Size Based hardpoints, actually could be good if done right but opens a lot of cans of worms and there are more important issues.


Weapon and mech balancing happens to be one of the top issues in MWO at the moment.

Its honestly not hard. Take the jager for example. 2 ballistic slots in each arm, capable of holding light autocanons only. Tadaa, fixed!

#14 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,260 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 11 May 2014 - 09:33 PM

View PostJun Watarase, on 11 May 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:


Weapon and mech balancing happens to be one of the top issues in MWO at the moment.

Its honestly not hard. Take the jager for example. 2 ballistic slots in each arm, capable of holding light autocanons only. Tadaa, fixed!


But then I won't ever get the pleasure of decimating an AC40 Jager from 600 m out....

#15 EvilCow

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,243 posts

Posted 12 May 2014 - 12:17 AM

View PostDavers, on 11 May 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

People need to realize PGI is not going to completely rewrite their game.


I think most people realized that PGI will not address the real underlying problems and learned to live with that.

How good is that for business is to be assessed.

#16 Radiant Mass

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 29 posts

Posted 12 May 2014 - 04:14 PM

Addressing to concerns:

View PostNingyo, on 11 May 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

Convergence: needs to be fixed, but your method makes mechs with all good hardpoints in only arms, or only torso even better than they are now compared to other mechs.


Addressing the arm lock part: Whether the mech has full arm actuators or half, the crosshair's established degree and speed of movement will not be affected but rather how far away from the CT it will move.

Addressing the movement mechanic: The location of where these crosshairs are in one point in time will be reflected by your mech's movement. Basically following the location of your mechs weapons as it moves and not just have them full center on your HUD 100% of the time.

View PostNingyo, on 11 May 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

LRM/SRMs Stagger fire: nothing specifically terrible about it, but you would need to fix screen shake first or they would be 10 times worse than they are now.


True. Screen shake would have to be reduced per missile so they won't be overpowering.

View PostNingyo, on 11 May 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

your heat system and weapon values would about double DPS which would make the game far worse, we need lower dps and lower heat dissipation, not higher.


The DPS problem will go down with the increased reload times and also this comment:

View PostShibas, on 11 May 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Heat:
lowering the heat cap while increasing the heat dissipation. The lower heat cap makes heat awareness a necessary skill to acquire and would lower spamming of high heat weapons. This in it of itself would lower the TTK as people could not fire as often or end up shutting down more likely.


Yes. A lower heat cap would also help in the reduction of TTK.

View PostShibas, on 11 May 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

ECM: There is already enough counters to ECM, your ideas are pretty much turning it into an AMS that blocks your dot on the mini map. It would become essentially useless.

Not true. If you paid attention to the ECM change details, the counters we have now would not be in effect and only the PPC and counter ECM will be active. And I wouldn't call denying the enemy the ability to broadcast the position of you and your team mates, and its other distinct effects "useless".

View PostShibas, on 11 May 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Ballistics: So, you want to make ballistics lasers? Ignoring heat, weight, size, and ammo use, you have a weapon difference of DoT vs Direct damage. I use "direct" as a term for "front loaded" or "all at once damage." With this, you basically turn ballistics into laser DoT damage, making them no different from lasers, if nothing else worse than lasers. What a novel idea for balance; turn everything into the same weapon, hell even your LRM/SRM idea is turning them into DoTs.


You seem to have forgotten ballistics' overall range advantage. You also seem to have not noticed that the burse fire, while similar to a laser stream, its not at all a copy on the mechanics. Take a laser and shoot at the ground and you will notice the dots created. The impact points on these burst auto canons would be of grater range, damage and controlled damage spread.

View PostShibas, on 11 May 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

A better approach, to increase TTK, would be an increase in Internal Structure. It's also easier to do by the dev point of view. By increasing the damage the internal structure can take (possibly 1.5x - 2x) you not only increase the TTK of all mechs, but you also have a more useful approach to critical hits and crit seeking weapons. Now when armor is gone there is very little time between losing armor and losing the location. Increasing the IS, you actually start to care more about critical slots and losing weapons, heatsinks, and equipment. It would help to create a meta for "crit padding" locations with important weapons/ammo/equipment with less essential items.

While increasing the internal structure's health points could help the already low TTK, it is by no means a fix to the problems of weapon and mech balance. And creating a new "cookie cutter meta" to add to the current unbalance one would be considered very counter productive.

#17 Shibas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 12 May 2014 - 07:05 PM

View PostMarcs Birger, on 12 May 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

Not true. If you paid attention to the ECM change details, the counters we have now would not be in effect and only the PPC and counter ECM will be active. And I wouldn't call denying the enemy the ability to broadcast the position of you and your team mates, and its other distinct effects "useless."


I said "essentially useless." You are correct, that would be "something."

Quote

You seem to have forgotten ballistics' overall range advantage. You also seem to have not noticed that the burse fire, while similar to a laser stream, its not at all a copy on the mechanics. Take a laser and shoot at the ground and you will notice the dots created. The impact points on these burst auto canons would be of grater range, damage and controlled damage spread.


So, it's a long range laser?

Quote

While increasing the internal structure's health points could help the already low TTK, it is by no means a fix to the problems of weapon and mech balance. And creating a new "cookie cutter meta" to add to the current unbalance one would be considered very counter productive.


Well if adding a new part to the meta creates a new "cookie cutter meta," I wonder what actually limiting options to mechs on top of the limitations already on them is going to do.

#18 Lykaon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 12 May 2014 - 08:39 PM

View PostDavers, on 11 May 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

People need to realize PGI is not going to completely rewrite their game.



Yep that is why simple solutions are better solutions.

So,if we look at the most frequent topics on the nerf this or nerf that list we see...

Front loaded damage weapons (PPCs and ACs mostly) Simple solution is remove front loading damage.

ACs burst fire,PPCs have short duration beams (like pulse lasers) Gauss has it's charge timer,explosive nature and adjustments to cycle times to balance it as the only source of front loading damage.I did like the ripple fire SRM idea and if needed it should be examined.

We see LRMs how can we know anything about LRM balance with the heavy handed ECM mechanics.ECM first then LRMs balanced.

We see Host State Rewind issues. and hit registration. Obvious work in progress not much we can do other than let it happen as it happens

We see ECM. Wow just wow where do I start?

ECM as it is now is the entire cause for our near complete lack of a workable and fun information warfare mechanic.Only in Bizarro MWo land does BAP and NARC 'counter" ECM.

All support electronics need a rework to fill functions within a filled out info warfare system.The ECM can be what it's suppose to be a counter measure for electronics and not a cloaking field and mega anti missile system.

Having everything geared to counter ECM is not a well developed mechanic and it should get axed.

#19 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 12 May 2014 - 10:24 PM

View PostLykaon, on 12 May 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:



Yep that is why simple solutions are better solutions.

So,if we look at the most frequent topics on the nerf this or nerf that list we see...

Front loaded damage weapons (PPCs and ACs mostly) Simple solution is remove front loading damage.

ACs burst fire,PPCs have short duration beams (like pulse lasers) Gauss has it's charge timer,explosive nature and adjustments to cycle times to balance it as the only source of front loading damage.I did like the ripple fire SRM idea and if needed it should be examined.

We see LRMs how can we know anything about LRM balance with the heavy handed ECM mechanics.ECM first then LRMs balanced.

We see Host State Rewind issues. and hit registration. Obvious work in progress not much we can do other than let it happen as it happens

We see ECM. Wow just wow where do I start?

ECM as it is now is the entire cause for our near complete lack of a workable and fun information warfare mechanic.Only in Bizarro MWo land does BAP and NARC 'counter" ECM.

All support electronics need a rework to fill functions within a filled out info warfare system.The ECM can be what it's suppose to be a counter measure for electronics and not a cloaking field and mega anti missile system.

Having everything geared to counter ECM is not a well developed mechanic and it should get axed.

I'm not arguing with anyone. I am not even debating whether these proposed changes are good or bad. I am just stating it doesn't matter. PGI is not going to redo pretty much every piece of equipment and their entire core game. It is not going to happen.

#20 Radiant Mass

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 29 posts

Posted 15 May 2014 - 01:59 PM

View PostShibas, on 12 May 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

So, it's a long range laser?


Well if you want to keep using the laser analogy, it would be more like a really long range pulse laser, where the pulses are individual slugs.

View PostShibas, on 12 May 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

Well if adding a new part to the meta creates a new "cookie cutter meta," I wonder what actually limiting options to mechs on top of the limitations already on them is going to do.


If you review the mech list with their hardpoints, you will notice that each mech have hardpoints that best represent their role.

Looking at the CATAPULT, they may all seem similar but the CPLT-C4 under the hardpoint system, is now the only one of the CATAPULTs which may have dual LRM20s, whyle the CPLT-C1 may only be limited to dual LRM-15s, it is the only misile bearing CATAPULT with Class 2 energy points in the side torsos.

In essence, the system will make the existence of the different variants valid. And by that point there will be more of a point of people actually having to grind up the expertise for that mech chassis and actually wanting to have that other variant they grinded around in their mech bay.

And about whether PGI will actually change anything in their game is still up in the air since they really haven't said anything on the matter.

But what really matter is that the people that want this, the only modern MechWarrior game, to survive is to keep pushing for them to notice ideas like this or any other that would bring this game down to a more enjoyable state.

When they officially state that they won't do major changes, then proposals and ideas like these would be futile.





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users