33 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

So I was reading a thread just now on using a BV system for balance. There was a later comment that matching a BV would be the same as it is now for the optimized vs standard builds etc... I agree with this statement though. It'd be no different and no better than what we have now. I do however have an idea I'm sure to get lots of hate for....

Bring on the BV system! Get those numbers ironed out and the MM programmed to use them.

"But you just said this won't solve anything!"

Correct! However, in order to balance the equation, have the "system" assign random nerfs to the high end mechs to bring them on par with the match average. Nothing drastic mind. Maybe a 1-5% nerf in cooling, or less maneuverability in pitch and twist. Maybe every single pebble out there will catch your mech and stop it cold, idk.

It's like in nature when there's a super predator introduced to the equation. The system will eventually come to balance itself out.

How to explain these nerfs? Whatever makes you feel good yo! The mechanical balancing result of your optimized or meta build? The risk of piloting sometimes centuries old hardware that's been handed down in your family? The end result of piloting a machine that's been blown to bits and put back together countless times? Pick one or come up with your own.

I know I'm asking for some hate here, but hopefully this will also create some discussion and alternative ideas (even if that idea is to do nothing).

[Relic1701]

cdlord, on 06 July 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

How to explain these nerfs? Whatever makes you feel good yo! The mechanical balancing result of your optimized or meta build? The risk of piloting sometimes centuries old hardware that's been handed down in your family? The end result of piloting a machine that's been blown to bits and put back together countless times? Pick one or come up with your own.

Start giving quirks to mechs based on their original loadout, and intended role.

For example...

• HBK-4G gets a reload speed reduction for AC20
  
• Catapults get a reload speed reduction for LRM
  
• Highlanders get reduced fall damage due to upgraded actuators
  
• Spiders automatically blow up if they mount a PPC

etc...


All these minor balancing quirks could make for an interesting mechanic.

Edited by Relic1701, 06 July 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[Radical eliminator]

Not sure I understand the idea in full, but I do understand the problems it tries to address.

As I see it the core problem of balancing spans not only matchmaking.
More importantly it is about mech/weapon balancing.

Did you ever wonder why a light has the same number of slots as an assault and how ridiculous that is, and how many problems it causes? You suddenly end up with lights fitting long range assault weapons and promoting unproductive play styles in random matchmaking. It totally undermines the idea of classes and associated roles, which undermines the matchmaking.

As long as they do not address this fundamental issue, any matchmaking with whatever rules put on top will end up a worthless effort.

Edited by Radical eliminator, 06 July 2014 - 10:20 AM.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

I hate you...jk love for cdlord <3

Beter if they introduce quirks based on TT.From new TROs I know there are quirks like easy/harder piloting(which can result in lower/higher speed/pitch/yaw/longer standup(when they reintroduce it...soon) or smthing like that.

Also some quirks based on original loadouts like Awesome have 3 PPCs so lets increase limit to Ghost heat for PPC to 3 on that model.

Radical eliminator, on 06 July 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Not sure I understand the idea in full, but I do understand the problems it tries to address.

As I see it the core problem of balancing spans not only matchmaking.
More importantly it is about mech/weapon balancing.

Did you ever wonder why a light has the same number of slots as an assault and ridiculous that is, and how many problems it causes? You suddenly end up with lights fitting long range assault weapons and promoting unproductive play styles in random matchmaking. It totally undermines the idea of classes and associated roles, which undermines the matchmaking.

As long as they do not address this fundamental issue, any matchmaking with whatever rules put on top will end up a worthless effort.

This.How can be trial/new CTF-3D as good as balanced loadout with 2xPPC+2xAC?

[CDLord HHGD]

Relic1701, on 06 July 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

Start giving quirks to mechs based on their original loadout, and intended role.

For example...

• HBK-4G gets a reload speed reduction for AC20
  
• Catapults get a reload speed reduction for LRM
  
• Highlanders get reduced fall damage due to upgraded actuators
  
• Spiders automatically blow up if they mount a PPC

etc...



All these minor balancing quirks could make for an interesting mechanic.

That's a great alternative, don't nerf the optimized builds, but buff the less optimized... Great!

Radical eliminator, on 06 July 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Not sure I understand the idea in full, but I do understand the problems it tries to address.

As I see it the core problem of balancing spans not only matchmaking.
More importantly it is about mech/weapon balancing.

Did you ever wonder why a light has the same number of slots as an assault and ridiculous that is, and how many problems it causes? You suddenly end up with lights fitting long range assault weapons and promoting unproductive play styles in random matchmaking. It totally undermines the idea of classes and associated roles, which undermines the matchmaking.

As long as they do not address this fundamental issue, any matchmaking with whatever rules put on top will end up a worthless effort.

Don't get me going on the need for sized hardpoints. Link in my sig. Trying to come up with other ideas.

[Sandpit]

cdlord, on 06 July 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

Correct! However, in order to balance the equation, have the "system" assign random nerfs to the high end mechs

no thanks

no system that just randomly nerfs your mech is fair or even remotely balanced. That's just another way of saying "I don't like that build and it's too popular so we should nerf it"

That's kinda silly.

BV in conjunction with a few other things, maybe. Just nerfing mechs because they're "op"? No please

same with buffing random mechs.

Just because you run a different configuration of weapons doesn't mean your LL should do anything different than anyone else's LL.
Same with any other weapon or system in the game

[Sandpit]

Radical eliminator, on 06 July 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Did you ever wonder why a light has the same number of slots as an assault and how ridiculous that is, and how many problems it causes? You suddenly end up with lights fitting long range assault weapons and promoting unproductive play styles in random matchmaking.

yea, it's so silly that there are official mechs designed in the same way...

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

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

[FupDup]

Radical eliminator, on 06 July 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Not sure I understand the idea in full, but I do understand the problems it tries to address.

As I see it the core problem of balancing spans not only matchmaking.
More importantly it is about mech/weapon balancing.

Did you ever wonder why a light has the same number of slots as an assault and how ridiculous that is, and how many problems it causes? You suddenly end up with lights fitting long range assault weapons and promoting unproductive play styles in random matchmaking. It totally undermines the idea of classes and associated roles, which undermines the matchmaking.

As long as they do not address this fundamental issue, any matchmaking with whatever rules put on top will end up a worthless effort.

Battletech has always allowed any mech to mount any gun, with the only limitations being slots and tonnage. Just being a certain size doesn't mean you couldn't use a certain gun. There are many, many stock light mechs in Battletech built around "long range assault weapons," such as the Gauss-totting Hollander, the PPC-carrying Panther, the ERLL trolling Hussar, various builds on the Kit Fox, and the dual ERPPC Adder Prime (same firepower as twin Gauss Rifles).

You can certainly argue that certain weapons maybe shouldn't be equippable on mechs not "built to handle it" (via some kind of different hardpoint system or whatever), but there are in fact many light mechs which are built to handle those big guns.


Also, that being aside, most of the long-range sniper lights are generally fairly bad anyways, with a few exceptions. The shorter range lights built around MLas are almost always superior builds.

Edited by FupDup, 06 July 2014 - 10:25 AM.

[Sandpit]

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

[CDLord HHGD]

Sandpit, on 06 July 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

no thanks

no system that just randomly nerfs your mech is fair or even remotely balanced. That's just another way of saying "I don't like that build and it's too popular so we should nerf it"

That's kinda silly.

BV in conjunction with a few other things, maybe. Just nerfing mechs because they're "op"? No please

same with buffing random mechs.

Just because you run a different configuration of weapons doesn't mean your LL should do anything different than anyone else's LL.
Same with any other weapon or system in the game

But I didn't mention weapons...

Also, further down (like three posts or so) I gave credit to random buffs too so it isn't just about the nerf hammer.

[Devlin Pierce]

FupDup, on 06 July 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Battletech has always allowed any mech to mount any gun, with the only limitations being slots and tonnage. Just being a certain size doesn't mean you couldn't use a certain gun. There are many, many stock light mechs in Battletech built around "long range assault weapons," such as the Gauss-totting Hollander, the PPC-carrying Panther, the ERLL trolling Hussar, various builds on the Kit Fox, and the dual ERPPC Adder Prime (same firepower as twin Gauss Rifles).

You can certainly argue that certain weapons maybe shouldn't be equippable on mechs not "built to handle it" (via some kind of different hardpoint system or whatever), but there are in fact many light mechs which are built to handle those big guns.


Also, that being aside, most of the long-range sniper lights are generally fairly bad anyways, with a few exceptions. The shorter range lights built around MLas are almost always superior builds.

Come at me bro!

[Sandpit]

cdlord, on 06 July 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

But I didn't mention weapons...

Also, further down (like three posts or so) I gave credit to random buffs too so it isn't just about the nerf hammer.

I also posted the same thing about buffs

I just used the weapon as an example. Random nerfs and buffs are not going to balance anything. They're just going to piss players off because their equipment "magically" doesn't operate in the same exact manner as everyone else's or worse yet, their opponent's equipment "magically" got buffed to perform better than theirs simply because they used it on a different chassis.

[Radical eliminator]

FupDup, on 06 July 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Battletech has always allowed any mech to mount any gun, with the only limitations being slots and tonnage. Just being a certain size doesn't mean you couldn't use a certain gun. There are many, many stock light mechs in Battletech built around "long range assault weapons," such as the Gauss-totting Hollander, the PPC-carrying Panther, the ERLL trolling Hussar, various builds on the Kit Fox, and the dual ERPPC Adder Prime (same firepower as twin Gauss Rifles).

You can certainly argue that certain weapons maybe shouldn't be equippable on mechs not "built to handle it" (via some kind of different hardpoint system or whatever), but there are in fact many light mechs which are built to handle those big guns.


Also, that being aside, most of the long-range sniper lights are generally fairly bad anyways, with a few exceptions. The shorter range lights built around MLas are almost always superior builds.

I think you misunderstood me, there are indeed mechs that sacrifice everything to do ONE thing outside the roles of the class they are part off. Those mechs are designed around their weapons and have trade-offs that set them apart to make this possible.

In MWO, they only trade-off is weight and slot limitations. The amount of space a weapon uses or the power draw does not get factored in. It does not compute with me that a mech a fifth the size of another has the same number of slots and that those slots have an identical weapon fitting capacity. Thus an ERL using 2 slots on an assault still fits into 2 slots of a light.

The consequence of this is that if 2 energy weapons are allowed, no trade-off has to be made between 2 medium and 1 large laser. It can also put 2 large lasers in there, tonnage permitting. As the surplus of "magic" slots is huge on small mechs they can use endo-steel and FF armor to actually get those tonnages available.

It is a complicated system with unbalanceable side effects and needs to go before anything can be done to matchmaking. The light needs either less slots per section, in line with their actual size, or there need to be additional fitting restrictions per mech that define their role more precise.

I expect lights to be short range, with very few specialized exceptions. Do this for every class and 3-3-3-3 balancing suddenly becomes meaningful. Random players can then rely on 3 lights being out there harassing the enemy and fit accordingly. It would solve a log of problems in matchmaking for sure!

Edited by Radical eliminator, 06 July 2014 - 11:05 AM.

[Sandpit]

Radical eliminator, on 06 July 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

In MWO, they only trade-off is weight and slot limitations. The amount of space a weapon uses or the power draw does not get factored in. It does not compute with me

uhm those are the exact same trade-offs in TT as well. There's no difference. The only difference is that you don't think it should be available to mechs in this game because you don't like it.

You can also build custom mechs in TT the exact same way you build them here. There's ZERO difference. All the info in the components and descriptions is just fluff. The mechanics are no different.

[FupDup]

Radical eliminator, on 06 July 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

I think you misunderstood me, there are indeed mechs that sacrifice everything to do ONE thing outside the roles of the class they are part off. Those mechs are designed around their weapons and have trade-offs that set them apart to make this possible.

In MWO, they only trade-off is weight and slot limitations. The amount of space a weapon uses or the power draw does not get factored in. It does not compute with me that a mech a fifth the size of another has the same number of slots and that those slots have an identical weapon fitting capacity. Thus an ERL using 2 slots on an assault still fits into 2 slots of a light.

The consequence of this is that if 2 energy weapons are allowed, no trade-off has to be made between 2 medium and 1 large laser. It can also put 2 large lasers in there, tonnage permitting. As the surplus of "magic" slots is huge on small mechs they can use endo-steel and FF armor to actually get those tonnages available.

It is a complicated system with unbalanceable side effects and needs to go before anything can be done to matchmaking. The light needs either less slots per section, in line with their actual size, or there need to be additional fitting restrictions per mech that define their role more precise. I expect lights to be short range, with very few specialized exceptions. Do this for every class and 3-3-3-3 balancing suddenly becomes meaningful. Random players can then rely on 3 lights being out there harassing the enemy and fit accordingly. It would solve a log of problems in matchmaking for sure!

Reducing the lights critical slot capacity means that they won't be able to make use of tech upgrades such as Ferro Fibrous or Endo Steel. This would especially gimp the sub-250 engine models (like Lolcust and Commando), because they need to mount several of their base 10 DHS externally (another TT carryover rule, but this time it's a crappy one).

While it might be strange that FASA chose to make critslots standardized across the board back in the 1980s, it isn't a balancing problem. It's weird sometimes, but it's not broken.

If you want to add something like sized weapon hardpoints that can only fit certain gun sizes (i.e. a hardpoint that carried a Machine Gun stock probably couldn't carry anything above 2-4 slots in size), then that would be a more viable proposal and wouldn't needlessly nerf mechs that don't need to be. And it would distinguish the lights (and mechs of other classes) that are meant to carry the big stuff.

Edited by FupDup, 06 July 2014 - 11:10 AM.

[Xarian]

Yes, hardpoint sizes please.

[Triskelion]

Relic1701, on 06 July 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

Start giving quirks to mechs based on their original loadout, and intended role.

For example...

• HBK-4G gets a reload speed reduction for AC20
  
• Catapults get a reload speed reduction for LRM
  
• Highlanders get reduced fall damage due to upgraded actuators
  
• Spiders automatically blow up if they mount a PPC

etc...


All these minor balancing quirks could make for an interesting mechanic.

That's what I really want to see happen in the next few patches. Dedicated roles for individual chassis, and quirks are the easiest way to introduce that.

Edited by Triskelion, 06 July 2014 - 11:26 AM.

[stjobe]

Radical eliminator, on 06 July 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

I think you misunderstood me, there are indeed mechs that sacrifice everything to do ONE thing outside the roles of the class they are part off.

This always pisses me off; people who think weight class determines a singular role - it seems to be mostly prevalent among heavy/assault pilots that insist on lights being scouts and scouts only.

It's wrong, it's stupid, and it's aggravating to see it perpetuated.

"Scout" is not a weight class, it's a role. Any 'mech can fill any number of roles - even at the same time! Lights can be scouts, but they can also be snipers, strikers, close support, E-War specialists, incendiary or anti-infantry, or any number of other roles.

Assaults can be scouts; just look at the Charger. Admittedly not the most effective of designs, but it was designed as an 80-ton, 80+ kph assault scout.

BT recognizes seven distinct major roles (and there's several more minor roles): Brawler, Juggernaut, Missile Boat, Skirmisher, Scout, Sniper, Striker. Lights can - and do - fill the last three of those roles no problem.

I believe they should be able to do so in MWO as well, and be properly rewarded for it too.

Edited by stjobe, 06 July 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

^ Steiner Scout Lance comes to mind.

Also, I am not sure anybody who thinks all lights should be "scouts" has spent enough time in the cockpit of a Locust or a non-ECM Commando. Sometimes you have to scout with those since nobody else can or will, but they are pretty awful at it due to lighting up like a flare on the map if the enemy sees them. They are then legged in the blink of an eye by the 10 or so PPC shots that come flying at it.

As for balance, do you know what tradeoffs have to be made to fit those assault-grade weapons on a light? You shave off armour on a 'Mech that is already squishy. You also run engines that put your speeds in line with medium 'Mechs or even Heavy 'Mechs, give up heat efficiency, and often give up sustainability due to limited tonnage for ammunition. They don't need smaller or less slots.

[Radical eliminator]

stjobe, on 06 July 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

This always pisses me off; people who think weight class determines a singular role - it seems to be mostly prevalent among heavy/assault pilots that insist on lights being scouts and scouts only.

It's wrong, it's stupid, and it's aggravating to see it perpetuated.

"Scout" is not a weight class, it's a role. Any 'mech can fill any number of roles - even at the same time! Lights can be scouts, but they can also be snipers, strikers, close support, E-War specialists, incendiary or anti-infantry, or any number of other roles.

Assaults can be scouts; just look at the Charger. Admittedly not the most effective of designs, but it was designed as an 80-ton, 80+ kph assault scout.

BT recognizes seven distinct major roles (and there's several more minor roles): Brawler, Juggernaut, Missile Boat, Skirmisher, Scout, Sniper, Striker. Lights can - and do - fill the last three of those roles no problem.

I believe they should be able to do so in MWO as well, and be properly rewarded for it too.

You talk of lights as a group, as if they are all identical and all capable of doing each role. What I said is that there are lights that specialist in ONE thing, say sniping and are pretty useless at others. That is not a group classification...in a way you are mad about your own ideas.

One thing that does set lights apart in MWO from other weight classes is SPEED. Speed allows for certain roles that can not be effectively done as well by the upper weight classes. Scouting is the primary role, yes got that....scouting...most suited, primary role....repeat after me....scouting screams lights. I seen a single light doing proper spotting and narcing, devastate an entire enemy team in minutes without using weapons itself!

They can pop over a hill of flank and get out relatively unscathed with information in time for the team to react. You cannot do this with an assault, it is too slow and too big a target to be effective at this. Be pissed off all you want, but if ravens start sniping, their speed goes underused and the team is deprived of information and advantage. Expecting the fastest assaults to do this, just signs the death sentence of the team as the assaults likely die first.