44 replies to this topic

[Krasnopesky]

I agree with sized hardpoints, I think having those will help balance some of the mechs and give others particular roles they may not have otherwise had.

[Heart of Storm]

Reading this I presume the author is a fan of laservomit, as that seems the only viable option if all the changes are implemented.

Loss of FLD damage for PPCs and Gauss? Recoil and alternate fire modes for ballistic (why would you ever use anything other then single shot? combined with a risk of ammo explosion if you ever dare shoot anything on a hot map? Guaranteed laserboat supremacy 5eva.

Doing something with weapon convergence (CoF - dynamic or otherwise, removing instant convergence of torso/arm weapons) will all do more then this unneccesary complicated schedule of change

[Radiant Mass]

KBurn85, on 05 August 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

You want to make an already complicated and slow game even slower and more complicated?

Slow? its quite fast paced for a Mechwarrior title. Complicated? Not so much.

KBurn85, on 05 August 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

You want to stop gauss/laser vom, and yet have a heat scale which heavily punishes carrying ammunition?

Not quite. The chances of ONE ROUND of your ammunition exploding are quite small once reaching the appropriate critical heat levels. The real punishment comes when exceeding the maximum threshold beyond shut down when in override.

Narcissistic Martyr, on 05 August 2015 - 09:10 PM, said:

You try and take my ac20 raven away with your damn dirty sized hard points and I'll make you regret it.

The Urby UM-R60L wants his job back. :]

Kjudoon, on 05 August 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

In lieu of the lack of technical aptitude to pull that off (which apparently was the reason dynamic convergence was scrapped in the FIRST PLACE!.... is cone of fire. Every grouped weapon or weapon that fires within the same fraction of a second is included in an LBX or LRM like spread. The size of this cone would change based on movement and targetting computer.

Now, the esportos will scream in freakish rage over this and give all sorts of manufactured examples of how it will wreck their lives.

Reason for the idea behind reticule sway with mech movement and slight ballistic/missile weapon recoil. It will create to a certain degree the needed inaccuracy cone that an RNG based Cone of Fire would produce, while keeping the RNG aspect at bay from those people who fear the RNG Boogieman.

Kjudoon, on 05 August 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

Sized hardpoints. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem it should because it will not stop 8SPL Firestarters and the like.

Thats where the Heat Penalties system comes to play. That particular Firestarter FS9-A build does what it does because there are no heat penalties to prevent it from firing so much. Add the penalties, and it will start to slow down to a point where it will be easy pray.

Kjudoon, on 05 August 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

There are lights out there right now with more hardpoints than a VICTOR! That is wrong.

With a Sized Hard Point System, the Victor will be the one who will have access to heavier weaponry, instead of Spiders with PPCs. In that case if you want a light with a Big Gun, use a light that was built for that big gun, Urbanmech with its AC10, Panther with its PPC, Hollander with its Gauss (whenever that thing comes out), etc..

Kjudoon, on 05 August 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

Why pilot a panther? It's only half a Firestarter.

Same as above. Access to larger weapons on a smaller chassis.

Bush Hopper, on 05 August 2015 - 10:59 PM, said:

That's one of the main factors why there is the laser spam age. The game needs diversity and brawling should be revived - which it isn't simply because of the points mentioned above

Summa summarum:
Doubling the extreme range is simply too much.

Reason why I placed long range sniper weapons on long cool downs and those other ER weapons on a longer beam duration.

The longer it takes to fire the next powerful long range shot the more opportunities the opposing force will have to find cover and get in to Brawling Range. Resulting in more people geting in to the batttle instead of hiding from a possible insta gib.

Widowmaker1981, on 06 August 2015 - 12:36 AM, said:

Your weapon values are generally abysmal (C-ERPPC with a 2.75s DURATION?. Yeah. No one will ever use that, when an ERLL has less duration, less heat, is half the size and 2/3 of the weight. PPCs need to stay FLD or they lose their place)

Analyze it again. The C-ER LL is on a 2.25 duration, to deal 10 damage, the fractions of seconds from 2.25 to 2.75 is minimal, but enough to spread the massive amounts of damage these weapons inflict.

Widowmaker1981, on 06 August 2015 - 12:36 AM, said:

Sized hardpoints are a crap mechanic because they basically kill customization, unless you inflate hard points a lot, and then the mechs that come with big weapons get a fkin huge advantage over those that do not).

On the contrary, it will create roll diversity and chasis variety. Example of this: Want a Catapult that uses an LRM 20? use the CPLT-C4. Want an Assault that uses lots of PPCs? Go with the AWS-8Q. More mechs and their different chassi will be seen on the battlefield with a properly made Sized HP system.

Widowmaker1981, on 06 August 2015 - 12:36 AM, said:

It would also force clans even further down the 'boat all the lasers' road because about 70% of the ballistic slots that are used come from MGs. Oh, and it also does nothing to curb clans strongest meta, because ERMLs are small weapons.

Machine guns? Most clan mechs use Ultra Autocannons, Gauss and LB-X on their Stock Balistic Points. Even lights use small caliber UACs.

And analyse it again. The heat penalties will diminish the constant stream of lasers.

Widowmaker1981, on 06 August 2015 - 12:36 AM, said:

Forcing unlocked arms just makes mechs with spread out hardpoints undesirable. You either go with all arm mounted, or all torso mounted.

False. It would mean you would have to steady your self more to fire that precise shot, no matter if your mech has full arms or not.

Heart of Storm, on 06 August 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

Reading this I presume the author is a fan of laservomit, as that seems the only viable option if all the changes are implemented.

Analyse that again. The heat penalty system will reduce the amount of laser fire.

Heart of Storm, on 06 August 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

Loss of FLD damage for PPCs and Gauss? Recoil and alternate fire modes for ballistic (why would you ever use anything other then single shot? combined with a risk of ammo explosion if you ever dare shoot anything on a hot map? Guaranteed laserboat supremacy 5eva.

Clearly you did not read. Gauss stays the same, only its firing rate was changed. Single shot AC models would be chassis restricted to mehs that would logically have them. Ammo explosion risk from a SINGLE ROUND from one ammo container is small compared to what would happen if your mech slows down in a fight. Read heat penalties and you would understand what would happen uncontrolled to laser spamm.

Heart of Storm, on 06 August 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

Doing something with weapon convergence (CoF - dynamic or otherwise, removing instant convergence of torso/arm weapons) will all do more then this unneccesary complicated schedule of change

The reticule sway is already in game, but only in 3rd person as noted. Weapon recoil is also doable. These would provide the cone of fire feature without the RNG aspect some people fear.

[Gas Guzzler]

How bout we just remove all weapons and use NERF guns instead? Then your precious TTK won't be abysmally low and you won't have to learn how to spread damage and not try to face tank a firing line.

Yeah, I made some serious presumptions there, but come on. You basically just want to be able to put forth minimal effort in surviving.

PPCs with 2+ second DURATIONs? What is this? Widowmaker made a good point. If an ER LL does similar damage for less heat and less tonnage, why on earth would you use a PPC?

Also, if PPCs were such a "problem", why aren't they dominating the field right now? Oh right, PPFLD isn't what it is cracked up to be, and is a scare tactic/boogeyman used to try to convince people that we have a huge "problem".

[Kjudoon]

Gas Guzzler, on 06 August 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

How bout we just remove all weapons and use NERF guns instead? Then your precious TTK won't be abysmally low and you won't have to learn how to spread damage and not try to face tank a firing line.

Yeah, I made some serious presumptions there, but come on. You basically just want to be able to put forth minimal effort in surviving.

PPCs with 2+ second DURATIONs? What is this? Widowmaker made a good point. If an ER LL does similar damage for less heat and less tonnage, why on earth would you use a PPC?

Also, if PPCs were such a "problem", why aren't they dominating the field right now? Oh right, PPFLD isn't what it is cracked up to be, and is a scare tactic/boogeyman used to try to convince people that we have a huge "problem".

PPCs got balanced with heat and travel time. Plus they lost their mid range dominance to LPLs doing more damage for less heat and with all LLs being able to fire 3 without ghost heat, it's a distinct advantage; their long range dominance was whittled down with ERLLs and ACs.heat gen.

The problem with TTK is that engaging the enemy should not be a 20 second experience after spending maybe 5 minutes looking for them and a 15 minute wait for match, then another 5-10 minutes waiting to get your mech out of match, and then however long it takes for you to get a new one. This is a major reason why TTK sucks. If I get into combat, I want it to last a while, not die in the first few seconds to a single mech with instakill damage they can stack on my CT if I am running anything less than a Timberwolf. Even riding short rollercoasters takes more time than that. That's bull pucky and it needs to be fixed.

Edited by Kjudoon, 06 August 2015 - 08:54 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Kjudoon, on 06 August 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

PPCs got balanced with heat and travel time. Plus they lost their mid range dominance to LPLs doing more damage for less heat and with all LLs being able to fire 3 without ghost heat, it's a distinct advantage; their long range dominance was whittled down with ERLLs and ACs.heat gen.

The problem with TTK is that engaging the enemy should not be a 20 second experience after spending maybe 5 minutes looking for them and a 15 minute wait for match, then another 5-10 minutes waiting to get your mech out of match, and then however long it takes for you to get a new one. This is a major reason why TTK sucks. If I get into combat, I want it to last a while, not die in the first few seconds to a single mech with instakill damage they can stack on my CT if I am running anything less than a Timberwolf. Even riding short rollercoasters takes more time than that. That's bull pucky and it needs to be fixed.

That's weird, most of my engagements last 5-10 minutes after first contact with the enemy.

[Kjudoon]

Gas Guzzler, on 06 August 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

That's weird, most of my engagements last 5-10 minutes after first contact with the enemy.

So do most of mine, but I've seen lots of people end up that way, sometimes by my own hand and I make no illusions as to why. Being able to drop 30-40 points of damage into a torso in one blast. Those people feel cheated most times. I know I do, and the forums are full of statements about it. Usually I am one of the last ones alive, as it sounds like you are too. That doesn't mean everyone is, and to be honest, I'd rather have longer firefights that kills are harder to earn because damage is not focused and make people feel like they can contribute instead of 'if I poke my face around the corner, I am dead in a split second to some punk with a Gauss Whale, or some other long range stack of wandering damage.

That is no fun for anyone.

[Gas Guzzler]

Kjudoon, on 06 August 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

So do most of mine, but I've seen lots of people end up that way, sometimes by my own hand and I make no illusions as to why. Being able to drop 30-40 points of damage into a torso in one blast. Those people feel cheated most times. I know I do, and the forums are full of statements about it. Usually I am one of the last ones alive, as it sounds like you are too. That doesn't mean everyone is, and to be honest, I'd rather have longer firefights that kills are harder to earn because damage is not focused and make people feel like they can contribute instead of 'if I poke my face around the corner, I am dead in a split second to some punk with a Gauss Whale, or some other long range stack of wandering damage.

That is no fun for anyone.

As the guy in the Gauss Whale I can say that it is fun for that guy

But yeah that is because poking out of cover and STOPPING and then trying to reverse back in to cover is a bad idea. I make the mistake of thinking I can get away with it sometimes, and I usually pay the price for it. Yeah it is no fun but it is also avoidable. TTK in a Chess game is instant.. the goal is to not put yourself in the position of getting killed.

And even then, you can shrug off the alpha of a Dire if you twist and keep moving. You won't die. It is only when you stop and try to reverse without twisting away that you get iced hard.

[Kjudoon]

Gas Guzzler, on 06 August 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

As the guy in the Gauss Whale I can say that it is fun for that guy

But yeah that is because poking out of cover and STOPPING and then trying to reverse back in to cover is a bad idea. I make the mistake of thinking I can get away with it sometimes, and I usually pay the price for it. Yeah it is no fun but it is also avoidable. TTK in a Chess game is instant.. the goal is to not put yourself in the position of getting killed.

And even then, you can shrug off the alpha of a Dire if you twist and keep moving. You won't die. It is only when you stop and try to reverse without twisting away that you get iced hard.

Okay, my bad. The troll has fun. Not what I'd call a good argument.

TTK in chess? Okay, how often does a 4 move or less checkmate happen? Can it even happen in 3 or less? The comparison is moot.

And yes, I agree, poking and STOPPING is dumb. It's why playing the door on the PuGZapper is just the height of "WHYYYYYYYYYYY????!?!?!!!??//?" You're going to get focused down there. Every single time! Yes, movement is life, but I have experienced more than one occasion where I was instakilled while moving. No damage, then blam, CT is gone with no idea where that enemy was in a medium mech. Something that never should happen. No... never. That is a failure of perfect convergence.

[Khobai]

Quote

Arm Lock must be removed entirely. If not possible, the mechanics must be 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 stray a small distance 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.

Terrible idea. Players will just gravitate towards mechs that only have arm mounted weapons. Mechs that use both arm and torso weapons would become obsolete

[Gas Guzzler]

Kjudoon, on 06 August 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

Okay, my bad. The troll has fun. Not what I'd call a good argument.

TTK in chess? Okay, how often does a 4 move or less checkmate happen? Can it even happen in 3 or less? The comparison is moot.

And yes, I agree, poking and STOPPING is dumb. It's why playing the door on the PuGZapper is just the height of "WHYYYYYYYYYYY????!?!?!!!??//?" You're going to get focused down there. Every single time! Yes, movement is life, but I have experienced more than one occasion where I was instakilled while moving. No damage, then blam, CT is gone with no idea where that enemy was in a medium mech. Something that never should happen. No... never. That is a failure of perfect convergence.

The TTK for an individual piece is instant, if you are to put that piece in a spot where it is vulnerable to attack. I'd say it actually applies pretty well in this case.

And those instakill instances are actually pretty rare for me to be honest, and its usually a dual Gauss shot to the rear (side) that does it. I am okay with how rarely that happens, it doesn't seem to dominate my game experience, and typically it is in a disorderly solo drop.

[Widowmaker1981]

Marcs Birger, on 06 August 2015 - 08:35 AM, said:

Analyze it again. The C-ER LL is on a 2.25 duration, to deal 10 damage, the fractions of seconds from 2.25 to 2.75 is minimal, but enough to spread the massive amounts of damage these weapons inflict.

Ok, fair enough, youve made the somewhat balanced and basically the same weapon, that no one would use either of (trust me on this) because in your system no one would use ANY energy weapon except (large) pulse lasers. The obscene duration advantage, at least on clan side would make it a no brainer.

You have also copied TT damge / heat levels almost verbatim, which even if you think TT was perfectly balanced is lunacy, since in TT all weapons have identical delivery systems and are balanced on that basis

Marcs Birger, on 06 August 2015 - 08:35 AM, said:

On the contrary, it will create roll diversity and chasis variety. Example of this: Want a Catapult that uses an LRM 20? use the CPLT-C4. Want an Assault that uses lots of PPCs? Go with the AWS-8Q. More mechs and their different chassi will be seen on the battlefield with a properly made Sized HP system.

Its true, you could probably force a little mech diversity with this, but you also kill customisation to a great degree. Take the extreme example you gave earlier of the Panther - there would literally be only one reason to use it, in order to take a PPC on a 35 ton light. However HOW you built it would be.. unachangeable. You would certainly not give it 2 large energy hardpoints, so its not running 2 PPCs, so it will run 1 PPC, and 2 SRM4s in the CT and that is the end of it. No other builds will ever be considered. I MUCH prefer quirks as a way of encouraging mech diversity without forcing it by strictly limiting builds.

Marcs Birger, on 06 August 2015 - 08:35 AM, said:

Machine guns? Most clan mechs use Ultra Autocannons, Gauss and LB-X on their Stock Balistic Points. Even lights use small caliber UACs.

A couple of examples are the Timber Wolf , Hellbringer and executioner whos only ST ballistics are MGs.

Marcs Birger, on 06 August 2015 - 08:35 AM, said:

False. It would mean you would have to steady your self more to fire that precise shot, no matter if your mech has full arms or not.

Huh? If you force armlock off, the only mechs that get perfect convergence instantly would be mechs with 100% arm mounted weapons, like Warhawks, certain Dire Wolf builds, Jagers, etc. Those mechs/builds would be entirely unaffected. Mechs with only torso mounted weapons would be slightly affected (they have 2 seperate aiming reticles but all weapons go to one, its just the lagging one). Mechs with an even split would lose their instant convergence and would become far less desirable in comparison.

While there admittedly arent that many good entirely arm based mechs, due to arms generally being low, there are a lot of very good entirely torso based mechs (Banshees, Battlemasters for example) and i suspect they would become the go to option.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 06 August 2015 - 09:46 AM.

[M4rtyr]

Kjudoon, on 06 August 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

So do most of mine, but I've seen lots of people end up that way, sometimes by my own hand and I make no illusions as to why. Being able to drop 30-40 points of damage into a torso in one blast. Those people feel cheated most times. I know I do, and the forums are full of statements about it. Usually I am one of the last ones alive, as it sounds like you are too. That doesn't mean everyone is, and to be honest, I'd rather have longer firefights that kills are harder to earn because damage is not focused and make people feel like they can contribute instead of 'if I poke my face around the corner, I am dead in a split second to some punk with a Gauss Whale, or some other long range stack of wandering damage.

That is no fun for anyone.

Very honest and respectable reply, good man.

I think the pinpoint damage is the biggest problem in the game at the moment, but heat and other balance issues aren't far behind. I don't like many of the OP's ideas. but some are ok, namely convergence, i don't think PGI can pull it off as others have said, but then we need a cone of fire.

the OP's thoughts on heat I didn't like, the ECM thoughts are too one dementional... with the way LRM opperate, being guided, you have to balance ECM's and LRM's together, because ECM is a bit much now, but it's holding back evil LRM boats.

That being said, all these things do need changes, just noter strictly the OP's.

[Lugh]

Clearly you hate low heat Ballistic weapons as with those damage values no one would EVER equip them.

Please go home, skip the cookie and go straight to your room.

[Kjudoon]

M4rtyr, on 06 August 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

Very honest and respectable reply, good man.

I think the pinpoint damage is the biggest problem in the game at the moment, but heat and other balance issues aren't far behind. I don't like many of the OP's ideas. but some are ok, namely convergence, i don't think PGI can pull it off as others have said, but then we need a cone of fire.

the OP's thoughts on heat I didn't like, the ECM thoughts are too one dementional... with the way LRM opperate, being guided, you have to balance ECM's and LRM's together, because ECM is a bit much now, but it's holding back evil LRM boats.

That being said, all these things do need changes, just noter strictly the OP's.

As someone who wants LRMs put into equality with all DF weaponry with the minimum fuss and alteration, ending convergence as it is now is the biggest advancement to that. The TTK increase is a bonus. Sure, you're still going to be able to nuke people, but instead of that magnifying glass blast to a torso, you get the relatively 'gentle' bludgeoning of an LRM blast. Something you are going to work to avoid, but has about the same chance to insta-kill an undamaged mech as a .22 blowing up a car with one shot. Even a Pinto.

Consider this, if you broke up grouped weapons, they would still have their damage levels, but now lasers could 'scribble' inside their target cone, the ACs would still deliver whopping big chunks of damage to where they hit in pinpoint fashion. Multi weapon long range sniping would be gone, but those Gauss used singlely should still be precision. All single weapons not fired at the same time as others should be precise. This maxes damage at the deadly AC20 and actually increases it's value.

I think the only weapon almost completely unaffected would be the LBx weapons because they already spread! And SRMs or Streaks.

So start with that one change, and then see if something else needs to be fixed.

Edited by Kjudoon, 06 August 2015 - 10:17 AM.

[Mawai]

Some interesting ideas.

However, I would like to point out that significantly increasing the time between firing weapons will likely significantly decrease the number of people playing. One of the characteristics that most people seem to like is that MWO is a stompy mech game that still feels reasonably responsive. Increasing the time between weapons firing to times like 7 seconds as described for the gauss rifle would lead to (in my opinion) significantly greater frustration.

Since the goal appears to be to spread damage the preferred solution might be to keep the current firing rate and reduce the damage.

PGIs initial design has the same issue. They decided to keep the base damage numbers for the weapons from table top which are based on 10s turns and then increase the firing rates of these weapons by varying amounts. This does two things ..

1) The relative weapon balance is thrown off from the original values since the damage done every 10s which was the baseline for weapon damage is now different (and larger) for each weapon since the firing rates have all been increased substantially.
2) The heat scale and dissipation is impacted since the same heat values from the original table top numbers were retained which means that each weapon generates both far more damage and far more heat in 10s than the reference values. However, PGI raised the heat cap and kept the table top dissipation rates. This allows for substantial high heat alpha while leading to sustained fire overheating since the mechs can't typically fire even small groups of weapons over the long term and remain cool.

The reason PGI increased the firing rates is because it makes the game more dynamic and fun to play. I don't think that they should change that formula. However, what they can do is change the damage done and heat generated on each shot which both reduces the issue of front loaded damage for pinpoint weapons and adjusts the heat scaling.

Since weapons in this game are aimed while damage is randomly assigned in table top ... there is NO way to avoid the issue of aimed damage. Very few people would want to play a first person shooter in which your ability to aim is irrelevant (I wouldn't). This means that there will always be a tendency for people to aim for the CT on a target because it is the largest and easiest to hit target.

Here is what I would be interested to see on the test server ... and since I believe all that is required to try it out is changing the numbers in a variety of tables I don't think it would be that difficult.

- retain current weapon rate of fire
- normalize weapon damage to their table top values/10s ... so if a gauss rifle fired twice every 10s then the damage on each would be 7.5damage
- weapon heat would be similarly scaled
- 1x armor (instead of current 2x)
- total heat scale would not be affected by heat sinks - kept at 30
- heat dissipation would be as current 0.1/s for SHS and 0.2 for DHS

Then see how it plays. Tweak as needed to get a reasonable TTK and fun gameplay.

Anyway, perhaps this was done and discarded before I started in closed beta, but the MWO of today is quite a different game and if they are considering a complete balance overhaul I'd suggest looking at something like this as an alternative starting point.

[Lugh]

Mawai, on 06 August 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

Some interesting ideas.

However, I would like to point out that significantly increasing the time between firing weapons will likely significantly decrease the number of people playing. One of the characteristics that most people seem to like is that MWO is a stompy mech game that still feels reasonably responsive. Increasing the time between weapons firing to times like 7 seconds as described for the gauss rifle would lead to (in my opinion) significantly greater frustration.

Since the goal appears to be to spread damage the preferred solution might be to keep the current firing rate and reduce the damage.

PGIs initial design has the same issue. They decided to keep the base damage numbers for the weapons from table top which are based on 10s turns and then increase the firing rates of these weapons by varying amounts. This does two things ..

1) The relative weapon balance is thrown off from the original values since the damage done every 10s which was the baseline for weapon damage is now different (and larger) for each weapon since the firing rates have all been increased substantially.
2) The heat scale and dissipation is impacted since the same heat values from the original table top numbers were retained which means that each weapon generates both far more damage and far more heat in 10s than the reference values. However, PGI raised the heat cap and kept the table top dissipation rates. This allows for substantial high heat alpha while leading to sustained fire overheating since the mechs can't typically fire even small groups of weapons over the long term and remain cool.

The reason PGI increased the firing rates is because it makes the game more dynamic and fun to play. I don't think that they should change that formula. However, what they can do is change the damage done and heat generated on each shot which both reduces the issue of front loaded damage for pinpoint weapons and adjusts the heat scaling.

Since weapons in this game are aimed while damage is randomly assigned in table top ... there is NO way to avoid the issue of aimed damage. Very few people would want to play a first person shooter in which your ability to aim is irrelevant (I wouldn't). This means that there will always be a tendency for people to aim for the CT on a target because it is the largest and easiest to hit target.

Here is what I would be interested to see on the test server ... and since I believe all that is required to try it out is changing the numbers in a variety of tables I don't think it would be that difficult.

- retain current weapon rate of fire
- normalize weapon damage to their table top values/10s ... so if a gauss rifle fired twice every 10s then the damage on each would be 7.5damage
- weapon heat would be similarly scaled
- 1x armor (instead of current 2x)
- total heat scale would not be affected by heat sinks - kept at 30
- heat dissipation would be as current 0.1/s for SHS and 0.2 for DHS

Then see how it plays. Tweak as needed to get a reasonable TTK and fun gameplay.

Anyway, perhaps this was done and discarded before I started in closed beta, but the MWO of today is quite a different game and if they are considering a complete balance overhaul I'd suggest looking at something like this as an alternative starting point.

I can hear the steamtards now. I shoot you with my laser and do 1.5 damage?! This game sucks later fools.

Now if you combine that Idea and multiply everything by 1000, suddenly it becomes ZOMG did you see that I did like 10500 damage with that alpha. Big numbers impress small minds.

[Mawai]

Kjudoon, on 06 August 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

As someone who wants LRMs put into equality with all DF weaponry with the minimum fuss and alteration, ending convergence as it is now is the biggest advancement to that. The TTK increase is a bonus. Sure, you're still going to be able to nuke people, but instead of that magnifying glass blast to a torso, you get the relatively 'gentle' bludgeoning of an LRM blast. Something you are going to work to avoid, but has about the same chance to insta-kill an undamaged mech as a .22 blowing up a car with one shot. Even a Pinto.

Consider this, if you broke up grouped weapons, they would still have their damage levels, but now lasers could 'scribble' inside their target cone, the ACs would still deliver whopping big chunks of damage to where they hit in pinpoint fashion. Multi weapon long range sniping would be gone, but those Gauss used singlely should still be precision. All single weapons not fired at the same time as others should be precise. This maxes damage at the deadly AC20 and actually increases it's value.

I think the only weapon almost completely unaffected would be the LBx weapons because they already spread! And SRMs or Streaks.

So start with that one change, and then see if something else needs to be fixed.

LRMs have to be one of the most difficult to balance weapons.

I have been in a few matches recently where several mechs on the opposing team have some LRMs. In some cases, more than a few. I was driving a slow mech (~60kph) and in the time it took me to reach cover the armor had gone from untouched to orange or red across the entire mech due to LRMs. Another volley later in the game killed the mech I was driving.

All of these missiles came from opposing mechs I couldn't even see. This was on Viridian bog and I couldn't even spot the ECM mech on a cliff somewhere that was relaying the targeting information.

In all of these matches, the LRMs were extremely effective. Mostly, because my side was unlucky to have only none, one or two ECM mechs.

There is no other weapon in the game that will allow 8 or more opposing mechs without line of sight to simultaneously fire at one opponent. Even if that damage is distributed, it can be devastating. With direct fire weapons, the natural constriction of terrain usually limits the number of opponents who can fire simultaneously to between two and four unless it is open enough for the mech to be surrounded.

If LRMs were changed such that firer was REQUIRED to have a line of sight to the target just like every other weapon in the game then there is a decent argument for increasing the effectiveness of LRMs on an individual basis. However, the indirect fire mechanic that allows teams to focus distributed LRMs from the entire team onto individual vulnerable opposing mechs without regard to line of sight or terrain is an overwhelming advantage to LRMs that exists for no other weapon. Even if each LRM is individually less powerful than equivalent direct fire weapons, the ability to mass LRMs from whatever mechs have them equipped onto targets that are spotted by ECM mechs that are themselves difficult to spot, makes LRMs very powerful in certain situations.
Yes. A person attacked by LRMs can run for cover. If they are slow or in a slow mech, they are unlikely to make it before being hit by LRMs. Unfortunately, staying in cover ALL of the time, if cover is actually available, isn't usually an option since the team is usually moving up to engage the opponents and it is often necessary to leave cover to close the range to the opposing team.

Finally, the entire rock/paper/scissors hard counter system involving LRMs/ECM/TAG/NARC/BAP is painful at best and makes LRMs that much more difficult to properly balance since the balance depends not only on the mechs equipping LRMs but on how many mechs on the opposing team have ECM.

Although I am completely supportive of Paul's suggested changes to ECM, I expect that there will be a lot of complaints about LRMs as soon as the ECM radius is reduced since the use of massed and distributed LRMs is NOT balanced against the use of other weapon systems.

One way to help balance this might be to limit the number of team mates that can indirectly share a target to 3. This would mean that only 3 other players could lock an opponent they cant see at one time and that the number of LRMs would be limited to the output of 3 plus the mech with line of sight that is supplying the targeting information.

[Mawai]

Lugh, on 06 August 2015 - 11:01 AM, said:

I can hear the steamtards now. I shoot you with my laser and do 1.5 damage?! This game sucks later fools.

Now if you combine that Idea and multiply everything by 1000, suddenly it becomes ZOMG did you see that I did like 10500 damage with that alpha. Big numbers impress small minds.

LOL

Honestly, I don't think PGI should have EVER published exact numbers since they are actually useless. It is only the balance between the armor/structure and both burst and dps damage done that matters. However, if you like, scale everything including armor up by a factor of 10 if it makes things look better. A mech has 400 CT armor instead of 40 and a laser does 15 damage instead of 1.5

I suspect that most Battletech purists won't really care what the numbers are as long as the ratios are right since they are already generally used to working with numbers and if big numbers appeal to small minds then might as well use them.

P.S. If folks start asking why it is called an AC10 ... then the answer is that it has twice the dps of an AC5 and the names are taken from the board game ... since it is absolutely true. This would also allow introduction of various sorts of AC10s with different firing rates ranging from one that takes one shot every 10s to one that could fire 10 shots in 10seconds at 1/10 damage/shot (or whatever the game engine could support).

Edited by Mawai, 06 August 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[Radiant Mass]

Mawai, on 06 August 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

Here is what I would be interested to see on the test server ... and since I believe all that is required to try it out is changing the numbers in a variety of tables I don't think it would be that difficult.

- retain current weapon rate of fire
- normalize weapon damage to their table top values/10s ... so if a gauss rifle fired twice every 10s then the damage on each would be 7.5damage
- weapon heat would be similarly scaled
- 1x armor (instead of current 2x)
- total heat scale would not be affected by heat sinks - kept at 30
- heat dissipation would be as current 0.1/s for SHS and 0.2 for DHS

Then see how it plays. Tweak as needed to get a reasonable TTK and fun gameplay.

This would be a step in the right direction as well.

The reason behind the idea of adding a fire duration to most of the weapons is to increase the overall damage spread reducing the quick TTK. Adding a longer recharge rate to the long range weaponry would keep those weapons long range oriented instead of multi range.

The current LASER Spam FOTM is due to the fact that there are no Heat penalties. Add this to the massive amounts of damage they inflict at long range with rapid succession makes them even more favorable.

How to avoid this and normalize it? Reducing the damage to large lasers from 9 to 8 for IS and 10 from 11 for clans, increase the beam duration for ER- weapons so that the long range effectiveness is normalized by the damage spread, and increasing the recharge slightly so they cannot be fired as often as well as modifiers to heat generated.

Add to this proper heat penalties and you wold see less laser spam and more ballistics/missiles being used in between.

Mechs designed to boat lasers would possibly have the following outcomes: Either the pilots need to be smart on what lasers they use at certain ranges as to not overheat mid battle, and or receive quirks to keep them cool enough.

Balancing is not an easy thing. Changing the values of one weapon and or equipment slightly and it would make the house of cards come crashing down. Everything is connected.