154 replies to this topic

[Davers]

Dimento Graven, on 14 September 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

Next something even more odd, the differences between the 4SP and the 4J. There's only ONE more energy hard point on the 4J yet the quirk differences are EXTREME.

How are we to take this balance pass seriously, and respond without extreme ire and vehemence, when even among variants of the same chassis the stats swing so monstrously?

Maybe high torso mounted hard points are considered much more valuable than arm hard points?

[fat4eyes]

Mcgral18, on 13 September 2015 - 10:28 PM, said:

There are some very simple changes to make downright bad weapons acceptable.
.XML edits, without any additional features.



I hope Paul discovers this. And not just to nerf MGs. Again.

You do realize that those 'simple edits' require hundreds of hours of playtesting right? That sounds like one of the guys in accounting that say "How hard could it be? Just change the maximum number of users from 100 to 1000000. The server will figure it out."

[Mcgral18]

fat4eyes, on 14 September 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

You do realize that those 'simple edits' require hundreds of hours of playtesting right? That sounds like one of the guys in accounting that say "How hard could it be? Just change the maximum number of users from 100 to 1000000. The server will figure it out."

Yes, I'm sure the 2 second burn time cERLL and 1 Ghost Heat limit was playested hundreds of hours.





You think putting the MG to 1 DPS will destroy game balance?
That putting SRMs to 500M/s and 2.5 damage will destroy balance?


Do you even play the game?

[fat4eyes]

Mcgral18, on 14 September 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

Yes, I'm sure the 2 second burn time cERLL and 1 Ghost Heat limit was playested hundreds of hours.





You think putting the MG to 1 DPS will destroy game balance?
That putting SRMs to 500M/s and 2.5 damage will destroy balance?


Do you even play the game?

Do YOU know? Have you TRIED it instead of just saying it? Do YOU have any ACTUAL NUMBERS from hundreds of games to back up your assertions? I'm guessing no.

[Mcgral18]

fat4eyes, on 14 September 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

Do YOU know? Have you TRIED it instead of just saying it? Do YOU have any ACTUAL NUMBERS from hundreds of games to back up your assertions? I'm guessing no.

If Paul would let me, I certainly would.


2.5 damage SRMs were fine in the past. The 90 damage splash SRM6s were not.

The 1 DPS MGs were largely considered fine, but Paul said there was a Hitreg "Fix" and nerfed them.




These are all returning weapons to their largely usable state, which the Nerfinator ruined. Need I remind you of the 3 years the Flamer has been useless? Where he hasn't gone and edited a variable for 3 years. Not once per patch to get said data?


It's a damned waste.

[Dimento Graven]

Davers, on 14 September 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

Maybe high torso mounted hard points are considered much more valuable than arm hard points?

If that were true wouldn't the 4J (at least it's the one I think has like 4 high mounted hard points) with more higher mounted weapons have a HIGHER target acquisition?

I can't make the calculation work out no matter how I add this up, either there's something EXTREMELY unobvious, or, it's random.

[fat4eyes]

Mcgral18, on 14 September 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

If Paul would let me, I certainly would.


2.5 damage SRMs were fine in the past. The 90 damage splash SRM6s were not.

The 1 DPS MGs were largely considered fine, but Paul said there was a Hitreg "Fix" and nerfed them.




These are all returning weapons to their largely usable state, which the Nerfinator ruined. Need I remind you of the 3 years the Flamer has been useless? Where he hasn't gone and edited a variable for 3 years. Not once per patch to get said data?


It's a damned waste.

And yet when they actually do make a change and let people participate (like in the PTS) everybody's jumping down their throats. Gotta take the bad with the good and let them know why its bad so it gets changed. Hopefully like civilized people.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

Firepower & Mobility are the most important things in this game, they are what kills other mechs and what keeps you alive.

The above, with weapon quirks and changes in heat output, how can those things be balanced or brought into parity without an actual heatscale that has more than one negative effect attached to it only at max level?

The Heatscale has nothing to slow down a mech (an actual amount or a percentage at more than one threshold) and make it less agile. Those would be the most critical, imho. Ammo explosions could happen at max level, primarily due to the nature of this FPS game instead of a board game. And negative effects (2-3 thresholds) would not need to start at the low point, 40% / 60% / 80% thresholds.

Would also say there should be a heat scale hardcap, though atm I do not see PGI doing this. Cooling rate would stay consistent with the number/type of heatsinks but that 100% cap would be locked.

The above would mean a mechwarrior would have to decide if firing all of his weapons is a good idea, or if doing so would slow him to a crawl and not be able to twist as quickly to spread incoming fire while the mech is trying to move out of line of fire. It would mean that lights would not be able to circle around an assault firing multiple times for the fear of not just shutting down but slowing down enough to where the assault pilot can get a bead on him. For assaults, it would mean not firing wildly but taking the time to make sure he has a bead before firing for the fear of being sluggish enough that he may as well as be standing still.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 14 September 2015 - 05:55 PM.

[InspectorG]

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

I get what your saying, but as I pointed out in the video. I think it is important to fix some of the foundations of the issues we see with balance (skill tree values being tuned down is also coming on PTS soon).

So I'd say I don't think introducing new weapons systems is the answer, but if this is done and done correctly, introducing them will be a lot easier (balance wise) in the near future if PGI chooses.

Really hopeful about the 'Infotech' aspect.

But as someone said on Outreach, "How does Infotech deter/stop a 50-70 point alpha?"?

Comp/Good players will just 'sight-read' the enemy and skip locking all together. Happens under one second frequently. Finding the enemy and hitting first should be the first step in the flow chart.

IMO, Infotech should affect Radar and Comms. Target scan and acquisition is nice but can be worked around with skill.

A.
Im saying the balance may need to be more: Heavy hitter, cant see. Scout can see but can barely fight. Mobile skirmisher might be able to hit kinda hard or see pretty well but not both or half being so-so.
Now Lance and Team composition has another axis aside from weight class to build with.

Fighter - Mage - Thief... you get the idea.

Fighters cant see far, and share only one red dorito on Radar with friendlies. Can only lock the nearest enemy. And by default has a much smaller Radar FoV. Perhaps 20degrees(instead of current 45) oriented to facing OF LEGS(not torso). Limited to perhaps 500m.

Wizards see far but cant really fight.(but may make indirect fire viable...fireball???)
This would theoretically be the mech choice of Commanders. Less fire more sight. Bigger FoV on Radar can share multiple Enemies depending on Chassis/Variant. Example: Spider V can see 50degree out to 1220m and share 6 enemies on team radar and can lock 3 enemy targets at once. Friendly LRM boat is in love with Spider V.

Thief can move well, but can only see ok or fight ok.
More geared to skirmish/striking or objective hunting. Or playstyle. Summoner can run 'n gun but cant brawl too well but has a 45degree Radar FoV and shares 4 enemies. One variant can lock 2 enemies at once and had a bult in 360degree module that reaches 700m.

NOTE: Each 'class' above can have a 'scout'. Atlas DDC Can kinda fight and kinda see for an Assault Lance. A Locust could join a Lance of FS to help them wolfpack. A Summoner could escort a heavy/assault lance to flank/see or pressure objectives.

B.
INFOTECH should be oriented to sharing info on Radar and VOIP.

Lance Commander can Comm with other Commanders and their Lance. Grunts only Comm with their Lance. Granted TeamSpeak would bypass this but perhaps a picto-chat could be used? Phantasy Star Online Zero for DS had a simple EXCELLENT system. Language wasnt a barrier. You hotkeyed premade or custom pictograms. 10 would likely be enough and VOIP could be saved for the Commanders.

Fog of Warfare may be a needed on the Radar, no Grid for grunts, no terrain features for Grunts, no Objective on map for Grunts. They really cant see far, Radar -wise, but if they see an enemy visually they can fire for diminished damage or have to guesstimate position on map. This is where ECM and BAP/NARC come into play.

ECM VISUALLY HIDES the equipped mech's Chassis/paperdoll/loadout and visually shows a generic random mech. Frindlies under ECM umbrella can be locked but no specific info given. This obfuscates the Commander's ability to prioritize targets.
ECM equipped mechs should be on the fragile-weak side to discourage spamming. ECM equipped component should have HALF ARMOR/STRUCTURE as a starting point.

Discourage sight-reading the enemy.
This way Commander and Lance Commanders would be the 'brains' and perhaps prioritizes as targets for such.

Attacking without a lock should provide a 25+%(can be quirked/module-ed/etc) damage reduction...this should buff lights that may not have enough firepower. Theoretically, light-hunters could receive diminished penalty vs lights and a few lights could be taylored to Assault hunting.

This would punish bigger alphas as opposed to smaller alphas. A Dire gets reduced 70 to 52 for not having a lock but a light gets 30 damage reduced to 23. This way some Assaults/Heavies could be seen as Artillery that needs a spotter to reap maximum damage...which high tier players will want. Lights can use mobility and speed to offset the damage.

Also reduced TTK which most agree upon could happen via this avenue. Could give the lighter/quicker mechs of each weight class some surviveability???
In this we get Lance Commanders calling targets to ALSO get a damage buff for the team ASIDE from just eliminating priority targets.
Win/Win, Comp players have a reason to 'target' instead of sidestep the mechanic.


C.
MAPS NEED MULTIPLE SPAWN POINTS FOR OBJECTIVES. If you know just where cap points are or where the enemy base is by default, scouting them is pointless. Hello Asymmetrical maps.

PLUS, PVE can be used to 'clog' one of the 3 lanes on a map thus adding asymmetry to deter the almighty center pug-zapper.
PVE assets can be Turrets, infantry, weak-AI mechs, destructible barricades, minefields/etc.

Example: Assault. Base can Spawn randomly ot one of 3 points and Commander can set PVE defenses at one of several places on the map. Enemy needs to scout the base to find it and how to mitigate PVE defenses.

Should also mitigate NASCAR. Commander can stack defenses near base or in the far lane to funnel the enemy. Some tactical flexibility here.

IMO, also a 'drop deck' of mechs for Solo/Group play should be available so players can adjust their team on the fly. A simple deck of 'Force, Scout, Striker'. For an Assault enthusiast it could be 'Atlas S, Atlas DDC, xl400 Banshee M' as a deck.
A player who opts to be Commander may want a bigger variety: ' Summoner, Raven L, Big-TC Warhawk'.

I strongly encourage PGI to study some of the better current boardgames. boardgamegeek.com is a good place to study game balance. A more 'eurogaming' approach may be needed.

Hope this helps.

[Vellron2005]

Whatever comes out of this rebalance, I just hope that both players and Dev's will keep realism in mind..

Realism in terms of what realistic combatants can do NOW, in 2015, and what they should be able to do in futuristic 3050 giant robots..

You can't tell me that fog of war, a few hundred meters of line of sight, or piss-poor radar is the stuff of 3050 future..

Mech roles, lasers that shoot "light" that has "range" for some reason, unreliable maschineguns that jam, overheat and targeting computers that way 7 tons and only guide a missle slightly better than the missle guides itself...

BT Universe is allready preety outdated as it is.. so please.. let's keep things as realistic as possible..

Edited by Vellron2005, 15 September 2015 - 04:04 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Reno Blade, on 14 September 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

Here is what I think about balancing steps (in addition to the sensor changes):

- make sensor range and detection strength dependent on weight (as Phil mentioned) so bigger mechs can also be detected easier

- remove/reduce the bonus of agility given by the engine and make the differences of variants count more that way.
> increases the effect/quirks of variants that push agility over mechs that have bigger engines (like the Timber).

- give Endo/Ferro some plus/minus effects (e.g. reduced/increased internal structure/armor)
> e.g. 20% more armor if you use Ferro

- increase internal structure (at least of the torso sections) of all mechs
> reduces the risk of very fast kills by coring mechs and makes disarming more usefull

optional: make endo/ferro on IS mechs become un-changeable
> further differentiate variants and inter-chassis differences

Then we can think about roles like the LRM "support" and scouting versus direct fire.
E.g. if LRMs would be 2-3x as long to reload, but had 2x the damage, the scouting + LRMs would be much more teamwork involved AND you had to be sure to have enough backup weapons, as a LRM boat would be very inefficient and also boring (imagine a 8-10 sec cooldown on all your weapons).

I think this should be here too:

Imho there are "small" changes to be made here:
1. Increase beam duration on all lasers to 1.5 - 2 second (including pulse lasers to 1.2 to 1.7 or so)
Remember the outcry of Clan beam times, when the ERLL had 2 seconds or so?
This would also increase the difficulty of light mechs spamming MLaser or SPulse (such as firestarters) and bring them "down" to the difficulties their "prey" have shooting back.

2. couple all lasers into a shared Ghost Heat group
Limit of 2 Large or 4 Med, or 1 Large + 2 Med.
No more 2 - 3 Large + 3 - 6 Med laser alphas = boating gone.

3. couple PPC and all Ballistics to a shared Ghost heat Group
Limit of 1 PPC or one Gauss, or one AC10 or 2 AC5. (any higher group number will be penalized by GH)
Prevents PPC + Gauss and PPC + AC5/10 Alphas and AC boating (not just dual AC20 or quad PPC boats)
And possibly increase Gauss Heat from 1 to 4+

This way we get certain disadvantages of boats:
- Laserboats can't alpha as much with the heat penalties
- Laserboats will have lot of face time - even more if spacing groups to prevent GH (see 6LLaser Stalkers)
- FLPPD (PPC/Ballistic) can't alpha as much with the heat penalties = reduce the FLPPD alpha size and dps
- strong FLPPD will have more facetime by spacing the shots to prevent GH

- SRM builds will be very strong short range with big alphas (3+ SRM6), but still have very short range
- LRM builds still have all the sensor problems and AMS to struggle with

Then we will see way longer TTK, have builds with more than boating one weapon type.
Classic builds like Warhammer and Marauder (everyones loved ones) will be equal to boats.

Edited by Reno Blade, 24 September 2015 - 01:26 AM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

I would be in favor of extended laser burn times.
IF
They could figure out a way to let us stop firing that laser at any given time during its duration, so that when we twist on a counter attack we're not cutting down our teamates as well.

[Reno Blade]

Mister D, on 24 September 2015 - 01:36 AM, said:

I would be in favor of extended laser burn times.
IF
They could figure out a way to let us stop firing that laser at any given time during its duration, so that when we twist on a counter attack we're not cutting down our teamates as well.

I just imagined a big brute with a Claymore cutting down his own team when trying to hit his enemy in front, but then I thought, would he even have a team so close by, or only mages and archers in the back?

Just some silly comparison, but we can just think of not twisting while shooting vs the team damage aspect to be one more thing that brings combat to the world of hard fought battles with tough decisions.

[MischiefSC]

fat4eyes, on 14 September 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

You do realize that those 'simple edits' require hundreds of hours of playtesting right? That sounds like one of the guys in accounting that say "How hard could it be? Just change the maximum number of users from 100 to 1000000. The server will figure it out."

It's not hundreds of hours btw. Ideally you run test cases and a half-dozen people can do it in a day.

Barring that make the changes, put it up on the PTS and let it run for 2 hours. Take it down, tweak values and put it back up.

The issue is that we're getting some changes, then nothing for weeks to months (to years), followed by some unrelated changes that completely and totally ignore all the feedback given prior.

That is the history of behavior we have with doing this with PGI. I hope this is the beginning of a change to that but that would involve some actual examples of that having, you know. Changed.

[Navid A1]

fat4eyes, on 14 September 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

You do realize that those 'simple edits' require hundreds of hours of playtesting right? That sounds like one of the guys in accounting that say "How hard could it be? Just change the maximum number of users from 100 to 1000000. The server will figure it out."

Um... playtesting?.... PGI?.... you even serious? ... people discover loop holes and major bugs in PGI's "tested" events an gameplay mechanics.... in a couple hours!

Even IF pgi does playtesting,.. returning the MGs dps/crit dmage back to where they were before, would actually help a weapon system go from being a total joke to actual usefulness.... same goes for flamers.

Edited by Navid A1, 24 September 2015 - 01:48 AM.