Jump to content

Just Some Thoughts On The Balance


5 replies to this topic

#1 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,626 posts

Posted 14 September 2015 - 02:57 AM

The lack of communication in the balance didn't help anything at all, but it seems that at least in part some of the mega nerfs were in response to the skill tree system.

So why don't we just -temporarily- remove the skill tree system from the balance equation?

Then you can get the chassis at least roughly balanced from one to the next - and no wild arse communications/movement quirks, some little stuff is fine but its not okay to be pre-determining the role a particular chassis plays - especially not the ones people have actually paid for.

Just simply make the variants balance across the chassis, then do some mild buffing/tweaking to get the weight classes within a smaller margin from each other - they don't need to be perfect across the entire weight class at this point. Again no major crazy buffs/debuffs.

For the clan mechs the omnipod system is great, just start at the low point for the chassis, set the base to a slightly lower than "par" point and use the pods to bring the mech up instead of down with pods matching the ct getting either slightly better or more unique bonuses as more stack up (or just for the pod w/ct combo it unlocks an extra small bonus). The key is the same though starting lower with much less or smaller stacking buffs and as few debuffs as possible - the only time I'd consider debuffs is for using few/no matching pods but that's an outlier and shouldn't even be necessary. Clan mechs with their many hard points is also a great reason to move weapon balancing/modifiers/quirks directly to the weapons systems instead of the mechs themselves.

Then the next parts which are the main balancing tools to help your overall balance and incorporate the communications things even more --

1. Use modifiers on the weapons to balance them out, lessen big boating, and generally normalize ttk.

Things like -
1 equipped - no modifiers, multiple and they start to stack or increase to reduce part of efficiency but have little quirk bonuses elsewhere to still make them interesting to use. Again you don't need to get crazy on the buffs/de-buffs the little bits will add up to a more balanced system.

AC20 - Having 2 equipped increases heat by x, cd by x, and ammo efficiency by x (get say 2 extra ammo per ton as an offset)

Guass rifle - Having 2 equipped increases the charge up by x length, lowers the velocity by x amount, increases the cd, increases ammo efficiency

PPC - (just a different modifier example also possible to un-nerf JJ) - 2 equipped - velocity while airborn decreases x%

An example of things you more regularly see 3+ of

Medium laser - 2 equipped, increases heat by x, increases cd by x, increases cd by x, extends range by x
3 equipped - heat by x+.5, cd by x+.1, cd by x+.1, range x+5m



Its just a more sensible way to keep the weapons balanced and demote pinpoint boating at least to some degree to extend ttk without crazy armor/weapon quirks. And its far easier to adjust over time and as new weapons are added to keep this part of the game in balance. Far more possible to add most of the different things that are already set to balance weapons (ammo, ghost heat, range, damage, min/max range, cd, rof and so forth) with some new ones to tackle some of the other issues and give them a better balance and feel.

2. Rebuild the skill tree so it means something.
(running out of time before work so I'll flesh this out when I get back but here's the basic rundown)
3 Sections -

Pilot skills - All purpose skills - low bonuses and module/consumable unlocks.
Break it down into weight classes and IS/Clan because you'd have a different pilot for each.

5% max range on any skill - startup/shutdown speeds, minor weapon/mech/sensor efficiency. This part should have a limit of x amount of points/levels able to be added (i.e. no maxing it out).

Separate sub-tree unlocks for modules similar to current - but break them into 10/10 and lower their maximum by half. There's just no need for 10-12% boosts. Consumables should also need to be unlocked entirely.
Mech skills - again major limits to how much it can boost mechs, but this needs to be more mech/variant specific. keep the things like twist, arm move, stop speed, minor reload/cd times, much more minor heat and speed buffs. Add things like lessen fall damage, hill climbs, JJ capability (from a min amount up to cap amount) the odd bits that give mechs more flavor and help to balance them out at the chassis level.

You could even go so far as having things like additional structure/armor at the cost of movement rates which is along the lines of what you were trying to do - but this puts it in the players hands to choose their variant and how they want to play it.

also another one that you get x amount of points to buy/allot.
Communication skills -
sensor things is something you were starting on the right path with the rebalance but it should be relagated mostly to skill trees rather than forced upon a chassis. Have all the mechs start out at the lower end and let players choose how they want to build up their communications skills. Design the sets up around the weights/chassis and variants so people can build up some unique combinations that fit their own play style. AKA let those goofy steiners make atlas scouts.

again x amount of points.

Last point on the --x amount of points for the trees -- let people reset these either for free or for a small c-bill charge. Seems like a profitable idea to charge for resets, but you'd have to do it for 1-5 MC and process tens of thousands of transactions every time you made minor balance changes with a lot of requests for refunds. This is one thing you should just keep free or c-bill confined.

Consumables should change as well. I'll list this with the tree because they'd be part of the skills.
1. We need more, there's plenty of good ideas floating around - chaff, smoke screen, radar/ecm jams and so forth.
2. They should be c-bill only other than MC bundles of them replacing the MC variant(which correct me if I'm wrong, but almost nobody uses). 50 for 50MC, 100 for 90MC, 200 for 150MC or some sort of progression like going up to 500/1000+ counts. Might not sell like hot cakes, but will certainly sell more than the split versions and keep the playing field level if you keep the prices reasonable. Keep the c-bill ones purchased individually so there is at least some sense of value to buying a bundle of the ones you use.
---
Alright - that's just a basic idea of they way you reset the skill system AND compartmentalize the balancing tools all at the same time. Would be far easier to adjust different balances as the game develops (especially in the weapons/sensors area) and its the only way you are going to be able to effectively not create uber quirked or pigeon-holed mechs stuck with a single weapon system or role.

Hopefully that all makes good sense, only on my second cup of coffee this morning, but basically what needs to be done is splitting the balance off and removing the weapon balancing/quirking to the weapons so that its something that can be constantly honed without any more uber or worthless mechs - then the mechs that are true under classmen can have mech specific skills/buffs that people can choose which routes to go with rather than being forced into certain weapons/roles.

It does make things somewhat more complicated on the face of it for players (new players), not really something a halfway decent tutorial - even a text based one just to be able to reference to in the game - couldn't handle. The real bonus is that it would make the entire system of balancing the game and adding more weapons/tech/mechs into the mix a far easier proposition from this point on forward. There'd be no more going back and saying we need to re-balance every single mech in the game because IS now has ER Med Las and everyone is running them.

It would more than promote mixed builds and actually give you a great way to add manufacturer sourced gear down the road. Also opens up the option to create synergies all the way down to the engine level whether you do it through the skill tree with mech/pilot skills, directly on the components or both.

Edited by sycocys, 14 September 2015 - 05:47 AM.


#2 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,626 posts

Posted 14 September 2015 - 05:48 AM

Okay, got back and updated that. I think most of the concept is laid out in there.

#3 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 14 September 2015 - 06:05 AM

Giant wall of text but the idea to possibly move some of the quirks into a skill tree is good, modules to maybe. If it all works.

Also making some of the skill tree bonuses not so large or split them up is good to.

#4 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,626 posts

Posted 14 September 2015 - 06:15 AM

Yeah, sorry about the length but it really all would need to work together and be split apart similarly. A lot of it just seems to me like they are currently taking this approach from the most difficult approach to set up, then the vastly more difficult way to keep it updated and in balance as the game goes on (everything tied onto a mech to mech basis).

The module system itself would probably end up being very similar to the current one, just a lot more xp to sink in and less powerful bonuses because they just really don't need to be so much for any reason - also not noted the modules that don't have "levels" should also be redone so they do as well. Radar dep should probably be changed to be the opposite of target decay and reducing lock duration rather than instant.

#5 Almond Brown

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 5,851 posts

Posted 14 September 2015 - 08:38 AM

Might have read ALL that if I had not just read your Whine, QQ, rant post(s) about how incomplete the current PTS is compared to what apparently PGI "promised you". If the PST is that incomplete, there is no way any proposal you make based on it can be either and as such is totally moot. You could have written that 12 months ago, and should have. It may have carried some actual weight then.

#6 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,626 posts

Posted 14 September 2015 - 10:03 AM

It really shouldn't be news that their current PTS was both incomplete and no where near what they said they were putting up for testing - for those of us that actually wanted to test and give feedback on the upcoming balance it was a huge disappointment.

Honestly I had assumed this was a similar idea to what Paul had in mind until I actually saw the the PTS iteration. They simply are approaching this in the hardest manner possible to both achieve and keep balance as the game moves forward. A few of the things like pigeon-holing mechs to certain roles/rigging is still way off base with their current plan.

Their "concept" is on the right track, but just not thought through.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users