122 replies to this topic

[Dino Banino]

Disclaimer: the way my rant is formatted might provoke people to give me answers. I don't want answers. What I want is discussion. In other words, when planning on replying to a question, I'd appreciate a 1) "I agree or disagree with you" segment; 2) "I agree or disagree with PG" segment; and if you disagree with part 2, then a "this is my idea as to how the game should be balanced" segment.

I understand the whole "16 Armor Points per ton" idea didn't work.

What I'm wondering is: if we have this Armor Value jump for 'Mechs, then why has PG resorted to nerfing/buffing certain weapons? Wasn't the doubled armor supposed to fix things?

For example:

1) Why doesn't the Clan ER-PPC deal 15 damage? Not only do 'Mechs essentially have double armor, but now the Clan PPC is WEAKER?

And 810m of range? The Clan ER-PPC is supposed to fire at 690m, and the ER-LRG LASER at 750m. So, if you are going to plan on giving the me the usual BS "they deal absolute damage as opposed to spread out damage", then how can you argue the range advantage over the ER-LRG LASER? Just take out the damn range increase, and return its damage to canon.

2) Why does the Gauss Rifle have this "charge" component? The weapon was designed to be powerful. Why undermine its purpose?

3) At this moment in MWO, conventional lasers have more accuracy than pulse lasers due to the increased burn times. Pulses don't carry any significant advantage over conventional lasers. Even with the burn times, the extra tonnage and space isn't worth it. Any competent Mechwarrior with lasers can mow down opponents armed with pulses.

Since Pulses have a +1 accuracy in canon, the best way to implement this in real-time would be to reduce burn times for conventional lasers and increase burn times for pulse lasers. This way, Pulses have pseudo increased accuracy by having more time to direct their laser.

Example:
instead of the Clan ER-LRG LASER having a duration of 1.5, the Laser would have a duration of 0.56 (half the LPL duration).

The Clan Pulse Laser on the other hand would retain its duration of 1.12.

Then, to balance against the reduced conventional laser burn time, Pulse Lasers would deal +50% damage (rounding up) compared to their conventional counterpart.

Example A:
IS Medium Laser Damage > 5
IS Medium Pulse Laser Damage (Modified) > 5 x 1.5 = (7.5 ^ 8)

Example B:
Clan ER-Large Laser Damage > 10
Clan Large Pulse Laser Damage (Modified) > 10 x 1.5 = 15

4) Finally, the Heat Management system. I'm more concerned with the effectiveness of Ballistics, however. With the heat system at the moment, Energy Weapons don't produce a lot of heat. If a pilot chain fires properly and is alert to his/her heat levels - such as myself - then they can run an entire match without worrying for shutdowns.

What advantage do Ballistics offer? No heat? Are you sure?

With all of that extra tonnage, extra space, reliance on ammunition, and increased time of flight - whereas Energy Weapons hit instantly - Ballistic weapons don't offer much competition.

Energy Weapons were always known for being extremely warm, and should live up to that name. I'd say a +50% increase to CANON heat for all Energy Weapons would be suitable.

What do you peeps think?

[Lorian Sunrider]

While I'm absolutely behind a buff to PPC's I still remember the dark days of pop tarting.

That and ballistics still need some work. See Machine gun, AC2 especially. More ammo? Introduce light autocannons? I dunno.

[Spheroid]

If you lived through the PPC meta you wouldn't be asking these questions.

[Aresye]

Archangel Dino, on 17 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

Example:
instead of the Clan ER-LRG LASER having a duration of 1.5, the Laser would have a duration of 0.56 (half the LPL duration).

Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope...

I'm all for decreasing the ridiculous 1.5s duration, but lowering it that drastically to .56s would make it so stupidly OP it wouldn't even be funny.

[El Bandito]

Archangel Dino, on 17 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

Since Pulses have a +1 accuracy in canon, the best way to implement this in real-time would be to reduce burn times for conventional lasers and increase burn times for pulse lasers. This way, Pulses have pseudo increased accuracy by having more time to direct their laser.

Shorter duration = more accuracy, BTW, since you can put more damage in less time, for the enemy to twist around.

[Kodyn]

Oh look, yet another guy who thinks TT rules can translate easily and successfully into an online FPS...

Don't stare as we drive past kids...

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Yeah you seams to not get that damage is dealt over beam duration time.
So, shorter is better.
As for the rest, blame PPFLD and +100% range. Also they symmetrical unbalance IS v Clans.

No TT is not to blame here, just PGI ignorance and stupidity.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 17 September 2015 - 09:04 AM.

[stjobe]

Archangel Dino, on 17 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

I understand the whole "16 Armor Points per ton" idea didn't work.

What I'm wondering is: if we have this Armor Value jump for 'Mechs, then why has PG resorted to nerfing/buffing certain weapons? Wasn't the doubled armor supposed to fix things?

I'm just going to answer this part.

PGI couldn't go with TT values for armour because they increased rate of fire by a factor of 2 - 20 (The AC/2 originally fired once every 0.5 seconds as compared to once per 10 seconds in TT). The average RoF increase is around 3 IIRC.

So weapons do on average three times more damage than their TT counterparts. That's reason one.

Reason two is of course pin-point accuracy and instant convergence. In TT, if you fired four medium lasers, not only could you actually miss with one or more of your MLs but hit with the others, you'd in all likelihood hit different sections of the target with the MLs that did hit. In MWO, all MLs hit the same pixel.

So the armour system that was designed for pseudo-random spread of incoming damage at a certain level of course broke hilariously under pin-point instantly converged triple damage values.

That's why they had to double not only armour but also internal structure. And that's why some of us keep griping about pin-point accuracy and instant convergence to this day.

It breaks the armour system, and it breaks it badly.

On a related note, the RoF increase is also why the heat system is FUBAR; the weapons in MWO are on average three times hotter than their TT counterparts, but heat dissipation in MWO is on exactly the same scale as in TT.

Triple heat, same dissipation. Of course it breaks.

That nobody at PGI realized these problems way back in 2012 is the main reason this game has such issues with balance; at its core, the game is broken by design and they can't (or won't, since it'd be damn expensive) rebuild it so it works in a better, more true-to-lore fashion.

Edited by stjobe, 17 September 2015 - 09:12 AM.

[Tyler Valentine]

I disagree with you. TTK is low enough right now. If anything I'd like to see a new heat scale and longer recharge time on weapons so the game takes some real skill instead of 'Alpha Strike then Hide Behind Something for Six Seconds Online'... and to that point, CHAIN FIRE! WTF!

[Solahma]

Because TT mechanics do not translate well into a FPS. I don't care what TT rules said a clan ERPPC should do, it DOESN'T work for balance in a computer game. There have to be some pretty sizable compromises for the sake of balance.

[stjobe]

Solahma, on 17 September 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

Because TT mechanics do not translate well into a FPS. I don't care what TT rules said a clan ERPPC should do, it DOESN'T work for balance in a computer game. There have to be some pretty sizable compromises for the sake of balance.

That's a very common argument - I've never seen any supportive arguments though, just that line "it doesn't translate well". Well why?

Why doesn't TT mechanics translate well into a FPS?
Why doesn't it work for balance in a computer game?
Exactly which "pretty sizable compromises for the sake of balance" would need to be done?

Personally, I think it's perfectly doable. I'm under no illusion PGI will be able to, but I don't think it's by any means impossible.

Edited by stjobe, 17 September 2015 - 09:23 AM.

[Dino Banino]

Kodyn, on 17 September 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

Oh look, yet another guy who thinks TT rules can translate easily and successfully into an online FPS...

Don't stare as we drive past kids...

Oh look, yet another guy who bandwagons with the more-than-common "TT can't translate into real-time" argument.

The major consensus is that generally small adjustments have to be made to the game to keep it true to its canonical nature. No one in this thread ever said that TT needs to be implemented 1-for-1.

Why don't you get OFF the bandwagon, and present a supportive argument?

[Jetfire]

stjobe, on 17 September 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

That's a very common argument - I've never seen any supportive arguments though, just that line "it doesn't translate well". Well why?

Why doesn't TT mechanics translate well into a FPS?
Why doesn't it work for balance in a computer game?
Exactly which "pretty sizable compromises for the sake of balance" would need to be done?

Personally, I think it's perfectly doable. I'm under no illusion PGI will be able to, but I don't think it's by any means impossible.

It is completely possible to create a real time Battletech game given infinite resources. Given the Mechwarrior lisc, PGI and CryEngine we get what we have because several necessary deliverables are not currently possible and without them serious warping or abandoning of TT is required.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Actually almost all problems MWO has is be cause abandoning TT, or not fallowing it and transforming it smart enough to FPS system.
Blaming TT for PGI ignorance and stupidity is a big miss.

[Dino Banino]

Aresye Kerensky, on 17 September 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope...

I'm all for decreasing the ridiculous 1.5s duration, but lowering it that drastically to .56s would make it so stupidly OP it wouldn't even be funny.

"Stupidly OP it wouldn't even be funny"? How so? Are you implying that the Gauss Rifle is "stupidly OP" because it deals 15 damage at once?

Or perhaps the PPC is "stupidly OP" because it deals 10 damage at once?

I don't see how a 0.56sec laser would be "stupidly OP" judging from comparative weapon mechanics.

All you have to do is increase the cooldown time for the ER-LARGE LASER, as it should be equal to a PPC according to Solaris VII rules.

Edited by Archangel Dino, 17 September 2015 - 10:12 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Make targeting less accurate and reliable and TT mechanics will transfer just fine.

It'll never happen though.

[ApolloKaras]

Archangel Dino, on 17 September 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

"Stupidly OP it wouldn't even be funny"? How so? Are you implying that the Gauss Rifle is "stupidly OP" because it deals 15 damage at once?

Or perhaps the PPC is "stupidly OP" because it deals 10 damage at once?

I don't see how a 0.56sec laser would be "stupidly OP" judging from comparative weapon mechanics.

the Er Large laser weighs 4 tons, doesn't need ammo and you could fit 4 comfortably on any mech. Imagine a Hellbringer with high mounts to poke and do a 44 pin point alpha over .5 a second?

[FupDup]

You would make the Gauss and Clan ERPPC so ridiculously OP with those values...

[Hotthedd]

The OP completely disregards perfect convergence and triple rate of fire.

Also, OP is fooled by the accuracy % regarding lasers. Even if you only hit with 0.01% of the scan of the laser, it counts as a "hit" in the stats. Pulse lasers will deal significantly more damage per hit. (Do the math with your own stats page).

Also, the charge-up mechanic for the Gauss Rifle is an elegant solution to the TT rules of the to-hit modifier inside of the minimum range. You should LIKE that.

Edited by Hotthedd, 17 September 2015 - 10:17 AM.

[Spheroid]

@Kaleb: Targeting or aiming? If you implemented a cone of fire how would that work? ECM prevents locks greatly and if you are leading that also creates problems since the reticle coud be anywhere from 500-2km beyond the target.

If you got rid of pinpoint you would have bizzare things like a Hunchback-4P spreading lasers in a insane farcical manner. Visually it would look very strange for boated weapons.