92 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

Some thoughts...

1. The board game was not balanced and more than that it never had to deal with things like hit boxes. Quirks will always be needed. And its not even a bad way to balance mechs.

2. People take mechs with good quirks because there is less margin for error fighting good people. At tier 5 you can do will in anything.

[LordBraxton]

Lemming of the BDA, on 04 January 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

My Blr-2C has NEVER let me down. I have let it down a few times, but the 4 tons of sructure, twist, accell, deccel, energy range and duration bonuses WERE my determining factors in making it my new baby. Finding the mech that best suits your playstyle can be hard, but that one I love.

I fell in love with the Phoenix variant for the same reasons. The super medium laser battery matters.

Quirks matter, and buying mechs for quirks makes perfect sense when they often just as distinguishing as hardpoints, or more so when it comes to comparing variants.

However, everyone should always remember that eventually there will be something far better. e.g. I love my cataphracts, and they were great for a LONG time, but the MAD has completely killed the CTF imo.

[MechaBattler]

Honestly, why are any of you surprised that quirks are used to balance as a whole? They tried to do something outside of the box. And the children filled their diapers and the forums. Instead we get pretty much more of the same. Because that's what people whined for.

[Ghogiel]

Buying mechs for quirks makes plenty of sense. Selling them doesn't. Current balance vindicates my decision to not sell my BJ3, QKD 4G, and so on.

[Funkin Disher]

I've been addicted to quirks at least 15 times in my life and watermelons was the only thing that kept me afloat.

More watermelon, less quirks. That's how I live my life.

[MrJeffers]

Sandpit, on 04 January 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

hmmm
I don't ever recall saying anything even remotely along the lines of "best balance point in the game"
I think what I actually said was

Can you not "translate" what I say and instead go with what was actually said instead?

Right now, balance seems like it's in a good spot.

Sorry, I read too much into your statement. It implies better than before, but not necessarily best.

Sandpit, on 04 January 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

Sorry, quirks are meant to balance a chassis, not an entire line of weapons.

A large laser is a large laser regardless of what mech it's dropped into. You don't go through and balance the large laser according to each individual mech.

I'll tell you what, if you really think that's the way to do it and that it's not going to lead to the issues I pointed out above (which has already come to pass), then I've got a challenge for you.

take 3 mechs and 3 variants for each mech
9 mechs total

you take 9 and i'll take the same 9
we'll advance them through 4 months of balance changes.

We'll see who's method is faster
Which method achieves a better balance
Which method is easier to adjust for game wide balancing (because remember, balanced on one mech doesn't equate to balance across the entire game)

When you're done pulling your hair out trying to get it done as fast as I'm able to with my method, I think you'll see the fallacy in trying to do it that way.

Now imagine doing it that way for over 100 mechs
every week
week in and week out
based on thousands of matches and the statistical data gathered from that.

You honestly truly believe that it's more cost effective, time efficient, and less labor intensive to do it with quirks or simply the weapon system as a whole regardless of what mech it's placed into?

Yes it is less work than what you are proposing which is:
take ~54 weapon systems across ~322 mech variants
xx billion different permutations.

I'll take 9 and you'll take the same 9 billions of permutations
we'll advance them through 4 months of balance changes.

We'll see who's method is faster
Which method achieves a better balance
Which method is easier to adjust for game wide balancing (because remember, balanced on one mech doesn't equate to balance across the entire game - point of contention - mechs need to be balanced against each other)

Looking at the numbers you'll see the fallacy in trying to do it that way.

Now imagine doing it that way for billions of permutations because you changed ML laser heat by one
every week
week in and week out
based on thousands of matches and the statistical data gathered from that.

So yeah - I'll take a few hundred permutations over billions. And that is even before the eff'ed up big data queries that would need to be developed to find the edge cases in your scenario. That's why it didn't work before, and won't work in the future.

[Sandpit]

MrJeffers, on 04 January 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:

Sorry, I read too much into your statement. It implies better than before, but not necessarily best.



Yes it is less work than what you are proposing which is:
take ~54 weapon systems across ~322 mech variants
xx billion different permutations.

I'll take 9 and you'll take the same 9 billions of permutations
we'll advance them through 4 months of balance changes.

We'll see who's method is faster
Which method achieves a better balance
Which method is easier to adjust for game wide balancing (because remember, balanced on one mech doesn't equate to balance across the entire game - point of contention - mechs need to be balanced against each other)

Looking at the numbers you'll see the fallacy in trying to do it that way.

Now imagine doing it that way for billions of permutations because you changed ML laser heat by one
every week
week in and week out
based on thousands of matches and the statistical data gathered from that.

So yeah - I'll take a few hundred permutations over billions. And that is even before the eff'ed up big data queries that would need to be developed to find the edge cases in your scenario. That's why it didn't work before, and won't work in the future.

uhm few hundred weapon systems?
3 lasers (S, M, L)
3 pulse lasers
5 ACs
8 missile weapons
then add in a few clan systems
That's not even 50, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

how is that hundreds of weapons...?

we're not talking combinations
we're talking weapons themselves.

weapons aren't balanced around boating, they're balanced individually as they should be. Then ghost heat is applied to curb the boating.

[MrJeffers]

Sandpit, on 04 January 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

uhm few hundred weapon systems?
3 lasers (S, M, L)
3 pulse lasers
5 ACs
8 missile weapons
then add in a few clan systems
That's not even 50, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
how is that hundreds of weapons...?

Quote

Yes it is less work than what you are proposing which is:
take ~54 weapon systems across ~322 mech variants
xx billion different permutations.

Sandpit, on 04 January 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

we're not talking combinations
we're talking weapons themselves.

weapons aren't balanced around boating, they're balanced individually as they should be. Then ghost heat is applied to curb the boating.

If you don't balance against the boating you get the super powered mechs and garbage mechs because you have balanced around the top end of the scale and curtailed that while nerfing everything below it because a ML needs to be hotter than it should be. Ending up with a hand full of chassis that are worth anything, just like we had before quriks.

[CDLord HHGD]

Wow, I am totally stoked at how much discussion my PSA-turned-rant started. Here's the things that I think would go a long way to resolving a lot of issues with this game (mostly my ideas from the past with some modifications as suggested by others). Worth testing.

1. Quirks that support the stock loadouts only (in the case of Clan mechs these would go on the CT).
1a. Quirks that diminish dynamically the more weapons you equip. 1 weapon, 30%; 2 weapons, 15% (example for maths).
2. Sized hardpoints (simple two-sized solution).
3. A real heat scale with real consequences.
4. Delayed convergence (similar to WoWS).
4a. Torso mounted weapons only fire forward and only arms are able to truly converge.

[TWIAFU]

AztecD, on 04 January 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

quirks should be based on the weapon,

Generic PPC - Base stats same

Donal[PPC] TharHes Industries +5% Recharge rate
Kinslaughter [PPC] Krupp Stellar Technologies Inc. +6% Range
Magna Hellstar[PPC] Aldis Industries -7% Heat Generation

Etc

but since MWO does not have any market, or planets or anything regarding travel and logistics, its a moot point

I really like this idea!!!!

[Almond Brown]

Mcgral18, on 04 January 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

stuff

Just change the base stats at that point.

Can we get your take on how best to change the "Base Stats" for say 5t's of I.S. ML versus 5t of I.S. LL? Oh and "added range" or "Heat" would appear to mean literally SFA when some chassis's can run at 150kph and have a 25pt damage Alpha with 5t of ML's versus one that carries a 9pt Alpha for the same 5t allotment. We are, after all, all after "true weapons balance" right?

Edited by Almond Brown, 05 January 2016 - 06:56 AM.

[Almond Brown]

AztecD, on 04 January 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

quirks should be based on the weapon,

Generic PPC - Base stats same

Donal[PPC] TharHes Industries +5% Recharge rate
Kinslaughter [PPC] Krupp Stellar Technologies Inc. +6% Range
Magna Hellstar[PPC] Aldis Industries -7% Heat Generation

Etc

but since MWO does not have any market, or planets or anything regarding travel and logistics, its a moot point

So you believe if the current "Quirks" in play read "Magna Hellstar[PPC] Aldis Industries -7% Heat Generation" as you propose, instead of reading "Energy Heat Generation: -7.00%" as they do now things would somehow miraculous be way better and folks would suddenly be "cool" with the whole thing?

Do yourself a favor, Next time you read a Mechs "Quirks" simply put some made up manufacturers name in its place, like "Kinslaughter [PPC] Krupp Stellar Technologies Inc. +6% Range" and pretend. That way everything will be alright with MWO...

Edited by Almond Brown, 05 January 2016 - 07:05 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Almond Brown, on 05 January 2016 - 06:54 AM, said:

Can we get your take on how best to change the "Base Stats" for say 5t's of I.S. ML versus 5t of I.S. LL? Oh and "added range" or "Heat" would appear to mean literally SFA when some chassis's can run at 150kph and have a 25pt damage Alpha with 5t of ML's versus one that carries a 9pt Alpha for the same 5t allotment. We are, after all, all after "true weapons balance" right?

You mean 7 heat VS 20 heat?

Extend LL to 500M, swap burn times(option), but not that much is needed.

Comparing 5 small weapons to a single large isn't a favourable comparison, especially since the isLL is mediocre to begin with.
I'd argue the isML needs a buff to 3 heat if it took the duration nerf.


You should iterative test smaller changes like that until things work. Look at 6 MLs to 3LPLs, 30 damage to 33 damage, 6 tons to 21...why would you ever take the LPLs according to what you're saying above...but the LPLs are straight up better, longer range, shorter duration, less heat, but it costs tonnage.

A balance? I don't know, but it feels alright. LL are just mediocre compared to both.

Edited by Mcgral18, 05 January 2016 - 07:07 AM.

[TexAce]

4EVR, on 04 January 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

That's a really interesting idea. Have they ever tried turning pinpoint convergence off? It would certainly be more fitting in terms of the lore.

With all the different weapon types, two tech trees, the quirk system, weird hardpoints, and different opinions on how the game should play, achieving complete balance is always going to be difficult. For example, should lights and mediums be strictly inferior to heavies and assaults in terms of actual damage potential, or should all mechs have similar damage potential if played according to their strengths? Or how do you balance a mech with terrible weapon mounts?

The nice thing with the quirks is that they make it easy to do small incremental changes. If you change many things at once it's impossible to tell what each change does.

Sandpit, on 04 January 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

PPD/FLD has been a "hot" topic since CB, PGI has never seemed concerned about it.

I agree with Khobai as well, but I don't think heat scale or loss of PPD individually would fix much overall, both of them though would create a much more diverse field of operations for the types of builds taken.

Thats only half the story.
in Closed Beta, we had convergence, you couldnt hit with all your weapons onto the same spot while moving or twisting.
However, they disabled it when they introduced HSR (Hit-State-Rewind) because of the hitreg problems. Hitreg got better, and convergence was gone.

The last thing heard about it was Russ stating that its a programming problem to get HSR to work together with convergence flawlessly. They just are not able to solve that puzzle. Dont ask why, too lazy, no skills, no programmer...I dunno.

However, IF they would solve the problem and we could get convergence back, the game would be much different.

[Almond Brown]

Mcgral18, on 05 January 2016 - 07:05 AM, said:

You mean 7 heat VS 20 heat?

Extend LL to 500M, swap burn times(option), but not that much is needed.

Comparing 5 small weapons to a single large isn't a favourable comparison, especially since the isLL is mediocre to begin with.
I'd argue the isML needs a buff to 3 heat if it took the duration nerf.

You should iterative test smaller changes like that until things work. Look at 6 MLs to 3LPLs, 30 damage to 33 damage, 6 tons to 21...why would you ever take the LPLs according to what you're saying above...but the LPLs are straight up better, longer range, shorter duration, less heat, but it costs tonnage.

A balance? I don't know, but it feels alright. LL are just mediocre compared to both.

Fair enough, but I get the sense that "but it feels alright" just isn't gonna cut it with much of the playing Community. Everyone has a "take" on what "feels alright". That is not anywhere near true "balance" in the grand scheme.

As you noted, 3 LPL's weigh a staggering 21t vs the ML's 6t. Do you realize how many Mechs "can't even carry" 3 LPL's and still have any decent semblance of Armor and or Heat Sinks, but can carry 6 ML's given Hard points?

Many weapons cannot be "balanced" across the board for that exact reason, but Mechs of all classes should be able to compete based on what they can carry. Thus "quirks" afford many that ability to compete.

P.S. "Real Balance" is a gross misnomer anyways and will "never" be achieved simply because "everyone" has a different take on what "feels alright" in the end.

[MechWarrior5152251]

MOAR CRACK!

[Sandpit]

MrJeffers, on 04 January 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

If you don't balance against the boating you get the super powered mechs and garbage mechs because you have balanced around the top end of the scale and curtailed that while nerfing everything below it because a ML needs to be hotter than it should be. Ending up with a hand full of chassis that are worth anything, just like we had before quriks.

balancing against boating is handled by ghost heat.
Now your opinion on ghost heat or the number of a weapon needed to trigger ghost heat are a different conversation all the way around but irrelevant to that being the mechanic used to balance boating in MWO.

Again, you balance a weapon based on it's place against other weapon systems, then you use quirks, ghost heat, etc. to balance the individual "exploits" of those weapons and mitigate the min/max boating and builds.

Point being, you can't balance like you're discussing because if you nerf a weapon based on the boating output, you wind up completely ruining that weapon when it isn't boated.

That's just one example of why trying to balance like that is a bad idea. We've seen it here in the past. Ok great, now (insert weapon here) is balanced when you boar 5 of them, but what about the builds which only use one?

A weapon balance is based on that individual weapon, not "what if" scenarios

[Mcgral18]

Almond Brown, on 05 January 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Fair enough, but I get the sense that "but it feels alright" just isn't gonna cut it with much of the playing Community. Everyone has a "take" on what "feels alright". That is not anywhere near true "balance" in the grand scheme.

As you noted, 3 LPL's weigh a staggering 21t vs the ML's 6t. Do you realize how many Mechs "can't even carry" 3 LPL's and still have any decent semblance of Armor and or Heat Sinks, but can carry 6 ML's given Hard points?

Many weapons cannot be "balanced" across the board for that exact reason, but Mechs of all classes should be able to compete based on what they can carry. Thus "quirks" afford many that ability to compete.

P.S. "Real Balance" is a gross misnomer anyways and will "never" be achieved simply because "everyone" has a different take on what "feels alright" in the end.

Balance is subjective, but the MG, Flamer, LBx family and missiles is hard to argue against being pretty bad to Terribad.

A 45 tonner can comfortably take 3LPLs (partially quirks, they make it effective), and anything larger. It's a pretty typical loadout (because LPLs are kickass weapons), between decent range, good damage, excellent duration and reasonable heat. Add low hardpoint count, and they're good.
A 65 tonner can do it with an STD. An Assault can do it with 20 heatsinks and backup lasers.

[Khobai]

Quote

how so?
It didn't turn TT into ballistics warrior did it?

Heat penalties wouldnt work in MWO specifically because its real time while TT was turnbased. TT had a turn structure which clearly defined exactly when heat penalties started, how long they lasted, when they ended, and when heat was dissipated. That type of turn structure is absent from MWO because youre constantly spiking and dissipating heat... and thats further complicated by weapons all having different cooldowns.

For example, in tabletop, an awesome can fire 3 PPCs without incurring heat penalties because of the order in which things occur during the turn phases. But in MWO, under the dumb 30 heat limit some people want, if you fired those same 3 PPCs you would spike your heat and immediately incur maximum heat penalties.

Translating heat penalties to real time would be extremely messy and it would basically kill off any weapons that spike heat while heavily favoring weapons that consistently run cool (i.e. ballistics). Its definitely not a good idea.

Again convergence is the underlying problem. The problem isnt allowing an awesome to fire 3 ppcs simultaneously. The problem is allowing them all to hit the same locatoin.

Edited by Khobai, 05 January 2016 - 11:00 AM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

Heat penalties wouldnt work in MWO specifically because its real time while TT was turnbased. TT had a turn structure which clearly defined exactly when heat penalties started, how long they lasted, when they ended, and when heat was dissipated. That type of turn structure is absent from MWO because youre constantly spiking and dissipating heat... and thats further complicated by weapons all having different cooldowns.

For example, in tabletop, an awesome can fire 3 PPCs without incurring heat penalties because of the order in which things occur during the turn phases. But in MWO, under the dumb 30 heat limit some people want, if you fired those same 3 PPCs you would spike your heat and immediately incur maximum heat penalties.

Translating heat penalties to real time would be extremely messy and it would basically kill off any weapons that spike heat while heavily favoring weapons that consistently run cool (i.e. ballistics). Its definitely not a good idea.

Again convergence is the underlying problem. The problem isnt allowing an awesome to fire 3 ppcs simultaneously. The problem is allowing them all to hit the same locatoin.

Then you adjust the heat scale. It's not rocket science

I agree completely with you regarding instant convergence, but PGI is deaf to any and all ideas on this particular subject. It's not even really that they're deaf, they just think they can fix it with band-aids like ghost heat.

Heat is the other underlying issue. Until there is an actual consequence for running hot, heat means next to nothing. You can quite literally run at 99% of your heat scale the entire game and have not detrimental effects. Mech combat was always designed around heat being the major balancing factor.

EDIT:
Also, you're talking about some heat scale that someone else has suggested.

Ok, if you think their specific idea wouldn't work, that doesn't mean "heat scale" ideas rely on whatever basis the other guy's idea was based upon.

Edited by Sandpit, 05 January 2016 - 11:07 AM.