Quote
As for many latter arguments, your idea of providing balance comes too steeply against the technical Battletech basis, which PGI still tries to maintain. It's true, that they've neglected the lore components, that led to the unequality of one player over another, but they keep the specific 3052 timeline in order to maintain the order in development process.
It's a big issue, that I take over your suggestions, that together with lore it would require the forsaking of timeline and technical basis as well, i.e. neglecting and misfiguring the very nature of canonical Battlemechs. A this point we're talking about making a completely separate game, which indeed would be much easier, but is not the case in our situation.
I see where you're coming from but by implementing the weapons early you make balancing easier because in BT the IS had counters to Clan tech. There wouldn't be much need for quirks, but if PGI truly wanted to stick to the feel of BT and be canonically accurate they would've introduced 12 IS vs 10 Clan matches in CW (I can't remember who did it but someone ran the numbers and found that this would work in MWO, 9/10 times IS would win due to sheer numbers) and kept Clan tech at its superiority, instead they went bonkers with the quirk system and did an entire 180 to satisfy the IS fan base. That's the reason the game is in its current state of imbalance (IS superiority after Clan nerf and quirk introduction), IS player base is larger than the Clans and as a consequence if they complain about XYZ, then XYZ will get nerfed.
Quote
Another big issue here, is that you're rounding up the differences to a minimum, while making a lot of things the same, rather than equal. This is what the majority of forum-dwelling population speaks for, but it is not a productive way of balancing. Each time you're making something the same for both parties, you're removing a part of a reason for another party to exist. Different factions and principles is a common choice scheme for lots and lots of games of different genres. There's nothing exotic about it. The problem with IS/Clan balance were not that they were too different, but just weren't equal. Now they're extremely close to being equal, but the sacrifices and methods applied to achieve this state are all wrong.
This does mean, that another way to counter the Clantech advantage is required, rather than using quirks. But it does not means, there's no such way possible, and we just have to reduce the differences to a minimum possible degree. Combining all the suggestions in your spreadsheet, that is what you suggest has to be done.
When you're making a balance suggestion, you should not try to accomodate all the particular issues. What you need to do is to imagine a final goal, where everything is as close to balance as possible. When you're shooting for each issue separately, there's a great chance of the final picture being nothing like what you'd expect.
The only things I called for being equal were FF, ES, XL engine destruction and giving both factions the TC (IS did get it eventually anyway). As for weapons, the aren't the same nor are they equal (same and equal are not congruent terms). I added weapons and equipment that only the IS has access to, same with the Clans. The stats aren't equal either, this adds diversity between the factions. If all the stats were the same we might as well just have the 5th Succession Wars.
I have a good picture of what these balance changes would do to the game and in my opinion it would make it feel more like Mechwarrior rather than 'Big Stompy Robots'. As it stands right now the game is just a generic 'Big Stompy Robots' game using Battletech rights, it doesn't feel like I'm in a war zone and that's mainly down to the current balance state. CW games aren't as close as they should be in terms of engagement ranges, on the tabletop there wasn't that much of a hex difference between the IS and the Clan yet in the game right now Clans are out ranged by a fair margin.
Quote
Finally, there's a balance involved into everything in our life. That includes the freedom of choice. There's too little choice and too much choice. Your suggestions are bringing in too much choice - same mechs with reworked hardpoints, all the equipment, upgrades, weapons, ammo types, etc. While some of your suggestions seem to accomodate for new players, giving so much choice for them is highly detrimental. Even now people are asking what mechs to buy and how to build them, but with all these new features and freedoms to do this and that, I imagine, even most experienced players will be puzzled what do with all of it.
Of course over time some specific popular trends will arise (a.k.a. Meta-game), and a majority of new equipment will be brushed off and will be abandoned. For new players they would remain equally unknown, and there would be not even slight indication of what a mech is good for and which weapons would work better for one or another.
I've played the table top and every mechwarrior/commander game and a plethora of weapons and equipment to choose from is what made them so great. We currently have weapons that aren't used as much but that's due more to game bugs (PPC) than anything. I use all the weapons on the Clan side on my Mechs, with the exception of standard AC's because they shouldn't be in the game. I wouldn't stop using UAC 5's just because I had access to RAC 5's nor would I neglect various laser weapons in favour of heavy lasers.
There's always going to be weapons better for certain situations but that's the whole point about warfare, there is no jack of all trades weapon, I should know I did 3 tours, 1 in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan. I never once used my L115A3 or my AS-50 (had to buy this myself because the british government is cheap, it's still tucked away at sandhurst
) at any range inside 1km instead I used my L129A1.
The same goes for Mechwarrior, you're not going to use an ERLL specifically for brawling as that would be inefficient. Just like you're not going to use an AC 10 round for sniping, for the same reason. Adding in more weapons gives people more choice to make more efficient loadouts, lets take a look at IS X-Pulse lasers. X-Pulse have more range than standard Pulse Lasers but generate more heat, now the big question is, is that range worth the extra heat for the build your making? Or would a standard Large Laser do the trick more efficiently? Albeit making you more prone to being shot back while waiting for the burn time to end.
Adding extra weapons and equipment doesn't make things more confusing if one is willing to take the time to crunch the numbers. At the end of the day, Battletech is a numbers game, Mechwarrior is just a platform for you to take those numbers and shove them up another Mechs exhaust pipe... violently
Quote
Artemis upgrade is only beneficial when targeting a mech in direct visibility. It's an upgrade, that allows the usage of LRMs for direct combat. That includes both target lock speed and accucary. Indirect LRM fire does not benefit from Artemis in any degree. It was never the right way for LRM boat to acquire it's own locks. Back by the time-line it was a necessity due to the rarity of C3-network during lostech Succession Wars era.
And no, in lore LRMs not only were not dumb, they were self-guided, which means they were capable of tracking their target without an outside assistance the moment they were armed. So in MWO, by losing the target without a consistent lock-on, they're actually nerfed. Aside from that, by lore once again, TAG and NARC are rarely mounted on LRM mechs themselves - it was the role of specific units to mark targets closer to the front-line, so that Artillery could be used.
The reason why LRMs are abused, is due to the ~50% increase to it's maximum range. This same increase is what stands in a way for making them more reliable, and their low reliability is what makes them seen as subpar weapons by competetive players like me.
My proposed change is that Artemis always improves accuracy regardless of sight but it doesn't improve lock time. That's what TAG and NARC are for. Artemis was a guidance system not a sensor network or sensor aide.
I remember when playing BT I had to aim for the HEX not the actual mech in question, now when NARC came into play it was a different story because the missiles went for the NARC improving to hit chance. I also used to equip my Catapults with TAG because it also improved to hit chance because missiles are considered smart track weapons but to actually have them smart track you had to have visual line of sight or someone using TAG/NARC.
That's all I was suggesting with Artemis, TAG and NARC. To create a symbiotic relationship between the 3.
Quote
When shooting an AC/20, there's a skill-based probability that you'd hit with 20 damage, or miss. When shooting an C-UAC/20, there's a skill-based probability of hitting anywhere from 0 to 4 of 5 damage shells. So it's all comes down to how well you're using a weapon - with a short burst duration, it's not that hard to hit a single location, as many prefer to believe, moreso for lower C-UAC calibers.
To put it into a proper perspective, an C-UAC20 is a weapon, that weights as much as IS AC/10, while having roughly 80% chance to output the damage twice as much as IS AC/20, with higher optimal range. The burst-fire mechanic seems very miscallenous when compared to these differences in performance. Your suggested changes only make that mechanic even less relevant, ignoring the fact, that otherwise Clan ACs are clearly superior by all considerations. It might seem logical in a light of you also promoting all the BT weapons to be implemented, but which I myself would never support.
I get your point but that is when considering that the IS doesn't have access to their own UAC 20. My proposed change was for the addition of IS UAC's. If you give the IS the UAC 20 then your point is mute, having it at 2 projectiles rather than 4 is more than ample of a nerf for the UAC's if the IS stays at 1. It takes less skill to fire 1 round than it does to maintain 4 on target, it also opens you up for return fire a lot more making the 1 round safer and more efficient than the 4.
Quote
It has nothing to do with range, but with damage output of C-ERLLs. And Ghost-Heat issue has nothing to do with heat-sinks, but with 30 base heat capacity units, that are built into each mech independently. For example, such system will allow any mech on IS side with sufficient tonnage to output a 5xPPC alpha-strike without overheating, while Clans would likely respond with 4xUAC/20 extermination bursts. If there's no changes accounting for such possibilities, players will once again complain for the return of Ghost Heat.
If you look at the spreadsheet you'll noticed that I said "Either get rid of Ghost Heat or make it identical for both IS and Clan. If IS can fire 3 Large Lasers without Ghost Heat then so should the Clans".
This was my way of saying to PGI, make the Ghost Heat system identical, I'd rather it stay in place to combat the situation you just described of 5xPPC etc.
Penalizing a faction by giving the other faction the ability to fire more often with more alpha with a specific weapon type is a little harsh. For example currently 3 IS ERLL = 27 damage, 2 Clan ERLL = 22. The Clans can use 3 ERLL for 33 damage but we pay a heavy price in heat and since we have worse heat management than IS thanks to Quirks and the last DHS nefr (which made it almost the same as a standard when it should be right in the middle). If it was up to me Large Lasers would be capped at 2 giving the IS with my changes 16 and the Clan 20. IS would have shorter burn time, Clan longer range and unlike PGI's current max range mechanic mine would have a sharper fall off for lasers meaning the range difference isn't as prevalent as it is in the current state of the game.
Quote
This does not means, that the influx of game content has to stop. It does seems weird for PGI to arrive to some balance solutions, but it's most likely due to the lack of experience in that department and very limited time they spend playing their own game to acquire a proper perspective. Thus, they might need more experienced game designers to work together with Paul, or some dedicated live-server testers, that would share their independent opinions with the staff, or to maintain a more open discussion platform with extensive polling, or whatever it might be.
Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with mech design. New mechs are high-quality content, which provides PGI with relatively stable income, and there's plenty more to add even in current time-line framework. They're not detrimental to game balance in any way. What values and properties are placed upon these mechs is what affects balance, but again, it has nothing to do with mechs themselves. As chief IT manager, you are aware of the workflow in a department you maintain. An artist or a modeller most likely will not be able to provide an resourceful input on balance, which he/she's not involved with, and certainly not at expense of his own workflow progress
Mechs are their income yes, that's why I suggested that Hero Mechs keep quirks but tone them down a lot while removing the quirks off all standard variants. This secures a source of income. How to balance this? Improve hard points on standard mechs to compensate.
The Mechs themselves aren't detrimental to balance, the quirks they throw onto them are. If they can hash out the balance and still provide new content then that would be great but I personally lack any confidence in this notion.
I agree that PGI doesn't spend enough time playing the game, they look at statistics during major events like Tukkayyid which is a very bad idea since the big merc units like -MS- and 228 etc dictate those events. Which brings back the point I made previously on the forums that PGI needs to balance it on a Mech vs Mech, Weapon vs Weapon, Equipment vs Equipment basis and not on a Player Skill basis.
Having a dedicated tester player base that's split
EQUALLY among IS and Clan would be the best bet, that way when 1 side whines it isn't a majority like we have now.
Open discussions would be a bad idea due to the player base split being majority IS, any vote would be in favour of IS and not be impartial.
Quote
IS has always had that diversity. Providing everyone with everything does not change anything in that regard. Each and every new weapon has to be introduced separately in order to bring it into it's own game-play facet. Otherwise you're implementing a new weapon, that would replace another, or you're just implementing a useless weapon.
Already covered this above so I'll copy paste it.
Quote
I've played the table top and every mechwarrior/commander game and a plethora of weapons and equipment to choose from is what made them so great. We currently have weapons that aren't used as much but that's due more to game bugs (PPC) than anything. I use all the weapons on the Clan side on my Mechs, with the exception of standard AC's because they shouldn't be in the game. I wouldn't stop using UAC 5's just because I had access to RAC 5's nor would I neglect various laser weapons in favour of heavy lasers.
There's always going to be weapons better for certain situations but that's the whole point about warfare, there is no jack of all trades weapon, I should know I did 3 tours, 1 in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan. I never once used my L115A3 or my AS-50 (had to buy this myself because the british government is cheap, it's still tucked away at sandhurst
) at any range inside 1km instead I used my L129A1.
The same goes for Mechwarrior, you're not going to use an ERLL specifically for brawling as that would be inefficient. Just like you're not going to use an AC 10 round for sniping, for the same reason. Adding in more weapons gives people more choice to make more efficient loadouts, lets take a look at IS X-Pulse lasers. X-Pulse have more range than standard Pulse Lasers but generate more heat, now the big question is, is that range worth the extra heat for the build your making? Or would a standard Large Laser do the trick more efficiently? Albeit making you more prone to being shot back while waiting for the burn time to end.
Adding extra weapons and equipment doesn't make things more confusing if one is willing to take the time to crunch the numbers. At the end of the day, Battletech is a numbers game, Mechwarrior is just a platform for you to take those numbers and shove them up another Mechs exhaust pipe... violently
.
Quote
Not really. There's mechs durable enough to effectively brawl and tank damage. There's mechs mobile enough to engage in mid-range skirmishes. Just because in one game-mode on one map, where long-range is more convenient, and people prefer some of those mechs, does not mean they're unbeatable. This is a fabula, which general public chooses to believe and follow (the meta). It doesnt mean, that conventional Gauss with it's PPFLD cannot beat ERLLs with it's doubled damage falloff, it doesn't mean that one or two mechs with Jump-Jets cannot jump over the gate and open it, and it doesnt means, that ERLL is a best weapon unconditionally. Issues with ERLLs and other laser weapons are originating from completely different sources.
Durability, perhaps on the IS side thanks to structure quirks but on the Clan side we don't have the luxury of quirks to the degree the IS gets. For example the little Atlas aka Blackjack that gets +28 CT structure, it's fast, can take a beating and so yes can engage in both brawling and skirmishing effectively.
Clan do have mobility so yes we can skirmish but not as effectively as the IS due to structure quirks (durability) and heat quirks which gives IS the burst DPS advantage by being able to fire off more Alpha's. When skirmishing the alpha strike is king as you want to get in, fire off an alpha or 2 and then survive, the IS excels in this capacity with quirks.
I used ERLL's as an example, the IS also have PPC quirks, Ballistic quirks and Missile quirks that give them an advantage over the Clans but the energy range quirk is by far your biggest asset at the moment. Clans get a few of the aforementioned quirks but not to the degree the IS get.
ERLL spam can be countered but if you have to advance through a choke point and you have 12 ERLL spammers firing 2-3 each by the time you get into cover pretty much everyone on your team is already down by 20%. If the IS built their Mechs correctly and for the sake of argument they did, then you have to face relatively fresh mechs than can do at least 40 points of pinpoint alpha at brawling range while being down 20% and having less structure than your opponent. Not particularly fair, do able don't get me wrong but not fair nonetheless.
Quote
In summary, your suggestions are trying to attribute for particular issues, but they do not follow a certain end-goal state, while the plethora of new variables and choices completely removes the possibility to predict the outcome. Most of them neglect the course, that PGI were following thus far, and also undermine the fundamental values and content already present, which holds MWO in relevance to Battletech universe from theoretical standpoint. I can easily argue against specific points made in regards to particular changes on top of the spreadsheet, which I did, but the mere look at the weapon/equipment table given afterwards instantly drives me to completely ditch the entire thing. Which is unfortunately, by my judgement, would be a valid response from PGI.
I disagree with this statement, the end goal is to have a game that maintains individuality of the factions but keeps them on a relatively balanced state. Now I'm not saying my spreadsheet is the word of "GOD", it can be improved upon and that's why I posted it, I accept all criticism as long as it's constructive, like yours and unlike Der Hesse's.
As stated above the weapons provide a more rounded balance with sharper laser fall off than is currently in the game and provides the Clans with the longer range they should have while not putting the IS on a major back foot like is happening at the moment with the Clans.
Yes more variables means harder to predict future outcomes but that's why PGI has a test server, they could quite easily implement these changes on the test server and get feedback from there. Dismissing it simply because it goes against the "time frame" is sheer folly when you consider that it would solve a lot of the imbalance that's currently in the game. They'll end up in the game eventually, why not put them in now and save a lot of ball ache?
Edited by RaelM, 18 January 2016 - 10:03 AM.
1
RaelM, on 09 January 2016 - 06:34 PM, said:
