47 replies to this topic

[DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley]

1. Too often in general do I see nerf [x] buff [y] yet hardly is any useful feedback given of why.

2. Balance always is and always will be an opinion. Just because PGI doesn't impliment your 5 page essay on what weapon you're trying to buff/nerf doesn't mean they don't read or "listen" feedback. It just means maybe they just don't agree with your opinion.

3. Giving the correct feedback: When you decide to make your topic on the weapon or tech in the game just give the reason you don't use it ([x] weapon/s is crap, is not a reason). You're more than welcome to give your opinion on how it should be fixed, but I think the feedback gets lost when you're telling PGI what to do instead of why you do or do not use it.

4. Try it out!
A. Post why you like/dislike certain weapons/tech
B. Don't tell others they're wrong it's an opinion remember not everyone will agree, and your job isn't to make them agree. If you do share the same mindset you can quote the person and type (This, Agree, Etc.)
C. Keep it on topic. Threads often get off topic when people can't respect "B"

[Aiden Skye]

Nerf blackjacks. That is all.

[DaZur]

DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 23 January 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

1. Too often in general do I see nerf [x] buff [y] yet hardly is any useful feedback given of why.

2. Balance always is and always will be an opinion. Just because PGI doesn't impliment your 5 page essay on what weapon you're trying to buff/nerf doesn't mean they don't read or "listen" feedback. It just means maybe they don't agree with it.

QFT.

This community is diseased with this mentality. Folks seem to expect PGI to roll into a opinion topic, plate it in gold, thank the poster for being universally brilliant and immediately implement their idea with reckless abandon.

I hope for their sake this does not match their real world expectations because if so they must be perpetually disappointed.

[TheCharlatan]

#neverforget

[Mcgral18]

It's been 1.5 years since paul Giganerfed MGs, then later outright nerfed their damage by 20%.


Fix the damage, put it back to 1 DPS, revert that 20% damage nerf.
Remove, or heavily reign in their CoF. Currently a radius of 1.5M. Bring it down to 15CM on the isMG and 25CM on the cMG.
They're rubbish weapons.


4 year Anniversary of useless Flamers coming up in 4 months. How about we fix that?
Remove exponential heat gain. Add damage. Keep, or abandon, exponential heat gain for the target, I really don't care about that.
Give them 2 DPS, to the 1 DPS of MGs (but with heat, shorter ranged, twice the weight).

[Sjorpha]

DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 23 January 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

1. Too often in general do I see nerf [x] buff [y] yet hardly is any useful feedback given of why.

I think there are quite a lot of feedback a lot of the time. Some problems are quite simple though. For example: The flamer is weak. Why? Because it neither does any useful damage or heats up enemy mechs enough to matter, along with heating your own mech exponentially more over time fired. There isn't really anything more to say about it, it needs a significant buff to compete with other weapons.

The same is true of LBX, LRM20 and machine guns, they are simply very weak weapons for easily explained reasons. You don't really need much feedback to motivate buffing them, and there is nothing complex about buffing them either.

Quote

2. Balance always is and always will be an opinion. Just because PGI doesn't impliment your 5 page essay on what weapon you're trying to buff/nerf doesn't mean they don't read or "listen" feedback. It just means maybe they just don't agree with your opinion.

There are opinions about balance, but balance itself is not an opinion. Games are closed universes with a limited set of moves and a single goal, to win. The winning moves are in principle within a deterministic set of possibilities that can be objectively looked at, some moves or series of moves are more consistently winning moves while others are more consistently losing moves.

This is just as true about MWO as it is true about chess or any other game, the only difference is how complex and how asymmetric the game is. There is nothing exceptionally complex about MWO that makes the reality of it's balance different from other games.

Because balance in a game is a function of a limited ruleset in a closed mini universe, it IS possible for your opinions about balance to be right or wrong.

In theory, you can only know about balance with absolute certainty if there is a state of optimal play. Only if every move made with a certain setup is absolutely optimal is it possible to completely isolate the strength of a given move/weapon/strategy. But since there is no such state to study, you have to look at games representing the current peak in optimized play, you have to study the best players in the game and what they do. That is not to say those players know the answers themselves, they migh be completely wrong about why their own play is strong in some cases, it isn't their opinions you need, it is to study the game as played BY them.

The highest level play in MWO might still have a ways to go, it is a relatively young scene with relatively few contenders, but it is still good enough to know quite a lot about balance issues.

Edited by Sjorpha, 23 January 2016 - 12:45 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

W A R K H A N, on 23 January 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

Nerf blackjacks. That is all.

Russ has said they're going too. I don't plan on seeing them used here soon. Only 1 I use now is the bj1x after the last two nerfs I'm having a hard time picking it out of my drop deck now. Most the time I am just skipping it and going with a light.

[Monkey Lover]

The point were at now with balance is so good I don't see any large changes. What matters now is who you get on your team and how they work together.


Sure a few mechs are low end but over all not the worst. If you give a 12 man team a junk mech and a 12 man pug the best meta the team will win with junk.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 23 January 2016 - 02:14 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

DaZur, on 23 January 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

QFT.

This community is diseased with this mentality. Folks seem to expect PGI to roll into a opinion topic, plate it in gold, thank the poster for being universally brilliant and immediately implement their idea with reckless abandon.

I hope for their sake this does not match their real world expectations because if so they must be perpetually disappointed.

At the end of the day, PGI has final say on balance.

There was a time, when a game's community, didn't get listened to at all. In this age of the internet, we've grown spoiled with the level of interaction we get with developers.

And have forgotten, that a game developer, has the final say on what they do. And are not beholden to the user's whims.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I agree with this method of suggesting change. Any suggested change to the game should have a reasonable argument behind it.

That goes for the Devs, as well as the players.
_______________

That said, please fix the isXL fragility + over-Quirk double-imbalance.

I've laid out the arguments logically and reasonably many times before.

It really is the best solution to core the game's core imbalance and the most meaningful step toward real balance that can be take as of now.

[Divine Retribution]

Implement the AC/2 cooldown module. Previously a single AC/2 could trigger ghost heat if the cooldown module existed, which is why it was never implemented. Now that AC/2s no longer generate ghost heat, a cooldown module should exist.

Implement modules for clan standard ACs as well unless PGI manages to replace them with LBX ammo swapping. They are a placeholder, which is why modules weren't implemented before, but they've been holding a place for a long time now.

Edited by Divine Retribution, 23 January 2016 - 10:55 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 23 January 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

I agree with this method of suggesting change. Any suggested change to the game should have a reasonable argument behind it.

That goes for the Devs, as well as the players.
_______________

That said, please fix the isXL fragility + over-Quirk double-imbalance.

I've laid out the arguments logically and reasonably many times before.

It really is the best solution to core the game's core imbalance and the most meaningful step toward real balance that can be take as of now.

IS XL fragility, is part of the lore, I seriously doubt it's going anywhere, it's also part of the critical hit's system.

In Battletech, the Engine of a mech is destroyed completely apon taking 3 critical hits. An Inner Sphere XL engine, takes up 3 critical slots in a side torso. Thus the loss of a side torso = the loss of the IS XL engine.

Where your desire for XL's to be stronger comes from, is you want the weight saving of an XL engine, while reaping the rewards of it's fewer crit cost over taking Endo. A fair desire, but one inherently flawed by your desire to have greater rewards for less hazards. The trade off for weight savings for IS XL, is the crit danger. That's the balance.

And it would be 100% fine if we wern't dealing with Clan Tech... but for whatever reason, it's been decided Battletech cannot be profitable without jumping the timeline to 3050+, instead of making a 3025 era game that has basic tech to balance around.

In your mind, clans have an advantage in MWO because all clan mechs have XL engines that "arguably" function like a standard engine [save for the fact that an IS standard engine, can zombie, where no clan mech can zombie.] Which is a false notion.

I do however agree that the quirk imbalance needs to be looked at... likely with "part specific" quirks that focus on locations of weaponry.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 23 January 2016 - 10:53 PM, said:

IS XL fragility, is part of the lore, I seriously doubt it's going anywhere, it's also part of the critical hit's system.

In Battletech, the Engine of a mech is destroyed completely apon taking 3 critical hits. An Inner Sphere XL engine, takes up 3 critical slots in a side torso. Thus the loss of a side torso = the loss of the IS XL engine.

Where your desire for XL's to be stronger comes from, is you want the weight saving of an XL engine, while reaping the rewards of it's fewer crit cost over taking Endo. A fair desire, but one inherently flawed by your desire to have greater rewards for less hazards. The trade off for weight savings for IS XL, is the crit danger. That's the balance.

And it would be 100% fine if we wern't dealing with Clan Tech... but for whatever reason, it's been decided Battletech cannot be profitable without jumping the timeline to 3050+, instead of making a 3025 era game that has basic tech to balance around.

In your mind, clans have an advantage in MWO because all clan mechs have XL engines that "arguably" function like a standard engine [save for the fact that an IS standard engine, can zombie, where no clan mech can zombie.] Which is a false notion.

I do however agree that the quirk imbalance needs to be looked at... likely with "part specific" quirks that focus on locations of weaponry.

isXL fragility isn't really part of lore, it's part of TT rules. The critical hit system is also a holdover from TT.

Those rules do not provide a viable framework for a video game.

Even if it were part of lore proper, we should still make this change in the interest of balance. Many aspect of MWO do not follow TT values or lore.

Why is this (very unbalancing) point be the place that we should stick to TT values? The answer: It shouldn't be.

This imbalance leads to all kinds of other complications; over-Quirking IS chassis to make up for the bad choices of either isXL fragility or STD slow + tonnage foremost among them.

These choices, compared with cXL engines being relative awesomesauce, are just bad.

We don't need to stick to bad TT holdovers. This game can stand on its own and make all engines viable choices.

(Edit: IIC 'Mechs can zombie, if they really want to. But in the current environment, why would they?)

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 23 January 2016 - 11:33 PM.

[adamts01]

DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 23 January 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

Balance always is and always will be an opinion.

Not really. There are stats that tell exactly which weapons and mechs are doing the most damage and winning the most matches. Small nerfs on the top performers solves the problem. It's a never ending cycle, but the numbers are all there.

[Alistair Winter]

There's a reason PGI mainly communicates with the fans via Twitter. We used to have monthly 'ask the devs', remember that? They didn't remove that feature for the sake of saving bandwidth, I'll tell you that.

These threads about constructive feedback always seem to exaggerate the importance of the forums.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 23 January 2016 - 11:28 PM, said:

isXL fragility isn't really part of lore, it's part of TT rules. The critical hit system is also a holdover from TT.

Those rules do not provide a viable framework for a video game.

Even if it were part of lore proper, we should still make this change in the interest of balance. Many aspect of MWO do not follow TT values or lore.

Why is this (very unbalancing) point be the place that we should stick to TT values? The answer: It shouldn't be.

This imbalance leads to all kinds of other complications; over-Quirking IS chassis to make up for the bad choices of either isXL fragility or STD slow + tonnage foremost among them.

These choices, compared with cXL engines being relative awesomesauce, are just bad.

We don't need to stick to bad TT holdovers. This game can stand on its own and make all engines viable choices.

(Edit: IIC 'Mechs can zombie, if they really want to. But in the current environment, why would they?)

Those rules are entirely viable for a video game. Hell Mechwarrior 2 used em, as did Mech 3.

XL's squishy nature, is fine. You simply want a better bonus for using XL for the weight savings. When the fragility is part of the trade off for the weight savings.

With Ferro or Endo, you sacrifice critical space for the weight savings... with XL, you get the squishy nature for less overall crits taken up.

It's called "Balancing"... and personally, I'm 100% fine with this. [it's also why I prefer Standard engines, and basically refuse to use XL's in anything beyond light mechs.]

Not every mech needs an XL man.

And why zombie? Because let me tell you, I can't count the number of times the single medium laser on my HBK4G, or 2 centerline lasers on my Atlas, or CN9-A have saved my sorry behind, and in some cases, actually won the match for my team. Something that wouldn't have been possible if I'd been running XL.

Edited by CMDR Sunset Shimmer, 24 January 2016 - 01:42 AM.

[RoboPatton]

I just want to point out there is a big difference between "Nerf" and "Balance".

Drives me nuts when people blanket statment "NERF BLAH"

NO! I SAY BALANCE THE BLAH!

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 24 January 2016 - 01:37 AM, said:

Those rules are entirely viable for a video game. Hell Mechwarrior 2 used em, as did Mech 3.

XL's squishy nature, is fine. You simply want a better bonus for using XL for the weight savings. When the fragility is part of the trade off for the weight savings.

With Ferro or Endo, you sacrifice critical space for the weight savings... with XL, you get the squishy nature for less overall crits taken up.

It's called "Balancing"... and personally, I'm 100% fine with this. [it's also why I prefer Standard engines, and basically refuse to use XL's in anything beyond light mechs.]

Not every mech needs an XL man.

And why zombie? Because let me tell you, I can't count the number of times the single medium laser on my HBK4G, or 2 centerline lasers on my Atlas, or CN9-A have saved my sorry behind, and in some cases, actually won the match for my team. Something that wouldn't have been possible if I'd been running XL.

First:
MW2 and MW3 were both really campaign-based PvE games. So balance was never an issue (probably not even much of a consideration). That is, they could safely ignore balance and still have success because there was no competition.

MWO does not have this luxury. Competition necessitates balance.

Second:
You mistake why I want these changes. It has nothing to do with me personally. I am perfectly happy to run Clan 'Mechs all day.

What it has to do with is fair competition and the fact that I want this game to be the best it can be.

I like playing MWO, I want PGI to succeed and grow. Thus, I don't want them to spend resources in arbitrary ways. Moreover, for MWO to succeed and grow, PGI needs to provide a fair field of competition.

XL engines being squishy is fine, as long as they are equally squishy for everyone. Currently, cXL is comparatively good (even with the ST loss penalties, which I like); but isXL and all STD engines are both comparatively bad.

This is further exacerbated by the durability Quirks (over-Quirks) which are ultimately arbitrary. Since we're using Quirks to fix durability, we can't rightly use them to add uniqueness and flavor to a chassis/variant.

Take the Centurion for example. In order to make it competitively durable, its durabilty Quirks make absolutely no sense. Why does it have extra armor on it's RA when it has a shield on its LA? To me, that shield on its LA should be represented by an armor Quirk... because that's what a shield is. But, because of the use of Quirks to fix durability in general, neither RA or LA armor seems anything special; but it should be.

Durabilty Quirks also results in XL running IS 'Mechs feeling a little two-faced. They're over-durable and then dead. For STD running 'Mechs it means they typically just aren't competitive in the firepower front.

Take the Marauder for example. It's Janus: feels plenty tanky until someone super-alpha's an ST.

This is also unfair from the point of view of Clans. It takes more shots (with higher-powered weapons) to take down an IS 'Mech. That is effectively the same as making Clan 'Mechs glassy.

Thus we have a situation where there are multiple layers of imbalance and an impossibility of deciding fairly where the balance should lie.

However, should we make isXL function like cXL (with slightly different penalties for ST loss) and simultaneously buff all STD engines (with structure or hit points) we can strip off all those arbitrary durability Quirks and the whole conundrum evaporates.

[DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley]

adamts01, on 23 January 2016 - 11:55 PM, said:

Not really. There are stats that tell exactly which weapons and mechs are doing the most damage and winning the most matches. Small nerfs on the top performers solves the problem. It's a never ending cycle, but the numbers are all there.

Here take a look at this scenario to prove its strictly opinion.

>Be me Jordan Wiseman
>Need to introduce some kick *** bad guys
>Creat Clans
>They are so OP it shows how advanced they are to "underdog" IS plebs
>I did this on purpose because it's what I the Developer wanted to do
>Old fans got salty hated Clans new kids played only clans old vs new, underdog vs the big cheese
>Reguardless I made a boat load of money I wasn't even mad
>I'm reviving Battletech
>Going back to the roots and asking for your money now that you're old and have more

In many people's opinion Clans were not "balanced" yet to create the balance the Wiseman wanted it was his idea "opinion" of balance.

TL;DR

The Developers are the ones in control, their opinion of balance is law.

Edited by DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, 24 January 2016 - 06:23 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 03:44 AM, said:

XL engines being squishy is fine, as long as they are equally squishy for everyone. Currently, cXL is comparatively good (even with the ST loss penalties, which I like); but isXL and all STD engines are both comparatively bad.

Except Clan XL engines ARE equally as squishy... they die on 3 critical hits just like IS XL engines. They just don't have 3 crits taking up a single side torso.

But they are literally, from a crit basis, only 2 less crit heavy than their IS counterparts. They still die on the x3 critical hits rule.

Also, standard engines are not "Bad" they are Heavy, yes, they take up weight, but not as much space, they are the Standard weight... XL's are special equipment[except for clan, where XL is the standard equipment] The are not intended to be the end all, they are ment to be an option, with a downside.

Feel free to run your clan mechs m8, I'll continue to wreck clanners with my standard engine IS machines.