14 replies to this topic

[Onimusha shin]

After posting the controversial thread about LASER balance (or lack of in extreme cases) in MWO, leading to the predictable loss of the Clan teams in TheSilken's Clan vs IS competitive event, I've had people asking for TL;DRs or a 'thesis conclusion' for what I was trying to illustrate.

Here's the TL;DR of my thoughts on how MWO's balance should be

• LASER VOMIT IS BORING! AND INNER SPHERE QUIRKED LASER VOMIT IS OP!!!
  
• Leave the super laser quirks for bad chassis with limited and/or low energy hardpoints!
  
• Clans are only left with lasers and Gauss for long range and will typically lose against good IS pilots in good quirked laser vomit mechs.
  
• Balance weapons GLOBALLY first (by doing the following), THEN use quirks to help under-performers.
  
  • Balance weapons internally within their class, across IS and Clan tech.
    
  • Balance weapons ACROSS different weapon classes, make taking each weapon type have their pros and cons over the other weapon classes.
• Balance IS chassis with corresponding structure buffs, according to mounted engine type, ie. IS STD engines get CT structure buffs, IS XL engines get STs structure buffs, NOT BOTH!
  
• Keep the Clans ST loss penalty for now (debatable but PGI needs to placate the IS diehards).
  
• Balance game modes to do more than just team deathball every game mode (still waiting for that asymmetric assault mode) and more meaningful conquest mode (good suggestion from Rak's Armory). This has been addressed in the Town Hall tonight and the plans look AWESOME!
  
• Release more great maps like Polar Highlands (this map is f***ing awesome).
  
• Release more good Clan assault mechs. Current stock of GAR, WHK, EXE and DWF can't poke at all, are only good for receiving pushes, NOT making pushes. Not fully addressed by the Kodiak but it helps a wee bit. But still pay-gated past CW 3's expected launch date.
  
• PSR needs to be a zero-sum classification or percentage (%) of last month's active population with allowance for more players (say 5%?). Better men have proposed better changes. I leave their work here for consideration.
  
  • Kanajashi's "What I Would Change: PSR & Tiers"
    
  • Trevelyas's "Quick Fix for PSR System"

On to my first agenda. NERF LASERS!
Lasers need to be nerfed. Period. They're easy mode. Any pilot can hit with a hitscan weapon. Any competent player will be able to hold the laser on target for most of its movement. Laser burn durations need to go up for practically all of them. If Russ is sincere about balancing the game around competitive 12v12, more needs to be done so that lasers are not the end-all-be-all of the comp scene.

PPCs and ballistics are more skill based weapons than lasers so they need to be buffed to a point where they are considered a viable alternative over lasers.

Hence, I propose the following to be implemented for PTS testing on top of the InfoTech revivaI suggested to improve Role Warfare, which I believe would improve the skill levels of the player base and/or increase TTK by reducing dependence on easy hitscan lasers:

• ALL lasers need higher burn durations (which should be scaled to distance), to make lasers less OP and easy mode. The further its effective range, the longer it should burn.
  
• To balance Clan vs IS, Clans can maintain a range and damage advantage. However, IS laser counterparts should run cooler AND burn 10% shorter. Cooldown on IS lasers can be slightly lower than Clans but balancing needs to be done with tonnage difference, respective tech DHS cooling rate and heat capacity, taken into account. I will try to make a post to balance equivalent medium lasers from both tech bases after this thread starts.
  
• Chassis with low laser mounts should get laser heat gen and burn duration quirk buffs, as should those chassis with limited energy hardpoints.
  
• The above would make ballistics more worth taking. And to buff ballistics, more ammo/ton (something like 30-50% more at least) is needed, especially considering the current projectile velocities and the doubled armor (compared to TT values). To balance IS vs Clan besides the pinpoint single projectile vs multiple burst projectiles on Clan UACs, either give C-UACs more ammo than IS or give them higher velocities. The former is preferred.
  
• Gauss can be left untouched with at most a HP buff so they're not so easily critted and exploded. Cooldown at 5.0s is decent.

Going back to my math
The intention of doing all the math and comparing the stats of Clan weapons and their equivalent IS counterpart lasers (by class and range), was to showcase the imbalance within the laser weapon group between Clan and IS tech bases, caused by PGI's extreme quirks for some IS chassis.

This is exacerbated by the structure buffs for IS (most were needed, some overdone and needs to be scaled back), and the cutting of max range (by 30%) for Clan lasers aside from C-erLL and C-LPL.

So, what're the problems created that my math and tables were able to show?
Taking a QKD-4G's lasers quirks (+15% cooldown, +25% range (about to get nerfed to 10% in Feb), -15% heatgen, -15% duration), the IS erLL out-ranges its Clan counterpart by 14%, produces 47% LESS heat, burns 41% LESS duration, at the cost of 18% less damage. That's not much of a trade-off!

IS LPL vs C-LPL? Out-ranged by 26% but produces 37% LESS heat, burns 46% LESS duration, at the cost of 15% less damage. Fair trade? No bueno!

What abut IS erLL vs C-LPL? Out-ranges C-LPL by 41% 24% but produces 32% LESS heat, burns 5% LESS duration, at the cost of 31% less damage. That wasn't unexpected.

Clans not OP
This brings me to the issue that will irk the IS diehards and the lore nerds. Clans are NOT overpowered anymore! IS lasers quirks on the extreme end have imbalanced the long range trade gameplay vs Clans. Even reducing range quirks down to a max of 10%, some IS chassis with strong laser quirks still burn cooler, shorter and more frequent than their Clan equivalent.

This has severe consequences for CW and its Phase 3 implementation, because if PGI does separate CW queues into Solo and Unit queues, the latter queue will be rather unbalanced on many of the CW maps which promote long range fighting, barring severe skill & teamwork gap between the opposing teams.

Clans are limited to lasers and Gauss for long range trade, as cUACs are burst fire and too unreliable (once they jam) to successfully trade with lasers at range. IS ballistics are still relatively low facetime, shoot-snap-away weapons that would limit their facetime exposure to return enemy fire. Taking a quote from my original thread:

nehebkau, on 28 January 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

• Longer beam duration = worse defensive position because you are exposed more.
  
• Staggered AC shots = worse defensive position because you are exposed more.
  
• Greater heat loads = greater requirement to play peek-a-boo games so that you can cool down...combined with longer duration = negative defensive profile.
  
• Lower weapon mounts = more negative defensive profile. Lower weapon mounts with greater heat loads and longer weapon duration = much worse defensive profile.

Yes, they have a number of advantages (thanks Appogee for compiling the list) which I opine, are at most mediocre.

• surviving when a side torso is gone
  
  • This is partially balanced by Clan XL ST penalties. Can be further balanced by my recommendation for IS chassis to get corresponding structure buffs, according to mounted engine type, ie. IS STD engines get CT structure buffs, IS XL engines get STs structure buffs, NOT BOTH!

• lighter weapons and equipment across the board
  
  • Only Clan lasers and Gauss are worth taking in a serious match. UACs are fun but unrealiable. SRMs need you to close the distance which exposes you to the all too strong IS quirked laser vomit, assuming it's a Clan vs IS match (think CW).

• ability to min/max large numbers of hardpoints via omnipods,
  
  • Only smaller lasers or at most C-erMLs can be boated when you inflate Omnimech hardpoints. And we all know how hot those run, not to mention the facetime needed to fire more than 8 of them. Their max ranges also got nerfed down by 30%.

• lower slot requirements
  
  • See above reply on mix/max hardpoints

• longer weapon ranges across the board except vs some very specific quirked IS variants and loadouts
  
  • IS needs only minimal laser quirks. Why the need for super laser quirks? Glad to hear from Russ that IS laser range quirks are coming down to no more than 10%, which is a fair value IMO. Lasers need a rebalance in general still to increase ballistics viability.

• uniform movement speeds in their heavies, enabling easier deathballing
  
  • And IS also can deathball with teamwork. If you want to NASCAR, you're basically playing among solo pugs. I don't know of any meta IS heavy mechs that can't go at 60-75kph. The meta at higher tier gameplays isn't deathballing, it's knowing how to setup a firing line.

• multiple targeting computers at lower weight, enhancing critting chances, target data and zoom
  
  • Only the TC1 is worth equipping. Feb we might see a real change to that but given how hot Clan lasers run, I'd rather add DHS unless the benefits are enormous.

• fewer slots for DHS
  
  • See above reply on mix/max hardpoints

• CASE on every component of every Mech
  
  • If you absolutely need CASE, just do it. It would cost you only 16pts of armor from your entire chassis. What, your structure quirks aren't enough shielding? Smart placement of ammo would save you from requiring too much CASE anyway.

• the ability to boat large numbers of Streaks against IS Lights - IS has no equivalent
  
  • Buy the Archer. Seriously. Because if you can't aim for legs on lights, you need to Pay to Win.

• UACs >5, creating the opportunity to significant increase damage beyond standard DPS
  
  • UACs are unreliable. Fun, but you cannot trust them just like you cannot trust overheat RNG!!! It only succeeds in public matches

Not so relevant analysis (click to read only if you're not already butt hurt by the opinions posited above)

Spoiler

Why did the Clan teams get stomped by the IS teams in the exhibition match? (factual analysis)
In TheSilken's Clan vs IS exhibition match, QKD, CPLT, STK, BLR, BJ, RVN (ALL with good peeking mounts) were the mainstay poking/trading chassis of the IS teams, even after swapping. Brawling IS mainstay mechs were AS7, GRF, BL-KNT. All of the above IS mechs except STK and BLR have significant structure buffs over their Clan top-tier counterparts, which the BLR and STK don't really need because of their great poking mounts, limiting their facetime exposure.

The QKD, CPLT, BJ and BL-KNT, got significant structure buffs, obscene for their tonnage in the last three mentioned, on top of their laser quirks.

Is that all that contributed to the Clan teams being totally stomped in all 6 matches, 48 Clan mechs lost to only 6 IS mechs claimed in return? NOPE!

• These were impromptu teams, no practice IIRC.
  
• The game mode of Conquest but only Theta can be capped, was detrimental to Clans, as they played into IS erLL disadvantage. Theta is usually in the centre of the map, which on Canyon and Tourmaline, exposed them to sniper fire if they wanted to cap or defend Theta from IS team.
  
• 2/2/2/2 chassis rule f***ed with Clans. Clans didn't have any good pokey assault mechs to trade with the superior IS pokers.
  
• People asked why C-erLLs were brought. Would you expose yourself to IS erLL fire to close the distance to bring your C-LPLs into range, for 47% MORE heat, burns 5% MORE duration, at the cost of 44% more damage. That's 240m to cross to give yourself that 'advantage'. Look at what happened on Drop #5 when the EXEs tried to close the distance! They were kited and shredded in the open on Tourmaline.

Yes, the entire exhibition match setup wasn't a fair display of Clan's tech strengths over Inner Sphere tech, which were mainly lower tonnage weapons and equipment. However, except for their good chassis (ACH, SCR, HBR, EBJ, TBR), most of the other available Clan mechs do not enjoy the full benefits of lower crit slot requirements of both Endo and Ferro. And the lower weapon/equipment tonnage is usually devoted to more DHS to dissipate the higher heat generated from the bread and butter but utterly boring Clan laser weapons.

These do not help the Clam underperformers at all, which either have insufficient tonnage to mount enough weapons/DHS to keep them viable on the battlefield. Most seasoned players know that Clan mechs usually overheat if they are forced into a brawl. Only Clan mechs boating SRMs can decently handle full brawls but there are only a limited number of Clan chassis that can boat SRMs effectively without running into ammo shortages (SCR, TBR, WHK, ADR, and each of the IIC chassis which are currently pay-gated).

If PGI insists on keeping Omnimech construction rules from Battletech TT, the only way to help the Clam underperformers is through more complex quirks. That's a tough road for PGI to walk because of omnipod swapping/min-max'ing. Frankly, opening up the Endo/Ferro customisability is likely the simpler way to go, without opening up customisation of fixed equipment for now.

Else the terribad Clams will need HUGE heatgen and structure quirks to help bring their combat effectiveness up to scratch, just like some of the terribad IS brethren (looking at VTR, AWS, VND, PNT, TBT, KTO, COM, SDR).

Edited by Onimusha shin, 30 January 2016 - 08:04 AM.

[El Bandito]

CLPL max range needs to be reduced by 40% to be in line with other Clan lasers. Why the hell PGI left it out is beyond me, expect maybe due to their known incompetence in balancing.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 January 2016 - 08:23 AM.

[cazidin]

Nerf lasers? Why not buff AC velocity/CD, PPC heat/velocity, LRM velocity/spread, etc to make them better weapons? Lasers are "meta" because, presently, they're considered the best weapon for the weight/damage with ballistics second and only on heavier mechs.

[Onimusha shin]

cazidin, on 30 January 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

Nerf lasers? Why not buff AC velocity/CD, PPC heat/velocity, LRM velocity/spread, etc to make them better weapons? Lasers are "meta" because, presently, they're considered the best weapon for the weight/damage with ballistics second and only on heavier mechs.

Exactly my point. Which is why ballistics need to get a buff so they're worth taking over lasers, not just because you're dropping on a hot map. Ammo/ton also helps a lot because, armor is doubled from TT values, IS gets a ton of structure buffs, so ballistics aren't holding up compared to lasers, in terms of damage output. We don't exactly want AC speeds to reach Gauss speeds so rather than make ACs easy to use, make them rewarding to skilled players who can use them effectively.

As for lasers, don't you feel bored by them? I'm having more fun with ACs and SRMs now.

El Bandito, on 30 January 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

CLPL max range needs to be reduced by 40% to be in line with other Clan lasers. Why the hell PGI left it out is beyond me, expect maybe due to their known incompetence in balancing.

Yes and no. I figure the problem that would create was a total IS superiority at ranges above 800m using their erLL (with quirks). We already know that IS erLL if quirked on the extreme end, would overpower the C-erLL in every aspect except damage and tonnage. Dropping the C-LPL max range would have worsened this problem.

Edited by Onimusha shin, 30 January 2016 - 09:23 AM.

[Deathlike]

The proper thesis statement is this:

The Dartboard of Balance™ is the PGI supported method of game balance.

Any other alternatives are fictitious.

[Mystere]

cazidin, on 30 January 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

Nerf lasers? Why not buff AC velocity/CD, PPC heat/velocity, LRM velocity/spread, etc to make them better weapons? Lasers are "meta" because, presently, they're considered the best weapon for the weight/damage with ballistics second and only on heavier mechs.

If I'm to guess, it's being done to not reduce the ever important TTK.

[Mcgral18]

Not a fan of your XL solution, and no severity of the STD and XL buffs. Placeholder numbers available?

I'd rather make the isXL~=cXL, either with different penalty numbers or identical (being worse on slots).
STD would get both ST and CT Structure buffs. Significant ones, not unlike the BJ has (but with fewer guns or worse cooling, worse speed, a sacrifice made to be durable).

The durability gap of factions is bridged, and quirk the Trash Tier robots with other balance changes.

CASE cannot be mounted in arms, so you're taking (potentially) the full 20 damage to an isXL Side Torso while the Clam mech gets the damage contained. Explosion damage isn't reduced by 60%, and hits in full with transfer.

Here was my suggestion, from a few months back:

With more writing, if you choose to read it:
http://mwomercs.com/...gs-ahoy-pgiplz/

But it encompasses a bit more (including Engines, Jesus Box, MASC), with the other weapon classes at the top.

Edited by Mcgral18, 30 January 2016 - 01:43 PM.

[Davers]

Ballistics will never be as good as energy without major changes. They weigh a lot, and their only advantage is their low heat so they can keep up the DPS. But there is so much cover in this game that it doesn't matter much. It's much better to (for example) fire 4 high heat energy weapons once and hide to cool down than to try to stand in the open to fire 2 AC10's twice- especially considering the slow velocity, ballistic drop, and the need for a specialized mech that has B hardpoints in both arm and side torso.

For ballistics to compete with energy at range, long range energy weapons must be made very heat inefficient, especially at close ranges.

I'm not even going to talk about gauss, because **** FASA for making a weapon that completely shits all over their own heat system.

[TheBlackMegadeus]

Okay

[Onimusha shin]

Mcgral18, on 30 January 2016 - 01:42 PM, said:

Not a fan of your XL solution, and no severity of the STD and XL buffs. Placeholder numbers available?

I'd rather make the isXL~=cXL, either with different penalty numbers or identical (being worse on slots).
STD would get both ST and CT Structure buffs. Significant ones, not unlike the BJ has (but with fewer guns or worse cooling, worse speed, a sacrifice made to be durable).

CASE cannot be mounted in arms, so you're taking (potentially) the full 20 damage to an isXL Side Torso while the Clam mech gets the damage contained. Explosion damage isn't reduced by 60%, and hits in full with transfer.

I don't have a thought through number available but a quick check tells me that a 40% buff to both armour and structure would help the isXLs.

I had thought of your suggestion of isXL ~= cXL. At the end of the day, I decided on my current recommendation because structure buffs are already an accepted QoL method that satisfies the player base now.

As for CASE not being mountable in arms, that's something that bewilders me too. Can be worked around by doing ST buffs at least 20HP but just not ideal. I have a question that I just thought of and never quite noticed, "Are ammo explosions a guaranteed when a component is destroyed? Or is it still subject to a crit roll? I'm assuming the former?"

I don't have a good retort about unmountable CASE in the arms (and legs?) for IS chassis, only that I usually don't get my ammo cooked off in my arms and legs. Of course, this is an anecdotal experience.

Davers, on 30 January 2016 - 03:05 PM, said:

Ballistics will never be as good as energy without major changes. They weigh a lot, and their only advantage is their low heat so they can keep up the DPS. But there is so much cover in this game that it doesn't matter much. It's much better to (for example) fire 4 high heat energy weapons once and hide to cool down than to try to stand in the open to fire 2 AC10's twice- especially considering the slow velocity, ballistic drop, and the need for a specialized mech that has B hardpoints in both arm and side torso.

For ballistics to compete with energy at range, long range energy weapons must be made very heat inefficient, especially at close ranges.

I agree with your POV. Which is why Polar Highlands is such a great map and hopefully, indicative of PGI's willingness to abandon their previous "central map feature" design philosophy.

And yes, almost all energy weapons should be heat inefficient and burn a lot longer. I really can't think of any energy weapon (aside from PPCs) that should get such nerfs to help balance energy vs ballistics.

[Mcgral18]

Onimusha shin, on 30 January 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

I don't have a thought through number available but a quick check tells me that a 40% buff to both armour and structure would help the isXLs.

I had thought of your suggestion of isXL ~= cXL. At the end of the day, I decided on my current recommendation because structure buffs are already an accepted QoL method that satisfies the player base now.

As for CASE not being mountable in arms, that's something that bewilders me too. Can be worked around by doing ST buffs at least 20HP but just not ideal. I have a question that I just thought of and never quite noticed, "Are ammo explosions a guaranteed when a component is destroyed? Or is it still subject to a crit roll? I'm assuming the former?"

I don't have a good retort about unmountable CASE in the arms (and legs?) for IS chassis, only that I usually don't get my ammo cooked off in my arms and legs. Of course, this is an anecdotal experience.

There's always an RNGeesus roll before Crits and explosions.
Gauss just has the 90% chance, so very likely, to the 10% of ammo.

[zagibu]

How is that a TL/DR?

[CDLord HHGD]

zagibu, on 30 January 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

How is that a TL/DR?

Ninja'd....

[Onimusha shin]

zagibu, on 30 January 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

How is that a TL/DR?

Sorry. I didn't realize there were primary school students trolling the forums. You're excused for failing reading comprehension,

[Imperius]

...please rename the thread

"My opinion on balance!"

TL;DR PGI will balance the game how they see fit please quit wasting your time! Have you learned anything?