286 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Johnny Z, on 03 March 2016 - 09:11 PM, said:

Well your half right. But its still about the, build a mech for the highest alpha possible being the issue.

I didn't make up the term "Alpha Warrior Online" but its accurate.

You're certainly right in that the greatest reward is in high-damage alphas taken from a position of safety. But it's a symptom, not the disease.

I've actually been working on a remedy for that disease... like a lot of the other "think they're so smart" forum warriors. This one, though, doesn't just address one problem. It's a unified system that gets it's hands into everything. A core gameplay system. No band-aids. One of the best things it does is it treats different mechs differently, and modifies the behavior of weapons slightly depending on what they're mounted on and what they're doing. The goal is to encourage builds to play to the strengths of the chassis by providing greater rewards for doing so. In such a system, larger mechs are encouraged to use larger weapons, and play in a way that gives no benefit to using massed small weapons and hit-and-run playstyles. Conversely, lighter mechs are rewarded for those aspects.

It'd take way too long to describe how the system works in detail, but suffice it to say the Timberwolf could still laser vomit and poke, but it won't be as successful at it as mechs designed to boat small weapons and move quickly. And it will miss out on the rewards it might have received had it been built and played differently. It also makes sniping better, makes brawlers better brawlers, makes lights feel more nimble and assaults feel like unstoppable forces. And it's such a simple thing in practice to implement - but doesn't require fundementally altering how the game plays, like many of the convergence-centered ideas. It would even allow a better way than simple quirking to differentiate different chassis from each other, and would provide a layer of options to distinguish IS mechs from Clan mechs.

But the manner in which it addresses balance issues differently than the band-aids PGI comes up with, and what most of the community comes up with as alternatives, is that it doesn't merely add arbitrary restrictions to force players into more narrow acceptable corridors and produce one best meta for the whole lineup regardless of type and role... but rather makes different options more attractive for different mechs. And when you can produce situations where the best build options and playstyle on one mech are different from another without having to force the issue, you'll get rid of meta and the constant search for high-damage alphas.

[wanderer]

ScarecrowES, on 03 March 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

Ultimately the problem has never been, and will never be, that high-damage alphas exist in the game. Having to be slightly more careful in what arraingment a player fires his weapons has never really prevented a player from getting full use of those weapons. The problem has always been that it's just too easy to load heavy mechs with numerous light weapons and immediately bring them to full effect in low-risk/high-reward playstyles. It doesn't matter what that playstyle is.

Remember lurmageddon? Sit back and get easy kills with LRMs. Lot's of damage and low risk. Pop-tarting? Pop up from cover at long range, throw a mass of FLPD down range and fall back behind cover. Pokey laser vomit? Walk out from behind rock 2 feet, alpha, walk back behind rock. All risk/reward scenarios that fall heavily on reward. And always a band-aid that makes that ONE risk/reward scenario slightly less viable. But nothing has ever addressed the fundemental problem of being able to get that reward without any risk.

Fix that problem... make it so that mechs can't get the reward without a little risk... and you'll never need another convoluted mitigation method.

The difference being lurmageddons were bugs, the others were "working as intended" until enough people got mad.

The meta has, was, and always will be about putting all your damage on the pixel as long as it's easy to do so. The only changes will be which weapons do it best. This will be another step along the same circular path.

Edited by wanderer, 03 March 2016 - 11:12 PM.

[Duke Nedo]

It will patch up some big holes in Ghost Heat 1.0, that's the minimum viable product we're guaranteed to get. If PGI does a good job with this we could get more. Now we just have to wait and see... coffee anyone?

[Clownwarlord]

RedDragon, on 02 March 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

I would like to point out fixing the heat scale wouldn't do **** except break the game. Yes you would get rid of high alphas. But then you also couldn't brawl because you would heat up faster even if you where chain firing. Essential it would just turn this game into every one has 1 ERPPC or Gauss rifle and fires at range and never gets close.

[Nightshade24]

clownwarlord, on 03 March 2016 - 11:45 PM, said:

I would like to point out fixing the heat scale wouldn't do **** except break the game. Yes you would get rid of high alphas. But then you also couldn't brawl because you would heat up faster even if you where chain firing. Essential it would just turn this game into every one has 1 ERPPC or Gauss rifle and fires at range and never gets close.

or two ppc's... just saying.

[vocifer]

I wonder, what's gonna be next, when they realise they cannot balance energy scale? Ghost energy? CPU?
This game really lacks of complexity.[/sarcasm]

[RedDragon]

clownwarlord, on 03 March 2016 - 11:45 PM, said:

I would like to point out fixing the heat scale wouldn't do **** except break the game. Yes you would get rid of high alphas. But then you also couldn't brawl because you would heat up faster even if you where chain firing. Essential it would just turn this game into every one has 1 ERPPC or Gauss rifle and fires at range and never gets close.

Sooo ... you can't brawl because you are getting too hot? Guess what, your enemy has the same problem
And that's exactly how TT was balanced: lower range for lower heat. Get close and pound him with your ACs and SRMs while he is cooking himself with his PPCs and lasers.

[kapusta11]

Looking at quirks I predict a 99,9% chance that PGI will fail to assign correct "energy" or "power draw" values for each weapon and account for all the variables like weapon mechanic, weapon range, raw damage, sustained damage, weight, crit space, etc.

The butthurt will be glorious, can't wait.

[TexAce]

kapusta11, on 04 March 2016 - 01:38 AM, said:

Looking at quirks I predict a 99,9% chance that PGI will fail to assign correct "energy" or "power draw" values for each weapon and account for all the variables like weapon mechanic, weapon range, raw damage, sustained damage, weight, crit space, etc.

The butthurt will be glorious, can't wait.

in their defense, its easier to change values on ~20 weapons, than to change/add multiple quirks for ~300 mechs.

Edited by TexAce, 04 March 2016 - 02:26 AM.

[Johnny Z]

ScarecrowES, on 03 March 2016 - 11:03 PM, said:

You're certainly right in that the greatest reward is in high-damage alphas taken from a position of safety. But it's a symptom, not the disease.

I've actually been working on a remedy for that disease... like a lot of the other "think they're so smart" forum warriors. This one, though, doesn't just address one problem. It's a unified system that gets it's hands into everything. A core gameplay system. No band-aids. One of the best things it does is it treats different mechs differently, and modifies the behavior of weapons slightly depending on what they're mounted on and what they're doing. The goal is to encourage builds to play to the strengths of the chassis by providing greater rewards for doing so. In such a system, larger mechs are encouraged to use larger weapons, and play in a way that gives no benefit to using massed small weapons and hit-and-run playstyles. Conversely, lighter mechs are rewarded for those aspects.

It'd take way too long to describe how the system works in detail, but suffice it to say the Timberwolf could still laser vomit and poke, but it won't be as successful at it as mechs designed to boat small weapons and move quickly. And it will miss out on the rewards it might have received had it been built and played differently. It also makes sniping better, makes brawlers better brawlers, makes lights feel more nimble and assaults feel like unstoppable forces. And it's such a simple thing in practice to implement - but doesn't require fundementally altering how the game plays, like many of the convergence-centered ideas. It would even allow a better way than simple quirking to differentiate different chassis from each other, and would provide a layer of options to distinguish IS mechs from Clan mechs.

But the manner in which it addresses balance issues differently than the band-aids PGI comes up with, and what most of the community comes up with as alternatives, is that it doesn't merely add arbitrary restrictions to force players into more narrow acceptable corridors and produce one best meta for the whole lineup regardless of type and role... but rather makes different options more attractive for different mechs. And when you can produce situations where the best build options and playstyle on one mech are different from another without having to force the issue, you'll get rid of meta and the constant search for high-damage alphas.

Reading this, the first thing that came to mind is sized hard points. An idea I always liked at first look and I'm not so much into this I will actually try and balance all the variables this will create in my head and I'm to lazy while playing games to do anything else.

Point being sized hard points maybe be great and be the answer but I am not sure.

What system you have in mind may be good to. Staying away from being to overly complicated for players to get a grasp of.

[oldradagast]

wanderer, on 03 March 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

The meta has, was, and always will be about putting all your damage on the pixel as long as it's easy to do so. The only changes will be which weapons do it best. This will be another step along the same circular path.

Agreed. This slow-motion, circular madness will only end when there is no longer any way to put a huge pile of damage on a single pixel at long ranges with casual ease. But all attempts to add a Cone of Fire or similar system have been shot down, many by vocal players who enjoy the current low-skill environment. Sadly, the lizard-brain satisfaction that comes from killing a "stupid noob who deserves it for daring to play this game" at long range with a "high skill" weapon set like dual Gauss or a pile of lasers outweighs interesting game play and reasonable time to kill. It's pathetic, but it is what the people want, apparently.

Edited by oldradagast, 04 March 2016 - 04:26 AM.

[oldradagast]

vocifer, on 04 March 2016 - 12:11 AM, said:

I wonder, what's gonna be next, when they realise they cannot balance energy scale? Ghost energy? CPU?
This game really lacks of complexity.[/sarcasm]

Remember ghost range on lasers? The fact that such a nutty, illogical, and inconsistent idea almost made it into the game makes it painfully clear that PGI does NOT understand the problem or that a game needs to be simple in certain ways. We don't need any more goofy mechanics, and while this "power draw" goofy mechanic - which is still basically just a second ghost heat system - will probably make a bit more sense than the current ghost heat system, it is still a kludge and doesn't address the real problem: the fact that the only weapons that really matter are the ones that can, when boated, put a large amount of damage on a single pixel at long ranges. Until instant, perfect convergence is fixed, nothing else matters and the meta will remain long-range poking with very limited competitive build options.

[LordKnightFandragon]

wanderer, on 03 March 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

The difference being lurmageddons were bugs, the others were "working as intended" until enough people got mad.

The meta has, was, and always will be about putting all your damage on the pixel as long as it's easy to do so. The only changes will be which weapons do it best. This will be another step along the same circular path.

Which is why the thing that needs to change above all else, no matter how much people think otherwise, is the ability to so easily put everything into 1 pixel. Apparently you could melt mechs in seconds in TT and that game had you roll each gun's hit location. So here we are able to alpha strike everything into the same component. People hate the thought of any kind of deviation or COF to their guns, but that is what will truly make people calm down the lolphaing, that or the game will turn into Hugwarrior Online, as people kiss each other, because they just cant stand to see the Alpha strike not work.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

wanderer, on 03 March 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

The meta has, was, and always will be about putting all your damage on the pixel as long as it's easy to do so. The only changes will be which weapons do it best. This will be another step along the same circular path.

That's a bit of a simplification don't you think? How you do your damage still counts. For example the playstyle of an AC5 Mauler is going to be different from the meta whale despite both being about area of denial and for the most part trying to put damage all in one point (not pixel). So it isn't just about raw alphas, it can often be about DPS as too. Yes you are still doing decent chunks of damage with penta-AC5s, but not even as much as dual gauss, so I don't see that as much of a problem.

[Wintersdark]

El Bandito, on 03 March 2016 - 08:53 PM, said:

SRMs have 270 max range, and horrible accuracy at that range. To use them effectively, one has to get into brawl range, and I am 100% fine with more brawls happening in MWO. Better than peek-a-booing 700 meters away.

Even as a player who tends to prefer range, I've always maintained that for balance, it's best for brawling to be stronger than ranged play. This, because ranged play is safe - you're only threatened by other ranged mechs. Brawlers have to weather fire to get in close to do much of anything at all. Ranged play still exists and is useful if weaker than brawling, while brawling vanishes entirely if ranged play is too strong.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 04 March 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

Even as a player who tends to prefer range, I've always maintained that for balance, it's best for brawling to be stronger than ranged play.

Or maybe they should be equal, or balanced instead of one being dominant. I miss the brawling meta too, but at the same time I don't want it to be the only reliable tactic like it was back then.

[Wintersdark]

Johnny Z, on 04 March 2016 - 02:37 AM, said:

Reading this, the first thing that came to mind is sized hard points. An idea I always liked at first look and I'm not so much into this I will actually try and balance all the variables this will create in my head and I'm to lazy while playing games to do anything else.

Point being sized hard points maybe be great and be the answer but I am not sure.

What system you have in mind may be good to. Staying away from being to overly complicated for players to get a grasp of.

Sized hard points would be great and probably would have been a good way to go from day one, but it's way too late in the game to put something that dramatically changing into play.

Keep in mind as well, sized hardpoints doesn't get rid of any sort of boating, it just limits which mechs can boat more than the current system. But it doesn't much matter, there's zero chance of sized hardpoints happening now.

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 04 March 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Or maybe they should be equal, or balanced instead of one being dominant. I miss the brawling meta too, but at the same time I don't want it to be the only reliable tactic like it was back then.

That can't happen now.

When brawling was the meta, the biggest map in the game was old-caustic, and that was just one of 7 (I think?) at the time maps.

Now, Caustic is a small map. Larger maps mean brawlers have to take more damage before they can get close enough to start fighting themselves. Thus, by the time the brawler is actually fighting, he's already damaged - perhaps severely. This means his heavily range limited weapons (see: SRM's with a hard cap of 270m) need to be extra effective to compensate.

So, for range and brawling to be equally viable play styles, brawling needs to be more powerful than ranged.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 04 March 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

That can't happen now.

When brawling was the meta, the biggest map in the game was old-caustic, and that was just one of 7 (I think?) at the time maps.

That isn't necessarily true, I mean one of the most dominant long range maps was Forest Colony before it got changed and you brawled even on it during the brawl meta. Being a big map doesn't mean it will always be long range forever, just look at terrible therma. I remember we used to brawl even on maps like Alpine (even though this was also before hill climb code got added).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 04 March 2016 - 07:58 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 04 March 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

That isn't necessarily true, I mean one of the most dominant long range maps was Forest Colony before it got changed and you brawled even on it during the brawl meta. Being a big map doesn't mean it will always be long range forever, just look at terrible therma. I remember we used to brawl even on maps like Alpine (even though this was also before hill climb code got added).

Of course, because pre-change Forest Colony was roughly 1.5km across. That was the best long range map. You could drop on the testing grounds, walk 10 meters, and fire at the Awesome on the other side of the map in the opfor dropzone.

So yeah, there was still a hell of a lot of brawling on that map. It was still a small map.


You have to be very careful when you say things like "they should be balanced" - because what does "balanced" mean?

They DO need to both be viable play styles. But there's a very, very small line between where they're both viable to where ranged play is utterly dominant, while there's a solid range before ranged play stops happening at all. It's easy for ranged to completely exclude brawling, but extremely difficult for brawling to completely exclude range. After all, when you do zero damage past ~270m, vs. mechs that can damage you a kilometer away... well, things are strongly in favour of ranged play out of the gate.

For them to be balanced, within 270m the brawling weapons have to be substantially stronger.

Consider (thought experiment, not recommendation): You make brawling weapons grossly OP. Ranged mechs can still win matches by maintaining range (where they take zero damage, and still do full damage). Bad gameplay, as matches are determined solely by whether brawlers can close range or not, but the cards start in the ranged mechs favour as they can be doing damage when the brawlers cannot.

Then, consider: You make ranged weapons OP: Brawlers vanish entirely, as they simply die on approach (or are so badly damaged once they can fire, it doesn't matter.

As you can't get things just perfectly balanced, ever (it just never happens), erring on the side of brawling being stronger is safer, as ranged play remains usable by dint of being able to do damage vs. not for much of the match.