20 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

1. Balance what we have now until people are satisfied with it, introduce one weapon system at a time, and then try to balance it with the rest. Introduce the next weapon system only if the previous one is balanced with the others. Repeat until all of the desired weapon systems are introduced.

2. Balance what we have now until people are satisfied with it, announce a timeline jump, introduce 10 (or any number) new weapon systems, and then try to balance the new with the old as the base/reference.

3. Leave what we have now as what they are, announce a timeline jump, introduce 10 (or any number) new weapon systems, and then try to balance all of them together.

4. Other or any combination of the above.


What do you prefer and why?


*There are of course those timeline appropriate weapons but for some reason are not in the game.


EDIT: fixed the numbering, lol

Edited by Hit the Deck, 27 April 2016 - 12:33 AM.

[Davers]

Any new weapons added will either replace the current weapons, or be inferior to them and ignored.

[Khobai]

Quote

Any new weapons added will either replace the current weapons, or be inferior to them and ignored.

depends on the weapon.

MRMs and ATMs for example could fill the medium range niche for missiles without replacing SRMs or LRMs.

[LordNothing]

everything is balanced that pgi wants balanced. if you remember how russ ended the last town hall, shut it down as soon as someone uttered the word "balance". in my opinion only a handful of weapons remain at the fringes.

the worst 3 in my book in no particular order are machine guns, is streaks, and ac2s across the board. energy weapon balance will come with gh2.0 (in theory). ppc and lbx was more or less rectified in the last patch, both are far more useful than they were. i level my quad lb10 mauler in about 2 days. and one of my ppc panthers is almost mastered, despite being called by some "the worst chassis in the game".

you dont need to jump any timelines, there are a few guns that can be added now. rifle, mortars, inferno srm, arrow IV. nothing fancy, and nothing needing new mechanics. you could trickle those in until the timeline ticks up.

all new weapons would be balanced to the current average baseline across all weapons, keeping it firmly in the realm of the most balanced systems in the game. this will actually illuminate the outliers more clearly and allow pgi to lasso them in.

given the nature of balance in games i dont think putting it off until balance is "done" is realistic. balance will never be done, and using it as an excuse to hault progress would stifle change and that is exactly what the game needs, good or bad.

[AnTi90d]

I just want more weapons added, anyway they choose to do it.

MW4 had a great selection of firepower to strap onto your mech. I miss rockets.. and MRMs.. and Arrow missiles.. and IS ER lasers.. and ssrms that came in 4s and 6s.. and RACs.. and Xplulses.. and light and heavy gauss..

[Mcgral18]

Balance what we have first
Introduce a small group (assuming not many overlapping items)

[Khobai]

what we really need are mech mounted long toms and arrow IVs

need to herald in a whole new apocalypse of indirect fire.

[Impyrium]

I would like to see them added in bit by bit, not a large chunk.

I'm of the belief that there's no such thing as 'perfect' balance when it comes to this game. There'll always be something somebody doesn't like. So many different combinations and situations. It's better as it is now than it ever has been before, and honestly I wouldn't mind seeing some extra variety added into the game.

[Karl Streiger]

Well i have just a question what is balance for you?
Balanced in general?
Or just balanced to play proper skirmish?

To play skirmish the weapon with the edge is the one to go. Its impossible not to have a weapon / combination with Mech that doesn't have an edge.
Take the SPL . its a pitty weapon would you really waste a ton for such a punny weapon? But on a fast chassis with some energy hardpoints this weapon become badass...

Same for every other weapon - say you can balance LAC5 with AC5 until it seems to work in your parameters - and finally somebody in a Mauler runs 6 LAC5s... strictly spoken 3 ballistic hardpoints will give every Mech the option for a short range rapid fire no charge Gauss saving one crit

And this is the main issue - why current balance is impossible to achieve - and it will be impossible to add new weapons when this issue remains.

The other option is to have some maps or mission goals that are not proper to achieve with small guns or tripple LAC5 - were you simple need a single Gauss.

[CK16]

Heavy Lasers would not replace ER Lasers for Clans, IMO it would help Balance Clans and IS a bit in those close range spots...if not maybe leaning towards the Clans more, but remember Heavy lasers are hot as hell also so might pack more punch at close range but the heat would spike a lot more then now...

[El Bandito]

Introduce few systems at a time, preferably the ones that will close the gap between faction techs, such as IS ERML/ERSL and IS SSRM4/6. And PGI should get a balance director competent enough to balance LBX and MGs already.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Balance the old ones first

[Silra]

They already added a whole truck-load of new weapons into the game.

Majority of the weapons work differently when mounted on different mechs, thanks to the quirk system, and there you have it already... different weapons!

Try AC/20 on a Mech with +20% ballistic speed quirk as opposed to a Mech with no ballistic speed quirk. Different weapon.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Davers, on 26 April 2016 - 07:18 PM, said:

Any new weapons added will either replace the current weapons, or be inferior to them and ignored.

like clan non ultra ACs

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Silra, on 26 April 2016 - 11:02 PM, said:

They already added a whole truck-load of new weapons into the game.

Majority of the weapons work differently when mounted on different mechs, thanks to the quirk system, and there you have it already... different weapons!

Try AC/20 on a Mech with +20% ballistic speed quirk as opposed to a Mech with no ballistic speed quirk. Different weapon.

Yeah... no

Band aids dont make old weapons new lol

[Silra]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 26 April 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

Yeah... no

Band aids dont make old weapons new lol

They based the game too heavily on table-top and are sticking to it, even the damage values for the most part (with tiny alterations).... so the only thing they can do within the framework they put themselves into is quirks or something like them.

It is a 'bandaid' which I, personally, absolutely hate. But it is the only way to get 'new weapons' for any foreseeable future of the game unfortunately.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Silra, on 26 April 2016 - 11:25 PM, said:

They based the game too heavily on table-top and are sticking to it, even the damage values for the most part (with tiny alterations).... so the only thing they can do within the framework they put themselves into is quirks or something like them.

It is a 'bandaid' which I, personally, absolutely hate. But it is the only way to get 'new weapons' for any foreseeable future of the game unfortunately.

that and firing the guy who can read the code lol

[Kargush]

More mechs and more maps, perhaps more game modes. All that before more guns.

[Moldur]

Hit the Deck, on 26 April 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Balance what we have now until people are satisfied with it

MWO will never get new tech if it follows this.

There will never, NEVER be a time where people are satisfied with the current balance. It is just PGI chasing its tail, appeasing one group of players and frustrating some other group of players before spending another several months to do it again. A good portion of players are always dissatisfied with the current balance, albeit it is different players at different times. It is an ethereal goal that will never be achieved. Seriously, look across the forums, someone, somewhere believes that balance was better at some other point in MWO's lifetime and would rather have the game be like that. Some people want it to be like open beta again, some people want poptarts back, some people want ghost heat to be gone, some people want quirks to be gone, some people want quirks to be back to how they were at some other point, etc, etc. In the end, it is all a bunch of same-tier changes that PGI has managed to spend YEARS on, and the result is a zero or minimal net change in satisfied or dissatisfied players. Is balance really better than it was at some other point? Eh. There is virtually nothing that is a more wasteful use of PGI's resources than rehashing balance just so that some other group of players will be pissed off while some other group is momentarily satisfied..

Out of the choices you list, 2 (as in 3) is the most realistic option. Given the nature of the Mechwarrior/BT universe of progressing technology, I am very surprised as so many people oppose new tech UNTIL we balance what we have, rather than adding new tech and using it to fill in gaps in balance. Again, I'll point out that satisfactory balance is an unattainable goal in the first place.

[Davers]

Khobai, on 26 April 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

depends on the weapon.

MRMs and ATMs for example could fill the medium range niche for missiles without replacing SRMs or LRMs.

Depending on velocity and spread the MRM10 will either replace the SRM6 or be permanently shelved as inferior to it.