116 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Monkey Lover, on 14 January 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

No stop trying to balance. Start using battle values.


Using a bad mech with bad weapons should allow the team to bring better mechs with better weapons.

so then we'd have unbalanced battle values instead that they never get right. Doesn't solve anything if the BV's aren't right, and if PGI can't balance things without BV they're not going to magically design a BV system that does get it right.

[Alan Davion]

Monkey Lover, on 14 January 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

No stop trying to balance. Start using battle values.


Using a bad mech with bad weapons should allow the team to bring better mechs with better weapons.

You... Do realize that a BV system inherently means balancing is involved?

I've talked about this before on numerous occasions. The TT BV system was the only reason half the mechs are balanced against each other, with Clan mechs often having BVs that were double that of certain IS mechs.

And has apparently been pointed out...

FupDup, on 14 January 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

BaddieValue was exploited hard in TT and it would be in MWO as well.

It also doesn't account for things like how some weapons are better on some mechs than others. A Gauss Rifle mounted on an Atlas is inferior to a Gauss Rifle mounted on a Jagermech, for example. Do we have to have weapon BV vary by chassis or even variant? It's gonna get convoluted real fast.

Although I don't quite understand how a Gauss rifle would be inferior when mounted on an Atlas compared to a Jagermech, but that might be due to my never having played the TT game.

If someone would mind explaining how exactly this inferiority issue works I'd appreciate it.

[FupDup]

Alan Davion, on 14 January 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

Although I don't quite understand how a Gauss rifle would be inferior when mounted on an Atlas compared to a Jagermech, but that might be due to my never having played the TT game.

If someone would mind explaining how exactly this inferiority issue works I'd appreciate it.

Two reasons.

1. The Atlas has low mounted hardpoints, making it take on a brawler role by necessity. Gauss is a long-range weapon, so you always want it mounted in mid or high height hardpoints. The Jagermech has these high mounts.

2. The Atlas has large side torso hitboxes that can be hit easily. The Gauss Rifle explodes easily. Thus, the Gauss Rifle in your Atlas side torso will reduce your life span. Jagermech arms on the other hand don't get hit that easily and your arms can eat up some of the explosion damage before it hits your torso.

A Gauss-wielding Atlas is a bad build, but the Gauss is great on various other mechs.

Edited by FupDup, 14 January 2017 - 12:23 PM.

[The Lighthouse]

You forgot about us Lights! Man, I am being so tired of being one-shotted due to increased size. Jenner IIC is nearly un-usable except niche purpose..

Edited by The Lighthouse, 14 January 2017 - 12:21 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

As of 3060, the Clans should have all of these:

Advanced Tactical Missiles
ER Micro Lasers
ER Pulse Lasers
Heavy Lasers
Heavy Machine Guns
Hyper Assault Gauss Rifles
Micro Pulse Lasers
Streak LRMs

God f***ing speed, ye brave Inner Sphere pilots

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 14 January 2017 - 12:22 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Wintersdark, on 14 January 2017 - 12:08 PM, said:

so then we'd have unbalanced battle values instead that they never get right. Doesn't solve anything if the BV's aren't right, and if PGI can't balance things without BV they're not going to magically design a BV system that does get it right.

No you will have balanced battles you just won't have balanced 1v1 fights.

Sure it will not be 100% right but it would be better then 30% cooldown quirks on junk mechs.

[Alan Davion]

FupDup, on 14 January 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

Two reasons.

1. The Atlas has low mounted hardpoints, making it take on a brawler role by necessity. Gauss is a long-range weapon, so you always want it at medium or high mounts. The Jagermech has high mounts.

2. The Atlas has large side torso hitboxes that can be hit easily. The Gauss Rifle explodes easily. Thus, the Gauss Rifle in your Atlas side torso will reduce your life span. Jagermech arms on the other hand don't get hit that easily and your arms can eat up some of the explosion damage before it hits your torso.

So in essence it gets into the differences between TT and FPS. And the problems MWO faces because of it. That about right?

In TT because of the weapon hit locations being randomized by dice rolls, the chances of a weapon, and by extension, an IS XL engine destruction, are wildly lower than they are here in MWO because the FPS mechanics allow pin point accuracy.

[Variant1]

I dunno id say both is an clan xl engines are op. Very little weight for more bonuses then downsides. IS xl lets everyone carry lots of high alpha weapons.

What we should do is make all mechs ct very small, that way much easier to kill clans and gives is std engine useful choice to is xl engine.

Removing all weapon quirks and making so that clan lasers have 100-200m more than is counterpart instead of way too much.

TTK goes up engine choices are balanced. Everybody wins

Just thought id give my 2 centurions =)

Edited by Variant1, 14 January 2017 - 12:28 PM.

[FupDup]

Alan Davion, on 14 January 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

So in essence it gets into the differences between TT and FPS. And the problems MWO faces because of it. That about right?

In TT because of the weapon hit locations being randomized by dice rolls, the chances of a weapon, and by extension, an IS XL engine destruction, are wildly lower than they are here in MWO because the FPS mechanics allow pin point accuracy.

Side torso Gauss with an IS XL engine is generally not a great idea in TT as well. Keep in mind that most normal equipment that gets hit by a crit from any weapon in TT will be destroyed instantly, including a Gauss Rifle getting hit by a random Small Laser crit.

The mounting height thing though is purely a product of playing a real-time game instead of a board game where mounts in your left knee are functionally identical to mounts on top of your shoulders.

Edited by FupDup, 14 January 2017 - 12:30 PM.

[Snazzy Dragon]

IS small laser and medium laser family should have their heat reduced and the ER lasers should produce about the same heat those lasers do now. Bandaid fix but it'd be a start.

As for engines-- there is no good way to balance what is completely imbalanced in the lore. I say give XL engines ST structure bufffs to match the internal structure of the CT component, and STD engine the HP buff of the XL but with a CT buff as well-- no buffs for LFE. This will give STD engine a place in making durable STD engine builds and XL will be compensated for its slot and instant st death, and leave LFE as a middle ground option.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 14 January 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

If PGI's "new" toys for the Inner Sphere are just the IS cheap attempts to knockoff Clan invasion tech while being inferior in every possible category (e.g. ER lasers, SSRMs, LBX, UACs,) while giving the Clans actual completely new tech, that would be pretty unfair.

It would be better if PGI focused on tech for the IS that is legitimately different rather than just the same basic thing with less damage, less range, more tons, and more critslots.

I don't disagree. In fact, aside from the Engine part, I agree with McG's OP. I'm just keeping it real.

Mystere, on 14 January 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

But but but ... PGI and a not-so-insignificant segment of the player base insisted such a thing was possible.





It's also beyond the grasp/comprehension of a large segment of the playerbase, as a careful review of the forums would reveal.

Ayup. And so I continue to push my boulder up the hill.... because "I'm having fun!"

[Wintersdark]

Alan Davion, on 14 January 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

So in essence it gets into the differences between TT and FPS. And the problems MWO faces because of it. That about right?

In TT because of the weapon hit locations being randomized by dice rolls, the chances of a weapon, and by extension, an IS XL engine destruction, are wildly lower than they are here in MWO because the FPS mechanics allow pin point accuracy.

That's the crux of it.

In tabletop, weapon battle values are easy to calculate because the location of the weapon is irrelevant, and a battle is easy to model mathematically via randomized to hit and hit location roles. In MWO, things aren't random, and thus it's MUCH harder to model.

In MWO, there are many, many more factors that get involved, and as such tabletop battle values are totally useless, even as a starting point (and they were unbalanced even in tabletop).

So, you'd need to somehow arrive at values for everything, from the chassis to the individual equipment, and those values would depend heavily on the physical shape and form of the chassis.

If those values where incorrect (and they certainly would be, given the extreme difficulty in assigning points values that ARE correct) then you'd have, for example, situations where a weapon has too low a Battle Value. For example, lets say a PPC was valued 20% lower than it should be, and an LBX10 was valued 10% HIGHER than it should be. Then a team with lots of PPC's would be matched as even against a team with LBX10's where the PPC team was way stronger than the MM "expected" and the LBX10 team was weaker than the MM expected:

Now, as EVERYTHING would have incorrect values, matches would be wholly random, and you may as well not have BV at all.

But! You'd argue, we can adjust the values! Well, of course.

Now you've got one more balance dial to twist to try to generate better matches. Adding more dials does not make balancing easier, it makes it harder. Is the PPC overvalued or undervalued, or is it the base chassis people are mounting them on that's overvalued or undervalued?

The best case scenario with Battlevalue is that we end up where we are right now - mediocre balance that PGI never really gets right and is constantly adjusting resulting in even shifting metas.... just like now.



It's DAMN HARD to say exactly how many "points" a hard point is worth on a chassis. What type of hardpoint it is matters, it's physical location matters, the size of the hitbox it's in matters, the other hardpoints available matter.



It's not that BV is bad - in theory, it's awesome. And if PGI was super-amazing, with REALLY AMAZING excellent designers, it's possible a BV system could work out smashingly well.

But there's very, very little space between the very small "Great Balance!" target and "Omg, that was a ton of design time that went into making an utterly useless system that makes match quality even worse!"

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 January 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

Yes, it's true, the LFE won't make Clan and IS carbon copies of each other. Each will retain some flavor. I guess as a non comp player, I don't mind that.

For actual perfect faction balance? That sort of can't happen while this game remotely resembles a Mechwarrior/Battletech IP.... which some of us pointed out way back in Closed Beta. Either one could go the MW4/MechAssault approach (PvP friendly) or Go for a more hardcore Lore approach as originally advertised... which was never going to work with Clan Tech added...as also noted repeatedly in closed beta)

Instead they've chosen to spend the last 4.5 years straddling the fence and vaccinating between the two extremes, and here we are, with nobody getting the game they actually want.

Short of a toilet flushing reset on the entire game, not sure what you realistically can expect to change.

There's no need for carbon copies, but it would be a lot easier
Quirks on engines as a bandaid. Add more quirks as needed, otherwise


I don't even need perfect balance, but things that have been sitting in bad places years without changes, that does upset me. 4 years for the Flamer was far too long, but the isSL is right there as well.



There is the new Balance Underling, who has shown more promise in two patches than Paul in two years, so I expect...different. More hope, I guess.
I wonder if we'll ever get the name of the Balance Underling, or if they'll wisely stay anonymous, to avoid Memes in their honour. (As well as personal attacks...best stay without a name)



At this point in time, is there anything related to Lore in MWO aside from names? There's barely ANY lore, anywhere, in the client.
It's Shooty Stompy Robots as far as I'm concerned, and having worthless weapons for years on end in Shooty Stompy Robots leaves a bad taste in my mouth, when it's a 5 minute fix every patch.

[Bishop Steiner]

MechaBattler, on 14 January 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

We as in all the people I've seen in threads asking for IS XL buff. Though I don't agree with making it the same as Clan XL. I think they should increase it's HP by a lot. It would still die faster. But better than what we have.

Just because it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to balance.



Yeah, it kinda is. But since the Clans are the higher end of the firepower totem pole. I find it hard to care.

perhaps all IS mechs need some sort of ST Structure boost, then, by tonnage? (IDK, just spitballing here)

Realistically... I see no point worrying about Clan STD Engine.... there is essentially no point in time they are worth taking, and I just feel it is a waste of time and resources to deal with them. My concern about ultra tough IS XLs is further obsoleting STD engines, aside from a few forced builds.

Mind you, I would say any IS Buff like the one suggested above come at the expense of uber offensive quirks for the IS, period. But then I have long championed the idea of the IS having sturdier, tried and true, easy to fix, hard to hurt robots... while the Clans have much more offense oriented finesse builds.

Basically, as a real simplification, I guess, make the IS Tankier, and the Clans Punchier. and you can have your different but "equal" approach. (yes I am aware there is still a need for significant individual details to make that work, too)

Hell, how about we strip the IS Offensive Quirks, regulate the balance extremes between weapons closer, and then simply triple IS Structure HP to the Clans Doubled? Again, just spitballing ideas that might work without trying to reinvent the entire wheel. (emphasis on "might")

[Steve Pryde]

MechaBattler, on 14 January 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

I'm excited for LFEs. But they need to buff IS XL and standards. We didn't ask for a nerf to Clan XL. We want IS engines buffed.

Yeah it's funny. Most guys wanted buffs for IS xl engines and what is PGI doing? Nerfing Clan xl engines even more, lol!

[The Lighthouse]

Mcgral18, on 14 January 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

At this point in time, is there anything related to Lore in MWO aside from names? There's barely ANY lore, anywhere, in the client.
It's Shooty Stompy Robots as far as I'm concerned, and having worthless weapons for years on end in Shooty Stompy Robots leaves a bad taste in my mouth, when it's a 5 minute fix every patch.

I mean, this game does not have melee just like many other Mechwarrior games released. Without melee, talking about putting lore-based stuffs are just laughable and useless.

Now to think about it, I completely forgot about Flamers. Would be really good for light mechs if it was useful...

[Bishop Steiner]

Bud Crue, on 14 January 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

I'm not even looking for balance per se, what I am looking for i for PGI to pick a goal, expound on that goal, and then FOLLOW THROUGH with that goal.

I keep harping on Paul's stated goals for balance from last year, (ever mech down to the variant level being of equivalent value, within their roles) and seemingly everything that has occured since then seems to be the opposite in direction. Specifically, most mechs have the same damn role and they are most certainly not equal in that sole role (participants in a murder ball or firing line).

When we get "different but equivalent roles for each mech down to the variant level", even a remote semblance of balance would be great. Instead that goal is flushed (as I supposed we all knew it would be) in view of this latest goal of seeming never ending power creep. Can't see what could go wrong. Sigh. I only hope that this goal is as short lived as the last one.

Well, that's a drum I've been beating for four years. In fact jsut about a year ago I caught a lot of forum flack for a post titled something akin to "PGI Pick a Direction and bloody well stick to it!). Because the biggest thing that has screwed this game is feeble attempts to be all things to all people...when the two goals are entirely too divergent to ever actually make meet in the middle...or even come close.
https://mwomercs.com...-should-mwo-go/
not really sure where mine went...but here's one from Arisen on the basic subject.

[Mcgral18]

The Lighthouse, on 14 January 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

I mean, this game does not have melee just like many other Mechwarrior games released. Without melee, talking about putting lore-based stuffs are just laughable and useless.

Now to think about it, I completely forgot about Flamers. Would be really good for light mechs if it was useful...

I'd argue Flamers are in an acceptable place
Worthless for damage, but I've shut down many a mech with a Viper (which is pretty much a Light)



I think that's another Clam VS IS balance issue...because the Flamer isn't really worth a ton
I generally want 3, and that's 1.5 tons. Heatsink and a shield arm, in most cases
For an IS mech? That's 3 tons, for identical performance


A bit of a weapons issue, maybe improved performance, as PGI doesn't touch weight.

[Alan Davion]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 January 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

Realistically... I see no point worrying about Clan STD Engine.... there is essentially no point in time they are worth taking, and I just feel it is a waste of time and resources to deal with them. My concern about ultra tough IS XLs is further obsoleting STD engines, aside from a few forced builds.

Clan STDs are pretty much invalid to begin with because even their largest weapons can be used with their XL engines due to them taking only 2 slots in each ST.

IS mechs can't use their largest weapons with their XL engines because all their stuff is larger than Clan stuff. XLs taking 3 slots instead of 2. As well as a lot of the weapons being at least one slot larger than their Clan equivalents.

IS mechs need to use STD engines when using certain weapons. AC20s being the prime example, or boating larger numbers of smaller weapons. The 5 AC5 Mauler for instance, granted this build can't use an LFE either because 3 of the 5 AC5s take up all the ST crit slots, this build still requires an STD engine.

The only engine besides an STD that would usable when mounting an AC20 in the side torso would probably be the LFE, taking up one less slot in the STs than the XLs.

[MechaBattler]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 January 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

perhaps all IS mechs need some sort of ST Structure boost, then, by tonnage? (IDK, just spitballing here)

Realistically... I see no point worrying about Clan STD Engine.... there is essentially no point in time they are worth taking, and I just feel it is a waste of time and resources to deal with them. My concern about ultra tough IS XLs is further obsoleting STD engines, aside from a few forced builds.

Mind you, I would say any IS Buff like the one suggested above come at the expense of uber offensive quirks for the IS, period. But then I have long championed the idea of the IS having sturdier, tried and true, easy to fix, hard to hurt robots... while the Clans have much more offense oriented finesse builds.

Basically, as a real simplification, I guess, make the IS Tankier, and the Clans Punchier. and you can have your different but "equal" approach. (yes I am aware there is still a need for significant individual details to make that work, too)

Hell, how about we strip the IS Offensive Quirks, regulate the balance extremes between weapons closer, and then simply triple IS Structure HP to the Clans Doubled? Again, just spitballing ideas that might work without trying to reinvent the entire wheel. (emphasis on "might")

What if they increased HP and added an RNG mechanic that reduces the damage? It wouldn't be reliable, but it would potentially extend the life of a mech a bit. Won't help much if you're getting focused fire though, not unless RNGeezus is on your side. Could increase standard engine HP too to make it the most durable engine.