51 replies to this topic

[BearFlag]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 February 2017 - 09:04 PM, said:

The problem is with that though, is that with weapon balance, each one should have a role. With that role comes priority stats, those stats have to be small enough that you don't have weapons bleeding into other roles. For reference depending on how future tech goes, we will have 4 different laser types in BOTH tech bases for each size of laser (IS: Standard, ER, Pulse, X-Pulse and Clan: ER, Heavy, Pulse, ER-Pulse).

Valid criticism. Problem is PGI hasn't introduced a new weapon for ages. The proposal allows us to create our own intermediate weapons without actually coding new ones.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

BearFlag, on 13 February 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

Valid criticism. Problem is PGI hasn't introduced a new weapon for ages. The proposal allows us to create our own intermediate weapons without actually coding new ones.

They are introducing new tech in the summer, so that has to be kept in mind.

BearFlag, on 13 February 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

Going back to my LCT-1E with its delicious 6 energy hard points, what can I do with him? Typically, I'd run 6 SPLs because heat management is better than with MLs.

Ima stop you right here, maybe the quirks changed but last I knew the LCT-1E was still the most apt with MLs and the 3M was apt with SPLs.

BearFlag, on 13 February 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

What if my 6 ML Locust took damage and range nerfs for heat and duration buffs?

You wouldn't ever do that because then you would pretty much be taking MPLs, again this gets into bleeding into other roles real quick, especially when talking about Small and Medium lasers because they don't really have a lot of breathing room at the moment.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 February 2017 - 09:15 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

BearFlag, on 13 February 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

The good thing is that numbers is numbers. So long as we avoid the dartboard and remain as systematic as possible, good trees can be designed.

Well, the reason I ask is because I believe you (we?) will ultimately discover that the preferences, regardless of faction, will result in non-linear relationships. For example, my experience has told me that if my laser is burning for 0.8 seconds, then getting shorter has decreasing benefits irrespective of how much damage that laser is dealing. An IS Small laser burning for 0.5 seconds would be of little consequence to one burning for 0.75 seconds, because it's "front-loaded" enough already that 'Mech movement limitations prevent players from adequately spreading the damage except in extreme cases (i.e. tiny Locust). Conversely, if it gets longer, it has increasing drawbacks until it hits a point where it's just not useful any more unless you really, really crank up the damage to compensate. Case-in-point, both ER Large Lasers. For competitive play, the IS version is only taken when heavily modified by quirks, the Clan one is not taken at all. Stock, both have about the same damage-per-second during burn.

[Reno Blade]

The idea is good, but I think you don't need to go that far.
We just need to make sure that
a.) either have downsides to all upsides (as you suggested)
or
b.) reduce the maximum number of points per skill-class, to reduce the total possible gain (e.g. group Survival, Movement and Mech-Ops together and limit the max amound of SP you can spend in this group to be only able to max 1/3 of all nodes combined)

The difference is
a.) would limit the player by adding downsides. And by making it impossible to spec both aspects at the same time (e.g. Laser heat and Laser damage)

b.) would give the players more choice for weapons, but limiting the maximum buffs they can get.

in the end the difference is just that the "lowest" point is lower with a.) than with b.) where the lowest point is the chassis/weapons basic values.
So maybe b.) is easier to balance in the end.

I still like both options.

[Spunkmaster]

The enhancements in the Firepower branches are, by and large, very minimal. Why bother trying to balance them? The entire min/max thing becomes very masterbatory at some point.

[BearFlag]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 February 2017 - 09:17 PM, said:

Well, the reason I ask is because I believe you (we?) will ultimately discover that the preferences, regardless of faction, will result in non-linear relationships. For example, my experience has told me that if my laser is burning for 0.8 seconds, then getting shorter has decreasing benefits irrespective of how much damage that laser is dealing. An IS Small laser burning for 0.5 seconds would be of little consequence to one burning for 0.75 seconds, because it's "front-loaded" enough already that 'Mech movement limitations prevent players from adequately spreading the damage except in extreme cases (i.e. tiny Locust). Conversely, if it gets longer, it has increasing drawbacks until it hits a point where it's just not useful any more unless you really, really crank up the damage to compensate. Case-in-point, both ER Large Lasers. For competitive play, the IS version is only taken when heavily modified by quirks, the Clan one is not taken at all. Stock, both have about the same damage-per-second during burn.

Ah. I think I ran into that with the range/duration trade-off. The Clan loss of range for a small duration drop did not look appealing whereas the IS boost was nearly irresistible. So in that trade-off I broke the very system I was using by scaling up the duration effect to accommodate obviously bad numbers. Of course, there are a plethora of design possibilities that could be paper tested. It need not use Clan/IS difference all the time or at all.

[BearFlag]

BearFlag, on 14 February 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

Ah. I think I ran into that with the range/duration trade-off. The Clan loss of range for a small duration drop did not look appealing whereas the IS boost was nearly irresistible. So in that trade-off I broke the very system I was using by scaling up the duration effect to accommodate obviously bad numbers. Of course, there are a plethora of design possibilities that could be paper tested. It need not use Clan/IS difference all the time or at all.

Yeah. They could probably greatly streamline the current system and force "hard choices" by making each skill linear and reducing the number of SP's. Right now, traversing Hill Climb to reach Speed Tweak doesn't make a lot of sense to many players (judging from the forum).

Handling of SP's in a trade-off system could, but doesn't have to, use one SP per node. Theoretically, since we're not just buffing, a tree (heat/damage) or a branch (damage) might be opened with one SP and developed some, none or all to the player's taste. SP's would function as unlocks in this case allowing specialization away from stock.

Any way, since we're dealing with sets of numbers, the possibilities are manifold. I guess the big question is: do we want a system of pure buffs (like now), one with trade-offs or a combination of both?

Edited by BearFlag, 14 February 2017 - 07:35 PM.

[BearFlag]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 February 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

Ima stop you right here, maybe the quirks changed but last I knew the LCT-1E was still the most apt with MLs and the 3M was apt with SPLs.

I run mine the opposite. Like the big cooldown on the M applied to mediums.

[TheCharlatan]

@OP, I agree with the general idea of creating choice on what to focus on.
I like the trade-offs, but i noticed many mechwarriors HATE red numbers (you remember the old trade-off modules?).
The skill tree as it is is a bore. It would be great to be able to modify a mech to suit to one's playstyle instead of just buffing it slightly in a large number of variables.

[Nesutizale]

Good idea, I like it.
Values have to be tested so they are well balanced but its a better concept then the current one as it has a risk-reward system in it while the skilltree is just reward.

Also similar to my idea ( https://mwomercs.com...48#entry5608348 ) just that I would give Mech Systems/weapons that you can buy modified values. Leaving out a second currancy (XP) and just have C-Bills for everything.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

BearFlag, on 14 February 2017 - 07:38 PM, said:

I run mine the opposite. Like the big cooldown on the M applied to mediums.

Which makes no sense because SPLs at that range need cooldown more (aka better DPS since SPLs are already fairly heat efficient) while mediums need better damage for exposure time (which means the extra ML is worth it) especially since the 3M doesn't give you corresponding heat gen quirks to match the cooldown so ultimately you are the same level of heat efficient as a 1E with 5 MLs but have less damage per alpha (but you are able to repeat it faster, which really isn't necessary).

[Livaria]

I've got a different philosophy for the skill tree.

Simply just make everything about the skill tree, free. No more experience needed and no more C-bill skill costs. The moment that a player buys a 'mech. A player can simply spend up to their maximum allowed points so that they can tweak their mech towards whatever playstyle they've built their 'mech for.

We don't have to constantly debate over how much or whether a certain drawback is good enough. I consider this much more simpler alternative towards achieving better balance for the game overall.

Edited by Livaria, 16 February 2017 - 04:48 AM.