69 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

agreed. I found that post oddly open and insightful compared to the usually very guarded, well, propaganda we get in the Roadmaps, etc.

I do think in many regards, Russ and Paul would generally not have had the issues with much of the community, had they been more open to being straight up and admit failures, more often in the past. Well, and less secretive about their "master plan" leaving us only guessing as to the motive/reason behind a change.

Mind you, you still would have a vocal group of idiots looking to undermine any decision they disagree with, but those worthies would have had a whole lot less fuel to use to start the dumpster fires to begin with.

Let's see where this goes. I don't have an issue with anything in the post, as presented, TBH. Which is rare, usually I need to put some degree of caveats in. In this case, the caveat is solely: Talk is cheap, lets see if they walk the walk.

[C E Dwyer]

Well I just hope they have a solid plan that can be implemented very quickly, when the Skill tree goes live, or being brave about admitting they were wrong will get them nowhere.

Right or wrong, there will be bad imbalance when the ST goes live, and it's a question of getting it out there before people get fed up

[Khobai]

get your collection jars ready for all the tears

[xSleeZyx]

Monkey Lover, on 13 May 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Lights on the last pts were a little more sluggish but not to bad. You will have to plan on using lots of nodes on this to get it back to normal.

Heavy/assauts are on average down but this would make using a lighter eaiser.

True, and i suppose lights won't realy need to focus much on stucture buffs etc, just go all out mobility.
Also yea i guess, now lights will be even more deadly to assaults altho now they will have gigantic structure bonuses so i dunno.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 13 May 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

get your collection jars ready for all the tears

Naw, I 'm using my jars to collect pennies to buy some preparation H for all the chronically butthurt types around here. Maybe a little less chafing will improve their moods.

[Koniving]

EgoSlayer, on 13 May 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

Except for the fact that this system has already failed and is incapable of meeting it's design goals. There is no way with a one size fits all skill tree they can balance under-performing mechs, and nerf over-performing ones. Weapon and skill changes are global, so nerfiing them because they are over-performing on specific mech variants means that it's over-nerfing that weapon/skill on everything that isn't that over-performing one.

I agree, however it has been stated (and we cannot know for sure until we see it) that the skill tree's many entries can be modified to so that any specific chassis or variant could have increased or decreased values from the baseline skill tree.

But in order to find out how they perform, they need data based on how things are after the skill tree's implementation, without the quirks interfering and without wild shotgun balancing being thrown into the mix. PGI has already tried wild shotgun balancing and it's been making things progressively worse.

You cannot pre-empt balance by supposing it all on paper, not with the *********** PGI has made out of MWO. from the source material. There are already far too many variables. It must be done in actuality based on hard data through actual play.

As such this approach cannot fail before it starts... It must start, then it must be observed and adjusted accordingly.

No one and nothing can 'pre-balance' something this complex without some hard data to back it. And the old data is worthless, because it relies entirely on quirks and closet builds.

Therefore, this approach requires implementation, observation and adjustments before it can be considered a failure.

I personally give it half a year to show progress before I will say it has potential or outright fails.

[Koniving]

Cathy, on 13 May 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

Well I just hope they have a solid plan that can be implemented very quickly, when the Skill tree goes live, or being brave about admitting they were wrong will get them nowhere.

Right or wrong, there will be bad imbalance when the ST goes live, and it's a question of getting it out there before people get fed up

I completely agree. There will be quite a bit of imbalance, but we already have substantial imbalance so it really won't feel all that different at first.

The question is how will it feel in 3 months? In 6?

To be honest if it were up to me, I'd flip this game over and rebuild it from the ground up.
I already know what I'd revamp and where... you wouldn't even recognize it as MWO by the time I got done with just the first few things on my list.

[CK16]

FupDup, on 13 May 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

Or you can just take some Large Lasers and put them on chain fire to use your long beam duration to sweep over swarms of infantry and light vehicles.

Adding weak AI "creep" targets won't magically make MGs or Small Lasers good.

The weapons though were never meant to really be mech killers ect. In fact most times when you read about a small laser or machine guns on a mech it is for anti infantry and light vehicles. Sure use-able on Mechs but they are not meant to be by any means efficient against mechs....That is like saying the 20mm on the Bradly is meant to be effective against MBT's....Sure you can fire at them with it, sure it might do something but it is not the "main tank killer" of that vehicle.

[Bishop Steiner]

CK16, on 13 May 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

The weapons though were never meant to really be mech killers ect. In fact most times when you read about a small laser or machine guns on a mech it is for anti infantry and light vehicles. Sure use-able on Mechs but they are not meant to be by any means efficient against mechs....That is like saying the 20mm on the Bradly is meant to be effective against MBT's....Sure you can fire at them with it, sure it might do something but it is not the "main tank killer" of that vehicle.

hence the issue with a "hit point" based system vs a penetration based one. They have added some aspects with BAR and such, in newer editions, I hear, but in general, the basic system itself is flawed. And tbh, even a simple Hit Point vs MegaDamage system like Palladium uses misses the mark.

Would love to see an improved version of the penetration system used in MoT, but with more depth. For instance an MG or Small Laser might prove useless at penetrating the frontal armor of a Tank or Mech... but could conceivably achieve mobility or sensor damage. (Mech joints simply cannot carry as much armor as the main bearing surfaces, and sensors, radar masts, com antenna, etc are all much more susceptible.)

Maybe translate existing Armor points into Mm or Cm of armor thickness in an area, and then base damage thusly. Mind you, it would be waaaaaay more work than PGI could do as even the tanks in WoT would be simpler to map, but with something penetration vs thickness based, and of course joints being given assigned health?penetration resistance separately, it would be a lot more interesting and "real".

Also it would not invalidate light weapons, but it woul drequire planned out and precision use (like the locust aiming for the hip joint in stead of the leg armor, or, if people insist on only slapping 2-3 pts of armor to a location, getting used to the fact that the small laser?MG boat CAN penetrate their rear armor wholesale.

It would be easy enough to base penetration off base damage of the weapon, with range and other variables factoring, and one could probably simplify the WoT penetration system some as mechs are specifically not built with "glancing" and angling shots in mind according to the old armor descriptions, but in simply absorbing damage.

That actually was part of what they used to justify the easier chance of critting a vehicle, is it's armor was designed to deflect damage via angles, mechs were designed to adsorb, so if you hit a vehicle dead on it was much more damaging.

Of course, you'd have to be less lazy with section mapping... after all, if a mech could target the hole made int he armor by another mech's bigger gun, then there is no reason those light weapons couldn't raise merry hob on the squishier internals.
Would probably have to overlay all sections with a hex map of some sort, combined with general location hitpoints.

I know I'd play the heck out a game with that t of armor and damage system.

[FupDup]

CK16, on 13 May 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

The weapons though were never meant to really be mech killers ect. In fact most times when you read about a small laser or machine guns on a mech it is for anti infantry and light vehicles. Sure use-able on Mechs but they are not meant to be by any means efficient against mechs....That is like saying the 20mm on the Bradly is meant to be effective against MBT's....Sure you can fire at them with it, sure it might do something but it is not the "main tank killer" of that vehicle.

The Small Laser isn't even an anti-infantry weapon. There are no game rules that give it bonus damage against infantry. It follows the same damage formula as normal direct-fire weapons do for dealing with infantry, which IIRC was normal damage divided by 5 rounded up. Thus, a Small Laser only kills one infantry soldier per turn. That's not very good for anti-infantry use.

The Small PULSE laser is actually decent against infantry (same damage as the MG, 2d6), but the Small Laser is pretty mediocre against infantry in Battletech.

The Bradley example in real life also isn't that valid because infantry in Battletech have very few methods of actually damaging mechs in the first place, and most of those methods only deal a few points of damage (e.g. 1 damage for the "David" mini Gauss Rifle and up to 2x2 damage for the 1-shot shoulder SRM2 that has only 90m range). Meanwhile, real life infantry with rocket launchers are very strong against most real life vehicles.

Edited by FupDup, 13 May 2017 - 02:01 PM.

[Johnny Z]

That pre update post was excellent and I don't know if anyone is complaining about it(didn't read entire topic) or how anyone could. Its a wait and see sort of thing now and almost for sure there will be some patches post update.

[Templar Dane]

IMO this upcoming patch is gonna be a bad idea. A lot of mechs are good not because of quirks but because of a variety of other factors.......

Hardpoints
Hardpoint locations
Geometry and hitboxes
Engine caps


A lot of quirks look like they were chosen by the dartboard of balance. Oh you have 3 ballistic slots in your left arm? Lets not give you the durability + mobility quirks and screw your torso pitch/yaw. Never mind that that left arm has upper/lower/hand actuators and can't fit anything meaningful there.

And the engine decoupling omfg. Rather than screw over a lot of mechs and make engine choice largely moot........they could have just made tonnage AND engine size matter for twisting/agility.

[Andi Nagasia]

Templar Dane, on 13 May 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

IMO this upcoming patch is gonna be a bad idea. A lot of mechs are good not because of quirks but because of a variety of other factors.......

And the engine decoupling omfg. Rather than screw over a lot of mechs and make engine choice largely moot........they could have just made tonnage AND engine size matter for twisting/agility.

they are using it as another balancing facter instead of neg quirks,
for instance (a TBR will act as if it has a 315 engine)(a MAD will act as if it has a 375 engine)

[Bud Crue]

...one of my turns coming on.

[MechaBattler]

FupDup, on 13 May 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

And yet there are far more faction balance problems than just energy weapons.

I wouldn't be surprised if PGI re-attempts their idea of Pulse Lasers as DPS weapons from the Energy draw PTS. And it'll definitely have the same result as that ED PTS...(i.e. making Pulse Lasers totally crappy).

Then let's hope they can look at that and do better. Maybe the new "consultant" Chris can do something better. Though Paul is still lead designer. So... >_>;

[LordNothing]

i kind of liked quirks, mainly because they could be leveraged for an advantage. of course that doesnt mean that its not a terrible idea. quirks themselves might not be the main problem, i see it as another tool to use as a last resort when other balance measures fail. using them to make mechs unique was probibly a bad idea.

i think the biggest issue pgi has is the shotgun nerfs. a problem mech prevents itself and instead of a precisely targeted nerf like negaquirks or base stat reduction you end up with a nerf to a weapons system instead. one that has far reaching consequences outside of the problem you intended to solve. pgi needs to be better at discerning what is a weapon balance issue and what is a mech balance issue.

balancing better performing mechs by base stats might be the better way to go. but you might still encounter situations where a quirk is the better way to go, but those need to be more generic as opposed to specific. quirks that multiply the values of certain skill tree items on a tab by tab basis could be used as a balancing tool as well as to implement a form of role warfare. better than tweaking the values of individual nodes and causing wide reaching balance problems and a lot of forum salt.

[Wintersdark]

EgoSlayer, on 13 May 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

Except for the fact that this system has already failed and is incapable of meeting it's design goals. There is no way with a one size fits all skill tree they can balance under-performing mechs, and nerf over-performing ones. Weapon and skill changes are global, so nerfiing them because they are over-performing on specific mech variants means that it's over-nerfing that weapon/skill on everything that isn't that over-performing one.

Right back to the initial clan invasion balance attempts.

No amount of chassis structure quirks are going to buff a hardpoint or geometry limited mech to be balanced with a better weapon platform, without chassis specific weapon boosts/nerfs. Having 5x structure boost doesn't mean squat when the only 2-3 weapons on the mech are gone in seconds after the armor is done.

Skill tree and lack of quirks is going to lead to a very small handful of optimum platforms, most, if not all, of them being on the clan side.

They specifically say in that post that the skill tree is NOT designed to help balance IS vs Clan, and that they need to address base systems instead, not the progression system.

Everyone - PGI included - knows this is going to cause issues.

[Wintersdark]

To which I reference:

Quote

Q: If the skill tree system is not meant to address Clan and IS balance, what is your plan for balance going forward?

Chris: Base level balance is what we are working towards. And to this end, we are continuing to work on improving this. To give you guys a sneak peek as to what is coming, these are some of the things currently being worked on to better balance the game:
June will see an extensive balance pass performed on Energy weapons, which will touch nearly every weapon currently in the energy lineup. This balance pass will focus on two major points:
Better weapon role definition between different weapon types.
A heavy focus on better baseline balance between IS and Clan Energy weapons.
Beyond this, Quirks are being extensively re-evaluated as we get data from Skill Tree release. We will be immediately focused toward those IS chassis’ receiving new Hero variants in June. We’ll possibly also see new Quirk passes on existing standard variants along with those Hero releases. In addition to this, we are looking at introducing new non-weapon Quirk types to add more variety to the way we currently Quirk mechs, though at this time, there is no ETA on the new Quirk types.
The Skill tree will be monitored heavily after release. We will have new nodes introduced with the new tech in July, and we will continue to refine the overall Skill Tree balance as we move towards introducing the nodes for that new tech.
The final balance point we can briefly highlight now involves Engine types. Better balance across the Standard, XL, and Clan XL Engine types is a major change that I am heavily pushing for. It's currently in the very early stages of evaluation, with gameplay and technical considerations to be made. At this time, there is no solid ETA or info I can provide, but it will definitely be something we look at addressing after the introduction of new tech.
Although these are the only things that we are able to address now, many more things are being looked into behind the scenes.

Timing is definitely a concern. It's probably going to be a long month for the IS. PGI best get the lead out on this one.

[EgoSlayer]

Wintersdark, on 13 May 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

They specifically say in that post that the skill tree is NOT designed to help balance IS vs Clan, and that they need to address base systems instead, not the progression system.

Everyone - PGI included - knows this is going to cause issues.

Yes, they say that it's not supposed to be a balance system replacement for quirks. Then why does it *create imbalance* then? It's not platform neutral and is creating a balance problem that they likely have no solution.
And I think you are giving PGI too much credit for how much they understand the issues this is going to create because they are going to let it beta test for two months before they even revisit some of the issues created with the assumption that the new tech is going to fix them. Then we have to wait for months of likely glacial paced balance changes on the new tech before they even look at the underlying problems that lead to quirks in the first place.

And this assumes that PGI is going to be able to tell that Weapon X on Platform Y is OP because of skill tree selection Z. I, for one, have zero faith in their ability to do this level of analysis.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 13 May 2017 - 04:28 PM.

[JC Daxion]

quirks were not perfect, but they certainly did make mechs that totally sucked worth playing in many cases..


A better system could happen, which would be great. But post quirk balance, and pre-quirk balance no question which was better IMO.