1125 replies to this topic

[PocketYoda]

Every time people ask for balances customers here shout them down.. So many telling them they are wrong but give no serious alternatives...

[HammerMaster]

Navid A1, on 10 February 2018 - 04:24 AM, said:

To be honest, we were discussing tighter tracking and faster turning for LRMs when the launcher itself had LOS to the target. Its even mentioned in the document.

generally, balancing guided missiles like LRMs and ATMs with just basic stats is hard... they either become an annoyance or completely useless!

Agreed.
Overhaul please.

Edited by HammerMaster, 10 February 2018 - 04:51 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Navid A1, on 10 February 2018 - 04:24 AM, said:

To be honest, we were discussing tighter tracking and faster turning for LRMs when the launcher itself had LOS to the target. Its even mentioned in the document.

generally, balancing guided missiles like LRMs and ATMs with just basic stats is hard... they either become an annoyance or completely useless!

Have you considered things like changing break-lock mechanics, so that missiles already in-flight dont lose guidance once lock is lost?

Or reducing ECM no-lock bubble to like very small so the mechs around ECM-er dont benefit that much?

Thats probably the two most annoying anti-lurm counters that hold them back, given the popularity of radar derp and the abundance of ECM mechs.

[HammerMaster]

Nema Nabojiv, on 10 February 2018 - 04:51 AM, said:

Have you considered things like changing break-lock mechanics, so that missiles already in-flight dont lose guidance once lock is lost?

Or reducing ECM no-lock bubble to like very small so the mechs around ECM-er dont benefit that much?

Thats probably the two most annoying anti-lurm counters that hold them back, given the popularity of radar derp and the abundance of ECM mechs.

Smack down Jesus box ecm to TT stats of disabling Artemis, c3, beagle while in bubble.

[Nema Nabojiv]

HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 04:56 AM, said:

Smack down Jesus box ecm to TT stats of disabling Artemis, c3, beagle while in bubble.

I'm not asking to smack it into uselessness for ecm-wearer.

There is just a situation when you see like five mechs clustered together, and they are all in the cockblock bubble and you cant lock anyone in a meaningful time. What could help in my opinion is if that situation changes so that you cant lock the ECM-er himself and the mechs standing really really close to him.

It was ok when the raven and D-DC were the only ecm-capable mechs, but now everyone and their dog have ecm and that's got out of hand.
Just a thought.

[HammerMaster]

Nema Nabojiv, on 10 February 2018 - 05:14 AM, said:

I'm not asking to smack it into uselessness for ecm-wearer.

There is just a situation when you see like five mechs clustered together, and they are all in the cockblock bubble and you cant lock anyone in a meaningful time. What could help in my opinion is if that situation changes so that you cant lock the ECM-er himself and the mechs standing really really close to him.

It was ok when the raven and D-DC were the only ecm-capable mechs, but now everyone and their dog have ecm and that's got out of hand.
Just a thought.

It was never ok as it's implementation was overreaching at it's inception in MWO.
Just like free c3 was mis-implemented.

Edited by HammerMaster, 10 February 2018 - 05:48 AM.

[Sigmar Sich]

Navid A1, on 10 February 2018 - 04:24 AM, said:

To be honest, we were discussing tighter tracking and faster turning for LRMs when the launcher itself had LOS to the target. Its even mentioned in the document.

I have a few general questions about rebalance, and eventually suggestions:
1) AC/10. After other ACs got more ammo per ton, AC/10 lost its superior ammo efficiency. Is it good enough weapon to receive such indirect nerf? If not, raise its ammo too. Or buff other parameters, like velocity.
Velocity buffs are also an option, if you need to make regular ACs to be chosen over UACs. (I'm not stating they are or aren't, just a suggestion)

2) RACs. One thing puzzles me with this weapons. Unlike other weapons, with few exceptions, RAC5 is just a doubly scaled up RAC2, with worse velocity and, insignificantly, range. So having 2*RAC2 over 1*RAC5 was a disadvantage in all except velocity and a little range difference; while sacrificing 6 tons for weapons, and have to invest double weight in ammo.
Can you please make this choice more interesting? So there was some sence to take twin RAC2 over RAC5. Same as there is sense in twin AC/5 over single AC/10, or something like that. Range buff? Ammo efficiency?

3) Gauss Rifle vs Light GR. Can you please explain to me, why LGR, having already better parameters (except alpha damage), receives buffs, when GR does not? Is higher alpha damage supposed to be the only benefit for ordinary GR? Maybe longer maximum range?
Sort of like with Heavy GR. When GR and LRG have maximum range as (2 * optimal range), HGR have this ratio at 4.09. Maybe make GR maximum range same as for LGR, leaving optimal range as it is. So GR range ratio would be nearly 2.72
If i remember correctly, this was an original design of GR in beta. Since we have now other long range offenders, maybe it's time to return this feature.

4) Machineguns. IS MGs are twice as heavy as clans', and cannot be really boated. Aside from suggested damage buffs, maybe you should slightly buff their ranges? So IS MGs could be better paired with some lasers/pulse lasers? So such mixed group could become more or less equivalent of MG boating?

5) Heavy lasers. I mentioned this idea in my original post with general suggestions (i suggest you read it too, could be of use when you move on to skill tree, and other topics), but i mention it again. Are you not bored with another laser weapon family, which behaves same as others? Wouldn't you like something more interesting?
Make Heavy lasers as clan energy alternative to IS RACs. Use flamer coding. Heavy laser would be a constant beam, making damage to target and heat to shooter. After ramp is full, heat to shooter increases, so you have to overheat soon, or stop shooting.
I believe this change would be much more interesting, and solves giga-alpha problems more effectively, because it would not be an alpha anymore, but DPS dependent on your heat efficiency. Still huge amounts of damage, but more balanced with facetime.

6) Flamers. Are you guys ok with how they work? It is maybe hard to notice in big battles, but Solaris is coming, and i'm afraid it will be all about flamers.
Don't you think flamers would be better if they fired sort of like lasers, with burn and cooldown? This will allow to return old particles, which were much better, but were blinding when flamers shot constantly.

7) Command Console. Just help it somehow.

8) Targeting Computers. Does not benefit Gauss, Missiles. What if they had some unique bonuses, not like for ACs and lasers. For Gauss maybe just a crit chance, no need for velocities. For LRMs maybe missile maneuvering and slightly more maximum range. For SRM/MRM spread.
Link buff you suggested to MRMs to TC.
Make TC useful for all weapon systems.

9) Single Heat Sinks. Give them some reason to be chosen over DHS, even if for niche builds.
Maybe increase SHS heatcapacity, or decrease DHS heatcapacity. So boated SHS could provide more heat threshold.

______________
And, finally, LRMs.
Completely broken design, because it tries to balance direct and indirect fire with a middle ground.
LRMs should be redesigned. Indirect fire should never be as effective as direct fire, when target can shoot back.
In post i mentioned i suggested overcomplicated design, with complete split of direct and indirect fire. However i believe we can achieve this with balance tuning.

What parameters should differ for direct/indirect fire?
1. Lock-on time. Make indirect lock-on *1.5-2 times longer.
2. Missile maneuvering. Should be significantly slower for indirect fire.
3. Missile spread. Should be much, much wider for indirect fire. Like an area bombardment.
Sadly, we can't make speed or angle different, because of weird behaviours with missile acceleration/deceleration in flight, and curved flightpaths.

How it should be done? I think at least some part of this buff should be delegated to Artemis, which costs money, weight and space; and does not work with indirect fire.

But thats not all. LRMs supposed to be a Long range. What we have now is more like guided MRMs.
LRMs should be an option for long range fights. With mentioned nerf to indirect fire, we can now buff overall parameters. I suggest to buff range (maybe 1100-1200) and velocity.

Also, very important part of LRM balance is ECM, which is another completely broken design.
Since LRMs indirect fire is nerfed, and you can retaliate to direct LRM fire with your own weapons, i suggest ECM to no longer deny targeting marker (red square). Instead it should deny targeting information (pilot name and mech type included). And it should increase lock-on times. Sort of like now you trying to lock on ECM mech under UAV or TAG, but on regular basis. (because TAG cannot compete with ERLL and such)

Also add node to skill tree, to increase AMS ammo / decrease LAMS heat.

This way LRMs should lose their annoying indirect fire spam, and gain some benefits for direct fire and range fights. Most importantly, this solution allows to get rid off very stupid design of LRM-ECM hard counters, infamous "Feast or Famine".

P.S. Sorry for another wall of text.

Edited by Sigmar Sich, 10 February 2018 - 06:19 AM.

[Kuaron]

kuma8877, on 09 February 2018 - 07:10 PM, said:

As such, buffs are generally perceived as more fun than nerfs (even if minimally so).

But you are aware of how irrational this perception is. I hope I don't need to explain why.
How are we supposed to take suggestions seriously if they are based on something like this?

[Chados]

The main ones I’d like to see are:

Buff AC velocity as well as cooldown and heat. I’d like to see AC/10 velocity in the 1500 m/s range and the others adjusted accordingly. Regular AC ought to be ice cold to compete with ultras that can pump out double damage.

PPCs ought to have velocity in the IS ERPPC range of 1900 m/s. A PPC is a particle projector and those should actually be about hitscan, frankly, and the PPFLD could be mitigated by splash damage reduction or randomizing spread, which ought actually to be done across the board, “skill” be damned. They could add skill tree nodes to tighten that up. And I absolutely agree with reducing IS ERPPC heat, they are unusable right now.

Artemis LRM tracking strength and spread bonuses ought to be set at pre-nerf levels. SRM spread bonuses ought to be restored to pre-nerf levels too.

For the love of Kerensky and all things holy, un-nerf IS medium and ER medium lasers and put them back to mid-2017 levels! They’re hotter and cool down slower than large lasers, for pity’s sake! Too many IS mechs...like the Jester and the Phoenix Hawk...are starved for hardpoints and going up against Clan laserboats that can pull off an 80-point alpha strike. And Clan mechs with few energy hardpoints...like the base Warhawk Nanuq...ought to get some sort of set-of-8 bonus that radically improves ER medium laser performance. Clan omnis with base hardpoints mirroring IS mechs ought to get commensurate set of 8 quirks that discourage omnipod min-maxing.

I hate to see the Clan ER Large Laser being forced into a sniper role. That’s just my opinion. I hate that snipey-pokey game ten thousand times more than I hate LRM boats who hide across the map. I don’t think cowardly play ought to be encouraged.

Buffs to ER micro lasers and micro pulse lasers are going to feed into the Clan laservomit meta and miniaturize it. Y’all sure you want to buff the Piranha that much? I agree with the proposed machine gun buffs but they ought to be paired with some major ghost heat penalties for loadouts of more than six MGs/LMGs/HMGs on any mech.

[Andi Nagasia]

Troa Barton, on 09 February 2018 - 08:02 PM, said:

Not directed at me but I do like this however doubling the velocity and AMS DPS would not balance out it would be a nerf to LRMs.
Doubling the velocity and say a .3-4 DPS increase on AMS damage would be closer.
This would really hurt smaller tube counts however LRM 5s and 10s would be DOA.
This would also hurt clan LRMs more since they come in one at a time.

actually it wouldnt, if you Doubled LRM velocity LRMs would move threw AMS range twice as fast,
which means Doubling AMS damage would actually null the Effect, the balance between the 2 would not change,
-
if a single AMS doesnt hurt small LRM Launchers now(LRM5/10) then it wont hurt them after,
(the Proposed doubling of all nonLRM health, is to again offset the Increased Damage of AMS)

Khobai, on 09 February 2018 - 09:15 PM, said:

you just explained what there is to fix

1) make them less spammy

2) make them more skill based

3) make them less feast or famine

1) increasing the Cooldown of LRMs could make them Less Spammy,
as you cant chain fire them as well, or it would cost more in Launchers(8LRM5 need vs only 5-6 now)

2) by increasing the Cooldown Players will have to choose their shots more carefully,
adding to skill of the weapon, as you have to choose your engagements more so then now,

3) doubling their Velocity will make them more reliable as a weapon system,
AMS changes(x2damage) and increasing nonLRM missile health(x2Health) are to keep Missile/AMS balance)

Kin3ticX, on 09 February 2018 - 09:36 PM, said:

I don't think you put a lot of thought into your posts. Are you trolling me?

Yeah sure we'll tweet Russ and ask him to nerf buildings, buildings OP. That will fix LRMs.

There just isnt a way to make LRMs more skill based. Its the nature of a homing weapon, it aims itself if you havent noticed.

its true doing those 3 things will make LRMs better, but not OP,
Homing weapons can be skill weapons it treated right,

[Chados]

5) Heavy lasers. I mentioned this idea in my original post with general suggestions (i suggest you read it too, could be of use when you move on to skill tree, and other topics), but i mention it again. Are you not bored with another laser weapon family, which behaves same as others? Wouldn't you like something more interesting?
Make Heavy lasers as clan energy alternative to IS RACs. Use flamer coding. Heavy laser would be a constant beam, making damage to target and heat to shooter. After ramp is full, heat to shooter increases, so you have to overheat soon, or stop shooting.
I believe this change would be much more interesting, and solves giga-alpha problems more effectively, because it would not be an alpha anymore, but DPS dependent on your heat efficiency. Still huge amounts of damage, but more balanced with facetime.

This. Hell yea, I like this. I’d try these. It’d be like a Clan energy version of the RAC.

[CainenEX]

Lionheart2012, on 10 February 2018 - 01:56 AM, said:

Additionally, the balance pass did not appear to follow a lore or analytic-based paradigm to arrive at the new values for damage, cooldown, duration, or heat adjustments. I have done this, and my explanations can be found in the video.



Google doc below

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Feel free to comment.

And this just killed all credibility you had.
Again.
Lore: The collective history and the sum of all knowledge available about a certain fantasy or sci-fi universe.
Well we gotta toss that out the window. This is a VIDEO GAME. It is not a BOOK, and it is not a TABLE TOP.

Your methodology of balance is a terrible approach and a prime example of why people like you have been excluded from being decision makers. Balance by potato does not make a better game.

Do yourself a favor and go do something constructive with your time or change your outlook.

[HammerMaster]

CainenEX, on 10 February 2018 - 09:05 AM, said:

And this just killed all credibility you had.
Again.
Lore: The collective history and the sum of all knowledge available about a certain fantasy or sci-fi universe.
Well we gotta toss that out the window. This is a VIDEO GAME. It is not a BOOK, and it is not a TABLE TOP.

Your methodology of balance is a terrible approach and a prime example of why people like you have been excluded from being decision makers. Balance by potato does not make a better game.

Do yourself a favor and go do something constructive with your time or change your outlook.

What about your credibility?
You say toss the books and Canon?
You don't care about Battletech then.
Then it's robot stompers now.
No lore, NO Battletech.
Know lore, Know Battletech.

[CainenEX]

HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 09:16 AM, said:

What about your credibility?
You say toss the books and Canon?
You don't care about Battletech then.
Then it's robot stompers now.
No lore, NO Battletech.
Know lore, Know Battletech.

When I have something to add I will.
I'm a game developer that has been playing MWO since 2015. I've ran my own unit and have been part of several units composed from new green guys to the elite upper players. I've participated in the competitive circuit and have several leagues under my belt. Currently with the ISENGRIM and happy to be a part of them.
My current stats are here: https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/isen
You can find my name among the list.

Quote

You say toss the books and Canon?
You don't care about Battletech then.
Then it's robot stompers now.
No lore, NO Battletech.
Know lore, Know Battletech.

I think you mis understood me. You don't need to use CANNON in the act of balancing. It doesn't work and won't ever work. You cannot do a 1 to 1 transition of a table top dice roller to a computer game. Even the upcoming batletech game drastically altered some of it's combat in lieu of this transition.

I do care about battletech and it's lore. I enjoy the stories. But that is what it is: A story.

It has very little place in determining game mechanics or aiding in balance. If you don't believe me then go ask another game dev. If they are worth their salt you'll get the same answer.

Edited by CainenEX, 10 February 2018 - 09:25 AM.

[Prototelis]

Are there any updates?

Can't get back in game until spring probably, but I like to keep tabs.

[HammerMaster]

CainenEX, on 10 February 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

When I have something to add I will.
I'm a game developer that has been playing MWO since 2015. I've ran my own unit and have been part of several units composed from new green guys to the elite upper players. I've participated in the competitive circuit and have several leagues under my belt. Currently with the ISENGRIM and happy to be a part of them.
My current stats are here: https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/isen
You can find my name among the list.

I think you mis understood me. You don't need to use CANNON in the act of balancing. It doesn't work and won't ever work. You cannot do a 1 to 1 transition of a table top dice roller to a computer game. Even the upcoming batletech game drastically altered some of it's combat in lieu of this transition.

I do care about battletech and it's lore. I enjoy the stories. But that is what it is: A story.

It has very little place in determining game mechanics or aiding in balance. If you don't believe me then go ask another game dev. If they are worth their salt you'll get the same answer.

Your "stats" are not relevant to this discussion.
Which is it? Toss the books or take liberties? Or translate the spirit where 1 to 1 is untenable?

I don't want arguing I want change.
If you stand on the shoulders of a name , you have to produce that legacy. Otherwise it's your named homebrew.

Edited by HammerMaster, 10 February 2018 - 09:55 AM.

[Tarogato]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 February 2018 - 10:22 PM, said:

You can actually buy some room to maneuver if you bump up the IS ghost heat limit for Medium-class from 6 to 7/8, so IS can spend more of their tonnage on the various ways to get more sinks in on certain 'Mechs, e.g. HBK-4P, BJ-1X, even the BK series for going pulse-boat.That, or weaken the penalty for firing 8 such that it's near the heat that 6x cERML generate (e.g. 6x cERML is 35.4 heat, so 8x isERML could ghost to 36, and the 9th can be a more potent penalty).

Actually, I wanted to eradicate the ghost heat penalty link on ML and MPL. I don't know even why PGI introduced it - it wasn't an overperforming combination. I dunno if that's in the docs, and we didn't discuss it at all. What do you think?

[HammerMaster]

Domo arigato Mr Tarogato!

[Lionheart2012]

Navid A1, on 10 February 2018 - 03:33 AM, said:

Only paying attention to dps/ton without considering anything else is not the way balance is done.
You are comparing weapons which are fundamentally different by using just 1 metric!

Apparently, you failed to watch the video to the end and you have not inspected the google doc. In the video, you will note I also balanced based on heat/damage using the same hierarchical approach. Further, this approach is a revision on what has already been put forward by the so-called consensus, so any criticism you may have is largely a criticism of your own work. Have you done this same level of analysis?

Navid A1, on 10 February 2018 - 03:33 AM, said:

while dps per ton is a useful metric for a limited number of weapons, you have to consider how that dps is being delivered?... is it pinpoint?... does it spread?... which weapons on which chassis are its direct rivals.... what is the range?... how many can be put on a single chassis.... how is the heat efficiency?... how well a weapon syncs with another.... etc

Please point to the metric that you would use to balance for spread factors (doesn't exist). Please point to the modifying factor used in the consensus proposal for range components (doesn't exist). Please point to the document used by the consensus authors discussing weapon mounts on the hundreds of variants and also to the document that discusses weapon synchronization (again, doesn't exist). So in other words, you have just pointed to the weakness of the "consensus approach." This demonstrates why my bid for a PTS test for any changes originating from this dialogue are so necessary.

[CainenEX]

HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

Your "stats" are not relevant to this discussion.
Which is it? Toss the books or take liberties? Or translate the spirit where 1 to 1 is untenable?

I don't want arguing I want change.
If you stand on the shoulders of a name , you have to produce that legacy. Otherwise it's your named homebrew.

My stats and experience are directly relevant because I have a greater understanding of this game than most people do, which leads me to play better than most. Its a hard fact. I'm not the best player out there, but certainly better than most of the playerbase.

I remember when there were many types of mechs and play styles that you could field effectively. I've been there. It was fun. Yes, even Gauss PPC was fun.
Taking liberties that are apart from the tabletop is best. If that doesn't work then toss the books and keep it in name only. Its a game and therefore the gameplay comes before anything else. If you want to interact with the universe in a different medium then there are books, and tabletop.
Those involved are changing it. Based on the purposed changes and some of the internal talk I'm very excited.
Whatever a game is based on it will never be a one to one thing. stories are important but do not superceed gameplay in a video game. This is a battletech game where story elements are involved. However you will never 1 to 1 produce that legacy. It is untenable. You can liberally translate it to apply to a game.

Edited by CainenEX, 10 February 2018 - 10:16 AM.