Popcat, on 06 June 2018 - 07:57 PM, said:
The comparison was the game was already unbalanced if favor of some mechs now real time 3d play has created additional imbalances but we all like our mechs to be our known and loved mechs not all the mechs be high central hard points with the same levels of armor and same weapons. We don't want every one driving reskinned (insert meta here). So for instance Tesunie wants his crab and his huntsman to be viable in the game while still being a huntsman and a crab and not a reskinned (warhammer-6r). What specific balance changes or expectations are had by the experienced players to make it better? What does it look like?
So for example with Tesunie's example how do we make missiles as viable as ballistics and energy without turning it into reskinned ballistics for example?
longer recharge x an more ammo for B... I dunno go wild tell me. Because I don't know.
Sorry was typing while you two were replying.
The first thought that comes to me is to do something many folks here deride, that is to balance by spreadsheet. With the thousands or so player data sets generated every six minutes, over a period of a week you should have enough data to see that lasers are doing x damage per ton per second per range per slot per heat. You can then alter thier weight; damage, slots, time etc. If a particular piece of equipment has a statistical anomaly when compared to another piece of equipment, for example folks seem to be boating large pulse lasers, it may be because their particular ratios may be performing better than other pieces of equipment. If a particular mech seems to be producing higher damage scores than others, it may be because it has better geometry. Same thing for negative values, if a particular mech is underperforming it may be because it’s mobility is too low. Frequent small changes to every unique system, be it weapon, mech or even heat sinks could be performed. This would upset many people as it’s difficult to keep documented outside of a linked database. They would also feel that it invalidates thier experiences. No you likes change, especially negative changes. A constant buff of systems to avoid this upset would lead to spiraling numbers and power creep. But honestly, keep the changes small and nobody will likely notice. Mech geometry would likely have to remain stable, this can be offset with the equivalent of quirks. If PGI did much like they do now and merely vastly increase the frequency of action while decreasing the magnitude it would be more effective, less noticeable and would lead to less investment in a particular “meta” or level of performance for any particular mech. Much like they moved some mechs in Solaris divisions, they could have done it on the first day, but they waited weeks, and had planned on waiting 3 months. Many folks may have purchased mechs that where the best in thier division purely because of thier division placement, and now could be upset because that decision was invalidated. They should be transparent in thier goals and processes and not put off changes for months when they are aware of issues now.
Popcat, on 06 June 2018 - 08:09 PM, said:
Cloves - "To not allow one and only one perfect choice to override all other answers. If one option is clearly a bad choice, when compared to another, that is not a balanced selection of options, not even a real choice."
"For example when assault mechs where nerfed in the mobility department to attempt to reign in the firepower and armor they bring to the field, may players became upset, since it was harder to do as well as they did before."
So isn't this hypocritical. Was not the second done to correct the first? Or did I misunderstand that? If every one yells balance but then frustrated at not having the "override". Not trying be rude just curious.
Bran Cancer - Loved the answer exactly what I was looking for, but I'm curious when making changes like these can it have unforeseen consequences that once introduced, create a meta?
In general what point does the average pilot ability vs expectation break the balance vs a general game imbalance?
The first statement was a definition more or less, of balance. The second was an answer to your question as to why folks do not like nerfs.
Edited by Cloves, 06 June 2018 - 08:44 PM.
4
