347 replies to this topic

[Electron Junkie]

Quote

A world in which the AC2 deals 0.2 DPS is a world where the AC2 is utterly useless.
Tabletop DPS is the worst imaginable way to balance the game. In fact, it would be impossible to balance. How do you make the AC2 useful when the AC20 deals literally ten times the DPS? Or vice-versa, how do you make the AC20 not completely overpowered?

When we're dealing with the damage spread over many shots and default, not doubled, armor values this balances just fine. Better values would be 10 shots per 10 seconds for AC2 and 3 for AC 20 but the point is the damage will be spread and TTK increased.

Edited by Electron Junkie, 09 June 2018 - 08:27 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Electron Junkie, on 09 June 2018 - 08:22 AM, said:

When we're dealing with the damage spread over many shots and default, not doubled, armor values this balances just fine.

Not really, it just turns into something similar to what we already have. Instead, you are just dealing with more fractions instead of whole numbers.

[Reno Blade]

Thank you for the effort put into this proposal.

Some changes look good alone, but the overall result increases weapon power overall without increasing difficulty of the weapons.
If it's easier to hit (e.g. less spread, low durations and higher dmg for lower cd...) the game will be even faster and TTK shorter.

Also the fact that you don't want to mess with GH or other "roles" besides of the SNPPC is very dissapointing.

My take (updated now) is this:

Reno Blade, on 09 June 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

Updating the values with a stronger focus on the Clan vs IS balance.

The whole table can also be found directly on Google docs for better access:
https://docs.google....UXElpK4lnCQd_M/

Overall Balance of Clans compared to IS:
Advantages
+ More Range
+ More DMG
+ Less Slots (smaller sizes) (unchangeable)
+ Less Weight (lower tonnage) (unchangeable)
Downsides
- More Heat
- More Cooldown (longer)
- More Duration (longer)
- Less Ammo / ton (~120dmg/ton vs ~180/ton)

Claners are better Mechwarriors, so their skill will compensate for more difficult weapon handling (longer duration and higher heat)
Cooldown + Duration and heat balance out the Range and DMG advantage overall
Ammo balances out the Size and Tonnage advantage of ammo-based weapon


Overall Weapon concepts:

Spoiler

- ACs have bursts with medium cd and low heat (heat lowered, cd increased, velocity increased)
- LBX still with lowest heat of all ACs
- UACs have burst with longer cooldowns than ACs and more heat than ACs
- Gauss have long cooldown and increased charge with additional heat (reduces synergy of the perfect mix with Lasers)

- STD Laser have medium stats and low heat (good sustained)
- ER Laser have higher heat, longer range, longer cd and longer beam than STD Laser (sniper trading with low dps)
- Heavy Laser have the highest cd and duration (burst weapon)
- Pulse Lasers have very short cd and low damage per shot, but high dps and low duration (dps weapon)

PPCs have different splash and cd depending on size.
- LPPC have no splash and medium cd, medium velocity
- ERPPC have no splash, but long cd and high range and velocity
- PPC, SNPPC, HPPC have better heat and 2 dmg is splash
- CERPPC has the longest cd

Missile volleys for all missiles with Clans having longer duration than IS
- LRMs have long cooldowns to emphasize the support role that should be supported by other weapons, velocity increased.
- SRMs and SSRMs both have cd and ammo difference between IS and Clans
- MRMs have long cooldown and medium velocity (both increased)
- ATMs have more distinct cooldowns (4-7s from small to large launcher) and better range brackets

Ghost Heat Changes:
On Top of that, there should be smaller changes to GH until we get something better:
- Med+Large Lasers share the same GH group
- Large lasers max increased to 3

This is directly aimed to reduce laser vomit while at the same time increasing the build options (especially for combination of larges)

Images of the Weapon groups with background colors from low(red) to high (green) to compare weapon stats
Changes have different font color:
Buffs = Blue font
Nerfs = Red font

https://docs.google....UXElpK4lnCQd_M/

Energy:


Ballistics:


Missiles (IS):


Missiles (Clan):

[Electron Junkie]

Then multiply it all by 10 or 100 for round numbers... The end result is exactly the same just easier for humans to read.

[Tarogato]

Electron Junkie, on 09 June 2018 - 08:22 AM, said:

When we're dealing with the damage spread over many shots and default, not doubled, armor values this balances just fine.

I don't care how many shots it's fired over, it is impossible to balance like that.

You can make all Autocannons fire in a steady stream of non-stop bullets akin to how RACs are in MWO. They will still be impossible to balance.

You could make the AC20 instead of steady stream of bullets, and make the AC2 perfect PPFLD. They will still be impossible to balance.




Tabletop DPS:

Timberwolf CT: ~67 HP.
2x AC2 (12tons plus 4tons ammo) time to kill: 165 seconds
1xAC20 (14tons plus 2tons ammo) time to kill: 33 seconds


Now same thing in present day MWO:

Timberwolf CT: ~134 HP.
2x AC2 time to kill: 24 seconds
1xAC20 time to kill: 27 seconds



Instead of a 500.0% difference in DPS at equivalent tonnage investment, we have a 12.5% difference. I don't care what game mechanics you introduce, you are not going to be able to reconcile weapons that are 500% away from each other in damage output. (technically 1,000% different if we're talking singles)

Edited by Tarogato, 09 June 2018 - 08:39 AM.

[Electron Junkie]

Tarogato, on 09 June 2018 - 08:38 AM, said:

I don't care how many shots it's fired over, it is impossible to balance like that.

You can make all Autocannons fire in a steady stream of non-stop bullets akin to how RACs are in MWO. They will still be impossible to balance.

You could make the AC20 instead of steady stream of bullets, and make the AC2 perfect PPFLD. They will still be impossible to balance.




Tabletop DPS:

Timberwolf CT: ~67 HP.
2x AC2 (12tons plus 4tons ammo) time to kill: 165 seconds
1xAC20 (14tons plus 2tons ammo) time to kill: 33 seconds


Now same thing in present day MWO:

Timberwolf CT: ~134 HP.
2x AC2 time to kill: 24 seconds
1xAC20 time to kill: 27 seconds



Instead of a 500.0% difference in DPS at equivalent tonnage investment, we have a 12.5% difference. I don't care what game mechanics you introduce, you are not going to be able to reconcile weapons that are 500% away from each other in damage output. (technically 1,000% different if we're talking singles)

This will force mixed load outs.

If there is less ammo the point is moot as the AC 20 is going to run dry well before the AC 2. And we still have all the range differences that will come into play.

The fact that the TTK difference between the high and low end of a particular damage weapon system would be 21 seconds shows a huge issue in among itself. (single would be 48 - 27 = 21) Maybe shouldn't be 335 seconds of TT but there should a larger gap.

Edited by Electron Junkie, 09 June 2018 - 09:01 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Electron Junkie, on 09 June 2018 - 08:47 AM, said:

This will force mixed load outs.

You say that like it's a a good thing that is universally desired.

[Prototelis]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 June 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

You say that like it's a a good thing that is universally desired.

He says that like mixed loadouts aren't the current clan meta.

I think what he meant were bracket builds, which are awesome in tabletop but suck in any game without dice rolls.

[FupDup]

Prototelis, on 09 June 2018 - 09:18 AM, said:

He says that like mixed loadouts aren't the current clan meta.

I think what he meant were bracket builds, which are awesome in tabletop but suck in any game without dice rolls.

They're not even that great in Tabletop most of the time.

Yeonne Greene, on 09 June 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

You say that like it's a a good thing that is universally desired.

Also he's not even forcing "mixed" loadouts. He's just forcing people to never ever use weapons like the AC/2.

[Tarogato]

Electron Junkie, on 09 June 2018 - 08:47 AM, said:

This will force mixed load outs.

If there is less ammo the point is moot as the AC 20 is going to run dry well before the AC 2. And we still have all the range differences that will come into play.

It wouldn't force mixed loadouts. It would force you to ignore that weapons like the AC2 exist because they would be beyond trash. No amount of bracket building is going to make it useful.

Mind you, MWO is a game where a 15% change in DPS is the difference between a weapon being good or worthless. And with the system you put forward there would be a 1,000% differential between two weapons in the game. How you do not see that as absurd is beyond me.

[FupDup]

Tarogato, on 09 June 2018 - 09:44 AM, said:

It wouldn't force mixed loadouts. It would force you to ignore that weapons like the AC2 exist because they would be beyond trash. No amount of bracket building is going to make it useful.

Mind you, MWO is a game where a 15% change in DPS is the difference between a weapon being good or worthless. And with the system you put forward there would be a 1,000% differential between two weapons in the game. How you do not see that as absurd is beyond me.

He's a part of the groupthink hivemind people that think TT was totes balanced. Whenever you try to question specific examples or values that just go all like NO BRUH IT'S TOTES BALANCED CUZ REASONS.

[MischiefSC]

Stock is fun as a one-off. I'm enjoying playing with the stuff for the MWOWC. I would not play it long term though if that sort of design was the standard.

I'm as guilty as everyone else in this but I feel like we're getting far afield. The idea was to put forward an incremental set of changes that would improve balance a bit. I feel this does that and I'm happy with that.

There are still some big issues with balance but tackling big issues is out of scope for a first set of proposed balance changes. Rubber stamp this bad boy and man the Twitters!

Edited by MischiefSC, 09 June 2018 - 10:13 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

I can't condone a rubber stamp until the UAC/20 issue gets addressed. I think there are some other minor problems, like cAC/5 being single shot and the standard MedLas being able to do 5 damage at 300 meters for only 2.7 heat after the skill tree, but those are less severe IMHO.

[Tarogato]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 June 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

I can't condone a rubber stamp until the UAC/20 issue gets addressed. I think there are some other minor problems, like cAC/5 being single shot and the standard MedLas being able to do 5 damage at 300 meters for only 2.7 heat after the skill tree, but those are less severe IMHO.

As Metachanic said on Reddit, the primary goal is to get each UAC20 to be a viable alternative to its respective LB20 or AC20. As of right now...

AC20 > UAC20
cLB20 > cUAC20

As mentioned in the doc, we believe the shellcount is a major factor as to why the cUAC20 is not used in particular, and the excessive JammedTime is contributes to why both weapons are eschewed in favour of alternatives in their respective techbases. The changes we put forward seek to remedy those two problems foremost. If successful, then the next step after would be look at the UAC20 vs. cUAC20 and make whatever tweaks necessary.

If you wished to see this incorporated now all at the same time, what would you prefer? A less aggressive improvement to cUAC20 JammedTime? I certainly wouldn't buff the (IS) UAC20 because it needs to not be flat-out superior to the AC20. Alternatively, we could leave the cUAC20 shellcount at 4. I feel that's just too much, but I could convinced that the JammedTime buff takes precedence over the shellcount buff.

[Dogstar]

Tarogato, on 09 June 2018 - 11:23 AM, said:

As mentioned in the doc, we believe the shellcount is a major factor as to why the cUAC20 is not used in particular, and the excessive JammedTime is contributes to why both weapons are eschewed in favour of alternatives in their respective techbases.

Having recently used twin cUAC20 in the Blood Asp and also a single UAC20 in the Yen Lo Wang I personally think that it's the jamming that is the major problem. I like the way that uacs shoot a bunch of bullets and I think you're overemphasizing the 'multiple shells are awful' aspect of it far too much - I think that this is a factor that only some vocal clan biased forumites keep expounding in order to get a buff in.

UAC jam mechanics are the big problem and I don't see how you're going to convince PGI to rework that by tweaking the numbers marginally. This is why on any mech with enough hardpoints and tonnage (and slots for clan mechs) you're better off boating AC2 or LBX2 rather than UAC2 (the same applies to the other 'sizes' but there's few mechs that can boat them)

Basically I view these changes as a band-aid - they will probably improve things but it's not any sort of a fix for the problems in the game

[Khobai]

its definitely the high incidence of jamming thats the problem

UACs need to be completely reworked so they no longer jam randomly

Instead of RNG they should use a more consistent and skill-based mechanic like jam bar


I actually would like to see UACs use the jam bar mechanic that RACs currently use

and RACs should instead use a magazine based mechanic where they fire X shots then go on a long cooldown to reload.


We need to get rid of RNG completely because its a sloppy luck based mechanic. Instead we need game mechanics that reward skill and restraint.

Edited by Khobai, 10 June 2018 - 03:21 AM.

[Imperius]

Tarogato, on 09 June 2018 - 08:11 AM, said:

People usually complain that ballistics don't have enough ammo per ton, because we have stock tabletop ammo values, but literally doubled mech durability. You're the first person I've seen to think the opposite. And actually... PGI is increasing ammo per ton next patch.



A world in which the AC2 deals 0.2 DPS is a world where the AC2 is utterly useless.
Tabletop DPS is the worst imaginable way to balance the game. In fact, it would be impossible to balance. How do you make the AC2 useful when the AC20 deals literally ten times the DPS? Or vice-versa, how do you make the AC20 not completely overpowered?

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__3040674

5 years I have been asking for Ammo fixes... so I guess it's about time, but still not good enough.

[Y E O N N E]

Tarogato, on 09 June 2018 - 11:23 AM, said:

As Metachanic said on Reddit, the primary goal is to get each UAC20 to be a viable alternative to its respective LB20 or AC20. As of right now...

AC20 > UAC20
cLB20 > cUAC20

As mentioned in the doc, we believe the shellcount is a major factor as to why the cUAC20 is not used in particular, and the excessive JammedTime is contributes to why both weapons are eschewed in favour of alternatives in their respective techbases. The changes we put forward seek to remedy those two problems foremost. If successful, then the next step after would be look at the UAC20 vs. cUAC20 and make whatever tweaks necessary.

If you wished to see this incorporated now all at the same time, what would you prefer? A less aggressive improvement to cUAC20 JammedTime? I certainly wouldn't buff the (IS) UAC20 because it needs to not be flat-out superior to the AC20. Alternatively, we could leave the cUAC20 shellcount at 4. I feel that's just too much, but I could convinced that the JammedTime buff takes precedence over the shellcount buff.

Every other IS weapon has a differentiating flavor that makes it worth considering on its own merits versus the reduced resources, longer range, and/or higher damage of Clan weapons: lasers are faster and colder, ballistics are more front-loaded (and Ultras specifically have a little more jam DPS), Gauss are less explosive (and there are more options), SRMs are more precise and harder-hitting. You violate this principle with your Ultra 20 changes. By reducing shell count to match the IS, you take away the one reason to choose an IS 'Mech with a UAC/20, giving the Clan version nearly everything that makes the IS one worth taking on top of the things that make the Clan one desirable: dramatically increased range and reduced cost to available space and weight.

These are my thoughts:

1. The IS AC/20 isn't great - 270 meters for that gun is prohibitive, too; not asking for the moon, but a flat 300 meters would go a long way toward making it more broadly useful and give it a little more of a leg up when considering it against HGauss.

2. The IS AC/20 occupies a very different use-case than the UAC/20 precisely because it fires a single slug; if you want to brawl efficiently, you will take the AC; it's a scalpel. The UAC is more about vomiting imprecise damage and then retreating because it fires in bursts and you can't rely on it to not jam if you actually get into the thick of it with the weapon.

3. The UAC/20 is supposed to have more range than the AC; while I understand why PGI has flipped it, in the case of the 20 it doesn't make sense because of the previous point; I can let the UAC/10 slide because one more shell is not a big deal, but two more shells is. For commanding 15 tons and 10 slots, this thing either needs to be un-matched at close-quarters or it needs to be more flexible than it is. I choose the latter, which would involve increasing the range to 330 and a tiny, tiny bit more jam DPS.

4. We have the LB-20X to consider among the three weapons as well though I think being cold, non-ghosting, and very crit-heavy is already a huge perk for the closest-range fighting. You've already reduced the crit-slot consumption and that is really the only thing I thought the weapon needed. TBQH, you will probably see more LB-20X after that change than AC/20 simply because of the increased range along with the rest I just mentioned.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Dogstar, on 09 June 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

Having recently used twin cUAC20 in the Blood Asp and also a single UAC20 in the Yen Lo Wang I personally think that it's the jamming that is the major problem. I like the way that uacs shoot a bunch of bullets and I think you're overemphasizing the 'multiple shells are awful' aspect of it far too much -

I've recently tried the Uac20 on both of those mechs. In the case of the Blood asp I'm using LBX20's because with the UAC20's i needed to stare at my target longer and was hence recieving more return damage from the enemy. Cutting short any increased DPS i gained from the UAC's.

I tried the UAc20 YLW for Solaris (and some private 2v2 before solaris came out). and I found that the damage spreading on the opponent made it much much harder to land my damage on a specific component in order to finish an opponent off. As well as the aforementioned facetime meaning that it was easy for my enemy to cleanly pick off my RT and strip me down to 2ML. Swapping back to the standard AC20 made the YLW near unstoppable with fast torso twisting and pinpoint hits. I never even noticed the Uac20 jamming (it probably did, but it was less of a factor than the facetime)

In this context its the Shell count that absolutely makes the difference.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 09 June 2018 - 04:54 PM.

[S O L A I S]

Hope good things come from this and PGI is open to considering what is being said. Troubling though when you see peoples input and saying things like IS large pulse laser being brawling weapons and making er lasers max out at 1000m.

Brawling is fun and part of the game. It can't be the only viable style however and as much as some find the range game frustrating or not fun in their opinion, range is part of the game as well. Really sick and tired especially since 1000m is far from extreme range and if someone can't figure out how to close distance properly, the issue is with piloting/experience.

These suggestions seem very reasonable and I support that it has taken the game, roles, weight classes as a whole, in spite of how people automatically associate comp guys as being pigeon holed into 'boring' peek and poke.