347 replies to this topic

[Stinger554]

Dogstar, on 13 June 2018 - 08:43 AM, said:

It seems to me that the only people strenuously objecting to this are the ones that are going to see their favourite (clan) builds go from being easy mode OP to balanced with everything else.

If the only fun they can have is at the expense of others then perhaps the game would be better off without them!

Won't get any arguments from me

Khobai, on 13 June 2018 - 08:57 AM, said:

theyre also the same people that dont want IS-XL, IS-DHS, and IS-ES/FF to be buffed so theyre equal to the clan versions. they want clans to retain their strongest advantages over IS...

this community proposal is all smoke and mirrors. its a bunch of buffs and nerfs that ultimately dont really matter. while ignoring the most important things that need to be balanced.



balance engines, heatsinks, and ES/FF first.

then do lasers, ballistics, and missiles second.

then do mech balance and quirk balance last.


thats the three step process for balance. anything else is not going to result in a balanced game.

Like seriously attempting weapon balance is worthless when there is an inherent tech imbalance between the factions.

Clan DHS, FF, ES, XL > IS DHS, FF, ES, XL

Until that gets fixed everything else is pointless to mess with.

[Verilligo]

Stinger554, on 13 June 2018 - 09:10 AM, said:

Like seriously attempting weapon balance is worthless when there is an inherent tech imbalance between the factions.

Clan DHS, FF, ES, XL > IS DHS, FF, ES, XL

Until that gets fixed everything else is pointless to mess with.

PGI is NEVER going to balance these between the factions. Regardless of whether that change does or does not stray from TT build rules, such a change would be considered "large" and Paul has already stated that they don't do "large" changes anymore. Whether it's right OR wrong to balance them, they have already stated it will never be done. So we're in a situation where we're stuck having to change other things. The alternative by your statement here is... to change absolutely nothing. Which leads us right back to where we are now, upset about balance but unwilling to do anything until something is changed that will never get changed.

So what do you want to do? Change something and try to improve the state of things or change nothing and live with how things are? Because those are your options, as much as it may suck.

[Stinger554]

Verilligo, on 13 June 2018 - 09:34 AM, said:

So what do you want to do? Change something and try to improve the state of things or change nothing and live with how things are? Because those are your options, as much as it may suck.

What do I want? I want mixed tech. Screw trash IS tech and just let me equip clan tech on everything. That's what I want, but I know they won't do that; even if it would make balancing much easier.

[Verilligo]

Stinger554, on 13 June 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

What do I want? I want mixed tech. Screw trash IS tech and just let me equip clan tech on everything. That's what I want, but I know they won't do that; even if it would make balancing much easier.

Okay. So by your own admission, you're not getting that. Now what? You wanna balance weapons more or do nothing?

[Stinger554]

Verilligo, on 13 June 2018 - 10:04 AM, said:

Okay. So by your own admission, you're not getting that. Now what? You wanna balance weapons more or do nothing?

It's pointless to attempt to balance weapons without balancing the tech.

[Nightbird]

Do nothing - pretty much everyone who isn't capable of adapting or compromising

[Khobai]

Verilligo, on 13 June 2018 - 09:34 AM, said:

PGI is NEVER going to balance these between the factions. Regardless of whether that change does or does not stray from TT build rules, such a change would be considered "large" and Paul has already stated that they don't do "large" changes anymore. Whether it's right OR wrong to balance them, they have already stated it will never be done. So we're in a situation where we're stuck having to change other things. The alternative by your statement here is... to change absolutely nothing. Which leads us right back to where we are now, upset about balance but unwilling to do anything until something is changed that will never get changed.

So what do you want to do? Change something and try to improve the state of things or change nothing and live with how things are? Because those are your options, as much as it may suck.

Then the game will never be balanced. Its really that simple.

[Verilligo]

Khobai, on 13 June 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

Then the game will never be balanced. Its really that simple.

So you would rather do nothing than try to do anything?

[MischiefSC]

Look, you guys need to step back. There is no "dart board of balance". Balance changes are made from spreadsheets.

This being Battletech, PGI then breaks those numbers up into groups of 11 and rolls 2d6 and consults various charts. Sure, the changes are random but they're BATTLETECH random.

We just need to get this list of changes on the list and hope for a golden BB roll.

[Tarogato]

Khobai, on 13 June 2018 - 08:57 AM, said:

balance engines, heatsinks, and ES/FF first.

then do lasers, ballistics, and missiles second.

then do mech balance and quirk balance last.


thats the three step process for balance. anything else is not going to result in a balanced game.

Stinger554, on 13 June 2018 - 09:10 AM, said:

Like seriously attempting weapon balance is worthless when there is an inherent tech imbalance between the factions.

Clan DHS, FF, ES, XL > IS DHS, FF, ES, XL

Until that gets fixed everything else is pointless to mess with.

Hypothetically speaking, we remove Clans from MWO. No more Clan anything. Erased. Gonezo.

Does the IS SL and ERSL have a reason to exist? How about the LPPC? The MRM10, the LB5, the LGauss?

cDHS, cEndo, cFerro, cXL, none of those are an issue anymore. Is the remaining weapon roster magically balanced?

No, it is not.




Do the same the other way around. Remove Innersphere from the game. MWO is now all Clans all day err'day. Is balance fixed?

What about the Micro lasers? The ATM3? The cUAC20? The cACs? The cStreak2? The cLB5? Are all the weapons in the game now balanced?

No, they are not.



The chief goal of this proposal is to fix the weapons that are outright bad. This has nothing to do with inter-faction balance. Sure, there are a few changes in here which could be considered to be aimed at improving faction balance, but even if you do object to those couple of changes, then why throw out literally everything else? Do you object to fixing useless weapons on principle? Are you against intra-faction balance?

[N a p e s]

Tarogato, on 13 June 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hypothetically speaking, we remove Clans from MWO. No more Clan anything. Erased. Gonezo.

snipped...

But, smoke and mirrors. Illusions, lies... deception!

[Verilligo]

Tarogato, on 13 June 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hypothetically speaking, we remove Clans from MWO. No more Clan anything. Erased. Gonezo.

Does the IS SL and ERSL have a reason to exist? How about the LPPC? The MRM10, the LB5, the LGauss?

cDHS, cEndo, cFerro, cXL, none of those are an issue anymore. Is the remaining weapon roster magically balanced?

No, it is not.




Do the same the other way around. Remove Innersphere from the game. MWO is now all Clans all day err'day. Is balance fixed?

What about the Micro lasers? The ATM3? The cUAC20? The cACs? The cStreak2? The cLB5? Are all the weapons in the game now balanced?

No, they are not.



The chief goal of this proposal is to fix the weapons that are outright bad. This has nothing to do with inter-faction balance. Sure, there are a few changes in here which could be considered to be aimed at improving faction balance, but even if you do object to those couple of changes, then why throw out literally everything else? Do you object to fixing useless weapons on principle? Are you against intra-faction balance?

I really think this is probably the most important take away from all of this. I personally don't really care about balance between factions because I don't do faction play. What I care about is just how many weapons are in the game that I can't put on my robots because those weapons are objectively bad and I want to be a credit to the team. Why would I EVER run an IS LBX5 when I can run an AC5?

[Stinger554]

Tarogato, on 13 June 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hypothetically speaking, we remove Clans from MWO. No more Clan anything. Erased. Gonezo.

Does the IS SL and ERSL have a reason to exist? How about the LPPC? The MRM10, the LB5, the LGauss?

cDHS, cEndo, cFerro, cXL, none of those are an issue anymore. Is the remaining weapon roster magically balanced?

No, it is not.




Do the same the other way around. Remove Innersphere from the game. MWO is now all Clans all day err'day. Is balance fixed?

What about the Micro lasers? The ATM3? The cUAC20? The cACs? The cStreak2? The cLB5? Are all the weapons in the game now balanced?

No, they are not.



The chief goal of this proposal is to fix the weapons that are outright bad. This has nothing to do with inter-faction balance. Sure, there are a few changes in here which could be considered to be aimed at improving faction balance, but even if you do object to those couple of changes, then why throw out literally everything else? Do you object to fixing useless weapons on principle? Are you against intra-faction balance?

Well considering the point is to fix the game's balance, which is inherently tied to faction balance. I just think it's pointless if you are going to avoid addressing the inherent issues involved. If you want to take that as an objection that's on you. I didn't say don't change their values, I just think it's pointless because if/when you address DHS, FF, ES, etc, you'll likely have to adjust the values again. So you'd be better off addressing DHS, FF, ES etc, before attempting to balance the weapons.

What you should be striving for is parity between the different faction weapons and tech. Which just plain won't happen just through weapon changes because of the tech imbalance.

[Sjorpha]

It's really unconstructive to say that such a sincere and competent effort is "pointless unless you also...", like it's a super childish way of discussing. Stop that.

Balancing DHS, XL engines etc would be very meaningful on it's own. Likewise carefully tuning weapons so that there is reason to use all of them is VERY meaningful on it's own. They're both meaningful of sets changes to pursue and discuss, regardless of how you order them.

Don't create false dichotomies and don't be categorical and dismissive, all you're doing is harming the quality of the conversation without adding anything useful.

Also don't bring forth very unlikely and huge "redo everything" projects that aren't related to this proposal as the "only way" to do things. Stop being silly when we have a chance to actually influence PGI with a well considered set of weapon balance tweaks that would be really good for the game.

Edited by Sjorpha, 13 June 2018 - 02:35 PM.

[kilgor]

I still think there aren't enough penalties. Ammo amounts should be less to encourage you to bring other weapons. Perhaps for completely ammo based 'Mechs, give them a boost. Sure, people don't like Ghost Heat, but because the chances to shutdown as you generate heat aren't there, you need something, especially since this was supposed to be one of the downsides of using a lot of energy weapons. And don't forget, your 'Mech should move slower and have a harder time firing at high heat. Ballistics would also have a recoil and LRMs should be brought back to the orig 630M Battletech range.

I would like to see branded weapons, so you can have different Autocannons of the same type that fire either single or multi shot for the damage. Make the multi shot ones cheaper with higher velocity and the single. And also, any significant change of weapon, such as an AC/20 to replace an AC/5 should introduce a chance of failure or some other negative quirk.

While many people don't want such things, this game is about the Battletech universe and that kind of stuff existed. Without it, it should just be called Big Stompy Robot Shootem Up.

[Stinger554]

Sjorpha, on 13 June 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

Balancing DHS, XL engines etc would be very meaningful on it's own. Likewise carefully tuning weapons so that there is reason to use all of them is VERY meaningful on it's own. They're both meaningful of sets changes to pursue and discuss, regardless of how you order them.

Balancing DHS, XL, engines etc, directly affects weapon balance; they aren't separate.....so if you do weapon adjustments before you do adjustments to DHS, XL, FF, ES you will end up having to do weapon adjustments again.

Hence why I think making weapon adjustments before making adjustments to the tech bases is pointless, because you'll end up having to do it again.

If you want to call that nonconstructive be my guest; doesn't hurt me any.

Edited by Stinger554, 13 June 2018 - 03:18 PM.

[C337Skymaster]

As a lore-monger, it rubs me the wrong way to change anything that was laid out in the lore (even if it does make sense, balance-wise). What I would rather, instead, is adopt some of the lore-based rules that would achieve the same balance.

For example: crit splitting. It's supposed to be a thing, that if a large weapon was too big for the space that it's in, it could split two crit slots to the component next closest to the CT (so in an arm, it would split into the side torso, and in a side torso, it would split into the center torso). There's a lore build for the Atlas: AS7-S2, which has a Light 300 engine and a Heavy Gauss Rifle in the side torso. Two of the rifle's crit slots are in the CT. Another lore build is the Bushwacker-L1, which has an LBX-20 in the arm, WITH lower-arm and hand actuators. Again: two crit slots from the LBX are in the side torso. I feel like they should be able to code this without too much trouble.

I've long been advocating for a heat change that, while radical, would have a giant impact on large alpha strikes without affecting viable builds, and wouldn't generate "ghost" heat out of thin air, but would have a logical and understandable heat scaling: Rather than tying ghost heat to damage done, they should simply reduce the heat capacity of all 'mechs to 1/3 of what it currently is, then increase heat sink efficiency by 3. 'Mechs would not be able to fire all of their weapons at once, but would cool off significantly faster, forcing chain fire, increasing face time, and spreading damage more evenly over a target. It's less heavy handed than locking all weapon groups to chain fire and simply abolishing group fire as an option... If you read any of the Battletech books, or play Battletech the computer game, that seems to be lore-faithful... Nothing in the lore actually group-fires except Machine Gun arrays.

[MischiefSC]

Sjorpha, on 13 June 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

It's really unconstructive to say that such a sincere and competent effort is "pointless unless you also...", like it's a super childish way of discussing. Stop that.

Balancing DHS, XL engines etc would be very meaningful on it's own. Likewise carefully tuning weapons so that there is reason to use all of them is VERY meaningful on it's own. They're both meaningful of sets changes to pursue and discuss, regardless of how you order them.

Don't create false dichotomies and don't be categorical and dismissive, all you're doing is harming the quality of the conversation without adding anything useful.

Also don't bring forth very unlikely and huge "redo everything" projects that aren't related to this proposal as the "only way" to do things. Stop being silly when we have a chance to actually influence PGI with a well considered set of weapon balance tweaks that would be really good for the game.

Not to be repetitive but this is why you need to do this in pieces. You put forward a full spreadsheet of changes and you invite the "comprehensive" comparison. If it's not a narrow, targeted thing then it's assumed to be comprehensive.

Step back, give it 3 days, do it in 3 posts. 1 for lasers. Just lasers. Then after 3 days, do ballistics. Just ballistics. That gives people a sense of ownership on the solution in an incremental fashion. Then nobody feels like there's so much there it should include everything and you've set a precident to come back to other stuff in manageable pieces later.

The proposed changes seem pretty solid. Not ideal, but solid. Ideal will never happen because we ha e our own I dividual ooo ions of ideal. You get small, manageable pieces to "acceptable" and you get general buy-in. Majority are okay with it, you say "most of us can agree with these changes save for Tom, **** and Harry objecting to X, Y and Z. Since we can't agree to an X, Y and Z solution we will nail these incremental changes down and move forwars. Hopefully how these changes play out will lead us to a better solution after it's been in production for a bit. On to ballistics..."

You're selling a solution to a series of problems that everyone involved has anecdotal experiences with and widely varying levels of actual expertice. You need incremental buy in or this is going to hit 100 pages of going in circles and PGI will look at the thread and say "that looks as divisive as any of the changes out 2d6 on charts approach gets us. No thanks".

A thread full of "I can live with this" responses is your best tool for getting PGI buy-in.

[Sjorpha]

MischiefSC, on 13 June 2018 - 03:22 PM, said:

Not to be repetitive but this is why you need to do this in pieces. You put forward a full spreadsheet of changes and you invite the "comprehensive" comparison. If it's not a narrow, targeted thing then it's assumed to be comprehensive.

Step back, give it 3 days, do it in 3 posts. 1 for lasers. Just lasers. Then after 3 days, do ballistics. Just ballistics. That gives people a sense of ownership on the solution in an incremental fashion. Then nobody feels like there's so much there it should include everything and you've set a precident to come back to other stuff in manageable pieces later.

Sure maybe that's a good idea.

But even more important IMO is that when real work has been done, when real effort is invested, when really competent people engage in a project for positive change, you should support them and their way of working even it it's not perfect.

This is the most successful interaction about balance between PGI and the community to date, PGI has directly adressed and responded to the document, it's on the agenda. It probably won't be implemented, but it's gotten to the point where it's a point of reference for them as to what a significant portion of the competent players think about weapon balance, that's not nothing. Be careful about shooting it down and suggesting big changes in approach when things are actually moving a little bit forward.

Edited by Sjorpha, 13 June 2018 - 03:37 PM.

[MischiefSC]

I agree on all points. Even if just as a frame of reference it has value - however PGI has consistently shown they are happy to follow a majority on something yoh take steps to get majority buy-in and you have a strong case to put before PGI.