845 replies to this topic

[wolvhound]

Kin3ticX, on 15 June 2018 - 08:45 PM, said:

Battle Values will never work.

Battle Values are basically just adding up the sum of the parts via accounting. The total is raw quantitative data.

The problem is, mechs have a lot of qualitative aspects which are not captured in a battle value. High mount, good hardpoint combos, good hitboxes, etc. Not only that, but more weapons and more BV is not always better.

Bottom line, you could make a ridiculous mech with a giant battle value that is absolute crap in this game, or you could make something with a lower one that is far better. PGI would probably never try to tackle something so flawed. It would need massive levels of fudge factoring the likes of which this game has never seen.

Bv very well could work by having those better mech start with a higher bv. Weapon combos that break the game could add additional bv to the total.
And I'm not saying use battle value 1 but use battle value 2 as it is much better at tracking how good a mech is

[Y E O N N E]

BV2.0 is nearly as broken as BV1.0 at balancing 'Mechs.

[Sader Rykan]

Why is it so hard for you at PGI to understand that it was the ENGINE DESYNC that blew alphas out of proportion.

You killed mobility, you KILLED the reason to take large engines, and as a result you DECREASED time to kill.


If I don't need to move, if I don't need to twist, and if I don't need a fast engine then I'm just going to stuff more guns on my mechs.

If my target can't twist, it can't survive. If my target can't move it can't survive.


Before your engine desync stupidity, I struggles to do 1000+ damage games in my mechs. Anything above 1000 damage in my assault mech was a pretty good game. Now? With your moronic changes I consistently average 1300+ damage a game. With some games pushing upwards 1600+ damage.

This all comes back to the fact that I bring far more weapons than I used to, because I don't need a fast engine anymore.

If you wan't to fix this garbage balance you've created. RESYNC the engines, give us our god damn speed back, give us the mobility we need to STAY ALIVE. THIS and THIS ALONE will increase time to kill, and force people to bring less weapons.

[wolvhound]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 June 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

BV2.0 is nearly as broken as BV1.0 at balancing 'Mechs.

They could also just use their own version which would allow them to make changes to an over performing weapons cost meaning you would see it less and they wouldn't have to Nerf it's performance. They could then put in penalties for boating and encourage players to use different weapons.

[Vesper11]

RelativeQuanta, on 16 June 2018 - 05:50 AM, said:

Here are my beefs with ghost heat:

• It adds fake difficulty to the game. It may take skill to properly group your weapons so you can ride the ghost heat margin as closely as possible, but a clever mouse or key macro can do that same thing. Thus, new MWO players, or simply players switching from IS to Clan for the first time will be at a disadvantage for no reason other than a damage nerf mechanic.
  
• If you’re not macro’ing, hitting your next group fire button .1 seconds too early can shut down your mech and end your match. Not. Fun.
  
• Default clan mech builds will be plagued by this mechanic making new players much more likely to have a bad time if they pick to play a clan mech first

If macro is already allowed then they can just add "ghost-heat-safe firemode", problem solved.

inb4: skill

Edited by Vesper11, 16 June 2018 - 10:23 AM.

[Reno Blade]

I wish we had Energy Draw.

Only change I would do to the system is to have a stacking HoT (heat over Time) effect rather than instant penalty heat.
Take MW2 HUD middle lower right part: dH/dT (heat gain per time):

you would just continue to get heat until you get below a certain threshhold.

So you can still alpha once, but the heat will continue to rise (or stay) for longer afterwards.
You might generate the same heatpenalty, but you don't overheat instantly.

On top of that, you could even increase the heat cap and add some heat effects (slow down above 60% total heat)... because the HoT effect will slow down the heat loss without spiking the heat bar.

[Kin3ticX]

wolvhound, on 16 June 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

They could also just use their own version which would allow them to make changes to an over performing weapons cost meaning you would see it less and they wouldn't have to Nerf it's performance. They could then put in penalties for boating and encourage players to use different weapons.

Balance in this game is very fluid. It shifts all on its own even if PGI isnt changing weapon balance variables just from from mechpack releases (power creep sneaks into packs from time to time) and bandwagon effects.

Trying to force a BV system would require so much shoehorning and fudgefactors that they would never be able to keep it up to date. I mean, its possible but not practical. One weapons balance patch and it would throw a heavily tailored formula totally out of whack.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 16 June 2018 - 01:26 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

Reno Blade, on 16 June 2018 - 12:12 PM, said:

I wish we had Energy Draw.

Only change I would do to the system is to have a stacking HoT (heat over Time) effect rather than instant penalty heat.
Take MW2 HUD middle lower right part: dH/dT (heat gain per time):

you would just continue to get heat until you get below a certain threshhold.

So you can still alpha once, but the heat will continue to rise (or stay) for longer afterwards.
You might generate the same heatpenalty, but you don't overheat instantly.

On top of that, you could even increase the heat cap and add some heat effects (slow down above 60% total heat)... because the HoT effect will slow down the heat loss without spiking the heat bar.

Energy draw is dumb because the current heat bar is already an energy draw bar in reverse and heatsinks basically act as power generators if you look at it in those terms. Nested heat bars within bars are no way to design a game and this alone would be my guess why PGI shelved energy draw. Although im sure some of PGI still probably want to add it to the game anyways.

[Tesunie]

Sader Rykan, on 16 June 2018 - 09:09 AM, said:

Why is it so hard for you at PGI to understand that it was the ENGINE DESYNC that blew alphas out of proportion.

You killed mobility, you KILLED the reason to take large engines, and as a result you DECREASED time to kill.


If I don't need to move, if I don't need to twist, and if I don't need a fast engine then I'm just going to stuff more guns on my mechs.

If my target can't twist, it can't survive. If my target can't move it can't survive.


Before your engine desync stupidity, I struggles to do 1000+ damage games in my mechs. Anything above 1000 damage in my assault mech was a pretty good game. Now? With your moronic changes I consistently average 1300+ damage a game. With some games pushing upwards 1600+ damage.

This all comes back to the fact that I bring far more weapons than I used to, because I don't need a fast engine anymore.

If you wan't to fix this garbage balance you've created. RESYNC the engines, give us our god damn speed back, give us the mobility we need to STAY ALIVE. THIS and THIS ALONE will increase time to kill, and force people to bring less weapons.

Once again, the problem with engines being synced to twisting speed is the extra penalty it deals out to lower engine mechs. This alone can make mechs bad just from their engine caps. Not to mention, sometimes you don't always want to run that XL400 engine on your Battlemaster just so you can twist fast and have some weapons on it.

Engines synced to twisting speeds grants the average Clan mech huge advantages, seen as the average clan mech tends to have large engines. It also invalidates and penalizes people who may choose to play slower mechs with additional weaponry, but also taking away even more of their survivability compared to a larger mech counter part. So, unless you suddenly gain an armor bonus just because you mounted a smaller engine (and thus, reduced your twisting speed), it basically defeats the purpose.

If anything, you should be asking for mech agility across the board to be checked again. Base agility (twisting speeds) may need to be adjusted across the board (from what I've been hearing here), much more than resyncing engines to twist speed (and thus causing additional problems and reenforce the "engine race" we once had before hand).

---

As a side note for Clan high alphas vs IS armor quirks... The problem that has always been with that is, if Clans are getting average higher alphas of 20+ damage over their IS counterparts, and most average (excluding a few out liner mechs) gain a total of 20ish armor in quirks, a single Clan alpha stripes the entire IS quirk health in one (full) hit. Damage often times out performs armor.

in a larger consideration of that, considering focus fire and all, the Clan higher average alpha levels over their IS counter parts quickly starts to add up when many Clan mechs start to shoot their alpha's at the same IS mech. Yes, I know. Focus fire is dangerious and any mech under enough of it will melt. The point is, it's typically (in spread sheet warrior at least) easier for Clans to drop targets once they start to focus, rather than IS counterparts.

I'm also not a fan of one shot (almost) anything kills in this style of a game. My light gets one solid hit on it, there goes an (armor quirked) leg. My Medium, a side torso for being hit by a high alpha. My Heavy mech, I might die form a CT hit from a single alpha.


So, as I agree with PGI that something should be done to adjust this fast TTK that has come about, the question starts to become how to address it, rather than if it needs to be addressed. So, I'll reask for PGI's sake, what are you going to suggest (and why) to help curb overall high alpha damage and slow down TTK?

---

I'm thinking the biggest offender at the moment in the weapon category are ERMLs. Other Clan lasers seem to be alright from what I can see, though I wouldn't complain either if they tone them down a little (key word here) as well.

For ERMLs, I'm thinking either damage reduction with shifting it to DPS (and adjusting heat to match) might be a good solution. They hit hard, for relatively (in terms of lasers) little heat, and can almost be just added in as free damage/weapons on most any build. Have some free energy slots on your Dual Gauss/UAC10 build? Toss in some ERMLs and get a near free boost to your damage.

Their combination with HLLs and LPLs is a little of an issue, but if ERMLs are adjusted, then it should level out with other weapon combinations.

Now, I'm going to say, I am not saying this is the only solution. However, from my rough following of this thread, I've yet to see a solution I've been content with. I'll agree that TTK might decrease with faster twisting speeds. However, that will only reward "skillful" use of twisting, and probably wont help many "average" players (in this case, probably below average, but they shouldn't be ignored from the discussion either).

I'll also mention that this isn't to say that other high alpha weapons (dual H Gauss) might not be a problem.
I also believe that all balance decisions should be made with the consideration of removing nearly all IS quirks. I don't feel the quirks have helped balance IS mechs vs Clans, and should only be in cases of individual mech balance to help under performing chassis/variants (Hunchback and it's shoulder health for one such example).
I also believe that over performing weapons and mechs should have nerfs considered, rather than trying to just buff everything else to match their performance. This is based on how much of what needs to be changed. If only a single weapon need be changed/nerfed to achieve better balance, than there is no reason to buff all the other weapons instead.

[ADI84000]

and lol..... is focus fire is more dangerous to clanners... clan heavies have 60-70 side torsos depending on mech/skill tree choices and that means ... 2 is mechs shooting 30 damage... no more armor.. one black knight with 60 pin point alpha with really low duration... and heat , not to mention a 86 alpha from a an anihilator in a side torso ... means it might crit and die with 1 shot... and loosing 1 side torso... = less speed, allot hotter.... and one foot in the grave for that mech... you people cry about clan xls... yea we dont blow up when we loose a side torso... but we are pretty much useless... i eject any mech in faction play that lost a side torso on clan side... cause its uselesss.... so stop crying innerpsheroids... i was on on innersphere side before... and you feel easy mode god like... all good players feel like gods in current is mechs because of the mechs... everyone in my unit says that... and we used to be mostly clanners.. for a really long time , our first inner sphere tours... felt op...
actualy IS is OP now... just look at the faction play map... and how much IS wins.... that says it all... get your statistical data from cw... to see that innersphere has been winning allot... for months and not because IS all pro and clan all noob... mostly the units jump from one to the other once every 2-3-4 weeks...

[Reno Blade]

Kin3ticX, on 16 June 2018 - 01:29 PM, said:

Energy draw is dumb because the current heat bar is already an energy draw bar in reverse and heatsinks basically act as power generators if you look at it in those terms. Nested heat bars within bars are no way to design a game and this alone would be my guess why PGI shelved energy draw. Although im sure some of PGI still probably want to add it to the game anyways.

While it seems more complicated, I'd actually re-build the heat system to include the heat over time even for the weapons itself, so you are not having two different systems, but one system, but i guess that goes too far for a "quick" fix.

E.g. you generate your heat over x seconds and if your HoT exceed certain threshholds, it will stay longer before the heatsinks can really work again.
But the whole thing needs more detailed design than what we can do here and now (in this thread), so I will just keep the idea here without going further.

[Sir Immortal Shadow]

denAirwalkerrr, on 11 June 2018 - 01:55 PM, said:

Option 6:
-return gauss-ppc which was a straight up counter to current cancer clan laservomit meta
-plain buff agility making gauss-ppc harder to use and making brawl stronger

Buff agility? Sounds kind of nice. Bring back Gauss PPC? Counter those pesky guys who'll kill you before you can do much of anything with another combo that can pretty much take you out of the game before you can do anything? I'm not so sure about that one. Sounds power creepy to me.

Edited by Sir Immortal Shadow, 17 June 2018 - 06:46 AM.

[Sir Immortal Shadow]

ADI84000, on 17 June 2018 - 03:01 AM, said:

and lol..... is focus fire is more dangerous to clanners... clan heavies have 60-70 side torsos depending on mech/skill tree choices and that means ... 2 is mechs shooting 30 damage... no more armor..

When an IS mech is getting shot at by 2 or more 50+ damage alphas those quirks suddenly don't seem to do very much either. You can torso twist, but then I guess you'd better avoid an xl engine. Oh, you're quirks let you close the gap, okay now you get to unleash you're less impressive one and only alpha strike before getting finished off. Maybe you should sit back and try to make that bonus armour last (assuming you took a mech that has any) just don't forget, clan weapons often have better firepower at range too so make sure you pick fights you can win and engage as a team.
A chunk of extra armour doesn't always make any difference, especially if it's your teammate getting shot at and not you. Raw firepower with enough weight for supporting equipment left over on the other hand is almost always useful.

Edited by Sir Immortal Shadow, 17 June 2018 - 07:10 AM.

[RJF Volkodav]

This is so [redacted].
I wonder how much cycles needed to get understanding.
You wont achieve your goals with that. You will just cause another metashift.
Lets nerf lasers and gauss -> UAC boats will come wrecking faces...
Then i think well see UAC nerf and return of PPC/UAC...
Then PPC nerf and return of laser+gauss or some other stuff.
This will be until LRMs will become a single viable weapon and then 3d lurmageddon will happen

And still potatoes will be dying and crying about raising TTK so they could stand still and aim for a minute.
But to do it you need to decrease overall DPS, not alpha you are trying to "adress". You need to nerf every single weapon to hell to give them an ability to survive without understanding positioning and tanking, learning to aim. Have you ever thought what would the game be at that point? You need to start adressing pilot skill levels for matchmaking first instead of trying to help those unwilling to improve by changing game mechanics.

Edited by RJF Volkodav, 17 June 2018 - 09:01 AM.

[Nightbird]

Non-pinpoint convergence:

The non-pinpoint I'm imagining is one where if you chain fire weapons one at a time, you'll hit the same point, but if you fire two, the targeting computer will place the end points 0.5 (or X.X) meters apart, so that you will not see destructive interference between weapon systems. For example, for two gauss shots to hit the same point means that at some distance from the target, the gauss rounds are colliding in mid-air. Lasers also have a width and overlapping would cause interference. The more weapons you alpha, because each weapon will be aimed at a slightly different point, the spread gets larger. It should not be random though, whatever the most space efficient way to arrange the points are should be used in a predictable manner. A weapon on the left shouldn't be hitting the right side of the spread, and vice versa. X.X spacing can also vary by weapon, an AC20 needs more space than AC2 etc... therefore it can be CPU taxing on both client and server. The end result is that big alphas are punished with spread.

[KevinRenner]

Option not yet mentioned....take some classes

https://oyc.yale.edu...nomics/econ-159

[Imperius]

Sader Rykan, on 16 June 2018 - 09:09 AM, said:

Why is it so hard for you at PGI to understand that it was the ENGINE DESYNC that blew alphas out of proportion.

You killed mobility, you KILLED the reason to take large engines, and as a result you DECREASED time to kill.


If I don't need to move, if I don't need to twist, and if I don't need a fast engine then I'm just going to stuff more guns on my mechs.

If my target can't twist, it can't survive. If my target can't move it can't survive.


Before your engine desync stupidity, I struggles to do 1000+ damage games in my mechs. Anything above 1000 damage in my assault mech was a pretty good game. Now? With your moronic changes I consistently average 1300+ damage a game. With some games pushing upwards 1600+ damage.

This all comes back to the fact that I bring far more weapons than I used to, because I don't need a fast engine anymore.

If you wan't to fix this garbage balance you've created. RESYNC the engines, give us our god damn speed back, give us the mobility we need to STAY ALIVE. THIS and THIS ALONE will increase time to kill, and force people to bring less weapons.

At least their are a few people still willing to give feedback that understand the real culprit and issues.

[Reno Blade]

Lol, Engine Desync is not the problem alone that some people think would be solved if we revert it.

Elite players still twist and shoot, but anything below 70t just doesnt have the armor to soak up enough dmg, even with twisting.

If you would be as agile as a medium to twist your arm in the line of fire, you could soak up even more, but mediums don't have that much armor and heavies/assaults are slower after the desync, sure.
The issue is the sheer amount of dmg, as that amplifies the place where it hits you the most.

To have any decent use from twisting, you would need to spread more damage towards your arm or side torso than CT (if that is where your attacker is trying to shoot you!).
Let's imagine a very fast twisting mech and a very high alpha with long beam.
The beam duration vs twist speed decides how much you will soak on wich component (arm, side, CT).
If you are faster twisting than the first 25% of the alpha beam duration, you might soak most (~75%) of the alpha with your arm and side torso.
Let's say 25% goes to CT, 25% to LT and 50% to LArm.

So far so good, you could say.
Faster twist speed gives you more chance to shield with the arms, you would say, right?
If you do 100 dmg with your alpha, you will still get 25dmg to CT, 25dmg to LT and 50dmg to LA with twisting.
An average Medium mech without quirks have about 40-50 armor on a side and about 50-60 on CT.
That leaves you with 2 Alphas that you can eat before melting internals even with twisting!
This would be even worse with front loaded Gauss on top of laser vom!

Please tell me you don't actually like this kind of weak feeling piloting a medium mech vs a laser vomit heavy/assault!

I prefere the chaotic, but long lasting action of mediums such as Hunchies and Cents fighting with their low dmg loadouts against each other, such as the current Event is creating.

[Tesunie]

ADI84000, on 17 June 2018 - 03:01 AM, said:

and lol..... is focus fire is more dangerous to clanners... clan heavies have 60-70 side torsos depending on mech/skill tree choices and that means ... 2 is mechs shooting 30 damage...

Vs the average Clan alpha and IS heavy side torso armor?
Let me help you with that:
Cataphract 1X side torso 86 total armor (average probably 80 front) with 39 structure. This is with survival skills.
Catapult BB side torso 60 total (54 front) with 36 structure. No survival.
Dragon 1N side torso 84 total (78 front?) with 36 structure. Full survival.
Grasshopper 5J side torso 80 total (74 front?) with 39 structure. Full survival.
Jagermech 6-S side torso 77 (71 front) with 63 structure. Full survival.
Riflemen 3N side torso 56 (50 front) with 28 structure. No survival.

So, there are some random IS heavy mechs that I own. Compared to Clan mechs side torso health (seen as you made this about side torso health).
Ebon Jaguar B side torso 69 (63 front?) and 40 structure. Full survival.
Hell Bringer P side torso 70 (64 front?) and 40 structure. Full survival.
Linebacker D side torso 82 (76 front?) and 40 structure. Full survival.
Sunspider VG side torso 68 (62 front?) and 33 structure. Partial survival.

Now, excluding my LRM builds (as we know it will show higher), here are there alpha damage.
Cataphract 1X 37
Dragon 1N 20
Grasshopper 5J 38
Jeagermech 6-S 14 (It's more DPS damage)
Riflemen 3N 34
VS
Ebon Jaguar 52
Hell Bringer 64
Linebacker 57

So... full damage to side torso each (as you seemed to describe)...
Hellbringer vs Cataphract
Phract takes 64 damage alpha to it's side, stripping it's armor down to 22 left.
The Phract returns fire, dealing 37 damage in return, taking the Hellbringer down to 33.
SECOND VOLLEY! They each hid and then came back out to shoot again after their weapons got off cooldown (mid ranged combat).
The Phract reacts first, dealing 37 damage again, taking away the Hellbringers armor and reducing it's torso structure to 36 (excluding randomness of crits).
The Hellbringer, still with a side torso, returns fire. It's punishing blow of 64 damage goes off again, slagging the rest of the Phracts armor off, reducing it to -3 structure... as in it now no longer HAS a side torso.

Want to go at this again? I basically just did maxed health buffed heavy vs my heaviest hitting clan. The Clan mech still walked away with a side torso still on it, meanwhile, the IS mech is nursing it's wounds and missing half it's mech. 70 ton IS mech vs a 65 ton Clan mech.

We COULD play this out with two on two, each shooting at the same target and location... That extra damage produced by clan mechs quickly adds up. Meaning less focus fire goes a lot farther with their higher alphas.

Also, observe my (dirct fire) build's alpha levels between the two factions. Every clan heavy I posted has an alpha over 50. Every IS mech seems to average just under 40.
(For the record, this is with "spread sheat warrior". I'm not including random factors of accuracy, twisting, speed, "pressing" (keeping a target engaged until it is forced to overheat or run), weapon recycle times (I'm presuming they each are doing the poke and shoot trading so often seen in matches), etc.)



And... paragraph much? To be perfectly honest, your long run on sentence got a little boring... and I... kinda... stopped... reading... it after... a very... short time... because... punctuation is very importaint... and helps ideas flow... and makes things easier to read... and relays information better... and in ways that is faster to grasp... and... I stop reading about... where I quoted you...
...
...
So yeah...

[Tesunie]

Nightbird, on 17 June 2018 - 09:44 AM, said:

Non-pinpoint convergence:

The non-pinpoint I'm imagining is one where if you chain fire weapons one at a time, you'll hit the same point, but if you fire two, the targeting computer will place the end points 0.5 (or X.X) meters apart, so that you will not see destructive interference between weapon systems. For example, for two gauss shots to hit the same point means that at some distance from the target, the gauss rounds are colliding in mid-air. Lasers also have a width and overlapping would cause interference. The more weapons you alpha, because each weapon will be aimed at a slightly different point, the spread gets larger. It should not be random though, whatever the most space efficient way to arrange the points are should be used in a predictable manner. A weapon on the left shouldn't be hitting the right side of the spread, and vice versa. X.X spacing can also vary by weapon, an AC20 needs more space than AC2 etc... therefore it can be CPU taxing on both client and server. The end result is that big alphas are punished with spread.

As much as I love this concept... HSR makes it very difficult to do, if not impossible. We one time had delayed non-pinpoint convergence in this game. It was great. But the power of the Lag Shield was even more powerful. So thus we got HSR.

However, I do wonder if we could do a "targeting CPU" concept, where each weapon would "take up" so much targeting CPU when fired. Fire over the CPU and accuracy is lost. Want more CPU for your targeting? Get a targeting computer installed. The very weight of it would counter overly high damage. (Then we can lose the current advantages of the targeting computer, which didn't make much sense to me.)

However, once again, I don't think it could work.

However balancing could fall down to "how much CPU does your individual mech have", and "how much CPU does shooting a weapon take when it shoots" could be adjusted. A poorer running mech could have better CPUs to offset their performance. Another mech might have better CPU for specific weapons, such as for LRMs, meaning it could shoot larger alphas of that weapon system without having issues/accuracy.

Though, I do presume that homing missiles would have to be reworked, maybe having worse tracking (accuracy) if too many missiles are fired at once? Hard to really say...



Needless to say, I'd love to have convergence being a balancing factor. But I do also believe that the term "skill" with aiming would come up in complaints if it did...