845 replies to this topic

[Erikwa Kell]

Simple solution.

General heat increase for clan weapons. (maybe 10%)

Rework heat-sinks to function correctly. (dispensation bonus ONLY! no max heat cap increase for either single or double sinks)

keep current ghost heat settings


done.


you're welcome

[reddeadeye]

There are multiple problems here. First is data analysis. You provide us figures with data, but no legends of what the data is. We can see trends, but we don't know which weapons and mech combos are the problem. Then, we are told Clan mech weapons are the issue. For example, the 94 alpha damage. That is probably an ACW-1 with eight SRM6s (96 alpha) and a smaller engine. That mech is extremely hot and it may only fire one alpha and shutdown. It will die quickly in a brawling match and do minimal damage. It has to be played a specific way and in a loner fashion. This is a specialist mechanic and it is not likely to be performed by the community at large. This can be treated as an outlier and is probably not that big of an issue. But, it is cited as a problem. PGI is trying to make all the mechs perform similarly in damage and capability. As I understand the Battletech mechanic, Clan mechs fight in multiples of 5. IS mechs fight in multiples of 6 basically, so IS makes up for being outgunned with an extra mech or two. Either the matchmaker needs to be modified so that Clan only fights Clan, or IS fights IS is one way to address the issue. Alternatively, 12 IS mechs fight 10 Clan mechs. Since this probably can't be done easily, the proposed solution is to nerf Clan weapons and mechs because IS mechs can't be elevated to be as powerful as Clan mechs. Why not? IS mechs are already up-armored and they have better weapon systems now. The difference is rather slight. Mostly it comes down to tactics and gameplay. It would be rather trivial to buff IS lasers and other weapons systems. This would be more well received than nerfing the Clan side yet again. But, the main problem here isn't the weapons systems. It's mixing different mechs that aren't supposed to be together in the first place in 12v12s instead of 10 Clan mechs vs 12 IS mechs to maintain balance. This was a game design issue, not a mech/firepower combo balance issue. Making the game a mixed mech 12v12 threw the balance off in the first place.

Edited by reddeadeye, 13 June 2018 - 11:21 AM.

[MTier Slayed Up]

Only other mech I can think of with a 94 alpha is the Death Strike, but it's not as if it has insane draw backs...High heat, long cool down, burn time, limited range...It's not something I see people rocking often outside of myself and a couple others I drop with.

I don't see the point in adding a recoil effect for Clan Gauss. Doesn't really make sense given that it's just a bit of a better version than the IS version. Speaking of which, I hardly think clan gauss is the issue here so I don't really see why it's suddenly a problem? Outside a handful of mechs, Clan Gauss isn't a staple go-to weapon for a lot of people when we think of builds. More often than not, people turn to C-ERM in combination of C-HLL or a C-LPL. If there's a general focus we need to look at, it should be those 3 and work from there.

Edited by DrtyDshSoap, 13 June 2018 - 08:10 AM.

[GBxGhostRyder]

0111101, on 11 June 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

I take it you won't be considering anything in the Community Panel's Weapon Balance document then?

https://docs.google....2xIIfVKM4o/edit

Paul after closed beta many tried to suggest to balance all weapons and give more new players a chance to get hooked on MWO by longer life time in battles just get rid of the Alpha shot mechanism for good and replace it with chain fire and a slower weapon cycle like 3-4 sec between group cycles.

Even if you keep trying to balance weapons like you have for 5 years now and not succeeding a high damage per alpha shot will be exploited by many that min-max the mechs and the game will continue to decline because of such low player retention.

What new player wants to play a game there blown away by 60-90 hit alpha shots and battle time is like 1-3 min per battle? Not many from what I have seen over 5 years most just play a few games and uninstall.

Edited by GBxGhostRyder, 13 June 2018 - 08:28 AM.

[Tarogato]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 June 2018 - 03:32 PM, said:

You know, linking Gauss to any laser ghost heat grouping will do nothing because you can just fire the Gauss 0.5 seconds into your laser burn and avoid it entirely. Or you fire it at the end, just like you would to avoid cockpit shake from recoil.

^ Emphasising this so that it doesn't get missed.

The only way you eliminate this loophole is to redesign how heat penalties are triggered, such that you cannot just avoid a penalty by waiting 0.5 seconds, instead you must wait until 0.5 seconds after a laser is done burning.

While yes, that would probably achieve the end goal, it wouldn't be worth it due to the amount of fury and rage it would incite in the community. It is not an acceptable solution.

Tamerlin, on 12 June 2018 - 03:25 PM, said:

cGauss health. I don't mind increasing cGauss health, but not to the same level as IS. Current values are:
- IS: 7 slots, 15 tons, 10 health
- Clan: 6 slots, 12 tons, 5 health

What if I told you that it was about time the IS Gauss itself got a health buff anyways? So often you are forced to use an XL engine to mount gauss on the IS side, plus IS does not have built-in CASE so even the arms aren't safe. I might go as far as this:

IS: 15 health
Clan: 10 health

Tarl Cabot, on 12 June 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

1. Increase base armor/structural values from 2.0 to 2.5/3.0 of BT values

So that every weapon in the game feels like a useless potato cannon?

There is a sweet spot for TTK in this game. When you have people arguing on both sides, "TTK is too fast!" ... "TTK is too slow!" ... then you probably are somewhere in the sweet spot.

Increasing mech health by a further 25%-50% would most definitely take us outside of that sweet spot.

Quote

2. Modify overall heat scale - Having only a penalty at max is not using any real flavor from BT heatscale
----- 1. Hard shutdown at 105-110 % w/no override possible.
----- 2. Add 2-3 soft thresholds on heatscale 40/60/80% or 50/70/90% to slow down to 10%/20%/30% a mech w/1 override at 100%.

Any type of heat penalties that incur before you reach 100% heat simply encourage the player to stay below that threshold. All of these suggestions have been made:

-- The hotter your mech, the slower it moves
-- The hotter your mech, the less accurate your weapons
-- The hotter your mech, the longer it takes to cool down

All of these just subtly encourage you to stay at the lowest heat as possible. What does this mean for gameplay? Mid-range peeky-pokey playstyle. Which is what we already have too much of.

Quote

3. Give isXL same benefit as cXL but with slight greater penalties while improving the LFE penalty and a partial of the cXL penalty. Use BT for the flavor while working it for a FPS that has PPD instead of dice to determine hit/miss and location.

One problem: IS weapons and tech are balanced around having inferior engines. You give IS the equivalent of cXL and they will mop the floor with clanners. Not only would this necessitate a rebalance of most weapons and quirks in the game, but it would also make the Light Engine completely obsolete. (the only way you don't make the LFE obsolete is if you give such a high penalty for torso loss on IS XL that it is unplayable once you'd lost a torso... such as a 80% speed reduction and 60% heat penalty.)

[Nightbird]

Nightbird, on 12 June 2018 - 12:00 PM, said:

Energy draw for energy weapons and gauss.

Capacitor: 30 pts fixed.
Recharge: 15pts/sec

Only lasers, PPC, gauss use energy

Lasers, PPC use 1 pt per damage, gauss uses .5pt per damage

Behavior:
Lasers draw evergy as it fires, cuts off if runs out of energy (45 damage alpha possible with 1sec laser duration)

PPCs only fire if there is enough pts in total

Gauss draws energy as it charges, needs 15pt for dual gauss, 25 for dual heavy gauss, if run out of capacitor energy can charge at reduced rate as regen

Changes needed:
Large lasers need faster cooldown, medium lasers need slower cooldown, balance DPS/ton


Remove ghost heat from all affected weapons

Nightbird, on 12 June 2018 - 09:17 PM, said:

An example of clan gauss+vomit meta with this change:

If you have 2x C-Gauss and lasers, you can still charge your Gauss, which consumes 15pts over 0.75 seconds, at which point your capacitor will have regenerated to 27 pts, wait another 0.25 seconds for a full capacitor, and fire your gauss + vomit about 45 damage over a 1 second period for a total of 75 damage.

This is still a little higher than what IS can do, but a little less outrageously so. If the Night Star ever has its hands removed, it would be able to do IS gauss+vomit of 60 damage.

The major difference though, is that if you turn a corner and panic alpha, charging your gauss and vomiting at the same will choke your energy system, meaning your lasers get cut short and your gauss doesn't finish charging. This increases the skill needed to use this combo by a little.

Nightbird, on 13 June 2018 - 06:43 AM, said:

Another benefit of this approach is that you allow people to mix and match lasers they want. Many mechs don't have the tonnage to run more than CERMLs, so the earlier proposed 4GH limit on them was cringe worthy. That been said, it must be made meaningful to use large lasers over the medium ones, and the easiest way I can think of is DPS versus alpha per ton.

Medium lasers are Alpha boosting/backup weapons, large lasers are low alpha/ton, high DPS weapons. The CHLL for example needs to have the same DPS as 4CERML to justify its existence. Do you want a big alpha once in a blue moon or do you want a gun you can shoot with minimal downtime? Medium pulse lasers likewise can be twice the DPS (2x tonnage) as well as having a more intense burn for its range tradeoff.

Edit: also want to note that while the 68 damage clan alpha today is nerfed by this idea..
You have to space your shots out, you get in return 2 things:
1. You can alpha more CERLL (4) (dps and duration prolly needs tweaking)
2. You can emulate a fast IS burn by shooting more lasers than your capacity and using the out of energy laser cutting mechanic to twist earlier.

After crunching the math, I realized I unintentionally brought back dual gauss dual PPC, this wasn't my intent. Making gauss draw 1 energy per damage would resolve this problem and further reduce the gauss+vomit meta to a max 65 damage (2x gauss + 5CERML)

[Cayp]

Enable heat for Gauss rifles.
They are electrical in nature, there is no reason for them to not produce heat like PPC.
Make charge/ramp up time longer and produce heat only during charge up.
Amount of heat should be proportional to damage with respect to PPC damage.
Yes, you can hold Gauss for some time, to not stack this heat with another on your alpha.
This mechanic will separate Gauss from PPC

At least this makes some sense.
Yes, this is against TT rules, but we are not in TT.

Current values:
Gauss: 15 DMG/ 5s+0,75s ramp up / 1 heat

Proposed:
Gauss: 15 DMG / 3,5s + 2s ramp up / 7 heat per second for the ramp up duration (14 heat total)
Hold duration: 30s max with 0,5 heat per second
Gauss rifle can explode only during ramp up + hold period.
Increase explosion damage to 40.

For comparison: IS ERPPC: 10 DMG/ 4s / 13,5 heat

No further need for Gauss/ PPC / any possible Lasers to be in one ghost heat group.


Also I support idea that DeadMetal89 is talking about.

Quote

[Things like 50% heat slow your mech down, and 75% heat slows down your weapons recycle time.

This also delivers a lot of sense, instead of ghost heat.

Edited by Cayp, 13 June 2018 - 08:54 AM.

[Elizander]

Tarogato, on 13 June 2018 - 08:38 AM, said:

One problem: IS weapons and tech are balanced around having inferior engines. You give IS the equivalent of cXL and they will mop the floor with clanners. Not only would this necessitate a rebalance of most weapons and quirks in the game, but it would also make the Light Engine completely obsolete. (the only way you don't make the LFE obsolete is if you give such a high penalty for torso loss on IS XL that it is unplayable once you'd lost a torso... such as a 80% speed reduction and 60% heat penalty.)

I also don't agree with making IS XL like clan XL, but my old recommendation was to make losing a side torso with IS XL not-instant death. I was thinking your mech could have an extra 5-10 seconds to live, or they implement what happens when you overheat. Your mech instantly cooks inside when you lose an XL side torso until it explodes. That's about as far as I'd go with making IS XL more survivable.

[RB55]

I took my 93 alpha Kodiac into the testing grounds to try it out. Targeted an Atlas. Alpha strike shut me down. Second and third Alpha same result. No clan mech would survive a battle under such conditions. In normal play a shutdown in front of an assault IS mech means death. Nerfing what we bought and paid for is no better than theft. If you nerf them return our money. Its dishonest. I will have to serisouly think before spending any more money on such a game. My money may be better spent elsewhere. On a game that dosen't take back what you paid for without compensation.

[Daggett]

I highly advise to think about becoming more flexible with tonnage and slot values.

Currently weapons and equipment values for tonnage and slots are exactly like they are in the TT.
I think you are doing this to retain something familiar so TT veterans can get into the game easier, and i appreciate this.

But since many other values like damage have already changed from the TT reference since beta, i don't think that keeping those last restrictions up will still have that much of a positive impact on familiarity to justify giving yourself a much harder time to balance a game that works completely different than it's TT legacy.

I think quite some balance problems including high alphas can be addressed by changing tonnage and slot requirements of problematic weapons or equipment.

You guys already realized with the introduction of Clans that the lore "Clans are superior" viewpoint is not working for a competitive arena-shooter, but i think you should explore this even further.

For example when you and most of the community already agree that a 50t clan mech should be equally powerful than a comparable 50t IS mech, why do clan equipment still need reduced tonnage and weight requirements?

The only reason for this is because it's in the TT-lore. But as we know the TT-lore does not fork for a competitive FPS. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate more on those lore-aspects that does not affect gameplay as much and ditch lore that hurts the gameplay/balance?

I know, lots of TT-veterans may hate me for suggesting this, but you must admit that sacrifices have to be made to convert a turn-based TT based on randomness into a direct-fire FPS shooter. And personally i think that not enough sacrifices have been made, as sad as it sounds.

What i'd like to see is to work out fundamental gameplay differences between Clan and IS tech and then balance everything around those.
You already tried this for example with lasers by giving clan more of a long-range, high alpha profile and IS a more DPS focused one.

But as you can see this is not working as well as it should because clan stuff is always more efficient due to lower weight and size (so they can compensate high laser heat with cheap DHS) and IS need quirks to compete with that fundamental imbalance. And other weapons did not even get this 'different gameplay' treatment like SRMs. They play the same for both tech bases but clan ones are always much more efficient due to their weight. A lousy 0.23 more DPS in case of the SRM6 does not compensate 1.5t more weight and an extra slot.

From a competitive view it makes no sense that a C-Gauss does exactly the same than the IS counterpart, but weights 3t less.
Imagine you would be able to play with the tonnage. This would allow you to either make both Clan and IS gauss truly equal or make both weapons different but still balanced.

But with sticking to TT-values for tonnage and slots and the goal to prevent power-creep (which i agree to) you have to either stick with this 3t imbalance or nerf the clan-gauss so heavily in it's main aspects that it will become overall much weaker than the IS gauss to compensate for the 3 tons, which feels wrong.

In my opinion i'd rather see TT-values fall and to live with this kind of disconnection from the lore than having either an imbalanced c-gauss as it is now or a vastly underpowered one which would be an even bigger disconnection from the lore.

This is just one example. Another one is the IS-flamer which weights double as much as the Clan one without any benefit. Such things feels much more wrong to me than original TT values feel familiar and true to the lore.

TLDR:
Evaluate if we really need tonnage and slot values from the TT and if clans still need to have lighter and more compact stuff than IS.
Imagine what you could do in terms of balance and weapon-diversity between tech-bases without those restrictions.
Imagine being able to be much more flexible with quirks and not being forced to give the majority of the good ones to IS mechs.

Edited by Daggett, 13 June 2018 - 09:22 AM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

To Tarogato and the rest of the gang that contributed to the document, thanks for the hard work churning through the community input and presenting what appears to be a reasonable step towards helping more weapon systems and combinations be viable at more levels of play. I do think you were a little light on the nerfs, but I think I understand your perspective.

To Chris and Paul, I've enjoyed the conversations we've had at and around Mech_Cons and have faith that you are trying to continue to improve the game. So are Tarogato and the rest. The document is full of buffs because most weapons in the game don't feel useful or don't feel like they're worth the tonnage (or crit slots, or heat) compared to the ones that are more effective. Addressing issues one at a time will take years, given your past history of balance changes.

To everyone crying about IS vs. Clan balance, that is not what this is about ... it's about helping most weapon systems feel like they have a role in contributing to a win.

[MechaBattler]

Why not do a PTS for each proposed change? People can get first hand experience between the changes and make a more informed decision on which will be the better change. And if you do. You should find a away to lock out anyone from the PTS forum who hasn't actually played at least three matches. At least the trolls will have to download the PTS and do the matches before they can start being obnoxious.

[Stinger554]

MechaBattler, on 13 June 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

Why not do a PTS for each proposed change? People can get first hand experience between the changes and make a more informed decision on which will be the better change. And if you do. You should find a away to lock out anyone from the PTS forum who hasn't actually played at least three matches. At least the trolls will have to download the PTS and do the matches before they can start being obnoxious.

PTSs for MWO are practically worthless because they don't emulate the 12v12 environment of the game. They used a 4v4 environment last time(IIRC) because not enough people played on the PTS. So it's a waste of time.

[MechaBattler]

Whelp, hope people are ready to rely on PGI's judgment then. ;3

[Tarogato]

Stinger554, on 13 June 2018 - 09:53 AM, said:

PTSs for MWO are practically worthless because they don't emulate the 12v12 environment of the game. They used a 4v4 environment last time(IIRC) because not enough people played on the PTS. So it's a waste of time.

- usually not 12v12, so not representative of the Live environment
- weightclass matchmaking usually disabled
- skill-based matchmaking usually disabled
- very small playerbase to pool from - imbalanced matches regardless
- people only playing that things that are being tested, so not representative of the Live environment


Yeah, I don't like PTS testing for weapon balancing. PTS is good for testing new game mechanics, as was done with Clan Invasion, Civil War, InfoTech, EnergyDraw, all that stuff. But fine-tuning of weapons? It's not effective. It's like testing an F1 car on an abandoned go-kart track.

[Elizander]

Tarogato, on 13 June 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

- usually not 12v12, so not representative of the Live environment
- weightclass matchmaking usually disabled
- skill-based matchmaking usually disabled
- very small playerbase to pool from - imbalanced matches regardless
- people only playing that things that are being tested, so not representative of the Live environment


Yeah, I don't like PTS testing for weapon balancing. PTS is good for testing new game mechanics, as was done with Clan Invasion, Civil War, InfoTech, EnergyDraw, all that stuff. But fine-tuning of weapons? It's not effective. It's like testing an F1 car on an abandoned go-kart track.

Too bad that PGI can't just integrate a testing mode in the main client in addition to all the other game modes and players can just vote to play normally or vote to play with "beta" settings.

[ShaneoftheDead]

Chris Lowrey, on 08 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

So as Paul stated in his overview post found here, we will be looking to directly address the current state of clan Alphas and bring them closer into alignment with the capabilities on the Inner Sphere side of the tech factions. The current trends of sustainable Alphas on the clan side reaching up to 94 damage when the IS typically cap out at around 60-65 effective damage without serious build concessions is too great of a divide to have fully slanted into the corner of a single faction and we will be taking steps to bring them closer into alignment.
...
As stated above, we will not be looking to integrate everything at once, but instead focus on player feedback, concerns, and opinions, and move forward for addressing this particular issue. If the community can produce an alternative solution that meets the same intended goals of reducing Clan upfront damage alpha from its current 94 damage peak, to instead peak off closer to the 60-65 damage peak the IS reaches without serious build concessions, as outlined in Paul's overview post, then we are open to implementing that solution provided its technical feasibility.

Additionally, while we know that many like to utilize other forms of social media to express feedback, in this instance we request that the primary discussion for this topic be centralized within this thread as there will be multiple eyes on these discussion topics.

Chris & Paul,

What are we balancing for: Quick Play, Faction Play, or Solaris 7?

If Quick Play, I must concur with some prior posters in saying that fixing the Match Maker and the Player Rating System it relies upon will go much farther to give balance in Quick Play than reducing max Alpha Strike potential. Search for my forum posts for ideas. The ones about balancing on combat potential. However, this does not remove the need for balancing and quirks between 'Mechs and Chassis. See below.

If for Faction Play, why not just allow all 'Mechs be available to both Factions (IS and Clan)? Boom! Alpha issue solved for minimal cost to PGI. Again, this does not remove need for balancing and quirks, see below.

If for Solaris 7, then you are really talking about benchmark balancing. Right? What are we bench-marking against?

This is a serious issue that kept some 'Mechs in the garbage bin and lets others shine. Other than tonnage, there are many things that cause this. Hard-point number, type, and location on the 'Mech. Torso sizes. Speed. Maneuverability. To address these issues, quirks are needed to compensate for low slung weapons, fat torsos, or few hard-points when compared to their peers ('Mechs of their own tonnage).

I would start by setting benchmarks for a specific Tonnage and comparing that benchmark with the ones above and below. You know, make the average 50 ton 'Mech perform better than the average 45 ton Mech, but not as good as the average 55 ton 'Mech. The benchmark would be a calculation of Firepower, Armor, Speed, and additional equipment. The benchmarks would make a spectrum from 20 ton Lights up to 100 ton Assaults. That is your starting point.

Now, if a Chassis has more Hard-points (ie.Firepower) than it's benchmark, it should lose some Armor or Speed to compensate for it or perhaps a bit of both. The point being to keep 'Mechs in check with regards to their peers, but give them different roles. Glass Cannon, Brawler, Support, etc. So, a 50 ton 'Mech may have the firepower of a 55 ton 'Mech, but it will have less armor even though it has slightly smaller torsos and is faster. That sort of thing. Then all you have to balance is how much to take/give for being over/under the benchmark.

So, that 94 Alpha 'Mech should be a Glass Cannon or Crazy Slow. (Full Disclosure: I use a 103.5 Alpha STK-5M on occasion and it is slow and hot.) I'd lean towards losing speed in Assault or Heavy and losing Armor in Medium and Lights, but ones that don't would be interesting if the balance was done correctly.

If you can find the right balance in the benchmark calculation, it should not matter if a 'Mech can have a 100 Alpha because it is offset by other factors. Case in point, my previously mentioned STK-5M would never be considered OP due to the other offsets, yet it is still capable. It has a good balance, as shown by my statistics when compared with my other Assaults as it is about the middle of the pack in Damage per Drop. Conversely, a 'Mech that has a low Alpha is still viable because it has other abilities that make up for it, perhaps speed or heat dissipation. Abilities that take up space and weight, like Jump Jets, AMS and ECM, must have that weight and space taken into account when calculating the balance, so not as much need be taken from other areas to offset the capability.

my 2¢

[Stinger554]

Tarogato, on 13 June 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

- usually not 12v12, so not representative of the Live environment
- weightclass matchmaking usually disabled
- skill-based matchmaking usually disabled
- very small playerbase to pool from - imbalanced matches regardless
- people only playing that things that are being tested, so not representative of the Live environment


Yeah, I don't like PTS testing for weapon balancing. PTS is good for testing new game mechanics, as was done with Clan Invasion, Civil War, InfoTech, EnergyDraw, all that stuff. But fine-tuning of weapons? It's not effective. It's like testing an F1 car on an abandoned go-kart track.

Yeah all that stuff that I really didn't want to type....

[Nightbird]

Tarogato, on 13 June 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

- usually not 12v12, so not representative of the Live environment
- weightclass matchmaking usually disabled
- skill-based matchmaking usually disabled
- very small playerbase to pool from - imbalanced matches regardless
- people only playing that things that are being tested, so not representative of the Live environment


Yeah, I don't like PTS testing for weapon balancing. PTS is good for testing new game mechanics, as was done with Clan Invasion, Civil War, InfoTech, EnergyDraw, all that stuff. But fine-tuning of weapons? It's not effective. It's like testing an F1 car on an abandoned go-kart track.

How about LIVE TESTING?

PGI releases statement: "We will test some changes that are rough around the edges for 48 hrs to collect data and feedback. During this testing period, all participants will receive 2x c-bills and xp to cover costs of build testing. After the testing period is up, the changes will be reverted and evaluated. We thank you for your patience and cooperation."

[Tarogato]

Nightbird, on 13 June 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

How about LIVE TESTING?

PGI releases statement: "We will test some changes that are rough around the edges for 48 hrs to collect data and feedback. During this testing period, all participants will receive 2x c-bills and xp to cover costs of build testing. After the testing period is up, the changes will be reverted and evaluated. We thank you for your patience and cooperation."

Much preferable. I can't imagine it would be that incredibly difficult to have two sets of weapon.xml available on both the client and server, and a trigger to load the secondary one for beta tests when necessary.

Asking people to install an entire duplicate of the entire 20GB game is what keeps the PTS inundated with tumbleweeds.