605 replies to this topic

[Chados]

justcallme A S H, on 13 August 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

And end of the day - cause I have a little more to add - dying to, or being rained upon by LRMs ...

Is just not fun for the majority of people.

It's become far more prevalent since the recent buffs, fun is just being eroded, skill is not being rewarded. I could be 1-shot from a 94pt BOOGEYMAN all day and be fine with it, because that is my failure to twist/pay attention. Dying because some dog poo is spotting me from 800m away and then LRM200+ instantly rains down on my head? That ain't fun, and, is what I see in many games I play - People just getting frustrated.

Ash, the problem with nerfing Artemis, enhancing ECM, and tightening the lock cone all at once is that this exact gameplay is going to be where LRM carriers are pushed. This. Chris’s remarks on the last page show that they only are thinking of LRM Clan mechs boating LRMs in faction play as part of an organized team strategy, they aren’t thinking about group play or 30-40 tube bracket builds. They’re balancing around FW deck composition by high end teams. A fail all the way around but they’re set on it.

And Chris, I know you’re going to ignore me and you don’t want to hear this, but LRMs in 2015 kept me in the game when I sucked as a noob and had a .15 kill/death ratio. A C1 Catapult and LRM tactical skirmish play running within optimal range of medium lasers saved the game for me. The larger lock cone and decent Artemis bonuses kept me playing while I learned the game. Whether you like it or not, the learning curve is vertical in this game and the more you steepen it in the name of making better gameplay at the narrowest and highest levels, the more you are going to drive new players to something less demanding to learn in the front end.

Edited by Chados, 13 August 2018 - 04:28 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I have often said (not here, but still) that I do not envy Chris' job of balancing MW:O.

Battletech is virtually impossible to properly balance, whether by numbers, tonnage, weight class, CB value, battle value, or any other metric. Add in full customization and a wide range of player skill, and you have a balance nightmare.

The trick with LRMs is to make them effective at breaking up firing lines without being OP, and to make other playing styles (short range brawling, mid-range striking, and direct fire long range harassing, for example) effective without making LRMs worthless. That's a very thin line to walk, and I am impressed that they're even trying, and not just letting LRMs fall into obscurity.

Honestly, I'd be OK with LRMs not being in the game at all, but if they can get the game to a place where all different playing styles -- when played well -- feel like they are contributing to a good fight, even in a random solo PUG drop, then we might be as close as we can get to "balance" in MW:O.

(Not to derail the topic, but re-working PSR to actually be a "Player Skill Rating" and not an XP bar would help, too.)

[Y E O N N E]

process, on 13 August 2018 - 01:14 PM, said:

I don't think IS and Clan need to have the same dissipation rates, so long as the efficiency is similar. This could be done with a blanket 5-10% decrease in IS weapon heat.

Has to be 20% at minimum or it still isn't enough.

[process]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 August 2018 - 04:31 PM, said:

Has to be 20% at minimum or it still isn't enough.

I should have asked Khobai earlier, but is the intent for IS and Clan to have similar damage output? Not specific weapon damage, but net DPS?

If the idea is that IS does continuous lower damage equal to Clan burst damage in terms of net DPS, then I imagine that would also involve scaling back the laser duration and damage scattering mechanics for certain Clan weapons.

The current state of balance seems to revolve around Clan weapons simply having higher damage and net DPS, but nominally not actually hitting with X% of it, which becomes either really good or really bad depending on the situation.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

process, on 13 August 2018 - 04:39 PM, said:

If the idea is that IS does continuous lower damage equal to Clan burst damage in terms of net DPS, then I imagine that would also involve scaling back the laser duration and damage scattering mechanics for certain Clan weapons.

It's a bit balanced by the duration though. If both have equivalent DPS and DPT for lasers, one has more alpha potential at the expense of exposure on a single poke while the other has shorter burns but has to poke for more often. Basically IS lasers are better against faster units that may not expose long enough while Clan lasers are better against less agile targets where you can keep the burn on them the whole duration.

Chados, on 13 August 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:

They’re balancing around FW deck composition by high end teams

High end teams aren't really playing FW, just putting that out there.

[justcallme A S H]

Chados, on 13 August 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:

Ash, the problem with nerfing Artemis, enhancing ECM, and tightening the lock cone all at once is that this exact gameplay is going to be where LRM carriers are pushed. This. Chris’s remarks on the last page show that they only are thinking of LRM Clan mechs boating LRMs in faction play as part of an organized team strategy, they aren’t thinking about group play or 30-40 tube bracket builds. They’re balancing around FW deck composition by high end teams. A fail all the way around but they’re set on it.

I get that - but what is all of this further nerfing/buffing caused by?

The initial LRM changes. None of the above further alterations (which is just asking for trouble IMO) is not really going to stop it sufficiently.

[process]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 August 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

It's a bit balanced by the duration though. If both have equivalent DPS and DPT for lasers, one has more alpha potential at the expense of exposure on a single poke while the other has shorter burns but has to poke for more often. Basically IS lasers are better against faster units that may not expose long enough while Clan lasers are better against less agile targets where you can keep the burn on them the whole duration.

Right, I'm not suggesting they'd be the same, but maybe we could dial things down so Clan lasers only have like, 15-20% more duration than their IS counterparts. Alternately, weapons like pulse lasers could be better distinguished to be less like a variant of the long-range-poke-laser family and better suited for less-pokey brawling -- whether that's less duration for more heat, or less damage in general, etc.

[Y E O N N E]

process, on 13 August 2018 - 04:39 PM, said:

I should have asked Khobai earlier, but is the intent for IS and Clan to have similar damage output? Not specific weapon damage, but net DPS?

If the idea is that IS does continuous lower damage equal to Clan burst damage in terms of net DPS, then I imagine that would also involve scaling back the laser duration and damage scattering mechanics for certain Clan weapons.

The current state of balance seems to revolve around Clan weapons simply having higher damage and net DPS, but nominally not actually hitting with X% of it, which becomes either really good or really bad depending on the situation.

I wasn't getting that complex, yet. I am just pointing out that you would need to reduce heat on IS lasers by at least 20% just to approach having comparable sustained DPS (that is DPS once heat-capped) to the Clans at similar ranges if you make no other changes to anything.

As for the duration, no. If you haven't read my thread yet (you should), you will be unaware that the actual percentage of missed damage is absurdly small. Like, in the 0.9 seconds it would take the Battlemaster to complete a burn with LPLs and ERMLs, a Marauder IIC will have deposited 92% of that damage and, only a tenth of a second later (AKA no time at all with Assault agility) you'll have matched it, and less than another tenth after that you will have exceeded it.

The only class of 'Mechs where IS laser vomit is superior is the Light class, and only if we're talking about classic "fast" Lights like the ACH, MLX, WLF, etc. and not the faux Mediums like the KFX, ADR, and COU. The reason the IS get the advantage here is because Clan Lights cannot mass the firepower necessary to match IS damage/tick for the heat and they can't mass the heatsinks necessary to offset the raw heat for the ER Mediums, though IS ER Mediums technically run just as hot in terms of damage over heat.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 13 August 2018 - 05:07 PM.

[process]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 August 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

I wasn't getting that complex, yet. I am just pointing out that you would need to reduce heat on IS lasers by at least 20% just to approach having comparable sustained DPS (that is DPS once heat-capped) to the Clans at similar ranges if you make no other changes to anything.

As for the duration, no. If you haven't read my thread yet (you should), you will be unaware that the actual percentage of missed damage is absurdly small. Like, in the 0.9 seconds it would take the Battlemaster to complete a burn with LPLs and ERMLs, a Marauder IIC will have deposited 92% of that damage and, only a tenth of a second later (AKA no time at all with Assault agility) you'll have matched it, and less than another tenth after that you will have exceeded it.

The only class of 'Mechs where IS laser vomit is superior is the Light class, and only if we're talking about classic "fast" Lights like the ACH, MLX, WLF, etc. and not the faux Mediums like the KFX, ADR, and COU. The reason the IS get the advantage here is because Clan Lights cannot mass the firepower necessary to match IS damage/tick and they can't mass the heatsinks necessary to offset the raw heat for the ER Mediums, though IS ER Mediums technically run just as hot in terms of damage over heat.

Thanks for the link, I will read through it. My subjective observations have generally led me to the same conclusion, hence why I am not thrilled with laser duration as a balancing mechanic since it still leaves lasers with the potential to be too good.

Edited by process, 13 August 2018 - 05:03 PM.

[50 50]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 August 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

The other big thing comes from what happens at the top. Mainly, with planned obsolescence past a certain skill level for LRMs, its not simply a matter of removing a weapon system as a viable option for play at the top, but with its unique mechanics, it removes an entire play style that needs to be accounted for at high levels of play which simply results in a much more tactically narrower experience at the top then there is at the bottom or mid-tiers of the game.

Hi Chris.
This paragraph made me wonder if there was an alternative thought on progression for LRMs as it does seem a shame for any weapon in the game to become obsolete.

What I am curious about is what the impact might be if LRMs were a direct fire weapon. Perhaps as an effect upgrading to the Artemis.
The reason I ask is that the LRMs share the lock mechanic of Streaks (and ATMs) which affords the weapon that ability to home in on the target but when using Artemis it also lets you fire 'at the cross hairs'.
Given the extra tonnage and cost for upgrading to Artemis, would changing the missile trajectory to a direct path (and removing the lock on) when it is equipped give the weapon life in the higher levels and have that similar sort of skill progression as compared with your example of Streaks to SRMs?

[Korz]

I keep seeing people say this or that about clans and IS. I think what needs to happen we need to define what each side is going to be good at. What that sides focus is.

Examples: Clan has DPS but IS has Alpha, Clan has damage but IS has armor.

We have the game far enough from Lore that we have to do something to make each side unique from each other while staying the same in some areas. Lore balanced at the pilot and culture level. We are trying to balance at the mech level.

So if we define what those unique nitches each side has we can then balance around that.

This is the real issue we have. Once we do the above then we can balance the tech and each weapons system after that.

[Y E O N N E]

I don't know that you can pigeon-hole a side into a firepower theme like that, because the quality of the firepower is not something that is universally useful. DPS requires you to stay exposed to use it, but if you are staying exposed then 2 or 3 alphas fired at you are going to ruin your day. If you try to peak, then you just don't have sufficient output.

[Korz]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 August 2018 - 06:07 PM, said:

I don't know that you can pigeon-hole a side into a firepower theme like that, because the quality of the firepower is not something that is universally useful. DPS requires you to stay exposed to use it, but if you are staying exposed then 2 or 3 alphas fired at you are going to ruin your day. If you try to peak, then you just don't have sufficient output.

It doesn't have to be like that. But we have to define each sides roles. Or how can we achieve any kind of parity?

[50 50]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 August 2018 - 06:07 PM, said:

I don't know that you can pigeon-hole a side into a firepower theme like that, because the quality of the firepower is not something that is universally useful. DPS requires you to stay exposed to use it, but if you are staying exposed then 2 or 3 alphas fired at you are going to ruin your day. If you try to peak, then you just don't have sufficient output.

I am no longer sure it is worth trying to keep the tech lines different at the equipment level when it may be more beneficial to ensure that the different variants of a weapon within a class provide enough differences in play style and balance within that class.
ie. the difference in use between a regular/er laser vs pulse vs heavy laser in the medium class,
For quick play it might be that having no difference in the weapons is what will achieve the balance. It's not like there are strict team compositions there according to faction.
For Faction play, perhaps a modifier at the faction level would provide the differences and themes for the sides.
That way, when balancing the weapons the base line is set in quick play and it's not the specialty modes of Faction or Solaris that tilt it one way or another.

Edited by 50 50, 13 August 2018 - 06:43 PM.

[Khobai]

process, on 13 August 2018 - 04:39 PM, said:

I should have asked Khobai earlier, but is the intent for IS and Clan to have similar damage output? Not specific weapon damage, but net DPS?

If the idea is that IS does continuous lower damage equal to Clan burst damage in terms of net DPS, then I imagine that would also involve scaling back the laser duration and damage scattering mechanics for certain Clan weapons.

The current state of balance seems to revolve around Clan weapons simply having higher damage and net DPS, but nominally not actually hitting with X% of it, which becomes either really good or really bad depending on the situation.

I see no problem with clan weapons doing more damage. As long as its offset by disadvantages like higher beam duration and longer cooldown. Equal but different is the essence of asymmetrical balance.

The problem I have is that IS tech isnt equal though. Its just straight up inferior.

For example, given the choice, there is absolutely no reason you would ever take an ISERML over a CERML. Because the CERML is undeniably better at 7 damage (it should only do 6 damage). And that's not balanced. Both are 1 ton weapons. Both should be the same exact power level. The CERML should do more damage and have more range. While the ISERML should have lower beam duration, faster cooldown, lower heat, and less punishing ghost heat. The two should be as equal as possible without being identical.

And the same applies for other weapons and equipment too like DHS, engines, ES/FF, etc...

Edited by Khobai, 13 August 2018 - 08:14 PM.

[Horseman]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 August 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

Both of those above points are things that make LRMs ill suited to that kind of weapon design. Mainly because of the unique mechanics behind LRMs. Picking up LRMs with the intent that they become obsolete past a certain skill level leads to effectively a progression "dead end" since no other weapon in MWO works in the same way that LRM's do. So when you pick up LRM's early and they are designed to effectively become obsolete at a certain skill level, it effectively puts up a hard wall that players that enjoy the mechanics or 'Mechs that are specialized in that style of play, simply cannot progress past. Since unlike Streaks or the Medium laser, none of the skills that an inexperienced player learns while playing LRM's are immediately transferable to any other weapon or mechanic in the game like the other weapons. Which is something that completely goes against what FOO weapons are supposed to do since the idea is that they are "beginner friendly" weapons that become "less efficient" the more skill you have in the game, which allows you to take the skills you learned in the early game and have that translate into more efficient weapon choices in the higher tiers.

The hard wall you describe already exists. Current design of LRMs rewards passiveness by allowing players to focus exclusively on indirect fire, to the detriment of their team (read: 100 tons of an assault mech that is sitting in the back and not sharing armor) and often to the detriment of the player's own continued growth. Many players who pick them up right here and now end up locked in the mindset and cannot progress in skill even as they rise up the tiers - I've seen quite a few who fail to learn the maps and will happily keep raining on targets in hard cover until they run out of ammo, others who will spread damage across every single enemy mech without doing much to any single one of them and others who will rain beyond their maximum range or at brief locks they will lose long before their missiles make actual contact with the target.

Hence the argument myself and several others have made a few times already: it's far too easy to use indirect fire, and that ease nearly invalidates the need for spotting equipment (TAG & NARC). If LRMs were a direct fire weapon that under specific conditions (read: target marked with NARC, TAG, Target Spotted callout or Target Decay on own locks) can be used for indirect fire, we believe that would change for the better - and limit the number of targets the LRM boats can target, leading to their fire becoming more concentrated (and therefore of more benefit for their team).

Edited by Horseman, 14 August 2018 - 12:31 AM.

[Kin3ticX]

Horseman, on 13 August 2018 - 10:33 PM, said:

The hard wall you describe already exists. Current design of LRMs rewards passiveness by allowing players to focus exclusively on indirect fire, to the detriment of their team (read: 100 tons of an assault mech that is sitting in the back and not sharing armor) and often to the detriment of the player's own continued growth. Many players who pick them up right here and now end up locked in the mindset and cannot progress in skill even as they rise up the tiers - I've seen quite a few who fail to learn the maps and will happily keep raining on targets in hard cover until they run out of ammo, others who will spread damage across every single enemy mech without doing much to any single one of them and others who will rain beyond their maximum range or at brief locks they will lose long before their missiles make actual contact with the target.

Hence the argument myself and several others have made a few times already: it's far too easy to use indirect fire, and that ease nearly invalidates the need for spotting equipment (TAG & NARC). If LRMs were a direct fire weapon that under specific conditions (read: target marked with NARC, TAG, Target Spotted callout or Target Decay on own locks) can be used for indirect fire, we believe that would change for the better - and limit the number of targets the LRM boats can target, leading to their fire becoming more concentrated (and therefore of more benefit for their team).

I like this except to add that if players can't hit stuff very well, LRMs or Streaks are going to be their best bet. Any kind of damage spread is better than shooting the sky or the dirt. It's very true that LRMs plateau pretty early compared with the other direct fire options. The clutch matches that I have had in solo queue would have been impossible to pull off while running LRMs all the time. However, its also perfectly fine for someone to run LRMs forever.

Back when I was still pretty new at this game, before the first ELO system, I could get away with running really bad stock+ bracket builds. I would sometimes drive a stock stalker with more weapon groups than I want to admit using. The early matchmaker pretty much wedged me to use more tryhardy builds and discard the phun builds. Battletech is cool and all but we either adapt or get the meta literally pounded into us.

Lastly, I am pretty sure I can get to tier 1 with a smurf account doing nothing but spamming LRMs in an Atlas. However, there is no way I could get to 99th percentile on the jarls stat farm list doing nothing but LRM spam, maybe its possible but I don't think I could do it.

[Horseman]

Kin3ticX, on 14 August 2018 - 12:10 AM, said:

I like this except to add that if players can't hit stuff very well, LRMs or Streaks are going to be their best bet.

Totally, and I'm not against it. They would still home in on targets like streaks do.

Quote

Any kind of damage spread is better than shooting the sky or the dirt..

Which is what the change addresses - it essentially turns LRMs into longer-range streaks, unless your team includes a spotter or your teammates use Target Spotting (which incidentally will help balance the weapon's effectiveness with tier progression a bit, since higher tier players are more likely to be familiar with the command wheel).

Edited by Horseman, 14 August 2018 - 12:35 AM.

[Chados]

And tightening the lock cone to the point that staring is mandatory, while buffing ECM and removing Artemis lock time and tracking strength bonuses, will reinforce sitting in the back and not sharing armor, and relying exclusively on 800m-plus indirect fire. Which will increase the calls for nerfing indirect fire, and granting that ultimately will make LRMs unplayable at any level and by any pilot.

Imagine LRMs with the current velocity and arc, but that have Chris’s tiny stare-cone, no Artemis bonuses, and with heavy ECM all over the field. LRMs that can’t shoot indirect without a parasitic lock granted by the largesse of another player calling target spotted, or NARCing, or TAGging. Imagine those LRMs in a direct fire staring match with a heavy-laser Hellbringer or a dual-gauss Deathstrike. That’s what you all are demanding.

[Bud Crue]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 August 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

The other big thing comes from what happens at the top. Mainly, with planned obsolescence past a certain skill level for LRMs, its not simply a matter of removing a weapon system as a viable option for play at the top, but with its unique mechanics, it removes an entire play style that needs to be accounted for at high levels of play which simply results in a much more tactically narrower experience at the top then there is at the bottom or mid-tiers of the game. No matter what game it is, there is always a particular loathing for indirect / arching fire / splash damage weapons that can often result in a less experienced player taking out a more experienced player no matter what game system you play in. But their inclusion / balance still has to be to the point where there are legitimate risk / reward factors to their use that leads to a more tactically diverse experience at the top. It could still be much more inefficient to more direct fire solutions, but keeping it as a unique threat that must be respected and played around goes towards breaking up the overall tactical experience we want from the game at a high level. As avenues that may be seen as "safe" are suddenly much more risky, which augments play in a number of ways. Both in their effective use as an offensive weapon, but also in strategies that can be utilized to effectively counter-play against them.

I don't know much about game mechanics or the why/how of your approach to balance, and "planned obsolescence past a certain skill level", etc.; moreover, I am for the record, not remotely at the "top" level of play. Nevertheless, the reason I have as you say chosen to have a "a tactically narrower experience" by not playing LRMs is that LRMs are simply not fun. They are boring. This was true when I started playing in 2015, it is true today.

The big difference now though is that I am feeling forced to run them on certain maps because of the changes you have made. THAT seems to me "a tactically narrower experience" via the reality that you have made LRMS simply tactically superior to other weapons that have more risk involved in their use.