Jump to content

Soften Lore Values For Better Gameplay?


77 replies to this topic

#1 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 07:12 AM

Would you mind loosing/soften "Lore" values for weapons and other stuff if it makes the game better?

For example say if the PPC dosn't to 10-heat 10-damage but...don't know 8-heat 10-damage for example?

#2 N a p e s

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 1,638 posts
  • LocationMontreal

Posted 24 April 2019 - 07:19 AM

Those values are already pretty soft and have been subject to multiple balance passes.

The only things that PGI is really unwilling to change are tonnage and slot requirements for pieces of equipment.

#3 Captain Caveman DE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Carnivore
  • The Carnivore
  • 249 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 07:43 AM

View PostN a p e s, on 24 April 2019 - 07:19 AM, said:

Those values are already pretty soft and have been subject to multiple balance passes.

The only things that PGI is really unwilling to change are tonnage and slot requirements for pieces of equipment.



..which they really should, on some weapons at least. looking at you, HvyGauss and especially LBX20 ;)

#4 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 07:43 AM

Sure in some cases thats true. Question is how far would you go? Tonnage and slots are keept for lore/tabletop reasons. Still if the balance would be better by just changeing the PPC +1 ton, should it be done?

#5 Curccu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,389 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 09:30 AM

Upping tonnage/slots would be stupid IMO, lowering ok

edit: In your example weapons are easy to nerf by other factors, but that IS LB20-X is impossible to fit into any mech without STD engine, which actually isn't lore.

Edited by Curccu, 24 April 2019 - 09:32 AM.


#6 VonBruinwald

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,329 posts
  • LocationRandis IV

Posted 24 April 2019 - 09:39 AM

View PostN a p e s, on 24 April 2019 - 07:19 AM, said:

Those values are already pretty soft and have been subject to multiple balance passes.

The only things that PGI is really unwilling to change are tonnage and slot requirements for pieces of equipment.


Which us all good except for two options.

View PostCaptain Caveman DE, on 24 April 2019 - 07:43 AM, said:

..which they really should, on some weapons at least. looking at you, HvyGauss and especially LBX20 Posted Image


Those 11-slotters are a pita without crit-splitting.

...and IS-XL's going boom on ST destruction. Something they should only have if they implemented a fully-fledged engine crit system.

#7 Kiran Yagami

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,464 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 09:45 AM

View PostCurccu, on 24 April 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

Upping tonnage/slots would be stupid IMO, lowering ok

edit: In your example weapons are easy to nerf by other factors, but that IS LB20-X is impossible to fit into any mech without STD engine, which actually isn't lore.


This is the one that gets me. They're keeping lore values but in doing so absolutely destroying lore builds. There's something fundamentally wrong with that. If you can't implement crit splitting then you shouldn't stick to lore criticals. Freaking duh.

#8 Captain Caveman DE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Carnivore
  • The Carnivore
  • 249 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 10:18 AM

View PostKiran Yagami, on 24 April 2019 - 09:45 AM, said:


This is the one that gets me. They're keeping lore values but in doing so absolutely destroying lore builds. There's something fundamentally wrong with that. If you can't implement crit splitting then you shouldn't stick to lore criticals. Freaking duh.



also, even with 'thinking hard' there is no mech out there that would be flat out broken, once IS_LB20 would go to 10crits, right?
I don't see a problem there, but obviously that'd be OP. timber-wolf-level-OP....... ;)

#9 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 4,961 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 10:23 AM

I think they've softened it enough, while still sticking to the lore enough that it's not Titanfall, or some other shallow mech game. I think everything is fine the way it is. The only one I would make a case for is the LBX20. H-Gauss is potent enough that it needs the restrictions. LBX20 on the other hand doesn't really. I mean it's cooler and has no ghost heat. But being stuck using standard engines makes it mostly a weapon in the domain of assaults and some heavies. Lighter mechs need the weight savings of LFE or XL and LBX20 doesn't bring enough to warrant the loss.

#10 WrathOfDeadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pest
  • The Pest
  • 1,853 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 10:58 AM

Lore has already been pitched out for the sake of balance and TTK, on multiple many, many, many occasions.

Armor values are universally doubled, even before taking durability quirks into account. CERPPC, rather than dealing a flat 15 damage like in TT, instead deals 10 and then 2.5 to two adjacent components- it was utterly, brokenly OP with its original stats, easily the best weapon in the game. Laser damage values have been tweaked up, down, and sideways, on every single type except the IS mediums. Heat values are constantly in flux for every weapon type. JJ power has been rather dramatically smashed. Missile damage has been altered in certain cases (IS SRMs had their damage buffed, and RLs all had their damage doubled). Clan standard ACs were added to address PGI's inability to code in ammo switching for LBX. ATMs got stepped damage brackets for the same reason. Weapon cycle times are just completely made up for balance's sake. The list goes on and on and on.

So... the short answer is yes. Lore should always take a backseat to gameplay. We're all better off for PGI having fudged the ruleset, even if not every individual change is beneficial, because running everything off stock TT rules and values would be a total bloody nightmare.

#11 N a p e s

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 1,638 posts
  • LocationMontreal

Posted 24 April 2019 - 12:10 PM

View PostVonBruinwald, on 24 April 2019 - 09:39 AM, said:


Which us all good except for two options.

Those 11-slotters are a pita without crit-splitting.

...and IS-XL's going boom on ST destruction. Something they should only have if they implemented a fully-fledged engine crit system.


Totally agree that they need to figure out crit splitting,

#12 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 9,505 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 01:03 PM

too much table top, not enough mechwarrior.

but then again i think balance needs to be brought down in priority by a large factor in favor of more direct improvements to the game.

Edited by LordNothing, 24 April 2019 - 01:11 PM.


#13 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,195 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 24 April 2019 - 04:15 PM

Going soft on Lore values already bought us:
Clan vs IS "balance"
BS Jesus Box ECM running out of scope
Free C3 Lock on.
etc.
Stop it.

#14 WrathOfDeadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pest
  • The Pest
  • 1,853 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 05:18 PM

On the other hand, sticking with lore values would give us 8 damage ISLL, 3 damage SPL, ammo-per-ton values that are frankly pathetic across the ballistic range (5 shots per ton for AC20? Lulno), MGs that have the same DPS as AC2s, through-armor crits, and headshot kills resulting from lucky AC10 and PPC hits.

Lore accuracy is not only not always the right answer, it would in far too many cases be actively destructive to enjoyable gameplay. Lore values are designed around a turn-based game with dice-roll hit tables, not a realtime shooter with pinpoint convergence, and they just don't yield good playbalance in this kind of game.

#15 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,545 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 24 April 2019 - 06:02 PM

View PostWrathOfDeadguy, on 24 April 2019 - 05:18 PM, said:

On the other hand, sticking with lore values would give us 8 damage ISLL, 3 damage SPL, ammo-per-ton values that are frankly pathetic across the ballistic range (5 shots per ton for AC20? Lulno), MGs that have the same DPS as AC2s, through-armor crits, and headshot kills resulting from lucky AC10 and PPC hits.

Lore accuracy is not only not always the right answer, it would in far too many cases be actively destructive to enjoyable gameplay. Lore values are designed around a turn-based game with dice-roll hit tables, not a realtime shooter with pinpoint convergence, and they just don't yield good playbalance in this kind of game.

The IS ERLL would be 12 heat for only 570m range.

Lolno indeed.

#16 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 22,639 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 07:05 PM

View PostVonBruinwald, on 24 April 2019 - 09:39 AM, said:


Which us all good except for two options.



Those 11-slotters are a pita without crit-splitting.

...and IS-XL's going boom on ST destruction. Something they should only have if they implemented a fully-fledged engine crit system.


Fully agreed. Much of the offset between IS and Clan XL would easily be mitigated with through armor crits and/or functional engine health. Each section of the engine gets X health. Engine/player death after losing a cumulative Y health.

Example if an IS XL engine's total health is 90 (just an example) and the dead point is 30. IS XL might have 30 in each ST. Clan XL / IS LFE might have 90 and a dead point of 30, but the sides might only have 20 each... Something like that. Sorta pulled from nowhere.

#17 Aidan Crenshaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 835 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 09:40 PM

View PostHammerMaster, on 24 April 2019 - 04:15 PM, said:

Going soft on Lore values already bought us:
Clan vs IS "balance"
BS Jesus Box ECM running out of scope
Free C3 Lock on.
etc.
Stop it.


You should stop with the C3 nonsense. What we have is nowhere near actual C3 performance. You might want to recheck your facts and look up what a C3 network on TT does.

#18 TheArisen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,870 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 April 2019 - 09:45 PM

I think some things like LBX20 should have their crits reduced so stock loadouts can work with it in game. Without crit-splitting they may as well just reduce it's crit slots.

#19 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,101 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 11:09 PM

View PostKoniving, on 24 April 2019 - 07:05 PM, said:

Fully agreed. Much of the offset between IS and Clan XL would easily be mitigated with through armor crits and/or functional engine health. Each section of the engine gets X health. Engine/player death after losing a cumulative Y health.

Example if an IS XL engine's total health is 90 (just an example) and the dead point is 30. IS XL might have 30 in each ST. Clan XL / IS LFE might have 90 and a dead point of 30, but the sides might only have 20 each... Something like that. Sorta pulled from nowhere.


Enjoy Piranhas killing you in a couple seconds on armor breach with yellow structure remaining in all torso compartments.

#20 Bloodwitch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 198 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 11:27 PM

Lore builds wouldn't be half as bad if not for MWO's double armor values.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users