150 replies to this topic

[Hatachi]

A very well deserved bump. It pretty much says everything my similar thread said in closed beta.

[MustrumRidcully]

Hatachi, on 04 November 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

A very well deserved bump. It pretty much says everything my similar thread said in closed beta.

I would really like to hear some dev opinion on these threads. I know, everyone wants that in the end, but... It seems important to get balance rights in a PvP game, and there aren't many threads that go to this level of detail - I would love to see what kind of models the devs have at their disposal, and what kind of statistics they have.

[Asatruer]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 November 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I would really like to hear some dev opinion on these threads. I know, everyone wants that in the end, but... It seems important to get balance rights in a PvP game, and there aren't many threads that go to this level of detail - I would love to see what kind of models the devs have at their disposal, and what kind of statistics they have.

Agreed completely.
A little more openness about the reasons these design choices have been being made through action or inaction with some backing data would go a long way, but right now the Ivory Tower treatment with seemingly nonsensical decrees about how they are fixing issues seems to be a pretty poor choice.

[MustrumRidcully]

Asatruer, on 04 November 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Agreed completely.
A little more openness about the reasons these design choices have been being made through action or inaction with some backing data would go a long way, but right now the Ivory Tower treatment with seemingly nonsensical decrees about how they are fixing issues seems to be a pretty poor choice.

Vapor Trail has an interesting idea on this...

The devs really still want to have everything balanced around 10 second fire cycles. They just want us to give the option to fire weapons faster, at the expense of high heat. The problem is that they didn't realize that this option is "cheaper" for some weapons than others, and that means the trade-offs are not balanced, and so the weapons aren't balanced anymore. If they just give the low-heat weapons a lower rate of fire, they could balance things better. E.g. the Gauss Rifle having a Max ROF of only 1 shot in 8 seconds or something like that.

[Vapor Trail]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Vapor Trail has an interesting idea on this...

The devs really still want to have everything balanced around 10 second fire cycles. They just want us to give the option to fire weapons faster, at the expense of high heat. The problem is that they didn't realize that this option is "cheaper" for some weapons than others, and that means the trade-offs are not balanced, and so the weapons aren't balanced anymore. If they just give the low-heat weapons a lower rate of fire, they could balance things better. E.g. the Gauss Rifle having a Max ROF of only 1 shot in 8 seconds or something like that.

Exactly this. But it's not a new idea. It actually stems from what some people said in the CB versions of these threads. The only thing they didn't mention was the high Gauss RoF.

I'm good with numbers, big words, and long posts.

Not so good with conciseness.

[Volthorne]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Vapor Trail has an interesting idea on this...

The devs really still want to have everything balanced around 10 second fire cycles. They just want us to give the option to fire weapons faster, at the expense of high heat. The problem is that they didn't realize that this option is "cheaper" for some weapons than others, and that means the trade-offs are not balanced, and so the weapons aren't balanced anymore. If they just give the low-heat weapons a lower rate of fire, they could balance things better. E.g. the Gauss Rifle having a Max ROF of only 1 shot in 8 seconds or something like that.

Or they could implement some fancy code that gives weapons a linear increase in heat depending on how fast you fire a weapon.

IE: (base heat * (1.0 +.1/s < 10s between shots)) = ???

IE: SL: 4 * (1.0 + 0.5) = 6 heat for firing every 5 seconds

[wuselfuzz]

I'm sorry Mustrum, but this has to be.

Hey RAM:

Solaris VII Duel Rules. page 43

Quote

In contrast to playing BattleTech, where decisions such as weapons fire and heat management have been generalized, the 'Mech duel system makes the MechWarrior "ride the red" and drive his BattleMech harder and faster than ever before.

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/contrast

Quote

2
a : the difference or degree of difference between things having similar or comparable natures <the contrast between the two forms of government>

b : comparison of similar objects to set off their dissimilar qualities : the state of being so compared <the enforced simplicity in this diary … is in contrast to the intensity of his former life — Times Literary Supplement>

Simply put: BattleTech != Solaris VII

Edited by wuselfuzz, 05 November 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

wuselfuzz, on 05 November 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

I'm sorry Mustrum, but this has to be.

Hey RAM:

Solaris VII Duel Rules. page 43


http://www.merriam-w...ionary/contrast


Simply put: BattleTech != Solaris VII

But as I said elsewhere (or was it here)... I don't think the xckd guy payed the other person on the internet 120 $ for his mistake...

[Asatruer]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Vapor Trail has an interesting idea on this...

The devs really still want to have everything balanced around 10 second fire cycles. They just want us to give the option to fire weapons faster, at the expense of high heat. The problem is that they didn't realize that this option is "cheaper" for some weapons than others, and that means the trade-offs are not balanced, and so the weapons aren't balanced anymore. If they just give the low-heat weapons a lower rate of fire, they could balance things better. E.g. the Gauss Rifle having a Max ROF of only 1 shot in 8 seconds or something like that.

It is certainly an interesting rationale, and a much more charitable one than another I have heard, which is that PGI wants to discourage people from using weapons that do not have rearm costs to help encourage people to buy premium. Personally, since I would rather think more positively of them, I would rather believe this suggestion that it is there to give a front-stacking damage for a trade-off of heat. Having design decisions explained from the source is always better than suppositions of third parties though.

It does make me wonder why armor was doubled if it was intended for people to not make extensive use out of their increase to RoF... Was it solely for the purpose of countering mouse-aim rather than RNG determinance for hit-location? That could explain why it is that most of the weapons that shatter their damage all over the target rather than focusing it do more damage here than their TT equivalents (I am looking at you LRMS...). That does not explain why the LB 10-X has not had a damage increase, nor why after turing lasers into unfocused (or maybe partially focused) weapons why they also have no had a damage increase. Still I am pretty sure that the increase in armor was in part due to the RoF changes.

[MustrumRidcully]

Well, mouse aiming gives you AC20s that can one-shot the head location. That is certainly a problem.

But considering how many headshots I actually experience in this game, I have the feeling they misunderstood the real reason combat was over too fast - and that was the rate of fire.

Double Armour helps both issues, and I would even say both issues need helping.

Interstingly - the table top game never allowed people to aim for the head shot. Even not if a mech was shutdown! MAybe the best solution would be to remove the head hit box entirely. Or only have the head hit box take 25 % of the damage and apply the rest to the center torso, or whatever else comes close to the average damage the head slot would take thanks to the RNG?

[Khobai]

Quote

Interstingly - the table top game never allowed people to aim for the head shot.

You could do aimed shots at the head in tabletop, it was just absurdly hard to hit.

If a mech was immobile, you could aim at any location other than the head with a -4 bonus OR you could aim at the head with a +3 penalty. Then if the attack hit, you rolled 2d6 again, and on a 6,7, or 8 the aimed location was hit. On anything else you had to roll randomly for hit location.

But your main point is right... headshots are ridiculously easy in MWO compared to tabletop.

Edited by Khobai, 05 November 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[TheUnderking]

Dont worry guys, PGI's got us covered in the new patch by buffing those underused LRMs, by increasing direct fire accuracy, and allowing us to keep the missile bays open.

[zorak ramone]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 November 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I would really like to hear some dev opinion on these threads. I know, everyone wants that in the end, but... It seems important to get balance rights in a PvP game, and there aren't many threads that go to this level of detail - I would love to see what kind of models the devs have at their disposal, and what kind of statistics they have.

I think you do know the dev's opinion on this. Tomorrow's patch features an increase in laser heat and gives us DHS that drain 0.14 HPS instead of 0.2 HPS. How's them bananas?

Good work on the anaylsis, as usual. I could nitpick on TET and the weighting mechanism, but the overall point stands. I'm trying to figure out if I should expend the energy to repost all of those analysis / re-balancing proposals I worked on from closed beta, but with patches like that, I kinda loose my energy.

[SteelPaladin]

zorak ramone, on 05 November 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

I think you do know the dev's opinion on this. Tomorrow's patch features an increase in laser heat and gives us DHS that drain 0.14 HPS instead of 0.2 HPS. How's them bananas?

Good work on the anaylsis, as usual. I could nitpick on TET and the weighting mechanism, but the overall point stands. I'm trying to figure out if I should expend the energy to repost all of those analysis / re-balancing proposals I worked on from closed beta, but with patches like that, I kinda loose my energy.

I don't really see the point anymore. I pop into balance threads and bring up math like this periodically, but it's mostly just when I have the motivation to tilt at windmills. The only response the devs have ever made to discussions like this was when they made the last large laser tweak, and that was to say things were "really close" to the way they want them.

This is pretty clearly the game they want to make. I'm still trying to decide if it's the game I want to play (only played one day since the release of OB), but I've come to accept that the choice needs to be made on this balance because it shows very little signs of changing.

[VictimEN]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Well, mouse aiming gives you AC20s that can one-shot the head location. That is certainly a problem.

But considering how many headshots I actually experience in this game, I have the feeling they misunderstood the real reason combat was over too fast - and that was the rate of fire.

Double Armour helps both issues, and I would even say both issues need helping.

Interstingly - the table top game never allowed people to aim for the head shot. Even not if a mech was shutdown! MAybe the best solution would be to remove the head hit box entirely. Or only have the head hit box take 25 % of the damage and apply the rest to the center torso, or whatever else comes close to the average damage the head slot would take thanks to the RNG?

I wouldn't say that head shots are the main difference with mouse aim. In MWO, most groups of direct fire weapons will hit the same location, all of them will usually hit or miss as one, and people are way more accurate in general. In Battletech, if you fire 6 small lasers at someone, you'll often miss with some even under good conditions (even without any range or cover, moving shooter+moving target put average mechwarriors at ~60ish hit chance). Also, each laser will roll its own hit location, so you'll get maybe 6 damage to a torso, 3 to an arm, 3 to a different torso, and 3 to a leg if all of them hit. In MWO, you can put all 6 lasers into the same spot each volley - or maybe rake them across 2 spots near each other. And if the other person isn't good at covering damaged areas by twisting, you can usually hit those areas again and again. So 6 small lasers hitting a single location like a much bigger gun is much more the rule rather than the exception. Same thing with Streaks.

Essentially, most MWO mechs function kind of like Pulse+Targeting Computer boats. They can concentrate their fire to core mechs while barely hurting the other locations, or disarm enemies by targeting arms or side torsos with the big guns very easily.

And you can see the relative accuracy by looking at LRMs. On the table top, the penalties for long range and indirect fire will put them at worse than 50/50 even before target movement or cover. Long range bombardment will spend a lot of ammo to no effect for every hit it does produce, unless you're really lucky. In this game, not so much.

[RAM]

Lycan, on 04 November 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

Except that Solaris rules are optional rules and I don't ever recall a Tournament happening that actually used them. (Not saying there never was one, I just haven't heard of it . . )
You're correct that Solaris rules have RoF for the various weapons in it. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Solaris rules are optional and not used in everyday games.
If the Devs wanted to use them and/or are taking (modified) RoF from that then why don't they just say "Hey guys, in case your wondering, the RoF are based of Solaris" and that would settle it.
You also forgot to mention UACs. But both UACS and RACs have their RoF's stated in the normal, everyday Battletech rules. No optional rule setting needed . . .

There have been numerous Solaris tournaments over the years – although fallen out of favour as of late since the transition to Total Warfare. You seem to be generalizing ‘everyday’ games & ignoring that MWO is real-time.

On the beta forums they did reference them – it did not stop the complaints then; it is unlikely to stop them now.

I know, you know and most people do know about RACs – but apparently Asatruer does not. He erroneously claims that only UACs can fire multiple rounds… just trying to help him make better arguments.

MustrumRidcully, on 04 November 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

And despite how often you bring Solaris up, RAM, you have yet to show how it doesn't alter the balance of weapons fundamentally by giving the Medium Laser the opportunity to fire twice per 10 seconds and the PPC only once, despite both dealing, per shot, the same damage and heat as before.
Give me some mathematical model to explain how this is balanced. Until you do, I will ignore any more comments regarding the Solaris ruleset, unless I deem it necessary to point out the flaws again so that people do not end up being misinformed.

If only it were just you misinforming people.

Yet to show that it does not change balance? My entire argument is that the balance IS different! THAT is why your ‘analysis’ is always flawed. You are free to ignore that, but you will still be incorrect and I will still be pointing it out.

trycksh0t, on 04 November 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

If memory serves, BattleDroids did not even differentiate between weapons for the purposes of the gameplay, you either hit or missed with everythinig. Armor was a single value for the entire chassis, and heat was non-existent, so I'm not sure how a 1984 ruleset has any bearing on much of anything. As for new trumps old, Solaris VII rules are from 1991, and so have been trumped repeatedly in the last 21 years. There has been additional fluff, outside of BattleDroids and in more recent printings, that indicate weapons from different manufacturers perform differently, but still worked out to equivalent damage in 10 seconds.
I'll give you that Solaris rules are part of the universe, but seamless integration is a bit of a stretch, IMO. As optional rules, they're fine if that's what you're looking for. However, they are just that, optional, otherwise they would have been standardized into the core ruleset, currently represented by...I believe Total Warfare and Tactical Operations are the most current core rulesets, which is what I had assumed MWO would have been based off of.

Memory is failing – that was only the beginner rules. It would be the same as saying that MWO differs from the current Quick Start! The actual Battledroid rules are virtually identical to the current tournament rules. Yes and that same fluff has also pointed out that the rates of fire are different and not modeled in Battletech at their highest rates but rather their sustained rates.

New trumps old – but different new does not trump. Therein lies your mistake.

The integration is seamless and has nothing to do with whether they are in Total Warfare or not, but then you know what they say about assumption…

Asatruer, on 04 November 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

All of your other "points" have either already been addressed by other respondents since your post, or long long before it.
Classic BattleTech, yeah, I actually was misusing this term. I have since making this post realized that Classic BattleTech is the title of the rules reprint during the WizKids era to help differentiate it from their Clix based Dark Ages crap stuff. Even though I did misuse e this term, thinking that the classic moniker would be understood to mean old-school, my statement is still valid as the Solaris VII rules were not included in WizKids' Classic BattleTech rules reprints.
Core BattleTech: Core is a noun that means "the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything." Core is a term used in gaming jargon to mean, "part of the main, or common rules" as opposed to the term optional, which means, "not part of the core or common rules." The Solaris VII mech dueling rules are notm and never have been, part of the core BattleTech rules by any valid definition or understanding of the word or term "core". At this time core BattleTech rules are contained within the book Total Warfare, but as I am sure there are some optional rules in Total Warefare not all rules within Total Warfare are core rules.
Let me ask some of the salient questions you dodged again, and a couple more in a more blunt fashion.
1.Are these mech dueling rules in Total Warfare, or Tactical Operations?
2.Are these mech dueling rules in Technical Readout: 3055 Upgrade (it has the re-printed the Solaris VII mechs)?
3.Have these mech dueling rules been reprinted in the last decade?
4.Is MechWarrior: Online a mech arena dueling game, or is it a mech tactical warfare game?

You can invent whatever terminology and use it however you like – but that is not going to make it or you correct. To be honest you really need to sit down with the books you are referencing and read their introductions – that is the best advice I can give you…

I have answered your questions repeatedly; ignoring/dismissing my answers is not the same as not answering – here we go again for old time’s sake.
1 – no. Are all the rules in MWO in either of those books?
2 – no, but not surprising since with few exceptions TROs do not have rules. Are there mech readouts in Total Warfare?
3 – yes
4 – dueling (although again you demonstrate a misunderstanding of Solaris – the rules are not ‘arena’ rules)


Ultimately MechWarrior (which last time I checked was the title of the game we are playing) does not use the Battletech rules either. It explicitly suggests using the Solaris rules if one has access to them. Fact is in a real-time game your base is the ruleset closest to real-time: Solaris. Ignoring this fact completely invalidates your entire analyses.


RAM
ELH

[Draco Argentum]

SteelPaladin, on 05 November 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

This is pretty clearly the game they want to make. I'm still trying to decide if it's the game I want to play (only played one day since the release of OB), but I've come to accept that the choice needs to be made on this balance because it shows very little signs of changing.

I got my refund and haven't played at all in open beta. MWO is just a bad game. I stay around arguing on the forums because MechWarrior is great and MWO could be great. But I'll eventually get sick of that and give up to play something that is actually good instead of hoping this game lives up to its potential.

[MustrumRidcully]

Draco Argentum, on 05 November 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

I got my refund and haven't played at all in open beta. MWO is just a bad game. I stay around arguing on the forums because MechWarrior is great and MWO could be great. But I'll eventually get sick of that and give up to play something that is actually good instead of hoping this game lives up to its potential.

Don't give up hope just yet. I know it's hard. But there is still some fun circle-jerking with your Jenner, even if yo uknow you're just exploiting lag shield and a variety of design changes that make your mech and your weapon loadout superior to most Assaults... Imagine how much fun it will be when things arem more balanced! That's a goal worth fighting for!

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 November 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[Jack Corban]

The OP has done an outstanding work with this. I Congratulate you on this. I wish the Dev's would read and listen to this reasoning.

It is a fact that this game needs a rework in its approach to weapon balance.
Let us pray they listen for once.

[Draco Argentum]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 November 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Don't give up hope just yet. I know it's hard. But there is still some fun circle-jerking with your Jenner, even if yo uknow you're just exploiting lag shield and a variety of design changes that make your mech and your weapon loadout superior to most Assaults... Imagine how much fun it will be when things arem more balanced! That's a goal worth fighting for!

I'd have to grind for three hours in a trial mech to get a Jenner to pilot. I know because I did the test in closed beta. They have about two patches to fix the NPE or I'm out and will just be hoping for a miracle email when PGI realises they have problems to fix.