269 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

Draco Argentum, on 06 November 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Lets get it out there. I am against vertical progression. It does bad things to games and makes things feel grindy because you need it, as opposed to want it.

That being said its BattleTech based so it is unavoidable.

Yeah, sadly there is going to be vertical progression. That comes later though, as it stands there is only so far to go (my fleet of 10 milllion c-bill Jenners attest to). The good news is there is only so far you can go.

Then again my CN9-A only has DHS and a couple streak launchers and rocks the house.

[MCXL]

Draco Argentum, on 06 November 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

Thats why PGI's choice not to have tiers of mechs was so good. I'd be very annoyed if the Raven was supposed to be a low tier light that I wasn't meant to use in serious matches.

Putting aside the point that the raven is actually a high tech, cutting edge mech, you have a point... Sort of.

Because tier 2 tech isn't actually a progression item.

Certainly to afford the equipment you have to grind more, and to an extent that is progression. But it isn't gated by progression. Unlike runes and summoner levels in league you can circumvent tier two tech by simply buying a tier two mech.

Anyhow, that doesn't matter to me all that much. Your post on the XP system is pretty good, I do think the three variant thing is at best bad design, at worst an open money grab (forcing us to spend MC or sacrifice C-bills)

If the game could calculate Battle Value, than matchmaking would be able to handle having more powerful and less powerful mechs in the que. Just as it matches lights to lights and so forth, it could also take into account the BV of the mech in question and match it based on class.

When we get community warfare, I 100% expect all players to run Tier 2 tech on the front lines, because that's how it should be. I have a feeling that you wont be able to participate in community warfare in trial mechs, and without a certain amount of GXP

EDIT:
Oh, also, as per requested I tweaked the OP a bit to reflect the math a little better. It isnt perfect yet, but whatever, I can only hit so many keys.

Edited by MCXL, 06 November 2012 - 01:13 AM.

[Draco Argentum]

MCXL, on 06 November 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

If the game could calculate Battle Value, than matchmaking would be able to handle having more powerful and less powerful mechs in the que. Just as it matches lights to lights and so forth, it could also take into account the BV of the mech in question and match it based on class.

I dislike Battle Value. Its no easier to balance a BV system than it is to balance a non BV system. It merely shifts the difficulty. Rather than balance being about weapon A and B being of equal value it becomes weapon A and B are of equal value per BV. You're right that the abstraction layer allows different power levels of items to be balanced. Thats a plus. The minus is that creating a good mech design is about min/maxing around a metagame number (BV) rather than pure ingame performance. I simply find that less satisfying.

But now we're well away from DHS.


PS: The Raven is just my go to example mech since its my favourite IS design.

[Shredhead]

After one and a half hours of reading, I'm very impressed by the work you've done here, 1140! Kudos to the work you put into all of this. Is there a but? No. I just came to a conclusion that wasn't mentioned as that in this hole thread. We're talking about game balance, using maths to make our points. But these are only parts of the balance issue. Let's elaborate:
I love playing the devils advocate, especially in this case. All points you analysed are mere parts of the big problem. When it comes to game balance, more issues come into play than weapons, heat and armour. It is in equal parts influenced by the map design philosophy and the player behaviour. All maps we currently have got one uniting element: They are brawler friendly. Map size and structure heavily encourage brawling at ranges of less than 200 meters. In every single map there are several possible ways to get close and fight it out in CQC, giving all short range weapons an indirect buff and discouraging from drawn out long range battles. Players have long since adapted to these circumstances, especially the grouped up, communicating teams. That's the game the devs wanted, and though we will (hopefully) see larger maps, in order to keep up with their philosophy in mind the devs will surely stay with lots of cover and several ways to approach the enemy base(s).
I think that's where buffs for LRMs and the actual way the Gauss works stem from. Well, I have no insight in it, but it's my best guess to assume these decisions were based off data like "average damage per weapon system", "average combat distance" and so on. These stats might be a bit flawed because, well, they only show averages.
At the very least the map design and brawl affinity of a big part of the players have a huge part in why high power energy weapons aren't used that much either. All balancing has to be done with that in mind, else it could lead to overpowering said weapon systems as much as current LRMs.
That said, I think Gauss are actually at a point where they should be in the end, all other weapons should be balanced accordingly. But we have to wait and see what today's patch brings, especially with the laser nerfs.
TLDR:
This game is not only "Rock Paper Scissors", but more like "Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock". There's more to it than "nerf X, buff Y" with a living and thinking playerbase.

[zparkle]

MCXL, on 06 November 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Vertical progression isn't bad when it is done properly.

Going back to League of legends, a Level 30 summoner has numerous advantages over a level 1 summoner:

• More 'Summoner Spells'
  
• Access to runes
  
• The mastery system

The power progression serves as a gateway to focus new players on fundamentals, which is a big positive in the design of the game.

UGH!!! The vertical progression in league is garbage. Its nothing but an arbitrary block that prevents you from having full access at the beginning. People don't understand why it sucks simply because they don't have exposure to anything to compare it to. There is absolutely no reason that a level 12 player should have an awesome escape and a level 11 player should not. Just like there is no reason that the same mech piloted by an experienced pilot should run and turn faster as well as run cooler than the exact same mech piloted by someone less experienced.

The justification that Morello uses for most of his design decisions are crap and is the primary reason why LoL isn't nearly as interesting or exciting as Dota2. While giving the entire game for free and relying just on cosmetics for revenue probably won't work for MWO like it does for Dota, there is absolutely no need or benefit for a vertical progression system. This is not an MMO where we move on to progressively more difficult areas.

Edited by zparkle, 06 November 2012 - 08:31 AM.

[MCXL]

zparkle, on 06 November 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

UGH!!! The vertical progression in league is garbage....

I understand your opinion, but do you have anything to back it up with?

zparkle, on 06 November 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

There is absolutely no reason that a level 12 player should have an awesome escape and a level 11 player should not.

I do agree with this however, because summoners are a fundamental part of the game balance. Champions are literally created with using flash in mind (such as Galio)

A battle value system would simply mean the same thing weights classes do now. Taking a lot of oomph would mean the other team has a lot of oomph. pretty simple pug wise

For community warfare the limits should be whatever the group wants. I believe PGI mentioned that the premade que will not have any sort of equipment equalizer, so you could have 7 lights vs 8 assaults. And for team play that sounds like a lot of fun.

[Super Mono]

Draco Argentum, on 06 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

I dislike Battle Value. Its no easier to balance a BV system than it is to balance a non BV system. It merely shifts the difficulty. Rather than balance being about weapon A and B being of equal value it becomes weapon A and B are of equal value per BV. You're right that the abstraction layer allows different power levels of items to be balanced. Thats a plus. The minus is that creating a good mech design is about min/maxing around a metagame number (BV) rather than pure ingame performance. I simply find that less satisfying.

But now we're well away from DHS.


PS: The Raven is just my go to example mech since its my favourite IS design.

BV makes sense for building large armies but I think it's complete overkill for matchmaking pub games.

I think all that's needed is a few levels of separation. Mechs equipped with DHS, Endo Steel, or Ferro-Fibrous armor go into the advanced queue, those without get placed into a middle queue, and those in trial mechs get placed in their own queue.

[MCXL]

BV dosnt have to be the convoluted system that was used in TT, it could be as simple as measuring the base stats of the mech that you see in mechlab.

Damage x Heat efficiency + Armor

or something.

EDIT:

Lol

Edited by MCXL, 06 November 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[Asatruer]

Super Mono, on 06 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

BV makes sense for building large armies but I think it's complete overkill for matchmaking pub games.

Due to the turn based nature of BattleTech and the amount of time it takes to manually perform all the accounting and gather and roll the dice and do more accounting, large armies were not how BattleTech games were usually played, but rather, closer to the scale of 4-8 mechs per side. As such, Battle Values were designed for normal BattleTech game in mind, which is pretty close to the same scale of a MWO match.

Super Mono, on 06 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

I think all that's needed is a few levels of separation. Mechs equipped with DHS, Endo Steel, or Ferro-Fibrous armor go into the advanced queue, those without get placed into a middle queue, and those in trial mechs get placed in their own queue.

Religating Trial mechs to their own queue is like saying that Trial mechs will always, and should always be crap, and this should not be the case. The systemic problem causing Trial mechs to be so bad as to need their own queue should be addressed, rather than a poor kludge of a band-aid applied. Hopefully what you meant was more like, "New players should be in their own queue against new players" and that I can agree with, but not all pilots in a Trial mech will be new pilots, some will be Vets wanting to give a new mech a spin to see if they like it enough to drop the cbill or mc down to buy it.

MCXL, on 06 November 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

BV dosnt have to be the convoluted system that was used in TT, it could be as simple as measuring the base stats of the mech that you see in mechlab.

Damage x Heat efficiency + Armor

or something.

Something like that could work, but I think it would have to have more variables than that, just to try and figure out the worth of a BAP, TAG, ECM or other TLA system.

[Namwons]

Cliff notes plz...the problem is that the firing rates are too high, which taxes the heat system too hard. And its what makes trail mechs non-competitive to customs, trails are built around 10sec cycles while custons are built around half that cycle. weapons rates need to be brought up to 6-8 seconds.

[John Norad]

Tuhalu, on 04 November 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

The AC/20 and Gauss Rifle also need balancing for heat. The AC/20 needs to lose at least 1 heat per shot (that extra heat payed for the crippling effect of 20 damage on a mech with regular armor levels anyway!). The Gauss Rifle needs to gain at least 3 heat per shot.

It is not necessary to balance around heat alone.
It's easier and quite straightforward, but seriously lacks some variety and creativity.
There are more factors like ease of use, precision, burst damage and dps you can throw into the mix.

For Gauss Rifles I'd retain the low heat as a unique trait and balance it by lower dps, meaning higher cooldown time. So if you use one you deal a lot of burst damage, over very long range, without worrying about heat, but at a considerably lower dps than PPCs or autocannons. Imho that's also balanced and doesn't just revolve around heat.
Every weapon should have it's own characteristic consisting of various advantages and drawbacks.

Edited by John Norad, 06 November 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[MCXL]

Seeing that the Gauss is meant to do 50% more DPS than the PPC in the original game balance, I wouldn't agree with you John.

From the Penny Arcade Report link discussion:

Worm Speaker said:

Well, this certainly explains why I was getting my *** handed to me by focusing on my energy weapons. I tried a few matches of MWO, but I was unloading my two large lasers into the head of the oncoming mechs and it was like I was just throwing wet hot dogs at them until I overheated. It also explains why after about 5 matches, I decided that maybe I wasn't as excited about this game as I thought that I was.


Maybe I'll try again later when they have the balance worked out.

This is why I made this post, peoples expectations aren't being met, and I am trying to show why that is with an examination of game design choices. Heat balance is one of the largest systemic changes, and I think that it is probably the most noticeable in how it affects the feel of the game.

Edited by MCXL, 06 November 2012 - 12:34 PM.

[zparkle]

Thontor, on 06 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

right now, the gauss does effectively way more than 50% more dps than the PPC. Because the PPC's rate of fire is limited by the amount of heat dissipation and not its cooldown.

It's not feasable to fire a PPC every 4 seconds to match the Gauss Rifle rate of fire and bring the relative balance in line with TT because the amount of heat sinks you need to carry to do that makes the weight invested not worth it.

So in reality, the Gauss Rifle is way more than 50% more dps than the PPC.

Increasing the Gauss Rifle's cooldown would be a great way to bring it in line with the PPC's true rate of fire and back to the proper relative DPS

This would also make the Gauss Rifle less effective than the other ballistic hardpoint options for brawling purposes, which is currently not the case.

IMO, increasing the Gauss Rifle's cooldown is the most logical way of bringing it back to where it should be... Still the best sniper weapon, but not by the huge margin it is now.. And making it the inferior choice for close range combat.

why not just increase heatsink capacity so multi-PPC mechs like the Awesome aren't screwed? the gauss isn't the root problem. the root problem is heat mitigation hasn't been multiplied like RoF and Armor have.

[MCXL]

Thontor, on 06 November 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

Because adjusting how fast heat sinks dissipate heat might fix problems with the PPC, but it'll create new problems with small/medium laser boats being way too powerful because they will be able to fire more often as well, and they are already very effective.

You need to re read my posts.

The hotter the build the more benefit it reaps from changes, Med lasers would be stronger, yes, but PPC based mechs would beat them. (which if we are talking about something like the Awxome or the K2, that's how it should be.)

Edited by MCXL, 06 November 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[Squidhead Jax]

Wall of text crits my eyes...




...with painful realities.

[MCXL]

Thontor, on 06 November 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

They only sacrifice range...

A gigantic amount of range actually.

Squidhead Jax, on 06 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Wall of text crits my eyes...




...with painful realities.

L O L

[Viper217]

Checking in on your thread like I told you, keep up the good work and hopefully some devs have seen it/are following along. It would be nice to be able to use the large energy weapons and not feel so gimped, they have great sound effects and really feel like the huge weapons they are (we're in huge mechs remember!).

[Targetloc]

That was an awful lot to read... I prefer to say it with graphs or tables.

[MCXL]

I wrote it out because graphs, while a great tool, can actually mislead people. There are aspects I would like to graph better, but overall its more important to think the process through to understand the change.

That, and the posts are more aligned with the idea, "I'm teaching you." not, "I'm Showing you."

[somerandom18]

MCXL, on 04 November 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Quote just for lolz

Edited by Lima Zulu, 07 November 2012 - 01:47 AM.
Edited just for lolz