45 replies to this topic

[Ezrekiel]

Ask any old TableTop player about Targeting Computers, and some will already frown, while others still liked them.

Now ask them about the combination of an Elite Pilot (2/3 or better) + Targeting Computer + Pulse Lasers.

While not the only cheesy combo, most oldschool players will admit that BattleTech was never really balanced for that particular combination.

For those not familiar witht that particular build, it basically allowed the pilot to select and hit a specific zone on the enemy Mech (except head) with the same probability that a standard pilot would have to hit the whole Mech (and therefor need to roll for hit location.)

As you can imagine, concentrating fire on one Zone instead of 8 (from front only, 11 zones front and back combined) kills opponents a lot faster.

Of course, the way weapon groupfire precision currently works in the game, this is what we all get for free, kind of. And BattleTech armor values (even doubled) cannot really protect against it.

Now, according to PGI, they nerfed DHS because of the DPS increase that they allow. While keeping the matches at a certain length is a valid concern for PGI, the method they chose by reducing DHS to 1.4 efficiency is just a momentary stopgag. Once ClanTech sets in, the problem will be back with a vengeance.

Imagine 4xUltra-AC/20 builds firing a Ultra salvo for 160 damage into one zone...
Imagine 100+ LRMs in one salve and keep in mind Clan LRMs have no minimum range...
Imagine how Clan Streak boats will feel that can mount as many Streak SRM-6s as Current Streak Cats carry Streak SRM-2s, or maybe even more depending on the chassis...

These builds will not be stopped by a DHS nerf - they can kill in 1-2 salvos quite often, and being shut down after that is not exactly an ideal balance for this.

So instead of fixing what PGI claims it is needed to fix, all the 1.4 DHS nerf will do is to allow for less viable builds in the game and needlessly aggravate players.

And if you are a new player, and cannot yet see why we're so concerned about the insane critical slot inefficiency of 1.4 DHS - trust me, you WILL be aggravated by it sooner or later when you play around with various fittings.

Edited by Ezrekiel, 05 November 2012 - 02:23 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

I'm agreeing with the topic title. They cite 'problems,' and that 'it broke the game during testing,' without any kind of math to back it up. We did the math for them, and showed they don't break anything, but not adding them properly will break a lot of other features.

[Badgerpants]

I agree as well!

The problem seems to be the entire build. The more we play the more it becomes apparent that the entire build has very serious issues, DHS are just the latest in the mix. I was hoping to use DHS to make my Jenner something approaching heat neutral, (contrary to some opinions it is still a worthwhile goal for any mech) but now it's just a kick in the face as the dev's don't want us to use anything close to a sensible heat mechanic, and cannot find a viable alternative to making mech's overheat!

[Urza Mechwalker]

Woudl not be bad if weaposn had some small deviation, with some being more precise than others. And adding a pilot skills to reduce that.

[Dreadp1r4te]

I understand the concerns with the Clan invasion coming, but I suspect those new weapons will be balanced as they are brought out. However, one of the pressing issues in this game at the moment is that alot of weapons (namely anything energy based) has its viability questioned by the lack of correctly functioning DHS. The pre-patch notes were unclear whether or not our existing DHS were factoring at .2 heat per second cooled or not, but I suspect they were; and nerfing them to .14 hps is kind of a step down... Let's run some quick math here.

If I have 10 SHS in my engine, and 5 DHS in my Mech, that puts my total heat per second sinked at 2. (1 SHS = .1 HPS and 1 DHS = .2 HPS)
After the patch, if I have 10 DHS in my engine, and 5 DHS in my 'Mech, puts my total heat per second sinked at 2.1 (15 DHS x .14 = 2.1)

So, that's a VERY marginal increase in effectiveness for something that change the tech level of the BT Universe. Let's go more in depth...

10 SHS in engine + 10 DHS in mech (prepatch) = 30 total heatsinks = 3 HP/S
10 DHS in engine + 10 DHS in mech (postpatch) = 2.8 HP/S

See? That's actually a step down in heat efficiency from what we have now! That's outrageous!

Edited by Dreadp1r4te, 05 November 2012 - 03:35 AM.

[CCC Dober]

Agreed.

PGI would do well to heed the forums. Smaller test groups can only focus on specific builds (Jenner, Swayback, Streak-a-Pult, Gauss-Cat etc.) and lack the larger scope of thousands of people running several combinations in rotation. You can surely build the game around a couple benchmark Mechs, but if they represent an exception to the rule (laser/missile/ballistic boats), then you will have trouble with general variety and representative results.

Long story short: PGI please increase the size of your 'tester group' and involve all the people on the forum in the process.

Even if most don't feel like writing, polls would go a long way to make things happen with a minimum of friction. Think of checks and balances. The tester group is your check, the forums/polls are for balance. You need both to move forwards and ultimately succeed.

[Mordhar]

CCC Dober, on 05 November 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Agreed.

PGI would do well to heed the forums. Smaller test groups can only focus on specific builds (Jenner, Swayback, Streak-a-Pult, Gauss-Cat etc.) and lack the larger scope of thousands of people running several combinations in rotation. You can surely build the game around a couple benchmark Mechs, but if they represent an exception to the rule (laser/missile/ballistic boats), then you will have trouble with general variety and representative results.

Long story short: PGI please increase the size of your 'tester group' and involve all the people on the forum in the process.

Even if most don't feel like writing, polls would go a long way to make things happen with a minimum of friction. Think of checks and balances. The tester group is your check, the forums/polls are for balance. You need both to move forwards and ultimately succeed.

It is called “beta test” for a reason. And I really hope that so called “testers” needed to actually test the game, not just bring money early trough founder program.

We (testers) are ready to give feedback about game. And due to our numbers we can do it much more effectively than any small group. But developers do not want to listen.

[Draco Argentum]

CCC Dober, on 05 November 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Even if most don't feel like writing, polls would go a long way to make things happen with a minimum of friction. Think of checks and balances. The tester group is your check, the forums/polls are for balance. You need both to move forwards and ultimately succeed.

Even with just a spreadsheet you could get everything within 10% of balanced then tweak from there. The current plan of throwing things in that are clearly imbalanced just by casual inspection and trying to go from there is a huge waste of time.

[AlixX]

On the OP. Why are you comparing TT accuracy with ingame accuracy? It does not make any sense. If I want to hit the left torso ill do so.

Is this just another whine thread without any ideas to how it should be fixed? Perhaps clantech should take more critical slots. PGI will balance it out.

Edit: Dober, Do you know how big this group is? I dont think so. Why would u make such a perfect tester?.....

Edited by AlixX, 05 November 2012 - 04:02 AM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

i already said it about many different topics... PGI should start thinking about clantech NOW, since they won´t rollback the timeline... clantech will lift all balance problems that are more or less negligible right now to a whole different level...

clantech was OP in battletech, and it will be at least 3X OP in MWO ^^

and yes, i agree to the whole post of yours Ezrekiel... we will have alot more work to do, to get the combat system to a satisfying level i guess^^

(strange enough, it felt pretty good so far, but the more we leave 3025, the more issues are visible...sounds familiar^^)

AlixX, on 05 November 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

On the OP. Why are you comparing TT accuracy with ingame accuracy? It does not make any sense. If I want to hit the left torso ill do so.

he compared our current aiming with BT´s targeting computer with an elite pilot using it... it had exactly the same effect in BT as it has here... the system wasn´t built for that... it just threw all armore values, heatsystem and damage balancings over board^^

and he is right: double armor doesn´t make up for an aimed alphastrike on the center torso... and why should i care about a shutdown, if i can blow your CT apart with a single alpha^^

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 05 November 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[lizardmech]

Aren't battletech weapons inherently unbalanced when purely based on combat stats anyway? At the moment there's no real cost to weapons, no limits on availibity or restrictions on what can be deployed by a team. There's basically two options:
1 balance everything so no weapon or upgrade is inherently much better or different than others.
2 Limit the practicality of running powerful weapons 24/7 on every mech in the team.

[Slanski]

I've posted a reply on MXCL's DHS post which I'm going to shorten here:

The issue is damage values of the TT with different rate of fire and heat/second lead to wildly different DPS and DPS/ton in MWO:

Expected values in MWO (implied at 3 seconds cycle):

Medium Laser: 1.5 damage/3 seconds, 0.9 heat/3 seconds (0.5 DPS)

AC10: 3 damage/3 seconds, 0.9 heat/3 seconds (tripple ammo per ton) (1 DPS)

LRM20: 6 damage/3 seconds, 1.8 heat/3 seconds (tripple ammo per ton) (2 DPS)

Actual values in MWO (against twice armor, so half resulting DPS to get TT comparison):

Medium Laser: 5 damage/3 seconds, 4 heat/3 seconds (1.6 raw DPS, 0.8 converted DPS)

AC10: 10 damage/2.5 seconds, 3 heat/2.5 seconds (4 raw DPS, 2 converted DPS)

LRM20: 40 damage/4.25 seconds, 6 heat/4.25 seconds (9.41 raw DPS, 4.7 converted DPS)

So the LRM20 ends up 2.35 times as deadly as in TT, AC10 is twice as deadly, MLas is 1.6 times as deadly.

LRM 20 goes from 0.6 heat/second to 1.41 heat per second, AC10 goes from 0.3 heat per second to 1.2 and MLas from 0.3 heat per second to 1 (trippling the load on the heatsinks).

Just hit Ohm Wrecker's weapon sheet and calculate DPS (manually, it isn't right on the lasers):

AC2: 4 DPS out to 720 range, 0.666 DPS/ton of weapon system
AC20: 5 DPS out to 270 range, 0.357 DPS/ton of weapon system

So I can install 2 AC2 for 8 DPS in less space than an AC20 at 5 DPS and gain range. LRM10 offers 4.7 DPS at 0.94 DPS/ton.

MWO AC2 is a rapid firing AC16 with long range!

Shot damage is irrelevant. DPS matters and DPS/ton for constructing and balancing mechs. After that fundament is intact, we can talk about adjusting the heat/s and dissipation.

Imagine an MMORG with weapons at max level offering 1 DPS or 8 DPS in limited slots. Which one would you choose?

[Hatachi]

Thing with me, as one of the guys who wrote one of those long math based heat threads in closed beta, if the devs would just comment in one of the more math based heat threads and disprove them, or explain why the they're math is flawed, half the threads on the forums would possibly drop off the edge of the planet.

[Quxudica]

Ezrekiel, on 05 November 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

Ask any old TableTop player about Targeting Computers, and some will already frown, while others still liked them.

Now ask them about the combination of an Elite Pilot (2/3 or better) + Targeting Computer + Pulse Lasers.

While not the only cheesy combo, most oldschool players will admit that BattleTech was never really balanced for that particular combination.

For those not familiar witht that particular build, it basically allowed the pilot to select and hit a specific zone on the enemy Mech (except head) with the same probability that a standard pilot would have to hit the whole Mech (and therefor need to roll for hit location.)

As you can imagine, concentrating fire on one Zone instead of 8 (from front only, 11 zones front and back combined) kills opponents a lot faster.

Of course, the way weapon groupfire precision currently works in the game, this is what we all get for free, kind of. And BattleTech armor values (even doubled) cannot really protect against it.

Now, according to PGI, they nerfed DHS because of the DPS increase that they allow. While keeping the matches at a certain length is a valid concern for PGI, the method they chose by reducing DHS to 1.4 efficiency is just a momentary stopgag. Once ClanTech sets in, the problem will be back with a vengeance.

Imagine 4xUltra-AC/20 builds firing a Ultra salvo for 160 damage into one zone...
Imagine 100+ LRMs in one salve and keep in mind Clan LRMs have no minimum range...
Imagine how Clan Streak boats will feel that can mount as many Streak SRM-6s as Current Streak Cats carry Streak SRM-2s, or maybe even more depending on the chassis...

These builds will not be stopped by a DHS nerf - they can kill in 1-2 salvos quite often, and being shut down after that is not exactly an ideal balance for this.

So instead of fixing what PGI claims it is needed to fix, all the 1.4 DHS nerf will do is to allow for less viable builds in the game and needlessly aggravate players.

And if you are a new player, and cannot yet see why we're so concerned about the insane critical slot inefficiency of 1.4 DHS - trust me, you WILL be aggravated by it sooner or later when you play around with various fittings.

While it's a problem, having my shot completely miss due to a hidden dice roll and not my own aim is also not acceptable in this kind of game. RNG should not hold major sway in a supposedly skill based environment.

[tenderloving]

I've often wondered how they are going to handle Clan tech when they are having trouble balancing a small group of weapons as it is now.

[Adrienne Vorton]

i think the largest problem right now is just, that they didn´t count all factors into the transition from BT into MWO...

if you change one number (like shots/ 10 seconds) you have to change ALL other numbers with a comparable number...

to me it looks like they did use some weird numbers for several factors, which cause alot of trouble in the all-in-all transition...

but like i stated already, with all the weapon setups i used so far, it felt more or less right... except for PPC´s just being way too hot due to the weird transition of heatcap and disipation, and the gauss being just the only logical choice for a high damage weapon, because of even more advantages than in tabletop, while only having two downsides which just don´t make up for the over-all pro´s...

with the current changes planed (dhs not being a real improvement for high heat energy builds, and even raising heat production on certain energy weapons instead of keeping them as they are now and fixing other things first) i gotta agree with those ppl who fear, that the gauss will only increase it´s elite-status...

no, i don´t want to have the gauss banned...but i want it to be just one choise of many...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 05 November 2012 - 04:54 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Maybe one day PGI will read a few of the balance threads and realize where things went wrong.

I hope that day is not so far away.

[WillyPete]

Adrienne Vorton, on 05 November 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

clantech was OP in battletech, and it will be at least 3X OP in MWO ^^

This needs to be confronted now.
Suggestion: Post up stock clan mech builds from TT, but with the MWO adjustments (Armor, Heat, RoF) shown and let people see what they will face if the system remains as is.

[Hatachi]

Quxudica, on 05 November 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

While it's a problem, having my shot completely miss due to a hidden dice roll and not my own aim is also not acceptable in this kind of game. RNG should not hold major sway in a supposedly skill based environment.

What i've always wanted is a growing reticle based on percentage of throttle with spray anywhere within it. It's common it most tactical shooters, so I don't understand why people call blasphemy for a sim mech game. E.G. 0 Throttle same size as arm cursor now. 100% being a bit larger than a shotgun reticle in Halo. (Just for an example size wise.)

*EDIT* Willy I did that with the prime Madcat yesterday. I'll see if i can track the post down.

To show why I have an issue I'll run through some things with the Madcat. First thing to note was it was made for bracket fire from the very start in tabletop. It has 15 double heat sinks standard, so 30 heat. All weapons are 52 heat all together, but it's meant to bracket fire in the first place, so I'm okay with that. However, let's make those heatsinks 1.4. That's 21 sinked heat and it just lost 1/3 of its heat dissipation. Next, I'm going to add how much heat it would be to fire everything in alpha for 10 seconds to match the 52 reading from earlier. The number is 112.34. So, we went from 30/52 on alpha for ten seconds to 21/112. Does that make it a bit clearer? I can answer any questions about how I reached those numbers if anyone is curious.

Edited by Hatachi, 05 November 2012 - 05:26 AM.

[Parnage Winters]

I must be missing the section on the website showing off clan tech and weapons value for such in the game so we can make judgement's..

Please feel free to voice concerns over clan tech when we have clan tech to actually talk about. You are just making half-baked theories based on the tabletop. MWO is indeed taking much from the tabletop but to think it's going to stay the same and they are just going to throw everything in "as is" is insulting to the developers and pretty much anyone with common sense.

If you want to discuss problems with the DHS being knocked to 1.4(A solid indication for the record they have no problems balancing the game rather then adhering to TT dogma) good, great! But you aren't really..so yeah why the silly speculation?