532 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Zyllos, on 06 November 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

This game will never be balanced with TT due to one single fact, that PGI has said they will never change, convergence.


*snip*

I think there is a way to account for the advantage of convergence. I believe (without being able to prove it), that the table top did in fact try to balance the weight of weapons (including ammo and heat sinks needed to operate them) vs. the damage output, with 2 considerations in mind
1) Range. The longer the range, the less efficient the weapon would be.
2) Damage per Shot. The higher the damage per shot, the less efficient the weapon would be.

In the table top, the 2) factor was really easy - you just could look at the absolute value of the damage.
For MW:O, you would get a little sophisticated. Basically 4 Medium Laser together deal the same damage as an AC20 together. The AC20 needs more slots and more weight than a medium laser, so generally speaking, it's much more difficult to "boat" AC/20s than Medium Lasers. SO to balance out their boating and convergence advantage,w e would not need to look at heat per shot, but at heat per shot relative to weight and crit slots.

SInce AC/20 and Medium Laser have approximately the same range, the AC/20 would need a small efficiency advantage due to its less favourable damage per shot to tonnage/crit ratio.

[Kekrebos]

MrPenguin, on 06 November 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Wall of text pt. 2.

Ok, we get it, you think we're a bunch of monkeys banging away at our keyboards.

We may not be qualified to fix broken code. You don't see people saying "you just need to change this and the net code will be awesome!" No, we know we don't know crap about it beside the fact that its broken.

What you do see us making suggestions on is that the VALUES of certain things are off. They need balancing.

If they really have tested our ideas, a simple dev response would clear it all up. I really highly doubt they test most of it, because they think they know better than us, just like your post shows. If you're someone inside the development community your attitude scares the crap out of me. We are the PLAYERS of THEIR game. We are trying to HELP. Not be treated like a bunch of uneducated key pounders. We are not saying we can do it better, we are saying something is not right. That its going to need fixing, and offering suggestions as to what we think would help.

If you are a developer in any game and take constructive feedback poorly... I don't know if you're in the right business.

I understand throwing out the suggestions by people that are saying "THIS GAME IS CRAP>>> NEED MORE DAMAGES NOW WHY YOU NO LISTEN!" but people that say, this is broken, heres something I put together to show why and some possible changes that would correct it should not be put down as clueless idiots.

Edited by Rallog, 06 November 2012 - 09:36 AM.

[Koreanese]

Great book! Its got many teardrop stains on it. Now why dont you go get it published.

[Thorn Hallis]

MWO is still more Mechwarrior then the whole 4-series combined. Thats enough for me.

[CeeKay Boques]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

I think there is a way to account for the advantage of convergence. I believe (without being able to prove it), that the table top did in fact try to balance the weight of weapons (including ammo and heat sinks needed to operate them) vs. the damage output, with 2 considerations in mind
1) Range. The longer the range, the less efficient the weapon would be.
2) Damage per Shot. The higher the damage per shot, the less efficient the weapon would be.

In the table top, the 2) factor was really easy - you just could look at the absolute value of the damage.
For MW:O, you would get a little sophisticated. Basically 4 Medium Laser together deal the same damage as an AC20 together. The AC20 needs more slots and more weight than a medium laser, so generally speaking, it's much more difficult to "boat" AC/20s than Medium Lasers. SO to balance out their boating and convergence advantage,w e would not need to look at heat per shot, but at heat per shot relative to weight and crit slots.

SInce AC/20 and Medium Laser have approximately the same range, the AC/20 would need a small efficiency advantage due to its less favourable damage per shot to tonnage/crit ratio.

But that 's just thing, 4 medium Lasers on a 113kph Jenner? Guess what that usually acts like?

LBX. LRM.

Unless you're super awesome with fingers of gold, you're going to do spread damage on that guy. Unless, of course, you're both standing still. (which would give you +hit in game ANYWAY!)

Lasers DO NOT DO SPREAD DAMAGE in BT.... we've already left the train at the station at this point, while using the wonderful BTU platform to launch from. it IS more sophisticated. Way more complex that adding a heat mod here and a convergence there. I'm glad lasers act the way they do in the novels instead of the Board Game... still in the BTU though!

Edit: I know that 4 medium lasers WOULD, in essence, do spread damage because of hit locaction values, but even a single laser does now. That's mah point.

Edited by Technoviking, 06 November 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

MrPenguin, on 06 November 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Its probably best if I don't answer this.
So far, I've read nothing on the forums that could fix or add more balance. Well, nothing proven anyway. Doing math on it is one thing, actually implementing it is a entirely different beast all-together. You can't just say "Do this and it will work" with out actually doing it and proving its work. Thats why a concept is a concept and not excepted and proven truth.

Like, if people on this forum could PROVE that there ideas of balance and making the game better would actually improve balance and make the game better. Then I would be all for supporting these people. The problem is that none of them can prove it. Unless they have an development build and they're able to modify the game at will, then its simply an impossibility for them to test it.

"Eh, dudes, I think PPC are too weak, can you do something about it?
We've said that for a few months now as well. SO far we've got bupkiss, and the only tech we hoped would make a difference here has now been nerfed before we even saw it working correctly.

Here is something I can do:
I can come up with models to evalulate game balance. I can try to check them against our observations of how the game is played. If it checks out, it seems my model is good.
I can then start adjusting the underlying weapon values I used for the model and see if that model looks more desirable.

Now if there was a way to put these stats in the game, we could see that they work.

But just because I can model game balance doesn't mean I can program CryEngine 3.4. But understanding how to program for CryEngine 3.4 is not a necessity to understanding game balance.

Trust me, the D&D4 designers had probably no idea about how to program CryENgine 3.4, but yet, they managed to create the best balanced D&D game there was so far. The FASA designers didn't know how to program C++ (unless some did, who knows), but they still managed to come up with battle value to balance their equivalent of match-making.

It's a fallacy to believe that you need the entire skillset of the entire PGI team to discuss, model and reason game balance.

[wanderer]

Ghost Bear, on 05 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

I stopped reading after the DHS phrase.

What part of "it broke the game, heat was no longer an issue" do you not get?

How it broke the game and made heat no longer an issue. What build gains "exponential" DPS, when anything I put together with the math doesn't even come close.

Seriously. The math on that doesn't add up. MWO's not set up that heat-neutral builds, even with DHS do anything except die to people willing to work the overheat bar a bit.

[Darkmoose]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 November 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

Later, yes. The original or at least early game, to my knowlege, didn't have it. It also didn'T have Double Heat Sinks, ER PPCs, pulse lasers, Gauss Rifles or the entire batch of CLan power creep.

The 3025 tech is mostly (but not perfectly) balanced without needing battle value. But when they introduced later tech levels and Clan tech, it probably became apparent quickly that while power creep supplements really sell great, ultimately it is not satisfying for tournaments and more elaborate mechanics were needed.

I leave it to a real Battletech player to correct me.

Either way - PGI didn't even get the 3025 tech right so far. (For which we don't need to compare PPC with Gauss Rifle, but PPC with AC/10...)

Yes battle value is used in the TT Game, it Started with Combat Value, that was in the 3050 time period, BV popped up next, and now BV 2 with the *****. In advanced tech cases it does not work all the time. For instance a Dire Wolf with a buffed Pilot can be well over 8000 BV, while a 3025 Jenner with a std pilot is 600. 13 to one is not good odds, and the DIre Wolf will lose in a BV Balanced Game. The advanced equipment, especially things that increase movement, can really boost BV, to levels that only allow you 1 or 2 mechs vs a Company or Battalion. You are right the 3025 tech is balanced, after than not so much. To be honest my groups still picks teams based on weight not BV. 400 Tons vs 400 Tons etc. As a note, the Battle techs folks are going to do a time jump and rules refresh by 2015, to the 3250 era, that will be more like the 3025 game 20 weapons or so, mechs unique to realms, etc. Old mechs will still be there, but will be like primitive mechs (2500's) compared to a 3050 Clan Omni Mech.

[Kmieciu]

The devs are not that smart.

First they increased the rate of fire. That was a good idea. Nobody wants to shoot a small laser every 10 seconds. And in a FPS game you could take 9 small lasers, aim them at the cockpit and insta-kill everyone.

So they invented double armor.

But WHY ON EARTH didn`t they just decrease the damage (and heat)? It`s the obvious solution!

If I wanted to increase the rate of fire of a small laser 4 times, it would do 3/4 points of damage for 1/4 points of heat. And you still need only 1 Heat Sink to be heat neutral. Now try to hit that cockpit on a moving target 4 times in a row with a full beam. It`s tough, even in a first person shooter.

And for PPC: Big hitting beast of an energy weapon. I would give it 5 damage every 5 seconds, with 5 heat. Take 10 heat sinks and fire as much all you want. One hit would equal almost 7 hits from a small laser. In proper hands, it would be scary. People would mount it wherever they could. We would have long range engagements.

On a side note, I would prefer if the torso mounted weapons did not converge on a single point. I can understand the arm conference, but if the torso lasers on a a Hunchback fired in parallel to each other, boating them would be less useful. People would mount one large laser to hit what they are aiming at, or lots of small lasers to have that "beam shotgun" effect.

[Makaze2048]

MrPenguin, on 06 November 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

What most people are surprised to learn about is that devs usually do try there ideas if they show promise. You might not see most of whats suggested because its tested outside of your view. And they have no reason to tell you that there working on it because they can't guaranty that they won't scrap it after a few hours(if that).

Hi, programmer, former game developer here. Actually in my, admitedly anecdotal, experience development teams are run by myopic prima donna "creative directors" and "producers" with the occasional VP of something or other chiming in as well. They tend to have a grand plan in their head and stick to it no matter what the data, testers, players, or even the other members of the dev team say. What you describe is how things should work, but that's often not how they actually work. So far from what I've seen of MWO, this project has gone just like many I worked on...

[Johnny Chimpo]

MrPenguin, on 06 November 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Wall of text, part deux...

"Plant and stooge more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization "

alternately,

Fanboi (n).

Geek Term related to forum users who think a product/company/person can do no wrong.

"No matter how many bugs Star Wars Galaxies Mechwarrior Online has, a fanboi will alway defend the developers."

Edited by Johnny Chimpo, 06 November 2012 - 09:49 AM.

[rythex]

Thorn Hallis, on 06 November 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

MWO is still more Mechwarrior then the whole 4-series combined. Thats enough for me.

Here, huff some more paint.

[River Walker]

After reading a lot of post I come to a understanding most of you do not understand why the TT game Battletech has a 10 sec rule and why we need to put it back in to MWO.

The 10 sec rule is their because you don't want a player doing alpha strike.

Just think for a Minuit, a guy with 6 medium lazes boat fire all of them he a target for 10 sec to the other side that have more than one weapon system on their Mechs.

The 10 sec rule forces the player to use more than one system and forces him to manege his guns.

As is we have alpha striker and player not managing their fire power because their is no 10 sec cool down for the gun it has fired.
So to the guys that seem to think 10 sec cool down is not good thing I say to you learn to use more than one gun and trust your buddy on the right and lift to combine fire on target that alpha strike or run with one tip of gun on its Mech.

Now you know why the 10 sec rule in TT and why it need to be put in to MWO

[deputydog]

Wouldnt the easier fix be to put recycle ties back at 30 seconds and dhs to 2.0?
The issue with heat actually stems from old MUX days when we turned the recycle times from 30 to variable times and heat went up. MUX code never upped the cooling power of the DHS so we just had to deal with hotter mechs and control the fire.

Its the same here. Since all weapons are on a variable cycle and not a fixed 30 or Standatd BT Turn, it doesnt matter what you set the DHS vaule to as it wont affect every weapon the same.

I know it is more fun to have the variable times and is more realistic that a mg fires every half second but that is not TT rules.
1.4 dhs is going to have to be fine because of the variable cycle rules. We can have both. Even at 2.0 you would overheat your pulse laser boats because they fire so fast.

[MrPenguin]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

"Eh, dudes, I think PPC are too weak, can you do something about it?
We've said that for a few months now as well. SO far we've got bupkiss, and the only tech we hoped would make a difference here has now been nerfed before we even saw it working correctly.

Here is something I can do:
I can come up with models to evalulate game balance. I can try to check them against our observations of how the game is played. If it checks out, it seems my model is good.
I can then start adjusting the underlying weapon values I used for the model and see if that model looks more desirable.

Now if there was a way to put these stats in the game, we could see that they work.

But just because I can model game balance doesn't mean I can program CryEngine 3.4. But understanding how to program for CryEngine 3.4 is not a necessity to understanding game balance.

Trust me, the D&D4 designers had probably no idea about how to program CryENgine 3.4, but yet, they managed to create the best balanced D&D game there was so far. The FASA designers didn't know how to program C++ (unless some did, who knows), but they still managed to come up with battle value to balance their equivalent of match-making.

It's a fallacy to believe that you need the entire skillset of the entire PGI team to discuss, model and reason game balance.

Look, like I said. If you can prove your solutions to be more then simple concept. I'd be more then willing to jump in with you guys and agree. You guys have my word on that. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, I'm not all knowing. But I need solid proof.

Also, you miss-understand. I'm not talking about pointing out problems, I'm talking about making mock-up solutions and honestly thinking that its the one and only true answer and that the devs are stupid for not doing it. Thats absurd and you know it.

I agree about the PPC, but how do you know its not being worked on? For all we know, its probably on the bottom of the priority list. Wouldn't blame them if it was. Completing the game should be and probably is top priority. You might disagree but its not your call.

Look, il be honest. If it where up to me. This wouldn't be in open beta. This game has like 6-9 months of development before it can be considered a "complete" product. Half the game is missing, netcode needs a lot of work, optimization needs a lot of work and they're still balancing the main stuff. Theirs a lot to do here. But, I can see why this game was put into open beta. Usually in cases like these, open beta is frusted upon by investors because they want to see a working product. They want proof that there investment wasn't wasted.

Its nice if you could have as long as you want to work on something. But thats a rarity. I have faith that they can pull out though. They still have the fact that this isn't considered a full release yet. So they do have time left. And since this is a persistent F2P title. Theirs a few things they don't need 100% completed by release. Like optimization, bugs and to some extent balance. But netcode, gamemodes, community warfare... all of that needs to be added and finished by then. Can they do it? I can't say. I don't even know how far in they are on any of this. But what they currently have is incredible.

[zhaocore]

ugh, gameplay balance > lore.

[Darkmoose]

River Walker, on 06 November 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

After reading a lot of post I come to a understanding most of you do not understand why the TT game Battletech has a 10 sec rule and why we need to put it back in to MWO.

The 10 sec rule is their because you don't want a player doing alpha strike.

Just think for a Minuit, a guy with 6 medium lazes boat fire all of them he a target for 10 sec to the other side that have more than one weapon system on their Mechs.

The 10 sec rule forces the player to use more than one system and forces him to manege his guns.

As is we have alpha striker and player not managing their fire power because their is no 10 sec cool down for the gun it has fired.
So to the guys that seem to think 10 sec cool down is not good thing I say to you learn to use more than one gun and trust your buddy on the right and lift to combine fire on target that alpha strike or run with one tip of gun on its Mech.

Now you know why the 10 sec rule in TT and why it need to be put in to MWO

I think the solution they use most closely matches the TT game, the thing that messes it up, is the increased fire rates of the weapons. If it takes 10 secs to sink 10 heat, 1 heat per sec, then small lasers will overheat your mech, under the table top rules, the small lasers took 10 sec to recharge so it balanced out, maybe the recharge times should be 10 secs. It may also get rid of double armor, armor was doubled because ROF increased.

[Aym]

zorak ramone, on 06 November 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

(misguided wall of text).

Ok, that doesn't change ANY of Helmer's point that TT values made fast mechs with small lasers OP in a ridiculous way.

[Agelmar]

Everyone is missing the point.

The game is fun.

Enjoy it, or argue about math. Your call.

[CeeKay Boques]

Darkmoose, on 06 November 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

I think the solution they use most closely matches the TT game, the thing that messes it up, is the increased fire rates of the weapons. If it takes 10 secs to sink 10 heat, 1 heat per sec, then small lasers will overheat your mech, under the table top rules, the small lasers took 10 sec to recharge so it balanced out, maybe the recharge times should be 10 secs. It may also get rid of double armor, armor was doubled because ROF increased.

River Walker, on 06 November 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

After reading a lot of post I come to a understanding most of you do not understand why the TT game Battletech has a 10 sec rule and why we need to put it back in to MWO.

The 10 sec rule is their because you don't want a player doing alpha strike.

Just think for a Minuit, a guy with 6 medium lazes boat fire all of them he a target for 10 sec to the other side that have more than one weapon system on their Mechs.

The 10 sec rule forces the player to use more than one system and forces him to manege his guns.

As is we have alpha striker and player not managing their fire power because their is no 10 sec cool down for the gun it has fired.
So to the guys that seem to think 10 sec cool down is not good thing I say to you learn to use more than one gun and trust your buddy on the right and lift to combine fire on target that alpha strike or run with one tip of gun on its Mech.

Now you know why the 10 sec rule in TT and why it need to be put in to MWO

This is madness. 10 seconds is an eternity in video game time. No kid would play this. Look at your watch for ten seconds, and snap, then try again. What are you doing for the other 9 seconds?