7 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Paul posted this thread in the Command Armchair forums:

Spoiler

Quote

This is a list of what is being tuned in the immediate future. There are no set dates for this. This is just a FYI as to what is coming down the pipe.

In Current Development:

Projectile speeds on AC rounds can use a buff.

• AC/2 is fine where it's at.
  
• AC/5 is pretty close to where it should be.
  
• AC/10 needs a boost.
  
• AC/20 needs a fairly big boost.
  
• UAC/5 will be the same as AC/5

Gauss Rifle is going to become very fragile.

• The Gauss Rifle is going to have it's internal health dropped substantially.
  
• Once armor surrounding a Gauss Rifle has been removed, there is going to be a high probability that the Gauss Rifle will detonate via critical hits when that component gets hit by enemy fire.

LRM/SRM/SSRM/ARTEMIS

• Artemis is fine where it is at the moment.
  
• SRMs are fine where they are at the moment.
  
• SSRMs will spread damage across LT,CT,RT instead of always just hitting CT. On moving targets, limbs will be hit as well.
  
• LRMs will get a 0.1 damage buff.

PPCs are being investigated.

• Heat balance?
  
• Projectile Speed?

What we are planning:

• Special effect when you are hit by a PPC that is similar to EMP.
  
• Getting hit by an AC/20 is going to rock you hard.
  
• MG's will be getting a damage boost.
  
• Flamers will be getting the heat generation on enemy scaled in a way that makes more sense. You're not going to overheat a Mech but you should be raising their temps to the point that if they fire anything they will shut down/overheat.

There are some good ideas in there, but also some that I think are way too early to think about, or at least too early to implement. (Thinking about things is usually not bad... )

I like the idea of EMPs, different weapon fragility and rocking abilities could be interesting. They also could all end up being broken, reducing the Quality of Life of weapons without really dealing with their imbalances, or adding a strong effect that may lead to new imbalances due to excessive crowd control.

But at the basis, the weapon balances should be fixed by their core stats:
Damage, Heat, Recycle Time, Duration, Weight, Critical Slots, Range.
If you don't get your weapon modelling system right here now, adding more features is just as likely to break things as it is to fix things.

I urge you - get the basics right. Understand why weapons are seen as strong or weak.
The community has even created models to understand the weapon balance - have you created yours?
If you haven't, why not?
If you have, do they differ? Do you understand why they differ? Are you confident that you're closer to the truth? Do models fit the observations or not?


For example, what I would do here.

1) Find a model that fits the observations well enough.
2) Adjust weapon stats based on the model so that the balance is at a desired level.
3) Test it and see if the predictions matched the outcome well enough. If not, go back to 1. If yes, continue to 4.
4) Now add secondary traits like EMP, Fragility, Rocking and so on, and adjust weapon abilities based on this. Fragility - give a fragile weapon a bit of a boost. EMP or Rocking? Give the weapon a bit of a nerf to compensate the advantage. Now go back to 1.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 16 November 2012 - 01:53 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

So...no minimum range / fire delay / or cycle rate increase on the Gauss then?

[ChaosEngine]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 November 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

For example, what I would do here.

1) Find a model that fits the observations well enough.
2) Adjust weapon stats based on the model so that the balance is at a desired level.
3) Test it and see if the predictions matched the outcome well enough. If not, go back to 1. If yes, continue to 4.
4) Now add secondary traits like EMP, Fragility, Rocking and so on, and adjust weapon abilities based on this. Fragility - give a fragile weapon a bit of a boost. EMP or Rocking? Give the weapon a bit of a nerf to compensate the advantage. Now go back to 1.

You maybe right, but its just how you would do it .
You could also do 1,2,4,3.
I recall some posts where we (community) asked them to implement all features first
(ECM and Artemis comes to mind) and start balancing at that point.
Just make sure none of the effects are to strong at the beginning phase of balancing.
Buffing is always better as nerfing.

But who can say whats the better way of doing it? - I can't ^^

[Apoc1138]

Totally disagree. Fully implement weapons before balancing otherwise you just end up rebalancing everything

[RG Notch]

I wonder if some people know what balance means.

[Terror Teddy]

RG Notch, on 16 November 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

I wonder if some people know what balance means.

Perhaps we should say "Weapons not becoming obsolete by others" or "Weapons should have a clear role"

[Targetloc]

OP is correct. "Jedi factor" needs to line up before diddling with situational effects.

Attacks that rely on secondary CC to be 'viable' are always garbage unless the CC effect is significant, in which case 99.99999% of the time the attack is OP because it is spammable.

[Enigmos]

I thought most of the stated intentions were good, assuming they are realized as described.

While I will miss my Gauss I will not miss it in the loadouts of others. It should not become so fragile that it isn't ever used. I'm a bit concerned that if the UAC5 is the same as an AC5 but may jam there will be no reason to have a UAC5 unless it still can double the fire rate.

Bravo for improving the AC10, AC20, LRM, and especially the MG. I'm ambivalent regarding flamers.

Please let us know when these are implemented.