My take on BTech weapon balance

[Max_Killjoy]

Im in the minority (which is fair and fine, to each their own), because I use both Missiles and Direct fire and dont have an issue with the PPC or LLaser as they are more pinpoint damage at range. I do however think SRMs might need to use the same cluster rules as LRMs to avoid aimed concentration.



Maybe they do. Thats part of what I was saying. IF there's a non perceptual issue, and its not players being unaware of the ingame counters and how to layer overlapping effects, maybe it's not the weapons that are necessarily at issue, but either the Gyro/Heat exchangers boost drop rate that needs to be higher, or the Gyro/Heat exchangers/PilotingUnsteadyThreshhold might need a bit more of a higher effect. Or maybe a tiny tweak to everything in the chain rather than a big tweak to one element. Im just asking questions. Better questions lead to better answers sometimes Imho.

Agreed on both counts.

SRMs need to use some version of the clustering rules on called shots, so that only the first missile of each rack is getting that big boosted chance to hit the called location.

Some of the "balance" issues are IMO clearly matters of perception, and the ones that do exist... well, many of the fixes players are pushing are over-reactions. If there's one thing that kills most MMOs, for example, it's over-correction.

 

[Havamal]

Something I learned from art: Sometimes the urge to make something be perfect leads to overworking it and as a result a worse outcome then knowing when to stop after getting things close to perfect.

Whether this applies to the push and pull of game balance or not I guess YMMV.


Im still in observational mode I guess when it comes to some of these balance discussions.

 

[Dermenore]

Do you have try to play only with LRM?

Im in the minority (which is fair and fine, to each their own), because I use both Missiles and Direct fire and dont have an issue with the PPC or LLaser as they are more pinpoint damage at range. I do however think SRMs might need to use the same cluster rules as LRMs to avoid aimed concentration.

Well, you have the right to prefer a bad weapon for one of his two only good advantage over a weapon who is better in all the other categories. The 2e weapons will still be better in all the other categories and that still will be a problem for the game. Both are not incompatible.

Maybe they do. Thats part of what I was saying. IF there's a non perceptual issue, and its not players being unaware of the ingame counters and how to layer overlapping effects, maybe it's not the weapons that are necessarily at issue, but either the Gyro/Heat exchangers boost drop rate that needs to be higher, or the Gyro/Heat exchangers/PilotingUnsteadyThreshhold might need a bit more of a higher effect. Or maybe a tiny tweak to everything in the chain rather than a big tweak to one element. Im just asking questions. Better questions lead to better answers sometimes Imho.

If the problem was only stability damage, yes that could be also fixed by an indirect method, like buff the Gyro. Same for heat/generation.
But the problem is also then one type of weapon(missiles) have far far better stat than two other weapons types(laser, except medium, and AC). Even if you indirectly nerf stability damage, LRM will still have better damage/tons than all AC ammo (even the AC20), better range than all (except AC2), can do indirect fire... I know you love pinpoint damage but that can't compare at all these advantages.

[...]
Some of the "balance" issues are IMO clearly matters of perception, and the ones that do exist... well, many of the fixes players are pushing are over-reactions. If there's one thing that kills most MMOs, for example, it's over-correction.

No, it's not "a matter of perception". We made theorycraft, make calculations, do mathematics comparisons and use that as arguments.

What is your argument about the fact that balance issue is matters of perception? What makes it so "clearly" for you?

Something I learned from art: Sometimes the urge to make something be perfect leads to overworking it and as a result a worse outcome then knowing when to stop after getting things close to perfect.

Whether this applies to the push and pull of game balance or not I guess YMMV.


Im still in observational mode guess when it comes to some of these balance discussions.

Something I have learned in game-design school: games are always not balanced when they are realase because a studio can't make enough test to see all the configuration possible. It's only when the game is released and then player gives their feedback than main balance issue can be found.

 

[Max_Killjoy]

First, I didn't say all balance is a matter of perception, I said that some of the claims about imbalance are perception rather than reality.

Furthermore, even when there is a problem, the cause and/or severity of that problem is often perceived incorrectly.

Quite often "balance" arguments come down to "my preferred class or tactic can't faceroll this other class or tactic, therefore that other class or tactic is clearly broken/imbalanced/overpowered". See, every MMO PvP argument ever had ever.

"We did the math" presumes one got the right numbers, the numbers that matter, and in the right ratio, and that it's all universal rather than highly dependent on playstyle, etc. Numbers can lie. Numbers can tell people what people want to hear, rather than what's really there. Numbers are just information, that require interpreting and comprehension.

These breakdowns often seem to forget that even when missiles hit, some of them don't hit. They seem to assume that every attack is a Precision or Called shot coring out one location, and that "shotgunning" damage isn't a factor.

 

[Havamal]

Do you have try to play only with LRM


Well, you have the right to prefer a bad weapon for one of his two only good advantage over a weapon who is better in all the other categories. The 2e weapons will still be better in all the other categories and that still will be a problem for the game. Both are not incompatible.



If the problem was only stability damage, yes that could be also fixed by an indirect method, like buff the Gyro. Same for heat/generation.
But the problem is also then one type of weapon(missiles) have far far better stat than two other weapons types(laser, except medium, and AC). Even if you indirectly nerf stability damage, LRM will still have better damage/tons than all AC ammo (even the AC20), better range than all (except AC2), can do indirect fire... I know you love pinpoint damage but that can't compare at all these advantages.



No, it's not "a matter of perception". We made theorycraft, make calculations, do mathematics comparisons and use that as arguments.

What is your argument about the fact that balance issue is matters of perception? What makes it so "clearly" for you?



Something I have learned in game-design school: games are always not balanced when they are realase because a studio can't make enough test to see all the configuration possible. It's only when the game is released and then player gives their feedback than main balance issue can be found.

I dont at all doubt they'll make some kinds of changes- it does indeed happen, and yes Ive seen all the statistical breakdowns and charts like this one have read pretty much all the discussions on the matter and have hundreds of hours in game between beta and release and played TT since the 80s so am not new to the questions, ect. but I think many are undervaluing the synergistic approach of ranged facing fire with higher damage pinpoint weapons and the skills and equipment that support them in conjunction in favor of subjective preference on damage per heat which discounts focused location damage , damage spread mitigation, and also discounts tactical maneuver to cool off as possibilites. Empirical data and measurables require context and broad span off data points. If a contextual element is missing, correct or complete interpretations of that data can may not be possible.

You're not alone, and you're entitled to your opinion.
But Im not thoroughly convinced by these already familiar arguments.
Impasse, which is fine of course. It doesn't really matter.
The devs make their own decisions.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

It might be something as simple affecting that perception as not enough players finding/knowing-about/using Stability damage resisting Gyros too.

I think the main complaint about stability damage is the AI's particular vulerability to it, which promotes certain playstyles as optimal (i.e. knockdown spam, and LRMs are both flexible for it and pack high degree of stability damage per hardpoint and weight/heat). AI does not use gyro mods and is being peppered with volleys of LRM +++ of doom and often finds itself under fire without being braced (either due to lacking bulwark or moving around, sometimes pointlessly, even if it does have it). Even without player using the modified gyros stability is a much greater issue to the AI.

 

[Havamal]

I think the main complaint about stability damage is the AI'sparticular vulerability to it, which promotes certain playstyles as optimal. AI does not use gyro mods and is being peppered with volleys of LRM +++ of doom and often finds itself under fire without being braced (either due to lacking bulwark or moving around, sometimes pointlessly, even if it does have it). Even without player using the modified gyros stability is a much greater issue to the AI.

I thought I read posts by someone who modded in all the restricted tech for AI availability and it increased the AI difficulty by a good amount. (In their opinion)

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I thought I read posts by someone who modded in all the restricted tech for AI availability and it increased the AI difficulty by a good amount. (In their opinion)

I imagine so. AI loves spamming breaching shot LRMs beyond visual range already when they spawn with multiple lances, and now they are using Delta ++ LRMs that do up to 80-100 (intended/actual) points of stability damage? That would be actually dangerous. I'd probably try to avoid any visual contact with such AI to prevent spotting and try to play cat-and-mouse game with sensor lock and LRMs.

 

[Havamal]

Yeah it doesnt come as a surprise. Overall equipment level alone.

The plus gear is rightly balanced for the players to set against a chassis and tonnage, and numerical advantage in much of the game.

 

[Dermenore]

First, I didn't say all balance is a matter of perception, I said that some of the claims about imbalance are perception rather than reality.

Furthermore, even when there is a problem, the cause and/or severity of that problem is often perceived incorrectly.

Quite often "balance" arguments come down to "my preferred class or tactic can't faceroll this other class or tactic, therefore that other class or tactic is clearly broken/imbalanced/overpowered". See, every MMO PvP argument ever had ever.

"We did the math" presumes one got the right numbers, the numbers that matter, and in the right ratio, and that it's all universal rather than highly dependent on playstyle, etc. Numbers can lie. Numbers can tell people what people want to hear, rather than what's really there. Numbers are just information, that require interpreting and comprehension.

These breakdowns often seem to forget that even when missiles hit, some of them don't hit. They seem to assume that every attack is a Precision or Called shot coring out one location, and that "shotgunning" damage isn't a factor.

Here what was we said is:"I use this tactic again the IA in the campaign and that was very effective. In fact, it's so much effective that I don't see any interest to use other tactics and others weapons and it's sad. So that would be great if something would be made to allow us to use other tactics.". Actually, I use a lot of LRM and I don't want them buff. I want them nerf.

And yes, numbers can lie. But these lie can be demonstrated by clever counter-argumentation, that you did not.

You just present some factors. Some people have already responded to you but...if you want more answer:

So, "even when missiles hit, some of them don't hit.". Yes...and so? All the weapon can have miss shoot.
"They seem to assume that every attack is a Precision or Called shot coring out one location," no, we don't assume that. All attack doesn't need to be called shot to allow LR to be powerful. There are powerful because of their so much better stat.
"and that "shotgunning" damage isn't a factor." It's a factor. It's just too minor to change the supremacy of LRM. We don't care about shotguuning because we use LRM to knockdown opponents, or for killing the enemy pilot, or for doing called shoot again CT with a medium laser/SRM mech.

[...]but I think many are undervaluing the synergistic approach of ranged facing fire with higher damage pinpoint weapons and the skills and equipment that support them in conjunction in favor of subjective preference on damage per heat which discounts focused location damage , damage spread mitigation, and also discounts tactical maneuver to cool off as possibilites. Empirical data and measurables require context and broad span off data points. If a contextual element is missing, correct or complete interpretations of that data can may not be possible.

You know, my first Heavy Mech in Battletech was the Jagermech, the one model with only AC and laser slot. It's basic equipment is two AC2, two AC5 and two medium laser.
I play it a lot without modifying it. So I see what "ranged facing fire with higher damage pinpoint weapon" look like. It's only after that I decided to use only LRM.
I come with the game with no preconception about which weapon what the best. I test them all. I test what you like at first. And at the end, I find LRM more effective.

So no, it's not a subjective preference. And we think about the context.

LRM strat is more effective than pinpoint damage because it is more reliable.

With your pinpoint damage, you don't know wich part of the enemy mech you will touch. Maybe that will be his CT. Maybe that will be a useless arm with no equipment on it. You don't know.

And what about the case where you pinpoint damage are not enough to damage the internal structure? You have no guarantee that your pinpoint weapon will hit two times the same location. That is enough to cancel all the advantage about pinpoint damage.

But with LRM (and SRM) I know that I will knockdown the enemy mech. It's a sure thing. I know it will have aim malus, injuries and than I will do called shoot in the location I want. There are sures things to.

That why I think that pinpoint damage is too small fact to compensate all the advantage of the missilles. It's not reliable.

 

[RAM]

LRMs are indeed broken. But is not a case of damage (except on the +dmg ones ,specially on large launchers, where it can get a bit ridiculous) but because the stability rules allow for exploiting knockdowns left and right.

Not sure wether the problem is the weapon or the rules, but a change on the game similar to that stability mod that's out there (where mechs get a fixed stability number+tonnage total stability which makes heavier ones harder to topple) might go a good way in bringing them into line. Damage on itself is not that big of a deal in those weapons, they are good for weakening armor all around for other weapons to have an easier time punching through, but as pure mech killers they're pretty awful compared with almost everything else.

I also agree that SRMs should have a bigger shotgun effect. Not as big as LRMs but they shouln't be as concentrated as they seem right now.


as for the rest I won't enter again into yet another 8 page discussion about them - but PPCs and LLs are just fine for the role they are supposed to fullfit.

 

[Havamal]

You know, my first Heavy Mech in Battletech was the Jagermech, the one model with only AC and laser slot. It's basic equipment is two AC2, two AC5 and two medium laser.
I play it a lot without modifying it. So I see what "ranged facing fire with higher damage pinpoint weapon" look like. It's only after that I decided to use only LRM.
I come with the game with no preconception about which weapon what the best. I test them all. I test what you like at first. And at the end, I find LRM more effective.

So no, it's not a subjective preference. And we think about the context.

Anecdotes are indeed by nature subjective. Though it's your anecdote so you can apply as much or as little credence as you see fit. Fair. Your prerogative.

As I said in the first post you quoted I use a mixed loadout of some missiles And the rest focused direct fire both energy, and ballistic. My prerogative.

LRM strat is more effective than pinpoint damage because it is more reliable.

With your pinpoint damage, you don't know wich part of the enemy mech you will touch. Maybe that will be his CT. Maybe that will be a useless arm with no equipment on it. You don't know.

LRMs have damage spread. For each missile. They are not necessarily damage efficient due to random spread and ease of mitigating such by the defensive player. Their strength is stability damage more so even due to +,++,+++. But even that has counters, counters the AI doesn't have access to either due to: player only tech, doesnt have in a given match due to random pilots, or turn based actions it doesnt use as efficiently as a human situationally like brace. And it cant use vigilance. This lack on the AIs loadout is a difficulty balance decision made for release, not an inherent value of LRMs though. And it may not be the case in other upcoming difficulty modes...

I can indeed affect the odds of where I hit through facing fire, as well as other methods that are common knowledge. There are community made game guides to walk players through how that works for any who might be curious. It's pretty standard.

And what about the case where you pinpoint damage are not enough to damage the internal structure? You have no guarantee that your pinpoint weapon will hit two times the same location. That is enough to cancel all the advantage about pinpoint damage.

But with LRM (and SRM) I know that I will knockdown the enemy mech. It's a sure thing. I know it will have aim malus, injuries and than I will do called shoot in the location I want. There are sures things to.

.

Aim? Direct fire weapons can aim efficiently. LRMs not so much, though SRMS can. In fact if we are aiming, stacked Med lasers are quite efficient use of tonnage. We can cut out the LRM middle man if we are aiming. LRMs are more for the indirect fire + instability. But if you're using that tactic, there are quicker ways to get off aimed shots through morale without wasting a turn on an LRM salvo...
Volume of fire is always key no matter what the weapon and whether a single mech, or focusing down with several.

That why I think that pinpoint damage is too small fact to compensate all the advantage of the missilles. It's not reliable.

Your prerogative. Nothing wrong with variety. Enjoy!

 

[Jade_Rook]

I am currently playing a campaign using nothing but missiles. No melee, no other weapons, just SRMs and LRMs. I figure if they are that OP, I should be able to get through with nothing else.

Currently it is working. I generally have 2 SRM boats (usually Shadow Hawks with 16 SRMs each) and 2 LRM boats (I have a Centurion with 35 LRMs and an Atlas with 40 LRMs). I am still working my way through and just finished Smithon, about to run Served Cold. I am not ready to make a final judgement on everything yet, but I have noticed a few things.

• LRMs are terrible at killing fully armored units. They are great at knocking mechs down, but it takes extreme amounts of missiles to get through armor and structure. It is possible to create a lance that does have extreme amounts of missiles.
• SRMs can be very precise when combined with called shots, but are otherwise unimpressive.
• Ammo is a serious concern with my LRMs (except with the mechs that end up hardpoint limited, like my Atlas with only 2 launchers). I generally like 1 ton of ammo per 10 LRM tubes. 1 ton per 15 tubes would likely be sufficient, but it is on the edge. My Centurion only has 3 tons of ammo for 35 LRMs and regularly runs out of ammo at the end of the battle.
• Ammo is not significant concern with SRMs. My Shadow hawks have 3 tons of ammo and I am thinking of dropping it to 2 tons because I don't think they have ever used half their ammo.
• Accuracy is still important for missiles. Yes, with missiles some will hit even on a 50% hit chance, but they are unlikely to do much, especially if the target is braced or in cover.
• Getting pilot kills is easy in the early game when they only have 3 wounds. It becomes substantially harder once they have 4 wounds.

 

[Dermenore]

Anecdotes are indeed by nature subjective. Though it's your anecdote so you can apply as much or as little credence as you see fit.

I can indeed affect the odds of where I hit through facing fire, as well as other methods that are common knowledge. There are community made game guides to walk players through how that works for any who might be curious. It's pretty standard.

Yes, you can affect the odd. But you can be sure at 100% which limb you will hit. When I use LRM, I am sure that I can make fall an IA enemy.

Aim? Direct fire weapons can aim efficiently. LRMs not so much, though SRMS can. In fact if we are aiming, stacked Med lasers are quite efficient use of tonnage. We can cut out the LRM middle man if we are aiming. LRMs are more for the indirect fire + instability. But if you're using that tactic, there are quicker ways to get off aimed shots through morale without wasting a turn on an LRM salvo...
Volume of fire is always key no matter what the weapon and whether a single mech, or focusing down with several.

I think we each misunderstood. I was speaking about the aim penalty that is been inflicted at an enemy mech knockdown.

I have to admit a point: all this discussion about pinpoint damage made me think why I value so much damage by tons. I think it's because I take as an assurance that I can get called shoot because my LRM mech will knockdown enemies mechs. And because it's calling shoot, pinpoint damage doesn't matter, only the total of damage is important.
But if stability damage was nerfed, if I couldn't use these called shoots so often, so ton by damages will not be so important. So inflicted 40 damage to one arm would be more useful than did 80 damage to all the mech.

Before I thought that AC should have the same damage/ton than missiles. Now I am not sure anymore. And I don't see how to compare by math the advantage of damage weapons compare to pinpoint damage. I am out.

Well, that why I like a debate with nice persons. You can find a new perspective.

I still think LRM are too powerful and should be nerfed (directly or indirectly), but now only for stability.

 

[Max_Killjoy]

Here what was we said is:"I use this tactic again the IA in the campaign and that was very effective. In fact, it's so much effective that I don't see any interest to use other tactics and others weapons and it's sad. So that would be great if something would be made to allow us to use other tactics.". Actually, I use a lot of LRM and I don't want them buff. I want them nerf.

And yes, numbers can lie. But these lie can be demonstrated by clever counter-argumentation, that you did not.

You just present some factors. Some people have already responded to you but...if you want more answer:

So, "even when missiles hit, some of them don't hit.". Yes...and so? All the weapon can have miss shoot.
"They seem to assume that every attack is a Precision or Called shot coring out one location," no, we don't assume that. All attack doesn't need to be called shot to allow LR to be powerful. There are powerful because of their so much better stat.
"and that "shotgunning" damage isn't a factor." It's a factor. It's just too minor to change the supremacy of LRM. We don't care about shotguuning because we use LRM to knockdown opponents, or for killing the enemy pilot, or for doing called shoot again CT with a medium laser/SRM mech.

All weapons can hit or miss. Yes. That's a given. [Mod edit: Snark]

Difference is , the AC20 either hits or misses, when it hits it does 100 damage to a location. An LRM20 doesn't do 4x20 damage on a hit. It does 4x(the number of missiles that hit) spread out across multiple locations, and 2x(the number of missiles that hit) in instability.

Nor can an actual Called Shot be executed with LRMs. The player can take a called shot, and the first missile will hit the called location if the "roll" succeeds, but the rest will still spread out and only some will hit the targeted location.

None of these [Mod edit: hyperbole reads dismissive] reactions take either of those factors into account, and the "damage per ton" and "damage per heat" and so on tables seem to completely ignore them as well.

 

[Dermenore]

All weapons can hit or miss. Yes. That's a given. [Mod edit: Snark]

Difference is , the AC20 either hits or misses, when it hits it does 100 damage to a location. An LRM20 doesn't do 4x20 damage on a hit. It does 4x(the number of missiles that hit) spread out across multiple locations, and 2x(the number of missiles that hit) in instability.

Nor can an actual Called Shot be executed with LRMs. The player can take a called shot, and the first missile will hit the called location if the "roll" succeeds, but the rest will still spread out and only some will hit the targeted location.

None of these [Mod edit: hyperbole reads dismissive] reactions take either of those factors into account, and the "damage per ton" and "damage per heat" and so on tables seem to completely ignore them as well.

No. Simply no.

LRM called shoot doesn't work like that. I tested.

Here some screenshot of a mech I hit with only LRM weapons, in a called shoot for the CT:








My MechWarrior was a tactical specialist so she has 82% chance to succeed the called shoot.

As you see, a great majority of damage as go in the target. Ok, some other areas are damaged too. But we are far last at the description of Max_Killijoy when only "the first missile" hit the target.

I think missiles treat called shoot like they treat normal shoot: all the projectile do the dice throw. And like normal shoot you can't have all your damage who go in the target in one attack, but you still have assurance than some will do.

So Max_Killijoy, that would be nice if, before writing in a debate, you check if what you will say is actually true. Disinformation doesn't help good exchange.

 

[Max_Killjoy]

It would be nice if you read what I wrote instead of what's convenient to dismissing my argument.

"Nor can an actual Called Shot be executed with LRMs. The player can take a called shot, and the first missile will hit the called location if the "roll" succeeds, but the rest will still spread out and only some will hit the targeted location."​

I said exactly what your screenshots show -- not all the missiles hit the Called Shot location.


LRMs cluster. Wherever the first missile hits, the rest have weighted chances to hit that location or other locations.

That location, weighted to 8.
Each adjacent location, weighted to 4.
Each non-adjacent location, weighted to 1.​

So take a successful called shot to the Center Torso. The first missile will hit the CT. Each missile after that still needs to hit (which is not certain, each missile can miss). Each missile that hits has a chance to hit anywhere on the mech, ANYWHERE, weighted toward the location that the first missile struck.

 

[Camicon Dachass]

It would be nice if you read what I wrote instead of what's convenient to dismissing my argument.

"Nor can an actual Called Shot be executed with LRMs. The player can take a called shot, and the first missile will hit the called location if the "roll" succeeds, but the rest will still spread out and only some will hit the targeted location."​

No, Dermenore responded to exactly what you wrote. And you're wrong. LRMs don't act any differently than any other weapon system when performing a Called Shot. You seem to have confused the LRM headshot mechanics for the Called Shot mechanics. If an LRM scores a headshot only one LRM will hit the head, while the rest will scatter into other locations; this is not true of Called Shots, every LRM in a Called Shot or Precision Strike has a chance of hitting that location.

 

[Max_Killjoy]

No, Dermenore responded to exactly what you wrote. And you're wrong. LRMs don't act any differently than any other weapon system when performing a Called Shot. You seem to have confused the LRM headshot mechanics for the Called Shot mechanics. If an LRM scores a headshot only one LRM will hit the head, while the rest will scatter into other locations; this is not true of Called Shots, every LRM in a Called Shot or Precision Strike has a chance of hitting that location.

AGAIN, not what I said. I did not say that only the first missile can hit the called location.

How can anyone read "only the first missile will hit the called location" in the statement "only some will hit the targeted location"?


E: Take a called shot at a mech with an exposed location, but choose a different non-adjacent location that still has armor, and use only one LRM rack (say, fire at the armored LT of a mech with an exposed RT), preferably an LRM20 so it's really obvious. Some of the damage numbers in the flytext will pop up white, and some will pop up orange, and not in any order, showing very clearly that the missiles have spread all over the mech to the point that some have hit that other torso.

 

[Havamal]

Please: deep breaths Mechwarriors, friendly discussion...