PDA

View Full Version : Fixing Weapon Balance - the Methodical Way



CMaster
23-10-12, 21:14
So, we all know that weapon balance is well, so broken that calling it a "balance" is something of a joke. In yet another indication that 2.2 was dramatically ill-considered, the changes were rushed out despite plenty of us pointing out that weapon balance was in an abysmal state, and the "fixes" since then have completely missed the point. (The generic burst-weapon buff left AKs and pulselasers overpowered, while other bursts - gats and smgs/assaults are still useless). The extreme strength of a few weapons also makes it hard to come to any clear idea about where class balance is at overall too.

So, what's the fix for all this? Assuming under the hood of Neocron it's fairly simple to change weapon values, there's a few steps to go through:
Arbitarily pick freqency, magazine size, range, aimspeed for weapon series (eg Beam laser pistol, assault rifle, raygun cannon, etc). The numbers should obviously represent the sort of "feel" a weapon is required to have. It's also important to remember that aim speed is heavily effected by range - I don't know the exact mathematics for it, but I'd hazard a guess that if you want a weapon with half the range to aim identically to the other, you'll need to give the shorter ranged one double the aim speed.
Allowing for capped frequency and reloads, set the per-shot damage so as to give all weapons a total damage rate (DPS seems as good as any) that scales linearly with TL, as was the original intention of 2.2. (I'm still not sure that linear scale with TL is the right answer, but I think it could be made to be, with the right tweaks elsewhere). For weapons like rayguns and fusion, take the damage at 50% range as the point used. AoE weapons probably need to be done on a seperate graph entirely.
Make some gross modifications to the damage by weapon type (HC/MC/PC/APU/etc). There's some value-decisions to be made here, which we'll come back to later. Basically, heavy stronger than pistol etc.
Now, tweak the numbers by series a lot. Weapons like plasma that miss a lot probably need to go up. Weapons that having amazing aiming and range like beam laser probably down. Weapons with big magazines, or very low freqs (snipers, ion pistol) probably need to go down. Weapons with exotic damage types probably need to go down.
Playtest a little. Tweak in response to that. This includes altering aiming rates etc as seems necessary to get the desired "feel" from each weapon.
Consider applying the old modifiers again (ie rare + x%, WoC + x%, etc). I'd suggests that those modifiers are actually too big, and probably all need halving.
Unleash on the retail game, with the commitment to monitoring what weapons and continuing to tweak values as necessary. Be prepared to buff as well as nerf

For this to really work well of course, the bug with beam weapons really needs fixing.

I think at the end of a process like that, we'd be back in a situation where class setup and viability wasn't dominated by a few overpowered weapons. A big concern would be that without some changes to weapon-skilling, implants and indeed weapon-spread (and dealing with the stupidity that is current PA), PvP weapon choice will simply come down to "use the highest TL you can" or at least "the highest TL you can with chosen number of resist chips". Hopefully for some people at least, personal taste with the different weapon "feels" that are generated should matter more than pure DPS.

There are obviously a few value judgements to be made along the way: Just what should each weapon type "feel" like; how different should the weapon classes be; how powerful should AoE be in comparison with single target; and so on.

On the weapon classes, I think I'd be happy with something like this: HC/MC >> Rifle > Pistol > APU/Drone. However, with some extra caveats: HC weapons should give significant slowdown to the user when wielded; rifles should cause little slowdown but have a real penalty to aiming while moving (maybe exclude special cases - ie shotguns); APUs should aquire an additional range of skills to compensate, something I'll set out my stall for in another post (if not, then APU obviously needs to be up at the other end).

As for the AoE/single target thing - I think that AoE probably still hits too hard at the moment and needs to be comparativley weaker. There's a careful bit of judgement here of course - too weak and nobody will use it - but look at the total damage done by a RGC or a barrel on a group of say 6 targets, to that of any single target, and I think it's clear that one of those is the best choice by far too much.

The nature of these "value judgement" elements is of course that people are going to disagree with them. I'd like to see how other people feel that NC should be in the weapon heirarchy.

Netphreak
29-10-12, 12:55
Seems strange that no-ones replied to this, but it does seem like a good way to go about balancing weapon damage.

William Antrim
29-10-12, 17:08
APU needs to be higher. APU should have similar range to rifle Spy IMO. Not pistol spy. AOE needs to have a maximum number of targets to apply damage too also imo. The rest of this post has been said on many occasions by many people.

Dribble Joy
29-10-12, 20:15
Allowing for capped frequency and reloads, set the per-shot damage so as to give all weapons a total damage rate (DPS seems as good as any) that scales linearly with TL, as was the original intention of 2.2.
This is what I have been think of suggesting. Factoring in variable freq when you have set reloading times makes balancing the dps considerably harder given the skill system. You can then base everything off the dmg value associated with the weapon.


Now, tweak the numbers by series a lot. Weapons like plasma that miss a lot probably need to go up. Weapons that having amazing aiming and range like beam laser probably down. Weapons with big magazines, or very low freqs (snipers, ion pistol) probably need to go down.
Or, the plasma and other 'bullet' weapons could be made to hit as often as other weapons and the burst bonus removed entirely (never really saw the point of it frankly).


Weapons with exotic damage types probably need to go down.
I don't see the exotic dmg types as a problem really. People only have problems with them because they spam armour/resist into energy and piercing. If ammo mods (http://forum.neocron.com/showthread.php?145927-Ammo-mods) actually altered the dmg type in a meaningful way, then the exotic ammo types would not be an issue.


Consider applying the old modifiers again (ie rare + x%, WoC + x%, etc). I'd suggests that those modifiers are actually too big, and probably all need halving.
Or ditch them entirely and let non-rares compete with all the others.



HC/MC >> Rifle > Pistol > APU/Drone.
I'm tempted to say that make them equal. Tanks, tanks Spies and Monks all have higher skill points/tech level than PEs. Small deviations depending on class defence might be necessary of course.


However, with some extra caveats: HC weapons should give significant slowdown to the user when wielded; rifles should cause little slowdown but have a real penalty to aiming while moving (maybe exclude special cases - ie shotguns); APUs should aquire an additional range of skills to compensate, something I'll set out my stall for in another post (if not, then APU obviously needs to be up at the other end).
Not sure about that. I'm not certain I like the idea of aiming for any class differing from another. Of course it raises the question of what drawback or benefit there is to having a longer or shorter range.


APU should have similar range to rifle Spy IMO.
O_o


AOE needs to have a maximum number of targets to apply damage too also imo.
Probably the best fix to AoE going.

William Antrim
29-10-12, 21:54
Instead of just a ridiculous smiley tell me why its a bad idea?

APU has some of the weakest defence around. Why cant rifle spies and APUs be put on a par with one another damage output/defence-wise?

If the APU had some range he would be a much easier class to play in PvE and possibly even viable in PvP.

Dribble Joy
29-10-12, 22:04
Oh I think that APU probably needs be the most powerful, but not the range that HC and rifles can reach. Not sure if it should be more than pistols currently are though.

(It's also quite possible to PvE on pistols btw, I hunt firemobs with one.)

Mortis
29-10-12, 22:36
the best way for balancing is to not let communitys discuss about it

William Antrim
30-10-12, 00:09
I think apu needs range. At least on a par with pistols if not more.

Dropout
30-10-12, 00:58
the best way for balancing is to not let communitys discuss about it

Against freedom of speech..?


I think apu needs range. At least on a par with pistols if not more.

APU's should have a bit more range yes.
Make the reticle slowly close in on targets far away (still not rifle range though).

And as always IMO ^^

William Antrim
30-10-12, 01:09
90% of pvp happens well inside pistol range anyway. I don't understand why there is animosity towards APUs having some decent range. Truthfully this would only affect their ability to level solo if done correctly. It would allow them to properly get away from mobs just like rifle spies do and range stuff the way tanks and spies always have. If youre going to make an APU the equivalent of a spy more or less in terms of his resists then he should enjoy the benefits at least one facet of the spy class gets. It just seems like common sense to me. Even if you dont make the beam spells have good range then at least give them a ranged halo spell. If the damage is going to be restricted by the reticle closure as well then it makes EVEN more sense to give them range as they trade off some of their damage for said range.

As you can tell I am a big fan of this.


I think AOE should get restricted to up to 4 mobs too btw. So its not OP as hell. I want this for ALL forms of AOE.

IanKett
30-10-12, 01:17
APU needs to be higher. APU should have similar range to rifle Spy IMO. Not pistol spy. AOE needs to have a maximum number of targets to apply damage too also imo. The rest of this post has been said on many occasions by many people.

I agree with this

Doc Holliday
30-10-12, 09:05
me 2.

APU deffo needs a range increase. Maybe not so high as what a rifle user gets but definitely a much needed increase over what he gets atm and even half again on what pistol users get.

BlueRobot
30-10-12, 09:26
No to sniper APUs pls.

Maybe give only a few spells like energy lance a higher range, but I don't like the idea of being sniped with beam spells while hunting at all. The devs should stick to what was working best in the past and try to make it work again in a balanced way, and I don't recall APUs ever being able to snipe stuff.


About the weapon balancing: Most of the stuff is quite reasonable but not really new, but theres one huge problem: Only balancing weapons will be completely useless if you dont balance resists/runspeed/low lvl psi for pe/blabla because peoply will still just use the highest dps weapon they can use while being fast enough for whatever comes after the clipping patch.

Also PvE could be completely fucked over if you change the weapon stats. ATM the pve value of a weapons pretty much increases constantly with the tl increase, so what CMaster suggests would probably make some weapon like Pain Easer better for pve than dissi.

In my opinion, trying to fix the weapon balance alone can't work.

CMaster
30-10-12, 12:03
About the weapon balancing: Most of the stuff is quite reasonable but not really new, but theres one huge problem: Only balancing weapons will be completely useless if you dont balance resists/runspeed/low lvl psi for pe/blabla because peoply will still just use the highest dps weapon they can use while being fast enough for whatever comes after the clipping patch.

Balancing needs to be a joined up thing? Wow, it's almost like I've been trying to make that point all along. More reasonably though, there are too many parameters to hope to humanly comprehend. You want to make nice, consistent, predictably behaving systems, and make appropriate adjustments based of testing. That's what NC lacks at the moment - most of the underlying logic is simply absent, or confused with so many random offsets. I've also written articles about problems with, armour, resists, approaches to the APU, etc. I'm working on one about passive psi. I've also touched on the issue of mainskill/weapon skill balancing, and that's something that I need to come back to and cover more completely.



ATM the pve value of a weapons pretty much increases constantly with the tl increase, so what CMaster suggests would probably make some weapon like Pain Easer better for pve than dissi.. No it doesn't. That's a big part of the problem. That's what I'm saying SHOULD happen (ish) (which would mean a Dissy did approx 25% more damage than a PE). Yes, weapon damage increases with TL within a weapon series. But some weapon series (laser beams, pulselasers) are absolutely fantastic, while others (gats, shotguns) are completely and utterly useless in comparison. The reason class balance is so screwed up at the moment is that a couple of key weapons lines are vastly overpowered. So making a character who can use a high-TL member of those lines is all that really matters.


On the other points raised: APU damage being lower is based on implementing this plan - APUs would be able to bring their own damage up and received damage down to competitive levels by use of their new skills. Hopefully.

You do realize that current rifle range is "beyond visual range" right - you can take out targets from beyond NC draw distance with enough WEP and the right weapon. Not sure that APUs should really be able to call HL down at that sort of gap.

What DJ says is in general sensible. I think there are several ways you could make the different weapon types "feel" sufficiently different while still bringing weapon balance over all in line. There are just going to be different ideas of how to do it.

William Antrim
30-10-12, 14:35
What is wrong with apus having short and long ranged spells like spies. If spies have the option of both then apus should have it also.

Doc Holliday
30-10-12, 15:23
no one said sniper energy beams. just an increase in range comparative to the nc1/2 level would be better than they have now.

Torg
30-10-12, 16:23
i'm really more into cmasters ideas: instead of boosting damage for apus, we should give them more exotic abilities.

Jeremy Morton
30-10-12, 17:02
I wouldn't ask for APU-Range but Frequency being put back (ie old 105 for Beams). Of course with adjusted DMG and Aim, not back to old Monkocron, dont get this wrong.

Why? Simple: because it was so much fun to play.

And APU DMG needs to be something to play different tactics again, like Poison-Stack-spamming Obliterator Spies before they Stealth. Balance dps and resilience to fit other classes but make it deal DOTs so it doesn't end up being just another set of gfx to apply the same dmg.

William Antrim
30-10-12, 19:47
I wouldn't ask for APU-Range but Frequency being put back (ie old 105 for Beams). Of course with adjusted DMG and Aim, not back to old Monkocron, dont get this wrong.

Why? Simple: because it was so much fun to play.

And APU DMG needs to be something to play different tactics again, like Poison-Stack-spamming Obliterator Spies before they Stealth. Balance dps and resilience to fit other classes but make it deal DOTs so it doesn't end up being just another set of gfx to apply the same dmg.

But with that suggestion thats what you would get, APUs get unnerfed and put back to how they used to be - which with a ppu team makes them on a par with monkocron all over again. All this does is encourage APU/PPU teams once again and does not take into account PvE.

More range instantly makes them more viable in PvE AND PvP.

Dribble Joy
30-10-12, 20:48
PvP balance needs to be addressed first. PvE can be 'added' afterwards.

There's plenty of scope for PvE modifications. Pistol and melee dmg might be higher against mobs, while heavy an rifles have the range advantage for wasteland hunting.

I think it's better if APUs were on an equal footing in PvP with the other classes than giving them additional powers/gimmicks. HAB was one of the biggest reasons for monkocron. As soon as you give a class a necessary ability/role, it becomes mandatory.

Jeremy Morton
30-10-12, 21:03
But with that suggestion thats what you would get, APUs get unnerfed and put back to how they used to be - which with a ppu team makes them on a par with monkocron all over again. All this does is encourage APU/PPU teams once again and does not take into account PvE.

More range instantly makes them more viable in PvE AND PvP.

lol wtf is that? I specifically mention monkocron and that it is to be avoided by adjusting DPS-outcome and APUs resilience in PVP so that its not op. But hey... why not completely ignore that and just claim something different...

btw monkocron was more than just the APU-part. In fact the major thing was the imba PPU we had back then and without that even APU range and frequency together wont make a new monkocron.

Dribble Joy
30-10-12, 21:42
He might have been referring to the thing about DoT/stealth comment. Giving APUs a 'thing' other than being on one end of the offence/defence spectrum will only see them become overly important to PvP above the other classes.

Ascension
30-10-12, 22:35
It saddens me to see the state of the APU class, I have fond memories of APU/PPU combo, while I agree the DMG to Frequency was outrageous, if the frequency was restored and the damage output was to be addressed I dont see how that would be a bad thing.

I've recently returned to NC after leaving back in 2004, to see the APU class has been destroyed! APU's should have HAB, it makes no sense for a PPU to have it, why?

I go to attack a PPU on my APU, so while I stand there attacking, in the mean time he uses HAB on me... now what, there was nothing quite like being the missing puzzle piece in an OP war and bringing down the PPU's.

I dont feel I've got to grips with the state of balancing in game right now, so I dont really have a place to comment on how to fix, but sure hope things get sorted.

Dribble Joy
31-10-12, 01:23
APU's should have HAB, it makes no sense for a PPU to have it, why?
Because if APUs have HAB in addition to being dmg dealers, why bring tanks, spies or PEs to an OP fight?

Ascension
31-10-12, 01:53
Because if APUs have HAB in addition to being dmg dealers, why bring tanks, spies or PEs to an OP fight?

Because APU's are targeted because of this ability and run the risk of being killed?

I don't know, weapon balancing in Neocron is like real life politics, there is always going to be someone unhappy.

Dribble Joy
31-10-12, 02:33
Lets assume that all the combat classes are equal regarding defence/offence. Then we give one of those classes HAB.
Why bring any of the other classes?

Sure, you could only bring one or two, but why loose the flexibility of having all of them with it?
APUs weren't that much powerful back in monkocron 1vs1, but as soon as they were given an extra they became a necessity.

Even if you balance the time needed to cast vs the loss of power output, you then ingrain the requirement for that ability to be present in team PvP.

CMaster
31-10-12, 11:36
What is wrong with apus having short and long ranged spells like spies. If spies have the option of both then apus should have it also.


no one said sniper energy beams. just an increase in range comparative to the nc1/2 level would be better than they have now.

Ah you see I (and it seems some others) had got the impression you meant that all APU spells should have laser rifle type range.
Some variety in spell ranges might be a nice touch, give APUs some choices to make about spell use perhaps. Not convinced it solves a lot though.


Even ignoring the whole antibuff issue, let's say we get all classes to the point where in a one-on-one, they'd fall over simultaneously. When it comes to a big teamfight, the focus is going to be on getting the opponents best damage dealers down first. What's the best way to do that? Stack your own team with the best damage dealing class. If you bring a class with better defence, they'll just be ignored by your opponents until they're all that's left. Add that to the fact that monks can hack, and spies would have less to gain from a PPU due to losing self-buffs, and you have to ask why anybody would bring anything but APUs. As DJ says, add on antibuffing and the problem gets worse. It's why I suggested making APUs all about the debuffs and antibuffs - you can balance them for that solo, and get team utility out of it too - but stacking the one class will never be the all around solution.

Another way this fate could be avoided would be to really support setup diversity. Make tough APUs possible, as well as squishy, high damage tanks. The former probably means looking at how shields work and the hybrid issue again, the latter means really opening up setups and making mainskill, weaponskill and defence all things that trade off each other.

Finally, you could make monks so painfully squishy that even with PPU buffs they go down easily, so that the solution to a monk spamming enemy team was just a buffed up tank who could afford to AoE at close range once or twice and take the whole lot down. However, the damage you'd have to give APUs in exchange for this would potentially have some big balance issues for both PvE and PvP.

Oh, and I take it you all agree about the general plan for sorting weapon balance out then?

CMaster
31-10-12, 12:59
Hmm, I've just a few simulations (in my head, not actually designed a sim) and the results weren't promising. Given some kind of hypothetical perfect class balance, and all people using an optimal setup, a team of 100% tanks or 100% APUs always beats a mixed team. The two pure teams are equal, however I suspect that once you bring PPU factors in, it will tip slightly in favour of the APUs (also, APUs can hack and poke)

William Antrim
31-10-12, 14:14
DJ if you're mad about something then come out with it. I was quoting someone else's post. Nothing to do with yours. You can calm down now.

As for the other discussion points there is plenty of room for debate. Apu as a class is currently underpowered. A range buff is a very simple way of slightly increasing this capability without the sledgehammer if changes that 2.2 has brought us. increasing rof back to 105 for holy lightning is not a good fix imo. Hence why I posted my previous thoughts. I am all for discussion but let's not have these pedantic replies like wtf and the scowling smiley eh.

I will post more later on when I have a proper keyboard in front of me. I am a massive supporter of small changes a little at a time not radical sweeping cchanges that have been proposed historically.

Xiphias
31-10-12, 15:49
If HAB is such a contentious issue, why just not remove it? If PPU's are balanced and I think they are quite close these days, why is HAB even neccesary?

by removing HAB you remove a variance that needs to be accounted for. If you're concerned that PPU's would become invincible again, then I'm unsure... a direct assault usually kills most PPU's these days anyway.

The state of APU's is a complete joke. And people are referring to Monk'ocron or any other flavour of the month.

You remove HAB, you remove the necessity for (include class here with it). HAB and Para has always overcomplicated this game and is watered down enough without generating whimsical ideas of which cannot be tested to death during this current climate.

Remove unneeded variances = game is easier to balance.

CMaster
31-10-12, 16:11
I will post more later on when I have a proper keyboard in front of me. I am a massive supporter of small changes a little at a time not radical sweeping cchanges that have been proposed historically.

Small changes are fine when you've tweaking a system that you understand that is close to where you want it.
Sadly, little about Neocron is in that state right now (amusingly, pre 2.2, while much worse for being single-class dominated, was probably much fewer tweaks from something farier). Instead, we've got systems that don't work like they are supposed to, or acheive exactly the opposite to what they are supposed to, and numbers that are miles out (you yourself mentioned laser beam cannons outdamaging semi-auto pistols by 200-300%. Small tweaks won't cut it.)

Also, the more that I look at the numbers and setup, the more convinced I am that a "balanced" APU in terms of damage/resists will plunge us back into monk-o-cron, if nothing else is changed..

Dribble Joy
31-10-12, 17:05
DJ if you're mad about something then come out with it. I was quoting someone else's post. Nothing to do with yours. You can calm down now.
I'm not mad about anything, someone responded to your post in a manner that seemed misunderstanding of your point, I attempted to clarify the issue.


Also, the more that I look at the numbers and setup, the more convinced I am that a "balanced" APU in terms of damage/resists will plunge us back into monk-o-cron, if nothing else is changed..
Could you expand?

Related to your pure vs mixed comment, what is the advantage of high dps teams? If the combat classes are balanced, then they are all dmg dealers since they can take equal punishment relative to their defence.

CMaster
31-10-12, 17:38
Related to your pure vs mixed comment, what is the advantage of high dps teams? If the combat classes are balanced, then they are all dmg dealers since they can take equal punishment relative to their defence.

I think I may code up a simulation tool just to test scenarios. Anyway, if we set up a situation with a high damage/low def class and a low damage/high def class, we can adjust defense and offense so in a 1 on 1, they both drop at the same time. If we expanded this to teams of high damage vs low damage, again everything is nice and equal, with one member of each team dropping at the same time.

However, if we look at the case of a pure high damage team 1 (say 4 APU) vs a mixed team 2 (say 2 APU 2 Tank). Both sides focus fire one APU from the other team. However, team 1 has more damage, so they take down team 2's APU first. Team 1's first APU falls shortly thereafter, but not before they land a few hits on Team 2 APU2. Team 2 APU 2 then drops next, taking damage from 3 enemy APUs these 3 APUs then begin on the tanks. The 2 tanks of team 2 do take down APU2 from team 1, and we're in a 2 tanks vs 2 APU situation - except one of the tanks is now down to half health ish. So at the end, team 1 wins. If you make the pure team 100% tank, you see the same result - the pure team has periods where they outnumber the mixed team, so they win.

I'm not sure what happens when you start adding in "in between" classes etc. But you get the picture.

William Antrim
31-10-12, 19:43
I think that trying to balance the game based on multiple teams is futile. There are just too many variables to take into account. If they can achieve balance in 1v1 universally common scenarios then that is likely to be much more popular. I don't understand why small changes are a problem and why you would be against them. Common sense needs to weigh in here at some point. Yes there are some glaring issues. These should be resolved. The issues with certain guns not even being remotely viable being one of them. However making an entire patch full of huge changes is what got us into the current mess that is NC 2.2. It is like trying to make souffle with a sledgehammer.

I propose a series of very small changes to individual areas of the game and see the heavily tested effect of these changes on overall pvp. Weapon balancing based on TL is a huge change. It is one I have suggested many times. AOE being limited to a maximum number of targets is a massive dynamic change but again it is probably really necessary to balance AOE across the board without nerfing anyone in particular. Things like this however need to be tested thoroughly before you start making multiple changes because someone somewhere will always think up an insanely overpowered class/abuse of mechanics and make everyone else bitch about it.

Clearly there are issues such as the Disruptor needing to be fixed. The beam weaponry needs to have its hits registered etc. However based on current damage values people have already said that if the accuracy of beam weapons is fixed then the damage may, on some weapons, go through the roof.

This is a situation again which needs to be avoided.

Having a small RoF buff for example or a small range buff for APU's would help them in a small way. It is not an overpowered sweeping change to fuck up/overpower the class. It is just the same as fault finding. You find something, test it, adjust it and move on. It is the most scientific way to do it. I cant understand how that is a problem.

Also bear in mind you have to add the human element to these simulations. It is all well and good saying Team 1 has this many ppus and team 2 has this many apus. What if team 1's best skilled apu has to go for dinner during the op fight.... team 1 will then lose I guess. Shit happens. Oh well.

I think most people would be happy if the classes each stand a chance in pvp against their counterparts. All of this stuff about mixed teams and pure teams.... i dont think anyone really thinks like that. You take your best players on their best chars and wait and see what the other clan brings and have a fight about it. If you lose then you get poked up, lick your wounds, call some more mates and go back. You dont get your calculator out and your white board and start drawing up equations about why you lost... if you crunch too many numbers I think you will lose sight of the logic of common sense.

Dribble Joy
31-10-12, 21:32
the pure team has periods where they outnumber the mixed team, so they win.
I'm not so sure that's true, though I might be wrong.

If we take the X tanks vs X APUs, then if they all focus fire on one target, then both targets will drop at the same time. If the offence/defence balance of all the classes are the same, then both targets will drop together.
As in your example, yes one APU drops before another, but the remaining dps and defence potential of the other team (afaik) is still higher.

I may have to crunch numbers as well.


I don't understand why small changes are a problem and why you would be against them.
Because it's a band-aid solution if the under-lying system is a mess. There's a difference between patching something that's inherently flawed and tweaking/calibrating a strong base.


All of this stuff about mixed teams and pure teams.... i dont think anyone really thinks like that.
I think people do want a situation were they can bring whatever they want to a fight rather than having to have the right chars. Monocron came about because in order to win they needed APU/PPUs. If mixed vs pure teams can be balanced then people are going to enjoy team PvP much more.


You dont get your calculator out and your white board and start drawing up equations about why you lost... if you crunch too many numbers I think you will lose sight of the logic of common sense.
No, but there's no point in trying to be a better team/skilled with the chars you want to use if the under-lying balance isn't there. You want to win because you are better.

William Antrim
31-10-12, 23:51
Small changes are hardly a band aid solution if the end game goal is balance. 100s of small changes are better than one big change that creates a new set of problems. We all want the same end game goal. That much is crystal clear. However the method to achieve that is clearly a disagreement. I dont want wholesale changes to nc. That would make it worse than it is now. I want a few changes at a time that are fully investigated before we move on to the next issue at hand. Not change 20 problems to create 40 more.

Dropout
01-11-12, 00:35
Small changes are hardly a band aid solution if the end game goal is balance. 100s of small changes are better than one big change that creates a new set of problems. We all want the same end game goal. That much is crystal clear. However the method to achieve that is clearly a disagreement. I dont want wholesale changes to nc. That would make it worse than it is now. I want a few changes at a time that are fully investigated before we move on to the next issue at hand. Not change 20 problems to create 40 more.
^^ This.
Sorry for not comming with more input on the subject. I just cba.. Theres so long to any kinds of balancing..

CMaster
01-11-12, 13:13
However making an entire patch full of huge changes is what got us into the current mess that is NC 2.2. It is like trying to make souffle with a sledgehammer.
No. Implementing changes that make no sense (look at my armour/resist thread, or just take a glance at the implant system) and then failing to respond to playtest feedback gave us the mess of 2.2. And the point is that it is a mess. Also, go read up on developers of games that have gone along way to balance. They'll tell you that huge changes are the way to go - if you do small tweaks, you'll either never get there, or you'll end up with a system that's so special-cased that it makes no sense to anyone. Instead, you make big changes (although yes, on few things at a time) until you get somewhere near. Then you release it and make incremental tweaks from there in response to what's happening on the ground.

What any new balancing program needs (and I do agree with you that a program, a series of patches moving towards something, rather than a huge take-it-or-leave-it-lump is a better idea) is a good playtesting regime. So before each step hits retail, it goes through several iterations on the test server. And the test server isn't like it was for 2.2 - just a space where people are left to their own devices and rage at GMs that "OMG I NEED WOC NOW< WHER R U?". Instead, there's focused testing. "Tonight we want to do lots of duels", "can we get a couple of chaos cave teams going", "firemobbing tonight", op wars with invited complete clans, etc. Reward people who help with something ingame when the patch goes live, boot people off the test server who don't join in.



Also bear in mind you have to add the human element to these simulations. It is all well and good saying Team 1 has this many ppus and team 2 has this many apus. What if team 1's best skilled apu has to go for dinner during the op fight.... team 1 will then lose I guess. Shit happens. Oh well.
Well yeah. You can't balance from numbers alone (well, you can, but it will make for a really dull, inflexible game). What you need to do is set up coherent systems, ones where you know (roughly) what effects changes will have and can be acheived. Then you play it. Lots. Then you feed the results back and change it again and so on. Realistically, balancing is something of a moving target, as player fashions and understanding changes. It's not something you just do and end of. It's these coherent systems that NC lacks at the moment. It's also things not working as they were supposed to (weapon balance is the big one here).


All of this stuff about mixed teams and pure teams.... i dont think anyone really thinks like that. You take your best players on their best chars and wait and see what the other clan brings and have a fight about it. If you lose then you get poked up, lick your wounds, call some more mates and go back. You dont get your calculator out and your white board and start drawing up equations about why you lost... if you crunch too many numbers I think you will lose sight of the logic of common sense.
No. But what will happen, is people will notice they do better when they bring more of a certain class to the fight. They'll say "tanks and APUs are just as good, but we need hackers, so as many APUs as possible please". And then they'll notice that the further they go down that path, the better they're doing, until we're back to monk-o-cron. (Alternatively, we'll end up with some other single class dominating). My point was mostly that balancing is hard, and that I think DJ's idea that if all classes are equally matched, we'll see all classes equally is rather naive. PEs and Spies (and hybrids to some extent) have a lot more options for supporting themselves than other classes - so that's going to encourage seeing them in raiding and solo-hunting contexts. Meanwhile, the nature of teamfights being different pushes other classes to the fore.

There is an escape from a lot of these teamfight issues in the form of metagaming. As in, if APU-heavy teams becomes the standard, and everyone always focuses the APU, then you could counter that by getting your clan to make a couple of tough-APUs (spec as much psi resist as they can get away with, + PPR, energy/fire resist). Then build some tanks/spies to specificially target common APU build weak points (force? xray? posion?) and spec for damage, ignoring defense. And this counter-monk team would then be in turn countered by a conventional, low-monk team. This works in a lot of games, but we'd need to support setup variety a lot better than it is at the moment. There'd need to be ways to build tanks weaker but more punishing, and so forth.

Also, it's worth saying that I don't think making all weapons viable in a methodical way is a big change. There's no underlying mechanics change, just a few numbers set to where they SHOULD be already. Why tweak a couple of over-and-under powered weapons of the week, when you could make them all useful? Sure, something is probably going to come out a bit over-strong, but that can be then tweaked back easily. All I'm suggesting is what 2.2 was supposed to do in the first place. The only big changes I've put out there are the APU suggestion and the Weapon TL-stretching one.

William Antrim
01-11-12, 18:25
I have honestly never started up an op fight team and thought to myself hey I had better bring 10 apus to this fight due to blah blah..... I have thought to myself right today we have 10 people. Ok the other team (we fancy attacking) has roughly the same number. Ok 2 ppus and 8 fighters. Hey Rabbi Fang is on - hey rabb come on your spy he is pretty good. Hey Doc is on, hey Doc you can ppu your guy is the best levelled and so on and so forth.

You cant predict what people will do en masse. You're just MASSIVELY overcomplicating a really simple thing. We have an endgame. That is set in stone. We NEED a yard stick. Something to accurately measure balance by. Weapon TL balancing is something I have posted about tonnes of times because many years ago someone else suggested it and we campaigned for it like anything. This should be our yardstick. I think we can all agree on that.

Then we need to establish "roles" for the classes. They need a reason WHY we want to use them in an op fight but no one of these reasons needs to be ANY more important than any other. Monks and Spies can hack for example. Tanks and PE's can take the beating so lets use them. The problem is the group dynamic needs to be resolved AFTER the 1v1 dynamic or we will never get anywhere. If this game achieved an equal (relatively) 1v1 dynamic in pvp it would be doing better than over half the MMO PVP games out there in a heartbeat.

We are clearly going to disagree on a tonne of points here. I am fine with that, it is healthier for discussion. I dont need to read dev forums to see how stuff got done elsewhere. I am not a scientist per se but I am an analyst by trade. I work in a methodical, logical way. I like a dash of ingenuity and creativity to go along with that but after 10 years of nc and being involved in 5 heavily pvping clans I have never once heard anyone say OMG I am getting beat by that gun I must spec more (whatever) resist. If people find they are getting beaten by a particular gun then 2 things happen - one they cry on the forum about it, two the price for that gun goes up astronomically as everyone wants one. You dont hear about people changing set ups to counter it. I am not arguing that they dont do it but you wont ever hear about it. In NC1 some of us so closely guarded our con set ups that we would let you sleep with our sisters before we let you look at our F5 screen.

Also you have to take into account the variable ability of player skill. It will impact greatly on this "class of choice" argument. Some players are great tanks and shit monks. Other players are great PE's and relatively shit at everything else. Some people will wake up one day and just naturally want to go play with their tank this evening and not have to go ppu or whatever else. These are all natural traits. The problem is they will shit all over your scientific theory about the "supergroup" because they spit in its face.

What I am trying to say is I think that you're trying to impress too much science on something that is essentially entertainment and therefore fun. If the game stops being fun it doesn't matter if the guy is a tank monk or spy, he will still log off.

Doc Holliday
02-11-12, 05:36
This is far too long a thread and wordy and tbh boring. i have scan read each post and its the same rhetoric being quoted over and over.

Im gonna keep it simple for the plebs out there. Surgeons dont use sledgehammers. Small changes and adjustments are best.


As for that whole well i got a team of 4 apus vs 2 apus and 2 tanks.

Dude. HELLO???? Major Variable factor. Human Error? skills etc. This must be accounted for. do not use science to argue anything in this game when human influence can/will fuck something over.

as for the rest of it it truly was tl;dr. i hope someone makes some sense of it. I will come back and read more later when i can find my reading glasses (not sarcasm)

CMaster
02-11-12, 12:01
as for the rest of it it truly was tl;dr. i hope someone makes some sense of it. I will come back and read more later when i can find my reading glasses (not sarcasm)

I'd suggest just reading the first 12ish posts. After that the thread rather veers off from the original topic.


I have honestly never started up an op fight team and thought to myself hey I had better bring 10 apus to this fight due to blah blah..... I have thought to myself right today we have 10 people. Ok the other team (we fancy attacking) has roughly the same number. Ok 2 ppus and 8 fighters. Hey Rabbi Fang is on - hey rabb come on your spy he is pretty good. Hey Doc is on, hey Doc you can ppu your guy is the best levelled and so on and so forth.
You might not have done. Plenty of others have. Back in the monk-o-cron heydey, the competitive op fighting clans often had rules like "must have one high level monk to join" or "no more than 2 non-monks brought to op fights". Sure, nobody carefully built to counter the likely opposition, but they assembled a team to the optimum for the current balance. All my point about counter-builds was saying is that in some games, there is such a thing as an "optimal" build or playstyle, yet nobody uses it because everybody knows how to counter said optimal setup. And hence you get back to more variety. Over time the "metagame" moves to countering that counter and so on.



Something to accurately measure balance by. Weapon TL balancing is something I have posted about tonnes of times because many years ago someone else suggested it and we campaigned for it like anything. This should be our yardstick. I think we can all agree on that.
Yes. The real point at the start of this thread was to make that point. Make weapon damage scale off TL like it's meant to. 2.2 was supposed to do this and didn't, so I was just listing some factors that can easily get overlooked.



Then we need to establish "roles" for the classes. They need a reason WHY we want to use them in an op fight but no one of these reasons needs to be ANY more important than any other. Monks and Spies can hack for example. Tanks and PE's can take the beating so lets use them. The problem is the group dynamic needs to be resolved AFTER the 1v1 dynamic or we will never get anywhere. If this game achieved an equal (relatively) 1v1 dynamic in pvp it would be doing better than over half the MMO PVP games out there in a heartbeat.
Again, agreed. All the rambling about teams up there was to do with pointing out that having everything nice and balanced for 1vs1s doesn't mean that teams will be balanced, as DJ seemed to think (Hell, look at 2.0 - 2.1, drug abusing PEs and hybrids dominated in 1vs1, while pure-monk teams dominated in larger fights.). While making PPU effects more equal across the classes will definitely help, but I believe that what's really need is a reason to bring a mix along to the op fight. Sadly however, bringing someone to be a damage sponge isn't actually useful against an enemy team that have a brain to share.


after 10 years of nc and being involved in 5 heavily pvping clans I have never once heard anyone say OMG I am getting beat by that gun I must spec more (whatever) resist. If people find they are getting beaten by a particular gun then 2 things happen - one they cry on the forum about it, two the price for that gun goes up astronomically as everyone wants one. You dont hear about people changing set ups to counter it. I am not arguing that they don't do it but you wont ever hear about it.
Surprises me, because I've heard it. I've heard people calling out that their target in a fight is really weak to a certain damage type and people should pull out their devs/gats/FAs/whatever. I've seen the popularity of the devourer and poison resist wax and wane roughly oppositely. I've heard people telling their clan mates they need to spec more X, after watching them get beasted in a fight. Don't get me wrong, the response is slow and muddled across the population and time, and lots of people just copy others. But if people aren't doing this sort of thing, why even bother having con setups? Just have HP and be done with it...



Also you have to take into account the variable ability of player skill. It will impact greatly on this "class of choice" argument. Some players are great tanks and shit monks. Other players are great PE's and relatively shit at everything else. Some people will wake up one day and just naturally want to go play with their tank this evening and not have to go ppu or whatever else. These are all natural traits. The problem is they will shit all over your scientific theory about the "supergroup" because they spit in its face.

What I am trying to say is I think that you're trying to impress too much science on something that is essentially entertainment and therefore fun. If the game stops being fun it doesn't matter if the guy is a tank monk or spy, he will still log off.

You've missed what I was trying to say entirely. Yeah, player skill matters, and if the gap in strength isn't too big can overcome the imbalance. What I'm trying to do is make it so things are equal and fair, so player skill is what triumphs at the end of the day. So that people can play what they like to and not what they have to to be competitive. So we have variety, that people enjoy, can find what they like from, rather than much more easily balanced but indistinguishable from each other. The example teams I gave were just example numbers for the sake of it, not some kind of perfect plan. I was just trying to show that balance goes weird some times, and we need to give people reasons for bringing a mix of character types along, or we'll drift back to a "one class for op fights" situation that we've seen so often before.



Dude. HELLO???? Major Variable factor. Human Error? skills etc. This must be accounted for. do not use science to argue anything in this game when human influence can/will fuck something over.

Again, now quite what I'm getting at. The point of balancing is to make it so that player skill is (as close to possible) all that matters. To avoid where a worse team can win just by having lots of people with the same "I win" character class.


Although it has to be said, we're defiantly at the point of too much theorycraft, not enough playtest at the moment. What works and doesn't is decided in the game at the end. All I was trying to do with the latter half of this thread was point out that there's a lot of complex relationships and you have to be careful with what you do - a lot of what goes on is actually quite unintuitive.

Oh, and one last thing. Saying you've missed the point is not intended to imply the error was on the readers end. It could well be that the writer (me in this case) didn't make what they were driving at clear enough (which also applies to the APU range-boosting argument earlier. The push back was because it wasn't clear what was meant (leading to misunderstandings about sniper holy lightning), nor were clear reasons given as to why it would be a good change). So sorry if I misled anyone here.

Linear
02-11-12, 13:13
APUs could have all their spells doing pure PSI damage instead of classic energy/fire/poison/etc. That may increase their strength a bit without any other changes. That will make resist psi more useful so people may choose where to spend psi skillpoints. Then psi resist could affect PPU spells aswell - like if you have more psi resists, PPU spells will affect you worser.

William Antrim
02-11-12, 13:44
APUs could have all their spells doing pure PSI damage instead of classic energy/fire/poison/etc. That may increase their strength a bit without any other changes. That will make resist psi more useful so people may choose where to spend psi skillpoints. Then psi resist could affect PPU spells aswell - like if you have more psi resists, PPU spells will affect you worser.

No thanks.

I am in favour of PSI damage being removed from the game. I am also in favour of having RESIST psi being removed.

If you give APUs their own special damage type then Tanks (for a start) need to have some resist against it. Spies would get the shaft hardest as even though they DO have some psi ability they have such low health that they would get nailed. Only the Private Eye (with some psi chips - so basically a gimp) would have any chance of having any kind of resist to the APUs damage.

I would much rather have conventional damage flattened out across the board so that there is a level playing field. Everyone can do fire poison etc. The APUs limit of one damage type per time (compared with ammo mods on weapons) is in my opinion adequately compensated by his ability to have a VERY short reload time compared to his peers with conventional weaponry.

As for the APU thing I will clarify.

I would like a range of spells added to the current mix and available at all levels (4 plus a rare spread across the PSI levels) that will give the APU a long ranged attack. An existing weapon would be fine. Even make one of the Lance spells do uber range. I would rather see this used (to start with) and see how it gets on in game before thinking about buffing the entire APU range ability.

This entire thought process came from the lack of APU pve weapons. It was intended to help APUs in PVE. PVP it would also help but only for maybe the first 1 or 2 shots before the range closed and PVP started (and ended) in the short ranged clusterfuck that we have all come to know and love.

I am done posting in this thread. I agree with Doc. It is too wordy and is just a mix of a rehash of old ideas and wish lists. The devs will have seen it and if there is any weight in the arguments they will have taken note of the key points further back.

Torg
02-11-12, 13:58
i oppose the use of the word "balancing" here. yes, there's agressive psi, and you can play in this role and have some pointy eared fun, but it's unlkely you'd roam op wars with an apu. fine. same with melee, and HC pes (or spys or monks), or pistol tanks, or ppu pes which are not exactly viable atm. so what? this is a post-apocalyptic, post-nuklear mmo, and they put in some sorcery to attract elf huggers from other MMOs of lesser interest. but ffs, maybe some future patch will boost apu and melee damage a little, while reducing WOC and TC damage bonus. who knows?

Kame
02-11-12, 16:32
On the monk-o-cron thing :

APUs peak pvp performance was acheived with teaming a dedicated PPU to and APU.
Back when APUs had HAB, APU were mandatory because you needed them to take down almost any PPU buffed class.
OP teams were assembled based on the number of APU/PPU duos, with usually 1 PPU for all the non-APUs.
Switching HAB to PPU and generally making PPUs weaker changed this.