21 replies to this topic

[defekt]

I have little doubt that this particular ship has sailed but I am tempted to lay the blame for a hefty chunk of the balance issues being reported at the feet of the concept of having non-distinct weapons by chassis classification, i.e., a Flak cannon on an A-class is identical to the Flak cannon bolted to a C-class.

Essentially, Hawken balance currently relies on the core tenet of the proportional ratio of Speed vs Armour (e.g., less speed_ Have some more armour to compensate.)  This results in a ‘two proportional factors of balance’ system (factor 1: speed, factor 2: armour) rather than the more expected ‘three proportional factors’ (factor 3: weapon).  Why_  Well, because with all weapons being the same regardless of what they’re strapped to they effectively remove themselves from the proportional ratio side of the balance equation and indeed then fall into an awkward non-proportional equation of their own whereby balance is attempted by carefully crafted combinations.  It is my opinion that achieving balance using such a fundamentally disconnected approach presents significant inherent challenges that may end up not being reconcilable.  Bluntly, to some degree, the designers may have crafted a rod for their own backs.

It is my opinion that Hawken would benefit greatly from a ‘three proportional factors of balance’ equation, but the question then begs: how could that be accomplished with a minimum of upheaval_  The objective would be this:  to make weapons compatible with the proportional ratio side of the equation.  The final solution would need a bit of number crunching (performed by folks with a better grasp of the underlying numbers than me) but as an outline example, adjust base weapon damage according to the chassis class that they’re mounted on, as follows:-

A-Class: -15% damage.

B-Class: No modification.

C-Class: +15% damage.

Perhaps, if one subscribes to the notion that larger machines are able to dump greater amounts of heat something like the following might be an option:-

A-Class: -10% damage, +5% heat generated.

B-Class: No modification

C-Class: +10% damage, -5% heat generated.

Note that I’m not suggesting that the above could be plugged straight into the game without perhaps re-examining the Speed and Armour components of the equation, i.e., the worth of all three factors for all three classes would need to be equal.  

Even if you do not like the above example values (they are only illustrative) I believe the principle of bringing weapons into the balance equation as proportional entities is a sound approach if balance in Hawken is to be achievable without significant overhaul.

[h0B0]

+1
I agree with this entirely ( although i will be quite sad if they nerf the berserkers damage ).

[Dreizehn]

I'm not a fan of these rather arbitrary damage percentile modifiers to classes. It just seems like a rather ramshackle way to bring about balance. Not to mention it doesn't seem quite right when a Berserker's TOW is somehow just weaker than a Brawler's. Also damage percentile modifiers aren't going to make weapons feel any more or less distinct in between classes.

Sure its an easier solution than creating even more weapons, though really I think some Chassis-limited weapons wouldn't hurt. A's can get some sorta differently balanced carbine over the AR or some nonsense.

I can get myself behind heat generation though. Perhaps A-class overheat at 90 heat or something, while C-Class can fire up to 110 heat. Feels more 'within the chassis' so to speak.

Personally though, I don't think the weight classes are inherently unbalanced at the moment.

Edited by Dreizehn, November 26 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[defekt]

Dreizehn, on November 26 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

I can get myself behind heat generation though. Perhaps A-class overheat at 90 heat or something, while C-Class can fire up to 110 heat. Feels more 'within the chassis' so to speak.
Personally though, I don't think the weight classes are inherently unbalanced at the moment.

It depends on whether or not you are pinning hopes on ‘light’ versions of weapons being created for the lighter mechs (and/or ‘heavy’ versions for the larger machines).  Currently there’s no hint that such a thing will happen so the problem persists: light, fast-moving mechs packing exactly the same punch as the hulking, sluggish machines.  This leaves the devs with only one recourse: to start proscribing entire weapon concepts by chassis class.  (The awkward and incongruous side of the balance equation, as described above.)  There is conceptually nothing wrong with an A-class zipping around with a Flak gun of some sort but due to the rigid inflexibility of the current weapons system we’re faced with living with over-powerful As (or weak-hitting Cs, if that’s your perspective) or no shotgun-style A-class at all – there’s currently no middle ground and this will have a knock-on effect on the number of distinct concepts that the devs will be able to come up with.  At least with the above suggestion you can have light/heavy versions of every weapon combination that you can think of whilst relieving a pretty big chunk of the balance headache.

You’re example of difficulty reconciling an A-class machine’s TOW doing less damage than the same named weapon on a C-class machine is of course perfectly valid, but I see that more as being a matter of semantic dissonance.  If all A-class mech weapons were prefixed with ‘(Lt)’, and all C-class mech weapons were prefixed ‘(Hvy)’, but under the hood the weapon stats themselves were the same save for the class modifications as exemplified above, perhaps some of that problem goes away – it’s a smaller, lighter version of a weapon being mounted on a smaller, lighter frame.  No need to throw away the entire concept of a bursty, flak-packing A-class; it’s just carrying a slightly less bulky version of the B and C-class cannons.

That said, maybe heat capacity variations by chassis class are enough, but that only alters a machine’s staying power not the weight of its punch.

[Dreizehn]

I also don't actually think it is a problem that A-Class machines can do as much damage as C-Class machines.

The only A-Class issue that currently stands is the Miniflak as far as I know, a weapon exclusive to the A-Class mechs.

[defekt]

Dreizehn, on November 26 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

The only A-Class issue that currently stands is the Miniflak as far as I know, a weapon exclusive to the A-Class mechs.

Only in CB3.

[ScHizNiK]

I really don't see the balance problems between A/B/C classes. If the A class had a damage nerf it would be impossible for it to take a defence stacked C class even if it got the drop.

If you are a C class and you let an A class get that close without damage then you have made a tactical mistake and deserve to be mini flakked.

Currently the game is still pretty new and people are not used to how A class mechs move and the best ways to counter them, once people get into the game the A class in general is going to get lots harder to play.

[defekt]

ScHizNiK, on November 26 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Currently the game is still pretty new and people are not used to how A class mechs move and the best ways to counter them, once people get into the game the A class in general is going to get lots harder to play.

You reckon_  I see a very different future, one that's almost entirely A-shaped.  

[TheChaffeemancer]

ScHizNiK, on November 26 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

If you are a C class and you let an A class get that close without damage then you have made a tactical mistake and deserve to be mini flakked.

You've heard it, people. If you play Flak Brawler, you deserve to die to mini-flak spam.

[Dreizehn]

I play Flak Brawler and I can handle myself under miniflak spam just fine.

Anyway some people actually see a different future - where player skill in aim and firing gets good enough that it makes A-lasses obsolete.

Not really in favour of either view of the future.

Edited by Dreizehn, November 26 2012 - 09:04 AM.

[HugeGuts]

This is the update I'm hoping for the most. Mechs don't quite feel distinct from each other, and it's because weapons are the same across the board. I think the solution is to place each weapon type on its own gradient scale, and give logical stat ratios for a particular weight class. Having different models and/or sounds for each weight's weapon version would definitely help distinction as well.

[h0B0]

HugeGuts, on November 26 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

This is the update I'm hoping for the most. Mechs don't quite feel distinct from each other, and it's because weapons are the same across the board. I think the solution is to place each weapon type on its own gradient scale, and give logical stat ratios for a particular weight class. Having different models and/or sounds for each weight's weapon version would definitely help distinction as well.

I disagree with this, the mobility difference alone makes me feel like im piloting an entirely different mech. although i wouldnt mind more diferentiating stuff like sounds light weapons etc..

As for my vision of the future Hawken if the manage to fix c-class ability i see the game being mostly c-class with a few b's and even less a's. as stated previously peoples aim and skill in dodging will become better and since the changes in fuel capacity there is little difference between an a and b's dodging therefore skilled players might opt for the extra hp.

Even though i like this idea and  think it would be almost essential to properly balancing the game i fear the proposed idea of c-class having more firepower than a-class could lead to even worst balancing issues. Aclass will have the mobility advantage but they will be underpowered in both damage output and survivability. Whereas the c-class has the most firepower and survivability.

Edited by h0B0, November 26 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[ScHizNiK]

TheChaffeemancer, on November 26 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

ScHizNiK, on November 26 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

If you are a C class and you let an A class get that close without damage then you have made a tactical mistake and deserve to be mini flakked.

You've heard it, people. If you play Flak Brawler, you deserve to die to mini-flak spam.

If you are a C-class with a flak cannon then you pretty much have no excuse, you still have the ability to dodge and you have 300 more hps.

[draco7891]

defekt, on November 26 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

I have little doubt that this particular ship has sailed but I am tempted to lay the blame for a hefty chunk of the balance issues being reported at the feet of the concept of having non-distinct weapons by chassis classification, i.e., a Flak cannon on an A-class is identical to the Flak cannon bolted to a C-class.

As an expansion of your idea, why not consider changing the size of the mech's heat pool as well_

That is, if the current heat pool can be considered as 100 units, then why not change to:

A-class: 85 units
B-class: 100 units
C-class: 115 units

This change allows the devs to continue using a unified stable of consistent weapons, but fundamentally changes the way those weapons must be used based on mech class. A-classes might have access to high-powered Flaks, but they have much less staying power than a C-class. A-classes can still win by ganging up on larger opponents, or using their superior speed/agility/dodge/everything to kite/peck at/harrass an opponent to death, while C-classes become the lumbering death machines they're supposed to be, slow but able to put down lots of damage.

I believe I've heard this idea on these forums before as a balance suggestion, can't recall who suggested it, though.

Draco

[hitabowl]

I like the idea of differentiating the mechs more but as it stands an A class mech has a hell of a time taking down a C class mech unless the C class has no idea what they're doing. I think the best way to solve this would be for Meteor to add more weapons to the game and differentiate ALL the mechs more so (from level 20 "ultimate weapons" to base weapons, I hate that so many mechs unlock the same level 20 weapon, it's just not exciting and provides limited motivation for getting to level 20). As many people pointed out, it's not very much fun when an A class mech has the same weapon as a C class mech and it seems like every class has the assault rifle or submachine gun. I feel that this game doesn't have enough variety at all.

[DER3Z]

h0B0, on November 26 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

+1
I agree with this entirely ( although i will be quite sad if they nerf the berserkers damage ).

I really dont want my berserker damage to be nerfed=( with little armor it has now, i really dont think it needs to be nerfed.

[Dreizehn]

draco7891, on November 27 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I believe I've heard this idea on these forums before as a balance suggestion, can't recall who suggested it, though.

Look up. Same thread.

[draco7891]

Dreizehn, on November 27 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

draco7891, on November 27 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I believe I've heard this idea on these forums before as a balance suggestion, can't recall who suggested it, though.

Look up. Same thread.

You are technically correct, the best kind of correct!

But I meant that I've seen it suggested as far back as beta 1.

Draco

[defekt]

draco7891, on November 27 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

defekt, on November 26 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

I have little doubt that this particular ship has sailed but I am tempted to lay the blame for a hefty chunk of the balance issues being reported at the feet of the concept of having non-distinct weapons by chassis classification, i.e., a Flak cannon on an A-class is identical to the Flak cannon bolted to a C-class.

As an expansion of your idea, why not consider changing the size of the mech's heat pool as well_

That is, if the current heat pool can be considered as 100 units, then why not change to:

A-class: 85 units
B-class: 100 units
C-class: 115 units

This change allows the devs to continue using a unified stable of consistent weapons, but fundamentally changes the way those weapons must be used based on mech class. A-classes might have access to high-powered Flaks, but they have much less staying power than a C-class. A-classes can still win by ganging up on larger opponents, or using their superior speed/agility/dodge/everything to kite/peck at/harrass an opponent to death, while C-classes become the lumbering death machines they're supposed to be, slow but able to put down lots of damage.

I believe I've heard this idea on these forums before as a balance suggestion, can't recall who suggested it, though.

Draco

I did allude to an alternate heat-based approach in the OP but I clearly didn't do a good enough job of differentiating it as an equally valid alternate approach.  Mea maxima culpa.  So yes, adjusting maximum heat dumping capacity by chassis type might well be enough.  

Edit: If there's no edit, it wasn't me.

Edited by defekt, November 28 2012 - 04:35 AM.

[Beemann]

The OP assumes that balance issues are due to the discrepancies (or lack thereof) between the different mech classes, but gives no proof to support such an assertion
Under what pretences are you deeming Assault mechs worthy of receiving a noticeable reduction in damage_ In what universe are your C mechs not damaging enough_
I ask this, of course, as someone who has played both throughout various tests, and as someone who frequently plays alongside/against Asianjoykiller, who does about as well on his Grenadier and Brawler as he does on his Infiltrator
The assertion is called into question further when you consider the state of objective based play (which will ultimately include whatever game-mode the devs decide is their flagship competitive mode)
The same problems I pointed out in another thread concerning the mini flak apply here with Flak Brawlers and all-of-the-grenades-dier