43 replies to this topic

[Muffintrumpet]

Sylhiri, on December 16 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

I still don't agree with the thought that reducing RoF of burst weapons will bring it in line of sustain weapons. While I agree that some burst weapons need a RoF nerf, nerfing all burst weapons RoF down to the point where it is in line with sustain would not solve the problem. The biggest factor in a burst vs sustain fight is cover, a solution is going to be more complex then a RoF nerf.

the final solution will indeed be a multifarious undertaking including things like individual weapon considerations, map designs, preserving TTK, not turning open ground into the land of insta-kills, etc
the thing is as far as I can see the devs have tried all of those things and still haven’t cracked the nut – Burst completely dominates the game
the one thing they haven’t tried is reducing Burst ROF which has the benefits of not altering the peek-a-boo game, not mucking around with the overall TTK, and hands Sustain dominance over the open ground
(comparing raw DPS values may indeed be crude but it’s pretty close to describing the conditions under which Sustain should dominate: no cover and all combatants are able to land the vast majority of their hits)
I’m not suggesting a flat ROF reduction on _all_ Burst, it would need to be weighted on a per weapon basis, but the main thrust of the point being that altering ROF has the combined effect of pushing Burst into areas of cover without practically affecting how useful it is in said cover, and giving back the open ground to Sustain when fighting bursty mechs without adversely impacting upon overall TTK
it’s actually a rather elegant characteristic to fiddle around with, one that might play a big part in helping to solve the wider problem

Aptest, on December 16 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

The numbers I am suggesting are very far from bringing TTK down to cod levels. COD has a TTK of < 1 sec. what im talking about is bringing TT to around 3-5 seconds on the B mechs, 2-3 seconds on the A mechs and 5-7 seconds on C classes.

with respect this is probably a different subject best covered in another thread
whilst TTK is inherently connected with DPS it’s not the main thrust of this thread, which is to discuss possible ways of tackling the Burst vs Sustain problem
in my view the best solution is one that doesn’t frak around with the current TTK

[Aptest]

Muffintrumpet, on December 17 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

whilst TTK is inherently connected with DPS it’s not the main thrust of this thread, which is to discuss possible ways of tackling the Burst vs Sustain problem

The way I see it there are 2 issues at hand here:

1. alpha strike damage being too high such that subsequent TTK leaves no room for counterplay.
2. intermittent burst weapons being outright better due to lower risk involved at running them than sustained damage weapons such that at high levels of play mechs armd with SMC, AR, Vulcan, RPR, hawkins and Miniflak are invalidated. Meaning, Berzerker is irrelevant when scout is an option, Bruiser and Assault irrelevant when raider is an option, et cetera.

you want to talk 1_ the solution is simple: Items that bring up your alpha strike damage to be removed from game. This means the detonator and HE charge go away and there's no more problem.

2 is simply a balance question. how much "reward" you give the sustained DPS guy for sticking his neck out to shoot, for the time that he is able to shoot, compared to the instant-reward-then-duck pattern that you're letting intermittent burst guys to use.

Risky options should be rewarded compared to safe options because otherwise skill allows safe options to overpower risky options every time and invalidates them above a certain skill mark. The higher the risk, the higher the reward.

And "risk of taking damage because my play pattern is unsafe" is much, much bigger than "risk of losing DPS because i miss 1 shot"

[Muffintrumpet]

I'm not really sure what your point is
is it that any TTK loss created by upping Sustain DPS, instead of pulling back Burst ROF, could be mitigated by getting rid of the bursty items_
If that’s it then I have to say that if you can rule one thing out of the Burst vs Sustain equation it’s items, entirely because any mech can have those items be that a bursty mech or a sustainy one
having or not having a pocket-rocket doesn’t alter how Burst weapons are at least as handy as Sustain weapons in every area of the game whereas one cannot say the same for the reverse
(I’d shed no tear if the brain-dead-damage-items took a long walk off a short pier but their presence, or absence, doesn’t affect the core balance issues that currently exist in the game between Burst and Sustain weapons)

Edited by Muffintrumpet, December 17 2013 - 07:19 AM.

[Sylhiri]

Muffintrumpet, on December 17 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

(I’d shed no tear if the brain-dead-damage-items took a long walk off a short pier but their presence, or absence, doesn’t affect the core balance issues that currently exist in the game between Burst and Sustain weapons)

While that is true it does solve the problem of Alpha Strikes which are exceedingly more powerful then sustain in a "single shot". I'm looking in a way for sustain weapons to be able to Alpha (or close enough) while burst weapons won't be able to, this may allow removal of the problem of alphas but retain sustain burst.

Honestly the best sustain weapons were the alpha vulcan and laser AR.

Edited by Sylhiri, December 17 2013 - 08:41 AM.

[SlugBug]

After reading all these posts, I'm still not really convinced that things need any significant change here.  The mechs that are relegated to usage of sustain fires as their primary, usually have an ability that makes up for the "low" dps in one way or another (absorbing more damage, fire for longer, damage boost).  I haven't experienced a real inequality during matches. And I know of a few high-level players that can dominate consistently with sustained fire mechs.

[IareDave]

I see no reason to change the current weapon designs. Every mech is armed with a secondary burst, and the option to choose a sustain or burst primary. Either of which excel in different situations

[Xacius]

Aptest, on December 16 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

The numbers I am suggesting are very far from bringing TTK down to cod levels. COD has a TTK of < 1 sec. what im talking about is bringing TT to around 3-5 seconds on the B mechs, 2-3 seconds on the A mechs and 5-7 seconds on C classes.

The numbers you are suggesting would bring the TTK down to Halo levels.  200 dps on its own is one thing, but what happens when you pair 3 players together and they focus the same target_  Instant death.  When you die in less than 5 seconds, it takes away from the "immersion" factor of being in a large, armored battlemech.

Point-D and SMC are very viable weapons.  You're most likely not hitting most of your shots if you're having trouble killing people.

[SlugBug]

Xacius, on December 17 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

You're most likely not hitting most of your shots if you're having trouble killing people.

Yup!  Gotta learn to aim more consistently with sustains; it's a painful thing to admit, but it has to be done.  Once you get your mouse sensitivity down and start landing more consistent streams of lead, the other mechs will be running scared; which is when that burst secondary comes into play.

I have just gotten back into sustained weapon mechs recently because I finally earned the Assault mech and I'm trying to level it.  It definitely takes a different playstyle since you are balancing your sustain weapon fire with your burst secondary.  For me the B and C-class mechs are better suited to sustained fire since they can take more damage whilst keeping the crosshairs trained to your enemy constantly.  I have also come across some situations that had me hating the sustain weapons; like in the little building canyons of Prosk where A-classes can play peek-a-boo.  But again, it's about HOW you play and strategy.  It's about not being too aggressive when you know that the terrain isn't right for the type of mech you are piloting or your playstyle.

Edited by SlugBug, December 18 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[KoningStoma]

Nerfing or buffing just one aspect of a game isn´t necessarily the best way to do things. think it´s a better idea in general to give everything a small nudge in the direction you want things to go. This way, you avoid tipping the balance in the other direction.

That´s easier said than done, of course. It could be done in stages, testing the results along the way. Small accumulative changes, spread out over many aspects and iterations also have a lower chance of pissing anyone off.

Having said that, sometimes large changes can make a game more fun and interesting. I would like to see heat management become more important in Hawken. Heat management could also be a fun way to give sustained weapons an advantage.

[Muffintrumpet]

KoningStoma, on December 18 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

I would like to see heat management become more important in Hawken. Heat management could also be a fun way to give sustained weapons an advantage.

as the devs have just made heat management easier by virtue of reducing the consequences of overheating, and as much as I agree with you, I'd warn that you'd only be p_ssing into the wind by clinging on to that hope

[KoningStoma]

Muffintrumpet, on December 19 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

KoningStoma, on December 18 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

I would like to see heat management become more important in Hawken. Heat management could also be a fun way to give sustained weapons an advantage.

as the devs have just made heat management easier by virtue of reducing the consequences of overheating, and as much as I agree with you, I'd warn that you'd only be p_ssing into the wind by clinging on to that hope

It would be a shame if they kept it a relatively insignificant feature for some mechs. What if the Raider had twice the amount of heat generation for all it's weapons_ I think it could be interesting to experiment with it.

[Muffintrumpet]

as do I but this game is in evidential dumbing down decline
furthermore the devs have really painted themselves into a corner by letting money change hands long before they've even sorted out how the damn game is supposed to work or who it's aimed at
they admitted as much on the Cockpit: they can't do sweeping, brave changes, even just to experiment, because money is involved and the 'expect changes' caveat can only be stretched so far
I was amazed to hear them say that as if they'd only just realised it
this game may end up becoming yet another object lesson in ensuring that you've got your design nailed down and that you've got a solid idea on who your target demographic is _before_ any money changes hands

[ShadowWarg]

I'm about to suggest something stupid. I mean REALLY stupid. But instead of trying to fight the burst weapons that have not seen a real significant balance fix in I don't know how long, why not embrace it_ What I mean is. Give sustained weapons an x% burst damage buff for x amount of time of it's initial fire.

I.E. AR would do something like %200 (random number) of its original bullet damage for the first moments of being fired (for like 0.5 seconds or something). Then the damage falls off to normal damage as the weapon is being fired in a sustained way. After that the burst damage bonus cannot be achieved again until x seconds after the person has stopped firing the weapon completely, firing anytime before that cooldown timer finishes will just gives you the normal damage with no buff.

Edited by ShadowWarg, December 22 2013 - 08:39 PM.

[Muffintrumpet]

it's that kind of unconventional thinking that's going to solve this problem, maybe not that particular idea but certainly an idea from a similarly inclined mind
(I doubt ADH will come up with the solution, unless it's already been done in TF2 )

I'm still in favour of reducing the ROF on Burst rather than buffing Sustain, it doesn't muck around with the delicate TTK situation

Edited by Muffintrumpet, December 20 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Duralumi]

Burst will always be superior to Sustain in a game with movement-enhancement mechanics (i.e., dodging), simply because you do not have to expose yourself for extended periods of time in order to do the bulk of your damage.

Even if you nerf the fire-rate of most burst weapons; they'll still be more favourable in high-level play. It will remain this way until you make the burst weapons underpowered or the sustain weapons overpowered. There is no absolute balance. Either burst is slightly superior or Sustain is radically superior.

However, the fact remains that Flak has been needing a DPS reduction for some time now.

Edited by Duralumi, December 22 2013 - 02:38 PM.

[Muffintrumpet]

Duralumi, on December 22 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

Even if you nerf the fire-rate of most burst weapons; they'll still be more favourable in high-level play. It will remain this way until you make the burst weapons underpowered or the sustain weapons overpowered. There is no absolute balance. Either burst is slightly superior or Sustain is radically superior.

fortunately the issue isn't a binary one, as you seem intent on painting it as

to the experienced player, i.e., one that can aim, Burst and Sustain carry broadly the same levels of risk when merely dodging is the primary form of evasion but when cover is involved the Sustain option lags so far behind that the only sane option is for the Sustain mech to break off
(easy for As to do -- the As work well in almost any situation this game throws at us -- but not at all that easy for Cs)
the trouble is the heavy Burst weapons function just as well, in broad comparative DPS terms, against Sustain choices outside of cover as in!
reducing the ROF on the heavy Burst weapons does nothing to errode their domination of the corner-humping areas but it does give back the open ground to the Sustain weapon choices, as should be the case
it's not a complete solution but it's part of what might be a reasonable attempt at a wider solution

[HugeGuts]

I wonder if air dynamics were meant to be compensation for sustain classes. The Assault, Berserker, Bruiser, and Vanguard don't have primary burst options like many other classes. Perhaps the idea was to give sustain classes superior movement flexibility in exchange for inferior weapons.

[Muffintrumpet]

...weapons which become even more inferior once airborne on account of increased spread

this thread is effectively on hold until after we see what the Feb patch brings to the table

[RemoteRadical]

Should we revive the discussion_

I am a new player that came with Steam bundle. Berserk was part of the package and so far I am doing fairly well in public play. I am using AR to be able to reliably contribute to group's damage from mid-distance when flanking. I have little experience with other loadouts, but AR's consistent damage over multiple ranges wins me over.

Patch notes say that AR spread has been made consistent and burst weapons damage was slightly nerfed. Also, the accuracy penalty while in air was removed. Some complain it has made sustain weapons less skillfull, but it should be obvious that the accuracy boost might have been the best way to balance burst/sustain.

I would like to hear from veteran players! Should I ditch Berserker in favour of burst class like Scout or Raider_ Which mech is more rewarding and effective at higher level_

Edited by RemoteRadical, February 16 2014 - 07:25 PM.

[Gunho23]

Yeah I'm new here but I don't quite understand the thinking behind burst is better simply because you aren't exposed as much....why just because you have a sustain weapon must you use it constantly_  Use secondary pulse weapons to flush the enemy out and sustain to finish them as they run away.

In my opinion there's no good reason to have two burst weapons simply because you'll be kicking yourself when you have taken that one player down to nothing but he runs behind a corner before your burst has a chance to reload...he got away.  Why limit yourself to one tool set when you can carry both_