Re: Robot balancing discussion

Aaaaand bingo, this is why we can't have a discussion about anything because whatever we (devs) propose, even if only for the test server, is deemed "kneejerk". Whatever that means at this point. I'm surprised we got to page 2 before this.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

The solution to demob-immune bots running around without any way of stopping them is to add a module that makes you demob-immune.

Lets read that sentence again three times.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Let's forget about this "demob-immunity" for a moment and think about the mechanic itself. The module isn't meant to give you demob-immunity, but to replace the demob effects of armors and LWFs in a separate module, which can be balanced more easily.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Your take on what is happening is so far off, I dont even know where to start.



DEV Zoom wrote:

Thanks, that's more useful info.

Btw slightly off topic but here's my take on what happened:
1. Before the patch a lot of the modules were unused due to bad balance, and there were very few ways to competitively fit the robots with the remaining modules.
2. People basically accepted that there were one or two ways at most to fit a certain robot and were happy that it all worked fine, even if it was boring as hell.
3. The patch tried to diversify the way robots can be fitted.
4. This effectively destroyed those few "best" fits.
5. People are still stuck in the past and are desperately trying to fit the robots based on their hard-earned knowledge of those "best" fits.

And I completely understand this reaction, hell even I quit another game when they nerfed a very common but very lazy and lucrative playstyle. But they knew and we knew that if we let that lukewarm state of lazy boredom go on for too long then people will quit anyway. Trying to make a change makes a lot of people angry, and yeah, maybe they quit. But for everyone else who doesn't live in that lazy veteran state of mind (no offence), it's probably a better game. At least once we work out the quirks.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

Let's forget about this "demob-immunity" for a moment and think about the mechanic itself. The module isn't meant to give you demob-immunity, but to replace the demob effects of armors and LWFs in a separate module, which can be balanced more easily.

Yeah whichever way you flip it, the way I look at it is if there's a possibility to become immune to demob (and demobs are a tool to force fights) players will take it and use it to pick and choose their fights.

It reminds me of jumping flagged through mobile TP's, or how LWF's became the must-have module because if you were faster you could pick and choose your fights.

There is definitely something broken if a 10-12-14k armor tuned-up mech can be running at 95-100+ speeds.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

56 (edited by Lemon 2014-12-16 01:06:48)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

Thanks, that's more useful info.

Btw slightly off topic but here's my take on what happened:
1. Before the patch a lot of the modules were unused due to bad balance, and there were very few ways to competitively fit the robots with the remaining modules.
2. People basically accepted that there were one or two ways at most to fit a certain robot and were happy that it all worked fine, even if it was boring as hell.
3. The patch tried to diversify the way robots can be fitted.
4. This effectively destroyed those few "best" fits.
5. People are still stuck in the past and are desperately trying to fit the robots based on their hard-earned knowledge of those "best" fits.

And I completely understand this reaction, hell even I quit another game when they nerfed a very common but very lazy and lucrative playstyle. But they knew and we knew that if we let that lukewarm state of lazy boredom go on for too long then people will quit anyway. Trying to make a change makes a lot of people angry, and yeah, maybe they quit. But for everyone else who doesn't live in that lazy veteran state of mind (no offence), it's probably a better game. At least once we work out the quirks.

Zoom you are summarizing a specific group of players opinions incorrectly. You are writing off the opinions of your Die-hard min/max style players. This is not to say the word of a min/maxer is gold, because this can lead to situations where knowledge is the only factor in winning but you need to understand their perspective.

When 'winning' is defined as never losing a bot things get interesting.

1) You wanted to enable more give and take play during combat and fitting while removing polarizing fits that could lock out entire segments of game-play across all robot classes.
*Let me know if you need the fits or examples*

- Good  shot, but you missed the balance. The good news is we have dialogue to resolve it now.

2) Who are these people and what are their fits. 

We had a great amount of flexible fits across almost all of the bots at every size(except a handful). However from years of experience we know what play-style and fits achieve the greatest chance of success in every environment and situation. 

Zoom when you are able to control every situation it leads to defined results.

3) the issue arises here from the basic design of the game. You had a rock, paper, scissor system of balance with extremes that drew the lines of rock, paper and scissors. In a effort to diversify 'fits' these extremes have been worn down patch by patch to where now our rock essentially paper and scissors cleans up.

This leads to a dull playing experience and everyone doing the 1-2 things that have a 5-10% better chance at winning.

4) The fits I see that have been destroyed were racial defining and racial extreme fits. They were also the key holders to our rock, paper, scissors balance. They needed tweaking not trashing, with a review of the roles for isolated 'useless' bots in the situations they were 'useless' . 


5) Can you share the techniques you have developed on comprehending the written English language. I have daily struggles, as a 23 year-old native English speaker,  in my work environment using written communication. This may help me portray my point to you better and others.

Zoom wrote:

Let's forget about this "demob-immunity" for a moment and think about the mechanic itself. The module isn't meant to give you demob-immunity, but to replace the demob effects of armors and LWFs in a separate module, which can be balanced more easily.

Lets just look at how Demobs are applied, individually. This means they have to break the TOTAL demob resistance of a robot with a SINGLE applying buff when using two.

If the equation were to factor the TOTAL demob against the TOTAL demob resistance this situation could be resolved.

If it is still a problem then I would suggest reviewing how the resistance and effect are scaling.

Undefeated 2013
"Even alone you probably are one of the best" - Khader Khan
"Lemon the 1 man army .... also know as: THE TERMINATOR!" - Obi Wan
"There are people who are just better then you at doing many things at one time, some are far better then myself, far better." -Merkle

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Lemon wrote:

Lets just look at how Demobs are applied, individually. This means they have to break the TOTAL demob resistance of a robot with a SINGLE applying buff when using two.

If the equation were to factor the TOTAL demob against the TOTAL demob resistance this situation could be resolved.

If it is still a problem then I would suggest reviewing how the resistance and effect are scaling.

Yes, this is a problem as far as I know.

But if you don't like the dedicated resist module then the easiest and fastest way to deal with "demob-immunity" right now (if it is indeed something that shouldn't be in the game) is to increase the strength of demobs. It probably should have happened anyway along with the speed boost.

58 (edited by Lemon 2014-12-16 01:40:42)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:
Lemon wrote:

Lets just look at how Demobs are applied, individually. This means they have to break the TOTAL demob resistance of a robot with a SINGLE applying buff when using two.

If the equation were to factor the TOTAL demob against the TOTAL demob resistance this situation could be resolved.

If it is still a problem then I would suggest reviewing how the resistance and effect are scaling.

Yes, this is a problem as far as I know.

But if you don't like the dedicated resist module then the easiest and fastest way to deal with "demob-immunity" right now (if it is indeed something that shouldn't be in the game) is to increase the strength of demobs. It probably should have happened anyway along with the speed boost.

That would be a good point but demobs are % base and are as effective now as they were prior to the speed patch.

You wouldn't even be able to increase demobs enough to impact the new plate stacking fit with out completely breaking the use of 1 demob against EVERY other bot and fit

The issue arises with the added slots in the legs and how demobs do not stack but are applied singularly.

The only way to achieve a proper balance for this would be to limit demobs to 1 per bot and then re-balance the equation defensive values against a single offensive module. The current mechanics don't allow for a easy solution.


Edit: Balance is done with +1, -1 or +%, -% currently there are relationships where the attack is ++ and the defense is % scaling. The fundamental math should be ironed out and simplified for users to digest and the make balance for you smoother.

Undefeated 2013
"Even alone you probably are one of the best" - Khader Khan
"Lemon the 1 man army .... also know as: THE TERMINATOR!" - Obi Wan
"There are people who are just better then you at doing many things at one time, some are far better then myself, far better." -Merkle

Re: Robot balancing discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:
Lemon wrote:

Lets just look at how Demobs are applied, individually. This means they have to break the TOTAL demob resistance of a robot with a SINGLE applying buff when using two.

If the equation were to factor the TOTAL demob against the TOTAL demob resistance this situation could be resolved.

If it is still a problem then I would suggest reviewing how the resistance and effect are scaling.

Yes, this is a problem as far as I know.

But if you don't like the dedicated resist module then the easiest and fastest way to deal with "demob-immunity" right now (if it is indeed something that shouldn't be in the game) is to increase the strength of demobs. It probably should have happened anyway along with the speed boost.

That's a more reasonable suggestion. Personally I'd add a modifier that increases energy use based on relative mass so that a castel mk2 with frame would cap out quickly demobbing a plated heavy and I would considerably up demob strength.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Also, to touch the issue of tunings a bit as well, one solution for the stacking problem (without trying to rewrite the whole system) would be to make them increase the accumulator usage of whatever module they are boosting. Since it would work in the same way like the boosts are applied, the negative effect would be more noticeable with more tunings.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

Also, to touch the issue of tunings a bit as well, one solution for the stacking problem (without trying to rewrite the whole system) would be to make them increase the accumulator usage of whatever module they are boosting. Since it would work in the same way like the boosts are applied, the negative effect would be more noticeable with more tunings.

Machine guns. Autocannons.

I believe pvp could be very exciting and the game has what it takes. But this is game is ruined and we all know  by who, it´s by corps like CiR, -77- and PHM. - by Fu ManChu

62 (edited by Inda 2014-12-16 02:02:18)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Just about plates + lwf.

before patch my arbalest mk2 uses 1 T2p plates or even 2 when I used T2p guns also (secrit) and that had some  tweaks, my DPS and more. < harder to demob as an lwf guy but still has some tweaks.

BUT now, I can use !!!3!!! T2P on my Arbalest mk2 < UNDEMOBBALE

USE the FITTING ability! You simply coudlnt fit on assault 3 med plate that easy!

I dont think fittings is neccesery here but I have pics and all the details.


PLANTS and SPEED

You also facing the problmes about speed you are more easy to hide behind bushes, bevcause of +36, this is unseen affect of the +36kmph

Energy to Earth!

18.01.2014. [12:57:58] <BeastmodeGuNs> after that i remembered all those warning about 1v1 you lol, and i found out why xD

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Perceptor wrote:

Personally I'd add a modifier that increases energy use based on relative mass so that a castel mk2 with frame would cap out quickly demobbing a plated heavy and I would considerably up demob strength.

this is the most reasonable suggestion on page two (50 posts per page) up to now.

contrary to a post where someone said "demobs force fights". Shooting someone into the legs doesn't force a fight, it will end it.

also, someone said "you sould never be able to be 100% demob immune" -> that sentence should be finished with "and you should never be able to demob someone 100% of the time"

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Robot balancing discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

Also, to touch the issue of tunings a bit as well, one solution for the stacking problem (without trying to rewrite the whole system) would be to make them increase the accumulator usage of whatever module they are boosting. Since it would work in the same way like the boosts are applied, the negative effect would be more noticeable with more tunings.

they already do that with their increased RoF.
also, past has shown, accumulator usage does not work on every robot the same (hello medium accumulator on lights and assaults)

don't reinvent the wheel... just look at what other games do for years now.

but whatever you do...
don't forget that every change will affect Player vs. NPCs even more

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Robot balancing discussion

You should never be able to be 100% DPS immune and you should never be able to DPS someone 100% of the time

Now that parallel is drawn we can go back to relevant details

Like plates & tunings being the most logical choice to everything.

Prior to this patch both speed and tank were options where one excluded the other - since this patch we can have both.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Robot balancing discussion

First, the fact that this thread exists is fantastic. +1
Maybe it should have come sooner, perhaps immediately following deploying the current patch to the test server.

One goal mentioned was to help diversify fittings of bots.
Integrating a Stacking Penalty would help this considerably.  Fits would be less about filling head slots with the same tuner, but more different tunings, and other mods, because at some point the same tuner would be worth less to have than some other type of module.
Now the thing to keep in mind is this diminishes maximum-possible DPS/EW/mine-yield/accum/etc.   
(This is why integrating some quick-fix solutions to one issue can result in imbalancing another.)

I heard mentioned that stacking currently acts more like a 'bonus' (modifying the modified value, instead of the base)  [Base*1.05*1.05...] > [Base+ (Base*0.05)+(Base*0.05)+...]  for some 5% tuning boost for example.
So changing to linear (second one) makes sense, but this still may not be enough to help 'encourage' the player behavior and fittings you would like to see fielded as viable and frequently used in the game.  There may need to be a diminishing return.  I would caution tacking on a penalty to some other attribute, instead of penalizing the bonus directly.  (Reason why was quickly addressed a page back or so).

I'm sure this isn't new, but allow it to be a +1 vote to getting it in the next patch to help with your goals of incentivizing  more diverse bot fitting strategies.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Why shouldn't a bot be demob immune/close to demob immune?

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Burial wrote:

Why shouldn't a bot be demob immune/close to demob immune?

demob immunity is fine but it must come at a cost. You cant have tank AND be immune to a demob, its just to stupidly powerful.

True Pros make a Podcast to influence the Devs minds, 
The rest of you guys are Hacks tongue

PS. I got my Highways & stopped playing b4 they came in & have never used them! ...... Irony much ? tongue

69 (edited by Burial 2014-12-16 08:45:52)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

I agree. I know the Arbalest MK2 currently gets the cake and eats it, but with the suggested demob immunity module, any bot fitting for demob immunity would lose leg slots.

Not seen anyone post why it's bad.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

I don't see anything wrong with demob immunity for all assaults. I don't think it needs a module as such, perhaps tweak the assault bonus if the demob bonus is increased. The important thing is that this should be a tradeoff - lwf mechs should be able to keep up and ewar should outrun them.

To do this I would suggest decreasing the demob resistance bonus of light plates to 5% and increasing the mass of plates. You should be aming for a lwf fit ewar to be doing 140ish, a lwf demob resistant assault to be doing 110 and a lwf no plate assault to be doing 130. Mechs lwf only should be 110.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Syndic wrote:

You should never be able to be 100% DPS immune and you should never be able to DPS someone 100% of the time

thats something completely different. since a demob immune robot can still be killed, a DPS immune obviously not.

also, 100% DPS immunity wouldn't be a problem either, if there is a condition to counter it... thats what Rock-paper-scissor balance actually means.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Dear Zoom. There is lots of sayed, can you organize some pool of points? I see only chewing the demob immunity. Is there something else?

The theory of mutual interests
Why the crybabies wins?
Где Ханя - там победа (с)
DEV Zoom: No need to speculate...

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Annihilator wrote:
Syndic wrote:

You should never be able to be 100% DPS immune and you should never be able to DPS someone 100% of the time

thats something completely different. since a demob immune robot can still be killed, a DPS immune obviously not.

also, 100% DPS immunity wouldn't be a problem either, if there is a condition to counter it... thats what Rock-paper-scissor balance actually means.

Not really, that's the same analogy. A demob-immune robot can't be killed if it doesn't want to be killed. Just like before, you couldn't kill people who dropped a mobile TP and jumped to an alpha gate the moment they ran into resistance.

That has nothing to do with rock-paper-scissors (which doesn't exist after this patch), it is game moving from forced PVP (can't jump flagged, weak to demob if speed-fit) to consensual PVP.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Robot balancing discussion

So the problem is that you can't use old-school tactic demob+kill on arbalests and kains. But there are not a problem in arbalests at all. The problem is that you wanna shoot it safely - in heavy-mech fleet.

I want to say that arba with 2xplates and 60% demob resist anyway slower than same arba without plates. 92,46 kph vs 127,68 kph. This is about 45% difference. Where the problem? dislike the races - mine titanium on alphas...

The theory of mutual interests
Why the crybabies wins?
Где Ханя - там победа (с)
DEV Zoom: No need to speculate...

75 (edited by Burial 2014-12-16 14:28:55)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Jita wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with demob immunity for all assaults. I don't think it needs a module as such, perhaps tweak the assault bonus if the demob bonus is increased. The important thing is that this should be a tradeoff - lwf mechs should be able to keep up and ewar should outrun them.

To do this I would suggest decreasing the demob resistance bonus of light plates to 5% and increasing the mass of plates. You should be aming for a lwf fit ewar to be doing 140ish, a lwf demob resistant assault to be doing 110 and a lwf no plate assault to be doing 130. Mechs lwf only should be 110.

There's two problems with assaults right now:  1) Arbalest can get speed, demob resistance and armor without any significant trade-off and 2) other assaults not having the option to go demob immune route.

Speed, mobility(demob resistance, slope capability etc) and armor needs to be in balance but it's going to be a mess if it's all tangled up.

The problem stems from plates giving both armor and demob resistance. From a balancing perspective, if a module's side effect is causing balancing problems, the side effect should be decoupled from the main effect and balanced separately. Plates should be balanced against LWF to get the right balance between speed and armor and demob resistance should be balanced against LWF to get the right balance between speed and demob resistance. Other than plates and demob resistance modules sharing the same slots, no connection should be made between the two.

TL;DR: Demob resistance needs to be separated from the plates. For Balance™