76 (edited by Syndic 2014-12-16 13:57:43)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

No, when you can read english it's obvious the problem is the same as it was when homeboys were jumping flagged through mobile TP's. No risk, pick and choose fights.

With a demob-immune bot I can run through caravans, NPC's, even observers and just not give a flying f*ck about it.

Edit; that was to hunter, didnt read the other fookers post yet

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Syndic wrote:

No, when you can read english it's obvious the problem is the same as it was when homeboys were jumping flagged through mobile TP's. No risk, pick and choose fights.

With a demob-immune bot I can run through caravans, NPC's, even observers and just not give a flying f*ck about it.

Edit; that was to hunter, didnt read the other fookers post yet

That's because demob resistance comes with armor. If the modules are separated, it's a simple matter of giving the module the right weight.

78 (edited by Hunter 2014-12-16 14:22:38)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Burial wrote:
Syndic wrote:

No, when you can read english it's obvious the problem is the same as it was when homeboys were jumping flagged through mobile TP's. No risk, pick and choose fights.

With a demob-immune bot I can run through caravans, NPC's, even observers and just not give a flying f*ck about it.

Edit; that was to hunter, didnt read the other fookers post yet

That's because demob resistance comes with armor. If the modules are separated, it's a simple matter of giving the module the right weight.

May be better prevent equipping both modules together (plates+lwf)? Like impossibility to use 2xlwfs.

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

Re: Robot balancing discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

without trying to rewrite the whole system

sorry, but either you want to fix it at the root, or leave it alone.

from my research, i know the game is using the exact same code for almost everything, just with different hidden variables. You know... "hungarian math"

I can imagine why you don't want to rewrite anything there - that one formula is like the "42" of this game. Just like you avoid touching the weapon cycle mechanics code on terrain (that will always cause massive bugs when you do)

*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

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
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.

if you remove the demob frome plates and make it a seperate module then you loose the tank for demob resists.
on the other hand this will also effect tanked fits in general. a full plates heavy will just be as vunrable to demob. so it will be slow like hell and will not have much of a chance to get close.


as for the arbalest problem. i see more of a chance in here to get the reactor back where it was before and add a bonus for reactor anc cpu usage of medium weapons (not only the factonal ones).
that way the plate problem might be solved because of insufficient reactor for them.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Burial wrote:
Syndic wrote:

No, when you can read english it's obvious the problem is the same as it was when homeboys were jumping flagged through mobile TP's. No risk, pick and choose fights.

With a demob-immune bot I can run through caravans, NPC's, even observers and just not give a flying f*ck about it.

Edit; that was to hunter, didnt read the other fookers post yet

That's because demob resistance comes with armor. If the modules are separated, it's a simple matter of giving the module the right weight.

So your saying add a module like the reactor sealing that works against demobs and remove demob resistance from plates?

I'd be happy with that solution IF they were very weak AND all assaults had a demob resistance bonus that makes them possible to be immune and mechs had a weaker demob resistance bonus that does not.

The difficulty of a module is that if its not really nerfed then people will use it on virtually everything.

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

Zortarg wrote:

that way the plate problem might be solved because of insufficient reactor for them.

but kains and artemis can be demob immune too @ 120ish. The power a mk2 mech has is too much for that kind of escape potential.

This is why i think assaults should be the only thing thats immune to demobs. They are the hit and run bot and are fairly weak. Mechs on the other hand pack a punch. What needs to be done is to remove their strength in tank and thats what was broken by the patch's increase in armor.

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

@Jita: Either that or sweep the issue under the carpet by nerfing Arbalest. I'd love the new fitting options, though.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

+5 cents: There are problem with demob mechanic too. It's too easy to catch any bot and hide behind obtackle. I think that S-Demobs must work like L-Demobs.

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

Re: Robot balancing discussion

S-demobs should work in a way that they demob more the closer you are to the target. In other words, if you demob from max range, you demob for a small amount; if you demob point-blank, you demob for full amount. It would be a fun and skill-based mechanic for both tacklers and people getting demobbed, but we all know that it will never be implemented due to reasons.

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

86 (edited by Jita 2014-12-16 15:48:53)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Burial wrote:

@Jita: Either that or sweep the issue under the carpet by nerfing Arbalest. I'd love the new fitting options, though.

i'm just worried that an extra module would potentially be misused. I'm all for demob proof assaults just not anything else. The difficulty with not having a mod and changing the bonus of the bot is you can still pile on the plates.

You see this is the issue with the whole patch. Assaults were given more reactor so they fit medium guns but of course nobody did, they used it to improve survivability. Demob resistance was given and so people capitalise on that for demob immunity.

if the devs wanted medium gun assaults they could have given assaults a percentage reduction in medium weapon cpu and reactor. IMO they still would not be used.

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

Also it is very easy to fit the Arbalist mk 2 to demob equally as far as my most extreme cam mk 2 fit with a negligible speed difference.

This is fitting to a extreme but if you sprinkle these in with normal fits your in for a fun time.

270m no nexus 350m w/ Nexus  Demobbing Arabalist mk 2 @ 124+ KPH no Nexus and full tank. The reactor and +1 slot allow this extreme fit.

My cam mk2 will trade 4-5 guns to run this fit @ 150 KPH no weapons or e-war or defense.

Something to note on this fit is that it breaks the assault and below level fights instantly. You now have the speed to control every engagement, with demob immunity. You will outrun any bot that can out-range your demob while out-tanking anything faster than you.

This is one example using the current argument by no means is the arbalist the only issue.

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

Jita wrote:
Burial wrote:

@Jita: Either that or sweep the issue under the carpet by nerfing Arbalest. I'd love the new fitting options, though.

i'm just worried that an extra module would potentially be misused. I'm all for demob proof assaults just not anything else. The difficulty with not having a mod and changing the bonus of the bot is you can still pile on the plates.

You see this is the issue with the whole patch. Assaults were given more reactor so they fit medium guns but of course nobody did, they used it to improve survivability. Demob resistance was given and so people capitalise on that for demob immunity.

if the devs wanted medium gun assaults they could have given assaults a percentage reduction in medium weapon cpu and reactor. IMO they still would not be used.

One way to go would be to add 3% demob resistance per Basic Robotics to all assaults and then add a module that can be stacked for another 30% for immunity. Another way is to base the module on surface size so smaller bots benefit more than bigger bots, kind of like shield absorption is calculated.

Otherwise, yes, it's going to be abused by mechs+ that already have more low slots.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Lemon wrote:

Also it is very easy to fit the Arbalist mk 2 to demob equally as far as my most extreme cam mk 2 fit with a negligible speed difference.

they changed the optimal range to weapons only

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."

90 (edited by Lemon 2014-12-16 16:08:41)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Jita wrote:
Lemon wrote:

Also it is very easy to fit the Arbalist mk 2 to demob equally as far as my most extreme cam mk 2 fit with a negligible speed difference.

they changed the optimal range to weapons only

I tested this fit last night?

Edit: The ranges are the same except you trade ~30 KPH for demob immunity, tank, and damage when using the Arbalist mk 2.

so 270m no nexus and 350m w/ nexus demob ranges.

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

91 (edited by Burial 2014-12-16 17:02:54)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Could be solved by making the demob resistance modules require ~100 reactor each so it wouldn't be feasible to match them with Range Extenders on an assault.

1) 29% EW nexus is too strong.
2) More weight to Range Extenders. 50kg -> 200kg.

92 (edited by Lemon 2014-12-16 17:18:00)

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Burial wrote:

Could be solved by making the demob resistance modules require ~100 reactor each so it wouldn't be feasible to match them with Range Extenders on an assault.

1) 29% EW nexus is too strong.
2) More weight to Range Extenders. 50kg -> 200kg.

I understand where your going with this but this will have very difficult to understand cascading effects across all bot sizes and types.

Honestly, there needs to be some sort of ideal state of bot interaction that we are working towards. If we only focus on filling down extremes we will end up in a very poor state with no flavor. 

This game is unfortunately to difficult to play from a user perspective to dumb the mechanics down where there is no flavor to bring interest.

Dev Zoom or Alf if you can present to us clearly the problem you want to solve, the resulting balance you are after and the flexibility you have in achieving it from a mechanic modification stand point. I am more than confident the theory craters here will at least give you some frame of reference to work from with confidence.

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

Jita wrote:

... Assaults were given more reactor so they fit medium guns but of course nobody did, they used it to improve survivability. Demob resistance was given and so people capitalise on that for demob immunity.

if the devs wanted medium gun assaults they could have given assaults a percentage reduction in medium weapon cpu and reactor. IMO they still would not be used.

Agreed.

Ignorance is curable, Stupidity is not.
The "Planet of the Apes" is not science fiction, is a daily reality.
All is in "The Matrix".
See Beyond the Obvious.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Lemon wrote:

Honestly, there needs to be some sort of ideal state of bot interaction that we are working towards. If we only focus on filling down extremes we will end up in a very poor state with no flavor.

Couldn't agree more.

Zoom why don't you start by stating this and then we'd have an idea of what works and doesn't in those roles.

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

goals are given in this topic

*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 don't know what's balanced and done right if you don't know the overarching idea of what is supposed to fill what role

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

Jita wrote:
Lemon wrote:

Honestly, there needs to be some sort of ideal state of bot interaction that we are working towards. If we only focus on filling down extremes we will end up in a very poor state with no flavor.

Couldn't agree more.

Zoom why don't you start by stating this and then we'd have an idea of what works and doesn't in those roles.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I made this topic so you can tell us what you think is not right. While we're aware of some issues (like tunings), the patch as a whole was made like we wanted it to be, so it's not really up to us to tell what's wrong. The discussion should be in the form of "we want x to have y because z", and we either accept it or not, or perhaps we meet halfway.

The intended roles for the robots have been crudely stated in this blog post. Though for some of them I don't think you can name a specific role, and you probably don't even agree with some.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

  • EW mechs’ main role is to disrupt from the distance, this means an EW module optimal range bonus for them.

  • Combat heavy mechs, being the slow fortresses they are, receive a small survivability boost with the help of armor resistance bonuses.

you forgot the EW range thingy completely
you forgot to slow down heavy mechs

*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

I don't think we can help then. Each change in this thread just rolls back each aspect of the patch as a whole.

Re: Robot balancing discussion

Annihilator wrote:
  • EW mechs’ main role is to disrupt from the distance, this means an EW module optimal range bonus for them.

  • Combat heavy mechs, being the slow fortresses they are, receive a small survivability boost with the help of armor resistance bonuses.

you forgot the EW range thingy completely
you forgot to slow down heavy mechs

The EW optimal range bonus was reconsidered after the feedback on the forum.
The other one didn't say that they would be slowed down.