65 replies to this topic

[StillRadioactive]

We all know that Clans are overperforming as compared to equivalent tonnage of IS 'mechs. They hit harder and they stay fighting longer, and that's simply unacceptable in the long term.

We also know that the weapons, despite being lower tonnage, have drawbacks that have made them close to comparable ton-for-ton to IS weapons (c-ERML and c-ERSL notwithstanding). The longer beam times, burst-fire ACs, ripple-fire LRMs and higher heat means that 5 tons of LRM (an LRM-10) and 5 tons of c-LRM (2x cLRM-10) have roughly the same power in a fight. Now, there are some differences, but those can be bridged with small weapon balance tweaks along the same lines as what we've already seen.

The thing is that once you balance the weapons ton-for-ton, you'll still have a performance gap. You're trying to bridge a gulf that's simply too wide to be bridged with weapon tweaks alone, short of completely nerfing Clan weapons into uselessness.

Where does this problem start? WIth one thing, and one thing only: The Clan XL engine. It offers the same weight savings as an IS XL engine, with none of the drawbacks. The cXL300 in the Dire Wolf gives the same survivability as an STD300 in an Atlas, and allows the pilot to bring 9.5 tons more weapons to every engagement. The cXL375 in the Timber Wolf allows for greater maneuverability than an Orion with its biggest engine, an STD360, coupled with the same zombie potential and 9 tons of additional weapons. The cXL330 on the Stormcrow gives it the same survivability as a STD330 on a Shadow Hawk, with 12 more tons of weapons. The list just goes on and on.

Look at the Inner Sphere, and you'll see it. The vast majority of builds run an XL engine simply because the weight savings gets applied to more weapons, and the increase in firepower makes the risk of ST-death worth it. The STD engine does still exist in certain designs, such as the Centurion and the Atlas, whose primary purposes are breaching enemy positions and being hard to kill.

The Clan XL essentially allows for the extra weapons preferred by most builds, and lets them stay in the fight far longer than the average IS 'mech, just like a Standard engine would.

So how can we bridge this gap?

Simple: Look to tabletop. When a Clan XL engine has a side torso blown out, it loses two engine crits. This means that it generates 10 additional heat per turn. Since most engines contain 10DHS, this means that the loss of a side torso essentially reverts what's left of the 'mech to SINGLE HEAT SINKS. With the increased heat generation of Clan weapons, there would be very little reason to fear a Timber Wolf that's lost a side torso, since it would hardly ever be able to fire its remaining weapons.

When you add a massive heat penalty for Clan XLs losing a side torso, you'll have finally tackled the root of the balance problem... and you can make up the rest of it with weapon balance.

Edited by StillRadioactive, 27 August 2014 - 11:19 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Uh-uh, don't nerf the Clans! They are already nerfed considerably to make them less overpowered than they are in the canon. Nerfing them for MWO is a horrible idea, especially in light of the fact that CW will require 12v10 battles between the IS and the Clans. Before everyone starts crying and asking for nerfs, let's just see how CW works out. We can always revisit the issue later if need-be.

[chutche2]

Valid balance criticism? Sounds like someone's getting banned.

[Solis Obscuri]

Nightmare1, on 27 August 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Uh-uh, don't nerf the Clans! They are already nerfed considerably to make them less overpowered than they are in the canon. Nerfing them for MWO is a horrible idea, especially in light of the fact that CW will require 12v10 battles between the IS and the Clans. Before everyone starts crying and asking for nerfs, let's just see how CW works out. We can always revisit the issue later if need-be.

That's odd, seeing as the current plan appears to be 12v12.

[DEMAX51]

Nightmare1, on 27 August 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Uh-uh, don't nerf the Clans! They are already nerfed considerably to make them less overpowered than they are in the canon. Nerfing them for MWO is a horrible idea, especially in light of the fact that CW will require 12v10 battles between the IS and the Clans. Before everyone starts crying and asking for nerfs, let's just see how CW works out. We can always revisit the issue later if need-be.

They have not yet decided on 12v10, it's just an idea they're tossing around (and a bad one at that).

I fully support movement speed / heat penalty to Clan XLs when they lose a Side Torso.

[Zyllos]

I would not say this is the root cause of the problem (I think pin point accuracy and no deviation in weapons fire is the cause). But I agree that this would help balance Clan vs IS tech.

But both techs need to be effected by engine critical hits. Currently, if blowing off a side torso is the only way to introduce engine critical hits, then truly only the Clans will be affected by this change, which I think would be incorrect.

So whatever happens with engine criticals, I think they need to be applied to all engines.

[HUBA]

there are many things that could be done. My top 3

- no target(info) sharing. Every claner only can lock on mech he has LOS (also no indirect LRM fire with makes them to a secondary weapon)
- no ECM cloak. Clan can have ECM and it prevents missiles locks for all within the range but only the owner get the ECM cloak effect.
- change laser ranges. all Layer have the same range but ER-Laser get a double falloff range. e.g. M-Laser 270m and max 540m the ER-M-Laser 270m and max 810m. Also M-Pulse-Laser could have 270m but only max 405m.

[Gyrok]

StillRadioactive, on 27 August 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

We all know that Clans are overperforming as compared to equivalent tonnage of IS 'mechs. They hit harder and they stay fighting longer, and that's simply unacceptable in the long term.

We also know that the weapons, despite being lower tonnage, have drawbacks that have made them close to comparable ton-for-ton to IS weapons (c-ERML and c-ERSL notwithstanding). The longer beam times, burst-fire ACs, ripple-fire LRMs and higher heat means that 5 tons of LRM (an LRM-10) and 5 tons of c-LRM (2x cLRM-10) have roughly the same power in a fight. Now, there are some differences, but those can be bridged with small weapon balance tweaks along the same lines as what we've already seen.

The thing is that once you balance the weapons ton-for-ton, you'll still have a performance gap. You're trying to bridge a gulf that's simply too wide to be bridged with weapon tweaks alone, short of completely nerfing Clan weapons into uselessness.

Where does this problem start? WIth one thing, and one thing only: The Clan XL engine. It offers the same weight savings as an IS XL engine, with none of the drawbacks. The cXL300 in the Dire Wolf gives the same survivability as an STD300 in an Atlas, and allows the pilot to bring 9.5 tons more weapons to every engagement. The cXL375 in the Timber Wolf allows for greater maneuverability than an Orion with its biggest engine, an STD360, coupled with the same zombie potential and 9 tons of additional weapons. The cXL330 on the Stormcrow gives it the same survivability as a STD330 on a Shadow Hawk, with 12 more tons of weapons. The list just goes on and on.

Look at the Inner Sphere, and you'll see it. The vast majority of builds run an XL engine simply because the weight savings gets applied to more weapons, and the increase in firepower makes the risk of ST-death worth it. The STD engine does still exist in certain designs, such as the Centurion and the Atlas, whose primary purposes are breaching enemy positions and being hard to kill.

The Clan XL essentially allows for the extra weapons preferred by most builds, and lets them stay in the fight far longer than the average IS 'mech, just like a Standard engine would.

So how can we bridge this gap?

Simple: Look to tabletop. When a Clan XL engine has a side torso blown out, it loses two engine crits. This means that it generates 10 additional heat per turn. Since most engines contain 10DHS, this means that the loss of a side torso essentially reverts what's left of the 'mech to SINGLE HEAT SINKS. With the increased heat generation of Clan weapons, there would be very little reason to fear a Timber Wolf that's lost a side torso, since it would hardly ever be able to fire its remaining weapons.

When you add a massive heat penalty for Clan XLs losing a side torso, you'll have finally tackled the root of the balance problem... and you can make up the rest of it with weapon balance.

I would prefer to see 10 vs 12 seriously explored as a legitimate option.

Seriously...in terms of 10 vs 12 balance, I am not sure clan mechs are that much better than IS mechs that they can make up for being short 2 mechs.

[DEMAX51]

Gyrok, on 27 August 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

I would prefer to see 10 vs 12 seriously explored as a legitimate option.

Seriously...in terms of 10 vs 12 balance, I am not sure clan mechs are that much better than IS mechs that they can make up for being short 2 mechs.

The problem with 12v10 is this: who would want to be a single unit in a "zerg" army? Combined with your 11 teammates you might be equal to 10 Clan 'Mechs, but individually your performance will suffer. If people can put up 400 damage per game in an IS 'Mech, or 700 damage per game in a Clan 'Mech, which side do you think they'll naturally gravitate to?

Edited by DEMAX51, 27 August 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[SixstringSamurai]

DEMAX51, on 27 August 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

They have not yet decided on 12v10, it's just an idea they're tossing around (and a bad one at that).

I fully support movement speed / heat penalty to Clan XLs when they lose a Side Torso.

Yup its such a terrible idea....

it almost stupid right?

[East Indy]

DEMAX51, on 27 August 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

The problem with 12v10 is this: who would want to be a single unit in a "zerg" army?

Two more 'Mechs isn't "zerg."

[Zyllos]

DEMAX51, on 27 August 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

The problem with 12v10 is this: who would want to be a single unit in a "zerg" army? Combined with your 11 teammates you might be equal to 10 Clan 'Mechs, but individually your performance will suffer. If people can put up 400 damage per game in an IS 'Mech, or 700 damage per game in a Clan 'Mech, which side do you think they'll naturally gravitate to?

I would agree with you if it was like 36 vs 12 or something crazy, but 12 v 10 is hardly nothing. And most of the time, this is already experienced within the game by random disconnections and players rushing to their death.

[NocturnalBeast]

Clan mechs are supposed to "outperform" IS mechs of the same tonnage. PGI has actually balanced the clans very well. People would rather complain about clan mechs on the forum than try to develop new tactics to beat them.

[SixstringSamurai]

Ed Steele, on 27 August 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

Clan mechs are supposed to "outperform" IS mechs of the same tonnage. PGI has actually balanced the clans very well. People would rather complain about clan mechs on the forum than try to develop new tactics to beat them.

NAIL ON THE HEAD. I like you, we should be friends.

[chutche2]

Well, the "new tactics" used in-setting is drowning them in bodies. If the mechs are superior, what tactics can be used by the IS that can't be done better by the clans?

I'm sure you'll love to bring up ~skill~ but the fact is, if two equally skilled people go at it, and one is in an objectively more powerful mech, guess what's going to happen?

Edited by chutche2, 27 August 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[BanditB17]

Last I checked I didn't sign up for a roleplaying game. Lore should never play a hand in game balance for arena style play.

[chutche2]

BanditB17, on 27 August 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

Last I checked I didn't sign up for a roleplaying game. Lore should never play a hand in game balance for arena style play.

This is literally everything wrong with MWO. MWO uses none of the balance mechanisms in place in battletech, but still copies the inherently unbalanced rules which said mechanisms correct for.

Edited by chutche2, 27 August 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[Zyllos]

BanditB17, on 27 August 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

Last I checked I didn't sign up for a roleplaying game. Lore should never play a hand in game balance for arena style play.

This game was never intended to be an arena style game (even though this is kinda what we got).

See that "MechWarrior Online - A Battletech Game" logo in the upper left corner? Battletech is the original RPG version of MechWarrior.

[SixstringSamurai]

chutche2, on 27 August 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Well, the "new tactics" used in-setting is drowning them in bodies. If the mechs are superior, what tactics can be used by the IS that can't be done better by the clans?

I'm going to explain two things you need for victory over any force in this game:

1. Posture
2. Positioning

Skill is only a factor in covering any deficit you might have in either.

Posture is being aggressive when you need to be, defensive when the situation calls for it, and recognizing when to do what.

Positioning is making your mech be in the optimal place for it to do damage against a target or targets. It does not mean taking the high ground either, it can be flanking, forming a firing line, getting into a spot to provide crossfire, etc. It's all about knowing what your mech does and where best to be to do what it does best.

Take that with a grain of salt if you must, but almost everyone with experience will tell you even the worst team working together can achieve victory.

Edited by SixStringSamurai, 27 August 2014 - 12:57 PM.

[chutche2]

SixStringSamurai, on 27 August 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

I'm going to explain two things you need for victory over any force in this game:

1. Posture
2. Positioning

Skill is only a factor in covering any deficit you might have in either.

Posture is being aggressive when you need to be, defensive when the situation calls for it, and recognizing when to do what.

Positioning is making your mech be in the optimal place for it to do damage against a target or targets. It does not mean taking the high ground either, it can be flanking, forming a firing line, getting into a spot to provide crossfire, etc. It's all about knowing what your mech does and where best to be to do what it does best.

Take that with a grain of salt if you must, but almost everyone with experience will tell you even the worst team working together can achieve victory.

And so is this assuming the IS team knows their mechs and the clan ones don't?

You have to assume both sides are equally competent for any balance to happen. You don't go 'Well, if the IS players just use positioning better than clan ones, they can win."

What if both sides use positioning equally well?

Right now. I challenge you. Tell me what positioning techniques an IS team will use that an equally skilled clan opponent that knows about such techniques can't use.

Edited by chutche2, 27 August 2014 - 01:00 PM.