75 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

Hotthedd, on 13 May 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

MixTech is the perfect thing to balance Clan Mechs and I.S. Mechs. It should be incredibly rare for a couple of years, however.

Mixed tech is virtually impossible to balance - a combination of Clan missiles / ballistics and IS energy weapons (for lower heat) would be unbeatable.

[FupDup]

IceSerpent, on 14 May 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

Mixed tech is virtually impossible to balance - a combination of Clan missiles / ballistics and IS energy weapons (for lower heat) would be unbeatable.

Here we go again with Clan energy weapon heat generation discussion.


If somebody tried to replace each of their Large Lasers with Clan ER Large Lasers, then yes they would overheat themselves in an instant if not kill themselves outright. However, if a Clan ER Medium Laser was put in place of each Large Laser, then one could free up 4 tons and 1 crit per laser and generate 2 less heat (MWO buffed LL to 7 heat instead of TT's 8 heat) for the negligible downside of 2 less damage each (MWO buffed the LL to 9 damage instead of TT's 8). On a 6LL Stalker, this would save 24 tons of weight and 6 critical spaces. That extra tonnage will more likely than not go into extra weapons and other stuff, thereby negating the damage penalty if not dealing even more damage than an IS LL boat.

The Clan ER Small Laser, fortunately, isn't a total upgrade to the standard Medium Laser because it has a bit less range for the same damage and 2 heat (MWO's ML generates 4 heat, which is 1 more than it did in TT).


People don't need to carry an equal number of energy weapons with Clan tech because of the superior damage they deal. For instance, a Stalker with 6 CERPPC would make 90 heat per alpha (6 x 15) compared to 6 ISPPC of just 60 (6 x 10). What you aren't remembering is that nobody is forcing the Clanner to carry 6 ERPPCs. He can load only 4 of them to deal equal damage as 6 ISPPC, and he will generate the same level of heat and have longer range. However, he now saves 18 tons of weight (7 x 6 = 42 tons for 6 ISPPC, 6 x 4 = 24 tons for 3 CERPPC) and 10 crit spaces (3 spaces per IS PPC, 2 per CERPPC, 3 x 6 = 18 and 2 x 4 = 8).

All of that extra tonnage and critical space can in turn go into a crapload of backup weapons and other equipment (including more DHS) to give the "Clanitized" Stalker a ridunkulous edge.


--------------------------------------

On the topic of Mixed Tech, it would be plenty possible to balance out if tradeoffs were used. For instance, a Clan ER Medium Laser might weigh 4 less tons than an Inner Sphere Large Laser and generate less heat, but a beam duration of 1.5s and maybe even a longer recharge time would make the ISLL not obsolete due to damage spreading out everywhere with the CERML.

Edited by FupDup, 14 May 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[IceSerpent]

FupDup, on 14 May 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

Here we go again with Clan energy weapon heat generation discussion.

You are missing the point - it's not about replacing one laser with another, it's about adding energy weapons to an ammo-based loadout. Let's say I want to mix SRMs and MLs -with pure tech I get free tonnage by switching from IS SRMs to Clan SRMs, but then I might not be able to add ERML due to heat problems. I can add ERSL instead, but then I lose range. With mixed tech I can use Clan SRMs and IS MLs, which give me a uniform range across the board and heat efficiency I want.
I won't even go into all the interesting things you can do if you are allowed to mix IS weapons with Clan engines, heatsinks, endo-steel, and FF armor.

[FupDup]

IceSerpent, on 14 May 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

You are missing the point - it's not about replacing one laser with another, it's about adding energy weapons to an ammo-based loadout. Let's say I want to mix SRMs and MLs -with pure tech I get free tonnage by switching from IS SRMs to Clan SRMs, but then I might not be able to add ERML due to heat problems. I can add ERSL instead, but then I lose range. With mixed tech I can use Clan SRMs and IS MLs, which give me a uniform range across the board and heat efficiency I want.
I won't even go into all the interesting things you can do if you are allowed to mix IS weapons with Clan engines, heatsinks, endo-steel, and FF armor.

Yeah, the CERSL versus ISML is pretty much a sidegrade like I mentioned earlier and thus we don't have much to worry about much there (plus the weight savings are pretty small anyways). The CERLL might not even see the light of day in most people's mechlabs because the ISERLL is too hot currently and a little more damage + range might not be good enough compensation. The real issues will come from CERML being like a mini-LL and CERPPC being worth 1.5 ISPPC. In puretech, I guess people could just use the weight savings of their Clan SRMs to throw in some more Clan DHS to compensate for the extra heat of CERML if they don't want to deal with the shorter range of CERSL.


Clan XL, DHS, Endo, and FF would be pretty ridunkulous...by the time you've lost both side torsos with a standard engine, you're pretty much doomed as it is (only head and CT weapons remaining because arms fall off when side torsos go boom) and only good for capping if the enemy doesn't finish you off right away. The only real downside remaining is that they take up 4 more crits than standard engines, although Clan gear takes up fewer crits as well in many cases so that kinda negates it...

Edited by FupDup, 14 May 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[Malestrom]

I'd have to agree with Joker Two here. I find it hard to believe that PGI would go and muck about creating a whole new system for clan mechs when they already have (what i think is) a perfectly good system going with the current IS customization/hardpoint system and the upgrade trees

Personally, I think where we'll see the difference is in the weapon themselves. As for the 'omni' capabilities I think it'd be more likely that they implement an omni hardpoint in some chassis. It would give the ability to swap between whatever weapon system the player wants and can still be limited by number on a per chassis basis to help with the balancing issues it might present

[Capt Cole 117]

What if we penalized clan players for getting assists, say it cost them 10K cbills for each assist.

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 14 May 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

That would certainly balance the mechs, but the equipment, on the other hand...not so much.

I personally would like to see a "tradeoffs" kind of system with Clan tech to balance out their advantages. Sure, you get less weight, less crits, and for energy weapons you get some more range and damage--but things like longer beam duration, tighter missile trajectories, slower reloads, etc. would allow Clan stuff to keep their canon advantages while using MWO's non-canon mechanics to counteract them.

I see no need for the equipment to be balanced. Clan tech is strictly superior in every way, and should remain so. The MECHS on the other hand, should become balanced (using MixTech), or else every mech PGI has given us to date will become obsolete.

[IceSerpent]

Capt Cole 117, on 15 May 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

What if we penalized clan players for getting assists, say it cost them 10K cbills for each assist.

That would only work if you don't allow IS pilots to use any clantech at all - neither mechs, nor equipment.

[karoushi]

I don't really see how we can legitimately be concerned with something that isn't in the game yet, when there is plenty already in the game that needs balanced.

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 16 May 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

I see no need for the equipment to be balanced. Clan tech is strictly superior in every way, and should remain so. The MECHS on the other hand, should become balanced (using MixTech), or else every mech PGI has given us to date will become obsolete.

So lemme get this straight. You're okay with and endorse every single piece of IS equipment "PGI has given us to date" becoming obsolete, but you suddenly start to care if IS mechs become obsolete? That right there is a double standard. You're not opposing the general concept of old content becoming useless, you're just picking and choosing which content you would personally prefer to become useless.


If you really want to play the "canon" card for Clantech direct-upgradeiness, you're going to have to factor in mixtech penalties. Putting IS tech in a Clan mech or vice-versa gave penalties for installing unless you were using Omnipods on Omnimechs. Clan Battlemechs don't get penalties for equipping Clan weapons and thus they still obsolete IS mechs by definition. Heck, it isn't a couple of years until Clan tech gets reverse-engineered to be shoved on IS mechs, so there's another violation.

Top of page 182, Strategic Operations.



And seriously, what the heck is so wrong with tradeoffs? Things like reload time are not canon, just that you could fire once per 10-second turn (or up to twice with UACs and up to six times with RACs). There is no lore or rulebooks that say a Clan laser fires a beam for the same duration as an IS laser...in this case, beam durations don't even exist in canon. Every laser in TT is assumed to be a single-shot hitscan weapon in terms of mechanics. Ballistics and missiles in TT don't have varying projectile speeds. No weapons have a higher crit chance than 1/36 (no crit-seekers, all you could do is fire more projectiles to allow for a higher probability of at least one getting a lucky 1/36 shot). Let's not even get started on ECM, hardpoints, customization, repairs, Battle Value, armor, heat, and convergence...

My proposal lets Clan weapons keep their canon advantages of lower weight/crits and more range/damage while using non-canon mechanics to counteract them. No lore is violated as a result. Whether or not mixtech is used in conjunction with tradeoffs is something that I'm not going to campaign for or against because tradeoffs already accomplish the intended purpose of keeping IS mechs viable while accomplishing even more by keeping the equipment on them still viable at the same time.

Edited by FupDup, 16 May 2013 - 07:59 AM.

[IceSerpent]

karoushi, on 16 May 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

I don't really see how we can legitimately be concerned with something that isn't in the game yet, when there is plenty already in the game that needs balanced.

Because when we don't get concerned and vocal about something that isn't in game yet, we tend to get stuff that requires months of balancing. Of course, getting vocal about stuff doesn't always work (see coolant flush for example), but we keep trying...

[FupDup]

IceSerpent, on 16 May 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Because when we don't get concerned and vocal about something that isn't in game yet, we tend to get stuff that requires months of balancing. Of course, getting vocal about stuff doesn't always work (see coolant flush for example), but we keep trying...

Well, Flushgate worked to an extent because now the MC version isn't 100% superior to the C-Bill one, instead it just takes ages to get the GXP needed to upgrade the crappy version...


As for getting vocal about Clan tech, PGI really, really, REALLY, REALLY REALLY REALLY needs to let us know how they stand on basic things like puretech versus mixed tech, Omni abilities, symmetrical versus asymmetrical teams, power creep, etc. so that we the Forumwarriors can play spreadsheets and hunt down the loopholes and flaws in the system they might have planned. But, they want to keep it nice and secret so that we can't help them track down issues until they arise. Keep in mind that these are the same people that believe in Three-Second Jenners and Devastating Six-MG Spiders, and Paul has a Catapult K2 with 19 STANDARD Heat Sinks. I have a very bad feeling about this...

Edited by FupDup, 16 May 2013 - 08:07 AM.

[IceSerpent]

FupDup, on 16 May 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Well, Flushgate worked to an extent because now the MC version isn't 100% superior to the C-Bill one, instead it just takes ages to get the GXP needed to upgrade the crappy version...

That's true, except that CF doesn't really bring anything good to the game, so the whole issue could have been avoided by simply not implementing it. Which would also have a nice side effect of allowing the devs who worked on it to work on something more useful instead (*cough* weapon balance *cough*).

Quote

As for getting vocal about Clan tech, PGI really, really, REALLY, REALLY REALLY REALLY needs to let us know how they stand on basic things like puretech versus mixed tech, Omni abilities, symmetrical versus asymmetrical teams, power creep, etc. so that we the Forumwarriors can play spreadsheets and hunt down the loopholes and flaws in the system they might have planned. But, they want to keep it nice and secret so that we can't help them track down issues until they arise. Keep in mind that these are the same people that believe in Three-Second Jenners and Devastating Six-MG Spiders, and Paul has a Catapult K2 with 19 STANDARD Heat Sinks. I have a very bad feeling about this...

That's definitely true. They really should post a general design of an upcoming feature prior to implementing it and let us poke holes in that design. I seriously wish they did just that before going down the "let's mess with armor values and heat scale without changing other related stuff" road. The mockups of the new UI is a good start though, so there is some hope.

[SgtMagor]

as I was reading other threads, a point about the Clans do not engage in Melee was mentioned and most of their mechs don't seem equipped to do it anyway. so, when and if the Dev's implement melee and collisions Clanners will not be able to fight back against IS other than firing weapons. might balance Omni mechs somewhat.

Edited by SgtMagor, 16 May 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Capriel]

Hi guys.

I havent contributed much to the forums yet, but i see a lot of circular arguments going on about balancing clan mechs and clan tech, in terms of coming up with game-mechanical ways to basically nerf the Clan's inherent tech advantage.

Some players have pointed out the Clans' disadvantage is in their narrowly "chivalrous" combat doctrine, and go on to say "you cant force players to play a certain way".

Actually you can...

Simply award xp ONLY for achieving clan-doctrine victories in game, eg beating another mech without assistance.

You then scale the Pilot Skils your xp buys to ensure that if you play "unclanlike" your mech will suck balls.

For example, you could set the "starting point" stats for the undeveloped mech-tree to be sub-par, but increase the bonus from unlocking the skills to bring the stats up to par once you prove your worth and unlock the skills. This would negate the tech advantage for players who don't play their role

Thus players who embrace the spirit of the batchall, fight like a clanner and do well will be rewarded by unlocking those tasty bonuses and go on to properly reflect the essence of being a clan warrior.

Players who play like a herd of honourless Freebirth scum will continue to be walked over by IS teams who are more "efficient" because they are playing their natural role.

Of course no suggestion is perfect, and there are 2 points to consider before the idea is safe for the "real world":

1) If your shiny clan mech is gimped until you unlock skills, how to you get those crucial early xp? Note: getting your arse kicked whilst playing like a "proper clanner" would still earn you phat (or at least moderate) xp, under my suggested system.

2) Once a paragon clan-player has unlocked Master, how do we ensure he continues to play clan-style? XP penalties that "break" your mastery after you've earned it sounds a bit harsh tbh, but might it work?..

I, for one, would get great satisfaction playing my Timberwolf like a true Son of Kerensky, and living or dying by my code, win or lose. Of course, my job is to make damn sure i earn my bloodname by not losing...

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Alternatively, you don't scale the pilot skills at all, but instead, unclanlike behaviour earns you penalties for your next (few) match(es). Eg being flagged as "honourless" gives you a 5% speed/ROF/Heat-dissipation penalty? Do "well" in your next match to remove the flag, play "badly" again, the penalty becomes 10%... just a thought

Edited by Capriel, 16 May 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Zyllos]

Hotthedd, on 16 May 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

I see no need for the equipment to be balanced. Clan tech is strictly superior in every way, and should remain so. The MECHS on the other hand, should become balanced (using MixTech), or else every mech PGI has given us to date will become obsolete.

But that is assuming that IS players will even be able to get Clan mechs and vise versa.

[IceSerpent]

Capriel, on 16 May 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Any thoughts?

There's a huge problem with your idea - zellbrigen only applies until one of the sides (either one) breaks it. So, "beat your opponent without assistance" generally doesn't apply to Clan vs. IS battles due to IS side breaking zellbrigen from the start, and Clan vs. Clan battles don't require any extra balancing.
On top of that, what are you going to do about IS pilots driving a Clan mech or an IS mech outfitted with Clan weapons? They have no reason to follow rules of zellbrigen at all.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

There are only 2 plausible ways to 'balance' Clan Omnimechs.

1) Any alterations to engine, armor, equpiment, etc. outside of the weapons / ammo would revert them into a standard Battlemech, where they lose their extra Omni-Hardpoints entirely (which for those unaware or have not seen fiddled with the CryEngine debugger ARE a type of hardpoint in game and have been in game since last summer).

See actual rules here: Sarna.net/OmniMechs

Sarna.net said:

Disadvantages

Despite their flexibility and maintenance benefits, OmniMechs have distinct limitations in regard to cost and logistics.
OmniMechs are not fully modular. An OmniMech's structural components: its engine, internal structure, armor and any equipment installed on the base chassis of OmniMech are "hard-wired" and cannot be modified outside of a total redesign of the 'Mech. ^[19] While customization of these components is theoretically possible in the field, it is avoided as it hard-wires all the 'Mechs components and effectively transforms it from a OmniMech into a standard BattleMech. While they can be considered structural components, the lower-arm and hand actuators are themselves pod-mounted and easily removed to provide additional pod-space in the arms. However the mounting points for them are also utilized by larger bore weaponry such as Gauss Rifles, Autocannons and PPCs and so must be automatically removed to carry these weapon types an OmniMech's arms, hampering the close-combat abilities of these configurations. ^[20]
With further regard to costs, even OmniMechs constructed from standard materials are more expensive than comparable BattleMechs of similar weight to both construct and field. While the initial invasion gave the impression that Clan toumans consisted solely of OmniMechs, even they can only afford to outfit their front-line units with them, with their so-called second-line forces generally fielding more cost effective standard BattleMechs, albeit utilizing superior Clan technology.^[21]
The modular attachment points to mount OmniMech weaponry and equipment (equipment constructed in an OmniMech Pod) renders such equipment incompatible with standard BattleMechs. Even for identical classes and brands of equipment, only the ammunition can be used interchangeably. Adding or removing the Pod connections is possible but adds additional time to repairs. If weaponry and equipment are mounted on an OmniMech without an OmniPod, this equipment is fixed. For mixed units of BattleMechs and OmniMechs this adds an artificial separation and duplication in supply chains and logistics for spare parts.

2) The Almighty Nerfbat™.

[FupDup]

mwhighlander, on 16 May 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

There are only 2 plausible ways to 'balance' Clan Omnimechs.

1) Any alterations to engine, armor, equpiment, etc. outside of the weapons / ammo would revert them into a standard Battlemech, where they lose their extra Omni-Hardpoints entirely (which for those unaware or have not seen fiddled with the CryEngine debugger ARE a type of hardpoint in game and have been in game since last summer).

I'd personally consider that an "upgrade" in the context of MWO. Standard Battlemechs don't cost us anything to refit (other than switching upgrades) or repair in MWO, so having the Omni label would be kinda lame here. Most people would just make their Omni into a BM first thing and then max the armor, possibly downgrade the engine and/or make it a standard engine instead of XL.

In MWO, I imagine that the conversion would be represented by a one-time fee like we get with current upgrades/downgrades and you couldn't touch the armor/engine/whatever unless you got that upgrade first (hardpoints would default to whatever that config's stock loadout had but no Omni hardpoints). I know that I'd do that with a Hellbringer especially because of the garbage stock armor it has...


PS: Omni hardpoints already exist in the game code? This is the first time I've heard about it and this might give us some insights into what PGI is planning for Clan mechs.

Edited by FupDup, 16 May 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

FupDup, on 16 May 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

PS: Omni hardpoints already exist in the game code? This is the first time I've heard about it and this might give us some insights into what PGI is planning for Clan mechs.

Yes, they exist. There should be a good amount of even screenshots where players in the mechlab would have their mechs displaying a false number of omni hardpoints on their mechs. Good old CB mechlab bugs... Let me try and dig one up just so you can hard evidence.




Also, since we're on the subject, there are also bugged screen shots of players having an unused sidebar next to their radars (which is now the coolant bar) way back when even from September. They planned on having coolant in the game for MONTHS before the announcement was made.




Makes you think, doesn't it? Notice the "shoulder missile racks". I wonder what mechs will be using those? *HINT HINT*

I actually even have a small video on a UI bugging out with what is now the conquest scoreboard LONG before they even announced such a game mode.



Let me dig you up these, as they are quite amazing insights towards game direction. Sadly, with those UI hud fixes it seems we won't get any super insights to future game changes without knowing anyone who is a secret squirrel working with PGI's test game builds.


Edit: Hard evidence is fun. Enjoy the insight.

Edited by mwhighlander, 16 May 2013 - 12:56 PM.