143 replies to this topic

[Finestaut]

CyclonerM, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Well bargained and done.

First, it is hard to speak a years before we actually have the 'Mech. I only played the Kit Fox in multiplayer in MW:LL.

I strongly disagree. There's very little about the Kit Fox, inherently, that makes it unique. We already have many different examples of light 'mechs in game presently. We can speculate with fair confidence, by comparing it to present day lights..

CyclonerM, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Second, it may not be your case, but often people just are not good with a 'mech and say that it sucks. This is undeniable, i know i suck with a 'Mech but i do not say it sucks.

This is a "get good" argument.

CyclonerM, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Third, reading the first line on Sarna, i got a little idea. It says the Kit Fox's focus is on longe-range combat. Seeing its prime loadout, i thought it may be a valid alternative with the ERLL+2 machine guns Spider because it could snipe while carrying more weapons (and more armor).

This is shaky. Every long range light in the wild today goes faster than 130 before speed tweak. I hold that this is not an accident, but a necessity.

CyclonerM, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Fourth. I know the Stormcrow can do it better, better armored, as fast and with more weapons. On this i agree. But you mustn't forget that when tonnage limits will be in place, the weight of your team's 'Mechs will have far more relevance. You just cannot drop with 10 Dire Wolves. You have to choose. If you want to drop some assaults, you will have to load on your dropship some lights. If you need a 'Mech which can do almost the same job as a Stormcrow, you may want to take a Kit Fox.

Okay, you actually do have me over a barrel on this one point. While we don't actually know what the consequences of tonnage limits will be, it does murky the waters enough that I can't stand behind "Anything the Kit Fox can Do the Stormcrow can do better." I actually do believe that the stormcrow's 20 ton advantage will be well worth the 20 ton cost in all situations, but there are just enough unknowns that I can't use that.

CyclonerM, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Fifth: If you were a Jade Falcon fan, wouldn't you have wanted a Kit Fox at all costs?

Absolutely. And I would be very, very sad if the Kit Fox was pre-nerfed into unplayability, by having a sluggish engine.

CyclonerM, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Sixth: as i already said, if a Timberwolf is almost better than an assault, why not to consider the Kit Fox more a medium than a light?

The Timber Wolf is a whole different balance problem by itself. It's got all the speed of a heavy 'mech, but a weapons payload similar to an assault. It's stock engine is actually bigger than the MAX engines on most modern heavies, while still being closer to the ideal engine rating for an XL equipped 75 tonner.

I don't believe this argument is sound anyway. The game is very different at opposite ends of the weight spectrum. It doesn't follow that, if a heavy can do the job of an assault, a light can do the job of a medium.

CyclonerM, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Seventh: Besides, there are so few 'Mechs which can be considered "under-engined" for their class. With locked engine, you have a balance factor and discourage noobs to get Clan tech "because you can load all the weaponz you want and change the engine to go fast and furious!!". And we hardcore players would be happy at the same time.

on the other hand, if you do not lock internals and you can totally customize Omnimechs AND use hardpoints which allow for even more freedom (without size or slots limitations), you may bet the T.T. #1 will happen.

This is the catch-22 with omnimechs. If locked internals are necessary to balance the unlocked weapons, what happens if locked internals are broken BY THEMSELVES? Here you're basically saying "Locked internals are balanced, because we NEED them to be balanced." I agree with half that: they need to be balanced. So I'm poking at them a little bit, and the first thing I see that goes wrong is that it throws the Kit Fox and Cougar right out the window.

CyclonerM, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Eighth: size. If you scale down a light, even without a great speed advantage it will be harder to hit, especially at range. It will have an easier time when trying to get a cover and JJing.

You're saying here that a slow light is still viable, because of size. I believe this is the critical element of the argument. If this is true, the Kit Fox can survive. If this is false, it's toast.

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Give me a build here. Give me a build on a current light 'mech that goes under 100kph before speed tweak, that works for you and tell me how to play it. I will take my modestly skilled butt into the game with it and play my heart out for as long as I can stand it. If it's on one of the lights I haven't mastered, I will dump some of my fresh GXP into unlocking the efficiencies, just to make sure I'm giving it a fair shake. If you can give me a strong build that I can make work, I will completely concede this point. If you don't trust me to do my level best, or you don't believe I'm good enough to make it work, you can also look to the community: If you can find me a build that's widely accepted to be solid, I will completely concede this point.

I am a Johnny player. I love trying weird/unpopular builds. I have tried the slow light. I have tried it very, very hard. The thing I have learned from my time in a slow light is that you need speed or armor to survive in this game. At speeds between 110 and 135, you're not fast enough to disengage when threatened by enemy lights, and you get quickly burned down by brawly jenners that you can't track, and out-tanked by swift mediums that carry more firepower and armor. At speeds below 110, even the cross-eyed heavy and assault pilots start bulls-eyeing you. I would say my mind is made up, but I'm willing to try again if you feel you've got a compelling case to make.

pbiggz, on 02 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Alternative to engine locks: Engine ranges. While internals are still locked you could raise or lower the rating of your Omnimechs engine at the cost of omni-pods, and only within a certain range OR it can only switch between a few engines of specific range: EX: Summoner's engine could be any Clan XL between 350 and 375, and pushing the engine higher means you have fewer omni-pods to work with. To make it seem as though its tweaking a fixed component, this toggle is performed in the mechlab using a slider rather than actually switching out the engine component. All other components that are meant to be fixed, armor, electronics, heatsinks, remain locked and uncustomizable.

Totally behind engine ranges, as long as they allow lights to reach the speeds they need to reach to survive. Unfortunately, this requires a pretty big engine range (bigger than what most light 'mechs have available today), and that really undermines the whole "locked internals balances unlimited weapons."

Borgadun, on 02 November 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

and you will see you Daishi shut down after the first salvo of your double UAC20. And you calculating your damage at a satic target, aren't you?

Keep in mind that targets are moving.



Ever seen an Atlas turning or seen it being hit from multipel directions?

Remember my words: Clan-mechs are not supirior like they seem

Strum's proposed Daishi is a souped up Boomjager. Boomjagers are a big deal in the meta right now. Ask any Boomjager pilot how they'd feel about giving their autocannons an ultra shot, and adding 6x medium lasers and some heat sinks to their build. If they respond with anything less than "moderate arousal" they're lying to you.

I don't know for sure how to balance the Daishi. I do know that most IS mechs that can put 6x medium lasers on the same spot pay dearly for it in either agility (battlemaster) minimal secondary hardpoints (boar's head) or hitboxes (laserback).

I suppose you could permit strum's build on a 'mech with extremely limited twist, like the present day Battlemaster-1G. It's the closest thing in the IS armory to what we're looking at.

[Finestaut]

Borgadun, on 02 November 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Remember my words: Clan-mechs are not supirior like they seem

I know I responded to this in it's entirety earlier, but I want to revisit this.

Clan mechs are problematic for two big reasons. First, ton for ton, clan weapons are way, way better than IS weapons. This can be addressed, but they're all also lighter and smaller, which won't change. Second, the TT omni mech construction rules are very liberal when it comes to weapons. If you believe that there are weapon combos which are imbalanced, then every omnimech can always take those combos. That's bad.

The harpoint system holds back a lot of badness that would be unleashed if we were to get a very faithful omnimech adaptation.

[CyclonerM]

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

I strongly disagree. There's very little about the Kit Fox, inherently, that makes it unique. We already have many different examples of light 'mechs in game presently. We can speculate with fair confidence, by comparing it to present day lights..


This is a "get good" argument.


This is shaky. Every long range light in the wild today goes faster than 130 before speed tweak. I hold that this is not an accident, but a necessity.


Okay, you actually do have me over a barrel on this one point. While we don't actually know what the consequences of tonnage limits will be, it does murky the waters enough that I can't stand behind "Anything the Kit Fox can Do the Stormcrow can do better." I actually do believe that the stormcrow's 20 ton advantage will be well worth the 20 ton cost in all situations, but there are just enough unknowns that I can't use that.



Absolutely. And I would be very, very sad if the Kit Fox was pre-nerfed into unplayability, by having a sluggish engine.


The Timber Wolf is a whole different balance problem by itself. It's got all the speed of a heavy 'mech, but a weapons payload similar to an assault. It's stock engine is actually bigger than the MAX engines on most modern heavies, while still being closer to the ideal engine rating for an XL equipped 75 tonner.

I don't believe this argument is sound anyway. The game is very different at opposite ends of the weight spectrum. It doesn't follow that, if a heavy can do the job of an assault, a light can do the job of a medium.


This is the catch-22 with omnimechs. If locked internals are necessary to balance the unlocked weapons, what happens if locked internals are broken BY THEMSELVES? Here you're basically saying "Locked internals are balanced, because we NEED them to be balanced." I agree with half that: they need to be balanced. So I'm poking at them a little bit, and the first thing I see that goes wrong is that it throws the Kit Fox and Cougar right out the window.




You're saying here that a slow light is still viable, because of size. I believe this is the critical element of the argument. If this is true, the Kit Fox can survive. If this is false, it's toast.

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Give me a build here. Give me a build on a current light 'mech that goes under 100kph before speed tweak, that works for you and tell me how to play it.

Challenge accepted.

[CyclonerM]

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

I strongly disagree. There's very little about the Kit Fox, inherently, that makes it unique. We already have many different examples of light 'mechs in game presently. We can speculate with fair confidence, by comparing it to present day lights..


This is a "get good" argument.

Many complain with balanced weapons. Why this would not make it a valid argument?

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Okay, you actually do have me over a barrel on this one point. While we don't actually know what the consequences of tonnage limits will be, it does murky the waters enough that I can't stand behind "Anything the Kit Fox can Do the Stormcrow can do better." I actually do believe that the stormcrow's 20 ton advantage will be well worth the 20 ton cost in all situations, but there are just enough unknowns that I can't use that.

Yeah we do not know yet how it will work but i know this: if want to take with the team a few heavier 'mechs i have to take lighter ones in the light-mediums tonnage. If i want to take a Dire Wolf instead of, for example, a Timberwolf, i will have to sobstituite a Stormcrow with a light 'Mech which can do the same job. A Kit Fox, maybe.

The same works for the Mad Dog: why would you take a Mad Dog when you can take a Timberwolf which can do the same job and even more? Assuming you would not do it because you love the 'Mech, you would take it to save tonnage for heavier 'Mech.

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Absolutely. And I would be very, very sad if the Kit Fox was pre-nerfed into unplayability, by having a sluggish engine.

True. Read below.


The Timber Wolf is a whole different balance problem by itself. It's got all the speed of a heavy 'mech, but a weapons payload similar to an assault. It's stock engine is actually bigger than the MAX engines on most modern heavies, while still being closer to the ideal engine rating for an XL equipped 75 tonner.

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

This is the catch-22 with omnimechs. If locked internals are necessary to balance the unlocked weapons, what happens if locked internals are broken BY THEMSELVES? Here you're basically saying "Locked internals are balanced, because we NEED them to be balanced." I agree with half that: they need to be balanced. So I'm poking at them a little bit, and the first thing I see that goes wrong is that it throws the Kit Fox and Cougar right out the window.

good point, see below.

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

You're saying here that a slow light is still viable, because of size. I believe this is the critical element of the argument. If this is true, the Kit Fox can survive. If this is false, it's toast.

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Give me a build here. Give me a build on a current light 'mech that goes under 100kph before speed tweak, that works for you and tell me how to play it. I will take my modestly skilled butt into the game with it and play my heart out for as long as I can stand it. If it's on one of the lights I haven't mastered, I will dump some of my fresh GXP into unlocking the efficiencies, just to make sure I'm giving it a fair shake. If you can give me a strong build that I can make work, I will completely concede this point.

Challenge accepted.
As a true Clan warrior, i wasted spent my own money with this little experiment.

Results: first played a Jenner with 4 MPLs and a XL210 to have the same speed of a Kit Fox,97.2 KPHs.
Dropped in Crimson Strait: Got behind the enemy time, did some damage, killed by AC/10s to the face.
Dropped in Caustic Valley: got killed by a Jenner.
Dropped in Canyon Network with 1 ERLL +3 MLs: tried to snipe, did some damage, got closed by a Shadow Hawk and killed.

Average damage was 110-130, not really lower than that i usually do (not the best light pilot around).
This does not mean actually that a Kit Fox wouldn't be viable in MWO. It would be more armored and with more and better weapons than my Jenner. And the skill of the pilot has a part in it.

Changing the Kit Fox's engine will cause problems with the canon variants but eventually those engines may be changed to a bigger one. This would solve this matter, quiaff?

[Finestaut]

CyclonerM, on 03 November 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Challenge accepted.
As a true Clan warrior, i wasted spent my own money with this little experiment.

Results: first played a Jenner with 4 MPLs and a XL210 to have the same speed of a Kit Fox,97.2 KPHs.
Dropped in Crimson Strait: Got behind the enemy time, did some damage, killed by AC/10s to the face.
Dropped in Caustic Valley: got killed by a Jenner.
Dropped in Canyon Network with 1 ERLL +3 MLs: tried to snipe, did some damage, got closed by a Shadow Hawk and killed.

Average damage was 110-130, not really lower than that i usually do (not the best light pilot around).
This does not mean actually that a Kit Fox wouldn't be viable in MWO. It would be more armored and with more and better weapons than my Jenner. And the skill of the pilot has a part in it.

So, what you're saying is that, you haven't found a way to make a slow light work, which was pretty much exactly what I was saying. I've had many similar adventures in the X-series of Raven.

Note that it would in fact NOT have more armor, it would have LESS. Clan 'mechs are held to the same armor limits as IS mechs, and, being 5 tons lighter, it will have lower armor limits. More and better weapons is also debatable. If clan weapons are, ton for ton, better than IS weapons, we end up in Terrible Thing #1.

I feel that the evidence you've uncovered, so far, supports my position. I'm still willing to entertain a slow light build, but I want you to be sure it's a solid enough build to convince a skeptic of your position.

CyclonerM, on 03 November 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Changing the Kit Fox's engine will cause problems with the canon variants but eventually those engines may be changed to a bigger one. This would solve this matter, quiaff?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting we arbitrarily reassign the Kit Fox and Cougars new default engines, and lock them down at these new, better engines?

[pbiggz]

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting we arbitrarily reassign the Kit Fox and Cougars new default engines, and lock them down at these new, better engines?

If you do it on a case by case basis and tweak it to ensure things dont become OP, that might be a solution.

[CyclonerM]

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

Note that it would in fact NOT have more armor, it would have LESS. Clan 'mechs are held to the same armor limits as IS mechs, and, being 5 tons lighter, it will have lower armor limits. More and better weapons is also debatable. If clan weapons are, ton for ton, better than IS weapons, we end up in Terrible Thing #1.

Clan weapons are lighter,if not better.

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting we arbitrarily reassign the Kit Fox and Cougars new default engines, and lock them down at these new, better engines?

Aff. This is what i suggested. I do not like it but is still better than letting player customize the engine of their Omnimechs.

[Finestaut]

CyclonerM, on 03 November 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Aff. This is what i suggested. I do not like it but is still better than letting player customize the engine of their Omnimechs.

Please elaborate why you feel this way? From where I'm sitting, it looks very, very bad. It manages to combine the worst elements of being enslaved by the lore, while also being disrespectful to it.

[dal10]

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

So, what you're saying is that, you haven't found a way to make a slow light work, which was pretty much exactly what I was saying. I've had many similar adventures in the X-series of Raven.

Note that it would in fact NOT have more armor, it would have LESS. Clan 'mechs are held to the same armor limits as IS mechs, and, being 5 tons lighter, it will have lower armor limits. More and better weapons is also debatable. If clan weapons are, ton for ton, better than IS weapons, we end up in Terrible Thing #1.

I feel that the evidence you've uncovered, so far, supports my position. I'm still willing to entertain a slow light build, but I want you to be sure it's a solid enough build to convince a skeptic of your position.

The only light slow mech that i have ever used and was effective with was the ac/20 raven. i have achieved over 500 damage with it. but that was because the last mech was out of ammo and all i had left was a small laser. (i built a 35 ton urbanmech.)

[krolmir]

Quick thought on IS vs. Clan balance. Clan weapons have the range and the front loaded damage, right? Where in lore does it speak of higher DPS? This is the easiest balancing factor, that doesn't involve any major work. The other balancing factor is heat. Sure Clan DHS are smaller, but they still obey tonnage requirements; on that same note, all clan weapons are considerably hotter, and that balances' out. However, by nerfing DPS, IS gets some important factors swung back in its favor. Clan snipers will absolutely obliterate an entire IS team with current IS weapon refire rates; imagine Alpine here, and this should make sense. This would also be based on weapons class, Clan ERPPCS Would take (for example) 7 seconds to recycle, but a Clan Gauss will maintain the same or mildly reduced fire rates because damage is the same as its IS counterpart. I'm not suggesting these be the only balancing factors, because a 2 or 3 or 4 UAC/20 DireWolf would be way too OP no matter how you slice it.; but lots of good omni hardpoint Ideas already in this thread so.....

[Finestaut]

krolmir, on 03 November 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Quick thought on IS vs. Clan balance. Clan weapons have the range and the front loaded damage, right? Where in lore does it speak of higher DPS? This is the easiest balancing factor, that doesn't involve any major work. The other balancing factor is heat. Sure Clan DHS are smaller, but they still obey tonnage requirements; on that same note, all clan weapons are considerably hotter, and that balances' out. However, by nerfing DPS, IS gets some important factors swung back in its favor. Clan snipers will absolutely obliterate an entire IS team with current IS weapon refire rates; imagine Alpine here, and this should make sense. This would also be based on weapons class, Clan ERPPCS Would take (for example) 7 seconds to recycle, but a Clan Gauss will maintain the same or mildly reduced fire rates because damage is the same as its IS counterpart. I'm not suggesting these be the only balancing factors, because a 2 or 3 or 4 UAC/20 DireWolf would be way too OP no matter how you slice it.; but lots of good omni hardpoint Ideas already in this thread so.....

This is a totally legitimate way to keep clan and IS weapons at ton for ton parity. I'm not completely comfortable with making the clans front loaded and bursty, because front loaded and bursty describes almost every problematic build in the game's history, but it's workable.

Edited by Finestaut, 04 November 2013 - 07:33 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Finestaut, on 03 November 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Please elaborate why you feel this way? From where I'm sitting, it looks very, very bad. It manages to combine the worst elements of being enslaved by the lore, while also being disrespectful to it.

I am totally sure locking the Omnimechs' internals (following lore) is the best balance choice. They already seem to have thrown the lore out of the window, but i think this should be totally adapted to MWO. If they want to release these two slow lights, this will be the only option they have. It would only slighly change a couple of canon variants.

Said that, i DO NOT like it, but if you have a better solution, please explain. Otherwise, i think we may have reached a compromise and shall focus on the next factor in the Clan tech balance, quiaff?

[Finestaut]

CyclonerM, on 04 November 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

I am totally sure locking the Omnimechs' internals (following lore) is the best balance choice. They already seem to have thrown the lore out of the window, but i think this should be totally adapted to MWO. If they want to release these two slow lights, this will be the only option they have. It would only slighly change a couple of canon variants.

Said that, i DO NOT like it, but if you have a better solution, please explain. Otherwise, i think we may have reached a compromise and shall focus on the next factor in the Clan tech balance, quiaff?

I still don't understand why "PGI picks an engine rating and locks you to it" is better than "Players get to choose an engine rating that fits their goals and the evolving metagame." I don't think this is a good compromise, as what's "good" and "bad" is always in flux, and the engines PGI would hypothetically assign would go in and out of favor over time

I think you need to RESPECT the lore, not necessarily slavishly follow it. This requires you to take a step back from the letter of the TT rules, and figure out what they were really trying to accomplish. I argue that the omnimech rules were designed to convey the clan's logistical and operational advantage. I.E. it's not about what's possible to equip, but how fast and cheaply they can equip it. In reality, absolutely any configuration is possible under the TT rules, just being a function of time and money. We don't have the time restriction in MWO (thank heaven!) and money restrictions are just a function of grind.

So I suggest we respect the lore, by giving omnimechs an operational advantage where it counts: in the dropship. They've mentioned that, in the lobby/dropship, we'll be able to bring extra mechs, and pick one after the map and mission are known. I suggest we give omnimechs an advantage there. In the mechlab, you can save extra different configurations per omnimech, and when the time comes to chose a 'mech, you'll have each and every configuration available to you, for just one piddly little dropship slot. Battlemech players will be able unlock multiple dropship slots, while omnimech players will have an additional layer of complexity, by being able to unlock dropship shots, or additional saved configs.

We can continue to respect the lore by restricting the engines and internals, but only in ways that make sense. You can change the engine/internals, but you're still stuck to one per chassis. For example: you can upgrade the engine in your Daishi, but your Daishi B can't have a bigger engine than your Daishi C. Your Hellbringer can have decent armor, but ALL your hellbringers need the same distribution. This opens up a whole new world of build possibilities and compromises, as you'll need to find ways to use the same baseline components in different ways, BUT it doesn't break the existing game balance.

THIS gives the players true, actual choice between omni and battlemechs. This creates a real distinction between the two, giving significant meta-game advantage, without tying players down to a set of in-game advantages and disadvantages whose balance justification boils down to "That's what a Table Top game designer thought was fair 30 years ago."

Edited by Finestaut, 04 November 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[CyclonerM]

Finestaut, on 04 November 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

I still don't understand why "PGI picks an engine rating and locks you to it" is better than "Players get to choose an engine rating that fits their goals and the evolving metagame." I don't think this is a good compromise, as what's "good" and "bad" is always in flux, and the engines PGI would hypothetically assign would go in and out of favor over time

If you are going to let players change their engine then you should limit their choosing of weapons to prevent extremely broken builds like those you have on IS Battlemechs.

To quote my friend Starchild: If there haven't a balanced Mechlab then i'd rather not have one.

You need to find a balance between customization and restrictions. You see PGI chose to not limit the size of the hardpoints and this led to weird builds like the AC20 raven.

They might have chose to not allow players to customize their Battlemechs reflecting the difficults to do it (there would be no other way atm since they removed R&R). They chose to give players almost unlimited possibilities and now we faces the consequences. With so many people complaining about the OP Clan 'Mechs, why should you not "nerf" them by this point of view? If they use a hardpoint system like that in MW4, with sized hardpoints, there will be not so many problems.

For example, with sized hardpoints a Mad Dog may not mount PPCs in the arms (i suppose it can't). You have also sme fixed weapons and heatsinks and maybe ammo and armor.

Some 'Mechs may be more difficult to use but i see it as a necessary sacrifice to balance the tech. Even the least viable Omni-mech will mount lighter weapons (which, according to PGI, may not be more powerful than their IS counterparts, but i assume still lighter), not to count lighter FF and Endo-Steel.

Finestaut, on 04 November 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

I think you need to RESPECT the lore, not necessarily slavishly follow it. This requires you to take a step back from the letter of the TT rules, and figure out what they were really trying to accomplish. I argue that the omnimech rules were designed to convey the clan's logistical and operational advantage. I.E. it's not about what's possible to equip, but how fast and cheaply they can equip it. In reality, absolutely any configuration is possible under the TT rules, just being a function of time and money. We don't have the time restriction in MWO (thank heaven!) and money restrictions are just a function of grind.

See above.

Quote

So I suggest we respect the lore, by giving omnimechs an operational advantage where it counts: in the dropship. They've mentioned that, in the lobby/dropship, we'll be able to bring extra mechs, and pick one after the map and mission are known. I suggest we give omnimechs an advantage there. In the mechlab, you can save extra different configurations per omnimech, and when the time comes to chose a 'mech, you'll have each and every configuration available to you, for just one piddly little dropship slot. Battlemech players will be able unlock multiple dropship slots, while omnimech players will have an additional layer of complexity, by being able to unlock dropship shots, or additional saved configs.

This is intriguing.

Quote

We can continue to respect the lore by restricting the engines and internals, but only in ways that make sense. You can change the engine/internals, but you're still stuck to one per chassis. For example: you can upgrade the engine in your Daishi, but your Daishi B can't have a bigger engine than your Daishi C. Your Hellbringer can have decent armor, but ALL your hellbringers need the same distribution. This opens up a whole new world of build possibilities and compromises, as you'll need to find ways to use the same baseline components in different ways, BUT it doesn't break the existing game balance.

THIS gives the players true, actual choice between omni and battlemechs. This creates a real distinction between the two, giving significant meta-game advantage, without tying players down to a set of in-game advantages and disadvantages whose balance justification boils down to "That's what a Table Top game designer thought was fair 30 years ago."

This time i did not understand very well what you are suggesting.
-If you want to respect the lore you should respect the TT rules, since lore is bound to them If the engine is hard-wired in the chassis and you want to let players to switch it, even with a small range of available ones, you cannot respect the lore But this is a technicality.
-What does it mean "ALL your Hellbringers will have the same distribution?" Omnimechs have no variants, so there is actually ONE Hellbringer which culd have or not have fixed armor. So it would be the same anyway Correct me if i am wrong.

Said that, i really cannot understand why you say that this suggestion could give players a choice (maybe because i didn't understand your suggestion atm - i am not feeling very good atm, maybe tomorrow i will understand everything). I am sure a strict adherence to the lore AND TT rules will give player a choice. Oh well, Battlemechs are already far more easily customizable then they are supposed to be, with no money,time on logistic disadvantage. So the choice will be: choose a Battlemech because you can change everything [easy mode] OR pick an Ominechs, you have fixed engine & armor so you need skills and experience to master them (yes this is a "get good" argument) but a bit more freedom in choosing your weapons (and maybe some logistical advantages regarding the Dropship feature).

Given that atm Battlemechs are collection of hardpoints with only different skin, i would be totally happy if Omnimechs will be more unique and different from each other so one may choose the one with the mobility/armor/special quircks and hardpoints which fits more his style AND customize its weapon loadout.

If you see it int his way, with a canon Omnimech you actually can "open up a whole new world of build possibilities and compromises, as you'll need to find ways to use the same baseline components in different ways". As you say.

Will eagerly wait for your reply

TL;DR;
I am right and you are wrong. But some of your ideas are nice

Edited by CyclonerM, 04 November 2013 - 01:31 PM.

[Finestaut]

CyclonerM, on 04 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

If you are going to let players change their engine then you should limit their choosing of weapons to prevent extremely broken builds like those you have on IS Battlemechs.

As you would say: Aff.

CyclonerM, on 04 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

To quote my friend Starchild: If there haven't a balanced Mechlab then i'd rather not have one.

You need to find a balance between customization and restrictions. You see PGI chose to not limit the size of the hardpoints and this led to weird builds like the AC20 raven.

They might have chose to not allow players to customize their Battlemechs reflecting the difficults to do it (there would be no other way atm since they removed R&R). They chose to give players almost unlimited possibilities and now we faces the consequences. With so many people complaining about the OP Clan 'Mechs, why should you not "nerf" them by this point of view? If they use a hardpoint system like that in MW4, with sized hardpoints, there will be not so many problems.

They might have, but they did not. Let's work with what we have, rather than what we imagine. I actually like the current mechlab implementation. It allows significant customizability, while still giving each 'mech a unique character. This is I think why we're having so much trouble finding common ground, because I'm talking about how to make clans work in PGI's MWO. You're talking about how to make clans work in the MWO you think PGI should have made.

CyclonerM, on 04 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

For example, with sized hardpoints a Mad Dog may not mount PPCs in the arms (i suppose it can't). You have also sme fixed weapons and heatsinks and maybe ammo and armor.

Some 'Mechs may be more difficult to use but i see it as a necessary sacrifice to balance the tech. Even the least viable Omni-mech will mount lighter weapons (which, according to PGI, may not be more powerful than their IS counterparts, but i assume still lighter), not to count lighter FF and Endo-Steel.

So are we saying sized hardpoints for clan 'mechs, or no hardpoints for clan mechs? or what here?

CyclonerM, on 04 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

This time i did not understand very well what you are suggesting.
-If you want to respect the lore you should respect the TT rules, since lore is bound to them If the engine is hard-wired in the chassis and you want to let players to switch it, even with a small range of available ones, you cannot respect the lore But this is a technicality.

You respect the lore here by being faithful to the intent, not the model, especially when you acknowledge that the model doesn't translate to the new medium. Look at the big picture, not the details. We've already demonstrated how you can't follow the engine limitation strictly. If you do the same kind of analysis on the Loki's armor, you'll see a similar issue. Strum's done a good job in this very thread highlighting some of the problems with full weapon customization, using the Daishi to demonstrate some really bad weapon combos.

Lots of stuff breaks when you apply TT strictly to MWO.

CyclonerM, on 04 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

-What does it mean "ALL your Hellbringers will have the same distribution?" Omnimechs have no variants, so there is actually ONE Hellbringer which culd have or not have fixed armor. So it would be the same anyway Correct me if i am wrong.

You buy one hellbringer. It comes in the prime config. You're allowed limited (present day battlemech, hardpoints and engine caps) customization of your prime hellbringer. After getting some experience, you unlock alt config A. Now you can store a Prime config, and an Alt Config A. You have 1 Dropship slot, and can take 1 'mech with you. You take the Hellbringer. After the map and mission are selected, you get to pick whether you take your Prime, or Alt A loadout. With more experience, you unlock Alt B, and can store a third loadout in 1 dropship slot. While you can customize the internals, all 3 configurations must use the same internals. You may even lock endo and ferro to canon as the balance consequences are negligible. Engine and armor allocation have to be flexible though.

Over time, you unlock a second dropship slot, in which you can put a Kit Fox, and similarly store Prime and Alternate configs there.

The IS player can unlock more dropship slots, and maybe unlock them faster, but he can only squeeze one fully configured build in each.

You would, as a clan player, have fewer dropship slots than an IS player, but each slot carries a flexible omnimech.

CyclonerM, on 04 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Said that, i really cannot understand why you say that this suggestion could give players a choice (maybe because i didn't understand your suggestion atm - i am not feeling very good atm, maybe tomorrow i will understand everything). I am sure a strict adherence to the lore AND TT rules will give player a choice. Oh well, Battlemechs are already far more easily customizable then they are supposed to be, with no money,time on logistic disadvantage. So the choice will be: choose a Battlemech because you can change everything [easy mode] OR pick an Ominechs, you have fixed engine & armor so you need skills and experience to master them (yes this is a "get good" argument) but a bit more freedom in choosing your weapons (and maybe some logistical advantages regarding the Dropship feature).

My proposal gives both mech types fundamentally similar footing in-game. Yours, by your own admission, forces the balance in favor of one or the other. This is bad.

CyclonerM, on 04 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Given that atm Battlemechs are collection of hardpoints with only different skin, i would be totally happy if Omnimechs will be more unique and different from each other so one may choose the one with the mobility/armor/special quircks and hardpoints which fits more his style AND customize its weapon loadout.

I actually don't feel this is the case at all, and wonder what leads you to this conclusion. Hardpoint type, hardpoint location, hitboxes, agility, engine limits, overall shape and feel all contribute to extremely unique and highly differentiated battlemechs. Take the stalker and the awesome. Nearly identical hardpoints, similar engine limits, but one dominated the metagame for 6 months, and the other is at that table with the canon Kit Fox and Cougar, with the paste.
\

[CyclonerM]

Finestaut, on 04 November 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

They might have, but they did not. Let's work with what we have, rather than what we imagine. I actually like the current mechlab implementation. It allows significant customizability, while still giving each 'mech a unique character. This is I think why we're having so much trouble finding common ground, because I'm talking about how to make clans work in PGI's MWO. You're talking about how to make clans work in the MWO you think PGI should have made.

Neg. I said that PGI chose a much liberal interpretation of Battlemechs and that i would love to see Omnimechs following more strictly their rules.

Quote

So are we saying sized hardpoints for clan 'mechs, or no hardpoints for clan mechs? or what here?

Possibly, sized hardpoints for Clan 'Mechs, something that i feel should have been in Battlemechs as well. But as you pointed out is too late to complain about it

Quote

You respect the lore here by being faithful to the intent, not the model, especially when you acknowledge that the model doesn't translate to the new medium. Look at the big picture, not the details. We've already demonstrated how you can't follow the engine limitation strictly. If you do the same kind of analysis on the Loki's armor, you'll see a similar issue. Strum's done a good job in this very thread highlighting some of the problems with full weapon customization, using the Daishi to demonstrate some really bad weapon combos.

Lots of stuff breaks when you apply TT strictly to MWO.

The last statement might be wrong, i read some time ago a thread by Pht about a possible translation of TT rules in the game and Homeless Bill's targeting system idea which may have reduced the number of cheese builds, added more deepness to the game and eventually reflecting in some way some of the TT rules. Something along those lines could have been done, like penalties to accuracy and movement when your heat gets too high.

Quote

You buy one hellbringer. It comes in the prime config. You're allowed limited (present day battlemech, hardpoints and engine caps) customization of your prime hellbringer. After getting some experience, you unlock alt config A. Now you can store a Prime config, and an Alt Config A. You have 1 Dropship slot, and can take 1 'mech with you. You take the Hellbringer. After the map and mission are selected, you get to pick whether you take your Prime, or Alt A loadout. With more experience, you unlock Alt B, and can store a third loadout in 1 dropship slot. While you can customize the internals, all 3 configurations must use the same internals. You may even lock endo and ferro to canon as the balance consequences are negligible. Engine and armor allocation have to be flexible though.

Over time, you unlock a second dropship slot, in which you can put a Kit Fox, and similarly store Prime and Alternate configs there.

The IS player can unlock more dropship slots, and maybe unlock them faster, but he can only squeeze one fully configured build in each.

You would, as a clan player, have fewer dropship slots than an IS player, but each slot carries a flexible omnimech.

Your general idea makes sense, but why should a Clan player unlock a alternated variant A when that is basically only one chassis? This works only if you want to use different hardpoints for each "standard" variant of the Omnimechs, but this does not capture their feeling IMHO.

Quote

My proposal gives both mech types fundamentally similar footing in-game. Yours, by your own admission, forces the balance in favor of one or the other. This is bad.

I do seek a perfect balance but it is a hard task when one of the mech type is supposed to have better tech and lot of advantages.

I don't like to nerf the numbers but it seems that PGI will do just this. If you accept my suggestions you have this situation:
-Battlemechs: they can be fully customized but have fixed hardpoints so you can only mount the weapons in their hardpoints. If you don't have a ballistic hardpoint, sorry you will leave your AC in your 'Mech bay. They have no size, so you are free to mount big guns pretty much everywhere.

-IS players have a numerical advantage in IS vs Clan battles.

-Mercenary units may not have affiliation with a Clan.

-Wolf's Dragoons mid-high rank players and Successor States' high-ranking players will have access to Clan tech as lore dictates.


-Omnimechs: their engine, armor and internals are hard-wired in the chassis and cannot be modified. You have more freedom in changing weapons thanks to Omni-hardpoints. They hardpoints are sized and do have a few fixed weapons and hardpoints, as canon dictates. (Flamer on the Adder, missile hardpoints on the Mad Dog)

-Clan weapons are lighter than IS counterparts but will probably not be better in other ways.
-Clan DHS, FF, ES and XL engines have their advantages.

This will be rounded by a system like this: you must reach a certain level to join a Clan and if you do so, you start again from level 1 (Bondsman rank).

After all, i do not see this kind of imbalance.

Quote

I actually don't feel this is the case at all, and wonder what leads you to this conclusion. Hardpoint type, hardpoint location, hitboxes, agility, engine limits, overall shape and feel all contribute to extremely unique and highly differentiated battlemechs. Take the stalker and the awesome. Nearly identical hardpoints, similar engine limits, but one dominated the metagame for 6 months, and the other is at that table with the canon Kit Fox and Cougar, with the paste.

BattleMechs would be totally unique if they were no customizable and players were forced to use only canon variants with fixed weapons.
BattleMechs would be more unique if hardpoints were sized (i know i have said it many times). If you wanted to mount big guns you'd have to choose a Mech with proper-sized hardpoint. Kind of the system used in MW4: You want to use a PPC on a light 'Mech? You cannot take a Commando. You have to take a Wolfhound.

I agree on shape, hardpoints location (higher arms etc) but there are really too few quirks for each 'Mech for me to feel they are unique.

[Joseph Mallan]

krolmir, on 03 November 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Quick thought on IS vs. Clan balance. Clan weapons have the range and the front loaded damage, right? Where in lore does it speak of higher DPS? This is the easiest balancing factor, that doesn't involve any major work. The other balancing factor is heat. Sure Clan DHS are smaller, but they still obey tonnage requirements; on that same note, all clan weapons are considerably hotter, and that balances' out. However, by nerfing DPS, IS gets some important factors swung back in its favor. Clan snipers will absolutely obliterate an entire IS team with current IS weapon refire rates; imagine Alpine here, and this should make sense. This would also be based on weapons class, Clan ERPPCS Would take (for example) 7 seconds to recycle, but a Clan Gauss will maintain the same or mildly reduced fire rates because damage is the same as its IS counterpart. I'm not suggesting these be the only balancing factors, because a 2 or 3 or 4 UAC/20 DireWolf would be way too OP no matter how you slice it.; but lots of good omni hardpoint Ideas already in this thread so.....

Mostly on Lasers. I would think that a Clan lasers would follow most of the mechanics already in place for lasers. Even though a Clan Large Laser does 10 damage per beam it would still follow the mechanics in place for the MW:O universe. They may have shorter beam duration (I could handle that), or maybe a longer one (also understandable) but he fact should remain that a Laser should stay a DpS weapon. The Clan ER PPC will be the go to weapon of choice.

[Finestaut]

CyclonerM, on 05 November 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

After all, i do not see this kind of imbalance.

How can you still hold this position? The fundamental issues with applying the TT balance model to MWO regarding omnimechs have been thoroughly explored in this thread. Other users have documented the issues with numerical balancing, progress based balancing, and limitless weapon customization. You yourself contributed to this by providing the strongest evidence that Canonical Engines were broken!

I have conceded points where your logic was strong. Earlier in this thread, I gave you a fair opportunity to convince me of one key point of your position. I did so openly, and in earnest. I asked you to present me with some shred of evidence, that had a real chance of existing, to prove me wrong. You have not offered any similar opportunity. The moment you begin to see the other side of this argument, you snap back to "BUT CANON." Until you're willing to seriously consider the other side's points here, I suggest we simply wait and see what happens.

[CyclonerM]

Finestaut, on 05 November 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

How can you still hold this position? The fundamental issues with applying the TT balance model to MWO regarding omnimechs have been thoroughly explored in this thread. Other users have documented the issues with numerical balancing, progress based balancing, and limitless weapon customization. You yourself contributed to this by providing the strongest evidence that Canonical Engines were broken!

I have conceded points where your logic was strong. Earlier in this thread, I gave you a fair opportunity to convince me of one key point of your position. I did so openly, and in earnest. I asked you to present me with some shred of evidence, that had a real chance of existing, to prove me wrong. You have not offered any similar opportunity. The moment you begin to see the other side of this argument, you snap back to "BUT CANON." Until you're willing to seriously consider the other side's points here, I suggest we simply wait and see what happens.

Canon engine broken? Only two of them, this does not make ALL the canon engine broken.

The other side of the argument is what then?

I have conceded you a point, but seems that everything suggested to balance Clan tech will led to one of the three Terrible Things.
I do have my opinions and you have yours, and both tried to convince each other (failing in either case, i may add).

Please explain the point of view i have entirely missed.. Or let's think about another part of the matter, i still hope that we might agree on something.

The chance you gave me to convince you shows are you are open-minded, for this i honor you.

Also remember that i proposed somelimitations for the Omnimechs' weapons, like sized hardpoints which will limit the use of the "big guns" . I point out again that systems like a targeting computer would have limited both boating and high alpha. Moreover, it could have been another tool to avoid Clan weapons being too overpowered.

Enlight me about my sins then

Edited by CyclonerM, 05 November 2013 - 12:52 PM.

[Devillin]

mwhighlander, on 23 October 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

First being Mercenaries will be allowed to field Clan Mechs with only cost being a restriction. 10 Clanners v 12 Mercs with all Clan tech won't work. "Top Tier" Merc Units will undoubtedly have the resources and funds to be able to field Clan Tech with no real issue. Limiting 10v12 Clan v IS serves only as a nostalgic canon based buff to Mercenaries seeking to claim Clan worlds. MechWarrior may take place in the BT universe, but for the sake of PvP balance, many concepts must be let go.

I think the thing that would balance this out the most would be a return of a version of the repair and salvage system. Basically, both sides would get free repair of their own equipment, but would have to pay for repairs of the other type of equipment at full price or replace it with weapons salvaged from the other side (provided you win the match). So if you are an ISer running a mech that has a mix of IS weapons and Clan weapons, any IS weapons damaged/destroyed would be fixed for free. Those Clan weapons would have to be repaired at either full price, or replaced with other weapons you blew off of Clan mechs. I'd also restrict IS access to Clan weapons to only that which they blew off of an Omnimech. If they ever put in an in-game auction system, I could see folks selling captured Clan weapons for C-Bills.

Granted, this is mostly one way, since I can't really conceive of a reason a Clanner would put IS weapons on their Omnimech (unless it was as a joke mech). Now they could just sell the IS weapons back to game for C-Bills to buy their own equipment. Or if they want to go Clan Diamond Shark, sell it on the auction system.