261 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

Quote

You can achieve a 1:1 balance not by making clan mechs the SAME (which is what is often suggested) but by making them UNIQUE.

The point is, a game in which Clan and IS 'Mechs have a 1:1 parity is a farce.

While you're at it, you can put Clanners in nice neat 4-man lances and 12-man "company" groups as well. Because it they are 1:1 even, you have to have numerical parity as well.

Either Clan 'Mechs are objectively better for the tonnage and balanced against superior numbers, or they're not Clan 'Mechs, they're IS 'Mechs with juggled stats and reskins and we're all eating slightly re-flavored varieties of the same PGI pudding.

[Cimarb]

wanderer, on 11 February 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

The point is, a game in which Clan and IS 'Mechs have a 1:1 parity is a farce.

While you're at it, you can put Clanners in nice neat 4-man lances and 12-man "company" groups as well. Because it they are 1:1 even, you have to have numerical parity as well.

Either Clan 'Mechs are objectively better for the tonnage and balanced against superior numbers, or they're not Clan 'Mechs, they're IS 'Mechs with juggled stats and reskins and we're all eating slightly re-flavored varieties of the same PGI pudding.

Some examples of "upgraded" weapons that are not necessarily "better":

1. ERLL over LL. The ERLL is a technological advancement over the LL, but there is a reason you still see lots of people using the "lesser" LL. This same reasoning applies to the rest of the list.
2. UAC5 over AC5
3. Pulse Laser over standard Laser
4. LBX10 over AC10
5. Etc

[Pariah Devalis]

Cannot quote on a phone, but I think if they went the mw2 launcher style it would necessitate total removal of cockpit shake and would play hell with the servers and the computers of whoever you are attacking due to the shear number of objects rendered, their flight paths, calculating hits, and dealing with the constant explosion effects.

Do not get me wrong, I would love it, but five missile packets like in mw4 might be a good middle ground to explore.

[Daneiel]

Cimarb, on 11 February 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

Some examples of "upgraded" weapons that are not necessarily "better":

1. ERLL over LL. The ERLL is a technological advancement over the LL, but there is a reason you still see lots of people using the "lesser" LL. This same reasoning applies to the rest of the list.
2. UAC5 over AC5
3. Pulse Laser over standard Laser
4. LBX10 over AC10
5. Etc

And why is that ????

1. Small maps and extendet ranges for all weapons !
2. Badly balanced weapon types ( AC/5s and AC/2 has better DPS then AC/20 ) !
3. Bad weapon mechanic design !
4. Lack of proper weapon mods (alternative ammonitions for LBX was promised in CB even earlier ) !
5. ETC !

Edited by daneiel varna, 11 February 2014 - 08:52 AM.

[Gyrok]

Cimarb, on 11 February 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

Some examples of "upgraded" weapons that are not necessarily "better":

1. ERLL over LL. The ERLL is a technological advancement over the LL, but there is a reason you still see lots of people using the "lesser" LL. This same reasoning applies to the rest of the list.
2. UAC5 over AC5
3. Pulse Laser over standard Laser
4. LBX10 over AC10
5. Etc

Err....

1.) I see far fewer regular LL than I do the ER version, particularly the RANGE is the determining factor, in fact I have a BLR that I run 4xERLLs on with 21 double heat sinks and I fire them in volleys of 2, I even alpha all 4 on occasion without issue.

2.) LOL...UAC5 are still superior, that will not be changing anytime soon. Some people do not like them that will never change.

3.) Pulse lasers are superior for certain tasks like light killing for example...more damage in 1/2 the time? Yes please.

4.) LBX is better for many things, in fact I use them more than I do regular AC10, especially since their velocity was not nerfed

[Cimarb]

daneiel varna, on 11 February 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

And why is that ????

1. Small maps and extendet ranges for all weapons !
2. Badly balanced weapon types ( AC/5s and AC/2 has better DPS then AC/20 ) !
3. Bad weapon mechanic design !
4. Lack of proper weapon mods (alternative ammonitions for LBX was promised in CB even earlier ) !
5. ETC !

1. The ERLL has a much longer range than the LL, and that range is very usable in most maps. The LL is good for certain builds as well, specifically those that are more brawler-focused. That is exactly why a more advanced weapon is not always the better one.
2. The UAC5 and AC5 are badly balanced? I agree that the ACs should be normalized, and have posted all over the place about how to do it, but that has nothing to do with the UAC5/AC5 comparison I made.
3. I agree, but pulse lasers are good in brawler builds despite that.
4. LBX is still a very good weapon and used by quite a few people. I would be curious the ratio of LBX to AC10, actually, because I would be willing to put a small wager on the LBX being the slight favorite despite the lack of alternate ammo.
5. The exclamation points aren't needed, especially on an etc... Leave the vehemence on that side of the keyboard, please.

[Cimarb]

Gyrok, on 11 February 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Err....

1.) I see far fewer regular LL than I do the ER version, particularly the RANGE is the determining factor, in fact I have a BLR that I run 4xERLLs on with 21 double heat sinks and I fire them in volleys of 2, I even alpha all 4 on occasion without issue.

2.) LOL...UAC5 are still superior, that will not be changing anytime soon. Some people do not like them that will never change.

3.) Pulse lasers are superior for certain tasks like light killing for example...more damage in 1/2 the time? Yes please.

4.) LBX is better for many things, in fact I use them more than I do regular AC10, especially since their velocity was not nerfed

I probably should have emphasized "necessarily" in my OP. I'm not saying that all of the examples are better or worse. In fact, I'm saying that none of them are outright better across the board. Some like ERLLs, others LLs, and the same holds true for pretty much every other example and 99.9% of weapons. There is not a single weapon currently in game that NO ONE uses (even NARC, lol). Just because Clan weapons come out does not mean they have to be "better" in all ways, and the current weapons show that is true.

[CyclonerM]

Gyrok, on 11 February 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Err....

1.) I see far fewer regular LL than I do the ER version, particularly the RANGE is the determining factor, in fact I have a BLR that I run 4xERLLs on with 21 double heat sinks and I fire them in volleys of 2, I even alpha all 4 on occasion without issue.

2.) LOL...UAC5 are still superior, that will not be changing anytime soon. Some people do not like them that will never change.

3.) Pulse lasers are superior for certain tasks like light killing for example...more damage in 1/2 the time? Yes please.

4.) LBX is better for many things, in fact I use them more than I do regular AC10, especially since their velocity was not nerfed

1) I never use ERLLs, if nothing else they are quite hotter.

2) AC5 has its advantages: does not jam, does not eat ammo at same rate, you can fire it constantly without worrying of timing to avoid jam. I use it in two of my 'Mechs.

3) Exactly.

4)Especially against lights.

[wanderer]

Cimarb, on 11 February 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

Some examples of "upgraded" weapons that are not necessarily "better":

1. ERLL over LL. The ERLL is a technological advancement over the LL, but there is a reason you still see lots of people using the "lesser" LL. This same reasoning applies to the rest of the list.

For the Clans, the "LL" is the ER ML. Same ranges, 5/8ths the heat, 7/8ths the damage, half the crits and 1/5th the tonnage.

Quote

2. UAC5 over AC5

For Clanners, this should be "UAC5 vs LB-5X" - as in tabletop, LB's can fire solid ammo. MWO's LB-X is literally half the gun it should be, having only the "shotgun" round when in TT, the gun fires both solid AND cluster ammo.

Quote

3. Pulse Laser over standard Laser

As Clan pulse lasers have ranges comparable to or superior to IS standard lasers, it's "accuracy vs. reach" in TT, or "burn time/higher damage vs. reach" in MWO terms. Clan pulses have superior, up to double the range of a lower-tech IS one and hence function fine as "main guns"- the LPL is actually a common vehicle main gun for the Clans!

Quote

4. LBX10 over AC10

See #2. Until alternative ammo types were introduced, the AC/10 was a clear loser in the matchup, and all 'Mechs should have the half-functional LB-X's they do now...IS or Clan. And thanks to real LB-X's, there was no need for regular AC's- they did the same job as regular ones or could fire clusters, while UAC's gave you the rapid fire option.

[Odanan]

wanderer, on 11 February 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

For Clanners, this should be "UAC5 vs LB-5X" - as in tabletop, LB's can fire solid ammo. MWO's LB-X is literally half the gun it should be, having only the "shotgun" round when in TT, the gun fires both solid AND cluster ammo.

LB-X is lighter and has a better range in comparison with regular ACs.
When allowing the use of regular/solid ammo in LB-X, the TT devs simply made the regular ACs obsolete in every way - I hope PGI never do the same mistake.

[Odanan]

PGI (and those who think the Clans need to be nerfed), please watch this.

You can make a great and balanced game with very asymmetrical teams. Starcraft, Natural Slection and now this Evolve prove this.

So, don't nerf the Clans. Trying to make them 1:1 with IS is an ugly, lazy, shortsighted solution and won't work!

- Clanners will be unhappy because their mechs will be not even a shadow of their former selves (Clan mechs just in name).
- IS players will be unhappy because some Clan mechs will still be much better than the IS counterparts, making the IS mechs obsolete.
- PGI will be unhappy because they won't sell more IS mechs, won't sell all Clan mechs (some will be awful), they will lose a lot of old time players and they will have a terrible time with the impossible task of balancing the unbalanced.

Keep the Clan weapons as they are and make the battles with Clan-only teams and IS-only teams and balance the game in the number of players for each team. (See my signature)

Use the difference of the Clans in the benefit of the game.

[Pariah Devalis]

Odanan, on 12 February 2014 - 03:17 AM, said:

LB-X is lighter and has a better range in comparison with regular ACs.
When allowing the use of regular/solid ammo in LB-X, the TT devs simply made the regular ACs obsolete in every way - I hope PGI never do the same mistake.

Simple enough change to fire rate would sort it out, though. If you made LB autos fire 30% slower than ACs you trade rate of fire for variable ammo, and you gain rate of fire from Ultras with the ability for it to jam.

[Marmon Rzohr]

The weapons are an unknown at this point, but no matter what they do, there will be viable loadouts (although I forsee a PPC problem in that the CERPPC is the only clan PPC, and PGI will probably make it far too hot to actually be usable even in pairs, the end result being a complete lack of a good long range energy weapon for the clans (the CERLLs will probably have a longer beam duration then the IS ones which means even less usability in long range combat)). The thing that worries me more are the hitboxes...

The timber wolf launchers are in the side torsi, which is rather annoying IMHO, unless they make the models like the hunchback 4J and have the launchers removed if there are no missiles mounted. That would be a simple solution.

Other clan mechs (except the summoner) might also have problems like these with too large CTs or arms that can't shield the body at all.

And bad hitboxes really render a mech useless, or at least very gimped

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 12 February 2014 - 06:42 AM.

[Featherwood]

While under impression from vlog#2 (bordering on hatred), I'd rather like to share my concern regarding Warhak Prime armament/hardpoints announced. I draw your attention to its left arm: 2xcER PPC + cLRM10. My question is: WTF? Who have decided to 'gift' 85t OmniMech (okay, quasi-Omni) with scrotum-like missile launcher on left arm? Is Paul Inouye crazy fan of Jackson's Hobbit movie, maybe? Besides looking awfully and breaking canon it also breaks darn canon and looks bloody awful!
If any sane developer reads this, can you please clarify why LRM10 migrated from left torso to left arm? I honestly see no point in it.
My bad, I was wrong about canon violation in Warhawk Prime loadout. Though that scrotum-launcher still looks frigging badly, now I guess it was Flying Debris who put it there (under the elbow). Why, Alex?

Secon notion is about Kit Fox:

looks like its specs picture has been done in hurry, olive-painted variant overlaps foreground

Edited by Featherwood, 12 February 2014 - 11:34 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

When allowing the use of regular/solid ammo in LB-X, the TT devs simply made the regular ACs obsolete in every way - I hope PGI never do the same mistake.

Until things like precision and AP rounds came along for standard AC's, and not LB-X. You want rude, watch what a critical-threatening AC/10 does when it can crit THROUGH armor, or an AC shell that tracks to compensate for the target's motion.

And the Light Autocannons that can use standard AC munitions later on. LAC/2 for 4 tons, anyone? 3050 is a point where IS tech is just taking the first steps past restoring old League-level armaments and going into new, innovative tech. Like the single heat sink, some stuff is eventually falling by the wayside, and in turn some of THAT gets tech upgrades to revive it in turn.

Personally, giving a LB-X lower max range (it's a smoothbore so easier dropoff) and slower reload times vs. the standard AC would help things along.

[Strum Wealh]

Featherwood, on 12 February 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

While under impression from vlog#2 (bordering on hatred), I'd rather like to share my concern regarding Warhak Prime armament/hardpoints announced. I draw your attention to its left arm: 2xcER PPC + cLRM10. My question is: WTF? Who have decided to 'gift' 85t OmniMech (okay, quasi-Omni) with scrotum-like missile launcher on left arm? Is Paul Inouye crazy fan of Jackson's Hobbit movie, maybe? Besides looking awfully and breaking canon it also breaks darn canon and looks bloody awful!
If any sane developer reads this, can you please clarify why LRM10 migrated from left torso to left arm? I honestly see no point in it.
Secon notion is about Kit Fox:

looks like its specs picture has been done in hurry, olive-painted variant overlaps foreground

The Masakari Prime has always had the LRM-10 mounted in its Left Arm in BattleTech (despite the artwork implying that the LRM launcher was in the Left Torso) - it's the same issue, in reverse, as the Orion (SRM launcher in the Left torso in the TRO, while the original BT artwork showed it in the Left Arm), and PGI evidently made the same decision to have the MWO artwork reflect the TRO listing over the original BT artwork for such a conflict.

[Odanan]

Featherwood, on 12 February 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

While under impression from vlog#2 (bordering on hatred), I'd rather like to share my concern regarding Warhak Prime armament/hardpoints announced. I draw your attention to its left arm: 2xcER PPC + cLRM10. My question is: WTF? Who have decided to 'gift' 85t OmniMech (okay, quasi-Omni) with scrotum-like missile launcher on left arm? Is Paul Inouye crazy fan of Jackson's Hobbit movie, maybe? Besides looking awfully and breaking canon it also breaks darn canon and looks bloody awful!
If any sane developer reads this, can you please clarify why LRM10 migrated from left torso to left arm? I honestly see no point in it.

The LRM is in the arm, not in the torso. It usually is shown close to the the shoulder, but still in the arm, like here.
If you saw an art with this weapon in the torso, blame the artist (because the stats in the mech sheet tell something different).

Strum Wealh, on 12 February 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

The Masakari Prime has always had the LRM-10 mounted in its Left Arm in BattleTech (despite the artwork implying that the LRM launcher was in the Left Torso) - it's the same issue, in reverse, as the Orion (SRM launcher in the Left torso in the TRO, while the original BT artwork showed it in the Left Arm), and PGI evidently made the same decision to have the MWO artwork reflect the TRO listing over the original BT artwork for such a conflict.

Heck, ninjaed by Strum. Again.

[Pariah Devalis]

Watching people who have no clue what the real hardpoint distribution of Clan mechs are because they never looked outside of Mechwarrior 4 or MechAssault getting schooled in how things are supposed to be make me happy inside.

My only qualm with the Warhawk's layout is the UNDERSLUNG placement of the LRMs. An over the shoulder arrangement seems like a more logical placement for a weapon system that is capable of indirect fire.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 12 February 2014 - 10:08 AM.

[pbiggz]

Odanan, on 12 February 2014 - 03:17 AM, said:

LB-X is lighter and has a better range in comparison with regular ACs.
When allowing the use of regular/solid ammo in LB-X, the TT devs simply made the regular ACs obsolete in every way - I hope PGI never do the same mistake.

What the LBX needs to be is not a halo-style shotgun. It was never that.

What it needs to be is a Flak gun. A real flak gun.

That means a single slug continuously flinging bits of itself off until it reaches it's maximum range. This is what it was like in mechwarrior 3 and the LBX was a terrifying weapon, even without different ammo types.

[Pariah Devalis]

pbiggz, on 12 February 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

What the LBX needs to be is not a halo-style shotgun. It was never that.

What it needs to be is a Flak gun. A real flak gun.

That means a single slug continuously flinging bits of itself off until it reaches it's maximum range. This is what it was like in mechwarrior 3 and the LBX was a terrifying weapon, even without different ammo types.

Ya know, I do not think I ever even touched the LB in MW3. I did enjoy it in MW4, however, where it burst on impact. That way it was a self contained round that did heavy scatter damage on impact.