54 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 May 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Yup. We've had the discussion on the nature of the "X" before, and of course, much is left to speculation, but I prefer Occam's Razor....... the simplest explanation of the facts available, are usually correct. Sadly, I doubt we'll ever see a "definitive" answer, but I really want to know where the "Long Barrel, eXtended Range stuff started....

The idea that "LB" stands for "light/long barrel" originally comes from non-conanical German-published sources (IIRC, Vassago Rain put up some screen caps of those documents, long ago), though similar language was more-recently used as a general description for the weapon on page 104 of Era Report: 3062 ("The class-ten light barrel, extended range automatic cannon was a breakthrough in autocannon technology when it was first introduced...").

[Mister Blastman]

krolmir, on 17 May 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Technology marches on in the MechWarrior Universe, and PGI should embrace that fact if they expect real longevity from this title, after all variety is the spice of life.

So who's with me on this?

There is no variety when the two weapon choices we have are:



+




Paul seems to think balance is fine...

:-|

[Sug]

Mister Blastman, on 17 May 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

There is no variety when the two weapon choices we have are:



+




Paul seems to think balance is fine...

:-|

Mad scientist death ray and a potato canon?

[Khobai]

Gonna be worse with Clan tech. Because Clan ACs are burst fire. Thats going to limit their options to basically PPCs or Gauss.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 17 May 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

There is no variety when the two weapon choices we have are:



+




Paul seems to think balance is fine...

:-|

2 MAIN weapon systems. Take a look at Mechs, what one are the normal favorite for 30 years of the IP!

[Corbon Zackery]

Reduce the range a IS LBX throws out a slug to 350 meters and put in a multi ammo selection. Due to the short stubby shot gun barrel.

I cant tell you how much this screws up on of my jager builds. because I lose 2 ton switching over to AC 10.

Edited by Corbon Zackery, 17 May 2014 - 04:50 PM.

[krolmir]

It would only be smart business sense, on PGI's part, to allow lostech equipment to be also bought with MC. Fits he bill for the gotta have it now types, and makes them more money. The grinders will have to wait until they could afford it. I would spend 3.5 million C-bills in a flash for a the LBX 10 with dual mode. If they gave the LB-x series a dual mode it would actually be an improvement to the bread, and balancing could be done quite easily. I just don't see how I could be that hard. As for the LBX's meaning I have the 3062 readout Strum spoke of. The LB-x was/is lostech and up to about 250m its not bad as it sits now, but beyond that its all down hill for it; compared to the dark age tech A/C 10, and it cost more even in its current weaker implementation.

[wanderer]

What's amusing is Paul is using the very ideas we have for balancing Inner Sphere ballistics by attempting to only apply them to Clan weaponry.

All LB-X should fire solid or cluster munitions, not just Clan AC's. All standard and Ultra AC's should burst fire, not merely Clan UAC's.

The standard AC/10 is inferior, you say? Nonsense. Give LB-X's a higher damage falloff outside their effective range and a slower ROF vs. standard AC's, meaning the standard AC/10 will put damage downrange quicker and be more effective outside it's shorter range (being as LB-X's are smoothbore, I'd suggest putting them at the 2x effective = maximum while AC/UAC's retain the 3x ballistic maximum).

The true stupidity comes from attempting to equalize what was designed from the ground up to be unequal, and Paul's attempts to do so simply highlight this in garish fashion.

[Khobai]

Quote

The true stupidity comes from attempting to equalize what was designed from the ground up to be unequal, and Paul's attempts to do so simply highlight this in garish fashion.

it is pretty stupid. Because pgi didnt properly plan out how to integrate clans into their game... they ended up just sticking them in the same 12v12 queue as IS mechs. But the only way to make that work was to equalize clan tech to IS tech.

[Bishop Steiner]

wanderer, on 18 May 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

The true stupidity comes from attempting to equalize what was designed from the ground up to be unequal, and Paul's attempts to do so simply highlight this in garish fashion.

while I agree, I also tend to have little faith in the gaming community. They should be enforcing 5v8 and giv ethe Clans their Tech Advantage. Sadly most of the DerpDerpHodorDerp crowd of CoD knuckledraggin mouthbreathers IGP decided they should pander too might have cwied if they had to play with less numbers.

[Khobai]

I dunno that 5v8 wouldve worked... giving clan mechs their full 50% advantage would be pretty insane.

But certainly 10v12 wouldve worked with clan tech being about 20% better (instead of 50% better)

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 18 May 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

I dunno that 5v8 wouldve worked... giving clan mechs their full 50% advantage would be pretty insane.

But certainly 10v12 wouldve worked with clan tech being about 20% better (instead of 50% better)

The thing is, making each weapon/item being 20% better does not mean the whole mech itself will be 20% better. Maybe the whole mech would be more than 20% better, or maybe it would be slightly less than 20% better. Maybe it would be 22.4534% or 17% better.

This game allows for loadout modifications, so how on earth would we make each and every possible Clan mech loadout exactly 20% better than each and every single possible IS loadout, no higher or lower than 20%? And even if you don't allow for customizing, the stock loadouts weren't ever created equal either (some stocks are much better than others). What if a Clan mech ends up being 23% better? Then 10v12 would favor the Clans more than the IS, and you'd see people jump ship to the Clans. What if a clan mech ends up being 18% better? Then 10v12 would favor the IS more than the Clans, and you'd see most people just staying IS.

[Khobai]

Quote

The thing is, making each weapon/item being 20% better does not mean the whole mech itself will be 20% better.

I meant the whole mech in general being about 20% better. Not each individual weapon/item.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 18 May 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

I meant the whole mech in general being about 20% better. Not each individual weapon/item.

The rest of my post still applies, then. There are so many intricate factors that go into a mech's viability: hitboxes, tonnage, hardpoints, weapon locations, engine limits, jump jets, the state of weapon balance, and so on. Even if we made everyone use stock builds, trying to make every single Clan mech exactly 20% better (cannot be higher or lower, other wise 10v12 would fail) would be a monumental feat. And when you throw in the ability to change loadouts...it gets even harder.


I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be done as a solution here, I'm just pointing out a potential problem.

[Khobai]

It wouldnt have to be exactly 20% better. Because tonnage matchmaking couldve made up for the difference (by making clan mechs count as being 5-10 tons heavier than they actually are). It just has to be approximate.

The point is clan mechs shouldnt have been balanced 1:1, thats idiocy. Also they shouldve done some kindve special invasion event... so it actually felt like we were being invaded. Not just mixing IS and Clan on the same team for no reason.

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2014 - 07:53 PM.

[wanderer]

Funny thing is, better guns don't mean you can take more damage...just dish it out...to a limit.

MWO's heat system is as big a throttle to high-heat Clantech as anything else would have been, more DHS fit or not.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 18 May 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

It doesnt have to be exactly 20% better. Because tonnage matchmaking can make up for the difference (by making clan mechs count as being 5-10 tons heavier than they actually are). It just has to be approximate.

Well, if you want 10v12 to be "asymmetrically balanced" it would actually have to be exact (or really really close). If you had it significantly lower than 20%, the Clans would lose more than they win. If you had it significantly higher than 20%, they would win more than they lose. Either case will make one faction or the other into the flavor of the month.

~5-10 extra tons in the matchmaker won't really do much here, because not all loadouts are created equal. Let's pretend that we somehow made the stock Kit Fox exactly 20% better than a 30 ton IS light mech. If I made a custom loadout for that Kit Fox, that was superior to the stock loadout...I'm now more than 20% better. Maybe I'm 25-30% better. Maybe even more, because the stock loadout is pretty bleh. What if that 30 tonner was an ECM Spider instead of an MG Spider? Then I might be less than 20% better. So many variables that can throw a wrench into things, because not all loadouts are equal (not even within a single faction).

[Roland]

Khobai, on 18 May 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

it is pretty stupid. Because pgi didnt properly plan out how to integrate clans into their game... they ended up just sticking them in the same 12v12 queue as IS mechs. But the only way to make that work was to equalize clan tech to IS tech.

That's because in order to correctly implement clans in the game, you'd actually need to have developed community warfare, and with it, a larger context within which to have the clans invade.

Since they never developed any of the elements of community warfare, such as actually fighting for units, players are all simply playing in random battles.

Without the larger context created by the inner sphere, the clans just become additional mechs. Indeed, this is why they were introduced prior to CW.. because they're mechs which can be sold, as opposed to CW which cannot clearly be monetized (although anyone with half a brain could easily point out that if CW were actually implemented well, that it would incentivize the playerbase to put more money into the game... because people tend to spend money on games that are fun.).

To do any kind of balancing of clan vs. IS tech that would be in line with the kind of balancing seen in battletech, you'd need to actually have IS and clan units.... but we don't. So the mechs are just being thrown together into one big bin.

What's extra bad about this is that it's going to largely preclude a real introduction of clans at a later date... You're never really going to be able to have the kind of clan vs. IS battles that took place in Battletech.

[Lindonius]

Roland, on 18 May 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

So the mechs are just being thrown together into one big bin.

What's extra bad about this is that it's going to largely preclude a real introduction of clans at a later date... You're never really going to be able to have the kind of clan vs. IS battles that took place in Battletech.

It's amazing how long it's taking for this to sink in for some people.

I'm thinking of reinstalling when the clan packs drop and shooting at all clan mechs, including the ones that drop on my own team next to my rusty old Hunch 4P.

Just to make a point like.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

How do you give the IS LBX-AC10 slugs and cluster rounds and both leave the cluster rounds as a useful choice and keep the IS standard ACs relevant?

1 - Increase damage per pellet for cluster rounds to 1.2.

2 - Introduce specialized ammo (armor piercing, caseless, etc.).

What does this mean?

Cluster rounds need their damage to be increased anyway, especially with slugs coming for the cLBX line of ACs. SRMs had it until splash damage broke, LRMs still have it, SSRMs have it (a radical damage boost, actually), and the LBX-AC10 needs it. Any weapon system that inherently spreads its damage all over the place is severely disadvantaged in MWO, and PGI has mostly recognized this in the past. The only consistent exception has been the LBX.

Special ammo for IS standard ACs will give them unique options that the Clans cannot match, and will allow standard ACs to retain a place on the battlefield as the sole delivery systems for said ammo types. AP ammo could do 10% damage to internals when they hit armor (or something similar). Caseless ammo could add +10% ammo per ton but with double the chance of explosions when the ammo gets crit. Semi-Guided ammo could lock-on like LRMs and SSRMs and have very slight trajectory shifting (I recommend using the SSRM guidance system for this special ammo type, with tracking a random bone to prevent CT-seeking super guns).