27 replies to this topic

[Xetelian]

You have to remember that Clans came out with better everything.

Finding balance for better laser sizes, AC weights, laser weights, laser range, ect. seems patently impossible.

[Ultimax]

Evan20k, on 28 March 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

I partially agree with you. There's some weapons that are just outright underpreforming (LBXs, PPCs, IS Small lasers, flamers, mgs) that need global buffs, but in others there's just some mechs that outright do things better than others. Quirks are used to define the difference in intended playstyles between the two mechs. A great example of this is the Stalker 4N which, were it not for quirks, would be objectively worse than the rest of the stalkers in every way. Now granted, I think the 4N is a little bit overdone right now, but the point still stands that quirks give it a unique identity that none of the other mechs in the game can fill. Ideally in a balanced game, quirks will give each mech a niche that only they can fill and the battlefield will flourish with the diversity that this creates.

Disclaimer: This post applies equally for IS and Clans. This isn't a "Nerf Stalker4N" post at all.

Correct, the primary issue is simply that not enough mechs got enough of the quirks to give each of them a clear identity.

The STK-4N is an amazing example of a mech that went from "zero to hero" through the quirk system.


As long as mechs like the DWF, TBR exist in their current state - the STK-4N as it exists now is not "overdone".

It's not even on equal footing as either of them in overall potential, but it is better in the thing that it specializes in.


Which, IMO, is what the quirk system can do for Faction vs. Faction and Inter-factional balance.

Create IS mechs that do not have the sheer versatility of options, or access to overall superior gear - but have superior usage of specific weapons allowing them to specialize and compete if they can manage to leverage their specialty.



The problem I see is that the STK-4N got to it's current status through a combination of good traits innate to Stalkers as a chassis as well as a comprehensive suite of quirks that all support one weapon.

We hear grumbling about it, because it's become one of the primary IS go to mechs, but nothing on the scale of complaints for the TDR-9S.


The reason for that is that the TDRs are an inferior design, they have an innately worse collection of attributes.

So the quirks they needed to be made good, needed to be significantly huge - numbers into the +50% area.


Unfortunately that was the lynchpin.

Some players here don't like their clan mechs to feel outdone in an area, others don't like their IS mechs to feel outdone with a PPC because of "lore", and some simply react to the size of the number.


So now that mech has dropped down a few rungs.

WM Quicksilver, on 28 March 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

Again, I think you confuse what I'm actually asking for. The STK-4N is currently an example of a mech that need quirks over the other Stalkers to differentiate itself from the others, that I agree. At the same time, a lot of mechs that had LL oriented quirks needed them to be heavy handed because the LL has been one of the worst laser weapons since the death of the 6 LL Stalker back before ghost heat was introduced.

Yep, part of the problem is that some WEAPONS themselves are inherently sub-optimal or weaker in design - so if the weapon itself isn't buffed, then the mech being buffed around it needs a collection of strong quirks or a few massive ones to balance the fact that both itself and the weapon it's being focused on are sub-optimal at their base.



Something like a mech based on Gauss doesn't really need much in the way of quirks, it's a strong weapon to begin with.


Anyway, I'll give you a little view into what I'm thinking about in terms of addressing IS lasers.



It's simple, buff all IS laser weapon ranges by 10% across the board, round up, then reduce all corresponding laser range quirks to compensate.



SLAS 135 > 150
SPL 110 > 125
MLAS 270 > 300
MPL 220 > 250
LLAS 450 > 500
ERLLAS 675 > No Change, reduce burn time to 1.15s
LPL 365 > 400

Edited by Ultimatum X, 28 March 2015 - 04:15 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimatum X, on 28 March 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

SLAS 135 > 150
SPL 110 > 125
MLAS 270 > 300
MPL 220 > 250
LLAS 450 > 500
ERLLAS 675 > No Change, reduce burn time to 1.15s
LPL 365 > 400

Honestly because of the IS ER lasers, I would prefer that only the LLAS and LPL be brought up as far as range, and I would suggest a larger increase to actually make them compete better with the IS ERLLs. That is really the only deficiency with them currently (without quirks that is).

Here are the numbers I've been toying around with, I'm still not 100% on some of the math, but meh.

[Ultimax]

WM Quicksilver, on 28 March 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

Honestly because of the IS ER lasers, I would prefer that only the LLAS and LPL be brought up as far as range

The problem with that, is tonnage disparity.

You are asking IS mechs to run 5 ton lasers, to compete vs. clan 1 ton lasers.

There is no way to have a favorable match up, unless you outright buff the living hell out of the 5 ton weapon.

Even then, there aren't many mechs that can realistically boat them under say, 65 tons.

There is also tonnage disparity due to higher damage output, let me demonstrate.

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

If you want to do around 30 points of damage with IS MLAS, you need 6 of them - that's 6 tons.

If you want to do around 30 points of damage with CERMLAS you only need 4 of them. That's 2 tons saved.
Or you can do 30 points of damage with 6 CERSLAS, which only costs 3 tons so that's 3 tons saved.

So whether you go for the mid-range competitor, or the short range competitor > you save tonnage on your clan mech.

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

If you want to do 27~30 damage with "large" type IS lasers you need 3 of them. That's 15 tons.

If you want to do similar damage around the same range, you can go with CERMLAS and only need 4 of them. That's 11 tons saved.

Or you can get an extra 150m, and go with 2x CLPLs, saving yourself 3 tons in the process.

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


The issue, is that it's beyond "CERMLAS" vs. "MLAS".

It's that for every ranged bracket, there is a highly superior clan option.

This is because the same weight lasers are outright superior, and the lower weight lasers have enough range and damage to compete with the higher weight laser the IS has access to.


MLAS vs. CERSLAS or CERMLAS
MPL vs. CSPL or CMPL
LLAS vs. CERMLAS or CLPL



So my goal is to help push the IS lasers far enough away from the lower weight bracket clan weapons that actually compete with them.

Pushing an IS MLAS to 300m, means it's not as easily competed against by a 0.5T CERSLAS at 200m.

Pushing an IS MPL to 250m, means it's not as easily competed against by a 1T CLPL at 165m.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 28 March 2015 - 06:01 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimatum X, on 28 March 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

The problem with that, is tonnage disparity.

You are asking IS mechs to run 5 ton lasers, to compete vs. clan 1 ton lasers.

There is no way to have a favorable match up, unless you outright buff the living hell out of the 5 ton weapon.

Even then, there aren't many mechs that can realistically boat them under say, 65 tons.

There is also tonnage disparity due to higher damage output, let me demonstrate.

Woah, I said the LL and LPL need to be brought UP in range, not down (preferably to 540m instead of 450). That way they are less comparable to the C-ERML. Granted I'm still in favor of a slight nerf to the C-ERML as well. I am in agreement with the fact that the Large class laser have for the most part failed in comparison to the smaller lasers (provided you have the hardpoints).

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 28 March 2015 - 06:23 PM.

[Ultimax]

WM Quicksilver, on 28 March 2015 - 06:17 PM, said:

Woah, I said the LL and LPL need to be brought UP in range, not down (preferably to 540m instead of 450). That way they are less comparable to the C-ERML. Granted I'm still in favor of a slight nerf to the C-ERML as well.

Sorry, what I should have been clearer on is that my point was the SLAS, SPL, MLAS, MPL all also should have their range tweaked as well.


Not that you were suggesting to reduce LLAS/LPL.


My wording wasn't clear enough.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimatum X, on 28 March 2015 - 06:23 PM, said:

Sorry, what I should have been clearer on is that my point was the SLAS, SPL, MLAS, MPL all also should have their range tweaked as well.

This is where I would disagree, as this is only because there is such a huge disparity when it comes to these weapon when considering clan tech. Why wouldn't that be the case considering they benefited the most in the transition to clan tech as far as TT goes; so I would be more supportive of a nerf to the clan version instead of a buff to the IS (outside the SLAS and SPL).

We may be getting a little sidetracked here though.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 28 March 2015 - 06:30 PM.

[Pjwned]

I was originally a pretty big fan of quirks, but after seeing some pretty ludicrous quirks on some mechs and how weapons like the LB-10 X are made a bit less bad simply by quirking the hell out of them on certain mechs, I'm not as much of a fan of quirks now; I also don't like how certain mechs like the DRG-1N are given ridiculously over the top cooldown quirks to make them less bad rather than something more reasonable.

I do like the idea of quirks, but OP is right that they're being used as bandaids for problems that should be addressed in a more sensible manner, and it's getting a bit old. I do like a number of quirks like increased acceleration & deceleration for locusts or extra RT armor for hunchbacks or more subtle quirks like slightly increased energy range, but other weapon quirks (such as the now thankfully nerfed TDR-9S ER PPC heat quirks) have been out of hand for a while now. I would also like to say that while I'm not vehemently against boating weapons, I'm really not a fan of how so many quirks encourage massive boating of 1 weapon type on mechs that might otherwise be more versatile, and if quirks were location dependent then this might be less of an issue, e.g TDR-9S ER PPCs only having crazy quirks on its right arm which would also eliminate the problem of quirked pinpoint sniper weapons on a high mounted hardpoint so that you can barely be exposed at all to fire.