30 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 26 June 2015 - 06:49 PM, said:

Well, I think we need to do something with the IS regular LL, and then the Blazer would inherit that buff indirectly.

IS LL out to 540 meters, ERLL out to 720. Reduce heat on LL to 6.5, reduce/remove LL heat-gen quirks.

Resulting Binary Laser could do 18 damage at 495 meters for 14 heat. A penalty to range and heat versus a pair of Large Lasers seems fair to avoid completely obsoleting them.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 June 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

IS LL out to 540 meters, ERLL out to 720. Reduce heat on LL to 6.5, reduce/remove LL heat-gen quirks.

Resulting Binary Laser could do 18 damage at 495 meters for 14 heat. A penalty to range and heat versus a pair of Large Lasers seems fair to avoid completely obsoleting them.

540m feels weird to me because that's PPC range...I do agree with a range buff, but maybe just 500? Beef up the heat reduction to 6 as compensation?

For Blazer vs LL, I think that it should do a little bit less damage (i.e. 16?) than 2 LL because you save 1 ton and 1 hardpoint. Maybe the Blazer's role could be distinguished with a significantly shortened beam duration? That was, after all, the original role of the weapon in the first place (less efficient than 2 LL but it could put all of that damage in 1 spot, vs the 2 LL being spread out due to random hit locations). Maybe add 0.5 seconds to the cooldown if needed.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 26 June 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

540m feels weird to me because that's PPC range...I do agree with a range buff, but maybe just 500? Beef up the heat reduction to 6 as compensation?

For Blazer vs LL, I think that it should do a little bit less damage (i.e. 16?) than 2 LL because you save 1 ton and 1 hardpoint. Maybe the Blazer's role could be distinguished with a significantly shortened beam duration? That was, after all, the original role of the weapon in the first place (less efficient than 2 LL but it could put all of that damage in 1 spot, vs the 2 LL being spread out due to random hit locations). Maybe add 0.5 seconds to the cooldown if needed.

16 damage doesn't feel like a fair trade. It's still taking up the same number of slots as 2xLL. All a Blazer does is allow me to maybe fit in one more medium laser a piece or one more DHS per pair if I can get a third slot somewhere. The Medium laser isn't that enticing because it's going to add to an already strained cooling set-up without helping me at the ranges I am boating Large Lasers for.

Increasing heat disparity between a Blazer and 2xLL seems fair to me, though, as does a longer cool-down. Up to 4 seconds would be workable. Remember that efficiency is measured with ratios; 18 over 14 in terms of damage over heat is still less efficient than 18 over 12 or 13. We're trading damage-heat and damage-range efficiency in exchange for damage-hardpoint and damage-weight efficiency. If you throw a damage reduction in, you have to reduce the heat to 10 or 11 and you'd have to drop the weight to 8 tons.

As for range, why does it matter that the LL overlaps with the PPC? The PPC has a totally different mode of use and the LL already overlaps with the AC/10.

[IronLichRich]

For the IIC mechs, I expect really low engine caps and no hardpoint inflation.

For overall balance, I think that a lot of the problems in this game come from PGI trying to balance IS and clan tech in 3050 and is in denial about that being a possibility. There is definitely a problem when many discussions are about how sweet this new thing will be and that it sucks that it will be nerfed.

Here is what I would suggest as some options.

1) Time Jump: take a leap into the future to where the IS has access to LFE and more of their weapons. I would not be opposed to IS mechs that are exceptionally terrible having access to XXL engines either.

2) Mixed tech (sort of): give inner sphere mechs the ability to choose whether to equip IS or clan weapons (choose 1 not pick from both) but stay with inner sphere xl, dhs, and structure upgrades. No quirks for IS mechs that choose to equip clan guns.

3) Ignore the problem (not really a great option but it's an option): enforce puretech and say ÷#! $=% it. Give the IS extra tons or mechs in CW and tell players in pugland to deal with it

[Andi Nagasia]

I think with the New MWO BattleValue, then balancing IS BattleMech to Clan BattleMech(Tech Balance),
i think then because all weapons would be balanced, we could see Shared tech as Balances then Exists,

[SaltBeef]

They do not need timeline varients If you own 2 standard Jenner chassis you can master the IIc. You should not need 3 2c varients to elite. Clan varients would just be extra builds to sell. Got 2 Highlanders , Master the 2C. Easy!

Edited by SaltBeef, 26 June 2015 - 11:13 PM.

[kapusta11]

Clan BattleMechs will be just as good as optimized Omnis, not better. Both have endo, ferro upgrades and adequately sized engine. Some might actually end up being pretty bad without some hardpoint love.

[Juodas Varnas]

kapusta11, on 27 June 2015 - 12:44 AM, said:

Clan BattleMechs will be just as good as optimized Omnis, not better. Both have endo, ferro upgrades and adequately sized engine. Some might actually end up being pretty bad without some hardpoint love.

Keep in mind that the "optimized Omnis" are sh*t like Mad Cats and Ryoken which are the best mechs in the game by a huge ******* margin...

[kapusta11]

Juodas Varnas, on 27 June 2015 - 12:56 AM, said:

Keep in mind that the "optimized Omnis" are sh*t like Mad Cats and Ryoken which are the best mechs in the game by a huge ******* margin...

No it's the other way around. No endo, no ferro, oversized engine, lack of hardpoints oversized mech model and thus hitboxes, fixed useless equipment, these are the reason for mech to suck not to be called "balanced".

Edited by kapusta11, 27 June 2015 - 01:04 AM.

[Kavoh]

Interesting read in this thread, but I have to say, I hope we -never- see mixed tech. Once mixed tech is in, IS tech (outside of probably ACs) will never be touched again. Would rather see attempted balance than literally forcing tech to be obsolete. It wouldn't be a problem if it was as rare and difficult to supply and maintain as it was in, say, mechcommander. But in the game of click and go, its ggnore.

[Lexx]

Kavoh, on 27 June 2015 - 01:27 AM, said:

Interesting read in this thread, but I have to say, I hope we -never- see mixed tech. Once mixed tech is in, IS tech (outside of probably ACs) will never be touched again. Would rather see attempted balance than literally forcing tech to be obsolete. It wouldn't be a problem if it was as rare and difficult to supply and maintain as it was in, say, mechcommander. But in the game of click and go, its ggnore.

Bringing back repair and reload costs, then making it prohibitively expensive to use clan tech on an IS mech would make it so you'd have to pay the price if you wanted to use it.

The problem I can see with that is, the uber rich competitive players that have hundreds of millions of c-bills banked up would be the only ones that could afford to maintain it. We really don't want to widen the gap between casual and competitive players that much.

I think the only way to obtain clantech for IS players would be as salvage from CW. It should only be available for use in CW matches. Keep mixtech out of the "pug" games entirely. Make clantech a very rare salvage drop that can only be gained by beating clan units in CW. If it stays in CW, it will help balance CW matches. Of course this also means the clan players could salvage IS tech from the battlefield also and use it in CW as well.

If everyone is able to use the same equipment, it's easier to balance things since no one has something the other team can't also use.