129 replies to this topic

[bad arcade kitty]

it's not mixtech actually

[Nik Reaper]

True , but you know they only lose out on IS ballistics , eveything else you would take clan anyway... Mby IS Lrms in some cases.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 01 July 2015 - 05:27 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

well, lasers with shorter burn times... large ones are worth the considering

[Nik Reaper]

Yeah , I guess in some cases, but if it has no negative quirks it's hard to beat lighter with more range , more so as the cspl has enough range for brawling and ermed is almost a LL 4 times lighter and if you are going ERL might as well go for even more range, though I could see sniping with IS ERL and some times using regular PPCs , but it's really not a hard trade off to make I'd say.

[Johnny Z]

Nik Reaper, on 01 July 2015 - 05:32 PM, said:

Yeah , I guess in some cases, but if it has no negative quirks it's hard to beat lighter with more range , more so as the cspl has enough range for brawling and ermed is almost a LL 4 times lighter and if you are going ERL might as well go for even more range, though I could see sniping with IS ERL and some times using regular PPCs , but it's really not a hard trade off to make I'd say.

I see a few replies saying the difference is lighter and more range, but forgetting to mention more damage and taking less space. Maybe it should be that way though. Maybe the players ignoring half the advantages of Omni tech are onto something.

[Aim64C]

Nik Reaper, on 01 July 2015 - 05:13 PM, said:

But you do remember the lbx 40 builds and so forth where the only mechs to be used are those that were decided could carry overwhelming firepower, meaning that the current op mechs would still be op just that some of them would be excluded because they couldn't fit while some of the rest could , if you look and try to simulate what would happen then you see just as many different problems,

I referenced MechWarrior 4 as an example of a direction.

Obviously, this implies we use independent thought and judgment to figure things out.

The problem with Mech 4's system was a lack of dimension. See Mech Commander 2.



By adding a second dimension to various hard point critical systems, a distinction can be made between a hardpoint that can fit 2 large lasers, 4 medium lasers - yet can't fit a PPC.

If we wish to tailor that hardpoint to such an extent.

By having hard points constitute 'height' and 'width' into their geometries and having weapon systems that also have corresponding 'height' and 'width' requirements, it can be done so that a mech can have several AC-2s without giving it the ability to sport 2 Gauss rifles.

This would allow mechs to preserve 'personality' and have distinction between those of identical weight while also keeping some level of constraint upon runaway customization.

Of course - I would also argue that there's nothing wrong with an LB-40x build - or any "spam" build, for that matter, within a properly balanced game. The infamous 6-PPC stalker would have been balanced by a competent heat system from the beginning (and 'heat scaling' is not, in the slightest, a competent heat system). Multi-ballistic bonanzas would be limited by the fact that they run out of ammo amidst a moving battlefield. If we were actually playing a game that was built around warfare (as opposed to Solaris), then many of these spam builds would simply not be realistic. Sure - they might toast the first mech or two that they run across, but they are too slow to keep pace with a more agile strike force that is still able to break contact and accomplish the mission objective. Or they run out of ammo and end up being useful only as a decoy until they can rearm.

Which is really at the core of the weapon balance problem. We aren't participating in battles. We are just dropping into Solaris matches. Even the Community Warfare matches are pretty much a game of Solaris.

Quote

and to be real you should know that at this point they are having a hard time redoing the mech skill system, is there any reason to expect them to change the hardpoint system?

They are selling artwork; collectible figurines, not a game.

Quote

While it's far from ideal let's talk and see what can be done with what we have.

Sometimes, you have to be willing to admit that the foundation you are working upon is inadequate and a new one is necessary.

[Ken Harkin]

Clan mechs should be more powerful on a ton for ton basis. Likewise the balance should be achieved by calculating actual vs effective tonnage. Clan mechs should count as 10-20% more tonnage than their actual mass. Matchmaking should then balance this.

[Johnny Z]

Aim64C, on 01 July 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

I referenced MechWarrior 4 as an example of a direction.

Obviously, this implies we use independent thought and judgment to figure things out.

The problem with Mech 4's system was a lack of dimension. See Mech Commander 2.



By adding a second dimension to various hard point critical systems, a distinction can be made between a hardpoint that can fit 2 large lasers, 4 medium lasers - yet can't fit a PPC.

If we wish to tailor that hardpoint to such an extent.

By having hard points constitute 'height' and 'width' into their geometries and having weapon systems that also have corresponding 'height' and 'width' requirements, it can be done so that a mech can have several AC-2s without giving it the ability to sport 2 Gauss rifles.

This would allow mechs to preserve 'personality' and have distinction between those of identical weight while also keeping some level of constraint upon runaway customization.

Of course - I would also argue that there's nothing wrong with an LB-40x build - or any "spam" build, for that matter, within a properly balanced game. The infamous 6-PPC stalker would have been balanced by a competent heat system from the beginning (and 'heat scaling' is not, in the slightest, a competent heat system). Multi-ballistic bonanzas would be limited by the fact that they run out of ammo amidst a moving battlefield. If we were actually playing a game that was built around warfare (as opposed to Solaris), then many of these spam builds would simply not be realistic. Sure - they might toast the first mech or two that they run across, but they are too slow to keep pace with a more agile strike force that is still able to break contact and accomplish the mission objective. Or they run out of ammo and end up being useful only as a decoy until they can rearm.

Which is really at the core of the weapon balance problem. We aren't participating in battles. We are just dropping into Solaris matches. Even the Community Warfare matches are pretty much a game of Solaris.



They are selling artwork; collectible figurines, not a game.



Sometimes, you have to be willing to admit that the foundation you are working upon is inadequate and a new one is necessary.

It wouldnt surprise me at all if sized hard points were part of the "big rebalance". It has always sounded like a good idea and definately improves the SIM but its a hard one to fully grasp in theory as to if it would limit customization to much etc.

[Aim64C]

Johnny Z, on 01 July 2015 - 05:46 PM, said:

It wouldnt surprise me at all if sized hard points were part of the "big rebalance". It has always sounded like a good idea and definately improves the SIM but its a hard one to fully grasp in theory as to if it would limit customization to much etc.

They could go that way.

What I could see is that critical spaces would be flagged as being Red/Yellow/Green for Energy/Ballistic/Missile, respectively.

I don't see them eliminating weapon count restrictions unless they just feel their art team is that bored. So a mech that could previously only mount 3 large lasers isn't suddenly going to be able to mount 6 medium lasers because there are 6 'red' slots. It would just mean that you couldn't mount 3 PPCs into that slot, only 2, and then no additional weapons.

The problem with removing raw number of weapon restrictions while imposing sized hard points is that any mech capable of fielding a ballistic weapon larger than an AC2 can become an absolute monster with machineguns. A King Crab with 20 MGs, or something, would be absolutely terrifying if it could get close enough.

Similar problems crop up with the SRM-4, as anything that can house an LRM-20 can now house an SRM-20 if it has the 3 tons to spare. ... Actually, now that I think about it, the LRM20 would lose any significance unless Artemis were applied, since our LRM5s are 1 critical.

So, I imagine that they would preserve the raw weapon restrictions.

Now, whether or not those critical spaces are further sub-divided...

[Scratx]

FatYak, on 01 July 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

I had to laugh when the pack got announced. people here have been saying for months that the introduciton of clan weaponry as salvage for IS mechs and mixtech would be OP

Now we have official OP Mixtech

Its just starting to get funny now..... but i really want that orion for some reason =/

Yup.

But... here's the kicker (which the OP completely f'ing misses and I think you touched upon). And it's really funny that so many people keep failing to realise it.


It's not clan weapons/gear vs IS weapons/gear that you have to balance for.

It's clan PLATFORMS vs IS PLATFORMS.


Seriously, GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS.

The reason IIC's have been considered the pinnacle of OP by a lot of people is simple. Take the "best" weapons/gear and make them available with the "best" type of mechs... fully customizable battlemechs.

What PGI will have to do is balance the game so IS Battlemechs are roughly balanced with Clan Omnimechs and Clan Battlemechs, and the same applies for everything else.

This does not mean PGI has to vastly modify the performance of clan equipment. There are ways to even the battlefield by crippling the IIC mechs in other ways.

We don't know how PGI will do this. It may very well have to do with the upcoming "great rebalancing" that I think is coming... but until we have more details, we don't know.

And throwing out ridiculous suggestions that utterly destroy current clan mechs just to "nerf" future clan battlemechs isn't helping.

Edited by Scratx, 01 July 2015 - 06:04 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

Johnny Z, on 01 July 2015 - 05:41 PM, said:

I see a few replies saying the difference is lighter and more range, but forgetting to mention more damage and taking less space. Maybe it should be that way though. Maybe the players ignoring half the advantages of Omni tech are onto something.

It's kinda late here so I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or not .

Aim64C, on 01 July 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

If we wish to tailor that hardpoint to such an extent.

By having hard points constitute 'height' and 'width' into their geometries and having weapon systems that also have corresponding 'height' and 'width' requirements, it can be done so that a mech can have several AC-2s without giving it the ability to sport 2 Gauss rifles.

This would allow mechs to preserve 'personality' and have distinction between those of identical weight while also keeping some level of constraint upon runaway customization.



...

Which is really at the core of the weapon balance problem. We aren't participating in battles. We are just dropping into Solaris matches. Even the Community Warfare matches are pretty much a game of Solaris.



They are selling artwork; collectible figurines, not a game.



Sometimes, you have to be willing to admit that the foundation you are working upon is inadequate and a new one is necessary.

Not that that is untrue, but again this is PGI we'r talking about, how many design desigions did they change after implementation and how long did it take, I can remember only 2 from the top of my head , one would be the mechlab (sept for the filters still kinda like the first one more ) and the other will be the removal of turrets from assault.

Also like I said some mechs just come with very large weapons, if a mech has a lbx20 or ac20 I would expect it should be able to mount gauss there too, would you not say that if that mech has good attributes that it would have an advantage , in the sence lie this, right now clan can field a 65 ton EJ with dual gauss and IS can field a Jagger with dual gauss , but if we change it , the jagger will not be able to mount even one while the EJ will still mount one and be able to use the gauss 2LPL build , and the jagger is no longer a sniper and will only be able to use more rapid fire weapons, 3 uac5 isn't bad but it's no dual gauss.

As JZ said there it's really hard to see everything with out rolling it out and looking at it in detali , if you have the time and want to put in the effort I'm more than happy to look it over and try to see the ramification of such a system if you provide details on at least a cuple of dozen more and less used mechs to see if some gain viability and if the top mechs lose some.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 01 July 2015 - 06:07 PM.

[Gattsus]

The idea seems alright, though the numbers are a bit skewed. If they don't get their own nerfs, we will have P2Win powercreeps on the move.

Edited by Gattsus, 01 July 2015 - 06:19 PM.

[Jack Corban]

I'm gonna repeat what i have been saying for the longest time.

While i do see the customizing of Mechs as fun and people seem to draw much enjoyment from it it is the problem that brakes balancing for the longest time now. People are Boating what ever is considered valid Min-Maxing at any given time.

With only Stock Variants for both IS and Clans, we could get rid of Ghostheat, 1.4x DHS and Quirks all together. But NEEEEEY its not enough variaty in the game yet, its not like almost every thinkable weapon configuration is on one or the other Mech Variant in the game. EVERY MECH needs to be the same loadout because **** reason.

Just think of Community Warfare with only Stockmechs. Heck think about general Queue with stock mechs. IS gets a Dropadvantage in terms of 2 Extra players over Clans I.e 10 vs 12 and with BV on the horizon we don't even need to consider tonnage because teams get balanced by that.

So If a Clan team drops with 3 Assaults you can expect at least 5 if not 6 on the IS Team. Sounds fair to me but neeeeey thats not fun because **** Reason.

Instead we live with broken ass quirks to make inferior mechs superior mechs and **** over everthing that is Battletech. There is so many games out there that have proven that asymetric gameplay can work just fine but the whole ******* lot of you is to thick to realize it.

Peace!

Edited by Jack Corban, 01 July 2015 - 06:33 PM.

[Scratx]

Jack, some of the worst boating offenders are stock mechs.... you do know that, right?

That aside, too many people bought into MWO precisely because we can customize them to our hearts' contentment. That boat has sailed a long time ago.

[Slow and Decrepit]

Has everybody forgotten that Russ said that the game is getting completely re-balanced here in what August if I remember right?

[Greenjulius]

When a large portion of the playerbase cries that things are "just fine" because they enjoy having an advantage over others, the problems will never be fixed.

They attempt to bury the dialogue by telling people to "stop QQing" and other such juvenile behavior.

There are obvious balance issues that aren't being addressed because some people don't want a fair game, and are just as vocal about it as those crying imbalance. The result? I try to play IS mechs, but I just give up and get frustrated at obvious handicaps on the handful of mechs with god level quirks. Then I go right back to my easy-mode clan mechs, and get bored by them too. Then I stop playing for weeks because the cycle gets stale.

IS -> Clan -> IS -> Clan -> Infinity and beyond!

Quirks are a symptom of something that is wrong. They aren't a fix. Unfortunately, everyone wants to run the biggest, baddest tech so they can be the big hero. Until everyone is on a level playing field, we will continue to have a game where only a half dozen mechs out of the entire lineup are considered competitive.

Edited by Greenjulius, 01 July 2015 - 07:29 PM.

[NeoAres]

I think people got caught up in the details of what I proposed, which is fine with me because the details are plenty worth arguing over. It's the core concept that I'm pushing and it seems like nobody really has a problem with that part so I'm satisfied.

So, regarding particular counter-arguments...

"Turning C-ERPPC into energy LBX". That one was a novel idea, and easily replaceable. Perhaps by a slight increase to the IS ERPPC's velocity instead?

"Lowering C-Gauss velocity would make it unusable as a sniper weapon". Bull. Lowering its velocity by 20% takes the velocity from 2000 to 1600. For reference, that's still 150% the velocity of an ERPPC. Sniping might become a little harder, but certainly nowhere near serious difficulty at reasonable ranges.

"CAP would be ruined without target info gathering". TIG is already covered by the clans' TC, which makes it a bit redundant on the CAP, but I wouldn't be opposed to simply reducing the CAP's TIG boost instead of removing entirely.

"Clan XL and Endosteel would overnerf internal structure, ammo component health reduction would be killer". I pulled those percentages out of my ass. Obviously they could be fine-tuned to be more fair if in fact they're too high. But I stand by the core concept that the balancers for Clan XL, Endosteel, and CASE should be directly associated with the upgrades themselves, rather than pulled out of some other aspect of the mech.

"It'll nerf Omnimechs even more". Alright, I apparently didn't make this clear enough. These changes would replace the discombobulated current battery of clan vs. IS balancers. That includes, first and foremost, the lofty IS mech quirks that turn Crabs and Stalkers into sniper kings and give Wolverines and Griffins the agility of a Mist Lynx. I won't even go into the Firestarter. We all know the monsters those quirks have created and it's about time we brought them back down to earth. In addition to that relative performance boost, clan mechs would get their lower arm actuators back with ballistics/PPCs--a very big deal for some of the heavies and assaults. Omnimechs would be made stronger as a result, not weaker.

By appropriately balancing the clans' individual advantages, we can bring their mechs' performance back on par with their IS counterparts. The end result would be clan mechs with a renewed equality in agility to go along with their existing superiority in firepower. That fits perfectly into the theme of role playing that the game is inherently about. The clanners, with better range and far better firepower, excel at open field and duelist combat where they can chase down and slag individual opponents. A pristine clan mech should inspire fear in a lone IS opponent. On the other side, the IS excels at cover-based gang-up fighting, utilizing a distinct advantage in damage centralization to quickly core clan mechs with concentrated barrages. With more fragile internal components, the clan mechs would find themselves vulnerable to crippling (but not killing) critical hits once their armor was opened up. Being able to spread damage around would be a valuable piloting skill for clanners as they aggressively closed in to try and flank and overwhelm the enemy.

[Andi Nagasia]

if we are on the "Clan Weapons Still OP" Kick,
then can i trade out my C-ER-ML for some IS-ML Love on my Nova?

[bad arcade kitty]

>When a large portion of the playerbase cries that things are "just fine" because they enjoy having an advantage over others

clan mechs are so advantageous that pgi had to decrease the inner sphere's deck size recently
so op

[Aim64C]

Nik Reaper, on 01 July 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

Not that that is untrue, but again this is PGI we'r talking about, how many design desigions did they change after implementation and how long did it take, I can remember only 2 from the top of my head , one would be the mechlab (sept for the filters still kinda like the first one more ) and the other will be the removal of turrets from assault.

Which is why I say they are selling collectibles - artwork.

Their business model revolves around selling memorabilia - things we remember from our childhood or have been passionate about for years. They aren't really selling a game like we think of games.

Quote

Also like I said some mechs just come with very large weapons, if a mech has a lbx20 or ac20 I would expect it should be able to mount gauss there too, would you not say that if that mech has good attributes that it would have an advantage , in the sence lie this, right now clan can field a 65 ton EJ with dual gauss and IS can field a Jagger with dual gauss , but if we change it , the jagger will not be able to mount even one while the EJ will still mount one and be able to use the gauss 2LPL build , and the jagger is no longer a sniper and will only be able to use more rapid fire weapons, 3 uac5 isn't bad but it's no dual gauss.

This is part of the consequence of having hardpoints in the first place. The only way to 'balance' this type of issue is to just get rid of hardpoints, entirely, and go back to Battletech's default critical system. If it fits it ships.

Of course, part of the reason hardpoints were enabled in the first place is because of the strain it would place upon art teams. It also reduces battlemechs to purely aesthetics. Two mechs of equal tonnage are effectively the same mech with a different visual profile that competitive players will select for its hitboxes and/or placement of weapons.

Though I would argue that part of this imbalance has been due to the constraints of online play in MechWarrior - which focuses upon the rather singular objective of destroying opposing mechs.

Consider what happens if you run across a bunch of hovercraft on the way to an objective where you expect other mechs to resist. The dual gauss build is essentially useless, here, and must rely upon his/her team to engage the threat with better suited weapon systems (since shooting hovercraft with a gauss rifle is overkill and a waste of ammo that is in relatively short supply as-is).

Think about what would happen if I could call in close air support from rotary wing aircraft in a mech with a command console (or something). The damage from those things adds up and someone has to deal with them - the dual gauss build is forced to rely upon the team to take down the threat or is forced to shoot something other than mechs with its anti-mech weaponry with limited ammo.

The UAC5 build doesn't have to worry about this nearly as much and can afford to engage such threats, even if would be more ideal to not waste the ammo on non-mechs, at least it is taking the less ideal solution at a much lower consequence.

Which is why I contend that many concerns over spam builds are largely due to poor objectives of game play rather than poor weapon or system balance. Games with horribly imbalanced and even unfair weapon systems can and have been very enjoyable because the overall objectives were more complicated than any of the 'unfair' weapon systems.

I'm thinking, more specifically, of Command&Conquer: Renegade. Some of the weapons available in that game were completely unfair, but the gameplay still enjoyable and the game, itself, relatively balanced in its main Command&Conquer mode of gameplay. It wasn't the end of the world if the guy who I was shooting at killed me with a one-hit kill weapon. Kill/death ratio was essentially meaningless in the game, and victory depended upon the ability to work as a team to bring down key structures inside of the opposition's base.

Likewise - so long as the combat of MWO is focused almost exclusively upon solaris style matches, there's going to be imbalance in the builds since there will be absolutely no reason to diversify weapon configurations to cope with ammunition concerns, varying mission objectives, etc.

A team of infantry can swarm a dual-gauss build like no one's business if it happens to get caught in the thick of an infantry ambush. Or how would it deal with powered armor?

If we are basically playing in Solaris, then we have to expect Solaris builds - which are designed around maximizing mech-destroying firepower, not necessarily something you would want to pilot during an invasion of a hostile planet full of tanks, planes, and infantry that don't like you.

Quote

As JZ said there it's really hard to see everything with out rolling it out and looking at it in detali , if you have the time and want to put in the effort I'm more than happy to look it over and try to see the ramification of such a system if you provide details on at least a cuple of dozen more and less used mechs to see if some gain viability and if the top mechs lose some.

It's really pretty simple.

Something like an LRM5 would require a 1x2 space, an LRM10 a 1x3 space. an LRM 15 a 2x2 space, and an LRM 20 a 2x3 space.

Thus:

LRM 5 = XX

LRM 10 = XXX

LRM 15 = XX
XX

LRM 20 = XXX
XXX

On the other hand, an SRM-2 could require a 2x1 space, an SRM-4 a 2x2 space, and an SRM-6 a 3x1 space.

SRM2 = X
X

SRM4 = XX
XX

SRM6 = X
X
X

A mech with a 3x2 space allotted for missiles on a certain point would look like this:

[ ][ ]
[ ][ ]
[ ][ ]

Rotation would not be allowed under this idea - so an LRM 20 does not fit (though, admittedly, an LRM 15 and LRM 5 will).

The sizes could be scaled up or down. Perhaps a 2x2 LRM-5 is more appropriate with a 2x3 LRM 10 and 3x3 LRM 15 culminating in a 4x4 LRM 20.

Having something like Artemis take up a 1x1 slot that must simply be within the same hardpoint also adds a bit of an extra dynamic (though may diminish the critical space impact that comes with Artemis).

It isn't a 100% foolproof idea - but extended to other systems, like ballistics, one can make it so that a gauss rifle could be replaced by a few machine guns - particularly if we allow something like the following:

AC 10
XXXX
XXXX
XX

[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ]
[ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Gauss Rifle:
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
XX

Machine Gun:

XXX

We can still play around with customizing without opening us up to 7 machine guns for every gauss rifle, but also lets us have setups like this:

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

Where a lot of things that aren't a Gauss can happen.