183 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Mcgral18, on 14 August 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

So, for PGI's rebalance...are we expecting Normalization?


They said no more 50% (which means 67%) quirks, which are what made some robots worthwhile.

Well, in a somewhat less imperfect world, they'd be reducing those crazy weapon quirks and adding... something else... to compensate and have All Teh Robots worthwhile.

In reality - and this isn't an insult to PGI - I don't think they can. I've never seen ANY multiplayer PvP game with so many moving parts achieve any even remotely close balance.

[Duke Nedo]

Really hoping they get rid of this elephant! If they don't they probably need to give most IS mechs ST buffs which would be boring....

My hope is:
1. XL normalization
2. Perhaps some laser/equipment tweaks, not normalization but some rebalancing
3. Role-quirks. Like Durability for Assaulty role, DPS for Heavyish role, Agility for Mediumish role and Sensors/stealth/utility for Lightish role, with some overlaps

Hope hope...!

[FupDup]

Duke Nedo, on 14 August 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

Hope hope...!

[Lykaon]

Kyocera, on 05 July 2015 - 01:14 AM, said:

I do think the disparity between IS and clam XL is a bit unfair. IS really doesn't have any middle ground at all and why on earth would any clammer want to take a STD engine?

Personally I think a better choice would be the introduction of the LFE for IS. I can't really see any balancing issues against it (other than timeline violations).

I think it would help reduce the necessity for quirks on IS mechs. There's a lot of emphasis on IS 'bots being either very durable or full on glass cannon. There's just this way or that and nothing that really sits in the middle. The Light Fusion Engine is the IS equivalent of the clam XL but sitting in the middle of the weight for STD and XL engines.

Simple solution would be drop the 3 engine hits = dead mech rule as a carry over from table top and normalize the penalty for suffering an engine hit.

For example one engine hit no matter how or where it was suffered reduces heat cap by X%

or Each engine critical slot that suffered damage accrues X heat value.

or Each engine critical slot that suffered damage cause X% of speed loss

or any combination of above.

The important thing is removal of the carry over from TT 3 engine hits = dead mech rule.

Clan XL engines would still have an advantage by only having 2 engine slots in a side torso while I.S. mechs are not outright destroyed by side torso loss but do have 3 engine slots in a side torso if an XL engine is used.

[Sundervine]

They now have actual internal parts that can be destroyed by enemy fire. There is no reason that a side torso loss is even still in code. That really is just lazy. They have zero excuses now.
Make each engine slot on the mech an actual item now. Give it a hit point amount. When that amount is reached they gain equal to a medium laser burn worth of constant heat. No its not a lot but its constant. when a side torso is lost they loose that many engine slots. This will help negate the difference. It has been mention in this thread, it has been mentioned in other threads. I mentioned it a long time ago.
PGI needs to stop being lazy and start writing in the gyro, engine, and cockpit slots. it will make clan mechs much closer to IS mechs. Put in death by gyro, and death by cockpit hits.
All the FPS people who claim the tabletop rules cannot do real time do not know how detailed the rules actually go. If you really want to know, FPS could not do TT because it can get so detailed they could not handle driving a mech with every single rule implemented. Especially if they went to solaris rules, which by the way stated the actual weapon refresh rates and weapon groupings. Did you know they are hardwired and cannot be changed in a mech... yeah no more on the fly changing your weapon groups. TT had that all the way back in the early 80's people. Everything that is needed to fix this has been in the game since the 80's. Name something and I bet either I or someone who plays TT can come up with why it worked better than FPS.

[Wintersdark]

Trying to balance hundreds of different mechs (each IS variant is basically another mech completely; and then all the clan options) ... With two different tech bases, wildly divergent geometry/hitboxes/weapon placement...

Realistically, you just can't expect too much here. There's a lot of things that could have been done from the early days to make it more attainable now, but the system is just way, way too complex for easy answers. I just don't have any hope.

I'm still looking forward to the rebalance, if for nothing else than to shake up the current state of the game (and make mechlab time fun again! Yay!) but I really just don't see the end result being better than what we have now. Just different.

[Mcgral18]

Sundervine, on 14 August 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

They now have actual internal parts that can be destroyed by enemy fire. There is no reason that a side torso loss is even still in code. That really is just lazy. They have zero excuses now.
Make each engine slot on the mech an actual item now. Give it a hit point amount. When that amount is reached they gain equal to a medium laser burn worth of constant heat. No its not a lot but its constant. when a side torso is lost they loose that many engine slots. This will help negate the difference. It has been mention in this thread, it has been mentioned in other threads. I mentioned it a long time ago.
PGI needs to stop being lazy and start writing in the gyro, engine, and cockpit slots. it will make clan mechs much closer to IS mechs. Put in death by gyro, and death by cockpit hits.
All the FPS people who claim the tabletop rules cannot do real time do not know how detailed the rules actually go. If you really want to know, FPS could not do TT because it can get so detailed they could not handle driving a mech with every single rule implemented. Especially if they went to solaris rules, which by the way stated the actual weapon refresh rates and weapon groupings. Did you know they are hardwired and cannot be changed in a mech... yeah no more on the fly changing your weapon groups. TT had that all the way back in the early 80's people. Everything that is needed to fix this has been in the game since the 80's. Name something and I bet either I or someone who plays TT can come up with why it worked better than FPS.

Slots are there, they just do nothing:


Also, the engine is 1 piece. It does not have multiple parts. It has 15 HP between the 6-12 slots. You'll need to prove otherwise, as this is pretty clear:

Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CEngineStats" name="Engine_XL_300" id="3358">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300_desc" nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300"/>
<EngineStats health="15" heatsinks="12" weight="15.5" rating="300" sidesToDie="1" sideSlots="3" slots="6"/>

[johnyboy420]

the clan XL is and will always be over power in this state, only thing i can think of too control this is 20% heatsink lost and 20% speed reduc when one side torso is lost

it make taking a side torso on a clan mech that much more sweeter too

and trust me 20% sink/speed loss is ruff

Edited by johnyboy420, 15 August 2015 - 01:31 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Leave Clan engines alone; Clans have been nerfed enough as it is. Frankly, I don't find them so overpowering as they currently stand.

How about pilots just up their skill level and quit asking for crutches, er, nerfs?

Wintersdark, on 14 August 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

In reality - and this isn't an insult to PGI - I don't think they can. I've never seen ANY multiplayer PvP game with so many moving parts achieve any even remotely close balance.

I've been saying this for a while. It's time PGI gave up on achieving total balance and just focus on balancing weapons within their niches (brawling, sniping, fire support, etc.). You'll never be able to equate LRMs with SRMs with Gauss with ACs (times four calibers times three different firing patterns) with lasers, with pulse lasers, with PPCs with...

You get the picture. Time for PGI to focus on new material and improving gameplay instead of trying to make this into some kind of kiddie pen with a flat floor and child safe toys.

[Pjwned]

Nightmare1, on 15 August 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

Leave Clan engines alone; Clans have been nerfed enough as it is. Frankly, I don't find them so overpowering as they currently stand.

How about pilots just up their skill level and quit asking for crutches, er, nerfs?



I've been saying this for a while. It's time PGI gave up on achieving total balance and just focus on balancing weapons within their niches (brawling, sniping, fire support, etc.). You'll never be able to equate LRMs with SRMs with Gauss with ACs (times four calibers times three different firing patterns) with lasers, with pulse lasers, with PPCs with...

You get the picture. Time for PGI to focus on new material and improving gameplay instead of trying to make this into some kind of kiddie pen with a flat floor and child safe toys.

It's funny because the massive irony is that having practically no penalty for losing 20% of the engine is a crutch.

[Nightmare1]

Pjwned, on 15 August 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

It's funny because the massive irony is that having practically no penalty for losing 20% of the engine is a crutch.

Clans are supposed to be superior to IS. Since Clan weapons got nerfed, their chassis got quirk nerfed, and their chassis are mostly locked-down, there aren't many things left to give the Clans an advantage over the IS. Their engines are one of the last things that help to make that difference. I say, leave the engines as they are and let the Clans maintain the few advantages they have left.

Edited by Nightmare1, 15 August 2015 - 05:42 PM.

[Pjwned]

Nightmare1, on 15 August 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

Clans are supposed to be superior to IS. Since Clan weapons got nerfed, their chassis got quirk nerfed, and their chassis are mostly locked-down, there aren't many things left to give the Clans an advantage over the IS. Their engines are one of the last things that help to make that difference. I say, leave the engines as they are and let the Clans maintain the few advantages they have left.

a) Nice goalpost moving.
b) Clans are clearly not supposed to be superior in MWO, so 0/10 argument.

[Bloody]

end of the day IS mechs were never meant to stand toe to toe with clan mechs until much later and even then the superior clan tech still stomps them by about 20-25%.

In most cases the Inner sphere mechs were cheaper, they had more manpower and the clan bred warriors were only marginally superior in piloting compared to the tried and true method of inner sphere win or get killed. Certainly clan pilots were not comparable in their advantage to their tech over IS. So you often get 2 lances versus a single star of clan mechs. Or as the Battle of Tukkayid showed multiple (3-4 ) regiments of mixed troops ( up to 36 mechs / regiment ) versus a single galaxy of mechs ( up to 45 clan mechs ) and that was considered a fair fight. Clan arrogance also meant they bid even lower to fight.

in M:WO only ridiculous quirks afford any parity

[Mcgral18]

Nightmare1, on 15 August 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

Leave Clan engines alone; Clans have been nerfed enough as it is. Frankly, I don't find them so overpowering as they currently stand.

How about pilots just up their skill level and quit asking for crutches, er, nerfs?

Mr Big Clammer afraid of 5% nerfs?


Oh the humanity.

[dario03]

I still say they should be made different with cons and pros for both. So different but ~equal. I would go with something like putting engine crits in but making them work differently for IS and Clan. So something like engine crits happen at red/orange internal but IS could survive 3 crits but not a full torso lose and Clans could survive a torso lose but not 3 crits.

So IS XL
side torso destruction = death
3 torsos red internal = alive

Clan XL
side torso destruction = alive
3 torsos red internal = death

Could change that up in a bunch of ways as well. Maybe make IS XL die on 3 crits and side torso destruction but not take crits until red where as Clan would start taking them at orange or yellow. Maybe even vary it by mech, so something like a Timberwolf would take crits at yellow but a Mist Lynx wouldn't until red.
Could also add negatives for taking crits like heatsink/speed penalties.

I would then increase armor and more importantly structure to increase TTK (which would get lowered by this) and to further close the gap on the IS and Clan engine. And of course rework quirks to balance out everything.

[Mcgral18]

dario03, on 15 August 2015 - 08:03 PM, said:

I still say they should be made different with cons and pros for both. So different but ~equal. I would go with something like putting engine crits in but making them work differently for IS and Clan. So something like engine crits happen at red/orange internal but IS could survive 3 crits but not a full torso lose and Clans could survive a torso lose but not 3 crits.

So IS XL
side torso destruction = death
3 torsos red internal = alive

Clan XL
side torso destruction = alive
3 torsos red internal = death

Could change that up in a bunch of ways as well. Maybe make IS XL die on 3 crits and side torso destruction but not take crits until red where as Clan would start taking them at orange or yellow. Maybe even vary it by mech, so something like a Timberwolf would take crits at yellow but a Mist Lynx wouldn't until red.
Could also add negatives for taking crits like heatsink/speed penalties.

I would then increase armor and more importantly structure to increase TTK (which would get lowered by this) and to further close the gap on the IS and Clan engine. And of course rework quirks to balance out everything.

That would involve making some new code (namely, engine being more than a single item). Not difficult by any means, but now a single Gauss round or isAC20 can one shot any Clam robot from behind.


No current code for delayed crits either (and wouldn't mean much for smaller robots). Something could be hacked together, and it's not exactly intensive/demanding calculations.


Not really a fan of this method, but might be feasible.

[dario03]

Mcgral18, on 15 August 2015 - 08:24 PM, said:

That would involve making some new code (namely, engine being more than a single item). Not difficult by any means, but now a single Gauss round or isAC20 can one shot any Clam robot from behind.


No current code for delayed crits either (and wouldn't mean much for smaller robots). Something could be hacked together, and it's not exactly intensive/demanding calculations.


Not really a fan of this method, but might be feasible.

I was thinking only 1 crit per torso (2 or 3 on death of course), maybe 2 for the CT. So you wouldn't be getting one shot in the back unless it was already enough to one shot you.

Edited by dario03, 15 August 2015 - 08:26 PM.

[TheArisen]

I think Pgi should add in LFE & other IS exclusive tech to even things up but still different.

Maybe LFE could have a penalty but less than a clan XL.

[Pjwned]

TheArisen, on 15 August 2015 - 11:18 PM, said:

I think Pgi should add in LFE & other IS exclusive tech to even things up but still different.

Yes.

Quote

Maybe LFE could have a penalty but less than a clan XL.

No, there's no good reason for the LFE to have less of a penalty than the cXL in the exact same situation.

[TheArisen]

Pjwned, on 15 August 2015 - 11:51 PM, said:

Yes.



No, there's no good reason for the LFE to have less of a penalty than the cXL in the exact same situation.

Well if we're talking about balance, a LFE weighs more and therefore should have some kind of advantage. Or we can just keep the IS 100% inferior and not completely solve the imbalance issue.