170 replies to this topic

[Necromantion]

Sjorpha, on 10 July 2015 - 06:24 AM, said:

I'd say the EBJ is much better in on the whole, because of the superior peeking, the 5SS is probably better in a short range 1 on 1 brawl with no cover because it can shield better and has durability buffs.

On the other hand I'd say a UAC20 + SRM/SPL or SPL + SRM EBJ could probably outbrawl a 5SS close range, dat DPS is mad.

It doesn't seem like a fair comparison though, the EBJ is not a brawler chassis, and MPLs isn't the strongest build for it either. For a fair comparison of the mechs you need to compare their strongest builds to each other, like 5SS MPL vs. EBJ gaussvomit etc.

Peeking it is OK at yes however its CT is extremely fragile. A good pilot in an SS should demolish an EBJ.

Maybe burst but that thing would overheat in two seconds.

How is comparing a mid to long range sniper to a short range brawler fair? Maybe choose two mechs that fill the same role? lol

[Necromantion]

VompoVompatti, on 10 July 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

So is the clan meta ballistics or missiles now?
I usually see mostly laser builds with some mixed Gauss and that is pretty much what I used to see even before the stormcrow and timberwolf nerfs.

Do you really have to ask this question?

Pre twolf nerf youd see 2LPL 3-4Ermlas and on the stormcrow youd see 2ERLLas and 3-4 ERMlas which you dont at all anymore.

The only laser boat builds you see now are 4erllas EBJ or HBR, 2LPL 3-4Ermlas EBJ or the MPLas builds on HBR or EBJ.

There are a good amount of mixed ballistic/laser or laser/srm or ssrm builds being used now.

PPCs have also made a comeback but most people only run them on heat neutral or cold maps

[Malcolm Vordermark]

I'm ok with making the IS XL safe. I'm not ok with engine crits that result in a kill. I think that would be a step backwards considering how dangerous mechs are already.

[Duke Nedo]

Well, as for comparing apples and pears, that's what you'll have to do if your point is that they are different.

It seems logical to compare the TBR-5SS (which I believe most people agree is the main man on the IS side) with the EBJ (which is the same tonnage and with completely unquirked pods which makes life easier).

Comparing lasers is the easiest, we could thrown in a gauss as well, but it wouldn't make the difference less, rather more because c-gauss is a straight upgrade of the is-gauss.

It's fair to say that the difference in practice is probably not as big in these comparisons due to other mitigating factors, but my point is not to quantify the difference exactly. My point is to say that look here, there is a big difference, and it's significant.

So if we take the smallest difference in the comparisons: 10 tons. For arguments sake we say that it's only half. 5 tons. That is the weight of the locked Jump Jets on Summoners. Just saying... that's roughly at the least of what all IS mechs have working against them, disregarding quirks.

In other words, is there an elephant or is there not an elephant...?

[Chuck Jager]

0bsidion, on 10 July 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

It boils down to PGI has to either segregate Clan tech from IS, and implement this stuff the way it was intended, (e.g. superior numbers vs superior tech), or keep watering it down until BT fans no longer recognize it for what it was. Sadly, their solution seems to be the latter.

It should be thankfully not sadly. Every time I see somebody in my lance using a stock lore build, lore becomes less meaningful and effective than dialogue in porn. Every multi player game I play where I am heavily vested in the background material, I am usually heavily disappointed in both enjoyment and effectiveness. I have had to swallow the big fat reality that the background material has to take a big back seat to other elements that are hard to balance and always shifting.

Lore and religion should be treated the same. In your own private match or place of worship everyone should be encouraged to believe and enforce specific interpretations and rituals/mechanics. In public or a f2p environment we can never get rid of the fact that lore and religion is part of a shared past, but please do not try to force fictional stories as rigid fact that has to be followed.

[Sjorpha]

Necromantion, on 10 July 2015 - 06:49 AM, said:

Peeking it is OK at yes however its CT is extremely fragile. A good pilot in an SS should demolish an EBJ.

Maybe burst but that thing would overheat in two seconds.

How is comparing a mid to long range sniper to a short range brawler fair? Maybe choose two mechs that fill the same role? lol

If you actually read the conversation from the beginning you'd see that it wasn't me who asked for that comparison, I just answered another poster, I also said in my first answer that it was a bad comparison because of the different roles.

[Duke Nedo]

Here's another comparison that is quite illustrative. The SCR vs SHD-2K.

The SHD-2K is/was considered a good mech by IS standards, mildly quirked. Both have high E hardpoints etc.

Basic podspace in general due to engine + common trade-offs:

SCR 330cXL (106.9 kph): 23 tons
SHD 330XL: 23 tons
SHD 330STD: 11 tons
SHD 300STD: 17.5 tons
SHD 280STD (90.7 kph): 20.5 tons

So, depending on how much speed/agility you want to sacrifice, a cost somewhere between 2.5 and 12 tons.

Example builds:

SHD-2K, 3x ERLL, STD300, -0.5t armor: 27 dmg alpha, 675m range, 1.25s duration, 6.0 burst dps, 2.70 sustained dps

Similar SCR, -0.5t armor, 2x cLPL, 26 dmg alpha, 600m range, 1.12s duration, 5.94 burst dps, 2.80 sustained dps

Not perfect but rather similar. 1p less alpha, 75m less range, but ~10% shorter duration. The SCR has higher agility though and larger engine. If we just say that this is comparable, but not identical. How many tons do this SCR have left to spend on additional stuff after matching the SHD?

SCR free pod space: 11 tons and 23 slots. There are no negative quirks on these pods, but the SHD gets 7.5% heat gen.

As before, if we say add a TC1 to the SCR to make it a more fair comparison, then it's 10 tons. If we then cut it in half for arguments sake, it's down to a 5 tons advantage, which then again is the tonnage locked up in JumpJets on the Summoner.

And once again, I am not crying nerf, but I'd like to illustrate the power gap.

[Mystere]

Duke Nedo, on 10 July 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:

I hear you, but I'm working in academia and is sort of tired of discussions turning nonconstructive because people have a tendency to get sucked in and get stuck in details instead of first simplifying the problem, then solving it. I like the analogy though!

I would be satisfied if someone just created a set of N-dimensional (with N > 100) dynamic equations modelling Mechs, weapons, and other equipment engaged in 1 vs. 1, Star vs. Lance, and Binary vs. Company combat.

Edited by Mystere, 12 July 2015 - 12:43 AM.

[bad arcade kitty]

Mystere, on 12 July 2015 - 12:43 AM, said:

I would be satisfied if someone just created a set of N-dimensional (with N > 100) dynamic equations modelling Mechs, weapons, and other equipment engaged in 1 vs. 1, Star vs. Lance, and Binary vs. Company combat.

it can be done with modeling which is much simpler

[Mystere]

bad arcade kitty, on 12 July 2015 - 12:49 AM, said:

it can be done with modeling which is much simpler

And which I have yet to see, unless of course I missed such a thing.

[SaltBeef]

http://images.wikia....-1-Prochnow.jpg

Refuse!

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 12 July 2015 - 12:43 AM, said:

I would be satisfied if someone just created a set of N-dimensional (with N > 100) dynamic equations modelling Mechs, weapons, and other equipment engaged in 1 vs. 1, Star vs. Lance, and Binary vs. Company combat.

Why don't you do it?

You like to poke and prod at people discussing the subject, calling all attempts at observation and quantification vain or void or "not BattleTech," but you never have anything else to contribute to such conversations. If you care so much about it, do something. That's what the rest of us do; we see a way to break something down within our capabilities and capacities and we do it. You? You sit on that pedestal and frequently talk about too many variables to count as if that actually means anything. Pragmatically, it doesn't mean anything at all. You think game developers create such equations? They don't. They make their game, they eyeball the numbers with only maybe a roughly quantified framework of trade-offs, and then they run play-tests to make adjustments. And you know what? It works in most cases. Doing what you suggest is a tremendous waste of resources; the expertise required to build those algorithms is expensive and the finer details in the resulting product would be unappreciated - if not completely unnoticed - by the vast majority of the customer base. The "good enough" theorem is in full effect and I'd also say the "earnest garbage" theorem is, too.

Don't take this as a hostile attack. I am genuinely perplexed at your...enigmatic existence on these boards. Your comments are almost always condescending and, from where I sit, there's no justification for being so.

TL;DR: If you want to participate, freaking participate, dude.

[Bulvar Jorgensson]

Pgi could promote STOCK build bonuses into this game...they get you bigger bonuses to cbills and gxp...

Also start changing the way the game is scored.....damage done overall as opposed to kills...something that mixes up the death match mentality this game is stuck in.

If i want quick death match games i can go play CoD or some other fps. I come to mwo to get an immersive tactical battletech game, where tactics and manouverabilty promote a win/draw/loss.

Players get hung up on boating weapons and getting into a BIG BALL and gringing the enemy down, with a mop up phase at the end.
MATCH scenarios should be in this game.....

Team A.....you have to secure the following 4 grid co-ORDS to win this skirmish.
Team B.....you must get 25 component destroyed accross your team before the timer runs out...( means thinking about not killing but maiming opponents.

Individual missions can be given......bulvar you get bonus xp if you kill grumpytroll in this match etc.

Players cannot do this themselves PGI have to look at this and say YIP....give players more than Deathmatch.

BUT we as PLAYERS have to ask for more than STOMPY ROBOT DEATHMATCH.

[Johnny Z]

TWIAFU, on 10 July 2015 - 04:19 AM, said:

How do you balance a game when there is imbalance designed into it?

You really cannot - at least not without stomping all over the foundation of what MWO is based on, BattleTech.

How did the IS 'balance' things against the Clans? Well, they adjusted tactics and over time, improved technology.

The key to balance without ruining the foundation of the game, is to advance technology. Technology is the balance factor.

As a gameplay standpoint, it seems far better to balance weapons once we advance the timeline. Do it then instead of now and again later.

The reason why just advancing the timeline isnt viable is quality control. Just throwing more equipment at the problem leaving other equipment to be relegated to never being used just isnt smart.

There are like 100 reasons balancing everything out is the way to go, but the main one is content quality. When all items in game are viable and therefore usable then all the items in game are of top quality.(this is why most game design out there is crap all in the name of cheap content. Keeping the player chasing lvls or items to keep them entertained instead of having excellent gameplay and story ect to keep them entertained.)

Much like the maps being finished, once balance is finished then Mechwarrior would be ready for addition of new equipment such as the recent addition of MASC, but the new additions could be in small amounts(thinking lostech here) and balanced and added to a solid foundation of items.

Balance doesnt mean making everything the same, it means character makes the difference such as making a 25 ton commando balanced as compared to a 100 ton atlas, both vastly different but balanced.

Letting the character(player) and the story create dynamic gameplay is the way to go. (If they let capital worlds be capped then the last defenders of a factions capital will be in for an epic battle, and that can only be epic if there is excelllent balance to game play. The attackers will have shut down a front on their border to face other threats and may need to win the battle just as much....) (or a guilds world they captured for the credit income and they dont want to lose it, but a rival guild in another faction wants to shut them out of top level play)

By the way I cant wait for Mechwarrior Online to add "SOME" items/loot chasing into the game. In a very quality way, not as cheap content. Maybe a quest to a far off planet to find a lost cache of lostech equipment for example. Not "must have" equipment just really cool. (Isnt this preferable to "OMG not another weapon reskin I need to grind for") lol

Edited by Johnny Z, 12 July 2015 - 05:18 AM.

[Astrocanis]

Lugh, on 10 July 2015 - 05:29 AM, said:

1) Free Tons mean jack all when you don't have the slots to equip more weapons, free tons means that you have the ability to bring larger weapons to the party than the other side in that comparison. Free tons and larger weapons lead to less heat efficiency, less heat efficiency means less firing. Less firing means less damage. And OH YES LONGER exposure during the firing cycle to keep that damage on target. Which means more incoming damage. From the guy who has (in many cases) now begun to fire his SECOND full alpha at you while you are just finishing your first. Advantage IS.
2) Your right Dear. There is NO WAY to be successful with a fully armored Torso mounted 2 MED lasers and one head ML.
NO WAY AT ALL to contribute with 10 to 15 points of damage every .5 seconds.
3) NEITHER side can lose both side torsos. The MOST effective clan builds generally go with most weapons to the right or the left, losing that side is the same as the no weapon zombie mode you complain about for the STD.

Please, Please stop comparing Apples and Oranges. Each is TASTY and very good at what they do. However, Letting an Orange be an Orange, does not in any way stop an Apple from being an Apple.

The IS is better at mid range brawling and sustainable fire in those circumstances. STOP PEAK AND POKING with Clans mechs at Range you are letting the orange be an orange and it's better at that than you. Forming your firing line and rolling in to the clan line in mid range brawl range will do you more good than you are willing to explore because you are still wallowing in the woe is me I am inferiorness of your mistaken paradigm.

The clans are better at range, that's it. DPS wise in range the IS is better in every conceivable way.

Most of you seem to be struggling with understanding your enemy, probably because you don't or can't afford to play as the enemy.

And of course (Dear? LOL - condescend much when your temper rises?) EVERYONE plays the mech with the three golden guns.

[DragoonBrigade]

These balancing squawks are getting old. IS is IS and Clan is Clan, they are not supposed to be the same. If they were to be equal than there is no need to differentiate between the two. I play both and I don't see any problems with balancing. It's coming to the point were some players are just trying get the CLAN mechs nerfed down to a wet paper bag. This weapon is to OP, that armour is OP, engines are OP, ugh. I do not prefer to have "cookie cutter" mechs because that would be boring. It's starting to come down to that because these "quirks" are giving bonus for certain weapons which in turn players are more often than not choosing that weapon because of it. Do they have to? No. Do they, more often than not, yes because of the bonus.


My thought, I choose not to get on board.

[bad arcade kitty]

>IS is IS and Clan is Clan, they are not supposed to be the same

Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

(c) kipling

(:

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 12 July 2015 - 05:57 AM.

[Mystere]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 July 2015 - 03:16 AM, said:

Why don't you do it?

Because it's not my job -- unless of course PGI wants to pay me my going rate. But, having said that, I do say how things can be done. Go look for them if you're genuinely interested.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 July 2015 - 03:16 AM, said:

You like to poke and prod at people discussing the subject,

That is what I do. It's to trigger more important brain functions from people. It works in RL well too.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 July 2015 - 03:16 AM, said:

calling all attempts at observation and quantification vain or void

Not vain, just not as easy as many people here seem to always imply.

For example, we see people say things like "It's as simple as just editing an XML file!". Now that's what I call funny.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 July 2015 - 03:16 AM, said:

or "not BattleTech," but you never have anything else to contribute to such conversations. If you care so much about it, do something. That's what the rest of us do; we see a way to break something down within our capabilities and capacities and we do it. You? You sit on that pedestal and frequently talk about too many variables to count as if that actually means anything. Pragmatically, it doesn't mean anything at all.

See my first comment.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 July 2015 - 03:16 AM, said:

You think game developers create such equations? They don't. They make their game, they eyeball the numbers with only maybe a roughly quantified framework of trade-offs, and then they run play-tests to make adjustments. And you know what? It works in most cases. Doing what you suggest is a tremendous waste of resources; the expertise required to build those algorithms is expensive and the finer details in the resulting product would be unappreciated - if not completely unnoticed - by the vast majority of the customer base. The "good enough" theorem is in full effect and I'd also say the "earnest garbage" theorem is, too.

Maybe they should. Many people in other fields do it all the time. It's called quantitative modelling. Some even build computer models based those same equations.

Considering the wild balancing swings we have, it is not so bad an idea.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 July 2015 - 03:16 AM, said:

Don't take this as a hostile attack. I am genuinely perplexed at your...enigmatic existence on these boards. Your comments are almost always condescending and, from where I sit, there's no justification for being so.


TL;DR: If you want to participate, freaking participate, dude.

If that is what you think, then you probably have not been paying close attention enough.

And by the way, my comment was actually meant as a subtle joke to the "working in academia" comment I was responding to. But then again my so-called jokes (or pokes as you call them) are usually double-edged.

Edited by Mystere, 12 July 2015 - 09:52 AM.

[AEgg]

Duke Nedo, on 11 July 2015 - 11:12 PM, said:

Here's another comparison that is quite illustrative. The SCR vs SHD-2K.

The SHD-2K is/was considered a good mech by IS standards, mildly quirked. Both have high E hardpoints etc.

Basic podspace in general due to engine + common trade-offs:

SCR 330cXL (106.9 kph): 23 tons
SHD 330XL: 23 tons
SHD 330STD: 11 tons
SHD 300STD: 17.5 tons
SHD 280STD (90.7 kph): 20.5 tons

So, depending on how much speed/agility you want to sacrifice, a cost somewhere between 2.5 and 12 tons.

Example builds:

SHD-2K, 3x ERLL, STD300, -0.5t armor: 27 dmg alpha, 675m range, 1.25s duration, 6.0 burst dps, 2.70 sustained dps

Similar SCR, -0.5t armor, 2x cLPL, 26 dmg alpha, 600m range, 1.12s duration, 5.94 burst dps, 2.80 sustained dps

Not perfect but rather similar. 1p less alpha, 75m less range, but ~10% shorter duration. The SCR has higher agility though and larger engine. If we just say that this is comparable, but not identical. How many tons do this SCR have left to spend on additional stuff after matching the SHD?

SCR free pod space: 11 tons and 23 slots. There are no negative quirks on these pods, but the SHD gets 7.5% heat gen.

As before, if we say add a TC1 to the SCR to make it a more fair comparison, then it's 10 tons. If we then cut it in half for arguments sake, it's down to a 5 tons advantage, which then again is the tonnage locked up in JumpJets on the Summoner.

And once again, I am not crying nerf, but I'd like to illustrate the power gap.

Your comparison is seriously lacking by not including an IS XL. Include that and IS looks vastly superior to IS, too:

SHD-2K, 3x ERLL, STD300, -0.5t armor: 27 dmg alpha, 675m range, 1.25s duration, 6.0 burst dps, 2.70 sustained dps

Similar SCR, -0.5t armor, 2x cLPL, 26 dmg alpha, 600m range, 1.12s duration, 5.94 burst dps, 2.80 sustained dps

SHD-2K, 3x ERLL, XL300, -0.5t armor: 27 dmg alpha, 675m range, 1.25s duration, 6.0 burst dps, 2.70 sustained dps (9.95 tons free)

All your comparison really says is that large STD engines are bad on this mech.

True, clan XLs don't die quite as fast as IS XLs, but that is the only significant difference between these two (admittedly dumb) builds, seeing as they otherwise have basically identical free tonnage. Otherwise they're effectively identical.

Is a weaker XL worth having the option to run a STD? Remember that this applies to all chassis, not just this one. Obviously a SDK would love a clan XL, but a DWF would love an IS STD. So it works both ways. Still probably in favor for the clans, but there ARE mechs that benefit from using slower STD engines. They are fewer than those that benefit from XLs, true, but the only real question is whether that number is slanted enough to further harm the clans. Making IS XLs identical to clan XLs would push IS past the clans in this regard, not make them equal.

[Kristov Kerensky]

I find it rather funny that for close to 20 years we've had various MW titles that allowed the use of Clan and IS Tech exclusively, and we've had a number of leagues that strictly enforced that exclusive Tech rule for the players, and the drops were NOT 10v12, they were equal numbers of players per side, the limiting factor was how much tonnage each side got to bring, and that was NOT based on Tech but on simple logistics. Clan teams sometimes had 2x or more the tonnage than the IS teams they faced, and vice versa.

And no one complained, no one whined, it was accepted that this is how it works. Clans have better tech, much better in all the previous MW titles than in MWO I might add. And people enjoyed this disparity, and the IS often was the winner of the league's season simply due to better players on the IS side when it came to logistics, tactics and overall strategy, which were supported by having better players in lesser Mechs as well.

In MWO we have Clan and IS Tech and currently, and according to those who play both sides, we have parity between the two, with a slight edge to the Clans on the range side and a more than slight edge to the IS on the midrange and closer side.

On top of that, we have PGI doing a major rebalance act, which according to Sean Lang, who's actually ON the inside seeing what's being done, is really a total game changer.

So why don't the people who can't see the parity we have stop posting about fixing what isn't broken, and let us all wait and see what PGI has actually got going on the rebalance, is that possible?

Or the people who can't see what's in the game can keep posting rather silly comparisons of Mechs from the IS and Clan side that aren't used in even remotely the same manner to show us their bias and ignore the actual usage of those same Mechs in the game so they can promote their own personal agenda, because that's all I've been seeing from them lately, personal agendas based on pure bs.

I'm sure the OP, with a background in academics, can understand that..or maybe not, since they started this entire thread with such an obviously failed comparison of Mechs showing a clear personal agenda driven by their own bias.

Edited by Kristov Kerensky, 12 July 2015 - 10:02 AM.