460 replies to this topic

[MeiSooHaityu]

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

2 Gauss in one ST. It's gonna be a fun one for the solo queue.

Wow, it's min-max...to the max lol (I think I used that right ).

Besides, are those gauss barrels double stacked vertical? If so, a removal of convergence wouldn't save you from that monster lol.

[Sjorpha]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

Nope not at all, un-nerf all technology, for both public and CW queues.

In CW queues the balance would be maintained by numbers.

In public queues both sides have the potential to drop with opposing clan tech.

Understood.

We're simply disagreeing then, I think superior clan tech is a boring and bad design from the start that PGI should take their chance of rectifying.

We want different things, that's ok. No problem, it's good to be clear about those two perspectives when discussing. I'm glad PGI has expressed sympathy with my perspective so far.

Edited by Sjorpha, 15 July 2015 - 08:24 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

2 Gauss in one ST. It's gonna be a fun one for the solo queue.

DONTOR, on 15 July 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

F*** ya, i forgot about that! That will be one explosive side torso though...

The IICs will show the superiority of Clan hardware!

[Dimento Graven]

Sjorpha, on 15 July 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

Understood.

We're simply disagreeing then, I think superior clan tech is a boring and bad design from the start that PGI should take their chance of rectifying.

We want different things, that's ok. No problem, it's good to be clear about those two perspectives when discussing.

Yeah, I agree that we probably want different things.

I just don't see a weapon-by-weapon, quirk-by-quirk, chassis-by-chassis balancing effort EVER succeeding when ONE SIDE is SUPPOSED to be inherently better than the other.

So screw parity at the nitpick level, and aim for parity on the broad scale.

Yeah, 1v1 Clan vs. IS, clan will typically win, even when it's 1 Clan Medium vs. 1 IS Assault, but again, that's actually how it was supposed to be, right?

[IraqiWalker]

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 July 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

Wow, it's min-max...to the max lol (I think I used that right ).

Besides, are those gauss barrels double stacked vertical? If so, a removal of convergence wouldn't save you from that monster lol.

I am hoping for Vertical.

and I haven't purchased any IICs

Edited by IraqiWalker, 15 July 2015 - 08:29 AM.

[Revis Volek]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

oOooh AAHHHH, a MEDIUM mech that can fire ONE gauss really fast, and that very fragile, very explody weapon system happens to be a GIANT target on its shoulder, which should it die and the pilot made the decision to include an XL in his build out causes a 90% chance of "instant game over" should the weapon get crit'd.

Yeah... It's a REAL "OP" monster, isn't it?!?!?

LOL...

Nothing you wrote there was anything close to what i said.

Try again without putting words in my mouth and not taking my reply out of context.

That ONE GAUSS medium has the same DPS just about of a any Dual Gauss Heavy and no its not OP but its a mean mech with 70 or so tons of ammo.

Edited by DarthRevis, 15 July 2015 - 08:43 AM.

[LordBraxton]

CrushLibs, on 15 July 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

1. no standard engine option
2. no swap for engines
3. heat penalty for loss of side torso
4. fixed armor type
5. fixed endo
6. fixed armor and endo slots (not dynamic like IS)
7. more heat and longer beam duration for back up weapons to gauss
8. IS quirks for faster cool down times

Having less options doesn't matter when you are forced to take superior options across the board. This list only hurts mechs like the summoner. Mechs like the EBJ, TBR, SCR, are perfect out of the box and in a league of their own because of it.

[Dimento Graven]

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

Nothing you wrote there was anything close to what i said.

Try again without putting words in my mouth and not taking my reply out of context.

That ONE GAUSS medium has the same DPS just about of a any Dual Gauss Heavy and no its not OP but its a mean mech with 70 or so tons of ammo.

You're absolutely right.

I was attempting to circumvent other clanners from pointing at the ONE IS 'mech with what everyone would agree with as 'really good' gauss specific quirks as a 'significant' balance factor (or in some moron's posts, an excuse why Clans 'suck' in comparison) by showing how ludicrous it is to try and hold it up as an IS 'OP' 'mech.

If you got from my statement that I was directing ridicule specifically at you, I apologize, that was not my intent.

[Revis Volek]

LordBraxton, on 15 July 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

Having less options doesn't matter when you are forced to take superior options across the board. This list only hurts mechs like the summoner. Mechs like the EBJ, TBR, SCR, are perfect out of the box and in a league of their own because of it.

So because we have 4 - 5 truly viable mechs its warrants every single one to be nerfed across the board?

XL NORMALIZATION is the way to go guys and gals!

Free cXL's for everyone in the IS!

[Dimento Graven]

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

So because we have 4 - 5 truly viable mechs its warrants every single one to be nerfed across the board?

XL NORMALIZATION is the way to go guys and gals!

Free cXL's for everyone in the IS!

To be fair, in CW all you need are 4 'truly viable' 'mechs for your drop deck.

However more toward you last point, funny as it was, I'd like current IS XL's to be improved where they still require 6 total ST crits, BUT, no longer completely die when an ST is crit'd out, OR maybe as an initial compromise only have a certain percentage chance of completely dying when an ST is lost.

[LordBraxton]

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

So because we have 4 - 5 truly viable mechs its warrants every single one to be nerfed across the board?

XL NORMALIZATION is the way to go guys and gals!

Free cXL's for everyone in the IS!

I never asked for nerfs. 90% of IS mechs need a buff (so buff IS tech and nerf the overquirked to compensate) and then allow 'Endo for the poor,' for ****** clan mechs. IS needs a buff though. 90%+ of IS variants are trash tier

[Dimento Graven]

LordBraxton, on 15 July 2015 - 09:08 AM, said:

I never asked for nerfs. 90% of IS mechs need a buff (so buff IS tech and nerf the overquirked to compensate) and then allow 'Endo for the poor,' for ****** clan mechs. IS needs a buff though. 90%+ of IS variants are trash tier

Not to argue with someone looking to gift me with something, but again, making IS 'mechs match their Clan opposites is the wrong way to go.

The Clan tech is SUPPOSED to be OP, and the IS numbers are SUPPOSED to be overwhelming.

That's the dynamic we should be asking for.

[Revis Volek]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

To be fair, in CW all you need are 4 'truly viable' 'mechs for your drop deck.

However more toward you last point, funny as it was, I'd like current IS XL's to be improved where they still require 6 total ST crits, BUT, no longer completely die when an ST is crit'd out, OR maybe as an initial compromise only have a certain percentage chance of completely dying when an ST is lost.

A percentage is an interesting idea....

Either way an increase in IS XL viability and survivability is IMO the best way to finish balancing this game. id be of with the tech difference weapon wise if our mechs were similarly tanky.

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Not to argue with someone looking to gift me with something, but again, making IS 'mechs match their Clan opposites is the wrong way to go.

The Clan tech is SUPPOSED to be OP, and the IS numbers are SUPPOSED to be overwhelming.

That's the dynamic we should be asking for.

I honestly dont want that....it also break the normal queue.

We loss half the game if we go 10v12...the good half. Hell over half....its the only tangible game we have right now and we would be throwing it away with 10v12.

So no i and many others do not want that.

[IraqiWalker]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Not to argue with someone looking to gift me with something, but again, making IS 'mechs match their Clan opposites is the wrong way to go.

The Clan tech is SUPPOSED to be OP, and the IS numbers are SUPPOSED to be overwhelming.

That's the dynamic we should be asking for.

Except we're not gonna get it, because the MM suffers from a stroke, and locking the solo queue into 10 v 12 IS v Clan is not gonna happen.

So we really need to toss out the "Supposed to be OP" mentality here, and work with what we have, not what we dream of having.

[Dimento Graven]

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

A percentage is an interesting idea....

Either way an increase in IS XL viability and survivability is IMO the best way to finish balancing this game. id be of with the tech difference weapon wise if our mechs were similarly tanky.

If we can't have the OP tech vs. OP numbers in the Clan vs. IS dynamic, then to 'balance' it, Clan and IS HAVE TO HAVE parity in their abilities.

You can't have 'balance' and yet still have one side greater than the other, that's 'cake and eat it too' thinking, oxymoronic at the very least.

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

Except we're not gonna get it, because the MM suffers from a stroke, and locking the solo queue into 10 v 12 IS v Clan is not gonna happen.

So we really need to toss out the "Supposed to be OP" mentality here, and work with what we have, not what we dream of having.

Well, to be honest you have to give up on the public queue MM as being a concern here.

The public queues are NOT 'BattleTech'. The public queues are 'Random Big Stompy Robot Battles', so F public queues because whatever happens there as a result of balancing CW (which IS "BattleTech" and should be the focus of the game), is of no REAL great concern.

Effectively you're trying to reconcile two COMPLETELY different games that happen to be sharing some of the same feature sets.

ONE of those games is going to have to take priority over the other to the later's detriment, there's just no other realistic choice, IF, you want to maintain the BattlTech Lore of Clan Over Powering Technology vs. IS Over Whelming Numbers.

Face it folks, that's the reality of this situation.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 15 July 2015 - 09:25 AM.

[Lugh]

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

So because we have 4 - 5 truly viable mechs its warrants every single one to be nerfed across the board?

XL NORMALIZATION is the way to go guys and gals!

Free cXL's for everyone in the IS!

The next whine will be, I still can't kill X fast enough, make me more durable....

It's a never ending creep of people that stink at positioning, awareness and aiming, wanting PGI to make them better.

Nothing that gets done will do that for them.

[Lugh]

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

A percentage is an interesting idea....

Either way an increase in IS XL viability and survivability is IMO the best way to finish balancing this game. id be of with the tech difference weapon wise if our mechs were similarly tanky.




I honestly dont want that....it also break the normal queue.

We loss half the game if we go 10v12...the good half. Hell over half....its the only tangible game we have right now and we would be throwing it away with 10v12.

So no i and many others do not want that.

To be fair 10 v 12 is not the same as 5 v 8, to keep that ratio it needs to be 10 v 16 and pgi doesn't have the wherewithal and knowledge to increase the engine renders for +2 mechs...No idea why or where it was thought that one star 5 mechs is equal to 2 lances but two stars are equal to three lances...

Edited by Lugh, 15 July 2015 - 09:34 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

If we can't have the OP tech vs. OP numbers in the Clan vs. IS dynamic, then to 'balance' it, Clan and IS HAVE TO HAVE parity in their abilities.

You can't have 'balance' and yet still have one side greater than the other, that's 'cake and eat it too' thinking, oxymoronic at the very least.

Well, to be honest you have to give up on the public queue MM as being a concern here.

The public queues are NOT 'BattleTech'. The public queues are 'Random Big Stompy Robot Battles', so F public queues because whatever happens there as a result of balancing CW (which IS "BattleTech" and should be the focus of the game), is of no REAL great concern.

Effectively you're trying to reconcile two COMPLETELY different games that happen to be sharing some of the same feature sets.

ONE of those games is going to have to take priority over the other to the later's detriment, there's just no other realistic choice, IF, you want to maintain the BattlTech Lore of Clan Over Powering Technology vs. IS Over Whelming Numbers.

Face it folks, that's the reality of this situation.

Then the competitive scene will be sacrificed, because 99% of the player base is not competitive.

So balance needs to be accounted for, across all queues.

[Dimento Graven]

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Then the competitive scene will be sacrificed, because 99% of the player base is not competitive.

So balance needs to be accounted for, across all queues.

What are you talking about 'competitive scene'?

First off competitive matches are fought in PRIVATE lobbies, not the public queue.

Secondly, MOST, of the competitions I've participated in had very specific rules about weight, 'mech types, and even in some, load outs.

The 'Competitive Scene' will only need to adapt, and by the way, IS NOT "BattleTech" either, so again, concern for balancing something that even PGI does not directly support is just silly...

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 09:33 AM, said:

To be fair 10 v 12 is not the same as 5 v 8, to keep that ratio it needs to be 10 v 16 and pgi doesn't have the wherewithal and knowledge to increase the engine renders for +2 mechs...No idea why or where it was thought that one star 5 mechs is equal to 2 lances but two stars are equal to three lances...

10v12 just seemed to be the easiest means of getting some parity, again, with possible modification of each side's drop weight allowance to factor in the very valid points you just brought up.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 15 July 2015 - 09:40 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

What are you talking about 'competitive scene'?

First off competitive matches are fought in PRIVATE lobbies, not the public queue.

Secondly, MOST, of the competitions I've participated in had very specific rules about weight, 'mech types, and even in some, load outs.

The 'Competitive Scene' will only need to adapt, and by the way, IS NOT "BattleTech" either, so again, concern for balancing something that even PGI does not directly support is just silly...

You seem to mistake competitive scene with things like tourneys, and such, only. Even CW falls under it.