460 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Johnny Z, on 19 July 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Among other factors, yes. Character isnt a quality that is determined by numbers any more than it is by appearance. Your argument defeats itself.

Wow...

I'm pretty much ready to give up after this.

If you think making a 'mech look 'pretty' balances the fact that losing a side torso with an XL ends your game verses an 'ugly' 'mech that can survive the same XL side torso loss...

Well... Seriously kid, how old are you?

I have a very shiny penny that I'll trade you for that old wrinkled faded dollar bill!

Edited by Dimento Graven, 19 July 2015 - 09:40 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Dimento Graven, on 19 July 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

Wow...

I'm pretty much ready to give up after this.

If you think making a 'mech look 'pretty' balances the fact that losing a side torso with an XL ends your game verses an 'ugly' 'mech that can survive the same XL side torso loss...

Well... Seriously kid, how old are you?

I have a very shiny penny that I'll trade you for that old wrinkled faded dollar bill!

Learn to read fool. Before this is redacted, he called me names first.

Edited by Johnny Z, 19 July 2015 - 09:42 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Johnny Z, on 19 July 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Learn to read fool. Before this is redacted, he called me names first.

First: What name did I call you?

Second: You never answered my question, just how old are you?

You sure you don't want this very shiny penny in trade for that old wrinkled dollar you got waded up in your pocket?

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 July 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

if universally, every clan mech had the same issues, you might be right. They don't and won't. Which is why you don't' "balance the tech based on the chassis" because there is no way that the same issues hold true across the board.

Okay, so you want to fundamentally change how Clan mechs are made/balanced? I'm all for it. Sweet baby jebus I'm all for it.

Maybe after we get a complete, well rounded single player experience and the Steam release?

In the interim though we've got Clans that are balanced by locked internals, which ties up slots and tonnage. The result is that only a handful of Clan mechs can effectively run a Gauss + laser build. The Dire is what it is because of CXL, not light weight gauss. It's got a stupid amount of tonnage available and flat out absurd number of hardpoints available.

Give me an IS mech with 11 hardpoints and 50 tons free for weapons and I'll make you something pretty nasty.

Given the poor state of other Clan ballistics the gauss is really the only option. Other than the DWolf, is there another super-competitive, as in superior to comparable IS builds in the same tonnage range, gauss + laser build out there? Better than laservomit alone?

[Damien Tokala]

The drawback is that I can't fit 6 of them on a dire and fire more than 2 at once.

[Adiuvo]

MischiefSC, on 19 July 2015 - 10:17 AM, said:

Given the poor state of other Clan ballistics the gauss is really the only option. Other than the DWolf, is there another super-competitive, as in superior to comparable IS builds in the same tonnage range, gauss + laser build out there? Better than laservomit alone?

UAC Daishi. In conventional push maps like Forest Colony it destroys everything.

Clan ballistics are pretty good now. In mechs with the tonnage to run them I'd say they're better than IS atm. Burst is much higher.

[MischiefSC]

Adiuvo, on 19 July 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

UAC Daishi. In conventional push maps like Forest Colony it destroys everything.

Clan ballistics are pretty good now. In mechs with the tonnage to run them I'd say they're better than IS atm. Burst is much higher.

Better how? I admit, I'm curious. 2x CUAC5 is better than IS 2xUAC5? Of is it that in a mech around the same tonnage you can run 2xUAC10 as easily as a IS mech can run 2xUAC5?

Not counting the Daishi. A mech with 11 hardpoints and 50 tons for weapons is its own issue.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 19 July 2015 - 10:17 AM, said:

Okay, so you want to fundamentally change how Clan mechs are made/balanced? I'm all for it. Sweet baby jebus I'm all for it.

Maybe after we get a complete, well rounded single player experience and the Steam release?

In the interim though we've got Clans that are balanced by locked internals, which ties up slots and tonnage. The result is that only a handful of Clan mechs can effectively run a Gauss + laser build. The Dire is what it is because of CXL, not light weight gauss. It's got a stupid amount of tonnage available and flat out absurd number of hardpoints available.

Give me an IS mech with 11 hardpoints and 50 tons free for weapons and I'll make you something pretty nasty.

Given the poor state of other Clan ballistics the gauss is really the only option. Other than the DWolf, is there another super-competitive, as in superior to comparable IS builds in the same tonnage range, gauss + laser build out there? Better than laservomit alone?

Read what was said.

Not every mech made, under those rules has disadvantageous internal placement.

[Ultimax]

MischiefSC, on 19 July 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

Better how? I admit, I'm curious. 2x CUAC5 is better than IS 2xUAC5?

4 Extra tons free? More crit slots free?

These things actually matter.


Stronger platforms with Clan XL which = speed + survivability.

IS builds have to give up one or the other.


Stronger supporting weapons, like CERMLAS.



This is pretty clear cut stuff really.

MischiefSC, on 19 July 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

Of is it that in a mech around the same tonnage you can run 2xUAC10 as easily as a IS mech can run 2xUAC5?

And yes, of course this.



Even without quirks I would play EBJ with triple UAC 5s before I play a Jager with triple UAC 5s.


The JM6-DDs quirks are not worth traveling at sub 80kph speeds with an IS XL engine.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 19 July 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[InspectorG]

Johnny Z, on 19 July 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Among other factors, yes. Character isnt a quality that is determined by numbers any more than it is by appearance. Your argument defeats itself.

What other factors?

[InspectorG]

Adiuvo, on 19 July 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

UAC Daishi. In conventional push maps like Forest Colony it destroys everything.

Clan ballistics are pretty good now. In mechs with the tonnage to run them I'd say they're better than IS atm. Burst is much higher.

You prefer 5UAC5 or 4UAC10 on the Whale?

I am enjoying the 2UAC10 on the Warhawk myself.

[MischiefSC]

Ultimatum X, on 19 July 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

4 Extra tons free? More crit slots free?

These things actually matter.


Stronger platforms with Clan XL which = speed + survivability.

IS builds have to give up one or the other.


Stronger supporting weapons, like CERMLAS.



This is pretty clear cut stuff really.




And yes, of course this.



Even without quirks I would play EBJ with triple UAC 5s before I play a Jager with triple UAC 5s.


The JM6-DDs quirks are not worth traveling at sub 80kph speeds with an IS XL engine.

I get the concept, however other than the DW name me some rock solid builds using CUACs. I ran 300+ drops in my TW with 2xUAC5s and 4xCERMLs before the UAC buffs and loved it - nobody would accuse that build of being 'comp tier' though.

Genuinely curious. I'm not a big fan of the current IS/Clan balance system but it seems... okay. Admittedly my ideal 'balance method' would be a time machine.

I would go back in time and go to every FASA developer involved in creating the Clans as stupidly OP and functionally balanced by Plot Armor back before that terrible decision and slap them, hard, across the face with a wet rag. Then make them watch videos of the countless apologies they made at gaming cons over the decision before the player population of the tabletop game voided (because of the intro of the Clans) to the point that there stopped being Battletech Gaming Cons. Then I'd show them that even the video games were insufficient to keep interest (since players may have liked the video games but then saw how insanely stupid the concept was in a PvP environment instead of PvE, without easy to find mixed tech and gimped AI) because of that terribad decision.

Then I would come back to the present where we would have a better balanced Clan/IS tech level built into the lore and not shoe-horned like a rampant wildebeest into a size 3 mini-dress.

Not that I'm still holding a grudge 26 years later.

Seriously though. Right across the face. HARD. A wet dish cloth. It's not just the stinging pain, it's the loud SLAP noise. Preferably done in front of their children as a warning to future generations.

That aside....

I mean builds comparable to IS AC builds in the same tonnage range. I get that conceptually it's a problem but I'm wondering about examples.

[Kristov Kerensky]

MischiefSC, on 19 July 2015 - 07:41 PM, said:

I get the concept, however other than the DW name me some rock solid builds using CUACs. I ran 300+ drops in my TW with 2xUAC5s and 4xCERMLs before the UAC buffs and loved it - nobody would accuse that build of being 'comp tier' though.

Genuinely curious. I'm not a big fan of the current IS/Clan balance system but it seems... okay. Admittedly my ideal 'balance method' would be a time machine.

I would go back in time and go to every FASA developer involved in creating the Clans as stupidly OP and functionally balanced by Plot Armor back before that terrible decision and slap them, hard, across the face with a wet rag. Then make them watch videos of the countless apologies they made at gaming cons over the decision before the player population of the tabletop game voided (because of the intro of the Clans) to the point that there stopped being Battletech Gaming Cons. Then I'd show them that even the video games were insufficient to keep interest (since players may have liked the video games but then saw how insanely stupid the concept was in a PvP environment instead of PvE, without easy to find mixed tech and gimped AI) because of that terribad decision.

Then I would come back to the present where we would have a better balanced Clan/IS tech level built into the lore and not shoe-horned like a rampant wildebeest into a size 3 mini-dress.

Not that I'm still holding a grudge 26 years later.

Seriously though. Right across the face. HARD. A wet dish cloth. It's not just the stinging pain, it's the loud SLAP noise. Preferably done in front of their children as a warning to future generations.

That aside....

I mean builds comparable to IS AC builds in the same tonnage range. I get that conceptually it's a problem but I'm wondering about examples.

I can't like this enough, I had to quote it!

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Prosperity Park, on 13 July 2015 - 03:03 PM, said:

The Clan Gauss Rifle weighs 3 tons less than the IS version. What are the balancing factors used to compensate for this?

Does it have a slower charge-up time? No.
Does it have a slower recycle time? No.
Shorter range? Less damage? No. No.
Does it take up more slots? No, opposite, it takes up fewer slots.
Does it explode more easily? No; in fact Clanners get 0-tonnage CASE on every arm and torso section to boot.
Does it cause more internal damage when it explodes? No.


Does it do anything at all that balances the 3 fewer tons and 1 fewer slot? No.

When can we expect a change to this situation?

(This is not an IS player whining, this is a video gamer scratching his head in wonder)

Not every clan mech has the tonnage space of a Dire Wolf, not to mention Clan mechs can't swap engines or internals to for more tonnage. Sorry you don't understand well, but maybe try piloting or building a clan mech? That should help with reasoning and understanding. Good luck!

[Hit the Deck]

00ohDstruct, on 19 July 2015 - 11:16 PM, said:

Not every clan mech has the tonnage space of a Dire Wolf, not to mention Clan mechs can't swap engines or internals to for more tonnage. Sorry you don't understand well, but maybe try piloting or building a clan mech? That should help with reasoning and understanding. Good luck!

In December, Clan will get BattleMechs which can mount anything and thus makes your argument invalid. What do you say about that?

[Sjorpha]

00ohDstruct, on 19 July 2015 - 11:16 PM, said:

Not every clan mech has the tonnage space of a Dire Wolf, not to mention Clan mechs can't swap engines or internals to for more tonnage. Sorry you don't understand well, but maybe try piloting or building a clan mech? That should help with reasoning and understanding. Good luck!

Most people concerned about the lopsided faction balance play both sides and are just as concerned with their own mechs being overpowered as they are with them being underpowered. You have no reason to make your assumption about the OP.

Also it is factually correct that the Clan gauss is strictly better with no corresponding drawbacks, it is imbalanced.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Hit the Deck, on 19 July 2015 - 11:24 PM, said:

In December, Clan will get BattleMechs which can mount anything and thus makes your argument invalid. What do you say about that?

That what I've been saying about PGI painting themselves into a corner will finally come to fruition, and unless they do something with a true battle value system, or removing PPFLD you're going to have butthurt everywhere. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's how PGI presents the game.

[Hit the Deck]

Sjorpha, on 19 July 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

...
Also it is factually correct that the Clan gauss is strictly better with no corresponding drawbacks, it is imbalanced.

And about individual weapon balancing, Clan still have some obviously superior weapons like the cLB-10X, for example (or Flamer, duh...). But I guess people are less concerned about them because they are considered not so important like the Gauss Rifle.

1 vs 1 weapon balancing definitely creates some difficulties.

00ohDstruct, on 19 July 2015 - 11:34 PM, said:

That what I've been saying about PGI painting themselves into a corner will finally come to fruition, and unless they do something with a true battle value system, or removing PPFLD you're going to have butthurt everywhere. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's how PGI presents the game.

I'd say that the lighter Clan weapons still need to be balanced against the IS version although if there wouldn't be Clan BattleMechs. But let's hope that the upcoming balance pass will do something good.

[IraqiWalker]

00ohDstruct, on 19 July 2015 - 11:34 PM, said:

That what I've been saying about PGI painting themselves into a corner will finally come to fruition, and unless they do something with a true battle value system, or removing PPFLD you're going to have butthurt everywhere. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's how PGI presents the game.

The problem still remains though. The C-Gauss is flat out better than the the IS Gauss in almost every aspect. The only places where it isn't better, it's equal to the IS Gauss.

Fixed upgrades, engines ... etc. don't really make up for it. You need something changed with the C-Gauss to make up for the benefits.

[Gallowglas]

I think healthy debate is good on subjects like this for the sake of game balance. That said, the guys who inevitably reply that "it's SUPPOSED to be OP compared to the IS" are serious /facepalm material. Maybe your point is that we should have gotten balancing done via team sizes. There's some room for debate there, although it would make balance in the public queue impossible. That said, given the balancing mechanisms we have in the game, I hope you understand that you can't just leave game elements unbalanced because that's the way they're "supposed" to be. Otherwise, nobody would play IS and 2/3 of the mechs and factions in the game would be totally worthless.