460 replies to this topic

[InspectorG]

Heart of Storm, on 13 July 2015 - 03:19 PM, said:

Seeing lots of mention of gauss quirks here... dont recall seeing many on my IS mechs...

Do clanners just assume IS mechs have quirks for every weapon?

Hunchback. Grid. Iron.

aka

Gauss Machinegun.

[Bishop Steiner]

Blueduck, on 13 July 2015 - 06:12 PM, said:

Oh I agree, I'm just saying the IS Gauss Rifle and Clan Gauss Rifle are pretty well balanced if you compare the Jaegar and Grid Iron to your typical clan gauss builds.

The high mounts + quirks stack up pretty well against clan perks + clan XL.

My problem is that people are trying to compare just the weapon systems which makes no sense.

except it does...because um...Gauss aren't used ONLY in GIs and Jagers.

You balance the chassis.
You balance the weapons
THEN you balance the quirks.

Part of that is when you have direct analogues, you balance them.

Otherwise you get a hot mess of out of balance crap because everything is a special case, kneejerk reaction to something else. Aka the Paul Method.

InspectorG, on 13 July 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

Hunchback. Grid. Iron.

aka

Gauss Machinegun.

Yes. One mech with a broken quirk (and oddly one that I have called out several times). And like the TDR-9S back in the day, one that needs to be addressed.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 July 2015 - 06:15 PM.

[InspectorG]

Damocles, on 13 July 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

OP Post and ran.

You all got slaughtered in the driveby.

Aftermath of a drive by is good place to look for lost wallets...
Not to mention OP had 9000 posts.

[Bishop Steiner]

Blueduck, on 13 July 2015 - 06:13 PM, said:

Oh I agree, I'm just saying the IS Gauss Rifle and Clan Gauss Rifle are pretty well balanced if you compare the Jaegar and Grid Iron to your typical clan gauss builds.

The high mounts + quirks stack up pretty well against clan perks + clan XL.

My problem is that people are trying to compare just the weapon systems which makes no sense.



Actually you seem to really be the only apologist here; and an aggressive one at that. The point most people raised is consider the weapon system with perks with high mounts as it is really the combination of those that leads to overall balance.

You're the one who jumped in here and started insulting everyone.

Lasik. Might want to try rereading a few posts. Doubt it will help though.

[El Bandito]

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)

I too, have been asking for a r-balance between IS and Clan Gauss. Having Clan Gauss 3 tons lighter and 1 slot smaller means that it should perform less than IS Gauss, for balance.

Clan ACs are less capable than IS ACs precisely because of that. Why should Gauss be the exception?

InspectorG, on 13 July 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

Hunchback. Grid. Iron.

aka

Gauss Machinegun.

That's an issue of one hero mech--which can easily be re-quirked. We are talking about an entire weapon system.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 July 2015 - 06:34 PM.

[Telmasa]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 July 2015 - 06:16 PM, said:

except it does...because um...Gauss aren't used ONLY in GIs and Jagers.

You balance the chassis.
You balance the weapons
THEN you balance the quirks.

Part of that is when you have direct analogues, you balance them.

Otherwise you get a hot mess of out of balance crap because everything is a special case, kneejerk reaction to something else. Aka the Paul Method.

Yes. One mech with a broken quirk (and oddly one that I have called out several times). And like the TDR-9S back in the day, one that needs to be addressed.

You, you are a sensible guy. I like you.

This thread is all pretty moot with the balance update coming up fast, but:
if it were me, I'd increase the cooldown on Gauss for both IS and Clans - not too much, and not to the levels MW4:Mercs had it at, but more than it is now.

As for the IS vs Clan discrepancy...I would explain the fewer crit slots by saying that Clan tech does away with structural protection deemed unecessary for combat, thus resulting in Clan gauss rifles having less crit health than IS ones do.

In fact, this could apply to everything IS vs Clan, not just Gauss rifles - obviously with varying extents depending on how big the gap is between tonnage & crit space, all probably not as extreme as the Gauss rifle situation.

This way, Clan tech would still have its edges, but be counter-balanced by the fact that Clan-tech weapons would be less sturdier when exposed to direct structural damage.

Edited by Telmasa, 13 July 2015 - 06:34 PM.

[Ultimax]

Blueduck, on 13 July 2015 - 06:13 PM, said:

Oh I agree, I'm just saying the IS Gauss Rifle and Clan Gauss Rifle are pretty well balanced if you compare the Jaegar and Grid Iron to your typical clan gauss builds.

The high mounts + quirks stack up pretty well against clan perks + clan XL.

My problem is that people are trying to compare just the weapon systems which makes no sense.

The problem is the reverse bud, you can't hold up only two mechs in an entire faction to say "IS Gauss is balanced vs. Clan Gauss being 3 tons lighter".


Because it just doesn't work that way.


Like when I can stuff Gauss + 6x CERMLAS on my EBJ or TBR and then if I try to run that on a Cataphract I have a 3 ton heavier gauss and need to spend 15 tons on 3x LLAS for less alpha, on a slower mech that is easier to kill?


Tonnage matters in these faction debates, 12 ton Gauss matters, half weight SRMs matter, etc.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 13 July 2015 - 07:22 PM.

[El Bandito]

^ This. Do not forget the CERPPC which is superior than the IS ERPPC while costing less tonnage and space. Right now the ERPPC is not a good weapon for most mechs, but when the time comes where ERPPCs are viable, you bet I will complain loudly about this unfairness.

If we want to go deeper, there are plenty of lighter Clan equipments such as CAP with superior performance than IS BAP. Makes no sense, balance wise.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 July 2015 - 06:42 PM.

[Star Wolves Admin Account]

Ultimatum X, on 13 July 2015 - 06:34 PM, said:

The problem is the reverse bud, you can't hold up only two mechs in an entire faction to say "IS Gauss is balanced vs. Clan Gauss being 3 tons lighter".


Because it just doesn't work that way.


Like when I can stuff Gauss + 6x CERMLAS on my EBJ or TBR and then if I try to run that on a Cataphract I have a 3 ton heavier gauss and need to spend 15 tons on 3x LLAS for less alpha, on a slower mech that is hard to kill?


Tonnage matters in these faction debates, 12 ton Gauss matters, half weight SRMs matter, etc.

Fair enough however my group largely plays CW. We have encountered 6+ waves of Jaegars with gauss and UAC5s. Certain teams will only play that Chassis on the right maps and you can't just rebalance the clan weapons without addressing these mechs as well.

I have no problem rebalancing the weapons to be more viable for all but first you have to reverse some of the ballistic quirks on the IS mechs with high weapons mounts.

After you do that feel free to rebalance the overall weapons

Edited by Blueduck, 13 July 2015 - 06:46 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Doesnt the CGauss take up less space also? Or same space just 3 tons less weight?

[El Bandito]

Johnny Z, on 13 July 2015 - 06:57 PM, said:

Doesnt the CGauss take up less space also? Or same space just 3 tons less weight?

1 less slot for CGauss.

[Kristov Kerensky]

El Bandito, on 13 July 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

^ This. Do not forget the CERPPC which is superior than the IS ERPPC while costing less tonnage and space. Right now the ERPPC is not a good weapon for most mechs, but when the time comes where ERPPCs are viable, you bet I will complain loudly about this unfairness.

If we want to go deeper, there are plenty of lighter Clan equipments such as CAP with superior performance than IS BAP. Makes no sense, balance wise.

So..you are saying...lets remove any DIFFERENCES and just give everyone the same stuff, just name it different...

Right, and why don't we just remove all Mechs but 1, give it a single weapon, and call it good, because THAT son is balance, NOTHING else is.

I can go play a number of games where that is pretty much exactly what I'd get, I'm HERE spending my money because that is NOT what I want. I'm pretty sure that's not what most of us looking for a BattleTech based video game want because that is NOT BattleTech. Which is the mistake MicroSoft made with the MechAssault game, remove everything that's actually BattleTech but the names, and THAT turned out beautifully didn't it.

[InspectorG]

El Bandito, on 13 July 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

^ This. Do not forget the CERPPC which is superior than the IS ERPPC while costing less tonnage and space. Right now the ERPPC is not a good weapon for most mechs, but when the time comes where ERPPCs are viable, you bet I will complain loudly about this unfairness.

If we want to go deeper, there are plenty of lighter Clan equipments such as CAP with superior performance than IS BAP. Makes no sense, balance wise.

But, also, if PGI made Clan and IS weapons 'even-steven' just HOW MANY players would throw a sh*t fit because lore?
PGI would be seen as just even MOAR lazy bast*rds that used Clans as a cash grab despite identical products.

Face it, its Balance vs Lore in a very lore heavy game. I doubt PGI/IGP researched BV and such before they launched the game.
Honestly, it would likely take some MIT mathematicians to figure it out...after several fails. They ported an elaborate boardgame into a FPS...and it pretty much works. Players expect more content, and should, but what they did was no easy task even if they were shooting from the hip in doing so.

Hence quirks. And yet an even new balance scheme 'BV' is upcoming. PGI may throw quirks out the window. Who knows?

[Johnny Z]

How can one guild be asked to field more players than another guild because one of the guilds is piloting inferior mechs. This is what 10 v 12 would do. How many guilds would choose to pilot the inferior mechs knowing they would need more active pilots to face other guilds. Is it fair to ask that of some guilds and not others? Does fairness even compute with the guys asking for 10 v 12?


This is only ONE of about 500 reasons that 10 v 12 wouldnt work. This battle value thing sounds really bad. I think Mechwarrior Online was getting close to having this balance situation in a good place.


Other reasons balance is not up for serious debate.

Solaris would require seperate queues as would the regular queue and group queue.

Prices in game would ALL need to be changed.

Im not even going to bother going on about this rediculous idea.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2015 - 07:28 PM.

[El Bandito]

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 July 2015 - 07:08 PM, said:

So..you are saying...lets remove any DIFFERENCES and just give everyone the same stuff, just name it different...

Right, and why don't we just remove all Mechs but 1, give it a single weapon, and call it good, because THAT son is balance, NOTHING else is.

I can go play a number of games where that is pretty much exactly what I'd get, I'm HERE spending my money because that is NOT what I want. I'm pretty sure that's not what most of us looking for a BattleTech based video game want because that is NOT BattleTech. Which is the mistake MicroSoft made with the MechAssault game, remove everything that's actually BattleTech but the names, and THAT turned out beautifully didn't it.

Your post is a prime example of an unimaginative, simple minded player.

One can make CERPPC/ERPPC to have similar effectiveness to their respective tonnage without making them exactly the same. PGI had already managed it with Clan ACs.

InspectorG, on 13 July 2015 - 07:13 PM, said:

But, also, if PGI made Clan and IS weapons 'even-steven' just HOW MANY players would throw a sh*t fit because lore?

Not as many as the Steam horde who will be pissed about superior Clan side. They do not give a crap about the lore, they give a crap about balance between factions!

If PGI made Clan ACs balanced vs IS ACs, then they can sure as hell do the same to Clan Gauss and CERPPCs.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 July 2015 - 07:27 PM.

[Eider]

Just to play devils advocate once more to the 'but clan is superior in lore' bunch. That no longer matters as it is not 10 vs 12, so yes weapons should work similarly without giving a huge advantage. Currently not the case.

[Bishop Steiner]

El Bandito, on 13 July 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

^ This. Do not forget the CERPPC which is superior than the IS ERPPC while costing less tonnage and space. Right now the ERPPC is not a good weapon for most mechs, but when the time comes where ERPPCs are viable, you bet I will complain loudly about this unfairness.

Of course! Because the IS has a standard PPC, so that balances the Clan ERPPC advantage....somehow..because ...reasons?

Eider, on 13 July 2015 - 07:29 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate once more to the 'but clan is superior in lore' bunch. That no longer matters as it is not 10 vs 12, so yes weapons should work similarly without giving a huge advantage. Currently not the case.

10 v 12, if tech was at "lore" discrepancies, the IS would lose, horrible. 5v8 is the closer equivalent.

[Ultimax]

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 July 2015 - 07:08 PM, said:

So..you are saying...lets remove any DIFFERENCES and just give everyone the same stuff, just name it different...

Pure, raw tonnage advantages aren't "differences".


This isn't Zergs vs. Terrans.


This is one side has the same kind of weapons as the other side and the only 'difference' is that once side has mostly superior versions.


That's not uniqueness and character, that's a balance issue.

[El Bandito]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 July 2015 - 07:30 PM, said:

10 v 12, if tech was at "lore" discrepancies, the IS would lose, horrible. 5v8 is the closer equivalent.

And overwhelming majority would not want to be on the "8" side. Which is funny as hell cause lore wise, IS had far more population.

[Eider]

El Bandito, on 13 July 2015 - 07:36 PM, said:

And overwhelming majority would not want to be on the "8" side. Which is funny as hell cause lore wise, IS had far more population.

Its a game people want easy mode, hell they were crying when timber and crow got nerfed like it was the end of the world. It was not.