86 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Dino Might, on 13 August 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

Then listen to the ones who don't fit in your nice little "box 'o ignorance." I have the ACH, with double basics, running small pulse, and it shreds like no other mech in the arsenal. It's stupid OP, and it's not fun to play because of it. So after 15 some matches, I dumped it in the trash bin.

Want to put me in the box because I don't have skills? I've posted here and elsewhere a few videos that will probably show you that I know how to pilot lights, at least once in a blue moon, when I get super lucky...

I'm screaming OP because its paper stats translate exactly as expected into the game, and it's flat out OP because of it. Really, please give me a reason why I'm wrong other than, "you must not have it or you must not be good." I have given objective criteria for judging it OP, now you give some objective criteria for judging it to be balanced.

but the paper translations says that the FS9 can shred equally well, even better due to ehat efficiency, so clearly, when your ACH shreds better oyu do soemthing wrong with the FS9's.

[IraqiWalker]

Rad Hanzo, on 14 August 2015 - 02:40 AM, said:

Hey guys, relax your jets ... stop the maths and discussing, we could only ever decide on following for the time being :

Now we have mechs in "quantum superpositions" on both sides of the fence ... that actually IS some "kind" of balance, although not really the kind we´d like to have ^^

Both, the ACH and the FS are broken in the same way, so either fix them together and bring them to the same level or just plain leave as is .

No one is saying don't fix the FS9. I'm personally saying they are both broken, with the ACH being even worse than the FS9. At least that one didn't have ECM, and died when you popped one ST. The ACH not only can avoid that, but it also has more armor, and health than the FS9.

Lily from animove, on 14 August 2015 - 02:57 AM, said:

but the paper translations says that the FS9 can shred equally well, even better due to ehat efficiency, so clearly, when your ACH shreds better oyu do soemthing wrong with the FS9's.

Not really accurate. The FS9-A with 8 SPLs, still pales compared to the ACH, on account of the damage and range. However, even if the weapons, and firepower on both mechs evened out, the ACH is still far more survivable. Thanks to having more health than a mech 5 tons heavier than it, and having C-XL.

---

Just to be clear. I'm not saying the FS9 is fine, and the ACH is OP. I'm saying that both mechs are broken in their own way. It's just that the ACH carries every complaint uttered about the FS9, and then adds more.

[Tesunie]

I don't think it's the Cheetah, it's the little extra survivability of the Clan XL engine. Trust me, I still get components taken out in a single hit. I actually preform no better with my Cheetah than I do with my Jenner (can't compare to the Firestarter, as I have never owned on).

The Cheetah has some things in it's favor over other clan lights. Speed for one. Large arm hit boxes that actually cover the torso from the sides with relative ease. Then it has health quirks in those arms, because otherwise they would get blown off much easier (actually, I tend to still one shot lose my arms on the mech, and a side torso).

I keep hearing that the Cheetah has more health than the 35 ton mechs. I haven't exactly checked into this, but that doesn't seem quite right. I'll look into this some more when I get a moment. I suspect that it lands more so between the 30 and 35 ton health ranges.

[Torezu]

Simple solution to all this griping: add engine critical effects. You get an engine crit, not only do you lose internal heat sinks, you lose speed.

[Skarlock]

Torezu, on 14 August 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

Simple solution to all this griping: add engine critical effects. You get an engine crit, not only do you lose internal heat sinks, you lose speed.

I like how you make a wide sweeping suggestion that would effect every single mech in the game with zero regard, to fix complaints about a single mech.

[Dawnstealer]

I regularly solo Cheetahs in my Locust. Then again, that mech is a straight-up monster and I can solo most anything in it that isn't a Streakcow, but still...

[Torezu]

Skarlock, on 14 August 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

I like how you make a wide sweeping suggestion that would effect every single mech in the game with zero regard, to fix complaints about a single mech.

It will affect every single mech in the game, including mine. At this point, though, Clan XLs are vastly better than IS XLs for the simple reason that losing a side torso doesn't destroy the Clan mech, nor does it cripple it in any way other than losing the weapons on that side.

There would need to be quite a bit of game balancing after that, I'm sure, but this particular change has been needed for a while. Otherwise, it's basically a game of Pop the ST on any IS mech using an XL (which is nearly all lights, many mediums, and even some heavies and assaults).

[Dawnstealer]

Torezu, on 14 August 2015 - 10:38 AM, said:

It will affect every single mech in the game, including mine. At this point, though, Clan XLs are vastly better than IS XLs for the simple reason that losing a side torso doesn't destroy the Clan mech, nor does it cripple it in any way other than losing the weapons on that side.
(snip)

I do agree that the costs of losing a side should be a bit more dramatic than a heat spike. Make the mech move at 50%, or something.

[Void Angel]

Torezu, on 14 August 2015 - 10:38 AM, said:

It will affect every single mech in the game, including mine. At this point, though, Clan XLs are vastly better than IS XLs for the simple reason that losing a side torso doesn't destroy the Clan mech, nor does it cripple it in any way other than losing the weapons on that side.

Incorrect. The Clanner does take a significant hit in cooling efficiency - however, this penalty does not typically offset the "added" efficiency of having fewer weapons to fire. In essence, it prevents the downside of losing a side torso from being "bought off" with better net cooling for weapons on the other side. This is not a significant drawback, however, and I recall something from PGI to the effect that they were exploring meaningful consequences for Clanners losing a side torso.

[Aresye]

Dawnstealer, on 14 August 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

I do agree that the costs of losing a side should be a bit more dramatic than a heat spike. Make the mech move at 50%, or something.

Are you insane? I figured most people would have realized by now that gigantic 50% nerfs and buffs for ANYTHING is bad practice, and never works out in the end.

Considering losing a side torso in a Clan mech is losing 1/3 of your engine, the absolute MAXIMUM speed penalty should be a 33% reduction. Absolute maximum. Personally I don't think they should go above a 15% speed penalty, because even that's a pretty significant balance change.

[Dino Might]

Lily from animove, on 14 August 2015 - 02:57 AM, said:

but the paper translations says that the FS9 can shred equally well, even better due to ehat efficiency, so clearly, when your ACH shreds better oyu do soemthing wrong with the FS9's.

Or I know that I'm fighting a team and I can't utilize all the sustained DPS of that FS9, because it requires too much time in the open.

There are tradeoffs, and both mechs are similarly OP. Depending on the situation, the ACH will win out when high alpha is necessary, the FS9 will win out when sustained DPS is necessary. Both are a problem if you want anyone to play any other light mech.

Aresye Kerensky, on 14 August 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Are you insane? I figured most people would have realized by now that gigantic 50% nerfs and buffs for ANYTHING is bad practice, and never works out in the end.

Considering losing a side torso in a Clan mech is losing 1/3 of your engine, the absolute MAXIMUM speed penalty should be a 33% reduction. Absolute maximum. Personally I don't think they should go above a 15% speed penalty, because even that's a pretty significant balance change.

15% speed penalty and 15% heat penalty would probably be close. Speed might have to go down to about 10%, but a speed penalty would be very appropriate. Just need a lot of playtesting to see what would be reasonable. Don't make side torso loss and insta-gimp, but make it have some impact.

[Void Angel]

Aresye Kerensky, on 14 August 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Are you insane? I figured most people would have realized by now that gigantic 50% nerfs and buffs for ANYTHING is bad practice, and never works out in the end.

That's not actually true. You're thinking of quirks, in which case you're most likely correct - but you've claimed a lot more than you can prove with that comment.

In this case, we're talking about a penalty for losing almost half your 'mech, rather than a buff or nerf - a real downside for Clanners who lose a side torso. A 50% penalty to speed seems extreme to me, too, but losing a side torso needs to actually hurt. Right now, Clanners' response to side torso destruction is more akin to a comic relief character from Men in Black.

[Shadey99]

*Sigh* the lose of that firepower is quite enough when you lose a side... Easily half (or more) of your guns go away. It's the same thing with a standard engine. Outside a few mechs that can boat lasers endlessly (Novas, Stormcrows, Gladiators), taking out half a mechs weapons is pretty effective. Take out my right shoulder in a Shadowkitten and I've lost 2 of 3 weapons. Take out the right torso on an Atlas and you've taken out his AC and whatever is in his arms. Take out the left torso on a HBR and he looses his ECM and three of his energy hardpoints as well as whatever may be in his left arm. Taking out a torso hurts because it makes you less effective. Nothing more is needed.

I don't aim at side torsos, I am at CTs because the other guy could have a standard or runs a clan XL. The CT may have more armor than a single torso, but it's less than 2 sides. However, regardless of what's in them a CT hit will down them. No muss, no fuss. Exceptions to this exist, like shooting out the sides of Warhawks and DWFs because I can usually keep out of their line of fire by doing so and their side torsos are so large they are really easy to hit.

Edited by Shadey99, 14 August 2015 - 02:18 PM.

[Void Angel]

No. You just said yourself why it's not enough - there's no appreciable difference from a standard engine. An Atlas that survives side torso destruction didn't have an XL (and only one variant ever should have one,) but any Clan 'mech can double dip, taking all the benefits of an XL while effectively ignoring the primary drawback. The heat penalty was a good idea, and fit well with the lore, but it's just not quite enough in MWO. As for the destruction alone being enough? You need to do some math. Specifically, you need to compare and contrast the ratio of DPS to HPS between Clan and Inner Sphere laser designs. I can give you the Cliffnotes, though: the Clans are less heat efficient, particularly with pulse lasers. If PGI allowed Clan players to lose a side torso with no penalty whatsoever, those pilots could then shield with their weak side, stack hot weapons onto their other side, and experience little to no drop in effective dps.

The intended balance between Clantech and the Inner Sphere was done with a holistic approach. The advantages and disadvantages of Clantech versus the Inner Sphere was done by taking into account the speed advantage the Clans almost universally enjoy, and the superior heat efficiency of the Inner Sphere, and the advantages of Clan XL, and so on and so fort. The heat penalty to Clan XLs was part of that, but by PGI's own estimation, something a little more effective is needed. So before you sigh theatrically at me, you might want to actually think about the facts.

Game balance is a math problem with graphics, and you have the wrong answer.

Edited by Void Angel, 14 August 2015 - 05:41 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Shadey99, on 14 August 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

*Sigh* the lose of that firepower is quite enough when you lose a side... Easily half (or more) of your guns go away. It's the same thing with a standard engine. Outside a few mechs that can boat lasers endlessly (Novas, Stormcrows, Gladiators), taking out half a mechs weapons is pretty effective. Take out my right shoulder in a Shadowkitten and I've lost 2 of 3 weapons. Take out the right torso on an Atlas and you've taken out his AC and whatever is in his arms. Take out the left torso on a HBR and he looses his ECM and three of his energy hardpoints as well as whatever may be in his left arm. Taking out a torso hurts because it makes you less effective. Nothing more is needed.

I don't aim at side torsos, I am at CTs because the other guy could have a standard or runs a clan XL. The CT may have more armor than a single torso, but it's less than 2 sides. However, regardless of what's in them a CT hit will down them. No muss, no fuss. Exceptions to this exist, like shooting out the sides of Warhawks and DWFs because I can usually keep out of their line of fire by doing so and their side torsos are so large they are really easy to hit.

Except for the part where if I'm in a standard engine, I'm already carrying half your firepower. There is no trade off for C-XLs. With IS XLs, at least we die when an ST is popped. What do clan mechs get? Virtually no real penalty to mount XL engines, and losing an ST.

Just do some simple tonnage fiddling, and tell me that you can't bring twice my STD engine firepower in a clan mech. Even when you lose an ST, short of the MLX, the mech is still a serious threat, and with little to no damage, when in comparison, an IS mech is dead.

[Nightshade24]

Rad Hanzo, on 14 August 2015 - 02:40 AM, said:

Hey guys, relax your jets ... stop the maths and discussing, we could only ever decide on following for the time being :

Now we have mechs in "quantum superpositions" on both sides of the fence ... that actually IS some "kind" of balance, although not really the kind we´d like to have ^^

Both, the ACH and the FS are broken in the same way, so either fix them together and bring them to the same level or just plain leave as is .

how to fix both mechs: reduce quirks for the majority of random stupid quirks and give them flamer quirks. (also fixing the flamer would be nice)

[Shadey99]

Void Angel, on 14 August 2015 - 05:41 PM, said:

Game balance is a math problem with graphics, and you have the wrong answer.

Really? _I_ have the wrong answer? No. Absolutely No. If PGI changes this they need to remove the 'mechwarrior' label on the game. The way Clan XLs work is one of the core fundamentals of building clan mechs in the source material. Stop thinking they need balanced. A fully tweaked out clan mech was absolutely always more capable than an IS mech of the same tonnage (usually this was a 10-15 ton advantage). There is no changing that without making MWO silly.

The problem is that the counters to this in the source material are things PGI won't or can't do such as the star versus lance organization (2 five man stars versus 3 four person lances, clans regularly under-tonning fights, etc). When they did this in CW by giving the IS 10 whole extra tons they quickly reverted back again. They say their stats suggested this was actually to much of an edge for IS. How exactly that can be the case if you all believe clan XLs are so overpowered is amazing.

IraqiWalker, on 14 August 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

Just do some simple tonnage fiddling, and tell me that you can't bring twice my STD engine firepower in a clan mech. Even when you lose an ST, short of the MLX, the mech is still a serious threat, and with little to no damage, when in comparison, an IS mech is dead.

This is just laughable. I normally like you, but this is just becoming silly. You guys have some sort of axe to grind against clan mechs that cannot be generally supported. You all swear til your blue in the face that it's completely logical, but the real world results don't match up. Their are a few specific cases of actual issues, but you guys seem to have gone overboard and painted them all with the same brush.

I've already mentioned mechs that lose 2/3rds of their weapons by losing a side torso. Heck, almost across the board the most common location for weapons on clan mechs is the arms. Think Mist Lynxes (all arms), Kit Foxes (small ballistics in the STs at most), Arctic Cheetahs (At most 3E in the STs), Adders (1E in the side torsos, 1E CT), Ice Ferrets (1E CT, 1M ST), Shadowcats (1E ST, 3B ST though special variant), Novas (at most 2B or 1E in each ST), Stormcrows (2M or 1 E STs), Mad Dogs (only missiles in the STs), Summoners (1B/1M can go in STs), Gargoyles (up to 2E in the CT), Warhawk (1E or 2M in 1 ST), Executioner (at most 3E between both STs). All of those have their primary weapons in the arms and can at most hold 3 energy weapons in the torsos total, this is with arms that can hold up to 6 at the extreme! Since you lose the arm when you lose the torso it's connected to (except for the occasional bug), you are going to lose a significant amount of firepower by losing a ST even if you don't die.

Heck here is an IS example: Bog standard meta TDR-5SS. 2 MPLs in the right arm, 2 MPLs in the right torso, 3 Mpls in the left torso. Lose one side or the other and you have lost either 4/7ths or 3/7ths of your firepower. While you can kill someone with 3 or 4 mpls, your task has gotten almost twice as hard.

If you want utter symmetry how about a standard 260 BJ-1X with 8 medium lasers, 4 on each side. Again, lose a torso lose half your combat potential.

If you insist on clan mechs (besides my Shadowcat example I used earlier). Then lets get back on topic and go with a Arctic Cheetah Prime with 4 SPLs and 2 SRM4s (My most effective ACH build statistically). Losing a ST loses half my guns. You drop from a 40 point alpha to a 20. Half your weapons is statistically a lot. Worse in a ACH you'll usually lose your arms first, so you lose the missiles and half your lasers, leaving you just 2 SPLs to fight with. 12 damage at very close range isn't all that scary. You could switch to ERMLs, but those run considerably hotter and do 2 more damage at the same point.

So regardless of what mech it is, losing a side torso is a significant lose in game terms and will directly impact your performance. Clan XLs do have a penalty, which is that if you take both sides out your gone. Standards are more durable. Either way though just aim for the CT! Every type of mech regardless of engine dies to the CT going bye bye. So shot the CT! End of story, nothing more needs to be done. Or heck, shot his legs off for all I care every mech dies when it loses two of those as well.

[Dawnstealer]

Aresye Kerensky, on 14 August 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Are you insane? I figured most people would have realized by now that gigantic 50% nerfs and buffs for ANYTHING is bad practice, and never works out in the end.

Considering losing a side torso in a Clan mech is losing 1/3 of your engine, the absolute MAXIMUM speed penalty should be a 33% reduction. Absolute maximum. Personally I don't think they should go above a 15% speed penalty, because even that's a pretty significant balance change.

How about this: go out to your car and blow up a third of the engine. Then drive it around the block and report back to me.

[Tesunie]

Dawnstealer, on 14 August 2015 - 09:11 PM, said:

How about this: go out to your car and blow up a third of the engine. Then drive it around the block and report back to me.

Does having no exhaust connected to your car, with a broken valve count? Cause my metro continued to drive like that...


Anyway...

I see this game as seperate from TT mechwarrior. It's a first person shooter. Though using TT as a good guide is very nice, as well as lore, not everything will be able to translate into a video game environment. Some things will have to change for the game to work. Such as no more delayed convergence, unless of course you love leading your lasers randomly in front of your target and hope you kill (no HSR). (As one example.)

I agree that I'd love to stick as close to lore as possible for this game. However, I also realize that not everything will be able to match lore for this game to actually be functional. It will have to break away from lore in some spots. The question here is, where do we have to break away, and were will we be able to follow lore?

[Dawnstealer]

Right - but making a mech slow down, and slow down considerably, when the alternative is DYING, is not exactly beyond the pale.