Jump to content

Is Medium Laser

Weapons

80 replies to this topic

#41 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 01:37 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

First I call bullsheets on PGI's declaration of "can't do it" for CW, that is an absolute bald face lie.

They could do it, they just refuse to.


Because they said they can't do it for the Public queue. Your suggestion that 10 vs 12 only be implemented in CW implies that we should leave tech imbalanced and allow imbalanced play to continue in the public queue because it "doesn't really matter". It actually does matter because a lot more people play the public queue than CW. Furthermore, CW doesn't count for shite anyway because there are absolutely no bonuses for holding planets. It's a game mode intended for 12 mans who want bragging rights and role players.

With that in mind we should pursue methods that will balance BOTH the public queue and CW, not just one or the other because they are "what's really important.

#42 Cyborne Elemental

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,981 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 19 August 2015 - 01:41 PM

sorry I asked.. lol :D

#43 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 01:41 PM

View PostJack Shayu Walker, on 19 August 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

Because they said they can't do it for the Public queue. Your suggestion that 10 vs 12 only be implemented in CW implies that we should leave tech imbalanced and allow imbalanced play to continue in the public queue because it "doesn't really matter". It actually does matter because a lot more people play the public queue than CW. Furthermore, CW doesn't count for shite anyway because there are absolutely no bonuses for holding planets. It's a game mode intended for 12 mans who want bragging rights and role players.

With that in mind we should pursue methods that will balance BOTH the public queue and CW, not just one or the other because they are "what's really important.
No, I don't care about the public queue, it is what it is. You get tired of getting beat by Clan 'mechs in the public queue? BUY DAMNED CLAN 'MECH, there are no limitations on what 'mechs you can bring there.

Also, the affects of the public queue are only match last a maximum of 15 minutes, until you drop into your next match where everything starts all over again.

HOWEVER, CW on the other hand, IS can ONLY bring IS 'mechs, so unless you're prepared to allow the IS to have durable XL's and matching weapon stats, you can't achieve balance UNLESS you give up on something else, THE ONLY OTHER THING to give up is numbers.

In CW, losing could mean a loss of a planet which will eventually mean some the loss of some affect that planet gave your side, so granting one side a technological advantage without some balancing factor to overcome it predetermines the other side losing, and then at that point, what's the motivation for anyone?

#44 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,257 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 19 August 2015 - 01:43 PM

View PostMister D, on 19 August 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

sorry I asked.. lol :D


I'm just glad we have a buff lasers thread to counteract the nerf lasers thread.

#45 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 19 August 2015 - 01:45 PM

View PostGas Guzzler, on 19 August 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

I'm just glad we have a buff lasers thread to counteract the nerf lasers thread.


There's a nerf lasers thread?

/facepalm

#46 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 01:55 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

If you're going to talk about 'balancing weapons' then the following HAS to take place as well:

1. Absolutely all Clanners must give up on the notion of 'Technological Superiority'. If the weapon systems and 'mech systems are to be balanced, you CAN NOT have one side be 'superior' to another. That's not balance.
2. Durability also needs to be addressed. IS 'mechs are no where near as durable as clans if they load XL's, and the only way to get close to matching Clan speed and alpha potential is to load an XL. If they load "standard" engines, then they either have to give up significant speed, or potential alpha power (or more probably BOTH) to match to durability of clan 'mechs.

Without those two things on the table, we can't realistically discuss anything.


1a. Thank you captain obvious, did I say I thought clan tech should be superior?
1b. And no, ALL clanners don't have to give up on the notion that clantech is superior, why? because all clanners don't have to agree with how PGI balances their game. You aren't ever going to please everyone with your balancing, you just have to ignore some people (such as people who believe clan-tech should be superior in MWO)

2. Yes and there are plenty of propositions on how to fix this. Personally, I think a lot of IS equipment needs a 1/.5 ton weight reduction. On top of that I think ALL IS lasers need to have ER variants regardless of timeline. I think said ER variants need range to rival clans, a slight damage increase (not even a whole point), and the same burn time and heat as current IS standard lasers. Standard IS lasers then need a slight burn time reduction, as well as their original beta heat values.

What this would do is allow IS lasers to be better at distance poking, whereas clans get more damage in exchange for more facetime, and are thus brawlier. I want to say clan lasers need a range reduction because they're meant to be brawlier, but that breaks the lore a bit too hard. Giving IS early ER weaponry works much better IMO.

#47 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:01 PM

View PostJack Shayu Walker, on 19 August 2015 - 01:55 PM, said:

1a. Thank you captain obvious, did I say I thought clan tech should be superior?
Hey don't get overly snippy (a little is ok). You know that's the primary argument you're going to see from Clanners.

Quote

1b. And no, ALL clanners don't have to give up on the notion that clantech is superior, why? because all clanners don't have to agree with how PGI balances their game. You aren't ever going to please everyone with your balancing, you just have to ignore some people (such as people who believe clan-tech should be superior in MWO)
Then you people of reason need to work on shutting up the unreasonable 'easy moders' you've got in your crowd. They want to keep 12v12 and keep all the other advantages they have AND OH BY THE WAY, get rid of every other beneficial quirk the IS has at the same time.

Don't believe me? All it takes is a few short searches in these forums...

Quote

2. Yes and there are plenty of propositions on how to fix this. Personally, I think a lot of IS equipment needs a 1/.5 ton weight reduction. On top of that I think ALL IS lasers need to have ER variants regardless of timeline. I think said ER variants need range to rival clans, a slight damage increase (not even a whole point), and the same burn time and heat as current IS standard lasers. Standard IS lasers then need a slight burn time reduction, as well as their original beta heat values.

What this would do is allow IS lasers to be better at distance poking, whereas clans get more damage in exchange for more facetime, and are thus brawlier. I want to say clan lasers need a range reduction because they're meant to be brawlier, but that breaks the lore a bit too hard. Giving IS early ER weaponry works much better IMO.
I agree there's lots to work with there, IF, you give up on maintaining a Clan technological advantage, you don't need to give IS it's 'numbers' advantage.

Will the Clanners let it happen, or will we see a vicious campaign against it?

#48 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:04 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

No, I don't care about the public queue, it is what it is. You get tired of getting beat by Clan 'mechs in the public queue? BUY DAMNED CLAN 'MECH, there are no limitations on what 'mechs you can bring there.

Also, the affects of the public queue are only match last a maximum of 15 minutes, until you drop into your next match where everything starts all over again.


Respectfully, I don't care if you don't care. A lot of people care, hence your point is null.

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

HOWEVER, CW on the other hand, IS can ONLY bring IS 'mechs, so unless you're prepared to allow the IS to have durable XL's and matching weapon stats, you can't achieve balance UNLESS you give up on something else, THE ONLY OTHER THING to give up is numbers.


So you're implying that literally the only way to balance tech is to give them identical stats? Well that's just straight up simple-minded and wrong. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that there is only one solution and that the simplest answer is the best answer.

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

In CW, losing could mean a loss of a planet which will eventually mean some the loss of some affect that planet gave your side, so granting one side a technological advantage without some balancing factor to overcome it predetermines the other side losing, and then at that point, what's the motivation for anyone?


a. We're a long way off from seeing CW impact the game in such a way.
b. balancing tech will solve this future problem the same way 10 vs 12 will. The difference is that 10 vs 12 entails keeping the public queue imbalanced whereas tech balance implies balancing for both queues.

#49 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:11 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

Hey don't get overly snippy (a little is ok). You know that's the primary argument you're going to see from Clanners.

Then you people of reason need to work on shutting up the unreasonable 'easy moders' you've got in your crowd. They want to keep 12v12 and keep all the other advantages they have AND OH BY THE WAY, get rid of every other beneficial quirk the IS has at the same time.

Don't believe me? All it takes is a few short searches in these forums...

I agree there's lots to work with there, IF, you give up on maintaining a Clan technological advantage, you don't need to give IS it's 'numbers' advantage.

Will the Clanners let it happen, or will we see a vicious campaign against it?


You'll see a vicious campaign from the clan elitists and morons (seperate groups mind you, don't mix em up) if you balance the IS by buffing up their equipment so it's equal to but different than clan-tech.

You'll see a vicious campaign from an even larger group of clan players, including myself, if you balance the IS by nerfing clan tech down to current IS levels.

#50 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:13 PM

This thread has turned into:

Posted Image

#51 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:13 PM

View PostJack Shayu Walker, on 19 August 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

Respectfully, I don't care if you don't care. A lot of people care, hence your point is null.
But it's a stupid point because NOTHING that happens in the public queue affects CW, the opposite should also be true.

The very fact that we've had years of Clan superiority and 12v12 in the public queue and no major meltdown pretty much demonstrates, we can leave the public queue as is.

The same CAN NOT be said of CW, ESPECIALLY when wins and losses will have LONG TERM affect on the game play within that game mode.

We don't need to care about the public queue because it WILL take care of itself as it always has.

Quote

So you're implying that literally the only way to balance tech is to give them identical stats? Well that's just straight up simple-minded and wrong. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that there is only one solution and that the simplest answer is the best answer.
The very definition of balance requires that if one side has one thing, the other side has to have something that matches.

There's not a lot of ways to achieve actual 'balance' without making sure both sides are made to be equal. Same stats on all weapons is one method, certainly allowing IS to bring more weight to battle than the Clans is another...

Quote

a. We're a long way off from seeing CW impact the game in such a way.
b. balancing tech will solve this future problem the same way 10 vs 12 will. The difference is that 10 vs 12 entails keeping the public queue imbalanced whereas tech balance implies balancing for both queues.
If you don't solve the balance problem NOW, LONG BEFORE the win/loss of a planet has meaning, then you are guaranteeing an absolute cluster-f for CW. Once the snowball starts rolling the avalanche of IS losses will become insurmountable and so discouraging any IS CW population will evacuate CW, never to return, or at best, create a flood of groups switching to Clans, where all the Clanners will have to look forward to are 10 minute waits to go stomp turrets.

Fix it NOW, not later.

#52 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,572 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:14 PM

Ignoring the usual "CLANZ OP!!1! NO IZ OP!1!!" drinking contest for a few moments...

The iML and iSL are in a sad state and could use help - and this is coming from a guy who's mostly a dedicated Clan pilot. Lowering heat to 3 for the iML and 1 for the iSL would be a decent start, but it wouldn't be everything. As some folks have noted (believe it was Kiiyor who pointed this out), the 'drawback' of longer Clan burn times is as often as not no such thing, as the impulse damage -

[[Terminology Break. IMPULSE DAMAGE: defined as the damage per 'tick' of a beam weapon, usually approximated as damage per 0.1s, in order to compare raw DPS numbers between two beams. End terminology break]]

-of Clan lasers is often as high or higher than Spheroid impulse damage, meaning Clan beams get damage on target faster than Spheroid beams.

Obviously, this is balony.

Sphere standard lasers should be reliable, easy-to-use workhorse guns with a low heat load, viable for use in massed groups or in conjunction with other, higher-heat weapons. Every modifier you add to a laser (ER, Pulse, ER Pulse, X-Pulse, Heavy, whatever) adds to its heat. In addition, Sphere beams should generally have higher impulse damage than a typical Clan beam of the same type. This is somewhat twitchy as there's no such thing as Clan standard lasers to compare against, but for the moment:

iML
5 Damage
4 Heat
0.90s Burntime
---
0.55... Impulse
1.25 DPH (7/6)

cERML
7 Damage
6 Heat
1.15s Burntime
---
0.61... Impulse
1.16 DPH (7/6)

As we can see, the iML deals less impulse damage, less damage per tick, than the cERML, and has only a slight edge in DPH. The cERML puts more damage on target for the same burn time than the iML, for nearly the same overall heat. To this, we add the fact that the Clan beam has 50% more range and a staggering 40% overall absolute damage increase, meaning any given Clan 'Mech needs far fewer cERML to accomplish the same overall damage as a 'Mech with iML. Which, of course, means Clan 'Mechs need fewer hardpoints to be dangerous, and that Clan 'Mechs with more hardpoints are ludicrous. Looking at you, my beloved-yet-so-busted eight cMPL Cauldron-Born, or the unholy sprintmode horror that would be the Phantom.

Two cERML deal very nearly the same damage as three iML, for the same heat (12), over a much greater distance, with almost identical impulse values. This is not what we need. Try this, instead.

iML
5 Damage
3 Heat
0.75s Burntime
---
0.66... Impulse
1.66... DPH

cERML
7 Damage
6 Heat
1.25s Burntime
---
0.56 Impulse
1.16 DPH

Look at that. Even with what could be considered a pretty hefty swing in the balance of the two weapons, and the sort of balance change that would get the forum userbase screaming, the iML comes out only 0.1 impulse damage ahead of the cERML. The two guns still deliver close to the same damage per tic, though this time the iML comes out, properly, ahead. The DPH difference is huge, however - you can now fire two iML for every one cERML. Our previous comparison starts looking a bit less extreme - four iML deal 20 damage to three cERML's 14 for the same heat, which starts to really show an advantage in close-quarters brawling.

The Sphere, however, would state that this advantage is still not sufficient, and they might well have a point. The Clans still have a huge advantage in boatability given how dangerous individual cERML are, and in order to really derive the benefit their significant edge in DPH gives them, the iML needs to be boated en mass at levels few Sphere 'Mechs are capable of. Let's try another adjustment.

iML
5 Damage
3 Heat
0.75s Burntime
---
0.66... Impulse
1.66... DPH

cERML
6 Damage
5 Heat
1.25s Burntime
---
0.48 Impulse
1.2 DPH

See, now we're getting there. The iML pulls significantly ahead in impulse damage, dealing nearly half again the impulse of the cERML, and while the DPH gap has closed slightly, it's still something of a yawning gulf in favor of the iML. The Clan laser still deals 20% more overall damage than the Sphere laser, and does it at a huge advantage in range. But if the Sphere laser's carrier manages to close in, it has serious advantages in impulse damage and DPH that give it a very decided edge in a brawl. The reduction of the Clan laser's maximum damage point also pulls the hardpoint dilemma's fangs - three iML deal noticeably more damage than two cERML, as one might expect, and Clan 'Mechs need more overall weapons to pull off the same ridiculous damage numbers.

The iLL and iERLL are a great case of how to handle things like differences between standard and ER lasers. Add 50% more range? Also add 25% more burn time. Assuming for the moment that the standard iML is a 5 damage, 3 heat laser on a 0.75s burntime, and the (more than usual) fictional standard cML is a 6 damage, 4 heat laser on a 1.00s burntime, and we start seeing a predictable, sensible pattern emerging. cERML deals the same damage at significantly greater range, but for an extra point of heat and over 25% more time.

Apply similar principles to the rest of the energy weapons. ER is treated as a laser modifier - take a 'standard' laser, give it X extra heat, 50% increased range, and 25% increased burn time, and you have the resulting ER laser. Clan lasers deal more damage, but for more heat and also over an increased burn time - 'Clan' becomes another modifier to add to the base standard laser to derive final values from. Pulse, as a modifier to the standard laser, decreases burn time by some random, balanced, yet awesome amount (I'm hoping for 50% reduction myself. Dream big!), cuts range by 25%, and increases damage, to produce a close-quarters laser.

The important thing is to apply the same formula across all lasers. Balance the base lasers - the iSL, the iML, and the iLL - then balance the modifiers/formulas one applies to those lasers. The 'Clan' modifier is rebalanced to work better, the "ER' modifier is rebalanced to work better, the 'Pulse' modifier is rebalanced to work better. Once you have the base weapons balanced and the modifiers balanced, the resulting modified weapons should be far closer to balanced. All you'd need to do is make a few post-process tweaks to account for final performance, rather than (more) massive swings.

It also sets the stage for later advances in laser technology. The Clan's ER Pulse lasers are treated as a brand new modifier, X-pulse lasers are a new modifier, Heavy lasers are a new modifier. Micro lasers are a new base weapon type that nobody really cares about, but the important thing is that this sort of thing would let Piranha lay out a fundamental rebalancing framework that would fix the damn problem.

And we'd have a lot less "F*** CLANZ AND THER LAZORZ" threads like this one.

Edited by 1453 R, 19 August 2015 - 02:15 PM.


#53 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:15 PM

View PostJack Shayu Walker, on 19 August 2015 - 02:11 PM, said:

You'll see a vicious campaign from the clan elitists and morons (seperate groups mind you, don't mix em up) if you balance the IS by buffing up their equipment so it's equal to but different than clan-tech.

You'll see a vicious campaign from an even larger group of clan players, including myself, if you balance the IS by nerfing clan tech down to current IS levels.
FYI: I've long held the position that Clan technology SHOULD be superior to IS tech at this point in the time line, BUT, I've also long held the position the only way that the IS should be balanced against that superior tech is to be allowed to bring superior numbers.

It is the RIGHT way to do it, and I really believe it will make for a more interesting game in the long run.

#54 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:18 PM

View PostFupDup, on 19 August 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

This thread has turned into:

Posted Image


Nah, it's just me and Dimento. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to return fire ^_^

#55 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:24 PM

View PostMister D, on 19 August 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

Just a curiosity, but why are IS Medlas still 4 heat?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Medium_Laser

Listed on Sarna as 3 heat per, would this not help IS mechs just that little bit?


Well it must have less heat than the Clan small laser. Omni mech pilots are always saying their energy weapons run hotter and the C small laser does the same damage as the medium laser and nearly the same range.

So I would assume the clan small laser is 5 heat right?

Edited by Johnny Z, 19 August 2015 - 02:25 PM.


#56 Yokaiko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,775 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:24 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:



It takes approximately 10% MORE damage, on average, inflicted on Clan 'mechs to kill them verses their IS equivalents, and that's just damage inflicted. Given that most clan builds can out alpha their IS equivalents by more than 10%, easily, that's a SIGNIFICANT advantage.



Issue us that clan mechs only get two alphas then they have to hide and cool down.

Compare that to a TDR-5SS, or Wolverine that can basically alpha four or 5 times before shutdown. There is a reason that I prefer IS mechs.

#57 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:26 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

But it's a stupid point because NOTHING that happens in the public queue affects CW, the opposite should also be true.

The very fact that we've had years of Clan superiority and 12v12 in the public queue and no major meltdown pretty much demonstrates, we can leave the public queue as is.


Balancing tech does not take any extra effort to apply to both queues, you don't need to worry about the PUG queue taking dev time from CW, at least in terms of balance work... maps, maybe.

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

The same CAN NOT be said of CW, ESPECIALLY when wins and losses will have LONG TERM affect on the game play within that game mode.


They don't and won't for a long time.

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

The very definition of balance requires that if one side has one thing, the other side has to have something that matches.

There's not a lot of ways to achieve actual 'balance' without making sure both sides are made to be equal.


The very definition of balance requires that if one side has one thing, the other side has to have something that matches of equal value in battle.

There are a lot of ways to balance tech so both sides have different advantages and disadvantages while still being on an equal playing field. We don't have that right now, I know that, but we can have that.

#58 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:27 PM

View PostYokaiko, on 19 August 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

Issue us that clan mechs only get two alphas then they have to hide and cool down.

Compare that to a TDR-5SS, or Wolverine that can basically alpha four or 5 times before shutdown. There is a reason that I prefer IS mechs.
And yet I see a Jade Falcon symbol underneath your name, indicating that you're currently a member of a Clan faction.

Yes, there are a FEW 'mechs that have the capacity to fire lots of alphas. Not being familiar with those builds I have some questions:

1. What is the typical weapons layout allowing that? How many of what are they firing?
2. Does the typical build allowing you to fire those 4 or 5 sequential alphas include an XL engine?
3. What is the speed of the build (XL or not)?

#59 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:28 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

FYI: I've long held the position that Clan technology SHOULD be superior to IS tech at this point in the time line, BUT, I've also long held the position the only way that the IS should be balanced against that superior tech is to be allowed to bring superior numbers.

It is the RIGHT way to do it, and I really believe it will make for a more interesting game in the long run.


But PGI told us we can't have that, so it's a waste of breath to continue to beg. Our energy would be better spent making propositions that they will listen to that will balance the game.

#60 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:32 PM

View PostJack Shayu Walker, on 19 August 2015 - 02:26 PM, said:

Balancing tech does not take any extra effort to apply to both queues, you don't need to worry about the PUG queue taking dev time from CW, at least in terms of balance work... maps, maybe.
But both queues are not played the same way, and the potential affects of win/losses will be significant.

Quote

They don't and won't for a long time.
Then HOPEFULLY we have time to fix this, let's not wait until the last f'ing minute.

Quote

The very definition of balance requires that if one side has one thing, the other side has to have something that matches of equal value in battle.
We're saying the same thing here.

Quote

There are a lot of ways to balance tech so both sides have different advantages and disadvantages while still being on an equal playing field. We don't have that right now, I know that, but we can have that.
We were approaching that with quirks and due to the Clanners unending pogram of forum bitching, guess what, that's all about to change.

What will happen when technologies become 'similar' and there's no 'true' technological edge to the Clanners any more? Bitching, more bitching, and whiney bitching ad nausea.

View PostJack Shayu Walker, on 19 August 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

But PGI told us we can't have that, so it's a waste of breath to continue to beg. Our energy would be better spent making propositions that they will listen to that will balance the game.
Here's a short list of things we were told we weren't going to have:

3rd person view
In game VOIP
Consumable cooling pods
Urbanmechs

Need I say more?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 19 August 2015 - 02:32 PM.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users