772 replies to this topic

[Gleech]

IraqiWalker, on 15 September 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

This thinking is absolutely wrong. You NEVER paid for the mechs. This is something you should really realize. All you paid for was EARLY ACCESS. The mechs, and how they change or not, is not something you paid for.

An argument which falls completely flat when applied to mechs that are only available for C-Bills, like the afore-mentioned Hero and Champion mechs. I absolutely am paying for those mechs.

IraqiWalker, on 15 September 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

Also, are we really supposed to allow broken OP mechs to run around and break the game more and more, because you paid for them?

An interesting point! Now, which mech do you think is more "broken OP", the Arctic Cheetah, or the Huggin? Hint, which one are you more worried about if it shows up as an opponent?

[IraqiWalker]

Gleech, on 20 September 2015 - 09:20 PM, said:

An argument which falls completely flat when applied to mechs that are only available for C-Bills, like the afore-mentioned Hero and Champion mechs. I absolutely am paying for those mechs.

Already discussed that issue in the original discussion with the person I was quoting. You also didn't quote the full statement, as I do mention that this is about pack mechs.

It still doesn't invalidate that balance rules above everything else, and you still own the mech. You however, don't own the right to leave it at it's power level. All mechs are subject to change and nerfing/buffing

Gleech, on 20 September 2015 - 09:20 PM, said:

An interesting point! Now, which mech do you think is more "broken OP", the Arctic Cheetah, or the Huggin? Hint, which one are you more worried about if it shows up as an opponent?

Huggin. It also doesn't change the fact that both mechs are broken. Saying would you rather I broke your left foot, or your right foot, doesn't change the fact that someone is ending up with a broken foot.

Please tell me where exactly did I sat that the cheetah isn't broken? Where did I say that the Huggin was the ONLY mech that was broken?

Saying "but that's more broken" doesn't change the fact that it's still broken.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 20 September 2015 - 09:27 PM.

[Gleech]

IraqiWalker, on 20 September 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

Already discussed that issue in the original discussion with the person I was quoting. You also didn't quote the full statement, as I do mention that this is about pack mechs.

Fair enough, I did miss the one-line post half-way down the page where you concede that you're talking about something completely different that the person you were responding to, or the following one-line post that can be fairly summed up as "nuh-uh!!!"

IraqiWalker, on 20 September 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

It still doesn't invalidate that balance rules above everything else, and you still own the mech. You however, don't own the right to leave it at it's power level. All mechs are subject to change and nerfing/buffing

How the mech performs, what it does is part of what I'm paying for. It's true I still own the mech, but the mech that I have is significantly different in operation than the thing I bought. This is, I assume anyway, a large part of why PGI has been unwilling to change the hardpoints on mechs.

Which brings up a significant part of the original post, which you have been frantically ignoring: why not give people the option to sell back mechs that PGI significantly rebalances? Hell, let me receive in-game currency, so that PGI doesn't even have to refund me my actual money. Can you think of a good reason to not have a policy like that?

And this also ignores the fact that I very much would like to see the game balanced, but the handful of usable IS mechs are not the reason that the game is not balanced. You're wanting PGI to relegate IS mechs to second-tier-at-best status -- or, in fairness, defending their decision to do so -- while significantly not addressing the actual problem.

IraqiWalker, on 20 September 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

Huggin

thank you for demonstrating that you are not arguing in good faith.

IraqiWalker, on 20 September 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

Please tell me where exactly did I sat that the cheetah isn't broken? Where did I say that the Huggin was the ONLY mech that was broken?

When you defended PGI's decesion to debilitate the Huggin while leaving the ACH (and clan mechs in general) basically untouched. If you're defending that, you're either saying the Huggin is the problem, or you're making non-semantic mouth noises.

Edited by Gleech, 20 September 2015 - 10:03 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Gleech, on 20 September 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

Fair enough, I did miss the one-line post half-way down the page where you concede that you're talking about something completely different that the person you were responding to, or the following one-line post that can be fairly summed up as "nuh-uh!!!"

You missed a lot actually.

Gleech, on 20 September 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

How the mech performs, what it does is part of what I'm paying for. It's true I still own the mech, but the mech that I have is significantly different in operation than the thing I bought. This is, I assume anyway, a large part of why PGI has been unwilling to change the hardpoints on mechs.

Then you have a major problem called "lack of reading", reading comprehension might be another one you need to work on, but it clearly states in the FAQs that they can change the mechs. This is something you new before purchase, and you made the purchase accepting the possibility of nerfs/buffs to the mechs.

Look, it's really simple. Whether you paid for it or not, is irrelevant to it's balance. It should be balanced. We all know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of mechs are too strong on release and get nerfed. It's why I have kept my cheetahs at basics, and haven't mastered them yet. I'm still waiting for them to not be broken, before I take them to the field.

Gleech, on 20 September 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

Which brings up a significant part of the original post, which you have been frantically ignoring: why not give people the option to sell back mechs that PGI significantly rebalances? Hell, let me receive in-game currency, so that PGI doesn't even have to refund me my actual money. Can you think of a good reason to not have a policy like that?

frantically? Hyperbole much?
I ignore it for two simple reasons:

1- we can ask for refunds, already.

2- It's stupid, because this month's nerf is next month's buff.

I have no objections to streamlining the refunds process, but at the same time, it's irrelevant to the argument that "I paid for it, so you should keep it OP". Because whether you refund or not, the mech is still having issues.

Gleech, on 20 September 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

And this also ignores the fact that I very much would like to see the game balanced, but the handful of usable IS mechs are not the reason that the game is not balanced. You're wanting PGI to relegate IS mechs to second-tier-at-best status -- or, in fairness, defending their decision to do so -- while significantly not addressing the actual problem.

Please stop hallucinating arguments I haven't made.

Gleech, on 20 September 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

thank you for demonstrating that you are not arguing in good faith.

Because I prioritize the rocket vomit mech, over the laser vomit one? The Huggin is faster, hits in better bursts, and it's pilots are on average more experienced. Since they've had it longer than the Cheetahs have been in game.

Not to mention that Cheetah pilots tend to be more mistake-prone on account of both lack of experience with the mech, and overconfidence in the mech. Something Raven pilots tend to not do often.

We can go into a lot of detail over this decision, but you asked me for my personal choice. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's YOUR problem. You asked which I would prioritize, and I said the Huggin.

Gleech, on 20 September 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

When you defended PGI's decesion to debilitate the Huggin while leaving the ACH (and clan mechs in general) basically untouched. If you're defending that, you're either saying the Huggin is the problem, or you're making non-semantic mouth noises.

You really like arguing against hallucinations instead of what people are actually saying, don't you? I defended that PGI should balance mechs, and change them, whether or not you paid for them. So please, don't ascribe arguments I didn't make to me.

The original issue is "I paid for this mech, you shouldn't change it", my simple response is "that's stupid, they can change it, it's in the agreement, and you paying for it, doesn't mean it should keep on ruining the game".

I've also mentioned in the relevant threads that the cheetah needs nerfing. No one brought up the cheetah and I defended it.

Please, try and stick to the points actually being made, not what you imagine.

[Mazzyplz]

i hope you guys removed the silly negative quirks on the inner sphere mechs;

awesome 8r was a joke in the pts server, turning like a dire kills the SRM usage on it.
not a good idea

[Fraggoth]

Tennex, on 11 September 2015 - 01:48 PM, said:

What is posted above seems to be under the assumption that all 4 components that you guys are looking at (firepower, movement, protection, infotech) are of equal contribution to balance. But with information warfare as it is now, it doesn't seem like that particular part of the rhombus is as robust as it should be. Therefore buffing/nerfing the information ability of a mech in this "Mechwarrior Value" system may have very limited impact.

For example, as Information warfare works in game now, i dont personally see any reason to take a mech with its rhombus leading towards Information Warfare over one with high firepower. (Why take a mech that can acquire targets 50% faster over one that has 5% more damage to Medium Lasers?)

Heres a suggestion from a previous thread that got 130+ upvotes. It can potentially bring a lot of depth to information warfare I hope you guys will consider it, at least further down the line:

http://mwomercs.com/...49#entry4564949





Tried it out, and honestly the Information Warfare system you guys are trying which resolves around target gathering time, and target relay time which differs between chassis makes things needlessly complicated and only hurts missiles.

I think if the Information Warfare system was more robust, you guys would have more to work with. But right now all its doing is making things complicated and not really contributing much in the end.

...When I was reading the OP, this is exactly what I was hoping they were going to do, at long, long last.

EXTREMELY bummed that this is not what they are doing. People have been talking about that stuff since within an hour of ECM's initial introduction to MWO, with nothing to show for it so far. Absolutely saddening.

[Obelus]

They should balance damage/mobility/defense first and let everyone have the choice of adding infotech components to their mech builds after. So if a player wants to specialize a mech in infotech they'll have to sacrifice tonnage by removing weapons/armor or adding a smaller engine.

This way at least mechs start off balanced for combat.

[Sixpack]

hercules1981, on 20 September 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

I'm just gonna add this statement again and probably say it again in a few more days just so there is a better chance of people reading it on the newest page if they r not scimming the whole subject. Incorporate a 9 vs 12 system so IS will have superior numbers and then clan mechs can be better like there r supposed to be . Screw this going through another poorly thought of balance scheme. There can be a clan vs clan 12 vs 12 or an IS vs IS 12 vs 12. Clan vs IS 9vs 12.

In that case rewards for the 12 er group need to be jacked up to compensate for them having less mechs to destroy then in a 12 vs 12.

[grayson marik]

grayson marik, on 15 September 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

Dear PGI, fellow players,

during the last month's years we have seen multiple approaches to balance weapons, mechs and equipment to each other and then balance CLAN vs IS.
The newest iteration is currently running on PTS.

Many of you and also some of PGI staff have noted multiple times, that a real balance can never be achieved and that it will be an ongoing process with ever ongoing changes.

Now, let's put this number crunching to an end and finally balance the game with an auto scaling, self controlling system, that gives the player just one value to play with: Mech Battle Value.

Big words you say? Here is how it works:

Every Chassis, Weapon, Equipment, Module, Consumeable gets assigned a base BV value.
So the BV of a Mech is the sum of all those values.

Now here comes the candy:

All those values change dynamicly based on how often and how successful a wepon, chassis or any other equipment is used. PGI already collects all these data so there is no barrier to use it.

If something is used because its OP, the BV for it will rise. If something i.e. Urban Mech, Highlander, Awesome, Centurion, Single Heatsinks etc. is not used often, BV values would fall for this equipment. ( Even the skill tree and player rating system could be part of this system, as a very good player would also have a BV he adds to his Mech and thus would be challenged to use even more bad equipment in order to keep BV limits )

Now, if we go to matchmaking, we simply replace the weight based 3/3/3/3 for groups with a simple BV limit to keep. Or a BV limit for CW Dropdecks.

If you now want to field a very good Mech with a high BV, you will have to use some junk Mechs also in order to keep the limit.

The system would control and scale itself and PGI would be able to control it by the parameters:
Base BV, rate of BV rising and rate of BV falling.


Even the BV limit for matchmaking could be calculated dynamicly. MWO would simply calculate the "Average Joe BV" of all mech currently owned by players and would mutiply this with the number of mechs nedded. 4* Average Joe BV in CW and 12 * Average Joe BV in public queue.


What changes for the player?

• The Mechlab skill changes from " How to stuff as much current Meta Wepons into my Meta Chassis " to " How to build an efficient Mech, with as low BV value as possible"
  
• "Junk" Mechs and equipment would be used not only in beginners Matches but also in more competitive fields like CW
  
• With the more mixed equipment used, complete new tactics and roles would evolve and would bring more depth to the game
  
• beginners would not face the uber Meta Mechs all the time

What changes for PGI?

• The system is self scaling
  
• The system is dynamic
  
• The system provides balance without punishing Meta Configs at all
  
• Role warfare (or whatever other goals PGI has) can be promoted by PGI by changing base BV, rise and fall values for certein equipments

Approach used:






This system does not try to balance everything to each other it does NOT nerv any weapon or META config.It does not nerv CLANS. It does not limit players choice in Mechlab.
It only gives high META equipment a price in relation to not used equipment and finally ends the arms race wich happens after every balance pass. It consequently follows the high demand = high price, low demand = low price paradigm of economy.

And the very best of it all:
We could kick Ghost Heat, DHS with 1.4 and 2.0 values and set all weapons back to TT values the dynamic BV will balance all this stuff automaticly.


Where i got my inspiration from:
A similar system runs the economy on innerspherewars.eu.
For almost 8 month's now we use it to balance the troops you can buy/ build in the league by such a system and you know what?
Since the system started and the numbers regulated themselves from start values after the first 4 weeks, we have had not a single one complaint about equipment being to cheap/expensive used to often etc etc etc.

All the horrors of balancing a league wide economy have gone!
Only difference to this BV system is, that we also have maintenance consts of 5% of the units value. And as unit values rise and fall based on demand, maintenance consts also rise and fall...


testdata for clarification

Spoiler

Mechs 1 to 3 BV development with rising overall mech population and random usage and success changes:
MECH1:

MECH2:

MECH 3


Average BV calculation and droplimits for CW drop decks and 12 v 12 public queue

Now, this figure shows impressively, how the proposed BV system would react to the META or introduction of new equipment. META builds would not be nerved anymore and Mechs would not be gimped anymore by balancing passes month's after the player bought them.
Also, due to the drop limits there would not be such a thing as a "worthless" Mech, weapon System or whatever.

Furthermore, the more wide spread usage of different equipment and weapon systems would require more skill from grouped players to find tactics that work with such a mixed loadout.

Also MM would have a much more easy live, as the PSR rating and the statistics from equipment, weapons and Mechs would be combined to just one value, that would reflect the true combat value of a pilot/Mech combination much closer than currently PSR and weight class.

And this would do 2 things to MM: Firstly it would improve overall match quality and secondly could reduce wait times, as there is only one value left to calculate with, not 2.

Want to play with the numbers yourself?
Here is your place to go:
http://innerspherewa...VStatistics.php

[Seelenlos]

Paul Inouye, on 11 September 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Hello MechWarriors,

There are aspects covered in this write-up,

Hi,

I must put a hard break at this point to give you another ASPECT you always forget and should also implement while you are doing the good rebalance job:

LETING THE PLAYERS ONLY PLAY VS CLANS OR VS IS BUT NOT MIXED!

You can do 1000 things but the rebalance of a mech will not even the fact that IS and CLAN are to played VS each other and NOT with each other in the BEGINNING!

You have done this ERROR since the beginning of the game, this is also you BEST and only CHANCE to correct it before going Steam.

This re-balance will also give a meaning in verge of playing roles as only then the players of each side will understand and train on specific areas!

AND there is no shame that the clans are 50% better than their counterparts, its the ROLE and canon which also must be felt in a game.

So when you are doing it, PUSH hard on separating IS and CLANS vs each other.

Anything else is again in vain and I bet you are going to write something like this on one year to explain why you are now separating ......

Do not do the job halfhearted.

Best Regards for the last patches.

[Twilight Fenrir]

Alright, I read the original post, but not most of the posts afterwards, and I didn't get to play on the PTS, so.... My input may not be the best...

But I like how the concept was proposed in the original post. It sounds like an interesting way to balance things. I like the depth that would add to things.

Though, I would propose a 5th leg on your graphs... Cooling. Independent of your firepower leg.

I know 'real world' ideas don't translate well into MW. But different shapes, and sizes of mechs would cool better or worse than others. And this could be something else to be adjusted to suit.

I. E. Long, spindly mechs like the Spider have more space on them for air to flow through. Plus they are running fast, passing more air over their surfaces. Fat, giant masses like the Dire Wolf would tend to hold their heat in more. But, at the same time, they would have a higher heat capacity, due to shear mass, and volume of coolant. Taking more heat to push them into the red, but more time to lose that heat, too.

Nothing ridiculous or anything. But if the Dire Wolf had a 15% higher heat capacity, but 7% lower heat dissipation, you could fundamentally alter how the mech will be played. At those (completely random and unresearched) numbers, the mech would be used more for poking and hiding. If you reversed the numbers, you'd have a mech suited for slugging it out.

This could be used to offset mechs of unusual size, like the Grasshopper and Awesome. They are larger than their weight classes, but because of this they have more surface area to dissipate heat. While more advantageously compact designs would not necessarily be worse than they are now, but wouldn't get slight buffs to their cooling.


This could be a very powerful tool for balance. And if you used the leg in balance with the 4 you already have, power creep could be kept in check.

Edited by Twilight Fenrir, 24 September 2015 - 05:57 AM.

[Reno Blade]

I thought I already posted this here, but guess it was another threat.

Reno Blade, on 14 September 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

Here is what I think about balancing steps (in addition to the sensor changes):

- make sensor range and detection strength dependent on weight (as Phil mentioned) so bigger mechs can also be detected easier

- remove/reduce the bonus of agility given by the engine and make the differences of variants count more that way.
> increases the effect/quirks of variants that push agility over mechs that have bigger engines (like the Timber).

- give Endo/Ferro some plus/minus effects (e.g. reduced/increased internal structure/armor)
> e.g. 20% more armor if you use Ferro

- increase internal structure (at least of the torso sections) of all mechs
> reduces the risk of very fast kills by coring mechs and makes disarming more usefull

optional: make endo/ferro on IS mechs become un-changeable
> further differentiate variants and inter-chassis differences

Then we can think about roles like the LRM "support" and scouting versus direct fire.
E.g. if LRMs would be 2-3x as long to reload, but had 2x the damage, the scouting + LRMs would be much more teamwork involved AND you had to be sure to have enough backup weapons, as a LRM boat would be very inefficient and also boring (imagine a 8-10 sec cooldown on all your weapons).

I think this should be here too:

Imho there are "small" changes to be made here for weapon balance:
1. Increase beam duration on all lasers to 1.5 - 2 second (including pulse lasers to 1.2 to 1.7 or so)
Remember the outcry of Clan beam times, when the ERLL had 2 seconds or so?
This would also increase the difficulty of light mechs spamming MLaser or SPulse (such as firestarters) and bring them "down" to the difficulties their "prey" have shooting back.

2. couple all lasers into a shared Ghost Heat group
Limit of 2 Large or 4 Med, or 1 Large + 2 Med.
No more 2 - 3 Large + 3 - 6 Med laser alphas = boating gone.

3. couple PPC and all Ballistics to a shared Ghost heat Group
Limit of 1 PPC or one Gauss, or one AC10 or 2 AC5. (any higher group number will be penalized by GH)
Prevents PPC + Gauss and PPC + AC5/10 Alphas and AC boating (not just dual AC20 or quad PPC boats)
And possibly increase Gauss Heat from 1 to 4+

This way we get certain disadvantages of boats:
- Laserboats can't alpha as much with the heat penalties
- Laserboats will have lot of face time - even more if spacing groups to prevent GH (see 6LLaser Stalkers)
- FLPPD (PPC/Ballistic) can't alpha as much with the heat penalties = reduce the FLPPD alpha size and dps
- strong FLPPD will have more facetime by spacing the shots to prevent GH

- SRM builds will be very strong short range with big alphas (3+ SRM6), but still have very short range
- LRM builds still have all the sensor problems and AMS to struggle with

Then we will see way longer TTK, have builds with more than boating one weapon type.
Classic builds like Warhammer and Marauder (everyones loved ones) will be equal to boats.

[Torezu]

Reno Blade, on 24 September 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

1. Increase beam duration on all lasers to 1.5 - 2 second (including pulse lasers to 1.2 to 1.7 or so)
2. couple all lasers into a shared Ghost Heat group
3. couple PPC and all Ballistics to a shared Ghost heat Group

Then we will see way longer TTK, have builds with more than boating one weapon type.

Do you want to see the return of LRMpocalypse? This is how you get the return of LRMpocalypse. Yes, even with LRM ghost heat like there is now. Though, I'm having trouble arguing against nearly anything that lengthens TTK...

[Reno Blade]

Torezu, on 24 September 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:

Do you want to see the return of LRMpocalypse? This is how you get the return of LRMpocalypse. Yes, even with LRM ghost heat like there is now. Though, I'm having trouble arguing against nearly anything that lengthens TTK...

I didn't add this, bit for LRMs I would increase CD, heat and damage by 2x each (and reduce Ghost heat limit to kick in at >2 launcher), but this was not part of the post

[IraqiWalker]

Reno Blade, on 24 September 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

Then we will see way longer TTK, have builds with more than boating one weapon type.

Yeah. You can mess with those all you want, I still can't find a single reason why I would stop boating. The weapons' efficiency as a group still hasn't changed.

[Zuesacoatl]

I have spent close to if not over 1g on this game, and everytime I make a purchase, i take note that they say specs and loadouts are subject to change. I am a founder, I have all packs but the IIC and urbie, but that will change, and bought tons of mc and prem time over the coarse of time i have played since closed beta till now, and the one thing i have known every purchase, is that items are subject to change. Get over it. Sure some of you spent 20 bucks on a single mech, others may have spent even more than me, but we all get the same info on all purchases, and that is the line that all content is subject to change. So what if you purchased a mech because you felt you could use a broken mech until you got bored of the game, you ignored the main line when you hit buy, and that is that that mech was subject to change.

BTW, you do not own the mech, you own the rights to use it. PGI can ban and remove any content it wants from your account. They own the mech, you just pay to use it. get over it and learn to play a mech that does not game the system. If you need a mech that is broken to help you win, then maybe you should focus on your skill more instead of wasting time in the forum whining about the change and the removal of easy button perks.

[InspectorG]

Paul Inouye, on 11 September 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

TL;DR:
* You should read the above.
* The current quirk system is not working as intended.
* The new system brings 'Mechs much more closely in line with each other while adding role and information warfare in a much deeper meaning to each 'Mech.
* This is the first pass at numbers and your feedback is requested.
* There are bugs and missing information elements but they will be addressed in a later build.

At this point the best spot to start balancing weapons may be to equalize all damage for Is and Clan weapons. Ex: IS ML =5 damage, C-ERML = 5 damage. The Clan superiority can be expressed in range and tonnage/space savings. Clans will still benefit from smaller DHS/Endo/Ferro and C-XLengines.

As far as the 'Infotech' i am VERY pleased this is being addressed. Just not sure how Locks/Lock Times will really facilitate this.
At top levels of play, things happen FAST and if locks take too long, highly Skilled players will just forgo Locks and 'sight read' the enemy.

A STIFF penalty of -50% damage for not having a lock may be needed. 50% seems high but remember this is a game of focused and coordinated fire. High level players should have to weigh firing first vs firing full damage. Sniper mechs may need a reprieve from this mechanic but offset by perhaps longer cooldowns or something.

If you think about it. At Comp levels of play, the only info needed is 'Designated Component on Designated target in X-sector'. That is a spoken command that takes about one second.

IMO, Radar needs to be the aspect tweaked, more so than locks. Radar Range, Scope(not a default 45degree arc), and i would say NUMBER of enemies shared to the rest of the team.

More powerful mechs could be almost Radar blind. Lance and Unit Commanders may opt for 'Info' mechs that allow them to get info and share it efficiently at the cost of firepower. This way TTK increases because at least 3 mechs on a team will be Info role. If a Unit decides to sacrifice Info for more firepower and rely on skill to dodge the 50% lock-less damage reduction, they may be in for a disadvantage vs a Unit that has decent Info but traded some of its Firepower for Mobility. The Info-less team may have more firepower initially but actually have less if it cannot get/maintain locks.

Rock-Scissor-Paper might be the way to go.

Also, Assault may need different spawn locations for bases and Conquest may need different locations for Cap Points. Infotech/scouting will have a bigger role if you DONT know where the enemy base or Cap points are initially.

[InspectorG]

hercules1981, on 20 September 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

I'm just gonna add this statement again and probably say it again in a few more days just so there is a better chance of people reading it on the newest page if they r not scimming the whole subject. Incorporate a 9 vs 12 system so IS will have superior numbers and then clan mechs can be better like there r supposed to be . Screw this going through another poorly thought of balance scheme. There can be a clan vs clan 12 vs 12 or an IS vs IS 12 vs 12. Clan vs IS 9vs 12.

That would probably only be feasible for Group Tournaments or CW.

MM for Solo would be a nightmare. What happens if the que has more players using Clan mechs than IS?


I remember it did work for Stock Mech Mondays 3 vs 5, 8 vs 12 i think were the numbers. But that was Stock Loadout and in Private matches with people who willingly discarded meta for Lore.

[Reno Blade]

IraqiWalker, on 24 September 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

Yeah. You can mess with those all you want, I still can't find a single reason why I would stop boating. The weapons' efficiency as a group still hasn't changed.

With all the changed I listed, I'd say that boating would be a lot less usefull and way closer to the performance of mixed builds.
Between extra heat and more facetime, the differences between boats and mixed builds would shrink.

If you don't mind the higher heat penalties, you can still boat, ofc.
But with our current GH limits, people build around them (e.g. 3LL + x ML for IS or 2LP+xML for Clan) already.

[Torezu]

Reno Blade, on 24 September 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:

I didn't add this, bit for LRMs I would increase CD, heat and damage by 2x each (and reduce Ghost heat limit to kick in at >2 launcher), but this was not part of the post

CD doubling on LRMs would make them useless as a weapon, double damage or not, unless you're boating 4-6 launchers and can chain fire them. Ghost heat already kicks in at > 2 launchers, so that's not a change.