35 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Der BierVampiR, on 16 September 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

I would love to see that happen. But sadly PGIs attempts to do this were not very successfull yet.

I at least appreciate the attempt and the continued tries to do so, even if it isn't exactly successful (yet).

However, "perfect" balance (though I disagree) would lead to "same feeling mechs, just with different skins" and would be "bad". (By some people's statements.) I'm from the thought that a mech doesn't need to have a purpose and role in the game to be included. I don't care if the Flea and Locust share the same profile/weapons/hardpoints/roles, and only look different (for example). I would want the Flea and the Locust in the game, because they are mechs. I want ALL the mechs in the game!

I'm no expert on balancing mechanics. I do like how Clan tech rewards higher skill play (keep your weapons on target better for more damage). How else it could be balanced, no idea. Though, I think tossing IS and Clan weapons into one pile to choose from would not be ideal.

[Tarogato]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 September 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

do people realize that Clan ACs fire in bursts,
ya you could run dual C-UAC20 but your range for hitting with everything wouldnt be as much,
in the end the Secondary Fire, +Jam Chance, +Burst fire, isnt effective as you think it will be,

Well, would you rather have 4x IS AC/10 in your DWF, or 4x cUAC/10? How about UAC/5s?

IS UAC/5 costs 9 tons and 5 slots.
cUAC/5 costs 7 tons and 3 slots.

That's a difference of four tons for a pair. How are you going to fit that onto this?

About the UAC/20... consider for instance this Jager.
Switching from AC/20 to cUAC/20 gives you four extra tons to work with. That's worth four cERML or four cSPL. Four cSPL is 24 (more than an AC/20) damage with a short duration and now your ballistics can double tap. Why would you ever take an IS AC/20 again?

Quote

i will however be Equipping IS-ML to my Nova, as well as IS-PPCs to my WarHawk,
lets see how you deal with that PulseDire(6IS-LPL) especially with its fire 3 no GhostHeat,

IS ML cost 1 ton. They deal 5 damage for 3 heat. 270 meters.
cERSL cost 0.5 ton. They deal 5 damage for 3 heat. 200 meters.
cERML cost 1 ton. They deal 7 damage for 6 heat. 400 meters.

Why do you think putting IS ML on your Nova would be a good idea?

[50 50]

These threads keep popping up.
I am of the opinion that it is fairly evenly balanced at the moment.
You cannot just look at the weapons alone as the other options for customising the mechs, quirks and the modules all need to be taken into consideration.

I am against the suggestion to mix tech between the two sides as it removes any distinction between them. For that same reason I am not that keen to see the introduction of the IIC mechs as it begins to blur the lines not only with the tech, but also due to the designs using existing IS chassis and customisation options. You can no longer say: "Oh the Hunchback is an IS mech" as the Clan will now be getting their own version.

As it is, the balancing of the tech has happened as we have mixed matches in the standard queues.

Should the whole thing be started from scratch, then I would suggest the alternative would be to separate the queues into IS and Clan only.
This would also suggest that on the CW side of things, the Clan factions have less numbers for their teams.
That way, all the balancing that is needed is down to a simple team size limit... which could perhaps relate back to player tiers as the determining factor. (That's an interesting idea actually.... hmmm)

However, on the PTS a big purpose for stripping out the quirks and looking at these other options is to allow players to test the new quirks without being influenced by certain mechs having better weapon quirks than another and therefore players only opting to use those mechs, thus not giving the system the chance to be tested properly.

One last thing to consider is that the removal of weapon quirks from the mechs may result in new modules being introduced which will give us the choice of how we want to have our weapons perform at the expense of something else.

[DaemonWulfe]

Tarogato, on 16 September 2015 - 05:43 PM, said:

Well, would you rather have 4x IS AC/10 in your DWF, or 4x cUAC/10? How about UAC/5s?

IS UAC/5 costs 9 tons and 5 slots.
cUAC/5 costs 7 tons and 3 slots.

That's a difference of four tons for a pair. How are you going to fit that onto this?

About the UAC/20... consider for instance this Jager.
Switching from AC/20 to cUAC/20 gives you four extra tons to work with. That's worth four cERML or four cSPL. Four cSPL is 24 (more than an AC/20) damage with a short duration and now your ballistics can double tap. Why would you ever take an IS AC/20 again?



IS ML cost 1 ton. They deal 5 damage for 3 heat. 270 meters.
cERSL cost 0.5 ton. They deal 5 damage for 3 heat. 200 meters.
cERML cost 1 ton. They deal 7 damage for 6 heat. 400 meters.

Why do you think putting IS ML on your Nova would be a good idea?

A Jager with dual CUAC/20, this is a wet dream!

[Serpentbane]

Id rather have PGI use aspects from CW in ordinary games, larger maps and more drops per match.

The amount of drops would be adjusted by both tonage and points, but primarly not by numbers. Lets say there could be asymetric numbers of mechs.

This way, Assaults would be powerfull as hell, but fewer in numbers. Clan would be more powerfull, but fewer in numbers.
Then only minor balancing would be needed on a per chassis basis.

The mechs chosen for drop should not be predetermined except the first mech. When a player dies, he should be able to pick from the mech bay within the remaingin points (Tonage/IS).

Also, I'd like larger maps with objectives in both Assault and conquest style. Owning LC's (conquest) around the map would make people choose different mechs for different parts of the round. First they need to secure LC's, then deploy something to deffend them. Or choose to not deffend and have mechs suited for a push. Assaults would be powerfull, but slow in such manouvers. Owning LCs would let the team deploy mechs to any choosen LC when a mech is lost.

If the team is about to loose, dropping in assaults as the final stand could turn the tide. And so on.

This way PGI would not have to rebalance each mech as today, where lights are just as powefull on the BF as the assaults. But rather have mechs do their intended roles.

[Lily from animove]

pro: balance and the stop of whining

contra: faction immersion


but in fact balance may be an issue, clanemchs wiht IS AC 20 pinpoint accuracy? ouch.
Clanners with access to the ISML's heatefficiency, or the IS LPL? ouch.

Do Is MPL's still have no ghost heat? because 14E direwolves with SMPL's and maybe up to 4 IS LPL's will be very enjoyable.

DaemonWulfe, on 16 September 2015 - 09:58 PM, said:

A Jager with dual CUAC/20, this is a wet dream!

wouldn't fear, because stream AC's. dual gauss jeager would still be superior by far. But it would indeed be a lot dakka in a nive bulletstorm

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 September 2015 - 04:28 AM.

[Goombah]

You're right, an apropriate amount of armor to balance clan vs is would be ******** lol. It would be far simpler to just buff is weapons to be equal to clan weapons, and in some cases more powerful when the guns are heavier. 20 tons of guns should equal 20 tons of guns no matter what side of the field you're on. Asuming they don't balance things other ways. It would simply be so much easier. I can't comprehend why they chose the most difficult insane ways to balance the factions.

[Knightshadowsong]

The problem with giving IS Clan tech is that there would be WAY OP builds in some ways. I've suggested 'Integration' slots which would block certain builds that would be OP. example Centurion with 2 UAC10's. or a Hunchy with nothing but clan Pulse lasers. there would also need heat penalties and such applied, as for giving Clans IS tech. well... Technically the clans WOULD use IS tech. but only when nothing else was available. i'm not agenized the idea, as i'd love to replace IS weapons on my mech's with Clan. but really. unless there was a way to block trolls from OP builds, I cant say i'd support it.

[Skarlock]

Widowmaker1981, on 16 September 2015 - 06:03 AM, said:

Idiocy. completely removes and difference between clan and is mechs apart from skin, and makes IS completely dominant because full customisation is FAR more valuable than Omnitech (you can argue that, but youll be wrong). Also IS mechs tend to have better geometry..

Already covered this. Clans have omnipods, IS mechs don't. There is still variety. And saying "I can argue that but I'll be wrong" is no way to have an argument. That's just a cop out on actually explaining the value of omnipods vs. flexible endo/ferro, tunable jump jets, etc. You want to make the argument, make it. Don't hide behind "you're just wrong because I say so".

Quote

Nothing in this game would stand a snowballs chance in a supernova against a BNC-3M with C-XL, C-ES, C-FF, C-DHS and 5x IS-LPL, given those crazy high weapon mounts.

High mount points aren't everything. Yes, the banshee would be feared, but I'd rather have legit debates between the power of a banshee 3M with large pulses and an er med head laser or er large laser vs. the dire wolf 84 pt alpha than what PGI is doing by removing all the weapon quirks. PGI wants to get rid of the weapon quirks, so why not rebalance the game by giving IS clan tech, and THEN balancing clan tech, because it will affect both sides *equally*. You nerf clan large pulses, then both IS and clan are affected, not just clan.

[Andi Nagasia]

people would say a (4PPC-WHK(LPL+1ammo=PPC) would be OP as it PPCs better,
but then again a (2Gauss-Enforcer(Gauss=C-Gauss+3Ammo) would be a thing too,

Edit-
i think Mixed Tech could be fun and allow more Variety in how people play,
you can be sure Some IS players would take Clan Tech, and some Clan players IS Tech,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 19 September 2015 - 08:32 AM.

[Der BierVampiR]

Tesunie, on 16 September 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

I at least appreciate the attempt and the continued tries to do so, even if it isn't exactly successful (yet).

Of course, i appreciate PGIs attempts also. My comment wasn´t meant to be negative, i simply wanted to mention the balance issues between the IS and the Clans.

Edited by Der BierVampiR, 03 October 2015 - 06:00 PM.

[Brethgar]

So if it's "crazy" and "heretical" to let the other sides have eachother's weapons, then what about new tech? IS and Clan researchers have probably had enough time to analyze and formulate new weapons based off of Clan/IS tech. I have seen mention of IS ER Mediums in other threads. What about something like that? Still not as good as clan tech but better than current IS tech (depending on weapon and perspective I guess). Clanners hate their ballistics? What about a modified AC/20 LB-YNOT? 14 tons, 8 ammo per ton. Single projectile. Something along those lines. Want something better for your side that looks like it came from the other side? You're gonna pay for it somehow. Whether it's in the form of heat, weight, slots, and whatnot.

This might be a better idea than going round and round about give/don't give IS/Clan tech.

I would also mention this; People often talk about leveling the the field. Making things even. Well life is rarely level or even. Quite often someone comes along with a bigger and better stick and whacks you with it. The Clans did this in old Battletech. The world has been doing this for thousands of years. If the IS stick is broken or doesn't measure up, then new sticks need to be found and sharpened.

Brethgar

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

Well, let's also rename this game into Robofight. Because this won't be BT anymore

[Lord Auriel]

no

I'd rather they nerfed the clans a bit more. power creep is a ***** and nobody wants it. Balance first, lore second. I don't care about BT, especially when ppl start whining about how UP clans are atm when in the lore they should be super OP.

Do you want to play a balanced game or not? It's OK to have good mechs and not-so-good mechs, but the fact that all clan mechs have XL engines, and are faster with more firepower and higher survivability is also part of balancing, not just WEAPONS. The weapons path will only lead the game into becoming a stupid COD deathmatch-hell with awkward robots.

@PGI, I really think that changing the spotting mechanics could do the trick - things stay invisible until the sensors can detect them - no more "I just eyeball the paperdolls at 5km, I don't need my sensors anyways lol". Otherwise the whole "infowars" idea is pretty useless.

[Radec Scythe]

Well how about to forward the ingame timeline 10 years.
This would give the IS some nice weapons like Light and Heavy PPCs, Rotary ACs, more UACs and LB-X (2,5,20), ER Lasers and my favourite the Plasma Rifle (10 DMG and 10 Heat to the Enemy)

[Mechteric]

I am incredibly strongly against mixteching, because then Clan and Inner Sphere are no longer flavors, just generically different options. I like flavor, not generics.