572 replies to this topic

[Twilight Fenrir]

Liquid Leopard, on 15 October 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

I noticed the crosshairs no longer turn red to indicate if I've hit the target. I'll miss that feature.

I noticed PGI hasn't fixed collisions, even on the test server. I still teleport and change facing (2 or 3 times) if another mech passes within 50m.


If that's true, then doesn't it mean ECM nerfs lasers?

Maybe someone else remembers: Did ECM nerf lasers in tabletop Battletech, or any previous mechwarrior game?
It sure as heck didn't nerf lasers in Mech Commander.

No, it doesn't... You can lock on to ECM mechs from any range. ECM basically only delays missile locks now. Though, I do believe it disables them outright within its area of effect. (So, you won't be SSRMing ECM mechs within 90ms without some sort of anti-ECM equipment.

[Malagant]

Wintersdark, on 15 October 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

Oh, give it a break. This is a game. This isn't warfare,

A game of armored COMBAT.

Quote

there is no campaign, no logistics, nothing of the sort.

A fundamental failure from the beginning.

Quote

My comments on this line have always been refering to game design, not how warfare works. It has to be a good game first and foremost, both MWO and Battletech. Massive balance disparities do not make a good game. You can deal with huge balance disparities when playing in a friendly group of gamers, but a public PvP game, that doesn't work.

In MWO, we cannot have assymetrical battles, we lack the population to make BV based balancing work.

Another fundamental failure that should have been around since the beginning...

[CtrlAltWheee]

Hi all. Tried to find a game between 8:50pm and 9:05pm Pacific time thursday night. Couldn't find a match. How long is it taking others to get into a game.

[J0anna]

Wintersdark, on 15 October 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

I'm seriously trying to grasp if people are just stupid, or willfully ignorant.

These things have been well covered in the thread.

Clan DHS: 1.2 capacity, 0.15 dissipation, 2 slots
IS DHS: 1.4 capacity, 0.14 dissipation, 3 slots
IS SHS: 1.1 capacity, 0.11 dissipation, 1 slot

The Clan DHS is still better than the IS DHS, because the size difference is HUGE. It allows Clan mechs (who already have more tonnage to play with due to lighter equipment and better ES/FF) to mount MORE DHS than IS mechs.

Ironically enough I'm wondering the same thing about you. In case it's the second, riddle me this...My Victor 9k, with endosteel, a standard 300, 6 double heat sinks (for a total of 16) and max armor has 29.56 tons available for weapons. My Gargoyle Prime, also 80 tons, with it's installed 6 engine heat sinks and max armor, has 19.63 tons available for weapons.

So when exactly is 29.56 less than 19.63. How exactly is that "more tonnage to play with"?

Oh I know, you think the gargoyle is the exception. Lets compare the Ice Ferret to the Blackjack...9.03 tons available vs 19.43 tons (without ferro and the same number of HS). You think 19.43 is less than 9.03? Where is this mythical "more tonnage to play with"?

How does the Shadow hawk compare to that blackjack...16.03 (only 10 DHS) vs 21.43...Hmmmm

Not every clan mech is the Storm crow/timberwolf/dire wolf. So making blanket statements like you did, tends to make your argument look inaccurate.

Edited by Moenrg, 15 October 2015 - 08:23 PM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Tarl Cabot, on 15 October 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

Just to add to this, the first play testing of the Clans while using their warfare methods had them in Star League era mechs. And during that series of playtesting Clans could not make any major headway vs IS forces using 3025 technology. Remember though this was on a boardgame using the roll of the dice.

PGI has already added/modified several rules and such but atm failed to bring in certain negative aspects of the game, that is dealing with the actual Heat Scale. PGI has a flexible max cap on the HeatScale but as to balancing the other side of it, PGI included only the final shutdown threshold. There is nothing from zero to max to indicate raising heat except for the flashing warning, nothing to really change a player's behavior on how often and how long to continue firing weapons. Mechs, once exceeding 2-3 threshold marks, should be governed to slow down and its agility to drop instead of just having that final shutdown instance+possible ct damage or override+move at same speed+possible random damage.

The reducing in max range will have a greater effect for the CW scene than anything else with the current modes. The only real change in behavior will be more people will likely be hitting that R key more often while only a few will be more conscious of range damage, nothing more.

Add a better heatscale, make IS XL engines survive the loss of one ST (this is not the boardgame w/dice) but earn a greater negative heat effect than Clan ST loss, and possibly add a negative movement modifier for the loss of one XL side torso.

I like they way you think, but I think instead of that, they should place greater emphasis on taxing your engine. The board game has negative consequences to going top speed instead of going cruising speeds, so perhaps the game should give a large heat penalty when running, leading to more strategic fighting when engaging mechs at full speed. This would also make ambushes an important strategic option, imagine waiting for a running mech to pass you and start engaging him, he would be at a significant disadvantage because he can't fire his weapons for as long as you, allowing you to more easily win a battle that would have been more or less even with the current mechanics.

As for allowing IS XL engines to survive the loss of a side torso, the as yet unavailable light engines are supposed to fill that role, although without saving as much weight. And the way light engines can be balanced against clan XLs is either less negatives for losing a torso or none at all. I know that it doesn't really solve the issue of IS XLs vs clan XLs but this really isn't something that should be touched on for lore reasons, and IS mechs still have the advantage of unlocked engines, which easily makes up for the advantages of clan XLs.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Moenrg, on 15 October 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

Ironically enough I'm wondering the same thing about you. In case it's the second, riddle me this...My Victor 9k, with endosteel, a standard 300, 6 double heat sinks (for a total of 16) and max armor has 29.56 tons available for weapons. My Gargoyle Prime, also 80 tons, with it's installed 6 engine heat sinks and max armor, has 19.63 tons available for weapons.

So when exactly is 29.56 less than 19.63. How exactly is that "more tonnage to play with"?

Oh I know, you think the gargoyle is the exception. Lets compare the Ice Ferret to the Blackjack...9.03 tons available vs 19.43 tons (without ferro and the same number of HS). You think 19.43 is less than 9.03? Where is this mythical "more tonnage to play with"?

How does the Shadow hawk compare to that blackjack...16.03 (only 10 DHS) vs 21.43...Hmmmm

Not every clan mech is the Storm crow/timberwolf/dire wolf. So making blanket statements like you did, tends to make your argument look inaccurate.

You're comparing mechs with completely different top speeds, the Ice Ferret being an ultra-fast medium and the Gargoyle being an ultra-fast assault. But I get your point though, what they need to do is remove the restriction on endo-steel and ferro-fibrous armor on clan mechs, since it would allow them to balance clan mechs as a whole by weapon changes rather than adding ridiculous quirks on the bottom tier clan mechs.

[Dagorlad13]

For those of you who keep insisting on pissing on lore and letting IS XL engines survive the mech losing the torso, I will propose a compromise that would give you this, but still keep the Clan XLs superior (hard mounted is a negative, so they are superior to compensate). So, the compromise I propose is that if an IS mech pays the tonnage and uses the slots to put CASE in each torso when they have an XL engine installed, then that IS mech should be able to lose ONE torso and survive (although half of the engine heatsinks would be lost, just like with the Clan XLs). This is a fair compromise in my opinion which would not stretch lore too far and it would have the added bonus of making CASE worth installing on an IS mech.

[Sgt Minuteman]

Instead of nerfing clan lasers down 40% how about nerf it only 20% and get rid of the IS gauss rifle charging before firing mechanic? As i said from the days of Closed Beta, the mechs balance the game...there were not as many in the beginning so Nerfs were needed, but there are many more mech classes now with different roles and different weapons.

[Lily from animove]

Fluero, on 15 October 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

I think peeps are overreacting ALOT.

You didn't see the PRE pic of my aimer not on anything but terrain/buildings.
this still gave me FULL EFFECTIVE range and damage. BUT shooting terrain accomplishes nothing..

AS SOON AS MY AIMER hit a target, it reduced the range and damage till I LOCKED IT with "R".

Important to press R.
if you shoot at an UNLOCKED target, you'll do less damage and less range.
see HOW I am pointing, but not locked.... my range is LOW.






AFTER I lock the target, my effective range increases, probably good damage on it too.









IF I try to shoot outside of the LOCKED, my effective range and damage is lower.

SO PRESS R, be rewarded. or shoot at unlocked target with smaller effective ranges and less effective damage.

SO, ON TARGET WITH A LOCK = MAX DAMAGE AND RANGE.
UNLOCKED = LESS DAMAGE & RNG.
LOCKED but not shooting a the targeted LOCK = Less damage & RNG.

HAPPY HUNTING.

Or I just use AC's and gauss and trololol away and do not care about stupid hitscan wepaons having to press R and wait for a lock to appear. Why should I lock on an enemy and make him aware that i have him in front od me when I flank him? pressing R flashes in his cockpit. That is something I use a lot to know I should hide. This new mechanic simply just scres over lasers, and any light/medium mech not able to boat a lot of them and using dakka by tonnage. It does not balance anything, it will just shift the meta to somewhere else.
people will use what is best, and just becasue we had too much laservomit does no justify breaking an entire weaponsystem. It's not going to balance anything because people simply gonna use something else.

Edited by Lily from animove, 15 October 2015 - 09:15 PM.

[Dagorlad13]

Lily from animove, on 15 October 2015 - 09:14 PM, said:

Or I just use AC's and gauss and trololol away and do not care about stupid hitscan wepaons having to press R and wait for a lock to appear. Why should I lock on an enemy and make him aware that i have him in front od me when I flank him? pressing R flashes in his cockpit. That is something I use a lot to know I should hide. This new mechanic simply just scres over lasers, and any light/medium mech not able to boat a lot of them and using dakka by tonnage. It does not balance anything, it will just shift the meta to somewhere else.
people will use what is best, and just becasue we had too much laservomit does no justify breaking an entire weaponsystem. It's not going to balance anything because people simply gonna use something else.

They can compensate by making Clan AC's fire single slugs for full damage like they are supposed to.

[Wintersdark]

Moenrg, on 15 October 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

Ironically enough I'm wondering the same thing about you. In case it's the second, riddle me this...My Victor 9k, with endosteel, a standard 300, 6 double heat sinks (for a total of 16) and max armor has 29.56 tons available for weapons. My Gargoyle Prime, also 80 tons, with it's installed 6 engine heat sinks and max armor, has 19.63 tons available for weapons.

So when exactly is 29.56 less than 19.63. How exactly is that "more tonnage to play with"?

Oh I know, you think the gargoyle is the exception. Lets compare the Ice Ferret to the Blackjack...9.03 tons available vs 19.43 tons (without ferro and the same number of HS). You think 19.43 is less than 9.03? Where is this mythical "more tonnage to play with"?

How does the Shadow hawk compare to that blackjack...16.03 (only 10 DHS) vs 21.43...Hmmmm

Not every clan mech is the Storm crow/timberwolf/dire wolf. So making blanket statements like you did, tends to make your argument look inaccurate.

They have more tonnage to play with, they just spend it on larger engines. They are getting something for that tonnage spent - speed.

They are getting more for the tonnage spent than the IS mechs, too. In the case of speed, the clan mechs gain speed at either a far lower tonnage cost and comparable survivability (clan XL vs IS standard) or at the same tonnage cost and VASTLY improved survivability (clan XL vs is XL).

Your gargoyle is only a relevant comparison to a Victor if the Victor has a comparable engine. If you didn't want a fast assault, you shouldn't have bought the gargoyle.

I'll agree that the fixed engines and es/ff are stupid; I've already covered that in this thread.

But the fact of the matter remains that every single piece of Clan equipment is either flat out better than the IS version, or at least smaller.

The closest balance is in the autocannons, but it's not like IS autocannons are particularly competitive now either. Even there, then clan autocannons do lose some front loading, but they are substantially lighter and smaller... Again, offering more room.

Clan mechs with comparable build profiles, in the unquirked PTS environment even with those PTS changes are objectively better, with the possible exception of a couple truely terrible clan chassis... And even then, there'd be room for debate.

---

Anyways, my post you quoted was directly referring to the heat sinks, and specifically the post about "Clan DHS being made worth than IS SHS." I was agreeing with wintermute's post, which had quoted that very claim.

Are you seriously arguing that Clan DHS are inferior overall, particularly on mechs where most equipment is both better AND lighter AND smaller, and at least two of those in every case?. You can run clan mechs with 30DHS. Well into the 20's is trivial. You can sport 88 heatcap on a Warhawk. Do that on an is mech.




Look, I'm a Clan player. I constantly bemoan how locked customisation breaks many Clan mechs. But as long as Clan mechs have objectively superior equipment (particularly in the most effective weapons), much better XL engines, half size ES and FF, the only way to get balance with IS mechs is with truly absurd quirks. You saw just how crazy they got, and even with those insane quirks Clan mechs still held the number one slot in every single weight class.

That's bad for the game.

[J0anna]

Wintersdark, on 16 October 2015 - 12:19 AM, said:

Are you seriously arguing that Clan DHS are inferior overall, particularly on mechs where most equipment is both better AND lighter AND smaller, and at least two of those in every case?. You can run clan mechs with 30DHS. Well into the 20's is trivial. You can sport 88 heatcap on a Warhawk. Do that on an is mech.

No, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing (and have been for a long time) you cannot just compare IS weapon "A" to Clan weapon "A" and balance around that. You must consider IS mech "A" to Clan Mech "B". You need to balance around the end product, not the components.

For example, people look at IS SRM's and compare them to clan SRM's. The clan SRM's are lighter and therefore the IS SRM's need some bonus. First off, unless smurfy and li song are wrong, the IS srm's do more damage, but that aside. Most IS mechs have a very easy time fitting their heavier missiles since they can easily lower their engine by the 1 to 1.5 tons (thus sacrificing a small amount speed for more firepower). Many Clan mechs must sacrifice armor, that's a much different choice and it is that end point that should be balanced.

Secondly, nerfing clan weapons is hurting the long term viability of the game. Clan weapons are tech 2 level, they are suppose to be better than the weapons of 3025 (i.e. tech 1). As we nerf them down to tech 1 levels for 'balance' we have no choice but to nerf IS tech 2 (and tech 3) weapons down to the same level (or do a complete rebalance again as we advance the timeline). The Stalker 3h is quite able to carry 4x MRM 40's, that's a 160 point alpha, it becomes available in 3058. We're going to have to nerf this weapon significantly to keep it balanced with the tech 1 weapons. So if we turn it into a glorified srm 6, do you still look forward to it? How about the RAC 5 - able to shoot 6 AC 5 rounds. Mount 3 of them on a Illi and there's 120 pinpoint damage, able to core almost any mech in the game in one shot, even one of them is like having 3xUAC 5's.

The future weapons are far more deadly, yet by the choices of today we wind up limiting them so they are basically 'more of the same' as we have now. Does that sound good for the game's longevity? We are effectively setting the endgame level at this point. I guess after waiting so long for a battletech game after MW 4, I don't want to see this one die off so fast.

[freud2b]

In CW, it is already happened to come across a rush 10 mechs IS tunderbolt (Std engine + armor + endosteel + super Quirck) vs CLan (XL engine).
Well I can tell you that has each time, clans (even with Direwolf) are made as destroying insects.

Now when you decrease the clan with lasers and heat with XL engine and upgrade Flanged (no Quirck and even into negative)

With these changes, my clan mechs with a big engine will be a real potato bag without power .

Free Kill !!!!

Deleted mechs ...

Talk about balancing ???

Well, we all understood = IS clan have won Game ... Close

Edited by freud2b, 16 October 2015 - 06:49 AM.

[Tahawus]

IronClaws, on 15 October 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

They can compensate by making Clan AC's fire single slugs for full damage like they are supposed to.

No, they were never supposed to. The clan ACs are more correct to lore. I actually think they should switch IS ACs to do the same. This will assist with the massive PP damage problem. Then they just need to address the challenges posed by the Gauss. With a shifting meta, PPC might be an issue, but that should be adapted to when 8t proves to be an issue.

[Coralld]

IronClaws, on 15 October 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

They can compensate by making Clan AC's fire single slugs for full damage like they are supposed to.

ACs, both Clan and IS fire in bursts and not single slugs as per lore.
If you are referring to the TT game where all weapon damage from an AC would go to a single location then I get your argument, but hey, guess what, lasers had no burn time and were not hit scan and did full damage to the same location as well, so by that logic we should also make lasers behave like ACs and be PPFLD as well. Oh wait, that just promotes more laser vomit. Hell, even in TT mechs that were able to boat lasers were far better than anything else.

Malagant, on 15 October 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

A game of armored COMBAT.

A game about armored combat in giant robots fighting on alien worlds. Leave "realism" at the door.

Malagant, on 15 October 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

A fundamental failure from the beginning.

And that's what CW should be and not some damn E-sports thing, if PGI wants that then they can do it in the regular group drops.

Malagant, on 15 October 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

Another fundamental failure that should have been around since the beginning...

Again, no one would play IS unless it was IS vs IS. Why plan an IS mech when in lore a single Clan mech could wipe out an entire lance. Yeah, that really makes me want to play IS in a FPS game against the Clans. This is an FPS game, not an RTS game. Not to mention it would be impossible to force Clan players to adhere to Zellbrigon.

Edited by Coralld, 16 October 2015 - 06:49 AM.

[Dagorlad13]

Tahawus, on 16 October 2015 - 06:40 AM, said:

No, they were never supposed to. The clan ACs are more correct to lore. I actually think they should switch IS ACs to do the same. This will assist with the massive PP damage problem. Then they just need to address the challenges posed by the Gauss. With a shifting meta, PPC might be an issue, but that should be adapted to when 8t proves to be an issue.

Holy semantics Batman! Ok, yes, words have meanings. So, to compensate for the nerfs to Clan lasers, the Clan ACs should do full damage with each projectile like they do in TT (yes, I incorrectly interchange lore and TT).

[WarHippy]

I don't like most of the changes so far.

The sensor ranges just feel out of whack. Maybe I will get used to that part, but I think they are going about it the wrong way in general. Personally, I would have more or less equal sensor ranges for all class of mechs and then mess with the detection range of mechs based on class. For example all mechs could have a 800m sensor range but lights wouldn't be detectable unless you were withing 450m, mediums 550, heavies 675m, and assaults 800m. Then you could add quirks that can interact with those ranges. Equipment could be altered to have an effect as well. For example the Command Console could increase detection range of any size of mech in addition to its others functions. I think doing it like that would make for a more enjoyable experience all around than the currently proposed changes.

ECM pretty much has no value at all now, and while I think something needed to be done I don't think going from really powerful to a waste of tonnage is the way to go about it.

I'm pretty much fine with the max range changes on Clan lasers. However, I think it might be interesting to try some other things as well. One thing I thought might be interesting to try would be having no falloff for Clan lasers just optimal, and IS lasers would only reach out past optimal by 50% with a flat damage reduction. Example LL 450m optimal 675m max range. Damage 1-450m normal, and damage 451-675m is 7.

All of the other changes to lasers and to the cross-hair are flat out terrible and should be scrapped entirely. I found nothing redeemable in the game play and really did not like how it felt.

[Santos Villalobos]

About the removal of crosshair hit confirmation...literally nobody asked for this. Just yesterday I pulled off a neat shot with a Gauss Rifle (it was long distance and target was obscured by brush), and the immediate satisfaction I got from seeing the hit confirmation was great. PGI decides that's a problem and will remove it? There is no evidence that this will improve gameplay. It is "fixing" a feature that has existed for as long as I have been playing (years) and I have not heard one person suggest it be removed.

[Rebel Ace Fryslan]

no players online now, so can't try it except for the testing grounds :/

[Papapeshu]

As an exclusively IS pilot, even though it's only PTS I can't wait to swim in the torrent of clanner tears.