165 replies to this topic

[Thorqemada]

As title says - all is pointless until the IS/Clan XL-Engine Issue is adressed.
There are many suggestions around and we need to have a solution b4 the "Great Rebalance" may eventually advance successful!

I wanted to remind that to anyone for the sake of the cause.

Thx.

Edited by Thorqemada, 06 November 2015 - 09:55 PM.

[Khobai]

Just make IS XL and CXL equal and be done with it.

And buff the STD engine somehow so itd still be worth using.

[Livewyr]

Khobai, on 06 November 2015 - 08:56 PM, said:

Just make IS XL and CXL equal and be done with it.

And buff the STD engine somehow so itd still be worth using.

And lock IS engine ratings and types? GO for it.

(How many IS mechs have XL engines stock?)

[Khobai]

Quote

And lock IS engine ratings and types? GO for it.

nah. locked engine ratings are only a downside of omnimechs, not battlemechs. for example the IIC battlemechs are going to have unlocked CXL engines.

locked engine ratings are part of the price omnimechs pay to be able to swap omnipods. for most omnimechs thats more than a fair trade.

Again, they should just make ISXL and CXL the same (and buff STD engine). That fixes one of the biggest imbalances in the game.

Edited by Khobai, 06 November 2015 - 09:12 PM.

[BearFlag]

The way to balance engines is to make them the same. The means to balance weapons is to make them the same. The way balance mechs is to make them all the same weight, same model, same hardpoints. That's no fun.

"Balance" by mech, tech or pilot is a myth. Does not exist and never will. The Crow is worth about 65 IS tons. So what? If you nerf them any more the differences fade into the background and the clan character is lost. (I pilot IS BTW.) Things seem to be in a pretty good range from my perspective. Clan mechs are very tough, but not OP.

The only place where "balance" can be approximated is at the match level. But PGI has a poor record here. Even the current MM in open play is still producing a large proportion of lopsided games. And CW, with no match maker, is a balance nightmare. The MM (in open play) needs to perform much more extensive calcs on as-built and as-piloted mechs. A comprehensive BV system (which would factor engines in) would be a good start.

That said, there are certainly problems to address. Meta builds, pinpointing, power creep, descending TTK, under-performing mech families. Some of the armor and structure buffs of PTS3 help here. Indeed, the hated weapons quirks are also a good way improve playability of crappy mechs.

As the mech families proliferate, PGI will increasingly need to differentiate mech families by "character" rather than the issue OP, later buff formula. Mech families with "character" will create a love or hate emotion in players depending on their own character. This is desirable. Don't like one family, go to another. Differentiation within family is already assured by differing hardpoints. Once you give a mech family character beyond mere appearance, you can turn attention to individual models' "balance" or purpose. It should fit one of these categories:

1) Battle Effective: Most will fall in this category. A comprehesive BV analysis will assure that a stinker mech isn't being created.
2) Role mech: Much wanted, more elusive. To be determined.
3) Silly Fun Mech: I think of the Cicada 3C. It has over-the-top ERPPC quirks but is not nearly as effective as the all business 2B. Not usually gonna score big with it, but it's great fun to drive. And fun is a design goal.

If balancing occurs at the match, and if battle effectiveness is designed in, quirked in, moduled in dispassionately, then PGI can focus on giving mech families much needed character. If selling mechs is a big part of their business, then this is business critical.

[Nik Reaper]

Meh, advance the time line till IS has ERmedL and IS light engine and we'r good.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

It's absolutely true, IS and Clan XL engines should function the same. The access restrictions that existed for Clans in TT don't apply to MWO.

This is one of the few things the Techlines need to have truly "same" to achieve balance.

But no need to lock them.

With that one stroke, the balance between Clans and IS will become that much greater.

[Khobai]

Quote

The way to balance engines is to make them the same. The means to balance weapons is to make them the same. The way balance mechs is to make them all the same weight, same model, same hardpoints. That's no fun.

How is it not fun?

The game was actually more fun when it was just IS vs IS and everything was the same.

The game was less fun after clans were added.

So the evidence doesnt support what youre saying at all. Making things the same, makes them balanced, which makes the game MORE fun.


ISXL and CXL should be the same. period. Its the only way to balance mech survivability for both sides.

However, IS weapons and Clan weapons dont need to be exactly the same, but they do need to be equal. Typically clan weapons should have more damage, more damage spread, more heat, and more range. While IS weapons have less damage, less damage spread, less heat, and less range. But for the most part the weapons should end up being roughly equal.

For example, Clan gauss being identical to IS gauss and weighing 3 tons less is NOT equal. In order to make those weapons equal they need to give clan gauss a disadvantage over IS gauss.

Edited by Khobai, 07 November 2015 - 11:33 AM.

[Mcgral18]

It won't happen; that involves .XML variable edits.

We'll get Ghost Torsi instead, like on the PTS.

[STEF_]

For IS/Clan balance------> 3062: IS Light fusion engine.

Also more mechs, more weapons.

[Mcgral18]

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 November 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

For IS/Clan balance------> 3062: IS Light fusion engine.

Also more mechs, more weapons.

And lots of Legacy Tech


Bad idea, fix what we have.

[Khobai]

Quote

And lots of Legacy Tech

Not necessarily. They could add engine crits to the game. Engines that weigh more would have more health and be less susceptible to getting critted. They could also get an internal structure bonus since it makes sense for bulkier engine blocks to absorb extra damage.

So CXL/XL = 40 health
LFE = 50 health and +15 CT internal structure
STD = engine 60 health and +30 CT internal structure

Each engine slot would have 10 health. Whenever an engine slot is destroyed by crits the engine would lose -10 health and -2 internal DHS. Losing a side torso would be the same as 3 crits (-30 engine health and -6 internal DHS). That way both ISXL and CXL could survive losing a side torso.

No legacy tech that way. Each engine would have advantages and disadvantages.

Edited by Khobai, 07 November 2015 - 12:03 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 07 November 2015 - 11:55 AM, said:

Not necessarily. They could add engine crits to the game.

That won't fix anything.....

Internal structure boosts are the more important boost you could offer.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 November 2015 - 03:07 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Khobai, on 06 November 2015 - 08:56 PM, said:

Just make IS XL and CXL equal and be done with it.

And buff the STD engine somehow so itd still be worth using.

I'm with making ISXL/CXL similar in it takes both ST to take out a mech. The difference would be ISXL would have a greater heat penalty (and if introduced, greater movement penalty than CXL). While the Standard would have no such penalties, as it has no penalties now.

ISXL 3engine slots/side / CXL 2engine slots/side IS XL engine would be similar to Clan XL but not equal.

Next would be to add at least a 2 additional threshold pts on the heat scale that would have a negative agility/speed effect.

As for weapons, they should not be the same, only similar, while introducing tech outside the canon timeline. Such as the IS medium laser should not be comparable to the Clan ERML, nor should the Clan ERML be comparable, at least in range/damage, to the IS LL. That would mean introducing the ISERML to be comparable to the CERML. The IS would have more variety on mechs and weapons, while Clans still maintain greater range/damage, even if it is only slightly. And take into consideration modules/other items affect equipment in percentages. PGI can then play with quirks on a smaller scale, to add flavor, good/bad to a variant.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 07 November 2015 - 06:50 PM.

[BearFlag]

Khobai, on 07 November 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

How is it not fun?

The game was actually more fun when it was just IS vs IS and everything was the same.

The game was less fun after clans were added.

So the evidence doesnt support what youre saying at all. Making things the same, makes them balanced, which makes the game MORE fun.


ISXL and CXL should be the same. period. Its the only way to balance mech survivability for both sides.

However, IS weapons and Clan weapons dont need to be exactly the same, but they do need to be equal. Typically clan weapons should have more damage, more damage spread, more heat, and more range. While IS weapons have less damage, less damage spread, less heat, and less range. But for the most part the weapons should end up being roughly equal.

For example, Clan gauss being identical to IS gauss and weighing 3 tons less is NOT equal. In order to make those weapons equal they need to give clan gauss a disadvantage over IS gauss.

You argue both sides of the coin, then use superlatives like "the only way." In fact there are dozens of ways to address a non-problem.

Taking the "same" argument to its logical conclusion would have us balancing the Locust vs. the Atlas by making them both Centurions.

The real problem doesn't reside in the difference of weight class, the difference in weapons or the difference in engines. Rather it is in poor mech design and possibly some of the accumulated changes hereto. Easily more than half of the mechs are poor performers. But give them the right combination of traits (hard points, armor, etc) and a good pilot will take care of the rest.

Maybe we'll see more Centurions.

Edited by BearFlag, 07 November 2015 - 06:53 PM.

[DivineEvil]

There's no particular need to eliminate the differences between IS and Clan.
Simply doubling the Internal Structure of all IS mechs might bring them in par with all Clan technological benefits. It's but the most simple idea I can think of, and there's dozens of other aspects, that can be uplifted for IS.

All I want to say, is that the differences are not the issue, but clear advantages are. C-XL engines are fine as long as IS gets something of their own.

[Duke Nedo]

DivineEvil, on 08 November 2015 - 04:24 AM, said:

There's no particular need to eliminate the differences between IS and Clan.
Simply doubling the Internal Structure of all IS mechs might bring them in par with all Clan technological benefits. It's but the most simple idea I can think of, and there's dozens of other aspects, that can be uplifted for IS.

All I want to say, is that the differences are not the issue, but clear advantages are. C-XL engines are fine as long as IS gets something of their own.

I can almost agree with something you write here, but...

...making IS XLs also survive a ST loss is the simple and safe way to do it imo. By doing this, mechs that need this badly, say Victors, get a big buff, while mechs that are don't really need this, say Stalkers, get a very small benefit if any at all. There is no risk of making balance worse, its a completely safe way of moving IS mechs nearer clan mechs but never beyond.

Give structure or some other buffs to all IS mechs and Stalkers may suddenly become OP while the Victors still didn't get enough. So, you'd have to do it on an individual basis and if you set out to do that then we're right back where we are now... with Quirks.

[ChapeL]

For balance purposes, taking an XL engine in a IS mech is a gamble, a gamble a clanner has no choice but to take ( until the IICs in december, we'll cross that bridge when we get there but ... PGI wtf? ). The IS always has the standard engine to fall back on. Yes, less available weight for weapons or less speed... yet more durability than even the clan XL. ( You can lose both STs and still be in the game ) Isn't that the tradeoff people want in the IS vs Clan debate ? Heat efficency and Staying power vs Range/ and Firepower ?

The only reason Clan XLs are a problem is the obligation for IS players to equip their mech with one in order to approximate the firepower of their clan counterparts. Some seem to forget we have a choice and that fast and hard isn't the only way to play.

Still if you choose to call the song you should be ready to pay the pipper. That's what I tell myself everytime my Grasshopper gets knocked out with a ST loss. I do have the choice and the tradeoff isn't that big ( 2 LL instead of 2 LPL, top speed lessened by 2 whole kph and less heat dissipation which can be mitigated by not alphastriking every weapon cycle)

The calls for perfect mirror tech leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is the last recourse of the lazy and incompetent. ( That applies to players and game devellopers alike, as the case may be )

That's all I have to say on the matter.

[Khobai]

Quote

The only reason Clan XLs are a problem is the obligation for IS players to equip their mech with one in order to approximate the firepower of their clan counterparts.

the reason its a problem is because clan mechs get both durability and speed. while IS has to choose one or the other.

again the obvious solution is make ISXL and CXL the same. And buff STD engines.

Quote

Taking the "same" argument to its logical conclusion would have us balancing the Locust vs. the Atlas by making them both Centurions.

um its called asymmetrical balance. two things can be equal but different.

a light mech and an assault mech should be asymmetrically balanced.

but CXL and ISXL should be identical. because clans cant have vastly superior tech if you want things to remain balanced 1:1

the only way clans could have vastly superior tech and still be balanced is if they had some equally HORRENDOUS downside, but then no one would want to play clan mechs. so making IS and clan tech equal or in some cases identical is the only real option left.

Edited by Khobai, 08 November 2015 - 11:42 AM.

[BearFlag]

Khobai, on 08 November 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

the only way clans could have vastly superior tech and still be balanced is if they had some equally HORRENDOUS downside, but then no one would want to play clan mechs. so making IS and clan tech equal or in same cases identical is the only real option left.

Well, we're obviously not going convince one another. Balance at the match or at the mech. Different approaches. I appreciate your points though.