165 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

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

how are you gonna balance at the match level?

1) 12v10 was rejected by PGI.
2) PGI's matchmaker works marginally at best, but probably doesnt even work at all

trying to balance at the match level is a joke and is NEVER going to happen. The only hope this game has for balance is to balance the actualy mechs, weapons, and equipment.

[BearFlag]

Khobai, on 08 November 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

how are you gonna balance at the match level?

1) 12v10 was rejected by PGI.
2) PGI's matchmaker works marginally at best, but probably doesnt even work at all

trying to balance at the match level is a joke and is NEVER going to happen. The only hope this game has for balance is to balance the actualy mechs, weapons, and equipment.

I disagree of course. The MM remains abysmal even with the recent changes. Lopsided matches are still common. But that PGI can't write a good MM doesn't mean it can't be done. My understanding is that the calcs on the as-built mechs in queue are primitive at best. So the MM certainly has room for improvement. Matching by weight class is clearly and merely cosmetic. It can remain an influence in MM, but it is not important. Matching by pilot is doable but will always be an estimate at best. Matching by as-built mech (summed into team) through a reasonable BV system is about the only element of MM that can be rendered dispassionate and constant. Some assembly required. But once assembled every combat impacting detail can be factored at queue time from engines to the presence of a weapons module. Even something like "Air Strike" would earn a small tick. A mature MM would weight heavily the pilot and the mech. Other factors can be included (like weight class) as needed for aesthetics.

As for 12v10, players will continue to suggest it; PGI will continue to resist it as they push ahead with one ill-fated "balance" attempt after another. Three PTS's and a less than enthusiastic response from the player base. They may catch on eventually.

Edited by BearFlag, 08 November 2015 - 01:11 PM.

[Pjwned]

Already made a topic about this but there's no real indication that PGI is or has been listening so I'm just not really participating or caring much about the PTS because my expectations are low.

[Skarlock]

It's not just the engine though. Suppose you take away the differences between clan xl and IS xl, hopefully by buffing IS xl. Clans still have omnipods. So you introduce omnipod mechs to the IS side and give battlemechs some small bonus to make up for lack of omnipods (keep in mind clan battlemechs are coming in December, so this will affect clan mechs as well) to even things out. Clan mechs still have way better heat sinks because their doubles are much smaller, enabling them to take *way* more heat sinks than an IS mech could. Equalize that somehow and clans still have vastly superior endo and ferro upgrades. Even noting the fact they are hard locked per location, they take up so little room in the vast space of a battle mech that this has very little impact on how you build a clan mech, with only a few exceptions (such as the weakness with the warhawk side torso that is jammed full of non-removable heat sinks, making them a complete waste of space and tonnage in heavy ballistic builds). So you fix endo and ferro, clans STILL have an advantage on any mech with ferro because the clan version of ferro is actually LIGHTER than the IS equivalent. That's right, you get more free tonnage by having ferro equipped on a same tonnage mech than an IS mech, even though the IS version takes twice as many crit slots. So somehow you balance the upgrades and finally we have balance, right? Nope, clans still have clan guns.

So after balancing upgrades, heat sinks, engines, omnimechs vs. battlemechs, and weapons, you finally have balance. It's only if you address ALL of these issues that you will have something even resembling balance. Anything short of this, and you're missing key elements of what make clan mechs superior to IS mechs, which means you'll probably fall very short of the mark. It may be possible to have balance by say, making IS engines superior but letting clans have the better guns, leaving clan heat sinks superior but buffing IS upgrades to be better than clan upgrades, etc.

[Tarl Cabot]

Balance does not mean they need to be the absolutely identical - twin- just comparable. Right now CXL vs ISXL are not comparable since the major block is the lost of one side torso destroys a IS mech while for a CXL it only generates a heat penalty.

And the current top tier mechs equipped with a IS-XL engine that is not destroyed with the loss of 1 ST would primarily benefit with a speed increase. What a IS-XL engine (same as CXL except 3slots/ST instead of 2slots/ST) would do would benefit many of the less desirable IS mechs, those that do not have all the energy hardpoints but more ammo-based weapons which are heavier and require ammo to operate, while not being slowpokes on the battlefield. Average differences in speed for heavies are IS approx 64kph vs Clans 81kph. The few IS exceptions with speed are barely able to field any firepower. Go to mediums and the differences are even greater, average overall IS's 64kph vs 81+kph for Clans.

Remember, there are no actual engine crits, so engine damage to the RT/LT/CT does not generate 1/2/3 crits=death. And we are talking about making more mechs viable instead of seeing almost the same mechs every time, more so in CW than anywhere else.

As for other componets such as heatsinks, PGI has demonstrated they are able to separate different values for the dispersion (how quickly it cools down) and capacity (mechs heat cap based on HS).

As for the mechs themselves, PGI is not able to make quick, major changes to the mechs (any resizing takes time) nor the hardpoint locations, low set locations. It is likely even difficult to add additional items to allow humanoid mechs (most of IS mechs vs a few Clan mechs) to at least raise their arms to fire arm-mounted weapons over an obstacle without having to expose more of itself. Until and if they were able and willing to do that, the next best thing is for the mech to be able to equip decent weaponry and have an increase in speed by making the IS XL engine durable, in that one side torso focused down on does not take the mech out.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 09 November 2015 - 06:29 PM.

[Sjorpha]

I agree tjat the is vs clan xl is a big problem. But on the other hand the balance between is std and is xl is good and an interesting tradeoff.

Since buffing the is xl with st survival would very likely make is std obselete and also take over the niche of future LFEs I think it's a bad idea.

It's better to bring the clan xl down closer to is levels I think, as that causes less ripple effects and provides a niche for clan std engines now that iic nexus are a thing.

[Brawler1986]

I totally agree that something needs to be done with the XL and CXL to balance them. IS XL doesn't have much benefit, also in my opinion IS mech's are in general durable and giving them an XL will make them totally vulnerable. They already got an additional crit slot which prevents them for useing big ST AC's and LRM's, also all this Pinpoint Meta only makes things worse. Everyone know that a Dragon has to equip an XL engine to be effective and mobile. Side torso's doesn't have much armor in general so its all a matter of point and click.

Edited by Brawler1986, 10 November 2015 - 01:24 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Sjorpha, on 10 November 2015 - 12:49 AM, said:

I agree tjat the is vs clan xl is a big problem. But on the other hand the balance between is std and is xl is good and an interesting tradeoff.

Since buffing the is xl with st survival would very likely make is std obselete and also take over the niche of future LFEs I think it's a bad idea.

It's better to bring the clan xl down closer to is levels I think, as that causes less ripple effects and provides a niche for clan std engines now that iic nexus are a thing.

Yeah, the IS tradeoff is pretty nice, but you can't nerf clan XL to be fair. Omni's can't choose so if you nerf them enough to be on parity with IS XL side torso death you'll obsolete many clan mechs.

I thought most people agreed that the way to do it would be to instead buff the IS STD engine with significant amounts of structure, making STD more durable and increasing TTK.

[Brawler1986]

Duke Nedo, on 10 November 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

Yeah, the IS tradeoff is pretty nice, but you can't nerf clan XL to be fair. Omni's can't choose so if you nerf them enough to be on parity with IS XL side torso death you'll obsolete many clan mechs.

I thought most people agreed that the way to do it would be to instead buff the IS STD engine with significant amounts of structure, making STD more durable and increasing TTK.

Saying clan mech will be going obsolete is nonsense. Omni mech have a huge advantage. A Nova capable of mounting 12 lasers is just massive, no other IS mech is capable of that. Also it leads to higher alpha's and more point and click damage to a single component. Also you are forgetting that the Clan Mechs will always me more mobile than IS mechs. Only IS lights are faster, but when you go to Heavies and Assaults, Clan mechs are king.

I agree with you that STD engines are in dire need of a buff. But the only thing to make the IS more durable and have a longer TTK is adding more armor and internal armor. The maximum armor levels are way to low for an IS mech. The CT of my Black Knight is a black hole when it comes to taking damage.

Edited by Brawler1986, 10 November 2015 - 02:13 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Try a maddog with St death...

[Brawler1986]

Duke Nedo, on 10 November 2015 - 02:21 AM, said:

Try a maddog with St death...

I did multiple times, but some how I didn't had any trouble when I equipped 6 Clan Streak SRM 4's and 4 SML. http://mwo.smurfy-ne...737c3c4ccc848d4

The thing with clans tech is, you need to consider all aspects. Including weapons and critslots. A clipped Maddog is can still be lethal compared to a Dragon which is already dead with an XL. Range is a huge benefit for Clans, but when you come close to them, they are vulnerable (but still have a benefit being alive with 1 side torso).

This is why Clans are so mobile... The main tactic for clanners is to be mobile and generate gaps between enemies where they got the full benefit of their weapons. Going head on an IS mech is (how its suppose to be) more or less a deathwish, because IS mech are more durable. Clanners has to flank the enemy and catch them by surprise.

Edited by Brawler1986, 10 November 2015 - 03:11 AM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Brawler:

That last part about going "head on an IS mech is .... more or less a deathwish, because IS mech are more durable" is really not true.

As far as I understand, it's quite the opposite in BT lore.

BUT, it can't be true in this game if you want people to enjoy it.

Just make IS and Clan XLs function the same; it's safe and effective.

Forget LFEs. We don't need redundant tech/options.

Buff EVERYTHING STANDARD to be more durable (that goes for engines, armor and structure).

Leave Crit slot use and the Clan "Omnipod swap system" alone.

Clan Omnimechs still cant swap/upgrade stuff, IS Battlemechs still can (and it's no longer a no brainer choice). Upcoming Clan IIC Battlemech issues averted.

Advantage and disadvantage balance achieved. Meaningful choice created. Move on to next problem.

[DivineEvil]

Duke Nedo, on 08 November 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

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.

As much as I am an advocate for simpler, obvious solutions, that still makes one such a solution better, than another. Making IS XLs effectively equal to Clan Xls is just a safe way to make Standard Engines completely redundant as a viable choice, because beyond the price difference and larger crit-space, almost nobody really cares what happens to you after you lose both ST's. If IS and Clan XLs were to be equalized, this will make XL a must-have straight upgrade from STD the same way as Double Heatsinks are to Single Heatsinks.

The issue of IS/Clan balance is neither the XL engines, nor weapons, nor better ES/FF upgrades, nor omnipods, nor mech profiles. It's the general idea, that a Clan mech possess some or all of those advantages without paying anything in return. And it's disturbing to see you guys disassembling that one general issue into dozens of separate issues and arguing about how everything must be equalized by removing any distinctivity that Clan mechs have. Make XL engines the same! Make weapons the same! Rescale stuff! What about ES/FF? How we're going to make those equal? Guys, stop! General issues are fixed by general solutions! Stop screwing up the scale of a problem! There are some parameters where IS and Clan are equal, so why it's not better to adress those in IS favor?

This simple idea of double internal structure for IS is but a one most sinple solution. It can make a great impact, while being as simple solution as it gets. Besides, it also positively affects other interdependant gameplay aspects - it reduces TTK, it make crit-seeking weapons more relevant, it makes it easier for new players to experience the game, it reduces the lethality of alpha-strike vomit builds, etc. With all that, I cannot see any negatives which that simple change will bring.

Neither I am seeing a releveance of Stalker/Victor analogy. Seems to me like a red-herring. Stalkers and Victors are completely different mechs with completely different playstyle and loadout options. If there's imbalance between them, then Quirks are indeed what is supposed to be used to solve the problem. It has absolutely zero relevance to the engine discussion.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@DivineEvil:

You're absolutely right that the idea that Clans are supposed to be superior is at the heart of the Clan/IS balance issues.

But we need to be careful that we don't swing towards Clans becoming inferior.

Durability is the single most desirable thing a 'Mech can have. It literally means the 'Mech can take more hits.

I think it's dangerous to just increase (not even double) the "hit points" of 1 techline. Especially where it still leaves many of the other balance issues unresolved.

Much better to lay down some foundational baselines (especially where durability is concerned) and then build on those in different directions (by modifying weapon values, for instance) to ensure that both sides play different, but that no side is clearly better in all things.

[ChewBaka]

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.

Once again, why do people keep insisting that the game be balanced between IS and Clan when it clearly isn't supposed to be in BTech?

I would agree that we do need an 'IS vs IS'-only game mode though, for the sake of people who want 'balance' but than I'm pretty sure you guys would get back to whining as to why some mechs are better than others.

Clan tech is supposed to have some degree of superiority. I would agree that it perhaps its a little too overwhelming to be fair, but the clans are supposed to have an edge.

The Timber Wolf is supposed to have a feared reputation compared to the equivalent weight Orion. If not, this simply isn't a BTech game anymore.

[Brawler1986]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 10 November 2015 - 03:36 AM, said:

@Brawler:

That last part about going "head on an IS mech is .... more or less a deathwish, because IS mech are more durable" is really not true.

As far as I understand, it's quite the opposite in BT lore.

BUT, it can't be true in this game if you want people to enjoy it.

Just make IS and Clan XLs function the same; it's safe and effective.

Forget LFEs. We don't need redundant tech/options.

Buff EVERYTHING STANDARD to be more durable (that goes for engines, armor and structure).

Leave Crit slot use and the Clan "Omnipod swap system" alone.

Clan Omnimechs still cant swap/upgrade stuff, IS Battlemechs still can (and it's no longer a no brainer choice). Upcoming Clan IIC Battlemech issues averted.

Advantage and disadvantage balance achieved. Meaningful choice created. Move on to next problem.

I totally agree with this! Still PGI is reluctant to change it. This is now the third time they are going to reinvent this.... This is why I am more and more voting with my wallet to make a point. Those ridiculous systems they are implementing has to stop.

Edited by Brawler1986, 10 November 2015 - 05:28 AM.

[Hotthedd]

IF this is a BattleTech based game, I.S. side torso loss should mean destruction (death) of an XL engine. There is no way to get around this fact and still be a BattleTech game.

But in keeping with the rules and lore of BattleTech, the loss of a side torso in a Clan 'mech should have tremendous heat and movement penalties as well.

In short: I.S. XL side torso loss = instant death, Clan side torso loss = very probable death.

[Sjorpha]

Hotthedd, on 10 November 2015 - 05:58 AM, said:

IF this is a BattleTech based game, I.S. side torso loss should mean destruction (death) of an XL engine. There is no way to get around this fact and still be a BattleTech game.

But in keeping with the rules and lore of BattleTech, the loss of a side torso in a Clan 'mech should have tremendous heat and movement penalties as well.

In short: I.S. XL side torso loss = instant death, Clan side torso loss = very probable death.

I agree, it's a lot better to do that than mess with the is engines that are already well balanced. It's also important to keep a thematic difference between the factions imo.

Of course, that means clan xl is still superior even with a harsh st penalty, which means you have to give is chassis some kind of General durability buff to structure or armour.

You also need to look at making the clan std worth using on the iic mechs.

[Yozzman]

The IS XL should get the same stats as the CLAN XL.

Remove ghost heat.

Decouple torso movement from the engine size

Clan weapons should get back to their normal levels.

IS should get a quirk bonus for the stock loadout for that mech to get mechs that perform a bit better to balance things out.
Custom loadout? No quirks...

[Repasy Cooper]

We need crits for engines, that would level the field. In tabletop Battletech, each engine crit represents reactor shielding. If you lose three or more shieldings, your reactor goes offline. The only reason IS XL engine goes offline from one side torso destruction is because there are three crits located in each side torso. But, if a Clanmech received a crit in one side torso and lost the other side, it would go offline even though it has the other side torso intact.