165 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Widowmaker1981, on 16 November 2015 - 06:53 AM, said:

The fact of the matter is that if you apply sufficiently harsh penalties for losing a ST in a clan mech such that it isnt blatantly OP compared to the IS XL, you simply kill stone dead every single Omnimech with large, easy to hit STs - including:
Dire Wolf, Warhawk, Timberwolf, Hellbringer, Maddog, Shadow Cat, Nova. All of those mechs become unplayable, because if they were IS mechs they would be considered XL deathtraps on the level of the Stalker. XL Deathtraps with fixed XLs..

Regarding buffing STD engines.. So what if its power creep? Its defensive power creep, i.e. increasing TTK, i.e. what everyone is asking for.

I believe those omnimechs (with the possible exception of the Nova) would still be very popular choices. And we are talking about heat and movement modifiers, not death. I would have no problem doing well in any of them.

Power creep is a monster best kept in its cage whenever possible. There are literally hundreds of topics and posts that address the low TTK issue that do not break lore or TT guidelines.

And if players leave over the change, how many would be acceptable to you?

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

While I agree with the PTS 4 mobility penalties to Clan XLs, I also think that it is true that if the penalty is too big it unfairly punishes the 'Mech just for being Omni. (See Widowmaker1981's post above.)

@DivineEvil:
Continuing the Racing Analogy - I don't view it as a case of custom street cars and stock supercars. I see it more as a race class that uses restrictor plates (IS) suddenly allowing unrestricted cars (Clans) into the competition.

Of course the unrestricted cars are going to dominate. So the choice becomes: impose the restrictor plates on all cars again or allow the original car series to remove the restrictor plates.

In a race series it is perfectly reasonable to impose those restrictions on new cars. But, in a video game it is very hard to go back (especially when you sold product based on that particular advantage).

The smart solution (from a system design, marketing and business planning standpoints) is just to take away the restriction and allow IS to be competitive again without risking further disparity.

You ask me what my vision of the Clan/IS comparison is. I have thus far only spoken to the thread's topic.

Ultimately, I envision Clans as being more mobile (but only slightly), having distinct range advantages, and having marginal damage advantages; but suffering from notably higher heat (across weapon types), this to force spending weight on heatsinks and restrict their firing to chain or limited group fire. Non-weapon equipment is typically superior but more specialized; the variety of which is limited.

I envision IS as slightly less mobile, having distinct heat advantages allowing them to fire more weapons at one time, effectively allowing them to alpha or group fire; but suffering from notably less range (across all weapons), this to give them clear advantage up close. Non-weapon equipment is generally versatile, but not superior at tasks; many options are available so that a superior-to-clans package can be created with investment.

However, certain aspects (such as durability) should remain relatively similar so as to create consistency and rulesets that apply equally to both Clans and IS should be implemented; values can then be the primary differentiator.

[GalmOne]

Why not just make it so that if you loose a side torso on an IS XL you get red CT + red other side torso internals? (no dmg to armor)

I dont think there's realy a need to push things in a weird way, just make IS XL slightly better while preventing them to beat Standard engine survivability, an addition to this would be to make Standard boost internal structure for the CT to make it last more which would further make it desireable over XL

[Kael Posavatz]

just think, in a month the Clans get mechs capable of running standard engines.

Some Omnis will remain, whether it be because of tonnage limitations in CW drop decks, or because the role they fill is just too useful to not play them.

Other Omnis, already marginally useful because of limitations in available mass, space, and/or hardpoints, are going to disappear utterly from CW, and nearly entirely from public queue. Which means people will only become more vocal about the mechs Clan-aligned players are playing, and the Clans just don't have the diversity of mechs the IS does.

Counting the mechs with firm release dates the IS has 2.5 times as many 35 tonners, 2.5 times as many 50 tonners, four times as many 55 tonners, three times as many 60 tonners, half again the number of 65 tonners, three times the number of 70 tonners, half again the 75 tonners, three times as many 80 tonners, twice the 85 tonners, and twice the 90 and 100 tonners. The 20 and 40 ton mechs don't get on this list at all because the Clans neither have nor are scheduled to get any mechs of these weights, and 4 aren't out for another month including the 1 90-ton mech on the Clan list (to be fair, the IS have a 60, 70, and 75 tonner that hasn't been released, and a 30-tonner that is MC only).

Break them out by variants and the numbers get worse. 44 IS assaults to only 19 Clan assaults (excluding hero mechs).
These numbers are somewhat misleading, OmniTech gives clans more de facto variants. However, many are of strictly limited value (any Gargoyle), or curiosity pieces (Dire Wolf w/ JJ).

My point is that there is a limit to how much you can impede Clan mechs in general with the goal of easing down the edge some specific mechs have (Timberwolf, Stormcrow), without neutering those that are...less than stellar.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@GalmOne:

That suggestion is basically "allow IS XL to survive ST destruction" but with penalties.

I would go for this compromise. But it seems to beg the question: "Why not just go all the way?"

Anyway, it would be much better than ST destruction = death.

I'm not sure why they don't just test the "IS XL survive ST destruction" concept and throw it onto the PTS. It is just a test server, and not a full on commitment. See how it plays and then survey results!

[HUBA]

my favorite on this is a 30%-50% heat spike which can lead to a shutdown (or dangerous override damage). A Clan Pilot with open torso have then to adjust his play stile and be careful like a IS Pilot or he hold the heat below 50% and is save

[VXJaeger]

Clan metawhores tears are sweeter than honey.

[no1337]

well, i can handle my xl problem and beat the s*it out of xl clanners

[Widowmaker1981]

I just don't understand why people don't realise that adding a movement penalty to Clan XLs after 1 ST loss IS NOT GOING TO SILENCE THE WHINING ABOUT CLAN XLs. They are still vastly more powerful than IS XLs, unless the movement penalty is similar to being legged, in which case Omnis will suck.

Tech balance that relies on taking into account the locked down mechlab for Omnis worked up till now imo, because that locked mechlab is more of a limitation that people realise, even for the best Omnis, and as such its been fine for Clans to have a better XL.

PGI should never have announced Clan Battlemechs, should have stuck with Omnis, but that cat is out of the bag now, and they need to balance the tech lines.

[Inkarnus]

There is no balance and can be if one side has total other options than the other side.
Unificate both thech trees and be finally done with this BS.

Edited by Inkarnus, 19 November 2015 - 08:55 AM.

[Rattazustra]

Making everything the same is bland and boring.

Balance has nothing to do with making everything the same. As many games have shown, as well as many actual wars, there can be balance without anything near elemental equality.

All you want to do is turn Inner Sphere mechs into better Clan mechs. Many stock IS mechs are already vastly superior to most of the Clan arsenal. Stop trying to make it even worse.

[Inkarnus]

No i meant it more in the sense of that all parties have access to anything. In that confines they can balance properly with the actual situation its just band aid after band aid.
They could even involve CW into that as an endgame sorta thing.
Especialy since they introduce the CII variants this seems doable.

By now i dont even want to know how much salvage Clan components and Mechs are out there
i guess billions upon billions .

Edited by Inkarnus, 19 November 2015 - 09:36 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Don't worry. 20% speed loss on ST loss in return for 1/2 engine weight is exactly the same as death on ST loss in return for 1/2 engine weight. Totes balanced, because otherwise everyone would totally be going 20 to 30% slower ALL THE TIME by carrying a standard engine instead of an XL, or conversely choosing to carry 20 tons less weapon space on a Timber Wolf for example by going with a STD engine.

All this change does is mean CXL runs like an XL until you lose a ST, then instead of dying you move about as fast as you would with a comparable weight STD engine until you lose the other torso.

Nobody is going to put STDs in the IIC mechs. It'll never happen; they'd be idiots to do so. Locking engine size doesn't offset the advantage; how about this - you get a CXL of the locked size or you can put in a STD engine of any size you want. Sound good? In return for which IS mechs get the same mechanic - XL engines only cost you 20% movement speed loss on ST destruction but you get locked into a default 5/8 movement speed (comparable size to what the Clan ones use) size engine for the XL, or you can put in a STD of your choice.

Everyone would pick the fast moving XL that only slows you down when lost. It'd be the default and nobody would ever take a STD engine.

Not a real balancing factor, just a bone thrown to the fact that it's a big facet of imbalance.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

How about we use the PTS 4's idea,

Make losing a side torso a 20% reduction for Clan XL, and a 50% reduction for inner sphere XL.

Then give Clan STD engines a +150% increase to CT structure, and the Inner sphere STD engines a 100% increase (stacking with quirks).

That way Clan engines are still better, but the power gap has been narrowed significantly, and the IS doesn't have to deal with instant XL death anymore!

PS: Under that system I would totally buy an Atlas-K with a standard engine. Can you imagine all of those durability quirks stacking up?

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 19 November 2015 - 12:08 PM.

[50 50]

The changes to the Clan engines for the loss of a side torso to now impact on the movement/agility and heat looks like a good step.

From what I have been able to determine, the iic mechs will be able to change their engines, but only to another XL.
Does anyone know differently?

[Widowmaker1981]

50 50, on 19 November 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

The changes to the Clan engines for the loss of a side torso to now impact on the movement/agility and heat looks like a good step.

From what I have been able to determine, the iic mechs will be able to change their engines, but only to another XL.
Does anyone know differently?

Yes i know differently. Its been stated that IIC mechs will have EXACTLY the same level of customisation as IS mechs, only with Clan equipment.

MischiefSC, on 19 November 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

Don't worry. 20% speed loss on ST loss in return for 1/2 engine weight is exactly the same as death on ST loss in return for 1/2 engine weight. Totes balanced, because otherwise everyone would totally be going 20 to 30% slower ALL THE TIME by carrying a standard engine instead of an XL, or conversely choosing to carry 20 tons less weapon space on a Timber Wolf for example by going with a STD engine.

All this change does is mean CXL runs like an XL until you lose a ST, then instead of dying you move about as fast as you would with a comparable weight STD engine until you lose the other torso.

Nobody is going to put STDs in the IIC mechs. It'll never happen; they'd be idiots to do so. Locking engine size doesn't offset the advantage; how about this - you get a CXL of the locked size or you can put in a STD engine of any size you want. Sound good? In return for which IS mechs get the same mechanic - XL engines only cost you 20% movement speed loss on ST destruction but you get locked into a default 5/8 movement speed (comparable size to what the Clan ones use) size engine for the XL, or you can put in a STD of your choice.

Everyone would pick the fast moving XL that only slows you down when lost. It'd be the default and nobody would ever take a STD engine.

Not a real balancing factor, just a bone thrown to the fact that it's a big facet of imbalance.

Well, one of the IIC mechs will be running with a STD for me, the Orion with 2B in the RT, because i wanted to try twin Gauss in there.

I assume you agree IS XLs should be made to survive an ST loss, with some form of penalties, and a buff to STD engines?

[Appogee]

...another thread discussing only one aspect of Clan/IS balance in isolation.

You can't do that. You need to consider balance holistically.

[Commander A9]

Coming from the current released client (not Test Server), what's wrong with the Clan XL engine as it is?

It's fine. Clans already have it hard enough in the face of no quirks, reduced range, and now plans to kill our heat sink efficiency.

Inner Sphere is getting so many buffs and Clan tech is getting butchered to compensate for skill sets between both sides.

[CainenEX]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 19 November 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

How about we use the PTS 4's idea,

Make losing a side torso a 20% reduction for Clan XL, and a 50% reduction for inner sphere XL.

Then give Clan STD engines a +150% increase to CT structure, and the Inner sphere STD engines a 100% increase (stacking with quirks).

That way Clan engines are still better, but the power gap has been narrowed significantly, and the IS doesn't have to deal with instant XL death anymore!

PS: Under that system I would totally buy an Atlas-K with a standard engine. Can you imagine all of those durability quirks stacking up?

That would remove all flavor for difference between IS and clan XL. Also how would fusion engines fit in later?
I think PTS 4 looks good, only the few have complained.

[Sickening Spying Scheming Eunuch]

+1, reducing maneuverability after losing the side torso is a resonable, balanced idea.