254 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

El Bandito, on 09 December 2015 - 05:51 AM, said:

Waaay ahead of you.

we said this back in 2014 already. it is just soemthign that logically coems up regulary because we have gotten tons of rather illogically buffs and nerfs that only played around metamechs instead of the "forgotten ones"

Lugh, on 09 December 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

Crest the rise at 130kph+ shoot, bank right and go behind the rise going forward at 130kph reduces exposure time far more than, TOP RISE BRAAAAAKE. REVERSE at 70KPH...

*facepalm*

I love them, especially when they poke the same spot twice, they plop so nice.

I do this only with the adder and its 2 St PPC' because it has the profile to appear and disappear before getting shot.

Edited by Lily from animove, 09 December 2015 - 06:10 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mystere, on 08 December 2015 - 02:44 PM, said:

My greatest fear is harmonization, and we are slowly heading in that direction.

You should really be more specific about what you mean, I must assume you are talking about the two techs becoming too similar. I do not think the new patch has done anything to make the two sides more mechanically similar, in fact I am of the opinion that the patch has made both sides a little more mechanically different while simultaneously increasing the gameplay balance. Or are you arguing that balance itself is a bad thing?

Mystere, on 08 December 2015 - 02:44 PM, said:

I suspect that is the real reason.

I do not think it is because of conveinience, I think it is because they have a large portion of the player base yelling at them to put balance before lore, something I support. I presume that you are one of those players who would prefer PGI balance the game AROUND the lore?

[Mystere]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 09 December 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

You should really be more specific about what you mean, I must assume you are talking about the two techs becoming too similar. I do not think the new patch has done anything to make the two sides more mechanically similar, in fact I am of the opinion that the patch has made both sides a little more mechanically different while simultaneously increasing the gameplay balance. Or are you arguing that balance itself is a bad thing?

I do not think it is because of conveinience, I think it is because they have a large portion of the player base yelling at them to put balance before lore, something I support. I presume that you are one of those players who would prefer PGI balance the game AROUND the lore?

Yes, as my post here suggests, PGI should have balanced the game AROUND THE LORE, instead of this single-minded pursuit of balance via equipment alone. Otherwise, why take on an IP that was by its very nature inherently asymmetrical?

It's like taking on Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and turning it into that monstrosity of a movie. The Mobile Infantry was not like that!

Edited by Mystere, 09 December 2015 - 09:27 AM.

[Lugh]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

Yes, as my post here suggests, PGI should have balanced the game AROUND THE LORE. Otherwise, why take on an IP that was by its very nature inherently asymmetrical?

It's like taking on Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and turning it into that monstrosity of a movie. The Mobile Infantry was not like that!

Do you want to know more?

[Jack Shayu Walker]

MauttyKoray, on 08 December 2015 - 07:51 PM, said:

No... None of you, any of the ones that propose any of this ****, even know what balance seems to mean.

Clan XL engines are the ONLY CLAN ENGINE in the game. No one seems to get that. There is no alternative. EVERY clan mech has a Clan XL engine and therefore ALWAYS takes a penalty when they lose a side torso, there is no standard engine to make up for this.
As for IS, the trade off for taking an XL is more free tonnage at the risk of a death on ST loss. You can take a standard and not die from ST loss and give up the extra tonnage. THAT is a balance, meanwhile the IS will eventually get the Light Fusion Engine (or LFE) as well as IS Omnimechs.

For now Clan XLs were balanced with a penalty, which they didn't originally have. So far that penalty does in fact create an impact on any mech that loses an ST, and significant enough to minimize the advantage of a Clan XL over that of an IS XL enough to make it less of a pure advantage and more of a flavor trade off.

Again, I HAVE to iterate here, Clans DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE of their engine. Even the IS Battlemechs will only have Clan XL engines and their space limited by the mandatory XL.

People throw around this "clanners don't have a choice" line all the time in engine balance discussions. I find it to be somewhat nonsensical. Balance in the mechlab is not the same as balance in the field, what this argument is debating is balance in the mechlab. The fact that Clan Omnimechs HAVE to run a better overall engine and IS must pick between two crappier engines is not a fair battlefield balance.

Now I could see this argument being used sensically if we were talking about nerfing cXL, but we're not, we're talking buffing both IS engines. Having both IS engines be pretty damn good in comparison to the clans only GREAT choice is far from unfair. Citing that we can't change our engines does not justify keeping the IS engines crappy. They customize internal equipment, we customize omnipods. THAT is the mechlab tradeoff, not their engines are ****** but they get a choice.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

Yes, as my post here suggests, PGI should have balanced the game AROUND THE LORE, instead of this single-minded pursuit of balance via equipment alone. Otherwise, why take on an IP that was by its very nature inherently asymmetrical?

It's like taking on Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and turning it into that monstrosity of a movie. The Mobile Infantry was not like that!

If you are talking about things like Zellbringen and 10 v 12, I don't blame them from shying away from lore based balance. Those two items could be bad for business. As Russ as well as a few players have pointed out 10 v 12 could easily have problems supplying enough players on one side or the other (mostly IS). As for Zel, instituting a plethora of enguagement rules is going to put off a lot of players who are not lore purists, ie bad for business.

I'm sorry, I do feel bad that the lore guys don't get a game that really satisfies them, but ultimately PGI has to cater to their general audience, and that general audience wants balance with a side of lore, not lore with a side of balance.

[Mystere]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 09 December 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

If you are talking about things like Zellbringen and 10 v 12, I don't blame them from shying away from lore based balance. Those two items could be bad for business. As Russ as well as a few players have pointed out 10 v 12 could easily have problems supplying enough players on one side or the other (mostly IS). As for Zel, instituting a plethora of enguagement rules is going to put off a lot of players who are not lore purists, ie bad for business.

I'm sorry, I do feel bad that the lore guys don't get a game that really satisfies them, but ultimately PGI has to cater to their general audience, and that general audience wants balance with a side of lore, not lore with a side of balance.

The last CW event -- again -- revealed the huge disparity in Clan vs. IS numbers. As such, why people still insist that the IS will lack players when a lore-based approach to balance is followed just befuddles me.

And in case you missed it, it is a balancing system based on around 10 factors, and not the simplistic equipment-based method (I won't even dare call it a system) we now have.

And sure, the Clans might end up with better equipment. But, everything else will be stacked against them or render their advantage miniscule via the system.

Finally, where does zellbrigen even come into the picture?

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

The last CW event -- again -- revealed the huge disparity in Clan vs. IS numbers. As such, why people still insist that the IS will lack players when a lore-based approach to balance is followed just befuddles me.

And in case you missed it, it is a balancing system based on around 10 factors, and not the simplistic equipment-based method (I won't even dare call it a system) we now have.

And sure, the Clans might end up with better equipment. But, everything else will be stacked against them or render their advantage miniscule via the system.

Again, terrible idea for a PVP one mech per person game.


There's a reason it's not being done beyond PGI being lazy.
I didn't strike you as a OP Clam supporter. Then again, you enjoy the easy buttons, so I guess it does make sense after all.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

Again, terrible idea for a PVP one mech per person game.

In CW, it's 4 mechs per person with a weight disparity between IS and Clans -- and the numbers over the weekend suggest it was not such a terrible idea (). So why not incorporate mech weight and drop size -- among 8 other things -- as part of a comprehensive balancing system?

And yes, I am calling for the abolition of the public queues. Instead, they should be made part of the "Training Academy". CW is where the real action should be, as it should have been in the first place. Everyone else can waive their e-peens to their hearts' content in the Solaris mode.

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

There's a reason it's not being done beyond PGI being lazy.

Incompetence?
Scant vision?
Lack of imagination?
Insufficient foresight?
Weak-kneed?
Minimally viable product?

Did I forget something?

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

I didn't strike you as a OP Clam supporter. Then again, you enjoy the easy buttons, so I guess it does make sense after all.

That's hilarious, expecially coming from a fellow Clanner, and a Smoke Jaguar no less.

And yes, my Pretty Baby is indeed an easy button.

Edited by Mystere, 09 December 2015 - 10:50 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

And yes, my Pretty Baby is indeed an easy button.

You rave about your AC35s from the sky.

There is no easier button.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2015 - 11:01 AM, said:

You rave about your AC35s from the sky.

There is no easier button.

And yet they're easy to avoid. It just requires a sufficient amount of situational awareness. Heck, I can't even recall the last time I got seriously damaged by one.

And, yes, an artillery shell should obliterate you when it hits you in the noggin.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

And yet they're easy to avoid. It just requires a sufficient amount of situational awareness. Heck, I can't even recall the last time I got seriously damaged by one.

And, yes, an artillery shell should obliterate you when it hits you in the noggin.

Yes, the 5 damage TT source really indicates that.


You cry LORE on one subject, then reject another because it doesn't suit your agenda. You could at least be consistent.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

The last CW event -- again -- revealed the huge disparity in Clan vs. IS numbers. As such, why people still insist that the IS will lack players when a lore-based approach to balance is followed just befuddles me.

And in case you missed it, it is a balancing system based on around 10 factors, and not the simplistic equipment-based method (I won't even dare call it a system) we now have.

And sure, the Clans might end up with better equipment. But, everything else will be stacked against them or render their advantage miniscule via the system.

Finally, where does zellbrigen even come into the picture?

There's a healthy IS population because IS tech isn't gimped to the ground like it would be in lore. It's not a 'clan's might have better equipment', they WILL have better equipment. In case you haven't noticed, the simplistic equipment balancing is working; it just may not suit lore purists. Perhaps Zellbringen isn't the word I should have used, but part of your 10 pillars of balance is clan engagement rules yes (rewards, victory conditions)?

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 09 December 2015 - 11:16 AM.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

Yes, the 5 damage TT source really indicates that.

You cry LORE on one subject, then reject another because it doesn't suit your agenda. You could at least be consistent.

If you've been paying closer attention, it's actually lore plus some doses of modern technological reality where appropriate to soften the blow of 80's era space magic.

There is also a sprinkling of lessons from the history of human warfare.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

In CW, it's 4 mechs per person with a weight disparity between IS and Clans -- and the numbers over the weekend suggest it was not such a terrible idea (). So why not incorporate mech weight and drop size -- among 8 other things -- as part of a comprehensive balancing system?

And yes, I am calling for the abolition of the public queues. Instead, they should be made part of the "Training Academy". CW is where the real action should be, as it should have been in the first place. Everyone else can waive their e-peens to their hearts' content in the Solaris mode.

While I simply disagreed with you on your previous points, the abolition of the pub queue is absurd. The game will tank if you get rid of it, no two ways about it. The public queue is where the most action takes place, it's where the main player-base resides, and it's the only thing many players want to play.

Calling for it's abolition is not only a terrible decision from a business standpoint, it's also selfish. Not too much to worry about though I guess, such outlandish suggestions will never be followed.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 09 December 2015 - 11:24 AM.

[Mystere]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 09 December 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

There's a healthy IS population because IS tech isn't gimped to the ground like it would be in lore. It's not a 'clan's might have better equipment', they WILL have better equipment. In case you haven't noticed, the simplistic equipment balancing is working; it just may not suit lore purists. Perhaps Zellbringen isn't the word I should have used, but part of your 10 pillars of balance is clan engagement rules yes (rewards, victory conditions)?

You seem to mistake me for a lore purist. See my post just above this for what my true position is instead.

Also, I give a giant "LOL!" to the simplistic equipment balancing working. It is practically heading towards equipment harmonization.

Finally, what if the CW scenario was something like this, but with the IS having more defensive structures because, you know, it's their long-standing base/planet being invaded after all?

Jack Shayu Walker, on 09 December 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

While I simply disagreed with you on your previous points, the abolition of the pub queue is absurd. The game will tank if you get rid of it, no two ways about it. The public queue is where the most action takes place, it's where the main player-base resides, and it's the only thing many players want to play.

Calling for it's abolition is not only a terrible decision from a business standpoint, it's also selfish. Not too much to worry about though I guess, such outlandish suggestions will never be followed.

Did you miss the part about "Solaris"? Why do you think I added that?

And because it seems you were not here then, Community Warfare was supposed to be "the game", not the public mixed-tech queues. Those were just supposed to be "filler" that ended up being "content" -- along with other pitiful fillers than ended doing the same.

<Damn! I'm beginning to sound like a bittervet. I guess it's time to enjoy a bottle from my three cases worth of fine wine. >

Edited by Mystere, 09 December 2015 - 11:48 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

You seem to mistake me for a lore purist. See my post just above this for what my true position is instead.

Also, I give a giant "LOL!" to the simplistic equipment balancing working. It is practically heading towards equipment harmonization.

Finally, what if the CW scenario was something like this, but with the IS having more defensive structures because, you know, it's their long-standing base/planet being invaded after all?



Did you miss the part about "Solaris"? Why do you think I added that?

You seem to forget everything that's already harmonised:

• Gauss
  
• SRMs
  
• Lasers
  
• LBx ACs
  
• STD engines
  
• SHS

Yet, you're against other things having the same mechanics?

Those are functionally identical. There's no reason engines shouldn't be as well.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

You seem to forget everything that's already harmonised:

• Gauss
  
• SRMs
  
• Lasers
  
• LBx ACs
  
• STD engines
  
• SHS

Yet, you're against other things having the same mechanics?

Those are functionally identical. There's no reason engines shouldn't be as well.

That's like saying "You're already at the edge of the cliff, so why not just jump?"

I want the harmonization to stop, and instead be reversed where possible:

• Clan lasers should remain hotter but longer ranged, IS ones cooler but shorter ranged.
  
• Clan LBXs should have switchable ammo.
  
• Clan missiles should stream but be faster and/or longer-ranged.

It's called keeping Clan flavor different from IS flavor, and not Clan equipment being just re-skinned versions of IS ones differing only in shape, color, and sounds effects.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

You seem to mistake me for a lore purist. See my post just above this for what my true position is instead.

Also, I give a giant "LOL!" to the simplistic equipment balancing working. It is practically heading towards equipment harmonization.

Finally, what if the CW scenario was something like this, but with the IS having more defensive structures because, you know, it's their long-standing base/planet being invaded after all?

No it is not practically heading towards equipment harmonization, I see no evidence of that, you'd have the show me some.

That'd be interesting in CW, but if the idea is to implement the IS having more defensive fortifications IN CONJUNCTION with weakening IS equipment then you screw over the IS in the pub queue. I suppose you don't care about that though as you are all about getting rid of the pub queue.

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

Did you miss the part about "Solaris"? Why do you think I added that?

You're referring vaguely to a feature that is not yet in the game. What are you referring to as Solaris? Free for All matches? ranked pub-queue style matches? the pub queue simply renamed as Solaris? what?

If your idea of Solaris is going to replace the pub queue and function similarly then you're just going to have the same problem as with the pub queue now; it'll be a more casual game mode and a majority of the player-base will gravitate towards it, away from CW. If your idea of Solaris is not going to function similarly to the pub queue, then removing the pub queue is still going to result in mass QQ.

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

And because it seems you were not here then, Community Warfare was supposed to be "the game", not the public mixed-tech queues. Those were just supposed to be "filler" that ended up being "content" -- along with other pitiful fillers than ended doing the same.

<Damn! I'm beginning to sound like a bittervet. I guess it's time to enjoy a bottle from my three cases worth of fine wine. >

Regardless of what the game was supposed to be, your suggestions will kill the game in the end if carried out. I like what this game is now, as do many others. You nerf their IS mechs into the dirt and pull the pub queue out from beneath them then this game's days are shortly numbered.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 09 December 2015 - 11:48 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

That's like saying "You're already at the edge of the cliff, so why not just jump?"

I want the harmonization to stop, and instead be reversed where possible:

• Clan lasers should remain hotter but longer ranged, IS ones cooler but shorter ranged.
  
• Clan LBXs should have switchable ammo.
  
• Clan missiles should stream but be faster and/or longer-ranged.

It's called keeping Clan flavor different from IS flavor, and not Clan equipment being just re-skinned versions of IS ones differing only in shape, color, and sounds effects.

Clam LBx should not have single fire Slugs; that's harmonizing them with isACs, you know you can't do that!

If missiles are volley fired, cut the spread down (think MWLL)


Engines are the largest faction imbalance, the sooner you see that, the sooner we can move on. You never will, of course, and it's a moot argument. You'll suggest breaking the game, and normalizing the things you want, while not the others.


XLs can still have their unique features when being mechanically identical. Do the LPLs feel the same? They function identically, hitscan, yet feel different. Both useful, as well.



You're shifting the purpose of this argument though. Things are already mechanically identical, yet feel different. Why are engines any different? Because you don't like it.