92 replies to this topic

[mogs01gt]

Havoc SC, on 03 February 2016 - 01:14 AM, said:

can anyone help?

Because most IS mechs suck vs Clanners and typically have to be over quirked to have a chance.


Or CLans have to be over nerfed.

Edited by mogs01gt, 03 February 2016 - 10:16 AM.

[pbiggz]

cdlord, on 03 February 2016 - 10:10 AM, said:

This would be valid had I said ANYTHING about TT.... I said LORE. LORE. L-O-R-E.

And I bet 10:12 would fix a lot of imbalance (though a lot of other stuff would have to change as well. Heal the wound and you don't need all those bandaids).

1:1 balance is a unicorn when the entirety of the lore is asymmetrical. You want 1:1 balance? You better be asking for a 3025 timeline.

Living legends and mechwarrior 4 did it already. PGI can do it too. The LORE is asymmetrical. The LORE doesn't work in a real time action game. The sooner you accept that the better.

[Murphy7]

10 v 12 would fix exactly nothing about balance in this game

* Games snowball out of control with one or two poorly timed deaths
* Matchmaker has a terrible time balancing player skill as it is
* Majority of players coming into a game want to feel powerful within the game, not like a random spear carrier. Giving more power to the individual on the clan side means more people will choose that side. Which is essentially the complaint in CW every balance pass as it is

10 v 12 is not the asymmetric balance we are looking for.

Rather, think Zerg vs Terran vs Protoss from StarCraft - balanced but different

[CDLord HHGD]

pbiggz, on 03 February 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

Living legends and mechwarrior 4 did it already. PGI can do it too. The LORE is asymmetrical. The LORE doesn't work in a real time action game. The sooner you accept that the better.

The sooner you accept that YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT FOR A FACT the better.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

cdlord, on 03 February 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

The sooner you accept that YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT FOR A FACT the better.

So exactly how much stronger do you make a mech to make up for the inability to hit from 2 more angles and have 2 extra mechs?

It may be possible, but it isn't very plausible.

[FupDup]

This thread is escalating quickly...

[pbiggz]

cdlord, on 03 February 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

The sooner you accept that YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT FOR A FACT the better.

I kinda do. Im a game designer.

[CDLord HHGD]

pbiggz, on 03 February 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

I kinda do. Im a game designer.

I also do, I'm an engineer, game theorist, and to a less important extent, a lore enthusiast.

[FupDup]

I'm the governor of New York and I don't believe you.

[Lugh]

mogs01gt, on 03 February 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

Because most IS mechs suck vs Clanners and typically have to be over quirked to have a chance.


Or CLans have to be over nerfed.

The thing is IS mechs DON'T suck versus clan mechs, when used with standard engines IS mechs are every bit as durable as Clan mechs. The downside is that you will be a little bit slower. But you can easily bring enough firepower to compete.

The problem comes in that the vast majority of I(djit)S(impletons) pilots can't be bothered to work out the best combo of firepower and durability.

cdlord, on 03 February 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

The sooner you accept that YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT FOR A FACT the better.

Exactly. PGI has been doing the math wrong from the start on all this. The foundation is poorly defined.

[FupDup]

Lugh, on 03 February 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:

The thing is IS mechs DON'T suck versus clan mechs, when used with standard engines IS mechs are every bit as durable as Clan mechs. The downside is that you will be a little bit slower. But you can easily bring enough firepower to compete.

The problem comes in that the vast majority of I(djit)S(impletons) pilots can't be bothered to work out the best combo of firepower and durability.

Standard engines in general reduce both speed and firepower due to the extremely high tonnage they require. If you're taking a mech 85+ tons then it's not usually that big of a deal, but nearly everything under that has to make pretty large sacrifices to fit a STD. The lighter the mech, the greater the sacrifices.

The problem with STD engines is that no mech in the game uses a STD because they "want" to, they use it because they HAVE to because of factors like hitboxes (e.g. an XL Atlas is suicidal) and scaling. When a mech has the hitboxes and other traits to support an XL engine, they pretty much always go with XL.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lugh, on 03 February 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

The thing is IS mechs DON'T suck versus clan mechs, when used with standard engines IS mechs are every bit as durable as Clan mechs. The downside is that you will be a little bit slower. But you can easily bring enough firepower to compete.

I think you underestimate how much slower you actually are to get the same firepower AND heat efficiency and how important speed/maneuverability is.

[CDLord HHGD]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 February 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

So exactly how much stronger do you make a mech to make up for the inability to hit from 2 more angles and have 2 extra mechs?

It may be possible, but it isn't very plausible.

So here's a reasonable counter.

This is not an easy question to answer though because it requires the removal of many band-aids and introducing other aspects of lore meant to balance the overall equation.

Take all weapons back to TT values.
Introduce sized hardpoints as I describe them*.
Introduce a real heat scale as I described*.
Introduce quirks to support only the stock loadouts and chassis designs that needs help (like the HBK's hunch).
Retool the mechlab to account for Gyro and cockpit items separately instead of rolling them into the engine (STD60 is -2.5 tons..what.).
Leave structure and armor at double value.
Remove ghost heat.
For CW, use the invasion corridor and wave maps per lore.
Make the FedCom a thing. Steiner can still fight Davion, but some recognition of the soft alliance (As well as the Concord of Kapteyn) is necessary.
For the pure solo pug queue and CW, using 10:12 is completely feasible. The pug group queue would be the free-for-all.

There's a lot more....

*I can provide links if necessary.

Edited by cdlord, 03 February 2016 - 11:08 AM.

[Lugh]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 February 2016 - 11:04 AM, said:

I think you underestimate how much slower you actually are to get the same firepower AND heat efficiency and how important speed/maneuverability is.

I don't. I've been playing since closed beta and will run an XL where I can, but I am fine running standards too. There is such a things as a perfect build for all the mechs. And yes 69 KPH is a lot slower than 81kph, But hey my MAD is even better than my TBR on a whole lot of things.

[FupDup]

cdlord, on 03 February 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

Retool the mechlab to account for Gyro and cockpit items separately instead of rolling them into the engine (STD60 is -2.5 tons..what.).

I just wanted to point out here that the reason for negative engine weights isn't because of gyros and cockpits, it's because of heatsinks. In TT, your external heatsinks were counted directly into the engine's tonnage. MWO can't distinguish between a normal external sink or a required base 10 external sink, so PGI just subtracted the tonnage of the external sinks from the engine itself.

For example, the STD60 requires 8 external sinks. That requires 8 tons, so PGI reduced the weight of the STD60 by 8 tons. The addition of the gyro and cockpit to the STD60 wasn't enough to push its initial weight into the positive digits.

After you add all of the external sinks you need to launch the mech, then the engines weights work out in the end. It's weird, but mathematically correct.


I still wish that all 10 base sinks were built internally into every sub-250 engine.

[Monkey Lover]

pbiggz, on 03 February 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

I kinda do. Im a game designer.

Well I stayed at the holiday inn last night.

[Mystere]

pbiggz, on 03 February 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

In my opinion, LORE doesn't work in a real time action game.

FTFY.

Edited by Mystere, 03 February 2016 - 11:14 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lugh, on 03 February 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

I don't. I've been playing since closed beta and will run an XL where I can

I've been playing since closed beta as well, and if the hitboxes support it, XLs are always better.

[Mystere]

pbiggz, on 03 February 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

I kinda do. Im a game designer.

And I get paid the big bucks that regular private and government employees are apparently incapable of solving, using my skills and background in psychology, game theory, physics, engineering, and computer science ... among other really nice things.

FupDup, on 03 February 2016 - 10:56 AM, said:

I'm the governor of New York and I don't believe you.

And I know Andrew Cuomo. He is most certainly not you.

Edited by Mystere, 03 February 2016 - 11:28 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

cdlord, on 03 February 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

Take all weapons back to TT values.
Introduce sized hardpoints as I describe them*.
Introduce a real heat scale as I described*.
Introduce quirks to support only the stock loadouts and chassis designs that needs help (like the HBK's hunch).

With 3025 tech loadouts, it requires more than 12 mechs to beat 10 Clans. Either way, why would anyone one want to play that? How is that even a better game when SO many stock loadouts overlap with other stock loadouts.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 February 2016 - 11:25 AM.