127 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 23 February 2016 - 12:36 AM, said:

Ok, I'll bite. ������

If we really want to add LFE into the engine continuum, we should still make the change for isXL to function like cXL, as should LFE. Focus instead on the weight and percentage of mobility lost for ST destruction penalty.

cXL gives us the formula: Mobility penalty percentage = 1/(x/y) where "x" is the total number of crits used by the engine and "y" is the number of crits lost by the engine on ST destruction.

For cXL that's 1/(10/2)=0.2 or -20% penalty. This currently what we have.
For isXl that would be 1/(12/3)=0.25 or -25% penalty.
For LFE, if they only have 1 crit in the ST that would be 1/(8/1)=0.125 or -12.5% penalty.

Combine this with a slight durability buff and it would be viable without overshadowing other engines in my proposed model.

Of course, all Std. Engines would still need a moderate durability buff to make them viable in the continuum.

This seem vaguely like the plan I suggested a long time ago (and ripped from an MW4 mod).

STD engines get double the internals (so BJ prior to recent nerf, but only with a STD engine) in the torsos and a 50% boost to heat capacity (helps make them more "sustainable").

LF engines get 50% more internals in the torsos (so think current BJ, but still with less tonnage) and only a 25% boost to heat capacity.

XL engines get no bonuses.

None of them die through side torsos, only CT matters.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Well they need to completely revamp the skill/module system and incorporate role warfare so each weight class contributes something crucial to the game.

The skill system isn't what allows light and medium mechs to out damage assaults in a 1v1 head on fight.

But I guess they could fix things by letting the assault "skills" grant massive armor, heat, and firepower buffs so that they're actually more powerful in combat like they're supposed to be.

I have an always will be of the opinion that they need to restrict weapon sizes for what the classes can fit into their hardpoints.

Lights - small only
Mediums - small and medium
Heavies - medium and large
Assaults - large only

And I like bringing small LRM launchers on my assaults.... so having to bring only SRM6 or LRM20 would require me to adjust quite a bit.

But at least the assault mechs wouldn't have to cower in fear that an almighty light mech might be around the corner.

Edited by The Atlas Overlord, 23 February 2016 - 12:15 PM.

[cazidin]

jaxjace, on 22 February 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Lasers need to burn longer for all sides, ppcs need their velocity back, gauss back down to 4 second cooldown with chargeup lrms and srms should get even more velocity with a longer reload time. All ammo based weapons should get x2 ammo from TT currently only the ac10 does this. Increase LBX and machine gun crit chance, decrease all LBX cooldown, decrease all ac2 cooldowns and give them modules, give regular clan acs modules as well. Finally cut down heat and dmg for all energy weapons to TT values and balance with duration and cooldown, then cut back or add range as needed and make lasers depreciate in dmg beyond optimal severely just like the er medium.

Thats how you balance the weapons currently.

Any
*******
questions
PGI?

I disagree with a duration nerf for lasers. Remember the 1.3 second Clan ER-ML or the 1.5 second Clan ER-LL? Yeah. People didn't like that. At all.

More PPC velocity? Yes, please! More AC velocity? Yes, please! More SRM velocity? Eh, sure but I think they're in a good place after their most recent buff. 2x ammo? Yes, please! Nerf laser damage and heat? No, thank you. You're on the right track with most of these ideas - buff the underperforming weapons to achieve a greater balance, not by nerfing the best/good weapons to bring them in line with the bad ones.*

*ACs aren't bad, atleast when boated. SRMs are good, LRMs are decent, etc.

Mystere, on 22 February 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

Why even waste time further changing the stand-in Clan ACs? Just remove them all.

Why remove them when you can fix them and have greater diversity for it? Clan ACs are basically stand in for the single slug shot mode for Clan LBX so, make them single shot like IS ballistics and maybe reduce their CD slightly.

[Khobai]

Quote

The skill system isn't what allows light and medium mechs to out damage assaults in a 1v1 head on fight.

sure it is. lights and mediums outdamage assaults because theyre faster and more maneuverable.

assaults need skills that improve their durability and firepower.

Quote

I have an always will be of the opinion that they need to restrict weapon sizes for what the classes can fit into their hardpoints.

yeah they definitely dont need to do that.

there are canon mechs like the hollander which are light mechs that are entirely built around a single large weapon system (gauss rifle)

Edited by Khobai, 23 February 2016 - 01:01 PM.

[Creamfilled]

Make Clam mechs better but at the start of every game they get assigned one target and if they attack any other target (assuming they are not attacked by anyone other than that target, in which case all bets are off) then they explode. Balanced and somewhat true to TT rules.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 12:59 PM, said:

sure it is. lights and mediums outdamage assaults because theyre faster and more maneuverable.

I'm not quite sure why you still insist this is the case, but it isn't true (well outside the Oxide maybe). Perhaps in solo queue it isn't the case since players tend to not support their fatties very well, but in more organized drops, assaults can still be a key player in a match.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 February 2016 - 01:42 PM.

[Homeskilit]

The first step to balancing the game is buffing isXL to cXL status (I personally do not think std engines should receive any structure buffs as those should be tied to Standard/EndoSteel Structure).

The next step is to balance the Chassis Options so that there are meaningful choices for each option (Armor, Heat Sinks, Structure, Fire Control).

Now balance the weapons, and this involves changing numerical values which PGI seems loathe to do for some reason.

Finally use small quirk to buff select mechs where necessary.

Bonus: Allow mechs to swing there arms up and lock them in firing positions but incur negative effects while in this mode (this would require serious effort on PGI's part but would negate the "low hard points" conundrum on most mechs).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Homeskilit, on 23 February 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

The first step to balancing the game is buffing isXL to cXL status.

This may fix the biggest tech balance issue, but still fails to solve the engine balance discussion which is currently worse imo.

[Homeskilit]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 February 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

This may fix the biggest tech balance issue, but still fails to solve the engine balance discussion which is currently worse imo.

XL - Mech dies with loss of CT or both ST's, loss of 1 ST incurs mobility and heat nerfs

Std - Mech dies with loss of CT only, loss of ST incurs no mobility or heat nerfs.

Edited by Homeskilit, 23 February 2016 - 01:51 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Onimusha shin, on 23 February 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

There are literally 2 ways to nerf lasers in general, not tech base specific. Heat and duration. Heat values originate from TT and I'm not sure if PGI wants to tweak MWO values too far from TT ones.

What? No, sorry, you're flat out wrong here.

PGI can and does adjust heat, damage, cycle speed, duration, range, and actually every other aspect of lasers except tonnage and slots: The ONLY things for lasers that would remove their ability to work in stock builds correctly.

So, no, there are "literally" many more ways to nerf lasers than heat and duration. This alone renders most of your post rather useless.

Quote

However, duration can be bumped up significantly, to increase autocannons viability. With unquirked durations as they are now, it's easy to snap off laser alphas of 47dmg (TDR-5S-T or HBR) over a 0.9-1.15s duration compared to a 20dmg alpha every 1.66s from a 4 x AC/5 WHM. Even a 90ton Mauler with 5 x AC/5 pales in comparison to the laser boats' ability to shoot & scoot.

Again: What? The AC5 mech can fire and twist instantly, the lasers firing over 1.15s have to remain aimed directly during that 1.15s.

The key advantage of lasers over autocannons here is that lasers are hitscan, don't need to be led. For ages, autocannons and PPC's had a HUGE edge over lasers (to the point that it was the opposite of what you see now, and lasers where the bad ones). This, because you could shoot and twist instantly, dealing all your damage to one hit location.

Longer durations do nerf lasers, as I've already agreed many times. But they do it at a substantial cost in "fun" - and not "Fun because I love the laser meta and lasers in general", but fun in that (as I've said repeatedly) long burn durations lead to greatly increased friendly fire and other such issues.

Quote

If you ask me, this has to change because, pure ballistic boats simply cannot excel in this laser meta. Playing ballistics requires a far higher skill level than lasers do atm. It only makes sense that lasers be brought to a closer skill level by bumping up burn durations. Benefits as follows:

Lasers do need a nerf. I have, at no point, argued this. Alternatively, you could buff ballistics, but power creep.




Yes, things need to change, but nerfing lasers via burn duration is the worst way to do it. It doesn't just nerf lasers, but it also makes them less fun to be used, and less fun to have used around you.

Instead, there are MANY other ways lasers can be nerfed. Anything else is better than burn duration.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Homeskilit, on 23 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

XL - Mech dies with loss of CT or both ST's, loss of 1 ST incurs mobility and heat nerfs

Std - Mech dies with loss of CT only, loss of ST incurs no mobility or heat nerfs.

Except that isn't balance, because in organized play the XL is the way to go, if you make the iXL better, that only solidifies that.

Or a better example, who in their right mind takes STD engines IIC's outside of special builds which need to the torso crits (2 Gauss-ERPPC Onion IIC).

[Homeskilit]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 February 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

Except that isn't balance, because in organized play the XL is the way to go, if you make the iXL better, that only solidifies that.

Or a better example, who in their right mind takes STD engines IIC's outside of special builds which need to the torso crits (2 Gauss-ERPPC Onion IIC).

This is where i disagree with you. In my example the STD engine would be the better defensive choice and the XL would be the better offensive choice. The XL would sacrifice durability and mobility for extra tonnage.

This could be further supplemented by tying structure buffs to the Standard Structure while Endo would continue to free up tonnage.

Then you have a situation where mechs can use different combinations of components for different purposes:
XL + Endo = Maximizes Damage
XL + Standard Structure or Std + Endo = combination options depending on desired engine size, tonnage, and durability.
Std + Standard Structure = Maximizes Tankiness

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Homeskilit, on 23 February 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

This is where i disagree with you. In my example the STD engine would be the better defensive choice and the XL would be the better offensive choice.

I've already tried to explain to you that the STD engine isn't currently the better defensive choice because the speed/agility/firepower/heat efficiency cost of the engine is too large, and you are talking about removing the side torso death of the iXL engine basically ruining what little chance the STD has of being used on most mechs. Without buffing the STD engine at the same time as removing the side torso death penalty on the iXL, you are obsoleting the STD engine.

[WANTED]

I do like making STD engines more durable. Basically you get durability for less maneuverability as some suggested. Leave everything else the way it is now both Clan and IS since PGI does do a bit of too much at one time when adjusting sides. Only IS gets benefits of STD engines anyways so might be an equalizer.

[Homeskilit]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 February 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

I've already tried to explain to you that the STD engine isn't currently the better defensive choice because the speed/agility/firepower/heat efficiency cost of the engine is too large, and you are talking about removing the side torso death of the iXL engine basically ruining what little chance the STD has of being used on most mechs. Without buffing the STD engine at the same time as removing the side torso death penalty on the iXL, you are obsoleting the STD engine.

The standard engine should be just that, standard. The XL engine is a modified engine that reduces the weight (an advantage) therefore it should have a disadvantage to compensate (loss of a side torso incurring significant mobility and heat deficiencies in the mech). Comparing similar chassis with equal engine size and both with missing a side torso, the Standard engine mech will then outperform the XL mech.

What you get for the cost of the engine is defensive power, the ability to stay fully functional with the loss of a side torso (minus whatever weapons and ammo were in said torso and arm). Now I understand because of the cost in tonnage STD engines are limited to Heavy and Assault mechs (along with select Lights and Mediums), but that is a tonnage issue and no amount of buffs to a STD engine is going to change that.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Homeskilit, on 23 February 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

The standard engine should be just that, standard. The XL engine is a modified engine that reduces the weight (an advantage) therefore it should have a disadvantage to compensate (loss of a side torso incurring significant mobility and heat deficiencies in the mech).

Except the part you keep glossing over is that XL's aren't at that large of a disadvantage currently, and you want to buff them without giving the STD engine equal compensation. Very few actually good mechs even run a STD currently, with this change, there is even less reason to run a STD engine. What you are wanting is the same thing I want, but the problem is, you don't realize the trade-off currently is one that already strongly favors the XL on the best mechs, even for the IS, to buff the XL more means that the STD engine must be buffed too not only offset the XL buff, but to offset the disadvantage it is already suffering from.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 February 2016 - 04:40 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 February 2016 - 04:39 PM, said:

Except the part you keep glossing over is that XL's aren't at that large of a disadvantage currently, and you want to buff them without giving the STD engine equal compensation. Very few actually good mechs even run a STD currently, with this change, there is even less reason to run a STD engine. What you are wanting is the same thing I want, but the problem is, you don't realize the trade-off currently is one that already strongly favors the XL on the best mechs, even for the IS, to buff the XL more means that the STD engine must be buffed too not only offset the XL buff, but to offset the disadvantage it is already suffering from.

I purposefully glossed over it. It is not my job to decide numerical values, that is the balance teams job. I suggested "significant" mobility and heat nerfs when a side torso is loss on an XL engine. Now if the current values (what Clan mechs experience) are found to be unacceptable then those values should be increased to the point that they are acceptable while keeping in mind XL is the offensive option and STD engine is the defensive option.

Edited by Homeskilit, 23 February 2016 - 06:13 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Hit the Deck, on 23 February 2016 - 03:15 AM, said:

I'm not saying that I agree with your proposal but this could be one way to look at engine balancing.

It's actually a really good way to approach balance:

• System and value based approach.
  
• Presents all engines on a continuum.
  
• Narrowos the durability difference between techlines while still accommodating "flavor"
  
• Introduces s lot of meaningful choice for both techlines.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Homeskilit, on 23 February 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Now if the current values (what Clan mechs experience) are found to be unacceptable then those values should be increased to the point that they are acceptable while keeping in mind XL is the offensive option and STD engine is the defensive option.

You still don't get it, they aren't acceptable now even with DEATH being the penalty of side torso loss. The STD engine will need a buff regardless of what you do if you remove that penalty.....

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 February 2016 - 06:19 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Homeskilit:

I think the point that Quicksilver is trying to make is that the comparison of 1) Death (current isXL) or 2) Survivability (current Std.) is negated if you buff isXL to survive ST loss like cXL.

That means that Std. engines need some more to bring them into viability again.

A moderate durability buff to CT (to reflect their non-fragility) wouldn't be a problem and could still work in tandem with your proposed additional durability to standard structure/armor.

In fact, it would actually drive the distinction between damage builds and tank builds into further contrast (a good thing, if you ask me), and allow for many versatile builds in between.

LFE, if introduced could follow a similar line with slight buffs to durability in both CT and ST to reflect its "not-SO-fragile" standing.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 23 February 2016 - 06:32 PM.