127 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

process, on 22 February 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

I forgot that LFEs are heavier than XLs, so yes I guess it's mostly some mediums and heavier that would benefit. I suppose my thinking is that there would be very little reason to take a standard engine, just like with the Clan IICs. Zombie mode is highly overrated when considering you could have had X more gun or Y more speed for the whole match.

IIRC, they're 3/4 the weight of a standard. And in MWO, some general rules would likely turn out to be:
-Lights: nearly exclusively XL, some LFEs
-Mediums: mostly XL with numerous LFEs as well, few Standards
-Heavies: mostly LFE, with a few edge case Standards or XLs
-Assaults: mostly Standards, with some LFEs, very few XLs

Alot would be determined by engine cap. Like the HBK-4P would likely run a Standard, but the 4G would immediately drop the Standard for an LFE. The Stalker wouldn't gain from using an LFE over a Standard since the engine cap is neither high enough and it's typically hurting for space over tonnage. Same for the AWS 8 series, while the 9M and PB as well as Victors would benefit substantially from LFEs.

But heavies? The Standard would nearly be extinct overnight.

I don't know how I feel about LFEs, I want then mostly for more build options. But I don't think they'd help balance out the tech bases since they'd also need ST loss penalties like the cXL.

Edited by Saint Scarlett Johan, 22 February 2016 - 01:14 PM.

[process]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 22 February 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

I don't know how I feel about LFEs, I want then mostly for more build options. But I don't think they'd help balance out the tech bases since they'd also need ST loss penalties like the cXL.

Agreed. In theory, if there's a happy middle ground between standard and XL and there isn't just one best engine, I'm happy to have another choice.

The more I think about future-proofing this game to include LFEs makes me think the Clan XLs need bigger torso destruction penalties. This may be the wrong way of approaching it in the greater context of balance, but in my mind there could be an order of ascending benefit and risk, such as: IS standard, Clan standard, IS LFE, Clan XL, IS XL. Maybe IS XLs side torso destruction doesn't kill you, rather incurred greater penalties than the Clan XL. Maybe IS standards get HP padded.

[jaxjace]

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?

Edited by jaxjace, 22 February 2016 - 02:54 PM.

[Mystere]

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?

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

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I'll say it again:

The quickest, simplest and most effective way to address this issue is address the engine problem

Just change isXL engines to function the same way cXL (with slightly more severe penalties for "flavor") and then buff the durability of Std. engines (for both Clans and IS).

Then, the most of IS durability Quirks can be stripped without issue.

Durability disparity solved. Meaningful choice achieved. Development time saved.

No need for LFE and the redundancy and difficulty they cause. No need for endless Quirk passes to "compensate" IS. Completely safe from the standpoints of gameplay and business.

Simple, quick, effective. Move on to next issue.

[Tarogato]

Lugh, on 22 February 2016 - 07:10 AM, said:

Clans already suffer greatly from 'too long a burn time' to be as effective at laser vomit(something they should excel at) as effectively as IS mechs do.

Again... take away all the IS quirks (because the OP said "how to balance ... without quirks?") and what remains? Clan laservomit being OP as f***. Don't you remember when it was OP? When we didn't have quirks? So how do we deal with that? Nerf the duration until Clan laservomit is not extraordinarily OP compared to zeroquirked IS. That has been my solution since forever regarding Clan-IS balance, and it is perfectly capable of achieving balance. But for some reason people are allergic to having their precious laser duration nerfed by 0.30s or whatever it takes, thinking it will turn everything into endless lightsabres. It won't.

Edited by Tarogato, 22 February 2016 - 06:59 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 22 February 2016 - 06:26 PM, said:

...
No need for LFE and the redundancy and difficulty they cause.

I forgot something important when I was talking with you in another thread regarding the subject matter. Thanks to people who mentioned it, LFE only occupies 2 slots on the ST and this is pretty important because IS equipments are "larger" compared to the Clan's. Therefore, we can't disregard LFE because it will add something valuable to the game.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Hit the Deck, on 22 February 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

I forgot something important when I was talking with you in another thread regarding the subject matter. Thanks to people who mentioned it, LFE only occupies 2 slots on the ST and this is pretty important because IS equipments are "larger" compared to the Clan's. Therefore, we can't disregard LFE because it will add something valuable to the game.

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.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 23 February 2016 - 12:40 AM.

[brroleg]

Hit the Deck, on 20 February 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

How To Balance The Two Sides Without Quirks?

http://mwomercs.com/...02#entry5023302

[Hit the Deck]

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.

-cut-

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.

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

[Koshirou]

Nightshade24, on 21 February 2016 - 03:46 AM, said:

Problem: what if the clan mech is running a standard engine?

Then you punch the player who built/used that Mech in the stomach. Next question!

Edited by Koshirou, 23 February 2016 - 03:20 AM.

[Onimusha shin]

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

People like to take this "on paper" view to how longer burn times nerf lasers - and they're not wrong. It does increase threat to the firing mech who's a sitting duck while burning, it does allow the target to spread the damage better.

But it's the unintentional impact, the massive increase in friendly fire, that makes them less fun to use (totally unrelated to relative power). We've seen what happens with longer burn durations, and its horrible.

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.

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.

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:

• Laser boats will better choose their timings to maximize burn time, or die trying
  
• Laser boats will snap laser off targets (or friendlies) if needed to reduce exposure, while still suffering from heat generated. This increases TTK in general for sure.
  
• Ballistic boats will have a closer advantage over laser boats than now. As it is, they suffer HUGE tonnage constraints, slow fire rates and thus DPS/ton, JUST to gain a heat advantage over laser boats which is negated by laser boats shooting and scooting.
  
• Players will learn to manage their long laser burns so as to reduce flaming and thus being 'flamed' by friendly mechs. This is merely a skill floor bump.
  
• There are tons of other fun weapon systems if you don't want to rely on un-fun long burning lasers. It promotes weapon diversity in the gameplay.

Tarogato, on 21 February 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

I think you're missing the bit where the OP said "without quirks". Remember back when we didn't have quirks and Clan tech dominated head and shoulders over IS tech? Yeah. IS having slightly shorter duration didn't help - there would need to be a much larger difference between to the two to achieve balance.

I honestly can't remember nor did I play during the Clan launch. If you can provide some weapon stats at Clan launch, I'll run through them on my own.

As it is, before laser tuning back around 3Q 2014, I feel it was a matter of people still being unable to deal with the long range Clan laser meta because of the habit of engaging IS mechs on a shorter range basis.

And when you say "without quirks", would you also exclude agility quirks? Because balance has been helped significantly by top tier Clans getting nerfed by skill tree and most other IS mechs getting agility buffs.

[DivineEvil]

I think you're going astray from the actual IS/Clan balance issue.

Again, shameless bump: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5035527

[mogs01gt]

Mystere, on 22 February 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Who said I am comparing it to the table top game? I am more interested in the lore, or more specifically the basic tenets of BattleTech lore, and not TT mechanics.

Lore can never function as a balance mechanism. Players aim better and have too much pin point damage. Plus there isnt any melee.

[Lily from animove]

Nightshade24, on 21 February 2016 - 03:46 AM, said:

Problem: what if the clan mech is running a standard engine? does this get insane armour buffs as the IS got armour buffs while having XL engines and such?
What about clan battlemechs without omnipods?

Your proposal nearly makes clan battlemechs obselete. (things like the IIC's, Kodiak, etc) as they can run without an XL engine [however not forced] and have no omnipods. Also omnipod customization isn't the strongest positive trait clans got, Some mechs can't do anything much with omnipods and/or can't out do an IS mech with similar build just because they can switch some hardpoints. For eg: Mist lynx , Summoner, Gargoyle... omnipod switching here barely gives any advantage and in some cases only a disadvantage. In other situations switching omnipods on a timberwolf to make it an LRM boat will not make it a superior LRM boat to it's IS counterparts



Anyway... can someone explain to me what asymmetrical balance is? I may know of it already but not the term.

not forgetting when IS omnis appear, they will exist in future too. Some poeple have a very selective point f view when speakign about "balance". But when speakign about balance these people need to see the entire big picture of MWO, not a subselection.

[Lugh]

Koshirou, on 23 February 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:

Then you punch the player who built/used that Mech in the stomach. Next question!

How are you going to do that when he's already popped your STs...?



Choose 2. Durability, Firepower, Maneuverability.

When fighting god knows who, toting god knows what I will choose Durability and Firepower every(with notable exceptions for exceptional hit boxes) single time.

[Nightshade24]

Lily from animove, on 23 February 2016 - 06:47 AM, said:

not forgetting when IS omnis appear, they will exist in future too. Some poeple have a very selective point f view when speakign about "balance". But when speakign about balance these people need to see the entire big picture of MWO, not a subselection.

I wish PGI just adds the Raptor (first IS omnimech, made in 3052... aka this year in 1:1 scale). I would love to see the raptor a lot more than say a Mad Cat mjk II....

Koshirou, on 23 February 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:

Then you punch the player who built/used that Mech in the stomach. Next question!

I will keep this response in mind when I see 80% of all IS mechs.

[Mystere]

mogs01gt, on 23 February 2016 - 06:13 AM, said:

Lore can never function as a balance mechanism. Players aim better and have too much pin point damage. Plus there isnt any melee.

No one is asking for lore to be the balance mechanism. What people are saying is to use lore to design a balance mechanism suitable for the IP instead of throwing it into the wind.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

balance the sides? PGI can't even balance between weight classes...

Just throw the word balance away.... it doesn't exist in any shape or form in MWO and it never will.

http://mwomercs.com/game

Lights:
Firepower - Low -> Jenner IIC has a max alpha of 72 with a heat rating of 1.32

Assaults:
Firepower - Very high -> Atlas D has a max alpha of 67.8 with a heat rating of 1.24

Aka, the jenner is 1/3 the size.... 3x the speed...can shoot more damage.... and can shoot damage longer.

Even my toddler knows that's moronic.

Edited by The Atlas Overlord, 23 February 2016 - 12:04 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Just change isXL engines to function the same way cXL (with slightly more severe penalties for "flavor") and then buff the durability of Std. engines (for both Clans and IS).

Then, the most of IS durability Quirks can be stripped without issue.

Durability disparity solved. Meaningful choice achieved. Development time saved.

This.

Quote

PGI can't even balance between weight classes...

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