122 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

Karl Streiger, on 15 April 2016 - 06:13 AM, said:

Balance discussion
=math > XP

I'd say its more like math AND XP.

[Gyrok]

Karl Streiger, on 15 April 2016 - 06:13 AM, said:

Balance discussion
=math > XP

Well, the aforementioned poster has no math at all, so I am resorting to experience to see what I am dealing with.

[Karl Streiger]

Navid A1, on 15 April 2016 - 06:15 AM, said:

I'd say its more like math AND XP.

This would be the icing of the cake - not gooing to happen

[Navid A1]

Karl Streiger, on 15 April 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

This would be the icing of the cake - not gooing to happen

With PGI, there are issues on both fronts.

You see, in balance, you'll need math to be able to compare things, or categorize thing, or setting counters or what not.

You will also need experience to be able to know what you should expect from a change Before you make the change.

I think PGI is not perfect in either of those, but if I want to pick, i'd say that PGI balance deciders lack XP more than they lack math.
Math can sometimes result in pretty ridiculous outcomes that actually work... because math. Lacking XP makes it impossible for the balance decider to visualize the effects of changes suggested by math in the actual gameplay.... or even if they are possible or not.

I think lack of XP is one of the key reasons why PGI is avoiding new tech. We have tons of highly experience players trying millions of different combination and builds and suggesting ways to fix and balance things. However they are all being ignored because the balance decider is not able to visualize the changes that are being suggested to him/her.

[CK16]

The Hyper Assualt Gauss with no charge is interesting.....may I suggest instead of charge up and release have it simular to the RAC in that you click and hold the mouse it starts to "charge" up but you don't release for the HAG you hold it and it spits out shells after your full "charged up" simular to the RAC need to spin up to speed first.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Triordinant, on 14 April 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

Nope. The 'mech has to satisfy BOTH conditions. It has to use ONLY pre-3053 tech AND it must have a variant built before 3053. That's why there's no Bushwacker, Cerberus or Flashfire (though I wouldn't be surprised if they moved it up a year just for the Bushwacker).

youre not him... you dont make the rules lol try again

your name seems familiar... youre not that guy who took my pic from my imgur and kept sending me messages about it were you?

[dervishx5]

Well here's the thing. By RAC wind up I meant how RACs had a higher chance to jam the longer you used them like in MW4. I'm not even going to count on PGI putting RACs proper like they are in TT (select spin speed, etc). HAG could do that, but since they're gauss weapons I'd say give them a charge up time and then shoot out their shells over a period of time.

Basically:

HAG 20

Charge: 1 -2 seconds
Fire stream: 1.5 second duration
Cooldown: 10 seconds

Not advocating those numbers, just an example.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Ok given how much theyve trashed the lore till now, the times theyve made their own variants, exceptions, and bent rules, etc why again is this even a question?

I dont get why theres a need for this discussion even lol they make their own rules when its convenient

[Triordinant]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 April 2016 - 08:56 PM, said:

youre not him... you dont make the rules lol try again

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Russ' town hall yourself.

[Volthorne]

Gyrok, on 15 April 2016 - 06:02 AM, said:

Because it does happen to give a relative indication of how much you understand what actually works and does not work. You cannot derp into tier 1 with garbage builds...

Tell you what, I will show you my tier if you show me yours...fair enough?

As Navid says:

Navid A1, on 15 April 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

Well, based on my own experience, Tier or PSR is just an XP bar.
I know PGI wanted to create different skill categories... at least that was the intention. But the logic and calculation behind it is just a big fail.

You can totally go max Tier 1 EXCLUSIVELY in sh*tty builds on sh*tty mechs. Its just automatic... it does not matter if you rock or suck... you WILL get to max T1.

High Tier means that you have a large number of games played.

Therefore my/your tier rating is almost worthless, as long as it isn't 5, which it isn't. So put your epeen away, it's not impressing anyone.

Gyrok, on 15 April 2016 - 06:16 AM, said:

Well, the aforementioned poster has no math at all, so I am resorting to experience to see what I am dealing with.

You can't be serious. The only one lacking in the math department is you. Everyone already knows how much you cry about the IS being OP currently. With your numbers, the IS would generally get a lot stronger, and the top-teir 'Mechs more-so, which would in turn lead to an exponential increase in the number of QQ threads you post. Offering in advance: would you like some cheese with that whine?

---

Addendum: Let's do some math. The BKs don't have more than -10% heat generation (except the 7 because ERPPC quirk). With 3 LPLs and 4 MPLs, currently it generates (7*3*0.9)+(4*4*0.9)=33.3 heat per alpha. With your new numbers and the loss of its quirk, it would generate (7*3)+(3*4)=33 heat per alpha, a 0.3 heat loss. This is across ALL BKs. Also with the exception of the 7 (and 7-L if you are dead-set on running an engine bigger than a 360), they're now all literally the same 'Mech with no standout features. Yay for homogenization! Three cheers for blanket changes!

Alternatively you could just nerf the duration quirk on the 7-L to bring it in line with the others and then give it some other unique feature.

Edited by Volthorne, 16 April 2016 - 09:42 AM.

[Ultimax]

These are actually reasonable numbers Gyrok.

As Fup said I have a few tiny nitpicks, but nothing that is glaring or out of wack.


I'd like to see base tech balanced and most quirks removed, and only applied to mechs that are really in need of them.

[Kargush]

There are plenty of issues as is with the current weapons, and someone wants to throw more fuel on the fire?

The short answer is simply "No."

Juggling too many eggs just leads to broken eggs and a mess.

[CK16]

Kargush, on 16 April 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

There are plenty of issues as is with the current weapons, and someone wants to throw more fuel on the fire?

The short answer is simply "No."

Juggling too many eggs just leads to broken eggs and a mess.

Keeping the current time and tech frame as it is will be the death of this game...it is already kinda getting stale, new weapons and mechs will elongate the life of this game by several years....Tech jump is needed and soon like 1 to 2 years it needs to be added. Sorry but you will have to accept it or leave, I can bet more are wanting it then those against it (probably the same ones against the Clans as well)

[JustEvil]

So what's the problem with making dynamic timeline? Let's just add all the tech goodies and make them unlock on given game year. This week we have 3051 and tech from 3051. Next week we have 3052 and tech from 3052, and so on.

This way we could have like 52 game years of tech development in 1 real life year.

Everyone's happy, no?

Edited by JustEvil, 16 April 2016 - 02:10 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Triordinant, on 16 April 2016 - 06:02 AM, said:

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Russ' town hall yourself.

No thx, mt IQ is low enough as it is

[Kargush]

CK16, on 16 April 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

Keeping the current time and tech frame as it is will be the death of this game...it is already kinda getting stale, new weapons and mechs will elongate the life of this game by several years....Tech jump is needed and soon like 1 to 2 years it needs to be added. Sorry but you will have to accept it or leave, I can bet more are wanting it then those against it (probably the same ones against the Clans as well)

First of all, don't confuse not wanting a ton of extra stuff to balance and patch with being anti-clan tech.

Secondly, adding a ton of toys isn't going to solve any of the issues the game has. Switching the meta from (and this is just a random example, kept simple for illustration) pulse boating to x-pulse boating isn't the answer to "stale."

Thirdly, balancing and patching a ton of items is going to take time and resources that could be used to add things like maps, mechs, and game modes, and balancing these. Which would you rather have? A year of patches on a ton of weapons, or a year of fixes to the game modes and a couple of more maps?

Keep in mind that as the years go by, it is likely that new tech will appear as and when PGI feel they've gotten it "balanced" enough to release it. A slow yet steady introduction of new weapons is going to be easier to patch and balance, and will also keep things fresh, as we'll have something to look forward to instead of, as the OP suggests, opening all the presents on December 1st.

I'd also like to add that some of the tech suggested by the OP are things that in the tabletop (yes, I will actually pull that one on you, move along) are experimental tech. The earlier MW games threw all sorts of madness into their games, but that doesn't mean that we have to do the same here. If you want binary lasers and x-pulse, go play MWLL.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Kargush, on 17 April 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

First of all, don't confuse not wanting a ton of extra stuff to balance and patch with being anti-clan tech.

Secondly, adding a ton of toys isn't going to solve any of the issues the game has.

and this is proven and reinforced EVERY TIME mechs are added and bugs ARENT fixed. That WE know this but PGI doesnt is a HUGE issue

[Blue Boutique]

Don't see why we need to balance different era techs wtihout risking splitting the community. All pre-3050 IS builds are basically extinct as every mech in PUB and CW are upgraded with double heatsinks, endosteel and sometimes a XL engine. You don't add a mech from 3025 to a 3060 playset as that mech will be scrapmetal unless it has a quirk that keeps it in play.

[Gyrok]

Kargush, on 17 April 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

First of all, don't confuse not wanting a ton of extra stuff to balance and patch with being anti-clan tech.

Secondly, adding a ton of toys isn't going to solve any of the issues the game has. Switching the meta from (and this is just a random example, kept simple for illustration) pulse boating to x-pulse boating isn't the answer to "stale."

Thirdly, balancing and patching a ton of items is going to take time and resources that could be used to add things like maps, mechs, and game modes, and balancing these. Which would you rather have? A year of patches on a ton of weapons, or a year of fixes to the game modes and a couple of more maps?

Keep in mind that as the years go by, it is likely that new tech will appear as and when PGI feel they've gotten it "balanced" enough to release it. A slow yet steady introduction of new weapons is going to be easier to patch and balance, and will also keep things fresh, as we'll have something to look forward to instead of, as the OP suggests, opening all the presents on December 1st.

I'd also like to add that some of the tech suggested by the OP are things that in the tabletop (yes, I will actually pull that one on you, move along) are experimental tech. The earlier MW games threw all sorts of madness into their games, but that doesn't mean that we have to do the same here. If you want binary lasers and x-pulse, go play MWLL.

You think balancing quirks every month takes any less effort than one good pass to baseline everything and then quirks adjustments later?

Also, XPL is not experimental by 3060.

Last, I left off the cooldowns for the HAGs:

HAG20: 5 seconds
HAG30: 6 seconds
HAG40: 7 seconds

Still think HAGs are OP?

Blue Boutique, on 17 April 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

Don't see why we need to balance different era techs wtihout risking splitting the community. All pre-3050 IS builds are basically extinct as every mech in PUB and CW are upgraded with double heatsinks, endosteel and sometimes a XL engine. You don't add a mech from 3025 to a 3060 playset as that mech will be scrapmetal unless it has a quirk that keeps it in play.

You can upgrade the tech on older mechs...

[Metus regem]

Gyrok, on 19 April 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

You think balancing quirks every month takes any less effort than one good pass to baseline everything and then quirks adjustments later?

Also, XPL is not experimental by 3060.

Last, I left off the cooldowns for the HAGs:

HAG20: 5 seconds
HAG30: 6 seconds
HAG40: 7 seconds

Still think HAGs are OP?



You can upgrade the tech on older mechs...

Like i said Gyrok, mostly okay, I just felt you made the xLPL too heat efficient, it should be one of the worst Heat/Damage/Tons ratio out of IS energy weapons. the XSPL and XMPL should be about 1heat/1damage ratio, but the XLPL should be around 1.5Heat/1Damage ratio, other than that, the ranges look a little high on the XPL's, as they were really meant to carve up infantry (they got 2D6 vs infantry in TT) rather than extra range or damage.