122 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Wow that is a lot of info to digest Gyrok.

Alas, if had to guess, I would think the perceived complexity of the new systems would scare PGI away. It seems to me that since Steam they are trying to dumb the game down to the greatest extent possible -as far as making the clans and IS play similarly, etc. Even though you seem to think your proposals might actually streamline play (based on some of the exchanges above), I bet PGI would see this much diversity and additional content as being 1) far too complex to incorporate into the game, and 2) so complex as to scare away the two types of players they want to attract: casuals and competitive folks.

In other words, the only players that your proposals might be attractive to are the one kind of player that PGI (IMO) has made clear they have no desire or need to placate or attract: BattleTech fans.

For what its worth, I think a lot of what you are proposing sounds pretty cool.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 12 April 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

These values actually sound...somewhat salvageable. I have nitpicks all over the place, but I don't see very many things that instantly stick out as being terrible. My biggest concern is the lack of buffs for MGs and AC/2s. That, and you copy-pasted the font as too tiny. Right click and use "paste as plain text" next time...

I'm pretty sure that these weren't written by you.


Well, okay, I did remember a few really bad things. Namely, you forgot the Binary Laser Cannon, Magshot, and AP Gauss Rifle.

QFT

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Bud Crue, on 13 April 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

It seems to me that since Steam they are trying to dumb the game down to the greatest extent possible

thats possible?
The game is so dumbed down already. Even the graphics go backwards here. The more "development" the game gets the less good the graphics look even at max

[Cybrid 0x0t2md2w]

gyrok makes me want this in mwo so bad

[Metus regem]

Gyrok, on 12 April 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

Reddit cross post: https://www.reddit.c..._timeline_skip/

So, thinking about this last night...here were some of the ideas I came up with for bringing in future tech.

Resolving Structure quirks

Buff all IS base structure on mechs:

Lights, Mediums, and Heavies would get a 40% structure buff to base value. While Assaults would get a 35% structure buff to base values.

All structure quirks removed from all mechs after base values adjusted.

To offset the increase in IS TTK, Clan ST speed loss penalty is removed, but retains 20% heat penalty.

Agility quirks

Leave the skill tree as it stands, but take all things removed from the skill tree and add them to the base values for each mech in a given weight class proportionally. This leaves the gap between elited and unelited mechs as smaller than before, but restores the mobility mechs need.

All agility quirks would be removed once base values are adjusted, and some edge cases (MLX, CMD, etc.) could possibly have adjustments to offset any perceived performance deficits.

Laser normalization

IS

SL: adjust heat to 2, increase damage to 4, increase range to 160m

SPL: adjust heat to 2, increase damage to 5, increase range to 140m

ERSL: Heat 3, damage 4, range 195m

SXPL: heat 3 damage 6 range 160m, duration 0.65 seconds

ML: adjust heat to 3, adjust range to 300m

MPL: adjust heat to 3, adjust range to 260m

ERML: heat 4, damage 5, range 360m

MXPL: heat 6, damage 7, range 300m, duration 0.75 seconds

LL: heat 7, damage 9, increase range to 495m

LPL: heat 7, damage 11, increase range to 400m, increase duration to 0.8 seconds

ERLL: heat 8, damage 9, range 675m, duration 1.2 sec

LXPL: heat 10, damage 13, range 495m, duration 1.12 sec

All range quirks removed after normalization

Clans

Remove fall off nerf to all medium and small class lasers

ERSL: adjust range to 225m

SPL: adjust range to 180m, adjust duration to 0.65

HSL: heat 3, damage 6, range 180m, duration 0.8

ERML: no changes

MPL: adjust duration to 0.75 seconds

HML: heat 8, damage 10, range 270m, duration 1.0

LPL: no changes

ERLL: reduce duration to 1.4 sec

HLL: heat 13, damage 15, range 450m, duration 1.3 seconds

Over all it looks okay, but I think you made the X-LPL too heat efficient, in TT it was 14 heat for 9 damage with a range of 15 (450m), the other thing with X-PL's is their realy strength comes from the fact that they inflict 2d6 kills vs Infantry, it's kind of what made the X-SPL and X-MPL almost worth it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 13 April 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

in TT it was 14 heat for 9 damage with a range of 15 (450m), the other thing with X-PL's is their realy strength comes from the fact that they inflict 2d6 kills vs Infantry, it's kind of what made the X-SPL and X-MPL almost worth it.

Until you realize how amazing VSPLs are for the BV.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 April 2016 - 01:29 PM.

[Volthorne]

Gyrok, on 13 April 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

This statement tells me you did not actually look at the proposal, and you do not understand that we are removing quirks with it as well. To offset removing said quirks, we are buffing range.

Because the generic range quirks make SO much of a difference between MLs/SLs and MPLs/SPLs currently. Oh, wait, they DON'T. You might as well just leave out the range "buffs" altogether, because that would actually make them more balanced. It's like you're actively trying to homogenize the game down to a single weapon per size class.

An MPL is going to be the superior choice to an ML under any circumstances where the ML doesn't have explicit quirks, or where squeezing that last ton would actually matter (ie: 5% of the time on 5% of the builds). If you actually bothered to realize this, your proposal would have kept MPLs/SPLs at their current heat values of 4 and 3, respectively. Then it might actually be worth considering taking a standard laser, especially when you consider the values you gave to the new tech.

Quote

Only the LPL has increased burn duration, and even then, it is already out of line as the hands down most powerful energy weapon in the game. If you are against balancing the game at all, I would ask you to refrain from further posts in this thread. If you are not understanding how the iLPL is the most powerful weapon in the game, and numerous players already agree the burn time should be longer, then ask and I will clarify how that decision was reached as a consensus among informed players.

If you had any sort of reading comprehension skills, I did agree that iLPLs need a burn-time increase in my first post.

Quote

The IS UACs will have the same FLD. The last thing IS UACs need is to be more FLD than Clans. Since the IS UAC5 is already single projectile, I made it so that would be the largest single projectile UAC for either side, the ones that follow are multi projectile.

The last thing EITHER side needs is more FLD, but giving the IS and clams nearly identical equipment is a no-go. cUAC10s and 20s are already stupidly powerful with their current burst count. Dropping that any more would result in TTK plummeting when facing off against more than one - which a lot of clam builds are capable of. Do you know how many IS 'Mechs are capable of carrying more than two iUAC-10s? One. That's it. The IS gets ONE 'Mech even capable of THINKING about carrying that kind of loadout. The clams get SIX chassis capable of that (8 if you want to run a really gimped HBK or NVA) level of firepower, and at a 25% weight discount! If anything, UACs need to go in the opposite direction and have MORE shots per burst. Give IS the current clam burst count and add +1 to each of the clam burst counts. That might actually work. If anything it wouldn't be as bad as what you suggested.

Quote

If you look, this makes clam OP quite nicely.

FTFY.

Quote

We buffed the structure on IS mechs by 35-40% across the board and added the LFE to offset TTK, and clans had ST loss penalties for speed loss removed, while keeping the heat penalty, to offset the TTK for them.

I don't even want to get started on what a sh*t-show that doing this would turn into. There are so many problems with a blanket change like that, it's not even funny. Did you know that you'd be simultaneously directly nerfing Trenchbuckets and buffing Griffins? Because that is a Thing that needs to happen, apparently.

Quote

Except that future tech brought more parity to TT CBT. If you were not a 3025/3039 neckbearded grognard, you might actually understand that.

Except not. Future tech continuously screwed the previous level of tech and made the game more and more into "stuff as many guns into your gunbag as you can possibly fit and hope you get the first shot because you sure as f*ck aren't getting a second one". That's cool if you're Mr. Torgue, but it sucks horribly for an FPS and even worse for balance overall.

Quote

GG.

GG indeed.

Edited by Volthorne, 13 April 2016 - 01:37 PM.

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 April 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Until you realize how amazing VSPLs are for the BV.

Yup....

[Sir Wulfrick]

Gyrok, on 12 April 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

That is a % buff.

To elaborate:

The Atlas would get essentially +22 structure to CT across all variants

Meanwhile, a mech like the BJ would get approx +10 CT structure across all variants.

Make more sense now?

When I was doing the math, a 40% boost in structure to most IS assault mechs was a pretty asinine number...dialing it back to 35% we get much closer to about where the "better" assault mechs are in terms of structure now.

Ah yes, that does make much more sense. I hadn't realised that the original figures were +% values.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

A case for timeline skip

They havent cared about the timeline since they shut off the news ticker cause it was too much work. Its just an excuse theyve glommed onto so they wont make the mechs ppl want.

They dont care about lore in any other case, why is this an issue?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Cybrid 0x0t2md2w, on 13 April 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

gyrok makes me want this in mwo so bad

I think Id go so far as to say I want his version of MWO lol

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Gyrok, on 13 April 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

You must be trolling.
LOL! GG reading comprehension indeed...
Pull your head out and actually read it please.

cmon, fight the argument not the player XD

[Gyrok]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 April 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

cmon, fight the argument not the player XD

I thought I was pretty civil given the way he has been talking to me...

EDIT: Not to mention he says things without giving a reason why it would be that way...or saying what leads him to think that...

Edited by Gyrok, 13 April 2016 - 05:17 PM.

[Volthorne]

Gyrok, on 13 April 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

How could you possibly perceive this as reducing variety? I am genuinely curious how you even arrived in that particular ball park of thinking at all.

Under your proposal, the range difference between standard lasers and pulse lasers would shrink by 6% (exception is large lasers, which you managed to keep under 1%). That doesn't sound like a lot, but it is effectively the same as adding a bonus +6% pulse laser range quirk to all IS chassis. If the go-to between ML/MPL and SL/SPL is already the pulse laser, all you've done is make the pulse laser more attractive instead of giving the standard laser a fighting chance. That's before factoring in the ER versions completely replacing any need for the standard versions

Quote

Except the ML is now 3 heat also, and the ERML is the old value of 4 heat, to offset the additional 20% range it gets over the STD ML.

And that means all you're going to see is people swapping out any standard lasers they had equipped for the ER version. Same heat efficiency I had before for MORE RANGE?! It's like Christmas in April! It's almost as if you haven't learned anything from the current state of LL/ERLL.

Quote

Then what the hell are you on about pulse lasers for to begin with?

Pretty sure I made it crystal clear I was picking on your medium/small numbers.

Quote

Really? There are no more mechs coming with a timeline skip either I suppose...?

Irrelevant.

Quote

Besides...MAL can already mount 6 AC5s if you feel inclined, and many other mechs can do 4 UAC5s, or 4 AC5s, or some other ridiculous combo of single projectile weapons.

The 6xAC/5s Mauler either has low ammo, a small engine, or massively stripped armor. It also has no back-up weapons and overheats very quickly when firing for extended periods of time. The only IS 'Mechs capable of running 4x5s are either too light to do so effectively (CTF-4X, RFL, JM6, WHM-BW), or is a Mauler/King Crab. Those are the choices. cUACs are 3 tons lighter and take up 3 less crits. The odds are hardly stacked in the IS' favour to begin with.

Quote

I fail to see where this would be a bad thing. You act like UACs have no jam chance...

Yes and no. I have sh*t awful luck with UACs, they jam on me pretty much every third shot, and often before(!) the first. Some of my friends, on the other hand, can usually manage (somehow) to get off eight or nine double-taps... before one out of their two to four jam.

Quote

Are you even aware about the mechanics behind these weapons to begin with? I think you are uninformed.

Percent-chance to jam blah blah blah. Whatever. RNGesus or some such nonsense. That's why making UACs have a HIGHER burst count instead of LOWER balances them better against their standard counter-parts. The only UAC I'd be happy to leave at single-shot would be 2s.

Quote

Except that you have it all wrong. The IS is straight up getting buffed here...there are some adjustments made to clans to keep things even kilter. This, however, does remove lots of quirks, which should even things back out as well...since IS is already well considered overpowered by anyone who knows anything about MWO right now anyway...WTF are you concerned about?

If by "straight buffed" you mean "generally kept the same, except for some chassis which do get buffed but didn't really need it" then yes, that would be correct. I would like to point out, however, that the clam engine nerf was given out AFTER lots of IS mechs had recieved durability buffs, because the durability buffs on thier own still weren't enough. The quirkening is when we started to see some sort of vague parity between the two factions, and not before.

Quote

Furthermore, if you think clans are OP now...you are seriously deluding yourself.

Put any medium or heavy clam against an equal weight-class IS 'Mech that isn't an outlier in terms of quirks (BK, for example). 6/10 times the IS 'Mech will lose. 7 if the clam pilot is even remotely competent. OP? No. But certainly not underpowered either.

Quote

How would I be nerfing the trebuchet? I never said that underperforming mechs could not be adjusted with quirks afterward. This just makes quirks actually into quirks. Not a primary balance mechanism, but a system to make some mechs stand out beyond what they should.

So what do you do about the 'Mechs that DON'T need their durability buffed? What about 'Mechs that end up just a little too durable? Give them negative quirks? If so, then what was the point of the blanket change in the first place, because you'd still be using quirks as a primary balance mechanism?

Quote

Did you even read the whole thing?

I could ask you the same, and you typed out the damned thing yourself!

Quote

What is your issue here...? This definitely carves out a role for the older weapons as being more heat efficient at the expense of range. I am not sure how on earth you could possibly arrive at the conclusions you have.

Yes, because "heat efficiency" is doing such a good job for keeping level-one tech relevant. When was the last time you saw standard heatsinks or standard small lasers?

Edited by Volthorne, 13 April 2016 - 06:30 PM.

[Gyrok]

Volthorne, on 13 April 2016 - 06:27 PM, said:

Under your proposal, the range difference between standard lasers and pulse lasers would shrink by 6% (exception is large lasers, which you managed to keep under 1%). That doesn't sound like a lot, but it is effectively the same as adding a bonus +6% pulse laser range quirk to all IS chassis. If the go-to between ML/MPL and SL/SPL is already the pulse laser, all you've done is make the pulse laser more attractive instead of giving the standard laser a fighting chance. That's before factoring in the ER versions completely replacing any need for the standard versions

Actually, without heat quirks, the ER versions will now run hotter than people are currently used to. Some will do it...probably larger mechs. However, lights and mediums will enjoy the better heat efficiency. Did I mention ALL energy quirks are going away here?

Quote

And that means all you're going to see is people swapping out any standard lasers they had equipped for the ER version. Same heat efficiency I had before for MORE RANGE?! It's like Christmas in April! It's almost as if you haven't learned anything from the current state of LL/ERLL.

See above, no more heat quirks mean the STD lasers will run like they did, the ER versions will be quite a bit warmer.

Quote

Pretty sure I made it crystal clear I was picking on your medium/small numbers.

you could drop MPLs down to 250m and problem solved there...personally...if you want to nerf them, I am ok with them being more nerfed.

Quote

Irrelevant.

Except that PGI makes 90% of their money from mechs. Meaning many more options will come into the game.

Quote

The 6xAC/5s Mauler either has low ammo, a small engine, or massively stripped armor. It also has no back-up weapons and overheats very quickly when firing for extended periods of time. The only IS 'Mechs capable of running 4x5s are either too light to do so effectively (CTF-4X, RFL, JM6, WHM-BW), or is a Mauler/King Crab. Those are the choices. cUACs are 3 tons lighter and take up 3 less crits. The odds are hardly stacked in the IS' favour to begin with.

5 AC5 MAL is a terror though...and you are still looking at a sustained 17 DPS without jams at all.

Quote

Yes and no. I have sh*t awful luck with UACs, they jam on me pretty much every third shot, and often before(!) the first. Some of my friends, on the other hand, can usually manage (somehow) to get off eight or nine double-taps... before one out of their two to four jam.

That is RNGesus for you...UACs are a fickle mistress, and they are never up when you have to have them.

Quote

Percent-chance to jam blah blah blah. Whatever. RNGesus or some such nonsense. That's why making UACs have a HIGHER burst count instead of LOWER balances them better against their standard counter-parts. The only UAC I'd be happy to leave at single-shot would be 2s.

What about current IS UAC5s? They are single projectile. You seem to be fine with those.

Quote

If by "straight buffed" you mean "generally kept the same, except for some chassis which do get buffed but didn't really need it" then yes, that would be correct. I would like to point out, however, that the clam engine nerf was given out AFTER lots of IS mechs had recieved durability buffs, because the durability buffs on thier own still weren't enough. The quirkening is when we started to see some sort of vague parity between the two factions, and not before.

You clearly did not read my proposal at all if you think I kept IS mostly the same. I even outright buffed the small class laser damage across the board so they could actually see some relevance again.

Quote

Put any medium or heavy clam against an equal weight-class IS 'Mech that isn't an outlier in terms of quirks (BK, for example). 6/10 times the IS 'Mech will lose. 7 if the clam pilot is even remotely competent. OP? No. But certainly not underpowered either.

So...if we put a MDD up against say...any quickdraw, or...maybe a grasshopper, or a TDR...you are completely confident in that outcome?

IS is across the board OP right now. The only set of circumstances where they are not involves combat beyond 800m

If you want proof, look at comp decks.

Quote

So what do you do about the 'Mechs that DON'T need their durability buffed? What about 'Mechs that end up just a little too durable? Give them negative quirks? If so, then what was the point of the blanket change in the first place, because you'd still be using quirks as a primary balance mechanism?

What mechs would not need to be buffed?

Quote

I could ask you the same, and you typed out the damned thing yourself!

Clearly you did not read it all.

To elaborate...in place of the current system with quirks.

BEFORE ANYTHING IS CHANGED, ALL QUIRKS ARE WIPED CLEAN FROM THE START. ALL BALLISTIC QUIRKS, ALL AGILITY QUIRKS, ALL ENERGY QUIRKS, ALL STRUCTURE QUIRKS, ALL SRM QUIRKS, AND ALL LRM QUIRKS.

Quote

Yes, because "heat efficiency" is doing such a good job for keeping level-one tech relevant. When was the last time you saw standard heatsinks or standard small lasers?

Exactly, so why not buff small lasers? I have a proposal for making SHS relevant too, but that is buried on reddit, or in the forums here or both

[Davers]

I really fail to see how adding new weapons will magically create more balance. It will just be a whole bunch of new headaches to fix. It's been 3+ years and PGI is still trying to balance the weapons we started with...

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

I still think where they havent given half a **** about the timeline EXCEPT where mechs are involved is kinda a /thread moment lol

also, wheres the Flea? Its like 4 years late at this point

[Davers]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 April 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

I still think where they havent given half a **** about the timeline EXCEPT where mechs are involved is kinda a /thread moment lol

also, wheres the Flea? Its like 4 years late at this point

The Flea sucks. Glad it never made it into the game. I hope the Hornet, Wasp, Stinger, Thorn, and Mercury don't make it in either. Why can't IS players ask for good mechs like the Clanners do? Just let it go.

[Gyrok]

Davers, on 13 April 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

I really fail to see how adding new weapons will magically create more balance. It will just be a whole bunch of new headaches to fix. It's been 3+ years and PGI is still trying to balance the weapons we started with...

Because those weapons are designed to compete with clans, and will by default be more balanced.

I guess you could sit back and pretend that weapons being closer by default is somehow worse...

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Davers, on 13 April 2016 - 07:55 PM, said:

The Flea sucks. Glad it never made it into the game. I hope the Hornet, Wasp, Stinger, Thorn, and Mercury don't make it in either. Why can't IS players ask for good mechs like the Clanners do? Just let it go.

They announce a mech, the last announced in the beta as I recall, then it just dissapears and I should let it go?

How about no?

I like this version more anyways