138 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 27 April 2016 - 04:58 AM, said:

so long as the non advanced tech is still unbalanced, no

again the question is - the goal of balance? Whats supposed to be balanced?
3 Large Laser vs 30 Small Laser? 3 Large Laser vs 2 PPC.... 3 Larges and 6 Medium Lasers vs 2PPcs and 3 SRM4s?

Should all weapons climb trees or should some weapons be allowed to swim?
Whats more important - climbing trees or swimming?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 27 April 2016 - 05:01 AM.

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 27 April 2016 - 04:59 AM, said:

Whats more important - climbing trees or swimming?

Yes.

Though I would also say running is just as important as swimming and climbing trees....

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

El Bandito, on 26 April 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

IS SSRM4/6 before anything else.

OMG this so much

[Raso]

For RACs make them full auto with larger caliber rounds and different rates of fire based on the AC rating. Give them their own barrel heat bar, like MASC, and if it fills to a certain threshold the weapon starts producing extra heat and has a change to jam (the chance to jam increasing as the bar fills). If by some fluke you fill the bar all the way up the weapons auto jam with the possibility of becoming permanently stuck.

I really want to see RACs in the game. I want a quad RAC2 Jager so bad.....

[Wintersdark]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 26 April 2016 - 09:22 PM, said:

Say it with me:

"Balance what we have first"

It's not often that I agree with MB, but here? Absolutely, 100%.

Balance doesn't need to be 100%, but we DO need to have much better balance between the existing weapons before adding new ones.

We've way, way too many flat out poor choice. New tech will be fun, new stuff, new toys! But it's not going to help balance at all.

With that said, a couple new variants on existing tech could help - like IS SSRM 4/6 launchers. But adding RAC's, MRM's(which are complicated at best to add, given the current state of missiles being as messed up as it is), etc.

Sadly, as much as some like to push "go to tabletop values" as some magical balancing method, TT was the very epitome of power creep, and was never even close to balanced. So just adding new tech is roughly like the initial introduction of clans, where your best outcome is simply invalidating much older tech.

The more stuff that's added, the more complex this all becomes. Try to look past "yay new toys fever"

[Metus regem]

Wintersdark, on 27 April 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

It's not often that I agree with MB, but here? Absolutely, 100%.

Balance doesn't need to be 100%, but we DO need to have much better balance between the existing weapons before adding new ones.

We've way, way too many flat out poor choice. New tech will be fun, new stuff, new toys! But it's not going to help balance at all.

With that said, a couple new variants on existing tech could help - like IS SSRM 4/6 launchers. But adding RAC's, MRM's(which are complicated at best to add, given the current state of missiles being as messed up as it is), etc.

Sadly, as much as some like to push "go to tabletop values" as some magical balancing method, TT was the very epitome of power creep, and was never even close to balanced. So just adding new tech is roughly like the initial introduction of clans, where your best outcome is simply invalidating much older tech.

The more stuff that's added, the more complex this all becomes. Try to look past "yay new toys fever"

I'd also add isERSL and isERML for the IS as well, as I think it would be easier to balance isERSL vs cERSL and isERML vs cERML, rather than isSL vs cERSL and isML vs cERML. As for isML/isSL vs isERML/isERSL well it comes down to cooler and shorter range vs. hotter and longer range.

[Beartech]

IS cannot have UACs that act like their ACs. They would need to act like clan UACs otherwise they would be FAR to OP.
You cant tell me UAC20 firing 2 single 20 damage shells is "balanced" vs a clans scattershot UAC20.

Tech 2 would also mean that IS mechs need to lose their uber quirks.

[Metus regem]

Beartech, on 27 April 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

IS cannot have UACs that act like their ACs. They would need to act like clan UACs otherwise they would be FAR to OP.
You cant tell me UAC20 firing 2 single 20 damage shells is "balanced" vs a clans scattershot UAC20.

Tech 2 would also mean that IS mechs need to lose their uber quirks.

IS already has a UAC that acts like a normal IS AC, the UAC5 fires one shell each trigger pull, so there is pressident for it to be applied to the isUAC2/10/20. I would be more concerned about RAC/5's honestly... upto 6 shells for 5 points each in a burst.....

[Beartech]

Metus regem, on 27 April 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

IS already has a UAC that acts like a normal IS AC, the UAC5 fires one shell each trigger pull, so there is pressident for it to be applied to the isUAC2/10/20. I would be more concerned about RAC/5's honestly... upto 6 shells for 5 points each in a burst.....

That is why I am saying they would need to rework how the IS UACs function. They cannot work how their current ACs work.

No I am for more worried about getting popped for 40 damage to a single location. Then adding on top of how convergence works in this game... nightmare. Good by ever using an assault, you would get decimated.

Edited by Beartech, 27 April 2016 - 07:41 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

Beartech, on 27 April 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

IS cannot have UACs that act like their ACs. They would need to act like clan UACs otherwise they would be FAR to OP.
You cant tell me UAC20 firing 2 single 20 damage shells is "balanced" vs a clans scattershot UAC20.

Tech 2 would also mean that IS mechs need to lose their uber quirks.

Easy way out is just adjust the cooldown time (make it noticeably long) and keep isUACs firing single shell at a time. They could normalize the DPS so regular ACs have the same DPS as UACs with double tap.

EDIT: And make it so that the time required to clear a jam is longer the bigger you AC is. Could be unfun though.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 27 April 2016 - 07:47 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Lightfoot, on 26 April 2016 - 07:54 PM, said:

They added the charge-up in May 2013, long before the Grid Iron or any Quirks. You block the Gauss from being a brawling weapon by making the recycle 5.5 to 6 seconds at which point you force players to stay at long range with it or bring a mixed load-out because the Gauss could never keep up with UAC's or medium/small lasers. Very simple, always works. The reason the Gauss has the charge-up is that MWO mechs are too fragile and weak to damage so the charge-up removes it from the game for the most part.

However, the more advanced weapons make the Gauss look tame so MWO can't support them either. Trust me. Working ATMs, Arrow IV, Heavy Lasers, RACs, all make the Gauss look mediocre. Which means if they were added now they would be nerfed up like the Gauss. I don't want that. You all should be bugging PGI to make the mechs tougher first. They shouldn't be getting ripped by a few SP laser volleys, then the Gauss would not need the charge-up.

They aren't as fragile as you think, at least on the surface.

PGI doubled both the armor and the structure of all mechs shortly after the closed Beta, or so I've heard, I can't confirm the time exactly, someone else would have to.

The problem is, even with doubled armor and structure, the ability of multiple players to focus their fire with nigh-pinpoint accuracy pretty much negates that doubled armor/structure.

And as stronk as the all-lasers-all-the-time-meta-vomit is these days, mechs will continue to be weak to heavily focused fire until PGI does one of two things.

One: Slashes the heat cap by at least half to curtail the alpha-puke. You want to FIRE ALL DA LAZORS, then you're going to pay for it by shutting down and leaving yourself open to attack for probably a long time.

Or Two: Introduce some element of randomness to weapons fire like the tabletop game had. You want to FIRE ALL DA LAZORS again? Expect probably 25-50% of your weapons to either hit another location on the mech, or miss altogether.

Obviously I would prefer both, as that would seriously curb the laser-puke, but I'd settle for one or the other.

The game is too easy currently, and that's a problem.

[Imperius]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 27 April 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

Not even playing CW. Haven't played CW in like 2 months.

Well I'm glad you're enjoying the game, I haven't for a long time! Carry harder wears on a user after a while. PVP just isn't fun for me it's just frustrating.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Karl Streiger, on 27 April 2016 - 04:59 AM, said:

again the question is - the goal of balance? Whats supposed to be balanced?

Russ?

Wintersdark, on 27 April 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

So just adding new tech is roughly like the initial introduction of clans, where your best outcome is simply invalidating much older tech.

The more stuff that's added, the more complex this all becomes. Try to look past "yay new toys fever"

It worked for clans right?

oh wait no...

[Karl Streiger]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 27 April 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

Russ?

205 XL engine gg close

[Mechteric]

I'd definitely like to see the full range of ER Laser, SSRM, UAC, and LBX for IS.

Clans could then also get their heavy lasers and Rotary ACs to compensate.

[Wintersdark]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 27 April 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

It worked for clans right?

oh wait no...

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Adding new tech is just going to replace current tech, not make things more balanced... And it's going to result in MORE "noob trap" weapons, etc.

We'd just see different stuff being the new meta weapons and way more stuff in the trash pile than currently.

[Death Proof]

"Advanced" tech was the beginning of BT jumping the shark.

In fact, 3050 clan tech was pushing it.

Instead of introducing more game-breaking power creep tech, think it would be better to finally bring in different manufactures of weapons and equipment with slightly different appearances and quirks.

For example, a Crusher Super Heavy Cannon, Luxor Devastator-20, and a Chemjet Gun are all AC/20's, but the Crusher SHC would fire a 10 round burst at a very high rate of fire and very short cool down and lower heat, while the Chemjet Gun would function as the current current AC/20 does (i.e. firing 1 shell at a slower rate of fire). The Luxor Devastator-20 could have a much faster velocity but higher heat and cool down. Each one would look and sound different as well.

Another example; the Intek, Hellion-V, and Diverse Optics Type 20 medium lasers are all classified as medium lasers, but the Intek could have a faster cooldown but higher heat, the Hellion-V could have a shorter burn time but a longer cool down, and the Diverse Optics Type-20 could be what we have now.

Equipment could also be done in a similar fashion; for example, Pitban engines might be faster at accelerating but slower at turning, Magna engines might be faster at torso twisting but slower at accelerating. Core Tek engines could be the standard engine we have now.

Basically, simply by tweaking the stats very slightly in a lateral fashion with the existing weapons, we could have even more variety in weapon selection without introducing "bigger and better" weapons.

Edited by Death Proof, 27 April 2016 - 09:48 AM.

[Beartech]

Hit the Deck, on 27 April 2016 - 07:42 AM, said:

Easy way out is just adjust the cooldown time (make it noticeably long) and keep isUACs firing single shell at a time. They could normalize the DPS so regular ACs have the same DPS as UACs with double tap.
EDIT: And make it so that the time required to clear a jam is longer the bigger you AC is. Could be unfun though.

That seems like a whole lot more work than just using the clan template for the UACs. Unless you don't want that because of what clans have to deal with (The UAC spray effect), in which I say. Welcome to my world.

[Hit the Deck]

Beartech, on 27 April 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

That seems like a whole lot more work than just using the clan template for the UACs. Unless you don't want that because of what clans have to deal with (The UAC spray effect), in which I say. Welcome to my world.

I'd like to have different flavors for IS and Clans. That's why I proposed to make the two Gauss Rifles operate differently.

[Beartech]

Hit the Deck, on 27 April 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

I'd like to have different flavors for IS and Clans. That's why I proposed to make the two Gauss Rifles operate differently.

The problem is that the IS version would be vastly superior to the Clan version. If we are going for balance keeping in mind. I bet if you asked Clan pilots that use UACs how they would like them to fire... they would all say less slugs and more boom per slug.

Placing 2 20 damage slugs into an enemy mech is way more devastating than 8 5 Damage slugs spread all over the target.

This leads me to believe they the Devs will have to streamline the UACs to operate the same.