385 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 24 December 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

Maybe try; clan XL acts like STD engine when shot. IS XL acts like clan engine when shot from now on. This improves their durability to something reasonable but still flawed.

Clans have to use std to fill out certain lopsided builds so they cannot ditch XL's completely.

That keeps the cXL outright superior to the isXL.

Unsatisfactory. That's not even equivalence in performance.

[GrogX]

Too funny. I left the game for a while because MWO was killing my crappy PC, I'm glad to see the discussion has evolved.

That's sarcasm, just in case that wasn't clear.

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 December 2016 - 02:19 AM, said:

That keeps the cXL outright superior to the isXL.

Unsatisfactory. That's not even equivalence in performance.

I thought that's the point. Clan tech was suppose to be more advanced/better at this timeline. Otherwise the arguement is simply fast forward it and let everyone share tech. Personally I wouldn't be opposed to that, maybe a month trial to see how it goes would be great.

[Moldur]

I would like IS XL engines to work exactly as the Clan XL engines.

Lore is dead, out the window. It's been that way (at least) since PGI decided Clan tech would be different, and not outright better with some other factors to maintain balance.

IS fanboys hold the XL engine over everyone's head in arguments about balance, and they're not wrong when they do. For whatever cheap Innersphere tricks the balance cycle offers, they always hold the trump card of, "So what? Your engines are 100% better than ours, so we ought to get this."

I do not understand the logic in preserving 0.000001% of the lore in MWO at the cost of gameplay. There is literally no problem with making IS XL engines work the same as Clan XL engines besides the fact the 2nd SS Lore Division Das Reich would rather see this game crash into the ground, sip their coffee, and say, "ahhh, just as Weisman intended. At least we have XL engine disparity."

Think, if IS got Clan XL, then the game could do away with whatever the complaint of the day is about IS this or that being too good.

ofc this is all under the misguided assumption that PGI actually thinks this way and will substitute x for y instead of making balance decisions based off a headless chicken on a giant dartboard.

Edited by Moldur, 24 December 2016 - 09:15 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

^^ Agreed. Then structural/armor quirks and their measures would actually fall under per mech durability issues, geometry, shield status, allowing minor/major tweaks without having to increase across the board armor/structural points (eg change from 2.0 status to 2.5/etc). Thinking of how structural/armor quirks would have been handled if PGI had not doubled Armor points, then founding out the coders had simply doubled structural points for a quick route while keeping the base formula. That was a funny segment when players were questioning how mech sections were staying up so much longer when the armor was gone... (iirc).

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 24 December 2016 - 10:54 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 24 December 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

I thought that's the point. Clan tech was suppose to be more advanced/better at this timeline. Otherwise the arguement is simply fast forward it and let everyone share tech. Personally I wouldn't be opposed to that, maybe a month trial to see how it goes would be great.

But that doesn't work for MWO. In MWO Clans, and IS are supposed to be "equal but different." That means the equipment should be equal in value, but different in execution.

To keep to the engine topic:

A cXL that lets you survive one ST loss with no penalties would be about equal in value to an isXL that buffs the hit-points on the STs to equal the hit-points on the CT but still explodes when one ST is lost. That's the kind of performance we want. This doesn't address the slot issue yet, but that is a problem spread across other IS equipment and can be overcome through other means.

[Lykaon]

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 24 December 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

I thought that's the point. Clan tech was suppose to be more advanced/better at this timeline. Otherwise the arguement is simply fast forward it and let everyone share tech. Personally I wouldn't be opposed to that, maybe a month trial to see how it goes would be great.

And even if both Inner Sphere and Clan XL engines could survive a single side torso destruction the clan engine is superior.

A one third smaller XL allows for loading heavy ballistics with XL use (I have a MAD IIc with 2 UAC5s AND a UAC10 with an XL engine but my Atlas can't fit a Single AC20 and fit an XL (if the XL wasn't suicidal to use on the Atlas). Also the clan XL is paired with clan endo steel and ferro fibrous armor as well as one third smaller double heatsinks. All the pieces fit together and create the clan technological advantage.

I see no issue with setting the I.S. XL engines to survive a single side torso loss with identical penalties for that side torso destruction that clan mechs have. The clan XL is still better because it's smaller and the other components that will be fitted with the clan XL are also smaller.

I see no issue with standard engine being overshadowed by the improved I.S. XL engine (if this were to happen) because unlike the clans the Inner SPhere still have need for a standard engine in greater frequency than clans do because of the size of I.S. components. The standard engine is a neccessity for mechs like the Atlas and Mauler if you intend to use the ballistic slots to full effect.

As for arguing about the LFE. Where is it? I can't find any LFE in MWO because it's not there. We don't have Light Fusion Engines in game so why sweat balancing the XL against the LFE? if/when we do see the LFE is when we need to think about balancing the LFE with XL engines.

[Van Hoven]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 December 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:

But that doesn't work for MWO. In MWO Clans, and IS are supposed to be "equal but different." That means the equipment should be equal in value, but different in execution.

To keep to the engine topic:

A cXL that lets you survive one ST loss with no penalties would be about equal in value to an isXL that buffs the hit-points on the STs to equal the hit-points on the CT but still explodes when one ST is lost. That's the kind of performance we want. This doesn't address the slot issue yet, but that is a problem spread across other IS equipment and can be overcome through other means.

Not really unless you hit with every shot exactly where you want to, especially with clan dakka and long laser burn time its not that easy to just hit one spot. So buffing ST values to CT would make a twisting, damage spreading IS mech more durable

Edited by Van Hoven, 24 December 2016 - 12:46 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Van Hoven, on 24 December 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

Not really unless you hit with every shot exactly where you want to, especially with clan dakka and long laser burn time its not that easy to just hit one spot. So buffing ST values to CT would make a twisting, damage spreading IS mech more durable

That's the point; the IS carry less effective weapons, and require a more robust 'Mech to use them. You would need less weapon quirks to compensate for squishy XLs.

[Van Hoven]

Since his point was that an CT level buffed ST for IS with 1 ST loss death is about equal in value with clan xl my intention was to show that it is not that easy and didn't mention overall balance at the slightest.

My solution idea would be still the same as like 10 pages before, make isxl function like cxl (maybe give +10% structure to IS for higher place rreqirements), give all standart engines +50% structure buff (last time I gave a lower value, but thinking about it I think 50% more structure for 50% weight is fair), give IS endo and ferro +20% structure / 10% armor buff, unlock all omnimech equipment except engine rating (you can switch xl//standart), give 20/40/60/80 ton mechs +15% speed and structure, 25/45/65/85/90 ton mechs +10% speed and structure, 30/50/70/95 ton mechs +5% speed and structure, remove all quirks except for horrible mechs.

My feeling would be that the base tech would be much more balanced then, and from that base on we can go and take another look at clan/is weapon balance. As I've pointed out, I don't feel the disparity isn't that much right now in real combat situations. But however, before getting to weapon balance we should balance the tech base, since it influences every combat situation.

Edited by Van Hoven, 24 December 2016 - 01:36 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 24 December 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

I thought that's the point. Clan tech was suppose to be more advanced/better at this timeline. Otherwise the arguement is simply fast forward it and let everyone share tech. Personally I wouldn't be opposed to that, maybe a month trial to see how it goes would be great.

form a lore stand point Clan at this time was vastly Superior,
but as this is a Multiplayer FPS both sides have to be balanced in a 1:1,
keeping things separate for Lore, but Still having them balanced as per Balance,

as ive said things can be balanced to give this Seprate but Equal stance,
Allow both XL to Survive ST loss, but give both sides diffrent Penalties,
-
give Clan -20%HeatEfficiency(Displacement & Heat Cap) & -20%Max Speed(2Crits@10Penalty=20%)
give IS -24%Agility(Twist speed & Accel&Decell) & -24%Max Speed(3Crits@8Penalty=24%)

this keeps both Side Balanced, IS retains HeatEfficiency on ST loss, Clan Retains Agility on ST loss,

[Y E O N N E]

Van Hoven, on 24 December 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

Since his point was that an CT level buffed ST for IS with 1 ST loss death is about equal in value with clan xl my intention was to show that it is not that easy and didn't mention overall balance at the slightest.

My solution idea would be still the same as like 10 pages before, make isxl function like cxl (maybe give +10% structure to IS for higher place rreqirements), give all standart engines +50% structure buff (last time I gave a lower value, but thinking about it I think 50% more structure for 50% weight is fair), give IS endo and ferro +20% structure / 10% armor buff, unlock all omnimech equipment except engine rating (you can switch xl//standart), give 20/40/60/80 ton mechs +15% speed and structure, 25/45/65/85/90 ton mechs +10% speed and structure, 30/50/70/95 ton mechs +5% speed and structure, remove all quirks except for horrible mechs.

My feeling would be that the base tech would be much more balanced then, and from that base on we can go and take another look at clan/is weapon balance. As I've pointed out, I don't feel the disparity isn't that much right now in real combat situations. But however, before getting to weapon balance we should balance the tech base, since it influences every combat situation.

I can't agree with unlocking everything on the Omnis. You are just going to obsolete some 'Mechs that are already great and have a role with one that is just barely barred from also performing that role (i.e. TBR vs. NTG as a poptart...TBR becomes the undisputed king if you can move the Gauss into the ST).

Mist Lynx is the only 'Mech I can think of that really needs to have unlocked equipment, and that's just the CAP. Nobody else really gains as much from it. Not even the EXE and GAR.

I will not condone isXL == cXL. If we're doing that, why don't we just say "mix-tech!" and be done with the charades.

[Johnny Z]

Mixed tech makes me want to puke.

[Andi Nagasia]

Johnny Z, on 24 December 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Mixed tech makes me want to puke.

before that we need balanced Tech & Filler Tech(IS= LBX2/5/20, UAC2/10/20, ERML/SL, SSRM4/6)(Clan= IPPC),

my personal opinion is that:
all XLs need to be able to Survive ST loss(Give Clan Mechs better Structure and Armor Quirks to Compensate)
all Clan Lasers need -1Damage, -1Heat, -20%Duration(this closes the Laser Damage Gap)(Give Clan Quirks^)

[Y E O N N E]

A cERML that has 20% shorter burn and one less damage deals damage at a rate of 6.52 damage/second during its burn. It's even more powerful than it is now.

Andi, you should actually do the math for your ideas, dude.

[Tiantara]

Andi Nagasia, on 24 December 2016 - 02:58 PM, said:

Allow both XL to Survive ST loss, but give both sides diffrent Penalties,
-
give Clan -20%HeatEfficiency(Displacement & Heat Cap) & -20%Max Speed(2Crits@10Penalty=20%)
give IS -24%Agility(Twist speed & Accel&Decell) & -24%Max Speed(3Crits@8Penalty=24%)

this keeps both Side Balanced, IS retains HeatEfficiency on ST loss, Clan Retains Agility on ST loss,

- I calculated a little on PTS and Live servers and even -30% of Max Speed would be good for IS mech instead of Death Penalty.

P.S. Glad my unit have clan side now and I can see how many of target have which engine and from what died. So. After Clan vs IS - I see more users who place STD engines even if that means less armor and less weapon. All who has XL - died in seconds. Sometimes from friendly fire or from 2-3 focused fire. Same mech with STD stay longer and do better damage but lack speed... Also I saw light mech on STD. Seems they place max available engine for speed and than place weapon which possible to fit by tonnage. Also - seems they take off some armor. Well, time to change IS XL comes... After 1-2 weeks on PTS we will see much better balance than before

Edited by Tiantara, 25 December 2016 - 12:45 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 December 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

A cERML that has 20% shorter burn and one less damage deals damage at a rate of 6.52 damage/second during its burn. It's even more powerful than it is now.

Andi, you should actually do the math for your ideas, dude.

you know what i mean Yeonne, my number arnt Final, just an example,
but if we wanted to look at numbers of the weapons,

Current Weapon Stats
Weapon,.....Damage,....Heat,....Burn,....DPS,....DPS/Burn,.
ERLL,..............11............10.......1.50......2.32........7.33.....
ERML,..............7..............6........1.15......1.69........6.08.....
ERSL,...............5..............3........1.00......1.54........5.00.....

Proposed Weapon Stats
Weapon,...Damage,.....Heat,.....Burn,.....DPS,....DPS/Burn,..-%Burn,..
ERLL,............10v............9v.......1.29v.....2.20v.......7.75^.....-14%burn..
ERML,............6v.............5v.......0.94v.....1.52v.......6.38^.....-18%burn..
ERSL,.............4v...........2.5v......0.80v.....1.31v.......5.00=.....-20%burn..
(note that at-15% to -20% Clan Lasers DPS is closer to IS Laser DPS)

yes their DPS/Burn goes up but is(+0.30ERML) or (+0.42ERLL) really a Problem?
when they are gaining a similar Damage and DPS profile as IS?(Less DPS)

[Y E O N N E]

Their DPS per burn going up is a huge problem. It's already a problem now; the only way IS lasers compete is when they stack LPLs with their tremendous 16+ DPS per burn, which is hard to do when they weigh 7 tons each, or when they get duration quirks. You do not want 0.92 sec cERML that reach 405 meters. They aren't heavy enough to warrant that kind of performance.

I don't actually think the damage or duration values on Clan lasers need adjusting (save cERLL, down to 1.25 seconds...isERLL down to 1.05 seconds.). Rather, it's mostly the IS lasers that need adjusting. Shorter burns and cool-downs with less heat on MLs would make them good enough at 270 m that they don't need to be buffed into de-facto ERMLs. Faster RoF on the Smalls makes them good brawl or duelist weapons on lighter chassis.

[Johnny Z]

Engine structure bonuses I think would improve the entire game because then legging or disarming becomes an even better tactic. Gives the mechs a more durable feel which is a good thing to.

[Wrathful Scythe]

Just make it that IS XLs survive the ST loss and give them a slightly larger penalty because they lose more slots. STDs get big structure boni and a lower chance to have your equipment blow up to make it a viable option between firepower and sturdiness.

Weapons can be modified again after clans get potentially rolled and abandoned for a while.