391 replies to this topic

[Jarl Dane]

Stormie, on 22 December 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

Yep, IS won the Oceanic attack phase today.

Good to see a ten ish man group formed on the merged FRR/Kurita hub. Not sure where the other clan units scampered off to, we only lost a few games and were barely slowing the IS juggernaut down.

Yeah we had two groups going last night on the FRR/Kurita hub.

[FallingAce]

Mech The Dane, on 22 December 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

Yeah we had two groups going last night on the FRR/Kurita hub.

Mech the Dane gets all the glory
And all i got out of it was free teamspeak channel

[nehebkau]

FallingAce, on 22 December 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

Mech the Dane gets all the glory
And all i got out of it was free teamspeak channel

Come to the -SO- channel we have free cookies for CW runner-ups.

BTW why is this thread still going? It was won by they guy who gave us the Highlander and Highlander IIC comparison.

[Tiantara]

- As we can see in comment - for new player old IS XL mechanic is a bit hardcore. When they learn how to play and earn enough c-bill they buy Clan mech and go to clan side. We need change IS XL to same mechanic as clan with greater speed loss after loosing side torso. That really can bring better balance and make both side have good play without extreme tonnage restriction or weapon\energy draw tweaking. Just one change which need to do since better Clan mech appear like - Linebacker, Kodiak and many more. In same time tweaking alpha damage and some other armor\structure become easier. One change and we get enough player for both side by preferring not survivability of mech - but side and faction itself.

[MischiefSC]

There is no tradeoff for CXL, CES, CFF, CDHS. Weapons? Sure. Not those things.

If that's balanced then we can unlock omni mechs, no reason not to.

Edited by MischiefSC, 22 December 2016 - 05:36 PM.

[50 50]

With clan mechs performing out of their categories, can they be compared to IS mechs in the next category if we think of it on a ton : ton basis?
ie. The Timberwolf at 75 tons as a clan heavy, is it more comparable to an IS Assault? or two IS Heavies? or an IS Heavy and a Medium? If the tech is the advantage, then there should be a way to find (with all that data) where that line of balance is.

Because of the separation of tech in Faction Play, the tonnage difference is one option that has been used before and that can have an effect. However, would a reduction in drop deck size be an option? If the IS was always meant to have the numbers which balanced against the clan tech, then it is more about attrition. So what if clan drop decks could only bring 3 mechs? Or does it need to go the other way and Clans bring 5 which means spreading that tonnage out more? Not really keen on that idea though.

This might all be a bit of a moot point at the moment until we know what the skill tree changes are going to do, so right at the moment the tonnage change for drop decks is the least drastic approach.

For Quick Play the mech choices are not restricted by faction so it's a different discussion. However, should it need to be addressed in that mode, then finding that balance with tonnage is still the option and we add a tonnage handicap for the clan mechs. So bringing a Kodiak might be the equivalent of bringing 125 tons, a Timberwolf 100 tons and so on.
The problem with this is the penalty it creates for groups in organising what mechs they can take as suddenly players can't play the mechs they want to play.

So a second option would then need to be considered which may work for both Quick and Faction Play. That of lance tonnage.
I raised this idea somewhere else but it goes like this:
When we group up we are divided into lances.
When we look at the average tonnage of mechs in a lance we can identify that lance as a certain weight category.
So instead of then trying to balance one team vs another using a strict tonnage or mech measurement, we then use the lances as the matching factor.
Meaning that if the average tonnage of mechs in a lance fits within the 20ton - 35ton range then the lance is considered a light lance and this is then balanced by a light lance on the other team and so on.
With a tonnage penalty for clan mechs, it would push an equivalent clan lance into another weight category. So a Clan light lance might be matched to an IS medium lance for example.

Food for thought.

[gloowa]

Michael Abt, on 15 December 2016 - 02:50 PM, said:

I've been playing online games for almost 20y, (...) unless some radical, drastic changes are being made.

The bolded text makes me question the validity of the first sentence.
Radical drastic changes are what kills games regularly. Evolution is what keeps them alive.

Edited by gloowa, 23 December 2016 - 02:11 AM.

[Kael Posavatz]

The problem with using tonnage to balance factions are that coordinated teams (most often centered around a pre-made) are still going to roll teams that aren't coordinated (skittles). It just means that pre-mades with a tonnage advantage are going to roll harder, and skittles will do a little more (but not enough) damage.

regarding engines, I still think the natural starting point should be standard vs XL. As it is mechs like the Kingfisher with locked standard engines will be just as unplayable for the Clans as IS mechs with XL engines.

[Commander A9]

But XLs blowing up after blowing a torso...isn't that how it worked in tabletop?

And wasn't the game supposed to, in part, mirror tabletop?

[AssaultPig]

there are a variety of balance levers available in tabletop/lore that aren't available to PGI. We're not going to get asymmetric games, we're not going to get some kind of implementation of zellbrigen, etc. At least PGI have now posted to the effect that they recognize this is a problem, so maybe they'll begin to address the tech disparity in four or five years :rotate:

I actually don't think that FP balance is too far off right now, if (and it's a big if) both sides are smart and play to their strengths. The problem is that clan mechs' advantages (superior range, bigger alpha, CXL engine) strongly support the style of gameplay that most pubbies fall into. Balance might be pretty good near the skill ceiling, but clans are gonna win the usual timid hillhump-and-poke game nine times out of ten just on the basis of superior tech.

[MischiefSC]

Commander A9, on 23 December 2016 - 08:10 AM, said:

But XLs blowing up after blowing a torso...isn't that how it worked in tabletop?

And wasn't the game supposed to, in part, mirror tabletop?

No, you took through armor crits which damaged your engine. Each engine crit increased heat, slowed speed and after 3, you exploded. Blowing out a whole segment of a mech (like a ST) was incredibly rare. Normally you'd get killed by a Golden BB - that's when, say, I shoot your pristine Atlas with an AC2, get a TAC (through armor crit) and hit your pilot, you fail your roll and die instantly, or I set off your ammo or something.

Also in TT weapons were so inaccurate you had 50/50 odds of hitting a mech *somewhere* at random (spray and pray) at 90m with a medium laser. 50% chance you'd miss. If you were a *really good shot* you might push that to 150m. We're talking Natasha Kerensky good.

It was never about ST loss but about crit spaces. Total crit spaces used by engines. IS had 3 in the ST, Clans 2. They both had 6 in the CT. So in TT the difference was really, really minor. Rarely came up. IS had 12 Engine crits that might get hit, Clans had 10.

However that only worked in TT because getting a whole ST blown out was incredibly incredibly rare and engine failure or not would pretty much end that mech anyway, you'd have been hit so hard so many times that your pilot would be injured from falls, etc. etc.

That's the point. The mechanic in TT was never in any way built around the idea of a single hit location getting repeatedly shot, it was TACs that tended to set engines off. You'd rarely lose all the structure in a location, it'd get crippled by crits with 1 or 2 hits after the armor was gone. Engine crits would happen over all 3 torsos, you'd get 1 or 2 and GTFO because on #3 Bad Things Happen and you could get it even if you still had armor.

So making IS XL not explode on ST loss isn't violating canon to any real degree, not a fraction as much as convergence does or lack of heat scale does or liquid metal mech customization does.

[Unendingmenace]

You know, when this topic was first pitched I was initially against the idea of changing IS XL's but the more I think about it, the more I come to this point: How does it affect me? Short answer: It doesn't. My Clan mechs will be exactly the same and for a pilot like me who usually goes for the CT on most mechs anyways I probably won't even notice. When I do play my IS mechs however, I'll have a better time and can be more aggressive when using my much beloved Warhammers. Who it will affect most? New players. New players are more likely to purchase IS mechs initially as they're cheaper and the learning curve for IS XL mechs will be significantly reduced. Making the game's learning curve better for new players? Surely that's a good thing.

[MischiefSC]

Unendingmenace, on 23 December 2016 - 04:02 PM, said:

You know, when this topic was first pitched I was initially against the idea of changing IS XL's but the more I think about it, the more I come to this point: How does it affect me? Short answer: It doesn't. My Clan mechs will be exactly the same and for a pilot like me who usually goes for the CT on most mechs anyways I probably won't even notice. When I do play my IS mechs however, I'll have a better time and can be more aggressive when using my much beloved Warhammers. Who it will affect most? New players. New players are more likely to purchase IS mechs initially as they're cheaper and the learning curve for IS XL mechs will be significantly reduced. Making the game's learning curve better for new players? Surely that's a good thing.

Plus if you balance CXL (by buffing IS XL) and some sort of buff to IS DHS, Endo and FF to account for the flat out superior with no drawback Clan versions and....

no reason not to unlock Omnis.

Omnis then don't get quite as good a buffs in the skill tree because you can swap pods on them and BOOM. Huge step forward for balance.

IS better for new players, game balance IS/Clan is better, Clan mechs lose *nothing* and Omnis gain.

The only thing anyone loses are the people who are upset by the idea of IS being as good as Clans. **** those guys, they're dead weight anyway. Everyone else benefits significantly and the game is overall better for new and vet players.

[Tarl Cabot]

First step though, isXL engine should not be as fragile as a flower..

[Dreadgorth]

Commander A9, on 23 December 2016 - 08:10 AM, said:

But XLs blowing up after blowing a torso...isn't that how it worked in tabletop?

And wasn't the game supposed to, in part, mirror tabletop?

If this game was supposed to mirror tabletop then there are ALOT of things that would have to change.

1 NO MORE MERCS ON THE CLAN SIDE. NONE!!!!!!! The clans HATED mercs, considered them one step above bandits.
2. Allow intersphere to install clan weapons on their mechs or give us our IS omni mechs or other IS Mechs that were designed to fight clan mechs(Penetrator and/or Annihilator for example)
3. Clanners followed a RIGID code of honor. One of the key reasons that IS were able to do well against the clans is because we IS used the clans own Honor against them.

These are just of a few reasons that this game is Totally unbalanced

[Clownwarlord]

In truth I find it more that outside of the tech imbalance there is a player base imbalance because of the merc class. Basically when one side gets an advantage the mercs tend to move in a wave from one side to the other. You can see this with when 4.1 came out clans where killing it but then the tonnage changes now you see a lot of merc units picking inner sphere because they get a tonnage drop deck bonus and there were better contracts in the inner sphere (with Liao).

We most likely will see a tonnage change again if PGI keeps to what they did in the past when one side starts crushing the other. Also we will see a contract change on the clan side as more mercs flow to the inner sphere side to bring back players to play against on both sides.

Now something that doesn't get brought up much is that also this mercenary body that moves like an amoeba in little kid soccer from one side to the other has some of the if not the majority of better players. Why? Well because they tend to play all mechs Inner Sphere and Clan and know more about the weaknesses of both sides.

While I do agree with the video in what in it presented there are actually three sides to this tug-o-war.

1- Tech imbalance
2- Contracts or other bonuses (like tonnage)
3- Player skill imbalance

And because of lore 1, can't be changed with out anarchy. Because of 2 you get anarchy from the other side that does not get bonuses. Then 3 you can't fix because not everyone is the same player skill.

[Sjorpha]

Clownwarlord, on 31 December 2016 - 06:27 PM, said:

1- Tech imbalance 2- Contracts or other bonuses (like tonnage) 3- Player skill imbalance And because of lore 1, can't be changed with out anarchy. Because of 2 you get anarchy from the other side that does not get bonuses. Then 3 you can't fix because not everyone is the same player skill.

1 can be changed, and it needs to. The concept that clan tech must be superior should be completely abandoned and the tech balanced equally.

[Sjorpha]

Tiantara, on 22 December 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

We need change IS XL to same mechanic as clan with greater speed loss after loosing side torso.

Why should the speed loss be greater?

From a balance standpoint the speed loss should be smaller since the IS XL already has the downside of being bigger and should get something to compensate for that.

[Tarl Cabot]

Sjorpha, on 01 January 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

Why should the speed loss be greater?

From a balance standpoint the speed loss should be smaller since the IS XL already has the downside of being bigger and should get something to compensate for that.

A few reasons though. It does take up two additional slots, one on each side but both have the same weight savings. But when a isXL loses a side, it is taking 3 engine crits vs cXL 2 engine crits.

Keeping to BT rules the isXL is scrammed out, shutting down the mech, but those rules were based on dice deciding hit/miss and location, and engine crits would happen without actually destroying a section, which has put MWO in its current situation. In BT, very rarely would a mech lose an entire torso (minus ammo explosion) cXL currently has a 20% heat/movement penalty and if kept that way, then the isXL would likely be 25% heat/movement penalty.

As for structural quirks, they were put there for reasons other than to simply spare the isXL a little, as many Clan mechs also have structural quirks.

This does not bring up the differences between the lighter and smaller Clan components and their damage output vs IS components and weapons, which PGI is more than happen to make quirk changes at the drop of a hat but that does nothing to resolve the issue with game foundation where there is a HUGE discrepancy between the isXL vs cXL, since it is not relative penalties (percentage-wise) but absolute penalty of destruction vs non-destruction where the underlining mechanism is not present in MWO.

Quote

Orion vs Orion IIC

• Clan's Orion IIC Side Torso - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 8qIS --- CT 88/4 armor... 46 IS +12quirkedIS
  
• IS's Orion Side Torso - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 16qIS ---- CT 88/4 armor... 46 IS + 23quirkedIS

• To take out a Orion IIC w/2*ST = 2*60+2*40 = 200pts of damage (both side torsos)
  
  • ​100pts of damage for one side torso w/20% heat/movement penalty but still active
• To take out a Orion w/1*ST = 60+32+16 = 108pts of damage (only one side torso w/isXL) = death

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 01 January 2017 - 07:37 PM.

[Sjorpha]

Tarl Cabot, on 01 January 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

A few reasons though. It does take up two additional slots, one on each side but both have the same weight savings. But when a isXL loses a side, it is taking 3 engine crits vs cXL 2 engine crits.

Keeping to BT rules the isXL is scrammed out, shutting down the mech, but those rules were based on dice deciding hit/miss and location, and engine crits would happen without actually destroying a section, which has put MWO in its current situation. In BT, very rarely would a mech lose an entire torso (minus ammo explosion) cXL currently has a 20% heat/movement penalty and if kept that way, then the isXL would likely be 25% heat/movement penalty.

As for structural quirks, they were put there for reasons other than to simply spare the isXL a little, as many Clan mechs also have structural quirks.

This does not bring up the differences between the lighter and smaller Clan components and their damage output vs IS components and weapons, which PGI is more than happen to make quirk changes at the drop of a hat but that does nothing to resolve the issue with game foundation where there is a HUGE discrepancy between the isXL vs cXL, since it is not relative penalties (percentage-wise) but absolute penalty of destruction vs non-destruction where the underlining mechanism is not present in MWO.

Is there an actual answer to my question in there?

There is no good reason for the engines, or any other equipment for that matter, to not be equally good.

Being bigger and occupying more crit slots is a disadvantage in MWO, therefore in order to be equally good the IS XL needs to have some corresponding advantage to become equally good, a smaller penalty for ST loss could be that advantage.

From any sound balance and game design perspective there is no sense at all to giving the IS XL a bigger penalty, that would give it two disadvantages (bigger size + bigger penalty) and no advantages. That's just silly.

The current design (death + bigger with no upside) is completely nutballs ridiculous, just like a lot of the other tech.

Edited by Sjorpha, 02 January 2017 - 04:02 AM.