116 replies to this topic

[Alan Davion]

Pjwned, on 15 January 2017 - 12:07 AM, said:

Convergence based on target locks would fit that just fine actually. When you have a target lock then convergence would function (essentially) as it does now, and then when you didn't have a target lock it would be set to some sort of default.

The default state of convergence (as in how convergence works without a target lock) is up for debate, although I personally favor weapons converging at their max optimal range.

That sounds an awful lot like the Ghost Range mechanic that was apparently tested back during the massive f*** up that was the Info War PTS.

Don't know if anyone would be happy with that.

[El Bandito]

Alan Davion, on 15 January 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

That sounds an awful lot like the Ghost Range mechanic that was apparently tested back during the massive f*** up that was the Info War PTS.

Don't know if anyone would be happy with that.

I'd be happy with that... except for the fact I have 200+ms ping. Which means my convergence will be delayed. Man, I need to immigrate to NA.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

Absurd quirks everywhere, both weapon quirks and structure quirks as well as agility quirks too to a (slightly) lesser extent

IS Quirks were primarily PGI response to the introduction of the Clans when they became available for purchase for C-Bill and RIGHT before CW was released. Did not want to retype it out.

Tarl Cabot, on 12 January 2017 - 05:36 AM, said:

He has a point though, at least for IS mechs. First remove team synergy vs pugs as a good team usually can make almost anything work because they would know how they are going to use their builds to support each other.

Before the Clans and last series of IS mechs most IS were not able to "boat" weapons, especially energy weapons. All ballistics also had 3x range/higher velocity and Gauss Rifle had no charge up features. Many pilots could identify on heavier builds which mechs were using an isXL due to their payload/movement 99% of the time, so aim for ST instead of CT (no quirks of any kind). Pre-Clan, no difference in tech on either side, all a fragile isXL provided was speed and payload increase. At the time it appeared to be a fair trade-off, all with lore/TT of 3 engine slots gone/mech down, but more lore-nerd did not say much about lack of actual engine crits.

Enter the Clans with their upgraded version of the Star League era isXL, cXL. Slightly less bulky (10slots vs 12slots), only 2 engine slots per side torso. When introduced there were no penalties with the loss of one side torso, a clan omni was disabled only when both side torsos were dropped. Thus was introduced lighter and less bulky tech, and even with locked engines/components, most mechs were faster and able to equip better and more components than their IS counterparts.

And those now Clan pilots, with their longer range, higher damage, lower weight/slots weapons (esp energy but also UAC10/20) can now target a weaker side torso to take out a mech. Even with structural quirks, it does not approach the protection of the CT, so a player has, just in the torso region, 3 targets they can take out to kill an isXL equipped mech.

Just a brief outline

• Intro of Ghost Heat - Around 7-19-2013
  
• One of many threads asking for ballistic nerf 9-3-2013
  
• 
  
  Phoenix Package 10-15-2013
  Oct 15, 2013: Locust : Released!
  Nov 20, 2013: Shadowhawk : Released!
  Dec 18, 2013: Thunderbolt
  Jan 22, 2014: Battlemaster
  
• Ballistic Range Reduction 5-24-2014
  
• Clan Collection - Release Schedule 6-17-2014 / 11-2014 (cbill release)
  
• IS Quirks 11-04-2014
  
• Clan Collection Wave 2 - 11/14/2014 to 12-16-2014
  
• IS Quirks - 2nd round 12-09-2014
  
• Community/Faction Warfare/Play 12-11-2014
  
• Resistance Package 3-17-2015 (Grasshopper)
  
• Resistance Package II 10-6-2015 (Black Knight - MC 12-2015, C-Bill 1-2016)
  
• Another quirk update Dec 2015 which gave Black Knight massive offensive quirks, Blackjack defensive quirks to match a heavy and major offensive quirks.
  
• Before 2016 holidays, PGI was playing with CW/FP tonnage, max tonnage 265 for IS. Most mercs temp went IS for a time.

Bah, time for work...

[xe N on]

What I would like to see is not a tech balance. Though tech balance is the most easiest way to balance Inner Sphere vs Clans, it is the most boring one and destroys immersion and lore.

A balance by asymmetrical team sizes, as e.g. 12 vs 10 is however not the solution.

I would like to add some additions and changes that reflect the Inner Sphere logistical superiority.

For example:
- Air Strikes and Artillery strikes can be used by IS-mech exclusively and the standard modules are for free!
- IS mechs can call once per match for an field repair of an certain amount, that includes an ammo restock
- IS mechs can call for KI back-up in form of e.g. a medium to heavy aerospace fighter that does an fly-by and attack any enemy on their pathway (similar to a dropship, but smaller) or alternatively by ground forces like tanks that attack your target or troops that try to capture an random enemy mech.

And so on.

Such a form of balance is done by any random MMORPG. In a classical fantasy setting think of the balance between a spell caster and a mage summoner. The summoner gets a pet but less strong spells compared to the spell caster. The additional abilities mentioned for the Inner Sphere would be equal to the pet.

However, this would need a lot of more programmer skill and work and I doubt that PGI is up to such a task.

-

Edited by xe N on, 15 January 2017 - 12:34 AM.

[Alan Davion]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

Man, I need to immigrate to NA.

I'd advise against it.

Hell, I f***ing live here and I want to move the f*** OUT of the country.

[Alan Davion]

xe N on, on 15 January 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

A balance by asymmetrical team sizes, as e.g. 12 vs 10 is however not the solution.

OH FFS~! Not this again.

We've been through this s*** before. The 12v10 rule completely f***s the MM system. PGI tried that back during the original Clan release and it NEVER worked. At all.

You got 12v4, 12v6, 12v8 and 12v12, but never, ever 12v10.

I wish people would stop trying to suggest that. We have 12v12, and we always WILL have 12v12. F***ING deal with it.

[El Bandito]

Alan Davion, on 15 January 2017 - 12:35 AM, said:

I'd advise against it.

Hell, I f***ing live here and I want to move the f*** OUT of the country.

I was thinking about Canada.

[Tarl Cabot]

Alan Davion, on 15 January 2017 - 12:40 AM, said:

OH FFS~! Not this again.

We've been through this s*** before. The 12v10 rule completely f***s the MM system. PGI tried that back during the original Clan release and it NEVER worked. At all.

You got 12v4, 12v6, 12v8 and 12v12, but never, ever 12v10.

I wish people would stop trying to suggest that. We have 12v12, and we always WILL have 12v12. F***ING deal with it.

He did say that 12vs10 was NOT the solution....

[Hit the Deck]

Alan Davion, on 15 January 2017 - 12:35 AM, said:

I'd advise against it.

Hell, I f***ing live here and I want to move the f*** OUT of the country.

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:43 AM, said:

I was thinking about Canada.

Then Alan says that he actually lives in Canada and wants to move to US.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 15 January 2017 - 01:29 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Pjwned, on 15 January 2017 - 12:07 AM, said:

Convergence based on target locks would fit that just fine actually. When you have a target lock then convergence would function (essentially) as it does now, and then when you didn't have a target lock it would be set to some sort of default.

The default state of convergence (as in how convergence works without a target lock) is up for debate, although I personally favor weapons converging at their max optimal range.

This. Heaven help us that the R key would serve for more than frustrating LRM users by it's disuse.

[xe N on]

Alan Davion, on 15 January 2017 - 12:40 AM, said:

I wish people would stop trying to suggest that. We have 12v12, ad we always WILL have 12v12. F***ING deal with it.

I wish that too ;-)

xe N on, on 15 January 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

A balance by asymmetrical team sizes, as e.g. 12 vs 10 is however not the solution.

Edited by xe N on, 15 January 2017 - 01:44 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Alan Davion, on 15 January 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

That sounds an awful lot like the Ghost Range mechanic that was apparently tested back during the massive f*** up that was the Info War PTS.

Don't know if anyone would be happy with that.

Ghost range reduced damage without sensor locks, all this would do is shift convergence to a point generally "behind" the target without sensor lock. At longish ranges, you might *gasp* not even hit with every weapon without targeting it first! (Closer up, you'd just have some spread so your 360noscopin shots don't magically hit the same pixel like Luke and that exhaust port on the Death Star.)

[Van Tuz]

Trying to balance an inherently imbalanced factions while keeping an eye on those lore-fanatics is impossible.
There's only 3 ways to make games with lore-intended mech power even remotely fair to IS:

• Asymmetrical team number. Personally, i think that this is the best solution. If 12v10 didn't worked before doesn't mean it's not possible at all. It just needs more work on matchmaker.
  
• IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan. But that divides the community.
  
• Completely remove IS or Clan mech from the game. No comments here.

[El Bandito]

Hit the Deck, on 15 January 2017 - 01:08 AM, said:

Then Alan says that he actually lives in Canada and wants to move to US.

What's wrong with Canada? Did they elect an idiot to the highest office, as well?

[Pjwned]

Alan Davion, on 15 January 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

That sounds an awful lot like the Ghost Range mechanic that was apparently tested back during the massive f*** up that was the Info War PTS.

Don't know if anyone would be happy with that.

It sounds a lot like that because that was clearly the idea that ghost range was based off of, except PGI bastardized it into some arbitrary nonsense.

If they had stuck with the original idea of convergence on locks then it would have been much more positively received, but instead we got some sort of absolute joke that only an idiot of legends would actually think was a good idea.

The idea fits your criteria of changing convergence without destroying the game, despite what fanatical convergence zealots might say otherwise, so I don't see the problem.

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 02:32 AM, said:

What's wrong with Canada? Did they elect an idiot to the highest office, as well?

Off-topic nonsense aside, Trudeau's idiocy is apparent across the world.

[MischiefSC]

Mcgral18, on 14 January 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

We never did get that Aggressive Weapons Balancing we were told over three years ago
That kinda disappoints me. We got Pulse Laser Normalization (RIP), which thankfully got reversed, mostly, in the long run.


We haven't gotten engine balance (cXL>>>isXL>STD), and the (presumably) incoming LFE doesn't fix that either
cXL>>LFE>isXL>STD

Notice you'll still never take a STD on a Clam mech? 40% less efficient TrueDubs would only affect Sword and Board (which...admittedly is most of my Clams), but it sure as heck won't make me take a STD on my H2C. Omnis have no choice

Bringing in the LFE doesn't magically fix the STD being bad, nor the isXL being incomparable to the cXL. The LFE also doesn't allow for the same payload as Clam mechs can take, but does allow for a LFE ST AC20 (something the isXL cannot do)



Weapon wise, it's not as diverse a gap. Small lasers being one of the largest gaps: The cERSL being nice, the cSPL being the absolute best short range laser, and the Spheroid Smalls being absolute trash.
Medium lasers are not as bad
ER versions of those lasers will not compare to their Clam versions, and the isSL is already an isERSL, for the most part. They need more significant changes, likely heat and cooldown related, if we're to get new stuff, without that new stuff completely eclipsing the current stuff (small family aside)
isER lasers will probably maintain 2x max range, meaning they could have longer range than their Clam counterparts...which isn't good for their normal lasers.


Large Pulses are the most comparable, as the isLPL can exceed the cLPL performance wise, at mid range. Almost unheard of for Spheroid lasers.
ERLLs are almost identical Dam/tick wise, just with the Clam one having more damage. Neither are taken very often, aside from specific group scenarios.




Should we focus on trying to get current stuff to acceptable levels before potentially shaking everything up with new things?
I want to avoid Legacy Tech™ as much as possible, and keep Power Creep levels to a minimum.
Power Creep happened SO VERY hard in 2016, with new top chassis' at almost every weight class.

Nope. Balance will be ****, they'll promise to fix it but never will and we'll all have to re-buy every single engine for LFEs... because PGI is a bunch of miserable ******* a-holes.

Don't introduce LFEs. Balance IS/CXLs.

[Pjwned]

Tarl Cabot, on 15 January 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

IS Quirks were primarily PGI response to the introduction of the Clans when they became available for purchase for C-Bill and RIGHT before CW was released. Did not want to retype it out.

Right, but the problem is that quirks ended up being a method for lazy band-aid fixes as well as largely arbitrary with no real method to the madness.

Mech geometry was too big? Structure & armor quirks.

Weapons are bad? Make them good only on certain mechs with weapon quirks.

Agility too low on some mechs? Agility quirks, even though they end up too agile when they cram in a big enough engine.

Convergence is screwing up the game again as usual? Oh just add a hojillion structure & armor quirks to everything, that'll fix it.

Do you see my point?

Edited by Pjwned, 15 January 2017 - 02:52 AM.

[FupDup]

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2017 - 02:41 AM, said:

Nope. Balance will be ****, they'll promise to fix it but never will and we'll all have to re-buy every single engine for LFEs... because PGI is a bunch of miserable ******* a-holes.

Don't introduce LFEs. Balance IS/CXLs.

To be fair, the LFE has an actual use in builds that want to save some tonnage while still packing an AC/20 or dual UAC/5, like a Hunchback or Atlas.

The Luffy doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from balancing STD and IS XL engines.

[Valhallan]

I don't understand why people wanting assymetrical balance always use team numbers, why not you know mirror the tabletop a little by making IS BETTER at short range than the clans (and no, IS right now is not better at short range if the clans also build short range, thanks to the great CSPL and the halfweight missiles). Sure the method that the IS used to be better in TT (melee) is not implemented in MWO, so compensate instead by buffing the shorter ranged stuff that the IS has (like the terribad IsSL). This even makes scouting/lights more important because if clans have to maintain range and IS has to close in, they have to know where the opposing team is or they'll get caught at the bad range bracket and get wasted.

TLDR: use the "asymmetrical" balance that made ISLPL vs CLPL instead of this team number nonsense.

[East Indy]

Mcgral18, on 14 January 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

I want to avoid Legacy Tech™ as much as possible

On the bright side, there's potential for better balance between ~3050 tech, since both sides will now have all entries for each system, and no longer have to pivot around the Inner Sphere's partial usage. In fact, with fun-toy exceptions like the heavy laser or a Gauss variant, that may be largely the extent of the first advancement.

I am concerned about obsolescence — PGI could use a stopgap by limiting new account purchases to 3060 variants, but that wouldn't solve the problem. The biggest offenders would be lasers, I'd say. For better or worse, Inner Sphere Ultra and LB-X supplement rather than supersede the standard autocannon. Kiss/curse. Maybe we'd be looking at a comprehensive rebalance in which ER lasers on both sides were definitively hotter for negligible damage gains.

We'll just have to see, and provide plenty of feedback.