216 replies to this topic

[MacClearly]

Pika, on 16 January 2017 - 08:24 AM, said:

I keep reading crap like this and it makes me despair a little. It also makes me glad people like you are not responsible for balance adjustments. Let me explain this as simply, and as easily as I can:

90% of Clan 'Mechs cannot remove their XL engine. They have no choice about the viability of what engine to take. They cannot remove most of their additional 'features' of certain 'Mechs being stuck with Endo or Ferro even when it's a bad choice. The Warhawk can't even remove most of it's HeatSinks leaving it with a tiny, tiny amount of tonnage to play with.

I am really baffled as to why people can't understand why this is a very important distinction. If Omni's could remove their XLs and swap down to standards, yeah sure then I'd say make it so Clan XL ST loss still kills the 'Mech. But the fact it's fixed is why the engine should be more survivable.

IS can tailor their 'Mechs to a play style. Clanners have to adjust their playstyle to a 'Mech.

This is not complex stuff. Don't want to die on an ST loss? TAKE. THE. ENGINE. OUT.

This nerf makes no sense and is further just pushing the clan-ballistic meta. 40% additional heat basically not only kills laser builds but also the SRM\Streak builds. I think I'll probably just shelve my Marauder IIC after this. It already runs hot - now it's going to be near useless.

Let me assure you that I didn't stumble through college nor haphazardly fumble through a career in IT specifically in CRM and database field. As well my current switch to construction as a Supervisor (long story) I am not floundering about due to an inability to think, read or reason for myself as I am in charge of multi-million dollar projects. Thank you for your condescending tone however, I was really beginning to feel dumb and was hoping someone could explain some stuff to me.

Now that's out of the way let me be very simple for you to follow along since we are playing the schoolyard game of nah, nah I am smarter.

TAKING THE XL ENGINE OUT AND PUTTING IN A STD WILL NOT ALLOW FOR A COMPETITIVE OR EVEN REASONABLY SIMILAR LOADOUT AS FAR AS FIREPOWER IS CONCERNED. IN SHORT IF YOU DO THAT YOU NOT ONLY WILL NOT BE FAST ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH CLAN MECHS BUT YOU WON'T HAVE NEAR THE SAME FIREPOWER.

OH AND, THE WHOLE NOT BEING DEAD THING....

Now what this might do is make it harder on some builds that are asymmetrical (that means a build with all of its weapons on one side), but since I have a great deal of Clan mechs over two accounts, I actually now exactly how flexible my Timby's, Ebon's, Night Gyr's and on and on actually are and can't see this really being a huge problem. Oh I also have Marauder IIC's and you saying this could possibly obsolete them makes me question if you are actually trying to certify yourself as a contestant in the Special Olympics...Is Ashton Kutcher hiding around here? Am I being Punk'd????

[Sjorpha]

Lily from animove, on 16 January 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

yes and upcoming is omnis will have the same issue, so all we will get is another imbalance between is omnis and is battlemechs. That alone is a reason why the entire tech balance thing isn't going to work since same thch, different mechs, different construction rules just messes balance up more than it fixes.

On the contrary, that is a reason to balance the engines, not to not balance them.

With balanced engines the introduction of IS omnis will only give us two basic different categories of mechs, omnis and battlemechs. If you leave the engines and other tech unbalanced you get 4 categories, and the IS omnis will then need absolutely bonkers quirks to be equal with other mechs because they will need to compensate both for locked equipment and inferior tech.

No matter how you look at it leaving the engines and other tech unbalanced makes the balancing harder and more convoluted.

[1453 R]

The number of people harping on about "We want the iXL to be exactly like the cXL, not more performance nerfs to the cXL!" hurts my brain.

There's not nearly enough difference between the two tech divides as it is. Homogenizing the engines is a bad idea - yes, the cXL is a problem, but turning the iXL into the cXL isn't the fix. Just like trying to turn Sphere T1 GarboTech into Clan T2 wasn't the fix, and all these other "make everything on both sides EXACTLY THE SAME FOREVER!" isn't the fix.

I want a reason to pilot my Sphere machines. "They're just like Clans except with a different HUD color" is not that reason. That is a garbage reason and a garbage goal to shoot for. Does that mean we have to actually figure out something else for the iXL? yes. That will be hard, and nobody's come up with a good idea yet. But the iXL doesn't deserve to be homogenized into being exactly the same identical piece of gear as the cXL, especially with things like the LFE potentially on the horizon needing their own niche.

We should all want the two tech bases to look, play, and feel as wildly different as we can manage within the limitations of BattleTech. Why bother having a distinction at all if it's nothing but mildly cosmetic?

[Pika]

MacClearly, on 16 January 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

*insert tirade*

I don't care about your real life credentials, bud. None of them point out how you'd be good at balance. I'm not saying I'm better at it, but I am saying the arguement "but you don't die" is a very very VERY awful one that ignores almost everything else.

You're missing the point. You want to run an XL? You make the conscious choice to risk your survivability for greater fire power and speed. You ELECT to remove your "safe" engine for the speed and additional firepower. You not only made that choice but you had the choice.

Clan 'Mechs do not have that choice. Because they don't have that choice they need the survivability counter-point oterwise you wouldn't even see TMBrs (Those ears are nice and easy targets, ain't they? Image if the 'Mech died if it lost just one.) They can never change seconday gear... and On some 'Mechs you can't even remove heatsinks or jump jets. You have to work around the limitations of the 'Mech. And yeah this does mean you see a lot of TBRs around and the odd Ebon or NGY. But funny how they're all heavies and have the sweetspot for weight\tonnage ratio and the least annoying fixed gear. I also don't really care about what 'Mechs you play - everyone has loads of 'Mechs and has played from multiple sides. What's your point?

You miss the point completely and instead go on about how I feel this change will make some MADIIC builds a not worth the trouble. Instead go for the easy attack rather than trying to counter the argument and FURTHER indicate why you shouldn't do balance. I never mentioned it'd obsolete them, I said it'd make me not bother with 'em. Read what you want though, I guess!

I'll say it again: Take. The. Engine. Out. When clans can do this, I will happily have a death on ST loss.

Edited by Pika, 16 January 2017 - 09:19 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Sjorpha, on 16 January 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

On the contrary, that is a reason to balance the engines, not to not balance them.

No, becasue you can't balance them on tech, you can reach only a specific lower level, Buff ISXL to a degree the bad omnis utilise them well, then the non omnis in good shaped hitboxes will exceed. There is that two worlds which are so far away from each other that you cannot use the same tool in them. You need to find the minimum and maximum area of where those engines are too strong or too weak. Bad shaped hitboxes + fixed XL engines will come, should construction rules stay, then the result is, that any mech utilising them will be DOA therefore these mechs are going to be the baseline of baalce issues. And the only way for proper balance is to make some engines putting these mechs out of the grave. thats the base of the proper lower end tech. Only then and after this you can change other techs and the mechs around to reach a similar level. But before you don't unearrth the dead ones, any attemp to downbalance just adds mech to the grave. But those metabeasts stay meta no matter how much tech you change because those metabeatss have that slight advantage that always stays by non tech related advantages.

Edited by Lily from animove, 16 January 2017 - 09:22 AM.

[Sjorpha]

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

There's not nearly enough difference between the two tech divides as it is. Homogenizing the engines is a bad idea - yes, the cXL is a problem, but turning the iXL into the cXL isn't the fix. Just like trying to turn Sphere T1 GarboTech into Clan T2 wasn't the fix, and all these other "make everything on both sides EXACTLY THE SAME FOREVER!" isn't the fix.

I agree the two sides should be as different as possible, just as long as they are equally strong.

Surely you aren't trying to do the old "equal strength = everything is the same" fallacy?

I would be very glad to make the IS XL equally strong in a completely different way than making it more similar, for example why not make it weigh less? That would create a nice balance curve where: standard=heaviest, most durable; Clan XL=Lighter, less durable; IS XL=lightest, least durable. That would make a lot of sense IMO.

[Almond Brown]

Mcgral18, on 16 January 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

We asked for a valid reason

A valid reason eh! OK. PGI currently owns the MW License. If some Community members wish to make real change to MWO to stuff that they don't like, then just ask Russ to sell those Community members the License. I am sure he would have a number.

Otherwise everyone is just blowing the usual "smoke out their rear door" and had best be more careful in the future about what they whine and get all Salty about. Sadly, this change is totally the Communities fault, not PGI's. One would think that the Community would f'ing learn after 5 years fcol... but no... ;(

[Sjorpha]

Lily from animove, on 16 January 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

No, becasue you can't balance them on tech, you can reach only a specific lower level, Buff ISXL to a degree the bad omnis utilise them well, then the non omnis in good shaped hitboxes will exceed.

You mean exactly the situation we have with clan mechs now? You have yet to come up with a single argument why the battlemech - omni situation is different or should be handled differently for clan and IS.

Quote

There is that two worlds which are so far away from each other that you cannot use the same tool in them. You need to find the minimum and maximum area of where those engines are too strong or too weak. Bad shaped hitboxes + fixed XL engines will come, should construction rules stay, then the result is, that any mech utilising them will be DOA therefore these mechs are going to be the baseline of baalce issues. And the only way for proper balance is to make some engines putting these mechs out of the grave. thats the base of the proper lower end tech. Only then and after this you can change other techs and the mechs around to reach a similar level. But before you don't unearrth the dead ones, any attemp to downbalance just adds mech to the grave. But those metabeasts stay meta no matter how much tech you change because those metabeatss have that slight advantage that always stays by non tech related advantages.

Ok, so you are arguing that for both clan and IS mechs of different stature should have access to different tech depending on how good they are rather than faction? Faction should no longer be the thing determining the tech available?

Otherwise I don't really understand your post.

What is your own solution to making Clan and IS mechs equally good without IS side needing more quirks than clan side?

Edited by Sjorpha, 16 January 2017 - 09:34 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pika, on 16 January 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

Clan (Omni)Mechs do not have that choice.

FTFY, we do have Clan Battlemechs, and some of the Clan Omnimechs within the timeline even have that terrible thing known as the STD engine. Some Omnis are also optimized or are nearly optimized such that their restrictions are not really a minus, not nearly as bad as iXLs side torso death. In other words, lack of choices only matters when the base layout is poorly optimized (which not all Omnimechs are). People need to stop using the Omnimech restrictions as an excuse for OP equipment. Either way, there is no good reason for not fixing engine balance other than BS reasoning that has its own faults that have been shown time and again.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 January 2017 - 09:32 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 16 January 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

If Lore and fluff aren't valid for you, why don't you try something like titanfall, it's pretty balanced so i've heard.

I'm already playing Shooty Stompy Robots
What lore do we have in the Client?

Titanfall isn't Shooty Stompy Robots, it's COD in Mechs

[1453 R]

Sjorpha, on 16 January 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

I agree the two sides should be as different as possible, just as long as they are equally strong.

Surely you aren't trying to do the old "equal strength = everything is the same" fallacy?

I would be very glad to make the IS XL equally strong in a completely different way than making it more similar, for example why not make it weigh less? That would create a nice balance curve where: standard=heaviest, most durable; Clan XL=Lighter, less durable; IS XL=lightest, least durable. That would make a lot of sense IMO.

Less weight would be an interesting notion, though I doubt Piranha would do it due to the whole Stock Fit issue. Some folks have suggested innate torso mobility bonuses for iXL to make it easier to roll damage; that could be something to look into as well, if not a total solution by itself. So long as we're not homogenizing everything everywhere, I'm quite willing to look at some pretty radical ideas. And let's not forget the poor old STD engine. That sucker needs some serious help.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 January 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

FTFY, we do have Clan Battlemechs, and some of the Clan Omnimechs within the timeline even have that terrible thing known as the STD engine. Some Omnis are also optimized or are nearly optimized such that their restrictions are not really a minus, not nearly as bad as iXLs side torso death. People need to stop using the Omnimech restrictions as an excuse for OP equipment. Either way, there is no good reason for not fixing engine balance other than BS reasoning that has its own faults that have been shown time and again.

We do have Clan BattleMechs, but not all that many of them and we're clearly not getting any more (yes, I may be a li'l salty that Piranha's still doing 'Mech releases by the clump. IT WAS OUR TURN, GODDAMNIT GUYS Q_Q). And when the Omni rules do bite, they bite hard. Omni construction rules may not be an excuse for not balancing out engines, but you can't tell me that there aren't some serious issues inherent in the Omni construction rules that merit looking at/consideration, huh? Or is the Warhawk 100% A-OK now that Marauder IICs have hit the board?

[Pika]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 January 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

FTFY, we do have Clan Battlemechs, and some of the Clan Omnimechs within the timeline even have that terrible thing known as the STD engine. Some Omnis are also optimized or are nearly optimized such that their restrictions are not really a minus, not nearly as bad as iXLs side torso death. In other words, lack of choices only matters when the base layout is poorly optimized (which not all Omnimechs are). People need to stop using the Omnimech restrictions as an excuse for OP equipment. Either way, there is no good reason for not fixing engine balance other than BS reasoning that has its own faults that have been shown time and again.

True, true, there are some 'Mechs out there where chucking in the cXL is just a straight up advantage (Kodiak, M2C) but on others it hardly seems to make a difference (Origins 'Mechs)

Like I said though. I'll happily take the ST loss issue if clans can get a bit more flexibility with 'Mechs rather than there only being 2-4 valid builds per chassis

[Sjorpha]

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

Less weight would be an interesting notion, though I doubt Piranha would do it due to the whole Stock Fit issue. Some folks have suggested innate torso mobility bonuses for iXL to make it easier to roll damage; that could be something to look into as well, if not a total solution by itself. So long as we're not homogenizing everything everywhere, I'm quite willing to look at some pretty radical ideas. And let's not forget the poor old STD engine. That sucker needs some serious help.

Agreed.

I share your basic approach here. As long as every piece of equipment in the game is equally viable/strong/whatever the ideal is that they are that in as different ways as possible.

I would be very glad if the balancing approach they used made Clan and IS tech MORE different while bringing them closer in strength.

Still, symmetric balance is still better than no balance. So if they are unwilling to give the IS XL something that is equally strong as surviving a st loss, like the ideas we discussed, then making is survive a ST loss is better than just leaving it bad.

Standard obviously needs a serious buff to, agree there as well.

The standard engine is balanced when Clan battlemechs starts to sometimes use it in competitive builds, so that's the ballpark of how big the buff needs to be. Quite big.

Standard armour and structure are in the same situation, so endo and ferro needs some significant downsides so they aren't automatically the better choice.

Edited by Sjorpha, 16 January 2017 - 09:44 AM.

[MacClearly]

Pika, on 16 January 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

'Insert mindless nonsense'

I can appreciate that you don't care about other people's credentials hence why you talk down to people. In Canada we have a special term for people like you, but that is largely irrelevant.

So again since you seem to not be following along here.

Being ineffective is not much of a choice. I am not sure how to get that across to you.

Losing 40% of your heat capacity is not nearly as bad as dying (really did I just have to point that out to someone...).

So in actuality this still does not achieve balance or at least a 100% equal one.

Oh and I did not come up with this idea as balance nor anywhere have I claimed to be a lord of balance. I merely am saying that your whining is out of place here.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

We do have Clan BattleMechs, but not all that many of them and we're clearly not getting any more

What makes you think we are done with Clan battlemechs exactly? You really think we won't get anymore IICs or the sought after Mad Cat MKII down the line? Sorry but I don't agree here.

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

And when the Omni rules do bite, they bite hard.

So do poor IS hardpoints and crappy tech. Ice Ferret even before quirks wasn't as bad as the Pixie/Vinid.

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

Omni construction rules may not be an excuse for not balancing out engines, but you can't tell me that there aren't some serious issues inherent in the Omni construction rules that merit looking at/consideration, huh?

TBH, I don't really think Omni mechs should even have restrictions since the omnipod system makes up for the lack of hardpoint inflation...mostly. Granted engine restrictions should probably stay pretty close with a few exceptions (Night Gyr's going Timber Wolf speed or vice versa just sounds bad, but the Sadder and Cute Fox should be allowed to be a bit speedier).

Pika, on 16 January 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

True, true, there are some 'Mechs out there where chucking in the cXL is just a straight up advantage (Kodiak, M2C) but on others it hardly seems to make a difference (Origins 'Mechs)

Ummm, wat?

The Jenner IIC > Jenner (with exception of maybe the Oxide)
The HBK-IIC is the best medium in the game and definitely better than the IS Hunchback
The Orion IIC and Highlander IIC suffer from larger size than their originals imo among other things (like the HGN-IIC's worse hardpoint layout). That said with their minimal quirks they are a bit better than the counterparts with a couple of exceptions (ON1-V, HGN-732B).

So 4/6 Clan battlemechs are either best of their class or near it (while the other two are on par with or better than their highly quirked counterparts), so yes, the Clan XL is a straight up advantage.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 January 2017 - 09:48 AM.

[Pika]

MacClearly, on 16 January 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

Insults.

Cool. My own ambiguous word.

I have nothing more to add. You cling to that "But you're still alive" argument all you like, bud. It's flawed and ignores a LOT of data. Data I pointed out.

But hey ho. Enjoy your stompy robots online.

[Pika]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 January 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

Ummm, wat?

The Jenner IIC > Jenner (with exception of maybe the Oxide)
The HBK-IIC is the best medium in the game and definitely better than the IS Hunchback
The Orion IIC and Highlander IIC suffer from larger size than their originals imo among other things (like the HGN-IIC's worse hardpoint layout). That said with their minimal quirks they are a bit better than the counterparts with a couple of exceptions (ON1-V, HGN-732B).

So 4/6 Clan battlemechs are either best of their class or near it (while the other two are on par with or better than their highly quirked counterparts), so yes, the Clan XL is a straight up advantage.

"Hardly seems to make a difference" does not mean "Makes no difference."

I still see way more regular Hunchbacks than I do IICs. I NEVER see Highlanders or Orions and if I do it's usually fodder. Jenners are still fairly rare compared to the Oxide. I mean why take a Jenner when there are just straight up better lights on both sides?

Yeah they're arguably better - in some capacity - but to the point where there needs to be balance adjustments on them? Ehhh~ quirks still make up for most of that difference.

Edited by Pika, 16 January 2017 - 09:51 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Pika, on 16 January 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

I still see way more regular Hunchbacks than I do IICs.

The hunchback IIC is the best medium in the game, a top tier competitive mech and super popular.

The IS hunchback is pretty much rubbish outside of the very situational SP brawler, and that one is only used because of it's extra structure.

They aren't even playing in the same ballpark.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pika, on 16 January 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

I still see way more regular Hunchbacks than I do IICs.

Popularity =/= Strength.

That said I see way more HBK-IICs than I do normal Hunchbacks which is why anecdotal evidence shouldn't be your sole reasoning.

Pika, on 16 January 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

I mean why take a Jenner when there are just straight up better lights on both sides?

The difference here is how many lights are straight up better and just how much better they are. Prior to the rescale the JR7-IIC was better than the ACH and even the Oxide started to drop off compared to the JR7-IIC with the Oxide often only showing up for full pushes. If the ACH were to be removed from the game for whatever reason, you would see Spiders and Jenner IIC's take up the reign.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 January 2017 - 09:58 AM.

[Pika]

Sjorpha, on 16 January 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

The hunchback IIC is the best medium in the game, a top tier competitive mech and super popular.

The IS hunchback is pretty much rubbish outside of the very situational SP brawler, and that one is only used because of it's extra structure.

They aren't even playing in the same ballpark.

Yeah I totally agree with you! It don't change the fact that I seem to hardly see them in T1/2. I see them a lot more around T4 surprisingly. Not saying anyone is wrong about the IIC being better, mind or just it being a straight up great 'Mech.

In all my posts in this thread I have said I do think changes need to be done about the Engine imbalance, I do NOT think - however - that nerfing clan XLs was the right thing to do. I'd say that buffing ISXLs would have been much more sensible.

Edited by Pika, 16 January 2017 - 10:00 AM.