216 replies to this topic

[Hades Trooper]

Seriously folks, 40% is going to be stupidly over powered.

Most clan mechs have very large side torso's to the point in tier 1, it's constant side torso destruction.

Smash that side armour 1st, strip half or more of the weapons and then atm there currently then easy picking, slow, over heating even with reduced weapons.

If pgi insists on making the side torso destruction so high then surely they have to redo the hit boxes of the clans. As it's too easy as of now at 20% to cripple a clan mech taking out 1 torso.

Boy i'd love to reduce my engine size and take a standard over an XL with these nerfs but no, i can't change my egine, i can't remove fixed equipment.


So IS omni mechs going to have fix engine and structure and armour and fix locations and those lovely single heatsinks? of course not, they wouldn't sell, so lets nerf the clans more and buff the IS so the FOTM players now will flock to the IS power mechs.


Edit

Karl Marlow, on 16 January 2017 - 02:58 AM, said:

Let me check. ISXL losing a side torso makes you dead. After patch clan XL losing a side torso leaves you with a completely functional mech.

Clans XL > ISXL

Let me check, do you have lock engine size? locked engine type? locked internal placement of equipment, aka fixed heat sinks? fixed jump jets? locked armour type? locked structure type? Multi burst ballistics? Long Burn duration on lasers? Half health heat sinks (5 health compared to is 10) Half Health Guass with 100% change of explosion, almost no quirks (though this is changing).

For all those downsides clans get the few following things,

Slightly longer laser range
Slightly lighter weapons
Double Heatsinks only take up 2 slots not 3
Endo and Ferro only 7 slots instead of 14 (but we can't change ferro to for endo)
No instant Gib when XL side Torso goes boom.

Now the poster say completely functional mech, have you ever driven a clan mech with a ST loss? that 20% speed reduction is huge, the heat scale goes completely out the window. At 40% penalty once you loss a ST your might as well be dead.

Now the other big thing is Clan ST hit boxes which i see everyone is passing over. How many clan mech do you shoot CT? non with all the fixed equipment and stuff it's VERY EASY to pick apart clan mechs if you know there builds, EVERY warhawk losses it's right torso 1st which is over half your weapons and all the extra gear you put in the mech. The other torso is just heatsinks and 1 arm with some weapons, easy kill.

Maddogs side torso are bigger than it's CT, the list goes on.

Now let factor in skilled opponents. Tier 1, you either torso twist or you die, thus your 1st torso will go 1st. If you don't roso twist it's either headshots or they strip your best torso. In the scrub land this isn't going to be a big deal, but as you advance in the tiers the clan mechs with get worse and worse as people know how to strip the best side torso and effectively leaving you dead. So much for this suppose completely functional mech, what a friggin joke some people are so delusional they can't even see there bias.


Edit note,

Forget all about the lack of modules on clan mechs. Ie storm corw gets 1 weapon module, where some IS mechs get 2-3 weapon slots and 2-3 mech modules, no one ever talks about the 9 modules a locust can carry,

Edited by Hades Trooper, 16 January 2017 - 07:55 PM.

[Lupis Volk]

What did people want. IS XL's to no longer be insta gibed. What does PGI do? Nerf Clams again.

[DGTLDaemon]

Lupis Volk, on 16 January 2017 - 01:17 AM, said:

What did people want. IS XL's to no longer be insta gibed. What does PGI do? Nerf Clams again.

Not surprising, given PGI's history. This has always been their way of balancing - nerf the good stuff instead of buffing the bad stuff. Much as I am pissed off with yet another nerf to the Clan tech, I have to admit that IS players are not to blame for this. They didn't ask for a nerf to Clan XLs.

[Sjorpha]

As long as the IS XL st loss penalty = death it's literally impossible to go too far with the clan XL st loss penalty, because it's impossible to make a penatly that equals death that isn't death.

Also means that it is literally impossible to balance IS and Clan XL enginese by fiddling with the penalty, it's a completely useless exercise and no matter what they do with that it will still leave the Clan XL stupidly OP compared to the IS XL.

So stop that and just make the IS XL survive a side torso loss instead, with a slightly smaller penalty to compensate for the larger crit size.

Edited by Sjorpha, 16 January 2017 - 03:22 AM.

[Lupis Volk]

Sjorpha, on 16 January 2017 - 02:43 AM, said:

As long as the IS XL st loss penalty = death it's literally impossible to go too far with the clan XL st loss penalty, because it's impossible to make a penatly that equals death that isn't death.

Also means that it is literally impossible to balance IS and Clan XL enginese by fiddling with the penalty, it's a completely useless exercise and no matter what they do with that it will still leave the Clan XL stupidly OP compared to the IS XL.

So stop that and just make the IS XL survive a side torso loss instead, with a slightly smaller penalty to compensate for the larger crit size.

This is what IS and None biased Clamers wanted, Instead PGI just bent the Clamers over instead.

DGTLDaemon, on 16 January 2017 - 01:28 AM, said:

Not surprising, given PGI's history. This has always been their way of balancing - nerf the good stuff instead of buffing the bad stuff. Much as I am pissed off with yet another nerf to the Clan tech, I have to admit that IS players are not to blame for this. They didn't ask for a nerf to Clan XLs.

So god dam true, all we wanted was our XL to not kill us via a ST loss.

[naterist]

i thnk its more a stop gap until they get a more realistic sytem in there. i see a lot ofpercentage and number adjustments going up and my theory is theyre using it to measure what they want to change, and how, and a more comprehensive system will be released later.

[SteelMantis]

Sjorpha, on 16 January 2017 - 02:43 AM, said:

So stop that and just make the IS XL survive a side torso loss instead, with a slightly smaller penalty to compensate for the larger crit size.

I disagree. That would make the IS XL engine flat out better than the clan XL. And the IS would still be able to use standard engines as well as changing engine size and probably getting a new kind of engine this summer.

I think the clan engine should be better than the IS engine. However not as much as it is now.

On paper this looks like a good change to me. We'll see how it plays out once it goes live.

[Karl Marlow]

Let me check. ISXL losing a side torso makes you dead. After patch clan XL losing a side torso leaves you with a completely functional mech.

Clans XL > ISXL

[Karl Streiger]

Karl Marlow, on 16 January 2017 - 02:58 AM, said:

Let me check. ISXL losing a side torso makes you dead. After patch clan XL losing a side torso leaves you with a completely functional mech.

Clans XL > ISXL

but you only need to destroy the CT on clan mechs to kill them LOL

[kesmai]

Make it all the same.
Hardpoints weapons engines customization options. Everything equalized.
Balance achieved.

Boredome accomplished.

[Wraith 1]

Hades Trooper, on 16 January 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

Boy i'd love to reduce my engine size and take a standard over an XL with these nerfs but no, i can't change my egine, i can't remove fixed equipment.

1. Sure you would. IS STD is barely ever ran on anything even though the alternative dies instantly on torso loss.

2. Clan battlemechs kinda threw a wrench into this argument. I'd be fine with Omnis getting OP engines in exchange for having wonky TT engine sizes, but then the KEK-3 gets the OP engines as well.

[50 50]

The heat and movement penalty for losing the side torso is pretty substantial and you are usually dead seconds later anyway, or effectively disabled in the ongoing fight and unable to contribute as much. ie. left for easy pickings later on.

Not really sure about the numbers but.... whatever.

I think it is more interesting that with a change in the tech level the IS gets 1 or potentially 2 more engine options. To me this will give different levels of flexibility at different tonnages.

For example, for the tonnage starved lights, the XL gives the most tonnage back at the risk of the side torso death. But the little buggers are fast and usually it's the legs to go for.
If the Light XL is added, then it might be the mediums that benefit the most. Get a bit of additional tonnage back, don't risk the side torso death giving them that extra bit of toughness, but it should have heat and movement penalties as well.
Should the compact engine be introduced it might weigh more but it frees up some space in the centre torso which will allow for larger weapons there for those mechs that can manage it.... and no side torso issues.... that would be interesting.

It also occurred to me that the standard engine may be more viable as an option if it kept it's default 10 heatsinks regardless of size. I believe the heat sink loss was something to do with light mechs but I am unsure. Anyone got the story on that?
Probably needs to be restricted to standard heatsinks but that's a different balance question.

It really will allow for a level of flexibility in design that we currently don't have.

Balance wise is it better to compare the Light XL to the Clan XL as a starting point as other than the tonnage benefit these two will be much closer?

I will suggest this idea for the IS XL though. Instead of instant death, what if it malfunctioned to an extent that it continually generated heat either forcing you to shutdown to let that build up dissipate, or you set the override and melt the mech?

[Sjorpha]

SteelMantis, on 16 January 2017 - 02:53 AM, said:

I disagree. That would make the IS XL engine flat out better than the clan XL.

Why would it be better?

SteelMantis, on 16 January 2017 - 02:53 AM, said:

And the IS would still be able to use standard engines as well as changing engine size and probably getting a new kind of engine this summer.

So can all the Clan battlemechs, you're aware you can put standard engines on them? There's quite a lot of clan battlemechs already, enought that you can no longer use the omnimechs construction rules as an argument in balance discussions. That excuse stopped being a functional obfuscation strategy the moment the first clan battlemech was released.

Quote

I think the clan engine should be better than the IS engine. However not as much as it is now.

I keep hearing this, and I keep waiting for a single valid argument for it.

Edited by Sjorpha, 16 January 2017 - 03:37 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Sjorpha, on 16 January 2017 - 02:43 AM, said:

As long as the IS XL st loss penalty = death it's literally impossible to go too far with the clan XL st loss penalty, because it's impossible to make a penatly that equals death that isn't death.

only in a 1:1 comparison, but then pls fixed engine sizes and equipment for IS mechs too.

Sry but a mech having the CHOICE is much better than the lore RNG with a fixed engine of a bad chosen size.
Clanomnis vs clanbattlemechs, vs is battlemechs, and vs isomnis (which we mostlikely will see mid of the year). you can't treat them equal because there is already 4 different constellations in which they work. this change does not balance because it's effect's efficiency isn't distributed equally.

Edited by Lily from animove, 16 January 2017 - 03:33 AM.

[El Bandito]

SteelMantis, on 16 January 2017 - 02:53 AM, said:

I disagree. That would make the IS XL engine flat out better than the clan XL.

No it wouldn't. CXL will still have the advantage of costing only 2 slots per ST, while IS XL will have 3 slots per ST. It is called trade-offs.

[Willard Phule]

I keep trying to tell everyone, this is less about "balancing" the equipment than it is about "balancing" the population.

Right now, most of the experienced players are playing Clan because of the benefits the equipment gives. Nerfing Clan equipment sends a bunch of the experienced players over to the IS to avoid the nerf.

That's it. That's all it's supposed to accomplish. It has NOTHING at all to do with making the engine disparity anything close to "equal." It's all about making sure there are enough T1s on both sides to carry the T5s. Simple as that.

[Sjorpha]

Lily from animove, on 16 January 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

only in a 1:1 comparison, but then pls fixed engine sizes and equipment for IS mechs too.

I'm pretty sure that upcoming IS omnis will have the exact same construction rules as Clan omnis, just like clan battlemechs have the same rules as IS battlemechs, so that's not an argument.

You may have missed this, but this game IS 1:1 teams, your "only" is the "only" constext there is to consider. PGI has officially rejected the entire concept of asymmetrical team sizes and said the goal is 1:1 balance.

Game is 1:1 and that's that.

Willard Phule, on 16 January 2017 - 03:42 AM, said:

I keep trying to tell everyone, this is less about "balancing" the equipment than it is about "balancing" the population.

That's why we need to convince PGI that they actually need to balance the tech all the way in order to also balance the population.

[Vanguard836]

SteelMantis, on 16 January 2017 - 02:53 AM, said:

I disagree. That would make the IS XL engine flat out better than the clan XL. And the IS would still be able to use standard engines as well as changing engine size and probably getting a new kind of engine this summer.

I think the clan engine should be better than the IS engine. However not as much as it is now.

On paper this looks like a good change to me. We'll see how it plays out once it goes live.

Lorewise, yes the clan engine should be better, TT wise the rules state 3 engine crits. Game wise you would still loose completely one side of extra engine slots. The suggestion is about making IS XLs better than their own current form, give them a better chance and also a forward thinking change for IS omnis which won't be able to swap engines. They penalty could be made equal for all I care for the sake of balance but I fail to see what would make a 1extra slot per side compared to the clan one flat out better.

[Buster Machine 0]

Welcome to balance clanners!

[MacClearly]

Hey, did you know that when an IS mech with an XL engine loses a side torso it dies?

So tell me again how you think that this is unfair and gone too far....