216 replies to this topic

[Wrathful Scythe]

*sigh*

If only there was this magical tool to test balance changes. You know? This thing where people install a second client and play some matches in an enviroment for testing purposes to see how certian changes affects the game? People don't bother with it, you say? If only there was a way to incentivise the people with c-bills or premium time to play on the PTS... oh... what? What was that? Ah, nevermind that. Seems I lost my mind.

Seriously. People ask for IS Mechs to survive the XL ST-death and we nerf C-XLs further. PGI proved more than once that lore isn't a real thing here so why cling to the TT ruleset? I don't know what PGI expects with this change. They can't win. IS players are still salty because they die while clanners live for getting their ST blown off. And clanners are annoyed because their penaltys got increased, which makes clan machines less fun to play. They are pissing off both player bases.

[Mystere]

Wrathful Scythe, on 16 January 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

They are pissing off both player bases.

That's the problem when you apparently do not have a solid vision, a solid plan, and a solid design, much less open communications. As a result, the impression of people outside of PGI is that that the Dartboard of Destiny is heavily used.

[Koniving]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 January 2017 - 11:30 AM, said:

Except the problem is when that lore-based filter doesn't work, like Koniving's examples. It should use that filter on a case-by-case basis when it can, and this like ACs isn't one of those cases where it can without going against good FPS game design.

If the AC case isn't a good example, then why does any FPS bother with more than one assault rifle, more than one LMG, more than one shotgun, etc?

The variants are 'better' or 'worse' for specific scenarios, just like most FPS ARs are.

An example of why things are different.
And yes, you will eventually have "similar" models that are comparatively similar to the base or most evenly balanced model. That isn't a bad thing, because if we make the Faction Play matter as well, you will want access to a balanced model as well as the niche models.

Edited by Koniving, 16 January 2017 - 12:38 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 16 January 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

Yup, that is the point. We have very little lore and very little fluff in the game.
To the point where mechs not even remotely represent their counterpart in lore or tt.
Make is XL and C-XL the same, sure. but remove the battletech tag from the game as well.
This game has less and less to do with battletech.
Follow this through and this will not even remotely have anything to do with battletech and in all actuality be yet another generic rompy stompy robot game.

It would be a vast improvement


You can have MW5 for imbalanced OP Clams, and other worthless equipment, only to level up beyond it
That doesn't fly in a competitive online shooter, which MWO is

We never asked for "A BattleTech Game" sticker to be added, because MechWarrior isn't necessarily Battletech.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Koniving, on 16 January 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

If the AC case isn't a good example, then why does any FPS bother with more than one assault rifle, more than one LMG, more than one shotgun, etc?

They often have behaviors that relegate them to different roles. They aren't all just fully automatic, and if they are there are different mechanics that keep them in check (like CS:GO uses the round economy to balance them) which we wouldn't really have since they are all the same slot size, tonnage, etc.

Counting all the different ACs between class and damage profile, the IS has 19 (AC:4, UAC:4, LBX:4, RAC:2, LAC:2, HVAC:3), which is more than some FPS have guns period and that is without any different manufacturer version. In our case, the different classes of ACs (Ultra, Rotary, LBX, etc) are more synonymous with different types of rifle classes (sniper rifle, light-machine gun, sub-machine gun, assault rifle, combat/battle rifle, etc).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 January 2017 - 01:10 PM.

[Vyx]

30% would be wiser

[WarHippy]

El Bandito, on 16 January 2017 - 03:35 AM, said:

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.

Yeah, lets not forget the bulk of the Clan stable can't change their engines or add/remove things like Endo Steel etc..
I'm all for letting the IS mechs live through a side torso loss, but to then give them less penalty because they take up a whopping 2 more crit slots while completely ignoring the fact they can change their equipment around when none of the Clan omnis can do that is out right dishonest.

Let the IS mechs survive with the 40% penalty and the Clan mechs survive with the 20% penalty.

[MacClearly]

Pika, on 16 January 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

You are done for real this time? I get that you don't have an argument and that you started off extremely condescending which wasn't well received.

Awesome that you somehow have managed to misinterpret what I am saying to mean IS XL should be the exact same. Absolutely incredible that you have convinced yourself we were arguing from the same side. Firmly astounding that you felt you were making a sensible argument in the first place.

As far as being ignored from a member of cgbi, I consider that to an honour.

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 16 January 2017 - 03:08 PM.
Modifiting Quotes per insults

[SavageConvoy]

I don't think it really resolves the issue of the ISxl being too fragile and doubt it'll really rebalance the community.
I mean Clanners currently have longer range and faster speed while being durable.
After the patch it'll be Clanners having longer range and faster speed while being durable. If you lose a side torso you're still fairly fast, but won't fire as often as before. Still better than the ISxl in all regards.

I'm in the boat that both engines should survive a side torso loss, but with negatives to make them glass cannons. Standard engines make you go slow, but are much more durable. XL engines are much lighter, take up a bit more space, but are easier to cripple the overall mech's performance.

And it makes sense to me that the Clan XL would have the harsher penalty, both from a game mechanic and balance perspective.
clan xl takes up less slots, you can assume that that smaller means more refined and less redundancy so the more parts lost results in more drastic effects.
From a balance perspective it makes sense because you have clan weapons being smaller and lighter, so it adds to the glass cannon approach. You trade off the ability to tank for a higher capacity to deal damage.

Edited by SavageConvoy, 16 January 2017 - 02:33 PM.

[MacClearly]

Lupis Volk, on 16 January 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

since FW data is being brought in, If IS had the XL buff that 90% of the community wanted. The builds with the firepower needed to take on clans would no longer be very, very punishing. For IS to have the firepower needed to take on clans they need an XL most times, some do get ST but most use XL.

Once IS has that buff, then maybe things might even up somewhat. But alas you can't balance stupidity.

Just for clarity, we do seem to be relatively on the same side here right? Now I am not saying that IS XL be exactly like Clan. I also see the value in not pissing off the people who follow lore but do think each side must make some compromises to make a video game balance out.

[Mcgral18]

WarHippy, on 16 January 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

Yeah, lets not forget the bulk of the Clan stable can't change their engines or add/remove things like Endo Steel etc..
I'm all for letting the IS mechs live through a side torso loss, but to then give them less penalty because they take up a whopping 2 more crit slots while completely ignoring the fact they can change their equipment around when none of the Clan omnis can do that is out right dishonest.

Let the IS mechs survive with the 40% penalty and the Clan mechs survive with the 20% penalty.

How about...Clams get the 40% penalty, and IS get the 20% penalty
That's more fair, as they have the larger engine, larger equipment, and heavier equipment


Clams can't have their cake and eat it too

[Lupis Volk]

MacClearly, on 16 January 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Just for clarity, we do seem to be relatively on the same side here right? Now I am not saying that IS XL be exactly like Clan. I also see the value in not pissing off the people who follow lore but do think each side must make some compromises to make a video game balance out.

Oh yeah same side. All i want is IS XL to no longer be a big "Kill me here" tool that is needed for certain mechs to take on the Clans. Others had given good ideas to give when the IS lose a ST. STD engines are needed for some mechs instead of XL.

[MacClearly]

Mystere, on 16 January 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

Well, if I just followed the herd, I won't be where I am today. My life is mostly not following what was popular.




I actually prefer that general combat mechanics be the same between QP and CW. As such, I would really prefer solo QP be forced IS vs. Clan, IS. vs IS, and Clan vs. Clan based on player availability at time of queuing up (while group QP can do what it wants -- I assume everyone knows what they are doing in there).

Well obviously we don't have near the population for that to be done in quick play. I also don't understand the value or what that would add to the game in that particular mode.

[WarHippy]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 January 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

For all those using lore as a reasoning though, you realize people including the developers themselves regret making Clans the powerhouses they were at introduction right? There is a difference between spirit of the law and rule of the law, and the Clans don't need to be unbalanced to still be in-line with the spirit of the law and provide a good experience both within TT and within MWO.

Every time I see this idiotic argument I can't help but imagine the people making the argument as George Lucas typing away furiously at the keyboard about how it should have been and what was really intended. Han shot first and the Clans kicked ***(initially), and that is how it was and should remain.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

WarHippy, on 16 January 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Han shot first and the Clans kicked ***(initially), and that is how it was and should remain.

And I find this staunch traditionalism to be idiotic as well, again this comes down to spirit of the law vs rule of the law. Kind of like how the developers realized the advanced ER tech didn't really match the Clan ethos whereas heavy lasers fit perfectly.

[WarHippy]

Mcgral18, on 16 January 2017 - 01:43 PM, said:

How about...Clams get the 40% penalty, and IS get the 20% penalty
That's more fair, as they have the larger engine, larger equipment, and heavier equipment


Clams can't have their cake and eat it too

Again, the bulk of the Clans mechs can't change their engine, add/remove endo/fero, remove JJ, they don't have dynamic slots, and they can't remove unneeded heat sinks. If the IS is going to survive a side torso loss they should have the bigger penalty. For added effect since the IS mechs is losing more engine housing with a torso loss it makes sense that they would have more heat penalties as well.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

WarHippy, on 16 January 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

Again, the bulk of the Clans mechs can't change their engine, add/remove endo/fero, remove JJ, they don't have dynamic slots, and they can't remove unneeded heat sinks. If the IS is going to survive a side torso loss they should have the bigger penalty.

This is a nonsensical penalty. I will say it again, lacking the ability to customize equipment crap like engine size or remove JJs is only a problem if the mech is not nearly optimized by default. I would much prefer giving Omnimechs wiggle room over making sure IS crap is inferior especially given this means IS omnis are even worse in comparison.

[Mystere]

MacClearly, on 16 January 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Well obviously we don't have near the population for that to be done in quick play.

I doubt it would add a significant amount of time. The key is it's "forced" nature. Players have no say other than what to drop with.

MacClearly, on 16 January 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

I also don't understand the value or what that would add to the game in that particular mode.

The obvious value of that change is that we get more of that very same apparently very bad word that shall not be spoken of: lore.

Another benefit is that it helps better differentiate Clans vs. IS by avoiding mixed drops which do muck with balancing when trying to keep the separate techs different.

Edited by Mystere, 16 January 2017 - 02:02 PM.

[SavageConvoy]

WarHippy, on 16 January 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

Again, the bulk of the Clans mechs can't change their engine, add/remove endo/fero, remove JJ, they don't have dynamic slots, and they can't remove unneeded heat sinks. If the IS is going to survive a side torso loss they should have the bigger penalty. For added effect since the IS mechs is losing more engine housing with a torso loss it makes sense that they would have more heat penalties as well.

But the clan get a discounted slot rate for Endo/FF, getting both for half the cost and the armor being 20% more per ton vice 12% per ton.
DHS are pretty much a mandatory tax anyway and clan get a huge bonus by getting DHS that take only 2 slots and can fit in the legs.
Clan weapons also weigh less and take up less slots on average.
Clan LRMs for example take up half the weight and one less slot compared to the IS equivalent.
The Clan PPC takes up one less slot and one less ton.
The clan AC-10 costs two less tons and two less slots. Meaning you could add 2 tons of ammo and still equal out to the base weight of the IS weapon.
The gauss rifle weights 3 tons less and one less slot.

How can you honestly, with a straight face, say that clans are at a disadvantage?

[Mcgral18]

WarHippy, on 16 January 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

Again, the bulk of the Clans mechs can't change their engine, add/remove endo/fero, remove JJ, they don't have dynamic slots, and they can't remove unneeded heat sinks. If the IS is going to survive a side torso loss they should have the bigger penalty. For added effect since the IS mechs is losing more engine housing with a torso loss it makes sense that they would have more heat penalties as well.

That was satire, but do you seriously think the smaller engine, with better supporting tech, should have fewer penalties than the larger, heavier pieces of equipment?

Throw lore out the window, and give me a proper reason why that should be the case.
There will be Spheroid Omnis coming, and there are already Clam Battlemechs, so that argument falls apart.

It's a Omni VS Battlemech in that case, not a Spheroid VS Clam

Edited by Mcgral18, 16 January 2017 - 02:34 PM.