167 replies to this topic

[WarHippy]

Prosperity Park, on 16 January 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

I think that if we could *all* agree on a simple rule, then the entire game would benefit.

I mean ALL agree - new players, old players, BattleTech fans, MechWarrior fans, TT afectionados, folks who never roll dice, Inner Sphere junkies and Clammers alike.

Can we all agree on a rule? Here's my proposal:

Weapons and equipment that weigh less and take up less space should be inferior to weapons and equipment that are larger and heavier.

Now, when I say "should be inferior" I am referring to the summation of all their attributes (range, heat, duration, DPS, upfront damage, etc.), like a Total Picture view.

For example, it would be fine for a 2 slot 2 ton weapon to be more powerful shot-for-shot than a 2 slot 3 ton weapon assuming it's less heat efficient with a very short range and a long cooldown, because that 3 tonner could have a higher DPS and higher range, assuming those gains *more than offset* the higher per-shot damage of the 2 tonner. And an ExtraLight engine that consumes 2 side torso slots should be overall inferior to an ExtraLight engine that consumes 3 side torso slots, because the engine that consumes more slots should be better than an equal-weight engine that consumes fewer slots. [/Example]

Why do I have to make an appeal for this? Because there are thousands of folks who think that *certain* weapons and equipment should be both smaller/lighter AND more powerful... *Cough*ClansFromTableTop*cough*

For the sake of balance and sanity, I think we should all adopt my suggested rule. It would make balancing the game not only easier to balance, but would VASTLY reduce the need for fraction-of-a-second blanket quirkbuffs to IS mechs. It would also require the game to be rethought from the perspective of "Superior Clans vs Inferior IS"

Anyone else agree?

No.

[Jackal Noble]

Such a dumb original post.

[cazidin]

It looks like we really can't agree on this one, simple rule. I, however, blame PGI, not the community.

[WarHippy]

Sjorpha, on 16 January 2017 - 04:07 PM, said:

No one is saying Clan weapons should be inferior.

Are you sure about that?

Sjorpha, on 16 January 2017 - 04:07 PM, said:

They should be worth their investment in tonnage and crits, and IS weapons should be worth their investment in tonnage and crits.

Seeing as neither side has access to the others equipment and the OP is asking for the lighter smaller weapons to be inferior(even his caveat of "all things in summation" just lists a bunch of things to nerf/buff the various weapons) that is very much what is being asked for right from the start.

[Dirus Nigh]

El Bandito, on 16 January 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

Quirks bandaids are not working for the last 3 years, and it will never work to bring balance between factions at this rate. Balance the base tech first by improving IS weapon/equipments relative to their weight and slots! And then use quirks on underperforming mechs.

The IS tech is the original tech. The base line for the entire game. It was the clans that upset every thing. Why do you instist that the IS needs to be boosted, instead of the clans being fixed?

[El Bandito]

Dirus Nigh, on 16 January 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

The IS tech is the original tech. The base line for the entire game. It was the clans that upset every thing. Why do you instist that the IS needs to be boosted, instead of the clans being fixed?

Because nobody likes nerfs, especially Clanners, as evidenced by tons of posts disapproving PGI's nerf on the CXL. Instead of whipping out a shitstorm, PGI can just buff IS instead.

[RestosIII]

El Bandito, on 16 January 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

Because nobody likes nerfs, especially Clanners, as evidenced by tons of posts disapproving PGI's nerf on the CXL. Instead of whipping out a shitstorm, PGI can just buff IS instead.

I'm pissy about the cXL nerf just because it's not going to help the IS at all. IS XL engines are still garbage, no matter how large a penalty you stick on cXL engines.

[Kael Posavatz]

I don't know. I mean, we've been at this for two and a half years and the game isn't balanced. Maybe it's time to try something new.

So, if the IS gets better stuff because, you know, it's bulkier and masses more, do the the Clans get the really special The-Devs-are-on-their-side quirks?

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 16 January 2017 - 08:45 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Kael Posavatz, on 16 January 2017 - 08:43 PM, said:

I don't know. I mean, we've been at this for two and a half years and the game isn't balanced. Maybe it's time to try something new.

So, if the IS gets better stuff because, you know, it's bulkier and masses more, do the the Clans get the really special The-Devs-are-on-their-side quirks?

probably not.

[Kael Posavatz]

In all seriousness, it's an idea.

I don't know that it's any better or any worse than a lot of the other ideas I've seen thrown about to try and address everything from balance, to heat, to infowar.

I'm not sure how practical it is if PGI wants to adhere to their release of FutureTech in mid-2017

[Dirus Nigh]

El Bandito, on 16 January 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

Because nobody likes nerfs, especially Clanners, as evidenced by tons of posts disapproving PGI's nerf on the CXL. Instead of whipping out a shitstorm, PGI can just buff IS instead.

So adults acting like entitled children. Got it. That makes me want PGI to reduce clan values even more.

[MischiefSC]

WarHippy, on 16 January 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

Are you sure about that?
Seeing as neither side has access to the others equipment and the OP is asking for the lighter smaller weapons to be inferior(even his caveat of "all things in summation" just lists a bunch of things to nerf/buff the various weapons) that is very much what is being asked for right from the start.

No. The premise is that 2 tons and 2 slots of Clan weapons is equal to 2 tons of IS weapons. Clans get more mounts/weapons total but each is smaller, lighter and slightly weaker than the larger IS counterparts.

So an IS mech might carry 5 weapons that weigh 18 tons and takes up 10 slots and the Clan mech 7 but also 18 tons and 10 slots (give or take) but if they're designed for the same range/performance bracket they should be equal.

Make more sense? Even within each tech purview an MPL should be better than a ML/ERML, because it's 2x the weight. Maybe not drastically better but significantly better, so if you've got the tonnage it's worth the upgrade be that Clan or IS.

You provide proper hardpoint inflation and unlock Clan omnis to make balanced use of that and you've got a balanced game. IS has less weapons and 'stuff' (DHS, BAP, ECM, Endo/FF, etc) but each of them is correspondingly stronger. Clans have the potential to mount more 'stuff' but each is correspondingly weaker, however they can mount more of it. This should equal out to IS having a slight edge on boating potential and ease of use (Keep it Simple, Kill Secured) while Clans have more flexibility of design and synergy options.

Remove all existing quirks, start over quirking mechs up that are under-performers due to hitboxes, design and bad hardpoint locations (Adder, Kit Fox, for a start) plus hardpoint inflation (Spiders, sure, but most the original Clan mechs) to enable the effective use of the tech balance system. Adder/Shadowcat need 6-9 hardpoints available as a given rule, same as the Summoner, just to start. IS gets 6-8, Clans should hit 10 or 11 on Assaults for example.

It's a solid idea and it has potential.

[Moebius Pi]

Dirus Nigh, on 16 January 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

So adults acting like entitled children. Got it. That makes me want PGI to reduce clan values even more.

Your bias is showing. May want to tuck it back in.

What if I told you the bulk of the clan diehard posts regarding the IS XL -wanted them to not be ST gone = death-, IE, the IS XL acting like a Clan XL? Would that blow your mind? That was the general response. The nerf given is... pointless and unwanted on both sides (it didn't help balance well, the IS folks didn't want it and the clanner folks didn't either; PGI logic). It solves little to nothing in any impactful way. It's a near unanimous "wtf were they thinking?"

Seriously. Feel free to dig through the threads discussing it including clanner responses. Personally I'd much rather have seen the IS XL buff anyhow; it opens up a whoooole lot of Mechs into being something more than walking garbage and increases loadout options for many more.

It might leave the STD in the dust, but **** it; I'd rather have more IS options (including a STD engine buff down the road) vs the crap they introduced instead that once again doesn't really do anything positive.

Nobody wanted what PGI did; the vast majority wanted to see the -IS XL BUFFED- dude. As many, many have said it still doesn't address the real problem and -still- leaves IS XL in a crappy state. If PGI did something more than blanket nerf vs targetting a problematic chassis (and the UACs across the board get ****** on underperformers because they won't take a scapel to the Kodiak...), you'll get why folks don't want -PGI style- nerfs. They're flat out -bad- and outright lazy. Whatever metrics they use, dear god, they need to seriously reassess but it has always appeared they're mostly clueless.

Personally, they could have reverted the Dissipation buff of Clan DHS recently and I'd have went "meh, getting closer", but what ya got was... derp-tardedly bad. It doesn't tackle any current issue. Given the bulk of this never, ever sees testing, let a lone a PTS environment vs "the entire live game gets to be guinea pigs for bad decisions, suck it", you should really start to understand what is going on. It isn't Clan entitlement (nevermind the folks that want Lore only when it gives them an advantage on both sides obnoxiously); it's really, really bad balancing.

Most won't notice much beyond an already nearly dead mech being... already nearly dead, or asymetrical builds being -a bit- rougher regarding alpha strike cooldowns and needing to be by cover more. But hey. Those "entitled clanners" wanting IS buffs, eh? Congrats. You get to keep garbage IS XLs as a result. Happy?

[Kael Posavatz]

Moebius Pi, on 16 January 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

Seriously. Feel free to dig through the threads discussing it including clanner responses. Personally I'd much rather have seen the IS XL buff anyhow; it opens up a whoooole lot of Mechs into being something more than walking garbage and increases loadout options for many more.

It might leave the STD in the dust, but **** it; I'd rather have more IS options (including a STD engine buff down the road) vs the crap they introduced instead that once again doesn't really do anything positive.

Why buff just the IS XL? Buff the IS XL and the Standard engine. Have the standard come with side/center torso structure armor buff. Say, 30%, maybe more, and suddenly that Atlas gathering cobwebs in the corner of my mechbay will be stomping around QP maps tanking damage All. Day. Long. (okay, maybe not quite that long, but at least it would feel more tankish).

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 17 January 2017 - 12:43 AM.

[Lily from animove]

No, because it makes no sense. it make sense on a level 1 logic not on a level 2 logic.

so 2 wepaon systems using the same slots and tonnage should be equal to one weapn system with the same slots and tonnage? because that is what your logic implies.

How do you balance ammo depenend wepaons? because ins couting QP and FW they require different amounts of ammo.

How do you balance omnimechs with battlemechs who are stuck with fixed equipment they don't need?

What you still do is balance tech, but the issue stays on the mech balance. you can basically do what MW3 did and just allow crosstech and make every mech just a tonnage based hull. The remaining issue then would still be hardpoints and mech geometry.

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 January 2017 - 06:45 AM.

[naterist]

All weights should remain the same, range should be adjusted as follows,

1. Optimal range is the same for like weapons. Ex) erml and ml have optimal range of 300
2. Clans have a max range that is 2 times longer from optimal-max then is. Ex) erml optimal range 600, ml optimal range 450
3. Is has slightly higher damage than clans, decimals like the srm, ex) ml dmg = 5.9, erml dmg = 5

Heat is made equal across the board, however clan heatsinks disipate heat SLIGHTLY slower, but remain smaller.

Xl engines are normalized, with clan xls having a 30% heat/speed nerf to st loss, and IS having 40%speed/heat nerf at st loss, with clan xxle will in the future have %60-%50 heat/speed nerf on st loss, and lfe have 20-10% heat speed nerf on st (upon future inclusion for xxle and lfe)

Bring that out with the new tech in summer (full sets of streaks, uacs, and lbx's for IS, and new stuff too maybe) and balance will be equalized, without sacrificing the unique feel of the two tech sides.

[PhoenixFire55]

No, because if weapon A is inferior to weapon B nobody will be taking A even if it weights less. People will either use B right away or purchase mechs capable of boating B and boat B.

Every weapon is and should be situational, regardless of how much it weights.

[Roadbuster]

Adjusting tech to get more balance makes sense for the game, but it's far from lore then.
Clans always had superior tech till IS catched up a bit. But the main difference was numbers.
A IS Company consists of 12 mechs while a comparable Clan Binary consists of 10 mechs (please correct me if I'm wrong).

So basically Clan mechs have an advantage over IS mechs per ton.
How about giving Clan mechs a tonnage multiplier for matchmaking in single and group queue and making FW 10vs12?
A 50t mech could be considered a 55t mech by the matchmaker for example, reducing the avaliable tonnage for groups with many Clan mechs.
FW would stay the same it is, but Clans would have fewer mechs to drop.
And get rid of the quirks except for the mechs which are in desperate need of some buffs, like structure quirks for example. But get rid of the weapon quirks.

Well, at least I'd like to try that and see how it works. What do you guys think?

[Kmieciu]

Prosperity Park, on 16 January 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

Weapons and equipment that weigh less and take up less space should be inferior to weapons and equipment that are larger and heavier.
Anyone else agree?

That's not even up to debate. This is how original Battletech was designed. This is how any competitive game should be designed.

Unfortunately there is a large number of people who do not want balance, instead they want superior tech to carry them to victory. As evidenced in this thread.

Anyone that proposes a "10 vs 12" mode is either an egocentric (Clanner) or a masochist (IS).

Edited by Kmieciu, 17 January 2017 - 02:56 AM.

[Vellron2005]

Prosperity Park, on 16 January 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

I think that if we could *all* agree on a simple rule, then the entire game would benefit.

I mean ALL agree - new players, old players, BattleTech fans, MechWarrior fans, TT afectionados, folks who never roll dice, Inner Sphere junkies and Clammers alike.

Can we all agree on a rule? Here's my proposal:

Weapons and equipment that weigh less and take up less space should be inferior to weapons and equipment that are larger and heavier.

Now, when I say "should be inferior" I am referring to the summation of all their attributes (range, heat, duration, DPS, upfront damage, etc.), like a Total Picture view.

For example, it would be fine for a 2 slot 2 ton weapon to be more powerful shot-for-shot than a 2 slot 3 ton weapon assuming it's less heat efficient with a very short range and a long cooldown, because that 3 tonner could have a higher DPS and higher range, assuming those gains *more than offset* the higher per-shot damage of the 2 tonner. And an ExtraLight engine that consumes 2 side torso slots should be overall inferior to an ExtraLight engine that consumes 3 side torso slots, because the engine that consumes more slots should be better than an equal-weight engine that consumes fewer slots. [/Example]

Why do I have to make an appeal for this? Because there are thousands of folks who think that *certain* weapons and equipment should be both smaller/lighter AND more powerful... *Cough*ClansFromTableTop*cough*

For the sake of balance and sanity, I think we should all adopt my suggested rule. It would make balancing the game not only easier to balance, but would VASTLY reduce the need for fraction-of-a-second blanket quirkbuffs to IS mechs. It would also require the game to be rethought from the perspective of "Superior Clans vs Inferior IS"

Anyone else agree?

I must admit, I have not read the whole topic, but the OP's post kinda motivated me to write this..

Basically, if I understand correctly.. you wanna make heavier weapons be better overall than light weapons? regardless of ANYTHING?

Ok, so what you're saying is you want an old rotary dial phone to be better than a new smart-phone, regardless of anything..

Kinda not gonna happen dude..

It's a lot more logical history-wise and technology wise that the bigger heavy weapon is less powerful and more difficult to use than a new, lighter, smarter weapon.

In this very fact hides the base premise of your post - you want to simply negate the 300 years of Clan technological development, and equalize the Tomahawk cruise missile with the Native-american tomahawk of old.

No can do bro.. sorry..

I get you tho.. it would be simpler if "bigger was better", but nature and technology don't work that way, and if MWO worked that way, the game and the BT setting would be childish and poorly designed..

P.S.

Ever notice how "ideas" like this one, and the people that agree with them mostly come from the IS side?

Edited by Vellron2005, 17 January 2017 - 03:00 AM.