167 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

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 faction-specific 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?

Edited by Prosperity Park, 17 January 2017 - 08:40 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Yes, agreed.

[TercieI]

In isolation, sure. But the weapons don't exist in isolation. You have two mutually exclusive tech trees (i.e. environments in which the weapons exist), so you have to balance within each of those environments to create overall balance. Now, it hasn't been done very well in MWO (and wasn't in BT either, they "fixed" by using BV, which doesn't really work here), but that's how you have to actually approach balance. You can't compare (for instance) an IS ML and a clan ERML in isolation and say "are they balanced" because they do not exist in isolation (or even interchangeably).

[1453 R]

So...what's the upshot?

Because this seems like a proposal saying "All Clan 'Mechs, gear, and everything else should, in fact, automatically lose all the time in every encounter to Sphere designs of equivalent weight."

I know that's not necessarily what you're getting at, but lemme ask you, man - how do Clan pilots compete when every single piece of gear they have is flat-out inferior to everything their opponents have?

I'm thinking that a version of the game wherein a Clan 70-ton 'Mech meeting a Sphere 70-ton 'Mech, both in their optimal range brackets and with similar levels of build/pilot competence, has a roughly fifty-fifty chance of attaining victory is better than just awarding the win to the Sphere guy.

Yes, the decreased weight/space of Clan gear needs to be offset. But saying "A Clan PPC needs to be worse than a Sphere PPC in every use case because the Sphere guys had to pay an extra ton/slot" is sort of disingenuous, isn't it?

[C E Dwyer]

I look at my smart phone and think of how much more powerful it is, how much more battery life it has etc etc and how very, very much smaller it is, than the 'brick' my Brother in law owned in the 70's and feel this thread will not end well.

It could in theory be used as a balancing tool, it certainly does make more sense as far as missiles go, and ballistic's to a degree, it does fall a bit short as far as energy weapons go

[cazidin]

So my new, sleek laptop should be inferior to a decade old portable brick simply because it's bigger and heavier?

[MacClearly]

I think you are going to bump into the argument that tech gets better and gets smaller. My phone is four or five time more powerful than the first gaming rig I built myself.

I also don't think that the people who are invested in the lore could just go 'oh ok Clans actually have inferior tech...' I am not a lore guy but I actually think that might be unreasonable to ask of the people who are passionate about this game and the rich history of battletech. I mean I made a post that I honestly thought would be innocuous and received reactions to it that made me give up the idea completely.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

Because this seems like a proposal saying "All Clan 'Mechs, gear, and everything else should, in fact, automatically lose all the time in every encounter to Sphere designs of equivalent weight."

I know the next statement you acknowledge that's not what he meant but then why even say this if it isn't an accurate representation? Satire should only really be used in more drastic cases, which this is not. All he is saying that ton for ton (though I'm adding a stipulation, that this tonnage include all dependent equipment like DHS and ammo) all weapons should be of equivalent power. Now of course there are some problems here in that there is a tendency for lighter chassis to have to rely on energy weapons because they need low tonnage weapons to amass enough firepower while heavier mechs have to rely more on ballistics because they need space efficient weapons to have better firepower because energy weapons have diminishing returns.

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

I know that's not necessarily what you're getting at, but lemme ask you, man - how do Clan pilots compete when every single piece of gear they have is flat-out inferior to everything their opponents have?

You carry more of them, or more DHS, ammo, etc to help with the tax on your equipments stats. If you wanna talk about being people being disingenuous you are no better.

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

"A Clan PPC needs to be worse than a Sphere PPC in every use case because the Sphere guys had to pay an extra ton/slot" is sort of disingenuous, isn't it?

When everything else the IS has is also inferior, then yes, he isn't wrong about it needing to be better for that extra slot/ton.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 January 2017 - 04:03 PM.

[RussianWolf]

Cathy, on 16 January 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

I look at my smart phone and think of how much more powerful it is, how much more battery life it has etc etc and how very, very much smaller it is, than the 'brick' my Brother in law owned in the 70's and feel this thread will not end well.

It could in theory be used as a balancing tool, it certainly does make more sense as far as missiles go, and ballistic's to a degree, it does fall a bit short as far as energy weapons go

how much heat did your brother's brick phone generate compared to your new one?

Edited by RussianWolf, 16 January 2017 - 04:08 PM.

[Sjorpha]

1453 R, on 16 January 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

So...what's the upshot?

Because this seems like a proposal saying "All Clan 'Mechs, gear, and everything else should, in fact, automatically lose all the time in every encounter to Sphere designs of equivalent weight."

I know that's not necessarily what you're getting at, but lemme ask you, man - how do Clan pilots compete when every single piece of gear they have is flat-out inferior to everything their opponents have?

I'm thinking that a version of the game wherein a Clan 70-ton 'Mech meeting a Sphere 70-ton 'Mech, both in their optimal range brackets and with similar levels of build/pilot competence, has a roughly fifty-fifty chance of attaining victory is better than just awarding the win to the Sphere guy.

Yes, the decreased weight/space of Clan gear needs to be offset. But saying "A Clan PPC needs to be worse than a Sphere PPC in every use case because the Sphere guys had to pay an extra ton/slot" is sort of disingenuous, isn't it?

Being small and light is part of a weapon's strength.

No one is saying Clan weapons should be inferior.

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

If one weapons weighs 6 tons and takes two crits and another weapons weighs 7 tons and takes 3 crits then the larger and heavier weapons needs to have something that motivates the extra ton ans crit. That is what's needed to make them equally good.

You have to think that if a mech could choose between both weapons, it shouldn't automatically choose the clan version, there should be equally good reasons to choose the IS version. Same for engines, same for heatsinks, same for clan vs IS ECM and BAP etc.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

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.

Probably the best way to state what he is driving at.

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

Now if you'd said, " Any Ammunition based weapon of the same type when stacked above 2, will on occasion jam, and increasingly jam more the higher above this number you go......"

I would agree with you....

Edited by ZippySpeedMonkey, 16 January 2017 - 04:10 PM.

[ProfessorD]

That was a nice attempt, Park. That principle would lead to some good outcomes, like giving Clan SRMs longer cooldowns than IS SRMs (I've never understood why there isn't a bigger difference between them). Once we move away from the clean examples like that, though, this principle just enters the jungle of balance that every other idea has to survive in.

1. What impact does this principle have on Ghost Heat multipliers and limits?

2. What impact does this principle have on hardpoint count and locations for various chassis?

3. One could argue that PGI has actually attempted to implement something like this in some of the heat sink changes. What do you think of their latest, in which Clan DHS were given 1/3 less health than IS DHS? Does that satisfy this principle?

4. Do we need to give IS something that is a clearer equivalent to the Targeting Computer?

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 January 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

I know the next statement you acknowledge that's not what he meant but then why even say this if it isn't an accurate representation? Satire should only really be used in more drastic cases, which this is not. All he is saying that ton for ton (though I'm adding a stipulation, that this tonnage include all dependent equipment like DHS and ammo) all weapons should be of equivalent power. Now of course there are some problems here in that there is a tendency for lighter chassis to have to rely on energy weapons because they need low tonnage weapons to amass enough firepower while heavier mechs have to rely more on ballistics because they need space efficient weapons to have better firepower because energy weapons have diminishing returns.


You carry more of them, or more DHS, ammo, etc to help with the tax on your equipments stats. If you wanna talk about being people being disingenuous you are no better.


When everything else the IS has is also inferior, then yes, he isn't wrong about it needing to be better for that extra slot/ton.

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

Being small and light is part of a weapon's strength.

No one is saying Clan weapons should be inferior.

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

If one weapons weighs 6 tons and takes two crits and another weapons weighs 7 tons and takes 3 crits then the larger and heavier weapons needs to have something that motivates the extra ton ans crit. That is what's needed to make them equally good.

You have to think that if a mech could choose between both weapons, it shouldn't automatically choose the clan version, there should be equally good reasons to choose the IS version. Same for engines, same for heatsinks, same for clan vs IS ECM and BAP etc.

The problem is that this absolute vacuum comparison doesn't really work in practical terms a lot of the time.

The PPC example given, let's say. yes, the Sphere PPC(s) weight an extra ton and take up an extra crit. They should be compensated for that. BUT. But but but but but but but but BUT.

...how often does that extra ton/crit make an enormous difference on the battlefield?

How many Clan 'mechs can effectively run a 4-cERPPC build, for instance? Effectively, mind. I can't really think of one. Neither side really even has a 3-PPC machine that works for spit. The limit is, effectively, two cannons per side. The extra ton/crit the Sphere PPC costs doesn't really take away from anything save supporting gear.

I'm in the boat that believes that uberpowergigamurdernerfing Clan weaponry isn't fair to either side. it doesn't really get to the heart of the issue, and all it does is piss off Clansmen and make Sphere guys feel slightly bad about themselves.

One-for-one, per-ticket item balance doesn't work out all the time. Elsewise what do the Clans get when you guys get your MRMs, Stealth Armor, RACs, and the other massed myriad of new weapons and equipment coming out in the future? The only Clan FutureTech system that might really be worth anything is heavy lasers; we're not going to get ATMs or HAGs, and all the rest of our FutureTech is ultralight weapons that even light 'Mechs don't want/need.

You look at the real problem issues and you solve those. The cERPPC is as runnable as it is solely because of the compact size of the cDHS, yeah? So reinstate the lower heat cap on cDHS, as well as the health reduction. You don't need to make the cERPPC worse in every possible way than the iERPPC; you need to make it so that things carrying cERPPCs don't have any more actual power than things carrying iERPPCs.

Clan ballistics would require a stronger touch, yes, but again, there's ways to compensate for the bulkier, heavier gear without completely sh!tcanning the Clan stuff the way a lot of folks are pushing hard for. Give the iGauss its snapfire back, since it's too heavy to do the giant Gigaspike dual Goose/PPC alphas everyone's so skeered of on the Clan side. Sphere slug cannons are already roughly offset to Clan guns through burstfire; apply the same principle throughout the AC category.

Mechanical differences accentuating moderate number tweaks, not "Clan SRM launchers weigh half of what Sphere ones do and take up less space so they have to be numerically less than half as good", because that results in nothing more than just gutting Clan short-range loadouts to no purpose.

It's the same formulaic approach everyone hates Piranha using all the time. So why should we adopt it harder, hn?

[Tristan Winter]

Agree on whatever you want. Won't change the normalized spreadsheets.

[RestosIII]

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

Being small and light is part of a weapon's strength.

No one is saying Clan weapons should be inferior.

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

If one weapons weighs 6 tons and takes two crits and another weapons weighs 7 tons and takes 3 crits then the larger and heavier weapons needs to have something that motivates the extra ton ans crit. That is what's needed to make them equally good.

You have to think that if a mech could choose between both weapons, it shouldn't automatically choose the clan version, there should be equally good reasons to choose the IS version. Same for engines, same for heatsinks, same for clan vs IS ECM and BAP etc.

But then any mech with low amounts of hardpoints is absolutely ****ed.

[Rofl]

ProfessorD, on 16 January 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

3. One could argue that PGI has actually attempted to implement something like this in some of the heat sink changes. What do you think of their latest, in which Clan DHS were given 1/3 less health than IS DHS? Does that satisfy this principle?

4. Do we need to give IS something that is a clearer equivalent to the Targeting Computer?

3. It is in the right direction, but to what degree it is satisfied is always going to be up for debate because it's not a direct balance.

4. No, so long as the TC is balanced in and of itself. I don't see all clan mechs with TCs, even mechs that mount 100% weapons that would benefit from it. TC is in a good spot, imo.

[Mystere]

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.

The technological advances during the second half of the 20th Century and the first decade of the 21st will be the 800-pound gorillas in the room.

And for crying out loud, why don't you just start your own IP and gaming company already, instead of totally destroying this particular one? <smh>

Edited by Mystere, 16 January 2017 - 04:41 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

The OP lacks an in game example of what Prosperity is proposing.

Give us a detailed breakdown of what you'd consider balanced, using what we currently have on hand.

[Accused]

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.

No.