51 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Notensack, on 17 January 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

A 40% reduction in cooling and 50% reduction in armament versus a 100% reduction in armament. Nope not getting any closer to balanced.

but before that 100% reduction in armament(im assuming your talking about IS-XLs)
it comes with 20% more Armor and 30% more Agility,
Edit-

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 17 January 2017 - 02:36 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Kyrs, on 17 January 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

With the new heat penalty "clan xl side torso destruction -40% heat dissipation). We are getting much closer to balance and I must congratulate the INCREMENTAL fine tuning balance approach.

This may have been addressed already but, wouldn't an incremental approach be one wherein they did something like 5% instead of 40% and then kept upping or lowering as needed over some period of time and based on their oh so effective analysis of real in game data?

Wouldn't an incremental change be doing something like giving a slight buff (or though I hate even suggesting it in a hypothetical) a nerf to something and then monitoring performance over time (as they claim to constantly be doing)?

Sorry, but PGI doesn't do incremental. Rather, they do broad brush lets affect a lot of stuff all at once in a big way while mucking with underlying game mechanics to screw up as much as possible simultaneously with no thought to down stream consequences and wait for the community to tell us just how broken what we just did is and then go from there, kinds of change. But incremental change? Not so much.

[50 50]

Kyrs, on 17 January 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

With the new heat penalty "clan xl side torso destruction -40% heat dissipation). We are getting much closer to balance and I must congratulate the INCREMENTAL fine tuning balance approach. (But it feel painfully slow)

With the clan XL Nerfing pushed pretty much to it limits. The next phase should be center in the Std engine and it IS XL.

The community seem very divided on the IS XL issues. We want CLAN and IS to retain each factions flavor, but many "feels" like there IS XL should survive. There aren't many ways to make the IS XL survive the lost of a torso and still follow the 3 engine crit rules. We a left with only one Option ; Delayed destruction similar to the ammo explosion. This time delay can increase in increment until MWO GOD is happy, and 4 or more engine crits would be an instant destruction.

This option could be inserted in the new mech skill tree. The mech is still destroyed and still follow Mechwarrior rule. We already have the nice looking special effect from the ammo explosion.

We are left with the STD engine that doesn't seem to give enough survival, mainly due to pin point nature of MWO. Zombie mech don't have much value in MWO. A bonus structure do to the size of the engine is required.

This bonus could also be part of the skill tree. exemple : bonus CT structure = engine size divide by 20.

With these changes the quicks could have a minor reductions IF it is required.

VOILA!

I'll disagree with the delayed death idea.
At the moment it feels very unrealistic to put shot after shot into an open section of armour and not have that section be destroyed.
Should the torso with an isXL engine be destroyed, it would feel more like a bug or a cheat should the mech keep moving and fighting while missing the entire torso.

The current argument of the month is the difference between the isXL and cXL but I believe it to be an incorrect comparison.
With the skill tree and new tech on the way, the landscape is going to change significantly. We are better off comparing the cXL to the Light Fusion and I see no reason why this engine would not be introduced with the new tech. Hopefully we will also see the compact engine introduced.

It is going to provide a choice and different customization options for IS mechs that are not currently possible and at that point it will hopefully be easier to look at the differences and find a balance.

[MechaBattler]

Fierostetz, on 17 January 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

I'm not saying "just git gud", simply that continually rebalancing isn't doing the game any good. At some point they need to put a pin in it and stop making changes to foundational mechanics. I support the idea of implementing changes on a weekend, for example - throw things at the wall and see what sticks - but that's not what happens. What happens is someone on the development or balance end of something says "we're making this change that will revolutionize everything", then implements it and thats what we get. I like how Blizzard does things with Overwatch - they change little things in the game, say they're doing so, and gather stats. Heck, it could even be used to make things *more* fun, but it doesn't wind up that way. It's... a lack of objective project management.



They're not supposed to be the same - the IS XL is *supposed* to be high risk high reward. If you get mowed super quick running an IS XL, stop peeking.

Sorry, but no. This is an online PVP game. They promised us balance and that's what some of us want.

Also if it just delays destruction, it is still high risk, high reward. The mech would die anyway. I'm suggesting that it be a few seconds. In the face of focused fire, you wouldn't live much longer anyway. But it would make things closer to even when coordinated teams face off. Since a Clan mech can't last any longer under focused fire.

Clans getting all the reward and little risk seems pretty unbalanced to me.

[Lily from animove]

how about making is XL survive a ST destruction but then 100% damage transfer?

if balance was so often done with pointing to FW, I start to wonder how IS argues now with the current FW state.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 January 2017 - 02:19 AM.

[El Bandito]

Kyrs, on 17 January 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

There aren't many ways to make the IS XL survive the lost of a torso and still follow the 3 engine crit rules.

SCREW THE 3 ENGINE CRIT RULE. This is not a table top game. Just make it both survivable. IS XL will still take three slots per ST, making it unique enough.

Edited by El Bandito, 18 January 2017 - 02:18 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Lily from animove, on 18 January 2017 - 02:13 AM, said:

how about making is XL survive a ST destruction but then 100% damage transfer?

currently its 50% - so when IS XL is 100% damage transfer - make it 83% for Clan

btw - can we keep the arm, when ST is destroyed? Because this is not TT

Edited by Karl Streiger, 18 January 2017 - 02:21 AM.

[Lily from animove]

El Bandito, on 18 January 2017 - 02:16 AM, said:

SCREW THE 3 ENGINE CRIT RULE. This is not a table top game. Just make it both survivable. IS XL will still take three slots per ST, making it unique enough.

yes whats the point of it, Xl's on IS side will still blow up when one is gone, and how pften do you REALLY crit out anything of a ST? superrarely. On most clanmechs this wouldn'T happen when their structure on ST is low. and on most assaults the 3crit rule rule would even make them survive shorter when their STD's get critted out by some ballistics like Ac5's as they cna only hit Engine in most cases.

Karl Streiger, on 18 January 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

currently its 50% - so when IS XL is 100% damage transfer - make it 83% for Clan

btw - can we keep the arm, when ST is destroyed? Because this is not TT

interesting idea if clan XL would be more damage transfer. It would make twisting then more challanging as you cnannot utilise the 50% on the broken ST as well as before and may reduce the CT HP to act like another ST.

keeping the arm doesn't makes sense a destroyed CT basically mean sstructure is destroyed too, so there would be nothing left the arm is attached to properly. Also it may imbalance mechs depending on humanoid vs nose shape as humanoids can still utilize the arm well to shield.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 January 2017 - 02:24 AM.

[El Bandito]

Lily from animove, on 18 January 2017 - 02:21 AM, said:

yes whats the point of it, Xl's on IS side will still blow up when one is gone, and how pften do you REALLY crit out anything of a ST? superrarely. On most clanmechs this wouldn'T happen when their structure on ST is low. and on most assaults the 3crit rule rule would even make them survive shorter when their STD's get critted out by some ballistics like Ac5's as they cna only hit Engine in most cases.

The point is PGI is following the stupid 3 crit rule, which made IS XL so fragile in the first place. PGI should discard it and just make both XLs survivable. In this game people can focus all their fire onto a single section, they do not roll dice for random chance of hitting. It only makes sense.

Edited by El Bandito, 18 January 2017 - 02:25 AM.

[Lupis Volk]

El Bandito, on 18 January 2017 - 02:24 AM, said:

The point is PGI is following the stupid 3 crit rule, which made IS XL so fragile in the first place. PGI should discard it and just make both XLs survivable. In this game people can focus all their fire onto a single section, they do not roll dice for random chance of hitting. It only makes sense.

Not only would that help many IS builds needed for FW, it'd also help out IS Omni's when we get them.

[Clit Beastwood]

El Bandito, on 18 January 2017 - 02:16 AM, said:

SCREW THE 3 ENGINE CRIT RULE. This is not a table top game. Just make it both survivable. IS XL will still take three slots per ST, making it unique enough.

ha! remember this thread?
CORERULE IGNORE

Edited by Fierostetz, 18 January 2017 - 12:41 PM.

[Mystere]

Can we please just once and for all dump the IP, change names, and then balance to your heart's delight?

Edited by Mystere, 18 January 2017 - 01:42 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 18 January 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Can we please just once and for all dump the IP, change names, and then balance to your heart's delight?

Perfect

Shooty Stompy Robots, here we come!

[Lily from animove]

Mcgral18, on 18 January 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

Perfect

Shooty Stompy Robots, here we come!

the rompy stompy pew pew game.

[Clit Beastwood]

Mcgral18, on 18 January 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

Perfect

Shooty Stompy Robots, here we come!

if they change it to shooty stompy robots, I had better get my gosh darned tuxedo paint for my atlas..
I WANT AN ATLAS THAT LOOKS LIKE ODDJOB!

[Hit the Deck]

Mystere, on 18 January 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Can we please just once and for all dump the IP, change names, and then balance to your heart's delight?

Yes, please create a new IP for a PvP FPS 'Mech game with at minimum, MWO's level of customization.

Although originally meant for a tabletop game, the BT franchise at least provides you with a lot of background material. This endeavour would be a monumental task.

I'll give you bonus point if you could make the weapons behave more believably/realistically (e.g. kilometers of optimal range) and the overall feeling of the game to be more sim-like.

[Appogee]

I play IS and Clan equally.

Clan is still a good deal easier to win with. The XL engine is a contributing factor, but I'd rate the ability to min/max hardpoints, and lower tonnage equipment as being the bigger advantages. They provide much higher DPS or PPFLD, often at superior ranges.

I don't see how it's possible to balance IS for the advantages of Clan Tech. Maybe massive armor or structure buffs.

[mogs01gt]

by the time we get there, clans will be neutered.

[Comante]

I'm only few month into the game, and just stepping my feet in the "mud" of faction war. Being online multiplayer, I think the stuff should be balanced somehow. But, differently from what I read in the various forum, it is not the tech that I would balance. The background of this game is that Clans are technologically more evolved, that is a fact, and I don't think there is need to change that. But in warfare, when we see factions sporting different technological levels, I expect to see the most expensive equipment far less than the cheaper one. Is just a matter of what money can buy. In the game, we could already do that, we know exactly how much each mech costs. In faction war, we should see IS and CLAN put on the battlefield roughly the same amount of money, if that would mean that IS can deploy 48 mechs, while Clan just 30 .. then it's up to clans adapt: are they going to fight in minority report (that should be expected too for an invading force) or should they field less advanced mech to be able to have more?
Maybe this is a dumb idea, but I think there are several table wargames that do something similar. I remember when we played battletech we used budget to even mechs, not weight... we decided the maximum cost of the mechs we could play with... just that.

[R Valentine]

Kyrs, on 17 January 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

With the new heat penalty "clan xl side torso destruction -40% heat dissipation). We are getting much closer to balance and I must congratulate the INCREMENTAL fine tuning balance approach. (But it feel painfully slow)

With the clan XL Nerfing pushed pretty much to it limits. The next phase should be center in the Std engine and it IS XL.

The community seem very divided on the IS XL issues. We want CLAN and IS to retain each factions flavor, but many "feels" like there IS XL should survive. There aren't many ways to make the IS XL survive the lost of a torso and still follow the 3 engine crit rules. We a left with only one Option ; Delayed destruction similar to the ammo explosion. This time delay can increase in increment until MWO GOD is happy, and 4 or more engine crits would be an instant destruction.

This option could be inserted in the new mech skill tree. The mech is still destroyed and still follow Mechwarrior rule. We already have the nice looking special effect from the ammo explosion.

We are left with the STD engine that doesn't seem to give enough survival, mainly due to pin point nature of MWO. Zombie mech don't have much value in MWO. A bonus structure do to the size of the engine is required.

This bonus could also be part of the skill tree. exemple : bonus CT structure = engine size divide by 20.

With these changes the quicks could have a minor reductions IF it is required.

VOILA!

MWO doesn't even use the 3 crit rule, so stop using that as an excuse. XL engines just make IS mechs obnoxiously squishy. It never should have been a thing in the first place. Adding clan just hammered that point home. Then they did the genius move of making all FW clan vs. IS and now queue times are in the hours. Gee, I wonder why no one wants to play IS? Std. engines gimp everything about your mech. Turn speed, foot speed, twist speed, fire power. You name it, Std. engine kills it. "Delayed" kills are a stupid idea. Just make the IS penalty to losing a side torso harsher. Anything else is just going to continue the current trend of IS mediocrity.