426 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Smell Da Glove, on 21 January 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:

Just out of curiosity what is the general consensus for XL balance?

I see a lot of people saying that they need to be balanced but I don't see a lot of suggestions. The only suggestion I see is to have isXLs not resulting in death on a side torso loss. So it's only real draw back would be the extra CRIT slot then?

Why isn't balance with STD engines a real consideration for most people?

I see a lot of the meta builds use an XL regardless of the vulnerability it adds to a mech. I get that you want heavier higher damage dealing weapons but I've had decent success in some Mechs by compromising on both speed and fire power for tankiness.

I get that people want as fast and as hard hitting as possible but shouldn't there be a trade off for that?

Clan Omnimechs have locked engines and certain locked components, thats one of their draw backs. Being able to just change around the Mechs hard points to your liking is a pretty big advantage. Even more so once you don't need 3 Mechs to master a mech. I mean the quick hard hitting nature of clan Mechs in game is hard to deny but it just seems to me that any time they do anything people complain.

If an IS mech is quirked into being competitive everyone complains that it is too strong and needs to be nerfed but if a clan mech is nerfed people complain and say that the correct solution is to buff other Mechs (see beginning of sentence for how that goes over). I feel like there is no happy solution without people flipping out. IS stuff is heavier, does less damage, has less range, are hotter but "it needs balanced and things need to be even" but when that's an attempt the general feeling is "but not too even".

What is "fair" what is "balanced" for XL engines?
What penalty should there be for a clan losing its side torso?
What would make isXL acceptable?
Why is the added survivability of an STD add not part of the equation of speed, tankiness, firepower?
If clan Mechs dropped after losing a side torso would the only reason that would be "unfair" is because of the locked engine?
Is that "unfair" because an IS mech that has to take an XL to be viable still has the option to take a terrible option?
An IS mech has locked hard points, a clan Omni doesn't, does that not justify a locked engine and some other locked components?

I've been playing table top and the other mechwarrior games for a really long time so I'm just going to assume that my mind is too adjusted to how things are and have been to really understand where the complaints are coming from so I'm asking in all seriousness. I'm work in the mental health field and basically when I work with a client and I don't get where they are coming from I spend a lot of time trying to grasp where they are coming from before proceeding with any intervention or any attempt at help. Guess I'm trying the same thing here.....

The TT has random hit location while MWO has pinpoint convergence. This is the biggest difference on why ISXL engines are not properly balanced.

There are really two aspects to this conversation. The first is what role should standard engines have. The second is balancing CXL against ISXL.

I'll start with the XL conversation first. It doesn't really matter how many negative penalities you give CXL engines if the mech is still functional after losing a side torso. 90% more heat when firing is still better off than ISXL causing the mech to be dead. What needs to happen is the ISXL can survive losing a ST the same way as a CXL. It's just that simple. There are several ways this could be done such as making the ISXL only take two slots, making the ISXL require four crit hits before exploding, or putting one of the ISXL ST engine slots into a protected status so it can't die if the torso is lost. Of course the ISXL would have to get some drawbacks for losing a ST similar to CXL. In fact I would say the heat/movement penalties should hurt more because of Clan tech advantage. That's easy though because at least you aren't dying to a single ST loss so you're still in the fight even if you are weakened.

The other question is how do they make STD engines worth using. Losing crit slots isn't a huge problem when you are gaining a substantial weight reduction. This is why XL engines are so popular. Which means there has to be some kind of quirk added to standard engines to make them more desirable. A very easy change would be to make STD engines run cooler than XL. So an XL engine could generate 15% more heat compared to a STD engine. This would mean laser builds would probably favor STD engines while ballistic go XL. Another option would be to reduce the amount of armor the CT can support when an XL engine is mounted. Lets say a STD engine CT could mount 50 points of armor but mounting an XL engine could only support 42 points of armor.

In the end there are several options for balance but they all require stepping away from lore and making game balance more important. After all, they've already stepped away from lore by allowing the accuracy and convergence we see in the game.

Edited by Ruar, 21 January 2017 - 06:08 PM.

[Weepy Wanebow]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 21 January 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

Basically... coupled with the fact that Engine Crits do NOT exist just like Gyros do NOT exist. So cXL engines do not die as a result of "3 Engine Crits" yet is XL engines do. That is unfair

Gyros do exist just differently then they do in TT. They still take up crit slots one you add an engine and say "gyro". Because mechs don't have a chance of falling over they dont serve much purpose ither then taking up slots. With that said. Would a chnage of an "engine crit" help balance things? If you had a chance (say 15% or higher) of taking an engine hit when shot in a torso containing an engine with no armor? If that engine hit say caused a 20% increase in heat and a 15% decrease in speed? Does that make the playing field more fair even with IS dropping after losing a ST? Or do Mechs become too fragile with any engine to matter and destroy the game?

Edited by Smell Da Glove, 21 January 2017 - 06:25 PM.

[Ruar]

Smell Da Glove, on 21 January 2017 - 06:23 PM, said:

Gyros do exist just differently then they do in TT. They still take up crit slots one you add an engine and say "gyro". Because mechs don't have a chance of falling over they dont serve much purpose ither then taking up slots. With that said. Would a chnage of an "engine crit" help balance things? If you had a chance (say 15% or higher) of taking an engine hit when shot in a torso containing an engine with no armor? If that engine hit say caused a 20% increase in heat and a 15% decrease in speed? Does that make the playing field more fair even with IS dropping after losing a ST? Or do Mechs become too fragile with any engine to matter and destroy the game?

I don't think that would work because it would make taking damage too risky. We'd see more people hanging back instead of engaging making the game very stagnant.

See my reply above yours for suggested changes.

[Weepy Wanebow]

Ruar, on 21 January 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

What needs to happen is the ISXL can survive losing a ST the same way as a CXL. It's just that simple.

First i would like to thank you for replying with some detail. I can dyart to see where youbare coming from.

However,

Why is it that isXL change to be like the clan and still be alive and not the other way and clan mechs die which is better balance? Especially if you are trying to help balance STD engines??

Ruar, on 21 January 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

Of course the ISXL would have to get some drawbacks for losing a ST similar to CXL. In fact I would say the heat/movement penalties should hurt more because of Clan tech advantage.

if balance is what you are really looking for then why wouod you have their penalty be more significant. Isn't the argument that the clans should have a technological advantage inherently based in lore? Os it worth holding onto if it hurts balance by penalizing one side more?

Ruar, on 21 January 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

In the end there are several options for balance but they all require stepping away from lore and making game balance more important.

i actually like some of yoir suggestions for difference between STD and XL engines and think they would be worth exploring however, didnt one of your earlier argument basicallly justify itself by having at the very least a soft foundation on lore?

Ruar, on 21 January 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

After all, they've already stepped away from lore by allowing the accuracy and convergence we see in the game.

I'm gonna argue that this is actually what has made this game a twitch FPS instead of a simulator like mechwarrior originally was and that balancing things is easier as a simulator then a FPS. If i had made the game, arm mounted weapons would be able to converge pretty closly but not exactly to the same point. Torso mounted weapons would shoot pretty much straight out from their hardpoint mounts. They would converge by no more then 10 or 15 degrees at best. The aiming reticle would still have the little arm circle but now there would be 2. The torse reticle would be a decent sized circle with a few "X" placed around that circle showing where the various torso mounted weapons are firing.

[MovinTarget]

Carl Vickers, on 21 January 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

Full respect Movin but I was responding to the post above me, not getting into a convergence chat, was letting him know why lore really doesnt work to well in a FPS which isnt rulled by 'da dice'

Fair enough because i would agree that converting a TT game to rts ain't as easy as some seem to think....

[Weepy Wanebow]

Ruar, on 21 January 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

I don't think that would work because it would make taking damage too risky. We'd see more people hanging back instead of engaging making the game very stagnant.

See my reply above yours for suggested changes.

saw it, thanks! Already shot some follow up questions. I definitely can see that. You already see people being pretty timid from time to time so having random engine crits or lord forbid taking a lot of damage knocking you over and that chance increasing with "gyro crits" leading to "MechWarrior Online: loiterer edition"

Edited by Smell Da Glove, 21 January 2017 - 06:56 PM.

[MovinTarget]

Smell, the peoblem is that while your idea makes sense, i am not sure its the game people want to play...

[Ruar]

Smell Da Glove, on 21 January 2017 - 06:50 PM, said:

First i would like to thank you for replying with some detail. I can dyart to see where youbare coming from.

However,

Why is it that isXL change to be like the clan and still be alive and not the other way and clan mechs die which is better balance? Especially if you are trying to help balance STD engines??


if balance is what you are really looking for then why wouod you have their penalty be more significant. Isn't the argument that the clans should have a technological advantage inherently based in lore? Os it worth holding onto if it hurts balance by penalizing one side more?

i actually like some of yoir suggestions for difference between STD and XL engines and think they would be worth exploring however, didnt one of your earlier argument basicallly justify itself by having at the very least a soft foundation on lore?





I'm gonna argue that this is actually what has made this game a twitch FPS instead of a simulator like mechwarrior originally was and that balancing things is easier as a simulator then a FPS. If i had made the game, arm mounted weapons would be able to converge pretty closly but not exactly to the same point. Torso mounted weapons would shoot pretty much straight out from their hardpoint mounts. They would converge by no more then 10 or 15 degrees at best. The aiming reticle would still have the little arm circle but now there would be 2. The torse reticle would be a decent sized circle with a few "X" placed around that circle showing where the various torso mounted weapons are firing.

First, thank you for the response. To answer.

Dying to a single ST loss is a pretty big penalty and makes advancing or brawling a bad choice. There is no way to bounce or diffuse shots in this game so we are reliant on attrition. The more attrition we can afford the longer the fights last and the more fun we have. This is why I don't like the idea of making the CXL as weak as the ISXL. Dying fast isn't fun and having some skill to spread damage should be rewarded with longer life on the battlefield.

The reason I think the ISXL should have a higher penalty for damage is because of the differences already made in clan and IS weapons/quirks. Instead of trying to rebalance all of the weapons and such it would be easier to simply offset IS weapon themes with higher engine penalty.

Lore has it's place and while it can't be adhered to completely it definitely has to be a consideration. It's what makes this game unique and not just a copy of WoT with mechs.

I think if they added convergence like you said we would see a lot of people leaving the game. People want to hit what they shoot at and having an RNG is not fun. I played WoT for years and it was always troubling to know my shots could miss simply because of RNG.

[Righter8]

I'll lay out a plan for "fair and equal" design:
Each Light Mech will:
Weigh 30 tons
Be able to take 100 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 20 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 100 kph

Each Medium Mech will:
Weigh 50 tons
Be able to take 150 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 35 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 75 kph

Each Heavy Mech will:
Weigh 70 tons
Be able to take 225 points of damage before being destroyed
Do points of 60 damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 50 kph

Each Assault Mech will:
Weigh 90 tons
Be able to take 340 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 100 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 25 kph

BTW, "alpha strike" is not optional, each time you fire, its with all weapons and no over heating. There; nice and equal and fair. As players, we just have to choose which weight we want to play and no more concern about loadouts, heat management, armor distribution, or anything else that may make the game appear to be unbalanced. Maybe a tweak to one or two of the 3 possible traits, but finding a balance point should be pretty easy and make everyone happy. That is what everyone wants right? Things balanced out to the point where it doesn't make any difference what you play? Just like every other failed MMO game that's done the same? I'd list the ones I've played that have done this, but why make this longer?

I have to say that I'm not happy with a lot of the changes I've seen in the few months I've been playing, but I still play. If I start getting the same feel for MWO like I have for the above, not-mentioned MMO's, I will stop. Others will too. I'm trusting PGI will make it's decisions carefully before implementing them and correct any mistakes in judgement as soon as it sees those mistakes.
However, if i see the FP Clan dropdeck drop to 100 tons VS. IS dropdeck of 400, I am outta here.

GL/HF <0

[Ruar]

Righter8, on 21 January 2017 - 07:09 PM, said:

I'll lay out a plan for "fair and equal" design:
Each Light Mech will:
Weigh 30 tons
Be able to take 100 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 20 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 100 kph

Each Medium Mech will:
Weigh 50 tons
Be able to take 150 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 35 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 75 kph

Each Heavy Mech will:
Weigh 70 tons
Be able to take 225 points of damage before being destroyed
Do points of 60 damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 50 kph

Each Assault Mech will:
Weigh 90 tons
Be able to take 340 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 100 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 25 kph

BTW, "alpha strike" is not optional, each time you fire, its with all weapons and no over heating. There; nice and equal and fair. As players, we just have to choose which weight we want to play and no more concern about loadouts, heat management, armor distribution, or anything else that may make the game appear to be unbalanced. Maybe a tweak to one or two of the 3 possible traits, but finding a balance point should be pretty easy and make everyone happy. That is what everyone wants right? Things balanced out to the point where it doesn't make any difference what you play? Just like every other failed MMO game that's done the same? I'd list the ones I've played that have done this, but why make this longer?

I have to say that I'm not happy with a lot of the changes I've seen in the few months I've been playing, but I still play. If I start getting the same feel for MWO like I have for the above, not-mentioned MMO's, I will stop. Others will too. I'm trusting PGI will make it's decisions carefully before implementing them and correct any mistakes in judgement as soon as it sees those mistakes.
However, if i see the FP Clan dropdeck drop to 100 tons VS. IS dropdeck of 400, I am outta here.

GL/HF <0

Lol, nope that is not what players want. They do want it so that one faction's loss of side torso isn't a gigantic weak point while the other's is just an inconvenience.

Nice exaggeration though, almost worthy of being labeled strawman.

[Weepy Wanebow]

Ruar, on 21 January 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

First, thank you for the response. To answer.

Dying to a single ST loss is a pretty big penalty and makes advancing or brawling a bad choice. There is no way to bounce or diffuse shots in this game so we are reliant on attrition. The more attrition we can afford the longer the fights last and the more fun we have. This is why I don't like the idea of making the CXL as weak as the ISXL. Dying fast isn't fun and having some skill to spread damage should be rewarded with longer life on the battlefield.

The reason I think the ISXL should have a higher penalty for damage is because of the differences already made in clan and IS weapons/quirks. Instead of trying to rebalance all of the weapons and such it would be easier to simply offset IS weapon themes with higher engine penalty.

Lore has it's place and while it can't be adhered to completely it definitely has to be a consideration. It's what makes this game unique and not just a copy of WoT with mechs.

I think if they added convergence like you said we would see a lot of people leaving the game. People want to hit what they shoot at and having an RNG is not fun. I played WoT for years and it was always troubling to know my shots could miss simply because of RNG.

Those are all good points. I see where you are coming from. I could get behind that I think actually. And actually the RNG is one of the main reasons i couldn't get into WoT. I felt like over all my abilities were motigated in certain ways.

I think that current balance becomes harder when considering a timeline advances of any kind. If the announced advance is a soft 3067, they may introduce XL gyros and small cockpits. They really woul5dnt have any downside (aside from no free center torso slots with the xl gyro). If they do go that far, the mix of xl gyro, light engine, and small cockpit is weight wise about the same as an cXL engine and takes the same space in the side torso. On mechs with no center torso mounts this wouldnt be too bad and a decent option.

I know we aren't there yet and may never be but if i was a game developer and was considering even the slightest chance of periodic time jumps i would worry about losing any wiggle room later on. I know the primary concern has to be the current balance and not the balance of a hypothetical tomorrow and i like some of your suggestions, especially since you helped me kind of get where you are coming from and gave me points and context to consider.

Hopefully they take some careful consideration aftrr all the adjustments coming up and consider something along the lines you have outlined. I think it would be worth exploring at the very least

[SoulReaver7500]

Some of these are stupid. Clan bots take a 20% reduction in speed as well as 20% increase in heat now with the loss of a torso. Jack it to 40% and it isn't even worth playing

[Tarl Cabot]

Smell Da Glove, on 21 January 2017 - 06:54 PM, said:

saw it, thanks! Already shot some follow up questions. I definitely can see that. You already see people being pretty timid from time to time so having random engine crits or lord forbid taking a lot of damage knocking you over and that chance increasing with "gyro crits" leading to "MechWarrior Online: loiterer edition"

First, it is good to review the 3 engine crit/death from TT (boardgame) using dice/probabilities. Adding engine shielding to the side torso added crit possibilities once the armor was gone, except for the rare times of getting a crit w/armor still available. If a mech was engine crit to death, very rarely were any torso sections completely destroyed. Since it is a boardgame, there is no reason to change that rule when isXL (aka Star League) or cXL were added.

Transfer that to a FPS game, things have to change for playability and gameplay. Use the TT as a guideline but many things should not be transfer directly as it represents a different setting.

• STD engine - 6 crit slots - 1st crit/5heat, 2nd crit/10heat, 3rd crit/destroyed - 3/6 is 50% of the engine/shielding
  
• isXL engine - 12 crit slots - see above - 3/12 is 25% shielding. Again though probabilities using 2x 6sided dice.
  
• cXL engine - 10 crit slots - see above - 2/10 is 20% shielding

If PGI were to go to an actual engine crit system, I believe PGI would have to change how the engine shielding is viewed. It should not be viewed as a single component per torso but as each slot being its own component with its own hitpoints. And there is nothing saying PGI HAS TO stick with 3 engine crits rule. PGI could use 4 crits and would fit in with the current cXL paradigm. An isXL could lose one side torso, and provided it has not had any other engine crits yet, would survive until the next one. The same for the cXL, it could lose a side torso, then have an engine crit in the other ST then the last one in the CT. Each side would have different penalty percentages.


That would be using the TT as a guideline and keep with the flavor. But using the TT penalty as a hard set rule with the isXL while allowing the cXL to survive until it has lost at least 4 engine slots w/2 ST or 8 w/ST and CT is not conductive to providing a solid foundation to build everything else off of.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 21 January 2017 - 07:36 PM.

[Weepy Wanebow]

Tarl Cabot, on 21 January 2017 - 07:30 PM, said:

First, it is good to review the 3 engine crit/death from TT (boardgame) using dice/probabilities. Adding engine shielding to the side torso added crit possibilities once the armor was gone, except for the rare times of getting a crit w/armor still available. If a mech was engine crit to death, very rarely were any torso sections completely destroyed. Since it is a boardgame, there is no reason to change that rule when isXL (aka Star League) or cXL were added.

Transfer that to a FPS game, things have to change for playability and gameplay. Use the TT as a guideline but many things should not be transfer directly as it represents a different setting.

• STD engine - 6 crit slots - 1st crit/5heat, 2nd crit/10heat, 3rd crit/destroyed - 3/6 is 50% of the engine/shielding
  
• isXL engine - 12 crit slots - see above - 3/12 is 25% shielding. Again though probabilities using 2x 6sided dice.
  
• cXL engine - 10 crit slots - see above - 2/10 is 20% shielding

If PGI were to go to an actual engine crit system, I believe PGI would have to change how the engine shielding is viewed. It should not be viewed as a single component per torso but as each slot being its own component with its own hitpoints. And there is nothing saying PGI HAS TO stick with 3 engine crits rule. PGI could use 4 crits and would fit in with the current cXL paradigm. An isXL could lose one side torso, and provided it has not had any other engine crits yet, would survive until the next one. The same for the cXL, it could lose a side torso, then have an engine crit in the other ST then the last one in the CT. Each side would have different penalty percentages.


That would be using the TT as a guideline and keep with the flavor. But using the TT penalty as a hard set rule with the isXL while allowing the cXL to survive until it has lost at least 4 engine slots w/2 ST or 8 w/ST and CT is not conductive to providing a solid foundation to build everything else off of.

what percentage of a chance would you suggest that internal damage possibly do an engine crit?

[Arkhangel]

You know, in all honesty, if we get light fusion engines in the summer, that'll solve the whole "clan XL vs IS XL" problem.

IS Light fusion act the same way as Clan XLs, are a bit heavier than IS XLs, yes, but they're still faster (and more expensive) than IS standards.

and it's not like we're not at the tech level they show up given what else we're probably getting this summer (IS tech II at least, Light Gauss, all the UACs/LB-X/Streaks, maybe even MG arrays)

[Tarl Cabot]

Smell Da Glove, on 21 January 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

what percentage of a chance would you suggest that internal damage possibly do an engine crit?

Understand, in TT when a component was crit, most were disabled. Exceptions were engine (3), gyro and sensors (2). PGI made most of the components w/10 hitpoints, regardless of how many slots it takes up. cDHS and Gauss Rifles have less than 10HP. If PGI actually has relevant data, then start off at 10-12.5HP for each slot.

[ingramli]

Arkhangel, on 21 January 2017 - 07:44 PM, said:

You know, in all honesty, if we get light fusion engines in the summer, that'll solve the whole "clan XL vs IS XL" problem.

IS Light fusion act the same way as Clan XLs, are a bit heavier than IS XLs, yes, but they're still faster (and more expensive) than IS standards.

and it's not like we're not at the tech level they show up given what else we're probably getting this summer (IS tech II at least, Light Gauss, all the UACs/LB-X/Streaks, maybe even MG arrays)

on IS vs Clan competition level, the LFE may partially solve the issue, but itself does not solve the problem of STD or isXL, just like there is little reason for a non-omni clan mech to put a STD engine on it, regardless when the LFE will become available, the STD and isXL need some buff, or they will be sort of ancient tech which virtually no reason to exist, just like the single heat sink 's position now, it had no real use in any competition intensive game.

[Tarl Cabot]

Arkhangel, on 21 January 2017 - 07:44 PM, said:

You know, in all honesty, if we get light fusion engines in the summer, that'll solve the whole "clan XL vs IS XL" problem.

IS Light fusion act the same way as Clan XLs, are a bit heavier than IS XLs, yes, but they're still faster (and more expensive) than IS standards.

and it's not like we're not at the tech level they show up given what else we're probably getting this summer (IS tech II at least, Light Gauss, all the UACs/LB-X/Streaks, maybe even MG arrays)

It will not solve it based on the road PGI is traveling, nor does allowing isXL to continue to be fragile make good gameplay or player understanding. Take a new player, who has gotten enough c-bills by playing Clan trial mechs but due to the expense he opts for his first IS mech and equips it. He purchases an isXL engine but then founds out that he is a walking coffin. If he even considers paying cash or getting MC to purchase MC only IS mechs, he will likely stay away from IS mechs, especially those w/isXL engines equipped mechs, especially the non-energy mechs that require an isXL mech, or he goes Clan, seeing that they can live through the loss of one side torso.

Of course, you do not see PGI pumping out IS assault mechs, the mechs have been primarily heavies, mostly energy boats with a few ballistic/missile variants. And if PGI does get to the point to bring in IS omnis, no amount of "quirks" is going to make them favorable. Look at the outcry of simply the Warhammer losing average 6 structure/armor points per section, and many were already running it with a STD.

ingramli, on 21 January 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

on IS vs Clan competition level, the LFE may partially solve the issue, but itself does not solve the problem of STD or isXL, just like there is little reason for a non-omni clan mech to put a STD engine on it, regardless when the LFE will become available, the STD and isXL need some buff, or they will be sort of ancient tech which virtually no reason to exist, just like the single heat sink 's position now, it had no real use in any competition intensive game.

STD and SHS becoming obsolete is okay though except for a few outliers that will still use STD. Mechs with those two components are generally what the Clans faced when they plowed their way from the Periphery into the IS. For energy boats, the STD gives the option of negating any heat/movement penalties while a LFE will benefit those mechs with low engine caps that can not use all the weight savings of an isXL or those fitting AC20/UAC5/etc in a side torso. The SHS and STD will still there for the 3025 crowd/games, and in a game with no real economics, tis a wash.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 21 January 2017 - 09:00 PM.

[SilentWolff]

PGI CLARIFICATION NEEDED:

Surprised this hasnt been mentioned already, but the Summoner Prime and M RA, you have listed as 10% to ER PPC velocity, both current and new. The Prime and M RA actually has 30% to PPC velocity currently. So has this been nerfed down to 10%, or is it a misprint and the 30% to velocity will remain?

Edited by SilentWolff, 21 January 2017 - 11:52 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Righter8, on 21 January 2017 - 07:09 PM, said:

I'll lay out a plan for "fair and equal" design:
Each Light Mech will:
Weigh 30 tons
Be able to take 100 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 20 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 100 kph

Each Medium Mech will:
Weigh 50 tons
Be able to take 150 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 35 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 75 kph

Each Heavy Mech will:
Weigh 70 tons
Be able to take 225 points of damage before being destroyed
Do points of 60 damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 50 kph

Each Assault Mech will:
Weigh 90 tons
Be able to take 340 points of damage before being destroyed
Do 100 points of damage with each "alpha strike"
Have a maximum speed of 25 kph

BTW, "alpha strike" is not optional, each time you fire, its with all weapons and no over heating. There; nice and equal and fair. As players, we just have to choose which weight we want to play and no more concern about loadouts, heat management, armor distribution, or anything else that may make the game appear to be unbalanced. Maybe a tweak to one or two of the 3 possible traits, but finding a balance point should be pretty easy and make everyone happy. That is what everyone wants right? Things balanced out to the point where it doesn't make any difference what you play? Just like every other failed MMO game that's done the same? I'd list the ones I've played that have done this, but why make this longer?

I have to say that I'm not happy with a lot of the changes I've seen in the few months I've been playing, but I still play. If I start getting the same feel for MWO like I have for the above, not-mentioned MMO's, I will stop. Others will too. I'm trusting PGI will make it's decisions carefully before implementing them and correct any mistakes in judgement as soon as it sees those mistakes.
However, if i see the FP Clan dropdeck drop to 100 tons VS. IS dropdeck of 400, I am outta here.

GL/HF <0

So glad to have the Tier 4 guy who has been playing for a "few months" chime in with absolute trash... I will not be nice about it, it is fully a strawman argument you are making.

The haphazard implementation of the TT rules is what has un-Balanced the game coupled with pinpoint accuracy using a Ruleset that was designed around RNG. People on here are talking about what needs to be done to bring Balance to the implementation of the Ruleset for MWO... it is the same things we have been talking about for YEARS!!!!! But apparently we have been unlucky with the Dartboard of Destiny so far or PGI is terrified to buff IS up to where it needs to be and make Clans not OP cause they are the more expensive mechs meaning that they generate more money. If I was being honest... I assume the it is the latter but that is because my personal preference to think people are Evil rather than Stupid, I would rather an intelligently evil thought out rational than bumbling incompetence to be the reason. Intelligent Evil is at least respectable for being intelligent, while stupidity has no redeeming value.