253 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 January 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

That's not a "bad" business model for them but it is an flawed model for the sake of the game.

If "for the sake of the game" means "a thriving population", then no, it is not a flawed model. As such, what did you mean exactly by the phrase?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 23 January 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

If "for the sake of the game" means "a thriving population", then no, it is not a flawed model. As such, what did you mean exactly by the phrase?

The gameplay does not benefit from power creep, specifically diversity and depth of mech/equipment choice.

[Bud Crue]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 January 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

The gameplay does not benefit from power creep, specifically diversity and depth of mech/equipment choice.

Bah! What do you know about what is good for game play!?
Russ has made it clear that only he knows what is best for game play, and he has very nicely asked you and people like you to stop pretending that you do. This is his game and only he knows what is best for its game play. So if perpetual power creep is what he thinks is good for game play, well then by golly that is what is good for game play.

(I'm so sorry. I know the whole "I know best" thing goes back almost a year, but with this set up I just couldn't resist.)

Edited by Bud Crue, 23 January 2017 - 11:54 AM.

[MacClearly]

50 50, on 23 January 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

Sure. For the same reasons as above. I have no objection. Balance the Night Gyr against the Orion IIC and the Timberwolf.


That's the point though.
The Archer should not be bad compared to the Warhammer. Merely different.

It's difficult to discuss these things over a medium such as forum posts but I'm agreeing that there is more to be done. I'm just looking at and discussing the method.

You are constantly using a very foolish argument of weight being an end all and be all in terms of mechs being equal or superior. By your faulty logic a Peterbilt should be faster and better than a Porche.

The very idea that an Archer which is built for a very specific role in lore and in this game, should be on the same level as the Warhammer is straight up bonkers. I admire MischiefSC (totally not a spy) for his patience in responding to you and methodically ripping apart every argument that you have come up with.

Even when looking at the Timberwolf and its role as probably the most versitile mech in the game and being strong at almost everything (you can even make it a solid lrm mech if inclined) doesn't mean that a 70 ton Warhammer shouldn't be able to compete with it in some roles. Especially when you consider the Timby is basically over engined to retain the speed of 65 ton mechs.

So if your entire argument is going to revolve around 75 ton better than 70 and all 70s be equal, full stop. Knock it off. It doesn't make sense on any level and it is straight foolish on every level. There are too many real world and in game examples to continue trying to argue this with a staight face.

[MischiefSC]

Bud Crue, on 23 January 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Yet, they apparently are so flush with cash that they can fund MW5 and this game. That seems to suggest that their failing at balance doesn't seem to be affecting their business, regardless of what we may think of it. They may even have "data" showing that every time they nerf something they sell more of something else. That's not a bad model business, that's stupid customers.

No, it's a common mistake badly managed businesses make. 'Hey, I do this thing and irritated customers have to spend more money to avoid the irritation! We should do this seasonally!'

Good decision - more total, sustained customers, more total revenue. As in more players, better game reputation. Take FW as an example. Davion, at one time had 10+ 12mans dropping at the same time out of their TS alone. We bought mech packs in *droves*. Were happy to be able to gift them to teammates. We were excited about what it was going to turn into. However balance was terrible and never fixed, FW lacked depth and PGI seemed to be making the same bad choices it's making now and so most left the game. Now it's only short stretches where 12 people are playing on TS and there's only 1 unit that can *maybe* field 12 payers at the same time.

A bad business says 'oh, populations decline. At least we're getting more money out of who's left'. A good business doesn't lose those people to begin with even if it feels like a bigger cost 'with no obvious return'. The return is retention and growth and player goodwill, which translates into profits month over month.

It's the sign of a bad business with cowardly leadership to write people who leave off and makes bad decisions for short term gain and thinks that's good business.

[Bud Crue]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

It's the sign of a bad business with cowardly leadership to write people who leave off and makes bad decisions for short term gain and thinks that's good business.

Ah but if that "cowardly leadership" has a vision for their game that revolves around and intends to focus only on a niche aspect of the community who treats their game as some sort of professional level sport...call it an "e-sport", if you will...than that leadership isn't being cowardly by driving the rest of the population away, rather they are being focused to their stated goals and catering to their preferred player/customer.


(Again, I'm so sorry, but you guys keep setting me up here and PGI's past statements just make it too hard to resist this sort of snark.)

[Mystere]

Bud Crue, on 23 January 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

Bah! What do you know about what is good for the game play!?
Russ has made it clear that only he knows what is best for the game play ...

It's just a slight correction, but makes a world of a difference.

[ingramli]

MischiefSC pretty much nailed it, it IS the business model of PGI. I 'd rather not bother and just grab whatever relatively competitive that is available in C-Bills. At this moment, Clan's 75 tonners seems to be a go-to for heavies, there is hardly any valid argument that suggest otherwise, so the answer is quite simple, stick to clan - unless you are a IS fanboy, period.

Edited by ingramli, 23 January 2017 - 12:58 PM.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

The Archer is never going to compete with the WHR without clown shoes wearing quirks. The Orion is never going to compete with a bowl of moldy fruit without all the quirks that ever quirked. Or may, just crazy crazy maybe, the geometry rework every other mech got so that if I don't have LRMs in the side torso it's not bigger than the CT of most mechs in big flat open spaces.

Of course being an IS mech it can't get the Clan-special 'all extra hardpoints are cockpit level, torsos get shrunk vertically and all arm weapon mounts are nipple height' thing that's been the rage for the last year.

The WHR is the go-to because it carries energy and ballistics and has good hitboxes and the hardpoints are not dragging on the ground. The Cataphract has horrible hitboxes and always will. It has low hardpoints and always will. It has JJs, which is great, but it doesn't make up for the other two failings. It will never, ever be able to use an XL because it's shaped like a barn door. As such it will never be able to boat as much firepower as its Clan counterparts and will, always and in every way, be inferior to similar tonnage Clan mechs because PGI has clearly stated that they are either unable or unwilling to balance critical tech differences.

The Archer will never, ever and in any way be comparable to the WHR because missiles, LRMs or SRMs, will always be second place to energy and ballistics because precision direct fire > splatter effects. If IS missiles weight 1/2 what they do now, like Clan mechs do, you might see something akin to the TBR splat build on an Archer - but it lacks the JJs, the speed and due to IS v Clan XL balance the ability to safely use an XL to carry the tonnage.

Nothing you do short of truly stupid quirks will make the WHR an 'equal' choice to the Archer and Cataphract because the other two have **** physical designs and loadout options and PGI has spent several years abjectly and completely failing to balance IS to Clan tech and shows absolutely no signs, at all, of ever fixing that and have flatly stated in this same patch they are either incapable or unwilling to do so.

So the only thing, at all, in any way, shape or form that the nerf to the WHR does is remove IS heavies save from ERLL GHRs from the equation. Full stop. End of topic, end of relevance. Unless the Archer and Phract get ERPPC Lightning Voimt TDR level quirks they will never be able to compete because what they need to do so is something PGI will not do, because it would greatly help balance the game and that's a concept they have spent years resisting.

So all this does is eliminate IS heavies and push decks to 2x assault, 2x medium and ensure you won't see an IS heavy save the GHR in any comp matches.

As such it's a stupid choice to cap off years of consistently bad balance decisions.

YEARS.

To put it into perspective you can meet a girl, have coitus, she can conceive, carry that baby to term, it can then learn to crawl, then to walk and toddle along and start learning to speak in the time that PGI has consistently failed to balance IS/Clan tech.

When someone fails that consistently at something it's not a failure - that failure is their business model.

To be fair, the Cataphract was the overwhelming meta during the older poptart pre-Clan meta where everything didn't die as they do now. They were used regardless of their obvious deficiencies (nothing else was better outside of the Highlander or Victor in that era).

Planned obsolescence is practiced at PGI and we'll be here debating that indefinitely.

It's certainly the business plan.. whether intentional or not.

Edited by Deathlike, 23 January 2017 - 03:01 PM.

[50 50]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

The WHR is the go-to because it carries energy and ballistics and has good hitboxes and the hardpoints are not dragging on the ground. The Cataphract has horrible hitboxes and always will. It has low hardpoints and always will. It has JJs, which is great, but it doesn't make up for the other two failings.

The Archer will never, ever and in any way be comparable to the WHR because missiles, LRMs or SRMs, will always be second place to energy and ballistics because precision direct fire > splatter effects.

So the WHR is top dog because of type and placement of hardpoints and better hit boxes.
Hit boxes can be adjusted and improved to help even that aspect.
Which leaves hardpoints which can't/won't be changed.
If the mechs are the same tonnage and can mount the same maximum engine (in most cases) which will mean they all have the same amount of free tonnage for equipment.
If the equipment can be adjusted independently through the different values and if quirks are completely taken out of the picture, what would help even the balance between those 4 mechs? (Archer, Cataphract, Grasshopper and Warhammer)
Not to make them identical, but to make them as viable in their own way.

[Oberost]

50 50, on 23 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

So the WHR is top dog because of type and placement of hardpoints and better hit boxes.
Hit boxes can be adjusted and improved to help even that aspect.
Which leaves hardpoints which can't/won't be changed.
If the mechs are the same tonnage and can mount the same maximum engine (in most cases) which will mean they all have the same amount of free tonnage for equipment.
If the equipment can be adjusted independently through the different values and if quirks are completely taken out of the picture, what would help even the balance between those 4 mechs? (Archer, Cataphract, Grasshopper and Warhammer)
Not to make them identical, but to make them as viable in their own way.

Can you change the hardpoint placement in the Cataphract? And the hitboxes? And the hitboxes in the Archer? Can you also move the Archer cockpit higher so you don't have to expose half of the mech just to see the enemy?

If the answer is NO, then there is nothing (apart of ridiculous quirks) you can do to make them viable...

[Duke Nedo]

Deathlike, on 23 January 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

To be fair, the Cataphract was the overwhelming meta during the older poptart pre-Clan meta where everything didn't die as they do now. They were used regardless of their obvious deficiencies (nothing else was better outside of the Highlander or Victor in that era).

Planned obsolescence is practiced at PGI and we'll be here debating that indefinitely.

It's certainly the business plan.. whether intentional or not.

To be honest I don't mind if they shift the meta around too much, as long as they don't make the already poor faction balance worse. Had they provided an alternative, or had made the corresponding nerfs to NGRs/TBRs, then fine. Then actually good.

To be fair though, the cXL heat penalty thing may have some effect on TBRs. It won't affect NGRs the slightest tho.

[MischiefSC]

50 50, on 23 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

So the WHR is top dog because of type and placement of hardpoints and better hit boxes.
Hit boxes can be adjusted and improved to help even that aspect.
Which leaves hardpoints which can't/won't be changed.
If the mechs are the same tonnage and can mount the same maximum engine (in most cases) which will mean they all have the same amount of free tonnage for equipment.
If the equipment can be adjusted independently through the different values and if quirks are completely taken out of the picture, what would help even the balance between those 4 mechs? (Archer, Cataphract, Grasshopper and Warhammer)
Not to make them identical, but to make them as viable in their own way.

You can't fix the hitboxes on the Archer or the Cataphract without fundamentally changing how they look. You'd have to slim up the Phract by about 33% narrower vertically, which wouldn't look like a Phract. The Archer wouldn't look like an archer without the big floppy missile boobies it's got.

The Phract was meta back when meta was a 35 pt alpha and lasers were useless because hitreg was so bad for them.

The current PPFLD meta hits 50 pts and 10 pts of splash damage from a 75 ton mech, 5 tons heavier than the Phract. Laser alphas are ~45-55pts. 30-40% more damage per shot with greater accuracy.

Beside which, again, without balancing IS to Clans any attempt to balance IS to IS is an utter waste of time. As PGI has said they have no intention at all of balancing IS to Clans then balancing a WHR to an Archer is as logical as balancing a WHR to a Kit Fox. IS needs balanced vs Clans, not other IS, as Clan tech is overall superior and will remain such for the forseeable future.

[Bud Crue]

Oberost, on 23 January 2017 - 11:40 PM, said:

Can you change the hardpoint placement in the Cataphract? And the hitboxes? And the hitboxes in the Archer? Can you also move the Archer cockpit higher so you don't have to expose half of the mech just to see the enemy?

If the answer is NO, then there is nothing (apart of ridiculous quirks) you can do to make them viable...

"Viable" is one thing, not provocatively gimped is another.

For the phract I think a remodel wherein the RT ballistic hard point if moved to the shoulder ala the lore depictions of the 0xp (but do this for all models not just the 0xp), get rid of or redesign the RA paddle mounts so that the hard points are no lower than the arms (sides of arms or on top of arm). Move the under arm hard points on the LA the same way (sides or on top). Finally, they could simply shorten the arms a bit to place the them more to chest height than waist height.
In my mind's eye this would not be a drastic remodel and would not drastically affect over all performance, but it would sure help.

Dragons need the ballistic arm that is shoulder height (as has been asked for repeatedly for years).

Archer could easily be changed to put the CP on top of the CT ala:



But for the hit boxes, this would be an art change more than a remodel.

As to the hopper, the only one imho that needs remodel help is the J. Move the two underarm mounts to the top of the arm (or add them to the sides), or better yet make them shoulder mounts. Then give it its pre-rescale agility quirks back (I still can't understand why PGI chose to nerf the worst Grasshopper the most after rescale).

Thing is, none of these "remodel" options would make the mechs in question suddenly OP, perhaps not even "viable" without some quirks. But I do think such changes would make them a bit better than crap, and if that gets them closer to the "baseline performance values" that PGI often asserts as a basis of its balance decisions then I gotta think that will make it easier to balance them relative at least to the better mechs nearest to them.

As an aside, under arm mounts should be eliminated in all mechs. Only where there are four arm hard points should there ever be an under arm mount and it should always be the last hard point available.

Edited by Bud Crue, 24 January 2017 - 04:51 AM.