75 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

kesmai, on 24 January 2017 - 02:54 AM, said:

Well Sir, you are just about to encounter alternative facts.

[Sjorpha]

1453 R, on 24 January 2017 - 08:22 AM, said:

There should be reasons to take the iSTD engine. Hell, there should be reasons to take the cSTD engine, but those reasons should not come at the expense of dooming every single OmniMech that is unable to alter its engine due to current Omni construction rules. The same reasoning means that the iXL needs its fix sooner rather than later due to incoming locked-XL Sphere Omnis, but as Tristan said, you don't want to exchange one problem for another. You want to solve problems, not just move them around.

You could make clan XL die on ST loss, and then allow Omnis to switch between XL and standard of the same weight. So now clan omnis have the same risk/reward and fast/durable trade off choice that IS has. Would also make clan std a thing on the iics.

[1453 R]

Sjorpha, on 24 January 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

You could make clan XL die on ST loss, and then allow Omnis to switch between XL and standard of the same weight. So now clan omnis have the same risk/reward and fast/durable trade off choice that IS has. Would also make clan std a thing on the iics.

So just throw out the Omni construction rules altogether?

Shurynawt.

Don't get me wrong; I think Omni rules are going to need some pretty severe looking-at when we get Sphere Omnis with absolute nonstarter garbage as their 'fixed' chassis under current construction rules, but let's not half-*** it - either we're revising Omni construction rules somehow, or we're not.

Like I said in the other thread - the iXL should be stronger than the cXL while it's intact, as a compensation for the cXL being stronger than the iXL after a shoulder blowout. Different. But. Equal. We can't just invalidate the entire Clan technology base in one step, no matter how much some people want to. The whole thing is predicated, in the original lore, on surviving shoulder blowouts. Clan 'Mechs have exceptionally unsafe iXL geometry and do not ever get a Light Fusion Engine option of their own since they never needed it before.

The solution is not "Make all Clan 'Mechs die to three small laser hits to the shoulder", it is not "make all Sphere 'Mechs survive shoulder blowouts without a care in the world". The answer is between those two ridiculous extremes, and it's sort of independent of the Omni construction rules issue.

Edited by 1453 R, 24 January 2017 - 08:56 AM.

[Sjorpha]

1453 R, on 24 January 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong; I think Omni rules are going to need some pretty severe looking-at when we get Sphere Omnis with absolute nonstarter garbage as their 'fixed' chassis under current construction rules, but let's not half-*** it - either we're revising Omni construction rules somehow, or we're not.

Reasonable, I was just throwing an idea out. It was more to illustrate that the problem of validating standard is similar to both sides.

Quote

Like I said in the other thread - the iXL should be stronger than the cXL while it's intact, as a compensation for the cXL being stronger than the iXL after a shoulder blowout. Different. But. Equal.

I agree, see my response in the other thread.

Quote

I know you just despise Clan machines and want them all gone (which is weird for a Smoke Jaguar mercenary, but a'ight), but we can't just invalidate the entire Clan technology base in one step.

100% untrue. I have already told you that and you keep repeating it. It's 100% untrue. I haven't argued for superior IS tech, not once.

I want IS and Clan tech different but equal just like you. Actually equally strong ton for ton though, no quirk bandaids or anything. How that happens is secondary to it happening and PGI taking a stand to go this direction.

I can see and accept any number of solutions as long as those solutions aren't sophistry trying to keep Clan tech strictly better behind some veil of obfuscation. For example the often repeated suggestion of letting IS XL survive a ST loss with a higher penalty etc. Those suggestions are horrible since they are attempts to keep Clan tech superior just because, they are also boring. So when I point out that IF this suggestion was the solution PGI chose the penalty should be slightly lower for IS if you actually want the engines balanced, it doesn't mean I support that kind of solution, I'm just saying that IF you are going to balance sometheing you have to actually go all the way with no matter how to do it. I prefer a more interesting solution same as you, but I also prefer uninteresting full solutions over uninteresting halfarsed solutions.

This is why solutions that involve different mechanics are always better, like clan stream dakka vs IS pinpoint and so on. That is a much more promising approach and should ideally be applied to every piece of equipment in the game. Both sides should have a reason to look at the other sides counterpart of every piece of gear and think "I wish we had that...", and really what's needed is to go through everything that this currently doesn't apply too (CAP vs BAP, PPCs, engines...) and find a way to make this interesting and balancing mechanical difference.

Obviously it's not guaranteed that the mechanical difference will automatically achieve balance. For example the Clan UAC10 is vastly superior to the IS AC10 despite the IS being pinpoint. So you also need to go get in there and apply buffs and nerfs as needed to complement the differences in function.

My favorite mechs are Night Gyr and Kodiak, no way I want either of them be useless. I just want Atlas and Marauder to be equally competitive.

Edited by Sjorpha, 24 January 2017 - 09:19 AM.

[1453 R]

Sjorpha, on 24 January 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

100% untrue. I have already told you that and you keep repeating it. It's 100% untrue. I haven't argued for superior IS tech, not once.

Actually went back and struck that after reading the post in the other thread. Apologies. I'm just so f'kin' sick unto death of the knee-jerk basshats like JohnnyZ poisoning the waters, my own knees get twitchy sometimes. That and I heartily disagree with the ton-for-ton, one-to-one balancing thing - I feel that it's perfectly okay to let a strength in one area be compensated for by a weakness in another area. The Clan Active Probe, for example, could be compensated for its strength by a Clan overall weakness in Information Warfare, should Information Warfare ever actually be a thing.

Sjorpha, on 24 January 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

I want IS and Clan tech different but equal just like you. Actually equally strong ton for ton though, no quirk bandaids or anything. How that happens is secondary to it happening and PGI taking a stand to go this direction.

I can see and accept any number of solutions as long as those solutions aren't sophistry trying to keep Clan tech strictly better behind some veil of obfuscation. For example the often repeated suggestion of letting IS XL survive a ST loss with a higher penalty etc. Those suggestions are horrible since they are attempts to keep Clan tech superior just because, they are also boring.

Raw numbers fixes, a'la quirks, are boring. They don't feel impactfully different in a match, and the feel of the two sides against each other is important. I do wish SuperMegaUltraQuirk people could get that. Numbers don't make fixes save in a rare handful of cases. Behaviors make fixes. If people understood that we'd be in a much better place 'round here.

Sjorpha, on 24 January 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

This is why solutions that involve different mechanics are always better, like clan stream dakka vs IS pinpoint and so on. That is a much more promising approach and should ideally be applied to every piece of equipment in the game. Both sides should have a reason to look at the other sides counterpart of every piece of gear and think "I wish we had that...", and really what's needed is to go through everything that this currently doesn't apply too (CAP vs BAP, PPCs, engines...) and find a way to make this interesting and balancing mechanical difference.

Outside of allowing different pieces of gear to compensate each other rather than forcibly demanding one-to-one absolute parity, yeah. There's a lot to be said for real different behaviors for gear - the more wildly different the two sides perform, the less visible and important minor discrepancies between them become. Minor discrepancies will always be there, that's simply the nature of online gaming, but we can wash them away with huge swings in preferred situation/environment for different designs that allows either side to have their edge - if they can successfully fight their way out of the other guy's edge.

Sjorpha, on 24 January 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

My favorite mechs are Night Gyr and Kodiak, no way I want either of them be useless. I just want Atlas and Marauder to be equally competitive.

I'd argue that with the exception of certain builds on the 3, the Atlas is already competitive with most Kodiak builds. The Spirit Bear loses outright to the AS7-S brawler due to the AS7 having an entire medium 'Mech's worth of extra quirked survivability, and no other Kodiak comes anywhere reasonably close to the Atlas' back-alley mugger infighting ability. The Kodiak wins at a distance, a'course, but the Atlas is a legendarily poor distance 'Mech anyways so that's okay. As to the Marauder/Night Gyr thing, I'll have to let Maker know about that. He owns both, regrets the Gyrs, pilots the Marauders daily. Heh, will be interesting to get his take.

[Snazzy Dragon]

I've already expressed how I feel about it. Fortunately I didn't wake up suspended from the forums

[Mawai]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 24 January 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

It's a perfectly logical sentence to me.

In short, they say that xl bonuses are sooo great that boosting any xl further is a bad idea. Reading along the lines: it's better for the game to boost non-xl engines and nerf the best version (clan) of xl engines.

You may not agree with it. Heck, I don't agree with it (at the same weight costs, the engine that allows you to stay alive after torso loss will be always better than an engine that kill you after torso loss, unless it will be easier to kill CT of the "non-lethal" engine than a st of the lethal engine. You may bring them close together with penalties for torso loss, but only to some degree.

The problem with that approach is that they can never nerf the clan XL far enough unless nerfing to the point where ST loss causes death as it does for an IS XL ... or they buff the IS XL by preventing the ST loss from causing death.

The other alternatives that would close the gap a bit ... buff the IS XL ST structure so that XL engines are harder to kill or put a 40% to 50% speed an mobility nerf on clan mechs for side torso loss so that their effectiveness is massively reduced with ST loss even if they don't immediately die. Any heat nerf to clan XL less than 50% will actually be un-noticeable in most cases since most clan mechs lose half their weapons with a ST loss ... so they don't need as much cooling in the first place. The new 40% effect on ST loss will be negligible in most cases in terms of how it affects mech performance.

[a gaijin]

NRP, on 24 January 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

I don't know what the answer is, but it certainly can't be making Clan XL engines die when a ST is destroyed. There are too many (slow) clan mechs with fixed XL engines that would be rendered useless.

Perhaps allow IS XL engines to survive a ST loss, and greatly increase the cooling capacity of internal heat sinks in STD engines to negate some of the tonnage issues?

I can't remember if IS XL engines would kill a mech in MW2 Mercs when a ST was destroyed but my opinion is if they didn't then let them stay alive after ST is destroyed in MWO but balance by MW2 standards and reduce Clan tech laser burn times while keeping the IS laser ranges at "the IS standard."
In other words, balance by MW2.
It may be a terrible idea, but it's my terrible idea and there are many like it, but this one is mine

Sjorpha, on 24 January 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

You could make clan XL die on ST loss, and then allow Omnis to switch between XL and standard of the same weight. So now clan omnis have the same risk/reward and fast/durable trade off choice that IS has. Would also make clan std a thing on the iics.

Sjorpha's suggestion is a good one because it makes MWO more like MW2

Cathy, on 24 January 2017 - 07:03 AM, said:

Truth is after P.G.I's mech designed team lost all objectivity and have done their damnedest to make it virtually impossible to balance this game effectively, I no longer give a damn

I've only been back a few months so...noob question time:
How long ago did PGI's mech designed team lose all objectivity?
Just curious.

[Bud Crue]

Star Commander Horse, on 24 January 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

I've only been back a few months so...noob question time:
How long ago did PGI's mech designed team lose all objectivity?
Just curious.

I believe it was sometime shortly after April of 2016. That is when the Viper was announced. Every mech since then has had at least one variant objectively better than most if not all other variants in its weight class. From the Cyclops to the the Marauder IIc, we have had nonstop power creep. Only PGI can tell you the specific date whereupon they decided to just say "F..k it, more hard points, higher hard points, and at least one variant being objectively better than the rest of its weight class from here on out." It may well have occurred well before then given the development time but I suspect that is the closest you are going to get to an actual date.

Coincidentally that was also the month of the townhall where Russ asked the community to stop telling him how to make his game better as he knows best, etc. But without further evidence, like I said, I assume that is just a coincidence.

[a gaijin]

Bud Crue, on 24 January 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

I believe it was sometime shortly after April of 2016. That is when the Viper was announced. Every mech since then has had at least one variant objectively better than most if not all other variants in its weight class. From the Cyclops to the the Marauder IIc, we have had nonstop power creep. Only PGI can tell you the specific date whereupon they decided to just say "F..k it, more hard points, higher hard points, and at least one variant being objectively better than the rest of its weight class from here on out." It may well have occurred well before then given the development time but I suspect that is the closest you are going to get to an actual date.

Coincidentally that was also the month of the townhall where Russ asked the community to stop telling him how to make his game better as he knows best, etc. But without further evidence, like I said, I assume that is just a coincidence.

Is there a link to a video of that? I'd sure like to see it just so I can make the face.

[Sjorpha]

Star Commander Horse, on 24 January 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

balance by MW2.

Lolwut?

MW2 was absolutely bonkers unbalanced clan vs IS, worse than MWO has ever been. They weren't even interested in balancing clan tech in MW2 because in was a single player game and clan tech had the lore OPness by design.

[B0oN]

IS standard engined machinery is already dangerous and capable enough .

Now, only thing left to to do is drawing the VERY FINE (if it even exists ... and if it exists, in which universe does it exist?) line between IS XL and C-XL, which is obviously bollocks and not attainable .

One cannot compare incomparable systems .

Sounds like Russ´ reasoning ... which, with all due respect, is no reasoning at all in my book .

[a gaijin]

Sjorpha, on 24 January 2017 - 03:10 PM, said:

Lolwut?

MW2 was absolutely bonkers unbalanced clan vs IS, worse than MWO has ever been. They weren't even interested in balancing clan tech in MW2 because in was a single player game and clan tech had the lore OPness by design.

Yea I know (regardless of Net Mech). In my own defense I did claim it was a terrible idea
Just being a nostalgia nerd, that all

In all seriousness though, I think having Clans vs Innersphere in a multiplayer game, especially a free to play one, is an awful, AWFUL idea. Just terrible. The worst idea ever.
Because Clans are supposed to be OP. And if they aren't, you've "broken the game."

Which explains why a lot of people think balance in MWO is broken.



edited typo(s)

Edited by Star Commander Horse, 24 January 2017 - 03:24 PM.

[Khobai]

the real reason is PGI game devs are lazy and dont want to rebalance three engine types (clan STD, ISSTD, and ISXL) when its easier to just nerf one (CXL)

But yes the correct balance decision wouldve been to buff all standard engines and buff ISXL. Instead of nerfing CXL into the ground.


ISXL shouldve been changed to be same as CXL except CXL would take up less crit slots (itd be trivially better but we cant change crit slots because of stock builds)

STD engines shouldve gotten a CT structure bonus, an internal heatsink capacity/dissipation bonus, and possibly another bonus like torso twist speed bonus to help make them a more robust and viable alternative to XL engines.

Edited by Khobai, 24 January 2017 - 03:59 PM.

[FupDup]

PGI isn't wrong that the IS XL engine compares very favorably against the STD engine, to the point of being objectively superior in the majority of cases.

The mistake they made is assuming that only the IS XL would be changed. The STD engine also needs to be buffed, and by a considerably larger amount than the IS XL.

[Khobai]

CSTD needed buffing too

because CXL vs CSTD should also be a choice

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 24 January 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

CSTD needed buffing too

because CXL vs CSTD should also be a choice

There is no such thing as a CSTD. STD engines are shared tech like STD armor and STD structure.

[Khobai]

Quote

There is no such thing as a CSTD. STD engines are shared tech like STD armor and STD structure.

ive never used a STD engine on a clan mech so I never bothered to check

[The Lighthouse]

Pjwned, on 24 January 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

You are just proving my point, especially when you bring up "crazy quirks" like 3x firing rate for the RVN-H and DRG-1N or the -50% heat generation for ER PPCs on the TDR-9S as if they were anything other than an abomination; if you think that was balanced in any way you are beyond help.

And the difference with buffing underperforming IS weapons is the keyword: underperforming.

Tell me the last time you used these weapons without ridiculously overdone quirks on 1 or 2 mech variants:

-LB-10 X
-ER PPC
-Small laser
-SSRM2
-LRM15 & LRM20

And then also tell me the last time you whined (or thought) about, for example, C-ER medium lasers having more range & damage even though the IS medium laser should generate only 3 heat (according to lore stats) instead of 4; there's a number of other similar examples I could bring up too but I'm sure I would be further wasting my time bothering to show that to you.



And how long before you go back to whining for more structure quirks because of further increased firepower as a result of there being literally no reason to not use XL engines in every single mech?

And then how long before you whine that your weapons aren't doing enough against the now massive structure quirks, which means whining for the ridiculous weapon quirks you mentioned above?

The whining for power creep just doesn't stop, and you just want to perpetuate it (like I already said) instead of actually putting a real solution forward that makes a modicum of sense...because you're clueless.

Good thing you mention about Raven. So after the proper nerf, do you even see that mech?

When I pilot my Spider, I often miscalled by both enemies and even teammates as Arctic Cheetah because only humanoid light mech people play is ACH.

It is very easy to see a light lance (if you actually have it, that is... Usually alpha lance is filled with medium and heavy mechs since so few people play light mechs,) it's almost always consisted of ACH and Locust. Not because they are OP or something. It's because they are currently only ones that are usable. Firestarter, previously dominating light mech, is a mythical creature nowdays.

And hell yeah, I am bound to use small laser on mechs that does not have good quirks on it (SSRM on lesser extent) come to us light mechs if you dare!


And no, I never called for structural quirks for ISXL engine. I literally called opposite (remove quirks and make XL not explode when ST is gone) so try again.




Plus : I noticed you like to make false arguments about me (i.e calling me out on arguments that I never made.) It's really terrible habit for having a proper debate. Can you please stop doing this?

[nehebkau]

The statement from the patch notes is just convincing me that I really need to move on because it appears that there is no logical or rational discourse in PGI.

the whole thing is very Trumpesque.