339 replies to this topic

[SilentWolff]

Prosperity Park, on 15 March 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

The fact that this is a 12v12 game Trumps all your wishes for Clans to be OP.

I dont wish for clans to be OPed. I want a balanced game just as you do. I'm just explaining to you WHY a clan weapon in less tonnage and crits, more in range and damage. Clan is inherently superior. That's just the lore. So, PGI has to find a way to buff the Inner Sphere mechs. In the case of ERLL, PGI has compensated for this fact by making the burn times longer on Clan and quirking Inner Sphere mechs. Inner sphere mechs can also shoot 3 lasers vs the clans 2.

[I R O N]

Clan Duration should be the Same as IS ERLL. Why did you make ERPPC Velocity nerely the same from clan to IS?

Look the Clans are 500+ years further ahead in tech development.... its supposed to be "OP".

These people that give negitive responses hug people with SRMS and think they are good at this game...

Edited by I R O N, 15 March 2017 - 07:21 PM.

[Mcgral18]

I R O N, on 15 March 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

Clan Duration should be the Same as IS ERLL. Why did you make ERPPC Velocity nerely the same from clan to IS?

Look the Clans are 500+ years further ahead in tech development.... its supposed to be "OP".

These people that give negitive responses hug people with SRMS and think they are good at this game...

Sure there bud
Not that we care about weapon balance

You guys and go and circle jerk with your ERLLs all you want

[I R O N]

Then let us do it at 1.25 duration...

[Y E O N N E]

I R O N, on 15 March 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

Then let us do it at 1.25 duration...

The isERLL would have to come down, too, otherwise the cERLL has a dramatically superior damage-over-duration and would be comparatively broken.

The crux is that there's a certain point where laser duration is just too long to be wieldy, and at 1.5s the cERLL is at or near that point, so it's clumsy even if the damage-over-duration is nearly identical to the isERLL right now.

If we drop the durations on both, they both become more wieldy, but we have to do something else to stop them from running the field at all ranges. In this case, I would suggest a longer cool-down. The isERLL at 1.05s duration and 3.75s cool-down is comparable to the cERLL at 1.25s duration and 4.75s cooldown. Cool-down may not be enough to stop either from running away, so extra heat might be necessary, too; what happens to one has to happen to the other.

[Pariah Devalis]

Yeonne Greene, on 15 March 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

The isERLL would have to come down, too, otherwise the cERLL has a dramatically superior damage-over-duration and would be comparatively broken.

The crux is that there's a certain point where laser duration is just too long to be wieldy, and at 1.5s the cERLL is at or near that point, so it's clumsy even if the damage-over-duration is nearly identical to the isERLL right now.

If we drop the durations on both, they both become more wieldy, but we have to do something else to stop them from running the field at all ranges. In this case, I would suggest a longer cool-down. The isERLL at 1.05s duration and 3.75s cool-down is comparable to the cERLL at 1.25s duration and 4.75s cooldown. Cool-down may not be enough to stop either from running away, so extra heat might be necessary, too; what happens to one has to happen to the other.

Seriously. Drop the CERLLas damage by one. In that energy draw PTS, when they tested random crap like ERPPC damage, they did test the reduced burn time with reduced damage C-ERLLas. It was actually enjoyable to use, for a change. It did not feel clumsy. A slight damage nerf for a slight duration buff is only fair, and seemed largely acceptable in the test.

[Mcgral18]

I R O N, on 15 March 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

Then let us do it at 1.25 duration...

Certainly a less ridiculous position
0.88 Dam/tick, up over 10%

[Y E O N N E]

Pariah Devalis, on 15 March 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

Seriously. Drop the CERLLas damage by one. In that energy draw PTS, when they tested random crap like ERPPC damage, they did test the reduced burn time with reduced damage C-ERLLas. It was actually enjoyable to use, for a change. It did not feel clumsy. A slight damage nerf for a slight duration buff is only fair, and seemed largely acceptable in the test.

Well, on that PTS the cERLL had the essentially the same duration as the cLPL and running around with six of them was, to be frank, ridiculous. Felt really good, but also felt kind of cheesy firing 3+3 and damn the ghost heat because that's a mere 24 tons of guns and I can fit All the Heatsinks™.

Dropping the cERLL to 1.25 and 10 damage still leaves the isERLL at a disadvantage unless it also drops duration, to between 1.12 and 1.15 seconds. I'd be willing to try it out.

Edit: part of my hesitation to drop the Clan damage is because it's actually nicely balanced in terms of damage-over-heat for the weight against a quartet of isERLL. I can't condone dropping the damage on the isERLL (that was a shitshow on PTS), but dropping the damage on the Clan one really mucks that equilibrium up.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 15 March 2017 - 08:44 PM.

[Deathlike]

Pariah Devalis, on 15 March 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

Seriously. Drop the CERLLas damage by one. In that energy draw PTS, when they tested random crap like ERPPC damage, they did test the reduced burn time with reduced damage C-ERLLas. It was actually enjoyable to use, for a change. It did not feel clumsy. A slight damage nerf for a slight duration buff is only fair, and seemed largely acceptable in the test.

That version of the CERLL was overbuffed ontop of the CLPL being nerfed. It was too damn good and would've been the new meta spam (ontop of other haphazard changes that went there).

[Pariah Devalis]

Yeonne Greene, on 15 March 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

Well, on that PTS the cERLL had the essentially the same duration as the cLPL and running around with six of them was, to be frank, ridiculous. Felt really good, but also felt kind of cheesy firing 3+3 and damn the ghost heat because that's a mere 24 tons of guns and I can fit All the Heatsinks™.

Dropping the cERLL to 1.25 and 10 damage still leaves the isERLL at a disadvantage unless it also drops duration, to between 1.12 and 1.15 seconds. I'd be willing to try it out.

Edit: part of my hesitation to drop the Clan damage is because it's actually nicely balanced in terms of damage-over-heat for the weight against a quartet of isERLL. I can't condone dropping the damage on the isERLL (that was a shitshow on PTS), but dropping the damage on the Clan one really mucks that equilibrium up.

What would it take to adjust a similar damage per tick with 1 less damage on the C-ERLLas? Would it not still be a slightly longer burn than the IS ERLLas? I mean, 1.5 is just stupid. On the SNV-1, the quirks provide it with a burn of around 1.4, and it already feels like a noticeable improvement.

[Y E O N N E]

Pariah Devalis, on 15 March 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

What would it take to adjust a similar damage per tick with 1 less damage on the C-ERLLas? Would it not still be a slightly longer burn than the IS ERLLas? I mean, 1.5 is just stupid. On the SNV-1, the quirks provide it with a burn of around 1.4, and it already feels like a noticeable improvement.

The damage-per-tick is identical between the two when the cERLL is 10 over 1.25 and the isERLL is 9 over 1.12.

It's also pragmatically identical when the cERLL is 11 over 1.25 and the isERLL is 9 over 1.02 seconds (I question how big of a difference those 0.02 seconds make, might as well round to 1.00?). The issue there is that now we're obsoleting the isLL with the isERLL, and we'd have to crank cool-downs for both ERLL, maybe even the heat.

The latter way is perhaps a bit more power-creepy than the former, but then again the GHR is spitting out ERLL beams of 1.06s so it's not that alien.

Maybe cERLL with 11/1.35 and isERLL with 9/1.1 is a happy medium?

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 15 March 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

The damage-per-tick is identical between the two when the cERLL is 10 over 1.25 and the isERLL is 9 over 1.12.

It's also pragmatically identical when the cERLL is 11 over 1.25 and the isERLL is 9 over 1.02 seconds (I question how big of a difference those 0.02 seconds make, might as well round to 1.00?). The issue there is that now we're obsoleting the isLL with the isERLL, and we'd have to crank cool-downs for both ERLL, maybe even the heat.

The latter way is perhaps a bit more power-creepy than the former, but then again the GHR is spitting out ERLL beams of 1.06s so it's not that alien.

Maybe cERLL with 11/1.35 and isERLL with 9/1.1 is a happy medium?

Just for the sake of argument, but holding it purely to numbers is less than practical... as "normalization" efforts drive me nuts (due to the one doing them) than trying to actually run more practical (aka non-dartboard) numbers and tweaking from that standpoint.

I accept "perfect imbalance" more than straight SpreadsheetWarrior. That also doesn't mean I'd leave it OP for long durations or leave it as is for months/years/indefinitely.

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 15 March 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

Just for the sake of argument, but holding it purely to numbers is less than practical... as "normalization" efforts drive me nuts (due to the one doing them) than trying to actually run more practical (aka non-dartboard) numbers and tweaking from that standpoint.

I accept "perfect imbalance" more than straight SpreadsheetWarrior. That also doesn't mean I'd leave it OP for long durations or leave it as is for months/years/indefinitely.

The dam/tick is just part of it, but it gets balanced out by other things like range, ghost limits, heat, total DPS, etc. Perfect imbalance is actually why I'd rather leave the cERLL at 11 damage and 10 heat with a ghost limit of 2; for 12 tons you can get a system that deals similar damage to 4x isERLL and for similar heat. The trade is a somewhat worse dam/tick. It is sloppy, but it's fair, IMHO.

For my part, my spreadsheets are never tuned purely based on the number. I will flat-out ignore the resulting score if I know the numbers feeding it will result in something being ridiculously OP or UP. I think my model does a decent job capturing the bulk of the weapons, but fringe cases with ultra tiny lasers or huge damage-to-tonnage ratios throw it off.

[MischiefSC]

Mister Blastman, on 15 March 2017 - 05:59 PM, said:

LOL
Daft? No, it's called COMMON SENSE.

Who the heck cares about balance when we're comparing technology? Better tech = better stupf! Battletech TT is clear. Clan is BETTER.

I'm sick of all this equality bs. Better is better and that's just how it is. That's the game and that's the way it has been played.

/robotflex


Alexander agrees.

Oh, and when the new Inner Sphere weapon tech stupf comes, well, then it'll be a level field again. But until then... no!

I do always love these arguments.

'Game balance should be bad and broken so I have an advantage. Sure, that would kill population and make the game terrible but so what? Just because even in tabletop it was acknowledged as a failed balance concept and abandoned doesn't mean we shouldn't do it!'

Fortunately even PGI can recognize an idea that bad.

[I R O N]

I have abandoned all hope of ever reasoning with any of you. If you use SRMs you are a noob that is all...

[Mister Blastman]

MischiefSC, on 15 March 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

I do always love these arguments.

'Game balance should be bad and broken so I have an advantage. Sure, that would kill population and make the game terrible but so what? Just because even in tabletop it was acknowledged as a failed balance concept and abandoned doesn't mean we shouldn't do it!'

Fortunately even PGI can recognize an idea that bad.

It's not so much an idea as it is the principle of the thing. As a writer, I can recognize the importance of biding lore. Lore is the principle that binds a universe together. It provides structure and framework; it is the ether through which a story flows. Unbroken, lore is a powerful and beautiful thing. It wrangles sense from the jaws of nonsense, and provides supple support to the characters, places, inhabitants and things that comprise the sum of the fictional setting. Providing the lore is never violated, harmony is maintained--but fracture a crack in the lore even just once... and the fabric of of the whole shatters into millions of jagged pieces, never to be put back together again.

Battletech has its lore. This isn't about balance. This is about maintaining the universe as it was, as it has been, and how it must continue to exist lest it too comes crashing down.

That is what this is about.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 15 March 2017 - 11:07 PM.

[Xetelian]

Mister Blastman, on 15 March 2017 - 11:06 PM, said:

It's not so much an idea as it is the principle of the thing. As a writer, I can recognize the importance of biding lore. Lore is the principle that binds a universe together. It provides structure and framework; it is the ether through which a story flows. Unbroken, lore is a powerful and beautiful thing. It wrangles sense from the jaws of nonsense, and provides supple support to the characters, places, inhabitants and things that comprise the sum of the fictional setting. Providing the lore is never violated, harmony is maintained--but fracture a crack in the lore even just once... and the fabric of of the whole shatters into millions of jagged pieces, never to be put back together again.

Battletech has its lore. This isn't about balance. This is about maintaining the universe as it was, as it has been, and how it must continue to exist lest it too comes crashing down.

That is what this is about.

You are waaaay overstating the inclusion of lore in a big stompy robit team death match.


Quick queue is the life blood of this game, having clans be stronger outright would mean almost no innersphere mechs ever.

Faction war would just be clan vs clan and no one but Merc star would ever run innersphere.


Lore is flavor text, lore is window dressing. Real time FPS death match has no room for that kind of lore.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Mister Blastman, on 15 March 2017 - 11:06 PM, said:

It's not so much an idea as it is the principle of the thing. As a writer, I can recognize the importance of biding lore. Lore is the principle that binds a universe together. It provides structure and framework; it is the ether through which a story flows. Unbroken, lore is a powerful and beautiful thing. It wrangles sense from the jaws of nonsense, and provides supple support to the characters, places, inhabitants and things that comprise the sum of the fictional setting. Providing the lore is never violated, harmony is maintained--but fracture a crack in the lore even just once... and the fabric of of the whole shatters into millions of jagged pieces, never to be put back together again.

Battletech has its lore. This isn't about balance. This is about maintaining the universe as it was, as it has been, and how it must continue to exist lest it too comes crashing down.

That is what this is about.

That's all well and good, but this is a 12 on 12 competitive shooter. It's not designed to support unbalanced techbases. Faciton Warfare is designed around balanced teams. Quick play relies on balanced teams.

Battletech lore has never made a lick of sense and is straight up bad in many places. Let's not treat it like some sacred inviolable religious text when it was heavily flawed to begin with.

[MischiefSC]

Mister Blastman, on 15 March 2017 - 11:06 PM, said:

It's not so much an idea as it is the principle of the thing. As a writer, I can recognize the importance of biding lore. Lore is the principle that binds a universe together. It provides structure and framework; it is the ether through which a story flows. Unbroken, lore is a powerful and beautiful thing. It wrangles sense from the jaws of nonsense, and provides supple support to the characters, places, inhabitants and things that comprise the sum of the fictional setting. Providing the lore is never violated, harmony is maintained--but fracture a crack in the lore even just once... and the fabric of of the whole shatters into millions of jagged pieces, never to be put back together again.

Battletech has its lore. This isn't about balance. This is about maintaining the universe as it was, as it has been, and how it must continue to exist lest it too comes crashing down.

That is what this is about.

Okay, so weapons fire 1x over 10 seconds and you have 50/50 odds of hitting a mech sized targets SOMEWHERE on it (unable to pick exact spots) at 120m. Also everyone only gets 1 mech (at most), customization is massively expensive and you do the customization and then have to wait months for the mech to be 'available'.

I'm calling total and complete ******** on that argument. You're cherry picking the lore. Are people who play Clans required to be 50% better than people who play IS at the game? How about no picking your mech unless you're top fraction of a percent, your mech is assigned to you by the AI for each match based on match type and loadout?

This isn't a new argument. It's always been this way; the developers made the cardinal mistake of trying to have Clans OP and this was viewed as license by munchkins to have a game built around the idea of the game balance being broken in their favor and having a justification for it. 'Gosh, it's not my fault my side is supposed to be inherently better. Just how the game works! Now how do we force people to play redshirts for me to kill and pretend it's my skill and not bad balance that drives my wins?'

The people who made the game acknowledged the concept is a failed concept. They abandoned it and moved into 1 to 1 balance for tabletop or just avoided the whole era for HBS and MW5.

This game is a 12v12 FPS game. That's this game. I get that some people want the game balance broken in their favor and probably love BT as a game because it makes an excuse for them to ask for that without being blatantly munchkins....

but we all know it for what it is. Damage is total over 10 seconds, all mechs stock, 1 mech per player, no mechlab, accuracy as insanely bad as it is in TT and we can talk about tabletop balance - which would be moot because there wouldn't be 24 people who wanted to regularly play the game at the same time and there sure as **** wouldn't be 12 people wanting to play IS for every 10 wanting to play Clans.

Again however, it's a moot argument. It will never, ever happen. Specifically because even for all the mistakes made in MWO any game company that can get the money together to actually make a game would, by necessity, be too smart to do something as guaranteed to fail as that.

[Monkey Lover]

SilentWolff, on 15 March 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Why shouldnt they be the same duration? Sure, clan does more damage and range, but its minimal. On top of that, when you factor ghost heat and the fact you can only shoot 2 erll, while IS can shoot 3, I call it a wash. Explain why you think it isnt?

lol a wash.... it has 18% more damage and has about 18% more duration.

What i call a ghost heat wash is the 1 slot, more range and less weight,

Funny how the clanners always want more and the IS pilots just want balance haha