145 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Metus regem, on 30 June 2017 - 08:35 AM, said:

I suspect you are right on that last part, but I see no real reason to try and force MWO to adhere to the same rules for TT, as we do not have random shot placement, we have a much higher rate of fire and much lower cooling. That's not even going near how our engine weight includes the cockpit, sensors, life support and gyro.

I might see no real reason either (personally, I like the idea of sticking close to the table top stock loadouts, but you must have a game that acutally makes them remotely sensible, and MW:O isn'T that game.)

BUt we know that PGI has never channged tonnage or crit values before. I woudn't expect them to start now. I would expect them to be willing to alter range, damage, heat, ammo per ton, rate of fire.

[Khobai]

Quote

BUt we know that PGI has never channged tonnage or crit values before

I fail to see your point. PGI has not done a lot of things until theyve done them.

MWO never had omnimechs or clan tech until it did

MWO never had 3068 weapons until it did

MWO never had escort game mode until it did, and then didnt, and then did again

PGI not changing tonnage on weapons until they do is no different.

Your whole logic is flawed. You seem to think because theyve never done something they never will. PGI could easily decide one day that changing tonnage on weapons is what they need to do, and I hope they do decide that, because a lot of weapons, like the AC2, AC10, light gauss, etc... need to weigh less. Their absurd tonnage is the number one reason they arnt used.

The reality is some weapons can only be balanced properly by lowering their tonnage or crits.

Edited by Khobai, 30 June 2017 - 08:55 AM.

[Metus regem]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 June 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I might see no real reason either (personally, I like the idea of sticking close to the table top stock loadouts, but you must have a game that acutally makes them remotely sensible, and MW:O isn'T that game.)

BUt we know that PGI has never channged tonnage or crit values before. I woudn't expect them to start now. I would expect them to be willing to alter range, damage, heat, ammo per ton, rate of fire.

Still doesn't help the LB-20X from being borked for MWO by being locked into 11 crits meaning it forces the additional penalty of a standard engine. As for the HGR, it again makes units like the Crusader 8S a none viable unit in MWO, as the Crusader 8S uses an isXL with the HGR crit split between the LT and CT. I'd rather see MWO steep away from TT rules like the crit system if it would allow them to make canonical units available in MWO, even if it means they have to have special hard points just for things like the HGR or LB-20X.

[Khobai]

Quote

Still doesn't help the LB-20X from being borked for MWO by being locked into 11 crits meaning it forces the additional penalty of a standard engine.

while I agree 11 crit slots is way excessive on the LB20X, theres also the issue that using standard engines shouldnt be viewed as a penalty. it just means standard engines need a buff.

Heavy Gauss and LB20X both need to go down to 10 crit slots. Critsplitting probably isnt an option because a lot of mech variants like the Centurion are deliberately differentiated by whether or not they can fit a 10 crit slot weapon like the AC20 in their arms or not.

And standard engines need a buff. Standard engines should give at least a +10/+15/+20/+25 CT structure buff by weight class. Its not much but its better than nothing.

Edited by Khobai, 30 June 2017 - 09:09 AM.

[Metus regem]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

while I agree 11 crit slots is excess on the LB20X, theres also the issue that using standard engines shouldnt be viewed as a penalty. it just means standard engines need a decent buff.

Untill they get a decent buff, they are a penalty while the LFE is available to really make it look bad.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

I fail to see your point. PGI has not done a lot of things until theyve done them.

MWO never had omnimechs or clan tech until it did

MWO never had 3068 weapons until it did

MWO never had escort game mode until it did, and then didnt, and then did again

Don't you see that is an apples and oranges comparison? Game modes have nothing to do with how they handle game stats. That they add technology is something that already happened during the Beta of the game! That they would do it again didn't require a miracle. That they add new game modes? That has happened before.

But that they changed the tonnage of a weapon or piece of equipment, when they had ample opportunity to do so? That never happened. They always dial around at the other stats (of which they are plenty, so it's kinda understandable that they focus on the ones that have no direct impact on importing table top mechs.)

One might have expected that with ATMs, they would have finally tried to devise a way to implement ammo change, for example. But they missed this change again, just as with LBX. In this case I suspect it's more a problem of how they set up their weapon then something "ideological", but there are just some things you can't really expect to happen.

Quote

while I agree 11 crit slots is excess on the LB20X, theres also the issue that using standard engines shouldnt be viewed as a penalty. it just means standard engines need a buff.

Heavy Gauss and LB20X both need to go down to 10 crit slots. Critsplitting probably isnt an option because a lot of mech variants like the Centurion are deliberately differentiated by whether or not they can fit a 10 crit slot weapon like the AC20 in their arms or not.

And standard engines need a buff. Standard engines should give at least a +20 CT structure buff. Its not much but its better than nothing.

That is something I can agree on. And I might even have a mild hope of something like this happening, because they have at least talked about balancing the different engines before. (Not that anything came out of it so far. Except the penalties for losing a side torso with C-XL and now IS-L Engines.)
IS and Clan STD: +20 structure to all torso sections.
IS Light Engine: +5 structure to all torso sections
IS XL Engine: +5 Structure to all Torso Sections
CLan XL Engine: As now.
Maybe with an added twist that the bonus structure also counts for the armor limit, e.g. you can equip more armor on these sections (but of course,that will cost you tonnage.)

[Metus regem]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 June 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

Don't you see that is an apples and oranges comparison? Game modes have nothing to do with how they handle game stats. That they add technology is something that already happened during the Beta of the game! That they would do it again didn't require a miracle. That they add new game modes? That has happened before.

But that they changed the tonnage of a weapon or piece of equipment, when they had ample opportunity to do so? That never happened. They always dial around at the other stats (of which they are plenty, so it's kinda understandable that they focus on the ones that have no direct impact on importing table top mechs.)

One might have expected that with ATMs, they would have finally tried to devise a way to implement ammo change, for example. But they missed this change again, just as with LBX. In this case I suspect it's more a problem of how they set up their weapon then something "ideological", but there are just some things you can't really expect to happen.



That is something I can agree on. And I might even have a mild hope of something like this happening, because they have at least talked about balancing the different engines before. (Not that anything came out of it so far. Except the penalties for losing a side torso with C-XL and now IS-L Engines.)
IS and Clan STD: +20 structure to all torso sections.
IS Light Engine: +5 structure to all torso sections
IS XL Engine: +5 Structure to all Torso Sections
CLan XL Engine: As now.
Maybe with an added twist that the bonus structure also counts for the armor limit, e.g. you can equip more armor on these sections (but of course,that will cost you tonnage.)

I'd give the LFE +10 to all torso sections, that way it's a good balance between standard and XL for the IS, as the LFE is still 75% of the weight of a standard rather than the 50% that the XL is.

[Khobai]

Quote

Don't you see that is an apples and oranges comparison? Game modes have nothing to do with how they handle game stats.

Nope I dont see that.

Because I fail to see why changing tonnage/crit stats is taboo. It is completely irrational.

Lowering tonnage or crits does not change stock builds. Stock builds are still identical to how they were before. They will not perform any differently in stockmode only games.

Say a stock mech has an AC10. Lowering the tonnage on the AC10 from 12 to 10 tons doesnt change that stock mech. It might have 2 free tons now but its still going to perform identically to if it didnt have those 2 free tons.

And you should NEVER be using a stockmech outside stockmech only gamemodes because its just handicapping yourself severely for no good reason.

Its a completely irrational desire to preserve stockmechs that are rarely if ever used and if they are used its in stockmech only games where the tonnage/crit reductions on weapons have zero bearing whatsoever anyway. Because stock mechs arnt allowed to change their equipment to benefit from the extra tonnage/crits that might be freed up.

TLDR: youre wrong. im right.

Edited by Khobai, 30 June 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Metus regem, on 30 June 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

I'd give the LFE +10 to all torso sections, that way it's a good balance between standard and XL for the IS, as the LFE is still 75% of the weight of a standard rather than the 50% that the XL is.

I figured the LFE has the drawback of being heavier than the XL, but the advantage of not blowing up on a single side torso loss, so I eventually settled for keeping the bonus equal. I could see arguments for both.

[BigBenn]

GET RID OF THE FRIGGIN' CHARGE UP FOR ALL OF THE GAUSS RIFLES! It is that simple.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

Nope I dont see that.

Because I fail to see why changing tonnage/crit stats is taboo.

Lowering tonnage or crits does not change stock builds. Stock builds are still identical to how they were before. They will not perform any differently in stockmode only games.

THat is the thing with taboos, isn't it? There isn't anything logical about it.

The taboo is probably: Underweight mechs. Those just don't exist. You fill up the full tonnage of the mech, or ... you don't go to Mechwarrior Valhalla.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

've seen it argued that canon stock designs weren't really all that good in TT Battletech either. They were deliberately designed to be flawed from the very beginning because that was "realistic". Custom player designed mechs were so much better than canon designs that custom designs were pretty much outright banned from any official TT tournament game.

There's always a few variants that work well, though. Some are even darn near ideal, like the Hellstar. If you're allowed to pick, there's generally some winners to work with in the pack given how many different designs have been made over the decades.

[Khobai]

Quote

The taboo is probably: Underweight mechs. Those just don't exist

except theres dozens of examples of stock mechs that dont use all their crits or tonnage.

youre spouting nonsense.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

except theres dozens of examples of stock mechs that dont use all their crits or tonnage.

youre spouting nonsense.

I am not aware of any stock mechs that are under tonnaged, but I won't claim complete knwoledge of all mechs. I know however that this would be extremely unusual.
I am aware of stock mechs that don't use all crits - that is practically impossible for lighter mechs, especially without 3050+ Technology.


I am however not aware of any single time PGI ever alluded to being willing to alter tonnage or crit slots for equipment adopted for this game, or releasing underweight mechs.

[Khobai]

Quote

I am not aware of any stock mechs that are under tonnaged

theres plenty of mechs that have fractional unused tonnage. its quite common.

[Zergling]

So, this is what the Gauss weapons look like after most recent change, compared to regular Gauss:

Light Gauss = 8 damage, 3.75 cooldown, 0.50 charge, 1.88 DPS, 0.157 DPS/ton, 2200 velocity, 750 optimal range, 1500 max range
Gauss = 15 damage, 5.00 cooldown, 0.75 charge, 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 2000 velocity, 660 optimal range, 1320 max range
Heavy Gauss = 25 damage, 6.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge, 3.85 DPS, 0.214 DPS/ton, 1500 velocity, 180 optimal range, 810 max range

As can be seen, the Light Gauss is still not competitive with the regular Gauss, due to substantially inferior DPS/ton. The Heavy Gauss is competitive, but only at close range... and at close range it is competing with AC20s.

Heavy Gauss vs AC20:
Heavy Gauss = 25 damage, 6.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge, 3.85 DPS, 0.214 DPS/ton, 1500 velocity, 180 optimal range, 810 max range
AC20 = 20 damage, 4.00 cooldown, 0.00 charge, 5.00 DPS, 0.357 DPS/ton, 650 velocity, 270 optimal range, 540 max range

While the Heavy Gauss has a bit more range than the AC20, it is not a significant amount; its shots are doing only 10.7 damage at 540 meters, 8.33 at 600 meters, 5.95 at 660 meters, 4.37 at 700 meters.
It's much higher velocity isn't terribly useful at short range either; for the range it is used at, AC20 velocity is normally fine.

So to compete with the AC20, the Heavy Gauss is gonna need substantially more buffing, or it could be changed to be a long range weapon more comparable to the regular Gauss in exchange for max damage dropping to 20 (which is my preference).

[TheArisen]

Zergling, on 30 June 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

So, this is what the Gauss weapons look like after most recent change, compared to regular Gauss:

Light Gauss = 8 damage, 3.75 cooldown, 0.50 charge, 1.88 DPS, 0.157 DPS/ton, 2200 velocity, 750 optimal range, 1500 max range
Gauss = 15 damage, 5.00 cooldown, 0.75 charge, 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 2000 velocity, 660 optimal range, 1320 max range
Heavy Gauss = 25 damage, 6.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge, 3.85 DPS, 0.214 DPS/ton, 1500 velocity, 180 optimal range, 810 max range

As can be seen, the Light Gauss is still not competitive with the regular Gauss, due to substantially inferior DPS/ton. The Heavy Gauss is competitive, but only at close range... and at close range it is competing with AC20s.

Heavy Gauss vs AC20:
Heavy Gauss = 25 damage, 6.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge, 3.85 DPS, 0.214 DPS/ton, 1500 velocity, 180 optimal range, 810 max range
AC20 = 20 damage, 4.00 cooldown, 0.00 charge, 5.00 DPS, 0.357 DPS/ton, 650 velocity, 270 optimal range, 540 max range

While the Heavy Gauss has a bit more range than the AC20, it is not a significant amount; its shots are doing only 10.7 damage at 540 meters, 8.33 at 600 meters, 5.95 at 660 meters, 4.37 at 700 meters.
It's much higher velocity isn't terribly useful at short range either; for the range it is used at, AC20 velocity is normally fine.

So to compete with the AC20, the Heavy Gauss is gonna need substantially more buffing, or it could be changed to be a long range weapon more comparable to the regular Gauss in exchange for max damage dropping to 20 (which is my preference).

They should bump the LGauss dmg to 9 or 10 and maybe a touch more range, 800 maybe?

Hgauss dmg drops off too fast, increase it's optimum range to 220 or maybe more. It's 19 tons and 12 crits with 1t of ammo, that's a huge investment and honestly even dual Hgauss isn't all that scary when you consider 50+ alphas are normal and at greater range.

[Y E O N N E]

Zergling, on 30 June 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

So to compete with the AC20, the Heavy Gauss is gonna need substantially more buffing, or it could be changed to be a long range weapon more comparable to the regular Gauss in exchange for max damage dropping to 20 (which is my preference).

Would they really need to drop the damage, though? At 25, a pair do 50 damage. A pair is also 36 tons. You know what else is 36 tons? A pair of cGauss and a pair of cERPPC together, and those have collectively greater range, can fit with an XL, and have bonus splash damage. I see no problem boosting the range on HGauss and allowing it to retain 25 points.

[Zergling]

TheArisen, on 01 July 2017 - 12:07 AM, said:

They should bump the LGauss dmg to 9 or 10 and maybe a touch more range, 800 maybe?

Hgauss dmg drops off too fast, increase it's optimum range to 220 or maybe more. It's 19 tons and 12 crits with 1t of ammo, that's a huge investment and honestly even dual Hgauss isn't all that scary when you consider 50+ alphas are normal and at greater range.

If they keep Light Gauss at 8 damage, they'll need to drop the cooldown to 3.00 seconds or less to make it at all competitive. 10 damage with 3.75 second CD would also work though.

I'd prefer it if they just drop Heavy Gauss damage from 25 to 20, reduce cooldown from 6.5 to 6.0 seconds, increase optimal range to 600 and max range to 1200.
With 1500 velocity, it'll be a bit trickier to use at range than regular Gauss, but it should be a reasonably balanced weapon.

Keeping the Heavy Gauss optimal range so short means it has to compete with AC20s, and it will require a much lower cooldown to do that.

Yeonne Greene, on 01 July 2017 - 01:05 AM, said:

Would they really need to drop the damage, though? At 25, a pair do 50 damage. A pair is also 36 tons. You know what else is 36 tons? A pair of cGauss and a pair of cERPPC together, and those have collectively greater range, can fit with an XL, and have bonus splash damage. I see no problem boosting the range on HGauss and allowing it to retain 25 points.

I'm not even bothering to try and calculate the balance vs Clans atm, that's just a whole 'nother headache that makes things impossible.
I'm just trying to think of ways to make the weapons balanced versus other weapons from the same faction first, 'cause they aren't even balanced like that yet.

Heavy Gauss at 25 damage is actually more weight efficient than a regular IS Gauss Rifle; if it could do that damage to similar ranges, the regular IS Gauss would be redundant.

Edited by Zergling, 01 July 2017 - 01:09 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Zergling, on 01 July 2017 - 01:06 AM, said:

I'm not even bothering to try and calculate the balance vs Clans atm, that's just a whole 'nother headache that makes things impossible.
I'm just trying to think of ways to make the weapons balanced versus other weapons from the same faction first, 'cause they aren't even balanced like that yet.

Have to do it all at once, dude, or you end up doing it twice.

Quote

Heavy Gauss at 25 damage is actually more weight efficient than a regular IS Gauss Rifle; if it could do that damage to similar ranges, the regular IS Gauss would be redundant.

It wouldn't be redundant because the regular Gauss can fit with an LFE or XL. The HGauss is essentially pigeonholed to Assaults for poke duty because they are the only 'Mechs with enough tonnage to run a STD engine and still bring meaningful complementary weapons.