255 replies to this topic

[Snowbluff]

Thanks for the ERML analysis! I was wondering about that.

[Acehilator]

Pjwned, on 02 July 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

Except that with the (long overdue) introduction of LFEs finally, the "OP state of clan XL" is actually not such a huge reason for faction imbalance anymore, because the bigger issue by far was always that IS mechs didn't have access to a 10-slot engine to have a balanced option between XL and STD, and now that they finally do have that it means that attention is needed elsewhere instead.

There's still a lot of room to improve IS weaponry, it's just that PGI needs to stop being so passive about it and relying on quirks way too much. Other things like improving standard heatsinks and ferro fibrous armor (or, arguably, standard structure instead) and not screwing over mechs with sub-250 rated engines (which impacts IS mechs quite a bit more) would also help, and I'm sure I could think of a bunch more to do if I really tried.

You also say "of course it's not the one thing," except you wouldn't know that reading all of the posts around here still bitching and wailing and screaming about clan XL.



You realize that intra-faction balance is describing balance within 1 faction and not compared to another faction, right? Inter-faction would be the term for IS vs Clan balance, and I did try to make a distinction there by using both terms.

And if you're talking about intentionally making equipment obsolete then yeah obviously that has an effect on intra-faction balance.

If IS engines must be buffed, which is a dumb solution by the way because they're fine as is, then buff all of them equally instead of making 1 engine superior for no good reason.

You seriously brought up SHS? Ok, I'm out of that discussion.

Regarding the second point, I know what the difference between intra- and inter- is... so pray tell, what would be the earthshattering balance consequences of 100% useless STDs?

(You realize that they are going to be 99% useless anyways right? With our without side torso loss penalties.)

[Bigbacon]

is there a way to play around with the new tech say on a site like Smurfy's?

[Pjwned]

Acehilator, on 02 July 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

You seriously brought up SHS? Ok, I'm out of that discussion.

I accept your defeat then.

Quote

Regarding the second point, I know what the difference between intra- and inter- is... so pray tell, what would be the earthshattering balance consequences of 100% useless STDs?

(You realize that they are going to be 99% useless anyways right? With our without side torso loss penalties.)

Okay, well it wasn't clear if you understood what I meant (or if you perhaps misread), because it seems so...obvious...that if you intentionally make 1 option superior so that at the very least 1 (out of 2) of the other options no longer makes any sense to use except in super niche cases--much like standard heatsinks by the way, but I guess you have some idiotic reason for being triggered that I dare suggest improving them, which is actually really simple to do but I'm not going to bother explaining (what I've said elsewhere) to you how to do it--then that negatively affects intrafaction balance because less viable options means less opportunities for builds, and especially with plenty of (other) new tech (besides the LFE) coming that's really stupid to do.

I didn't suggest that obsoleting STD engines would have "earth shattering consequences" by the way, but it does have a notable negative impact on intrafaction balance to remove a previously viable option by power creeping the other option so that it's the only real choice, especially when that comes at the cost of ignoring every other solution like improving weaponry--something that you apparently can't argue for ****. I would also like to note that even though STD engines are not very popular--note that I'm making a distinction between popular and viable here, because STD engines themselves are viable--you (and many others too) highly exaggerate how useless STD engines are, especially when it comes to heavy & assault mechs and/or mechs with low engine caps, and I find that pretty annoying.

If you really want to argue for engine buffs then the best way to do that would be to argue for buffing XL and STD engines as well, but you shouldn't argue that either because it's a bad idea when lots of improvements can be made elsewhere first; singling out 1 engine type and buffing that is an even more stupid idea than buffing all of them.

[Mcgral18]

Pjwned, on 02 July 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

If you really want to argue for engine buffs then the best way to do that would be to argue for buffing XL and STD engines as well, but you shouldn't argue that either because it's a bad idea when lots of improvements can be made elsewhere first; singling out 1 engine type and buffing that is an even more stupid idea than buffing all of them.

...that's exactly what most people are asking for...

The LFE having no penalty, no benefit, isXL having some boost, STD boatload of boosts, cXL current penalties

[Pjwned]

Mcgral18, on 02 July 2017 - 06:16 PM, said:

...that's exactly what most people are asking for...

The LFE having no penalty, no benefit, isXL having some boost, STD boatload of boosts, cXL current penalties

I'm aware of that.

I also made it pretty clear that I think that's also a dumb idea, just not quite as dumb as singling out LFE for a buff.

[Acehilator]

Pjwned, on 02 July 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

I accept your defeat then.



Okay, well it wasn't clear if you understood what I meant (or if you perhaps misread), because it seems so...obvious...that if you intentionally make 1 option superior so that at the very least 1 (out of 2) of the other options no longer makes any sense to use except in super niche cases--much like standard heatsinks by the way, but I guess you have some idiotic reason for being triggered that I dare suggest improving them, which is actually really simple to do but I'm not going to bother explaining (what I've said elsewhere) to you how to do it--then that negatively affects intrafaction balance because less viable options means less opportunities for builds, and especially with plenty of (other) new tech (besides the LFE) coming that's really stupid to do.

I didn't suggest that obsoleting STD engines would have "earth shattering consequences" by the way, but it does have a notable negative impact on intrafaction balance to remove a previously viable option by power creeping the other option so that it's the only real choice, especially when that comes at the cost of ignoring every other solution like improving weaponry--something that you apparently can't argue for ****. I would also like to note that even though STD engines are not very popular--note that I'm making a distinction between popular and viable here, because STD engines themselves are viable--you (and many others too) highly exaggerate how useless STD engines are, especially when it comes to heavy & assault mechs and/or mechs with low engine caps, and I find that pretty annoying.

If you really want to argue for engine buffs then the best way to do that would be to argue for buffing XL and STD engines as well, but you shouldn't argue that either because it's a bad idea when lots of improvements can be made elsewhere first; singling out 1 engine type and buffing that is an even more stupid idea than buffing all of them.

A smaller number of building options has nothing to do with balance. Who cares if a build with LFE is 25% or 30% stronger than a build with STD. Also, like I already said (and you conviniently ignored), STD engines will almost die out anyways, so for all intents are purposes they are the only real choice anyways (at least between STD and LFE), even with the side torso loss penalty.

No reason to use STDs unless you want to run LB20/X or HGauss, which are both weapons of questionable strenght, even without considering the fact that they force you to run STD, so overall impact on the game and number of builds will be very limited. For builds like the Atlas-S with 4x ARSM6 in one torso side, you are better off with taking the LFE and adjusting your build.

Regarding buff to other engine types, like I already said ( ), people have been asking for that for ages, without PGI giving any indication of considering such a thing, and now when they have the LFE as an excuse anyways, you think the chances are better? Well no, instead of beating that poor dead horse, I would rather focus on the LFE which is still on the PTS, where PGI are actually (at least partially) listening to player feedback for once. Singling out the LFE is the way to go.

Also, I never said PGI should stop working on weapon balance. But that is currently in the best spot it has ever been probably, so it isn't really that high priority. Getting a dope engine is more important than 0.1sec burntime or 2.4% range on a laser.

[Johnny Z]

Topic title is so funny hahahaha.

[Pjwned]

Acehilator, on 03 July 2017 - 03:06 AM, said:

A smaller number of building options has nothing to do with balance. Who cares if a build with LFE is 25% or 30% stronger than a build with STD. Also, like I already said (and you conviniently ignored), STD engines will almost die out anyways, so for all intents are purposes they are the only real choice anyways (at least between STD and LFE), even with the side torso loss penalty.

So I guess if there was literally only 1 viable mech with 1 viable build it wouldn't be a problem since "a smaller number of building options has nothing to do with balance."

Quote

No reason to use STDs unless you want to run LB20/X or HGauss, which are both weapons of questionable strenght, even without considering the fact that they force you to run STD, so overall impact on the game and number of builds will be very limited. For builds like the Atlas-S with 4x ARSM6 in one torso side, you are better off with taking the LFE and adjusting your build.

You mean there would be no (or very little) reason to use STD engines if the engine damage penalties for LFE are reduced/removed.

How would you even improve a build like this with LFE anyways? The LFE really does not save all that much weight anyways, you'd have to remove 1 ASRM6 because of the engine slots which is kind of a big deal and on top of that you'd find it hard to fit in more equipment than it already has with the extra engine slots, and if the engine damage penalties stay the way they are (which they should) then you would have to deal with that every time a side torso got blown off and you'd barely have anything to show for it.

The STD is only useless if you **** around with intrafaction balance by doing stupid ****.

Quote

Regarding buff to other engine types, like I already said ( ), people have been asking for that for ages, without PGI giving any indication of considering such a thing, and now when they have the LFE as an excuse anyways, you think the chances are better? Well no, instead of beating that poor dead horse, I would rather focus on the LFE which is still on the PTS, where PGI are actually (at least partially) listening to player feedback for once. Singling out the LFE is the way to go.

They don't want to do that probably because it's a stupid idea, and singling out the LFE is even more stupid; there isn't a more accurate way of putting it.

It's a dead horse for a reason.

Quote

Also, I never said PGI should stop working on weapon balance. But that is currently in the best spot it has ever been probably, so it isn't really that high priority. Getting a dope engine is more important than 0.1sec burntime or 2.4% range on a laser.

There's still a lot of room for improvement even if weapon balance is in a decent place now.

As a quick list:
-LBX cannons (including the IS LB 10-X AC) are still bad because they don't even do their crit seeking job properly.
-Small lasers are still bad, they're still too hot.
-Medium lasers are still hotter than they should be.
-ER PPCs are still bad because their projectile velocity is still too low.
-LRMs are still too unreliable because ECM is unbalanced, which disproportionately affects IS LRMs more because they're much bigger & heavier, and on top of that they keep getting nerfed.
-SSRMs are still trash because they spread their damage all over the place.

That's just for weapons too, there's other adjustments that could be made for other equipment (which you already dismissed) and that doesn't even account for the upcoming new tech either or the possibility of adding still more new tech (if PGI bumped up the timeline very slightly for some of it) like mortars & light ACs & plasma rifles and such.

Edited by Pjwned, 03 July 2017 - 11:24 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Pjwned, on 01 July 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

The problem is that if you throw intrafaction balance out of whack by doing stupid **** like that (i.e making equipment obsolete on purpose) then it turns interfaction balance into a nightmarish mess.

EXCEPT.... its not obsolete. Its different values with different features. The clans kept on using standard engines well past the point they perfected the XLs in size on many designs. My supernova-3s all run standard engines because with a head and dual ct energy hardpoints, i can lose both side and still shoot back.

[Pjwned]

Dee Eight, on 03 July 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

EXCEPT.... its not obsolete. Its different values with different features. The clans kept on using standard engines well past the point they perfected the XLs in size on many designs.

So is that a defense of singling out LFE for a buff then? Because I could say the exact same thing for STD engines right now; "different values with different features."

Quote

My supernova-3s all run standard engines because with a head and dual ct energy hardpoints, i can lose both side and still shoot back.

A fringe case with a fringe build is not enough to intentionally make STD engines a less valuable option; the same idea applies to standard heatsinks which are junk right now and actually do need a buff.

[Tarl Cabot]

Pjwned, on 03 July 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

So is that a defense of singling out LFE for a buff then? Because I could say the exact same thing for STD engines right now; "different values with different features."

A fringe case with a fringe build is not enough to intentionally make STD engines a less valuable option; the same idea applies to standard heatsinks which are junk right now and actually do need a buff.

A few mechs with low engine caps, or weapon systems that prevent the user from using LFE or XL. And in a game there there are no logistics, supply depots, etc, PGI has placed STD towards that almost obsolete category. If this was 3025 time line, IS would not have XL (except for Comguards) nor LFE.

LFE would only a slight buff, it would still have penalties, while also providing isXL with the benefits that both LFE and cXL enjoy, and buffing cXL (reduce heat penalty).

For the STD, a benefit could be to reduce even more the including damage when shot from the arm/torso/leg sections after they have been destroyed.

[Acehilator]

Pjwned, on 03 July 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

So I guess if there was literally only 1 viable mech with 1 viable build it wouldn't be a problem since "a smaller number of building options has nothing to do with balance."



You mean there would be no (or very little) reason to use STD engines if the engine damage penalties for LFE are reduced/removed.

How would you even improve a build like this with LFE anyways? The LFE really does not save all that much weight anyways, you'd have to remove 1 ASRM6 because of the engine slots which is kind of a big deal and on top of that you'd find it hard to fit in more equipment than it already has with the extra engine slots, and if the engine damage penalties stay the way they are (which they should) then you would have to deal with that every time a side torso got blown off and you'd barely have anything to show for it.

The STD is only useless if you **** around with intrafaction balance by doing stupid ****.



They don't want to do that probably because it's a stupid idea, and singling out the LFE is even more stupid; there isn't a more accurate way of putting it.

It's a dead horse for a reason.



There's still a lot of room for improvement even if weapon balance is in a decent place now.

As a quick list:
-LBX cannons (including the IS LB 10-X AC) are still bad because they don't even do their crit seeking job properly.
-Small lasers are still bad, they're still too hot.
-Medium lasers are still hotter than they should be.
-ER PPCs are still bad because their projectile velocity is still too low.
-LRMs are still too unreliable because ECM is unbalanced, which disproportionately affects IS LRMs more because they're much bigger & heavier, and on top of that they keep getting nerfed.
-SSRMs are still trash because they spread their damage all over the place.

That's just for weapons too, there's other adjustments that could be made for other equipment (which you already dismissed) and that doesn't even account for the upcoming new tech either or the possibility of adding still more new tech (if PGI bumped up the timeline very slightly for some of it) like mortars & light ACs & plasma rifles and such.

Holy wall of text, batman.

Nice hyperbole on the "one viable mech" thing.

And for the third time, even if LFE go live with current PTS penalties, there will be almost no reason to run STD anymore. You don't seem to understand that, can't really help you with that. For the Atlas build, drop down the ASRM6s to ASRM4 and use the E hardpoints? Or use a D-DC because it is better (at least for solo queue)?

So let me try to get this straight... STDs are rather bad, but who cares, we should not ask for buffs because buffs are stupid, so LFE are not allowed to be buffed too? WTH are we even talking about?

Also funny that pretty much your complete weapon list got nothing to do with faction balance, because the listed problems are valid for both sides.

And also for a third time, I did not dismiss any changes to other equipment. PGIs inactivity for 3+ years did.

At this point I pretty much have to assume you are trolling me... well done.

[Dee Eight]

Pjwned, on 03 July 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

So is that a defense of singling out LFE for a buff then? Because I could say the exact same thing for STD engines right now; "different values with different features."

No. The LFE is fine as its been introduced into the PTS.

Quote

A fringe case with a fringe build is not enough to intentionally make STD engines a less valuable option; the same idea applies to standard heatsinks which are junk right now and actually do need a buff.

How is it a fringe case? Any IS mech you plan to run an LB-20-X or Heavy Gauss in will also still be a standard engine since PGI won't code in split crits. Many of the IIC mechs came with standard engines also in the lore, even when they could have come with XLs. Look in the TROs after the civil war and you'll find dozens of mechs still being introduced to the game with standard engines even when the IS already had alternatives. Hell even the clans were still designing new mechs with standard engines.The Onager, a 90 ton CJF assault in the 3085 TRO for example, has an endo steel frame, FF armor, 270 standard engine, Micro, small and medium pulse lasers, SRM6s, and a HAG30 with improved jump jets and DHS. So all advanced clan weapons and equipment but still a standard engine. Guess what...its maxed out on crit spaced. The LA has no lower or hand actuators to fit the HAG and 2 tons of ammo in it, total 49 crits used by the weapons/equipment/structure/armor.
That's one of the advantages as others have pointed out to standard engines still being in the game...they occupy less space inside the mech. Just because you cannot wrap your head around the standard engines still being of value to people isn't anyone's problem but your own.

[Skanderborg]

I think IS UAC's are the only thing that is going to make a difference.

[Pjwned]

Acehilator, on 03 July 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

Holy wall of text, batman.

Sorry, if you thought that was a wall of text I'll stick to more 1-liners for your feeble mind.

Quote

Nice hyperbole on the "one viable mech" thing.

It was needed since you said something so stupid and it proved my point, so I guess it worked out.

Quote

And for the third time, even if LFE go live with current PTS penalties, there will be almost no reason to run STD anymore. You don't seem to understand that, can't really help you with that.

Saying that doesn't mean it's accurate, because it isn't.

Quote

For the Atlas build, drop down the ASRM6s to ASRM4 and use the E hardpoints? Or use a D-DC because it is better (at least for solo queue)?

Still need space & tonnage to use those hardpoints and enough extra heatsinks for an already hot build, just to downgrade those SRMs that are less hot.

Quote

So let me try to get this straight... STDs are rather bad, but who cares, we should not ask for buffs because buffs are stupid, so LFE are not allowed to be buffed too? WTH are we even talking about?

Unpopular doesn't mean bad, and again singling out LFEs for a buff is stupid, just like it would be for the other 2.

Quote

Also funny that pretty much your complete weapon list got nothing to do with faction balance, because the listed problems are valid for both sides.

It applies to a much greater extent to IS weapons, and some of that doesn't apply to Clans at all.

Quote

And also for a third time, I did not dismiss any changes to other equipment. PGIs inactivity for 3+ years did.

PGI being slow at making changes doesn't change the proper solution.

Convergence is still an unbalanced mess since years ago, doesn't mean that dumb garbage like ghost heat or energy draw are the solution.

[mod]

Redacted nonconstructive comment.

[/mod]

Edited by United Airlines Security, 06 July 2017 - 12:14 PM.

[The Basilisk]

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

They fire way faster too

ISSRM6 has a 4 second cooldown. CSSRM6 is like a 6 second cooldown.

Spread and speed on the CSSRMs is way worse too

So yeah they take up more tons/crits but theyre better in many ways.



again not true.

ISERML (720m) has better max range than the CERML (688m)

this makes absolutely no sense and clearly PGI forgot about the max range nerf on CERMLs. OOPS.

CERML is a sad weapon right now... we pay way more heat for less range than the IS counterpart. Yeah CERML gets extra damage but thats largely nullified by the longer beam duration.

I think you may have skipped the part where EFFECTIVE range of IS ERMLaser is just 360m with 5 dmg (405m at Clams and with 7 dmg) and the max range is given based on that (2x360m) with the note that this will be addressed later on since more pressing things are at stake.

Also plz quit the bull with the HUUUUUGE advantage IS reportedly has because they only have to pay 2x tonnage and get as only reward 30% less CD and a bit less spread on a weapon any sane person anyway fires at point blank and not for its dps but for its FRONTLOAD.

Oh yea I see how the poor poor clams are sooooo underpowered with all their 2x dmg to tonnage ratio and having only chassis nobody wants to play.
Maybe that's the reason why I see 70-90% clan mechs in QP.

Ps.: If you find Irony up there, you may keep it.

Edited by The Basilisk, 03 July 2017 - 11:52 PM.

[qS Sachiel]

Jay Leon Hart, on 29 June 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

Barring PGI actually buffing STD engines, the LFE should have *some* penalty from ST loss, but certainly less than that of the C-XL.

Half the penalty seems more than enough, since it gives half the weight savings.

>< it's an attempt at reverse engineering the cXL.
you get a lighter engine per unit output
you get to lose one side and still live..
it costs marginally less than isXL.

what's the problem here? you're getting something EXTRA lol.
this is akin to getting a free bed and then complaining they don't deliver it.

[Valhallan]

qS Sachiel, on 04 July 2017 - 12:05 AM, said:

>< it's an attempt at reverse engineering the cXL.
you get a lighter engine per unit output
you get to lose one side and still live..
it costs marginally less than isXL.

what's the problem here? you're getting something EXTRA lol.
this is akin to getting a free bed and then complaining they don't deliver it.

Lore error alert!

LFE is an actual separate development, not a reverse engineering of C-XL, commissioned by the Wolf's drags to replace their C-XL's because they ran out of the pixie dust necessary for their construction.

[DrxAbstract]

Pjwned, on 03 July 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

How would you even improve a build like this with LFE anyways? The LFE really does not save all that much weight anyways, you'd have to remove 1 ASRM6 because of the engine slots which is kind of a big deal and on top of that you'd find it hard to fit in more equipment than it already has with the extra engine slots, and if the engine damage penalties stay the way they are (which they should) then you would have to deal with that every time a side torso got blown off and you'd barely have anything to show for it.

The STD is only useless if you **** around with intrafaction balance by doing stupid ****.

For that specific build to utilize an LFE it would go through quite a metamorphosis, but after going through the motions, I decided the result was interesting enough to investigate and report on incase you were sincerely curious:

We're going to make some assumptions to start, such as wanting to keep the Medium Lasers, Engine Rating and Armor(No skimming, at least).

To start, 2 ASRM6s would be dropped for 2 ASRM4s as well as relocating the 2 tons of AC20 ammo to the arm to make room for an LFE--This leaves you with 9.5 Tons available and 0 Open Slots. From here it's player discretion as to what to do next, but unless you only want to increase to an LFE360, add 2 Heat Sinks, change the Medium Lasers to Medium Pulses, or even a Large Pulse (6.5 of 9.5 or 9.5 of 9.5, respectively) the forgone conclusion is you're going to have to switch to Standard Structure, which leaves you with only 4.5 Tons, but gives you room to work with. 2 More Heat Sinks and 1 ton more ammo for both the AC20 and SRMs or 4 Heat Sinks would likely be the most common variations... Slight improvements to two areas the AS7-S struggles with: Heat Production and Ammo Longevity.

A minor, but definite, improvement to that particular design... And that's the 30 second iteration. If I spent an hour mulling over the possibilities I'm sure there's a few valid variations hiding in the Mech Lab.