121 replies to this topic

[Kaptain]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

if you make the HPPC do 15 PPFLD, the linear dropoff needs to go back to being a 90m deadzone.

And if that were the case you would be OK with it? Adding that drawback to the long list of drawbacks would make it ok?

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

because the very fact that IS gauss is 3 tons heavier than clan gauss, yet doesnt do anymore damage than clan gauss, weakens the argument that HPPCs should do more damage simply because they weigh more than CERPPC.

Again, it doesn't come down to "simply because they weigh more" and you ARE obviously ignoring the strength of the counter argument. Ill quote it again for you:

Kaptain, on 05 July 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

Since you can't think of any reason ill give you several.

ERPPC vs HPPC
6tons vs 10tons (That's is a 66% increase in weight HPPC)
2slots vs 6slots (that's a 100% increase in bulk for the HPPC)
14 vs 15 heat
810 vs 540 range (that's a 50% better range for the ERPPC)
zero minimum range vs drop off from 90
1300 vs 1200 travel speed

In the case of the HPPC it would get more damage because its Hotter, Heavier, Bulkier, Shorter ranged, slower AND has a minimum range drop off. Not "just" for being heavier as you claim.

I say its a straw-man you say it isn't. Whatever, doesn't matter. Regardless its a flawed argument, and here is why:

CGR vs ISGR
12tons vs 15tons %25 heavier for IS
7 vs 6 slots (a very small increase comparatively)
15 damage vs your proposed 20 %33 damage increase
Same Trave Time
Same range
Same cool down
Same charge

Spending 25% more weight to get a net positive damage gain of %33 would be an obvious buy and obviously overpowered. This is the entire point of you bringing it up. Compare that to the discussion at hand:

C-ERPPC vs HPPC downsides:
#1 6tons vs 10 making HPPC %66 heavier
#2 2slots vs 4slots making HPPC 100% bulkier
#3 %50 reduction to HPPC range
#4 Slower HPPC travel time
#5 Exponential (not linear) minimum range
#6 More Heat

Positives:
#1 Damage shift from splash to FLPP

Now in this comparison the net gain does not outweigh the costs like it does in your guass rifle analogy. You're not getting more out of it then you put in. You are putting more in then you get out. And unlike in the GR analogy there are MANY other downsides besides "just" weight as you keep insisting. Infact, I number the downsides this time so it would be easier for you to count them.

EDIT: So you want to talk PPCs now? Do you concede that when it comes to the HPPC vs ERPPC we are not discussing the facts and you just want the C-ERPPC to be better (as you said) because clan has less options? I'm actually ok with that. The points you brought up about the PPC are far more reasoned than the ERPPC -I just want it to be good because its all I got- argument.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

so the one and only option clans get needs to be way better overall because its the only choice they have.

As for PPC. Very few people run a PPC aside from boating them on quirked mechs like the awesome (I want most quirks removed, esp weapon quirks) Perhaps the problem with PPC vs HPPC balance is the PPC needing a buff?

Edited by Kaptain, 05 July 2017 - 07:19 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

whether its linear or exponential the fact still remains that its better than a 90m deadzone where you do 0 damage

its an advantage the HPPC have that the PPCs dont. so in the x2 HPPCs vs x3 PPCs comparison the HPPCs are better as long as that exists.

Okay, it's a 45 meter dead-zone where you do next to 0 damage. And who is to say that the PPC shouldn't also have this exponential mechanic applied to it? Who is to say that 3x PPC shouldn't be 27 heat to the 30 heat of two HPPC? It would already be 28.5 heat to 30 with what we're asking for, which is a solid heat advantage, or 28.5 to 29 if nothing else changes.

More crucially, you are not using the numbers intelligently. Hell, you are not even using numbers at all half the time in any of the balance discussions you've carried on over the last week. Until you start doing both consistently, you are not capable of carrying conversations of this nature.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 05 July 2017 - 07:06 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

And who is to say that the PPC shouldn't also have this exponential mechanic applied to it?

didnt it used to? and they changed it back to a deadzone. because it made ERPPCs obsolete if I recall.

Quote

Who is to say that 3x PPC shouldn't be 27 heat

because they tried PPCs once before at 8.5 heat, then 9 heat, and 9.5 heat is where they finally ended up.

9.5 heat feels just about perfect for PPCs to me. so yeah id say its a solid baseline.

Quote

More crucially, you are not using the numbers intelligently. Hell, you are not even using numbers at all half the time in any of the balance discussions you've carried on over the last week. Until you start doing both consistently, you are not capable of carrying conversations of this nature.

um except I have been using numbers all along? obviously you missed something.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 07:13 PM.

[BrunoSSace]

This is a funny thread. Thank kind sir's I shall take my leave.

[Kaptain]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

um except I have been using numbers all along? obviously you missed something.

No, you have not. In-fact you also deliberately ignore numbers that don't strengthen you point. Examples:

50% less range HPPC vs CERPPC (ignored)
100% more bulk for HPPC vs CERPPC (ignored)
Slower Travel Time for HPPC vs CERPPC (Ignored)
Additional Heat for HPPC vs CERPPC (Ignored)
Minimum range for HPPC vs CERPPC (ignored until you were forced to acknowledge its existence)

Edited by Kaptain, 05 July 2017 - 07:27 PM.

[Cybrid 0x0t2md2w]

I'm gonna just say thanks for the belated pts closing reminder. this hppc stuff can go else where before it's closed. I do wish it lasted another week to see at least 2-3 passes of balancing. not just....1 and another we didn't recieve. all I can say is I'm idnifferent and in no way thrilled how it is going. but I guess it is true the pts went far better than others have. very active.

[justcallme A S H]

Viktor Drake, on 05 July 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

I am a bit disappointed there isn't going to be be another PTS session with the changes they are changing. Instead we just get "Hey we are closing test servers and oh by the way, there are going to be a million and one changes happening based on your feedback but we are not going to let you test these changes before going live". Seriously isn't that what test is for so we can give feedback BEFORE it goes live? I mean seems pretty obvious to me the final round of changes needs to actually be tested on the PTS prior to going live so they can get a few tweak in here or there.

Also obvious to me is if they had to make as many changes as they say are going to be showing up in live, then there wasn't enough testing done on PTS because the message we should be seeing is, "Thanks for your feedback. Please note that with the exception of a few minor changes, we will be going live with these results." If that is not the case, then why bother having us test in the first place?

This is going to be the big problem... There is no way new tech is ready for deployment in what, 3 weeks or is it less?

What we will get is BETA testing on the LIVE servers for 2-3 months.

It's going to be rebalancing/hotfixing like we've never seen. Actually who am I kidding, we have seen it, basically in every big/major patch...

Edited by justcallme A S H, 05 July 2017 - 07:58 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

didnt it used to? and they changed it back to a deadzone. because it made ERPPCs obsolete if I recall.

I've read as much, but I wasn't here for that.

At any rate, the ER PPC is obsolete because it is so hot (it has a dramatically worse damage-to-heat ratio than the Heavy Large Laser) and because of the cER PPC, which can be supported by both more heatsinks and a Targeting Computer while also dealing bonus damage. In fact, you can support a pair of cERPPC so well that, with its bonus damage, it also renders the standard PPC obsolete. Nobody takes a standard PPC for high level play because the min-range is too easy to exploit, its lower optimum leaves it out-ranged in conditions where you want a PPC at all and not the LPL, and its lack of bonus damage to open up exploitable opportunities for team mates...all while simultaneously demanding greater accuracy and precision from its user to maintain DPS on a single component.

Quote

because they tried PPCs once before at 8.5 heat, then 9 heat, and 9.5 heat is where they finally ended up.

9.5 heat feels just about perfect for PPCs to me. so yeah id say its a solid baseline.

The PPCs back then also had a faster rate of fire and much higher projectile velocity. There was also no Clan tech and other weapons were weaker in a myriad of various ways. Basically, our experiences from back then are so far removed from the current game that it is worth revisiting some of the changes.

The ~8.5 heat and ~ 12 heat (PPC/ERPPC) on the BJ-3 feels about perfect; it gets hot under sustained fire but it can at least contribute a decent amount of that sustained fire before having to cycle out; it can also run some token close-range defense in the form of four Small Lasers without breaking the heat bank. It also has a more useful engagement range that fits better with the PPC at its current rate of fire, making the 90 meter minimum less of an imminent problem for the user, and the projectile speed is closer to where it needs to be to have a reasonable chance at applying its superior PPFLD DPS in a trade against cERPPC. On a heavier 'Mech, such a PPC would allow the user to equip more or bigger additional weapons or engines or whatever to actually compete with the firepower, mobility, and/or survivability on the other side of the tech divide.

Quote

um except I have been using numbers all along? obviously you missed something.

Spoiler

Not really. You've been calling out numbers on items, sometimes refining them into derivative values, but have resisted applying them in context of how they will be used in a full-sized game. You keep arguing for gut feelings or preferred concepts, never mind when we show you the math displaying how baseless your irritations are. The tiny max range advantage on isERML and isERSL, for example, is quite soundly overshadowed by the superior damage rating and ramping on their Clan counterparts. There is a soft 78 meter advantage when maximum range skills are applied to both ERML (and less without), but the total damage is less than 1 per laser and 78 meters takes less than 4 seconds to close from a stop in an 81 kph 'Mech, after which point you win on damage and damage over duration until you get to 414 meters, where you start losing on damage over duration but continue winning on damage over heat. And then there are all those extra DHS you can bring, which allow you to surpass the total cooling capabilities on the IS build even with the higher heat on the weapons. The two ERML are actually pretty well balanced, but for some reason you think being able to deal scratch damage for enormous heat is a meaningful advantage. It would be if we assume that nobody moves, but that is a preposterous assumption.

Really, all you have been doing is arguing for a direction (in my context, direction = where they center the balance rather than the balance itself, though you could fairly say that is a sort of balance on its own) and not for balance, but most of the rest of us seem to want a discussion about balance. The reality of balance is this:

We've got Clans shooting 35-50+ PPFLD. Love it or hate it, it's here. As long as it's here, there's got to be something similar on the other side. An HPPC shooting 15/15 or even as favorable as 15/13 creates a 30-45 damage option that reduces the gap by improving the mobility of the wielder over 2x isPPC + 2x isGauss, but it does not close it. If PGI decides to implement a direction change to curb such builds, it's going to hit everybody simultaneously when they release it and there's nothing that makes the HPPC immune to such a possible fix. Until then, allowing the 45 PPFLD is a necessary "evil" to balance the game and keeping the HPPC curbed at 13 or the standard PPC ghost at 2 so the IS can never run anything similar with heat that their sinks cannot equivalently manage is, by the numbers, not fair. If you want to change the direction of the balance, that is valid, but also a different conversation because a direction change, though related, is distinct from a balance change.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

buy a Mechpack ...no further interest

[Bud Crue]

justcallme A S H, on 05 July 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

This is going to be the big problem... There is no way new tech is ready for deployment in what, 3 weeks or is it less?

What we will get is BETA testing on the LIVE servers for 2-3 months.

It's going to be rebalancing/hotfixing like we've never seen. Actually who am I kidding, we have seen it, basically in every big/major patch...

Pretty much, so why worry? In December it was UACs, before that it was Gauss and ERLL. Just this last month it was a full energy "rebalance". The new tech is just the latest entrant into the MWO balance contest, a game in which any and all participating weapons can get nerfed to oblivion, buffed to god tier, or ignored for years on end; all at the whim of PGI, their balance overlord(s) and the great dartboard lurking behind them all. The new tech weapons may be "new" and may even need further development, but frankly given the nature of things around here, they are just as ready for their entry into the realm of "constant iterative balance" that the rest of the weapons in this game currently exist in, so I just don't see them going live with or without another PTS mattering at all.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

also consider clans only get one option for PPCs. Clans dont get 5 different options for PPCs like IS does.

so the one and only option clans get needs to be way better overall because its the only choice they have.

So IS need better SSRMs and LRMs, because they lack ATMs?
Also, IS need better Small class lasers, because they lack Micro class lasers?
Or is your argument inherently flawed and biased?

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

and like I said clans dont get 5 choices for PPCs. they only get 1 choice. so that 1 choice needs to be really really good compared to the 5 choices that IS gets.

Why does it? No feelings, why does it for balance reasons? Bearing in mine IS had years of less options for weapons.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

because its the only PPC clans get. They dont get 5 different PPCs.

less weapon variety means clan weapons need to do more than their IS counterparts

Years of less IS tech begs to differ.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

clans only get one option for PPCs. and that option needs to outperform every IS option because its the only option clans get. the only way out of that problem is to give clans the same weapon variation as IS.

MixTech? I agree!

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

Because there is no logic or reason behind it doing 15 PPFLD.

So deathless IS-XLs, yes? After all, no logic or reason, only "lore".

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

and since splash damage has been established as completely worthless the CERPPC could use a nice buff as well. since its just a worse ISERPPC if splash damage has no value.

You're right! Let's remove the splash, keep it at 10 damage, then it's balanced vs the IS-ERPPC.
Less slots and tonnage, for longer cooldown and more heat. Balanced!

Great idea.

[Khobai]

Quote

Years of less IS tech begs to differ.

False exaggeration as usual. IS barely had less tech (IS have 26 weapons vs Clans 28 weapons not including the clan standard autocannons because they were supposed to be combined with LBX).

Oh no you have 2 less weapons than Clans.

And im sure IS gets way more than 2 weapons over Clans post-civil war tech.

Also Clans never had 5 different versions of something while IS only had 1 version of it. So yeah not really the same thing at all.

Quote

MixTech? I agree!

Id be okay with it but it will never happen.

Quote

So deathless IS-XLs, yes? After all, no logic or reason, only "lore".

IS-XL shouldnt be destroyed when it loses a side torso. it should be destroyed when it suffers 4 crit slot destructions.

CXL should still be slightly more resilient than ISXL though. If only because it only has 2 crits per side torso instead of 3.

Thats why they need to implement engine crits. So they can properly balance all four engine types.

Quote

You're right! Let's remove the splash, keep it at 10 damage, then it's balanced vs the IS-ERPPC.
Less slots and tonnage, for longer cooldown and more heat. Balanced!

Not really since IS get 5 different PPCs and clans only get 1

CERPPC needs to be way better for that reason.

If you give clans way less variation in their weapons then the few weapons they have need to be more diverse.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 08:41 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Exaggeration. IS barely had less tech (IS had 25 weapons vs Clans 28 weapons not including the clan standard autocannons because they were supposed to be combined with LBX). And Clans never had 5 different versions of something while IS only had 1 version of it.

So yeah not really the same thing at all.

IS SSRM - 1
Clan SSRM - 3
IS LBX - 1
Clan LBX - 4
IS UAC - 1
Clan UAC - 4

Yeah, pretty much the same.

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Not really since IS get 5 different PPCs and clans only get 1

CERPPC needs to be way better for that reason.

If you give clans way less variation in their weapons then the few weapons they have need to be more diverse.

Please see above.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah, pretty much the same.

count the number of weapons each side gets

IS = 26 weapons
Clans = 28 weapons (minus the CACs that no one uses because they shouldnt even exist)

you are flat out wrong about clans getting way more weapons than IS. period.

Quote

IS SSRM - 1
Clan SSRM - 3
IS LBX - 1
Clan LBX - 4
IS UAC - 1
Clan UAC - 4

Yeah I can play that game too.

IS standard lasers = 3
Clan standard lasers = 0
IS standard autocannons that fire single slugs = 4
Clan standard autocannons that fire single slugs = 0
IS PPC = 2
Clan PPCs = 1

What we end up with is the truth that IS doesnt have significantly less weapon variation than Clans. Its simply a myth perpetrated by jaded IS players. They wanna believe it so hard that they ignore the actual truth which is that IS and Clans have pretty much the same number of weapons.

And post-civil war IS gets waaaay more tech variation than Clans. Like it wont even be close anymore.

Since IS tech will be far more diverse and specialized with a deeper pool to draw from, Clan tech is going to need to be more flexible and versatile to make up for having considerably less options.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 08:56 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

count the number of weapons each side gets

IS = 26 weapons
Clans = 28 weapons (minus the CACs that no one uses because they shouldnt even exist)

you are flat out wrong about clans getting way more weapons than IS. period.

well its true IS is getting 26 New weapons, but clan is only getting 11,

now when looking at the number of weapons each side will have total after this update,
IS will have 52Weapons Total(26+26), where as Clan will have 43Weapons Total(32+11),
(not counting Artemis weapons(SRM+A & LRM+A) in these Totals(am Counting A-ACs though)

so IS will have 9more weapons than Clan, as well as 2More Armor Types, and an Extra Engine Type,
so Clan may seem to have better things, but IS have more construction options available to them,
as we are already close to IS v Clan Balance i feel this will help make things mostly Equal,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 06 July 2017 - 08:54 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Andi Nagasia, on 06 July 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

well its true IS is getting 26 New weapons, but clan is only getting 11,

now when looking at the number of weapons each side will have total after this update,
IS will have 52Weapons Total(26+26), where as Clan will have 43Weapons Total(32+11),
(not counting Artemis weapons(SRM+A & LRM+A) in these Totals(am Counting A-ACs though)

so IS will have 9more weapons than Clan, as well as 2More Armor Types, and an Extra Engine Type,
so Clan may seem to have better things, but IS have more construction options available to them,
as we are already close to IS v Clan Balance i feel this will help make things mostly Equal,

Equal enough to dump quirks; all quirks?

Edit: I ask because this is where Chris appears to be headed.

Edited by Bud Crue, 06 July 2017 - 09:08 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Equal enough to dump quirks; all quirks?

well quirks still need exist to differentiate otherwise similar mechs as well as buff weaker mechs so they arnt completely awful. that goes for both IS and clan mechs.

but they never shouldve tried to use quirks for balancing the tech bases. so hopefully quirks will no longer be used as a means of trying to balance the two techbases.

for example, giving every single IS mech structure quirks across the board so they could use ISXL better was a bad idea.

what they shouldve done instead is added an engine crit system that made ISXL survive 4 crit slot destructions so it could *barely* survive a side torso destruction. CXL/LFE would likewise survive 4 crit slot destructions but because they only have 2 crit slots per side torso they would be slightly more resilient than the ISXL which has 3 crit slots per side torso. STD engine would get a nice buff then too since using non-STD engines would be inherently riskier. Also each engine crit suffered would have a cumulative -20% heat, -10% speed penalty which would max out at -60% heat, -30% speed.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 09:20 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

well quirks still need exist to differentiate otherwise similar mechs. that goes for both IS and clan mechs.

but they never shouldve tried to use quirks for balancing the tech bases. so hopefully quirks will no longer be used as a means of trying to balance the two techbases.

So you think we will be at a stage where besides variant differentiating quirks, we can get rid of the predominant defensive quirks that most IS mech are currently provided with? My own view is that we are not even remotely close to that state, but I fear that this is where the balance overlords are headed.

[Khobai]

Quote

So you think we will be at a stage where besides variant differentiating quirks, we can get rid of the predominant defensive quirks that most IS mech are currently provided with?

For the most part. Although ISXL is still the elephant in the room. And Id like to see an engine crit system like the one I described above.

I mean the major reason why IS mechs got those defensive quirks in the first place is to make it more viable for them to use an ISXL. So if you work backwards and just implement an engine crit system that buffs XL so it can survive a side torso loss, then you can remove those defensive quirks.

Aside from engines the only other major imbalance is Clan Endo/Ferro vs IS Endo/Ferro. But thats a tough one to balance if PGI wont change crit slots or tonnage savings.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 09:28 AM.