26 replies to this topic

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Pfft, if they can drop the ball on crit-splitting, they should also drop the ball on TT crit-slot and tons.

Nope, then you can't accurately canonize builds from MWO to TT.

[The6thMessenger]

Brain Cancer, on 12 September 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

Nope, then you can't accurately canonize builds from MWO to TT.

Why is that a requirement? Couldn't we just compensate for more ammo? And then replace those ammo back into a crit-ton component of weapon into TT?

[Brain Cancer]

The6thMessenger, on 12 September 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

Why is that a requirement?

Because it's the figleaf on "this is Battletech". Once we start screwing with tonnage and crits, construction goes out the window. Not that MWO really cares given it's tendency to screw up on things like engine sizing, but such is life. (half the Heroes have illegal engine sizes for TT as stock designs.)

We could, of course just say the heck with it and tweak weapon tonnage and such, but at that point you just look at the entire Clantech weapon chart and think to yourself "Why not just make all the IS weapons weigh and crit the same and take care of the biggest balance problem in the game?".

[The6thMessenger]

Brain Cancer, on 12 September 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

Because it's the figleaf on "this is Battletech". Once we start screwing with tonnage and crits, construction goes out the window. Not that MWO really cares given it's tendency to screw up on things like engine sizing, but such is life. (half the Heroes have illegal engine sizes for TT as stock designs.)

Battletech inspired this game may be, you have to understand that a lot of elements that made the construction rules work for Battletech TT, the MWO doesn't have this, something has to give.

Brain Cancer, on 12 September 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

We could, of course just say the heck with it and tweak weapon tonnage and such, but at that point you just look at the entire Clantech weapon chart and think to yourself "Why not just make all the IS weapons weigh and crit the same and take care of the biggest balance problem in the game?".

Why stop there too? Lets make all the mechs the same shapes, the same weight, and the same tonnage -- now what kind of BT game would that be? This hyperbolic bull ******* **** needs to ******* stop, this doesn't get us anywhere and is only preventing the growth of the game.

IS-Clan balance versus "lets make IS LB20X less 1-ton and 1-slot versus standard IS-AC20" has different implications, different scope, different interest, and different results. Making LB20X lighter and smaller wouldn't have the similar impact to flavor between making IS equipment down-right compete with Clan, and remove the Clan superiority.

If we allow unfaithful BT equipment, you might be asking "Now where do we draw the line?", or "If i could do it to one, maybe i should do it to others". Tough questions really, but understand that MWO is an FPS, and doesn't have the same construction rules as the BT TT already, what works on BT TT won't work on MWO, and we have to resign to that.

I would say "baby-steps", keep those that would be integral to the theme, to the immersion, to the flavor. But something small as IS-LB20X being smaller than standard IS-AC20? I think we can afford to look the other way. Other weapon systems can par on their own, little buff/nerf on the touchable stats and they are good to go -- they ARE usable and playable with OK results and little sacrifice.

But is LB20X really the same? Requires STD engine, an AC20 (14t) that could be used with an LFE250 (15.5t) only nets 29.5t, while an LB20X (14t) requiring STD and at the same 250 (18.5t) that nets a total of 32.5t, we are effectively paying for a weapon system 3 tons heavier or 21.43%, at essentially less performance benefits and you can't even put in arms. A Cyclops with 2x AC20 + LFE400 only sums up to 74.5 tons, the 2x LB20X + STD400 actually sums up to 87.5 tons -- and it's actually not even possible to achieve.

You know what, if it comes to that where IS equipment needs to be smaller and lighter than what it is now to compete with the Clan, that there are no other approaches for Clan-IS balance other than equal tonnage and slots, so be it, so long that it would result in a balanced game. I'm not saying enthusiastically, "lets do it", "lets make IS tonnage equal to Clan", but I'm not the type that shy away from radical changes if it's uncompromisingly required.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 September 2017 - 08:52 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 12 September 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

You know what, if it comes to that where IS equipment needs to be smaller and lighter than what it is now to compete with the Clan, that there are no other approaches for Clan-IS balance other than equal tonnage and slots, so be it, so long that it would result in a balanced game. I'm not saying enthusiastically, "lets do it", "lets make IS tonnage equal to Clan", but I'm not the type that shy away from radical changes if it's uncompromisingly required.

Interestingly, they already made isERSL the same range as cERSL. I wonder why they stopped there, thematically they should make that same parity across the entire line-up, especially since all of the ER lasers are the same (or close to the same) Damage-per-Heat and Damage-per-Duration just like ERSL

When I did my laser tables, the way I worked it was Clans retained superior optimum for "flavor", but the maximum was a consistent 1.75x. That gave IS a small (like, very small) max-range advantage to partially offset the lower damage and correspondingly slower ramp-up. Before PGI buffed the cERML back to 2x, we had that. It worked. It was fair. Then they buffed the cERML back to 2x and that partially lead to the current resurgence in the Clan Laser Vomit meta while simultaneously earning it (and the cERSL) a nerf hard enough to obsolete the use of those weapons on Clan Lights. That left Clan Lights holding the bag for the Heavies' sins.

I don't think the repercussions were fully explored.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 12 September 2017 - 09:08 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 September 2017 - 09:08 PM, said:

Interestingly, they already made isERSL the same range as cERSL. I wonder why they stopped there, thematically they should make that same parity across the entire line-up, especially since all of the ER lasers are the same (or close to the same) Damage-per-Heat and Damage-per-Duration just like ERSL

When I did my laser tables, the way I worked it was Clans retained superior optimum for "flavor", but the maximum was a consistent 1.75x. That gave IS a small (like, very small) max-range advantage to partially offset the lower damage and correspondingly slower ramp-up. Before PGI buffed the cERML back to 2x, we had that. It worked. It was fair. Then they buffed the cERML back to 2x and that partially lead to the current resurgence in the Clan Laser Vomit meta while simultaneously earning it (and the cERSL) a nerf hard enough to obsolete the use of those weapons on Clan Lights. That left Clan Lights holding the bag for the Heavies' sins.

I don't think the repercussions were fully explored.

That's terrible indeed. But what are you trying to elaborate?

As a response, is it an addenum? (cause it's like one), or something else?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 September 2017 - 09:18 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 12 September 2017 - 09:17 PM, said:

That's terrible indeed. But what are you trying to elaborate?

As a response, is it an addenum? (cause it's like one), or something else?

It's an addendum, and also a demonstration that a flavor difference can be maintained even if something looks "essentially the same" on the surface.

AKA, the TT stats can go to hell.