167 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

The whole point of clans vs inner sphere centers around technological differences.

yeah but balance takes priority over lore.

and asymmetrical balance only works if the two tech bases are equal but different

ISXL is not equal but different to CXL, its just outright inferior

The enormous disparity between ISXL and CXL and ISDHS and CDHS needs to be addressed if the game ever hopes to be balanced.

Quote

Here's an example : Look at the XL 375 on the timber wolf. Okay it can survive a side torso destruction. Big deal, because no IS player would put a clan XL 375 into a 75 tonner given the choice. What they would do is just swap from LFEs to XLs and mount bigger guns or large engines for more DHS. Nobody would actually try to make their mechs go insanely fast except for the lulz factor maybe.

why not?

laser vomit is an effective way to play and doesnt require a whole lot of tonnage for weapons because lasers dont weigh very much

that leaves you with a bunch of extra tonnage to put into your engine

thats exactly what clan players do. its why fast heavies are a huge balance problem. they have zero weaknesses. they get the perfect blend of firepower, survivability, and speed all at the same time.

although bigger engines than 375 probably arnt worth the diminishing returns on tonnage investment.

Quote

The thing about clan locked engines is that most of them are oversized. The fact that a Gargoyle can survive a side torso destruction is not an impressive achievement given that a IS mech of equal or lower tonnage with a LFE is leagues better anyway.

the oversized engine by itself isnt really the problem though. lots of mechs have oversized engines and functional perfectly fine.

the problem with the gargoyle is more the double whammy of the oversized engine PLUS not having endosteel.

thats what really screws the gargoyle out of a bunch of tonnage. If the gargoyle had endosteel to reclaim 4 tons it would likely be fine.

Quote

Making Clan XL die to ST loss would actually cause less problems since it wouldn't obselete any engines at all and actually bring standard engines into consideration for some clan battlemechs. It would still be superior to IS XL taking up fewer crits.

How come this alternative isn't discussed more when it's the most elegant solution design wise by far?

Because its an extremely bad solution, thats why its not discussed.

You cannot severely nerf the only engine choice most clan mechs have. CXL would be outright inferior to LFE. And clans dont get the option to use LFE. So all you would do is put clans in the same position IS is in now. That idea sucks.

The better solution is to make ISXL survive side torso destruction. Then buff LFE by making it not suffer penalties for side torso destruction. Possibly give it other bonuses as well.

Edited by Khobai, 05 October 2017 - 11:23 PM.

[Paigan]

Andi Nagasia, on 05 October 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

This Topic is to Discuss what would and could happen is IS XL got ST Survivability,

=IS-XL to C-XL=
Assuming IS-XL would have the same or Similar penalties as C-XL,

=STD to LFE to XL
Assume LFE would be Viably Balance between STD and XL Engines,

What do you feel would happen, How would things change,
Would balance get Better? Do you think it will get Worse? Not change much?

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks

I'm all for IS XL survivability. Just make the penalties for speed and heat bigger. Maybe simply 1.50 times (because 3 instead of 2 engine slots are destroyed).
That instant death thing is too much, especially since the 3-crit-rule isn't implemented otherwise (e.g. clans getting 3 crits to CT engine or lose a ST and get 1 crit to the CT engine. In TT, they would die. In MWO, they fight on happily.)

Note that this comes from someone playing purely clans.
I'm all for balance, not clan superiority accross the board.

Edited by Paigan, 06 October 2017 - 02:56 AM.

[Racerxintegra2k]

I put an LFE on a light mech instead of the typical XL. 11-11 its clan light vs my IS light, my left torso was cherry. Clan light turns and shoots at my left torso as i shot out its leg. I then finished off its other leg as they were stunned i was still alive. IS surviving ST loss would be amazing.

[MadRover]

AncientRaig, on 05 October 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

A lot of people are concerned about LFE becoming useless if IS XL got ST survivability, but lets be honest here. How many IS XL builds actually switched over to LFE when it launched? How many serious, FP meta mech builders went "Yeah, all this XL-dependent firepower that I need to be even remotely competitive with Clan mechs is nice, but ST survivability is better."? LFE has helped out a lot of my STD engine mechs, but I think I've replaced only one or two of my XL builds with LFE builds. Of those, only one build is one I actually run in FP and it's largely symmetrical enough to make surviving one ST death worth the loss of a few KPH. If IS XL got Clan XL durability with some appropriate penalty (maybe make Clan XL lose 25% speed and in-engine HS efficiency, and IS XL lose 50% speed and cooling. LFE would get Clan penalties or no penalties. I'd make that trade.), the only thing that would change is that more IS PUGs would be running XL builds. I'll laugh until I have a heart attack if anyone tries to tell me that competitive players and people in units run anything but XL on 90% of their mechs. The game would be in a much better state of balance. Sure STD and LFE wouldn't see tons of use, but that's basically true of the current gamestate anyway. They'd still have a place in builds that are low on slots, or builds that run large ballistics in their STs, but IS mechs would finally be able to TRY to compete with Clans on a light slope instead of a cliff wall.

I can tell you how many mechs will be using an isXL engine if it can survive ST loss. A whole bunch if not all of them.

[Willard Phule]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 October 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

So I'm curious, how do you think Clans should be reigned in then? Balancing by force size has its own special complexity that eclipses the 1:1 balance issues. You could go the WoT route but I don't know that people want to just play Clan tech at the top as that means a lot of toys are pretty much never played (and pretty much ensures comp will only ever bother with Clan).

At some point you have to accept this isn't TT and that lore has to take a backseat.

Since any form of acceptable balance is beyond PGI's ability, my suggestion is this:

Return the license to Microsoft and rename the game "Stompy Robots Online." Get rid of traditional BT faction and mech names, just name them whatever you want. There's really no sense in using any "lore" whatsoever for this game anymore. Time to let a competent developer have a crack at it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Willard Phule, on 06 October 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

Since any form of acceptable balance is beyond PGI's ability, my suggestion is this:

Return the license to Microsoft and rename the game "Stompy Robots Online." Get rid of traditional BT faction and mech names, just name them whatever you want. There's really no sense in using any "lore" whatsoever for this game anymore. Time to let a competent developer have a crack at it.

That's not an answer, that's avoiding the question at hand. How do you reconcile the power of Clans in a way that makes since in an multiplayer FPS game?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 October 2017 - 08:08 AM.

[MadRover]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 October 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

That's not an answer, that's avoiding the question at hand. How do you reconcile the power of Clans in a way that makes since in an multiplayer FPS game?

By forcing PGI out of their fantasy world. It’s going to be the only way at this point. Then once PGI finally admits what they’ve been doing, which they won’t but got to have faith, they can and should start on the rehaul that this game has been needing.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MadRover, on 06 October 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:

By forcing PGI out of their fantasy world. It’s going to be the only way at this point. Then once PGI finally admits what they’ve been doing, which they won’t but got to have faith, they can and should start on the rehaul that this game has been needing.

.....This STILL does not answer the question. How specifically would you reconcile Clan power from TT without trying to balance Clan tech on a 1:1 level with IS tech?

[Andi Nagasia]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 October 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

.....This STILL does not answer the question. How specifically would you reconcile Clan power from TT without trying to balance Clan tech on a 1:1 level with IS tech?

well what i would do is make all engines more or less Equal, but give IS different Penalties vs Clan,


Example = Engines,
IS-XL = ST Loss = -20% Speed - 15% Heat Cap,
C-XL = ST Loss = -10% Speed - 30% Heat Cap,
-
LFE = ST Loss = -5% Speed - 5% Heat Cap,
(if this it too much the Penalties can be removed)
-
STD(IS & C) = allow to store +2 Extra(Free) HS internally in Engine,
(this will help energy mechs, as well as lights With Small STD Engines)
(UM with Endo Ferro & STD60 would have 19.5Free Tons)


Example = Endo,
have STD/Structure & Endo give Structure Bonuses(Balance by Faction)
STD-Structure(IS & C) = +40% Structure, to all Structure across the Board(excluding Head)
C-Endo(7Slots) = NO Bonus Structure(this is to balance the Adherent advantage of Clan Endo)
IS-Endo(14Slots) = +20% Structure, to all Structure across the Board(excluding Head)
-
Composite Internal Structure(7Slots) = NO Bonus Structure(this is more or less an IS Duplicate of Clan Endo)


Example = Ferro,
allow Ferro Equipped mechs to Equip more Armor(Balance by Faction)
C-Ferro = Clan mech with Ferro can Equip 10% more armor(Armor weight savings 20%)
IS-LightFerro = IS mech with Ferro can Equip 12% more armor(Armor weight savings 6%)
IS-Ferro = IS mech with Ferro can Equip 24% more armor(Armor weight savings 12%)
(Topic HERE)


Example = Lasers,
Reduce the Damage of all Clan Lasers by 1point(And Cooldown / Duration to Match)
(this will bring Clan Lasers Alpha down abit with out changing the dynamic of how they are used too much)


thoughts?

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 06 October 2017 - 10:04 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Andi Nagasia, on 06 October 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

well what i would do is make all engines more or less Equal, but give IS different Penalties vs Clan,

I'm not talking to you, I'm specifically calling out those who I'm quoting.

[Rovertoo]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 October 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

So I'm curious, how do you think Clans should be reigned in then? Balancing by force size has its own special complexity that eclipses the 1:1 balance issues. You could go the WoT route but I don't know that people want to just play Clan tech at the top as that means a lot of toys are pretty much never played (and pretty much ensures comp will only ever bother with Clan).

At some point you have to accept this isn't TT and that lore has to take a backseat.

Not to butt in here, but I would say that maybe increasing the design philosophy differences between IS and Clan might help. Taking ACs as an example, IS ACs (before the recent ultras at least) were single-shot pin point weapons, while clans used burst. Missles were more or less the same. This is not a bad thing to perpetuate I think, keep IS ACs single shot (as fun as burst ultras are, they should probably change it back to single shot) and maybe make Clan SRMs stream like IS MRMs. I feel that any disparity between tech can be mostly solved by just reinforcing those differences, make lasers burn longer (except heavy lasers maybe, they are unbearably long, Id prefer heavies to be almost instant but have forever long cooldowns, but thats my opinion), make IS lasers shorter, etc. If we are discussing "different but equal" I say we just increase the differences we have between the weapon mechanics of both.

And when we buff anything, I would suggest only buffing to the factions strengths, ie buffing IS weapons should almost always take the form of a cooldown/duration/velocity/spread buff, and clans should almost always be a damage/range/heat buff. Nerfs obviously would be the opposite.

Edited by Rovertoo, 06 October 2017 - 10:05 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 October 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

I'm not talking to you, I'm specifically calling out those who I'm quoting.

i know, im just trying to give input,

[C E Dwyer]

Losing a side torso for any xl engine, and the mech continues slightly slower, is just a stupid mechanic, that should never have existed.

Engines on all mechs should be unlocked, even omni mechs, and all XL's including the clan ones explode if they lose a ST

[Willard Phule]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 October 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

That's not an answer, that's avoiding the question at hand. How do you reconcile the power of Clans in a way that makes since in an multiplayer FPS game?

How about just getting rid of any sort of advantage, since we're throwing lore and the entire BT background into the garbage.

All XL engines the same, all weapons the same, no sense in "clan" or "is" anything. Just make everything completely equal across the board. Oh, and get rid of the LFE altogether and make all equipment available for every mech. No sense in IS having access to RACs when all AC/UAC will be equal anyway. No, there's just no sense in differentiating between the two factions. Everything should be completely equal.

Then, when Clans continue to ROFLSTOMP the IS, we start working on nerfing players. I would suggest using the tier level as a damage multiplier...that way, T5s can do 5 points of damage with every LRM that doesn't impact the terrain and actually finds a target.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Willard Phule, on 06 October 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

How about just getting rid of any sort of advantage, since we're throwing lore and the entire BT background into the garbage.

Again, not what I was asking.

If not "throwing lore out the window" (which is a bullsh*t statement to begin with, spirit of the law vs rule of law sort of argument right there), how would you counter-balance Clans?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 October 2017 - 11:08 AM.

[panzer1b]

Cathy, on 06 October 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

XL's including the clan ones explode if they lose a ST

As much as i understand your desire to make tech identical, this is a very bad idea. First of all clan has a boatload of mechs that have a tendency to loose their STs well before they take CT damage, and 2, clan has no LFE or any other mid range engine to counter these weaknesses (if you gave EVERY clan mech ability to pick desired engine, and something like a clan LFE, then id accept it, otherwise nope). That and id rather see IS buffed then clan nerfed, clan is fine, what isnt are a good number of mechs that are subpar in what matters (hitboxes, hardpoint count/location, ect).

[Willard Phule]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 October 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

Again, not what I was asking.

If not "throwing lore out the window" (which is a bullsh*t statement to begin with, spirit of the law vs rule of law sort of argument right there), how would you counter-balance Clans?

You simply can't. It's a simple as that. Until everything is absolutely equal, you're going to have people claiming that one side is more powerful than the other. The only way to make them happy is to have no difference at all between technology bases.

Make everything equal, just with different names and models used. Lock all engines in place or allow full customization with everything, including using both technology bases on all mechs involved. There shouldn't be any difference at all, whatsoever.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Willard Phule, on 06 October 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

You simply can't. It's a simple as that.

So then quite simply, stop complaining because MWO understandably HAD to make concessions to get Clans in the game. That doesn't suddenly RUIN EVERYTHING LORE WISE FOREVER. Just because Clan tech is not 100% superior to IS tech doesn't suddenly ruin the spirit of the lore especially given that one of the later points in the lore they try to emphasize (and rightly so) is that Clans weren't the perfect society they thought. Making Clans different but equal does the same job.

[Brain Cancer]

Threads like this just point out the trap PGI fell into- that is, you can't balance a tech tree that was built to be imbalanced vs. the IS in every way possible. Not like this. Even in TT's equivalent of "factional play", Clanners are "balanced" not via tonnage, but a point system. Balance by tonnage died a horrible death before Clantech even existed.

But they wanted to sell gold Timber Wolves. And minimally viable balancing system.

You could balance with a point system. You could even give it a multiplier based on pilot skill. But you will never, ever make such a deliberately unbalanced tech tree balance by tonnage alone, not without destroying it completely. Yes, throwing lore out the window (along with the construction system) would do it, but then you have giant Battletech robots in name only.

Even splitting QP by faction would work better. Then, you'd have no tech mismatch in QP: Clan would fight Clan, IS would fight IS.

[Daurock]

panzer1b, on 06 October 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

what isnt are a good number of mechs that are subpar in what matters (hitboxes, hardpoint count/location, ect).

I've always been of the opinion that that's what quirks should be used for, instead of a blanket band-aid to IS mechs to attempt to balance with clan tech.

Balance the tech at the base level, then even out the chassis strengths and weakness via quirks, imo.

Edited by Daurock, 06 October 2017 - 12:14 PM.