1125 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

@Navid A1
could i get your thoughts on this?

Andi Nagasia, on 09 February 2018 - 03:29 PM, said:

what do you think of my missile Proposal,
Double LRM Velocity, Double AMS Damage, Doubled All non LRM Missile Health?
it makes LRMs more reliable without changing the Dynamic between AMS and Missiles,

using Velocity to make LRMs more reliable?

[Wing 0]

Navid A1, on 10 February 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

Then tell them to come here or on reddit and voice their opinion.
we had to retreat from our initial GH limit of 3 for Gauss + PPC combos because 4 people spammed fear mongering posts!

curious. Would it be ok if you could name out those 4 people? I'm interested in breaking some bones.

[Gyrok]

Wing 0, on 10 February 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

curious. Would it be ok if you could name out those 4 people? I'm interested in breaking some bones.

I know some italians willing to travel for money, I too am interested in this information.

Edited by Gyrok, 10 February 2018 - 12:37 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Adding bonuses to ISXL and having it still die to ST loss makes them different.

I get what youre saying.

but I tend to favor simplicity. making it work exactly the same as CXL is the simplest way to make it as equal as possible.

your way could work too. but its more complicated. and theres more things PGI can screw up. I mean thats basically what we have now except the quirks are on the mechs instead of the engines, and look how badly PGI screwed that up.

Quote

we had to retreat from our initial GH limit of 3 for Gauss + PPC combos because 4 people spammed fear mongering posts!

it was more than four people lol

even people who posted response videos like kanajashi said it was a bad idea

And GH limit of 3 for Gauss+PPC shouldnt be taken completely off the table for the future. I just dont think it should be included in the first batch of changes. Because Gauss and PPC are still being used seperately. There is no evidence that Gauss and PPC need to be used together to be viable. There is however past evidence that suggests readding the unholy union is not something that should be taken lightly.

Edited by Khobai, 10 February 2018 - 12:48 PM.

[Wing 0]

What would be nice to see is those regular Clan AC's. Seeing those able to do single slug just like the I.S does. Of course we would have to deal with some sort of trade off on it.

[dario03]

Khobai, on 10 February 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

I get what youre saying.

but I tend to favor simplicity. making it work exactly the same as CXL is the simplest way to make it as equal as possible.

your way could work too. but its more complicated. and theres more things PGI can screw up. I mean thats basically what we have now except the quirks are on the mechs instead of the engines, and look how badly PGI screwed that up.

Making all the equipment and weapons the same is the easiest way to make them equal but its also the most boring. Different but equal makes for better variety.

[Khobai]

Quote

Making all the equipment and weapons the same is the easiest way to make them equal but its also the most boring. Different but equal makes for better variety.

I dont think it matters too much on engines

where you need the differences is on the weapons. clan weapons should be streamlined, efficient, fire slower, and have longer range. While IS weapons should be bulkier, fire faster, and be more brute force oriented.

[HammerMaster]

These issues are beyond spreadsheet balancing and require coding overhauls. Plain and simple.

Edited by HammerMaster, 10 February 2018 - 12:52 PM.

[Navid A1]

Khobai, on 10 February 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

even people who posted response videos like kanajashi said it was a bad idea

I didn't hear a single reason for WHY it was a bad idea.

all I heard was:

noo...noooo. just... just nooo.... noooo!.

that was it

Edited by Navid A1, 10 February 2018 - 12:52 PM.

[FupDup]

For the "different but equal" thing in terms of XL engines I'd like to see if it would be possible for PGI to make it so equipping an IS XL would buff your ST health and armor up to the level of your CT. That helps bring up the TTK for IS XL robots while still keeping the ST loss flavor. In theory this could use similar coding as quirks, basically you'd gain quirks for equipping the engine. Using code borrowed from the skill tree, we'd be able to set the amount of health you gain based on your mech's tonnage.

At least, in theory. I'm not sure if just attaching a quirk section to a piece of equipment would work properly or just make the game explode.

Also note that for the idea of just making it survive an ST loss, the ST loss penalty is something "hardcoded" into the game according to Chris. Basically, even if they changed the "sidesToDie" tag to equal 2 instead of 1, it would still have the same exact penalty as the CXL and LFE. That would really damn unfair to the LFE. If what Chris is saying is true, then it is not possible to give different engines different penalties for a single ST loss.

If we went down this road we'd still have to find other ways to improve the LFE and STD anyways, one way or another we're gonna have to do more than just change the sides to die tag.

[dario03]

Navid A1, on 10 February 2018 - 12:52 PM, said:

I didn't hear a single reason for WHY it was a bad idea.

all I heard was:

noo...noooo. just... just nooo.... noooo!.

that was it

Probably due to thinking that it would be completely OP like it was sometimes in the past. It could be fine if balanced properly. I still say jump sniping was balance fine right before it was super nerf around clan release. Just didn't give enough time for people to adjust to the smaller nerfs that preceded it.
Should at least allow 2(ER)ppc 1 gauss without very high ghost heat. Even some GH would be fine, but right now its really high.

[Nema Nabojiv]

FupDup, on 10 February 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

That helps bring up the TTK for IS XL robots while still keeping the ST loss flavor.

Right. Buff hp AGAIN and then come to forums and cry about how IS suck with low alphas and clamsOP because they can kill that already obese torsos faster

[HammerMaster]

This discourse is soon for 30 pages not including MTDs original video and thread. No update from pgi.
So... ignored?
Considered?
Upcoming test server?
Their own take?

[FupDup]

Here's what I mean. This is how a current engine entry looks in the XML files:

Spoiler

  <Module id="3358" name="Engine_XL_300" CType="CEngineStats" faction="InnerSphere">
	<Loc nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" />
	<EngineStats slots="6" sideSlots="3" sidesToDie="1" rating="300" weight="15.5" heatsinks="12" health="15" />
  </Module>

Here is an example of some quirk code from an Adder's Omnipod:

Spoiler

	<component name="left_arm">
	  <Hardpoint ID="40" Type="1" lookAim="1"/>
	  <Internal ItemID="1910" Toggleable="1"/>
	  <Internal ItemID="1911" Toggleable="1"/>
	  <Quirk name="clanerppc_velocity_multiplier" value="0.1"/>
	  <Quirk name="internalresist_la_additive" value="6"/>
	</component>

And here is the survival skill tree code, demonstrating the different values based on tonnage:

Spoiler

<!-- Survival - Armor - ArmorHardening -->
<Node names="ArmorHardening1,ArmorHardening2,ArmorHardening3,ArmorHardening4,ArmorHardening5,ArmorHardening6,ArmorHardening7,ArmorHardening8,ArmorHardening9,ArmorHardening10">
  <Effect name="increasedarmor_multiplier" value="0.0">
   <Faction name="IS" value="0.0">
	<WeightClass name="Light" value="0.0">
	 <Tonnage name="20" value="0.026"/>
	 <Tonnage name="25" value="0.025"/>
	 <Tonnage name="30" value="0.024"/>
	 <Tonnage name="35" value="0.023"/>
	</WeightClass>
	<WeightClass name="Medium" value="0.0">
	 <Tonnage name="40" value="0.022"/>
	 <Tonnage name="45" value="0.021"/>
	 <Tonnage name="50" value="0.020"/>
	 <Tonnage name="55" value="0.019"/>
	</WeightClass>
	<WeightClass name="Heavy" value="0.0">
	 <Tonnage name="60" value="0.018"/>
	 <Tonnage name="65" value="0.017"/>
	 <Tonnage name="70" value="0.016"/>
	 <Tonnage name="75" value="0.015"/>
	</WeightClass>
	<WeightClass name="Assault" value="0.0">
	 <Tonnage name="80" value="0.014"/>
	 <Tonnage name="85" value="0.013"/>
	 <Tonnage name="90" value="0.012"/>
	 <Tonnage name="95" value="0.011"/>
	 <Tonnage name="100" value="0.010"/>
	</WeightClass>
   </Faction>
   <Faction name="Clan" value="0.0">
	<WeightClass name="Light" value="0.0">
	 <Tonnage name="20" value="0.026"/>
	 <Tonnage name="25" value="0.025"/>
	 <Tonnage name="30" value="0.024"/>
	 <Tonnage name="35" value="0.023"/>
	</WeightClass>
	<WeightClass name="Medium" value="0.0">
	 <Tonnage name="40" value="0.022"/>
	 <Tonnage name="45" value="0.021"/>
	 <Tonnage name="50" value="0.020"/>
	 <Tonnage name="55" value="0.019"/>
	</WeightClass>
	<WeightClass name="Heavy" value="0.0">
	 <Tonnage name="60" value="0.018"/>
	 <Tonnage name="65" value="0.017"/>
	 <Tonnage name="70" value="0.016"/>
	 <Tonnage name="75" value="0.015"/>
	</WeightClass>
	<WeightClass name="Assault" value="0.0">
	 <Tonnage name="80" value="0.014"/>
	 <Tonnage name="85" value="0.013"/>
	 <Tonnage name="90" value="0.012"/>
	 <Tonnage name="95" value="0.011"/>
	 <Tonnage name="100" value="0.010"/>
	</WeightClass>
   </Faction>
  </Effect>
</Node>

What I'm proposing is to sandwich all of this stuff together to create something like this:

Spoiler

  <Module id="3358" name="Engine_XL_300" CType="CEngineStats" faction="InnerSphere">
	<Loc nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" />
	<EngineStats slots="6" sideSlots="3" sidesToDie="1" rating="300" weight="15.5" heatsinks="12" health="15" />
	 <Effect name="internalresist_lt_additive" value="0.0">
	 <WeightClass name="Light" value="0.0">
	  <Tonnage name="20" value="2"/>
	  <Tonnage name="25" value="4"/>
	  <Tonnage name="30" value="6"/>
	  <Tonnage name="35" value="6"/>
	 </WeightClass>
	 <WeightClass name="Medium" value="0.0">
	  <Tonnage name="40" value="4"/>
	  <Tonnage name="45" value="6"/>
	  <Tonnage name="50" value="8"/>
	  <Tonnage name="55" value="10"/>
	 </WeightClass>
	 <WeightClass name="Heavy" value="0.0">
	  <Tonnage name="60" value="12"/>
	  <Tonnage name="65" value="12"/>
	  <Tonnage name="70" value="14"/>
	  <Tonnage name="75" value="14"/>
	 </WeightClass>
	 <WeightClass name="Assault" value="0.0">
	  <Tonnage name="80" value="16"/>
	  <Tonnage name="85" value="18"/>
	  <Tonnage name="90" value="20"/>
	  <Tonnage name="95" value="20"/>
	  <Tonnage name="100" value="20"/>
	 </WeightClass>
	 </Effect>
  </Module>

You'll see that I only listed the LT structure, because adding in the needed RT structure and LT/RT armor would make this one single engine take up an absurd amount of space in the code. This is just for demonstration.

Ideally this game should be using object-oriented programming such that we shouldn't need to add this to every single damn XL engine entry. We should only have to add it to a "base IS XL engine" which every IS XL entry would then inherit from.

Could Chris or somebody from PGI verify if the basic concept of equipment granting quirks is even possible, or would the snippet above make the game implode?

Edited by FupDup, 10 February 2018 - 01:18 PM.

[Gyrok]

Legitimate question:

How is this a scarier mech than this, or even this?

I want a legitimate answer as to how the former is somehow worse for an enemy mech to encounter than the latter.

[Khobai]

Quote

I didn't hear a single reason for WHY it was a bad idea.

all I heard was:

noo...noooo. just... just nooo.... noooo!.

that was it

because if laser vomit is nerfed (and we all agree it should be nerfed)

its already giving a comparative buff to other weapons like ppc/gauss


for the same exact reason that laser vomit got comparatively buffed after other weapons like ballistics and ppc/gauss were nerfed.


so it makes the most sense to nerf laser vomit first then see where the cards fall before deciding whether ppc/gauss needs to be buffed more.


incremental balance is just a way smarter approach than trying to balance everything at once. start with the obvious weapons that need nerfs/buffs. then fine tune from there.

Edited by Khobai, 10 February 2018 - 01:25 PM.

[HammerMaster]

FupDup, on 10 February 2018 - 01:17 PM, said:

Here's what I mean. This is how a current engine entry looks in the XML files:

[

Could Chris or somebody from PGI verify if the basic concept of equipment granting quirks is even possible, or would the snippet above make the game implode?

[Khobai]

Quote

Could Chris or somebody from PGI verify if the basic concept of equipment granting quirks is even possible, or would the snippet above make the game implode?

I dont see why not. Targeting computers basically give quirks.

[Johnathan Tanner]

Khobai, on 10 February 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

(and we all agree it should be nerfed)

I do not agree that laser vomit should be nerfed.

[Navid A1]

Khobai, on 10 February 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

because if laser vomit is nerfed (and we all agree it should be nerfed)

its already giving a comparative buff to other weapons like ppc/gauss


for the same exact reason that laser vomit got comparatively buffed after other weapons like ballistics and ppc/gauss were nerfed.


so it makes the most sense to nerf laser vomit first then see where the cards fall before deciding whether ppc/gauss needs to be buffed more.


incremental balance is just a way smarter approach than trying to balance everything at once. start with the obvious weapons that need nerfs/buffs. then fine tune from there.

Incremental steps is for when you have no idea about the effect your changes might cause.... just like walking in the dark.
we've been walking in circles for the past 5 years.
its not hard to anticipate, when you know how things were and how other things caused change, while having more than 25K games in solo/group/FP/League/WC rather than forum posts, since 2012

Edited by Navid A1, 10 February 2018 - 01:48 PM.