657 replies to this topic

[Reno Blade]

TL;DR:
To keep the game interesting and not just have all weapons similar, the weapons need to be harder to master like the cUAC20, MRM40 with a long burst to make skill matter more than building alpha one-click mechs.

- Step1: Longer bursts/duration for the stronger weapons to bring strong weapons "down" to the weaker weapons (BOTH SIDES).
- Step2: Ghost Heat (Heat Scale) grouping of Large+Med lasers together to bring total alpha down without nerfing weapons and spread the weapon fire (BOTH SIDES)
- Step3: More Heat for all Gauss (+2-3) to make them less perfect for Laser+Gauss, to bring Laser+AC closer
And then you have already a much better baseline.
- Step4: Reduce quirks where needed
- Step5: Replace GH with Energy Draw that uses a 5-10s heat-over-time rather than instant spike.

To have a consistent design, here are the core rules:

Overall Balance of Clans compared to IS:
Advantages
+ More Range
+ More DMG (slightly)
+ Less Slots (smaller sizes) (unchangeable)
+ Less Weight (lower tonnage) (unchangeable)
Downsides
- More Heat
- More Cooldown (longer)
- More Duration (longer)
- Less Ammo / ton (~120dmg/ton vs ~180/ton)

Claners are better Mechwarriors, so their skill will compensate for more difficult weapon handling (longer duration and higher heat)
Cooldown + Duration and heat balance out the Range and DMG advantage overall
Ammo balances out the Size and Tonnage advantage of ammo-based weapon


Ghost Heat Changes:
On Top of that, there should be smaller changes to GH until we get something better:
- Med+Large Lasers share the same GH group
- Large lasers max increased to 3
- Medium lasers max increased to 6
- PPC/ERPPC/SNPPC max increased to 3
- LPPC max increased to 5
- SRM6 max reduced to 3



Details below also take into consideration that a too strong nerf to Laser/Gauss could get the PPC/AC meta back too high as the PPFLD was/is usually easy to hit with.

Quoting from another post:

Reno Blade, on 10 June 2018 - 01:34 AM, said:

When we had the PPC meta, I was saying that it's too easy to hit with PPCs.
Then PPCs (and some ACs) got velocity nerfs and they are much harder to play with, without a lot of practice and concentration.
So imho these are in a good spot in regards to difficulty.

cUAC20 with a 5 bullet burst are difficult to use to get all 5 shots on target and even more so on the same location.
Imho, this is great.

ACs are easier to use with single bullets, beside the damn slow velocity.
I would prefere if the difficulty comes from the burst (spreading damage) and the velocity is increased.
But having std ACs also using burst would make them very similar, so the question remain how IS/Clan could be different, or how the uACs could be changed.
Just saying Clan have 1 more bullet than IS, or longer time between bullets is what we currently have.

Some option floating around was to have 100% jam chance, but the jam-duration is the same as the cooldown (e.g. 4s cd and 4s jam).
That way you would have 2x cooldown with double tap, or normal cd without and have the same DPS than normal ACs (besides the longer burst duration maybe).

I think the 20s could use some cd, heat and velocity buffs, but need burst to compensate.
It would be easier to hit with and use in a build (e.g. brawling) but need more skill to get all damage on the target, similar to the MRMs.

So overall, longer bursts and longer beam duration is the key change we need before we can think of any "buff".

Pulse lasers on the other hand need a different role by just halfing (or even lower) the cooldown.

And the detailed proposal changes including buffs and nerfs much more close to a baseline balance than the suggested community panel:

Reno Blade, on 09 June 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

Updating the values with a stronger focus on the Clan vs IS balance.

The whole table can also be found directly on Google docs for better access:
https://docs.google....UXElpK4lnCQd_M/

Overall Balance of Clans compared to IS:
Advantages
+ More Range
+ More DMG
+ Less Slots (smaller sizes) (unchangeable)
+ Less Weight (lower tonnage) (unchangeable)
Downsides
- More Heat
- More Cooldown (longer)
- More Duration (longer)
- Less Ammo / ton (~120dmg/ton vs ~180/ton)

Claners are better Mechwarriors, so their skill will compensate for more difficult weapon handling (longer duration and higher heat)
Cooldown + Duration and heat balance out the Range and DMG advantage overall
Ammo balances out the Size and Tonnage advantage of ammo-based weapon


Overall Weapon concepts:

Spoiler

- ACs have bursts with medium cd and low heat (heat lowered, cd increased, velocity increased)
- LBX still with lowest heat of all ACs
- UACs have burst with longer cooldowns than ACs and more heat than ACs, while UACs have 100% jam chance with cooldown time doubled on jam
- Gauss have long cooldown and increased charge with additional heat (reduces synergy of the perfect mix with Lasers)

- STD Laser have medium stats and low heat (good sustained)
- ER Laser have higher heat, longer range, longer cd and longer beam than STD Laser (sniper trading with low dps)
- Heavy Laser have the highest cd and duration (burst weapon)
- Pulse Lasers have very short cd and low damage per shot, but high dps and low duration (dps weapon)

PPCs have different velocity and cd depending on size.
- LPPC medium cd, medium velocity
- ERPPC have long cd and high range and velocity
- PPC, SNPPC, HPPC have better heat
- CERPPC has the longest cd

Missile volleys for all missiles with Clans having longer duration than IS
- LRMs have long cooldowns to emphasize the support role that should be supported by other weapons, velocity increased.
- SRMs and SSRMs both have cd and ammo difference between IS and Clans
- MRMs have long cooldown and medium velocity (both increased)
- ATMs have more distinct cooldowns (4-7s from small to large launcher) and better range brackets

Ghost Heat Changes:
On Top of that, there should be smaller changes to GH until we get something better:
- Med+Large Lasers share the same GH group
- Large lasers max increased to 3
- Medium lasers max increased to 6
- PPC/ERPPC/SNPPC max increased to 3
- LPPC max increased to 5
- SRM6 max reduced to 3


This is directly aimed to reduce laser vomit while at the same time increasing the build options (especially for combination of larges)

Images of the Weapon groups with background colors from low(red) to high (green) to compare weapon stats
Changes have different font color:
Buffs = Blue font
Nerfs = Red font

https://docs.google....UXElpK4lnCQd_M/

Energy:


Ballistics:


Missiles (IS):


Missiles (Clan):

Edited by Reno Blade, 29 June 2018 - 01:15 PM.

[Tesunie]

ShadowHimself McEvedy, on 29 June 2018 - 09:02 AM, said:

Your plan is to nerf.....three possible BUILDS, one of which is a hero.....to solve a problem the brown sea has? how about in return for us accepting these nerfs, you remove all armor and structure quirks for the IS? balance under the guise of demolishing the few remaining weapons the clans have left is stupid. Please rethink this before you lose whats left of the playerbase

First post of the thread, a whole paragraph dedicated to this:
"Before we close this out, there is one bit of feedback that has been brought up in the thread that that we wanted to address. The feedback that if these changes where to go into effect, a reduction in overall damage output on the clan side, the IS side with generous defensive quirks would be too much HP to overcome in standard engagement situations. This is something that we acknowledge may be a point that needs looking into with the changes to Clan weapons. We will be keeping a very close eye on through the initial PTS testing and may introduce changes that address this point in future testing depending on the results we find from this upcoming initial PTS."

So yes. If Clan laser damage reduction does have a large impact on Clan damage (it will), then IS mechs are likely to see their health quirks reduced or even removed.

Conner Ward, on 29 June 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Also, adding knockdowns from taking excessive damage or from (high speed) collisions would be good too.

When knockdowns where in the game, they produced lag and rag doll/jumping for the standing up animations of the mech. Not to mention the glitching around and the effect of constantly being knocked over (stun locked).

Of course, we may be at a point (since the Escort introduction patch) where some effects based on knockdown might be ready to be added in. But, unless all the issues from before can be corrected, it probably is best to not add it back into the game.

[Andi Nagasia]

personally im all for reducing Clan Damage by 1, but also decreasing Heat and Cooldown Respectively,
all in all we would see -6 to -8 damage across the board for Clan Alphas, which i dont think is too bad,

below is from my Topic about just that,

Andi Nagasia, on 08 November 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

What if most Clan ER Lasers lost 1 Damage, and some Heat & Duration?

New Weapon Stats(IS Laser Stats are Current Stats)
Weapon........Damage.......Heat.......Cooldown......Duration.......
C-ERLL...........10(-1.0)......9(-1.0).......3.75...........1.20(-0.15).......
IS-ERLL............9................8...............3.40...........1.10.......

C-ERML...........6(-1.0).......5.3(-1.0)....4.50...........1.10(-0.15).......
IS-ERML...........5................4.5............4.00............0.90.......

C-ERSL...........4(-1.0).......2.5(-1.0)....3.20.............0.95(-0.15).......
IS-ERSL...........3.25...........2.2............2.75.............0.75.......
(Parenthesis are how the Clan Stats have Changed)
=Note- Duration Reduction based on Dam/Tic=

most Clan Brawling woundnt see too much change from this,
as with the Damage, the Heat & Duration also goes down allowing,
(please Consider this a shifting of Stats and not a Nerf to Clan)

would we see better balance when it comes to IS vs Clan Alpha?

with this i would also like to see,
Weapon........Damage...............Heat..........Cooldown.........Duration.......
C-ERSL...........4(-1.0)............2.5(-1.0).......2.20(-1.0)........0.95(-0.15).....
IS-ERSL.........3.50(+0.25).........2.2............1.75(-1.0).............0.75...........
pulling the Cooldown of All Small Class Lasers i can see helping their Viability,

[MiZia]

Reno first off, meds and larges cannot be put in same gh grp since the max number of fired weapons will cont both combined. So either u fire only 3 weapons max which would limit u to max 3 med laser or u up the number to 6 which can lead to 6 large laser alpha. This was already stated by a dev.
Second if u do that u will have to revisit all Armor/Structure (and tbh also range / heat / duration) quirks.´cause as it is most Clan just cant stare at IS cause even with the higher alpha they have IS machs can shoot 2 times while the other r on cooldown.

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 29 June 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

So burst damage is a DPS build? If you're going to say that everything that isn't PPFLD/hitscan at long range is a DPS build than... okay I guess?

THOSE burst damage builds are DPS builds, because they can follow up with sustained DPS. Clan gauss vomit, Clan HLL/ERML vomit, and 2cERPPC + 3cUAC5 are burst DPS builds that are not DPS builds. The last one is sort of a hybrid because you can burst DPS then half-assed sustained DPS with the UAC5s, but your sustained DPS is cut short of a dedicated DPS build.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 29 June 2018 - 01:28 PM.

[Reno Blade]

MiZia, on 29 June 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

Reno first off, meds and larges cannot be put in same gh grp since the max number of fired weapons will cont both combined. So either u fire only 3 weapons max which would limit u to max 3 med laser or u up the number to 6 which can lead to 6 large laser alpha. This was already stated by a dev.
Second if u do that u will have to revisit all Armor/Structure (and tbh also range / heat / duration) quirks.´cause as it is most Clan just cant stare at IS cause even with the higher alpha they have IS machs can shoot 2 times while the other r on cooldown.

I think GH can already do it.
LPPCs have a higher max than other PPCs, but if they are fired together, the lower group max is used (2 PPCs max of any combination).

And I already put the adjustment for quirks into Step4 of the plan (at the top of the post).
If the overall damage and alpha size is adjusted, we do not need as much quirks as we have now (as these are basically used to counter the higher dmg of Clans).

I believe that my suggested changes have covered most cases of too high/ too low weapons and keep the overall concept in mind.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 29 June 2018 - 01:25 PM, said:

THOSE burst damage builds are DPS builds, because they can follow up with sustained DPS. Clan gauss vomit, Clan HLL/ERML vomit, and 2cERPPC + 3cUAC5 are burst DPS builds that are not DPS builds. The last one is sort of a hybrid because you can burst DPS then half-assed sustained DPS with the UAC5s, but your sustained DPS is cut short of a dedicated DPS build.

So you've hit on the crux of where I would like to see the proposed balance changes going and what I'm talking about with increased TTK not hurting poke builds.

If CLasers get a damage reduction but also reduced burn time, cooldown and heat the trade/burst builds are more dangerous/effective up close than they are currently. This impacts all the CLaser DPS builds as well but for them it's a straight nerf, however as range isn't being dialed back it's less of a negative to poke/trade builds.

So while your trade can't absolutely kill someone before he closes he's doing less damage after he closes and you're doing more (because of higher DPS) than you were before. So yes; it's easier to close but doing so after you've been effectively poked just ensures your failure when you do close.

It's also of 0 impact on the poptart SMN; potentially buffing it by reducing performance on the weapons that normally counter it.

We're not talking about huge value changes either so the impact on focused fire (which is generally overkill) is also minimal.

Longer TTK by reducing weapon damage performance overall doesn't hurt poke/trade. If you know that pushing, even if you survive the push is going to result in losing the brawl that doesn't make the push more viable. You still need to win the trades to make the push relevant.

As to longer TTK.... well, as I said. MWO has an insanely short TTK compared to other shooters. You can be completely removed from the match within a couple of seconds of encountering the enemy. MWO does with armor/structure/health but no respawns other games do by low health/armor but respawns. Matches can still be turned on a single mistake. Reducing CLaser damage doesn't suddenly mean that trading isn't the most effective way to play unless the map is pure brawl.

Edited by MischiefSC, 29 June 2018 - 02:08 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 29 June 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:

If CLasers get a damage reduction but also reduced burn time, cooldown and heat the trade/burst builds are more dangerous/effective up close than they are currently.

Really only the reduced duration helps. Lower cooldown and heat keeps DPS and HPS normalized so its more or less the same.

[Tesunie]

NyxSilence, on 28 June 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

I mean to be completely fair here NOTHING in mwo is anywhere close to lore or even tabletop numbers comparison just for the sake of "balance". I mean hell look at battletech. You use ANY mech, ANY OF THEM, they actually feel like battlemechs. In here its just different flavored COD or some would argue Battlefield. Honestly even a Stalker in battletech has WELL OVER 130 CT armor. So lets be real here: balance in this game is no where to be seen except on the field of what is now becoming pvp mmo mechwarrior.

Actually, you may be more surprised than you think, as far as what has been laid out from the source material (TT).

Much of the mechlab itself is based on the source material (with exclusion to hard points which are for balance and flavor, and omni-mechs and some of their locked equipment and locked armor). Much of our weapon's base line stats come from TT, and then adjusted to better balance a non-'turn based board game'. Our health, excluding quirks and recent changes to some mechs (Jager, Stalker, Jenner, etc), comes directly from TT and is only doubled for game balance.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I have not been saying at all that we need to take everything directly TT and other source materials. I would like to see inspiration taken from source, but I also understand that not everything will transfer from one game type (TT) to another (MW:O).

As far as balance, it's something worthy to strive for. Even if attempts to do so just result in "new flavor of the month" meta, it's still worthy to pursue. The more balanced we become, the more things that become viable and useful.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 29 June 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

Really only the reduced duration helps. Lower cooldown and heat keeps DPS and HPS normalized so its more or less the same.

Depends how they adjust it. I admit I'm a bit worried it won't be lowered in scale and we could easily end up with CLasers not getting dialed back a tiny bit but turned into **** or made the best brawling weapons in the game or who knows what.

I feel like we (as in you, me and Yeonne) are arguing different points.

I'm saying a longer TTK across the board is a good thing - it stretch the skill curve. As in not just nerfing trade but all weapon damage by a bit in some form or fashion. That doesn't hurt the value of trading in any way.

I can't speak of how it impacts the fun of playing in comp queue but I can say that watching 4 minute matches isn't that fun and playing in 7 minute matches in QP when it's about 4+ minutes total cycle time just to get in/out isn't fun.

If the balance changes make trading non-viable or even significantly less viable compared to pushing than it's a bad change and that's not what I'm advocating. Right now it absolutely does favor trading and honestly that's probably for the best though getting that line a bit closer wouldn't be terrible overall.

However making the total time to kill longer doesn't hurt trading any more than it hurts brawling though it does amplify the cost of mistakes over time and significantly increase the value of good accuracy, teamwork, focused fire and positioning.

Currently in Nightbirds proposed asymetric team sized balancing idea it would be hugely luck-dependent. Could an EmP 8man beat a mediocre 12man? MAYBE but there's a lot of 'luck' in that equation. You extend TTK a bit so success leans closer to who makes 2 mistakes instead of 1 and you've shifted the odds back toward the 8man and matchmaking becomes more predictable and skill-driven instead of incident (luck) driven.

[Damnedtroll]

Just bring IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan back in Faction Play 12 vs 12 for IS and 10 vs 10 for clan.

Put two stars (10) vs tree lances (12) for Clan vs IS. Remove all buff and nerf on all weapons, remove tonnage nerf for clan and use tabletop value for Faction play.

Look what happen.

Edited by Damnedtroll, 29 June 2018 - 04:32 PM.

[Tesunie]

justcallme A S H, on 28 June 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

Tesuie... Dude, Ima stop you right there. You've made a grave mistake here. 30pts of damage from dual Gauss? That is wrong.

Why? Lets start with some maths...

1. Gauss is a pinpoint high damage weapon. It shoots and has to wait for a reload, some 5s.
2. AC2 is a low damage / high DPS weapon that is good at area supression and pin-point, if you can aim. It has 0.72s cooldown.

In 5s 4xAC2 mech has outputted 28.8 damage.
In 5s 2xGauss has 30 damage.

So damage is the same, the second you go over 5s AC2s are winning for the next 4 seconds. The issue you are missing here is range and weapon purpose.

The AC2 build must be @ 900m-1000m+ to be considerered viable against Gauss if you are attempting to trade against Gauss. So if you do sit at the proper ranges all of a sudden you are significantly out-DPSing the Gauss. Why?

1. The Dual Guass mech is either a NTG/WHM or Assault. This means it is moving no faster than around 64km/h.

2. The quad AC2 mech is much faster, assuming it is RFL for instance. It must kite the Assault. Given it runs some 10-15km/h faster, that is easily done.

Play the advantage, always, win more.

Okay. Be serious with me here. The dual Gauss can alpha and then twist or duck into cover. He can do pin point damage to a single location, possibly the CT every shot with good enough accuracy.
The AC2 has DPS, which means more time "staring" at a target means more damage. ACs are all "pin point", but in the case of the AC2, it typically spreads that pin point damage as their opponent twists, turns and it can be cut off by cover.

So, at ranges optimal for each, and each doing the trading situation (poke and then duck back into cover), are you seriously saying that the DPS styled AC2 build can out damage significant key components of their target (before they get back into cover) before their significant key components break?

I will remind, the discussion was about twisting skills being rewarded, as much as using cover. I was also envisioning more so "similar/same" mechs with just different builds (for fairness), without specifically thinking of an exact mech (was actually thinking along the lines of my Sunspider or Jagermech, to be fair). I do know that the AC2s will do more DPS over the Gauss, but with proper twisting and cover (something some people hear seem to think I don't know anything about), shouldn't the Gauss mech be able to plug the CT of the AC2 mech (who has to stare to deal effective damage) before the AC2 mech does the same in return? (LBx, UAC, normal... I'm just throwing out general things, not specifics. I know, the details can and do matter.)


You've made me wonder though.... How well could the Sunspider do dual Gauss? Would it be effective for it? I would imagine so considering where it would be mounted, and 5+ tons (armor striping depending) might be enough ammo...?

justcallme A S H, on 28 June 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

Again incorrect. The high alpha build, say a 71pt Laser Vom build. At 900m is effectively doing about 10 damage, maybe 15 damage. So again you are winning with AC2s hands down against a big alpha build because generally, they are range limited. There are only a few VERY select mechs that win the range game to AC2s.

I mean look at how dominate AC2 useage is in Solaris on even skirmisher builds. They win because the high DPS... The big issue is it only works well if you can aim.

This presumes that the fight stays at 900m+. As you said, play to your advantages. A mid range mech isn't going to just try and sit at those ranges.

Solaris does place these weapons into 1v1 settings, which does say something about DPS over high alpha in 1V1 situations. In live matches, I find it's harder to keep 12 people at range, or not supporting each other. (Yes, I know. My team should also be supporting each other.)

I would like to remind again, my comment was just a "hey, what about this" when someone else mentioned that skillful play should be rewarded (which I don't disagree), and twisting over staring was brought up. I merely wanted to point out that we have weapons, builds and play styles that might not be able to effectively twist. I never intended to mean that AC2s couldn't compete vs Gauss or other weapons. Only a "hey, we should also make sure it's still worth doing this as well".

justcallme A S H, on 28 June 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

TBH - and in no way am I being rude here - But it seems you aren't really getting MWO, weapon role and how to engage/counter within the game and it's various aspects. I was literally on comms today, for an hour, talking build theory with the comp team I'm playing with post practice sessions. We were coming up with ideas/counters like a game of chess and that is what MWO is a lot of the time IMO.

You haven't been. Other people? I'm just no longer responding to them unless they can actually say something constructive, rather than personal attacks. ("You don't know how to twist.")

The problem is, I made a statement, and it got taken to a conclusion that was never intended, and then I (poor decision on my part) decided to try and produce a quick counter argument to their mis-read remark about the intentions of my one sentence post. But then again, it's the same guy who jumped from my fire control/cone of fire subject (which he just stopped responding to) and he lunged at something else... and it's from the same guy whom thought when I said "cone of fire" somehow meant "everything will miss" and it would "kill this play style", even after I mentioned how that specific build could interact with the Fire Control system, keeping it balanced and usable.

For the record, my Fire Control system would be a replacement for the GH system. At the loss of accuracy, suddenly builds that are deemed non-viable due to GH and being too hot could suddenly be used again. They wouldn't be "as effective" because of potential spread of weapons fire (which shouldn't make it all miss, but rather just spread and have most of it just hit different locations, with some missing maybe), but it wouldn't be suicide to try them. For example... Stock Nova Prime... New players would no longer alpha once and POP. It would be alpha once, be hot, and you just made an impressive light show with a wall of laser light in front of you.


Do you feel that accuracy/convergence/cone of fire could be used to help balance the game, compared to GH and constant weapon stat adjustments and/or quirks? Even if you disagree, I actually am fine with that. (But please, let me know why.)

[Imperius]

Sorry anyone here still trying to force TT values or practices please go play battletech. This is mechwarrior and an fps. I’ve honestly had enough of listening to this back and forth over a set of balance designed for dice. That is exactly why this game has been suffering since day one.

[Tesunie]

Imperius, on 29 June 2018 - 04:40 PM, said:

Sorry anyone here still trying to force TT values or practices please go play battletech. This is mechwarrior and an fps. I’ve honestly had enough of listening to this back and forth over a set of balance designed for dice. That is exactly why this game has been suffering since day one.

I do agree.

Trying to force "everything TT" into MW:O isn't a viable solution, and wouldn't work nearly as well as some people think it might.

Draw inspiration from TT and other source materials, certainly. But use only those numbers and stats? This isn't a turn based strategy game. It's a first person shoot styled game. Not everything will translate over "perfectly". Some adjustments will be needed.

I do want to also comment, in the opposite extreme, to completely ignore all previous source materials (TT and others) would also be a grave mistake for this game. Ignore everything this game is founded on (it's a Battletech game) and it's no longer Mechwarrior.

It really should be a balance between the two. There are enough different ways to interpret the source materials that this can still be Battletech, which being an effective and fun first person shooter. The question is always, how. How do we manage the balance between following BT sources, and doing what the game needs done for it's own sake.

[Imperius]

The values absolutely should be ignored. Weapons, models, and lore are all that need to be looked at. The feel and values need to come from the developers.

[Andi Nagasia]

Damnedtroll, on 29 June 2018 - 04:31 PM, said:

Just bring IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan back in Faction Play 12 vs 12 for IS and 10 vs 10 for clan.

Put two stars (10) vs tree lances (12) for Clan vs IS. Remove all buff and nerf on all weapons, remove tonnage nerf for clan and use tabletop value for Faction play.

Look what happen.

every time the 10 vs 12 comes up im ganna remind everyone that this was tried before Clan release,
IS won most of the time with having 2 more Mechs, even with Clans Initial Nerfs, cerca 2013,

and even with that matchs were extremely unpredictable being 12-0 / 12-1 / 12-2, 90% of the time,
it was this unpredictablity this Randomness that mostly degraded into a stop that encouraged PGI to stay 12v12,

12 vs 10 is a pipe dream that cant work in MWO,

[Tesunie]

Imperius, on 29 June 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

The values absolutely should be ignored. Weapons, models, and lore are all that need to be looked at. The feel and values need to come from the developers.

Slightly agreed.
I mean, a medium laser should be a mid ranged weapon that doesn't deal more damage (alpha) than a large laser. A SL should be a close in laser that doesn't deal more (alpha) damage than the ML. Etc.

In those regards, yeah. We should drift from the source material. I wouldn't say "ignore" though necessarily.

[Tesunie]

Andi Nagasia, on 29 June 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

every time the 10 vs 12 comes up im ganna remind everyone that this was tried before Clan release,
IS won most of the time with having 2 more Mechs, even with Clans Initial Nerfs, cerca 2013,

and even with that matchs were extremely unpredictable being 12-0 / 12-1 / 12-2, 90% of the time,
it was this unpredictablity this Randomness that mostly degraded into a stop that encouraged PGI to stay 12v12,

12 vs 10 is a pipe dream that cant work in MWO,

May I ask when this was tried? Was it done internally? PTS (that I missed)? I don't recall seeing that attempted, at least not on the live (or PTS) servers to my knowledge.

I thought we were told that MM couldn't deal with composing teams of different sizes...

[NocturnalBeast]

Andi Nagasia, on 29 June 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

every time the 10 vs 12 comes up im ganna remind everyone that this was tried before Clan release,
IS won most of the time with having 2 more Mechs, even with Clans Initial Nerfs, cerca 2013,

and even with that matchs were extremely unpredictable being 12-0 / 12-1 / 12-2, 90% of the time,
it was this unpredictablity this Randomness that mostly degraded into a stop that encouraged PGI to stay 12v12,

12 vs 10 is a pipe dream that cant work in MWO,

The problem is that Clans were Nerfed from the get-go and the only reason Stars could take out two lances in TT is because the Clan mechs were far more powerful.

[Andi Nagasia]

Tesunie, on 29 June 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

May I ask when this was tried? Was it done internally? PTS (that I missed)? I don't recall seeing that attempted, at least not on the live (or PTS) servers to my knowledge.

I thought we were told that MM couldn't deal with composing teams of different sizes...

it was an internal test, although it was a rather extensive test and held up the Q&A for months,
their were many videos on Reddit, though i dont know if they had since been removed,
(i dont know if or how Reddit Archives their Topics(dont use Reddit too much )