Jump to content

About Clan Puls Lasers


145 replies to this topic

#21 VonBruinwald

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undisputed
  • The Undisputed
  • 2,489 posts
  • LocationRandis IV

Posted 02 March 2020 - 11:18 AM

View PostB0oN, on 02 March 2020 - 10:47 AM, said:

*enjoys his popcorn*

Anybody wants some too ?


Sweet or salty?

#22 Der Geisterbaer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 394 posts

Posted 02 March 2020 - 12:50 PM

View PostArnold The Governator, on 02 March 2020 - 09:43 AM, said:

I'd be in favor if they removed ghost heat entirely from the game at this point.


~laugh~ Why am I thinking "be careful what you're wishing for" there?


#23 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 02 March 2020 - 12:56 PM

Removal of ghost heat will immediately turn into everything getting one shot with PPCs. lol

#24 Sniper09121986

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 02 March 2020 - 01:29 PM

View PostPhoenixFire55, on 01 March 2020 - 09:14 AM, said:

But hey, its Minimally Viable ProductTM after all, no point in fussing over or expecting anything decent. Only thing that saddens me is that PGI is gonna keep defiling the corpse of a franchise for five more years at least it seems.


Yeah, because there is a mile-long queue of developers waiting on their toes to pick up this franchise (not). Sad but true, what can you do? We eat the only cactus that we are served.

View Post_Magno_, on 02 March 2020 - 02:43 AM, said:

I'd recommend folks read the background of Battletech to appreciate that clan tech, strategy and tactics are much different that IS. There are also dozens of laser weapon manufacturers, etc..


That and the TechManual, so that I am not the only one pissed off at all the goodies that I cannot have. Not even Enhanced Imaging anymore.

View Post_Magno_, on 02 March 2020 - 07:25 AM, said:

To get pure mathematical balance in MWO, you'd have to strip the game of its source material. We already do a LOT of that for QP and even FP.


Well, either that or advance the timeline to 3150 when everyone can legally have mixed tech (even the native Clan designs). Problem solved, canon upheld.

#25 Arnold The Governator

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 1,473 posts
  • LocationWubbing and dakkaing everyone in best jellyfish mech

Posted 02 March 2020 - 01:43 PM

View PostDer Geisterbaer, on 02 March 2020 - 12:50 PM, said:


~laugh~ Why am I thinking "be careful what you're wishing for" there?

Ironically I was thinking about including that in my post. A man can only dream.

#26 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 02 March 2020 - 02:44 PM

View PostSniper09121986, on 02 March 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:


Well, either that or advance the timeline to 3150 when everyone can legally have mixed tech (even the native Clan designs). Problem solved, canon upheld.


Thats boring as ****, and will literally turn into even more stale min-maxing.

We could have really interesting asymmetric balance even tho luore-bad.

#27 Sniper09121986

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 03 March 2020 - 10:33 AM

View PostPrototelis, on 02 March 2020 - 02:44 PM, said:

Thats boring as ****


Because the Clans would be able to fight back? Okay then.

#28 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 03 March 2020 - 12:15 PM

View PostSniper09121986, on 03 March 2020 - 10:33 AM, said:

Because the Clans would be able to fight back? Okay then.


Uhmm what?

A good portion of current metas are still clams lol.

#29 VonBruinwald

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undisputed
  • The Undisputed
  • 2,489 posts
  • LocationRandis IV

Posted 03 March 2020 - 12:43 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 03 March 2020 - 12:15 PM, said:

Uhmm what?

A good portion of current metas are still clams lol.


Sarcasm.

#30 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 03 March 2020 - 12:56 PM

^Nah.

#31 VonBruinwald

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undisputed
  • The Undisputed
  • 2,489 posts
  • LocationRandis IV

Posted 03 March 2020 - 01:11 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 03 March 2020 - 12:56 PM, said:

^Nah.


I mean, it's gotta be, otherwise it's a new low in stupid!

#32 Sniper09121986

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 03 March 2020 - 01:56 PM

The whole IS/Clan balancing effort has been an exercise in stupidity. They should have gone straight to the current 3060 tech level (and maybe add Clan HAGs to balance out the double heavy cheese rifle meta) and balance apples against apples instead of trying (and failing) to stretch an owl over a basketball that resulted in the current situation. Giving everyone access to the same gear (structure/armour/engines seem fine with quirks and all) would remove the biggest point of contention and allow devs to balance things out without disrupting the player-base. I mean all else has already failed, demonstrably and spectacularly. Balancing nanopatches with numbers going back and forth amount to treating heart attack with band-aids.

#33 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 03 March 2020 - 02:11 PM

Or, they could have ignored the intentional power creep aspect in the source material and shot for asymmetric balance from the get go.

Way cooler than literally just making every min-max the exact same thing regardless of tech base.

#34 Sniper09121986

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 04 March 2020 - 11:41 AM

View PostPrototelis, on 03 March 2020 - 02:11 PM, said:

Or, they could have ignored the intentional power creep aspect in the source material and shot for asymmetric balance from the get go.

Way cooler than literally just making every min-max the exact same thing regardless of tech base.


From the get-go the Clans were absent and nobody planned for them. They had no idea what to do. The problem is that with quirks, quick play open queue and whatnot balancing efforts have become more convoluted than a full platter of spaghetti. And I strongly doubt there are some config backups at various points of balancing, so not much to come back to either (leaving aside the political repercussions of being wrong in the Internet). If they want to do something (as well they should) might as well start with a clean slate with something more workable.

Oh, and do not worry. Min-maxing is not going anywhere anytime soon. It is the nature of the game. They just need to provide more than a couple of similar ways that work.

#35 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 04 March 2020 - 12:31 PM

I didn't say min maxing would go anywhere, lawl.

Only that EVERY min max would literally be identical.

No. Just no.

#36 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,868 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 04 March 2020 - 09:14 PM

I might be totally wrong in saying this but worrying about min-maxing while designing a game is a bad thing. Balancing symmetrically can be bad as well 'cause it'll only create nearly identical playstyles and no variations. It's best to start with asymmetrical balancing and ensure that every mech and weapon has a use. The way it stands now, there's literally no point in preferring regular C-ACs. There's no point in using LPPC or Snubnose PPC unless you really, really are dying to make it work. There's really no point in piloting certain mech variants or entire chassis in general.

All of this happened, from my perspective, 'cause there was no planning put in place to make sure one side didn't overpower the other and then haphazardly go about nerfing the said OP things. There's this terrible practise where if something's good, let's make it bad instead of making others good. Let's just beat on the good things 'cause of our incompetence in planning and make everything crap.

Great job.

#37 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 04 March 2020 - 09:19 PM

Well, there is a lot to be said about just making things good contributing to powercreep.

But the method here has mostly been hammering things here into the ground, instead of starting them off on a more level field and making some small changes.

It certainly isn't a case for throwing asymmetrical balance out the window in favor of giving both tech bases all of the things because lazy.

#38 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,868 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 04 March 2020 - 09:23 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 04 March 2020 - 09:19 PM, said:

It certainly isn't a case for throwing asymmetrical balance out the window in favor of giving both tech bases all of the things because lazy.


Yeah, I wouldn't call PGI lazy either. Just stubborn would be a better description. Stubborn 'cause the truth hurts and they'd rather not listen and also 'cause they don't know their own game 'cause they don't play it often and realize where the major problems are and how to fix them.

#39 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,721 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 04 March 2020 - 11:56 PM

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 04 March 2020 - 09:14 PM, said:

All of this happened, from my perspective, 'cause there was no planning put in place to make sure one side didn't overpower the other and then haphazardly go about nerfing the said OP things ...

You say there was no planning assuming that achieving balance was their goal ... it wasn't. Their goal was to sell you mechpaks, and in order to do that they needed constant powercreep and changing meta. Release OP Kodiak, let it reign for several months, wait till enough people bought it, nerf it to the ground the next day. Plenty planning if you ask me.

#40 Sniper09121986

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 05 March 2020 - 11:19 AM

View PostPrototelis, on 04 March 2020 - 09:19 PM, said:

Well, there is a lot to be said about just making things good contributing to powercreep.

But the method here has mostly been hammering things here into the ground, instead of starting them off on a more level field and making some small changes.

It certainly isn't a case for throwing asymmetrical balance out the window in favor of giving both tech bases all of the things because lazy.


Since when mixed tech precludes asymmetrical balance? Want sustained DPS, tough and cool brawler - go IS. Want big alpha, risk/reward glass cannon - go Clan. This is how I envision it, and it can be implemented for equipment to let the players balance their builds around their play-style (and restrict quirks to chassis tech-base to even things out). Just my two work credits, anyway. If it could be implemented right now, I would be very happy with that, it is just that I do not see any other practical way to go about it and stop the player rage that is several years old at this point.

View PostPhoenixFire55, on 04 March 2020 - 11:56 PM, said:

You say there was no planning assuming that achieving balance was their goal ... it wasn't. Their goal was to sell you mechpaks, and in order to do that they needed constant powercreep and changing meta. Release OP Kodiak, let it reign for several months, wait till enough people bought it, nerf it to the ground the next day. Plenty planning if you ask me.


You are so horribly wrong. They have been rotating tech-bases between releases, so by that logic Clan tech would have been usable at least HALF the time!

Edited by Sniper09121986, 05 March 2020 - 11:20 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users