198 replies to this topic

[Aaron DeChavilier]

ScientificMethod, on 15 June 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Well written implying the series is more than the work of some teenage author. The depth of this series' cannon is just below that of StarTrek or StarWars. It has been decades since the first book was published for this universe and very little has been reconned. Ignoring the backstory to cater to WoT and Eve players would create the equivalent to another MechAssault game. Sure it's fun, but that people that really wanted it found it extremely lacking.

yes it is more well-written than a teenage fanfic, but there's so much cheese in the writing, and I'm okay with this; but I won't call it really 'well-written' otherwise you rabbite-hole down a dark path of plot holes and anachronisms.

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

So the clans should become what? Sounds again you want the "I win" button for the IS side. That's all I am hearing. I may play clan, but I do play IS. Again, you want the game to hobble something that's been balanced pretty close, not exactly, but pretty close.

I now ask you to point to where I wrote that I want an 'I-win' button, if you can't then stop trying to reframe the conversation. Nowhere did I say I want the IS to win, you interpreted that because it threatens the munchkin tech. I merely was pointing out other games that have done game balance so much better then CBT and evidently I must have struck a nerve about clan balance with that.

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

If the faction exists, you have the option to play that (gasp) OP faction. Nobody is stopping you but YOU. All you are doing is trying to force changes on what you perceive is imbalanced play. 40k, for one thing, isn't mini friendly. Meaning in TT, you have to have the model to play that unit. It's called 40k due to costing a lot to get into a good army in that game. Ever wonder why it creeped up? To make people keep spending money on new armies. WYSIWYG or What You See Is What You Get will force that. Yep, a form of marketing. If it was that balanced in the first edition, shouldn't have changed the game. I am familiar with 40k. Nice try on that.

so, like GearBoxClock said, we should all just play clans right? I guess I'll go jump into the IS forum, and tell them they should petition the devs to give clan tech to everyone right?

40k is actually better in terms of minis than CBT for more formalization of a skirmish. Case in point: 40k is WYSIWYG, so someone can't jump into a game with a Hive Tyrant with +2/+4 saves and S/T/W 5 and using an imperial guardsmen mini. In CBT? see that Spider mini? well thats my custom assault spider, 100tons, 19tons armor....etc why? because its on the TRO sheet, and I have a mini...

As for the power creep, no, you're wrong. If you were right, then everyone would be clamoring to buy the latest army from GW, the reality is though majority players play Space marines, Eldar, IG or Chaos (Marines with evil mustaches). So the reality doesn't reflect your supposition. Also, several factions are never even given a codex update on a regular basis, leaving their items and rules gimped for the current edition. Now as for power-creep selling minis and getting new players...what do you think the clans were, eh? I 'll let you think about that one.

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Also, when did these computer games come out? That's right, years after Battletech came out. Battletech is a 2D6 based charts and graphs game that's been adapted to computer play. However, the best way to compare the techs is US or Nato versus Soviets.

everything when translated through mediums has to be adapted to the new medium I understand that, the burning question will be 'how' and 'how well.' Actually, using history in comparison to a fictional boardgame is one of the worst ways to do it, that's why I've kept to comparing it to other games which apparently isn't good enough for you.

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

If your fighting a world war, would you have unlimited access to each others tech?

CBT is a fictional game.

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

No, unless it was common shared tech at some point in history. Star League tech I am looking at.

here's the thing though, compare IS tech to SL tech to Clan tech; what is fundamentally different between their mechanics that makes clan tech better or IS tech worse? (this was that rabbit hole I was talking about) Clan tech doesnt rely on some heretofore unkown metal, nor any new way firing, its just labelled as 'better.' That doesn't make any sense, for it wouldn't be hard at all for an IS lab to research making a 'better' Large laser and making the ER version. The mechanics of both lasers are fundamentally the same.

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

The Nato side has superior tech. Soviets have tech to some degree behind and use numbers to compensate. Sorry, that's warfare folks. You might be able to use captured tech, but if it's unfamiliar or alien, keeping it running is very difficult at best. So an M-1 Abrams has massive range and killing power. Should it be balanced down so the Soviets have the same stats? Then why have different techs.

CBT is a fictional game, but if you want a real history example, lets crack open a book shall we:
World War One - when tanks were built for the first time ever, and used for the first time ever.
early combustion engines strapped to boxes of metal.

Britain had the most effective tanks, Germany made only 20 tanks of 1 type that was laughably bad. So what did the Germans do? they captured abandoned british tanks, oh but according to you they couldn't keep them running cause its like alien tech right? wrong, look up BeautPanzers. The Germans didnt use or make a 6pdr cannon for the side sponson, but they found that their own 57mm cannon fit quite comfortably. The Germans were able to take severely damaged british MKIV's and cannabilize them to make fully functional MarkIV's...remember, tanks were brand new to warfare. How could they do such wizardry? oh that's right, the fundamental mechanics they were dealing with were the same...

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

By watering down the tech differences, you destroy the flavor of what makes Battletech battletech. If you don't like how the game is going, what's stopping you from making your own game? Honestly.

that's a very weak argument, I'm sure space marine players whine the same way whenever another faction gets a new codex to bring it barely up to current level. And I ask again, what tech differences? oh you mean the wargear that invalidates everything else? oh right those 'tech differences.' But wait, I thought it was the story and the RP that makes the clans so interesting, glad to know that its only the wargear that makes it so, thanks for clearing that up.

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

As for Gears, we have to have a live game first to see if it will survive to the clans intro right? If it tanks before then, guess all this hype about an OP faction that we probably will have access too is a moot point.

*chuckles*

yeah but its the spectacle, the devs get information from us passively by reading this kind of stuff, and we (all of us) are raising points the devs might never have thought about. I also would like to think this wont tank in a year, look at Biowares Old Republic, it just went F2P, and is doing well.

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 16 June 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[GearBoxClock]

Wow, somehow I keep posting my arguments at the end of pages. Going to repost, again because I want people to read them.

Quote

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

My point is this is a game that the Devs are putting together for us players. Let's see what they are doing first BEFORE we clamor for change. That's all I am asking. Leave things be until we see what the product is like.

So we aren't allowed to discuss anything related to the game until it comes out? Alright bro.

phelancracken, on 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

So the clans should become what? Sounds again you want the "I win" button for the IS side. That's all I am hearing. I may play clan, but I do play IS. Again, you want the game to hobble something that's been balanced pretty close, not exactly, but pretty close. If the faction exists, you have the option to play that (gasp) OP faction. Nobody is stopping you but YOU. All you are doing is trying to force changes on what you perceive is imbalanced play. 40k, for one thing, isn't mini friendly. Meaning in TT, you have to have the model to play that unit. It's called 40k due to costing a lot to get into a good army in that game. Ever wonder why it creeped up? To make people keep spending money on new armies. WYSIWYG or What You See Is What You Get will force that. Yep, a form of marketing. If it was that balanced in the first edition, shouldn't have changed the game. I am familiar with 40k. Nice try on that.

Also, when did these computer games come out? That's right, years after Battletech came out. Battletech is a 2D6 based charts and graphs game that's been adapted to computer play. However, the best way to compare the techs is US or Nato versus Soviets. If your fighting a world war, would you have unlimited access to each others tech? No, unless it was common shared tech at some point in history. Star League tech I am looking at. The Nato side has superior tech. Soviets have tech to some degree behind and use numbers to compensate. Sorry, that's warfare folks. You might be able to use captured tech, but if it's unfamiliar or alien, keeping it running is very difficult at best. So an M-1 Abrams has massive range and killing power. Should it be balanced down so the Soviets have the same stats? Then why have different techs. By watering down the tech differences, you destroy the flavor of what makes Battletech battletech. If you don't like how the game is going, what's stopping you from making your own game? Honestly.

As for C3 not being good, you might want to consider this, why does C3 have about, (don't have TW handy at the moment), 20% increase in BV just for that? Talk about a Big difference.

As for Gears, we have to have a live game first to see if it will survive to the clans intro right? If it tanks before then, guess all this hype about an OP faction that we probably will have access too is a moot point.

*chuckles*

So everyone should always play the Clans forever and there are no problems with this. Jesus dude, are you stubborn or just stupid?
Rogue Trader (40k First ed) was a terrible game that couldn't decide if it was an RPG or wargame and it's a wonder that 2nd ed was ever made.

The M1 Abrams is an awful tank, fyi. The USSR and NATO were pretty evenly matched when it came to technology during the Cold War. Hell, the USSR put a man in space before NATO could, by a considerable degree.

This is also a video game. Video games are not real life and don't have to conform to real life "rules of warfare" or whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

The C3 doesn't change the fact that all ClanTech is superior with literally no drawbacks and Battle Value cannot be used in a team based shooter.

*Edit* Reposting this

GearBoxClock, on 15 June 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Battle Value doesn't work in a team-based video game.

The first IS omnimech doesn't exist until 3052 and is pretty bad.

C3 is a good point but doesn't make up for Clan tech being IS tech +1 in every way. It's boring and unbalanced.

You don't respawn in game, AFAIK. One team being bigger and weaker is unfun for the people on the team. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "variety and different tactics."

The Clans are just IS +1, which is boring and unfun. This thread is full of whinybaby clanners that don't understand that.

*Edit* Other counterpoints.

• Clan (INSERT WEAPON HERE) - Weapons with higher max range, lower min range and higher damage for the same weight and nearly the same heat.
  
• Double Heat Sinks - Take up more room, but you need half the number at most, which eliminates the risk of heat and frees space for ammo/guns

[phelancracken]

GearBoxClock, on 16 June 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

So we aren't allowed to discuss anything related to the game until it comes out? Alright bro.




So everyone should always play the Clans forever and there are no problems with this. Jesus dude, are you stubborn or just stupid?
Rogue Trader (40k First ed) was a terrible game that couldn't decide if it was an RPG or wargame and it's a wonder that 2nd ed was ever made.

The M1 Abrams is an awful tank, fyi. The USSR and NATO were pretty evenly matched when it came to technology during the Cold War. Hell, the USSR put a man in space before NATO could, by a considerable degree.

This is also a video game. Video games are not real life and don't have to conform to real life "rules of warfare" or whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

The C3 doesn't change the fact that all ClanTech is superior with literally no drawbacks and Battle Value cannot be used in a team based shooter.

*Edit* Reposting this

You don't know history very well or current events. NATO never put a man in space. NATO isn't even a COUNTRY. The USA put a man in space after the USSR. However, has the USSR put a man on the moon? No.

NATO
North
Atlantic
Treaty
Organization


I'm stubborn? Look in the mirror lately? My point is this and has always been this. You don't screw up a game that hasn't come out yet. This isn't TT. We DON'T know what the DEVs have done. We don't know how they have addressed balancing. You want to change a faction BEFORE it's released. I am pointing out we don't know how it's going to be available and all the variable.

As for the Abrams tank being junk, ummm, Obviously you are a kid or just have your head stuck in the sand. It has been proven in combat aka Desert Storm. I have friends that served as TANKERS in the military during that time and that M1 did the job well. Served in the military? It shows you haven't or just hate American tech just on principle.

Double Heat Sinks. STAR LEAGUE TECH. Sorry, you lost that arguement. The Flashman 8k, Night Hawk, Talon, Lynx, Exclaibur, Emperor, Spectre, Starslayer, etc all used Star League tech, aka Ferro Fibrous, Endo Steel, Double Heat Sinks, that dreaded thing. Why are you so afraid of DHS?

Clan weapons, improvements on what was common shared Star League history.

All it looks like is YOUR trying to force people to play IS. So, here we are. It's a game. I see what your posting and all it seems is the Clans are OPed. Okay, power is reduced by numbers superiority by the other side. IF your soo good at game designing why aren't you making this game? Sounds like your a game designer with all the answers. This has been going on enough that it's silly. Clans are overpowered..Clans have this...Clans need to be nuetered. My question is this, if they were that overpowered, 22 years of playing in the game, they would have been balanced. 22 years. I bet quite a number of the posters here aren't as old as the clans have been around.

As for 40k not having factions being perfectly balanced, same thing happens in Flames of War. Guess what? It's called what's available for that faction. Not to mention, it's a perfect excuse to make people buy new minis to keep the game designers in money. WYSIWYG is alive and well in 40k.

This thread if full of whinny IS players that seem to want to neuter a side that they perceive is imbalanced. If it was that badly imbalanced, they would have been corrected ages ago. BV still is the way to balance overall. However, I don't have my crystal ball and know what the Devs are going to use on that. I do know that the human factor, the players running mechs cannot be accounted for. A great player could have a brain freeze and do something stupid that throws the match to the opponents. Is that the fault of the tech? No. Is it the fault of the game? No.

Here's an idea, let the clan tech people have C3 and C3i. It's "fair". Lets just allow everyone to have the same tech as the FPS of the game system. Oh wait, this is simulated mech combat which the lightest mech is 20 tons supposedly. I kinda doubt a 20 tonner can corner or hide like a human. Never mind that fusion reactor that powers practically all mechs.

Edited by phelancracken, 16 June 2012 - 08:31 AM.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

You don't know history very well or current events. NATO never put a man in space. NATO isn't even a COUNTRY. The USA put a man in space after the USSR. However, has the USSR put a man on the moon? No.

NATO
North
Atlantic
Treaty
Organization

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...you missed one there.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

I'm stubborn? Look in the mirror lately? My point is this and has always been this. You don't screw up a game that hasn't come out yet. This isn't TT. We DON'T know what the DEVs have done. We don't know how they have addressed balancing. You want to change a faction BEFORE it's released. I am pointing out we don't know how it's going to be available and all the variable.

Devs said they're sticking as close as possible to translating the TT over, well looks like we're all versed in the TT, so yeah many here can make some pretty good forecasts as for what may or may not be brought in. MWO may be 'a game thats not out yet' but its not being developed in a vaccuum.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Double Heat Sinks. STAR LEAGUE TECH. Sorry, you lost that arguement. The Flashman 8k, Night Hawk, Talon, Lynx, Exclaibur, Emperor, Spectre, Starslayer, etc all used Star League tech, aka Ferro Fibrous, Endo Steel, Double Heat Sinks, that dreaded thing. Why are you so afraid of DHS?

No one's afraid of DHS, in fact, IS DHS are balanced - those three crits cause you to make some serious choices when designing a mech, same goes for FF armor and Endo.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Clan weapons, improvements on what was common shared Star League history.

but how though? how did they improve? barring some macguffin metal, all they did was make weapons lighter, more powerful, a little hotter, and more compact : aka what any nation today does with its weapons or tries to do. So how come the IS couldn't do that? for the very same reason the Clans were - story. So their stats arent based on actual logical improvement, they're based on 'this faction has to be powerful' so lets shoehorn the story to make them powerful.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

All it looks like is YOUR trying to force people to play IS. So, here we are. It's a game. I see what your posting and all it seems is the Clans are OPed. Okay, power is reduced by numbers superiority by the other side.

no, I think the two of us are just trying to inject some sanity into the clan tech but I might just concede it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

IF your soo good at game designing why aren't you making this game? Sounds like your a game designer with all the answers. This has been going on enough that it's silly. Clans are overpowered..Clans have this...Clans need to be nuetered.

wouldn't you want your game to be peer reviewed by other game developers? last time I check peer review works wonders for things like science, history, psychology...I admit I don't have all the answers, but I will say that 22 years of broken faction is long enough. Seeing as how CBT has only ever had two factions - IS and Clan. Speaking of that (a game only having two factions) want to know of a few other games that balance two diverse factions?

Command and Conquer: Tiberian Dawn, Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun, Comand and Conquer: Red Alert.
You'd like Red Alert, its Nato vs Soviet in a fictional setting, and guess what? Soviets don't run on mindless numbers, they have things like tesla tanks, paratroopers, tesla coil defense towers, strong heavy tanks, and armed mineral miners.

And for some anecdotal evidence, I am working on a game with a partner. It's a humble 2d space shooter between the US and USSR, I actually use the clans from CBT in our talks as an example of what not to do, and he agrees, so there's that.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

My question is this, if they were that overpowered, 22 years of playing in the game, they would have been balanced. 22 years. I bet quite a number of the posters here aren't as old as the clans have been around.

Crux of your question is the assumption that game devs are a higher standard of people, much like how players view canon, that somehow it was written by a perfect force and thus is perfect. There can be several reasons why it hasn't been balanced, a few would be things like: player base dropping off a cliff, the IP itself bouncing between companies almost every year, the TT market not doing so hot in general, or a cranky fan-base that hates and boos any attempt at change. These are very real world implications that can affect a game.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

As for 40k not having factions being perfectly balanced, same thing happens in Flames of War. Guess what? It's called what's available for that faction. Not to mention, it's a perfect excuse to make people buy new minis to keep the game designers in money. WYSIWYG is alive and well in 40k.

you missed my point entirely, so let me reiterate using your framing and context: 40k is unbalanced because what is available to the Space marines completely outmatches what is available to say Orks, or Dark Eldar. And 40k is not rooted in reality, so what's your justification for this?

The Clan Invasion, not to mention, it's a perfect excuse to make people buy new minis to keep the game designers in money. See what I did there? that's one of the reasons I believe the clans were broken from the start, was to bring in new blood, and from what I've seen in the clan forum, the munchkin tech evidently worked.

" WYSIWYG is alive and well in 40k." that is a good thing, it keeps games more standardized, did you not read my example?

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

This thread if full of whinny IS players that seem to want to neuter a side that they perceive is imbalanced. If it was that badly imbalanced, they would have been corrected ages ago. BV still is the way to balance overall. However, I don't have my crystal ball and know what the Devs are going to use on that. I do know that the human factor, the players running mechs cannot be accounted for. A great player could have a brain freeze and do something stupid that throws the match to the opponents. Is that the fault of the tech? No. Is it the fault of the game? No.

And the clans overall are a bunch of whiners that screech to high-heaven as soon as one person says the word 'balance.' You'd like to call these people whiny to try and marginalize their points they have raised, why? because you've been outmaneuvered, good game. As for the balance corrections, see my point above.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Oh wait, this is simulated mech combat which the lightest mech is 20 tons supposedly. I kinda doubt a 20 tonner can corner or hide like a human. Never mind that fusion reactor that powers practically all mechs.

Wow, way to completely over-simplify and deliberately misinterpret what I said, but then again clan players seem good at that when it comes to actually talking about game mechanics, most OP-faction players react the same way in other games too, so I don't hold it against you that much.

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 16 June 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[phelancracken]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 16 June 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

yes it is more well-written than a teenage fanfic, but there's so much cheese in the writing, and I'm okay with this; but I won't call it really 'well-written' otherwise you rabbite-hole down a dark path of plot holes and anachronisms.


I now ask you to point to where I wrote that I want an 'I-win' button, if you can't then stop trying to reframe the conversation. Nowhere did I say I want the IS to win, you interpreted that because it threatens the munchkin tech. I merely was pointing out other games that have done game balance so much better then CBT and evidently I must have struck a nerve about clan balance with that.


so, like GearBoxClock said, we should all just play clans right? I guess I'll go jump into the IS forum, and tell them they should petition the devs to give clan tech to everyone right?

40k is actually better in terms of minis than CBT for more formalization of a skirmish. Case in point: 40k is WYSIWYG, so someone can't jump into a game with a Hive Tyrant with +2/+4 saves and S/T/W 5 and using an imperial guardsmen mini. In CBT? see that Spider mini? well thats my custom assault spider, 100tons, 19tons armor....etc why? because its on the TRO sheet, and I have a mini...

As for the power creep, no, you're wrong. If you were right, then everyone would be clamoring to buy the latest army from GW, the reality is though majority players play Space marines, Eldar, IG or Chaos (Marines with evil mustaches). So the reality doesn't reflect your supposition. Also, several factions are never even given a codex update on a regular basis, leaving their items and rules gimped for the current edition. Now as for power-creep selling minis and getting new players...what do you think the clans were, eh? I 'll let you think about that one.


everything when translated through mediums has to be adapted to the new medium I understand that, the burning question will be 'how' and 'how well.' Actually, using history in comparison to a fictional boardgame is one of the worst ways to do it, that's why I've kept to comparing it to other games which apparently isn't good enough for you.


CBT is a fictional game.


here's the thing though, compare IS tech to SL tech to Clan tech; what is fundamentally different between their mechanics that makes clan tech better or IS tech worse? (this was that rabbit hole I was talking about) Clan tech doesnt rely on some heretofore unkown metal, nor any new way firing, its just labelled as 'better.' That doesn't make any sense, for it wouldn't be hard at all for an IS lab to research making a 'better' Large laser and making the ER version. The mechanics of both lasers are fundamentally the same.



CBT is a fictional game, but if you want a real history example, lets crack open a book shall we:
World War One - when tanks were built for the first time ever, and used for the first time ever.
early combustion engines strapped to boxes of metal.

Britain had the most effective tanks, Germany made only 20 tanks of 1 type that was laughably bad. So what did the Germans do? they captured abandoned british tanks, oh but according to you they couldn't keep them running cause its like alien tech right? wrong, look up BeautPanzers. The Germans didnt use or make a 6pdr cannon for the side sponson, but they found that their own 57mm cannon fit quite comfortably. The Germans were able to take severely damaged british MKIV's and cannabilize them to make fully functional MarkIV's...remember, tanks were brand new to warfare. How could they do such wizardry? oh that's right, the fundamental mechanics they were dealing with were the same...


that's a very weak argument, I'm sure space marine players whine the same way whenever another faction gets a new codex to bring it barely up to current level. And I ask again, what tech differences? oh you mean the wargear that invalidates everything else? oh right those 'tech differences.' But wait, I thought it was the story and the RP that makes the clans so interesting, glad to know that its only the wargear that makes it so, thanks for clearing that up.


yeah but its the spectacle, the devs get information from us passively by reading this kind of stuff, and we (all of us) are raising points the devs might never have thought about. I also would like to think this wont tank in a year, look at Biowares Old Republic, it just went F2P, and is doing well.

Okay, The title of this thread is the "Problem with the clans." Then have people list what's wrong with the clans, which is everything that makes the clans clans. I challenge people who think the game is that unbalanced to make their own game. Seriously. You seem to have all the answers. Set it in 3025 only. Do a good enough job, people will come and play.

As for WW1, sure the Germans had lousy tanks. Considering it was a new INVENTION first used in 1916. Yeah buddy. Did you fail to mention that? WW1 lots of things were invented. Chemical warfare, Machine guns came of age, trench warfare. Why were the tanks invented? Machine guns buddy. The German machine guns were cutting down thousands of allied troops trying to cross no man's land. Shall we keep going?

As for the tech, DHS is available both sides. Now IS having lost it, haven't had as much time making it more compact. That's right people, 1 crit slot less for the clans. No difference in tonnage or effectiveness. As for LRMs having minimums, hot load them. There, no minimums. There are optional rules for that.

As for the "I win" button. Every forum I have seen it's the same thing. IS players wanting the clans to be no more powerful than the IS. Same thing. CBT forum has had it for years. This is no different, but I have trust that the developers know about the IS versus clan balance. Sorry, BV is still the best way. How can the GAME test your skills before you play? I know one way, force you to do a clan testing. "Oh, Sorry, you tested out as a laborer today. Can't run a battlemech." That wouldn't fly. Like I have said in another post, you are the only one that's keeping you from playing a faction including if or when the clans become playable. You only. The tech and BV have been tested for a long time in TT. So just to adjust it for this when it's not even live? Give me a break. MW4 and others don't follow the TT as well as this game is supposedly going to do.

[phelancracken]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 16 June 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...you missed one there.



Devs said they're sticking as close as possible to translating the TT over, well looks like we're all versed in the TT, so yeah many here can make some pretty good forecasts as for what may or may not be brought in. MWO may be 'a game thats not out yet' but its not being developed in a vaccuum.




No one's afraid of DHS, in fact, IS DHS are balanced - those three crits cause you to make some serious choices when designing a mech, same goes for FF armor and Endo.



but how though? how did they improve? barring some macguffin metal, all they did was make weapons lighter, more powerful, a little hotter, and more compact : aka what any nation today does with its weapons or tries to do. So how come the IS couldn't do that? for the very same reason the Clans were - story. So their stats arent based on actual logical improvement, they're based on 'this faction has to be powerful' so lets shoehorn the story to make them powerful.



no, I think the two of us are just trying to inject some sanity into the clan tech but I might just concede it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.



wouldn't you want your game to be peer reviewed by other game developers? last time I check peer review works wonders for things like science, history, psychology...I admit I don't have all the answers, but I will say that 22 years of broken faction is long enough. Seeing as how CBT has only ever had two factions - IS and Clan. Speaking of that (a game only having two factions) want to know of a few other games that balance two diverse factions?

Command and Conquer: Tiberian Dawn, Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun, Comand and Conquer: Red Alert.
You'd like Red Alert, its Nato vs Soviet in a fictional setting, and guess what? Soviets don't run on mindless numbers, they have things like tesla tanks, paratroopers, tesla coil defense towers, strong heavy tanks, and armed mineral miners.

And for some anecdotal evidence, I am working on a game with a partner. It's a humble 2d space shooter between the US and USSR, I actually use the clans from CBT in our talks as an example of what not to do, and he agrees, so there's that.



Crux of your question is the assumption that game devs are a higher standard of people, much like how players view canon, that somehow it was written by a perfect force and thus is perfect. There can be several reasons why it hasn't been balanced, a few would be things like: player base dropping off a cliff, the IP itself bouncing between companies almost every year, the TT market not doing so hot in general. These are very real world implications that can affect a game.



you missed my point entirely, so let me reiterate using your framing and context: 40k is unbalanced because what is available to the Space marines completely outmatches what is available to say Orks, or Dark Eldar. And 40k is not rooted in reality, so what's your justification for this?

The Clan Invasion, not to mention, it's a perfect excuse to make people buy new minis to keep the game designers in money. See what I did there? that's one of the reasons I believe the clans were broken from the start, was to bring in new blood, and from what I've seen in the clan forum, the munchkin tech evidently worked.

" WYSIWYG is alive and well in 40k." that is a good thing, it keeps games more standardized, did you not read my example?



And the clans overall are a bunch of whiners that screech to high-heaven as soon as one person says the word 'balance.' You'd like to call these people whiny to try and marginalize their points they have raised, why? because you've been outmaneuvered, good game. As for the balance corrections, see my point above.

One, messed up again. NATO is not a country. USSR was and had it's capital in Moscow. Get the facts right there please. Last time I checked, you don't need a passport to visit Nato, when the USSR was together, you DID or got gulaged.

as for WYSIWYG. Unseens. You forgot that. Can't use them due to not being able to be used in conventions. 40k didn't have that issue. And if your starting out and have 4 mechs, can't play due to not having the money to field what you have found what works? Hypocritical there people. A lot of younger players couldn't spend hundreds just to get into a game system. Sometimes they don't have an older player that can give them extra minis. Rules state in TW you can run a mini as something else provided it's understood by all players what it is. Been that way for decades.

As for 22 years of brokeness? ROTFL! Yeah. I have to call IS purist on that. BTW, your wrong on just 2 factions. How about all the houses and mercs? All the clans? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you meant "techs" other games usually have tech trees depending on the different sides to the game.

Okay final point, clans improved their weapons over how many CENTURIES? That's right, hundreds of years in the game story. First Succession war was in 2786 using WMD!! Your telling me when factories, cities, planets, everything in total unrestricted war is bombed that you don't loose tech??! Say what? You target the enemies infastructure in unrestricted total war INCLUDING civies. There goes scientists.

Clans invaded in late 3049 after they left the Inner Sphere 2784.. 3040-2800= 240 years of development time. You mean to tell me they would not have improved anything? This is ludicrous. So, again, they had a militaristic society. If something wasn't the best or they perceived a need, they improved or once in a while created a new design. ERLL, wasn't that far of a stretch to make ERMLs or ERSLs. ERPPC. Hey, lets make this hit harder, and smaller.

Hey techs, I want to get my LRMs to not have minimums, now in 240ish years, I think someone can make a bit of headway there. Clans never lostech like the IS. That's the key. Sorry, that's how it's written and how it's been played for 22 years with the clans. This is the latest in the long line of the clans are too powerful starting back in 1990.


Again, if I go to just anyother CBT forum, I gaurantee I will see something about the clans being overpowered. BV has proven to balance them. Again, you want only one tech. That's all you want if you want the clans to have minimums, if they can't have ERMLs, ERSLs and nearly everything else. 200+ years of research without being bombed into oblivion does have it's advantages. I would say this, outmaneuvered? More like I challenged your assumptions that the clans are overpowered. The story line does show how the clans could improve their tech. They were never in 2 massive total Unrestricted warfare WARS that wiped out most of the techinical knowledge of the IS.

IS has been cast as a scavenger society. Clans as a military one. Simple as that.

Edited by phelancracken, 16 June 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[GearBoxClock]

It doesn't matter whether or not the clans lost the tech!

Do you not get that? Are you that stupid as to not understand that THIS IS A GAME NOT REALITY

THE FLUFF IS CALLED FLUFF FOR A REASON.

STORY SHOULD NOT TRUMP GAMEPLAY.

And no **** sherlock, NATO isn't a country. Considering I come from a country in NATO, I should frigging know. I used NATO because you kept talking about NATO vs the Soviets.

And you're ignoring every single argument put forth.

[Tebbo]

GearBoxClock, on 11 June 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

The Clans have always left me split in two ways. One direction says that they are an interesting addition to the game, bringing unique tech and fluff that couldn't work in the Inner Sphere.

The other way is that they have very few interesting 'Mech designs, rarely have any weaknesses besides "light" armour and the easily ignored Zell and are generally unfun to play against.

I think that a rebalance of Clan tech is nessecary if the Clans are to be added to MWO. I've never understood why their weapons have longer range, better damage and no minimum range. It doesn't make much sense from a fluff standpoint (One-on-one duels would probably be close range 99% of the time) and makes even less sense from a balancing standpoint. Perhaps giving Clan weapons reduced range and increased heat in exchange for higher damage and no minimum range would be the better choice.

What does everyone else think?

No reason they can't be perfectly balanced. I still think the best way while still preserving the 'clan superiority' is to just make their stuff cost more and in matches give IS a tonnage advantage.

Clan tech being superior is completely with the fluff. That's where it comes from in the first place...

[phelancracken]

GearBoxClock, on 16 June 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

It doesn't matter whether or not the clans lost the tech!

Do you not get that? Are you that stupid as to not understand that THIS IS A GAME NOT REALITY

THE FLUFF IS CALLED FLUFF FOR A REASON.

STORY SHOULD NOT TRUMP GAMEPLAY.

And no **** sherlock, NATO isn't a country. Considering I come from a country in NATO, I should frigging know. I used NATO because you kept talking about NATO vs the Soviets.

And you're ignoring every single argument put forth.

Then your an IS purist that don't want anything but IS tech. Simple as that. You are the one ignoring how the gameplay came to be. FASA created the storyline to give a background on how the Clans got as powerful as they are. But then again, if they were aliens, truly, would we be having this discussion? Not the same way. I am betting it's their taking of bondsmen, the caste system, etc that is bothering people. Look at India for the caste system people.

I have seen this time and again. Clans are too powerful. The gameplay has been proven on TT. As for this, the Devs set it at the beginning of 3049 for a reason. One, the demographic of the players want to play both IS AND clan. 2. By going live before the clans are introduced, they can weed out any bugs on balance before the getting the clans in the game. Why add more variables to a (possible) issue when they are doing what they are doing starting the game before the clan invasion.

As for the story, it was written to give back history to make the fiction more alive.

No I am not ignoring. In fact, the USSR created the WARSAW pact to counter NATO. That was to another person's snip that I don't know history.

As for ignoring the arguements, no, I am simply showing why in game fluff and play why I consider arguements put forth are based on the belief that I want only IS tech. I want you to stop and think for a minute before countering. Just think about what I am about to say, if the IS hadn't had the Succession wars, where would their tech be? Still at 3025? Or much farther along if their scientific research was not halted. Remember, 200+ years is a long time for research to come up with new things and improve new things. Especially if you don't loose the knowledge to make the tech you have. The game was originally designed as a scavenger society.

[Iron Harlequin]

Whats a clan?

[phelancracken]

A clan is a caste based society that militaristic in the Battletech universe. That's the basic core of them. Simplified, but basic.

Final thought on this for now,

what's the title of this thread Original Poster? Problems with the Clans. Now that suggests we need to fix the clans they are broken. And I have seen posts basically saying that. They are too powerful, they need to be watered down to IS tech. How about buying the rights to the game and changing it to what you envision the game to be? Would solve the issue. You might want to remember that a lot of folks who aren't vocal are ones that play the underdog and really like it when they beat the supposed "superior" side.

[phelancracken]

Haakon Valravn, on 15 June 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

EDIT: Everybody just needs to remember: If a Star of Clan 'Mechs defeats a company of Inner Sphere 'Mechs, it's because of 'CrutchTech'. If the company of Inner Sphere 'Mechs defeats the Star of Clan 'Mechs, it's because the Inner Sphere players were more skilled.

Hit on the head there.

This is what I see as a double standard. Outnumbered 5 to 12 with smaller mechs usually and if the clans win it's due to their tech. Can't accept that someone might be better playing the game than themselves. Conversely, if the IS win, they were more skilled the clans suck. double standard.

[Noravar]

Ok just stop all this.

1) It's Battletech and you know what they could probably lite their pants on fire and make your mechs out of cardboard and you know what you would still pay for the better cardboard box to shoot you friends or enemies.

2) They will not be blind or stupid to what clan is and how it affected the game.

3) It's history you can't change it, you can't destroy it, and you sure as hell can't make it so someone doesn't complain. (WWII or WoT for instance)

4) Be happy they are making the game at least and try to enjoy that which is Battletech and nitpicking at something that has been in the game longer then most people have been alive isn't even worth the time.

(From the Desk of Noravar Copy & Pasted for all purposes containing Clan, balance, F2P, and trolls.)

[Iron Harlequin]

I was joking, I'd say about 30 of my posts are about how much I dislike clan-fanboy-idiocy. In the sense of everyone likes them because they're shiny and new and different. Clans cease to be special when you see one every five minutes, like you see a 2012 mustang or 2012 camaro every 5 minutes on the road. The car just isn't cool anymore cause you see one everywhere, now if someone has say a 1968 SS Camaro, I highly doubt you'll see one every 5 minutes on the road.

[GearBoxClock]

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Then your an IS purist that don't want anything but IS tech. Simple as that. You are the one ignoring how the gameplay came to be. FASA created the storyline to give a background on how the Clans got as powerful as they are. But then again, if they were aliens, truly, would we be having this discussion? Not the same way. I am betting it's their taking of bondsmen, the caste system, etc that is bothering people. Look at India for the caste system people.

I have seen this time and again. Clans are too powerful. The gameplay has been proven on TT. As for this, the Devs set it at the beginning of 3049 for a reason. One, the demographic of the players want to play both IS AND clan. 2. By going live before the clans are introduced, they can weed out any bugs on balance before the getting the clans in the game. Why add more variables to a (possible) issue when they are doing what they are doing starting the game before the clan invasion.

As for the story, it was written to give back history to make the fiction more alive.

No I am not ignoring. In fact, the USSR created the WARSAW pact to counter NATO. That was to another person's snip that I don't know history.

As for ignoring the arguements, no, I am simply showing why in game fluff and play why I consider arguements put forth are based on the belief that I want only IS tech. I want you to stop and think for a minute before countering. Just think about what I am about to say, if the IS hadn't had the Succession wars, where would their tech be? Still at 3025? Or much farther along if their scientific research was not halted. Remember, 200+ years is a long time for research to come up with new things and improve new things. Especially if you don't loose the knowledge to make the tech you have. The game was originally designed as a scavenger society.

Do you think that fiction is immutable or something? The fiction DOESN'T MATTER. You can change it, because it's FICTION.

Frankly, all of your posts have made you seem like you're a Bad Player who Can't Enjoy The Game when you aren't winning. That would explain why you play clantech and have no good arguments.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

A clan is a caste based society that militaristic in the Battletech universe. That's the basic core of them. Simplified, but basic.

Final thought on this for now,

what's the title of this thread Original Poster? Problems with the Clans. Now that suggests we need to fix the clans they are broken. And I have seen posts basically saying that. They are too powerful, they need to be watered down to IS tech. How about buying the rights to the game and changing it to what you envision the game to be? Would solve the issue. You might want to remember that a lot of folks who aren't vocal are ones that play the underdog and really like it when they beat the supposed "superior" side.

Yup, I shouldn't ever complain about game design unless I'm the owner of the rights. Everyone should just buck up and never complain ever again. Yup.

And the "Underdog" argument doesn't magically balance the game, nor does it make for fun gameplay. Would you want to play Counterstrike with halved health and damage, against players with double damage?

[phelancracken]

You know what? You just told me that you want something to be like another game. It's not going to be. Buck up and get used to it. It's called life. If you want everygame to be the same, then where is the variety? Where is the challenge? Where is the inspiration to change? Just change skins, rinse and repeat. Also, you don't know clans that well. Only the ERPPC does 50% more damage than an IS weapon for the same range. Everything else does more damage, with some better range. Double the damage? You are exaggerating quite a bit and IS mechs don't have half the armour. So that comparision is null. MW4 didn't really follow TT very much. They could way over armour a mech in that game. In TT, and I suspect that the Devs will do the same thing, Mechs have a max limit of armour based on their size. I don't know for sure, but they probably will.

You never answered my question on where the IS would be if they didn't have the succession wars. It's a what if meant to show you why the game is DESIGNED the way it is. Also, have you played TT?

[phelancracken]

GearBoxClock, on 16 June 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Do you think that fiction is immutable or something? The fiction DOESN'T MATTER. You can change it, because it's FICTION.

Frankly, all of your posts have made you seem like you're a Bad Player who Can't Enjoy The Game when you aren't winning. That would explain why you play clantech and have no good arguments.


Yup, I shouldn't ever complain about game design unless I'm the owner of the rights. Everyone should just buck up and never complain ever again. Yup.

LOL! I only play clans...ROTFLMAO!!! I play IS mechs a lot. Even play IS versus clans with me the IS player on TT also played, gasp, 3025 tech. So your accusation just got torpedoed. I have set up scenarios to get new players playing the game. I play more IS then clan mechs especially when I play merc campaigns. Why? I haven't really seen too many clan mercs have you? I play the game to play the game, I may not agree with everything, but this game started with paper cut outs for the figures. Then lead minis, then pewter. Overall, it's a game system that has stood the test of time, aka 28 years and counting. How many posters in this forum are even that old? Clans have been around 22 of those years and counting. It's not going to go away.

[Tim East]

Wow, heated discussion. From what I've seen on the TT, how you build and pilot your mechs is significantly more important than your tech base. Clan mechs tend to be designed with efficiency in mind, since they obsess about details like kill ratio and recycling, and tend to leave their rear very poorly armored, since it is dishonorable to strike from ambush or flee battle. IS mechs tend to be versatile, and while not as adaptable individually as clan omnitech, there is a much wider breadth of mech design. It is unfortunate that melee is not going to be included at this time, iirc. The IS had several very cool mechs designed to thrive in close-quarters combat, like the Hatchetman. Anyway, the clans' technology was eventually opposed by IS developments as the timeline continued; so I could easily see the devs deciding to balance the game by simply rolling out tech as the timeline progresses. It would create an intriguing metagame, I think, to simply add the tech over time changing the balance only through addition rather than subtraction, aka, the dreaded nerf-bat. Will they do that, will it work, will the game even last long enough to find out? I don't know, but I very much look forward to finding out.

Edit: Also, love the clan side, win lose or draw. Timber Wolf forever!

Edited by Tim East, 16 June 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Okay, The title of this thread is the "Problem with the clans." Then have people list what's wrong with the clans, which is everything that makes the clans clans. I challenge people who think the game is that unbalanced to make their own game. Seriously. You seem to have all the answers. Set it in 3025 only. Do a good enough job, people will come and play.

so the only thing that makes the clans unique is over-powered wargear; I'm sure plenty of clan players would take issue with that statement. Do you not really read your opponents posts, or what? I said I was working on a humble 2d space shooter with a friend, we have two factions to balance, I use the clans as an example of how NOT to balance factions.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

As for WW1, sure the Germans had lousy tanks. Considering it was a new INVENTION first used in 1916. Yeah buddy. Did you fail to mention that? WW1 lots of things were invented. Chemical warfare, Machine guns came of age, trench warfare. Why were the tanks invented? Machine guns buddy. The German machine guns were cutting down thousands of allied troops trying to cross no man's land. Shall we keep going?

you really don't read my posts do you...see the following, I bolded some to help you.

Aaron DeChavilier, on 16 June 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

CBT is a fictional game, but if you want a real history example, lets crack open a book shall we:
World War One - when tanks were built for the first time ever, and used for the first time ever.
early combustion engines strapped to boxes of metal.

Britain had the most effective tanks, Germany made only 20 tanks of 1 type that was laughably bad. So what did the Germans do? they captured abandoned british tanks, oh but according to you they couldn't keep them running cause its like alien tech right? wrong, look up BeautPanzers. The Germans didnt use or make a 6pdr cannon for the side sponson, but they found that their own 57mm cannon fit quite comfortably. The Germans were able to take severely damaged british MKIV's and cannabilize them to make fully functional MarkIV's...remember, tanks were brand new to warfare. How could they do such wizardry? oh that's right, the fundamental mechanics they were dealing with were the same...

also, I'm not your buddy, friend. I don't know what you're trying to prove with:

" WW1 lots of things were invented. Chemical warfare, Machine guns came of age, trench warfare. Why were the tanks invented? Machine guns buddy. The German machine guns were cutting down thousands of allied troops trying to cross no man's land. Shall we keep going?"

didn't you fail to mention that: in WW1 both sides used machine guns, poison gas, trench warfare. Or how about the Allied machine guns were cutting down thousands of German troops trying to cross no mans land? Did you even understand the real-world parallel I was drawing with this tank example? I really think you completely overshot it.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

As for the tech, DHS is available both sides. Now IS having lost it, haven't had as much time making it more compact. That's right people, 1 crit slot less for the clans. No difference in tonnage or effectiveness. As for LRMs having minimums, hot load them. There, no minimums. There are optional rules for that.

By being so blasé about the crits of the DHS, you show your under appreciation of the mechanics of mech customization in CBT. Doesn't hot-loading have a draw back? I thought it did.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

As for the "I win" button. Every forum I have seen it's the same thing. IS players wanting the clans to be no more powerful than the IS. Same thing. CBT forum has had it for years

Maybe that should tell you something, or there's an undercurrent there you seem to be missing.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

One, messed up again. NATO is not a country. USSR was and had it's capital in Moscow. Get the facts right there please. Last time I checked, you don't need a passport to visit Nato, when the USSR was together, you DID or got gulaged.

a side-issue at best, keep focus.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

as for WYSIWYG. Unseens. You forgot that. Can't use them due to not being able to be used in conventions. 40k didn't have that issue. And if your starting out and have 4 mechs, can't play due to not having the money to field what you have found what works? Hypocritical there people. A lot of younger players couldn't spend hundreds just to get into a game system. Sometimes they don't have an older player that can give them extra minis. Rules state in TW you can run a mini as something else provided it's understood by all players what it is. Been that way for decades.

what does WYSIWYG have to do with unseens? do you just make this stuff up as you go along!?
what issue does 40k not have?
Whats hypocritical? that you have to pay money to get models to play the game?
what is this, I don't even...

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

As for 22 years of brokeness? ROTFL! Yeah. I have to call IS purist on that. BTW, your wrong on just 2 factions. How about all the houses and mercs? All the clans? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you meant "techs" other games usually have tech trees depending on the different sides to the game.

Some games never get fixed, CBT is one of them; these things happen you know. Also, what's with trying to make 'IS Purist' out to be some sort of insult? I'm not really an IS purist, I've never posted on this forum the undaunted glory of IS anything. I've merely charge the clan tech with being unbalanced and broken. As for the factions, I meant what I said, there are two factions. All mech designs draw their wargear from the same list. Think of wargear lists as playing styles, or rather, weapons themselves as playing styles. Each has a way to be used and a strength, when more than one faction draws from the same list, then those two faction aren't actually different when they are played. The canon makes them different. Clans are the same way, they all draw from the same lists, they all play relatively the same. Therefore, there are only two real factions, and one is broken.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

canon ranting

didn't I say somewhere above that story and fluff are malleable? I had to break this to winson as well, you can't use in-universe facts to prove/disprove gameplay mechanics which exist outside the universe.

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Again, if I go to just anyother CBT forum, I gaurantee I will see something about the clans being overpowered. BV has proven to balance them.

sounds like a recurring theme here, that should clue you in to something.

where do I say I want 'one tech.' All I've been saying is I want 'balanced' tech, but you seem to shallow to understand a difference between 'one tech' and 'balance.' Hence I point you back up to my post about clan players screeching to high-heaven as soon as anyone utters the word 'balance.' It certainly has proven true here. I also never said the clans should have minimums, thats not balance either. See funny thing about balancing gameplay, it takes time, and trial/error periods.

no, you resorted to calling the opposition 'whiny' and only half-reading the responses. You also didn't challenge my assumptions, I've countered every point about this clan business, but you just ignore my counters anyway.

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 16 June 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[Jaroth Winson]

Tim East, on 16 June 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Wow, heated discussion. From what I've seen on the TT, how you build and pilot your mechs is significantly more important than your tech base. Clan mechs tend to be designed with efficiency in mind, since they obsess about details like kill ratio and recycling, and tend to leave their rear very poorly armored, since it is dishonorable to strike from ambush or flee battle. IS mechs tend to be versatile, and while not as adaptable individually as clan omnitech, there is a much wider breadth of mech design. It is unfortunate that melee is not going to be included at this time, iirc. The IS had several very cool mechs designed to thrive in close-quarters combat, like the Hatchetman. Anyway, the clans' technology was eventually opposed by IS developments as the timeline continued; so I could easily see the devs deciding to balance the game by simply rolling out tech as the timeline progresses. It would create an intriguing metagame, I think, to simply add the tech over time changing the balance only through addition rather than subtraction, aka, the dreaded nerf-bat. Will they do that, will it work, will the game even last long enough to find out? I don't know, but I very much look forward to finding out.

Edit: Also, love the clan side, win lose or draw. Timber Wolf forever!

Sorry that is incorrect. Clans do use ambushes.As far as Clan mechs not being versatile, Omnimechs. They are specifically designed to be versatile hence the omni part.

The problem with your theory is the devs have stated that 1 day in game = 1 day in RL which means, according to the lore anyway, the IS will not have mechs, tech & weapons close to the Clans for some time. How they will actually implement this though, remains to be seen.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 16 June 2012 - 02:02 PM.