Jump to content

10V12 Or 12V12


79 replies to this topic

#21 JC Daxion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 5,230 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 01:12 PM

I get that people like to have their "uber" clan tech, but the worst possible thing they could do is make it 10v12.. that would mean every single time any player ends up 1v1, the claner would have the upper hand.

this is the stupidest thing they could do in an online MP game, especially one that is so dependent on team work as it is..


Every power gamer would just play Clan tech..


Just a very bad idea all around.. Make clan mechs work differently, but don't over power them, despite lore.. Or there is zero reason why anyone would ever use IS tech.

IN every previous mech game, you leveled up, and used your innershere mech, eventually with all clan tech.. all this was, was a way to level up. How this is different than the lore/TT i don't know. But you can't balance a turn based table top game, to take in account skill and the human component of a fully functional 3d shooter. Last i checked in table top, a persons hand eye coordination did not come in to play, it was purely strats.


This is one reason why the purists will always be disappointed, no mater what they do, Pnp is a different game than a graphical 3d first person representation and should be balanced accordingly.

#22 Dakkaface

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 226 posts
  • LocationHawaii

Posted 19 February 2014 - 01:45 PM

View PostGremlich Johns, on 19 February 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

Trothkin,

The current plan for PGI is to have the Clan mechs "balanced" against the IS tech and teams set for 12v12. PGI has alluded to starting with 12v12 THEN will consider 10v12 (probably if 12v12 proves too roflstomp against the stravag IS).

How will this impact what you do with MW:O when/after Community Warfare kicks in? For myself, two options: 1) stop playing MW:O regularly, or, 2) play 12v12 as a Clansman and do my level best to stomp the doo-doo out of the opposing IS team.


This is one of those issues that no matter what PGI does, someone will be pissed off. Yes, 10v12 is more accurate to the lore and implies that the power of the Clan mechs will be higher, thus allowing them to make up the 2 man difference in mechanical power. This satisfies lore hounds, neckbeards and some mech jocks. However, it skews the balance something fierce from the perspective of casual and competitive gamers and some mech jocks will remember the bad old days when it was Clantech or get out in previous MW titles. The split is going to be nearly 50/50 on this one and there's no answer that will make everyone happy.

Ultimately, as someone who has done playtesting and design for tabletop games, I'm going to have to say that I'd prefer seeing 12v12, no matter how it contradicts the lore. Maybe a 10v12 drop mode could be optional, and have a bigger C-bill payout, but the game should be balanced for 12v12, or IS mechs will be rendered irrelevant and obsolete, never to be used except by the most clueless newbies or the most diehard of fanboys.

The Clans were meant to be overpowered from a tabletop perspective because they were initially a GM villain faction for IS players to struggle against - Zellbrigen's crippling flaws giving them a chance of victory. When eventually making them a player faction Zell was supposed to mitigate their OP nature but BV had to be redone in spite of that just to balance it all out.

We can't enforce Zellbrigen on the players, and there's a woeful lack of good reward structures that could be used to incentivize Zell-like behavior. At best you could institute C-bill penalties for shooting a target that isn't your own, or lock targeting reticules once a target has been selected, or more - but all of that necessitates more coding from the same staff that's fixing bugs and prepping CW and other systems, and can generate more bugs.

It's both simpler, and better design from a game perspective, to make the Clans 'different, not better.' Smaller and lighter equipment, stronger guns, but hotter, no potential to zombie, easier to disarm and less customizable

#23 Jaroth Corbett

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 2,250 posts
  • LocationSmoke Jaguar OZ

Posted 19 February 2014 - 05:29 PM

View PostNathan K, on 19 February 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

10 vs 12. I want the Clans to feel like the Clans.


If they did the tech right, I would agree. Since they have not I disagree. Waiting to see all those IS fanboys who have been repping hard since closed beta, switch over to Clan mechs in a heartbeat. :(

A Clan looking IS mech is NOT a Clan mech. it is damn laziness on PGI's part to not do it right especially when you want me to cough up my hard earned money. All I wanted was another MW3 or 4 with updated graphics. I do not understand if you are not making a single player campaign how you can continually botch the only thing you have to do? How can older games give us everything we want from the jump & they cannot? I will GLADLY pay for a Clan mech with Clan tech, not a watered down, nerfed shell of a chassis.

I swear to God if someone would just redo MW3 with some up to date graphics I would dump this is in a second.

#24 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 19 February 2014 - 05:58 PM

View PostDakkaface, on 19 February 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:


This is one of those issues that no matter what PGI does, someone will be pissed off. Yes, 10v12 is more accurate to the lore (1) and implies that the power of the Clan mechs will be higher, thus allowing them to make up the 2 man difference in mechanical power. This satisfies lore hounds, neckbeards and some mech jocks. However, it skews the balance something fierce from the perspective of casual and competitive gamers and some mech jocks will remember the bad old days when it was Clantech or get out in previous MW titles. The split is going to be nearly 50/50 on this one and there's no answer that will make everyone happy (2).

Ultimately, as someone who has done playtesting and design for tabletop games, I'm going to have to say that I'd prefer seeing 12v12, no matter how it contradicts the lore. Maybe a 10v12 drop mode could be optional, and have a bigger C-bill payout, but the game should be balanced for 12v12, or IS mechs will be rendered irrelevant and obsolete (3), never to be used except by the most clueless newbies or the most diehard of fanboys.

The Clans were meant to be overpowered from a tabletop perspective because they were initially a GM villain faction for IS players to struggle against - Zellbrigen's crippling flaws giving them a chance of victory (4). When eventually making them a player faction Zell was supposed to mitigate their OP nature but BV had to be redone in spite of that just to balance it all out.

We can't enforce Zellbrigen on the players, and there's a woeful lack of good reward structures that could be used to incentivize Zell-like behavior. At best you could institute C-bill penalties for shooting a target that isn't your own (5), or lock targeting reticules once a target has been selected, or more - but all of that necessitates more coding from the same staff that's fixing bugs and prepping CW and other systems, and can generate more bugs.

It's both simpler, and better design from a game perspective, to make the Clans 'different, not better.' Smaller and lighter equipment, stronger guns, but hotter, no potential to zombie, easier to disarm and less customizable


(1) Only in the sense that Clans had Stars and IS had lances. 10 v 12 was not a common engagement during the Operation Revivial or even until Operation Bulldog.

(2) Spot on

(3) I think this is a very real risk. We don't see many Locusts on the field because other chassis do the same job so much better. I cannot see why pilots would change overnight to selecting inferior mechs when Clan mechs will do the same job much better.

(4) Zellebrigen was not a weakness, it was a strength. Any IS warrior accepting it generally got obliterated. And if IS didn't accepted it the Clans were very quick to focus fire in many cases so they were no worse off. Jade Falcon being probably the Clan that hung onto Zellbringen longest in combat situations where IS formations disregarded it but it certainly didn't slow them down much.

(5) I agree with your sentiment, but that answer doesn't cause too much pause on TK's so I suspect it would have similar outcome for Zellebringen.

#25 GalaxyBluestar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Location...

Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:07 PM

View PostNathan K, on 19 February 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

Here are some ideas on how to help 10 Clan vs 12 IS work.

IS:

1. IS players using Clan tech should run a risk of a malfunction. (It is new to them and they should not know quite how it works.)

2. When they buy "new" Clan mechs, they should be incomplete. (It is salvage after all.)

3. IS tech can be fitted on Clan mechs. (Again, at the risk of malfunction.)

Clans:

1. Clan players can fit SOME Clan tech on their IS mechs.

Thoughts?


i'm coming up with some thoughts for an suggention thread.

i'll keep you guys tuned in.

*walks slowly away towards the nearest flame proof suit store*

#26 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:27 PM

View PostGalaxyBluestar, on 19 February 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:


i'm coming up with some thoughts for an suggention thread.

i'll keep you guys tuned in.

*walks slowly away towards the nearest flame proof suit store*


Look forward to it but please, please, please, don't say "10 v 12 is canon", its my crusade item atm :(

This from the '10 v 12, Come on PGI thread'

(Detail of all Invading Clans TO&E...)

Thats it from the Sourcebooks that detail the Invading forces TO&E's up to and including Tukayyid, I count 7 Binaries including 3 Artillery (Naga's I am guessing without checking) in front line Clusters.

So again I submit that Binaries do exist in Canon, but in the Invasion of the Inner Sphere the most predominate tactical deployment was the Trinary.

Yes there are any number of RP things that could generate the Binary engagement that would support the argument, bidding, scattered drop, mis communication etc. But if you're going to argue that those are the 'norm' it's equally valid the other side. Bad lubricants used in servicing, went the wrong way, etc etc.

In the vast majority of battle descriptions the general flow was RCT / Regiment, full cluster or more deployed, less than that would be a Trinary or 2 with the Cluster command (majority, there are notable examples otherwise)

And to be clear, these forces were deployed to take the planet, not defeat / hunt opposition forces across the face of the world. The forces deployed and went towards the critical target (capital, spaceport, industry etc) with the expectation the enemy would come for them with their full capability, because thats how Clans fight. They crushed whatever came their way and then took the planet.

Their was no , "wait, its only a company defending the capital, lets bid down a star to make it a better match up" That just didn't happen in canon. The deployed forces took their objective as ordered.

There is simply no basis that in 3050 - 3055 or thereabouts, that Binaries were the predominate force fielded by the Clans in canon.

#27 Gremlich Johns

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,855 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:40 PM

The only reason I suggested 10v12 is because MW:O does not allow 15 players on a side. As a long time Blood Spirit, we chose Trinaries vice Binaries for our OOB.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 19 February 2014 - 06:40 PM.


#28 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:55 PM

View PostGremlich Johns, on 19 February 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

The only reason I suggested 10v12 is because MW:O does not allow 15 players on a side. As a long time Blood Spirit, we chose Trinaries vice Binaries for our OOB.


Well most clans do use Trinaries. It was Nicholas's set up. Command Star, 3 x mech trinary, 1 x infantry trinary (conventional back then), 1 x Vehicle trinary.

Kinda interesting right that they had 50 Battlements in a Cluster but only 40 "warriors", not many people realise the Clans auxilary force was quite significant and had a major contribution to the foundation of the Clans.

Over the years Vehicle got replaced by Aerospace (and in some clans, looking at you Snow Raven, that was actually before Kondike)

Some Clans that have low resources / warriors use Binaries and there are Binaries in garrison units reasonably often but if we are talking about the top tier Clans frontline clusters invading the Innersphere, there are very few "Binary" engagements.

Personally, if we have to have assymetrical drops I prefer 5 vs 8, it gives Clan mechs more OP'ness to be "balanced" and to me just seems more in line with the feel of the universe.

#29 GalaxyBluestar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Location...

Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:17 PM

craig i love your steedfast passion on clan deplyment setups. the thing is you must look at the capabilities of the MWO set up.

how much redesigning do you think would need to be made to include 15 on the clan side and the amount of IS mechs you'd need to combat that? about nine lances, a battalion of 36 mechs. please point out how many 4 mech combos {ie 18 or 24} lance arangements here are cannon, you'd most proberbly have to go up to the battalion level. balance wise clans would have to have every OP piece in full TT glory. even so if it was 15vs 24 or 28 we're talking 30+ mechs in a match. that amount of mechs and firepower can't be supported by the servers, the players computers and the playerbase que would be a mess of dozens waiting for enough to be on to start a match.

i'd love trinaries i really would but the reason most arguments are for binaries or a star is for the sake of what the game is capable of.

#30 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:33 PM

View PostGalaxyBluestar, on 19 February 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

craig i love your steedfast passion on clan deplyment setups. the thing is you must look at the capabilities of the MWO set up.

how much redesigning do you think would need to be made to include 15 on the clan side and the amount of IS mechs you'd need to combat that? about nine lances, a battalion of 36 mechs. please point out how many 4 mech combos {ie 18 or 24} lance arangements here are cannon, you'd most proberbly have to go up to the battalion level. balance wise clans would have to have every OP piece in full TT glory. even so if it was 15vs 24 or 28 we're talking 30+ mechs in a match. that amount of mechs and firepower can't be supported by the servers, the players computers and the playerbase que would be a mess of dozens waiting for enough to be on to start a match.

i'd love trinaries i really would but the reason most arguments are for binaries or a star is for the sake of what the game is capable of.


I am already down as saying that 10 v 12 is an argument, but I draw the line when people say it should be 10 v 12 because of canon.

That's just a cop out reason and isn't true in canon anyway.

I'm not arguing for trinaries either.

Personally I can't see that assymentrical drops will be good for the game. Most players will gravitate towards the most capable chassis and that will be Clan mechs. So we will see 10 Clan vs 10 Clan Liao vs Marik battles. IS mechs will be a novelty. I think that would be to the detriment of the game.

There are arguments for 10 v 12, and I'm open to being convinced. But "It's Canon" simply is not one of them :(

#31 GalaxyBluestar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Location...

Posted 19 February 2014 - 08:26 PM

View PostCraig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:


I am already down as saying that 10 v 12 is an argument, but I draw the line when people say it should be 10 v 12 because of canon.

That's just a cop out reason and isn't true in canon anyway.

I'm not arguing for trinaries either.

Personally I can't see that assymentrical drops will be good for the game. Most players will gravitate towards the most capable chassis and that will be Clan mechs. So we will see 10 Clan vs 10 Clan Liao vs Marik battles. IS mechs will be a novelty. I think that would be to the detriment of the game.

There are arguments for 10 v 12, and I'm open to being convinced. But "It's Canon" simply is not one of them :(


sounds like you're convinced clans will be the go to team and that clan factions such as wolfs and falcons won't exsist.

change the worries up to 12vs12 stiener vs wolf all meta mech battles {a mix of victor highlander timberwolf direwolf} and it sounds more like the stupid cluster pgi are heading towards. the reason 10vs 12 is argued is not only because "canon" which for sure isn't the whole clan representation but niether is it a made up state of fiction either.

what 10vs 12's are lobbying for is;

deployment numbers representative of clans, no 4 per lances we want 5 a star. why should the IS get their numbers represented correctly but not us?

the clan tech is being nerfed in a stupid fashion which won't level up 1 on 1 with IS mechs anyways, if assymetrical tonnage is going to be used for balance why compromise the clan experience, incoporate a slightly larger tonnage gap as well as 5 points, 2 of them vs 4 lances. this enables tech to not be nerfed so hard and it won't be OP because playing as a clan means you won't have as much armour and firepower on your team. {conquest would be difficult} you'll need to be good to cope with those conditions which is different to what the IS have to cope with. not everyone uses the best mechs or meta mech, because of playstyle. this too would work for the IS conditions and clan conditions. there will be people who will favour carrying more tonnage and players on their team rather than less but with a boost in potency. essentially as a clanner you're accuracy will be more important, every shot will need to count when you're constantly out tonned and outnumbered.

the most important part though is we need clan factions to be implemented as an opposition to IS factions we have now. we need players to want to side with allies or axis as a motivation to play a war game and brew patriotisim, this helps motivate fighting and general recruitment when people can fly a flag and stand for something. even if it's a mix of claners vs a mix of IS at the current deathmatch instant action mode selection we're stuck with until CW {which isn't until 2015 at least} the game needs the change up in gameplay, choices and stratagey to mainatin interst until CW is here. if it carries on trying to balance everything as the same 12vs12 simillar stats and capabilities no matter what you're in. game will die from mediocrity.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 19 February 2014 - 08:30 PM.


#32 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 19 February 2014 - 09:01 PM

View PostGalaxyBluestar, on 19 February 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:


sounds like you're convinced clans will be the go to team and that clan factions such as wolfs and falcons won't exsist. (1)

change the worries up to 12vs12 stiener vs wolf all meta mech battles {a mix of victor highlander timberwolf direwolf} and it sounds more like the stupid cluster pgi are heading towards. the reason 10vs 12 is argued is not only because "canon" which for sure isn't the whole clan representation but niether is it a made up state of fiction either.

what 10vs 12's are lobbying for is;

deployment numbers representative of clans, no 4 per lances we want 5 a star. why should the IS get their numbers represented correctly but not us?

the clan tech is being nerfed in a stupid fashion which won't level up 1 on 1 with IS mechs anyways, if assymetrical tonnage is going to be used for balance why compromise the clan experience (2), incoporate a slightly larger tonnage gap as well as 5 points, 2 of them vs 4 lances. this enables tech to not be nerfed so hard and it won't be OP because playing as a clan means you won't have as much armour and firepower on your team. {conquest would be difficult} you'll need to be good to cope with those conditions which is different to what the IS have to cope with. not everyone uses the best mechs or meta mech, because of playstyle. this too would work for the IS conditions and clan conditions. there will be people who will favour carrying more tonnage and players on their team rather than less but with a boost in potency. essentially as a clanner you're accuracy will be more important, every shot will need to count when you're constantly out tonned and outnumbered.

the most important part though is we need clan factions to be implemented as an opposition to IS factions we have now. we need players to want to side with allies or axis as a motivation to play a war game and brew patriotisim, this helps motivate fighting and general recruitment when people can fly a flag and stand for something. even if it's a mix of claners vs a mix of IS at the current deathmatch instant action mode selection we're stuck with until CW {which isn't until 2015 at least} the game needs the change up in gameplay, choices and stratagey to mainatin interst until CW is here. if it carries on trying to balance everything as the same 12vs12 simillar stats and capabilities no matter what you're in. game will die from mediocrity.


(1) Far from it. To me there is a difference between Clan Faction and Clan tech. PGI have already said that IS Factions will be able to pilot Clan mechs so we will have to include the concept of Clan mechs in IS badging in MM.

(2) I am already on record as asking the question why are we seemingly focussed on balancing Clan to IS. Maybe we should be arguing to balance IS to Clan. If Assymeterical is the 'answer' then I prefer Star vs 2 lances. It will mean the individually Clan mechs are 50% stronger than an IS chassis (otherwise how could the match be balanced) which is kinda getting closer to canon than the 12% increase a 10 v 12 match up implies.

And yes, CW is the game's ultimate experience, you're far more optimistic than I on when it will be here but that's OK :(

I suspect there will be Clan factions when the Package rolls out. I rechecked and there are 4 hanging tokens. I suspect they are the 4 leading invaders (JF, CW, GB, SJ) just like the IS ones. But that won't mean only Clan factions have access to Clan mechs. Unless PGI go back on what they said (and given a lot of IS faction players have already handed over money that would be a brave call)

I'm not exactly wrapped with 1v1 balance btw, thats why I am open to be convinced. Atm I think 1v1 balance is the only realistic way PGI can keep tenure in the game. If Clan mechs are OP, then the majority of players will gravitate to the better chassis which will be bad for the overall flavour of the game.

Edited by Craig Steele, 19 February 2014 - 09:15 PM.


#33 Devillin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 140 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationTharkad, Standing Next to the Throne.

Posted 19 February 2014 - 09:11 PM

View Postwanderer, on 19 February 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

10v10 for Clan vs Clan, 12v12 IS vs. IS, 10v12 Clan vs. IS.

Because for 12v12, it means you had to nerf Clan 'Mechs so hard as to make them no longer "technically superior" in any sense- you're just another Successor House with funny-looking 'Mechs everyone else can use anyway.

Clan forces are supposed to be numerically inferior but technologically superior. Anything else means they've failed to implement Clan 'Mechs properly and took a steaming dump on the entire thing to grab cash from unsuspecting noobs.


You must have missed the memos. They've already announced that they are nerfing Clan technology. Weapons are going to have longer burn times and recharge times versus IS weapons. That way, while the weapons look like they do more damage in stats, the DPS will be the same as IS weapons. Also, several weapons are going to weigh more than they do in the books, breaking several Omnimech designs.

So they might as well keep the 12 vs 12, because you will just be piloting Omnimechs that are funnier looking and have longer firing weapons than Inner Sphere Mechs, but have exactly the same mechanics for game play.

View PostWill9761, on 19 February 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

I've had matches to where I have dropped with 10 or less people against another group outnumbered. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if we had 10 vs 12 happening with Clan mechs in the future. But I'd be happy to see either 12 vs 12 or 10 v 12 as long as we're facing clan omnimechs.


Yup, versus 10 (or 9) vs 12 is just a bug now, soon it will be a Feature. :-)

Edit: After reading some of the later messages, I could get behind 5 vs 8 (for PUGs for instance) and 10 vs 16 (team play) match up modes.

Edited by Devillin, 19 February 2014 - 10:03 PM.


#34 Devillin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 140 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationTharkad, Standing Next to the Throne.

Posted 19 February 2014 - 09:16 PM

View PostPariah Devalis, on 19 February 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

Having said that, I would easily support a lore friendly 10v12 setup if it could be proven to be balanced in the context of not only mech on mech combat but of the various game modes with their capture mechanics. The name of the game here is, again, balance.


The easiest way to do this would be to balance the maximum weight, along with the numbers. Something along the lines of 800 tons versus 1000 tons (Clan vs IS). That way you can still have Binaries and Companies that are less than the maximum weight, but never more.

#35 Devillin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 140 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationTharkad, Standing Next to the Throne.

Posted 19 February 2014 - 09:50 PM

View PostDakkaface, on 19 February 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

We can't enforce Zellbrigen on the players, and there's a woeful lack of good reward structures that could be used to incentivize Zell-like behavior. At best you could institute C-bill penalties for shooting a target that isn't your own, or lock targeting reticules once a target has been selected, or more - but all of that necessitates more coding from the same staff that's fixing bugs and prepping CW and other systems, and can generate more bugs.


Actually, you can enforce Zellbriggen, and it is actually very easy to do. You use the experience point system. Just like the IS gets -150 exp for killing a team mate, Clanners would get -150 exp for killing a mech that someone else has targeted and fired on. IS get 150 exp for a Savior Kill, Clanners get -150 exp for a Savior Kill. To balance out the penalties, Clanners would still get the 100 exp for each mech they kill, and they would actually get more exp for damage done, since ideally, they would be the only one doing damage to an individual mech. [The only thing that becomes wonky is that if an IS mech takes down a Clanner, and the Clanner's starmate takes out said IS mech, the first Clanner would only get damage exp, and the second Clanner would get the 100 exp (for the kill) + ?exp (for the damage) - 150 exp (for killing a mech fired on by someone else).]

This way you don't have to mess with the targeting system or any of the other fudges that are out there. You leave it to the individual Clan players to decide if they want to follow Zellbriggen and get the exp they need to level out an Omnimech, or break Zellbriggen and suffer penalties to their exp. I'd even be willing to allow someone who has a negative total exp from a match to have that carry over to their global exp outside the match. So if you have -300 exp at the end of the match, that gets taken from however much exp you have in that mech outside of the match.

#36 Hawk819

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • 1,606 posts
  • Location666 Werewolf Lane. Transylvania, Romania Ph#: Transylvania 6-5000

Posted 19 February 2014 - 10:07 PM

I believe it should go this way:

20 v. 20

Clans: 4 Stars (5 in each Star)
Inner Sphere: 5 Lances ( 4 to each Lance)

Makes it simple and easy to pull off. However there is a catch: Capacity. Servers may not have the strength for this kind of thing. Which is sad in way, but this would be a fun way to play. There's also balance issues as well. Just saying.

#37 Ace Selin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 19 February 2014 - 10:16 PM

At the moment I play many games, each day 10 v 12 so makes no difference to me.

#38 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 19 February 2014 - 10:20 PM

@Hawk819

Ummm, You may want to amend your signature :(

On 20 August 3028, six months after her eighteenth birthday, Hanse Davion married Melissa Steiner. The leader of every Successor State was there, including their aides, heirs, and other VIPs. At the wedding reception, Hanse Davion uttered one of the most quoted lines in Inner Sphere history, "My dear... I give you the Capellan Confederation." To the leaders of the Inner Sphere, it seemed like this touched off the 4th War, but, in fact, troops had already invaded the day before.

#39 GalaxyBluestar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Location...

Posted 19 February 2014 - 10:43 PM

View PostDevillin, on 19 February 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:


You must have missed the memos. They've already announced that they are nerfing Clan technology. Weapons are going to have longer burn times and recharge times versus IS weapons. That way, while the weapons look like they do more damage in stats, the DPS will be the same as IS weapons. Also, several weapons are going to weigh more than they do in the books, breaking several Omnimech designs.

So they might as well keep the 12 vs 12, because you will just be piloting Omnimechs that are funnier looking and have longer firing weapons than Inner Sphere Mechs, but have exactly the same mechanics for game play.




don't count your chickens. what pgi says and what they do can be two different things {read 3rd person view} the reason we're on the forums is to drum up alternatives which will keep the "OMG my IS mechs are crap now how dare you waste my grind time" and also keep the trueborns playing this game and trying to show pgi, THERE'S OTHER WAYS!

they need not sacrifice a faction worth of units purpose away to the cash grab and instead use it to bolster the gameplay diversity and patriotship to play more and more. to sit on as much as you can as far as what the game already offers isn't going to attract and grow a player base which at the moment is stagnent. change needs to happen and CW won't come in time so clans reworking the gameplay is what we need and we'll keep telling Pgi not to keel over and offer us ab vs ba mix ups instead of ab vs xy which would breath life back into the gameplay and functionality.

View PostCraig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:


(1) Far from it. To me there is a difference between Clan Faction and Clan tech. PGI have already said that IS Factions will be able to pilot Clan mechs so we will have to include the concept of Clan mechs in IS badging in MM.

(2) I am already on record as asking the question why are we seemingly focussed on balancing Clan to IS. Maybe we should be arguing to balance IS to Clan. If Assymeterical is the 'answer' then I prefer Star vs 2 lances. It will mean the individually Clan mechs are 50% stronger than an IS chassis (otherwise how could the match be balanced) which is kinda getting closer to canon than the 12% increase a 10 v 12 match up implies.

And yes, CW is the game's ultimate experience, you're far more optimistic than I on when it will be here but that's OK :(

I suspect there will be Clan factions when the Package rolls out. I rechecked and there are 4 hanging tokens. I suspect they are the 4 leading invaders (JF, CW, GB, SJ) just like the IS ones. But that won't mean only Clan factions have access to Clan mechs. Unless PGI go back on what they said (and given a lot of IS faction players have already handed over money that would be a brave call)

I'm not exactly wrapped with 1v1 balance btw, thats why I am open to be convinced. Atm I think 1v1 balance is the only realistic way PGI can keep tenure in the game. If Clan mechs are OP, then the majority of players will gravitate to the better chassis which will be bad for the overall flavour of the game.



sensible stance. the only reason i haven't joined the 5vs8 troops as much as that's well and truely satisfactory is i think PGI made great lenghts to change up 8vs8 to 12vs12 and they don't want to let that go. they want as close to that figure as possible as they currently advertise the 12vs12 experience and proberbly think that 24 mechs in game capability is a boon experience over competitors so they want to keep it. i really doubt they could push for more as some suggest, 10vs16 would be the limit i'd reckon.

it's also intersting reading the 50% vs 12%, essentially the argument goes evryone wants the best and finding out mechs can be deployed 50% more powerfull than the oppositions mechs is an armsrace and to hell with the lack of anything else being a balancing factor. these are the scaremongers who wanted clan tech in their IS mechs and so on and so on. that's why the nerfs are heavy, it's to keep chicken little's confidence up, that their fav catapult won't turned into a sml laser boat awesome compared to the clans. however there is a way to satisfy all those wanting to do everything, it's just a matter of what pgi can build. the i'm is and want to use clan and i want pure clan teams can have it both ways. you just need a system to cater for it. i'm thinking about one.

also since the concept art involved on clan mechs involve many clans and their our 8 badges+ titles {and our loyalty medallions have 6 houses marik, davion, stiener, kurita, FFR and LIAO but phoenix only got four to choose just like the clan pack} i suspect we should be getting our 8; wolf, falcon, ghostbear, jaguar, novacat, diamondshark, steelvipers and maybe coyotee or star adder, not sure on the last one but i'd be disapointed if it's just the main four. i guess it's a possibility looking at clan factions forums.

oh and my community warfare stuff is going on russ's estimates

Quote

The only items really remaining from the Community Warfare pillar are two items, although pretty big ones. They are what we can call “Association” which is further connecting factions and the idea of Loyalty points and “Inner Sphere Planetary Conquest” which of course is competing over territory. I have not listed off dates for these systems because we don’t have as precise of estimates quite yet. But we can for the first time based on the January-April development schedule provide a more accurate estimation then we have in the past. Below are some conservative estimates of the remaining Community Warfare features that I think we can probably beat.

Conservative Estimates:
- Association: July-Aug
- Planetary Conquest: Sept-Oct

Confidence is very high that worst case scenario is the completion of the entire Community Warfare feature set as we currently understand it by Early to Mid-fall.

I imagine of course this is not all great news, ideally you want these features, all of them, much sooner. The difference is, this time they are based upon the UI 2.0 bottleneck which was responsible for at least 80% of all schedule slips in 2013 being removed by Feb 4th.
Of course you may very well still be in a position where you don’t believe the estimates or are unwilling to believe until some more of these dates are achieved and you have the features in your hands. That is completely fair and at Piranha we are just going to be focused on delivering and earning your patronage back into MWO as soon as possible.


earliest is around october this year but this is based on a guy who's failed CW scheduals about 5 times so we could be stuck with clan mismatches for over half a year or more. we need systems to cater for the game as soon as clans are released and as a holding panel till CW is sorted and as a ballast to the CW system if we're to believe it's being built at all.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 19 February 2014 - 10:50 PM.


#40 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 19 February 2014 - 11:23 PM

View PostGalaxyBluestar, on 19 February 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:


don't count your chickens. what pgi says and what they do can be two different things {read 3rd person view} the reason we're on the forums is to drum up alternatives which will keep the "OMG my IS mechs are crap now how dare you waste my grind time" and also keep the trueborns playing this game and trying to show pgi, THERE'S OTHER WAYS!

they need not sacrifice a faction worth of units purpose away to the cash grab and instead use it to bolster the gameplay diversity and patriotship to play more and more. to sit on as much as you can as far as what the game already offers isn't going to attract and grow a player base which at the moment is stagnent. change needs to happen and CW won't come in time so clans reworking the gameplay is what we need and we'll keep telling Pgi not to keel over and offer us ab vs ba mix ups instead of ab vs xy which would breath life back into the gameplay and functionality.



sensible stance. the only reason i haven't joined the 5vs8 troops as much as that's well and truely satisfactory is i think PGI made great lenghts to change up 8vs8 to 12vs12 and they don't want to let that go. they want as close to that figure as possible as they currently advertise the 12vs12 experience and proberbly think that 24 mechs in game capability is a boon experience over competitors so they want to keep it. i really doubt they could push for more as some suggest, 10vs16 would be the limit i'd reckon.

it's also intersting reading the 50% vs 12%, essentially the argument goes evryone wants the best and finding out mechs can be deployed 50% more powerfull than the oppositions mechs is an armsrace and to hell with the lack of anything else being a balancing factor. these are the scaremongers who wanted clan tech in their IS mechs and so on and so on. that's why the nerfs are heavy, it's to keep chicken little's confidence up, that their fav catapult won't turned into a sml laser boat awesome compared to the clans. however there is a way to satisfy all those wanting to do everything, it's just a matter of what pgi can build. the i'm is and want to use clan and i want pure clan teams can have it both ways. you just need a system to cater for it. i'm thinking about one.

also since the concept art involved on clan mechs involve many clans and their our 8 badges+ titles {and our loyalty medallions have 6 houses marik, davion, stiener, kurita, FFR and LIAO but phoenix only got four to choose just like the clan pack} i suspect we should be getting our 8; wolf, falcon, ghostbear, jaguar, novacat, diamondshark, steelvipers and maybe coyotee or star adder, not sure on the last one but i'd be disapointed if it's just the main four. i guess it's a possibility looking at clan factions forums.

oh and my community warfare stuff is going on russ's estimates



earliest is around october this year but this is based on a guy who's failed CW scheduals about 5 times so we could be stuck with clan mismatches for over half a year or more. we need systems to cater for the game as soon as clans are released and as a holding panel till CW is sorted and as a ballast to the CW system if we're to believe it's being built at all.

5 times? and yes its being built, we have no reason to believe otherwise





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users