79 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

In between are varying levels of adherence; for example, zellbrigen is followed unless circumstances dictated otherwise, such as being outnumbered or thinking one could get away with breaking it

Each clan has their own interpretation of zellbrigen and its always changing.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 February 2014 - 11:18 PM.

[Kentharious]

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

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

I agree. Throwing out the lore is like a SLAP in the face.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Unless its

Kentharious, on 20 February 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

I agree. Throwing out the lore is like a SLAP in the face.

unless its bidding, then by all means we will go lower

[Craig Steele]

GalaxyBluestar, on 20 February 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

spliting hairs again CT front armour counts alot more than ST soaking abilities (1) and if you're arguing ST soaking abilities are best with a clan xl you haven't seen the IS std engine which can carry on after losing both side torso's. clanners can only dream of that.




well pgi have pushed for the team experience and made efforts to push 8v8 up to 12v12 so i doubt they'll make the general que go backwards in that regard. what they could do is set up lobbies (2) with deployment drop numbers being a lockable choice. ie tonnage goes out the window bring anything to fill 5 clans vs 8 IS, players mechs are chosen at players discreation do not whine on our forums about the clans in these matchs always bringing 5 direwolfs etc tec disclaimer etc.

(1) Well the theory is that the Clan mech with the XL is hitting a hell of a lot harder cause its got more weapons, so there's soaing and then there's soaking.

(2) Yes, but if the lobby set up was slanted less than the technology allowances then you end up trying to manage the inequities as players. It can be done ofc but its messy.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

(1) Well the theory is that the Clan mech with the XL is hitting a hell of a lot harder cause its got more weapons, so there's soaing and then there's soaking.

(2) Yes, but if the lobby set up was slanted less than the technology allowances then you end up trying to manage the inequities as players. It can be done ofc but its messy.

1: we're hoping

heat generation,
additional ghost heat,
cooldowns,
weapon "beam" durations,
stagger fire,
halving the clan mech tech tree perks,
less modules per mech
less units deployed
and tonnage restrictions

will balance out the alpha spam OP potential so that some remanence of the range and damage critsize and tonnage remains for clan tech. the critslots and tonnage can't be changed as it would break stock mechs so we're hoping that long list will all be tweaked and enough to try and keep as much of the range and damage as possible for clan weapons. 13 dmg for erppc, .8 damage per CLRM 1.8 dmg per SSRM etc sounds like balancing. nerfing them all the way down to IS values sounds like vanilla vs vanilla innersphere 2.0 to me. all i've read on the matter was garth stating a hatred of these values and wanting the ppc's to be to be nerfed all the way down to 10.if it's that bad why the huge c-bill prices - real money prices for clans then?

2: olden day leagues used to organise stuff for themselves all the time. shouldn't be too messy as long as enough free options are available. privete lobbies will be used for mwo merc/clans, mostly for competitive leagues and practices for the CW play so they'll all be friends deciding things not random wolves throwing cogs into the wheels.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 21 February 2014 - 01:19 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Sorry P.D. but i disagree.

I can assure you i have no rage problems, but i still want lore and immersion at the base of this game. Sure, sometimes they might go against each other like in MW4 (the single player campaign is quite more immersive than MWO but the 'Mech costruction was awful lorewise).. But this game really needs a change, and soon.

It does not need "Inner Sphere 2.0" to quote Galaxy Bluestar.

I want the Clans to be represented well. Since 15vs20 may be too much for the game, we could stick with 10vs12. At least it represents Stars vs Lances.

In MWO the Clan 'Mechs (not the weapons) are not nerfed. Not that much, anyway. The swappable hardpoints thing is stupid IMHO but it may still be similar to how OmniTech works. Actually, IS BattleMechs are "OP". They are too easily customizable. And why should you be able to fit a Gauss on a Raven, a 'Mech designed for EW?

However, i would accept "inferior" Clan Omnies if we stick with 10vs12. Clan warriors want the challenge.
They bid down to win more honor. What is wrong then with playing with "nerfed" OmniMechs but with 10vs12?

[Lukoi Banacek]

CyclonerM, on 21 February 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Sorry P.D. but i disagree.

I can assure you i have no rage problems, but i still want lore and immersion at the base of this game. Sure, sometimes they might go against each other like in MW4 (the single player campaign is quite more immersive than MWO but the 'Mech costruction was awful lorewise).. But this game really needs a change, and soon.

It does not need "Inner Sphere 2.0" to quote Galaxy Bluestar.

I want the Clans to be represented well. Since 15vs20 may be too much for the game, we could stick with 10vs12. At least it represents Stars vs Lances.

In MWO the Clan 'Mechs (not the weapons) are not nerfed. Not that much, anyway. The swappable hardpoints thing is stupid IMHO but it may still be similar to how OmniTech works. Actually, IS BattleMechs are "OP". They are too easily customizable. And why should you be able to fit a Gauss on a Raven, a 'Mech designed for EW?

However, i would accept "inferior" Clan Omnies if we stick with 10vs12. Clan warriors want the challenge.
They bid down to win more honor. What is wrong then with playing with "nerfed" OmniMechs but with 10vs12?

People can pretend all they want and pick their ingame avatars based on the novels or game components they found compelling but ultimately the anser to this is twofold.

The bulk of the playerbase PGI is shooting for will have casuala and people who ultimately do not know or jecessarily care about Clan differences specifically.

Secondly they will want a fair game they can play with their friends. PGI struggles with balance as it is. Teams fighting two down will winnow down the clan side of the playerbase in no time. People willnot want to play if it means losing so much more. Which will happen. They are not genetically bred, trained from birth pilots....they are normal people playing with pixels.

If a DCMS pilot cannot run his Adder because he would be forced into a separate queue you risk driving the player off.

If PGI cannot balqnce the tech well enought o create OP Clantech worth two mechs so that 10v12 is doable, people will NOT play the weaker side. You will drive folks off in droves.

Keep driving people off to avoid slapping some lore fans in the face and suddenly you have too few players to play the game.

Immersion can be had without 10v12. Strive for that + balanced game and its fun. Do not fixate on one tiny. You do so at your detriment.

[wanderer]

Lukoi, on 21 February 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

People can pretend all they want and pick their ingame avatars based on the novels or game components they found compelling but ultimately the anser to this is twofold.

The bulk of the playerbase PGI is shooting for will have casuala and people who ultimately do not know or jecessarily care about Clan differences specifically.

I'm guessing you never saw how factional the original MPBT was. And where the money came in from in the first place- Battletech players, who wanted a Battletech game that actually had flavor.

Quote

Secondly they will want a fair game they can play with their friends. PGI struggles with balance as it is. Teams fighting two down will winnow down the clan side of the playerbase in no time. People willnot want to play if it means losing so much more. Which will happen. They are not genetically bred, trained from birth pilots....they are normal people playing with pixels.

Instead, you want a game where balance is so easy because literally nobody is different and there are no Clans...because there's no distinction to them to begin with. Everyone in the same 'Mechs with the same access and the same unit sizes doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons.

Quote

If a DCMS pilot cannot run his Adder because he would be forced into a separate queue you risk driving the player off.

If PGI cannot balqnce the tech well enought o create OP Clantech worth two mechs so that 10v12 is doable, people will NOT play the weaker side. You will drive folks off in droves.

If you can't produce a game where people can be different, the end result will be victory by popularity contest. I hope you like House Davion. You're going to see them in droves. If one faction has access to everything, there is no reason to play anything otherwise...whoever seems most powerful will remain most powerful.

Do you know back when we all were in the first MBPT, the original "Mechwarrior Online"- everyone had access to the exact same designs? Do you know what happened?

Davion won. Every single time. Over and over again, with the server being reset repeatedly and often so there'd actually be options for Liao and Marik to do anything save "defend capital", because Team Popularity (Davion-Steiner) gobbled up the less popular factions, leaving only Kurita with a somewhat diminished demense that could put up a fight. Since there was nothing different about the less popular factions, they were simply overwhelmed and reduced to the minimum worlds and perpetually on the defensive vs. Davion roflstomps.

If there is no difference between what factions have available in MWO, history will repeat itself.

Quote

Keep driving people off to avoid slapping some lore fans in the face and suddenly you have too few players to play the game.

See above. Making everything the same means the splits between factions meaningless, the flavor of each faction identical to the next. The Clans will "invade" with the best IS 'Mechs + the best Clan 'Mechs, faced by Team Popularity who will have...the exact same 'Mechs.

Quote

Immersion can be had without 10v12. Strive for that + balanced game and its fun. Do not fixate on one tiny. You do so at your detriment.

It's not one tiny.

It's Clan 'Mechs with utterly nerfed stats.
It's IS factions being able to gleefully not give a flying fig and bring all the Clan stuff they want, much as the Clans will do in turn. Whatever's best will be everyone's best.
It's not having Clan force sizes. Everyone in lances, la la la!
It's about not having to make any choices because no choices are allowed.
It's about taking a big steaming dump on anything Battletech and becoming generic robot shooter with a few fancy names.
It's constantly sacrificing "immersion" for expedience.

The game might fail if it tried to balance factions against each other by not giving everyone the same tools in their factional shed. It -will- fail if it sucks all of the flavor out of factions entirely, and this is a big step towards doing that.

[Pariah Devalis]

CyclonerM, on 21 February 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Sorry P.D. but i disagree.

I can assure you i have no rage problems, but i still want lore and immersion at the base of this game. Sure, sometimes they might go against each other like in MW4 (the single player campaign is quite more immersive than MWO but the 'Mech costruction was awful lorewise).. But this game really needs a change, and soon.

It does not need "Inner Sphere 2.0" to quote Galaxy Bluestar.

I want the Clans to be represented well. Since 15vs20 may be too much for the game, we could stick with 10vs12. At least it represents Stars vs Lances.

In MWO the Clan 'Mechs (not the weapons) are not nerfed. Not that much, anyway. The swappable hardpoints thing is stupid IMHO but it may still be similar to how OmniTech works. Actually, IS BattleMechs are "OP". They are too easily customizable. And why should you be able to fit a Gauss on a Raven, a 'Mech designed for EW?

However, i would accept "inferior" Clan Omnies if we stick with 10vs12. Clan warriors want the challenge.
They bid down to win more honor. What is wrong then with playing with "nerfed" OmniMechs but with 10vs12?

Like I said, it is only a rage issue if you are actually planning to quit MWO over it. If you are not, then clearly it is not a statement aimed at you, quiaff? I can understand the desire for 10v12, and like I have said in the past I would support if it could be proven to be balanced in the context of the game modes we are given, but the absolute anger it seems to provoke when the only reason PGI is starting at 12v12 and going from there is for balance sake is ridiculous.

I find it especially compounded by the additional fact that PGI does plan to make the Clan total per mech weight allowances in a team lower than the IS per mech allowances. IE: A weight disadvantage for every Clan mech on the team. Weight is just as lore friendly a biddable disadvantage as numbers, and by far the easiest way to go as far as balancing game modes with capture mechanics is concerned.

Incidentally, turrets do not solve the issue in Assault as two mechs working together are more than capable of quickly disposing of turrets safely (of which the theoretical IS team would have two additional mechs for), and that does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of numerical inferiority in Conquest. Balancing combat between 12 IS and 10 Clan mechs is relatively simple, but balancing asymmetrical numbers on game modes designed to be played with equal forces is far less so.

It is a complicated balancing problem. At least with a weight disadvantage, Clan teams will still need to fight harder, ton for ton, than their enemies to break even. Which is very clan.

[Lukoi Banacek]

wanderer, on 21 February 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

I'm guessing you never saw how factional the original MPBT was. And where the money came in from in the first place- Battletech players, who wanted a Battletech game that actually had flavor.

Waiiiiit.....wasn't that a game with subscription based monetization as opposed to periodic individualized transactions? Ah that's right, it was part of a larger membership club you paid for periodically. So this apples to oranges comparison you are trying to make doesn't address one single thing I've brought up.

wanderer, on 21 February 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

Instead, you want a game where balance is so easy because literally nobody is different and there are no Clans...because there's no distinction to them to begin with. Everyone in the same 'Mechs with the same access and the same unit sizes doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons.

Wait...what? There's a thing called "written tone." Your snarky written tone here (and throughout) isn't necessary or even addressing anything I'm bringing up. Par for the course, you think I'm advocating what PGI's doing.

I don't want any of this shit, so just calm down.

My point wasn't that PGI is doing things right (I could offer you a myriad of F2P model games that do factionalism and immersion better than your MPBT reference and be more correct to do so for example, but that's not the point). My point wasn't even remotely that I think they should go the route they have chosen to go.

My point was, it will be too late for PGI to go back. They will introduce nerfed Clantech at the 12v12 level with a promise to examine/consider 10v12....and will find they goofed up the order in which they did things and 12v12 will remain the system in place.

You're thinking I'm advocating for 12v12 over 10v12 when I'm merely making a prediction on what WILL happen based on simple objective principles, the first of which is that PGI is a business.

Lorehounds remain a small % of the playerbase (allegedly) as do the 1% Elo players and hard core competitives.

PGI is in this to make money. They want to attract new players to the franchise and casuals...by the ton. They do not want to drive off a large portion of the community through their too strictly catering to either the lorehounds, the TT-grognards or the hardcore types.

In the end, it's a safe bet, they've done this all in the wrong order.

By allowing ANYONE to buy Clanpacks, they have pigeonholed themselves and they will eventually see that to be true. And they will back off of the concept of Clan only queues, or 10v12 queues because it will drive off people from the largest portion of their playerbase.

They should have concretely decided on ClanTech and gone one way or the other.
then
Introduced Clanpacks so people would know ahead of time whether they would be able to PLAY the mechs they are paying cash money for BEFORE they purchased them.

That simple fact alone invalidates the future of 10v12.

Not to mention the huge complexity in balancing 10v12, when they can't even balanced SAME TECH at the moment to any reasonable degree.

If this is the straw that breaks the camel's back for ya and forces you to quit in a (self-entitled) nerd rage, that's on you. I feel for ya. But it's one small aspect of the game.

I will keep playing until it isn't fun anymore. It's really that simple. But if you think PGI cares what people on the extreme ends of the spectrum nerd-rage about when they make these CW, Clantech, Balancing etc decisions, you are probably in for yet another rude disappointment. 3PV and Coolant should have clued you in.

They are trying to make money. I don't agree with a ton of the things they do, but pointing out the sequence of how they've done things in the past and how they will likely go in the future doesn't make me an advocate. It makes me an informed consumer.

Edited by Lukoi, 21 February 2014 - 03:18 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Lukoi, on 21 February 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Secondly they will want a fair game they can play with their friends. PGI struggles with balance as it is. Teams fighting two down will winnow down the clan side of the playerbase in no time. People willnot want to play if it means losing so much more. Which will happen. They are not genetically bred, trained from birth pilots....they are normal people playing with pixels.

If PGI cannot balqnce the tech well enought o create OP Clantech worth two mechs so that 10v12 is doable, people will NOT play the weaker side. You will drive folks off in droves.

well that's just it, these are opinions and many people are in several boats already.

clans are weak because; pgi's construction = IS floods and clanners extinct

IS are weak because; pgi can't nerf clans enough = Clan floods and IS extinct

clans are weak because; if you use 10vs12 they'll get focus fired too fast and always lose nobody plays the waker side
= IS floods and clanners extinct

IS are weak because; 2 man down is not enough and 12vs12 will be a wipe my hard earned mechs out nobody plays the weaker side = Clan floods and IS extinct


you see it's going either way. if i were the devs i'd announce 10vs12 and all the nerfs with promises we'll balance clans upto the IS average teamstrentgh level. that way people won't be on the "OMG my IS is scrap now" bandwagon and those who brought clans will get buffs to lookforawrd to. the buffs would have to happen or riots would ensue but i think the main problem and why there's resistance to the 10vs12 idea is balance. the outline here is the easiest most effecient way of pleasing as many people as possible.

btw would prefer 10vs16 like odanan has said.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 21 February 2014 - 05:10 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

GalaxyBluestar, on 21 February 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

the outline here is the easiest most effecient way of pleasing as many people as possible.

It is IF PGI can accomplish the very complex task of balancing 10v12 with Clantech vs IS.

Since they have already made the decision to balance the techs with different "flavors" instead of adhering to lore, it is a moot point for now.

So again, not advocating that I prefer 12v12. Simply pointing out that nothing being discussed here will likely overcome PGI's 12v12 plan due to factors already mentioned....the most important of which to PGI based on their performance is money.

Simple as that.

[Aidan]

This 10v12 test this Friday, will it be open to the community or will it be conducted on the MWO Test Server and associated client?

[Stormwolfe13]

One of the main differences I don't believe I have seen discussed (if it has I apologize) is that in BattleTech there were units that affected balance between the Clans and the Inner Sphere that are not in this game (ie: Infantry, Regular Armor such as Tanks and such, Aerospace Fighters, etc.I will leave the idea of Zellbrigen out of the conversation because we all know most players will not voluntarily adhere to such notions of honor based restrictions if it is not in their personal best interests to do so). Not to mention the differences between a turn based table top game where most things are determined by set battle values and the roll of the dice instead of actual player skill, and a real time video game that is more affected by actual skill rather than preset battle values or the random rolls of a die. As a result of this PGI has to come up with "other methods" of achieving game balance for CW. If there is no game balance then one side or the other will wind up with too few players. If there are too few players for one side or the other then CW becomes a worthless feature at best. If that happens it's a big possibility that so many players will get disgusted after waiting so long for the feature they wanted most that they will just stop playing. At some point, if the player base dwindles too much, PGI will decide it isn't profitable enough to run the game, shut it down and then no one will be able to play. I kind of get a bit upset when I hear those who seem to cry "but it's not Lore" when it works against them but never utter a peep if the deviation from Lore works in their favor. So in my opinion it behooves us all for PGI to find a balance that works best in THIS game (regardless whether it adheres to Lore or not) since so many of the BattleTech features do not translate. Hopefully, for all our sake, they will come up with a balance that makes CW fair, and FUN, for everyone on either side.

Edited by Stormwolfe13, 12 August 2014 - 11:49 AM.

[StonedDead]

Kentharious, on 20 February 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

I agree. Throwing out the lore is like a SLAP in the face.

They've already thrown the lore to the wolves with nearly everything else they've done. They think a CTF is a Stiener mech and the raven is a Kuritan.(just one example of their confusion, too many to list) What do they know about BT? Apparently, not much.

On the issue of 10v12 or 12v12, provided you don't mind hearing from a spheroid, 12v12 is fine. I managed to get into a clan vs IS match the other day, it didn't go so well for the clanners.

[CyclonerM]

Zekester81, on 12 August 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

On the issue of 10v12 or 12v12, provided you don't mind hearing from a spheroid, 12v12 is fine. I managed to get into a clan vs IS match the other day, it didn't go so well for the clanners.

Glad to hear that, but apparently most of the Clan vs IS battles have gone otherwise. From a balance point, 10vs12 may be just fine, if not too much. I prefer it instead of nerfs. Indeed, where are my Stars?

[Gyrok]

Craig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

For me its about the balance, I could be swayed either side.

If 12 v 12 is balanced I will prob enjoy seeing all the varied IS mechs on the field.

If 10 v 12 is balanced than I suspect IS mechs are a historical refernece point and nothing else, most battles will be 10 Clan vs 10 Clan (tech, not faction).

Personally I can switch factions and enjoy the game for what it is as long as it is balanced.

Except the IS cannot play clan mechs in CW. Which means it will not be just a historical reference point...

Maybe in the PUG queue...though the underhive really does not contribute to much these days...(in truth, I do not even like to run in the group queue with less than 6-8 of my own Clan these days...average PUGs are so much worse than having people who will listen).

[Sudden]

I say 12v10 for the first month[or longer] of cw, after that , 12v12 with 'salvaged ' clan mechs being mixed with with IS mechs.

[bar10jim]

Hawk819, on 19 February 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

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.

This won't work. The hit most players took in FPS when the game went from 8 vs. 8 to 12 vs. 12 was a bit harsh but manageable with reducing setting,etc. Going to 20 vs. 20 would bury most mid-level gaming rigs into the ground, much less any rigs with lower specs.

[bar10jim]

I'll "vote" for 12 v 12. Many players are whining that "its not canon". Neither is pinpoint hit distribution. Bring in random hit determination like in TT, and nobody would play. TT and real-time simulation games are 2 different things. This isn't a RTRPG, nor will it be. The adults in the room will realize that for the game to succeed, 12 v 12 is where the game needs to go for balancing. Or would you rather have an unbalanced game that was lore-correct but unplayable?