81 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

Russ Bullock, on 16 September 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

Well this isn't necessarily true. The only thing that I think nearly every person supports is the notion of some penalty for a destroyed LT or RT.

Other than that I am hoping to be able to leave the clans be and try and work with the IS Quirk system. The Clan mechs as they currently are still have all the special traits we promised they would have and honestly they are still very powerful.

Currently were asking for some more patience as we find something that can truly work within CW.

Russ, without asymmetrical matchmaking for CW, a side-torso destruction penalty will not be enough without nerfing clan weapons to the point where they are simply flat-out worse than IS counter parts, and at that point you'll be seeing only the best of each weight class on the Clan side in any match where people are trying to win.

We need to look at retaining Elo for non-CW games, but asymmetrical balancing for faction-locked CW matches.

[Metus regem]

EboneezeeR, on 16 September 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

Nope, the Endo-S does not cost thet lot and never was. The cost of TW is fair cause it's full of advanced tech, more advanced than IS tech. And there is nothing to compare, especially Orion with Timber.

If you got mad cause got owned in random by IS mech that is not an IS mech fault, it's only you and your awkward hands.

I drive Nova-Prime, stock and fine with my 3,2K/D.

Either we are talking about two different things, or I am not being clear…

I do not care about the cost of the Endo S. I do not care about my KDR, I do not care about getting ‘owned’ by an IS mech, if I lose, then he played a better game than I did, simple as that. I care about the fact that it changes the mech, from what it is, into something different. In my first post I gave an example of a 3025 tech level 1 Warhammer the WHM-6D and the 3067 tech level 2 Warhammer WHM-8D, one of the major differences between them is Endo S. chassis.

My point is, that an IS mech should be locked to the type of chassis material and engine size in much the same way Clan mechs are. As in a Raven 1X will always have a 175 engine if you want something faster, than you would have to move up to the 3L to get a 210 XL engine. Same story for the chassis, if you want to go from Standard to an Endo S. chassis, you should have to go to a version that has an Endo S. chassis, not just click a button and pay a small C-bill tax.

My other point, is that IS mechs should have the hard-point system that they have now, and Clan mechs should not be limited by hard-points, but by their pod space, read non fixed tonnage, that’s what makes omni-mechs, omni-mechs. As in in one battle you are facing a Timber Wolf Prime, and in the next engagement it’s a Timber Wolf Alt. C, yet all they did was pull out some weapon pods, and slammed home some different ones. Clan tech is all about being plug and play so to speak, and IS tech is all about where a Donal PPC is mounted, is where a Donal PPC will be mounted.

[Lefty Lucy]

Metus regem, on 16 September 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

Either we are talking about two different things, or I am not being clear…

I do not care about the cost of the Endo S. I do not care about my KDR, I do not care about getting ‘owned’ by an IS mech, if I lose, then he played a better game than I did, simple as that. I care about the fact that it changes the mech, from what it is, into something different. In my first post I gave an example of a 3025 tech level 1 Warhammer the WHM-6D and the 3067 tech level 2 Warhammer WHM-8D, one of the major differences between them is Endo S. chassis.

My point is, that an IS mech should be locked to the type of chassis material and engine size in much the same way Clan mechs are. As in a Raven 1X will always have a 175 engine if you want something faster, than you would have to move up to the 3L to get a 210 XL engine. Same story for the chassis, if you want to go from Standard to an Endo S. chassis, you should have to go to a version that has an Endo S. chassis, not just click a button and pay a small C-bill tax.

My other point, is that IS mechs should have the hard-point system that they have now, and Clan mechs should not be limited by hard-points, but by their pod space, read non fixed tonnage, that’s what makes omni-mechs, omni-mechs. As in in one battle you are facing a Timber Wolf Prime, and in the next engagement it’s a Timber Wolf Alt. C, yet all they did was pull out some weapon pods, and slammed home some different ones. Clan tech is all about being plug and play so to speak, and IS tech is all about where a Donal PPC is mounted, is where a Donal PPC will be mounted.

All that would do is severely restrict which IS mechs see play when a player actually cares about winning.

[Murphy7]

Lefty Lucy, on 16 September 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

All that would do is severely restrict which IS mechs see play when a player actually cares about winning.

We've been to that well a few times already, haven't we? Wasn't there a time all assaults were Highlander/Victor, favored heavy was the Cataphract 3D, etc?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

beerandasmoke, on 16 September 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

I would say for clanwars make a R&R with a certain style of mechlocking. Clanmechs would be twice as expensive to repair as IS mechs. Cant afford to repair your timberwolf? Then you have to wait for your free repairs to fix it which takes X amount of days and you have to fight in a Summoner. Class A team defending against a Class C team? Do we take our direwolfs and timbers and risk a chance of some of them getting destroyed or fight these guys in adders and novas and save our good stuff for the big boys? Adds a real strategic element to CW and makes high resource planets very desirable and also very risky expense wise since everyone will be gunning for you.

Otherwise your going to have clanners rolling direwolf, timberwolf, stormcrow, whatever clan light over and over with no variety. Just my two cents on CW instead of breaking clanmechs to try to achieve some kind of equality.

Do clanners USE money?

[LORD ORION]

The game would be far more fun if clans were designed for 8 vs 12.

2 squads of 4 (2/2/2/2), vs 3 squads of 4 (3/3/3/3). Surely the match maker can faciltate that with little work?

The game will never work if "moar skill cap" is the key to taking advantage of superior tech. There will always be a tipping point where the game is incredibly broken and unfun/unfair.

The better idea would be to make clans mechs better 1 vs 1, but outclassed slightly 2 vs 3 so playing clan is always an uphill battle, that is only won by being better at the game. (eg: MM tuned so 40/60 W/L is the average goal when playing clan)

Considering that the match maker creates such lopsided battles as is, 8 vs 12 would still allow casual clan pilots to experience avalance victories (12 to 2-3) if you play a couple of matches.

Edited by LORD ORION, 16 September 2014 - 02:26 PM.

[Metus regem]

Lefty Lucy, on 16 September 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

All that would do is severely restrict which IS mechs see play when a player actually cares about winning.

We see that already Lefty. There are mechs that are just flat out better then others, how often to do you see a RVN-2X orver a RVN-3L? The 3L version is just plan better, how often do you see a CTF-1X over a CTF-3D? The CTF-3D is the better unit, if you just look at for raw stats, rather than flavour.

I'd rather see the units given more flavour in the form of having differences between the version other than just hard points.

[Gyrok]

Murphy7, on 16 September 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Paragraph 1 - Some these balancing changes are there to make the sides competitve without it being as clear a tech advantage as was shown in the early invasion on table top. One reason for this ahead of CW - numbers balancing doesn't seem to be possible, so you will be seeing drops of 12 clan vs 12 inner sphere, where in TT the scenario might be balanced around 5 clan vs 8 inner sphere or 10 clan vs 12 inner sphere. Another reason is that the computer environment isn't the table top environment - players are much more accurate and far better at grouping their fire than dice rolling each hit and each location provides. Same idea has us with double armor, more ammunition, and a skewed heat generation / heat dissipation scale.

Paragraph (sentence really) 2 - Not for love or money would I ever want to see this. There is a reason meta rhymes with feta, and truly open mech design will exceed meta/feta past gouda or cheddar firmly into limberger areas. No thank you.

TT has the Clan technology very firmly superior in all ways to Inner Sphere technology, what are the odds you're HUD is more blue than yellow most drops?

Numbers balancing is ENTIRELY possible, in fact, I have offered bits and pieces of such a plan that would solve the problem with 10 vs 12.

Please do not speak as though you are the voice of the masses, many of us want 10 vs 12 balance and the clan mechs the way they are supposed to be...(within reason).

As it sits, Clans are considerably hotter, without capability to dissipate heat to the level they have been increased. Clans also have locked internals, fixed engines, and many other quirks that limit them greatly beyond what most people who have never piloted one could understand without first hand seat time experience.

I propose that no more nerfs occur to clan mechs until they are ALL out for cbills, and I would even propose some of the heat increases being rolled back, namely the CERML and CERLL. I understand the range decreases, and I can live with that, but there are some builds that are just stupid hot. Look at the heat efficiency on the stock nova prime...it is below 1. Not just a little bit either...IIRC, it is sub 0.9 heat efficiency...seriously...

[beerandasmoke]

What terrifies me with all the top teams choosing clan is that the clanmechs might get an unneeded nerf. I could see the HOL moving out and rolfstomping everyone along with the other competitive teams in CW. Then the forums erupt in a multithread "OMGWEREGETTINGKILLEDPLZNERF!!!!" You guys know how it is around here when the tide starts rolling one way.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Yeshua Kerensky, on 16 September 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

There are several of the top players that have 5 to 6 hundred million a piece banked.

There are several top players that are billionaires

[beerandasmoke]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 16 September 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

Do clanners USE money?

Lorewise I dont think the warriors did lol.

[DasaDevil]

Personally, I would love to see a better built Clan Autocannon. Ballistics are my favorite weapon types.. and IS ACs are vastly superior to Clan AC's in any stretch of imagination.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Wraeththix Constantine, on 16 September 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

Not to disagree with the sentiment, but a lot of it also has to do with legacy. People just aesthetically liked the Mad Cat, the Vulture, the Thor. The IS mechs that people really liked, most of them are Unseen, and of the remaining ones we either have remodels of them (which are nice, but doesn't evoke the same level of comfort as being with your old friend) or just aren't in-game for whatever reason (like the mauler).

Or arent in game because Harmony Gold says no (like the Marauder)

DasaDevil, on 16 September 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

Personally, I would love to see a better built Clan Autocannon. Ballistics are my favorite weapon types.. and IS ACs are vastly superior to Clan AC's in any stretch of imagination.

How so?

Not agruing ust looking for info

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 16 September 2014 - 02:28 PM.

[Scratx]

Lefty Lucy, on 16 September 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Russ, without asymmetrical matchmaking for CW, a side-torso destruction penalty will not be enough without nerfing clan weapons to the point where they are simply flat-out worse than IS counter parts, and at that point you'll be seeing only the best of each weight class on the Clan side in any match where people are trying to win.

We need to look at retaining Elo for non-CW games, but asymmetrical balancing for faction-locked CW matches.

Unless IS mechs have superior quirks to the Clan mechs...

Let's see what rabbit PGI pulls out of their hat on that front?

[beerandasmoke]

LORD ORION, on 16 September 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

The game would be far more fun if clans were designed for 8 vs 12.

2 squads of 4 (2/2/2/2), vs 3 squads of 4 (3/3/3/3). Surely the match maker can faciltate that with little work?

The game will never work if "moar skill cap" is the key to taking advantage of superior tech. There will always be a tipping point where the game is incredibly broken and unfun/unfair.

The better idea would be to make clans mechs better 1 vs 1, but outclassed slightly 2 vs 3 so playing clan is always an uphill battle, that is only won by being better at the game. (eg: MM tuned so 40/60 W/L is the average goal when playing clan)

Considering that the match maker creates such lopsided battles as is, 8 vs 12 would still allow casual clan pilots to experience avalance victories (12 to 2-3) if you play a couple of matches.

Then they would be unbalanced in the soloque and casual teamplay que. You couldnt do it without drastic changes to the matchmaker.

[DasaDevil]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 16 September 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

How so?

Not agruing ust looking for info

Front Load Damage, plain and simple. I took my Protector out with its twin UAC5's and boy howdy did those things rip apart mechs faster than twin C-UAC5's ever did on my Timberwolf.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Scratx, on 16 September 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

Unless IS mechs have superior quirks to the Clan mechs...

Let's see what rabbit PGI pulls out of their hat on that front?

How far down the rabbot hole really goes, eh?

sorry; posting on pharacy strenmgth cough syrup and im a ligtweight

DasaDevil, on 16 September 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Front Load Damage, plain and simple. I took my Protector out with its twin UAC5's and boy howdy did those things rip apart mechs faster than twin C-UAC5's ever did on my Timberwolf.

ah the alpha vs dps measurement

[LORD ORION]

Gyrok, on 16 September 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

As it sits, Clans are considerably hotter, without capability to dissipate heat to the level they have been increased. Clans also have locked internals, fixed engines, and many other quirks that limit them greatly beyond what most people who have never piloted one could understand without first hand seat time experience.

Pretty much this, my best Summoner is a no frills 2xCERLL and 2xCERML (LLs in right arm [face puncher], MLs in Left Arm [ blocker]) stacked with heat sinks. Just keep shooting your slightly better lasers while minimizing return fire or getting clobbered squarely by an alpha from a damage boat.

Edited by LORD ORION, 16 September 2014 - 02:39 PM.

[LORD ORION]

beerandasmoke, on 16 September 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Then they would be unbalanced in the soloque and casual teamplay que. You couldnt do it without drastic changes to the matchmaker.

I dont see that at all.
You put 2 squads in game instead of 3. Derp. Far easier than 10vs12
Also you would have 2 separate queues to display depending if you have an IS or clan mech selected when you mouse over looking at the light/medium/heavy/assault % indicator.

There must be some really F'd up code logic if 2 squads can't be done (which is what we started with) by match maker but 3 can.

Edited by LORD ORION, 16 September 2014 - 02:37 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Carrioncrows, on 16 September 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

ER Small lasers being the same range as Clan small Pulse lasers for instance.

That doesn't bother me at all because you pay for that extra benefit with tonnage.

What my issue with small lasers (both IS and Clan) is that they have such short range. This wouldn't be a problem, but because of all the other long range weapon options it often makes the decision to use a small laser a poor decision in almost every circumstance.

I'd rather they have the range of medium lasers but cause less damage.