Possible way to Balance Clan Mechs when introduced if played by players verse IS.
#1
Posted 11 June 2012 - 06:13 PM
This is just a suggestion, not sure if it has been suggested before or not. If so, apologies for using up forum server space.
#2
Posted 11 June 2012 - 07:32 PM
#3
Posted 11 June 2012 - 09:51 PM
#4
Posted 12 June 2012 - 01:23 AM
IF clanmechs ever come to our garages, i think the balancing will be tested in development, so we can see about that later...
#5
Posted 15 June 2012 - 02:11 AM
#6
Posted 19 June 2012 - 12:18 AM
The Big thing between the balance will be IS mechs equipped with clan tech. They will be rare and expensive but worth it.
IS mechs will be 99% standard mechs and 1% omnimechs.
#7
Posted 19 June 2012 - 01:06 AM
BlazeKaiser, on 19 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:
The Big thing between the balance will be IS mechs equipped with clan tech. They will be rare and expensive but worth it.
IS mechs will be 99% standard mechs and 1% omnimechs.
You can try to balance the numbers, but the players will stay the same. Put IS Mechs vs IS Mechs with an IS mindset and it's all good.
Put a pilot with an IS mindset into a Clan Mech and it's gonna ruin the whole game. Even if the repair bills for Clan Tech are astronomical and punish below average performance, there will always be players that make it work and even more so when real cash can 'fix' temporary c-bill shortages. Then it's gonna be P2W and we're back to the drawing board. The key element that is missing is a strong incentive for players to stick to the Clan's rules of engagement. Most people don't understand or accept their code of honor and the implications, so there has to be a better way. Also the Clans do not use currency such as the Inner Sphere. You could probably call them acquisition points or whatever, but even so, not every warrior gets to pilot whatever he wants. There are garrisoned Mechwarriors that have minimal access to Omni Tech and advanced weapons, whereas the frontliners are usually stacked with them. It may be another way to keep things in check, but being classified as 2nd line or solahma is not really flattering. Maybe that could be seen as incentive to improve and keep ahead of the pack, but I don't know if this idea holds much water. It could cause severe burnout if it's too strictly handled. Time will tell.
#8
Posted 19 June 2012 - 01:32 AM
While salvage is of course one way to get clan mechs, they do trade. Not every clan has the same mechs or supplies of weapons, they have to trade for them.
Eventually clan-tech will be up for sell. Ive heard that there wont be a salvage system, but their should be. In early clan vs IS fights thats the ONLY way for IS to get clan tech. later purchasing will be an option, such as from Clan Diamond Shark.
#9
Posted 19 June 2012 - 03:06 AM
BlazeKaiser, on 19 June 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:
Hm the first source i read something about trading between Clans and IS was in the TRO3060... so trading overall yes but please not in the first decade after the first contact.
However it is not the ownership of a mech alone you have to maintain it to. Thats the reason while i never like the idea that IS units like the Eridani Light Horse - or Gray Death are able to use Clan Mechs effective in the field - not without a Tech Contract with the Wolf Dragoons
Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 June 2012 - 03:06 AM.
#10
Posted 19 June 2012 - 03:59 AM
. . . Just run on a BV system. Where a Clan Heavy has twice the BV as an IS Assault. The balancing was already done for us, it's called BattleTech, the Tabletop Game.
Edited by nodebate, 19 June 2012 - 04:00 AM.
#11
Posted 19 June 2012 - 04:38 AM
I for one hope they do end up putting clan mechs in the game because personally, there my favourite battlemechs
Edited by Ich3go, 19 June 2012 - 04:38 AM.
#12
Posted 19 June 2012 - 04:46 AM
#13
Posted 19 June 2012 - 04:59 AM
I don't think that players will have access to clan tech on their IS mechs as it would cause a serious imbalance in IS mechs, and matches. There are a lot of things that can be done to balance clan tech when an entire side uses one tech or the other, but the moment you start mixing it up then you may as well throw away all of you inner sphere tech as you get access to clan tech. It would ruin immersion, balance, and foster pay to win, which is exactly what the devs are trying to avoid.
Making clan tech very expensive doesn't keep people from using it, it make the game pay to win. IE pay to use the Clan tech so you can be competitive in matches. No thank you. I will stop playing if that becomes a reality. Though I doubt they are going let me down on this. If you want clan tech then play clans, then it can be your bread and butter.
My point in relation to the OP: the best thing they can do to keep it balance is to keep it separated. It won't do it by itself, but once separated, then all other aspects of balance are going to be much easier to manage.
#14
Posted 19 June 2012 - 04:59 AM
By the way - we knew that ComStar isn't available - so the only faction that stoped the invasion before reaching terra - isn't playable - so no opposition for clans --> no clans?
#15
Posted 19 June 2012 - 05:05 AM
~Taka
#16
Posted 19 June 2012 - 05:20 AM
Edited by CCC Dober, 19 June 2012 - 05:22 AM.
#17
Posted 19 June 2012 - 05:38 PM
The Comguard actually had in between tech between usual IS tech and the Clan tech, as they didnt lose the technology during the Succession wars, and actually made new tech.
-------------
OK clan tech would be rare, sorta like limited items a IS merchant might carry, sales from clan traders, or salvage like an RPG mob drops.
Alot of things people suggest about clan tech are incredibly stupid, such as making them a kind of "premium" equipment.
OK lets put it this way.
IS medium laser, extremely common
IS ER medium lasers, uncommon
Clan ER medium laser rare.
#18
Posted 20 June 2012 - 07:56 AM
Zellbrigen works great in theory, but even in the books when it happened, mor often than not, one side would violate it.
The irony is that smart IS commanders could beat the clans at their own game before the battle even started by issuing a smart batchall.
#19
Posted 20 June 2012 - 04:48 PM
#20
Posted 20 June 2012 - 11:51 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users