45 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Okay, this thread is just about ideas to balance Clan tech to make IS still usable.

This is not a Mechopolitical Thread about PGI's performance about this, that, or the other. (There is plenty of that in the other threads strewn about this forum.)

My base idea for balancing clan tech/mechs is adjusting things that aren't hard-canon. (Example, tweaks in turn speed, weapon ROF, weapon drop-off, etc...)
The goal is to make it so that Clan mechs are still viable death dealing war machines, without having to balance them by numbers against IS mechs. (That still makes it less fun for the individual IS mech pilot)


If you're uninterested in some boring old fun, semi-constructive conversation regarding balancing: Cease Reading Here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok first up: Mechs.

Many things here are just going to have to be balanced by cash (unless following posts have better ideas)
::::::::::::::
Clan mechs in general
Not as maneuverable.
Keep the top speed of engines as those are canon-set by engine rating.
However, Slow down the torso twist and turn radius of the mechs compared to their IS weight/engine counterparts. Could also slow down the overall acceleration- as I don't think that is dictated either.

End Goal: Off-set the overall better killing power by making them less maneuverable by comparison.
::::::::::::::::
Clan Components
Clan XL Engines: Far harder to destroy- Far more expensive.
Clan Ferro Fibrous Armor: Far less space cost- Far more expensive
Clan Endosteel: Far less space cost- Far more expensive.
Clan DHS: Less space: Higher cost. (Keep the 1.4 heat-dis as well...)

End Goal: Make it more expensive to build the mech. Even as I type it, I don't like it, but it's the best I can think of at the moment without actually changing the technology. I'm not a huge fan of what PGI has done with changing Damage and heat values of weapons. I think there are far better ways of balancing without opening a new can of worms.
:::::::::::::::::::::
Clan Weapons
Lasers: Extend the Beam Duration by a set amount- TBD. (Offset canon advantage with meta disadvantage- slow down the damage delivery rate)

PPCs: Slow down the projectile and the RoF (Makes the IS version more accurate, and offsets the huge DPS buff)

Ballistics: Keep the same Jam rate of Ultras, but slow down the overall RoF of ballistics. (Makes the IS version comparable in DPS) EDIT: Also Reduce the 3x Over-range (dropoff) to 2x or 2.5x to give IS a range advantage.

Gauss: Slow down the RoF, and slow the projectile a little bit.

LRMs: Slow down the missile speed. (Maybe to what IS LRMs were before the buff or a little slower) Lengthen cooldown. Keep same damage.

SRMs: Slow down the missile speed.

SSRMs: Slow down missile speed, less health per missile (to be more vulnerable to missing and AMS.)

--------------------------------------------

That's it for now.. anyone else got any ideas? (Just for fun.)

Edited by Livewyr, 16 August 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[zorak ramone]

The only concievable way to balance clan tech with IS tech, while maintaining any sort of connection to the source material, is to limit the number of players using clan tech.

In a clan vs IS queue, this would mean something like 8 clan vs 12 IS, with the clan having 2/3 the tonnage/elo/whatever is used to balance the matchmaker.

In a mixed queue (clan tech using and IS tech using players on the same team), players using clan tech would have to count as 1.5 a person (e.g. 12 IS tech users vs 9 IS tech users + 2 clan tech users), and 1.5x the tonnage/elo/whatever is used to balance the matchmaker.

This of course would also necessitate restricting clan tech to clan mechs.

Any other method that attempts to both maintain semblence to the source material and be balanced will either fail at looking like the source material or will fail at being balanced.

[Odins Fist]

zorak ramone, on 16 August 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

The only concievable way to balance clan tech with IS tech, while maintaining any sort of connection to the source material, is to limit the number of players using clan tech.

No, I disagree, just make Clan Mechs use the exact same weapons as IS Mechs... Problem Solved.
Oh wait that will create mass hysteria in these forums..

Ok then make all weapons available to all Mechs... That should do better
http://odinswolves.enjin.com/home

Edited by Odins Fist, 16 August 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[Livewyr]

zorak ramone, on 16 August 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

The only concievable way to balance clan tech with IS tech, while maintaining any sort of connection to the source material, is to limit the number of players using clan tech.

In a clan vs IS queue, this would mean something like 8 clan vs 12 IS, with the clan having 2/3 the tonnage/elo/whatever is used to balance the matchmaker.

In a mixed queue (clan tech using and IS tech using players on the same team), players using clan tech would have to count as 1.5 a person (e.g. 12 IS tech users vs 9 IS tech users + 2 clan tech users), and 1.5x the tonnage/elo/whatever is used to balance the matchmaker.

This of course would also necessitate restricting clan tech to clan mechs.

Any other method that attempts to both maintain semblence to the source material and be balanced will either fail at looking like the source material or will fail at being balanced.

Here's the problem with that logic. (I used to agree with it, but then I thought about this.)

"Who do you get to volunteer to be the player in the inferior mech in the larger group?"

If I had a choice between being in a totally inferior mech in exchange for being with more other players (which in a pug matters NOT) or being in the Superior death dealer in exchange for being with fewer people.. the answer would be a no brainer. I want to be in the cool-guy death machine. Mech numbers be damned. (Especially since in a PUG, you often end up in 1v1 situations regardless of your situational awareness)

Odins Fist, on 16 August 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

No, I disagree, just make Clan Mechs use the exact same weapons as IS Mechs... Problem Solved.
Oh wait that will create mass hysteria in these forums..

Ok then make all weapons available to all Mechs... That should do better
http://odinswolves.enjin.com/home

Yeah, speaking of making every IS variant of a weapon obsolete and not worth programming/balancing in the first place..

[Odins Fist]

Livewyr, on 16 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Yeah, speaking of making every IS variant of a weapon obsolete and not worth programming/balancing in the first place..

I know right...
http://odinswolves.enjin.com/home

Edited by Odins Fist, 16 August 2013 - 11:14 AM.

[Goose]

Now you know why the timeline was called of, amIright?

Putting a Gauss in a clan 'mech was always derptastic in table top, so letting it match the IS model, 'cept for weight and crits, would encurage it's use. Leave it be …

The extra range clan Streaks have suggests moar velocity. I dought it will last though testing, but that's the starting point.

I think fighting clanners will be all about "human" waves of lights, trying to put the "surprise" in "surprise butttsecks," what with how crappy the smaller clan models are.

This is the area where adhering to canon is the worst idea, as canon will be so un-fun …

[DamnCatte]

Actually, someone mentioned an idea (probably as a semi-joke) a while ago that is both canonical, balancing, and hysterical. I really like the idea of anyone in a clan mech "bidding" to be dropped in a que, based on the c-bill cost of their mech. The person with the lower bid will drop, and the those with the higher bid will bid again for another game.

[Goose]

PuG'ng in a clan 'Mech means you "fill" ~3 slots in the que/ game?

Will clan 'Mechs get different Elos'? i.e. Players would now have up 8 different Elos'?

[Livewyr]

This thread is more about balancing the mechs individually against each other.. since one pilot is only piloting ONE mech, so separate unit (multiple unit) balancing is really.. ineffectual to the pilots themselves.

[Blackadder]

While i understand where you are coming from, i do not think that increasing costs to sarna levels for clan mechs is a viable option. especially if having clan mechs is an upgrade in terms of power. this will alienate a large portion of the player base, and is bad for the health of the game. While clan mechs should be more expensive,a clan assault mech should not cost 30 million cbills(300+ matches to afford) for anyone.

Your other thoughts are good, but one thing you miss, is i would like to see clan mechs take longer to reload/recharge, that way you have a different playstyle. The big damage slow firing side, vs the fast DPS style side. The problem is i am not sure how much slower reload would have to be to make the clan mechs relatively balanced.

Then again i think the ML needs a reduction in both heat and reload to make it the dps weapon it should be.

[Livewyr]

Blackadder, on 16 August 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

While i understand where you are coming from, i do not think that increasing costs to sarna levels for clan mechs is a viable option. especially if having clan mechs is an upgrade in terms of power. this will alienate a large portion of the player base, and is bad for the health of the game. While clan mechs should be more expensive,a clan assault mech should not cost 30 million cbills(300+ matches to afford) for anyone.

Your other thoughts are good, but one thing you miss, is i would like to see clan mechs take longer to reload/recharge, that way you have a different playstyle. The big damage slow firing side, vs the fast DPS style side. The problem is i am not sure how much slower reload would have to be to make the clan mechs relatively balanced.

Then again i think the ML needs a reduction in both heat and reload to make it the dps weapon it should be.

I think we are in agreement:

I did say lower the RoF (slowing the reload)

And I think cutting clan prices by about a 1/3rd or 1/2 would be good, since they are being nerfed to be more in line with the IS mechs.

[Suko]

Honestly, in order for Clans to be "balanced" in MWO, I think they're going to have to throw TT values to the wind and redesign them from scratch.

They need to make the weapons act differently enough to be noticeably different from their IS counterparts, but they can do that without making them "Better".

Obviously, the weight/crit space of a piece of equipment will probably have to stay the same. Changing this would cause all kinds of problems down the road. However, I think one of the best things you can do to Clan tech to make it more balanced with IS is to do what they did with the Gauss Rifle, make the Clan tech (across the board) more fragile than the IS stuff. This kind of works with the Clan's blitzkrieg warfare style, too. I agree with your suggestion that Clan tech costs a lot more. This should be obvious (even TT veterans know that stuff is expensive), but if they ever re-introduce repair and rearm again, I think that it should be 2x or 3x more expensive to repair Clan tech vs IS.

Other ways to balance IS and Clan tech could be adjusting R.O.F. on weapons and as you already indicated, increasing beam duration. Clan LRMs will need to have a minimum range. No questions about it. It could be less than IS (90m), but maybe the missiles travel slower, or lock on time is longer. But having Clan LRMs without a minimum range would be terrible.

SSRMs.....These need to be fixed, regardless of IS or Clan. They should require a lock on to fire (as they currently do), but you should only be able to fire if the reticle stays over the target. If the reticle moves off target at all from more than a brief moment, it should loose lock and require the pilot to require it again. Sounds tedious? That's the point. This gives pilots a reason to keep regular SRMs in use. Fire and forget those on demand. Streaks require you to line up the shot and hold it...an appropriate trade off for a weapon that guarantees 100% hits when it is fired.

Edited by ShadowVFX, 16 August 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[zorak ramone]

Livewyr, on 16 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Here's the problem with that logic. (I used to agree with it, but then I thought about this.)

"Who do you get to volunteer to be the player in the inferior mech in the larger group?"

If I had a choice between being in a totally inferior mech in exchange for being with more other players (which in a pug matters NOT) or being in the Superior death dealer in exchange for being with fewer people.. the answer would be a no brainer. I want to be in the cool-guy death machine. Mech numbers be damned. (Especially since in a PUG, you often end up in 1v1 situations regardless of your situational awareness)

Speak for yourself. I'd go IS all the way. Keep in mind: clan mech don't have any more armor than IS mechs, so the numbers issue is a real thing. Exact numbers would need to be tweaked (i.e. maybe its not 1.5 IS per 1 clan ... maybe its 1.75), but they could be tweaked to make the clan vs IS thing a real choice.

Also, getting into 1v1 situations is how you loose in PUGs. If you find yourself in 1v1 situations, you made a mistake.

Odins Fist, on 16 August 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

No, I disagree, just make Clan Mechs use the exact same weapons as IS Mechs... Problem Solved.
Oh wait that will create mass hysteria in these forums..

This is why I said this:

zorak ramone, on 16 August 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Any other method that attempts to both maintain semblence to the source material and be balanced will either fail at looking like the source material or will fail at being balanced.

The whole point of the clans is that their technology is objectively supieror to the IS. Even the IS's later inventions (Heavy Gauss, RACs, MRMs, MMLs) don't match up to clan stuff.

There are only two reasons the IS was able to stand up against the clans:
1) They massively outnumbered them
2) On a tactical and strategic level, the clans were like 5 year old children

IS vs the Clans, to put it in MWO terms, would be like a game of 5 high skilled twitch shooters in pre-ghost heat 3xPPC/GR jumping highlanders who don't work together versus a team of 8-10 moderately skilled players in medium/heavy mechs who are on comms and have played with each other for a long time.

We can't regulate the tactics of the players choosing clan tech, but we can regulate their numbers. Anything else results in either a game with broken balance, or a game that completely throws out what the whole point of the clans by making their tech equal to IS tech. Since PGI is sticking to the CBT construction rules to the letter, I don't think option two is possible: even if you nerf clan weapons to be equal to IS weapons, clan XL engines won't result in side-torso deaths, clan FF/ES only cost 7 crits, and clan DHS will only be two crits.

So really there are only two options: limit clan tech by numbers or have an unbalanced game.

Edited by zorak ramone, 16 August 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[zorak ramone]

ShadowVFX, on 16 August 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Honestly, in order for Clans to be "balanced" in MWO, I think they're going to have to throw TT values to the wind and redesign them from scratch.

Won't work unless you throw TT construction rules to the wind too. Even with IS weapons, clan chassis would be superior.

This won't happen: PGI has been sticking to TT construction rules to the letter.

[Livewyr]

zorak ramone, on 16 August 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Speak for yourself. I'd go IS all the way. Keep in mind: clan mech don't have any more armor than IS mechs, so the numbers issue is a real thing. Exact numbers would need to be tweaked (i.e. maybe its not 1.5 IS per 1 clan ... maybe its 1.75), but they could be tweaked to make the clan vs IS thing a real choice.

Also, getting into 1v1 situations is how you loose in PUGs. If you find yourself in 1v1 situations, you made a mistake.



This is why I said this:



The whole point of the clans is that their technology is objectively supieror to the IS. Even the IS's later inventions (Heavy Gauss, RACs, MRMs, MMLs) don't match up to clan stuff.

There are only two reasons the IS was able to stand up against the clans:
1) They massively outnumbered them
2) On a tactical and strategic level, the clans were like 5 year old children

IS vs the Clans, to put it in MWO terms, would be like a game of 5 high skilled twitch shooters in pre-ghost heat 3xPPC/GR jumping highlanders who don't work together versus a team of 8-10 moderately skilled players in medium/heavy mechs who are on comms and have played with each other for a long time.

We can't regulate the tactics of the players choosing clan tech, but we can regulate their numbers. Anything else results in either a game with broken balance, or a game that completely throws out what the whole point of the clans by making their tech equal to IS tech. Since PGI is sticking to the CBT construction rules to the letter, I don't think option two is possible: even if you nerf clan weapons to be equal to IS weapons, clan XL engines won't result in side-torso deaths, clan FF/ES only cost 7 crits, and clan DHS will only be two crits.

So really there are only two options: limit clan tech by numbers or have an unbalanced game.

You are still thinking on the Macro level.. not the player level.

The Daishi may not have any more armor than the Atlas.. but it has unbelievably more firepower by itself.
3 Atlases vs 2 Daishi may be fairly even.. and if luck puts it that way, it might be a good fight.

Now picture being the player of the 1 atlas, that ends up fighting the 1 completely unadulterated clan Dire Wolf in a pug match.

If you're playing the Atlas, you're either new, or have a deep irrational love of IS Mech/tech.
---------------------------

Ergo why I'm trying to balance it on an individual level to give each side a purpose using the non-canon stats..

[Blackadder]

Livewyr, on 16 August 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

I think we are in agreement:

I did say lower the RoF (slowing the reload)

And I think cutting clan prices by about a 1/3rd or 1/2 would be good, since they are being nerfed to be more in line with the IS mechs.

My bad, only saw it on some weapons, not across the board.

[zorak ramone]

Livewyr, on 16 August 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

If you're playing the Atlas, you're either new, or have a deep irrational love of IS Mech/tech.

... or I'm someone who understands that number of players is one of the most important factors is determining which team is stronger, and I like winning alot.

Quote

Ergo why I'm trying to balance it on an individual level to give each side a purpose using the non-canon stats..

If the clan:IS ratio is 1:1, then the Atlas pilot has no fun because the Daishi always kills him. If the clan:IS ratio is 1:10, then the Daishi has no fun. It doesn't matter that his mech is far more powerful than a single Atlas. Those 10 Atlases will kill him immediately and he won't even bring one of them down.

Somewhere between 1:1 and 1:10 is a ratio where the plusses and minuses of either side are balanced and the IS vs Clan choice isn't one sided.

[Suko]

zorak ramone, on 16 August 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Won't work unless you throw TT construction rules to the wind too. Even with IS weapons, clan chassis would be superior.

This won't happen: PGI has been sticking to TT construction rules to the letter.

Did you not read what I wrote literally three lines below that?

ShadowVFX, on 16 August 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Obviously, the weight/crit space of a piece of equipment will probably have to stay the same. Changing this would cause all kinds of problems down the road.

[IceLom]

zorak ramone, on 16 August 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

If the clan:IS ratio is 1:1, then the Atlas pilot has no fun because the Daishi always kills him. If the clan:IS ratio is 1:10, then the Daishi has no fun. It doesn't matter that his mech is far more powerful than a single Atlas. Those 10 Atlases will kill him immediately and he won't even bring one of them down.

Somewhere between 1:1 and 1:10 is a ratio where the plusses and minuses of either side are balanced and the IS vs Clan choice isn't one sided.

This is all fine for organized competitive play but its awful for pug play, and probably 90% of the play is pug play. If you do make the teams lopsided but equal say 3:1 or 2:1 no one is going to pick the IS side because all things being equal i want to be in the better mech. Since the teams are hypothetically balanced why on earth would the average player want to play on the side where they get 1/3 the kills and generally feel less effective and important.

You need to toss in real negative sides to clan tech and ignore a bit of cannon, because C-bill or team size balancing is not going to work in this game, its not table top.

[3rdworld]

My guess.

Omni mechs will be limited in crit sizes not weapon type.

and Clan tech will be available to IS (engines/ES/FF/Weapons/etc)