219 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Sweet Baby Pirate, on 08 December 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

They should implement 'named' gear à la EVE first. For example, see http://www.sarna.net...um_laser#Models. The different models of medium laser would have slightly different stats, with the better ones being more expensive. Clan equipment could then fit in on the very high end of this scale.

Making Clan stuff more expensive won't actually prevent people from jumping ship to the Clans at the first opportunity, it'll just make it take longer for them to do so.

Edited by FupDup, 08 December 2013 - 08:38 AM.

[pbiggz]

And it will make the already formidable learning curve horrible for new players, who jump in the game with "starter" IS tech and get flattened by neckbeards in broken clan tech. talk of cost limitations is just as stupid as talk of numerical balancing.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

It was always balanced by numerical IS advantage. IS just obvious step. The stupid here is just your ignorance to BT sir.

[anonymous161]

I installed the game in hopes to see clans...I just know I will hate what they do to them and simply delete this from my computer entirely I dont want one stray file about this game on my computer if they manage to make clans a buy only thing.

[Reitrix]

Funny thing is, if you tried to use BV now, and based it on the loadout+upgrade path of the 'Mech, we'd have 1v1s in Matchmarker solo queue.

im going to wait till they tell me how they plan to implement the Clans before i start having an aneurysm over it.

[pbiggz]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 08 December 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

It was always balanced by numerical IS advantage. IS just obvious step. The stupid here is just your ignorance to BT sir.

A: Don't presume I am ignorant, SIR.

B: Even with "numerical" balancing you seem to think was in BT, most competitive players to my knowledge jumped ship for superior clan tech immediately, proving that if you give people access to better stuff, they'll grind towards it no matter what, every player will either buy it with MC, grind their way up, or jump ship to clans to get it, new players will have a HORRIBLE experience, IS tech will be utterly obsolete in every way, and the IS factions will be devoid of players.

ALSO, riddle me this, if you want 10v12 when facing clans to mitigate TECH, what if a merc company, which PGI has stated will have access to all technology via black market, buys and outfits 12 people with clan tech. NOW its 10 clanners vs 12 is with clan tech, or 12 is vs 12 is with clan tech, and you may as well throw the whole damn thing out the window.

I am asking you to apply common sense here. It's not hard. The clan nerf is coming, and its clan tech and weapons that will be nerfed, NOT the number of clan players you will face. There is literally NO WAY you can rationalize how brokenly OP clan tech was when RANDAL ******* BILLS HIMSELF, WHO CREATED IT, already stated that it was a MISTAKE to make it that powerful in the FIRST PLACE.

If you still stick by your half baked ******-*** argument then I'm sorry, I can't help you. You can stick your head up your *** and live in EZWIN lala land as long as you like, but keep it to yourself.

[anonymous161]

I wish I didn't have addictive disorder, it's why I cant quit chew, it has no benefits...same with this ******* game. I really want to just uninstall and never feel like playing it again, I lose almost every round now due to ****** matchmaking if I'm a light then just about everyone else is or so few assaults they dont even matter, if I'm an assault I'm one of the one or 2. Game is so damn frustrating yet I keep playing it because I cant stop, same with cigars, chew, certain games I just get hooked on even if I dont like it.

I feel like clans will be the things to break me away though. I really just want someone else to take over the ip these devs have made a mockery of the franchise.

Luckily I'm married to a good women, and have a great paying job, which I have been temporarily off for over a month now so have been playing the **** out of this lacking game, once I'm back to work end of the week I can finally focus my addictive personality on making serious money again!

Edited by Darth Bane001, 08 December 2013 - 09:24 PM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

I eat any clan player at the mori

pbiggz, on 08 December 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

A: Don't presume I am ignorant, SIR.

B: Even with "numerical" balancing you seem to think was in BT, most competitive players to my knowledge jumped ship for superior clan tech immediately, proving that if you give people access to better stuff, they'll grind towards it no matter what, every player will either buy it with MC, grind their way up, or jump ship to clans to get it, new players will have a HORRIBLE experience, IS tech will be utterly obsolete in every way, and the IS factions will be devoid of players.

ALSO, riddle me this, if you want 10v12 when facing clans to mitigate TECH, what if a merc company, which PGI has stated will have access to all technology via black market, buys and outfits 12 people with clan tech. NOW its 10 clanners vs 12 is with clan tech, or 12 is vs 12 is with clan tech, and you may as well throw the whole damn thing out the window.

I am asking you to apply common sense here. It's not hard. The clan nerf is coming, and its clan tech and weapons that will be nerfed, NOT the number of clan players you will face. There is literally NO WAY you can rationalize how brokenly OP clan tech was when RANDAL ******* BILLS HIMSELF, WHO CREATED IT, already stated that it was a MISTAKE to make it that powerful in the FIRST PLACE.

If you still stick by your half baked ******-*** argument then I'm sorry, I can't help you. You can stick your head up your *** and live in EZWIN lala land as long as you like, but keep it to yourself.

I eat any clan player in TT at the morning you ignorant flamer *****.

Numerical balance can be that big, that playing clans would be real challenge. Not 10vs12 but more like 6v12, reducing the star to 3, as many did in TT for balance.. And that could be fun for bouth sides. Hunting them out, or rise a honor to chellange to beat actually more powerfull IS. As you poeple are worried so much about power.

[Jonny Taco]

Battle Value can solve the problems here so long as the TT clan damage/range value advantage is not 100% scaled to MWO. If a Clan ER ppc does 11.5 or 12 damage compared to the IS 10, or a Clan ER LL doing 9 damage compared to the IS 8, I think myself and many other Clan enthusiests would be happy. Scalling their tech down to a 1:1 basis with IS stuff is pure idiocy though.

In terms of Battle Value, and MM... First I would break up the games into two game sizes (has been needed since 12v12 was implemented). In terms of IS this would be two lances (8 dudes) and 3 lances (12 dudes). In comparison Clan should have 1 star (5 dudes) and two starts (10 dudes). When matched against the same faction, obviously MM would try and mirror the teams as best as possible, however in terms of Clan vs IS, things get a bit more complicated...

1 star vs 2 lances: give clan mechs and IS mechs about an equal tonage in terms of mech to mech, which obviously puts the total tonage and number of mechs far in favor of the IS team

2 stars vs 3 lanches: each clan mech should be on average lighter than each IS mech. This again gives the total number and tonage advantage to IS while also giving each mech to mech tonage matchup advantage to IS as well...

Edited by lartfor, 09 December 2013 - 07:52 AM.

[Belorion]

So here has been my thought lately...

How does one "balance" the:

SSRM 6
SSRM 4
UAC 20
UAC 10
etc...

I mean, it is what it is. If you nerf the damage, then it no longer makes sense as a item to have in the game. If the SSRM's retain the loose spread, they are still x2 or x3 better than the ssrm2's.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Yeah... Thats why we need bv and HP sizes.

[Karl Streiger]

Belorion, on 09 December 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

So here has been my thought lately...

How does one "balance" the:

SSRM 6
SSRM 4
UAC 20
UAC 10
etc...

I mean, it is what it is. If you nerf the damage, then it no longer makes sense as a item to have in the game. If the SSRM's retain the loose spread, they are still x2 or x3 better than the ssrm2's.

Nice that you mentioned it.... not the only weapons i don't see serious problems to find a gap for them.

LB 2X Would anybody play with a gun that should be able to hit targets at 2.5km but your one pellet hit the left side of the map and the other pellet the right side of the map?

The UAC 20? With current mechanics? That means I'm able to deliver the second shot directly after the first?
UAC 10 ~ range of the UAC 5 but double damage?

ER-Medium-Laser -> same range of the LLAS? 2 ER-MLAS may generate more heat but you hit harder at same range and spare 3tons?

[Jonny Taco]

Belorion, on 09 December 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

How does one "balance" the:

SSRM 6
SSRM 4
UAC 20
UAC 10

First off the current UAC mechanic in this game is rediculous... I'd keep normal acs they way they are but scrap uacs all together. In place, I'd introduce a "Cassete" system for uacs. I'll use the UAC20 as an example.. Instead of firing 20 damage projectiles at potentially half the rof of a standard ac20, it would instead have a cassete of 3 rounds which total about 30 damage, or roughly 10 damage each slug. Holding down the trigger will quickly fire the contents of fhe cassete over lets say 1.0 seconds, the weapon should in turn have a long cassete reload making it's overall dps only a little bit higher than a standard ac20 however higher "burst" potential is available with the uac20. UAC10 could fire 4 shots over 1.0 seconds totaling 16 damage. Recoild or "dispursion" should of course build between consecutive shots. The clan variant should weigh slightly less, produce slightly more heat, and have a modestly shorter cassete reload time.

As for streak srms... Make the ssrm 2 better at hitting "Center mass" than the ssrm4 and of course the ssr4 better at hitting "center mass" than the ssrm6. On average the ssrm6, ssrm4, and ssrm 2 should all be consecutively very slightly more damage to the ct, however large ssrms obviously do more damage to surounding areas.

Edited by lartfor, 10 December 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Helsbane, on 04 December 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

This is one of the reasons that I hope MWO fails and does so quickly, so someone else can grab this IP and do it right. It's becoming less 'Mechwarrior' and more WTFWYT with each decision PGI makes.

If the publishers see MechWarrior does not sale good games, no one would finance such a game. Unless someone can achieve a full kickstarter launch like SC...

[TygerLily]

What I really hope is that all these people who have to run meta, in whatever its current form, will gravitate to the 1337 Clan tech...then we just create a separate queue for Clan players and they can quadruple poptart CERPPC each other while the rest of us have fun....

[Sug]

pbiggz, on 08 December 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

There is literally NO WAY you can rationalize how brokenly OP clan tech was when RANDAL ******* BILLS HIMSELF, WHO CREATED IT, already stated that it was a MISTAKE to make it that powerful in the FIRST PLACE.

Someone should email him and ask what he would change to balance it.

Edit: Holy **** I remember that interview.

http://mwomercs.com/...2-randall-bills

2011 ******** it pgi.....

Edited by Sug, 10 December 2013 - 07:39 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

If I could go back in time and take over FASA Battletech before they introduced clans, this is exactly what I would have done. Make them different, not better. Clans might have alternate weapons like Heavy PPCs or Plasma Rifles that were different, but not stronger, than IS tech.

There is no damn reason the Clan needed to have OP technology other than to sell power creep. (At best I allow that they were also concerned that Battletech was too slow-paced and adding firepower to the game would help its gameplay.)

The story reasons why the clan tech was be better was flimsy, you could just as well argue that their technology degraded because they were stuck on new colonies or in space without an industrialized base planets or existing asteroid mining and production facilities to lean on, and have much smaller numbers, hurting overall innovation. Their only advantage could be that their pilots are genetically engineered and highly trained, something almost no on in the IS was willing to do - give the average IS Mech Warrior a Locust, and he dies when facing an IS piloted Jenner, give the Clan Warior a Locust ,and he kills a Jenner and cripples a Cicada before retreating severely damaged.

Maybe you could try to implement battle value for M:WO and handle it with drop sizes and all that. But PGI's balancing efforts give me little hope that they would be capable of actually making a working BV system (and the TT system doesn't work, because the game is in practice very different, with mouse aiming, real time, rates of fires, heat system and what not).

[Belorion]

lartfor, on 10 December 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

First off the current UAC mechanic in this game is rediculous... I'd keep normal acs they way they are but scrap uacs all together. In place, I'd introduce a "Cassete" system for uacs. I'll use the UAC20 as an example.. Instead of firing 20 damage projectiles at potentially half the rof of a standard ac20, it would instead have a cassete of 3 rounds which total about 30 damage, or roughly 10 damage each slug. Holding down the trigger will quickly fire the contents of fhe cassete over lets say 1.0 seconds, the weapon should in turn have a long cassete reload making it's overall dps only a little bit higher than a standard ac20 however higher "burst" potential is available with the uac20. UAC10 could fire 4 shots over 1.0 seconds totaling 16 damage. Recoild or "dispursion" should of course build between consecutive shots. The clan variant should weigh slightly less, produce slightly more heat, and have a modestly shorter cassete reload time. As for streak srms... Make the ssrm 2 better at hitting "Center mass" than the ssrm4 and of course the ssr4 better at hitting "center mass" than the ssrm6. On average the ssrm6, ssrm4, and ssrm 2 should all be consecutively very slightly more damage to the ct, however large ssrms obviously do more damage to surounding areas.

aka, they are inherently better than the IS versions. Nothing an IS pilot can do will match the same configuration.

[Jonny Taco]

Belorion, on 10 December 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

aka, they are inherently better than the IS versions. Nothing an IS pilot can do will match the same configuration.

They Certainly should be better overall, that's the whole point... However they should in no way be better to the degree that TT figures dictate... In terms of something like a clan er ppcs... 11.5 dmg is "reasonable" 15 which is a TT value is not. As long as overall performance gains increase by no more than 15-20% compared to Is weapons then Battle Value should easily be able to make up the difference.

[Sidekick]

There are several concepts to concider.

First: In warfare, higher technology MEANS an advantage. The tanks of early WWII were completely useless against the tanks that were fielded in the late war. In the same manner, Clan Mechs have a higher techlevel and are better in EVERY way compared to IS-Mechs. So while the game designers of BT accept the issue that the clan tech was a step in the wrong direction, it was consistent with the "real" development mindset of military equipment.

Second: If A is better than B, there is no point in attempting to balance A against B. A is superior, so the outcome of A against B is mostly the same.


How to level this?

There are several concepts.

World of Tanks, War Thunder, Freelancer and other shooters solve the technological gap with tiers whose used charakters (Tanks/Planes/Spaceships/Whatever). So A doesn´t stomp B, A fights against A and B fights against B.
Too bad that we have no tier system. This would enable each technological aera of the MW franchise in a simple system. I still don´t get why PGI didn´t go this route. I would have avoided most of the issues of tech gaps and opend the game to a much larger scale.

The other concept was used in the tabletop and is quite common to strategic encounters. Battle Value/Point Value/BuldPoints/etc. You don´t mach units against each other, but you give both parties the same set of limitations So it´s not A against B but A against 3B.

The third possibility would be an uneven reward system. Right now, if A faces B, the victory means the same for both, while it is a lot easier for A. In this system, the reward of victory would be low for A and high for B, because A is stronger and thus doesn´t need that much efford to win. This system encourages players to handycap themselves to gain more.


By the way... do you get something? The balancing issue of Clan vs IS is exactly the same problem as we are facing with class, weight and role matching.


/headdesk.