1978 replies to this topic

[ViperLam]

Eh...it looks like you're trying very hard to over-complicate things. The board-game mechanics has the only necessary answer to all your problems: 1st- the bidding process and 2nd- 1 star faces-off against 2 lances....See?...Simple...Try it and see if it makes sense...ViperLam out.

[Talrich]

Subject: Clan Technology: A design perspective

Dear PGI,

I agree with your general inclination to keep clan weapons and equipment at TT values for tonnage and critical slots. Changing this would harm too much.

I don't agree with making omni-mech more restrictive than inner sphere build rules. I think that will create too many pockets of imbalance, where certain mechs' stock configuration just don't work.

The clans do need a nerf, and some of your approaches (high heat...somewhat less range) seem about right, though I think you will need other approaches, such as 10 (two stars) vs 12 (three lances), and perhaps even lower tonnage allowance for clans (they bid low, right).

Lastly, I think there's a crucial point not mentioned in the initial post, which is Clan XL engines. Mechs are destroyed with three engine critical hits, which is why IS mechs will XL engines are destroyed when side torsos are destroyed. In TT, an engine critical slows the mech. In MWO engine criticals only appear to matter when the entire torso is destroyed. Adding engine criticals, so that clan mechs losing side torsos are at least crippled, will be crucial to have any balance, and retain a rather key clan advantage.

Best of luck with your game.

[KillerCat]

Seriously what... Why make quirks like these instead of, say, more heat and longer reload times instead. I'm not saying they are BAD quirks (except LRMs and SSRMs that is), but right now it's a mess and makes no sense from a gameplay standpoint (SSRM4 that fires like 2 SSRM2? Why bother with them then).

I'd rather stick to very basic balancing like those I mentionned above instead of some obscure mechanic like my last exemple. Just my 2 cents

[Sephlock]

Quote

•Reduce the max range but still give it a slight edge over IS tech. Change from 750m to 660m for a 90m increase over IS tech.

•Increase the beam duration of the laser to spread damage over more time.

•Make the Heat Scale slightly higher than the IS version."

I really like those ideas, but may I recommend only picking one of the three and just making it more pronounced?

Honestly, I'd go with increasing beam duration while keeping the advantages.

This is because long beam duration = looking cooler (imho) and it rewards skilled pilots who can keep the beam on specific parts of a distant target.

Quote

•Allow only 2 projectiles to leave the launcher at any given time. SSRM-4 will fire 2 volleys of 2 missiles. SRM-6 will fire 3 volleys of 2 missiles. This will stagger the incoming missiles allowing AMS to take down more if the targeted Mech has AMS.

•Increase the cooldown period of refire on the larger launchers and allow the above staggered shots to happen during this time.

People will chain fire them and then other people will complain despite having AMS and ECM and... you know... the ability to shoot back.

Oh noes my screen is rocking slightly, where's my Dramamine?

I don't mean to mock the relatively tiny portion of the population with legitimate diseases, but unless MW:O has a playerbase that encompasses almost all of them, there is no way that kind of whining is at all justified.

That said, I like your idea. Not sure how I feel about the rate of fire change (that is, the cooldown between volleys of 2) but it seems like it could work out alright.


"The fact that the Clan version of LRM-20s have no minimum range is a huge problem"

No it isn't. Please don't make this another "true double heat sinks" issue.

Quote

•Base heat increase to [7]

•Minimum range stays at 180m but LRMs can be fired. The damage ramps from 0 to 1.1 in an exponential curve. i.e. Damage is minimal in the [0]-[100]m range and increases to full damage between [101] and [180]m ranges.

•Possible adjustment to [7] tons.

High heat? I guess...

LOL @ DAMAGE SCALING UP AS THEY MOVE! Are they gyrojet rockets?

Quote

The engine type and rating

•The number and placement of a minimum number of heatsinks

•The amount and distribution of armor

•The armor type and the location of any critical slots occupied by Ferro-Fibrous

•The internal structure type and the location of any critical slots occupied by Endo Steel

•Enhancements such as MASC

•The occasional weapon or other piece of equipment (e.g. jump jets) that is included as part of the base configuration

So the clan mechs are going to be glass canons? Really slow moving glass canons?

I forsee epic whining about super popular clan LRM boats, followed by a hideous nerf.

...

Wait, what about heat sinks in the arms (and legs?) that you swap?

Edited by Sephlock, 17 December 2013 - 03:04 PM.

[Valkery1]

Rather than nerfing the tech to provide balance I think you should provide a faction mechanic, if your clan you get clan tech, if your is you get is tech, if your a merc you have access to both. The rules system in the battle tech universe is perfectly balanced and doesn't require you to go mucking about in it. plus if your sticking with the timeline idea's clan tech should be overwhelming since the IS got ***** during the initial invasion and then began to adapt.

[Javin]

I am wondering why you think inner sphere tech will last once clan weapons appear? Clan weaponry was always better than IS tech. As soon as possible everyone will switch to clan weapons unless you make the tech unable to switch (or require some module to do so but kills a module slot). Who cares if IS tech goes away? Later you can add in Long toms, X-pulse lasers, etc. Heck there are no MRM's in yet. Lots of tech to still explore.

I think Clan tech should remain the same. To equalize everything just make clan mechs cast 1.5 or 2 x their tonnage in drops. Then Clanners can really show how much better they are.

[Allen Ward]

Although I think that some of the concepts might work (=not totally unbalance gameplay) I don't like them. They are complicated and weird. They don't reflect superior clan technology well, how can they? They put in limits that were clearly not there with clan tech.

Why not make use of the matchmaker and of Community Warfare? If players want to side clans and invade/defend a planet, they get x tons of Clan Mechs, other side (IS) gets double that amount of IS mechs in tons. on Clan vs Clan battles or IS vs IS tonnage is even.

How will this work in PUG? Ask the matchmaker. He can allocate tonnage and techlevel to both sides to make matches rather fair. It will fail sometimes, as not enough players of one sort might be available. Then it could still use imposed disconnects (=put less than 12 clan mechs against a pure IS team). I don't see the problem here, why do you have to stick to 12v12 in PUG strictly?

Another question that bothers me: if clan mechs only require you to buy one variant from a usability point of view (one chassis will almost allow you any config required) - how does that match with the mech experience? You have to buy two more, absolutely senseless, chassis to get one to level Elite/Master? How sad is that? Money making? I suggest you make clan players buy one mech and triple or quadruple the amount of xp required Elite/Master it.

I am afraid that there are many more possibilities for destroying the game balance (or gaming experience), I wonder how you guys can start such a huge project now while so many other issues have not been fixed at all???

How much do I want a Clan mech in the near future? Not at all.
How much do I want that LRM5 on my Battlemaster's arm being displayer as an LRM 5 and not as an LRM15? very much! We do have enough mechs, we need more game modes (not a cut down old one), maybe 1-2 more maps, new UI and CW!!!! That should be enough work until next Summer for you. Forget the Clans (for now). If you make this game stable and worthwhile in 2014, everyone will love to buy clan mechs in 2015 (for serious prices, that is).

[Rakash]

Deathlike, on 14 December 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

This balance post is an abomination.

Lasers reference - More ghost heat.

SSRM - "make everything work like chain fired SSRM2s", aka LAZY MODE

LRMs - VIOLATE TT STATS MISERABLY (breaking stock mechs in the entire process).

Paul should be fired for those lazy ideas OUTRIGHT.

Agree with all but the LRMs. Clan LRMs are and have always been ********. Re-establishing their minimums is a good start.

[Rakash]

Well, if you want to balance out Clan tech, give us advanced IS tech to counter it. Match our RAC/5s against their UAC10s, our snubnose PPCs against their ER PPCs, and our plasma rifles against their anything because fire is cool. Clan gear is mostly improved versions of standard gear. IS L3 equipment is insane superscience designed to kill the monsters, and I want that RAC5 so badly I can taste it.

HEAVY GAUSS!

[sierra gulf]

I apologize that I am starting this post a little off topic, but reading through some of the comments in this thread I have to wonder what has happened to gaming. Video games, or games of any kind, should not elicit the kind of anger I am seeing in some of the posts I have read. I care as much about this franchise as the next person (started with the Battletech cartoon and Mechwarrior 2 in '95 and finally found my way to the table top in '01), and want to see this game be successful - and have my own idea on how I would like it to be (I am a closet canon-advocate, but realize that TT mechanics just don't translate 1:1 to a realtime simulator) - but I don't see the point in getting worked-up because balance is off. For starters, I think it is impossible to perfectly balance ANY game (even in a game like chess where the rosters are identical, one side moves before the other). My personal view is that it takes a lot more imbalance to break a game than many of the posters in this thread seem to think. I have played multi-player games of past iterations of Mechwarrior and found the imbalance between Inner Sphere and Clan tech far less...apocalyptic than has been made out in this thread. If you can't enjoy a game unless you have the best chance at victory possible, then maybe you are playing for the wrong reasons, and if you are getting as angry as some posters not only seem to be, but claim to be, then maybe you have the wrong temperament for video games.

(Sorry for the preach-session, but I love playing Battletech and Mechwarrior and seeing them elicit such negative emotions makes me feel that some people are missing the point. Some members of the community may blast me for naïveté in this post, but that's ok. I don't envy the staff at PGI for having to deal with the vehemence of some members of the community; at least the Canucks are winning again! Lets make it 8 in a row!)

Now, returning the the topic of this thread, and despite my hopefully-not-too-snobby spiel about the exaggeration of balance issues, I do recognize the importance of trying to balance a game. I like seeing some of the developers' thought process on balancing Clan tech. While the game does have other pending features to introduce, I do not think that the introduction of a formal discussion on Clan tech represents an abandonment of other issues, but simply a recognition that it will take a while to sort out. With regard to issues surrounding balancing weapons currently in the game, it makes sense that work should be done on figuring out how Clan systems will be balanced in the future at the same time that fixes are sought for current balance issues, since the performance of Clan systems will affect the relative balance of current IS systems. Why make two fixes just to get one out now that will have to be fixed again later.

I think the longer beam duration is a good way to go for Clan ER lasers. It seems like a rational trade-off for their advantages. I am less fond of the potential reduction of its maximum range, though the relative range of IS and Clan lasers have been altered in most previous Mechwarrior games and I still enjoy them.

I also like the compromise on LRM minimum ranges and the staggered launch for 4- and 6-tube SSRM launchers. The note about it allowing AMSs to shoot down more missiles actually fits well the the Total Warfare AMS rules in which AMS can shoot down more missiles from larger launchers. I will add that I don't think it is necessary for SSRM to always hit once lock it achieved; letting them lock and home at all gives them an appropriate advantage over standard SRMs (which, despite popular misconception, do have guidance systems in TT, which is why they don't suffer the -1 t-hit modifier MRMs and RCLs do). I think it is important to avoid altering the size and tonnage of weapons for fear of rendering stock configurations impossible (I like to bring out stock configs for fun and for the challenge), but it sounds like PGI also wants to avoid this if they can.

As for the seemingly reviled 'phantom heat', I don't really have a problem with this for energy weapons. It seems a plausible way to explain how the clans get more reach and damage out of their lasers and PPCs. It's not in the TT fluff, but balancing issues are different in a realtime simulation. I don't think tweaking the heat for missile launchers works as well, simply from an explanatory perspective. While some changes that don't make "sense" (this is an imaginary universe after all) may be necessary, ones that provide "plausible" explanations for differences in performance are more fun. Longer reload times for clan ammo-fed weapons, for example, does seem like a plausible explanation (in addition to their extra centuries of technological refinement) for how they can make a smaller, lighter weapon; less room and weight for a fast reloading mechanism.

Like in the TT, I think there are other avenues to explore for balance beyond weapon performance. While it zellbrigen would be almost impossible to implement in the anonymous setting of an MMO, and was difficult to use and required group-specific adaptation even in TT, there are other avenues to explore. I am sure some of these have been mentioned in other forum threads (and probably in this one; I haven't had time to read through much of it), increasing the weight value of Clan mechs in match making and limiting clan teams to 10 instead of 12 (a good idea for lore reasons anyway) for example. To deal with Clan tech making its way into IS hands, through salvage or purchase , I think the expense rout is good (not to mention the cost of hiring techs who understand the recovered Star League IS equipment to repair and rig it into your IS mech in the first place), depending on how the meta-economy of the game works out. The number of mechs on an IS team with Clan tech could also be restricted. There could also be reduced rewards for players running Clan tech, proportional to how much of the chassis uses it. If players could have both Clan and Inner Sphere 'characters' but with a shared resource pool, this could help ensure that not everyone was just jumping to the Clans as soon as they could, since one may have to fight some battles for the Inner Sphere in order to keep their Clan equipment operational. This may diverge form the developers' vision for faction loyalty however. (On a side note, I also think reward bonuses for running stock variants, especially of underused mechs, would be a good idea.)

Wow that was long! Sorry!

Edited by sierra gulf, 17 December 2013 - 03:56 PM.

[John MatriX82]

They have to balance Clan Tech nerfing it to the ground, because we have to launch in deathmatches with mixed mechs, so Clans+IS vs Clans+IS in the other team.

CW would have solved EVERYTHING by balancing IS vs IS (house or merc vs house or merc), Clan vs IS (Clans vs house/mercs hired by that house), leaving things like clan vs clans or IS mixed with clans only for private matches. CW would have balanced everything through weight restrictions but no.

CW should have been release as one of the first features of the game. Instead of wasting months for 3PV, that none uses, why don't employ those time and resources to have the initial CW? Because it's PGI!

[SteelShrike]

I'm not sure if this will be seen in the sea of other posts, but I have to agree with some of the others. You guys need to look into systems that you're already intending to use, like the matchmaking system, and not just the stat values associated with weapons. I have two suggestions.

1. Clan 'Mechs have a multiplier associated to them on your matchmaking system. IE, a 100 ton Clan 'Mech may be counted as 150 tons for the sake of the match. Keep Clan tech relatively superior, but limit cross faction tech usage.

2. Implement a Battle Value system like Table Top does for match making. Essentially like option 1, but more complicated and precise.

Presumably, it'd force Clan forces to drop with lighter Mechs overall than Inner Sphere forces, but keep their technological superiority relatively intact. Also, consider having Clan forces drop with fewer Mechs overall in keeping with the flavor of their command structure, too.

[CSLaoch]

Alright, so this is in response to all the {Scrap} I'm seeing people post about the clan implementation thread.

First off, somebody took the time to write out for the community their plans on how a major feature is possibly going to work. Lots of game devs aren't all that transparent, and just kinda act like they're giving people what they want (even if they really don't). Contrary to popular belief, this isn't actually TT Battletech. Yeah, I think it would be cool if the rules from TT could be preserved in MWO, but this isn't a table top game, its a multiplayer online game. Some things are going to change, and IMO, their doing the best job they can. These ideas don't sound ridiculous, and I think with fine tuning have the potential to work out just fine.

Also today, I saw they posted about their progress on most of the other things people have been wanting, go read that before you complain (DX11, UI 2.0, etc). Usually, instead of posting a bunch of BS complaints like some 16 year old kid who's parents got him the wrong color Porshe for his birthday, I'm playing the game and having fun. I bought both a founders and Phoenix pack, and I don't feel like I wasted my money. These features are coming eventually, and game developers don't just speak things into existence.

Lets be honest, the current state of the game isn't bad right now. It's perfectly playable for most people. There are things to be fixed, and there is a ton of room for new features and ideas, but this game isn't going to be built overnight. Give it time, go have some fun blowing 'mechs up, read their command chair posts, and if you don't like something, give them some constructive criticism (without typing out a short FULL CAPS HATE MESSAGE U GUYS SUK on every update)

That is all. Party on, dudes.

[DrXitomatl]

I've pre-ordered the entire Clan package. Why? I absolutely love this game; it is hands-down the most fun game I have ever played, no contest. And it is only 5% as good as it could be, so the future of this game has the potential to be very, very bright.

Anybody who just says "**** PGI," why are you still visiting a site dedicated to a game they make? Why not just quit playing the game? And if you have already, why are you still talking about it on forums?

If you still like the game and play it but are upset about the pricing structure, guess what? IT'S STILL ******* FREE TO PLAY!!!! You just have to play it, for FREE, to get the in-game currency to buy the **** they're selling to impatient people like myself for real cash. If you're upset about the grind of the game and how long it takes to buy the stuff: it's supposed to be fun! If you feel like you're doing the daily grind of a desk job, just doing it for the C-Bills, then you probably shouldn't be doing it at all because apparently you aren't enjoying the process.

If you're upset because you are a founder and feel like you didn't get what you paid for, that is somewhat understandable but A.) That's a known risk of funding any project before its completion and B.) There is good reason to believe that many of the things we are hoping for are still in the works and will be implemented. I myself have spent over $600 on this game, so I count myself among the people with the most justification for having negative things to say. While I do have many criticisms, I try to keep them constructive and mature rather than "**** PGI! It costs too much! Gimme everything now!"

And a final comment on the gold skins so many people are pissed off about. Why the hell do you care about that? If you don't want to spend $500 on a gold mech, then don't! It's that simple! Anybody who does buy one is helping to keep the game running for all the people who play for free, so you should be thanking every rich ****** who actually buys one. And they should also be primary targets if they're on the enemy team, because it's very satisfying to shoot rich people!

In conclusion, if you're one of the ragers, please turn down your childish entitlement-driven temper tantrum and return the forums to people who actually enjoy the game.

Edited by Xitomatl, 17 December 2013 - 04:08 PM.

[Foxfire kadrpg]

First of all: Thank you, PGI, for sharing your thoughts on clan balance with us. It is important to garner your client's thoughts on the product and services he wants.

My apologies to all for skimming through most of the replies, but I think much of the sentiment is "We do not want clan mechs to be balanced in terms of their capability, but rather their quantity on the battlefield." There are many other ways to balance the players' abilities than the arsenal available to him:

If not a tonnage disparage; such as 60 tons of Clan tech for every 100 I.S., you can limit the number of clan mech players. A 9 vs 12 seems like a fun idea, if players could opt for "IS vs Clan" in their game mode search.

How about taking out sympathetic targeting for Clan mechs? Being able to fire on targets spotted by friendlies, or even being aware of them is a substantial advantage over those that cannot.

You could even incentivize players remaining with their IS mechs by disabling CBill rewards entirely in a Clan mech. (I admit this idea might be a lead balloon, but it's a thought)

Lastly, since we're on the topic of the Clan expansion, I would just like to encourage PGI to reconsider the pricing of their packages. I understand exclusivity adds value to a purchase, but it also market dynamics that you will make more profit selling 5,000 hamburgers at $1 each than you would selling 1 hamburger at $500 each.

[Nasty McBadman]

Foxfire kadrpg, on 17 December 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

First of all: Thank you, PGI, for sharing your thoughts on clan balance with us. It is important to garner your client's thoughts on the product and services he wants.

My apologies to all for skimming through most of the replies, but I think much of the sentiment is "We do not want clan mechs to be balanced in terms of their capability, but rather their quantity on the battlefield." There are many other ways to balance the players' abilities than the arsenal available to him:

If not a tonnage disparage; such as 60 tons of Clan tech for every 100 I.S., you can limit the number of clan mech players. A 9 vs 12 seems like a fun idea, if players could opt for "IS vs Clan" in their game mode search.

How about taking out sympathetic targeting for Clan mechs? Being able to fire on targets spotted by friendlies, or even being aware of them is a substantial advantage over those that cannot.

You could even incentivize players remaining with their IS mechs by disabling CBill rewards entirely in a Clan mech. (I admit this idea might be a lead balloon, but it's a thought)

Lastly, since we're on the topic of the Clan expansion, I would just like to encourage PGI to reconsider the pricing of their packages. I understand exclusivity adds value to a purchase, but it also market dynamics that you will make more profit selling 5,000 hamburgers at $1 each than you would selling 1 hamburger at $500 each.

I don't think the pricing is too high for a "new buy-in" but there should be an option to convert pre-existing packages to clan equivalents.

[Foxfire kadrpg]

Xitomatl,

I do not vouche for the vehemence in peoples' complaints over the price, but would like to add that any objection at the pricing is often another way of saying "there was SOME amount of money I was willing to give for this".

For myself, I would be willing to spend $40 for early access to a default, non-gold Timberwolf. Another friend I talked with suggested he was ready to drop $80 for Clan stuff.

If PGI makes more money with this price, then I say "more power too them." This game is well engineered, it has the nostalgic feeling I so very love, and I wish to see it further supported. I simply cannot afford the lump sum they are asking.

[LastPaladin]

Victor Morson, on 14 December 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

While there are some good balance ideas in this section, they would [i]only work if the Clan / IS were separate factions and did not cross tech.

Of course, but PGI doesn't really have a choice. They've killed off so much of their playerbase that there aren't enough people left to have separate IS/Clan factions. So, just like the separate solo/premade queues, or separate 1PV/3PV queues, they have to toss that idea in the wastebasket.

[MonoXideAtWork]

Hello!

First off, I want to specify that this is my first mechwarrior game. I recognize that I am not the core battletech/mechwarrior demographic.
Before now, I've never heard of clan mechs, nor do I share the enthusiasm of some of my friends that also play this game. Clan mechs hold no special nostalgia for me, as I've truthfully never seen them before.

Thanks for reading that above disclaimer. Now on to my feedback.

Like many others, I feel uneasy about the clan announcement, so shortly after the phoenix pack release. I bought the Phoenix pack with Saber reinforcement, and am shocked to see another "PREORDER THIS NOW," before I have even recieved the Saber reinforcement pack.

Maybe the preorder page isn't clear, but it seems like you're asking for twice the price for this pack as you did on the phoenix pack, while delivering fewer mechs. This leads me to believe, that the only way for users to get their money out of this pack, is that the new mechs will be overpowered by design, essentially forcing everyone to eventually retire their favorite mechs in favor of the new clan tech.

As for the desire to keep the "feel" of clan technology, please forgive my bluntness (and CAPS) when I say the following: A LASER IS A LASER, AND YOU'RE DELUDING YOURSELF OR LYING TO THE CUSTOMERS WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE BALANCING THESE TO STAY TRUE TO THE FEEL OF CLAN TECH.

It seems that you've already identified that the previous itterations of clan technology left the metagame stale and lessened the game's fun-factor, so I can only assume that in the following paragraph, when you proceed to lay out your plans to retread old ground which achieved a lackluster result, that either this is an elaborate pre-april fools joke, or you have all sold your stakes in this game, and are now planning on running it into the ground.

So what's the deal? Did UI 2.0 fail internal testing, and community warfare too far out to pay your team? Start a kickstarter or something, because as far as I'm concerned, this ship is being crewed by fools, madmen, or both.

[DrXitomatl]

Foxfire kadrpg, on 17 December 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Xitomatl,

I do not vouche for the vehemence in peoples' complaints over the price, but would like to add that any objection at the pricing is often another way of saying "there was SOME amount of money I was willing to give for this".

For myself, I would be willing to spend $40 for early access to a default, non-gold Timberwolf. Another friend I talked with suggested he was ready to drop $80 for Clan stuff.

If PGI makes more money with this price, then I say "more power too them." This game is well engineered, it has the nostalgic feeling I so very love, and I wish to see it further supported. I simply cannot afford the lump sum they are asking.

I fully support the idea of an a la carte system for buying the Clan mechs you want to. I'm not at all saying that things are perfect or that PGI is beyond reproach. There are MANY excellent ideas for improvement over what PGI are doing and planning on doing. It's the tone that bothers me. I'm sick of the whining.