1978 replies to this topic

[1Sascha]

Salacious Sparrow, on 18 December 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

Couldn't we balance it by making lobbies specific to IS and CT? so an IS lobby gets up to 12, and CT gets a max of like 6-8.

dont change the tech, change the lobbies?

That wouldn't take different classes of Mechs into account. 6-8 Ullers vs 12 IS heavies/assaults wouldn't be that much fun for the Clanners, I guess.

I agree that they should nerf Clan-tech as little as possible, so it'd have to be limited by weight somehow. Like I suggested in my previous post: Why not make it "ghost weight"? Each clan-ton would count X% more than each IS-ton towards the allowed maximum tonnage your team can field.

Oh, and yes: I'd definitely would want to see Clan-Mechs dropping only with other Clan-mechs. No mixed lances here if the invasion has just begun.



S.

Edited by 1Sascha, 18 December 2013 - 04:47 AM.

[Ratu]

I refuse to believe that you're considering making CLRMs work that way as regards minimum range, I really do.
I want to believe that you will keep the clan weapons true to form and just add extended cooldown cycles or something but what you've proposed to do to CLRMs is a deal breaker for me. I just don't see how you can claim to love this franchise then do things like that to it.

I really do hope that there will be suitable amounts of feedback on here to make you change your minds.

Regards,
A very concerned Legendary founder, Overlord owner and potential Masakari purchaser.

[ssm]

SuperUser013, on 18 December 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:

Is that in the canon?

Well, it's been sometimes hilariously tried to be implemented into the novels.

But seriously - your proposal is completely off the point here, since implementing RNG would affect both IS and Clanners, and thus nominal* balance would stay the same.

*practically - it'll be just buff to the Clans.

Edited by ssm, 18 December 2013 - 04:55 AM.

[D Sync]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Well, it's been sometimes hilariously tried to be implemented into the novels.

But seriously - your proposal is completely off the point here, since implementing RNG would affect both IS and Clanners, and thus nominal* balance would stay the same.

*practically - it'll be just buff to the Clans.

Thank you for conceding the point.

Clans > IS

Keep in mind, IS mechs can equip clan weapons.

[ssm]

SuperUser013, on 18 December 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

Thank you for conceding the point.

Clans > IS

Keep in mind, IS mechs can equip clan weapons.

Simple "Clans > IS" won't cut it in fps shooter. For CW (and thus, MWO) to succeed, we need sizeable IS pilot population - there just isn't enough roleplayers/let's-be-owned-by-clans-because-TT masochists out there to fill it up.

And so, we have to entice your typical casual player to choose (if we stay canon-wise) low-tech cannon fodder IS mechs over individually superior Clan Omnis.

And mixtech won't solve "too many people going over to the Clans" problem, because if you choose better weapons, why don't just on top of it choose better mech?

Edited by ssm, 18 December 2013 - 05:27 AM.

[D Sync]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

Simple "Clans > IS" won't cut it in fps shooter. For CW (and thus, MWO) to succeed, we need sizeable IS pilot population - there just isn't enough roleplayers/let's-be-owned-by-clans-because-TT masochists out there to fill it up.

And so, we have to entice your typical casual player to choose (if we stay canon-wise) low-tech cannon fodder IS mechs over individually superior Clan Omnis.

And mixtech won't solve "too many people would go over to the Clans problem", because if you choose better weapons, why don't just on top of it choose better mech?

Clan > IS.

Don't reinvent the wheel.

Clan (fewer numbers) vs. IS (greater numbers)

Clan vs. Clan (same number)

IS vs. IS (same number)

Targeting computers implemented, no more aim bots.


There, balanced. Almost 30 years in the making.

[MWHawke]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

1) Balancing by rewards:

Balancing through rewards (your 3% per mech) won't work - enough players don't care about rewards at all to make them meaningful balancig tool. Why would Clan pack buyer bother about whether he'll get 10% more money, If he already has all Clan mechs availble?


2) Balancing by numbers:


Because too many players would rather play as feared, small number, high-tech enemy than unfeared, low-tech cannon fodder, up to the point of completely invalidating upcoming major features like CW.

I hope that you understand that CW will work only if number of players in IS/Clan factions will be at least comparable.


3) PGI's proposal:

I don't think they'll gonna touch tonnage/crits and risking breaking canon builds, so that's already enormous advantage. So even if they bring every single weapon to IS level we'd still need other balancing measures.




I have even better idea - why not just implement two giant on-screen rolling dice and call it a day?

When you get outnumbered in a game and your mech is shaking around from all the hits from your inferior IS counterparts, you will rue the day you said it won't make a difference

Ratu, on 18 December 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

I refuse to believe that you're considering making CLRMs work that way as regards minimum range, I really do.
I want to believe that you will keep the clan weapons true to form and just add extended cooldown cycles or something but what you've proposed to do to CLRMs is a deal breaker for me. I just don't see how you can claim to love this franchise then do things like that to it.

I really do hope that there will be suitable amounts of feedback on here to make you change your minds.

Regards,
A very concerned Legendary founder, Overlord owner and potential Masakari purchaser.

Just to add to your point on LRMs. It could be implemented that you cannot use another player's targeting "R" reticle. This will force individual combat.

1Sascha, on 18 December 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

That wouldn't take different classes of Mechs into account. 6-8 Ullers vs 12 IS heavies/assaults wouldn't be that much fun for the Clanners, I guess.

I agree that they should nerf Clan-tech as little as possible, so it'd have to be limited by weight somehow. Like I suggested in my previous post: Why not make it "ghost weight"? Each clan-ton would count X% more than each IS-ton towards the allowed maximum tonnage your team can field.

Oh, and yes: I'd definitely would want to see Clan-Mechs dropping only with other Clan-mechs. No mixed lances here if the invasion has just begun.



S.

Just use Battle Values!!!!

[D Sync]

MWHawke, on 18 December 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

When you get outnumbered in a game and your mech is shaking around from all the hits from your inferior IS counterparts, you will rue the day you said it won't make a difference

What are you going on about?!


That happens every single day!!!!!!!!!!

[ssm]

SuperUser013, on 18 December 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

Clan > IS.

Don't reinvent the wheel.

Clan (fewer numbers) vs. IS (greater numbers)

Clan vs. Clan (same number)

IS vs. IS (same number)

Targeting computers implemented, no more aim bots.

See above (although forcing only Clan vs. Clan and Is vs. Is would solve entire problem)

There, balanced. Almost 30 years in the making.
See above, irrelevant

MWHawke, on 18 December 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

When you get outnumbered in a game and your mech is shaking around from all the hits from your inferior IS counterparts, you will rue the day you said it won't make a difference

Just to add to your point on LRMs. It could be implemented that you cannot use another player's targeting "R" reticle. This will force individual combat.

Point on being outnumbered - it can happen regardless, but given the state of teamwork in typical PUG play majority of the playerbase would choose less teamwork dependant (individually superior) Clan mechs over IS ones. Teamwork becomes significant only where other factors are fairly balnced - if you give players alternative to it (superior tech making them less team-depaendant), majority will simply take it.



As of LRMs - well, if it'll make them significantly worse in-game, majority would just swap them out for Energy/Ballistic.

Edit: BV can't be properly calculated because of customisation and divergence of effectivness on different maps and among different teammates.

Edited by ssm, 18 December 2013 - 05:47 AM.

[BurningRanger]

More ideas:
Usually Clans are pure 1 on 1 warriors. They don't like stuff like Artillery/Airstrike or any other indirect advantages, because they see them as dishonourable. So don't give them those abilities from the Pilot Tree.

A way to implement Zellbrigen would be to cut down the gained (G)XP, maybe even to zero, if a Clan player breaks Zellbrigen himself (if the opponent breaks it first, you're free to do it, too, without any punishment). I can imagine this hard to implement though.

You can also make XP gains very slow with Clan Mechs overall. Clan Warriors are meant to be very skilled, so they don't learn too much from battles anymore.

[D Sync]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

Point on being outnumbered - it can happen regardless, but given the state of teamwork in typical PUG play majority of the playerbase would choose less teamwork dependant (individually superior) Clan mechs over IS ones. Teamwork becomes significant only where other factors are fairly balnced - if you give players alternative to it (superior tech making them less team-depaendant), majority will simply take it.



As of LRMs - well, if it'll make them significantly worse in-game, majority would just swap them out for Energy/Ballistic.

No reason to "fix" it until the break it.


List of broken things:

Matchmaking
Maps
Heat
ALL MISSILES
Spiders
Catapults
ect..
ect..
ect..

Edited by SuperUser013, 18 December 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[ssm]

SuperUser013, on 18 December 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

No reason to "fix" it until the break it.


List of broken things:

Matchmaking
Maps
Heat
ALL MISSILES
Spiders
Catapults
ect..
ect..
ect..

Well, for the lack of details - I recommend going back to TT or other, more balanced MW games. Also, even making everything "perfect" wouldn't solve whole IS vs. Clan problem, because root of it lies in completely unrelated to game balance player/community behaviour.

Edited by ssm, 18 December 2013 - 05:50 AM.

[ravenkk]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

Simple "Clans > IS" won't cut it in fps shooter. For CW (and thus, MWO) to succeed, we need sizeable IS pilot population - there just isn't enough roleplayers/let's-be-owned-by-clans-because-TT masochists out there to fill it up.

And so, we have to entice your typical casual player to choose (if we stay canon-wise) low-tech cannon fodder IS mechs over individually superior Clan Omnis.

And mixtech won't solve "too many people going over to the Clans" problem, because if you choose better weapons, why don't just on top of it choose better mech?

SSM i assume from your way of wording you work for PGI?

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

Point on being outnumbered - it can happen regardless, but given the state of teamwork in typical PUG play majority of the playerbase would choose less teamwork dependant (individually superior) Clan mechs over IS ones. Teamwork becomes significant only where other factors are fairly balnced - if you give players alternative to it (superior tech making them less team-depaendant), majority will simply take it.

and you know that beacuse of?

[ssm]

ravenkk, on 18 December 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

SSM i assume from your way of wording you work for PGI?

Of course I'm not. Honestly - I want that game to succeed mainly because I'd like Alex Iglesias and his team to churn out those incredibly beautiful BT mechs till 2020 and beyond (And 3D printing to become a lot cheaper on the way)

But regardless of wording, do you at least concede I might have a point there?

That success of this game is largely dependant on success of CW, and (regardless of how actual CW will function) if majority of players would go over to the Clans, CW, and thus MWO, would probably fail?

Edited by ssm, 18 December 2013 - 05:57 AM.

[RJF Gnom]

We (all real fans) want the game made ​​by the canons, these canons are fine-tuned over the years, and you want to offer us a game similar to mechwarrior, rules invented for 10 minutes, and then a long time to refine them. Do you think if we fans of the series mechwarrior whether we want to play your game or do we want to play mechwarrior? Maybe you reconsider your attitude to the canons?

[ssm]

ravenkk, on 18 December 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

and you know that beacuse of?

Ok - look at the state of teamwork in game now - not a lot of planning, not a lot of strategy, people running around, chasing the kills, flinging epeens around etc. If it wasn't so, most of the playerbase would be already playing 12-mans or at least use TS.

That's typical player behavior there - people like to attribute their success to their individual skill, not to others.

Currenly, teamwork is somewhat deterimental to victory - usually, team that is better at it, wins. And that's because, baring matchmaker failures, skill & teamwork are at the forefront - as tech is mostly the same.

Now, if we try to introduce into this enviroment an altarnative in form of the Clans, whose success, because of lower numbers & better tech will be less dependant on teamwork (than IS - because numbers would be only thing going for them) and more on individual skill, what do you think those players would do?

gnommer, on 18 December 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

We (all real fans) want the game made ​​by the canons, these canons are fine-tuned over the years, and you want to offer us a game similar to mechwarrior, rules invented for 10 minutes, and then a long time to refine them. Do you think if we fans of the series mechwarrior whether we want to play your game or do we want to play mechwarrior? Maybe you reconsider your attitude to the canons?

I am a real fan of canon & lore, but I'm certain adhering to it would simply kill this game.

Edited by ssm, 18 December 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[D Sync]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Well, for the lack of details - I recommend going back to TT or other, more balanced MW games. Also, even making everything "perfect" wouldn't solve whole IS vs. Clan problem, because root of it lies in completely unrelated to game balance player/community behaviour.

Fixing the problem is simple, reread what I posted before.

[ssm]

SuperUser013, on 18 December 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

Fixing the problem is simple, reread what I posted before.

All you are post detail-lacking one-liners, I'm afraid.

"Fix everything I want to be fixed" and "Let's just implement random number generator from TT to balance FPS shooter" aren't very informative arguments, don't you think?

Edited by ssm, 18 December 2013 - 06:21 AM.

[ravenkk]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

Of course I'm not. Honestly - I want that game to succeed mainly because I'd like Alex Iglesias and his team to churn out those incredibly beautiful BT mechs till 2020 and beyond (And 3D printing to become a lot cheaper on the way)

But regardless of wording, do you at least concede I might have a point there?

That success of this game is largely dependant on success of CW, and (regardless of how actual CW will function) if majority of players would go over to the Clans, CW, and thus MWO, would probably fail?

maybe, but you idea are base on you assumption that people do not like to have numbers advantage to other team and will

less likely to go for IS Mech once more powerful Clan one are out. we do not know the statistic for mech use rate:

i would give a example eg: "there was once upon time that people worried Atlas would be the one and only

mech on the match" AKA get Atlas or else kind of thing.

However as it turn out: in most match Atlas is around 25% to 35%, you still seen large number of other

mech.


You may have a point.

however rather than make people less likely to buy Clan pack Now and play MWO in near further , because

they felt the PGI change the Game and (spend Money and time to balance the mech and tech! which could

be used on other thing).


They would Better of introduce the Clan tech and mech with out change it and see how it go, if there a major

problem them balance it, which are what happened to IS mech in the past. (Remember the PPC and ghost

heat? back than you could use 6 PPC on a starker. good time )

Edit spelling and format, it 1 am here. will replay any post after zzz.. good night guys.

Edited by ravenkk, 18 December 2013 - 06:25 AM.

[BigMooingCow]

Clementine, on 17 December 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

I am going to destroy all of you in my Timber Wolf. Thank you PGI.

No you won't, cause none of us will be playing. The only people left will be all you guys who will buy anything PGI puts out, no matter the price tag, and a trickle of new users who play briefly before discovering the game is only for the Whales, and head off for some other random stompy robot game, like Hawken.

SuperUser013, on 18 December 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:

Is that in the canon?

What in MWO is still canon? Anything? Is this still Battletech?