1978 replies to this topic

[sierra gulf]

Chimed in already on balancing issues, but forgot to comment on the proposed treatment of omnimech customization. I have to agree that if omnimechs can't swap engines or alter their armour layout, than there should be no alterations to Clan weapon stats, as the former would be disadvantage enough on many chassis, particularly if the Clan rosters are later expanded to include other omnis that featured in the invasion. The problem with this would be once Inner Sphere omni's show up; the Raptor enters production shortly after the Battle of Luthien in 3052. In fact, part of the impetus to develop IS omnis was to be better able to make use of salvaged Clan weaponry, which was presumably not that easy for techs just refamiliarizing themselves with Star League era tech to rig onto IS mechs, especially when most of the Clan gear they salvaged early on was modular, and so designed to be mounted on an omnimech with the connections to accept modular equipment. This might be a canonical vein to explore if the devs want to limit initial dissemination of Clan gear to IS players.

Returning to the issue of omnimech customization, I think in order to preserve the flavour of omnimechs, it is necessary for them to be more flexible than standard mechs. I think the idea of being able to swap body locations (and their associated hard points) with other stock variants is a good way to accomplish this, though it will perhaps be necessary to enforce a limit on the maximum number of hard points an omnimech can have. Contrary to the fears expressed by some, it didn't sound to me like you would have to actually buy the other variants to get access to their body locations, and would either get access to them automatically, or would have to buy the body locations individually as is done for other weapons and equipment. With regard to engines and armour, there is actually a canonical precedent modifying these on an omnimech. In the Trial of Position of Phelan Wolf, detailed in the novel Blood Legacy, Vlad pilots a modified Gladiator/Executioner that would have had to have a smaller engine than what the Gladiator/Executioner normally mounts in order to carry as much weaponry into the trial as he did. Really, there should be no reason that an omnimech's engine and armour can't be modified just like a regular mech. Perhaps the way to go would be to allow omnimech engines and armour to be modified, but have this reduce the omni's flexibility by reducing the number of hard points it carries.

[Scottimus]

It seems to me that every design decision has degenerated to a point that is laughable; who cares any more about the game that this steaming pile of coolant is based on?

Is PGI *trying* to alienate their supporters? This money-grubbing game developer is going where it deserves - the uninstall bin.

I'm sorry I wasted my money on this travesty.

[WarHippy]

Snitchkilla, on 18 December 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

so just got done looking at the 3050 technical read out and guess what all omni mechs have fixed engines, armor and crits for endo/ferro and fixed amount of pod space. that is strait cannon . that is exactly how omnimechs were made so if you are all QQ about these facts the you either A. broke the rules when you played table top B. dont understand that most mech warrior games before missed the mark on how to customize clam omni mech. or C.you are a NOOB and have no real clue what you are talking about . i love how the cries of dont nerf the clans become dont make then 95% cannon either over night ,now all you clanner "my power is over 9000" types will have to pilot omni mech the way they were intended! the way Jordan Wisemen(and if you dont know who that is then you must part of the "C" group) meant them to be played! HA HA careful what you ask for... they way omni mechs were made is well know and the reasons for fixed components? that is one of the ways how they balanced them in table top (that and tonnage limits,more QQ to follow) so enough already buy em or dont. same for the gold mechs, dont like it? dont buy it! and please if you dont want to play this game for what ever reason then dont please leave ... soon !some of the silent minority are sick of all the consumer entitlement and endless QQ and rage on here .maybe if the pgi crew were not continually insulted over every game change they make they might stop to listen to your suggestions but frankly if i was them after some of the ways you people talk about them on here i would take your 2 cents toss it out a moving car ,no one wants to be talked to or about the way some of you talk about pgi employees and you and wonder why you are ignored ?

Right, so let's pick and choose all of the disadvantages from table top and give them to the Clans, but give them almost none of the advantages they are supposed to have to balance out those disadvantages. Oh, and if we are suddenly going to adhere to "cannon" make sure you strip all of your changes from your IS mechs because you couldn't do what we do in the mechlab either, and yes that means you go back to single heatsinks on almost every mech.

As for the complaining it's going to happen in an industry where you deal with customers, and when you have the tendency to insert your foot into your mouth like the devs here do on a regular basis. If they can't act professionally and communicate without being condescending *sshats or just sticking their fingers in their ears pretending nothing is wrong then they need to find another line of work. I have no sympathy for them.

Edited by WarHippy, 18 December 2013 - 12:56 PM.

[Kanis Maximus]

BigMooingCow, on 18 December 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Because their game doesn't resemble TT BT. A few examples:

The value of a ton of ammo is vastly different. One ton of LRM5 or AC2 ammo will NOT last an engagement, for example.

Piercing weapons like the gauss and ERPPC are much less fearsome when they can't pierce. Headshots are not auto-crits, and even 35 ton mechs can stand up to a gauss in the chest with no ill effects.

Heat sinks are much less valuable in MWO than TT. Ever try to use a stock Awesome? It's a worthless mech in MWO.

Pinpoint weapons like lasers have a huge accuracy benefit compared to leading weapons like AC's thanks to the fact that we can aim with our mice.

So, BV will not apply to MWO because MWO is not Battletech. A similar system could be created, and if MWO didn't have all its silly mechanics (ghost heat and double armor and such) it could be very close to BV. But we can't just go look at Sarna for MWO info.

You missed the whole point. No one is saying to implement the EXACT same BV as it is in TT.

What we are saying is to ADAPT the BV system from the TT to the MWO environment.

Will it be perfect? NO
Will it get better after testing and tweaking? Absolutely YES.
Will it be better than what Paul is suggesting? YES.

Plus we would have the Clans as they should be, a bunch of overevolved fascists errr... warriors on steroids bidding who can kick the Inner Sphere's collective a-s-s-e-s with the fewer 'Mechs!!!

Stuff from TT + Adaptation = PROFIT

After all isn't this a Battletech/Mechwarrior game?

BigMooingCow, on 18 December 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Snip

To be honest, I'd rather live with the holes in BV than the holes in Paul's attempts to balance MWO's weapons.

snip

QFT! I totally agree!

EDIT: Typo and some weird double posting...

Edited by Kanis Maximus, 18 December 2013 - 01:11 PM.

[Praehotec8]

Dragunz Pryde, on 18 December 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

if the Clanners loose they will complain about how unbalanced it is, if the IS pilots loose then the complaints will be the Clans are too powerful nerf them more. Its a no win situation and they know it.

Unfortunately, this is the most accurate thing I have seen posted on here. Just look at how many dissenting opinions there are on the subject of how to balance the clans.

Some want BV, some want 10v12, some want 5 v 12 (!!!), some want to force zellbrigen on everyone, some want to nerf the clans, etc.. No matter WHAT PGI does, some will be unhappy with it. I'm not saying their decisions are the best, but think about this while you write your next post: YOUR ideas may also not be the best, or even good, and the rest of us may not want them either.

(you being the general forum population)

[BigMooingCow]

Kanis Maximus, on 18 December 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

You missed the whole point. No one is saying to implement the EXACT same BV s in TT.

What we are saying is to ADAPT the BV system from the TT to the MWO environment.

Will it be perfect? NO
Will it get better after testing and tweaking? Absolutely YES.
Will it be better than what Paul is suggesting? YES.

Plus we would have the Clans as they should be, a bunch of overevolved fascists errr... warriors on steroids bidding who can kick the Inner Sphere's collective a-s-s-e-s with the fewer 'Mechs!!!

Stuff from TT + Adaptation = PROFIT

After all isn't this a Battletech/Mechwarrior game?

You miss my intention: I'd be very happy to put a BV-like system in MWO. It would beat the snot out of ghost heat and doubled armor and clan weapons pushed down towards IS weapons.

My point is that this game has drifted far from Battletech with the changes PGI has made. It's not canon Battletech anymore. The Mad Cat will not be the Mad Cat when it launches in MWO. It'll be a slightly better version of the Catapult with some added arm hardpoints. Therefore BV won't work. We need something in the same vein, but adjusted for the crazy rule changes in MWO. Or better yet, roll a lot of those rule changes back so we need just a light massaging of BV, rather than a totally different system.

This is supposed to be a Battletech game, but my contention is that with all the changes PGI is making, they're drifting far afield of Battletech. It's not just adaptations to real-time combat (ahem, Solaris rules). It's major changes to core systems.

Double armor
ECM vs BAP
1.4 DHS
Jump jet maneuverability, or lack thereof
Ghost heat for even moderate setups (sorry, Awesome)
Hideous ghost heat for canon boats (sorry, Swayback)
Insanely-fast heat build-up in general (try firing three ML's with 10 SHS)
Ability to change ANYTHING on your mech in a moment... even swapping in an ES chassis
Mangled weapon stats
Fighting with leg damage
Fighting with heat
No falling

Rate of fire bastardizations causing upside-down weapon damage rates (ie: UAC5 > gauss, AC2 > PPC)

Now toss on top of this the concept that Clan mechs are IS-equivalent, just so people keep buying IS mechs?

Is this still Battletech? It reminds me more of that situation where we got a Heavy Gear game based on MW2 when Activision lost the MW license. It's like Battletech, but it's not Battletech anymore.

But yes: MWO could use a BV-like system.

[Kanis Maximus]

BigMooingCow, on 18 December 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Snip

Ooops, I misunderstood then, apologies.

[Blackdawn75]

i for one will not be buying any of the new clan mech packs i will just wait and buy them with C Bills
in game when they release if i play at all

[Snoopy]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

This horse has been beaten to death already.

BV - impossible to calculate properly due to mech customisation and divergence in effectiveness depending on map, other team members etc.

(Wasn't a problem in MW:LL, because it's devs played around with loadouts as the liked & didn't implement customistaion at all)


Drop numbers - Most of the people (casuals, not lore-botherers, gamers-rather-than-BT-fans, Clanners) will just go over to the Clans - simply because being individually superior & fighting with more of weaker enemies gives better gaming experience than being cannon (or maybe in this case, canon) fodder. Remaining IS-loyalists won't be enough to populate more number-dependent IS queue.

Entire premise of CW - dead.


As of PGI's attempt - their approach of giving Clans different flavor & different optimal fighting tactic at least could succed. Other MW games weren't balanced at all in this instance - but they didn't have to be, being mainly SP games.


Worked in TT. It isn't TT. Simple as that.

I have to disagree. The horse never died, only many people do not like it because it is EVIL (aka TT)

Do you know how BV is calculated?
If not, are you interested?
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value

PGI could (or better: must) go further and add skill-tree unlocks as an additional factor because they decided to implement a skill-tree (which I hope is already part of the current ELO calculation).

Mech customisation?
That is why BV is existing after all. It gives you a comparable score for each Mech, showing the combat value of (every single component plus Mechpilot skill).

Effectiveness on map?
Same map for all player, same conditions, same change for everyone. Weapon selection was never part of any “technical balance”. Do you know and FPS or (better) strategic wargame sim were the map had an effect on the cost of a single weapon system? I’m not aware and never heard of any, sorry.
If map selections would be a point in the current MWO balance system maps would be plain and have a mathematical layout. Good maps are designed to give both teams the same chances and options but still feel real and rich in variety (theoretical).
If you try to suggest the spawn point A47 in Frozen City-Night (just an example) is worth more or less than another spawn point and this should be part of the MWO balance calculation – please prove it and convince PGI to change it. But as it is not part of any current MWO balance calculation I do not know why we should accept it as a balance factor here - sorry.

Other team members?
Good point – but I fear it speaks against your argument. This is something that will not be considered today in MWO tonnage limits at all. “Balance” in tonnage total will not calculate any player skill or unlocked Mech skill-tress (as far as I’m aware), which will result in a step backwards regarding balance. BV includes the “skill level” as a value, just like ELO.
Total amount of BV (every single component plus pilot skill e.g. ELO) of all Mechs for one side = team BV. Matching team1 BV now with team2 BV.
You can’t get a more precise solo & team valuation system. If I’m wrong, please explain and give an example.

Drop Numbers?
Equal drop numbers only work in an environment where every player has the exact same options, no difference in any aspect, everything else is unbalanced again.
But giving different options and style to each faction/class/group is the foundation of many succesful games.

BV is about balance one side against another by addition of the total loadout of a Mech (every single component) plus pilot skill (ELO in MWO). No difference between providing balance in TT or MWO. If one side gets a “fictional combat value” of 100 points and the other sider gets the same 100 points = balanced chances of winning, decided by in-game skill. Simple as that.

[Kurshuk]

No UI2.0
No CW
Hitreg issues
Balance issues

Clan mechs feel like a serious cash grab. I'm done spending my money here. If I want to have a really expensive dissatisfying experience I can go to the DMV.

As to the feedback to the proposed clan balancing changes. I don't believe PGI will be able to balance the clans in a meaningful way. I think the proposed changes to weight/heat/crits are going to end up creating a new buff/nerf cycle for clans that as they mix with IS will probably never be resolved.

EDIT: I like the ideas for using BV and removing ghost heat.

Edited by Kurshuk, 18 December 2013 - 02:14 PM.

[Snoopy]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

And again - you completely miss the main point - what would prevent majority of players to go over to the Clans and thus make CW (and whole palnned metagame) worthless?

I have to agree and disagree.

The concept of high-tech elite warrior is appealing for many. But we also have to allow for BT/TT/MW fans that will not touch any other faction except “theirs” with a dead stick. Not everybody is a high-tech elite warrior and if you can’t work in the given framework conditions (Clan Honour & Zellbringen) you will not have much fun. If PGI can’t deliver a framework at all … this would not be a Clan problem, it would be major MWO problem.

The point is exhausted by the fact that we have more than one IS faction. What would prevent players from joining only Davion and kick Liao permanently because they outmatch them 15:1? Wouldn’t this make CW pointless? If PGI is not able to provide a specific demand on playerside to choose faction A, B or C … CW will never work. Clans do not change this, it’s only a further choice.

Beyond hadcore BT-fans, CW will only work when every single faction is interesting for a player and they want to be part of “that” faction.

But from what we know regarding CW: player numbers could be irrelevant.
Remember: we can only fight once for each planet and only a fixed amount of planets can be conquered at all

If there will be no enemy to fight, you can’t start a match. There is no PVE as fallback, only PVP. If the queue for Davion-vs-Liao is “full”, the Davion player will have to wait. If the queues for Liao-vs-any is on “demand”, the Liao player can make one match after the other. That’s not my idea, it’s a conclusion after checking all available information about future CW. And it is a problem PGI has to solve, regardless of Clans or not.

This will be a very interesting point in the future and I'm eager to hear more details from PGI on this part of CW.

[BigMooingCow]

Snoopy, on 18 December 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I have to agree and disagree.

The concept of high-tech elite warrior is appealing for many. But we also have to allow for BT/TT/MW fans that will not touch any other faction except “theirs” with a dead stick. Not everybody is a high-tech elite warrior and if you can’t work in the given framework conditions (Clan Honour & Zellbringen) you will not have much fun. If PGI can’t deliver a framework at all … this would not be a Clan problem, it would be major MWO problem.

The point is exhausted by the fact that we have more than one IS faction. What would prevent players from joining only Davion and kick Liao permanently because they outmatch them 15:1? Wouldn’t this make CW pointless? If PGI is not able to provide a specific demand on playerside to choose faction A, B or C … CW will never work. Clans do not change this, it’s only a further choice.

Beyond hadcore BT-fans, CW will only work when every single faction is interesting for a player and they want to be part of “that” faction.

But from what we know regarding CW: player numbers could be irrelevant.
Remember: we can only fight once for each planet and only a fixed amount of planets can be conquered at all

If there will be no enemy to fight, you can’t start a match. There is no PVE as fallback, only PVP. If the queue for Davion-vs-Liao is “full”, the Davion player will have to wait. If the queues for Liao-vs-any is on “demand”, the Liao player can make one match after the other. That’s not my idea, it’s a conclusion after checking all available information about future CW. And it is a problem PGI has to solve, regardless of Clans or not.

This will be a very interesting point in the future and I'm eager to hear more details from PGI on this part of CW.

You're killing me here. I remember MBPT on GEnie. PvE had us all crusading through planets towards capital systems without a care for balance or player counts or matchmaking. It was tons of fun. We had mech outfits, houses, and a metagame to tie it all together. It was simple and it worked.

MWO could do the same, and quickly, but then they'd flush Paul's baby: the pipe dream that MWO is going to become an eSport like LoL or SC2.

[ssm]

Snoopy, on 18 December 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I have to agree and disagree.

The concept of high-tech elite warrior is appealing for many. But we also have to allow for BT/TT/MW fans that will not touch any other faction except “theirs” with a dead stick. Not everybody is a high-tech elite warrior and if you can’t work in the given framework conditions (Clan Honour & Zellbringen) you will not have much fun. If PGI can’t deliver a framework at all … this would not be a Clan problem, it would be major MWO problem.

Of course, I'm against forcing people to play certain faction - I'm more worried about people who actually don't identify with any that much (and I don't mean only casuals - a lot of BT fans just love it as a whole, while not being faction-roleplayers or sth) just following the new, fresh meta and went over to Clans.

Sadly, Clan Honor & Zellbringen are almost impossible to implement in fps shooter - If you do it through rewards, a lot of players won't even care (because, for example, they already bought all the mechs they need), If you try to force it in-game (there is a proposition flying around to literally shut down non-compliant Clanners mechs) it would open door to ridiculous exploits.

Quote

The point is exhausted by the fact that we have more than one IS faction. What would prevent players from joining only Davion and kick Liao permanently because they outmatch them 15:1? Wouldn’t this make CW pointless? If PGI is not able to provide a specific demand on playerside to choose faction A, B or C … CW will never work. Clans do not change this, it’s only a further choice.

It's more of a problem with Clans, because as far as gameplay goes (for now), every faction is balanced agains each other. As long as it's only fluff, it isn't really a big difference, so it comes down to personal likes/dislikes, perceived faction "style" etc.

Clans are real deal - If we implement it outright OP as in TT, it'll potentially break the CW/game, because it won't be only fluff, but diffrent, more attractive playstyle - being high-tech elite warrior with significantly better tech.

Quote

Beyond hadcore BT-fans, CW will only work when every single faction is interesting for a player and they want to be part of “that” faction.

Of course, but the problem is - OP TT Clans are inherently more intersting and fun to play for almost every potential player besides (too few) BT fans who actually identify with one of the IS factions.

Quote

But from what we know regarding CW: player numbers could be irrelevant.
Remember: we can only fight once for each planet and only a fixed amount of planets can be conquered at all

]If there will be no enemy to fight, you can’t start a match. There is no PVE as fallback, only PVP. If the queue for Davion-vs-Liao is “full”, the Davion player will have to wait. If the queues for Liao-vs-any is on “demand”, the Liao player can make one match after the other. That’s not my idea, it’s a conclusion after checking all available information about future CW. And it is a problem PGI has to solve, regardless of Clans or not.

This will be a very interesting point in the future and I'm eager to hear more details from PGI on this part of CW.

I don't want to comment on that - we have too few details about how planetary assault etc. would work.

[Kentharious]

I think "zellbrigen" should still be added and adhered to in the game.

You can have rewards and penalties that enforce adherence. This is the core of clan culture lore, and if players do not like it. They can move to being IP players instead. They always have that choice. This way it would be much easier balancing weapons. Removing zellbrigen is just completely alienating the lore, and I know many will not be happy with that.

Also, I think PGI is underestimating the value of zellbrigen. This MWO community is a very lore dedicated community. And adding zellbrigen will bring a unique flavour to the clans which are lacking in the IP.

Why dont you just run a poll, and gauge the results? It would be an interesting poll to see. Many including myself are interested to see zellbrigen in effect.

Edited by Kentharious, 18 December 2013 - 02:50 PM.

[Azeem447]

My BIG complaint would be on nerfing the clan LRM's to not do damage at 0 meters. This is something that is quintessential to Clan Tech and should NOT be the change made. what about doing the same thing you were planning with the clan SSRM's? Make Clan LRM's fire 2 missle at a time in rappid succession? AMS would eat threw these with relative ease yes but it would shake the cockpit if hit as well, so Win Lose. I may make some more comments later but this is a BIG NO in my opinion. Anyone Else agree with me?

[Daverex]

I was under the impression that Clan tech's ridiculous inability to keep from melting itself was what made it balanced? I guess that's not a big enough deterrent to using them...

I'd just say, crank the heat exponent up to 1.3 (If IS is 1) for all clan weapons, maybe make clan mechs really expensive and have a couple downsides like random thruster malfunctions or something minor like that. Because I think it's funny when players think rising into the air makes them harder to hit anyways, be even funnier if the thrusters sometimes spewed fuel all over the place.

But that's just placeholder, all I really know about mechwarrior lore is what's covered in the MW5 games and mech commander. What I learned from MW5 and mech commander, is that mounting a bunch of clan weapons often made your mechs sitting ducks in hot weather if you don't manage heat very well.

[Snoopy]

ssm, on 18 December 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Of course, I'm against forcing people to play certain faction - I'm more worried about people who actually don't identify with any that much (and I don't mean only casuals - a lot of BT fans just love it as a whole, while not being faction-roleplayers or sth) just following the new, fresh meta and went over to Clans.

Sadly, Clan Honor & Zellbringen are almost impossible to implement in fps shooter - If you do it through rewards, a lot of players won't even care (because, for example, they already bought all the mechs they need), If you try to force it in-game (there is a proposition flying around to literally shut down non-compliant Clanners mechs) it would open door to ridiculous exploits.


It's more of a problem with Clans, because as far as gameplay goes (for now), every faction is balanced agains each other. As long as it's only fluff, it isn't really a big difference, so it comes down to personal likes/dislikes, perceived faction "style" etc.

Clans are real deal - If we implement it outright OP as in TT, it'll potentially break the CW/game, because it won't be only fluff, but diffrent, more attractive playstyle - being high-tech elite warrior with significantly better tech.



Of course, but the problem is - OP TT Clans are inherently more intersting and fun to play for almost every potential player besides (too few) BT fans who actually identify with one of the IS factions.

Thanks for answering!

First I'm also against forcing anybody to play a specific faction. This is a game we want to enjoy, nothing more.


I agree that not all of the Clan Honor & Zellbrigen points can be implemented. But some could be implemented easy, others very hard or even not at all.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Zellbrigen

But I still believe it would be worth a try to make Clans, as a faction, unique.
Exploits need to be avoided at all cost, but I think we do not have to argue about that point at all.


If PGI can't make it worth aspiring to play for IS-Davion or Clan-Wolf, you are right. IS and Clan would have to be different unique features to be attractive. Not all have to be in-game. Some ideas...

• Clans suffering from long supply lines to the Kerensky cluster (some form of maintenance cost after each fight)
  
• IS having homeground knowledge (picking the start location, not random for IS only)
  
• IS gets Mech manufacturer discount (flat 5% discount on any Mech and item paid with C-bills)

These are just some quick ideas to get an impression what I'm thinking about.

At the moment choosing a faction is without any impact at all. But if CW will not only be IS-vs-Clans it will effect all factions. Because of this I suggest to make each faction unique and give it a special flair / feeling / mood.

Maybe the flair / feeling / mood for Clans could be OP tech but harsh in-game restriction and high repair costs.

[ssm]

Snoopy, on 18 December 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Thanks for answering!

First I'm also against forcing anybody to play a specific faction. This is a game we want to enjoy, nothing more.


I agree that not all of the Clan Honor & Zellbrigen points can be implemented. But some could be implemented easy, others very hard or even not at all.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Zellbrigen

But I still believe it would be worth a try to make Clans, as a faction, unique.
Exploits need to be avoided at all cost, but I think we do not have to argue about that point at all.


If PGI can't make it worth aspiring to play for IS-Davion or Clan-Wolf, you are right. IS and Clan would have to be different unique features to be attractive. Not all have to be in-game. Some ideas...

• Clans suffering from long supply lines to the Kerensky cluster (some form of maintenance cost after each fight)
  
• IS having homeground knowledge (picking the start location, not random for IS only)
  
• IS gets Mech manufacturer discount (flat 5% discount on any Mech and item paid with C-bills)

These are just some quick ideas to get an impression what I'm thinking about.



At the moment choosing a faction is without any impact at all. But if CW will not only be IS-vs-Clans it will effect all factions. Because of this I suggest to make each faction unique and give it a special flair / feeling / mood.

Maybe the flair / feeling / mood for Clans could be OP tech but harsh in-game restriction and high repair costs.

I agree that using your metagame (economy/rewards) ideas to balance factions is a really good (and relatively safe to implement) way to make specific factions unique, and I'm all for it.

What concerns me is actual gameplay/combat.

For me, the most important thing regarding either success or failure of CW and thus, /from the sound of all recent feedback threads/ the game, is implementing in Clans in a way that'll prevent massive player migration into Clans, and thus keep IS faction numerous enough to sustain CW.

An for that, IS needs not only "loyalists" (BT fans who identify with certain faction, and will fight for it regardless), but casual players, weekend players and meta-followers.

And herein lies the problem - Clans offer, for those players, more attractive gameplay. Too many players would rather play as feared, small number, high-tech enemy than unfeared, low-tech cannon fodder. Because it's simply more fun.

And that's why people who post otherwise legitimate proposals for balancing original, OP TT Clans (weight, tonnage, BV) completely miss the point, because their love for Lore & Canon blinds them for sad reality - that it's fps shooter, and Clans would simply break it because playing them offers better gaming experience (for significant enough number of players) than IS.

And that's why I'm with PGI on this - if we want functioning CW, we need to nerf the Clans to the point that playing them'll offer experience somewhat symmetrical (but, let's hope, different) than IS.

Edited by ssm, 18 December 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[Frost Lord]

Mezlabor, on 18 December 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

BV makes it too hard for people to play what they want together. What happens when you get 12 guys in a guild who want to drop together and everyone wants to play a clan mech? Then they just can't? Some people are forced to play what they don't want to? BV will work in TT I don't think it will work in a pvp multiplayer game like this.

I think if people want to drop together they will prefer to go IS then drop two people or they might split and go six V six

[Corwin Vickers]

I played the Btech 3056 MUSE for years. We didn't have any shortage of Inner Sphere players. I also played the board game, same deal.

Right now assault mechs, on the average, have the advantage despite PGI trying to balance them yet people still play other weight classes.


Some people like a challege or to at least play something different. That won't change.


I like the BV idea and I see two ways it could work, one which I don't think anyone has mentioned yet but will never know because I don't have the time to stay current with the 60 pages this thread has now.

You do a BV value for all the mechs in the queue AND you allow the IS and Clan tech to mix (not clan tech on IS mechs btw, clan mechs with clan tech and IS mechs with IS tech). Team one has 10,000 BV points, team 2 has 10,000 BV points, balanced.

The other way would be to use the number of players to balance IS VS Clan teams. You could actually do different numbers of players depending on what BV values are available in the queue.

If you had 10 light to medium clan mechs you could go for 2 stars vs a 12 man IS team of much higher tonnage but of similar BV.

Or if you had a lot of heavies and assault clan mechs in the queue you could do 5 clan mechs vs 12 IS mechs, again, with similar BV values.

You'd probably want to mix in Elo in there somehow as well.

This also preserves the lance and star unit structure.

I don't like the balancing ideas to make clan tech equivalent to IS tech. We don't have usable SRMs or LRMs after 2 years? BV would be a much easier system to suss out imo