1978 replies to this topic

[Taemien]

Thariel, on 19 December 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

making is mechs omnis and clan mechs not is an absolute no go.

make it a numbers drop... 16 is vs 10 clans but keep the tech to the lore (no weapon alterations), except the already available engine, structure, heatsnks, armor changes.

told you way before , playing non stock will ruin the game.. now you got it.

to have clan tech in line with the current IS, we need to be able to change everything without any hardpoint restrictions at all (e.g. adding ecm /jj/ multiple-ams to any clan mech).

if you mess with hardcore bt-tt players b crapping the clans, you will lose your economic playerbase. It is the TT-players of old like me, that are now able to spend hundreds of bucks for this game, not some kids who whine-a-lot and play for free. Think about this.

you don't want games with uneven numbers... to satisfy the no-pay-kids, but your concern should be the hardcore bt fans.

Hardcore BT fan here, in fact I GM a BT RP/TT game on a semi-weekly basis.

I say, No.

This is MechWarrior, not BattleTech.

If you want a BT game with overpowered clanners, try MegaMek.

Cept.. a Centurion can two shot a Loki there too lol.

[Victor Morson]

Lysander Voidrunner, on 19 December 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Some smart person said this once - if you have nothing worthwhile to say then you should stay silent. I heartily suggest you heed this advice because right now, I look at you and I see this.

Then why are you posting?

[GalaxyBluestar]

ssm, on 19 December 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

No, obviously you don't. This ain't rts, it's fps shooter. We ain't protoss/zerg players, If we want to balace Clan superiority with IS numbers, we're either Zealots or Zerglings. And we need enough of those IS Zerglings to populate at least six IS factions.

Starcraft Factions are balanced against each other in rather good way, because victory relies on utilising faction's unique advantages agains others, and balance means that no faction is superior (Protoss isn't superior to Zerg, just different*) - and Zerg player doesn't need 11 others to defeat 10/8/6 Protoss ones - he can do it on his own, through skill.

*And that's what PGI want's to do with the Clans.

so you're admiting

a} player population can't sustain both sides, another reason why the community wanted CW before clans to build up the gameplay and resulting in more players attracted to the game. as usuall pgi is bass ackwards.

b} saying a zerg player does things on his own is mindblowingly stupid, by that format every player does it for themselves anyways, you still need 24 zerglings to take out 6-8 zealots and that's how the factions are different one side needs numbers the other is technically more advanced. like say IS and clans. so you agree with us then that numerical advantage and asymetrical balance works in games.

that's the solution to this balance clans problem and so many people see it because it's obvious like ecm was so obviously OP when it was first introduced. i guess the naysayers never saw murderbirds coming just like this latest waste of time to effect a disaster. 16 hunchies can take out 8 stormcrows if you believe that it's not even possible then you can enjoy the mediocirty of more IS mechs in clan clothing with a bunch of bored disgruntled grabdealers joining in the "i never thought skirmish could be trolled wah" crowd.

Battlestar3k, on 19 December 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

@Galaxy Bluestar: Sorry U MUST BE a bloody noob: of if someone buys the clanmechs he pays 2 win, whine whine... damn kids, u STILL NEED to bring them to master or at least elite to make em capable against mastered IS.

so we're nerfing them so all the "pay2win" purchasers get rolled off the bat because they'll all be thrown in with mastered IS opponants and then when clans reach mastered status they'll still only be comparable. so worth the double cbill expendeture of clan tech. only a noob would think about joining clans at this point in time. meta mechs will crush em.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 19 December 2013 - 05:08 PM.

[DELTA111]

Can someone please construct a comprehensive poll on the subject to give an indication of how the majority of players feel.eg should clan tech be a lot more powerful or slightly or balanced, should there be assymetrical drops, can the developers adjust stock weapon weights, etc. Personally, I dont think uneven drops is the go, a few matches of being totally outgunned 1 on 1 will put that in perspective. The clan mechs should be made to be similar to IS, the IS should be able to use clan weapons, the clan weapons should be similar in power but some different types eg x pulse laser,the clan weapons should have the stock weights adjusted. I dont want more nerfing or excessive heat. We need to move away from the rigidity of BTrules, I just want a good game, am not interested in BT lore. A poll will reflect to what degree others feel the same.

Edited by DELTA1111, 19 December 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Taemien, on 19 December 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

If only forcing the best of the best (aka premades) into clan tech is how it goes, then why even bother having the clans when only 5% of players will even attempt them.

This is all assuming clan tech will be on one team and IS on the other. I have seen no indication that this will be true. They seem just like yet another set of mechs available to everyone. At least until CW hits. But if they're are so few clans, then they won't be a viable faction in CW.

I'm big on TT and the Lore. But I'm willing to put those wants, desires, and feelings aside for a balanced game. I liked how MWLL did Clan and IS. They felt different and played a little differently. But they were balanced. A thanatos could go Toe to Toe with a madcat and player skill, not equipment decided the outcome.

But people here want the tech to decide the outcome. "Clan should be Clan" is a cry from those who feel insignificant to their peers, those who feel they need a crutch.

I've seen what outnumbered odds did to clanners in previous systems. 2 Madcats, a Thor, and a Vulture, get torn to hell and back by 3 atlases, 4 catapults, and a thanatos. Superior tech even with good player skill doesn't help. So these arguments about making clan OP and just giving them less numbers is ridiculous. Only premade clanners vs pugs would have a chance in winning. And when it comes down to premade 12 v what? 10 or 8? They're going to be at a severe disadvantage when they go up against IS assaults with little scouters go back capping.

And asymmetrical balance with numbers of players.. you expect that not to be a balancing nightmare?

balancing clans is a nightmare fullstop. there was never going to be an easy way to fine tune it. that said you're absolutely right the clans would be shreaded but there are utter morons in here who think OPness will destroy them all and they still think clans would win even with those odds.

10vs12 has been a common number it's worth testing and in the MWO enviroment if that wasn't balanced then play with the numbers again and tonnage is being looked into anyways. remember past systems were not at all like the MWO one so it's a whole new game.

exactly as you described can happen but there are people who think clans should still be nerfed further. they won't believe for a moment that 2 madcats a thor and vulture could be beaten by 3 atlas 4 catapults and a thanatos. they're OP they'll break the game NERF NOA. unbelievable!

[Lysander Voidrunner]

Victor Morson, on 19 December 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

Then why are you posting?

Victor Morson, on 19 December 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

Then why are you posting?

Because I gave input without calling anyone else's opinions stupid. I also avoided insulting people based on their proposed input. But then again, there's just no way around it. There are many muppets here who just enjoy ruining other people's fun. They criticize everything others say but offer no solutions themselves. To be frank, I don't call them muppets to insult them, I call them what they are. Hell, one is even proud to be one...

[ssm]

GalaxyBluestar, on 19 December 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

so you're admiting

a} player population can't sustain both sides, another reason why the community wanted CW before clans to build up the gameplay and resulting in more players attracted to the game. as usuall pgi is bass ackwards.

b} saying a zerg player does things on his own is mindblowingly stupid, by that format every player does it for themselves anyways, you still need 24 zerglings to take out 6-8 zealots and that's how the factions are different one side needs numbers the other is technically more advanced. like say IS and clans. so you agree with us then that numerical advantage and asymetrical balance works in games.

that's the solution to this balance clans problem and so many people see it because it's obvious like ecm was so obviously OP when it was first introduced. i guess the naysayers never saw murderbirds coming just like this latest waste of time to effect a disaster. 16 hunchies can take out 8 stormcrows if you believe that it's not even possible then you can enjoy the mediocirty of more IS mechs in clan clothing with a bunch of bored disgruntled grabdealers joining in the "i never thought skirmish could be trolled wah" crowd.

a) Not necesally - whether game population is 20k or 80k player, if 80% of them would end up in the Clans, the CW will break.

I don't feel like repeating myself, but do you seriously don't uderstand difference between controlling Zerg as a faction in-game than actually playing as Zergling?

Assymetrical balance may work in some games, but not necessarly this one.

You completely miss the point - of course 24 zerglings can beat 6-8 zealots, and so 16 hunchies can 8 Stromcrows. My entire point is - who in this scenario would rather be Zergling or Hunchie than Zealot/Stromcrow, and will there be enough of them to sustain six IS factions in CW?

Good teamwork is hard to come by in MWO right now, because people generally care more about their individual performance than that of a team - so 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-dependant), majority will simply take it.

Edited by ssm, 19 December 2013 - 05:42 PM.

[Topsytervy]

Iam an innersphere player. I dont see the need to dum down the clan tech. the clan are suppose to be beast. This lead to the use of tactics. Mostly you got lucky and refitted you innersphere mech with clan tech. It also led to the C3 computer and slave systems. but I agree with other people. there seem to be alot of other areas that need addressing first. the grind exp is one. I would like to exp awared based not only on kills or damage but on role. Lt mechs should get bonus exp for scouting/capping. med and heavies could get a savior bonus for intercepting missiles or supporting/assiting other teammates. There should be buildable/capturable structures. These structures could do things like repair/rearm bays, automatic gun emplacements, and NPC tank/aircraft bays. These structures would give a bonus to assult mechs if destroyed by them. A team mission would be great, infact i invisoned the game to be more like the single player Mech Warrior games only with real players for team mates instead of NPCs. The game as it stands is nothing more than Halo gladatoral fighting.

[Micheal Hessek]

Clans advanced technology un-nerfed is okay with me if I can have have real double heat sinks, Hot-Fire/Unguided/No-Minimum Range for LRM's (giving both long range indirect and point blank unguided options), Medium Range Missiles, additional Missile slot in each Arm and additional Laser slot on both Arm/Side-Torso locations.

My founders Mech would finally be useful. At least let the Founders' Mechs Have load-out as Clan-Busters with the additional weapons slots and give each free unallocated module slot (players choice) to denote the preferential treatment that the loyalty of Veterans and Elite units deserve.

Clans could have their high heat generating advanced weapons with their high damage capabilities.
My founders Catapult with 4 MRM Launchers and 8 Medium Lasers would weave through terrain obstacles and unload +100 damage with better heat curve. If Innersphere Mechs can not preform Physical/Melee attacks, then let us have the medium-to-short range direct fire advantage. Because the Innersphere has been using Mark 0 (eyeballs) targeting for centuries.

Micheal Hessek
(Reese)
24+ years of BattleTech and Mechwarrior
Just my two cents worth.

[Smart Bomb]

GalaxyBluestar, on 19 December 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

10vs12 has been a common number it's worth testing and in the MWO enviroment if that wasn't balanced then play with the numbers again and tonnage is being looked into anyways. remember past systems were not at all like the MWO one so it's a whole new game.

Good thing there's a test server that we can use to test things before they go live, right?

[Wolfways]

DELTA1111, on 19 December 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Can someone please construct a comprehensive poll on the subject to give an indication of how the majority of players feel.eg should clan tech be a lot more powerful or slightly or balanced, should there be assymetrical drops, can the developers adjust stock weapon weights, etc. Personally, I dont think uneven drops is the go, a few matches of being totally outgunned 1 on 1 will put that in perspective. The clan mechs should be made to be similar to IS, the IS should be able to use clan weapons, the clan weapons should be similar in power but some different types eg x pulse laser,the clan weapons should have the stock weights adjusted. I dont want more nerfing or excessive heat. We need to move away from the rigidity of BTrules, I just want a good game, am not interested in BT lore. A poll will reflect to what degree others feel the same.

PGI don't take forum polls seriously and don't listen to the "vocal minority" on these forums, so you could make a poll but there's really no point.

[Victor Morson]

GalaxyBluestar, on 19 December 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

b} saying a zerg player does things on his own is mindblowingly stupid, by that format every player does it for themselves anyways, you still need 24 zerglings to take out 6-8 zealots and that's how the factions are different one side needs numbers the other is technically more advanced. like say IS and clans. so you agree with us then that numerical advantage and asymetrical balance works in games.

Oh come on man, you know StarCraft would have been a far better game if the Zerg had crappy sorta-nerf'ed protoss units in the same faction. In fact, we can lump the Terrans in too. One faction for everyone.

Actually that example doesn't fully work because the units are balanced enough you would still probably have a use for everything rather than just flat out shelving an entire faction.

Edited by Victor Morson, 19 December 2013 - 06:56 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Wolfways, on 19 December 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

PGI don't take forum polls seriously and don't listen to the "vocal minority" on these forums, so you could make a poll but there's really no point.

The funniest thing is 90% of the players I see in-game I recognize from the forums.

If they had way more new people than Btech / forum users, they sure did lose them. Maybe because their 'mechs kept overheating and exploding for no reason since you know, anyone NOT in our "minority" would have any idea firing 2 AC/20s causes eight times the heat.

If I didn't read the forums I'd assume it was a terrible bug with the game. Features should not be mistaken for bugs.

Edited by Victor Morson, 19 December 2013 - 06:58 PM.

[Mista Whizzard]

DELTA1111, on 19 December 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Can someone please construct a comprehensive poll on the subject to give an indication of how the majority of players feel.eg should clan tech be a lot more powerful or slightly or balanced, should there be assymetrical drops, can the developers adjust stock weapon weights, etc. Personally, I dont think uneven drops is the go, a few matches of being totally outgunned 1 on 1 will put that in perspective. The clan mechs should be made to be similar to IS, the IS should be able to use clan weapons, the clan weapons should be similar in power but some different types eg x pulse laser,the clan weapons should have the stock weights adjusted. I dont want more nerfing or excessive heat. We need to move away from the rigidity of BTrules, I just want a good game, am not interested in BT lore. A poll will reflect to what degree others feel the same.

We have been here and done this in the past, the polls get shut down by the devs almost straightaway.

[Fetladral]

Wonder if they will keep us up to date on any changes. Probably not.

[LucidFir]

Quote

Quote

I want to ensure you that we will still allow the Clans to have their unique flavor without any type of knee-jerk, heavy handed nerfing.

Flavour is great, OP is not. Feel free to change the rules as much as you feel necessary to make the game balanced. The creators of Battletech feel that the clans were a mistake, from what I’ve read, so **** ‘em. BALANCE is everything.

Weapons.

• Laz0rs.

Quote

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

I think I would be happy for clan lasers to be introduced into the game without any change whatsoever if you were to DOUBLE the beam duration… I think that this will be the single most important mechanic you can change to balance the new flavour. – You’ll test this I’m sure J

• SSRMs

Quote

Let’s look at the Streak SRM/6. Yes, we all knew they were coming, and yes, the potential is deadly but let’s take a step back and see what can happen with current mechanics.

This is where your early proposals of balance fall short of reassuring me.

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.

What you propose will simply allow me a massive array of chain firing Streaks.
What you haven’t suggested, but maybe you have considered, is the delay between shots. I think the delay between shots needs to be significant. Really massively long. Maybe a second.
Remove that second thing about allowing shots to happen during cooldown. You get your 4x SSRM8 mech, fire 8 SSRMs, then 8 more, then 8 more, then 8 more with a second between each volley – then you wait 6 seconds for reload.
Please start with these weapons nerfed to absolute oblivion and then work your way up. You’ve shown with other items (ECM, seismic, etc) a tendency to start OP and then scale back. The only item I can think of that didn’t start OP was the enhanced zoom, which I now think is as it should be.
Also contemplate my above example what would happen with 2 mouse button chain firing… 2 missiles every 0.25 seconds for a very long time.

• LRMs

LRMs is where I begin to have serious doubts over your thought process…

You compare the LRM-20 and Clan LRM-20. You say that you will increase the min range to 100m and the weight to 7. You offer NO other changes… you are aware that this weapon system is still 3 tons lighter and has a better minimum range?

How about making the Clan LRM-20 have a minimum range of 100m, then scaled damage up to 180m as you say. I like that. But make the weight 15 tons. Make the target acquisition time 2x longer. Make the target loss 2x faster. Make the crit slots 10. Make the heat 10. Seriously please nerf the utter [redacted] out of this right off the bat. Your vague suggestions go nowhere near far enough.



Clan BattleMechs and How They’ll Be Built/Customized

Quote

For example, let’s say that you purchase the imaginary OmniMech, the Irate Tapir. You decide to purchase the B configuration because its default loadout fits with your play style.

**** lore. Make this mech. The Irate Tapir should be a 75 ton mech with 10 ballistic hardpoints (arranged so as to make boating machines possible. All 10 in the centre torso, head, and arms. Thus preventing negation of Ilya (although if you were to make a non MC mech that could use LBX-30 I’d be very happy). It should be highly mobile.

---

I don’t really understand what is limiting about your Clan mech loadouts.

From what you’re suggesting, I could take the phract 1x and stick the arms from the 4x on – then I’d have a non-MC mech that could boat LBX-30 (which is all I really want). Your suggestions for limitations don’t seem that limiting.

Unless you’ll do competitions on the forums to make leet mech designs, which you could then prevent being built by requiring a heavy engine (but this could be gotten around with XL)…

I think forcing all clan mechs to use ferro fibrous armour in its current state of design would be effective as a control mechanism. Almost no builds use FF, so it would be wonderfully preventative if it was obligatory for clams.

Can you not offer a wide array of weapon pods (large laser with srm6, ac20 on its’ own, 3x srm4, 2x ac5) and rather than allowing swapping of arms and then positioning of any weapon say you can only use these preset weapon mixtures.

Quote

This could mean that your choice of which configuration’s part you use in each location could change how your Mech plays.

That sounds cool. Whack the wrong arms on and get limited torso twist. Have a more diverse array of ‘quirks’ both good and bad, and then stack all the negative quirks from chassis parts used and only keep the positive quirks from the base mech, as limited by the new negatives.

Quote

We are being very careful

Be more careful. Be as careful as if you were walking tightrope over a valley of ravenous smurfs.

[LucidFir]

I do so love all the comments from people mistaking what happened in the lore - you know? Stories, written by people, imaginary situations - with potential balancing for a multiplayer pc game where players can and will take any advantage given. I'm already seeing arty strikes all the time. Maybe I should give in and get them myself, feels dirty.

[Lokrom]

So, the problem is that clan tech is more potent in a smaller package than Is stuff. Why not simply allow IS mechs to be modified and load clan tech? even in Battletech cannon there were modified inner sphere mechs and those that were based on clan mechs which had the modular hardpoints capability. I mean you could just add an item for IS mechs allowing them to "Omni" a part of their mech at the cost of 1 or 2 crit slots per component ( torso, arms legs etc) thus allowing an IS mech to have clan tech on it. I mean you coudl take it a step further and allow IS mechs to reduce thei rmaximum armor in exchange for ADDING a crit slot i suppose although i'm somewhat at a loss as to how that would affect everything.
If the damage is an issue why not normalize the fire rate.

IS weapon A fires at 2 dmg for 1 heat and can be fired every second. clan weapon A fires at 4 dmg for 1 heat and can be fired every 2 seconds. if we want to keep the damage and heat and range of the clan versions increased without breaking everything why not adjust stats in a logical fashion. i mean it only makes sense that a clan weapon generating more power and having a longer range might take a little longer to "recharge" or for the ballistics to "cycle" the loaders.

The SRM's included. you don;t need to "stagger " their firing. Let them dump missiles out at 6 per however many seconds to keep the damage output potential balanced with the IS version. having them staggered means a lance of is mechs all toting AMS is effectively immune to SRM's of either variety anyway so why stagger them and make it more pointless? since clan tech is SUPOSED to be slightly better why not increase the heat and decrease the firing rate if absolutely neccesary.

just a thought.

[CHH Badkarma]

LucidFir, on 19 December 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

I do so love all the comments from people mistaking what happened in the lore - you know? Stories, written by people, imaginary situations - with potential balancing for a multiplayer pc game where players can and will take any advantage given. I'm already seeing arty strikes all the time. Maybe I should give in and get them myself, feels dirty.

Yeah, I really hate how one military unit always has an advantage over another and the other guy is forced to adapt tactics to win or survive. Oh the huge maniti.


Combat is not fair. Period. If it is fair you are doing somthing wrong. Set all weapons to do the same damage, there is your balance.
How about leaving clan tech alone but making repair and ammo costs very very high to reflect the disadvantage of how long the clans supply chain has to be? Couple that with lower drop numbers attrition would be huge factor in warfare. Oh, my bad. That sounds to realistic

Edited by Jason Radick, 19 December 2013 - 08:06 PM.

[Hidden Sniper]

Is balancing by increasing heat a bit really helpful in the overall power of the given weapon?

I understand, it is a tempting thing to increase when it's a serious upgrade in every way, however, I have one thought. With the tonnage AND slots gained by some, you can put in more heatsinks, and after all, heat is something that comes and goes easily. It is a tricky thing to balance due to this. I feel each item should have drawbacks and strengths given to it's counterpart from a design perspective. I feel just increasing heat values by a smudge don't do this.

The idea of a longer beam time on the laser though, that is a pretty brilliant knob to turn. But on some other items, you need to find ***** like that to turn rather than just increasing heat a bit imo. (The censored word is the plural version of knob. I wasn't saying anything nasty there.)

Edited by Hidden Sniper, 19 December 2013 - 08:50 PM.