Yes, but what is a "Clanteam" ? A team that has just one Mech or is completly Clan?
Will Inner Sphere mechs updated with Clantech count as Clanmechs, or not? What about random matches? How do you want to balance those IS-clantech mechs with Clanners? Most ideas I've seen to this topic are totally nonsence and will break the game totally by unbalancing the teams. So it will be out of nonsence to introduce the clans and make the MM uneven.
And please stop comparing MW:O with the TT
PS:
Light travels faster than sound!
This is why some people appear bright before they speak!
Good points around how to classify a team as "clan". Given that this is an invasion I would envisage thus being a team consisting of clan only mechs. I don't think IS mechs using clan weapons should fall under this.
It wasn't my intention to quote the TT directly. I haven't even played it however I ink there is a danger that clan tech will end up with little advantage over IS tech.
Good points around how to classify a team as "clan". Given that this is an invasion I would envisage thus being a team consisting of clan only mechs. I don't think IS mechs using clan weapons should fall under this.
It wasn't my intention to quote the TT directly. I haven't even played it however I ink there is a danger that clan tech will end up with little advantage over IS tech.
But there is still a question not answered, even by PGI.
Will (or should) IS-Mech get Clan-tech?
When this is answered ( I didnt't recognised anything to that topic) there is a better way to discuss how to balance IS and Clan-tech.
But there is still a question not answered, even by PGI.
Will (or should) IS-Mech get Clan-tech?
When this is answered ( I didnt't recognised anything to that topic) there is a better way to discuss how to balance IS and Clan-tech.
Initially I think clan mechs should be clan only. I could envisage weaponry being fitted to IS mechs however. As the invasion progresses more tech could be made available to IS, perhaps only starting with some basic weaponry and movingon from there.
The earlier posts around salvage and repair costs sound like a good idea however it would take a lot of development time I suspect. Didn't they remove repair costs anyway?
All of your proposed changes are overly complex and trying to balance the IS/Clan technology is a problem of fundamentals. There is a very simple solution to every meta problem MWO has experienced and it's called "an economy". There have been some great suggestions in here, and combined with an economy MWO would function like every other successful game. The reason TT, including Clans, worked is because there was accountability on the player.
1) Bring back repair and increase the costs. A $5M mech has 5 appendages and a head. Lose an arm, $100k repair bill plus what was mounted on it. Lose a CT, $200k plus whatever was in there. Now a match that turns out $100k in earnings won't cover the cost of your recklessness. You'd have to tone down the current model of appendage loss, but a destroyed appendage has a cost, and it should be proportional to the cost of the mech.
2) Bring back reload costs. Ballistics are very powerful. Their downside is supposed to be the ammo. Without a cost associated to fire it, of course the AC20 rules. When that AC20 costs $5k a shot, now you have a game. Still useful but no one is going to boat an AC20 and fire 40 shots a round @ $200K in ammo, at least not for long.
3) Introduce loss & salvage. When you're downed there should be a % chance to lose a weapon to salvage, and gain one as a victor. The salvage concept may be too complex to introduce, but the loss of a weapon hurts, badly. Boating 6 PPCs and losing one on death, +2 more that were destroyed, will make people think twice about their load outs.
4) Profiles and factions. Profiles are a great idea. Do that. You're IS or Clan - nare the two shall meet. Period. Within a side, you have factions. You can join any faction or go merc. Each gets a bonus. Merc's get 100% boots to CBills, you know, cause you get PAID. Factions, they get things like free weapon replacement on loss and repair cost reductions, cheaper energy weapons, cheaper ballistic ammo, etc. You could have levels of bonuses, rewarded for your wins or time for your faction. You can change factions for sure, but it's going to cost 2K MC and you lose your benefits from your tenure in your last faction. There, you make your money, people can change but they aren't going to be FOTM hopping or gaming the system.
A high cost penalty will greatly reduce the erratic gameplay you see today. It won't stop you from doing your own thing but you will see a much more conservative load out practice overall. Clans have their technology boon, as they should, but have economic values that pressure a Clan member to play like a Clan member. You can tie this to warfare, they who control certain areas get boosts. If your faction is attacking a location that has multiple connected regions held by the same enemy, that increases the likelihood the enemy will get in and salvage more from your downed mechs before you get in to pick them up.
Do this and I believe most of your problems in the meta go away simply because they arose from a complete lack of accountability on the players side and will have players grouping better, coordinating better (because there is actual value in coordination beyond a W/L) and feeling like there is something larger at work that just load/stomp/shoot/die/repeat.
That system simply will not work with this game.
The system you are referencing was designed much like D&D - there was an arbitrary existence from which one gained economy and salvage. You, as the player, were always expected to overcome the obstacle - while not all obstacles were overcome and the failure hurt - the system was set up with the idea of emulating actual military operations.
Example - your job is to get in and sabotage a factory (blow it the **** up). The only primary objective you have is to blow up a building. Engaging into combat with anything else is optional and discretionary. Deciding to go into combat comes with the potential reward of salvage and may earn you a bonus on your contract. However - you're not going to engage a lance of Atlases with your little squad of Jenners. The risk/reward is far too skewed. Now, you may jump on one of those Atli as a lance if he is separated, and after you've completed your primary objective. You may even engage a second, if he is also isolated - but you're going to break contact and **** when your team starts losing arms or leg armor starts getting worryingly low.
There are other balance concerns when you introduce the idea of "open" warfare as opposed to "Team Solaris in a Box Canyon." Namely - that a lot of balance issues work themselves out. AC40 jagers may be powerful mech-busters, but it's a long damned walk to the enemy base (where you are guaranteed a confrontation) - and you may encounter anything from infantry platoons to fixed-wing bombers - along with the stompy robots you are designed to kill.
The game was supposed to include "role warfare" - but the only real role one can play in this game is some variety of mech killing platform. Even scouting is unnecessary - the map sizes, objectives, and known numbers of enemies allow people to make absolutely insane 'battlefield' logic work. If a team knows there is roughly one lance moving together - they'll move as a team to crush that lance - knowing it will gain them a numerical advantage and knowing that precious buildings aren't going to go up in flames - and that the whole thing isn't a set up (because everyone starts at the same time).
If we were to do as you suggest - the costs would be -way- too expensive, as most games end with only a few people alive at the end of the match - and you're doing exceptionally well to break 200K on a match (even with premium time).
Lygris Targerian, on 22 December 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:
Guys, you disrespect the developers' work, call them liars or worse and presume they will F it up anyway. How can you expect them to take you seriously or value your oppinion?
You say they propably can't get your trust back, even if they do everything you want them to. Then why should they even try?
It's not constructive criticism to tell them again and again that they can't, in your oppion, do anything right.
Don't you realize that you won't achieve anything this way except beeing ignored?
You have to understand something:
I grew up in business. My uncle and father jointly ran a factory. My father would be flown in by companies to consult on the design of parts (Garmin, Bosch&Lomb, etc). I grew up under the environment of bringing things from concept to reality. I've done my own fair share of development (for a man-boy of my age) - some of it in the area of software and programming.
The developers are not "Up there" in my perspective of the world. Ten years ago - I might have felt that way - but that was before I encountered enough reality to put my view of adults in check (most are just as stupid or smart as they were in high school - it's just now they are given more money to be stupid or smart with).
The other reality is that we, here on the forums, are a small portion of the people who play this game. We are, also, a small portion of the paying population. While our demographics may be a skewed representation of the actual customer base - the fact is that PGI has a responsibility to the paying customers.
I've bought at least $20 in MC (can't remember how much) and spent another $80 on Overlord. That's twice as much as I spend on the average computer game. That's more than what I spent to buy Halo 4 when it was new - and that came with content they hadn't even fully released yet on Xbox Live.
Now - I understand that a Halo game is almost guaranteed 3 million sales of copies at the initial MSRP - so they can spread their development costs over far more copies - but a healthy percentage of every sale is to cover the manufacturing and shipping of the media (DVD).
What PGI is doing is comparable to "The WarZ" scandal - spare for the developers aren't threatening people who request refunds. Broken gameplay that has gone unfixed for over a year, now - but microtransactions and package purchases are fully functional (no bugs in those systems).
I fully expect his coverage of 2013 to include MWO - unless there have been some absolutely spectacular examples that I'm not aware of.
I love these arguments that state "IS are more Omni than Omnimechs". It shows they didn't read the entire thing.
I can't put a Gauss Rifle or a AC20 on an AWS-9M Awesome.. but a Clanner can put one on his Masakari Prime by swapping an arm from the Bravo variant. And you're going to tell me that IS mechs are more omni than omnimechs? You all want to explain this a bit?
I love these arguments that state "IS are more Omni than Omnimechs". It shows they didn't read the entire thing.
I can't put a Gauss Rifle or a AC20 on an AWS-9M Awesome.. but a Clanner can put one on his Masakari Prime by swapping an arm from the Bravo variant. And you're going to tell me that IS mechs are more omni than omnimechs? You all want to explain this a bit?
You cannot change heatsink locations. Rest assured that any creativity you think you're going to express is going to be hindered by the cleverly placed double heat sink that you cannot, for the life of you, move.
While some chassis will run single heat sinks - you won't be able to change those. So good luck with that.
Armor cannot be moved or added/removed, EndoSteel and other options cannot be added/removed - which means you are going to be playing with very little tonnage for weapons and ammo.
Consider that, according to the rules, the types of changes we are making to our mechs between drops are depot-level refits that potentially require weeks of work and a considerable investment of C-bills (beyond just the cost of parts).
So, yes - IS standard mechs are more omni than omnimechs.
But this type of system is par for the course with PGI.
That there has been nothing done with the inner sphere to really get people interested in Houses. So ya, why not Clan
Clan tech was always going to be a problem.. From the start.. Before you sat down and started writting the game. You clearly have NO idea what you are doing with these proposed weapon and mech 'fixes' to 'balance' Clan tech and this is post- *cough* beta. This is when you actually need to have your stuff together. For reals.
And now you are asking for more money? for stuff that, not only hasnt got any stats attached, but may actually be total {Scrap} after your hairbrained re-balancing act.... you are asking us to trust you when you clearly havent got any kind of sound plan laid out, and your previous one's havent been good (Ghost-Heat, Gauss change, leaving Beta status.....)
If you want constructive thoughts, see the end of this post..
-Better match making: purposfully unbalance team numbers to make up for 'better' mech builds and player ELO. (battletech method - Clans can put more Gauss on 1 mech, InnerSphere can bring more Gauss equiped mechs.)
-Mech 'Quirks' to balance Basic tech differences between Clan and IS mechs (give 'Quirks' to IS mechs only and use that to 'buff' them rather than nurfing Clan Omni's)
-Like mech 'Quirks', the Pilot skill tree's for Clan and IS could also be a fundemental balancing point... deny Clan mechs access to High Heat Tollenance Skills - thus reduing the effect of their potential alpha lest they want to overheat.
Edited by Phantomime, 22 December 2013 - 12:10 PM.
How are ER PPC's going to be balanced? With the intro of the clans we'll now have standard PPC, IS ERPPC & clan ERPPC. Current nerfs to PPC's make using 2 tough let alone 3. The Warhawk sports 4 in it's standard variant. How will that get rebalanced?
Also, with the advent of Clan UltraAC's, everyone will be boating them as they boat AC's now. Heaven help us if you can mount 2 or more UltraAC/20's.
You cannot change heatsink locations. Rest assured that any creativity you think you're going to express is going to be hindered by the cleverly placed double heat sink that you cannot, for the life of you, move.
While some chassis will run single heat sinks - you won't be able to change those. So good luck with that.
Armor cannot be moved or added/removed, EndoSteel and other options cannot be added/removed - which means you are going to be playing with very little tonnage for weapons and ammo.
Consider that, according to the rules, the types of changes we are making to our mechs between drops are depot-level refits that potentially require weeks of work and a considerable investment of C-bills (beyond just the cost of parts).
So, yes - IS standard mechs are more omni than omnimechs.
But this type of system is par for the course with PGI.
Little play with tonnage? Have you even seen the stats on clan weapons? Their PPC take 2 criticals. Meaning you can put it in a CT. Their ER Large Laser takes ONE critical, meaning if there's a energy slot there, you can mount it in the head, or two in the CT. Can't change speed, dunno if you've seen the speeds on those mechs, but they don't need more. Their heavies, stock, go the same speed as some mediums being fielded currently. As for armor, ok they become glass cannons... some of which we see here already in the form of AC40 Jagers and crazy catapults. Seeing as there were numerous nerf calls for such mechs, I'm sure the clan versions will do fine if not better, even with 'balanced to IS' weapons.
And your heatsink argument is a bit flawed. Their double heatsinks only take 2 slots, not 3. The ONLY 3050 era Clan mech that mounts SHS is the Behemoth which is a BATTLEMECH which means it can be upgraded to doubles as normal. Sorry all era specific Omnimechs use DHS. Thats your Daishi, Gladiator, Masakari, Man'o'war, Madcat, Thor, Loki, Vulture, Ryoken, Blackhawk, Fenris, Dragonfly, Puma, Uller, Koshi, and Dasher. Some of your slightly later mechs such as the Cauldron Born, Shadowcat, ect have DHS too.
The only clan mechs that don't are BattleMechs. Which can be upgraded as I said above. I guess you could make an argument that Omni's are UP because they CAN'T mount Single Heatsinks... oh noes! See how far that takes ya.
Khragg, on 22 December 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:
How are ER PPC's going to be balanced? With the intro of the clans we'll now have standard PPC, IS ERPPC & clan ERPPC. Current nerfs to PPC's make using 2 tough let alone 3. The Warhawk sports 4 in it's standard variant. How will that get rebalanced?.
2 in Weapon group 1
2 in Weapon group 2
Left click, then right click.. you just wrecked someone's day. The Masa will do fine. Just take off the LRM10 and put on more DHS. Or take an arm off and slap on the left one from the Bravo. Now you have a Gauss and two CERPPCs.
Ok, I haven't read through all 70 pages of replies on this topic, but I thought I would just give you guys my 2 cents. I'm sure other people have expressed similar ideas already, so I'm just going to add my voice to the crowd.
My opinion is that Clan and IS tech should be kept completely distinct from each other, and that players can have multiple pilots associated with their account. It would be sort of like the Horde and Alliance in WoW. For example, a player could have a Clan pilot and an IS pilot, each with their own separate pilot trees. Only Clan mechs could equip Clan tech and only IS mechs could equip IS tech, but players would be given the chance to play with both.
I also think that you should bring the balancing in with drop weight limits, instead of nerfing the Clan tech. Like someone posted earlier, make a Clan mech be worth 1.5x the tonnage of an IS mech. For example, in a match with a 300 ton limit (and a variable number of mechs in the drop), you could have 3 Atlases going up against 2 Daishis. I'm not a Battletech expert, but that sounds like a balanced fight to me.
I don't like this talk of Clan weapons being like IS weapons except they require more skill to handle. It's substituting progression for balance. It would be like if Blizzard had made Protoss units cost the same as Zerg units, except they required 2 clicks to perform every action instead of 1. The newbies would be exclusively playing Zerg and the pros would be exclusively playing Protoss, and the balance would be out the window.
I know I'm repeating myself, but I really think the solution is to introduce balance through drop weight limits. Clan tech is just better than IS tech; that is the only way to stay true to the source material. I haven't read any of the books, but I think that implementing this kind of system would encourage the following strategies: the IS teams would have to use their superior numbers to perform flanking maneuvers and ambushes to take down Clan mechs one by one, while the Clan teams would have to draw the IS mechs out into open ground where they could be crushed by their superior weapons.
By the way, I think your idea about swapping out hardpoints on omnimechs is really clever. I think that could work very well if you implement it right. There are a lot of mech games I've played, like Front Mission and Armored Core, that use this kind of system where you customize the arms, legs, etc, individually. However, some of your "drawbacks" seem a little extreme.
I think you could actually balance this kind of system with CBills. Say you buy a Clan mech, which has all the same customization options as an IS mech, but in addition, you can swap out the arms, etc, for another variant. This increases your customization options, but your Clan mech can only equip Clan weapons, which are more expensive (say 1.5x their IS counterparts).
Anyways, I've only been playing for a couple months, but I think you guys have a really fun game here. You should take your time with this Clan tech business. As far as I know, people aren't really screaming for Clan tech; they're screaming for CW, UI 2.0, etc. So get that stuff out of the way and THEN roll in the Clans. That's my opinion.
Location666 Werewolf Lane. Transylvania, Romania Ph#: Transylvania 6-5000
Posted 22 December 2013 - 03:38 PM
I can see it now! A Daishi (Dire Wolf) with four AC 20's or UAC 20's. great! an Ultra 20 boat. That's so Mech Warrior 3 of you!
Khragg, on 22 December 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:
How are ER PPC's going to be balanced? With the intro of the clans we'll now have standard PPC, IS ERPPC & clan ERPPC. Current nerfs to PPC's make using 2 tough let alone 3. The Warhawk sports 4 in it's standard variant. How will that get rebalanced?
Also, with the advent of Clan UltraAC's, everyone will be boating them as they boat AC's now. Heaven help us if you can mount 2 or more UltraAC/20's.
I'm already saying that now!
"I can see it now! A Daishi (Dire Wolf) with four AC 20's or UAC 20's. great! an Ultra 20 boat. That's so Mech Warrior 3 of you!"
Why so thuggish on a reply to your post? I hate this way of "non" verbal communication. I ment it kind. maybe I translated some things wrong and misinterpreted at the same time.
[snip/previouspost]
PS: Light travels faster than sound!
This is why some people appear bright before they speak!
I only replied in kind to your own vitriolic demenour.
The idea that you can implement mechs with locked armor an engine stats is.... optimistic at best.
The theories behind weapon balance look great, as stated. However, considering those theories against current overall weapon balance, it too looks to be... optimistic.
I completely understand that attempting to put in clan tech is a nightmare really. I'm going to wait until the proposed mechs and systems are in and proven before I even REMOTELY consider plunking down 200-500$ on virtual content that isn't implemented, tested, and proven working and balanced.
There are already lists of features that are yet to be implemented, let alone the host of current systems in need of fine tuning, or even complete overhaul.
Looking at the overall picture I'm completely baffled as to what role if any open beta actually accomplished. Judging from what has been implemented an fixed vs what is proposed, very little indeed. Only measurable difference I can see from my end is my new sense of caution regarding throwing sizeable chunks of money at promised content to be as yet implemented, let alone well.
LocationIn a dark corner waiting to alpha strike his victim.
Posted 22 December 2013 - 04:03 PM
I know we would cross this bridge when we get there but how would a clan hero work? I mean you could just take an arm off of the hero mech and place it on a regular chassis if thats the case.
Whatzituyah, on 22 December 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:
I know we would cross this bridge when we get there but how would a clan hero work? I mean you could just take an arm off of the hero mech and place it on a regular chassis if thats the case.
Actually try the opposite. Hero mechs tend to... though not always, have 'less' hardpoints than their non-hero counterparts. So in that case you could overcome by swapping a non-hero arm in on the hero mech. The point of course would be the bonuses plus the pain job, not really the hardpoints. Which for some is good enough. Least we won't have to worry about P2W complaints too much.
Personally.. I like the way they are taking Omnimechs. Screw the clans, we need to get the Avatar, Sunder, and Templar in stat. Yeah you lack some options in engines, armor, etc. But you gain so much in the way of flexible hardpoints. I think its a great tradeoff. It keeps Omnimechs and BattleMechs distinct enough, while still giving us flexibility with each, just in different areas.
We as players simple need to stop complaining about something we've yet to try out in the field, and actually step up, adapt, overcome, and do what we should be doing best: Winning games instead of whining on forums.
I am definitely in favor of using battle values or tonnage to determine matches. Clans are never meant to be the equals of the spheroids. I would rather see different queues of 10 v 12 or a 5 v 8 than to see "companies" of clan mechs take on companies of innersphere mechs. Can we not do a test of this on the testing servers? Don't tell me the weapons values are hard coded. Why not even try clan tech on innersphere mechs for testing? (You guys also have to think about the benefits of going less than 24 mechs in a match for your hardware. Less computer power required to handle 24 mechs in a match means less costs for you guys.)
Concerning loadouts, sure you can boat uac20s onto a Daishi, but when you have 2 or 3 Atlas at the same time, the Daishi can still only fire at one mech at a time. The unique flavor of the clan is also exactly that, being able to boat 4 erppcs or uac20s. And also, who's to say that innersphere mechs cannot boat clan weapons? Why can't a Stalker carry 6 clan er ppcs?
If you really are insisting on nerfing clan weapons, truthfully, the clans WILL lose their unique flavor.
Clan tech is supposed to be kick *** but for fair gameplay how about a clan outlook on warfare?By this I mean that clans idealize honor and victory with the bare minimum weaponry/mechs.A clan mech that is pimped out would be considered dishonorable so why not nerf the reward(xp,c billsetc)they could receive.Omnis are also much harder to repair so would cost more c bills after each battle.People might like the omni 's advantages but the modules/pilot skills/rewards would be a lot harder to earn.You could also give better rewards for fighting omnis (20% better rewards/salvage drops etc). After the clan invasion the IS started adapting clan tech and developing new tech so this would fall in line with MW canon and let IS mechs match up to Clan Mechs accordingly,even with fixed hardpoints.Clans believe in fighting openly so cover could provide less protection to Omni's/reduced armor or clan AMS could be abyssmal since they concentrate on offence instead of defence.IS mechs could have better AMS ammo/range/to hit ratios/more armor.This would make sense.This way Omni's would have better offensive weaponry while IS could have better defensive.After all the IS is fighting to defend against the clans.
This way you could keep clan stats but still give IS a fighting chance.Along with others, balancing current issues ingame before introducing new issues would be greatly appreciated.
I am definitely in favor of using battle values or tonnage to determine matches. Clans are never meant to be the equals of the spheroids. I would rather see different queues of 10 v 12 or a 5 v 8 than to see "companies" of clan mechs take on companies of innersphere mechs. Can we not do a test of this on the testing servers? Don't tell me the weapons values are hard coded. Why not even try clan tech on innersphere mechs for testing? (You guys also have to think about the benefits of going less than 24 mechs in a match for your hardware. Less computer power required to handle 24 mechs in a match means less costs for you guys.)
Concerning loadouts, sure you can boat uac20s onto a Daishi, but when you have 2 or 3 Atlas at the same time, the Daishi can still only fire at one mech at a time. The unique flavor of the clan is also exactly that, being able to boat 4 erppcs or uac20s. And also, who's to say that innersphere mechs cannot boat clan weapons? Why can't a Stalker carry 6 clan er ppcs?
If you really are insisting on nerfing clan weapons, truthfully, the clans WILL lose their unique flavor.
Unequal numbers means PUGs get creamed. The only time a clan team will do well is when its a premade vs a PUG team. PUG vs PUG, the clan team loses if they have less people. Premade vs Premade, the IS team wins with more people. See you all keep bring up the less numbers for clan idea.. but you cannot tell me how a clan team is supposed to win Assault or Conquest with less numbers.
Conquest, IS team totally avoids the fight and caps out the clan team.
Assault, clan is forced to camp spawn to avoid being capped (less numbers), and then gets shredded from all sides (not to mention arty gets really messy in that situation).
As for server numbers, you are assuming its one match per computer. That's not happening. Its multiple matches per computer/server. So the number of people per match is irrelevant. In fact this is the reason why we don't currently have private matches, they didn't see a benefit in allowing onesies and twosies fighting each other.
Another problem with nerfing Clan weapons is what will happen down the road? Battletech was always about the arms race. Will 3055 weapons be nerfed back to 3050 levels? If so, the IS is getting shafted, because later weapons are considerably better and make IS mechs a force. PGI doesn't seem to be thinking this through completely.
60
This topic is locked
Borgadun, on 22 December 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:
