1978 replies to this topic

[Whatzituyah]

Moenrg, on 22 December 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

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.

Lol your saying this as in they would be around in 5 years.

[Valheru]

Taemien, on 22 December 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

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.

I'm talking about cpu cycles not the number of instances. Less cpu utilization means less overhead and costs in general.

As for clan PUGs getting creamed because of less numbers, I highly doubt it. What are the ways to lose? Base cap and killing mechs right? Clan mechs are much faster than their innersphere counter parts so base cap is blunted. As for killing mechs, again, superior firepower leads the way. The balance lies in 3 innersphere er ppcs equaling 2 clan er ppcs in damage, therefore less clan mechs are needed to field the same amount of firepower as an innersphere force. (Oversimplification, I know, but the point is the same.)

Edited by Valheru, 22 December 2013 - 06:57 PM.

[Javin]

I am curious on what will happen once X-puls lasers, long toms, etc are introduced.

Theres the second wave of clan tech as well like ATM launchers and plasma weaponry.

I do not think this game will be around that long without community warfare to keep us playing.

[Taemien]

Valheru, on 22 December 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

I'm talking about cpu cycles not the number of instances. Less cpu utilization means less overhead and costs in general.

As for clan PUGs getting creamed because of less numbers, I highly doubt it. What are the ways to lose? Base cap and killing mechs right? Clan mechs are much faster than their innersphere counter parts so base cap is blunted. As for killing mechs, again, superior firepower leads the way. The balance lies in 3 innersphere er ppcs equaling 2 clan er ppcs in damage, therefore less clan mechs are needed to field the same amount of firepower as an innersphere force. (Oversimplification, I know, but the point is the same.)

CPU cycles don't cost much, CPU cycles do not cause hit detection issues, ect ect. Its latency through the routers and netcode. So lessening the amount of people per match does little.

MWLL used the same engine as MWO, it experienced the same hit detection issues as it went beyond 8v8 (12v12 was about the limit, anything more then that got nasty). That was ONE match on ONE dedicated machine. I highly doubt one match is going to tax a single machine that much.

Clan mechs are not faster than our mechs. The fastest in the lineup is the Uller, at 97kph... even Raven 4X is going to zoom by it. Thats even if the mech was allowed to change its engine.

Less mechs is less vectors of fire. Less mechs means you give the initiative away. Less mechs increases the likelihood of a focus fire situation. As I said, the only time a clan team will do well is a clan premade vs an IS PUG. With ELO, that isn't very likely to happen often.

As I said before, Clan players aren't good enough overall to warrant the handicap.

Besides, the balance that MWO is doing has been proven to work. MW4 did it (for the most part, IS energy weapons were not UP compared to Clan based on heat to dmg). MWLL also did it (IS guess did slightly less damage, but more DPS). And both of those had much greater multiplayer success than did MW3.

[Thomas Covenant]

Balancing it out is the easy road. Isn't this why you signed onto MWO, so you could establish the inner sphere, just to have the clan with their tech come in and blow em away?

[J0anna]

Whatzituyah, on 22 December 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

Lol your saying this as in they would be around in 5 years.

Actually, they said they can advance the timeline anytime they want. Next year could be 3051, and then September could become the year 3058. Really if there not going to let us fight the battle of Tukayyid, at one point they are just going to say "Well the Invasion's stopped now...."

The point remains, what is going to happen to later weapons? Why has 3050 become the endpoint for game balance? Because 3050 while exciting, is actually one of the most unbalanced times in Battletech. If the Clans are implemented like this PGI will have no choice but to nerf all later weapons, as later weapon development heavily favors the Inner Sphere (Clans produce some weapons, but the IS produces many). Can you imagine running an 3F with 4xMRM 40's? Welcome to your 160 point alpha (assuming they ever fix missile hits), and for those who don't know, they become available to the IS in 3058.

Clan mechs as they proposed are heavily handicapped in today's game. Nobody goes into battle with only 1 ton of ammo, speed is far more important than firepower, and most mechs starting point is maximum armor. Since you can't change engines or armor amounts, you are left with swapping out weapons only (and you'll note NONE of the Timber Wolf (i.e. Mad Cat) variants have ballistics in the left arm - only the right arm). I'd like a bit more details on how to work out these issues before I commit my funds.

Edited by Moenrg, 23 December 2013 - 04:39 AM.

[Thariel]

Friedhelm Stein, on 21 December 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Every game has Rules. These rules are fpr balancing the game and make it fun.
When people play a game, they have to accept the rules the game has.
These rules can and must be sometimes challenging just for the sake of fun,
because overcoming and using the rules to beat your opponent ist the goal of evry game.

To include the clans without the technological advancements and the rules they are bound to,
is just giving more diffrent looking mechs to the audience.
(Which is, sadly, one step further to another WOT-clone with just more adjustment options of the tanks.)

Just bring in the Zellbrigen.
give Clan players C-bill punishments for not following the rules.
Maybe a honor system can be included.
Let them fight against more Innesphere-mechs, they have the power for that.
Reward the innersphere-players with c-bill bonuses and maybe some little clan-tech.

In my opinion:
To soften up a game to just reach a greater audience ist just wrong, because this is the case by the most games these days.
There are very few challenging games these days.

point well taken.
To see this the devs need to be gamers and not some market analysts with a very shorttime view into the future.
People want challenges, people want to prove themselves, people want to fail ! and improve on it.
Maybe it lessens the overall customers, but it will bring in those who pay, only those who do f2p will leave.

General problem in our society, not just games. that's the reason lots of people work for 4$ an hour and achieve nothing and few rule everythng.

[Thariel]

Taemien, on 21 December 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

Then Use IS to just outright win?

Explain to me how 7 Clan mechs given OP tech, would have any chance against 5 more opponents in Assault or Conquest? Conquest they'd be boned, they can't split up and all the IS mechs have to do is avoid them. Assault would force them to not move from their spawn or get capped. And then get picked apart from all sides.

well, you want it the easy way, you play is, you want a challenge, you play clans.

What i see in this scenarios is: all the losers will play IS to zerg the Clans, the elite players will play Clan to have a challange. Long term the good players will win, which will create more Zerglings.

[Sandtiger]

I have been a battletech fanatic for decades, I have played every game that has anything to do with battletech, mechwarrior, etc... You are ruining this game for me, and I will gladly tell you why.

Why would anyone pay $500.00 for ANY game. Lets face it. You want to know how to fix your "balance" issues. The fix is simplistic.....DONT! You are going to charge consumers this titanic amount of money so they can play with Clan equipment which is all around better period. Then your going to Nerf the said equipment.... Do you see an oxymoron here, or hypocrisy? Thats like me paying for a new jaguar, getting to drive it for a week, then someone butchering it into a volvo.

My feedback to you. STOP BALANCING! You are trying to make mediocre players into good players, and good players into mediocre players. And you think we want to pay for that????

Stupid is, as stupid does....

You will not get a single penny more from me.

[Mater]

Can I ask a question can I do a pick a meck and buy the kit fox for $30 from the collections list, those are the only mech I like on the list (till the Grizzly comes out) can I get the 2 mechs for $85 and not spend the $100 if I chose both from the pick a mech method … can anyone answer this ??

Thank you

[Beo Vulf]

While I agree with most of your feeling in this area. I wonder if you have considered giving IS and clan missiles ballistic damage under 180 meters to even things out instead of a penalty for clan tech. It would basically even the damage out, while just giving the clan tech a slightly tighter spread outside of 180 meters would make more missile hit with the same damage coefficient per missile. Just a thought.

[Illusion Tokomi]

Small problem:
A. The Clan 'Mechs come equipped to tonnage. i.e. there is no wasted space, a 75 ton 'Mech has all tons accounted for.
B. You just proposed to up the tonnage on Clan weapons systems.
C. See the issue? You just made a 75 ton Omni, a 79-80 ton Omni that is allegedly balanced against its 75 ton IS counterpart.

1. Ghost Heat does not resolve the issue you created. Keep it or scrap it, you still have a tonnage/damage ratio issue. DPS is irrelevant.
2. Up-tonning weapons does not resolve the issue - indeed it complicates more severely. Now IS 'Mechs have to have higher tonnages to have the same ("balanced") weapons. ELO and Matchmaker will gag on this.

Can we get a re-do on the proposed balancing?

[Taemien]

Thariel, on 23 December 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

well, you want it the easy way, you play is, you want a challenge, you play clans.

What i see in this scenarios is: all the losers will play IS to zerg the Clans, the elite players will play Clan to have a challange. Long term the good players will win, which will create more Zerglings.

That is terrible game design and leaves little choice in what the players want. Not every clanner is a great pilot, and not every IS player is a scrub.

There are many IS units running around that have been open since the mid 90s and they prefer to stick with IS themed mechs and equipment. Why should they be forced to use clan tech just to get a challenge?

Why should a new player be forced to use IS when they might like the clan designs or simply wish to play clan. I'm all for baptisms by fire, but this is dipping their face in a sea of piranhas.

The good news is, PGI is actually doing the right thing for once. Not something as silly as 10v12 or 5v8.

[Illusion Tokomi]

Taemien, on 23 December 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

The good news is, PGI is actually doing the right thing for once. Not something as silly as 10v12 or 5v8.

I respectfully disagree on one point, sir.

I actually think the Battle Value ideas are the best, but 10v12 would be the perfect balance proposal with no weapons mods. 10v12 is essentially a Battle Value style solution.

Problem is, no one will drop with stock variants (I don't know anyone who uses the stock 'Mechs.). Ergo 10v12 will be broken right at the get go. So, I definitely AGREE with your point here. The IS have already had better-than-OmniMechs since closed Beta. This will end poorly if the current plan is executed.

[EDIT: typos]

[EDIT 2: Quoted from a friend in an offline discussion: "The problem is PGI trying to shoe-horn Clan 'Mechs into 12v12 matches." I agree with my friend. Odd I know! agreeing with a friend ]

Edited by Illusion Tokomi, 23 December 2013 - 11:53 AM.

[Taemien]

BV wouldn't work and here's why:

You can take a stock variant, Clan or IS, and take away something with high BV and add low BV items to it to make it better than the stock variant.

For example, the Masakari Prime comes stock with 4 CERPPCs, and 1 CLRM10. Take the CLRM10 + Ammo off and add DHS. You now have a variant with less BV than the stock one but way more effective.

One might argue about using a convoluted system of heat per second, damage per second, range brackets, ect system to caculate BV. First.. its complex to code, easy to get bugged, Second those systems never tell the full story when such variants hit the field.

The best 'Battle Value' is this:

1 Mech = 1 Mech
1 Player = 1 Player

Balance Lights to Mediums to Heavies to Assaults
Balance Clan to Inner Sphere

And you never have to worry about match making or convoluted systems that probably won't work in the end.

Sorry to say but what I am seeing is this:

A: People want to use superior tech against inferior tech and feel like a god, but don't realize what they are getting themselves into.
B: Realize the folly of people from point A and wish to zerg the ever living {Scrap} out of them.

Either way, the mindset for both is going for easy wins. I don't want easy wins. Nobody should.

[Fut]

ssm, on 19 December 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

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?

Some of us aren't interested in playing as the over-powered and insane Clans. Some of us don't automatically jump onto the "easiest win possible" bandwagon.

I'm not interested in playing as the Clans in MW:O. I'll stick with my IS Mechs.
I'm sure that a poll of the forums would show plenty of people who are very excited to be battling against the Clans as a cohesive IS defense.

I'm just hoping that PGI does things right!

Taemien, on 23 December 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

1 Mech = 1 Mech
1 Player = 1 Player

Balance Lights to Mediums to Heavies to Assaults
Balance Clan to Inner Sphere

Wait.... So basically you just one 1 mech with various skins?
MWO would be horrible if every chassis was completely balanced, and if Clan was balanced to IS.

Edited by Fut, 23 December 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[Valheru]

Taemien, on 23 December 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

That is terrible game design and leaves little choice in what the players want. Not every clanner is a great pilot, and not every IS player is a scrub.

There are many IS units running around that have been open since the mid 90s and they prefer to stick with IS themed mechs and equipment. Why should they be forced to use clan tech just to get a challenge?

Why should a new player be forced to use IS when they might like the clan designs or simply wish to play clan. I'm all for baptisms by fire, but this is dipping their face in a sea of piranhas.

The good news is, PGI is actually doing the right thing for once. Not something as silly as 10v12 or 5v8.

Tamien, I understand where you're coming from, and that is a place of specific game balance. But I agree to disagree with you. Why is it so scary to jump in with a bunch of piranhas given that this is a game. Have you ever tried impossible or hardcore mode on any other game? By definition, it's unfair right? This leads me to propose, perhaps separate queues for different player types, allowing for choice. I'm sure different game types would lead to more fun and interesting battles.

In your previous comments, they stem from the fact that all the mechs are already or should be balanced. It would definitely make sense for 1 to 1 match ups. I, however, am coming from the premise that clans have superior technology plain and simple. We are talking bows and arrows vs flintlock revolvers. Not everyone is invincible, and not everyone has 100% success with those technologies, yet clearly one is superior.

Edited by Valheru, 23 December 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[ssm]

Fut, on 23 December 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Some of us aren't interested in playing as the over-powered and insane Clans. Some of us don't automatically jump onto the "easiest win possible" bandwagon.

I'm not interested in playing as the Clans in MW:O. I'll stick with my IS Mechs.
I'm sure that a poll of the forums would show plenty of people who are very excited to be battling against the Clans as a cohesive IS defense.

I'm just hoping that PGI does things right!

Of course, some of us aren't, some of us don't. Thing is - are "us" enough?

You can try to speculate how many'll jump in "easiest win possible" bandwagon - Try to compare number of people who optimise their bulids to people who try run them closer to stock. People who follow the meta to people who don't.

Clans would offer them not only an advantage (as build optimisation or following the meta does), but enirely different playstyle, one that fits them better than team-dependent IS.

Whether we like it or not, role-players (people who really identify with their faction) are a minority, and close to half of them (I'm guessing here) consider themselves clanners regardless.

[phaloxian]

You disappoint me; management is in disarray, you lie to us, you fail, you do not listen to the community, updates are lacking, specifically they are lacking in things like, oh, I don't know, basics, you think that making things easier for your kids somehow makes the game better for other players[nepotism much?], and, overall, you have made MechWarrior laughable. "Good" job would overstate this so much that it is not even cute, nor ignorant, it's just idiotic. What this is, is you ruining and breaking what MechWarrior gamer's have loved so much. I used to see THOUSANDS of comments[honestly, this would have more than 71 pages in a shorter amount of time during this game's "hayday"...], now I see just a few... I don't see any of my old friends online. And why? Because you have ruined the game.

I am not angry over clan tech being integrated, I believe it is interesting, I am angry over the fact that you have no fixed basics yet.

That is my feedback, maybe you should read it, learn from it and adapt the "style" with which you develop.

Then MAYBE I will play MW again.

Edited by phaloxian, 23 December 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[phaloxian]

Honestly, I would play but I wouldn't spend any money, instead I'd make a kickass killing machine that smashed anyone in my way. There's a reason why people go for the easier things, they do not recognize the reward in the hard things.

All hail the Black, all hail the Pantheon.

Honestly, I would play but I wouldn't spend any money, instead I'd make a kickass killing machine that smashed anyone in my way. There's a reason why people go for the easier things, they do not recognize the reward in the hard things.

All hail the Black, all hail the Pantheon.