1978 replies to this topic

[Marcus Tanner]

This is a long thread. Perhaps it could use a quick recap of the feedback (as I see it).

THE STORY SO FAR:

Changing tonnage on clan equipment has met with near-universal rejection. Those who think that changing tonnange would be a necessity for balancing these weapons insist that it would be outright impossible to balance LRMs with the lower tonnage (some of these people use the impossibility of balancing clan tech as a reason to simply accept unbalanced numbers and make use of clan mechs viable in other ways). The majority opinion is that if the weapons are to be balanced, it should be through other means.

Ghost heat remains unpopular, and most of the community seems to stand against using that as a balancing mechanic. I dissent from that opinion, but I recognize that I'm in the minority of feedback on that.

---

Most of the responses have been off-topic, railing against the third round of crowd-funding while features both critical (community warfare) and industry standard (a functional UI, making sure every item/ability actually has an effect) have yet to be implemented. Add to that the lurid scene of $500 vanity items.

---

Many contributors feel like clan tech should not be "balanced" against Inner Sphere tech, and that other means should be used for making the game playable with a difference in the effectiveness of the mechs. One suggestion has been asymmetrical team size (such 10v12 or 5v12). Other options include implementing something like Zellbrigen. Players note that with technology comparable to IS stuff, the success of the clan invasion doesn't make sense within the context of MWO. Many players find the superiority of clan tech to be integral to the game's background.

Criticism of those strategies include reminders that the Inner Sphere does get access to clan tech, and as such mixed groups of clan and non-clan mechs are to be expected. Also, players who like clan tech and players who like IS tech should be allowed to have fun playing on the same team, so balancing systems should not be designed around pure-IS and pure-clan forces. Similarly, clan mechs don't necessarily mean clan pilots (re: Victor Steiner-Davion's Dire Wolf), so a Zell mechanic wouldn't necessarily make sense.

Battle value has been suggested as a way to allow mechs to play together even when some mechs are clearly better than others, as is obvious with clan tech. EDIT: The devs have noted that they will not be using Battle Value, but they have not (to my knowledge) explained what problems they have with the BV system. It'll be difficult to convince them that BV is right way to go when we don't know why they aren't using it already.

---

Responses to the the implementation of omnimech hardpoints are mixed, and lukewarm overall. Many players like the freedom that would offer, while other players are concerned about the number and variety of hard-point configurations that it would allow, making things like 5 or 6 ballistic weapons possible on an assault mech.

Locking the armor and engine size of omnimechs is unpopular as a balancing mechanic. It's crippling for some mechs (Kit Fox being widely noted) while having far less impact on others (such as the Timber Wolf, which already has a big engine and max armor). This restriction has a wildly varied impact depending on the engine and distribution of armor that you see on the base chassis.

EDIT: In the tabletop rules, omnimechs are strictly easier to modify than standard battlemechs (there's no tradeoff). With this in mind, a number of players find it odd that it will be more difficult to modify omnimechs in some regards. For those familiar with these rules, making it more difficult to modify an omnimech than an IS mech feels counterintuitive.

---

That's the real meat of it, as best I can see. Did I miss anything?

---

EDIT: Clan LRMs. Several contributors have noted that missiles don't partially explode, and as a result they oppose a sliding damage scale over LRM minimum ranges. Other players note the damage difference between LRMs and SRMs, such that that a clan LRM20 would *not* be like a streak-20, but rather more like a streak-10. The issue of whether clan LRMs should have a minimum range at all appear mixed. Some think that the lack of minimum is important to the character of clan LRMs, while others think it would be too effective.

Many players have suggested making clan LRMs restricted in the effectiveness of indirect fire, some suggesting that they be barred from using IDF. I'll note that clans can indeed use LRM indirect fire, it's just their mech forces tend not to as a result of Zell. If you think that it's important to emphasize IS pilots in clan mechs, then there's nothing to stand in the way of effective IDF with clan tech.

Other players have suggested that clan LRMs be balanced by not allowing TAG and Artemis to stack with clan launchers. I think it's important to note that in the background the clans definitely do use TAG and Narc, but that tabletop semi-guided ammunition (taking advantage of TAG) is not available to clan launchers. This would mean that it would be in-line with the background if only IS missiles could get an accuracy or clustering bonus from the use of TAG.

Edited by Marcus Tanner, 15 December 2013 - 11:04 AM.

[qki]

Thanks for the update. And I have to say - while I understand the need to balance things, there are probably better ways to do that.

The most common idea that gets thrown around is asymmetric clan vs IS matches. While it is practically impossible to enforce zelbriggen, when many players won't even know what it is, having a star vs two lances (or even a company), or a light binary vs a heavy company (that's 5v8 or 10v12 in layman's terms) might be the way to go.


Also - battle value. While there's no accounting for player skill, a full set of rules for calculating the battle value of any given design makes for balanced matches. Hell - even megamek comes with a built-in force mod calculation.


Mixed tech:

this is completely off the wall, but how about limiting clan weapons to ONE per IS chassis (representing very rare salvage). Granted, lighter gauss rifles, ppc, and UAC20 would probably dominate here.



Sooo... the concept art is done from what I see, which means that while the team is working on the assets, PGI has 6 months to come up with a reasonable way to include the clans in the game. That's not as soon as I'd like, but I'm not one to complain. And brace for a sh***storm of comments and whine from people who spend money on this game like it's going out of fashion, and then cry on the forums about how every one of PGI's decissions is wrong... time to break out the big bucket o' popcorn.

[Banshee Bullet]

I'd like to point out that IS battlemechs had to be factory refitted to change the engine and internals and other items just like clan omni-mechs, so the whole argument for this being a canon based decision is ********. Omni-mechs could change out weapon systems and certain equiptment on the fly, and because of the modular design they could be repaired faster, but other than that they are really no different from regular battlemechs. Both types have to go to the factory to change engines and internals and other core systems. Don't for a second think the devs fixed those things on omni-mechs because of canon. It was a lazy way to nerf clan omni-mechs, that's it.

[Masterrix]

pls no additional over-engineered sub-systems to balance clan-mechs

if clan-mechs are stronger than IS mechs in 1vs1, than so it should be

balance it with "matchmaking" only, and not with stupid subsystems.

[kuangmk11]

NyxOOX, on 15 December 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

While you are correct, and I thank you for bringing my hopes back up, you're wrong about the variants. You're thinking of config B for the UAC/2s, not config C, which carries ATMs and thus doesn't exist yet.

Also remember that you can only do the swap if its an approved configuration. Nobody knows what swaps they will allow but all AC Jumping Assault is probably not one of them.

[oldradagast]

I am so confused...

1) Semi-random changes are going to be made to Clan tech, including increasing weight on LRM20's (while keeping them still too good), making smaller SSRM launchers act like bugged ones on other mechs, where they won't release a full salvo at once, etc? Why? And is all this random stuff going to be documented somewhere... like Ghost Heat... and Gauss charge-up... and... oh, nevermind.

2) Clan Omnimechs will be less customizable than normal mechs... Huh? So, mechs known for being fully customizable won't be, and normal mechs will be. That makes no sense?! It also means they are all basically DOA since most stock Table Top builds are horrible in this game.

3) More Ghost Heat - yeah?!

Did I miss the loony train somewhere along the line? Why can't we just have Clan and IS completely separate, and when you pick a game mode, you determine which faction you're playing, and then pick a mech of the appropriate group. So, everyone can have an IS profile and a Clan profile (to avoid splitting the player base), but the Clan would be severely outnumbered on the battlefield but would still get great tech. If nobody wants to play that mode, they can stick to Clan vs. Clan or IS vs. IS and balance tweaks can be made to IS vs. Clan, but it would avoid a mountain of semi-random and badly documented changes to Clan Tech, non-omni-omni-mechs and all the rest.

Also, Clan Honor Code is EASY to enforce (at least part of it.) You know those bonuses you get for killing a mech, regardless of who was shooting it first? Yeah, now you don't get those... maybe you get a penalty. In short, restructure the reward system to reward people who follow the Clan code of honor and then make a tutorial that explains the difference between them and the IS way of doing things. Problem solved.

I just don't get it... what is going on here??

Edited by oldradagast, 15 December 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[Groundpound Devalis]

Ok so this post is moving far too fast, so I will summarize my original post in this thread which is about 20 pages buried in either direction.

Revert everything to Table Top Rules. Stay to this strictly for all weapon rules.

Keep Double armor and increased ammo per ton

Balance the overwhelming Clan tech by allowing Innersphere vs Clan matches to have a numbers advantage to Innersphere, ok so that may take time to balance out, I don't think 10 Clan VS 12 IS is fair to IS personally.

DO NOT balance weapons by making a clan Laser burn longer than IS keep that equal. No need to balance in this way or with increased heat. Numbers is the ultimate balance hammer.

Get rid of heat scaling as near everyone has mentioned.

Hardpoints on clan mechs should be number of weapon pods per location not type of weapon

OH AND NO MIXTECH. Keep things simple and pure.

OR option 2

Put everything to TT

Keep double armor and ammo per ton

Drop heat scaling

Stock mechs ONLY

Numbers advantage to IS in IS vs Clan battles.

Edited by Groundpound, 15 December 2013 - 10:53 AM.

[SilentWolff]

PGI, if your idea was to put people at ease by explaining your ideas for clan tech, you've failed miserably. It all sounds more convoluted than Paul's ghost heat formulas.

Edited by SilentWolff, 15 December 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[Stardancer01]

Views on Pauls and David Bs plans
I like Pauls plan for increasing the recharge/reload duration of clan tech to about 150% of normal. (after all genetically enhanced clan pilots shouldn’t miss, or require a second shot)
I would also expect clan tech to be less durable about 80% critical of its inner sphere equivalent.

I like Pauls plan on LRMs, but thought is simpler to treat them as machine gun hits at less than 180 for inner sphere and 120 for clan tech.
(LRMs should spread out when fire to avoid the turbulence of each other’s thrust wake, before coming together as they run out of fuel and home in as they close on their target.)

I don’t like that Paul expects Inner Sphere mechs to compete 1 for 1 with clan mechs. I think we all expected a 5IS mechs V 4Clan mech matchups in 12v10 or 3lances v 2stars clan underbidding type games with only a little nuff to clan tech.

I like most of David B plan but, I think that you should only be able to tweak the engine, armour & heaksinks a very little 15points if engine power, 1ton of armour, 2 heat sinks each way. I don’t like David B arm swap suggestion, would rather have Heavy Specific Ballistic/Missile/Energy hardpoints and lots of light Omni hardpoints limited to 2ton or less of weapon each.

Yes Arms Race
I think is foolish to think there won’t be an arms race but I think it would take a lot of tonnage to make any peace of clan equipment fit/work/function as good as when it was on a clan mech.
As the player base increases having new players start in the 3048 succession wars/house wars era would give them a simple ter1 start (isvis 12v12battles), with incentive to reach ter2 to get to play clans (isvc 12v10battles & isvis 12v12), and ter3 being fitting clan tech to IS battle mechs(12v11battles) and ter4 IS omni mech era (12v12battles).
Un mastered IS battle mechs would be ter1.
Clan as ter2, mastered clan mechs as ter2 or 3 or both.
You could list your fully mastered IS battle mech as either ter1 or 2 or both, if it had clan tech it could be listed as ter3.

Glory hogs target non-sharing
Love the idea that clan pilots would not share targeting info with each other or friendly information ether. A clan player would have to guess where his team mates were and find targets for themselves. This would absolutely deal with nearly all the LRM & SSRM problems. I don’t know how others play but I need my fellow teammates to hold target lock for most of my LRM and SSRM shots.

Edited by Stardancer01, 16 December 2013 - 05:53 AM.

[Jiiri]

I see that there are lots of emotions on both sides. While I understand that this is also a business running a gaming company, and money has to be earned, I am a bit disappointed and shocked by the amounts: for example, I bought Battlefield 4 PLUS all new maps/vehicle/content for approx. 65€. I think the game quality of good publisher titles like GTA or BF or COD is also excellent, and they offer lots of content AND they can offer games for under 100€ with equal or evben lot more content. So I have little understanding for the pricing policies here. And yes, I own an Overlord package, and yes I am willing to pay and to sponsor MWO, but in a reasonable way.

Saying this, I am seriously worried about pay-to-win, and the game impact of "Unique Moduls", which sound like a must-have in order to be compatible. I am also worrioed about balance, as I think reassigning tonnage on clantech is the wrong way, and messing with heatnumbers and ranges and so on, too. Let's have a look at IS ER-LL, LL, L-Pulse, PPC, ER-PPC, Gauss.
These are even a handfull of weapons, and it seems finding the right balance here is nearly impossible and hard to find. What will happen, when 30+ weapons are added ? Can all be balanced nicely ? I highly doubt that. There will be one or two superior weapons, 1 or 2 cheese-builds, and some weapons which will be fitting a niche-life (like Flamers, Small lasers etc. now). The gap of imparity will widen up.

I am strongly for a zellbrigen rule-set. EG after having fired on one mech, you cannot shoot at another mech until the first one is destroyed.

Also, the clan tech shouldn't be balanced at IS tech: it IS superior. The balance should be put in numbers: either make matches like 5 vs 12 players, AND/OR include a equation system like battlevalue/combatvalue, which includes higher point values for the better technology.

Anything else doesn't make sense, and will make your playerbase even more upset. And please kindly remember, it is us, the players, who pay you, so you should try to provide us the best gaming experience.

Right now, the gamers like to have a reason for playing MWO. Just shhoting mechs is fun for a while, but rankings/Achievements/community warfare is what keeps this game going and interesting !

------------------------

PS: one last advice: as you include more and more mechs, you should rethink your module system. While I understand that it is a "money sink" and you will like to see that, it is a pian in the a$$ to search for modules and to unarm and rearm them everytime you change the mech. My proposal: make it "pay once", and then the module is accassable for every mech to be used. You play only one mech at a time, so having multiple mods of the same type doesn't make sense. Just a small change, but it would ease up the gameflow and makes your players cheer up.

[Corwin Maxwell]

So much proof lately that shows the devs have no freaking clue or idea about battletech/mechwarrior. Everything is bass ackwards. The fabled "Balance" has been tweeked/twerked, customized/creative libertied into a corner of [scrap]. Again several of us early beta testers tried to worn the devs of this horrible desicions but they ignored us, well enjoy the vapor ware fumes while they last. Heres to hoping when this fail comes to an end that people like Randal Bills, Chris Roberts, etc. buy out the ip when its become a very toxic investment and salvage this game and make it what is could have been.

[VoltarDark]

I understand the need for PGI to make money, it's legitimate. But honestly the clan tech even with the shown tone down are making all other mechs rather obsolete. I think that the clan should be put on ice til most features promised and essential to the future of the game are in place.

Critical priorities :

2 things are essential to have before implementing community warfare:

1) New game modes: ( The foundation of community warfare)

• Skirmish ( kind of in game already )

• Defend/attack the landing zone (Timed <15m + defensive turrets,uneven team)

• Defend/attack the base (Timed =15m + defensive turrets,uneven team)

• Protect the convoy (Timed <15m + defensive turrets,uneven team)

2) Different level of victory: (Essential to determine the level of success of a mission)

• Critical defeat
  
• Tactical defeat
  
• Marginal defeat
  
• Draw
  
• Marginal victory
  
• Tactical victory
  
• Critical victory

Those level of victory/defeat then will influence the individual score of each pilot.

Thank you.

[TOGSolid]

Banshee Bullet, on 15 December 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

I'd like to point out that IS battlemechs had to be factory refitted to change the engine and internals and other items just like clan omni-mechs, so the whole argument for this being a canon based decision is ********. Omni-mechs could change out weapon systems and certain equiptment on the fly, and because of the modular design they could be repaired faster, but other than that they are really no different from regular battlemechs. Both types have to go to the factory to change engines and internals and other core systems. Don't for a second think the devs fixed those things on omni-mechs because of canon. It was a lazy way to nerf clan omni-mechs, that's it.

No it isn't. It's right in the ******** rules that if you swap anything hardwired on an Omni-Mech you lose all the Omni-Slots. Once I get my books unpacked I can even give you the exact page number if you'd like to look it up.

This is actually a really good way to balance Omni-Mechs considering how easy it will be to really min/max their weaponry which can lead to some really silly ****. If you want to mod everything else then you lose the weapon min/max and the hardpoints get locked to whatever the base is. A slot with a laser stays as an energy, for instance.

[VanillaG]

oldradagast, on 15 December 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

2) Clan Omnimechs will be less customizable than normal mechs... Huh? So, mechs known for being fully customizable won't be, and normal mechs will be. That makes no sense?! It also means they are all basically DOA since most stock Table Top builds are horrible in this game.

Clan Omnimechs will be able customize their hardpoints, just not the available amount of weight and crit spaces. So based on what Paul is saying you get to move hardpoint configs between the various variants with the exception of the CT. For example, lets assume an Atlas is an omnimech so rules would allow you take the Boars Head arms and put them on a D-DC chassis. It just makes you have to customize them with different limitations.

[Nick Makiaveli]

So.....I take it this isn't going to be a BT game anymore? I mean unless you plan to have separate queues for the Clan Invasion and CW, ie battling over IS planets, it's just going to be a muddled mess.

If Clan tech can replace IS tech, and we do have separate queues, then the arms race will be to get Clan tech instead of mechs. Not such a big difference.

I am finally starting to lose hope. Didn't like a lot of the decisions being made, but the game was still fun so I adapted. But if I am going to drop against "Clan" pilots since <insert House here> wants <insert planet here> back from <insert House here>, then yea.....that's gonna kill the whole BT vibe.

You should have reset the time line. Let us run with CW for awhile, then bring the Clans in. Really worried that this is an attempt to cash in before selling it off to Perfect World to finish ruining. That's the first time I've even so much as hinted that I believed in a cash grab, as I fully support you guys making money as should be obvious, so please prove me wrong.

[AgroAlba]

I keep hearing "use matchmaking, use matchmaking! 5v12!" I'd like to point out that is a horrible idea for enjoyment of the game. Can you imagine being on the clan side? "Woohoo, just killed three mechs!" And on the IS side? "Don't know why I bother, that guy i damaged killed three of my lance."

It will not be fun to face up against Clan mechs that can decimate 3 mechs at a time.

[dwwolf]

People forget that eventually we will have CW and repair times for mechs should factor in there, atleast some of the time. ( probably not far from WoT model ) and Omnimechs should have significant advantages there.

[Rashhaverak]

After thinking on the clan setups a little longer, I would say that the fact you won't be able to change armor values is my single biggest concern. The other restrictions make sense. I don't want all of my IS mechs and weapons to become closet space do to overpowered clan tech. That would be dumb.

However, armor is another story. Light scouts with less than full (or near so) leg armor are quickly wiped out in this game. It's the first think I do with a light mech... up the stock leg armor, then see what else works. I'd rather shave the head armor on a jenner than the leg armor. Let's face it, many of the stock armor values are ridiculous, and while they might have worked for a game where hits were randomly determined by die roll, they don't work in this game.

Clan mechs without the ability to add armor points to key areas will possibly become a third rate choice in many cases.

[Samophlange]

Concerning LRMs....why not make them hit with a variable amount?

So, LRM 5 may do 1 to 5 missile strikes, LRM might do 3 to 10, LRM 15 maybe 5 to 15, LRM 20, 7 to 20.
Then keep the weights and heat for IS and Clan LRMs the same as canon?

I have to agree with the lopsided matches idea. 6 vs 12 would be fine if all of the original clan stats were left alone. A laser with a longer duration is awful. They are bad enough as it is.

[Banshee Bullet]

TOGSolid, on 15 December 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

No it isn't. It's right in the ******** rules that if you swap anything hardwired on an Omni-Mech you lose all the Omni-Slots. Once I get my books unpacked I can even give you the exact page number if you'd like to look it up.

This is actually a really good way to balance Omni-Mechs considering how easy it will be to really min/max their weaponry which can lead to some really silly ****. If you want to mod everything else then you lose the weapon min/max and the hardpoints get locked to whatever the base is. A slot with a laser stays as an energy, for instance.

When I say canon I'm refering to battletech books mostly, rather than tabletop. But you are 100% correct, in TT if you want to change hard-wired components then you can't use omni-slots. However the devs have stated time and time again that they really don't give two ***** about TT rules.
Yes it was a pain to swap out components on omni-mechs, you had to send it to the factory and it could take weeks or months and it was very rarely done, but it was done. Mostly by major characters and leaders and such.
The funny part is, you had to do the exact same thing to change those components on a battlemech, which was also rarely done.
So if it's a major issue to do for both types of mech, why in mwo can we do it freely for battlemechs and not omni-mechs? BECAUSE, it's an easy way to nerf omni-mechs which are better. Thing is, most of the benefits of omnis won't show up in a game like this anyway. Things like repair and refit time don't factor in here.

Basically in mw games your character has the extreme privilege of being able to customize almost everything on a mech.