77 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

What i would like to see is the test server running every week for at least 4 or 5 days 24 hours a day where the IS mechs are in the mechbay but the Clan weapons are available. This would enable peop[le to play the hell out of them to give PGI metrics.
It would also enable comment and feedback on their "balance" and "reasoned" changes to be made.
I know this is probably asking for too much but surely the pre-orders would pay for the hardware and bandwidth.
At least then they would know how Op or UP they were against IS mechs in real use. We already know that we can "break" anything in ways the devs don''t envisage.

[Naduk]

if your going to claim and rage that he is doing everything wrong
how about you offer some views on how to do it right

[Hythos]

Bront, on 15 December 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

How do you propose doing that? Players with tons of CBills won't care, players who don't know the code won't care. Or are you going to tell me that a team should lose a match because some troll shot a mech someone else already shot, or worse, a stray shot hits another mech in a brawl?

You just can't force players to play like that in any way that's both fair and fun. It's just too ripe for abuse.


PGI wants to make all mechs viable in some way, and they've done a pretty reasonable job with it (There are viable mechs in every weight class). The issue is that if you balance by any way where the clan mechs are ultimately superior, folks will flock to the superior tech (Who want's to play the inferior tech and have to rely on the coordination of random players across the internet?). Weight has a similar problem, particularly when weight doesn't always mean better mech.

We have a patially working game now. A simple tutorial explaing Clan Code of Honor should suffice.
If players were penalized for attacking anothers' target to the point where they fail objectives, hence earn no exp, no credits, no honor, they won't last very long.
I view Clan tech in MWO as a Jedi slot was in SWG - it took dedication and at least an understading of the game...
Vs
Jedi in SWtoR where anyone could start as one and cheapen the idea.


In your arguement, why would ANYONE play an I.S. unit ever again once they "earn" their Clan badge through any manner?

** Edit - if some troll shoots anothers' target, that troll loses, not the troll's entire team.
Clans intentionally fight with lighter 'Mechs and smaller forces because it is the challenge and display of superior tech+ability - THAT is the spirit of the Clans - not - "Our weapons are just like yours, except we drink tea and not coffee".

Edited by Hythos, 15 December 2013 - 03:22 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

oldradagast, on 15 December 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Seriously, I'm worried this whole Clan thing is going to kill this game.

The sheer incompetance will kill the game, no doubt.

However, their own incompetance will save them, too. They'll be too imcompetant to even produce any Clan mechs in game, like with Collisions, DX11 and CW.

Because they are so bad at producing the thing that will kill the game, their own double edged sword of suck will save them plenty of time to think about how to fail the hardest!

Edited by mwhighlander, 15 December 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[mania3c]

oldradagast, on 15 December 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

This is what I don't get:

PGI has the choice of 2 paths:

1) Keep the Clan super-powerful and just limit their drop size vs. the IS (in Clan vs. IS matches). Then, we'd have more game modes (Clan vs. Clan, IS vs. IS, and Clan vs. IS) each with different mechs and challenges. Allow each player a Clan and IS identity so we don't split the player base, and we're good. Everyone can play a mix of even matches or "boss fights" against the Clan, and everyone would be happy. They could then focus their efforts on developing key parts of the game (CW, etc), the Clans would still be like they are in Table Top, and the Old-timers would be happy.

2) The chosen path is fiddle around with every Clan piece of technology while trying to "balance" it hopeless against the IS equivalent, resulting in a nutty mix of useless weapons, still overpowered weapons, Omni-mechs that are LESS customizable than non-Omni-Mechs, and loads of other confusing, illogical drek. All of this will end badly since they are trying to achieve the impossible - balance the Clans by meddling with their technology while leaving the roleplaying Clan aspects out completely - and eats up time and resources needed to create critical game features (UI2.0, CW, etc.)

I fear the end result will be some nightmarish hybrid Meta with nearly every IS mech rendered worthless and only a handful of Clan mechs being remotely playable... which will kill the game.

For once, guys, taking the EASY route is the right answer - reduce Clan tonnage on drop vs. IS, change their reward structure in game to match their code of honor, and let people chose from IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, and Clan vs. IS matches. That's it - keep the tech the same, stick to the lore, make everyone happy, and profit...

You really tried to make first option good one and second option bad one.. but honestly..from design perspective..while second option is not easy task..first option is hell..it's not EASY..you just don't understand everything..

If you really think that keeping clan technology intact and balance game otherwise (player count, tonnage limit etc) will somehow make it easier to balance..you are totally wrong..you have no idea what it would cause within community (it would be either..everyone is playing clan..or no one) ..nor you can imagine total nightmare behind designing these tools for matches (clan vs IS, clan vs clan..etc).. doesn't matter how absurd its for you, balancing mechs and weapons to IS standards is much easier than anything you are proposing..

Don't get me wrong.. I would love true clan vs is warfare.. with everything.. but honestly..it's not feasible..not with current system and community..

[Asmudius Heng]

mania3c, on 15 December 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

You really tried to make first option good one and second option bad one.. but honestly..from design perspective..while second option is not easy task..first option is hell..it's not EASY..you just don't understand everything..

If you really think that keeping clan technology intact and balance game otherwise (player count, tonnage limit etc) will somehow make it easier to balance..you are totally wrong..you have no idea what it would cause within community (it would be either..everyone is playing clan..or no one) ..nor you can imagine total nightmare behind designing these tools for matches (clan vs IS, clan vs clan..etc).. doesn't matter how absurd its for you, balancing mechs and weapons to IS standards is much easier than anything you are proposing..

Don't get me wrong.. I would love true clan vs is warfare.. with everything.. but honestly..it's not feasible..not with current system and community..

Unless the clan technology is exactly balanced to is tech people will always gravitate to clans.

How easy is it to make every item different yet balanced?

Very hard indeed. Having clan tech slightly better compared to stupidly better is a better idea and then working to implement CW features that balance out the differences via game modes, and simulated logistics etc.

That is if you care anything for the IP as well

[mania3c]

Asmudius Heng, on 15 December 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Unless the clan technology is exactly balanced to is tech people will always gravitate to clans.

How easy is it to make every item different yet balanced?

Very hard indeed. Having clan tech slightly better compared to stupidly better is a better idea and then working to implement CW features that balance out the differences via game modes, and simulated logistics etc.

That is if you care anything for the IP as well

I don't care about IP honestly.. I care about game..

I am not saying it's easy to balance every weapon.. it's not..but honestly..even if clan weapons would be more powerful, they still has to be balanced to some standards ... so they really can't avoid this step.. and please don't tell be TT rules have balanced weapons..

it's much easier to balance clan weapon and mechs and treat them like current weapons mechs and system..period..

for CW stuff..do we have idea how it would work if we would just split clan technology and IS technology? It's pretty clear they don't want divide community even further ..it's enough we have houses ..now put different mechs and weapon to these houses and you have nightmare and game will fall apart..

Edited by mania3c, 15 December 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

mania3c, on 15 December 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

I don't care about IP honestly.. I care about game..

I am not saying it's easy to balance every weapon.. it's not..but honestly..even if clan weapons would be more powerful, they still has to be balanced to some standards ... so they really can't avoid this step.. and please don't tell be TT rules have balanced weapons..

it's much easier to balance clan weapon and mechs and treat them like current weapons mechs and system..period..

I care about IP and the game both.

TT did not have perfect balance at all and that's why they did a BV system to simulate logistics in a single battle game. Mechs cost money and time and resources and the best mechs require more to bring to a battle. As such in a game suppose to be even and determined by skill BV existed to keep things as balanced as possible.

Clan tech should not be stupidly OP but trying to nerf it down to be just as good as IS tech is going to be a tough ask unless you simply wipe out the original IP completely ... In which case you destroy something that is very special in the minds of most people who play MWO

They will screw up clan balance i guarantee it. ... They will create an arms race, or they will create laughable clan tech.

The game needs out of game balancing to simulate the BT universe to some degree so that we can have different tonnages, tech etc and still have a balanced game.

Perfect balance with the complexity of mechwarrior is impossible.

[pbiggz]

MisterPlanetarian, on 15 December 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

90% of your post is just impotent rage. Not one of your outtakes come with a serious conter proposal. Pauls Clan stuff needs quite a bit of tuning to say the least and i agree with you on that. But I am quite sure he will litsen to feedback since he mentioned no less than twice that it was not final by a long shot, why does it not suprise me that you missed that bit?


My advice: Take a break, go watch the hobbit or something and come back after the holidays when you get your DX11 UI2.0. Thats exactly what I am doing.

QFT

[mania3c]

Asmudius Heng, on 15 December 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

I care about IP and the game both.

TT did not have perfect balance at all and that's why they did a BV system to simulate logistics in a single battle game. Mechs cost money and time and resources and the best mechs require more to bring to a battle. As such in a game suppose to be even and determined by skill BV existed to keep things as balanced as possible.

Clan tech should not be stupidly OP but trying to nerf it down to be just as good as IS tech is going to be a tough ask unless you simply wipe out the original IP completely ... In which case you destroy something that is very special in the minds of most people who play MWO

They will screw up clan balance i guarantee it. ... They will create an arms race, or they will create laughable clan tech.

The game needs out of game balancing to simulate the BT universe to some degree so that we can have different tonnages, tech etc and still have a balanced game.

Perfect balance with the complexity of mechwarrior is impossible.

Maybe they will screw the balance ... but point is..it's easier to balance weapons than balance weapons around asymmetrical teams..

Asymmetrical teams should be balance factor of map or mode...

if they screw balance of weapons with current system...I can guarantee that it's nothing compared what it would be if clan technology would be balanced around some other factors like number of players..etc.. maybe I just can't explain exactly what I want to tell...but I am sure they really took the easier way..while I would love to have real clan vs IS warfare.. I Understand it would cause so many problems..it's hardly imaginable at this point..

[Asmudius Heng]

mania3c, on 15 December 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Maybe they will screw the balance ... but point is..it's easier to balance weapons than balance weapons around asymmetrical teams..

Asymmetrical teams should be balance factor of map or mode...

if they screw balance of weapons with current system...I can guarantee that it's nothing compared what it would be if clan technology would be balanced around some other factors like number of players..etc.. maybe I just can't explain exactly what I want to tell...but I am sure they really took the easier way..while I would love to have real clan vs IS warfare.. I Understand it would cause so many problems..it's hardly imaginable at this point..

I think we will have to agree to disagree here as I cannot fathom them making the clan is balance done well in any way without having massive follow on effects to other parts of the game.

It is a micro vs macro issue and I don't think they can do the micro well.

They may not be able to do the macro level balance well either mind you, but I think it would be a better way to go to fit with the lore someway and might be easier to control than years of balancing going by PGI current rate of weapons balancing.

Not meaning to beat a dead horse i just think we are approaching it from two different direction and I lack the faith you have in PGI

[aseth]

Alcom Isst, on 15 December 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

...and the nerve of the guy to suggest that NARC Beacons are at all helpful.

I'm pretty sure he picked NARC Beacons as a snarky example of something nobody would ever actually want to do. It's the type of thing systems designers are especially noted for.

[Hillslam]

OP is a rage nerd and wrong across the board.

My children form more coherent argument rationalizations for why they should get a cookie before dinner than this guy.

Nut up and drop your easy mode mech fantasies.

[Almond Brown]

3rdworld, on 15 December 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Paul should be banned from balancing the game, not because of his thoughts on Clan tech. But the state of MWO.

It is awful.

Then what exactly is it that keeps you running your potty mouth around here?

[Greyfyl]

Almond Brown, on 15 December 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Then what exactly is it that keeps you running your potty mouth around here?

I still visit the forums on occasion....haven't played MWO in ages though. I keep hoping to hear that the Paul and Russ have been kicked to the curb and the game has been saved from them.

It should have been obvious from the arrogance and just god-awful decisions shown by PGI as far back as closed beta that this game would not progress very far.....OBVIOUS.

[Undercover Brother]

CLAN tech: To Buff, or not to Buff?

I understand the frustration out there, AND the need to "buff" CLAN tech to even make I.S. units viable... But we're going about it the wrong way. ALL of us (including Paul).

If I may make a suggestion? And be honest with your feedback.

The first issue is that ZELLBRIGEN needs to be implemented. How, you ask?
Simple: XP/GXP/C-bills need a reduction depending on the amount of CLAN tech used in a build.
E.G.- A Madcat (Timberwolf) gets a 50% C-bill reduction when using all CLAN tech, whereas a Thunderbolt that is using 2 CLAN ERPPCs, gets an 8% downgrade. This can obviously be remedied if the "pay for repairs" system is implemented, since CLAN tech would be so much more expensive to field (including ammunition).

An XP/GXP/C-bill BONUS should be instituted during 1 vs 1 combat. Create a system where once a CLAN OMNIMECH pilot targets a specific mech, they can designate that specific target as "theirs"... As long as less than 20% of the damage that "designated" mech now takes comes from some other source, a ZELLBRIGEN BONUS is earned. THIS ALONE would make CLAN pilots more apt to want to fight one-on-one battles.

NO WEAPONS BUFFING NEEDS TO HAPPEN AGAINST CLAN TECH!!!

Why? CLAN tech is EXTREMELY cost-prohibitive. The ammo costs double (If players started paying for ammo, not only would it balance I.S. and CLAN weapons, but it'll also limit the dual-GAUSS/dual-AC/20/Missile-boat, builds.)

As far as OMNI-capability, allow players to purchase OMNI "pods" for a cost, prior to being able to mount a non-config (CLAN loadouts are typically referred to as "Alt-Config A, Alt Config-B, etc.) weapon in a weapon-type specific space. E.G.-You want to mount an A/C-5 where the Missile racks are on the right shoulder of a THOR (Summoner). All standard Configurations for the THOR (Summoner) have missile racks in the right shoulder pod. So, to use a weapon OTHER THAN missiles, you must first purchase an OMNI mount for that location (Lets use 500,000 C-bills, and the unlock is purchased the same way armor, DHS, and internals are purchased). So, the person configuring the mech needs to ask if the increased cost is worth the weapon loadout. You can even add a .5 or 1 ton buff (and 1 critical slot) for each OMNI location they unlock. In BATTLETECH lore, the ONLY weapons that were necessarily OMNI-capable were in the arm assemblies. So, any TORSO, HEAD, or WEAPONS POD (I'm sorry, but the shoulder-mounted weapons pods on the MADCAT (Timberwolf) should be separate from the normal torso assemblies) should COST MORE to use as OMNI slots.

The sheer COST associated with running CLAN tech should be the ONLY factor that keeps I.S. tech as a major player in the game. A stock MADCAT (Timberwolf) should cost AT LEAST as much as the "BOAR'S HEAD" Atlas. A stock ULLER (Kit Fox) should cost as much as a CENTURION. Its just how it is.

Lastly: CLAN teams (Assuming we have actual factional warfare) should be limited to 2 stars (10 mechs), and limited to 80% of tonnage allotted to their I.S. counterparts.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head for now. Let me know what you're opinions are.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I'm honestly just blown away that PGI would introduce a whole new set of weapons.

They have shown an inability to fix not only the balance issues with the current weapons, but also things like hit registration.

There is no way this ends well. Zero.

Even if CW and UI2.0 come out, and they lower the prices on the packages and split them up.

The fact that they are adding a whole new set of weapons which include Ultra AC/2 through 20. CLRM 5 through 20. Streak 4 and 6. Clan Gauss and of course Clan ER PPC will keep the players completely unhappy.

There is no way for them to balance it properly with the current employees running the show.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 15 December 2013 - 06:07 PM.

[3rdworld]

Almond Brown, on 15 December 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Then what exactly is it that keeps you running your potty mouth around here?

The IP.

And because I recognize the failings of the game as far as balance (not that balance is its only failing) does not mean I don't enjoy the game. Just wish it were better.

And potty mouth? Really?

Edited by 3rdworld, 15 December 2013 - 06:11 PM.

[Artgathan]

T Decker, on 15 December 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

CLAN tech: To Buff, or not to Buff?

I understand the frustration out there, AND the need to "buff" CLAN tech to even make I.S. units viable... But we're going about it the wrong way. ALL of us (including Paul).

If I may make a suggestion? And be honest with your feedback.

The first issue is that ZELLBRIGEN needs to be implemented. How, you ask?
Simple: XP/GXP/C-bills need a reduction depending on the amount of CLAN tech used in a build.
E.G.- A Madcat (Timberwolf) gets a 50% C-bill reduction when using all CLAN tech, whereas a Thunderbolt that is using 2 CLAN ERPPCs, gets an 8% downgrade. This can obviously be remedied if the "pay for repairs" system is implemented, since CLAN tech would be so much more expensive to field (including ammunition).

An XP/GXP/C-bill BONUS should be instituted during 1 vs 1 combat. Create a system where once a CLAN OMNIMECH pilot targets a specific mech, they can designate that specific target as "theirs"... As long as less than 20% of the damage that "designated" mech now takes comes from some other source, a ZELLBRIGEN BONUS is earned. THIS ALONE would make CLAN pilots more apt to want to fight one-on-one battles.

Why? CLAN tech is EXTREMELY cost-prohibitive. The ammo costs double (If players started paying for ammo, not only would it balance I.S. and CLAN weapons, but it'll also limit the dual-GAUSS/dual-AC/20/Missile-boat, builds.)

The sheer COST associated with running CLAN tech should be the ONLY factor that keeps I.S. tech as a major player in the game. A stock MADCAT (Timberwolf) should cost AT LEAST as much as the "BOAR'S HEAD" Atlas. A stock ULLER (Kit Fox) should cost as much as a CENTURION. Its just how it is.

Terrible idea. Out of game rewards should never be used to balance in-game behaviour. Players will abuse your proposed Zellbringen system (sure, they might play "in-character" when grinding for C-Bills, but as soon as the outcome of the engagement matters I guarantee that they'll focus fire on enemy targets).

Attempting to balance asymmetric teams is likewise a bad idea, because it implies several things:

• If I want to play with my friends, we all have to bring the same type of equipment (either all IS or all clan) - which can lead to divisions in the playerbase (such as if my friend only has clan tech and I only have IS tech)
  
• This means that Corporations in MWO must employ "pure" units, and any player that wants to use equipment from the other side (IS/clan) can't play with them anymore
  
• You can't be sure what the actual differences between the teams will be. For instance, if you play 10 v 12: Can the team with 12 bring more tonnage? How much more? Keep in mind that while the Clans will have higher firepower, they have less total armor than the other team. Does this balance out (meaning does the relative armor vs firepower between teams balance)? Is it better to have more armor or more firepower?

I think the way PGI is going about balancing is interesting. I'd suggest we at least see how it plays out before boo-hooing the system completely.

[Asmudius Heng]

Artgathan, on 15 December 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

Terrible idea. Out of game rewards should never be used to balance in-game behaviour. Players will abuse your proposed Zellbringen system (sure, they might play "in-character" when grinding for C-Bills, but as soon as the outcome of the engagement matters I guarantee that they'll focus fire on enemy targets).

Attempting to balance asymmetric teams is likewise a bad idea, because it implies several things:

• If I want to play with my friends, we all have to bring the same type of equipment (either all IS or all clan) - which can lead to divisions in the playerbase (such as if my friend only has clan tech and I only have IS tech)
  
• This means that Corporations in MWO must employ "pure" units, and any player that wants to use equipment from the other side (IS/clan) can't play with them anymore
  
• You can't be sure what the actual differences between the teams will be. For instance, if you play 10 v 12: Can the team with 12 bring more tonnage? How much more? Keep in mind that while the Clans will have higher firepower, they have less total armor than the other team. Does this balance out (meaning does the relative armor vs firepower between teams balance)? Is it better to have more armor or more firepower?

I think the way PGI is going about balancing is interesting. I'd suggest we at least see how it plays out before boo-hooing the system completely.

Seeing how it plays out means it will go in and thats that bad idea or not.

Forum rage might seem excessive but the hope is that the very real issues are elevated to the attention of the development team so that instead of waiting and finding, yep, its broke! There is some sense check before they rush into development of these things.

Not that the devs care what we think though so no one here is doing much other than raving one way or the other for no real outcomes