229 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 04:06 AM, said:

First point:
If you or your opponents are put in a position where you're set at a disadvantage, both you will seek an advantage. In MWO's case, that advantage is in Clan tech and it will remain an advantage until the I.S. develops new weapons.

Second:
Perhaps obsolete is the wrong word... think of it this way, by giving the I.S. access to Clan tech, a lot of the I.S. weaponry will become a lot more... situational. Less "all-purpose" and more "role-fulfillement," which is what this game desperately needs. I.S. and Clan 'mechs may very well use I.S. weaponry in specific situations, to shave off a bit of heat, or to save a C-bill or two.

Third:
This is what optimally built Trial 'Mechs are for. If veteran I.S. players do not already have a stash of C-bills to spend on Clan tech, then they will be able to at least fight with a trial 'mech that has Clan tech in it so they can keep up and grind until they can afford a 'mech of their own (unless they think they can fight optimally with an unmodified I.S. 'mech... then it may be worth it to give bonuses to players who fight in strictly I.S. tech 'mech against Clan 'mechs).

Fourth: Balance fixes itself when new tech for the I.S. comes out. Then it becomes a matter of what 'mech/weapon fills which role.

Fifth: In Battletech game series that I've played, if you MIX the tech, it actually becomes HARDER to define what is the "best" 'mech or the "best" load-out is. In other words, the meta is expanded to the point where it is unidentifiable--and purely based on playing style.

Just because this thread needs another angle to the same argument.

You do realise in canon that your proposal is a no go.

In 3050 Clan tech when it could be salvaged was gobbled up instantly by the House, and I mean all of it. They then poured over it for a few years tyring to work it out etc.and their investigations led to break thorughs etc that started rolling out about 3055 / 3056+.

Now the exceptions were the novel guys, the antz pantz of warriors except for a handful of mercs who broke their contracts to run away with Clan tech.

So from a Canon point of view, your idea has exactly zero merit.

Just saying, if you want to push the idea along, be aware the canon brigade will be on you.

Edited by Craig Steele, 06 February 2014 - 04:15 AM.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

Well yes and no. I can see his argument but what he is failing to see is there is another side. If the Orion can be a Madcat just by ginding out some weapons, why would anyone buy a Madcat. PGI fail there.

I suspect what he fails to realize is that his argument if it is to be balanced is to nerf the neck out of Clan tech so it can be fitted into IS mechs without compromising all the other IS stuff people have bought. An assymetrical warfare arguement is all well and good if he is playing for 4 years, but many players are wanting to play NOW. Not in 6 months when new technology is available.

Its a bit like people saying no to fixed ES / FF slots. Why cause they might (we don't know) not be able to fit as many (insert equipment) in the torso / legs / arms as they potentially could, or an AC5 instead of a AC10. Min maxes hate restrictions cause it limits them to being better players and not relying on exploits to be competitive. I like having choices, but I think if the devs see a potential for exploitation then they should cramp it early so it doesn't become an issue.

Lets just see how balanced the full roll out is imo. But early on it looks like some good, some bad = balance of sorts.

Thing is, even with Clan tech, the Orion CAN'T be a Madcat because of intrinsic design quirks! That's the beauty of it! The stakes are just higher because now the Madcat is facing an opponent who has (roughly) equal footing with that madcat pilot. So, then it will come down to pilot skill.

As for the grinding argument, you have to realize that, if PGI makes some optimally built trial 'mechs with Clan tech in them, Grinding should be almost a non-issue; at least the pilots would be on par with the rest of the veteran Mechwarriors that are rocking shiny Clan tech that they bought with their stash.

This isn't about exploiting anything. This is about using LEGITIMATE in-game means to adapt to a situation, rather then begging the devs to fix it.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

Just because this thread needs another angle to the same argument.

You do realise in canon that your proposal is a no go.

In 3050 Clan tech when it could be salvaged was gobbled up instantly by the House, and I mean all of it. They then poured over it for a few years tyring to work it out etc.and their investigations led to break thorughs etc that started rolling out about 3055 / 3056+.

Now the exceptions were the novel guys, the antz pantz of warriors except for a handful of mercs who broke their contracts to run away with Clan tech.

So from a Canon point of view, your idea has exactly zero merit.

Just saying, if you want to push the idea along, be aware the canon brigade will be on you.

The best we can do from a canon standpoint (as far as the Clans go), at this point is address the grievances with Paul's design proposal for the Clans and PRAY the devs don't f*ck it up.

As far as timeline goes, PGI has pretty much abandoned it. I could cite several examples of 'mechs that were not supposed to be available on PGI's timeline, and yet they were made available in game.

That said, it may be advantageous to release at least a good chunk of the tech developed during the Clan invasion, the Great Refusal, and the second SLDF. As for the Dark Age? -shivers- That is a whole different animal altogether.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 04:25 AM.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

a) I'll stop being snide when you stop being insulting.
b ) I didn't say it was baseless, you're adding adjectives now to reinforce your point. I said it was an opinion (yours btw) not a fact.
c) Another phrase is "forgive and forget". Look I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't believe from PGI, I am saying that what we have is a small part of the picture and knee jerk ranting is of very little value and not constructive to the development of what we all want.
d) I would hope the Devs are progressing the game along a path that unlocks entertainment for the majority. I may not be the majority in the end but I would hope thats what they're doing. I think that if the Devs see a potential for a system to be exploited, they should stop it before that happens to protect the game and their brand.
e) So you believe in action is louder than words but you won't let them act unless it's your way? Seems legit if I understand that correctly.
f) No, I pretty much get your venom and rhetoric stance so no need to repeat it.
g) That may be your opinion, but it is not their business model and hasn't been since day 1. You might not like it (but I see you did buy Overlord at least so you have supported it) but its unreasonable to expand this thread to criticising that which has been in place and accepted.
h) I find this pretty insulting tbh. Also, unless I missed a poll I didn't see the majority of forum users appoint you as their spokesperson. What about the thousands more players that are not on forums, you their spokesperson too? Whatever your personal issues with Paul may or may not be they don't belong here. Play the game, not the man.

a) Insulting? I can come off strong, but I don't think I've resorted to name-calling, ad-hominem, or any other idiotic fallacies or offenses.
b ) So... my "opinion" is... based on fact? How does that make sense when I expressed reasonable conclusions based on verifiable facts?
c) I've LITERALLY been addressing the intrinsic problems with their design proposals and effective means to counter these problems the ENTIRE ARGUMENT! I would REALLY like to think that my arguments have at least SOME validity because they are based on present data, and what has worked in the past!
d) The system I've made a case for leaves more room for adaptation, less for exploitation. Forcing players to adapt by using their money, however, is going to get people to wondering how they can save a buck and cheat the system.
e) You ever heard the term, "The customer is always right?" I do agree that every game company is entitled to their artistic vision of the game, but if they keep f**king up a game where community feedback is involved, there has to be a breaking point where they have to realize that maybe, just MAYBE they should listen to their customers.
f) Well, for "understanding" my stance, you sure do make me repeat myself a lot. -.-
g) Kinda too late for that. I don't like P2W, and a lot of other people don't like P2W. I would hope any person with a frontal lobe doesn't like P2W.
h) And who gave you the authority make pretentious assumptions about my "position" on the forums? Look, I'm not a celebrity on here. I think that sort of thing is a waste of time... and rather asinine. But I've seen far too many people (both in the game and in the forums) complain about the grievances that PGI has committed. And it saddens me to see people (especially people whom I personally know) waste all this time, energy, and money on a game only to misled, and misled, and misled. So, you're right. I can't speak for EVERYONE on the forums, or in the game, but I CAN speak for myself and my friends. We've had enough and whether people like me are the majority or not on MWO, losing customers because of lemon of a product is a HUGE problem.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 04:48 AM.

[wanderer]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 01:31 AM, said:

Ummm, I'll bite

In most cases if you compare any 3050 Omni to a comparitve weight IS and you will see at least 2 and up to 6 additional weapons.

Given, you also see most of those deep-fry themselves if they fire the extras. Clan 'Mechs tend to carry more weapons, but also tend to suffer from a lack of ammo or heat sinks to keep them in play for extended periods of time.

Quote

Umm, no. In 3048 the next generation of Star league inspired mechs is starting to come off the lines. Granted its not in huge numbers and takes time to get through to units on the periphary, but it is incorrect to say IS cannot compare.

Engine, no. in BT you can only equip an engine that is a multipe of its tonnage, so a 400 would fit in a 100 ton mech, an 80, a 50, a 40 and so on. There are rules for jury rigging, but they don't get built like that.

Not to mention that logistically, it was far tougher to pull an engine and beef up a 'Mech in terms of speed, and mods in general were tougher to produce and get out there. The units on the edges of the IS generally didn't even have that- the first non-pirates to engage the Clans were exclusively in pre-League technology, and prior to that, the Clans were gobbling up pirates who were lucky to have even fully functional 'Mechs rather than junkers.

The first really fully IS-teched (that is, MWO-level) fights don't happen until Tukayyid, which is the final battle of the Clan invasion, years down the line in 3052. If you want to look at force balance, that's where you'd start- older 'Mechs were still being tossed in as fodder for years after that, but the average IS force had a reasonable chance of putting MWO levels of tech on the field vs. a Clan force from about 3055 on as older 'Mechs became relegated to second or third-line units and enough "modern" tech was rolling off production lines to refit or replace those chassis.

Quote

The read is that Clan mechs will have some slight advantages and some slight disadvantages so far (engine being the one that concerns me most) But we would all be wise to see the full picture before we throw money at PGI or scream blue murder.

So far, Omnis don't strike me as bad...but it's going to be how good the equipment on them is + whether they try and make it Clan-in-name-only tech that worries me.

[Craig Steele]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:

Thing is, even with Clan tech, the Orion CAN'T be a Madcat because of intrinsic design quirks! That's the beauty of it! The stakes are just higher because now the Madcat is facing an opponent who has (roughly) equal footing with that madcat pilot. So, then it will come down to pilot skill.

As for the grinding argument, you have to realize that, if PGI makes some optimally built trial 'mechs with Clan tech in them, Grinding should be almost a non-issue; at least the pilots would be on par with the rest of the veteran Mechwarriors that are rocking shiny Clan tech that they bought with their stash.

This isn't about exploiting anything. This is about using LEGITIMATE in-game means to adapt to a situation, rather then begging the devs to fix it.

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

The best we can do from a canon standpoint (as far as the Clans go), at this point is address the grievances with Paul's design proposal for the Clans and PRAY the devs don't f*ck it up.

As far as timeline goes, PGI has pretty much abandoned it. I could cite several examples of 'mechs that were not supposed to be available on PGI's timeline, and yet they were made available in game.

That said, it may be advantageous to release at least a good chunk of the tech developed during the Clan invasion, the Great Refusal, and the second SLDF. As for the Dark Age? -shivers- That is a whole different animal altogether.

So its OK to have IS mechs with quirks that nerf or buff them, but not Clan mechs? You still seem to be saying that every mech needs to be the same (assuming tonnage ofc) so the weapons can be the same so it can be even. I just don't agree this is the only possible solution.

The DEV's seem to be trying to fix a tricky problem right now and you (along with others) are smashing the heck out them. So you smash them for being pro active, smash them for being reactive. Exactly when would you like them to execute the game balance requirements?

You presented a very strong argument on the merits of assymetrical warfare, not compelling enough for me, but it was far from a bad argument. Now you seem to be arguing that it wouldn't be terrible to bring all the "new tech" in now so there is balance between IS and Clan (yeah, lets not touch Dark Age, OMFG )

heres the bottom line imo.

The argument for mix techs mechs is going to fail as it will enable the min maxes to pick the "best" bits of both sides of technology and create a monster meta. Why will there be two sides, well because there has to be to differentiate the product so it can be marketed. Then the Devs will be running around like whack a mole trying to get some semblance of balance back in the game.

You seem to be arguing thats OK because
a) players should drive the meta not Dev's
over time new weapons will balance it out anyway

Thats not a game that the casual player will enjoy during that "snapshot"

a) You had a dip at me, you took a big dive at Paul. Just saying thats how you come across. I didn't mean to snide but I'm happy to accept that you may have felt that and I'll try and change. I'm not going to say your wrong, it's your feelings not mine.
b ) rewording an opinion and calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact. You don't know with certainity the outcome and its not fair that your version of doom and gloom is the only scenario that is to be believed. Jeepers, we don't even have the full picture yet and you're blowing full time game over.
c) OK, you're entitiled to your opinion.
d) I read your system as forcing all players to play one mech chassis with one weapon loadout, no matter what its name or shape, you want them all the same (relativily). I disagree with that.
e) (More insulting btw, but I digress) I too have said the same thing many times and pleasingly, they seem to be changing. Where I draw the line is them listening to a vocal abusive minoroty screaming "my way or no way" because that is likely to detract from my enjoyment of the game.
f) OK
g) OK
h) Umm, I didn't assume, you claimed that your view was supported by the majority of forum users. no pretentious assumption on my part at all. But we have no established now that you represent a small sliver of the player population directly (friends etc) and maybe some others agree with you. OK. Point to you.

Anyway, I think this is done now. I heard what you had to say and it seemed worth talking about but I got put off by your chest thumping and ranting and it all just kinda fell apart for me then.

Good luck with your quest. I kinda hope you fail only cause well, I just don't like what you propose.

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 06 February 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

Given, you also see most of those deep-fry themselves if they fire the extras. Clan 'Mechs tend to carry more weapons, but also tend to suffer from a lack of ammo or heat sinks to keep them in play for extended periods of time.



Not to mention that logistically, it was far tougher to pull an engine and beef up a 'Mech in terms of speed, and mods in general were tougher to produce and get out there. The units on the edges of the IS generally didn't even have that- the first non-pirates to engage the Clans were exclusively in pre-League technology, and prior to that, the Clans were gobbling up pirates who were lucky to have even fully functional 'Mechs rather than junkers.

The first really fully IS-teched (that is, MWO-level) fights don't happen until Tukayyid, which is the final battle of the Clan invasion, years down the line in 3052. If you want to look at force balance, that's where you'd start- older 'Mechs were still being tossed in as fodder for years after that, but the average IS force had a reasonable chance of putting MWO levels of tech on the field vs. a Clan force from about 3055 on as older 'Mechs became relegated to second or third-line units and enough "modern" tech was rolling off production lines to refit or replace those chassis.



So far, Omnis don't strike me as bad...but it's going to be how good the equipment on them is + whether they try and make it Clan-in-name-only tech that worries me.

Yup, too true, but equally valid for IS too on alot of mechs. The clans chief advanatage was (in order) pilot, speed and range. With those three alone they could effectivily fight where and when they felt like and have minimal fear of retaliation. MWO can do nothing about the pilot but it will be interesting how the others pan out.

Mhm, yup yup. Even Tukayyid though, Star League mechs are mostly 2 technology systems, maybe 3? Its rare for alot more in one Chassis, they are horribly under prepared. But the pilots were top notch and they were defending, two good things to have one your side.

Not too sure about 3055 timeline, some yes. But consider this. Until 3056+ there were only a very small number of systems where the IS forces held the field. Luthien, Wolcott, Twycross come to mind. Thats really the only opportunities for serious salvaging. Other salvaging is what you could get off the arm you just blew off (stereo type but you get the point) They just didn't have the time to make safe reactors / magazines and arrange shipment / transportation of clan chassis. And from 3052 the IS wasn't exactly looking to go the Clans, they were going "jeepers, can we take a breath please". About 3056 they strated to beef up raids etc but still opportunities for real salvage (engines, torso's etc) were probably limited.

On the omni's the big thing for me is the engine upgrading. On the lights end especially, I think it looks on the surface a bit wrong. But maybe the quirks they talk about make up for it? Maybe a Clan leg gives a 10% movement boost, 2 is 25%. the trade off being the 4 slots are fixed? idk? I'll get angry when I got the full picture.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

So its OK to have IS mechs with quirks that nerf or buff them, but not Clan mechs? You still seem to be saying that every mech needs to be the same (assuming tonnage ofc) so the weapons can be the same so it can be even. I just don't agree this is the only possible solution.

The DEV's seem to be trying to fix a tricky problem right now and you (along with others) are smashing the heck out them. So you smash them for being pro active, smash them for being reactive. Exactly when would you like them to execute the game balance requirements?

You presented a very strong argument on the merits of assymetrical warfare, not compelling enough for me, but it was far from a bad argument. Now you seem to be arguing that it wouldn't be terrible to bring all the "new tech" in now so there is balance between IS and Clan (yeah, lets not touch Dark Age, OMFG )

heres the bottom line imo.

The argument for mix techs mechs is going to fail as it will enable the min maxes to pick the "best" bits of both sides of technology and create a monster meta. Why will there be two sides, well because there has to be to differentiate the product so it can be marketed. Then the Devs will be running around like whack a mole trying to get some semblance of balance back in the game.

You seem to be arguing thats OK because
a) players should drive the meta not Dev's
over time new weapons will balance it out anyway

Thats not a game that the casual player will enjoy during that "snapshot"

a) You had a dip at me, you took a big dive at Paul. Just saying thats how you come across. I didn't mean to snide but I'm happy to accept that you may have felt that and I'll try and change. I'm not going to say your wrong, it's your feelings not mine.
b ) rewording an opinion and calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact. You don't know with certainity the outcome and its not fair that your version of doom and gloom is the only scenario that is to be believed. Jeepers, we don't even have the full picture yet and you're blowing full time game over.
c) OK, you're entitiled to your opinion.
d) I read your system as forcing all players to play one mech chassis with one weapon loadout, no matter what its name or shape, you want them all the same (relativily). I disagree with that.
e) (More insulting btw, but I digress) I too have said the same thing many times and pleasingly, they seem to be changing. Where I draw the line is them listening to a vocal abusive minoroty screaming "my way or no way" because that is likely to detract from my enjoyment of the game.
f) OK
g) OK
h) Umm, I didn't assume, you claimed that your view was supported by the majority of forum users. no pretentious assumption on my part at all. But we have no established now that you represent a small sliver of the player population directly (friends etc) and maybe some others agree with you. OK. Point to you.

Anyway, I think this is done now. I heard what you had to say and it seemed worth talking about but I got put off by your chest thumping and ranting and it all just kinda fell apart for me then.

Good luck with your quest. I kinda hope you fail only cause well, I just don't like what you propose.

No... I never said 'mechs need to be the same... in fact, the opposite. All 'mechs (including Clan 'mechs) have design quirks.

Of course we're smashing the heck out of them... we're tired of being lied to, tired of not being listened to and tired of being marginalized. What else do you expect us to do against that kind of attitude? Play nice and dream of a day that PGI will kiss and make up...?

Timing of the balance isn't the problem... execution is. They're creating problems by addressing problems...

The "full time game over" has yet to be seen... as long as I can lend my voice to the many others that have grievances with this game, through the forums (at the very least) then I still hold hope that PGI will pull their head out of their exhaust port...

d) No... by introducing Clan tech to the masses, you can create an even greater variety of load-outs for both Clan and I.S. 'mechs. How in the hell did you read that as binding a person to a single 'mech...?

e) I wasn't screaming or ranting. I was harsh, but I did deliver concise arguments as to why their system won't work.

h) If I'd had made that claim as fact, I would provided examples and data... operative words: "I think, maybe, etc, etc..." I spoke mainly out of experience. You did make the assumption that I was some kind of representative of the forum as a whole... which is asinine.

If you don't like what I propose well... I hope you like what Paul has in store (again, if his design proposal for the Clans is to be believed). Cause if you don't it will be humorous to see you complaining against it.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[Craig Steele]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

No... I never said 'mechs need to be the same... in fact, the opposite. All 'mechs (including Clan 'mechs) have design quirks.

Of course we're smashing the heck out of them... we're tired of being lied to, tired of not being listened to and tired of being marginalized. What else do you expect us to do against that kind of attitude? Play nice and dream of a day that PGI will kiss and make up...?

Timing of the balance isn't the problem... execution is. They're creating problems by addressing problems...

The "full time game over" has yet to be seen... as long as I can lend my voice to the many others that have grievances with this game, through the forums (at the very least) then I still hold hope that PGI will pull their head out of their exhaust port...

d) No... by introducing Clan tech to the masses, you can create an even greater variety of load-outs for both Clan and I.S. 'mechs. How in the hell did you read that as binding a person to a single 'mech...?

e) I wasn't screaming or ranting. I was harsh, but I did deliver concise arguments as to why their system won't work.

h) If I'd had made that claim as fact, I would provided examples and data... operative words: "I think, maybe, etc, etc..." I spoke mainly out of experience. You did make the assumption that I was some kind of representative of the forum as a whole... which is asinine.

If you don't like what I propose well... I hope you like what Paul has in store (again, if his design proposal for the Clans is to be believed). Cause if you don't it will be humorous to see you complaining against it.

The difference you and me is I'll complain when I have something to complain about, not because I like to read what I type.

You are so quick to back away from your own words I struggle to think you believe in them yourself. But you want to lead the masses to the land of hope and glory.

Type away friend, I'm leaving this thread now so you can say whatever you like. It will matter about the same as if I did read it.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

The difference you and me is I'll complain when I have something to complain about, not because I like to read what I type.

You are so quick to back away from your own words I struggle to think you believe in them yourself. But you want to lead the masses to the land of hope and glory.

Type away friend, I'm leaving this thread now so you can say whatever you like. It will matter about the same as if I did read it.

As you love to say, "Your opinion, not mine."

I never backed away from anything...

Do whatever the f**k you want...

[mania3c]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 04:06 AM, said:

First point:
If you or your opponents are put in a position where you're set at a disadvantage, both you will seek an advantage. In MWO's case, that advantage is in Clan tech and it will remain an advantage until the I.S. develops new weapons.

Second:
Perhaps obsolete is the wrong word... think of it this way, by giving the I.S. access to Clan tech, a lot of the I.S. weaponry will become a lot more... situational. Less "all-purpose" and more "role-fulfillement," which is what this game desperately needs. I.S. and Clan 'mechs may very well use I.S. weaponry in specific situations, to shave off a bit of heat, or to save a C-bill or two.

Third:
This is what optimally built Trial 'Mechs are for. If veteran I.S. players do not already have a stash of C-bills to spend on Clan tech, then they will be able to at least fight with a trial 'mech that has Clan tech in it so they can keep up and grind until they can afford a 'mech of their own (unless they think they can fight optimally with an unmodified I.S. 'mech... then it may be worth it to give bonuses to players who fight in strictly I.S. tech 'mech against Clan 'mechs).

Fourth: Balance fixes itself when new tech for the I.S. comes out. Then it becomes a matter of what 'mech/weapon fills which role.

Fifth: In Battletech game series that I've played, if you MIX the tech, it actually becomes HARDER to define what is the "best" 'mech or the "best" load-out is. In other words, the meta is expanded to the point where it is unidentifiable--and purely based on playing style.

I see..so..let's say I just disagree with your point of view no offense

from game design perspective I feel your approach is doing just harm with very minor gain..

If you really want situational weapons.. let expand weapon module system.. which, honestly, sounds as really good way to allow pilots to specialize their mechs (and allow PGI to bring bigger diversity between mechs)

trial idea..not sure how you think it's good idea.. IF clan tech would be just better..and we would have ONE trial mech with clan tech, it's just another trap for new or un-experienced player..again.. their current Trial system is pretty bad..but it has some base which is standing on...

your whole "balances fixes itself IF and WHEN new content will be added" is wrong on so many levels in my opinion but I think I said enough ..we just see these things differently I guess..

[Kenyon Burguess]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 February 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

Also, what o you mean no Hunchback IIC?

no, I am talking about using an IS hunchback. im sure a hunch IIC is down the road as its own machine.

[Wolfways]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 February 2014 - 01:21 AM, said:

I'll say again, he means REAL clan tech.

I don't know what you mean by "real clan tech" but i'm talking about the equipment stats used in Battletech that PGI are basing their game on.

Quote

Clan weapons are ... 25-50% more damage, 25-50% longer range, 25-75% more heat.

Lasers that produce more heat than the current lasers will be pointless (in MWO).

Quote

Clan mechs don't carry 'more' weapons. Look at classical BT mech configs before you say smth. MWO heat system has nothing to do with REAL Clan weapons. Just like IS mechs can still shoot 6PPCs if they want taking penalty so will clan mechs.

The Timberwolf (a very popular clan mech) Prime carries nine weapons. The heat system has everything to do with weapons. Most players now remove weapons because trying to use all of them would melt the mech. Clan weapons producing even more heat will make players use even less of them, or just stick to IS versions.

Quote

When you claim you talk about REAL clan tech whole statement is laughable. Clan mechs are way way above anything IS has to offer at 3050.

My point is that in MWO they won't be, even if PGI put them in as "OP" as they are supposed to be in the lore.

Quote

Speed depends on mech weight. And BT does not have max engine restrictions, so you can put a 400 engine in all and any mechs as long as they have tonnage to carry it. Same weight clan and IS mechs with same engine will do same speed.



They won't because IS mechs are already implemented wrong. Unless you give clan mechs vastly superior weaponry (which PGI won't do) they are at par at best.

That's what i'm saying. Nerfing clan mechs will not make them balanced, but instead will make them UP.
MWO's heat system will cripple clan lasers.
Not being able to save weight on mechs that already have Endo/FF by reducing the engine size leaves only removing weapons to add extra ammo/DHS.

But i guess PGI knows best...even if they did admit that AC's were OP on purpose because players had to buy ammo but think they're still balanced without R&R

[Joseph Mallan]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 February 2014 - 01:21 AM, said:

Clan weapons are ... 25-50% more damage, 25-50% longer range, 25-75% more heat.

Clan ERPPC Has 50% more damage for 15% less weight
Clan ER Large Laser 20% more damage 20% less weight
Clan Gauss Equal damage 20% less weight

Clan Ultra AC5 23% lighter equal damage (unless PGI give em a faster cyclic rate).

I only looked at the UAC5 range and the Clan version had a 30m edge in range.
After looking up the ERPPC they both have a 23 hex range.

So you have exaggerated the difference a little bit sir.

[PhoenixFire55]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

Huh? your response has nothing to do with your original statement. Clan mechs do have 2 - 6 more weapons and all the extra bits over and above an IS same tonnage chassis. Could you expand cause I lost you here

My point was that average clan mechs might have those 2-6 more weapons than your average IS mechs, but it is not true all the time, and not even necesserily not true with only newest IS mechs. Black Knight is a 2600-ish mech and it has 8 weapons in default config and between 4 and 12 weapons in other configs, about same your basic Timberwolf with 9 weapons primary config. Bandersnatch is a 3052 mech and has 11 weapons primary config.

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

OK, thats kinda what I said, so are you redacting your original point?

Maybe I was a bit exaggerating when I said that clan mechs are better than anything IS has, but on average I still stand by this. Average clan mech in 3050 is far superior to an average IS mech used same time.

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

On engines same, are you redacting your point?

Don't really see your point. You can't fit a 400 engine in a light no matter if you put a max engine restriction or not. As I said in most cases (if not all cases I need to check), the 'multiple of its tonnage' restriction you mentioned is far greater than an engine you can actually fit into a mech anyway.

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

Well first is the CASE everywhere at zero cost and crits...

True. But its way too good, I don't think this will stand, makes no sense whatsoever.

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

and the two torso to kill engine.

Huh? Supposed to kill CT to kill an engine with clan XLs. Killing both sides won't kill it.

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

I wouldn't want Clan tech buffed over canon though, if its got the feel but is balanced to IS tech, thats what I would be happy with.

Clans ARE OP (as in OverPowered) in lore. I kinda agree with an OP's (as in Original Poster) suggestion, make clan mechs and clan weapons way better than IS, but balance it with sending 5 clanners vs 8 IS mechs etc. As I said, one star of clanners vs two lances of IS always sounded fair matchup. It also keeps true clan unit structure.

[mania3c]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 February 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

Clans ARE OP (as in OverPowered) in lore. I kinda agree with an OP's (as in Original Poster) suggestion, make clan mechs and clan weapons way better than IS, but balance it with sending 5 clanners vs 8 IS mechs etc. As I said, one star of clanners vs two lances of IS always sounded fair matchup. It also keeps true clan unit structure.

problem with this is, that game may not be able to support this..first..separating players based on tech they use would cause pretty huge uproar..and also additional fragmenting aside factions/houses/elo/private/public.. whatever ..could cause that wait times would skyrocket really high..

[PhoenixFire55]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

I don't know what you mean by "real clan tech" but i'm talking about the equipment stats used in Battletech that PGI are basing their game on.

PGI sadly isn't basing their game on original BT weapons stats. About half weapons in MWO are already non-canon stat-wise. All these can be considered minor tweaks, but proposed clan weapons stats are FAR off what clan weapons have in BT.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

Lasers that produce more heat than the current lasers will be pointless (in MWO).

If you truly think this then you are very unfamiliar with current meta of 'most damage in least possible time'. Besides, the fact that clan weapons pretty much always generated more heat was balanced by the fact that clan DHS took 2 crit slots vs 3 crit slots of IS DHS, thus allowing you to fit more of them to compensate.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

The Timberwolf (a very popular clan mech) Prime carries nine weapons. The heat system has everything to do with weapons. Most players now remove weapons because trying to use all of them would melt the mech. Clan weapons producing even more heat will make players use even less of them, or just stick to IS versions.

As I already mentioned in a reply just above, Black Knight (2600-ish mech, 75t) has 8 in basic config, up to 12 in alt configs. Bander (3052, 75t) is 11 basic config. Thats just the two I remember right away, Sarna surely has lots of other examples where this is also true. An average clan mech used in 3050 surely does have more weapons than an average IS mech used same time tho.

I'm yet to see anyone I play against in MWO remove anything from their mechs. You might see less 'boats' due to dumbass ghost heat true, but most mechs you see in game do have all their hardpoints used. Most cases you see its not true are specialized mechs (Boomjager etc.) that have very few hardpoints used due to tonnage limits not due to heat buildup. You can still use a 6-PPC Stalker if you want, chain fire 2-2-2 and you don't have any heat penalty, but then again, you are missing the whole point of that mech of one huge alpha strike pinpoint damage, which is still meta with 3D Phracts and Highlanders using AC5s-PPCs combo.

If I could choose between doing 30-40 points alpha for 50% heat generated or 60-70 points alpha for 99% heat generated I will always go with more damage and more heat in current game.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

My point is that in MWO they won't be, even if PGI put them in as "OP" as they are supposed to be in the lore.

You aren't a dev to say it. They can change anything and everything the way they want (sadly). All I'm saying (and as I see it, what OP is saying) is that clans can be balanced with IS by other means then nerfing them to oblivion by dramatical restrictions to mechs and nerfs to weapons. Keep clan tech OP, but drop less clanners vs more IS mechs and possibly implement penalties for dishonorable actions (such as focused fire etc.).

Wolfways, on 06 February 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

MWO's heat system will cripple clan lasers.

How is it different for clan lasers and IS lasers? You fire 3 IS LLs you get ghost heat, you fire 3 clan LLs you get ghost heat. Seems like same to me.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

Not being able to save weight on mechs that already have Endo/FF by reducing the engine size leaves only removing weapons to add extra ammo/DHS.

True. And thats one of the reasons why customization restrictions PGI proposes are dumb.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

But i guess PGI knows best...

NOT. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

Edited for grammer.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 06 February 2014 - 07:06 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

Clan ERPPC Has 50% more damage for 15% less weight
Clan ER Large Laser 20% more damage 20% less weight
Clan Gauss Equal damage 20% less weight

Clan Ultra AC5 23% lighter equal damage (unless PGI give em a faster cyclic rate).

I only looked at the UAC5 range and the Clan version had a 30m edge in range.
After looking up the ERPPC they both have a 23 hex range.

So you have exaggerated the difference a little bit sir.

I haven't exaggerated anything. I derped and said longer range instead of less weight. Mybad.
Clan LRMs are less weight, more damage more heat etc.

[PhoenixFire55]

mania3c, on 06 February 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

problem with this is, that game may not be able to support this..first..separating players based on tech they use would cause pretty huge uproar..and also additional fragmenting aside factions/houses/elo/private/public.. whatever ..could cause that wait times would skyrocket really high..

How is it an uproar? You want to be clanner, be a clanner, drive clan mechs that are OP but also behave like a clanner. But nobody forces you to be a clanner. Same for IS. If you look at the polls early on, its about 50-50 people wanting to affiliate themselves as clanners and as IS.

OP also suggested using BV for balance. That'll work too and you can have both clan and IS tech mechs on same team etc. Wait times are quite good for most players, could be even better if a lot of people didn't quit the game. Implement clans right and those people might just come back for even shorter wait times.

[Joseph Mallan]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 February 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

I haven't exaggerated anything. I derped and said longer range instead of less weight. Mybad.
Clan LRMs are less weight, more damage more heat etc.

You said the difference was 25-50 percent when it is 20%< for almost everything but Missiles (Which are admittedly 50% lighter, same damage and range)