229 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

Wolfways, on 05 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

I did actually read his post, and i'm talking about REAL clan tech.

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

Wolfways, on 05 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

weapons - Clan have slightly better range which is mostly negated by the COD-style maps.

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

Wolfways, on 05 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Clan mechs carry more weapons, which they won't be able to fire because of MWO's increased heat system.

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.

Wolfways, on 05 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

The weight saved by lighter weapons will be useful for adding more needed DHS to bring the clan mechs performance up to the IS mechs level.

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.

Wolfways, on 05 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Speed - No idea how fast clan mechs could go if they get to upgrade engines, but i'd guess they'd be faster than IS mechs of a similar weight.

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.

Wolfways, on 05 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Maybe someone could point out to me how clan mechs would be superior in MWO?

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.

[Craig Steele]

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

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.



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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 01:21 AM, said:

Ummm, I said "Slightly better", please don't take away my adjectives to support your argument. Thats not good form.

And I clarified that some aspects are not yet known, the unspoken insinuation being to make a informed judgement when all the details are available instead of throwing a tanty over half the story.

I suspect you are on a hiding to nothing if you are saying that a F2P game model should not sell a desired product because it doesn't suit your idea of balance. Sorry, but the mechs will be sold for real cash making it impossible to limit it's availability. Anyone with $$ will be able to buy them, same as anyone with $$ can currently buy every other mech. The model is not going to change.

Unless you want to kill the game by arguing for a subscription model?

If you want Clan tech in IS mechs you are basically arguing for a min max environment with no balance. They are attempting to balance the "power" of Clan tech by opting for package arrangements. I don't like the min maxing, theres too much min maxing already in this game to it's detriment.

If you want a kick butt optimal weapons loadout by stacking 8 ballistic hardpoints on madcat, you might have to settle for a comparably slower speed or lesser armour. Where's the problem?

Personally I don't have a problem with that in theory but the engine one certainly bugs me.

"Ummm, I said 'Slightly better', please don't take away my adjectives to support your argument. Thats not good form."
Based on the numbers, the Clan 'mechs ARE empirically more optimal in combat then I.S. 'mechs. How large or small their effectiveness is irrelevant as such factors can sky-rocket a 'mech's combat effectiveness with a skilled pilot. I'm not blowing this out of proportion, I'm referencing to what Paul's data confirms on what his model of Clan tech is (thus far).

"And I clarified that some aspects are not yet known, the unspoken insinuation being to make a informed judgement when all the details are available instead of throwing a tanty over half the story."
I am aware of that... I know the design choice behind Clan 'mechs are purely tentative. However, I'm trying to reach a consensus with you (and other players) that the current design model that Paul has proposed is mediocre at best, and atrocious at worst.

"I suspect you are on a hiding to nothing if you are saying that a F2P game model should not sell a desired product because it doesn't suit your idea of balance. Sorry, but the mechs will be sold for real cash making it impossible to limit it's availability. Anyone with $$ will be able to buy them, same as anyone with $$ can currently buy every other mech. The model is not going to change."
Neg. I wasn't saying the F2P model of business of micro-transactions is wrong, however, the P2W model is. I don't mind that P.G.I. get's their revenue on bling, paint jobs, or "premium time," but to give access to players with money the game-changing content like the Clan 'mechs or specialized hero 'mechs is bad form and alienates new players or players with no money in the long run. It's sending the wrong message to the players: "If you don't have money, you will have a hard time against players who do."

"Unless you want to kill the game by arguing for a subscription model?"
Subscription is not F2P. I don't know what point you were trying to make there.

"If you want Clan tech in IS mechs you are basically arguing for a min max environment with no balance. They are attempting to balance the "power" of Clan tech by opting for package arrangements. I don't like the min maxing, theres too much min maxing already in this game to it's detriment."
I would rather leave the "min/maxing" up to the players in the mechlab rather then have the devs do it for them. Sure. I recognize that players will develop their own metagame, and devs will balance the game around it, but you have to remember that other Mechwarrior games used this model and had less problems with balance in comparison to MWO.

"If you want a kick butt optimal weapons loadout by stacking 8 ballistic hardpoints on madcat, you might have to settle for a comparably slower speed or lesser armour. Where's the problem?"
But the fact that I will never be able to mount an MRM, or an X-pulse laser on the 'mech because of this forced separation is the problem in the first place. Forced separation is unnecessary, and will create the problems I've mentioned in my previous posts.

"Personally I don't have a problem with that in theory but the engine one certainly bugs me."
If you were able to use a Clan XL in your 'mech, you probably wouldn't be complaining.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 01:50 AM.

[Craig Steele]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 01:44 AM, said:

"Ummm, I said 'Slightly better', please don't take away my adjectives to support your argument. Thats not good form."
Based on the numbers, the Clan 'mechs ARE empirically more optimal in combat then I.S. 'mechs. How large or small their effectiveness is irrelevant as such factors can sky-rocket a 'mech's combat effectiveness with a skilled pilot. I'm not blowing this out of proportion, I'm referencing to what Paul's data confirms on what his model of Clan tech is (thus far).

"And I clarified that some aspects are not yet known, the unspoken insinuation being to make a informed judgement when all the details are available instead of throwing a tanty over half the story."
I am aware of that... I know the design choice behind Clan 'mechs are purely tentative. However, I'm trying to reach a consensus with you (and other players) that the current design model that Paul has proposed is mediocre at best, and atrocious at worst.

"I suspect you are on a hiding to nothing if you are saying that a F2P game model should not sell a desired product because it doesn't suit your idea of balance. Sorry, but the mechs will be sold for real cash making it impossible to limit it's availability. Anyone with $$ will be able to buy them, same as anyone with $$ can currently buy every other mech. The model is not going to change."
Neg. I wasn't saying the F2P model of business of micro-transactions is wrong, however, the P2W model is. I don't mind that P.G.I. get's their revenue on bling, paint jobs, or "premium time," but to give access to players with money the game-changing content like the Clan 'mechs or specialized hero 'mechs is bad form and alienates new players or players with no money in the long run. It's sending the wrong message to the players: "If you don't have money, you will have a hard time against players who do."

"Unless you want to kill the game by arguing for a subscription model?"
Subscription is not F2P. I don't know what point you were trying to make there.

"If you want Clan tech in IS mechs you are basically arguing for a min max environment with no balance. They are attempting to balance the "power" of Clan tech by opting for package arrangements. I don't like the min maxing, theres too much min maxing already in this game to it's detriment."
I would rather leave the "min/maxing" up to the players in the mechlab rather then have the devs do it for them. Sure. I recognize that players will develop their own metagame, and devs will balance the game around it, but you have to remember that other Mechwarrior games used this model and had less problems with balance in comparison to MWO.

"If you want a kick butt optimal weapons loadout by stacking 8 ballistic hardpoints on madcat, you might have to settle for a comparably slower speed or lesser armour. Where's the problem?"
But the fact that I will never be able to mount an MRM, or an X-pulse laser on the 'mech because of this forced separation is the problem in the first place. Forced separation is unnecessary, and will create the problems I've mentioned in my previous posts.

"Personally I don't have a problem with that in theory but the engine one certainly bugs me."
If you were able to use a Clan XL in your 'mech, you probably wouldn't be complaining.

You are blowing it out of proportion, read what you have typed in a months time and you will see. You don't have the full picture and you are screaming stop, stop now. The world will come to an end and we don;t even know the full story. Imagine if we did, the galaxy will implode.

You don't reach a concenus without compromising, what you are doing is thumping your chest and screaming "my way, my way"

You can buy a Higjlander now right? and thats the meta game right? think about what you're saying. They will sell mechs. And if they sell mechs you cannot limit in game their accessibility. Anyone with money can buy it. But sure, try and tell the company to cut off a major revenue stream. I think you're wastign your time, but you might be right too.

I would rather the Devs who know the direction the game is supposed go were involved. If you're a min max guy I can see why you would argue this passionatly about the subject.

If the tech is balanced in packages, then the P2W argument present is defeated. So do you want P2W or do you want balanced mechs freely available for every one to play?

My point was that if you are arguing against a F2P model, you might be arguing for subscription model, it was a question.

Forced separation is good if it provides a balance in game play. There are only so many factors that can be pulled for balancing. A package arrangement is one way to offset the levers (ie, only some levers work if others are) It hinders min maxing which is a good thing.

Do you a deal, you stop trying to tell me what I would like and I'll stop telling you, oh wait. I haven't?

[PhoenixFire55]

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

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.

And those IS don't have ES, FF or even DHS unlike their clan counterparts. Add upgrades and you get same amount of weapons.

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

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.

Some 2500-2700 Star League mechs are still better than both, but mass produced clan chassies at that period are way better than what IS produces.

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

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.

Yeah, sure. But you can't put a 400 into light as it weights more than an entire mech anyway. In most cases these max engines are heavier than what you can put into a mech keeping half the armor and a couple weapons anyway.

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

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.

I don't really see any advantages that PGI introduced, they only add disadvantages. There are advantages that clan tech has by default but none of the disadvantages are lore inherited.

[Craig Steele]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 February 2014 - 02:00 AM, said:

And those IS don't have ES, FF or even DHS unlike their clan counterparts. Add upgrades and you get same amount of weapons.



Some 2500-2700 Star League mechs are still better than both, but mass produced clan chassies at that period are way better than what IS produces.



Yeah, sure. But you can't put a 400 into light as it weights more than an entire mech anyway. In most cases these max engines are heavier than what you can put into a mech keeping half the armor and a couple weapons anyway.



I don't really see any advantages that PGI introduced, they only add disadvantages. There are advantages that clan tech has by default but none of the disadvantages are lore inherited.

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

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

On engines same, are you redacting your point?

Well first is the CASE everywhere at zero cost and crits, and the two torso to kill engine, thats a big shot in durability and representative of Canon, so thats fair I think. 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.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 01:57 AM, said:

You are blowing it out of proportion, read what you have typed in a months time and you will see. You don't have the full picture and you are screaming stop, stop now. The world will come to an end and we don;t even know the full story. Imagine if we did, the galaxy will implode.

You don't reach a concenus without compromising, what you are doing is thumping your chest and screaming "my way, my way"

You can buy a Higjlander now right? and thats the meta game right? think about what you're saying. They will sell mechs. And if they sell mechs you cannot limit in game their accessibility. Anyone with money can buy it. But sure, try and tell the company to cut off a major revenue stream. I think you're wastign your time, but you might be right too.


I would rather the Devs who know the direction the game is supposed go were involved. If you're a min max guy I can see why you would argue this passionatly about the subject.

If the tech is balanced in packages, then the P2W argument present is defeated. So do you want P2W or do you want balanced mechs freely available for every one to play?

My point was that if you are arguing against a F2P model, you might be arguing for subscription model, it was a question.

Forced separation is good if it provides a balance in game play. There are only so many factors that can be pulled for balancing. A package arrangement is one way to offset the levers (ie, only some levers work if others are) It hinders min maxing which is a good thing.

Do you a deal, you stop trying to tell me what I would like and I'll stop telling you, oh wait. I haven't?

I'm making arguments based on available data and the data that Inouye has provided is NOT good. Until the data changes, and until his proposal of Clan tech design is thrown off of the table, I will continue to argue against it.

I'm arguing so vehemently against this because it WILL hurt MWO in the long run. The history of PGI's design choices has proven that, the number of customers lost over these design choices has proven that. I only want to, somehow, prevent MWO from being hurt any further. In fact, I probably don't even need to argue against their design choices! I can let the past incidents and their results speak for themselves.

Why should someone with money have priviledged access to game changing content? Would it not be better to earn that game changing content as opposed to have it handed to you for some cash? Again, I'm not against a developer selling purely aesthetic, electronic merchandise or gimmicky "premium time" via micro-transaction, but to PAY a developer for an advantage is wrong.

The devs NEVER determine the meta. The players do. Players will often find ways to beat the system. Devs shouldn't fight this, they should embrace it, study it, and tweak it as needed.

I'm not arguing for against either models. I'm arguing against pay-to-win.

Forced separation creates FAR more problems then it solves. I've already provided examples of this. It is far better to find counters to a particular piece of equipment via in-game assets rather then having the devs hard-nerf the particular equipment or playstyle in question. If balance issues come up that players cannot adapt to by way of in-game assets or mechanics, then THAT is when the devs should get involved.

That is the point of this entire spiel. By doing forced separation of both technologies, the only way players will be able to adapt to Clan tech is by buying Clan 'mechs as opposed to earning clan tech in game.

HAVING TO BUY SOMETHING FOR CASH IN GAME TO COUNTER SOMETHING OR GAIN AN ADVANTAGE IS BAD.

I really don't know how I can put that statement in more simple terms.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 02:40 AM.

[Craig Steele]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

I'm making arguments based on available data and the data that Inouye has provided is NOT good. Until the data changes, and until his proposal of Clan tech design is thrown off of the table, I will continue to argue against it.

I'm arguing so vehemently against this because it WILL hurt MWO in the long run. The history of PGI's design choices has proven that, the number of customers lost over these design choices has proven that. I only want to, somehow, prevent MWO from being hurt any further. In fact, I probably don't even need to argue against their design choices! I can let the past incidents and their results speak for themselves.

Why should someone with money have priviledged access to game changing content? Would it not be better to earn that game changing content as opposed to have it handed to you for some cash? Again, I'm not against a developer selling aesthetic, electronic merchandise via micro-transaction, but to PAY a developer for an advantage is wrong.

The devs NEVER determine the meta. The players do. Players will often find ways to beat the system. Devs shouldn't fight this, they should embrace it, study it, and tweak it as needed.

I'm not arguing for against either models. I'm arguing against pay-to-win.

Forced separation creates FAR more problems then it solves. I've already provided examples of this. It is far better to find counters to a particular piece of equipment via in-game assets then having the devs hard-nerf the particular equipment or playstyle in question. If balance issues come up that players cannot adapt to by way of in-game assets or mechanics, then THAT is when the devs should get involved.

That is the point of this entire spiel. By doing forced separation of both technologies, the only way players will be able to adapt to Clan tech is by buying Clan 'mechs as opposed to earning clan tech in game.

HAVING TO BUY SOMETHING FOR CASH IN GAME TO COUNTER SOMETHING OR GAIN AN ADVANTAGE IS BAD.

I really don't know how I can put that statement in more simple terms.

a) So "my way, my way"
b ) Opinion (yours btw), not fact
c) If its balanced under a package it won't be game changing, it will be balanced. It will only be game changing if min maxes can exploit it.
d) I didn't say the Devs should develop the meta, I said they should be involved in the direction of the game
e) If it's balanced, its not P2W
f) Opinion (yours btw) based on incomplete information. Unstable soap box that one.
g) No one at PGI has said Clan mechs cannot be bought with C-Bills have they? No one said they cannot buy new Clan weapons with C-Bills have they? I may have missed this potentially game breaking development. Can you link please.
h) Being able to buy something that is balanced with other aspects of the game and meets a players desire for entertainment is a sound business model that promotes the sustainablility of the game.It's a good thing.

I really don't know how I can put that statement in more simple terms.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:

a) So "my way, my way"
b ) Opinion (yours btw), not fact
c) If its balanced under a package it won't be game changing, it will be balanced. It will only be game changing if min maxes can exploit it.
d) I didn't say the Devs should develop the meta, I said they should be involved in the direction of the game
e) If it's balanced, its not P2W
f) Opinion (yours btw) based on incomplete information. Unstable soap box that one.
g) No one at PGI has said Clan mechs cannot be bought with C-Bills have they? No one said they cannot buy new Clan weapons with C-Bills have they? I may have missed this potentially game breaking development. Can you link please.
h) Being able to buy something that is balanced with other aspects of the game and meets a players desire for entertainment is a sound business model that promotes the sustainablility of the game.It's a good thing.

I really don't know how I can put that statement in more simple terms.

a) You only interpret it that way because you believe Paul's model for Clan design is "balanced."
b ) Opinion? Do I REALLY need to cite articles from groups such as #savemwo, reddit, and THOUSANDS of other players that have left MWO already because of PGI's piss-poor design and balance choices?
c) It will be balanced despite PGI's past history of balance and design blunders? Yeah, okay. I'll believe that when my Atlas flies.
d) Then you may have wanted to clarify what you define as "direction."
e) Again, look at past history. If it will be "balanced" I have yet to see it. Especially if Paul's design model for the Clans is to be believed.
f) That is how buffing/nerfing/tweaking a game works. If devs perceive that players cannot adapt to a gameplay issue, they buff or nerf certain aspects of gameplay accordingly. Again, Clan tech is EMPIRICALLY BETTER then I.S. tech. I.S. players will NOT be able to adapt and will get stomped most of the time unless players either buy Clan 'mechs themselves or whine to the devs to nerf Clan tech into oblivion.
g) As of right now, Clan 'mechs can only be bought with MC and players probably won't be able to buy the Clan 'mechs for a good long while (if the length of time it took to enable players to buy pheonix 'mechs was any indication). And even if they could, Clan tech still can't be integrated into I.S. 'mechs, which means the market will get cornered into Clan warrior online, or Inner-sphere warrior online.
h) I would love to know how you are coming to the notion that Clan tech is balanced. Especially is Paul's design model for Clan tech is to be believed.

+1 up

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 03:00 AM.

[mania3c]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

Forced separation creates FAR more problems then it solves. I've already provided examples of this. It is far better to find counters to a particular piece of equipment via in-game assets rather then having the devs hard-nerf the particular equipment or playstyle in question. If balance issues come up that players cannot adapt to by way of in-game assets or mechanics, then THAT is when the devs should get involved.

Where are these examples?? just asking ..because would like to see them..

from my point of view....forced separation is actually solving most of the problems presented by clan tech..

[Craig Steele]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 02:59 AM, said:

a) You only interpret it that way because you believe Paul's model for Clan design is "balanced."
b ) Opinion? Do I REALLY need to cite articles from groups such as #savemwo, reddit, and THOUSANDS of other players that have left MWO already because of PGI's piss-poor design and balance choices?
c) It will be balanced despite PGI's past history of balance and design blunders? Yeah, okay. I'll believe that when my Atlas flies.
d) Then you may have wanted to clarify what you define as "direction."
e) Again, look at past history. If it will be "balanced" I have yet to see it. Especially if Paul's design model for the Clans is to be believed.
f) That is how buffing/nerfing/tweaking a game works. If devs perceive that players cannot adapt to a gameplay issue, they buff or nerf certain aspects of gameplay accordingly. Again, Clan tech is EMPIRICALLY BETTER then I.S. tech. I.S. players will NOT be able to adapt and will get stomped most of the time unless players either buy Clan 'mechs themselves or whine to the devs to nerf Clan tech into oblivion.
g) As of right now, Clan 'mechs can only be bought with MC and players probably won't be able to buy the Clan 'mechs for a good long while (if the length of time it took to enable players to buy pheonix 'mechs was any indication). And even if they could, Clan tech still can't be integrated into I.S. 'mechs, which means the market will get cornered into Clan warrior online, or Inner-sphere warrior online.
h) I would love to know how you are coming to the notion that Clan tech is balanced. Especially is Paul's design model for Clan tech is to be believed.

+1 up

a) so now you know what I believe, my my, you must have studied hard to pass mind reading
b ) your statement was a prediction of the future, unless you also passed fortune telling it, and all the others are an opinion and need to be treated as such.
c) Is it so hard to believe they can improve? You learned to walk didn't you? Bet you fell down a few times before you did. But I doubt anyone whacked you for falling down. Bet no one said stay down and crawl buddy, you had one shot and you'll only fail again.
d) Then again, maybe you should read the text instead of inserting your own agenda
e) Yes, you have yet to see it, we all are yet to see it, it has not been fully detailed yet.
f) You use the word empirically, what it means is "provable by experience". Exactly what experience do you have with Clan Tech in MWO? The second part is again opinion (yours btw) and sterotyping.
g) Same as firestarter? So umm, you're mad they are being consistent with their business model?
h) You should re read my statement, there was nothing to say it "is" balanced. We don't yet have the full details to assess that.

mania3c, on 06 February 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:

Where are these examples?? just asking ..because would like to see them..

from my point of view....forced separation is actually solving most of the problems presented by clan tech..

yup

[ReXspec]

mania3c, on 06 February 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:

Where are these examples?? just asking ..because would like to see them..

from my point of view....forced separation is actually solving most of the problems presented by clan tech..

I provided an example in the form of a hypothetical situation.

Suppose you face an Inner-Sphere heavy mech (such as an Orion) with a Clan heavy (such as a Timber Wolf). Mr. Steele (in one of his previous post) inserted a little complaint in this post stating that he had problems with the fact that Clan XL engines took less slots, and were more durable, whereas Inner-sphere XL engines took more slots, and were significantly more fragile.

Pretty obvious advantage, right? The Mad cat would probably be able to mercilessly crush an Orion such as a Protector, because the Madcat is faster, is well protected, and is heavily armed.

If PGI follows Mr. Steele's mentality by nerfing Clan tech into the ground, he would probably whine to the devs to nerf SOME aspect of the tech (weight, slots, etc.), and have them put more convoluted nerfs/buffs into the game rather then put both pilots on the same playing field by giving the I.S. pilot access to Clan tech.

So, rather then having the Madcats armor, weapons, engine, heat management nerfed, we could just enable the Orion with the ability to use Clan tech and give the pilot the ability to acquire Clan tech through the mechlab. Yes, the tech would be expensive, and it would be a painful grind, but EVERYONE could do it. You could even give I.S. pilots salvage bonus for killing Clan 'mechs.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 03:18 AM.

[Craig Steele]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 03:16 AM, said:

I provided an example in the form of a hypothetical situation.

Suppose you face an Inner-Sphere heavy mech (such as an Orion) with a Clan heavy (such as a Timber Wolf). Mr. Steele (in one of his previous post) inserted a little complaint in this post stating that he had problems with the fact that Clan XL engines took less slots, and were more durable, whereas Inner-sphere XL engines took more slots, and were significantly more fragile.

Pretty obvious advantage, right? The Mad cat would probably be able to mercilessly crush an Orion such as a Protector, because the Madcat is faster, is well protected, and is heavily armed.

If PGI follows Mr. Steele's mentality by nerfing Clan tech into the ground, he would probably whine to the devs to nerf SOME aspect of the tech (weight, slots, etc.) rather then put both pilots on the same playing field by giving the I.S. pilot access to Clan tech.

So, rather then having the Madcats armor, weapons, engine, heat management nerfed, we could just enable the Orion with the ability to use Clan tech and give the pilot the ability to acquire Clan tech through the mechlab. Yes, the tech would be expensive, and it would be a painful grind, but EVERYONE could do it. You could even give I.S. pilots salvage bonus for killing Clan 'mechs.

Honestly, you don't seem to read anything that differs from yur view.

I never complained about the 2 slot XL, I liked it. I think its representative of the Clans durability. So ummm, does that invalidate everything else you moaned about?

To use your example, ANOTHER solution would to give the Clan mech certain balancing factors that bring it towards an even playing field where the pilots can determine the outcome.

Just because you have a view man, that doesn't mean it right and it doesn't mean there are not others worth exploring.

Stop raining on everyone else with your "my way or no way" speeches and review it with all the details. PGI have given us some stuff to start with and its not terrible. Thats better coomunication than they have done in the past.

[mania3c]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 03:16 AM, said:

I provided an example in the form of a hypothetical situation.

Suppose you face an Inner-Sphere heavy mech (such as an Orion) with a Clan heavy (such as a Timber Wolf). Mr. Steele (in one of his previous post) inserted a little complaint in this post stating that he had problems with the fact that Clan XL engines took less slots, and were more durable, whereas Inner-sphere XL engines took more slots, and were significantly more fragile.

Pretty obvious advantage, right? The Mad cat would probably be able to mercilessly crush an Orion such as a Protector, because the Madcat is faster, is well protected, and is heavily armed.

If PGI follows Mr. Steele's mentality by nerfing Clan tech into the ground, he would probably whine to the devs to nerf SOME aspect of the tech (weight, slots, etc.), and have them put more convoluted nerfs/buffs into the game rather then put both pilots on the same playing field by giving the I.S. pilot access to Clan tech.

So, rather then having the Madcats armor, weapons, engine, heat management nerfed, we could just enable the Orion with the ability to use Clan tech and give the pilot the ability to acquire Clan tech through the mechlab. Yes, the tech would be expensive, and it would be a painful grind, but EVERYONE could do it. You could even give I.S. pilots salvage bonus for killing Clan 'mechs.

Yea..basically you want kill IS tech...basically you are saying that we should just accept that clan tech is better..in your case clan XL Engine..and it will be perfectly fine when IS XL engine wont be used at all..and it's solving all the problems?..you, my friend, just presented one of the main problem of mix-tech..

[ReXspec]

mania3c, on 06 February 2014 - 03:24 AM, said:

Yea..basically you want kill IS tech...basically you are saying that we should just accept that clan tech is better..in your case clan XL Engine..and it will be perfectly fine when IS XL engine wont be used at all..and it's solving all the problems?..you, my friend, just presented one of the main problem of mix-tech..

"Kill" I.S. tech? Rendering certain tech obsolete, maybe, but you have to remember that there was new I.S. tech that was developed to compete with Clan tech specifically. Tech that even outmatched Clan tech on a lot of levels.

Sure, a lot of the old stuff probably won't be used anymore, but that shouldn't be a problem with the new 'mechs that will be developed and will be available; 'mechs that will incorporate both I.S. and Clan tech.

It's not "killing tech." It's asymmetrical warfare. Both sides will continue to develop weapons to compete with one another and players will continue to adapt by using assets that give them the most advantages. MWO players shouldn't be afraid to do that, but shouldn't have to be forced to buy Clan 'mechs to adapt.

[Craig Steele]

mania3c, on 06 February 2014 - 03:24 AM, said:

Yea..basically you want kill IS tech...basically you are saying that we should just accept that clan tech is better..in your case clan XL Engine..and it will be perfectly fine when IS XL engine wont be used at all..and it's solving all the problems?..you, my friend, just presented one of the main problem of mix-tech..

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.

[mania3c]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 03:30 AM, said:

"Kill" I.S. tech? Rendering certain tech obsolete, maybe, but you have to remember that there was new I.S. tech that was developed to compete with Clan tech specifically. Tech that even outmatched Clan tech on a lot of levels.

Sure, a lot of the old stuff probably won't be used anymore, but that shouldn't be a problem with the new 'mechs that will be developed and will be available; 'mechs that will incorporate both I.S. and Clan tech.

It's not "killing tech." It's asymmetrical warfare. Both sides will continue to develop weapons to compete with one another and players will continue to adapt by using assets that give them the most advantages. MWO players shouldn't be afraid to do that, but shouldn't have to be forced to buy Clan 'mechs to adapt.

it's not asymmetrical when everyone can use everything....or is it?

this is not MMORPG...you really can't expect that devs will be developing content just to make it obsolete in another day..first..it is not even healthy for game like this...but it's even stupid..

Also you just can't put clearly better items behind some grind wall..this approach will put many people in clear disadvantage..

isn't really better to try balance clan and IS as package as whole? it wont be removing any content from the game if done right, there will be more options to balance things out and we could at least keep flavor of these weapons and mechs..

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

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.

this is what I love on this system..making IS mech will be very different than building clan mech...however, when we will allow mix-tech..we would probably hit into "IS mechs with clan weapons are the best" (or vice versa) problem very quicklyX..in the best case..it will just invalidate half of the weaponary/mechs..in worst case, when clan tech has to be salvaged before using.. only tryhards and elite players will stay in the game..

And what then? how to balance situation like this?

Edited by mania3c, 06 February 2014 - 03:46 AM.

[ReXspec]

Craig Steele, on 06 February 2014 - 03:15 AM, said:

a) so now you know what I believe, my my, you must have studied hard to pass mind reading
b ) your statement was a prediction of the future, unless you also passed fortune telling it, and all the others are an opinion and need to be treated as such.
c) Is it so hard to believe they can improve? You learned to walk didn't you? Bet you fell down a few times before you did. But I doubt anyone whacked you for falling down. Bet no one said stay down and crawl buddy, you had one shot and you'll only fail again.
d) Then again, maybe you should read the text instead of inserting your own agenda
e) Yes, you have yet to see it, we all are yet to see it, it has not been fully detailed yet.
f) You use the word empirically, what it means is "provable by experience". Exactly what experience do you have with Clan Tech in MWO? The second part is again opinion (yours btw) and sterotyping.
g) Same as firestarter? So umm, you're mad they are being consistent with their business model?
h) You should re read my statement, there was nothing to say it "is" balanced. We don't yet have the full details to assess that.

a) Can we not be snide? Everything you've said has implied support for PGI's decisions despite readily available data. If I made an assumption, it is because you were ambiguous.
b ) I'm making a prediction based on past events and behavior of the party in question. One would call that an educated guess, or, at worst, a hunch. Not a baseless opinion.
c) The phrase that comes to mind is, "once bitten, twice shy." I (along with thousands of others) poured my money into this game. I didn't ask much until their policies got in the way of gameplay. I tolerated it, and tolerated and tolerated it until I couldn't tolerate anymore. So now, here I am, making my grievances (based on past experiences) known to PGI. I believe they can improve, but I'm not sold on words. I'm sold on action.
d) That was a question in the form of a statement, btw. So, I guess I'll ask it again: What do you define as "direction?"
e) So are we to believe what Paul says or are we not to believe what Paul says? Or are we to wait with our thumbs up our rears until the Clans are released and see whether they f*cked up or not? Sorry, I'm all for letting someone prove themselves by action, but, in this case, I want to make sure I'll get my money's worth (assuming they don't screw it up).
f) Let's see... previous implementation of past content and Paul's design proposal for the Clans... do I REALLY need to say more?
g) The firestarter is (and always has been) one of the strongest light mechs in every Battletech series it has been in. It is a game-changer, therefore, it should have been available to buy with C-bills and NOT JUST MC.
h) Again, should Paul be trusted or should he not be trusted? I think most players on the forums would agree with me that it's probably a good idea to keep an eye on him and the dev team as information becomes available.

[ReXspec]

mania3c, on 06 February 2014 - 03:39 AM, said:

it's not asymmetrical when everyone can use everything....or is it?

this is not MMORPG...you really can't expect that devs will be developing content just to make it obsolete in another day..first..it is not even healthy for game like this...but it's even stupid..

Also you just can't put clearly better items behind some grind wall..this approach will put many people in clear disadvantage..

isn't really better to try balance clan and IS as package as whole? it wont be removing any content from the game if done right, there will be more options to balance things out and we could at least keep flavor of these weapons and mechs..


this is what I love on this system..making IS mech will be very different than building clan mech...however, when we will allow mix-tech..we would probably hit into "IS mechs with clan weapons are the best" (or vice versa) problem very quicklyX..in the best case..it will just invalidate half of the weaponary/mechs..in worst case, when clan tech has to be salvaged before using.. only tryhards and elite players will stay in the game..

And what then? how to balance situation like this?

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.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 04:08 AM.

[Craig Steele]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 03:49 AM, said:

a) Can we not be snide? Everything you've said has implied support for PGI's decisions despite readily available data. If I made an assumption, it is because you were ambiguous.
b ) I'm making a prediction based on past events and behavior of the party in question. One would call that an educated guess, or, at worst, a hunch. Not a baseless opinion.
c) The phrase that comes to mind is, "once bitten, twice shy." I (along with thousands of others) poured my money into this game. I didn't ask much until their policies got in the way of gameplay. I tolerated it, and tolerated and tolerated it until I couldn't tolerate anymore. So now, here I am, making my grievances (based on past experiences) known to PGI. I believe they can improve, but I'm not sold on words. I'm sold on action.
d) That was a question in the form of a statement, btw. So, I guess I'll ask it again: What do you define as "direction?"
e) So are we to believe what Paul says or are we not to believe what Paul says? Or are we to wait with our thumbs up our rears until the Clans are released and see whether they f*cked up or not? Sorry, I'm all for letting someone prove themselves by action, but, in this case, I want to make sure I'll get my money's worth (assuming they don't screw it up).
f) Let's see... previous implementation of past content and Paul's design proposal for the Clans... do I REALLY need to say more?
g) The firestarter is (and always has been) one of the strongest light mechs in every Battletech series it has been in. It is a game-changer, therefore, it should have been available to buy with C-bills and NOT JUST MC.
h) Again, should Paul be trusted or should he not be trusted? I think most players on the forums would agree with me that it's probably a good idea to keep an eye on him and the dev team as information becomes available.

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.