15 replies to this topic

[FlipOver]

We all know Clan mechs and Clan tech is much superior to IS.
PGI are trying to prevent over-buffing Clan mechs/tech so IS still lives on and I get that.

But here is what I suggest to try and keep the game as true as possible to the lore:

First thing we could have would be a clash between Clan and IS when battling for ground or resources would make it uneven on numbers. 12 IS mechs vs 9 (3 lances of 3 pilots) Clan mechs.

This would most likely give a good balanced match between unbalanced forces.

Sencond, why not give CBill / XP bonuses for people who use IS mechs vs Clan mechs?
Something like, in a win, you get 4x the CBills and XP.

This is just the basic idea to prevent 2 things:
1 - People turning to Clans and stop using IS
2 - Not buffing Clan tech / mechs as they should

Hope this concept helps you guys (PGI) to find some solutions to a problem that shouldn't even exist.

Cheers,
flipover

Edited by flipover, 11 February 2014 - 11:12 AM.

[Mechteric]

I think we'll only be seeing 12v12 happen. This is primarily because clan mechs will be integrated in inner sphere mercenary teams, not just some separate faction. I suppose if its needed they can just balance based around tonnage limits, perhaps clan mechs are worth some X% more tonnage than IS, like some kind of handicap.

Rewards then don't need to be different assuming balancing on a player/team/weapon/tonnage basis.

[FlipOver]

Was actually typing something like the tonnage difference as a way to manage this on my teams forums... It is a nice idea too.

[Lex Peregrine]

Yes, although I agreed with the OP, I've since thought of a different solution:

Supposing there will be another factor that limits the ammount of players in each team, we need something else other than weight, because if we limit by weight then a clan vs IS game will be very unbalanced, but we should be able to have mixed teams also, so the solution should not be 750tons IS vs 500tons clan for instances, so I propose the following:

Each mech be given a Threat Level, for instances an Atlas get level 10, while Daishi get level 15, then limit each team to a fixed total thread level.

They can even play with this number and have mechs of the same faction and same weight have different levels, for instances there's probably way more people using Victors than Awesomes, so the Awesome could be Level 8 while Victor gets level 9 (same as Highlander). This could be good for more variety, suppose a team wants to bring 2 Victors but its one point short, it would force the team to take an Awesome instead, just an example.

[Gaan Cathal]

CapperDeluxe, on 11 February 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

I think we'll only be seeing 12v12 happen. This is primarily because clan mechs will be integrated in inner sphere mercenary teams, not just some separate faction. I suppose if its needed they can just balance based around tonnage limits, perhaps clan mechs are worth some X% more tonnage than IS, like some kind of handicap.

While this is no doubt how they will be, it's not how they should be. The whole 'problem' goes away quite easily if you a: use asymmetric balance and b: don't allow herpy-derpy-mary-sue InnerClanSphereMercs, aka tech-sharing. Isolate the tech pools. Completely. No Clanners with non ER/Pulse lasers, no IS with DireWolves.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 11 February 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[Craig Steele]

flipover, on 11 February 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

We all know Clan mechs and Clan tech is much superior to IS.
PGI are trying to prevent over-buffing Clan mechs/tech so IS still lives on and I get that.

But here is what I suggest to try and keep the game as true as possible to the lore:

First thing we could have would be a clash between Clan and IS when battling for ground or resources would make it uneven on numbers. 12 IS mechs vs 9 (3 lances of 3 pilots) Clan mechs.

This would most likely give a good balanced match between unbalanced forces.

Sencond, why not give CBill / XP bonuses for people who use IS mechs vs Clan mechs?
Something like, in a win, you get 4x the CBills and XP.

This is just the basic idea to prevent 2 things:
1 - People turning to Clans and stop using IS
2 - Not buffing Clan tech / mechs as they should

Hope this concept helps you guys (PGI) to find some solutions to a problem that shouldn't even exist.

Cheers,
flipover

The problem with this and the numberous other threads trying to replicate canon is that as soon as you make Clan tech superior, the majority of competive gamers will gravitate towards it. That's the nature of gamers (stereotyping a little I know, but it's broadly accurate)

They will back themselves one to one before the launch button.

So what we get as a game is 85% of the population piloting Clan mechs (cause you know, their good) and 15% piloting IS.

Now try and make your CW work, or get a Clan vs IS game loaded. "Failed to find" everywhere

The reality is that if Clan tech is needs to be appealing enough to sell, but not strong enough to dominate otherwise the whole game breaks down.

This needs a bigger picture view, and too many people are clinging to a canon that just can't be replicated anyway. Why I hear you ask, well because the Clans greatest strength was not its mechs, it was it's pilots. And MWO is not going to be able to wave a magic wand and make us all 3 times better pilots over night.

Even when IS tech started to approach Clan tech, IS still only won fights where they had 2 to 1 + odds, (general combat conditions I am talking about, not trials with the 12 handpicked IS warriors) take a look at Operation Bulldog in 59, or even the battle for Huntress same year for comparison.

The tech needs to be balanced to ensure the tenure of the game, and I'm for that.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

If PGI were to do asymmetric drops, they'd do 12v10 (company v binary). Clans operate in stars, 5-mech groups, and their company-equivalents are binaries (2 stars) and trinaries (3 stars).

As much as I'd love to see this, it's unlikely to happen.

[FlipOver]

My only thought was to try and find ways not to make Clan mechs so overwhelmingly interesting against IS.
Another thing I'd love to not see would be never to see any Hero or Champion mech version of Clan mechs.

[Bulvar Jorgensson]

I have been thinking hard on this issue of balance......So let Clan tech be superior.....

IS pilots get other buffs when fighting clan mech's, they get 4X xp (or more if need be) and more credits for kills, let them after so many clan kills, have a clan tech as a module buff. There are so many ways that PGI can get round the whole they have better guns/mechs than us in the short term.

Edited by Bulvar Jorgensson, 13 February 2014 - 01:10 PM.

[Lex Peregrine]

I think the play-balance should come with community warfare limitations for clan mechs or clan factions, I strongly oppose nerfing clan mechs just to make IS choices more interesting. The veteran community has been around since MW2 and we've dealt with it, there will always be proud IS warriors who pick IS mechs, and there will be leagues that will deal with it, as the CW should.

If IS mechs can change engine, armor type, etc, I dont see why clan mechs should not. And let them have their longer ranged and more powerful weapons, go with the 4 vs 3 formula to compensate and stay true to the lore. Clans are superior to IS because they didnt go through the same tech collapse, they're not aliens who also happen to use mechs but with a set of advantages and disadvantages that curiously make things balanced somewhat.

[SaltBeef]

IMHO They should rate IS clan mechs by ratio in everything. Armor , weapons , heat dissipation on a scale of 1.2 Clan 1.0 IS.
Clan mechs are 1.2 Ratio better than IS 1.0 ratio. Then clan mechs get to be superior as Battletech past. Drop 12 IS mechs ( 3 lances of 4 ) against 10 Clanners ( 2 stars ) and that would be the balance. I have 40 IS mechs and mech bays I bought or grinded for and am still going to play those mechs. I also paid $240 for the clan pack and want to feel like I am in a superior clan mech. This way every one is happy we keep to lore. I personally think this would be OK to everyone except those that hated the implementation of the clans in the 1st place from day 1. The Clans made Battle tech better more interesting if you ask me ,.. it is my opinion.

[FlipOver]

SaltBeef, on 13 February 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

IMHO They should rate IS clan mechs by ratio in everything. Armor , weapons , heat dissipation on a scale of 1.2 Clan 1.0 IS.
Clan mechs are 1.2 Ratio better than IS 1.0 ratio. Then clan mechs get to be superior as Battletech past. Drop 12 IS mechs ( 3 lances of 4 ) against 10 Clanners ( 2 stars ) and that would be the balance. [...]

About the drops, the idea is great, but if we think the way 12 man are dropping atm, if a 5 man clan lance would find one or even 2 lances of IS mechs, they would destroy them.
If they would be dropped as a 5 man group, then it would be nice to make them drop a bit appart from each other so they would have to take a while to group up, giving then time for IS pilots to group up also.

Edited by flipover, 15 February 2014 - 10:48 AM.

[Lex Peregrine]

Well, solution is make groups of 3 for the clans.

[Zerberus]

flipover, on 11 February 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

We all know Clan mechs and Clan tech is much superior to IS.
PGI are trying to prevent over-buffing Clan mechs/tech so IS still lives on and I get that.

But here is what I suggest to try and keep the game as true as possible to the lore:

First thing we could have would be a clash between Clan and IS when battling for ground or resources would make it uneven on numbers. 12 IS mechs vs 9 (3 lances of 3 pilots) Clan mechs.

You say true to lore, but then immediately suggest company vs Binary-1, which is a complete lore fail. 12 vs 10 would be lore accurate (10 = 2 stars =1 binary), wheras 9 is a completely arbitrary number that someone just pulled out of a hat.

I assume you can understand why I didn`t feel a need to concern myself with the rest after that

Edited by Zerberus, 15 February 2014 - 01:08 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Zerberus, on 15 February 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

You say true to lore, but then immediately suggest company vs Binary-1, which is a complete lore fail. 12 vs 10 would be lore accurate (10 = 2 stars =1 binary), wheras 9 is a completely arbitrary number that someone just pulled out of a hat.

I assume you can understand why I didn`t feel a need to concern myself with the rest after that

Well to be fair, 9 is as good as 10 in some ways.

The TO&E's of the invading Clans in 3050 didn't include a lot of binaries. Binary is a formation that in most clans was for 2nd line units or Garrisons that did not require mech strength. The 'standard' unit was a trinary.

The argument then becomes Clans regularly bid away forces which is true to a point, but without rehashing the other thread on the main reason why that theory is not common, it still comes down to if they bid down 5 it's not unbelievable they bid down 6.

So in some ways, 9 is as good as 10.

But I'm not arguing for either Just to be clear

[Butane9000]

Clan "lances" are called Stars and consist of 5 mechs. So it'd be 10 Clan players vs 12 IS players. Giving IS a two person advantage. Second as for the C-bills that's a possibility but if Clan tech ends up being ridiculously over powered then all it will do is quicken the pace until IS players purchase and upgrade to Clan tech leaving the old out dated IS tech behind.