239 replies to this topic

[Iskareot]

After reading these my request for being able to use the lobby system to drop solo with other solos or premaded with other premades does NOT sound bad at all lol.

This whole thing looks like a mess incoming.

[Cimarb]

anubis969, on 14 February 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

Ah right I think I get you now. When you talked about the IS salvaging clan tech you didn't mean that the IS 'mechs could get clan tech you meant they could get buffed IS tech. Thereby achieving balance by raising IS 'mechs up to the level of the clans as opposed to bringing the clans down to the IS level.

It's an interesting idea and I can definitely see where you are coming from in regards to Thomas' post.

Sorry for the misunderstanding .

Totally my fault, and I'm surprised I made sense that second time...I still don't understand what I wrote and I wrote it...

stjobe, on 14 February 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

Then the question becomes "can PGI do whatever they want and still call it MechWarrior?".

If the "current MWO model" can't accommodate basic rules of the BattleTech Universe, should it really be called a MechWarrior game? Or was that what PGI paid their money for; a well-known name to stick on their stompy robot game, without any strings attached to anchor it to the 30 years of BattleTech lore?

At what point have we thrown out enough lore, rules, and principles of the BattleTech Universe that it isn't a game set in that universe any more?

I have to say that PGI has kept quite a bit of the lore, rules, and principles of Battletech compared to some of the previous games. MechAssault is the one that sticks out the most to me, as that was closer to how TitanFall is designed than MWO.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 February 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

TT or not, it is the BattleTech universe. That has to mean something or we could end up with Mech weilding Light Sabers!

Well, there are vibroswords and lasers, so merging the two isn't all that far fetched, and eventually mech versions are implemented in lore (around 3059), so....

[Wispsy]

I think that even if they make Clan mechs completely balanced 1-1 with IS mechs it should still be 10v12. If you want to be a Clanner then you need to be prepared to bid low if you ever want to drop!

[Cimarb]

Wispsy, on 14 February 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

I think that even if they make Clan mechs completely balanced 1-1 with IS mechs it should still be 10v12. If you want to be a Clanner then you need to be prepared to bid low if you ever want to drop!

A modified bid system would be very cool. Instead of bidding stars of mechs, elementals and aerospace, you could bid tonnage. Rewards could be based upon difficulty and results.

[Craig Steele]

Mordin Ashe, on 14 February 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

For me, 10 vs 12 is a must-have. It is the most canonic thing they can do and this slight disadvantage should be one of the defining differences from IS mechs and their playstyle. I have no idea how will they achive it, but there are certain ways of compensation even without making clan mechs inherently stronger, for example more favoring spawn pots for binaries compared to lances etc.
So many options, so many possibilities. My hopes are with them!

How is it canonical??

In Lore the standard Clan unit was the Trinary, binaries being significantly rarer and often in less well regarded units. The Jade Falcon Source book details the invading TO&E and shows exactly 1 (one) binary, an aerospace one in the Solhama Cluster.

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 14 February 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

How is it canonical??

In Lore the standard Clan unit was the Trinary, binaries being significantly rarer and often in less well regarded units. The Jade Falcon Source book details the invading TO&E and shows exactly 1 (one) binary, an aerospace one in the Solhama Cluster.

So what you're saying is that we should compensate the more powerful Clan tech by giving them a numerical advantage (15 v 12) as well?

Even if the Trinary is the most common unit, that doesn't mean they always bid and drop the whole unit, does it? In fact, if they ever found themselves outnumbering their opponents they'd probably stop fighting for fear of dying of shame...

Either way, if you want to go the full-bore lore-nerd path, we're not dropping with complete companies either, just the BattleMech parts of it. The scout, armour, infantry, aerospace, artillery and other specialist units are conspicuously missing, aren't they?

[Craig Steele]

stjobe, on 14 February 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

So what you're saying is that we should compensate the more powerful Clan tech by giving them a numerical advantage (15 v 12) as well?

Even if the Trinary is the most common unit, that doesn't mean they always bid and drop the whole unit, does it? In fact, if they ever found themselves outnumbering their opponents they'd probably stop fighting for fear of dying of shame...

Either way, if you want to go the full-bore lore-nerd path, we're not dropping with complete companies either, just the BattleMech parts of it. The scout, armour, infantry, aerospace, artillery and other specialist units are conspicuously missing, aren't they?

Nope,

I am just pointing out that here is another example of people quoting 'canon' to support an argument without even a tiny effort to think about or check what they are saying.

I am already down on this thread and others as supporting balanced tech and 12 vs 12, and I think I am about as die hard for a canon experieince as they come so it grinds me no end to say that.

But the reality is to me that unless the two techs are balanced, players will choose the superior tech and we will not see many IS mechs / games at all. It will all be 10 v 10 Clan mechs fighting under IS factions. Completly un canonical.

So if my choice is between playing a game broadly canonical or playing a pure Clan war, I choose the broadly canonical.

[wanderer]

Quote

In Lore the standard Clan unit was the Trinary, binaries being significantly rarer and often in less well regarded units. The Jade Falcon Source book details the invading TO&E and shows exactly 1 (one) binary, an aerospace one in the Solhama Cluster.

Actually, bidding away a Star (or more) of a Trinary was not uncommon in the least. In fact, goading Clan forces into bidding themselves too low was a tactic used more than once to maul a Clan force- that and shuffling elite units into other forces without the Clanners knowing they'd been set up.

So yes, 10v12 is perfectly reasonable.

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 14 February 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

Nope,

Didn't think so, but I had to check (it is teh Interwebs after all; there's no telling what kind of insanity you might happen upon).

Craig Steele, on 14 February 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

I am already down on this thread and others as supporting balanced tech and 12 vs 12, and I think I am about as die hard for a canon experieince as they come so it grinds me no end to say that.

But the reality is to me that unless the two techs are balanced, players will choose the superior tech and we will not see many IS mechs / games at all. It will all be 10 v 10 Clan mechs fighting under IS factions. Completly un canonical.

I don't think so, I think you underestimate the part of the population that are IS and who can see that being two 'mechs up will decide a match in their favor 9 times out of 10 all things being equal, and with superior Clan tech it might even be a fair fight.

And then there's the IS purists like me who won't be playing a Clan 'mech ever on general principles even if it was powerful enough to win the match on its own.

Craig Steele, on 14 February 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

So if my choice is between playing a game broadly canonical or playing a pure Clan war, I choose the broadly canonical.

As do I, but I want more canon and less broadly

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 14 February 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Actually, bidding away a Star (or more) of a Trinary was not uncommon in the least. In fact, goading Clan forces into bidding themselves too low was a tactic used more than once to maul a Clan force- that and shuffling elite units into other forces without the Clanners knowing they'd been set up.

So yes, 10v12 is perfectly reasonable.

Not in 3050 - 3055

The vast majority of documented battles (Jade Falcon Sourcebook, Clan Wof Sourcebook, Invading Clans sourcebook) are trinary based or greater.

Clan culture supports the bid down process but it was far from a 'common' practice. People tend to forget that Clan warriors were indoctrined to place the needs of the Clan first, and most would willing give up their personal sense of honour to acheive a Clan goal.

Junior officers (ie, Star Captain) bidding away a star so they look good just isn't a scenario that's supported in canon as common.

Also, IS had very little understanding of Clan culture / bidding at Regimental level and below so there was no reason for IS forces to "goad" Clans into a bidding war. It happened by accident from time to time, but far from common.

So if the statement is that Binary vs Company is a canonical as it gets, I'd just like to know what source that comes from so I can improve my knowledge.

Edited by Craig Steele, 14 February 2014 - 04:28 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

technacally i think it would be easier for PGI to go 10vs12 with all the nerfs then on implementation after clans get roflstomped they start buffing up clan weapon values to "balance". then again this is pgi we're talking about.

Craig Steele, on 14 February 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

my lore requests a trinary

that'd be cool but the only reason we don't have trinarys is because the game struggles with 12vs12 anymore and the servers would crash.

additional:

there's been a lot of people talking about "play with my firends" {covered earlier with drop arrangements lobbies etc} and then there's the I'm IS why shouldn't i get what i'm paying for even if it's clans?

well here's the deal...


you needn't split accounts up. PGI have already stated no mixed tech and mechlabs for clans and IS are seperate. on that note it would be easier if they enabled the faction button to choose clan or IS, next drop down {in keeping with UI 2.0 style... i know i'm bad} shows the factions themselves with tick boxes {saves having to use the website for faction change} if not changing from davion to stiener or ghostbear to wolf then click okay and you have access to the hange menu as normal. either with clan affiliations and omnimechs or the one we currently have. other than that agree completely with you as usual.

you just switch sides within the front end. PGI said you have to gain loyalty points for all factions to become wolf's dragoons so they're encouraging side switching anyways and that's just how other FPS organise themselves. i've never played a FPS shooter with mixed teams because it causes confuson with the uniforms of the characters, kill zone would never allow a helghast and his gear on an isa team. in the heat of a battle it would be hell to see a clan mech and just react to it because you're playing IS and find oh dear that was one of 3 clan mechs on my side. you'd have to have labels consistantly over friendly units to avoid that reaction stuff and that would look hideous.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 February 2014 - 05:29 PM.

[Craig Steele]

GalaxyBluestar, on 14 February 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

technacally i think it would be easier for PGI to go 10vs12 with all the nerfs then on implementation after clans get roflstomped they start buffing up clan weapon values to "balance". then again this is pgi we're talking about.



that'd be cool but the only reason we don't have trinarys is because the game struggles with 12vs12 anymore and the servers would crash.

additional:

there's been a lot of people talking about "play with my firends" {covered earlier with drop arrangements lobbies etc} and then there's the I'm IS why shouldn't i get what i'm paying for even if it's clans?

well here's the deal...


you needn't split accounts up. PGI have already stated no mixed tech and mechlabs for clans and IS are seperate. on that note it would be easier if they enabled the faction button to choose clan or IS, next drop down {in keeping with UI 2.0 style... i know i'm bad} shows the factions themselves with tick boxes {saves having to use the website for faction change} if not changing from davion to stiener or ghostbear to wolf then click okay and you have access to the hange menu as normal. either with clan affiliations and omnimechs or the one we currently have. other than that agree completely with you as usual.

you just switch sides within the front end. PGI said you have to gain loyalty points for all factions to become wolf's dragoons so they're encouraging side switching anyways and that's just how other FPS organise themselves. i've never played a FPS shooter with mixed teams because it causes confuson with the uniforms of the characters, kill zone would never allow a helghast and his gear on an isa team. in the heat of a battle it would be hell to see a clan mech and just react to it because you're playing IS and find oh dear that was one of 3 clan mechs on my side. you'd have to have labels consistantly over friendly units to avoid that reaction stuff and that would look hideous.

Umm, Are you summarising me as saying I want 15 v 12?

Cause up above I think I pretty clearly point out that's NOT desireable.

My point is that if people want to quote canon as support for their argument, they should probably check / know what canon is.

I think the issue of playing with friends stems more from this.

Sides will be all Clan mechs or all IS mechs, for any faction. That seems to be the way PGI have pitched it when you put together the statements. Now they are hinting that for balance reasons, it will be 10 Clan mechs vs 12 IS mechs. Or 10 Clan mechs vs 10 Clan mechs or 12 IS mechs vs 12 IS mechs. Those are the games we will have.

I read the concern as if me and my buddies are Marik and I am well off enough to buy a Warhawk, I want to play that but I cannot with my Marik buddies as they are not as well off as me. So I either PUG it (in or out of Marik colours) or I don't play with my nice shiny new Warhawk.

Some people like to play with their freinds, and I think that's fair enough.

Edited by Craig Steele, 14 February 2014 - 05:38 PM.

[wanderer]

Craig Steele, on 14 February 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

So if the statement is that Binary vs Company is a canonical as it gets, I'd just like to know what source that comes from so I can improve my knowledge.

A "pure" Binary is actually the Clan equivalent of an IS light company, while a Trinary is the Clan version of a reinforced company. Both are common formations for a Star Captain to command, and if you want a good idea of what a Clan bidding process feels like, read the first Stackpole trilogy (starting with Lethal Heritage). It's Wolf bidding, but you'll see Stars regularly bid away from a larger force in the process of attacking a planet, and those forces are often further split in pursuit of objectives. While the total force may well and often exceed a single Binary on-planet, Binary and Nova- level forces (that is, a Star of Elementals with a Star of 'Mechs- a dedicated mixed Binary) were commonly used to take specific goals in the process.

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 14 February 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

A "pure" Binary is actually the Clan equivalent of an IS light company, while a Trinary is the Clan version of a reinforced company. Both are common formations for a Star Captain to command, and if you want a good idea of what a Clan bidding process feels like, read the first Stackpole trilogy (starting with Lethal Heritage). It's Wolf bidding, but you'll see Stars regularly bid away from a larger force in the process of attacking a planet, and those forces are often further split in pursuit of objectives. While the total force may well and often exceed a single Binary on-planet, Binary and Nova- level forces (that is, a Star of Elementals with a Star of 'Mechs- a dedicated mixed Binary) were commonly used to take specific goals in the process.

Ummm, I'm not sure if we're on the same page any more

The Trinary is the formation laid down as the "standard" for all Clans. The Cluster "model" is Command Star, 3 x Mech Trinaries, 1 x Elemental Trinary and 1 x Aerospace Trinary. Some Clans do not adhere to this for resource / doctine resources but it is the standard and for the majority of Clans the adopted structure for their frontline (read invasion) Clusters.

Binary is a formation sometimes utilised in second line formations (if thats your definition of 'light' ok, its a terminology thing ) where asset numbers are not required for the task. Both are led by Star Captains. But a Binary could be 10 assault mechs in some Clans, there was nothing 'light' about it's make up.

I am OK with what bidding is and looks like, but I'm not sure what your point is here in relation to the post.

If it's that clan warriors bid their junior commands down then you're presumably arguing for 5 v 12 or lower because thats what was reflected in those novels.

But that still occurred only where the commander allowed it. If he considered the dilution of forces to be detrimental to the objective and hence Clan Honour, he could disallow it. This was true at any level of command, senior and junior, strategic or tactical. More often though warriors would be given the opportunity to stand by the 'might is right' and bid below the cut down, but considerable personal dishonour occured to break their bid.

My point was only that Binary vs Company is not a common canon experience (as the poster claimed was the case) and should not be used as a support for the argument of 10 vs 12. Binary formations at this timeline as the primary tactical formation is simply not reflected in canon.

PS, a Nova was a Nova, that was it's designation.

Edited by Craig Steele, 14 February 2014 - 07:21 PM.

[wanderer]

Binary forces were common because a commander could call down forces equivalent to the bid -prior- to theirs, albeit at a loss of some of the glory but without dishonor.

So you'd see a Trinary bid down, often as a method to keep an overaggressive lower-rank Star Commander hungry or checked (or as a form of discipline)- and while calling in the third Star might well be done if the opponent proved more resilient than expected, defeating them with the more minimal force was considered Clanlike, precise, superior. A Star Captain that did so regularly was on the ristar track for potential chances at a Bloodname or promotion.

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 14 February 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

Binary forces were common because a commander could call down forces equivalent to the bid -prior- to theirs, albeit at a loss of some of the glory but without dishonor.

So you'd see a Trinary bid down, often as a method to keep an overaggressive lower-rank Star Commander hungry or checked (or as a form of discipline)- and while calling in the third Star might well be done if the opponent proved more resilient than expected, defeating them with the more minimal force was considered Clanlike, precise, superior. A Star Captain that did so regularly was on the ristar track for potential chances at a Bloodname or promotion.

Thats the theory yes, but not reflected as a common occurence in the majority of battles in the canon.

Take the theory to a logical deduction.

The Star Colonel bids the lowest forces he thinks reasonable for taking a planet. He's probably very experienced and an excellent judge of the minimum and cuts it fine to enhance his prestige. He may even go below what his Galaxy commander, an even more experienced and capable warrior considers the minum.

Then his Star Captains bid for objectives. He cuts it fine too, maybe even goes under to prove how good he is.

Then the Star Commanders do the same.

Then the pilots bid for objectives too.

Until one pilot is carrying the whole campaign on his shoulders.

You see what I'm saying, at some stage the goal (taking the planet) has to recognised and the bidding process stopped to ensure Clan honour is not risked. This was paramount for the majority of clan warriors. Only a few put their 'personal' honour in front of the Clan's needs. So it didn't need to be ordered, the clan warriors pushed bids below cut downs only where they knew something they thought was advantageous (see Wolf vs Ghost Bear, Rasalhague and the virus) or there was another agenda (same bid, Ghost Bear trying to discredit / embaress Wolf).

Canon reflects that more often the clan tourman obeyed orders, so if the Star Colonel won the bid to take a planet and he envisioned a trinary would be leading the assault on city A in his plan, then a trinary led that assault. The Star Captain would not then say "hey Colonel, we can do it with a Binary, she'll be right", he already gets a nod to his honour for being selected for the assault.

Now in theory another Star captain has the option of saying "I want to lead the assault and I bid a binary", but if someone was particularly bold enough to do so it was more likely his senior commander who has already in his mind decided that a trinary is required and he has another use for that other command anyway would say, "nope. This is your job"

Clan culture then allows for trials etc but this was not a common occurence.

Trials and bidding did not circumvent the chain of command in day to day activity.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Craig Steele, on 14 February 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

I read the concern as if me and my buddies are Marik and I am well off enough to buy a Warhawk, I want to play that but I cannot with my Marik buddies as they are not as well off as me. So I either PUG it (in or out of Marik colours) or I don't play with my nice shiny new Warhawk.

Some people like to play with their freinds, and I think that's fair enough.

first the not so well off will all have warhawks, albiet 6 months later but everyone will be able to access clans, the pack is just early access.

but really you must hate a lot of FPS multiplayers cause they do not split up factions, i canot join my mates if i don't join their side with their unit offerings, that's been the key formular for yonks. it helps balance, it helps avoid having randoms running everywhere and tons of friendly fire lashing out at those who are on your side because the enemy has no definition. it helps brings a purpose to what you're doing. the last thing this game needs one mixed bag of non representive randoms vs the other just for the sake of friends wanting to be what they want to be. the game's being dying because of the lack of progression and defining role play and warfare is a big part of it and seperating clans and IS is a great way to have a reason to fight eachother in the game. we need something worthwhile to fill in for CW because that's not even starting until 2015. seeing a mess of banners in game after launch makes this game all the more a tacticsless pointless arena derp shoot. it has to change and clans will help that.

the thing is, this is a team game you have to agree to form team, good friends agree to take turns at being on oneside or another. or you can be pug filler. that's the pitch PGI has made for yonks it's nothing new.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 February 2014 - 08:18 PM.

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 14 February 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

I read the concern as if me and my buddies are Marik and I am well off enough to buy a Warhawk, I want to play that but I cannot with my Marik buddies as they are not as well off as me. So I either PUG it (in or out of Marik colours) or I don't play with my nice shiny new Warhawk.

Some people like to play with their freinds, and I think that's fair enough.

Why are you buying a Warhawk if you're a Marik?

The Clans are THE ENEMY.

Allowing people to play both sides at the same time is... hopefully never going to happen.

So yes, you'll have to pick (oh noes, I wants it all!) which side to play on AT LEAST from drop to drop - if CW becomes a thing I'd rather see a rather lengthy lockout on switching sides - say, 8 hours to a day.

[Craig Steele]

stjobe, on 15 February 2014 - 01:07 AM, said:

Why are you buying a Warhawk if you're a Marik?

The Clans are THE ENEMY.

Allowing people to play both sides at the same time is... hopefully never going to happen.

So yes, you'll have to pick (oh noes, I wants it all!) which side to play on AT LEAST from drop to drop - if CW becomes a thing I'd rather see a rather lengthy lockout on switching sides - say, 8 hours to a day.

PGI have already said that faction will not determine mech availability. We will see IS factions with Clan mechs (I'm Liao btw ).

My example was exactly that, just an example. Hopefully to highlight why I think some people are expressing the concern. Yes eventually everything has come into C-Bills but it's still an impost for some people that they won't be able to 'drop' with their freinds unless they have purchased Clan mechs.

I don't think I'll be in their shoes, but I understand their point.

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 15 February 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:

it's still an impost for some people that they won't be able to 'drop' with their freinds unless they have purchased Clan mechs.

I wonder if those people would ***** and moan about not being able to e.g. play ice hockey with their friends without buying skates, pads, and a stick?

And then complain that they have to pick a side, and then that they can't score in either net.

I mean come on.

And on the "faction will not determine 'mech availability", I'm pretty sure that just means that you as a player can purchase any 'mech - not that you can drop with it in any match you like.