Jump to content

- - - - -

Clan Balance Update - Feedback


876 replies to this topic

#21 MoonUnitBeta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,560 posts
  • LocationCanada ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:10 AM

View PostNuclearPanda, on 05 September 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Chimed in to say that I'm thoroughly disappointed and feel it's quite lazy to write off 10v12 completely. I would understand why it would NOT be an option at this time, but to write it off so blatantly like you did within the post makes me a sad panda.

This game is moving further and further away from being an actual Mechwarrior title into being Generic Robot Shooter XXVIV.

Actually, for the amount of work that's involved (as they mentioned) it's not just worth it at this point. I'd like to actually be able to take over a planet at some point in my life-time, ok?

#22 Pope RW

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 53 posts
  • LocationPA USA

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:10 AM

If you would refund my purchase price of the Clan package I would gladly cease playing MWO. As it currently stands I'll never open my wallet for PGI again.

Shame that a Founder would rather walk away from this game than continue to see it nerfed into what it has become.

Edited by Pope RW, 05 September 2014 - 11:15 AM.


#23 Weaselball

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 670 posts
  • LocationHell's ********, AKA Fresno.

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:14 AM

I am OK with these proposed changes.

#24 blackmail

    Rookie

  • The Ironclad
  • 6 posts
  • LocationSkiatook, Oklahoma

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:14 AM

well honeslty i think this is the worst thing i have ever seen. Clan mech were more powerful than the IS mechs were and to continually nerf the clan mechs make this a game i no longer support I just wish i could get the money i spent on this game back because i have a better use for it like wiping my ass.

thanks for completely making this a game i no longer want to play.

#25 NuclearPanda

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:20 AM

View PostMoonUnitBeta, on 05 September 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Actually, for the amount of work that's involved (as they mentioned) it's not just worth it at this point. I'd like to actually be able to take over a planet at some point in my life-time, ok?


I saidI understood why it wasn't viable at this time. But I also went on to say I was disturbed that they're pretty much writing it off completely. There is no reason why it shouldn't evolve into 10v12 at a point in the future. It's Clans v IS. Instead all we have is just a free-for-all. For pete's sake we still have really the same two game modes for the past TWO+ YEARS. Don't even get me started on map development.

They've gone in so many wrong directions at this point we're never going to get what they originally envisioned. I'm just feeling disillusioned lately, and i know MANY other long time players are as well.

At this point we're just catering to the casual crowd mostly. That's all fine and dandy I guess. Maybe I just need another extended break from the game for awhile. I truly thought the injection of clan mechs would make a difference.

It hasn't.

#26 Wingbreaker

    Troubadour

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 1,724 posts
  • LocationThe city that care forgot

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:20 AM

Any additional heat penalties on side torso loss to clan mechs would effectively only nerf asymetrical builds, of which there are basically two.

Summoner/Adder

These are already two of the weakest Clan mechs.

Movement is acceptable, Heat is not. Once you've lost half the mech, your heat curve is already likely cut in half, so removing heat capacity wouldn't affect it. (Except for the stated edge cases)

Edited by Wingbreaker, 05 September 2014 - 11:21 AM.


#27 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,017 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:21 AM

View PostUBCslayer, on 05 September 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

  • Complete IS mech Quirk pass to give more uniqueness and ability when used within their respective roles.
This is the one part of balancing that I hope is done the most efficiently. For example, the Awesome quirks were done well... the Cent, Hunch, and Dragon quirks didn't go nearly far enough.


I think most of the community would prefer that IS mechs be buffed rather than Clan mechs be nerfed.

This sums up my thoughts. I would LOVE to see seriously deep quirk sets for IS mechs to specialize in specific roles. I would LOVE to see EACH VARIANT get unique quirks or a unique MECH SKILL TREE, that helps it be much more efficient running loadouts that help it fill a very specific niche.

#28 MoonUnitBeta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,560 posts
  • LocationCanada ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:21 AM

The changes aren't even that bad guys lol...

They're balancing the game and you guys are throwing a fit like it's a bad thing. The first thing he mentioned was that they don't intend clans to be OP.

Why is this balancing a surprise? The changes aren't even knee jerk and are all very reasonable, especially how they go about deducing that 10vs12 won't be compatible.

#29 Gwydion Ward

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:25 AM

Well, Lets see. Last patch, you pretty much made CERLL's useless due to a heavy-handed Duration penalty + heat increase. Making us have to use LPL's just to have a 'viable' weapon. Now you turn around and do the exact same thing to the LPL's and SPL's.. making a build i had (2x LPL, 3x SPL, 3xMG, 2x LRM10) that was decently heat-stable (meaning i 'could' overcook myself but it wasn't a 'sure thing'), nearly worthless as i now hit 22% heat just from firering the 2 LPL's once, and the 3 SPL's i have nearly cook me after 3 or 4 salvo's.

Can i just use IS weapons on my Timber Wolf?.. at least then i dont have to worry about nuking myself for having the nerve to want to fire more than 1 weapon at a time.

#30 Thragen

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 78 posts

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:26 AM

View PostNik Reaper, on 05 September 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Just give IS mechs Light engines and the clans will need a buff....


This! Introducing Light-Fusion engines for the Inner Sphere earlier than the lore indicates might be a better solution than penalties to clan mechs that loose a side torso.

Also, I wouldn't make both the CERML and CMPL the same heat. I would have the CERML 5.5 heat and the CMPL heat at 6.

Edited by Thragen, 05 September 2014 - 11:30 AM.


#31 MoonUnitBeta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,560 posts
  • LocationCanada ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:27 AM

View PostNuclearPanda, on 05 September 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:


I saidI understood why it wasn't viable at this time. But I also went on to say I was disturbed that they're pretty much writing it off completely. There is no reason why it shouldn't evolve into 10v12 at a point in the future. It's Clans v IS. Instead all we have is just a free-for-all. For pete's sake we still have really the same two game modes for the past TWO+ YEARS. Don't even get me started on map development.

They've gone in so many wrong directions at this point we're never going to get what they originally envisioned. I'm just feeling disillusioned lately, and i know MANY other long time players are as well.

At this point we're just catering to the casual crowd mostly. That's all fine and dandy I guess. Maybe I just need another extended break from the game for awhile. I truly thought the injection of clan mechs would make a difference.

It hasn't.

It's really a non-issue if we have 10vs12 or not, though. Right? 10vs12 just shows that it causes more problems than just leaving it so.. if it ain't broke... Like I said, the only reason to have 10vs12 is to support the star vs lance. other than that... why else do we need if clans are balanced? <--- genuinly asking.


Edit: also you can stop being butt-hurt and editing my posts and actually produce some kind of actual discussion.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 05 September 2014 - 11:29 AM.


#32 Graugger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • 765 posts

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:28 AM

Ahoy there, your neighborhood troll chipping in though not to troll this time. I know feedback threads have a tendency to get removed but meh. There is an alternative to nerfing lasers and an option that might just allow for the removal of ghost heat on energy weapons as well as permit the PPC to be unnerfed.

Energy weapon cooldown based on number of energy weapons and engine size.
You have a XL 100, well your energy weapons will take longer to reload than a mech with a STD 300.
This promotes people to fit in larger engines reducing tonnage available for massive alphas while also providing a benefit for being mobile IE. you can fire faster too.

So let's say you fire all 12 of your ER Mediums on your Nova (which has a 250 engine), ok so let's say the reactor's charge rating is 1.5 and each laser has a power draw rating of .5 this would make your cooldown (6*1.5) = 9 seconds but if you fire just 6 of your mediums lasers (3*1.5)= 4.5 seconds.

Yes the overall damage to cooldown would be the same but if you over do your firing to kill an enemy mech and another comes charging over the hill you've just given them a few extra seconds to pound on your torso.

Comprably an IS mech mounting a STD 300 would have a reactor charge rating of 1 and if he somehow mounted 12 medium lasers with a charge rating of .5 his alpha would fire every (1*6)=6 seconds.

Reactor Charge Rating
100 - 3
200 - 2
300 - 1
400 - .5

#33 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,017 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:28 AM

[redacted]

I don't understand how you can say they misrepresented what their goals with Clan mechs were. From the start they've said the aim was to make Clans different feeling to play, but balanced against IS mechs, rather than just better than IS mechs. We lost hope that the Clans were going to mimic TT over a year before they were released.

Edited by Egomane, 05 September 2014 - 02:45 PM.
responding to removed content


#34 EarlGrey83

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 166 posts

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:29 AM

Really dissapointed about the 10vs12.

12 was not a random number. Its what an IS unit looks like. 12 Clan mechs is just a random number.

Besically, you´re going with the easy solution instead of doing it right. :(

#35 CyclonerM

    Tina's Warrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 5,681 posts
  • LocationA 2nd Wolf Guards Grenadiers JumpShip

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:29 AM

"Who would want to be on the side outnumbering the enemy..?"

STRANGE! I thought people wanted to easywin! If the Spheroids wanting mixtech to have the powerful Clan weapons are really those who want to win at all costs, they should be happy to start with a heavy advantage, considering how much more powerful IS 'Mechs are compared to the lore in this timeframe, while Clan warriors would be happy having a more difficult challenge to overcome to conquer the IS..

Now our biggest challenge to overcome.. Are the nerfs. Very interesting.

Besides, nerfing CMPLs? And even CSMLs and CSPLs?!

And why that heavy beam duration increase on IS ER LLs?!

10vs12 is one of the very few things i would have accepted to cause a delay to CW phase 2.. I would LOVE for planetary conquest to start right when Wave 1 should start.. But i want also to drop in Stars vs a Company of IS 'Mechs...

#36 Weaselball

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 670 posts
  • LocationHell's ********, AKA Fresno.

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:30 AM

[redacted]

Seriously. Clan mechs need to be straight up better than inner sphere mechs because the lore says so, and PGI is making a game that caters to lore and not to gameplay. Who cares if it unbalances the game, right?

Hey on a side note, in the upcoming Battlefield 5, Russian tanks, jets and infantry will be stronger than American units. That game sounds fun to play, doesn't it?

Edited by Egomane, 05 September 2014 - 02:45 PM.
responding to removed content


#37 Slambert

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 21 posts

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:30 AM

Back in the day RnR was introduced and removed.

Perhaps that was a mistake. Certainly I feel balancing IS v Clan in plain 1v1 mech strength might be more difficult.

Accept Clan mechs are stronger. Reintroduce repair cost scaling with mech cost. Clan mechs Would be far harder to maintain and turn a profit. Less cbill for consumables on Clan mechs as well...

#38 Gwydion Ward

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:30 AM

View PostMoonUnitBeta, on 05 September 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

The changes aren't even that bad guys lol...

They're balancing the game and you guys are throwing a fit like it's a bad thing. The first thing he mentioned was that they don't intend clans to be OP.



The thing is, its not the WEAPONS that make the Clan's OP. Its the fact that there is hardly any penalty to a Clan mech for losing its ST beyond the loss of weapons.

Yet instead of figuring out ways to make the loss of a ST effect a Clan mech (be it increased heat generation for the remaining weapons, decreases to movement, or other things), they are Cosntantly making it harder and harder and harder to use more than 1 of ANY Clan weapon without hiting 50-60% heat from fire.

As i mentioned in my post above. I "had" a fairly decent Timberwolf build. It wasnt the 7x ERLL splat-cat's that people claim are OP'd.. it was a decently balanced build. 2 LPL's +2 LRM10's for mid-long range fitghts, 3 SPL + 3 MG's for close up encounters. Pre-patch, just firering the LRM and LPL's i didnt have to worry about overheating. Firering the 3 SPL's and 3 MG's i didnt have to worry about overheating. The only overheating issue i had is when i tried useing the LRM's or the LPL + The SPL/MG group.

Now though... just firering the 2 LPLs by themselves with NO OTHER WEAPON, puts me up to 22% heat... The 3 SPL's almost do the same thing.

#39 Shredhead

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,939 posts
  • LocationLeipzig, Germany

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:34 AM

View PostPope RW, on 05 September 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

If you would refund my purchase price of the Clan package I would gladly cease playing MWO. As it currently stands I'll never open my wallet for PGI again.

Shame that a Founder would rather walk away from this game than continue to see it nerfed into what it has become.

I don't think we need the kind of players that encourage p2w and power creep. New player experience is bad enough as it is. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

View Postblackmail, on 05 September 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

well honeslty i think this is the worst thing i have ever seen. Clan mech were more powerful than the IS mechs were and to continually nerf the clan mechs make this a game i no longer support I just wish i could get the money i spent on this game back because i have a better use for it like wiping my ass.

thanks for completely making this a game i no longer want to play.

Irony. Your name is.

#40 Pope RW

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 53 posts
  • LocationPA USA

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:36 AM

I'll be happy to leave, refund the busted clan pack and I'll be out the door.

New player experience is bad not because of clan mechs, mastered IS mechs are so much better than what the entry player starts out with as well.

Edited by Pope RW, 05 September 2014 - 11:38 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users