876 replies to this topic

[BARBAR0SSA]

Pope RW, on 05 September 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

If we aren't going to allow for Lore then the game needs to be renamed.

They allow for lore, you can play stock mechs loadouts to your hearts content all you want etc.

How about you say "If they aren't going to force my desire on everyone else, I want the name changed because I think only I matter"

Ryvucz, on 05 September 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

10 vs 12 would have been a better option.

Great, provide a detailed solution to overcome ALL the obstacles they outlined if it's so simple.

While allowing them to focus completely on CW that about 90% of the playerbase wants along with more maps.

Edited by shad0w4life, 05 September 2014 - 11:56 AM.

[IronLichRich]

Just a note of perspective. I am a player who absolutely loves Clan mechs and technology, but still likes some Inner Sphere tech as well. Unfortunately, that tech (templar, fafinr, devastator) is a bit far off. I am also in favor of buffs before nerfs

Hopefully constructive criticism/feedback here. Having played the late August PTS with these changes, I don't feel the changes to the ER Lasers for Clan is atrocious. On my 7ERML+Gauss Timber Wolf, my engagement distance was not unbearably short, but the IS mechs were not taking a 7 laser+gauss alpha from outside many of their engagement ranges anymore. The increased heat took a bit of getting used to, but was also acceptable. For my Dire Wolf, I run a setup similar to the prime (remove the lrm and uacs for a torso mounted gauss rifle and heat sinks/ammo), and I felt that the changes were acceptable. While I'm not too sure about the changes to the pulse lasers as I didn't use them too much on the PTS, I am more than happy to trade 150m of range in exchange for reduced ghost heat. Remember people, the ghost heat for CERLL got REDUCED and you can still shoot at freebirth scum from outside anything but LRM or ERPPC effective range.

As to my thoughts on what the largest issue the clans have is? They take no penalty for side torso loss. I feel that a heat penalty would be best, not necessarily 10 heat like in the tabletop (not sure how the numbers work exactly for heat in MWO, just manage my heat scale), but I feel that a movement penalty will just result in the mech without a torso just getting annihilated as opposed to having reduced effectiveness. There should be a price for having the ability to mount incredible firepower, but it should NOT be "hey, here's all these cool guns...now don't shoot them because they're nerfed into oblivion."

For helping the Inner Sphere pilots, I think the following would help:
-Introducing the Light Fusion Engine and ERML as soon as possible. I'm all for timeline acceleration if it means that I can keep a game I enjoy alive without the use of the nerf bat.
-Giving the IS an assault mech that can mount 2 gauss rifles ASAP. When I'm in a IS mech, this is one of the things that makes me sad as an assault pilot.

[dangerzone]

MischiefSC, on 05 September 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

You know what?

I'm totally 100% good with all that. The decision to balance lasers with range decrease, damage decrease and heat increase instead of beam duration increases is one I can agree with 100%. The proposed changes to giving problems with side torso destruction on Clan XL mechs is great. Please, sweet baby jebus please, quirk up the IS mechs. The approximate approach to that I would suggest is this:



There's always more weapon balance changes you can make. These are a solid start. Imma thumbs up this one.

This.

PGI, it seems like you have learned a thing or two from Cloud Imperium Games. You have admitted your mistake and accepted the blame. You did not throw anyone under the bus, or blame it on stupid things. You admitted you made a mistake and told us what you PLAN to do to fix it.

THIS is how a Developer Studio is supposed to work. You tried, and you failed. But you know what? That is better than not trying and not knowing if you could succeed. The only thing worse than failing is not trying at all.

I am eager to see these changes. I ESPECIALLY like the "lose a side torso and speed is impacted". This should definitely help balance dakkawolves since they'll be very slow which should give others a chance to take down those behemoths.

You guys have definitely been cleaning up your act. Better communication, more honesty, more transparency, and even listening to our feedback (See "lose a side torso, lose speed").

Very happy despite the meh news. Thank you.

[Kiryuin Ragyo]

Doctor Proctor, on 05 September 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

No, he means that if TTK decreases from say 1 minute to 40 seconds (just made up numbers) that they might increase armor and internals by say, 30% so that TTK would go from 40 seconds back to 1 minute again.

It simply does not save Warhawk, Nova, Banshee, Stormcrow, Catapult, Cataphract, Jagger and many more from being headshoted.

[Doctor Proctor]

Kiryuin Ragyo, on 05 September 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

It simply does not save Warhawk, Nova, Banshee, Stormcrow, Catapult, Cataphract, Jagger and many more from being headshoted.

What does that have to do with anything? I was answering someone that thought that Russ was mixing up his increase/decrease terms, not talking about headshots. IF those are even problems, then it's a hitbox issue and has nothing to do with armor or TTK anyway.

[Gyrok]

Weaselball, on 05 September 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

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?

If the Americans get superior numbers...absolutely.

Weaselball, on 05 September 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

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?

If the Americans get superior numbers...absolutely.

[Gyrok]

Kmieciu, on 05 September 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

I meant: who would want to be on the side that outnumbers the enemy? Not much glory in zerg-rushing using superior numbers. Not enough kills to share. Less salvage to split.

What salvage? You mean the salvage bonus for winning that could remain the same?

shad0w4life, on 05 September 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

They allow for lore, you can play stock mechs loadouts to your hearts content all you want etc.

How about you say "If they aren't going to force my desire on everyone else, I want the name changed because I think only I matter"




Great, provide a detailed solution to overcome ALL the obstacles they outlined if it's so simple.

While allowing them to focus completely on CW that about 90% of the playerbase wants along with more maps.

I would be willing to wait an extra 4 months if it meant 10 vs 12 was viable.

[NuclearPanda]

MoonUnitBeta, on 05 September 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

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.

No butthurt here, just pointing out the obvious that it's lazy and canon-breaking to not at least give consideration and WORK towards 10v12 in the future in regards to CW.

I want to respect what you have to say, especially as a founder like myself, but there has been so much smoke and mirrors and misdirection from this company over the past few years. You can't deny that. Now with the clan mechs there is even more back peddleing in regards to canon and this game being an ACTUAL Mechwarrior title, let alone a simulation or god forbid what they want to call a "thinking man's shooter".

/facepalm

[Kain Demos]

Too bad they are ruling out 10v12 just because they don't want to do any actual programming.

I would prefer 10v16 if that's what it took to not see the clans nerfed to ****.

At this point in the timeline the clans had every advantage, period. Good stuff won't start showing up in the IS until the 3060s.

Edited by Kain Thul, 05 September 2014 - 12:05 PM.

[Gwydion Ward]

MoonUnitBeta, on 05 September 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

DId you even read the post?

Yes actually i did.

Now let me rephrase what i said a bit differently so its a bit more clear.

Their Nerfing the "weapons" before they even attempt to fix the "real" problem. That being the ST loss issue.

As i said. My timberwolf went from being 'decently' Heat stable (and its nowhere near any of the truely OP builds such as having 7 ERLL's or such), to being almost useless now. And this is BEFORE they have figured out a way to 'balance' the ST issue.

Whats going to happen whey they finally DO introduce the Heat Penalty/Movement penalty that SHOULD have been done 'before' all of the weapon nerfs?. We nearly cook outselves just firering 2 beams when were undamaged now. They throw the Increased heat for the loss of a ST ontop of the already incraesed heat just for daring to use a weapon and we'll assplode ourselves when were damaged just from firering 1 beam.

Im all for balacing clan weapons if they need it. But they should have introduced the Loss of a ST changes FIRST, then taken a look at the weapons IF a change to them was even needed anymore once the loss of a ST actually affected the mech.

[Weaselball]

Gyrok, on 05 September 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

If the Americans get superior numbers...absolutely.



If the Americans get superior numbers...absolutely.

The point went way over your head, as usual. But keep crying that PGI is finally balancing clan mechs out as they had originally stated they would.

[That Dawg]

Russ, you and your team claim to have some master plan-

It seems to the untrained eye, like you offer for $ale very powerful mechs, then having bled that market dry, nerf them down to pretty equal with the free stuff?
Now talk about releasing a new wave of powerful mechs....for real green? Lather rinse repeat?

Still weaknesses in the very core of the game- disconnects, never had the "no enemy/friendly" icon issue until just now, last three battles. Focused on selling, not maintaining....no new maps, and that UI you dumped on us weeks back is no better than promised.

Unfulfilled promises are just that. This last month may well kill off my devotion to a hoped for product.

[Why Run]

And to all you who want balance, go back to COD. You don't want balance, you want your meta back. Within 6 months we'll be back to some Vanilla IS meta that includes only ACs and the least nerfed energy weapon. This is not Mechwarrior.

[Ryvucz]

shad0w4life, on 05 September 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

Great, provide a detailed solution to overcome ALL the obstacles they outlined if it's so simple.

While allowing them to focus completely on CW that about 90% of the playerbase wants along with more maps.

10 vs 12... do I need to explain that in very fine detail for you?

What does maps have to do with 10 vs 12? Are you okay? Do you need to learn what different programmers do?

[Why Run]

God I cannot get over how laughable this is. Rather than actually figure out viable gameplay solutions, they are too busy building **** to sell. $5 warhorns, $30 heros. Forget having any sort of gameplay, that doesn't make instant money. It has never been more clear that they couldn't care less about how the game plays, as long as they can fleece us.

[Koniving]

Paraphrase: "10 versus 12 won't happen because we'd have to redesign the system."

Well duh. Now, with the 2+ years it took to make the new UI, you would think at some point in time, someone would have said "You know, Clans aren't supposed to be arranged in groups of 4 and they pride themselves on lower pilot counts. Maybe we should consider a 10 versus 12."

Which.... I believe such has been mentioned dozens upon dozens of times before UI 2.0 came out, so during its development...

....and no one decided to put in a clause for its occurrence?

[Doctor Proctor]

Why Run, on 05 September 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

And to all you who want balance, go back to COD. You don't want balance, you want your meta back. Within 6 months we'll be back to some Vanilla IS meta that includes only ACs and the least nerfed energy weapon. This is not Mechwarrior.

Yes, because my Hunchbacks have always been sooooooo meta.

Straw man arguments aside, I do want balance. 10v12 is not good balance. How many assaults do the Clans get? How many do we get? Is an 80 ton Clan mech worth a 100 ton IS mech? These are DIFFICULT problems that are much easier to solve in a turn based tabletop game where there are tight rules and controls over what you can do. In a real game though, 12v12 will be infinitely easier to balance and more likely to actually succeed at achieving a "different but equal" relationship between Clan and IS tech.

[Kali Rinpoche]

I'm ok with the steps Russ proposed. Was hoping for 12v10, but I can live with out it. Since we won't be able to cannibalize CT for use in IS mechs, I am fine with the Range/Damage changes. After mastering 15 Clan mechs, I feel clan weapons were a tad OP.

Edited by Kali Rinpoche, 05 September 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

ShadowWard, on 05 September 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

Yes actually i did.

Now let me rephrase what i said a bit differently so its a bit more clear.

Their Nerfing the "weapons" before they even attempt to fix the "real" problem. That being the ST loss issue.

As i said. My timberwolf went from being 'decently' Heat stable (and its nowhere near any of the truely OP builds such as having 7 ERLL's or such), to being almost useless now. And this is BEFORE they have figured out a way to 'balance' the ST issue.

Whats going to happen whey they finally DO introduce the Heat Penalty/Movement penalty that SHOULD have been done 'before' all of the weapon nerfs?. We nearly cook outselves just firering 2 beams when were undamaged now. They throw the Increased heat for the loss of a ST ontop of the already incraesed heat just for daring to use a weapon and we'll assplode ourselves when were damaged just from firering 1 beam.

Im all for balacing clan weapons if they need it. But they should have introduced the Loss of a ST changes FIRST, then taken a look at the weapons IF a change to them was even needed anymore once the loss of a ST actually affected the mech.

I see, thanks. Good points. Thinking about it now that might have actually been a good place to start too. Their ... "order of operations" has often seemed a bit wonky. However, it appears that we can boat a couple more large lasers now. The heat penalty modifer was reduced from 12 to 4... So hopefully that's a step in the right direction and makes room for some more intuitive balance changes.

[1453 R]

Weaselball, on 05 September 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

Goodbye. This game doesn't need players with your mentality of "my clan mechs should be inherently stronger than IS mechs because lore." We need balance. That does NOT mean making clan and is weapons copies of each other, but they have to be balanced out somehow otherwise 6 months from now there will be nothing but clan players and no IS mechs for them to go up against.

The issue is that most of the folks in the forums who're (Hill)slamming the Clan technology base don't want balance, they want Clan 'Mechs to be utterly terrible. Timber Wolves need to be Quickdraw levels of completely pointless, with all the other 'Mechs just as far behind Timber Wolves as they are right now, before most of those players will be satisfied.

As for the post itself, and the associated balance changes...eh. I knew what Piranha’s goal was well before I bought the Clan pack, this is just reaffirming that goal. It’s good to see Russ providing some nice clear communication (and without sticking his foot three feet down his gullet this time, to boot!), and despite what everyone who sees me type words on the Internet seems to think, balance is something I can get behind. I can see why the changes were made, and in the handful of games I managed to find time for during the PTS test I could definitely feel a serious increase in my beam ‘Mechs’ heat load.

I can get behind that. Yeah, it hurts, but I still have an option for lasers that are actually worth using as primary armaments, which the Inner Sphere does not. Still not sure why the IS ERLL got pigjacked with that massive beam duration increase, but a’ight, coo’. Something had to give, and I’ll admit that heat and some of the range is probably the best choice we had. The whole doubled-beam-duration things a lot of the “Make Clans SUCK!!” players were shooting for (among other bullscheissen) would have been a travesty.

I’m willing to see where this goes. After all, we can always get on Piranha’s case to quirk up the lackluster Clan ‘Mechs right alongside the lackluster Inner Sphere ‘Mechs, what with them going on a quirking spree and all. Provided they actually do that thing.