162 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 September 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

It's not too late for them to stop looking for answers from one small group of "l33t" players, when it should be obvious to almost anyone, that most of the moves SINCE introducing the Clans have been poorly thought out, at best.

With all due respect, having so called "l33t players" implies some form of bona fide competition. MWO has not had any to warrant the term.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mystere, on 06 September 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

With all due respect, having so called "l33t players" implies some form of bona fide competition. MWO has not had any to warrant the term.

Yes. But trying telling the self proclaimed ones, and the good folks at NGNG, PGI and IGP that.

[Undercover Brother]

Your argument is invalid...

If the argument for NERFing Clans back to flashier I.S. chassis, then why not just advance the timeline to 3065, and give the I.S. their own omnimechs, and weapons tech that was purposely built to counter Clan tech?

If Clan tech gets uber-NERFed now, then what will PGI do when new I.S. tech comes out? THEY WILL HAVE TO NERF the **** out it, just so its not OP compared to Clan tech. So, we stick closer to lore, and give Clans the temporary edge in range and such (but use 10vs12), or we will just be subjected to ridiculous NERFs indefinitely.

[Carrie Harder]

T Decker, on 06 September 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

Your argument is invalid...

If the argument for NERFing Clans back to flashier I.S. chassis, then why not just advance the timeline to 3065, and give the I.S. their own omnimechs, and weapons tech that was purposely built to counter Clan tech?

If Clan tech gets uber-NERFed now, then what will PGI do when new I.S. tech comes out? THEY WILL HAVE TO NERF the **** out it, just so its not OP compared to Clan tech. So, we stick closer to lore, and give Clans the temporary edge in range and such (but use 10vs12), or we will just be subjected to ridiculous NERFs indefinitely.

IS Omnimechs are not good for the most part. They get the same customization weaknesses as Clan Omnis, but without the smaller XL/Endo/FF that the Clans get. Two of the IS Omnis also get SHS stock (Owens and Strider), which means they would be nearly unusable in MWO (provided that rule doesn't change, which is likely). And they probably wouldn't get to mount Clan weapons, either.

IS Omnis basically get all of the weakesses of Omnis but none of their strengths. It's the worst of both worlds.

[Bishop Steiner]

T Decker, on 06 September 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

Your argument is invalid...

If the argument for NERFing Clans back to flashier I.S. chassis, then why not just advance the timeline to 3065, and give the I.S. their own omnimechs, and weapons tech that was purposely built to counter Clan tech?

If Clan tech gets uber-NERFed now, then what will PGI do when new I.S. tech comes out? THEY WILL HAVE TO NERF the **** out it, just so its not OP compared to Clan tech. So, we stick closer to lore, and give Clans the temporary edge in range and such (but use 10vs12), or we will just be subjected to ridiculous NERFs indefinitely.

Because your own argument is invalid?

All fast forwarding to 3055 does is to increase the powercreep, and to invalidate all the previous IS rtech as obsolete. And thus negate most of the last 3 years of development.

If one looks at IS tech to IS lvl2 tech, it is a very obvious (in most cases, LB-10X was always an OOPS moment for Battletech) balance trade offs, and many times, the "improved" tech, was only situationally useful, just plain worse (Small Pulse and LArge Pulse lasers were just BAD, unless you were knife fighting and had bad gunnery skills).

Unfortunately, the "logical" jump to Clan Tech, most of those balancers, were lost. So Zellbrigen, unequal teams, Battle Value were brought in to solve it. And guess what? None of it EVER worked. Post 3050, no matter how much future tech and power creep was added, Battletech was NEVER remotely balanced, again.

The one thing I will give PGI credit for, is for recognizing this, and trying to rectify it. Mind you, they are not doing a very good job of it, but at least they thought through the balance endgame, something your post did not.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 06 September 2014 - 08:43 AM.

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

The Basilisk, on 06 September 2014 - 05:08 AM, said:

Since all those players who have too just 'suck it up' are mostly also those players that are wearing the founders tag and are responsible for the mere existence of this game your statement is a bit rude at least bordering to kick into the face for all those founding this game because it was advertised as *Battletech game* ( see the title on the very top of this page It reads Mechwarrior Online a Battletech game ).
What those ppl wanted to see was Battletech.
Not some other mech arcade shooter stealing from a franchise that was violated and extorted for some quicky flash sales over and over again.
If you say there is a majority of ppl who are just not intrested in the way Battletech lore ( everything in this game...the game itself comes from battletech ) functions, I'm completely fine with that.

JUST

LEAVE

GO AWAY

Play Battlefield, Hawken or Titanfall or what ever but leave Battletech alone.

I'm fine with waiting an other year till pgi got the full CW up and running with segregated Clan and IS queues and 12 vs 10 IS vs Clan maps.
That will be the point where IS vs Clan gameplay gen be balanced.
The whole point about Claninvasion and Clan tech is that it is 300 years more advanced than anything the IS can field.
The very nature of the Claninvasion gameplay should be the desperate attemp to stop an army genetically bread for war, driving mechs that are able to defeat IS units twice their size.

That this can only function with separated IS Clan rosters and asymetric drop and mission profiles was obvious to everyone but pgi just lacks the recources and technical know how to advance this features fast enough. ( also something ovious to anyone who observed MWO from beta up to now)

Take Battletech and MWO as its decendant as it is or just go away.
You won't get anything successfull out of something that just looks like BT but only viotates and perverts its nature.

GO READ SARNA AGAIN CAUSE YOU ARE WRITING BULLCRAP!

[GumbyC2C]

Nerfing clans like this was not the way to achieve balance. Fixing the matchmaker was the right solution.
You cannot get a good read on the balance without two things:
Do some all clan vs all IS on the test server and give the IS a serious tonnage advantage.
Implement the side torso destruction heat penalty.
Until you do that, you have no idea what the real issues with clan weapons in MWO are.

[Lokust]

I like how the clans get nerfed right as they start to become more and more available for c-bills. It reinforces that the big clan packages were intended as a short term pay to win option.

[BLOOD WOLF]

GumbyC2C, on 06 September 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Nerfing clans like this was not the way to achieve balance. Fixing the matchmaker was the right solution.
You cannot get a good read on the balance without two things:
Do some all clan vs all IS on the test server and give the IS a serious tonnage advantage.
Implement the side torso destruction heat penalty.
Until you do that, you have no idea what the real issues with clan weapons in MWO are.

okay, Everybody who keeps saying that the MM needs fixing. Please go Read on all the works of Arpad Elo.

If you can not understand how 10v12 will be hell on the MM process, we have nothing to discuss. If you do and still want 10 v12 please rethink your Logos.

I am a forever Clans men AND I SERIOUSLY want 10v12. However it is going to take A ton of time to get something like that functional, especially for everything the MM has to do already. It confounds if you throw more complexities into an equation that already has enough variables.

I am not saying it cant be done but I rather them not waste time that could be used in other areas, at least not until after next year.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 06 September 2014 - 09:12 AM.

[Dirk Jameson]

Please don't forget that it's also a HUGE matter of pilot skill and teamwork. It isn't about individual mechs being too powerful or too weak. Putting a weak player in a Clan mech makes no difference other than them taking a few additional seconds more to kill.

[Bishop Steiner]

BLOOD WOLF, on 06 September 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

okay, Everybody who keeps saying that the MM needs fixing. Please go Read on all the works of Arpad Elo.

If you can not understand how 10v12 will be hell on the MM process, we have nothing to discuss. If you do and still want 10 v12 please rethink your Logos.

I am a forever Clans men AND I SERIOUSLY want 10v12. However it is going to take A ton of time to get something like that functional, especially for everything the MM has to do already. It confounds if you throw more complexities into an equation that already has enough variables.

I am not saying it cant be done but I rather them not waste time that could be used in other areas, at least not until after next year.

perhaps the point being that Elo is an atrocious way to balance TEAM MM in the first place? Particularly the way they approach it (W/L) in a team FPS?

Anytime you go through regular phases of 10-20 victory rolls, followed by it "balancing" things and going through 10-20 losing facerolls, it should be a pretty good indication, it ain't really working so hot.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 06 September 2014 - 09:18 AM.

[El Bandito]

Dirk Jameson, on 06 September 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

Please don't forget that it's also a HUGE matter of pilot skill and teamwork. It isn't about individual mechs being too powerful or too weak. Putting a weak player in a Clan mech makes no difference other than them taking a few additional seconds more to kill.

The problem is, that few additional seconds can mean big difference in the long run. I personally have very mixed feeling about the latest Clan weapon nerfs, but Clan mechs should definitely suffer some kind of penalty if a ST is blown.

Edited by El Bandito, 06 September 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Were some nerfs needed? Sure. There were two mechs which had advantages over most of the others. They weren't touched in the slightest.


Yet, my WubFox now has to deal with 150% heat on a subpar weapon. The Nerfinator went and touched the CuteFox in it's WubMaker. It was a very bad touch.


They can touch damage, beam length, recycles (they almost never touch this), but touching heat, in MWOs ****** up heat system is just BAD.

By the way...
LL is at 88% heat
ERLL is at 66% heat,
cERLL is at 75% heat....

isSL is at 200% heat
isML is at 133% heat
cERSL is at 150% heat
cERML is at 120% heat
cSPL is at 170% heat
cMPL is at 150% heat



Hey...notice something about EVERY SMALL AND MEDIUM LASER?!?!

They have borked heat values, from the days of the Lunchback, and haven't been touched in a very long time.

Then Paul came back to normalize the borked values.

Edited by Mcgral18, 06 September 2014 - 09:46 AM.

[Mystere]

BLOOD WOLF, on 06 September 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

okay, Everybody who keeps saying that the MM needs fixing. Please go Read on all the works of Arpad Elo.

Actually, the MM needs simplifying. But, very few developers want to throw away previous work, even if it is the right thing to do.

[Undercover Brother]

As I've pointed out in half a dozen posts PRIOR to the Clan rollout, the way to balance the game, if you're not doing 10vs12, is to segregate Clan and I.S. tech, and give tighter weight restrictions on Clan tech. These things are STILL possible to implement with Community Warfare. If Clan units had a 125 ton lower weight cap, 10vs12 teams would be much more balanced. If you look at weapons mechanics, just like in BT LORE, you'll find that I.S. mechs have a definite advantage with LRM bombardment (LRMs fire as a swarm, which lowers reload time) and with pinpoint damage at medium to short range (look at Autocannons).

To further balance Clan vs I.S., why not give Clan pilots an incentive to ACT like Clanners? Give XP, C-bill, and GXP bonuses for inflicting at least 75% damage, and killing an opponent? If you can't, you only get tiny bonuses for kills, unless you did it solo? Make Clanners act like Clanners, and focused fire from Clanners will drop off drastically, cutting down on "instant kills". Give "honor bonuses" to Clanners who act more as "Lone Wolves!

STOP NERFING EVERYTHING!

[Syncline]

PGI just nerfed literally EVERY bread-and-butter weapon available to the Clans. The nerfs trounced every light and medium mech build that isn't a missile boat, and made it much more difficult for players of heavies and assaults to do anything other than boat autocannons and LRMs.

If PGI wanted users of Clan tech to boat LRMs and autocannons, they succeeded.

The way to balance Clan tech is not to make Clan weapons unusable with absurd heat generation, but to alter the way Clan tech works in such a way that its advantages are balanced by gameplay mechanics unique to the Clans. PGI should continue to look for ideas such as volley fire for autocannons, increased beam duration for lasers, and heat/movement penalties for losing a side torso, to balance Clan tech.

Edited by Syncline, 06 September 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Mystere]

T Decker, on 06 September 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

To further balance Clan vs I.S., why not give Clan pilots an incentive to ACT like Clanners? Give XP, C-bill, and GXP bonuses for inflicting at least 75% damage, and killing an opponent? If you can't, you only get tiny bonuses for kills, unless you did it solo? Make Clanners act like Clanners, and focused fire from Clanners will drop off drastically, cutting down on "instant kills". Give "honor bonuses" to Clanners who act more as "Lone Wolves!

That only works for c-bill and XP farmers. I, on the other hand, only care about one thing: winning.

I don't even care about dying if that is what it takes to win. Death does not mean much in this game ... unless you care about your precious KDR.

<Note that I am not saying that I do not like killing, because I do like killing lots and lots of the enemy. >

Edited by Mystere, 06 September 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[Alex Warden]

FatYak, on 06 September 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

every nerf end's up being the wrong nerf


The only people who actually care about that are BT fans...how many people here...now..are BT fans??? ill wager its a fair minority.

i am... and i actually agree with you for the most part there is no way to balance a first person shooter (i´m sorry guys, but the path to a "BattleTech simulator" was left long ago... face it, pgi created a "not-too-arcady-shooter-") and keeping true to BT...

plus "the invasion should be about superior machines trying to stomp an underdog faction with less than outdated warmachines" is something that works in a singleplayer campaign or a co-op vs. AI scenery... but not in a competetive pvp game...

i´ll go as far to say there will never be real balance between IS and Clan, there indeed doesn´t have to be... but the gap has to be closed and has to be fair... 10vs.12 is NOT enough to even it out... do yourself a favour...

start up MegaMek... get 1 IS army and 1 Clan army... IS 12 Mechs.. Clan 10... try to get even BattleValues for both armies (ONLY MECHS ALLOWED!) and start a bot vs bot match... good luck...

if IS wins 10 of 20 matches in that one (hell, if you can get the same battlevalues on both teams anyway) we can talk about achieving anything close to that in a realtime enviroment again...

Edited by Alex Warden, 06 September 2014 - 10:07 AM.

[Mystere]

Alex Warden, on 06 September 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

... but not in a competetive pvp game...

Methinks eSports has been the problem all along.

It takes a whole lot of creativity, not to mention good planning, to make that compatible with:



<"A BattleTech Game">

[Alex Warden]

i´m in no way talking about e-sports... e-sports is cancer in my mind i´m just talking about the game i´ve been playing for almost 3 years now...

Edited by Alex Warden, 06 September 2014 - 10:20 AM.