162 replies to this topic

[Darwins Dog]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 September 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

And thats cool. I disagree with your opinion, but please continue to state your case. The Original Creator who left the game. Yeah I know. And the game has lasted quite some time since his departure. Yes its a niche game but it has a strong and passionate group of players that range from Astrophysicist to Infantry Marines.

I came here to beat up THE Clans not House Kurita with different skins.

All of the strong and passionate TT players that I know refuse to play with clan tech. Most don't go part the helm memory core stuff. The game has survived because two players can get together and decide what tech level to use, which mechs should not be allowed, etc. Campaigns have a GM to set up the battles and decide how to balance the forces. It works great for that game. It works because you only need two people to agree on how the game should be set up.

There are simply not enough players out there to support the kind of balance that you are looking for. Too many people would go to the OP (clans) side, and leaving the others (IS) behind. I say that for the same reason why very few people take locusts over Jenners or take summoners over timberwolves. Most people don't want to use something that is obviously weaker. Some do, but not enough to ensure that there are always matches available at every skill level.

It is a Battletech inspired game with a rich lore and lots of back story. That appeals to a small playerbase. The game needs to appeal to people who know nothing of the lore and have never read the novels if it is to continue to thrive.

[Joseph Mallan]

Darwins Dog, on 08 September 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

All of the strong and passionate TT players that I know refuse to play with clan tech. Most don't go part the helm memory core stuff. The game has survived because two players can get together and decide what tech level to use, which mechs should not be allowed, etc. Campaigns have a GM to set up the battles and decide how to balance the forces. It works great for that game. It works because you only need two people to agree on how the game should be set up.

There are simply not enough players out there to support the kind of balance that you are looking for. Too many people would go to the OP (clans) side, and leaving the others (IS) behind. I say that for the same reason why very few people take locusts over Jenners or take summoners over timberwolves. Most people don't want to use something that is obviously weaker. Some do, but not enough to ensure that there are always matches available at every skill level.

It is a Battletech inspired game with a rich lore and lots of back story. That appeals to a small playerbase. The game needs to appeal to people who know nothing of the lore and have never read the novels if it is to continue to thrive.

Why? Why Can't a game be profitable by being true to the core story? The game needs to appeal to enough players to make it profitable, it does not need to be the next WoW or similar mega popular game.

[Darwins Dog]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 September 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

Why? Why Can't a game be profitable by being true to the core story? The game needs to appeal to enough players to make it profitable, it does not need to be the next WoW or similar mega popular game.

I don't think so, not across multiple platforms, anyways. Like I said, the idea of fighting against a technologically superior force with greater numbers works in a 1v1 tactical boardgame. In that case I don't care if 4 of my 12 mechs get vaporized right at the start of the engagement as long as I can still have a chance to win. Those pilots will jump back into their inferior mechs and play the next game because I said so.

In MWO those 4 pilots with the vaporized mechs are are individual people. Some might say "Once more, for the glory of the Federated Suns!", but more of them (the ones that have no loyalty to any faction) are likely to say "forget this POS I'm getting one of those clan mechs", or "forget this game entirely".

I'll use warhammer 40K as an example. I taught that game to dozens of people over the years. I've seen maybe hundreds buy the starter set. Invariably a little more than half of them end up playing the space marines. A few may have read the fluff and decided that this was the faction for them, but most just see that the space marines are better/stronger/more powerful than the other guys in the starter set, and go with what they see is the better faction.

It's not a perfect example, but that's a pretty prominent mentality. More people will play the more powerful faction. In many of the long running games with rich story, the gameplay dictates the story, not the other way around. MWO doesn't need to be the next WoW, but it needs more than the die-hard Mechwarrior fans to be viable.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 September 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

This word you keep using, Neckbeard...

I don't think it applies to the players you think it does.

LOL! Well I am, or would be, considered a "Neck Beard" as well I guess. I prefer that to "Old Fart" though really. Each to their own I guess. It is nice to see you do have a goat to be gotten though Joe.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 08 September 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

LOL! Well I am, or would be, considered a "Neck Beard" as well I guess. I prefer that to "Old Fart" though really. Each to their own I guess. It is nice to see you do have a goat to be gotten though Joe.

I am partial to "Old Fart" myself as I lived long enough to have earned the title.

Goat... Good one!

[Almond Brown]

Fut, on 08 September 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

Wouldn't using a Battle Value score help lower the complexities of the MM?
Clan Mechs would/should have higher BV than IS Mechs, so set a BV value, and let that be the balancing factor.

Yes, yes it would. All we would need is a competent BV system. You don't happen to have one do you? Dang it all. No one else has a competent one either it seems.

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 September 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

Then most players should take a little time to learn about the game they are getting into before they complain.
Changing the Clans is like Allowing Cloaking to Federation ships in Star Trek, Smugglers the use of Light Sabers in Star Wars and other similar examples of Canon influence of game mechanics.

Some federation ships do have cloaking in STO and in ST lore. It’s not game breaking.

A better example would be the battle of Endor from star wars episode 6. When 5 legions of the empires best troops couldn't shoot a dam thing and got there buts handed to them by a bunch of teddy bears. Now that’s getting hit by the nerf bat a little hard.

[MischiefSC]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 September 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

Why? Why Can't a game be profitable by being true to the core story? The game needs to appeal to enough players to make it profitable, it does not need to be the next WoW or similar mega popular game.

Because the core story had a lot of bad in it. That's like asking why Twilight can't appeal to people with self respect :-P

The lore and TT game rely, strongly, on both an honor system and an out of game agreement and trust to work. Most the people you encounter online in games are not going to fit into that framework. Can you make a TT style game work? Sure, in private matches.

[Hillslam]

Battletech was at its best in the 3025 time era.


The people wanting 10v12 are invariably the ones wanting to be in the boss mechs on the 10 side. Mowing down the cannon fodder in their superior gear feeling like the heroes they aren't.

What these people seem completely incapable of comprehending is that other people do not want to be their stomping rug. They point to lore, they point to single player games of the past or tabletop games where one customer drove a dozen mechs in a game and they ask "why can't I have my OP gear? I'm supposed to have OP GEAR! I like clan so n so so I get OP GEAR! Waaaahhh!"

And they JUST DON"T GET IT. Nobody wants to pay to be cannon fodder.

[Cricket504]

I find it funny all the battle of "nerf vs. buff vs. no change" played out on here. The TT side wants to see near exact TT if not 100% exact play here. FPS players want that shoot now and then respawn feel and so on with every faction imaginable. For myself I like the game based on BT/MW and things changing as it goes along. In real combat what works today does not tomorrow. So having to adapt and move with the changes is something I like. Some days the LRM boat is king, others its the PPC/Gauss/AC and so on. So every time there is a buff/nerf, to me its just a new challenge to figure out the new balance.

[Domoneky]

You All obviously don't understand the mechanics of this game. Its called "Domoneky Wins every time. Not You." #Joke (Because some people dont know what one looks like)

I kinda do want 10 v 12. Does that make me a Greedy Self-centered Spoiled Child with no Consideration for others? Kinda.

Am I greedy? Not really. Pretty frugal.

Self-Centered? Damn Skippy. I am the Best Domoneky I know

Spoiled Child? Sorry but I am a man! Big Burly Manly Man.

No Consideration for others? You Hit it right on the head good sir. To Be honest I really don't give two [Redacted] about another person unless They be family or my fellow Marines. I mean...why? Why Should I?

Now for the Topic: I really haven't seen too much to be worried for me specifically. I follow my own Dogma when it comes to builds:
1: Always have an ammo Independent weapon
2: Cover all ranges
3: Have both Direct and Indirect Weapon systems
4: Don let heat management fall below (IS) 1.30 and (Clan) 1.22

Seemed to work well for me.

[Hillslam]

Domoneky - its ok to want that. Whats TRULY cool is that you own up and come out and say it.

99% of the 10v12 crowd don't. They spew rationality after excuse after narrative for blargle snarfblat reasons, all the while avoiding the truth: they want better gear than their opponent and want to feel like heroes mowing down hordes of cannon fodder.

Who doesn't?

What is sad though is that most of these folks truly have not, cannot, or will not consider the implications. All they want is "the gold ammo for me and not for them".

I salute you for being a man and standing up and saying it. Also, as ex-Navy, I recall we had enough marines on our carrier for me to have learned not to make one mad..... ;-/

PS - Subtle, not Subtile *runs and hides*

Edited by Hillslam, 08 September 2014 - 12:19 PM.

[Domoneky]

-Rage-implosion over sig misspelling-

You're Welcome

Spoiler

Squid!

Edited by Domoneky, 08 September 2014 - 12:35 PM.

[RiggsIron]

oneproduct, on 06 September 2014 - 05:20 AM, said:

10 v 12 is a terrible idea. People don't play a game to lose. In tabletop it's okay, because you're one person controlling all 12 IS mechs, so if one of your 12 IS mechs dies but your whole 12 mech team wins out in the end, you're still happy. But when each mech is a person, the IS pilots won't be happy that some of them had to be cannon fodder to soften up the enemy so that their friends could win.

And in reality, trying to get 12 weaker people to coordinate to take down 10 stronger people doesn't work. People already shout at pugs for being bad, imagine if you absolutely needed the help of another person to kill a clan mech as an IS mech. People don't play the game with the kind of military attitude they'd need in order to make 10 v 12 work. As soon as there's a few IS pilots running around doing their own thing the plan fails. And in some maps due to the nature of the peeking game we have where shooting over ridges or turning around corners for quick shots is how to play the game, there simply aren't enough good hill spots or corners to shoot from to accommodate one team needing more spots than the other.

Exactly.

tabletop is a game based on different things. Like each player controlling multiple mechs or lances or even the entire company. Not a game where 22 players and a GM all sit around only controlling 1 mech each. Trying to emulate an exact replica of that situation in an online game where each player plays one mech only is absurd and abusive,

Canon/lore is a story. It makes for good books, or good games on tabletop with the situation above. Asking players to pay big $$ to own mechs and then get stomped by superior technology is not fair in the slightest.

So people saying "thats the way the game is supposed to be leave it alone" do not understand game balance, the difference between a decades old pen and paper game and an online game, and are giggling as they rack up kills and damage in OP clan mechs.

"Oh you have 5 weapons and I have 8 weapons that all shoot further - but its fair because of what seemed like a good plot 30 years ago?" yeah. No.

[Hoax415]

Hillslam, on 08 September 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

And they JUST DON"T GET IT. Nobody wants to pay to be cannon fodder.

I think you are 100% wrong. I don't want 12v12 because they will never nerf their greatest cash cow enough to make 12v12 balanced. 12v10 gives IS a chance and I think 12v12 will either favor the clans or would result in nerfing all clan mechs an amount that this community is not going to be very comfortable with.

I don't own clan mechs. I don't pilot for a clan faction and I won't be in CW. When I'm on comms talking to IS faction members it is the rare voice that thinks tossing out 10v12 was a good move.

This obsession with cannon fodder is strange. You know that people play things other than mega lategame hardcarry in dota right? Even though that means they can never be as strong.

You know some people only pilot lights.

This concept that 10v12 would mean nobody would play for the IS is funny. Where does it come from exactly?

Clan mechs have been insane p2win death machines for a long time now. Where is the evidence that people have been switching factions.

Clan mechs with endo are still stronger TODAY in every single area but heat efficiency when compared to a IS mech of same tonnage. You can also do some hand waving about how you dislike C-LRMs or C-AC's and I acknowledge that if it were mixtech some people would mount IS versions. But they are stronger ton for ton, go in smurfy and check for yourself.

PGI is trying to combat this by making clan mechs very heat inefficient. I believe that if they go this 12v12 balanced by heat efficiency route the end product will be clan mechs that are not very fun to drive. I think there's a reason that the first thing that gets any build tossed out by a pilot is because its too damn hot (too damn slow may be a close second).

Edited by Hoax415, 08 September 2014 - 01:29 PM.

[Murphy7]

Light mechs have had a fairly lovely time in MWO for a while. The high damage hitscan clan beams have put a dent in that, but not much of one. IS light mechs can still be really potent.

10 v 12 will work ok in the early going. I think it would be pretty funny to the Clanners if forcible (hard coded) Zellbringen was in place.

[The Great Bear]

the fact that the basic stock mechs dont work due to ghost heat and stacking heat ect ect says PGI did a bad job. The stock mechs you buy like the nova should not explode if you fire all the weapons thats a balance change how is that not broken

[PANZERKAT]

Murphy7, on 08 September 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Light mechs have had a fairly lovely time in MWO for a while. The high damage hitscan clan beams have put a dent in that, but not much of one. IS light mechs can still be really potent.

10 v 12 will work ok in the early going. I think it would be pretty funny to the Clanners if forcible (hard coded) Zellbringen was in place.

10v12. Myth and legend that will never be.

[Johnny Z]

Hillslam, on 08 September 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Battletech was at its best in the 3025 time era.


The people wanting 10v12 are invariably the ones wanting to be in the boss mechs on the 10 side. Mowing down the cannon fodder in their superior gear feeling like the heroes they aren't.

What these people seem completely incapable of comprehending is that other people do not want to be their stomping rug. They point to lore, they point to single player games of the past or tabletop games where one customer drove a dozen mechs in a game and they ask "why can't I have my OP gear? I'm supposed to have OP GEAR! I like clan so n so so I get OP GEAR! Waaaahhh!"

And they JUST DON"T GET IT. Nobody wants to pay to be cannon fodder.

Not to mention the Phoenix package owners and other hero mechs would be that cannon fodder. I seriously doubt they considered going that route for long. This would have effected all future IS hero mech sales.

I could think of 20 solid reasons they would never go 10 v 12. I have mentioned a few in other replies.

Its poor sportsmanship. (in a way what the above quote says)

How do you even attempt to properly balance the 10 mechs stats with the 12 mechs stats? The list goes on.

As it is, they have to balance the clan mechs and weapons.

Edited by Johnny Z, 08 September 2014 - 04:50 PM.

[Hoax415]

Perhaps you should google the meaning of sportsmanship.

The entire point of the 10 v 12 concept is that it allows us to have clan chassis not be at the exact same power levels with IS chassis while having fair fights.

12 v 12 right now if its 100% clan vs 100% IS and we're playing for real is still a joke. Yes after all those nerfs. If the clan players are serious about winning and they are bringing the good clan chassis and good builds.

It is still not even close.

Prove me wrong. Post any TBR, SCR or DWF build from smurfy that you think a same weight IS mech can match. I'll wait.

Sportsmanship means not using unfair advantages. Using clan mechs if the system is designed to account for how powerful they are by giving the IS side a numerical advantage and a weight advantage is sporting.

Using a Mad Cat during this long period of pay2win and denying how OP it is on the forums has been bad sportsmanship. Claiming you earned your ridiculous avg match scores for all these months as the nerfs were soooo slow in coming from PGI.

Claiming the 90% winrate was totally because IS pilots are all newbs and all the master-race founders were in clan robots.

That was poor sportsmanship.

There is no inherent sportsmanship problem with 10v12 if the game is balanced to create a fair sporting environment under those conditions.

Edited by Hoax415, 08 September 2014 - 05:03 PM.