45 replies to this topic

[MechaBattler]

Discuss!

[Strykewolf]

Personally don't think it's needed.

[Chagatay]

Strykewolf, on 02 March 2015 - 09:26 PM, said:

Personally don't think it's needed.

Yeah, but why not. Give the IS 10 more tons maybe they will bring more assaults at least we will see more variety instead of endless TDR we'll see other stuff mainly banshees and more odd out stuff.

[happy mech]

i really do not like this, we are trying to balance out the mechs and is-clan, this is a step way back imo

[Kjudoon]

Doubt it will make much difference. Numbers is the issue, not tonnage. 10 tons is also a token amout. 20 has some real mathematical value, but even then, so what?

What would fix this, Clans get 3 mech drop decks with a top tonnage of 210, IS keeps 4. It gives you a basic 12 v 9 in the CW department, and foster better play from clan pilots who can no longer just charge with impunity. Of course if you either undo the quirks, or buff the clans back a bit, this will wreck the Public Queues as there will be no need for anyone to run anything but clan tech since they will be flat out superior. Trimming the quirks though also would have the effect of stripping a lot more diversity out of the battlefield as the Tbolts, Awesomes, Wolverines, Vindicators, Panthers, and a few others will rapidly disappear from the battlefield. Too many people only play quirked mechs in the quirk meta. I don't know if that's all a bad thing.

Edited by Kjudoon, 03 March 2015 - 03:03 AM.

[Koshirou]

Not enough to make a difference, just enough for even more people to delude themselves into thinking that IS has an advantage over Clans. Also, this...

"When it is IS vs IS or Clan vs Clan the drop deck tonnage remains the same as it is currently."

... is going to be a major PITA.

Edited by Koshirou, 03 March 2015 - 03:21 AM.

[DarthHias]

Firestarter + Wolverine/Griffin + Thunderbolt/Jager + Banshee = Neat

[Koshirou]

I'd rather do things with the game setups and victory conditions than make people change their drop decks whenever they drop vs. Clans. PGI has so many options for balancing CW games, but they picked the laziest one, which will be little more than a token.

[Skarlock]

This is just balancing silliness at its worst. Overpowered chassis stay overpowered. Underpowered chassis stay underpowered. Single and group queue don't benefit at all.

They really just need to scrap the idea of a CW drop deck being based on tonnage, or make single and group queues based on raw tonnage. For CW they could make it so that your default drop deck is 1 light, 1 medium, 1 heavy, 1 assault. If you drop the weight class of one slot, you can upgrade the weight class of another. For example, 2 lights and 2 assaults (downgrade medium, upgrade heavy), or 3 mediums 1 assault (downgrade heavy, upgrade light) or 2 heavy 2 medium (downgrade assault, upgrade light) would all be valid.

You can't balance mechs against each other when you have two completely different standards between game modes, one being ton for ton, the other being lights vs. other lights, mediums vs. other mediums, etc. etc.

Edited by Skarlock, 03 March 2015 - 03:43 AM.

[Bigbacon]

and people are still having fun with boredom warfare?

[Livewyr]

I don't think 10 tons is going to make a difference..

Now if they got say... 30 more tons.. I might blink once.

[AlmightyAeng]

Chagatay, on 02 March 2015 - 11:44 PM, said:

Yeah, but why not. Give the IS 10 more tons maybe they will bring more assaults at least we will see more variety instead of endless TDR we'll see other stuff mainly banshees and more odd out stuff.

10 tons allows you to upgrade that Thunderbolt to a 75-ton mech..like an Orion! Because they're SO amazing.

No, what you'll see is some people upgrading their Spiders to a 35-ton mech with more firepower, and OCCASIONALLY upgrading their 35-ton mech to a Cicada or Blackjack.

Nothing else will change.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 03 March 2015 - 07:19 AM.

[Triordinant]

It means that a dropdeck that used to have 3 Jagers and/or Thunderbolts plus a Vindicator or Blackjack will now have a Shadowhawk or Wolverine as the fourth 'mech.

Edited by Triordinant, 03 March 2015 - 07:53 AM.

[Nightmare1]

This is better than nerfing the Clans, I think. I've maintained all along that the Clans should be left substantially powerful but that the matches should be balanced by altering the number of combatants and tonnage limits to simulate the story books. Let there be imbalances across the board; like negative sings, they will cancel each other out over time and with careful tweaking.

[AlmightyAeng]

Honestly, 10 tons is a pittance. And if they decided to balance them with a LARGER tonnage and set the power level to Clans to match it, they'd be screwing over the public queue.

It's a token gesture...but not a viable "big" balance mechanism.

[Dawnstealer]

Nightmare1, on 03 March 2015 - 07:57 AM, said:

This is better than nerfing the Clans, I think. I've maintained all along that the Clans should be left substantially powerful but that the matches should be balanced by altering the number of combatants and tonnage limits to simulate the story books. Let there be imbalances across the board; like negative sings, they will cancel each other out over time and with careful tweaking.

This. I'm fine with Clan mechs being overpowered. They're SUPPOSED to be overpowered. But at 12 v 12 and playing styles, they're both overpowered and unbeatable.

I've said for a while that 10 v 12, with really powerful Clan mechs (and once Wave 3 rolls out, there will literally be no mech the IS can go to for an advantage), is a lore-based solution. As is adding rewards that encourage the one-on-one style that Clan pilots SHOULD fight.

[Links432]

I don't think it will make a big difference. I just think that it is a step in the right direction as far as what I want. I still think it would be cool to see 2 Stars of Clan against the 3 IS Lances. I have noticed that when on the offensive I wish I could bring all lights, not that I am cool with Zerg Rushing everything but just that I am better in my lights.

I will keep playing and see how I like it after a few days.

[Koniving]

Kjudoon, on 03 March 2015 - 03:02 AM, said:

Doubt it will make much difference. Numbers is the issue, not tonnage. 10 tons is also a token amout. 20 has some real mathematical value, but even then, so what?

What would fix this, Clans get 3 mech drop decks with a top tonnage of 210, IS keeps 4. It gives you a basic 12 v 9 in the CW department, and foster better play from clan pilots who can no longer just charge with impunity. Of course if you either undo the quirks, or buff the clans back a bit, this will wreck the Public Queues as there will be no need for anyone to run anything but clan tech since they will be flat out superior. Trimming the quirks though also would have the effect of stripping a lot more diversity out of the battlefield as the Tbolts, Awesomes, Wolverines, Vindicators, Panthers, and a few others will rapidly disappear from the battlefield. Too many people only play quirked mechs in the quirk meta. I don't know if that's all a bad thing.

It'd be lore friendly-ish, so I'm kinda for it.

But numbers isn't the issue either. It's map design. Tight corridors, funneling bottle necks, all of these scream Clan advantages. Poor and heavily artificial map design that gives no room or even need to spread forces, no way to flash attack one gate and quickly get to another gate instead... There's a lot that simply favors Clan mechs because the maps are designed in such a short-sighted way. Objectives are much too close together, and designed as such that a simple orbital bombardment on the base would wipe it out; why the heck would we bother landing dropships?

Canonically, mechs, troops, etc. had to land to cover large areas to bring down bases, as they tend to keep their generators, turret control stations, communications, and what not all over the place for the express purpose that a simple orbital bombardment could not possibly be effective enough to be worth doing.

Some ideas follow in its place.

Spoiler

Koniving, on 03 March 2015 - 06:18 AM, said:

This. Overall, map design is a big problem here.

Currently:

• You have to move across half the map to be able to do something useful (encouraging light rushes and Timber/Summoner wall rushes).
  
• Having to blast at something on the other side of gates, too, also causes an issue. Encouraging sniper rigs and geometry exploitation. In fact this, almost entirely in and of itself, is the primary reason that Clans have a HUGE advantage when defending; longer range = better snipe capabilities regardless of how they are built. Then funnel enemies like on the snow map, and there ya go.
  
• Key objectives are under ECM, making it difficult to really be able to tangibly find these things for first time players.
  
• The limited number of objectives seem to be extremely secondary to the core objective of annihilating the enemy team.
  
• Turrets have preset locations, making them virtually worthless as more than a nuisance.
  
• Dropship spam. Time your deaths and suicides just right and you can have 6 dropships come in within 1 minute, spamming weapons fire in all sorts of directions. Do it just right, and you can manage to get up to 12 dropships in 4 minutes.
  
• Dropship deployment points are static and do not move up with the action. This makes no sense.

Now... Food for thought.


First, if nothing changed about objectives.... but other changes, smaller ones, did occur?

• What if Gate access could be toggled? In Mech Commander 1 and 2, as well as numerous other Mechwarriors to some degree, you could 'hack' the gate controls and have the gate open. The enemy, in turn, can restore the gate controls and have the gate close. Both sides could decide on the state of the gate.
  
  • (For example what if the defense wants the gates open to storm outside and meet the enemy before they travel across 3/4ths of the map to get to the gates? They can close the gates behind themselves, too).
    
  • (As another example, what if the attackers wanted to close the gate so that they could safely congregate behind it, rally up, and then reopen the gate to storm in again?)
    
  • Destruction of the generator would and should lock the gate in whatever position it is in, even if it's not all the way open or shut.
• But wait, if the gate can be locked into whatever state while the generator is destroyed what if the defense destroys the generator and locks the gate shut?! Well that would cost the defense the ability to control their own gate so it likely would not be a first resort. If it is, that's a good time to storm the walls and rush because they're probably all sniper builds that can't fight well up close. At any rate, the gate itself should be destroyable through means of brute force. This would cost a fair bit of firepower and time, but it also discourages the long range sniping meta that defenses will use as at any time the mechs could just blast their way through instead.
  
• Lets look at our points of ingress. We have the gates and over the gate's walls. Really, that's it? What if we had:
  
  • Terrain that could allow other points of ingress, via difficult climbing or little things like a river where something very short could try to sneak in with a very easily destroyed 'patchwork' obstacle slapped on such as a grate guarding a river.
    
  • Underground tunnels which only smaller mechs could fit in with fairly weak doors blocking them. These would allow defenders to flood out through them or attackers to try and sneak some mechs in through them. The downfall is their narrow nature means that a well placed defender could have a field day... or his presence there could take away from the big defense.
    
  • This can mean that some walls might be too tall for all but the highest jumping mechs to vault over (Spider 5V you've got a use; kinda...maybe!)
    
  • Weakpoints in walls that are not near gates, for wider defenses and especially early defenses. Use more of the map, make defenders walk. More on this later.

Now, if anything could be changed.

• Lets start with making mechs walk. Defenders should have more surface area to travel. Secondary and Tertiary objectives that are a bit away from the core objective. Outer walls to compliment the inner walls. Honestly in no mechwarrior game, in no battle tech game, in no way shape or form, did a base ever have all of its power sources within their base. Turret control centers, power generators, etc. are usually placed outside and reasonably well defended in their own right.
  
  • For example a base with diggable terrain would keep their generators buried under ground in secret and defended tunnels that are protected enough to withstand a few attackers but not enough to overtly draw lots of attention. And their existence was optional to make the base attack easier, not mandatory.
    
  • Lets use Alpine as an ideal example, notice how there are many stations out there? One for communications, another for drilling, another for air units, then a resource base and finally the main base which houses most of the troops and vehicles? That's the sort of thing we should be seeing.
    
  • And each one coming down should have an effect on the main base's defenses.
    
    • Dealing with the communication station could slow down defense reinforcement deployment from 30 seconds apart to 1 minute apart.
      
    • Taking out the turret control centers could take a number of linked turrets and disable their automatic controls, forcing crews to work them manually (making them less accurate and slower to react).
      
    • Disabling generators could disable defender building ECM fields, making them easier to locate and target.
      
    • Destroying warship class turrets -- which shouldn't be able to fire on mechs because that'd be instant-kills -- or other anti-air weaponry could allow attacker dropships to risk coming in closer before deploying attacking mechs.
      
    • Capturing said turret could force defenders to come in from farther away.
      
    • Mechbays within the field could allow defenders to choose a deployment location rather than come in by dropship, so that they can spawn closer to objectives. Destroying these (if possible) could prevent them from spawning at defense objectives that you're trying to take out.
  • Specified locations on certain maps with a theme, such as a training facility, could have controls to tamper with to raise or lower defensive barricades and obstacles (destructible preferably but not necessarily) that could provide themselves as cover that can be raised or lowered at the will of the players.
    
    • Too many obstacles in the way of your long range shooting? Send someone to flip the things down so you have clear shots on open terrain.
      
    • Is that field too clear? Send someone to flip the obstacle course up, raising large concrete and metal walls to use as temporary bullet catchers as you dash your way to the enemy.
  • What if there were mobile objectives? Ambassador mechs carrying political targets, convoys carrying supplies that could buff the defenders mid-game if they make it, things of that nature.

This is just simply touching the ice berg.

[Summon3r]

personally think its not needed in anyway shape or form, any decent organized 8-12 man has no issue stomping clans in IS mechs same goes the other way around.... guess that clan OP qq wins yet again

[Koniving]

Skarlock, on 03 March 2015 - 03:42 AM, said:

This is just balancing silliness at its worst. Overpowered chassis stay overpowered. Underpowered chassis stay underpowered. Single and group queue don't benefit at all.

Liked for this part.

Different mechs excel at different things. "Under performing" will under perform at some roles but excel at others.

Problem is this game lacks the circumstances for those 'others'. So see above ideas.