109 replies to this topic

[Jaeger Gonzo]

The problem your thinking is that you think about what we have now. Balance are just numbers. Look at quirks. Now you see that 10v12 would be too much, what about if we nerf those ridicule over quirked quirks anyway, what then?
Your way of thinking guys are too narrow.
Sure stock games are different and we did not run all SH vs clans.
But those games really show how asymmetrical looks like. Where one side have tech, other one numbers. And we know it was damn fun. Other balancing things are just secend important, they are just numbers as quirks.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 05 March 2015 - 05:03 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

The problem your thinking is that you think about what we have now. Balance are just numbers. Look at quirks. Now you see that 10v12 would be too much, what about if we nerf those ridicule over quirked quirks anyway, what then?
Your way of thinking guys are too narrow.

You want to turn the game dynamic completely upside down to implement a flawed idea. 12 people will always be able to put more fire down than 10, plain and simple. Why not use the method you propose to balance things they way they are currently. It just seems that people are looking at this from what they see in the pug ventures that they have in CW, instead of from a frame of a 12 man vs 12 man pre-made theater.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Its funny as people say "but then clans will be OP, they will farm IS" and then you got "12 always better then 10".
Both those claims are simply not true. It was tested.
Flawed game mechanics you got currently as they just cant balance the sh/it. Asymmetrical surprisingly is usually way easier to balance, what is maybe even more important, is more interesting and fun.

[Gyrok]

Void Angel, on 05 March 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

Well... My thoughts are this:

• I'm not really sure what your first point is even trying to say, here... You start out to debunk a straw man of the "myth" that fewer people will want to play the inferior combatant on the battlefield. Then, you propose that we actually encourage this and that it's ok because some other unnamed game does it with, you think, success. What you're proposing is... problematic First, it's wrong to deliberately stack one team with newbies in this way; skewing the Inner Sphere population toward unskilled pilots would make the "new player experience" simply hellish. Speculating that some players might accept inferior machines because they like pinpoint damage doesn't change the expected outcomes on a demographic scale: you'd still have the Inner Sphere crewed with a much higher proportion of clueless pilots - whose individual machines are also inferior, because buffing them would imbalance higher-level and CW play. So, far from debunking a "myth," you've advocated making sure it happens...
  
• The objection that asymmetrical teams would create a side where the individual members are each stronger than their opponents is hardly a myth - it's true by definition, unless we throw balance out the window. This part of your argument is simply a red herring, and runs counter to known mechanics of the game. Pinpoint damage benefits at least as much as dps from teamwork and focus fire - and aren't you advocating that there be more pinpoint damage players in the fight? Assuming that the amount of dps required to stop a team of pinpoint damage alpha strikers won't also allow the individual dps player an advantage one on one is convenient - but unwarranted.
  
• Sure, I guess - but you're still left with the one side being in better 'mechs and - if you had your way - better pilots. Didn't we just talk about this? In point one?
  
• "Playing together" doesn't mean "playing different games and factions while in the same voice chat." That's like saying calling my mom on the phone is "living with her." Equivocation aside, you're on better ground here - but you've ignored (or forgotten) that bifurcating the player base in this manner would force people to pick one side of their collection or the other in order to keep some friend groups - and many units - together. Even in units who could accomodate both tech bases, you'd create internal divisions within units based on which tech base each player prefers. In any case, while it is certainly true that other PvP games which are, tautologically, not this game do have separated factions, it is also true that implementing such a hard division in the tech base would drastically reduce the personal value of part of most players' collections and create hardships in the player base. Whether it is a good thing to do or not, the difficulties cannot be hand-waved away.
  
• Whether it would be "too difficult" or not would be demonstrated in practice. It could be balanced, certainly, but asymmetric teams present additional balance issues which would make balancing new 'mechs, systems, and game modes more complex. Your proposed solution is inadequate because it glosses over the nuts and bolts differences where balance issues live. Simply adding 1/6th of a 'mech's worth of dps won't solve the problem because of other aspects of the game which are not proportional - such as heat caps, armor/structure per tonnage, engine caps, and cooling. And once we get the relative time-to-kill (proportionally) right, what happens if we want to introduce new systems, like an IS UAC/20? Adding assymmetry makes a multiplicative difference in balancing difficulty - regardless of whether or not it ends up being "too hard."

So while you've set up absolutist viewpoints on the most common objections against 12v10, then set yourself up to ply sweet reason against them, the difficulties you seek to deny still remain. All of this has been hashed out before - nor are the conclusions you came up with "in the last few days" new. It's not that it "can't be done," it's that there are inherent problems with the idea which make it counterproductive.

I am so very tired of this hobby horse, and wish people would stop riding it around the forums.

1. My point was that any players you lose to clans would quickly be replaced by incoming new players.

2. If you do the math, Clans would, theoretically, do 5.833 mechs DPS from 5, while IS would do 6 from 6. I am banking on higher skill coming into play and trying to account for that without making the gap insurmountable. From pure numbers, clans should do 1.2 DPS per mech compared to a single IS mech.

3. Slippery slope, nice touch. Really though look at the math.

4. Yes, there would be a division of tech base of sorts. Perhaps PGI would allow a divergence of specific tech trees in game making each account have a clan and IS tab with separate tracking, or allowing an account to split into 2, each supporting specific tech trees with a rather painless switching process.

5. Sure, it does create new issues, just like every MWO patch breaks something and fixes something else. This game is constantly under construction anyway (not a bad thing mind you, though a bit tedious sometimes). You are also glossing over areas where balance via asymmetry can also be just as simplistic as symmetrical balance. You also gloss over the fact that differing tech trees that are not mirror images already makes the game asymmetric by default. Sure you have similar values to tweak, as you would otherwise, but values that typically carry much less weight, such as beam duration, are much more impactful in the current scenario. Additionally, you miss that heat, which has always been one of the biggest balancing factors, similar to mana in many MMOs, is constantly overlooked by a playerbase calling for balance when it mostly exists now. I said it could work under the pretense of undoing blanket nerfs to clans, and likely dialing back some quirks on some IS mechs to compensate.

It would be a massive undertaking, sure, however, the question you must ask is, would it be worth it? If done correctly, I think so. Considering how they have done wonders to the speed and rate of hot fixes, I personally think they could leave the build with curent system as a backup, and at least attempt to test a similar idea for the sake of saying they tried.

[ApolloKaras]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

Its funny as people say "but then clans will be OP, they will farm IS" and then you got "12 always better then 10".
Both those claims are simply not true. It was tested.
Flawed game mechanics you got currently as they just cant balance the sh/it. Asymmetrical surprisingly is usually way easier to balance, what is maybe even more important, is more interesting and fun.

I don't know how you can balance a mechanic where you can take 12 guys shoot at one other mech and kill it. Team work would make 10/12 hell for anyone dropping for clans. It doesn't have to be 'tested' per say you could make a thought experiment to realize that this would not work.

[Void Angel]

You're still ignoring the massive problem of funneling new players into inferior 'mechs; it's not about "losing" players to the Clans - it's about balancing the populations long-term. Creating a toxic victimization experience - with the resultant elitism and uber-itis from players who've "paid their dues" is a terribly bad idea. You can't hand-wave that away; you are going to have an imbalance in skill, and very likely in population, between the two factions - for the love of Blake, you're counting on it. Fantasizing that players will magically leave the Inner Sphere at the same rate they graduate to superior Clan Battlemechs is nothing but self-serving speculation.

Making unsupported claims about "the math" didn't even address my second point - you've ignored the point entirely in favor of trying to trump it with inapplicable "math." Speaking of unsupported claims, my third point was a reference to my first point - to which you did not object as a "slippery slope." While I realize you want to debunk a slippery slope fallacy - because that's how you chose to phrase your point in the initial post - there is no faulty assumption here that a process will continue infinitely in pointing out your own assertion that players will tend toward Clan 'mechs if Clan 'mechs are more powerful individually. Rather, I'm pointing out that the expected result of the one thing you want to do is to skew the skill of the player base - which you yourself assert it will - and probably even the population itself in harmful ways.

Splitting the tech bases on the same account, or splitting the accounts themselves, are only partial solutions, and represent a probably non-trivial amount of effort.

As for your fifth point: please. I'm not "glossing over" the subject by dealing with it on the basis of your argument. I'm not writing a treatise on the subject myself - I'm critiquing yours. You couched the solution in terms of dps yourself; you did not discuss heat, and that's reasonable, since you were dealing with the topic in general terms. But you don't get to turn around and criticize me for doing the same thing. I didn't deal specifically with the suggestion that clan autocannons be buffed either; which is fine, because it falls under "dps," as before - I only mention it because I don't want to hear about it the next time you're casting around for a non sequitur.

The idea of just buffing the Clans back up to Wave 1 (plus nerfing the Inner Sphere back down some too) would make this work is simplistic for reasons you've already heard. Similarly I've already granted that it can work - but that the resultant hardship to players and distortion of the player base isn't worth it. And hand-waving away the whole problem with the claim that "areas" of assymetric team balance "could be" as simplistic as symmetric teams? That isn't even going to come close to flying. Self-serving speculation is not admissible as a claim in argument.

Speaking of, pie in the sky fantasy speculation that PGI would be well-served to scrap their entire balance system, test 12v10, tweak it a few times, then scrap it in favor of going back to the current build where things are still needing attention is totally ungrounded in reason. As you yourself admitted,in the same paragraph, no less: it would be a monumental undertaking - it would also be an undertaking with devastatingly high risks for very little reward.

[Void Angel]

Saxie, on 05 March 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

I don't know how you can balance a mechanic where you can take 12 guys shoot at one other mech and kill it. Team work would make 10/12 hell for anyone dropping for clans. It doesn't have to be 'tested' per say you could make a thought experiment to realize that this would not work.

More specifically, it was tested in a nonscientific way by a convenience sample that does not even come close to representing a demographic of the player base. Frankly, this was the first time I'd even heard of such an event - and I probably wouldn't have attended if I had heard. 12v10 aficionados may be quick to claim that I'd have sabotaged the testing with my bias had I come - but the same would then be true of the attendees! In the final analysis, a nonscientific test of a non-representative sample doesn't prove much of anything about the demographic being tested.

[MischiefSC]

Saxie, on 05 March 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

One huge difference here is that the stock mechs for IS are running single heat sinks...

I feel like a broken record. I have played both sides of this conflict (merc unit), and I tell you what, if you went 12/10 Clans would be SMOKED. It would be an outright blood bath. There would be no way in hell a Comp Clan 10 man team would beat a Comp IS 12 man team. It wouldn't even be funny. There would be a few that could do it, SJR, Lords, EMP, 228... IS has the advantage of pin point alpha, ERPPC, PPC, AC 20's. The Clans have nothing of the sort with the exception of the Gauss rifle, thats their pinpoint weapon.

I feel that they should run 12/10 just so people can see how much it would suck just so people would leave it the hell alone.

The idea is that Clan mechs would get a buff (or IS mechs a nerf) to make this work.

Also that experienced players would all go Clans, because the Clan mechs would be inherently superior (buffed up to be 20% better than their IS equivalent).

Which doesn't really take the huge skill disparity into account or the fact that you've created a mech *and* faction ladder. New, inexperienced players are all IS in inferior IS mechs and get farmed in superior numbers by vets in superior Clan mechs and that when you've been farmed enough times to afford a Clan mech you get out of IS and into Clans.

Or, of course, you can be the vet player who stays in inferior IS mechs and on teams full of clueless nubs (who are not going to be focusing fire) and getting repeatedly, brutally destroyed by experienced 10mans in superior mechs.

The experience he's describing isn't comp 12man in 12 current IS mechs vs comp 10man in current Clan mechs. He'd describing your standard IS pug group only with even more newbies and in mechs with no quirks against a buffed up Clan 10man team on comms and saying that would be fun and balanced for both sides.

So how would you enjoy being the 1 or 2 masochistic experienced players on the 12 man IS team playing a deck with no quirks against an experienced (not even 228, just experienced) 10man with Clan mechs with current IS level quirks on them? Would that be fun? Equally balanced? Do you see your team of newbies and inexperienced players coming out of that match going 'wow, that was fun and challenging and I want to do that for weeks or months so I can get a Clan mech and inflict that hellish, horrible, miserable experience on some other poor new *******?

Or, of course, you could spend $480 and get all the Clan mechs without having to be brutally stomped for weeks and months. You could pay money.... to dramatically increase your odds of winning.

Hmm, now that business model has promise!

Edited by MischiefSC, 05 March 2015 - 09:16 PM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Saxie, on 05 March 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

I don't know how you can balance a mechanic where you can take 12 guys shoot at one other mech and kill it. Team work would make 10/12 hell for anyone dropping for clans. It doesn't have to be 'tested' per say you could make a thought experiment to realize that this would not work.

I know that you dont know, but we know. We played it and tested multiple times asymmetrical games and its work and was blast to play. Funny thing look below as Mischief claiming exactly opposite. Two of you are wrong. Thing was tested and proven.

MischiefSC, on 05 March 2015 - 09:08 PM, said:

The idea is that Clan mechs would get a buff (or IS mechs a nerf) to make this work.

Also that experienced players would all go Clans, because the Clan mechs would be inherently superior (buffed up to be 20% better than their IS equivalent).

Which doesn't really take the huge skill disparity into account or the fact that you've created a mech *and* faction ladder. New, inexperienced players are all IS in inferior IS mechs and get farmed in superior numbers by vets in superior Clan mechs and that when you've been farmed enough times to afford a Clan mech you get out of IS and into Clans.

Or, of course, you can be the vet player who stays in inferior IS mechs and on teams full of clueless nubs (who are not going to be focusing fire) and getting repeatedly, brutally destroyed by experienced 10mans in superior mechs.

The experience he's describing isn't comp 12man in 12 current IS mechs vs comp 10man in current Clan mechs. He'd describing your standard IS pug group only with even more newbies and in mechs with no quirks against a buffed up Clan 10man team on comms and saying that would be fun and balanced for both sides.

So how would you enjoy being the 1 or 2 masochistic experienced players on the 12 man IS team playing a deck with no quirks against an experienced (not even 228, just experienced) 10man with Clan mechs with current IS level quirks on them? Would that be fun? Equally balanced? Do you see your team of newbies and inexperienced players coming out of that match going 'wow, that was fun and challenging and I want to do that for weeks or months so I can get a Clan mech and inflict that hellish, horrible, miserable experience on some other poor new *******?

Or, of course, you could spend $480 and get all the Clan mechs without having to be brutally stomped for weeks and months. You could pay money.... to dramatically increase your odds of winning.

Hmm, now that business model has promise!

I switch a coin and say what if playing clans in asymmetrical settings would be even intentionally more challenging. You got your better stuff, now show us you are better pilot. How that would do to so afraid migration? So being masochistic, as you say would be on clan side instead.

In fact the worst situation you got just now. Current things fit better to what you are describing. Clans since the beginning are just plain better without really any drawbacks, yet I still see IS players around.

But really, thing was just tested. Asymmetrical games work, are great fun with far deeper tactical bottom and are fun for both sides.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 05 March 2015 - 10:57 PM.

[Gyrok]

MischiefSC, on 05 March 2015 - 09:08 PM, said:

The idea is that Clan mechs would get a buff (or IS mechs a nerf) to make this work.

Also that experienced players would all go Clans, because the Clan mechs would be inherently superior (buffed up to be 20% better than their IS equivalent).

Which doesn't really take the huge skill disparity into account or the fact that you've created a mech *and* faction ladder. New, inexperienced players are all IS in inferior IS mechs and get farmed in superior numbers by vets in superior Clan mechs and that when you've been farmed enough times to afford a Clan mech you get out of IS and into Clans.

Or, of course, you can be the vet player who stays in inferior IS mechs and on teams full of clueless nubs (who are not going to be focusing fire) and getting repeatedly, brutally destroyed by experienced 10mans in superior mechs.

The experience he's describing isn't comp 12man in 12 current IS mechs vs comp 10man in current Clan mechs. He'd describing your standard IS pug group only with even more newbies and in mechs with no quirks against a buffed up Clan 10man team on comms and saying that would be fun and balanced for both sides.

So how would you enjoy being the 1 or 2 masochistic experienced players on the 12 man IS team playing a deck with no quirks against an experienced (not even 228, just experienced) 10man with Clan mechs with current IS level quirks on them? Would that be fun? Equally balanced? Do you see your team of newbies and inexperienced players coming out of that match going 'wow, that was fun and challenging and I want to do that for weeks or months so I can get a Clan mech and inflict that hellish, horrible, miserable experience on some other poor new *******?

Or, of course, you could spend $480 and get all the Clan mechs without having to be brutally stomped for weeks and months. You could pay money.... to dramatically increase your odds of winning.

Hmm, now that business model has promise!

You are taking things a bit far...

This is why things would not change much for the IS as it is now:

1.) Per the last test, clans already had an average superior elo delta of ~250 in group queue.

2.) All incoming players that are F2P are IS players anyway, because in the current implementation, if you do not drop real money, for mechs, bays, and/or premium time, or some combination of those previously mentioned...you will not be a clans player any time soon.

3.) Lots of the diehard IS only guys will be staying in IS units and playing the game as IS because that is what they want to do. Units like SRoT are not suddenly going to stop being Steiner because Clans. If that was the case, no one would have been left in the inner sphere after wave 1 dropped and was out for 2-3 months. That did not happen.

4.) Clans generally have less PUGs to begin with, and the units, while often smaller, are also more tightly integrated and organized.

So, really, you are making something out of nothing, because as it stands right now. We have exactly what you are advocating against, except it is balanced slightly differently. New players come in and either pay to clan, or grind in IS mechs. How does that change at all in my proposal?

[MischiefSC]

So to clarify are you saying leave the mech balance exactly as it is? If so, Saxie is correct. Or are you saying Clan mechs get buffed or IS mechs nerfed?

The self-selected 'test' is about as relevant and private matches between friends for determining weapon balance.

The current system we have is already bad. Broken even. The solution to that isn't to make it even worse.

What we have now is a product of the promise that IS mechs and Clan mechs will end up in parity. The cost buyin on Clan mechs is already bad and needs fixed. The idea though, what people are buying into and playing to, is the idea that sooner or later IS and Clan mechs will be balanced ton for ton.

The moment you say 'no, Clan mechs are going to be flat out superior but more expensive' is the point at which the remaining vet players largely abandon the IS and you create a direct ladder.

Jaeger, you enjoy playing 12 v 10 as IS vs Clans, good on you. I'm glad you had fun in the little self selected test. Stock Mech Mondays were a lot of fun too, though again self selected and largely irrelevant to overall game and weapon balance. Nobody is going to say that actually making everyone play stock mechs will just make MW:O a better game that's more fun for everyone.

The issue is that we're looking for a fix to get us what PGI promised - a IS vs Clans balanced environment. If the balance is 'Clan mechs are better but you get more IS players and Clan mechs are more expensive' you create a direct gear and faction ladder. That completely breaks CW and even group/pug queue. How do you match Elo when everyone in one faction is going to be significantly higher than everyone in the other faction?

I find the idea of 'show us how good a pilot you are' argument very funny. Hey, how about you tell all the comp tier players that they need to run scrub tier mech builds or single heatsinks to show us all how good they are. Take a shot at it, see what happens.

[Necromantion]

From various posts on the forums and experiences playing both factions it seems that the Clans have much better lines of communication as well as their teamspeak servers seem to be widely known within their factions and people make use of them a lot more. *shrug*

Also the clans have a lot less inter-faction drama going on than IS.

[Summon3r]

so for all the people that jsut flat out say this is a bad idea, then what is a good idea add something to your bad idea thought?

Saxie i somewhat agree with your statement that it is relatively obvious that it would be an utter blood bath in 10v12 when its comp teams vs comp teams or even avg/above avg teams... so then i ask is the current solution the right way to go? giving a tonnage boost to one side a start in the right direction? i personally dont think so.

my belief is that currently the game is in a fairly close state of balance, and you can see it every match you play a 12v12 (unless of course we play a top end team and get roflstomped thats life though).. BUT the amount of crying that gets done about clan being OP is endless and unfortunately PGI has to listen to it somewhat.

[Revis Volek]

Amsro, on 05 March 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

You basically described CW as it is now. The majority of the Vet Teams are on the clan side, trolling the barrel on the IS side.

Since when are clan mechs less expensive? DHS tax? Endo/Ferro tax? Engine Costs? none of those are a variable for clans.

Actually you are way off base....groups like SwK, CI, AS, NS, NKVA and many others either bounce around on the IS tour or are totally IS. I can name ONE clan wolf group I know of and 2 CJF groups....CGB and CSJ have a few as well but CSJ has only ONE competitive unit I know of and im unsure with CGB or the others.

Nice try though....1/10

[AdamBaines]

Bigbacon, on 05 March 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

Why don't they just work on making CW not suck in every other way before messing with this stuff?

I'm with some of the sentiment here, not your chosen words, in part, but I like that fact that in the BT universe, the Clans work in 5's and not 4's like the IS, and that usually its 2 clan "Stars" that are the rough equivalent to 3 IS "Lances" with the calns lack of number making up in superior numbers. So to make this 10/12 as suggested by the OP really is not doing something in lieu of fixing issues you see in the game, its using lore to give the game a bit more life and providing additional balance.

[Necromantion]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

The fact is that you dont understand simple things so dunno who stupid is, I also believe that open insulting other players like this will not drive you too far.
yey boys over the net get excited

Im excited about even super buffed clans to star vs lance balance. Damn I even played stock games balanced like this. And it was blast, simply best exp that MWO has me offered. So in matter of facts some of us just know how asymmetrical games looks like and how damn fun they are for both sides.

From how you articulate yourself and the fact that you are so narrow minded with the viewpoints that you present gives a lot of validity to my first statement about my observations regarding you from your first post.

The fun thing about MWO is making builds that suit the role and playstyle you have as a player and that your team requires for a specific map/game type.

Homogenous mechs and roles would defeat the purpose of ever having the 180+ variants of mechs we currently had in game, if ever weapon/mech etc functioned the same way and had the same weapons and whatnot the game would be without diversity and we would see even fewer different strats from match to match. Assuming that is what you meant by asymmetrical regarding clans vs IS.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

The problem your thinking is that you think about what we have now. Balance are just numbers. Look at quirks. Now you see that 10v12 would be too much, what about if we nerf those ridicule over quirked quirks anyway, what then?
Your way of thinking guys are too narrow.
Sure stock games are different and we did not run all SH vs clans.
But those games really show how asymmetrical looks like. Where one side have tech, other one numbers. And we know it was damn fun. Other balancing things are just secend important, they are just numbers as quirks.

For example if you had 12 pinpoint damage mechs pick a target and alpha it while the 10 man team did the same the 12 man will whittle down the 10 at a faster rate assuming everyones pinpoint damage is the same and they all hit.

After this post I am wondering if you understand what asymmetrical means... when you say asymmetrical do you mean fair in terms of cannon and stock loadouts? If clan weapons went back to their original values that they had when introduced I think all clan players would be fine with 10v12 but once again PGI has said that they are making 4v4 and 8v8 game modes.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

Its funny as people say "but then clans will be OP, they will farm IS" and then you got "12 always better then 10".
Both those claims are simply not true. It was tested.
Flawed game mechanics you got currently as they just cant balance the sh/it. Asymmetrical surprisingly is usually way easier to balance, what is maybe even more important, is more interesting and fun.

Uhhhh what? I think you have a typo or some flawed logic here. If clans were buffed back to their previous values and IS had 12 how can you then say clans will farm IS but 12 is better than 10?

Once again, what the heck do you mean by asymmetrical? Asymmetrical in terms of balance regarding what? Damage? Loadouts? ECM? Are you proposing homogenous drop decks where everyone has to use the same mechs, what?

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 10:55 PM, said:

I know that you dont know, but we know. We played it and tested multiple times asymmetrical games and its work and was blast to play. Funny thing look below as Mischief claiming exactly opposite. Two of you are wrong. Thing was tested and proven.

I switch a coin and say what if playing clans in asymmetrical settings would be even intentionally more challenging. You got your better stuff, now show us you are better pilot. How that would do to so afraid migration? So being masochistic, as you say would be on clan side instead.

In fact the worst situation you got just now. Current things fit better to what you are describing. Clans since the beginning are just plain better without really any drawbacks, yet I still see IS players around.

But really, thing was just tested. Asymmetrical games work, are great fun with far deeper tactical bottom and are fun for both sides.

What are these tests you are referring to? Do you work for PGI? Are you a tester they constantly go to? From your articulation of the english language it is hard to make out what the heck you are saying half the time with your poor grammar and improper word usage/interpretation.

Do you even know what asymmetrical means? If you are using it in an abstract sense perhaps you should explain that?

Also a lot of competent players agree that while there are differences in strengths between IS and Clan that one is not significantly more "OP" than another. It seems that IS has a larger representation of inexperienced or mediocre players.

[Revis Volek]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 10:55 PM, said:

I know that you dont know, but we know. We played it and tested multiple times asymmetrical games and its work and was blast to play. Funny thing look below as Mischief claiming exactly opposite. Two of you are wrong. Thing was tested and proven.

I switch a coin and say what if playing clans in asymmetrical settings would be even intentionally more challenging. You got your better stuff, now show us you are better pilot. How that would do to so afraid migration? So being masochistic, as you say would be on clan side instead.

In fact the worst situation you got just now. Current things fit better to what you are describing. Clans since the beginning are just plain better without really any drawbacks, yet I still see IS players around.

But really, thing was just tested. Asymmetrical games work, are great fun with far deeper tactical bottom and are fun for both sides.

Please tell me at least 3 ways the Clans are BETTER then IS mechs....

[Apnu]

Gyrok, on 05 March 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

Looking at a few things the last few days, I came to the following conclusions that 10 vs 12 might work, and hoped to open a discussion that would advance this idea to the community as a whole.

The 1st myth about 10 vs 12: No one would play IS "horde" if Clans were the low numbered "heroes"

The reason this is false is the following: Clans have a very high initial cost, meaning that many new players would have to grind out for a while to get enough clan mechs to matter. During this time frame, they would literally be locked into being the "horde" until they worked up the cbills (or spent the $ IRL) to have enough mechs to be Clans. This would be true of all incoming new players, and would just be a facet of the game. There is already another online game that does this particular style of implementation, and it works very well for them. Additionally some of the players that do work to be Clans will like the feel of the IS better because PP FLD and more customization. You will have some that play both sides because they want a challenge, and you would have some who refuse to go to Clans (or IS) because <reasons>. So, no, not everyone would go Clans.

Second myth about 10 vs 12: 1v1 would be imbalanced.

Not necessarily. Consider this...if Clans were made to be DPS heavy, and IS were PP Alpha strike builds, as was original intent, then would it not be quite possible to 1v1 a mech, especially considering that in 1v1 scenarios it is not actually DPS you want, but alpha strike damage and PP FLD damage above all else? Essentially, you need much less damage if you can put it all on one panel. Any top tier comp player can confirm this, as they understand the mechanics of the game.

Third myth about 10 vs 12: Solo queue/group queue would be imbalanced.

No, it would not...you would just have solo/group clans on one side, and solo/group IS on the other. They do this now for CW, why is it so hard to fathom this could be done across the board?

Fourth myth about 10 vs 12: You would be forcing people to choose a tech tree to play together.

Well, somewhat yes and no. First, you could always sit in teamspeak and talk like people do now all the time and even play *gasp* different games. However, if you want to be in the same group, yes. Though, I would point out to anyone who has paid any attention to online games lately, that in, literally, *every other game with factions* 2 factions cannot team up together to do anything. So, what do those guys do? Join the same faction, or make an alt account to play together depending on the game.

Fifth myth about 10 vs 12: Unequal numbers on each side would be too difficult to balance.

Not necessarily, there are a number of ways to approach this in terms of defining things. I personally think it would work if they basically took the nerfs clans have had to this point off and just left them as Wave 1 was when it dropped. Nothing further needed, truthfully. However, you could simply balance 5 vs 6 which would leave you making DPS about ~16.7% higher than IS to compensate. That would balance slightly uneven groups without drastically changing balance one way or the other for equal numbers encounters later in the game or via private lobby. There would also need to be some buffs for under performing stuff, like ACs.

Thoughts?

I'd happily trade clan bursting ACs and trickle LRMs for 10v12. The lore says clan tech should be superior in every way to the IS, but there is supposed to be less clan mechs on the field at less weight. Meaning the average weight of the clans is less than the average weight of the IS, if all sides have equal numbers.

I say put in 10v12, give the clans a better economy for kills and damage output. Remove the bursting ACs and trickle LRMs, and further give clan players a c-bill and GXP boost for taking lighter mechs and/or lighter weight classes. Say they drop 3/2/2/1 instead of 3/3/3/3.

[Necromantion]

Apnu, on 06 March 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

I'd happily trade clan bursting ACs and trickle LRMs for 10v12. The lore says clan tech should be superior in every way to the IS, but there is supposed to be less clan mechs on the field at less weight. Meaning the average weight of the clans is less than the average weight of the IS, if all sides have equal numbers.

I say put in 10v12, give the clans a better economy for kills and damage output. Remove the bursting ACs and trickle LRMs, and further give clan players a c-bill and GXP boost for taking lighter mechs and/or lighter weight classes. Say they drop 3/2/2/1 instead of 3/3/3/3.

So in the same hand you want to move towards lore and then away from it? I mean I am alllllll for the pinpoint AC's that IS has on clan mechs xD and rebuffing clans to their previous actual OP state if that means 10v12 by all means.

But at the same time PGI has already said they are going to be implementing 4v4 and 8v8 game modes. So i am confident we are always going to see multiples of 4 for each faction.

[Davers]

DarthRevis, on 06 March 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

Please tell me at least 3 ways the Clans are BETTER then IS mechs....

Increased speed with less sacrifices/Clan XLs give superior survivability
Do not have to make as many sacrifices to get 'medium ranged' weapons ie ERML vs LL
Half weight missiles