47 replies to this topic

[Xeraphale]

Before anyone jumps down my throat by claiming I am shouting "Nerf the IS", I'm not. I'd like to take a step back and look at what happened this weekend and why in as neutral way as I can.

Firstly, the clans have been pushed back on all fronts (well done IS), so rightly we should shout "IS OP; load up the nerf-cannon", right? Well, no. No we shouldn't.

As I see it the tournament has invigorated CW for a weekend and a great many players who wouldn't normally participate have gone for the big prize and have mostly plumped for the Inner Sphere, but why?

Well, I reckon it's because:

1. IS mechs are cheaper to buy
2. IS trial mechs are better than clan trials (gotta fill the drop deck gaps, right?)
3. There is a lot more variety of IS mechs to choose from
4. Clan lights are slow and don't make a viable option for light rushes

I can't blame people for choosing the IS in any of the above regards, I would if I was in the position of playing CW for the first time.

The other issue is that a lot of the Mercs switched sides to the IS before the tourney began for whatever reason and we all know that the merc units swing results probably more than anything else in CW and this is what I perceive to be the biggest issue in CW.

Mercs units should not be the same size, nor bigger than any of the major groups in MWO, but they are. Mercs should be hired by the major factions and should not be free to do as they will. This should be the price of choosing to go merc; Bigger payouts but only when they're hired.

As a clanner, I'd be happy to see mercs fight for the IS as it should be, but I'd want to see the size of merc units capped and the IS houses should have to pay for the plesure of having merc units fight for them. This would balance them out nicely - the IS forces would probably think twice about hiring in great quantities as they'd have to give up earnings and the mercs wouldn't be free to go on one of their many rampages and attack who they want, thus distorting the CW map.

I'm pretty sure that none of this is new, afterall it's easier for new players to side with the Inner Sphere from the get-go due to the cost of clan chassis. Also, if i was a new player testing out the trial mechs and I didn't have any knowledge of the Battletech lore, I'd automatically assume that the IS chassis were better becaue the champion IS mechs are far more optmomised than those offerings from the clans.

Come on PGI, sort it out!

Edited by Xeraphale, 30 March 2015 - 04:00 AM.

[Insects]

No point complaining about imbalance during an event, of course all the IS PUGs are going to flood in and upset things.
But once the event is done it will return to normal because most dont like the CW waits and chance of being 12 man stomped.

If it is still unbalanced next week then worry about it, but for now its just event skewed.

[HARDKOR]

How many people is too many?

If you have 50 ACTIVE players you have more than any of the supposedly 200+ person units. Most people on a roster are just filler that plays every once in a a while, so measuring actual unit size is not really very accurate. If you were to make up a unit of 36 people who play a lot and boot anyone who doesn't play ten hours a week, you'd still be as influential as the biggest merc groups.

[Gladewolf]

I think the problem is more the opposite. Mercs are tethered to factions the same way houses and clans are, if we had actual contracts for a play rotation, or so...say, take planet X, or defend planet Y....as opposed to swearing allegiance to house XYZ for "30 days" the effect of non-permanent merc units would be much less palpable for any given house. As it stands, mercs are fighting years worth of campaigns for a single house......in 30 days.(That could be a contract as well...but it should pay much better than it does.)

[HARDKOR]

Well, the whole thing is such a clumsy implementation that you cannot apply any sort of real world logic to it.

[Xeraphale]

HARDKOR, on 30 March 2015 - 06:29 AM, said:

How many people is too many?

If you have 50 ACTIVE players you have more than any of the supposedly 200+ person units. Most people on a roster are just filler that plays every once in a a while, so measuring actual unit size is not really very accurate. If you were to make up a unit of 36 people who play a lot and boot anyone who doesn't play ten hours a week, you'd still be as influential as the biggest merc groups.

Good question, I have no idea. But it would need to be relative to the sizes of other units in other factions. I suppose only PGI can know them all with any degree of accuracy. But whatever the number is, I'd expect the unit heirarchy to self-govern this. Mercenanaries are meant to be, well, mercenary and surely they'd cut anyone who doesn't remain active.

Even if this isn't the answer, the fact that merc groups change allegience when they want shouldn't happen. It should be up to who hires them and orders them to do the job they were hired for.

Gladewolf, on 30 March 2015 - 06:47 AM, said:

I think the problem is more the opposite. Mercs are tethered to factions the same way houses and clans are, if we had actual contracts for a play rotation, or so...say, take planet X, or defend planet Y....as opposed to swearing allegiance to house XYZ for "30 days" the effect of non-permanent merc units would be much less palpable for any given house. As it stands, mercs are fighting years worth of campaigns for a single house......in 30 days.(That could be a contract as well...but it should pay much better than it does.)

Exactly. Mercs shouldn't have the freedom to attack who they want. They should attack who they are hired to attack and then renegotiate a new contract at the cost of whoever hires them.

HARDKOR, on 30 March 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

Well, the whole thing is such a clumsy implementation that you cannot apply any sort of real world logic to it.

Well, we are playing a game from the cockpit of a 60 foot bidedal tank firing PPCs, Lasers and gauss cannons, afterall!

[Dawnstealer]

Nope, OP: it's none of those things. It's because of population. All the mercs are in the IS right now, so they can queue up and drop Clan worlds away with impunity.

That's all it is. They'll be back soon enough and it'll flip back the other way. And the IS will lose worlds at the same rate they were before. And it won't be because Clan mechs are overpowered, it's because when you get one ghost drop for every four real drops, and two of those remaining drops are organized teams vs PUGs or new players, you're going to win a lot of systems.

[Paigan]

When there are quirks like 200% DPS (Dragon) or mechs like a old-laser-equipped stalker that are objectively, mathematically a superior large-energy-boat than the Warhawk, then it is very safe and objectively to say that some (<-!) IS mechs are indeed overpowered and need to be nerfed.

I think IS vs. clans should be balanced in a much more elegant way, for example by giving only the IS consumables and/or even more of it. Like mines, ammo packs, etc. So the IS would be buffed (<-!) to have more tactical options ("play dirty") while the clans have better tech per se.

Edited by Paigan, 30 March 2015 - 07:00 AM.

[Xeraphale]

Dawnstealer, on 30 March 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Nope, OP: it's none of those things. It's because of population. All the mercs are in the IS right now, so they can queue up and drop Clan worlds away with impunity.

That's all it is. They'll be back soon enough and it'll flip back the other way. And the IS will lose worlds at the same rate they were before. And it won't be because Clan mechs are overpowered, it's because when you get one ghost drop for every four real drops, and two of those remaining drops are organized teams vs PUGs or new players, you're going to win a lot of systems.

Actually, that's my point entirely. Sudden population swings affect the map in ridiculous ways. Mercs shouldn't be allowed to just switch sides and need to have greater control imposed upon them.

Mercs should be forced to attack whoever hires them says they are to attack and the average mechwarrior should be tied to their house/clan for long periods of time, say for 6 months (except maybe in their first couple of months playing so that they can try things out).

[Tarogato]

Great post, OP, and I agree with it completely.

The whole merc situation is one of the things that turns me off of CW as a whole. The available contracts, in my opinion, are too short. You gain nothing by taking a longer contract, since 95% of the money comes from killing mechs, not successful missions. You can fail your defense mission and still make three times as much money killing the enemies who focused on killing the primary objective, Omega, and earned a pittance for it.

Longer contracts should offer a percentage boost to income in CW matches similar to how Premium Time works, espectially Permanent (and a higher penalty for breaking long contracts to offset this... I wouldn't be upset if I had to pay 10mil to break a Permanent contract).

Shorter contracts shouldn't have such a boost, with the shortest contract (7 days) even having a negative impact on income. This means that in order for mercs to get decent rewards, they would have to fulfill actual contracts. For instance, a permanently contracted or "loyalist" unit could offer 'x' reward to 'y' mercenary unit if they fulfill 'z' goals in 't' amount of time. Payment comes out of the coffers of the hiring unit, and the hiring unit gets a small bonus if the goal is met and no bonus if the goal is not met.

We just need some sort of economy that makes permanent contracts more lucrative and merc contracts more reliant on successful performance.

Dawnstealer, on 30 March 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Nope, OP: it's none of those things. It's because of population. All the mercs are in the IS right now, so they can queue up and drop Clan worlds away with impunity.

That's all it is. They'll be back soon enough and it'll flip back the other way. And the IS will lose worlds at the same rate they were before. And it won't be because Clan mechs are overpowered, it's because when you get one ghost drop for every four real drops, and two of those remaining drops are organized teams vs PUGs or new players, you're going to win a lot of systems.

It's NOT ghost drops. I almost guarantee you if PGI checks the logs from since the event started, there will have been zero ghost drops. Yes, it's a population problem, because when one faction A has more people than faction B, then faction A will also be able to get a 12-man strike team prepared first and faction B will always be stuck on the defensive, thus never gaining ground and only capable of losing it... but the issue is not ghost drops.

This is an issue I've Tweeted Russ about and he's not convinced, but I've got a few people backing me up on it.

Edited by Tarogato, 30 March 2015 - 07:27 AM.

[Der Hesse]

Paigan, on 30 March 2015 - 06:59 AM, said:

When there are quirks like 200% DPS (Dragon) or mechs like a old-laser-equipped stalker that are objectively, mathematically a superior large-energy-boat than the Warhawk, then it is very safe and objectively to say that some (<-!) IS mechs are indeed overpowered and need to be nerfed.

I think IS vs. clans should be balanced in a much more elegant way, for example by giving only the IS consumables and/or even more of it. Like mines, ammo packs, etc. So the IS would be buffed (<-!) to have more tactical options ("play dirty") while the clans have better tech per se.

Both mechs you mentioned are VERY easy so counter because they are one trick ponys. Yes, they are good, but surely not OP. At least crow and Madcat are still better and also much more versatile.

Kurita did win on all fronts because of a very simple trick that is possible if you have enough population. Doesn´t even need to be good pilots...they just have to be available for drops.

Edited by Der Hesse, 30 March 2015 - 07:22 AM.

[Summon3r]

good post OP.

i think the fact that the entirety of the clans got utterly roflstomped this weekend speaks volumes itself about a great many things. one can only hope that numbers dont get skewed and that PGI actually takes a 100% objective look into what is going on with how they have decided to balance the game....

I hope this weekend opened many new players eyes to CW and that CW population sores, though at this rate ill be stuck fighting from strana mechty in no time at all lol.

[sycocys]

Just from my short time mercing - do you think that any merc group accepts a contract shorter than permanent? Other than for casual players there is really no disincentive to do anything less.

Yes they may or may not stay a set amount of time, but there really isn't any reason to not do what they do because PGI didn't create a merc faction and actually make the penalties for switching something meaningful.

The entire contract system is a joke right now.

[Strykewolf]

I expect a lot of things to be changed, as time progresses, with regards to CW.

[PappySmurf]

OP CW needs to evolve past 12v12 same same death matches on a few maps with no ther options.When I play Hawken I play siege mode and Missile assault mostly because it has META and tactics and it is a change from the same old game modes we have had in MWO for 3 freaking years.

I would rather be playing more MWO but unless we get some more game modes I will stay playing Hawken for now.
New game modes needed below.

Siege mode = like Hawken has
Missile assault= like Hawken has
Trial/stock Vs trial/stock mode
Clan Vs IS mode
Attrition = overall points won per match respawn/norespawn
King Of The Hill
Co-ops mode

And a few more gam modes would help

https://youtu.be/_zfKDkFaWgU

Edited by PappySmurf, 30 March 2015 - 07:34 AM.

[Tarogato]

PappySmurf, on 30 March 2015 - 07:33 AM, said:

OP CW needs to evolve past 12v12 same same death matches on a few maps with no ther options.When I play Hawken I play siege mode and Missile assault mostly because it has META and tactics and it is a change from the same old game modes we have had in MWO for 3 freaking years.

I would rather be playing more MWO but unless we get some more game modes I will stay playing Hawken for now.
New game modes needed below.

Siege mode = like Hawken has
Missile assault= like Hawken has
Trial/stock Vs trial/stock mode
Clan Vs IS mode
Attrition = overall points won per match respawn/norespawn
King Of The Hill
Co-ops mode

And a few more gam modes would help

https://youtu.be/_zfKDkFaWgU

Thanks for the video, am watching now, though I suspect most people reading won't. In the meantime, could you provide simple explanations of what these modes are and how they differ from MWO gameplay?

Edit: after watching the video, it seems like this:

FFA death match: identical to how MWO Solaris will be.

Team death match: identical to MWO Skirmish.

Missile assault: identical to MWO Conquest.

Siege mode: gather resources (fuel) from cap points by magic. Destroyed mechs drop their held resources which you can gather using magic. Gather enough resources to spawn (fuel) a battleship. It takes three battleships to destroy the enemy base, but you can't go and destroy the base yourself because magic.

So yeah, siege mode sounds dumb. Works for Hawken, but would not in a million years fit into Battletech or Mechwarrior. The other Hawken modes sound identical to MWO modes, to me.

---

Btw, FFA is coming eventually, it's called Solaris and one of the devs is pushing hard for it to become reality. Same with stock mode. Attrition is how CW plays out, and it can also be Clan vs. IS. King of the Hill is just Conquest if you ignore all the cap points except the central one. One of our MWO leagues uses this as its official rules. Co-op vs AI is in the works, but it's a long wait. Probably won't be a thing until over a year from now.

Edited by Tarogato, 30 March 2015 - 08:00 AM.

[-Natural Selection-]

We switched to IS for a week from being clan since CW came out. We were surprised how much less effort had to be exerted using the same exact tactics we had been using while in IS mechs that were built to their quirks. ATM there are some IS drop decks and combos that are hands down better than clan options in CW.

[PappySmurf]

Tarogato(Thanks for the video, am watching now, though I suspect most people reading won't. In the meantime, could you provide simple explanations of what these modes are and how they differ from MWO gameplay? )


Taro there is a better way for me to show everyone what other game modes were in the past MechWarrior IP by Downloading the MechWarrior4 free trial and playing those game modes for yourself or with others on GameRanger. Or downloading Hawken and play the game modes it has links below.

http://www.fileplane...ercenaries-Demo

https://www.playhawken.com/

Edited by PappySmurf, 30 March 2015 - 07:48 AM.

[Mirkk Defwode]

sycocys, on 30 March 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

Just from my short time mercing - do you think that any merc group accepts a contract shorter than permanent? Other than for casual players there is really no disincentive to do anything less.

Yes they may or may not stay a set amount of time, but there really isn't any reason to not do what they do because PGI didn't create a merc faction and actually make the penalties for switching something meaningful.

The entire contract system is a joke right now.

For my guys we pick the 30 day option and keep repeating that. But right now we only play on Tuesday nights, and aren't doing CW as a group because of how poorly the overall opinion is from all my unit members. I tend to play solo in CW every few days, but I don't like having the longer wait times typically as I still encounter those. It isn't the 40 minute wait it used to be, but much longer than I'd prefer to just get a game started and to simply play...May need to add Tetris to the title to have something to do other than just wait.

[Murphy7]

My experience of the event - there are a lot more pug groups on both sides of conflicts, whereas in other weeks we see more unit on unit action. I think the preponderance of pugs willing to set foot in CW during this event has been a mixed blessing.

On the IS side, people entering into CW who hadn't before are more likely to have leveled and ready mechs, both because of the cost cited by the OP but also that we have all had at some IS mechs available to us for some time now.

On the clan side I noted a lot more trial mechs in use amongst pug groups. I attribute this to a mixture of issues - clan mechs are expensive and many have not been available for C-Bills for very long; there is a perception that Clan technology makes for an easier time of it in CW, so the only passing familiar might think dropping as Clan in trial is a better road 80 points per match than siding with the IS; teamwork is OP - House Kurita TS and the units who have been using have been coordinating together for a while now, and a lot of matches that seem terribly one sided also clearly show the value of coordinated effort.*

I love this event for how quickly matches can be put together with enough population interested in CW. I think this is a GOOD THING ™. But CW has a learning curve, and clearly teamwork trumps all. I was on the receiving end of some coordinated Smoke Jag and Ghost Bear groups while joining the IS pug defense just to get a few off-prime time drops in; clanners had some real lopsided victories too.


* Naturally, House Kurita benefits from coordination. We fight for Dear Coordinator, after all.