170 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Paigan, on 10 July 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:

I normally hate when people don't even bother to read a little longer post, but this time I didn't read it either.

Breaking "balance" down to the last hardpoint per mech is not how balance in Battletech works.

Balance is paramount. BUT: in a proper way.

Clans are SUPPOSED to have superior tech.

IS on the other hand have greater numbers, meaner tactics, etc.
Simple example: Clanners would not dare to call in an artillery strike for reasons of honor, while IS burried hundreds of clan mechs under a collapsing mountain on Tukayyid without a glimpse of an eye.

This is called asymmetrical balance.
Think starcraft: Zerg are generally weak, but have far greater numbers.

For MWO, this could be done very simply:

- Clans have better equipment but less or maybe even no modules at all
- IS have more and meaner modules (like ammo packs, mines, etc.). Think of it as representing IS "tinkering" with mechs and employing meaner tactics.
- Maybe other stuff like asymmetrical drop tonnage (but NOT 10vs12 because of understandable technical reasons)
- And then in the end MAYBE some tiny quirks here and there (again IS tinkering).


This would be very simple and lorewise elegant. And MUCH more interesting than magically quirking up lostech until it's stupidly better than high-tech.

Everyone listing hardpoints etc. for pages and pages for C vs IS balancing purposes has clearly no clue of the game, sorry.

Sorry, but this isn't a tactics/strategy game. It's a sim/shooter. Giving one side noticeably better tech is a good way to kill your game.

Imagine Starcraft where it takes four Zerglings to take down a Zealot. Imagine having to play as the Zergling against someone playing as a Zealot where he can literally kill you in three hits.

Doesn't sound very fun.

Lugh, on 10 July 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

2) Your next fallacy is the comparison of the Standard engine with the clan XL engine. The winner is the STD for survivability, an option that is wholly absent from he clan side.

Your argument falls short in that of the roughly 200 mechs we have, about 15 have the CT/Head hardpoints to zombie with any meaningful impact. Less than 10% of the available chassis. For the other 90% of the mechs in the game, the cXL is leaps and bounds better than a Standard.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 July 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

snip

I've obviously played a very different MW3 and 4 than you. In MW3 for me it was all clan tech all the time.

In MW4, it was always Clan weapons and mostly Clan mechs with a few IS mechs packing Clan weapons (like the Black Knight with cERPPCs)

There was one league I played in that had no mix tech. And for every 4 tons a clan got, the IS got 5 rounded up. Sure there were IS units that could match Clan units ton for ton, like The Hitmen from MW4 that became KaoS here. But the top unit from MW4 from when I played was SJR and they exclusively used Clan tech.

As far as parity between tech bases, MW4 had the best parity because as far as weapon balance went, Ensemble threw most of it out the window except the tonnage.

[Averen]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 12 July 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Your argument falls short in that of the roughly 200 mechs we have, about 15 have the CT/Head hardpoints to zombie with any meaningful impact. Less than 10% of the available chassis. For the other 90% of the mechs in the game, the cXL is leaps and bounds better than a Standard.

Yep, I want to see the person of questionable judgement (changed for social reasons) that thinks having 25% more speed is more survivability than a mech being able to use his single CT medium laser in case both torsos got shot off.
Makes me wonder how bias can make you so blind that you can't even understand the simplest game logic. Sure, we're all biased to some degree, but there is no reason to make into some twisted a war of ignorance and self-deceit. It's just a video game.

Edited by Averen, 12 July 2015 - 10:55 AM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Averen, on 12 July 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

Yep, I want to see the person of questionable judgement (changed for social reasons) that thinks having 25% more speed is more survivability than a mech being able to use his single CT medium laser in case both torsos got shot off.
Makes me wonder how bias can make you so blind that you can't even understand the simplest game logic. Sure, we're all biased to some degree, but there is no reason to make into some twisted a war of ignorance and self-deceit. It's just a video game.

I've come to conclusion that from years of TT play experience and MW3, 4, and Online that most Clanners are munchkins.

In TT, I played IS nearly exclusively (mostly because I couldn't afford Clan minis). Using Double Blind and Armored Warfare rule sets I would game BV 2.0 and build a massive force consisting almost entirely of tanks, infantry, aero, vtols, and artillery assets to accompany my AWS-8Q, if I even used my Awesome. And by doing that, most Clanners I played against who didn't know me would stack up on Clan heavies and assaults with a star of Elementals.

I would usually clean their clock. I took nothing but infantry and artillery to defend a city against one Clanner. I beat him so badly that only losses I incurred was a single infantry platoon that was killed when a dead Direwolf fell over on them. He lost two Direwolves, two Warhawks, a Timberwolf, a Nova, a Stormcrow, a Viper, and two Kitfoxes. He proceeded to call me a cheater and throw his minis across the room and at me.

People wanting their OP Clantech are power gaming munchkins in both TT and MW. The person in question would probably cry foul if I used a tactic like that against him in TT.

Edit: I should probably qualify that most Clanners are power gamer munchkins. Then there are the actual roleplayers. It just happens that the majority of the munchkins hide behind the lore reasons when it suits them, but will discard the lore when it doesn't suit them.

Edited by Lord Scarlett Johan, 12 July 2015 - 11:24 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 12 July 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Imagine Starcraft where it takes four Zerglings to take down a Zealot. Imagine having to play as the Zergling against someone playing as a Zealot where he can literally kill you in three hits.

Natural Selection 2 is an interesting example of a FPS/RTS hybrid that creates that kind of situations successfully. Not saying it would work in MWO, or that PGI could do it, just that there are working example. Of course Natural selection has for of realtime economy that balances the power of "weak" and "strong" units, but it works very well and all unit types are needed and popular on both sides. It's a great game.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 12 July 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

I've obviously played a very different MW3 and 4 than you. In MW3 for me it was all clan tech all the time.

In MW4, it was always Clan weapons and mostly Clan mechs with a few IS mechs packing Clan weapons (like the Black Knight with cERPPCs)

There was one league I played in that had no mix tech. And for every 4 tons a clan got, the IS got 5 rounded up. Sure there were IS units that could match Clan units ton for ton, like The Hitmen from MW4 that became KaoS here. But the top unit from MW4 from when I played was SJR and they exclusively used Clan tech.

As far as parity between tech bases, MW4 had the best parity because as far as weapon balance went, Ensemble threw most of it out the window except the tonnage.

As I said, the games allowed using exclusive Tech and there were leagues that enforced that, IS could only use IS Mechs and Tech and the Clans could only use Clan Mechs and Tech. Planetary leagues were pretty much the only leagues that did this, and the planetary leagues were typically won by the IS, due to simply better tactics and strategies on the map backed up by better players in the underpowered IS Mechs.

As you point out yourself, many Clan players are really just powergamers, they aren't actually GOOD, they just want the top toys to give them the edge. That showed all too well in the planetary leagues, since being good in a Mech was only a small part of the actual equation when it came to winning. Logistics, tactics and overall strategy were the main tools, and most Clan units failed hard in those areas, and often weren't all that good in actual combat either, relying too much on their perceived Tech advantages and not actually taking advantage of them. SJR were in one of the NBTs SRM was in, they were Annihilated. I know they are good players, they do well in MWO, but they can beaten and have been, so that means little in the grand scheme. The Tech imbalance has never been a detriment to the game's online play in the past, claiming it will be for MWO is, as far as I and many others are concerned, a bs statement since we have ample proof directly refuting that.

Right now, balance is at parity, slight advantage to the Clans at long range, IS otherwise. PGI is doing a rebalance pass, and from what Sean Lang has said, it's evidently a serious one that will change the game, so we'll just have to wait and see how that works when it hits the PST.

I do wish people would stop showing us their personal bias in their Clan/IS OP arguments however, and that's what almost all of them boil down to, personal bias, from people on BOTH sides.

[Aiden Skye]

[Duke Nedo]

AEgg, on 12 July 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

Your comparison is seriously lacking by not including an IS XL. Include that and IS looks vastly superior to IS, too:

SHD-2K, 3x ERLL, STD300, -0.5t armor: 27 dmg alpha, 675m range, 1.25s duration, 6.0 burst dps, 2.70 sustained dps

Similar SCR, -0.5t armor, 2x cLPL, 26 dmg alpha, 600m range, 1.12s duration, 5.94 burst dps, 2.80 sustained dps

SHD-2K, 3x ERLL, XL300, -0.5t armor: 27 dmg alpha, 675m range, 1.25s duration, 6.0 burst dps, 2.70 sustained dps (9.95 tons free)

All your comparison really says is that large STD engines are bad on this mech.

True, clan XLs don't die quite as fast as IS XLs, but that is the only significant difference between these two (admittedly dumb) builds, seeing as they otherwise have basically identical free tonnage. Otherwise they're effectively identical.

Is a weaker XL worth having the option to run a STD? Remember that this applies to all chassis, not just this one. Obviously a SDK would love a clan XL, but a DWF would love an IS STD. So it works both ways. Still probably in favor for the clans, but there ARE mechs that benefit from using slower STD engines. They are fewer than those that benefit from XLs, true, but the only real question is whether that number is slanted enough to further harm the clans. Making IS XLs identical to clan XLs would push IS past the clans in this regard, not make them equal.

Sure, that is on purpose, the point is to visualize how big a benefit it is to (in all relevant aspects) get STD durability on an XL engine for free, for those that have been whining in other balance threads, claiming there is no difference. The second big tonnage-saver for clantech is that 2x cLPLs ~ 3x ERLL and 4x cMPLs ~ 3x LPLs and 1x cSPL ~ 1x MPL. That is also an attempt to explain to these people why there exists very strong quirks.

Hoping that the fix they are talking about really fixes something, yes.

[Duke Nedo]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 July 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

I'm sure the OP, with a background in academics, can understand that..or maybe not, since they started this entire thread with such an obviously failed comparison of Mechs showing a clear personal agenda driven by their own bias.

No. If you read all posts I am sure you'd catch that this is a response to people in multiple other threads that have been on the barricades claiming that there is no difference between clantech and istech. There are only bad pilots.... those people have the agenda.

Hopefully the upcoming pass will actually do something to address the cause of the powergap. They don't need to do it full out, but bring them closer before applying whatever layer of band-**** they are doing this time. I am afraid it will just be a full pass of durability buffs...

Edited by Duke Nedo, 13 July 2015 - 08:36 AM.

[-Vompo-]

AEgg, on 12 July 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

DWF would love an IS STD.

Really? Why would you sacrifice tonnage to stay alive as a stick?

I guess you would get couple of free open slots but for a massive tonnage loss.

Edited by VompoVompatti, 13 July 2015 - 10:44 AM.

[Pjwned]

This is basically an issue of clan XLs being too strong and IS mechs not having access to something in between XL and STD, which would be the light fusion engine (LFE).

[Duke Nedo]

Also, just in response to comments like "irrelevant comparisons" or "stupid builds".

The point here is to show: Here's an IS build, how many tons do I need to use using clan tech to achieve the same result?

In the TDR example, it was between 10 and 22 tons (!) less for mimicing the TDR-5SS MPL/STD engine build on a EBJ, depending no which weapons you choose. A 5x cMPL build would probably have been most similar, in that case using 14 tons less than the TDR to achieve the same effect.

In the SHD example, it was 11 tons less for a 3x ERLL build when built on a SCR.

For fun, I tried a SMN vs CTF-3D comparison. If I do that on the 1x gauss+4xcERML build, the corresponding performance would require 1x gauss, 3x LL on the CTF-3D, and in order to squeeze that in I'd need to use an IS 280 XL engine (vs the SMN 350 cXL), and in addition to dying from a ST loss and having much worse speed/agility (89 kph+5% + agility quirks vs 71 kph), it's also slightly worse in heat efficiency, alpha and jumpjets.

This one I won't argue if you call it a pointless comparison, but anyways a bit interesting. That's the Suckoner vs a "tier 1" IS mech (heh) before quirkening 1.0.

Once again, I am not writing this up because I want clans nerfed. I write this up because it has to be said, so many people in denial when it comes to balance.

My agenda if I have one is that in order to improve this game, I believe that PGI needs to address IS XL side torso death. This penalty is too harsh and creates this huge powergap (let's be honest now), in measurable tonnage. More tonnage than clan mechs have locked away in (functional) equipment. The only thing that makes it bearable is that IS have customization and can therefore choose their weakness, opposed to the not-so-good clan mechs like the Summoner. The smaller the mech becomes, the more you can live with this penalty, but for many mediums and nearly all heavy/assaults this is a really important balance factor.

Bring the baseline for clan tech and IS tech closer to each other, then you'll not need (as powerful) super quirks, or locked clan equipment.

Peace.

[Revis Volek]

Paigan, on 10 July 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:

I normally hate when people don't even bother to read a little longer post, but this time I didn't read it either.

Breaking "balance" down to the last hardpoint per mech is not how balance in Battletech works.

Balance is paramount. BUT: in a proper way.

Clans are SUPPOSED to have superior tech.

IS on the other hand have greater numbers, meaner tactics, etc.
Simple example: Clanners would not dare to call in an artillery strike for reasons of honor, while IS burried hundreds of clan mechs under a collapsing mountain on Tukayyid without a glimpse of an eye.

This is called asymmetrical balance.
Think starcraft: Zerg are generally weak, but have far greater numbers.

For MWO, this could be done very simply:

- Clans have better equipment but less or maybe even no modules at all
- IS have more and meaner modules (like ammo packs, mines, etc.). Think of it as representing IS "tinkering" with mechs and employing meaner tactics.
- Maybe other stuff like asymmetrical drop tonnage (but NOT 10vs12 because of understandable technical reasons)
- And then in the end MAYBE some tiny quirks here and there (again IS tinkering).


This would be very simple and lorewise elegant. And MUCH more interesting than magically quirking up lostech until it's stupidly better than high-tech.

Everyone listing hardpoints etc. for pages and pages for C vs IS balancing purposes has clearly no clue of the game, sorry.

No one wants to be cannon fodder....so this point is moot and has been told 10000000 times that NO ONE WANT TO PLAY THE CRAPPY MECHS.

Just because YOU are ok with having superior mechs fight worse ones doesnt mean we all are. Balance can be reached many ways...making one side more UP the then OP side but giving them greater numbers (be it more mechs per drop or more tonnage) people get their panties all twisted and whine....its the way of the world unfortunately.

Normalization of XL engines is a major factor in the in balance we have in the game today. Weather you want to believe it or not this is the reason we have such wild swing on some mechs and not others....why Clans can have more weapons, why we have more DHS (and they are 1 less slot), etc., etc..

[Kristov Kerensky]

Duke Nedo, on 13 July 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

No. If you read all posts I am sure you'd catch that this is a response to people in multiple other threads that have been on the barricades claiming that there is no difference between clantech and istech. There are only bad pilots.... those people have the agenda.

Hopefully the upcoming pass will actually do something to address the cause of the powergap. They don't need to do it full out, but bring them closer before applying whatever layer of band-**** they are doing this time. I am afraid it will just be a full pass of durability buffs...

Anyone denying there isn't a difference betwixt the 2 Techs is an idiot, as it's so obviously a blind man can see it, but that's rather the point of Inner Sphere and Clans and a basis of the BTech game after the introduction of the Clans. Balance was never part of the BattleTech game. It's a TT game thing, balance is rare in them because it's either a scifi/fantasy PvE, not PvP, so who cares, the Players are the Heros, so they should always have the advantage, OR they were wargame simulators where real world stats are used and those often give 1 side an advantage of some sort, and FASA applied both to the BTech system, it's a science fantasy wargame simulator originally, the Role Playing aspect came in with MechWarrior. So balance wasn't part of the system from the getgo, the Clans were meant to be the E in PvE, not the P, so making them OP was ok, the Clans have rather strict rules for combat that limit their actual effectiveness if the GM and Players are smart about it. Pure math, the Clans wouldn't have lost Tukayyid, the IS would have been decimated and the New Star League would have been established and in control of most of the IS before 3060. FASA knew that, that's why they used Plot Devices to stop them at Tukayyid and establish the Truce, because the Clans were the E, not the P. FASA just kind of forgot that gamers are gamers, Clans became the P, not the E, and that really screwed up the entire franchise.

MWO is not balanced, it IS at parity, it's different but serves the same function overall. Clan Tech is not an autowin option, IS Tech is not an autoloss, 1v1 of the same weight class or in groups, it's always a toss up who'll win based on the skills, abilities and teamwork, where applicable, that the players bring to the table. -MS- is a great example, they are currently Clan, and as Clan they have constantly beaten both Clan and IS units equally, PUGs and organized teams alike. When they were an IS unit, they did the exact same thing, constantly beat both Clan and IS units equally, PUGs and organized teams alike.

If Clan Tech was actually OP or IS Tech was actually UP, this wouldn't be the case, it is the case however, and it's not just -MS- that you can see this with, other units go back and forth between the 2 Tech types and do equally as well in both regardless of the Tech they face. IS PUGs have taken out 12 man organized Clan units and vice versa, which furthers reinforces the fact that the game is a parity right now. Yes, some things on BOTH sides are OP and some things are UP, but parity has been achieved overall.

The new balance pass coming, it's not what so many seem to think, not according to what Russ outlined in the Town Hall where he actually described it. It's a redo of the Tier System using PGI's own internally created BV system, meant to redo quirks. Sean Lang, who's seeing it being done, has said it's a real game changer, we'll get to see it on the PST sometime this summer supposedly, and put our own suggestions in concerning it, so people just need to chill and wait, because PGI is NOT listening right now, they've already got their own version of a balance redo in the works, and they want our input when we SEE it ourselves, until then, well, think of the electrons you are needlessly sacrificing!

[Duke Nedo]

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 July 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

Anyone denying there isn't a difference betwixt the 2 Techs is an idiot, as it's so obviously a blind man can see it,

This thread are for those idiots... the people that can't understand why IS have strong quirks, or the people that think that the best IS mechs are as good as clan mechs without quirks. The only thing I try to do here is to highlight why these quirks are that strong. If a mech is at a 10 ton disadvantage and it should be buffed up by quirks to par, then these quirks will be strong. 10 tons, that's quite a few SRM4 launchers right there...

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 July 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

but that's rather the point of Inner Sphere and Clans and a basis of the BTech game after the introduction of the Clans. Balance was never part of the BattleTech game. It's a TT game thing, balance is rare in them because it's either a scifi/fantasy PvE, not PvP, so who cares, the Players are the Heros, so they should always have the advantage, OR they were wargame simulators where real world stats are used and those often give 1 side an advantage of some sort, and FASA applied both to the BTech system, it's a science fantasy wargame simulator originally, the Role Playing aspect came in with MechWarrior. So balance wasn't part of the system from the getgo, the Clans were meant to be the E in PvE, not the P, so making them OP was ok, the Clans have rather strict rules for combat that limit their actual effectiveness if the GM and Players are smart about it. Pure math, the Clans wouldn't have lost Tukayyid, the IS would have been decimated and the New Star League would have been established and in control of most of the IS before 3060. FASA knew that, that's why they used Plot Devices to stop them at Tukayyid and establish the Truce, because the Clans were the E, not the P. FASA just kind of forgot that gamers are gamers, Clans became the P, not the E, and that really screwed up the entire franchise.

Here we just disagree, which is fine. PGI stated that they need balanced factions, because this is a PvP game. One player - one(four) mech(s) - one match.

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 July 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

MWO is not balanced, it IS at parity, it's different but serves the same function overall. Clan Tech is not an autowin option, IS Tech is not an autoloss, 1v1 of the same weight class or in groups, it's always a toss up who'll win based on the skills, abilities and teamwork, where applicable, that the players bring to the table. -MS- is a great example, they are currently Clan, and as Clan they have constantly beaten both Clan and IS units equally, PUGs and organized teams alike. When they were an IS unit, they did the exact same thing, constantly beat both Clan and IS units equally, PUGs and organized teams alike.

If Clan Tech was actually OP or IS Tech was actually UP, this wouldn't be the case, it is the case however, and it's not just -MS- that you can see this with, other units go back and forth between the 2 Tech types and do equally as well in both regardless of the Tech they face. IS PUGs have taken out 12 man organized Clan units and vice versa, which furthers reinforces the fact that the game is a parity right now. Yes, some things on BOTH sides are OP and some things are UP, but parity has been achieved overall.

The new balance pass coming, it's not what so many seem to think, not according to what Russ outlined in the Town Hall where he actually described it. It's a redo of the Tier System using PGI's own internally created BV system, meant to redo quirks. Sean Lang, who's seeing it being done, has said it's a real game changer, we'll get to see it on the PST sometime this summer supposedly, and put our own suggestions in concerning it, so people just need to chill and wait, because PGI is NOT listening right now, they've already got their own version of a balance redo in the works, and they want our input when we SEE it ourselves, until then, well, think of the electrons you are needlessly sacrificing!

We don't really know if balance is at parity now, do we? That units reliably win with both sides in CW mainly means that none of the factions are completely broken. PGI will have global stats that help though... but not at the comp level for what that's worth. What would be really interesting to see would be a tournament where each match would consist of one half as IS and one half as clans and then summed up. Those stats would be nice...

[Eider]

I bought my timber during the first invasion and people then STILL said they were not op. Despite tests that showed clans had a 90% win ration against IS. Not even talking close games but full blow outs. Without quirks? forget about IS even being competative.

And for the record yes IS can do as well as clan, but it takes a lot more effort.

Edited by Eider, 13 July 2015 - 10:47 PM.

[Eider]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 12 July 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

I've come to conclusion that from years of TT play experience and MW3, 4, and Online that most Clanners are munchkins.

In TT, I played IS nearly exclusively (mostly because I couldn't afford Clan minis). Using Double Blind and Armored Warfare rule sets I would game BV 2.0 and build a massive force consisting almost entirely of tanks, infantry, aero, vtols, and artillery assets to accompany my AWS-8Q, if I even used my Awesome. And by doing that, most Clanners I played against who didn't know me would stack up on Clan heavies and assaults with a star of Elementals.

I would usually clean their clock. I took nothing but infantry and artillery to defend a city against one Clanner. I beat him so badly that only losses I incurred was a single infantry platoon that was killed when a dead Direwolf fell over on them. He lost two Direwolves, two Warhawks, a Timberwolf, a Nova, a Stormcrow, a Viper, and two Kitfoxes. He proceeded to call me a cheater and throw his minis across the room and at me.

People wanting their OP Clantech are power gaming munchkins in both TT and MW. The person in question would probably cry foul if I used a tactic like that against him in TT.

Edit: I should probably qualify that most Clanners are power gamer munchkins. Then there are the actual roleplayers. It just happens that the majority of the munchkins hide behind the lore reasons when it suits them, but will discard the lore when it doesn't suit them.

This guy.. nail on the head.

[Duke Nedo]

Perhaps time to bump this one, the clan-is-not-op-they-are-only-better-pilots crew is on fire again...

[LORD ORION]

I just played a Drg-1N elite'd with AC5 module for the 1st time...

All I can say is STFU that clams are op

[Joseph Mallan]

W A R K H A N, on 12 July 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

She is cute even when looking condescending!