

#21
Posted 13 September 2015 - 05:53 PM
The comp community laughed at that notion, so it's hard to take this suggestion (which is equally crazy) as serious.
In mixed play that we have now (for just pugging), people will lean towards getting the best power for their C-bills (or mechpacks with real money) spent.
Attempting to balance Clan vs IS like you would in Starcraft that has 3 factions/groups would actually be easier to do (not perfect, but at least on a conceptual level) than trying to "enforce" powercreep through Clans.
I mean, even leagues know the top tier teams go Clans in general (will still have to see how much use the Arctic Cheetah gets, but it'll certainly get some play along with the Firestarter).
So.. TL;DR
lol Gyrok
#22
Posted 13 September 2015 - 05:54 PM
Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 September 2015 - 05:41 PM, said:
Yes we had regular stock event balanced around 5v8. In Stock 12v10 is not enough. In custom without quirks is also not enough.
And yeah thing worked and was fun as hell.
If you come now with your Jedi argue.
Yes, that was answered as well.
There is super fun game asymmetrical balanced Jedi v Droids live for more then 10 years.
Nifty! Go ahead and put those together again, the asymmetric balance ones. Let me know when you have 10,000 players doing nothing but that. Heck, let's be reasonable and say 5K players who play nothing but that.
you're saying a few dozen players playing one-off games equates to what everyone would do/enjoy. We're not talking about an alternate gamemode or one-off event for giggles. We're talking about the whole game and the only way to play is either op clans for big expense or expendable IS who die most the time.
You brought up these bad examples before, that doesn't make them relevant.
#23
Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:05 PM
Why? because most people dont want it
and PGI says they wont Program it,
so abit of a Problem?

#24
Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:24 PM
MischiefSC, on 13 September 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:
you're saying a few dozen players playing one-off games equates to what everyone would do/enjoy. We're not talking about an alternate gamemode or one-off event for giggles. We're talking about the whole game and the only way to play is either op clans for big expense or expendable IS who die most the time.
You brought up these bad examples before, that doesn't make them relevant.
Well, small test was already done multiple times.
We did it also this for PGI once, and everyone that I recall was saying that was fun, and outcomes was quiet balanced.
You was the one that came out with irrelevant Jedi argue. I showed you how wrong you are.
Fact is that there is plenty of interesting and quiet successful games around that are asymmetrically balanced.
And Battletech come first in that pool.
#25
Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:31 PM
http://mwomercs.com/...ine-3050-event/
They can keep up the eternal struggle to balance Clan and IS 'mechs on the PTS and take all the time they want while the temporary solution keeps the game afloat.
#26
Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:46 PM
Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 September 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:
We did it also this for PGI once, and everyone that I recall was saying that was fun, and outcomes was quiet balanced.
You was the one that came out with irrelevant Jedi argue. I showed you how wrong you are.
Fact is that there is plenty of interesting and quiet successful games around that are asymmetrically balanced.
And Battletech come first in that pool.
So, again. Either with Movie Battles, get 5k+ players to only play Jedi vs Droid and not other aspects of the game, or get an actual 10 v 12 or whatever balance version you want and have 5+ plus (a fraction of the MW:O total player base) play that and only that.
More people play text muds than play MBII. Not that MBII isn't fun but it's a niche of a niche. That's also only one gamemode, not the sum total game. A Clan vs IS balance like what's being discussed would be the only way to play the game.
#27
Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:47 PM
Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 September 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:
We did it also this for PGI once, and everyone that I recall was saying that was fun, and outcomes was quiet balanced.
You was the one that came out with irrelevant Jedi argue. I showed you how wrong you are.
Fact is that there is plenty of interesting and quiet successful games around that are asymmetrically balanced.
And Battletech come first in that pool.
ah yes. The "They" that did all this awesome testing, that obviously went completely above the head of anyone in the comp community.
10v12 has been beaten into the ground and truthfully will not work. This wouldn't work at any tier even if you revert all the quirks back.
I would agree with MischiefSC, I really stopped playing BT when the clans came out, most campaigns I participated in were 3025.
#29
Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:56 PM
Deathlike, on 13 September 2015 - 05:53 PM, said:
https://youtu.be/TTv81jNl9dk?t=317
Need a Locust and Urbie for every Direwolf to make things balanced.
#30
Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:58 PM
pbiggz, on 13 September 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:
No. I refuse to discuss.
You are a better man than me. I salute you. There are times I feel like a cat who is terribly distracted by incredibly bad ideas.
Like understanding what makes someone believe an incredibly, incredibly terrible idea is good will give me some insight into where bad ideas come from for future reference. Instead I feel like I'm trying to teach penguins to fly.
#31
Posted 13 September 2015 - 08:21 PM
That`s why we can`t have good things, as everything must be dumb dumped to the dumb crowd level.
Funny thing is that when we say that clans are OP, they say its lore deal with it.
When we say fine so give us numbers, they say no things need to be balanced.
Bunch of hypocrite munchkins.
#32
Posted 13 September 2015 - 08:47 PM
because its 2 stars vs 3 lances and matches up with battletech lore
youd need to do some additional balancing... but 10v12 would certainly be more balanced than what we have now.
#33
Posted 13 September 2015 - 08:49 PM
Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 September 2015 - 08:21 PM, said:
That`s why we can`t have good things, as everything must be dumb dumped to the dumb crowd level.
Funny thing is that when we say that clans are OP, they say its lore deal with it.
When we say fine so give us numbers, they say no things need to be balanced.
Bunch of hypocrite munchkins.
You know, I prefer permadeath games. From the MUD days mostly. Even in single player games I prefer to play dead-is-dead. I've got like 1600 hours in Skyrim playing that way; about 80 mods, mostly making it harder. Die and start over.
That's what I enjoy. It's fun for me. What I wouldn't do however is say that all MMOs should be permadeath or that all single player games should be designed to ONLY RUN THAT WAY.
Because I know that what I enjoy isn't typical. It would make me a complete jackass to try to push my personal interests onto everyone else. It's not CoD crowd - it's a FPS. This game is not a TT strategy game. It's a FPS. A MOBA in fact. That's what this game is; that's how it's designed, that's how it plays. If you're here for something that ISN'T a FPS MOBA you're lost.
3050 was the worst balanced era in BT. That's why Dark Ages exists, fixing the stuff that 3050 Clan introduction totally borked. Undoing all the bad balance decisions. Choosing not to repeat the worst mistake in the games entire design is the smartest decision PGI has made.
#34
Posted 13 September 2015 - 09:03 PM
If we had respawns on a ticket system, we could have long games over large battlefields. Hell, make the tickets into C-bills, and then choosing which equipment you respawn with becomes part of the team's evolving strategy. Getting kills efficiently can earn more C-bills for the team than spraying damage everywhere, providing incentive to kill in as little damage as possible. Add in secondary objectives that help C-bill gain through various indirect means while controlled, and now we've got a real game.
Keep the current arena game style around as Solaris. Bam. No wasted resources.
#35
Posted 13 September 2015 - 09:31 PM
It makes people feel good and produces income.
Do not expect a reality from it.
#36
Posted 13 September 2015 - 09:34 PM
#37
Posted 13 September 2015 - 09:44 PM
Khobai, on 13 September 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:
because its 2 stars vs 3 lances and matches up with battletech lore
youd need to do some additional balancing... but 10v12 would certainly be more balanced than what we have now.
You cant take 10 mechs vs 12... Even if you remove the quirks with Pin point damage its too easy to focus fire and nuke the an opposing enemy....
#38
Posted 13 September 2015 - 10:15 PM
MischiefSC, on 13 September 2015 - 09:34 PM, said:
I mean, even their founding demi-god, Alexandr Kerensky, was an idiot. It must be genetics.
#39
Posted 13 September 2015 - 10:48 PM
#40
Posted 13 September 2015 - 11:01 PM
MischiefSC, on 13 September 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:
Do a regular weekly event with IS in stock builds 10 v 12 on Clans to simulate the difference. See if you actually have 12 is to each 10 Clan players. See if all the comp/vet populations are split evenly or skewed Clan. Get them to drop in those sort of matches regularly, as in the only way to play the game.
The bad balance is why people left BT or only played 3025, it's why they changed to is and clans balanced in Dark Ages. Not to mention each player running a Lance or company of throw away mechs in a tabletop strategy is an utterly, completely different experience from a fps.
Fortunately PGI has already nixed this idea as terrible and rightly so.
Just to touch on this, no where in the rules for TT is it ever 10 on 12. That's some ********-ass holdover prior to BV that came from the books. If you take 10 clan mechs with their average tonnage being 60 and you match an equal BV IS force to it with average ton per mech also being 60, you'll wind up with around 14 to 18 IS mechs.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users