Jump to content

More Clan Hate?


101 replies to this topic

#1 Lucky Moniker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 452 posts
  • LocationSeaside, CA

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:07 PM

I understand the idea of balancing clans to IS, but we can do this in a way that doesn't completely negate the entire point on Clan tech.

I know this is a very old and repeated topic here, but this is becoming more and more of an issue still.

I get it, you already sold your clan packs, so now you can nerf them into uselessness because you already made your money off of them and you want to make all your new IS packages more attractive.

THIS is why so many people have stopped playing your game PGI.

The proposed changes to clan tech are just absurd. You are killing the clans and chasing away your own customers.

#2 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,652 posts

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:08 PM

What proposed changes?

nvm, it didn't show that the last time I had the main screen open. reading now.

Edited by sycocys, 13 October 2015 - 06:09 PM.


#3 TKG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 182 posts
  • LocationThe Sandhills of NC

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:11 PM

You realize that, by not using the strongest clan limitation in game (their cultural standards) the clans are already unbalanced. I do agree that some of the mechs need to be re-evaluated for balance but I'm not sure a nerf is needed for either side of the equation.

#4 Tanus Dimitrov

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 36 posts
  • LocationPacific Coast, US

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:12 PM

Sorry...but the clan laser nerf is silly. Clan tech should NOT be balanced against IS. The ERPPC clan version is already a joke because the LPL is superior across the board. Limit the number of Clan mechs in a battle, or even tilt the teams (8 vs 12) and bring Clan tech back inline with Table Top.

As for the Clan ERPPC, it should be 12-13 dmg and leave the 15 heat. Make it a worth while weapon.

Edited by Cole Williams, 13 October 2015 - 06:13 PM.


#5 TKG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 182 posts
  • LocationThe Sandhills of NC

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:19 PM

View PostCole Williams, on 13 October 2015 - 06:12 PM, said:

Limit the number of Clan mechs in a battle, or even tilt the teams (8 vs 12) and bring Clan tech back inline with Table Top.


I think since the clans use a 5 man unit (the star) at least in faction battles limiting them to 10-player teams would reflect some of the standards a bit better. 3 IS lances in IS mechs versus two Clan Stars in clan mechs still is in the favor of the clans, but not terribly so. It falls to the IS teams to either be better players or get used to the flavor of defeat.

#6 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,652 posts

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:21 PM

It really doesn't sound that bad. Reducing the max range won't really hurt much but the erLL snipers and erPPC snipers in CW.

The max ranges were a bit ridiculous given the fact the Clan energy weapons already had a significant range advantage over the IS ones. And you should be fighting inside your optimal range anyhow.

#7 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:21 PM

Its showing the clan players respect.

+1 for Clan pilots in mechs that are not easy mode and that they can be proud of again.

#8 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,274 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:27 PM

We'll see how it feels. Clans will have faster heat dissipation, but a lower heat capacity, and then the range nerf will be felt for sure..

I'm genuinely curious to see how it feels.

#9 JaxRiot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 666 posts

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:28 PM

So the ER lasers will now be just Lasers?

#10 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:29 PM

View PostGas Guzzler, on 13 October 2015 - 06:27 PM, said:

We'll see how it feels. Clans will have faster heat dissipation, but a lower heat capacity, and then the range nerf will be felt for sure..

I'm genuinely curious to see how it feels.


Depends what they mean. Maximum range being the 2x past optimal range?
That LPL still deals full damage at 600M, before falling off to zero at 960M (1KM+ with the module).

If they mean overall range, that's 360-720M.

#11 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,652 posts

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:30 PM

Something tells me they really like the easy mode option. XD

And it clearly stats maximum range - so you will lose that crazy far out 900+ meter range with your ERLL, down to 700ish instead. Not really that insane of a change given how ridiculous the vomit on the barely visible shadows were getting -and have extreme amounts of in CW on maps like Boreal where they can just about sit up at the base and focus alphas as you close on the gate.

Edited by sycocys, 13 October 2015 - 06:33 PM.


#12 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,274 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:35 PM

View PostMcgral18, on 13 October 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:


Depends what they mean. Maximum range being the 2x past optimal range?
That LPL still deals full damage at 600M, before falling off to zero at 960M (1KM+ with the module).

If they mean overall range, that's 360-720M.


Yeah, cLPL will still be strong, ER ML and Gauss builds though.. won't be quite the magical experience they are right now.

I am pretty sure its off of the maximum range, not optimum range, because they specifically said, 40% less maximum range.

#13 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:37 PM

View PostCole Williams, on 13 October 2015 - 06:12 PM, said:

Sorry...but the clan laser nerf is silly. Clan tech should NOT be balanced against IS. The ERPPC clan version is already a joke because the LPL is superior across the board. Limit the number of Clan mechs in a battle, or even tilt the teams (8 vs 12) and bring Clan tech back inline with Table Top.

As for the Clan ERPPC, it should be 12-13 dmg and leave the 15 heat. Make it a worth while weapon.


"Clan tech should NOT be balanced against IS"

If you are a BELIEVER in lore then you are absolutely correct.

If you are playing a multi-player online game in which IS and clan mechs can be chosen interchangeably then I think you are completely incorrect.

The way MWO is desgned, clan and IS mechs can be mixed in open warfare. There is NO clan side and IS side. As a result, the two sides MUST be balanced for that design to work.

So ... someone suggests ... why not separate clan and IS?
1) Split player base results in long queue times since you will NEVER have equal numbers ... though you could throw in clan vs clan or is vs is depending on which side has the excess ... still long queue times.
2) Matchmaking requires unequal numbers of IS vs clan mechs, This is much more challenging to balance unless you invest a lot of development time and effort on an effective battle value system that can match up disparate groups of mechs with different weapons and capabilities.
3) If one set of mechs are distinctly more powerful than another then in an online game this type of mech is more likely to attract players and just increase the imbalance in player numbers.

There are other design issues associated with clan vs IS balance as well.

The problem for PGI is that even if clans used "clan" weapons with exactly the same numbers as IS weapons ... clan mechs would still have an advantage in agility and speed due to the use of clan IS engines. However, no one wants clans to use weapons that are functionally identical to IS ones ... it is boring and would significantly bother the majority of the player base who played Battletech and the earlier iterations of the video games. It is a catch-22 ... PGI needs to develop a design for clan weapons that makes them feel situationally more powerful while still retaining an overall balance with IS weapons.

My personal opinion is that the 40% range nerf is likely too much ...
- clan weapons should have higher alpha, higher heat and longer firing and cycle times ... they should have a SMALL range advantage.
- IS heat sinks should be made more efficient so that IS can put out more sustained damage.

The balance then comes from high alpha/high heat vs IS sustained higher DPS. At least it might be worth a try. :)

#14 Anarcho

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 538 posts

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:41 PM

Pgi said they will not follow lore for balancing... so forget 10x12 (it also makes MM crazy, or something like that)

Keep clans hotter with range and Is tankier with less range... its the only way to balance then still keeping then "different"



#15 Burktross

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 3,663 posts
  • LocationStill in closed beta

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:44 PM

View PostCole Williams, on 13 October 2015 - 06:12 PM, said:

Sorry...but the clan laser nerf is silly. Clan tech should NOT be balanced against IS. The ERPPC clan version is already a joke because the LPL is superior across the board. Limit the number of Clan mechs in a battle, or even tilt the teams (8 vs 12) and bring Clan tech back inline with Table Top.

As for the Clan ERPPC, it should be 12-13 dmg and leave the 15 heat. Make it a worth while weapon.

1) no zellbriggen
2) no BV system
3) No assymetrical teams
-Yes, you suggested it, but here's why it wont work.
>will not fix public queue
>matchmaker will have to be refitted for this. Will probably take 10 PGI times.
>No one likes being cannon fodder. This was an option on TT where mechs were literal disposable pawns to the player, but now that players are mechs, they need to feel important. Furthermore, the clans and IS, even in TT, lack enough functional difference to play off the same vibes of large team vs. big bad found in games like Damned, Left 4 Dead, and Whatever that new game with the space monster you hunt is. In essence, Clans are, at their core, just OP spheroids-- there's not enough gameplay differences, both in game currently or feasibly able to be implemented, that can change this.
(What I mean is, games like Left 4 Dead work because the factions, Zombies and Humans, are different enough gameplay wise to justify one side's greater numbers. Imagine L4D with just stronger survivors and respawning "bandits".

Clan tech needs to be balanced vs. Sphere tech. Arguing for the hypothetical situation is unconstructive, since given PGI's track record, it will likely stay hypothetical.

#16 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:45 PM

View PostMawai, on 13 October 2015 - 06:37 PM, said:



"Clan tech should NOT be balanced against IS"

If you are a BELIEVER in lore then you are absolutely correct.

If you are playing a multi-player online game in which IS and clan mechs can be chosen interchangeably then I think you are completely incorrect.

The way MWO is desgned, clan and IS mechs can be mixed in open warfare. There is NO clan side and IS side. As a result, the two sides MUST be balanced for that design to work.

So ... someone suggests ... why not separate clan and IS?
1) Split player base results in long queue times since you will NEVER have equal numbers ... though you could throw in clan vs clan or is vs is depending on which side has the excess ... still long queue times.
2) Matchmaking requires unequal numbers of IS vs clan mechs, This is much more challenging to balance unless you invest a lot of development time and effort on an effective battle value system that can match up disparate groups of mechs with different weapons and capabilities.
3) If one set of mechs are distinctly more powerful than another then in an online game this type of mech is more likely to attract players and just increase the imbalance in player numbers.

There are other design issues associated with clan vs IS balance as well.

The problem for PGI is that even if clans used "clan" weapons with exactly the same numbers as IS weapons ... clan mechs would still have an advantage in agility and speed due to the use of clan IS engines. However, no one wants clans to use weapons that are functionally identical to IS ones ... it is boring and would significantly bother the majority of the player base who played Battletech and the earlier iterations of the video games. It is a catch-22 ... PGI needs to develop a design for clan weapons that makes them feel situationally more powerful while still retaining an overall balance with IS weapons.

My personal opinion is that the 40% range nerf is likely too much ...
- clan weapons should have higher alpha, higher heat and longer firing and cycle times ... they should have a SMALL range advantage.
- IS heat sinks should be made more efficient so that IS can put out more sustained damage.

The balance then comes from high alpha/high heat vs IS sustained higher DPS. At least it might be worth a try. :)


Yep.

In lore/TT we would all be using Clan weapons and equipment and mechs now RIGHT? Read that again please those that are argueing for lore/TT.

OR in this game there is actually variety and choice and character for the different factions.

Thank you.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 October 2015 - 06:48 PM.


#17 Kain Demos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,629 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:47 PM

PGI doesn't care about the source material, they've proven this time and time again.

#18 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,122 posts

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:47 PM

"Uselessness" Right. Instead we should make IS tech useless and obsolete so Clan and meta gamers can get their jollies off.

Yeah, no, pass. Always pass. I hope their next attempt at balance pans out.

#19 Kira Onime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 2,486 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationMontréal, Québec.

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:50 PM

View PostGas Guzzler, on 13 October 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:


Yeah, cLPL will still be strong, ER ML and Gauss builds though.. won't be quite the magical experience they are right now.

I am pretty sure its off of the maximum range, not optimum range, because they specifically said, 40% less maximum range.



Optimal range is 50% max range.

#20 Troutmonkey

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, Australia

Posted 13 October 2015 - 07:03 PM

View PostKira Onime, on 13 October 2015 - 06:50 PM, said:



Optimal range is 50% max range.

No, Max Range was 2x Optimal range. Small difference but it matters.
By the looks Optimal Range will remain the same, breaking the max range rule for clan lasers.

40% might be too much, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Clans did too much damage too far out to be called balanced. Other clans weapons remain unaffected, so a variety in loudouts featuring missiles and ballistics might be reasonable now.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users