257 replies to this topic

[Fenrisian Wolf]

KahnWongFuChung, on 30 October 2015 - 06:17 AM, said:

I played a few CW games against 12 man Clan teams and every one was a total wipe out of all IS mechs in a very short time like 10 minutes. Most of this was due to the fact we were all unorganized pugs Vs a 12 man Clan team that was Organized.

But that was not the only factor the Clan mechs themselves are taking x6 the damage a IS mech takes and dishes out x4 the firepower a IS mech does. That right there is a huge unbalance in the game to a point most players will not play CW.

PGI needs to stop the nerfing of mechs and start thinking about doubling the armor on IS mechs as a start to counter them. No here is the funny part when I play Clan mechs I get killed almost as fast as in my IS mechs so I would say the 12 man Clan teams are not playing MWO fairly and Russ and PGI needs to look into why?

No my friend you died because there were twelve players actively communicating with each other over Teamspeak or something. Clan Mechs are not op. Buy one. Many are neg quirked for their energy weapons which are more powerful than IS. You need to build a mech around its quirks and if your going into CW matches with a deck of mechs that are not elited and have modules then you are asking to make under 1k damage and probably not survive the match.

[KahnWongFuChung]

And my friend Fenrisian I understand you but that is the root of MWO's problems and why it has such low player count.I played with millions of MechWarrior pilots in over 20 leagues and 3 of the biggest planetary leagues MechWarrior ever had BTU-NBT-MWL.

And it was never this unbalanced in game play for 1v1-12v12 games in MechWarrior2-4 as bad as MWO is. First off the leagues and planetary games pitted 12 man teams against 12 man teams not 12 man organized teams against 12 random pugs unless it was a pickup game with mercs.

MechWarrior4 the private leagues and the MSN gamming Zone had MechWarrior right 99% MWO has it wrong 99% on mech balance matchmaking and no socialization along with lack of game modes and maps.

When you start to pigeonhole the players into cheese builds and boring repetitive game play with no balance and longevity of mechs players start to leave the game it is un-fun and they wont pay into the game either.

Edited by KahnWongFuChung, 30 October 2015 - 10:58 AM.

[CainenEX]

Ed Steele, on 30 October 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

I never claimed that I know more about coding than they do, I merely pointed out that it can be done in private matches, so obviously it is the matchmaker that is causing the problems. I do not however, believe that it is impossible to modify the matchmaker to allow 12v10.

Coming from a background experience in making games 10vs12 is actually a headache. I'm not going to get into the coding side of things so lets go with the concept. You have the "match maker" now pooling 2 groups of players 1 clan and 1 IS.

So PSR needs to be calculated into the equation, plus tonnage. and the group slots need to fit. The same exact thing needs to happen on the IS side. However if a suitable match isn't found after say... 5 minutes the MM might loosen it's target PSR bracket and then group teams with a significant PSR difference together. Now the match maker has to group the appropriate PSR values of both the IS and the clan players together to achieve the best "match". And again, if a suitable match isn't found after x minutes the MM has to loosen PSR group opposing teams together. So now the match gets launched.

(I left out how the players pool in 3 different categories twice <regions and gamemodes> so there are 9 MM pools the MM has to use)


So this system is very inefficient. We have the match maker froming groups twice, with each time calculating PSR, tonnage values, etc... Plus with 2 bottlenecks instead of 1 we'd have double the wait time for each region. This process is also much more taxing on the server hardware. Now with 3 server regions they'd have to make hardware changes 3 times, and high end server equipment ain't cheap.

In conclusion making this change is expensive (server equipment + coding changes), has players waiting longer (I don't find waiting fun), and still won't guarantee you a "balanced" match (due to how the MM will have to loosen the PSR brackets to get match making done at that point). This is why it's a bad idea.

If you feel so strongly about 10vs12 why don't you start a private match league of clan vs IS? Simply have clans be able to change their loadout and have IS stock only? It's an idea. If its popular then I'm sure it'll pick up and become big. If it turns out to be unpopular then thats ok too. You just discovered what doesn't work.

A parting thought: Thomas Edison didn't fail at making 99 light bulbs. He learned how not to make a light bulb 99 times before he found the 1 way to make it work.

Edited by CainenEX, 30 October 2015 - 11:47 AM.

[KahnWongFuChung]

A parting thought: Thomas Edison didn't fail at making 99 light bulbs. He learned how not to make a light bulb 99 times before he found the 1 way to make it work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right Russ is like Thomas Edison he makes 99% mistakes lol.I would have been smarter and stole more ideas from past devs in MechWarrio2-MechWarrior4 to make MWO work better just like Edison should have with the light bulb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Invented the Lightbulb?

It was Thomas Edison in 1879, wasn't it? That's what many people think and were taught in school. Like most stories, however, there is a lot more behind the creation of this important and ubiquitous object than just Mr. Edison..

The story of the lightbulb really starts almost seventy years earlier. In 1806 Humphrey Davy, an Englishman, demonstrated a powerful electric lamp to the Royal Society. Davy's lamp produced its illumination by creating a blinding electric spark between two charcoal rods. This device, known as an "arc lamp," was impractical for most uses. The light, similar to that of a welding torch, was simply too bright to be used in residences and most businesses. The device also needed a tremendous source of power and the batteries which powered Davy's demonstration model were quickly drained.

Edited by KahnWongFuChung, 30 October 2015 - 11:56 AM.

[Jon Gotham]

Davers, on 25 October 2015 - 07:35 PM, said:

When I am grinding Cbills I do. My performance in Clan mechs is much higher than in my IS mechs- I average about 400 points more damage per match in fact.

I would ask though, which of the two sets of tech are you more EFFICIENT in? My clan mechs average more damage by about 20-30% yet my Is mechs have way more kills/wins.......

MWO is all about position,mobility and EFFICIENT application of damage.

[Void Angel]

VoodooLou Kerensky, on 29 October 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

OK for 1 Clans unlike the Inner Sphere are purely military, while the Inner Sphere is a Aristocratic Feudal Society. Clanners dont pay for their Mechs, they are usually assigned a Mech they did best in and their load outs are based on a Mission by Mission Basis. The Inner Sphere Aristocracy OWN their Mechs (Yen Lo Wang?) and most of those have been passed down thru Generations. The Average Spheroid thinks ComStar Acolytes are Wizards or Divinely Powered, while the average Clan CHILD knows how to operate a HPG. Let that sink in a Second.....Yup thats right AT&T Went Religious and the Majority of the Population thinks they do Mystical things rather than using technology.
So to put it bluntly the IS are poor ignorant savages who think the Coke bottle that fell out of the sky is their God(s) showing their displeasure, while that 4 year old explains to Gran-ma how they got their Smart Phone to do that thing, and doesnt think its Magic.
You say I got what I paid for but I didnt. And yes if you notice all 3 of those Jaegers are Ac40 Jaegers but they fire 1 round each not 5 so they do all their damage to one spot, while my more superior weapon that just weighs a bit less and goes a bit further (as well as generate ghost heat unlike IS Ones (with the exception of the AC20) but spreads the damage all over my target, and the Clan Lasers which are supposed to be cooler [cut long diatribe for brevity]

No. On so many levels, and in so many ways, no. PGI told you up front that your Clantech newbie hammer was going to be nerfed into sanity parity with the Inner Sphere tech base. You knew that; they told you. PGI told you that they were going to differentiate Clantech and have it work differently from the Inner Sphere - by using burst-fire autocannons, as a specific example. You knew that; they told you. You knew exactly what you were getting when you plunked your money down! Any attempt to claim otherwise is simple dishonesty.

What's the issue, after all? Clans perform well in CW, even winning the first Battle of Tukayyid event. Who cares if stuff that's not compatible with the FPS format gets altered? Why stress if some things, like c-bills, are used for flavor, or ignored since they're outside the scope of the game? I mean, seriously, we were promised a shooter (and we got one) - not a LARP accessory! This isn't an RPG, and so there's no need to try and meticulously re-enact every aspect of the fictional universe's society. But you throw out a lot of angry invective about how the Inner Sphere "really" ran (you're wrong about it, but that's secondary,) effectively claiming that all of the sometimes contradictory BattleTech fiction - or at least the bits you like - somehow constitute a must-follow guide for everything in a shooter. Or about how the gameplay style is somehow bad, because Call of Duty - which I guess you've never played, 'cause it's only vaguely like this. Or how the "c-bills" we use as a free to play currency should be used as another LARP accessory instead - and how the Clans should be better and cost less, because Battletech novels and sidebar fluff... Could it be that the common thread in all these complaints is your wanting a Clan super-mech to re-enact your Mechwarrior fantasies, and now you're angry because your cheat mode is "only" roughly as good as the Inner Sphere?

VoodooLou Kerensky, on 29 October 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

But Im just talkin myself blue in the face. You know and Im just a Idiot who bought clan mechs that get beat on in the name of balancing.

Yep. I see that it is. "Balancing" is an epithet for you, but only when it takes away your childish dream - the fact that all the weapon quirks given to the Inner Sphere (just to get them competitive) are on the chopping block doesn't seem to even be on your radar.


You don't have a real grievance, here. Certainly not anything that entitles you to monetary compensation. You were told what you were getting; you paid your money; you got what you were told. You were even told that balance would be an ongoing thing! No amount of stamping your foot, waving the tabletop rulebook, or throwing battletech novels at people, or ranting about PGI daring to participate in the community of their own game changes any of that.

So no, you're not due a refund. Maybe a time-out...

[MischiefSC]

No, N0mad asked for actual stats. Smurfy stuff? I run TWs either with 4xCERMLs and 2xUACs when I want to farm cbills in pug queue, 6xcerml, 1xGauss when I'm driving wins or running group queue.

In either instance it's ~20% better than any 'really good' IS mech and miles ahead of any other IS mech. That's just in pug/group queue; in CW that advantage magnifies as you stack scrows, etc. etc.

For the same reasons that all the comp teams who play around in CW largely do so in Clan mechs, because it pays way better and is easier to win.

I get that you wanted an OP advantage. That's what a lot of people paid for, it's what they thought they were buying. All the comments from PGI to the contrary were largely ignored because, well, what PGI actually delivered was insanely bad balance and OP Clan stuff because that got them a lot of money.

Now it's time to actually try to make a balanced game that will survive a steam release. If you want to do better than everyone else you now have to actually get better at playing the game, not just counting on being able to buy OP stuff and count on players running easy to beat mechs.

[CainenEX]

KahnWongFuChung, on 30 October 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:

A parting thought: Thomas Edison didn't fail at making 99 light bulbs. He learned how not to make a light bulb 99 times before he found the 1 way to make it work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right Russ is like Thomas Edison he makes 99% mistakes lol.I would have been smarter and stole more ideas from past devs in MechWarrio2-MechWarrior4 to make MWO work better just like Edison should have with the light bulb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Invented the Lightbulb?

It was Thomas Edison in 1879, wasn't it? That's what many people think and were taught in school. Like most stories, however, there is a lot more behind the creation of this important and ubiquitous object than just Mr. Edison..

The story of the lightbulb really starts almost seventy years earlier. In 1806 Humphrey Davy, an Englishman, demonstrated a powerful electric lamp to the Royal Society. Davy's lamp produced its illumination by creating a blinding electric spark between two charcoal rods. This device, known as an "arc lamp," was impractical for most uses. The light, similar to that of a welding torch, was simply too bright to be used in residences and most businesses. The device also needed a tremendous source of power and the batteries which powered Davy's demonstration model were quickly drained.

i just looked up a few articles.
Edison was indeed one among many of the inventors of the incandescent bulb. He's also an ******* (never paid Tesla for his work). The quote is merely meant as a saying but perhaps I need to be more direct. Things take time to develop and get right (f2p is a hard route financially speaking). The game is finally moving in the right direction and these changes are coming for the better. MWO is working, despite (and I read up on this) rather poor communication from the developer at the start, and a publisher that detracked the initial product. Its been a good year and the need changes are being implemented and done right. PGI has had the community involved in the new PST and they are making leaps and bounds in the suggestions being mentioned. I mean they actually went with the whole "radar signature" idea. That wasn't even done in MW2-4 (you mentioned those games before, they had a lot of issues that I won't discuss, but were fun none the less).

Anyways this change is happening, this thread will eventually die, and the ragers here will ether move on or quit the game. Life goes on.

Cainen out!

Edited by CainenEX, 30 October 2015 - 03:29 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

CainenEX, on 30 October 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Coming from a background experience in making games 10vs12 is actually a headache. I'm not going to get into the coding side of things so lets go with the concept. You have the &quot;match maker&quot; now pooling 2 groups of players 1 clan and 1 IS.

So PSR needs to be calculated into the equation, plus tonnage. and the group slots need to fit. The same exact thing needs to happen on the IS side. However if a suitable match isn't found after say... 5 minutes the MM might loosen it's target PSR bracket and then group teams with a significant PSR difference together. Now the match maker has to group the appropriate PSR values of both the IS and the clan players together to achieve the best &quot;match&quot;. And again, if a suitable match isn't found after x minutes the MM has to loosen PSR group opposing teams together. So now the match gets launched.

(I left out how the players pool in 3 different categories twice &lt;regions and gamemodes&gt; so there are 9 MM pools the MM has to use)


So this system is very inefficient. We have the match maker froming groups twice, with each time calculating PSR, tonnage values, etc... Plus with 2 bottlenecks instead of 1 we'd have double the wait time for each region. This process is also much more taxing on the server hardware. Now with 3 server regions they'd have to make hardware changes 3 times, and high end server equipment ain't cheap.

In conclusion making this change is expensive (server equipment + coding changes), has players waiting longer (I don't find waiting fun), and still won't guarantee you a &quot;balanced&quot; match (due to how the MM will have to loosen the PSR brackets to get match making done at that point). This is why it's a bad idea.

If you feel so strongly about 10vs12 why don't you start a private match league of clan vs IS? Simply have clans be able to change their loadout and have IS stock only? It's an idea. If its popular then I'm sure it'll pick up and become big. If it turns out to be unpopular then thats ok too. You just discovered what doesn't work.

A parting thought: Thomas Edison didn't fail at making 99 light bulbs. He learned how not to make a light bulb 99 times before he found the 1 way to make it work.

So, now we agree that a 10 v 12 matchmaker is not impossible to implement, it is just "expensive".

[MischiefSC]

Ed Steele, on 30 October 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

So, now we agree that a 10 v 12 matchmaker is not impossible to implement, it is just "expensive".

It is viable in the same context that, say, introducing Power Rangers into the game is viable.

It's an incredibly bad idea. It's also more than 'expensive', it creates an inferior experience. Well, I guess it's not inferior if you want to play the OP mechs killing piles of scrubs. Just as a PvP MOBA design concept it's insanely terrible.

Nobody said 10 v 12 was 'impossible'. It's just not viable. Junking 90% of the games existing content and rebuilding it all from scratch with Dark Ages mechs and tech isn't 'impossible' either. It's just not viable.

[NocturnalBeast]

MischiefSC, on 30 October 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

It is viable in the same context that, say, introducing Power Rangers into the game is viable.

It's an incredibly bad idea. It's also more than 'expensive', it creates an inferior experience. Well, I guess it's not inferior if you want to play the OP mechs killing piles of scrubs. Just as a PvP MOBA design concept it's insanely terrible.

Nobody said 10 v 12 was 'impossible'. It's just not viable. Junking 90% of the games existing content and rebuilding it all from scratch with Dark Ages mechs and tech isn't 'impossible' either. It's just not viable.

Had typed a long reply, but I closed my browser accidentally before I hit Post and now I do not feel like retyping it. Anyway, to summarize what I was going to say:

-You are condescending

-Not a bad idea, it is "BATTLETECH"

-Not trying to make it viable is the same as giving up.

Ok, now I will actually go play the game for a while.

[Repasy Cooper]

Stormravin, on 30 October 2015 - 05:52 AM, said:

It seems to me that a viable way to make everyone happy is to do something that was mentioned earlier:

Allow CASE in a torso to make an IS XL engine survive that torso's destruction.

This makes an IS XL more palatable and opens up more versatile designs (making IS pilots happy). This is simple and increases survive-ability (which PGI wants). This helps offset the weight savings of an IS XL slightly and makes the IS use an extra slot per torso they want to survive, thus still giving Clans an advantage as lore dictates (keeping the proponents of Clan advantage happy).

This also works for the idea of what CASE is used for in lore, (shunting damage away from important parts of mechs) so the stretch would not break BT lore very much.

This has some interesting uses such as for a Hunchie, you could just have CASE in the torso that always gets blown off and not in the other. If the one without Case gets destroyed, than the mech is totaled, however if the one with case gets destroyed, you are still running.

I think this would be the simplest solution. No reason to over complicate things. Thoughts?

Disclaimer: I am mainly an Innersphere pilot who runs XLs on almost everything I own. I am also someone who grew up playing TT and reading all the books. I also love this game and have happily spent money on it and still feel like I have gotten waaay more than my money's worth.

There is one major flaw in this plan. Clan 'mechs automatically install case in every single omnipod, because according to rules it weights 0 tons and takes up 0 crit slots. Your 'solution' would in fact make Clan 'mechs more overpowered, as nothing short of CT or HD destruction would kill them. It would make them stronger.

Earlier in the thread I suggested implementing a crit system. I believe this is a far better solution, as it does not distort the intended role of any existing equipment in the game AND brings us closer to true tabletop rules.

[Valar13]

Skarlock, on 25 October 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

The reason why it works that way is because of the weirdness in how PGI translated the table top rules to this game. Long story short, when 3 critical slots of "engine" are destroyed for any type of engine, the mech is destroyed. So naturally the clan xl which is smaller and only takes up 2 crit slots in the side torso, can withstand having a side torso destroyed. An inner sphere XL engine takes up 3 crit slots in the side torso, thus if that side torso is destroyed, the mech is now destroyed because it has had 3 engine crit slots destroyed. The thing is, there are no engine crits in this game. You can destroy engine heat sinks, but if you blast someone CT and crit them every single shot, you will never actually crit out their CT engine slots, ever. I believe they did this to increase time to kill, as it would be rather short if you could just instantly die after having your CT opened up with just a few lucky crits, but you still have tons of internal structure left. So as it is, this is kind of an awkward side effect of having a smaller XL engine.

People should also keep in mind that PGIs current main concern is to increase time to kill. They want to get rid of or tone down weapon quirks where they can, and make it so that people don't die as fast. I don't think having crippling side effects that will quickly result in a mechs destruction after it loses a side torso such as big movement penalties, or agility penalties will fly. On the one hand, giving IS side torso survivability will give IS a nice chunk of tonnage to work with, and have some very interesting applications to existing builds. This has a nasty side effect though, in that all the super quirked mechs on the IS side that can actually take advantage of their new survivability, increased speed, and extra free tonnage will get much, much stronger, whereas everything else that can't will get much weaker because they will be left behind in terms of speed and firepower. If PGI goes the route of IS xl survivability, they should really look long and hard at the uberquirked IS mechs and make sure they are toned down appropriately.

That's a really easy fix, though. Just modify the crit chance so that CT crits have a low probability whereas ST crits have a higher probability. Bam, Clams balanced.

[MischiefSC]

Ed Steele, on 30 October 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

Had typed a long reply, but I closed my browser accidentally before I hit Post and now I do not feel like retyping it. Anyway, to summarize what I was going to say:

-You are condescending

-Not a bad idea, it is "BATTLETECH"

-Not trying to make it viable is the same as giving up.

Ok, now I will actually go play the game for a while.

Waiting for match, so I have time to type.

Battletech would be if it was a wargame and we were not each playing 1 mech but were each playing a lance or more of mechs or mixed mechs and vehicles - in which case balance by numbers doesn't matter. Since that's not the game we're playing but in fact a FPS MOBA where we each play one mech balance by numbers is bad and won't work as it creates a ladder where you progress to playing the OP mechs against newbie scrubs in inferior mechs.... which lasts only as long as you've got a steady supply of people willing to play redshirts being mowed down.

We've had this debate a ton of times. We can't even get Elo to work because people care about KDR more than win/loss and you want a system where one side is always going to die more often than the other?

WIll never and would never work.

[VoodooLou Kerensky]

Well if you hadnt listened to those nice religious fellows of ComStar....They didnt fight for **** and I KNOW they have 50 Mech Regiments. And it was bid and well met Thats 2 to 1 odds quiaff? Id be happy seriously with weapons being the exact same in stats and different in color. same firing characteristics (so no multiple round clan AC's, and how about a solid and scatter shot lbx's? And you know as well as I that with even 50 maps...notice on HPG that sounds muted but thats because its supposed to be airless and we dont hear the report, its the mechanism of firing we hear, sound cant travel in vacuum thats what air less means. And if Clanners wouldve been smart they'd have used old star charts and the intel from jaime and natasha.
And what does Electric Light Orchestra have to do with Kill/Death Ratio. Yeah As background music I can kinda see it. And yeah 1-4 in MechWarrior Series all had their faults and goofs (Yeah the Scats and Scrows and Ele's in 3 were train wrecks, and the DFA/Suicide kills in MW2 were just one of many foibles; but they all had that one thing going for them...US.
Yeah Community Warfare wouldnt exist without us the Players, the junkies the fools. Activision gave us multiplayer variables and changes (Gravity, temp,atmosphere compositions) and we gave them maps and Ladders and Leagues that made up the conditions for each system and battles for planets could take all week to get coordinated and agree'd upon even before any body got drops set up. We the Community controlled the Warfare the Developers just gave us the tools. Here we are the tools that mold the map according to an algorithm (whos really this poor intern they got locked in a closet) that chooses what planets we attack that on increases the size of someones e-peen Im sure. And while the maps in CW slightly change they are all pretty much 1 gravity and the same thing over and over and even with all those extra maps league play couldnt help but to have some copy's 3110 separate systems to put out for ppl to play on to represent the lore. And dont get me wrong I think there is alot they have gotten right and truely and honestly if the weapons only differences was a C infront of Clans or IS in front of Inner Sphere Im totally fine with that. Give the mechs quirks, but dont tell US and dont make them silly stupid effective but enough so that it can be 'discovered' (since the Devs will never tell what the quirks are for the mechs or if they even have them it will take the Community effort to compile data and that would be Information Warfare.) and open up the private lobbies to have the full gamut of options to the player after a year or 500 matches which ever comes 1st so people can practice. If I didnt give a damn about the game I wouldnt be here still

[Domenoth]

Ed Steele, on 30 October 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

-Not trying to make it viable is the same as giving up.

What MischiefSC has been trying to convey to you is that the reason it isn't viable is because of human nature alone. How in the hell is PGI supposed to change human nature? Are you seriously going to fault them for saying "no" to refactoring the human race? Seems a bit out of scope for a small software company.

Now I'm betting you still don't believe. So here's the proof that convinced me. Look at the light queue. As of about an hour ago, it was 17%. You can easily see the parallels between it and what you want for IS in the 10 v 12 scenario. You want the 12 IS Mechs to each have less firepower and die quicker than each of the 10 Clan Mechs. That's very nearly a perfect description of what most light Mechs in this game are. So only 17% of those waiting for a game are willing to put up with that and with my sampling during this event, more than 50% of them are in Arctic Cheetahs which aren't anywhere near a typical light.

So you want 1/2 of the game to depend on a population size that's predicted to be about 1/2 of 17%? You really think PGI can pull that off just by "trying harder"?

Feel free to dream but I would much rather they don't head down a path that I'm extremely confident will just end up completely ruining the game in very short order. I do not want a game where everyone is Clan. I do not want a game where everyone pilots the exact same Mech with the exact same weapons as everyone else (which is why I have high hopes for the rebalance). What you are suggesting will erase the Inner Sphere (1/2 of 17%) so I am vehemently against it.

And before you bring it up, no I do not think enough die-hard Inner Sphere people will rally and save the factions. If Inner Sphere die-hards have to carry a team of 8+ newbs who can't afford Clan tech every match of every day, they will turn Clan too or just leave (every penny of my money is on them "just leaving").

And then we're left with everyone being Clan which will make me leave.

[NocturnalBeast]

Domenoth, on 31 October 2015 - 09:21 PM, said:

What MischiefSC has been trying to convey to you is that the reason it isn't viable is because of human nature alone. How in the hell is PGI supposed to change human nature? Are you seriously going to fault them for saying "no" to refactoring the human race? Seems a bit out of scope for a small software company.

Now I'm betting you still don't believe. So here's the proof that convinced me. Look at the light queue. As of about an hour ago, it was 17%. You can easily see the parallels between it and what you want for IS in the 10 v 12 scenario. You want the 12 IS Mechs to each have less firepower and die quicker than each of the 10 Clan Mechs. That's very nearly a perfect description of what most light Mechs in this game are. So only 17% of those waiting for a game are willing to put up with that and with my sampling during this event, more than 50% of them are in Arctic Cheetahs which aren't anywhere near a typical light.

So you want 1/2 of the game to depend on a population size that's predicted to be about 1/2 of 17%? You really think PGI can pull that off just by "trying harder"?

Feel free to dream but I would much rather they don't head down a path that I'm extremely confident will just end up completely ruining the game in very short order. I do not want a game where everyone is Clan. I do not want a game where everyone pilots the exact same Mech with the exact same weapons as everyone else (which is why I have high hopes for the rebalance). What you are suggesting will erase the Inner Sphere (1/2 of 17%) so I am vehemently against it.

And before you bring it up, no I do not think enough die-hard Inner Sphere people will rally and save the factions. If Inner Sphere die-hards have to carry a team of 8+ newbs who can't afford Clan tech every match of every day, they will turn Clan too or just leave (every penny of my money is on them "just leaving").

And then we're left with everyone being Clan which will make me leave.

Yes, people are so disappointing. I will just stick with my IS mechs for now and soon we will have a real BATTLETECH game where the devs were wise enough to keep it in the pre-clan era. Yes, I know, PGI did not have access to the unseen cash cows a year ago, so they chose to go with the Clans and now we are stuck with Clan mechs that are pale shadows of what they should be and are going to be nerfed even more. In fact, soon PGI will be uber-quirking the clan mechs since they will be so weak and it will be back and forth.

[Void Angel]

You keep on saying "BATTLETECH" when you mean, "simulation tabletop." It's very disconcerting.

I mean, you did know it wasn't going to be tabletop when you started playing the game.

Edited by Void Angel, 01 November 2015 - 10:32 PM.

[CoffiNail]

Pgi is putting shielding on a tie fighter to balance it out with rebel x wings...

[Kin3ticX]

Upquirking an IS mech is the political easyrode compared with actually balancing the game. Quirks could have worked better but its such a big power gap to fill that it made such large quirks necessary. The problem is large quirks and over-quirking warps the interrelationship between IS mechs.

You can see some of the nasty tweets Russ gets from people such as the OP. In a situation where PGI makes the right choice, they can be flooded with non constructive criticsm and refund threats. Russ using twitter is one of PGI's failings as it makes more and more players think they have to use twitter to get privileged access to PGI. It also bypasses the entirety of PGI's employees that are responsible and perhaps higher qualified in their own areas for some of this stuff.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 02 November 2015 - 06:14 AM.