Since I have a TBR or a Hellbringer or played some clan trial mechs I noticed: these mechs are not that good as i would expect.
They are not bad for sure, but when I think of my tweaked, quirked catapults, hunchbacks, thunderbolts or stalkers ... well the clan mechs dont feel that superior like I would expect them to feel, lore wise.
I think IS mechs should feel slightly worse compare to clans. The quirks are to positive for IS lorewise.
In PUG play the matchmaking should balance by trying to level amount of clan/is mechs in same ratio per team.
In faction play however a kind of bidding could be introduced for clan players.
When the clan mechs would be lore wise better, the drop deck tonnage could be used for bidding.
When the IS player gets a 250t limit, a clan player will have also a limit of lets say 230t.
But because now he has lorewise superior mechs, he gets a huge reward nerf.
Lets say as example 230t clan tech vs 250t is tech means clan reward is only 50%.
200t clan drop deck vs 250t is drop deck could mean clan player gets 75% reward, or battle incentives.
To get the same reward for similar battle performance of a IS player in its nonquirked IS mech the clan player would have to start with a 170t dropdeck.
That could encourage to gain a balance by the players itself.
Of course I know that with a better dropdeck you get usually a better performance, so maybe these values would have be need to tested and tweaked...
But couldn't this approach make the game feel lorewise better and wouldn't it break the dominance of some overhyped mechs in faction play?
It's a pity that diversity is hindered by thunderbolt or tbr boating...
0
Another Clan Is Balance By Bidding Solution
Started by aGentleWarrior, Dec 18 2015 02:17 AM
8 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 18 December 2015 - 02:17 AM
#2
Posted 31 December 2015 - 11:12 AM
It works but PGI and most of the cry babies (on both sides) want clan and IS mechs to be equal, despite the fact that clan are suppose to be 200 years more advanced. That is like saying you want the Mayans to have be equal to the Europeans when Europe was exploring(exploiting) the Americas.
#3
Posted 12 February 2016 - 03:12 PM
Avarice1of2, on 31 December 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:
It works but PGI and most of the cry babies (on both sides) want clan and IS mechs to be equal, despite the fact that clan are suppose to be 200 years more advanced. That is like saying you want the Mayans to have be equal to the Europeans when Europe was exploring(exploiting) the Americas.
Agree with this. Too many voices screaming the other way. The concept would bring in a fantastic level of dynamics though as you might not know what your clan opponent might be bringing!
#4
Posted 13 February 2016 - 04:51 AM
Sadly I have to shoot down that beautiful balloon
PGI said they didnt want asymetrical games ... too hard to balance .
PGI never thought about any kind of "honor system" for Clan pilots to adhere to .
PGI listens to Twitter too much instead of these here forums or a trusted group (no, not you HoL ) of internal testers .
Let it be known that I and many others were in favour of 10 clan vs. 12 IS pilots, but we got ignored and swamped in whiteknights, hence my reversal to the 12 vs 12 format which leaves us all ultimately with straight balance over all the mechs instead of the dreaded "asymetrical balancing" .
P.S.: Forget the lore in this here game, please, it is nothing but a far away myth, never to be seen, rarely to be related to and never to be used as reason or base of argumentation .
PGI said they didnt want asymetrical games ... too hard to balance .
PGI never thought about any kind of "honor system" for Clan pilots to adhere to .
PGI listens to Twitter too much instead of these here forums or a trusted group (no, not you HoL ) of internal testers .
Let it be known that I and many others were in favour of 10 clan vs. 12 IS pilots, but we got ignored and swamped in whiteknights, hence my reversal to the 12 vs 12 format which leaves us all ultimately with straight balance over all the mechs instead of the dreaded "asymetrical balancing" .
P.S.: Forget the lore in this here game, please, it is nothing but a far away myth, never to be seen, rarely to be related to and never to be used as reason or base of argumentation .
#5
Posted 13 February 2016 - 04:53 AM
anything PGI does to balance this game is futile.
the main problem lies in the playerbase.
trying to teach players how to play CW is futile, i just gave it another shot. 6 of 12 just dont want to understand how maps/modes work.
they dont know/want to understand how teamwork works.
you try to coordinate drops. fails massively since half of the pugs still does what they want and fk up the team and play solo.
i would leave everything as it is for a longer time than just 2 months and see how it works out since apart from a few mechs (blackjacks/energy quirks on some mechs) everything is in nice balance.
the players tho just dont want to adapt and never will.
i can only state it again: the problem lies in the playerbase and their egoistical approach. not in the game or mechs.
the main problem lies in the playerbase.
trying to teach players how to play CW is futile, i just gave it another shot. 6 of 12 just dont want to understand how maps/modes work.
they dont know/want to understand how teamwork works.
you try to coordinate drops. fails massively since half of the pugs still does what they want and fk up the team and play solo.
i would leave everything as it is for a longer time than just 2 months and see how it works out since apart from a few mechs (blackjacks/energy quirks on some mechs) everything is in nice balance.
the players tho just dont want to adapt and never will.
i can only state it again: the problem lies in the playerbase and their egoistical approach. not in the game or mechs.
#6
Posted 15 February 2016 - 05:51 AM
Let´s agree on 50% game, 50% playerbase stupidity, Alienized ?
Be fair to both parties and such .... pffffff, gniihiihihihihii
Be fair to both parties and such .... pffffff, gniihiihihihihii
#7
Posted 15 February 2016 - 06:18 AM
OP et al,
I think a lot of us would love to have the asymmetric clan v IS warfare that BT lore dictates. My understanding however, was that PGI decided not to go this route for a variety of reasons other than just 12 v 12 would be "easier to balance". Back in 2014 I believe there were several developer vlogs (I am sure they can still be found via a simple google search, etc.) wherein they discussed these issues. My recollection was that it really boiled down to a few key problems namely population imbalance resulting from one side always having "better" tech.
I for one would like more lore in the game (I have repeatedly suggested using modifiers to give each mech character based on the lore descriptions, etc.) but I believe the idea of asymmetric warfare between clans and IS is a ship that sailed long ago and will not be considered by PGI for a host of reasons, which they have articulated over the years (I may not like it...but there it is).
As to your bidding proposal, alas, there is no motivation to go this route. Pgi has spent way to much effort in trying to equally balance the factions' mechs (for good or ill) for them to suddenly shift course and give clans distinct advantages such that its players would ever willingly give up tonnage.
I think a lot of us would love to have the asymmetric clan v IS warfare that BT lore dictates. My understanding however, was that PGI decided not to go this route for a variety of reasons other than just 12 v 12 would be "easier to balance". Back in 2014 I believe there were several developer vlogs (I am sure they can still be found via a simple google search, etc.) wherein they discussed these issues. My recollection was that it really boiled down to a few key problems namely population imbalance resulting from one side always having "better" tech.
I for one would like more lore in the game (I have repeatedly suggested using modifiers to give each mech character based on the lore descriptions, etc.) but I believe the idea of asymmetric warfare between clans and IS is a ship that sailed long ago and will not be considered by PGI for a host of reasons, which they have articulated over the years (I may not like it...but there it is).
As to your bidding proposal, alas, there is no motivation to go this route. Pgi has spent way to much effort in trying to equally balance the factions' mechs (for good or ill) for them to suddenly shift course and give clans distinct advantages such that its players would ever willingly give up tonnage.
#8
Posted 15 February 2016 - 07:09 AM
Bud,
And yet this current Nerf is going to make clan mechs objectively better in all areas.
And yet this current Nerf is going to make clan mechs objectively better in all areas.
#9
Posted 17 February 2016 - 07:01 AM
I'm an inner sphere pilot but I still feel strongly that the clan mech engine restriction is total rubbish. You guys should be able to change your engines even if you have to stick to XLs. That alone is enough to bring the mechs back in line with lore. Forget about nerfing over all the IS quirks, ticking off all the people who bought specific mechs for their quirks.
But I still think something is broken with the arctic cheetah, it takes as many hits as a medium to kill.
But I still think something is broken with the arctic cheetah, it takes as many hits as a medium to kill.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users