107 replies to this topic

[Dawnstealer]

goatreich, on 06 January 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

Because 3x Timberwolves + Artic cheater. Or in IS case, Lolcust and 3 Heavies/assaults.

I guess, but why do that when you could take four Thuds? I mean, if you wanted to take King Crabs or whatever, sure.

[Nightbird]

Makes sense since heavy mechs are far more popular overall than other classes, and lights are least popular. The average heavy weight is 67.5 tons or 270 tons for 4. This will allow CW mech class rates to be the same as the pub drops, which means most players can enjoy having more of the mechs they enjoy piloting and fewer of the ones they don't. It also helps that all the recent packs on sale are heavy mechs.

[S C A R]

Russ, why do you hate Clans? Have youa actually dropped against teams pushing in 12 Assults. Not only they wipe out the first wave but they also push in the drop zone and clean the 2nd wave. You are selling the product and you don't know what you are selling. So many players offered really good solutions.

[Padillac]

You guys are a joke. This "solution" is a joke.

You should have never taken on a MechWarrior title, because you have no idea what you are doing. What's astonishing is that people still give you money despite your very poor customer service and very poor business decisions.

I have never seen a company that is so opinionated and ugly to their customer-base as you guys are. You have the audacity to shame and poo-poo people on the internet because they like the Clans? What the hell is your problem? These are paying customers! Any savvy business person knows this is very poor PR. Shame on you!

Seriously though, what kind of company sells a product and then belittles their customers on the forums for wanting to purchase said product. Or for having a difference of opinion.

"Clans are the worst thing to happen to Battletech/Mechwarrior," that's debatable, and shame on you for making people regret purchasing Clan tech. You got your money, now give us balanced content. Quit complaining about people stuffing your pockets with cash with the hope that you'll do the right thing. If you didn't want to include the Clans then you shouldn't have taken on a Mechwarrior title. It just goes to show how little you know about the Battletech universe, and supports my claim stated above.

"PGI is the worst thing to happen to Mechwarrior," most people would agree here. Every Mechwarrior title has been exceptional, until now.

Just a bit of advice, the Battletech/Mechwarrior universe isn't going anywhere, your company on the other hand is running out of time. Exploiting people's nostalgia and dedication for all things Battletech/Mechwarrior will only carry you so far, and you have reached your limit with me.

Also, you're welcome for all my money and support, sadly I wish I could take it all back now. Most of my friends stopped playing MWO months ago because of your empty promises and your shallow attitude towards the customers. I think it's time for the rest of us to move on too.

Edited by Dackron, 06 January 2016 - 04:01 PM.

[S C A R]

People need to get together and show Russ and PGI who is the boss. Russ is the worst thing that happen to Battletech. Full stop. I've never seen the person who cared so little about the product or the customers.

[MovinTarget]

Okay the hate is getting a little thick here...

I agree that the tonnage tweaking has been going the wrong direction:

1) if you want to pull the lore angle, assaults and heavies are a far rarer sight on the battlefield than lights and mediums.

2) a drop deck of 4 heavies has all the elegance of a jackhammer. And creativity of a block of stone.

If you want this to be "a thinking man's shooter" scale back tonnage to 240 ON BOTH SIDES, let it run for a month and see if all the balancing done in December even makes a diff. If the is some huge balance disparity, REDUCE DON'T INCREASE tonnage by 5-10 tons.

If it is clans, then it would even equate to their bidding model in BT...

[Gunner Kisiel]

Cool, Even Tonnage. I fail to see why even tonnage in CW is a negative thing. Try it on for for a while, you might even like it.

The whole, "If PGI did this it must be evil/bad/wrong" is getting tired. The more we cry wolf over everything the less likely it is that when there is a serious need; that the community wants fixed, it will be listened to.

[Scaredycrow]

MovinTarget, on 06 January 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

Okay the hate is getting a little thick here...

I agree that the tonnage tweaking has been going the wrong direction:

1) if you want to pull the lore angle, assaults and heavies are a far rarer sight on the battlefield than lights and mediums.

2) a drop deck of 4 heavies has all the elegance of a jackhammer. And creativity of a block of stone.

If you want this to be "a thinking man's shooter" scale back tonnage to 240 ON BOTH SIDES, let it run for a month and see if all the balancing done in December even makes a diff. If the is some huge balance disparity, REDUCE DON'T INCREASE tonnage by 5-10 tons.

If it is clans, then it would even equate to their bidding model in BT...

There's a good balance / lore / play-ability point here. In the "real" (battletech) universe, you just didn't see battles of assaults v assaults only. Fair enough to counter that with you also didn't see pilots re-spawning in a new mech after dying

The point I'd make, for what it might be worth, is that we don't need changes to the drop tonnage of individuals, we need changes to the drop tonnages of TEAMS.

Currently we get 260 tonne each, with 12 per team. That's 3120 tonne total for each team. If you *begun* to balance this by dropping the team tonnage allowance in increments (start with 10t?) you could disrupt the meta. You encourage (force) some parts of the team to be below the individual tonnage limit and prevent silly things like a drop of 48 T-Bolts..

In doing this you make space for players to be individuals in a team setting. Good a lights? There's a team benefit to you bringing a couple.

As for Clan vs IS: Why not add incentives for clans to drop with less weight or even less numbers? This brings a sense of the bidding from the lore into the game play but doesn't force anyone (especially new players) to do so.

For me whats missing from the entire balance debate is a definition of "balanced". From one perspective its balanced; The better organised team in a 12 v 12 match wins, with minor (seriously) offsets for clan vs IS that could equally be argued as strategic / initiative differences.

But balance can mean so much more! For me "balance" should include a *more* well rounded tactical setup of teams.

Bringing 12 assaults to a push *should* be a bad idea, tactically. In CW I don't see that being achieved until invading teams have something to lose, which would likely be a disruption to their command post / supply lines. It gets pretty complicated at this point, but I don't see why this cant be the end-goal.

Edited by Scaredycrow, 06 January 2016 - 04:37 PM.

[MovinTarget]

I mean seriously, how many times in the BT universe did 12 Atlases rise up and move as one? Oh and BTW after those 12 are wiped, we will drop in 12 more!

I know lore can't rule all, but come on, this is redonkulous!

How about rank influencing your tonnage cap?

Scrub level ones can bring 3 lights and a med (i.e. 160 -180 tons).

By level 10 you can pull 240 tons.

If you change faction, you tonnage is based on you level in the new faction.

Yes we'd need a way to balance a bunch of scrubs vs vets but this would also keep people faction hopping so much...

It would give us something to work towards instead of just cookies...

[StonedVet]

IMO the main problem I'm seeing is the pathetic routes teams must attack through to get to objectives. Because you know, funneling an attack through an alley wide enough for 4 mechs against firing lines of entire teams screams best planning ever in a war situation. I'm sure maps are going to be tweaked but for now they are a defenders wet dream. More I could type but I'm on my kobo lol

[Zolaz]

Everyone should just calm down ... minimally viable product and developer. You should all just lower your expectations. PGI has shown its track record with its past performance these last 3 years.

[MovinTarget]

We have to walk a fine line between a game that is played between 24 high caliber players, 24 poo flinging monkeys, and everything in between.

That is a real challenge that I don't blame on the devs. Population just can't support segregation by skill level...

[MovinTarget]

Zolaz, on 06 January 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

Everyone should just calm down ... minimally viable product and developer. You should all just lower your expectations. PGI has shown its track record with its past performance these last 3 years.

Have there bumps in the past 3 years? Yes, but come on, they are not that bad. It's funny how people praise them one moment for the training academy and this and that, but as soon as there is some mister it is all forgotten.

Some think their attempt to rebalance last fall was a fail. I saw a company that realized it could not make a fair try at rebalancing w/o our input and while there were some busts in the ideas, did they listen when something was broken? Yes. Did they push horrible changes on us just because? No.

Above all else, I don't care what else you say about pgi but their customer service has always been top notch for me and others I know.

[Void Angel]

Nightnova, on 05 January 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

OH yay more tonnage... http://static.mwomercs.com/forums//public/style_emoticons/default/sleep.png nope, more tonnage will not help what you've done. wake up PGI, the mercs are trying to prove a point to you. just because clan wolf took Tukkayyid doesn't mean you nerf clan weapons/mechs. Just because you're giving us more tonnage to play with will not help us take planets when we're outnumbered.

I've said it before on other posts and in email to you all, if you want to balance the game let everyone run clan weapons/tech. make it cost more for IS just like all the other games before this one.

Actually, most merc units swap around on a rotation - this is just normal behavior, not a grand conspiracy designed to support an opinion.  That being said, I feel like there may have been too much of an aggregate nerfing to the Clans - but I'm not sure.  Needs time to test counterbuilds and the like.  Most of the loudly complaining players didn't take that time, and as a result I cannot take their complaints at face value.

There are clear facts about the current iteration of faction balance: the Clans' heat sink changes were a clear nerf to meta gameplay, lowering the number of successive alphas before overheat; their laser ranges have been reduced from what they once were; and the Inner Sphere's underperforming chassis recieved significant buffs, many of them via internal structure quirks, while their top performers were nerfed.  Additionally, while the Gauss Nerf affected both faction's version of that weapon, the Clans made far more use of its low-heat damage via the Gauss/Laser vomit meta.  All of these changes are small on their own, but synergize with each other.

There are two claims that can be made from these facts: the imbalance claim is that the synergistic effect of these changes have rendered the Clans unable to sufficiently damage incoming Inner Sphere 'mechs before those 'mechs close to brawling range and rip the Adjective Animals a new smile with heat-efficient, punch-damage brawling weapons - particularly with LRM boats making a resurgence and being used to suppress Clan firing lines.  The counter-claim is that while the old meta may not be viable, the Clans do have effective - if seldom-used - brawling builds available to them, and it is their unwillingness to abandon the meta and move on (even to the extent of slapping AMS on their chassis)  - along with the shifting of most big units to the Inner Sphere (often on regular rotations) - that is causing them to get rofflepwned in CW.

I've not done enough CW yet to form an opinion on which of those statements is more correct - but my Ebon Jaguars are almost skilled up.  We'll have to see.
PS making Clantech more expensive will not solve the balance issues, it simply ignores it.  The devs have said from day one of the announcement of the Clan Invasion that they don't want Clantech to be clearly superior; to be a tier grind instead of an alternative.  If you "solve" balance by just letting everyone use Clan tech, you've punished everyone who bought Inner Sphere technology, and just thrown up your hands on the issue of balance.

Edited by Void Angel, 06 January 2016 - 06:17 PM.

[Nightbird]

How about bonus c-bills for not used tonnage? If you only use half your tonnage, you get a 50% c-bill bonus for the drop.

[Nightshade24]

Fobhopper, on 05 January 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

Screw the Kodiak, I want the Supernova. And while it would be way ahead of its time, the Arbalest.....as well as Clan Nova Cat to be in the game already. Thats not too much to ask for is it? (okay, asking for the arbalest would be much, but the other 2 would certainly be doable).

Nova cat is out of timeline and Supernovas only advantages over the kodiak is having ER large laser quirks (yea... if like PGI will ever give decent quirks to clans) and [possible conversion from 3050's late design to 'modernised', like hunchback IIC's] but even here the Kodiak can have possibly a total of 6 missile hardpoints as well as a bare minimal of 4 energy and 1 ballistic...
Kodiaks also got JJ on some variants and can mount an XL 400... on top of that but there is a large significant value of the Kodiak and it is an icon of Ghost Bear.

Kodiak is also a very popular mech... many people want it... 2nd in line is the Behemoth.

Steve Pryde, on 05 January 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

We need no new clan mechs, we have many clan mechs that no one is playing cause of stupid omnimech restrictions and/or lacking hardpoints.

I blame lack of quirk consideration than omnimech restrictions and such. For eg more people would play the summoner prime if it's ER PPC had quriked to do no splash and 15 damage... being an example of what quirks could do to help.

Nightnova, on 05 January 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

OH yay more tonnage... nope, more tonnage will not help what you've done. wake up PGI, the mercs are trying to prove a point to you. just because clan wolf took Tukkayyid doesn't mean you nerf clan weapons/mechs. Just because you're giving us more tonnage to play with will not help us take planets when we're outnumbered.

I've said it before on other posts and in email to you all, if you want to balance the game let everyone run clan weapons/tech. make it cost more for IS just like all the other games before this one.

I just want to wait till it's 400 tons and than start running about with 4 direwolfs.

[Polkastein]

Remember these? They need to be adjusted every week based on population.

http://mwomercs.com/...to-all-factions

[MovinTarget]

ironnightbird, on 06 January 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

How about bonus c-bills for not used tonnage? If you only use half your tonnage, you get a 50% c-bill bonus for the drop.

That would work is both sides do it. There are times when teams drop not to make $$$ but to capture worlds. So they always attack at full tonnage against teams where players are bring only 50% of their tonnage cap? That could go horrifically bad for the the rest of the team just because a few guys are trying to be slick....

I would be in favor of having a fixed light slot and 200 tons for the other 3 mechs. That could be 2 med and an assault, 3 heavy, etc... but you'D always have one light.

If I were daring i'd say screw weight and just give us fix slots that have to be a certain weight class. So maybe you drop deck has to be a light, 2 med and a heavy.

Yes there could still be meta decks but I feel like this would at least create more varied scenarios in-game...

[tangles 253]

Nightnova, on 05 January 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

OH yay more tonnage... nope, more tonnage will not help what you've done. wake up PGI, the mercs are trying to prove a point to you. just because clan wolf took Tukkayyid doesn't mean you nerf clan weapons/mechs. Just because you're giving us more tonnage to play with will not help us take planets when we're outnumbered.

I've said it before on other posts and in email to you all, if you want to balance the game let everyone run clan weapons/tech. make it cost more for IS just like all the other games before this one.

Nope, that would be a bad move letting is fit clan tech.

[Scooter Libby]

+1 in favour of drop tonnage per team rather than per player.

If i am more skilled in a medium than an assault (which i am), i should be able to hand off that unused tonnage to a team-mate who can better use it, rather than just offering the opposing team an advantage.

As it is now, i don't feel like i am hauling my weight with the team if i'm not maxing out my tonnage. This forces one playstyle at the expense of strategy and team coordination.

Also +1 for drop tonnage varying per planet (perhaps inversely proportional to distance from homeworld, so that resistance steps up the deeper you penetrate into hostile territory)