555 replies to this topic

[kapusta11]

Deathlike, on 31 March 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

You're treating it like we can control people like it was Starcraft. It's not 1 person controlling an army of mechs... it's 12 individual players working as a team.

Yeah, but if you had a choice to play one unit you'd probably picked Battlecruiser over marine.

[Deathlike]

kapusta11, on 31 March 2016 - 12:52 AM, said:

Yeah, but if you had a choice to play one unit you'd probably picked Battlecruiser over marine.

Construct additional pylons.

[MischiefSC]

kapusta11, on 31 March 2016 - 12:52 AM, said:

Yeah, but if you had a choice to play one unit you'd probably picked Battlecruiser over marine.

Pfft. If you were not all SO SELFISH you would all play Zerglings so the guy playing the Battlecruiser could wipe the floor with you until he ran out of energy and was finally brought down, after a thousand kills, by the endless horde of his foes.

WHICH IS TOTALLY LORE.

And everyone would *line up* to play that way if people would just make it an option, because why wouldn't they want to just play endlessly respawning and dying Zerglings instead of the Battlecruiser?

Oh, wait. Most people recognize immediately what an absolute crap game that would be for everyone but the Battlecruiser to have to play all the time... except the guy who really, really wants to be the Battlecruiser, so he can pretend he averages 5k kills per 'match' because of his l33t skillz.

People hated the Clans because of the guy who whined and cried that nobody would play him because he was so amazing - which meant he was playing a LPL-boating Warhawk or Daishi and would only play if it was against 'an equal BV' worth of IS non-mixed-tech mechs, no vehicles or infantry.

Because what he wanted was to play something totally broke as **** OP, stacked heavily in his favor, and pretend it was his amazing skills and not broken mechanics that made him likely to win. Even when guys like that lost it was always 'Yeah, but I killed 3 of you before I went down!'

Yes, of course you did, you ******* munchkin failbucket, the game mechanics were stacked in your favor.

That's why there will never, ever, at any point, EVER, in MW:O or any other Battletech FPS game, be asymetric 'lore' (which, again, just to repeat, the game developers ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF 1 TO 1) tech balance.

Because it was **** in tabletop and it's 10x as much absolute **** in a FPS PvP game.

Oh, and because all the people in favor of it keep totally ignoring this -

The games developer ABANDONED OP Clan tech in favor of 1 to 1 tech balance with IS. The whole OP Clanners thing was thrown in the trash along with all the other garbage in favor of 1 to 1 balance in tabletop as well.

[H I A S]

So the Forum still bitching for OP-Clamz?

[Lugh]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 30 March 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

So with asymmetrical balance what they you think will choose.


Most of you guys are simply brain dead and can`t take simple conception, still not getting that asymmetrical balance would be balanced, not like this symmetrical unbalance crap that we have now.


Not sure why you all talking about 10v12, the right number for asymmetrical balance is 10v16.

Because they are as bad at math as the developers are...

[Lugh]

MischiefSC, on 31 March 2016 - 03:17 AM, said:

Pfft. If you were not all SO SELFISH you would all play Zerglings so the guy playing the Battlecruiser could wipe the floor with you until he ran out of energy and was finally brought down, after a thousand kills, by the endless horde of his foes.

WHICH IS TOTALLY LORE.

And everyone would *line up* to play that way if people would just make it an option, because why wouldn't they want to just play endlessly respawning and dying Zerglings instead of the Battlecruiser?

Oh, wait. Most people recognize immediately what an absolute crap game that would be for everyone but the Battlecruiser to have to play all the time... except the guy who really, really wants to be the Battlecruiser, so he can pretend he averages 5k kills per 'match' because of his l33t skillz.

People hated the Clans because of the guy who whined and cried that nobody would play him because he was so amazing - which meant he was playing a LPL-boating Warhawk or Daishi and would only play if it was against 'an equal BV' worth of IS non-mixed-tech mechs, no vehicles or infantry.

Because what he wanted was to play something totally broke as **** OP, stacked heavily in his favor, and pretend it was his amazing skills and not broken mechanics that made him likely to win. Even when guys like that lost it was always 'Yeah, but I killed 3 of you before I went down!'

Yes, of course you did, you ******* munchkin failbucket, the game mechanics were stacked in your favor.

That's why there will never, ever, at any point, EVER, in MW:O or any other Battletech FPS game, be asymetric 'lore' (which, again, just to repeat, the game developers ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF 1 TO 1) tech balance.

Because it was **** in tabletop and it's 10x as much absolute **** in a FPS PvP game.

Oh, and because all the people in favor of it keep totally ignoring this -

The games developer ABANDONED OP Clan tech in favor of 1 to 1 tech balance with IS. The whole OP Clanners thing was thrown in the trash along with all the other garbage in favor of 1 to 1 balance in tabletop as well.

No. No it wasn't.

And there are plenty of interesting Asymmetrical balancing flavors available in the table top as well. Hell if you REALLY wanted to you could give IS units all sorts of infantry and tanks and aerotech that would focus on capturing objectives, which the superior clan tech pilots would have to 'deal with' or lose the scenarios in short order.

Look at any other armored combat game. The tanks in them are NOT balanced on a 1v 1 basis. They are given the tech they are given. And anyone that has 'skill' (which is simply knowing what weak points are where and what points on that monster my gun can penetrate at 60mm of armor penetration), can succeed even against Tanks several generations 'better' than they are...

[Kanil]

Let's imagine that 10v12 is perfectly balanced, and each side wins 50% of their games.

12 kills for 10 Clan pilots is 1.2 kills per pilot per match.
10 kills for 12 IS pilots is 0.83 kills per pilot per match.
Killing is generally considered more fun than dying.

If you had to choose between two perfectly balanced factions, the only significant difference being that one of which gives you 50% more kills than the other, which one do you think most people will choose?

[Ace Selin]

Lugh, on 31 March 2016 - 04:39 AM, said:

No. No it wasn't.

And there are plenty of interesting Asymmetrical balancing flavors available in the table top as well. Hell if you REALLY wanted to you could give IS units all sorts of infantry and tanks and aerotech that would focus on capturing objectives, which the superior clan tech pilots would have to 'deal with' or lose the scenarios in short order.

Look at any other armored combat game. The tanks in them are NOT balanced on a 1v 1 basis. They are given the tech they are given. And anyone that has 'skill' (which is simply knowing what weak points are where and what points on that monster my gun can penetrate at 60mm of armor penetration), can succeed even against Tanks several generations 'better' than they are...

NO, the majority dont want asymmetrical balancing.

[Saltychipmunk]

I actually think pgi did a pretty decent job with the relative balance.

clan mechs feel better in certain ways and there are several surface perks that definitely help with the illusion

(more hard points on average)
(the ability to lose a side torso while having an xl)
(omni pods)
(the space and weight efficiency of weapons)
(the massive damage bonuses )
(the considerable range advantage)

Even if it is 1:1 ish balance right now, pgi at the very least made the surface level balance to look like clans are all round better. even if the subtle truth is the opposite.

[NextGame]

Avalon91211, on 22 March 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

I know there's probably dozens if not hundreds of forum posts on this subject, but one more won't hurt. Todays topic: Why Clan Mechs can't survive 30 seconds in a fight. Sure, very good players on the Clan side can make their mechs survive 20 minutes or more per match, but generally speaking, even they get rolled over when the Inner Sphere spams 3 Assault mechs per drop deck with nothing but AC/s and LRMs.

Now don't think I'm against the Inner Sphere. In fact I love IS Mechs and have fought for Davion in the past. I am just irked by the fact that even an IS PUG has a 50% better chance of rolling over a Clan PUG then the Clan's have of doing the same. Clan mechs should be superior to IS Mechs in almost every aspect, from their speed to their weapons, they should be able to wipe the floor with a 100 Ton Atlas within a moderate time frame.

Instead it takes 8 Clan mechs firing to bring down an IS Assault mech and sometimes even IS Heavy mechs. Meanwhile, our Dire Wolves and Executioners get cored to death in quiet corners by IS Light mechs. Do you see something wrong with that picture PGI, because myself and many other Clan Mechwarriors do. When I walk into a Clan v IS drop now, I completely expect to lose, because Clan mechs don't have the stopping power or armor to do anything to stop an IS Assault Rush. Furthermore, mechs like the Grasshopper and Black Knight, as Heavy mechs, are often carrying as much armor as assault mechs, and just as much firepower. That makes them even harder to take down, when they should be easier to take out.

Now Clan mechs carry a lot of firepower true, but when our weapons and our armor is nerfed to hell, it means jack compared to the IS mechs. So now, I am begging here, please fully unnerf the Clan mechs and find another way to balance it out so that the IS players don't whine about it. If you have to, do 10v12, a binary against a company. Just make it so the Clans have a chance here.

So now I leave it to you, fellow Mechwarriors, lets discuss.

Why is anything in this game nerfed? crybabies and whiners.

[Mystere]

wanderer, on 30 March 2016 - 10:56 PM, said:

While less common, they're referred to as "assault companies", "reinforced companies", or "square (for having a 4x4 organization) companies".

The naysayers are already poo-pooing 10:12 as a "Redshirt" situation (). Just imagine what they would think about 10:16. They just might pop a blood vessel.

Lugh, on 31 March 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

Because they are as bad at math as the developers are...

It's not about math. See above.

Edited by Mystere, 31 March 2016 - 07:04 AM.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 30 March 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

Something which no game has ever achieved (because it's impossible)

Well, for people who insist that Clan Formation vs. IS Formation battles are absolutely impossible, they sure have no problem asking for the impossible.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 31 March 2016 - 03:17 AM, said:

Pfft. If you were not all SO SELFISH you would all play Zerglings so the guy playing the Battlecruiser could wipe the floor with you until he ran out of energy and was finally brought down, after a thousand kills, by the endless horde of his foes.

WHICH IS TOTALLY LORE.

And everyone would *line up* to play that way if people would just make it an option, because why wouldn't they want to just play endlessly respawning and dying Zerglings instead of the Battlecruiser?

Oh, wait. Most people recognize immediately what an absolute crap game that would be for everyone but the Battlecruiser to have to play all the time... except the guy who really, really wants to be the Battlecruiser, so he can pretend he averages 5k kills per 'match' because of his l33t skillz.

People hated the Clans because of the guy who whined and cried that nobody would play him because he was so amazing - which meant he was playing a LPL-boating Warhawk or Daishi and would only play if it was against 'an equal BV' worth of IS non-mixed-tech mechs, no vehicles or infantry.

Because what he wanted was to play something totally broke as **** OP, stacked heavily in his favor, and pretend it was his amazing skills and not broken mechanics that made him likely to win. Even when guys like that lost it was always 'Yeah, but I killed 3 of you before I went down!'

Yes, of course you did, you ******* munchkin failbucket, the game mechanics were stacked in your favor.

That's why there will never, ever, at any point, EVER, in MW:O or any other Battletech FPS game, be asymetric 'lore' (which, again, just to repeat, the game developers ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF 1 TO 1) tech balance.

Because it was **** in tabletop and it's 10x as much absolute **** in a FPS PvP game.

Oh, and because all the people in favor of it keep totally ignoring this -

The games developer ABANDONED OP Clan tech in favor of 1 to 1 tech balance with IS. The whole OP Clanners thing was thrown in the trash along with all the other garbage in favor of 1 to 1 balance in tabletop as well.

I have a single reply for you: MWO is not TT.

[Mystere]

Kanil, on 31 March 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

Let's imagine that 10v12 is perfectly balanced, and each side wins 50% of their games.

12 kills for 10 Clan pilots is 1.2 kills per pilot per match.
10 kills for 12 IS pilots is 0.83 kills per pilot per match.
Killing is generally considered more fun than dying.

If you had to choose between two perfectly balanced factions, the only significant difference being that one of which gives you 50% more kills than the other, which one do you think most people will choose?

I myself prefer winning.

(Serves you right for offering a false set of choices. )

[InRev]

This thread reminds me of the World of Tanks players who complain that the Tiger tank is at Tier 7 and doesn't get to constantly seal club Tier 4 and 5 Lees, Shermans, Crusaders and T34/76s with impunity. Oh noes, my mythical Tiger, which the lore--er--I mean History Channel said was an unstoppable killing machine, is going up against other Tier 7 tanks of equal combat value. THIS IS SO UNFAIR (reality check: The Tiger, like the other Big Cat tanks, was actually pretty crap as a weapon of war, but that's another argument)

It also reminds me of what a dismal failure Historical Battles were because, SURPRISE SURPRISE, everyone wanted to play the Jagdtiger with its 128mm gun against mobs of mid-tier medium tanks and no one wanted to be the cannon fodder.

A far more successful game with a much larger player-base has already tried the asymmetrical thing in a team based PVP game and it failed miserably.

[Wolfways]

Deathlike, on 31 March 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

You're treating it like we can control people like it was Starcraft. It's not 1 person controlling an army of mechs... it's 12 individual players working as a team.

So instead of 1 player controlling different units in an army it's 1 player controlling a mech and its weapon systems. You use your army/mech to destroy the opposition.
12 players controlling their armies under a single banner or 12 players controlling their mechs as a team. The only real difference is that controlling an army is more complex.

[Wolfways]

kapusta11, on 31 March 2016 - 12:52 AM, said:

Yeah, but if you had a choice to play one unit you'd probably picked Battlecruiser over marine.

If nobody would choose the "weaker" option then I guess nobody is playing lights, mediums, and assaults.

[cazidin]

Wolfways, on 31 March 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

If nobody would choose the "weaker" option then I guess nobody is playing lights, mediums, and assaults.

Except that each weight class listed has a benefit/role with the lightest and heaviest of them requiring greater skill but offering a greater reward should you perform well in them. Unless you're piloting a Spider. Then you're just trolling us all.

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 31 March 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:

So instead of 1 player controlling different units in an army it's 1 player controlling a mech and its weapon systems. You use your army/mech to destroy the opposition.
12 players controlling their armies under a single banner or 12 players controlling their mechs as a team. The only real difference is that controlling an army is more complex.

Unfortunately, these "1-man armies" are often the reason why a team loses... trying to take on 2 or more mechs by themselves.

That's why teamwork is OP and many people continue to struggle with that base concept all the time in this game.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 March 2016 - 10:20 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

game developers ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF 1 TO 1

Actually, TT just ended up merging the tech trees, meaning there's really no "Clantech" in the late 3100s, other than an indicator of component quality. It's full mixtech, meaning you can literally have the best of both worlds.

The game devs here wanted maximum sales with minimum effort and thought they could nerf one tech tree badly enough to even it out with the other. They would have been better off just using a tier system and putting the higher-tech Clan units further up the ranks for mixed-play purposes.

(CW being an utter failure regardless, but regardless of foaming at the mouth MWO utterly obliterates the big difference anyway- Clan pilots are no better than IS ones and accuracy is completely pilot based)