Jump to content

Balance Clams


23 replies to this topic

#1 Mazzyplz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,292 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 02:59 AM

okay just hear me out.

how about we buff clan weapons across the board. so the people who want clams to be superior can have their cake and eat it. but the caveat is they are stuck with the minimap as it is right now. EXCEPT with the arrow and torso indicator. but no map rotation or zoom.

where as inner sphere can get the minimap as before. with doritos and all.

that would be balanced don't you think?

inner sphere would have a lot of situational awareness, but less firepower..

this is an idea i have thrown around in the past. it would make me want to drive both IS and clans even more if they play differently instead of the difference being only cosmetic.

it would force clanners to play more by instinct. but with superior guns. and they would be a little more disorganized. it would be a sort of synthetic self policing zellbrigen

#2 AnTi90d

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,229 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • Locationhttps://voat.co/

Posted 22 June 2016 - 03:01 AM

I'm OK with this.

All your doritos are belong to us.

#3 Brizna

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationCatalonia

Posted 22 June 2016 - 04:10 AM

This is an interesting proposal very worth serious consideration. I am not saying it should be implemented as proposed only that something like this is way better than having to buff all IS weapons via quirks. Besides poor team play for clan is lore friendly.

#4 adamts01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 3,417 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 22 June 2016 - 04:17 AM

Very cool idea. The big picture map would go well with the longer range Clan technology, where as the close map and situational awareness would suit the hit and run guerrilla IS tactics. I'm all about having them different. I think a huge missed opportunity in this game was balancing the numbers of teams. What was it supposed to be, 10v8? Each account being split Clan/IS. you can quickplay anything but can only choose 1 for CW at a time. Right now with all the flip flopping CW is just silly. Give us anything to add more depth.

#5 Mad Dog Morgan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 489 posts
  • LocationOutlaw On The Run, Faster than a Stolen Gun

Posted 22 June 2016 - 04:55 AM

It was supposed to be 10v12, not 10v8

#6 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 22 June 2016 - 05:12 AM

No lol, because you can adopt to the bad map but that justifies not the imbalance by weapons. Which cannot be adopted at all.

Edited by Lily from animove, 22 June 2016 - 05:12 AM.


#7 zaku2142

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 48 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 05:33 AM

I saw this, read entire thing, all I got to say is that it will never happen. Why? The IS love having the Clans* balanced to be around the same level or below IS in output. The white knights of IS would never allow it, nor would Russ. I could care less atm as I can kill mechs and I get a challenge in combat against my IS enemies.
But not to the point where I can not have a decent win/loss ratio or pretty much winning everything based on loadout dmg output.

Edited by zaku2142, 22 June 2016 - 05:51 AM.


#8 jjm1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hell Fork
  • Hell Fork
  • 1,384 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 09:53 AM

no deal.

Ill accept a 90% firepower reduction. The original map. And we get Terra.

#9 Snowbluff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,368 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 11:18 AM

It makes no sense. Clans have better electronics. If anything, IS should have the ****** map.

#10 Novakaine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,715 posts
  • LocationThe Republic of Texas

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:33 PM

I'm up for it, but the matches should be 12 vs 10 more in keeping with lore.


#11 Belacose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 539 posts
  • LocationArlington Texas

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:39 PM

I favor playing Clan and find this proposal very interesting as it add a substantial dynamic between the two factions.

Much prefer the old mini-map or the one were about to get over the latest iteration but if I get better weapons I as compensation I think I'd take it.

PGI has already done the work so it wouldn't be much work to implement your idea, OP.

#12 Death Proof

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 546 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:43 PM

Really wished that they would have balanced by 10v12 as a start (2 stars vs 3 lances), then tweaked from there.

#13 Belacose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 539 posts
  • LocationArlington Texas

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:48 PM

The more I think about it the more this concept seems quite brilliant.

Too many might threaten to rage quit all over again if this were ever to be taken seriously so sadly enough it has little chance to ever manifest.

Edited by Belacose, 22 June 2016 - 12:50 PM.


#14 Moldur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,233 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:49 PM

Clan and Innersphere are equally powered but asymmetric. At least they are supposed to be. Lore has been dead ever since PGI followed this logic, and I see no point in doing so while simultaneously including objectively superior tech like Clan XL engines.

If PGI wishes to make the sides asymmetric but equal, while pretending that they aren't committing an affront to this philosophy at the same time, then they should just stop and release all tech to all chassis.

Follow lore, or don't. We haven't been. There is no reason to hurt balance to keep lore .00001% alive.

#15 BaconTWOfourACTUAL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 282 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:50 PM

View Postjjm1, on 22 June 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

no deal.

Ill accept a 90% firepower reduction. The original map. And we get Terra.


You can have Terra...


...

And I think all players should have to declare for a house/clan when the join the game. Make every match worth something... Make the whole damn thing a CW.

#16 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:58 PM

View PostMoldur, on 22 June 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

Clan and Innersphere are equally powered but asymmetric. At least they are supposed to be. Lore has been dead ever since PGI followed this logic, and I see no point in doing so while simultaneously including objectively superior tech like Clan XL engines.

If PGI wishes to make the sides asymmetric but equal, while pretending that they aren't committing an affront to this philosophy at the same time, then they should just stop and release all tech to all chassis.

Follow lore, or don't. We haven't been. There is no reason to hurt balance to keep lore .00001% alive.

Lore can be Followed and the Game made Balanced,
IS to Clan Lasers are an Example of this,
Clan Lasers Do More Damage, but havve longer Burn times to Balance them out,
we have had the 12vs10 Talks for years its not ganna happen, because most players will go Clan,
Match times would then increase and then more people will complain and leave, no good,
Asymmetrical Balance is the Best Option,

#17 aaarrrgghh

    Rookie

  • Knight Errant
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 01:21 PM

View PostBaconTWOfourACTUAL, on 22 June 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:


You can have Terra...


...

And I think all players should have to declare for a house/clan when the join the game. Make every match worth something... Make the whole damn thing a CW.


planet side dose this, just give players a pilot to create and a faction for the pilot.. maybe 2 pilot slots per account so you can play both factions if you want but you chose witch pilot before the game boots up

#18 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 22 June 2016 - 01:27 PM

View PostNovakaine, on 22 June 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

I'm up for it, but the matches should be 12 vs 10 more in keeping with lore.

View PostDeath Proof, on 22 June 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

Really wished that they would have balanced by 10v12 as a start (2 stars vs 3 lances), then tweaked from there.


Oh no! You just mentioned lore. You should never ever mention "lore" and "balance" at the same time -- if some people are to be believed.

I hope you have your flame suits on. Posted Image

Edited by Mystere, 22 June 2016 - 01:27 PM.


#19 Green Mamba

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 1,659 posts
  • LocationNC,United States

Posted 22 June 2016 - 01:38 PM

GYROK will be here shortly Posted Image

#20 Novakaine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,715 posts
  • LocationThe Republic of Texas

Posted 22 June 2016 - 01:42 PM

View PostAndi Nagasia, on 22 June 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

Lore can be Followed and the Game made Balanced,
IS to Clan Lasers are an Example of this,
Clan Lasers Do More Damage, but havve longer Burn times to Balance them out,
we have had the 12vs10 Talks for years its not ganna happen, because most players will go Clan,
Match times would then increase and then more people will complain and leave, no good,
Asymmetrical Balance is the Best Option,


Most players will not go clans you play a particular faction because you have an affinity for it.
That argument is just a poor straw man for those who want to keep 12 v 12.
Nuff said.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users