84 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

It's that way because it takes a Battlemaster to rival a Timberwolf...

[Revis Volek]

MechaBattler, on 16 December 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

Am I the only one that feels this is unacceptable? PGI has always claimed that they intend to keep balancing the game. But just giving the IS more drop deck tonnage is on the same level as 10v12 balancing.

It means that they admit there is a disparity. It means that at equal tonnage, playing as IS, you're at a disadvantage.

Granted there's also the issue of organized unit play versus pugs. But units want to run with maximum advantage. So that means Clans. So while you can argue organized play is more of an issue. The disparity exists because one faction is better than the other.

Where is our balance!?

Okay. Go ahead, flame away.

Such a wide brush from a tiny little potatoe...

[Alan Davion]

SlippnGriff, on 19 December 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

I never see Clan Assaults anymore because of the lowering of the tonnage, maybe one every couple of games, but it used to be more than half the team had them on deck. Now the IS has battlemasters for days and other big Heavies they don't have to give a ****. I'm Ok with buffing the IS side to an extent, but stop nerfing the Clan

If the game had a proper, publicly viewable Battle Value system like the Table Top system did, so that everyone knew exactly how powerful any given mech was, particularly the Clans, we might not have this constant back and forth series of changes to everything.

PGI really needs to make up their minds with this s***, because until then the Clans are going to continue to rule the game, despite being constantly nerfed into the ground.

If we had baseline values for every stock mech, and could see how all the "optimized meta mechs" stacked up against stock, the game would be a lot easier to balance.

Not to mention the IS needs their remaining weapons to bring them to equivalency with the Clans. Now I don't mean equivalency as far as balance, I just mean the IS has everything the Clans do, because that would immediately make both sides easier to balance.

[Scyther]

Clan tech was better, more effective tech. You don't get 1-to-1 mech parity balancing. Heck, they can't manage decent overall balance in most games even when one side wasn't designed from the get-go as being a more effective, deadly opponent.

In QP it doesn't matter much because people are playing a mish-mash on both sides.

In FW you have to step outside the 'mech for mech parity' box and find a different way to at least give both sides a reasonable chance of winning.

Edited by MadBadger, 19 December 2016 - 05:15 PM.

[Alan Davion]

MadBadger, on 19 December 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

Clan tech was better, more effective tech. You don't get 1-to-1 mech parity balancing. Heck, they can't manage decent overall balance in most games even when one side wasn't designed from the get-go as being a more effective, deadly opponent.

In QP it doesn't matter much because people are playing a mish-mash on both sides.

In FW you have to step outside the 'mech for mech parity' box and find a different way to at least give both sides a reasonable chance of winning.

This was achieved in table top through the BV system. IS mechs were cheaper to field, so you could afford to field more heavy and/or assault mechs than the Clans were able to because their superior tech came with the penalty of severely increased BV.

This of course was also helped by the 12 IS vs 10 Clan system, which as we all know is completely unusable here in MWO because it completely f***s up the Match Maker.

Unless PGI puts such a BV system into place, along with a few other changes necessary to shift the balance of power in CW/FW, it will remain the sole stomping ground of the Clans.