102 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

El Rizzo, on 18 December 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

While I mostly agree with you on this, the issue I see with this is that people will simply stop playing if they aren't allowed to "join the winning team" so to speak. If there is a perceived (and currently factual) imbalance between tech and you are forced to play the handycapped side, chances are good that you get frustrated and stop playing FP altogether until you are either able to join the winning team (if you aren't fed up with the mode at this point) or the imbalance is remedied.

But the "winning team" is not clan or IS per se. Its mercs, and anyone can join. If there is imbalance, most of the mercs historically and quite reasonably go to where they can take best advantage of that imbalance. There is nothing wrong with that. Unless of course you are one of the minority of clan or IS loyalists. Then it makes any imbalance that may exist exacerbated to an extreme...to the point that PGI has to do things like change drop deck tonnage, or nerf things in a feeble (or maybe not so feeble) attempt to redistribute that merc population.

Edited by Bud Crue, 18 December 2016 - 03:02 PM.

[Alteran]

El Rizzo, on 18 December 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

It is not about 100% perfect balance between mechs, that would result in only 1 available mech with only 1 loadout, which no one wants , but there has to be an equal amount of equally good mechs on each side. Take the Kodiak 3 for example, there is no counterpart for the IS that comes even close to it. While there is no Kodiak 3 for the other weight classes, the heavies, mediums and lights suffer the same problem, the strongest mechs in each weight class are clan mechs.

This is exactly what I was talking at length about ... a single win by a strong unit against scrubs or less skilled units isn't saying anything at all, good players will always stomp less good players unless the latter are given a huge advantage (and even then they need to be able to use it). Mechs and tech need to be balanced without player skill factoring into the equation at all.

The only way to do this is one tech and one fire point out of the Mech, otherwise this forum will always be filled with posts about one tech or the other having an advantage. Move all Tech to IS with one fire point. There done, balanced.

BTW, get rid of the Tech and I will still run Clans, because that's what I paid for.

[nehebkau]

Bud Crue, on 18 December 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

But the "winning team" is not clan or IS per se. Its mercs, and anyone can join. If there is imbalance, most of the mercs historically and quite reasonably go to where they can take best advantage of that imbalance. There is nothing wrong with that. Unless of course you are one of the minority of clan or IS loyalists. Then it makes any imbalance that may exist exacerbated to an extreme...to the point that PGI has to do things like change drop deck tonnage, or nerf things in a feeble (or maybe not so feeble) attempt to redistribute that merc population.

Exactly right. Worst part being, that balance follows a slope-failure model for how players move so, when they make these changes you hit a point where "Whump!" the player balance swaps to the other side.

Being a merc needed to have HUGE disadvantages to being a loyalist -- the trade off being that you could do whatever you wanted. That would be the way to balance player-swings.

[naterist]

https://mwomercs.com...ontract-reward/

my solution to merc imbalance right here.

EVIL, your gonna love it as the top unit in the game.

[Alteran]

nehebkau, on 18 December 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

Exactly right. Worst part being, that balance follows a slope-failure model for how players move so, when they make these changes you hit a point where "Whump!" the player balance swaps to the other side.

Being a merc needed to have HUGE disadvantages to being a loyalist -- the trade off being that you could do whatever you wanted. That would be the way to balance player-swings.

Now the discussion is moving into the immersion factor. As posted many times in 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 the only way to 'control' Merc Units is with the contract system. There lays another problem, FP needs the depth that was promised to make this a possibility.

• Purchasing Mechs
  
• Rearm & Refit
  
• House controls on what the Merc unit was doing: Garrison or Attack

These were the only ways for the FP system to control Merc units. Merc units should never be allowed to tag planets. They should only be doing what they are directed to do. Simple economics would do the rest in controlling the size of the unit.

But we don't have that. At this point in time, I highly doubt we'll ever see that.

[TWIAFU]

nehebkau, on 18 December 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

Exactly right. Worst part being, that balance follows a slope-failure model for how players move so, when they make these changes you hit a point where "Whump!" the player balance swaps to the other side.

Being a merc needed to have HUGE disadvantages to being a loyalist -- the trade off being that you could do whatever you wanted. That would be the way to balance player-swings.

Just get rid of Mercs altogether in CW.

No point to a third faction in a two faction system. There is no more faction identity beyond the vanilla IS or Clan.

The third faction will, and does now, go where they have the advantage. Having mobile faction in a static faction system has brought us to the crapfest that is now CW 4.1.

[El Rizzo]

Bud Crue, on 18 December 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

But the "winning team" is not clan or IS per se. Its mercs, and anyone can join. If there is imbalance, most of the mercs historically and quite reasonably go to where they can take best advantage of that imbalance. There is nothing wrong with that. Unless of course you are one of the minority of clan or IS loyalists. Then it makes any imbalance that may exist exacerbated to an extreme...to the point that PGI has to do things like change drop deck tonnage, or nerf things in a feeble (or maybe not so feeble) attempt to redistribute that merc population.

Actually that is a problem, quite a big one even. As you yourself pointed out, mercs make up a large portion of the FP player base and they go where they have the biggest advantage (which currently is Clan). Thus a large portion of the FP population is located on one side of the conflict, causing this badly distributed situation which benefits no one. The overpopulated side has long wait times because most players are waiting with them and the few players on the other side get stomped by overwhelming forces and fight a losing battle (even if a few decent IS units manage to win their matches, MS has proven time and time again that sheer numbers can conquer planets regardless of good defenders).

When I was talking about joining the winning team, I was wasn't talking about individual players but rather FP units (who are mostly mercs), which in turn do join either IS or Clan (whichever atm provides better tech), albeit only temporarily, but as long as there is no incentive to switch sides, they most likely won't. So for merc units to switch to the other side, they need incentives, either decent rewards (the solution naterist suggested and which I personally would love to see) or an easier / just as easy time farming cbills if the current system is kept (aka better balance between IS and Clan tech).

Edited by El Rizzo, 18 December 2016 - 03:39 PM.

[Bud Crue]

TWIAFU, on 18 December 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

Just get rid of Mercs altogether in CW.

No point to a third faction in a two faction system. There is no more faction identity beyond the vanilla IS or Clan.

The third faction will, and does now, go where they have the advantage. Having mobile faction in a static faction system has brought us to the crapfest that is now CW 4.1.

I don't think that is the answer nor is it likely (please lets not devolve into a "well the url is mwomercs"). But what PGI could do is give more positive reinforcement to all (three) sides to encourage greater population distribution at most times.

I'm no developer but a mechanism that I proposed awhile back would be to take away the merc rewards (reputation) tree and replace it with exclusively and significantly greater than base line c-bill rewards and the ability to play both clan and IS. Reasoning here being that mercs tend to be the most competitive and veteran players, and thus, the extraneous rewards don't really mean much, and what these sorts of players want instead is variety and the tools to win...so give that to them.

Another thing I would institute however, would be the idea of of long term contracts within each tech side. In effect two levels of term and alignment: top level a unit has to declare what "side they are on: clan mercs (call em bondsmen if it makes you feel better ya nerds) or IS mercs, wherein within those designations contract terms are measured in months (maybe 2 or 3). While in those tech side designations a unit can faction jump, within the "side" they are affiliated with, in accord with the normal merc terms that we have now, but can't jump to the other side until the top level clan/IS merc period expires. That would, I think effectively limit the ability of mercs to flood one side or the other and cause the sort of exacerbated balance problems we are seeing now (and have seen since phase 2).

Loyalists get same c-bill rewards, possibly greater loyalty rewards and seriously penalties for breaking loyalty.

Stuff like that. I am certain folks smarter than I could come up with mechanism that would control population flow or at least provide motivation for population stability.

[El Rizzo]

nehebkau, on 18 December 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

Being a merc needed to have HUGE disadvantages to being a loyalist -- the trade off being that you could do whatever you wanted. That would be the way to balance player-swings.

True, you would curb balance swings, but as long as the underlying tech/mech balance isn't changed you would simply create a ton of Clan loyalist units and the unequal distribution would remain the same. The whole reason why most merc units are under Clan contract is because Clan tech is better (not saying that is the sole reason but the biggest one by far).

[Bud Crue]

El Rizzo, on 18 December 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

Actually that is a problem, quite a big one even. As you yourself pointed out, mercs make up a large portion of the FP player base and they go where they have the biggest advantage (which currently is Clan). Thus a large portion of the FP population is located on one side of the conflict, causing this badly distributed situation which benefits no one. The overpopulated side has long wait times because most players are waiting with them and the few players on the other side get stomped by overwhelming forces and fight a losing battle (even if a few decent IS units manage to win their matches, MS has proven time and time again that sheer numbers can conquer planets regardless of good defenders).

When I was talking about joining the winning team, I was wasn't talking about individual players but rather FP units (who are mostly mercs), which in turn do join either IS or Clan (whichever atm provides better tech), albeit only temporarily, but as long as there is no incentive to switch sides, they most likely won't. So for merc units to switch to the other side, they need incentives, either decent rewards (the solution naterist suggested and which I personally would love to see) or an easier / just as easy time farming cbills if the current system is kept (aka better balance between IS and Clan tech).

Certainly It is a problem...but only for loyalists. It only affects the mercs in that when they all chose to coalesce in one spot...say Jade Falcon...the only down side for them is long wait times because everyone else got sick of being beaten down and just stopped playing. But the mercs in phase 3 seemed to be mostly okay with that (except for a notable and vocal few).

[El Rizzo]

Quote

But the mercs in phase 3 seemed to be mostly okay with that (except for a notable and vocal few).

Yeah, because it was easy money, clubbing seals At certain times a day it was relatively easy to find a match and you had a very high chance of getting pugs which you could farm for damage, resulting in high rewards without much effort which obviously will keep a decent amount of players motivated enough as long as they still need cbills and rp.

I'm a member of a formerly IS only unit (PHL) but occasionally a couple of us went on clan vacation (leaving our unit and creating a clan branch PH1 unit) and the vast majority of matches I've played on clan vaccation where roflstomps with very onesided results because we had mostly unorganized pugs on the other side (because all the good units were with Clans). While it was easy money and quite fun to usually leave a match with 2.5k dmg or more without having to put much effort in, it also became boring for me very fast because there was almost no challenge (a few good matches aside). So for me personally it was fun because we only stayed for a short time, but longterm it would have left me bored and leaving FP.

Sure, most mercs seemed okay with staying clan despite the long wait times, but that was mostly because the alternative (aside from quitting FP altogether) was playing IS and getting stomped most of the time, which isn't appealing to most people I would guess. So staying Clan was basically the lesser of two evils to chose from, not a real decision to be made .

Edited by El Rizzo, 18 December 2016 - 04:14 PM.

[TWIAFU]

Bud Crue, on 18 December 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:

I think effectively limit the ability of mercs to flood one side or the other and cause the sort of exacerbated balance problems we are seeing now (and have seen since phase 2).

Short of removing them, something has to be done. Now.


A dynamic faction in a static, two party system, will always cause imbalance between the two static factions. This has been going on as long as we had mercs, now it is painfully obvious now that we only have two factions.

Previously was not so bad as we had many factions to choose from, on both sides - IS and Clan. Sure, they were clustered around the factions that gave them the most advantage, whatever faction bandwagon they could ride for wins.

Now, we only have two and they still jump on whatever faction bandwagon that will give them the most wins, they are the literal finger on the scales of balance that cause imbalance.

Give mercs reason to move to IS and they will, for the most part, shifting the scales again in the opposite direction. Then will have to find a way to entice them to go Clan, they will, and again another shift and we are right back to where we started, doing the same thing over and over and not learning a damn thing by repeating history.

[Tiantara]

- Best move to balance IS and Clan mech - make same mechanic of XL engine. Just with less deadly penalty of destroyed side torso. Like - Clan mech go slower when side torso ripped off by damage. Make IS mech have same mechanic but minus additional 10% of speed. Yes, they become slow but alive and even if they stand still they can shoot 2-4 times before death. That can really change game to better. Even if IS XL mech have 30KPH after destroyed side torso - it also good!

[Starbomber109]

S C A R, on 18 December 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

Guys,

Whilst clan mech do enjoy a slight range benefit and better XL engines this is what happened when we decided to go and play IS.

http://imgur.com/a/HBvsD

So whenever you are complaining about imbalance between clans and IS, think first abour your personal ability to play this game. The fact that you are dropping solo doesn't help you either. If you want to win, find a unit, join it and play as a group.

So you took 35 clan contracts and lost a bit but won 6 planets? Then you took 15 IS contracts and 5 clan contracts and won more games but won no planets? I'm confused by this image. Sure you won games and maybe you did a bunch of damage in those games, but you didn't take any planets so what?

But this begs a question, when I win an FP game sometimes I don't feel like my result affected the slider. Is that just because there are that many people playing or are wins/losses weighted somehow? Do clan victories mean more than IS victories?

[mesmer]

Anecdotes aren't data.

[1 21 Giggawatts]

IMHO The problem is not tech - its player skill.

I seriously cant wait for all the merc units to switch to IS for that tonnage advantage and shut all the "CLAN OP" whiners on the forum's up.

I mean, with IS having 260 tons for a drop deck I saw a player running around in a dual LRM 10 hugin... You cant fix stupid with game mechanics.

SCAR has said it before - ban trial mechs - but I think it should be taken further, only those tier 3 or above should be able to play CW.

Also perhaps now its time to seperate the solo and group Faction queues, now that we have amalgamated all the IS and Clan factions into a single queue each, perhaps the numbers are there to support it?

You cant completely balance this game without making it a slow version of CS - which im sure nobody wants.

Clan have a range advantage, which if you are playing on quickplay maps AS A COHESIVE GROUP is an advantage.

The IS laser vomit meta is best at just under 300m, which is perfect for invasion maps, not so much some of the quickplay maps. However you can pretty much brawl anywhere if you play as a team.

Mech the danes video pissed me off to be honest, sure most of MRBC div A's units might be clan now, but thats because the meta for MRBC is ranged.. and ranged gameplay is 'generally' a less risky proposition than brawling. Remember MRBC is a completely different game than Faction warfare. Its 8v8 with different drop restrictions. So i dont think saying most mechs dropped in MRBC being clan is in anyway relevant to the CLAN OP discussion here, it just means on 8v8 quickplay, its proven to be effective. If it was 12v12 with no restrictions on what can be brought on first wave its completely different. It could well be a tanky IS laser vomit push....


Anyway, i think folks should just take a fricking chill pill - see what happens when some of the big teams switch over, we are only working with half the experience so far.

I remember what happened when FRR were DOMINATING clans - there really hasnt been _that_ much change since then aside for a few new mechs on either side. One of which is the KDK which granted is pretty freaking powerful, but now due to tonnage restrictions you seriously have to gimp your drop deck to bring it.

If the end result is ok the game mechanics are fine - the abillity of top teams to smash non top teams is whats killing this game then the only answer I think is to seperate CW queues into solo and group and ban trials and those in tier 4 and 5. If your halfway decent you can get into tier 3 relatively quickly and this gives you some time to buy mechs / modules etc anyway.

/endofrant-thanksforreadingwalloftext!

[Leone]

El Rizzo, on 18 December 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

Take the Kodiak 3 for example, there is no counterpart for the IS that comes even close to it.

Mauler. It aint the Kodiak. Not as heavy, and it used most often un ultraed autocannons, but when the mauler came out, this became my number one priority in any CW match. Massed IS ballistics used to be a Clanner's nightmare.

Starbomber109, on 18 December 2016 - 05:28 PM, said:

I'm confused by this image. Sure you won games and maybe you did a bunch of damage in those games, but you didn't take any planets so what?

The unspoken point was that they've a 325 Win ratio to their one loss. The then unspoken question was why, if Clan mechs were Over Powered, did so many matches go to the IS mechs?

Starbomber109, on 18 December 2016 - 05:28 PM, said:

But this begs a question, when I win an FP game sometimes I don't feel like my result affected the slider. Is that just because there are that many people playing or are wins/losses weighted somehow? Do clan victories mean more than IS victories?

Nope, it's just there's lotsa fights going on nowadays. It's awesome, but it means whilst you were out winning, another team may've been losing, keeping the slider unmoved, or worse yet, perhaps three teams lost during your victory so despite your efforts, the clans came out ahead anyways. In the end, don't worry bout the overarching war and just keep you head in the battles. Enjoy the fights as they come, cuz it's hard to steer the cours of the war.

~Leone.

Edited by Leone, 18 December 2016 - 08:07 PM.

[Starbomber109]

Leone, on 18 December 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

Mauler. It aint the Kodiak. Not as heavy, and it used most often un ultraed autocannons, but when the mauler came out, this became my number one priority in any CW match. Massed IS ballistics used to be a Clanner's nightmare.

~Leone.

While this is true, The Kodiak is superior to the Mauler in terms of geometry, the Kodiak has pretty much all high mounts except for the arms. The Mauler's mounts are around waist/mid-chest level. The Mauler did used to be the bane of clans on hot maps and on defense, but I don't think it can compete with the Gauss PPC builds that are running around...and I don't put much stock in it on most skirmish maps because ITS NOT MOBILE. The Kodiak is faster.)

[Tiantara]

Quote

Take the Kodiak 3 for example, there is no counterpart for the IS that comes even close to it.

- Battlemaster with high mounted ERLL or PPC also great. ECM Cyclop or ECM Cataphract also great VS Kodiak 3. Hell i killed KDK-3 with Hunchback! Just go under it sight of view and do damage...

[1 21 Giggawatts]

Unless im mistaken - this isnt a KDK3 OP plz nerf thread? I know asking a FW thread to stay on topic is like asking water to flow uphill, but lets try.