8 replies to this topic

[TotalN00B]

The recent patches indicate that the game is being balanced partly based on where the higher tier players are playing (clan for now). To balance a games mechanics based on player usage patterns is an error of huge proportions as you are effectively allowing the player base to cause you more work in reversing said balance updates simply by switching to IS. Maybe go a little deeper and look at why the game is unbalanced and why people choose to play clan over IS and balance THAT rather than just hobbling clan drop weight and weapons on almost every update. Clan mechs are more versatile. their weapons have a range advantage BUT that is per canon. PGI do not stick to canon on other things so why on this?

[El Bandito]

PGI is supposedly gonna take serious look at the state of CW after new year.

[RestosIII]

Russ has basically said that until 2017 they're only doing small temp fixes due to Christmas break. Just give them the 60-90 days tm that they asked for. Then get angry if they haven't touched it with anything besides band-aids.

[TotalN00B]

I would not get angry but the mind boggles when I see a company basically trying to bail out their dinghy with a sieve. What happens when we T1 guys go to IS and leave only the lower tier clanners in their nerfed decks? More work for pgi to reverse the nerfs or to nerf the IS is what this leads to at best. IS should outnumber the clan in a game NOT outgun it with equal numbers or have mental quirks.

[Mcgral18]

TotalN00B, on 20 December 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:

I would not get angry but the mind boggles when I see a company basically trying to bail out their dinghy with a sieve. What happens when we T1 guys go to IS and leave only the lower tier clanners in their nerfed decks? More work for pgi to reverse the nerfs or to nerf the IS is what this leads to at best. IS should outnumber the clan in a game NOT outgun it with equal numbers or have mental quirks.

Yeah...

About that

Clams are stronger, at the moment.
It can change, of course, but the present quirks are not the required GodQuirks which Spheroid mechs need to be better (or competitive) for the most part.

[Tristan Winter]

El Bandito, on 20 December 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

PGI is supposedly gonna take serious look at the state of CW after new year.

[Novakaine]

I say just lock down both sides.
If you want to play Clans - then play Clans
If you want to play IS - then play IS.
If you want to be a merc then only between IS factions.
If you want to use your other shiny toys then do in QP or GP.
This would stop the tech chase from one side or the other.
By Merc groups see-sawing all over the place.
Draconian but simple.

[Mystere]

As I wrote in another thread, one of my crazy (or not so crazy -- you be the judge) solutions is to have tonnage dynamically increase/decrease once the front lines goes nearer/farther one's home and "major" planets. For the RP impaired, just imagine it as your supply lines getting affected by distance.

There, problem (i.e. PGI constantly reversing their changes) solved.

This ain't rocket science.

[Mawai]

RestosIII, on 20 December 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

Russ has basically said that until 2017 they're only doing small temp fixes due to Christmas break. Just give them the 60-90 days tm that they asked for. Then get angry if they haven't touched it with anything besides band-aids.

LOL

Sorry .. whenever I hear "90 days" and "Russ" in the same sentence ... particularly associated with CW/FW ... I can't help but break out in dubious laughter. It will be interesting to see if the 90 days this time is any more meaningful than the first time.

PGI has adamantly refused to fully balance clan and IS mechs for over 3 years ... I don't know why predictable issues with FW are going to enable them to fix it in the next 90 days.

In my opinion and my experience, clan mechs have an edge in MWO. This play advantage is particularly noticeable in the top performing clan mechs - Arctic Cheetah, HBK IIC, Stormcrow, Timberwolf, Dire Wolf, Kodiak, MAD IIC and to a lesser extent a few others like the Hellbringer. All of these tend to perform better than equivalent IS mechs for equally skilled pilots. Ton for ton they are more maneuverable and faster than IS, they carry more weapons and larger ones since clan weapons require less crit space and weigh less, they can fit more heat sinks since they also require less crit space, the have clan XL engines which allow greater speed for less tonnage required with fewer side torso crit slots used and losing a side torso does not kill the mech. Clan weapons in general have greater range with more damage at the expense of more heat and longer burn time or split damage projectiles. The greater damage means higher alphas and a play style that favours peek and poke so the heat penalties are not an issue. Greater range means that the IS takes more damage as they try to close range.

There are very few IS mechs that can compete with the clans ton for ton, weapon to weapon and most of these builds try to take advantage of the PPFLD capability available with some IS weapons.

Which side will most folks choose to play when given the choice between two technologies ... one of which gives a play advantage? Most folks want to win and lore is a secondary consideration. As a result, a lot of folks choose clans.

Combine the player numbers with the choice of larger groups and the tech advantage and you end up with the mess that PGI currently has to balance in FW.

So ... I think there are several approaches that could be taken to address these imbalances ...

1) If clan and IS mechs started out more or less even where most mechs were useful and equally effective then players would tend to more evenly distribute themselves. There are several tech tweaks that could be used to start this process. PGI should implement tweaks every 2 weeks based on quick play results and they should refine the values every 2 weeks (every patch at te latest) ... tweaking balance mech by mech and weapon by weapon until the numbers work well on the live servers.


However, the very first decision down this path is ... Will PGI break lore and create clan tech that is different but balanced to IS or will they continue to make clan tech strictly better and if so how will they balance these tech advantages?

- e.g. as long as clan mechs with XL engines do not die on side torso loss then the clan XL will be strictly better than the IS XL. How do you balance this? Do you make IS XL the same and break lore or do you give every IS mech a 20% side torso structure buff when equipped with an XL engine to make them more durable?

2) Implement a scaled rewards system for the less populous side. The fewer players on the side - the more rewards they receive in terms of LP, XP and Cbills. This might tempt some folks to change sides. In addition, the most mobile players in terms of shifting sides should also be among those most strongly encouraged to support the weaker side. Loyalists can't easily change faction but PUGs should not have reduced rewards or they will simply choose the winning side since they are more likely to make some returns playing on that side.

3) After a faction has more than 10% more players than the other faction ... units could have to PAY to join that faction ... while the units will get PAID to join the other faction. This makes it more difficult but not impossible for all units to join one faction. Another possibility would be to reduce the rewards offered from FW matches when there are too many players in a faction. This could be combined with 2 ... so that the side with fewer makes more, the side with more makes less, and the discrepancy gets bigger the less balanced the numbers. At some point, it just won't be financially worthwhile to continue playing with a faction that has too many players.

From a realism point of view ... each side has limited coffers ... the more folks fighting for the side the less they get paid when the pot is split. Similarly, on the other side, each person gets a larger share of the available rewards.