54 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

So, I have devised a thought experiment. I would like you to guess what the results would be like, and then reflect on how you feel the game should be balanced.

Here is the experiment:

Take an Inner Sphere Loyalist (one who prefers to play inner sphere because Reasons) and a Clan Loyalist (one who prefers to play Clan for Reasons). Ask them to make the game "balanced across both factions" with the rule that the IS teams always have 12 players.

You may expect the Inner Sphere player to prefer some sort of 12v12 with clan nerfs and IS buffs.
You may expect the Clan layer to want 8v12 or 10v12 with Clan superiority in Tech, but IS superiority in numbers.

Then, make them play for their opposing faction and see how much fun the game is for them.


Here's my guess as to what would happen:

Inevitably the IS player will be satisfied with playing either faction, as a 12v12 game lends similar experiences to both sides.

However that Clan player, once stuck in the low-end Inner Sphere tech he created, would not be enjoying the game he made very much. He would contain about dying too easily, about how he can't get any kills, and that IS tech sucks. He would then say "why would anyone NOT play Clans? The IS blows!" even though he personally made the game that blows.

Now you can understand why this game is not being designed "to lore." If Clans are so much better than IS, then nobody want to play IS. And when the MatchMaker requires 3 IS players for every 2 Clanners while the Clanners outnumber the IS players by a wide margin, you will never get a game.

So, before you suggest ways to balance the game, ALWAYS imagine yourself playing BOTH SIDES of the conflict and ask if the game would be fun for you and your enemies, alike

Edited by Prosperity Park, 05 January 2017 - 03:49 PM.

[RestosIII]

TL;DR: Yet another "Don't be an idiot please" thread.

[Bombast]

Prosperity Park, on 05 January 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

So, before you suggest ways to balance the game, ALWAYS imagine yourself playing BOTH SIDES of the conflict and ask if the game would be fun for you and your enemies, alike

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

My thing is that a lot of Clan players don't suggest the 8v12 or 10v12 stuff because its obviously and inherently imbalanced.

I went Clan loyalist instead of side swapping merc after CJF contracts got terrible and CJF was the only clan worth joining in CW3. At the moment I don't really feel Clans and IS are imbalanced in the way that many posters try to make it out to be. All IS really needs is for some of the nerfs they were hit with prior to the rescale to be reverted and a few other quirk passes, then boosting up the underperformers. PGI's very hushed skill tree system might be all we need since they said they were boosting base stats on some mechs.

I'm just feeling the OP is a bit of a loaded question and sets up a strawman that doesn't represent the Clanners all too well.

[Clownwarlord]

How about don't be an idiot and everyone shoot the CT or cockpit. No matter the mech shoot there to kill it.

Edited by Clownwarlord, 05 January 2017 - 04:29 PM.

[RestosIII]

Clownwarlord, on 05 January 2017 - 04:29 PM, said:

How about don't be an idiot and everyone shoot the CT or cockpit. No matter the mech shoot there to kill it.

'points out that something like the Marauder should almost always have its ST ripped off'

[LordNothing]

i always wonder what's driving the 'clans op' bs around here. dane's infamous video seems to show data to support the "clans op" hypothesis. but whats creating those results? are the clans drawing in the pros because the pros think they are better, and then the clan results are getting skewed as a result. or are those clan mechs actually better? i know at least once there has been a big unit exoudus from the clans during a period when is had a lot of crazy quirks, and there were a lot of interesting is metas around at the time.

me personally i dont really see a huge difference. i play a lot of undesirable mechs, and im having a very hard time leveling a kodiak-4. i got a battlemaster, a highlander, and even an awesome that are almost mastered, and a kodiak which i just barely managed to scrape out of basic. these mechs were more or less purchased at the same time and im scratching my head as to why this bear is so bad in relation to these 3. perhaps it still has a big 'shoot me' sign on its back, though its performance thus far is undeserving of that sign. i still have to level the kdk-5 and im not really looking forward to that. of course then i had a lot of luck with the vipers i leveled, i spent no more than a week on all 5 of those, while the handful of remaining is mediums seemed to take forever. if there is a significant difference, its not significant enough to notice in practice, and you only really see small differences when looking at the data.

and no noise threshold has been established either. the matchmaking in this game is so bad that maybe only 1 our of 5 games has a low spread at the end. there seems to be a disparity of new and casual players between clan and is. clan definately has a lot of good units. qp match maker is so broke i dont think you could ever rely on it to source useful data. fp has its own biases. players in t1 certainly arent a valid representation of the typical player. i really think the only way to experimentally test whether clan is really op or not is to get 2 dozen tier 3s into private matches, play 20 or so games on one of the more well balanced maps on some pretty standard fp builds, then have the teams flip sides and do it again.

Edited by LordNothing, 05 January 2017 - 04:40 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Your "experiment" supposes a very specific, seemingly predestined approach to balance and gameplay, and collapses the instant anyone from either tech base honestly suggests other options. It is a little insulting that you would lump all Clan loyalists in the same kiddie pool. You do realize this, right?

For example, I for one am a loyalist in that I never represent the IS. Clan only - though "merc" as Nova Cats are not currently in the game as a faction I could select. It is extremely obvious that at this juncture, a 12v10 environment would be impossible and, frankly, negative for the game. Further, I question PGI's ability to effectively balance things as a numerically asymmetric C vs IS game.

My conceptions for general Clan vs IS balance boil down to Firepower vs Durability, but respect the background of the IP and many of the base ground rules the series has established. Clans have the raw damage, but the IS are built more durably with the exception of the XL engine - though this could just be a matter of severity of side torso loss penalties being altered, as death on ST loss is a bit excessive. IS with extra structure and/or armor per ton over Clan mechs. IS equipment and weapons with more internal HP vs their Clan counterparts. Additional weight and extra crit size of IS tech translated to more durable parts and larger calibers vs Clan tech, while the high technology of the Clans means more damage efficiency per ton. One tech line being the shield, the other the sword. Maintaining symmetry of numbers while allowing an asymmetry of methodology.

There are ways to institute a different but equal approach to things without forcing asymmetric team sizes.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 January 2017 - 04:59 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

As some have argued before, it's mostly about Clan XL, it is the biggest advantage, and no reasonable amount of extra structure or armor quirks can make up for it, but it is such a boon to payload space ( and the 2 extra free crits are nice too ) that it makes all the difference.

And this is most readily seen in some kid of comp play where several mechs focus fire on a component.. going through a clan mech that is guarding with one side means a side torso worth of structure and armor + a CT with damage reduction due to damage transfer vs a simple quirk reinforced ~ +10/+15 armor/structure side torso, until IS gets the light engine.. or some serious departure on how IS engines work in lore this will always be the problem... one that makes little sense as the clans are supposed to be the squishy like glass cannons and IS the brawly tanky types ... that is if you don't go the total Clan superiority route.

P.S. My point here is that because of this one piece of clan tech the clan faction is objectively better so it makes sense that those who want to win over all would flock to it.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 05 January 2017 - 05:07 PM.

[cazidin]

I'm not selfish. I just want PGI to fix the IS Command Console.

[Fish Baby]

I wish they'd just advance the timeline.

The IS XL death trap engines being one of the worst handicaps..

EDITED for reasons.

Edited by Fish Baby, 05 January 2017 - 07:21 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

Also deng, but running some numbers on the light engine, that while it does help, it still hampers IS mechs in comparison.

The math was that it seems that PGI made the gyro weight about ~5.5t +/- 0.5t , so it ends up as XL weight is: "~5.5t + (total standard weight - ~5.5t)/2" and so Light weight is supposed to be 3/4 of as standard (as XL is 1/2 standard) so Light e. weight is: ~5.5t + ( standard - ~5.5t ) * 3/4"

This means that at size 250 it would need about 3 or 3.5 tons of extra weight to switch from an XL to a Light so you ether go slower or less guns/DHS /ammo/armor and the number goes up to ~5t at engine sizes of 350 when making the switch... so we can see how the heavy IS tech is also a problem even with the survivability of a Light engine making clans objectively a superior choice... unless they make the clan tech, that is higher in number due to less weight, that much worse to compensate ( and no, one can say that the volley fire and longer burn time ( if ignoring the ErLL ) do not offset the sheer quantity of them equipped ) .

[Mystere]

Prosperity Park, on 05 January 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

So, I have devised a thought experiment. I would like you to guess what the results would be like, and then reflect on how you feel the game should be balanced.

Here is the experiment:

Take an Inner Sphere Loyalist (one who prefers to play inner sphere because Reasons) and a Clan Loyalist (one who prefers to play Clan for Reasons). Ask them to make the game "balanced across both factions" with the rule that the IS teams always have 12 players.

You may expect the Inner Sphere player to prefer some sort of 12v12 with clan nerfs and IS buffs.
You may expect the Clan layer to want 8v12 or 10v12 with Clan superiority in Tech, but IS superiority in numbers.

Then, make them play for their opposing faction and see how much fun the game is for them.


Here's my guess as to what would happen:

Inevitably the IS player will be satisfied with playing either faction, as a 12v12 game lends similar experiences to both sides.

However that Clan player, once stuck in the low-end Inner Sphere tech he created, would not be enjoying the game he made very much. He would contain about dying too easily, about how he can't get any kills, and that IS tech sucks. He would then say "why would anyone NOT play Clans? The IS blows!" even though he personally made the game that blows.

Now you can understand why this game is not being designed "to lore." If Clans are so much better than IS, then nobody want to play IS. And when the MatchMaker requires 3 IS players for every 2 Clanners while the Clanners outnumber the IS players by a wide margin, you will never get a game.

So, before you suggest ways to balance the game, ALWAYS imagine yourself playing BOTH SIDES of the conflict and ask if the game would be fun for you and your enemies, alike

RestosIII, on 05 January 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

TL;DR: Yet another "Don't be an idiot please" thread.

Actually, I know I would. And if he were still around, I know JM would as well.

So, are there any more idiotic questions?

Sigh! Some people here assume too much.

Dakota1000, on 05 January 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

I'm just feeling the OP is a bit of a loaded question and sets up a strawman that doesn't represent the Clanners all too well.

Of course it was. Was there really any doubt?

Pariah Devalis, on 05 January 2017 - 04:47 PM, said:

Your "experiment" supposes a very specific, seemingly predestined approach to balance and gameplay, and collapses the instant anyone from either tech base honestly suggests other options. It is a little insulting that you would lump all Clan loyalists in the same kiddie pool. You do realize this, right?

Of course he does. Again, was there really any doubt?

Edited by Mystere, 05 January 2017 - 06:01 PM.

[MechaBattler]

Strip away the 25 ton difference and then tell me what you think.

[Alan Davion]

Fish Baby, on 05 January 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

I wish they'd just advance the timeline enough to allow some clan tech to the IS.

The IS XL death trap engines being one of the worst handicaps..

You do realize that in order to do that they would have to advance the timeline to 3070 and beyond? i.e. the Word of Blake Jihad, leading into the Dark Age?

I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure a lot of people despise those particular eras of Battletech/Mechwarrior.

I'm one of them.

Find another solution. Such as the IS LFE. Yes it only nets you a 25% weight savings over the XLs 50%, but it doesn't die to a single ST loss.

[Pjwned]

Fish Baby, on 05 January 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

I wish they'd just advance the timeline enough to allow some clan tech to the IS.

The IS XL death trap engines being one of the worst handicaps..

Or the timeline could be advanced so that Inner Sphere get some of their own improved tech like light fusion engines.

Mix tech is the stupidest idea possible.

[Valhallan]

Pjwned, on 05 January 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

Or the timeline could be advanced so that Inner Sphere get some of their own improved tech like light fusion engines.

Mix tech is the stupidest idea possible.

Or melee could finally be implemented so that IS has one area where they are superior to clans TSM+hatchet atlai plz

[Gaden Phoenix]

Why Clan OP? Very simple, it is not Clan OPed.

It is RANGE OP. Also clan weapons play better into the meta of peek a boo at range and then hide.

IS weapons are usually closer ranged and less duration and less heat. Good for brawling.

Except meta is always range and hide. Which plays into Clan weapons of longer range, longer duration (negative), more heat and higher damage (aka hide more).

When IS gets close, clans are at a disadvantage. Problem is the "get close" part, which takes alot of skill and is more or less gets very little support for other PUGs.

Edited by Gaden Phoenix, 05 January 2017 - 07:35 PM.

[Fish Baby]

Pjwned, on 05 January 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

Mix tech is the stupidest idea possible.

get the feeling you won't be the last one to point this out in this thread.

Don't know the lore anymore than I've googled, which isn't a whole lot.

Have no plans to ever play IS mechs again as they seem quite inferior to the Clans in this game. Just doesn't seem fair unless you're a glutton for punishment.

If there's a better engine for the IS, as people above have pointed out, then, yes, get them out sooner than later. It's bad enough that the lasers are almost half the range of their counterparts.

Edited by Fish Baby, 05 January 2017 - 07:38 PM.

[El Bandito]

Prosperity Park, on 05 January 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

So, before you suggest ways to balance the game, ALWAYS imagine yourself playing BOTH SIDES of the conflict and ask if the game would be fun for you and your enemies, alike

I'm a merc, and my unit plays for both sides per two weeks. I know both sides of the coin. And I say balance both tech to equal competence with different flavors, to reduce IS quirk reliance. Which means IS tech needs buffs (XL, Endo/Ferro etc...), or Clans need nerfs. Judging from the fact a lot of people QQ against nerfs, buffing IS parts is probably necessary.