92 replies to this topic

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:05 AM, said:

Imo it would be self fixing as soon as you put predicted q times for both clans and is.

clans 5:00 is 0:10, **** it im gonna play is.

Yeah, then you're going to get rolled 5v4 on polar highlands and decide to play a different game mode.

[Zergling]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:05 AM, said:

Imo it would be self fixing as soon as you put predicted q times for both clans and is.

clans 5:00 is 0:10, **** it im gonna play is.

Doesn't work in other games, people just keep queuing up the side they want to play.

[davoodoo]

Zergling, on 29 July 2017 - 03:06 AM, said:

Doesn't work in other games, people just keep queuing up the side they want to play.

ill ask for some citation on this...

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:08 AM, said:

ill ask for some citation on this...

World of Tanks historic battles got shitcanned because everyone wants to play the Tiger tank and nobody wants to play the Sherman.

War Thunder events. You'll sit in queue for 15 minutes with 5 other people on the "good" side until you finally get enough seals to club on the other.

[Zergling]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:08 AM, said:

ill ask for some citation on this...

Evolve had a random matchmaker; people queuing to play play the monster had massive queue times. Everyone knew monster had massive queue times, but people still queued up to play that instead of hunters.

Or for alternative methods at balancing faction population, look at Planetside 2; that game gave lower population factions a fairly significant XP bonus, and it never did anything to fix faction population balance.

Edited by Zergling, 29 July 2017 - 03:17 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 02:26 AM, said:

Because its typical structure for tt and would allow clan mechs to actually be superior to is mechs as it is in fluff without imbalancing the game...

Imagine they'll make all soft-stats simillar like it is in TT, laser durations, heat, uac pallets, damagae, everything. And all of a sudden clan mechs will actually become superior. And all IS mechs will become inferior so noone would play them.

Wouldn't that be a great move to finally kill the game before MW5 ?

[davoodoo]

Zergling, on 29 July 2017 - 03:16 AM, said:

Evolve had a random matchmaker; people queuing to play play the monster had massive queue times. Everyone knew monster had massive queue times, but people still queued up to play that instead of hunters.

Or for alternative methods at balancing faction population, look at Planetside 2; that game gave lower population factions a fairly significant XP bonus, and it never did anything to fix faction population balance.

I played evolve you chosen what you play after matchmaking after it went f2p...

Ofc i hope you arent talking about times where it had sub 1000 peak cause that easily explains long que times...
http://steamcharts.com/app/273350

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 29 July 2017 - 03:13 AM, said:

World of Tanks historic battles got shitcanned because everyone wants to play the Tiger tank and nobody wants to play the Sherman.

War Thunder events. You'll sit in queue for 15 minutes with 5 other people on the "good" side until you finally get enough seals to club on the other.

Probably because tiger was tier 7 and sherman was tier 5 with little to no possibility of penning the tiger without gold ammo...

**** just wasnt anywhere near balanced yo...

"Criticized in its first (9.0) iteration for long queue times, MM balance issues, tank balance issues stemming from using tanks balanced for random battles situations (which tend to make higher-tier historical tanks even more powerful in historical mode), lack of incentive for playing lower-tier tanks in a given lineup, and lack of features separating the mode from normal standard battles once in battle, historical battles is generally considered to have been incomplete at launch. WG has promised to continue development on this mode in the future, including such features as separate stats for HB mode for each tank as well as respawn mechanics and economic incentives for lower-tier tanks which do play. Historical Battles was removed from World of Tanks for rework and revision in the 9.2 update."

you are disingenious as ****...

[Zergling]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:27 AM, said:

Probably because tiger was tier 7 and sherman was tier 5 with little to no possibility of penning the tiger without gold ammo...

**** just wasnt anywhere near balanced yo...

Which is about as balanced as Clan vs IS was when Clans were first introduced.

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:27 AM, said:

you are disingenious as ****...

He's entirely correct though.

I also remember the complaints in War Thunder when they had 'historical' events where numerically superior teams of P-51Ds were forced to fight smaller teams of Me 163s and Me 262s.
Despite the P-51Ds actually having good chances of winning, something like 90% of the players queuing for those battles wanted to play on the smaller teams with more powerful planes.

Edited by Zergling, 29 July 2017 - 03:34 AM.

[davoodoo]

Zergling, on 29 July 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

Which is about as balanced as Clan vs IS was when Clans were first introduced.




He's entirely correct though.

I also remember the complaints in War Thunder when they had 'historical' events where numerically superior teams of P-51Ds were forced to fight smaller teams of Me 163s and Me 262s.
Despite the P-51Ds actually having good chances of winning, something like 90% of the players queuing for those battles wanted to play on the smaller teams with more powerful planes.

Yes i was one of those players.

Why?? cause grinding me262 was a ******* pain and i wanted to try flying german jets.

But i also remember that unless it was aprils fools or something equally appealing then those events had long q times regardless...

Edited by davoodoo, 29 July 2017 - 03:40 AM.

[Zergling]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:38 AM, said:

Yes i was one of those players.

Why?? cause grinding me262 was a ******* pain and i wanted to try flying german jets.

But i also remember that unless it was aprils fools or something equally appealing then those events had long q times regardless...

I was also one of those players, and I flew the jets 'cause it was easy to farm kills by fighting numerically-superior, performance-inferior planes.

Edited by Zergling, 29 July 2017 - 04:03 AM.

[Paigan]

Juodas Varnas, on 29 July 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

LOL, sure dude, let's pit 5 superior mechs against 4 ******** ones.

Totally balanced dude.

Maybe if the 4 ones had 4 legs each.
Then it would be 16 legs vs 10 legs.
Sounds good?

[Kanil]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:05 AM, said:

Imo it would be self fixing as soon as you put predicted q times for both clans and is.

clans 5:00 is 0:10, **** it im gonna play is.

I can either be fodder for the Clanners or wait 5:00 to be an MLG pro in my OP 'mech.

**** it, I'm gonna play some other game.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:27 AM, said:

you are disingenious as ****...

You're right, it's not even the same because at least in WoT historic battles, the team with the lower tier tanks had numerical superiority. In any case, do you think it's going to feel more fair to the guy that drops his trial (dare I even suggest stock) mech into a battle and encounters MADIICs or gets blitzed down by the trifecta of Clan 65 tonners? That's functionally no different than someone fighting a King Tiger in a Hellcat.

IS mechs are just straight up not as good as Clan mechs, ton for ton. That's why IS have greater tonnage limits available in both scouting and invasion. Many people feel that even this is not enough to even the balance- it's much easier to **** up an IS drop deck with bad fits on bad variants. The drop deck tonnage is set by high level players that build for the mode, rather than the average where people just take what they already have.

Putting IS vs. Clan against one another in a 4v5 is essentially reversing that, putting an already contentious situation into total disharmony. You'd have a better case advocating for an 8v5.

[davoodoo]

Kanil, on 29 July 2017 - 03:51 AM, said:

I can either be fodder for the Clanners or wait 5:00 to be an MLG pro in my OP 'mech.

**** it, I'm gonna play some other game.

Actually i fear more that it would help is rather than clans in context of of mwo...

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 29 July 2017 - 03:54 AM, said:

Putting IS vs. Clan against one another in a 4v5 is essentially reversing that, putting an already contentious situation into total disharmony. You'd have a better case advocating for an 8v5.

have you read what i proposed??

yes 4v5 is vs clans is ******* ********.

Instead i proposed 12v10, so both numerical and tonnage superiority for is in exchange for tech superiority for unnerfed clans.

Edited by davoodoo, 29 July 2017 - 03:58 AM.

[Zergling]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 29 July 2017 - 03:54 AM, said:

Putting IS vs. Clan against one another in a 4v5 is essentially reversing that, putting an already contentious situation into total disharmony. You'd have a better case advocating for an 8v5.

Wait whaaaaaaaaat...

/re-reads thread title

Holy crap, I thought this was another one of the 'lets make the balance more like TT, by giving IS teams more mechs for Clans to shoot!' genius ideas.

Someone actually thinks Clans are so underpowered, they should be given numerical superiority?! All my wats. I am out of wats.

zergling.exe has stopped working. Retry. Fail. Abort?

Edited by Zergling, 29 July 2017 - 04:09 AM.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

davoodoo, on 29 July 2017 - 03:55 AM, said:

Instead i proposed 12v10, so both numerical and tonnage superiority for is in exchange for tech superiority for unnerfed clans.

12v10 is probably in the right ballpark, but it would still be too difficult to balance. Ultimately many matches would get decided by how many trial mechs there are on the IS side.

Unnerfed clans will hopefully never happen. They were just outrageously strong on release. It's taken literally years of nerfs and the Timberwolf has only just fallen out of favor. Adding a 12v10 mode as justification for a global lifting of nerfs on Clan is simply not a reasonable suggestion. Most of those nerfs were completely necessary- balance across the board (not just at top levels) is closer now than it ever has been.

[Juodas Varnas]

Paigan, on 29 July 2017 - 03:51 AM, said:

Maybe if the 4 ones had 4 legs each.
Then it would be 16 legs vs 10 legs.
Sounds good?

[Gryphorim]

The only way I could see this working is 10 v 12, with matchmaker allowed to make 10 v 10 (all clan) and 12 v 12 (all IS) games when 10 v 12 game can't be found in tier. The next problem is that at the moment rewards per player would be skewed, with each clanner getting a bigger potential payout (based on potential damage) IS players would need a 20% c-bill/exp buff on all payouts to make it "fair." Not to mention that more people would play clans, as the sense of empowerment of that side of the assymetrical fight. Each clanner needs to make more kills in order to win on kills alone.

[Lucian Nostra]

12v10 would of been one of those things that PGI would of had to do from the start. You can't just rollback and put 12v10 in now balance has been tinkered with for years to get 12v12 balanced it would take to much more time to get 12v10 going and the cries of IS players seeing Clan mechs getting buffs? Oh lord.. it would be a disaster

[Marius Evander]

Let me exagerrate what your are suggesting significantly to make it clear why it wont work.

Say you play counterstrike, would you prefer to be on a team with 12 guys only allowed knives and you cant throw them, or the team of 3 with ak47's ? And if you do manage to kill 1 of the 3 with AK's you cant pick the gun up to use against the other 2.

Everyone would want to be on the team with ak's.