139 replies to this topic

[Death Mallet]

http://mwomercs.com/...hat-comes-next/

There are probably plenty more where he came from.

Clan balancing really needs to go in the 8 vs. 5 man drop direction + targeting restrictions for Clans.

Or just make every Clan mech a hero mech.

Edited by Death Mallet, 07 February 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[Lusankya]

It will end up being 12 vs 10 once they put in the 12 vs 12

[Congzilla]

Death Mallet, on 07 February 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...hat-comes-next/

It really needs to go in the 8 vs. 5 man drop direction + targeting restrictions for Clans.

No, it really doesn't. Just let IS mechs use clan tech too and balance drops by BV.

[Novakaine]

There are no Clans.
They do not exist.
You have been warned.
FedCom MilSec

[Sigifrid]

1 star vs 2 lances (or 2 stars vs 3 lances) would be interesting. Having targeting restrictions though sounds stupid...why would they get targeting restrictions?

[Congzilla]

Sigifrid, on 07 February 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

1 star vs 2 lances (or 2 stars vs 3 lances) would be interesting. Having targeting restrictions though sounds stupid...why would they get targeting restrictions?

Because they do in lore. 1 vs 1 is the only honorable way to fight to the clans. Engaging an opponent that is already engaged with someone was dishonorable.

[Death Mallet]

Congzilla, on 07 February 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

No, it really doesn't. Just let IS mechs use clan tech too and balance drops by BV.

Others may disagree, but IMO this is an absolutely awful idea also.

First, the IS and Clan tech should be kept on their respective mechs. Really more of a flavor thing than any other reason. . . so YMMV.

Second BV is just a point system. There's no guarantee that it's at all representative of what it is supposed to represent. Tabletop play just doesn't get the millions upon millions of hours of testing my a single community that an online game gets. You'd probably implement it and find it bore little resemblance to actual combat power.

. . . and that is completely ignoring the many substantial differences between online mech stats/mechanics and tabletop mech stats/mechanics. Even if BV were a perfect system for tabletop. . . it would have almost no relation to online play.

Your best bet is a tonnage/weight class combo.

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Let clans be balanced by economics. Let clan gear be a carrot-on-a-stick for guys like that to chase after.There are plenty of popular games that confer a clear advantage to higher level players.

[Congzilla]

Death Mallet, on 07 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Others may disagree, but IMO this is an absolutely awful idea also.

First, the IS and Clan tech should be kept on their respective mechs. Really more of a flavor thing than any other reason. . . so YMMV.

Second BV is just a point system. There's no guarantee that it's at all representative of what it is supposed to represent. Tabletop play just doesn't get the millions upon millions of hours of testing my a single community that an online game gets. You'd probably implement it and find it bore little resemblance to actual combat power.

. . . and that is completely ignoring the many substantial differences between online mech stats/mechanics and tabletop mech stats/mechanics. Even if BV were a perfect system for tabletop. . . it would have almost no relation to online play.

Your best bet is a tonnage/weight class combo.

MW4 did the same thing with IS being able to use clan tech and it worked fine. Not allowing this would see every single IS mech doing nothing but collecting dust as soon as clan mechs are out. Minus a few faction die hards.

BV has had over 20 years of play testing. Every mech, every upgrade, and every weapon has a BV, there is no better way to balance.

[Death Mallet]

Narcisoldier, on 07 February 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Let clans be balanced by economics. Let clan gear be a carrot-on-a-stick for guys like that to chase after.There are plenty of popular games that confer a clear advantage to higher level players.

Problem with that is, no matter how expensive you make them. .; .after a surprisingly short time. . . eventually there aren't many IS players left and the whole 'Clan vs. IS' thing is out the window.

[Sigifrid]

Congzilla, on 07 February 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Because they do in lore. 1 vs 1 is the only honorable way to fight to the clans. Engaging an opponent that is already engaged with someone was dishonorable.

Only in inter-clan battles, and even then only in some circumstances. You forget that they did not follow those rules against the IS. Also, they definitely did not do 1v1 battles in the Battle of Tukayyid. Also, just because that is how they (sometimes) fight in lore does not mean that they did not have the capability to do so.

Know your lore before you try and use it to prove points.

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Death Mallet, on 07 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Problem with that is, no matter how expensive you make them. .; .after a surprisingly short time. . . eventually there aren't many IS players left and the whole 'Clan vs. IS' thing is out the window.

Have clan mechs earn half the cbills that IS mechs earn. Because they fight for honor, not cash, right?

[INSEkT L0GIC]

Death Mallet, on 07 February 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...hat-comes-next/

There are probably plenty more where he came from.

Clan balancing really needs to go in the 8 vs. 5 man drop direction + targeting restrictions for Clans.

Or just make every Clan mech a hero mech.

Devs have stated several times Clan mechs will NOT be MC-only to discourage pay2win.

However, if they did separate "honor points" or some-such you earn through Community Warfare gameplay, instead of using C-bills to secure Clan tech, I can see that working.,

[Death Mallet]

Sigifrid, on 07 February 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Only in inter-clan battles, and even then only in some circumstances. You forget that they did not follow those rules against the IS. Also, they definitely did not do 1v1 battles in the Battle of Tukayyid. Also, just because that is how they (sometimes) fight in lore does not mean that they did not have the capability to do so.

Know your lore before you try and use it to prove points.

Actually they did follow those rules against the IS. I'm re-reading the Kerensky trilogy right now - I'm about half way through the second book.

I haven't gotten to Tukayyid yet, but if they don't use the same 1-1 tactics there, its because they figured out it wasn't working and changed their approach.

But that was toward the end of the clan incursion. So when clans are INTRODUCED. . . there should be targeting restrictions if they are following the timeline.

Know your lore before you try and use it to prove points.

[Sigifrid]

Again, by using it in that battle they clearly had the capabilities, they just chose not to use them before. Instituting such a hardware restriction would be pointless.

[Congzilla]

Sigifrid, on 07 February 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Only in inter-clan battles, and even then only in some circumstances. You forget that they did not follow those rules against the IS. Also, they definitely did not do 1v1 battles in the Battle of Tukayyid. Also, just because that is how they (sometimes) fight in lore does not mean that they did not have the capability to do so.

Know your lore before you try and use it to prove points.

In this initial invasion the Clans did abide by Zellbrigen.

"The Clans' adherence to Zellbrigen put them at a disadvantage when invading the Inner Sphere, whose warriors did not abide by such codes. Despite the Clans' superior military technology, the Inner Sphere's "dishonorable" tactics ultimately led to the invasion's failure. After the invasion, some Clans decided that Inner Sphere warriors should not be fought according to Zellbrigen."

[Padic]

Of course, we don't know how clans are going to be implemented, but assuming that we have player Clan teams playing against player Inner Sphere teams, I would love to see 10 clanners vs 12 (or even 16?) inner sphere mechs.

I do not agree with limiting the Clan-player choices by things like restricting their targeting, but I would love to see Clan rewards depend heavily on their "role playing". Perhaps for Clan players, "kill-stealing" could result in "team-killing"-esque punishments. This creates a system where the Clan players can choose between "losing with honor" or "winning despite the costs".

Of course, this will generate friction between Clan players. Some will want to play for the win, and some will want to play for the currency - but this strikes me as being a desirable, immersive result.

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Quote

Know your lore before you try and use it to prove points.

Oh please.

[Gaan Cathal]

Death Mallet, on 07 February 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Clan balancing really needs to go in the 8 vs. 5 man drop direction + targeting restrictions for Clans.

Or just make every Clan mech a hero mech.

The 8v5 and 12(16?)v10 matches I think are the way to go. Making Clan mechs all Hero is by definition P2W and also really, really dumb. And balancing by economics, also.

Lusankya, on 07 February 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

It will end up being 12 vs 10 once they put in the 12 vs 12

Or 16v10, that's only 2 more players total per instance than 12v12 and maintains the two-lances-to-a-star balancing thingie.

Congzilla, on 07 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

MW4 did the same thing with IS being able to use clan tech and it worked fine. Not allowing this would see every single IS mech doing nothing but collecting dust as soon as clan mechs are out. Minus a few faction die hards.

Keeping IS tech on IS Mechs and Clan tech on Clan Mechs pretty much has to happen to avoid exactly what you describe happening to equipment, rather than mechs. If teams are purely IS or Clan, then the mechs won't get ditched half as fast as you suggest, especially with numerical balancing (which will work far more in the IS' favour in MWO than it would in TT). Plus I can't see House/Clan affiliation with regard to Community Warfare not factoring into this. If you're say, Capellan, you're not dropping in a damn Timber Wolf.

Congzilla, on 07 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

BV has had over 20 years of play testing. Every mech, every upgrade, and every weapon has a BV, there is no better way to balance.

Over 20 years of playtesting in a completely different environment. BV from the tabletop rules has absolutely no relationship with the relative usefulness, risk-reward ratio or anything else of any mech, any upgrade or any weapon in MWO. PGI might be able to implement a MWO-BV but firstly there will be legions of BT purists arguing that they shouldn't deviate and secondly game designers, especially in this sort of game, are generally rather bad at honestly appraising the comparative merits of stuff like weapons with that sort of granularity. Never mind the fact that the playerbase will always find horrible combinations of gear that devs never intended - add to that the possibility of a horrible combination that also leads to a low BV due to the items being poor in isolation and you have a real problem.

[Viper69]

Lusankya, on 07 February 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

It will end up being 12 vs 10 once they put in the 12 vs 12

There is no way in hell 12 IS mechs will take 10 clan mechs, no way in hell period end of story. Even 10 black hawk primes would wipe the floor against a superior tonnage force. You would need at least 12v8 to be close. Even that is going to be tough.