170 replies to this topic

[Duke Nedo]

A summary of what the thread evolved into:
________________________________________
The powergap between Techs is undeniable, and can be roughly quantified, or rather translated, in tons. This TECH imbalance is then mitigated to various extent for different mech chassi and variants depending on hardpoints, geometry and hitboxes, making some unquirked IS mechs more viable than others, and the same for clan chassi. After this, there is another round of mitigation provided by quirks, which are also different for every variant. It is this last layer of mitigation that we can try to reduce the need for by addressing the underlying imbalance, the root of the Balance problem.

The biggest elephant in the room, is the XL engine. In order for IS mechs to have similar durability as clan XL mechs, they need to equip a STD engine, at a cost of:

250 ton engine -> 6 tons
265 ton engine -> 7 tons
280 ton engine -> 8 tons
300 ton engine -> 9.5 tons
325 ton engine -> 11.5 tons
350 ton engine -> 14.5 tons

That is the RAW durability penalty translated into tons for IS XL vs clan XL. The RAW value is the mitigated by geometry, hitboxes and speed + some will argue that it's beneficial to zombie, but imo that is neglible today.

If we compare this to the other elephant in the room, which is the weight of IS vs clan Equipment. There are some asymmetric factors here, but when all is said and done, Clan Equipment is lighter for the same or similar performance. Like above, the exact number could be argued til the end of time so let's not. Let's just conclude from the build examples earlier in the thread that for a medium-Heavy mech the weight penalty for a typical loadout is in the range of 5-10 tons. The simplest example is a dual gauss build that is undeniably 6 tons ligher for a clan mech than for an IS mech.

While we cannot scientifically quantify these numbers, we can guesstimate them based on reason, and we can try to predict and suggest ways to achieve Balance without making everything the same.

The suggested engine "normalization" is imo an excellent step in the direction of Balance without any serious drawbacks. Let me expand a little on this.

The suggestion I threw out in the OP just to give an example how it could be done in the simplest way. From the OP
______________________
1. Allow individual crit slots to be destroyed in the engine
2. Make harsh penalties for losing an engine crit slot, like 10% cooling, 10% speed per slot
3. Increase death by engine destruction to 4 crit slots
______________________

What does this mean? It would mean that both IS and clan XLs would survive losing one side torso. By doing so, the IS Version would lose 3 engine slots, then clan Version (and any future LFE I think) would lose 2 engine slots. With the numbers about, a lost ST for an IS mech would mean -30% cooling and -30% speed, and for a Clan mech it would mean: -20% cooling and -20% speed.

Isn't that fair? The IS XL engines would still be worse than clan XL in every conceivable way. They would be the same weight, 2 more slots, and larger penalty for lost ST and have no benefits.

The other good thing with XL normalization is that mechs that do not suffer too badly from XL ST Death ("XL safe") also do not gain so much be getting safe XL, which means that there is no risk of overpowering any mech by doing this. It's a completely safe change that can only improve Balance. If they would instead opt for achieving the same by ST armor buffs, these could easily become wrongly scaled and either do nothing or OP some mechs.

Some argue that STD engines would be obsoleted, which firstly is not entirely true since mechs with low engine cap don't really benefit from XLs, like Stalkers and the slow Awesomes. Secondly, it can easily be countered by giving for example STD engines a Component HP buff of appropriate size, whatever that is. Something in between could be done for LFEs, if they should be introduced at all.

All in all, I'd argue that XL normalization like this would be a really elegant step towards Balance. PGI still have the tonnage penalty difference between weapon/Equipment to deal with, but the XL fix would cut the amplitude of the problem approximately in half, reducing the need for extremely strong quirks.

As for Omni- vs Battlemech Balance, PGI have a job to do. They have a similar decision to do about these, either they do it all by quirks, or they go to the root of the problem and soften up some of the constuction rules for Omnis. Locked FF and absense of Endo is a pure handicap. Being stuck with a non-optimal engine or JJs or AP etc is not a pure handicap since this is functional Equipment, just not optimal... so I would suggest starting in the endo/ff end of Things and unlock these. This has been suggested and discussed a lot and this change would go well hand in hand with XL engine normalization. Full or partial unlock of JJs would too imo, but that's my opinion.

So, this is an attempt to summarize my opinions expressed in this thread in a bit more organized fashion. Hopefully it can Reach someone. There are 2 big Balance elephants, one can be rather easily addressed, the other must continue to be asymmetric because of Stock builds and IS stuff being heavier. There is no way around it, and PGI already took measures to Control the clan Version with longer durations and dot-character (ACs) and splash (ERPPCs). There is still some tuning to do, and I would prefer that they tune weapon Techs a bit better too before applying quirks, so that quirks doesn't have to compensate as much for this as is currently the case.

That would free up quirks to deal mostly with differences in hardpoints/geometry and hitboxes and similar Things directly related to mechs and not Tech.
________________________________________

Initial OP:


Sorry, yet another balance thread... but the reason I post this is not to argue what is OP and what is not. It's an attempt to get everyone on board by trying to illustrate why quirks were introduced, any why they are as strong as they are. This will be old food and obvious stuff for some of you guys that understand all this very well, but after reading so many extremely biased opinions lately I really need to get this out of my system...

To illustrate, lets compare the Thunderbolt with the Ebon Jaguar. Both are 65 tons, both have good hardpoint locations. For now, let's ignore hitboxes, geometry and quirks. Since techs are not directly comparable, lets do several to paint the picture.

Comparison 1: similar speed/durability/alpha

TDR-5SS: STD315, FF/endo, 7x MPL, 42 dmg alpha, 16DHS, 3.97 sustained dps, 11.69 burst dps, 220m range, 0.6s duration
EBJ-Prime: cXL325, FF/endo, 7x cSPL, 42 dmg alpha, 13DHS, 4.90 sustained dps, 14,00 burst dps, 165m range, 0.75s duration

TDR has 0 free slots, 1.75 free tons
EBJ has 26 free slots, 22 free tons and less range/more dps weapons

Comparison 2: similar speed/durability, same weapon selection

TDR-5SS: STD315, FF/endo, 7x MPL, 42 dmg alpha, 16DHS, 3.97 sustained dps, 11.69 burst dps, 220m range, 0.6s duration
EBJ-Prime: cXL325, FF/endo, 7x cMPL, 56 dmg alpha, 18DHS, 4.07 sustained dps, 14.56 burst dps, 330m range, 0.85s duration

TDR has 0 free slots, 1.75 free tons
EBJ has 16 free slots, 10 free tons, and flat out superior weapons

Comparison 3: similar speed/durability, same weapon selection, quirked 5SS

TDR-5SS: STD315, FF/endo, 7x MPL, 42 dmg alpha, 16DHS, ~4.5 sustained dps, 13.33 burst dps, 330m range, 0.6s duration (+30 ST structure)
EBJ-Prime: cXL325, FF/endo, 7x cMPL, 56 dmg alpha, 18DHS, 4.07 sustained dps, 14.56 burst dps, 330m range, 0.85s duration

TDR has 0 free slots, 1.75 free tons
EBJ has 16 free slots, 10 free tons, and better weapons

Comparison 4: reduced speed, similar durability, same weapon selection, quirked 5SS

TDR-5SS: STD300, FF/endo, 7x MPL, 42 dmg alpha, 20DHS, ~5.3 sustained dps, 13.33 burst dps, 330m range, 0.6s duration (+30 structure)
EBJ-Prime: cXL325, FF/endo, 7x cMPL, 56 dmg alpha, 18DHS, 4.07 sustained dps, 14.56 burst dps, 330m range, 0.85s duration

TDR has 2 free slots, 0 free tons
EBJ has 16 free slots, 10 free tons, and comparable weapons (better alpha/burst dps, worse sustained dps and duration)

So, by looking at those numbers you can see how the admittedly strong range quirks on the 5SS helps it to approach the EBJ (gives IS MPLs the same range as clan MPLs). Optimizing engine size helps a bit more. But... the EBJ still has 10 tons left. This is how big the advantage of safe XL engine is in tons!

Now, we could argue all day long which comparison is fair, I should compare different mechs, I should have used LL build, etc, etc, but I hope everyone can see the general picture and not bury themselves in details. As long as IS requires an STD engine to reach clan level of survivability, the difference is this big, and this is why we sit here today with super-quirks.

On top of this we do of course have many layers of factors that mitigate some of this handicap for some chassi, most notably hitboxes, geometry and hardpoint placement. The Stalker is a fine example of all three factors helping the chassi to mitigate most of the non-cXL-engine disadvantage. The Stalker has excellently placed hardpoints, en masse, and its geometry is small and slim for the tonnage, and most importantly its CT hitbox is very slim. Therefore, when using a STD engine it will quickly lose one ST, but can use it to tank its remaining ST and the CT very efficiently, giving it great durability. There is also the opposite, with slim or very fast mechs that can more safely equip an XL, that mitigates a lot of this disadvantage but not all. Especially with better HSR now.

These are examples of asymmetric mitigation of the underlying problem of clan XL engines. That doesn't solve balance, just as little as locked equipment solves it for clans. We really should push together for PGI getting to the root of the problem, and that is to reduce the power-gap between IS and clan XL engines.

I therefore suggest we support mcgrals thread about normalizing engines. I fully support it and has suggested similar things myself.

Duke Nedo, on 15 March 2015 - 11:56 PM, said:

If we would for balance core rules ignore for a bit, I'd probably do this:

1. Allow individual crit slots to be destroyed in the engine
2. Make harsh penalties for losing an engine crit slot, like 10% cooling, 10% speed per slot
3. Increase death by engine destruction to 4 6 crit slots
4. Profit

Now losing both side torsos will kill both IS and clan XLs, but the IS version will be much more punished for losing 1 ST. It would also potentially be a more gradual process of each crit slot of the engine has some HP and can be destroyed individually.

Edit: 6 -> 4

Something along these lines. I don't care for the implementation or details, but I think that direction is the right one. Perhaps the only sustainable one.

With something like that in place we can reduce quirks, we can unlock clan customization and we can fine tune weapon balance. PGI could also more safely introduce new tech like IIc and LFEs without completely overthrowing whatever quirk balance they have achieved....

Thank you, now I feel better.

_____________________
Edit: Just to clarify, I am not pro clan nerfs or any form of blanket nerfs. What I try to promote is that the baselines for clan tech and IS tech are brought closer by getting rid of the biggest elephants. I think it's dangerous to rely on quirks to achieve clan-IS balance. It's an excellent tool for promoting diversity within each of the factions, but it quickly becomes a dead end if used alone to balance factions.

I also don't have any strong preferences for IS or clans.

_____________________
Edit 2: some comparisons later in thread

Here's another comparison that is quite illustrative. The SCR vs SHD-2K.

The SHD-2K is/was considered a good mech by IS standards, mildly quirked. Both have high E hardpoints etc.

Basic podspace in general due to engine + common trade-offs:

SCR 330cXL (106.9 kph): 23 tons
SHD 330XL: 23 tons
SHD 330STD: 11 tons
SHD 300STD: 17.5 tons
SHD 280STD (90.7 kph): 20.5 tons

So, depending on how much speed/agility you want to sacrifice, a cost somewhere between 2.5 and 12 tons.

Example builds:

SHD-2K, 3x ERLL, STD300, -0.5t armor: 27 dmg alpha, 675m range, 1.25s duration, 6.0 burst dps, 2.70 sustained dps

Similar SCR, -0.5t armor, 2x cLPL, 26 dmg alpha, 600m range, 1.12s duration, 5.94 burst dps, 2.80 sustained dps

Not perfect but rather similar. 1p less alpha, 75m less range, but ~10% shorter duration. The SCR has higher agility though and larger engine. If we just say that this is comparable, but not identical. How many tons do this SCR have left to spend on additional stuff after matching the SHD?

SCR free pod space: 11 tons and 23 slots. There are no negative quirks on these pods, but the SHD gets 7.5% heat gen.

As before, if we say add a TC1 to the SCR to make it a more fair comparison, then it's 10 tons. If we then cut it in half for arguments sake, it's down to a 5 tons advantage, which then again is the tonnage locked up in JumpJets on the Summoner. Ponder.

And once again, I am not crying nerf, but I'd like to illustrate the power gap.
________________________
In the TDR example, it was between 10 and 22 tons (!) less for mimicing the TDR-5SS MPL/STD engine build on a EBJ, depending no which weapons you choose. A 5x cMPL build would probably have been most similar, in that case using 14 tons less than the TDR to achieve the same effect.

In the SHD example, it was 11 tons less for a 3x ERLL build when built on a SCR.

For fun, I tried a SMN vs CTF-3D comparison. If I do that on the 1x gauss+4xcERML build, the corresponding performance would require 1x gauss, 3x LL on the CTF-3D, and in order to squeeze that in I'd need to use an IS 280 XL engine (vs the SMN 350 cXL), and in addition to dying from a ST loss and having much worse speed/agility (89 kph+5% + agility quirks vs 71 kph), it's also slightly worse in heat efficiency, alpha and jumpjets.

This one I won't argue if you call it a pointless comparison, but anyways a bit interesting. That's the Suckoner vs a "tier 1" IS mech (heh) before quirkening 1.0.

Once again, I am not writing this up because I want clans nerfed. I write this up because it has to be said, so many people in denial when it comes to balance.

My agenda if I have one is that in order to improve this game, I believe that PGI needs to address IS XL side torso death. This penalty is too harsh and creates this huge powergap (let's be honest now), in measurable tonnage. More tonnage than clan mechs have locked away in (functional) equipment. The only thing that makes it bearable is that IS have customization and can therefore choose their weakness, opposed to the not-so-good clan mechs like the Summoner. The smaller the mech becomes, the more you can live with this penalty, but for many mediums and nearly all heavy/assaults this is a really important balance factor.

Bring the baseline for clan tech and IS tech closer to each other, then you'll not need (as powerful) super quirks, or locked clan equipment.

Peace.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 01 August 2015 - 07:05 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Quote

Now, we could argue all day long which comparison is fair, I should compare different mechs, I should have used LL build, etc, etc, but I hope everyone can see the general picture and not bury themselves in details. As long as IS requires an STD engine to reach clan level of survivability, the difference is this big, and this is why we sit here today with super-quirks.

You wanna balance the game? Then you better bury yourself and everyone else in the details. From a SPC perspective you could have only demonstrated a "flier".

[Paigan]

I normally hate when people don't even bother to read a little longer post, but this time I didn't read it either.

Breaking "balance" down to the last hardpoint per mech is not how balance in Battletech works.

Balance is paramount. BUT: in a proper way.

Clans are SUPPOSED to have superior tech.

IS on the other hand have greater numbers, meaner tactics, etc.
Simple example: Clanners would not dare to call in an artillery strike for reasons of honor, while IS burried hundreds of clan mechs under a collapsing mountain on Tukayyid without a glimpse of an eye.

This is called asymmetrical balance.
Think starcraft: Zerg are generally weak, but have far greater numbers.

For MWO, this could be done very simply:

- Clans have better equipment but less or maybe even no modules at all
- IS have more and meaner modules (like ammo packs, mines, etc.). Think of it as representing IS "tinkering" with mechs and employing meaner tactics.
- Maybe other stuff like asymmetrical drop tonnage (but NOT 10vs12 because of understandable technical reasons)
- And then in the end MAYBE some tiny quirks here and there (again IS tinkering).


This would be very simple and lorewise elegant. And MUCH more interesting than magically quirking up lostech until it's stupidly better than high-tech.

Everyone listing hardpoints etc. for pages and pages for C vs IS balancing purposes has clearly no clue of the game, sorry.

Edited by Paigan, 10 July 2015 - 02:10 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 July 2015 - 01:55 AM, said:

You wanna balance the game? Then you better bury yourself and everyone else in the details. From a SPC perspective you could have only demonstrated a "flier".

Heh, what I meant is that let's not discuss minor details when there's an elephant in the kitchen.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 10 July 2015 - 02:04 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Details is how game design works. Ask anyone who's played a tabletop RPG, even, where the rules are all basically exposed. All you need is one spot where internal comparisons break, and all manner of crazy things can happen, and that's in a situation where you've got someone personally running the game whose 'job' is, in part, to step in and change things when necessary.

There are a lot of reasons why games go through revisions.



As to the engine thing, I've said before (and will say again) that it would probably be best to assign all engines a universal hit point value (54-90 or so) and let them take critical hit damage. Each time the engine damage passes 1/3 of the total health of the engine, you kick up a tier of penalties (say, a 10-15% loss in heat capacity/dissipation), and if a side torso is destroyed, the engine takes damage equivalent to 1/3 of its value for each slot of engine lost.

This then allows critical hit focused 'mechs to actually have an advantage at breaking XLs (IS OR Clan), XL 'mechs of both types to suffer critical existence failure from side torso lost (but IS failure would be more consistent), double heat sinks added to the center torso to soak critical damage that might otherwise break the engine, and by staying above 45 hit points for the engine, a single lucky Gauss shot scoring a triple critical hit wouldn't automatically splode a 'mech.

If it proves necessary, this could then be stepped to a further balancing point by varying the critical hit points of different types of engine, to make one kind or another more frail or more durable.


Of course, I'm the kind of player who also thinks that actuators should still be crittable (loss of agility/arm mobility), as should all the other equipment that's taking up space but somehow magically immune to damage. Not necessarily because CBT, but because balancing factors, relative sensibility, and interesting situation creation (Do I keep shooting you in the arm to make you unable to swing the autocannon around to hit me, or do I try to pop your engine even though it takes longer, because it's more certain? Should you take the risk of engine damage by mounting an XL with no equipment in a side torso? Do you shoot the Atlas in the legs even though Assault 'Mech, in the hopes that you break its knee?)

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 10 July 2015 - 02:09 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Paigan, on 10 July 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:

I disagree with what I think you're saying even though I didn't actually read enough to find out what you're trying to say. Also, what I think you're saying indicates that you don't know what you're talking about (that I didn't listen to/read).

Edited for veracity.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 10 July 2015 - 02:12 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

Paigan, on 10 July 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:

...
- Clans have better equipment but less or maybe even no modules at all
- IS have more and meaner modules (like ammo packs, mines, etc.). Think of it as representing IS "tinkering" with mechs and employing meaner tactics.
....

I like these suggestion and actually Clan 'Mechs can mount fewer (1 less) modules already. Giving IS more interesting modules and restricting Clanners to mount them would be interesting.

[Duke Nedo]

Yeah, I am not saying that details should be ignored, but we don't need to start by burying in details before the big elephants are back in the zoo... once the baselines are closer we can start to fine-tune, or introduce new asymmetric balance, promote role warfare etc.

I am not for blanket nerfs or anything, I just think that relying on quirks at this point, risks to be a dead end. Once the baselines are closer, then quirks will be a great tool to increase diversity on within both sides, but it should not be the main tool to achieve clan-IS balance.

[Sjorpha]

Hit the Deck, on 10 July 2015 - 02:18 AM, said:

Giving IS more interesting modules and restricting Clanners to mount them would be interesting.

I like this idea, give some more IS mechs another mech module slot and some IS exclusive modules. Also remove consumables for clan mechs, or limit them to one and no strikes. That would some leeway to keep the Clan tech a bit stronger, which would be nice thematically.

I also whole heartedly support Duke Nedos call for engine balancing, a more granular approach with individual crits is the way to go. My only worry is that it might obselete standard engines, which would be very sad. I'd like to see something specifically done to improve standard engines and zombie builds, for example std engines could give the mech a significant CT structure buff.

I'd also like to propose a simpler alternative if PGI isn't prepared to change engine mechanics, just give the IS XL agility and ST structure buffs enough that it matches the clan XL ST survival, plus a big CT structure buff for IS std engine.

The upgrades, endo, ferro and double heatsinks also needs to be looked at and balanced between the factions as well as against standard armour/structure and single heatsinks. There should be viable builds for all alternatives without any option being obselete.

With the above combination of more modules, more customisation, engine and upgrade rework and keeping some moderate quirks, it might be possible to balance the factions without removing too much of the advantages of clan tech, and without IS mechs having so strong quirks that it creates silly gimmick builds.

I also think unlocking endo and ferro for omnis would be a good move, because it would help with clan internal balance and make evaluating faction balance much easier. The current locked builds gives a false sense of balance which obscures the discussion, that's not good. The clan techs power needs to be allowed some more freedom if we are to be able to properly compare it to IS tech and balance them.

Edited by Sjorpha, 10 July 2015 - 02:44 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Duke Nedo, on 10 July 2015 - 02:03 AM, said:

Heh, what I meant is that let's not discuss minor details when there's an elephant in the kitchen.

But if you don't explore the fact there is a mouse outside the kitchen you may never know why the elephant is in the room in the first place!

Attention to details.

[Duke Nedo]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 July 2015 - 02:36 AM, said:

But if you don't explore the fact there is a mouse outside the kitchen you may never know why the elephant is in the room in the first place!

Attention to details.

I hear you, but I'm working in academia and is sort of tired of discussions turning nonconstructive because people have a tendency to get sucked in and get stuck in details instead of first simplifying the problem, then solving it. I like the analogy though!

[Averen]

At this point i'm doubting PGI is even interested in balance, especially any point that might potentially touch their store. The EBJ was obviously going to be overpowered and the last patch did only buff the other strongest mechs in the game, Dire/Timber/Scrow.
Pay to Win and PGI's inability to deal with the consequences is really what it comes down to. We can discuss all we want, but it won't change. Even the great and new balance system will be inevitably compromised by the business practice. The playerbase will continue to shrink. Playing heavies has painfully long waiting times these days, there is even less reason to go with a sub-meta heavy, since you might just die in shorter time than it took to get the match. Time to kill is extremly short anyway. Improved hit detection definitly makes the game more fun, but it also makes all these issues painfully obvious. Not to mention clan laser, which made mid/long range poking far to powerfull, when changes to the gauß and PPCs were supposed to give more incentive for short range/dps-based battles.
At this pace, nothing is gonna be changed, balance will tilt over every time, and power creep won't stop. Just wait for the dual-gauß/dual-UAC20 hunchie...

I'm myself hardly even motivated to play these days, and now we've got that joke of a IIC wave incoming. I like my lights and hunchies, and there is probably little motivation left for me if there are a bunch of pay 2 win variants superior in every single way running around. Not gonna serve to be content for some P2W players.
To me, paying money is completely out of question at this point, not without some massive changes.

Edited by Averen, 10 July 2015 - 03:31 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Averen, on 10 July 2015 - 03:25 AM, said:

At this point i'm doubting PGI is even interested in balance, especially any point that might potentially touch their store. The EBJ was obviously going to be overpowered and the last patch did only buff the other strongest mechs in the game, Dire/Timber/Scrow.
Pay to Win and PGI's inability to deal with the consequences is really what it comes down to. We can discuss all we want, but it won't change. Even the great and new balance system will be inevitably compromised by the business practice. The playerbase will continue to shrink. Playing heavies has painfully long waiting times these days, there is even less reason to go with a sub-meta heavy, since you might just die in shorter time than it took to get the match. Time to kill is extremly short anyway. Improved hit detection definitly makes the game more fun, but it also makes all these issues painfully obvious. Not to mention clan laser, which made mid/long range poking far to powerfull, when changes to the gauß and PPCs were supposed to give more incentive for short range/dps-based battles.
At this pace, nothing is gonna be changed, balance will tilt over every time, and power creep won't stop. Just wait for the dual-gauß/dual-UAC20 hunchie...

I'm myself hardly even motivated to play these days, and now we've got that joke of a IIC wave incoming. I like my lights and hunchies, and there is probably little motivation left for me if there are a bunch of pay 2 win variants superior in every single way running around. Not gonna serve to be content for some P2W players.
To me, paying money is completely out of question at this point, not without some massive changes.

Hey, that's a bit gloomy... I am not quite there (yet)...

PGI need to make cash, that is understood, and in order to do that they need to find the balance between grabbing cash (power creep/leap, bait, events, specials) and by sustaining the playerbase (by entertaining us). To be fair, I think PGI has done a bit of both. Upgrades to old maps, old mech geometry passes, quirks, and recently some great bug fixes etc, are efforts to raise the quality of the entertainment they provide. Also, I have a feeling that they have now learned what they need to do to get the sales they need. Recently the way the release things, create events etc has a much stronger commercial flavor. I am a little worried that they are now swinging the other way and start pushing it too far... IIc mechs announcement left a really bitter taste in my mouth. Unless the incoming balance overhaul really addresses the key issues and makes a big leap in the right direction, the IIc's may be it for me.

All in all I still think PGI are trying with the resources they have to create something that can last for a while... but I doubt it will be enough without some kind of additional startup-initiative to get to the next level...

[Sjorpha]

Averen, on 10 July 2015 - 03:25 AM, said:

At this point i'm doubting PGI is even interested in balance, especially any point that might potentially touch their store. The EBJ was obviously going to be overpowered and the last patch did only buff the other strongest mechs in the game, Dire/Timber/Scrow.
Pay to Win and PGI's inability to deal with the consequences is really what it comes down to. We can discuss all we want, but it won't change. Even the great and new balance system will be inevitably compromised by the business practice.

I think the idea that business stands in the way of balance is quite the fallacy.

PGI wants to sell IS packs as well as Clan, they know imbalance does not sell more mechs, and all they have done and said actually shows an ambition to approach balance.

The quirks system, experimenting with tonnage, different mechanics for clan and is lasers and ACs and negative quirks for the strongest clan mechs, these are all attempts to balance the factions. They have not succeeded yet, but they are trying.

I think the difficulties in achieving balance isn't at all about business, but about the considerable difficulty in managing the battletech heritage of extremely unbalanced factions. PGI has a spit fan base, some people are purists and cannot accept any form of symmetrical balance, and some are competitively oriented gamers who wants equally powerful factions. The option to balance by numbers (10 vs 12 etc) is avoided because it is very risky, I think PGI is worried that people are not interested in playing the faction where they get less individual power, and for good reason. So they are fumbling their way towards a symmetrical balance that feels as asymmetrical as possible.

PGI knows they need to balance the factions, but they don't know exactly how to do it without compromising the lore too much or pissing off the battletech fan base. If it was up to me I'd stop worrying about pissing off the fans and just make a well balanced game, but it's not up to me and I understand the attachment to a beloved IP as well.

I'm not sure PGI will succeed, but that doesn't mean there is cause for all these conspiracy theories. Trying and failing to do something isn't the same as a scam.

Mechwarrior tactics was a scam, MWO is not, even if it eventually fails.

[TWIAFU]

How do you balance a game when there is imbalance designed into it?

You really cannot - at least not without stomping all over the foundation of what MWO is based on, BattleTech.

How did the IS 'balance' things against the Clans? Well, they adjusted tactics and over time, improved technology.

The key to balance without ruining the foundation of the game, is to advance technology. Technology is the balance factor.

As a gameplay standpoint, it seems far better to balance weapons once we advance the timeline. Do it then instead of now and again later.

[Joseph Mallan]

Duke Nedo, on 10 July 2015 - 03:51 AM, said:

Hey, that's a bit gloomy... I am not quite there (yet)...

PGI need to make cash, that is understood, and in order to do that they need to find the balance between grabbing cash (power creep/leap, bait, events, specials) and by sustaining the playerbase (by entertaining us). To be fair, I think PGI has done a bit of both. Upgrades to old maps, old mech geometry passes, quirks, and recently some great bug fixes etc, are efforts to raise the quality of the entertainment they provide. Also, I have a feeling that they have now learned what they need to do to get the sales they need. Recently the way the release things, create events etc has a much stronger commercial flavor. I am a little worried that they are now swinging the other way and start pushing it too far... IIc mechs announcement left a really bitter taste in my mouth. Unless the incoming balance overhaul really addresses the key issues and makes a big leap in the right direction, the IIc's may be it for me.

All in all I still think PGI are trying with the resources they have to create something that can last for a while... but I doubt it will be enough without some kind of additional startup-initiative to get to the next level...

Its lasted this long with the main part of the game missing. Actual content and rewards/losses for victory/defeat.

[Midax]

Give all IS mechs perks for STD engines. Bonus acceleration, deceleration, and turning rate +50% or something ridiculous, like a free mini MASC without a speed buff. Make it a large buff so that it doesn't hurt as much to put smaller engines on IS mechs. It would make IS mechs hard to out maneuver in a brawl.

[Duke Nedo]

TWIAFU, on 10 July 2015 - 04:19 AM, said:

How do you balance a game when there is imbalance designed into it?
-snip-

For balance corerule ignore... we all know that!

[Lugh]

Duke Nedo, on 10 July 2015 - 01:47 AM, said:

Sorry, yet another balance thread... but the reason I post this is not to argue what is OP and what is not. It's an attempt to get everyone on board by trying to illustrate why quirks were introduced, any why they are as strong as they are. This will be old food and obvious stuff for some of you guys that understand all this very well, but after reading so many extremely biased opinions lately I really need to get this out of my system...

To illustrate, lets compare the Thunderbolt with the Ebon Jaguar. Both are 65 tons, both have good hardpoint locations. For now, let's ignore hitboxes, geometry and quirks. Since techs are not directly comparable, lets do several to paint the picture.

Comparison 1: similar speed/durability/alpha

TDR-5SS: STD315, FF/endo, 7x MPL, 42 dmg alpha, 16DHS, 3.97 sustained dps, 11.69 burst dps, 220m range, 0.6s duration
EBJ-Prime: cXL325, FF/endo, 7x cSPL, 42 dmg alpha, 13DHS, 4.90 sustained dps, 14,00 burst dps, 165m range, 0.75s duration

TDR has 0 free slots, 1.75 free tons
EBJ has 26 free slots, 22 free tons and less range/more dps weapons

Comparison 2: similar speed/durability, same weapon selection

TDR-5SS: STD315, FF/endo, 7x MPL, 42 dmg alpha, 16DHS, 3.97 sustained dps, 11.69 burst dps, 220m range, 0.6s duration
EBJ-Prime: cXL325, FF/endo, 7x cMPL, 56 dmg alpha, 18DHS, 4.07 sustained dps, 14.56 burst dps, 330m range, 0.85s duration

TDR has 0 free slots, 1.75 free tons
EBJ has 16 free slots, 10 free tons, and flat out superior weapons

Comparison 3: similar speed/durability, same weapon selection, quirked 5SS

TDR-5SS: STD315, FF/endo, 7x MPL, 42 dmg alpha, 16DHS, ~4.5 sustained dps, 13.33 burst dps, 330m range, 0.6s duration (+30 ST structure)
EBJ-Prime: cXL325, FF/endo, 7x cMPL, 56 dmg alpha, 18DHS, 4.07 sustained dps, 14.56 burst dps, 330m range, 0.85s duration

TDR has 0 free slots, 1.75 free tons
EBJ has 16 free slots, 10 free tons, and better weapons

Comparison 4: reduced speed, similar durability, same weapon selection, quirked 5SS

TDR-5SS: STD300, FF/endo, 7x MPL, 42 dmg alpha, 20DHS, ~5.3 sustained dps, 13.33 burst dps, 330m range, 0.6s duration (+30 structure)
EBJ-Prime: cXL325, FF/endo, 7x cMPL, 56 dmg alpha, 18DHS, 4.07 sustained dps, 14.56 burst dps, 330m range, 0.85s duration

TDR has 2 free slots, 0 free tons
EBJ has 16 free slots, 10 free tons, and comparable weapons (better alpha/burst dps, worse sustained dps and duration)

So, by looking at those numbers you can see how the admittedly strong range quirks on the 5SS helps it to approach the EBJ (gives IS MPLs the same range as clan MPLs). Optimizing engine size helps a bit more. But... the EBJ still has 10 tons left. This is how big the advantage of safe XL engine is in tons!

Now, we could argue all day long which comparison is fair, I should compare different mechs, I should have used LL build, etc, etc, but I hope everyone can see the general picture and not bury themselves in details. As long as IS requires an STD engine to reach clan level of survivability, the difference is this big, and this is why we sit here today with super-quirks.

On top of this we do of course have many layers of factors that mitigate some of this handicap for some chassi, most notably hitboxes, geometry and hardpoint placement. The Stalker is a fine example of all three factors helping the chassi to mitigate most of the non-cXL-engine disadvantage. The Stalker has excellently placed hardpoints, en masse, and its geometry is small and slim for the tonnage, and most importantly its CT hitbox is very slim. Therefore, when using a STD engine it will quickly lose one ST, but can use it to tank its remaining ST and the CT very efficiently, giving it great durability. There is also the opposite, with slim or very fast mechs that can more safely equip an XL, that mitigates a lot of this disadvantage but not all. Especially with better HSR now.

These are examples of asymmetric mitigation of the underlying problem of clan XL engines. That doesn't solve balance, just as little as locked equipment solves it for clans. We really should push together for PGI getting to the root of the problem, and that is to reduce the power-gap between IS and clan XL engines.

I therefore suggest we support mcgrals thread about normalizing engines. I fully support it and has suggested similar things myself.


Something along these lines. I don't care for the implementation or details, but I think that direction is the right one. Perhaps the only sustainable one.

With something like that in place we can reduce quirks, we can unlock clan customization and we can fine tune weapon balance. PGI could also more safely introduce new tech like IIc and LFEs without completely overthrowing whatever quirk balance they have achieved....

Thank you, now I feel better.

_____________________
Edit: Just to clarify, I am not pro clan nerfs or any form of blanket nerfs. What I try to promote is that the baselines for clan tech and IS tech are brought closer by getting rid of the biggest elephants. I think it's dangerous to rely on quirks to achieve clan-IS balance. It's an excellent tool for promoting diversity within each of the factions, but it quickly becomes a dead end if used alone to balance factions.

I also don't have any strong preferences for IS or clans.

Several fallacies in your argument here.
1) You are comparing mechs based on Range alone, which leads to your whole argument being fallacious. If you were comparing mechs based on exposure time the balance is clearly on the IS side. On the heat management side again clearly on the IS side.
2) Your next fallacy is the comparison of the Standard engine with the clan XL engine. The winner is the STD for survivability, an option that is wholly absent from he clan side.

3)Despite claiming no bias, all your comparisons attempt to paint the clan mechs as 100% superior in all situations, and you are wrong there too. There is precisely ONE regions where clans are superior 100% of the time and you proved it (Range).
The map design being what it is in the game now, this is NOT the advantage you make it out to be.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Mid range brawling the IS is at least 50% if not 100% better, due to lower heat and higher rates of fire.

That most of you don't seem to grasp this is still mind boggling to me.

Edited by Lugh, 10 July 2015 - 04:51 AM.

[EvilCow]

Easy solution for IS/Clan balance: don't.

Let clans be superior and balance CW instead, 12vs10, 16vs10, tonnage advantage. It would be a challenge for both sides.