59 replies to this topic

[Haroldwolf]

I constantly hear talk about balancing MWO. Balance?... we don’t need no sticking balance . The game has been play tested and balanced for over 20 years. There have been 3 games MW2, MW3 and MW4 that got mech designs and weapons nailed.

I don’t know why Piranha is having problems. I’m guessing, but at least some of it is the interaction of two objects, that is a weapon and the mech. The “To Hit” and “Damage” tables from the source books are pretty clear, but may be giving the devs coding issues or maybe the underlying game architecture is flawed. But balancing mech designs and weapon functionality isn’t the solution.

There are obvious game politics and finance issues at work here. Piranha and the publisher want to make money. When enough people whine and scream OP it looks like Piranha responds to keep the base happy. There are probably an equal number of people who were looking for an online game that is equivalent to MW2 or MW4 and are frustrated that MWO is missing the mark.

Bottom line… Stop balancing the game by tweaking mechs and weapons. Code them based on the volumes of source material that is published. Admit you’ve got some issues and we will be supportive. Otherwise you will lose players.

[Royalewithcheese]

Yeah, I myself love the idea of dual-AC20 builds that can insta-core the vast majority of robots in the game. TT values for everything!

[Noth]

Haroldwolf, on 02 April 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

I constantly hear talk about balancing MWO. Balance?... we don’t need no sticking balance . The game has been play tested and balanced for over 20 years. There have been 3 games MW2, MW3 and MW4 that got mech designs and weapons nailed.

I don’t know why Piranha is having problems. I’m guessing, but at least some of it is the interaction of two objects, that is a weapon and the mech. The “To Hit” and “Damage” tables from the source books are pretty clear, but may be giving the devs coding issues or maybe the underlying game architecture is flawed. But balancing mech designs and weapon functionality isn’t the solution.

There are obvious game politics and finance issues at work here. Piranha and the publisher want to make money. When enough people whine and scream OP it looks like Piranha responds to keep the base happy. There are probably an equal number of people who were looking for an online game that is equivalent to MW2 or MW4 and are frustrated that MWO is missing the mark.

Bottom line… Stop balancing the game by tweaking mechs and weapons. Code them based on the volumes of source material that is published. Admit you’ve got some issues and we will be supportive. Otherwise you will lose players.

CBT is not balanced itself, let alone when placed into a FPS game. The 3 previous MW games were not balanced at all either. They want this to be competitive, thus they must balance it.

[Joseph Mallan]

I hear you Harold, but I do have to agree with the many. Most people don't want to play a combat game that will be over in less than 2 minutes(10 turns=100 seconds). So from the get go we have to change the game mechanics so battles are not over in such stunning fashion. After that, it becomes a challenge of how to make it work in a more drawn out fashion. ie balanced.

[Tickdoff Tank]

I prefer to hit what I aim at and not have my damage randomly assigned to locations of the enemy. Remember that TT rules were based around rolling dice to see what parts of a mech (or whatever) you hit. That does not translate well to an on-line game such as MWO. And that is why things MUST be changed in MWO compared to TT.

[Gralzeim]

Edit: posted too slowly, others said what I was going to.

Edited by Gralzeim, 02 April 2013 - 07:54 AM.

[Syllogy]

Tabletop Boardgames do not translate to FPS.

This ain't Neverwinter Nights, this is Mechwarrior.

[Joseph Mallan]

Syllogy, on 02 April 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Tabletop Boardgames do not translate to FPS.

This ain't Neverwinter Nights, this is Mechwarrior.

You know Neverwinter Nights is based of the Forgotten Realms TT AD&D Setting... Right?

[PappySmurf]

HaroldWolf said=I constantly hear talk about balancing MWO. Balance?... we don’t need no sticking balance . The game has been play tested and balanced for over 20 years. There have been 3 games MW2, MW3 and MW4 that got mech designs and weapons nailed. I reply=PGI wanted something new that would replace the older game models I do believe it was a mistake by PGI. Why try to reinvent the wheel when it works so good? You would have to ask Russ or Brian which of the two decided on such a concept as ELO MM and balance issues that needed to not be so complex. PGI should have made a remake of MW2 with campaigns PVE ai mechs a lobby style Multiplayer system open chat platform then added what they wanted in for planetary. Its almost like bran and Russ threw everything MechWarrior was out the window and thought they could make a better game model. SIGH thoughts of the young and the brave hahahaha.

Edited by PappySmurf, 02 April 2013 - 08:03 AM.

[LordBraxton]

We should be focusing on bringing the spirit of the universe alive, not the spirit of the table top game.

I love Battletech, but CBT values would be broken in this game, they tried them in closed beta, broken.

How could you NOT want balancing?

This makes no sense

[Vassago Rain]

Battletech is one of the least balanced, thought-out game systems available. It's a relic of the 80s, and it shows in both the rules and figures.

[xhrit]

Noth, on 02 April 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

CBT is not balanced itself, let alone when placed into a FPS game. The 3 previous MW games were not balanced at all either. They want this to be competitive, thus they must balance it.

How are two people with the exact same customization options not totally balanced against each other?

Mechwarrior 4 was the only game in the series that was not balanced - and only because of the hardpoint system.

[Noth]

xhrit, on 02 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

How are two people with the exact same customization options not totally balanced against each other?

Mechwarrior 4 was the only game in the series that was not balanced - and only because of the hardpoint system.

That is not balance. If that was balance, pretty much all games would be considered balanced. Perfect balance would be any mech with any loadout would be just as good as any other. It is impossible to have perfect balance so you just work towards having that balance as best you can.

[xhrit]

Syllogy, on 02 April 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Tabletop Boardgames do not translate to FPS.

Considering that tabletop wargames were invented in 1812 by the Prussian military as a simulation of real life actual combat; they translate to real life actual combat just as good as any other genre of game.

http://en.wikipedia....l_%28wargame%29

Edited by xhrit, 02 April 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[Lyteros]

Balance means you can choose freely because all stuff is ok and you're not forced to play FOTM if you want to win. Balance means everyone enjoys the game and not only the guys who abuse every loophole and every FOTM mechanic there is.
Balance means a fair base for the game. Balance allows for competitive play.

Thus balance means a better game, which means more players, which mean more fun, which increases PGIs revenue stream.

TT had balance problems, but MWO has even more at the moment.

[Tennex]

this would work for ECM definately.

but the mechanics of weapons are very different from TT. and even amoung the various MW games. so tweeks have to be made tomake them balanced.

[xhrit]

Noth, on 02 April 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

That is not balance. If that was balance, pretty much all games would be considered balanced. Perfect balance would be any mech with any loadout would be just as good as any other. It is impossible to have perfect balance so you just work towards having that balance as best you can.

That is like saying checkers is more balanced then chess, because queens are more powerful then pawns.

It is only not balanced if you are not looking at the big picture.

The individual components are not balanced against each other, no, but taken as a whole the game is balanced, because the same pieces are available to everyone.

[Tickdoff Tank]

http://www.penny-arc...rfect-imbalance

Worth watching.

[Noth]

xhrit, on 02 April 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

That is like saying checkers is more balanced then chess, because queens are more powerful then pawns.

It is only not balanced if you are not looking at the big picture.

The individual components are not balanced against each other, no, but taken as a whole the game is balanced, because the same pieces are available to everyone.

No it is not. If it was balanced all games out there would be balanced. You aren't looking at the big picture. You are simply using the argument of "You can use it as well so it is balanced" and that is not balance, that is called FotMs and is a bane in actually seeking balance. The big picture, balance would promote diversity, you'd see far less FotM such as the splat cat, AC40 Jagers, and Jump snipers.

Chess and this game differs greatly on the fact that chess you get all the pieces and play all the pieces at once. This game you do not. You get one specific loadout per match, thus you need to balance loadouts and part against each other other to have even a remote semblance of balance.

[xhrit]

Lyteros, on 02 April 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Balance means a fair base for the game. Balance allows for competitive play.

Thus balance means a better game, which means more players, which mean more fun, which increases PGIs revenue stream.

TT had balance problems, but MWO has even more at the moment.

Balance does not mean fair.

"Jaime Griesemer, design lead at Bungie, said in a lecture to designers that "every fight in Halo is unfair". This potential for unfairness creates uncertainty, leading to the tension and excitement that action games seek to deliver. In these cases balancing is instead the management of unfair scenarios, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that all of the strategies which the game intends to support are viable. The extent to which those strategies are equal to one another defines the character of the game in question."