20 replies to this topic

[itchies]

There is no such thing as "Balanced" or "Fair" in war - and that's what this is all about. Stop whining about Battle Value's being matched up or same tonnages. Let them make it uneven if that's what the mission requires for an assault on a defensive position. The assaulter's NEED to bring overwhelming force in order to win - that's what war and combat is about. That's why there are Strategic aspects to this game - same thing with Tactical and Commanders. Being able to do the SMART thing and doing it right in order to win is where the true skill comes in.

Any yahoo can come in and hit "auto-target" and then keep clicking "Fire All" on their weapons - but - a true 'Mech Pilot will actually utilize skill, knowledge and teamwork in order to be that defender that is understrength in a fortified position and STILL win against a superior force.

If you want to play it safe - go ahead - but - i'd much prefer to use skill and knowledge over any FPS fanboy any ole day.

[TheRulesLawyer]

If they're doing some sort of strategic map campaign I can see this happening. Otherwise in random match maker battles? No.

[Zakatak]

I fail to see the logic in this post.

I assume you are speaking only about actual gun-on-gun combat. In this case, your right, a light mech should be obliterated by an assault. But if you are saying that mechs need to be "better" or "worse", period, then I strongly disagree. A light mech should have a small radar cross-section, greater jump distances, more powerful communications and electronics to compensate for lack of killing power.

[TheForce]

This is not war, its a game.

[AlanEsh]

I guess the OP wants everyone to end up driving mechs like the one in his sig or bigger

[theginganinja]

I smell a troll... At least, I hope this is a troll. Otherwise I smell mind-altering substances
Having even forces will require strategic thinking on both sides of the battle, because neither side will have any clear, overwhelming advantage - if you have uneven sides, then only one side will need/want to worry about any strategy more complicated than "Atlas see, Atlas shoot".

[itchies]

No - i'm not trolling. I've played Battletech since it came out, played all of the computer games, all of the mechwarrior games, and plenty of MMORPG's over the years. i'm a veteran of both Simulations and RPG's and i guess i didn't make myself understood very well? This post is in place because of all those yelling at the dev's to make sure everything is "balanced" in matches and that everyone has a "fair" match. My point is that both in the games (tabletop and computer) that it's NEVER been balanced OR fair. It's always been about skill, knowledge and the ability to think on ones feet and especially being able to work with your team mates to figure out a strategy of how to properly win the game, match or mission.

I've never been a PK (Player Killer) fan and i'm not now. I'm interested in fair competition, and that is the correct use of that word. Fair being used by others to mean a duplicate or matching set of mechs of comparable value isn't correct use.

(btw and that sig will be changed shortly once i have a nice cool one like you guys have when it's completed).

[gregsolidus]

Your logic is flawed. BT is balanced on a mechanical level (larger weapons takes up more space and generate more heat,etc),your definition of balance sounds like it would be a stand in for coordination for which it never was,is,or will be.

[Cyttorak]

I don't think anybody who cares about balance ever advocated that the number of units per side should always be equal. If that's what you think we mean by "balance", then let me be clearer:

There should be balance in each game DEPENDING ON THE MISSION TYPE.

For some types of mission, like "escape" for example, a "balanced" ratio may be as high as 10 to 1 if the 1 escaping player is in an ultra-high mobility mech.

What we have been warning against is to make it possible for there to be a 10 to 1 ratio in games that are supposed to be stand-up fights; the objective there is simply to kill all the enemy. Such a game would be virtually unwinnable for the "1" player, and I can't see how that would be fun. What I'm hearing, though, is that some people think this scenario is somehow viable on a MMO. I disagree.

Edited by Cyttorak, 07 November 2011 - 07:05 PM.

[Frantic Pryde]

Well, I can definitely say some of the most fun and exciting matches I've ever played have usually been unbalanced and never in my favor.
Some where lost and some where won. I really enjoy not really knowing what im up against. That was one of the fun things in mpbt.

[ice trey]

itchies, on 07 November 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

There is no such thing as "Balanced" or "Fair" in war - and that's what this is all about.

But there is such a thing as being balanced and fair in a Computer Game.

Frankly, it's one thing to get advantages based on tactics used, because tactics should be able to be countered by different tactics.
If not, than the game devolves into the same garbage you saw in Mechwarrior 4 - Jumpsnipers everywhere. 9/10 times, you can't stop jump snipers, so you in turn had to do the exact same thing they were doing in order to stand a chance. what was more, bigger was better, so you never saw a 'mech that weighed less than 65 tons unless someone had a death-wish or you were playing Capture the Flag. Multiplayer was terrible due to exploits like those.

Likewise, if one faction is weighted against another, then nobody will take any faction but. Nobody wants to be guaranteed to lose from the start.

Let's say you were smart about making your force. You've got spotters, fire support, a "tanking" mech to get right in everyone's face... the works. Suddenly your opponent brings a 'mech... just one 'mech. The opponent isn't terribly good, but that 'mech is "the best in the game"

He wins the fight automatically, because it's the best in the game.

That's not a fun game. that's a load of bull.
Keep the game balanced.

Edited by ice trey, 08 November 2011 - 12:14 AM.

[Tyrant]

This is going to be a competitive multiplayer game, it will be balanced for all, or as balanced as possible to allow for a fun experiance for all players.

This is why clans are such an issue, clan tech is simply better per canon, imagine an is team playing vs a clan team following canon style balance, do you really think the IS team will keep playing the game week in week out.

Its exactly the same as using a tier 7 tank vs a tier 10 tank.

[Zephemus]

I can see how in the single player that making the experience more realistic at the sacrifice of balance would work; But for multiplayer effect it's essential that Piranha makes sure that the game is balanced and that different mechs have different strengths, weaknesses, purposes and that there isn't "one mech to rule them all".

The reason for this is simple, Piranha is making this a free2play game and as such they require people to remain interested in this game and with gameplay that means people need to be constantly challenged. If someone comes into the game later in the life of it and vets of that game own the guy ever 5 seconds, that player will more than likely leave and not contribute any money to the developer which in the end, hurts us all.

Really there's no reason to ask that heavier mechs instantly obliterate lighter mechs and insisting that such realism being integrated into multiplayer is just silly.

[Cake Bandit]

itchies, on 07 November 2011 - 05:37 PM, said:

It's always been about skill, knowledge and the ability to think on ones feet and especially being able to work with your team mates to figure out a strategy of how to properly win the game, match or mission.

I've never been a PK (Player Killer) fan and i'm not now. I'm interested in fair competition, and that is the correct use of that word. Fair being used by others to mean a duplicate or matching set of mechs of comparable value isn't correct use.

(btw and that sig will be changed shortly once i have a nice cool one like you guys have when it's completed).

It's not about matching equipment, it's about finding a quantifiable way to let players know that those guys over there in the the light mech lance are going to STOMP YOU INTO THE GROUND with their massive hoards of weapons, mechs and experience. There is nothing that's going to turn people off faster than throwing new guys with starting **** weaponry who don't know a thing about loadouts into the teeth of well organized, fully financed lances. There has to be some indication of what people are capable of, and who they should really be matched with.

[itchies]

Cake Bandit, on 08 November 2011 - 08:16 AM, said:

It's not about matching equipment, it's about finding a quantifiable way to let players know that those guys over there in the the light mech lance are going to STOMP YOU INTO THE GROUND with their massive hoards of weapons, mechs and experience. There is nothing that's going to turn people off faster than throwing new guys with starting **** weaponry who don't know a thing about loadouts into the teeth of well organized, fully financed lances. There has to be some indication of what people are capable of, and who they should really be matched with.

And i have no problem with that. I remember in one of the games, when you were at the Merc Recruitment section - there were missions that were divided into Green (Easy), Yellow (Medium), Red (Hard) missions - and that should apply here also. Rewards would be commensurate with the level of difficulty and the BV or Tonnage of the ones that win the mission.

[Dozer]

I have an easy solution. Have matches that are deliberately out of balance. High risk, high reward. You want to pit your light against an AM, or have a 3 v 1 disadvantage be my guest. Everyone is happy.

Maybe I should think it through a little more, but superficially having to ability to pick and choose your battles seems reasonable and realistic.

Edited by Dozer, 09 November 2011 - 05:35 AM.

[Infine]

I sort of agree with the OP.

I hope the matchmaking won't pe a simple WoT style kill'em all 15vs15 battles.

I hope there will be a persistent world. With, you know, missions. And fog of war. And unknown odds.

So on one end there's a binary of clan mechs accepting a mission to drop on a planet. And on the other end there's a lance of IS scrap mechs accepting a mission to fend off supposed pirate raid on the same planet. So the lance drops, scout goes off and 5 minutes later it's OOOOOPS *** IS THAT?! That's what I call fun.

[Owl Cutter]

"A victorious general wins, then goes to war. A losing general goes to war, then tries to win."
- Sun Tzu

The same applies to some extent when comparing any two levels. A tactical engagement IRL is often already mostly determined by strategic situation. BT revolves around warfare, but it's important to remember that we're talking about a game and that most games are intended to be fun before realistic. Most players' idea of fun is probably a scenario in which all participating teams have about the same chance at success, so the result feels meaningful because it's determined primarily by players' choices and performance. If there is no strategic simulation which the players can participate in, then individual tactical engagements should be balanced. (as default, with options for the minority of us who don't like a "fair" game)

Edited by Owl Cutter, 09 November 2011 - 08:59 AM.

[UncleKulikov]

I believe in "Balance" meaning both teams at the outset, have an equal chance of winning based on the equipment they can bring into play, that the game will be decided alone by how the players use their equipment to it's potential.

I'm fine with one sided scenarios being included, as long as they are separated from the even matches. And even then, you can give boosts other than equipment, like a superior position and fortifications.

Basically, in any game mode, no side should have a clear advantage before the match starts.

[wolf on the tide]

Zakatak, on 07 November 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

I fail to see the logic in this post.

I assume you are speaking only about actual gun-on-gun combat. In this case, your right, a light mech should be obliterated by an assault. But if you are saying that mechs need to be "better" or "worse", period, then I strongly disagree. A light mech should have a small radar cross-section, greater jump distances, more powerful communications and electronics to compensate for lack of killing power.

a light mech PILOT should also have the sense to shoot the assault mech in the back (only) while it's fighting another assault mech, preferably from cover and without the bigger mechs knowledge


itchies mentioned
"Any yahoo can come in and hit "auto-target" and then keep clicking "Fire All" on their weapons"

for this reason alone i'd like to nominate the basic rifleman as the starter mech...preferably with dodgy heatsinks and low AC/5 ammo, nothing in this game system is going to teach you fire control quicker than an overheat or two...with the possible exception of a full meltdown.