1089 replies to this topic

[Cyttorak]

This is turning into a LONG 15 minutes!

[phelanjkell]

Cyttorak, on 23 November 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

This is turning into a LONG 15 minutes!

He is Scottish, letters & numbers are not his strong suit!! It is being uploaded right now.

Edited by phelanjkell, 23 November 2011 - 04:40 PM.

[CG Anastasius Focht]

phelanjkell, on 23 November 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

He is Scottish, letters & numbers are not his strong suite!! It is being uploaded right now.

He's an engineer..... he's giving it all he can, but the engines just cannae take it captain

[Cattra Kell]

As always I'm popping in to say leave feedback and questions / discussion questions below or on our facebook!

We promised that part B would be out so we are giving it as much power as possible! (what can we say they don't make fusion reactors like they did during the SLDF era)

Edited by Cattra Kell, 23 November 2011 - 04:46 PM.

[Jock McGunn]

She cannae take it capn, im gieing her aw she's got!

lol didnt actually see your post there focht

Edited by jock mcgunn, 23 November 2011 - 04:47 PM.

[phelanjkell]

Podcast #4 Part B live!

[CG Anastasius Focht]

jock mcgunn, on 23 November 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

She cannae take it capn, im gieing her aw she's got!

lol didnt actually see your post there focht

Even freakier, im actually wear Tabi's as we speak.

[Cattra Kell]

phelanjkell, on 23 November 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

Podcast #4 Part B live!

Once more I am giving this a listen because its the first time I get to hear it myself. So far Jock you have done a great job!

[Cyttorak]

Great job, again!
A question for next podcast:
How do you guys feel about the idea of a balancing metric, like BV, for matches? Should the devs make an abstract system like BV (but tuned for MWO) or go with tonnage? Should there be no balancing requirement for matches, but have the metric displayed so you have a bit of an idea what the odds are?
I'm familiar with neither EVE nor World of Tanks...do either of those use balancing metrics?

Edited by Cyttorak, 23 November 2011 - 06:13 PM.

[Cattra Kell]

Cyttorak, on 23 November 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:

Great job, again!
A question for next podcast:
How do you guys feel about the idea of a balancing metric, like BV, for matches? Should the devs make an abstract system like BV (but tuned for MWO) or go with tonnage? Should there be no balancing requirement for matches, but have the metric displayed so you have a bit of an idea what the odds are?
I'm familiar with neither EVE nor World of Tanks...do either of those use balancing metrics?

I know this isn't the podcast but I'll try to answer at least part of that question to try to clear things up for you.
World of Tanks does to a degree have a pretty good balancing system. In WoT if the game has 10 v 10 then each side gets a even set of tanks. So if one side had 5 light tanks, 3 medium tanks, and 2 heavy tanks the other side will have 5 light tanks, 3 medium tanks, and 2 heavy tanks. It balances by weight (I am not sure if they balance by tech too...) so that each side has a even fight.

[Kudzu]

Cattra Kell, on 23 November 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

I know this isn't the podcast but I'll try to answer at least part of that question to try to clear things up for you.
World of Tanks does to a degree have a pretty good balancing system. In WoT if the game has 10 v 10 then each side gets a even set of tanks. So if one side had 5 light tanks, 3 medium tanks, and 2 heavy tanks the other side will have 5 light tanks, 3 medium tanks, and 2 heavy tanks. It balances by weight (I am not sure if they balance by tech too...) so that each side has a even fight.

While it does work that way (except they're done by tiers instead of pure weight) it's by no means a good balancing system. Not all tanks (much like not all mechs) are created equal, and often times you can tell which side will win based on which chassis they have.

[Dihm]

jock mcgunn, on 23 November 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

ok it appears the render may not have been perfect, will be done again in around 10-15minutes. its scottish not scoch btw, we aren't a drink

lol, I know, that's why I was poking you. Lots of Scots get riled up about that!

Sort of like my wife and "The Ukraine!? There is no THE!!!"

I gave up on the waiting and have been listening to part A and B while messing about in Photoshop with the Dragon.

[Cattra Kell]

Kudzu, on 23 November 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

While it does work that way (except they're done by tiers instead of pure weight) it's by no means a good balancing system. Not all tanks (much like not all mechs) are created equal, and often times you can tell which side will win based on which chassis they have.

Ah thanks, I only played WoT for about a day so I'm not overly familiar with everything. I still think that its a decent setup where at least the sides try to be balanced not to the nitty-gritty point. I think if we have a system like this where if one side has 3 lights and a heavy the other also gets 3 lights and a heavy everything will be fine for pubs. When you start talking conquest its like I say in the cast, bring everything you got. If you decide to bring 4 assaults and the other side takes 2 lights and 2 heavies, you will have to deal with the consequence or victories of your decision.

[Dihm]

Cattra Kell, on 23 November 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

Ah thanks, I only played WoT for about a day so I'm not overly familiar with everything. I still think that its a decent setup where at least the sides try to be balanced not to the nitty-gritty point. I think if we have a system like this where if one side has 3 lights and a heavy the other also gets 3 lights and a heavy everything will be fine for pubs. When you start talking conquest its like I say in the cast, bring everything you got. If you decide to bring 4 assaults and the other side takes 2 lights and 2 heavies, you will have to deal with the consequence or victories of your decision.

This is why I think, with Conquest especially, there should be some sort of mission structure that gives incentives to using varied mechs.

[Kudzu]

Cattra Kell, on 23 November 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

Ah thanks, I only played WoT for about a day so I'm not overly familiar with everything. I still think that its a decent setup where at least the sides try to be balanced not to the nitty-gritty point. I think if we have a system like this where if one side has 3 lights and a heavy the other also gets 3 lights and a heavy everything will be fine for pubs. When you start talking conquest its like I say in the cast, bring everything you got. If you decide to bring 4 assaults and the other side takes 2 lights and 2 heavies, you will have to deal with the consequence or victories of your decision.

Going by pure weight is the worst balancing you can do, if you haven't seen them already there's a few threads about using a BV system floating around.

[Cattra Kell]

Kudzu, on 23 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

Going by pure weight is the worst balancing you can do, if you haven't seen them already there's a few threads about using a BV system floating around.

I'll see if I can bring this up for the next cast.
Seems like this could lead to some discussion.

[phelanjkell]

For those who celebrate the holiday, HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

[MausGMR]

If you want to talk about a way in which the multiplayer could work, then I would recommend discussing and looking at Chromehounds, the old 360 title. That had complete role based mech combat with capture points, command and control, and a no respawn system. I personally imagine it will be very similar to what we see in MWO.

Also, in regards to weight as a balance point, it would be good for limiting teams to taking a more reasonable spread of assets, especially if a variant system is used for purchasing of units (which it likely will be). ofc there is a lot more to balancing that just going off weight, but I don't think it's a bad hard cap when thinking about game sizes in terms of unit distribution.

[John Clavell]

Just got a chance to start listening to Podcast 4. Part A.

[Cattra Kell]

John Clavell, on 24 November 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

Just got a chance to start listening to Podcast 4. Part A.

I hope you like it, remember to let us know what you think!