109 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

You dont understand idea. You dont get what asymmetrical balance is in fact. Described situation by you we got just now.

That I'd not what we have now. There is a measurable tilt towards experienced players with Clans but the mechs are reasonably balanced, close to it anyway.

We have asymmetric balance in the concept of ACS vs lasers, or high damage vs high refire/low heat. 10v12 however relies on 2 things -

First, all Clan mechs being consistently 20% better across the board.

Second, there are always 20% more players in IS mechs happy to play across the board inferior gear.

For that to work you need the 20% more is pilots to be close to comparably skilled to clan pilots. Which, given the inevitable drain is to Clan this model creates, won't work.

[Gyrok]

MischiefSC, on 05 March 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

Why would vets stay? A masochistic pleasure at being dropped in inherently ton for ton inferior mechs alongside noobs against vet players in superior gear?

Vets would move Clan or quit, majority anyway. You don't want to call it vets in l33t gear farming nub swarms in trials but you also acknowledge that it's what would happen. You just want to pretend that vets would stay in the scrub patch with inferior mechs because... Reasons. Things are mostly balanced and most comp teams acknowledge the advantages of clan mechs, if only in the perks of pug farming.

Unbalance it note and anyone who stays is is only fooling themselves. What you would not have is any sort of balance

Outnumbering the other side would easily equal that back out. You make the assumption that equality of 10 mechs versus 12 would not be viable because you are using the false logic argument that people will not play a balanced dynamic because of perception.

The reality is, it would force teamwork, more so than the game already does. Why? Clans have less mechs to focus with, and therefore must execute exceptionally well. Meanwhile, the IS has more mechs, and needs to focus exceptionally well to drop them and increase the numbers advantage.

MischiefSC, on 05 March 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

That I'd not what we have now. There is a measurable tilt towards experienced players with Clans but the mechs are reasonably balanced, close to it anyway.

We have asymmetric balance in the concept of ACS vs lasers, or high damage vs high refire/low heat. 10v12 however relies on 2 things -

First, all Clan mechs being consistently 20% better across the board.

Second, there are always 20% more players in IS mechs happy to play across the board inferior gear.

For that to work you need the 20% more is pilots to be close to comparably skilled to clan pilots. Which, given the inevitable drain is to Clan this model creates, won't work.

No, you would attrition some players to clans, some would stay, and others would leave as they do now.

Why would this be any different?

[Jaeger Gonzo]

3 best mechs in the game are clans, how do you call it balanced?
After all those ridicule quirks.
Its just they lazy way to balance, they don`t need anything to code that way.
10v12 looks insignicant, just like their miserable 10 tons.
If that would me I would go 5v12, or 6v12, or 8v12.
You faild to understand that asymmetrical balance those not mean unbalance. Unbalance you got just now, from the start of clan mechs. They claimed that clans are balanced at the beginning, so ridicule, so BS. And they keep with same BS up to date.
You say clans would farm IS. Just this show how much you dont understand term behind asymmetrical game balancing.
If thing would be balanced, game would be challenge for both sides. Could be even be balanced to the way that this would be more challenging for clans. I played that and I know that those was best exp in MWO.

[Jonathan Paine]

Gyrok, on 05 March 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

[lots of excellent words]

Thoughts?

I love you!

[MischiefSC]

Skill differential. The more numerous group has both newer players and inferior gear. How long are vet players going to happily play on team scrub?

The game does and has always preferred certain tactics. People still run off every match. 10v12 isn't going to change that. The is side will have an inherently inferior Elo pool to boot.

This is like asking if you want to be the high Elo player with a bunch of nubs or on a team of above average Elo folks.

You would drain people above a certain skill cap to Clans and leave new players in a shallow skill pool to serve as fodder for vets in buffed up Clan mechs to farm.

You create a clear mech superiority tier and you make is to clan a part of skill progression, so it's vets in superior clan mechs playing against scrubs and nubs in inferior is mechs. Often drastically so as everyone is only in is because they can not afford to go clans.

That is a horrible system certain to drive off new players.

[Davers]

This kind of reminds me of that new MMORPG where the F2P players were going to be stuck playing the Orc horde, while the paying players were going to be the more powerful Space Marines.

Balancing 10v12 would be a nightmare. It would mean throwing out all previously collected data, and starting completely fresh.

Simplest solution? Mixed tech drop decks. Let people play what they want.

[MischiefSC]

Asymmetrical balancing is attempting to balance two inherently imbalanced factors via a third metric. The problem is that I actually do understand it and you clearly don't, Jaeger. Scrow and twolf are best in class but not hugely out of balance. Closer but still not on target. The solution is buffing is mechs up, not codifying the imbalance.

10 v 12 is balancing by making clan mechs intentionally better and trying to get more players to play inferior mechs to win by burying them under a pile of bodies. So one side is squad of special forces and the other side is horde of expendable extras. What role are people going to gravitate to? Now you have to attempt to asymmetrically balance not just mech power imbalance but player ski imbalance. Higher skill equates to better teamwork too.

A mess and one that is certain to drive the expendable zerg new players away.

[Amsro]

MischiefSC, on 05 March 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

Skill differential. The more numerous group has both newer players and inferior gear. How long are vet players going to happily play on team scrub?

The game does and has always preferred certain tactics. People still run off every match. 10v12 isn't going to change that. The is side will have an inherently inferior Elo pool to boot.

This is like asking if you want to be the high Elo player with a bunch of nubs or on a team of above average Elo folks.

You would drain people above a certain skill cap to Clans and leave new players in a shallow skill pool to serve as fodder for vets in buffed up Clan mechs to farm.

You create a clear mech superiority tier and you make is to clan a part of skill progression, so it's vets in superior clan mechs playing against scrubs and nubs in inferior is mechs. Often drastically so as everyone is only in is because they can not afford to go clans.

That is a horrible system certain to drive off new players.

You basically described CW as it is now. The majority of the Vet Teams are on the clan side, trolling the barrel on the IS side.

Since when are clan mechs less expensive? DHS tax? Endo/Ferro tax? Engine Costs? none of those are a variable for clans.

[CyclonerM]

Anyone who sees there are two disconnected players on his team is going to worry about it..

Are you not undervaluing the difference 2 less 'Mechs would make?

How useful it is going to be if a Clan 'Mech is slightly more powerful when he and his teammates are focused down by more 'Mechs?

It always comes down to teamwork. Without resetting at least some of the nerfs to Clan 'Mechs a 2 'Mech disadvantage might be too harsh for most pugs and some teams as well.

Btw, i think 10vs12 should be only in CW. It is not like we have Clan vs IS in group and solo queque anyway..

Oh, and i remember the NGNG 10vs12 event showed that the drops were kind of balanced. Teamwork was key. I did two drops, in one the Clan team got stomped, in the other one we stomped the IS team. 1-1=0, nothing less imbalanced than that.

Necromantion, on 05 March 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:

PGI has indicated that they are implementing 4v4 and 8v8 battles eventually too. 10 or 5 mechs for Clans would leave them kinda hooped.

Also as ive mentioned before what would merc units do when they swap from IS to Clan? Suddenly a small unit with 12 players or so has to have 2 sitting every match? Not really a good idea for PGI.

2 lances vs 1 Star?

And are you telling me that there are so many units formed by exactly 12 players who will be all online at exactly the same time and will not have any friend from other units or such to drop with?

Davers, on 05 March 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

PGI can learn a lot from LoL in map design/objectives/role warfare.

Please, no! Oh, well, i have seen only a single LoL map, the one with the jungle, and if that is the kind of maps the game has, then we already have them in MWO. 3 avenues of attack, one shorter than the others but more dangerous? With turrets at the enemy base? It reminds me of Sulphurous Rift..

And how many veteran map designers does it take to design a symmetrical map with three avenues of attack and two bases, one at each side?

Maybe it is just me, but i am tired of these maps. I would rather see a truly assimmetrical and realistic map that does not look like an arena made for a Solaris fight. And with a bigger size, for that matter. Alpine could be a step in the right direction, but too little of the map is used. Regimental-level operations would be so cool on that map..

Amsro, on 05 March 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

Since when are clan mechs less expensive? DHS tax? Endo/Ferro tax? Engine Costs? none of those are a variable for clans.

We already pay them when we buy the chassis

Edited by CyclonerM, 05 March 2015 - 02:04 PM.

[Davers]

CyclonerM, on 05 March 2015 - 02:00 PM, said:

2 lances vs 1 Star?

And are you telling me that there are so many units formed by exactly 12 players who will be all online at exactly the same time and will not have any friend from other units or such to drop with?

Please, no! Oh, well, i have seen only a single LoL map, the one with the jungle, and if that is the kind of maps the game has, then we already have them in MWO. 3 avenues of attack, one shorter than the others but more dangerous? With turrets at the enemy base? It reminds me of Sulphurous Rift..

And how many veteran map designers does it take to design a symmetrical map with three avenues of attack and two bases, one at each side?

Maybe it is just me, but i am tired of these maps. I would rather see a truly assimmetrical and realistic map that does not look like an arena made for a Solaris fight. And with a bigger size, for that matter. Alpine could be a step in the right direction, but too little of the map is used. Regimental-level operations would be so cool on that map..

PGI is not interested in making huge maps. Too many people complained about 'MechWalker Online'. We should focus our efforts on having PGI make small maps interesting.

What PGI's maps are lacking is 'the jungle'- which is where all the interesting strategy comes from and secondary objectives are located. What we have now is just 3 lanes.

[Necromantion]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

3 best mechs in the game are clans, how do you call it balanced?
After all those ridicule quirks.
Its just they lazy way to balance, they don`t need anything to code that way.
10v12 looks insignicant, just like their miserable 10 tons.
If that would me I would go 5v12, or 6v12, or 8v12.
You faild to understand that asymmetrical balance those not mean unbalance. Unbalance you got just now, from the start of clan mechs. They claimed that clans are balanced at the beginning, so ridicule, so BS. And they keep with same BS up to date.
You say clans would farm IS. Just this show how much you dont understand term behind asymmetrical game balancing.
If thing would be balanced, game would be challenge for both sides. Could be even be balanced to the way that this would be more challenging for clans. I played that and I know that those was best exp in MWO.

You are stupid and probably really bad at this game if you feel that things are that imbalanced.

Davers, on 05 March 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

This kind of reminds me of that new MMORPG where the F2P players were going to be stuck playing the Orc horde, while the paying players were going to be the more powerful Space Marines.

Balancing 10v12 would be a nightmare. It would mean throwing out all previously collected data, and starting completely fresh.

Simplest solution? Mixed tech drop decks. Let people play what they want.

The rage this would incite for the [people I don't agree with] would make me giggle. I am not for it but just imagining the rage posts makes me chuckle.

CyclonerM, on 05 March 2015 - 02:00 PM, said:

2 lances vs 1 Star?

And are you telling me that there are so many units formed by exactly 12 players who will be all online at exactly the same time and will not have any friend from other units or such to drop with?

Please, no! Oh, well, i have seen only a single LoL map, the one with the jungle, and if that is the kind of maps the game has, then we already have them in MWO. 3 avenues of attack, one shorter than the others but more dangerous? With turrets at the enemy base? It reminds me of Sulphurous Rift..

And how many veteran map designers does it take to design a symmetrical map with three avenues of attack and two bases, one at each side?

Maybe it is just me, but i am tired of these maps. I would rather see a truly assimmetrical and realistic map that does not look like an arena made for a Solaris fight. And with a bigger size, for that matter. Alpine could be a step in the right direction, but too little of the map is used. Regimental-level operations would be so cool on that map..

They already said that they are making 4v4 and 8v8 game types. Do you suggest a 5v4 for the clans and then an 8v5 for IS?

This is Mechwarrior not LANEwarrior, I totally agree that while choke point infested environments are indeed a real world occurrence the amount of forced lane maps is absolutely irritating and boring. Also smaller maps is a no thanks since those are the maps where you have awful pilots playing bumper cars fighting for firing lanes.

Davers, on 05 March 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

PGI is not interested in making huge maps. Too many people complained about 'MechWalker Online'. We should focus our efforts on having PGI make small maps interesting.

What PGI's maps are lacking is 'the jungle'- which is where all the interesting strategy comes from and secondary objectives are located. What we have now is just 3 lanes.

See above comment about lanes and small maps

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 05 March 2015 - 05:40 PM.
Insults/language

[Jonathan Paine]

If we did the 10v12, it would probably require something like halving the existing quirks for IS and doing some intra-clan chassis balancing. However, how is this any worse than the current rollercoaster of quirky IS mechs?!? 10v12 is different, it stands out, and it at least tips its cap to battletech universe.

[sycocys]

I think 10v12 would make it far more interesting, it would also simply adjust team formation on clan side from 12 to 10 so realistically there wouldn't be 2 extra other than merc units which really shouldn't be on the clan side anyhow. Not really a crazy adjustment for the merc units either (Personally I don't care if lore is followed, let them follow the c-bills), to form 2-3 smaller groups and team with the clanners they are working for.

As far as the map size goes - Alpine doesn't really have a place in the standard drops so I agree with the complaints about it there as it's just far to big for those modes, especially being that you can't plan at all for your next drop. On the other hand it is closer to the perfect size, if not even a bit small for what CW should be aiming for.

[Davers]

Necromantion, on 05 March 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

This is Mechwarrior not LANEwarrior, I totally agree that while choke point infested environments are indeed a real world occurrence the amount of forced lane maps is absolutely irritating and boring. Also smaller maps is a no thanks since those are the maps where you have awful pilots playing bumper cars fighting for firing lanes.

But this has been PGI's map philosophy all along. It's in almost every map except Alpine (which has a different problem), Tourmaline, and possibly Canyon (still 3 lanes, but it also has that multilevel thing going on). Instead of asking for maps PGI has no interest in making, why not focus on getting PGI to do more with the maps they are going to make?

[MischiefSC]

Right now there are still plenty of vet players on the is side. This would largely void that. So the idea I'd that if there is a small imbalance in experience that steeply increasing the cause of that (better performance/higher cost) will balance out because... New players will swarm in to enjoy being farmed by all the vets? Cuz right now there is a pretty even population split for vets, just the nub population is added to the is population.

How do you handle elo balance when 95% of the is population is comprised of players who don't have the money to progress to clans.

Which is what you're talking about. Right now the clans are not a direct upgrade. Some are a bit better but not much. You make it a direct upgrade, ensure that is mechs will always die in larger numbers and you ensure that everyone progresses up to clans, where you farm nubs.

It also kills cw. Nobody is going to stay is, packed with all the new players against every vet team and player in superior mechs, balanced by the idea that while they're in inferior gear and playing alongside all the newest and worst players they can all die more often cuz there are more of them

Tell you what. Make the new player experience dropping as pugs in the group queue against comp 10mans. How well will that work.

IS pilots excited at the idea of playing 10v12 vs buffed clan mechs please sound off.

[EasyPickings]

Necromantion, on 05 March 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:

Big problem right off the bat.

PGI has indicated that they are implementing 4v4 and 8v8 battles eventually too. 10 or 5 mechs for Clans would leave them kinda hooped.

Also as ive mentioned before what would merc units do when they swap from IS to Clan? Suddenly a small unit with 12 players or so has to have 2 sitting every match? Not really a good idea for PGI.

I doubt that we will ever see anything other than multiples of 4.

An alternative would be to lower the combined drop weight for Clan drops in a 5/6 ratio (Clan/IS). That would mean that for every 100 tons allotted to the Clan drops, 120 tons would be the limit for IS. The matchmaker can still line up 4vs4, 8vs8, etc. but the Clan side would have a lower total drop weight.

[Void Angel]

Well... My thoughts are this:

• I'm not really sure what your first point is even trying to say, here... You start out to debunk a straw man of the "myth" that fewer people will want to play the inferior combatant on the battlefield. Then, you propose that we actually encourage this and that it's ok because some other unnamed game does it with, you think, success. What you're proposing is... problematic First, it's wrong to deliberately stack one team with newbies in this way; skewing the Inner Sphere population toward unskilled pilots would make the "new player experience" simply hellish. Speculating that some players might accept inferior machines because they like pinpoint damage doesn't change the expected outcomes on a demographic scale: you'd still have the Inner Sphere crewed with a much higher proportion of clueless pilots - whose individual machines are also inferior, because buffing them would imbalance higher-level and CW play. So, far from debunking a "myth," you've advocated making sure it happens...
  
• The objection that asymmetrical teams would create a side where the individual members are each stronger than their opponents is hardly a myth - it's true by definition, unless we throw balance out the window. This part of your argument is simply a red herring, and runs counter to known mechanics of the game. Pinpoint damage benefits at least as much as dps from teamwork and focus fire - and aren't you advocating that there be more pinpoint damage players in the fight? Assuming that the amount of dps required to stop a team of pinpoint damage alpha strikers won't also allow the individual dps player an advantage one on one is convenient - but unwarranted.
  
• Sure, I guess - but you're still left with the one side being in better 'mechs and - if you had your way - better pilots. Didn't we just talk about this? In point one?
  
• "Playing together" doesn't mean "playing different games and factions while in the same voice chat." That's like saying calling my mom on the phone is "living with her." Equivocation aside, you're on better ground here - but you've ignored (or forgotten) that bifurcating the player base in this manner would force people to pick one side of their collection or the other in order to keep some friend groups - and many units - together. Even in units who could accomodate both tech bases, you'd create internal divisions within units based on which tech base each player prefers. In any case, while it is certainly true that other PvP games which are, tautologically, not this game do have separated factions, it is also true that implementing such a hard division in the tech base would drastically reduce the personal value of part of most players' collections and create hardships in the player base. Whether it is a good thing to do or not, the difficulties cannot be hand-waved away.
  
• Whether it would be "too difficult" or not would be demonstrated in practice. It could be balanced, certainly, but asymmetric teams present additional balance issues which would make balancing new 'mechs, systems, and game modes more complex. Your proposed solution is inadequate because it glosses over the nuts and bolts differences where balance issues live. Simply adding 1/6th of a 'mech's worth of dps won't solve the problem because of other aspects of the game which are not proportional - such as heat caps, armor/structure per tonnage, engine caps, and cooling. And once we get the relative time-to-kill (proportionally) right, what happens if we want to introduce new systems, like an IS UAC/20? Adding assymmetry makes a multiplicative difference in balancing difficulty - regardless of whether or not it ends up being "too hard."

So while you've set up absolutist viewpoints on the most common objections against 12v10, then set yourself up to ply sweet reason against them, the difficulties you seek to deny still remain. All of this has been hashed out before - nor are the conclusions you came up with "in the last few days" new. It's not that it "can't be done," it's that there are inherent problems with the idea which make it counterproductive.


I am so very tired of this hobby horse, and wish people would stop riding it around the forums.

Edited by Void Angel, 05 March 2015 - 05:33 PM.

[Amsro]

In regards to 4vs4 and 8vs8 you could instead have it 8 IS (2 Lance) vs 5 Clan(Star) and for the uber IS lances 4vs5

So in total you would have 3 CW options;

10vs12
5vs8
5vs4

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Necromantion, on 05 March 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

You are stupid and probably really bad at this game if you feel that things are that imbalanced.

The fact is that you dont understand simple things so dunno who stupid is, I also believe that open insulting other players like this will not drive you too far.
yey boys over the net get excited

MischiefSC, on 05 March 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

IS pilots excited at the idea of playing 10v12 vs buffed clan mechs please sound off.

Im excited about even super buffed clans to star vs lance balance. Damn I even played stock games balanced like this. And it was blast, simply best exp that MWO has me offered. So in matter of facts some of us just know how asymmetrical games looks like and how damn fun they are for both sides.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 05 March 2015 - 04:45 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 05 March 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

yey boys over the net get excited

Im excited about even super buffed clans to star vs lance balance. Damn I even played stock games balanced like this. And it was blast, simply best exp that MWO has me offered. So in matter of facts some of us just know how asymmetrical games looks like and how damn fun they are for both sides.

One huge difference here is that the stock mechs for IS are running single heat sinks...

I feel like a broken record. I have played both sides of this conflict (merc unit), and I tell you what, if you went 12/10 Clans would be SMOKED. It would be an outright blood bath. There would be no way in hell a Comp Clan 10 man team would beat a Comp IS 12 man team. It wouldn't even be funny. There would be a few that could do it, SJR, Lords, EMP, 228... IS has the advantage of pin point alpha, ERPPC, PPC, AC 20's. The Clans have nothing of the sort with the exception of the Gauss rifle, thats their pinpoint weapon.

I feel that they should run 12/10 just so people can see how much it would suck just so people would leave it the hell alone.