52 replies to this topic

[Vxheous]

Again, you cannot balance clan for 10vs12 for CW, and not have that completely break public queues, unless you pigeon hole all public queues to 10vs12 and force clan to always play with clan, and IS to always play with IS.

[van Uber]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

You fail on common sense logic.

Yeah, good argument.

So how about that xml-fix for matchmaker, weapons and quirks for 10 vs 12. You said you were on to something. Pray tell.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Here you got easy fix for public matchmaker. Give us more CBs for destroying clan stuff, max 3 clan meks per team. And that`s it, nothing fancy is needed to do the job.
After clan release game did not just fall a part with those clearly OP clan meks. I enjoyed killing Daishis in my inferior IS tech meks. After quirks everything is falling in 3-5 seconds and ball death is the only tactics, leading to stomps after stomps. If players don`t hide, actual game is shorter then a search time.
So if you calm down overquirked quirks and possibly give clans back some of the power, I would go for 16v10, instead of 10v12. 10v12 looks too insignificant, just like this 10 additional tons.
For me asymmetrical games are more interesting and fun. Keep in mind that asymmetrical don`t mean unbalance, as most of you thinks. To add on top of that, asymmetrical games are surprisingly easier to balance.
But yeah probably not going to happen, too much work for PGI, but no reason to not call for that from time to time. I think they choose bad taking the easy route and thing will comeback to them again and again.

[van Uber]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

Here you got easy fix for public matchmaker. Give us more CBs for destroying clan stuff, max 3 clan meks per team. And that`s it, nothing fancy is needed to do the job.

So you want to balance the game through economy? You do know that it has never, ever worked in an online community? Case in point R&R in MWO or another brilliant example, Titans in EVE-online.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

After clan release game did not just fall a part with those clearly OP clan meks. I enjoyed killing Daishis in my inferior IS tech meks. After quirks everything is falling in 3-5 seconds and ball death is the only tactics, leading to stomps after stomps. If players don`t hide, actual game is shorter then a search time.
So if you calm down overquirked quirks and possibly give clans back some of the power, I would go for 16v10, instead of 10v12. 10v12 looks too insignificant, just like this 10 additional tons.

So you do not understand the challanges with assymetrical matchmaking combined with a relatively low population? You should really read up on Russ Bullocks response to 10v12:

http://mwomercs.com/...balance-update/

Beyond the multiple technical reasons for not going 10v12 we have the more soft issue of "feature creep" and human tendency to be drawn to what is percieved "stronger".

But that's easily rectified with some swift xml-tinkering if you're competent enough, right?

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

For me asymmetrical games are more interesting and fun. Keep in mind that asymmetrical don`t mean unbalance, as most of you thinks.

Agreed. Asymmetry is more fun. That's my subjective opinion too. However, it should never take precedence over balance or other fun-factors such as waiting time.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

To add on top of that, asymmetrical games are surprisingly easier to balance.

Yes, please tell Blizzard that, who for the better part of eight (!) years tried to balance Brood Wars. And they were still not content.

Symmetry is easier to balance, because you do not need to balance everything. That is the very meaning of Symmetrical, that it is identical on both sides. So I don't understand where you get the idea that asymmetry should be easier in some way.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

But yeah probably not going to happen, too much work for PGI, but no reason to not call for that from time to time. I think they choose bad taking the easy route and thing will comeback to them again and again.

Yes it IS too much work for PGI and for good reason. Russ was very upfront about it.

And yes, it will haunt them again and again by people who believe in easy answers to complex questions.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

[color="#222222"]

van Uber, on 14 March 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

[/color]

[color="#222222"]So you want to balance the game through economy? You do know that it has never, ever worked in an online community? Case in point R&R in MWO or another brilliant example, Titans in EVE-online.[/color]
[color="#222222"]

[/color]
Its not for ballancing anything. How did you came with this? It just for rewarding IS warriors for archivement of killing OP clan mechs and that should be in since day one of clans. If you are coming with examples out side of MWO, please explict more about it. Im not playing every damn game out there and I dont know everything. So Im not getting your points at all. To top of that, you got currently the very evident economy balance. And I mean real economy. Just looks at clan price tag and tell me the same rubbish thing again.
[color="#222222"]

van Uber, on 14 March 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

[/color]

[color="#222222"]So you do not understand the challanges with assymetrical matchmaking combined with a relatively low population? You should really read up on Russ Bullocks response to 10v12:[/color]

[color="#222222"]http://mwomercs.com/...balance-update/[/color]

[color="#222222"]Beyond the multiple technical reasons for not going 10v12 we have the more soft issue of "feature creep" and human tendency to be drawn to what is percieved "stronger".[/color]
[color="#222222"]

[/color]
I am very familiar with this post in your link and I don`t see there anything but low grade excuses.
Like codding end screen? Are they fu/ck/ing serious posting this crap?
In the very same link, you can read about FEW WEEKS of work needed. How the hell you guys came out with impossibilities in code? Few weeks of work is like nothing for making good ground of proper Battetech game. Need some coding is like end of the world. More easy to put next crappy band aid, then actually fix a game.

For the migration problem. Its just not true and false foreseeing as other asymmetrical games prove. Just right now you got like worst situation. They are just plain stronger with no draw backs at all and that`s is making players to migrate. Besides what mean stronger? Again asymmetrical don`t mean unbalanced. Just in same way they can be just weaker, while maintaining they better tech and being stronger on one on one,



[color="#222222"]

van Uber, on 14 March 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

[/color]

[color="#222222"]Agreed. Asymmetry is more fun. That's my subjective opinion too. However, it should never take precedence over balance or other fun-factors such as waiting time.

[/color]
Now you got unbalance. Symmetrical unbalance.
More BT>better game>more players>less waiting time.


[color="#222222"]

van Uber, on 14 March 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

[/color]

[color="#222222"]Yes, please tell Blizzard that, who for the better part of eight (!) years tried to balance Brood Wars. And they were still not content.[/color]

[color="#222222"]Symmetry is easier to balance, because you do not need to balance everything. That is the very meaning of Symmetrical, that it is identical on both sides. So I don't understand where you get the idea that asymmetry should be easier in some way.[/color]
[color="#222222"]

[/color]
Please again, if you come out with other examples out side of MWO you need to explicit more about it. Not getting your point at all, but Eve and starcraft are ones of more respected games around, starcraft is a e-sport with huge market. Nothing to compare to MWO, not a same league. RTS in not my thing, but I know is good RTS. EVE is not my thing be cause of paying fee every month, but I know it is very good, respected in industry game.

You are misunderstanding the symmetrical and asymmetrical things. Now you speak about mirrored design, is the easiest thing and don`t need anything. Be cause is mirror. Its not what you have here in BT world and MWO either.

[color="#222222"]

van Uber, on 14 March 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

[/color]
[color="#222222"]Yes it IS too much work for PGI and for good reason. Russ was very upfront about it.[/color]

[color="#222222"]And yes, it will haunt them again and again by people who believe in easy answers to complex questions.[/color]
[color="#222222"]

[/color]

Few weeks is like nothing. And will haunt them not be cause of particular people, but be cause is a wrong lazy decision that they have made. The ones that believe in easy answers are PGI dev team, going by lazy easy route again and again.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 16 March 2015 - 01:54 AM.

[Scorpioneldar]

van Uber, on 14 March 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

Yes it IS too much work for PGI and for good reason. Russ was very upfront about it.

And yes, it will haunt them again and again by people who believe in easy answers to complex questions.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken i think this covers the issue you are running into here some people find a clear and simple awnser to this problem and think it is done
WITHOUT TRYING IT OR PROGRAMING THIS GAME they seem unable to find out for themselves that they are wrong
never forget the 3rd trait of the simple awsner folks

[anonymous161]

Flash Frame, on 12 March 2015 - 05:34 AM, said:

Funny, if you asked clanners, they'd tell you that IS mechs are OP...

strange.

Actually they are pretty even. A light rush by IS mechs though...is op compared to one done on the clan side so in cw...it can pretty much break the experience of a balanced game, all one needs to do is join a 12 man that knows how to do a zerg rush and you got your win. Clanners just dont have the speed, and pgi made sure to take away our range as it takes too long to do full damage when clans first released we were feared now we are mostly just shrugged off, unless it's a timberwolf.

[Richter Kerensky]

It's actually much easier to stop an IS light rush as the clans than it is as the IS, dude.

[Senor Cataclysmo]

Gyrok, on 12 March 2015 - 05:59 AM, said:

Skill and teamwork are OP.

"Rock is OP, but paper is perfect."

- Scissors

[Xetelian]

10vs12 doesn't make sense with the nerfs to clan laser duration, PPC damage, and spray auto cannons.

Roll all that back and then IS needs 2 more mechs than Clans to win, maybe.

Never going to happen.

[Avengar]

funny watching clans post they aren't op, I haven't been in a match gainst clans when we've won one, we need some stats from PGI I bet it will prove the truth

and it should e 10 vs 12 and balanced for that, clans work in teams of 5 while inner sphere works in teams of 4, he clans always bid lower than the defending/attacking force if you are not going to at least pretend to follow the rules of the universe you are building a game in drop the license at let someone else build a game true to that universe and rename yours something else

Edited by Avengar, 16 March 2015 - 03:48 PM.

[Anachronda]

Gyrok, on 12 March 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

The biggest issue they said, IIRC, would be that they would have to re-write the matchmaker algorithm for groups to account for tech trees, and to account for different sized groups.

While, not a monumental rewrite, it would be substantial enough that it would be a big sink on resources for content for a solid time to come to get that rewritten, operational, walked through QA, put on live, and then of course there would likely be about 4 or 5 hot fixes after that...so...

It's not just company resources, although yeah that is a hit they shouldn't take when there are more important things to work on. The more criteria you give the matchmaker like that, the more resources running the matchmaker will take, as well. More load on the servers, the database, and whatnot. K.I.S.S. is always a plus with this sort of thing.

[Anachronda]

zagibu, on 13 March 2015 - 03:37 AM, said:

A big sink for content? What kind of content? Mechs and maps don't need a lot of programming resources, you know.

Level/map design is a whole other skillset. And with a game like this things have to be pretty exact because you can guarantee that if there is anywhere you can get hopelessly stuck or exploit the map in unintended ways people are going to find it. I don't think the limited number of maps is solely caused by lack of trying. It's harder than it looks.

[Anachronda]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 12 March 2015 - 08:02 PM, said:

We was testing for them 10v12, that`s mean they were considering it and that`s mean its possible, they just took a lazy way to do things. Not real codding needed, just edit some xml files, add here and there and you have next convoluted band aid.
Russ even stated somewhere here that he would love to stick more to the lore and maybe someday in future after CW or something in this lines. Probably just to calm us down, but still.

The fact is that clans was just rushed out too fast. Without CW, without little foreseeing, without nothing. Its like they just rushed selling mechs for premium price, without thinking about whole world.

It really does not sound like you are a programmer. You don't get new logic by "editing a few xml files here and there." Also, just because you can do something doesn't mean it is a good idea. Why, with a few edits to the database, they could nerf all clanners to 0 armor and double the range of all IS weapons. They could add a little code and all turrets on both sides could target any player with the name "Jaeger Gonzo" and a war horn siren would go off that says "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!"

In any system, every change, even something that may seem small, simple, easy, or cosmetic, has consequences that you may not know about and which someone who is unfamiliar with every aspect of how it works would definitely not know about. Nothing is as simple as you are claiming this is and this is definitely not, either, by a long shot.

[Anachronda]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

Here you got easy fix for public matchmaker. Give us more CBs for destroying clan stuff, max 3 clan meks per team. And that`s it, nothing fancy is needed to do the job.

So ... the way to fix the matchmaker code is to give you, and specifically you, more cbills. What does that have to do with the price of surats on Terra? That has nothing to do with balance or matchmaker code, really. Are you not able to afford some build you are sure will wipe those smug clanners from the map? If you could do that, that's not fixing anything either, it's just giving because "gimme gimme."

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

After clan release game did not just fall a part with those clearly OP clan meks. I enjoyed killing Daishis in my inferior IS tech meks. After quirks everything is falling in 3-5 seconds and ball death is the only tactics, leading to stomps after stomps. If players don`t hide, actual game is shorter then a search time.

So if you calm down overquirked quirks and possibly give clans back some of the power, I would go for 16v10, instead of 10v12. 10v12 looks too insignificant, just like this 10 additional tons.

Things used to be easier for you, now you are having trouble, so you want a nerf for the other guy. Still has nothing to do with matchmaker and how easy it is to write code.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 16 March 2015 - 01:00 AM, said:

Its not for ballancing anything. How did you came with this? It just for rewarding IS warriors for archivement of killing OP clan mechs and that should be in since day one of clans.

That's what balancing is. One side gets an advantage, if that advantage is so great that the game seems "unfair" and stuff is coming out too one-sided, you give an advantage to te other side or reduce/tweak the advantage. It's basic design. Within any game you will have advantages and disadvantages to any given role, with the player learning to use them - pardon the pun - to their advantage in order to win.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

If you are coming with examples out side of MWO, please explict more about it. Im not playing every damn game out there and I dont know everything. So Im not getting your points at all. To top of that, you got currently the very evident economy balance. And I mean real economy. Just looks at clan price tag and tell me the same rubbish thing again.

I am very familiar with this post in your link and I don`t see there anything but low grade excuses.

It's obvious you are not getting their points. Maybe you should calm down and try to think about it a little.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

You are misunderstanding the symmetrical and asymmetrical things. Now you speak about mirrored design, is the easiest thing and don`t need anything. Be cause is mirror. Its not what you have here in BT world and MWO either.

They were trying to break things down in a simple way hoping you might understand. If you cannot understand how a simple game situation can be balanced you have no prayer of dealing with something with as much complexity as this.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

Few weeks is like nothing. And will haunt them not be cause of particular people, but be cause is a wrong lazy decision that they have made. The ones that believe in easy answers are PGI dev team, going by lazy easy route again and again.

I still don't see any actual proposal for how things might work differently and why anyone should care. Not even trying to be mean, here, but if you think you know some better way it would probably help to organize your thoughts.

Coming up with an algorithm doesn't require any programming knowledge - it's basically logic. The kind of logic it would take to write instructions for someone to record your favorite show that usually comes on on tuesday at 10, but not to record any episodes from a list of episodes you have seen, and then tell you when that was done.

You can start by looking at all what data might be considered here. Instead of learning about database design, sql optimization, and all that fun stuff keep that simple for the moment and just do up a spreadsheet with a row for each mech, columns representing data points, a sheet for each of 24 players, whatever you want to start out with to look at. Then try and figure out, step by step, if you were having to match people together how would you do it. What data would you need to look up each time. Or whatever. Maybe for your initial test scenario consider what would happen with a semirandomly mixed queue of perhaps 288 players or something. You know, start small. Then really think about each step and what the effects are.

There's a reason the public matchmaker is going to only consider (at least as I understand it) what weight class of mech each player has and whether they are grouped. If you work it out you'll see even that is a little more complex than it sounds but nothing too insane. If they make a super complicated matchmaker that eats system resources and pins the database to the ground you'd be crying "why is it taking so long to get a match, I don't understand it?!" But hey, maybe we are wrong and you are some kind of misunderstood genius. You just need to come up with an actual proposal and not just some vague complaining.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

I already pointed out most of your argues maybe you should reread, rest of your talking is quiet rubbish.

[Ashvins]

All I have to say to the clanners who say they are not OP.......................



LOOK AT THE MAP !

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Ohh I can easy check the last Tournament. From 14 games in CW...just 2 victorys cause Clan are OP.
No. Better reduce premades to 10 to give puggs a chance.

[ThrashInc]

They don't have to rewrite anything.

Leave quirks, etc, in place for public queue, quirk bad clan mechs so that all mechs can be somewhat viable, leave clan nerfs.

Create a separate system for CW where Clan regains their trudubs, original damage/heat from invasion, targeting computer stats, ghost heat, etc, and remove all quirks from IS mechs.

Give the IS increasing tonnage the "deeper" you go into IS territory, and give them 12 mechs vs. 10 clan.

IS gets no increased tonnage for attacking clan worlds, clans get no tonnage buffs.

Lots of MMOs have separate damage/cooldowns/stats for PvP, no reason it can't work for CW.

Edit: Also, no trial mechs.

Edited by ThrashInc, 19 March 2015 - 11:23 PM.

[CHH Badkarma]

said it before, and I will say it again. Give clan mechs release day power and go 10 clan vs 16 inner sphere (assuming pgi can swing that). More tons for them and no pity because they have the tonnage when they QQ.

I would be game just to get paid in weapons or something. Cbills do not count for much these days anyway. They way PGI swings the rewards system I am sure they can dream up an incentive for IS to stay IS.

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 19 March 2015 - 11:44 PM.