110 replies to this topic

[Aries 127]

Gyrok, on 23 March 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:

This is an explanation as to why what everyone thinks is possible, will never happen...

1.) Balance can be done from multiple angles, but there will always be variables in play that cannot be properly compared side by side. The only way to avoid this is to do something along the lines of SWTOR or another MMO where both sides are the same classes and same abilities EXACTLY with slightly different aesthetics sprinkled on top (also tends to be boring, but I digress).

2.) Regardless of all things being equal, there will always be a class/build/weapon/ability that is the "Flavor of the Month" or the strongest in the evolving meta game. Once that build is "tuned" something else will take the place of that one.

3.) Some things will never be top performing. This is something many of you must learn to accept, and just deal with it. The AWS will never have FS9 hit boxes...sorry...it will always be a tier 2 mech unless it is buffed to be so overpowered it has to be tuned back down. Why? Because even the Gargamel Clan mech has better hit boxes...and the Gargamel is worse than the AWS. This can be the result of poor hardpoints, poor hit boxes, bad equipment, or, in the case of clan mechs, over/under engined, no endo, limited hardpoints, bad hardpoint locations, etc.

4.) The meta is going to evolve, sometimes rapidly, sometimes not. Anyone else remember the jump snipe meta? Remember the QQ over it for an entire YEAR?! Now, we are down to several emergent meta games that depend on what you are bringing to what map. The current state of the meta game now is more diverse and balanced than it ever has been in the entirety of MWO's history. How people are complaining about that is beyond me...however, to each their own.

Hopefully this at least enlightens some of those making all the QQ threads with some insight from a developer. Balancing things is not easy, especially something like this. Frankly, the fact that this game has a performance delta around 5-ish% between the 2 tech trees is an achievement for this team. When you consider what was...this is a time where more chassis are viable, and more play styles are viable, than ever have been at once in the history of MWO. Enjoy it, and stop complaining. Go shoot stompy robots.

Well said sir!

[Mystere]

Almond Brown, on 23 March 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

I got this. MWO VARIABLE LIST

That's a good start. But, there are things still missing like hardpoint locations and weapon placements, missile spread and streaming, firing groups, firing sequences and patterns, terrain, environmental, and other non-human factors.

Then, the next step is to come up with the set of dynamic equations that describe the interactions between all those as they affect 1 vs. 1, 1 vs. N, and N vs. M engagements.

[Summon3r]

the whole balance thing is lost on me tbh, PGI picked a god awful time line to start the game in and want it to be balanced. there was zero balance in this era of btech apart from IS numbers over the clans which PGI has stated will never happen.... 2-400 year old mechs and weapons should not be balanced vs 30-90 year tech.... all it does is create endless QQ as we see daily.

fast forwad the timeline a decade or so and then "balance" can happen without having both sides at each others throats non stop.

[Gyrok]

MerryIguana, on 23 March 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

But a nerf timberwolf thread is QQ? Sho nuff.

At the time, 10 vs 12 was 'supposedly' still on the table...so in light of that, it made perfect sense to leave them as they were...

[cSand]

Gyrok, on 23 March 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

At the time, 10 vs 12 was 'supposedly' still on the table...

thank the good mech-lord we dodged that sh*tty bullet

[Gyrok]

Kristov Kerensky, on 23 March 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

No, it was a QQ post, since at the time he made it, there was a 27 page thread on the exact same subject at the top of the list. He's got another QQ on the front page right now as well about Russ saying he's looking at a 10-20% speed drop on Clan Mechs if they lose a ST due to the 2 engine crits being blown out. He QQs quite a bit in that one, it's like an ISer claiming the Adder is OP QQing, tons of hyperbole and straight up falsehoods.

NOW he's trying to tell us how balance can never be attained and why, because if he can get THIS to be taken for fact, then he can argue that any negatives applied to Clans Mechs are totally worthless, after all, the game CAN'T BE BALANCED!

It's a rather clever bit of reverse psychology, or so he thinks. He's been against anything being done to the Clan Mechs since they were introduced, swearing up and down that none of them are OP in the least, they need to be left alone, they are balanced! He forgets his posting history works against him.

Balance in MWO won't be what he wants, that's about the only thing he has right. Parity in CW is what MWO is working towards, and right now, that means the Clan Mechs need to be toned down a bit still. He feels his 90% win ratio in CW proves that the game is balanced, after all, he and his are experts, they shouldn't ever get beaten. That's not balance, that's hubris, HUGE difference there.

Balance in MWO, Clans will be more powerful but that won't be the deciding factor when facing the IS in equal numbers, team work and skill will be the deciding factors against skilled players. For the general masses, which is the HUGE majority of the playerbase(something he totally doesn't get), the Clan toys need to appear to be slightly better than the IS but not so much better that they are an easy button, but if you don't have a lot of skill, they MIGHT make you a winner, so...buy em! IS needs to be powerful enough to not be seen as an automatic loss, more skilled players go IS, so...buy em! Win/Win for PGI, MWO and the players. We're close to that point now, but the Clan toys are still giving too much of an advantage according to PGI's data from CW. I'd say Gyrok's 90% win in CW claim would prove that PGI is right, but hey, that's a balance thing, and that can never be done!

I am saying that things will never be perfectly balanced that will never happen. The sooner people can accept that there are myriad other factors that play into this, the better off people will be.

The reality is that skill is something that is not bracketed in this game either, because the player base is small. Therefore, you cannot have people who lose to clan mechs or IS mechs continually posting QQ threads because the reality is, as Krafty SOT pointed out in another thread, if there is QQ about both sides, then things must be pretty equal. This is true because bads are going to complain about what kills them, hence bads.

The TDR thread was a legitimate issue.

The speed nerf on ST loss would be a legitimate issue to the detriment of an otherwise pretty well balanced game at this point.

Just because you are not savvy enough to see, or understand, that...does not make it any less true.

[DaZur]

Summon3r, on 23 March 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

Fast forward the timeline a decade or so and then "balance" can happen without having both sides at each others throats non stop.

I agree with you in principle... My issue is the omission of so many iconic / nostalgic mechs.

I have a soft-spot for the underdog mechs and my propensity to go out of my way to pilot counter-meta mechs shows it.

There is a contingency of players like myself (albeit small) that relish a challenge and actually seek more out of MW:O than just a positive win/loss metric and who yearn for depth of play deeper than a puddle....

The problem is too many players look at balance as an all or none resolution, dismissing the logical reality that some mech composites secondary to effective hit-boxes, hard-point locations and speed/agility will always be apex predators regardless of any applied nerfs/buffs.

[Xetelian]

Lighter, higher damage, longer range lasers.

Lighter, short range minimum damage missiles

XL torso loss for 1 torso

I say we need to straight up add more armor to the Innersphere so when they do take XLs they have half a chance.

[Gyrok]

cSand, on 23 March 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

thank the good mech-lord we dodged that sh*tty bullet

I am not so sure...might have been interesting to try it and see what happened. Part of me still wishes it could/would be considered seriously. However, I am pretty confident that ship has long sailed...

DaZur, on 23 March 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

The problem is too many players look at balance as an all or none resolution, dismissing the logical reality that some mech composites secondary to effective hit-boxes, hard-point locations and speed/agility will always be apex predators regardless of any applied nerfs/buffs.

This is the issue in a nutshell.

Combine that with the "participation trophy" crowd, and voila! We have the MWO forums.

[cSand]

DaZur, on 23 March 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

I agree with you in principle... My issue is the omission of so many iconic / nostalgic mechs.

I have a soft-spot for the underdog mechs and my propensity to go out of my way to pilot counter-meta mechs shows it.

There is a contingency of players like myself (albeit small) that relish a challenge and actually seek more out of MW:O than just a positive win/loss metric and who yearn for depth of play deeper than a puddle....

The problem is too many players look at balance as an all or none resolution, dismissing the logical reality that some mech composites secondary to effective hit-boxes, hard-point locations and speed/agility will always be apex predators regardless of any applied nerfs/buffs.

Gyrok, on 23 March 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

This is the issue in a nutshell.

Combine that with the "participation trophy" crowd, and voila! We have the MWO forums.

i love you guys!

Xetelian, on 23 March 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

I say we need to straight up add more armor to the Innersphere so when they do take XLs they have half a chance.

Please see my petition in the suggestions section!

http://mwomercs.com/...88#entry4274388

[DaZur]

cSand, on 23 March 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

i love you guys!

Remember: "I get my kicks above the waistline sunshine"

[Summon3r]

DaZur, on 23 March 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

I agree with you in principle... My issue is the omission of so many iconic / nostalgic mechs.

I have a soft-spot for the underdog mechs and my propensity to go out of my way to pilot counter-meta mechs shows it.

There is a contingency of players like myself (albeit small) that relish a challenge and actually seek more out of MW:O than just a positive win/loss metric and who yearn for depth of play deeper than a puddle....

The problem is too many players look at balance as an all or none resolution, dismissing the logical reality that some mech composites secondary to effective hit-boxes, hard-point locations and speed/agility will always be apex predators regardless of any applied nerfs/buffs.

couldnt agree with you more hence the reason i love piloting Summoners and Gargoyles, even though they are OP now with 2-4% quirks. so much less challenging

[MerryIguana]

Ozealot, on 23 March 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

Ya, now you got it. Congratulations.

So what are your feelings on the issue of Twolf stripping back armor to almost nothing, allowing them to have the front armor of a 90 ton assault? With no side effects i might add. Is that QQ? Or "legit dialogue"?

Gyrok, on 23 March 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

At the time, 10 vs 12 was 'supposedly' still on the table...so in light of that, it made perfect sense to leave them as they were...

I was speaking of the present on that one.

Edit: changed 100 to 90

Edited by MerryIguana, 23 March 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Gyrok, on 23 March 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

I am saying that things will never be perfectly balanced that will never happen. The sooner people can accept that there are myriad other factors that play into this, the better off people will be.

The reality is that skill is something that is not bracketed in this game either, because the player base is small. Therefore, you cannot have people who lose to clan mechs or IS mechs continually posting QQ threads because the reality is, as Krafty SOT pointed out in another thread, if there is QQ about both sides, then things must be pretty equal. This is true because bads are going to complain about what kills them, hence bads.

The TDR thread was a legitimate issue.

The speed nerf on ST loss would be a legitimate issue to the detriment of an otherwise pretty well balanced game at this point.

Just because you are not savvy enough to see, or understand, that...does not make it any less true.

Perfectly balanced, no, skill can't be balanced for, and that will always be the sticking point. Parity, that's doable and it's what PGI is working towards, despite your inability to see that.

The XL/ST loss causing a speed loss is just that, PGI trying to achieve parity because THEIR data shows it's not there, and they are using the CW drops data, which gives a very clear picture of Clan vs IS parity because it ALSO includes IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan data to compare with. Parity would mean all 3 drop types would produce results within a certain range, evidently they aren't in that range for Clan vs IS drops, Clans show an unbalanced number of wins. Skill can be accounted for as well, since they can see the 12 man groups vs the pugs and so on, and toss out the obviously imbalanced matches due to those factors. You say yourself Gyrok, 90% win ratio in CW for your unit, and you do NOT see how that's a clear indication that parity has not been achieved?

Clan tech DOES NEED TO BE MORE POWERFUL THAN IS, that's a fact, it's what PGI says themselves, but there needs to be a point where that power doesn't overwhelm all other factors and it becomes an easy button P2W faction, it hasn't quite reached that point yet according to PGI, you know, the people making the game and with real data to use for that decision. You've been against EVERY single negative change to the Clans since they were added, telling everyone that the TWolf wasn't OP at all, it was perfectly equal to an IS Mech of the same tonnage. Yeah, you aren't biased at all are you Gyrok, nor do you result to hyperbole and outright falsehoods to support your view that the Clans don't need to be touched. 70% heat increase you stated when a Clan Mech loses a ST due to the proposed speed loss change, despite the fact that the 20% heat dissipation has been in play for a while and it's only 20% unless you lose external sinks on the lost side, which brings it up to a massive 27% for most Clan Mechs, almost 40% for a stock Mist Lynx(small engine, 2 external sinks in 1 torso).

Indeed Gyrok, you've been a fair and balanced advocate for parity all along.

*sorry for breaking those detectors*

[Rebas Kradd]

You can't balance the medium laser when you can stuff nine of them onto a Hunchback and only two of them onto an Atlas-S.

That alone defeats "balance" forever as most people understand them. All the people who gripe "balance this weapon"...they'll never get what they want. And that was true before MWO even went live.

Instead, you can balance variants. Make them useful. That's what the quirk system is intended to do, and allowing generic quirks BENEATH the specific weapon quirks is a pretty nice step. Gives players some freedom.

[Dagorlad13]

Holy crap, if you "balance" people want balance, go play chess or checkers where each player has the same type and same number of game pieces and the game is purely skill based. MWO would be boring if all we had were identical mechs, only differentiated by weight class (people would still say that the game is unbalanced).

[MerryIguana]

Ozealot, on 23 March 2015 - 01:57 PM, said:

You mean like an Orion? With no side effects I might add. Ya, that's the worst kind of QQ. QQ without reason.

Dialogue? You want to end discussions with your "arguments", in fact you don't even want a discussion at all.

How cute. You have no idea what im even talking about.

You regularly run 2 back armor on your orion do ya?

[DaZur]

IronClaws, on 23 March 2015 - 02:11 PM, said:

Holy crap, if you "balance" people want balance, go play chess or checkers where each player has the same type and same number of game pieces and the game is purely skill based.

Actually...

To draw a parallel with MW:O and "balance" all chess pieces would need to use the same rule-set as the queen in the name of being competitive.

That's the true fallacy of "balancing" a game... You can't have perfect harmonious balance when there are so many environmental and mechanical influences. The best one can hope for is parity / equity.

Which ultimately is what PGI is striving for with their quirk passes.

Edited by DaZur, 23 March 2015 - 02:21 PM.

[cSand]

MerryIguana, on 23 March 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

So what are your feelings on the issue of Twolf stripping back armor to almost nothing, allowing them to have the front armor of a 100 ton assault? With no side effects i might add. Is that QQ? Or "legit dialogue"?

I'm assuming by "no side effects" you meant "no apparent side affects, until you shoot them in the back"

Those same front loading guys will come back and tell us X mech is OP cause they got one-shotted. In the back. By a light.

LIGHTS OP

[MerryIguana]

cSand, on 23 March 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

I'm assuming by "no side effects" you meant "no apparent side affects, until you shoot them in the back"

Those same front loading guys will come back and tell us X mech is OP cause they got one-shotted. In the back. By a light.

LIGHTS OP

*Shrug* Ask Konniving. I mean what does he know anyways.

Edited by MerryIguana, 23 March 2015 - 02:23 PM.