97 replies to this topic

[Chuck Jager]

kesmai, on 13 September 2015 - 11:16 PM, said:

One star + 3 points vs a company in cw. Battlevalue rating for the public queue. Completely remove quirks etc. Set clan weaponry back to original values.

that is a different game played in mommies basement

[Mystere]

DarthRevis, on 14 September 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

If you make Clan mechs more powerful then IS if you have 8 clan mechs on one side and 4 on the other who will win?

By doing 10 v 12 you will have to remake the MM to base matches off how many Clan mechs get into the drop. If you dont have an even amount of clan mechs as the other side you are gonna get a L.

How does ECM even equate to one set of mech being more powerful then another? You are not even making a comparison in the same neighborhood....just because i can compare apples and pigmy goats doesn't means its a good idea.

Balance is what makes the Solo queue possible with mixed tech...others wise it another mode with Clams vs Innernerds.

People have been complaining that ECM breaks the public queues allegedly because the team with more ECM allegedly has a much bigger chance of winning. We all of course (I hope) think that is just plain silly. As such, I am cautiously optimistic that if (and that's a big if) MWO were to be successfully tuned for 10 Clan vs. 12 IS (or whatever proportion) grouped game play, and the solo queue -- and only the solo queue -- is still to remain mixed tech, it will still be mostly fine. Of course, all this assumes the matchmaker is correctly doing its thing in the solo queue.

[Revis Volek]

You can have equal amounts of ECM on each side or you cannot...but it hardly breaks it quite like having one tech being completely OP compared to the other and then no way of balancing the numbers of OP and UP mechs in the matches. Thus it ACTUALLY breaks the solo queue...

If you have 5 ECM mechs and the other side has 2 unless they are all LRM and S-SRM boats it makes little to no difference, however if one mech of one tech is equal to 1.2 or better of another (this would be a Tier 1 v tier 1 mech comparison, not a tier 1 v tier 5 mech comparison) tech then you have a problem in EVERY single match. Not just the ones when the bads all bring LRM and scream for someone to give them locks.

[Gyrok]

DarthRevis, on 14 September 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

You can have equal amounts of ECM on each side or you cannot...but it hardly breaks it quite like having one tech being completely OP compared to the other and then no way of balancing the numbers of OP and UP mechs in the matches. Thus it ACTUALLY breaks the solo queue...

If you have 5 ECM mechs and the other side has 2 unless they are all LRM and S-SRM boats it makes little to no difference, however if one mech of one tech is equal to 1.2 or better of another (this would be a Tier 1 v tier 1 mech comparison, not a tier 1 v tier 5 mech comparison) tech then you have a problem in EVERY single match. Not just the ones when the bads all bring LRM and scream for someone to give them locks.

Drops would only be all one faction per side.

Hence in any queue, you would only see the following:

Clan vs Clan (10v10)

IS vs IS (12v12)

Clan vs IS (10v12)

If you wanted to drop with someone who was dropping IS only, bring IS mechs, or drop against them.

Problem solved.

[Deathlike]

Good luck with that, when people are mixing it up to grind out their mechs.

You put so much effort into that non-response, it got the non-response it deserved.

[Gyrok]

Deathlike, on 16 September 2015 - 06:27 PM, said:

Good luck with that, when people are mixing it up to grind out their mechs.

You put so much effort into that non-response, it got the non-response it deserved.

Go play any other online MMO with factions...

We will take SWTOR for example:

If you want to level a Jedi, and I want to level a Sith lord...we will never drop into a mission together. Ever. Period. (They mix in PVP objective matches, mind you, but the PVP there is honestly a bit wonky...and it was not well balanced at all when I last played, admittedly quite a while back...)

This game is the only one I have ever seen with factions that mean nothing and have zero exclusivity...changing that might actually do some good.

Edited by Gyrok, 16 September 2015 - 06:31 PM.

[Deathlike]

Gyrok, on 16 September 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

Go play any other online MMO with factions...

We will take SWTOR for example:

If you want to level a Jedi, and I want to level a Sith lord...we will never drop into a mission together. Ever. Period. (They mix in PVP objective matches, mind you, but the PVP there is honestly a bit wonky...and it was not well balanced at all when I last played, admittedly quite a while back...)

This game is the only one I have ever seen with factions that mean nothing and have zero exclusivity...changing that might actually do some good.

You're going to endorse people going to Clans for the tech, and less about anything else.

More imbalances only serve to promote the Clan is OP notion, and unless you think that will magically solve the queue problems... hahahaha no.

[Gyrok]

Deathlike, on 16 September 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

You're going to endorse people going to Clans for the tech, and less about anything else.

More imbalances only serve to promote the Clan is OP notion, and unless you think that will magically solve the queue problems... hahahaha no.

People still played IS in TT, and many profess they would anyway...look now...IS has more people but the common cry by so many is "Clans OP".

If Clans were truly ridiculous as so many claim, and your theory is correct, why would people continue to play IS, and more of them than play Clans at that...?

I am not saying a hard choice as in, you cannot do both, but I am saying, if you drop in a clan mech, you will fight only with clan mechs.

I think you are reading into this too much.

Think of it like this:

You log into the game and have a starting page with 2 tabs, IS on one side, Clans on the other, you click one, pick a mech, drop in X queue. If you want to switch to IS mechs, go back to "faction selection" startup screen, pick other side...go shoot stompy robots.

Not complicated.

[Deathlike]

Back to... I know enough about Clans to know that I'd run them all day any day over IS tech.

That doesn't mean I'm completely clueless about using IS tech. Only the "quirked" IS mechs even have a shot of being "Clan Competitive".

[Wintersdark]

If you can make tech actually balanced so 10 clan = 12 IS, so a clan mech is reliably 1.2x an IS mech, then you could have made them 1:1 as well.

In the real world, though, that won't happen. Maybe clans end up 1.4x IS ,(10v12 and OMG CLANS ARE OP) or maybe they end up 1.1x IS mechs (IS ARE OP!) and regardless, were in exactly the same spot we are right now.

What's really the issue though is that even if you could accurately make clans worth 1.2x IS, you're creating a situation where players are heavily incentivized to go Clan, because in the end, in day to day random gaming, the VAST majority of people want to be piloting the mech that is equal or better than their opponents. People don't want to be playing in a situation where they're going to lose aa otherwise fair 1v1 against a player of equal skill pretty much every single time.

Underdog stuff sounds awesome, and its fun now and then, but when your playing battles one after another, day after day, being objectively, measurably weaker than your opposition really sucks.

So, the majority of players go clans, IS is a wasteland of new players who don't know better, people who like losing, and the diehard Battle tech IS fanboys. That'll lead to a better game, I'm sure.

[Mystere]

I have a question. If this Nth attempt at 1:1 balance does not work, what's next? More of the same?

Edited by Mystere, 16 September 2015 - 06:59 PM.

[FalconerGray]

This topic inspired me to create one of my own (with an encouraging zero replies lol). Obviously it hasn't been popular enough for anyone to even comment on it, but, I still thought it was worth bringing up again.

The short version is - why do we insist on two teams of equal numbers at all? I don't like the 10v12 idea for a number of reasons, but what if it was literally any number of mechs vs any other number of mechs, as long as they were equal in value?

The full version: http://mwomercs.com/...35#entry4689235

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 16 September 2015 - 06:58 PM, said:

I have a question. If this Nth attempt at 1:1 balance does not work, what's next? More of the same?

So how is balancing the Clans perfectly to 10v12 different from balancing them to 12v12? Magic math?

balance is and has always been a moving target. The different is in what the goal is. That goal affects how people play. If the goal is 'this side is better but has less people, the other side is inferior but more people' then you're going to push the better players to the better gear.

MW:O is not an MMO. At all. In any way, shape or form. It's a FPS MOBA. It's not an RPG, or a strategy game. It's a FPS MOBA. Starcraft balancing of Human/Zerg/Protoss doesn't work here because it's not about your tech tree, resource gathering and what advances get you into what unit fastest it's about how one robbit kills another robbit in a 12v12 deathmatch environment.

In a FPS, a MOBA, you're not going to have 70% of players happily playing the group that dies most often and gets the least kills, win or lose.

[Rushmoar]

Well last I checked, we don't have a clan v IS game mode. How would that work anyway. I drop in a 10 v 12 match and mech values are "equal." Next match I am in regular que 12v12 and now i am obvoiusly op next to the IS mech in my match. Just please stop. It was beaten to death and this is not Evolved on the Xbox.

It will only work if it is a game mode in a private match. Where mechs will be give there own values out side the regular game ques. Also how would Conquest work in a 12 v 10 match? I would want to be on IS for that one 100% of the time. Assault? Same thing when capping a base.

Edited by Rushmoar, 16 September 2015 - 07:46 PM.

[MischiefSC]

legatoblues, on 16 September 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

This topic inspired me to create one of my own (with an encouraging zero replies lol). Obviously it hasn't been popular enough for anyone to even comment on it, but, I still thought it was worth bringing up again.

The short version is - why do we insist on two teams of equal numbers at all? I don't like the 10v12 idea for a number of reasons, but what if it was literally any number of mechs vs any other number of mechs, as long as they were equal in value?

The full version: http://mwomercs.com/...35#entry4689235

Same problem. People would just take whatever the highest point mech is and farm everyone in a low point mech.

[FalconerGray]

MischiefSC, on 16 September 2015 - 07:43 PM, said:

Same problem. People would just take whatever the highest point mech is and farm everyone in a low point mech.

The way around it was for the BV / Point / Rank system to be far more involved than what we currently have, taking mech, loadout, modules, quirks AND player skill into account for each individual unit. A rookie in a trial DWF should not be considered equal to an experienced tier 2 player in a dual guass MetaWhale, for example.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 16 September 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

So how is balancing the Clans perfectly to 10v12 different from balancing them to 12v12? Magic math?

balance is and has always been a moving target. The different is in what the goal is. That goal affects how people play. If the goal is 'this side is better but has less people, the other side is inferior but more people' then you're going to push the better players to the better gear.

MW:O is not an MMO. At all. In any way, shape or form. It's a FPS MOBA. It's not an RPG, or a strategy game. It's a FPS MOBA. Starcraft balancing of Human/Zerg/Protoss doesn't work here because it's not about your tech tree, resource gathering and what advances get you into what unit fastest it's about how one robbit kills another robbit in a 12v12 deathmatch environment.

In a FPS, a MOBA, you're not going to have 70% of players happily playing the group that dies most often and gets the least kills, win or lose.

I already know your position. I am seeking an answer to the question: What's next if this next attempt at balance fails, especially because people are already declaring this latest attempt as a failure?

Edited by Mystere, 16 September 2015 - 07:55 PM.

[Davers]

Gyrok, on 16 September 2015 - 06:42 PM, said:

People still played IS in TT,

Here is how the IS was balanced vs the Clans in TT.

Arctic Cheetah x3
Stormcrow x3
timberwolf x3
warhawk x3

28,014 BV


COM 5S x1
FS9-S1 (Firestarter) x6
SHD-2D2 (Shadow Hawk) x5
MAD-5D (Marauder) x5
STK-5M (Stalker) x5

27932 BV

12 mechs to 22. I used Prime variants for all the Clan mechs, and IS mechs that have Tier 2 technology.

So where does 10v12 come from? Certainly not from TT.

[Davers]

Rushmoar, on 16 September 2015 - 07:35 PM, said:

Well last I checked, we don't have a clan v IS game mode.

Not surprised most people don't even think about CW.

Mystere, on 16 September 2015 - 07:51 PM, said:

I already know your position. I am seeking an answer to the question: What's next if this next attempt at balance fails, especially because people are already declaring this latest attempt as a failure?

I thought the 'latest attempt' was merely testing Infowar and actual mech balancing has not been done yet?

If they get it wrong, then they do it again. They don't just give up and say, "Oh well, Clans are just going to be better".

[Mystere]

Davers, on 16 September 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

I thought the 'latest attempt' was merely testing Infowar and actual mech balancing has not been done yet?

If they get it wrong, then they do it again. They don't just give up and say, "Oh well, Clans are just going to be better".

I was actually referring to the new "diamond" pillars method, not just this latest pass.