83 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 26 November 2015 - 09:49 AM, said:

Yes, if that's the only thing you do.

You realize that PGI can't balance 12 VS 12, you expect them to do more than that?

[Almond Brown]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

You realize that PGI can't balance 12 VS 12, you expect them to do more than that?

I always get a chuckle out of those types of statements. It sounds as if Mcgral18 thinks he could Balance MWO and I think he actually believes it... LOL! Delusional much.

Bring it on then. Post a complete Balance Formula with specific examples for BOTH Clan and I.S. and let this "Community" decide how well your "Balance" holds up.

Armchair Developers. LOL!

[Mcgral18]

Almond Brown, on 26 November 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

I always get a chuckle out of those types of statements. It sounds as if Mcgral18 thinks he could Balance MWO and I think he actually believes it... LOL! Delusional much.

Bring it on then. Post a complete Balance Formula with specific examples for BOTH Clan and I.S. and let this "Community" decide how well your "Balance" holds up.

Armchair Developers. LOL!

Already have?

A damn bit better than Ghost Damage, lol


Ignorant forumites...

[Hillslam]

To the OP: Well done. I also applaud your bravery. Interesting thread response so far. Why do I say that?

Because I did this exact same thing back in the day. Dec 2014. Except I took the next step of color coding those weapons in the same family with the better stat, side by side, by attribute. The result?

People pitched an absolute, effing, HISSY FIT.
(mostly the clanners)

Here's the link:
http://mwomercs.com/...rison-pictures/

(These same whining betches were also a big reason why I left the game for about 11months, just got tired of the bellyaching and whining. Nice to see that part at least has settled down a little.)

And here was the PNG capture of the sheet, data is very VERY old:

Edited by Hillslam, 26 November 2015 - 10:27 AM.

[Phlinger]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

Having things be outright better is also a terrible idea.

No, 10VS12 will not work.

Normalize, because things are already effectively identical, just with one team having better things. Mechanically identical, with superior variable stats.

It's not "outright better".

You guys want to normalize it, than normalize it. Don't half-ass it. Don't bring IS up to Clans and then leave Clans hanging. That's just a total buff to Inner Sphere. Agenda much?

I don't play Clans because I want better things, I play them for the flavor. If they were balanced perfectly to be even with Inner Sphere, that would be amazing and I'd be behind that any day. But, I am completely against homogenization.

[Mcgral18]

Ronyn, on 26 November 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

It's not "outright better".

You guys want to normalize it, than normalize it. Don't half-ass it. Don't bring IS up to Clans and then leave Clans hanging. That's just a total buff to Inner Sphere. Agenda much?

I don't play Clans because I want better things, I play them for the flavor. If they were balanced perfectly to be even with Inner Sphere, that would be amazing and I'd be behind that any day. But, I am completely against homogenization.

http://mwomercs.com/...gs-ahoy-pgiplz/

That's my suggestion. Different enough, but not obscenely better.

And yes, unquirked, they are outright better. cERML and cLPL are very potent, and the XL is in no uncertain terms outright better.

"But you can't change it!" Clam battlemechs, very Soon™

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 November 2015 - 12:44 PM.

[Phlinger]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...gs-ahoy-pgiplz/

That's my suggestion. Different enough, but not obscenely better.

And yes, unquirked, they are outright better. cERML and cLPL are very potent, and the XL is in no uncertain terms outright better.

"But you can't change it!" Clam battlemechs, very Soon™

But, we aren't talking about the 'unquirked' anything. The quirks are there, they are real. Just because the current, and the ones on PTS, quirks don't advance your argument does not mean we discount them. They are also used for balance.

[Mcgral18]

Ronyn, on 26 November 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

But, we aren't talking about the 'unquirked' anything. The quirks are there, they are real. Just because the current, and the ones on PTS, quirks don't advance your argument does not mean we discount them. They are also used for balance.

And they should be, but the level of quirks needed for them to be comparable is too much.

Blanket nerf Clams, blanket buff IS, get a general acceptable balance area, then quirk. Don't giga-quirk every IS mech.

[Phlinger]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 01:18 PM, said:

And they should be, but the level of quirks needed for them to be comparable is too much.

Blanket nerf Clams, blanket buff IS, get a general acceptable balance area, then quirk. Don't giga-quirk every IS mech.

Well, all I can say is that I'm glad you aren't working for PGI. While I don't prefer the quirk system, I do think it is far better than your homogenization, or what you call, 'Normalizing'.

And yes, Mcgral, I've read a ton of your normalize threads and have yet to agree with one, sorry man.

[Mcgral18]

Ronyn, on 26 November 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

Well, all I can say is that I'm glad you aren't working for PGI. While I don't prefer the quirk system, I do think it is far better than your homogenization, or what you call, 'Normalizing'.

And yes, Mcgral, I've read a ton of your normalize threads and have yet to agree with one, sorry man.

It's the way to go, sorry.

Care to rationalize imbalance?

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

You realize that PGI can't balance 12 VS 12, you expect them to do more than that?

Is it possible PGI is unable to achieve "balance" precisely because they are using the wrong approach in the first place?

[Phlinger]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 02:00 PM, said:

It's the way to go, sorry.

Care to rationalize imbalance?

You forgot to add ......"In your opinion"

[Mcgral18]

Ronyn, on 26 November 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

You forgot to add ......"In your opinion"

When you need to add HALF AGAIN as much range, half the heat, or half the duration, to be competitive, the baseline is wrong.

That is fact, not opinion.

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 November 2015 - 02:09 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 26 November 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

Is it possible PGI is unable to achieve "balance" precisely because they are using the wrong approach in the first place?

As they've nerfed MGs in the past and kept Flamers worthless for 3 years, no, pretty sure it's them that's the issue.

Balance has always been ****.

[Karl Streiger]

Well now you've got me.
Commencing Spreadsheet Hot Drop in T+100
...
Commencing NOW:

Ronyn, on 26 November 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

Well, all I can say is that I'm glad you aren't working for PGI. While I don't prefer the quirk system, I do think it is far better than your homogenization, or what you call, 'Normalizing'.

Wrong.
I didn't want to post anything before I'm finished but to explain it should be enough.

Consider one weapon that feel ok - just one!
Lets say the AC 20 (its not in MWO because its system nerf of double armor)

Now we want to create a AC10 - in the first step you just damage vs range:

Two Options:
TableTop - range brackets
AC 20 - deal 20 with 3/6/9 range brackets: (total average damage) tad = 123.333 (more info: http://www.heavymeta...com/bv_calc.htm)
increase range for 5/10/15
now tad = 205.556
reduce damage
AC 2010 deals 12 damage for 14tons, 5shot per ton, 7 heat

MWO - strange linear stuff:
of course its the same underlying formula. so when the total damage of a 270/540m AC 20 is 800 its 804 for the AC12 with 450/900m (considering that velocity is the 540m/s for AC 20 its 900m/s for AC12)

so for the next steps i would take the MWO values - cause you are familiar

There are two values: Alpha damage and DPS value both have to be balanced.
bigger alpha = lower dps (if you are sane)

OK DPS® values (including range) for AC 20 = 200; and 201 for AC12

So strictly spoken what you think of homogenization is this right?
AC20 vs AC 12 - same RoF, same weight, just different range and speed

---

but you have still some values to "modify"

Say the AC20 should be the tier 1 Alpha Killer and the AC 12 should deal damage with higher rof.
Ammunition is to normalize in first step = 12 shots for the AC 12

say we increase the RoF from 15 RpM of the AC 20 into 25 RpM - that would just keep the DPS the same.
25 RpM = 2.4 sec cool down.
But it completely screw the DPS® value - now 335 much better as for the AC20

... well its spreadsheet foo now: - because I'm not satisfied with this part

you have to include heat (with heatsinks is an indicator) and weight
Because we kept the heat value for the AC12 the same its now 12.5 vs 7.5

I used a full minute to compute values for weight

As said heat is a problem. simple because of the heat cap and the dissipation - so the AC20 does not need additional heatsinks when you use just one; but AC 12 need more (cause heat 6; and 25 RpM)
I use the median for DHS and SHS values.
In the end i have a "weigh value" including (weight of weapon; heatsinks, ammunition)
Its 16.1 for AC 20 and 23 for AC 12

So i have now 4 values for a weapon.
Alpha ®; DPS ®; Alpha ® / W; DPS ® / W

Here a quick table

Name	AR	DPSR	ARW	DPSRW	RWM
AC20	800	200	49.5	12.4	30.9
AC12	804	335	34.8	14.5	24.7
AC10	685	274	51.9	20.8	36.32

OK maybe you see the problem: while alpha value indicates that the AC20 is better, the DPSRW value indicates that the AC12 is better.
And of course low heat and low rate of fire including a huge ammunition stockpile result in low weight values - creating such numbers for the AC 10. (maybe things would be different when ignoring the (heat cap))

So this is the part I'm still not finished considering different windows of attack (for example snapshot engagements; 3sec engagements; 6sec engagements; 10sec; 60sec)

maybe even the consideration of chassis (faster chassis don't feel the sting of short range weapons; and of course potential loadout)

Anyhow all this mathematical stuff had to be done right in the beginning.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 27 November 2015 - 12:53 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...gs-ahoy-pgiplz/

That's my suggestion. Different enough, but not obscenely better.

And yes, unquirked, they are outright better. cERML and cLPL are very potent, and the XL is in no uncertain terms outright better.

"But you can't change it!" Clam battlemechs, very Soon™

forget it mcgral, you want the average community mechpilot to play that sytsem while they can not even desing mechs correctly now. They would fail, and just hate ANY idea.

The issue is, next to usualy balance problems, also pilot skills. You need to make the game balanced and fun for the average gamer AND the very good gamers who know what they do.

And this gap is already too huge because according to many discussions I had 80% do not even understand what "heat efficiency" truly means. And poeple who can't build proper mechs won't perform properly. But since A LOT of these people exist and display against each other this hardly reveals itself and everythign looks normal or good. Only if you mix these people with the real good ones then you see that difference.

PGI is too shy trying ideas on PTS. a 30heattreshold, easy to set up, they could just put this on PTS for 3 weeks and see what people think abou it. if its not good screw it. These experiments would not hurt anyone.

[Inti Raymi]

Ronyn, on 26 November 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

But, we aren't talking about the 'unquirked' anything. The quirks are there, they are real. Just because the current, and the ones on PTS, quirks don't advance your argument does not mean we discount them. They are also used for balance.

What will your position be when what's on the PTS goes live (probably before Steam release, or very soon thereafter) and the argument "but quirks!" is all but eliminated?

They HAVE to be discounted because the discussion is, out of necessity, one of base statistics. Why? Because "We Don't Know".

Kudos to the OP for having the low hanging parts and the fortitude to put them into the meat grinder of forum opinion. It is truly his measure that he performed research for which he is being pilloried because the research doesn't fit the narrative. OP, just go through your data and "adjust" for IS superiority and you'll be allowed to speak.

[Lugh]

Ronyn, on 26 November 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

But, we aren't talking about the 'unquirked' anything. The quirks are there, they are real. Just because the current, and the ones on PTS, quirks don't advance your argument does not mean we discount them. They are also used for balance.

They are a slap dash terrible approach to attempt balance.

They aren't a great idea.

[SplashDown]

I think the game is pretty decently balanced..when you consider the game as a whole its not just weapons that make up game balance.
Take the clan prob for example.(useless) where as the IS BAP is very usefull and can detect ECM...clan prob cannot...clan only gets 2 mechs that can ecm i think..IS gets what?2,4,6?
clan may get a slight adv in weapons range...BUT there are only a couple maps where range is an issue and usen you're brain and the terrain can over come this easily.

IF you're basing you're opinions on pug matches..then the entire topic is pointless..becuz i dont care what you change,nerf,or tweak you will never be able to fix stupid..wich pug matches have in abundance..you will never and can never nerf or fix stupid.

so sorry

P.S game balance that works in favor of IS wich is what IS players are really after..can be found in game..just open ur wallet and buy a hero or champion mech..and then YOU will have the advantage..er balance i ment to say =)

Edited by SplashDown, 27 November 2015 - 09:02 AM.

[Lugh]

Mystere, on 26 November 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

Is it possible PGI is unable to achieve "balance" precisely because they are using the wrong approach in the first place?

When you have wrong math(i.e. 5 damage in a 10 second turn via TT for ML) turned to 20 damage in 10 second turn (following cooldown and quirk tweaks) You can't arrive at anything resembling balance. Especially when the math you did for the armor and the structure was at best 2x the TT values after the quadrupling of the damage.

And when you take something as simple as a jam chance of 1 , 1 on two dice which occurs ~ 2.9% of the time and make that jam chance 25% you might be stupid less than capable of doing the math necessary to make the damage and armor numbers FEEL battletech enough.