91 replies to this topic

[Water Bear]

FrontGuard, on 08 October 2015 - 07:37 AM, said:

If you are poor, you can be happy with a Toyota Celica GT...
If you are rich, you may want a Lamborghini.
Only a rabid communist would insist they be balanced and both have to buy a mustang.
Sure, they may both be okay with the Mustang until the rich guy decides to move to a democratic country and quit your country.
MWO is similar.
I'm not rich... but I'm not poor either.
I would say the game needs very little Mech balancing and for the most part is fine as it is.
Mech balance is a non-issue.
True, I refuse to purchase the Lamborghini (Timber Wolf) and I make it a point to go after them with hatred when I see one.
I can be happy with my Mustang ( Catapult )
What I would not be happy with is if they were all Mustangs.
No really... There are a great many issues with this game Far more important than Balance.
IMHO F Balance...
and to the "woh always me" QQ complainers...
Try and look on the bright side...
F'n Please!

What if there existed a 'mech so powerful that it could destroy an entire 12 man team on its own...but it cost $10,000 USD. (Or whatever amount is more than you can afford).

What would be your attitude towards balance, then?

I think you are being a little hypocritical here. You are OK with imbalance as long as it's in your favor, methinks.

[KuroNyra]

A that, kids, is a guy who understand 0 thing about life but will tell you he know everything about it.

[wanderer]

Honestly, some of the worst imbalances in this game erupted when they took the original TT game and ignored it completely.

Ghost heat, anyone? All because it was easier than programming in an actual heat scale that'd have controlled alphastrikefests.

Balance is screwy in part because Paul doesn't even have a grasp of why the basics of Battletech do what it does.

[Lugh]

Bilbo, on 08 October 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

There is nothing more important in a pvp game than balance.

Incorrect. There is nothing more important in a pvp game than finding the right balance of pin point front loaded damage and survivability.

[FrontGuard]

Okay... I give up you guys are correct.

They need to sell only One Mech per class... and make it cheep.
Then you have to purchase seporatly the way the Mech Looks
... I guess the coolest Mech body could cost the most
and the stupid looking mech the least.

Fine... I digress

[Khereg]

FrontGuard, on 08 October 2015 - 07:50 AM, said:

Okay... so you guys think that all mechs by class should be equial?
Really, that is so boring and if you got it you would hate it.

I'm more of a roshambo balance kind of guy: every mech should have a viable role that has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

Think: Small Pulse ACH > Dakka DWF > Streak SCR > Small Pulse ACH, but over the entire spectrum of mechs available.

However, the real balance comes with player skill. Put Twnky in an ice ferret and he kills you 99% of the time no matter what you're driving.

[pbiggz]

Yeah OP, sorry, that's not how game design works. If you just put more powerful content behind a pay gate it makes it hell for new players and just turns the game into a dumbed down arms race.

[Felicitatem Parco]

The OP says it should be fine to purchase slower as a Pay-to-Win model.

I disagree. I think this thread has nothing more to offer besides people arguing about whether P2W is acceptable or not.

Move along, folks. Nothing more to see here.

[Water Bear]

FrontGuard, on 08 October 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Okay... I give up you guys are correct.

They need to sell only One Mech per class... and make it cheep.
Then you have to purchase seporatly the way the Mech Looks
... I guess the coolest Mech body could cost the most
and the stupid looking mech the least.

Fine... I digress

Let's be real for a second here. Everyone can buy the current best 'mech. The T-wolf is available for C-bills. Why doesn't everyone play one (including myself)? (Edit: I guess I'm saying that the economic analogy isn't quite correct right now, since pay to win isn't happening).

The real reason the mechs need to be more closely balanced is 1) to ensure a fair game (who would want to play an unfair game, exactly? More importantly what is the significance of winning if you have an advantage?) and 2) so people can use whatever robot they want (you want your users to be happy right? You want other players to be happy, right? Isn't that moral?)

Edited by Water Bear, 08 October 2015 - 08:32 AM.

[Water Bear]

FrontGuard, on 08 October 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Please read this again.... I give up...

You Heard It Hear Devs.... your Job just got Really Really easy.
Just make one Mech Per class and let us dress it up like a paper doll and we will ALLLLL Be Happpy !!!!

Wooooo Hoooooo Oh the JOY !!!!

I feel like I made a pretty strong case in the post directly above this one as to why balance is important (against your OP in other words).

If you are not going to address criticisms, I conclude this thread is either purely troll, or you are the worst kind of idealogue.

Edited by Water Bear, 08 October 2015 - 08:42 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

wanderer, on 08 October 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

Honestly, some of the worst imbalances in this game erupted when they took the original TT game and ignored it completely.

Ghost heat, anyone? All because it was easier than programming in an actual heat scale that'd have controlled alphastrikefests.

Balance is screwy in part because Paul doesn't even have a grasp of why the basics of Battletech do what it does.

I fear you are right.

1. Heatscale:
The current heatscale allows you to alpha 2-3 times with crazy damage without any drawbacks. In the TT you would have at least a movement reduction if not even more severe drawbacks.

Sure, in the TT there were heat neutral mechs but most (not all) had moderate but sustained damage.


2. Convergence:

2.1. Effects on TTK:
Another vastly understimated difference between MWO and the TT is instant convergence. I didn't pay attention for 1 sec and an EBJ popped up from behind a corner and gave my WVR a full alpha on the CT and the next I saw was a "Critical Damage" warning. Whew...how fun... nope, not really.

2.2. Weapon Balance
However, what people forget is that it disrupts the balance between weapon systems. PPCs and especially AC/20s were so good because the brought focused damage on one part. Else the damage was spread over the mech. In MWO 3 MPL roughly do what an AC/20 is designed to do - at a significant lower weight, with no ammo limitation. Complete nonsense.

[Bilbo]

Lugh, on 08 October 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

Incorrect. There is nothing more important in a pvp game than finding the right balance of pin point front loaded damage and survivability.

How balance is achieved is irrelevant as long as the game is still enjoyable to play.

[Ted Wayz]

Balance is important in competitive games. This is not a competitive game.

Also you can never balance player skill so balance is always relative.

[FrontGuard]

Water Bear, on 08 October 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:

I feel like I made a pretty strong case in the post directly above this one as to why balance is important (against your OP in other words).

If you are not going to address criticisms, I conclude this thread is either purely troll, or you are the worst kind of idealogue.

You did make a good point...
And I agree with you...
So... there will be One Mech per class, and we only have to pay if we want to change the way it looks.

[Mazzyplz]

wanderer, on 08 October 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

Honestly, some of the worst imbalances in this game erupted when they took the original TT game and ignored it completely.

Ghost heat, anyone? All because it was easier than programming in an actual heat scale that'd have controlled alphastrikefests.

Balance is screwy in part because Paul doesn't even have a grasp of why the basics of Battletech do what it does.

wanderer, on 08 October 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

Honestly, some of the worst imbalances in this game erupted when they took the original TT game and ignored it completely.

Ghost heat, anyone? All because it was easier than programming in an actual heat scale that'd have controlled alphastrikefests.

Balance is screwy in part because Paul doesn't even have a grasp of why the basics of Battletech do what it does.

heat scale does not work in mwo context at least with the weapon system even remotely like it is right now because it just wrecks erppc/ppc and srm mechs; just so you have more targets for your dual gauss? and then we never get to see the novacat because it's all energy and the heat scale would make it suck; where as less heat intensive weapon systems like the ones that use ammunition don't actually suffer the lower mobility- etc -etc -etc.
so yeah you would be nerfing trebuchet awesome quickdraw so you can pad your dual gauss dire some moar; noty

paul had better foresight than you in this instance, even if ghost heat isn't an elegant solution in the slightest - sry

[Gas Guzzler]

LMAO @ the idea that lore=balance

[Mazzyplz]

FrontGuard, on 08 October 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

You did make a good point...
And I agree with you...
So... there will be One Mech per class, and we only have to pay if we want to change the way it looks.

you mean kinda like in starcraft it is balanced because there is only one race to play with 3 different skins right?

or how they balance in magic the gathering all the colors pretty much spot on, over and over- when they say white has healing spells and red doesn't; that just means they both can heal right?


wow your analogy in the opening post was super lame... tell me in what racing league does a toyota celica race vs a lambo - in none of them.
that's exactly what the leagues are there to avoid;

a lambo does race vs an aston though, and a ferrari... maybe this is the analogy you were trying to make?
or are you saying lambo and ferrari are the same car because they can sort of compete with one another

[Dimento Graven]

Shredhead, on 08 October 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

Lost me after "only a rabid communist". Just another ***** who doesn't know what that is and draws comparisons between politics and games. Oh man.

Hmm... It's just that calling someone a 'rabid egalitarian' doesn't have the same bite to it...

I'd rather call someone a communist...

[InRev]

Dimento Graven, on 08 October 2015 - 09:06 AM, said:

The extreme stupidity of NOT realizing the heat affects table is necessary for balance is mind boggling.

Heat scale is yet another example of MWO taking the binary route instead of a more nuanced, granular approach. Heat is either 99% "YOU'RE OK" or 100% shut down or blow up. ECM is a hard counter to LRMs and target information and itself is hard countered by BAP or PPCs. Standard peeps do 0 damage at 89 meters and 100% damage at 90 meters. Same with IS LRMs at 179 and 180 meters respectively.

Binary systems are bad because they tend to breed hard counters which create balance nightmares. Unfortunately, Paul seems to love his binary systems so we're stuck with what we have.

[Dino Might]

FrontGuard, on 08 October 2015 - 07:37 AM, said:

If you are poor, you can be happy with a Toyota Celica GT...
If you are rich, you may want a Lamborghini.
Only a rabid communist would insist they be balanced and both have to buy a mustang.
Sure, they may both be okay with the Mustang until the rich guy decides to move to a democratic country and quit your country.
MWO is similar.
I'm not rich... but I'm not poor either.
I would say the game needs very little Mech balancing and for the most part is fine as it is.
Mech balance is a non-issue.
True, I refuse to purchase the Lamborghini (Timber Wolf) and I make it a point to go after them with hatred when I see one.
I can be happy with my Mustang ( Catapult )
What I would not be happy with is if they were all Mustangs.
No really... There are a great many issues with this game Far more important than Balance.
IMHO F Balance...
and to the "woh always me" QQ complainers...
Try and look on the bright side...
F'n Please!

There is a reason that competitive racing events have classes of cars with specific restrictions, so that the field will be somewhat even. Still there is a lot of consternation over very wealthy manufacturers being able to buy dozens of engines as replacements and eek out that extra bit of performance, hence the further restrictions or "nerfs" as you might call them. It's a competitive environment, so there MUST be some semblance of a level playing field. Otherwise, it's not a contest of who is the better racer. It's just a contest of who has been playing longer and has more money.