91 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Mazzyplz, on 08 October 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

yeah and what about cover? this is fine and dandy if we assume there is no terrain in the game.

but when you can shoot gauss, shoot your lasers and get behind a rock for 3 seconds; you won't get any of the return fire, and the 12 laser nova will still overheat faster. - just due to dissipation

Yes, like EVERY 'mech that ever equips a gauss rifle gets the quirk to instantly hide behind cover after firing it's gauss weapon... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighghhghghghghgt...

And if that's your reasoning I would have to surmise you're a VERY bad and possibly [REDACTED] pilot. In that 3 seconds I'm behind whatever it is, you're just standing there waiting for me to come out?

You're NOT using those 3 seconds to find a new location, possibly A LOT CLOSER, so that you can bring your weapons to bear on me?

You're seriously admitting to playing that way?

Quote

so driving a 12 hardpoint energy mech SHOULD be an exercise in futility you say?

No, what I'm saying is that in piloting a 12 hardpoint energy 'mech your default tactic shouldn't be to mash the "ALL THE LASERS" button over and over.

Maybe instead fire a few at a time to control your heat, unlike now where you just alpha 2 or 3 times, go hide for 6 or 7 seconds, and come back out and fire your alpha again.

Gee, and you were [REDACTED] about having to stand there and wait for a gauss alpha every 3 seconds, how ironic...

Quote

i disagree. there's no reason to make such a mech worse "just because" especially when we all know a nova can NOT alpha over and over it's energy weapons; heat is bad enough as it is; you cannot even shoot 10 of the er medlaser without a shutdown - i used to drive the trial nova all the time, just for fun. you cannot not shoot 9-10 let alone 12
so that part of your statement is pure fabrication.
do you mean small lasers?

maybe a nerf to small laser cooldown may be more fitting

How's about a change that isn't weapon specific, but actual across the board, affects all 'mechs and all high alpha builds, so that heat management becomes a REAL part of the game, not just some afterthought.

A heat affects table does that.

Edited by Scout Derek, 08 October 2015 - 11:05 AM.
Bashing, watch it Dimento.

[pwnface]

Ted Wayz, on 08 October 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

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

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

Just because you aren't competitive in this game it doesn't mean this game isn't competitive.

You should balance assuming both players are perfect. Balance a game based on the mechanics and not what your average scrub-tier player can do with them.

[Livewyr]

I wish they would use soft stats to balance and leave the hard stats to TT.

There is a crapton of difference one can make with tweaking cooldowns, beam duration, burst length/amount of bullets.. stream/volley... Over-range..

Accelleration/decelleration, hardlocked vs softlocked, heat penalties...

Conditional quirks...

There is soooooo much that can be done to keep the flavor of the mechs, while balancing them.

Edited by Livewyr, 08 October 2015 - 10:24 AM.

[Mazzyplz]

Dimento Graven, on 08 October 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

Yes, like EVERY 'mech that ever equips a gauss rifle gets the quirk to instantly hide behind cover after firing it's gauss weapon... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighghhghghghghgt...

And if that's your reasoning I would have to surmise you're a VERY bad and possibly stupid pilot. In that 3 seconds I'm behind whatever it is, you're just standing there waiting for me to come out?

You're NOT using those 3 seconds to find a new location, possibly A LOT CLOSER, so that you can bring your weapons to bear on me?

You're seriously admitting to playing that way?

yes i can hide pretty fast even in an assault mech, and there's no way to close the caldera in 3 seconds when hill humping; if you are shooting other mechs; then the energy mech is indeed screwed according to your logic.
no 3 seconds are not enough to close in from gauss range in a nova; idk who told you that - they were probably the ones feeding you misinformation and thus you cannot comprehend the game as it is.

you didn't even acknowledge the rest of my points why TT was bad from early on;

the fact that in this game light mechs are not flat out worse than other weight classes means; that mwo is inherently different from the onset than TT - even without factoring in that true double heatsinks and normal armor values flew out the window pretty much immediately

you just keep throwing adjectives and foaming at the mouth though - makes your arguments way stronger

Edited by Mazzyplz, 08 October 2015 - 10:30 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

the fact that in this game light mechs are not flat out worse than other weight classes means; that mwo is inherently different from the onset than TT -

light mechs arnt flat out worse than other weight classes in TT either. because TT didnt try balancing 1 assault vs 1 light. If both teams are equal battlevalue, its more like 1 assault vs 3-4 lights.

lights are actually at more of a disadvantage in MWO because they tried to balance lights and assaults 1:1 when theyre not even close to equal.

consequently IS vs Clan have the SAME problem. They tried to balance them 1:1 when theyre also not even close to equal.

PGI's balancing methodology is the equivalent to trying to convince people that 1 = 2

Edited by Khobai, 08 October 2015 - 10:43 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

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.

Not many people want them to be equal, they want them to be less unequal

Your a light pilot you want the best light mech you go Artic Cheater, those that won't sully themselves with a broken light go Fire Starter, a few go Raven 3L, some exceptional pilots do well in mega quirked Locusts.

Believe it or not some people want to play Spiders and Comando's without completely gimping their team.

The only reason you get anywhere with your Catapult, is because your team is padded out with clan meta mechs, you certainly ain't being effective in CW with a lurm boat.

CW is dead, the imbalance in this game is reaching idiotic levels, and I have ZERO confidence this much crowed about rebalence will work, its another Innue fail, just like PSR is.

The clan players who go on and on about how they can't compete with IS over quirked mechs, well look at the map, comp standard players don't hang out in the IS factions for more than a few weeks to pick up mech bays, then they go off back to the clans because there is where the real meta is

Running Gauss in your K2 or lrm5x6 on your A1, you just invalidated your argument as your trying to make a weak variant meta, try running a canon build, and see how hard you fail

[Mystere]

Because of this thread, I think I'm going to be that person today.

So here goes ...

SkyHammr, on 08 October 2015 - 07:43 AM, said:

To be more precise:

F... Lore FOR Balance.

Then you should be playing this:

cdlord, on 08 October 2015 - 07:56 AM, said:

Indeed. They need to treat them separately. Balance IS v IS (and balance doesn't mean identical) and Clan v Clan. Once you got that right, then you use what the designer used to balance IS v Clan which in MWO can be 12v10 (which they said was not possible) or by varying the available tonnages.

But a number of video game "experts" here have already "proven" that it will not work.

Bilbo, on 08 October 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

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

Well, so far, all attempts at making Clan Mechs ~ IS Mechs have failed, and arguably quite miserably. So don't you think maybe it's time to try something else, like what cdlord is suggesting?

Mazzyplz, on 08 October 2015 - 09:01 AM, said:

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

How was that balancing done in Starcraft again? Surely it was some kind of symmetrical approach like:

Terran Units = Zerg Units = Protoss Units

and:

Terran Equipment = Zerg Equipment = Protoss Equipment

right? Right?

Ted Wayz, on 08 October 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

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

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

Be very careful with your choice of words. The so-called "elite" "top-level" "high tier" "competitive" folks might come and bite you.

Case in point:

pwnface, on 08 October 2015 - 10:17 AM, said:

Just because you aren't competitive in this game it doesn't mean this game isn't competitive.

You should balance assuming both players are perfect. Balance a game based on the mechanics and not what your average scrub-tier player can do with them.

Actually, I'd rather you assume players are unique individuals with different skill sets (i.e. different strengths and weaknesses) and then design your game to accommodate those varying skill sets.

Assuming players are "perfect" just traps designers into that highly-symmetrical 1-on-1 mode of balance thinking. Even your post is indicative of that, given your use of the phrase "both players". MWO is a team-based game, not 1-on-1 slug fests.

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

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

Well, I did say I was going to be that person.

Edited by Mystere, 08 October 2015 - 10:40 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Mystere, on 08 October 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

But a number of video game "experts" here have already "proven" that it will not work.

I put a more in-depth post above explaining further. But I contend that one cannot be an expert in something unless they try and test it. I do not claim to be an expert in pregnancy... My wife however.....

Edited by cdlord, 08 October 2015 - 10:46 AM.

[pwnface]

Mystere, on 08 October 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

Actually, I'd rather you assume players are unique individuals with different skill sets (i.e. different strengths and weaknesses) and then design your game to accommodate those varying skill sets.

Assuming players are "perfect" just traps designers into that highly-symmetrical 1-on-1 mode of balance thinking. Even your post is indicative of that, given your use of the phrase "both players". MWO is a team-based game, not 1-on-1 slug fests.

Fine, assume all players are perfect. The point is you should balance on what is possible versus what a random individual is capable of doing with it.

Have you seen 1/4 mile time ratings or 0-60mph ratings for cars? The cars are capable of going X fast but just because your next door neighbor can only drive it Y fast it doesn't mean it should receive a Y rating. Balance on what the mechs and weapons are capable of, not individual pilot skill.

Edited by pwnface, 08 October 2015 - 10:47 AM.

[Khobai]

its pretty much impossible to perfectly balance games with asymmetrical balance

the best you can hope for is to get all factions within 5% of eachother like starcraft did.

starcraft isnt perfectly balance but its pretty damn close... close enough that you can play any race you want and still win if youre a better player than your opponent.

[C E Dwyer]

I liked one of Mystere's posts, I feel kind of dirty now..

You had to be that person, Bishop has taken the night off it seems..

[Mystere]

pwnface, on 08 October 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

Fine, assume all players are perfect. The point is you should balance on what is possible versus what a random individual is capable of doing with it.

Have you seen 1/4 mile time ratings or 0-60mph ratings for cars? The cars are capable of going X fast but just because your next door neighbor can only drive it Y fast it doesn't mean it should receive a Y rating. Balance on what the mechs and weapons are capable of, not individual pilot skill.

You missed my point entirely. You should assume that no two players can ever be equal and that the concept of the "perfect" player is null and void.

[pwnface]

Khobai, on 08 October 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

its pretty much impossible to perfectly balance games with asymmetrical balance

the best you can hope for is to get all factions within 5% of eachother like starcraft did.

starcraft isnt perfectly balance but its pretty damn close... close enough that you can play any race you want and still win if youre a better player than your opponent.

This!

Try to make everything viable at high levels of play at least.

[Bilbo]

Mystere, on 08 October 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

...
Well, so far, all attempts at making Clan Mechs ~ IS Mechs have failed, and arguably quite miserably. So don't you think maybe it's time to try something else, like what cdlord is suggesting?
...

I didn't say that balance was good. I said I didn't care how it was achieved. That being said, I don't think balancing with assymetric teams would work outside of large groups(as in full team groups).

[pwnface]

Mystere, on 08 October 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

You missed my point entirely. You should assume that no two players can ever be equal and that the concept of the "perfect" player is null and void.

The players should be IRRELEVANT when it comes to a discussion about gameplay balance. By doing this you ensure the BETTER player wins more often than not.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 08 October 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

its pretty much impossible to perfectly balance games with asymmetrical balance

the best you can hope for is to get all factions within 5% of eachother like starcraft did.

starcraft isnt perfectly balance but its pretty damn close... close enough that you can play any race you want and still win if youre a better player than your opponent.

Asking for perfect balance is a fool's errand unless you make everything exactly the same.

Having said that, I think tweaking balance in an asymmetrical system is easier than tweaking an existing imbalance in a symmetrical system without making everything almost exactly the same.

Faction A is stronger than faction B? Give the former more numbers. That is not quite enough? Given them more. It's still not enough? Give them more tons instead or give faction B less tons.

Faction C is weak at long ranges? Then create more maps and game modes that neutralize long range weapons.

Faction D has low player numbers? Increase their rewards. That's not working as well as planned? Then create maps and game modes with victory conditions that favor small factions.

Something like that is better than eventually having A = B = C ... = Z.

[Dolph Hoskins]

But dudes....first ask yourself, like, What is balance?
Is balance like two identical weights on both ends of a man made scale?
Or is it like.... A mighty shark to the little fish???Where like....The shark will always overpower and eat the fishies, but with no little fishes around the shark...dies...dude.

Deep stuff for sure bras.

[Mystere]

pwnface, on 08 October 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

The players should be IRRELEVANT when it comes to a discussion about gameplay balance. By doing this you ensure the BETTER player wins more often than not.

You think that way because you still believe there is such a thing as the "perfect" player and are already trapped inside that symmetrical 1-on-1 mode of balance thinking.

Player A is a great sniper, mediocre brawler, terrible harasser.
Player B is a mediocre sniper, terrible brawler, great harasser.
Player C is a terrible sniper, great brawler, mediocre harasser.

Who will win A, B, or C?

[Burktross]

I'm... I'm not e... oh..
Oh... my...
Throbbing headache, why would you do this...?
Why would you suggest to disregard balance...
In an online...
Competitive
PVP GAME?

Duke ramulots, on 08 October 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

Nah, the spider isn't that much better. Maybe 10% better is all.

lol ok

[Dimento Graven]

Mazzyplz, on 08 October 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

yes i can hide pretty fast even in an assault mech, and there's no way to close the caldera in 3 seconds when hill humping; if you are shooting other mechs; then the energy mech is indeed screwed according to your logic.
no 3 seconds are not enough to close in from gauss range in a nova; idk who told you that - they were probably the ones feeding you misinformation and thus you cannot comprehend the game as it is.

you didn't even acknowledge the rest of my points why TT was bad from early on;

the fact that in this game light mechs are not flat out worse than other weight classes means; that mwo is inherently different from the onset than TT - even without factoring in that true double heatsinks and normal armor values flew out the window pretty much immediately

you just keep throwing adjectives and foaming at the mouth though - makes your arguments way stronger

As far as me not 'comprehending the game as it is', take look to the left there, you see that banner, that's a Founders banner. I've been playing this game since closed beta. You see that number below it, that indicates that at least on some level I can operate this game effectively enough to not regularly be penalized for bad play.

But you on the other hand seem to be admitting to playing poorly. You apparently want to be able to cross open ground with no consequences so you can park yourself face-to-face with another 'mech and always win.

Got ya.

If that's your goal then maybe this 'thinking man's shooter' is not for you.

So, taking Caustic Valley as your example map, the Nova does what? Somewhere 80kph, probably more when elited (can't remember for sure, it's been a long time since I piloted my Nova's but I know I'm near enough correct). The prime variant for sure has JJ's making very maneuverable, and barring a very stupid low tier tactic of charging straight on at an enemy across open ground (whether or not he has gauss, LRM's, PPC's, ballistics, or lasers) you can use that speed and maneuverability to beat a lot of mediocre dual gauss pilots.

A smart player, a thinking man, will say "screw" crossing open ground, let's run up the two line behind the hills so conveniently provided, to the machinery area, where there's cover more cover closer to the crest, let's use that to get closer, then use our 80+ kph to close in, and with ONLY 8 Clan ERML's (we'll limit it to 8, because you can alpha 8 without shutting down, and you have extra tonnage for more heat sinks, you can load 12 CERML's, but yes, you do shut down, but on a lot of 'mechs, getting hit with an 84 points of pin point alpha damage can usually do you in), we can inflict a 56 point, pinpoint alpha... Let's pop the crest, hit his CT, pop back, run to another location along the crest allowing some time for cool down, pop up, hit his CT, run to another location along the crest allowing some time for cool down, pop his CT, he's dead (I think most 'mechs will be dead after the 3rd hit) and if he's not, then it's just one more time.

The disadvantage to the gauss carrier is that he can't maintain his charge infinitely. After a second it goes away, and he has to go through the charge cycle again. If you can keep moving and keep him guessing as to when/where you'll pop up, maybe fake him out into firing his gauss, you can beat him... BUT... It does require skill, and patience, and actual thought.