Brandarr Gunnarson, on 11 November 2015 - 03:29 AM, said:
@DivineEvil:
First things first, I agree with you that Clans should NOT be superior to IS.
But I think the method of doing it is to address the points of unbalance and set them aright.
This method only works with specific elements of the content, such as weapons. For example, Pulse lasers had unbalance of requirements and penalties over gains, thus their range and damage were tweaked to the point where its reasonable to take those Pulse Lasers.
In case of IS/Clan balance that will not work. Like I've said, even if you take away all the benefits a Clan mech has, it is still better due to compressed customization. You basically can use the methodology you're offering in two ways: You either toning down the Clan features, which doesnt achieve the result, because Clans will have these toned down features anyway without pay-offs, OR you removing the Clan features, at which point there's no reason to use Clan mechs, and there's not such thing as two very different tech-bases to talk about. Either way, it is not going to reach the desired goal.
Quote
Giving IS 'Mechs and inordinate amount of internal structure hit-points doesn't actually create balance, it just makes the two techlines unbalanced two ways.
Again, this doesn't make any sense. The balance lies in the two features placed on scales. If one thing is outright better, there's imbalance.
If two guns in a shooter are equally good for their respective range, that is balance. If one side in a strategy game has different playstyle, but equal chance of winning, it is balance. If one car in a race game is as good as another one, but trades acceleration for top speed or handling, it is balance. If one 55t mech has different features than another 55t mech, but both are equally valid, it is balance. There's no such thing as
two way imbalance. Balance is when you have two things, which are different, but equal in magnitude of their qualities.
Clan and IS mechs has to be different, otherwise there's no point to having both. All there's to do is to make IS as good for some tactics and playstyles as Clans are good for their own.
Quote
Why do I say we need foundational baselines? Because after a whole year and thensome of Clans being on the battlefield and various attempts to balance them we still DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE said baselines!!!
That's a core problem. Arbitrary values (those just decided upon) can never achieve balance. PGI needs to set the standard somewhere and use it as a measuring stick.
Creating a baseline in IS/Clan balance is IMPOSSIBLE. Clan mechs do not simply differ from IS by a bunch of higher
numbers - they have numerous unique FEATURES, that IS mechs do not. So to establish a baseline in MWO means taking features from Clans, that they ought to have, or giving IS the features they've never had nor supposed to. It's like bringing Zerg, Terran and Protoss to the same baseline removing all of their unique features. Nobody is going to be satisfied with that outrageous approach. This is by far the worst possible way to achieve balance, which will drive all the BT fan population out and kill MWO for good!
Again, it's not about
values! It's about
features! You cannot just take out the features, you only can add more to the side which desperately needs their own! This is not CoD-like casual shooters, where you just tweak the values for guns! Two sides here are
fundamentaly different! We need to make them
equal! We dont NOT need to make them the
same!
Quote
We can absolutely and safely abandon TT rules without abandoning lore flavor. And we absolutely should do so.
The attachment to TT rules is preventing creating real SYSTEMS that apply to both techlines equally.
Make thing function the same under a systems with clear baselines and standard. Then tweak the values so that each side plays different according to lore flavor.
Thus my above suggestion.
Cutting away Clan features is exactly what you'd do to remove lore flavor.
Doubling the IS internal structure, on the other hand,
is within that lore flavor.
You have one mech (IS), that has larger internal volume, which allows it to swap weapons for larger or smaller analogues, as long as proper power feed and ammo transfer is in place, and can carry any engine as long as it is large enough to motivate the structure and small enough to fit into the frame. The chassis itself is rigid and power/ammo feed is intrinsic, which is compensate by several variants of said chassis allowing for different weapon and equipment loadouts. Factions, that use that mech can only provide technologically mediocre components and weapons.
On the other hand, you have another mech (Clan), which has edge-to-edge, inch-by-inch refined structure. Here, the
core of the mech is intrinsic - engine is constituent, as some of the fixed equipment. Basically, it's not the equipment that is built into the chassis, but the chassis itself is built around the very specific equipment. On top of that comes the Omni-pod architecture - an array of components, which can be attached to the core and to one-another. Each model of those components comes with its own set of ammo/energy feeding lines, its own fixed components, its own features and drawbacks, and use significantly refined weapons and equipment. This allows for that mech to be smaller and harder to hit, but interchangeable nature of modular chassis makes it more susceptible to integrity failures, as there's no extra bulk to take a hit even considered when that mech is developed. There's no room for techs to crawl trough and repair a mech inside-out; Instead, a damaged omni-pod is swapped for a fresh one, while damaged part is repaired separately from outside.
Double internal structure makes perfect sense. It is enough to cover most if not all the features of Clan mechs have. It promotes crit-seeking weapons. It makes CASE more significant choice, and ammo/weapon explosions less lethal. It gives new players a better standing power and reduces the severity of overheat damage. It reduces the fragility of IS XL-Engine by 50%, which averages nicely against Clan XLs. Nonetheless, in effect it's only means that IS mech can take as much (if not counting for critical damage) punishment with Structure as with Armor, which is not that stellar at the moment anyway. In that perspective, it's just that Clan mechs has 25% less durability for all the various features they get in return.
It's fair, and it can be enough for IS and Clanners to be Quirked equally. It is a valid
baseline, from which very small adjustments can be used to further promote equality of IS and Clan mechs if even needed. It is the environment, where competetive people participating in community-driven leagues such as MRBC would actually see all IS and Clan mechs as equally valid choices and mix-matching them for different tactical ideas.
Edited by DivineEvil, 11 November 2015 - 07:00 AM.
7
)
