364 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 25 November 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

I think you might have misinterpreted my list. It is a list for the elements of an asymmetric balancing system, not things to be taking in isolation from the rest.

I did say "which seems to be a core aspect of your idea for overall balance" in response to asymmetric balance, which at its core is about balancing factions with uneven numbers, so...I don't think I misinterpreted it very much.

Either way, at the very least equipment and especially weapons need to be tweaked regardless of implementing asymmetric balance, and there are arguments for changing the rest of those elements too without asymmetric balance.

[Repasy Cooper]

I like the asymmetric balance idea, but it really works best in tabletop, or some game structure that involves multiple-unit control strategy like Mech Commander. In a game where one player controls one unit at any one point in the game, you don't want the majority of players feeling like they're shafted and they have to 2v1 every single enemy unit to stand a chance.

That's essentially what you gotta do in tabletop, after all...

Due to this, I think the symmetrical balance is a better fit for an MMO MechWarrior game. The key is to find a balance that still retains a stark difference in military focus between the IS and Clans:

• Customizable Structure vs Logistical Omnipods - keep Battlemechs fully unlocked but lock the hardpoints, and keep Omnimechs structure & engine locked but the omni-hardpoints are customizable.
  
• Slightly Cooler Weapons vs Slightly Longer Range - keep moving towards a fairer balance between the two.
  
• Better Weapon Mechanics (grouped lrm cluster, less AC spread, shorter beam duration) vs Lighter Weapons - the lighter Clan weapons mean lrms and ACs take more time loading ammo into compacted firing platforms, and beams take longer time releasing charge.
  
• Faster Cooldown Times vs Stronger Weapons - we need to strike a better balance here so that the average-dps between the two schools of thought is about the same.

If we can iron out the disparity in strength between IStech and Clantech now, we won't have to re-introduce MORE quick-fixes when IS Omnimechs finally take off.

[Mystere]

Repasy, on 25 November 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

Due to this, I think the symmetrical balance is a better fit for an MMO MechWarrior game. The key is to find a balance that still retains a stark difference in military focus between the IS and Clans

The problem with symmetrical balance, due to its very nature, is that the risk of things ending up being similar is extremely high. The current direction of MWO (e.g. heavy quirks) is a very good illustration of that.

On the other hand, with an asymmetrical balancing system using several components, the risk is extremely low. You also have several areas that can be tweaked/changed while retaining the stark differences.

[Repasy Cooper]

Mystere, on 25 November 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

The problem with symmetrical balance, due to its very nature, is that the risk of things ending up being similar is extremely high. The current direction of MWO (e.g. heavy quirks) is a very good illustration of that.

On the other hand, with an asymmetrical balancing system using several components, the risk is extremely low. You also have several areas that can be tweaked/changed while retaining the stark differences.

Indeed. This issue is definitely large in scope, I don't think it's really possible to strike a perfect balance between asymmetrical balance and equal player experience. Maybe best you can do in that situation is try a sort of Binary-patch method in an attempt to narrow down the build that makes the most people happy. I think this is what PGI is doing now, with the Public Test Server, so hopefully the finished product will be a nicely balanced game, several months down the road.