254 replies to this topic

[Chagatay]

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

Because Legacy Tech™ is a terrible idea.


That just makes the STD worthless, which is the opposite of what we want.

Hardly, just more specialized. Heck you could even add in compact STD engines as well for those crazies that want super stickman mode (2xSRM6s or PPCs in the chest for example). Right now it is only taken in heavies and above. After change assaults would probably be the only takers (probably a few heavies for space/heat reasons) but it would be hardly obsolete. ISXLs would still be used by lights as described and IS medium mechs, a class outside of BJs that could use some buffs gets them. I see winning from every angle.

[Mystere]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 09 December 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

Yes, but if you force players into CW, which you will do if you remove pub queue before you add Solaris, you will see mass QQ.

There is a very good reason why I keep repeating the phrases "planning" and "foresight" and at the same time add "good" in front.

Jack Shayu Walker, on 09 December 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

The latter is also at a higher risk of causing QQ. The former is also not at a high risk of reaching harmonization. You keep saying that but I don't see any evidence.

Due to quirks to IS lasers on certain Mechs, and a general nerf to Clan lasers, the IS can have as much or even longer range than Clan ones. Is that not approaching harmonization? Did not the much-maligned first quirks -- on other weapons -- also do the same? In other words, it has already happened twice -- ergo high risk.

Jack Shayu Walker, on 09 December 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

PGI is not up to the task. As a company they will take the rout that insures more financial security. Pursuing equipment balance will get them that security because the general population is plenty happy with forcing lore into a secondary position BEHIND balance, rather than devoting extensive resources to TRY and get lore and balance to co-exsist.

We aren't even sure if lore balance will work, and many of us do not want to see all the hard work put towards balancing thrown away in the name of lore, regardless of if a lore based balance could eventually be achieved.

Are you aware that some of that "hard" work PGI has put into "balancing" have actually gone full circle?

Here are a few more general question to ponder:

• How many Founders did MWO have?
  
• How many active players, Founders or otherwise, does MWO have now?
  
• How many Founders still play?
  
• Does Steam release smell like a desperation move?

Edited by Mystere, 09 December 2015 - 01:36 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Chagatay, on 09 December 2015 - 01:33 PM, said:

Hardly, just more specialized. Heck you could even add in compact STD engines as well for those crazies that want super stickman mode (2xSRM6s or PPCs in the chest for example). Right now it is only taken in heavies and above. After change assaults would probably be the only takers (probably a few heavies for space/heat reasons) but it would be hardly obsolete. ISXLs would still be used by lights as described and IS medium mechs, a class outside of BJs that could use some buffs gets them. I see winning from every angle.

WHY would anyone take a STD if the LFE is available?

The same reason a Clam Battlemech would take an STD instead of cXL


There is no reason.

A wonderful example of PGIs balance.



Adding new things is not how you balance current things; that's how you obsolete things.
"Hey, this Flamer is worthless...let's add a lighter Flamer with long range instead of balancing the one already in the game"

[Chagatay]

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2015 - 01:40 PM, said:

WHY would anyone take a STD if the LFE is available?
The same reason a Clam Battlemech would take an STD instead of cXL

There is no reason.

A wonderful example of PGIs balance.

Adding new things is not how you balance current things; that's how you obsolete things.
"Hey, this Flamer is worthless...let's add a lighter Flamer with long range instead of balancing the one already in the game"

Several reasons such as:
-- No heat/speed/performance penalties on ST loss
-- 4 crit slots might mean more than the 25% weight savings

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

There is a very good reason why I keep repeating the phrases "planning" and "foresight" and at the same time add "good" in front.

Yes you can throw out buzzwords all you like but the only way to get rid of the "pub queue" without mass QQ is to replace it with a similar alternative or make CW so great that you can convince the majority of the player-base that CW is more fun than the pub queue. Solaris is a long way off so we'll have to see if CW phase 3 a pub queue killer (I doubt it, though it will be fun i think).

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

Due to quirks to IS lasers on certain Mechs, and a general nerf to Clan lasers, the IS can have as much or even longer range than Clan ones. Is that not approaching harmonization? Did not the much-maligned first quirks -- on other weapons -- also do the same? In other words, it has already happened twice -- ergo high risk.

It is a little wonky that some chassis have longer ER Laser range than clan mechs, but it's far from harmonization; these laser quirks are only on certain mechs after all. Even still, for better or worse their ERLL is different (it's flat out better) than ours. Clan cERLL just blatantly sucks and that is a separate issue that needs to be adressed.

It's quirk buffs like this though that lead me to support equipment changes like IS XL buffs, that way turbo quirks can be done away with. Supporting equipment based balance and quirked based balance are two separate things.

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

Are you aware that some of that "hard" work PGI has put into "balancing" have actually gone full circle?

Here are a few more general question to ponder:

• How many Founders did MWO have?
  
• How many active players, Founders or otherwise, does MWO have now?
  
• How many Founders still play?
  
• Does Steam release smell like a desperation move?

Yes I'm aware some of the balancing has gone full circle. PGI is not the best developer but they're trying. If you test a balancing solution and it doesn't work, sometimes you have to throw it out and try again.

I don't know how many founders MWO had, perhaps you could give me a figure? I'm not much bothered by how many there originally were.

We currently have enough players so that the pug queue gets matches smoothly under the current system, and we have enough players that the CW queue runs relatively smoothly if you have a unit to run group drops in. We currently don't have enough players to divide MWO into more game modes lest we spread the community to thin (Buckets^TM).

Perhaps it's a controversial opinion but I don't really care how many players that still play are founders, a regular player is worth the same to me.

No it does not smell like a desperation move. I'm not sure why revitalizing the community needs to be this negative dirty thing, so much so that we need to tag the word "desperation" on it. It's a smart business practice to advertise your product so as to keep it alive for longer, and Steam's just a new big way to get the game advertised. There's nothing shadey or underhanded about doing so.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 09 December 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Let me recap and layout the arguments for validity.

Number 1:
10v12 wont work, ever. Its very simple: by definition it requires 1 techline to be better and 1 to be worse. No individual wants to play the inferior tech.

As it stands now, IS is still inferior to Clans for the single factor of their engine choices.

That is part of the reason there are so many Clan players. (The other being big units in Clan alignment).

It is the primary reason I don't run IS.

Number 2:
Buffing both IS STD and XL simultaneously precludes the argument that there will be no reason to take STD engines.

Number 3:
The comparison of choice for IS vs Clans is a non-issue. This is not to do with techline, but to do with Battlemech/Omnimech construction.

Clans will soon have Battlemechs. Eventually, IS will probably have Omnimechs. The former swaps equipment, the latter hard points (via Omnipods).

Number 4:
We don't need or want to make IS and Clans the same; but this disparity is THE core factor in the IS/Clan imbalance and is leading to the harmonization of other factors. It will continue to until it is addressed.

Durability is the one part of this game where things should be similar. If you want other things to be different, you should support making IS and Clan XL function the same and buffing STDs.

Number 5:
Lore is not an argument for or against balance. The reality is that the restrictions of TT and lore simply don't exist in MWO. MWO must stand on its own as a game.

Previous Battletech-based video games have deviated heavily from lore; why not MWO?

Number 6:
Because lore is not an argument, we don't and will never need LFEs. They are redundant tech and choices.

Number 7:
PGI is a business. I want them to succeed because I like playing MWO! Therefore, the best approach (that is the one least likely to create further problems, either imbalance or technical, and cost them money) is the simplest and most effective one.

Conclusion:
What then is the simplest and most effective solution?

Make IS and Clan XLs function the same (with some variance in values) and buff STD.

All things considered, it is absolutely the most viable solution.

[MischiefSC]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 09 December 2015 - 07:55 PM, said:

Let me recap and layout the arguments for validity.

Number 1:
10v12 wont work, ever. Its very simple: by definition it requires 1 techline to be better and 1 to be worse. No individual wants to play the inferior tech.

As it stands now, IS is still inferior to Clans for the single factor of their engine choices.

That is part of the reason there are so many Clan players. (The other being big units in Clan alignment).

It is the primary reason I don't run IS.

Number 2:
Buffing both IS STD and XL simultaneously precludes the argument that there will be no reason to take STD engines.

Number 3:
The comparison of choice for IS vs Clans is a non-issue. This is not to do with techline, but to do with Battlemech/Omnimech construction.

Clans will soon have Battlemechs. Eventually, IS will probably have Omnimechs. The former swaps equipment, the latter hard points (via Omnipods).

Number 4:
We don't need or want to make IS and Clans the same; but this disparity is THE core factor in the IS/Clan imbalance and is leading to the harmonization of other factors. It will continue to until it is addressed.

Durability is the one part of this game where things should be similar. If you want other things to be different, you should support making IS and Clan XL function the same and buffing STDs.

Number 5:
Lore is not an argument for or against balance. The reality is that the restrictions of TT and lore simply don't exist in MWO. MWO must stand on its own as a game.

Previous Battletech-based video games have deviated heavily from lore; why not MWO?

Number 6:
Because lore is not an argument, we don't and will never need LFEs. They are redundant tech and choices.

Number 7:
PGI is a business. I want them to succeed because I like playing MWO! Therefore, the best approach (that is the one least likely to create further problems, either imbalance or technical, and cost them money) is the simplest and most effective one.

Conclusion:
What then is the simplest and most effective solution?

Make IS and Clan XLs function the same (with some variance in values) and buff STD.

All things considered, it is absolutely the most viable solution.

All of that makes perfect, rational sense.

As such I had to report you.

You know who makes sense on the MW:O forums? A Synth, that's who.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

What can I say? I'm a cyborg from the future sent back to lead MWO on the right path.

[Homeskilit]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 09 December 2015 - 11:59 PM, said:

What can I say? I'm a cyborg from the future sent back to lead MWO on the right path.

Best use of time travel I can think of, props to you sir!

[William Mountbank]

Step 1: Community makes a fuss because they wish some fundamental change

Step 2-8: Repeat

Step 9: PGI implements wished for change

Step 10: QQ


People would be happier if only they could accept that there is no way to balance MWO. From a mathematical standing, it's simply not possible. And maybe that means no one wants to play as IS in CW, but in pugland it's ok to play mechs that are maxed fun rather than min/maxed.

[Widowmaker1981]

Lugh, on 09 December 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

further marginalizing the STD engine as a choice in the META game... how about no. OR (and you'll hate this because it's the last thing you want to see) Unlock the clan Omnis to full optimization so I can slap an xl400 in my SCR and all cslasers.

Oh you don't want that?

How about letting me slap endosteel on my novas that way I can do an xl 360 and 2 pcs along with 10 slers?

Oh you don't wanna let me do that either do you.. Sorry. your limits are your limits. You don't get to cherry pick any more than I do.

Fully customisable IIC mechs. That is all. You cannot continue to use the locked mechlab as a balance argument.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

William Mountbank, on 10 December 2015 - 12:48 AM, said:

Step 1: Community makes a fuss because they wish some fundamental change

Step 2-8: Repeat

Step 9: PGI implements wished for change

Step 10: QQ


People would be happier if only they could accept that there is no way to balance MWO. From a mathematical standing, it's simply not possible. And maybe that means no one wants to play as IS in CW, but in pugland it's ok to play mechs that are maxed fun rather than min/maxed.

This isn't about making a fuss because... "Oh woe is me, I suck! No wait it the 'Mechs fault!"

Personally, I'm perfectly happy to go on playing Clan 'Mechs.

This is about the overall players experience, the fun of playing both techlines and the game's future.

Many things about Clan/IS tech should be different. This isn't one of them. It directly relates to TTK and the player experience. Life isn't fair, but games can be. The fact that IS XL ST destruction = death just puts them on uneven footing.

Balanced but not equal is possible; for some aspects.

For example, burst fire cAC/cUAC is great. It helps me understand why it's lighter: lighter slugs = smaller barrel = lighter weight.

Streaming cLRMs the same. Fine by me, gives each side flavor.

But death on ST destruction versus (only recently) -20% movement? It's still not a viable trade off!

Moreover, it gives rise to all sorts of further imbalances and necessitates the need for arbitrary quirks that exasperate the problem.

Fix this one thing and all that goes away and we can move forward toward a more fair, more balanced, more fun future!

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 10 December 2015 - 03:29 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 09 December 2015 - 07:55 PM, said:

Let me recap and layout the arguments for validity.

Number 1:
10v12 wont work, ever. Its very simple: by definition it requires 1 techline to be better and 1 to be worse. No individual wants to play the inferior tech.

As it stands now, IS is still inferior to Clans for the single factor of their engine choices.

That is part of the reason there are so many Clan players. (The other being big units in Clan alignment).

It is the primary reason I don't run IS.

Number 2:
Buffing both IS STD and XL simultaneously precludes the argument that there will be no reason to take STD engines.

Number 3:
The comparison of choice for IS vs Clans is a non-issue. This is not to do with techline, but to do with Battlemech/Omnimech construction.

Clans will soon have Battlemechs. Eventually, IS will probably have Omnimechs. The former swaps equipment, the latter hard points (via Omnipods).

Number 4:
We don't need or want to make IS and Clans the same; but this disparity is THE core factor in the IS/Clan imbalance and is leading to the harmonization of other factors. It will continue to until it is addressed.

Durability is the one part of this game where things should be similar. If you want other things to be different, you should support making IS and Clan XL function the same and buffing STDs.

Number 5:
Lore is not an argument for or against balance. The reality is that the restrictions of TT and lore simply don't exist in MWO. MWO must stand on its own as a game.

Previous Battletech-based video games have deviated heavily from lore; why not MWO?

Number 6:
Because lore is not an argument, we don't and will never need LFEs. They are redundant tech and choices.

Number 7:
PGI is a business. I want them to succeed because I like playing MWO! Therefore, the best approach (that is the one least likely to create further problems, either imbalance or technical, and cost them money) is the simplest and most effective one.

Conclusion:
What then is the simplest and most effective solution?

Make IS and Clan XLs function the same (with some variance in values) and buff STD.

All things considered, it is absolutely the most viable solution.

Except for the fact that there are more IS players than clan, you're right.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

William Mountbank, on 10 December 2015 - 12:48 AM, said:

People would be happier if only they could accept that there is no way to balance MWO. From a mathematical standing, it's simply not possible.

Uh... that's just blatantly not true. Just because PGI has no idea what the perfect balance is doesn't mean perfect balance cannot exist. The statement that math proves MWO can never be balanced is a falsehood.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 10 December 2015 - 03:55 AM, said:

Uh... that's just blatantly not true. Just because PGI has no idea what the perfect balance is doesn't mean perfect balance cannot exist. The statement that math proves MWO can never be balanced is a falsehood.

And moreover, we're not asking for mathematical balance! This change would be ergonomic balance!!!

After changing the function, if the values are still different it isn't mathematical. (That is, if the crit space requirement and movement penalties are different, in this case greater for IS, it cannot be defined as mathematical equality!)
_______________

I don't trust the Tukayyid stats as real evidence of who uses what tech most of the time. I daresay that C-bill cost is a factor for new players.

I will concede that further analysis needed about which techline people use most.

[SOL Ranger]

I like the adjustment to structure, I'd go with something like:

IS XL:

• Compromises structure of side torsos by 50%.
  
• Upon either side torso destruction, engine power and heat management is reduced by a cumulative 33%, up to 66%.

IS STD:

• Robust framework increases side torso structure by 100%.

[William Mountbank]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 10 December 2015 - 03:55 AM, said:

Uh... that's just blatantly not true. Just because PGI has no idea what the perfect balance is doesn't mean perfect balance cannot exist. The statement that math proves MWO can never be balanced is a falsehood.

It is patently true. MWO is multivariate and non linear, ergo, no real world situation exists where such an object can be absolutely balanced. It's true a point may exist where the imbalance is tolerable to some proportion of the playerbase, but would this game resemble Battletech and would it make all players happy?

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 10 December 2015 - 04:15 AM, said:

And moreover, we're not asking for mathematical balance! This change would be ergonomic balance!!!

After changing the function, if the values are still different it isn't mathematical. (That is, if the crit space requirement and movement penalties are different, in this case greater for IS, it cannot be defined as mathematical equality!)

But is even ergonomic balance achievable? And is it necessary? Not in pugland, the game is still fun even in mechs that aren't optimised.

I can tell that I've probably come over antagonistic, and that's not my intention. But I do genuinely believe that the game system in MWO and Battletech has much more capacity for fun than it does for balance, and so I think we should optimise accordingly. I know I'm on an island of one here, but it is an island with beaches and coconuts.

[Widowmaker1981]

William Mountbank, on 10 December 2015 - 05:42 AM, said:

I can tell that I've probably come over antagonistic, and that's not my intention. But I do genuinely believe that the game system in MWO and Battletech has much more capacity for fun than it does for balance, and so I think we should optimise accordingly. I know I'm on an island of one here, but it is an island with beaches and coconuts.

Why are fun and balance mutually exclusive? Id say better balance = more fun.

[William Mountbank]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 10 December 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

Fix this one thing and all that goes away and we can move forward toward a more fair, more balanced, more fun future!

My problem is more that it just erodes any difference between the clam and IS. I get that as a video game, the ideal situation for MWO is that clam and IS should both be identical, but I don't think it would make it more fun for me.

I play only pug and mainly IS if people think I have an agenda. I just like the two systems being different.

[ColourfulConfetti]

The clan and IS XLs are pretty close in terms of balance now, really isn't much a point for this thread anymore.