254 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

PalmaRoma, on 10 December 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

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

What?

You think -20% heat dissipation and -20% speed (and 2 fewer ST slots) is somehow balanced against DEAD? Really?

[Kaeb Odellas]

Widowmaker1981, on 10 December 2015 - 06:35 AM, said:

What?

You think -20% heat dissipation and -20% speed (and 2 fewer ST slots) is somehow balanced against DEAD? Really?

I think he's referring to the monstrous piles of quirks certain mechs have gotten to compensate for their crappiness. I consider using quirks to balance Clan vs IS a misuse of the system. Quirks should be reserved for bringing up the underperformers of each side, not to balance the two sides. If you want to boost the IS as a whole, buff their weapons and equipment, not individual mechs.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

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

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?

Again this is frankly a false statement. It doesn't really matter if it's a true or false statement with regards to MWO, but it just sorta bugs me that you are declaring absolutely that balance is impossible. It's a bold statement and poorly defensible from a logical standpoint.

At this point I am entirely arguing logic. And logic says that while it is near-infinitely impossible that PGI will figure out how to perfectly balance MWO, a perfect balance is possible. In fact a dare say there are multiple ways to achieve perfect asymetrical balance. I don't know what they are, but if Paul were to be an all knowing entity I'm sure he could adjust values and mechanics in in some perfect way that would leave the game perfectly balanced.

Again it doesn't really matter, PGI will almost certainly never find a perfect balance, so you are right, getting close is what matters, but it still bothers me when I see a faulty logic argument x.x

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 10 December 2015 - 09:44 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

PalmaRoma, on 10 December 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

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

I'd say that's far from true. IS and Clan are far more balanced then they ever have been before... their engines though? nah... it'd be nice if the engines were balanced so we can reduce the quirking.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

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

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?



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.

To begin with, we don't need perfect balance; we need relative balance. Perfect balance would require more than human accuracy and a fully mathematical approach. That has the error of leading us into "We should all just have 1 Mech with identical equipment and 1 identical gun!"

Ergonomic balance can be achieved, even if it is somewhat more difficult to measure. It has the advantage of allowing asymmetry and not requiring absolutes.

Why you say that ergonomic balance is not important to PUGs I don't rightly follow. I would say that ergonomic balance is even more important than mathematical balance for PUGs.

This is because PUGs are mostly (or more) casual. That means that they are not doing statistical analysis of the balance. They judge balance by the feel. That is exactly what ergonomic balance is: balance according to the feeling and use of something.

This goes back to the fact that no individual player want to play the inferior techline.

William Mountbank, on 10 December 2015 - 06:00 AM, said:

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.

Again, balance does not require equality or need for being identical. But, as I pointed out above: this disparity is driving the harmonization of other aspects of the techlines.

That's not good.

It has created a situation where quirks are being used across the board to make an entire techline better; an approach which is still not really working.

Further more, it diminishes the right use of quirks as tools to tweak particular chassis/variants according to their characters in role and lore.

PalmaRoma, on 10 December 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

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

Simply not true. See others' response above.

IS is more durable than they have been, but mostly via quirks. Those quirks are having the overall effect of creating a further, two-way imbalance. That is, there is a situation where some IS 'Mechs are arbitrarily superior, to both Clan and IS counterparts.

Once again, to prevent this situation and preserve meaningful techline differences, normalize the function of IS and Clan XL engines. This solution is the simplest and most effective.

[AEgg]

How does normalizing Clan and IS XL engines solve anything?

You're just reversing the imbalance. Right now, IS XL has no advantage to clan XL, obvious problem.

If you make them behave the same, then some mechs get engine A, and some mechs can choose between A or B. Again, obvious balance problem.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

AEgg, on 10 December 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

How does normalizing Clan and IS XL engines solve anything?

You're just reversing the imbalance. Right now, IS XL has no advantage to clan XL, obvious problem.

If you make them behave the same, then some mechs get engine A, and some mechs can choose between A or B. Again, obvious balance problem.

Once again, the argument of choice is a non-issue.

IIC 'Mechs clearly demonstrate that choice is connected Battlemech/Omnimech construction, not techline.

Once again, simultaneously buffing IS XL and (all) STD engines precludes the "one will be the better choice!" argument.

Thus, the imbalance reversal doesn't exist.

[MischiefSC]

AEgg, on 10 December 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

How does normalizing Clan and IS XL engines solve anything?

You're just reversing the imbalance. Right now, IS XL has no advantage to clan XL, obvious problem.

If you make them behave the same, then some mechs get engine A, and some mechs can choose between A or B. Again, obvious balance problem.

Except the side that only gets A also gets smaller, lighter weapons.

Ideally we'll reach a balance point where you can make changes to Clan engines. Currently though if every IS mech ran CXLs the best Clan mechs would still be superior and the worst Clan mechs would still be bad, though they would be better than the worst IS mechs.

Ironically if you unlocked call ff and endo it wouldn't affect the best Clan mechs, as what makes them superior is generally that they have the half-size endo/ff already.

The whole approach to Clan balance was bad out of the gate. Balance tech, then unlock Clan mechs so you can help make bad Clan mechs good. Otherwise bad Clan mechs get nerfed by changes to make the OP Clan mechs a bit less op.

[AEgg]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 10 December 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

Once again, the argument of choice is a non-issue.

IIC 'Mechs clearly demonstrate that choice is connected Battlemech/Omnimech construction, not techline.

Once again, simultaneously buffing IS XL and (all) STD engines precludes the "one will be the better choice!" argument.

Thus, the imbalance reversal doesn't exist.

Choice is ALWAYS an advantage. Much more so when both options are viable. (since it's hardly a choice if one side isn't).

If having the choice is not an advantage, then the choice is meaningless to begin with, and you haven't solved anything, you just made everyone equal.

For the purpose of your idea, IIC has no effect. Omnis will still be at a disadvantage to Battlemechs, regardless of which faction they're in.

[Tarl Cabot]

AEgg, on 10 December 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

How does normalizing Clan and IS XL engines solve anything?

You're just reversing the imbalance. Right now, IS XL has no advantage to clan XL, obvious problem.

If you make them behave the same, then some mechs get engine A, and some mechs can choose between A or B. Again, obvious balance problem.

Not sure why you fail to see the difference. Currently of the 3 engines, STD loss of side torso, that is all, of the other two has a 50% weight savings but for one it is destroyed with loss of one side torso while the other only as a heat/movement penalty. And have you really forgotten from the previous posts that there are no true engine crits in the game, crits that would take out every XL -C/IS equipped mech lot quicker? Would you really relish the idea of your timber being taken out with damage to both sides torso and some to the CT before anything else has actually been destroyed?

And what current meta omnimech would equip a standard engine? Which omni mech, current or future, would truly benefit from running a Std engine? They would be slower than their contemporary and they would have to be a pure energy boat, just like the majority of current IS top tier mechs. Do not forget that IS weaponry are heavier and take up more room.

The sad thing is the Clans for the most part do not fight Clans in CW, even though lore-wise they should be. It would be interesting to hear the feedback if there were actual engine crits, 1/2/3 you are out, none of this hitpoint BS. But then PGI going to hitpoints ensure that mech components, weaponry/ecm/C-target computers/heatsinks are not destroyed instantly with one critical hit.

baka.....

[AEgg]

Tarl Cabot, on 10 December 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

Not sure why you fail to see the difference. Currently of the 3 engines, STD loss of side torso, that is all, of the other two has a 50% weight savings but for one it is destroyed with loss of one side torso while the other only as a heat/movement penalty. And have you really forgotten from the previous posts that there are no true engine crits in the game, crits that would take out every XL -C/IS equipped mech lot quicker? Would you really relish the idea of your timber being taken out with damage to both sides torso and some to the CT before anything else has actually been destroyed?

And what current meta omnimech would equip a standard engine? Which omni mech, current or future, would truly benefit from running a Std engine? They would be slower than their contemporary and they would have to be a pure energy boat, just like the majority of current IS top tier mechs. Do not forget that IS weaponry are heavier and take up more room.

The sad thing is the Clans for the most part do not fight Clans in CW, even though lore-wise they should be. It would be interesting to hear the feedback if there were actual engine crits, 1/2/3 you are out, none of this hitpoint BS. But then PGI going to hitpoints ensure that mech components, weaponry/ecm/C-target computers/heatsinks are not destroyed instantly with one critical hit.

baka.....

Both STD and XL should be viable. If we don't make them both viable, we may as well remove one of them from the game.

Currently Clan XL is simply superior to IS XL. Again, obvious problem. Either Clan XL needs the same downside as IS XL or IS XL needs an upside.

To reiterate a third time, were we to simply make Clan and IS XL the same, then all omnis would be at a disadvantage to battlemechs. Thus, we'd still have an engine balance problem.

Making everything equal and removing choice is balance, but it's not good game design.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I actually don't want to unlock Omnimech engines and equipment. I like the ability to swap hardpoints in comparison to the Battlemech ability to swap equipment.

That said, I would be very much in favor of some further tech changes.

#1:
I'd like to see standard armor and structure more durable than FF or ES

#2:
This one is a little out there. I'd reduce the crit space for IS endo-steel and ferro-fibrous to 10.

#3:
I'd like to see certain Omnimechs revisited for their equipment. For example, that Summoner; no amount of quirking seems to compensate for no ES. Love the maneuverability, locked JJs fine. Standard structure?! Ack, no weight for stuff!

#4:
All lasers returned to their original damage curves, with slight further tweaks to Clan heat generation (that is, I want Clans to run even a bit hotter but with still slightly more dissipation; I don't think the changes went quite far enough).

Other changes I'd like to see are across techlines.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

To reiterate a third time, were we to simply make Clan and IS XL the same, then all omnis would be at a disadvantage to battlemechs. Thus, we'd still have an engine balance problem.

Surviving the loss of one side torso would make IS-XL same as a C-XL (besides 50% weight savings), but then the penalties kick in. For IS-XL it would likely be 30% heat/movement (3engine slots) instead of the IS-XL 20% heat/movement(2engine slots). The Std has no penalties but it also means a mech is slower and can not carry a larger payload. But all 3 would continue to operate with at least the loss of one side torso. Of the 3 only the STD-equip mech has no penalties and can keep moving with the loss of both side torso, and if equipped w/CT/head weapons continue fighting/blocking.

And how would Clan omni/battlemechs be at a disadvantaged to IS omni(if every introduced)/ battlemechs? Clan omni/battlemechs other components are lighter, smaller, harder hitting and farther reaching weapons by default.

And in the future, if/when IS omni are introduced, if PGI keeps their stance on locked Omni components, the IS omni would be at a severe disadvantage already. All anyone would need to do is to target a side torso for a guarantee kill. Why take out both legs or the CT? Sorta like now with those that run IS-XL but IS-omni will not have a choice. And why wait til then to decide?

For lights/few meds players would run an IS-XL for the speed/payload but for heavies/assaults? Who is going to want to take an IS heavy/assault omni mech w/fixed XL that will guarantee its death with the loss of one side? I can see Clanners licking their chops at that. Hell, I would be too if I was facing an IS-Omni with a fixed IS-XL engine, not a C-XL engine.

Edit - If you are thinking that a STD would become obsolete and it needs to be buffed, I am not against buffing it but for the casual players it likely will not make a difference. It already comes default on almost all IS mechs and for those still learning the tricks of the trade, it works for them. At least their mechs keep moving at least with the loss of one side torso, and even with the loss of both. But they will learn of the IS-XL, of its weight savings, the ability to move faster but it dies with the loss of a side torso. Why dont Clan mechs die that way too? 2 engine slots is better than three!!! But there are no actual engine crits in the game (studied things). WTF...

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 10 December 2015 - 08:15 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

AEgg, on 10 December 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

Choice is ALWAYS an advantage. Much more so when both options are viable. (since it's hardly a choice if one side isn't).

....

For the purpose of your idea, IIC has no effect. Omnis will still be at a disadvantage to Battlemechs, regardless of which faction they're in.

Choice is not necessarily an advantage in function. If both choices are bad, then either choice is bad. Saying that choice is always an advantage to result is a logical fallacy.

Choice is an advantage in... choice.

Further, Omnimechs do get choices, just not the same choices as Battlemechs. Since choice of engine inside techlines is a non-issue, we don't have to worry about that.

IIC examples are just a way to clarify this.

AEgg, on 10 December 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

If having the choice is not an advantage, then the choice is meaningless to begin with, and you haven't solved anything, you just made everyone equal.

This is just circular logic stating that:
If a choice is not an advantage then it's meaningless. If it's meaningless, it's not a choice. If it's not a choice, then it's not an advantage.

Sorry, but I reject circular logic.

[MischiefSC]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 10 December 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

Choice is not necessarily an advantage in function. If both choices are bad, then either choice is bad. Saying that choice is always an advantage to result is a logical fallacy.

Choice is an advantage in... choice.

Further, Omnimechs do get choices, just not the same choices as Battlemechs. Since choice of engine inside techlines is a non-issue, we don't have to worry about that.

IIC examples are just a way to clarify this.



This is just circular logic stating that:
If a choice is not an advantage then it's meaningless. If it's meaningless, it's not a choice. If it's not a choice, then it's not an advantage.

Sorry, but I reject circular logic.

Seriously, WTF BBQ where have you been for the last couple of years? You keep saying smart stuff on the forums. Like bordering on sane and reasonable smart stuff. That's going to get you in a lot of trouble here.

A big section of the games community bought Clan mechs and indeed came to the game for Clans because they wanted to play OP tech vs inferior tech. Flat out reality of it. Many are very honest about it. They wouldn't have bought Clan mechs if they were balanced or they were not buying an advantage. That's part of the 'magic' of Clans, Lore created P2W advantage so it's like totally legit and not 100 shades of feeble.... right?

So you're going to find that rational arguments have a lot of trouble getting traction. You've got a segment (not all, obviously, but a segment) of players who only want to to play if they have an advantage. They'll justify it a lot of ways and make a lot of excuses but the point is they don't want fair, rational and balanced. They want the OP advantage they thought they were buying and they want everyone else to play redshirts for them to kill, like it was PvE but in a PvP setting so they can pretend it's their skillz that make them mighty.

This isn't the first of these discussions. Just realize that while you're making fair, rational and balanced arguments that is exactly what a significant group of people do not want. They want an advantage and they want everyone to pretend it's not. No answer that isn't that is going to satisfy them.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

AEgg, on 10 December 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

Both STD and XL should be viable. If we don't make them both viable, we may as well remove one of them from the game.

Currently Clan XL is simply superior to IS XL. Again, obvious problem. Either Clan XL needs the same downside as IS XL or IS XL needs an upside.

To reiterate a third time, were we to simply make Clan and IS XL the same, then all omnis would be at a disadvantage to battlemechs. Thus, we'd still have an engine balance problem.

Making everything equal and removing choice is balance, but it's not good game design.

Both XL and STD should be viable, agreed.

Currently, they are not.

Downgrading cXL is out. People paid money for that function. You cannot reneg on that promise for legal purpose of operating in bad faith (gray area, here); at the least, player outrage.

But, upgrading isXL is safely within the borders of good business practice.

Omnimechs wouldn't be at an absolute disadvantage at all, they just have different choices.

With the introduction of IIC 'Mechs Clans will have the further choice of Omi/Battlemech. The one with the choice of hardpoints, the other with the choice of equipment.

When (if) IS Omnis are introduced, they will have that further choice, too.

This is a non-issue here.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 10 December 2015 - 08:42 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

MischiefSC, on 10 December 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:

Seriously, WTF BBQ where have you been for the last couple of years? You keep saying smart stuff on the forums. Like bordering on sane and reasonable smart stuff. That's going to get you in a lot of trouble here.

A big section of the games community bought Clan mechs and indeed came to the game for Clans because they wanted to play OP tech vs inferior tech. Flat out reality of it. Many are very honest about it. They wouldn't have bought Clan mechs if they were balanced or they were not buying an advantage. That's part of the 'magic' of Clans, Lore created P2W advantage so it's like totally legit and not 100 shades of feeble.... right?

So you're going to find that rational arguments have a lot of trouble getting traction. You've got a segment (not all, obviously, but a segment) of players who only want to to play if they have an advantage. They'll justify it a lot of ways and make a lot of excuses but the point is they don't want fair, rational and balanced. They want the OP advantage they thought they were buying and they want everyone else to play redshirts for them to kill, like it was PvE but in a PvP setting so they can pretend it's their skillz that make them mighty.

This isn't the first of these discussions. Just realize that while you're making fair, rational and balanced arguments that is exactly what a significant group of people do not want. They want an advantage and they want everyone to pretend it's not. No answer that isn't that is going to satisfy them.

I am aware of this phenomenon.

PGI should be careful to distinguish selfish arguments from the altruistic.

Let me tell a little story. Perhaps you have even heard of it before.

A University of Maryland Professor of Psychology, Dylan Selterman, PhD, has been doing an experiment with extra credit and altruism since 2008.

The last question of his final exam simply asks "whether you want 2 points or 6 points added onto your final paper grade."

The catch is that if too many people choose the 6 point answer (more than 10%), no one gets any extra credit at all!

Since he began asking, only 1 group has ever gotten any extra credit.

The Tragedy of the Commons.

But PGI, as the keeper of their own game have the power and responsibility to safeguard the playerbase against such problems. Moreover, if they want the game to be successful for years to come, they must do so.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 10 December 2015 - 10:02 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Just gotta keep fighting for XL equality.

What's the saying?
Never give up, Never surrender!

Edited by Homeskilit, 11 December 2015 - 12:12 AM.

[William Mountbank]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 10 December 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

Again this is frankly a false statemen... ...it just sorta bugs me that you are declaring absolutely that balance is impossible. It's a bold statement and poorly defensible from a logical standpoint.

...logic says that while it is near-infinitely impossible... ...to perfectly balance MWO, a perfect balance is possible. In fact a dare say there are multiple ways to achieve perfect asymetrical balance.

.. it still bothers me when I see a faulty logic argument x.x

Pot, kettle.

[William Mountbank]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 10 December 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:

To begin with, we don't need perfect balance; we need relative balance. That has the error of leading us into "We should all just have 1 Mech with identical equipment and 1 identical gun!"

Ergonomic balance can be achieved, even if it is somewhat more difficult to measure. It has the advantage of allowing asymmetry and not requiring absolutes.

Why you say that ergonomic balance is not important to PUGs I don't rightly follow. I would say that ergonomic balance is even more important than mathematical balance for PUGs.

This is because PUGs are mostly (or more) casual. That means that they are not doing statistical analysis of the balance. They judge balance by the feel. That is exactly what ergonomic balance is: balance according to the feeling and use of something.

This goes back to the fact that no individual player want to play the inferior techline.

But it seems like the ergonomic balance you're arguing for is subjective between players and different patch states of the game. I do actually agree with you about ergonomic balance, I just think we should be clear about what the limits of that are. I also think it should be pointed out again that sub par mechs are still being played, still add flavour to the game and people enjoy them. I like playing non meta IS, I'm sure other people do too.

That's my question: should all mechs have parity, or does trying to give all mechs parity lead to crazy quirks and homogenisation over time?