254 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 December 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

No one here is the grand arbiter of what makes a game a "Mechwarrior" game. MW4 was a huge departure from previous games and the tabletop game with its mech customization system, and people still consider it a Mechwarrior game. In order for a multiplayer-focused game to be successful, it needs balanced gameplay. Since this game features a faction-based warfare with faction-restricted mechs and equipment and was designed to be played with equal numbers of mechs on each side, it follows that both factions must be balanced against one another.

No one is questioning the need for balance. What is being questioned is the approach used to attain it.

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 December 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

And both sides need not be identical. PGI just needs to make sure that each side's strengths and weaknesses balance out. It will probably be impossible to get this balance perfect, but that's not a reason not to try.

Many of us here already think we are on the path to harmonization. That is the logical path when your balancing method (I'm not even going to call it a "system") involves only equipment and with 1:1 parity as the goal.

[CDLord HHGD]

FupDup, on 11 December 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

The 6 PPC variant was more of a joke build than anything, like a poor man's version of the Direstar. The real nasty one was the 4 PPC version, because it could keep firing a lot longer...

In terms of meta builds, the import thing to remember is that a number of stock mechs actually DO come right out of the box this way. The Devastator, Thunder Hawk, Hellstar, Bane, Awesome, Nightstar, Stormcrow, Timber Wolf, Night Gyr, Blood Asp, any many more than I'm too lazy to list are built to meta right out of the box with few or no modifications required.

Stock mechs ultimately were never intended to be balanced against each other. Some stock mechs were better than others, either by deliberate developer choice or by accident. Many stock variants exist for the sole purpose of being more effective than previous variants, usually by adding new tech items or correcting design flaws from previous designs (e.g. removing crappy weapons and replacing with good weapons).

Compare the Shadow Hawk 2H against the 5M, for instance.
SHD-2H
SHD-5M
The second one is clearly an upgrade over the first one in every way except for costing more C-Bills to purchase.

You could maybe argue for the customization to revolve around a broad interpretation of a mech's role rather than the extremes of stock only or MW3's system of doing whatever the eff you want, but there should always be a good level of mech modification because it's one of the cornerstones that makes MW different from most other robot games (or most other games period).

Their role should be defined by their stock loadout and their quirks should reflect only their stock loadout. This level of hardpoint inflation is a mistake as well. If a mech is factory meta, I'll eat that. But the artificially meta is getting stale.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

No one is questioning the need for balance. What is being questioned is the approach used to attain it.




Many of us here already think we are on the path to harmonization. That is the logical path when your balancing method (I'm not even going to call it a "system") involves only equipment and with 1:1 parity as the goal.

There is absolutely no reason why the 2 sides can't be closely balanced without making them identical.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 11 December 2015 - 10:41 AM.

[Mystere]

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 December 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

And you're all acting like assymetrical numbers is some kind of magic bullet to make this game balanced. PGI would still have to work to make 12 IS mechs equal 10 Clan mechs, or whatever it is you're arguing for. That would still be very hard! Probably harder than 1:1, I'd wager.

I will just quote myself:

Quote

The general problem I am seeing is that almost everybody, PGI and players alike, are only looking at gear for balance, for an IP that is inherently asymmetrical. It has already failed several times, miserably, and yet people still insist on repeatedly doing the exact same thing -- the definition of insanity.

So why not stop this insanity? Why not have a real balancing system based on more than just gear? Use all of the following:

• only IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, IS vs. Clan fights
  
• lore formations
  
• game modes
  
• drop weight
  
• respawn size (as reinforcements)
  
• victory conditions
  
• Mech construction rules
  
• weapon attributes and mechanics
  
• equipment attributes and mechanics
  
• reward system
  
• etc. etc. etc.

And as cdlord said:

cdlord, on 11 December 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Developer skillset be damned.

[Mystere]

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 December 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:

There is absolutely no reason why the 2 sides can't be closely balanced without making them identical.

When the goal -- supported by many -- is 1:1?

And as for closely balanced being good enough, here is a perfect illustration of what will happen:

Almond Brown, on 11 December 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

So unless the 2 XL's are made absolutely "identical", the complaints will always remain. That is the sad reality of any system where asymmetry is attempted but can never please some who always see that they are getting screwed over vs the other guys Tech, despite being different, all they see is it is "WAY F'ing BETTER!"

It is the natural and expected reaction when you explicitly shoot for 1:1.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

I will just quote myself:



And as cdlord said:

All of that stuff right there would still be an absolutely herculean task to balance out. PGI has already made significant progress with 1:1 balance. They're not going to throw it all out to risk something completely different.

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

When the goal -- supported by many -- is 1:1?

And as for closely balanced being good enough, here is a perfect illustration of what will happen:

It is the natural and expected reaction when you explicitly shoot for 1:1.

I don't give 2 rat turds how many people complain that IS and Clan XL engines aren't identical in function. People have provided many ideas here on how to close the XL gap without making them identical.

This thread is a conversation about how to close the gap between Clan and IS engines. You're trying to turn it into a conversation about why we shouldn't. I'm not interested in having that conversation here. Go make another thread if that's all you want to talk about.

[AssaultPig]

Asymmetric balance isn't going to happen and suggesting it is really dumb.

Mechs need to be balanced around both the quickplay and CW, and the quickplay queue is always going to be mixed comp.

[Mystere]

AssaultPig, on 11 December 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

Asymmetric balance isn't going to happen and suggesting it is really dumb.

What I find dumb is insisting on 1:1 balance in an IP that is inherently asymmetric.

AssaultPig, on 11 December 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

Mechs need to be balanced around both the quickplay and CW, and the quickplay queue is always going to be mixed comp.

Quickplay should be eliminated as a mode and instead farmed out to "training grounds" and some "Solaris-type" mode(s). Community Warfare should be "the game" for "warfare" and Solaris (for IS, and probably Trial of Position for Clans) for "eSports".

Or did you not realize that it was just a filler that became a "major" part of the game -- just like all the other fillers that ended up as such? Have you already forgotten, or did not know, about the "minimally viable product" concept?

[Mystere]

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 December 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

All of that stuff right there would still be an absolutely herculean task to balance out. PGI has already made significant progress with 1:1 balance. They're not going to throw it all out to risk something completely different.

It is not something completely different. It's "in addition to".

And actually, I think tweaking drop size and weight (e.g. 4 Mechs [max and no minimum], 250 tons [max and no minimum]) is easier than any of the balancing, quirks, and "ghost" mechanics done by PGI since forever.

Of course, I will have to admit that getting creative on game modes, victory conditions, and appropriate maps might be herculean.

But then again:

cdlord, on 11 December 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Developer skillset be damned.

Edited by Mystere, 11 December 2015 - 12:17 PM.

[Almond Brown]

cdlord, on 11 December 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Look. It's in the Lore. Clan XLs are more resilient and can survive a ST loss whereas IS XLs are not. Clans ARE more technologically advanced than the IS. I play IS and many of my rigs have XLs. I don't whine about it because: A-I'm an adult, B-I know this is the way its supposed to be.

One reason why the Clans do not need more mechs in this timeline, they have the more advanced, lean and mean lineup. Hell, Clans aren't even supposed to have normal ACs. UACs or LBX or bust. How many more concessions do we have to make before this isn't Mechwarrior anymore?

TL:DR Suck it up buttercup.

I was in agreement with you clord. Not sure why you went postal on my post. I was just explaining exactly what you said and how PGI has already caved enough. I drive both I.S. and Clan Mechs so know the difference first hand.

[Almond Brown]

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 December 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

You're a crazy person. Getting rid of the mechlab removes a huge portion of what makes this game interesting. No one would support this. Ever.

And like it or not, 1:1 IS vs Clan balance is the path PGI has decided on. There is no reason "more technologically advanced" has to mean "superior in every way".

And in truth, NO, the community could "not handle" outnumbered sides. The true Clan Tech was so good, even the Houses had to band together to defeat them. And that was after they started using Clan Tech themselves ffs.

Can you imagine the RAGE and TEARS around here, given what we see here now, if the short handed Team won even just 50% of the time? Or had a Win Streak of say 15 wins in a row in the Pug queue, not to mention Team play? It would be absolute bedlum. Mayhem would rule. Oh wait.. LOL!

[Almond Brown]

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 December 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:

There is absolutely no reason why the 2 sides can't be closely balanced without making them identical.

LOL! You realize that for some, the terms "Close" and "Balanced" can have absolutely no relationship together, at all, right?

[CDLord HHGD]

Almond Brown, on 11 December 2015 - 11:55 AM, said:

I was in agreement with you clord. Not sure why you went postal on my post. I was just explaining exactly what you said and how PGI has already caved enough. I drive both I.S. and Clan Mechs so know the difference first hand.

If I did, sry..... Being a lore purist and anti-meta scrub has me on the defensive quite often. My apologies if you got in the crossfire.

[cSand]

I dunno

after seeing the pain of a clan mech with a torso blown off...

I'd say things are pretty balanced

[Mystere]

cSand, on 11 December 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

I dunno

after seeing the pain of a clan mech with a torso blown off...

I'd say things are pretty balanced

Ah, but you see, "as good as dead" is not the same as "actually dead". It has to be 1:1, you know.

[Almond Brown]

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 December 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

stuff

This thread is a conversation about how to close the gap between Clan and IS engines. You're trying to turn it into a conversation about why we shouldn't. I'm not interested in having that conversation here. Go make another thread if that's all you want to talk about.

That gap is being closed, I.S. Mechs getting MORE "Internal Structure" to areas that contain Engine components (and others). So now the question remains, if not identical in action, what are the true parameters, as you see them say, that would make them different but "balanced enough" to finally stop the outcries of injustice to the Inner Sphere that we read here daily.

How do we/PGI equate -20% speed and agility loss versus how much work or damage it should take to destroy the ST of an I.S. BattleMech with an XL engine in tow given it still has to die?

P.S. And stating that said I.S. Mech, with XL, has to live, simply just ends any further "conversation" on the subject as that makes you both unreasonable and simply argumentative for no real reason.

Edited by Almond Brown, 11 December 2015 - 12:26 PM.

[Crifuan]

In my opinion it would be ok that the IS-XL-Engine is equal in all stats to the Clan-XL, instead that it takes 6 internal slots than 4. Thats worse enough.
Perhaps the heat-penalty for the loss of a side-Torso could be a little bit more

[Almond Brown]

cdlord, on 11 December 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

If I did, sry..... Being a lore purist and anti-meta scrub has me on the defensive quite often. My apologies if you got in the crossfire.

No worries, I just got me some "Internal Structure" buffs last Patch so it is all good.

[cSand]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

Ah, but you see, "as good as dead" is not the same as "actually dead". It has to be 1:1, you know.

hah, yea

Generally speaking I se thse poor ******** with 1 torso blown off... they are pretty banged up elsewhere, All of a sudden you're going 60 kph and twist rate has gone to nothing. Mad Cat becomes "sort of lukewarm mildly annoying cat". Direwolf becomes gentlePuppy. Mad Dog becaomse "useless weiner". etc etc

So, basically dead unless you are lucky.

I see no issues here.


I would in fact say that the twist rate nerf should go, so they have a bit more chance of survival.

FTR I am an IS pilot

Edited by cSand, 11 December 2015 - 12:31 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

Many of us here already think we are on the path to harmonization. That is the logical path when your balancing method (I'm not even going to call it a "system") involves only equipment and with 1:1 parity as the goal.

Again, I say cLPL VS isLPL

Functionally identical, but both unique and moderately competitive against one another.
More damage, longer range, longer burn time, more heat VS less burn time (considerably), less heat.

It can be done, but you don't want it.

Edited by Mcgral18, 11 December 2015 - 12:36 PM.