254 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 11 December 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

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.

Fantastic, you've done 2 lasers.

Now what about the other 11 lasers as well as the 45 other weapons? And can we get rid of all weapons quirks while we're at it? What about the latest general Clan laser nerfs?

After weapons, how do we balance Mechs next? Should that be done independently of the weapons balance? And do we do so by class, weight, Mech, and/or variant? And can we get rid of all chassis quirks while we're at it?

And then we come to equipment like NARC, heat sinks, and -- as per the topic -- engines. How do we do that? Should that be independent of the weapon and Mech balancing too?

Do you see where I am going with this?

Mcgral18, on 11 December 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

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

How do the above then work when you start considering Clan formations vs. IS Formations, which is actually the root of all my desires -- as far as MWO is concerned anyway?

Edited by Mystere, 11 December 2015 - 01:30 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 01:27 PM, said:

Fantastic, you've done 2 lasers.

Now what about the other 11 lasers as well as the 45 other weapons? And can we get rid of all weapons quirks while we're at it? What about the latest general Clan laser nerfs?

After weapons, how do we balance Mechs next? Should that be done independently of the weapons balance? And do we do so by class, weight, Mech, and/or variant? And can we get rid of all chassis quirks while we're at it?

And then we come to equipment like NARC, heat sinks, and -- as per the topic -- engines. How do we do that? Should that be independent of the weapon and Mech balancing too?

Do you see where I am going with this?

No, because you need to do the same thing.

I've actually provided numbers and examples, which could be implemented within a half hour.
You've said Do 12 VS 10, with little in the way of numbers.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 11 December 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

No, because you need to do the same thing.

I've actually provided numbers and examples, which could be implemented within a half hour.
You've said Do 12 VS 10, with little in the way of numbers.

I have not given any numbers (but have actually given more [i.e. formulas and rough equations]) because the following require quite a bit more than just math skills on PGI's part:

Quote

• game modes (and appropriate maps)
  
• victory conditions
  
• reward system

[Homeskilit]

Can you imagine any sport where one team has a different set of rules than another?

[Mystere]

Homeskilit, on 11 December 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

Can you imagine any sport where one team has a different set of rules than another?

MechWARrior Online

What sport?

Edited by Mystere, 11 December 2015 - 02:09 PM.

[tokumboh]

Reading lots of these comments I thought I'd write my thought down for what it is worth.

I think the problem is that in every game where there is a tech tree, there isn't equivalence without strategy. Part of the problem is that the game is essentially about kills and damage. Because of that people want everything that allows kill and damage. The second problem is unlocking the tech tree. There isn't any graduation in skill to unlock the tree so it is essentially a free for all with very limited objectives. On another forum debate I asked why it was that lights have to have so much fire power a Raven with ECM and 2LL is deadly, the reason is that if you are light pilot without damage and kill you've got no chance of going up the tiers.

So really the problem of balance stems from the problem of how we get rewarded and how we perceived we get rewarded. Kill and Death ratio and Damage. There is nothing else I can even show you about my performance. Without other effective objectives you need 'balance' or it would seem unfair. Now you culd make TTK longer by buffing armour thereby making the idea of capping useful you could make the idea of having enough fuel for 3 minutes and having to scout for fuel for your buddys to allow them to stay in the fight, you could make the game more cooperative by default giving mechs some definition to the roles but I predict none of these would meet with the community's pleasure.

I reckon the reason we have 3 game modes and CW Faction Play not out of a reasonable alpha to be fair, is the continuing debate about balance and as I seen in lots of discussion here it does not advance the game but actually pins in down into kill death ratios and damage

If we ever get past this issue we might have an excellent game on our hands

[MischiefSC]

cdlord, on 11 December 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:

I just don't see much spirit of Battletech/Mechwarrior in 6 PPC stalkers and other meta-builds. I like the mechlab, I do, but they gave us the rope and we are hanging ourselves with it. We need further restrictions on toning down the extreme meta builds. I understand there will always be a meta, but it doesn't have to be this extreme.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The actual reality is that FASA flat out admitted the game balance in this era and in fact how they handled Clans all together was a bad game design. It was a mistake. The whole WoB nuking everything and HPG Blackout was literally a 3 finger reset; it was intended to do exactly what the first 2 Succession Wars did. Level the field, at which point they balanced tech completely. IS to Clans, thought hey did throw in the nifty little bit of every faction tended to have an extra little perk. They even re-created the 'Promised Return of Kerensky' with Devlin Stone. The whole thing was, flat out, a complete wipe of the original Clan release specifically because, well, the whole IS vs Clans with Clans in superior tech was bad.

So we're trying to avoid repeating the mistakes. I would be 100% in favor of a timeline leap but bluntly PGI probably doesn't even tip their waiters, I can't imagine them scrapping 90% Of the games released content and rebuilding it all. So we're shooting for Dark Ages tech balance with the assets we have right now. So, engine balance. Game balance.

What does weapon balance in Dark Ages look like again? That's right - there are some differences but overall performance is 1 mech to 1 mech. Are you saying that isn't Battletech?

[Homeskilit]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

What sport?

MWO is a game (not an actual war thus it is subject to rules) and sports are also games. I was asking people to imagine a sport where one side has different rules then another.

Here is an example: Imagine if in baseball Team A was only given 1 strikes at the plate while Team B was given the standard 3. It does not matter what other rules you apply to either team, one side will end up limited in its approach.

To continue using baseball as an example, both sides must follow the same rules, but either side can choose the equipment they wish to take onto the field (glove, bat, cleats, ect).

Edited by Homeskilit, 11 December 2015 - 02:51 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

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




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?

That's another false assumption. The IP absolutely is NOT asymmetric. It was, briefly, in one timeline segment of the game and it was an acknowledged error. The only ways it was asymmetric was with the introduction of infantry, vehicles, air support, etc. However that was played like a wargame.

What you're actually asking for is wargame balance in a FPS. That would only work if I could hop around between all of the bots I'm controlling; so I could play 3 infantry platoons and a squad of Scimitars vs your pair of battlemechs for example.

The game needs balanced 1 for 1 because we are each only playing 1 thing at a time.

Again, to repeat though -

FASA BALANCED THE GAME SYMMETRICALLY. BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER CLAN RELEASE AND THEY DID SO BECAUSE THE ASYMMETRIC BALANCE WAS A BAD IDEA AND WAS NEVER ACTUALLY BALANCED.

Everything that's broken in symmetric balance is still broken in asymmetric balance just now you've got a way to multiply it. CLPLs in tabletop for example. Utterly broken. The game had tons of broken mechanics and the Stars vs Lances bit never worked unless you were good friends or knew each other and were intentionally gimping your choices to keep it a fair/balanced match. That or generally the game was run by a GM and one side was all NPCs, created and run like a PvE game.

This idea that BT was always asymmetrical is flat out wrong save in that it was a wargame. For a FPS translation though we need to balance it based on where the IP ended at, at the answers they got to in response to the mistakes they'd made. Balancing the game based on the era of worst mistakes the IP made and then pretending that's all the IP was is incredibly disingenuous. That PGI made the mistake of picking this era for their game is a byproduct of the same bad choices that have created terribad game balance to begin with. It's not a justification for doubling down on bad ideas.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 11 December 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

That's another false assumption. The IP absolutely is NOT asymmetric. It was, briefly, in one timeline segment of the game and it was an acknowledged error. The only ways it was asymmetric was with the introduction of infantry, vehicles, air support, etc. However that was played like a wargame.

What you're actually asking for is wargame balance in a FPS. That would only work if I could hop around between all of the bots I'm controlling; so I could play 3 infantry platoons and a squad of Scimitars vs your pair of battlemechs for example.

The game needs balanced 1 for 1 because we are each only playing 1 thing at a time.

Again, to repeat though -

FASA BALANCED THE GAME SYMMETRICALLY. BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER CLAN RELEASE AND THEY DID SO BECAUSE THE ASYMMETRIC BALANCE WAS A BAD IDEA AND WAS NEVER ACTUALLY BALANCED.

Everything that's broken in symmetric balance is still broken in asymmetric balance just now you've got a way to multiply it. CLPLs in tabletop for example. Utterly broken. The game had tons of broken mechanics and the Stars vs Lances bit never worked unless you were good friends or knew each other and were intentionally gimping your choices to keep it a fair/balanced match. That or generally the game was run by a GM and one side was all NPCs, created and run like a PvE game.

This idea that BT was always asymmetrical is flat out wrong save in that it was a wargame. For a FPS translation though we need to balance it based on where the IP ended at, at the answers they got to in response to the mistakes they'd made. Balancing the game based on the era of worst mistakes the IP made and then pretending that's all the IP was is incredibly disingenuous. That PGI made the mistake of picking this era for their game is a byproduct of the same bad choices that have created terribad game balance to begin with. It's not a justification for doubling down on bad ideas.

If we were at 3025 or the Dark Ages, I'd probably agree with you. But, we are not. The Clan Invasion is the era of this game.

As for FASA saying it was a mistake? Well, boo hoo! Big ******* deal! Mistake or not, that is what it was. And yes I do want a war game. That's why it's called MechWARrior in the first place.

And what you guys actually seem to want is eSports. Meh!

tokumboh, on 11 December 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

Reading lots of these comments I thought I'd write my thought down for what it is worth.

I think the problem is that in every game where there is a tech tree, there isn't equivalence without strategy. Part of the problem is that the game is essentially about kills and damage. Because of that people want everything that allows kill and damage. The second problem is unlocking the tech tree. There isn't any graduation in skill to unlock the tree so it is essentially a free for all with very limited objectives. On another forum debate I asked why it was that lights have to have so much fire power a Raven with ECM and 2LL is deadly, the reason is that if you are light pilot without damage and kill you've got no chance of going up the tiers.

So really the problem of balance stems from the problem of how we get rewarded and how we perceived we get rewarded. Kill and Death ratio and Damage. There is nothing else I can even show you about my performance. Without other effective objectives you need 'balance' or it would seem unfair. Now you culd make TTK longer by buffing armour thereby making the idea of capping useful you could make the idea of having enough fuel for 3 minutes and having to scout for fuel for your buddys to allow them to stay in the fight, you could make the game more cooperative by default giving mechs some definition to the roles but I predict none of these would meet with the community's pleasure.

I reckon the reason we have 3 game modes and CW Faction Play not out of a reasonable alpha to be fair, is the continuing debate about balance and as I seen in lots of discussion here it does not advance the game but actually pins in down into kill death ratios and damage

If we ever get past this issue we might have an excellent game on our hands

Or in other words:

Quote

• game modes (and appropriate maps)
  
• victory conditions
  
• reward system

Bravo. This person gets it.

Edited by Mystere, 11 December 2015 - 06:26 PM.

[Mystere]

Homeskilit, on 11 December 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

MWO is a game (not an actual war thus it is subject to rules) and sports are also games. I was asking people to imagine a sport where one side has different rules then another.

Here is an example: Imagine if in baseball Team A was only given 1 strikes at the plate while Team B was given the standard 3. It does not matter what other rules you apply to either team, one side will end up limited in its approach.

To continue using baseball as an example, both sides must follow the same rules, but either side can choose the equipment they wish to take onto the field (glove, bat, cleats, ect).

Again, we're playing: MechWARrior Online. It's supposed to be a war game, not an eSport. If the latter is what you want, ask PGI to rename the game Solaris VII or something to that effect.

Then we would have no arguments on the matter.


Joseph Mallan, where are you when we need you.

Edited by Mystere, 11 December 2015 - 06:18 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

Again, we're playing: MechWARrior Online. It's supposed to be a war game, not an eSport. If the latter is what you want, ask PGI to rename the game Solaris VII or something to that effect. Then we would have no arguments on the matter.

You're never going to get 12 VS 10


Why bother trying?
Wait...why do I bother making threads when they'll also never be considered...


What's the definition of insanity again?

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 11 December 2015 - 06:18 PM, said:

You're never going to get 12 VS 10

Why bother trying?
Wait...why do I bother making threads when they'll also never be considered...

What's the definition of insanity again?

Well, that's for you to answer yourself and no one else.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Ok, lets get a couple clarifications out of the way.

#1:
This is not war. It's a game. We play it. No one dies and it's based around friendly competition; despite being an eSport or not.

#2:
True competition requires a fair playing field and precludes the idea that a game can be unbalanced.

#3:
For this reason 10v12 is out. Please stop trying to use it for an argument. Even if it were a theoretical option, PGI has made it clear they won't do it.

This argument is just "But I want it this way!"

#4:
Lore is not an argument. Previous Battletech games did not follow lore. The modern state of BT is balanced. PGI bought this IP for brand recognition and ease of marketing; not to make a old school TT clone.

#5:
This being different is the heart of imbalance between techlines. This imbalance is driving the harmonization of other aspects.

Moreover, the quirks we have in place to make IS more durable are just further imbalance and an abuse of the Quirk system; taking away its right use of making each chassis/variant more unique.

#6:
We can have Clans and IS tech be different. But we shouldn't in durability aspects, as this is the foundation of balance.
_______________

Ultimately, I stick to my argument and haven't seen anything new or valid presented here.

Making this change (to IS and Clan XL function the same, albeit with different values) can only help MWO.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 11 December 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:

Ok, lets get a couple clarifications out of the way.

#1:
This is not war. It's a game. We play it. No one dies and it's based around friendly competition; despite being an eSport or not.

#2:
True competition requires a fair playing field and precludes the idea that a game can be unbalanced.

Let me say again, this is a war game. If you want eSports, then go ask PGI to explicitly say so. Not that PGI would actually do so because they and everyone else very well know what will happen.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

Let me say again, this is a war game. If you want eSports, then go ask PGI to explicitly say so. Not that PGI would actually do so because they and everyone else very well know what will happen.

Specifically, this is a GAME


If you want to live out Clam Tech Power fantasies, there are plenty of other choices available.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

Let me say again, this is a war game. If you want eSports, then go ask PGI to explicitly say so. Not that PGI would actually do so because they and everyone else very well know what will happen.

Most important word in this post: "game".

Again, we play it. For fun. People don't die!

Your whole argument is undermined by this fact.

Chess is a war game. It's perfectly, mathematically and absolutely balanced.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 11 December 2015 - 06:53 PM.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 11 December 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

Specifically, this is a GAME

If you want to live out Clam Tech Power fantasies, there are plenty of other choices available.

Is there any other Battletech/Mechwarrior PvP game set during the Clan Invasion? Please do tell.

But, I do know at least one Mech game specifically geared() for eSports:

Quote

What is the focus of Heavy Gear Assault?



Gear Sports is a huge sport on Terra Nova and dueling itself is present in nearly all Terra Novan cultures and leagues. Heavy Gear Assault will focus play on the major Gear dueling circuits present in the Heavy Gear Lore. Players will compete in this no holds-bar sport where skill and determination matter more than Gears and equipment. At its core, HGA is an action packed first person simulator with next generation AAA graphics. Heavy Gear Assault will also feature a revolutionary melee system and a dynamic damage engine, adding never before seen levels of carnage to the genre. Outside the dueling arenas, players will manage their dueling teams and customize their Gears. Players can also spectate other matches and earn rewards by sponsoring the contestants. Key game modes players can expect early on are Capture the flag, Deathmatch & team deathmatch, and Domination.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 06:55 PM, said:

Is there any other Battletech/Mechwarrior PvP game set during the Clan Invasion? Please do tell.

Would that not be EVERY mechwarrior? Sub 4?

MW2 (many varieties, MW2 MERCs does it)
MW3 has OP Clam tech

They're PVP, if you want to put some effort in.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 11 December 2015 - 06:52 PM, said:

Most important word in this post: "game".

Again, we play it. For fun. People don't die!

Your whole argument is undermined by this fact.

Chess is a war game. It's perfectly, mathematically and absolutely balanced.

People do not play war games for fun? People actually die playing war games?

Who said a game, every game, should be perfectly, mathematically and absolutely balanced?

I think it is your whole argument that is undermined.

Mcgral18, on 11 December 2015 - 06:57 PM, said:

Would that not be EVERY mechwarrior? Sub 4?

MW2 (many varieties, MW2 MERCs does it)
MW3 has OP Clam tech

They're PVP, if you want to put some effort in.

You know I was referring to relatively new games, not ones 15 years old or longer. Nice try though.