254 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

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

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!



Or in other words:






Bravo. This person gets it.

So you're saying there were no wars or challenges in 3025 or Dark Ages? That the game was somehow easier in those eras?

Your argument has absolutely no basis. What we're talking about is how to balance MW:O and WHY. The why is the same reason that Battletech was balanced the way it was. It was for a short time balanced badly; that's the Clan Invasion era. It was a mistake and a bad design. There is no logic, no reason and no real justification for intentionally repeating someone elses mistakes.

So to clarify, mechs balanced 1 to 1 is absolutely in keeping with Battletech/Mechwarrior game design. Most of the game is balanced on that concept in as much as a wargame ever is.

I want a FPS game. I have wargames; I have a number of them. You can have a FPS in a battlefield setting. In fact that's pretty much the general concept of most of them, especially PvP games. You seem to be trying to imply that actually balancing a game that's designed as a FPS as a FPS is.... what, inferior?

I still play Battletech/Mechwarrior tabletop with some friends of mine. What you're saying is you want to intentionally make bad game design decisions because..... you find that more fun. Okay. That's not a basis for balance for the whole game for everyone. It's not however unreasonable to take the conclusions about good game design that FASA and pretty much every other FPS game designer has made into consideration when balancing the game.

Finally, there's absolutely nothing about trying to use 10v12 or 8v12 that is more 'balanced' than 12v12. If there's one thing the tabletop version showed is that it ends up less balanced and more broken, not less. The idea that somehow 10v12 or 8v12 or any of the features you're talking about adding changes the nature of imbalanced gameplay to make it somehow balanced is the exact same terribad logic PGI tried to use with having ECM broke as **** being 'offset' by PPCs briefly disabling it or having it be a counter to missile locks or any of that other truly crap design decision stuff they've made about having a broken mechanic offset by a broken mechanic.

If something is broken you fix it. You don't break something else to 'offset it'.

I'm all for more complex game mechanics and game-modes. I played esports when esports was a new concept. Have no interest in it now. I have way more interest in a far more complex Community Warfare, Role Warfare and Information Warfare. However none of that is going to work if the underlying mechanics are not balanced.

[Homeskilit]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

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

Any and every game should be balanced. Anytime you are pitting 2 or more players against each other in a test of skill the field should be as even as possible.

Because it is a game, we have rules. Yes it is a war game, but it is still a game and not actual war.

Perfect balance is near impossible to achieve because there are too many variables to consider, perfection should still be the goal though. Consider that even major sports are constantly making rule changes to further perfect their sport.

[MischiefSC]

Homeskilit, on 11 December 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:

Any and every game should be balanced. Anytime you are pitting 2 or more players against each other in a test of skill the field should be as even as possible.

Because it is a game, we have rules. Yes it is a war game, but it is still a game and not actual war.

Perfect balance is near impossible to achieve because there are too many variables to consider, perfection should still be the goal though. Consider that even major sports are constantly making rule changes to further perfect their sport.

but apparently every other game and sport created through out human history was badly designed. They should be imbalanced so one side has a clear advantage over the other. That would have been more fun. Everyone would have liked that more. The losing side just tries more often to make up for it.

Why has nobody ever done that? Oh, wait. Because every time someone tries to get everyone else to play a game with them based on 'I get all the OP perks, you guys be a bunch of redshirts I kill many many times, but maybe you'll overwhelm me with your corpses. It'll be fun!' everyone else goes 'LOL. No.' FASA tried the design and actually recognized that it was bad. In a BT/MW setting in fact.

Huh.

[Kaeb Odellas]

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

MechWARrior Online

What sport?

This is a gods damned video game you silly man. If you want war, join the military. I guarantee you it's not as fun and interesting as you might think.

You might also consider buying a ticket to Syria. You'll get your war much faster then.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 11 December 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

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.

I think you must have misread the post. Because this is totally nonsensical.

Also, I have fully argued against mathematical balance. I want ergonomic balance.
_______________
Edit:

Ultimately, there is just no valid argument against this change. Everything about it is for the best.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 11 December 2015 - 10:51 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

If/when IS omnimechs are introduced, if we ever get to that point, how well will they be received in a game that has no actual engine crits, but they are hardlocked to an IS-XL engine that for heavies/assaults (mechs that do not have the speed effect to dodge incoming fire like lights), guaranteeing dying to the loss of one side torso rather than surviving that one side torso loss and continue fighting with a heat/movement penalty?

Structural buffs are not the way to go. They do not cut the incoming damage by 50% the CT does for damage incoming from the loss side torso area. 10/20 structural buffs? That is one or two ERPPC hits/AC10/etc.

You did notice that one part, surviving the loss of one side torso? Neither side is asking to keep fighting with the loss of both side torso like a mech equipped with a STD engine. And none of you have actually answered the question, which "meta" IS mech would jump ahead "meta" Clan mech with a survivable IS-XL engine?

It would appear many are stuck in "That is just that way mentality". The longer the disparage continues, the more difficult it will be to change it, and that is not just for the current crop of mechs, especially lower tiered mechs, but also for any "future" IS omnimechs that will not be able to survive the loss of one side torso....

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 12 December 2015 - 01:43 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Tarl Cabot, on 12 December 2015 - 01:40 AM, said:

If/when IS omnimechs are introduced, if we ever get to that point, how well will they be received in a game that has no actual engine crits, but they are hardlocked to an IS-XL engine that for heavies/assaults (mechs that do not have the speed effect to dodge incoming fire like lights), guaranteeing dying to the loss of one side torso rather than surviving that one side torso loss and continue fighting with a heat/movement penalty?

Structural buffs are not the way to go. They do not cut the incoming damage by 50% the CT does for damage incoming from the loss side torso area. 10/20 structural buffs? That is one or two ERPPC hits/AC10/etc.

You did notice that one part, surviving the loss of one side torso? Neither side is asking to keep fighting with the loss of both side torso like a mech equipped with a STD engine. And none of you have actually answered the question, which "meta" IS mech would jump ahead "meta" Clan mech with a survivable IS-XL engine?

It would appear many are stuck in "That is just that way mentality". The longer the disparage continues, the more difficult it will be to change it, and that is not just for the current crop of mechs, especially lower tiered mechs, but also for any "future" IS omnimechs that will not be able to survive the loss of one side torso....

Yep. Pretty much all this.

This is one of the things that has me just flat out sick of PGIs ****. This has been broken for so long that any fix would upset a bunch of people, even though it's broke as **** to begin with.

We are used to the game being broken. We are literally down to just assuming the game is bad and will always be bad so just leave it bad.

Clans were broken at release. PGI knew this. Has known it. They've taken *years* of not fixing it. Tiny, tiny tweaks, wait 8-12 months, tiny, tiny tweak.... I'm all for iterative changes but the assumption is that you continue to fix it.

At this point I have no expectation that PGI is going to make the game not suck. They are not going to balance it - they're looking for that point where the players who like the Clans because they are flat out in it for P2W will still pay over-priced P2W rates but no so terribly bad that everyone else just leaves and the game chokes itself, as it has been slowly doing for the last 2 years.

The only logical conclusion you can come to with how PGI has addressed Clans is that while they have said they want to balance it they have no intention of doing so. If you say 'I'm going to clean my room' but then don't clean it but just put a couple books on shelves over the course of 2 years..... you're not going to clean your room. You never were. You said you were, probably told stories about what that might look like....

but if you never go clean your ****ing room, then you were just lying. Especially if you fail to do so for years.

[Mystere]

Well, after watching the last segment of this:



it's pretty clear why 1:1 Mech, weapon, and equipment balance is the goal. MWO is now not just a "minimally viable product". It's also soon to be a "minimally viable eSport platform.". <smh>

4-Mech Clan Lances! Hilarious.

Edited by Mystere, 12 December 2015 - 12:50 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 12 December 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

Well, after watching the last segment of this:



it's pretty clear why 1:1 Mech, weapon, and equipment balance is the goal. MWO is now not just a "minimally viable product". It's also soon to be a "minimally viable eSport platform.". <smh>

4-Mech Clan Lances! Hilarious.

Don't worry. It took PGI like 3 years to get 1/2 the way to balanced. It'll probably take 3 more years to get all the way.

[Homeskilit]

MischiefSC, on 12 December 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

Don't worry. It took PGI like 3 years to get 1/2 the way to balanced. It'll probably take 3 more years to get all the way.

They need to understand it takes frequent baby steps to properly balance the game, not large steps followed by long periods of inactivity.

[MischiefSC]

Homeskilit, on 12 December 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

They need to understand it takes frequent baby steps to properly balance the game, not large steps followed by long periods of inactivity.

Well, they moved on to baby steps followed by long periods of inactivity.

At this point PGI has made it pretty clear that they don't actually intend to balance the game, just talk about balancing the game. To balance the game would require acknowledging they made fundamental errors in design, backing up and removing/fixing/replacing them. They won't do that. They'll find some broken idea to implement to offset it.

We need a heatscale with penalties and it needs to replace ghost heat.

We need IS/Clan engines balanced. You want to unlock Clan internals? Great, all for it. So balance Clan/IS weapons, equipment et al ton for ton slot for slot. Give one side higher heat/burn time but more damage and better heat efficiency, etc. differences like that but otherwise same performance arc.

We need an IW facet to the game. It needs to directly affect weapon performance or it's irrelevant. Convergence would be idea but whatever would work. This creates role warfare, way deeper strategic performance and another lever for balancing map design and weapon balance between missiles/lasers/ballistics. This was promised when the game was getting funding for closed beta. It is something PGI has said they would do since design of the game first started.

The game needs balanced without quirks and then structure/mobility quirks used to bring poorly shaped/bad hardpoint robbits into range of well designed ones.

None of that's going to happen. None of it. If you think it will you're a sucker. The game, as it is right now, is pretty much all it will ever be. We got our every 3 year videos of 'we'll have this out in 90 days' BS that either never happens or is so half-a$$ed it would be better if it never happened.

Edited by MischiefSC, 12 December 2015 - 04:51 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I'm not so cynical as all that, though I do wish PGI would move forward with some additional and meaning balance.

They should recognize that this is probably THE core imbalance in the game.

Even weapon quirks have some relationship to this (making IS weapons better, chassis by chassis, so they can dole out more damage to their superior Clan counterparts).

This one just seems so simple and straightforward, It could be done on any patch; so long as the majority of durability quirks are removed and STD engines buffed at the same time.

And, as demonstrated, there's really no reason not to.

[MischiefSC]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 12 December 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

I'm not so cynical as all that, though I do wish PGI would move forward with some additional and meaning balance.

They should recognize that this is probably THE core imbalance in the game.

Even weapon quirks have some relationship to this (making IS weapons better, chassis by chassis, so they can dole out more damage to their superior Clan counterparts).

This one just seems so simple and straightforward, It could be done on any patch; so long as the majority of durability quirks are removed and STD engines buffed at the same time.

And, as demonstrated, there's really no reason not to.

In 2 or 3 years when the game plays largely the same as it does now and the same stuff is still broken it'll be your turn to post something cynical

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I've been here since open beta, albeit with some breaks. I think the game has made quite a bit of progress; jus that some of it is invisible and less oriented on balance than many would like (myself included).

Still, this game seems to be a live beta, in that it is still really in foundation building. Look at CW: still "Beta 2". That says something about where the developers feel the game is at.

All I'm suggesting is that games are bigger projects than people give credit for and take longer to deliver than people expect. Especially as technology has advanced, the work that must be done is increasingly more detailed; that's the expectation of the market.

I'll reserve judgment until I see CW in "Release" version.

[Tarl Cabot]

Just going to use his quote til it is worn out!!

Marauder3D, on 17 December 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

It's the death proof XL engine.

I'm a lore nerd. Played battle tech since 87 when I was 12 years old, and every game since Crescent Hawks Inception. So what I am about to say is very difficult for me:

For the good of this game and faction balance, IS XL engines need to be normalized with clan XL. No side torso death. The inequality and disparity is just too difficult to balance in a PvP game like MWO.

A year ago I would have never said this, being the grognard that I am. But having played both Clan and IS in MWO for the past few years, I've just reached a tipping point.

An example of what it takes to kill an IS and Clan II. And the really sad part is the IS Orion, even using an isXL engine can not come close to equipping the firepower than an Orion IIC can. Others have pop up, an IS mech can torso twist to spread incoming damage but so too can a Clan mech, more so the humanoid than the chicken walkers.

Quote

Or Orion vs Orion IIC

Orion IIC ST - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 8qIS --- CT 88/4 armor... 46 IS +12quirkedIS

Orion ST - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 16qIS ---- CT 88/4 armor... 46 IS + 23quirkedIS

To take out a Orion IIC w/2*ST = 2*60+2*40 = 200pts of damage (both side torsos)
To take out a Orion w/1*ST = 60+32+16 = 108pts of damage (only one side torso w/isXL)

So even with structural quirks the IS Orion will be dropped much faster than the Clan's Orion IIC, and that is not even including the damage potential differences of Clan weapons vs IS weapons.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 31 December 2016 - 03:37 PM.