160 replies to this topic

[Padre Balistique]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

"Couldn't have said better my freebirth brother from another human mother.

Willing to bet a lot of money on the fact that if you put two equally skilled units against eachother for 100 matches, the clans would come out at with at least 60% of the victories, possibly closer to 70%

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

You can also do it without normalizing the weapons and still have an even playing field, which is why your suggestion is a false dilemma.

Then elaborate on the panacea to our issues.

Edited by Padre Balistique, 20 December 2015 - 12:42 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Padre Balistique, on 20 December 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

Willing to bet a lot of money on the fact that if you put two equally skilled units against eachother for 100 matches, the clans would come out at with at least 60% of the victories, possibly closer to 70%



Then elaborate on the panacea to our issues.

Your claim, so far as I understand it, is that there are literally only two solutions to this balance problem (i.e. another solution that achieves balance is completely impossible and unfathomable). That claim is ridiculous.

Now, just because I have pointed out that it is only logical that there are more than two solutions doesn't mean I can define concretely what those other solutions are.

Anyone who is experienced at debating (I'm only a little experienced) can also tell you that your suggestion is a logical fallacy. The thing about logical fallacies is that they are flawed arguments that are still convincing, that's why people experienced at debate point them out so quickly.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 20 December 2015 - 12:57 PM.

[Padre Balistique]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

Your claim, so far as I understand it, is that there are literally only two solutions to this balance problem (i.e. another solution that achieves balance is completely impossible and unfathomable). That claim is ridiculous.

Now, just because I have pointed out that it is only logical that there are more than two solutions doesn't mean I can define concretely what those other solutions are.

Anyone who is experienced at debating (something I'm not claiming) can also tell you that your suggestion is a logical fallacy. The thing about logical fallacies is that they are flawed arguments that are still convincing, that's why people experienced at debate point them out so quickly.

Its not a fallacy if its the only way to balance two forces that are obscenely disparate in both capability and technology. Its either to balance them like the lore itself dictates, with masses of inferior IS numbers against small number of superior clan mechs.

or approach the game as a video game, where people are supposed to have fun, and equalize the weapons and tech so, all things considered, its not a given for clans to win when two equally skilled teams collide. A even, fair playing field.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Padre Balistique, on 20 December 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

Its not a fallacy if its the only way to balance two forces that are obscenely disparate in both capability and technology. Its either to balance them like the lore itself dictates, with masses of inferior IS numbers against small number of superior clan mechs.

or approach the game as a video game, where people are supposed to have fun, and equalize the weapons and tech so, all things considered, its not a given for clans to win when two equally skilled teams collide. A even, fair playing field.

Yeees, but asymmetric balance is a thing that exists. The weapons for each tech-line can behave differently while still striking a fair balance. And I'm talking differently as in having different stats, not just an aesthetic difference. I think you can argue that perhaps the developer is incapable of achieving a asymmetric balance (I think they can persoanlly), but arguing that asymmetric balance is impossible without 10 v 12 is a bit ridiculous.

[Alteran]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

Yeees, but asymmetric balance is a thing that exists. The weapons for each tech-line can behave differently while still striking a fair balance. And I'm talking differently as in having different stats, not just an aesthetic difference. I think you can argue that perhaps the developer is incapable of achieving a asymmetric balance (I think they can persoanlly), but arguing that asymmetric balance is impossible without 10 v 12 is a bit ridiculous.

But why bother? Why not just make an ERLL an ERLL that is for both sides? Make all weapon types equal in all respects: range, burn time, heat generation and damage. There would be no IS and Clan tech, just weapon techs. Same for mechs, give all mechs the same types of engines, internals and armor that all act the same way. That way when an XL engine gets hit in any mech it blows... or doesn't blow.

If PGI wants a completely balanced Mechwarrior that is what, in my opinion, needs to be done. At least then we can do away with the facade of trying to have different technologies and be honest with the player/customer base on what PGI wants.

So to be honest, am I as a paying customer, who purchased the three different Clan Wave packs unhappy? Straight up, yes. Did I expect the Clan units to just roll over the IS units? Honestly, no. I expected PGI to implement in CW a system to balance out the technology differences with tonnage and number limits, using a batchall system for Clan units to bring about the balance that the system would need. 5-7 mixed Clan tonnage mechs vs 10-12 mixed tonnage IS mechs was what I expected.

In the end, lesson learned. My $$ will now sit where it should have remained while this system is figured out.

And just because I haven't said it before: for the love of G@D, it's 3051/3052 not 2062 - It's the Federated Commonwealth, not the Lyran Alliance and Federated Suns.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Alteran, on 20 December 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

But why bother? Why not just make an ERLL an ERLL that is for both sides? Make all weapon types equal in all respects: range, burn time, heat generation and damage. There would be no IS and Clan tech, just weapon techs. Same for mechs, give all mechs the same types of engines, internals and armor that all act the same way. That way when an XL engine gets hit in any mech it blows... or doesn't blow.

If PGI wants a completely balanced Mechwarrior that is what, in my opinion, needs to be done. At least then we can do away with the facade of trying to have different technologies and be honest with the player/customer base on what PGI wants.

So to be honest, am I as a paying customer, who purchased the three different Clan Wave packs unhappy? Straight up, yes. Did I expect the Clan units to just roll over the IS units? Honestly, no. I expected PGI to implement in CW a system to balance out the technology differences with tonnage and number limits, using a batchall system for Clan units to bring about the balance that the system would need. 5-7 mixed Clan tonnage mechs vs 10-12 mixed tonnage IS mechs was what I expected.

In the end, lesson learned. My $$ will now sit where it should have remained while this system is figured out.

And just because I haven't said it before: for the love of G@D, it's 3051/3052 not 2062 - It's the Federated Commonwealth, not the Lyran Alliance and Federated Suns.

As a $1000 spender who plays mostly clans I am happy with the way things are. I think the idea that PGI wants to completely rebalance everything is exaggerated. While the balance we have now may still need work, I'm very happy with the direction it's going. I want them to bother with asymmetrical balance because it pitches its tent in a fair middle ground between fun balance and lore, not forgoing one for the sake of the other.

I do not mean to sound condescending, but it seems childish to me when people say "either adopt lore balance or just throw away all the lore and make this 'Stompy Robots!'" Is it really more painful that this game be halfway to something you want rather than have it be nothing like what you want? compromise is the intelligent solution in my eyes, and PGI is trying their best to achieve it.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 20 December 2015 - 01:44 PM.

[Alteran]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

As a $1000 spender who plays mostly clans I am happy with the way things are. I think the idea that PGI wants to completely rebalance everything is exaggerated. While the balance we have now may still need work, I'm very happy with the direction it's going. I want them to bother with asymmetrical balance because it pitches its tent in a fair middle ground between fun balance and lore, not forgoing one for the sake of the other.

I do not mean to sound condescending, but it seems childish to me when people say "either adopt lore balance or just throw away all the lore and make this 'Stompy Robots!'" Is it really more painful that this game be halfway to something you want rather than have it be nothing like what you want? compromise is the intelligent solution in my eyes, and PGI is trying their best to achieve it.

I believe that if you are going to 'tweak' Lore, then the Lore is lost. Call me a purest, but that is my POV. Also like you, who has spent a considerable amount of $$ and time on MWO, I now consider MWO to be, just like you call it, 'Stompy Robots'.

I'll continue to play Stompy Robots, but with the full realization of what it really is and be much more frugal in what I decide to spend my money on.

[Padre Balistique]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

Yeees, but asymmetric balance is a thing that exists. The weapons for each tech-line can behave differently while still striking a fair balance. And I'm talking differently as in having different stats, not just an aesthetic difference. I think you can argue that perhaps the developer is incapable of achieving a asymmetric balance (I think they can persoanlly), but arguing that asymmetric balance is impossible without 10 v 12 is a bit ridiculous.

and here I was informed that 12v10/12v8 balancing was a logical fallacy.

because that's asymmetrical, balancing superior tech against superior numbers. One of the only ways the game can be balanced and give people of equal skill a fair shake regardless of their affiliation.

Edited by Padre Balistique, 20 December 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[War Steiner]

Another balance problem is that Clanners are NOT playing like Clanners. If they had to follow the Clan conventions, their OP mechs and 10v12 would have balanced out. Since Clan is playing like IS, with no regard to honor or rules of combat, PGI had to nerf them. Has PGI gone too far? Maybe, maybe not. However, everyone's bitching means nothing. PGI has the data to back up their changes. If you are starting to lose, change your builds or play styles.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Padre Balistique, on 20 December 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

and here I was informed that 12v10/12v8 balancing was a logical fallacy.

because that's asymmetrical, balancing superior tech against superior numbers. One of the only ways the game can be balanced and give people of equal skill a fair shake regardless of their affiliation.

No I did not call 10 v 12 a logical fallacy. I called saying "10 v 12" is the only viable asymmetrical balance" a logical fallacy.

Alteran, on 20 December 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

I believe that if you are going to 'tweak' Lore, then the Lore is lost. Call me a purest, but that is my POV. Also like you, who has spent a considerable amount of $$ and time on MWO, I now consider MWO to be, just like you call it, 'Stompy Robots'.

I'll continue to play Stompy Robots, but with the full realization of what it really is and be much more frugal in what I decide to spend my money on.

I don't think it's stompy robots, I think that's just people pouting honestly

[Alteran]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

No I did not call 10 v 12 a logical fallacy. I called saying "10 v 12" is the only viable asymmetrical balance" a logical fallacy.



I don't think it's stompy robots, I think that's just people pouting honestly

I appreciate your point of view, but not the attitude. My solution is to just even the field, remove the quirks and let the best players and units win with absolutely equal techs. I believe that is the best solution.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Alteran, on 20 December 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

I appreciate your point of view, but not the attitude. My solution is to just even the field, remove the quirks and let the best players and units win with absolutely equal techs. I believe that is the best solution.

I don't think your point of view on balance is pouty. I think it is valid, but I do not agree. What I find pouty is the people actually petitioning PGI to change this game's name to "Stompy Robots" because they're bitter about how the balance is handled.

[Alteran]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 03:20 PM, said:

I don't think your point of view on balance is pouty. I think it is valid, but I do not agree. What I find pouty is the people actually petitioning PGI to change this game's name to "Stompy Robots" because they're bitter about how the balance is handled.

I actually just used your idea and name, given the nature of what PGI is turning MWO into. Therefore I will let you register and trademark the name so you can sell it to PGI for use.

Edited by Alteran, 20 December 2015 - 03:24 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Alteran, on 20 December 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

I actually just used your idea and name. Therefore I will let you register and trademark the name so you can sell it to PGI for use.

This was not my idea, there was a long petition created on the forums and signed to change the game's name to "Stompy Robots". I did not agree with it and found it to be childish. It reminded me of young childhood when I would demand that my mother tell me she didn't love me because she didn't give me what I wanted.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 20 December 2015 - 03:29 PM.

[Alteran]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

This was not my idea, there was a long petition created on the forums and signed to change the game's name to "Stompy Robots". I did not agree with it and found it to be childish. It reminded me of young childhood when I would demand that my mother tell me she didn't love me because she didn't give me what I wanted.

Then we must have grown up in a different time, I would have never said anything like that to my mother. Feel bad for your mom.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Alteran, on 20 December 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

Then we must have grown up in a different time, I would have never said anything like that to my mother. Feel bad for your mom.

Um... okay. Sorry I wasn't a well behaved child? that seems to be besides the point.

The point is "change this games name to stompy robots or use balance method X" is just trying to put PGI on some sort of a guilt trip. i.e. I find it to be childish.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 20 December 2015 - 03:37 PM.

[Alteran]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 03:37 PM, said:

Um... okay. Sorry I wasn't a well behaved child? that seems to be besides the point.

The point is "change this games name to stompy robots or use balance method X" is just trying to put PGI on some sort of a guilt trip. i.e. I find it to be childish.

Well changing the name is impossible, given the licence they acquired from Microsoft. As for balance, well given all the changes that PGI themselves have done... well I'll leave it to people to use their own judgement as to what they think of it. Expressing my own thoughts on it is just that, my thoughts.

So for balance in Battletech-Mechwarrior, it means to me, leveling the playing field and having only one tech or the other. Then you have true balance and the best units being the best units because of tactics and the best pilots.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Alteran, on 20 December 2015 - 03:49 PM, said:

Well changing the name is impossible, given the licence they acquired from Microsoft.

Precisely. It was a petition that could not accomplish anything but reinforce how bitter some of the lore purists were.

Alteran, on 20 December 2015 - 03:49 PM, said:

So for balance in Battletech-Mechwarrior, it means to me, leveling the playing field and having only one tech or the other. Then you have true balance and the best units being the best units because of tactics and the best pilots.

The problem is that licensing issue. PGI's license limits them to producing a 3052 era Battletech game. I wasn't aware the license was that specific until recently. But according to Russ, if they wanted to really roll with setting up separate IS and Clan queues they'd need to back up the timeline, and they can't do that without a different license. Similarly They can't move up the timeline without a license.

They could technically set up two queues without moving back the timeline, but I doubt they'll do it. I think it'd be good to peruse a license for when IS gets better tech and can compete with ungimped clans, but I can only hope.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 20 December 2015 - 04:05 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

But does the Timeline restriction 3052 only applies to map setup and default settings and possible actual mech availability?

Would that timeline restriction also means when weapons become available on a grand scale, or allowable if weapon system was in testing stages during the current time period?

War Steiner, on 20 December 2015 - 02:06 PM, said:

Another balance problem is that Clanners are NOT playing like Clanners. If they had to follow the Clan conventions, their OP mechs and 10v12 would have balanced out. Since Clan is playing like IS, with no regard to honor or rules of combat, PGI had to nerf them. Has PGI gone too far? Maybe, maybe not. However, everyone's bitching means nothing. PGI has the data to back up their changes. If you are starting to lose, change your builds or play styles.

If Clanner were playing like Clanners, it would not be 2 Stars vs 3 Lances. The Clanners would have bid down to a Star +1 or 2 Pts. That would have been 7 mechs max vs an IS company. Others mentioned 10vs12 cause it seem "logical" to them (chuckles)...

/shrugs..

[Alteran]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 20 December 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

Precisely. It was a petition that could not accomplish anything but reinforce how bitter some of the lore purists were.



The problem is that licensing issue. PGI's license limits them to producing a 3052 era Battletech game. I wasn't aware the license was that specific until recently. But according to Russ, if they wanted to really roll with setting up separate IS and Clan queues they'd need to back up the timeline, and they can't do that without a different license. Similarly They can't move up the timeline without a license.

They could technically set up two queues without moving back the timeline, but I doubt they'll do it. I think it'd be good to peruse a license for when IS gets better tech and can compete with ungimped clans, but I can only hope.

I would totally support segregated and mixed tech queues. Give the player a choice of what they want to drop under for the quick drop, just like a server selection.

CW - Well I will reserve my judgement on it. Right now I'm hopeful, but the 'lore-purest' in me wants to scream when thinking that Mercs can work for Clan units. I'd rather see the Merc units limited to IS units only, but that's just my POV.