949 replies to this topic

[JaxRiot]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

you sound hilarious

the game is horribly lopsided NOW

Going slightly off topic here, but in regards to balancing and game design...

Ive been playing for a year and for the most part I like it..

But the game has always had a "Open Beta With Potential" feel to it. It doesnt feel like a finished game at all to me.

I always feel like the game should be much more solid by this point.

Probably just me though

[Khobai]

Quote

Historically it has been 3:1. The failure of trench warfare in WW1 is emblematic of the results of ignoring this siege warfare doctrine. Asymmetry in technologies allow that to relax to the extent that a battle is technologically asymmetric enough to award an advantage to an attacker.

not sure even 3:1 could overcome the machine gun.

[Mystere]

JaxRiot, on 05 January 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Going slightly off topic here, but in regards to balancing and game design...

Ive been playing for a year and for the most part I like it..

But the game has always had a "Open Beta With Potential" feel to it. It doesnt feel like a finished game at all to me.

I always feel like the game should be much more solid by this point.

Probably just me though

Sadly, no, you are not alone in thinking such a thing.

[Zibmo]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

The majority of players wanted 12v10. Its PGI that pushed 12v12 because they claimed they couldnt get their stupid matchmaker to work with 12v10

And I even made the brilliant suggestion of having 12v10 in CW but still having 12v12 mixed teams in quickplay by simply putting the same number of clan mechs on each team so nothing was unbalanced. I basically solved PGIs whole problem... but they ignored that suggestion.

If I recall some dumb guys counter-argument was "but players will favor the more powerful clan mechs in quickplay". Which was hilarious because people already did that at the time: favor clan mechs over IS ones. It wasnt until recently that IS mechs gained some traction due to the massive clan nerfs and absurd IS structure buffs.



or a really big bomb.

I know I'm going to be <more> unpopular, but there is a valid reason why 10v12 couldn't work effectively. The public queue. The queues for public maps are simply filled in with "whatever is in the hopper". By insisting that 10v12 needs to be added to the matchmaker, that would REQUIRE that there be enough Clan/IS in the queue at any time. This would obviously slow down queue times because the teams would perforce be homogeneous.

The reason is valid. If teams were done this way, you would find a LOT of Clan players queuing up to demolish underpowered IS mechs. Only the truly hardcore would stick around and thus, queue times for clan players would skyrocket.

Bad game design.

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

not sure even 3:1 could overcome the machine gun.

Chinese and Koreans would argue that with you. The mass human wave worked well for them in Korea.

Zibmo, on 05 January 2016 - 10:31 AM, said:

I know I'm going to be <more> unpopular, but there is a valid reason why 10v12 couldn't work effectively. The public queue. The queues for public maps are simply filled in with "whatever is in the hopper". By insisting that 10v12 needs to be added to the matchmaker, that would REQUIRE that there be enough Clan/IS in the queue at any time. This would obviously slow down queue times because the teams would perforce be homogeneous.

The reason is valid. If teams were done this way, you would find a LOT of Clan players queuing up to demolish underpowered IS mechs. Only the truly hardcore would stick around and thus, queue times for clan players would skyrocket.

Bad game design. [edit] Mixing would work if there were BV attached to the mechs, taking PSR into account as well. Having PSR be pilot instead of variant/chassis specific worked against this. Hindsight is 20/20.



Chinese and Koreans would argue that with you. The mass human wave worked well for them in Korea.

[Khobai]

Quote

By insisting that 10v12 needs to be added to the matchmaker, that would REQUIRE that there be enough Clan/IS in the queue at any time. This would obviously slow down queue times because the teams would perforce be homogeneous.

It would be flexible.

it could be 12v10 IS vs clan
12v12 IS vs IS
12v12 Clan vs Clan
12v12 Mixed ISvsClan with same number of clan mechs on each team

I think the real reason they didnt wanna do 12v12 might have to do with Russ' obsession of turning MWO into an esport. 12v10 definitely wouldnt work at highly competitive levels. But its not like IS vs Clan works at a highly competitive level now anyway...

Edited by Khobai, 05 January 2016 - 10:38 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

Hotthedd, on 05 January 2016 - 05:46 AM, said:

I don't know about punishing a unit for playing together (after all this is the stated GOAL of the game), but having some sort of "Valiant defense" bonus given to a team with a large pre-made deficiency could be done.

You do not punish anyone because you do not put any effort in it. You think farming pugs should be rewarded with the same rewards as fighting against others on the same level? Yeah, I see that you guys are so TOTALLY against seal clubbing.

As I said already: the premade queue would be dead if they oh-so competetive people had to fight only premades as well

Edited by Bush Hopper, 05 January 2016 - 10:40 AM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

you sound hilarious

the game is horribly lopsided NOW

your opinion
which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the fact that 10v12 was tried out
it didn't work

your opinion on 12v12 doesn't change that fact.

Zibmo, on 05 January 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

I know I'm going to be <more> unpopular, but there is a valid reason why 10v12 couldn't work effectively. The public queue. The queues for public maps are simply filled in with "whatever is in the hopper". By insisting that 10v12 needs to be added to the matchmaker, that would REQUIRE that there be enough Clan/IS in the queue at any time. This would obviously slow down queue times because the teams would perforce be homogeneous.

The reason is valid. If teams were done this way, you would find a LOT of Clan players queuing up to demolish underpowered IS mechs. Only the truly hardcore would stick around and thus, queue times for clan players would skyrocket.

Bad game design.



Chinese and Koreans would argue that with you. The mass human wave worked well for them in Korea.

again, it's not that 10v12 might or might not, it's that 10v12 DID not.

[CDLord HHGD]

Zibmo, on 05 January 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

Chinese and Koreans would argue that with you. The mass human wave worked well for them in Korea.

Specifically 3:1 though? You say Chinese and I think 100:1 which would overcome almost any defense with equal tech (minus ofc the defender's entrenched positioning).

[Mystere]

Zibmo, on 05 January 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

I know I'm going to be <more> unpopular, but there is a valid reason why 10v12 couldn't work effectively. The public queue. The queues for public maps are simply filled in with "whatever is in the hopper". By insisting that 10v12 needs to be added to the matchmaker, that would REQUIRE that there be enough Clan/IS in the queue at any time. This would obviously slow down queue times because the teams would perforce be homogeneous.

The reason is valid. If teams were done this way, you would find a LOT of Clan players queuing up to demolish underpowered IS mechs. Only the truly hardcore would stick around and thus, queue times for clan players would skyrocket.

Bad game design.

As I said earlier, with regard to the solo queue the matchmaker can just force fights to be IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, or IS vs. Clan depending on player availability. The mixed-tech nature of the queue needs to go.

As for the group queue, it does not matter anyway because players there can bring what they want as long as the weight restrictions are observed.

One does not need a degree in astrophysics to figure this out.

[JaxRiot]

Bush Hopper, on 05 January 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

You do not punish anyone because you do not put any effort in it. You think farming pugs should be rewarded with the same rewards as fighting against others on the same level? Yeah, I see that you guys are so TOTALLY against seal clubbing.

As of right now, its far more rewarding to farm Pugs than fight any real opposition.

Even if a "Valiant Defense" bonus was awarded to the Pug as Hotthedd suggests, it still wont stop Pug farming since they are still easy wins and the Unit/Group still gains more and risks much less.

Bush Hopper, on 05 January 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

As I said already: the premade queue would be dead if they oh-so competetive people had to fight only premades as well

Ya, isnt it great how those Premades always preach that CW is for competitive Unit play,

But when given the option, they abandon the Competitive Unit play and farm pugs avoiding the actual Competition they say they are in CW for

[Mystere]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

your opinion
which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the fact that 10v12 was tried out
it didn't work

your opinion on 12v12 doesn't change that fact.


again, it's not that 10v12 might or might not, it's that 10v12 DID not.

And again:

Mystere, on 05 January 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

When?
Where?
How?
What was the balance set up?
What was the game mode set up?

If all they did was 10v12 and nothing else, and during/before the initial Clan release, then the said "testing" was "loaded" either by design or incompetence.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

JaxRiot, on 05 January 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Going slightly off topic here, but in regards to balancing and game design...

Ive been playing for a year and for the most part I like it..

But the game has always had a "Open Beta With Potential" feel to it. It doesnt feel like a finished game at all to me.

I always feel like the game should be much more solid by this point.

Probably just me though

not just you by far

Mystere, on 05 January 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

One does not need a degree in astrophysics to figure this out.

no, just one in coding and they fired the guy that could read the code. Hence why we can never have switchable lbx ammo. And that was from either the last town hall or the one before it

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 10:34 AM, said:

I think the real reason they didnt wanna do 12v12 might have to do with Russ' obsession of turning MWO into an esport. 12v10 definitely wouldnt work at highly competitive levels.

Nah! That has absolutely nothing to do with things.

Now let me put on my gear:

Edited by Mystere, 05 January 2016 - 11:08 AM.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 05 January 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

And again:

uhm it was opened several times on the testing server.
I personally have approximately 50 or so drops in that format.

IIRC the IS win rate through those tests were up over 80%

They did this 3-4 times and every time it was the same result. Clans were stomped relentlessly

[Zibmo]

cdlord, on 05 January 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

Specifically 3:1 though? You say Chinese and I think 100:1 which would overcome almost any defense with equal tech (minus ofc the defender's entrenched positioning).

Just quoting war college numbers.

Tech asymmetry counts as well.

[edit] I have personally never participated in a siege, so I have no personal stake in this. I will say that with the whole numbers approach, one can win a battle and have insufficient manpower to win a war. Witness Thermopylae.

Edited by Zibmo, 05 January 2016 - 11:19 AM.

[Mystere]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

uhm it was opened several times on the testing server.
I personally have approximately 50 or so drops in that format.

IIRC the IS win rate through those tests were up over 80%

They did this 3-4 times and every time it was the same result. Clans were stomped relentlessly

And all this time people had the impression that it was the IS that was stomped! That everyone will play Clans. And that only the die hards will choose the IS. Holy Cannoli! What a revelation! I've been lied to all this time! Why was no one talking about those results until now?

This just means the Clans need to be unleashed.

In a more serious note (not that my previous statements were not in any way serious), it does look like they were just plain 10v12 tests. In which case, my last sentence still very much holds unless shown otherwise.

Edited by Mystere, 05 January 2016 - 11:55 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Zibmo, on 05 January 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Just quoting war college numbers.

Tech asymmetry counts as well.

[edit] I have personally never participated in a siege, so I have no personal stake in this. I will say that with the whole numbers approach, one can win a battle and have insufficient manpower to win a war. Witness Thermopylae.

One can also lose more battles than win and still win the war. Witness George Washington.

In MWO the tech is essentially equal and 12v12 ensures attrition takes precedence. In CW add the defender's wall and you've got an unequal situation.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 05 January 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

And all this time people had the impression that it was the IS that was stomped! That everyone will play Clans. And that only the die hards will choose the IS. Holy Cannoli! What a revelation! I've been lied to all this time! Why was no one talking about those results until now?

This just means the Clans need to be unleashed.

In a more serious note (not that my previous statements were not in any way serious), it does look like they were just plain 10v12 tests. In which case, my last sentence still very much holds unless shown otherwise.

They were 10v12 IS vs. clan

It was bad. It was horribly lopsided. It wasn't fun for either side and that idea was scrapped after those test results. I think varied drop deck tonnages are still the way to go with that. I jsut wish PGI would add in more variety to drop deck tonnages. Make different planets have different tonnage values.

225 for one, 250 for another

Let players customize their drop deck after hitting a planet and before jumping in the mech.

That's another issue I have with CW. You can't even edit drop decks if CW is in cease fire.

[Mystere]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

They were 10v12 IS vs. clan

What? 10 IS vs. 12 Clan? Is that for real?

Nerf the IS back and unleash the Clans!!!

Sandpit, on 05 January 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

It was bad. It was horribly lopsided. It wasn't fun for either side and that idea was scrapped after those test results. I think varied drop deck tonnages are still the way to go with that. I jsut wish PGI would add in more variety to drop deck tonnages. Make different planets have different tonnage values.

225 for one, 250 for another

Let players customize their drop deck after hitting a planet and before jumping in the mech.

That's another issue I have with CW. You can't even edit drop decks if CW is in cease fire.

Yes, varying drop tonnages (or team tonnages) are part of the solution to the Clan Formation vs. IS Formation issue.

Either way, mixed-tech on the solo queue should really go the way of the dodo.

Edited by Mystere, 05 January 2016 - 12:04 PM.

[Zibmo]

cdlord, on 05 January 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

One can also lose more battles than win and still win the war. Witness George Washington.

In MWO the tech is essentially equal and 12v12 ensures attrition takes precedence. In CW add the defender's wall and you've got an unequal situation.

Wasn't actually arguing. Was simply responding to an earlier post about attacker/defender ratios historically. Those numbers were "minimums" in most cases.

In the case of the Revolutionary War, fighting took its toll on both sides but resupply and the French presence really beat the British. We like to think of our brave minutemen pushing them out (and they were brave and tough), but economics and (for its time) geopolitics finally won the day.

Mystere, on 05 January 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

What? 10 IS vs. 12 Clan? Is that for real?

Nerf the IS back and unleash the Clans!!!




Yes, varying drop tonnages (or team tonnages) are part of the solution to the Clan Formation vs. IS Formation issue.

Either way, mixed-tech on the solo queue should really go the way of the dodo.

I think he made a mistake: 10C vs 12IS