47 replies to this topic

[adamts01]

DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 24 January 2016 - 06:16 AM, said:

The Developers are the ones in control, their opinion of balance is law.

I'm not arguing against that. The facts are pretty hard to ignore though. There are certain cookie-cutter builds on certain mechs that the competitions are absolutely full of. Nerf those mechs and weapons, just slightly though. When the next meta hits, which it always will, nerf those as well. Soon there will be a variety on the battle field instead of quickdraws and blackjacks. Until a new mech comes out. When that shiny new mech comes out, it's OP, nerf it once it's for sale for MC, nerf it again when it comes out for C-bills. Then all is good till the next mech release.

[DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley]

adamts01, on 24 January 2016 - 06:32 AM, said:

I'm not arguing against that. The facts are pretty hard to ignore though. There are certain cookie-cutter builds on certain mechs that the competitions are absolutely full of. Nerf those mechs and weapons, just slightly though. When the next meta hits, which it always will, nerf those as well. Soon there will be a variety on the battle field instead of quickdraws and blackjacks. Until a new mech comes out. When that shiny new mech comes out, it's OP, nerf it once it's for sale for MC, nerf it again when it comes out for C-bills. Then all is good till the next mech release.

Everything will just be nerfed there will always be min/max, some more people just can't accept that PGI seems to be content with what the current min/max is.

[Russhuster]

the only way of telling PGI the games balance is worse ever is through the money PGI is not noticing or even looking what the players / the customers are posting here as long the cash is rolling

They will start thinking when nobody is ordering deadnerfed clan packs,.. not a single second earlier

[adamts01]

DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 24 January 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

Everything will just be nerfed there will always be min/max, some more people just can't accept that PGI seems to be content with what the current min/max is.

There's always a best something, but there's a bigger gap between the best and runner up in this game than most. Part of the problem though, is PGI balancing CW and group que using tonnage, and solo que using weight class. That can never work. They need to pick one method.

[Mcgral18]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 24 January 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

Except Clan XL engines ARE equally as squishy... they die on 3 critical hits just like IS XL engines. They just don't have 3 crits taking up a single side torso.

But they are literally, from a crit basis, only 2 less crit heavy than their IS counterparts. They still die on the x3 critical hits rule.

Also, standard engines are not "Bad" they are Heavy, yes, they take up weight, but not as much space, they are the Standard weight... XL's are special equipment[except for clan, where XL is the standard equipment] The are not intended to be the end all, they are ment to be an option, with a downside.

Feel free to run your clan mechs m8, I'll continue to wreck clanners with my standard engine IS machines.

MWO doesn't have the 3 Crit rule, it has "sidesToDie" assigned to each engine. Null for STD, 1 for isXL, 2 for ClamXL.

They correspond to the 3 crit rule, but could easily be changed by adjusting a single integer attribute.


STDs are BAD compared to cXLs. No Ifs, Ands or Buts. Why would you take an STD engine on a Clam Battlemech? Serious question.

[Ted Wayz]

W A R K H A N, on 23 January 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

Nerf blackjacks. That is all.

The other day I saw a Cheetah stand in front of and outbrawl an Atlas.

I am guessing we can live with the Blackjack as is for awhile.

[DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley]

adamts01, on 24 January 2016 - 07:28 AM, said:

There's always a best something, but there's a bigger gap between the best and runner up in this game than most. Part of the problem though, is PGI balancing CW and group que using tonnage, and solo que using weight class. That can never work. They need to pick one method.

A lot of the mechs in this game are only here for nostalgia a sales filler, they add 1-2 mech everyone wants and give you 1-2 mechs you basically wouldn't touch but have to buy in the pack...

[adamts01]

DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 24 January 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

A lot of the mechs in this game are only here for nostalgia a sales filler, they add 1-2 mech everyone wants and give you 1-2 mechs you basically wouldn't touch but have to buy in the pack...

Those crap mechs are getting quirks to become better and are being used on the battlefield. I believe every mech should have something it does well, and I think we're slowly getting there.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mcgral18, on 24 January 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

MWO doesn't have the 3 Crit rule, it has "sidesToDie" assigned to each engine. Null for STD, 1 for isXL, 2 for ClamXL.

They correspond to the 3 crit rule, but could easily be changed by adjusting a single integer attribute.


STDs are BAD compared to cXLs. No Ifs, Ands or Buts. Why would you take an STD engine on a Clam Battlemech? Serious question.

^ This.

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 24 January 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

Except Clan XL engines ARE equally as squishy... they die on 3 critical hits just like IS XL engines. They just don't have 3 crits taking up a single side torso.

But they are literally, from a crit basis, only 2 less crit heavy than their IS counterparts. They still die on the x3 critical hits rule.

Also, standard engines are not "Bad" they are Heavy, yes, they take up weight, but not as much space, they are the Standard weight... XL's are special equipment[except for clan, where XL is the standard equipment] The are not intended to be the end all, they are ment to be an option, with a downside.

Feel free to run your clan mechs m8, I'll continue to wreck clanners with my standard engine IS machines.

But they don't die on 3 crit destruction because this isn't TT. This is MWO and they die from ST destruction.

Dying on 3 crit destruction in TT allowed the possibility that a 'Mech (IS or Clan) could possibly have all 3 torso sections still intact and be destroyed. That is never the case in MWO.

So, no; they are not equally squishy.

Changing isXL to function like cXL and simultaneously buffing Std. engines is just the simplest way to make all engines viable (for both IS and Clans) and fix the single most core imbalance in the game.

No more playing with Quirks. No more wasted developer time. No more incessant back and forth over which 'Mech is too squishy and which is too durable.

Just a simple, effective and elegant solution.

[Khobai]

Quote

Changing isXL to function like cXL and simultaneously buffing Std. engines is just the simplest way to make all engines viable (for both IS and Clans) and fix the single most core imbalance in the game.

No more playing with Quirks. No more wasted developer time. No more incessant back and forth over which 'Mech is too squishy and which is too durable.

Just a simple, effective and elegant solution.

This.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Edit: Removed due to accidental double-post.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 24 January 2016 - 05:16 PM.

[DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley]

adamts01, on 24 January 2016 - 09:58 AM, said:

Those crap mechs are getting quirks to become better and are being used on the battlefield. I believe every mech should have something it does well, and I think we're slowly getting there.

Part of BATTLETECH is accepting not all mechs are equal.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 24 January 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

Part of BATTLETECH is accepting not all mechs are equal.

Equal is not important. Balanced is important.

This one thing should be similar in order to create foundational balance. Once that's set, IS/Clan techline differentiation, Omnimech/Battlemech construction differences, weapons, IW, Quirks, etc. can all be tweaked via values which shouldn't be the same.

That's balance without sameness. But if you really want that opportunity for differentiation, you should support this change for foundational balance.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:

Equal is not important. Balanced is important.

This one thing should be similar in order to create foundational balance. Once that's set, IS/Clan techline differentiation, Omnimech/Battlemech construction differences, weapons, IW, Quirks, etc. can all be tweaked via values which shouldn't be the same.

That's balance without sameness. But if you really want that opportunity for differentiation, you should support this change for foundational balance.

Alternatively, it could be the start of a slippery slope. As the old adage goes: Give somebody an inch and they'll take a mile.

Edited by Mystere, 24 January 2016 - 07:17 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 24 January 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

Alternatively, it could be the start of a slippery slope. As the old adage goes: Give somebody an inch and they'll take a mile.

Nah, the slippery slope is where we are, this is a method to get onto solid footing.

Quirks for balance are the slippery slope. They're arbitrary, they're subjective, they waste development time and no one can agree on what Quirks are too little or what Quirks are too much.

This change makes that whole issue just disappear!

We need this change so we (the developers and community, together) can move on to meaningful progression in the game.

[Mawai]

DaZur, on 23 January 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

QFT.

This community is diseased with this mentality. Folks seem to expect PGI to roll into a opinion topic, plate it in gold, thank the poster for being universally brilliant and immediately implement their idea with reckless abandon.

I hope for their sake this does not match their real world expectations because if so they must be perpetually disappointed.

LOL. After three and a half years of PGI ignoring the forums, I don't think there is anyone here that posts even semi-regularly who has the least bit of expectation that PGI will even read their brilliant idea never mind implement it.

In fact, these days, I have the impression that the only way the brilliant idea has even a remote chance of being considered then it must be 140 characters or less and posted somewhere else entirely

[DaZur]

The gross hyperbole being tossed in this thead is almost deafening... Come on people if you're going to discuss balance, be truthful and leave the hyper-partisan rhetoric out of it.

Here's the problem folks... "balance" in it's truest form is a lie. No matter how the pendulum swings, the player base will by nature or design migrate to the next apex meta causing an imbalance in play mechanics... again.

The best you can hope for is "parity". Checks and balances need to "appear" equal... even if their not.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

DaZur, on 24 January 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

The gross hyperbole being tossed in this thead is almost deafening... Come on people if you're going to discuss balance, be truthful and leave the hyper-partisan rhetoric out of it.

^ Yes, please.

Consider the game within and of itself.

DaZur, on 24 January 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

The best you can hope for is "parity". Checks and balances need to "appear" equal... even if their not.

Since "parity" means "the state or condition of being equal", I would go for that. That is, after all, tantamount to my hope for the game and the reason I keep returning to and pushing for the isXL fix.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 24 January 2016 - 08:12 PM.

[Mystere]

DaZur, on 24 January 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

The gross hyperbole being tossed in this thead is almost deafening... Come on people if you're going to discuss balance, be truthful and leave the hyper-partisan rhetoric out of it.

Here's the problem folks... "balance" in it's truest form is a lie. No matter how the pendulum swings, the player base will by nature or design migrate to the next apex meta causing an imbalance in play mechanics... again.

The best you can hope for is "parity". Checks and balances need to "appear" equal... even if their not.

And which is why I want to make the tech imbalance practically irrelevant by deeply burying it under other things: game modes, victory conditions, rewards, numbers, and other creative uses of asymmetry. This 1:1 obsession needs to go.

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

Since "parity" means "the state or condition of being equal", I would go for that. That is, after all, tantamount to my hope for the game and the reason I keep returning to and pushing for the isXL fix.

And which is why I am against it. See above.

Edited by Mystere, 24 January 2016 - 08:59 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Mystere:

The asymmetry argument is invalid; it's done, it's dead, let it go.

Asymmetry in this kind of game can never work and will never be implemented.

Please provide realistic and constructive suggestions.

If you don't like this format, just find another that you do like.