47 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 09:13 PM, said:

@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.

The continued tonnage disparity between IS and Clans in CW practically screams that the asymmetry argument is not invalid. Also, what is so unrealistic about:

Quote

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.

The only way that would be unrealistic is if we all declare that PGI is indeed totally incompetent. As such, would you be the first to make such a declaration?

At least this person gets it, with the exception of the match maker part of course.

Frankly, all PGI needs to do to stop me and many others is to drop the "A BattleTech Game" tag. And so I dare them.

Edited by Mystere, 24 January 2016 - 11:00 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 24 January 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

The continued tonnage disparity between IS and Clans in CW practically screams that the asymmetry argument is not invalid.

This is simple compensation for not being balanced to begin with and is there to make up for IS weaknesses and hence close the asymmetry.

Mystere, on 24 January 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

Also, what is so unrealistic about:

"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."

The only way that would be unrealistic is if we all declare that PGI is indeed totally incompetent. As such, would you be the first to make such a declaration?

At least this person gets it, with the exception of the match maker part of course.

Frankly, all PGI needs to do to stop me and many others is to drop the "A BattleTech Game" tag. And so I dare them.

Incompetence has nothing to do with this choice. Fair competition, marketability and resources have everything to do with it.

[adamts01]

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

Part of BATTLETECH is accepting not all mechs are equal.

If crap mechs were a stepping stone to get to better mechs I'd be fine with that. But that's not how this game works, so every mech has to have something it does well, even if it's not equal in a competitive sense.

[Mawai]

Why "asymmetry" can't work:

1) The basic and fundamental game design is that players can take any of their available mechs and enter a match against other players who may also choose whatever mechs they wish.
2) The mechs chosen can be either clans or IS and of whatever weight class.
3) The mechs can be organized into groups into any combinations.

The matchmaker attempts to make a fair match by "balancing" weight class and pilot skill to the best of its ability given the current contents of the player queues with the added goal of minimizing the wait times and launching good matches as quickly as possible.

In order to permit "asymmetry" between clan and IS mechs and also form fair matches it is then necessary to alter the rules of the matchmaker.

However, is it possible to alter the matchmaker rules sufficiently to offer good matches in a reasonable time supporting "asymmetry" and I would say that this is challenging at the least and impossible at the worst.

Requirements of an efficient system to do this:

1) Develop an algorithm to give every mech (clan or IS) a "battlevalue" that depends on chassis, variant and loadout. The fundamental problem is that "battlevalue" is situational. A brawler build gets a high battlevalue if you close the engagement range and a small one if you can't close the range effectively. LRM based mechs are quite effective on more open maps and do not work well on maps with a lot of cover or against teams with a lot of ECM and AMS. Battlevalue thus fails as a good method for evaluating mech performance relative to each other but if you want to build a matchmaker that can make fair matches with "asymmetric" clan and IS mechs then weight class is NOT a sufficient determinant.

2) 10 clan vs 12 IS? Useless. 10 clan lights vs 12 IS heavies? What 2 weight classes get dropped from clans? 10 stormcrows ... probably more effective than 12 IS assaults. There is no way to balance 10 vs 12 unless you have some way to evaluate the individual contributions of each mech ... see battle value above ... which fails.

3) Bury the "asymmetry" ... what? In the end, no matter what game mode you are playing, MWO is teams of stompy mechs blowing each other up. If one set of mechs is intrinsically more powerful than another then when they meet on the battlefield then the more powerful one wins. So ... make uneven teams! But ... needs good battle values that don't work ... fail.

---------------------------

What is the alternative? PGI is pursuing the idea of more or less equally effective but different. In many ways it is more or less working. I'd like to see a better basic balance of weapons and fewer smaller quirks ...but PGI grinds the balance very very slowly.






Finally, a couple of comments on that ridiculous recent video of clan vs IS in 8v8 matches which proved nothing honestly. If those folks represent the calibre of competitive teams that are out there, I pity the MWO competitive scene. Personally, I think the video was a setup since if "peeking" and sniping the other team is the extent of competitive strategy ... I feel sorry for them. The clan mechs were equipped to gimp their effectiveness ... the clan team didn't work together ... they huddled up when they didn't want to be shot at. They didn't push when needed and they didn't close range. The IS ERLL aren't that heat efficient and suck when you close range. Anyway, if anything the matches just showed bad tactical, strategic and loadout choices rather than anything to do with clan vs IS balance.

Anyway, the matches should have also been 12 vs12 since that is the way the game is played. Or try a 1:1 Arctic Cheetah, Timberwolf, Stormcrow or Dire Whale vs a Stalker 4N ... who do you think will win? Personally, I think any of those clan mechs will defeat the "overpowered" Stalker 4N .. more often than not.

[Nightmare1]

TheCharlatan, on 23 January 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

#neverforget

[PostedImage] forgot.

[Almond Brown]

Return I.S. Heavy Laser set to 2 under GH.

[CDLord HHGD]

I would live to hear more about PGI's thought process because you're right, we've all offered up our opinions and essays on balance to no avail. Sure would like to work WITH them and not running parallel and never bisecting.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

cdlord, on 25 January 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:

I would live to hear more about PGI's thought process because you're right, we've all offered up our opinions and essays on balance to no avail. Sure would like to work WITH them and not running parallel and never bisecting.

This is absolutely right. There's silence on PGI's end. If they could give some guidance about it; other than "which 3 'Mechs", that is.

They need to give us some idea of their general balance plan to make these discussions more than just theory.