46 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 24 January 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

Well, the first part of the plan would just be "Fire Paul".

The way you'd have to go about it is with a "sterile" enviornment... reset the entire deck w/o quirks. Then, with a certain level of ancedotle experiences, you'd have to adjust weapons first and THEN tweak inherently bad chassis (Vindicators, particularly the 1X, Spider-5V, oversized mechs, etc.)... pretty much things are the most common amongst the complaints against them (ignoring the people who claim "they're fine" w/o much reasoning).

It can't just be haphazard-random-dartboard balance that runs rampant.

Part of the previous balance changes indirectly nerfed Clan chassis through efficiencies - primarily Clan mechs went unchanged (Executioner is arguably the lone exception, since it was unquirked before, and quirked post-patch - adjusted against the efficiencies nerf).

It's pretty self-evident, except for the man in charge of balance.

Well, creating a thread where the statements contained consist of "buff this, nerf that" and leave it there don't say anything at all. What specifically needs buffed, why do you think it needs buffed, how much do you think it needs buffed, and what effects do you think the buff will have if implemented? There are already plenty of threads with generic buff/debuff statements, what's lacking is analysis and discussion of the details. Quicksilver Kalasa and I have been engaged in a discussion over AC changes and what effects they might have. That's the kind of useful back and forth that needs to happen, not knee-jerk "this thing is too good and needs to not be so good" threads.

Mystere, on 24 January 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

IF ONLY PEOPLE STFU ABOUT INSISTING THAT CLAN = IS. And I repeat, IF ONLY PEOPLE STFU ABOUT INSISTING THAT CLAN = IS.

False.

We had the problem before Clans were even in the game.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 24 January 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

I have the impression that PGI thought about it at one time or another, but ...

IF ONLY PEOPLE STFU ABOUT INSISTING THAT CLAN = IS. And I repeat, IF ONLY PEOPLE STFU ABOUT INSISTING THAT CLAN = IS.

We have a generic robot shooter precisely because of the negative "influence" of same generically-minded players.

Pre-Clam wasn't much better. Arguably worse, in fact (but mainly due to absolutely worthless weapon systems instead of just mediocre ones, like SRMs)

[Mystere]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 January 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

False.
We had the problem before Clans were even in the game.

False? Hardly. The release of the Clans just brought the problem (i.e. demands for genericity) front and center.

Mcgral18, on 24 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

Pre-Clam wasn't much better. Arguably worse, in fact (but mainly due to absolutely worthless weapon systems instead of just mediocre ones, like SRMs)

I never said it was better pre-Clans. Their release just made it glaringly obvious.

Edited by Mystere, 24 January 2016 - 10:56 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 24 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

False? Hardly. The release of the Clans just brought the problem (i.e. demands for genericity) front and center.

Completely false, because all of the problems McGral described have persisted since the beginning and have nothing to do with Clans and everything to do with PGI having zero desire to figure out why people aren't taking one particular gun and are instead boating tons (literally) of another. That's not even a lore problem, every weapon system at a place in lore.

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 January 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Well, creating a thread where the statements contained consist of "buff this, nerf that" and leave it there don't say anything at all. What specifically needs buffed, why do you think it needs buffed, how much do you think it needs buffed, and what effects do you think the buff will have if implemented? There are already plenty of threads with generic buff/debuff statements, what's lacking is analysis and discussion of the details. Quicksilver Kalasa and I have been engaged in a discussion over AC changes and what effects they might have. That's the kind of useful back and forth that needs to happen, not knee-jerk "this thing is too good and needs to not be so good" threads.

I think you need to take all knee-jerk reactions as more of "initial reaction" and leave it at that. One of the things that needs time is to let the changes settle in and reanalyze - see what exactly is causing that reaction. It's kinda like the new map... it takes a while for people to settle in on tactics and approaches.. as watching the solo queue matches on this map is like saying... "why am I still 1 more match to win on this effing challenge?"

If we were to believe "Clans are overnerfed" (aka SWOL power theory), you would just totally ignore the Battle of Tukayyid? I'm not saying CW is the end all or be all, or that the results is totally representative... but clearly Clans CAN win. So the question becomes how much of a difference is there? Mind you, people pick and choose their arguments regularly, but when the dust settles, it is what you truly say it is, or did your favorite mech/build get worse?

Inevitably, as long as people continually not really make objective statements (like the Shadowcat being mediocre for the most part), we'll keep going around the balance whine circle of Paul. That is not how one balance's the game.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 January 2016 - 11:52 AM.

[AEgg]

Khobai, on 24 January 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

You cant have your cake and eat it to.

Clan tech cannot both be superior while having IS vs Clan be balanced at the same time.

PGI made the massive mistake of superquirking IS mechs to bring IS tech upto the same level as Clan tech. Which creates HUGE problems with lopsided imbalanced quirks that make weapon effectiveness vary wildly from mech and mech and give certain mechs like the blacjack survivability which is totally uncharacteristic of its weight class. It is plainly obvious that superquirks are not the way to balance the game.

What PGI shouldve done from the start was normalize clan tech down to the same level as IS tech.



It may very well contradict history. But the fact is PGI decided to try and balance IS vs Clan 1:1.

The only way 1:1 balance can work, without having asanine superquirks, is if you normalize Clan tech so its on the same level as IS tech.

There is NO other way to do it.



You do realize that two things can be equal but different?

An apple and an orange can both cost the same amount of $ but be two totally different things.

That is the essence of asymmetrical balance which is how Clans should be balanced vs IS. Clan tech should not resemble IS tech at all, and should foster different playstyles, but it should not be better either.

That is the only way 1:1 balance can work without having to have remedial superquirks.

I think you completely missed the point of my post. I NEVER said clan should be superior to IS. In fact, I said the reverse, clan and IS should be balanced. The very definition of balanced is that neither side is superior.

I don't think "normalize" means the same thing to both of us. You say to "normalize" clan tech, then to have clan and IS be different? The whole idea of "normalizing" something is making it equivalent.

What PGI DID attempt to do was make IS and Clan tech balanced at launch. They just didn't do a very good job, primarily because they didn't push their negatives nearly far enough (case in point, laser durations were far too low, as was heat generation and/or dissipation across the board). They had the right idea, they just didn't end up in the right place.

By "contradicting history" I was meaning in the context of my quote, not BT history. The history is not PGI being too lazy and making clan and IS identical, it's the reverse, they tried (and initially failed) to make them different but still balanced 1:1.

Again the term "normalize" comes up. Before I bother adding more, I need some clarification here.

Which of these scenarios would you consider normalized:
ISERLL identical to CERLL
CERLL straight upgrade to ISERLL (no downsides)
CERLL longer duration, more total damage, more total heat compared to ISERLL.

I see option 1 as the only one that's "normalized". Option 3 may be balanced, and it's what I'd vote for, but it's not normalized because the weapons aren't identical. They have advantages and disadvantages to each other, and at the right values, those would make them equally effective.

[Khobai]

asymmetrical balance is what they need to go for

clan weapons and IS weapons should be equal but different.

in general clan weapons should do more damage, have more range, but have higher heat, longer duration, and longer cooldown.

Quote

don't think "normalize" means the same thing to both of us. You say to "normalize" clan tech, then to have clan and IS be different? The whole idea of "normalizing" something is making it equivalent.

normalize means to bring it in line with consistent standards (IS weapons being the consistent standard).

normalize doesnt mean making it equivalent or identical to IS weapons. normalization just means reducing all the stats on clan weapons that are significantly outside the normal ranges for IS weapons.

Edited by Khobai, 24 January 2016 - 01:22 PM.