354 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Gyrok, on 26 January 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Considering the fact that Clans now magically have a speed penalty on ST loss that never ever existed anywhere in BT/MW...I think it is pretty safe to say we can bend the rules for a core weapon to keep the balance on equal footing.

My biggest gripe about PGI, is the ignore rules when it does not make sense, and stick to rules that do not necessarily have to be adhered to as strictly.

The clan ST speed penalty still pisses me off...

That's still better than insta-gib side torso TTK on IS XL.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 January 2016 - 08:42 AM.

[Gyrok]

Deathlike, on 26 January 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

That's still better than insta-gib side torso TTK on IS XL.

But IS now has 20-50 extra armor on each torso...TTK, even with XL engines, is likely higher for IS now than it ever was for clans.

[Jabilac]

If your so into balance then why not perform some honest experimentation to see if your theories are true. Equip equal tonnage mechs from both sides with identical loadouts (same engine, armor placement, weapons, ammo distribution, ect.. or as close as possible) then stand at a predetermined range, don't move or twist, and shoot the same components on both mechs. Record results. Then proceed to do that for each component and at varied ranges like 1000m, 750m, 500m, ect.

In that situation you remove as many variables as possible and are left with a true representation on how balanced each weapon/mech is against a similar opponent. If you find that IS mechs continuously destroy Clan mechs then you have an argument with supporting evidence.

Personally I think that in a 1v1 situation you would find a fairly even distribution of win on both sides. I also think you would find there is a larger gap between IS mechs compared to each other then IS compared to Clans.

Also since I didn't see this brought up in this thread. Per Russ on twitter there is going to be a quirk pass for Clan mechs with some changes to MASC and TC's in the next patch. Maybe there some of the underperforming Clan mechs will get some buffs to make them more attractive to players.

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 26 January 2016 - 09:08 AM, said:

But IS now has 20-50 extra armor on each torso...TTK, even with XL engines, is likely higher for IS now than it ever was for clans.

Correction: A select few robots have that much.
Very few, actually.


PGI's plan to balance factions with quirks is a failure which should be abandoned. Balance techs, then quirk Trash Tier of both factions until they're less Terribad.

Hitbox, hardpoint or scale, things that cannot be changed by other means, will need quirks. Not the best mechs of the class (see BJ).

[Aresye]

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

If your so into balance then why not perform some honest experimentation to see if your theories are true. Equip equal tonnage mechs from both sides with identical loadouts (same engine, armor placement, weapons, ammo distribution, ect.. or as close as possible) then stand at a predetermined range, don't move or twist, and shoot the same components on both mechs. Record results. Then proceed to do that for each component and at varied ranges like 1000m, 750m, 500m, ect.

In that situation you remove as many variables as possible and are left with a true representation on how balanced each weapon/mech is against a similar opponent. If you find that IS mechs continuously destroy Clan mechs then you have an argument with supporting evidence.

How would that be a true representation of balance, when one of the largest factors that plays into balance is speed, maneuverability, and damage mitigation via torso twisting?

Remember all those laser duration and cooldown nerfs given to the TBR and SCR? I hope you do, considering they're still on those mechs, but the important thing to remember is these did absolutely NOTHING to impact their ability to maintain their, "best in weight class," status.

The reason these nerfs did next to nothing, is because the TBR had the agility of a medium, and the SCR had the agility of a light. The VTR and HGN themselves went from being kings of the battlefield to some of the most useless mechs in the game, because of changes to their agility.

Agility is a HUGE variable that should not be discounted, and a lot of the better IS mechs were given buffs to their agility that helped offset and/or cancel out the skill tree nerfs that impacted every other mech in the game, including every Clan mech.

[Mcgral18]

Aresye, on 26 January 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

How would that be a true representation of balance, when one of the largest factors that plays into balance is speed, maneuverability, and damage mitigation via torso twisting?

Remember all those laser duration and cooldown nerfs given to the TBR and SCR? I hope you do, considering they're still on those mechs, but the important thing to remember is these did absolutely NOTHING to impact their ability to maintain their, "best in weight class," status.

The reason these nerfs did next to nothing, is because the TBR had the agility of a medium, and the SCR had the agility of a light. The VTR and HGN themselves went from being kings of the battlefield to some of the most useless mechs in the game, because of changes to their agility.

Agility is a HUGE variable that should not be discounted, and a lot of the better IS mechs were given buffs to their agility that helped offset and/or cancel out the skill tree nerfs that impacted every other mech in the game, including every Clan mech.

On the bright side...it only took a few months to not make the DoomCrow more agile than the Cute Fox and Sadder.

Damn thing was almost as agile as the Myth Lynx because of that 20-25% twist speed quirk, with a 160 torso yaw distance.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

If your so into balance then why not perform some honest experimentation to see if your theories are true. Equip equal tonnage mechs from both sides with identical loadouts (same engine, armor placement, weapons, ammo distribution, ect.. or as close as possible) then stand at a predetermined range, don't move or twist, and shoot the same components on both mechs. Record results. Then proceed to do that for each component and at varied ranges like 1000m, 750m, 500m, ect.

In that situation you remove as many variables as possible and are left with a true representation on how balanced each weapon/mech is against a similar opponent. If you find that IS mechs continuously destroy Clan mechs then you have an argument with supporting evidence.

Personally I think that in a 1v1 situation you would find a fairly even distribution of win on both sides. I also think you would find there is a larger gap between IS mechs compared to each other then IS compared to Clans.

Except that does not reflect the way the game is played at all.

[Jabilac]

Because agility and speed are a subjective variable. If your better at putting a shield arm in the way of return fire then that is a "skill" you learned that effects survivability. To remove the chance of one person being a better player then the other you remove that variable.

Edit - Thats the point. The game isn't played like that. If you want to actually find out if x mech is better then y mech you need to remove as many variables as possible to ensure your results are not being skewed.

Edited by Jabilac, 26 January 2016 - 10:15 AM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Because agility and speed are a subjective variable. If your better at putting a shield arm in the way of return fire then that is a "skill" you learned that effects survivability. To remove the chance of one person being a better player then the other you remove that variable.

Edit - Thats the point. The game isn't played like that. If you want to actually find out if x mech is better then y mech you need to remove as many variables as possible to ensure your results are not being skewed.

Your suggested test removes hit boxes, engine size, hard point locations, beam duration, aim, and probably a few other things from the equation. It is not useful for testing balance.

I would like to see the format of Silken's test get picked up by one of the comp leagues. Each game is IS vs Clan and the teams switch sides after a few games. Similar to other competitive games where one side may be favored to win (chess for example).

I thought Silken's test was great, but I saw one glaring issue. It seemed nobody had been working on how to fight IS as Clans. Instead, everyone tried to play their Clan mechs just like they played their IS mechs. Thus, both teams ended up playing with clan ER LL and losing the trades. If it were a more regular scenario in comp play, I think we would see better strategies arise and that would give us a better idea of balance.

Edited by Rouken, 26 January 2016 - 10:40 AM.

[Jabilac]

Rouken, on 26 January 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

Your suggested test removes hit boxes, engine size, hard point locations, beam duration, aim, and probably a few other things from the equation. It is not useful for testing balance.

How isn't a controlled testing enviroment a good way to test balance? It removes the differences between players from the equation. If your a better player then me then your the better player it doesn't mean the mech is unbalanced. You run a competition to find the better player not to determine which side has better machines.

Beam duration would be taken into consideration because it effects when your cooldown start. Which would start out as a small difference but become larger until one side was able to fit in an extra shot.

Removing variables is the only way to ensure your results are accurate. Better positioning matter a lot. It allows you to shoot different areas of a mech like Back Torso. Which affects survivability. Is the mech better because player A was better at positioning? If player A has a steady hand but player B doesn't does that mean player A's mech is better? If player A twists his mech to spread damage but player B doesn't does that mean player A's mech is better?

Those are just a few of the reasons that you would want to remove as many variables as possible. The real answer is because in a controlled enviroment the results might not support your argument and that would mean that someone else might be a better player

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 26 January 2016 - 09:55 AM, said:

Correction: A select few robots have that much.
Very few, actually.


PGI's plan to balance factions with quirks is a failure which should be abandoned. Balance techs, then quirk Trash Tier of both factions until they're less Terribad.

Hitbox, hardpoint or scale, things that cannot be changed by other means, will need quirks. Not the best mechs of the class (see BJ).

The opposite side of that coin is that you do not lose a ST parked behind a tree with cover plentifully abound nearby. You usually lose a ST while under fire in a circumstance where the speed loss may as well be a death sentence. You are now 20 kph slower in almost any of the best clan mechs.

The penalty is absurd, and I think it does not accurately reflect the intended goal. Especially considering there was never a speed loss penalty for loss of ST in table top. It is a completely pulled out of thin air penalty that is completely BS.

In TT, you had a 33% penalty to heat, I would rather you up the heat penalty almost double over the old penalty and remove the speed loss penalty to more accurately reflect the additional heat.

To wit, McGral, if I cut off your leg, you will instantly be slower; however, if I cut off your arm, your mobility on your 2 legs is in no way impaired.

Makes sense?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 26 January 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

In TT, you had a 33% penalty to heat

No, you had plus 5 heat for every engine crit, so side torso loss for cXL equated to 10 additional heat per turn which more than often resulted in slow speeds simply because you were often running hot trying to get as much damage as possible out of that mech before it died.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 January 2016 - 11:28 AM.

[Gyrok]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 January 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

No, you had plus 5 heat for every engine crit, so side torso loss for cXL equated to 10 additional heat per turn which more than often resulted in slow speeds simply because you were often running hot trying to get as much damage as possible out of that mech before it died.

10 heat for 2 crits is 33% of 30 heat cap.

Surely, you could enter the heat penalty range that would make you slower...however...this was because you were firing weapons...not because you were running away and lost a ST.

A mech with 20 DHS in TT could lose 2 crits and 10 DHS and still sink 10 heat worth of weapons before penalties were incurred.

Edited by Gyrok, 26 January 2016 - 11:42 AM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

How isn't a controlled testing enviroment a good way to test balance? It removes the differences between players from the equation. If your a better player then me then your the better player it doesn't mean the mech is unbalanced. You run a competition to find the better player not to determine which side has better machines.

Its not a good balance test because you are removing core game play elements. Twisting, pumping JJs, using sloped terrain to change elevation. People don't just do these things for fun, they do it to mitigate damage. Some mechs do these things better than others. You can't ignore defensive play in this game and hope to still be talking about balance. Yes, its is part of player skill, but mechs still behave differently. You have to consider it.

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

Beam duration would be taken into consideration because it effects when your cooldown start. Which would start out as a small difference but become larger until one side was able to fit in an extra shot.

That is the smallest part of beam duration's benefit. The small DPS increase is nothing compare to winning trades because you finished doing damage and began twisting while the opponent's lasers are still burning.

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

Removing variables is the only way to ensure your results are accurate. Better positioning matter a lot. It allows you to shoot different areas of a mech like Back Torso. Which affects survivability. Is the mech better because player A was better at positioning? If player A has a steady hand but player B doesn't does that mean player A's mech is better? If player A twists his mech to spread damage but player B doesn't does that mean player A's mech is better?

Variance in player skill, mistakes, etc. is smoothed over by having the teams switch sides and by having a large sample size. Of course we would like for players to be of the same skill, but removing all forms of defensive play does not give us a good picture of balance. The Orion and Marauder are both 75 ton IS mechs, but they don't spread damage the same, even in the hands of equally skilled pilots.

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

Those are just a few of the reasons that you would want to remove as many variables as possible.

But it is not possible to remove the variables you have and still be discussing Clan vs IS balance.

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

The real answer is because in a controlled enviroment the results might not support your argument and that would mean that someone else might be a better player

I've not made an argument about balance. In fact, it would seem you have too much emotional investment in this if you have to attempt to undermine me instead of my arguments. Feel free to disagree with me, but lets keep the discussion where it belongs, on your balance test.

Edited by Rouken, 26 January 2016 - 11:43 AM.

[WarHippy]

Deathlike, on 26 January 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

That's still better than insta-gib side torso TTK on IS XL.

Perhaps, but maybe instead of hitting the clans again they should have allowed IS XL to survive a side torso loss but give them the penalty to movement instead? I imagine most would have been happier with that seeing as it is a buff being given out rather than a nerf which regardless of being justified or not is going to frustrate people more than buffing something else.

[Ultimax]

Deathlike, on 26 January 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

That's still better than insta-gib side torso TTK on IS XL.

It is better, but it's really hard to quantify.

What is more survivable, a mech with ablaitive arms, huge agility quirks, solid torso structure quirks and an IS XL or a mech with Clan XL, nerfed agility, no structure quirks, no ablaitive arms, easy to target or damage prone torso hit boxes?


What happens when we give the IS build above higher dps, more sustainable dps and more concentrated damage (burn/pp)?

I'm not feeling I have lesser survivability at all in many of my IS XL builds right now.

[Ghogiel]

Ultimatum X, on 26 January 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

I'm not feeling I have lesser survivability at all in many of my IS XL builds right now.

You often get either armor, laser duration, or de/accel quirks or some combo of them. All of which are survibility modifiers imo, especially when compared to how clans are played effectively, it's basically the best kind of counter to them.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 26 January 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

10 heat for 2 crits is 33% of 30 heat cap.

There was no heat cap in TT, you are taking TT numbers and trying to translate them into MWO terms which isn't correct. If you want to put it into MWO terms, essentially you would produce 1 extra heat per second.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 January 2016 - 12:03 PM.

[Gyrok]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 January 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

There was no heat cap in TT, you are taking TT numbers and trying to translate them into MWO terms which isn't correct. If you want to put it into MWO terms, essentially you would produce 1 extra heat per second.

No, at the end of each turn, you had a hard heat cap of 30 you had to be under to avoid serious issues, and significantly less than that to avoid any heat penalties.

The difference in TT, and why MWO tries to quantify it as they do with DHS adding to heat cap, is that you essentially got your dissipation + heat cap each turn to use for weapons depending on how much penalty you could determine acceptable and live with for the given scenario.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 26 January 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

No, at the end of each turn, you had a hard heat cap of 30 you had to be under to avoid serious issues, and significantly less than that to avoid any heat penalties.

That was after all heat sinks had dissipated heat, and as far as I remember, engine heat was dissipated by your heat sinks, meaning a double gauss mech with DHS would not ever suffer from extra heat on engine crits. I may need to double check if that was the case, but could've sworn heat sinks dissipated engine crit heat. Either way, engines CREATED heat when damaged, which is the important distinction to make, they didn't reduce your capacity exactly they just created heat which limited the heat you could produce from weapons without penalty.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 January 2016 - 12:19 PM.