354 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 January 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

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.

Right, heatsinks DO dissipate engine heat, the heat the engine creates each turn is the equivalent of a heat penalty in MWO. Your heatsinks would still dissipate the 10 heat the engine creates after 2 crits, it would limit how much you could fire your weapons once your engine was critted.

So, it essentially worked as the same concept as a heat penalty, the formula was just drastically different to arrive at the same concept.

Edited by Gyrok, 26 January 2016 - 12:34 PM.

[Aresye]

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

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 "test" idea would essentially remove beam duration as a variable, despite the fact that PGI specifically USES beam duration as a balancing mechanic.

While we're at it why not just set up your test so each pilot is aiming perfectly at each other's cockpits? That's about as realistic of a test as your, "2 players are standing still in the open with perfect aim and not attempting to twist damage whatsoever," test.

When has it ever been acceptable to test something outside of its intended purpose? Pretty sure when I was at a T&E squadron in the military the pilots weren't just sitting around in their office going, "Okay, let's see if it says, 'bomb door open,' when we hit the switch," and then close everything up and ship off the new software to the fleet if it works. That would be idiotic.

No, they load up the new software to the jets themselves, utilize standard procedures, pull high g-turns, and do everything JUST LIKE THE REAL THING, to determine whether or not something works.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 26 January 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

Right, heatsinks DO dissipate engine heat, the heat the engine creates each turn is the equivalent of a heat penalty in MWO. Your heatsinks would still dissipate the 10 heat the engine creates after 2 crits, it would limit how much you could fire your weapons once your engine was critted.

So, it essentially worked as the same concept as a heat penalty, the formula was just drastically different to arrive at the same concept.

You were specifically talking about TT, which while similar, does things differently (heat penalty is additive, not multiplicative).

This is all I was doing, correcting your statement, in TT, the heat penalty is not 33% because it is based on your heat dissipation capability which alters that percentage.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 January 2016 - 12:43 PM.

[Jabilac]

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

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.



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.



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.



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



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.

I don't have anything emotionally invested in this argument and I apologize if you perceived my statement in that way. My statement was directed more at a group of people and not directly at you.

Defensive play is in and of itself a subjective action. What one player perceives as the optimal way to play defense is not the same way another player does. The effectiveness of torso twisting is dependent on two factors. The twister has to twist his mech in a way to protect injured components and the shooter has to control his fire and aim to ensure his shots are on target. Neither of those are dependent on the overall effectiveness of the mech themselves, they are dependent on the pilots ability. Hitboxes are not uniform between factions so adding hitboxes to the mix doesn't show that either side is unbalanced just that that specific mech is more susceptible to different types of damage from different angles.

The idea of a objective test is to remove all possible variation except what you want to test to ensure your results are not influenced by outside factors. In this case we are talking about Structure and Weapon quirks specifically and even more specifically we are discussing the alleged difference between Clan mechs and IS mechs. Since we can not guarantee that each player in a 8v8 situation is of equal skill or even playing up to their best since we can not control each of their environmental influences. We can not be sure that each player was interested in demonstrating an unbiased reflection of balance between both sides. I am not saying any player intentionally threw the match or did anything that would spoil the results just that we can not be sure of their intentions.

So if we want to test a Direwolf vs a King Crab and we want to find out if these mechs are "balanced" we need to remove the chance that a second mech could become involved in the fight and throw our testing off because we already know that 2v1 favors the 2 mechs and puts the 1 mech at a disadvantage. So we remove all but the 2 mechs we want to test. Then we look at how to control damage amounts. We can do that in two ways, One - by ensuring each mech is using the same weapon loadout and Two - by establishing a range that both mechs need to engage from so we can control damage drop off (if there is any) and have a reliable way to say that these weapon quirks allow one mech to out perform the other mech. Then we apply the damage to a specific component because we want to see if the structure quirks are excessive. We could allow our mechs to twist and spread damage but then we have to way of knowing if one player was able to deliver his damage more accurately then the other since that shows us that one player has better aim not that either mech absorbs damage better. Then after you subject these mechs to these tests you can say, "With all subjective variations removed including a players ability to aim, twist, control, or maneuver their mech we can see that X mech has an advantage over Y mech that is outside of the players ability to control. So all things being equal X mech is better then Y mech even though they are of the same tonnage, loadout, and range."

Then you have some data that isn't influenced by either players ability to out perform the other player. We want to make sure neither player has an advantage that the other player doesn't have access too because the advantage is dependent on the mechs used and not how those mechs are used.

[Jabilac]

Aresye, on 26 January 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

Your "test" idea would essentially remove beam duration as a variable, despite the fact that PGI specifically USES beam duration as a balancing mechanic.

While we're at it why not just set up your test so each pilot is aiming perfectly at each other's cockpits? That's about as realistic of a test as your, "2 players are standing still in the open with perfect aim and not attempting to twist damage whatsoever," test.

When has it ever been acceptable to test something outside of its intended purpose? Pretty sure when I was at a T&E squadron in the military the pilots weren't just sitting around in their office going, "Okay, let's see if it says, 'bomb door open,' when we hit the switch," and then close everything up and ship off the new software to the fleet if it works. That would be idiotic.

No, they load up the new software to the jets themselves, utilize standard procedures, pull high g-turns, and do everything JUST LIKE THE REAL THING, to determine whether or not something works.

Utilize Standard Procedures. Standard Procedures is how they quantify if something is better then something else. They ran those items through a gauntlet of established steps that objectively compare the two items against each other in a controlled fashion to decide if one is better then the other. If you want to test thrust and duration on a jet engine you don't load that jet up differently between tests and just let the pilots decide which feels better. You establish a set of rules that you will test the jet engine by that then use those results to determine which one is better.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

Defensive play is in and of itself a subjective action.

You cannot ignore a core element of game play. Player skill is a factor, but each mech has its own defensive qualities that must be considered alongside the offensive qualities.

Your test would show that the Orion has a tankier CT than the Timber Wolf, but i think most people will agree that the Timber Wolf's agility and hit boxes make its CT much tankier than the Orion with its extra structure. This is because of hit boxes and agility.

Your test would show a Dire Wolf easily crushing a Stalker, but with a hill to hump the Stalker can out trade the Dire Wolf. This is because of hard point locations.

The Dire Wolf can pack the most possible armor and the biggest alpha, but it must expose so much of itself to trade and is so slow to retreat that it will likely be shot by multiple opponents. A combination of hard point location and movement.

The UAC20 would be the best weapon in the game according to this test, but nobody uses it in game. Other weapon systems are just more reliable against moving targets.

[Mystere]

Rouken, on 26 January 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

You cannot ignore a core element of game play. Player skill is a factor, but each mech has its own defensive qualities that must be considered alongside the offensive qualities.

Your test would show that the Orion has a tankier CT than the Timber Wolf, but i think most people will agree that the Timber Wolf's agility and hit boxes make its CT much tankier than the Orion with its extra structure. This is because of hit boxes and agility.

Your test would show a Dire Wolf easily crushing a Stalker, but with a hill to hump the Stalker can out trade the Dire Wolf. This is because of hard point locations.

The Dire Wolf can pack the most possible armor and the biggest alpha, but it must expose so much of itself to trade and is so slow to retreat that it will likely be shot by multiple opponents. A combination of hard point location and movement.

The UAC20 would be the best weapon in the game according to this test, but nobody uses it in game. Other weapon systems are just more reliable against moving targets.

Or in summary, spreadsheets do not beat actual experience.

[Gyrok]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 January 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

You were specifically talking about TT, which while similar, does things differently (heat penalty is additive, not multiplicative).

This is all I was doing, correcting your statement, in TT, the heat penalty is not 33% because it is based on your heat dissipation capability which alters that percentage.

Ahh, ok...

Yeah, I was putting forth a dramatically different formula, though I think the overall outcome, in terms of concept, was similar enough to arrive at the desired result.

[Jabilac]

Rouken, on 26 January 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

You cannot ignore a core element of game play. Player skill is a factor, but each mech has its own defensive qualities that must be considered alongside the offensive qualities.

Your test would show that the Orion has a tankier CT than the Timber Wolf, but i think most people will agree that the Timber Wolf's agility and hit boxes make its CT much tankier than the Orion with its extra structure. This is because of hit boxes and agility.

Your test would show a Dire Wolf easily crushing a Stalker, but with a hill to hump the Stalker can out trade the Dire Wolf. This is because of hard point locations.

The Dire Wolf can pack the most possible armor and the biggest alpha, but it must expose so much of itself to trade and is so slow to retreat that it will likely be shot by multiple opponents. A combination of hard point location and movement.

The UAC20 would be the best weapon in the game according to this test, but nobody uses it in game. Other weapon systems are just more reliable against moving targets.

Equal tonnage and equal loadouts including armor placement as I said earlier in my posts. The idea isn't to determine if one mech can be used better then another mech it is to ensure that each mech is on equal footing before players are dropped inside of them. Of course all things equal the Direwolf should beat the Stalker. There is a 15 ton difference between the two and that means more armor and internal structure alone not to mention the weight difference to be used for weapons. If one mech is substantially more survivable then another mech of the same weight when all variables are removed there is a problem just as if one mech continues to shred mechs of equal weight in equal settings then there is a problem.

I don't think the balance has swung one way more then the other these days. I think things are as close as they have ever been but when I continuously see people say one is OP then the other when the only reference they are willing to use is a contest between potentially unequal sides its kind of annoying.

[Gyrok]

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Equal tonnage and equal loadouts including armor placement as I said earlier in my posts. The idea isn't to determine if one mech can be used better then another mech it is to ensure that each mech is on equal footing before players are dropped inside of them. Of course all things equal the Direwolf should beat the Stalker. There is a 15 ton difference between the two and that means more armor and internal structure alone not to mention the weight difference to be used for weapons. If one mech is substantially more survivable then another mech of the same weight when all variables are removed there is a problem just as if one mech continues to shred mechs of equal weight in equal settings then there is a problem.

I don't think the balance has swung one way more then the other these days. I think things are as close as they have ever been but when I continuously see people say one is OP then the other when the only reference they are willing to use is a contest between potentially unequal sides its kind of annoying.

You do realize that in as many cases as not, a STK will obliterate a DW, right?

Unless you are talking about parking 2 mechs facing each other, out in the open, 500m apart, the STK is going to be able to out hillhump the DW, has significantly better hit boxes, and is quite a bit faster as well, not to mention the very high mounts, and terrific side peeking ability of the STK.

The only way the DW wins that one would be if the STK was caught unaware, or the DW had the STK in open ground with no cover. Even then, the DW would likely lose a ST and end up traveling at the same speed it would move if it was legged for losing a ST, and running 20% hotter on top of that.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Equal tonnage and equal loadouts including armor placement as I said earlier in my posts.

It doesn't really matter, the Warhawk should win on paper too but it has the exact same problem as the Dire Wolf. I've just pointed out multiple test cases where your model fails to simulate reality based on the things being omitted. Stalkers hill humping is not an edge case. That is what they typically do.

[Ultimax]

Ghogiel, on 26 January 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

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.

Yeah the best mechs right now have some combination of all of them.


I'm not even saying all of those mechs need to be pounded into the dust, I LIKE the structure quirks, I LIKE the agility quirks - I just think that devs were too heavy handed in doling out clan nerfs at the same exact time without letting those buffs play out first.


I think its OK to bake agility into the chassis and strip it from skill trees.

It lets them fine tune different chassis/variants, it lets them close the gap between new players and vets.

All good stuff.


What they shouldn't have done is give almost ZERO to the vast majority of all clan mechs, while also adding another harsh XL penalty, while also nerfing CERMLAS pretty hard, while also ignoring all of the mediocre and bad clan mechs, while leaving long standing nerfs on the SCR/TBR/DWF, while nerfing DHS capacity - not touching locked gear, not looking at clan mech hitbox issues, etc.


I mean I'm on TS with guys who feel the SCR is too squishy now, its a potential liability.

The SCR!!!


These aren't hysterical conversations either by clan only players, these are cold, logical assessments as they decide what mechs they are going to bring to their next comp tournament.

One player has even been told "We might not bring any Ebon Jags due to weak CT issues, you should practice something else".


Let that sink it.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 26 January 2016 - 02:31 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Gyrok, on 26 January 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

You do realize that in as many cases as not, a STK will obliterate a DW, right?

Unless you are talking about parking 2 mechs facing each other, out in the open, 500m apart, the STK is going to be able to out hillhump the DW, has significantly better hit boxes, and is quite a bit faster as well, not to mention the very high mounts, and terrific side peeking ability of the STK.

The only way the DW wins that one would be if the STK was caught unaware, or the DW had the STK in open ground with no cover. Even then, the DW would likely lose a ST and end up traveling at the same speed it would move if it was legged for losing a ST, and running 20% hotter on top of that.

Within my unit we were doing some private match practice rounds specifically on Crimson, since map control on that map seems to be something CROW is bad at. My STK with 6xLL consistently blew apart the enemy DWF, every time, no contest. It was too slow to poke, too slow to twist, and once it lost half of its weapons it had even less maneuverability and not enough firepower to threaten me.

DWF is great at fire support if nobody knows where it is until it's too late. Otherwise, it gets focused down hard and fast by literally anybody with a handful of functioning neurons. It's a very niche 'Mech, like the Atlas but on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 26 January 2016 - 02:45 PM.

[MischiefSC]

The structure and mobility quirks would be fine without range and duration quirks. The problem is that if my BJ can burn three LPLs on you and twist away before your CLPLs and Cermls have burned out in response I can't win that trade. We're at my optimal ranges and I can't do as much damage as you can before you twist away.

Same with the 4x and QD. The structure buff an mobility buffs are good tradeoffs for CXL and higher Clan alpha and mobility. The problem is stacking them with more range and shorter exposure to return fire.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 26 January 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

The structure buff an mobility buffs are good tradeoffs for CXL and higher Clan alpha and mobility. The problem is stacking them with more range and shorter exposure to return fire.

You'd think PGI and everyone else would easily figure that one out. But apparently not. <smh>

Unless of course PGI actually knows this, and as we know a new Clan pack is in the works and the next "rebalancing" activities will be scheduled "coincidentally" at the same time as that pack's release.

Edited by Mystere, 26 January 2016 - 02:57 PM.

[Gyrok]

Mystere, on 26 January 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

You'd think PGI and everyone else would easily figure that one out. But apparently not. <smh>

Unless of course PGI actually knows this, and as we know a new Clan pack is in the works and the next "rebalancing" activities will be scheduled "coincidentally" at the same time as that pack's release.

I would literally go apeshit if that happened...

[MischiefSC]

New clan mech package with op quirks at release.

Hey, PGI wouldn't sell super expensive totally op clan mechs!

Except for having done so repeatedly.

[Jabilac]

Gyrok, on 26 January 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

You do realize that in as many cases as not, a STK will obliterate a DW, right?

Unless you are talking about parking 2 mechs facing each other, out in the open, 500m apart, the STK is going to be able to out hillhump the DW, has significantly better hit boxes, and is quite a bit faster as well, not to mention the very high mounts, and terrific side peeking ability of the STK.

The only way the DW wins that one would be if the STK was caught unaware, or the DW had the STK in open ground with no cover. Even then, the DW would likely lose a ST and end up traveling at the same speed it would move if it was legged for losing a ST, and running 20% hotter on top of that.

Rouken, on 26 January 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

It doesn't really matter, the Warhawk should win on paper too but it has the exact same problem as the Dire Wolf. I've just pointed out multiple test cases where your model fails to simulate reality based on the things being omitted. Stalkers hill humping is not an edge case. That is what they typically do.

Obviously I am wasting my time in any attempt to have a rationale discussion about this subject since most people form an opinion then find evidence to support that opinion. Continue to talk about how X mech is stronger and how Y quirks break the game without any real unbiased evidence supporting your claims.

There are some mechs that need toned down just like there are some mechs that need some help but lets not approach the situation with any kind of system where we can draw informed opinions lets continue to just state the same things we have always stated inside of the same threads over and over and over again until nobody wants to read what we have written. That way we can just say things aren't balanced properly and explain away how we were beaten instead of why.

[Davers]

Gyrok, on 25 January 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

It can be better than lasers at range, but DPS limited by cooldown.

Doesn't that leave ERLLs in the very niche category of 'best weapon to take when your opponents are far away and have no cover for extended periods of time'? Otherwise PPCs would be superior and every other cooler weapon would be better up close?

[Aresye]

Jabilac, on 26 January 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

Defensive play is in and of itself a subjective action. What one player perceives as the optimal way to play defense is not the same way another player does. The effectiveness of torso twisting is dependent on two factors. The twister has to twist his mech in a way to protect injured components and the shooter has to control his fire and aim to ensure his shots are on target. Neither of those are dependent on the overall effectiveness of the mech themselves, they are dependent on the pilots ability.

And that's exactly why this balance test was done utilizing players from some of the best competitive teams who all peek, shoot, shield, and maneuver in the exact same fashion.

The only difference between Silken's test and your proposed idea for a test, is Silken's was based on actual competitive gameplay, and yours is based on some fictional scenario that never happens in-game.