106 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

oldradagast, on 16 February 2016 - 04:09 AM, said:

Additionally, nobody is interested in playing IS canon fodder just so some Clammer can brag about his huge epeen while playing in "boss mode."

it gets so tiring listening to Clammers whine that it takes less than a full lance to kill them, and yet I don't see them lining up to be thrown under the feet en-masse of the Clan mechs.

That is because soem people actually enjoy having a situation where they know a fixed set of people take favour over gaemplay and by this always have a general higher chance to win. keeping the advantage is what causes this "demand". These people aren't interetsed in having better balance, where every chassis is nearly as same useful, where the game offers way more possibilities to have fun. Because fun for these people isn't woerth to sacrifice the advantage.

[brroleg]

Paigan, on 16 February 2016 - 01:33 AM, said:

It is doable. You just have to use a proper solution.

Say for quick play, a single player has a tonnage limit of 125 for clan and 250 for IS
(note: assuming PROPER Tech with Clan Mechs being worth like ~2 IS mechs of the same weight, not the quirk-magic-equalism we have now, so 1:2 would be balanced for Clans, as they have a 2:1 tech performance)
And he can respawn in multiple waves with multiple mechs. Similar to CW. Say up to 3 waves for clan and up to 5 for IS. Or 2/4 or so.

So choosing IS or Clans would mean to choose between strength in numbers vs. strength in tech.
Plus maybe a few other differences like IS having artillery and clans don't, etc.

That would not only balance clan vs IS, but also lights vs heavies:
You can take a Locust or Commando without feeling next to useless: because you can take 3 of them and still have enough tonnage left to take 2 assaults in the remaining waves.
You could also just "waste" one light for scouting, because you can come back after dying with another, even heavier Mech.
That would also fix the time to kill, at least the subjectively felt one: you can die quickly, but you can respawn and participate in the current match again.

The only problem is for the later waves to not drop the players into hopeless situations.
Meaning:
- Drop 4 reinforcement mechs at a time if possible (few seconds wait time, time out, etc.)
- Use different drop zones and take the one with the least enemies in/near it but still closest to the fight or maybe the own team.
Requires a little weighing formula, but it's far from rocket science.

Yes, this is good solution. And new players which does not have many mechs can use trials for respawning in quick play matches.

[Mystere]

627, on 16 February 2016 - 12:51 AM, said:

that doesn't work with the mixed queue we have.

Lily from animove, on 16 February 2016 - 01:45 AM, said:

how does solo and group play work which is not faction seperated?

That is easily solved by forcing the solo queue to be IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, and IS vs. Clan based on current player availability.

As for group queue, well your group brings whatever mix it wants under the assumption that you know what you are doing.

That does not take a rocket scientist to figure out.

Edited by Mystere, 16 February 2016 - 12:16 PM.

[Mystere]

Lily from animove, on 16 February 2016 - 01:51 AM, said:

your idea is still flawed, no one takes locusts or commandos, peopel would just use FS9's purely. The key PGI needs to get doen is chassis balance. there are mechs imilar in tonnage and having a grand canyons of usability between them. Once the game has proper chassis balance everything else in the mechanics balances too. Then its only palyers and skills that make the major difference.

I think 3 years is proof that it is either impossible or PGI just cannot do it. It's time for an expanded solution.

[Y E O N N E]

If PGI can't do one thing, what makes you think they can do something else?

[Mystere]

oldradagast, on 16 February 2016 - 04:09 AM, said:

Additionally, nobody is interested in playing IS canon fodder just so some Clammer can brag about his huge epeen while playing in "boss mode."

it gets so tiring listening to Clammers whine that it takes less than a full lance to kill them, and yet I don't see them lining up to be thrown under the feet en-masse of the Clan mechs.

That is where imaginative game modes, maps (i.e. base defenses), and rewards come into play.

[Felicitatem Parco]

brroleg, on 15 February 2016 - 08:41 PM, said:

Just make tonnage limit for Clans lower than for IS. Its perfectly fits lore, as Clans war philosophy is to try win battle with as much forces as possible.

For example, in tabletop simulation program MegaMek there is parameter "battle value". And if you take couple of Clan mechs and try to make equivalent "battle value" IS mechs group, you will end up almost with double tonnage on IS side. And its really balanced, cause its really hard to win with 2-3 Clan mechs against 5-6 IS mechs, but its possible if you lucky.

So, your plan is to make Clan Mechs more powerful and more fun to play than IS Mechs?

Sod off.

[Mystere]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 12:19 PM, said:

If PGI can't do one thing, what makes you think they can do something else?

it's easier to tweak X Clans vs. Y IS situations via:

• increasing/decreasing X and Y
  
• increasing/decreasing total team weight

than ensuring that most of the possible permutations of over 100(?) Mech variants and 50(?)+ weapons are all effective.

Edited by Mystere, 16 February 2016 - 12:25 PM.

[Navid A1]

Can someone explain why battle value does not work in MWO?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 16 February 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:

than ensuring that most of the possible permutations of over 100(?) Mech variants and 50(?)+ weapons are all effective.

This is still going to be an important facet of balance regardless of the number of whether Clan are lore based OP or not.....

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 February 2016 - 12:27 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

This old chestnut

P.G.I have said that its not possible, because it messes up the match maker, in quick play

Sure your telling us for CW but mechs get balanced in quick play for the above reason.

How much thought to the ramifications like balance in all modes, and how much programming this would need, before you opened this thread ?

[Tordin]

There were this 12 (IS in company) vs 10 (Clans in stars) idea. But due to engine(?) restrictions or to much hassle. It wont be done, at least not for the time being. Maybe when PGI will use a new engine. Correct me if Im wrong on this.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 February 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

This is still going to be an important facet of balance regardless of the number of whether Clan are lore based OP or not.....

I did not say such activities would stop, only that PGI should have other variables that are much easier to adjust.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 16 February 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

I did not say such activities would stop, only that PGI should have other variables that are much easier to adjust.

If by easier you mean adding complexity to the problem, because having number advantage on the field is much less tangible than most other balance changes like stat changes.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 February 2016 - 12:31 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Navid A1, on 16 February 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

Can someone explain why battle value does not work in MWO?

Battlevalue is a mechanism for measuring units of 'Mechs (that is, Companies or Stars/Binaries/Trinaries) against each other.

The goal is to make each unit, not each 'Mech, approximately equal in strength according to what 'Mechs/Weapons/Equipment they are using.

This is designed around a game where each player controls a unit, not an individual 'Mech. Thus, balance accros the techlines is less meaningful; the Clan player can have a few really powerful 'Mechs and the IS player can have a bunch of less powerful 'Mechs.

That's ok, because in this situation the total power of each player is (roughly) equal. Following from that, their chance to win is also roughly equal.

In MWO, this model is not applicable for the simple reason that each player only gets to control a single 'Mech. Thus, Battlevalue, even if it exists, has no real use and other methods of balance have to be applied so that everyone has an equal chance of winning.

Being that an equal chance of winning is a precondition of fair competition, 'Mechs need to balance 1:1.

[Revis Volek]

Tordin, on 16 February 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

There were this 12 (IS in company) vs 10 (Clans in stars) idea. But due to engine(?) restrictions or to much hassle. It wont be done, at least not for the time being. Maybe when PGI will use a new engine. Correct me if Im wrong on this.

Not even close

It BREAKS THE SOLO QUEUE and NO ONE WANTS TO BE CANON FODDER. How can you have 10v12 in a mode with mixed tech on the teams? This changes the game big time, even if you guys cant see it. You would have to also change your MM to basically makes games AROUND the Clan mechs because the IS is just body shields for you anyway.

How do you have one mode with mechs that are 1.2 times as powerful as the other then be at 1:1 in other modes? How much sense does that make? None at all to me....


Has less to do with the Engine and more to do with HOW PGI MADE THE GAME FROM THE GROUND UP. This is a major change potentially for nothing, they could do all this work and no one likes it and we go back. Or they could just kill their game because they made a terrible change and no one likes it.

I for one never want to be in a mech where i have no chance against another mech in a 1v1, what is the point of playing if i am almost guaranteed to loose?

[PocketYoda]

oldradagast, on 16 February 2016 - 04:09 AM, said:

Additionally, nobody is interested in playing IS canon fodder just so some Clammer can brag about his huge epeen while playing in "boss mode."

it gets so tiring listening to Clammers whine that it takes less than a full lance to kill them, and yet I don't see them lining up to be thrown under the feet en-masse of the Clan mechs.

Just stop playing, the more that do... the more things get changed...

Why on earth play a game this unbalanced, i love battletech as much as the next guy but to be slaughtered every match because a company cannot balance a game properly... no way.

I'll just wait play other things until the game gets properly fixed, lore can be damned imo we need a game worth playing over some backwards lore..

[Mystere]

Revis Volek, on 16 February 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

Not even close

It BREAKS THE SOLO QUEUE and NO ONE WANTS TO BE CANON FODDER. How can you have 10v12 in a mode with mixed tech on the teams? This changes the game big time, even if you guys cant see it. You would have to also change your MM to basically makes games AROUND the Clan mechs because the IS is just body shields for you anyway.

How do you have one mode with mechs that are 1.2 times as powerful as the other then be at 1:1 in other modes? How much sense does that make? None at all to me....


Has less to do with the Engine and more to do with HOW PGI MADE THE GAME FROM THE GROUND UP. This is a major change potentially for nothing, they could do all this work and no one likes it and we go back. Or they could just kill their game because they made a terrible change and no one likes it.

I for one never want to be in a mech where i have no chance against another mech in a 1v1, what is the point of playing if i am almost guaranteed to loose?

Why are so many people so concerned about 1v1 engagements in a team-oriented game?

And isn't this supposed to be "A BattleTech Game"?

As for mixed-tech fights, the most logical solution is to get rid of them and instead force IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, and IS vs. Clan engagements based on player availability.

Edited by Mystere, 16 February 2016 - 06:11 PM.

[Moldur]

That might work if we only played CW, but most of the population doesn't give 2 craps about CW (even though many people use the pure IS vs pure Clan as a balancing point.)

Imo, there will never be a correct balance of both mixed IS and clans, and pure IS vs pure clan. PGI needs to commit to balancing it one way or the other..

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 16 February 2016 - 06:09 PM, said:

Why are so many people so concerned about 1v1 engagements in a team-oriented game?

Exactly.

It's funny how you get people complaining about the lack of teamwork in MWO and then in threads like this you get nothing but "I don't want to be cannon fodder" and "Why should I be underpowered?".

Currently the single basic tactic in MWO is shoot the enemy and hope we come out better in numbers to start the domino effect.

If the game were lances v. stars tactics would become (for example):
IS - Outmaneuver the clan mechs and hit them in the rear while a teammate (or two) distracts them (Clans would also have to increase rear armour instead of just putting nearly all points into the front).
Clan - Use situational awareness and try not to get yourself surrounded. A couple of IS mechs shooting a clan mech will still bring it down fast.

Quick play? Change it, scrap it, I don't care. It's just a "live testing grounds" anyway and imo will never be, and shouldn't be the main game.

But no, MWO will never be as good as it could be because of the "me v. them" players who only care about themselves and not about their team.

(And before people start with "You're a clanner. You would say that" and similar rubbish, I also have an IS account. I only post on this account because it was my first and I don't want to post on my other account in case I accidentally make it look like someone else is supporting my posts when it is in fact me.)