106 replies to this topic

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Mystere and Wolfways:

I'm going to put it into very simple terms:

Games that don't provide a level playing field, fair competition and an equal chance at winning for each player do not succeed.

MWO is not the exception.

The argument that "It's a 'Battetech'" game is a non-argument. That name (the name of a franchise, I might add) does not define the particulars of every title in the franchise.

Your reference to TT rules as a base is fundamentally flawed. MWO =/= TT. They are different formats, use different media, have different math, require different player considerations. Almost nothing about the two are the same.

Continuing to use this as an argument is just preposterous.

[Coralld]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

@Mystere and Wolfways:

I'm going to put it into very simple terms:

Games that don't provide a level playing field, fair competition and an equal chance at winning for each player do not succeed.

MWO is not the exception.

The argument that "It's a 'Battetech'" game is a non-argument. That name (the name of a franchise, I might add) does not define the particulars of every title in the franchise.

Your reference to TT rules as a base is fundamentally flawed. MWO =/= TT. They are different formats, use different media, have different math, require different player considerations. Almost nothing about the two are the same.

Continuing to use this as an argument is just preposterous.

I got into an argument with Wolfways on this very topic and he got pissy about me trying to bring to attention about all the issues and hurtles and things that must be addressed in order for there to be any semblance of balance, which he tells me he doesn't care about balance, its not his job to worry about that but rather PGIs.

It's funny, for all his talk about using lore as a foundation for his argument for asymmetrical game play he couldn't care less about the rules used in lore and TT that were used to balance.
I brought up about Zelbrigon, asking him how would PGI go about implementing that as it was a big balancing factor, he responded with he was against it as he didn't see the point of having it in because, as he put it, "people are stupid and will find a way around it." He did t even bother to try and think of ways to implement it.

In short, ignore Wolfways.

Edited by Coralld, 16 February 2016 - 07:58 PM.

[Wolfways]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

@Mystere and Wolfways:

I'm going to put it into very simple terms:

Games that don't provide a level playing field, fair competition and an equal chance at winning for each player do not succeed.

MWO is not the exception

The argument that "It's a 'Battetech'" game is a non-argument. That name (the name of a franchise, I might add) does not define the particulars of every title in the franchise.

Pgi uses that argument, it's in the title "A BattleTech Game".

Quote

Your reference to TT rules as a base is fundamentally flawed. MWO =/= TT. They are different formats, use different media, have different math, require different player considerations. Almost nothing about the two are the same.

Continuing to use this as an argument is just preposterous.

I've never used TT rules as an argument, lore yes. But if pgi aren't going to use that lore why bother using BT mechs? If it's not using the BT lore then it's not BT.
It's like making a Star Wars game where you play the Imperial good guy fighting against the evil Rebellion who are promoting death, drugs, and slavery. I'm sure the only people who would play that would be people who don't care about Star Wars.

So in that respect I guess MWO is headed in that direction anyway, but I'd prefer it didn't and the more pgi drops/changes the lore the less I want to play.
BT (what there is of it in MWO) is what separates MWO from "generic shooter".

[Wolfways]

Coralld, on 16 February 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

I got into an argument with Wolfways on this very topic and he got pissy about me trying to bring to attention about all the issues and hurtles and things that must be addressed in order for there to be any semblance of balance, which he tells me he doesn't care about balance, its not his job to worry about that but rather PGIs.

It's funny, for all his talk about using lore as a foundation for his argument for symmetrical game play he couldn't care less about the rules used in lore and TT that were used to balance.
I brought up about Zelbrigon, asking him how would PGI go about implementing that as it was a big balancing factor, he responded with he was against it as he didn't see the point of having it in because, as he put it, "people are stupid and will find a way around it." He did t even bother to try and think of ways to implement it.

In short, ignore Wolfways.

Pissy? No. That would imply your opinion matters to me.

But as I said before (which you constantly ignored) I don't see the point in me coming up with ideas on how to balance an asymmetrical game because pgi will not do it. They have already said this. If Russ said they will consider doing it then I'll happily think about solutions and discuss things on the forum.

As for rules like zellbrigan, many players would try to find any way possible to get around it so unless pgi found a foolproof way to enforce it there would be no point. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be other ways to balance the game without zellbrigan.

And yes, it is pgi's responsibility to balance the game. If it were my job I'd be getting paid and/or changing MWO the way I wanted to. It's pgi's game and responsibility.
As much as we like to have fun discussing topics on the forums that's all it is, fun. I apologize for having priorities in my life...

Feel free to ignore anything I say and insult me because I don't agree with you.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Pgi uses that argument, it's in the title "A BattleTech Game".

Uses it for what?

The game, as it is, is in no way true to TT except as coincidence and pick-and-choose values.

They bought into this IP as a marketing tool, not to make an impossible TT clone. If you want something TT-like, look to the RTS genre, you can find it there.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

I've never used TT rules as an argument, lore yes. But if pgi aren't going to use that lore why bother using BT mechs? If it's not using the BT lore then it's not BT.

What is your distinction between TT and BT Lore?

Mine is that TT = a ruleset whereas BT Lore = a backstory

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

It's like making a Star Wars game where you play the Imperial good guy fighting against the evil Rebellion who are promoting death, drugs, and slavery. I'm sure the only people who would play that would be people who don't care about Star Wars.

The flavor of the backstory in no way dictates the rulesets and mechanics.

Star Wars games could be RTS, FPS or Turn-based RPG and all share the same backstory; they would all be "Star Wars" in the truest sense. But they could have vastly different rules/mechanics and it wouldn't affect the "Star Warsiness" (for lack of a better word) of any of them.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

So in that respect I guess MWO is headed in that direction anyway, but I'd prefer it didn't and the more pgi drops/changes the lore the less I want to play.
BT (what there is of it in MWO) is what separates MWO from "generic shooter".

BT IP is what separates MWO from generic simulator (this is not really an FPS), but BT lore itself has no dictatorial relationship over MWO and the TT ruleset has absolutely no place in this game.
_______________

Addendum: I do not insult people, no matter how much I disagree. I only examine arguments. I will strive to be polite at all times, even if short sometimes.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 16 February 2016 - 08:42 PM.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

@Mystere and Wolfways:

I'm going to put it into very simple terms:

Games that don't provide a level playing field, fair competition and an equal chance at winning for each player do not succeed.

MWO is not the exception.

The argument that "It's a 'Battetech'" game is a non-argument. That name (the name of a franchise, I might add) does not define the particulars of every title in the franchise.

Your reference to TT rules as a base is fundamentally flawed. MWO =/= TT. They are different formats, use different media, have different math, require different player considerations. Almost nothing about the two are the same.

Continuing to use this as an argument is just preposterous.

Your basis for balance is a 1v1 engagement ... in a team game.
Some of us would rather have balance based on a team vs. team engagement ... in a team game.

If you do not get that very simple point, then I really can't help you further.

And where have I ever directly asked for table top rules?
<Careful. That's a trick question. >

Edited by Mystere, 16 February 2016 - 08:50 PM.

[Wolfways]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

Uses it for what?

The game, as it is, is in no way true to TT except as coincidence and pick-and-choose values.

They bought into this IP as a marketing tool, not to make an impossible TT clone.

Yeah, they used the BT IP to get money by telling BT fans they (pgi) were making a BT game.

Quote

If you want something TT-like, look to the RTS genre, you can find it there.

The only reason I'm playing MWO is because it's an fps. I want to experience sitting in a mech cockpit in combat.

Quote

What is your distinction between TT and BT Lore?

Mine is that TT = a ruleset whereas BT Lore = a backstory

Exactly. Imo pgi should stick to lore. TT is just the numbers that make that lore playable. I don't care if they change numbers, i just want to play a game that is based on the lore.

Quote

The flavor of the backstory in no way dictates the rulesets and mechanics.

I agree...if the content of the game adhere's to the background/lore.

Quote

Star Wars games could be RTS, FPS or Turn-based RPG and all share the same backstory; they would all be "Star Wars" in the truest sense. But they could have vastly different rules/mechanics and it wouldn't affect the "Star Warsiness" (for lack of a better word) of any of them.

That's what I'm saying. I don't care about the numbers (other than for balance obviously). I just want to play in a BT universe where I get to pilot a mech.
I don't care if weapon X has 300m or 600m range in TT, but if it has a longer range than weapon Y then I'd expect it to have a longer range than weapon Y in MWO.
To be a BT game it has to stick to the lore or you're just throwing out what makes the IP different and/or fun.

Quote

BT IP is what separates MWO from generic simulator (this is not really an FPS), but BT lore itself has no dictatorial relationship over MWO

We'll just have to agree to disagree there

Quote

and the TT ruleset has absolutely no place in this game.

We do agree there though....well, maybe a little place...

Quote

_______________

Addendum: I do not insult people, no matter how much I disagree. I only examine arguments. I will strive to be polite at all times, even if short sometimes.

Yeah but sadly many posters seem to have difficulty doing this when someone doesn't agree with them. It used to annoy me, but now because I care about MWO less than I used to because of the direction it is taking (espurts) I'm just not bothered anymore

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 16 February 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

Your basis for balance is a 1v1 engagement ... in a team game.
Some of us would rather have balance based on a team vs. team engagement ... in a team game.

My basis for balance is equality of chance for all players in any game, team or otherwise.

As long as 1 player controls 1 'Mech (at a time) in this game, that requires that each 'Mech, be it IS or Clan, be roughly equal (not same, mind you)

Mystere, on 16 February 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

If you do not get that very simple point, then I really can't help you further.

I'm confused, why do you insist that real balance and fair competition are not good?

Mystere, on 16 February 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

And where have I ever directly asked for table top rules?
<Careful. That's a trick question. >

I don't fall into traps.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Your response is very interesting and shows we agree on many things.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

Yeah, they used the BT IP to get money by telling BT fans they (pgi) were making a BT game.

I followed this game from inception, I've played off and on since Open Beta, I still think it has great potential and is great fun.

One thing I never felt was mislead.

I fully expected that this game would come with its own ruleset and values. The BT was just a flavor thing to me because I like the backstory and the military-Mech theme (as opposed to the ridiculousness of the Gundam Style).

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

The only reason I'm playing MWO is because it's an fps. I want to experience sitting in a mech cockpit in combat.

Ok, I like the "in=the-cockpit" feel, too. But I realize this requires the game to be MUCH different than previous games, especially in consideration of the PvP model.

(Still not really and FPS, it is actually a simulator.)

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

Exactly. Imo pgi should stick to lore. TT is just the numbers that make that lore playable. I don't care if they change numbers, i just want to play a game that is based on the lore.

"Based on the lore" can have a number of interpretations.

If we want this game to thrive, it needs to be balanced in a real and fair way to fit the format and media. That precludes any possibility of 10v12 teams. It just does.

But that does not prevent us from looking to make each side reflect lore in other meaningful ways: Range for Clans and brawling for IS.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

I agree...if the content of the game adhere's to the background/lore.

It can, just not in ways that disrupt the balance.

Star Wars: How fun would it be if in ToR all the "Dark Side" Sith could just Force Choke every character they came across like Vadar could in the movies? No one would want that kind of lore imbalance. It just doesn't play out in a video game.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

That's what I'm saying. I don't care about the numbers (other than for balance obviously). I just want to play in a BT universe where I get to pilot a mech.
I don't care if weapon X has 300m or 600m range in TT, but if it has a longer range than weapon Y then I'd expect it to have a longer range than weapon Y in MWO.
To be a BT game it has to stick to the lore or you're just throwing out what makes the IP different and/or fun.

But I'm not throwing anything out. I'm modifying to fit the format and media to preserve the flavor and create meaningful balance in a way that can be successful for both gameplay and business goals.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree there

We don't actually have to disagree here. My statement is that lore has no dictatorial role on the gameplay. That is not the same as saying that it has no influence.

We just have to be careful that we put this game first and use lore as a guide for flavor.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

We do agree there though....well, maybe a little place...

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

Yeah but sadly many posters seem to have difficulty doing this when someone doesn't agree with them. It used to annoy me, but now because I care about MWO less than I used to because of the direction it is taking (espurts) I'm just not bothered anymore

I'm only able to control myself...

If only I was King of the World!

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 09:11 PM, said:

I'm confused, why do you insist that real balance and fair competition are not good?

Darn it! You did miss the point. Team vs. Team balance is also real balance and fair competition.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 16 February 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Darn it! You did miss the point. Team vs. Team balance is also real balance and fair competition.

I didn't miss your point, I chose to ignore it's irrelevance.

You miss the point that this format and media dictates that team and individual balance are one and the same for MWO.

[Wolfways]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

Your response is very interesting and shows we agree on many things.



I followed this game from inception, I've played off and on since Open Beta, I still think it has great potential and is great fun.

One thing I never felt was mislead.

I'm not sure if I feel mislead or that pgi just promoted something that they came to find out was just too big for them (even if the MWLL team did manage to do combined arms on amazing maps). Maybe I'm remembering it wrong but at first I felt like MWO was going to be "EVEOnline in the BT universe", but now...I was going to say it's more like the Battlefield games but even they had better maps and longer matches

Quote

(Still not really and FPS, it is actually a simulator.)

Can you explain what you mean by this please? I know (according to pgi and some forum users) that people had difficulty getting used to the separate torso/legs thing but honestly I never had a problem with it or even known anyone who did.
It just seems the same as an fps like BF2 or BF3 (the only ones I played) to me...with worse game modes

Quote

"Based on the lore" can have a number of interpretations.

If we want this game to thrive, it needs to be balanced in a real and fair way to fit the format and media. That precludes any possibility of 10v12 teams. It just does.

I don't understand this line of thinking. To me "team v. team" doesn't need to be the same as "equal numbers v. equal numbers". It's like saying there should not be end-level bosses in games because the boss is tougher than your character.

Quote

But that does not prevent us from looking to make each side reflect lore in other meaningful ways: Range for Clans and brawling for IS.

I can't agree with that kind of distinction as imo that heavily benefits one side more than the other (in current MWO). Most maps negate long range fighting and encourage brawling imo, even if others disagree.

Quote

Star Wars: How fun would it be if in ToR all the "Dark Side" Sith could just Force Choke every character they came across like Vadar could in the movies? No one would want that kind of lore imbalance. It just doesn't play out in a video game.

If it didn't instantly kill me I'd be happy to take a health hit if it allowed a teammate to flank the sith and stick a lightsaber through his chest

Quote

But I'm not throwing anything out. I'm modifying to fit the format and media to preserve the flavor and create meaningful balance in a way that can be successful for both gameplay and business goals.



We don't actually have to disagree here. My statement is that lore has no dictatorial role on the gameplay. That is not the same as saying that it has no influence.

We just have to be careful that we put this game first and use lore as a guide for flavor.

I guess it comes down to how important you think the lore is, or even what it is, and we could argue for eternity about that.

Quote

I'm only able to control myself...

If only I was King of the World!

Pgi would heavily nerf you

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

I didn't miss your point, I chose to ignore it's irrelevance.

You miss the point that this format and media dictates that team and individual balance are one and the same for MWO.

There is no individual, until pgi introduces 1v1. Currently it's all about team balance.
I do understand what you mean though. A zergling staring at a distant protoss army probably doesn't like its chances of survival, but (on the other side of the argument) it will die to help the zerg win.

Btw, i don't care about KDR, in case it wasn't obvious

Edited by Wolfways, 16 February 2016 - 10:08 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 16 February 2016 - 10:10 PM, said:

FTFY.

See, now what you just did there is unacceptable.

Never, ever, change people's quote. Even when you think it's cute.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

I'm not sure if I feel mislead or that pgi just promoted something that they came to find out was just too big for them (even if the MWLL team did manage to do combined arms on amazing maps). Maybe I'm remembering it wrong but at first I felt like MWO was going to be "EVEOnline in the BT universe", but now...I was going to say it's more like the Battlefield games but even they had better maps and longer matches

Fair enough, this is subjective, after all. Who am I to tell you your feelings?

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

Can you explain what you mean by this please? I know (according to pgi and some forum users) that people had difficulty getting used to the separate torso/legs thing but honestly I never had a problem with it or even known anyone who did.
It just seems the same as an fps like BF2 or BF3 (the only ones I played) to me...with worse game modes

The distinction come in the fact that a simulator tries to recreate the behavior of what it is simulating. First Person Shooters are defined by a lack simulation and a focus of point and shoot. (This is just my understanding).

So, MWO tries to recreate a what it would be like to pilot a 'Mech and to simulate that behavior. Some FPS games try to cross lines, but generally they don't "simulate" anything; it mostly just about target practice.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

I don't understand this line of thinking. To me "team v. team" doesn't need to be the same as "equal numbers v. equal numbers". It's like saying there should not be end-level bosses in games because the boss is tougher than your character.

This is, in the end, defined by the media and format of the game. In any game, there is no good outcome for requiring some players to be in an objectively inferior position. No one wants to play a game where they are likely to be the loser.

See your StarCraft analogy below. Imagine some players are the Zerglings and others are the Protoss Zealots. Is that fair and reasonable? If I have a choice, why would I want to be the Zergling?

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

I can't agree with that kind of distinction as imo that heavily benefits one side more than the other (in current MWO). Most maps negate long range fighting and encourage brawling imo, even if others disagree.

It doesn't have to benefit one side over the other, if it is balanced correctly.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

If it didn't instantly kill me I'd be happy to take a health hit if it allowed a teammate to flank the sith and stick a lightsaber through his chest

Perhaps, but how many times would you want to die this way so that your enemy and your teammate can be glorified? More importantly, how many times would a casual player want to die this way before they cried "not fair!" and quit?

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

I guess it comes down to how important you think the lore is, or even what it is, and we could argue for eternity about that.

Let me frame this another way for you. Which is more important: gameplay and balance or lore?

How important lore is is not the right question. How important it is in comparison to the in-game gameplay and balance is.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

Pgi would heavily nerf you

Probably!

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

There is no individual, until pgi introduces 1v1. Currently it's all about team balance.
I do understand what you mean though. A zergling staring at a distant protoss army probably doesn't like its chances of survival, but (on the other side of the argument) it will die to help the zerg win.

Btw, i don't care about KDR, in case it wasn't obvious

But there is an individual: each player that sits down and plays is that individual and he is competing against every other individual out there. Without that, this game would break down and fail quickly; it just wouldn't be a viable business model.

[Revis Volek]

I have one question for all you 10v12 fans out there...


What happens when there arent enough IS players to have matches or vice versa? Then we all wait around for 10-15 minutes maybe more depending on the disparity? Because im pretty sure thats the EXACT issue thats present in CW, there is no population control and nothing saying YOU MUST PLAY YOUR IS mechs, because then peeps cry they wanna play with the clan mechs they paid REAL MONEY for and PGI is unfair.

Its a bad idea for lots and lots of reasons...if you cant see it then you wont ever see it and this thread isnt going to make a difference honestly.

We have already went through this a thousand times, same stories and questions and same responses from PGI and most who understand this wont help the game at all. Just because a few masochist dont mind dying 4 times to kill one enemy doesn't mean everyone is on board for that.

I mean its human nature to want to win and do well for most of us, being stuck with impossible odds all the time is usually things as humans we see and stay away from because we understand its nearly impossible.

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Pgi uses that argument, it's in the title "A BattleTech Game".

What is the definition of "A BATTLETECH GAME"? Im pretty sure it doesnt mean what you guys think it means.

Edited by Revis Volek, 17 February 2016 - 12:24 AM.

[brroleg]

Quote

Just because a few masochist dont mind dying 4 times to kill one enemy doesn't mean everyone is on board for that.

Look at WT. There is a lot people dont minding to play light tanks and dying 4 times to kill one heavy tank.

[Revis Volek]

brroleg, on 17 February 2016 - 01:12 AM, said:

Look at WT. There is a lot people dont minding to play light tanks and dying 4 times to kill one heavy tank.

Are you sure they dont mind? Or they just deal with it much like most of us here when we play our bad mechs?

Because thats how the game is? WT isnt really the same thing we have here, you have T1 tanks thats cant even hurt a T5 at least here every mech can hurt each other equally.

They also arent playing outnumbered as far as i can remember.

Edited by Revis Volek, 17 February 2016 - 01:15 AM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Revis Volek, on 17 February 2016 - 12:17 AM, said:

What is the definition of "A BATTLETECH GAME"? Im pretty sure it doesnt mean what you guys think it means.

That's what I keep trying (in vain) to explain!

It's just the name of the IP franchise. It does not define every particular value/rule/detail of the game!

[-Vompo-]

brroleg, on 17 February 2016 - 01:12 AM, said:

Look at WT. There is a lot people dont minding to play light tanks and dying 4 times to kill one heavy tank.

You do realise that in warthunder both teams can have light and heavy tanks?
If the game was just heavy tanks versus light tanks it would be somewhat different.

[brroleg]

Revis Volek, on 17 February 2016 - 01:14 AM, said:

Are you sure they dont mind?

Yes. Light tank can kill heavy tank of same level, but not from the front, only from the back. And its possible to flank slow heavy tank. And also here comes the main driveshaft of all internets - butthurt. Heavy tank driver feels so unstoppable, that when light tank kills him from the back, he is raging and butthurting. And light tank driver finds its funny and satisfying enough to the point of dont minding to play light tanks.