106 replies to this topic

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 17 February 2016 - 07:53 AM, said:

Because it was inconvenient for your argument. Otherwise you would have disputed my assertion and provided a valid argument.

It wasn't inconvenient for my argument, it was irrelevant.

As long as we have a game in this format on this media with free floating individual players playing 1 'Mech at a time, 1:1 balance will be required for a fair playing field for both teams and individuals.

Simply claiming something opposite does not make it true.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 17 February 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

It wasn't inconvenient for my argument, it was irrelevant.

As long as we have a game in this format on this media with free floating individual players playing 1 'Mech at a time, 1:1 balance will be required for a fair playing field for both teams and individuals.

Simply claiming something opposite does not make it true.

And still ignoring the point because it's inconvenient.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

That's the difference between us then. You think "me", and I think "us".
If I liked the zerg I'd play the zergling no matter how "inferior" it was to the protoss.
I asked my wife would she still play IS if clan mechs were OP 1 on 1 and she said yes because she likes the mechs. It's the same reason I play clan, I like the mechs.

It's not that I think "me", it's that most individuals think "me". This is a psychological fact and completely observable.

The fact is, when given the choice, most people act selfishly.

What your wife says, while important to you, is largely irrelevant to this argument. Her response may be biased, not representative or this could just be "hearsay".

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

The problem with MWO is that pgi created it to work with equal numbers from the start. When I played the BF games it was rare to have a match with an equal amount of players on both sides, and people would leave and join during games, but it worked.

That PGI made this game to have equal numbers on each side was not a problem. They did so in the knowledge that if one side was advantaged that the game would not function due to selfishness.

The problem was their implementation of certain balancing mechanisms.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 17 February 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

And still ignoring the point because it's inconvenient.

In all seriousness, Mystere, what you are asking to do is to take the individual out of themselves.

That's simply impossible.

Do you know of the "Tragedy of the Commons"?

https://www.washingt...edit-challenge/

Read this to understand why you cannot successfully do what you are proposing.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 17 February 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

In all seriousness, Mystere, what you are asking to do is to take the individual out of themselves.

That's simply impossible.

Do you know of the "Tragedy of the Commons"?

https://www.washingt...edit-challenge/

Read this to understand why you cannot successfully do what you are proposing.

LOL! So if a group of people (i.e. a "team") work together for the common good (i.e win), they all benefit. Got it.

And by that you have just admitted than Team vs. Team balance is still real balance. Thank you. Good night and good luck!

Edited by Mystere, 17 February 2016 - 06:32 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 17 February 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

LOL! So if a group of people (i.e. a "team") work together for the common good (i.e win), they all benefit. Got it.

And by that you have just admitted than Team vs. Team balance is still real balance. Thank you. Good night and good luck!

Apparently you missed the part that while this can happen, it doesn't happen.

We're not talking about the world as we wish it. We're talking about a game that has to function in reality.

This experiment has been done countless times and the results overwhelmingly show that people do not act for the common good. They act in their own self-interest.

PGI, as a company, has to create something that takes that out of the equation! If they don't, the game fails in real-world conditions. Hence, 1:1 balance.

10v12 and 'people will work together' is fantasy land.

[Wolfways]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 17 February 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

It's not that I think "me", it's that most individuals think "me". This is a psychological fact and completely observable.

The fact is, when given the choice, most people act selfishly.

What your wife says, while important to you, is largely irrelevant to this argument. Her response may be biased, not representative or this could just be "hearsay".



That PGI made this game to have equal numbers on each side was not a problem. They did so in the knowledge that if one side was advantaged that the game would not function due to selfishness.

The problem was their implementation of certain balancing mechanisms.

That was my point. MWO is made for "me" players, yet players keep arguing that there needs to be equal numbers because it's a team game.

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 17 February 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Apparently you missed the part that while this can happen, it doesn't happen.

We're not talking about the world as we wish it. We're talking about a game that has to function in reality.

This experiment has been done countless times and the results overwhelmingly show that people do not act for the common good. They act in their own self-interest.

PGI, as a company, has to create something that takes that out of the equation! If they don't, the game fails in real-world conditions. Hence, 1:1 balance.

10v12 and 'people will work together' is fantasy land.

Seems to work fine in the BF games.

[Revis Volek]

too many wearing rose colored glasses here in these threads....

Edited by Revis Volek, 17 February 2016 - 10:11 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 09:44 PM, said:

Seems to work fine in the BF games.

Only on the handful of Battlefield servers where strict teamwork is enforced and selfish players are removed by administrators. Obviously this is not a system that PGI can implement here.

Your average public server is pretty much utter chaos, with at least a squads' worth of players of each team camping out on some sniping ineffectually at people from across the map. You'll also see people completely wasting aircraft by plowing them into the nearest hill or taking a 6-man transport chopper solo to fly themselves to some otherwise inaccessible rooftop to uselessly snipe at people the entire match. You'll see people not giving two rat turds about heals, dropping ammo, repairing friendly vehicles, or vehicle pick-up requests.

You'll see some players doing the right thing by playing their role and completing objectives, but it is by no means the norm.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 17 February 2016 - 10:18 PM.

[Wolfways]

Kaeb Odellas, on 17 February 2016 - 10:18 PM, said:

Only on the handful of Battlefield servers where strict teamwork is enforced and selfish players are removed by administrators. Obviously this is not a system that PGI can implement here.

Never played on one of those servers and was never part of a "team". Just dropping into random games solo.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

That's the difference between us then. You think "me", and I think "us".
If I liked the zerg I'd play the zergling no matter how "inferior" it was to the protoss.
I asked my wife would she still play IS if clan mechs were OP 1 on 1 and she said yes because she likes the mechs. It's the same reason I play clan, I like the mechs.

The problem with MWO is that pgi created it to work with equal numbers from the start. When I played the BF games it was rare to have a match with an equal amount of players on both sides, and people would leave and join during games, but it worked.

That's "you" bud. Obviously not everyone feels the same way as you, so asymmetric team sizes simply won't work.

Also, every BF game was design to have equal players on both sides, and given the ubiquity of auto-balancing systems, team sizes never stayed unequal for long. The massive team sizes also meant that being a man short isn't nearly as big a deal as it is in this game.

[Knighthawk26]

MWO has to follow the route of chassis balance because this is a one player, one mech at a time, fps. And PGI has done an admirable job achieving chassis balance even with the vast differences between light mechs and assault mechs, Clans vs IS, and a ton of other variables. Yes, they have departed from TT rules and Lore, but such was necessary for this type of game.
Anyone who wants to see Clan mechs become vastly superior to IS mechs must ask themselves, would you spend the many hours of game time (or real dollars) grinding to get your IS mech up to elite level while knowing that it could never even hope to compete against anyone else in the game? Or would you just get the best Clan mech instead and end up playing all clan vs clan matches because nobody else has any incentive to choose to play the inferior IS chassis. You can only play one, you don't get to play three IS chassis against that better clan chassis. Not as an individual anyway, and it is individual players that make this game possible and pay the PGI bills. Nuff said.

[AlexEss]

Mystere, on 17 February 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

A solution to any population disparity between Clans and IS in solo Quick Play is to removed mixed fights and instead force IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, and IS vs. Clan fights based on player availability.

For the group queue, it is assumed people know what they are doing and as such are free to mix at their heart's delight.

But what is the point of upping the damage of clan weapons when all you will be fighting will be other clan mechs... then it is just a question of TTK. Because with your suggestion there will hardly ever be any clan vs is matches.

Why you ask..?

Because in order to keep the waiting time to a resonable level they will have to put in a hard limit of clan vs is wait time.. the result... a ton more clan vs clan matches and sine that tech will be equal any way they might as well keep the current tuning.

Or do you really think that there will be a magical manifestation of IS players who will take the fact that their mechs are junk compared to yours and eat loss after loss just so you can enjoy the fruits of what was in essence a way to sell more metal miniatures.

That is solid logic

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 09:44 PM, said:

That was my point. MWO is made for "me" players, yet players keep arguing that there needs to be equal numbers because it's a team game.

There does need to be an equal number of players because that is the only way to ensure a fair playing field and fair competition.

Make no mistake, game developers must ensure this because players won't do it for themselves.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 18 February 2016 - 04:23 PM.

[Rushin Roulette]

brroleg, on 16 February 2016 - 06:53 AM, said:

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

Oh great... a new player can be crap 2 times in one match while playing against an OP mech. This 2:1 suggestion only works if it is 12 v 6, anythign else is just the same 12 crap mechs vs 12 good mechs 2 times in a row.

[Mystere]

AlexEss, on 18 February 2016 - 03:48 AM, said:

Or do you really think that there will be a magical manifestation of IS players who will take the fact that their mechs are junk compared to yours and eat loss after loss just so you can enjoy the fruits of what was in essence a way to sell more metal miniatures.

That is solid logic

Why do people always equate a slight disparity into "junk"? That's some solid logic all right, especially in a team vs. team game.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

AlexEss, on 18 February 2016 - 03:48 AM, said:

Or do you really think that there will be a magical manifestation of IS players who will take the fact that their mechs are junk compared to yours and eat loss after loss just so you can enjoy the fruits of what was in essence a way to sell more metal miniatures.

That is solid logic

Nah is not. Your logic is flawed, your assumptions are false and you have incomplete data.
You assuming that thinks would be imbalanced. You prefer simply OP clans that we have since the beginning without any clan drawbacks. Asymmetrical balance that`s not mean imbalance, but many, many of you are too stupid and brick minded to simply understand such a simply conception.
You assume that IS would be loosing again and again. What if I tell that things would be quiet opposite and being a clam would be real challenge. We already tested it and it works. And it works in other games and is fun for both sides.

You guys are forgetting as well, that we had a quiet time with clans being OP as hell without any, any drawback. Yet I did not seen game falling a part, as you guys are false foreseeing.

But we got what we got. PGi took the wrong patch and you will get endless ridicule quirks. I don`t see any chance at this point to PGI revert it back and take BT way of things.
Maybe someday when we got some sort of Stock Mode the asymmetrical balance idea would comeback, but that is unlikely of course that dreams come true.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 18 February 2016 - 12:59 PM.

[brroleg]

Rushin Roulette, on 18 February 2016 - 05:22 AM, said:

This 2:1 suggestion only works if it is 12 v 6, anythign else is just the same 12 crap mechs vs 12 good mechs 2 times in a row.

Guys, i repeat again. Its tonnage, not numbers that should be balanced around. Yes, tonnage can cause numbers, if Clans will take assaults only, they will be 6v12. But for example if Clans will take only lights and meds, it can be 12v12.
Just reminding.

Thats in CW.

In quickplay(if it will not be removed, which it should be) there should be deck systems, just like in CW, but without faction restrictions. So for deck in quickplay player has some limited tonnage, and Clan mechs for example has x2 multiplier of their tonnage if you take them in you deck. So player can take in deck for quickplay either 2 overpowered Clans assaults and he out of tonnage for his deck and will go to battle only with 2 respawns, or 4 IS Assaults. Or he can take 4 Clan meds, and will be facing with his meds other players who could take 4 IS assaults. Or he can take mixed, and go with 2 clan lights, and 2 IS assaults.

And for both CW and quickplay i think there should not be limit on how many mechs you can bring. Only how many tonns. So for example if you have 300 tonns limit(i take number 300 only for easy calculation), you should be able to bring 10 IS lights 30 ton each. So you will have 10 respawns in lights.

Edited by brroleg, 18 February 2016 - 09:04 AM.

[Davers]

Eider, on 17 February 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

For the record some scream lore to keep clan op.. but lore went out the window when it became 12 on 12 rather than 12 vs 10. They should be balanced to keep things even.

"Clan mechs should be OP" = The only part of Clan lore that people seem to want in the game.

[brroleg]

Davers, on 18 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

"Clan mechs should be OP" = The only part of Clan lore that people seem to want in the game.

"Trying to win battle with as small forces as possible"(aka 6v12) is big part of Clan lore.