55 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Rushin Roulette, on 17 February 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

Actually, 10v12 is was surprisingly well balanced.

no it wasn't
The IS win rate was up over 80% IIRC

That's not "well balanced"

Now, you and friends may have conducted your own experiment and gotten a different result, but I am referring to the actual test PGI ran on the test server.

[Rushin Roulette]

Sandpit, on 18 February 2016 - 01:27 PM, said:

Now, you and friends may have conducted your own experiment and gotten a different result, but I am referring to the actual test PGI ran on the test server.

We are talking about the same PGI as the PGI who thought an LRM Scoutapult was a good idea for a competitive game?
I am talking about the time when the clans first came out though. No IS quirks and no Clan nerfs. As soon as the clans were nerfed the first time, the balance was already off for 10v12. it just got worse with the quirks. From then it was relatively balanced 12v12 falling for one side or another depending onwhere PGI managed to overbalance again... and again... and again... and again.
The balance has been really close sooooooo many times its not funny any more. But the various balancing committees at PGI appparently have some sort of communication problem, because for some reason they always do the same dipshit mistake... trying to balance both sides at the same time.

So relying on any test PGI make in terms of balance is like relying on a questionaire filled out by preschoolers in regards to the newest Quantum Physics discovery.

[Sandpit]

Rushin Roulette, on 18 February 2016 - 09:42 PM, said:

We are talking about the same PGI as the PGI who thought an LRM Scoutapult was a good idea for a competitive game?
I am talking about the time when the clans first came out though. No IS quirks and no Clan nerfs. As soon as the clans were nerfed the first time, the balance was already off for 10v12. it just got worse with the quirks. From then it was relatively balanced 12v12 falling for one side or another depending onwhere PGI managed to overbalance again... and again... and again... and again.
The balance has been really close sooooooo many times its not funny any more. But the various balancing committees at PGI appparently have some sort of communication problem, because for some reason they always do the same dipshit mistake... trying to balance both sides at the same time.

So relying on any test PGI make in terms of balance is like relying on a questionaire filled out by preschoolers in regards to the newest Quantum Physics discovery.

sooo...

just to clarify, the "opposition" to the evidence provided is now based upon PGI's credibility to perform the test?

I participated.
I am not PGI
I am telling you that myself, and the consensus of many of those who played, was that it sucked. I played both sides. I played from each perspective. It sucked.

PGI's statistical data showed the same thing.

So now you have personal first-hand information given to you that collaborates the statistical data.

That shows much more evidence and lends a bit more legitimacy to the argument. 10v12 sucked. It didn't work, it goes much deeper than quirks, weapon, and even tech balance overall. It is and would be very resource intensive to balance the game in that format. As in intensive and in-depth enough to require a reworking on fundamental philosophies upon which MWO has been built for 3 years.

It's realistically not going to happen. 10v12 sucked. Period. It's not the way to balance the two techs.

CW gives you a much better idea of tech balance than solo and quickplay do honestly. CW gives you a better idea on where the "leaks" in balance are. If you bothered playing in the 1st CW environment, then you know that was where some of the first and truly large gaps in balance showed up. Zerg rushes, ranges, attrition, 48 mechs and varied drop deck tonnages are the right way to go for CW.

The drop deck tonnages just need to be varied more by planets as opposed to periodic universal changes.
Drop decks should be chosen after map and mode are determined
Drop decks should be saved if chosen

Don't tell me it can't be done PGI. It can't be done with how you have the planetary map currently setup. This is what your beta is truly supposed to be for. These are things that will help CW. These are things that will give relevancy to more mechs more often. These are the things that will help develop mech production sustainability on your part by allowing for more mechs to be more effective more often.

A drop deck of 4 mechs required for this planet = 260 tons
Drop deck for this planet = 245 tons

Allow drop decks to be saved by planet if need be. Set each section of planets up with their own buckets if need be. SPend a little more money on the server and infrastructure of CW and allow for small adjustments like this without requiring them server wide.

That's just a small start to being able to diversify CW a bit. CW is the war game portion of the game that your war gamer population congregates to.

quickplay is more your "shooter" portion of the game. Players enjoying shooters congregate there. You're going to have to make a more clear distinction between these two sections of the game because "melding" them isn't going to work. No, you can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can't just blend them altogether and cater everything to everyone.

Start making some distinctions and focusing. This happens every
single
time
You guys (PGI) get an influx of new players from a new marketing opportunity and you start listening to all this chatter. Then you start looking into "other areas" and start derailing previous statements. All those new players buy in, and then leave for another game.

We are gamers. We player games. Yours is never has been and never will be the only video game played by the majority of your customers. You have built an audience based upon designing and developing this massive online multiplayer game. You said that. We have a mindless deathmatch that even modern reviewers are referring to as a MOBA.

CW was supposed to be based on this galaxy wide economy and all these rewards and such through the LP system. You're not even out of "beta" and you have players pretty much maxed out on any and all CW LP rewards they care to obtain. That's your idea of "endgame"?

Stop
Losing
Focus

[Dawnstealer]

Davegt27, on 17 February 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

OP I just got another idea "Batchall" game mode The Mechanic for the 4 V 4 has been in the works for a while as a scouting mission What about a "batchall" 4 V 4 for units or teams no pugs this would be before a planetary drop Thoughts

I've been saying for a while that you encourage "classic" behavior with rewards. Let Clans drop underweight, or not drop with a full deck (so 2-3 mechs instead of the full four), and reward them HEAVILY for doing so, even in a loss.

Give no XP/Cbills for Assists, give the difference for Most Damage Kills and Solo Kills.

Etc. Encourage Clan behavior. All you'd have to tweak would be the XP and Cbill payouts rather than the guts of the game: I'd think that would be a lower hurdle for PGI to jump.

[Sandpit]

Dawnstealer, on 20 February 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

All you'd have to tweak would be the XP and Cbill payouts rather than the guts of the game: I'd think that would be a lower hurdle for PGI to jump.

PGI, lowering the bar for games everywhere lol

sorry, couldn't resist, it was just too easy

[Bragg936]

Dawnstealer, on 20 February 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

I've been saying for a while that you encourage "classic" behavior with rewards. Let Clans drop underweight, or not drop with a full deck (so 2-3 mechs instead of the full four), and reward them HEAVILY for doing so, even in a loss.

Give no XP/Cbills for Assists, give the difference for Most Damage Kills and Solo Kills.

Etc. Encourage Clan behavior. All you'd have to tweak would be the XP and Cbill payouts rather than the guts of the game: I'd think that would be a lower hurdle for PGI to jump.

id go for that. would happily drop a mech for increased rewards (would have to be a decent amount).

There has been mention of dynamic tonnage before which i think could work quite well. I would say limit that to 20 tons max
so 260 could drop to 220 but no more.

You could either have that as faction wide based off planets controlled or (and i think this might work better) off individual battle fatigue. As in i play 10 games so my max tonnage drops by 5 for a 24 hour period becuse my supply of spare parts and general wear and tear is starting to slow me down.

[Sandpit]

Bragg936, on 24 February 2016 - 04:11 AM, said:

id go for that. would happily drop a mech for increased rewards (would have to be a decent amount).

There has been mention of dynamic tonnage before which i think could work quite well. I would say limit that to 20 tons max
so 260 could drop to 220 but no more.

You could either have that as faction wide based off planets controlled or (and i think this might work better) off individual battle fatigue. As in i play 10 games so my max tonnage drops by 5 for a 24 hour period becuse my supply of spare parts and general wear and tear is starting to slow me down.

Russ has shut down dynamic tonnage. I specifically asked him and suggested this to him on twitter and he said it can't be done due to technical reasons of how the CW buckets and system work.

[Koshirou]

Rushin Roulette, on 17 February 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

With the positive and negative quirks as they are? No chance.

Well, duh. The whole idea behind 10 vs 12 would be to remove quirks as the key Clans vs IS balancing mechanic, which would naturally lead to IS quirks being toned down considerably and Clan quirks being. Whatever quirks remain would be used for intra-chassis (to some extent inter-chassis) balance as well as for flavor.

[Sandpit]

Koshirou, on 24 February 2016 - 09:06 AM, said:

Well, duh. The whole idea behind 10 vs 12 would be to remove quirks as the key Clans vs IS balancing mechanic, which would naturally lead to IS quirks being toned down considerably and Clan quirks being. Whatever quirks remain would be used for intra-chassis (to some extent inter-chassis) balance as well as for flavor.

10v12 was tested pre-quirks

Didn't work.

[MahKraah]

we (36th dieron) also did minor testing witch worked quiet well.
we used STOCK mechs only. 10 clan vs 12 is was still slightly in favor of clans.

[Sandpit]

MahKraah, on 24 February 2016 - 12:41 PM, said:

we (36th dieron) also did minor testing witch worked quiet well.
we used STOCK mechs only. 10 clan vs 12 is was still slightly in favor of clans.

too bad we don't use stock mechs in MWO

[Dawnstealer]

MahKraah, on 24 February 2016 - 12:41 PM, said:

we (36th dieron) also did minor testing witch worked quiet well.
we used STOCK mechs only. 10 clan vs 12 is was still slightly in favor of clans.

I think that's part of it - maybe tone down the hardpoints a bit. So rather than giving a mech 10-15 hardpoints when, stock, it would only have five or so, lower that number.

I still think hardpoint and weapon sizes along with the type would solve this. For this example, take the Wolverine 7K:

WVR-6K

Pretty simple: ML in the head, LL/ML/SL in the arm, SRM6 in the LT.

But you check how this thing looks in the "Metamech Build:"

WVR-6K

3 LPLs in the RA, ML in the head.

That is three GIGANTIC weapon systems in that right arm.

Instead of "4 Energy Weapons" in that right arm, what if, instead, it was:

1 Large Energy Weapon (PPC, ERPPC, LPL, LL, ERLL)

1 Medium Energy Weapon (ML, MPL, SPL)

1 Small Energy Weapon (SL, TAG)

A Large hardpoint can fit one Large weapon or two Medium weapons or three Small weapons.

A Medium hardpoint can fit one Medium weapon or two Small weapons.

A Small hardpoint can only fit Small weapons.

Even if someone were to tweak it hard, you wouldn't end up with something drastically more powerful than stock. You could certainly make it better (you could fit four Medium Energy weapons in that arm, along with one Small Energy weapon, for example), but you wouldn't end up with these lore and game-breaking builds.

It just seems like PGI has shot themselves in the foot with the current design.

EDIT: THEN you could look at 10v12, and minor quirks to make this mech with worse stock hardpoints more palatable (like twist speed, acceleration, etc).

Edited by Dawnstealer, 24 February 2016 - 01:06 PM.

[Ihasa]

Dawnstealer, on 24 February 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

I think that's part of it - maybe tone down the hardpoints a bit. So rather than giving a mech 10-15 hardpoints when, stock, it would only have five or so, lower that number.

I still think hardpoint and weapon sizes along with the type would solve this. For this example, take the Wolverine 7K:

WVR-6K

Pretty simple: ML in the head, LL/ML/SL in the arm, SRM6 in the LT.

But you check how this thing looks in the "Metamech Build:"

WVR-6K

3 LPLs in the RA, ML in the head.

That is three GIGANTIC weapon systems in that right arm.

Instead of "4 Energy Weapons" in that right arm, what if, instead, it was:

1 Large Energy Weapon (PPC, ERPPC, LPL, LL, ERLL)

1 Medium Energy Weapon (ML, MPL, SPL)

1 Small Energy Weapon (SL, TAG)

A Large hardpoint can fit one Large weapon or two Medium weapons or three Small weapons.

A Medium hardpoint can fit one Medium weapon or two Small weapons.

A Small hardpoint can only fit Small weapons.

Even if someone were to tweak it hard, you wouldn't end up with something drastically more powerful than stock. You could certainly make it better (you could fit four Medium Energy weapons in that arm, along with one Small Energy weapon, for example), but you wouldn't end up with these lore and game-breaking builds.

It just seems like PGI has shot themselves in the foot with the current design.

EDIT: THEN you could look at 10v12, and minor quirks to make this mech with worse stock hardpoints more palatable (like twist speed, acceleration, etc).

No way. Take away the ability to customize as the players see fit (given the givens) and many will travel. World of Warships and Star Citizen are feeling like my redheaded stepchildren lately (never mind my unit and this game, cause RL). Also stock loadouts are mostly turds. However did anyone win with some of those builds? Must've been some primo idiots with worse builds galore on the red team.

[Wolfways]

Fr0z7y, on 17 February 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

clan lrms fly faster than is lrms, is lrm 5's are shot down as fast as clan lrm 5's although clan lrms have the edge on is lrms.

I don't know where you are getting your "facts" from but you are wrong.
IS and clan LRM's fly at the same speed (160), and AMS shoots down clan missiles easier because they travel in a stream, giving the AMS more time to shoot at them.
Also, if you're moving behind cover as a salvo hits you can get hit by the lead clan missiles while the rest miss you/hit cover, while a salvo of IS missiles will hit you all at once.

The only advantage clan LRM's may have (although I'm not sure) is that they have a tighter cluster, meaning they spread damage slightly less than IS launchers.

Sandpit, on 18 February 2016 - 01:27 PM, said:

no it wasn't
The IS win rate was up over 80% IIRC

That's not "well balanced"

Now, you and friends may have conducted your own experiment and gotten a different result, but I am referring to the actual test PGI ran on the test server.

I'd be okay with that. I'm always up for a challenge

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 24 February 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

too bad we don't use stock mechs in MWO

Unfortunately

[Kaisha]

Sandpit, on 24 February 2016 - 09:36 AM, said:

10v12 was tested pre-quirks

Didn't work.

Why not just limited the CW drop deck by C-Bills and not tonnage? For example you can take 4 mechs with a total cost of say 40 million (or 30, or 50, or whatever...). Clan items would be a bit more effective but more costly, IS less but cheaper. Its still a 12v12, but could still be an asymmetrical design. Its would also mean niche and/or less than optimal weapons/builds could become viable options simply by being cheaper (like single heat sinks, flamers, machine guns, etc...) instead of weird buffs or quirks.

[Ihasa]

Kaisha, on 24 February 2016 - 11:27 PM, said:

Why not just limited the CW drop deck by C-Bills and not tonnage? For example you can take 4 mechs with a total cost of say 40 million (or 30, or 50, or whatever...). Clan items would be a bit more effective but more costly, IS less but cheaper. Its still a 12v12, but could still be an asymmetrical design. Its would also mean niche and/or less than optimal weapons/builds could become viable options simply by being cheaper (like single heat sinks, flamers, machine guns, etc...) instead of weird buffs or quirks.

That would still give the advantage to the vets, with our 100's of millions+ of c-bills. And clan mechs are more costly, on a chassis by chassis basis. It's the IS upgrades that takes one to the cleaners. It costs what, 1 million to upgrade to DHS on IS? Then one has to actually buy said DHS. Clans come equipped with such, stock. So stock loadouts would put the IS at a further disadvantage there and other areas as well.

Edited by Ihasa, 25 February 2016 - 02:07 AM.

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 24 February 2016 - 09:36 AM, said:

10v12 was tested pre-quirks

Didn't work.

What exactly didn't work?
I know pgi said it didn't work... ignoring that nearly every quick match is 10/11 v. 12 due to dc's

[Kaisha]

Ihasa, on 25 February 2016 - 02:06 AM, said:

That would still give the advantage to the vets, with our 100's of millions+ of c-bills. And clan mechs are more costly, on a chassis by chassis basis. It's the IS upgrades that takes one to the cleaners. It costs what, 1 million to upgrade to DHS on IS? Then one has to actually buy said DHS. Clans come equipped with such, stock. So stock loadouts would put the IS at a further disadvantage there and other areas as well.

No, not at all.

Lets say we set the drop deck cost between 38M and 42M. Meaning the total cost of your deck has to be worth more than 38M and less than 42M. That means that everyone, vet or rookie, has a deck that costs the same. Doesn't matter how you spec, what weapons, chassis, IS or Clan, everyone plays with a deck that is worth the same amount. It works for trial mechs, it works for loaded-to-the-teeth with the best of everything vets. It even covers modules and consumables (which would need to be rebalanced cost-wise, but I don't think that's a huge issue). The only thing this doesn't take into account is mech xp.

This also makes rebalancing weapons or mechs easier. A particular mech is played non-stop (ie. the meta sees is highly effective), no need to nerf its performance, just tack on another 100k or so to its cost (no one would have to repay for the additional cost that already owns the mech, rather it would just require rebalancing your CW deck if 100k was enough to put you over the limit). A weaker mech performing poorly? Drop its price by 100k. The prices of mechs and items are generally where they should be, but would need a few small tweaks. This would be far easier to tweak and adjust than quirks.

This also has a few additional advantages. Niche or otherwise 'less than optimal' weapons and loadouts can still be viable without weird buffs. Not that quirks or buffs are bad, but they should be there because they make sense/it plays well rather than 'its there to make it less worthless' (flamers being a perfect example). Also with the effectiveness of the mech not being tied to its tonnage, you open up more tactics in game. Are ECM boats everywhere? Increasing ECM cost works better than increasing its tonnage or reducing the number of mechs with ECM hardpoints. Do we want to see more ECMs, again reduce its cost. Its a more nuanced and organic balancing metric.

[Dawnstealer]

Ihasa, on 24 February 2016 - 09:02 PM, said:

No way. Take away the ability to customize as the players see fit (given the givens) and many will travel. World of Warships and Star Citizen are feeling like my redheaded stepchildren lately (never mind my unit and this game, cause RL). Also stock loadouts are mostly turds. However did anyone win with some of those builds? Must've been some primo idiots with worse builds galore on the red team.

Yeah, if you read through that post, you can see that I'm not saying take away custom builds, just reel them in a little in a way that makes sense.