127 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 February 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

That isn't to say an Assault isn't cautious either, but not to the level lights are.

I know I'm only a lowly T3 (even though it is by choice) but haven't you got that backwards? A light can escape if it gets into trouble, an assault can't.
Imo assaults are the hardest class to play with mediums and lights coming next (not sure in which order), with heavies being the easiest.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wolfways, on 24 February 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

I know I'm only a lowly T3 (even though it is by choice) but haven't you got that backwards? A light can escape if it gets into trouble, an assault can't.

In PUGs yes, in coordinated play, no.

[Homeskilit]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 February 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Scouting isn't solely reliant on radar, it is more often reliant on visuals than anything else and this will always be the case unless radar is not restricted to LOS and/or some sort of fog of war is implemented.

Agreed, but someone calling out there is a scout mech in a specific grid is totally different from them targeting you and your exact location popping up to the entire enemy team.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Homeskilit, on 24 February 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

Agreed, but someone calling out there is a scout mech in a specific grid is totally different from them targeting you and your exact location popping up to the entire enemy team.

The problem is, at least in coordinated drops, you are probably exposing yourself too long if you are bothering to press R long enough for everyone to get a good idea of where they are, more often than not that is. Don't get me wrong, it can be helpful to get that lock so a DC knows exactly where they are, but there is also more to scouting than a split-second position of a target (movement, numbers, visual ids, etc).

Keep in mind, I'm also not against removing shared target locks since it would make balancing LRMs and such much easier, I'm just saying it isn't going to change things drastically other than make PUGs even more blind.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 24 February 2016 - 10:00 PM.

[Kaisha]

Balancing is simple, have groups based on mech costs, and not mech weight. So in CW you could have 4 mechs totaling say 40,000,000 C-bills (or 30M, or whatever). Likewise in quickplay the teams would be balanced so that the cost of the 12 mechs on both teams was near equal. That way you'd still have equal teams, while still allowing asymmetrical design. It would also allow more diverse builds, as things like single heat sinks, machine guns, flamers, or other less than optimal weapons and/or niche weapons/builds could still be useful due to a lower cost instead of strange buffs or quirks.

[Wintersdark]

Kaisha, on 24 February 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

Balancing is simple, have groups based on mech costs, and not mech weight. So in CW you could have 4 mechs totaling say 40,000,000 C-bills (or 30M, or whatever). Likewise in quickplay the teams would be balanced so that the cost of the 12 mechs on both teams was near equal. That way you'd still have equal teams, while still allowing asymmetrical design. It would also allow more diverse builds, as things like single heat sinks, machine guns, flamers, or other less than optimal weapons and/or niche weapons/builds could still be useful due to a lower cost instead of strange buffs or quirks.

Wow. No.

Here's the thing. If you think the answer to balance is simple, you're wrong.
This is always the case, because balance in situations like this with so many moving parts is very hard.

Your theory above assumes cost=power, and nothing could be further from the truth.

A standard engine laser vomit thunderbolt is a monster of a mech, but it'll beat the pants off a CTF sporting (absurdly expensive) LBX autocannons, ferrofibrous armour, and a big XL engine.

Cost has no relation to power.

Edited by Wintersdark, 25 February 2016 - 01:16 AM.

[Kaisha]

Wow, love the hostility on these forums...

Wintersdark, on 25 February 2016 - 01:15 AM, said:

Wow. No.

Here's the thing. If you think the answer to balance is simple, you're wrong.
This is always the case, because balance in situations like this with so many moving parts is very hard.

I have a degree in mathematics and computer science. I've worked with hard systems. The systems in MWO are actually quite straightforward.

You want to want to know what a 'hard' system is? I wrote a WoW mod for our ~100 man guild (vanilla WoW) that ran a real-time in game distributed database that tracked every player's performance and contribution. This all had to be done in LUA, in a tiny amount of memory (as it was not a stand alone app but just an add on), on 2005 level hardware that had near-zero impact on in-game gameplay (you cannot have people lagging out mid Ragnaros attempt because the guild leader in Orgrimmar wanted to query the state of the raid). That's a hard system to balance because loads (processing, memory, and network loads) vary dynamically and dramatically.

Quote

Your theory above assumes cost=power, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Apart from egregious examples, it generally is that way. It SHOULD be that way, and with a few simple tweaks it can easily be this way. Changing the cost of a few weapons and mechs is far easier than than changing and balancing quirks.

Quote

Cost has no relation to power.

Actually it does, just not as much as it should. And with a few small tweaks it can. It would be more intuitive (for both players and devs), it would be more flexible, and it would be easier for the devs than their current quirk system.

Edited by Kaisha, 25 February 2016 - 09:00 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Kaisha, on 25 February 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

Wow, love the hostility on these forums...

There was no hosility. It's just a truism of sorts - balance here is incredibly complex, and if you think there's a simple solution (aside from "everyone runs the same thing") then you're overlooking something.

Quote

I have a degree in mathematics and computer science. I've worked with hard systems. The systems in MWO are actually quite straightforward.

The systems in MWO are straight forward. Balance is not. There are a LOT of systems working in concert that result in a very complex animal insofar as balance is concerned.

Quote

You want to want to know what a 'hard' system is? I wrote a WoW mod for our ~100 man guild (vanilla WoW) that ran a real-time in game distributed database that tracked every player's performance and contribution. This all had to be done in LUA, in a tiny amount of memory (as it was not a stand alone app but just an add on), on 2005 level hardware that had near-zero impact on in-game gameplay (you cannot have people lagging out mid Ragnaros attempt because the guild leader in Orgrimmar wanted to query the state of the raid). That's a hard system to balance because loads (processing, memory, and network loads) vary dynamically and dramatically.

...and is totally irrelevant. I did a really hard puzzle once too. That is also unrelated to MWO.

Quote

Apart from egregious examples, it generally is that way. It SHOULD be that way, and with a few simple tweaks it can easily be this way. Changing the cost of a few weapons and mechs is far easier than than changing and balancing quirks.

I'm always willing to give people's "Look at how awesome I am in real life" stories on forums a pass. But this here gives lie to that.

First, in order to actually get usable balance, you wouldn't only need things to be priced in order from least effective:cheapest to most effective: expensive, but you'd need the individual comparisons to work too (cost of medium laser vs its effectiveness tracks with cost of autocannon 5 and its effectiveness).

Not only is this not the case, but prices in MWO are utterly disconnected from effectiveness. You can build the very best mechs/builds in the game for literally half the cost of a random and totally usable build, while objectively bad builds can be 3x or more the cost.

It's not just outliers.

And that's just talking about equipment. Mech chassis? They are priced basically (excluding included equipment) based on tonnage. But particularly if quirks are removed, mech chassis are not equal. Hardpoint locations, hardpoint counts, physical geometry, hitboxes, and more all determine effectiveness of a chassis and are totally unreflected in the cost.

What's truely ironic is that there's basically two mech costs: the standard engine mech (which is around 8-10m c-bills overall) and the XL engine mech (which is between 13-15m c-bills after all. The more expensive mech isn't better (or necessarily worse, its just a matter of whether it has more tonnage for weapBut and more vulnerability due to an extremely expensive XL engine. Basically everything costs the same right now. Light mech? FF, es, XL push the price to 13m. Assault? Much higher base price and STD engine push it there. (God help you if for some silly reason you run es/FF/XL on an assault!)

Quote

Actually it does, just not as much as it should. And with a few small tweaks it can. It would be more intuitive (for both players and devs), it would be more flexible, and it would be easier for the devs than their current quirk system.

well, sure, if they changed the price of every single piece of equipment in the game, every mech cost, all to perfectly reflect relative balance, then sure.

But if that where easy, then balance would have been sorted long ago.

[Wintersdark]

TLDR: sure, it would be awesome if cost = balance, just like a functioning BV system would accomish much the same thing. But handwaving that off as an easy solution is no different than just saying "Well just assign everything quirks that adjust their power to be relatively equal."

[Kaisha]

Wintersdark, on 25 February 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

TLDR: sure, it would be awesome if cost = balance, just like a functioning BV system would accomish much the same thing. But handwaving that off as an easy solution is no different than just saying "Well just assign everything quirks that adjust their power to be relatively equal."

I read it, and what you're stating is completely untrue.

Just answer me this simple question. If CB cost of weapons/mechs/upgrades does not represent their effectiveness in game, then what does it represent? Why not just have every mech/weapon cost the same amount? What's the purpose of CBills?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kaisha, on 25 February 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

Just answer me this simple question. If CB cost of weapons/mechs/upgrades does not represent their effectiveness in game, then what does it represent? Why not just have every mech/weapon cost the same amount? What's the purpose of CBills?

An excuse for larger C-Bill sinks.....

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 February 2016 - 12:05 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Kaisha, on 25 February 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

I read it, and what you're stating is completely untrue.

Just answer me this simple question. If CB cost of weapons/mechs/upgrades does not represent their effectiveness in game, then what does it represent? Why not just have every mech/weapon cost the same amount? What's the purpose of CBills?

1) game design, gates progress over time spent.

2) because Battletech.

But really, just because things have prices doesn't necessarily mean better costs more. You may assume that (it's normal for most games) but like reality, cost CAN be an indicator of quality, but it can just as easily be practically random.

[process]

Cost is all over the place, and only in certain circumstances even begins to correlate to performance. Maybe heavier chassis. Maybe bigger engines. Maybe modules.

Weapons? I certainly don't think 1 Clan UAC 20 = 6 Clan ER medium lasers. And I certainly don't think that SRM 2 with a 3,000,000 cbill module is going to be worth much in practice.

Edited by process, 25 February 2016 - 07:39 PM.

[cazidin]

Kaisha, on 24 February 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

Balancing is simple, have groups based on mech costs, and not mech weight. So in CW you could have 4 mechs totaling say 40,000,000 C-bills (or 30M, or whatever). Likewise in quickplay the teams would be balanced so that the cost of the 12 mechs on both teams was near equal. That way you'd still have equal teams, while still allowing asymmetrical design. It would also allow more diverse builds, as things like single heat sinks, machine guns, flamers, or other less than optimal weapons and/or niche weapons/builds could still be useful due to a lower cost instead of strange buffs or quirks.

You have the right idea here but I think the wrong implementation. Base the metrics on Battle Value, not their cost, like it was on TT. There'd be fewer Clan mechs than IS mechs but they could be slightly more powerful to "balance" it out in Quick Play. In CW? 12 for the IS, 10 for the Clan.

Of course, it's unlikely we'll see this assymetrical balance but I like your idea. Great minds think alike, eh?

[brroleg]

Hit the Deck, on 20 February 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

How To Balance The Two Sides Without Quirks?

Tonnage limit http://mwomercs.com/...ime/page__st__0

[Adamski]

If you balance by tonnage / cost / battle-value / asymmetric teams:

Quickplay gets thrown off, or needs to be rewritten. (How do you level up / play your unquirked Summoner in quickplay against a Timberwolf, when their difference in value is <8% but actual combat effectiveness is closer to 25% different)

Thus, Quirks are actually a good idea, but in places poorly implemented, system for balancing mechs and factions.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Kaisha:

The idea that cost = superiority is simply not true. It is highly dependent on what the use is.

Take gold for example.

It's an excellent conductor. It's also very beautiful. It's also very expensive.

Just because it's expensive doesn't make it the superior metal for all uses. It's very soft, so for anything that requires hardness or puts physical stress on the metal, it would be the inferior choice.

__________________

As a note, BV suffers the same problem. It's an arbitrary value that doesn't reflect real-world situations.

That means, no BV formula can ever work as a balancing mechanism.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 25 February 2016 - 04:31 PM.

[Adamski]

cazidin, on 25 February 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

You have the right idea here but I think the wrong implementation. Base the metrics on Battle Value, not their cost, like it was on TT. There'd be fewer Clan mechs than IS mechs but they could be slightly more powerful to "balance" it out in Quick Play. In CW? 12 for the IS, 10 for the Clan.

Of course, it's unlikely we'll see this assymetrical balance but I like your idea. Great minds think alike, eh?

If you want to reset to TT values, and still have a 12 IS v 10 Clan, you would be looking at Tonnage Limits in the range of 280 for IS and 100 for Clanners.

That is using a rough estimate of the Lore Tukayyid fight for balancing without including the Clan bidding that reduced their tonnage further.
The reason I use the Tukayyid fight for the basis is because both the Clans & Comstar agreed to the battle numbers before hand, and Comstar was using Star League era Battlemechs with Endo / Ferro / Gauss / XL engines etc that best represents what MWO currently has available to IS pilots.

Any deviation from the TT means you may as well build on PGI's current Weapon Values and Quirks instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Adamski, on 25 February 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

If you balance by tonnage / cost / battle-value / asymmetric teams:

Quickplay gets thrown off, or needs to be rewritten. (How do you level up / play your unquirked Summoner in quickplay against a Timberwolf, when their difference in value is <8% but actual combat effectiveness is closer to 25% different)

Thus, Quirks are actually a good idea, but in places poorly implemented, system for balancing mechs and factions.

Quirks are great! They can even be used to in special cases to give a 'Mech that "edge" it needs to be competitive.

However, as a primary balancing mechanism they are terrible. Their arbitrary nature means that the more and bigger Quirks a 'Mech has, the further from actual balance it gets.

[Adamski]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 25 February 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

Quirks are great! They can even be used to in special cases to give a 'Mech that "edge" it needs to be competitive.

However, as a primary balancing mechanism they are terrible. Their arbitrary nature means that the more and bigger Quirks a 'Mech has, the further from actual balance it gets.

The arbitrary placement of quirks is the problem, not the quirks themselves.

ie: If Paul could remove his cranium from his ****** and do small balance passes frequently instead of gigantic system wide rebalances every 12 months. (Though Cheetahs keeping their leg structure for 4 months, while Blackjacks got their nerf in a hotfix after the Dec 1 patch, and the IS lost their ERLL edge after only 2 months to give the edge back to Clans {Paul & Russ forgot that TC1 gives cERLL 4% bonus while still leaving cERLL lighter than IS-ERLL})

Edited by Adamski, 25 February 2016 - 05:01 PM.