146 replies to this topic

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Gyrok, on 03 March 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

A few would be decidedly less OP than others...however...all of them would be ridiculously strong immediately. Unless you are willing to part with all your precious quirks and play even tech trees at that point...and even then...those mechs would be still be OP compared to clan mechs because of many other factors...like infinite customization, single projectile ACs, STD PPCs, tighter SRM spread, higher DPH, shorter duration lasers, and many other things that are heavily in the IS tech tree's favor at the moment.

Removing the (unbalancing and unfair) Quirks from IS 'Mechs is part of the point.

This change can return us to a foundational balance where we can more clearly look at the weapons and make them more differentiated and balanced.

They are actually pretty well balance of themselves, right now. It's mostly that Quirks have muddied the waters.
_______________

Also, again, that customization is a function of construction (Omnimech/Battlemech) not techline.

[Homeskilit]

Got 3/4 the way through a response and the damn web page tweaked out and I lost it...try number 2...

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

Now THERE is a contradiction in terms. There are no "basic components," only "components." You are making up an entire category to try to base your argument around, and in so-doing you have stated "you can have any flavor you want in every place you want except you can't, as I have declared this off-limits because I don't like it."

At any rate, a Standard Engine is literally the same item across both factions. There is no "Clan Standard Engine." An XL Engine, however, is distinct from a Clan XL Engine. That's why there's a "Clan" appended to the name, or they'd merely call it an XL Engine. Just like ER Large Laser versus Clan ER Large Laser or Ultra AC/5 versus Clan Ultra AC/5. You want all of those to be identical, too? How completely tasteless and unimaginative.

You are right that MWO does not have "basic components" but I think it should. If we had components that were equivalent across both tech lines we would have a starting point for the "flavors" to go from and they would be easier to balance. Considering items like Endo and Ferro, what do IS mechs get in return for the aditional cost in crit slots? Nothing. What do IS mechs get for the additional cost in crit slots for our XLs? We get to die faster. Clan mechs get the better end of the stick in all forms of "flavor". Now an argument might be made for weapons, but at the same time Clan weapons cost less tonnage and slots than IS counterparts.

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

Okay, now I know you haven't read the thread because placing the durability buff into the engine is exactly what I've been advocating.

Also, it doesn't have to be quite as much as 2ST per ST, because damage spread. Doing that is OP as h*ll. We already tried 1.5 STs on the Blackjack, and even that was too good.

I have been apart of this discussion since page one. And yes it should be exactly 2 ST per ST. If you want Clan mechs to have 2 ST = death than IS mechs need to have 2 ST = death. Now if you want to have IS mechs die with the loss of 1 ST then that ST needs to be the equivalent of 2 ST. It would certainly be much simpler though to take away all the structure buffs and equalize the #ST = death.

Would baseball be fair if one team only got 2 strikes at the plate and the other got 3?
Would football be fair if one team only got 3 downs to achieve a 1st down and the other got 4?

Nope.

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

Equal in value is what they need to be. You do not need to be equal in operation to be equal in value, otherwise let's just pack up and go home, because all weapons should behave the same and all 'Mechs should look the same and all 'Mechs should move the same, with the same hard-points in the same places. Hell, just remove customization entirely, and place everybody into grey boxes with fixed weapons!

No one said weapons need to all act the same, no one said mechs need to all look the same. How would equalizing XLs across both factions remove any and all forms of "flavor" from the game? It wouldn't. And equal in value would mean #ST = death be the same for both factions. Now if you want that to mean each IS ST = 2 Clan ST then that is fine by me.

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

I am the last person you should be implying as a grognard. I am only concerned with the intrigue of the game as a game, and when it is a fact that the two engines can be equal in value without being the same in operation, and when it is a fact that the game is meant to have two equal but different factions, then anybody trying to make the differences less distinguished has an agenda aligned against the vision of the game.

I did not imply you are grognard, whatever that is. You said something like "iXL and cXL are that way because that is what they are" (cannot remember exact quote and at this point I am not going to go look for it) which to me reads as "someone said this is the way it has to be so we cannot change it ever".

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

False. Actually, not false, but you are failing to understand what "the rules" actually entail. I'll avail you: they include any and all mechanisms in the game, including equipment values and behavioral traits.

So why can the rules not be equal again? (#ST=death the same for both factions).

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

Baseball (Batting team is played very differently than the pitching team, and you can win or lose the game with either as both sides can be played offensively or defensively)

American Football (Similar deal to baseball)

Nosgoth (Humans vs. Vampires; slow and ranged versus fast and melee, has a comp scene)

Starcraft 1 & 2 (Do I really have to explain this one)?

DotA 2 (If you don't get this one, you are a lost cause)

League of Legends

Counter-Strike (The two sides have different weapons, different objectives, different char silhouettes)

And MLG status? Please. That garbage organization is single-handedly responsible for ruining Halo, one of my favorite games. I lived and breathed it for 11 years. Bungie spent three titles trying to undo the damage they did by listening to those inbred swine with Halo 2, and they could never quite get out of it because they had dug that hole too deep and now all the potatoes-***-l33tz expected that unbalanced, easy-access sh!t-pile in every subsequent entry.

Saved the best for last!
Ok, so, what you failed to understand about sports, is you cannot compare the offensive side of the ball to the defensive side of the ball. You must compare offense to offense and defense to defense.

baseball - Both sides get the same number of Innings at bat, strikes before your out, outs before your Inning is over, and bases you must touch to score. These are the same for both teams without fail.

football - Both teams get the same number of downs to get a first down, have to play in the same direction an equal number of times, and get the same number of timeouts. Again, outside of thing like starting positions (which are determined by the kickoffs and thus the players themselves) the same rules apply for both teams.

Nosgoth - I have no idea what this is

Starcraft - Not a SC player but I am pretty sure both players start on the map at the same time with equal resources and starting units.

Dota 2 - Again not a Dota player but I am pretty sure both teams have equal number of towers, building, units (spawn equally and at the same time), unit stats (unless buffed in some way by the players during the course of the game), players (even teams), and access to the same items.

LoL - See above.

Counter-Strike - Also have not played

MLG - What I meant was I wanted games that are played competitively on the World Stage (rather then some random indie game played by very few people). Such games, like most Professional Sports, ensure the competing teams and players are on equal footing and such that hopefully the games are decided by the player skills rather then rules or equipment favoring one team or the other.

Edited by Homeskilit, 03 March 2016 - 06:53 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Gyrok, on 03 March 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

You want a list?

snippet

Unless you are willing to part with all your precious quirks and play even tech trees at that point...and even then...those mechs would be still be OP compared to clan mechs because of many other factors...like infinite customization, single projectile ACs, STD PPCs, tighter SRM spread, higher DPH, shorter duration lasers, and many other things that are heavily in the IS tech tree's favor at the moment.

OP (chuckles) I have to remember to not take you serious in the future. Naturally you believe, assume, that the current structural quirks would stay the same, even though many have been posting about this many times, long before the quirks got a stranglehold on things.

I and others have been lobbying (shudders) for isXL to be approx same as cXL long before the structural quirks had taken hold. This is the one component that is treated extremely differently than the base version and the cXL version. Std, both IS and Clan, can have both side torsos removed and a heavily damaged CT and still keep going, and if equipped fire weapon located in CT or head. Clan XL can have one side torso removed but still be in the fight, firing the weapons left in the other side torso/arm, and for the few, head/ct weapons. Then there is the current isXL, it can have a heavily damaged CT and one side torso, but it it is destroyed if the other side torso is destroyed.

Right now, to destroy mechs.

Cockpit - both Clan/IS
CT- any engine - both Clan/IS
Both side torso w/cSTD or isSTD - no effect except removal of corresponding arms.
Both legs - both Clan/IS

Both side torsos w/cXL - Clan only
Only one side torso w/isXL- IS only. Too extreme considering it is the heart of a mech, and that a side torso is generally easier to target when compared to the cockpit or CT.

Now, if you are in that group that wants to keep XL engines the way they are, and have PGI continue adding structural quirks so it can last an extra alpha or so, so be it.

Enjoy.

[Y E O N N E]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 03 March 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

Been busy recently, but thought I should do the courtesy of a direct response.
~snipped stuff~

Because these giant point-by-point discussions are getting unwieldy, and because I do not believe you are appreciating the full picture, I'm going to change the format here.

To jump-off, I think you do have to talk to my subjective comment if you want to continue this discussion, because what we are arguing is not what is objectively better for the player, because it has been demonstrated that structure works just fine, but instead what we think is a better fit for the game according to our own personal senses of order. As a result, what the game is about, what makes it unique from other games, and what the game means to you as a player are very critical questions to ask. If the game to you is merely an equation to be solved, then I would say that your current position is inappropriate because consumer video-games succeed or fail based on emotional connection and mechanical satisfaction. You cannot ignore either one.

On that note, your stance is not actually any more objective despite your valiant effort to convince both yourself and others that it is. I will even stick my neck out and boldly claim that it is less so.

Using the only concrete baseline we have and the one that PGI themselves use, the Table Top values, we know that IS and Clans are not comparable under MWO's mechanics without changes across the board. You are therefore compelled to apply measured - but completely opinionated - changes to everything on one entire faction or more moderate - but still completely opinionated - changes to everything across both factions. You know this, and support this. Yet here you are, arbitrarily declaring that one piece of equipment for one side that is analogous but wholly distinct from a similar piece on the other, should now behave just like its opposite number. You say it is for balance, but we know we can have the balance without doing that, so that's a mere front. What you are really arguing is that it will be simpler, more elegant. That is outside the scope of your concern as a player.

Now consider the ramification of that last sentence:

What you are ultimately arguing is not for the sake of the game, it is to satisfy your own sense of order in the universe.

Now, counter-point: yes, fighting to let them be different can be argued to be for my own sense order as well, but that argument is weaker in this direction because the conceit of the game (and even the entire franchise) is that there are two very different sides to begin with. The makers deliberately set up this incongruity; it is part and parcel to the game, and any and all incongruities directly set up by this conceit have a right to persist if they can be made to work, and we have seen that this one can be made to do so. Because of that, removing it would be a brutal violation of one of the core tenets of the game.

Now, because we know we have to touch almost every item in this game with opinion-governed changes, it doesn't compute that you would expend so much effort to prevent this one item from also being touched by similar changes when you openly support them everywhere else. It's bizarre. It's unnatural. You are content to recognize that C-ERLL and ERLL are different items, with many subjective changes made to both to keep them equitable but distinct from each other, even though the only apparent difference is a "C" prefixing one of them. But when it comes to XL vs. C-XL, you decide that they should not be distinct from each other, despite the fact that there exists only this one identical apparent difference and, under the surface, the two items even more deliberately dissimilar than those two example lasers.

The integrity of your position is so compromised that it can't be maintained under the guise of objectivity. It's not about the game, it's about you.

Because of that, and because the original conceit of a given game is something I value very much (otherwise why have different entries within a genre?), I think it would be criminal for your camp to win the day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to scrub my reply to you under the spoller tag, Homeskilit, but this is getting really long:

Spoiler

Homeskilit, on 03 March 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Got 3/4 the way through a response and the damn web page tweaked out and I lost it...try number 2...


You are right that MWO does not have "basic components" but I think it should. If we had components that were equivalent across both tech lines we would have a starting point for the "flavors" to go from and they would be easier to balance. Considering items like Endo and Ferro, what do IS mechs get in return for the aditional cost in crit slots? Nothing. What do IS mechs get for the additional cost in crit slots for our XLs? We get to die faster. Clan mechs get the better end of the stick in all forms of "flavor". Now an argument might be made for weapons, but at the same time Clan weapons cost less tonnage and slots than IS counterparts.

.

We can tweak the way IS equipment performs to off-set its drawbacks relative to Clans. That is sort of the entire point of this discussion. Stock for stock, IS are not competitive with Clans. Every single piece of equipment in the game has to be tweaked to work. Ergo, there is no solid reason not to tweak XL by giving it armor/structure bonuses versus making it a cXL, because we're already doing that. The only reason you can give that I can't successfully pull the rug out from under, is that you don't want them to. That's a fine opinion, but it's not a strong supporting argument.

The reason we have factional archetypes is to be different. We can buff durability, tweak weapons, etc. all day to make sure that the Inner Sphere style has the same potential on the battlefield as the Clan style, but an isXL is a distinctly different piece of hardware than a cXL, and the difference is that one of them explodes on ST-loss and the other does not. As long as the utility on the field is balanced, you have zero objective reason to complain.

Quote

No one said weapons need to all act the same, no one said mechs need to all look the same. How would equalizing XLs across both factions remove any and all forms of "flavor" from the game? It wouldn't. And equal in value would mean #ST = death be the same for both factions. Now if you want that to mean each IS ST = 2 Clan ST then that is fine by me.

The irony in the statement.

Why would an isXL that behaves exactly like a cXL being the only way to balance the two not set the precedent that the only way to balance an ML with a C-ERML is to also make them the same, or a Gauss versus a C-Gauss, etc.? It is literally the same concept being applied in the exact same fashion.

You want to stamp out the differences in the engines because one of them sucks; why wouldn't you also want to stamp out the differences in weapons because one set also sucks? The gap in your logic here is so large that it practically separates our existence into two separate universes. Why is one of these items so irredeemable while the others aren't?

You do not have consistent policy.

Quote

I did not imply you are grognard, whatever that is. You said something like "iXL and cXL are that way because that is what they are" (cannot remember exact quote and at this point I am not going to go look for it) which to me reads as "someone said this is the way it has to be so we cannot change it ever".

We can't change it because having factional archetypes demands you not change it. Otherwise you diminish the difference between archetypes, and the sole purpose of archetypes is to offer a different way to play.

Quote

So why can the rules not be equal again? (#ST=death the same for both factions).

Ugh, sorry, but I feel like I'm talking to a broken record here.

Rules dictate asymmetry as much as they dictate symmetry. The rules of any game environment ensure that even seemingly disparate contestants have an equal chance against each other.

So the better question you should ask is why do you need XLs to mirror each other when the rules of MWO support them not being equal to each other.

Quote

Saved the best for last!
Ok, so, what you failed to understand about sports, is you cannot compare the offensive side of the ball to the defensive side of the ball. You must compare offense to offense and defense to defense.

baseball - Both sides get the same number of Innings at bat, strikes before your out, outs before your Inning is over, and bases you must touch to score. These are the same for both teams without fail.

football - Both teams get the same number of downs to get a first down, have to play in the same direction an equal number of times, and get the same number of timeouts. Again, outside of thing like starting positions (which are determined by the kickoffs and thus the players themselves) the same rules apply for both teams.

Unfortunately for you, you are still mistaken.

In soccer (fuutbohl, if you want), both teams are completely symmetrical in composition on the field at all times under normal conditions with the same immediate objectives. So it's easy to see the analogy there that "oh look all the rules are the same for everybody!"

In something like American football, the two teams have very different compositions within themselves, which square off cross-wise. When you scope down and look at each set of downs as a single match, it's an asymmetrical game between two radically different teams. Both are vying for control of the ball to make a touch-down; one of them starts with control and has to keep it, the other has to force it into their own possession by foiling plays. They contain an amount of cross-pollination of the other faction's styles, for fringe cases like interceptions or having to suddenly put down an interception, but it's not to the same level of affluence. Defense is typically more massive and is entirely dependent upon patience and close-quarters to control the ball, and the offense is more agile and uses range and aggression to counter. The set-up inherently favors the defense, since the risk is almost entirely on the offense, but the offense are given the tools and elbow room to have the same chance of success as the defense.

It is the rules which dictate this lopsided arrangement, and make sure that it's fair.

And yes, we can scope-down the game and analyze it like that because the rules have to be fair at every level for it to be fair on the whole.

Quote

Nosgoth - I have no idea what this is

Starcraft - Not a SC player but I am pretty sure both players start on the map at the same time with equal resources and starting units.

Dota 2 - Again not a Dota player but I am pretty sure both teams have equal number of towers, building, units (spawn equally and at the same time), unit stats (unless buffed in some way by the players during the course of the game), players (even teams), and access to the same items.

LoL - See above.

Counter-Strike - Also have not played

MLG - What I meant was I wanted games that are played competitively on the World Stage (rather then some random indie game played by very few people). Such games, like most Professional Sports, ensure the competing teams and players are on equal footing and such that hopefully the games are decided by the player skills rather then rules or equipment favoring one team or the other.

You need to play or become better-versed in other games; it's hard to have a conversation about the nature of game balance with somebody featuring such limited experience on casual-observer-level game theory with even the most current big titles.

Nosgoth: Google it. Not a major player like DotA, but a very good example of radical asymmetry. I was very good at this game for awhile, but I've atrophied.

StarCraft: the three factions each have extremely different building and unit requirements and roles. They do not play alike.They do not have the same capabilities. They check and balance each other. Those starting resources get applied in very different ways.

DotA 2: Like StarCraft, the teams are asymmetrical in capability and check each other. You have the same number of players and towers, but each player's character is so radically different that team composition its full suite of capabilities is difficult to predict...which is why it's so interesting to play and watch.

Counter-Strike: Most similar to MWO; the two teams have the same number of players, perma death for the round, round ends when entire other team is dead or primary objective accomplished. Game modes are of an attacker/defender archetype. You start with $800 in the opening round and earn more as the match progresses based on performance each round. Terrorists have a different set of weapons available to them than Counter-Terrorists with different prices, with only a few shared, and those weapons are quite different (Tech 9 supremacy!)

Rules aren't just about how many players are on the field for each team, how many bases you get, how many starting resources you have. They include the numbers that support concepts such as "this faction is fast and deals high damage, but is also fragile and short ranged and is countered by this other faction, which is slow and deals lower damage, but is very durable and has extremely long range." That is to say, the rules dictate style. Rules are meant to provide equal footing, but they do not always achieve that by making two competing sides behave identically. In all of the above games, opposing factions behave differently in major ways (actually, all could be considered as having radical differences except Counter-Strike) but those differing ways offer counters to the other side.

That's what we call equitable trade-off. The two sides do not possess the same capabilities, but the capabilities they do possess allow for them to check and balance each other, creating a fair game for all involved.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

Because these giant point-by-point discussions are getting unwieldy, and because I do not believe you are appreciating the full picture, I'm going to change the format here.

Let me begin by stating that your assumption of my reasoning is inaccurate.

I will also preface by saying: This is a video game, it's set up and regulated by rules that are simply agreed upon. That said, there's no such thing as true objectivity; the entire game system is arbitrary in that sense!

However, despite what you may think, my position is as objective as is possible. I have no attachment to a particular techline, a particular construction type, any particular ruleset or anything else. To me BT is just a word.

Now, on to the heart of your misunderstanding me.

The "ST loss = death" mechanic is a balance from a simpler build of this game. That is, a holdover from the pre-Clan version of MWO. In that game, the contrast between XL and Std. made sense like this and it was a simple way to implement an imitation of the "3 engine crit loss = death" mechanic from the TT rules.

With the introduction of Clans and cXL, the goal posts were moved and the IS engine choices became comparatively inferior.

That they intentionally set up this incongruity is a stretch, at best. It's more accurately considered an unintended consequence of trying to introduce Clantech in its lore-based superiority. Otherwise, why compensate IS for their engines at all?

The process to compensate isXL has led us to the current situation with Quirks. They are, and never will be, more than bandaids for the underlying problem. Further, they cannot ever really provide a consistent system, as they are arbitrary (decided upon) and handled 'Mech to 'Mech. Even if they weren't, there would be no good way to measure how "equal" they are because it would always be by subjective feeling. The correlates don't correlate under this model and can't.

Thus, this method of balance merely provides a veneer of balance, not actual and real balance.

I do recognize that this is a piece of equipment, albeit a very important one. To a certain extent, there is little difference between this and any other piece of gear.

Consider ERLL. The cERLL has greater range (or should), but also greater heat. This shows a ratio. I am of the opinion that both cERLL and isERLL should have the same ratio of range:heat. It's not currently the case, but that would cause them to be closer in balance without being closer in function.

From this perspective, I want the ratio between ST loss for XL to be the same for cXL and isXL. The only difference is that for engines the ratio range is much tighter and produces a largely identical function (perhaps with adjustment for the actual number of crits lost according to the formula 1/(X/Y)=% mobility lost on ST destruction, where "X" is the total number of engine crits and "Y" is the number of engine crits lost on ST destruction).

Your assertion that I want this particular case to be treated different than other tech balance cases is simply not true.

Quite the opposite: my position is that I want this to be treated the same as every other cross-tech correlate set and be subject to a normally applied ruleset.

Ideally, I would like to see them implement a full-on engine crit system. That would be the absolute best and fairest solution and would allow for instances where no torso must be lost for a 'Mech to die, regardless of techline. We could then tie the mobility lost to each engine crit and apply it to all engine types equally (XL, LFE, Std.).

But I fear that is cost ineffective from a business standpoint. And so, I turn to the simplest, quickest, most effective solution.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Addendum

@Yeonne Greene:

I can't help but notice that your arguments are starting to lean more and more toward "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

But that ignores the fact that there are good reasons to fix it:

• Meaningful and contrasted choices, for both techlines (as Std. is a non-choice for Clans)
  
• Prevent the arbitrary cycling of Quirks/other durability buffs to "compensate" IS engine choices.
  
• Remove the need to compensate IS engine choices at all.
  
• Provide a more equitable and level playing field across techlines.
  
• Create a system that is more in keeping with the original "3 engine crit loss = death" system.

None of these are addressed by simply reassigning durability buffs to isXL engines.

Additionally, your arguments ignore certain points I have addressed before. For example: the "3 engine crit loss = death" rule allows for a flexibility that "1x ST loss = death" does not. The former allows for situations where any 'Mech (Clan or IS) could have all torso sections intact and still die. The latter has no such possibility. The system we have now is a rigid oversimplification of the original intent and does not provide the balance or flavor it should.

Finally, the argument that we shouldn't change because what we have now is ok is never a good or valid argument.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 03 March 2016 - 11:51 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

We can tweak the way IS equipment performs to off-set its drawbacks relative to Clans. That is sort of the entire point of this discussion. Stock for stock, IS are not competitive with Clans. Every single piece of equipment in the game has to be tweaked to work. Ergo, there is no solid reason not to tweak XL by giving it armor/structure bonuses versus making it a cXL, because we're already doing that. The only reason you can give that I can't successfully pull the rug out from under, is that you don't want them to. That's a fine opinion, but it's not a strong supporting argument.

The reason we have factional archetypes is to be different. We can buff durability, tweak weapons, etc. all day to make sure that the Inner Sphere style has the same potential on the battlefield as the Clan style, but an isXL is a distinctly different piece of hardware than a cXL, and the difference is that one of them explodes on ST-loss and the other does not. As long as the utility on the field is balanced, you have zero objective reason to complain.

I have every objective reason to complain. Uitlity in the field is not balanced. An IS mech sacrifices 2 crit slots to a Clan XL AND dies in faster due to ST loss. How is that balanced? Where is the give and take we see in weapon balance? What does the iXL gain by giving up crit slots and less ST durability? SOME IS mechs gain structure quirks, but not ALL IS mechs do. And the ones that do gain it do not gain enough to equal a second ST. Why should the iXL be at such a distinct disadvantage to the cXL? Is that the entirety of the Clans identity?

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

The irony in the statement.

Why would an isXL that behaves exactly like a cXL being the only way to balance the two not set the precedent that the only way to balance an ML with a C-ERML is to also make them the same, or a Gauss versus a C-Gauss, etc.? It is literally the same concept being applied in the exact same fashion.

You want to stamp out the differences in the engines because one of them sucks; why wouldn't you also want to stamp out the differences in weapons because one set also sucks? The gap in your logic here is so large that it practically separates our existence into two separate universes. Why is one of these items so irredeemable while the others aren't?

You do not have consistent policy.

No, balancing the XLs by making them the same has nothing to do with weapons. An you can balance them any way you want as long as they equal out to the same #ST=death for XLs.

Funny that you chose the cERML and the cGauss, the two of the most imbalanced weapons between Clan and IS. The cERML sacrifices 2 heat for for 135m of range AND 2 damage (two considerable positives for one minor drawback). While the cGauss sacrifices nothing to gain 1 crit slot and 3 tons (two positives, one minor and one major, for no drawbacks).

I would not stamp out the differences in weapons as long as there as positives and negatives. Each must sacrifice something to gain something in equal amounts, then it is fine. With the XLs the Clan mechs sacrifice some speed and turning and gain a second life and crit space while IS mechs sacrifice that extra life for structure quirks on select mechs (the extra life being a ST). That is not a fair trade.

The gap in my logic...separate universes...sad you stooped to such levels.

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

We can't change it because having factional archetypes demands you not change it. Otherwise you diminish the difference between archetypes, and the sole purpose of archetypes is to offer a different way to play.

Yup, mech engines functioning the same would totally ruin the differences in two factions and totally blur the line between their identities to the point that they might as well be one faction.

Bit extreme.

I would say its the weapons and mechs that determine the difference in play style and the engines have nothing to do with it.

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

Ugh, sorry, but I feel like I'm talking to a broken record here.

Rules dictate asymmetry as much as they dictate symmetry. The rules of any game environment ensure that even seemingly disparate contestants have an equal chance against each other.

So the better question you should ask is why do you need XLs to mirror each other when the rules of MWO support them not being equal to each other.

How do the rules favor them not being equal to each other? Last time i check it was far easier to destroy a mech when you only needed to remove 1 ST rather than 2 ST, unless of course that 1 ST had structure quirks such that 1 ST equaled 2 ST.

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

Unfortunately for you, you are still mistaken.

In soccer (fuutbohl, if you want), both teams are completely symmetrical in composition on the field at all times under normal conditions with the same immediate objectives. So it's easy to see the analogy there that "oh look all the rules are the same for everybody!"

In something like American football, the two teams have very different compositions within themselves, which square off cross-wise. When you scope down and look at each set of downs as a single match, it's an asymmetrical game between two radically different teams. Both are vying for control of the ball to make a touch-down; one of them starts with control and has to keep it, the other has to force it into their own possession by foiling plays. They contain an amount of cross-pollination of the other faction's styles, for fringe cases like interceptions or having to suddenly put down an interception, but it's not to the same level of affluence. Defense is typically more massive and is entirely dependent upon patience and close-quarters to control the ball, and the offense is more agile and uses range and aggression to counter. The set-up inherently favors the defense, since the risk is almost entirely on the offense, but the offense are given the tools and elbow room to have the same chance of success as the defense.

It is the rules which dictate this lopsided arrangement, and make sure that it's fair.

And yes, we can scope-down the game and analyze it like that because the rules have to be fair at every level for it to be fair on the whole.

Why are we suddenly talking about soccer? And what if one team was allowed to go off sides and the other was not? What if one team was allowed to use their hands and the other was not? Surely that would create an imbalance in the game?
And then we get a huge paragraph of nonsense about football? What?
And the rules in football are fair because both teams are subject to the same rules on both sides of the ball (both offenses are subject to the same rules and both defenses are subject to the same rules).

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

You need to play or become better-versed in other games; it's hard to have a conversation about the nature of game balance with somebody featuring such limited experience on casual-observer-level game theory with even the most current big titles.

Nosgoth: Google it. Not a major player like DotA, but a very good example of radical asymmetry. I was very good at this game for awhile, but I've atrophied.

StarCraft: the three factions each have extremely different building and unit requirements and roles. They do not play alike.They do not have the same capabilities. They check and balance each other. Those starting resources get applied in very different ways.

DotA 2: Like StarCraft, the teams are asymmetrical in capability and check each other. You have the same number of players and towers, but each player's character is so radically different that team composition its full suite of capabilities is difficult to predict...which is why it's so interesting to play and watch.

Counter-Strike: Most similar to MWO; the two teams have the same number of players, perma death for the round, round ends when entire other team is dead or primary objective accomplished. Game modes are of an attacker/defender archetype. You start with $800 in the opening round and earn more as the match progresses based on performance each round. Terrorists have a different set of weapons available to them than Counter-Terrorists with different prices, with only a few shared, and those weapons are quite different (Tech 9 supremacy!)

Rules aren't just about how many players are on the field for each team, how many bases you get, how many starting resources you have. They include the numbers that support concepts such as "this faction is fast and deals high damage, but is also fragile and short ranged and is countered by this other faction, which is slow and deals lower damage, but is very durable and has extremely long range." That is to say, the rules dictate style. Rules are meant to provide equal footing, but they do not always achieve that by making two competing sides behave identically. In all of the above games, opposing factions behave differently in major ways (actually, all could be considered as having radical differences except Counter-Strike) but those differing ways offer counters to the other side.

That's what we call equitable trade-off. The two sides do not possess the same capabilities, but the capabilities they do possess allow for them to check and balance each other, creating a fair game for all involved.

I prefer to limit my PvP experience to one or two games at most (I play MWO and LoL). I do no feel experience in RTS and RPGs apply to PvPs so I neglected them. Thanks for bashing my apparent lack of gaming experience though.

Nosgoth - googled it, vampire stuff, yeah no wonder I've never heard of it. Anyway, one of the first things I read was that players are forced to switch sides after every match, much like offense and defense in football or baseball. Since both sides are played equally for a single match, this is fair. Maybe that is the way MWO should go.

SC - All three factions do have different build paths and units, but they start at the same tech level with equal resources and units. Clan and IS XLs do not start in the same place, one has two lives and the other one.

DotA 2 - Were not talking about the champs though, were talking about the resources at the champs disposal, were talking about things that both sides have equal access to. Would it be fair if one side only needed to drop an opposing player to 25% health to kill them and the other needed to drop to 0%?

CS - But everyone gets the same amount of HP right?

Rules include numbers that support concepts like style. What?
Rules dictate style. No, rules set the boundaries that style explores.
Rules are meant to provide equal footing. Yes, like dying to the same number of ST losses!
Equitable trade-offs. So Clans give up some speed for less crits and an extra life while IS gives up crits and an extra life for less health than an extra life on SELECT mechs? Totally does not sound equitable to me (In this analogy the extra life is a ST).

Why do you think that iXL behaving like cXL would totally ruin Clan mechs identities?

Edited by Homeskilit, 04 March 2016 - 01:36 AM.