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.