220 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

So we are just going ignore a majority of Clan mechs "because"

...

Except those you don't think should be in the game....which sounds a bit like cherry-picking.

Because they apparently can't be balanced without screwing everything else up that currently exists in the game.

Why do such mechs need to exist if they're going to be terrible pieces of crap without absurd quirks and/or bending of the rules to insanity? Particularly if it's going to screw everything else up, the answer is they don't need to exist.

If you think it's cherry picking to not want to include mechs that would **** up everything because current game systems/mechanics would need to bend 1080 degrees backwards to accommodate them, then sure I guess I'm cherry picking.

Quote

And just because they are "viable" doesnt mean they are balanced. Since this is partially about engine balance, simply being viable isn't really a factor.

Viability isn't a factor...

I'm done arguing this point, it's not going anywhere further.

Quote

You mean like the Victor poptart era, or the Timber dominance after the poptart nerf, or how the Banshee with minimal quirks is still one of the best assaults? The main common imbalance theme between all of them, is that XLs give you too much reward for the risk.

And the solution is to give XL engines even more reward for the risk?

Aside from that, the poptart era was largely dominant because of high reward, low risk, low cost play due to jumpjets and 3x max range ACs being unbalanced as hell, and both the Timber & Banshee would not have been as dominant if PGI had gotten off their lazy asses and fixed long standing balance issues with the game a long time ago.

[Hit the Deck]

The more I see balance threads like this, the more I think that FPS BattleTech (MechWarrior) should stay single player only or PvE. Balancing Clan vs IS is just dumb because they are not meant to be balanced Mech vs Mech, tech vs tech, etc. But I like my MWO.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

Because they apparently can't be balanced without screwing everything else up that currently exists in the game.

Why do such mechs need to exist if they're going to be terrible pieces of crap without absurd quirks and/or bending of the rules to insanity?

If you think it's cherry picking to not want to include mechs that would **** up everything because current game systems/mechanics would need to bend 1080 degrees backwards to accommodate them, then sure I guess I'm cherry picking.

You realize the reason they some are bad is because the rules were already bent to insanity with battlemechs being as customizable as they are right?

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

And the solution is to give XL engines even more reward for the risk?

If you would read passed the first sentence of my replies, you would know that I don't think this should be done in isolation, I think the STD engines should have larger buffs (particularly in terms of structure).

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

Aside from that, the poptart era was largely dominant because of high reward, low risk, low cost play due to jumpjets and 3x max range ACs being unbalanced as hell

You realize that the beginning of the poptart era was actually not dominated by BESM, it was very defensive and stand-offish, and then dropped the Victor with the ability to mount a large XL engine, and suddenly it shifted back towards taking a large XL engine. It isn't just about the fact that poptarts were dominant, it was that some poptarts (fast ones) were better than slow ones.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 05:01 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

Finally, people need to stop thinking in terms of item vs. item. It's set vs. set, always.

Quite relevant. These discussions tend to involve a lot of "double dipping" on both sides - we get A because you have X! And then later... We need B because you have X! There comes a point where you need to accept that one side will have something simply better than the other side, and vice versa. Comparing individual weapons is useless.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

You realize the reason they some are bad is because the rules were already bent to insanity with battlemechs being as customizable as they are right?

Mechs were simply impractical to customize as much as you can in MWO though, it wasn't impossible to customize mechs to a very similar degree; that doesn't mean bending the rules to insanity. The biggest example of rules being bent in MWO is the ability to fit engine sizes of increments of 5 instead of the mech's tonnage in increments, and that restriction was removed because it was literally pointless in a video game where you don't move by hexes on a board.

Quote

If you would read passed the first sentence of my replies, you would know that I don't think this should be done in isolation, I think the STD engines should have larger buffs (particularly in terms of structure).

...Which is also an absolutely terrible idea for similar reasons, which I already said. Is there more to say on this point or is it finished now?

Quote

You realize that the beginning of the poptart era was actually not dominated by BESM, it was very defensive and stand-offish, and then dropped the Victor with the ability to mount a large XL engine, and suddenly it shifted back towards taking a large XL engine. It isn't just about the fact that poptarts were dominant, it was that some poptarts (fast ones) were better than slow ones.

So then obviously there wouldn't have been a problem with the unbalanced jumpjets and 3x max range ACs if we didn't have jumpjet capable mechs that could mount large XL engines. Let's complain about those mechs existing and then let's go on further to complain about not including dogshit mechs because they would ruin everything because that's not a double standard durr hurr hurf.

Edited by Pjwned, 17 March 2016 - 05:22 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

Mechs were simply impractical to customize as much as you can in MWO though, it wasn't impossible to customize mechs to a very similar degree;

It was possible to turn your Griffin into a Shadow Hawk, doesn't mean it was practical or good for this game in particular as we all know. Similar to how limiting Omnimechs the same way is not good for the game (thus forcing many to have quirks), or holding on to silly rules about engines is either. That isn't bending the rules, that is simply cherry-picking the rules that make no sense in this game which is probably the best thing MW4 did.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

...Which is also an absolutely terrible idea for the same reasons, which I already said. Is there more to say on this point or is it finished now?

Bandaids are just patch work implementations to fix broken designs, what I've been trying to suggest is a design change to fix the broken thing we started with, but people like flipout because I'm suggesting something to change the fundamental flaw with the engine balance we have now. It is also meant to help make engine usage not so dependent on hitboxes as well, which is unfortunately the case often.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

So then obviously there wouldn't have been a problem with the unbalanced jumpjets and 3x max range ACs if we didn't have jumpjet capable mechs that could mount large XL engines.

This is you dodging the actual context of my comparison, the point is that given the same OP weapons and tech, a mech that can mount a large XL compared to one that can't, the large XL mech wins. You are missing the forest for the trees here.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 05:32 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

While I won't disagree that the IS XL can be worse than the cXL provided the rest of Clan stuff isn't strictly superior, the problem is that still doesn't help the other balance issues with the engines since Clan and IS share the same STD engine (which doesn't have to be the case, but currently is), and even with making the iXL behave exactly like the cXL, that would still not solve the overall balance issue, the problem is, which is more likely to happen (and harder to explain why to new player the reasoning)? Making iXL and cXL functionally the same, or giving major buffs to IS weapons to offset the fragility of the IS engines?

Well, let me stop you right there for a minute.

You guys need to cease and desist with only considering "what PGI is most likely to do." I mean, yes, if it's something that so radically alters the core of the game that we might as well call it MWO 2, then it's probably not worth considering. However, PGI is going to do what PGI is going to do. By automatically assuming they will always take the quickest, dirtiest route, you do the game a disservice by trying to sell PGI on those particular solutions both here and over Twitter.

Instead of trying to sell PGI on the minimally viable solution, what we should be doing is trying to sell PGI on the best solution. What is the best solution? The best solution is the one that makes the game the most competitively sound (read: fair, balanced, skill-rewarding) and the most distinctive. It's not enough for a competitive game to simply be well-balanced, it has to stand out, else who is going to watch it? If nobody watches, who is going to sponsor it? So, what is MechWarrior's, or even BattleTech's, most iconic and stand-out feature? Clans vs. IS. That feature's attractiveness is predicated upon the two sides being very, very different.

To that end, it would be far wiser to maximize the differences between the two factions whenever feasible, because that's what makes the game interesting, not watching two teams shoot at each other with different colored lasers and SRMs that pretty much behave the same item-for-item. Buffing the durability on the XL using a scalar value is a feasible solution. You guys are already advocating that particular solution to make STD engines useful, so why change the method for XL? Whether or not it's the simplest fix is beyond the scope of what we should be considering, as per the first paragraph. Another feasible solution is making the rest of the IS gear perform well in some way as a foil to the Clans, making it worth the fragility to make certain builds possible (or, alternatively, worth the loss in speed to make other builds possible on STD).

Hell, a hybrid of the two solutions would be ideal.

Edit: And even if you want to pursue the ideas that PGI is most likely to implement, consider that they have historically demonstrated some level of attachment to the lore and intent of particular 'Mechs and items, etc. You have to appeal to that just as much as you do the math of the game, the latter of which I maintain is not the single most important aspect.

Quote

This is true, but only specific mechs had the quirks to pull it off, if all ERLL had 25% extra range then yes we could talk about keeping the IS engines fragile, but I don't see those weapons getting that much of a buff anytime soon either.

Doesn't matter if it was specific 'Mechs, think of it like them setting the precedent that we can apply wholesale to the Inner Sphere equipment with the appropriate values to prevent them from being overly overpowered.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 March 2016 - 06:38 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Wintersdark, on 17 March 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

Quite relevant. These discussions tend to involve a lot of "double dipping" on both sides - we get A because you have X! And then later... We need B because you have X! There comes a point where you need to accept that one side will have something simply better than the other side, and vice versa. Comparing individual weapons is useless.

If by this you mean the trade off for cXL durability is that IS get structure quirks then you are incorrect. Only select mechs get torso quirks and most of the ones that do don't get enough to equal a second ST.

If you meant something else, then what is the trade off for Clans having such a superior XL?

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 17 March 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

If by this you mean the trade off for cXL durability is that IS get structure quirks then you are incorrect. Only select mechs get torso quirks and most of the ones that do don't get enough to equal a second ST.

If you meant something else, then what is the trade off for Clans having such a superior XL?

What he's saying is that the trade-off should be that IS gear should allow the creation of more powerful builds in some role with an XL than what the Clans can field on their XLs in exchange for that fragility. Like I said in the post he quoted, we should be comparing and balancing the capabilities of each faction's entire set of equipment against each other, not the individual items.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 March 2016 - 06:51 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 06:32 PM, said:

Clans vs. IS. That feature's attractiveness is predicated upon the two sides being very, very different.

I wouldn't mind this, but PGI would have to be more picky about what mechs/equipment gets brought in to keep them from having too much overlap. I know you've suggested this before, and I wouldn't mind it, but at the same time I would be wary of it making faction vs faction too one dimensional (clans only being about pushing, etc).

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

It was possible to turn your Griffin into a Shadow Hawk, doesn't mean it was practical or good for this game in particular as we all know.

It may be the case that too much customization has caused problems, but it was either that or enforce stock mode all the time which would have been completely irredeemable garbage; either way that's not disputing MWO's mech customization bending the rules to insanity so I guess I'm right there.

Quote

Similar to how limiting Omnimechs the same way is not good for the game (thus forcing many to have quirks), or holding on to silly rules about engines is either. That isn't bending the rules, that is simply cherry-picking the rules that make no sense in this game which is probably the best thing MW4 did.

Seems like you want omnimechs to have all the advantages of both types and none of the disadvantages.

Quote

Bandaids are just patch work implementations to fix broken designs, what I've been trying to suggest is a design change to fix the broken thing we started with, but people like flipout because I'm suggesting something to change the fundamental flaw with the engine balance we have now.

It is a band aid fix when you ignore all of the consequences and then have to apply further ridiculous band aid fixes to compensate for the first "fix" for things that aren't even broken in the first place.

Once again, LFE avoids these problems and is the far better solution; don't think I need to repeat myself further on this point.

Quote

It is also meant to help make engine usage not so dependent on hitboxes as well, which is unfortunately the case often.

That's why mechs need to not have terrible scaling & hitboxes, as PGI has been told over and over and over ever since mech packs (starting with the Phoenix pack) became a regular thing, and I'm sure it came up before the Phoenix pack as well. Dodging this issue because you would rather eliminate weaknesses that make equipment actually balanced is not the correct solution.

Quote

This is you dodging the actual context of my comparison, the point is that given the same OP weapons and tech, a mech that can mount a large XL compared to one that can't, the large XL mech wins. You are missing the forest for the trees here.

A) That's not a given with every possible (relevant) scenario just because it was (partly) true for pop tarts back in the day.

B) That's not really relevant when the OP weapons/tech are balanced and then the problem no longer exists as a result. If there was a real problem with balanced weapons/tech that caused a high reward, low risk, low cost strategy to dominate everything like pop tarts did back in the day then you might have a point, but since that's not the case it's just another example of ignoring the real problem, e.g perfect, instant, pinpoint convergence alpha strikes are too powerful so LET'S NERF ALPHA STRIKES INTO THE GROUND...which is obviously not the correct solution.

Edited by Pjwned, 17 March 2016 - 07:36 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

I wouldn't mind this, but PGI would have to be more picky about what mechs/equipment gets brought in to keep them from having too much overlap. I know you've suggested this before, and I wouldn't mind it, but at the same time I would be wary of it making faction vs faction too one dimensional (clans only being about pushing, etc).

Well, it shouldn't have to be about one side being about pushing with the other side being about holding, and in fact it can't be because that's not a proper system of checks and balances; that would simply mean one side wins on huge map A, the other side wins on small map B. What the flavor ought to do is simply alter the method of executing a game at particular range bracket, rather than dictate which bracket each side is strong in.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 March 2016 - 07:33 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

What the flavor ought to do is simply alter the method of executing a game at particular range bracket, rather than dictate which bracket each side is strong in.

Which is good, but again, the way you do damage often dictates how you play so that needs to be kept in mind (burst vs PPFLD is good, but rapid fire weapons will always dictate push).

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

It may be the case that too much customization has caused problems, but it was either that or enforce stock mode all the time which would have been completely irredeemable garbage; either way that's not disputing MWO's mech customization bending the rules to insanity so I guess I'm right there.

Depends on whether we are saying limiting customization is bending the rules or not.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

Seems like you want omnimechs to have all the advantages of both types and none of the disadvantages.

Depends, on some of the Omnimechs, on some I would trade the ability to swap pods in heartbeat for hardpoint inflation and unlocked equipment. The best Omnimechs (meaning the best optimized) ironically have some of the best pod combinations to begin with which only exacerbates the balance problems between the Omnis and definitely made the rule of no hardpoint inflation seem like a stupid idea (especially when they kept giving the good Omnis better pods on top).

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

It is a band aid fix when you ignore all of the consequences and then have to apply further ridiculous band aid fixes to compensate for the first "fix" for things that aren't even broken in the first place.

I think you are focusing too much on the order of thing rather than what it is trying to do. You are simplifying the model so that most mechs die from CT deaths and shifting the idea of being more durable by directly buffing the internals so that no matter the hitboxes, it would be durable so rather than it be a conditional durability (conditional in the sense that it is only more durable if you lose 1 or both sides) you actually are more durable period.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

That's why mechs need to not have terrible scaling & hitboxes

Neither the Stalker or Atlas are terribly scaled or have bad hitboxes, yet both are deathtraps with XLs because of their profile.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

A) That's not a given with every possible (relevant) scenario just because it was (partly) true for pop tarts back in the day.

Except it isn't just true for poptarts, it is true even in the current meta. No one takes standard engine laser vomit instead of XLs because you sacrifice too much heat, firepower, or speed despite the option always being there. That is even with just IS and no Clan tech.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:

Depends on whether we are saying limiting customization is bending the rules or not.

I wouldn't say that MWO's customization is bending the rules considering it was still possible to do pretty much the same things with the original rules.

Quote

Depends, on some of the Omnimechs, on some I would trade the ability to swap pods in heartbeat for hardpoint inflation and unlocked equipment. The best Omnimechs (meaning the best optimized) ironically have some of the best pod combinations to begin with which only exacerbates the balance problems between the Omnis and definitely made the rule of no hardpoint inflation seem like a stupid idea (especially when they kept giving the good Omnis better pods on top).

That's not really confirming how it's bad to limit omnimechs though, that just says some omnimechs are bad.

That said, I do think some omnimechs could use some help by not always being forced with too much locked equipment (e.g unlocking otherwise hardwired jumpjets from non-S variants) or not being screwed by having objectively inferior upgrades (Summoner & Mad Dog come to mind with Ferro and no Endo) as long as these rules were applied consistently.

Quote

I think you are focusing too much on the order of thing rather than what it is trying to do. You are simplifying the model so that most mechs die from CT deaths and shifting the idea of being more durable by directly buffing the internals so that no matter the hitboxes, it would be durable so rather than it be a conditional durability (conditional in the sense that it is only more durable if you lose 1 or both sides) you actually are more durable period.

There's nothing wrong with having an especially fragile engine type that saves a lot of weight because the fragility makes it balanced. If you want a less fragile engine then you can have something that also saves less weight, i.e the LFE or even the STD.

Quote

Neither the Stalker or Atlas are terribly scaled or have bad hitboxes, yet both are deathtraps with XLs because of their profile.

It should be risky to take the most fragile engine type and put it in the biggest, slowest mechs you can get, so it's good that way. If you still want to run an XL engine in said death traps because you want a glass cannon then go ahead, that doesn't mean engines should be superbuffed so that your glass cannon turns into a steel cannon.

What about pretty much all light mechs not being good enough with a STD engine because they're either too slow or too weak? Is there a double standard there or is it fine that STD engines don't work well on lights just like XL engines don't work well on huge, slow assaults?

Quote

Except it isn't just true for poptarts, it is true even in the current meta. No one takes standard engine laser vomit instead of XLs because you sacrifice too much heat, firepower, or speed despite the option always being there. That is even with just IS and no Clan tech.

Again that's because overall balance is currently complete garbage due to quirks applied as sloppy band aid fixes to everything and other long standing issues remaining unfixed.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

What he's saying is that the trade-off should be that IS gear should allow the creation of more powerful builds in some role with an XL than what the Clans can field on their XLs in exchange for that fragility. Like I said in the post he quoted, we should be comparing and balancing the capabilities of each faction's entire set of equipment against each other, not the individual items.

Isn't that backwards though. Shouldn't the Clans be the fragile, speedy, glass cannons and the IS be the slow, durable ones?

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 17 March 2016 - 09:09 PM, said:

Isn't that backwards though. Shouldn't the Clans be the fragile, speedy, glass cannons and the IS be the slow, durable ones?

First, don't get hung up on the details, we haven't gotten that far yet. Just understand that sets should be balanced against sets.

Second, not necessarily. It could be that IS are specialists; they are slow, long range durable hulks or speedy glass cannon strikers, while Clans sit in the middle and are flexible enough to be effective against both. You would need different tactics for each faction. But, like I said, don't get hung up on the details, we're not there in the discussion yet.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 March 2016 - 09:37 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Edit: Screw it, don't really care who's right or who's wrong at this point because I do agree with Yeonne in making more tangible differences between factions. The only problem is that I almost guarantee that any sort of massive change like that would most likely require is going to both get serious opposition from PGI but also most if not all BT nerds, so at this point I'm just curious for the sake of boredom/interest/science.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 09:55 PM.

[Homeskilit]

IS having stronger long and short range? Clans in the middle with no flavor?

Sounds like you just flipped the each sides current status.

You want to make drastic, sweeping changes to the game when all these people want is for their engines to be equal.

[Wintersdark]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

What he's saying is that the trade-off should be that IS gear should allow the creation of more powerful builds in some role with an XL than what the Clans can field on their XLs in exchange for that fragility. Like I said in the post he quoted, we should be comparing and balancing the capabilities of each faction's entire set of equipment against each other, not the individual items.

This, exactly. There isn't a specific thing; there's a spectrum of things.

And it totally goes both ways. I'm not saying that either is OP or UP; just that when comparing faction balance you need to compare whole packages. Builds, faction wide performance.

[Duke Nedo]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

You do realize that they put small general quirks with larger specific quirks on during the first time, right? IS was still worse than Clans after the original big quirk pass, but we had idiots complaining about being penalized for not running the specific quirked loadouts - which was a load of bull because it wasn't a penalty, just an opportunity cost - and because the specific quirks prevented exactly the abuse you describe.

PGI knew exactly what was going to happen with general quirks and caved after being convinced they were wrong by the community at large.

That said, yes. We have to change the base stats on the weapons, and that is far more preferable to quirking all of the items on each 'Mech independently. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to go one particular direction to be useful, though, and that's something everybody has to keep in mind. Everybody should also keep in mind that we are not compelled to leave the Clan stuff alone, either. It is entirely possible that some Clan equipment is still so good that it's easier to nerf it than it is to buff the IS.

Finally, people need to stop thinking in terms of item vs. item. It's set vs. set, always.

Aye, I agree with what you write there too.

What I try to get at is the principle of the disconnect between the items being buffed and the problem being addressed. PGI are addressing tech imbalance (i.e. weapons, engines, equipment) by giving specific quirks to variants of chassi, variants that may or may not equip the engine type, weapon type or equipment that is the root of the imbalance. That just makes the practical outcome much harder to predict and IMO by doing this PGI quite often misses the target...

I want difference between the factions to keep it interesting, but I'd like engine imbalance to be addressed by changes to engines (pros and cons) and I want weapon imbalance to be addressed by changes to weapons (pros and cons), and finally I want imbalance between variants in terms of hardpoints and geometry to be addressed by quirks to the variants. That way the changes are applied where the changes are needed.

I'd like PGI to ask themselves:

What do we want to fix? and then answer How do we best fix that without changing everything else at the same time? Or in other words, isolate the problem, address the problem directly.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that by balancing like this, PGI makes us pick the least bad weapons, the least bad equipment and put it on the variant with the best HP/geomertry/quirks to end up with a competitive build. So by balancing techs with quirks we only partly get improved balance, and what we get comes at the cost of restricted viable choices.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 18 March 2016 - 01:06 AM.