220 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 17 March 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

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.

Reading comprehension is an important skill.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

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.

Let me bold that for you:

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

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.

Let me narrow it down in case you are still having trouble:

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

don't get hung up on the details, we're not there in the discussion yet.

Once more, for clarity:

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

don't get hung up on the details, we're not there in the discussion yet.

This is why I don't engage with you. You neither understand what you are reading, nor do you often actually know what you are saying, which was evident in our previous discussion about what game rules are and how they work. Have a nice day.

[CDLord HHGD]

What about a general engine health buff? Give the whole slightly better HPs?

Otherwise, no. ISXL should not have the same attributes as CXLs. End of story. Add in the other IS engines and give us more options if you want.

[Skarlock]

Lordred, on 14 March 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

The more I play, the more I am feeling that we really should make IS XL act like C-XL.

By that I am not saying it should take up less critical space, but only that it should gain the extra ruggedness that C-XL enjoys, lose a ST, and keep fighting, lose the second one, good night. This wouldn't render the Standard engine completely obsolete for the IS either.

We would need to use the same penalties the C-XL suffers from loss of a ST, or perhaps slightly higher ones to off set that the C-XL is clearly better then the IS-XL, perhaps a 50% speed reduction. (throwing wild numbers at the wall)


I am sure this is just going to bring out more fighting about X is OP, or Y is OP.

But I'm really coming around to the idea of making IS-XLs able to lose a ST and not be knocked out.


Fight on Forum Warriors.

In the past when IS mechs were vastly inferior? Sure. Now? Um, straight up no. I'll take structure buffs, energy heat reduction, and short burn large pulses over clan XL any day of the week. IS quirks overshadow clan tech base at this point IMO. The balance isn't horrible and I can do well in either style of mech, but I feel IS has the edge, no question in my mind, for their top tier mechs. Yes there are awful mechs on both sides of the tech base but the top IS mechs trump the top clan mechs in most categories.

Oxide definitely has weaknesses but it's probably superior to the cheetah for most maps (but not all). IS medium brawlers are pretty strong and can stand toe to toe with brawling storm crows, at longer ranges, clan mediums still have an edge probably. IS heavies such as the grasshopper and black knight are stronger IMO than the timber, ebon jag, and hellbringer at mid/short ranges, but not as strong at long range, yet the quickdraw fills the ranged spot as overall heavy long range king. As far as assaults go, Clans don't have a go to assault at this point. Dire is too slow an inflexible and is completely outclassed by the Battlemaster, Stalker, and Mauler. The rest of the clan assaults are either mediocre or in pretty poor shape.

No need to buff IS when they have the better mechs. I'm fine with buffing weaker mechs on both sides so they have some use, such as vindicators and the mist lynx. I'm fine with anything that nerfs lasers on both sides *by a smallish margin* so they are brought more in line with other weapons. I'm not fine with buffing the entire tech base so that the stronger IS mechs get even stronger, and the weaker IS mechs still go unused because of vastly superior options.

Edited by Skarlock, 18 March 2016 - 05:41 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

The poptart era, to be clear, consisted of the Highlander, Cataphract, then the Victor in the end.

Quote

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?</div>

In the above, put Clan lights/assaults and see how that works out. So the c-XL is superbuffed? Gotta!!!

This type of conversations should have been happening when the isXL was introduced but at that time there were lots of things we did not know that we know now.

Minimal viable product

HeatScale - only threshold then and now. Originally setup w/shutdown only. No penalties at or after 100%. Currently w/two options now - auto shutdown then if alpha passes heat mark damage to CT, or override shutdown and continue moving but have random sections take damage from overheating.

Ghost Heat - Added when override was also introduced. Set amount of weapons fired generates additional heat.

BRB

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 March 2016 - 05:35 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tarl Cabot, on 18 March 2016 - 05:33 AM, said:

The poptart era, to be clear, consisted of the Highlander, Cataphract, then the Victor in the end.

The play style differed quite a bit once the Victor came around though, no one is arguing what mechs were used, just how they playstyle for poptarts changed.

[Lordred]

Skarlock, on 18 March 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

In the past when IS mechs were vastly inferior? Sure. Now? Um, straight up no. I'll take structure buffs, energy heat reduction, and short burn large pulses over clan XL any day of the week. IS quirks overshadow clan tech base at this point IMO. The balance isn't horrible and I can do well in either style of mech, but I feel IS has the edge, no question in my mind, for their top tier mechs. Yes there are awful mechs on both sides of the tech base but the top IS mechs trump the top clan mechs in most categories.

Those over the top quirks lead to some of the problems we face with trying to strike a good balance however, I've always disliked the heavy handed nature of the quirk system, it takes a few mechs, and makes them far stronger then they should, but takes other poor performing mechs, and gives them only one way to play.

Skarlock, on 18 March 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Oxide definitely has weaknesses but it's probably superior to the cheetah for most maps (but not all). IS medium brawlers are pretty strong and can stand toe to toe with brawling storm crows, at longer ranges, clan mediums still have an edge probably. IS heavies such as the grasshopper and black knight are stronger IMO than the timber, ebon jag, and hellbringer at mid/short ranges, but not as strong at long range, yet the quickdraw fills the ranged spot as overall heavy long range king. As far as assaults go, Clans don't have a go to assault at this point. Dire is too slow an inflexible and is completely outclassed by the Battlemaster, Stalker, and Mauler. The rest of the clan assaults are either mediocre or in pretty poor shape.

This is only due to quirks, again, I would love to see lower quirks, if a mech needs quirks in excess of 10%+ then we have failed to achieve balance. (Here is looking at you many IS mechs with 30%+ quirks) We really need to reconsider what the problems with those mechs are.

You also have to consider that because of the Clan Heavies, the general speed of the fight has been cranked up, if you run a 4MP (~65km/h) Heavy, or medium, you are a liability. The speed of clan mechs picked for Wave 1 helped shape the game to where we are now. You need to have a 5MP mech (81km/h) or faster.

IS Mechs had two choices, run and XL (very fragile) so they could compete on a firepower level and move 5MP, or carry less firepower and run a STD. Over time, clan mechs got reductions in their firepower, IS mechs got structure quirks, and weapon quirks.

Where as, while yes some say it is too easy, if we just allowed the IS mechs to survive a ST loss using an XL (Remain 3crit per ST, I never said shrink the engine) we would have instantly a more balanced battle field between the techs, quirks could be dramatically reduced, or even removed on the best performing mechs.

Skarlock, on 18 March 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

No need to buff IS when they have the better mechs. I'm fine with buffing weaker mechs on both sides so they have some use, such as vindicators and the mist lynx. I'm fine with anything that nerfs lasers on both sides *by a smallish margin* so they are brought more in line with other weapons. I'm not fine with buffing the entire tech base so that the stronger IS mechs get even stronger, and the weaker IS mechs still go unused because of vastly superior options.

I am not trying to make IS mechs better then Clan mechs, and I agree that some of our quirks are just WAY WAY too much. I would just like to see what would happen if we flipped a switch turning quirks off, and making iXL survive a ST loss.

Edited by Lordred, 18 March 2016 - 08:19 AM.

[Nyte Kitsune]

No, No and No.. Part of what makes the Clans a threat to the Inner Sphere IS that their tech is better than ours.. They're supposed to be harder to kill and the IS mechs are supposed to be Inferior to them. If you don't like being the guy who needs skill to defeat what would appear to be a superior opponent, then get some Clan Mechs and play as a Clanner.. Problem solved.

Really, stop asking for things when the solution is easy.

[Hit the Deck]

Nyte Kitsune, on 18 March 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

No, No and No.. Part of what makes the Clans a threat to the Inner Sphere IS that their tech is better than ours.. They're supposed to be harder to kill and the IS mechs are supposed to be Inferior to them. If you don't like being the guy who needs skill to defeat what would appear to be a superior opponent, then get some Clan Mechs and play as a Clanner.. Problem solved.

Really, stop asking for things when the solution is easy.

Joseph Mallan..., is that you?

[Mcgral18]

Nyte Kitsune, on 18 March 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

No, No and No.. Part of what makes the Clans a threat to the Inner Sphere IS that their tech is better than ours.. They're supposed to be harder to kill and the IS mechs are supposed to be Inferior to them. If you don't like being the guy who needs skill to defeat what would appear to be a superior opponent, then get some Clan Mechs and play as a Clanner.. Problem solved.

Really, stop asking for things when the solution is easy.

That's a terrible solution.

[Y E O N N E]

Duke Nedo, on 18 March 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

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...

Well, that's why the equipment should be buffed when it comes to equipment disparity, rather than 'Mechs.

Quote

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.

Emphasis mine.

The bolded part doesn't make sense. Engines and weapons are part of the same category: equipment. As hinted above, there are only two categories: 'Mech and equipment. It's important to know this, because the 'Mech is just the empty shell. There are attributes to the empty shell which can make or break it, namely size, geometry, hit-boxes, but those have little or nothing to do with tech sets. Nominally, the single most important contribution a 'Mech has to its own balance is how many tons and slots it has available, since those are the attributes that equipment plays most directly off of.

Equipment is everything we stuff in there: engines, weapons, upgrades, utilities. All of those have slot and tonnage requirements, which means they all work together within the allotted resources. Ergo, a buff to the engine is an indirect buff to the rest of the equipment and, ultimately, the 'Mech they all reside in. This also goes in all directions, too: a buff to the weapon is a buff to the engine. If our guns are so good when we have sufficient weight available through isXL and we become so threatening that nobody can successfully exploit that isXL fragility any more than they could exploit the weaknesses of a STD or Clan build, have we not created a situation where having to gain the isXL boom characteristic in trade for firepower and speed is actually worth the consideration?

It's all a system. All of the items for each side come together to produce a final result. When you change one thing, you change everything and that must be accounted for, which leads us to...

Quote

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.

...actually having to buck up and change everything at the same time, because changing only one item at a time is the problem. Or, more accurately, only looking at one item at a time and not doing the due diligence to see how everything else gets impacted is the problem.

They are pretty much throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, only they are blind-folded and the community is spinning them around so they don't even always hit the wall.

Quote

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.

Well, my stance on quirks is this:

There is a nominal combination of value improvements for each piece of equipment in the IS stable that will make the set functional and balanced against the Clans (STD improvements would apply to Clans, too). Right now, those combinations are bound to the chassis, rather than as improvements the equipment itself. That needs to be rectified. Once you do that, the only 'Mech quirks you should need, and this is for both Clan and IS, are ones that add durability to offset bad geometry or do something special with weapons to offset exceptionally low hard-point counts (i.e. SDR-5V). That's it.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I'm too tired and short on time to write a wall of text to everything I would like to respond to point-by-point.

So here are the broad strokes:

XL function in MWO is specific to MWO. It is not a true reflection of TT rules that many love so much.

In TT, isXL had those 2 extra crits (1 in each ST). That meant that losing an ST always resulted in losing 3 crits and destruction under the 3-crit rule. But it also meant that cXL was more fragile than it is now.

In MWO we have "ST destruction" not crit destruction; and this is an entirely different system.

He's the clincher. For those of you arguing that isXL and cXL are supposed (that is, intended by the rules) to work differently, you're wrong.

In TT, all engines, regardless of type, weight, techline or construction were all equally subject to the 3-crit rule.

That is, engine destruction worked the same way for all engines.

In MWO that's not the case. In MWO we have a divergent method for engine destructibility. It's a wholly disparate and independent rule. Even if it is meant to imitate the 3-crit rule, it fails.

Those of you who love TT should be outraged that all engines don't work the same, not that some want isXL to survive ST loss.

Those of you who think isXL and cXL engines are supposed to work differently are wrong (according to lore and TT). They are all intended to survive/die under the same conditions.

Those of you who are clinging to MWO's current engine destruction system are arguing for imbalance without precedent. The system we have is an inflexible and distorted imitation of the 3-crit rule.

We don't need to adhere to TT values, but we do need to make things work in the spirit of the BT Universe.

And most of all, we need to consider in-game balance!

All of this, and more, is why we should make isXL and cXL function the same way.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 March 2016 - 04:14 AM, said:

Reading comprehension is an important skill.



Let me bold that for you:



Let me narrow it down in case you are still having trouble:



Once more, for clarity:





This is why I don't engage with you. You neither understand what you are reading, nor do you often actually know what you are saying, which was evident in our previous discussion about what game rules are and how they work. Have a nice day.

You got the passive aggressiveness down pat, you must have spent some time training with Bishop and learned his ways.

So while apparently my reading comprehension has failed me, your critical thinking skills have failed you.

What my post highlighted was the fact that there are no more variables to give the factions. There is long range v short range, fast v slow, and fragile v durable. They are all already in play and all you can do is rearrange them. You attempted that (hastily) and simply ended up with the factions current roles reversed. More to the point one faction ended up exactly where YOU have advocated avoidance of the boring middle with no flavor.

Do you think PGI, with their track record, will be capable of anything greater then what you've just attempted to do?
Nope, they will probably end up doing do exactly what you have suggested and we will be in the same damn place we are now.

The only thing i got from our discussion on game rules is that you have never played a competitive sport before. You compared offense to defense, rather than offense with offense. You also assumed the rules themselves give a game style rather than providing a fair and equal field for style to flourish.

[Gyrok]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 18 March 2016 - 06:36 PM, said:

I'm too tired and short on time to write a wall of text to everything I would like to respond to point-by-point.

So here are the broad strokes:

XL function in MWO is specific to MWO. It is not a true reflection of TT rules that many love so much.

In TT, isXL had those 2 extra crits (1 in each ST). That meant that losing an ST always resulted in losing 3 crits and destruction under the 3-crit rule. But it also meant that cXL was more fragile than it is now.

In MWO we have "ST destruction" not crit destruction; and this is an entirely different system.

He's the clincher. For those of you arguing that isXL and cXL are supposed (that is, intended by the rules) to work differently, you're wrong.

In TT, all engines, regardless of type, weight, techline or construction were all equally subject to the 3-crit rule.

That is, engine destruction worked the same way for all engines.

In MWO that's not the case. In MWO we have a divergent method for engine destructibility. It's a wholly disparate and independent rule. Even if it is meant to imitate the 3-crit rule, it fails.

Those of you who love TT should be outraged that all engines don't work the same, not that some want isXL to survive ST loss.

Ok, example for you brendarr...

Assume you have lucky roles in a WHK Prime, you hit a ST on a CTF-3D with XL280 engine with all 3 ERPPCs you fire, and you crit all 3 shots and hit the engine all 3 times.

Does the mech die? Yes.

Suppose you were in a BLR-4S, and through your turn, you manage to land all of your shots to a ST on that WHK and crit the 2 engine slots. No damage anywhere else.

Does the mech die? No.

Case and point: The WHK is now subject to heat penalty, but is not slowed down like they are in MWO.

Edited by Gyrok, 19 March 2016 - 05:51 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 18 March 2016 - 06:59 PM, said:

You got the passive aggressiveness down pat, you must have spent some time training with Bishop and learned his ways.

So while apparently my reading comprehension has failed me, your critical thinking skills have failed you.

Incorrect. I know exactly what you are trying to do, but I chose to ignore it because, like I said, we are not there in the discussion yet. I'm unwilling to spend the time figuring out how to differentiate the flavors of IS and Clan at this juncture because we haven't even agreed on what those flavors should be.

Quote

What my post highlighted was the fact that there are no more variables to give the factions. There is long range v short range, fast v slow, and fragile v durable. They are all already in play and all you can do is rearrange them. You attempted that (hastily) and simply ended up with the factions current roles reversed. More to the point one faction ended up exactly where YOU have advocated avoidance of the boring middle with no flavor.

Against my better judgement, I'll humor you:

There's also instant vs. over-time, hot vs. cold, light vs. heavy, and others that will assuredly come up if I choose to spend time with it.

Also, while my example was indeed hasty (it was just an example...remember, don't get hung up on the details), it didn't reverse anything. The IS are not currently slow hulks that soak damage, they move as fast as the Clans do. They have broadly the same range profile, and can soak quite a bit of damage even with an XL. I didn't reverse them so much as gave them a distinctiveness to begin with. Not that I necessarily chose the best ones, I was just throwing something out there to answer your question, and you chose to run with it right after I said, twice, that it is inappropriate to do so.

Quote

Do you think PGI, with their track record, will be capable of anything greater then what you've just attempted to do?
Nope, they will probably end up doing do exactly what you have suggested and we will be in the same damn place we are now.

This is where you go off the deep end, because A.) as I said in a previous post, it's not our place to try to work around PGI's limitations when spinning ideas B.) what I have done is nothing, and even then it's still not at all what we have now, because right now the two sides are more or less identical.

Quote

The only thing i got from our discussion on game rules is that you have never played a competitive sport before. You compared offense to defense, rather than offense with offense. You also assumed the rules themselves give a game style rather than providing a fair and equal field for style to flourish.

Then you still have an elementary idea what rules are and how they work.

Most games have smaller games within them, that's what I was talking about. That's where the term "metagame" comes from. The offense vs. defense is a smaller game within the larger game of football. Getting skilled at passing is a smaller game within the offensive side. Learning the most effective block patterns within the defensive side is another mini-game. The rules define how the game is played at each of those levels. The style of the game, as defined by the rules (i.e. there's only one ball), is that an offensive role cannot be countered by another offensive role. It compels you to work within the rules of the defense to score.

Rules set up the limitations within the game, and the limitations (and their distribution) govern the style of the game. Take the game "Evolved," for example. It's 1 vs. 4 in there. The rules say it shall be 1 vs. 4, and that the 1 has these capabilities and this objective, and that the 4 have these other capabilities and this other objective. And they make sure that both sides have an equal chance at winning. Or Nosgoth, which is 5 v 5 (I think, been awhile) but the Humans are slow, ranged, bound to the ground, fragile, and have no regenerating health while the Vampires are fast, can fly and climb walls, have powerful melee, are durable, and have regenerating health (and can replenish it from kills). The rules governing each, as well as the game modes, are set up to allow humans and vampires an equal chance at winning despite them having radically different abilities.

That's what rules do. What you are trying to tell me is that rules make sure each side has exactly the same number of players and exactly the same capabilities 100% of the time, and that MWO should be this way, too. That's juvenile, and not how all games are set up (that's not even how most games are set up), and not what Clans vs. IS is about. The rules should make sure Clans and IS have equal value, but they do not need to do that by making them behave identically in any way.

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 18 March 2016 - 06:36 PM, said:

That is, engine destruction worked the same way for all engines.

In MWO that's not the case. In MWO we have a divergent method for engine destructibility. It's a wholly disparate and independent rule. Even if it is meant to imitate the 3-crit rule, it fails.

Those of you who love TT should be outraged that all engines don't work the same, not that some want isXL to survive ST loss.

Those of you who think isXL and cXL engines are supposed to work differently are wrong (according to lore and TT). They are all intended to survive/die under the same conditions.

Those of you who are clinging to MWO's current engine destruction system are arguing for imbalance without precedent. The system we have is an inflexible and distorted imitation of the 3-crit rule.

We don't need to adhere to TT values, but we do need to make things work in the spirit of the BT Universe.

And most of all, we need to consider in-game balance!

All of this, and more, is why we should make isXL and cXL function the same way.

A.) You are trying to spin your personal desire for all engines to work the same as an objective necessity. Again. The method of making an item good being simple is not required of the game on any level where your concern for it has any relevance, so long as it is universal to all instances of that item.

Q.) isXL and cXL are not the same item in-game, so we are free to give them different characteristics if we wish. Unless you are advocating we make my isERLL behave and weight identically to the cERLL and my cUAC/5 behave and weight identically to my UAC/5, in which case I accept, but also acknowledge that the game has become bland.

z.) It's not in the spirit of BT to ever make IS behave more similarly to Clans before the equipment intended to do just that is on the field. We can't get around needing them to perform more similarly, but that's not the same thing as behaving similarly.

42.) Factually, game balance does not depend on making all engines with XL behave the same, and it still would not be balanced even if both sides had the same everything else simply because isXL are physically larger and most people supporting your ill-conceived idea also advocate greater penalties on ST loss for the isXL. In what world is that balanced?

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 19 March 2016 - 08:42 AM.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

Incorrect. I know exactly what you are trying to do, but I chose to ignore it because, like I said, we are not there in the discussion yet. I'm unwilling to spend the time figuring out how to differentiate the flavors of IS and Clan at this juncture because we haven't even agreed on what those flavors should be.

Wait, so you are allowed to ignore what I say but I am not allowed to ignore when you say?
LOL bias much?

Once you have made the decision that "each side must have flavors" your next step should be to decide what those flavors are. Yet you do not want to spend the time ffleshing out your own idea? Why?

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

There's also instant vs. over-time, hot vs. cold, light vs. heavy, and others that will assuredly come up if I choose to spend time with it.

Cool,.You came up with some awesome variables, on the spot, kudos.
The problem with this is, the more variables you add, the more variables there are in the equation and the harder it becomes to balance.

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also, while my example was indeed hasty (it was just an example...remember, don't get hung up on the details), it didn't reverse anything. The IS are not currently slow hulks that soak damage, they move as fast as the Clans do. They have broadly the same range profile, and can soak quite a bit of damage even with an XL. I didn't reverse them so much as gave them a distinctiveness to begin with. Not that I necessarily chose the best ones, I was just throwing something out there to answer your question, and you chose to run with it right after I said, twice, that it is inappropriate to do so.

IS only move as fast as the Clans if they run an XL. Then they die if they lose a ST, which means they are not as durable as Clan mechs (outside of the few select uber quirked mechs). Then we have to add a whole bunch of quirks that PGI cannot balance to compensate.

Both speed and durability are tied to engines and Clans have the far superior engines at the moment, and you want to keep it that way for "flavor".

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

This is where you go off the deep end, because A.) as I said in a previous post, it's not our place to try to work around PGI's limitations when spinning ideas B.) what I have done is nothing, and even then it's still not at all what we have now, because right now the two sides are more or less identical.

A. I agree, but only in the case of the exact numbers. We are free to speculate on ideas as much as we want.
B. How are the two sides identical? Clans have better engines, FF, ES, and weapons.

And you seemed to miss the whole point of that particular segment of my post, so i will try and give you an example that might help you in your critical thinking en devour.

Example: Community asked for a working heat scale and received Ghost Heat.

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

Most games have smaller games within them, that's what I was talking about. That's where the term "metagame" comes from. The offense vs. defense is a smaller game within the larger game of football. Getting skilled at passing is a smaller game within the offensive side. Learning the most effective block patterns within the defensive side is another mini-game. The rules define how the game is played at each of those levels. The style of the game, as defined by the rules (i.e. there's only one ball), is that an offensive role cannot be countered by another offensive role. It compels you to work within the rules of the defense to score.

What you fail to recognize is that both teams Quarterbacks and Receivers are subject to the exact same set of rules governing offensive play. Within those rules, the Quarterbacks and Receivers can do what whatever they want to advance ball. The rules give a fair and equal playing field and the Coaches and Players develop their Offense within those rules. This allows for different styled offenses.

If what you want in MWO were to be applied to the NFL in an attempt to create flavor, certain teams would be limited in the number of Receivers they have on the field, or the number of pass/run plays they can use in a game/possession.

Do you see what you have done? In an attempt to create "flavor" through rules you have locked teams into a given style. Rather rules should be equal to both teams and the teams themselves should be allowed to create their own styles within those rules.

A great real world example is the Golden State Warriors. They have revolutionized the way basketball is played and not a single rule was changed for that to occur, because the rules are fair and equal and allow for new styles to emerge.

If you had been in charge of the NBA, you would have instituted rules that that forced certain teams to play certain styles so that the NBA would have "flavor".

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

That's what rules do. What you are trying to tell me is that rules make sure each side has exactly the same number of players and exactly the same capabilities 100% of the time, and that MWO should be this way, too. That's juvenile, and not how all games are set up (that's not even how most games are set up), and not what Clans vs. IS is about. The rules should make sure Clans and IS have equal value, but they do not need to do that by making them behave identically in any way.

Team must have the same number of players and the equipment available to them must be equal in power. Right now the first is true and the second is not.

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

You never answered my challenge that you have never played a competitive sport so I must assume the accusation is true.

Edited by Homeskilit, 19 March 2016 - 02:30 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

A.) You are trying to spin your personal desire for all engines to work the same as an objective necessity. Again. The method of making an item good being simple is not required of the game on any level where your concern for it has any relevance, so long as it is universal to all instances of that item.

That's a straw man response.

I merely pointed out the inconsistency between TT and MWO while stating that even if we don't use TT values, the best way to address this problem is to make them function the same way.

Other proposed solutions are all fraught with problems that either exacerbate the current and underlying issues or are entirely new.

On the other hand, making isXL survive ST loss largely mitigates and solves balance issue without creating new problems.

It's the best solution from the standpoints of simplicity, fairness, effectiveness and business.

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

Q.) isXL and cXL are not the same item in-game, so we are free to give them different characteristics if we wish. Unless you are advocating we make my isERLL behave and weight identically to the cERLL and my cUAC/5 behave and weight identically to my UAC/5, in which case I accept, but also acknowledge that the game has become bland.

That would be arguing for a slippery slope. That's a trap and I'm not falling into it.

Making one change does not necessitate another. We can take balance item-by-item, and should.

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

z.) It's not in the spirit of BT to ever make IS behave more similarly to Clans before the equipment intended to do just that is on the field. We can't get around needing them to perform more similarly, but that's not the same thing as behaving similarly.

First, this ignores that precedential rules clearly show that they are all equally subject to the same conditions for destruction.

That is, the rule comes 1st and the equipment variances after. It's just that isXL as a particular engine has 3 crits all in 1 ST. So, ST destruction always results in death, even though it is adhering to the rules. On the other hand, cXL has just 2 crits in an ST and so survives ST loss.

Yet, either 'Mech may have been destroyed without ever losing an ST under the 3-crit rule.

It's just the unfortunate design of MWO's ST loss rule that prevents any kind of middle-ground situation like this. That needs rectifying.

I'm not saying that we need to go back to the (relative) fragility of the 3-crit rule, but it is a fairer system. If we don't go back, we need to go forward and make an equally fair system.

Also, how are you distinguishing between "perform" and "behave"? If you mean that the way they behave is the conditions that are required for death, then that dictates their performance, if by performance you mean how they "play" in-game.

The thing that is boosting their performance is not the engine at all, but a disparate set of buffs (current title Quirks, though they are completely generic).

Strip of the Quirks and what are you left with? Something completely unacceptable.

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

42.) Factually, game balance does not depend on making all engines with XL behave the same, and it still would not be balanced even if both sides had the same everything else simply because isXL are physically larger and most people supporting your ill-conceived idea also advocate greater penalties on ST loss for the isXL. In what world is that balanced?

I would have the penalties be the same.

Most argue for (slightly) more severe penalties in the name of "flavor" and "lore".

A simple formula shows us the answer:
X/Y = % penalty.
X = # crits lost on ST destruction
Y = total # of crits used by engine

For cXL that comes out to -20%.
For isXL that comes out to -25%.

That 5% is a marginal difference, so the concern of imbalance of penalty is really a non-issue.

As for how to make up this gap, other equipment can be marginally different, too. It's easy to make up a small gap but near impossible to make up a big one (such as we have now).

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 19 March 2016 - 05:52 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Gyrok, on 19 March 2016 - 05:49 AM, said:

Ok, example for you brendarr...

Assume you have lucky roles in a WHK Prime, you hit a ST on a CTF-3D with XL280 engine with all 3 ERPPCs you fire, and you crit all 3 shots and hit the engine all 3 times.

Does the mech die? Yes.

Suppose you were in a BLR-4S, and through your turn, you manage to land all of your shots to a ST on that WHK and crit the 2 engine slots. No damage anywhere else.

Does the mech die? No.

Case and point: The WHK is now subject to heat penalty, but is not slowed down like they are in MWO.

One hypothetical situation does not an argument make.

I can return you this under the 3-crit rule:

Let's say you're in that Cataphract and you're armor is all gone from brawling. That Warhawk hits you with the same 3 ERPPCs and yet again they all crit. But instead of getting hit all on the ST, you manage to roll the damage and only 2 engine crits are destroyed in your ST, but 1 is also destroyed in your CT.

You still die.

Take the same situation in the Warhawk. You still die.

Under those conditions, cXL or isXL both die. That's the difference.

And I can give you plenty of hypotheticals under the 3-crit rule that are impossible in MWO right now.

[Y E O N N E]

Spoiler

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 19 March 2016 - 05:51 PM, said:

That's a straw man response.

I merely pointed out the inconsistency between TT and MWO while stating that even if we don't use TT values, the best way to address this problem is to make them function the same way.

No, that is a straw-man response.

You are not "merely" pointing it out, you are using it as a supporting point in arguing that isXL should behave like cXL. You can say you came up with it for reasons X, Y, or Z, but factually it's still ultimately borne of your desire to have it your way and that is driving this conversation because, again factually, what you are supporting is not necessary for the game to be balanced. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that. It is proven fact. We've seen it. The only thing you are arguing for is tidiness, which is not your place because it has no impact in the game itself that you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt.

Quote

Other proposed solutions are all fraught with problems that either exacerbate the current and underlying issues or are entirely new.

You mean problems that will continue to persist because you still support using the same methods I propose to balance isXL to balance every other item in the game?

You haven't fixed diddly squat. Trying to make it tidy for one item is a drop in the bucket and not worth pursuing in light of the sacrifice necessary to the spirit of the game.

Quote

On the other hand, making isXL survive ST loss largely mitigates and solves balance issue without creating new problems.

It's the best solution from the standpoints of simplicity, fairness, effectiveness and business.

Simplicity is not your concern, fairness does not require this change, effectiveness is factually false, and it's worse for business because it undermines the core conceit of the game.

Quit treating it like a simple math problem, because it's not.

Quote

That would be arguing for a slippery slope. That's a trap and I'm not falling into it.

Making one change does not necessitate another. We can take balance item-by-item, and should.

Then, factually, your position has zero integrity. You admit that it's okay to balance one way for everything else, but this one item is exceptional despite it not being fundamentally disparate from the rest of the equipment set. The engine is no more or less important than everything else, they all feed into one another, thinking it is more important is an artefact of your imagination. If the IS weapons become good to a certain high degree when combined with the benefits of isXL, that it's no longer any easier to kill the isXL-equipped IS 'Mech than the cXL-equipped Clan 'Mech, then the fragility of isXL is no longer a problem except in your head.

Quote

First, this ignores that precedential rules clearly show that they are all equally subject to the same conditions for destruction.

Yes it does. But those rules do not exist in MWO. What happened to you not caring about BT at all? Pick one.

Quote

That is, the rule comes 1st and the equipment variances after.

Using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, the latter of which is that isXL are supposed to be a hefty risk-reward consideration for the IS faction, and is one of the things that sets them apart from the Clans. You are taking that away, all to satisfy your own demand for neat, tidy balance. Balance doesn't have to be tidy, and still won't be because of everything else.

Quote

It's just that isXL as a particular engine has 3 crits all in 1 ST. So, ST destruction always results in death, even though it is adhering to the rules. On the other hand, cXL has just 2 crits in an ST and so survives ST loss.

Yet, either 'Mech may have been destroyed without ever losing an ST under the 3-crit rule.

It's just the unfortunate design of MWO's ST loss rule that prevents any kind of middle-ground situation like this. That needs rectifying.

I'm not saying that we need to go back to the (relative) fragility of the 3-crit rule, but it is a fairer system. If we don't go back, we need to go forward and make an equally fair system.

You keep using the word "need," but that word is agnostic to the solution. Your solution does not fulfill the need any better than the alternative.

Quote

Also, how are you distinguishing between "perform" and "behave"? If you mean that the way they behave is the conditions that are required for death, then that dictates their performance, if by performance you mean how they "play" in-game.

Simple example:

Let's say you and I have the same performance value. That is, our potential on the field is the same. However, the behavior of my equipment favors range, while the behavior of your equipment favors DPS. The gaps in my fire are large enough for you to move up leaping from cover to cover. You'll take some damage coming in, but eventually you will get in range and your advantage will start making up for lost time. In a perfectly executed scenario, we would both kill each other at exactly the same time.

That's the difference. Performance is the value on the field, behavior is the method used to achieve that value. You can always tweak behavior to affect performance. What we are trying to do is tweak the behavior of isXL to earn the same value on the field as cXL. Making the two behave identically is the easiest way, but far from the best way because it sacrifices too much.

Quote

The thing that is boosting their performance is not the engine at all, but a disparate set of buffs (current title Quirks, though they are completely generic).

Strip of the Quirks and what are you left with? Something completely unacceptable.

That goes for every other item in the game, which you support improving with what are essentially item-bound quirks.

You cannot have it both ways and hope to even begin to influence my position.

Quote

I would have the penalties be the same.

Well, at least you have that going for you.

Most argue for (slightly) more severe penalties in the name of "flavor" and "lore".

A simple formula shows us the answer:
X/Y = % penalty.
X = # crits lost on ST destruction
Y = total # of crits used by engine

For cXL that comes out to -20%.
For isXL that comes out to -25%.

Quote

That 5% is a marginal difference, so the concern of imbalance of penalty is really a non-issue.

5% is indeed a marginal difference, and as such is also not enough for flavor. Do you begin to see the problem, now?

Quote

As for how to make up this gap, other equipment can be marginally different, too. It's easy to make up a small gap but near impossible to make up a big one (such as we have now).

No, apparently you do not see the problem.

Marginal differences is not what we're after. We are after large differences in style, because otherwise who cares? Yes, I shoot a green laser, you shoot a yellow one, but we both have the same effective range, same damage over time, same heat over time when the whole system is taken into account. That's not interesting, that's asinine.

And impossible to make up a large gap? Pure fiction. What do you think you do when you equip small pulse and then trash a Large Laser boat? What do you think you do when you slap 5x AC/5 on a Mauler and then blow away a DakkaWolf? Are those not large gaps in range and Alpha/DPS, respectively? What do you think you do when you take down a Heavy while playing a Light? Is that not a large gap in, well, everything except speed? Or when you are in an Assault and take down a Light despite the lack of said speed?

This is no different. We needn't even give isXL durability, let alone execute your idea, if we want to make the rest of the IS equipment incredibly dangerous.

Spoiler

Homeskilit, on 19 March 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

Wait, so you are allowed to ignore what I say but I am not allowed to ignore when you say?
LOL bias much?

Difference being you are the instigator and I am not. I was just trying to answer your initial question, you decided to try to force the discussion into an area I was not ready to go, to defend an example I made off-the-cuff that I was implying was not meant to be interpreted as the exact direction I think the game should go (critical thinking much?).

Quote

Once you have made the decision that "each side must have flavors" your next step should be to decide what those flavors are. Yet you do not want to spend the time ffleshing out your own idea? Why?

Why? Because if we can't even agree that there should be styles, why should I bother to discuss what they might be on an open forum when most of our time will be spent arguing the former instead of discussing the latter? Why am I not allowed to throw a hasty example out and let it be a hasty example? Why are you even trying to dissect a hasty example? That's like doing a critique on the raggedy artwork school-teachers draw on chalk-boards to try and illustrate a concept to their students.

It's simply not productive.

Quote

Cool,.You came up with some awesome variables, on the spot, kudos.
The problem with this is, the more variables you add, the more variables there are in the equation and the harder it becomes to balance.

I'm not adding the variables, they already exist. But if the challenge of figuring out how to balance them is too frightening to you, perhaps you aren't qualified to be in this discussion it in the first place.

Quote

IS only move as fast as the Clans if they run an XL. Then they die if they lose a ST, which means they are not as durable as Clan mechs (outside of the few select uber quirked mechs). Then we have to add a whole bunch of quirks that PGI cannot balance to compensate.

IS 'Mechs die when they lose an ST, yes. That requires them to first lose an ST.

There are many, many, many competitive-tier IS 'Mechs that require enough effort to take that ST that they are a match for their Clan counterparts within their strong brackets.

You can turn the nominal level of durability quirks that make this a reality into a scalar value on the engine itself that buffs the 'Mech it sits in by some percentage. This will be enough for whatever we define as the average 'Mech. There will still be 'Mechs, on both sides, that need to have their own independent quirks to be competitive.

You can also turn the weapon quirks that make this into a reality into improvements to the base weapons themselves to help it along. Actually, you could theoretically forego isXL changes in any form and just make the weapons so good that it takes just as much effort to pop that ST because the offensive threat-level is so high. Glass cannons, glass cannons everywhere, but glass cannons that are so dangerous that they are actually worthy of the latter part of that moniker.

Quote

Both speed and durability are tied to engines and Clans have the far superior engines at the moment, and you want to keep it that way for "flavor".

They don't have a significant speed advantage at the top, they don't even have an agility advantage.

Offensive ability is also tied to engine, and right now the Clans have an advantage there, too. I'm advocating that we try tweaking the offensive components more heavily. Vanilla IS ACs fire way too slow, both in velocity and rate of fire, to be useful for their tonnage. Stock IS lasers fire way too hot and way too slow to not get overpowered even within their own range brackets.

There's a lot of stuff we can do to make IS the equal to Clans without resorting to marginally different equipment. Why wouldn't you just argue for allowing mix-tech at this point? It's far simpler than either of our solutions, and I actually would support it simply because if we're really doing this to try to tidy up balance, that is the only logical solution.

Quote

A. I agree, but only in the case of the exact numbers. We are free to speculate on ideas as much as we want.
B. How are the two sides identical? Clans have better engines, FF, ES, and weapons.

And you seemed to miss the whole point of that particular segment of my post, so i will try and give you an example that might help you in your critical thinking en devour.

Example: Community asked for a working heat scale and received Ghost Heat.

Actually, my original point A addressed that last snipe directly. So now not only do you fail at reading comprehension, you also embarrass yourself by not applying that vaunted critical thinking you are accusing me of lacking. Not surprising, since reading comprehension itself requires some level of critical thinking. If you refuse to go find the post where I addressed it, that's your problem, not mine.

Besides, the community also asked for a useful, working flamer and received one. They asked for PPC improvements, and they are getting them, even if small. They asked for a Kodiak, and they are getting it. They asked for a reworked River City, they got it. They wanted the phantom geo fixed on Tourmaline, it happened. They wanted the same thing on Bog, that happened too. Obstructions have seen many reductions, there. They wanted the f*cking fog removed on Bog, and that also happened. Finally, Ghost Heat may be a clunky solution, but if the choice is that or the current system with nothing at all, I choose Ghost Heat.

At any rate:

A.) My point was that many in here are limiting their ideas based on what they think PGI will be willing do which, as long as we're not discussing something really zany, is flawed because PGI will do what they do regardless whether or not our ideas are the best ones and because PGI has also shown that they do have some level of attachment to the lore; that last bit is something many of you are flagrantly ignoring when you might be more successful if you play to it, instead.

B.) Looking at what's used at or near the top? IS 'Mechs run just as fast, have just as much range, have just as much firepower, have similar heat management, and require just as much effort to kill as their Clan counterparts. On paper, sure, they look way different. Once you factor in the quirks? Nah. Quirked IS LL boats are the equal and superior to cERML boats, often even competing with the cLPL. The Oxide is actually better than the JR7-IIC. FS9 with MPL is the equal to the cSPL ACH. Black Knight competes (favorably) with the TBR at the medium range bracket. Grasshopper, too, though that one is actually more evenly balanced than the BL-KNT. Storm Crow vs. Blackjack, fairly even right now (slight edge back to Crow). Yes, it's preferable to minimize quirks and when talking about balance it's done under the assumption that we're starting from a fresh slate, but this particular point was responding to a statement about how the game currently is, and in the current game there's not that much of a difference in the what and how of each faction's strong suits when you choose the right tools.

Quote

What you fail to recognize is that both teams Quarterbacks and Receivers are subject to the exact same set of rules governing offensive play. Within those rules, the Quarterbacks and Receivers can do what whatever they want to advance ball. The rules give a fair and equal playing field and the Coaches and Players develop their Offense within those rules. This allows for different styled offenses.

Please, you are making my point for me.

Within the rules given to the IS and Clans, respectively, they can do whatever they want to win the match. IS 'Mechs are all subject to the same set of rules governing IS play, Clans for Clan play.

Quote

If what you want in MWO were to be applied to the NFL in an attempt to create flavor, certain teams would be limited in the number of Receivers they have on the field, or the number of pass/run plays they can use in a game/possession.

If what I want were applied to the NFL, the NFL would remain unchanged because it's already there; Receivers, Fullbacks, Quarterbacks, and such are not the same thing as Linebackers, Cornerbacks, or Safeties. Each of those positions has a different role, defined by the rules...rules which are not necessarily the same as the rules that other positions are constrained to, though there is significant overlap.

Quote

Do you see what you have done? In an attempt to create "flavor" through rules you have locked teams into a given style. Rather rules should be equal to both teams and the teams themselves should be allowed to create their own styles within those rules.

Err, missing the point of style, which by definition constrains something to a particular set of capabilities in the first place. Style is "a manner of doing something," not "all the manners of doing something," which would be styles. If both sides have all the styles, we don't really have a faction style, do we?

And would you say that Starcraft, a game often hailed as the epitome of balanced play, is wrong to force players into specific methods of play depending on their chosen faction? Because that's at the core of StarCrafts play, just like the distinctiveness between Clans and IS is at the core of MechWarrior.

Quote

A great real world example is the Golden State Warriors. They have revolutionized the way basketball is played and not a single rule was changed for that to occur, because the rules are fair and equal and allow for new styles to emerge.

If you had been in charge of the NBA, you would have instituted rules that that forced certain teams to play certain styles so that the NBA would have "flavor".

That's a terrible example, because no I wouldn't have. Having a a dramatic difference in specific capabilities for each side is not part of the core conceit for basketball like it is for BattleTech/MechWarrior.

What you want to do is take all of the strong points for the IS and combine them with the strong points for Clans, because you are blindly hell-bent on min-maxing the living daylights out of your pet 'Mech, whatever it is. See, look, I can make weakly substantiated claims against you, too!

Quote

Team must have the same number of players and the equipment available to them must be equal in power. Right now the first is true and the second is not.

False.

Nosgoth
Dota2
Counter-Strike
StarCraft 2

All played competitively. They have the same number of players, but not the same equipment. You can continue to not look into these games all you want, but that they exist and are played competitively sort of deflates your balloon.

And then there's something like Evolved, which has neither the same number of players per team nor the same equipment available per team. It's not a competitive game but, would you not agree that any good game has to be fair for both sides? Evolved was pretty good at what it did, if somewhat dry and repetitive.

The only thing necessary for balance is that both teams be equal in power. Everything leading up to that is irrelevant, unless you want to deny basic math, which is what performance potential boils down to, and tell me that 2+2+2+2 = 8 is not the same thing as 2^3 = 8 or sqrt(64) = 8. Or, put another way, that four players with a power level of 2 are not equal to a single player with a base power level of 2 and items and abilities that cube her power level to make her worth four players with a power level of 2.

That concept? It's called a "force multiplier." It lets you do more with less. It's a deadly serious concept on a global scale. It's currently what gives the Clans an unmitigated advantage across the board when you subtract IS quirks, because all of their stuff is worth multiples of the IS stuff. You can just as easily flip those tables, and there's no specific way that you must do it.

Quote

You never answered my challenge that you have never played a competitive sport so I must assume the accusation is true.

An omission of silence is not admission of guilt, unless you think it's fair that I should now judge you to be a firm believer that mob justice is actually justice.

But no, I haven't. I was too busy learning everything about video-games and systems engineering to get concussed a few too many times knocking a ball around a court.

Have you ever designed games before and had to submit them for play-testing?

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Yeonne Greene:

Your posts continue to become more and more inflammatory. In order to maintain my stated adherence to the impersonal, I can no longer engage with you.

[Gyrok]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 19 March 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

One hypothetical situation does not an argument make.

I can return you this under the 3-crit rule:

Let's say you're in that Cataphract and you're armor is all gone from brawling. That Warhawk hits you with the same 3 ERPPCs and yet again they all crit. But instead of getting hit all on the ST, you manage to roll the damage and only 2 engine crits are destroyed in your ST, but 1 is also destroyed in your CT.

You still die.

Take the same situation in the Warhawk. You still die.

Under those conditions, cXL or isXL both die. That's the difference.

And I can give you plenty of hypotheticals under the 3-crit rule that are impossible in MWO right now.

Sure...however...MWO is not structured to function like that.

If we go by component destruction...there is no way beyond what we have.

That will also not change any time soon ever...