555 replies to this topic

[Lugh]

I've already given you a solution to clan tech and numbers balance.

It's really rather simple. Every original non-nerfed clan tech mech is worth 1.6 IS mechs.

When IS mechs are dropping v Clan mechs they get extra respawns. There are MANY Call of Doody people that would love this, When dropping in a clan mech you get 1 clan mech.

This means that if one side is ALL non nerfed clan mechs you get 8 mechs. The other side gets 12 and that's it. Each time a mix happens you do the respawn for the IS pilots only on an EARNED basis, the same way that they do it in Warthunder's realistic mode.

You have a value you have to achieve to respawn out of the available pool of respawns. The value you have to acheive is HIGHER for BETTER mechs and lower for PoS mechs.

It's not overly difficult a concept to do, heck they did it in Russia for WWII tech, you can certainly do it here for 'future tech'

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lugh, on 30 March 2016 - 06:38 AM, said:

When IS mechs are dropping v Clan mechs they get extra respawns.

Please no, you are basically removing the single advantage that the IS would have against the Clans, and that is numerical superiority (ability to open up more firing angles), that's assuming that we were to balance this way, which is all much harder than people seem willing to accept because there are more factors at play when a team is allowed to have more people on the field. Trying to fix that problem by allowing the other team to have respawns also complicates matters as I pointed out above.

Either way, please stop with this uneven team nonsense, its not gonna happen because it convolutes balance moreso than 1:1 balance.

[Clownwarlord]

Gyrok, on 29 March 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

Personally, I feel the IS is too strong because:

1.) Laser duration is too short...seriously too short

2.) Skill tree blanket nerfs to clans (yes IS was nerfed, but all were buffed back up to where they were...which is ********)

3.) Speed loss penalty for ST destruction on Clan XL.

If those 3 things were adjusted, I think balance would probably be pretty close...

Well I don't really see an issue with the laser duration except the erll duration that i agree is extreme but that was because it combo with er mediums was to simple of an alpha meta for the clans. So if the decrease er ll some i wouldn't mind and that is clan is is fine.

As for skill tree the entire skill tree need thrown in the trash and an actual skill map needs made.

St speed lose is there because clan xl is > than is xl even with that made but it sorta balances itself. Where a clan mech would survive when losing an xl a is mech would just out right die.

Since you see them as a problem how would you solve them?

Edited by clownwarlord, 30 March 2016 - 07:44 AM.

[Gyrok]

clownwarlord, on 30 March 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

Well I don't really see an issue with the laser duration except the erll duration that i agree is extreme but that was because it combo with er mediums was to simple of an alpha meta for the clans. So if the decrease er ll some i wouldn't mind and that is clan is is fine.

As for skill tree the entire skill tree need thrown in the trash and an actual skill map needs made.

St speed lose is there because clan xl is > than is xl even with that made but it sorta balances itself. Where a clan mech would survive when losing an xl a is mech would just out right die.

Since you see them as a problem how would you solve them?

1.) Normalize durations across all lasers

2.) Either remove the agility quirks from IS mechs to even it back out, or make the buffs to agility a static thing across all mechs period, and circumvent the skill tree in that regard. (The latter option makes the bar for entry lower for newer players...)

3.) Implement IS tech2, give them LFEs, and their equivalents to current clan tech. Make the penalty for both LFE and CXL to be heat only. LFE is 10% heat penalty plus lost DHS, and CXL is 20% plus lost DHS.

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

16 weapon slots doesnt mean load 16 weapons and no heatsinks...so, dont make a suicide vest.

[Stelar 7]

10 vs 12 is bad for the same reason it doesn't take 5 locusts to drop an atlas. The devs correctly realized everyone would want to be able to win. The result? We have one of the best balanced battletech games ever. People play all weight classes and both techs.

Bravo PGI.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Stelar 7, on 30 March 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

The devs correctly realized everyone would want to be able to win.

So with asymmetrical balance what they you think will choose.


Most of you guys are simply brain dead and can`t take simple conception, still not getting that asymmetrical balance would be balanced, not like this symmetrical unbalance crap that we have now.


Not sure why you all talking about 10v12, the right number for asymmetrical balance is 10v16.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 30 March 2016 - 02:11 PM.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 29 March 2016 - 11:30 PM, said:

Except not all mechs in a tonnage range are equal. Hence why the BV was created, which in turn didn't work.

You're also ignoring, completely, the fundamental issue of 'you're not going to get 70% of people to play the redshirts' in a FPS.

Because it wouldn't happen. It was an issue in TT as well as people would build clownshoes OP Clan mechs and get all fussy when nobody wanted to feed IS mechs to them 'but the BV is equal' sort of crap.

10 v 12 wouldn't work either - you'd have to rebalance all the mechs and tech to try and get 10 v 12 to work, just like you do to get 12 v 12 to work, only 12 v 12 is both better for the players overall and easier to accomplish. Even in TT the OP Clan tech of 3052 was crap for the gameplay mechanics.

Which is why the game developers went to 1 v 1 tech in the end.

Just like we're doing now.

The idea that we have to repeat stupid mistakes because someone else made them is, in turn, a mistake.

Let's be brutally frank here. PGI insists on 1:1 because they are incapable of doing otherwise ... like the rest of this very shallow and still skeleton of a game after 4 years. Let's all face it. MWO was fully intended to be a minimally viable product.

Now go buy some more Mech packs.

[Crosell]

Only thing I'd want is more clan variety. The top tier of the classes is so far ahead of everything else that half there mechs see little to no play. ACH high end of most usage. Heavy is mostly timberwolf, ebon jag did manage to add a bit of variety. Med storm crow. THey need to get the weaker mechs upped. to get some more variety to clan mech usage.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 30 March 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

Let's be brutally frank here. PGI insists on 1:1 because they are incapable of doing otherwise ... like the rest of this very shallow and still skeleton of a game after 4 years. Let's all face it. MWO was fully intended to be a minimally viable product.

Now go buy some more Mech packs.

Which may be true, however you're not going to get a viable FPS with asymetric balance like that. It was never a viable idea for this kind of game. Ever. Was barely viable in matches between friends in tabletop. It was so hated they recognized it, walked it back and went to 1 to 1 in tabletop even.

[Adamski]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 30 March 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

So with asymmetrical balance what they you think will choose.


Most of you guys are simply brain dead and can`t take simple conception, still not getting that asymmetrical balance would be balanced, not like this symmetrical unbalance crap that we have now.


Not sure why you all talking about 10v12, the right number for asymmetrical balance is 10v16.

Actually, the number disparity is far greater than that

http://www.sarna.net...tle_of_Tukayyid
25 Galaxies vs 12 Armies / 144 Regiments
http://www.sarna.net...ucture#Regiment
1 Regiment = 108 to 180 Mechs = Average of 144 Mechs per regiment
http://www.sarna.net...itary_Structure
1 Cluster = 2 Binaries & 3 Trinaries = (2*2*5)+(3*3*5) = 65 Mechs per Cluster
1 Galaxy = 3 to 5 Clusters = 195 to 325 Mechs = Average of 260 Mechs per Galaxy

25 Galaxies = 6,500 Mechs
144 Regiments = 20,736 Mechs

Clans are outnumbered more than 3 to 1.
So asymmetrical balance would be 5 Clans vs 16 IS

Edited by Adamski, 30 March 2016 - 04:40 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

Gyrok, on 30 March 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

1.) Normalize durations across all lasers

2.) Either remove the agility quirks from IS mechs to even it back out, or make the buffs to agility a static thing across all mechs period, and circumvent the skill tree in that regard. (The latter option makes the bar for entry lower for newer players...)

3.) Implement IS tech2, give them LFEs, and their equivalents to current clan tech. Make the penalty for both LFE and CXL to be heat only. LFE is 10% heat penalty plus lost DHS, and CXL is 20% plus lost DHS.

Normalize durations across all lasers would just increase the issue of clans then being over powering. If the IS medium and Clan ERmedium had the same duration time the clan ermedium would still out range the is medium. This is why the duration times were adjusted in the first place.

I hate quirks, to be honest they are a horrible idea because when some one looks at a mech and see a bunch of green they think it was made OP. In truth they movement stats should not be quirked into the game but made as the base line stats that way people do not miss understand balancing that mech for over all game balance.

New tech for IS? Well would be interesting but also cause a load of problems onto an already complicated balancing issue. I suggest balance the game as best you can before you add more 'new' tech for a faction or side.

[Adamski]

clownwarlord, on 30 March 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

Normalize durations across all lasers would just increase the issue of clans then being over powering. If the IS medium and Clan ERmedium had the same duration time the clan ermedium would still out range the is medium. This is why the duration times were adjusted in the first place.

I hate quirks, to be honest they are a horrible idea because when some one looks at a mech and see a bunch of green they think it was made OP. In truth they movement stats should not be quirked into the game but made as the base line stats that way people do not miss understand balancing that mech for over all game balance.

New tech for IS? Well would be interesting but also cause a load of problems onto an already complicated balancing issue. I suggest balance the game as best you can before you add more 'new' tech for a faction or side.

I would be happy if all ER lasers had a set damage per duration, all Pulse lasers had a much better damage per duration, and then standard lasers fall somewhere in the middle.

From there, add quirks to IS mechs to give them better durations, heat, range, etc to catch up with the Clan stats.
Continue to use mobility and structure quirks to balance out running slower with heavier standard engines.

[Wolfways]

MischiefSC, on 29 March 2016 - 11:30 PM, said:

Because it wouldn't happen. It was an issue in TT as well as people would build clownshoes OP Clan mechs and get all fussy when nobody wanted to feed IS mechs to them 'but the BV is equal' sort of crap.

So what was wrong with it? Was it just that the BV numbers were off and needed redone?

[Wolfways]

Stelar 7, on 30 March 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

10 vs 12 is bad for the same reason it doesn't take 5 locusts to drop an atlas. The devs correctly realized everyone would want to be able to win. The result? We have one of the best balanced battletech games ever. People play all weight classes and both techs.

Bravo PGI.

This makes no sense. If it were 10 vs 12 who couldn't win?

[Adamski]

Wolfways, on 30 March 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

So what was wrong with it? Was it just that the BV numbers were off and needed redone?

The problem with using BV for balance, is it leaves weapons broken, and instead relies on the balance of economics instead of the balance of gameplay.

So if a single weapon is incredibly OP, instead of fixing it, everyone instead has to use it or run suboptimal builds.

[MischiefSC]

Wolfways, on 30 March 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

So what was wrong with it? Was it just that the BV numbers were off and needed redone?

It failed for several reasons. In TT any sort of BV system is doomed to fail because not all value is universal. A lot is situational. As an example would be how do you make a Vindi comparable to a BJ? MLs are not that tough - until you boat them. How about a Dire Wolf BV worth of vehicles and infantry?

That was just a mechanics example.

You also run into "70% players must want to play redshirts 100% of the time". That never worked either. For a one-off, sure. For 4 hours a day 4-6 nights a week? No. Not going to happen.

Imbalances create munchkins to exploit them. Look at all the "but I'm supposed to be OP" Clan players. They want a PVE experience in a PvP game.

It was always a terrible system hated by the bulk of the Battletech community. The reality that people keep trying to avoid -

The devs burned it all down and went back to 1:1 tech balancing.

They didn't do that because they just didn't want to do the "more fun" option, they did it because the asymetric balance attempt turned out to be a **** PvP experience

[Lupis Volk]

MischiefSC, on 30 March 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Imbalances create munchkins to exploit them. Look at all the "but I'm supposed to be OP" Clan players. They want a PVE experience in a PvP game.

This is why i give clammers a hard time. So many of them want an unbalanced, unfun (for the IS) game just to stroke thier god complex.

[Vossiewulf]

Folks need to stop thinking about it as a MWO/BT problem and think of it as a game design problem. You have a game design with many vehicles and your income derives from selling those vehicles. For best results, they all have to be appealing. In this particular game iteration, that means competitive on a battlefield.

I could walk through all the logic and the considerations but bottom line PGI has to walk a very fine line between keeping almost all of the mechs competitive (encouraging converging their stats/performance/abilities) but not making them TOO much the same, or players get bored and there's no reason to buy them.

It's a Goldilocks problem, actually four different ones (light/med/hvy/asslt). If they allow the performances to diverge too much, then everyone uses the exact same mechs in each class and everyone complains about the boredom. If they converge the performance too much, all mechs are the same and again players are bored. They need to find just the right amount of differential to make mech purchase interesting and long-term play appealing.

And if any of you think that's easy, there are a couple thousand designers around the games industry who are laughing hysterically at you and saying by all means, show us, knowing you'll come back in a few days saying "hey this is hard". And then reappearing a few weeks later saying "no I mean this is REALLY HARD".

So... you'll never get huge differences between IS and Clan. And if any mech isn't used, it'll get tweaks until it sells. If one is dominating too much, it'll be nerfed until it isn't. If any of you want to pay all of PGI's bills and salaries and tell them to stop worrying about making money by selling mechs, then things might be a little different.

Edited by Vossiewulf, 30 March 2016 - 05:33 PM.

[Wolfways]

Adamski, on 30 March 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

The problem with using BV for balance, is it leaves weapons broken, and instead relies on the balance of economics instead of the balance of gameplay.

So if a single weapon is incredibly OP, instead of fixing it, everyone instead has to use it or run suboptimal builds.

So you increase the BV of the weapon?