555 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

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

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.

But that's how just about every wargame works. Units have a BV (points cost) depending on their power level.

Quote

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.

Being a weaker player on a larger team with an equal chance of your team winning? I don't see the problem, except for selfish players (Yeah I know that's most players).

Quote

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.

I don't think I've ever seen a player say their team should be OP (I probably have but don't remember).

Quote

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

I don't see why BT had to be different from other wargames where a BV system works very well. I mean, if the BV's are correct then teams should be equally powerful...or near enough (not that near enough is good enough for many players apparently).

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 30 March 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

But that's how just about every wargame works. Units have a BV (points cost) depending on their power level.


Being a weaker player on a larger team with an equal chance of your team winning? I don't see the problem, except for selfish players (Yeah I know that's most players).


I don't think I've ever seen a player say their team should be OP (I probably have but don't remember).


I don't see why BT had to be different from other wargames where a BV system works very well. I mean, if the BV's are correct then teams should be equally powerful...or near enough (not that near enough is good enough for many players apparently).

BV doesn't magically solve the meta or builds. It sounds "easy" to assign an arbitrary number, but it's meaningless if it has no context. Bigger numbers don't magically mean the person on the other end is going to be powerful if they can't build their mechs "properly.. let alone executing the best optimal mech+build.

This also doesn't mean bad mechs are good when someone has an epic game in a bad mech and/or build.

BV doesn't really solve things like high mounted hardpoints (or poor hardpoint locations), and you could "try" as hard as you might, but does how would you then qualify the BV of a lurmboat between tiers?

See, you're going to answer that question with any reliability or consistency. You can have good and bad builds, good and bad pilots, but you can't tie a number to them and expect good results.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 30 March 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

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.

Do you recall the tonnage difference in CW raising any unrelenting howl? I don't. So why should asymmetry via numbers be any different? We're not talking about 1:10 odds here, just 10:12.

Maybe there is just this crippling unwillingness and/or indolence to try.

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

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

A 10:12 ratio represents a Clan binary vs. an IS company.

What do 16 IS Mechs represent?

[Lupis Volk]

Wolfways, on 30 March 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

I don't think I've ever seen a player say their team should be OP (I probably have but don't remember).

Well i can't fault you. Your not only a Clammer but a Clam Wolfie.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 29 March 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

The only thing MW:O is ever going to have effectively is short term fights.

Hmm. Why should that be? Incompetence? Lack of imagination? Both?

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 March 2016 - 06:46 AM, said:

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

It's only nonsense to the unwilling or unable. There, I said it.

The only logical conclusion to this 1:1 stubbornness is a generic robot shooter. Am I the only one seeing where this allegedly "A BattleTech Game" is heading?

Edited by Mystere, 30 March 2016 - 06:28 PM.

[Mystere]

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

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

I would not have a problem with that too. But that is just more ammunition for the naysayers. As they insists on saying, no one will play as the "Red Shirts".

[Gas Guzzler]

Mystere, on 30 March 2016 - 06:26 PM, said:

It's only nonsense to the unwilling or unable. There, I said it.

The only logical conclusion to this 1:1 stubbornness is a generic robot shooter. Am I the only one seeing where this allegedly "A BattleTech Game" is heading?

1:1 balancing and a BattleTech Game are NOT mutually exclusive. Only a handful of you guys feel that way, not the majority of people, so just accept it.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 30 March 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

I don't see why BT had to be different from other wargames where a BV system works very well. I mean, if the BV's are correct then teams should be equally powerful...or near enough (not that near enough is good enough for many players apparently).

Are you kidding? It has to be perfect 1:1 parity or the game is ****.

[Mystere]

Gas Guzzler, on 30 March 2016 - 06:32 PM, said:

1:1 balancing and a BattleTech Game are NOT mutually exclusive. Only a handful of you guys feel that way, not the majority of people, so just accept it.

I don't know about you, but "Clans = IS" parity during 3052 is not "A BattleTech Game" as far as I am concerned.

And who said "The Majority" is always right?

But in any case, I half blame PGI and their complete lack of vision, conviction, communication, and competence for this sorry state of affairs.

Edited by Mystere, 30 March 2016 - 06:43 PM.

[MischiefSC]

We don't have to do something so incredibly stupid as to repeat the worst mistakes and most widely hated aspects of tabletop plus repeat the 10 v 12 tests done on the test server which were agreed by all parties to be rubbish just to confirm that it was total and complete garbage.

We don't have to do something that stupid to know it would be garbage except for the 20 people who want it.

Try to run private matches with 10 v 12 unbalanced teams. Get 5,000 players to happily show up to only play that every day for a month.

Which never gets a response, because the idea is stupid.

It's so insanely dishonest to pretend that a) people would gleefully play redshirts in huge numbers, getting killed by the other guys in OP tech (and then the dishonest, arrogant bull **** of that being 'selfish' like not wanting to be fodder for someone elses narcissistic Mary Sue fantasy is selfish) and b ) that balancing the already incredibly imbalanced meta/loadout/hardpoint/ high vs low hardpoint/ hitscan vs ppfld mechanics wouldn't be harder with imbalanced tech and asymetric teams.

I don't know what's more insulting. The idea that anyone thinks that's not incredibly stupid or that anyone thinks the rest of us can't see how stupid it is.

Even TT went to 1 to 1 balance.

TT is 1 to 1 balanced tech now.

Nobody, not even TT BT, thinks asymetric balance is a good idea.

So the idea is absolute unmitigated ****. The bulk of tt players thought so (go look at TT forums), the games developers thought so and as such went 1 to 1.

As much as I am critical of PGI at times I would be less surprised to hear they had a meeting and accidentally suffocated themselves playing with plastic bags and swallowing Legos than that they would think 10 v 12 for MWO wouldn't be absolute unmitigated trash that wouldn't keep 50 people total playing, all wondering why everyone else is too selfish to play redshirts for them.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 30 March 2016 - 06:43 PM, said:

We don't have to do something so incredibly stupid as to repeat the worst mistakes and most widely hated aspects of tabletop plus repeat the 10 v 12 tests done on the test server which were agreed by all parties to be rubbish just to confirm that it was total and complete garbage.

From what I have been told, 10 Clan vs. 12 IS was in favor of the latter. I don't know about you folks, but that is what I call potentially something that I can work with. Or are most players afraid they cannot be skilled enough to play as Clanners and make it work?

Edited by Mystere, 30 March 2016 - 06:54 PM.

[MischiefSC]

No, we just recognize the same thing that the TT developers,bulk of tt players and everyone who tried the test did -

It would be an absolute garbage game experience and require even more balance to fix than 1 to 1.

Which is what tt went to.

Because you keep trying to ignore that TT went to 1 to 1 tech balance, because 10 v 12 was garbage for pvp.

[Vanguard319]

Gas Guzzler, on 29 March 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

Not that LRMs are really relevant right now, but I had to point out that Clan LRMs weigh HALF as much as IS LRMs, so they should be less effective.

Now your just making up excuses to keep clan tech inferior. Just because it's lighter does not mean that it's performance should be inferior, considering the clans are a technologically superior faction. My point is that in thier insane zeal to balance things, PGI went overboard with the nerf bat, and made IS mechs overpowered. The reduced dps cannot be justified when you've given IS mechs significantly better armor/structure through quirks.

[Adamski]

Vanguard319, on 30 March 2016 - 07:07 PM, said:

Now your just making up excuses to keep clan tech inferior. Just because it's lighter does not mean that it's performance should be inferior, considering the clans are a technologically superior faction. My point is that in thier insane zeal to balance things, PGI went overboard with the nerf bat, and made IS mechs overpowered. The reduced dps cannot be justified when you've given IS mechs significantly better armor/structure through quirks.

The maximum structure any mech gets is 50% bonus structure.
Mechs have 2x more armor than structure.

ie: 10 base structure, 5 bonus structure, 20 armor.
So 5 points out of a total of 35, works out to ~15% tougher mechs. OMGNOES!

Easily compensated for by the raw stat advantage of Clan weapons.

[MischiefSC]

Adamski, on 30 March 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

The maximum structure any mech gets is 50% bonus structure.
Mechs have 2x more armor than structure.

ie: 10 base structure, 5 bonus structure, 20 armor.
So 5 points out of a total of 35, works out to ~15% tougher mechs. OMGNOES!

Easily compensated for by the raw stat advantage of Clan weapons.

Yeah, but who takes advatage of 50% more range on 95% of the weapons you use or 1/2 the weight for all missiles?

[Wolfways]

Lupis Volk, on 30 March 2016 - 06:20 PM, said:

Well i can't fault you. Your not only a Clammer but a Clam Wolfie.

Because this is my Clan account. I have an IS account.

Mystere, on 30 March 2016 - 06:36 PM, said:

Are you kidding? It has to be perfect 1:1 parity or the game is ****.

Something which no game has ever achieved (because it's impossible)

[Wolfways]

Deathlike, on 30 March 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

BV doesn't magically solve the meta or builds. It sounds "easy" to assign an arbitrary number, but it's meaningless if it has no context. Bigger numbers don't magically mean the person on the other end is going to be powerful if they can't build their mechs "properly.. let alone executing the best optimal mech+build.

This also doesn't mean bad mechs are good when someone has an epic game in a bad mech and/or build.

BV doesn't really solve things like high mounted hardpoints (or poor hardpoint locations), and you could "try" as hard as you might, but does how would you then qualify the BV of a lurmboat between tiers?

See, you're going to answer that question with any reliability or consistency. You can have good and bad builds, good and bad pilots, but you can't tie a number to them and expect good results.

Well that's kind of like saying that points costs for armies in Warhammer don't work because of the way a Skaven player chooses his army composition or is just a good player.
You can only balance a game so far as there are too many random variables to consider. Even with a 1:1 ratio MWO will never be balanced.

[wanderer]

Mystere, on 30 March 2016 - 06:20 PM, said:

A 10:12 ratio represents a Clan binary vs. an IS company.

What do 16 IS Mechs represent?

While less common, they're referred to as "assault companies", "reinforced companies", or "square (for having a 4x4 organization) companies".

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 30 March 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

Well that's kind of like saying that points costs for armies in Warhammer don't work because of the way a Skaven player chooses his army composition or is just a good player.
You can only balance a game so far as there are too many random variables to consider. Even with a 1:1 ratio MWO will never be balanced.

You're treating it like we can control people like it was Starcraft. It's not 1 person controlling an army of mechs... it's 12 individual players working as a team.