77 replies to this topic

[102_devill]

DovisKhan, on 28 March 2016 - 10:43 PM, said:

worst idea for a pvp game, because then you get a small minority that have maxed out **** and a vast majority that just feeds them, the game would bleed new users real fast.

Well, that's the problem right there. This game wants to cater to a large audience, yet its background is niche.
We might as well make all mechs of one class identical in stats then...

[102_devill]

Adamski, on 28 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

Reasons why dissimilar team sizes will not happen:
1) Asymmetrical matches will not solve the issue. If mechs are supposed to hew more closely to TT values, then the Summoner becomes a completely junk mech when it loses all of its quirks along with the IS mechs, and has to compete with the Timberwolf and Ebon Jaguar on its own merits. Same with the Gargoyle, and Mist Lynx

2) Asymmetrical matches would require all players on a team to be driving the same faction, which means friends could not group together unless they were all piloting the same faction all the time.

3) It requires a significant recoding of the matchmaker

4) If you want to go by lore values, you are looking at 18 IS Lostech Battlemechs for every 5 Clan Omnimechs.
Source: http://www.sarna.net...tle_of_Tukayyid

Sure, I know very well that PGI is not capable of creating a well made dissimilar engagement game. This is the state of things and basically nothing can be done about it.

The mechs you mention are indeed not the best. However, you do realize that at any point in this game's life there are a number of mechs which are almost completely unused? In spite of all the quirks I don't really see that many Summoners or Mist Lynxes.

On the other hand, you have a gazillion ways of motivating people to pilot sub-par vehicles. Ways that have been used in other games for 15 years now. For example in Warbirds, you always had a dynamic coefficient attached to each plane, depending on how many of that type are currently being flown by others. You can always fly it, but if too many people are already in it, your score coefficient will be low (you wouldn't get many points and you wouldn't climb the ladder). If they wanted, PGI could use the same system here; just make your earnings coefficient small if you want to drive a TimberWolf when everyone else is driving it. Easy. And you don't have to "invent hot water" again, you can just look what people did before you and incorporate it into your game. Sadly, PGI likes re-inventing bad game design features.

Finally, if 18 vs 5 worked in TT why would it be a problem in this game?

Edit: if someone replies that people don't like to be underdogs, this is exactly the reason why nobody is playing CW. Yet in CW you are not an underdog because you are in a certain type of mech, rather because your PUG group faces a well coordinated TEAM. So, one of the biggest problems this game has today is not the balance of stats, but a balance of skill and teamwork. And this will not go away if you try to balance the stats. The only thing happening from over-balancing the stats is that you end up with a mess of only cosmetically different mechs which are otherwise almost the same.

Edited by RokerSaMoravu, 28 March 2016 - 11:11 PM.

[DovisKhan]

RokerSaMoravu, on 28 March 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:

Well, that's the problem right there. This game wants to cater to a large audience, yet its background is niche.
We might as well make all mechs of one class identical in stats then...

Yes it is a niche game and further cutting a huge chunk out of that niche making entry level unfair would work to the detriment of everyone.

It's fairly well balanced already, after your cadet bonus ends you can already buy any mech you want and that's how it should be

[102_devill]

DovisKhan, on 28 March 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

Yes it is a niche game and further cutting a huge chunk out of that niche making entry level unfair would work to the detriment of everyone.

It's fairly well balanced already, after your cadet bonus ends you can already buy any mech you want and that's how it should be

I hear what you are saying buddy, but I think that this game is loosing the fans of Battletech in order to attract a more casual audience. And I agree that for a 12 vs 12 engagement this game is currently balanced OK. I feel that most matches are won or lost due to player actions and not due to having XYZ mech on one side and not on the other. I am just saying that further "equalizing" of the two sides will completely dilute the Battletech aspect of this game and just turn it into a completely generic big stompy robots shooter. It is already too close to this, for my comfort.

[DovisKhan]

RokerSaMoravu, on 28 March 2016 - 11:22 PM, said:

I hear what you are saying buddy, but I think that this game is loosing the fans of Battletech in order to attract a more casual audience. And I agree that for a 12 vs 12 engagement this game is currently balanced OK. I feel that most matches are won or lost due to player actions and not due to having XYZ mech on one side and not on the other. I am just saying that further "equalizing" of the two sides will completely dilute the Battletech aspect of this game and just turn it into a completely generic big stompy robots shooter. It is already too close to this, for my comfort.

Fair point, though it still is pretty much the only stompy robots game that's not a generic shooter, I played Hawken before coming here, now that's pretty much COD reskined with robots

[Adamski]

RokerSaMoravu, on 28 March 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

Sure, I know very well that PGI is not capable of creating a well made dissimilar engagement game. This is the state of things and basically nothing can be done about it.

The mechs you mention are indeed not the best. However, you do realize that at any point in this game's life there are a number of mechs which are almost completely unused? In spite of all the quirks I don't really see that many Summoners or Mist Lynxes.

On the other hand, you have a gazillion ways of motivating people to pilot sub-par vehicles. Ways that have been used in other games for 15 years now. For example in Warbirds, you always had a dynamic coefficient attached to each plane, depending on how many of that type are currently being flown by others. You can always fly it, but if too many people are already in it, your score coefficient will be low (you wouldn't get many points and you wouldn't climb the ladder). If they wanted, PGI could use the same system here; just make your earnings coefficient small if you want to drive a TimberWolf when everyone else is driving it. Easy. And you don't have to "invent hot water" again, you can just look what people did before you and incorporate it into your game. Sadly, PGI likes re-inventing bad game design features.

Finally, if 18 vs 5 worked in TT why would it be a problem in this game?

Edit: if someone replies that people don't like to be underdogs, this is exactly the reason why nobody is playing CW. Yet in CW you are not an underdog because you are in a certain type of mech, rather because your PUG group faces a well coordinated TEAM. So, one of the biggest problems this game has today is not the balance of stats, but a balance of skill and teamwork. And this will not go away if you try to balance the stats. The only thing happening from over-balancing the stats is that you end up with a mess of only cosmetically different mechs which are otherwise almost the same.

Score coefficient sounds nice and all, until you realize there are Champion, Loyalty, Special, Gold, Resistance, Phoenix, Founder, and Hero variant mechs, which in effect becomes pay to win by having a smaller pool of players that can/will buy them that will have a better rating due to their rarity.

[102_devill]

Adamski, on 28 March 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

Score coefficient sounds nice and all, until you realize there are Champion, Loyalty, Special, Gold, Resistance, Phoenix, Founder, and Hero variant mechs, which in effect becomes pay to win by having a smaller pool of players that can/will buy them that will have a better rating due to their rarity.

Sure, but why is it "pay to win" if you choose to play a mech which will earn you more C-bills? You are not hurting anyone by earning more ingame credits, are you? And PGI gets a big boost in selling mechs at the same time, so it sounds like a pretty decent "everyone wins" situation.
It will be only for your benefit if you get a mech out of its dusty covers because nobody else is playing it, and you sneak in some large earnings with it. But remember, if this mech is really bad, chances are you won't have a stellar game anyway, however you also won't come out of the match with a negative total because you used both consumables.

I mean, do you really think there are players who are having a tough time in MWO because they can't afford C-bills for a TimberWolf? Or can't afford a third LPL on their Battlemaster so they are stuck with a PPC? I don't think so.

Edited by RokerSaMoravu, 28 March 2016 - 11:45 PM.

[Adamski]

Not to mention, I want to pilot mechs I enjoy and payed for, not be penalized for it. And I don't want to be a detriment to my team because I'm bringing a suboptimal mech.

Beyond that, you are trying to reinvent the wheel for no real gain. Let PGI continue on their path of trying to balance mechs by their tonnage.

Edited by Adamski, 28 March 2016 - 11:43 PM.

[102_devill]

Adamski, on 28 March 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

Beyond that, you are trying to reinvent the wheel for no real gain. Let PGI continue on their path of trying to balance mechs by their tonnage.

And you base this conclusion on what exactly?

Sure, let them balance ad infinitum, because this is the only possible outcome when you try to optimize a badly posed problem.

Edited by RokerSaMoravu, 29 March 2016 - 02:49 AM.

[Revis Volek]

El Bandito, on 27 March 2016 - 08:16 PM, said:

So, Ghost ammo? Newbies need to be notified of it though, cause it is adding to the convoluted mechanics of the game. How about just increase IS ammo count instead?

Doesn't need to be Ghost ammo, just that IS launchers come with 100 rounds IN THE WEAPON.

Not ghost about it....

[SuomiWarder]

Seem to not be factoring that higher heat for less weight, crits seems to be built into the Clan weapons. Changing size doesn;y affect that.

[Wolfways]

Adamski, on 28 March 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

If you are balancing mechs on an individual basis, then why bother having asymmetrical teams?

Because in the lore clans fight in stars of 5 mechs.

Quote

Just make each mech value per ton roughly the same. BOOM, that is what PGI is already attempting.

And failing miserably. You can't balance chassis because their power changes depending on what weapons the player fits. For example, I'll take a Jagermech over any IS heavy or assault...except maybe a King Crab, because AC's are OP.

Quote

Implementing a new system should provide benefits, asymmetrical is just all downsides. It requires significant development time to implement a new matchmaker, it creates problems for friends who want to play together, and it doesn't even solve for balance issues by still making the Summoner directly compete with the Timberwolf.

12v10 is just fanfiction theory craft anyways, TT bidding required Clan pilots to abide by Zellbriggen and had IS outnumber them by roughly 3.5:1. So asymmetrical teams would be closer to 18v5 with no quirks.

Don't believe me? Go look at the Sarna Wiki article on the Battle for Tukayyid, where Comstar and the ilKhan negotiated forces prior to the battle and then calculate just how many battlemechs were involved. (The Comstar forces had all the same equipment that MWO IS pilots currently have access to, in addition to being able to choose where the objectives were located and where the enemy landed)

I don't care what the actual numbers in a match would be. The game could still be balanced with asymmetrical matches...but I doubt pgi could do it anyway.

[Gyrok]

Adamski, on 27 March 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Beyond that, you need to ignore the Clan AC weapons, and focus on the UAC weapons. The AC are just placeholders for LBX that got added to the game and then left to rot.

Because ignoring broken stuff because /clan is fine right?

Because LBX are not often same size/tonnage as IS counterparts as well, right?

I tell you what...when your IS AC20 fires 4 projectiles for 20 damage...you can have less crit slots and tonnage...

Edited by Gyrok, 29 March 2016 - 01:32 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Wolfways, on 29 March 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

And failing miserably. You can't balance chassis because their power changes depending on what weapons the player fits. For example, I'll take a Jagermech over any IS heavy or assault...except maybe a King Crab, because AC's are OP.

So is the right kind Laser Vomit and SRM brawlers if you play the mech right.


Dakka is no more OP then a good Laser Vomit build or even a SRM brawler, which means something.

Heres a hint, it starts with a B and i couldn't find anything to Rhyme with it.

[Wolfways]

Revis Volek, on 29 March 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

So is the right kind Laser Vomit and SRM brawlers if you play the mech right.


Dakka is no more OP then a good Laser Vomit build or even a SRM brawler, which means something.

Heres a hint, it starts with a B and i couldn't find anything to Rhyme with it.

Lasers can't put out anything near the dps AC's can.
Brawlers can do well with SRM's, but they have to get into close range to do it though.

My wife just about stopped playing anything but her Jagers because she doesn't see the point in any other mechs.
I stopped playing my Jager because I just prefer lasers/missiles even though I do much worse in those mechs, but if I want to do well very easily (like for an event) I'll pull out the Jager and fly through it.

[Kaeb Odellas]

RokerSaMoravu, on 28 March 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

Finally, if 18 vs 5 worked in TT why would it be a problem in this game?

It works in TT because each player is controlling multiple mechs. You don't need 18 players to control each of those IS mechs in TT, whereas in a first person shooter without bots, you absolutely do. That leads to a heavily mismatched player base, especially as the Clan mechs' power would naturally more players than the relatively poor IS mechs.

Plus, outside of CW, once you die in a match, that's it for you. You're out of the game. On TT, losing a mech isn't as big of a deal since you've got a bunch more to play with. This would drive even more players to the Clan side.

[Wolfways]

Kaeb Odellas, on 29 March 2016 - 02:04 PM, said:

It works in TT because each player is controlling multiple mechs. You don't need 18 players to control each of those IS mechs in TT, whereas in a first person shooter without bots, you absolutely do. That leads to a heavily mismatched player base, especially as the Clan mechs' power would naturally more players than the relatively poor IS mechs.

Plus, outside of CW, once you die in a match, that's it for you. You're out of the game. On TT, losing a mech isn't as big of a deal since you've got a bunch more to play with. This would drive even more players to the Clan side.

Which is why no respawns sucks. You die, then have little interest in the rest of the match. Respawns keeps you fighting until the match ends.

[Andi Nagasia]

Wolfways, on 28 March 2016 - 07:10 PM, said:

I don't agree with "free ammo" being added to any weapons. I also don't agree with any "ammo buff to IS only".
Both factions need more ammo/ton.

its a way to Balance the Tonnage and Crits Clan weapons get by Being Clan weapons,
it may be true that all Ammo may need a boost, but thats another Topic altogether,

MechWarrior849305, on 28 March 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

One stupid idea after another. More ammo per ton for BETTER ballistics? WTF with you, man?

im not Debating that IS doesnt have Better Ballistics, i feel Clan ACs need a Buff,
but Clan ACs will never get as Buff as long as People can Complain Clan stuff is lighter and Smaller,
i say use this System to Fix the Tonnage and Crit Problem, then Buff Clan ACs in to Balance,

Revis Volek, on 29 March 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

Doesn't need to be Ghost ammo, just that IS launchers come with 100 rounds IN THE WEAPON.

Not ghost about it....

Just this! i want to Balance the IS to Clan Tonnage and Crits,
this will help bring the Tonnage and Cirts of IS Ammo Based Weapons closer to Clan weapons,
in doing so in a way to Keep that IS and Clan still both have their Flavor,
but will be closer to be Balanced to each other Properly,

Andi Nagasia, on 27 March 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

=0=Explanations=0=
=Game Reason=
For Balance Purposes of IS Ammo Based Weapons will have 1 Ton Ammo Build into the Weapon,
This is here to Negate the Advantage of Clan Weapons Weighing less and taking up less Crits,
-
=Lore Reason=
due to the Feed Type Systems of the IS, all IS Ammo Weapons have to be Pre-loaded with Ammo,
Clans due to their Technology have be able to Negate this with Advanced Feed Systems leading to Lighter Weapons,

SuomiWarder, on 29 March 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

Seem to not be factoring that higher heat for less weight, crits seems to be built into the Clan weapons. Changing size doesn;y affect that.

its not Added heat for less Weight, the Square seems to be Heat/Range Damage/Duration,
but that in its self is another Topic, this Topic is to Discuss just IS to Clan, weapon Tonnage and Crits,


GUYS GUYS we are getting off topic, Yes the Game isnt Fully Balanced yet,
But this Topic is to Discuss IS to Clan, Tonnage and Crit Values and your thoughts on the System,
Other Topics like (Which Weapons may need a Buff)(Asymmetrical Team Size)(Re-spawns) are Good,
But they are posts Better Posted in their Own Topics,

This Topic is to Discuss, (IS to Clan, Tonnage and Crit Balance),
Can we Please Try to Stay mostly On Topic Please?
Edit- Spelling

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 29 March 2016 - 02:18 PM.

[Wolfways]

Andi Nagasia, on 29 March 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

its a way to Balance the Tonnage and Crits Clan weapons get by Being Clan weapons,
it may be true that all Ammo may need a boost, but thats another Topic altogether,

It's already "balanced". Clan mechs don't get full customization.

[Andi Nagasia]

Wolfways, on 29 March 2016 - 02:20 PM, said:

It's already "balanced". Clan mechs don't get full customization.

Thats an OmniMech Restriction, not a Clan Restriction,

Clan BattleMechs(IIC Mechs and Others) have Full Customization,
IS start Getting OmniMechs too(First Raptor in 3052) so theres that,