295 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Oberost, on 18 July 2016 - 12:31 PM, said:

And now you put words in my mouth...

No, I think that this game should have some kind of balance (rock, paper & scissors) between classes. But this has nothing to do with assimetric balance, and if you read carefully what I've wrote you'll discover that I just want a similar power level within mechs of the same tonnage, not any kind of 10 vs 12, 8 vs 12 or whatever kind of assimetrical balance that makes one side overpowered and the other side just relying in sheer numbers.

It's clear enough now?

Currently, I find tonnage/classes in MWO as practically a "myth" given PGI's apparent goals (in spite of their constant blundering) and player demands, and as such is not really a "rock, paper, scissors" system. Besides, what is the problem with, for example, a "Clan = IS-5" system (e.g. 75-Ton Clan Mech = 80-ton IS Mech) if the entire game is designed around it?

And just as an FYI, the asymmetry I am actually looking for is not restricted merely to Clan vs. IS. That is just so limiting. I am looking for asymmetric game modes, maps, rewards, etc. Why, oh why, should everything be at 1:1? 10 vs. 12 is just a start.

Let me ask you this. Why should a well-entrenched position be assaulted by a force only as strong as the defenders? Why can't some CW battles take the traditional 3 attacker vs. 1 defender engagement?

[FupDup]

Mystere, on 18 July 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:

...
Besides, what is the problem with, for example, a "Clan = IS-5" system (e.g. 75-Ton Clan Mech = 80-ton IS Mech) if the entire game is designed around it?'
...

The Inner Sphere doesn't have 105 ton mechs to go against Clan 100 ton mechs.

In general, you're also still implying the paradigm of more weight = better.

[ArmandTulsen]

DOWN WITH ALL QUIRKS!

[Mystere]

FupDup, on 18 July 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

The Inner Sphere doesn't have 105 ton mechs to go against Clan 100 ton mechs.

I never said a "Clan = IS-x" system, which some people have mentioned before, does not have its own issues.

FupDup, on 18 July 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

In general, you're also still implying the paradigm of more weight = better.

Actually, I was just using Oberost's POV and his desire for equal performance for equal tonnage. I myself am for lore and reality-based asymmetry -- well as much of the latter as can possibly be included in a BT game.

Edited by Mystere, 18 July 2016 - 01:18 PM.

[Baulven]

Wulfen, on 18 July 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

Man, how ticked would Clan players be if they could only target/fire at one mech until it was disabled?

You are aware zellbrigen only applies until someone outside the 1v1 steps in right? When was the last time your team was willing to 1v1?

[-Vompo-]

Instead of giving extra structure as quirks just put the amount of structure each part of a mech has and if one variant has more structure just add more structure there on that number.
Same with all torso twist archs, acceleration and deceleration quirks. They don't need to be quirks but straight up differences between variants. There are some already.

Weapon quirks are something that could be removed and be replaced with additional structure, better mobility etc.

[Kael Posavatz]

Get rid of all the quirks?

If they did that PGI would have to actually address balancing core game assets instead of "a few tweaks here, a few tweaks the--no wait, that's not quite right either, this month we'll..."

[MischiefSC]

Shadow Magnet, on 18 July 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

Removing all quirks will just establish the "number + position of hard points meta" we had before the quirks.

Also I find it funny people say: "We don't need quirks, just fix the weapons".

How exactly you want to balance a weapon across all the 300+ mech variants we got? For sure there will be mechs that can more effectively use that weapon, boat it to extreme levels and so on.

Is the variety of mechs you see actively used in MWO higher or lower today than before the quirks?


Sized hard points? You really think that taking away flexibility of weapon layouts will make the player base happy?


Maybe we should first settle on what actually the problem is before suggesting solutions?

For the love of god. The argument is we absolutely will need quirks to create balance because of the issues you brought up.

However we have had numerous big weapon balance changes plus a rescale plus we've got quirks still in place from a year and a half ago that were never functional. At this point quirks are all that makes a mech viable.

The fundamental idea is that quirks should be used to bring sub-standard mechs up to the top tier or close to it, not establish top tier.

The top tier mechs should be quirkless. Quirks should exist to bring bad robbits up to near good robbit standards. T1 mechs should all be quirkless because they have the ideal blessings of hardpoints, high mounts, good design options (endo/FF/good engine).

We are however miles and miles and miles from that concept as currently a mech needs a laundry list of quirks to be T1.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

How is that possible? Granted, I come from the tabletop world originally, but if Clan mechs out-range IS mechs (which they should), have better heat capacity (in general), and better targeting systems, shouldn't they be on even footing when down to those numbers? How far out of whack are the weapons and mech systems in this game?

It was not just range but damage, cXL with fewer possible engine crit slots than isXL engine and generally better gunnery/piloting skills, and that is AFTER Clan tech was created instead of using Star League era mechs and components. With Star League era mechs/components and using their current Clan setup, IS forces brought the Clans to a stand still. Thus the introduction of Clan mechs/techs/omnis.

But then the tabletop game, be it BT or Solaris, dice was involved, no pinpoint accuracy. The tabletop games were only a extrapolation of what occurred in a 10sec time frame (2.5sec time frame for BT-Solaris), not an exact simulation of mech combat.

And it was not just one weapon, but a weapon system being fired. The Battlecomputer would attempt to get all weapons lined up on the target and provide a tone when the firing resolution was good. During that time both mechs are moving, dodging incoming fire, or at least that is how it has been described, more than human-like than tank-like.

edit, just to add, this is the first MW/MPBT that has gone way outside the safety zone of the BT rules, as most of the other games were either 3025 (all 3 MPBT games) without the advanced tech or were PvE campaign, with multiplayer abilities added, and not continuous updates.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 July 2016 - 05:10 PM.

[Wintersdark]

MischiefSC, on 18 July 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

For the love of god. The argument is we absolutely will need quirks to create balance because of the issues you brought up.

However we have had numerous big weapon balance changes plus a rescale plus we've got quirks still in place from a year and a half ago that were never functional. At this point quirks are all that makes a mech viable.

The fundamental idea is that quirks should be used to bring sub-standard mechs up to the top tier or close to it, not establish top tier.

The top tier mechs should be quirkless. Quirks should exist to bring bad robbits up to near good robbit standards. T1 mechs should all be quirkless because they have the ideal blessings of hardpoints, high mounts, good design options (endo/FF/good engine).

We are however miles and miles and miles from that concept as currently a mech needs a laundry list of quirks to be T1.

For truth.

[Tarl Cabot]

Then right before CW started IS vs Clans - bam!

17-JUN-2014 Clan Release - pre-order release
19-JUL-2014 Converted all existing IS mechs to new quirk system
05-SEP-2014 Clan/IS weapon changes
04-NOV-2014 IS Weapon Major Quirks pass
09-DEC-2014 1st Quirk Update (Major changes in weapon quirks, esp T-bolt 9S:ERPPC /Dragons /Grid Iron Gauss Rifle additions)
11-DEC-2014 CW

[Summon3r]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 July 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

Seconded, but with a small caveat:

Adjust base weapon stats based on the average amount of quirking that has proved necessary for various weapon systems to become viable in play.


Honestly, I could take or leave this condition, but we all know several weapon systems do need improvements, and the solutions have been staring us in the face for quite some time. Dumping the quirks entirely allows the weapons to be buffed directly, without pushing anything beyond the line.

guarantee you that flew right over Paul's and PGI's head..... that said couldnt agree more with the OP and this.

[Hit the Deck]

MischiefSC, on 18 July 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

...
The top tier mechs should be quirkless. Quirks should exist to bring bad robbits up to near good robbit standards. T1 mechs should all be quirkless because they have the ideal blessings of hardpoints, high mounts, good design options (endo/FF/good engine).

We are however miles and miles and miles from that concept as currently a mech needs a laundry list of quirks to be T1.

Those quirkless T1 'Mechs should be Clan and indeed some are like the Hunchback IIC and Timberwolf (this last one has been contaminated with sprinkles of both positive and negative quirks). Dire Wolf used to be there but has been replaced by the Kodiaks. You could even say that the Kodi would still stay at T1 even without quirks.

These quirkless 'Mechs make the baseline 'Mechs for all others to be compared with. Looking at what we have now, ideally it should be:

• Assault: Kodiak
  
• Heavy: Timberwolf (ideally an optimised Clan BattleMech)
  
• Medium: Hunchback IIC
  
• Light: should be Jenner IIC but Cheetah and Oxide seemingly outperform it. Maybe a future Clan Light.

[Javenri]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 17 July 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

...or ideally limiting clans to 2 stars would balance it pretty well.

I am not sure why people keep bringing this up. PGI has explained (and I agree with this argument) that star vs lances might work for FP, but does nothing to solve the problem in quick play. How can you balance the mechs there where they drop mixed? You would have to split quick play to Clan vs IS as well, causing worse problems.

MWO is not TT or anything else. It is an MMO where there is only one general rule: Opposing sides should have differences in various aspects (in order to achieve variety) but they should end up balanced in one way or another. Period.

Edited by Javenri, 18 July 2016 - 09:30 PM.

[Mystere]

Javenri, on 18 July 2016 - 09:17 PM, said:

I am not sure why people keep bringing this up. PGI has explained (and I agree with this argument) that star vs lances might work for FP, but does nothing to solve the problem in quick play. How can you balance the mechs there where they drop mixed? You would have to split quick play to Clan vs IS as well, causing worse problems.

Well, you already hinted at the solution: force solo QP to be IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, and IS vs. Clan depending on player availability at queue time. As for group QP, assume people dropping there know what they are doing and leave it as is.

Heck, why not go a step further and drop QP altogether and (and this is the important part that people seem to ignore) redistribute it as appropriate to the Training Academy, Community Warfare, and Solaris.

[Pjwned]

Bud Crue, on 18 July 2016 - 09:34 AM, said:

I get what Bishop is trying to do ala achieve a baseline for determining mech value, etc. But to what end? So you take away all quirks...and now we know, what we already know: that without quirks IS mechs will "obviously" perform dramatically poorer. If that is so obvious now, what is the point of the base line?

Wait, do you actually believe that PGI would do anything regarding balance with this new knowledge of a "baseline"?

Now who's being slow?

How long have we known PPCs need an across the board velocity buff? That jump jets on mechs over 55 tons need a lift increase? etc. Yet, knowing these things PGI does nothing to correct them except quirk them or ignore them.

All taking away the quirks would do is make the IS mechs suck across the board causing a lot less enjoyment for a lot of people for as long as the experiment lasts (and if a "baseline" is truly what you are after that is going to be a fairly long period of time). How does ruining the gaming experience for say 3-6 months help anything, when you -someone who has been around since the beginning- know darn well that making rational and logical improvements of the game based on real data is the farthest thing from PGI's normal mode of operation?

Edited for spelling and syntax

The problem is that PGI relies on quirks as a crutch, and kicking away the crutch means they would either fall on their face or actually try to keep moving without the crutch. I honestly wouldn't even mind seeing PGI fail miserably at this point so either outcome would be fine with me, but I would prefer that they get off their *** and do some actual work on their game at a reasonable pace.

[Karl Streiger]

Well the baseline is simple.
They have settled the baseline - using tonnage including c-bill/mc prices.
(FW drop weight, Group Queue Drop Weight)

So with this baseline: remove quirks, balance weapons including weapon matrix(sets) on tonnage. (a dedicated/payed spreadsheet warrior with enough spare time might need a week)

considert the performance and add lightweight quirks to the chassis (one month) - add the c-bill reward metric on daily basis to have a good fluctuation - for example quirk chassis Gargoyle vs TimberWolf (speed, mobility, heat dissipation rate)

consider the performance again - add hardpoint location based weapon quirks - creating a kind of weapons form different manufacturers (large laser for right arm of Thunderbolt)

[MOBAjobg]

Yes, I want all quirks to be removed.

The removal of all quirks is the best way going forward.

Edited by MOBAjobg, 19 July 2016 - 03:55 AM.

[Belacose]

Strip all quirks and then the Clan rules.

[EvilCow]

Belacose, on 19 July 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

Strip all quirks and then the Clan rules.

Which could be perfectly fine if teams are not symmetric: 16vs10 or 12vs10, with asymmetric tonnages on top.

You would have to balance technologies only among themselves not this continuous fanbois fight we have now.