395 replies to this topic

[Ironically Ironclad Irony]

Void Angel, on 01 January 2017 - 08:05 PM, said:

BZZZZZZT! Wrong!
Clan 'mechs are supposed to be equivalent in power to the Inner Sphere 'mechs because we are playing Mechwarrior Online.

I realize that the fictional backstory for the Clans has them being technologically superior to the Inner Sphere - and stopped only by a Deus Ex Machina of epic proportions. But that won't fly here, because each pilot is piloting one 'mech at a time. This leads us to one of two destinations: either the Clans must be balanced, or the Inner Sphere must be given greater numbers in every match. A lot of wannabe lore-hounds say, "yeah, do that! 10v12 would totally be balanced with canon Clantech!" Leaving aside the fact that this is patently untrue, it's not a workable solution in the first place:

Giving the Clans canon tech advantage would make them incredible combatants, particularly in the hands of skilled players, who would flock to the Clans because they like to compete - both in teams and as individuals. This is why the Clans have more experienced players than the Inner Sphere as it is. Canon tech imbalance would create a situation where the Clans stride the battlefield like gods among insects, while the Inner Sphere tries to drag them down by sheer numerical superiority. Some players have said they'd enjoy this; I doubt they truly understand what they'd be in for, but in any case they're a tiny minority. For most players, it's fun to play as the Ogre, and it's fun to play as the attacking conventional forces - but it's not fun to play one of the conventional forces against the Ogre.

This has all been hashed out years ago - it's not a live subject, and to keep on making the claim after it's been thoroughly debunked (not to mention empirically wrong given the context) is just willful ignorance.

Clanners would also complain once they realize how much of a tonnage hit they'd take being short 2 pilots in 10v12... if both sides got 250tons for their drop decks, that would be a 500ton differential vs, the current 300ton diff.

So yes, clams not OP like in TT, but I give PGI credit in making the tech inherently different where (in general, as there are always outliers) IS is tankier and clans are more offensive minded.

Wintersdark, on 01 January 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

Clan Mechs are not supposed to be superior to IS mechs in MWO. From the start, the stated goal has been to have balanced mechs.

Indeed, the creator of Battletech admitted that having clan mechs be superior was one of the biggest mistakes they made and it caused a lot of problems in Battletech as well.

But however you feel "it's supposed to be", it's simply not a sustainable game design to have one faction simply be objectively better than another. It doesn't work.

Winter, if you'd be so kind as to cite the statement where BT creators admitted this? I haven't been able to locate it and would love to have it at my fingertips to, you know, share....

[Wintersdark]

Aramuside, on 01 January 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

I still haven't seen a single reason under the new system, after reading 19 pages of this thread, why 90% of mechs will ever be seen. Imagine levelling mist lynxes, vindicators etc with "minimal" skills. Laughable as you won't even be able to chuck modules on there to make them less awful.

It's not going to make bad mechs better. That's not the goal.

The same things as now exist for that purpose (quirks, baseline stat changes). This system is just replacing the existing broken skill tree with something more interesting.

[Wintersdark]

Ironically Ironclad Irony, on 01 January 2017 - 08:24 PM, said:

Clanners would also complain once they realize how much of a tonnage hit they'd take being short 2 pilots in 10v12... if both sides got 250tons for their drop decks, that would be a 500ton differential vs, the current 300ton diff.

So yes, clams not OP like in TT, but I give PGI credit in making the tech inherently different where (in general, as there are always outliers) IS is tankier and clans are more offensive minded.

The tonnage hit is basically irrelevant when compared to the player count. Two 50t mechs are VASTLY stronger than one 100t mech. That's why the whole 10v12 argument fails so hard:. Balancing by numbers is extremely coarse. Worse yet, lose one pilot early and the game snowballs hard.

Quote

Winter, if you'd be so kind as to cite the statement where BT creators admitted this? I haven't been able to locate it and would love to have it at my fingertips to, you know, share....

It was some time ago now, but was shared on here. I don't have a link now, though, and am not very interested in going hunting for it.

The crux of what Jordan Weismann said was that in retrospect he wished they'd just made clan pilots better in the stories, because the tech difference just lead to severe power creep and was basically impossible to balance.

May be able to find it searching for his name.

[Irishtoker]

Could someone please explain what Mech Ik is. I havent been able to find anything relating to MWO when searching the term.

Thanks

[Rigovran]

Very interested to see the developments. Been here only a few months and I love the game.

[Ukos]

@Irishtoker - Inverse Kinematics where the posture of your mech 'deforms' to the terrain

ie when you go up a gradient your mechs feet cant upwards to match the slope

[Aramuside]

Wintersdark, on 02 January 2017 - 06:54 AM, said:

It's not going to make bad mechs better. That's not the goal. The same things as now exist for that purpose (quirks, baseline stat changes). This system is just replacing the existing broken skill tree with something more interesting.

Its actually also removing most of the quirks and moving them into the skill tree... weak mechs like Dragons will retain some of theirs (according to Russ). The point I was making was now you'll have the added burden of leveling those mechs with reduced bonuses. With no end goal of leveling bad/mediocre mechs to max the skill tree on a good mech theres currently no reason I can see why those will ever be piloted under the new system.

[Wintersdark]

Aramuside, on 03 January 2017 - 03:36 AM, said:

Its actually also removing most of the quirks and moving them into the skill tree... weak mechs like Dragons will retain some of theirs (according to Russ). The point I was making was now you'll have the added burden of leveling those mechs with reduced bonuses. With no end goal of leveling bad/mediocre mechs to max the skill tree on a good mech theres currently no reason I can see why those will ever be piloted under the new system.

Bad mechs are still getting quirks. Russ has been pretty clear about this, that there will still be quirks and other factors used to balance poor mechs.

The problem is right now, quirks have gotten way out of hand, and generic quirks are being applied to all sorts of mechs.

Are you concerned the poor mechs will have insufficient quirks? That's possible. Poor mechs have insufficient quirks right now; that's why they're poor mechs. Will the be worse? Maybe some will be. Maybe they'll be better, too. We can't know.

Realistically, I fully expect existing bad mechs (For example, the Vindicator) to remain bad mechs. Most of these cases are mechs that are bad by design. I don't mean that they're bad because PGI wants them to be bad, but they're bad because they've got a poor selection/location of hardpoints, or just an awful body shape. Those factors won't go away, and they are extremely hard to compensate for in quirks as their absolute level of "badness" is very difficult to measure and fix via what amount to range and DPS increases. Hence why, as I said, most bad mechs are still bad right now.

Anyways, as we know bad mechs are still getting quirks, there's no reason to believe they'll be any worse off with the Skill Tree revamp than they are now, or than they are with any requirking pass.

[Buehgler]

Irishtoker, on 02 January 2017 - 08:52 AM, said:

Could someone please explain what Mech Ik is. I havent been able to find anything relating to MWO when searching the term.

IK is shorthand for "Inverse Kinematics". In this context, this is the math involved in solving for positions of the leg joints (e.g. hip, knee, ankle ...) as a function of the foot position (and angle). This will allow our stompy-robots-with-lasers to place their feet flat on the terrain as we climb hills and stomp on things, significantly improve the appearance of actually climbing on (rather than through) the terrain.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Aramuside, on 01 January 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

I still haven't seen a single reason under the new system, after reading 19 pages of this thread,

I have not seen a single reason why anyone should respond to post like this with a serious answer

[Avathar]

i am not happy.
1st of januari the night gyer should have been available for cbills i dont think it is. is it....?

now we get this crap about skill trees. and **** will be refunded. what theyre not telling us is .... cost is going to rise astronomically... its going to be ******* grindy.. good job pgi. hey maybe you should buff the inner sphere and nerf the clans some more... thats also a load of crap you pulled. i wont drop until you get that ******** fixed.

getting real tired of your **** PGI. and playing this game ... just makes me think of how extremely flawed mechwarrior 5 will potentially be. so im not excited.
nope not excited to see a completely castrated shell of a game, which it will be,... no doubt since hey... its you PGI.

[Kael Posavatz]

Void Angel, on 01 January 2017 - 08:05 PM, said:

This has all been hashed out years ago - it's not a live subject, and to keep on making the claim after it's been thoroughly debunked (not to mention empirically wrong given the context) is just willful ignorance.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Empirical-Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations; verifiable through application of the scientific method.

If you can point to data from PGI on MWO where 12v10 match-ups were tested and found wanting, I would ask that you share it with us.

[MovinTarget]

Kael Posavatz, on 03 January 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Empirical-Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations; verifiable through application of the scientific method.

If you can point to data from PGI on MWO where 12v10 match-ups were tested and found wanting, I would ask that you share it with us.

I don't know about you, but I can do simple math...
12 players @250 tons (for example) = 3000 tons
10 players @250 tons (for example) = 2500 tons

Even if you un-nerf the clans somebody will grouse about IS getting 500 tons more. Some will even complain about IS having a 2 pilot advantage... becuase, well, people.

If IS is organized and clams not, guess who's gonna whine?

Additionally, un-nerf clans and how will we balance QP?

People act like PGI is actively trying to torpedo the game and can't even see that any of their solutions will just create a new set of challenges for people to whine about.

...but that's not even the problem. PGI has stated that they cannot work the code to allow 12v10 games, but even if they could, I can point to the empirical amount of *salt* in these forums to say, it is hard to believe that it could be worth their effort for something that may cost them hundreds of man-hours, only to have it rolled back a la Long Tom.

Can you prove that rolling out 12v10 will solve (any) problems other than making the lore-fiends happy? Can you prove that it would be worht their time investment? Can you prove that they are avoiding it out of sheer laziness and don't know more than you do?

Demands of proof can cut both ways my friend.

Edited by MovinTarget, 03 January 2017 - 04:48 PM.

[Void Angel]

Kael Posavatz, on 03 January 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Empirical-Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations; verifiable through application of the scientific method.

If you can point to data from PGI on MWO where 12v10 match-ups were tested and found wanting, I would ask that you share it with us.

First, you're inserting a different subject than I used when mentioning "empirically." The issue was the idea that Clantech is "supposed to be" superior, and 10v12 was an aside in support of the main point. The position which was empirically wrong was the "Clans are supposed to be superior" bit - you know, the one in the post I was quoting. Your definition of empirical is also, well, wrong. Empirical evidence is evidence that is obtained by experience rather than by theory or pure logic; the scientific method is the best way to obtain empirical evidence, but not the only one.

In any case, PGI actually did 10v12 testing in-house, with some of the high-level players at the time (if you ever see a Secret Squirrel cockpit item, I understand they were given out for things like that.) It went nowhere, if only because of logistics. This was with non-canon Clantech, and no data was released publicly. However, if you look at the canon numbers, it's unthinkable that simply dropping two 'mechs from the Clan side would balance the tech overmatch. Some of the Clan weapons actually look less powerful in tabletop - but that's because their numbers were adjusted to balance their longer burn times.

We know this because of empirical data that's available to anyone who's interested to know. The Clans already have a demonstrable advantage, and plugging in canon numbers is insane. Remember, we're talking about Clans with the exact same mechanics instead of the "different but equal" approach in place now - that's what the whole "give the Clans canon supertechnology and it'll be balanced 10v12" means. So no long burn times, no inferior damage/heat ratios, jump jets on any Omnimech - and that's if we're not allowing the same customizatoin options that Battlemechs have, since Omnis are Battlemechs Plus. So we're talking 15-point ERPPC alphas, single-shot UAC/20s, and Clans that not only out-range and out-damage the Inner Sphere - but they do it running cooler. Just run the time to kill numbers for pairs of optimized 'mechs at each tonnage for the Center Torso with minimal back armor. Even if it was balanced in tabletop, there are several mechanics (all centered around a random dice roll) that cannot translate to MWO.

And of course this leaves out the obvious problems with there not being unlimited players available at any given level of skill: so the Clan units will have a much easier time assembling a team of any given skill level as compared to the Inner Sphere.

And all of this leaves out the nontrivial fact that 10v12 has never been shown to work by its proponents - though all the empirical evidence agitates against it. This is an unproven and extremely unlikely claim that's insisted on by people without evidence simply because they want it to be true. But MWO is not a LARP accessory, and wishing isn't a good basis for game balance.

Edited by Void Angel, 03 January 2017 - 09:44 PM.

[Aramuside]

BLOOD WOLF, on 03 January 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

I have not seen a single reason why anyone should respond to post like this with a serious answer

You win the award for most useless comment of the day but then that's your usual quality level.

Try to actually quote the entire sentence or post rather than just being your usual troll.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Any word on the light mech coming out after PGI's Frankenstein?

[Hawk819]

Jep Jorgensson, on 10 January 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Any word on the light mech coming out after PGI's Frankenstein?

No word. . . Yet! We could hear something soon. Mr. Bullock said something about a Town Hall. So maybe. . . ?? We all it's the Fire Moth without a doubt.

[DarthMolen]

Have the developers abandoned the "Command Chair" Forums? I don't see any roadmap in there for 2017, or even the end of 2016

[Jep Jorgensson]

Hawk819, on 10 January 2017 - 10:33 PM, said:

No word. . . Yet! We could hear something soon. Mr. Bullock said something about a Town Hall. So maybe. . . ?? We all it's the Fire Moth without a doubt.

I am not so sure that it is going to be the Firemoth. PGI said before that their crappy engine cannot handle mechs going as fast as the Firemoth can go.

[Alexander Garden]

Everyone, please keep your discussions outside the realm of personal attacks and jabs. They aren't necessary.

DarthMolen, on 11 January 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

Have the developers abandoned the "Command Chair" Forums? I don't see any roadmap in there for 2017, or even the end of 2016

This December Roadmap and Beyond post is the end of 2016 Roadmap. It isn't located in the Command Chair sub-forum because that sub-forum doesn't enable standard posts or replies. It was posted here in Announcements, and left here for now, so players could discuss the content of the post in a central area.

Once the January Roadmap arrives later this week I'll move the December Roadmap into the Command Chair.