84 replies to this topic

[Tier5 Kerensky]

I see no problem. The only thing I miss is the ability to drop in two Dire two Mist Lynx dropdeck. It wasn't good but it was fun.

IS and Clan balance is a bit more complicated than comparing simple one-dimensional measurements like weight and height.

Clan weapons generally have a range advantage, fairly major one. Clan weapons, specially some, have a huge or major weight advantage, which usually results in amount advantage. Clan mechs also have speed advantage, due to not only most locked to XL engine, and the ones which aren't locked, still usually take one as the disadvantage of XL engine outweights the advantage of better speed or more guns.

IS generally has heat advantage, and some brawling advantage too. Now in faction play many of the advantages of Clan tech, are not so useful as in quick play.

So, that will result, that balance has to be made with different tonnage limits.

[Phra]

12v10 will not ever happen, dropdeck tonnage is the best and easiest way to balance FW.

Can do 85+70+70+40 or 85+65+65+50 and be perfectly competive vs 85+75+50+30 or 75+65+50+50.

Edited by Phra, 17 December 2016 - 05:29 AM.

[adamts01]

Mystere, on 16 December 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

On a more (somewhat) serious note, unless PGI starts showing the math they are using to determine how the they are "balancing" the two sides -- and the playerbase accepts it -- discussions like this will just never end.

Math makes sense, so it's impossible to use it to explain PGI's lack of balance. Clan/IS aside, CW and group que went the rout of tonnage=power, while in quickplay every mech is treated as equal. It's not a case of not liking how PGI balanced things, it's that they didn't even pick a direction to go yet. It's arguably the greatest fundamental flaw in this game, and after years has yet to be addressed, so of course the arguing will continue.

[Mystere]

adamts01, on 17 December 2016 - 05:34 AM, said:

Math makes sense, so it's impossible to use it to explain PGI's lack of balance. Clan/IS aside, CW and group que went the rout of tonnage=power, while in quickplay every mech is treated as equal. It's not a case of not liking how PGI balanced things, it's that they didn't even pick a direction to go yet. It's arguably the greatest fundamental flaw in this game, and after years has yet to be addressed, so of course the arguing will continue.

I really do not understand the lack of willingness in PGI forcing Quick Play to be Clan vs. Clan, IS vs. IS, and Clan vs. IS depending on player availability. That by itself would help toward balancing the two sides. Currently, it is a huge impediment -- unless the goal is 1:1 parity at all levels. But then again that's insane for a lore that is inherently asymmetric (i.e. 3050 era). You can't have "different but equivalent" without it.

[Y E O N N E]

Not enough players to get decent match times with that setup, I wager.

[Besh]

I find it funny how noone ever mentions TCs when it comes to Clan vs IS "balance" . HUGE, and IS has nothing like it . While many Clan Chassis do not really have a Problem slot - and tonwise to equip a 4 .

Sry for going OT here, just wanted to mention it .

As far as tonnage limits go : I too seem to recollect that some tweet stated it has been found Clans simply have much more highLvL players than IS . So, gimping the allowed tonnage is giving the Group perceived to be the overall "better" one some handicap . I actually do not find something wrong with that . I also do not see anything wrong with the implied statement of "Do not want the tonnage Limit ? Switch your affiliation to the other Side." After all, there must be reasons why so many "skilled" Players routinely choose Clan over IS - COULD be in the Chassis, weapons, tech, but what do I know ? - and if they insist in doing it, giving them a nudge to think about whether they could give the other Side a visit here and there is good imho .

Need to say though, as some other tweet stated, the situation needs to be and (hopefully will be ) closely monitored . I really think "balance" can NEVER be something which is thought of a static situation in a Game like this one. Its an ongoing process . Stuff needs to get monitored/looked at all the time, a lot, and adjustments need to be made . By diversifying tonnage limits for the Decks, at least Weapons and other 'Techs stay untouched - isnt that a relief ?

Edited by Besh, 18 December 2016 - 05:29 AM.

[Kangarad]

no sir. 500 tons is not enought. how am I supposed to fit 4 200 ton super heavys in that? 800 or bust.

[Jingseng]

If balance is really the issue, there needs to be more control over the variables... semi-arbitrarily increasing and decreasing tonnage limits is like throwing darts randomly and hoping they end up hitting a dart board.

As much as I dislike it, set FW to stock mode only (or, for flavor, allow only omni mechs customization). Then your tonnage changes can be fine tuned by understanding drop deck possibilities and choices. THEN you can alter weapon and game mode rules to suit.

At that point, you can consider unlocking customization again for all mechs (or first for omnis). Then you can understand and adjust customization options and rules (prices, stats, etc.).

Then you've got your actual balance.

What we have now is not precision... it's crude, rough, broad strokes. It's whimsy. And each move is always going to be heavy handed whimsy, to which players respond in heavy handed fashion, and to which we get more heavy handed action.

edit: of course, there will still be players who just cant stand the thought of clans or clantech in the game, and wont rest until that entire aspect of the game is gutted, but you can't ever please those people anyway. There will always be something left to slash and burn for them, until they and their pet idea are all that is left.

Edited by Jingseng, 18 December 2016 - 07:41 AM.

[Alteran]

MechaBattler, on 16 December 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

Am I the only one that feels this is unacceptable? PGI has always claimed that they intend to keep balancing the game. But just giving the IS more drop deck tonnage is on the same level as 10v12 balancing.

It means that they admit there is a disparity. It means that at equal tonnage, playing as IS, you're at a disadvantage.

Granted there's also the issue of organized unit play versus pugs. But units want to run with maximum advantage. So that means Clans. So while you can argue organized play is more of an issue. The disparity exists because one faction is better than the other.

Where is our balance!?

Okay. Go ahead, flame away.

EVIL, who is currently IS, started a thread about how imbalanced the IS is to Clans. Go to the FP forums to get their view.

[QuantumButler]

It's almost like clantech is a 100% direct upgrade over IS and was never meant to be balanced and trying to do so was a fools' errand from day 1, really makes you think.

Edited by QuantumButler, 18 December 2016 - 07:53 AM.

[Sjorpha]

I think the tonnage change was a reasonable reaction to the direct FW lopsiding that threatened to collapse the mode, they had to do something right now, and there wasn't much else they could do on short notice.

You have to take into account that a balance overhaul of the factions is probably a couple months of work plus another month for testing and then the patch lock in eating a couple weeks. It's not really fair to say "balance over bandaids" unless you were willing to have the lopsided FW for 6 more months or so.

I do hope tech balance in on it's way too, but the tonnage adjustment was reasonable right now. It's also fairly lore friendly to give IS more tonnage.

Edited by Sjorpha, 18 December 2016 - 08:38 AM.

[AEgg]

Mostly out of curiosity, can anyone on the IS side get FW drops right now? For the most part, the clans cannot, or there are 2-3 clan teams in the queue against one IS team.

Regardless of tech balance or lack thereof, it seems like the IS side is seriously lacking in player count. Whatever PGI can do to encourage switching is probably a good idea.

[MechaBattler]

Teer Kerensky, on 17 December 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:

I see no problem. The only thing I miss is the ability to drop in two Dire two Mist Lynx dropdeck. It wasn't good but it was fun.

IS and Clan balance is a bit more complicated than comparing simple one-dimensional measurements like weight and height.

Clan weapons generally have a range advantage, fairly major one. Clan weapons, specially some, have a huge or major weight advantage, which usually results in amount advantage. Clan mechs also have speed advantage, due to not only most locked to XL engine, and the ones which aren't locked, still usually take one as the disadvantage of XL engine outweights the advantage of better speed or more guns.

IS generally has heat advantage, and some brawling advantage too. Now in faction play many of the advantages of Clan tech, are not so useful as in quick play.

So, that will result, that balance has to be made with different tonnage limits.

That sounds like the old meta. Before Paul came in, nerfed the IS weapon quirks, gave out a smattering of structure to compensate. Clans aren't exactly without brawler builds either. Especially after they made clan autocannons better.

The IS has a few advantages. But they're too minor now thanks to nerfed quirks. And people know it. That's why there exists a disparity.

I don't think we need the quirks back the way they were. But I do think that PGI needs to do more than just give tonnage advantage to one side. I just want to know if this is a stopgap measure or if this is how they plan to balance the game from now on. Because if it's the latter, then they're not giving us the balanced game they promised.

[Mcgral18]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 16 December 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

10v12 would be great, but the next best thing would be 250v300. It's proportionally the same as 10v12, and until cXLs are changed somehow there needs to be a difference elsewhere to make up the difference.

You mean changes to the isXL and STD engines

[FupDup]

Tonnage limits are just a bandaid that attempt to cover up the two problems of technology disparities and the "bigger is better" trend of mech design.

Edited by FupDup, 18 December 2016 - 11:57 AM.

[HauptmanT]

So why didnt they "balance" the way lore balanced it in BTTT.

That is Lance x3 vs. Star x2. 12 vs 10. No need for quirks, no need for breaking the rules, no need for nuttin. Clanners can have all the best stuff, like they are supposed to, and freebirth scum get to zerg with more numbers. It's lore friendly and balanced.

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

FupDup, on 18 December 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

Tonnage limits are just a bandaid that attempt to cover up the two problems of technology disparities and the "bigger is better" trend of mech design.

Not much of a band-aid if clan pilots never get to their 4th mech.

[Y E O N N E]

HauptmanT, on 18 December 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

So why didnt they "balance" the way lore balanced it in BTTT.

That is Lance x3 vs. Star x2. 12 vs 10. No need for quirks, no need for breaking the rules, no need for nuttin. Clanners can have all the best stuff, like they are supposed to, and freebirth scum get to zerg with more numbers. It's lore friendly and balanced.

Because that's still neither lore nor TT accurate. IS have a chance when it's 3 to 1 in lore. In TT, it's dependent entirely upon the fielded BV.

You want lore accurate, IS get three lances to one star. Then you can come back here and QQ about getting your 5 Kodiaks properly ROFLstomped by 12 Warhammers.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 18 December 2016 - 12:42 PM.

[no one]

It would be pretty cool if IS and clans had the same drop tonnage but IS had the option to run a 5 'Mech drop deck to the clan 4 'Mech drop deck. That would give a nod to IS numerical superiority and be reasonably balanced without removing 12v12.

inb4 someone cries 'wave after wave of locusts' - clan streaks and spl

Edited by no one, 18 December 2016 - 12:46 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Mcgral18, on 18 December 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

You mean changes to the isXL and STD engines

Actually, my thinking on this topic has progressed. Now I really mean changes to STD, XL, and cXL engines. Any realistic long-term solution probably needs to do something with all three.

FupDup, on 18 December 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

Tonnage limits are just a bandaid that attempt to cover up the two problems of technology disparities and the "bigger is better" trend of mech design.

Bandaids are an important part of first aid. You don't let your patient bleed to death while you search for the best treatment - you slap on a bandaid until you can get him to a hospital or whatever.