167 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 17 January 2017 - 05:52 PM, said:

Sorta. The nice thing about tonnage/space balancing is it gives room for more asymetric weapon performance. Like Clan LRMs being fast, flat trajectory but no indirect fire or Clans having the option for more total customization.

In my idea is Clan mechs having 7-12 hardpoints and unlocked Omnimechs. The end result should be *more* diversity between IS and CLAN tech than we have now.

My fundamental issue with balancing via tonnage and space as per the OP is that it invalidates most of what I have worked for my entire adult life (and even before that). It's just too much to bear, even if this is just a video game. <sobs>

That and that it runs counter to the source IP.

Edited by Mystere, 17 January 2017 - 05:59 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 17 January 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

My fundamental issue with balancing via tonnage and space as per the OP is that it invalidates most of what I have worked for my entire adult life (and even before that). It's just too much to bear, even if this is just a video game. &lt;sobs&gt;

That and that it runs counter to the source IP.

Being able to hit what you're aiming at, having liquid et al customization and more than 1 personal mech are all against the IP. So is double armor and a ton of other stuff that makes the game playable as a FPS.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 17 January 2017 - 06:25 PM, said:

Being able to hit what you're aiming at, having liquid et al customization and more than 1 personal mech are all against the IP. So is double armor and a ton of other stuff that makes the game playable as a FPS.

None of which have anything to do with the first part of my post.

Besides, those would require at least four different threads to deal with ... for starters.

And why again are people insisting on sticking with the IP, if everything other than names are to be completely changed? What is the point again?

Edited by Mystere, 17 January 2017 - 06:46 PM.

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 17 January 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

...
And why again are people insisting on sticking with the IP, if everything other than names are to be completely changed? What is the point again?

The point is that the IP is more than a strictly adhered-to set of rules for a single medium that demonstrably do not transfer completely or well to a vastly different medium.

TT isn't the IP. BattleTech is more than just splatbooks and TROs. I know you hate to hear that, but it's still quite true.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 17 January 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

The point is that the IP is more than a strictly adhered-to set of rules for a single medium that demonstrably do not transfer completely or well to a vastly different medium.

TT isn't the IP. BattleTech is more than just splatbooks and TROs. I know you hate to hear that, but it's still quite true.

I'm finally going to give you a clue, just this one instance, since you obviously still don't have any after all this time. Plus, I'll be doing that using someone else's words, so as to [1] not claim any form of originality or credit and [2] which hopefully will have more impact given that they're not my words (which you'd most likely misrepresent anyway ... again):

Koniving, on 15 January 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

The problem isn't tabletop rules.
The problem is the translation using made up rules.

Now, if they did a translation filtered through lore, we'd have something much more tennible.

But if after this you still don't get "it", then you already know my standing advice.

Edit 1: Missing link to original added, and with my apologies to Koniving for using his post repeatedly. But it conveys a particular point better than I could.

Edit 2: The one thing I would add is updating the "bad" 1980's based science to 21st Century realities, but only as much as the IP could bear.

Edited by Mystere, 17 January 2017 - 09:18 PM.

[1453 R]

What the hell does "filtered through lore" even mean?

You can't take a Koniving snippet without context, because simply saying "Filter the game through lore!" means exactly nothing.

Also, Koniving? The word is 'tenable'. Though 'Tennible' feels like it should have its own meaning somewhere. I'ma look into it!

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 17 January 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

What the hell does "filtered through lore" even mean?

You can't take a Koniving snippet without context, because simply saying "Filter the game through lore!" means exactly nothing.

Also, Koniving? The word is 'tenable'. Though 'Tennible' feels like it should have its own meaning somewhere. I'ma look into it!

Hah! Silly me. I thought I provided the link to the original. In any case, post adjusted.

[Karl Streiger]

Mystere, on 17 January 2017 - 08:40 PM, said:

Edit 2: The one thing I would add is updating the "bad" 1980's based science to 21st Century realities, but only as much as the IP could bear.

That should change what?
More heat and recoil for GaussRifles?
ranges?
ammunition per ton?
Engine Weight?

The "original" 3025 was tonnage balanced. Ok not neatly not perfectly and I might argue that some Mechs loadout look like there was a different heat system before (only free heatsinks what fit into the engine).
That's why SDLF and Clan Tech further are so bad. That is the reason for the dire need of an abstract point value system

---

The main issue with CBT is the 2d6 system. It doesn't scale properly - when you move your mech for 30m it might have a difference between a 7 and a 9 and this has a major impact. 30m or maybe 5m/s differences because those 30m is not only range but also speed, acceleration and twisting

However, if you might use a 2xd10 system with 1d10 rolling for whole 10% 0-90% and the other for 0-9% - you can have a smooth transition. Although i didn't want to play it anymore with pen & paper - but its a non issue for a computer.
With a smooth damage curve you have a function - with this function you can extract the exact damage value a weapon might deal at some range.

21st century tech - of course you can take real ballistics and real "death ray" calculation for the damage drop off. But the result might be similar

The more abstract stuff about weapon damage is the time component as Koninving already mentioned. A MLAS shot can be 4-5 shots it can be a single beam.... more important in a FPS however is the ability to strike the same spot with multiple weapons.
There were several ideas to fix this in the last years - spread, no alpha ability, ghost heat (as the worst), ed hardly better than gh, maybe even the BAR idea (that might be very interesting)

Maybe you think that a tonnage based system don't need the "numbers of weapons" but it does.

Look the AC20 is that big and heavy with poor range and high heat because it deals a single solid chunk of 20points of damage. This is enough to cripple most Mechs on the 3025 Battlefields. And so tonnage is a natural limit - look for yourself. You don't get a single mech in 3025 that is not a glasscannon that can have a AC20 and reach the 100kph limit.
This is really important to understand. Now with MWO weapon rules - 4 MLAS deal the same damage - ok burn duration but you don't have any in CBT where as heat in MWO is less restrictive. So you can have either 6MLAS in MWO or 4MLAS and 2 heatsinks in CBT.
So you might be able to have a CDA or a JR7 and you have it much faster with the same protection. So it's not tonnage alone but also game mechanic.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 17 January 2017 - 11:50 PM.

[axe64]

I havnt read any of this post other than the title and the first line. i strongly disagree how dare you want people to agree with eachother

but in reality having read the post now i still disagree since the idea would make lights and a lot of mediums worthless something pgi has stated they did not want. they wanted it so that every mech could make a difference.

Edited by axe64, 18 January 2017 - 01:05 AM.

[MischiefSC]

axe64, on 18 January 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

I havnt read any of this post other than the title and the first line. i strongly disagree how dare you want people to agree with eachother

I didn't read much past your first sentence but I disagree with you on principle and have reported you for hacking.

[Vellron2005]

Sjorpha, on 17 January 2017 - 05:35 AM, said:

It's mostly the self serving clan fanbois that represent the pants on head stupid position that they are entitled to superior tech just because "mah lore", true.

This is a game. An online competitive arena PVP shooter with 1:1 team size. It's not a RPG, it's not a campaign based sim, it's none of those game categories where strict upgrades or imbalances can be motivated in any way shape or form.

In such games, any such game, bad balance is simply bad for the game. If there is faction segregation it is extra bad for the game.

But you want to throw away the concept of sound balance and good game design because "modern smartphones aren't equal to old landline phones". Any arguments like that is complete self serving sophistry from beginning to end, makes the person saying it sound like a dishonest egotastical douche, which I suppose is in line with clan lore, so you could claim that attitude is roleplaying as a cherry on top.

Also most players arguing balance isn't IS or Clan, we're just players. Almost everyone plays both sides. The fact is that most unit players and most of the comp scene wants proper balancing, not because of any faction affiliation but simply because unbalanced PVP games are bad games with less diversity and competitive quality than well balanced games.

I'm really not trying to be a douche here, its that I simply can't and won't stand for the mellowing and watering down of one of the best SF settings in history.

Yes, this is a PVP game, but set in a specific setting. If you wanted all sides to be equal, you should build a game in a brand new setting where all the mechs are the same (kinda like what WOTC did with D&D 4ED, and we all know how that ended up).

You can say all you want about us lore buffs, but the fact of the matter is that balance is an illusion, it simply does not exist in the universe, and there are only two ways in witch the illusion of balance can be achieved - either make everything the same (the way OP wants it), witch is in my humble opinion, boring as hell, or make everything different and unique, with it's own strengths and weaknesses, giving versatility, value, and power of choice. A good example of this in gaming is Starcraft - the most E-sport game ever - who's three races are totally different and unique, yet, balanced in their pros and con's..

Making "bigger is better" makes absolutely no sense in any way imaginable for a SF game, set in the distant future, and in the lore-rich BT setting.

It would take away the last semblance of immersion from a game that stripped the BT setting down to it's bones..

[Karl Streiger]

Vellron2005, on 18 January 2017 - 03:22 AM, said:

You can say all you want about us lore buffs, but the fact of the matter is that balance is an illusion, it simply does not exist in the universe, and there are only two ways in witch the illusion of balance can be achieved - either make everything the same (the way OP wants it), witch is in my humble opinion, boring as hell, or make everything different and unique, with it's own strengths and weaknesses, giving versatility, value, and power of choice. A good example of this in gaming is Starcraft - the most E-sport game ever - who's three races are totally different and unique, yet, balanced in their pros and con's..

Well a tonnage based system would still keep the unique flair of said clan mechs.
The ER Large Laser - as perfect example can still deal its 12-or even 15 dmg if you like, but maybe its base range is reduced but the max range is tripled plus a longer reload time.
So you can deal some damage at very very long range - or you can deal some serious damage up close.

Before the Clans I had tried to make every IS weapon unique - and i always thought that the same base damage and handling for ERPPC and PPC as well as Large Laser and ER Large are lame. First option make PPCs faster and Large Laser with shorter beam, or keep velocity the same but modify damage - and drop off.

Each weapon has a load of parameters that can be used. But in the end it should not be clear that one weapon option is simple better than another one.
When Gauss and ERPPC Sniper combination would pay in an eternity of loading time - they would be less universal in usage.

[Sjorpha]

Vellron2005, on 18 January 2017 - 03:22 AM, said:

You can say all you want about us lore buffs, but the fact of the matter is that balance is an illusion, it simply does not exist in the universe, and there are only two ways in witch the illusion of balance can be achieved - either make everything the same (the way OP wants it), witch is in my humble opinion, boring as hell, or make everything different and unique, with it's own strengths and weaknesses, giving versatility, value, and power of choice. A good example of this in gaming is Starcraft - the most E-sport game ever - who's three races are totally different and unique, yet, balanced in their pros and con's..

Equally good doesn't mean "the same" at all, and sameness isn't what the OP is asking for. Complete 100% strawman.

I want many clan and IS weapons to be MORE different than they are now. For example the PPCs are the same except clan is better, super boring. IS ERPPCs should have something completely different from clan ERPPCs to make them equally good, whre the clan ERPPC special thing is the splash damage that it should keep. That something could be sensor jamming for example, or significantly better velocity, or whatever, something the clan ERPPC does not have and that is significant in combat.

Also balance isn't an illusion unless you put the old unsaid "absolute" in there. That way you can call anything an illusion. There is no (absolute) truth, there is no (absolute) free will, there is no (absolute) reality, there is no (absolute) evidence of any claim ever made.

The truth (the scientifically and philosophically operative definition of truth, a subset of probability meaning maximally probable) is that good balance can and does exist in a lot of great games, and it isn't any more difficult in this game once the decision to do it has been made. It can't be perfect/absolute/whatever, but it can be good enough to make IS mechs not need quirks and have an equal showing in competitive matches, it can be good enough to make all equipment in the game competitively relevant, so pretty damn good is what balance can be. Tonnage and crits is just another variable in this framework of rules that make up the specific game, just like damage, velocity or what have you. They all need to be accounted for in the balancing, and there is in principle no difference between the factions in that regard.

Also the more unbalanced a game is, the more watered down and generic it becomes in practice, because you'll never see the underpowered things on the field. The most diverse and immersive games are games with very good balance. It's the imbalance, not the balance that is watering down this IP.

Wouldn't this game be less watered down and less generic if we saw SHS, standard structure and all rest as much as the current meta stuff? The way to do that is making them equally worth whatever cost they have.

Edited by Sjorpha, 18 January 2017 - 07:23 AM.

[Mystere]

Karl Streiger, on 17 January 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

That should change what?
More heat and recoil for GaussRifles?
ranges?
ammunition per ton?
Engine Weight?

In no particular order, and in no way a complete list:

• advances in miniaturization and materials science
  
  • bulky, heavy, sturdy, inefficient vs. compact, light, fragile, efficient
• atmospheric effects
  
  • effects on laser beam visibility, especially TAG
• weapon ranges and accuracy
  
• missile guidance and tracking
  
• EMP effects
  
• electronic jamming
  
• radar and other sensors
  
  • passive vs. active
• effects of pulse vs. continuous-beam lasers on target materials
  
  • vaporization/plasma-generation vs. melting/heat-generation
• heat effects
  
  • including on pilots
• impact recoil, depending on weapon
  
• weapon impact angles
  
• ammunition types
  
• drones

In other words, let's get all the nice good science stuff.

[Jackal Noble]

Sjorpha, on 18 January 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

Equally good doesn't mean "the same" at all, and sameness isn't what the OP is asking for. Complete 100% strawman.

I want many clan and IS weapons to be MORE different than they are now. For example the PPCs are the same except clan is better, super boring. IS ERPPCs should have something completely different from clan ERPPCs to make them equally good, whre the clan ERPPC special thing is the splash damage that it should keep. That something could be sensor jamming for example, or significantly better velocity, or whatever, something the clan ERPPC does not have and that is significant in combat.

Also balance isn't an illusion unless you put the old unsaid "absolute" in there. That way you can call anything an illusion. There is no (absolute) truth, there is no (absolute) free will, there is no (absolute) reality, there is no (absolute) evidence of any claim ever made.

The truth (the scientifically and philosophically operative definition of truth, a subset of probability meaning maximally probable) is that good balance can and does exist in a lot of great games, and it isn't any more difficult in this game once the decision to do it has been made. It can't be perfect/absolute/whatever, but it can be good enough to make IS mechs not need quirks and have an equal showing in competitive matches, it can be good enough to make all equipment in the game competitively relevant, so pretty damn good is what balance can be. Tonnage and crits is just another variable in this framework of rules that make up the specific game, just like damage, velocity or what have you. They all need to be accounted for in the balancing, and there is in principle no difference between the factions in that regard.

Also the more unbalanced a game is, the more watered down and generic it becomes in practice, because you'll never see the underpowered things on the field. The most diverse and immersive games are games with very good balance. It's the imbalance, not the balance that is watering down this IP.

Wouldn't this game be less watered down and less generic if we saw SHS, standard structure and all rest as much as the current meta stuff? The way to do that is making them equally worth whatever cost they have.

There are other ways to make better variation than to make the stuff that is supposed to be less optimal compete with stuff that is supposed to be optimal. But what the hell why not at this point - standard structure could be more durable, and shs could have a jettison option where you can jettison a sink to drop temperature. There, I can play ball.

Currently IS erppc offers 4 more seconds of ECM disruption, and .5 less heat than it's Clan counterpart for 10 damage (vs 5 extra splash, where 2.5 or all of it can be wasted) otherwise, all other stats are near identical. How would you propose that these weapon systems be changed so that both are viable options, esp considering the ppc exists on the IS side, an option not available to Clan?

Edited by JackalBeast, 18 January 2017 - 08:42 AM.

[YourSaviorLegion]

This thread in reality is saying that a Sherman with a 105 mm should be more powerful than a Tiger 1s 88mm KwK.

[Jackal Noble]

YourSaviorLegion, on 18 January 2017 - 08:42 AM, said:

This thread in reality is saying that a Sherman with a 105 mm should be more powerful than a Tiger 1s 88mm KwK.

Careful, you're gonna draw in the German World War II tech wasn't really that good crowd.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 18 January 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

In no particular order, and in no way a complete list:

• advances in miniaturization and materials science
  
  • bulky, heavy, sturdy, inefficient vs. compact, light, fragile, efficient
• atmospheric effects
  
  • effects on laser beam visibility, especially TAG
• weapon ranges and accuracy
  
• missile guidance and tracking
  
• EMP effects
  
• electronic jamming
  
• radar and other sensors
  
  • passive vs. active
• effects of pulse vs. continuous-beam lasers on target materials
  
  • vaporization/plasma-generation vs. melting/heat-generation
• heat effects
  
  • including on pilots
• impact recoil, depending on weapon
  
• weapon impact angles
  
• ammunition types
  
• drones

In other words, let's get all the nice good science stuff.

Tha's cool in all, but what are the implications of each on gameplay and balance? That's the question you should be asking for each item.

[Koniving]

1453 R, on 17 January 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

What the hell does "filtered through lore" even mean?

You can't take a Koniving snippet without context, because simply saying "Filter the game through lore!" means exactly nothing.

Also, Koniving? The word is 'tenable'. Though 'Tennible' feels like it should have its own meaning somewhere. I'ma look into it!

You're right.
Autocorrect gave me that, though, so I used it.

Also you're right,Mystere's constant quoting should include the context though you can click the circular arrow to jump back to the original post -- Mystere should also be passing around the update for the "while true, it [...] missing fallacies" that another guy pointed out, in which I gave great detail as to how MWO could have been running tabletop rules through a lore filter, from weapons and weapon variants which run tabletop weapon categories as "Damage and Heat Over Unit of Time" rather than "Damage and Heat Per Shot". These also allow boating yet doesn't give "huge advantages" to boating, as well as allow specific weapons that are supposed to be great be what they are supposed to be while still allowing weapons that 'suck' to be very useful. Also better AC to UAC balance, better distinction between standard and pulse lasers, and distinction between PPC and ER PPC which does NOT have "magical 90 meter no damage" range, but instead an accuracy penalty range defined as a firing delay (charge) by the field inhibitor with an option to turn it off at the risk of the weapon exploding in your face as per lore. LRM differences, proper SRMs that are distinct from MRMs. Proper Streaks that don't defy the laws of physics. And going from there, a heat system that still has thirty threshold AND a separate heatsink threshold with the ability to melt heatsinks, distinct thermal mechanics which allows Alpha Strikes to exist but also enforces that they are rare instances employed by desperate Mechwarriors in dire situations, and finally, an engine crit system to balance STD, XL, Clan XL, and IS Light engines.

Edited by Koniving, 18 January 2017 - 11:00 AM.

[cazidin]

We still can't agree on this one simple thing? Maybe it's not so simple.