159 replies to this topic

[Thorn Hallis]

Johnny Z, on 11 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

Balance is very good considering all the factors involved. A lot of the rest needs work still agreed. Missing a few features to.

Wait, what? Balance is very good? What, compared to the balance of China to North Korea?

[ForceUser]

Balance is very good. Don't drink the bittervet Koolaid and don't confuse lack of skill vs skilled players. Or the **** tier builds those same low skilled players use. I've seen some of the builds people used that complain about balance and oh my god are they bad in every single way. There are now more competitive or at least very good mechs and builds than there has ever been in MWO ever. It just takes people getting over their own self importance and snowflake builds and run sensible (not cookie cutter meta, just sensible) builds.

Just because saying balance is bad is the current popular meme doesn't actually change the fact that balance is good.

[Thorn Hallis]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Just because saying balance is bad is the current popular meme doesn't actually change the fact that balance is good.

You might want to take a look that this thread: https://mwomercs.com...he-deathstrike/

It explains in a pretty simple way why balance is neither good nor very good.

[xengk]

Joshua McEvedy, on 10 October 2017 - 03:05 AM, said:

So I take it that you weren't around during the dark days of 2013-2014 when MWO almost died because of PGI deception and incompetence? And remind me again why we now have simple 2-bucket 'Faction Warfare' instead of a much richer multi-faceted "Community Warfare?"

And I also guess you haven't seen the more recent townhall in which Russ called the MWO community "cheapskates."



So will there be $500 gold mechs in MW5?

http://www.pcgamer.c...0-still-coming/

I chuckled and hope there will be a "cheapskate" decal, would gladly stick it on my mech.
Before the skill tree, I have over 140 mechs and maybe 20 modules that I swap around each game.

[Rovertoo]

Thorn Hallis, on 11 October 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

You might want to take a look that this thread: https://mwomercs.com...he-deathstrike/

It explains in a pretty simple way why balance is neither good nor very good.

I would agree balance isnt perfect, but considering all of the complicated factors involved, its really not that bad. Its certainly better balanced than any other mechwarrior game. I have some changes Id like to make but considering that there really arent any "crazy OP" things, just "mildly OP" things, "normal/good things" and lots of "mediocre things" and then one or two "useless things", its really not bad. Certainly not in a worse place than some other popular FTP games.

[Mcgral18]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Balance is very good. Don't drink the bittervet Koolaid and don't confuse lack of skill vs skilled players. Or the **** tier builds those same low skilled players use. I've seen some of the builds people used that complain about balance and oh my god are they bad in every single way. There are now more competitive or at least very good mechs and builds than there has ever been in MWO ever. It just takes people getting over their own self importance and snowflake builds and run sensible (not cookie cutter meta, just sensible) builds.

Just because saying balance is bad is the current popular meme doesn't actually change the fact that balance is good.

Yep, balance is SO good, Four Spheroid robots were considered over Clam options during MWOWC
A decrease since last year...

Gotta love that progression. Maybe we can have 100% Clam use by next year? It's already below 25% per team (very rarely more than 2 Spheroid choices)

[MechaBattler]

It's almost as if nerfing all the weapon quirks was a bad idea. As if superior firepower is far better than defensive quirks. : /

[Thorqemada]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Balance is very good. Don't drink the bittervet Koolaid and don't confuse lack of skill vs skilled players. Or the **** tier builds those same low skilled players use. I've seen some of the builds people used that complain about balance and oh my god are they bad in every single way. There are now more competitive or at least very good mechs and builds than there has ever been in MWO ever. It just takes people getting over their own self importance and snowflake builds and run sensible (not cookie cutter meta, just sensible) builds.

Just because saying balance is bad is the current popular meme doesn't actually change the fact that balance is good.

Balance means there are a dozen ways to play a game instead of 1 or 2 ways.
MWO isnt balanced very well, some choices are far suprior then others.
Bcs Battletech/Mechwarrior games were never good balanced it does not make MWO good balanced - it makes MWO slightly balanced in a few spoecific ways.

Long Range Weapons would have disadvantages at short range - only some Missiles have this bcs PGI obviously hates Missiles (yeah and the IS PPC of course bcs PGI gives a **** about IS)
There would not be excessive pinpoint damage - not even in reality the best aiming Computers can hit the same spot twice with one weapon not to speak of many weapons.
High Mount Mechs would be less agile than Low Mount Mechs (bcs Gravity and Bodymechanics etc.)
Fast Mechs could not turn on a dime but would slide straight away if they turn to hard.
Water would slow you down much...
etc...

Edited by Thorqemada, 11 October 2017 - 10:06 AM.

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

"As we pass by the main hub that connects Piranha Games’ various workspaces, I spy a map of the Inner Sphere, the cluster of some 3,000 star systems that make up MechWarrior’s universe. Each one has a name and a history etched into the stone tablets of BattleTech lore. And for those who have grown up living in that universe, it’s these little details that matter. Fortunately, Russ Bullock is all about the little details."

*looks at faction play map*



*lols*

*lols some more*

*cries*

Edited by The Nerf Bat, 11 October 2017 - 10:14 AM.

[ForceUser]

Thorn Hallis, on 11 October 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

You might want to take a look that this thread: https://mwomercs.com...he-deathstrike/

It explains in a pretty simple way why balance is neither good nor very good.

I have a Death Strike. However my Cyclops-10-Q is my highest average damage per match mech I own and not by a little, by a LOT. It's also got extremely good KDR and W/L and those numbers stay the same or improve the more I play it. The Deathstrike is a good mech and will see some nerfs I'm sure but because of the sheep mentality and everyone drinking the koolaid there are mechs that are as capable or better that go completely unnoticed. I don't see any posts crying for a nerf on the Cyclops-10-Q.

Here is a shot of my top 13 mechs. Technically only 8 because the clan mechs run the same builds on the same chassis like the MAD IIC or the Hellbringer or the Summoner or the Deathstrike/MCII-1. Of that 8, 4 is IS and 4 is Clan.



Terrible balance right?

Oh as for different builds there is Laser vomit, Gauss vomit, MRMs and ERPPCs present in my top 8. The next two mechs not shown here is the dakka Kodiak and Dual LB20X or UAC10 Hunchback IIC.

That's a lot of weapons represented.

Edited by ForceUser, 11 October 2017 - 10:29 AM.

[Bud Crue]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 10:25 AM, said:

I have a Death Strike. However my Cyclops-10-Q is my highest average damage per match mech I own and not by a little, by a LOT. It's also got extremely good KDR and W/L and those numbers stay the same or improve the more I play it. The Deathstrike is a good mech and will see some nerfs I'm sure but because of the sheep mentality and everyone drinking the koolaid there are mechs that are as capable or better that go completely unnoticed. I don't see any posts crying for a nerf on the Cyclops-10-Q.

Here is a shot of my top 13 mechs. Technically only 8 because the clan mechs run the same builds on the same chassis like the MAD IIC or the Hellbringer or the Summoner or the Deathstrike/MCII-1. Of that 8, 4 is IS and 4 is Clan.



Terrible balance right?

One example does not properly illustrate or suggest a state of balance or imbalance, but performance averages do.
Look carefully at your top performers there.

9 Clan, 4 IS.

Balance is fine right?

[ForceUser]

Bud Crue, on 11 October 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

One example does not properly illustrate or suggest a state of balance or imbalance, but performance averages do.
Look carefully at your top performers there.

9 Clan, 4 IS.

Balance is fine right?

I already answered your concern in an edit in the original post

Actually no, you completely and utterly ignored a part of my poast. Here let me quote iot for you

Quote

Technically only 8 because the clan mechs run the same builds on the same chassis like the MAD IIC or the Hellbringer or the Summoner or the Deathstrike/MCII-1. Of that 8, 4 is IS and 4 is Clan

Edited by ForceUser, 11 October 2017 - 10:36 AM.

[Bud Crue]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

I already answered your concern in an edit in the original post

Actually no, you completely and utterly ignored a part of my poast. Here let me quote iot for you

So you run the same builds on different mechs so that means they don’t count in the analysis? So a BlackJack would count the same as a Partyback if the both had 8ML? No,

You can’t just ignore differences in variants just because you run the same builds. You have DOUBLE the clan mechs in your top builds and there is an obvious reason for that. Those clan mechs run them better.

Edit: you are also ignoring (like PGI) frequency of play.

Edited by Bud Crue, 11 October 2017 - 10:44 AM.

[ForceUser]

Bud Crue, on 11 October 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

So you run the same builds on different mechs so that means they don’t count in the analysis? So a BlackJack would count the same as a Partyback if the both had 8ML? No,

You can’t just ignore differences in variants just because you run the same builds. You have DOUBLE the clan mechs in your top builds and there is an obvious reason for that. Those clan mechs run them better.

What are you on? That's not what I said at all. My top performing Summoner build is dual ERPPC. I ran/run that on both of the summoners in the comparison so they count as one yes. Same mech, same build. Slightly different stats because one has way more matches is is probably more accurately placed. My Deathstrike and MCII-1 runs similar builds: Dual Gauss + ERLL/ERML so they count as the same mech/build although the MCII-1 isn't maxed out yet an doesn't have as many matches. Same with the Marauder IICs(I've actually sold the non (s) variant).

The same actual MECH that runs the same or extremely similar BUILD counts as one YES.

So you understand now or will I need to make some graphs?

[Bud Crue]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

What are you on? That's not what I said at all. My top performing Summoner build is dual ERPPC. I ran/run that on both of the summoners in the comparison so they count as one yes. Same mech, same build. Slightly different stats because one has way more matches is is probably more accurately placed. My Deathstrike and MCII-1 runs similar builds: Dual Gauss + ERLL/ERML so they count as the same mech/build although the MCII-1 isn't maxed out yet an doesn't have as many matches. Same with the Marauder IICs(I've actually sold the non (s) variant).

The same actual MECH that runs the same or extremely similar BUILD counts as one YES.

So you understand now or will I need to make some graphs?

Ah. I understand. So those similar builds (which are not the same builds0 are in your mind the same mech. Okay. Got it. I guess You built three “similar” marauder IIcs instead of say Stalkers out of random chance...since they out to be pretty “balanced” right? Or that you ran that Summoner 2 to 4 times more than any IS mech because it was so blah?

No, your illustration shows nothing more than a clear preference for clan mechs in terms of play time, builds, and chassis selection. You are asserting that that clear preference is because balance is fine. Okay. There is nothing I can say that your data doesn’t show just as clearly.

[ForceUser]

Bud Crue, on 11 October 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

Ah. I understand. So those similar builds (which are not the same builds0 are in your mind the same mech. Okay. Got it. I guess You built three “similar” marauder IIcs instead of say Stalkers out of random chance...since they out to be pretty “balanced” right? Or that you ran that Summoner 2 to 4 times more than any IS mech because it was so blah?

No, your illustration shows nothing more than a clear preference for clan mechs in terms of play time, builds, and chassis selection. You are asserting that that clear preference is because balance is fine. Okay. There is nothing I can say that your data doesn’t show just as clearly.

Ah, you're trying to paint me as a clan apologist. Top 30 played mechs:



I'm such a dirty clanner. Boo me.

[Bombast]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 10:25 AM, said:

Terrible balance right?

You've kind of picked the only stat that agrees with you, though, haven't you? Besides your Cyclops, there seems to be a heavy slant in favor of Clan mechs when it comes to KDR and WLR.

[Bud Crue]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Ah, you're trying to paint me as a clan apologist.

Not at all. Merely that balance is not fine and your own top mech list shows it.
Add up your three similar marauders, or your two similar MK-IIs or your Summoners. You are playing these mechs which many folks seem to think are pretty damn good mechs more than any others with more consistently good results. That’s why they are your top mechs after all! The fact that you have a Cyclops with a fraction of the play time as a statistically better performer does not change that preponderance of clan dominance in your top mechs.

[ForceUser]

Bombast, on 11 October 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

You've kind of picked the only stat that agrees with you, though, haven't you? Besides your Cyclops, there seems to be a heavy slant in favor of Clan mechs when it comes to KDR and WLR.

It's one of the stats I as a player have the most control over in QP. You can influence to a degree (depending on skill) your win/loss ratio but it is still dependent on the team you are with. That makes W/L less reliable on mechs with lower matches played. The more matches played the more stable the W/L. Look at my total matches played screenshot. no big outliers other than the Direwhale between IS and Clan.

As for KDR I've always had trouble with getting kill shots because of a 300ms ping. That same 300ms ping means that different weapons, although they don't have trouble dealing damage, does have different performance when it comes to getting last hit kills. That means KDR in my case is a less reliable stat to look at as well. It's about being a couple hundred milliseconds late on doing damage compared to someone else just so you understand why I say that my latency is affecting it. That said ERPPCs were *brutal* when the Summoner was OP. That **** was unbalanced as all hell.

And that's kind of the point. There might be one or two outliers at any one time but they get balanced and overall the mechs are balanced. The Dual ERPPC summoner isn't a broken unbalanced horror any more, neither is the Direwolf, the Kodiak, the Marauder IIC, the Oxide, the Firestarter, the Hugin, the Dragon, the Cataphract 3D, the Highlander, the Dragon Slayer, the Blackjack, the Night Gyr, The Timber wolf, the Stormcrow and pretty soon the Deathstrike (honestly not close to as bad as some of the past OP mechs was).

Bud Crue, on 11 October 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Not at all. Merely that balance is not fine and your own top mech list shows it.
Add up your three similar marauders, or your two similar MK-IIs or your Summoners. You are playing these mechs which many folks seem to think are pretty damn good mechs more than any others with more consistently good results. That’s why they are your top mechs after all! The fact that you have a Cyclops with a fraction of the play time as a statistically better performer does not change that preponderance of clan dominance in your top mechs.

I only bought the Cyclops last month...

Hell I wasn't even HOME most of last month.

Edited by ForceUser, 11 October 2017 - 11:25 AM.

[Bombast]

ForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

SNIP

Honestly, I find none of that compelling. Damage as a 'pure' balance metric is simply a poor choice - It doesn't take into account damage efficiency and it's the most easily gamed stat. It also favors certain weapons that are generally considered poor - For example, my best three damage mechs use the LB-20X (Warhammer), RAC/5 (Bushwacker), and LRMs (Catapult). Could I use that to say that not only are IS mechs superior, but those are the best weapons in the game?

As for ping... come on, man. You know thats a cop out. If you really thought ping was a factor, you'd have to bow out and admit none of your stats are 'admissible.'