103 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

Mechrophilia, on 10 October 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

To me, the MWO world championships showed inarguably just how bad the disparity is. ...Which still has me scratching my head about IS nerfs like the large pulse. I was truly puzzled by that one.

It's been like that since Clan mechs came in.

Balance wasn't too bad before Skill Tree and the latest laser nerf... But now with added Civ War tech...

Lordy... It's gone bach heavily clan-side.

SeventhSL, on 10 October 2017 - 05:59 PM, said:

It is an excellent indicator but again it isn't the full story. We saw above how the comparison of the MAL is a lot closer to balanced when the 5 ton advantage is added. Now how did IS mechs get their 5 ton advantage in the worlds?

Given the MWOOC2017 wasn't played in Faction Play, it was 8v8 2/2/2/2 Conquest...

Tonnage in FP is not given to balance the tech, it was given to balance the population.

You could give IS 10T a mech in FP and it would not fix the growing tech and hardpoint/mount imbalance.

It is absolutely about the tech(weapons), always has, always will be.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 10 October 2017 - 06:07 PM.

[El Bandito]

SeventhSL, on 10 October 2017 - 05:59 PM, said:

I am simply saying that unless we want symmetrical balance then it is time to look past the Tech base and start to look at flawed game mechanics. E.G. The idea of balancing based on tonnage or Class.

The idea of tonnage balancing happened in the first place because of tech imbalance. Tech imbalance must be addressed first, as it is the root of the issue.

[SeventhSL]

justcallme A S H, on 10 October 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

It's been like that since Clan mechs came in.

Balance wasn't too bad before Skill Tree and the latest laser nerf... But now with added Civ War tech...

Lordy... It's gone bach heavily clan-side.



Given the MWOOC2017 wasn't played in Faction Play, it was 8v8 2/2/2/2 Conquest...

Tonnage in FP is not given to balance the tech, it was given to balance the population.

You could give IS 10T a mech in FP and it would not fix the growing tech and hardpoint/mount imbalance.

It is absolutely about the tech(weapons), always has, always will be.

I think there was a PGI twitter comment somewhere saying that the tonnage disparity was to balance playerbase but if it really was you'd expect it to a change regularly and be a lot higher for the IS than it currently is. It balances tech base far better than population but either way it is a prime example of a fundamentally flawed mechanic.

I think we really need to break dominance of the current play style meta instead of just giving IS a clone of Clan tech so they can Do the same thing.

Edited by SeventhSL, 10 October 2017 - 06:34 PM.

[Mcgral18]

SeventhSL, on 10 October 2017 - 05:59 PM, said:

Triggered: The above probably triggered a lot of people so let me explain. I'm not saying there isn't tech imbalance. There is and if we want aysymetrical balance there should be. I'm not saying Clan doesn't have inherent advantages over IS.

Asymmetrical balance would be the Clams having longer range and more heat, with slower damage application, while the Sphere would run cooler, fire faster, and apply faster


That is not exactly the case now, where Clams are cooler, longer ranged, more durable, with slower damage application, but in cases DOUBLE THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE, which kinda offsets that whole trade thing.

[justcallme A S H]

SeventhSL, on 10 October 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

I think there was a PGI twitter comment somewhere saying that the tonnage disparity was to balance playerbase but if it really was you'd expect it to a change regularly and be a lot higher for the IS than it currently is. It balances tech base far better than population but either way it is a prime example of a fundamentally flawed mechanic.

I think we really need to break dominance of the current play style meta instead of just giving IS a clone of Clan tech so they can Do the same thing.

PGI look at Faction Play once every 6 months and Russ just shoots his mount off randomly at times.

Nothing new there really IMO.

[Bud Crue]

El Bandito, on 10 October 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

Tech imbalance must be addressed first, as it is the root of the issue.

And that is all there is to it.
Three years of ACTUAL, quantifiable, observable tech imbalance; and PGI's solution?
In CW: Screw with tonnage differences.
In the overall game: reduce or eliminate IS offensive quirks.

After this long it seems to me that they are never going to even try to get to the "root of the issue". Based on their commentary since last December, I'm convinced that they don't even know its there.

Geezus.

[Bigbacon]

doesn't this just also show just how high alpha builds completely break the game as well?

[MischiefSC]

But but... my IS mech has +10 ar.or on the ST! And and... muh lazorz burn two tenths of a second faster!

Oh, wait. Those are both pretty ****ing worthless by comparison which is why everyone who's good at the game plays Clans when winning matters.

Gosh, if only PGI had access to some sort of metrics to see this sort of data for themselves.

[Bud Crue]

MischiefSC, on 11 October 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

But but... my IS mech has +10 ar.or on the ST! And and... muh lazorz burn two tenths of a second faster!

Oh, wait. Those are both pretty ****ing worthless by comparison which is why everyone who's good at the game plays Clans when winning matters.

Gosh, if only PGI had access to some sort of metrics to see this sort of data for themselves.

I’m not sure they would understand those metrics even if they really have them.

Rant:
I mean when they nerfed UACs they claimed that certain mechs were “over performing relative to their internally established target values.” Great. Just how exactly are those internally established target values actually established? What do they reflect? If they are internally created does that mean the devs threw darts to come up with them? Basic math? Some sort of complex algorithm based on mech physical characteristics in relation to other mechs? Just what determines those internally established values?

Add that sort of abstraction to repeated assertions by the devs that they “only make balance decisions based on real in game data”. What kind of data? Do you have a system that shows, say a Kodiak 2’s damage out put for every possible build and its overall performance relative to every other mech, variant, or build in the game? No? Then how the hell can you assert that your data shows it to be over performing or not? How about frequency of play? I haven’t seen more than a couple of Cicadas since the skills tree dropped but I see pleanty of Assassins does that mean one is out performing the other? If not, just what does that suggest to you PGI...that players must just like the Assassin because of its cool name?
Etc. etc. etc.

Seriously PGI has never explained or even hinted at having the ability to engage in complex statistical analysis or metrical study of ANY aspect of their own game. I’m convinced that’s why they do things like nerf entire chassis when only one variant is an obvious over performer in the eyes of the community; when they do things like ignore entire chassis for years even when no one is playing ANY of that chassis variants in game. Etc. etc. etc.

They have metrics and know how to use them? Until they prove it, I don’t believe them.

[MischiefSC]

I work in analytics. The danger with metrics is always context and sample viability. Take IS/Clan balance. You could look at it and say "Clans only play better because good players play Clans". Good players play Clans because Clans are better tech. Yes but those same players do almost as well in IS in QP! QP is worthless for balance as the variance in mech build quality and player skill washes the accuracy out.

Bad players in bad builds in good mechs also skew metrics there. The number of bads running LRM Scorches and MC MKIIs and a w/l between 0.8 and 1.1 in mechs that are more realistically good for a 1.7 to 2.1 again skews the data.

The only useful balance telemetry you're going to get is comp play. However bad mechs get bad data because they are largely only played by bad players, so someone with bad analytics skills is going to try and adjust those bad mechs values for the variance in player skill, which they shouldn't be.

The raw math on mech performance is far more valuable and it's where Clans show their superiority. The only reason game balance doesn't feel worse than it does right now is that most players are so terrible at this game and build mechs so bad the performance difference for them between an LRM Stalker and LRM MC MKII is minimal. That's a problem with them sucking, not that the MC MKII isn't vastly superior to the Stalker.

[iliketurtles87]

El Bandito, on 10 October 2017 - 05:49 AM, said:

It will be nowhere near as good as the original. For comparison, here is a typical DS build with Clan tech.




And here is where I tried to do the same build with IS tech on a Mauler-2P before running out of tonnage. Just imagine the ballistic are on the arms and the energy points are on torso and they are all as high mounted as DS.




As you can see, with IS tech this IS version of DS doesn't even have any tonnage for heatsinks, and moves 9 kph, or 15% slower than Clan DS, with less firepower and range. Lets make it more presentable by changing out the ERLLs with more ERMLs and use the spare tonnage for engine and DHS.




Still slower, has 20 points, or 25% less alpha, and doesn't have enough range for the mech to safely operate. I am sure we can free up more tonnage by using XL engine, but it will still run slower and/or still have less DHS. Not to mention IS XL + Gauss in the arms could mean faster death in many cases, and it still will not solve slot problem. And IS CASE can't even save you cause you can't mount them in the arms!

"But what about quirks?" you might ask. Sure, let's take the Mauler as example and see what quirks PGI is likely to give the IS DS, factoring in its high mounts and high engine cap. Most likely:

-20% UAC jam chance, 10% ballistic cooldown, -10% energy heat, +10 structure to arms, +10 structure to STs, and +10 structure to legs. Which is still not good enough to make up for the lost firepower and speed.


Bottom line is: Current tech balance is bad, yo.

I actually run the Mauler build when i wanna do Gauss and Laservomit on the IS-Side (I think its currently the best IS-Mech to do that). But comparable to my clan mechs it is a hilarious bad option .... lol

PGI could solve many balance problem with the new IS-Tech. But they did everything to make the new IS-Tech inferior to the clan ones. Im looking at the light gauss...the LBX20, the Rotarys etc.

Clan-Tech must be superior you know

Edited by iliketurtles87, 11 October 2017 - 10:35 AM.

[FantasticMrDark]

Theres always the option of just giving up and adding a button to the mechlab that allows IS mechs use clan tech at the expensive of all their quirks. We'll quickly see whats better, meme IS quirks or Clan tech.

[MischiefSC]

FantasticMrDark, on 11 October 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

Theres always the option of just giving up and adding a button to the mechlab that allows IS mechs use clan tech at the expensive of all their quirks. We'll quickly see whats better, meme IS quirks or Clan tech.

I would just want it as a toggle. There is no sane reason anyone wouldn't take that. GHR with Clan tech? I'd take it over the EBJ.

[Composite Armour]

I'd happily give up all the quirks on my Stalker 3Fb for clan tech.

[DAYLEET]

Clan have longer duration lasers and will have to bring their A-Game if they want to win. I just never tire of that quote that was uttered before the clan release by a pgi employee.

[BrunoSSace]

If, If, IF, IS could run XL-s in their mechs with out losing a side torso and dieing it would bring balance a little closer. But we still have the problem with the tech being too Heavy, too many slots and not doing enough Damage for the investment. Take ballistic weapons for example, if they were to lower every ballistic by 1 ton and 1 Crit slot it would be a step in the right direction for ballance. It would not break this game and be so much better for the IS.

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 11 October 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

I would just want it as a toggle. There is no sane reason anyone wouldn't take that. GHR with Clan tech? I'd take it over the EBJ.

BJ-1X with cERML and cXL. Or, hell, even just cMPL.

[Gas Guzzler]

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

In another thread I was talking about some possible Nightstar builds. The only variant coming closest to the Deathstrike meta build might be the 9FC with the following loadout:

9FC Gauss Vomit:

• LFE300 (51.2 kph w/o speed tweak)
  
• 3 external DHS (Cooling at 36%)
  
• 3 ERMLs
  
• 2 LLs
  
• 2 GRs /w 5 tons of ammo
  
• Max armor

For theorycrafting I used the BNC-3S. The 15 tons and 8 slots left over will be used for the second Gauss and the hand actuator the Nightstar has in both arms but the Banshee only in the right one.

• Alpha of 63
  
• Similar heat mgmt
  
• Far worse speed

Smurfy link: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7c563774bbbeed8

63 is just so much less than 80 though

[Nightbird]

All IS weapons need a 10-20% cooldown decrease to even out the dps/ton first, then we can talk about alpha which is more challenging.

For alpha size, I would suggest increasing the IS ghost heat linkage limit by 1 for all existing groups.

Edited by Nightbird, 11 October 2017 - 04:09 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Nightbird, on 11 October 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

All IS weapons need a 10-20% cooldown decrease to even out the dps/ton first, then we can talk about alpha which is more challenging.

For alpha size, I would suggest increasing the IS ghost heat linkage limit by 1 for all existing groups.

+2 for Meds. No good reason for allowing 6x cERML to do 42 sans ghost while isERML are stuck at 30.

Edit: Also going to need a heat reduction to make that extra DPS useful.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 11 October 2017 - 04:44 PM.