45 replies to this topic

[NimoStar]

It seems the new approach to "balancing" is literally making the two sides the same.

Seriously, the game mechanics for each of these sides are already nearly identical. it's not like we have a wholly assimetrical matchup like "Protoss vs Zerg", or in MOBAs with different heroes, or in the kind of "FPS" like Team Fortress or Overwatch.

So, already making a few differences is crucial so these sides feel different.

But now PGI makes Clan weapons almost exactly like the IS equivalents, bvecause they figure "this way nobody can complain".
Well, to start with IS quirks and skills are not the same. But more keyly, I don't want them to be the same either!
IF BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME THE GAME GETS STALE AS ONE JUST HAS A BROWN INTERFACE AND THE OTHER A BLUE ONE.
But maybe they will change that as well for the sake of "balancing interface colors".

To say more, I am not complaining about nerfs specifically. I am complaining about the way everything is done and the design philosophy behind.

Before, the philosophy was "make IS and Clan weapons different", which is why clan UACs work in other ways from IS UACs, having greater range and more dispersion/bullets; clan SSRMs as well have greater range but lower ROF and damage than IS counterparts.

But the philosophy of weapon differentiation which originally informed the game has been replaced by a wholly opposite one, of weapon total equivalence, tonnage equivalence, etc. Which means roughly, the game has lost its way and both factions are headed to be carbon copies of eachother. And now all clan lasers have the same ghost heat limits as IS ones. I woudn't be surprised if next update introduced IS Atms and heavy las...

In short, it's boring, it takes away the fun, makes builds less interesting and varied (since the same build will work for IS and Clan just by swapping weapon names), and it makes everyone yawn.
And people that yawn, leave the game.

So stop it with the "make everything equal" dumbness. Imagine if Blizzard took this approach and gave Protoss hatcheries to "balance them with zergs", and gave zergs Siege Tanks...

And they are "e-sports", the thing MWO tries all the time and miserably fails at.
So, if other developers can balance in a much more complex enviroment as is RTS three factions with wholly different mechanics,
why can't PGI balance just two factions while keeping their weapons and equipment reasonably distinct!?

[Mcgral18]

NimoStar, on 08 July 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

why can't PGI balance just two factions while keeping their weapons and equipment reasonably distinct!?

Because they're terrible at balancing
Perhaps they cannot interpret data properly, or they don't have any competent players
Who knows


The LPLs were a nice example of asymmetrical balance, once upon a time
The cLPL had more damage, more range, and double the duration
It was still a viable weapon
The isLPL deal damage in a considerably shorter period, and cycled faster

They were both very useful, and both clearly distinct in application
PGI outright killed the isLPL as a viable weapon, for some reason


GGclose

[NimoStar]

I mean, they even say in all their recent "balance" justifications just "We want *clan system* to more closely match their IS counterparts". That is a whole new level of dumb. You have two DIFFERENT factions, the point is they are NOT suppossed to "closely match". Imagine Blizzard saying for Diablo 3 "we made all Wizard spells into melee attacks, removed mana and buffed its health to more closely match their Barbarian counterpart".

No. Just no.

If you want meaningful balance, you make things diverge in mechanics and converge in the battlefield.

In fact, making weapons converge "In paper" , while other factors dont (engines, heatsinks, quirks, skills etc.) is a perfect way of making the outcome asymmetrical unless you make everything the same. Which is the route they are going now I guess, but it just makes the game less varied, less interesting, and ultimately your loyalty decision meaningless to builds and playstyle (for example, before, Clan large lasers had to be taken in increments of two to keep maximum efficiency, and IS large lasers in increments of three. Now all builds will be the same basically.)

[JediPanther]

Clans already have better tech else where plus it all weights less and take up less space than IS tech. No one is going to win the mwo wc with only IS mechs and tech any year soon. When you must win you always go clan.

[MischiefSC]

I would like to keep the different feel - Clans high alpha, high heat, higher damage, longer burn, longer cooldown. I would absolutely be okay with Clans having slightly worse DPS for the range and alpha advantage.

We've briefly had periods of some weapons being in balance but that was always broken later as they tried to then rebalance vs other weapons.

[Gen Lee]

I don't know if anyone has already mentioned it, or if PGI has spoken on this, but what about IS quirks and skill tree differences? Are those going to be looked at as well? The whole reason for higher IS armor quirks and then recently the changes to the skill tree that was that it was supposed to bring Clans more in line with IS. So unless the skill tree is looked at again as well as quirks, this might hit Clans harder than at first glance.

The way they are nerfing Clan lasers is bad enough, but if they go and try to start messing with the skill tree and especially all mechs' quirks...we're gonna have a real **** show. Small changes PGI, that's all we're looking for, if any. Start small, work your way from there. And don't use the first idea you come up with just because it looks good on paper and sounds easy, pls.

[Asym]

Many have said I am wrong but, it always seemed to me that balance was the last thing we needed between clan and IS.

What we really needed was a philosophical "difference" between the mech capabilities and effectiveness's....

It's the cold war paradigm that we've abandoned and are lost in the group hug arena of status quo..... Good luck with that because no one wins the balance competition....no one.

[Sjorpha]

Agree 100%, keep the factions as distinct as possible

If clan lasers, for example, needs some kind of nerf then it should be a nerf that increases the differences by further pushing it's distinct downsides.

So for clan lasers those distinct downsides are long duration, high heat and long cooldowns. So if you want to nerf clan lasers you should increase one of these rather than reduce the differences in damage or range.

Now the laser weapons themselves are already fairly close I think, but the clans have the advantage of very boatable DHS and IMO that is what creates the impression that clan lasers are so much stronger. So I think it would be a smarter move to go after the efficiency of cDHS and cXLs to make the laser boats on both sides more equal platforms in terms of base heat efficiency, then you'd have a better basis for balancing the lasers after that.

At the same time I'd be perfectly fine at this point with simply leaving all the tech pretty much alone and boost weak chassis up by bringing back some stronger quirks.

On another note though:

The approach to balancing in itself is really weird, this concept to enormous reworks and sweeping changes to entire categories of weapons a few times a year. It's so destructive and upsetting, and it would be destructive and upsetting EVEN IF they were the exact right changes.

If you look at other competitive games what happens is that balancing is done frequently with small constant nudges to things as they float to the top or bottom of the metagame. So let's say a hero in some moba is a bit too dominant, you go in and increase the cooldown of the ability that is causing the problems or increase the cost or whatever, wait a couple weeks and see if it helped and so on.

So what should really happen in MWO is for example you observe cMLAS is a bit too strong, ok so you nudge the duration up 0.1 secs and only that, wait a couple weeks...still too strong? Ok, do some other little tweak and so on. A mech is too weak, ok lets increase a quirk 5%, wait a week and see...you get the idea.

That is how things should be, and it should be done by someone following and participating in the competitive metagame, the players would be used to small tweaks happening to whatever is strongest/weakest and you wouldn's have nearly as much salt flowing.

Sure some people would still complain about this or that change they don't agree with, but it wouldn't be like now when almost the entire community facepalms in unison, for good reason, over PGIs cluelessness each time they decide to do some huge reckless balance pass.

[Bud Crue]

Gen Lee, on 08 July 2018 - 09:10 AM, said:

I don't know if anyone has already mentioned it, or if PGI has spoken on this, but what about IS quirks and skill tree differences? Are those going to be looked at as well? The whole reason for higher IS armor quirks and then recently the changes to the skill tree that was that it was supposed to bring Clans more in line with IS. So unless the skill tree is looked at again as well as quirks, this might hit Clans harder than at first glance.

The way they are nerfing Clan lasers is bad enough, but if they go and try to start messing with the skill tree and especially all mechs' quirks...we're gonna have a real **** show. Small changes PGI, that's all we're looking for, if any. Start small, work your way from there. And don't use the first idea you come up with just because it looks good on paper and sounds easy, pls.

This is the long game.

The PTS will be a **** show of minimal participation and lots of kvetching about how bad it is.
PGI will respond with a slight pull back to the proposed clan nerfs and then in PTS 2.0 will include appreciable nerfs to IS quirks. The removal of quirks has been Russ’s goal since skill tree was first trotted out in December of 2016 and an apparent mandate for Chris since he was hired. Thus, by nerfing clans to a massive (though not as massive as is currently proposed) degree they meet Paul’s stated goal of increasing TTK, and meet Russ’s/Chris’s goal of wholesale removal of quirks.

See? It’s perfect.

Everybody gets what they want except the players...they get a game with less diversity, less choice, and less reason to bother playing.

Edited by Bud Crue, 08 July 2018 - 09:25 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

NimoStar, on 08 July 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

It seems the new approach to "balancing" is literally making the two sides the same.

Seriously, the game mechanics for each of these sides are already nearly identical. it's not like we have a wholly assimetrical matchup like "Protoss vs Zerg", or in MOBAs with different heroes, or in the kind of "FPS" like Team Fortress or Overwatch.

So, already making a few differences is crucial so these sides feel different.

Before, the philosophy was "make IS and Clan weapons different", which is why clan UACs work in other ways from IS UACs, having greater range and more dispersion/bullets; clan SSRMs as well have greater range but lower ROF and damage than IS counterparts.

So stop it with the "make everything equal" dumbness. Imagine if Blizzard took this approach and gave Protoss hatcheries to "balance them with zergs", and gave zergs Siege Tanks...

So, if other developers can balance in a much more complex enviroment as is RTS three factions with wholly different mechanics,
why can't PGI balance just two factions while keeping their weapons and equipment reasonably distinct!?

Your Protess vs. Zerg balance is lost in BT because the clans are Mary-Sues and the universe is inherently unbalanced in their favour. When you look at the TT mechanics where does the IS excel? It doesn't. Clan-tech is outright superior. Balancing around that concept will never work, the only way you can balance a BT/MWO game is to ommit one of the factions.

Quote

The clans are ********, if I wanted a pointlessly idealised character I'd go play an elf! They're smart, strong, beautiful, they nail each other all the time and the only reason we mere mortals can beat them is that they're too honourable for this pitiful world. I've seen deeper character concepts in late-70s greyhawk modules.

[MischiefSC]

Bud Crue, on 08 July 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

This is the long game.

The PTS will be a **** show of minimal participation and lots of kvetching about how bad it is.
PGI will respond with a slight pull back to the proposed clan nerfs and then in PTS 2.0 will include appreciable nerfs to IS quirks. The removal of quirks has been Russ’s goal since skill tree was first trotted out in December of 2016 and an apparent mandate for Chris since he was hired. Thus, by nerfing clans to a massive (though not as massive as is currently proposed) degree they meet Paul’s stated goal of increasing TTK, and meet Russ’s/Chris’s goal of wholesale removal of quirks.

See? It’s perfect.

Everybody gets what they want except the players...they get a game with less diversity, less choice, and less reason to bother playing.

What sucks is removing quirks is good - if the balance is fun and distinctive. Most agreed with some reasonable targeted nerfs to HLLs and cermls. Not what we got.

I'm at the point now where I'm in favor of tossing lore. **** lore in the ear while Lindsay Sterling plays something spritely on the violin in the background. Redesign most of it from the ground up with more as a vague guide but focusing on keeping the tech types distinct but balanced.

We keep trying to do these targeted changes because 1 or 3 mechs is performing out of scope good or bad and we **** balance for 90 other mechs.

So much poison in the well at this point, mixes of sacred cows and tereible design decisions that have been twisted to sorta not be horrible sometimes if you do this one thing in 4 mechs so dear god leave it alone because otherwise it's worse.

Kill it with fire. This recent PTS just cements that the approach we've been using foe the last year is too narrow, too inbred and doesn't have the flexibility to make actual sustainable balance changes. It's certainly not making the game more fun.

Make it fun, then try to dial in TTK to a good balance.

Edited by MischiefSC, 08 July 2018 - 11:07 AM.

[Zibmo]

VonBruinwald, on 08 July 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

Your Protess vs. Zerg balance is lost in BT because the clans are Mary-Sues and the universe is inherently unbalanced in their favour. When you look at the TT mechanics where does the IS excel? It doesn't. Clan-tech is outright superior. Balancing around that concept will never work, the only way you can balance a BT/MWO game is to ommit one of the factions.

Clans were the absolute worst thing Battletech and FASA introduced into the game. Even Stackpole, after years of denying it, has admitted that he agrees. Adding it into the game completely destroyed any semblance of balace the game ever had. And I'm not sure they can balance it back. I have to agree with a poster above that the only way to reduce Clan alphas is to play to the inherent weaknesses of clan equipment - weapons, engines and agility. To the BT "purists" (you can't be and still support having Clans in any form IMO) this will send them yelling.

Remember: Clan mechs aren't superior. In MWO the difference is "all the best players play Clan." At least until something is nerfed.

I can say with absolute certainty that when I get into a clan mech, my skills soar. Really.

[UnKnownPlayer]

The problem started with the merc idea and flip flopping.
Each time the balance changed units moved to the other side, this causes counter balance in order to re-distribute the population without the time to properly evaluate the changes.
Removing faction change penalties made this more pronounced to the point where now in FP depending on the balance one side has little to no population and one sided fights with 12 mans vs. pugs.

The 2 factions are SUPPOSED to be different and I feel like the balance at the moment is pretty good, I don't really feel like the clan weapon nerf is needed. If people were forced to stick in their factions I would be laughing my socks off, but the way it is at the moment it feels like PGI are making both factions the same so that population imbalance is not an issue, which i find quite sad.

[Zibmo]

UnKnownPlayer, on 08 July 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

The problem started with the merc idea and flip flopping.
Each time the balance changed units moved to the other side, this causes counter balance in order to re-distribute the population without the time to properly evaluate the changes.
Removing faction change penalties made this more pronounced to the point where now in FP depending on the balance one side has little to no population and one sided fights with 12 mans vs. pugs.

The 2 factions are SUPPOSED to be different and I feel like the balance at the moment is pretty good, I don't really feel like the clan weapon nerf is needed. If people were forced to stick in their factions I would be laughing my socks off, but the way it is at the moment it feels like PGI are making both factions the same so that population imbalance is not an issue, which i find quite sad.

I agree with you for the most part. Where I don't agree is where the top players in the game play Clan because they are just enough better that to play IS against other top tier players is "bad", that's where my agreement stops.

My heartache is more with LMG and dual HGR.

[Andi Nagasia]

JediPanther, on 08 July 2018 - 08:42 AM, said:

Clans already have better tech else where plus it all weights less and take up less space than IS tech. No one is going to win the mwo wc with only IS mechs and tech any year soon. When you must win you always go clan.

well not this year,

jokes aside i think Clan lasers with -1 damage could work,
as long as all the other stats(Dam/Heat, Dam/Tic, ect) all remain the same or close to what we have now,

[Elizander]

I agree with this. I play Clan mechs because they are different from my IS mechs in look, feel and mechanics. I disagree with homogenization and making them more like IS.

[SuperMCDad]

I don't often play clan mechs. When I do, I like the fact that they feel different to play. I just hope they don't ruin that.

I don't want a homogenised game, where everything's the same.

[lazorbeamz]

They will still be diffirent.

IS lasers give better duration and the mechs themselves are much better.

Clans give more range, better sustained dps with cooling and better alpha strike.

I just hope that we get some small improvements to clan ac 20 and ultra 20 (is ultra 20 can use help, too)

Edited by lazorbeamz, 08 July 2018 - 02:02 PM.

[LordNothing]

agree with op in principal. the biggest problem is poorly defined roles and abilities between tech bases. what are clans supposed to be good at? what are is supposed to be good at? what are the down sides to those advantages? like the zerg are good at numbers while the protoss have better units, in battletech the clans have different military organization such that is field more mechs but clans field better mechs. 3 lances vs 2 stars. but since this game doesnt do that you need to take something else away. make them the same is the minimally viable way to do that, and we all know how much pgi loves half measures.

a big refactoring would mean going back to the drawing board and define what it means to be an is mech and what it means to be clan. every advantage needs to be countered with a disadvantage. then you would have to do that for hundreds of mechs.

[Mystere]

Asym, on 08 July 2018 - 09:14 AM, said:

Many have said I am wrong but, it always seemed to me that balance was the last thing we needed between clan and IS.

What we really needed was a philosophical "difference" between the mech capabilities and effectiveness's....

It's the cold war paradigm that we've abandoned and are lost in the group hug arena of status quo..... Good luck with that because no one wins the balance competition....no one.

I blame 100% of everything on the folks who keep on feeding PGI's delusions of eSpurts grandeur. <shrugs>