131 replies to this topic

[Luminis]

Stridercal, on 14 May 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Just no. If you don't want to play this game, play something else. Don't bastardize the rules until you get what you want.

And this isn't BattleTech, either, or did you roll any dice to determine the outcome of an engagement recently?

[process]

Stridercal, on 14 May 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

IS tech is SUPPOSED TO BE INFERIOR, freebirth! The fact that it is this close in MWO is already a travesty.

This is what asymmetric balance is for. Clans, on paper, can still have stronger and more efficient weapons, but at the cost of heat, damage spread, cooldown, etc. These are the hidden costs that allow IS tech to compete.

Sometimes you just have to choose between lore and gameplay.

Edited by process, 14 May 2018 - 09:49 AM.

[mistlynx4life]

Stridercal, on 14 May 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

Don't bastardize the rules until you get what you want.

Right... that's the point. The rules of the tabletop game cannot be successfully applied to a first-person tactical shooter. We have to make new rules. Holding on to those other rules only hampers progress. TT Battletech is wicked fun. This game is not that game, lol.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Bud Crue, on 14 May 2018 - 07:15 AM, said:

Is it that a Spider 5V should have the same value on the team as a Death Strike assuming both are competently built and played?

I'd go with this, or something like it.

Any 'mech should have at least the possibility to be built in such a way as to have near-equal impact on the outcome of a given match than any other 'mech.

Which, written out, is a pretty mammoth task, but there were go.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Stridercal, on 14 May 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

IS tech is SUPPOSED TO BE INFERIOR, freebirth! The fact that it is this close in MWO is already a travesty.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Just no. If you don't want to play this game, play something else. Don't bastardize the rules until you get what you want.

This is a PVP FPS first and a BattleTech game second.

Balance before lore, or else there's no point bothering with any more patches.

If you don't want to play this game, there's always TT or HBS BT.

Also, don't forget, the universe was nuked to end Clan powercreep.

[process]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 May 2018 - 09:50 AM, said:

I'd go with this, or something like it.

Any 'mech should have at least the possibility to be built in such a way as to have near-equal impact on the outcome of a given match than any other 'mech.

Which, written out, is a pretty mammoth task, but there were go.

I agree in theory, but that's extremely difficult to qualify, and in reality a mech's role is much more determined by their weight class. That Spider is gonna have a lot more value in terms of harassment, scouting, objective hunting, and wolf-packing than direct damage. A typical assault is pretty much only good for dictating engagements, suppression, and dealing damage. In a 1v1 situation, that Spider is gonna be a dead Spider nine times out of ten.

Fortunately I think a lot of that happens organically, so long as a mech isn't performing significantly above or below their class.

Edited by process, 14 May 2018 - 10:05 AM.

[Stridercal]

Tom Sawyer, on 14 May 2018 - 09:33 AM, said:

If you are going to haul that out then remember too that clans bid for action, drop with less mechs, and honor is all.

I seriously doubt PGI could ever get that into the game after 5 years

That's what was always hoped for among the hardcore peeps, but yeah, never managed to happen.

El Bandito, on 14 May 2018 - 09:33 AM, said:

The simple reality is that your logic does not work for a multiplayer only arena game, where each side has the same amount of participants. Therefore both tech must be balanced against each other. If MWO was a single player campaign game, I wouldn't have given a damn.

Zellbrigen. Weight limits. Binary vs company. There were always options...

[process]

Stridercal, on 14 May 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

That's what was always hoped for among the hardcore peeps, but yeah, never managed to happen.

Good. The last thing this game needs is to become more niche.

[Bud Crue]

process, on 14 May 2018 - 10:04 AM, said:

Fortunately I think a lot of that happens organically, so long as a mech isn't performing significantly above or below their class.

If this were the case then PGI would be able to tweek via quirks any of the odd mechs that are performing significantly above or below their class. But they don’t. They haven’t balanced in this manner since rescale. There is nothing at all “organic” about their current approach to balance by monthly nerf. Nowadays it is nerf (and occasionally buff) by weapon class, with notable instances where that nerfing is done with a sledgehammer, resulting in them impacting mechs and builds that were never problematic in the first place. Sure, the monthly balance passes occasionally impact the significant over performer (e.g. the Night Gyr was effectively smashed by Gauss/PPC GH so mission accomplished there I guess) but almost always make the mediocre even more so (so much for my Gauss/2PPC 0XP and Dragon Slayer).

[process]

Bud Crue, on 14 May 2018 - 10:21 AM, said:

If this were the case then PGI would be able to tweek via quirks any of the odd mechs that are performing significantly above or below their class. But they don’t. They haven’t balanced in this manner since rescale. There is nothing at all “organic” about their current approach to balance by monthly nerf. Nowadays it is nerf (and occasionally buff) by weapon class, with notable instances where that nerfing is done with a sledgehammer, resulting in them impacting mechs and builds that were never problematic in the first place. Sure, the monthly balance passes occasionally impact the significant over performer (e.g. the Night Gyr was effectively smashed by Gauss/PPC GH so mission accomplished there I guess) but almost always make the mediocre even more so (so much for my Gauss/2PPC 0XP and Dragon Slayer).

Oh, I completely agree. PGI has completely dropped the ball on so-called gradual adjustments necessary to achieve balance. Related, I'm a huge proponent of engine desync, but there has been virtually zero tangible tuning. It's extremely disappointing.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 14 May 2018 - 09:33 AM, said:

The simple reality is that your logic does not work for a multiplayer only arena game ...

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 May 2018 - 09:48 AM, said:

Except this isn't TT or a strategy game, it's an FPS where 1 player controls 1 'mech on equal numbered teams.

MadBadger, on 14 May 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

when you enter a match ...

Design decisions made early in the development of a game based on a well-established IP usually already give great clues on the problems that lie ahead

[Mystere]

Luminis, on 14 May 2018 - 09:49 AM, said:

And this isn't BattleTech, either, or did you roll any dice to determine the outcome of an engagement recently?

Identifying and analyzing the underlying principles abstracted by the table-top rules and simplified by dice rolls is a much better approach than a literal translation of a turn-based dice-rolled table-top game into a real-time PC game.

I'm just saying.

mistlynx4life, on 14 May 2018 - 09:50 AM, said:

Right... that's the point. The rules of the tabletop game cannot be successfully applied to a first-person tactical shooter. We have to make new rules. Holding on to those other rules only hampers progress. TT Battletech is wicked fun. This game is not that game, lol.

Sometimes, there is really no need to make "new" rules. See above.

Edited by Mystere, 14 May 2018 - 10:46 AM.

[mistlynx4life]

Mystere, on 14 May 2018 - 10:45 AM, said:

Sometimes, there is really no need to make "new" rules. See above.

I agree that there wasn't a need to make new rules to simulate BT, but now that we've got this very different game altogether we need to be willing to part with those rules because they don't fit the game. I would have no problem with a simulator of TableTop Battletech whatsoever (the new BT game is pretty fun but I don't have enough experience with TT to spot the differences). MWO is not that and anyone who wanted it to be that should have realized their error very early on. Really early.

Like, read-the-header-on-the-game-page early.

And the point about the value of a Spider-5V versus a Deathstrike - because winning doesn't always mean kills, you can't even guarantee a win for the Deathstrike if you could drop 1v1 in QuickPlay. You might have to chose between Conquest and Assault or something, in which case the Spider is most likely going to just avoid combat completely. So as it stands with such variables as teammates, temperature/map, mode, etc. it's hard to say one has the edge without also defining what the win condition even is. It'd be one thing if we were introduced to a new map or mode or feature and then PGI hammered away at that for months with a clearly defined goal in mind (ideally stated publicly). Instead, we get a lot of (perceived) half-finished thoughts and then move on. This is what I mean by balancing not being realistically achievable. You have to define what it looks like first and nobody's doing that. PGI isn't saying "Our sole focus right now is enriching Faction Play with lore-based events" or "Our sole concern is laser vomit" or "We're working really hard on this new map so we don't release it in an unplayable state for a large portion of our players." They just keep switching.

I'm not saying they can't do that - it's their game and it's free to play - but it makes all the back-and-forth about balance ultimately meaningless (on our end), though I would never shame the folks who take the time to go out of their way and make the spreadsheets and so on - it's awesome to see dedicated players like that and it's a huge boon to the community.

I had a brief conversation with Paul once through Twitch about how they tell a 'mech is under- or over-performing. Part of his response was, verbatim: "See thing is... we could be more transparent with what we're doing.. but it doesn't make everyone happy.. data that contradicts one's belief... well then.. the DATA IS WRONG!... We don't have the time to explain every bit of data to everyone.. so it's best to just say.. look.. we're not just pop shotting changes.. we are looking at metrics. Just because Mec X has been hit doesn't mean Mech Y is going to get hit in the next patch and so on." So that's basically the answer: They don't share because [what exactly is happening right now literally]. Best we can do is just play, or not, and make the most of it while attempting to be civil.

[Nightbird]

The only thing inferior on the IS side is the average piloting skill.

Runs away

[Asym]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 May 2018 - 09:48 AM, said:

Except this isn't TT or a strategy game, it's an FPS where 1 player controls 1 'mech on equal numbered teams. As such, balance needs to come first, lore second.

I disagree; and, I do see where you are coming from..... The entire premise is based on inadequacies between competing "systems" and cultures. That isn't TT or BT: it's the universe the weapons exist in. Inner Sphere versus Clans.

An Inner sphere mech would be slower, have less effective weapons and a usually have a lot more armor. Clans would have the most efficient weapons and less armor because they just didn't need it... 12 vs 8 would be my norm.

Look at the analogies in the real world at the time the MW concept was formed:

Compare the Soviet bloc tanks to NATO tanks
Compare Artillery.
Compare tactics.
Compare Standing Army sizes.....
Opposite systems.

That's where we come from in this game. In theory, there would be more IS mechs in a match than Clans.... A Universe of opposites and you 'all want to make "everything" the same... That defeats the entire point of the game !

Yes, this is a FPS ! So what? Since when is "fair" or "balanced" requirements??? Now, if you are operating from a lesser condition, you should be rewarded at a greater rate because it is a lot more difficult fighting against superior equipment and tactics.

In the end, nothing is going to change. We have S7 and MW5 coming. Good discussion though.

[Luminis]

Asym, on 14 May 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

12 vs 8 would be my norm.

This is true, lorewise, and how things are balanced in the TT as well. Issue is, if the game was balanced around that, you'd generally have one side be the cannon fodder - all things being equal, your average Clan player would kill 1.5 IS players while the IS players would kill 0.66 Clan players.

I know there's some people who wouldn't mind because they're that invested in the lore, but I'm quite willing to bad that both the balance discussions would be worse as well as player distribution between factions, even if both sides averaged the same win ratios.

Asym, on 14 May 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

Since when is "fair" or "balanced" requirements???

We've had some huge arguments and some people have been throwing some real fits because one factions was perceived to be OP; now imagine if either faction was actually utterly OP...

Edited by Luminis, 14 May 2018 - 12:00 PM.

[Stridercal]

process, on 14 May 2018 - 10:17 AM, said:

Good. The last thing this game needs is to become more niche.

Good forbid it become as niche focused as Eve Online, then nobody would play it! Oh, wait...

[Jay Leon Hart]

Asym, on 14 May 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

I disagree; and, I do see where you are coming from..... The entire premise is based on inadequacies between competing "systems" and cultures. That isn't TT or BT: it's the universe the weapons exist in. Inner Sphere versus Clans.

An Inner sphere mech would be slower, have less effective weapons and a usually have a lot more armor. Clans would have the most efficient weapons and less armor because they just didn't need it... 12 vs 8 would be my norm.

That's where we come from in this game. In theory, there would be more IS mechs in a match than Clans.... A Universe of opposites and you 'all want to make "everything" the same... That defeats the entire point of the game !

Yes, this is a FPS ! So what? Since when is "fair" or "balanced" requirements??? Now, if you are operating from a lesser condition, you should be rewarded at a greater rate because it is a lot more difficult fighting against superior equipment and tactics.

In the end, nothing is going to change. We have S7 and MW5 coming. Good discussion though.

There's your mistake, thinking BattleTech means "IS vs Clans"

That is only a small section of BattleTech. There was life before the Clans. There was life "after" the Clans. There was co-existence (of a fashion) with the Clans. BattleTech is not IS vs Clan, that is a falsehood.

Yes, in dream land where more people want to play the "cannon fodder" than the "super humans" I'm quite sure asymmetrical balance would work nicely. However, this is the real world, where people play games to have fun and losing more than winning is, generally speaking, less fun.

So, in a game like MWO (which is not IS vs Clans), 1:1 balance is something to strive for as every player needs to be able to compete on a fundamental gameplay level.

[Zibmo]

Asym, on 14 May 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

I disagree; and, I do see where you are coming from..... The entire premise is based on inadequacies between competing "systems" and cultures. That isn't TT or BT: it's the universe the weapons exist in. Inner Sphere versus Clans.

An Inner sphere mech would be slower, have less effective weapons and a usually have a lot more armor. Clans would have the most efficient weapons and less armor because they just didn't need it... 12 vs 8 would be my norm.

Look at the analogies in the real world at the time the MW concept was formed:

Compare the Soviet bloc tanks to NATO tanks
Compare Artillery.
Compare tactics.
Compare Standing Army sizes.....
Opposite systems.

That's where we come from in this game. In theory, there would be more IS mechs in a match than Clans.... A Universe of opposites and you 'all want to make "everything" the same... That defeats the entire point of the game !

Yes, this is a FPS ! So what? Since when is "fair" or "balanced" requirements??? Now, if you are operating from a lesser condition, you should be rewarded at a greater rate because it is a lot more difficult fighting against superior equipment and tactics.

In the end, nothing is going to change. We have S7 and MW5 coming. Good discussion though.

I'm going to disagree with you. While I agree from a "lore" perspective, people are complaining NOW with queue times for certain classes. Imagine what it would be like if the weight of population played "the powerful side" with a lower number of players on the Clan side. The add in the fact that in QP, which I believe is where the majority of the population play, you would be required to have only 10 clan on one side and 12 IS on the other. At the point that 10 mechs can reliably (as in 50% of the time - which also contradicts lore), queue times will destroy what is left of the playerbase. Until nobody played IS and QP was only Clan vs Clan, at which point we are stuck with the same Mexican standoff we're already experiencing. With two fewer mechs.

[MischiefSC]

Stridercal, on 14 May 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

That's what was always hoped for among the hardcore peeps, but yeah, never managed to happen.



Zellbrigen. Weight limits. Binary vs company. There were always options...

And they were always **** and never, ever worked in PvP without a bunch of house rules.

Because as IS I would take your BV in vehicles and infantry and obliterate your Clan deck, or as Clans I would take LPL Warhawks with the LRM10 dropped for more DHS and Piranhas and obliterate 2x my BV in IS mechs.

Zel didn't even work in the lore, it's 100% worthless and irrelevant in a PvP game. Our accuracy isn't determined by a dice roll on random hit locations either.

Bluntly the imbalanced tech in TT only worked in the books because of plot armor. It was designed for PvE, player run campaigns against NPCs managed by the GM who were designed to lose; either Clan enemies who were incredibly stupid and were there to get killed by the players so the players could loot Clan tech and then play as IS guys with Clan tech or to provide expendable hordes of IS scrubs (which is essentially how the MW4 title handled it) so the players could feel like it was them being all BA and killing piles of enemies and not just utterly broken balance.

For PvP it was horrible and absolute **** without it being a match between two friends who made a ton of rules to try and balance the match in spite of utter and complete **** design.

Which is why the whole game universe was nuked with Jihad and Wars of Reaving to make IS and Clans largely the same and everyone with the same tech.

This is a PvP team based FPS. Even with 3025 tech all around it needed a ton of changes to be viable. All the horrible, broken, Mary Sue and plot armor stupidity that the Clans introduced turned into joke worthy cluster **** sort of bad and needed fixed.

First Person Shooter. Every player needs to have the potential to provide the same contribution as every other. Maybe not in the same role, but comparable. If balance is bad players will gravitate to what gives them the biggest personal advantage. You also can not control player population to force 60+% of players to play expendable IS who can only win by burying the Clans under a pile of dead IS mechs.

I also notice that nobody ever mentions the rest of the Clan balance stuff. Clan pilots were drastically better than IS pilots 1 for 1. They also had no real control outside of the highest ranks over what mech they brought or loadout. I don't see people saying 'Only the top 10% of players on the leaderboard should get to play Clans to represent higher Clan skill' and 'Clans should get their mech loadouts and choices decided by the matchmaker every match'.

No, this is always the same. 'Clans should be totally OP so I can play them and get to pretend it's my skill, not broken balance, that helps me get kills and damage' which is then masked by (every single time) except I play IS all the time too! Because I love the challenge!' which has never, ever, at any point, been said by someone who actually played IS all the time vs Clans in those broken environments without the ability to then loot Clan mechs and gear to use for themselves.