114 replies to this topic

[Grus]

I've said it once and I'll say it again...

IS=P-51
CLAN=F-22

Now please, put these two in the same match and "balance"... not supposed to be a fair fight. Nore would it ever.

[LordNothing]

one does not simply balance mwo. and if you did the game would be more boring. balance in flux is good but pgi cant even do that. id like to see something other than laser vomit be meta for awhile.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 June 2018 - 03:48 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Khobai, on 06 June 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

the only real answer is to make clan tech = IS tech. and to make sure the disparity between the worst and best mechs isnt so great that the worst mechs never have a chance at winning.

Note that the only real way it works doing this is if you make IS tech stuff much better, not by attempting to cut down the Clantech to match it. It's always easier to buff than nerf.

[FupDup]

Grus, on 06 June 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

I've said it once and I'll say it again...

IS=P-51
CLAN=F-22

Now please, put these two in the same match and "balance"... not supposed to be a fair fight. Nore would it ever.

I'm not sure what real life planes have to do with fictional giant robots 1000+ years in the future that can be "buffed" or "nerfed" in mere seconds by adjusting a value in an XML file.

Also, I think that people who keep touting examples like these should be the ones forced to use the P-51. I bet you'd change your tune real quick if you were.

[Brain Cancer]

FupDup, on 06 June 2018 - 03:51 PM, said:

I'm not sure what real life planes have to do with fictional giant robots 1000+ years in the future that can be "buffed" or "nerfed" in mere seconds by adjusting a value in an XML file.

Also, I think that people who keep touting examples like these should be the ones forced to use the P-51. I bet you'd change your tune real quick if you were.

I find it amusing that that's pretty much what most people say going "OMG NERF CLANS!". They want you to keep "fixing" that F-22 with P-51 parts and never think that it might not actually function all that grandly using WWII parts on a 21st century airplane.

It'd be easier to modernize the P-51 than to turn the F-22 into a WWII machine.

[FupDup]

Brain Cancer, on 06 June 2018 - 04:06 PM, said:

I find it amusing that that's pretty much what most people say going "OMG NERF CLANS!". They want you to keep "fixing" that F-22 with P-51 parts and never think that it might not actually function all that grandly using WWII parts on a 21st century airplane.

It'd be easier to modernize the P-51 than to turn the F-22 into a WWII machine.

You're still thinking in terms of the actual real-life technology limitations dictating combat effectiveness. In a vidya game we can do nearly anything we want within coding ability. There are no real physical limitations like materials that make our MWO units strong or weak. It's all in the XMLs. VIDYA. GAME.

In terms of what's possible, it's very easy to use nerfs to either equalize the factions or even make Clans inferior. It might not be a comfortable or popular or "fun" option, but don't argue that it's not doable. You can, however, debate whether we should or shouldn't. That's not the same as debating that we can't.

Edited by FupDup, 06 June 2018 - 05:05 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

FupDup, on 06 June 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

You're still thinking in terms of the actual real-life technology limitations dictating combat effectiveness. In a vidya game we can do nearly anything we want within coding ability. There are no real physical limitations like materials that make our MWO units strong or weak. It's all in the XMLs. VIDYA. GAME.

In terms of what's possible, it's very easy to use nerfs to either equalize the factions or even make Clans inferior. It might not be a comfortable or popular or "fun" option, but don't argue that it's not doable. You can, however, debate whether we should or shouldn't. That's not the same as debating that we can't.

We can't (without removing the clans' flavor of being technologically more advanced and better warriors). That would make more sense. Haha.

Going off on a tangent, battletech and warhammer40k seem to suffer from the same problems imo. It's incredibly difficult to balance on an individual unit basis because some factions rely on brute numbers (imperial guard) to counter factions with more technologically advanced, but less plentiful units (tau and eldar).

[Tesunie]

mogs01gt, on 06 June 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

You must ignore lore to make an effective multi-player game.

My opinion, we should reference lore for inspiration, as it is the base of everything. We want this to be a Battletech themed game after all, not just another shooter game with robots.

However, we also should consider game play and balance over lore if needed. It's a game after all, and not everything can or will translate into a video game perfectly.

So, it needs to be a balance between the two, with balance and game play taking the front seat over lore and cannon.

[Cloves]

My answer to any player who insists that clans be superior to is due to lore is that if that’s the case, they need to have clans vs clans and is vs is and never see each other on the battlefield as this is a PVP VIDEO GAME, and you have a player in each of those mechs.

Or that they are just acting like a spoiled child, take your pick.

Edited by Cloves, 06 June 2018 - 06:31 PM.

[Tesunie]

Cloves, on 06 June 2018 - 06:30 PM, said:

My answer to any player who insists that clans be superior to is due to lore is that if that’s the case, they need to have clans vs clans and is vs is and never see each other on the battlefield as this is a PVP VIDEO GAME, and you have a player in each of those mechs.

Or that they are just acting like a spoiled child, take your pick.

More so, they want better stuff than other people so they have an advantage and are not willing to part with it.

It's the same reason why people complain about nerfs. Sometimes they complain about a nerf that wasn't actually even a nerf... For example if a mech's quirks got reduced, but it's still above it's non-quirked original stats. Or, the "heat nerf" for hot maps being unfair. Etc.

I tend to find, if you touch someone's build/play style/whatever with any threat of a nerf, they tend to explode on you, even if said object deserves the nerf and is otherwise "best in the game". And when the nerf happens, even if it's only a 1% or less nerf, the whine pours out from them like it was death to it and now it's useless... (such as the old Timberwolf nerf back when it was the top top top mech... which even with the nerfs it was decried as dead but was still the top top top mech in the game at the time....)

Basically, many people are "you can balance, but don't you dare touch my stuff" kind of mind set... Hence "it's easier to buff than it is to nerf". Well, it's easier to nerf one item, than buff everything else... So nerfs are very much needed.

[Popcat]

So let me ask me because I am new to MWO an confused easily. I don't understand what everyone seems to be looking for with balance. I have three basic understandings.

1) Mechs in the original game were not balance and you had to work up the economy to make better builds an get better mechs. Some mechs were just outclassed by anything 5-10 tons higher because of weapon weights the fire power five tons heavier was just way better. MWO has no market growth in your mech you just get what you want and play what you want. So there is no: you have to play certain crummy mechs and build them up then eventually upgrade them to cool or buy/recover/promoted to a cool mech. Which I am ok with MWO current system.

2) Now you add a FPS game were the location of your hard points and the actual mass of your mech actually play a important part of actual shooting an being hit. They are almost critical. From a game where mechs were drawn to look cool then given weapons that honestly sometimes didn't even match the weapon load out in the picture.

3) Clanners nuff said.

So what is the expectation of balance? This is not meant to be sarcastic. I'm just curious what's expected by "just balance". Like what would you expect to make the awesome better balanced to another 80 ton chassis or just other awesomes? Or is it expected to be balance to all assaults? Just what would balance look like? I see why quirks could seem like a way to fix it but I also see the flaws. I'm just not sure I understand the balance issue because I just expected some mechs to be crummy.

Edited by Popcat, 06 June 2018 - 07:45 PM.

[Cloves]

Popcat, on 06 June 2018 - 07:18 PM, said:

So let me ask me because I am new to MWO an confused easily. I don't understand what everyone seems to be looking for with balance. I have three basic understandings.

1) Mechs in the original game were not balance and you had to work up the economy to make better builds an get better mechs. Some mechs were just outclassed by anything 5-10 tons higher because of weapon weights the fire power five tons heavier was just way better. MWO has no market growth in your mech you just get what you want and play what you want. So there is no: you have to play certain crummy mechs and build them up then eventually upgrade them to cool or buy/recover/promoted to a cool mech. Which I am ok with.

2) Now you add a FPS game were the location of your hard points and the actual mass of your mech actually play a important part of actual shooting an being hit. They are almost critical. From a game where mechs were drawn to look cool then given weapons that honestly sometimes didn't even match the weapon load out in the picture.

3) Clanners nuff said.

So what is the expectation of balance? This is not meant to be sarcastic. I'm just curious what's expected by "just balance". Like what would you expect to make the awesome better balanced to another 80 ton chassis or just other awesomes? Or is it expected to be balance to all assaults? Just what would balance look like? I see why quirks could seem like a way to fix it but I also see the flaws. I'm just not sure I understand the balance issue because I just expected some mechs to be crummy.

Then all you have to do to so every time is play the most expensive clan assault? You can buy one for 25 bucks. That’s it, you are now undefeatable? Sounds like a very bad game, something you might play for one afternoon. Every player who had been playing longer than a day would be playing the same mech if they wanted to win. We need balance to make the other mechs playing at all. Otherwise why buy anything else?


-edit. It’s the fundamental difference between pvp and pve. There are no enemy bots to fight, just each other. Easy lesson would be to take a stock locust and play it for about 8 hours, then tell me there is no need for balance in the game.

Edited by Cloves, 06 June 2018 - 07:42 PM.

[Tesunie]

Popcat, on 06 June 2018 - 07:18 PM, said:

So what is the expectation of balance?

Often times, the expectation of balance is that all mechs are viable to play, with distinct abilities and roles. That any weapon can be useful, and that no one weapon/mech becomes the king of all the other ones.

Basically, the idea of balance is to make laser weapons as effective of a choice as ballistics. In rotation, missiles should have just as much tactical viability as lasers or ballistics.

As such, any imbalance in "balance" between the different weapon groups/types/sizes tend to lead to "metas". A meta is when players find out what works best, and they use strictly that because "it's best". Such as laser boating, for an example.

Basically, when everyone runs SRMs because it's best at the moment, then a change happens in the game and then LPLs become best, and then they change something else which makes AC20s the best... it's seen as a failure of balance. If it was balanced, then you would see SRMs, LRMs, AC10s, SPLs, etc all being played in equal measures with no one weapon being best to boat. We are better now than we have been in the past, but we still have some options that are seen as "clearly" superior or inferior. Thus, balance. (Same is applied to mechs, just easier to explain with weapon examples.)

[Popcat]

Cloves - "So what is the expectation of balance? This is not meant to be sarcastic. I'm just curious what's expected by "just balance". Like what would you expect"

Tesunie - Yes I was just comparing the fallibility of a board game to a FPS. Thanks. "Basically, the idea of balance is to make laser weapons as effective of a choice as ballistics. In rotation, missiles should have just as much tactical viability as lasers or ballistics."

Then why do people get upset when they nerf a weapons system?

Edited by Popcat, 06 June 2018 - 07:44 PM.

[Tesunie]

Cloves, on 06 June 2018 - 07:35 PM, said:

Then all you have to do to so every time is play the most expensive clan assault? You can buy one for 25 bucks. That’s it, you are now undefeatable? Sounds like a very bad game, something you might play for one afternoon. Every player who had been playing longer than a day would be playing the same mech if they wanted to win. We need balance to make the other mechs playing at all. Otherwise why buy anything else?

He's referring more so to Table Top or probably the original MW series of games, where you normally were limited with C-bills on what you could get. Then, as you earned more C-bills as you went, you'd purchase additional mechs that were better. A system where there are no "pay real money" to get it. For example: You started off with a Locust. After playing the campaign for a while, you now have enough money or salvaged a Jenner to upgrade from your Locust. Etc.

I don't think he was implying this as a system for MW:O... Just as "in previous games" more so, which where primarily single player games. (Kinda like Campaign driven Battletech TT, which sounds like fun for me.)

[Cloves]

Tesunie explained it very well. The expectation is to make the game as enjoyable to play with one option as another. To not allow one and only one perfect choice to override all other answers. If one option is clearly a bad choice, when compared to another, that is not a balanced selection of options, not even a real choice.

Edit. Folks get upset about nerfs because they feel they are being punished for thier choices. They become invested in a certain level of performance which may or not be as effective as another choice, and then see that performance reduced, thus themselves harmed. For example when assault mechs where nerfed in the mobility department to attempt to reign in the firepower and armor they bring to the field, may players became upset, since it was harder to do as well as they did before.

Edited by Cloves, 06 June 2018 - 07:55 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

FupDup, on 06 June 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

You're still thinking in terms of the actual real-life technology limitations dictating combat effectiveness. In a vidya game we can do nearly anything we want within coding ability. There are no real physical limitations like materials that make our MWO units strong or weak. It's all in the XMLs. VIDYA. GAME.

No, I mean that there's physical parts of the construction system that cannot be altered without rendering the source material invalid, meaning PGI can no longer harvest it's nostalgiabux selling us mechpacks. You know, the traditional source of cashflow, the Whale?

Quote

In terms of what's possible, it's very easy to use nerfs to either equalize the factions or even make Clans inferior. It might not be a comfortable or popular or "fun" option, but don't argue that it's not doable. You can, however, debate whether we should or shouldn't. That's not the same as debating that we can't.

There's stuff you -can- do to balance things out.

IS Endosteel costs twice the spaces and we can't change weights? OK, make it give them a structure and crit resistance bonus.

IS Ferro is less efficient for the space and costs twice the space? Give it a flat set of "quirk" bonus armor based on weight.

IS XL is more fragile? Bring them closer together by making engines actually damageable outside of destroying a torso section and you can give Clan XL fewer HP (meaning it dies faster from actual damage) while retaining it's survival ability if ST'd.

Work around the parts that have to exist in order to bring balance. But that'd take actual work and maybe a better PGI understanding of how their own construction system works.

[Popcat]

The comparison was the game was already unbalanced if favor of some mechs now real time 3d play has created additional imbalances but we all like our mechs to be our known and loved mechs not all the mechs be high central hard points with the same levels of armor and same weapons. We don't want every one driving reskinned (insert meta here). So for instance Tesunie wants his crab and his huntsman to be viable in the game while still being a huntsman and a crab and not a reskinned (warhammer-6r). What specific balance changes or expectations are had by the experienced players to make it better? What does it look like?

So for example with Tesunie's example how do we make missiles as viable as ballistics and energy without turning it into reskinned ballistics for example?

longer recharge x an more ammo for B... I dunno go wild tell me. Because I don't know.

Sorry was typing while you two were replying.

Edited by Popcat, 06 June 2018 - 07:58 PM.

[FupDup]

Brain Cancer, on 06 June 2018 - 07:51 PM, said:

No, I mean that there's physical parts of the construction system that cannot be altered without rendering the source material invalid, meaning PGI can no longer harvest it's nostalgiabux selling us mechpacks. You know, the traditional source of cashflow, the Whale?

HBS Battletech developed with the help of the co-founder of this entire IP takes a dump all over the source material construction rules, but even without going that far we can still touch the damage, reload, heat, range, duration, velocity, quirks, bla bla etc. to make up for the construction system values being locked in place. Kind of like all the stuff you suggested just below this quote:

Brain Cancer, on 06 June 2018 - 07:51 PM, said:

There's stuff you -can- do to balance things out.

IS Endosteel costs twice the spaces and we can't change weights? OK, make it give them a structure and crit resistance bonus.

IS Ferro is less efficient for the space and costs twice the space? Give it a flat set of "quirk" bonus armor based on weight.

IS XL is more fragile? Bring them closer together by making engines actually damageable outside of destroying a torso section and you can give Clan XL fewer HP (meaning it dies faster from actual damage) while retaining it's survival ability if ST'd.

Work around the parts that have to exist in order to bring balance. But that'd take actual work and maybe a better PGI understanding of how their own construction system works.

See, those are perfectly fine ideas that would "make a P-51 equal an F-22" or whatever other silly real life war analogy we want to use.

Well, I don't actually like engine crits because that could easily make TTK plummet unless crit-seeking got meganerfed (a Piranha would instakill anything with an exposed torso section) and/or engines received massive HP. But that's beside the point.

[Tesunie]

Brain Cancer, on 06 June 2018 - 07:51 PM, said:

There's stuff you -can- do to balance things out.

IS Endosteel costs twice the spaces and we can't change weights? OK, make it give them a structure and crit resistance bonus.

IS Ferro is less efficient for the space and costs twice the space? Give it a flat set of "quirk" bonus armor based on weight.

IS XL is more fragile? Bring them closer together by making engines actually damageable outside of destroying a torso section and you can give Clan XL fewer HP (meaning it dies faster from actual damage) while retaining it's survival ability if ST'd.

Work around the parts that have to exist in order to bring balance. But that'd take actual work and maybe a better PGI understanding of how their own construction system works.

Not to be a downer here and all.... BUT...

If Endo came with such a big advantage, then what purpose would standard structure play? Would it just be useless except for in some situations (such as many assaults) and become an "upgrade" tax even more?

Same applies to FF. What benefit would you have for taking Std armor over any form of FF? More weight for less crits?

Any chance to damage an engine (as much as I would love it from lore), would leave even more dead mechs faster. Considering how high crit chances seem to be at the moment (which seems crazy high for all weapons somehow...). We'd be having mechs with just barely an armor breach suddenly keeling over from engine destruction, probably leading to frustration and confusion from players.


Not arguing about possible changes to some base systems, but your current proposed changes I don't think would be good for the game overall. They work great as a TT incentive, where you control more than a single mech, and if one got a lucky(unlucky) engine crit and died... it hurts but it's not game over right there. This is a first person shooter, and we already have enough cases of uselessness when you have all your mech still around, but not a single weapon remaining because they all got crited out.