81 replies to this topic

[Protection]

Komori, on 08 November 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Upgrades should be upgrades. Let matchmaker take care of balance.

The problem I have with this philosophy is that it limits the number of avenues that players have for customization - meaning that "high level" play (and especially competitive play) will frequently see similar, if not identical, builds and loadouts, where lots of equivalent sidegrades mean that players will be more likely to come up with a variety of optimizations and niches. It's a very organic sort of variety that gives players more control and choice - always a good thing in my book.

Flat upgrades reduce options and force players to build in specific ways (every non-assault mech absolutely must run Endo Steel now, for example - there is no tradeoff or benefit for normal internals. Endo Steel is just flat out better as long as there are critical slots not being used [and on a light or medium, there always are]). Giving people choices would more likely lead to builds where people take different risks and spec out in different ways.

[DerMaulwurf]

Even though just thinking about clan tech LRMs sends a shiver down my spine, I don't want it to to be balanced against IS level1 tech.

It should be an upgrade and it should be balanced through matchmaking.

And the same should apply to level2 IS tech once they have introduced their ELO system.

[Protection]

I'm moreso arguing that Inner Sphere tech 1 should compare against Inner Sphere tech 2 well, and be balanced for gameplay - even if lore says it is superior.

Clans are almost a separate matter.

[Krivvan]

Protection, on 08 November 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

I'm moreso arguing that Inner Sphere tech 1 should compare against Inner Sphere tech 2 well, and be balanced for gameplay - even if lore says it is superior.

Clans are almost a separate matter.

This is also what I agree with. The poll doesn't give many options for this.

[Komori]

Protection, on 08 November 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

The problem I have with this philosophy is that it limits the number of avenues that players have for customization - meaning that "high level" play (and especially competitive play) will frequently see similar, if not identical, builds and loadouts, where lots of equivalent sidegrades mean that players will be more likely to come up with a variety of optimizations and niches. It's a very organic sort of variety that gives players more control and choice - always a good thing in my book.

Flat upgrades reduce options and force players to build in specific ways (every non-assault mech absolutely must run Endo Steel now, for example - there is no tradeoff or benefit for normal internals. Endo Steel is just flat out better as long as there are critical slots not being used [and on a light or medium, there always are]). Giving people choices would more likely lead to builds where people take different risks and spec out in different ways.

You can't have everything viable at once. If you have a flintlock rifle and an AK-47, the second one will be superior, and it will be used. AK should be balanced against M-16, not against flintlock rifles.

Same here. Tech 2 should be balanced against other Tech 2. Tech 1 is inferior, and you upgrade to Tech 2 as soon as you have money. If devs did not want progress, they should have set the game in Third Succession War era. No Clans, Tech 1 all over the place.

[Krivvan]

Komori, on 08 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

You can't have everything viable at once. If you have a flintlock rifle and an AK-47, the second one will be superior, and it will be used. AK should be balanced against M-16, not against flintlock rifles.

Same here. Tech 2 should be balanced against other Tech 2. Tech 1 is inferior, and you upgrade to Tech 2 as soon as you have money. If devs did not want progress, they should have set the game in Third Succession War era. No Clans, Tech 1 all over the place.

However, it's much more fun when everything is viable at once, or rather when everything has a viable niche in the game.

[Komori]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

However, it's much more fun when everything is viable at once, or rather when everything has a viable niche in the game.

All Mechs have Tech 2 upgrades that keep them viable. I do not see the problem.

[Krivvan]

Komori, on 08 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

All Mechs have Tech 2 upgrades that keep them viable. I do not see the problem.

I mean keeping all weapons and equipment viable.

And don't think I'm happy about Flamers and Machine Guns either.

[Komori]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

I mean keeping all weapons and equipment viable.

And don't think I'm happy about Flamers and Machine Guns either.

Problem: if you try to balance AK-47 against a flintlock rifle, you end up introducing illogical and overall pathetic limitations to the AK.
And what equipment exactly do you fear will become obsolete? Single Heat Sinks? Why do you want them? How does their presence enrich the gameplay?

[Krivvan]

Komori, on 08 November 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

And what equipment exactly do you fear will become obsolete? Single Heat Sinks? Why do you want them? How does their presence enrich the gameplay?

Yes actually. I like having to think about whether SHS or DHS would be better for a build. Introduce advantages and disadvantages to both that give them both a niche. It's extremely boring to just keep working for the designated better item.

And stop using the AK argument. We're not talking about reality, we're talking about a game.

If you were in a game that let you pick between an AK-47 and a flintlock rifle, wouldn't it be boring and pointless since everyone would just pick the AK-47? Wouldn't it be better if some people used the AK-47 while others used an M16?

Edited by Krivvan, 08 November 2012 - 04:04 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I think I understand the premise of the OPs poll. But I came to fight the Clans and this game will spend most its time revolving around the Clan Invasion. SO let those who don't want to fight the boogieman go fight House Liao. Me I wanna slay the Giants!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 November 2012 - 04:07 AM.

[Komori]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Yes actually. I like having to think about whether SHS or DHS would be better for a build.

They are just a bit of text in the mechlab. All you gain by keeping them is an excuse to do a bit of math. In exchange, DHS are heavily nerfed, and all builds that rely on them (basically all stock builds after introduction of DHS) are messed up badly. Is it really worth it?

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

If you were in a game that let you pick between an AK-47 and a flintlock rifle, wouldn't it be boring and pointless since everyone would just pick the AK-47? Wouldn't it be better if some people used the AK-47 while others used an M16?

Yes, but flintlock rifle can never be equal to M16. It is madness and bad game design. If a game has both rifle and AK, then it should be like Civilization - you progress from one to another.

[Krivvan]

Komori, on 08 November 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

They are just a bit of text in the mechlab. All you gain by keeping them is an excuse to do a bit of math. In exchange, DHS are heavily nerfed, and all builds that rely on them (basically all stock builds after introduction of DHS) are messed up badly. Is it really worth it?

That's why I agreed with Protection's idea for giving them diverging advantages and disadvantages. For example DHS being faster but giving a smaller heat capacity. But overall yes, I do think that's worth it.

Quote

Yes, but flintlock rifle can never be equal to M16. It is madness and bad game design. If a game has both rifle and AK, then it should be like Civilization - you progress from one to another.

Except the game doesn't use real-life equipment. If they can change something like that then there's no reason not to.

Edited by Krivvan, 08 November 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[Draco Argentum]

There aren't that many weapons in MWO and the ones there are often feel sililar. They should all be balanced just to achieve a bare minimum variety. Allowing any to be non viable on purpose will leave a tiny pool of worthy weapons.

[Komori]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

That's why I agreed with Protection's idea for giving them diverging advantages and disadvantages. For example DHS being faster but giving a smaller heat capacity. But overall yes, I do think that's worth it.



Except the game doesn't use real-life equipment. If they can change something like that then there's no reason not to.

Then the game you want is not the game I want. Since they went to trouble of obtaining the Battletech license, I want this game to be Battletech, not some weird mishmash. I think Tech 2 in itself offers enough choices, and there is no need to cling to Tech 1.

[Fooooo]

If i made a game with an ak-47 and a flintlock rifle i would balance them as follows.

AK-47, High rate of fire, low dmg, low accuracy,

Flintlock , Low rate of fire, Very high dmg, very high accuracy,



Basically the flintlock would 1 shot kill in general but if you missed your 1 shot the Ak-47 would win.

It might not be realistic, but it allows 2 weapons of vastly different ages to fit into the 1 game, as 1 is not exactly better than the other, just different in play styles.

Edited by Fooooo, 08 November 2012 - 04:38 AM.

[Dyson Ring]

Something to think about:

Not all Tech Level 2 versions of weapons are available at the moment, time-line wise. So you still will have wait if you want ER medium and small lasers, Ultra ACs other than 5s or LB-Xs other than 10s or Streak SRM 4s and 6s for instance.

[MustrumRidcully]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

This is also what I agree with. The poll doesn't give many options for this.

Try this option: IS Tech should be balanced against IS Tech, Clan Tech can stay superior.

[Krivvan]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 November 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

Try this option: IS Tech should be balanced against IS Tech, Clan Tech can stay superior.

The other two options treat upgrades as a single question rather than treating IS Tech and Clan tech differently, unless I misread something.

[MustrumRidcully]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

The other two options treat upgrades as a single question rather than treating IS Tech and Clan tech differently, unless I misread something.

Ah, yes... That is true. I couldn't put in a 4th question, so I settled for the "extremes".

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 November 2012 - 04:53 AM.