Was Tt Balanced?
#1
Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:11 PM
#2
Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:29 PM
A valid game balancing method.
#3
Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:11 AM
#4
Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:46 AM
#5
Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:09 AM
#6
Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:17 AM
#7
Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:36 AM
Theres also some experimental tech thats pretty cheesy. Variable speed pulse get a -3 at close range with great damage, granted that range is very short but two of those mounted on Malaks with superchargers (the O-Mi variant I believe) is nasty. I used Artemis V last week and it was pretty bad too. -1 to hit and +3 to amount of missiles. On several volleys I landed entire lrm 20 salvos.
Most stuff I would say is balanced with benefits and drawbacks. Heavy lazors for instance have awesome damage but are hot and have a +1 to fire (though improved ones dont). Personally I try to avoid putting too much cheese into my custom mechs unless its a weapon system I haven't used and want to try.
#8
Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:59 AM
However, this was counterbalanced with the BV system. If you could only bring a force of X size and Y BV, you suddenly couldn't bring all your fancy toys to the field. 4 JR7-Ds fare much better than 2 JR7-Ks simply due to numbers.
#9
Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:14 AM
On their own, no. On a mech, yes and no. Is a Panther equal to a Wolfhound? They're both very different machines designed for different roles. Plenty of factors could decide how close that balance between them was. Terrain, range and speed could greatly affect both units in different ways and giving or removing advantages from both.
The thing with TT was there were many ways of finding a balance, but it was dependent on who was playing. In many ways, the scenario books were designed to be unbalanced as far as force composition went, and this in itself was fun too.
Balance could be found in different ways. It could also be balanced by tonnage, though this wasn't ideal. A Charger wasn't exactly equal to an Awesome even though both were 80 ton.
There were other systems used before BV came in, such as balance based on tech level, point systems based on a whole range of things, weight groups (light, medium, heavy, assault) and such, but the best balance came with the BV systems. Given the large number of variables which any mech could be constructed from, it gave a pretty accurate value to compare against other units. Not perfect, but very good.
The only way to get that mythical perfect balance in MWO is for everyone to use the exact same mech, but even then there is imbalance in that we all have different PC setups, internet connections, player reflexes and skill levels.
Were weapons better balanced in TT than MW:O? I'd say yes and no. They all had their niche and role to play. They also weren't all designed to alpha strike every round with pinpoint accuracy which is where MW:O breaks things. 10 medium lasers were guaranteed to spread damage rather than act like the equivalent of a laser AC/50, which is what we have here. The downside to doing an alpha in TT was that there were consequences to that level of heat buildup - slower movement for 10 seconds, decreased firing accuracy, and the potential for your pilot to cook himself and go unconscious... none of which are represented in MW:O as yet (if ever).
#10
Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:52 AM
#11
Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:51 AM
CLANS
#12
Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:31 AM
#13
Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:09 AM
Indoorsman, on 09 November 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:
No. BV is meant to balance it but its not perfect. They are currently working on BV 3.0 as 2.0 is not ideal. Its really hard on clanners atm and they are often put at a disadvantage in terms of numbers and tonnage. I know when I built 2 forces of 8500 BV my clan force consisted of i think 2 heavy, 1 med, and 2 lights all 4/5 skill. My IS for consisted of 1 assault, 3 heavy, 2 med, and 2 light with mostly 4/5 and two 3/4 skill.
#14
Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:53 AM
#15
Posted 10 November 2012 - 10:28 PM
the balance is also by a combination of several factors,
1. ERA given a 3025 mech will have a hard time with a 3065 based mech
2. BV system while not perfect is give a great range of options for fielding a force based on technology, pilot/gunnery skill
3. balanced senarios,
#16
Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:47 PM
Indoorsman, on 08 November 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:
How can we answer you when we can only assume what you mean by your usage of the word "balance?"
We don't really know what you're asking if we don't know what you mean by that word.
#17
Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:50 PM
Sure, if you put the same number of those little pewter or lead miniatures on opposite sides of the board, it probably wouldn't tip over.
Balanced in terms of gameplay? No, not so much. The Introductory/3025 stuff is reasonably balanced for the most part, and the general lack of technologies that greatly reduce heat build-up (DHS) or the risk of ammo explosions (CASE) means that luck can make or break you, even when there's a mismatch on the board. But big 'mechs have an overall advantage over smaller 'mechs, and energy-heavy variants have an edge in survivability over ammo-based designs, and if you let people cook up their own designs according to the construction rules, they can usually come up with a stronger design than most of the stock choices.
T2 (2750 or 3050/3055/3058) gear has a big advantage over T1 (Introductory/3025) gear. There is no attempt to balance this directly in the game, even through cost. Clan tech, likewise, blows away T2 (though it is damned expensive), and T3 Inner Sphere gear gets some rough parity to Clan, though usually in odd ways with some kind of drawback.
But as a general rule bigger is always better, and more technologically advanced is always better, and even when drawbacks are added to advanced technology, it doesn't balance out the advantages. Experimental 'tech is a mixed bag, some cool stuff, some very situational stuff, it balances better than the straight-up upgrades era by era.
So, short answer - no. BV is what balances CBT.
#18
Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:47 AM
#19
Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:10 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users