31 replies to this topic

[Indoorsman]

I know the game was balanced. Specifically though, were weapon values balanced well enough that you did not need BV, or was the game only balanced because of BV? Were any weapons over/underpowered?

[Adridos]

BV.

A valid game balancing method.

[Indoorsman]

I agree it's valid and did a good job apparently. But w/o it would weapons have been balanced?

[Stormwolf]

BV2, it wasn't perfect, but it got the job done.

[Indoorsman]

I'm not asking if BV or BV2.0 balanced the game. I'm asking if w/o BV, would the game have been balanced.

[Nightwinder]

Was every weapon 100% balanced against each other? No, not really. There's a reason they introduced the BV system. Even within the same category of weapon there's discrepancies in effectiveness (Primarily the S/M/L lasers & LRM sizes, AC range differences help to reduce that, but raw tonnage makes them almost always less efficient than a comparable design using energy weapons).

[Keisuke Nagisa]

Yeh without BV there is imbalance when comparing some of the weapon systems. Pulse lasers are a good example, yeh they are heavier, and hotter, and shorter range but that -2 makes all the difference especially when paired with a targeting computer. So much so they actually changed the rules as people were pairing them with targeting comps to blow off any piece of a mech they felt like.

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.

[Grey Black]

Was TT balanced? Oh my no. Ignoring BV, there were numerous unbalanced systems, such as the gauss rifle. 15 damage at AC2 ranges? Please.

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.

[warhammer6r]

Is an orange the equivalent of an apple? What are you comparing them against? Damage, heat, range, overall efficiency?

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).

[MustrumRidcully]

Perfectly balanced, I think not. I believe that the weapons available 3025 may have been reasonbly balanced, though. (THough I believe I calculated once the AC/2 would better be an AC/4 and the AC/5 an AC/6.)

[DocBach]

one word:

CLANS

[Indoorsman]

So basically, no TT would not be balanced if you took away BV?

[Keisuke Nagisa]

Indoorsman, on 09 November 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

So basically, no TT would not be balanced if you took away BV?

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.

[Exilyth]

Not as balanced as chess, but more than a lot of other wargames.

[Ogre Magi]

of the games i have played the balance in BT is very good all in all. given the drive to develop new tech/content for the game altered the rules they have balanced those changes all in all.

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,

[Pht]

Indoorsman, on 08 November 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

I know the game was balanced. Specifically though, were weapon values balanced well enough that you did not need BV, or was the game only balanced because of BV? Were any weapons over/underpowered?

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.

[Solis Obscuri]

Balanced without BV?

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.

[KalebFenoir]

I liked using BV to set up matches with seemingly random mechs. Made it more interesting when you were trying to get your total BV closer to a particular number, and you find a mech you never ever would have chosen, but it's the only one that fits right, so you use it anyway. And then you discover how much you like it. (How I discovered the Canis, and grew to like it)

[Kobold]

The game works well enough with BV2 as long as none of the players are specifically trying to game things. There are a handful of units that are very good for their BV, and some that are bad for their BV.

[350GrammHack]

DocBach, on 09 November 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

one word:

CLANS

The main problem with the most clan players is and always will be that they ignore zelbringen.