0
David Dunning is a professor of psychology at the university of Cornell. According to his research, in order to know how good you are at something, you must have exactly the same skills as it takes to be good at that thing in the first place. The resulting paradox is that if you are absolutely no good at something at all, then you lack exactly the skills that you'd need to realise that you are no good at it. Just listen to this guy:
https://www.youtube....Afv3U_ysc#t=213
A consequence of this, is that countless people THINK they are good at something, precisely because they are not.
Now, normally, when you are confronted with superior tactics (and subsequently lose to them) in a game, you have two options. One, is to learn that tactic, and just try to be better at it than other players, and the other is to try to counter said tactic (perhaps even exploit the fact, that people using it are going to behave in a certain way).
Trouble is - some people refuse to learn. Not that they cannot learn, but they refuse to do so. Because in their own mind, their tactic is correct (remember the opening paragraph?). So they insist on using it, and then wonder why they keep getting blown up. This is the literal definition of insanity - repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome.
And every time we point out, that maybe their skills just weren't up to par, we are met with hostility:
"no, damn it! I know how to play this game, I'm not wrong, the game is wrong! And You are wrong! Everyone is wrong except ME!" (sounds familiar?). This is partially the fault of the current education system in many countries - instead of improving their skills to pass a test, people want to lower the requirements. And they have come to expect it too, because the super-PC (politically correct) culture of the modern world seems mortally afraid to offend anyone with suggestions that they, quite frankly, suck.
The end result is that people refuse to make an effort to improve in any way, and ALSO refuse to acept responsibility for their defeats. And while it is tempting to focus your blame on incompetent teammates (and i've given in to this temptation many times), some people take it further.
When I talked about two options before, these people choose a third one - go on the forums and cry about it, until it gets nerfed. Rather than trying to overcome the obstacles, they want the easy way out, and ask for the obstacles to be arbitrarily removed from their way. And it bothers me, because it impacts the game in a strictly negative way.
You see - people seldom complain about winning. Most of the time, when you hear someone complain about "balance", they do it from the position of the victim. And amidst accusations of "overpowered weapons that allowed an inferior player to get an undeserved victory", and "underpowered weapons that should have given them a victory they so rightly deserve", these people are not really looking for balance. They are looking for vengeance. Even if only subconciously, their "suggestions" are meant to prevent people from defeating them using a certain tactic that they cannot be bothered to learn how to counter, and sometimes outright punish people for trying. That's how we got asault mode base turrets, which i dislike with all my being (at least in their current form), but have (learned) to deal with.
And now that the second round of testing the clan mechs and equipment is upon us, people will invariably offer their "valuable input" on matters they do not fully understand.
Personally, I have to say that I like how the clans are being treated in this game so far, even though i was cautious at first, when it was announced, that clan weapons will be tweaked to not be clearly and strictly 200% superior to the inner sphere ones. My initial reaction was along the lines of "what heresy is this?!", since clan tech in battletech lore is strictly superior, to Inner Sphere's - more powerful, lighter and with more range. That being said - while the numbers in the board game manual are clear, there has never been any official statement (that I am aware of, feel free to correct me) as to what exactly MAKES them better.
I must admit I really like PGI's (liberal) interpretation, that clan weapons have higher damage potential, than IS weapons, as long as you put in the extra effort required (Obviously, the UAC20 can shred a lot more armour, than the IS AC20, and the lasers do more damage, as long as you stay on target). And I am quite puzzled to see, that some people discount them entirely as impossible to use effectively (aka: it doesn't matter if the CERLL does more damage, since the burn time is 50% longer and you will waste all of it hitting something else).
Very much like the change to Gauss Rifle mechanic. A lot of people, who relied on the simple "point and click" nature of it, cried out that the GR is unusable now (nevermind the bit of effort and practice to go from aim-click, to click/aim-release). While I argued, that the GR has been made more powerful, since once you learn to handle the charge mechanic, you are given a very powerful option to cancel your shots, and refire quicker than after a missed one (not to mention saving ammo).
So, kindly, think before you type. And when it comes to posting "balance suggestions" think extra hard.
Edited by qki, 15 June 2014 - 06:22 AM.
