8 replies to this topic

[TopDawg]

When discussing balance, would it be easier (or more beneficial) to simply preface all discussions with either 8s or 'everything else'? I don't mean this in any kind of derogatory way, I just think that it would avoid a lot of misunderstandings and pointless (i.e. fruitless) discussions on matters concerning balance.

Admittedly. the Medium Mechs thread and SRM Cat thread prompted this post. But, since the game can't be just divided into two halves, under what pretense should the game be balanced? Personally, I think it should be balanced around 8s and with competitive play in mind (8s simply because it's the highest form of competitive play currently).

I realize that it is likely (at least while the game is still healthy) that the majority of the playerbase will always be Lonewolf PUGs and/or just a few friends grouping together. However, those kinds of players are usually interchangeable, meaning that they usually play for a [little] while and then move on to something else. Please don't misunderstand though, It's extremely important to accommodate them and I'm completely in favor of putting in game mechanics (like Elo, and to a lesser extent this recent individuals event) that do just that, but at the same time you need to have that deeper level of gameplay.

I think in order for the game to be successful, especially being a F2P model, you have to have a strong base of players that can just hop in, play, and hop out; whenever they feel like it. That very well could be the whole game for them, and that's fine; the game should be accessible enough for them to do so.

Then you'll have the ones who get more invested. Maybe they catch a competitive match replay (or shoutcast, hint hint, in fact I think there's playoff games coming up shortly for a certain league?), join a unit, or even just get individually invested/competitive and want to better their play. The point being, if there's nothing to shoot for the game won't thrive, and likely won't survive in the long run.

Anyway, the focus has to be on the competitive scene, and I believe the rest will kind of surround that core, so to speak. I also believe that balance will come from being provided with meaningful choices (i.e. as many viable options as possible). One could (and people have) point to the Extra Credits video reference (a few of them, actually), and that's not a bad thing.

There's definitely a lot of important features PGI have yet to implement (private matches, a reconnect feature, in game training area, [better] chat rooms, CW, to name some), but inevitably the entire game will come down to balance, or in the case of unfortunate games nobody plays anymore, lack of balance. I think people underappreciate that fact.

For the attention/time deficient,TL:DR, just read the first and last (two) paragraph(s).

edit: Added the 12s to title to make it more clear.

Edited by TopDawg, 26 February 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[Kraven Kor]

They can't focus on any one.

They have to balance it and make it fun for all types. Casual Players that play a few hours a week, or Hardcore players that play a few hours per day, minimum. Team players and Lone Wolves.

[Doc Holliday]

You balance for all of the above.

You can't ever reach a perfect balance, it's just not possible. You get it as close as you can. The important thing is to make sure everything has strengths AND weaknesses, basically a rock-paper-scissors mechanic.

Right now balance is not all that bad, with the exception of ECM and streaks.

[MadPanda]

None of the options. Focus should be on 12v12 because that's what the game is going to be in the future. And it doesn't matter if you queue solo or with a friend, when the game starts there is 12ppl in your team and that's what should be balanced.

[Agent of Change]

If you are going to pick a unit to focus on for organizational balance it should be 4 mans, but as the angry bear said 12v12 is gonna be the future standard.

The end of the day the game should absolutely be balanced for team play not for individual play. When i say team play I don;t mean groups specifically i mean that for role warfare to work there needs to be asymmetrical balance in that there needs to be active teamwork and a variety of mechs to create a functional whole. Under a well set up team focused balanced hyper specialization becomes a high risk maneuver with clear paper-rock-scissors style counters that set up a potentially shifting but overall level playing field meta where personal skill and teamwork are the true determiners of victory not necessarily the FOTM.

Edited by Agent of Change, 26 February 2013 - 08:05 AM.

[Antares Reborn]

What's missing from the equation is there is a large group of people who are competitive but don't want to team (think Chess, Checkers, collegiate wrestling, MMA, Auto racing, etc. etc. etc) There is money to be made from people in this group, but not so much when its packaged as a team game.

I'm not saying get rid of teams or the team aspects, but I am saying they need to make room for non-team play and quickly. You could have a bracket challenge within 6 months without changing any other aspect of the game by simply dropping 16 class matched mechs in a ffa game. Or bring in 1v1 even. It would not take long to develop a following and betting and all that goes with it.

I see this as the low hanging fruit.

The team aspects need more work before you can have real competitions. Takes more rules. Weight Caps, communications, etc. to make sure that the two teams have a fairly level playing field. The game isn't there yet. A lobby may make this work, but maybe not, and for the moment it appears PGI doesn't want to let others set the rules

There shouldn't be a focus on one or the other, but passing up on the easy money isn't too bright.

[Bhael Fire]

They need an option to allow PUG vs PUG (i.e. solo players only).

OR

Get in-game voice chat enabled ASAP.

I mainly play in premades with voice chat (TS3), but I have spent a fair share of game time playing in PUGs and let me tell you, it's not easy going up against premades while in a PUG.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 26 February 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Goose]

I'm hopping every 'Mech you own will have an Elo for every game mode, and for weather or not you are in a team. If the size of said team is an issue, then just add more Elos.

I would hope an 8-man could face with 8 lone wolves: Teh Wolves would clearly have to be better players, but the "Elo boost" for being in a team would be accounted for ...

[TopDawg]

I don't disagree with some of these sentiments. As I said, it's extremely important to have mechanics that enable the Lonewolf PUGer to have fun on a regular basis; such as the recent 'event' that was really just for Elo purposes, but something like that and more accessible to everyone (like a best of 20-30 or something) would be a great idea to do monthly. And while I did say only 8s because that's the most competitive way to play currently, I can edit the title to better reflect that I meant the highest level of competitive play, soon to be 12s.

But the point is, the play experience is going to be vastly different between PUG and competitive play (check this thread if you disagree: COMMON MECHS IN RUN HOT OR DIE (COMPETITIVE LEAGUE MECH DESIGNS)). Partially in part to varying skill levels, partially in part to just a more casual approach to the game. Competitive play, though, will always take the path of least resistance (i.e. whatever is the most efficient at winning).

I would argue that right now the game is not balanced that well (using my earlier definition that balance consisted of having meaningful choices, i.e. as many viable options as possible); that's not to say that it is horribly misbalanced, mind you. Just that if you want to be competitive, there's only a handful of builds that you can take (as illustrated in the thread linked above).

And to reiterate my point, I don't think people place enough importance on balance, and the fact that it has to be balanced from the top down (the most competitive level of play down to the most causal level of play), or the game simply won't survive in the long run.