145 replies to this topic

[Arete]

scruffy416, on 14 March 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

OK, so I've read the OP a couple of times. I don't see any real suggestions in there.

All I see is a veiled rewording of the idea "We should ignore the ideas/suggestions of those players with a low Elo"

Have I missed something?

No, ideas and suggestions are valid from anyone. This is more of a plea to the devs and a info to those that wants balance changed all the time. If the lowest elo players have problems with a tactic/build/playstyle, then the devs by all means should strive to improve their enjoyment of the game by adressing it. The important part is that in doing improvements for the lower skills the balance should not be changed for the meta game of the top players. If balancing is done for the top players, the playstyle and builds that they do usually trickles down until it becomes the standard play of even the lowest skilled.

A purely hypothetical example of this would be if there were only LRM 10s and PPCs in this game, and the aiming reticule was etremely hard to handle. In top level play, LRMs and PPCs could be balanced, since even with a really hard to use aiming reticule a top player can hit pretty well. In lower level play, the LRMs would be VASTLY overpowered, since players don't have the skills and time to learn how to aim for doing good damage with them. The lower skilled players would cry that LRMs are overpowered, while the "elite" would think they're balanced. If the LRMs got nerfed so that lower skill levels were even, PPCs would rule the field in elite play, and in the end there would be no balance since when you get to a certain skill level PPCs are the only viable things.
Now the correct way to help out the lower skill levels would be to make a better aiming reticule. That would not destroy the game balance for the elite, but would help lower skill levels to actually hit with the PPCs. LRMs might still be the better choice for lower skills, but the experience has improved.

On the other hand, if one of two weapons, like the PPC, really was overpowered in elite play, what they do will show and influence the lower skills how to abuse the OP of that weapon.

[WolvesX]

Arete, on 14 March 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

No, ideas and suggestions are valid from anyone. This is more of a plea to the devs and a info to those that wants balance changed all the time. If the lowest elo players have problems with a tactic/build/playstyle, then the devs by all means should strive to improve their enjoyment of the game by adressing it. The important part is that in doing improvements for the lower skills the balance should not be changed for the meta game of the top players. If balancing is done for the top players, the playstyle and builds that they do usually trickles down until it becomes the standard play of even the lowest skilled.

A purely hypothetical example of this would be if there were only LRM 10s and PPCs in this game, and the aiming reticule was etremely hard to handle. In top level play, LRMs and PPCs could be balanced, since even with a really hard to use aiming reticule a top player can hit pretty well. In lower level play, the LRMs would be VASTLY overpowered, since players don't have the skills and time to learn how to aim for doing good damage with them. The lower skilled players would cry that LRMs are overpowered, while the "elite" would think they're balanced. If the LRMs got nerfed so that lower skill levels were even, PPCs would rule the field in elite play, and in the end there would be no balance since when you get to a certain skill level PPCs are the only viable things.
Now the correct way to help out the lower skill levels would be to make a better aiming reticule. That would not destroy the game balance for the elite, but would help lower skill levels to actually hit with the PPCs. LRMs might still be the better choice for lower skills, but the experience has improved.

On the other hand, if one of two weapons, like the PPC, really was overpowered in elite play, what they do will show and influence the lower skills how to abuse the OP of that weapon.

I admire such smart posts!

And thank you for correcting me.

Edited by WolvesX, 14 March 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

Post OP update:

OK, I like the idea of analyzing balance by studying the top tiers of the game, with the best builds and tactics in play.

I don't like the idea of turning the game into Tryhard:Online.

I think anyone should be able to give their opinion of a part of the game without being dismissed as a noob or incomp, which is what you'd see a lot of with the shield idea. That said, most things people say need some interpretation. Such as, the "LRMs are OP" thing. They're probably not, actually, but it leads me to believe that the learning curve for LRMs is much steeper than desirable for a game that needs a large support base. _{(Personal opinion: they don't need a nerf, they need a re-work. Along with a few other things. . . )}

[WolvesX]

Critical Fumble, on 14 March 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Post OP update:

OK, I like the idea of analyzing balance by studying the top tiers of the game, with the best builds and tactics in play.

I don't like the idea of turning the game into Tryhard:Online.

I think anyone should be able to give their opinion of a part of the game without being dismissed as a noob or incomp, which is what you'd see a lot of with the shield idea. That said, most things people say need some interpretation. Such as, the "LRMs are OP" thing. They're probably not, actually, but it leads me to believe that the learning curve for LRMs is much steeper than desirable for a game that needs a large support base. _{(Personal opinion: they don't need a nerf, they need a re-work. Along with a few other things. . . )}

The shields are not meant to punish people, they are meant as achievement, as I can understand your concerns.

True!

[WolvesX]

LRM aiming / hitting depends more on positioning, rather than actual aiming.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Ranked Matches = ?? ideally competitive play, but right now there is no incentive. Maybe when Community Warfare (CW) is online then it will matter, but currently it is more advantagous to intentionally drop your elo to gain and advantage in tournments.

Unranked Matches = I forsee PUG stomping sessions. You are talking about testing builds or goofing off, I read that as I want to play against unskilled players in my test build (or I want to play against unskilled players to farm C-Bills). The only way I could see this working is if unranked matches continued to match you against equal ELO (unranked just means you do not gain or lose ELO). And all unranked matches earn half C-Bils/XP.

[WolvesX]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 14 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

Ranked Matches = ?? ideally competitive play, but right now there is no incentive. Maybe when Community Warfare (CW) is online then it will matter, but currently it is more advantagous to intentionally drop your elo to gain and advantage in tournments.

Unranked Matches = I forsee PUG stomping sessions. You are talking about testing builds or goofing off, I read that as I want to play against unskilled players in my test build (or I want to play against unskilled players to farm C-Bills). The only way I could see this working is if unranked matches continued to match you against equal ELO (unranked just means you do not gain or lose ELO). And all unranked matches earn half C-Bils/XP.

If you read my OP, I said that Elo should be part of both ranked and unranked.

The difference is, you only earn "shield rewards" in ranked games, maybe skins, banners, achievement glimbim and medals.

So, casual players, not interessted in balanced and skill can play unranked games, with all the benefits of it (XP, GXP, CB), but they don't get a real rank ("Shields").

[Tekyio Wolf]

I like the updated thread much better.

[Ian Wolfe]

Tekyio Wolf, on 14 March 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

I like the updated thread much better.

I think its too long now, many won't read it...

Please make it short OP!

[WolvesX]

Ian Wolfe, on 14 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think its too long now, many won't read it...

Please make it short OP!

There is a TL;DR.

[Khanahar]

Absolutely a good idea to balance around the top tier. Ideally, of course, you balance for everyone, but skill curves are different on different weapons, roles, and 'mechs. LRM is the best role to introduce beginners to the game, while energy-based lights and brawler assaults are one-mistake-and-you-die 'mechs.

Because of this, I have long been an advocate of massively increased match rewards for playing in 8v8s. Make it so losing and 8v8 nets you more than winning in a 4 man. Encourage everybody who can to play the game seriously in teams and use this to develop the metagame rapidly.

StarCraft is a good comparison: vanilla SC2 and SC1 were both horribly imbalanced. Both were adjusted for the top-tier players, and became very balanced and sophisticated. At low levels, both are still somewhat imbalanced (P OP in BW, T in SC2). But no one cares, because it all evens out by mid-level.

[Sagranda]

People who aren't reading great threads because of a "wall of text" aren't worth mentioning.

Zerberus, on 14 March 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Generally, I agree.

However, PGI is not doing this for charity, therefore it`s only logical (and sane) to balance the game around the section of hte comunity that brings them the most revenue. I can only ASSUME that this is primarily the semi-casual that plays on weekends and a few matches during the week, likely doesn`t visit the forum much if at all, and isn`t necessarily bothered by stats. He just wants to walk around and kill other mechs and will spend maybe 10-20$ /month to do so.

I assume this based on my long term experiences with other MMO games that got balanced more and more toward casual players as the years progressed.

If they want to go competetive with tourneys, etc. they gain way more profit with balancing the game around high-elo and competetive players 'cause this will attract way more players who want to fight at a high level against others.
If they don't want to do this, then it doesn't matther around who they are balancing at all, or better to say it doesn't matther what they change or how they do it, since "noobs" will always complain about everything that kills them.

Btw,,,a competetive player will spend way more money in a Free To Play game than the casual one
-> More Profit

Quote

One thiong however I don`t fully support is not matching elites with rookies. That is THE best way for rookies to learn, to have a chance to see what other people are doing first hand, be it as a target, a lancemate, or a spectator.

Think of it this way: did those people in your life that taught you the most know MORE than you or the same amount? Were your Idols the people who were better at something at you, or those that were at your level? Did you improve your skills by practicing what others taught, or do you constantly force yourself to reinvent the wheel, first?

What I'm trying to say is you can`t ever get better if you have no idea what better looks like and there`s nobody there to show you.

Consistently getting matched against "better players" leads mostly to frustration
Getting stomped is no fun at all

While in theory it is true that you learn the most while playing against better players, the reality usually proves otherwise (besides some exceptions)

On the other side there are the "Elite Players" who have no fun stomping the newer ones over and over again

EvangelionUnit, on 13 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

so everyone should shuffer for so just a few can have a good game ? well, good luck paying for the servers alone

It's like this in every multiplayer game that centers around competetive gaming.
And it's the way it should be

[WolvesX]

Sagranda, on 14 March 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

-post above-

Great post there Sagranda!

[Sifright]

Critical Fumble, on 13 March 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

I don't follow. If you made the game balanced at higher levels, wouldn't it inherently be balanced throughout? Especially considering that the "high level gameplay" has a lot to do with getting the best meta mecha and exploiting it to the fullest.

Yes and no. People complain about balance who are terrible players or who can't make certain weapon systems work due to their short falls and so have biased observations. Also people at lower elo spectrum might see a powerful mech build that requires specific play style to work properly and because they keep killing mech pilots that don't know how to drive that mech properly they think the build is fine.

as an example the A1 catapult many people scream at you that you should just shoot the ears off any then they are uselessl. Sage advice if the pilot of the A1 is a moron who doesn't use cover or ambushes.

I drive the thing a lot. I very rarely get my ears shot off because I drive to its strengths and cover its weaknesses properly when you do that it is the most powerful brawler when the net code isn't ravaging your aim.

Balance suggestions made by LOW elo players is suspect because they don't have the skill to bring out the best qualities in a mech build and they are playing against players who likewise use mechs badly either in the mechlab or in the field.

Edited by Sifright, 14 March 2013 - 01:50 PM.

[WolvesX]

Sifright, on 14 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Yes and no. People complain about balance who are terrible players or who can't make certain weapon systems work due to their short falls and so have biased observations. Also people at lower elo spectrum might see a powerful mech build that requires specific play style to work properly and because they keep killing mech pilots that don't know how to drive that mech properly they think the build is fine.

as an example the A1 catapult many people scream at you that you should just shoot the ears off any then they are uselessl. Sage advice if the pilot of the A1 is a moron who doesn't use cover or ambushes.

I drive the thing a lot. I very rarely get my ears shot off because I drive to its strengths and cover its weaknesses properly when you do that it is the most powerful brawler when the net code isn't ravaging your aim.

Balance suggestions made by LOW elo players is suspect because they don't have the skill to bring out the best qualities in a mech build and they are playing against players who likewise use mechs badly either in the mechlab or in the field.

I just love to see this happen in game.

A Skillcat that managed to sneak up of the supporters. Great move. I love this even if I'm in the team that gets killed by actions like this! (Not in 8 mans ofc, then I blame someone^^)

[Sifright]

WolvesX, on 14 March 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

I just love to see this happen in game.

A Skillcat that managed to sneak up of the supporters. Great move. I love this even if I'm in the team that gets killed by actions like this! (Not in 8 mans ofc, then I blame someone^^)

I find my biggest problem when i drive the A1 for any length of time is i get massively over confident and start charging people head on... To my chagrin this still usually ends up with me getting 2-3 kills before dieing in a glorious fire ball of death.

or sometimes the pugs on the other side go... "AHHHH A1 AT BRAWL RANGE RUUUUN". Then the shogun total war 2 commentator screams at their team commander "your men are running from the battlefield SHAMEFUL DISPRAY"

[VoltarDark]

AC, on 13 March 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

OMG... I can't believe we made it this far into a thread with only intelligent posts. I didn't think it was possible on this forum!!

Sarcasm aside, I agree with OP and the posts made so far. One thing I would like to add...

I feel balancing is harder in MWO because of the random map generator. For example: I have seen multiple posts from people stating that they get River City when they take their LRM boat, and Alpine when they grab their SRM boat. Having the wrong mech for the map makes that mech look less effective. If PGI was able to implement team play on a pre-selected map, and then gather data from those matches, I feel they would learn a lot about the current balance of the game.

Also, I am sure some of the competitive teams would allow a PGI person to drop with them from time to time so they could see the imbalances first hand. People can post issues all they want on the forums, but having PGI see these issues first hand speaks much louder.

See my post :
http://mwomercs.com/...e/#entry1958981

[Teralitha]

WolvesX, on 13 March 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Fun fact: Threads with reason die soon.

Just keep bumping your own topics to keep it alive... thats what I do.

[Teralitha]

MischiefSC, on 13 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Nothing to be negative about. It's all dead on accurate. When I play my D-DC I win almost twice as much as I lose, especially with the new LRM boating craze. People pretend that Tag fixes it but it doesn't. When I drop in a Catapult and my team doesn't have ECM we take drastically more abuse from LRMs. It takes far more skill to coordinate LRM fire via TAG against ECM equipped enemies than it does to just pick a red triangle and click to kill.

The important thing is HOW you balance it to the high end. I can't stress enough that if you don't balance each weapon/mech/variant/item individually against all other items instead of via soft and hard counters with other equipment then you're creating a system that is inherently impossible to balance.

ECM/missile balancing currently is designed to exploit less experienced players and pugs. That's what they do; they're designed to be less effective against organized teams but deadly effective against disorganized ones. Exploitable mechanics will inherently be exploited.

Balance weapons (missiles, ECM, everything) individually. ECM should be no more or less viable and useful than BAP or NARC. It should offer a reasonable 'buff' to certain weapons or situations. There should be no major hard/soft counters to weapons aside from player skill.

LRMs faster, less damage, less maneuverable. ECM not stealth shield, delay but not block lock for LRMs. BAP see around obstacles in range, show all targets in range of equipping mech like they're targetted to allies. TAG and NARC give unique target reticules for allies and buffs to missile hit percentages. ECM disrupt those features.

The defining factor in a match should be player skill, not some attempt at a blindfolded game of rock/paper/scissors - which is what you get with the current balancing system and pug matches.

Ive been saying this for months. But hey, maybe they will actually read this topic....

Gandalfrockman, on 13 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Making stats public is a terrible Idea RIGHT NOW.
The developers can see your stats and use them for the very value judgements you describe.
No-one else needs this information or the level of hostility it generates for new players.

Its important to remember when balancing a game that while it must be balanced for top level competitive play, you should NEVER create a situation where your competitive balance changes imbalance the game completely for the other 95% of your player base.

TLDR:
-This game isn't anywhere near a point where making stats public would serve the good of its community.
-Balance from the top down, but don't JUST balance the top, a game that only balanced for the most skilled top 5% of it community has one foot in the grave.

Um.. if its balanced for the top level, by default its balanced for the rest too.

xDeityx, on 13 March 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

Right now, no competitive video gamer worth his salt would think about competing in MWO.

You got that right.

[WolvesX]

"Words - so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them."