108 replies to this topic

[Wildstreak]

BoPop, on 05 April 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

hmmm, fans can ruin things. like the show Heroes. Sylar was so cool, and Hiro had potential, then the fans wanted this and that and the show went down the tubes. i digress.

That show became garbage after a few seasons.
Fans can improve things though. Supernatural was supposed to end after 5 seasons according to plans made before the show aired. Yet Fans kept it alive so it is still going on today.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Balance should be done on use. If tons of people use the system then it obviously is over powered and should be nerfed. If nobody uses it then it's obviously under powered and needs a buff.

Balance is going to only be achieved when everyone is using every weapon the same amount.

[Sifright]

hammerreborn, on 22 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Alright, well if they're only going to listen to me, here are my opinions:

The game is fine. Flamers and MGs need some work, that's it.

guess they can get rid of their staff and put the game into maintenance mode then.

Game is fine PGI, no more work needed.

[Divine Retribution]

Many long posts in here. I'm against the devs listening only (or mainly) to the top players/teams, or having a preferred select few to hear ideas from. Varied experiences among skill levels creates a well-rounded game; varied similar experiences among a small group creates a game targeted at a narrower market and bitterness among those not included. No governing body (devs in this case) should insulate itself from the greater whole, nor should it showcase a "token" of the greater whole in an attempt to placate the masses. Time has shown bad things happen in such circumstances (revolution, civil war, etc.), in this game it would mean the eventual abandonment by most. Sorry to get all Machiavellian (it really isn't, but I never get to use it) but the conceptual similarities in some of the posts and the reality within governments/large organizations made me shudder. Imagine a game development company with the 13% approval rating of Congress, would make for some short lived games.....

The devs should simply do the work required to listen to the community and progress with internal game plans. That work is:

1 - Continue developing the game as usual.

2 - Scour the many threads for ideas/feedback that are accompanied by rational arguments, aren't rants, and are supported by facts.

3 - Note the ideas listed in step 2. Also note reasonable counterarguments.

4 - If an idea/feedback is presented repeatedly by multiple players and no reasonable counterarguments exist, or if the arguments for seem to outweigh arguments against, determine whether or not the idea/feedback fits with the existing plans for the game.

5 - Determine whether or not each idea/feedback is accurate. For example the lrm feedback, which is often seen as overpowered or underpowered. Look at usage trends, damage statistics, etc., to make a determination. If lrms usage dropped or increased significantly there is a reason behind it, often repeatedly written about on these forums in logical arguments. The same goes for other weapons, maps, mechs, and various game features.

6 - Prioritize ideas/feedback. Some issues may require immediate attention, others can wait for long term review. Implement based on priority along with predetermined content.

7 - Review plans for game taking into consideration results from previous steps and limitations regarding staffing, technical capability, etc.. New long-term plan from step 7 becomes step 1 and the process repeats.

TL;DR - Then you missed out on what I wrote.

Edited by Divine Retribution, 06 April 2013 - 07:50 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think they listen to good arguments and pick them apart.

And top tier players can present good arguments. "If weapon X is fine, why does no one at the top tier use them?" This won't tell us exactly why X isn't used at the top tier - is is too heavy, to large, does it explode to often, does it deal too litle damage, too much heat, projectile too slow, weapon sound makes headphones explode, is outperformed by a very similar weapon by a small but noteworthy margin? But if top tier players avoid certain equipment or tend to prefer certain equipment, you have good pointers. You don't get those pointers from lower-tier players - they might just use a weapon because they don't know any better, or because they liked the color and it accidentally is also good.

[Warskull]

Actually, good developers balance for all levels of play. You can do this because you balance for different things at different levels of play.

With newbs, you are simply trying to make sure there are no "noob traps" in your game. Things that work the opposite of how you would expect. Things that unfairly put a new player at a huge disadvantage. In this game the two biggest noob traps are single heat sinks and trial mechs. Both need to be significantly less awful.

At intermediate levels what you are looking for is execution gaps. Does it take significantly more effort to counter something than it takes to use. Strategy B might be able to counter Strategy A, but if Strategy B requires you to be twice as good a player to execute it, that is a problem. The best example in MWO is ECM, incredibly easy to use and an incredibly cheap option. It costs a mere 2 slots and 1.5 tons. All the counters significantly more resources and effort. Hence why ECM being so dominant is a problem, especially in pubs.

At top level play you balance for the peak power. Execution gaps don't matter as much, what does matter is the number of viable options. Too few and your game becomes boring. This means that sniper that may be crap in the hands of most people needs a nerf, because in the hands of an expert player is absolutely dominates the game to the exclusion of everything else. 3D Jump snipers probably toe the line for "too good" at top level play while weak in the hands of bad players.

Top level competitive play absolutely needs to be considered, but if you neglect other levels of play you will still end up with a poorly balanced game. It will be good at top tier, but no one will want to play it long enough to get to top tier.

[Sybreed]

I gotta ask this: What defines a top tier player?

Because if PGI simply goes with KDR or win%, those datas will be incredibly flawed thx to the early open beta when premades were farming pugs 24/7. I played with some of those players and they aren't really better than others i've played with who don't have an inflated kdr.

So, who are these top tier players?

[MustrumRidcully]

Sybreed, on 06 April 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

I gotta ask this: What defines a top tier player?

Because if PGI simply goes with KDR or win%, those datas will be incredibly flawed thx to the early open beta when premades were farming pugs 24/7. I played with some of those players and they aren't really better than others i've played with who don't have an inflated kdr.

So, who are these top tier players?

Players with a a higher Elo rating then most.

Premade Groups that win tournaments and dominate leaderboards otherwise. If we ever get team tournaments and team leaderboard events.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 April 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Sybreed]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 April 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Players with a a higher Elo rating then most.

Premade Groups that win tournaments and dominate leaderboards otherwise. If we ever get team tournaments and team leaderboard events.

I guess that could work. It's so hard to know what ELO you're in though, hard to tell if you're a good or bad player

As for the tournaments, they just need to implement rules that won't allow abuse like some past tournaments (like going in, tag and shoot everyone at least once and die) and yeah, that could give a good indication. I just don't want this game to turn into CS 1.6 where only 4 weapons are viable. High elo players tend to think that way...