108 replies to this topic

[Endbr1nger]

Victor Morson, on 22 March 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

When Valve set out to balance the CS:GO weapons, they brought the best CS:S players to their offices for the event. They keep on contact with them, too.

I don't actually have a strong enough opinion on the actual post here, (so allow me to hijack this to say) just wanted to say that using CS:S and "top tier players" in the same post is like asking for baseball balance ideas from a 3rd grade little league team. Source and the thought process behind it is the same logic that is being used to add 3pv to this game.

People are good at the game and newbies are dying! We should nerf everything into the ground so everyone can be a winnar!

[p00k]

i think a lot more than just the top10% can spot the balance problems for weapons in this game. and as i'm reasonably confident i'm on the positive side of average, i'll offer my take

energy:
large laser: good
med laser: good
small laser: good
large pulse: too heavy still. drop it to 6 tons
med pulse: pretty close, could use a minor buff but i'd rather pgi not touch it than f it up
small pulse: bad. duration boost not worth double tonnage of small laser without damage boost. up it to 4
er large: too hot. drop heat to 8.5 to make it comparable to ppcs - hitscan, better range and close up use for having a beam duration and a bit hotter
ppc: good
erppc: good
flamer: bad. only useful as distraction to blind people. generate more target heat or less user heat, up range to 90-100

ballistic:
ac2: bad. firing confirmation "bug" hits max dps too hard, i'd also drop tonnage to 5
ac5: bit weak. very efficient, would drop cooldown to 1.5 from 1.7
uac5: good, some people have a jam on first shot bug but likely due to sensitive mice or latency (i've gone through 3tons of ammo with a single uac5 and never jam once when i'm paying attention to it)
ac10: bit weak, drop heat to 2 and tonnage to 11
lbx10: bad, up damage to 1.3-1.5 per pellet
ac20: close enough, would like to see 8shots/ton ammo but i'd rather pgi not touch it than ruin it
gauss: bit too fragile, would up item health to 5, drop explode chance to 75%
machinegun: bad, up damage to 0.1-0.2, double current range, drop ammo/ton to 1000 to compensate

missiles:
LRMs (any of them): bad. double their flight speed. hard to say how much damage they should do when they can't be relied upon to even hit the target in the first place, might even need a damage nerf. though personally i'm fine with LRMs being terribad
SRM 6/4: slightly weak, up damage to 1.8-2
SRM2: bad, no reason to take when you can almost always take a SRM4. drop cooldown to 2.5, again up damage to 1.8-2
SSRM2: slightly weak, up damage to 1.8-2

[3rdworld]

Personally, if they aren't going to change the tendency for alpha builds

give the smaller AC/s a firing "ramp"

like the AC/2 can shoot 5 rounds in 1.5 seconds but then has a 5-6 second CD.
then decrease the number of rounds from there.

AC/5->3 rounds
UAC/5 -> 4-6 rounds but with a chance to jam
AC/10-> 2 rounds

It makes sense via lore as the ACs were loaded in small mags called cassettes or something like that. so you get a few shots off very quickly but incur a larger CD once they are fired for the next ammo mag to be loaded.

The idea is that it gives someone a reason to be exposed for ~2 seconds or so. instead of show -> alpha -> cover

also the AC/2 is way too hot.

Edited by 3rdworld, 05 April 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Stargoat]

p00k, on 05 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

<I agree with most of this except...>

SSRM2: slightly weak, up damage to 1.8-2

before the recent nerfing, SSRM2s were absolutely the least balanced weapon in the game - for a light pilot, anyway. The way they operate is still stupid (firing backwards???). If they get a damage buff, then they'd need a reduction in manoeuvrability.

[Nonsense]

Teralitha, on 22 March 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking.

This is exactly what occurs among many "top tier" teams in all kinds of games, and part of what makes Starcraft 2 1v1 an interesting competitive game in comparison to games like LoL/DotA, FPSs, etc. Many teams make it to the top simply by having better than average skill and ability to read each others' actions. The teams that stick around at the top the longest, however, manage to take things that have previously been labeled "terrible" by others and try them with interesting strategies. They leave room for experimentation when it's appropriate and try their best not to be slaves to any sort of metagame.

No team like that exists for MWO, so the devs can't pick one to listen to. The game's not old enough yet, it's not done enough yet, and there isn't a large enough competitive scene for there to be a "cream of the crop".

I've watched some RHOD videos. Coming from competitive cs 1.6 (back in the day), the team strategies lacked any real cohesion, everything was rushed, and the whole thing was pretty boring, to be honest.

[Training Instructor]

Counter-strike comparisons are completely invalid, because the best players in that game are the best twitchers, in the same way that the best starcraft players are the best clickers and draggers.

I'm a middle of the road player, but I am fully capable of noticing imbalances in weapons or problem spots on maps.

Know what the best teams are best at? Using optimized mechs that compliment each other by making up for glaring weaknesses. Put Skinny Pete in the cockpit of a 6xPPC Stalker and he'll kill most of the other team. Put your average lonewolf pilot with average accuracy in that same mech and it's a vulnerable overheating deathtrap in a typical match.

^^^^Just an example of why you need to listen to everyone. What is okay or seems balanced for top players might not look that way for most of the playerbase.

[Artgathan]

This thread is essentially a resurrection of the "if you Elo is under X, your opinion is invalid" thread that appeared when Elo was first discussed. The reasoning here is wrong for all of the same reasons that the previous thread was wrong.

[HermanitoII]

Death Mallet, on 05 April 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

They have a lot of experience using and building mechs that use only the most unbalanced aspects of the game.

They probably got this information off the internet, rather than actually experimenting with all the different weapons systems.

Using the most "umbalanced aspects" (I understand you are talking about weapons and ECM) means those are the BEST weapons. If not... why are them umbalanced???? If that was true LRM wouldn´t be almost dead in 8vs8. LRM is only good against bad players.

And about getting information on internet... how the hell you suppose that? And if that is true, who generates that "information"??? Perhaps someone that has already proven that some weapons are useless. If a weapon is better than another it will be widely used PERIOD.

Edited by HermanitoII, 05 April 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[Reptilizer]

While in general i agree that top tier players should at least be heard before a change is considered, the guys running the servers have the mightiest weapons to balance stuff already on hand.
And they do not even really have to understand the game and its dynamics, they just have to be capable to comprehend some basic math.

They already have all the statistics!!!

From there on it is a simple numbers game: Which weapon is used how often compared to how many hardpoints are offered for it. How much damage is caused by it. What is the percentage people hit with a certain weapon. What is the weapon that makes most kill shots on Ravens/Atlai/Cats etc.
And then you can go and adjust accordingly. This is dead simple, you can even go look for yourself in the stats they provide us. How effective are your builds, how often do you hit with your AC/10 for how much damage etc.

I have no clue why none of the devs gets down on the tables they are already producing anyway, gets the numbers straight and tweaks accordingly. It also is an absolute mystery to me, why they do not tweak incrementally but always use the biggest available nerf/buffbat they find in the closet...

[JimSuperBleeder]

If anything make a sub forum with restricted access for certain players to have solid, non flaming discussions. Mods/Devs can pick the players that give consistent and solid feedback. Just to get opinions without all the riff raff.

[MaddMaxx]

So, if someone else thinks you suck, or you think someone else sucks, neither of those 2 opinions would matter any more right?

How does the Dev decide who the Pros are? What criteria must be passed to make muster? Who decides those criteria?

Oh, and how much QQ'ing would be considered acceptable levels after not getting selected to this A Team... LOL

[JimSuperBleeder]

Not my job to figure out the details, lol.

[Utilyan]

I don't think the BEST use the best mechs thats why they are the best. They don't have to check stats they just know. And if you hand them your God-mode mech they will just hand your butt right over.

The best pilot is that crazy mf in a spider with flamers who survives. One who can actually do something even in the most horrible of mechs.

In atlas he makes other atlas look like a joke, He'll actually practice unheard of things like he's killing 2 folks at the same time torsos aiming one way, arms another.


The best is prob most disadvantaged, He prob has a comp that only gives him 10 frames per second, but he still kicks your butt.

Think more along the lines of chuck norris jokes. Someone who practically wins AT WILL, fact winning might get old. They start to be more like gladiators who put on a show. They might even play-play mechwarrior. They take it to artform and if you spec them you learn something.


TL;DR:
In short, the best pilots are URBANMECH pilots.

[Victor Morson]

Endbr1nger, on 05 April 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

I don't actually have a strong enough opinion on the actual post here, (so allow me to hijack this to say) just wanted to say that using CS:S and "top tier players" in the same post is like asking for baseball balance ideas from a 3rd grade little league team. Source and the thought process behind it is the same logic that is being used to add 3pv to this game.

They actually brought their top 1.6 players in for GO as well.

[Nonsense]

Victor Morson, on 05 April 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

They actually brought their top 1.6 players in for GO as well.

Did they bring in the top 1.6 players from like...pre-source before all the good players quit?

[Vrekgar]

p00k, on 05 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

might even need a damage nerf. though personally i'm fine with LRMs being terribad

Im sorry but once i read that I realized you were one of "Those" people.

Plus you were doing so well and making reasonable change ideas... But when you flat out say your fine with LRM being "Terribad" then you just shot yourself right in the foot.

In a post about making things BALANCED you just said you dont care about balance!

[BoPop]

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.

but yea, a very vocal minority can make these game forums have absurd effects on dev decisions sometimes. i hope they don't listen to most of what we ask for. face it, they have far more raw data than we do, and that is that.

[Eddrick]

p00k, on 05 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

energy:
large pulse: too heavy still. drop it to 6 tons
ballistic:
ac2: bad. firing confirmation "bug" hits max dps too hard, i'd also drop tonnage to 5
ac10: bit weak, drop heat to 2 and tonnage to 11

Stock builds would have to be changed for every Mech using those weapons. Alternativly, just let us buy Mech striped of everything and do away with the "Trial Mechs". There is no other choise if Mech construction rules are changed.

Edited by Eddrick, 05 April 2013 - 09:27 PM.

[Vermaxx]

Any suggestion of balance that involves changing weapon weights or inventing new weapons is crap.

There is a reason heat, beam duration, projectile speed, and damage figures can be adjusted easily. The reason is so bedrock stats remain bedrock stats.

Engines MUST weigh book (or weigh book minus external sinks). Weapons MUST weigh book. Items MUST take up book critslots. This game cannot have a mechlab if it changes core balance issues. Whether or not you agree that BT contained ANY balance whatsoever, what it did have was based on weapon size and weight. We cannot start tweaking size and weight to make things more attractive. Tweak ammo per ton, damage, heat, duration, travel time. There are so many things to modify, and they make more sense anyway.

And no system should be agreed to be terrible. Nothing. No system should even be considered terrible by a majority, or even a vocal minority. Balance can generally be inferred by a relatively equal ratio of love and hate. If something is unevenly hated (OR loved), it is probably not balanced. A WHOLE LOT of people love the Raven 3L, which suggests ECM+speed+streaks is not really balanced. A whole bunch of people hate LRM/SRM and machine guns, suggesting the same.

[MischiefSC]

Top performers could also be labeled as the group who is most adept at 'breaking' stuff through exploitation. They're going to find the gaps and flaws that let you abuse issues in the game most effectively.

That doesn't mean they are the best source of feedback for a SOLUTION however. A great source of problems but a poor source for solutions since their focus is going to be a tad selfish - that's the nature of competitive people. They're going to skew a bit towards what's going to help them, not what's most fun for everyone.