108 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

What is this thread about?
A discussion of why it is extremely poor idea to take weapon balance feedback from internet forums, under any circumstances, with a very small grain of salt and why it is an extremely good and industry-wide accepted practice among AAA devs to bring top-tier players and teams in to handle balancing your game.

I've been asked to recreate this thread in a more diplomatic, less blunt fashion. So here it is!

What's the concept?
Essentially, when a developer is working on a highly competitive game - in particular those in a long running series - they will bring in the top players and groups from similar or previous games in that series, and maintain contact with these groups for feedback on things such as balance, to get clear, highly informed opinions from players who understand how the systems operate and their strengths and weaknesses.

This means that most of the feedback taken from forums should be less high-level tweaking: Interface concerns, visual likes and dislikes, bugs; these are the sorts of things that forum feedback from casual players can assist with greatly.

Again, this is common practice seen everywhere from Valve to Blizzard. 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. They do this with their other projects too, like DOTA: They bring the top players in to talk balance and they bring the general population in to talk UI and interface. They aren't alone. Blizzard, Capcom - they all do the same thing. Any series that's competitive deserves this sort of balance.

Wait, what? I play too want my voice heard! In fact, everyone should be heard! We all know what's best for balance! Elitist jerk, down with the man!
The thing is, your voice won't be heard. Not really. What instead will be heard is reactionary complaints to anything that appears at a glance to be powerful; no real attempt to balance all the issues is made. This tends to cause a "snowball effect" and result in forum "lynch mobs" rising rather frequently, again, that are often uninformed and are merely going by what they personally saw. If you are apart of this majority with a dissenting opinion, it will be nothing but a rain drop left in the storm as the exception, rather than the rule.

There is a very good reason that almost no organization of any size is run as a true democracy. The closest we see to true democracy I suppose are online polls, and we all know how well they work out most times. You want a small number of people that really understand the issues representing you in almost every case.

A more recent example: The LRM issue
Think of it this way: In real life, when witnesses see a car accident or any other chaotic event, their testimony will be almost entirely, universally different from one another in small ways. For example, if you see "INCOMING LRMs!" and die every other round, you are likely to start believing that they are unstoppable thunderbolts from Zeus - you're not lying, or even from where you're standing, because you see X and then get Y every time. You see X and Y gets your teammates, too!

But the problem with game balance, no matter the genre, is that there are often hard counters and ways to subvert things that aren't immediately apparent. To go back to the recent LRM nerfing example (I am not speaking of the bugged-OP LRMs from Tuesday), all the other drawbacks to the weapon had already rendered it entirely worthless among top tier teams and the highest ELO players. Their weakness to ECM, minimum range, poor flight time, bad arcs for indirect fire - all these things are unforgivable if the weapon did less damage.

Please, before you reply with your own LRM ancedotes, I must stress again: A lot of this depends on the types of players you are with. The higher the player's skill and understanding of the game, the more entirely worthless LRMs (in particular now) become. And it is a tragedy to see a weapon that needed to made viable thrown into the trash.

So this is an LRM thread?
Not entirely. It's something worth bringing up as the latest symptom from backwards balancing - LRMs were already considered a very poor weapon by most good players, with a very small arguable niche as a high damage platform for fast moving mediums. That niche is now dead, largely due to people who don't understand how easily this weapon can be thwarted with even limited teamwork.

It's something worth discussing here, and while I would very much like to see these weapons brought back even better than before (They badly needed some buffs - perhaps not just to damage, but travel time and arc), that's not my only goal. My goal is to make it clear why this should never happen again. (I am aware they will be buffing LRMs again; they need a buff from what they were preivously, though, rather badly.)

In Summary
Again, it is or the good of everyone to balance with the highest tier players and teams in mind, not the whims of the people. And I do mean for the good of everyone - this includes you, who might entirely disagree with the assessments put forth by players of higher skill levels.

Why is that? Simple: The more informed and skilled a player is with a system, the more they fully understand it. They know the math behind the attacks, the angles, the travel times; things you might not consider at a certain level of play.

The thing is, if you plan on continuing to play MW:O, you too will likely begin acquiring these skills and knowledge. Doubly so if you join an experienced team. Now, you're likely to start understanding the depth behind the game at this point you didn't see before, and realize that your initial reactions might not have been the most accurate ones if not entirely wrong.

Long story short, if you balance based on the mob, you end up with a game that gets effectively dumbed down. Everything is usually nerf'ed in a cycle, as no game on the internet since the beginning of time did not attract at least two major categories to demand nerf'ed: Whatever appears effective at that particular moment. This often ends up causing the unfortunate crime of "making X weapon/chassis/equipment worthless because people did not understand the counter."

The only nerf LRMs required, in the above example, was a training video explaining advanced LRM countering techniques. That would have done more to solve all of the issues the general population had with them than damage reduction ever would have.

The unfortunate reality is the immediate reaction from the majority will never be "Maybe there's a counter - maybe there's a weakness. Let me see." Instead it is almost immediately "That weapon killed me and my weapons didn't kill him. That means those weapons are superior!"

This is nothing new or exclusive to MW:O. Every online game since the dawn of time has faced this same issue. From "unstoppable cheese moves" in fighting games (that are later outdated, laughed at strategies after a couple months of players learning to adapt) to countless balance tweaks to StarCraft, there has always been the problem or reactionary balance outcries. There always will be; in fact, I think the situation is amplified by the fact PGI actually posts here sometimes.

My point is that if you leave any publically labeled "overpowered" weapon system/whatever alone for a while, if you check back on the community a month or two, they almost always have adapted to destroy it.

Again, that is not to say there's not legitimate balance problems (including legitimately overpowered equipment) but that, again, is why I believe 100% that the only people that should be taken into consideration when PGI is looking for balance feedback are the very, very top players.*

* I'm not going to claim to be one of them. I know people better than me as a pilot. I want no one getting the wrong idea in this thread: I just as much would prefer the best players and teams being the first-consulted in terms of balance for me, too. There are a number of teams and pilots that I would wholeheartedly trust to give informed, balance opinions on these subjects that more casual players simply cannot offer.

[Tabrias07]

It would make better sense I think for them to totally ignore the players and get a solid idea of what they want the game to be.

Balancing by pro's opinions is what has enforced the meta on LoL.

[Trauglodyte]

When it comes to weapon balance, I think the thing that gets me is that there doesn't seem to be any base concept of how to balance it out. Should all weapon groups (ballistics alone, energy alone, missiles alon) do the same DPS within each group and be balanced by cool down? How much does heat and tonnage play an impact on limiting overall DPS?

I look at it in terms of the SRM2 vs the SRM4. The SRM4 weighs twice as much, causes 1 more point of heat, does twice as much damage, but occupies the same amount of criticals. Comparing DPS, the SRM4 is on top so where exactly is the balance there? That definitely isn't to say that it is out of balance but when you look at it within a vacuum, what are the balancing tweaks?

[Pater Mors]

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Groupthink

http://en.wikipedia....nfirmation_bias

Read and understand why this is not a good idea. Top tier players should certainly be on the short list of people to provide input on game design and balance but they should not be the only people. Any group that is allowed total say will end up balancing things in favour of themselves and contrary to your belief, top tiered balancing only favours top tiered players. It does not favour casual players or new players or players with little skill. That is why the game is not balanced solely by top tiered players and your assumption that 'that's how all companies do it' is wrong.

[Victor Morson]

Tabrias07, on 22 March 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

It would make better sense I think for them to totally ignore the players and get a solid idea of what they want the game to be.

While I agree, this often depends on the developer and how much time they have to actually play the game. Very few developers have anywhere near the time to play their own games competitively, as witnessed by PGI picking a slew of AC10 builds as the "best" in the recent trial 'mech contest. They understand the numbers and systems far better than the general public, but I believe having the perspective of people who use them on a daily basis is invaluable to help even out their opinions.

[hammerreborn]

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.

[Victor Morson]

Pater Mors, on 22 March 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Read and understand why this is not a good idea. Top tier players should certainly be on the short list of people to provide input on game design and balance but they should not be the only people. Any group that is allowed total say will end up balancing things in favour of themselves and contrary to your belief, top tiered balancing only favours top tiered players. It does not favour casual players or new players or players with little skill. That is why the game is not balanced solely by top tiered players and your assumption that 'that's how all companies do it' is wrong.

This is worth mentioning, I am not saying they should dictate balance. Overall, PGI has used past feedback from these groups to usher in a bunch of excellent changes we all enjoy; at least, the one and only time they polled the active RHOD units I saw the following things come up repeatedly:

- Buff PPC velocity/damage
- Buff UAC/5
- Put cover in the water on Forest Colony

Etc, etc. Those are just a few of a long list coming to mind. All those changes came to pass, and have been great for even the greeniest new pilot. But, for what it's worth, I do entirely agree with you that they should be polled for suggestions, not given dictatorial control. PGI should always, 100%, have the last word when it comes to these things.

That said, balancing a game for high level play as the priority merely allows depth to trickle down to the lowest levels of play, so that people entering the game have a long, progressive learning curve. Any game - in particular one like this - should meet the criteria of "Simple to play", sure, but more importantly "Hard to Master" is what keeps these people coming back six months from now.

... you can find simple to play games that are casual friendly everywhere. Ones with tons of depth that take practice to master, however, are increasingly rare.

EDIT: Also, Groupthink is something far, far more likely to occur in a dangerous way amongst the general forums, than the upper tier groups.

Edited by Victor Morson, 22 March 2013 - 11:53 AM.

[NKAc Street]

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and opinions from all types of players considered. What makes someone a top tier player to have more weight than an average pug trying to compete in the game? Nothing really.

people over complicate the matter. Saying a select few in the game are the ones to go to has no merit since most people couldnt care less who they are or what they think.


The key is to take a well rounded approach from many people and the one to ignore are the ones who dont put forth a sensible argument and only rage with name calling and simplistic accusations.

[Mystere]

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.

Ditto.

[SkyCake]

Your entire thread is based on the premise that there somewhere exists a competitive MWO game going on with highly skilled players who not only understand MWO at the roots, but also gaming theories and concepts as well, not to mention possessing the abilities to articulate and effectively communicate those ideas on balance and competitive gameplay in a cohesive and comprehensible manner... and this is why your argument fails before it ever even gets off the ground, which is to say, your premise is false...

There is no competitive top tier echelon of elite gamers to balance MWO, quite simply because MWO doesn't exist !!!

Edited by SkyCake, 22 March 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[hammerreborn]

SkyCake, on 22 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Your entire thread is based on the premise that there somewhere exists a competitive MWO game going on with highly skilled players who not only understand MWO at the roots, but also gaming theirs and concepts as well, not to mention possessing the abilities to articulate and effectively communicate those ideas on balance and competitive gameplay in a cohesive and comprehensible manner... and this is why your argument fails before it ever even gets off the ground, which is to say, your premise is false...

There is no competitive top tier echelon of elite gamers to balance MWO, quite simply because MWO doesn't exist !!!

Hey, HEY, I'm standing right here and gave my opinion. Don't say I don't exist, I'M A REAL BOY

[Chemie]

Games can either balance for general public or balance for hardcore. It is very hard to do both. Think about a twitch shooter....if you do not have twitch skills, you will QQ all day long. MWO is not a twitch game but the same thing allies. Either LRMS are "easy mode" for newbs or they have enough negatives that hardcore will not use them (as was the case before Tuesday)

[Victor Morson]

NKAc Street, on 22 March 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and opinions from all types of players considered. What makes someone a top tier player to have more weight than an average pug trying to compete in the game? Nothing really.

Actually a lot. Again, this comes down to understanding the systems.

This is why top tier players refuse to use LRMs at all, even before this nerf, while low tier players thought they were the most overpowered, unstoppable weapon system that was wrecking the game.

Clearly, both of those opinions can't be right, but I think that I would have to give more weight to the opinion of the organized team that could easily sweep the general population games in 8-0 landslides for hours before the 8-man split.

Again, this is nothing against any player, but the more skilled and experienced players are, the better they are able to fully and accurately give feedback about, well, anything in the game.

[Pater Mors]

Victor Morson, on 22 March 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

That said, balancing a game for high level play as the priority merely allows depth to trickle down to the lowest levels of play, so that people entering the game have a long, progressive learning curve. Any game - in particular one like this - should meet the criteria of "Simple to play", sure, but more importantly "Hard to Master" is what keeps these people coming back six months from now.

... you can find simple to play games that are casual friendly everywhere. Ones with tons of depth that take practice to master, however, are increasingly rare.

EDIT: Also, Groupthink is something far, far more likely to occur in a dangerous way amongst the general forums, than the upper tier groups.

Groupthink occurs with any group. Top tier aren't excluded because they're top tier, that's not how it works.

I agree with Simple to Play, Hard to Master but that has nothing to do with only taking input from the top players. That is not a good idea to run your game. You miss the point that it is impossible for a top tiered group not to bias themselves, even unintentionally. Impossible just the same as it would be impossible for new players not to bias themselves. That is why you take opinions from all players and work out what makes the most sense and removes the most bias.

[Trauglodyte]

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.

I see what you did there... but I agree

[Victor Morson]

SkyCake, on 22 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

There is no competitive top tier echelon of elite gamers to balance MWO, quite simply because MWO doesn't exist !!!

I'm not sure what you meant, but this would be the best twist ending to the thread. "There are no good teams in MWO, because.. MWO doesn't exist!"

Man, those were some crazy hallucinations.

[Dan Nashe]

TL; DR : high end competitive pvp is the very first place I look in judging balance, but it cannot be the last place you look. I agree that the individual voices of less skilled players matter less.
But balance only for the top? I disagree, and so do other triple AAA developers.
If one weapon dominates at any level, it is a problem.


This is compounded by the pug/4 man/8 man split. The issue is that a weapon may be very powerful or weak based on things beyond your control.
Imagine there's a weapon system. And if I take it in a solo queue I will do 1500 damage. But if I take it in a competitive 8 man premade, I will do 15 damage. Does this mean the weapon needs a buff or a nerf?

Interstingly, if I hotfix a 50 percent nerf, pug games will get better, but 8 persons will be entirely unaffect d.

Or worse. Maybe the weapon is a coin toss solo, either really good or really bad depending on comp. But ridiculously powerful in a 4 person premade where half the other team is pugs, but useless in competitive.

No clear answer there needs to be nuance.

Similarly I guarantee you if there was an ability that was easy for the top .1 percent to counter but broken good for the bottom 50 percent blizzard would and Has changed it.
The fact of the matter is that natural skills vary remarkably and hard work will only get you so much better. And this is a game, not real life, there's no moral reason to throw dad in the mailroom because he can't multitask like I can or can't affod a nice computer like mine, as the case may be.

With respect to lrms, this means you have to look at some whys and target responses. Why is it good here and bad here? Is it a team composition issue? Why (oh, maybe ecm implementation is causing it). Maybe its physically impossible to hit a good player with it no matter how good you are. Faster flight times? Maybe its a communication issue? Then the incoming missiles icon on enemy mechs was a great start to help pugs but not affect teams.

And it may simply be that unaimed weapons will ALWAYS be worse than direct fire if you're one of the 10 best shots in the game, but always be worse if you're in the bottom half of the skill category.

Why is it wrong to have weapons that are good for some players but bad for others? As LONG as there is variety at all levels, does it have to be the same variety?

Edited by DanNashe, 22 March 2013 - 12:04 PM.

[Pater Mors]

Victor Morson, on 22 March 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Actually a lot. Again, this comes down to understanding the systems.

This is why top tier players refuse to use LRMs at all, even before this nerf, while low tier players thought they were the most overpowered, unstoppable weapon system that was wrecking the game.

Clearly, both of those opinions can't be right, but I think that I would have to give more weight to the opinion of the organized team that could easily sweep the general population games in 8-0 landslides for hours before the 8-man split.

Again, this is nothing against any player, but the more skilled and experienced players are, the better they are able to fully and accurately give feedback about, well, anything in the game.

Actually both of those opinions can easily be right. Another logic fail here. You're playing top tier competitive games and due to the nature of those, LRM's might be worthless.

I am playing PUG games and due to the nature of those, LRMs are super rocket-mini-nukes (I don't agree with that, just an example).

Both opinions are correct. This is why you can't just take one opinion and run with it.

[Victor Morson]

Pater Mors, on 22 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

I agree with Simple to Play, Hard to Master but that has nothing to do with only taking input from the top players. That is not a good idea to run your game. You miss the point that it is impossible for a top tiered group not to bias themselves, even unintentionally. Impossible just the same as it would be impossible for new players not to bias themselves. That is why you take opinions from all players and work out what makes the most sense and removes the most bias.

This can happen, I agree, but in terms of weapon, 'mech and equipment balance having people who understand it offer feedback (filtered through PGI's own balance people) should merely result in well balanced equipment, and maybe some better flow in the maps or tweaks to the game rules.

If you gave them total control, you'd have a problem, of course. But again, I'm talking about where to get feedback, not who to put in charge. PGI should definitely be where the buck stops.

Pater Mors, on 22 March 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Actually both of those opinions can easily be right. Another logic fail here. You're playing top tier competitive games and due to the nature of those, LRM's might be worthless.

I am playing PUG games and due to the nature of those, LRMs are super rocket-mini-nukes (I don't agree with that, just an example).

Both opinions are correct. This is why you can't just take one opinion and run with it.

This leads into the "Why?" though. Why are they unstoppable in one game style, but terrible in another? I could answer a bunch of these questions (and of course have my own ideas on how to bring them in line), but that'd just derail the thread, really.

The bigger concern is teaching the lower level players - or otherwise intuitively instructing them - what the upper level players do. If we start showing new players how to deal with things that appear overpowered, rather than just incorrectly nerfing them, that's how you showcase depth and keep people playing.

Long story short, I'm not joking when I think the best balance fix for LRMs in pick up games is to offer better training videos or missions. Given the guns don't actually act differently between PUG and Organized, this is probably the most literal case of "Knowledge is power" I can think of.

Edited by Victor Morson, 22 March 2013 - 12:05 PM.

[FupDup]

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.

LB 10-X and Narc are feeling lonely, too.