108 replies to this topic

[Gideon Grey]

Problem is you are ascribing the difference in opinion/ point of view between pug and "top tier" to be related only to differences in skill/ knowledge. This is utterly false. The major difference is organization. Communications as well, but primarily simple organization. 8 mans organize and balance their teams and this leads to certain builds and tactics being better than others. Pugs get random organization which leads to certain things being OP at various times.

Problem is, you think this should be an 8 man team game. Others think this should be a random group game. The real problem is that it is neither. PGI either doesn't know what it wants it to be, or it will be something completely different when CW is initiated. Either way you can't balance based on one skewed set of opinion, elite or not.

[FunkyFritter]

Weapons should be balanced by the numbers and design philosophies. Player feedback from all skill levels is important, but should never be the determining factor when changing something.

[SkyCake]

Gideon Grey, on 22 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

Problem is you are ascribing the difference in opinion/ point of view between pug and "top tier" to be related only to differences in skill/ knowledge. This is utterly false. The major difference is organization. Communications as well, but primarily simple organization. 8 mans organize and balance their teams and this leads to certain builds and tactics being better than others. Pugs get random organization which leads to certain things being OP at various times.

Problem is, you think this should be an 8 man team game. Others think this should be a random group game. The real problem is that it is neither. PGI either doesn't know what it wants it to be, or it will be something completely different when CW is initiated. Either way you can't balance based on one skewed set of opinion, elite or not.

I like this a lot... it just goes to show how shortsighted posts like these really are... the thinking never went any deeper than "I'm awesome at this game, therefore I and I alone should be balancing it, everyone else's opinion is irrelevant" pure arrogance on the OP's part

These are the kinds of people who believe the economy will get better if we give so called "job creators" more tax breaks... trickle down has failed!!!!

[HermanitoII]

Gideon Grey, on 22 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

Problem is you are ascribing the difference in opinion/ point of view between pug and "top tier" to be related only to differences in skill/ knowledge. This is utterly false. The major difference is organization. Communications as well, but primarily simple organization. 8 mans organize and balance their teams and this leads to certain builds and tactics being better than others. Pugs get random organization which leads to certain things being OP at various times.

I partialy agree. An 8 man team may win round after round without saying a word and without making focus. I mean, with deep knowledge of the game a 8 man group made with top players from different clans that haven´t played togheter before will win because they are aware about the match and they know exactly what to do.

[Vasces Diablo]

SkyCake, on 22 March 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Bean counting isn't going to bring you a great mwo game... for instance, they touted a stat once that only 15% of mechs being played were using ecm... that doesn't tell you that 8 man ecm teams were breaking the game... those kind of experiences can only be fully realized in the field... which is precisely why us beta testers are here...to test and comment and be heard!!! Each and everyone of us regardless of skill, understanding, etc...it doesn't mean they cater to everyone's individual tastes...Lord knows I'm not getting everything I want out if this game... it means that a consensus shall be formed about how this game shall be played and what this game should strive to achieve...

OP seems to want to cancel beta all together, hire himself and a bunch of his elitist friends to balance the game as he sees fit, and that we should all just trust him blindly that he knows what's best for all of us, and that any input from us will be appreciated about as much as a preschoolers crude drawings magneted to the fridge door.

But what it can tell you is that those 15% have a higher win percentage/lower death rate than players without ECM, so maybe it should be looked at. I assumed applying statistical rigor to said back end data was implied.

[NKAc Street]

The point being is that there isnt any standard in this game to judge that those playing 8 man ques primarily have any leg up on a pug player who struggles to compete in random drop games. Both perspectives need to be considered because highly organized clans skew the reality of random drop team play. I am saying that their opinions ARE needed but inherantly are not better. And trying to point out that organized teams who can roll pugs equals better only reinforces that random pug play ideas carry some weight also. Theirs are not better either there needs to be consideration from several fronts.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Funny, it's been years since any AAA dev team was stupid enough to listen to the top tier competative players, many of you probably don't remember that fiasco or what the final result was...

Tribes 2

And the final result was the death of Tribes 2 and the end of the franchise until this new Tribes started up last year, even longer then the wait between MW4 and MWO...so...really...

No dev team with half a clue goes to the top tier players and asks them about balance, that's suicide for the game, history has shown that repeatedly, and you want PGI to do that?

Look, if you don't like the game, that's fine, it's not for everyone, but just leave instead of trying to actively kill the game totally.

[SkyCake]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 March 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Funny, it's been years since any AAA dev team was stupid enough to listen to the top tier competative players, many of you probably don't remember that fiasco or what the final result was...

Tribes 2

And the final result was the death of Tribes 2 and the end of the franchise until this new Tribes started up last year, even longer then the wait between MW4 and MWO...so...really...

No dev team with half a clue goes to the top tier players and asks them about balance, that's suicide for the game, history has shown that repeatedly, and you want PGI to do that?

Look, if you don't like the game, that's fine, it's not for everyone, but just leave instead of trying to actively kill the game totally.

What about starcraft 2???

[Pater Mors]

SkyCake, on 22 March 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

What about starcraft 2???

Blizzards current generation of games are a horrible example to use. Diablo 3 is all you need to look at to see that Blizzard have become disinterested in creating games for players and instead are now creating games for shareholders.

I'd really like that to change because I love Blizzard and they've built up a lot of goodwill with me over the years... but after the fiasco that was D3 I've stopped supporting them for a while.

[SkyCake]

Pater Mors, on 22 March 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Blizzards current generation of games are a horrible example to use. Diablo 3 is all you need to look at to see that Blizzard have become disinterested in creating games for players and instead are now creating games for shareholders.

I'd really like that to change because I love Blizzard and they've built up a lot of goodwill with me over the years... but after the fiasco that was D3 I've stopped supporting them for a while.

I didn't say D3... of course, D3 need not be mentioned when it comes to the epic failures of AAA devs...

I said starcraft 2...

After all, I believe that was OP's basis for his arguments...

Edited by SkyCake, 22 March 2013 - 02:11 PM.

[Pater Mors]

SkyCake, on 22 March 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

I didn't say D3... of course, D3 need not be mentioned when it comes to the epic failures of AAA devs...

I said starcraft 2...

After all, I believe that was OP's basis for his arguments...

Doesn't matter which if their games we talk about. Blizzards whole model has switched from pleasing gamers to pleasing shareholders. Blizzard couldn't care less about Average Joe gamer any more and that is a wrong and horrible attitude to take towards one of the biggest parts of your fan base.

This is evidenced by the contempt for parts of the fan base shown in letters from Blizzard upper management that have been posted on the different forums in the past (Mike, I'm looking at you) as well as blatant moves to tune their games towards being P2W. Ever since Activision took over it's been a downward slope for what was my favourite game developer for a long, long time. Their saving grace is WoW but even that's slowly dying. Who wants to pay another heap of money for 5 more levels and some new instances that will be the same as the old instances? On top of a monthly subscription! Soon they'll start charging per new instance added to the game.

Look at further examples like CoD's Elite or EA's package for Battlefield... all slowly edging towards that precipice where every time you look around in a game there'll be something else to buy and if you don't buy at least something, you'll be at a disadvantage.

PGI should not go down that path under any circumstances.

Edited by Pater Mors, 22 March 2013 - 02:21 PM.

[Targetloc]

Gaan summed up things pretty much perfectly in post #26
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2110362

"TL:DR - Yes, within limitations."


I have a few considerations of my own:

1) Some balance issues change drastically at different skill levels. Mech 2 and 3 vets that can lag-shoot by reflex have very little issue with lights when piloting a heavy mech. They are tasty little 2-shot snacks if they press their luck. But the vast majority of new players seem to think a RVN-3L is unbeatable.

The tough part is finding a balance for both groups, because the top 5% can't support the game if the bottom 95% quit from seeing the same 3 mechs every single match.


2) There's 2 kind of top tier players. Brutal analytical engines that quantify every element down to it's smallest detail and study each possible tactical scenario to fully understand and exploit any possible advantage to its fullest. These are the guys PGI should be talking to.

The other group learns from what the first group found and applies it along with any and all possible exploits, meta-gaming or outright cheating (if they think they can get away with it) because the ONLY thing that matters is the win and the epeen that comes with it. These guys will always champion the status quo, because right now they're winning, and any changes what-so-ever may change that, because deep down they know they aren't clever enough to figure out the new meta on their own.

[Screech]

Very funny thread. This game is being balanced by one thing, the bottom line.

[Teralitha]

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

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.

Really? I thought they buffed PPCs because of the suggestion I made to them back in closed beta.

While I actually agree with your comments Morson* shudder*... Who is the top teir players? Who is the top tier teams? Far as I can tell they are only consulting favorites rather than the best. And that is bad. There is alot of players who think they are top tier just because they pug stomped their way to super high KDR. The real top teir players and teams will not be known until the real competition begins. And by then, the game should have already been balanced. From where Im sitting, the real top teir players, arent even playing because the balance is so out of whack.

From what I can see, nobodies opinion on balance matters unless the devs agree. Sometimes I think they take someones suggestion, and implement it wrong. Like they are not even really listening, or are just too lazy to code complex ideas.

Edited by Teralitha, 22 March 2013 - 02:23 PM.

[Teralitha]

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

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.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
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 sounds alot like the PGI dev group.

Edited by Teralitha, 22 March 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[Pater Mors]

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

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
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 sounds alot like the PGI dev group.

It's quite possible that is the case. My point was that if you try and take your feedback from only one group of people, this is what you will get. That is why you spread your feedback over the entire player base and then filter out the bs.

Edited by Pater Mors, 22 March 2013 - 02:32 PM.

[Chavette]

To clear it up, top players are the ones who will 1v1 you and mop the floor with you 9 times out of 10. Top teams are the ones who will mop your team in 8v8 9 times out of 10. Hope that answers your questions.

If you don't believe it, and think they are just plain popular you are welcome to challenge them.

Edited by Chavette, 22 March 2013 - 02:41 PM.

[Teralitha]

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.

And this is why LRMs need to be implemented an entirely different way, and I have already given the devs the perfect LRM design in their very own feedback topic. But dont expect it to happen any time soon, it will require months of coding.

Edited by Teralitha, 22 March 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[Teralitha]

Protection, on 22 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

You're also assuming that all top tier teams have the same opinions on balance. This will probably be true for some things, but not across the board.

After the first Run Hot or Die in closed beta, the developers asked us and the other competing teams for balance suggestions. So they have done this before, to an extent.

Really? You mean I had to actually play in that joke of a competition to have my balance suggestions heard? I am a serious competitor, and there was no way I was gonna waste my time and effort on something that redundant. Ill wager there is a heck of alot of other serious competitive players out there that didnt waste their time on it either. LOL now we know why the balance is so horrid. They only took suggestions from the people playing in a waste of time tourney.

Serious competitive players are likely not playing this game much currently, and are lingering in the background, waiting for the game to get better before they bother coming back. You want balance Ideas PGI? THOSE are the players you need to appeal to if you want the best ideas..

[LiminalSpace]

What works for one segment of the playing population does not necessarily work for all segments. Two points along those lines:

1)
Top players fairly quickly learn to counter certain combinations or situations. They are typically very analytical (or very intuitive), have devoted large amounts to time to mastering many aspects of gameplay. They have a combination of physical and mental skills which they have honed sharp.

This has all kinds of implications that make them different from your typical lone wolf, including being better shots (so aimed weapons tend to be much more powerful in their hands, given the punch per square meter on-target), better team players (even *without* comms -- they know what their role is, and what roles are needed, and can react to fill them without any communication -- but comms, of course, multiply that advantage), better builds (because they know the math, or are smart enough to assess who does know the math and use their suggestions).

All of these factors (and probably many I have not enumerated) fundamentally change the implications of any weapon change (or ANY change) for them versus how it affects less masterful players. You can argue that newbies should be given training videos and other advice about how the masterful players do it, but nothing substitutes the time and skill and smarts and drive of the masterful players. It's not just knowing *what to do* -- it's the ability to recognize the situation you're in, the skills to make it happen, the mech build that will work, etc. It's ALL of those things. If we could teach that to newbies in a video, then they would ALL be masterful players easily. That is simply not the case.

Now, given those realities, if you balance only for the masterful players, the experience of non-masterful players can be spotty-to-horrible. For a developer like PGI, that is not a good thing, unless you are of the opinion that there are enough masterful players spending enough money to sustain the financial goals of the company. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I doubt it. They need a more broad game.

2)
Masterful players are the ones who least need weapon balancing - it's the nature of being competitive at that level. They all learn what works and what doesn't at their level of competition. If MGs don't work, you don't see anyone outfitting them. If LRMs don't work, you don't see anyone outfitting them. If one thing does work really really well, you see it being practically required, at least at a team level (like ECM). I'm not suggesting that one should not balance for the top; but what I am suggesting is that the top always finds a way to make whatever is there work. The exception is things which are inherently one-sided, such as maps that favor one side over the other, pay to win issues, etc. which affect top tier players far more than anyone else (or at least as much as everyone else).

I do not mean to suggest -- at all -- that one should not pay close attention to the elite tiers. Masterful players are absolutely a gold mine of great information about balance -- taken with a careful eye. They will frequently be the first to find breaking changes, the first to find unintended side effects of changes, exploits, etc. However, one cannot simply balance for them and expect the changes to be good for all (with or without education efforts).