108 replies to this topic

[xRaeder]

You can't balance your weapons when a third of them (ballistic and PPCs) bounce off even stationary targets and the other two thirds don't suffer from the same issue.

[orion0117]

Another thread on here says don't worry about pleasing everyone, because you can't.

Back in the days of MW4, they allowed players to set up their own servers and the server hosts had at least some control over configuration. Example, the host could disallow use of third person view on their server, and I believe they could disable heat too, if they wanted to.

With all the mixed opinions about how things should work, how about PGI allow players to run their own virtual servers in MWO space? Give the hosting player a control panel with complete control over every parameter of every weapon, and allow or disallow any mech, weapon, or piece of equipment.

That way the missile boat lovers who want to kill everything with one shot can set up a virtual "game room" with LRM missiles that do 5000 damage per missile. Then they can launch 100 LRMS for a volley of 500,000 damage, enough damage to take out the entire enemy team(and friendly team too)with one pull of the trigger.

Don't like LRMS? Fine, start your own room or find one with no LRMS allowed.

Find a room that is set up the way you like play, and shut up and play in it. Otherwise set up your own room, and shut up and play in it. Just want to play? Go to PGI's room and shutup and play!

/end rambling post

[Teralitha]

Chavette, on 22 March 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

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.

There are no top tier anything because the game isnt finished or balanced. You may think your good now... but just wait, the real competition hasnt even started... When it does, you may find your leetness getting ground into the dirt more than you thought possible.

[keith]

to solve this ******* match on balance of pugs vs comp. PGI needs to get wave 1 of CW up and running, so we have units in place. Unit leaders get their own forums to talk in and offer segest of balance and such to PGI. the unit leader should be more respectful of each other... remember back form NBT days that was more heated then any other forum.

Teralitha, on 22 March 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

There are no top tier anything because the game isnt finished or balanced. You may think your good now... but just wait, the real competition hasnt even started... When it does, you may find your leetness getting ground into the dirt more than you thought possible.

his whole point is top team adapt to new nerfs and such fast. srm got a nerf bat, okay whats next? always on the next and greatest thing

[Slaytronic]

you guys need to pull your head out of the clouds and realize you have no control over the production of this game and that you are a slave just like everyone else

[Erasus Magnus]

Chemie, on 22 March 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

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)

why do you think lrms cannot be balanced to meet both the newbs and pro gamers needs?
the current lrm system is borked.
unusable in competitive environments, while dangerous in pugs.

but that only means that this system needs a rework, and i have seen enough good ideas, mainly provided by the "elitist jerks".
these people are theroycrafting, min/maxing and have countless hours of debating the best builds, strats and whatnot, so i think they could well be able to give much more in depth feedback than casual players like meand provide solutions, BOTH casuals AND pros can live with.

[Pater Mors]

Slaytronic, on 22 March 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

you guys need to pull your head out of the clouds and realize you have no control over the production of this game and that you are a slave just like everyone else

Edited by Pater Mors, 22 March 2013 - 03:58 PM.

[Belorion]

Over listening to cries for nerfs, are ultimately what ruined WoW for many players. If there is truly an imbalance then that will be reflected in the numbers.

LRMs being nerfed to the point where they are not being used by a majority of players is not balancing them. I was happy with where lrms were being positioned prior to Tuesday. I have not yet had a chance to test them out to see where they are fitting now.

I agree that in the 8 man are where it will be easiest to tell how balanced something is. If no one is running LRMs then they are not balanced. If everyone is running ecm then its not balanced.

I don't think that an ecm nerf is necessarily needed, just available ways to counter ecm for users of LRMs. Buff narc and bap perhaps to use along side tag.

[xDeityx]

SkyCake, on 22 March 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

...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

Actually, books have been written about this very thing. You're just projecting.

[Wildstreak]

Interesting post however all the so called 'top tier' players I see posting here have **** poor communication skills and their idea of balance is based solely on making this into another CoD type shooter. But games like CoD do not have some of the equipment that games like MWO have and are based on a different style of combat shooting. Also the supposed 'top tier' players here do not have critical analysis skills needed to troubleshoot problems.

I have done troubleshooting not only in game play and balancing but also in my professional career. Skills needed for troubleshooting are not the same as those needed to be top tier in competitive gaming. Thus you cannot largely rely on top tier players unless they have those critical skills.

Until the supposed 'top tier' players here get those skills, they should not be listened to because without them they will give bad advice.

LRMs are a perfect example.

Why did none of the 'top tier MWO players' do damage analisys that would have found the damage problem mentioned in a topic a few weeks back?

Why do none of them realize that their obsession with ignoring canon resulted in OP boats such as Stalkers with 5LRM20s when BT lore usually defines a LRM boat as 2 launchers, in rare cases up to 4 like the Yeoman but even that Mech does not have all LRM20s, there is a reason for that. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Yeoman
Same is true for dual AC/20s, multipile PPC Stalkers and maybe some others.

Why did none of them ask how many LRM missiles hit their target under optimal conditions? (No cover, target completely open and nothing can stop the volley.) Asked myself but never heard an answer. This is critical to the LRM issue because if all missiles hit under best conditions for the Pilot firing LRMs, then LRMs in MWO are Streak weapons that is tech not supposed to be available and would have explained part of the problem there.

You do not need to be a top tier competitive player to have the skills necessary to troubleshoot problems, you need to be a top tier troubleshooter who has the RIGHT skill set and knows what to look for when fixing things.

I have seen in plenty of games including MWO top tier competitive players who do not have the right skills because either they never learned them or spend too much time focused on competing. Also their definition on shooter games is based off other shooters that do not have the same equipment meaning MWO requires a different understanding of what it is meant to be else you are just trying to make a clone of another game. Might as well be playing THAT game instead.

[Death Mallet]

I disagree with a lot of the OP's assertions. But here is one fact that refutes the point he was trying to make.

If you balance the game so it "plays right" for the top 10% of players. . . only the top 10% of players are going to enjoy it.

The rest eventually quit. . . and the game dies.

To be successful, the game needs to be balanced for the middle 80% of players.

Edited by Death Mallet, 04 April 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Death Mallet, on 04 April 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

I disagree with a lot of the OP's assertions. But here is one fact that refutes the point he was trying to make.

If you balance the game so it "plays right" for the top 10% of players. . . only the top 10% of players are going to enjoy it.

The rest eventually quit. . . and the game dies.

To be successful, the game needs to be balanced for the middle 80% of players.

I wish people would read successive posts in a thread before posting in it, sometimes!

No, that's not how it works. If the top 10% of players balance mechanics, the medium level players learn to adapt and thus, the low level players who can become medium level players do too. Because you'll have well balanced weapons, and once the tactics to use those weapons gets around, everyone wins: You get a game that is more tactically rich.

If you balance around the 80%'s perception of weapons, you get tons of inaccurate information from every direction - mostly fueled by misunderstanding and misinformation - it hurts the game for everyone, no matter the level.

In order for a game to last a long time, it needs to have a very "hard to master" aspect, so balancing at the top is the only way to start that.

EDIT: Balanced by the top 10% does not mean balanced FOR the top 10%. It means balanced period. The pros nerfing OP weapons or getting UP weapons buffed is not going to make the game worse for you, even if you disagree from your own skewed perception with the shifts.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 April 2013 - 11:05 PM.

[Zaptruder]

LRMs doing too much damage. LRMs too easy to avoid.

Solution? Nerf damage. Buff trajectory and speed. Bam; LRM skill cap increased, but not a death sentence for less skilled players.


Mechs boating weapons ALL DAY EVERYDAY? Solution; Neutralize convergence. Torso mounted weapons shoot parallel; not convergently. And weapons on arms without lower actuators also shoot in parallel.

Only weapons the converge properly are weapons on arms with lower actuators, and weapons that are mounted on the same location.

PGI Response: /ignore

[Mr 144]

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

...snipped original post...

While I agree with everything you've said in theory, it's disheartening to see long-time closed beta veterans QQ about issues I simply do not see in competetive play. Videos, personal experience, TS chat....all of which give me reference. We don't see high level teams stacking 8 ECM mechs (D-DCs+3Ls) yet some of these players QQ non stop. Conversely, we see next to zero LRMs in comp play, but yet it's always a forum OP focus. We see Poptarting QQs...yet most teams do not stack them either. The problem is, who to actually listen to? Opinions vary dramatically...even with high level players.

Mr 144

[hashinshin]

Zaptruder, on 04 April 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

LRMs doing too much damage. LRMs too easy to avoid.

Solution? Nerf damage. Buff trajectory and speed. Bam; LRM skill cap increased, but not a death sentence for less skilled players.


Mechs boating weapons ALL DAY EVERYDAY? Solution; Neutralize convergence. Torso mounted weapons shoot parallel; not convergently. And weapons on arms without lower actuators also shoot in parallel.

Only weapons the converge properly are weapons on arms with lower actuators, and weapons that are mounted on the same location.

PGI Response: /ignore

And now I only boat on mechs like the Jagermech/Cataphract that can load all its ballistics in its arm, or the Catapult that can do the same, or the Awesome that can fit 4 PPCs in its chest.

Congrats, all you did was limit the amount of competitively viable mechs that can boat effectively.

As for LRMs? They made TAG so LRM users would have to use it to be effective.

"LRMs are worthless because ECM is OP." Okay, and what happens when ECM gets nerfed and you buffed LRMs to fight against an OP ECM? Now LRMs are terrorizing the game.

Edited by hashinshin, 04 April 2013 - 11:52 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Mr 144, on 04 April 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

While I agree with everything you've said in theory, it's disheartening to see long-time closed beta veterans QQ about issues I simply do not see in competetive play. Videos, personal experience, TS chat....all of which give me reference. We don't see high level teams stacking 8 ECM mechs (D-DCs+3Ls) yet some of these players QQ non stop. Conversely, we see next to zero LRMs in comp play, but yet it's always a forum OP focus. We see Poptarting QQs...yet most teams do not stack them either. The problem is, who to actually listen to? Opinions vary dramatically...even with high level players.

Mr 144

Oh, I agree, but that's why it's a good idea to poll several teams and a number of players and never just rely on a few. Everyone will have their own ideas, but if you poll enough of the "upper tier," you're likely to start seeing some pretty clear patterns emerge (in particular on weapons that really need buffs that PUGs still use, like the LBX/10 or Flamer).

[Death Mallet]

Victor Morson, on 04 April 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

I wish people would read successive posts in a thread before posting in it, sometimes!

No, that's not how it works. If the top 10% of players balance mechanics, the medium level players learn to adapt and thus, the low level players who can become medium level players do too. Because you'll have well balanced weapons, and once the tactics to use those weapons gets around, everyone wins: You get a game that is more tactically rich.

If you balance around the 80%'s perception of weapons, you get tons of inaccurate information from every direction - mostly fueled by misunderstanding and misinformation - it hurts the game for everyone, no matter the level.

In order for a game to last a long time, it needs to have a very "hard to master" aspect, so balancing at the top is the only way to start that.

EDIT: Balanced by the top 10% does not mean balanced FOR the top 10%. It means balanced period. The pros nerfing OP weapons or getting UP weapons buffed is not going to make the game worse for you, even if you disagree from your own skewed perception with the shifts.

Again, fundamentally wrong.

Your assumption is that the best players are the best because the know the most about the game as a whole.

In reality, the best players have a very limited view of the game. 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.

For example, most of your top 10% has probably never used a Small Pulse Laser. I know I haven't. Why would they have the slightest clue about how to balance one? The answer is, they don't. They could make some guesses, and insist that their opinion be listened to because they're a good player. But in reality on the issue of the SPL for example, they are completely clueless. All they really know is that, right now, its not worth bothering with.

[Aym]

I love the Elitist Jerks! My guildmates and I buy them boat loads of booze at blizzcon every year.

[Rippthrough]

Merchant, on 04 April 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Why did none of the 'top tier MWO players' do damage analisys that would have found the damage problem mentioned in a topic a few weeks back?

Because LRM's have been broken so long nobody was using them.

[Corvus Antaka]

very good post.

Is Hockey balanced for the lowest common denominator? Is soccer? Do kids play by different hockey rules? soccer?

No. These games are all balanced for the pros. House rules are sometimes added for less pro games to help out the people with less skills.

LRMS are completely worthless. Top tier gameplay right now is exactly where I said it would be with stealth ECM, loss of LRMS as flanking.flushing weapons, etc.

PGI has fallen into the "your to dumb to pilot, lets make it easy" trap, people get confused by torso twist, by 2 reticules, by tactics, so now its all humpbubble/wack-a-mole and basically it is mech4 except there is not functional radar due to ECM.

SSRMS/LRMS are both very veyr poorly designed and implemented.

we need mech3 LRMS.

we need mech4 ssrms, or ssrms that require a new lock after EVERY firing. I am SO sick of raven 3L's nub ssrming everything while carrying the fastest engine. 3 months of this ******** now and STILL no fixes.

8 mans are raven 3L, assaults, maybe 1-2 fast mediums tossed in. all is direct fire. only morons bring LRMS.

NONE of this was the case before ECM.

PGI has a vision for this game and some days it feels like they will break this game and their careers before listening and adapting and learning and building it better.

Hopefully stuff coming down the pipe will fix this.

NARC remains worthless, and is 100% proof of how busted design philosophy is in the current game, and how out of touch PGI is with what is happening in the day to day battles, OR PGI is content to have useless crap in the game that dumb rookies equip thinking itll be useful, like LRMS except without TAG - worthless if enemy has ECM.

if you don't bend, you will break.

listen, and learn, before it is too late.