132 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

I've recently been thinking about why PGI makes such blatantly bad balance choices; why they don't understand that some mechs are trash; what game are they playing, because it definitely isn't the same one we all are.

I think their issue is idealism. They envision a balance/mechanic change, and they think players should embrace it in a certain way.

What they don't think is, how will players who want to maximize their chances of winning modify their mechs or tactics in response to a balance/meta change.

Garth, for example, is known for expressing that PPC sniping must be boring, and not understanding why people play that way. Well, because that maximizes your chances of winning. If Garth had a high enough ELO to be in PPC-boat-filled matches all day, I bet he would rage/quit too.

Their problem is they make these modifications with an idealized view of what players should do, without realizing that players will do whatever they CAN do to kill and win. Anybody playing PGI's "ideal" tactics and mechs will suffer a disproportionate number of losses because the first player-group have superior armaments and methods.

Idealism leads us to do dumb things in the real-world. For example, ship a bunch of food to poor African nations, thinking it will help the common people. Nope, much of the time, that food ends up under the control of corrupt government, or worse, warlords, who use it to control the hungry population even more than they already do.


The straight poop is you must balance the game with the competitive player in mind. If you do that, then all players will benefit, because the game will have reasonable equipment. Don't just expect enough people to go "I really like using a combination of missiles and AC/10s" even though that is ******* stupid. Those people won't like their LRM+AC/10 mechs after getting stomped in every game.

[Appogee]

Interesting perspective.

If PGI were to ''balance the game with the competitive player in mind'', what balance changes do you think they would make to what we have currently?

[Adridos]

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

If PGI were to ''balance the game with the competitive player in mind'', what balance changes do you think they would make to what we have currently?

Delete 99% of the mechs...

Competitive means perfection... perfection means monotomy... monotomy means one perfect mech that is balanced and the only real mech in the game.

[Ralgas]

^that was the elo distribution at the end of April after the adjustment for a bug (oh and ignore the light blue, that indicates sub 50 game players and could be argued as a lot of "try and quits").

Now given ( by admission of those claiming the problem) only high elo's seem to be experiencing the worst of the ppc meta why is balancing around them so important when they are such a small sample of the overall group?

Those abusing the system on said builds artificially boost their elo (regardless of "skill") leading to matches where they are stuck with each other (personally one of the beauties of the system). If pgi is seeing data that all levels are being equally affected then adjust balance..........

[Steel Will]

Maybe we can trade PGI for Africa's warlords. I bet they know weapon balance.

[Victor Morson]

jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

I've recently been thinking about why PGI makes such blatantly bad balance choices; why they don't understand that some mechs are trash; what game are they playing, because it definitely isn't the same one we all are.

I think their issue is idealism. They envision a balance/mechanic change, and they think players should embrace it in a certain way.

SPOT ON. They get an idea for how things could work, try to make them work that way, and like the results. They don't take each idea to it's logical extreme and see if it falls apart.

jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

What they don't think is, how will players who want to maximize their chances of winning modify their mechs or tactics in response to a balance/meta change.

Garth, for example, is known for expressing that PPC sniping must be boring, and not understanding why people play that way. Well, because that maximizes your chances of winning. If Garth had a high enough ELO to be in PPC-boat-filled matches all day, I bet he would rage/quit too.

Oh God, yes. They ran into the Blazing Aces one day in a streamed match, and we were running 4 Cataphracts and 4 Ravens, a common Conquest meta at the time. We won pretty blatantly, but when I watched the stream they commented on how "boring" our build was.

WE THOUGHT THAT TOO. Being shoved into PPC/Gauss 'mechs all the time sucks, but we also have to play the game AS IT IS, now how they'd like it to be. They make us play like this though necessity. If you stubbornly buck the system and run bad meta builds, you'll always be hanging out at the bottom as an inferior player no matter how good you are in game.

jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

The straight poop is you must balance the game with the competitive player in mind. If you do that, then all players will benefit, because the game will have reasonable equipment. Don't just expect enough people to go "I really like using a combination of missiles and AC/10s" even though that is ******* stupid. Those people won't like their LRM+AC/10 mechs after getting stomped in every game.

Again, spot on! If the top players that understand the weapons balance them, the lower levels may complain at first as they don't understand some of the tuning, but after a few weeks they adapt and then they run the same meta.

Plus, even the Frakenmech pilots - bad as they will still be - get a benefit out of at least having more balanced weapons in their bad synergy load out. It's win-win.

[Snowhawk]

jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

The straight poop is you must balance the game with the competitive player in mind.

Maybe that's the reason why they don't understand that some mechs need more speed (rvn2x, rvn4x, BJ-1) and some other mechs need a smaller profile or hitboxes (Awesome, Quickdraw !!). And there was also the thing with Ecm... from the beginning it was too strong and it took a long long time until we received the updated Bap. And now look at the problems with the teambalance, to many assaults on the field and no weight balance... and so on and so forth.

[Victor Morson]

Ralgas, on 29 June 2013 - 03:00 AM, said:

Those abusing the system on said builds artificially boost their elo (regardless of "skill") leading to matches where they are stuck with each other (personally one of the beauties of the system). If pgi is seeing data that all levels are being equally affected then adjust balance..........

1- The best ELO meta will seep into the lower ELO ranks through better players guiding newer ones, resulting in a steady influx of those 2 or so GOOD builds you see in the lowest matches, ruining them for everybody. Broken weapons can be given to the newest of players, or at least once they ditch the trial.

2- Also because most of that blue to the sides plays the game a couple times and quits, never to play - or pay - again. That's why. The problems with the meta start at about the first line, not the peak, too.

[Ralgas]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:

1- The best ELO meta will seep into the lower ELO ranks through better players guiding newer ones, resulting in a steady influx of those 2 or so GOOD builds you see in the lowest matches, ruining them for everybody. Broken weapons can be given to the newest of players, or at least once they ditch the trial.

2- Also because most of that blue to the sides plays the game a couple times and quits, never to play - or pay - again. That's why. The problems with the meta start at about the first line, not the peak, too.

1- who the elevate though matches quickly be it through skill or advantage, and are gone

2- as stated, the dark blue in that graph represent 50 games minimum players, the ones you speak of would mostly be in either end of the light blue i stated should be disregarded

[Appogee]

The problem with the system seems to be that those in the upper quartile of Elo are made to endure a run of simply awful mismatches - by being teamed with new players of very low experience - until they lose often enough to get back towards the middle.

Or, we have to play in teams all the time, because the team average appears to overwhelm the individual Elo.

Personally, I'd like to also be able to get decent challenging matches as a solo player, all the time. I don't need to win every match, but I do want to have a fighting chance of winning, with reasonably equally matched team mates.

Edited by Appogee, 29 June 2013 - 03:32 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Ralgas, on 29 June 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

1- who the elevate though matches quickly be it through skill or advantage, and are gone

2- as stated, the dark blue in that graph represent 50 games minimum players, the ones you speak of would mostly be in either end of the light blue i stated should be disregarded

Hey I added you and McCloud to the 1v1 thing tomorrow if you guys are up for it - and if you are, which 'mechs would you like? I labeled you Cataphracts but we can shift it around, up to 80 tons. PGI's goal should be to get MORE people to stick around, and to make that hill WIDER, not go "Screw the fan base, cater to the bottom of the barrel."

Ultimately that creates a boring game and then NOBODY stays.

[Ralgas]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

Hey I added you and McCloud to the 1v1 thing tomorrow if you guys are up for it - and if you are, which 'mechs would you like? I labeled you Cataphracts but we can shift it around, up to 80 tons. PGI's goal should be to get MORE people to stick around, and to make that hill WIDER, not go "Screw the fan base, cater to the bottom of the barrel."

Ultimately that creates a boring game and then NOBODY stays.

Sry, time or thread link?(Duh, just saw the sig link) I'm looking after my son atm (he went to bed a lil while ago) but if i can i will i'll run either phract or jagger (and no, not an ac/40 ) if i make it Looked at the times mate i just can't, wont be free till after midnight pacific

I agree with your last 2 sentences in principle Vic, but at the same time i have a problem with suggestions like these some make that a tiny portion at the top dictate to everyone when their ideals and perspective can be almost as unrealistic as pgi's when not applied to their peers.

Edited by Ralgas, 29 June 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I'm not sure it's idealism, so much as it is being deliberate ... I am idealistic in my faith that PGI wants to develop a great game, but in doing so, they sometimes introduce things to the game (ballistics hit-state rewind, for example) that, while improving the game significantly, are easily recognized by experienced players as giving one equipment combination an advantage.

I am idealistic in my belief that they are reviewing equipment use and win-loss ratios with the various weapons over time, and will use that data to balance the game in the long run. That means that for a period of time (however long it takes them to gather data, evaluate it, come up with a solution, test it, evaluate the tests, and build it into a patch), that equipment will be the new meta.

What we don't know is what major features (like the new movement adjustments on slopes) they are working on. Neither us or them know exactly how the new features will impact the game. We don't know because, well, we don't know what they're working on. They don't know because we (the players) will always be better at finding new and innovative ways to win.

[Hellen Wheels]

jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Anybody playing PGI's "ideal" tactics and mechs will suffer a disproportionate number of losses because the first player-group have superior armaments and methods. arrogant Munchkins and their Cheese-of-the-Month ilk.

FTFY

Edited by Hellen Wheels, 29 June 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Couple of things from this.

White Knights, will often say PGI knows best as PGI has the numbers, having the numbers is only half the equation in balancing if you don't understand what the numbers are actually showing you, and what they actually mean.

PGI claim to have many competitive gamers on their staff, well it certainly does not feel or look like it.
Because otherwise, Garth would understand why people play "boring" PPC boats, or someone in the office could explain to him why, and the mindset of why.

To most of those people playing PPC boats is not boring, because winning is fun, loosing is boring.

Thus the cycle of competitive gamers.

Hellen Wheels, on 29 June 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

FTFY

There was no fixing needed, your playing by some make believe rules/honor code that only serve to gimp yourself.

[GODzillaGSPB]

I wonder how ignorant or blind must one or a group of people be in order to not see this coming? It's the internet plus its a competitive multiplayer game. If they really want balance, it wont work with a quasi-omni-hardpoint-system. Never!

People told them so from the early beginnings, they didn't listen, why should they now?

[Ralgas]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Couple of things from this.

White Knights, will often say PGI knows best as PGI has the numbers, having the numbers is only half the equation in balancing if you don't understand what the numbers are actually showing you, and what they actually mean.

PGI claim to have many competitive gamers on their staff, well it certainly does not feel or look like it.
Because otherwise, Garth would understand why people play "boring" PPC boats, or someone in the office could explain to him why, and the mindset of why.

To most of those people playing PPC boats is not boring, because winning is fun, loosing is boring.

Thus the cycle of competitive gamers.



There was no fixing needed, your playing by some make believe rules/honor code that only serve to gimp yourself.

No this is only trying to game elo which leads to "elo hell" which i stated above. while i have faith in pgi, quite often i'll criticize system that miss the mark (this new multi weapon heat nerf for a current example) and yet also see the side of other decisions the playerbase scoff at (the swap of the orion for the QD) but are damn sensible in the bigger picture

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Ralgas, on 29 June 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

No this is only trying to game elo which leads to "elo hell" which i stated above. while i have faith in pgi, quite often i'll criticize system that miss the mark (this new multi weapon heat nerf for a current example) and yet also see the side of other decisions the playerbase scoff at (the swap of the orion for the QD) but are damn sensible in the bigger picture

No this is playing to win, nothing to do with gaming elo.

[Ralgas]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

No this is playing to win, nothing to do with gaming elo.

inflating elo with cheese build (amount will vary depending on pilot) -> leads to matches with all players using that build -> leads to crying about only facing 1 build. What did i miss?

We do need more objectives in gameplay to expand the roles, there are a few systems that need tweaks. Saying the players in the above cycle should be the be all and end all of game balance? that's a different story..........

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Ralgas, on 29 June 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

inflating elo with cheese build (amount will vary depending on pilot) -> leads to matches with all players using that build -> leads to crying about only facing 1 build. What did i miss?

We do need more objectives in gameplay to expand the roles, there are a few systems that need tweaks. Saying the players in the above cycle should be the be all and end all of game balance? that's a different story..........

It's cheese to you and others, because you play by invisible rules and a code of honor that does not exist, anyone that does not adopt your rules and approach to the game are playing "cheese" builds and "gaming" elo.

Instead what they are actually doing, is playing to win, and taking what gives them the best opportunity to do that.