337 replies to this topic

[Ratheron]

I think alot of the issues with balance is that mechs that were never supposed to mount specific weapons were mounting weapons that they shouldnt have ever mounted. catapult for instance. and the fact that with min maxxing in this game they really do need to create a this weapon cant fit into that slot type of system. Also i think another thing that would help with balance is that they take ECM and split it into different devices and possibly make it cost more to equip. Or fix the devices that are supposed to be a direct combat to it BAP TAG and NARC are all useless against this one device which causes a huge problem. The PPC fix was a great start but its not long enough 4 seconds just doesnt cut it. Once i stated that i thought a good idea was too make it where a shot from a PPC disabled ECM untill the mech was able to power down and power up again to clear the EMP effect from the system. And to prevent said EMP effect was to offer shielding that could be purchased simular too what endosteel was but not as expensive on the slots maybe 5 instead of 10. this would make running ecm on a light mech costly and force you to loose some weapons or speed or something of the effect to offset the power it has. Finally weapon balancing trying to balance weapons in this game is never going to work weapon A is strong than weapon B in differing situations. Voice comms should be a intergrated part of the game it shouldnt be an add on feature. when clans come out this game is goign to be screwed if they first dont come to the realization that you dont balance the weapons you balance the groups to balance the weapons each weapon has its check and balance built into the game. sure some weapons are stronger than others thats why there better and take more slots and cost more and have ammo etc. again the biggest problem is that mechs that shouldnt be able to mount said weapon are able to mount said weapon. another thing Boating if people are really going to boat a weapon than they leave themselves open to attack from mechs that are more rounded and able to assault them mech outside of its comfort zone. Alot of people are not willing to adapt to situations and get mad when they get hit with a splat cat.. I think alot of these issues would be resolved if they had in game voice coms becuase than information would be ppushed out alot faster Alpha is splat cat Long range target alpha and take out. issue resolved now that nasty splat cat isnt so nasty anymore... anyways thats my two cents

ps please excuse run ons spelling etc late at night and not really feeling it.

Edited by Ratheron, 08 April 2013 - 10:15 PM.

[I am]

TruePoindexter, on 08 April 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

The fact that a balance issue is a fight is usually indicative of it being balanced. The devs have the real stats and can see the trends that we can't. Players are usually the poorest judge of what's fair and balanced. Plus there are in fact balance shifts every patch - they're just not always to numbers. See the vision mode changes as an example.

Sigh. Players are the poorest judges eh? How about the X players? Ive talked to alot of them.

Past MW3/MW4 Starlance League Player - League grade mech builder for MW3/MW4/Chromehounds
See my Chromehounds and Mechwarrior Videos

You sir. Your the reason these past titles failed. You and all the yous like you, and Ill add chrome to that list as well. I'm sure you'll min/max to the utmost degree here as well, until the wheels fall off.

OPs point was resistance to making substantial changes, and resistance to making swift/frequent changes. Look at Zaps post, and his accelerated data collection/reactionary adjustment suggestions. Its very akin to exactly the opposite of the OPs frustration with the current method. But hey, lets jsut discount the entire thread. Obviously just a concerted effort to troll this righteous and infallible community.

Adding to the problems with this game, I'd say, is alot of the "Zaps" and OP, fed up, have moved on, leaving a concentration of the min/max win win win crowd that drove previous MW communities into extinction.

They flourish here, and stomping and stacking feeds their egos. Anything which would move the game closer to a balanced experience, would take away from their edge, and will be resisted.

Talking into the wind gets exhasting. As to the last post, referencing balance ECM, balance weapons, statements: As long as you can create high concentrations of experienced players versus randoms, whatever minor or major imbalance issues exist, will be magnified by this practice.

This is old news, and I have seen it said over and over in various places on these forums. Your just not hearing it. Why? Alot of the players left, like it, and benefit from it in stats, and in their day to day enjoyment of stacking the deck. You leave the overall mechanic available to stack teams, you will always have imbalance. Grouped min maxers vs new guys, those that refuse to min max, and alike, will always have the same result.

Time will tell. Perhaps Zap can change how I see it. You however, are just part of the problem.harsh? yes. earnestly believed? Absolutely. Too bad the majority of those who would agree with me, have already walked away from MWO.

And the other side of this problem? Which dev was it that posted his elo is up to 1800? You know he didnt get it dropping alone. Id bet he got it by dropping with the guys who were running the sync Atlas lances this past weekend. Devs exercising the same practices? Not all of them, but at teh heart of it, I fear you have devs that see things in a way that is much more akin to those that have remained, as opposed to those that have left.

I said it before, and Ill say it again, they deserve each other. When the smoke clears, each other is likely all they will have. In their minds, it wont be their fault at all though. They'll probably say something along the lines of, most gamers cant handle how pro our game is, theyre the noob CoD crowd, etc. etc. Worst part, they'll probably truely believe it.

Edited by I am, 08 April 2013 - 10:48 PM.

[Zaptruder]

I am, on 08 April 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

You put alot of thought into that, and I thank you for the reply. One thing I noticed was you did not mention reducing the max group size, or increasing the total numbers playing per side. Would you say that is because you think those things would not help, you are just trying to narrow your response to the current available architecture, or because you think that given appropriate designations, a well balanced meta can be achieved through ELO weighting and designations alone?

The goal is to increase group size to allow for player and grouping flexibility (you won't always have 8 people, even if you have more than 4). This produces less arbitrary and less frustrating experiences for the player base. It also decreases exploitative behaviour (you can still play with 5-8 players in the public group queue via sync drops).

Of course you need to recognize the increased effectiveness that group play has on performance; but the system shouldn't provide arbitrary and frustrating restrictions for the sake of a ham-fisted approach to balancing.

Elo multiplers provide for a somewhat more elegant (in that the details and complexity are hidden from the player) balance; a recognition of the various exigent circumstances that can affect the win/loss ratio outside of player skill alone.

At this time, I'd only suggest that; should that prove to be inadequate, I'd explore more fine grained methods for balancing group play, with the goal of making the new player experience enjoyable, while still retaining the fair competitiveness of the overall playerbase.

Quote

I'm just the one who wants to be able to convince his friends to try it again, to try and convince them to like it, in hopes maybe I can get them into playing it with me. By and large, they all have had it with the game for one reason, another, or a handful of reasons. Summarizing all of their gripes into one word is an over simplification, but if I was forced to, I would say that word is "balance".

On that front, although its a feature change, I'd definetly want to include a lobby (which is something PGI are currently... 'exploring' (which is a very nebulous term indeed)), so that friends can have friendly more controlled matches with their friends for whatever reason (competition, introduction, tuition, laughs, etc). It would be one of the simpler things that can be done to make the game significantly more accessible to the player base.

I'd even encourage modding for lobby based play (akin to Starcraft 2) - if only because the player base has an amazing wealth of talent that collectively, no developer can ever hope to match. Amazing things (like the whole E-Sports scene, DOTA2, etc) arise from this sort of encouragement of the playerbase. But I digress.

Quote

So Zap, what do you think. Am I crazy, is there validity in my position, and what are your thoughts on the same?

Feel free to rip me up if you want Zap, I feel alot of venom directed towards me on these forums. What I say, is what I truely believe. Perhaps you could confirm, dispell, or develop my perceptions of waht is preventing MWO from achieving balance. Appreciate your time in responding at all.

I have no secret insight as to the machinations in PGI. I can only assume that they are for the most part a dedicated and passionate lot that truly believes in what they're trying to do.

From what I've gathered, they're not exactly top tier game development material - this is by far their biggest undertaking to date... but what they've achieved to date has despite the balance and the bugginess been extraordinary - the best fufillment of the Mechwarrior vision so far. Despite the numerous flaws, there is an indelible brilliance to the gameplay experience that no other game is able to touch.

But there are higher level goals and decisions that seem to limit their nimbleness in responding to player feedback.

They've purportedly adopted a strategy of listening to the noise and seeing what signal arises: but this isn't entirely evident when you consider how little they've acted upon the volume of feedback on various topics such as ECM and MGs/Flamers.

A large part of that arises from the community's misunderstanding on the actual gameplay mechanics that underpin the entire experience; so they end up making a whole heap of noise that if implemented would actually be detrimental to the game.

However, they've taken that attitude to the nth degree - beyond what is reasonable or effective in my opinion. That is to say, they have an underlying assumption that the player base *doesn't* know what it's talking about... and that once *their* gameplay systems and ideas are fully in, *then* the playerbase can provide adequate feedback.

To an extent, I understand this; but... we already have concrete proof in the form of MGs and Flamers that even when their additional systems are in place that they still underperform (or overperform as in the case of the Raven 3L). While things like PPC affect ECM, PPCs been buffed, Host State Rewind, etc have indeed made a dent on the overpoweredness of things like the Raven 3L - they remain still slightly unbalanced.

Perhaps they'll be right in some instances: once all their proposed systems are in place, the game will be appropriately balanced. But the reality is, as I've stated before, it still means that millions of hours are been played in an unbalanced state. Real players are coming and going based on their impressions of the game in this suboptimal state.

Is it really that difficult to adjust the gameplay values to reflect the current reality of the features? If Host State Rewind isn't in place, how about you give the Raven 3L a big ol' nerf in engine size until it is? If streaks are too effective on ravens, how about reducing the damage for a few patches until other factors arrive to balance them out? If the intent of machine guns is to allow players to disable the internal structure of the mech; including ammo, weapons, engines, actuators; and you haven't gotten the engine and actuator disabling part of things in, why not just buff the machine gun damage until those other factors arrive to show that they're OP?

Is the game really that poorly put together that changing basic variables could create issues with the stability of the game? I would hope not; but then what else other than perhaps obstinacy is stopping them from quickly iterating?


PGI... needs a much more open and transparent form of communication with its player base. Give us an insight into what is actually going on and the thinking behind those decisions. Harness the additional collective cognitive capacity of your playerbase. Fear not the secrets of your developmental process - no one cares about corporate espionage for this kind of product. The important bits of the whole endeavour are 1. the licenses, 2. the work already done.

I know there are interests beyond those at PGI that may determine what can and can't be communicated - but the need to control the message in such a perculiarly rigid way can only emerge from thinking that doesn't completely grasp at the communicative phenomenon of the internet.

Just level with us - we can be adults about it, as long as people don't have to grasp at straws to divine whether or not their actions are indeed reasonable or not. If you're working on too much content at the moment, but look unproductive because that content is slated to launch several months down the track; and you want to hold back... don't. Just let it all out - especially the parts where you double back on an initial decision after re-examining its merits. That's the development process; and it needs to be more transparent.

If we can better understand why something is done the way it is, we can stop arguing in circles, and stop producing counterproductive feedback.

But that would require a degree of humility from PGI to accept that the collective wisdom of the playerbase can have validity beyond their own ideas of what they'd like to see out of the game.

[DCLXVI]

does pgi even have access to these files? why is everything a workaround with them

Edited by DCLXVI, 08 April 2013 - 10:51 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Purplefluffybunny, on 08 April 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

It is such a subjective topic. Only PGI have the data to see the larger picture. Even then I imagine it can be a tough call!

It's not subjective. Sure, some people will have opinions that are subjective and not based on facts, but that doesn't mean balance cannot be measured objectively. It just means some people don't try to.

PGI doesn't the see a larger picture. They could have, they have after a lot of data we've no access to. But we also have access to information - for example, what people use and play - and this alone - independent of subjective opinions, just by observation of the battlefield - tells a story that is inconsistent with what PGI is doing or saying.

Tennex, on 08 April 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

I don't understand why the devs are so resistant to balance changes.

competitive games like league of legends, starcraft 2 make balance changes almost every patch.

To answer the question you pose in the title - it won't be. I want it to be, but I doubt it will.

[MustrumRidcully]

Teralitha, on 08 April 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

This game is harder to balance than LOL or starcraft. The system is more complicated, however, I dont think the devs themselves are sure how to balance it yet either. Or rather, they have a design for the game they are trying to stick to, regardless if it ends up a balanced game or not. Although how to balance the game is quite obvious to some of us.... The devs are simply thickheaded.

Harder to balance then LOL or Starcraft?

MWO does not have area effects, it does not have buffs, debuffs or crowd control abilities. It's really just a set of weapons with a small set of variables that you try to balance. You don't have to think about stuff like "Okay, 20 damage for this weapon sounded good, but with this buff, it goes to 25 and this other debuff the target will take 20 % of that damage for 1 second for 5 seconds, and this CC effect will stun the person so it can't do anything to react and need a second character to help out, but the combo is available to a single character..."

M W:O it's basically just a question of how much firepower you can stack on one mech with the weight you're given, without exploding from heat and running out of ammo before you made your kills.

[MustrumRidcully]

StrataDragoon, on 08 April 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

Im just saying some of these ppl on this game is acting like they know what is going on behind the doors of PGI, and having these solutions, but I don't see, hear, or heard of anyone clicking on the "WE'RE HIRING" link down at the bottom... But everyone has an negative input to put in about PGI not doing their jobs....

I am not going to move to the USA to work for a game company when I just bought myself a nice condo in Germany and have a steady work place with good hours and vacation time.

But I'll do what I can as a non-employee.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 April 2013 - 12:50 AM.

[FiveDigits]

The reluctancy to balance changes in a beta is something I really can't understand. Why can't we test uniform 2.0 DHS or 1 DPS MGs for two weeks to gather the telemetry data PGI supposedly uses for balancing?

The iteration speed is really at a snail's pace. It takes over a month to just remove broken splash damage. We can probably expect it's re-introduction in ~6 months.

[TruePoindexter]

Wow - wall of text much? Here we go!

I am, on 08 April 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

Sigh. Players are the poorest judges eh? How about the X players? Ive talked to alot of them.

Past MW3/MW4 Starlance League Player - League grade mech builder for MW3/MW4/Chromehounds
See my Chromehounds and Mechwarrior Videos

You sir. Your the reason these past titles failed. You and all the yous like you, and Ill add chrome to that list as well. I'm sure you'll min/max to the utmost degree here as well, until the wheels fall off.

MW3 did not fail - as they saw fit to make an MW4. Being considered successful enough to justify another iteration is by definition not failing.

MW4 did fail but not because what skilled players did - it failed because it was a mediocre game. The single player campaigns were good and a lot of the concepts of multiplayer at the time (dedicated servers, in game browser, in game lobbies etc) were implemented well. The core gameplay mechanics were simplistic and flawed. Games turned into all assault mechs with heavy weapons because if you brought anything else you were wrong. No amount of min-maxing is possible when there is literally one correct build and anything past that was simply wrong.

I am, on 08 April 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

OPs point was resistance to making substantial changes, and resistance to making swift/frequent changes. Look at Zaps post, and his accelerated data collection/reactionary adjustment suggestions. Its very akin to exactly the opposite of the OPs frustration with the current method. But hey, lets jsut discount the entire thread. Obviously just a concerted effort to troll this righteous and infallible community.

Obviously a touched a nerve here. First you may be reading too much into the OP - he said two sentences. One a statement of his own confusion followed by an assertion of other games. That's all.

Moving on though substantial changes should be resisted simply because they are substantial. Has anyone really thought out every possibility with some of the changes proposed? Will they solve the problem without creating new ones? What about the technical implications of a change? How will this effect systems, networking, and all the other complex components required to make an online game possible? Continually rocking the boat with changes until something sticks is far worse than than gradually easing it into the correct direction.

I am, on 08 April 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

Adding to the problems with this game, I'd say, is alot of the "Zaps" and OP, fed up, have moved on, leaving a concentration of the min/max win win win crowd that drove previous MW communities into extinction.

They flourish here, and stomping and stacking feeds their egos. Anything which would move the game closer to a balanced experience, would take away from their edge, and will be resisted.

So wait - we're not supposed to play to win? I suppose that most athletes compete in their sports just for fun and not to win also?

Obviously that's wrong - in game is moving towards a competitive seen and is very much so played to win. I spend a lot of time learning how to be better and I take the time to share what I've learned with the community. No I don't think I'm the best nor do I ever think I will be - but that doesn't mean I won't try and the journey I feel is worthwhile. If you disagree that's your prerogative but don't complain when I or someone like me soundly beats you in a match.

I'm going to just cut off the rest of the post here because it's just more of the same anti-competitiveness sentiment. It's your business what principals you conduct yourself by but don't expect me to adhere to them.

[Ralgas]

They are looking at the picture, but it's slow going or so it seems....

We need to realize they are still in the process of acquiring and writing tools even now to track us better and reproduce bugs more consistently?

I'm aware of the mention of new tools at least twice since Jan, which is something we'll never see or affect us beyond the end use of the data......

The artemis change is a good example, Did anyone even make a fuss about it? at all? It directly relates to issues post the lrm nerf, which they did fix and caused a buff (situationaly). Maybe we could get further with mg buffs if we stopped whining "moar dmg" and instead looked at the fact it only seems to be doing .034 dmg and not even the .04 advertised (unless stats are reporting incorrectly) EDIT: thats dividing dmg by No of hits, add in slow rof sever lag an we are talking seriously deficient dps over where it should be.....

As for the rest, quite often the "Do this!" thread don't consider the monsters they would create elsewhere, and that's certainly reason to be cautious lest we end up with a new lrmageddon.
PPC's are an example there, everyone wanted less heat on them, and now we have it just as many voices are crying for less snipers.....

Edited by Ralgas, 09 April 2013 - 01:53 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 April 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

MWO does not have area effects, it does not have buffs, debuffs or crowd control abilities.

ECM, TAG, Narc, BAP, and a number of modules would like to talk with you. _Kidding

There are some difficult bits to the game systems, but as a whole the thing is beautifully simplistic. Unless, of course, you take a wrong turn trying to add in depth and wind up in Convulsionstan.

I wonder if anyone has done a weapon balance study that includes the consumption of hard points as well. I'd expect that if you could mount twice as many of them at once it would make them marginally useful without obsoleting anything else. Either that or doubling fire rate, all of a 0.5 ton difference.

[Sifright]

HRR Insanity, on 08 April 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

It's because they don't play the game well and have no ability to accept feedback from players who actually do play at a high level.

Grab anyone from the one of the tournament teams, or anyone with >70% win rate... ask them how to fix the game.

Sane answers nearly every time.

I agree with this statement.

That said I'd rather they just Hire mustrum ridcully and have him work from home.

Pretty certain he could pull off better balancing via teleconferencing.

Ralgas, on 09 April 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

They are looking at the picture, but it's slow going or so it seems....

We need to realize they are still in the process of acquiring and writing tools even now to track us better and reproduce bugs more consistently?

I'm aware of the mention of new tools at least twice since Jan, which is something we'll never see or affect us beyond the end use of the data......

The artemis change is a good example, Did anyone even make a fuss about it? at all? It directly relates to issues post the lrm nerf, which they did fix and caused a buff (situationaly). Maybe we could get further with mg buffs if we stopped whining "moar dmg" and instead looked at the fact it only seems to be doing .034 dmg and not even the .04 advertised (unless stats are reporting incorrectly)

As for the rest, quite often the "Do this!" thread don't consider the monsters they would create elsewhere, and that's certainly reason to be cautious lest we end up with a new lrmageddon.
PPC's are an example there, everyone wanted less heat on them, and now we have it just as many voices are crying for less snipers.....

I could balance this game by hand better than they are doing currently.

I also don't work on this game 6-9 hours a day.

Sorry but your excuses are ridiculous on the face of it.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

Noobzorz, on 08 April 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

Otherwise, I don't think I agree 100% with Tennex. They're slow as all get out, but they're doing it. Most recently consider the LRMpocalypse being cut short by hotfix.

Yeah just hope their tenporary fix will not be as long as temporary remove of collisions...

[Ralgas]

Sifright, on 09 April 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:

I agree with this statement.

That said I'd rather they just Hire mustrum ridcully and have him work from home.

Pretty certain he could pull off better balancing via teleconferencing.



I could balance this game by hand better than they are doing currently.

I also don't work on this game 6-9 hours a day.

Sorry but your excuses are ridiculous on the face of it.

Well they have positions open, send em an email and go for it........

And my "excuses" are backed up with examples. The other overall catch 22 is until release and the clans landing we don't see the total picture, like it or not. No matter if you believe the beta tag or not the expected add-ons between now and sept mean we are only playing with half the game, which is a heck of a lot to shift the meta.

[Sifright]

Ralgas, on 09 April 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Well they have positions open, send em an email and go for it........

And my "excuses" are backed up with examples. The other overall catch 22 is until release and the clans landing we don't see the total picture, like it or not. No matter if you believe the beta tag or not the expected add-ons between now and sept mean we are only playing with half the game, which is a heck of a lot to shift the meta.

You want me to move country to work for a company that would pay less than I currently earn to do that job?

if the guys currently in charge of balancing don't get it me joining the team wouldn't suddenly make the guy in charge change his mind.

[MustrumRidcully]

Critical Fumble, on 09 April 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

ECM, TAG, Narc, BAP, and a number of modules would like to talk with you. _Kidding

You kinda have a point, and you kinda haven't - these effects are still marginal compared to the type of crowd control most games have. But they aren't relaly great at balancing these items either.

Quote

There are some difficult bits to the game systems, but as a whole the thing is beautifully simplistic. Unless, of course, you take a wrong turn trying to add in depth and wind up in Convulsionstan.

Like crit-seeking buffs, or do you have something else in mind?

Quote

I wonder if anyone has done a weapon balance study that includes the consumption of hard points as well. I'd expect that if you could mount twice as many of them at once it would make them marginally useful without obsoleting anything else. Either that or doubling fire rate, all of a 0.5 ton difference.

I kinda did. I made damage to weight efficiency analysis on weapons. You can read more details in my signature on how they are arrived.



I am not entirely sure if I did the Machine Gun here correctly. If it's wrong, than it's too good in this chart, because I changed the ammo consumption rate on the underlying stats. (The thread in my signature uses a worse ammo consumption rate assumption, making the MG even worse than the above stats.)

But it already tells the story, doesn't it? Thb est case for the Machine Gun is far worse than small lasers, small pulse lasers, medium pulse lasers and medium lasers. "Boated" it might be able to beat an AC/20, but at 1/3rd the range with the requirement for constantly aim at your enemy. (And to deal 90 damage in 10 seconds you need 8 DPS, so you'd need about 20 Machine Guns to achieve this damage output of a single AC/20. Plus lots of ammo if you want to sustain it for any reasonable amount of time.)

And... 20 ballistic slots - Not even the Piranha would need so many slots. We might only have to worry about Omnimechs... But not even then, because the weapon is 1/6th as effective as its energy competitor, the small laser. Tripling the MG damage output would probably also triple its efficiency (at least I don't see any factors, it needs no heat sinks at all, after all), so it would still be worse than the SL or ML.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 April 2013 - 02:17 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 April 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

Like crit-seeking buffs, or do you have something else in mind?

Who, me? What else would I be thinking of?

The tabletop rules for BT generally had smaller weapons as being more efficient to offset the fact that firing a bunch of smaller weapons would likely result in spread damage. With pinpoint aiming small weapons are buffed; but with the addition of hardpoints they're nerfed back into a state where they should be more or less balanced again.

In theory, with tabletop rules you could make a set of ten MGs and one ton of ammo into an alternative to the AC/20. However, in spite of no heat, lower tonnage, and more shots, I have yet to hear of anyone treating this as a serious alternative because, I suspect, the scatter shot and the fact that you have to close into tight proximity to use them at all.

The break even point for MW:O does not need to be so high, though. If, horror of all horrors, the machine gun did 1 DPS, four of them would match the DPS of an AC/20. Detractors would say that that would be OP, however, the AC/2 already does 4 DPS at significant range for lower tonnage than the AC/20 and yet it has not dominated the ballistic market. This is probably because of damage spread and engagement time. It would effect the MG even worse, especially when collisions return. In the event that 1 DPS turns out to be too much, they could simply increase ammo consumption or reduce ammo per ton.

[rgreat]

PGI strategy of balancing:

Edited by rgreat, 09 April 2013 - 03:36 AM.

[Tennex]

TruePoindexter, on 08 April 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

The fact that a balance issue is a fight is usually indicative of it being balanced. The devs have the real stats and can see the trends that we can't. Players are usually the poorest judge of what's fair and balanced. Plus there are in fact balance shifts every patch - they're just not always to numbers. See the vision mode changes as an example.

Even blizzard doesnt assume its game is balanced out the door.

But PGI man. Bam! Magic

[Thorn Hallis]

World of Tanks is the proof that balance isn't a factor to become successful.