337 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

Davers, on 08 April 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Hey if we the players can't even agree that machine guns aren't worth using, how can we convince the devs who USE them?

i think we agree that its useless. the problem is some people think its supposed to be that way. when we have completely useless ballistics hard points on light mechs.

Edited by Tennex, 08 April 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[DaZur]

How?

In short... A table with only two legs does not balance make... or something like that.

In order to balance something like MW:O, one needs to have stability in the core aspects of the game. As much as so many folks wish to paint MW:O as everything but a beta product, it clearly is not close to being feature complete.

Knowing this, the premise of fine-tuned balance would be welcome this early but it's just not mature enough to instigate these types of fine balance adjustments when literally every ripple in the code seems to roil into a tsunami.

Edited by DaZur, 08 April 2013 - 09:48 PM.

[Teralitha]

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.

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.

Edited by Teralitha, 08 April 2013 - 07:52 PM.

[Kahoumono]

One way to balance is NOT to throw the pendulum in the other direction whenever they decide to make a change, make small incremental changes instead. LRMs too strong, don't introduce ECM without a counter. Light mechs impossible to hit, don't introduce massive splash damage. Weapons useage change after "balancing patches" will tell you everything you need to know about weapon efficency. I haven't used LRMs since 2 days after the hotfix was introduced and I am sure many others are on the same boat.

[Tennex]

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

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.

thats how you make a single player game.

I get that PGI has only worked on single player titles prior to MWO. and the only multiplayer they did before this game was duke nukem.

But with no real experience of balance in a competitive multiplayer under their belt how can they be so stubborn.

Edited by Tennex, 08 April 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[I am]

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.

So work towards your initial ambitions, whether they result in balance or not?

And the devs are at a loss, but you forum founders know just how to fix it all?

I'll give you this much. Your a prime example of what is inherently flawed with the community side of this cluster fhuk. Keep up the good work there expert pseudo dev, really. May you end up with the unbalanced dung pile you seem to be pushing for.

So tell me about the community size in previous MW titles?

Edited by I am, 08 April 2013 - 08:05 PM.

[Zaptruder]

I am, on 08 April 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

So work towards your initial ambitions, whether they result in balance or not?

And the devs are at a loss, but you forum founders know just how to fix it all?

I'll give you this much. Your a prime example of what is inherently flawed with the community side of this cluster fhuk. Keep up the good work there expert pseudo dev, really. May you end up with the unbalanced dung pile you seem to be pushing for.

So tell me about the community size in previous MW titles?

Assuming that the game has been intelligently coded, then the variables that govern the balance should be easy enough to tweak.

In that case, it's just a matter of iteration.

So really, it means that the devs have their setpoint for noise on the forums set WAY TOO HIGH. That is, they require way too many people telling them way too loudly for way too long that something is broken before they'll change something.

The occasional hotfix shows that they indeed have the capacity to change and iterate faster then they currently are.


So really, most people are having a go at their wait and see approach; when iterate quickly and nimbly can provide much better results for the player base and for them to see and get more data from.

In that sense, I really can't support the devs (as much as I am fair and even appreciative of their overall effort) in this slow balancing instance.


If it was up to me, you'd see significant balance changes every patch. I might not get it right the first few times; but at least I'll be moving things towards a more sensible median over time than what is been yielded by the wait and see approach; which assuming they do eventually get right will simply mean millions of play hours (and plenty of angst) been spent under the yoke of ill balancing.


There's definetly a sense of obstinacy and arrogance to the developers in their unwillingness to tweak the values at the behest of the community. I mean, if they had tweaked DHS to 2.0 for a couple weeks, and if that failed spectacularly; at the very least, there would be a precedence among the playerbase to show that it was indeed as bad an idea as they claimed it to be.

Instead, they've stuck to their guns and been unwilling to show us any other possibility. It's frustrating, and not a good sign of the kind of iterative reactivity that is required from multiplayer game developers.

The task of really balancing complex systems well isn't something that can be divined without millions of hours of emergent, iterative, gameplay tests and hundreds of thousands of feedback messages from the player base - so it's frustrating that they act like once they have their overall systems in place, that the game will be much more balanced.

[HRR Insanity]

keith, on 08 April 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

will only work for most stuff. different teams have different play styles=different ways to balance game. but yes in a nut shell they need to take balance feed back form more of the top teams/top players

/shrugs/ So get a consensus going across good players. I'm pretty sure they would all say similar things about ECM, MGs, etc. Those that weren't similar would still give an idea as to the direction the fix needs to be.

[I am]

Zaptruder, on 08 April 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Assuming that the game has been intelligently coded, then the variables that govern the balance should be easy enough to tweak.

In that case, it's just a matter of iteration.

So really, it means that the devs have their setpoint for noise on the forums set WAY TOO HIGH. That is, they require way too many people telling them way too loudly for way too long that something is broken before they'll change something.

The occasional hotfix shows that they indeed have the capacity to change and iterate faster then they currently are.


So really, most people are having a go at their wait and see approach; when iterate quickly and nimbly can provide much better results for the player base and for them to see and get more data from.

In that sense, I really can't support the devs (as much as I am fair and even appreciative of their overall effort) in this slow balancing instance.


If it was up to me, you'd see significant balance changes every patch. I might not get it right the first few times; but at least I'll be moving things towards a more sensible median over time than what is been yielded by the wait and see approach; which assuming they do eventually get right will simply mean millions of play hours (and plenty of angst) been spent under the yoke of ill balancing.


There's definetly a sense of obstinacy and arrogance to the developers in their unwillingness to tweak the values at the behest of the community. I mean, if they had tweaked DHS to 2.0 for a couple weeks, and if that failed spectacularly; at the very least, there would be a precedence among the playerbase to show that it was indeed as bad an idea as they claimed it to be.

Instead, they've stuck to their guns and been unwilling to show us any other possibility. It's frustrating, and not a good sign of the kind of iterative reactivity that is required from multiplayer game developers.

The task of really balancing complex systems well isn't something that can be divined without millions of hours of emergent, iterative, gameplay tests and hundreds of thousands of feedback messages from the player base - so it's frustrating that they act like once they have their overall systems in place, that the game will be much more balanced.

You seem sharp and reasonable, as well as ambitious in making extreme changes each patch.

Let me run this by you, and you could give me your thoughts on whether you think it has merit, how youd test it, how youd address it.

4 mans and pub matches. With the huge learning curve in this game, complexity, fact that it takes alot of time in the eyes of the new player to get the "right equipment" to even compete versus the players that have been here since CB/ been in MW since MW1, and the 4 mans ability to stack and stomp pretty most random teams;

How would you address balancing team grouping in pub matches, assuming you would desire to make it enjoyable for new players, in an effort to draw them into the MWO community and retain them? How would you address it in an effort to make solo pubbing enjoyable, in an effort to keep the lone wolves who wont be getting on TS/Mumble.

Basically, can you remedy 4 mans/ and balance. If so how? Where would you start?

Very interested to get your feedback.

[IIIuminaughty]

All these haters on here acting like THEY can do something about it

[Corvus Antaka]

Cause PGI is still figuring stuff out

[Thuzel]

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

[...] Most recently consider the LRMpocalypse being cut short by hotfix.

It's 2 steps forward, 3 steps back and the recent lrm thing is a great example of that. How many times have lrms been rebalanced? At least 4 from my own experience. Things are slow enough without having to retrace our steps every couple of months.

[Zaptruder]

I am, on 08 April 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

You seem sharp and reasonable, as well as ambitious in making extreme changes each patch.

Let me run this by you, and you could give me your thoughts on whether you think it has merit, how youd test it, how youd address it.

4 mans and pub matches. With the huge learning curve in this game, complexity, fact that it takes alot of time in the eyes of the new player to get the "right equipment" to even compete versus the players that have been here since CB/ been in MW since MW1, and the 4 mans ability to stack and stomp pretty most random teams;

How would you address balancing team grouping in pub matches, assuming you would desire to make it enjoyable for new players, in an effort to draw them into the MWO community and retain them? How would you address it in an effort to make solo pubbing enjoyable, in an effort to keep the lone wolves who wont be getting on TS/Mumble.

Basically, can you remedy 4 mans/ and balance. If so how? Where would you start?

Very interested to get your feedback.

This is probably one of those places where telemetry can help a lot; in understanding whether or not population groups can be split or sorted.

But I'd start with tried and tested solutions from other games first: Namely having a seperate starter queue for new players (0-100 games for example) before they're placed into the wild. This is assuming that there are enough such new players that this would provide acceptable queue times for this solution.

If not, then simply preferentially group such players up, but put them in with very low Elo values to start with, and have them be carried by more experience team members.

As for team based gameplay; I'd provide Elo adjustments for the size of the group - which I'd determine by seeing how groups with an average Elo rating differed from players of that Elo rating in terms of win %. (i.e. a 3 man group with average Elo of 1200 might win at the rate of 110% compared to a single player with an Elo of 1200). Then initially use this initial difference (based on group size) as the multiplier for the Elo score.

Of course, I'd observe the data and adjust accordingly after a couple of weeks or month of data collection, then repeat.

After we have an appropriate Elo multiplier nailed down for the 2-4 man groups, I'd introduce 5-7 man groups and do the same, and finally 8 man groups and do the same.

[I am]

Zaptruder, on 08 April 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

This is probably one of those places where telemetry can help a lot; in understanding whether or not population groups can be split or sorted.

But I'd start with tried and tested solutions from other games first: Namely having a seperate starter queue for new players (0-100 games for example) before they're placed into the wild. This is assuming that there are enough such new players that this would provide acceptable queue times for this solution.

If not, then simply preferentially group such players up, but put them in with very low Elo values to start with, and have them be carried by more experience team members.

As for team based gameplay; I'd provide Elo adjustments for the size of the group - which I'd determine by seeing how groups with an average Elo rating differed from players of that Elo rating in terms of win %. (i.e. a 3 man group with average Elo of 1200 might win at the rate of 110% compared to a single player with an Elo of 1200). Then initially use this initial difference (based on group size) as the multiplier for the Elo score.

Of course, I'd observe the data and adjust accordingly after a couple of weeks or month of data collection, then repeat.

After we have an appropriate Elo multiplier nailed down for the 2-4 man groups, I'd introduce 5-7 man groups and do the same, and finally 8 man groups and do the same.

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?

StrataDragoon, on 08 April 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

All these haters on here acting like THEY can do something about it

I don't need to have the solution to add/participate in a conversation relating to balancing MWO, im not the one trying to sell it for profit.

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".

IMHO, behind all the X weapon is OP, X mech is OP, this strat is OP, arguments is team stacking. It's just my opinion, but believe me Ive put alot of thought into it.

That said, Zap seems far more unbias than myself, and rather wise/well spoken. So I will try to have a mature exchange with him on the topic to learn/evolve my own perceptions of the meta, and how to improve it.

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.

[The Trice]

Wow , This topic is unique ,not because the subject but because the people i see here , most of the cases when someone opens a topic about this replies would be that game is still in beta , or that the issue he is talking about is not an issue , Or maybe don't play game for a month and return back ( which i did one time and nothing changed xD) , but in your case all people here agree , it seems that by luck you have grouped the brain people into one place , congrats !

But let me tell you something , it was same with world of tanks( which for the 100 time is the model that MWO is following by the book , all their MC pricing and battle system and even matchmaker is based on this game)
This game had same problem with tanks of Russia being op(as game is russian) and germans being too weak , and everybody was screaming about this , and nobody gives a **** , why ?
Because most of the people where playing russian tanks so they had to go as the money flows and screw balance . and when u talked about balancing it they said they have to stick to the lore history deigns. and in other cases they say that this is just a game and we have to stick to the balance , its just a way to get what they want for maximum profit knowing that people who care enough to post many topics on the forum wont leave the game ( and it was said by the letter here in one of the dev blogs in mwo forums)

Same will happen here in the future , IF the ECM(with +1 module slot) is not really overpowered then not give each ability to put ECM as they AMS , they will tell you we have to stick with the lore , but when you tell them about weapons unbalance and that it goes against the lore they will tell you that this is the game and its about balance ... see the resemblance ?

P.S: this topic would somehow will help MWO but they wont implement it :http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/111184-mwo-competitive-play-lets-take-a-look/

Edited by The Trice, 08 April 2013 - 09:46 PM.

[MadPanda]

When I think about PGI driving this project:

[IIIuminaughty]

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?




I don't need to have the solution to add/participate in a conversation relating to balancing MWO, im not the one trying to sell it for profit.

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".

IMHO, behind all the X weapon is OP, X mech is OP, this strat is OP, arguments is team stacking. It's just my opinion, but believe me Ive put alot of thought into it.

That said, Zap seems far more unbias than myself, and rather wise/well spoken. So I will try to have a mature exchange with him on the topic to learn/evolve my own perceptions of the meta, and how to improve it.

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.

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]

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....

Let me blow your mind. I did apply, despite already having a professional job, which I love. They said no thanks, and I cant blame them, I really dont have much in the way of game development/creation experience. So there you go. Anonymous professional by day, avid gamer by night, and equally passionate in all of the above which I feel strongly about.

Hind sight is 20/20. If I could go back ten years, I would have pursured the skills required to actually contribute to a dev in a meaningful capacity.

I try to argue balance, get frustrated and give up, recollect myself, and try again. Its an up and down cycle, and at the moment I am back at it again. Don't worry, each fleeting attempt which fails brings me closer to giving up, and eventually I will... but not yet.

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

[Lyrik]

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'm glad that the devs have an higher IQ than the standart textwarrior in the forums.

Finetuning the balance of weapons is a waste of time until HSR is in the game for ALL weapons. And until we have a true a competitive scene.

[TruePoindexter]

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.

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.