25 replies to this topic

[Inhibition]

Don't put a band aid on a broken arm. You aren't fixing the problem by nerfing.
More problems are created than solved.

PGI lately has been "balancing" weapons and gameplays that were part of natural of
the Mechwarrior franchise and breaking the game further by doing so.
In reality, PGI is just nerfing everything, which is not helping the game.
Please consider more effective, LONG TERM changes.

Constant nerfing has become a habit to PGI; this issue has to be addressed NOW. At this rate, the game itself is hurt because nerfing is a poor, short-term method for PGI to accommodate players, especially unskilled/unexperienced players, who are complaining on the forums about a playstyle they cannot tolerate and/or counter. This hurts the competitive base of players, a very important aspect of this game.

A weapon isn't overpowered or broken if you cannot develop counter strategy.

PLEASE LISTEN, the situation sits like this as an example:
A person pilots a medium mech and gets hit with two alpha strikes in the first two minutes of
the game, gets cored and dies,
and comes to the forums to complain that alpha striking is a problem,
pinpoint damage is a problem, boating is a problem. The player has to wait until
the game finishes so he/she may re-use the same mech.

This situation would not occur as frequently if PGI realized that these situations happen when
1. experienced/skilled players HAVE GREAT ADVANTAGE OVER non experienced/skilled players, especially because this game has a very steep learning curve.
2. alpha striking is more of an advantage in favor of heavier weight classes
3. newer players that die early have to sit out and watch the game (it's very boring,
especially if they want to use the same trial/owned mech, and they only have one)

Proposals: Changes that can be made to satisfy the complaining player base, instead
of nerfing and breaking the game.

1. Change the current elo system and matchmaking. It may be advantageous
to make an explicit ranking system so players can see the level of themselves, but
more importantly, THEIR OPPONENTS, so players can give appropriate feedback on the elo
of the opponents that they are playing, instead of trying to nerf things that don' t need to be nerfed.

Currently elo system balances in teams. To make things easy for people to understand for this example, we must assume that the average between HIGH elo and LOW elo = MEDIUM elo.
I will use HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW elo to avoid using numbers.

What this means if team A has a HIGH elo
rating, then the current matchmaking will place a player on team B with LOW elo rating to create an overall "balance" of MEDIUM elo among teams.
This is the poor, flawed, and noncompetitive way to balance.

The elo rating system, or an explicit ranking system should place a player on Team
A of MEDIUM elo, and a player of Team B with MEDIUM elo. What about players with
HIGH elo? Then in another, different, separate match, team C will have a player with
HIGH elo, whereas team D will have a player with HIGH elo. Same with players with LOW elo. This change is to prevent players of different skills levels playing each other. Obviously this is a simplified scenario. There will a number value assigned to each player, so teams should be assigned to players with MOST SIMILAR elo rating. A similar argument is addressed here, but stated slightly differently, more vaguely:

http://mwomercs.com/...ng-off-balance/


2. Create more game modes. The current conquest and assault
will force a light to fight an assult; a heavy to fight a medium, etc. Like I said,
alpha striking, even poptarting, caters to the advantage of heavier weight classes.
You can avoid people complaining about alpha striking and poptarting if
a gamemode allowed players within, for example, 15 maximum tons difference, to play against each other. You can even have a game mode where lights can only fight lights, mediums can
only fight mediums, heavies can only fight heavies, assaults only fight assaults.

Now if a light WANTS to play against an assault class, or if an assault wants to play against a light class, then we have "Conquest" and "Assault" game modes to work with. It should just
be formally stated by PGI that playing in these game modes makes lighter classes vulnerable
to alpha strikes, and heavier classes vulnerable to base capping by lighter classes. If a player
wants to expose themselves to these risks (advantages of weight classes), then the player
should have the choice. But the player should also have the choice to NOT let themselves
be exposed to advantages/disadvantages of weight classes.

3. I tried getting new people to try MWO. One of the drawbacks I noticed is that players die early and have to sit out and watch a game if they want to use the same (trial or owned) mech again. MWO is not fun if a play often runs out into the open without knowing and gets cored in the second minute of game. However, this issue is not only present with newer players.

This issue can be improved with a respawn in a certain amount of time,
or limited respawn game mode.

===============================================================

I need help in telling PGI that tweaking little by little and testing is excellent,
but not excessively "balancing" CONSTANTLY. 5+ heat for one extra boating weapon fired?
What madness...At this rate, the game will not be successful in terms of creating a competitive environment. Also, this heat restriction garbage is not making it easier for newer players,
especially when the trial mech is currently a hunchback 4P. Oh what finesse, PGI is nerfing
a trial mech, for new players.

It was stated PGI will move on to nerfing ballistics, then missiles? Someone help me stop this madness PGI is doing to try and satisfy a portion of the player base. HURT EVERYONE to satisfy a portion? It's making me sick. Might as well just make everyone carry an AC10 and be happy right?
No one wants that kind of game.

An Awesome IS a PPC boat. A catapult IS a missile boat. Hunchback 4P IS a laser boat. In the future, a Masakari is a PPC boat. Boating is not a problem people are making it out to be, it's part of the game's franchise. PGI is trying to nerf boating in PPC's, but felt they had to be fair will all mechs, and will nerf boating on the Hunchback 4P. TO NERF MEDIUM LASER BOATING ON A HUNCHBACK 4P, A LASER BOATING MECH THAT WASN'T EVEN A PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH, IS INSANE. If PGI were to nerf boating and weapons first, they spend their time working on the much less relevant issue, making patchwork fixes that don't address where the problem is coming from.

You see how PGI is using their efforts in a skewed way, breaking the very basis of the game gradually? By putting a band aid on, nerfing boating and energy weapons, a temporary and irrelevant fix,the broken limb of the game is not being addressed. Game modes and matchmaking need to be addressed.
An irrelevant treatment will only make the situation of a broken limb worsen by improper bone regrowth and attachment, or infection/gangrene, only to have the arm completely amputated, or even cause death by infection. That is where this game is headed.

Nerfing weapons need to be evaluated AFTER game modes and matchmaking is arranged appropriately in a fashion that won't place a rookie against a veteran, or give a choice to players if they want to play as a light against an assault.

For now, I am begging PGI to leave weapons alone, and inform players on how a larger issue has to be changed first. I wish PGI would create a message such as "Please bear with the game if it currently creates unfavorable situations; we are working at the root of problems due to imbalance (matchmaking and game modes), not creating unnecessary fixes (nerfs)"

I need help; someone else has to realize this madness and help me create some awareness among the community so the developers can read this. Developers need their to re-prioritize their list. I wish I had an official reply of some sort to inform me that PGI is not tearing the Mechwarrior game and franchise apart piece by piece...

Edited by Inhibition, 18 June 2013 - 03:49 AM.

[WolvesX]

Yup, to nerf already UPed HBK4Ps, I really don't know how someone can come with such an idea.

Good Post to overs up many isseus.

Edited by WolvesX, 18 June 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[Egomane]

I love biased poll options. Where do I vote for them?

[Nauht]

You make a lot of assumptions in your post particularly about elo.. of course all tailored for your argument so typical post for forums.

RE: boating changes, let's just see what figures they come up with before getting the pitchforks. Everything so far is just example numbers.

Also weapon balance is a totally different issue than map/gamemode balance and one doesn't really impact the other so you can do both at the same time.

Edited by Nauht, 18 June 2013 - 03:02 AM.

[aniviron]

Voted for option 2 because it is hilarious, and assumes that if we don't agree with OP we hate the game and want it to fail.

[WolvesX]

Egomane, on 18 June 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

I love biased poll options. Where do I vote for them?

Poll is biased because of "Nerf HBK4P" and LPLs.

[MustrumRidcully]

I've seen other people that the problem is more match-making and map types and less alpha-boating, but I disagree.

A 4 PPC Stalker is also threatening to another Assault. And he's more threatening then someone that uses a mixed weapon loadout, say, 2 ERLLs, a Gauss Rifle and a PPC, even though they roughly operate at the same distances, simply because the boat will deal pinpoint damage every 4 seconds, and the other mech will have to fire 3 weapons in 4 second cycle seperately, including one that requires him holding the target for a full second.

Match-Making is also a problem, because if most people prefer Assaults and Heavies due to the boating advantage these mechs can have, the 1 or 2 mediums in a match will really be hurting. And I don't believe that the weight balance problem can be solved at all with poor weapon tweaks. ,The solution to that was in the "Role Warfare Dev Blog", unfortuntaly we don't really play a game or have game modes where role warfare matters. The only half-way meaningful role we currently have in MW:O other than "damage" is scouting. Except the meaningful part is pretty much only "capping". The only map you need a scout for is Alpine...And most people intentionally move to the standard locations for a firefight, because that's the most likely route to have fun and stompy robot fights. Being "creative" or "tactical" might reward you with a quick capture win, but it won't exactly make a match full of tension and excitement.

Also, PGI's solution to the boating problem looks way too complicated, difficult to maintain, prone to abuse and difficult to communicate to a player.

[Sephlock]

I agree with some of that, but not all- it'd be crazy if we had playlists that were lights only, meds only, heavies only, assaults only, plus assault and conquest + whatever else...

[Satan n stuff]

@OP: If you want PGI to completely ignore your opinion, please make more blatantly biased polls.

As for the soon to be implemented boating nerf, I do think there needs to be a neff, but I think the proposed changes are a very bad idea. It does nothing against dual AC/20 or dual Gauss, it probably won't affect the 2 PPC 2 ER PPC stalkers or any other PPC ER PPC combo, and it won't affect combinations of any of these.

PGI design team probably said:

Gauss + 2 PPCs + 2 ER PPCs? Sure no problem. 6 PPCs? What are you crazy?

Edited by Satan n stuff, 18 June 2013 - 03:19 AM.

[Onmyoudo]

Inhibition, on 18 June 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

Constant nerfing has become a habit to PGI;

I'm not sure constant anything is a habit for PGI.

Edited by Onmyoudo, 18 June 2013 - 03:24 AM.

[Brilig]

"pinpoint damage is a problem"

That, and heat are the problem. Those two things are causing the current imbalance issues. They are what make alpha strike boats by far the best way to play the game. The best way to fix this, is to deal with convergence, and or heat. Boating isn't a bad thing, alpha striking isn't a bad thing. The way heat, and convergence work make alpha strike boats ultra powerful.

Side note: I don't think PGIs suggested solution is a good one. Hopefully they will try a different solution. I also don't think much more tweaking to the weapons themselves will fix the current issue. Changes to the above are what need to happen.

Don't get me wrong. We could definitely use some more game modes. I would like to see some max tonnage options for games too. (Per team, or per player for respawn modes.) Max tonnage, or something similar would be a great way to bring mediums back into the game. But while all of that would be nice, and does need to happen... Heat, and convergence are what are causing our current "meta" issues.

Before anyone goes there, its not a skill thing. I too play in alpha boats because its the best way to play right now. However I really think there should be more to the game than a handful of alpha boats. It would be awesome to be able to take a balance build in game, and not be completely outclassed. It would be nice if all the mech variants could be viable instead of the few that make better alpha strike boats.

[El Bandito]

Wow, a biased poll.

You do realize that even less skilled players can shoot 4 PPCs into a single location of enemy mech no problem, right? That's due to having instant pin-point convergence as well as high heat tolerance. It doesn't require much skill at all.

PGI should address MM, but they should also address pin-point Alpha with urgency. Not only for the sake of balancing but also for the sake of making a more authentic Mechwarrior game.

Edited by El Bandito, 18 June 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[tenderloving]

If there are no new and inexperienced players, there will soon be no players.

If you want to play a game with a community that maxes out at 50 on Friday night, then you're on the right path.

I submit that PGI hasn't done ENOUGH nerfing of easily exploitable, low-risk high-reward builds. They've moved too slowly on obvious issues, and the dwindling player base is a result.

The game sucks right now. No normal person is going to come in off of the street and enjoy the experience of getting insta-cored by jacked up assault mechs. No, they don't need to learn how to play, they need to WANT to learn how to play. If that means learning to fill up an assault mech or a CTF with Gauss and PPCs then most people won't bite.

If you want your high-level competition you're going to get it because soon the "elites" will be the only players left.

Why should it matter to you what gets nerfed and what doesn't? If you can truly "Adapt" then you can be competitive regardless of the nerfs/buffs that PGI throws at you. Sack up and think about the future of the game.

Edited by tenderloving, 18 June 2013 - 03:56 AM.

[Inhibition]

tenderloving, on 18 June 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

If there are no new and inexperienced players, there will soon be no players.

If you want to play a game with a community that maxes out at 50 on Friday night, then you're on the right path.

I submit that PGI hasn't done ENOUGH nerfing of easily exploitable, low-risk high-reward builds. They've moved too slowly on obvious issues, and the dwindling player base is a result.

The game sucks right now. No normal person is going to come in off of the street and enjoy the experience of getting insta-cored by jacked up assault mechs. No, they don't need to learn how to play, they need to WANT to learn how to play. If that means learning to fill up an assault mech or a CTF with Gauss and PPCs then most people won't bite.

If you want your high-level competition you're going to get it because soon the "elites" will be the only players left.

Why should it matter to you what gets nerfed and what doesn't? If you can truly "Adapt" then you can be competitive regardless of the nerfs/buffs that PGI throws at you. Sack up and think about the future of the game.

I'm sorry did you even read my post?
I want to protect newer players. I suggested that players with low elo should only fight others with low elo.

"elites" ..."adapt"...I didn't mention any of this...I am thinking for the future of the game, it's what I'm saying.
People are only thinking for themselves, how to prolong their ability to stay alive in game, and complaining
on forums that something is overpowered to nerf things they are dying from. I feel very sad at the thought
that because of people like you, I will one day NOT have the freedom to make my own loadout.

Anyways I also suggested that players should have the option to play or not to play against assaults to
reduce coring. And from the games I've played it's rare to get insta-cored (unless you constantly run out in the open or get cornered)

Edited by Inhibition, 18 June 2013 - 04:44 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

PGI should have stopped buffing every thing in the first attemp - to nerf them back is a start

[Inhibition]

El Bandito, on 18 June 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

Wow, a biased poll.

You do realize that even less skilled players can shoot 4 PPCs into a single location of enemy mech no problem, right? That's due to having instant pin-point convergence as well as high heat tolerance. It doesn't require much skill at all.

PGI should address MM, but they should also address pin-point Alpha with urgency. Not only for the sake of balancing but also for the sake of making a more authentic Mechwarrior game.

pin point damage is part of the mechwarrior franchise though, it's part of the game...
four ppc's are good to only a certain extent, Boating a weapon amplifies that weapons advantages
as well as disadvantages. Take that into account, and you can easily kill a 4 ppc mech at close range....
I've tried a 4 ppc build, it's a horrible build for me because the poor heat efficiency and ineffectiveness at close
range with ppc's. But at least leave me with the freedom to make and use my mech without additional drawbacks

[Acid Phase]

Misuse of a poll. Too biased. However I do see eye to eye on some points. Boats who are meant to be boats should not be handicapped in any way. PPCs though need their heat values adjusted. PPC - 10 heat. ER PPC - 15 heat. Now Paul on the "Command chair" post he did recently said heat penalties should kick in at 150%. I believe it's too lenient. It should start to kick in at least from 110%. DHS should also be changed. Instead of DHS becoming the increase of heat threshold as it is now, it should only be to dissipate heat.

Now on the topic of weapon buffs/nerfs. Weapon tweaking was never needed. Here's one of my previous post where I believe PGI's efforts went completely wrong.

Acid Phase, on 22 May 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

PGI has since closed beta "fixed" just about every weapon. Tweaking this, tweaking that. All it has achieved is that freedom of customization has been thoroughly abused. I can't believe the fanboyism defending what PGI releases. Calling this game ok to play. No. It is not ok. Every weapon "fix" is the search to see what weapon/mech become the new FoTM. It's ridiculous. We all know what is the real balance of weapons, but the devs have not addressed it. Hardpoint restrictions. The problem is too much freedom of customization. I keep saying that the apparent fix to boating where it shouldn't be boating is hardpoint restrictions. Fixes outrageous builds and fixes boating. Done. Those who are meant to boat will boat as they should, but other ridiculous builds will be kept from doing so.

It is a sensitive topic as we know that there is enough people supporting it as there is people against it. I also understand it is too late to implement such a feature as it will completely change the game. It should have been done from the beginning.

I also would have welcomed a system just like MW:LL.

Acid Phase, on 17 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

My point of view is that MWO should have taken the MW: LL route. Why? Because MW:LL modders had no financial backing, never bait and switched you, guys who loved the game, and did it million times better than here. Just think of it. MW:LL had up to 4 variants of each mech to choose from. You want a certain weapon to use, you go to the variant who has it (Variety, wow...what a concept.) But thanks to the abusive customization here in MWO, you can bring the hardest hitting weapon on just about any mech. (ie. PPCs everywhere).

[Corvus Antaka]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 June 2013 - 03:17 AM, said:

A 4 PPC Stalker is also threatening to another Assault. And he's more threatening then someone that uses a mixed weapon loadout, say, 2 ERLLs, a Gauss Rifle and a PPC, even though they roughly operate at the same distances, simply because the boat will deal pinpoint damage every 4 seconds, and the other mech will have to fire 3 weapons in 4 second cycle seperately, including one that requires him holding the target for a full second.

QFT

This is the challenge to be overcome in an intelligent manner. If it was easy, well, it'd be easier to address. What we need is quality suggestions, and not whines about how it is fine when elite pilots damn well know that the dual ac/20/ppc/gauss meta is the only meta. Some people figured this out 2 months ago, now the entire game revolves around it, and it needs addressing.

[Deathlike]

Onmyoudo, on 18 June 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

I'm not sure constant anything is a habit for PGI.

Yes it is. Constant incompetence is a disease for PGI, cured by intelligent discourse and actual feedback.

However, it requires actual EFFORT, so I'll just pretend this discussion never happened... because it's not going on @ PGI anyways.

[Mechteric]

These epically long tirades and temper-tantrums are boring. All of this can be easily summed up in one sentence, so here we go:

Matchmaking should have some separation by means of skill barriers or brackets, high heat drawbacks and penalties need to be introduced, and tonnage limits need to be put in place.

That's all there is really. No fuss, no mess.