38 replies to this topic

[Sephlock]

Also, that "balance" has resulted in deep, personal hatreds between all players, directed at all players.

[El Bandito]

Sephlock, on 15 June 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

Also, that "balance" has resulted in deep, personal hatreds between all players, directed at all players.

We are talking about the most popular F2P game in the world. The amount of trolls/baddies/griefers/elitist jerks can easily be 1000 times more than MWO. But that does not take away the fact it is well balanced. Not to mention the average LoL player age and intelligence is way lower than MWO or Total War communities.

BigMekkUrDakka, on 15 June 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

have you watched all-stars or LCS? its less than 30 champions and less than 15 champions synergies that are picked at competitive play, yes in soloq you can reach almost any elo with almost any champion but in the limit its nothing marvelous

I watched All-Star LCS and every region had their own play styles and champion pools for winning--not just one kind like MWO (cough, Stalker sniping, cough). You also forgot one very important part. The pool of banned champions could easily push the number of tourney worthy champions to 50--almost half the entire champion pool. Riot also confirmed that over 50 different champions were used in Season 2 championship. That's what good balance (not perfect but still) can achieve while have over 100 different champs.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 June 2013 - 12:50 AM.

[Volthorne]

Neverfar, on 14 June 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Oh man. That's arguably what the country club gamers sitting in their AC-130s would say in the theoretical "AC-130s and Screaming Guys On The Ground" game.

My brother was playing CoD:MW2 (god that game is terrible) the other day and I watched him gun down some guy's AC-130 with just an LMG. Needless to say, the guy who had "earned" his AC-130 was pretty pissed.

[sj mausgmr]

Competitive balance is about making everything viable, through pros, cons, features, and restrictions, that give the players choices which they can then convert into a preferred style of gameplay. There should be no style that isn't counterable by something else , though team dynamics and game mode options.

Balance is an easy concept, and easily done when you keep the big picture in mind. However, the big picture is hard to grasp, if you do not understand what drives the game at its highest level. Balancing for high level play just ensures that no one path is better than the others, especially if combined in a team format. The reason most devs fail at balance is because they don't understand, and are not good enough, at their own games. I was hired to do balance for living legends for that exact reason.

Edited by sj mausgmr, 15 June 2013 - 04:59 AM.

[El Bandito]

sj mausgmr, on 15 June 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

The reason most devs fail at balance is because they don't understand, and are not good enough, at their own games.

Ouch!

[Sephlock]

El Bandito, on 15 June 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

Ouch!

For what it's worth, I don't know if that applies to these devs, but it certainly does apply to just about every shooter that I've seen aside from CoD (the few times I've ran into devs they were good).

[sj mausgmr]

El Bandito, on 15 June 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

Ouch!

They just don't have the time to commit to it, and often view the gameplay differently than a typical player because of their relationship with the product. Many devs will admit to this as well.

[IceSerpent]

MasterErrant, on 14 June 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

yes of course.
But when I play my CatC$ I do as much damage (Well 80%)on average as when I play my Heavy metal. but I maybe get one kill and four or five assists....In the HM I get more kills and fewer assists...on the "Average" I got five kills and no assists in my cat today...is was an odd showing.

It has nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with your playstyle, chosen loadouts, and how good you are at piloting each of those mechs.

Quote

you comet is llateral rather than discussing the statement I made.

What do you want to discuss? Balance is a comparison of stats for different weapons - the result is supposed to fall into a predetermined scheme.

[SweetWarmIce]

Balance in this sort of game would be having no one best weapon/Mech/build. Everything has strengths, weaknesses, counters and risk is relative to reward.

[Traigus]

El Bandito, on 15 June 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

Ouch!

It happens a lot, in most games really...The devs don't have the time, or the will to face their own game after a 10 hour day. Most are kind of medium at their own games.

Crazy rat-******* QA guys on the other hand ...

You know those races in Grand theft auto games with stupidly impossible time to win? Those are the worst times QA guys got recently.

Sometimes the PR people are really good too, from running 10,000 demos all the time.

Watch the devs' streaming casts when they 8man drop sometime, they are archived so you don't have to watch them live.

Edited by Traigus, 15 June 2013 - 08:59 PM.

[Tombstoner]

SweetWarmIce, on 15 June 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Balance in this sort of game would be having no one best weapon/Mech/build. Everything has strengths, weaknesses, counters and risk is relative to reward.

true, but i think most would agree that the best stratagy is to make as large an alpha you can, if you over heat use a cool shot and back in the action. this is very one dimentional and turns massed wepons into larger vertions of themselves. its why people call 2x ac-20's an ac-40. the game cant suport this when the majority of the mechs in the game have less than 80 in the CT. so your armor is gone in one recycle/4 seconds. 8 seconds for the heavyest armor in the game. this is also after doubeling armor values... if armor goes up even more you will never see medium lasers or anything that can;t make a big alpha of one weapon type.

to me this makes the game very unbalanced.

[Zaptruder]

In this game, balance means you're able to use a wide variety of builds and have them on relatively even competitive footing with each other.

Currently, the meta game favours builds that have high pin point damage potential.

LRMs are a nice sidegrade at lower to medium skill levels - but are less than optimal at higher skill levels.

[MustrumRidcully]

El Bandito, on 15 June 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

We are talking about the most popular F2P game in the world. The amount of trolls/baddies/griefers/elitist jerks can easily be 1000 times more than MWO. But that does not take away the fact it is well balanced. Not to mention the average LoL player age and intelligence is way lower than MWO or Total War communities.



I watched All-Star LCS and every region had their own play styles and champion pools for winning--not just one kind like MWO (cough, Stalker sniping, cough). You also forgot one very important part. The pool of banned champions could easily push the number of tourney worthy champions to 50--almost half the entire champion pool. Riot also confirmed that over 50 different champions were used in Season 2 championship. That's what good balance (not perfect but still) can achieve while have over 100 different champs.

30 Champions, 50 Champions...
30 competitive mech variants would already sound like a good start.

[Deathlike]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 June 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

30 competitive mech variants would already sound like a good start.

Do we even realistically have that?

[MustrumRidcully]

Deathlike, on 16 June 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Do we even realistically have that?

No. Especially not if you disallow double counting of similar builds across multiple mechs or mech variants. (Aka the AC/40 Jagermech build. )

[Nebuchadnezzar2]

Metagame wise i believe that in the current state we are more or less balanced. Almost in every game i can see fair share of long and short actions and i also notice that lights also play important role in the game.

What is left to be improved imho is just a few underused items while tweaking popular items should be treated carefully otherwise might disrupt balance

[Deathlike]

Nebuchadnezzar2, on 16 June 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

Metagame wise i believe that in the current state we are more or less balanced. Almost in every game i can see fair share of long and short actions and i also notice that lights also play important role in the game.

Not even close.

I just came from solo pugging, and partook in a Steiner scout lance in Conquest.

Here's the sad truth: That Steiner scout lance won (I was on the team with the Steiner lance, but I was not in an assault mech).

Edited by Deathlike, 16 June 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[Nebuchadnezzar2]

Deathlike, on 16 June 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Not even close.

I just came from solo pugging, and partook in a Steiner scout lance in Conquest.

Here's the sad truth: That Steiner scout lance won (I was on the team with the Steiner lance, but I was not in an assault mech).

There will always be the better team in a match. The question is whether both teams have equal chance to win

In my experience heavy assaults team is not particularly strong in conquest. Maybe it is your smaller mech that won your team the game. I have seen a single light left defeat 4 assaults and heavies quite frequently. Capping is also valid strategy to win.

Speaking of steiner scout lance yes they are unmatched in firepower. They will always win direct combat however this does not mean smaller mechs does not same opportunity to win. They can use their mobility to play divide and conquer, cap mechanic is there for a reason, fight in smaller groups mobility start to play more important role compared to firepower, also i often notice group of assault falter under heavy rains of lrms, there are many posibilities out there.

Edited by Nebuchadnezzar2, 16 June 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Deathlike]

Nebuchadnezzar2, on 16 June 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

There will always be the better team in a match. The question is whether both teams have equal chance to win

Most of the time, I'd say the answer is no, for various reasons. (ELO, MM, heavy set meta, poor variants of fail, etc.)

Quote

In my experience heavy assaults team is not particularly strong in congquest. Maybe it is your smaller mech that won your team the game. I have seen a single light left defeat 4 assaults and heavies quite frequently. Capping is also valid strategy to win.

I agree that Steiner scout lances are terrible on Conquest... but given that bigger maps like Alpine and Tourmaline only make this possible SOME of the time, it's still pretty bad.

I cored the final mech (Jenner) with a Cataphract-3D. You do the math. I'm not really against capping... I have always accepted this a method to win, although it needs some tweakage to be properly balanced.

Quote

Speaking of steiner scout lance yes they are unmatched in firepower. They will always win direct combat however this does not mean smaller mechs does not same opportunity to win. They can use their mobility to play divide and conquer, cap mechanic is there for a reason, fight in smaller groups mobility start to play more important role compared to firepower, also i often notice group of assault falter under heavy rains of lrms, there are many posibilities out there.

It always depends on the circumstances. The sad fact is that at this point in the meta, it's gotten heavier across the board, and until something magically changes that (not even the proposed weaksauce change with the weapon boating), it's here to stay for a while longer.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 June 2013 - 08:49 AM.