Jump to content

Why Balancing From A Bubble And Ignoring Your Community Is An Awful Idea, Pgi.


471 replies to this topic

Poll: User Satisfication Poll (596 member(s) have cast votes)

Are you happy with PGI's community interaction?

  1. Yes (133 votes [22.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.35%

  2. No (433 votes [72.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.77%

  3. Other (explain) (29 votes [4.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.87%

How do you feel MW:O is progressing?

  1. In the right direction (71 votes [11.93%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.93%

  2. More right than wrong (186 votes [31.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.26%

  3. More wrong than right (222 votes [37.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.31%

  4. In the wrong direction (105 votes [17.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.65%

  5. Other (Explain) (11 votes [1.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.85%

How balanced do you feel the mechs and weapons are?

  1. Well balanced (28 votes [4.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.71%

  2. More well balanced guns than badly balanced ones (192 votes [32.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.27%

  3. More badly balanced guns than well balanced ones (219 votes [36.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.81%

  4. Very imbalanced (144 votes [24.20%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.20%

  5. Other (Explain) (12 votes [2.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.02%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:59 PM

View Postp00k, on 23 June 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

PGI is desperately trying to take away EA's distinction as the company that killed the IP


Believe it or not, EA didn't kill the IP. EA's only MW game, MPBT3025, was destroyed by Microsoft due to their ownership of the MW franchise. The only game they ever released for MW after that was MechAssault 2, which of course, included giant enemy spiders (as in actual mechanical spiders) and an Atlas that gains superhero powers after plugging datacores into it's brain.

I think it's safe to say Microsoft killed MechWarrior. If anything, EA was a victim, too.

#42 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:27 PM

View PostFupDup, on 23 June 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:


Actually, I'd say the main issue with Lurms (at least IMO) is that AMS seems a bit too strong and too many people equip it...this makes you pretty much have to boat Lurms in crazy amounts to get stuff done. A secondary issue might be projectile speed, because Lurms seem to be relatively poop if you try them from outside of ~500-600 meters. Right now they seem more like a brawling weapon meant for medium/close ranges than "long range" like their name implies they should be.


I won't comment on the other things right now because HOLY MOTHER OF GOD WALL O' TEXT!

and what caused that AMS buff? LRM boating. This is the vicious circle that I've been talking about for a year. LRMs will simply never be balanced with heavy boating permitted and it'll get worse with clans.

#43 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:30 PM

View PostSybreed, on 23 June 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

and what caused that AMS buff? LRM boating. This is the vicious circle that I've been talking about for a year. LRMs will simply never be balanced with heavy boating permitted and it'll get worse with clans.

The AMS buff was probably more so intended to compensate for PGI's seven different LRM buffs in a single patch than it was for boating. And actually, LRMs feel pretty close to where they ought to be. My main concerns are just AMS and that they are only really effective at medium-short range (instead of long range).

#44 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:49 PM

Alright finally read the whole post. I agree with pretty much everything and I'm glad you didn't brought up the tonnage limits this time :P (kidding bro). I remember the good old days 1 year ago in CB, the devs were posting as much as us on the forums and were asking for feedback all the time.

Then founders came in and the devs became silent. I even made a thread called "where have you been devs?" in regards to their disappearance... I think that was in august or september.

IMO they need to take Riot's approach with LoL. They have dedicated community managers that communicate daily with the players and will even adress balance concerns. Heck, when something is really bad (like say, old Sejuani) the lead champ designer would post regularly asking for feedback and telling what their overall goal/approach is. For the Xerath rework, they picked 700 randoms players that played Xerath regularly and asked them what they tought of the champ.

Communication was way better before, and it seems there's been a huge rupture between PGI and the community when they shut down general discussion. Hell, we don't see IGP posting a lot anymore.

Also, they still haven't hired anyone. Judging from a twitter post from Russ (I think?) they still have 50 employees. I mean, what's taking so long to hire someone? THey said they had to double their workforce.

I'm wondering if IGP is doing well too. I'm not sure that Sins of a Dark Age and MWT are doing great, but I don't know....

#45 Jonny Taco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 706 posts
  • Locationan island

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:57 PM

Well, heat pent over crit slot restrictions involing maximum weapon size per weapon slot pretty much sealed the deal on PGI not know wtf they are talking about when it comes to their own game... All these proposed solutions will do is mask the real issue here which is an inherent problem in the fitting system.

It's painfully obvious that the TT rules do not translate at all to an action fps like this. Months and months of poor balance with minimal impact from limited changes should have highlighted this to PGI a very long time ago. I think the issue is that the dev team working on this game is simply not up to the task. Our best bet is for a more capable company to buy mwo off pgi and get this ball rolling in the right direction for a change.

Edited by lartfor, 23 June 2013 - 08:59 PM.


#46 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 23 June 2013 - 09:02 PM

View Postlartfor, on 23 June 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

Well, heat pent over crit slot restrictions involing maximum weapon size per weapon slot pretty much sealed the deal on PGI not know wtf they are talking about when it comes to their own game... All these proposed solutions will do is mask the real issue here which is an inherent problem in the fitting system.

It's painfully obvious that the TT rules do not translate at all to an action fps like this. Months and months of poor balance with minimal impact from limited changes should have highlighted this to PGI a very long time ago. I think the issue is that the dev team working on this game is simply not up to the task. Our best bet is for a more capable company to buy mwo off pgi and get this ball rolling in the right direction for a change.

you see that happening often?

I doubt this will ever happen. But if it were to happen, I wouldn't mind seeing Chris Roberts gets his hands on this thing. Still, I wish PGI will be able to fix their own stuff themselves.

#47 xengk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 2,502 posts
  • LocationKuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Posted 23 June 2013 - 09:34 PM

http://www.wizards.c...com/daily/mr11b

Not everyone on the server is a Spike(tournament player, Pro-player).
Unless the game is design and build specifically for tournament, Johnny(non-competitive casual player, frankenmech pilots) player will always out number the Spikes.

It make sense to balance the game from a Johnny's perspective, as they form the mass of the player base.

#48 The Cheese

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,558 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:15 PM

The communication isn't great right now. It's definitely less substantial than it was a few months back. A lot of the non-official posts that pop up here and there are little comments or quips that add little to the topic at hand, and a good portion of the topics that groups of people have strong opinions on are not addressed quickly enough. I don't want to say 'ignored', because most of the big issues are addressed eventually in the form of official posts, even if indirectly.

The question about the game's direction is kinda subjective. Without getting all philosophical about it, I've taken the "right direction" to mean 'A direction that I'm happy with'. My views on the topic could be (and likely are) completely different to what someone else sees as 'a direction that they're happy with', which means that the poll results for that question will likely be misconstrued or passed over by the people they're intended for. I'm the guy that voted "Other" for that one, by the way.

As for balance, I'm not satisfied with things where it's at. However, it's a hell of a juggling act that's going on there, so I feel like I can forgive them for not getting it right quickly. I'm MUCH more concerned about the real core problems, such as poor hit detection, client instability and the matchmaking being FUBAR. All of which have been ongoing for longer than any of the balance complaints.

#49 Jonny Taco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 706 posts
  • Locationan island

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:29 PM

View Postxengk, on 23 June 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:


It make sense to balance the game from a Johnny's perspective, as they form the mass of the player base.


Games need to always be balanced on "potential" as in what's possible, not what's most likely to happen.

This would require the dev's to actually know how to play their own game though...

#50 Lyoto Machida

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 5,080 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:37 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 23 June 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:


Best PGI dev evahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.


Is that a Phil Baroni reference?

#51 Kageru Ikazuchi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 1,190 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:39 PM

View Postxengk, on 23 June 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

http://www.wizards.c...com/daily/mr11b

Not everyone on the server is a Spike(tournament player, Pro-player).
Unless the game is design and build specifically for tournament, Johnny(non-competitive casual player, frankenmech pilots) player will always out number the Spikes.

It make sense to balance the game from a Johnny's perspective, as they form the mass of the player base.

I once thought this way ... but, I read an explanation somewhere comparing video games to professional sports.

Take, for example, football (soccer) ... if one player (Spike) uses certain type of shoes and can always run faster and kick the ball more accurately, pretty soon, all the pros will use those shoes. Soon, that trend trickles down to the Johnnys, changing the game for them. The guys in charge of the game want several types shoes to be useful (not necessarily equal, but ideally equally useful), because it offers everyone choices, and choices make the game more interesting and fun.

Back to the world of video games ...

When the skill level is very high, a very slight advantage can be all that is necessary to swing a game ... stack those advantages, and they become the "optimum build" (see my previous post) that Spike feels like he needs to be competitive.

When the skill level is moderate to high, Johnny sees what Spike is using, and it becomes the flavor of the month ... in order to keep choice in the game, the developers either nerf an aspect of the FOTM, or buff something else.

Spike will adapt and try to find the next optimum build, Johnny still has a fun game to play and lots of choices.

Edit: BTW ... I'm a Johnny ... sometimes frustrated by the FOTM builds, sometimes just too stubborn to change the way I play because Spike says I should ... I play to challenge myself and have fun. If there's an "insta-win" button, it's less fun unless I use it ... and then, it's less challenging ... I just want the game to be balanced so that the difference between a "good" build and an "optimum" build are so slight that it doesn't make much difference to the Johnnys.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 23 June 2013 - 10:44 PM.


#52 TOGSolid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts
  • LocationJuneau, Alaska

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:40 PM

View Postxengk, on 23 June 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

http://www.wizards.c...com/daily/mr11b

Not everyone on the server is a Spike(tournament player, Pro-player).
Unless the game is design and build specifically for tournament, Johnny(non-competitive casual player, frankenmech pilots) player will always out number the Spikes.

It make sense to balance the game from a Johnny's perspective, as they form the mass of the player base.

That is actually very incorrect. A well balanced game should be viable across all levels of play. By balancing with the pro players in mind you ensure that nothing goes out of whack when people who know what they're doing get their hands on things.By ensuring casuals have an array of easier to use weaponry (that may not be as effective) a game guarantees a healthy player base.

For instance, grenade launchers tend to be a constant thing in modern shooters due to their easy of use, however competent players avoid them because they're nowhere near as effective when you are capable of actually aiming properly and all that jazz. Grenade launchers are not bad weapons at all though, and still see completely valid usage in situations where being able to fling a grenade into a room at a weird angle is needed. There is an actual game development term for these sort of weapons, but it completely escapes me. Zero Day Weapons or some **** like that.

In MWO terms, you'd naturally see an emphasis on direct fire weaponry due to the aiming and positioning abilities of power players while newer players may enjoy things like streaks, LRMs, and lasers. That sort of split is perfectly fine as long as the non-direct fire weapons still have a perfectly valid use besides being scrub toys. I.e. a pro player may still want Streaks for their ability to rip up lights, lasers for their great consistency, or LRMs to keep people herded.

A well balanced game is accessible to new players while being actually balanced for the pro players because the hardcore audience is what keeps a game going. When they start to bail due to inherent problems with the game then a general collapse isn't far off. Casual players aren't stupid and will realize something is wrong with the game's balance even if they don't know how to articulate it or know how to fix it. Something we're seeing right now in this game. PGI needs to make fixing the current meta a priority or this game won't even make it till launch.

Edited by TOGSolid, 23 June 2013 - 10:48 PM.


#53 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:49 PM

View Postxengk, on 23 June 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

http://www.wizards.c...com/daily/mr11b

Not everyone on the server is a Spike(tournament player, Pro-player).
Unless the game is design and build specifically for tournament, Johnny(non-competitive casual player, frankenmech pilots) player will always out number the Spikes.

It make sense to balance the game from a Johnny's perspective, as they form the mass of the player base.


Let me tell you why it's a really, really bad idea to get this mindset. You want a game that's balanced well at the highest levels, because you know what that means? It's balanced, by default, well at the lowest levels.

If every weapon had a useful place in MW:O for competitive play, then it will more than have a place in less competitive play.

Going "Well we're balancing for the masses!" simply means lazy, "good enough" balancing with the exception of nerfing systems because they're hard to understand at first, like LRMs. Except the problem with doing that is if any of these people stick around to pay much, they will reach the level where it becomes a problem at which point they will likely grow frustrated.

Plus, noone likes an environment where people using the best weapons can walk all over newbies with less superior weapons, which is what happens when you have this "balance for the newbie" perspective. It trades longevity of the game to, in theory, increase introductory appeal and that's just stupid.

EDIT: Going back to the fighting game analogy, I think a lot of fighting game fans will say Third Strike is the best 2D fighter ever made. It's highly balanced for competitive level of play, with only a few dud classes and lots of room for strategy. Yet, if you introduce a casual player to the game they will likely enjoy it as well, simply because it feels balanced, even at the lowest levels.

It's why I say exclude the pug opinion, but keep them in mind. A well balanced set of weapons at the highest levels in no way going to hurt the most casual player out there in any negative way: They are simply likely to have more success with their chosen play style.

Edited by Victor Morson, 23 June 2013 - 10:52 PM.


#54 TOGSolid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts
  • LocationJuneau, Alaska

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:01 PM

Quote

EDIT: Going back to the fighting game analogy, I think a lot of fighting game fans will say Third Strike is the best 2D fighter ever made. It's highly balanced for competitive level of play, with only a few dud classes and lots of room for strategy. Yet, if you introduce a casual player to the game they will likely enjoy it as well, simply because it feels balanced, even at the lowest levels.

Offtopic: 3rd Strike is really ******** broken and not good for analogy purposes. You basically have Chun and Yun occupying ultra-giga SSS tier with a few Ken players splashed in for giggles.

EDIT: Actually, that's what MWO is right now. 3rd Strike with mechs. You have a couple top tier weapons, a few guys running Large Lasers just to do something different and everything else can go **** itself.

Edited by TOGSolid, 23 June 2013 - 11:03 PM.


#55 I am

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:03 PM

You wanted a game that appealed to a lot of people, you got a game that appealed to min/max power gamers who happen to also like the MW ip. Everyone else didn't want to l2play versus 4 mans of op cheese. MWO is ideal for this type of player. May they remain very loyal, and generous with their wallets.

#56 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:03 PM

One thing makes me wonder.... how do you know that you have achieved balance?
What is balance?
Is it balance to throw with 4 mechs >40dmg at a advancing lance of enemy assaults and beeing capable to kill them in 30secs?
How do you really want to balance a 6 PPC Stalker vs a LRM 60 Stalker vs a Quickdraw with Medium Laser?

To questioning balance needs at first the answer what is balance?

#57 Lord de Seis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • LocationEdmonton Alberta, Canada

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:04 PM

I think most of the weapons are reasonably balanced in the game, but PPC's are so overpowered they can't compete.

#58 TOGSolid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts
  • LocationJuneau, Alaska

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:09 PM

View PostI am, on 23 June 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

You wanted a game that appealed to a lot of people, you got a game that appealed to min/max power gamers who happen to also like the MW ip. Everyone else didn't want to l2play versus 4 mans of op cheese. MWO is ideal for this type of player. May they remain very loyal, and generous with their wallets.

Not in the slightest. You want to know why eight mans are a ghost town? Because of the ******** everyone else is dealing with right now in pug matches. It took a while for that meta to bleed over but when it did, it did with a vengeance. As one of those guys who would love to do competitive 8 mans, I am not happy at all with the state of the game either. It's boring, it's stale, and it has nothing to do with any real level of skill. Point and click stupid **** is not fun for anyone except elitist sadists that think everyone else being mad about it is funny.

Quote

I think most of the weapons are reasonably balanced in the game, but PPC's are so overpowered they can't compete.


It'll only get worse once Clan weapons roll in. If you think PPCs are bad, wait until Clan Ultra AC/20s show up. They weigh as much as an AC/10 and with the current mechanics will core you instantly. Or hell, even just Clan PPCs that weigh less, take less room, do 15 damage instead of 10 all for the same heat as the current ER PPC. PGI's current track record now is scary, but with Clan weapons? Yeah, we're in serious trouble.

Edited by TOGSolid, 23 June 2013 - 11:13 PM.


#59 xengk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 2,502 posts
  • LocationKuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:13 PM

View Postlartfor, on 23 June 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:


Games need to always be balanced on "potential" as in what's possible, not what's most likely to happen.

This would require the dev's to actually know how to play their own game though...

Gaming is a business, just like any other real world business.
It will always be balance based on Demand and Profits.

The question is always; cater to a small group of whale who spend big but will eventually quit the game later, or nick and dime a larger renewable player base although they individually have shorter retention period.
Of course getting the best of both world would be ideal, but very few developer ever found that golden ratio.

#60 I am

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:15 PM

View PostTOGSolid, on 23 June 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

Not in the slightest. You want to know why eight mans are a ghost town? Because of the ******** everyone else is dealing with right now in pug matches. It took a while for that meta to bleed over but when it did, it did with a vengeance. As one of those guys who would love to do competitive 8 mans, I am not happy at all with the state of the game either. It's boring, it's stale, and it has nothing to do with any real level of skill. Point and click stupid **** is not fun for anyone except elitist sadists that think everyone else being mad about it is funny.






If you don't want mwo to be point and click, then what should it be? What type of weapons should define who is skilled in an fps? If not the aimed ones then the auto-aimed ones? LRMs and streaks? The masses, would hate that. What's fun in a way that attracts people outside of those already playing. That's what they should be asking and implementing. Once you've made a bad first impression with the gaming community at large, how do you recover. That's the second question they should be asking.

Edited by I am, 23 June 2013 - 11:17 PM.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users