105 replies to this topic

[Wolftrot]

I'm not an avid MechWarrior gamer, as in I've only played a few MechWarrior games and I know nothing on the lore, but I'm not a new gamer either and I have been playing simulation, strategy and shooter games all my life. I've been playing this game for about two months now and seldom do I even bother posting in forums and griping about my issues with a particular game, especially this one because my hope are held high.

However after being squished numerous times in pug games by people who run "cheese" builds as they are called I began to wonder that there might be a little balance issue with the game. Considering more often than not the Stalker you will see has 4 PPC or 3 and a gauss, when the Highlander you are about to target is packing 3 PPC's and a gauss, when the Jager you are about to blast is carrying 2 AC20s and 2 ML's. More often than not, with the various varients of these builds and all the hardpoints they offer - the people who play them tend to prefer a limited setup - in a game full of choices - there is no choice. MechWarrior was never about how much tonnage you can fit into a lance or how much damage your alpha strike can deal - it was about strategy, piloting and well balanced mechs, capable of much more than "point, shoot, point shoot". If I wanted that I'd go back to CoD.

Now I'm at a loss. The game seems broken and this has become even clearer to me since this new challenge weekend has arose. Cheese builds have come out of the wood-works to score the most points- hasn't anyone else noticed? Much like how a few weeks ago LRMS were buffed and suddenly LRM boating became the flavor of the week. This I call an "expoit", when people take an exceeding cheap and overlooked game imbalance and use it to their advantage. Most people will try and find the "best" option in a game, that's natural - but in this case the best option is an exploit. I myself do not like exploits, I prefer to play a game "the way it's meant to be played" - I'm one in a few and I'm seeing an increasing amount of others use this.

Now, before you reply to this defending your cheese build, explaining why the game mechanics are the way they are, personally attacking the poster on sucking at a game or attempt at rationalizing the validity of your build - think before you post. You know what you do, and you know how easy the build makes the game. If this is the direction MWO is taking, ignoring the obvious exploits and people abusing these exploits - sooner or later all MWO will be is exploits. Cheese build vs cheese build - your easy-mode will be gone and the game will get boring for many as it is for me. This needs to be addressed.

[Raso]

The problem is, ultimately, there is little reason to utilize other weapon systems. For all of the draw backs of using an AC40 Jager or Cat or a PPC/Gauss boat the benefits are far greater. And if you do field other weapon systems like medium lasers, SRMs, LRMs, large lasers, AC5s, AC10s or what have you their pros and cons are negated by the tremendous benefits of other weapon systems. If you are not bringing a, AC40/Guss Jager, AC40/Gauss Cat or some other PPC/Gauss boat you are deliberately gimping yourself.

What needs to be done is other weapon systems need to be given more value. Be it from buffs, nerfs or a rework of some overarching mechanic other weapon systems need to be given a way to shine. Listen up PGI, this is what you've got to do.

Pulse lasers need to be given a way to shine in close range. I propose they have their cool downs and heat per shot reduced so that they dish out more DPS and heat per second than a beam laser. You should fear an assault mounting pulse lasers as it would have the extra armor to lay into you with awesome DPS.

The AC10 and AC20 need a pass. Right now you can deal more damage with an AC20 at range than an AC10. That is utterly messed up. Reduce the AC20's range and bullet speed, increase the AC10's rate of fire and range and take it's heat down just a tad so it has roughly the same heat per second it does now. This way, an AC20 Jager would fear an AC10 Jager at ranges past 500m, not the other way around.

SRMs need more damage. It's not rocket science, just increase their damage a little bit more.

The LBX10 needs a massive revamp. Stop with the whole crit sneaking deal because a crit damage of each pellet is utter junk. Boost damage per pellet to 1.3 each, double the tightness of it's choke and give it increased damage and impulse inside of 120m so that at 0m it deals 1.8 damage per pellet. There is no reason why a single SRM should ever out damage this gun. Ever.

Decrease the rate of fire on PPCs by another second and make sure that we adjust the heat to ensure it has the same HPS it did before it's rate of fire was decreased about a month ago. Further decrease the rate of fire of ERPPCs by an additional half second (on top of the first nerf) so that in a brawl they are cumbersome to use. Increase the bullet speed of the ERPPCs to give them an added advantage at range so they are still attractive in the capacity of a sniper weapon.

Gauss rifles could maybe use a slight decrease to their rate of fire. Something should be done to make the AC10 an atractive alternative to the Gauss and I feel that an increased RoF (as stated above) will make the weapon come into it's own.

I don't use LRMs very often and really don't have as big an issue with them as others do, so I will refrain from commenting on them.

Increase the duration of NARC and allow it to penetrate ECM (if it already doesn't. Frankly, I don't know if it does already because who the heck uses NARCs?). Make it so that so long as a missile was fired at a NARCed target with a lock if that lock is lost from the missile platform the missiles continue to track, though at reduced accuracy and impact spread (if the launcher had Artemis that bonus would also no longer apply).

Those are my suggestions. Take them with a grain of salt, but that is my two cents.

[Soy]

My only sideboard so far from the Spring tourny [pre JJ change] to this tourny [post JJ change] in 3D has been to shuffle in a quad ppc into my rotation instead of just a triple ppc.

There is so much alpha going around that it's very important to get any extra oomph for kill shots. Other things I've mulled over is using a single ML for tagging lights easily that are running around without focusing alphas on them. Everything is alphas.

But you gotta grit your teeth and say, **** it, for the next X days I'm gonna ball out on noobs.

I think it suck for players that aren't opted in and just running around getting mixed up in all this, and I also think it's sometimes annoying having to fight groups and other stacked teams while doing the challenge, so. Those are some of my thoughts.

edit - GOTTA GO ALL LEBRON UP IN THIS *****

Edited by Soy, 22 June 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

"All I see is cheese builds"

moments later...

"This game might get to a point where everyone will run cheese builds."

lol
Cheese=it killed you. PPC boats are overpowered, yes. Brawlers are underpowered, yes. The game is not perfectly balanced, but trying to put down those in the culture of self-improvement and optimization is merely to enforce the culture of whining and begging for balance changes. Don't get upset that people run the best builds; this is a competitive game and this weekend people are giving it their all. Instead, be upset that there are easy balance fixes that PGI isn't undertaking.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 22 June 2013 - 07:49 PM.

[FunkyFritter]

Using a good build is neither cheese nor an exploit. The goal of every competitive player is to figure out what maximizes their chances of winning within the confines of the game, minimizing the disparity between the optimal and average setups is PGI's responsibility.

Many people enjoy playing to win. When that leads to a stagnant metagame blame the game, not the player.

Edited by FunkyFritter, 22 June 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[LordBraxton]

I think he IS blaming the game

right now its 35+ pinpoint alpha or ****

it has been 3 months now

[aniviron]

Raso, on 22 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

The problem is, ultimately, there is little reason to utilize other weapon systems. For all of the draw backs of using an AC40 Jager or Cat or a PPC/Gauss boat the benefits are far greater. And if you do field other weapon systems like medium lasers, SRMs, LRMs, large lasers, AC5s, AC10s or what have you their pros and cons are negated by the tremendous benefits of other weapon systems. If you are not bringing a, AC40/Guss Jager, AC40/Gauss Cat or some other PPC/Gauss boat you are deliberately gimping yourself.

What needs to be done is other weapon systems need to be given more value. Be it from buffs, nerfs or a rework of some overarching mechanic other weapon systems need to be given a way to shine. Listen up PGI, this is what you've got to do.

Pulse lasers need to be given a way to shine in close range. I propose they have their cool downs and heat per shot reduced so that they dish out more DPS and heat per second than a beam laser. You should fear an assault mounting pulse lasers as it would have the extra armor to lay into you with awesome DPS.

The AC10 and AC20 need a pass. Right now you can deal more damage with an AC20 at range than an AC10. That is utterly messed up. Reduce the AC20's range and bullet speed, increase the AC10's rate of fire and range and take it's heat down just a tad so it has roughly the same heat per second it does now. This way, an AC20 Jager would fear an AC10 Jager at ranges past 500m, not the other way around.

SRMs need more damage. It's not rocket science, just increase their damage a little bit more.

The LBX10 needs a massive revamp. Stop with the whole crit sneaking deal because a crit damage of each pellet is utter junk. Boost damage per pellet to 1.3 each, double the tightness of it's choke and give it increased damage and impulse inside of 120m so that at 0m it deals 1.8 damage per pellet. There is no reason why a single SRM should ever out damage this gun. Ever.

Decrease the rate of fire on PPCs by another second and make sure that we adjust the heat to ensure it has the same HPS it did before it's rate of fire was decreased about a month ago. Further decrease the rate of fire of ERPPCs by an additional half second (on top of the first nerf) so that in a brawl they are cumbersome to use. Increase the bullet speed of the ERPPCs to give them an added advantage at range so they are still attractive in the capacity of a sniper weapon.

Gauss rifles could maybe use a slight decrease to their rate of fire. Something should be done to make the AC10 an atractive alternative to the Gauss and I feel that an increased RoF (as stated above) will make the weapon come into it's own.

I don't use LRMs very often and really don't have as big an issue with them as others do, so I will refrain from commenting on them.

Increase the duration of NARC and allow it to penetrate ECM (if it already doesn't. Frankly, I don't know if it does already because who the heck uses NARCs?). Make it so that so long as a missile was fired at a NARCed target with a lock if that lock is lost from the missile platform the missiles continue to track, though at reduced accuracy and impact spread (if the launcher had Artemis that bonus would also no longer apply).

Those are my suggestions. Take them with a grain of salt, but that is my two cents.

All excellent suggestions; the only one I take any issue with at all actually is the PPC refire rate, just because it impacts builds that use 1-3 PPCs heavily but doesn't do much to 4+ PPC builds. But really, that's just quibbling, and these would fix a huge amount of game balance issues between them, and the post deserves to be quoted to make sure everyone sees it.

Also,

Raso, on 22 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

SRMs need more damage. It's not rocket science, just increase their damage a little bit more.

This is the best thing I have seen on the forums this week.

[Raso]

PEEFsmash, on 22 June 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

The game is not perfectly balanced, but trying to put down those in the culture of self-improvement and optimization is merely to enforce the culture of whining and begging for balance changes.

That is, with out a doubt, the single largest pile of horse crap I have ever read on the internet. That's like something I would expect Fox News to say if they commented on MWO's balance issues. The two side are not at odds with one and other and the two sides should never be at odds with one and other. Everyone knows that the game is in a currently unbalanced state, everyone knows that we all want to use the best builds out there but you can use the best builds out there, admit they are OP and cry for a fix and better balance at the same time (and you should).

No one benefits from a lack of balance. Even the people currently exploiting the current meta to the fullest will eventually fall victim to low sever populations, boredom and game stagnation.

But to admit in one breath that the game is currently unbalanced then attack anyone who brings upt that fact as being cry babies? Bonkers. Utter bonkers. There is something seriously wrong with this community. No one things you're hot stuff because you are getting by despite poor balance. Doing well in a poorly balanced game doesn't make you better because you are so very smart and figured out how to take advantage of that poor balance and there is nothing wrong with pointing out that the game is poorly balanced and it does not make you less of a player or man in admitting things are messed up. No extra points are awarded for subservience to status quo. The only way that a developer can know things are out of whack is if the community says so and things are out of whack. Every time some self proclaimed, high Elo, god-pilot starts telling people to stop complaining about how the game is unbalanced and learn to live (stating that the game should be balanced to high tier play and everyone below them should just shut up already) they are doing NOTHING to help the game. Heck I've yet to see one of these gods who walk among us contribute anything to a discussion other than to tell everyone to stop crying so if that's the infinite wisdom which you people have to share with us then, frankly, I'd rather listen to people rant on the forums and post some long winded thesis on why they think X should work more like Y or Mechanic B should be expanded and Mechanic A should be removed. At least those people are contributing something.

aniviron, on 22 June 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

This is the best thing I have seen on the forums this week.

See what I did there?

Edited by Raso, 22 June 2013 - 08:08 PM.

[DocBach]

Alpha strikes need to have their weapons hit in different places. You want precision? Shoot a single weapon - want brute force? Shoot a group, but don't expect five 120mm cannons fired from a walking platform to be able to shoot sub-minute accuracy a kilometer out, even in the future. Alpha strikes should be a last resort, not the standard attack.

[PEEFsmash]

DocBach, on 22 June 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

Alpha strikes need to have their weapons hit in different places. You want precision? Shoot a single weapon - want brute force? Shoot a group, but don't expect five 120mm cannons fired from a walking platform to be able to shoot sub-minute accuracy a kilometer out, even in the future. Alpha strikes should be a last resort, not the standard attack.

There are better ways to balance weapons than "make them go where I didn't aim."

[DocBach]

PEEFsmash, on 22 June 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

There are better ways to balance weapons than "make them go where I didn't aim."

We've had this conversation before - I'm not advocating a randomized cone of fire, I'm in the thought that the convergence for different locations should be different points of the reticle, rather than the center of the reticle, and the reticle expands and contracts based on combat conditions. The player would have a clear reference where his weapons would fire, and he would have control of the rate/extent his convergence would tighten.

[Raso]

PEEFsmash, on 22 June 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

There are better ways to balance weapons than "make them go where I didn't aim."

Like?

[PEEFsmash]

Raso, on 22 June 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Like?

Projectile speed, projectile drop, higher heat, lower damage, lower fire rate, more critical slots, more tonnage, lower weapon health, change hitbox sizes of the "naughty" mechs, etc.

More importantly, though, is the "relative nerf" where weapons that are overpowered are left largely as they are, and other weapons/chassis that don't carry that weapon are buffed. The best possible PPC nerf would be a brawling buff. Bring up SRM damage to 2.3-2.5 per missile so brawlers can tonnage-effectively take out snipers once they close the distance, and help them close the distance with higher speed for mediums and lights.

[Raso]

PEEFsmash, on 22 June 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Projectile speed, projectile drop, higher heat, lower damage, lower fire rate, more critical slots, more tonnage, lower weapon health, change hitbox sizes of the "naughty" mechs, etc.

More importantly, though, is the "relative nerf" where weapons that are overpowered are left largely as they are, and other weapons/chassis that don't carry that weapon are buffed. The best possible PPC nerf would be a brawling buff. Bring up SRM damage to 2.3-2.5 per missile so brawlers can tonnage-effectively take out snipers once they close the distance, and help them close the distance with higher speed for mediums and lights.

Wow, you can contribute to a discussion! Bravo! You also posted some pretty good ideas, way to go! Maybe when you rebuttal people rather than attacking them for being suck players or needing to learn to aim you should include some of your own ideas into the argument. It makes you come off as less of an elitist snob when you do that. I mean, I'm sure you're really elite, too, but that's no reason to be a snob about it!

See, I think that making brawling more viable is also the way to go. Very minor passes with the PPCs or Gauss (if any) but mostly a boost to other weapons. The problem is, though, how do you encourage people to use multiple weapon systems? I think we need to find a way to encourage people to add multiple weapon systems rather than filling every extra ton with DHSs. I feel we need to find a way to reward people more for using up most of their weapon slots and less for loading up with additional heat sinks. Like, if it made more sense to equip weapons usable at various ranges rather than 18 heat sinks.

[Blackadder]

first off please stop using he words exploit and abuse. Players who min/max currently in no way abuse or exploit there way to victory. these players are doing everything that the game allows them to within the current ruleset. The players who refuse to min max, are frankly worse because they complain about losing the match because they refuse to adapt to the rules of the game. It would be the same thing as me taking a bunch of garden tools & softballs to golf with,then complaining about the guy i am playing with because he actually brought the proper golf clubs and resources for the game, and kicked my ***.

Second off, please stop using the word cheese when talking about mech builds, it only reduces your opinion and argument further, while making you sound like a sore loser. there are zero cheese builds in the game, and there never have been. Just people who refuse to look at the current reality of the game that PGI has elected to create, and which has gone through multiple variations which has made at some point in time, almost every weapon in the game has been the dominant one over the course of the development cycle. Sadly, the majority of posts and complaints on this forum, have less to do with creating a healthy game, and more about player X being upset that his preferred weapon of choice is no longer as powerful as it was, and hes going to let the whole world know until something happens.

As far as your post goes, the majority of my clan and people i play with are not happy with the game, however we also recognize that the most we can do is give our feedback to PGI and hope they change it. This is the case with a large portion of the better players, which i am not in the same catagory as, because i really do not care to invest as much time in MWO as i used to. Raso, in general has described the issue, and while i do not think his solutions are effective, the fact remains that MWO has always had this issue, its never been about specific weapons systems, and it never will be, and until people realize that and stop complaining about Poptarts, or ppc's or LRMs, or Stalkers or whatever the latest rant of the week is they will never enjoy the game, unless its their weapon of choice that is the OP one for the week or month or quarter.

Edited by Blackadder, 22 June 2013 - 09:02 PM.

[Dreamslave]

The day I can stop using ppc's and ac20's to remain competitive outside of 8 mans is the day I change my decision to never spend money on this "game" again.

Blackadder, on 22 June 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

first off please stop using he words exploit and abuse. Players who min/max currently in no way abuse or exploit there way to victory. these players are doing everything that the game allows them to within the current ruleset. The players who refuse to min max, are frankly worse because they complain about losing the match because they refuse to adapt to the rules of the game. It would be the same thing as me taking a bunch of garden tools & softballs to golf with,then complaining about the guy i am playing with because he actually brought the proper golf clubs and resources for the game, and kicked my ***.

Second off, please stop using the word cheese when talking about mech builds, it only reduces your opinion and argument further, while making you sound like a sore loser. there are zero cheese builds in the game, and there never have been. Just people who refuse to look at the current reality of the game that PGI has elected to create, and which has gone through multiple variations which has made at some point in time, almost every weapon in the game has been the dominant one over the course of the development cycle. Sadly, the majority of posts and complaints on this forum, have less to do with creating a healthy game, and more about player X being upset that his preferred weapon of choice is no longer as powerful as it was, and hes going to let the whole world know until something happens.

As far as your post goes, the majority of my clan and people i play with are not happy with the game, however we also recognize that the most we can do is give our feedback to PGI and hope they change it. This is the case with a large portion of the better players, which i am not in the same catagory as, because i really do not care to invest as much time in MWO as i used to. Raso, in general has described the issue, and while i do not think his solutions are effective, the fact remains that MWO has always had this issue, its never been about specific weapons systems, and it never will be, and until people realize that and stop complaining about Poptarts, or ppc's or LRMs, or Stalkers or whatever the latest rant of the week is they will never enjoy the game, unless its their weapon of choice that is the OP one for the week or month or quarter.

Minus the part where you are completely and utterly incorrect, this was a good post. Please refrain from posting ever again.

[Raso]

Blackadder, on 22 June 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

Raso, in general has described the issue, and while i do not think his solutions are effective, the fact remains that MWO has always had this issue, its never been about specific weapons systems, and it never will be, and until people realize that and stop complaining about Poptarts, or ppc's or LRMs, or Stalkers or whatever the latest rant of the week is they will never enjoy the game, unless its their weapon of choice that is the OP one for the week or month or quarter.

I try to come up with my balance ideas by taking into account not just the weapon but why some one would choose a weapon over it. I believe that is the key. You need to ask "why use this weapon over that weapon?" and if there is no good reason for to use it than it needs something to make it a more attractive weapon. Weapons all need suficient pros and cons and I feel that right now there are a few weapons that have a few too many pros that has made other weapons less useful. I'm all ears for other ideas, however.

I've often thrown around the idea of a a reduced heat cap and faster heat dissipation as an idea. With heat sinks not affecting heat cap you would reward the use of weapons of multiple ranges rather than extra heat sinks. This would reduce the effectiveness of boating by reducing the over all number of weapons able to be fired at any given time.

I'm also for the idea of increased internal hit points along with slightly increased critical chances. This would reward people who use multiple weapons as they would have increased redundancy.

[PEEFsmash]

Raso, on 22 June 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Wow, you can contribute to a discussion! Bravo! You also posted some pretty good ideas, way to go! Maybe when you rebuttal people rather than attacking them for being suck players or needing to learn to aim you should include some of your own ideas into the argument. It makes you come off as less of an elitist snob when you do that. I mean, I'm sure you're really elite, too, but that's no reason to be a snob about it!

The reason I get so frustrated with most balance comments is because they come from a place that isn't relevant to balance discussion. I genuinely think games should be balanced at the highest level, as in, a low level player might have a balance complaint, but PGI/whoever should always be able to point at a video or a tournament match and say "There. That's how you defeat that weapon/strategy." I don't think that anyone denies that many many apparent balance problems are problems with player skill. This is why I try to encourage self-improvement over whining. When a problem can be fixed with better play, then it should be fixed that way. It should not be fixed by complaining. When a problem cannot be fixed via better play, there is a serious problem.

Does this make me an elitist? If I wasn't good I would still feel this way. I feel this way about games that I am not as good at. I felt this way about MWO back when I was awful and lost 180 of my first 200 games. All while that was happening I knew that there was something wrong with ME. Why were others winning while I was losing? Was it because PPCs? Was it because LRMs? Was it because lights? No. I was losing because I was new, I was bad, I had no idea what was going on, I couldn't control my mech. When I got owned by LRMs or lights or PPCs or whatever, the first thing out of my mouth was, "So in that situation...how do I come out on top? How can I win? How can I improve my team's chances of winning?" I reached out to top players directly for help, and I received it. I improved and improved over a month or two to the point where I could really start to see what problems were solvable via excellent play, and what problems were not. Is it possible that some issues that I now deem imbalance might be solvable via EVEN BETTER play? Yes, it is possible, and I wait to be educated about those things. However, personal in-game testimony from players who play at a low-level will never be relevant to balance discussion, just as any balance complaints that I could have made when I was bad were not relevant. Until one plays at a high level, one does not know what is imbalanced and what is a result of one's own inability to aim/position/be aware/know what to do. (Of course, ANYONE can make a good argument given hard facts...weapons doing too much damage, glitches, unintended bugs, etc. You don't have to be good at this game whatsoever to point out things like that. What I am referring to is low-level player testimony from in-game experience, such as, "lights are too powerful because I cannot hit them when they circle strafe." This sort of thing makes up 99% of balance discussion right now, but if it comes from the experience of a low-level player, it is irrelevant to balance discussion).

Does this make me an elitist? No, but it places a burden on good players to help others improve, and because of that, my inbox is always open to anyone who wants help.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 22 June 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[Raso]

PEEFsmash, on 22 June 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

[/size]

The reason I get so frustrated with most balance comments is because they come from a place that isn't relevant to balance discussion. I genuinely think games should be balanced at the highest level, as in, a low level player might have a balance complaint, but PGI/whoever should always be able to point at a video or a tournament match and say "There. That's how you defeat that weapon/strategy." I don't think that anyone denies that many many apparent balance problems are problems with player skill. This is why I try to encourage self-improvement over whining. When a problem can be fixed with better play, then it should be fixed that way. It should not be fixed by complaining. When a problem cannot be fixed via better play, there is a serious problem.

Does this make me an elitist? If I wasn't good I would still feel this way. I feel this way about games that I am not as good at. I felt this way about MWO back when I was awful and lost 180 of my first 200 games. All while that was happening I knew that there was something wrong with ME. Why were others winning while I was losing? Was it because PPCs? Was it because LRMs? Was it because lights? No. I was losing because I was new, I was bad, I had no idea what was going on, I couldn't control my mech. When I got owned by LRMs or lights or PPCs or whatever, the first thing out of my mouth was, "So in that situation...how do I come out on top? How can I win? How can I improve my team's chances of winning?" I reached out to top players directly for help, and I received it. I improved and improved over a month or two to the point where I could really start to see what problems were solvable via excellent play, and what problems were not. Is it possible that some issues that I now deem imbalance might be solvable via EVEN BETTER play? Yes, it is possible, and I wait to be educated about those things. However, testimony from players who play at a low-level will never be relevant, just as any balance complaints that I could have made when I was bad were not relevant. Until one plays at a high level, one does not know what is imbalanced and what is a result of one's own inability to aim/position/be aware/know what to do.

Does this make me an elitist? No, but it places a burden on good players to help others improve, and because of that, my inbox is always open to anyone who wants help.

The thing about balance isn't that you can or can not counter an action it's about the effort needed to preform that action vs counter that action weighted against risk vs reward. If a single strategy requires minimal effort to execute and has minimal down sides and you have relatively few counters to that strategy chances are it is not balanced properly. Bonus points if there are currently very few other viable strategies. Just because you can counter something does not mean it isn't OP.

Now it's good to want toy better yourself, and I don't think that there is a gamer out there who doesn't want to get better and does not try to get better. I find, however, that the people who are most detrimental to a game and it's balance discussions are often the most competitive people and I'll tell you why. Skill.

When every anything problem with a game's balance is brought up their first reaction is almost always that the player does not know how to play. Their competitive nature means that they hold skill above all, that they and they alone are the reason for every result of every action. It's the whole "self made man" trope, but with competitions, the irrational refusal to accept that out side factors have an effect on the out come of any given occurrence. They are so competitive that if a current tactic that is FTW it is hard to convince them that the problem is the tactic. They would rather think that thousands of players simple are unskilled before admitting that a current tactic is out of whack because to do so would admit that something other than their own skill played a HUGE role in getting to where they are (and the worst thing you can do to a person like that is insinuate that they didn't "earn" their current status but rather they were guided there by a helping hand)

To be completely honest, it's not always much different among the lower skilled brackets. At the other extreme is people who refuse to admit that they are bad and blame their loss on everything else. My point being this: In my experience people who are extremely competitive often have just as clouded views of what is and is not wrong with a game as those who are unskilled and will not or can not admit it. Both ends of the spectrum are often far from objective in their assessments of issues.

As an average player who is committed to getting better this is my assessment of things. Both sides are off their rockers, both sides are flawed in how they view their approach to balance and both sides have their own vested interests in getting their way over the other side's.

Both sides are nuts, balance to the average Joe.

[PEEFsmash]

Good players didn't get there by riding overpowered builds.

Let's take Soy for example. His main mech is a PPC Cataphract. He got there because of his OP build right? Nope. Soy has something like a 2:1 win ratio in top Elo when solo pugging in his small pulse-laser Awesome (this is BEFORE the small pulse buff). Soy is a great player regardless of the build.

Right before the LRM buff when everyone thought LRMs were worthless, my unit took a team full of nothing but LRM boats and tag lights to the 8man que and went undefeated for 2 hours straight, many of those matches against known competitive units.

Top players will take an "average" build, a relatively poor build, it doesn't matter, and still carry games due to superior mechanics, positioning, knowledge of what to do, etc. To assume that top players rode good builds, or that good builds had "a lot to do with it" is silly. Top players make the good builds good. They bring them to light, and others fail. Why did Koreanese win the Medium and Heavy brackets every single day during the Spring Clean Em Up event, even though he made all of his builds public and EVERYONE started copying him? Why did they come no closer to success? Because Koreanese is a great player, not because his build is carrying him. His builds didn't carry anyone else to his heights.

So the question becomes...why do top players use really good builds? The answer is to eek out every bit of advantage they can get, and great builds do help you eek out that tiny advantage. When playing against other top players (in tournaments or leaderboard events) you can't give yourself a disadvantage out of some misplaced sense of honor. Maybe the difference will be a few points of damage, but that difference is too important to pass up.

However, top players will run circles around low-level players with the same builds as the low-level players, and low-level players will never be good just because someone put a top competitive build in their hands.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 22 June 2013 - 10:17 PM.