132 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

Ralgas, on 29 June 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

...i have a problem with suggestions like these some make that a tiny portion at the top dictate to everyone when their ideals and perspective can be almost as unrealistic as pgi's when not applied to their peers.

I'm not suggesting they build the entire game around competitive players.

I'm stating as fact that a well-balanced armament system, and other mechanics (ECM/BAP/Seismic/etc) which produce a variety of useful mechs and tactics for top, competitive players will automatically make the average- and below-average players have a better experience, too.

Why?

• If both sniping and brawling are viable, then people can be useful in brawlers, and enjoy that play-style.
  
• If scouting has more team-benefit and rewards, players who wish to scout will enjoy themselves more
  
• It defending has more team-benefit and rewards, players who wish to defend ...
  
• get the idea?

If variety works for competitive players at the top of the ELO system, then it will work for EVERYONE.

Also it's ******* ridiculous that "new" players actually have a higher median and average ELO than experienced, 50+ game players. Know why they do? First, because new player ELO was too high (and still is.) Second, because relatively few players sit on MW:O all day long with their PPC mechs and shred the larger number of average- and below-average players.

Finally, there are clearly a few people posting in this thread who don't understand ELO. Most players will ALWAYS gravitate toward the middle, because the system "rewards" you (boosts your ELO rank) more when you defeat high-ranked players, then when you defeat crappy ones. Don't look at that graph and think, oh, most players must not be doing the PPC meta or there would be taller lines near the right. That is incorrect. The distribution of players-to-ranking is always going to favor the middle values; it's a design element of the system.

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

White Knights, will often say PGI knows best as PGI has the numbers, having the numbers is only half the equation in balancing if you don't understand what the numbers are actually showing you, and what they actually mean.

PGI claim to have many competitive gamers on their staff, well it certainly does not feel or look like it.
Because otherwise, Garth would understand why people play "boring" PPC boats, or someone in the office could explain to him why, and the mindset of why.

They do NOT make balance decisions based on numbers. If they did, they would realize several obvious things:

• pulse lasers are trash, and need a buff; yet they just got a nerf
  
• MGs are trash even after a 150% buff, after PGI claimed they were fine and doubling their damage (100% buff) would be "devastating" (their word)
  
• SRMs need attention more than any other type of weapon
  
• numerous mech-variants are worthless (SDR-5K, CDA-3C, etc.)
  
• too many assault games, on more maps than just Alpine, are won by base capture with minimal combat
  
• conquest resource cap needs increase on most maps
  
• rewards for defense are usually 0 unless your team loses, in which case, you get less reward anyway (no victory)
  
• Awesome is terrible. Dragon is terrible. why? hitboxes, duh!

I doubt PGI has competitive FPS gamers on their staff. There are many kinds of games and gamers. Anyway, they obviously don't go home from work and solo-play MW:O in the PUG queue for an hour or two every day. If they did, PPCs would be fixed by now.

[Steel Will]

jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

If variety works for competitive players at the top of the ELO system, then it will work for EVERYONE.

That. Over and over again, that.

[East Indy]

First, "feed the poor" naivete drives me batty, too, because do-gooders misunderstand causes of deprivation, and even exacerbate them. Second, agreed — competitive games must be ruthlessly balanced. There's a reason why Wizards of the Coast bans cards from official play immediately after release.

As for the disconnect, I don't know if it's idealism.

Balance is just the nature of the problem. In order to last, a game must prevent attempts by players to manipulate and subvert its parts to win regularly and singularly in a way that's counter to its spirit. A complex, ever-expanding game generates a lot of emergent behavior, making it that much more difficult to keep "waterproof."

Meanwhile, developers focus on the future of a game in a way that may surprise players, especially when a communicative staff regularly talks about and addresses issues in the live version. They design with the intention of precluding most imbalances, spending the least amount of time on adjustments after release. At the same time, I suspect that of the two basic creative personalities — the "originator," or crazy idea guy; and the "executor," or indefatigable craftsman — core systems designers are mostly of the first type, so they tend to want to move on to the next brainstorm or concoction instead of revisiting or even reinventing their previous work.

It's probably exhausting, especially with the challenge of bringing concepts to fruition in the first place, and Piranha may just be a little behind on the pacing.

[MaddMaxx]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

It's cheese to you and others, because you play by invisible rules and a code of honor that does not exist, anyone that does not adopt your rules and approach to the game are playing "cheese" builds and "gaming" elo.

Instead what they are actually doing, is playing to win, and taking what gives them the best opportunity to do that.

So if that is true then there is no FIX ever. Those who "play to win" will use and abuse whatever is available until it gets to a point where even they say the game has no variety, despite it was them that caused it, by being only "FOTM to Win" players...

You want Balance? Give everyone just the Medium Laser to use and see how long it takes before "all the high ELO" players are driving 9 ML Hunchies and then start bitching about how boring that is.

CW, hopefully, will cull those FOTM players from the herd as they will have to conform to "The Team" play mechanics or get their "Wins" in the super fun Pug play field.

That will sort out those who can actually deal with a mixed team and load-out.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 29 June 2013 - 06:00 AM.

[The Cheese]

MaddMaxx, on 29 June 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

So if that is true then there is no FIX ever. Those who "play to win" will use and abuse whatever is available until it gets to a point where even they say the game has no variety, despite it was them that caused it, by being only "FOTM to Win" players...

Such is life in competitive gaming.

There will always be a FOTM. It's the job of the devs to make sure that no particular FOTM goes unchecked for too long. It's the job of the devs, not the players, to make sure that balance is maintained.

Edited by The Cheese, 29 June 2013 - 06:04 AM.

[Stat1cVoiD]

Adridos, on 29 June 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

Delete 99% of the mechs...

Competitive means perfection... perfection means monotomy... monotomy means one perfect mech that is balanced and the only real mech in the game.

Most people in these forums doesn't seem to have any gaming experience.
Look at most of the successful E-Sport games: Balancing and variety are KEY.
SC2 f.e. has a huge variety of tactics and units precisely because of its excessively tested balancing on COMPETETIVE LEVEL.
Onesidedness is the result of bad game design. Versatility on the other hand comes from well thought balancing in collaboration with the community.
Balancing on competetive Level is the only way to make people have a good time across the board.

Competetive means: 100 Mechs which are perfectly balanced against each other, having different drawbacks to make up for their specific advantages, therefore offering a huge amount of tactics and playstyles, while being equivalent.

Edited by Stat1cVoiD, 29 June 2013 - 06:23 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

If variety works for competitive players at the top of the ELO system, then it will work for EVERYONE.

Steel Will, on 29 June 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

That. Over and over again, that.

Then explain to everyone why, if that is true, it doesn't exist right now? Why do the High Elo players currently not use a "variety" of Mechs and weapons? We have a great variety of both.

Because that idea is absolute BS is why. If winning is all there is, why ever take a 5 pt weapon when a 10, 15 or 20pt'r is available? Why ever drive a <60 ton Mech when a =/>90 tonr's are available?

We have had fast Mediums and that was sour. They were so fast they made the Lights obsolete, they get slowed down, then everyone abandoned them for Heavier chassis. The PPC was rarely seen, it got tweaked and now it is all we see, plus the odd Gauss Rifle (in suppose high elo competitive play). Getting the picture yet?

And my favorite. Make Sniping and Brawling useful. LOL! Given what we see now, how is the Brawler to get to the Snipers with armor and weapons enough to actually do anything useful?

Make the SRM useful? Again LOL! It was and it was abused by the same "high elo" players to the point it needed to be nerfed. Getting that picture yet?

[Jonny Taco]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

It's cheese to you and others, because you play by invisible rules and a code of honor that does not exist, anyone that does not adopt your rules and approach to the game are playing "cheese" builds and "gaming" elo.

Instead what they are actually doing, is playing to win, and taking what gives them the best opportunity to do that.

Oh my! How dare someone have an objective position on the negative state of current balance...

This is a tdm game btw brah, everyone knows that the point is to win and that taking a "Good" loadoad gives you a significant advantage. The problem comes when a few builds are exceedingly more potent than others... While this may not seem like a bad thing, the overall diminishing variety in fits in a game focussed on customization most certainly is. When these "builds" in question are more or less all doing the same thing (ppc/guass stacking, high alpha, peecaboo) Then you most certainly can conclude that there is indeed a massive issue in terms of weapon and fitting balance.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

MaddMaxx, on 29 June 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

So if that is true then there is no FIX ever. Those who "play to win" will use and abuse whatever is available until it gets to a point where even they say the game has no variety, despite it was them that caused it, by being only "FOTM to Win" players...

You want Balance? Give everyone just the Medium Laser to use and see how long it takes before "all the high ELO" players are driving 9 ML Hunchies and then start bitching about how boring that is.

CW, hopefully, will cull those FOTM players from the herd as they will have to conform to "The Team" play mechanics or get their "Wins" in the super fun Pug play field.

That will sort out those who can actually deal with a mixed team and load-out.

Your right there is no fix. Playing to win/ Min/Max'ers will always take what gives them the best advantage to win, be it Gauss,PPCs,LRMs,Lasers,SRMs whatever it is.

Im not sure why you feel CW is going to change anything, alot of the people who play to win are already in units, are already playing as a team, as a team in team play, we still took Gauss,Lasers, PPC's, LRMs whatever was the most advantageous at the time.
CW won't solve anything, even the implementation of tonnage, it will still be min max at the respective selections for play to win crowd.
Same reason, why in MW4 people took Scats,Ryos with ERLL, untill mekteks intervention, then we just moved onto the most broken thing they implemented, the Ares for example.

[MaddMaxx]

The Cheese, on 29 June 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

Such is life in competitive gaming.

There will always be a FOTM. It's the job of the devs to make sure that no particular FOTM goes unchecked for too long. It's the job of the devs, not the players, to make sure that balance is maintained.

The Dev could fix it in a heart beat but without "FOTM" builds and or weapons systems, those same "high elo competitive" players will gripe how stale these "mixed" loadouts are.

Such is life in competitive gaming.

Stat1cVoiD, on 29 June 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Most people in these forums doesn't seem to have any gaming experience.
Look at most of the successful E-Sport games: Balancing and variety are KEY.
SC2 f.e. has a huge variety of tactics and units precisely because of its excessively tested balancing on COMPETETIVE LEVEL.
Onesidedness is the result of bad game design. Versatility on the other hand comes from well thought balancing in collaboration with the community.
Balancing on competetive Level is the only way to make people have a good time across the board.

Competetive means: 100 Mechs which are perfectly balanced against each other, having different drawbacks to make up for their specific advantages, therefore offering a huge amount of tactics and playstyles, while being equivalent.

Yes, let's compare a game that launched on March 31, 1998 to MWO. Genius. Can we get at least another year perhaps...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 29 June 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[Accursed Richards]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

It's cheese to you and others, because you play by invisible rules and a code of honor that does not exist, anyone that does not adopt your rules and approach to the game are playing "cheese" builds and "gaming" elo.

Instead what they are actually doing, is playing to win, and taking what gives them the best opportunity to do that.

Or to put it another way--if a game makes me choose between having fun matches and winning matches, there's a problem with the game.

[Stat1cVoiD]

MaddMaxx, on 29 June 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

The Dev could fix it in a heart beat but without "FOTM" builds and or weapons systems, those same "high elo competitive" players will gripe how stale these "mixed" loadouts are.

Such is life in competitive gaming.

Yeah... That makes absolutely no sense.

Having one single option (Stalker 3F) is stale. Mixing weapons in the best way to fit the personal playstyle or a specific role in your team however is not. You cannot fix this "in a heart beat". This is a very long and very difficult process, for which you are in need of a good community communication.
There will always be a FotM, but the question is how dominating it really is. And currently PPCs are not only the FotM, they are THE ONLY WAY TO GO in high ELO games.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

lartfor, on 29 June 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Oh my! How dare someone have an objective position on the negative state of current balance...

This is a tdm game btw brah, everyone knows that the point is to win and that taking a "Good" loadoad gives you a significant advantage. The problem comes when a few builds are exceedingly more potent than others... While this may not seem like a bad thing, the overall diminishing variety in fits in a game focussed on customization most certainly is. When these "builds" in question are more or less all doing the same thing (ppc/guass stacking, high alpha, peecaboo) Then you most certainly can conclude that there is indeed a massive issue in terms of weapon and fitting balance.

Im not your brah or brother,a TDM game wouldn't have capture mechanics, he doesn't have an objective view on game balance, he has a code/ethical choice of play style, that is not objective because he rails against those who don't play his way. Being objective would be having no favored play style, and lobbying for all styles, Sniping,Brawling,Supporting, Jump Sniping to be viable, even better if they can be done in such a fashion to have a rock paper scissors effect, meaning you have to bring a little something for everything then team cohesion and player ability will dictate the outcome.

It depends on your idea of balance within the game setting, if you advocating sticking close to lore, PPC's,Gauss, AC20's are the top weapons..about right for the time period.
If we're talking objectively about pure game design, it's a 50/50 PPC's themselves are fine, the problem is the chassis that they can be stacked on and this is a core design point that has failed not balancing.

No real need to address your peekaboo comments, that is a staple of any shooter type game.

The core game has power creep at it's heart.

[MaddMaxx]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Your right there is no fix. Playing to win/ Min/Max'ers will always take what gives them the best advantage to win, be it Gauss,PPCs,LRMs,Lasers,SRMs whatever it is.

Im not sure why you feel CW is going to change anything, alot of the people who play to win are already in units, are already playing as a team, as a team in team play, we still took Gauss,Lasers, PPC's, LRMs whatever was the most advantageous at the time.
CW won't solve anything, even the implementation of tonnage, it will still be min max at the respective selections for play to win crowd.
Same reason, why in MW4 people took Scats,Ryos with ERLL, untill mekteks intervention, then we just moved onto the most broken thing they implemented, the Ares for example.

So then why even bother?

The one thing CW will enforce, hopefully, is a Team composition limit, be it weight or Chassis allowed or whatever. When Billy "ELO" PPC/Gauss dude can't get his desired ride, then he will be forced to drive a Team compliant Mech. If he does get his desired ride, there will not be 6 of them on that Team.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

MaddMaxx, on 29 June 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

The Dev could fix it in a heart beat but without "FOTM" builds and or weapons systems, those same "high elo competitive" players will gripe how stale these "mixed" loadouts are.

Such is life in competitive gaming.

Im intrigued, in what way would you fix this problem in a heartbeat?

MaddMaxx, on 29 June 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

So then why even bother?

The one thing CW will enforce, hopefully, is a Team composition limit, be it weight or Chassis allowed or whatever. When Billy "ELO" PPC/Gauss dude can't get his desired ride, then he will be forced to drive a Team compliant Mech. If he does get his desired ride, there will not be 6 of them on that Team.

But that is no different to tonnage restricted MW4 leagues, people still took ERLL at varying weights because multiple mechs in weight classes allowed you to do so, and it was the best option.

For example here, there are plenty of medium mechs you can put multiple PPC's, as well as heavies and assaults, if that is what you wanted to do.

[Stat1cVoiD]

Worst thing is: The current balancing is so retardedly easy to fix, at least from my point of view....
If PGI offers me flights, lodging, food and one programmer, i'd take the next plane to canada and bring that game up to par within one week, balancing wise.
2 days for analyzing the currently most pressing problems, 3 days for implementing the fixes, 2 days for party.

[MaddMaxx]

Stat1cVoiD, on 29 June 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

Yeah... That makes absolutely no sense.

Having one single option (Stalker 3F) is stale. Mixing weapons in the best way to fit the personal playstyle or a specific role in your team however is not. You cannot fix this "in a heart beat". This is a very long and very difficult process, for which you are in need of a good community communication.
There will always be a FotM, but the question is how dominating it really is. And currently PPCs are not only the FotM, they are THE ONLY WAY TO GO in high ELO games.

The FOTM is called that for a reason ffs. If it not dominating, then it does not get that moniker. You seem to feel that there is a "fix". Please enlighten us, and also do so in a fashion that does not get you laughed out of the tread. Please.

[The Cheese]

MaddMaxx, on 29 June 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

The one thing CW will enforce, hopefully, is a Team composition limit, be it weight or Chassis allowed or whatever. When Billy "ELO" PPC/Gauss dude can't get his desired ride, then he will be forced to drive a Team compliant Mech. If he does get his desired ride, there will not be 6 of them on that Team.

The thing about that is; even inside those limitations that you describe, there will STILL be favoured builds.

[SweetWarmIce]

PGI often give the reason, "it feels right" for their decisions. It seems they get these ideas in their head of how something should/will work and refuse to believe otherwise. Like delayed buffing of machine guns, SRMs, pulse lasers, airstrike and artillery, heat penalty for individual weapons instead of reworking the system, Mech scaling.

[MaddMaxx]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

Im intrigued, in what way would you fix this problem in a heartbeat?

Enforce BT Stock Mech loadouts and then let the real QQ begin. I didn't say it would be popular.

Quote

But that is no different to tonnage restricted MW4 leagues, people still took ERLL at varying weights because multiple mechs in weight classes allowed you to do so, and it was the best option.

See point above.

Quote

For example here, there are plenty of medium mechs you can put multiple PPC's, as well as heavies and assaults, if that is what you wanted to do.

So you advocate for no MechLab then? It is the most obvious and simple solution, as it is at the heart of the problem apparently.