132 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

You're doing exactly what you just claimed to hate; claiming what you assume to be as truth.

No, I've made a prediction.

[jakucha]

jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

No, I've made a prediction.

Then you should attempt to accept the fact that some people predict it will be fun.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Then you should attempt to accept the fact that some people predict it will be fun.

I predict the merc corp vs merc corp side to be fun, and very busy.

The faction vs faction spheres of influence war?...yea not so much.

[DaZur]

IMHO, yes PGI is responsible for making impractical design decision regarding convergence and heat... but that is where I believe their culpability ends.

There is the constant and pervasive demand for balance forwarded by this community that is birthed from this homogeneous "competitive play" e-sport mentality.

In order for a game to be e-sport competitive, there needs to be a level playing field where all things being equal. Which in essence means no apex weapons, no consumables, no differentiation of ancillaries support mechanisms. In a nutshell... a beige, generic game with no clear differentiation between the teams that is won through dominance of tactics and attrition alone.

Problem is folks... This is completely contrary to the pillar tenants of BT and Mechwarrior. We have the apex weapon in PPCs... we have variety of builds, we have consumable that provide short-term "boosts"...

IMHO the problem with PGI and balance is they are struggling with making us a Battlemech / Mechwarrior game and some quasi e-sport iteration.

Like oil and water they don't mix well and the present balance / game mechanics is the end result.

Edited by DaZur, 29 June 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[Sephlock]

Given the extent of the problem, I'm starting to wonder if it would be best (and I know this won't happen) if the devs just took a break for about a month and did nothing but play their game during that time.

As painful as that would be for us, I think the educational experience would VASTLY improve the situation overall.

It's become quite obvious that we can't convey the situation to them properly through text...

[jakucha]

Sephlock, on 29 June 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Given the extent of the problem, I'm starting to wonder if it would be best (and I know this won't happen) if the devs just took a break for about a month and did nothing but play their game during that time.

As painful as that would be for us, I think the educational experience would VASTLY improve the situation overall.

It's become quite obvious that we can't convey the situation to them properly through text...

They do play the game; I've run into a lot of PGI players randomly, including Garth yesterday. Russ was on NGNG and gave out bits of info recently too, some of which is summarized in here: http://www.reddit.co...bullock/carpf1h

Edited by jakucha, 29 June 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sephlock, on 29 June 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Given the extent of the problem, I'm starting to wonder if it would be best (and I know this won't happen) if the devs just took a break for about a month and did nothing but play their game during that time.

As painful as that would be for us, I think the educational experience would VASTLY improve the situation overall.

It's become quite obvious that we can't convey the situation to them properly through text...

What they could actually do, and to some extent the public test server will do this, assuming they utilize it correctly, is put their balance changes to the test, against the play to win types to see how those type of players will use the changes.

And before someone like neverfar pops up, this isn't about elitism or giving them a say on how things are balanced, that is down to PGI.
As we've said in this thread, the play to win types will use whatever is most broken, PGI need to observe this aspect

[Jonny Taco]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

They do play the game; I've run into a lot of PGI players randomly, including Garth yesterday. Russ was on NGNG and gave out bits of info recently too, some of which is summarized in here: http://www.reddit.co...bullock/carpf1h

the 120/150 heat change he talks about means that if he does play his game (which he does) he knowns almost nothing about it, or is extremely bad and a non viables source of future balanced content.

The heat mechanic changes are going to cause far more issue than it solves.

Edited by lartfor, 29 June 2013 - 08:38 AM.

[jakucha]

lartfor, on 29 June 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

the 120/150 heat change he talks about means that if he does play his game (which he does) he knowns almost nothing about it, or is extremely bad and a non viables ource of future balanced content.

Won't fix most of the alpha problems probably, but it's good because it shows they're willing to tweak the heat system, which is needed. Better to shoot high than make it so low right out the gate that it breaks the game.

Edited by jakucha, 29 June 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Sephlock]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

They do play the game; I've run into a lot of PGI players randomly, including Garth yesterday. Russ was on NGNG and gave out bits of info recently too, some of which is summarized in here: http://www.reddit.co...bullock/carpf1h

Ya I know they do, but maybe not enough... ?

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

What they could actually do, and to some extent the public test server will do this, assuming they utilize it correctly, is put their balance changes to the test, against the play to win types to see how those type of players will use the changes.

How is this any different from what has happened in the past with the regular servers? Stuff that desperately needs to be changed hasn't been changed, or have been changed in hilariously underwhelming fashions (see: MGs, LBX, Flamers, SRMs as of late...), and over a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG period of time, no less.

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Won't fix most of the alpha problems probably, but it's good because it shows they're willing to tweak the heat system, which is needed. Better to shoot high than make it so low right out the gate that it breaks the game.

I... what? Their system isn't... I... what?

Edited by Sephlock, 29 June 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[Jonny Taco]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Won't fix most of the alpha problems probably, but it's good because it shows they're willing to tweak the heat system, which is needed. Better to shoot high than make it so low right out the gate that it breaks the game.

I generally do agree with you, that some attempt at change to address a glaring gameplay issue is better than none. The problem I see with this is that it's not really going to fix the core of the problems. It's instead just another bandaid to another one of the games core issues.

[jeffsw6]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Won't fix most of the alpha problems probably, but it's good because it shows they're willing to tweak the heat system, which is needed. Better to shoot high than make it so low right out the gate that it breaks the game.

I disagree. What PGI keeps doing is adding complexity so they don't have to admit that simple values are broken, or features they have introduced (ECM) need re-working.

Complexity is what makes it hard to balance a game. Right now, MW:O has very little complexity; but when they invest time and money into adding some new, complex thing, they will never want to remove it because they spent time/money. Taking it back out would be admitting that the time/money investment was a mistake.

They couldn't admit ECM was over-powered, even though an incredibly small fraction of available mechs could equip ECM. They couldn't even admit MG damage was too low or that their critical hit system is not suited to making a "crit seeking" weapon that doesn't do any damage.

You think they will be willing to take the heat-scaling system back out after it doesn't fix PPCs, in other words, does nothing but gimp 6ML Jenners and ****? No, of course they won't. Because that would require PGI to admit an obvious error predicted by many on this forum, not just since Paul announced their intent to make this change, but since FOREVER. People have ALWAYS said this type of simultaneous-fire heat-scaling system would be stupid.

[jakucha]

lartfor, on 29 June 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

I generally do agree with you, that some attempt at change to address a glaring gameplay issue is better than none. The problem I see with this is that it's not really going to fix the core of the problems. It's instead just another bandaid to another one of the games core issues.

Yeah, it depends on how and if it's elaborated upon in later patches. I think heat penalties can be much more than a bandaid, but yes it needs more than just things internal damage after 120 percent. Penalties similar to MW tactics heat penalty and TT which affect everything from movement to aiming.

Edited by jakucha, 29 June 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[RG Notch]

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.

I always find the pride in the win at any cost mentality kind of sad. Some one said if winning is so important, then losing must be your normal state. Argue against it if you will, but it boggles the mind what people will do to win in a video game. I guess if that's the only place you win, it must be important. It's not even like it's winning due to skill, unless skill is defined as checking the forums to see what the current FotM is. Again if such people had skill, winning probably wouldn't be so important to them. The ultimate laugh is that they call themselves competitive. Real competitive people do it for the challenge and test of skill, these folks are by their own admission just trying to win.

[BlightFang]

jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Garth, for example, is known for expressing that PPC sniping must be boring, and not understanding why people play that way. Well, because that maximizes your chances of winning. If Garth had a high enough ELO to be in PPC-boat-filled matches all day, I bet he would rage/quit too.

This is actually a testable theory if any pgi employee would kindly(and secretly) lock his elo at 1700 =D.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sephlock, on 29 June 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Ya I know they do, but maybe not enough... ?
How is this any different from what has happened in the past with the regular servers? Stuff that desperately needs to be changed hasn't been changed, or have been changed in hilariously underwhelming fashions (see: MGs, LBX, Flamers, SRMs as of late...), and over a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG period of time, no less.

The problem is, PGI is sitting down looking at numbers, and then in house testing these changes through a QA process, had they actually sat down in a locked test environment with actual players we probably wouldn't have had several rounds of broken LRM's, splash damage issues, multiple head hit box issues etc etc etc.

RG Notch, on 29 June 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

I always find the pride in the win at any cost mentality kind of sad. Some one said if winning is so important, then losing must be your normal state. Argue against it if you will, but it boggles the mind what people will do to win in a video game. I guess if that's the only place you win, it must be important. It's not even like it's winning due to skill, unless skill is defined as checking the forums to see what the current FotM is.

And people like yourself fail to see the whole picture and your post has several inaccurate points, to some people just playing the game is fun, playing the game under some sort of ethical code is fun, to others none of that matters, winning is fun and that is what they play to do.
Any joe can be armed with the knowledge of what the FoTM is, i could give it to my seven year old. Having the ability to use it, and use it well is entirely different and "skill" based...kind of why there are people at varying levels of elo..using the same builds..because..skill and luck have a factor.

Quote

Again if such people had skill, winning probably wouldn't be so important to them. The ultimate laugh is that they call themselves competitive. Real competitive people do it for the challenge and test of skill, these folks are by their own admission just trying to win.

I've separated this part of your post out, because it is all sorts of stupid. If you have a skill at something, you seek to use it because your good at it, can be as simple as being the finest metalsmith in the locality, to being the good football player, when your good at something, it tends to be because you have put the time in..you don't just then ignore it.

I think your confused over people playing to win, and people who call themselves competitive players or teams, competitive teams and players do just that, they compete they like to play against other like minded people and go at it to see who's better, that's what drives them part of that is winning....duh.

Quote

I guess if that's the only place you win, it must be important

This is like me saying, i guess if your not good enough to win and compete at the top, it must not be that important.

..Both statements entirely stupid.

Edited by DV McKenna, 29 June 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[RG Notch]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

The problem is, PGI is sitting down looking at numbers, and then in house testing these changes through a QA process, had they actually sat down in a locked test environment with actual players we probably wouldn't have had several rounds of broken LRM's, splash damage issues, multiple head hit box issues etc etc etc.



And people like yourself fail to see the whole picture and your post has several inaccurate points, to some people just playing the game is fun, playing the game under some sort of ethical code is fun, to others none of that matters, winning is fun and that is what they play to do.
Any joe can be armed with the knowledge of what the FoTM is, i could give it to my seven year old. Having the ability to use it, and use it well is entirely different and "skill" based...kind of why there are people at varying levels of elo..using the same builds..because..skill and luck have a factor.



I've separated this part of your post out, because it is all sorts of stupid. If you have a skill at something, you seek to use it because your good at it, can be as simple as being the finest metalsmith in the locality, to being the good football player, when your good at something, it tends to be because you have put the time in..you don't just then ignore it.

I think your confused over people playing to win, and people who call themselves competitive players or teams, competitive teams and players do just that, they compete they like to play against other like minded people and go at it to see who's better, that's what drives them part of that is winning....duh.



This is like me saying, i guess if your not good enough to win and compete at the top, it must not be that important.

..Both statements entirely stupid.

Nothing said changes anything I said. Just because you call it stupid doesn't change that. Min maxers aren't here to compete, their here to win. No matter what. If they could cheat without getting caught, they would. They would see that as being skilled enough to locate the aim bot program. Wanting to compete and wanting to win all the time are different things. Conflating them is just how these folks try to make it sound valid.
When it all comes down to it, it's simply a video to most of us. Our self esteem isn't tied up in stats or ladders. That doesn't make us less competitive, it makes us less concerned with winning at all costs. I know that's hard for the win at all costs folk to grasp. Doesn't make it less true just because your response is to say it's stupid.
I figure that the desire to win will force a reply and more spin but whatever. Some people compete for the competition and some people will exploit or do whatever is needed to win. I fail to see how that makes them competitive. It makes them desirous of winning.

[Odins Fist]

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.

Absolutely CORRECT..!!

You cannot blame a player for using the most efficient, or most powerful loadout to maximize their kill potential, survivabilty, etc, etc, etc, etc,... If the DEVs didn't want that, then they should have prevented it.

You cannot blame the player base for using what they are given to use.

I suggest some of the player base take the "Blue Pill".

[Raso]

The thing is that I see where garth is coming from. Doing the whole PPC sniper thing is the most boring way I could conceive to play this game. This is a mech game with mech customization so why would I want o play not only the same mech over and over but the same mech which I hate playing over and over and over simply to out of the need to no be utterly outclassed?

But these competitive folk have a separate set of values. Winning is all that matters and winning is fun and only winning is fun. Experimentation is dangerous because it hurts your ranking in the short term (which, along side winning is all that matters) so do so sparingly or let others do it for you. These folk see battles which are over as quickly and cheaply as possible as "fun" but battles which are long and hard fought are fubar and is time better spent rofl-stomping in other matches. They would send a virus to your computer if it were legal to do so if it would give them an edge. Their concept of fun is warped and twisted, born from an age where playing a game has no inherent appeal but is simply a means to an end: victory.

If the game were balanced for these ultra competitive folks there would be only 1 mech in the entire game and it would have JJs and PPCs because there is always a "best mech" and even if it's an insignificantly negligible superiority over the 2nd best mech you choose that best over the not best, personal preference has no place in mech selection because your personal preference should be on preferring to win at all costs. That's why the game needs to be balance AGAINST them. It needs to be designed so that there is no clear best mech or best weapon, so that each and every mech and weapon is superior in various situations and at executing various tactics, so that there are enough pros and cons for every weapon system and weapon lay out and mech that there could never be a clear "best mech" so that mech selection boiled down to what role you enjoyed playing and how much you enjoyed playing which mech.

[Deathlike]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

He may not like them, he may think they are un-original, but he fails to spot the difference in what people play for.
The fact that Garth as a PGI employee can't understand that, is hopefully not indicative of the rest of the dev team.

In Paul's words: Working as intended™.

Sephlock, on 29 June 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Given the extent of the problem, I'm starting to wonder if it would be best (and I know this won't happen) if the devs just took a break for about a month and did nothing but play their game during that time.

As painful as that would be for us, I think the educational experience would VASTLY improve the situation overall.

It's become quite obvious that we can't convey the situation to them properly through text...

I've often suggested using stuff against the Devs... only to open their eyes (although, trolling isn't optimal, but at this point, goons sound appealing when I think about it). The thing is, you have to know what you're creating to understand the impact of said changes. Whoever is responsible for balance testing (and I don't mean Paul, although he seems to be the ideas man or the point of all balance changes) is doing a subpar job of REPLICATING conditions that you and I see in every match..

I prefer to use the baseball/sports analogy here... and it bears some understanding. In baseball (or any sport) that has scouting... we all tend to like looking at numbers and stuff to determine how good a player would potentially be on your team. Now, obviously they don't always work out (it happens in life) and that's OK. However, baseball has a history of all these crazy metrics... old and new... and it doesn't always begin to tell the story about a player... if he's hardworking or if he's a "natural" of the game.

PGI's view of our data is not contextually sound... these metrics don't always express how effective or ineffective a change is. If they were to track me.. I stopped trying to use LBX10s on a CTF-2X... it wasn't working and wasn't successful. Since moving to an AC20 in a primarily short ranged build, I became a lot more successful....

We take smurfy's mechlab (or other mechlab building programs) for granted... we build something that "seems to be optimal" but to only find out in real play that it doesn't work as great as it should... and that's important. PGI is looking at it from a "it should work in theory" instead of seeing how this actually works in practice. That's a failure to understand the entirety of a system they built... and that's why the issues we see are very different from what they are experiencing internally. We cannot always look at a situation from an ideal standpoint.. but more of a balanced practical standpoint that is centered around understanding WHY it is happening instead of just trying to "fix something" that isn't going to actually "fix the problem".