jeffsw6, on 29 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:
I've recently been thinking about why PGI makes such blatantly bad balance choices; why they don't understand that some mechs are trash; what game are they playing, because it definitely isn't the same one we all are.
I think their issue is idealism. They envision a balance/mechanic change, and they think players should embrace it in a certain way.
What they don't think is, how will players who want to maximize their chances of winning modify their mechs or tactics in response to a balance/meta change.
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.
Their problem is they make these modifications with an idealized view of what players should do, without realizing that players will do whatever they CAN do to kill and win. Anybody playing PGI's "ideal" tactics and mechs will suffer a disproportionate number of losses because the first player-group have superior armaments and methods.
Idealism leads us to do dumb things in the real-world. For example, ship a bunch of food to poor African nations, thinking it will help the common people. Nope, much of the time, that food ends up under the control of corrupt government, or worse, warlords, who use it to control the hungry population even more than they already do.
The straight poop is you must balance the game with the competitive player in mind. If you do that, then all players will benefit, because the game will have reasonable equipment. Don't just expect enough people to go "I really like using a combination of missiles and AC/10s" even though that is ******* stupid. Those people won't like their LRM+AC/10 mechs after getting stomped in every game.
I think your wrong about idealism driving the Devs "balancing".
First of all, PGI is operation with an existing IP where the fan base expects certain things to remain Canon to the IP. They have already taken huge liberties with that almost to the breaking point. If they start making big changes outside of the IP, they will lose a ton of players. Remember the whole point of using an existing IP is because of the existing fan base.
Second, the entire game encourages people to find the very best builds to win. That is what the mechlab is all about. You "fix" the PPC so that people don't want to boat it, that is fine because they will just move on to LLs. "Fix" those and it will be MLs. "Fix" those and it will LRMs. Basically people will ALWAY gravitate to the builds that are most successful and unless every weapon and chassis in the game is exactly the same there will alway be some builds or weapons that is better than another.
Now that being said, the overall balance in the game isn't too bad and is miles and miles better than it was 6 months ago. People just need to quit complaining and start learning new tactics. For example I can tell you from experience that a PPC (or any weapon) mounted to the torso is hard to hit moving targets with if they aren't just blindly marching straight at you. Quad PPCs are no different and those mechs with these builds are highly vunlerable to fast mediums and heavies (and even lights in a pack) who are smart enough to use terrain and speed to flank them.
Also, lets face it those builds most vulnerable to snipers are other snipers because they typically just stand over a ridge looking for targets and the targets they are looking for??? Yep....other mechs just standing on ridges looking for targets.
Edited by Viktor Drake, 30 June 2013 - 12:45 PM.
6
