Jump to content

Balancing Communication Line With The Dev's

Answered

61 replies to this topic

Poll: Balancing communication line with the dev's (36 member(s) have cast votes)

Worth while idea?

  1. Yes (13 votes [36.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.11%

  2. No (22 votes [61.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 61.11%

  3. Abstain (1 votes [2.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.78%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:09 PM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 10 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

I don't know if they underestimate it. But even if they correctly estimate it, doesn't mean they can handle it in the speed we want and it might need.

I don't know. I have no idea what issues are all plaguing them over there. I can only see the results, and I am not happy with the results, and absent of any insights, what else can I count on and judge on?


its been done by plenty of other online games.

Balance tweeks almost every patch.
Planetside 2 patch notes. League of Legends patch notes.

And if you check patchs of poorly balanced games, you'll notice they only do balance patches every 2 or 3 patches. and they tend to make tramendous pendulous swings.
Tribes Ascend


Now i do think MWO does a better job than Tribes at balancing their game. But it could be done a lot better, and responses quicker, and less drastic.

Edited by Tennex, 10 July 2013 - 12:17 PM.


#42 Unbound Inferno

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:12 PM

View PostGarth Erlam, on 10 July 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I make sure my forwards (and suggestions) to design are a balance of VIGILANTE COP WHO PLAYS BY HIS OWN RULES (with nothing to lose) and ALPHA FLANK C4 LRMS ON B5 FORM A LINE ON C2 MOVE AS ONE guy.

It's a tough line to walk, but we're trying, so thanks for the ideas!

View Postzraven7, on 10 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

So, what was that about them not listening? :-)

I read one guy picks and chooses what he thinks sis a good idea, probably with a slanted perspective.

#43 zraven7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • LocationDuluth, Georgia

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:18 PM

View PostUnbound Inferno, on 10 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

I read one guy picks and chooses what he thinks sis a good idea, probably with a slanted perspective.

Garth, you tried. *shrug*

#44 Unbound Inferno

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:20 PM

I didn't say it was a bad try. But it didn't answer anything other than that.

#45 zazz0000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:32 PM

Out of curiosity, how many admins like Garth Erlam, capable of direct communication with PGI (or employed by PGI) roam these forums?

#46 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:33 PM

View PostMonky, on 10 July 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:


Story time;

I have lived it, and it doesn't work. I did a lot of community assistance for DoD, Day of Defeat if you never played it. I trawled through endless server stats on weapon usage (since devs didn't have this streamlined to them) and found one weapon made up 50% of the axis kills while allied weaponry was a pretty even split, further, axis had about a 5% higher win rate and access to similar weaponry as the allies aside from one item; the K98 Rifle (which happened to be the one with about 50% of the axis' kills). Essentially, the K98 rifle had one shot kill capability in a twitch based reflex game on any part of the body and the allied competetor the Garand only had this capability on the chest. Clearly, the one shot kill capability was providing an edge as the Axis had the K43 - a rifle nearly identical to the Garand, but where opting for the K98. Yet, despite this, the competitive community screamed the game was balanced and had no issues.

Basically, you can't trust people to be self policing or regulate their opinion for what is actually best for the game just because they're good at the game. All being good at the game indicates is that you are capable of exploiting the current meta and do so.


Balancing always requires context. That's inherently obvious.

#47 Taemien

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:51 PM

View PostTennex, on 10 July 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:


its been done by plenty of other online games.

Balance tweeks almost every patch.
Planetside 2 patch notes. League of Legends patch notes.

And if you check patchs of poorly balanced games, you'll notice they only do balance patches every 2 or 3 patches. and they tend to make tramendous pendulous swings.
Tribes Ascend


Now i do think MWO does a better job than Tribes at balancing their game. But it could be done a lot better, and responses quicker, and less drastic.


Quoting a SOE game as not having a pendulum swing? Thats some gall right there.

In all seriousness though, they have been pretty good with PS2. However there is a big difference between PS2 and MWO, and that is that PS2 was released. MWO is still in Beta. I was in the Closed Beta for PS2 and it was alot like MWO where you'd wouldn't see such tweaks because content was being rolled out each cycle.

PGI has even said that once they get some of the bigger things out the door then we'd see more smaller and more frequent tweaks. But as I said above, give and inch and community wants a mile. I mean I understand people are excited about updates and want to see the game succeed. But the level of negativity could definitely be reduced.

#48 Caviel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 637 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:24 PM

View PostUnbound Inferno, on 10 July 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

That running out of patience? That's your patience telling you they aren't listening.


No, that's my patience running out from the difference between what I think their priorities should be, and with what PGI's priorities are by nature of the patch content and development/"blog" information we get. That still doesn't mean they don't listen to what we're saying as players. It could also be from dealing with an in heavy development game and that we don't "have all the pieces" which makes things seem wildly imbalanced until everything is in place, such as with ECM.

PGI does listen, and they do hear us loud and clear. I don't buy into the "PGI doesn't know what is wrong" train of thought, that's the one thing that does keep me involved/playing, that it will at some point be better than it is now. My lack of patience is making me less inclined to play until it gets better, and making me currently hold off on a Phoenix Project purchase as a result. It is my minimally impacting way (My $80 isn't going to make or break PGI) to state change is needed.

Quote

I'm all for trying to believe they read and consider - but without either an answer or a solution I have a hard time believing.


An improvement/increase in communication/transparency would go a long way with many, myself included. I don't doubt PGI can get the job done as I said, it's more a question of when, how, and my continued patience to stick it out until MW:O is that awesome pinnacle of Battletech themed mech based combat we all want it to be. The core is there, the meta is just awful and unyielding right now.


View PostEl Bandito, on 10 July 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

I am still complaining about ECM because it is still a hard counter, an on-and-off switch, a cockblock to an entire weapon system.


I agree ECM doesn't work the way I think it should work either, but I'm also not a fan of the current radar/automatic C3 system we have. I would much prefer the MechCommander type radar system with active/passive controls.

Quote

PGI had done goofed in their implementation of Guardian ECM and their stubborn refusal to admit their mistake and using band-aid fix had not resulted in anything resembling good balance in this regard.


Entirely conjecture. I'm simply pointing out that what we perceive as "mistakes" could have simply been all of us not knowing the full picture of what was to come. ECM isn't really a problem anymore due to all the hard counters available. Not the way I would have done it, although if enough systems/counter system type setups are implemented, it opens/forces player choice and allows for expanded meta game options:

"Do I setup my light mech as more of information gathering/spotting/capture or more toward combat/disruption/counter measures?"

#49 Unbound Inferno

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:32 PM

View PostCaviel, on 10 July 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:


No, that's my patience running out from the difference between what I think their priorities should be, and with what PGI's priorities are by nature of the patch content and development/"blog" information we get. That still doesn't mean they don't listen to what we're saying as players. It could also be from dealing with an in heavy development game and that we don't "have all the pieces" which makes things seem wildly imbalanced until everything is in place, such as with ECM.

PGI does listen, and they do hear us loud and clear. I don't buy into the "PGI doesn't know what is wrong" train of thought, that's the one thing that does keep me involved/playing, that it will at some point be better than it is now. My lack of patience is making me less inclined to play until it gets better, and making me currently hold off on a Phoenix Project purchase as a result. It is my minimally impacting way (My $80 isn't going to make or break PGI) to state change is needed.

Well, I didn't mean to come across so black and white that they haven't a clue what is wrong now that I think of it. Its just the lack of trying to inform us of why they can't or won't change a currently game-breaking problem is making me think they are out of touch.

I see it as they know and we know something's wrong. We both see it as a big problem - but they are thinking of another thing "eventually" and ignore it while we are trying to cope with the problem that is leading to another with no outside word as to why it isn't being changed when we see it should.

The ECM issue is one of many that led to people drifting away from missiles towards direct-fire and was a key instigator into the dive off into PPC/Gauss meta we see now. But without seeing a reason as to why ECM hasn't been addressed is what makes me wonder if they really grasp how much of it is really causing the problem at hand.

View PostCaviel, on 10 July 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:


An improvement/increase in communication/transparency would go a long way with many, myself included. I don't doubt PGI can get the job done as I said, it's more a question of when, how, and my continued patience to stick it out until MW:O is that awesome pinnacle of Battletech themed mech based combat we all want it to be. The core is there, the meta is just awful and unyielding right now.

I agree, but I'm at a point I've put my $30 down for what its worth already, I can't put more in and if it doesn't shape up at launch I'm not sticking around to wait for it. I'll find something else to spend my time on - I already am now when I can't stand it anymore - but I think its worth trying to get them to fix it so I can feel like its worth coming back to.

#50 Caviel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 637 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostUnbound Inferno, on 10 July 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

I see it as they know and we know something's wrong. We both see it as a big problem - but they are thinking of another thing "eventually" and ignore it while we are trying to cope with the problem that is leading to another with no outside word as to why it isn't being changed when we see it should.


That's the core of my stance. It isn't so much that PGI isn't aware, it's that it is taking so long to implement over, say, the slope changes. The information we do get is sparse at best until something is released. We didn't even know the slope changes were coming until a few days before the patch. Sure, it's a good idea/feature for the slope changes, just not what I would see as a priority to spend development time on. I don't run the development team so the slope changes may have been handled by a very small portion of the total dev staff.

Again, partial or no information from PGI leads to conjecture on our part. I'm not angry, just disappointed and starting to lose hope the longer things continue in this state/method.

We get lots of information and graphics on the Phoenix Project, and nothing but "soon" on Community Warfare. Not opposed to PGI making money in the slightest, but c'mon, we're talking about the major feature that takes MW:O beyond Unreal Tournament with Battlemechs to a persistent universe of immersive content and activities. Throw us a bone, please!

Quote

I agree, but I'm at a point I've put my $30 down for what its worth already, I can't put more in and if it doesn't shape up at launch I'm not sticking around to wait for it. I'll find something else to spend my time on - I already am now when I can't stand it anymore - but I think its worth trying to get them to fix it so I can feel like its worth coming back to.


I'm afraid of this attitude becoming a wildfire across the player base, if it hasn't already. Here's hoping the mystery contents of next Tuesday's patch takes a big step forward.

#51 RG Notch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,987 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:33 PM

View PostUnbound Inferno, on 10 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

I read one guy picks and chooses what he thinks sis a good idea, probably with a slanted perspective.

And people say more communications will calm the savage forum beasts! ;)

#52 Caviel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 637 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:08 PM

View PostRG Notch, on 10 July 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

And people say more communications will calm the savage forum beasts! ;)


It won't make everyone happy, but it will make more people happy.

#53 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:10 PM

I'm going to move this thread to Website and Forum Feedback/Support.

#54 CancR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 766 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:12 PM

View PostMonky, on 10 July 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Basically, a player council. Eve did this and it is still going strong.


Tribes Ascend also did this, and it killed the game. A series that was about going fast and learning spinfusor aim devoled into every one moves slow and looks down the scope of auto and press m1

#55 RG Notch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,987 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:37 PM

View PostCaviel, on 10 July 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:


It won't make everyone happy, but it will make more people happy.

Oh I know that. but you'll always have the frothing animals that make it difficult. Sadly the loudest ones probably won't be any happier. It's cool to be anti things, otherwise you're a fanboi or white knight. Oh well children what can you do with them.

#56 Kageru Ikazuchi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 1,181 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:56 PM

PGI needs to communicate with top members of the competitive crowd, but I think it should be here, on the forums.

In general, there are a few factors that determine your chance to win in this game ... teamwork, skill, experience, equipment, luck ... for example. In an ideal PvP world ...
  • luck is minimized ... but in order to keep the game interesting, some things are left to chance (what map you get, which side you start on, etc.)
  • there are many choices of equipment combinations that are viable ... some are going to be more powerful than others in certain ways, but the difference between various "good builds" should be so small that they are all potentially winners, when combined with other complementary builds in a team
  • that leaves experience, skill, and teamwork as the deciding factors when determining in who is at the top
However, the most competitive players will study the game (and changes to the game) to find every advantage they can to win more than the other guy ... the equipment combinations that they say are OP, probably are.

PGI should listen to them, and watch the trends with those equipment combinations ... when they start winning significantly more than losing ... especially in the lower brackets where the variety of skill/experience/teamwork is affected by luck (due to the match maker), then they should have a clear indication that something is broken.

Ideally (I keep using that word), the developers would have been alerted -- because they listened to the competitive crowd -- and would already be discussing a couple of ideas for how to bring things closer to balance. They don't have to share those discussions with the competitive players or the rest of us (i.e.: I think it's likely that "ECM is working as intended" was a true statement ... seismic, UAV, and a BAP buff were coming soonTM, they just needed to be tested internally), but it would be nice if they did a bit more.

#57 Monky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,218 posts
  • LocationHypothetical Warrior

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:02 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 10 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:


Balancing always requires context. That's inherently obvious.


Exactly, and we are in the context of a game that needs to be equal parts battletech, mechwarrior, fun to play, and free to play.

#58 EyeDie I

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 07:13 AM

they read these posts then they move them without answering.

lol i was on page 2 when i posted then saw it moved on page 3.

Edited by EyeDie I, 21 July 2013 - 07:14 AM.


#59 KingCobra

    Clone

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2,532 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:40 AM

Here I will save everyone the time of deciding who is lead council member its me and from now on I don't want anyone else's opinions suggestion or whatever it will be my way or the ban hammer and I don't care. Sound familiar? PGI has made it plain and simple its our way or nothing else and they will not listen to reason from anyone pro or con to try and help make MWO a truly exciting wonderful game not just a cobbled together FPS with mechs and a grind from hellllll. Prove us wrong PGI bring back the true MechWarrior game we loved MW2-MW4 with open live chat launchers leagues that gave us true meta-tactics-role-play and much more. Well I got in before the PGI tools send this topic to the undying lands on this forum. Posted Image

#60 101011

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 1,393 posts
  • LocationSector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha, on a small blue-green planet orbiting a small, unregarded yellow sun.

Posted 21 July 2013 - 01:25 PM

I wouldn't say people loved MW4, it took...liberties, shall we say, with the franchise that they shouldn't have. "Tactics"... :angry: My favorite tactic was to strap HE to my Atlas and send it into a lance of enemies at 70 k/h and blow them all up.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users