578 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

I'm sorry to say... and this might just be the pessimistic side of me being exposed, but even having achieved a globally accepted "balance"... I do not believe for a minute a day would go by without someone forwarding the premise "X" is still unbalanced.

​While not a perfect example... Granted not everyone agrees the recent stack-penalty is a viable balance effort, the fact remains it does directly impact some high-alpha builds. Shortly upon this realization an awful lot of players countered that it fixed nothing because "X" is still viable (the proverbial 2xPPC+Gauss) and the nerf didn't do enough...

The reality is I think the ever-pursuit of "balance" is a fool errand in that as MM eduled to, there is already patterned history that once one perceived OP issues is addressed... another takes it's place ad nauseum...

MW:O - Pillow-Fight edition.

... Yes, that was ridiculous hyperbole for effect.

Edited by DaZur, 25 July 2013 - 12:56 PM.

[Xie Belvoule]

Pyrrho, on 25 July 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

[DELETED CONTENT]

They donate money to a cancer foundation in the hopes that the money will lead to a break through in cancer research that will save their own life or the lives of those they care about later on. That is why they donate to a cancer foundation, because they are selfish.

DaZur, on 25 July 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Says who?

To the contrary... altruism is the most fundamental form of self-sacrifice not to mention the social pillar upon which modern societies distance themselves from the bone-nosed savages they evolved from.

MAN... this thread is taking on all kinds of off-shoot discussions!

Shall we discuss beer or cheese next?

Altruism is nothing but an extended form of self interest. Take me for example, I'm a volunteer firefighter in my town because I'm selfish and so are the rest of the volunteer firefighters. My town can't afford a regular fire service, just the engine. So if I don't volunteer to be a firefighter, when my house starts to burn down, no one will come put the fire out. Same goes for everyone else in town, we all decided to be volunteer firefighters to selfishly protect our own home and belongings. Its not that complicated to understand that at the root of all good deeds is a kernel of selfishness. I however prefer the term self interest.

Edited by Destined, 25 July 2013 - 12:06 PM.
Quote Clean up

[MaddMaxx]

Stoicblitzer, on 25 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

with all due respect, i think you're wrong. something approaching balance is possible. there are two constraints players must keep in mind when building a mech. heat and tonnage. with those in mind, it is possible to tweak weapon properties such as ammo/ton, weight, heat, range, velocity, etc so that "balance" can be achieved. TT is a good starting point for these properties but things need to be changed because this is a videogame. pgi likes to talk about pyramids and layers. i'm not sure the foundation/bottom layer of this game is working as intended™ enough for utopian balance to happen. by foundation i mean the heat system and hit detection among other things.

My take on it simple. When a PPC is no longer a PPC, then we are no longer player MechWarrior. Apply that same principle to all the weapons. Not every weapon will have 1 shot devastating fire power. The fact that so many want to nerf the **** out of the top tier weapons, just because they are Top tier is short sighted.

As has been noted in this very Forum. There is likely very little possibility to over come human nature and the desire to win at a video game, at all costs. Thus, not matter what you/we/they do, there will be always be Top Tier weapons, they will be prevalent and screams in imbalance will persist. Best we can hope to do is mitigate it. When there is no Top tier weapons, then we will, again, not be playing MechWarrior but some bastardized version of it.

So everyone can tweak and re-do the Maths for "everything" until they/we/them are blue in the face, but as noted, once you change the weapons to the point they are not the weapons we know them to be, then the game is basically ruined.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 25 July 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Chronojam]

Six hours to the MWO community town hall meeting, and roughly 6,000 players (both "competitive" and "casual") will be represented. If you're interested in joining and discussing balance issues or what's causing them, don't miss out.

[AdamBaines]

DaZur....love this thread and thanks for starting it. Over all everyone is contributing good info without being jerks (mostly) :-)

One thing that I have always liked in the Battletech universe is that really there is no balance. Ok yes Im over simplifying that, but really, what strikes me is that the number crunches want perfect balance when really there is no such thing, especially in Btech. There is always a bigger dog with bigger teeth. Perfect example: The Clans. They are so UNBALANCED compared to the IS when they first invade. Hell their ERPPC will take up less space, weight less and cause 50% MORE damage compared to their IS counter part at the beginning of the invasion. Also, compared to the btech game, depending on your faction, you might not have constant access to all technologies all the time. I may want a clan ERPPC, but im probably not getting one till 3055 or later as clan salvage become more readily available. Here in MWO, I can have what ever I want when ever I want. There are no limits or penalties as long as I have the hard points.

Do you know whats going to happen when the clans come here to MWO? People are going to get really upset that the clan mechs are UNBALANCED and want them to be nerfed, and one important aspect of what makes them the baddie clans is gone. Everyone is going to join the clans or run clan equipment if they can and we will start another session of this conversation.

I know half the fun of this game for people is customization, but in the end, I think thats what kills the balance. Non-cannon mechs and everyone one wanting to run them because i can run 6PPCs on a stalker, or dual AC20s....on of all things....a Jaggermech.. Perhaps they need to restrict the whole customization process somehow. Maybe have a Solaris Environment where people can get buck wild on customizations, and then have the Universe Game where factions fight for territory and customization is less common.

Again thanks for a great thread DaZur.

[MaddMaxx]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 July 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

Don't butcher it, balance it.

I want the Quad LL boat competitive with he Quad PP boat and also competitive with a bunch of other, non-boated builds.

But let's pretend for a moment PGI doesn'T know what to do anymore, and just remove the PPC completely. That would be better for balance then what we have now, because while you can build a Quad LL bat (/or a Quad ER LL boat, or a Quintuple LL boat or whatever), this weapon suddenly doesn't deal instant pinpoint damage anymore. You need to hold the beam on target for a full second now, which means, unless both you and the target are stationary, that the damage is likely to spread.

OK, can do that. Make them the same range, same Heat and same damage. There Balanced. Why take one over the other? No friggin idea really but hey, they are Balanced.

[xDeityx]

RF Greywolf, on 25 July 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Once again this is just for clarification xDeityx, with no offense meant. By your comment I read that only specific play styles should be allowed? The fact that maybe someone doesn't like the play style or it just doesn't work right for them that it's too bad, learn how to play them properly? Or the fact if you can't use the optimized builds then you are crap and shouldn't be playing the game?

It's very much a "your mileage may vary" situation. Are you trying to just goof around and kill some time in a 'mech? Run whatever you want. Are you trying to be a part of a team and pull your weight? Unfortunately PGI has left you with no choice but to run a certain build (and that build is conducive to a certain play style). PGI made a game where you have to trade enjoyment for effectiveness, and that's what we are trying to change. We don't want to be locked into a certain play style but the reality is what it is. Before SRMs were buffed, the only play style that was "allowed" at the competitive level was PPC sniper with maybe a light or two for utility. I can't speak to the current post-SRM buff metagame because I've been spending my free time playing other games and waiting for PGI to fix the mess they created with the heat scaling botch.

RF Greywolf, on 25 July 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Reading the rest of your post I don't think that you wanted it to sound that way which is why I am asking. The other reason I am bringing this up is that it seems that many of the optimized builds are connected closely to a single play style. I know that this is also part of the issue with the game since certain play styles can not compete due to unbalanced weapons and chassis.

Once again I mean no offense, just some clarity...
Greywolf

No offense taken. A lot of the confusion in this discussion is because the competitive players are describing the way things are but people misunderstand them to be describing the way they want things to be. I'd love to run some LBX10, it's one of my favorite weapons. But the opportunity cost is simply too high to justify it (for me).

[Feetwet]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 July 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Winning alone is never sufficient. If players would just want that, we could have a game with a red and a green button and the green button says: "You win!", "+1000 Points" and the one with the red button says: "You lose. Try again!". That wouldn't be much fun.

The fun is in feeling you overcame a challenge. THat is also why some people deliberately gimp themselves, because they feel that is a challenge. But in the competitive environment, people will try to max out on everything, because they want their enemy to do the same - they want to be challenged. Maybe being victorious with a bad build is satisfying, but being victorious against a bad build is hollow - you kinda expected to win against an inferior build.

And so, competitive players keep optimizing.

But when they reach a point where they have found the best builds, and see everyone else taking them... Yeah, the game might still be more entertaining then the Red/Green button game, but it is also not much about the 1 small laser Commando Game some people create as the strawman for a balanced game.

The problem with your example though is in competitive gaming both teams will work the system til they both have green buttons. The match then comes down to which team presses green best. It seems like the fun comes from winning against people who are running the best builds. We already have that so why?

Unless you are running exclusively in the 8 man queue, your getting hollow victories against inferior mechs all the time. Sure you may be dropping against a 4 man kaos or whoever but your also dropping against mouth breathers like me.

S

S

[DaZur]

Mystere, on 25 July 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

They push the human race forward.

... Or occasionally backwards depending upon the particular topic.

[MaddMaxx]

Xie Belvoule, on 25 July 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

They donate money to a cancer foundation in the hopes that the money will lead to a break through in cancer research that will save their own life or the lives of those they care about later on. That is why they donate to a cancer foundation, because they are selfish.

I guess that that 2 dollars I gave to the poor man on the corner the other day was a selfish act as well then. I suppose, I figured if I gave hmm that money he spend it on Booze, have liver failure and die thus saving me from ever having to see him or feel bad about not giving him money.

Damn, I am way smarter than I first thought. (Holy Smokes Batman)

[RF Greywolf]

xDeityx, on 25 July 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

No offense taken. A lot of the confusion in this discussion is because the competitive players are describing the way things are but people misunderstand them to be describing the way they want things to be. I'd love to run some LBX10, it's one of my favorite weapons. But the opportunity cost is simply too high to justify it (for me).

Thanks for the clarification. The LBX is also one of my favorite weapons from previous games and TT however I was very saddened at how the weapon got no love in the game. I just hope that PGI gets things adjusted so that ALL play styles are available and viable in a fight. That is what everyone wants, there are 20 pages of people wanting the same thing- BALANCE!

I think the major issue, at least for the OP, is the misunderstanding that happens between players. The new players believe the more experienced players are just being a-holes while the experienced players just think the newer players are dumb. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I just think that everyone needs to understand that each and every player has a different idea of how they want to play.

To new/ lower/casual players: Listen to the experienced players and try to take what they tell you and use it to your advantage.

To experienced players: Don't step on anyone just because they are trying a new build or running a mech that they love to run.

Just want a game where people actually play the game, not scream at everyone. It's the reason I don't play CoD anymore...

[Feetwet]

Someone has mentioned this before but the ultimate balance in BT has always been cost and availability. Our economic scheme is porked and there are no repercussions for lost items. If ppc could only be salvage how crazy would that be. If you could only get an atlas by salvage or random chance, craziness ensues. Food for thought and again I didn't come up with it but thought the line of thinking had merit.

S

[Vincent Quatermain]

Mystere, on 24 July 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Again, the PPC by itself is not OP. Shooting six of them with pinpoint accuracy is.

It's true, that's why we never see Spiders with one ERPPC. Oh wait . . .

Boating will be a thing in MWO for as long as the number 2 is greater than the number 1, which is to say, forever.

If boating was the problem, people would boat ER Large Lasers. But they don't, because ER Large Lasers are strictly inferior to all other large energy weapons, particularly PPCs.

[Mystere]

Vincent Quatermain, on 25 July 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

It's true, that's why we never see Spiders with one ERPPC. Oh wait . . .

If a Spider with a single ERPPC is giving you problems, you have even bigger problems waiting for you.

[MaddMaxx]

Feetwet, on 25 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Someone has mentioned this before but the ultimate balance in BT has always been cost and availability. Our economic scheme is porked and there are no repercussions for lost items. If ppc could only be salvage how crazy would that be. If you could only get an atlas by salvage or random chance, craziness ensues. Food for thought and again I didn't come up with it but thought the line of thinking had merit.

S

Sadly, the only way to put in an economic factor would to be call all the players in, close the doors and WIPE everyone's stats and start over.

Otherwise, the 35 Billion C-Bills someone has burning a hole in their Mech locker will pretty much make them immune to gear lose, versus the poor new lad/lass that has exactly 34 C-Bills and counting (very slowly to boot)

So while a good idea, it is way to late without the incumbent WIPE.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

It's something how this thread is touching on metaphysics, psychology, sociology and even some psychoanalysis.

Rippthrough, on 25 July 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

And yet any racing team you ask will tell you a fast driver ain't worth **** unless he can give you good feedback on the car for development.
Every driver at the top of their game is good at giving feedback and helping develop the car. If he doesn't know what's right or wrong about a setup, he'll never be fast, no matter how fast his reactions are.

If Micheal Jordon tells me the basketball has gone flat, I'll believe him over the random guy sat in the stands with a rulebook.

And it's Michael Jordan.



And since he was brought up in this context, know that he had a team of trainers that helped him stay at peak and perform at the high level he displayed during his playing career.

So these two articles are relevant I figure: http://www.hoopsworl...-are-relentless

http://www.grantland...vers-relentless

And if anyone is interested, you can check this out too: http://espn.go.com/c...ng-trainer-says

Edit: grammar

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 25 July 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Stoicblitzer]

MaddMaxx, on 25 July 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

My take on it simple. When a PPC is no longer a PPC, then we are no longer player MechWarrior. Apply that same principle to all the weapons. Not every weapon will have 1 shot devastating fire power. The fact that so many want to nerf the **** out of the top tier weapons, just because they are Top tier is short sighted.

As has been noted in this very Forum. There is likely very little possibility to over come human nature and the desire to win at a video game, at all costs. Thus, not matter what you/we/they do, there will be always be Top Tier weapons, they will be prevalent and screams in imbalance will persist. Best we can hope to do is mitigate it. When there is no Top tier weapons, then we will, again, not be playing MechWarrior but some bastardized version of it.

So everyone can tweak and re-do the Maths for "everything" until they/we/them are blue in the face, but as noted, once you change the weapons to the point they are not the weapons we know them to be, then the game is basically ruined.

maybe we see this game differently. you are thinking about lore whereas i'm thinking about balance in a videogame. statements like "ppcs are supposed to be top tier" are meaningless to me. ppcs have the unique property of instant damage to a specific point like ballistic weapons except without ammo (+ disadvantages that go along with needing ammo) and with more heat and velocity. this is in contrast to lasers which deal damage over time requiring the pilot to hold the beam on target (+ disadvantages that comes with that).

this is a small glimpse into how myself and others see the game. does this make sense to you?

[VanillaG]

tenderloving, on 25 July 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

...You play a game to win, not to give your opponent warm fuzzy feelings about your charity.

There are three outcomes, one desirable and two undesirable. (Win, Lose, Tie) ...

Actually it is more nuanced than that. People play for the following reasons:

• C-Bills - Players may use sub-optimal mechs or builds to get greater c-bills in a match. Most of the Founders/Hero/Phoenix mechs are not the cheese builds that people are complaining about but those give you more c-bills each match.
  
• XP- People play in ways to maximize XP gain so they can level up their mechs. Lights who "should be scouting" are in the middle of fights because scouting gives poor XP while damage give more XP.
  
• Kills - Some people are obsessed with getting a large number of kills and do things to get that number that does not help their team get the win.
  
• Fun/Trolling - People just want to shoot internet robots and cause general mayhem. They play bad builds or under represented mechs to see what they can do.
  
• Win - Some people just play for the win. Remember when we had that challenge to get 10 assault and 10 conquest wins and the game was Cap Warrior Online for a week?

All of those are valid reasons for playing the game. People who play for the win by cap rushing are getting the win at the expense of C-Bill and XP. I can play in ways that ensures that I get a good amount of C-Bill and XP even if my team doesn't win.

The secret to a good game is getting enough people on your team with the same goal.

[Praehotec8]

Sure, the game could (and should) continue to have further balancing, but I think one think most people seem to overlook is that for most video games (if not all), and particularly mechwarrior, there is no perfect achievable balance when you have a diverse group of weapons/skills. In fact, in order to make things remain interesting, there must always be "good" and "bad" weapons. Even if there is reasonable balance, there will always be some weapons that will stand out at least a bit.

Truly competitive players will always seek to exploit these imbalances, thus leading to "competitive builds". Case in point: with the recent heat penalty, the online weeping quickly shifted from the 4-6 PPC stalker to anything running 2PPC + gauss.

Sure, we balance can improve from here, but this will never go away, and seeking to totally balance the game for competitive play runs the risk of completely homogenizing the weapons. From my point of view, I'm happy to use whatever I like, however I like, and reap the consequences. As long as I'm not playing with the elite comptetive crowd it usually works pretty well, and I'm good with that.

[xDeityx]

Feetwet, on 25 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Someone has mentioned this before but the ultimate balance in BT has always been cost and availability. Our economic scheme is porked and there are no repercussions for lost items. If ppc could only be salvage how crazy would that be. If you could only get an atlas by salvage or random chance, craziness ensues. Food for thought and again I didn't come up with it but thought the line of thinking had merit.

S

I've been a long-time advocate of a real economy with losses and salvage. The problem is that the current model is what is best for PGI's wallet when you factor in the amount of time they would need to invest.