578 replies to this topic

[MaxStr]

"Competitive Players" are the catalyst for showing you wtf is wrong with game balance and how you should fix it.

[Plonky]

MaxKarnage, on 25 July 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

"Competitive Players" are the catalyst for showing you wtf is wrong with game balance and how you should fix it.

Yes. If playing to win breaks the game, it's a bad game.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Jestun, on 24 July 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

They highlight issues.

They do not cause them.

Balanced weapons in the hands of competitive players should trickle down to balanced weapons in anyone else's hands.

Actually your wrong. Their need to be min/maxed to the nth degree creates situations that don't really exist outside of the competitive arena. 95% of the stuff I see people whining about here on the forums doesn't exist as an issue in the vast majority of the PUGs I run. I have even did some fairly extensive personal testing to see if there was weight behind many of the arguements and found each and every one of the claims to be false. I had mediums easiler performing as well as my Assaults, my Quad PPC experiment resulted in worse performance vs a good mixed build capable of handing a wider array of situations, My Awesome experiment proved that it can be just as competitive as any other mech I played.

Basically none of these issues really exist outside of competitive gameplay.

[3rdworld]

Viktor Drake, on 26 July 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

Actually your wrong. Their need to be min/maxed to the nth degree creates situations that don't really exist outside of the competitive arena. 95% of the stuff I see people whining about here on the forums doesn't exist as an issue in the vast majority of the PUGs I run. I have even did some fairly extensive personal testing to see if there was weight behind many of the arguements and found each and every one of the claims to be false. I had mediums easiler performing as well as my Assaults, my Quad PPC experiment resulted in worse performance vs a good mixed build capable of handing a wider array of situations, My Awesome experiment proved that it can be just as competitive as any other mech I played.

Basically none of these issues really exist outside of competitive gameplay.

Your frame of reference is off caused by your lack of skill.

And awesome is in no way anything but a liability whist playing against skilled players. Stating otherwise clearly shows us the problem.

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 July 2013 - 03:50 AM.

[tenderloving]

Viktor Drake, on 26 July 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

Actually your wrong. Their need to be min/maxed to the nth degree creates situations that don't really exist outside of the competitive arena. 95% of the stuff I see people whining about here on the forums doesn't exist as an issue in the vast majority of the PUGs I run. I have even did some fairly extensive personal testing to see if there was weight behind many of the arguements and found each and every one of the claims to be false. I had mediums easiler performing as well as my Assaults, my Quad PPC experiment resulted in worse performance vs a good mixed build capable of handing a wider array of situations, My Awesome experiment proved that it can be just as competitive as any other mech I played.

Basically none of these issues really exist outside of competitive gameplay.

Your anecdotal evidence does not cancel out the data delivered by the top players in this game.

I am definitely not a top player, but I have played enough games to know that the most competitive players definitely know what they are talking about when it comes to balance. If you are doing everything you can to win you are going to notice when something gives a disproportionate amount of benefit.

You may think you are a unique and special snowflake, but in reality the evidence you have provided to support your position just shows that you aren't that good at the game, and are probably at a low ELO. I bolded the worst part of your post; if you can't be effective with that much pinpoint damage available to you on command, you are doing something horribly wrong.

[Denolven]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

(..) potentially the needs / wants of the competitive player and their sub-group are the driving force behind a few of the current perceived imbalance in MW:O.

You are right using the term "perceived imbalance" - that distinction is essential. But it's not "the progamers fault", and it's not "the casual gamers fault". Because there is no right or wrong. Not a particular group of people cause this problem, the mix of players combined with "I am right, you are wrong" does. It's a human problem, not a game problem.

Also, you suggest that both exclude each other, and that the designers have to decide. This however is not true. All kinds of people are playing exactly the same game already, as in using exactly equal copy of bits and bytes. So obviously the different groups are not truly excluding each other.

So, if the problem is of human nature and you cannot possibly get rid of it (unless getting rid of humans, which is probably not what we want), and if it is a fact that people can be different and still enjoy the same thing, the common way to do it right is to try to make it worthwhile for everyone instead of perfect for someone. And that is usually what game makers try to achieve, including this case.

Jestun, on 24 July 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Balanced weapons in the hands of competitive players should trickle down to balanced weapons in anyone else's hands.

No, it doesn't. It's what people easily and willingly assume, but it's totally wrong. Player skill requirement is a big number in the formula. This little video explains it short and simple:


______________________________________________________________

Also, to get a better understanding of what balance is, I recommend these two to everyone:

Perfect Imbalance


Power Creep and incomparables


PS: Sorry for not reading 23 pages

Edited by Denolven, 26 July 2013 - 04:52 AM.

[BillyM]

So long as we continue to see "same-color-scheme" all-85ton+ ppc'd to the gills drops or 4-man light-packs against pugs, I will stand by the "yep" side of things. One person boating isn't an issue, 2-3 assaults on a team not a problem, but when you have 4 assaults running the lastest power-builds and walking shoulder to shoulder against a group of pugs, 150tons light or full of trail assaults because MM can't find 4 equal-elo assaults ready to go, THAT is the issue.

Solo to 2-man queue, let everyone else play in 4-8mans.

--billyM

[Denolven]

PeenyPoke, on 25 July 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

Yes. If playing to win breaks the game, it's a bad game.

Journey. Look it up, then rethink your definition.

[Kunae]

BillyM, on 26 July 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

So long as we continue to see "same-color-scheme" all-85ton+ ppc'd to the gills drops or 4-man light-packs against pugs, I will stand by the "yep" side of things. One person boating isn't an issue, 2-3 assaults on a team not a problem, but when you have 4 assaults running the lastest power-builds and walking shoulder to shoulder against a group of pugs, 150tons light or full of trail assaults because MM can't find 4 equal-elo assaults ready to go, THAT is the issue.

Solo to 2-man queue, let everyone else play in 4-8mans.

--billyM

That situation is so rare that it's not even worth mentioning. I think I've seen those circumstances 2 or 3 times, in the last month.

Most of the time it's just a bunch of guys out playin together.

[JingleHell]

Khobai, on 25 July 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

Competitive players arnt the problem. But PGI needs to do what almost every other game does. Seperate the game into casual and competitive queues and dont allow groups in casual. Or if they allow groups, the biggest group allowed should be 2-3 in 12v12. Allowing competitive 4 mans into the pug queue has always been extremely unbalanced.

Playing multiplayer online game with other players intentionally, breaking the game. Huh?

[Master Q]

Denolven, on 26 July 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

You are right using the term "perceived imbalance" - that distinction is essential. But it's not "the progamers fault", and it's not "the casual gamers fault". Because there is no right or wrong. Not a particular group of people cause this problem, the mix of players combined with "I am right, you are wrong" does. It's a human problem, not a game problem.

Also, you suggest that both exclude each other, and that the designers have to decide. This however is not true. All kinds of people are playing exactly the same game already, as in using exactly equal copy of bits and bytes. So obviously the different groups are not truly excluding each other.

So, if the problem is of human nature and you cannot possibly get rid of it (unless getting rid of humans, which is probably not what we want), and if it is a fact that people can be different and still enjoy the same thing, the common way to do it right is to try to make it worthwhile for everyone instead of perfect for someone. And that is usually what game makers try to achieve, including this case.


No, it doesn't. It's what people easily and willingly assume, but it's totally wrong. Player skill requirement is a big number in the formula. This little video explains it short and simple:


______________________________________________________________

Also, to get a better understanding of what balance is, I recommend these two to everyone:

Perfect Imbalance


Power Creep and incomparables


PS: Sorry for not reading 23 pages

I've been pointing those videos out to people for weeks now.

They won't watch or learn. They are immune to learning apparently.

[tenderloving]

Denolven, on 26 July 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

Journey. Look it up, then rethink your definition.

Really? I must have missed the DLC for Journey that allowed you to pilot stompy robots and blow up your opponents in a PVP-only environment.

I'm pretty sure most folks understand the definition of "game" in regards to MWO, and how it differs from Hello Kitty Island Adventures or Chutes and Ladders.

Edited by tenderloving, 26 July 2013 - 05:43 AM.

[Denolven]

tenderloving, on 24 July 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

This game is 100% competitive. There is no other objective than to defeat a human enemy. It always puzzles me that people complain about "competitive players." What are you doing if you aren't trying to win?

Running in circles and firing my lasers.
Seriously, did you ever hear of the rampage EVE players went on when the devs took away ship spinning?
In my 15+ years of gaming, I came to the conclusion that there are basically three things people are doing in games:
- enjoying a good story
- compare penises
- do random stuff out of boredom

And by the way, this is not limited to gaming. People simply do what they do in real life too, just with less ugly consequences than in real life. Yours may be number 2, mine is mostly number 3 (still looking for number 1 in multiplayer games).

[Joseph Mallan]

Jestun, on 24 July 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Balanced weapons in the hands of competitive players should trickle down to balanced weapons in anyone else's hands.

As is 2-3 PPCs are fine. Perfect in fact. But to much of a good thing is bad.

[Denolven]

tenderloving, on 26 July 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure most folks understand the definition of "game" in regards to MWO, and how it differs from Hello Kitty Island Adventures or Chutes and Ladders.

If you talk about MWO, say MWO, instead of generalizing. Makes communication much easier. Most people are playing more than one game.

[Denolven]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

I've been pointing those videos out to people for weeks now.

They won't watch or learn. They are immune to learning apparently.

Yeah welcome to human world. Can't teach someone who is not willing to learn. My advice: don't focus on making everyone understand, that will only bring frustration (every teacher learns this the hard way). Instead, focus on those few who are actually ready to listen and just haven't seen it yet

[tenderloving]

Denolven, on 26 July 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

If you talk about MWO, say MWO, instead of generalizing. Makes communication much easier. Most people are playing more than one game.

Are you serious? You can't make the mental leap on an MWO forum in a thread about MWO balance that the guy who posted the word "game" was referring to competitive PVP games that have commonality with MWO?

This is even more hilarious because in your original post you say this:

Quote

Journey. Look it up, then rethink your definition.

thinking you were being clever. But now -after being corrected-somehow your cleverness has disappeared and we need to remind you that we're talking about MWO in an MWO forum in an MWO balance thread.

Edited by tenderloving, 26 July 2013 - 06:06 AM.

[Denolven]

tenderloving, on 26 July 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Are you serious? You can't make the mental leap on an MWO forum in a thread about MWO balance that the guy who posted the word "game" was referring to competitive PVP games that have commonality with MWO?
(bla bla)

I don't care if MWO is the only thing you think about. But don't expect others to be the same. I compare all kinds of stuff to other stuff. So when you say "characteristic X makes a bad game", then yes, I think "game" and not "MWO". Nothing to do with cleverness or stupidity. I tried to keep my first answer as short and simple as I could, because annoying people with a wall of text everytime is tiring. Obviously it was too short and simple for you to get it. Which again has nothing to do with cleverness or stupidity. It's simply a communication issue, which I tried to point out, and which you willingly or accidentally ignored.
Now if you don't mind, I suggest you stop trolling around and stay at topic.

[BigJim]

Quote

If you talk about MWO, say MWO, instead of generalizing. Makes communication much easier.

To be fair, he said "The game", and taking that to mean anything else than this game (MWO) is being so deliberately obtuse as to make it risky for us to use English, lest you choose to mis-interpret words like "this", "the", "and", & so forth.
Possibly this debate should be continued in binary or machine-code so as to preclude any further wilful misunderstanding.

Back on topic, it's true that the comp players don't create the underlying balance issues, but they do exploit them in order to win.
This in turn creates a perceived imbalance - a symptom - which then more pug players mistake for the underlying cause.

It can be simply illustrated thus;
1) The PPC is by far the best weapon. (and by extension, mechs than can boat PPCs effectively are the best mechs)
2) Comp players will use the best weapon & mechs as much as possible, leading other players to see lots of them, and think that "boating" PPCs and these mechs are imbalanced.
3) But the first value in this equation, the first step on the road, was the fact that the PPC is the best weapon by far.

This is the misunderstanding in 3x easy steps.
It's a simplistic, line-drawing illustration, that leaves out intricacies such as hitboxes, jump-capability, hardpopint locations, etc.. but it does illustrate how the root cause is missed, and the first-order symptom is mistaken for the root-cause.


Now I get annoyed at seeing nothing but PPC boats. I don't like facing them as it's boring. I don't like playing them as it's boring.
I am most definitely a comp-player. I've stated before I don't care about Community Warfare and it's fictional, made-up galaxy map.
I want team-vs-team, on an even playing field, may the best man win & all that.

I want there to be minor leagues, and when you top out in them, you then play the best units in the game, until there is only one best unit in the game, and everybody knows it.
The unit who wins is the best, everyone recognises they're the best.
Other units aspire to be that good some day and knock them off the top-spot.


So as a very competitively minded player (who is here to have fun, this is not my day-job) I want the game to be fun to play.
And I recognise that the proliferation of "competitive" builds as the OP states it is a function on certain weapons & loadouts being far & a way better than others.

First step in fixing a problem is recognising there's a problem.
And the first step in recognising a problem is to track-back to the first step in the logic-chain.

PPCs and other "leet" configs are just too good. That's the first step in the logic chain. That's why they proliferate.

Edited by BigJim, 26 July 2013 - 06:31 AM.

[Sasha Volkova]

Balance and the lack of it is not created by competetive players since they are not the ones coding or creating the game.
The ones you should blame for problems regarding the idea of what is viable and what is not is PGI and IGP. whoever you prefer.
Since PGI is the ones coding but IGP is the ones pulling the strings.

((I honestly only really posted here to hunt likes... can I haz likes? :3))