578 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Hey Big Jim remember a certain Ex President asking, "Can you define IT?"

Someone took notes.

Also PPCs are fine. Could use some more heat... BUT more than 3 PPCs on a Mech is OP.

0okami, on 26 July 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

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))

No... Not yet.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 26 July 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[Master Q]

Two types of "competitive players" exist.

Type #1: the good ones. These guys are good. They play to win but they want to teach teammates how to win and how to get better. If MWO had a stronger social / community warfare dynamic, we'd see more of these. They may run optimized or semi-optimized builds but they will ADMIT that what they are running, if overly powerful, needs to be balanced (either by some restriction of the build, or boosts to other options that are currently underpowered or hurt by something wrong in the engine). They will be especially critical of things that exploit known bugs or mistakes that the developers have pointed to as being worked on currently.

Type #2:the bad ones. Like to say things like "**** NOOB" or "L2P Noob" a lot. Mistakenly attribute their success at running the mathematically determined, overly-optimized builds as a reflection of their "player skill" rather than the fact that they are running what the current meta says is the mathematically most optimized (to the point of brokenness) build. Mistakenly attribute success at exploiting known bugs or mistakes, such as lag shield and buggy hitboxes, to their own "skill."

Type #1 helps the community grow. They help new players get better and they help pinpoint problems and call them out for need of correction.

Type #2, sadly, we have far too many of right now. While they may contribute by behavior to the numeric analysis of what is overpowered (look at what they're playing and you know what is, because you know they ran the math too) they cause a lot more problems and are a net negative to the player community.

• They drive new players away, keeping the game small.
  
• They're the ones arguing "the game is perfectly fine as is, everyone just needs to run the same few builds we do and then they can win too" all the time. The problem with this is that instead of helping the devs focus correctional efforts and balancing efforts, they scream bloody murder and make it harder to balance the game out.
  
• Instead of helping new players learn the game, they make new players feel small or marginalized for not instantly playing in an "optimized" way.
  
• They help cause the recursive problem of players leaving out of boredom. The more of the type 2 players there are, the more players leave and the more the remaining players go for those same mathematically optimized builds in self-defense.

This is not remotely unique to MWO. If you want to see it in the collectible card game, look no further than the event that almost killed Magic: The Gathering. Back then we called it the Summer Of Necro. In the qualifiers that year, more than 95% of the players were playing card-for-card the EXACT SAME DECK.

That's what MWO is up against right now and why game balance is so important.

[Sasha Volkova]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 July 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

No... Not yet.

y can I no haz lieks D:

[Tolkien]

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

Now before you lynch me… hear me out…

It is a known maxim that the Comp. player group’s "end-game" is to be as efficiently lethal as possible. This leads to the following points of contention.

1.) A Comp. player will only pilot the mechs that provide the most efficient / lethal hard-point configuration. This leads to a meta where these “optimum” builds are more prolific than others.
2.) A Comp. player only mounts the most efficient / lethal weapons. This leads to a meta where these weapons are more prolific than others and weapons deemed “worthless” are never used which in turn creates weapon imbalance.
3.) A Comp. player will take advantage of game-mechanics to improve their odds of winning, even if that advantage is considered “gaming-the-game”. ** see #4.
4.) A Comp. player is vehemently against any use of any “crutch” mechanism like consumables; mech quirks etc. but will use / exploit them to improve their odds of winning.
5.) A Comp player requires a level playing field, i.e. all “things being equal”. This is competitive arena pillar tenant… In order for competition to “work” neither side can be predisposed to have advantage and as such requires damage, speed, armor, etc.. to be linear.
....
....
...
Thoughts?

1,2, and 3 are addressed by saying that you are correct, but that it is not the players job to take a wide selection of equipment just because the artwork is in the game, it is the devs job to make sure that the game is balanced to the point where there is a motivation to make use of a wide selection of chassis, weapons, modules, and play styles. WoW is not a perfect game but there they have managed 12+ classes with 2 out of 3 skill trees each be raiding viable, whereas in this game some chassis are just not good.

4 and 5 are related but I would say more often that if there is an advantage to be had from an item only a small subset of purists will avoid using it on principle. The vast majority find winning fun and absent external restrictions will take what makes that most likely.

Another point I have to disagree with you on is the requirement of linearity. I would argue that in a well designed game system of any type there would be a non-linear diminishing return built in the metagame that prevents what you are seeing with teams full of near copies of the same thing. The devs have a long history of making this mistake on features like ECM where they made the feature its own counter (counter/disrupt mode) such that ECM not only negated guided missiles and gave you a massive situational awareness advantage, but it also countered enemy ECM. As a consequence this made stacking ECM in raven wolfpacks a brutally effective tactic.

Similarly we now have sniping weapons like the gauss and erppc working as effective brawlig weapons at point blank range, so rather than a team full of snipers having a serious Achilles heel they have a very solid meta game lead.

So I have to disagree about competitive players being the cause of game imbalances, they just point them out - if the game was balanced to within +/- personal preference you would see the competitive players running varied builds that they felt like running. Instead we have some chassis (e.g. hunchback) and equipment (large pulse laser, flamer, LBX10) that are plainly worse than the other options. This isn't the fault of the competitive players.

[Kunae]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

Two types of "competitive players" exist.

Type #1: the good ones. These guys are good. They play to win but they want to teach teammates how to win and how to get better. If MWO had a stronger social / community warfare dynamic, we'd see more of these. They may run optimized or semi-optimized builds but they will ADMIT that what they are running, if overly powerful, needs to be balanced (either by some restriction of the build, or boosts to other options that are currently underpowered or hurt by something wrong in the engine). They will be especially critical of things that exploit known bugs or mistakes that the developers have pointed to as being worked on currently.

Type #2:the bad ones. Like to say things like "**** NOOB" or "L2P Noob" a lot. Mistakenly attribute their success at running the mathematically determined, overly-optimized builds as a reflection of their "player skill" rather than the fact that they are running what the current meta says is the mathematically most optimized (to the point of brokenness) build. Mistakenly attribute success at exploiting known bugs or mistakes, such as lag shield and buggy hitboxes, to their own "skill."

Type #1 helps the community grow. They help new players get better and they help pinpoint problems and call them out for need of correction.

Type #2, sadly, we have far too many of right now. While they may contribute by behavior to the numeric analysis of what is overpowered (look at what they're playing and you know what is, because you know they ran the math too) they cause a lot more problems and are a net negative to the player community.

• They drive new players away, keeping the game small.
  
• They're the ones arguing "the game is perfectly fine as is, everyone just needs to run the same few builds we do and then they can win too" all the time. The problem with this is that instead of helping the devs focus correctional efforts and balancing efforts, they scream bloody murder and make it harder to balance the game out.
  
• Instead of helping new players learn the game, they make new players feel small or marginalized for not instantly playing in an "optimized" way.
  
• They help cause the recursive problem of players leaving out of boredom. The more of the type 2 players there are, the more players leave and the more the remaining players go for those same mathematically optimized builds in self-defense.

This is not remotely unique to MWO. If you want to see it in the collectible card game, look no further than the event that almost killed Magic: The Gathering. Back then we called it the Summer Of Necro. In the qualifiers that year, more than 95% of the players were playing card-for-card the EXACT SAME DECK.


That's what MWO is up against right now and why game balance is so important.

That's an overreaction. There are very few people of whom you categorize #2.

Your perception, though, is that there are this huge predominance of them. It is my belief that this is because you are conflating actual constructive criticism, which just happens to be delivered in a manner that hurts your feelings, with the very few actual non-constructive jerks.

Most people try to be helpful, initially, but they start getting short with people when they get rude smack-talk back after trying to help someone they see as acting from a position of ignorance.

Arm-lock, throttle-decay, and zoom are 3 of the major idiocies that people exhibit on a daily basis. Over-use of zoom is the worst, and longest running, stupid.

You do not need to zoom to use tag, LRMs, or your medium lasers. And you lose so much situational awareness when you use it. Yet, when told this, people do not listen, at all.

[BigJim]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 July 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

Hey Big Jim remember a certain Ex President asking, "Can you define IT?"

Someone took notes.

Also PPCs are fine. Could use some more heat... BUT more than 3 PPCs on a Mech is OP.


No... Not yet.

Unfortunately no, my knowledge of American politics pretty much ends at "you either like guns or are a communist"

But yeah the English language is a beautiful thing; Depending on who's using it it can be moving, disturbing, or hide a multitude of sins.

But when one guy is on the MWO official forum, in a thread about MWO, talking about MWO, with other guys talking about MWO - And then another guy tries to call him out saying "that's not valid because you might be talking about any game ever created", then that's obtuse.

One might as well try to convince the policeman who's pulled you over that you were not doing 90 in a 40 area because you were moving counter to the direction of Earth's rotation and were thus driving at minus-1580mph..


*EDIT* As to PPCs, I agree that they could do with more heat - more than the 1pt announced early today.
However let's recognise that if the PPC needs more heat, then that means the PPC is too good as it currently stands.
Not so much the fact they can be boated (any weapon can be boated) but that it's too good a result in return for it's limited downsides.

As you say, facing one PPC is not that scary, but it takes the fact that people will boat them, that people will use them on anything, from Jenners to Spiders to dual ER-Peep Cicadas to highlight the fact they're too good.

But the OP of this thread was then saying that this boating and proliferation *is* the problem, not the fact that the weapon is too good (and he extended this logic to other builds & configs).

That's the fault in his logic.

Sure, boating and proliferation can be a problem (and in the case of PPCs I agree it is a problem), but it's not the root cause, it's merely a symptom of the real problem of certain weapons & configs being too good.

Edited by BigJim, 26 July 2013 - 06:55 AM.

[Kunae]

BigJim, on 26 July 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

One might as well try to convince the policeman who's pulled you over that you were not doing 90 in a 40 area because you were moving counter to the direction of Earth's rotation and were thus driving at minus-1580mph..

Hey, that's a good one. Maybe not to use with the police officer, but perhaps in court.

[Riptor]

Little something to think about:

Competitive players do not want to fight other competitive players for the most part... how do i come to this conclusion?

The crickets that are singing in the 8 vs 8 matches.. you allways meet the same team of people if you can even get a match.. meaning there is little to no activity there.

Instead people are rather sinc dropping into PuG games to pwn some n00bz yawh...

So yeah.. in my opinion MWO has no real competitive players because the very difinition would mean they are seeking out competition.. when in truth they are only wanting to fight people less competitive like them and then brag about their easy victories.

[3rdworld]

Riptor, on 26 July 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

Little something to think about:

Competitive players do not want to fight other competitive players for the most part... how do i come to this conclusion?

The crickets that are singing in the 8 vs 8 matches.. you allways meet the same team of people if you can even get a match.. meaning there is little to no activity there.

Instead people are rather sinc dropping into PuG games to pwn some n00bz yawh...

So yeah.. in my opinion MWO has no real competitive players because the very difinition would mean they are seeking out competition.. when in truth they are only wanting to fight people less competitive like them and then brag about their easy victories.

You actually have no idea what you are talking about.

Grats.

[Jonny Taco]

The amount of bad opinions in this thread is astounding... Blaming "high end" players for the state of the game...

As many have stated, balancing a skill based game like this at the high end is the only way to balance it. It it's broken there, then it's broken anywhere. Claiming that the issues discussed are not present in lower tiers of play is simply obtuse... While the issues may not be as apparent, they most certainly still are there.

In conclusion, the game is busted because pgi made a busted game. Stop yelling at competent pilots for taking advantage of poor balance... Their "abuse" is what highlights and issue and outside of a very small minority of that particular elo group, pros know the game is busted and want it un-busted. People need to stop claiming that high elo players do not want changes as it's simply not true outside of a very small group of FOTM try hard children unable or unwilling to accept the fact that their prowess is heavily based on using OP setups or mechanics.

[giganova]

All you need do is look at any competitive tier list. The evidence is right there. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALA!" won't make the proof vanish. I know it's the internet and rationalism is dead, but damn...

It happened with jump jets, it'll happen again.

Edited by giganova, 26 July 2013 - 07:12 AM.

[Master Q]

lartfor, on 26 July 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

The amount of bad opinions in this thread is astounding... Blaming "high end" players for the state of the game...

As many have stated, balancing a skill based game like this at the high end is the only way to balance it. It it's broken there, then it's broken anywhere. Claiming that the issues discussed are not present in lower tiers of play is simply obtuse... While the issues may not be as apparent, they most certainly still are there.

In conclusion, the game is busted because pgi made a busted game. Stop yelling at competent pilots for taking advantage of poor balance... Their "abuse" is what highlights and issue and outside of a very small minority of that particular elo group, pros know the game is busted and want it un-busted. People need to stop claiming that high elo players do not want changes as it's simply not true outside of a very small group of FOTM try hard children unable or unwilling to accept the fact that their prowess is heavily based on using OP setups or mechanics.

Thank you for volunteering as a perfect example of the sort of person I was referring to as Type #2 above.

[Kunae]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Thank you for volunteering as a perfect example of the sort of person I was referring to as Type #2 above.

Actually, he isn't.

Try to look at things objectively, rather than steeped in your personal bias.

Edited by Kunae, 26 July 2013 - 07:15 AM.

[giganova]

No, Master Q is correct. I believe you should take a look at your own objectivity before making observations on other's.

[Kunae]

giganova, on 26 July 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

No, Master Q is correct. I believe you should take a look at your own objectivity before making observations on other's.

Awww.... I have a cute little anklebiter.

I think I shall hug him, and squeeze him, and call him "George". Hello George!

[giganova]

Ruh-roh, George made somebody mad!

[Kunae]

giganova, on 26 July 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

Ruh-roh, George made somebody mad!

Nah, just like all the other "intellectually challenged" folk, we'll give you your fancy helmet, and after you're safely strapped in, we'll try to distract you from licking the windows with a puppet, or maybe a puppy.

[giganova]

Ya know, for a fellow accusing others of bias, you sure do sound guilty of a little thing called projection. I'll take the puppy, though.

Edited by giganova, 26 July 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[Kunae]

giganova, on 26 July 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

Ya know, for a fellow accusing others of bias, you sure do sound guilty of a little thing called projection.

That's ok George... hey look, a puppy!

[Master Q]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

Two types of "competitive players" exist.
...
Type #2:the bad ones. Like to say things like "**** NOOB" or "L2P Noob" a lot. Mistakenly attribute their success at running the mathematically determined, overly-optimized builds as a reflection of their "player skill" rather than the fact that they are running what the current meta says is the mathematically most optimized (to the point of brokenness) build. Mistakenly attribute success at exploiting known bugs or mistakes, such as lag shield and buggy hitboxes, to their own "skill."
...

lartfor, on 26 July 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

The amount of bad opinions in this thread is astounding... Blaming "high end" players for the state of the game...

As many have stated, balancing a skill based game like this at the high end is the only way to balance it. It it's broken there, then it's broken anywhere. Claiming that the issues discussed are not present in lower tiers of play is simply obtuse... While the issues may not be as apparent, they most certainly still are there.

In conclusion, the game is busted because pgi made a busted game. Stop yelling at competent pilots for taking advantage of poor balance... Their "abuse" is what highlights and issue and outside of a very small minority of that particular elo group, pros know the game is busted and want it un-busted. People need to stop claiming that high elo players do not want changes as it's simply not true outside of a very small group of FOTM try hard children unable or unwilling to accept the fact that their prowess is heavily based on using OP setups or mechanics.

Kunae, on 26 July 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

...Try to look at things objectively, rather than steeped in your personal bias.

O RLY?

I think he was a great example.

Calls new players "tryhards."
Says anyone who is noting bad mechanics is "blaming high end players" and "yelling at competent pilots."

That's a type #2 personality. I'm seeing far more of them than is healthy for the community. Some mistakenly think they are Type #1. The good news is that with a little attitude adjustment and learning to treat new players with respect, they could BECOME type #1. But we shouldn't mistake a Type #2 player for a Type #1 based on bad self-assessment by the Type #2 player, if we don't point it out then they will just continue driving new players away and the community won't grow and the game won't thrive like it should.