578 replies to this topic

[Thorqemada]

Players do not cause Balance Problems but Players have an Agenda and if "unbalanced" gameplay and "invalid" weapons fit that Agenda they will do everything to promote their view as the "good one" and suck whatever fact out of their fingertips to proof themself right.

With that in mind you can judge Player Feedback and weight their arguments from valid to invalid.

[Jestun]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Right. But something that so many detractors like to do is forget that just because they use an item in a certain way, doesn't mean everybody uses it in that fashion. And the change that was made was not for "immersion", but was done as a pointless and ineffectual counter to "pop-tarts".

It had much more far-reaching effects into how some light-pilots play, and didn't really hurt the target "pop-tarts" at all.

How you or I think it should be used don't matter.

PGI made the decision on how *they* want JJs to be used. And I agree with it.

As for not hurting poptarts - why were so many pop tarters posting dozens of whines about it then? It didn't make it *impossible* to poptart, but the end result was less poptarts so I'd say it must have done something.

Edited by Jestun, 24 July 2013 - 11:43 AM.

[Aym]

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

Discussing the present balance issues thus-far forwarded in this community with my son last night we came to the conclusion that 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.

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
How is this known? What sources verify this?
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.
I find this is not excluisve to the "competitive scene" but rather game-players in general. Do you sometimes draw an "O" when playing as "X" in tic-tac-toe? If not, then you might be a comp. player.
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 imbalancec. Two issues raised in this point, and I'll take them in reverse order. Comp players using better weapons does not create the imbalance, the imbalance exists and they use the better weapons/strategy/tactic/etc. Additionally because of hardpoint restrictions comp players do not only mount the most efficient/lethal weapons, before HSR comp players used Medium Lasers even though they weren't necessarily the most efficient/lethal, Large Lasers were by and large considered better than Mlas in terms of hps/dps/crits/hardpoint however using other effective weapons restricted the availabilty of those.
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.
See #1, if you don't write in "O"s when playing as "X" in tic-tac-toe, you might by such a comp player seeking an advantage to "win."
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.

So how does this create imbalance?

Casual players are more concerned about “having fun”. As such, a casual player will field builds that the Comp. player considers de-optimized… i.e “Frankenmechs” that typically are either “fun” configurations and or more balanced / conical. The casual player will readily mount weapons the Comp. player considers worthless and in doing so qualifies them as being a burden on their team.

By itself this simply creates a polarity in play-style and a certain level of class-warfare. The problem manifest through community influence…

We've seen numerous instances where the Comp. player has forwarded the premise that the needs of this sub-group should be the metric by which MW:O should be modeled, even so far as to preclude that the casual players opinion should be ignored. Conversely… the casual player wants to win. The arguments forward by the Comp. Player make sense in regards to weapon-platform efficiencies and as a result, we see the “lemming effect”… where casuals will emulate what they see as the right mech / weapons to use, which artificially exacerbates the perception of imbalance.

What are we left with?... A bias toward a specific sub-set of mechs, weapon configurations and forwarded prejudices against non-competitive play-styles, mechs and weapons. This in turn creates a cascade effect where public opinion is that certain weapons and certain mechs are OP and need to be nerfed...

Classic "cause & effect"... particularly since at face value it all makes sense.

I guess the question is do we want a Mechwarrior game that concedes to the requirements of the competitive enviroment... or do we want a Mechwarrior game that accepts the inequities that are conical and find soft-nerfs to balance them, staying more true to essense of genre?

One side justifies that in order to have fun, winning is paramount. One side justifies that they want to win... so long it's fun. Neither is effectively "wrong"... just different end-games.

In my mind... I'm coming to the conclusion that the two cannot coexist and in order for MW:O to find it's balance, the casual player and the competitive player need to be separated and only commingle through community warefare where the "end-game" is effectively the same.

Thoughts?

Well, rebuttals bolded int he quotation.
TL;DR Lots of false arguments.

[Roland]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Btw, here's a perfect example of someone who needs to "learn to play", rather than ask for the nerfs/buffs he's demanding.

http://mwomercs.com/...too-vulnerable/

Whoa there, chiefy... maybe you didn't see where he pointed out that he has unlocked Master on atlas, and is thus as good as you can get in that chassis.

[DaZur]

Rippthrough, on 24 July 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

The competitive players will win no matter what mech and loadout they are made to run.

If that premise was honest and true... Why are competitive players the most incline to run the pinnacle mechs/loadouts as well as being the most vocal players to point out to anyone not running them that they are not "doingitright" ?

[Roland]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

If that premise was honest and true... Why are competitive players the most incline to run the pinnacle mechs/loadouts as well as being the most vocal players to point out to anyone not running them that they are not "doingitright" ?

1) Because if they are running a garbage build, and then get put up against an equally skilled opponent, they will be at a disadvantage. However, this doesn't mean that they won't be able to still faceroll terribad players, even if driving a terrible mech.
2) Part of this, I think, comes from the fact that people get somewhat amazed by the fact that people can run terrible configurations and seemingly not understand that they are terrible.

If you are so awesome that you can run a terrible build and still crush your opposition, then that is respectable.

But if you are terrible and run a terrible build purely out of ignorance, there is no honor in that. That's just multi-layered incompetence.

[Jestun]

I can't believe we're getting to the point where we are questioning player's motives if they use a good build. As if it's somehow morally superior to use a bad build...

[DaZur]

Roland, on 24 July 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

1) Because if they are running a garbage build, and then get put up against an equally skilled opponent, they will be at a disadvantage. However, this doesn't mean that they won't be able to still faceroll terribad players, even if driving a terrible mech.
2) Part of this, I think, comes from the fact that people get somewhat amazed by the fact that people can run terrible configurations and seemingly not understand that they are terrible.

If you are so awesome that you can run a terrible build and still crush your opposition, then that is respectable.

But if you are terrible and run a terrible build purely out of ignorance, there is no honor in that. That's just multi-layered incompetence.

[Insert: "You can't fix stupid" joke]

Joke aside... these bad players and bad builds are directly influenced by the leading temperature of the community. A bad player in the current FOTM build is still a bad player but they actually contribute to the perceived imbalance by seeding the already overwhelming number of these builds fielded.

Edited by DaZur, 24 July 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[PEEFsmash]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

If that premise was honest and true... Why are competitive players the most incline to run the pinnacle mechs/loadouts as well as being the most vocal players to point out to anyone not running them that they are not "doingitright" ?

They are the most inclined to run "the pinnacle mechs/loadouts" because they want to satisfy the win-conditions of the game, and there are other good players challenging them. In order to not have a disadvantage in their pursuits to win, they use good mechs. Surprise!

They point out that other players aren't doing it right BECAUSE THEY AREN'T. Assuming you want to win at a high level in this game, you aren't doing it right if you are using a terrible build. You will be putting yourself at an artificial disadvantage for the sake of some unspoken (aka nonexistent) rule.

As long as people playing this game want to win and don't want to lose, they will use the best builds they can make. It is the job of PGI to close the gap between the best builds and other builds so there isn't overcentralization on one type of build. It is not the job of players of a PvP game to not equip weapons that will help them win when the point of the game is to win.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 24 July 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

If that premise was honest and true... Why are competitive players the most incline to run the pinnacle mechs/loadouts as well as being the most vocal players to point out to anyone not running them that they are not "doingitright" ?

Presumably they like winning and assume other people like winning too.

(But actually, if you look at comp twitch streams or w/e, it's pretty clear a lot of them like messing around with sub-optimal builds in pugs just likethe rest of us.)

[DaZur]

Aym, on 24 July 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Well, rebuttals bolded int he quotation.
TL;DR Lots of false arguments.

What are ya think you're some sort of Jedi waving your hand to dismiss my forwarded premise?

Assumptive... maybe. Flat-out false? nope... Don't have to agree with them but that does not make them any less plausible...

Edited by DaZur, 24 July 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[BlackDrakon]

The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.

http://www.sirlin.ne...ates-guide.html

nuff said.

[Kunae]

Thorqemada, on 24 July 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Players do not cause Balance Problems but Players have an Agenda and if "unbalanced" gameplay and "invalid" weapons fit that Agenda they will do everything to promote their view as the "good one" and suck whatever fact out of their fingertips to proof themself right.

With that in mind you can judge Player Feedback and weight their arguments from valid to invalid.

Those people are a very small percentage of the posters on this forum, and are fairly obvious in their attempts.

The real danger comes from painting the majority with that brush, as PGI seems to do frequently, and not listening to valid and accurate criticisms.

[BlackDrakon]

Let’s consider two groups of players: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play “for fun” and not explore the extremities of the game. They won’t find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they’ll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The vast majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often quite subtle and difficult to discover. Knowing the counter tactic prevents the other player from using his tactic, but he can then use a counter to your counter. You are now afraid to use your counter and the opponent can go back to sneaking in the original overpowering tactic.

Want more?

Edited by BlackDrakon, 24 July 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[Kunae]

Jestun, on 24 July 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

How you or I think it should be used don't matter.

PGI made the decision on how *they* want JJs to be used. And I agree with it.

As for not hurting poptarts - why were so many pop tarters posting dozens of whines about it then? It didn't make it *impossible* to poptart, but the end result was less poptarts so I'd say it must have done something.

No, PGI made a decision to take a knee-jerk reaction to people's complaints about "pop-tarts". Their JJ shake idiocy was nothing more than that, however you want to try to rationalize it post-facto.

The ends do not justify the means. As I said in another thread, during that debate, they may as well have just changed it so that if a mech tried to fire a PPC, that mech immediately detonates in a ball of fire. That would have fixed both the "pop-tart" and "PPC boating" "problems.

It would still have been, like the JJ shake and "boating fix" mechanics that PGI put in, a stupid idea.

[tenderloving]

PanchoTortilla, on 24 July 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Sure some people might be saying that, while others are saying everything is fine l2p. Regardless of what they say it's irrelevant. Look at their actions instead: what mechs they're running, which weapons, what type of tactic being used, etc...

That's a more reliable method than just taking them at their word.

My head actually hurt after reading this. The logic is so twisted that it caused me physical pain.

If I desire to win, I'm going to use the best method even if I don't particularly like it. If the devs made a "nuke cannon" that instagibbed enemies but did not cause damage to friendlies, there would be tons of cries about how overpowered it is. But you know what? Anybody who wants to win would use it.

[xDeityx]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Understood... That said, in fairness for the casual player this is effectively the competitive player dictating what mech to pilot and what weapon configuration to mount under the pretense that failure to do so is not "playing to win".

How are you still not getting that it isn't the competitive player dictating what 'mech to pilot it's PGI dictating this. The competitive gamer is recognizing the truth, not creating the truth. And the truth is that if you aren't in one of X number of load outs then you could be pulling more weight than you are.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

The problem here is the foregone conclusion is that someone cannot be competitive in anything but optimum builds predicated by the competitive players.

It's not a problem, it's a reality. Unless you are on another level entirely, you can't be competitive with anything but the optimum builds dictated BY PGI NOT THE COMPETITIVE PLAYERS

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

There's nothing fun about being pressured into playing a certain way or piloting only a select field of mechs and their respective loadouts.

Everyone is in agreement with this statement. That's why we want PGI to change their f'ed up balance so that there is actual variety in the metagame. You seem to prefer blaming players.

[Livebait]

No game is ever going to be perfect. But to blame comp players for problems is not really the issue. Like so many others have said. Comp players fined the problem and then the devs need to fix said issue. PGI is working on the game...just really really slowly. I take month long breaks from this game all the time when it gets under my skin.

[blinkin]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Those people are a very small percentage of the posters on this forum, and are fairly obvious in their attempts.

The real danger comes from painting the majority with that brush, as PGI seems to do frequently, and not listening to valid and accurate criticisms.

the problem is that the ignorance gets vomited out at a far faster rate than anything that is well thought out, because thinking and maybe doing a little research takes more time than spamming rage posts.

also we have extremists on both ends. take a look at the rant by PEEF. i have read several of his posts and if he had his way the forums would become a good ol boys style club with probably less than 5 people that are allowed to post. PEEF is most likely the type of person that this thread was designed to combat.

as far as your CoD kiddie description of "those people" earlier, i don't think that works because not all of them are simply in favor of twitch shooter gameplay. streaks are a perfect example of where that description fails (generally lacking in the effort required by most other weapons).

[Reverendk]

Roland, on 24 July 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

No, you're wrong.
The game is broken, and good players exploit that brokenness.

and good players exploit that brokenness

good players

good

What?