578 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

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.

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.

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?

[Jestun]

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.

Edited by Jestun, 24 July 2013 - 11:50 AM.

[Roland]

Quote

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.

The problem is not necessarily that those configurations are bad in and of themselves.

It's that those configurations are bad, given the current weapon statistics.

Those mechs could be made more effective by changing the current weapon stats.

For instance, folks use LBX. LBX are terrible currently. Thus, only garbage mechs mount LBX.

The fix for this isn't to have no one ever use LBX, ever. The fix is to MAKE LBX INTO GOOD WEAPONS.

I mean, your goal as a "causal player" isn't to specifically drive terrible mechs, right? If they made the LBX into a good weapon, you wouldn't stop using it because it was suddenly better, would you?

[FupDup]

Comp. players don't actually cause the weapons/mechs/whatever to be imbalanced, it's the devs that (unintentionally) input the wrong variables to make those items superior. Comp. players merely identify and capitalize on those imbalances left over by the devs. They bring the imbalances to light so that hopefully they can be fixed.



...And no, I'm not a comp. player myself. I pug pretty much exclusively and have fairly bad aim in many of my matches.

[Unbound Inferno]

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

They highlight issues.

They does not cause them.

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

You are mistaken. "Highlighting" the issue, then using and abusing it is what causes even more of it to occur, thus the issue grows worse.

The OP is right, competitive players that min/max builds makes the problem worse.

[DaZur]

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

They highlight issues.

They does not cause them.

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

Agree to a point...

That said, is it not a given that even upon achieving perceived 'balance" the competitive player will continue to seek out all means to gain leverage to win?

[CancR]

I'm a competitive Jenner so clearly i'm min/maxing the system.

[Master Q]

Short answer: "Yes."

Longer answer: watching aggregate behavior, I suspect approximately 10-15 names I've seen recurring to load/disconnect are simply reloading if they don't see certain optimal-to-broken mechs (Stalker variants, Firebrands, etc) loaded on their side, trying to pad their win count. So yes, "competitive" players doing that can break the game since every time they drop they leave their team undergunned.

[Roland]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

You are mistaken. "Highlighting" the issue, then using and abusing it is what causes even more of it to occur, thus the issue grows worse.

The OP is right, competitive players that min/max builds makes the problem worse.

No, the problem already exists.
They are merely making it obvious.

Competitive players do not make things imbalanced. They have no capacity to do so, as the weapons statistics are set by the game.

[PanzerMagier]

Competitive players are the catalyst for finding broken balance. NOT CAUSING THEM.

In an constant effort to find the upper hand in the battlefield, competitive players always are looking for flaws*chinks in the gameplay balance, their usual set of skills and talents allows them to find it faster than most players. Either through spreadsheet theorycrafting or through insightful knowledge of what currently works best of all the elements on the battlefield.

Edited by PanzerMagier, 24 July 2013 - 08:12 AM.

[3rdworld]

I don't know about not coexisting.

For instance the AC/40 or splat cat, were not and have never been issues to competitive players.

But people think unbalanced against pugs.

That is an instance in which "casual" balance is different than "competitive" balance.

They are supposed to be separated via ELO. But that isn't working either because the matchmaker is screwed or player counts are lower than needed for it to be effective.

[MustrumRidcully]

Yes, competitive players will find the weak spots in your system and exploit it.

You have the choice of trying to fix your system and eliminating weak spots (or leave only weak spots you want to see exploited - if you want a game where brawling is the most common strategy, you secretly or not secretly nerf snipers a bit, if you don't want to see boats, you create perks that only non-boats can get, stuff like that), or remove competitive players or teach competitive players to be non-competitive.

Be careful, however, guess what kind of person is most attracted to story-less PvP titles.

[CancR]

But what about us Competitive lights?

[DaZur]

Roland, on 24 July 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

The problem is not necessarily that those configurations are bad in and of themselves.

It's that those configurations are bad, given the current weapon statistics.

Those mechs could be made more effective by changing the current weapon stats.

For instance, folks use LBX. LBX are terrible currently. Thus, only garbage mechs mount LBX.

The fix for this isn't to have no one ever use LBX, ever. The fix is to MAKE LBX INTO GOOD WEAPONS.

I mean, your goal as a "causal player" isn't to specifically drive terrible mechs, right? If they made the LBX into a good weapon, you wouldn't stop using it because it was suddenly better, would you?

Good question... Which I'll answer with my own. Would a casual player still migrate to the dominant mechs and weapons configurations in the absence of the "competitive environment"? I say "partially". A casual player tends to play what they like / have fun with... win or lose. That said, when they continue to be told their are idiots for piloting them by the competitive players... Eventually their opinion becomes influenced if not jaded.

[Unbound Inferno]

Roland, on 24 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

No, the problem already exists.
They are merely making it obvious.

Competitive players do not make things imbalanced. They have no capacity to do so, as the weapons statistics are set by the game.

Really? LRMPOCOLYPSE, the PPC/Gauss/AC40... aren't the problem?
I know LRMs got their fun with a patch glitch.
PPC was tweaked, tweaked and then largely ignored by devs as the players abuse it.
Gauss has been tweaked and nerfed, but its still used.

The AC-20?

AC20 hasn't ever been touched before - so why is it a problem? I know its the mechanics, but it was fine as a single AC20 on an Atlas right? Its not until the "competitive player" abuses it does it become the problem as they make it an obvious way to win. Then we end up having Paul making some nonsense heat system to fix it, when the problem itself isn't with the AC20 - its how the AC20 is used.

The whole issue with the game meta is perpetuated by competitive players abusing it.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 24 July 2013 - 08:18 AM.

[3rdworld]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

You are mistaken. "Highlighting" the issue, then using and abusing it is what causes even more of it to occur, thus the issue grows worse.

The OP is right, competitive players that min/max builds makes the problem worse.

The issue only grows in a sense that all players are eventually exposed to it.

With the advent of ELO, good players drop mainly against other good players. This force a "no slacking" type gameplay in which players do run their highly optimized, high effective builds.

PPC warrior online used to be contained to 8 mans. You saw one every now and again in pugs but they were rare enough no one ever commented on them. With ELO, they became super common place for the reasons above.

People act like PPCs are a new development.

I have recordings of competitive matchs in February, where guess what we are running? PPC & Gauss cataphracts.

[Mystere]

Frankly, I don't know and probably don't really care that much.

What I do know is that I sometimes find the min/max players the antithesis of fun. YMMV of course.

CancR, on 24 July 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

But what about us Competitive lights?

We cap to win, of course.

Edited by Mystere, 24 July 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[Volthorne]

#DazurForOfficialBalanceLiason

Seriously though, good post.

[scJazz]

Competitive players do not create unbalanced builds, PGI does that, they merely use them. This isn't an exploit or min/maxxing. It is just human nature.

Just like eating Ramen noodles... the easiest way to satisfy hunger... is min/maxxing cooking.

Just like using my lawn mower is min/maxxing vs using my motorless push lawn mower for cutting grass.

This is the reason why it is logical, proper, and reasonable for competitive players to request weapons/builds be balanced against their play. If they are then the weapons/builds are balanced for everyone.

[DaZur]

PanzerMagier, on 24 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Competitive players are the catalyst for finding broken balance. NOT CAUSING THEM.

In an constant effort to find the upper hand in the battlefield, competitive players always are looking for flaws*chinks in the gameplay balance, their usual set of skills and talents allows them to find it faster than most players. Either through spreadsheet theorycrafting or through insightful knowledge of what currently works best of all the elements on the battlefield.

Maybe "cause" is a poor descriptor... Maybe "magnify" would be a better one.

Do you think the present high-alpha meta and incessant forwarded premise to mitigate it would be as verbose if not for the maxim that not using the mechs and the weapons associated with it is "doing it wrong"?