578 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

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

Your first point actually exemplifies the "all mechs should be viable" balance issue forward by many of the competitive crowd. As you eluded to, in reality, no amount of balance adjustment will placate the desire for all mechs and all classes to lay out in a linear fashion. Some mechs and some configurations will by their very nature be sub-optimal and balance fixes will not change that. That said, if a player chooses to run one of those mechs, it's an assumed risk / reward that player has elected to shoulder IMHO.

I think it is reasonable to make mechs "not suck" or at least be "bearable to use". In my example mechs that could be made better... even a small consideration to have another energy point on the CDA-3C (probably on the opposite torso) would probably make the mech more viable... although in the current meta, it would degenerate to a 2 PPC boat. It could be worse... Also, adding an energy hardpoint to the Spider-5V's arm would make it better (at least somewhat comparable to the 5D, minus the ECM). I'm sure it would be made into a PPC spider in the current meta, but considering that its limitations is literally having CT energy weapons, it would be a fair consideration over the extra JJs that probably have little practical value over a certain number of them.

In any case... these issues can be mitigated, but I don't think PGI has taken balance issues seriously the same way many people do, so this arguing is simply a reflection of that lack of understanding within their own game...

[Banditman]

PEEFsmash, on 24 July 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

*stuff*

I am very glad I posted when I did to catch this post right above mine and read it. There is a great deal of truth in what was said. I've been on the side of the field where I try to deploy a balanced drop and run up against, literally, 1 Light and 7 Assaults. That sucks. The more it happens, the more I realize that my only recourse is to deploy heavier and heavier mechs in order to compete.

Sure, I'd love to know that if I deployer 2 Scouts, 1 Medium, 2 Heavies and 3 Assaults I'm going to be faced with something similar, that at the outset of the match, the deck isn't stacked against me. That's not happening right now, despite the absolute begging of many of the more active 8 man queue teams for some sort of weight limits.

Balanced drops should be the only kind on the field. In that way, the final arbiter of drop outcome is the tactics and skill of the teams on the field.

That's how this game should be. I truly wish it was.

[Rippthrough]

1453 R, on 24 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

You folks don't give a single fat flying foghorn about three quarters of the content in this game. You want Dragons culled entirely and replaced with something in the 75-ton bracket. You want Cicadas culled entirely and replaced with something in the 55-ton bracket. You want LRMs to be useless because weapons which lock and track targets on their own - regardless of whether or not managing to find and keep an LRM lock on a target is, in fact, more difficult than popsniping an arm-locked GPPC salvo you need to hold your target for a quarter-second for. Not necessarily saying it is, but try playing a Trebuchet in intended role sometime - are for Scrubs, and Scrubs don't deserve to play the game.

Your ideas of balance are toxic and hurtful for a good half of the rest of us. You don't get to dictate terms to PGI, and you don't get to dictate terms to me. Balance is for everybody, not just you.

How about stop making **** up inside your head about what we want and actually listen to us telling you what we want, because your version doesn't match with anyone elses.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Compare:

Player 1: DDC1: 1MG, 1LB10X w/2t ammo, 1 LRM20/10t ammo, 1 flamer, 1 ERLL
Player 2: DDC2: 2ML, 1 AC20/4t ammo, 3SRM6/5t ammo

Which is more skilled at building a mech?

Trick question. What is the K/D of both players? I know a player who has mopped up a battlefield with builds like player 1's. It is the skill of the play that makes the build, not the build that makes the player.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 24 July 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[DaZur]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 July 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Trick question. What is the K/D of both players? I know a player who has mopped up a battlefield with builds like player 1's. It is the skill of the play that makes the build, not the build that makes the player.

Did I just hear Chuck Yeager chime in on this debate?

[MustrumRidcully]

Reverendk, on 24 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

No, I'm just confused about how equipping a mech is indicative of player skill.

Imagine some engineer/mechanic type of guy. You give him a screw and offer him a screw-driver, a hammer, and a saw as a too to drive it in.
What should he use?

If you found two mechanics, and one of them was using a screw-driver for the task, and the other a saw, which one would you expect to know what he's doing?

[Chronojam]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 July 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Trick question. What is the K/D of both players? I know a player who has mopped up a battlefield with builds like player 1's. It is the skill of the play that makes the build, not the build that makes the player.

I took a badly-fit brawling Dragon to a Run Hot or Die tournament drop, and we still won and I scored some kills. That doesn't mean it was a good fit. Skilled players tend to also craft "skilled builds" which is how we keep our newer recruits dangerous, by passing on competent fits to untrained pilots. One of the current problems with MWO is the diminishing number of competitive builds that are feasible day in and day out, especially with the new heat scaling. It's funneling us towards the same loadouts, and that's bad.

[Stoicblitzer]

1453 R, on 24 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I'm not arguing that the game is perfectly balanced right now. That's a dumb argument to make. My argument is this: competitive players don't get to be the only ones PGI has to consider for balance. People like you, Roland, and you, PEEF, and you, scJazz, would be perfectly content, even happy, if PGI were to never address the problems that Dragons face, or to fix small-tube-count LRM launchers so that 'Mechs with a pair of LRM-5s or a single LRM-10 rack aren't wasting their tonnage, or to get the LBX into a place where it works as well as it feels.

You folks don't give a single fat flying foghorn about three quarters of the content in this game. You want Dragons culled entirely and replaced with something in the 75-ton bracket. You want Cicadas culled entirely and replaced with something in the 55-ton bracket. You want LRMs to be useless because weapons which lock and track targets on their own - regardless of whether or not managing to find and keep an LRM lock on a target is, in fact, more difficult than popsniping an arm-locked GPPC salvo you need to hold your target for a quarter-second for. Not necessarily saying it is, but try playing a Trebuchet in intended role sometime - are for Scrubs, and Scrubs don't deserve to play the game.

Your ideas of balance are toxic and hurtful for a good half of the rest of us. You don't get to dictate terms to PGI, and you don't get to dictate terms to me. Balance is for everybody, not just you.

you're so wrong. i don't even feel like going into it. you're obviously dead-set on casting competitive players as villains.

[Rippthrough]

1453 R, on 24 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Your ideas of balance are toxic and hurtful for a good half of the rest of us. You don't get to dictate terms to PGI, and you don't get to dictate terms to me. Balance is for everybody, not just you.

PGi has been listening to the casuals like yourself since open beta, not competitive players, look where it's got us.

[xDeityx]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 July 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Trick question. What is the K/D of both players? I know a player who has mopped up a battlefield with builds like player 1's. It is the skill of the play that makes the build, not the build that makes the player.

You're talking about a different skill. How you perform in a 'mech draws on skills like awareness, reaction time, aiming, etc., but the skill that picking your ride draws from is specifically called valuation - the ability to recognize the relative values of different pieces in the game. In this mini-discussion the focus is solely on the latter.

[DaZur]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 July 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Imagine some engineer/mechanic type of guy. You give him a screw and offer him a screw-driver, a hammer, and a saw as a too to drive it in.
What should he use?

If you found two mechanics, and one of them was using a screw-driver for the task, and the other a saw, which one would you expect to know what he's doing?

The one using the saw...

I've got a soft spot for people who think outside the box.

[Chronojam]

1453 R, on 24 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Your ideas of balance are toxic and hurtful for a good half of the rest of us. You don't get to dictate terms to PGI, and you don't get to dictate terms to me. Balance is for everybody, not just you.

Come discuss balance with us. Seriously. You seem passionate about this stuff. A lot of competitive groups want to see the game more fun for everybody, not just their pet builds.

[Captain Stiffy]

The fix for this is simple.

The OP needs to go play a single player game.

[Deathlike]

Rippthrough, on 24 July 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

PGi has been listening to the casuals like yourself since open beta, not competitive players, look where it's got us.

That would explain the AC40 Jager nerf.

I was going to have rhetorical question, but I'll just leave it with a /facepalm.

[blinkin]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

That's an unfair characterization, in my opinion. You just have to understand that PEEF was speaking from a position of "frustration with blithering idiots". I have been in that state often enough myself, that I've come to recognize it when it manifests in others.

i would believe it were just a frustrated response if the same sentiments weren't so religiously repeated in almost every post i have seen from him for several weeks now. i am convinced that this isn't a simple knee jerk reaction to ignorant posts/threads.

[Joseph Mallan]

crabcakes66, on 24 July 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Other than outright cheating the entire premise that balance is something that can be abused is a fallacy. If you don't want your game played in a certain way then you need to design it to inhibit whatever behavior you or your community finds undesirable.

Stop blaming the players for what only the devs can fix.

The players cannot just stop using an over abundance of one weapon?
2 SSRM2s is not a problem. 6 is.
2-3 PPCs powerful but not stupid powerful. 6 Stupid Powerful.
2 LRM 15 or 20 effective, 4-6 VERY effective.

Has PGI put any of those builds on the map? OR has the community done it? Put the blame where it belongs. If You are wielding the Meta you are to blame. I sometimes use a Jager40. The Devs did not build it, I did. To me it is a legal, powerful build.

Deathlike, on 24 July 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

That would explain the AC40 Jager nerf.

I was going to have rhetorical question, but I'll just leave it with a /facepalm.

There was no reason for a Jager40 Nerf.

[keith]

Chronojam, on 24 July 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Come discuss balance with us. Seriously. You seem passionate about this stuff. A lot of competitive groups want to see the game more fun for everybody, not just their pet builds.

its a trap. too many of us in the same room causes problems:D

[Homeless Bill]

Seriously, anyone that's bitching about the competitive community not wanting the game more balanced is just wrong. I'm not even part of that segment of the population, but it's clear that the people making the most noise about how ****-poor balance is right now are the same people dominating with the cheesiest of the cheese.

Competitive players will always dominate, and most of them want to do that in a way that's more enjoyable. Competitive players use cheesy builds because winning for them is more fun than losing. Winning with PPC sniping isn't necessarily fun for them, but it's more fun to them than losing with something else.

Me? I play useless **** like Awesomes and the Spider 5K. I'm all about those few rounds that make a good story. I'd rather lose half of my games using varied, sub-optimal builds and playstyles than win all of my games using my 732. But that's not how everyone should play. If everyone was like me, there would be no competitive scene.

TL;DR: Competitive people are not the villains; they are currently the ones most vocally pushing for balance changes that are a mostly a direct nerf to what they run.

[keith]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 July 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

There was no reason for a Jager40 Nerf.

of corse there was. its incase we ever do get a mech that can hold ac40 that has armor. then do the herp a derp thing and maybe ton down recycle or add heat to it then. strange ideas

[Joseph Mallan]

xDeityx, on 24 July 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

You're talking about a different skill. How you perform in a 'mech draws on skills like awareness, reaction time, aiming, etc., but the skill that picking your ride draws from is specifically called valuation - the ability to recognize the relative values of different pieces in the game. In this mini-discussion the focus is solely on the latter.

And what if Player 1 has a 6.0 K/D Using his build but a 1.7 in Player 2s Build? I have not had success in a single "Competative Build" I have been told my buils are no good enough to be on a "competitive team". Good! I am not trying to win a trophy or be #1. I win around 64% of my games and have over a 1.3 K/D. I am happy. Heck in the First Tourney I landed at 98th place out of more than 2500 participants in a Sub par Mech an completely missing the first 24 hours. Or C landed in 6th Place in a near stock Centurion-A (Had double sinks and SRMs instead of LRMs) Neither are "Competitive builds".