130 replies to this topic

[Aym]

Fingonar, on 06 September 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

Krash27, it's rather easy to figure out actually. Because if High level play is balanced low level play is automatically also balanced, why you may ask? High level players will be able to abuse things through game knowledge and more skilled play. It's the competitive and high level players who will find the next broken thing, simply because it's in their best interest to find the best tactic/loadout/way of playing.

As an example of games that use this way of balancing you will find: Starcraft 2, Dota/LoL, Counterstrike, and the like.
Anyhow, there is NO reason to balance for the mid or low bracket because they will be also be balanced in higher level play. Gauss/PPC may not have been broken in low bracket que's because people don't know how to proper strafe sniping (moving sideways, how to torso twist and the like) However mid and high brackets did use it more and more which causes problems exponentially.

This is a logical fallacy unfortunately. Balanced around high skill still leaves large areas that can be exploited at low skill, especially or specifically when we're talking about balanced imbalance which is talked about very effectively in the attached video and applies to games with such a variety of gameplay and options that still maintain a general balance. Just because something is balanced at high skill does NOT mean it's balanced at low-skill, it just means it's easier to then address the issues at low-skill because if you balance for low-skill first, high-skill will break it and that will trickle down.

[ryoma]

I wouldn't describe anything the MWO devs do as "carefully crafted imbalance" as explained by that video.

[MustrumRidcully]

ryoma, on 11 September 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

I wouldn't describe anything the MWO devs do as "carefully crafted imbalance" as explained by that video.

It isn't.

The "carefully crafted imbalance" is however a part of Battletech. (Not that it always gets it right, but it got closer than MW:O.)

Long range weapons rock, because you can zap enemies at long range!
Except if you'd equip short range weapon, you could equip more and have overall more fire power!

That's the type of "perfect imbalance". "Oh, look, everyone plays PPC Snipers. Hey, look at this, if I build this short range mech, I can maneuver him close to the sniper and totally outdamage him, so even that his initial volleys are irrelevant!" Except that didn't happen in M:WO, people building that short range mech couldn't bring enough fire power to compensate the advantages of the sniper.

Another example.
Focus all your tonnage on energy weapons, and you deliver mighty amounts of damage!
But if you devote some tonnage on heat sinks or use some low heat ballistics, you don't suffer massive heat penalties and can sustain your fire much longer.

Except that also didn't happen in M:WO. Those PPC Snipers we had? They couldn't sustain their fire long, but it didn't matter, because a lower heat build couldn't force them into a fire fight soon or long enough where the difference in sustainability mattered.

So, the groundwork has been layed, but the details haven't been achieved. A lot is due to the borked heat system with its high threshold and no heat penalties* and low dissipation, some is also due to convergence, group fire and projectiles (because many of the potential "counter" builds we could build can't deliver their damage in one shot to one location and thus are less effective).


*) not to be confused with ghost heat.

[ryoma]

So who agrees with the statement that

"the people balancing MWO have theoretical knowledge and metrics as balancing tools, but likely don't play at a competitive standard themselves, thus limiting the effectiveness of their balance changes"

[Deathlike]

ryoma, on 11 September 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

So who agrees with the statement that

"the people balancing MWO have theoretical knowledge and metrics as balancing tools, but likely don't play at a competitive standard themselves, thus limiting the effectiveness of their balance changes"

Working as intended™.

[MustrumRidcully]

ryoma, on 11 September 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

So who agrees with the statement that

"the people balancing MWO have theoretical knowledge and metrics as balancing tools, but likely don't play at a competitive standard themselves, thus limiting the effectiveness of their balance changes"

I am not sure if they actually have all the sufficient theoretical knowledge and metrics. If you put your mind to it, you can already figure out a lot even with an imperfect metric, and I would expect to see an effect of such a metric in their balancing changes. I don't.

[ryoma]

Wow, guess it's worse than I thought eh.

[ICEFANG13]

I don't understand the idea that its better to balance at the lower levels. This is an impossible feat to completely achieve in a game with complex interactions. While I do believe that balance, complete balance, can be achieved at all levels, you cannot start at the bottom and expect it to get better. For example. LRMs, lets make this really simple. LRMs with no TAG, ART, ECM, nothing etc. Let's also just pretend they are balanced (opinions aside) at a top, or bottom, level of play. This is a weapon that locks on for you, everything else aside (as stated), there is no way it could be completely balanced at the bottom and top the way it is now. If it was balanced at the top, with its current mechanics, it would have high damage that can be avoided to maintain a powerful, although inconsistent weapon, at low levels, players, say, don't have the skills to survive the shots, so its overpowered. At the other end, if balanced at the lower levels, they will simply take all the damage, and not avoid it. At the top level, they do no damage and are not consistent, they aren't even used.

LRMs like they are, are probably impossible to... (actually with hard stop ECM and other factors, it really is impossible to be balanced all the time), but compare the two examples, which one is better?

Good at lower levels, and worthless at high levels, this is impossible to change, it really is impossible to use it well.
Good at higher levels, and too powerful at lower levels, as a player gets better, it will become more balanced.

One gets better, one gets worse. Players get better, although at different rates. Balance at highest level? Maybe you don't like it, but balance at lowest? That's just a waste of time.

[Deathlike]

Here's a example of ECM "being balanced" vs low level play.

One of the things ECM used to do in MWO is remove friendly targets out of your radar when ECM is in range of an opposing force.

This isn't a big a problem in higher level play... people know where their teammates are going and are probably doing this all through some form of voice chat.

At lower level play, newbies getting "lost" in the ECM coverage don't really know what to do... they don't recognize "missing blips" and don't know where to help or how to get help. It is a very important thing to understand the details of how things work... except this game is missing a tutorial explaining these things.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 September 2013 - 07:10 PM.

[Eleshod]

You can't balance a game around new players. Because eventually those new players grow up and become veteran players. Eventually the veteran players are no longer a minority as the new players grow up. Then we get PPC warrior online or UAC/5 warrior online because all the vets know what's needed to exploit the system.

This is common F****** sense PGI Jesus tap dancing Christ.

[Dimento Graven]

Earl White, on 06 September 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

Good, I'd rather them balance around lower skill players, that way more people benefit than balanced for the minority of higher skilled players. Yes you could say it sends "large waves and ripples" that can be exploited by higher level players, but higher level players will always exploit everything and anything, and usually have more to exploit if it is balanced specifically for them rather than the majority populace.

If you can balance to help low skill players, the gap is made smaller between them and "the elite" even though both parties benefit from the changes.

If you balance around "the elite" only, then low skill players will not benefit but only those who are in the top echelons can.

Wow... I mean, WOW!!! You REALLY do NOT understand "skilled" players do you?

So you make a change that gives a 10% boost for the lazy or low skilled person. The highly skilled person however gets the same 10% boost, but considering the level that the highly skilled player is already at, he is benefited manifold what the average suktard would get.

The best way I can explain it is to assign players, "skill values". These are arbitrary but should serve to demonstrate what's been happening:

Let's say a low skilled player's skill value is 100 and a highly skilled player's skill value is 1000. Now give that 10% boost and the low player's skill value is 110, while the highly skilled player's skill value is 1100.

Benefit difference a full 90 points in favor of the highly skilled player.

The change has the exact opposite of the intended affect, increasing the disparity between the highly skilled and low skilled players.

What should PGI do?

Ultimately PGI should do NOTHING that isn't fixing a BROKEN mechanic. They should stick to their guns and focus on the broken stuff, or adding NEW features.

All the "tweaking" PGI has done in game against weapons systems and such has resulted in very little of value. Consider, weapon heat and damage values. At one point or another MOST weapons had values that were different from the original TT values, but guess what, after YEARS of development and tweaking the weapon heat and damage values are darn near EXACTLY the original TT values again. Considering the amount of time and effort they've invested, it's almost a criminal waste of time and money on their part to have come full circle and get back to nearly an exact match of those TT values... It's sad and extremely ironic, and frustrating watching it happen.

Why can't we expect that poor players will eventually get better? Why is PGI so afraid they'll get 'frustrated' and leave the game? You base your mechanics on the low end and this will become a wasteland where the elites ROFLSTOMP the lesser skilled, driving them away anyway.

[Navy Sixes]

I think before we decide who PGI should be taking advice from, we should consider what that advice is.

As I recall, it was all the "top" players who were saying, "Oh, no, nothing wrong with the 6 PPC Stalker meta. The problem is all these LRMs, SSRMs, and anything I don't consider "skill based."

Then it was, "Oh, no, 2 PPC/Gauss is fine. No problem there. Leave it alone. Leave ECM alone. Leave whatever abuse-able mechanic I've discovered alone. The only thing that's wrong with this game is 3pv, LRMs, SSRMs, anything I don't consider "skill based," and oh yeah the ***** n00b whiners that don't agree with me."

You can say that you are the best player in MWO and that's why PGI should be listening to your recommendations all you want. Maybe you are the best player in MWO (I doubt it, but whatever). It doesn't matter. PGI shouldn't listen to your recommendations because your recommendations are just as self-serving as everyone else's and suuuuuuucccccckkkkkkk.

[Eleshod]

Tycho von Gagern, on 12 September 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

I think before we decide who PGI should be taking advice from, we should consider what that advice is.

As I recall, it was all the "top" players who were saying, "Oh, no, nothing wrong with the 6 PPC Stalker meta. The problem is all these LRMs, SSRMs, and anything I don't consider "skill based."

Then it was, "Oh, no, 2 PPC/Gauss is fine. No problem there. Leave it alone. Leave ECM alone. Leave whatever abuse-able mechanic I've discovered alone. The only thing that's wrong with this game is 3pv, LRMs, SSRMs, anything I don't consider "skill based," and oh yeah the ***** n00b whiners that don't agree with me."

You can say that you are the best player in MWO and that's why PGI should be listening to your recommendations all you want. Maybe you are the best player in MWO (I doubt it, but whatever). It doesn't matter. PGI shouldn't listen to your recommendations because your recommendations are just as self-serving as everyone else's and suuuuuuucccccckkkkkkk.

You're throwing an aw full lot of players into a broad spectrum. For instance, take a look at my stats, I'm not an amazing player but i'm pretty good, and I disagree with just about everything you just blurted out. 6 ppc stalker was broken. 3 ppc 1 guass highlanders where broken.

Going off your BROAD spectrum of 'good players" My very post completely dis-proves your entire argument.

[TOGSolid]

Quote

This is a logical fallacy unfortunately. Balanced around high skill still leaves large areas that can be exploited at low skill, especially or specifically when we're talking about balanced imbalance which is talked about very effectively in the attached video and applies to games with such a variety of gameplay and options that still maintain a general balance. Just because something is balanced at high skill does NOT mean it's balanced at low-skill, it just means it's easier to then address the issues at low-skill because if you balance for low-skill first, high-skill will break it and that will trickle down.

And the result is a game that's balanced around high-skill players.

Just because something can be used to blow up low tier players doesn't mean it's "being exploited" it just means its easy to blow up new guys with it. Hell, I can take Ghost Rider into UMvC3's low end brackets and rip up new players. That doesn't mean he's good, it just means I'm beating up new players with a character they see to be infuriating and potentially unbeatable. Then they get better, realize GR is garbage, and that's one less person I can troll with him. In MWO I can run around with a Two PPC 6 MG Jager and kill new guys all day. That doesn't mean the build is top end competitive, but you can bet your *** the low skill players will think it's cheap as ****.

Balancing around the high skill players will always be the end goal no matter how you get there.

Eleshod, on 12 September 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

You're throwing an aw full lot of players into a broad spectrum. For instance, take a look at my stats, I'm not an amazing player but i'm pretty good, and I disagree with just about everything you just blurted out. 6 ppc stalker was broken. 3 ppc 1 guass highlanders where broken.

Going off your BROAD spectrum of 'good players" My very post completely dis-proves your entire argument.

He's not wrong though. Every time there's a new FOTM a lot of players that act like they're hot **** whine and cry against any potential nerfs to whatever ******** they're using. There were ardent defenders that declared the old splatcats had nothing wrong to them and that they were "high risk/high reward." People claim right now that there is nothing wrong with the UAC/5 even though it has been definitively proven to have a serious issue regarding its double fire DPS.

There's a reason after a hot button weapon system gets fixed the Elo matcher goes more apeshit than usual. It's because all these 'champs' get exposed as frauds now that their toys got taken away and their inflated Elo scores screw everything up.

Edited by TOGSolid, 12 September 2013 - 09:31 PM.

[ryoma]

I do remember some people arguing for PPCs to stay as they were, but they were the minority.

I knew a lot more players who instead said they would abuse the hell out of PPCs to prove the point to PGI that something needed change.

[Navy Sixes]

Eleshod, on 12 September 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

You're throwing an aw full lot of players into a broad spectrum. For instance, take a look at my stats, I'm not an amazing player but i'm pretty good, and I disagree with just about everything you just blurted out. 6 ppc stalker was broken. 3 ppc 1 guass highlanders where broken.

Going off your BROAD spectrum of 'good players" My very post completely dis-proves your entire argument.

Whatever. All I know is that if the "top" players always got their way, PPCs and Gauss Rifles wouldl get a buff each patch, and we'd have no 3pv, ghost heat, capping, or ...aw what the heck, anything else. Welcome to TDM PP Alpha Sniper Online.

Also, I said "Top" players. Not good. Don't put quotes around something I didn't say.

Edited by Tycho von Gagern, 13 September 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Navy Sixes]

ryoma, on 12 September 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

I knew a lot more players who instead said they would abuse the hell out of PPCs to prove the point to PGI that something needed change.

...and I see those people crying to this day about that change. If they really have the community's best interests at heart and want to see these flawed mechanics that they abuse the hell out of actually fixed, how come they fight tooth-and-nail against any changes whenever the suggestion comes up on these forums, dog anyone who doesn't run those builds as 'a drag on the team' in chat, and finally are never happy about the fix when the patch comes down?

You can drape your self-serving arguments in the mantle of "concerned MWO contributor" all day long. You're not fooling anyone.

[ryoma]

Tycho, I cannot argue with you. It seems that you and I go to completely separate mwomercs.com/forums because I almost never see what you described.

Now I see those people who fought for game balance parading UAC/5 with similar intent. Their goal is to make all weapons good because they don't want everyone running the same equipment.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tycho von Gagern, on 13 September 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

...and I see those people crying to this day about that change. If they really have the community's best interests at heart and want to see these flawed mechanics that they abuse the hell out of actually fixed, how come they fight tooth-and-nail against any changes whenever the suggestion comes up on these forums, dog anyone who doesn't run those builds as 'a drag on the team' in chat, and finally are never happy about the fix when the patch comes down?

You can drape your self-serving arguments in the mantle of "concerned MWO contributor" all day long. You're not fooling anyone.

I suspect you misunderstand some people's motivation.

Using cheese and expecting others to use cheese can simply be born out of the desire to play competitively and win. In a PVP game, you always have to worry about your enemies being smarter and better than you, so you also include the worry that he'll use cheese. Not using cheese is thus an unneccessary risk. Keep in mind that games can generally also be exciting if everyone uses cheese - it just becomes a bit boring i nthe long run, because there aren't any new tactics or technologies used, because they just won't work as well. Asking others to use cheese becomes par tof the same mindset that we ask others to work together with us instead of everything rushing off and dying alone.

That people fight certain solutions is because they simply don't like the solution. Sometimes they don't believe it is a solution, sometimes they thin kit might be one, but it is a bad one. A patient with an infected injury might not like the doctor's solution of amputating that arm and might prefer him to try antibiotics instead. And if the doctor suggests a cast instead...
Of course, you might think that it's more like a cancer patient refusing chemotherapy and saying "I'd rather try more Vitamin C in my diet. But with things like the heat scale vs actually feeling convergence and the heat system, I feel it's more like the doctor suggesting the cancer patient to try more Vitamin C; some antiobotics and a amputation of all fingers, while the patient says "you know what, I think all that won't really help, let's fight the cancer directly with a chemotherapy".

[Navy Sixes]

ryoma, on 13 September 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

Tycho, I cannot argue with you. It seems that you and I go to completely separate mwomercs.com/forums because I almost never see what you described.

OK, ryoma. If you're going to say you almost never see anyone complaining about ghost heat or the Gauss rifle delay on these forums, you keep on keepin' on.

You can say that "Top" players really wanted PPCs and Gauss Rifles nerfed, they just didn't like the way it was done, but I am going to still believe they are just salty that their favorite game-breaking toys were taken away from them, which is why they're all looking for another game-breaking toy to abuse, even now. There's really nothing either of us can do to convince the other, is there?

It's so late it's starting to be early on my end, so I'm gonna sign off for now. Y'all keep believing what you believe about the way you play the game and how everything would be better if PGI would just listen to you, exclusively. I am going to keep believing that for as many missteps as PGI has made, one of the things they've done right is not grant the PP Alpha players everything they've argued for on these forums. MWO may not be all we hoped for, but at least it's not the one-shot-kill garbage it was 3 months ago.

Stay stompy, my friends.