130 replies to this topic

[IceLom]

The problem is there is a population of players who think they are high tier players and complain like spoiled little brats about everything...

We are also still in beta a little longer and are getting way ahead of ourselves... there is more content coming that may effect things that we don't know about at this time.

finally, about 3pv... if you cant fathom that a giant walking war machine cant launch a tiny camera drone then maybe you need to just go back to a pure soldier based fps... everyone can use 3pv deal with it.

From what I can see on the forum the so called "elite" are whinny, egotistical, and incapable of adapting to change...

[Mister Blastman]

boomshekah, on 06 September 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

What??? Are you serious?? That´s shocking news! You mean PGI is not developing this game around a handful of nerds who are ready to abuse every bug, every little unbalance that might exist to get an advantage, but are instead trying to open up the game and make it accessible to a much broader group of players?? What a stupid business decision!

Umm. Look no further than Quake 3. It was balanced according to input from the TOP players. The best of the best. The tournament players.

Guess what happened?

An incredibly deep and rich game that is STILL played online to this day. The gameplay has depth. The balance was good and most importantly, the game was fun.

You have to balance around the top players. We know exactly how to push the limits and exploit things and if you don't take this into account, we WILL find holes in your system, abuse them and it will break the gameplay experience for everyone else, eventually.

It isn't that the regular players won't find these problems--they eventually will. The top players will just find them quickly, save the developers a ton of time and make things happen in a positive way much faster.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 06 September 2013 - 09:02 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Roland, on 06 September 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Panda, even aside from actual organized competition (which actually does tend to contribute heavily to the longevity of a game, as well as the revenue received from the player base) most of what folks here are talking about is more directed at balancing against how GOOD PLAYERS play the game, as opposed to trying in vain to balance against how bad players play the game.

As I said above, you can't balance for how bad players will play, because you're then balancing against their incomplete and incorrect perceptions of how the game mechanics work, rather than the game mechanics themselves.

yup. the question is really though..what makes a good player? a good team player who focus fires with 3 others? a pugger who can swing matches by himself? a macro sniper who guass ppc's everyone? alone? in unison?

yes - top players matter for balance. but if you forget everyone else, you risk ruining the game for the masses.

[jakucha]

Team Leader, on 06 September 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Reading the forums like a bystander at a horrible impending train wreck =/= playing the game or paying any money for it ;-)

Deny all you want, but you're clearly invested in this game if you're going to bother posting here. Doesn't mean you have to spend money on it.

Edited by jakucha, 06 September 2013 - 10:05 AM.

[Twisted Power]

First of all PGI is not balancing. What they are doing is purposefully breaking mechanics so that they do not have to balance them. IE: If something works well (maybe to well), instead of balance (because they have tried and failed) they now just introduce new mechanics to the game to break the item.

[Sharknoms]

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.

This post is absolutely false.
Balancing a game around new player is the worst thing you can come up with.
New player will always complain about so called imbalances because they don't have the knowledge nor the skill to deal with certain situations.
Imagine this:
You play your tenth match in you super shiny Trial (Champion) Mech. After a while you run into this Cicada with it's 4 MGs and a Large laser. The Cicada easily kills you because he uses the terrain to his advance and does a quiet good job concentrating his fire on a single part of your mech.

So why do you lose?
a ) Because you are actually a good player and MGs and/or Large Laser and/or the Cicada is overpowered and they seriously need a Nerf
b ) Because he was the better player

Hint: The answer it not a)

Edited by Iguana Iguana, 06 September 2013 - 11:04 AM.

[Roland]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 06 September 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

yup. the question is really though..what makes a good player? a good team player who focus fires with 3 others? a pugger who can swing matches by himself? a macro sniper who guass ppc's everyone? alone? in unison?

yes - top players matter for balance. but if you forget everyone else, you risk ruining the game for the masses.

From the context of my statement, a good player is simply one who fully understands the mechanics of the game, and how they can be leveraged in a competitive environment.

[Almond Brown]

Mister Blastman, on 06 September 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Umm. Look no further than Quake 3. It was balanced according to input from the TOP players. The best of the best. The tournament players.

Guess what happened?

An incredibly deep and rich game that is STILL played online to this day. The gameplay has depth. The balance was good and most importantly, the game was fun.

You have to balance around the top players. We know exactly how to push the limits and exploit things and if you don't take this into account, we WILL find holes in your system, abuse them and it will break the gameplay experience for everyone else, eventually.

It isn't that the regular players won't find these problems--they eventually will. The top players will just find them quickly, save the developers a ton of time and make things happen in a positive way much faster.

Didn't Quake only have 9 weapons?

[tenderloving]

Almond Brown, on 06 September 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

Didn't Quake only have 9 weapons?

Guess what: MWO isn't a unique flower, no matter how much you want it to be. It's a competitive online multiplayer game, and there are core concepts that apply to all such games that determine the quality of the design.

If you think that PGI is in uncharted territory here, you're wrong.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

You balance from the top, because they're the ones who will run whatever is most effective, whether good for gameplay or not.

Bad players can always improve and get better, restricting players to game mechanics designed around the bad players doesnt help them improve, it just enables them to continue to be bad and use whatever cheap builds/tactics they can to get a leg up.

As opposed to them just getting better at the game.

Blizzard doesnt balance SC2 around Bronze league, they balance around the Grand Masters.
Guess what the #1 / #2 eSport is in the world right now?

[CeeKay Boques]

Twisted Power, on 06 September 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

First of all PGI is not balancing. What they are doing is purposefully breaking mechanics so that they do not have to balance them. IE: If something works well (maybe to well), instead of balance (because they have tried and failed) they now just introduce new mechanics to the game to break the item.

This is not a bad thing. MechWarrior is not meant to have a medium laser be balanced against a gauss rifle, or a Jenner vs an Atlas. Its built around a balanced mixture. However, if ONLY energy is viable, or ONLY missiles are viable, then the complexity of the game is broken. If they want to fix it with ECM, or Heat, or electronic malfunctions, or whatever works to balance it besides just range/heat/rof, that's fine with me. They said they wanted this as an Esport. As someone says about SC2, you balance from the top, because when I watch my Esport, I don't want it to be a 'sploit fest, no one is interested in that.

[Vassago Rain]

Almond Brown, on 06 September 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

Didn't Quake only have 9 weapons?

Yepp. This game has even less.

[Vassago Rain]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 06 September 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

so what if they do?

MWO doesn't even have comp play yet beyond groups forming lances or 12v12 sync drops, which are unreliable at best.

Further, only a tiny % of the community cares about the highest level of play. Of course PGI balances for the masses, they pay the bills, not the top 1 % , otherwise we never would have gotten 3PV either.

Only about 2% of the HUGE playerbase in WoW has seen all the content, takes part in PvP,, or goes on actual raids. This 2% is what they base their game's mechanics around.

So does every other successful game out there, right down to pokémon.

[Villz]

Syllogy, on 06 September 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

And yet, everyone has a different idea of "Balanced."

Yeh when you dont have comprehensive understanding diversity in opinion is alot more varied than @ top level play. For instance i drop into a TS channel with a few dv8 lords and in comes kaffeangst and he instantly just re iterates what i found in my 4 hrs or so of play on the patch.

#1 UAC5's are rediculous and best weapon (As in uac/5's are more op than ppc gauss ever was as demonstrated by our many 100 - 1400 damage runs in an 3uac5 ilya.

#2 ERPPC's are useless now astronomical heat for a 10 dmg 1500 ms projectile is hard to justify at 7 tons. Especially since the thing really carrying ppc's was its close tie in with a gauss rifle in terms of heat and pinpoint instant dmg.

#3 PPC's are pretty well balanced but outshone at present by Other OPweapons.

So hurry up u derps just load up your mech with ac/2's uac5's and ac5's and goto town. The sooner the rest of you figure out what we did in a few hrs the better. Hopefully won't take u guys 6mnths this time ....

[Farix]

Almond Brown, on 06 September 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

Didn't Quake only have 9 weapons?

Vassago Rain, on 06 September 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Yepp. This game has even less.

When did 26 < 9 become true?

[DeadlyNerd]

Villz, on 06 September 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

If thats the case im going to start making a video guide, patch to patch. On how to be the cheesiest dirtiest build u can fathom so everyone can figure it out within 1 week and i'll cause them eventually to reconsider their oversight

I guess we have your word. I expect a video on exploiting each and every hole in this game by the end of the next week and then at the release of every patch.
Don't be tardy.

IceLom, on 06 September 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

The problem is there is a population of players who think they are high tier players and complain like spoiled little brats about everything...

We are also still in beta a little longer and are getting way ahead of ourselves... there is more content coming that may effect things that we don't know about at this time.

finally, about 3pv... if you cant fathom that a giant walking war machine cant launch a tiny camera drone then maybe you need to just go back to a pure soldier based fps... everyone can use 3pv deal with it.

From what I can see on the forum the so called "elite" are whinny, egotistical, and incapable of adapting to change...

Right, and that drone can be killed by flashing it with a laser? Yeah... guess not. Guess it's going to remain a little bird flying around your mech completely encased in god mode.
If you want to talk realism, be sure you don't miss out the obvious facts.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 06 September 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[Roland]

If you use realism to argue about balance in a game with giant robots fighting across the galaxy, then you are an imbecile.

[ryoma]

Aside from the fact that 3PV is a buff to snipers and allows you to gain vision without danger it has done one more thing.

It has destroyed the need for light mechs.

Who needs a 150KPH Jenner to scout when a 100KPH Dragon can do the scouting job almost as well while being more durable and carrying a bigger pay load?

Why take a Raven and become the teams ECM umbrella (because you suck at scouting now, so this is all thats left) when a D-DC can do it while being more durable and carrying a bigger pay load?

I showed the video from OP to a friend who put the game on hiatus till release and this is what he said "Wow, that's so f-ing OP. That camera takes all the risk out of sniping"




The fact that PGI has released statements saying the 3PV is balanced against 1PV shows how little they actually understand this game.

Edited by ryoma, 06 September 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Fooooo]

Farix, on 06 September 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

When did 26 < 9 become true?

Do you really use all 26 weapons in MWO ?


To me it seems at least 20-21 of them are basically useless, meaning they pretty much don't exist in my mind.

So yeah, Quakes 9 is larger than MWO's 26....at least imo.

[Lord Ikka]

3PV is going away from 12 mans as of September 17th according to the 2nd part of Ekman's NGNG podcast.