130 replies to this topic

[Agent 0 Fortune]

The problem with balancing the game from the "top" down is that there is no "top". The good players are a good team, not necessarily the sum of their weapons.

For example lets say the best team makes heavy user of LRMs and are very effective due to spotting. Does that mean LRMs are overpowered and need to be nerfed so that no uses them? No. because they are only really effective when combined with a stong spotter and good communication, things that are not managable within the game mechanics.

Right now PGI can only look at the big numbers. There is no point in nerfing a specific weapon just because a small group of players is able to make good use of it. Only when the weapon gains wide acceptance and everyone is emulating a specific build can PGI make an intelligent adjustment (like they did with Gauss + PPC).

Maybe this will change when/if Mechwarrior becomes and E-Sport and played at a competative level, with leaderboards and tournaments.

[Felio]

I had to google to find out Bronze 5 seems to be a sort of ELO level in League of Legends.

What, exactly, would balancing for low-skill players look like? Do you really think that means making something overpowered for noobs to pilot?

What they meant was probably one of two things:

1) Balance weapons and mechs under the assumption that the pilots aren't very good. (a weapon used poorly should be balanced against another weapon used poorly)

2) Compress the skill gap. A good example of this is Call of Duty (or as I call it, Call of Doodie). Lousy players can get kills with the grenade launcher and feel effective, and skilled players are only slightly more effective with it. Lousy players can get a kill anytime simply by being outside target's field of view, too, because it takes less than a half-second of fire. There are other ways of shrinking the skill gap, but this is the idea.

[Lostdragon]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 September 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

The problem with balancing the game from the "top" down is that there is no "top". The good players are a good team, not necessarily the sum of their weapons.

For example lets say the best team makes heavy user of LRMs and are very effective due to spotting. Does that mean LRMs are overpowered and need to be nerfed so that no uses them? No. because they are only really effective when combined with a stong spotter and good communication, things that are not managable within the game mechanics.

Right now PGI can only look at the big numbers. There is no point in nerfing a specific weapon just because a small group of players is able to make good use of it. Only when the weapon gains wide acceptance and everyone is emulating a specific build can PGI make an intelligent adjustment (like they did with Gauss + PPC).

Maybe this will change when/if Mechwarrior becomes and E-Sport and played at a competative level, with leaderboards and tournaments.

I disagree with most of this. Good players are the ones who understand the systems behind the game and use their knowledge to min/max. That is how it works in any game where the players have some sort of configurable avatar whether it is World of Warcraft or Call of Duty or MWO or Hello Kitty Island Adventures. It just so happens that in general these are the types of players you will find playing on good teams. They understand that 12 specialized mechs will wax 12 jack of all trade mechs any day of the week. They understand the tactics that win and the roles necessary to make those tactics work so they build out mechs to excel in those roles. They form teams where every aspect of the unit from chassis selection to loadout to team composition is designed to win.

It doesn't matter if the game has an official competitive system or not, this is already going on because this is what those players naturally do. These are the kinds of players you want testing your game. These are the kinds of players you want to keep an eye on to see what creative ways they come up with to use and abuse game mechanics to get an edge.

If what these players are doing is negatively impacting how you as a designer want the game to be played then you don't need to wait for those loadouts or tactics or whatever to trickle down to the bottom brackets. In fact, waiting six months to do something about a situation like that is a really bad idea because it hurts your credibility as a developer when you are trying to make your game an esport. Nobody wants to play or watch an esport where there is an obviously overpowered element because it cheapens the experience.

[Victor Morson]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 10 September 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

The problem with balancing the game from the "top" down is that there is no "top". The good players are a good team, not necessarily the sum of their weapons.

But when they are all using the same sets of weapons and 'mechs uniformly you have a problem.

To be fair since the last patch, the whole game has gotten far more interesting design wise. If Ghost Heat would go away, we'd have a really diverse situation going on right now.

But when something OP is found and starts showing up, it needs to get looked at. Really all PGI needed to do, ever, to prevent 99% of their problems is just keep an open line of dialogue to unit leaders. It's kind of a shame.

[Galen Crayn]

The "Pro" Gamer are the problem, not the balance of the Weapon. I hope one day they are all gone and play another game... The solution would be PUGS only mode with NO groups and group only mode. Than all the "Pros" can use the boring meta and exploit what ever they want. That would solve everything... For me as a pug player the game is nearly balanced and the weapon arent balanced will be fixed soon. PGI does a great job the last patches.

[AEgg]

The problem with balancing for the top is that it can make low level play awful.

A good example is weapons with a low skill ceiling. For high level players, these aren't very useful, and are generally ignored, because skill is essentially a non-factor (everyone is assumed to be nearly perfect). For low level players, these can be hugely overpowered, because they're far better than the alternatives at a given skill index. Basically, balancing for the top results in tactics that are far easier to use than to counter.

[Airu]

Galen Crayn, on 10 September 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

The "Pro" Gamer are the problem, not the balance of the Weapon. I hope one day they are all gone and play another game... The solution would be PUGS only mode with NO groups and group only mode. Than all the "Pros" can use the boring meta and exploit what ever they want. That would solve everything... For me as a pug player the game is nearly balanced and the weapon arent balanced will be fixed soon. PGI does a great job the last patches.

Are you saying that good players only play premade? How do you define a pro gamer? Your lack of understanding that every one in this world is different and that there will always be people much better than the others, who will exploit the game to their advantage, is disturbing.

The end result of balancing a game for noobs is that it will become so skilless and boring that it will lose its playerbase (atleast the one that matters for longevity).

Quote

The problem with balancing for the top is that it can make low level play awful.

A good example is weapons with a low skill ceiling. For high level players, these aren't very useful, and are generally ignored, because skill is essentially a non-factor (everyone is assumed to be nearly perfect). For low level players, these can be hugely overpowered, because they're far better than the alternatives at a given skill index. Basically, balancing for the top results in tactics that are far easier to use than to counter.

Low level players are suppose to be awful against top level players (thats why they are LOW level players), otherwise there is no point in learning and skill progression. They should either strive to become better or keep playing in their bracket

Edited by Airu, 10 September 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[Shifty Eyes]

What the hell is bronze 5?

Edit:
Ok, yeah, the problem seems to be that there are two types of people that play the game: PUGs, and 12v12 guys. You will never achieve balance between the two simply because a player will alter his or her loadout significantly (any player usually, not just "good" players) if they know what their team mates will be bringing to the table.

There just can't be balance in both of these realms. The more specialized team builds work, the less they work in PUG matches, and vice-versa. That's the way it seems to me.

Edited by Shifty Eyes, 10 September 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[Galen Crayn]

For me "Pro" Gamer are premade people with an ego that fills a complete room. They are not better but they exploit the hell out of the game. For me the REAL Pros without "" are good PUG players. Its not that who exploits the best is the best player. It only says much about the character of a person... The good thing is that PGI makes the game and they do it really good. The last patches solved nearly every problem. They wont listen about the unit leaders because they make a game for EVERYONE. Not only the Exploiters

So, "PRO" = Exploiter
Pro = very good player (he/she has not to exploit because he/she rocks with builds he/she likes)

Edited by Galen Crayn, 10 September 2013 - 03:07 PM.

[Airu]

Galen Crayn, on 10 September 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

For me "Pro" Gamer are premade people with an ego that fills a complete room. They are not better but they exploit the hell out of the game. For me the REAL Pros without "" are good PUG players. Its not that who exploits the best is the best player. It only says much about the character of a person... The good thing is that PGI makes the game and they do it really good. The last patches solved nearly every problem. They wont listen about the unit leaders because they make a game for EVERYONE. Not only the Exploiters

I agree regarding the good players.

PGI does make a game for everyone, but not balancing for exploiters, exploiters break this game for everyone.
New or bad players will most likely see the broken builds performing well and will try to replicate them, thus we end up in some new meta where 90% of people use the same setups, regardless how well it works for them. I've seen enough noobs with 2ppc+gauss, that failed miserably with it.

[SteelPaladin]

Galen Crayn, on 10 September 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

For me "Pro" Gamer are premade people with an ego that fills a complete room. They are not better but they exploit the hell out of the game. For me the REAL Pros without "" are good PUG players. Its not that who exploits the best is the best player. It only says much about the character of a person... The good thing is that PGI makes the game and they do it really good. The last patches solved nearly every problem. They wont listen about the unit leaders because they make a game for EVERYONE. Not only the Exploiters

Making the best use of a game's ruleset is not "exploiting". It is not the players' job to make a game fair by pulling punches. It is the makers' job to force fairness by intelligent rule design.

It's like blaming water for taking the path of least resistance. It's physics. If you don't want to be flooded, you don't scold it for being mean; you build some drainage.

Edited by SteelPaladin, 10 September 2013 - 03:10 PM.

[Galen Crayn]

If we would have PUG only and Group only mode perhaps some PUGS will try the "Pros" meta but if they fail they will change their builds soon.

Quote

It is not the players' job to make a game fair by pulling punches. It is the makers' job to force fairness by intelligent rule design..

The Job of PGI is to make their game as they want it to be. And if somebody doesnt like it, he or she should stop playing it. They do their job quite good WITHOUT your advice. They have the numbers and statistics, you only make a guess.

I understand totally why PGI left the Building here in the Forum... And it was the right decision.

[Roland]

Galen Crayn, on 10 September 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

For me "Pro" Gamer are premade people with an ego that fills a complete room. They are not better but they exploit the hell out of the game.

Well balanced games don't have imbalances which can be easily exploited.

[AEgg]

[quote name='Airu, on 10 September 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

-Snip-

Low level players are suppose to be awful against top level players (thats why they are LOW level players), otherwise there is no point in learning and skill progression. They should either strive to become better or keep playing in their bracket

You're completely missing my point. If you balance to the top, the at any given skill level other than the top, there will be tactics that are far easier to use than to counter (i.e. "Cheese" builds).

It doesn't matter at the top, because one thing being harder to use makes no difference when skill is near perfect everywhere. Better players still win when everyone's skill index is beyond what it takes to counter a cheap strategy. The problem lies in lower tier matches, where everyone's skill index is below what it takes to counter something but far above what it takes to use it. There, the better player will still lose if they don't play cheap, because there's a huge gap between being good enough to use a given strategy and being able to counter it.

[Victor Morson]

Galen Crayn, on 10 September 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

The "Pro" Gamer are the problem, not the balance of the Weapon. I hope one day they are all gone and play another game...

That will be the day the game dies.

Also because people take the time to learn what works best and use it, that's the problem, rather than the overpowered item? Seriously.

Roland, on 10 September 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

Well balanced games don't have imbalances which can be easily exploited.

And that is the point of balancing at the top. You go to the people who break the stuff first, make them try to break it, see what they think is broken, and fix it. That way everybody wins. Sure a casual frakenmech might not ever stand up to a streamlined one, but if the competitive community was a allowed say a year ago most every major balance issue would be fixed.

Again, the last patch was fantastic. The patch before was not bad, either. Let's see them keep this up.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 September 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[semalferuzA]

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.

One side of the coin. For example, you could have something that is balanced at lower skill levels but at higher skills it is completely unbalanced. Then you'll be in a position where not only can other players be more skilled than you at the game but they can also abuse a mechanic that you can't. The way elo works ensures that you will always be against players both better and worse than you unless you are at the extremes of the elo spectrum.

If you balance the game in a top down fashion you'll end up with an overall more balanced game, for everyone. Once you've achieved some sense of balance at the top you can begin to look at lower skill levels to determine if something is too difficult or too easy to take advantage of or combat against. Making subtle changes at that point results in a balanced game for everyone. If the game is balanced at the lower levels it becomes more difficult to affect the top with small tweaks because they are more able to work around small changes.

[Victor Morson]

Galen Crayn, on 10 September 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

For me "Pro" Gamer are premade people with an ego that fills a complete room. They are not better but they exploit the hell out of the game. For me the REAL Pros without "" are good PUG players. Its not that who exploits the best is the best player. It only says much about the character of a person... The good thing is that PGI makes the game and they do it really good. The last patches solved nearly every problem. They wont listen about the unit leaders because they make a game for EVERYONE. Not only the Exploiters

So, "PRO" = Exploiter
Pro = very good player (he/she has not to exploit because he/she rocks with builds he/she likes)

Once there was a Samurai who stood in front of a group with guns and cannons, and proceeded to lecture them about how they were inferior warriors and that what they were doing would break warfare. He was gunned down, unable to put up a fight because.. well, gun > sword. Then everyone adapted guns.

There is a parallel in there, somewhere.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 September 2013 - 03:56 PM.

[aniviron]

Just want to point out that when angryjoe and totalbiscuit played to try and attract an audience for this game, one of them said they hated walking into engagements blind and Garth (I think, might have been another PGI employee) suggested they use third person view to look over hills and around corners so they could see what was over there without getting shot.

it's not that don't PGI know that their 'balance' changes break the game at any level of play except the very lowest, they just don't care.

[ryoma]

aniviron, on 10 September 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

they just don't care.

This is what scares me the most.

Does anyone else besides me find it hilarious that PGI claims that 3PV doesn't offer a significant advantage over 1PV?

[Vassago Rain]

ryoma, on 10 September 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

This is what scares me the most.

Does anyone else besides me find it hilarious that PGI claims that 3PV doesn't offer a significant advantage over 1PV?

That's been the butt of many jokes in Kong