155 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Hello, forumwarriors. This is a public service announcement brought to you all by your favorite fuddy duddy.

What I'm going to be talking to ya'll about today is the topic of getting stuff actually fixed. Forums of every game in the history of ever are jam-packed with discussions about what is overpowered and what is underpowered. Such threads are (usually) perfectly valid to create, but what we must understand is that such threads don't usually have any noticeable impact whatsoever. Sometimes this is for the better, because threads can sometimes suggest hopelessly stupid ideas. At other times, this can be for the worse.

Whatever the implications are, your balance threads are rarely, if ever, going to see the light of day. There is a much more practical way to convince the developers to make whatever change you're looking for, and this requires taking matters into your own hands. What I'm suggesting for you to do is to go out and "prove" that weapon-x is overpowered, or that variant-y is underpowered. Note that this thread does not care about what specific things are OP/UP, I am simply laying out the framework for the way to get things changed.



If something is overpowered, the best way to get it nerfed is to abuse the living daylights out of it. If you think autocannons are too good, start using autocannons. Doing so will provide additional statistics for PGI to make their decisions based off of. If they see a disproportionally large part of the playerbase using a very narrow set of tactics and equipment, they might get the impression that there is a reason for such behavior. Being a hipster with your LPL + SRM2 + LBX + Flamer + LRM10 frankenmech isn't going to affect change, and will in fact slow down or inhibit change.

Conversely, if you believe that something is underpowered, STOP USING THAT ITEM and refuse to touch it with a 31.5 foot pole. If you think that the Raven 4X and 2X variants are bad, don't use them. Using them would cause PGI to see that people are getting decent performance out of them, and thus they would get the impression that those variants don't need any help. If you think that the LPL is bad, don't use LPLs. Being a hipster with your LPL Stalker is going to give PGI statistics that people use the weapon and do okay with them, and thus LPLs will never get buffed.


Going "against the meta" directly increases the duration of that "meta" because it can give statistics-gatherers the impression that things are hunky-dorey. It is a sad fact, but it is true. Trying to be a unique little snowflake is going to make the developers conclude that the meta isn't really the meta after all. If you want OP things fixed, relentlessly abuse those things. If you want UP things fixed, avoid those things like the plague, and maybe even sell them off from your mechbay. Take matters into your own hands, and give the people in power the statistics they need to make a decision on the issue.

Edited by FupDup, 23 November 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[Tolkien]

Sad but true but the squeaky wheel in a multiplayer game is the one that gets the grease.

ECM was 'no op' until it was progressively abused and rolled back over several months.

Craven 3L's were murder birds until they were fixed (broken hit boxes on the back, broken hitboxes on the legs) and HSR was implemented.

Streaks were broken until they were abused (brilliant splash damage implementation causing several times intended damage to mechs like the spider and commando)

Atlas D(F) head hitbox was for some reason upscaled a month or two ago.

Spiders have had their hitboxes 'simplified'.


Each of these are examples of problems that were fixed faster (or at all) thanks to their over/under use in game.

Edited by Tolkien, 23 November 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[Poptimus Rhyme Wallace]

While I can completely understand and agree with you on this FupDup, I still wont be running any cheese or meta, i perform above average with my "frankenbuilds" dropping against meta groups and as such AM "f******n" up PGI's statistics, too bad if they cant compensate for skilled pilots, along with alot of cry-engine stuff i guess they'll just have to learn how to eventually.

[Livewyr]

I will gladly continue to lend my support in the 2PPC/AC5/UAC5 VTR.

[Wolfways]

I use things that i consider UP or broken because if i didn't i'd never play anything but my JM6-S, the only mech i have that i don't like.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 23 November 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Conversely, if you believe that something is underpowered, STOP USING THAT ITEM and refuse to touch it with a 31.5 foot pole. If you think that the Raven 4X and 2X variants are bad, don't use them. Using them would cause PGI to see that people are getting decent performance out of them, and thus they would get the impression that those variants don't need any help. If you think that the LPL is bad, don't use LPLs. Being a hipster with your LPL Stalker is going to give PGI statistics that people use the weapon and do okay with them, and thus LPLs will never get buffed.

The only negative this is if the mech itself is required for grinding out elite/master.

I'm not even sure if PGI knows that I've stopped using the Raven-2X since the Cicada swat swap of 2013.

[Screech]

So how many people exactly are using weapons that they think are bad? If the solution to fix OP weapons was to use them I think things would have been fixed by now.

Of course, YMMV, I may just be in the Elo where people like to win.

[Roadbeer]

This thread gets...

THE ROADBEER STAMP OF APPROVAL

My hope is that when it's outlived it's front-page status, that it is Pinned For Justice in K Town along with my Award Winning Thread and Sandpits dissertation on bad forum requests. Threads like these need pinning for quick reference as they provide valuable information for the upcoming and unblooded Forum Warriors.
Good Post.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

But in general the meta is due to people overusing/abusing a particular set-up. Just look how long it took them to "fix" the PPC/ERPPC meta.. Although a good suggestion OP it has been tried before and still takes forever.
The best way seems to be repeatedly to kill certain devs using whatever you consider OP.

[Ngamok]

Good Luck.

[Lootee]

You forgot the most important part to get things fixed faster:

-Use whatever item/mechanic that happens to be OP to kill PGI or IGP repeatedly. Get it on video.

See: Dragon conga line and 4 man Raven 3L ECM + streak PGI stomp videos.

Knockdowns sure didn't stay in the game very long after paul got run over by dragons the entire match. Just sayin'

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 23 November 2013 - 09:57 AM.

[NRP]

Can't argue with the Fupster on this one.

[cheapcamper]

This pose is full of WIN

COULD NOT AGREE MOAR!

[sokitumi]

All true.. but isn't that kinda what betas should be used for? And what you're saying is basically that team awesome can't really evaluate their own game outside of data collecting tools. And you're probably right about that, sad as it is. All math no kung-fu..

But saying for people to only ***** imba weaps doesn't help a whole lot either as counters are needed to verify the imba-status of whatever broken item of the month. How many months did PPC's dominate? And how obvious was it? And then what was the end result? RIght... ghost heat...

Edited by sokitumi, 23 November 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[YueFei]

Quite right, but two of the kinds of people who call for nerfs do so with very different motivations:

1.) The successful player, who uses the best mechs and weapons, and game mechanics, and calls for nerfs (or buffs for everything else) because they feel it detracts from the depth of the game. They aren't complaining because they can't succeed, they complain because they want to see more variety. Or they want to see the pace of the game changed.

2.) The unsuccessful player who loses games more often than not, and then screams for nerfs. They use subpar mechs and weapon loadouts, refuse to use game mechanics that would give them an advantage, and since their obstinacy permeates all their thinking, they don't readily learn from their tactical mistakes, either. But instead of using mechs and loadouts that they see successful players using, they bleat about those players being "tryhards", accusing them of "meta-******", having no skill, etc. The truth is, they are scared to use the "meta-******" mechs and loadouts themselves, because if they did and *still* lost to those better players, they'd have NO EXCUSE for losing. It would mean admitting that they lost because they are less skilled than their opponents. So they continue using sub-par mechs and loadouts, crying for nerfs, and never improving themselves. And it always gives them an excuse, a salve to their egos, when they lose they can blame it on their opponents using "cheese". Well, if their foes are using cheese, they themselves are bringing no shortage of "whine".

I advocated for Homeless Bill's deconvergence solution not because I thought it would give me a better chance against better players. In fact, I explicitly said back then it would only *widen* the skill gap between me and better players. The odds of me getting a string of lucky shots and getting a kill are much better if I only need to land 3 consecutive shots on target. The odds of me getting lucky and taking out a better player are greatly reduced if I now have to land 10 shots in rapid succession. To me, I wanted Homeless Bill's solution because I wanted a slower game pace, where mechs die more slowly if pilots are given a chance to defensively maneuver, rather than dying to sudden bursts of damage.

Since it's clear that they are never going to implement Homeless Bill's solution, I was quite optimistic about the hitbox changes sparked by Carrion Crow's thread. The philosophy of "easy to crack, hard to kill", I felt, was perfect for this game. It's one of the planned changes for this game that I'm truly excited about for the last few months. But I'm kind of disappointed with what they've done with the Awesome's hitboxes.

[Barantor]

*Goes and puts autocannons on EVERYTHING*

*doesn't equip pulse anything or SRMs*


I'll do my part.

[Turist0AT]

You are right Fuppy Duppy. I cried inside because i love pulse lasers and use them almost exclusively. :'(

But how can we play the way we dont enjoy? Isnt it better to just play another game?

Damn Fuuuuu**** Cuuun*** *`!?¤¤!#%#"¤ !!!!!


*Removes LPL, MPL and ERPPC with tears in my eyes.*

*Puts in the godawful boring Medium lasers and AC-2*

Edited by Turist0AT, 23 November 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[Spheroid]

I would kill devs in game but I have not seen a PGI badge in many moons.

[Victor Morson]

FupDup, on 23 November 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

If something is overpowered, the best way to get it nerfed is to abuse the living daylights out of it.

The problem is underpowered stuff is far harder to demonstrate, and we're at a place where there's not much that's super OP - and quite a but that's way, way UP again instead.

I do agree. Massive spam of PPC is what finally caused PPCs to get fixed. However given this is PGI we're talking about, we also got the "So backwards it'd fail a 4th grade math class" Ghost Heat design.

[Victor Morson]

sokitumi, on 23 November 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

All true.. but isn't that kinda what betas should be used for? And what you're saying is basically that team awesome can't really evaluate their own game outside of data collecting tools. And you're probably right about that, sad as it is. All math no kung-fu..

They don't need to talk to the serious players, they totally understand the game!

That's why Garth & Russ in interviews have time and time again clearly said things that show they don't even understand HIGHLY controversial systems entirely. I'm still laughing about the time it was "confirmed" how climbing movement is categorized (they were wrong) and thought the minimum number of LRM launchers to cause heat was 4, because "Almost no 'mech can do more than 4, right??"

We've said from the start they should poll the best groups in the game and actually use that feedback but there is a stubborn resistance to doing ANYTHING outside of their own "vision." Again, this is why we have Ghost Heat.

You know the most depressing part? I bet you anything that at least one person over there thinks Ghost Heat worked because builds changed and cannot understand the actual reasons as to why they did. They're probably touting it as a success.