66 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

I've always had the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that balancing the game felt like a burden to Paul. Ultimately, the game extremely suffers from the very little balance changes made throughout the course of the development of the game.

There has been countless of brilliant ideas, countless of less brillant ideas, and yet, there is no one to listen to them except for the community itself. (narc being the exception to the rule, although it took an entire year and a thread created by one of PGI's favorites to listen to us). I suggest that PGI creates a small team of 1 dev/1 engie/1 community rep to help balance the game in a better direction.

The goal isn't necessarily to balance the game strickly through community feedback, but at least try new mechanics and post about these to us so we can know what to expect/what to suggest.

In the end, having such a team would be a lot more beneficial to MWO, even if it slows down CW dev time by 1-2-3 weeks. Personally, I doubt balancing the game to a better state would require massive efforts, but then again, we need dev input to figure that out.

Edited by Sybreed, 31 January 2014 - 07:21 PM.

[Deathlike]

Sybreed, on 31 January 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

I've always had the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that balancing the game felt like a burden to Paul. Ultimately, the game extremely suffers from the very little balance changes made throughout the course of the development of the game.

TBH, I'm under the impression that Paul thinks he knows better than everyone at balancing. See the fate of LPL. I hear/read from others that this may not be the case. I'm pretty sure he's generally just bad at communication (not entirely his fault, but it could always be better).

Quote

There has been countless of brilliant ideas, countless of less brillant ideas, and yet, there is no one to listen to them except for the community itself. (narc being the exception to the rule, although it took an entire year a thread created by one of PGI's favorites to listen to us). I suggest that PGI creates a small team of 1 dev/1 engie/1 community rep to help balance the game in a better direction.

TBH, the "secret squirrel program" was "supposed" to address something. What it does and actually does, I have no clue.

Quote

The goal isn't necessarily to balance the game strickly through community feedback, but at least try new mechanics and post about these to us so we can know what to expect/what to suggest.

However, there is that public test server that isn't used... it's heresy, I know.

The fact that nothing is tried there for a longer period than "2 hours" is part of the problem.

Quote

In the end, having such a team would be a lot more beneficial to MWO, even if it slows down CW dev time by 1-2-3 weeks. Personally, I doubt balancing the game to a better state would require massive efforts, but then again, we need dev input to figure that out.

Part of the problem in many/most Paul's balance posts (as stated earlier) is that none of the stuff gets tried on our end. He speaks as "we(PGI) tried it and was doomed from the start", thus getting fun quotes like the 6 MG Spider or the 3 second Jenner (though, neither was mentioned by him specifically, it is a amazing running joke).

For instance, the poll we had for "buffing" SRM damage to 2.0... he mentions the Splatcat, but does a pretty poor job of analyzing the problem at that point in time. The Splatcat feasted on a broken splash damage system, and even with the "supposedly temporary" damage adjustment that was put to a poll, it's still pretty bad due to HSR/SRM detection. Yet, Streaks on the other hand, get a greater bump in damage (2.5 per SSRM vs 2.0 per SRM) and still hit the target 100% (assuming no obstructions).

So, when judging Paul and what he's facing, I cannot sympathize with the idea that "he's too busy". I can only say that changes he has made does not accurately reflect what goes on in the game, and without trying to put down Paul further, I think he needs to spend more time with everyone in the highest ELO classes, so he understands the game better... instead of being the best part of the "goons heart Paul" video that has not stopped amusing me.

I hope you understand, this isn't personal... but Paul is a reflection of the balance problem, and may or may not be directly responsible for each change.. but very minimal logic has been proposed by Paul on anything controversial about this game, and that is where most of the complaining comes from. That and the lack of response to feedback threads about balance.

I apologize if that sounds mean, but, it's not personal.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 07:18 PM.

[Sybreed]

good read, that's why I think there should be an entire team and not just Paul. For god's sake he's just 1 guy and has to lead the entire development of MWO. Give the guy a break and create a team that will focus on balancing MWO.

[Deathlike]

Sybreed, on 31 January 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

good read, that's why I think there should be an entire team and not just Paul. For god's sake he's just 1 guy and has to lead the entire development of MWO. Give the guy a break and create a team that will focus on balancing MWO.

He's mostly responsible for balance, but I don't know what his "other job is".

Bryan Ekman is mostly responsible for the "vision of MWO" (aka cockpit glass and that awful grainy filter that's used on Caustic).

The guy who seems to be most responsible for adding stuff like UAVs and the like is Thomas. He's probably responsible for the missile trajectories, but it could be someone else (it's unclear as to who though).

For the sake of just "balance"... most of his job technically entails fiddling with this one XML file with damage numbers and other stuff. By comparison, Paul's job seems the "least" complex of the rest... the testing would take more time (because, you have to get a feel of what the number changes mean), but compared to stuff like stability testing or feature testing... this is a cakewalk. If it was missile arc testing, ok, it'll take time to figure stuff out... but just changing 1.0 damage per pellet to 1.1 damage per pellet for the LBX... it's really a text file to edit.

[Sybreed]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 07:29 PM, said:

He's mostly responsible for balance, but I don't know what his "other job is".

Bryan Ekman is mostly responsible for the "vision of MWO" (aka cockpit glass and that awful grainy filter that's used on Caustic).

The guy who seems to be most responsible for adding stuff like UAVs and the like is Thomas. He's probably responsible for the missile trajectories, but it could be someone else (it's unclear as to who though).

For the sake of just "balance"... most of his job technically entails fiddling with this one XML file with damage numbers and other stuff. By comparison, Paul's job seems the "least" complex of the rest... the testing would take more time (because, you have to get a feel of what the number changes mean), but compared to stuff like stability testing or feature testing... this is a cakewalk. If it was missile arc testing, ok, it'll take time to figure stuff out... but just changing 1.0 damage per pellet to 1.1 damage per pellet for the LBX... it's really a text file to edit.

as far as I know, Thomas is the engineer that creates the stuff Bryan/Paul tell him to. If Paul really is the lead designer, then he has to make sure everything Bryan designs fit into MWO and work in a decent manner. He probably has his say as well on the overall direction of the game.

[Felbombling]

I wonder if the President of the company laid it all out on day #1 and told Paul,

"I want MechWarrior: Online to be a fast paced shooter type of game, with pin-point weapon convergence. I want it to be action packed, none of this ten seconds between shots garbage like World of Tanks. Stick close to the Battletech rules where you can, but otherwise, make it work."

So, while we are all frustrated to no end by the 'aggressive weapon balance' initiative, perhaps it isn't 100% Paul's fault. I get the feeling that he followed orders and accomplished what someone higher up the food chain told him to do. Or, perhaps it is all business related. The weapon imbalance is intentional and meant to drive sales. They can claim ignorance and elusive weapon balance while they set up the next weapon nerfs and buffs in correlation with the next Mech announcement or sale.

[Deathlike]

StaggerCheck, on 31 January 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

I wonder if the President of the company laid it all out on day #1 and told Paul,

"I want MechWarrior: Online to be a fast paced shooter type of game, with pin-point weapon convergence. I want it to be action packed, none of this ten seconds between shots garbage like World of Tanks. Stick close to the Battletech rules where you can, but otherwise, make it work."

So, while we are all frustrated to no end by the 'aggressive weapon balance' initiative, perhaps it isn't 100% Paul's fault. I get the feeling that he followed orders and accomplished what someone higher up the food chain told him to do. Or, perhaps it is all business related. The weapon imbalance is intentional and meant to drive sales. They can claim ignorance and elusive weapon balance while they set up the next weapon nerfs and buffs in correlation with the next Mech announcement or sale.

I believe that the timing of the changes in balance isn't really a random event... I've cited it many times (shake reduction before Victor release, UAC5 jam reduction while putting the Ilya+FB on sale, Streak buff before the Catapult-A1 hero debut, even the AC nerfs before the Grid Iron's release).

It's not a good method to balance, yet they still have "no idea" on how to not make the Command Console a 3 ton brick.

I mean... there's almost no rational logic some of the madness... particularly Flamers and the initial state of the MG.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[and zero]

Quite simply put; PGI as a collective simply has absolutely no idea how to make a proper game (except the art department working on the mechs visually). Look at their past game history and you will understand how bad it is.

And deathlike is correct. All of the best, most successful competitive multiplayer games are balanced based upon the highest level of play involving the most skilled players. Not this medley of **** catering to incompetent/mediocre players/devs.

And regardless, there is no excuse for the progression (rather the lack thereof) of the balance in this game. "aggressive weapon balance" my ******* ***. The best multiplayer games have a few months of [truly] aggressive weapon balance and public testing until they find a solid base (which MWO has never really had to begin with) and then continue with smaller tweaks as needed.

What we have are a lot of arrogant lead devs who are incapable of admitting they are wrong. "working as intended" "youre on an island" etc. Seriously, I cant recall ever seeing pgi admit they made an error even when they changed or altered something.

Anyway, because of that attitude I think the game balance is hopeless at this point. Oh, but after over a year they are finally buffing NARC....so maybe in 3 years we will have a half balanced game lol. Pathetic.

[Bhael Fire]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

However, there is that public test server that isn't used... it's heresy, I know.

The fact that nothing is tried there for a longer period than "2 hours" is part of the problem.

This.

Where I work, whenever we have new content that's gone through internal testing, we open up the test servers and keep them open 24-7 with that content until it goes live or we decide that there's too many problems that need to be fixed — which point, the necessary changes are made and it goes through internal testing, then public testing again.

The weird 2-hour windows in PGI's public tests baffle me. I can only assume it's some wacky Canuck dev thing.

[Sandpit]

They need a "PR" guy period. Someone who understands how to communicate with a mass audience better.

[Bernard Matthaios]

and zero, on 31 January 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Quite simply put; PGI as a collective simply has absolutely no idea how to make a proper game (except the art department working on the mechs visually). Look at their past game history and you will understand how bad it is.

Sooooo Much This!!!

In my opinion, MWO felt like a better game during closed beta days than it does now. It's as if they are going backwards.

You can put all the lavish, expensive furniture and fancy decorations in a house you want. In the end, the house(MWO) is only as good as its foundation(Proper balance).

[Davers]

To play Devil's Advocate for a second...

If balance was done at the highest levels then things like LRMs (which are pretty bad due to ECM and generally better positioning of players at high Elo levels) would get a big buff to make them 'competitive', but would totally lead to another LRMageddon at the PUG level.

So, do you balance around the 1% or the 99%?

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 31 January 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

To play Devil's Advocate for a second...

If balance was done at the highest levels then things like LRMs (which are pretty bad due to ECM and generally better positioning of players at high Elo levels) would get a big buff to make them 'competitive', but would totally lead to another LRMageddon at the PUG level.

So, do you balance around the 1% or the 99%?

^This

This is exactly why you can't balance according to the forums. At any given time you have at least one item that has both a "nerf this" and a "this is useless" going on in the front page just a few spots away from one another.

[YueFei]

Just balance according to high-level play. There should be an expectation that all players will continue to learn, and grow, and improve as they play the game. Those players who refuse to learn and get better, will be the kind of players who eventually get bored with the game and quit anyways.

[FupDup]

Davers, on 31 January 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

To play Devil's Advocate for a second...

If balance was done at the highest levels then things like LRMs (which are pretty bad due to ECM and generally better positioning of players at high Elo levels) would get a big buff to make them 'competitive', but would totally lead to another LRMageddon at the PUG level.

So, do you balance around the 1% or the 99%?

The problem with balancing around the 99% is that a lot of them don't actually understand how the game works. I don't have a nicer way of saying it. There are some people in this game who actually think that weapons like the LBX are effective, that LRMs are overpowered, and that PPCs are underpowered. Balancing around those kind of people would end badly. Very badly. Very, very badly. If they haven't been in the game for a while, they probably aren't going to understand the core game mechanics and they won't see things how they really are. For instance, if they get killed by an AC/2 mech, they might create a forum post about AC/2 being overpowered. Does that make the AC/2 overpowered? No, it just means that the person in question needs to get better at the game.

[Deathlike]

Ok, let me address some of these fun posts in order.

Bhael Fire, on 31 January 2014 - 08:17 PM, said:

This.

Where I work, whenever we have new content that's gone through internal testing, we open up the test servers and keep them open 24-7 with that content until it goes live or we decide that there's too many problems that need to be fixed — which point, the necessary changes are made and it goes through internal testing, then public testing again.

The weird 2-hour windows in PGI's public tests baffle me. I can only assume it's some wacky Canuck dev thing.

Sometimes I wonder if they are doing it for show, or that they think we'll find a way to "break" the game with their test server.

Either way, it's not proper testing by any stretch of the imagination.

Sandpit, on 31 January 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

They need a "PR" guy period. Someone who understands how to communicate with a mass audience better.

The "big 3" Russ, Paul, and Bryan really need to learn a few things about PR.

Here's the most recent example:
https://twitter.com/...155298025029632

I would like to think Russ "has a clue" when it comes to internal PGI communication. The "Chaff" or whatever it ends up being (some mega-temporary super AMS thing) is something Russ should at least have some idea about, even though he may have minimal interaction with the addition itself.

It's not as if PGI internal communication is actually improving, as various terrible things have happened while "the left hand has no idea what the right has has been doing". There's just too much doesn't jive. I'm not expecting Russ to know verbatim what each thing that's added happens to be in detail, but surely, you are the head or "President" of the company... should you not know what's going on?

Davers, on 31 January 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

To play Devil's Advocate for a second...

If balance was done at the highest levels then things like LRMs (which are pretty bad due to ECM and generally better positioning of players at high Elo levels) would get a big buff to make them 'competitive', but would totally lead to another LRMageddon at the PUG level.

So, do you balance around the 1% or the 99%?

It would be different and I'm unsure how it would be better exactly, but it probably wouldn't be what we have today.

YueFei, on 31 January 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Just balance according to high-level play. There should be an expectation that all players will continue to learn, and grow, and improve as they play the game. Those players who refuse to learn and get better, will be the kind of players who eventually get bored with the game and quit anyways.

I still prefer to balance both, but generally the most important changes start at the top. Balancing from the bottom tends to cause serious imbalances at the top.

FupDup, on 31 January 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

The problem with balancing around the 99% is that a lot of them don't actually understand how the game works. I don't have a nicer way of saying it. There are some people in this game who actually think that weapons like the LBX are effective, that LRMs are overpowered, and that PPCs are underpowered. Balancing around those kind of people would end badly. Very badly. Very, very badly. If they haven't been in the game for a while, they probably aren't going to understand the core game mechanics and they won't see things how they really are. For instance, if they get killed by an AC/2 mech, they might create a forum post about AC/2 being overpowered. Does that make the AC/2 overpowered? No, it just means that the person in question needs to get better at the game.

Most of these things... would be solved by a tutorial.

The ironic thing about AC2 is that although the "newbies" that complain about it have stopped, but that also has correlated with the reduction of overall usage of the weapon as far as I can tell. I'm not saying it's not being used, but Jagers are the dakkamech, and their dakka of choice tends to still be AC20s, AC5s/UAC5s, and a small portion of AC2s, which are haunted by the ghost of dakka past.

AC2s were never a serious threat for "trolling" unless you were the uninitiated.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 10:01 PM.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 10:00 PM, said:

...which are haunted by the ghost of dakka past...

[Bhael Fire]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 10:00 PM, said:

Sometimes I wonder if they are doing it for show, or that they think we'll find a way to "break" the game with their test server.

Either way, it's not proper testing by any stretch of the imagination.

I think it must be a financial thing...because I can not imagine why else they wouldn't want to test their product publicly in increments greater than 2-hour windows....especially when those windows are during hours that most people in North America are working.

I honestly understand the rigmarole that game devs have to go through to get a good game out the door and I have a tremendous amount of respect for the guys at PGI tackling a project like this...but some of their business decisions are confounding.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 31 January 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:

So, what happened to your sig?

Another point I forgot to mention..

I don't expect or demand immediate balance changes. It's unrealistic. I was annoyed when Paul mentioned MANY AtDs ago that it would take "a month of testing" for any balance changes.

The thing about balance change is that you generally have two options:

1) Incrementally changing something... every patch, or every other patch until the community has effectively decided "this is good enough". MGs would have benefited from this a lot. Back in those days, people were someone thinking "it was fine" back then... which almost made me think people have never seen balance before or MGs in the older MW games. It took a freaking long while to finally get it addressed for the most part (outside of the newbies that think it is OP, which is hilarious in itself - they should actually run the Spider-5K more for a better understanding).

2) "Getting it right the first time" - it's imperfect, but it still required lots of internal testing, but wherever you settle on the numbers.. we shouldn't have to demand a change for it unless the numbers are waaaay off. This is technically a lot more impulse or "feel" driven, and that's fine too, but you have to be prepared for a hotfix or a subsequent change when you're not quite there yet.

I tend to think balance done here at times is not just "selective" but also "convenient at the time" too. In my already 3 mentioned examples, the timing of those changes could also be construed as such. When people demand for a change, if a particular weapon or feature happened to be part of the next mech in line... "I guess it's time to fix it now". It's really like a lazy choice and often rather disingenuous a change. It doesn't mean it wasn't needed... but has the mentality of "I'll just balance it at the last moment" and that doesn't sit well with people.

New pulse laser dependent mech coming soon? Time to "rebalance pulse lasers now". New flamer mech being added soon? I guess it's time to "fix flamers".

It gets harder to play this game sometimes when I see this going on...

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 10:25 PM.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:

So, what happened to your sig?

I got rid of it because I didn't want to scare Paul away from the Narc thread. I foolishly assumed that he was going to monitor the thread from time to time, rather than just posting it and running as far away from us as he possibly could.