166 replies to this topic

[Nothing Whatsoever]

The devs could still tweak ranges according to the original values, or just have a standard multiplier, if that can help.

This table in the spoiler has the current ranges in the left column. Center Column has ranges doubled, and the right column has the Extreme Range value. The other values on the far right are the BT hexes I used to generate the columns.

Spoiler

Edit:
I wouldn't mind going back and even using a different value for the hex size for MWO, since we have the cryengine

This table is reusing the BT ranges for example but is using 90 m per hex instead of 30 m.

Spoiler

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 09 March 2014 - 02:14 PM.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

The best solution to all of these balance concerns would have been to make gameplay more like the mechwarrior living legends mod. You spawn at a base with x amount of "money" typically enough for a basically equipped light or medium, then earn money through objectives and kills etc. to work up to more expensive but technologically advanced mechs and higher weight classes like heavies and assaults. Then you could have some weapons just be better and balance them with an increased cost to purchase. Obviously this type of mode would have to have respawning or at least a repair and re-arm bay to repair and/or upgrade to a better mech.

Currently you have to make weapons equal or else there is no reason to even have those weapons since their direct competitors are just better overall (see SPL vs ML). Frankly it's a nightmare to balance in the current implementation because all mechs take up the same slot regardless of weight and cost to build. This makes a TT-like game impossible since mech were unequal by design but was balanced by the fact you could have more cheaper mechs. You could try to match based on value and weight of the mechs but that leads to unbalanced matches if the matchmaker doesn't have a good fit from availible players. IT's really a mystery to me why they thought a 12 v 12 (or 8 v 8) game where regardless of the cost to build the mech and it's tonnage, it takes up the same slot as a bigger, tougher, and more expensive mech.

[Sandpit]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 09 March 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

The best solution to all of these balance concerns would have been to make gameplay more like the mechwarrior living legends mod. You spawn at a base with x amount of "money" typically enough for a basically equipped light or medium, then earn money through objectives and kills etc. to work up to more expensive but technologically advanced mechs and higher weight classes like heavies and assaults. Then you could have some weapons just be better and balance them with an increased cost to purchase. Obviously this type of mode would have to have respawning or at least a repair and re-arm bay to repair and/or upgrade to a better mech.

Currently you have to make weapons equal or else there is no reason to even have those weapons since their direct competitors are just better overall (see SPL vs ML). Frankly it's a nightmare to balance in the current implementation because all mechs take up the same slot regardless of weight and cost to build. This makes a TT-like game impossible since mech were unequal by design but was balanced by the fact you could have more cheaper mechs. You could try to match based on value and weight of the mechs but that leads to unbalanced matches if the matchmaker doesn't have a good fit from availible players. IT's really a mystery to me why they thought a 12 v 12 (or 8 v 8) game where regardless of the cost to build the mech and it's tonnage, it takes up the same slot as a bigger, tougher, and more expensive mech.

?
Weapons aren't equal nor is anyone really asking for them to be. They shouldn't be. They should all have their pros and cons and specific uses. Economy is not a good way to balance weapons. Then you get new players even further out of line with being able to compete with vets

[Varent]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 09 March 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

The best solution to all of these balance concerns would have been to make gameplay more like the mechwarrior living legends mod. You spawn at a base with x amount of "money" typically enough for a basically equipped light or medium, then earn money through objectives and kills etc. to work up to more expensive but technologically advanced mechs and higher weight classes like heavies and assaults. Then you could have some weapons just be better and balance them with an increased cost to purchase. Obviously this type of mode would have to have respawning or at least a repair and re-arm bay to repair and/or upgrade to a better mech.

Currently you have to make weapons equal or else there is no reason to even have those weapons since their direct competitors are just better overall (see SPL vs ML). Frankly it's a nightmare to balance in the current implementation because all mechs take up the same slot regardless of weight and cost to build. This makes a TT-like game impossible since mech were unequal by design but was balanced by the fact you could have more cheaper mechs. You could try to match based on value and weight of the mechs but that leads to unbalanced matches if the matchmaker doesn't have a good fit from availible players. IT's really a mystery to me why they thought a 12 v 12 (or 8 v 8) game where regardless of the cost to build the mech and it's tonnage, it takes up the same slot as a bigger, tougher, and more expensive mech.

The issue is your trying to do to much and your seeking perfect balance in a lot of your examples. If we want to be able to appease all the groups here we need to have give and take. the example you used is the spl vs the medium laser. This is one of those give and take situations that I think your going to have to view as acceptable since overall its a small concept against a much larger scale of things. In addition to that Living Legends doesn't support the concept very well of light mechs having a place really. Much like all the other reincarnations of MW. Its an arms race. More then likely the answer to all these things lies somewhere in between them. But to be able to have that your going to have to understand there will be some imbalances.

[Khobai]

Quote

Weapons aren't equal nor is anyone really asking for them to be. They shouldn't be. They should all have their pros and cons and specific uses

What you just described is equality. Weapons don't have to be identical but weapons should be equal. Their pros and cons should zero out and they should all have a niche where they excel.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

What you just described is equality. Weapons don't have to be identical but weapons should be equal. Their pros and cons should zero out and they should all have a niche where they excel.

There are very few shooting games in wich this is the case. None of the popular ones zero out perfectly. What you are describing is perfect balance wich doesn't tend to exist in the modern shooter. Also perfect balance would kill the playstyle for many players as well as drive off players that want the game to have more feel and taste. Working towards an 'acceptable' level of balance is a better solution.

[Khobai]

Quote

Working towards an 'acceptable' level of balance is a better solution.

Obviously perfect balance wont happen, but within +/- 10% is certainly obtainable. Right now we arnt even close though. Weapon balance in this game is absolutely terrible, especially on the ballistic side of things.

Ballistic weapons should have their max ranges reduced from x3 to x2.5. The AC5s range should also be reduced back to its tabletop value of 540m.

AC/20 270m-675m
AC/10 450m-1125m
AC/5 540m-1350m
AC/2 720m-1800m

This balances out the autocannons very nicely and gives them each their own range niche.

Edited by Khobai, 09 March 2014 - 03:42 PM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

What you just described is equality. Weapons don't have to be identical but weapons should be equal. Their pros and cons should zero out and they should all have a niche where they excel.

see in my eyes I described balance not equality

It's like the american legal system
All things are balanced, not equal
It works the same for ever defendant on ever case.

That doesn't mean it's "fair" or "equal" based on all kinds of factors like attorneys, judges, juries, etc.

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Obviously perfect balance wont happen, but within +/- 10% is certainly obtainable. Right now we arnt even close though. Weapon balance in this game is absolutely terrible, especially on the ballistic side of things.

Many disagree though which is what Varent was getting at I think. What you considered balanced isn't going to equate to someone else's opinion of balance. We've actually gotten a little off-topic as this thread is more about explaining you're never going to achieve a perfect system that everyone agrees upon as being balanced. You may feel a certain aspect of a weapon being changed would be more balanced while I might think it's already balanced

[Varent]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Obviously perfect balance wont happen, but within +/- 10% is certainly obtainable. Right now we arnt even close though. Weapon balance in this game is absolutely terrible, especially on the ballistic side of things.

Ballistic weapons should have their max ranges reduced from x3 to x2.5. The AC5s range should also be reduced back to its tabletop value of 540m.

AC/20 270m-675m
AC/10 450m-1125m
AC/5 540m-1350m
AC/2 720m-1800m

This balances out the autocannons very nicely and gives them each their own range niche.

Sandpit made my point for me. I actually think they are pretty close to that margin you already described myself. The margins in video games that players will exploit in high end meta is quite abit less then that honestly. I feel this is acceptable since meta players will evaluate this regardless and always choose the higher percentage, where as 10% flexibility is something usually skill can overcome. Your simply seeing one thing being extensively used because gamers are going to use what gives them the most chance to win with everyone around them regardless of the numbers. In a shooting game that means range and using lag and just peoples raw abilities to aim against them. Could this change, sure, increase map size so its less of a shooter and more of an adventure or mmo. But then you lose the shooting gamer crowd. and probly the TT player crowd. Could make everything more random and slower, but then you lose the SHooting gamer crowd and the MW crowd.... Could make the whole game more balanced overall and just setup like a shooter exacty with a smaller arena that forces brawling. Then you lose the TT and MW crowd entirely. In Summary, there needs to be balance that favors all these groups to a degree equally.

[Khobai]

Quote

Could make the whole game more balanced overall and just setup like a shooter exacty with a smaller arena that forces brawling. Then you lose the TT and MW crowd entirely.

That's simply not true. In closed beta there was very little sniping and it was mostly brawling. And the TT and MW crowd not only played it but actually enjoyed it more. Poptarting has sucked most of the fun out of the game. Reducing the power of sniping and bringing back brawling will not cause anyone to quit. Quite the opposite actually.

You're making all these false assumptions that arnt at all supported by the history of the game. The only style of play thats ever gotten players so upset that theyve actually quit over it is poptarting. Nobody ever complained that brawling wasnt fun. Everyone I know who played in open beta thought the game was way more fun with brawling and knockdowns; and that includes players from all three crowds.

The best thing PGI could do is get rid of poptarting once and for all. Not this ******** nerfing of highlander jumpjets. All thats done is made victors and cataphract-3ds the new go-to mechs for poptarting. They actually need to nerf this PPC/AC combo garbage once and for all. Nobody is going to quit over it because everyone knows its broken.

Most of us are adults. We arnt children. We dont tantrum and quit when we dont get our way. If PGI changes the game in a way we dont like, we deal with it. Like ghost heat, I absolutely hate it, but I dont let it stop me from playing the game. Saying players will quit if the game if they dont get their way is a gross exaggeration. The only thing that will make players quit the game is if the game stops being fun; which is what poptarting has done to the game, its gutted it and made it mostly unfun, except for maybe the last few minutes of each game where you *might* get to brawl.

Edited by Khobai, 09 March 2014 - 04:52 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

That's simply not true. In closed beta there was very little sniping and it was mostly brawling. And the TT and MW crowd not only played it but actually enjoyed it more (1). Poptarting has sucked most of the fun out of the game. Reducing the power of sniping and bringing back brawling will not cause anyone to quit. Quite the opposite actually.

You're making all these false assumptions that arnt at all supported by the history of the game. The only style of play thats ever gotten players so upset that theyve actually quit over it is poptarting. Nobody ever complained that brawling wasnt fun. Everyone I know who played in open beta thought the game was way more fun with brawling and knockdowns; and that includes players from all three crowds.

The best thing PGI could do is get rid of poptarting once and for all. Not this ******** nerfing of highlander jumpjets. All thats done is made victors and cataphract-3ds the new go-to mechs for poptarting. They actually need to nerf this PPC/AC combo garbage once and for all. Nobody is going to quit over it because everyone knows its broken.

Most of us are adults. We arnt children. We dont tantrum and quit when we dont get our way (2). If PGI changes the game in a way we dont like, we deal with it. Like ghost heat, I absolutely hate it, but I dont let it stop me from playing the game. Saying players will quit if the game if they dont get their way is a gross exaggeration. The only thing that will make players quit the game is if the game stops being fun; which is what poptarting has done to the game, its gutted it and made it mostly unfun (3), except for maybe the last few minutes of each game where you *might* get to brawl.

So to start off on an argumentative foot

(1) You're making the same mistake as the guy your quoting and assuming the majority of people agree with you. This is always a weak place to start an argument.

(2) Have you ever read the forums??? More tears here than first day of creche most days.

(3) For me its the poptarting and one shot alpha combined. I can handle someone jumping and blasting, I despise that I am dead the first time he does it. It's a no risk, small skill, all reward tactic which throws the game out of sync. But sure, I can agree with your sentiment.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

That's simply not true. In closed beta there was very little sniping and it was mostly brawling. And the TT and MW crowd not only played it but actually enjoyed it more. Poptarting has sucked most of the fun out of the game. Reducing the power of sniping and bringing back brawling will not cause anyone to quit. Quite the opposite actually.

You're making all these false assumptions that arnt at all supported by the history of the game. The only style of play thats ever gotten players so upset that theyve actually quit over it is poptarting. Nobody ever complained that brawling wasnt fun. Everyone I know who played in open beta thought the game was way more fun with brawling and knockdowns; and that includes players from all three crowds.

The best thing PGI could do is get rid of poptarting once and for all. Not this ******** nerfing of highlander jumpjets. All thats done is made victors and cataphract-3ds the new go-to mechs for poptarting. They actually need to nerf this PPC/AC combo garbage once and for all. Nobody is going to quit over it because everyone knows its broken.

Most of us are adults. We arnt children. We dont tantrum and quit when we dont get our way. If PGI changes the game in a way we dont like, we deal with it. Like ghost heat, I absolutely hate it, but I dont let it stop me from playing the game. Saying players will quit if the game if they dont get their way is a gross exaggeration. The only thing that will make players quit the game is if the game stops being fun; which is what poptarting has done to the game, its gutted it and made it mostly unfun, except for maybe the last few minutes of each game where you *might* get to brawl.

I still have no idea what world your from where you think that by forcing everyone to brawl you will have a game.

Craig Steele, on 09 March 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

So to start off on an argumentative foot

(1) You're making the same mistake as the guy your quoting and assuming the majority of people agree with you. This is always a weak place to start an argument.

(2) Have you ever read the forums??? More tears here than first day of creche most days.

(3) For me its the poptarting and one shot alpha combined. I can handle someone jumping and blasting, I despise that I am dead the first time he does it. It's a no risk, small skill, all reward tactic which throws the game out of sync. But sure, I can agree with your sentiment.

I don't think the majority agree. That is the point of the thread. The player base is fractured quite horribly. We don't have a majority. We have several minorities.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

That's simply not true. In closed beta there was very little sniping and it was mostly brawling.

Of course that was the case. Look at the mech and weapon selection you had in CB. That's taking it a little out of context. When you have less than a dozen mechs to choose from and we didn't have all of the features and systems we have in place now so of course it was a completely different dynamic.

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

Poptarting has sucked most of the fun out of the game. Reducing the power of sniping and bringing back brawling will not cause anyone to quit. Quite the opposite actually..

The only time I see poptarting used by the majority of another team is in 12mans. Other than that it's used here and there but usually 2-3 players out of 12.

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

You're making all these false assumptions that arnt at all supported by the history of the game. The only style of play thats ever gotten players so upset that theyve actually quit over it is poptarting. Nobody ever complained that brawling wasnt fun. Everyone I know who played in open beta thought the game was way more fun with brawling and knockdowns; and that includes players from all three crowds.

There's no false assumptions being made at all. It's simply a statement of how there will never be a "perfect" balance where everyone in the game will say "Yea that's perfectly balanced" You're trying to make the conversation into something it's not. Brawling is still perfectly viable. You can't just charge in blindly now across the great wide open. you have to rely on teammates and coordination.

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

The best thing PGI could do is get rid of poptarting once and for all. Not this ******** nerfing of highlander jumpjets. All thats done is made victors and cataphract-3ds the new go-to mechs for poptarting. They actually need to nerf this PPC/AC combo garbage once and for all. Nobody is going to quit over it because everyone knows its broken.

This is actually the perfect example of what we're talking about. You don't like that tactic so it should be removed. You don't see the fallacy in that kind of thinking? They didn't nerf JJs for the higlander, they nerfed JJs for Assaults and Hevies so YOUR assumption and statement is false in this regard. Again, you don't like that weapon combo so in your opinion it should be nerfed. There are tons of other players who would disagree with you completely, which again, is EXACTLY what this thread is talking about. The OP is pointing out exactly what you're saying here. You and I disagree over "balance" so obviously if they made the changes you're suggesting, I'd think things were OUT of balance at that point.

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

Most of us are adults. We arnt children. We dont tantrum and quit when we dont get our way. If PGI changes the game in a way we dont like, we deal with it. Like ghost heat, I absolutely hate it, but I dont let it stop me from playing the game. Saying players will quit if the game if they dont get their way is a gross exaggeration. The only thing that will make players quit the game is if the game stops being fun; which is what poptarting has done to the game, its gutted it and made it mostly unfun, except for maybe the last few minutes of each game where you *might* get to brawl.

He's not saying people will leave if they don't get their way. That's an unfair oversimplification of the sentiment in the OP. While YOU might think poptarting isn't fun, many others would disagree. So taking it out of the game stops it from being fun for them. You've basically proved everything we're talking about. No matter what there's never going to be a balance point that every single person in the game agrees upon.
This thread was never about actual balance and HOW to balance things.

It was about the fact that more people need to realize and understand that their idea of balance doesn't equate to someone else's idea of balance. So like you suggesting to remove poptarting because (insert whatever the reason might be here) as opposed to understanding that many others don't agree with that idea and adapting against the tactic should be what people do (exactly as you suggested earlier) instead of quitting or calling for ti to be removed because it isn't "fun" in your opinion.

[Haji1096]

Balance means that multiple strategies and load outs should be viable at the top of the meta which would then filter down to the other game types.

This is complicated by a few things:

• No prior knowledge what map we are going to drop on: hot/cold, large/small, cover/large sight lines.
  
• No way to organize a non-12 man team: No knowledge of a teams load out, no knowledge of a pilots experience/skill level, no knowledge of are they in a group or not. No way to effectively give concise orders on the mini map, draw a path for a lance to take, mark locations of ECM cloaked enemies. No time or lobby to go over a strategy before hand. Most matches devolve into one basic strategy, rally then go where the enemy is. Lance grouping is randomized and makes no sense.

My point is this, even beyond weapon balance...a min/max build is also going driven by the above factors. The best way to deal with all of the above is to make sure YOU can do the most damage possible. Its the only thing you can control. You can't control what your teammates will do or what the map is going to be. Regardless of the meta, a min/max build will be the most viable across a broad spectrum of maps.

There should be more of an advantage to having lower arm and hand actuators beyond the extra lateral mobility that arm mounted weapons have. Maybe use the dead screens in the cockpit, to show what your left and right arm's LOS is. High mounted weapons are infinitely more useful, because you intrinsically know what they are capable of hitting. If you knew the map you could choose: Do I take a Thunderbolt because this map favors brawling ? Do I take a Jagermech because this map favors sniping ?

Information should not be freely given to every mech. Not every mech should be able to call in an artillery strike. You should have the command console equipped. Not every mech should have 1000 meter targeting range. Small mechs should have a smaller targeting distance, so they could actually spot. Do I take the Victor because I want FLD damage ? or a DDC with a command console so I can call an arty strike ?


Imagine if the game launched into a five minute drop preparation screen. Both teams know the map. The game randomly selects two pilots from each of the 12 man teams to be drop commander. Drop commander then groups lances and picks grids for each one to drop in. Maybe you could actually make LRMs viable if you could configure your team properly.


There are a couple of other suggestions out there that would help differentiate mechs, Konivig's idea for variants of a mech to have differing max armor values, or giving a C-bill bonus to using little used mechs, or someone had the idea of dynamic battle value...the basic idea being that heavily used mechs have a high battle value and little used mechs don't. Weapons and Battlemechs can never be perfectly balanced, but maybe you could throw a user a bone if they bought the Pretty Baby and its garbage now.



TLDR: Currently, PGI doesn't have the right mechanisms to balance different aspects of the game. Certain mechs and weapons will always be imbalanced. PGI could attempt to balance them by game play mechanics.

[Varent]

Haji1096, on 09 March 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

Balance means that multiple strategies and load outs should be viable at the top of the meta which would then filter down to the other game types.

This is complicated by a few things:

• No prior knowledge what map we are going to drop on: hot/cold, large/small, cover/large sight lines.
  
• No way to organize a non-12 man team: No knowledge of a teams load out, no knowledge of a pilots experience/skill level, no knowledge of are they in a group or not. No way to effectively give concise orders on the mini map, draw a path for a lance to take, mark locations of ECM cloaked enemies. No time or lobby to go over a strategy before hand. Most matches devolve into one basic strategy, rally then go where the enemy is. Lance grouping is randomized and makes no sense.

My point is this, even beyond weapon balance...a min/max build is also going driven by the above factors. The best way to deal with all of the above is to make sure YOU can do the most damage possible. Its the only thing you can control. You can't control what your teammates will do or what the map is going to be. Regardless of the meta, a min/max build will be the most viable across a broad spectrum of maps.

There should be more of an advantage to having lower arm and hand actuators beyond the extra lateral mobility that arm mounted weapons have. Maybe use the dead screens in the cockpit, to show what your left and right arm's LOS is. High mounted weapons are infinitely more useful, because you intrinsically know what they are capable of hitting. If you knew the map you could choose: Do I take a Thunderbolt because this map favors brawling ? Do I take a Jagermech because this map favors sniping ?

Information should not be freely given to every mech. Not every mech should be able to call in an artillery strike. You should have the command console equipped. Not every mech should have 1000 meter targeting range. Small mechs should have a smaller targeting distance, so they could actually spot. Do I take the Victor because I want FLD damage ? or a DDC with a command console so I can call an arty strike ?


Imagine if the game launched into a five minute drop preparation screen. Both teams know the map. The game randomly selects two pilots from each of the 12 man teams to be drop commander. Drop commander then groups lances and picks grids for each one to drop in. Maybe you could actually make LRMs viable if you could configure your team properly.


There are a couple of other suggestions out there that would help differentiate mechs, Konivig's idea for variants of a mech to have differing max armor values, or giving a C-bill bonus to using little used mechs, or someone had the idea of dynamic battle value...the basic idea being that heavily used mechs have a high battle value and little used mechs don't. Weapons and Battlemechs can never be perfectly balanced, but maybe you could throw a user a bone if they bought the Pretty Baby and its garbage now.



TLDR: Currently, PGI doesn't have the right mechanisms to balance different aspects of the game. Certain mechs and weapons will always be imbalanced. PGI could attempt to balance them by game play mechanics.

some pretty decent ideas, although to play devils advocate and bring back an earlier topic, there are many players that want to be able to quickly drop into a game and just go. I like your ideas myself, I think they are very good, but there are many that don't want an extra amount of wait time added to there overall ability to play.

[Haji1096]

Varent, on 09 March 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

some pretty decent ideas, although to play devils advocate and bring back an earlier topic, there are many players that want to be able to quickly drop into a game and just go. I like your ideas myself, I think they are very good, but there are many that don't want an extra amount of wait time added to there overall ability to play.

Very true. Everything I proposed adds to the complexity of the game, which would be bad for new players. The game is already complex. It could be a different game mode...maybe something you for 12 mans or specific to the assault game mode. A team deployment mechanic would probably be most effective on a one sided assault game mode, which would add some predictability to "Where do I think the enemy commander is going to deploy his units ?"

[Bobzilla]

The long range pinpoint weapons are going through nerfs, just as the LRM's did and just as the SRM's did. The nerf cycle is following the meta. Brawlers are now more viable with the most recent changes.

Then, as with every other balance in this game, they will add new content which will affect the meta yet again, and cause the nerf cycle to repeat yet again.

They need to have game changing content in before they change existing things, but how they choose to create the game on a timeline causes all these problems.

Why are knockdowns not in the game?? Any light chasis, or any nerf/benifit that lights get will need to be overhulled when knockdowns come back in. Its like the whole LRM/ECM debacle, they spent so much time, and players flammed the forums, then ECM came out and changed everything.

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

Of course that was the case. Look at the mech and weapon selection you had in CB. That's taking it a little out of context. When you have less than a dozen mechs to choose from and we didn't have all of the features and systems we have in place now so of course it was a completely different dynamic.

So...and please understand, I wasn't here in Closed Beta, so I don't know what was or wasn't available....there were no mechs that could use JumpJets, PPCs, ACs or Gauss Rifles in Closed Beta? Or, is it simply a matter of the game mechanics at that time not favoring the current Meta? Because, it seems to me, that as PGI implements new "fixes" to the game, new Metas come to the fore.

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

The only time I see poptarting used by the majority of another team is in 12mans. Other than that it's used here and there but usually 2-3 players out of 12.

And I'm going to quote you with regard to this statement. That is YOUR experience and YOUR opinion. Other people's experiences and opinions may be significantly different. Depending on WHEN you play, what your Elo level and how the Matchmaker is feeling at the time you decide to play, you might be experiencing something ENTIRELY different than what Khobai is experiencing. When I play early in the morning, I end up playing with a majority of Russians and Germans. Although I can't understand a WORD of what they're saying, they DEFINITELY favor different Metas than what I see during North American Prime Time. Keep that in mind.

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

There's no false assumptions being made at all. It's simply a statement of how there will never be a "perfect" balance where everyone in the game will say "Yea that's perfectly balanced" You're trying to make the conversation into something it's not. Brawling is still perfectly viable. You can't just charge in blindly now across the great wide open. you have to rely on teammates and coordination.

1 - Again, this is simply YOUR opinion. Other people may believe that balance CAN be achieved. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs? Your command of your native language and ability to express your thoughts?
2 - With regard to "teammates and coordination," how quickly can you type "Alpha Lance, move to B3 and hold position" in Russian during a game? In German? In Spanish? Does it detract from your ability to get out of the line of fire? Simply saying that you need teamwork and coordination without explaining how to achieve that across multiple language barriers isn't a whole lot of help. In fact, it's rather condescending. It's almost as if you think that noone else could possibly have noticed that lack of both is a problem.

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

This is actually the perfect example of what we're talking about. You don't like that tactic so it should be removed. You don't see the fallacy in that kind of thinking? They didn't nerf JJs for the higlander, they nerfed JJs for Assaults and Hevies so YOUR assumption and statement is false in this regard. Again, you don't like that weapon combo so in your opinion it should be nerfed. There are tons of other players who would disagree with you completely, which again, is EXACTLY what this thread is talking about. The OP is pointing out exactly what you're saying here. You and I disagree over "balance" so obviously if they made the changes you're suggesting, I'd think things were OUT of balance at that point.

Again. I'm beginning to notice a pattern here. The recent modification to JumpJets (not a nerf, really) affected the Highlander far more than any other chassis. Why is that? Because the modification was based on the Class of JumpJet. Class I got hit far harder than Class II, Class III or Class IV. The Victor uses a Class II, so wasn't effected nearly as much. The Cataphract uses a Class III and I can tell you from my personal experience that I haven't noticed a difference at all. As for the current Jumpsniper Meta, I'm sure it will eventually go away as PGI continues to nerf/break/change the game..and a new Meta will emerge.

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

He's not saying people will leave if they don't get their way. That's an unfair oversimplification of the sentiment in the OP. While YOU might think poptarting isn't fun, many others would disagree. So taking it out of the game stops it from being fun for them. (*snip*)
so like you suggesting to remove poptarting because (insert whatever the reason might be here) as opposed to understanding that many others don't agree with that idea and adapting against the tactic should be what people do (exactly as you suggested earlier) instead of quitting or calling for ti to be removed because it isn't "fun" in your opinion.

Let's take a real quick look at that for a moment.

Why is PGI making this game? Is a non-profit organization or is it to generate income for a company? That's what I thought. So...where is the majority of their funding coming from? Is it coming from the few die-hard, Closed Beta old-timers that still drop a hundred bucks a month on the game?

Or, is it coming from the hordes of "new players" that play for a little while, drop thirty bucks for some premium time, get bored with getting roflstomped repeatedly and then leave?

Because, and this is only my opinion which is based on personal observation of people I got involved in the game, that has to be a HUGE hurdle for PGI's financial situation right now. Longevity and a stable player base. Hell, even WoW still has a stable (albeit declining) player base.

So, and again it's only my opinion, it seems to me that getting new people to join and then keeping them here has been a focus for PGI for so long, they've lost sight of what the old-timers are trying to tell them. And, even though I rarely take PGI's side in anything, from a business standpoint....they're right. Weapon balance, poptart metas, convergence issues...they all take a backseat when compared to keeping the doors open and the lights on. Whenever you see a modification, like the one with JumpJets, try to look at how it effects gameplay from a "new player's" point of view....and then you'll see why they did it.

Edited by Willard Phule, 10 March 2014 - 07:15 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Varent, on 09 March 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

I don't think the majority agree. That is the point of the thread. The player base is fractured quite horribly. We don't have a majority. We have several minorities.

this reads like you are against diversity Varent!

Folks are arguing for/Against FLD and For/Against Convergence, For/Against Heat To slow/to fast TTK. The diversity/balance many people have been talking about is running rampant if you ask me.

[Varent]

Haji1096, on 10 March 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

Very true. Everything I proposed adds to the complexity of the game, which would be bad for new players. The game is already complex. It could be a different game mode...maybe something you for 12 mans or specific to the assault game mode. A team deployment mechanic would probably be most effective on a one sided assault game mode, which would add some predictability to "Where do I think the enemy commander is going to deploy his units ?"

I like it. But one thing that gets brought up alot is the small player base we have. How much would this overall divide the player base and effect wait time overall. Also would there be enough players to properly Institute both groups. Keep in mind with 12 man's right now there are many times a group will simply fail to find a match because there isn't 12 other people doing it. I'm not sure how it could be properly implemented because of that. But it does have alot of potential. I'd be interested in number crunching that more and playing devils advocate with it abit till some kinks are worked out.