18 replies to this topic

[Rename]

First and foremost let me apologize as I am not a native speaker of the English language, grammar is not my league, if you see that my sentences are hard to get, just deep breat.


And again, I don't feel that the barracks are the best place for this topic, as I see the barracks as the common place between the folk and not a place to discuss the game design filosofy with the game producers/developers and games with conjunct.

Again I apologize and I thank you for your understanding as this is my first thread ever created.

Now to the point.

In my opinion here should be at least a small attempt to thorough fully explain the changes in weapons, (I only bring weapons because they are the common and base of the combat system of this game that makes it what it is).

You need to share your toughs with us on what you think and why do you think that weapons should or need to be changed on.

Isn't that the reasons forums exist? or is it just and escape flush for player discontentment?.

I'm asking you with pleasure to share with us your beliefs on what this game needs to be, and why does it needs to be like so.

What is the motivation behind the game changes?, I don't want to flag and complain, but I really do not want to see this game as many excellent games were and turned to be.

Were your motives driven from hardware issues? calculations? complains? statistics? management decisions, on what, why?

The thing here is, I know this is a business, but at the same time this is a family, you would not exist without us and us without you, do not close your curtains because without light there is no life.

Again I'm asking you to share more with us what are your beliefs behind your decisions on game-play.

Many regards

[FlipOver]

Rename, on 16 April 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

The thing here is, I know this is a business, but at the same time this is a family, you would not exist without us and us without you, do not close your curtains because without light there is no life.

Although I understand and agree with what you mean on your post, this part here i don't.
MWO wouldn't exist without the MW fans but the MW fans will always exist even if MWO doesn't.

Edited by flipover, 16 April 2014 - 07:40 AM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Typically the weapon changes are made to improve under performing weapons or to degrade the weapons that are over performing. You may disagree on which weapons are which, though.

I don't disagree that it would be nice for them to explain the spirit of weapon changes.

If you have a specific weapon change in mind we may be able to provide some insight on the matter.

[Rename]

flipover, on 16 April 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

Although I understand and agree with what you mean on your post, this part here i don't.
MWO wouldn't exist without the MW fans but the MW fans will always exist even if MWO doesn't.

Well I'm refering as the "personas" that exist because MW:O

[Rename]

Rouken, on 16 April 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

Typically the weapon changes are made to improve under performing weapons or to degrade the weapons that are over performing. You may disagree on which weapons are which, though

You see, thats why I created this thread, what are the reasons that told you that older weapons performances needed to be improved or degraded? show me your logic, thats all this thread is about, show me what
builds your ideas and not the finished product itself.

And another thing, if this tread ever get a response from any staff, plz try not to bias to much, I see that PGI use this forums allot for players to respond to serious questions like these rather then them selfs.

Edited by Rename, 16 April 2014 - 07:56 AM.

[LauLiao]

Here's the thing: They usually DO explain why they nerf or buff weapons. It sometimes gets buried in the forums here, but there's almost always SOME sort of explanation. People don't always agree with their reasoning, but that's a whole other issue. If you want to know about a specific weapon and why it was altered, please say so and I'm sure someone can tell you. If you just want a list of every weapon change ever, here's the short list: If it was buffed, it was because PGI thought it was under performing. If it was nerfed, they felt it was over performing.

[Bobzilla]

LauLiao, on 16 April 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

Here's the thing: They usually DO explain why they nerf or buff weapons. It sometimes gets buried in the forums here, but there's almost always SOME sort of explanation. People don't always agree with their reasoning, but that's a whole other issue. If you want to know about a specific weapon and why it was altered, please say so and I'm sure someone can tell you. If you just want a list of every weapon change ever, here's the short list: If it was buffed, it was because PGI thought it was under performing. If it was nerfed, they felt it was over performing.

I think that's the explanation that is aways given. "We feel they are slightly under/over performing but are just about where they need to be and will be slightly tweeked." I think the OP wants the how exactly are they under/over performing how the adjustment will effect this and and how did they come to that conclusion.

Take the recent LRM changes for example, how did they decide they needed to be improved (not used enough, not enough damage delt compared to other weapons, field testing them selves, player feedback....)? How did they decide that the speed was the way to go vs damage or grouping or ammo per ton or lock on speed or tracking or lock decay....? What goal where they reaching towards with that change? How was that goal not met so as to make the decision to lower it down some?

[Rename]

Bobzilla you caught the idea perfectly.
thanks for the reply

Edited by Rename, 16 April 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Rename, on 16 April 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

First and foremost let me apologize as I am not a native speaker of the English language, grammar is not my league, if you see that my sentences are hard to get, just deep breat.


And again, I don't feel that the barracks are the best place for this topic, as I see the barracks as the common place between the folk and not a place to discuss the game design filosofy with the game producers/developers and games with conjunct.

Again I apologize and I thank you for your understanding as this is my first thread ever created.

Now to the point.

In my opinion here should be at least a small attempt to thorough fully explain the changes in weapons, (I only bring weapons because they are the common and base of the combat system of this game that makes it what it is).

You need to share your toughs with us on what you think and why do you think that weapons should or need to be changed on.

Isn't that the reasons forums exist? or is it just and escape flush for player discontentment?.

I'm asking you with pleasure to share with us your beliefs on what this game needs to be, and why does it needs to be like so.

What is the motivation behind the game changes?, I don't want to flag and complain, but I really do not want to see this game as many excellent games were and turned to be.

Were your motives driven from hardware issues? calculations? complains? statistics? management decisions, on what, why?

The thing here is, I know this is a business, but at the same time this is a family, you would not exist without us and us without you, do not close your curtains because without light there is no life.

Again I'm asking you to share more with us what are your beliefs behind your decisions on game-play.

Many regards

You want to know the truth? The real truth?

Are you ready...




Okay. You chose. Now I will show you. Behold, the top secret methodology used to balance this game!



Darts and Beer. There's not much more to it.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Well I'll give you a few examples of what you could expect to see.

Gauss Rifle change: Added charge time because brawlers were using it as a really heat efficient AC15 and it paired too well with 2xER PPCs.

LRM change (1): Increased speed of LRMs because nobody used them as it was too easy to get cover while LRMs where in the air.

LRM change (2): Slowed LRMs slightly because they were sped up too much.

AC20, AC10, AC5 changes: Slowed projectile speeds because they paired too well with PPCs.

Now I'm not here to argue these points I'm just saying this is about as much as you can reasonably expect. If you want them to explain how they gathered data and the design process behind the changes you will likely be disappointed.

But I don't feel asking for a brief statement as to the reason for a change is unreasonable.

[LauLiao]

Bobzilla, on 16 April 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

I think that's the explanation that is aways given. "We feel they are slightly under/over performing but are just about where they need to be and will be slightly tweeked." I think the OP wants the how exactly are they under/over performing how the adjustment will effect this and and how did they come to that conclusion.

Oh that's EASY... Underperforming = Nobody using the weapon in game, much scoffing on the forums.
Overperforming = The weapon 90% of the mechs on the field are carrying, much forum wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Honestly I don't think there's any "Target numbers" or "Optimal performance" standard they're aiming for. They basically just tweek until people stop bitching one way or the other.

[DONTOR]

Mister Blastman, on 16 April 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Darts and Beer. There's not much more to it.

Seems like a legit balancing technique to me.

[Finster]

Well, I know I've read that Paul can monitor specific games and watch gameplay. But what I have NEVER seen from PGI is any indication that they are using aggregate data for any of their decisions.

Blizzard constantly updates Starcraft II for balance issues and they are quite open about what data aggregation and simulation tools they use to make balance decisions. For example, they can tweak unit and building stats and then run thousands of simulations to see how that affects certain matchups. They also look at aggregated stats over thousands of games played.

All we know for MWO is that Paul will watch a few games and notice that something doesn't feel right. Those Victors don't feel lumbering enough. Gauss Rifles don't feel like sniper weapons. etc.

Or what about matchmaking? What are the hard numbers on team tonnages and win/loss records? What is the average breakdown of mech weights people use? Will 3/3/3/3 end up with certain pilots not being able to find matches because 30-40% of the user base is using that weight class? Who knows!

[Zerberus]

LauLiao, on 16 April 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

Oh that's EASY... Underperforming = Nobody using the weapon in game, much scoffing on the forums.
Overperforming = The weapon 90% of the mechs on the field are carrying, much forum wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Honestly I don't think there's any "Target numbers" or "Optimal performance" standard they're aiming for. They basically just tweek until people keep bitching in equal numbers one way or the other.

FTFY

[Mad Porthos]

As LauLiao and Rouken pointed out above they really do release their general "layman's" rationale for why they balance or tweak things, but never do they give access to their collected data sets or specific sources from which they come up with their metrics.This leads some to challenge them and their metrics/statistics as being "bovine waste products", or assume the beer and dart board approach is used.

Then, when they make very specific statements, such as regards the percentage who drop solo or as a group, it becomes evident the data is there but often they look at it last after first trying to figure things out by "feel". This was evidenced recently by their surprise to see those group vs. solo metrics showing that most people dropped solo, rather than in groups as they had assumed. THAT they could have been tracking and seen for over two years, yet only bothered to look at more recently as they became more sincere in their desire to approach the group launch issues.

A good reason not to share their numbers is that often numbers can be manipulated to show all manner of things, giving people with too much time on their hands more ammunition to write elaborate analysis as to exactly why their favorite mech or weapon system is or is not right, balanced etc. Rather than engage with that, they keep it in house, right or wrong. The trolls and crusaders will troll or crusade anyways.

Another factor I have to point out above all. Human fallibility. They make mistakes, they know they make mistakes, but they do not dwell on them, nor do they need to put too much of their thought process out there, for those who wish to excoriate and disssect everthing that they do. Too much of the vitriolic against PGI is from those who themselves feel they should have an iron in the fire, have their ideas considered. These people may talk positively, glowingly of other games, instances or communities where their personal ideas, or those of their peers was allowed to steer the rules and content of the game to make it what they and their peers wanted. While PGI is emminently fallible, human... so too are those clammering for any sort of recognition and influence on the process. PGI in not catering to them also shut down its general communication to the community who just wanted to be informed and engaged. This was a huge error, but one made under duress, under extraordinary vitriolic, threats and negativity from individuals who went way beyond simple arguement, debate or trolling.

Things point to PGI having seriously recognized their error in shutting down communications earlier and are now charting a path that is more of a middle road - but you still will not see elaborate run downs of why or how they have previously changed things, nor in depth explainations seeking to convince one and all that their choices are right because of Xand Y, but not Z.

Edited by Mad Porthos, 16 April 2014 - 12:35 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

DONTOR, on 16 April 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Seems like a legit balancing technique to me.

Shame I have not been impressed with Canadian Beer any more than I have been with Canadian Game Balancing.

Maybe if they got some good, heavy dark Euro Beers, Porters, Ales and Stouts we would be seeing progress instead of pansy North american Beer. (The probably don't even drink Canadian.... probably PBR)

[aniviron]

Rouken, on 16 April 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

Typically the weapon changes are made to improve under performing weapons or to degrade the weapons that are over performing. You may disagree on which weapons are which, though.

I don't disagree that it would be nice for them to explain the spirit of weapon changes.

If you have a specific weapon change in mind we may be able to provide some insight on the matter.

I agree wholeheartedly. For example: while we were told that the AC2 was getting changed to have its DPS reduced to 3, we weren't told WHY that change was made. This is particularly frustrating as AC2s weren't that common before, running significantly hotter and spreading damage quite a bit more than the AC5 in addition to requiring more face time. What reason was there for the nerf? Maybe it was because at low Elo tiers, the AC2 is too good. Maybe it was to prevent people from switching to the 2 after the 5 got its deserved nerf. Maybe Paul threw some darts at his computer screen and happened to hit the AC2 and AC5. Who knows? The point is that while there may have been a good reason for it, none of us know what that reason was, and in absence of a reason being given, it is very difficult to hold an informed and rational debate about the state of the change, for this weapon or any weapon.

This isn't limited to the AC2. It also applies to how pulse lasers are "right where [Paul] wants them" or why we have ghost heat instead of just increasing the heat of PPCs and large lasers, or why SRMs do such lackluster damage, even compared to SSRMs which get more damage for some reason, or why the flamer is still a 100% waste of tonnage.

[Lazor Sharp]

Maybe i should ship them a few Case's of Shiner Bock..... Darn good Texas Beer, that should do the trick to get the balance right......

[LauLiao]

Zerberus, on 16 April 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

FTFY

I can't argue with you sir.