325 replies to this topic

[Navy Sixes]

There's a lot to speak on, here.

lockwoodx, on 25 May 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

The "bad game design" this poster is referring to is common knowledge among the players who exploit it,

True, they do nothing for the game or community at large. In fact, it could be argued that they are a detriment in that they discourage any newer players they come across from toughing out the learning curve. However, this...

EgoSlayer, on 25 May 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

Expecting most people to just reject the most effective configurations to create a player enforced "balance" is just folly.

...is also true. The fact that balance issues are so glaring is a flaw that the developers have to own. Then again...

tucsonspeed6, on 25 May 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

I haven't seen BETTER solutions by the community either.

Where I really get chaffed is the reaction we see whenever PGI attempts to balance the game. It is then that we see the real self-serving ugliness of the "power players" in action. They say, "Hey, we're just taking advantage of the rules in the game. If you don't like it, change the rules!" Then they offer their "solutions," which invariably seem to screw everyone but them.

Take the AC2 nerf. This nerf totally crushes into worthlessness non-meta smaller ballistic mechs, because 2xAC2 is worthless now, and these mechs are too small to field larger ballistics. The "leet" solution? Get rid of ghost heat on the AC2. Sure, those smaller mechs running two or three AC2s never had too much trouble with ghost heat anyway and so are stilled screwed, but now I can do a 4+ AC2 Jag/Bansh boat without fear of overheating. So the very problem the nerf seeks to address is exacerbated. Problem solved.

Then there's the pushback every single time PGI tries to improve balance. Poptarts are OP? If only there was a system out there that could "lock on" to them and stream damage at them. What if that system had some method, we'll call it "target decay," that could track them for a few seconds while they fell back behind cover. Heck, you could go crazy and have this weapon inflict some sort of "screen-shake" that would screw up their aiming mid-jump...

But when PGI upped the missile speeds to counter runaway poptarting, the outcry from those very "Hey, don't blame me, fix the game" people was tremendous. Suddenly, the "Weapons with guidance systems don't deserve to kill me" crowd was best buddies with the "I was standing in the open with my finger up my nose and the unfair LRMs killed me!" crowd. Ironic, because when the "bads" complain about poptarts, their anti-LRM brothers in arms tell them to shut up and L2P.

They're the "best of the best," until they may have to actually adapt like the rest of us. Then they cry harder than anyone else in the game. To this end, they employ systems that they know are broken in order to attain "top tier" status, then turn around and say "If only PGI would listen to the top tier players instead of the noobs!"

Invariably their suggestions protect the broken systems that helped get them into the "top tier" to begin with.

[Odins Fist]

lockwoodx, on 25 May 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

"Bad Game Design Is As Much The Player's Fault As It Is The Designers"

The player base is not EXPLOITING anything, they are using what the DEVs have put into MWO.
The player base can do NOTHING but use what's given to them. Players will use the best Mechs/Weapons/modules/etc, to play the game and win. If the DEVs didn't want things used in that manner, then they would take car of that on THEIR end.. You know since the player base doesn't write code or develop MWO, they only spend their money and voice their opions on the forums.

As far as game DESIGN, and DEVELOPMENT, that statement is about as WRONG as any statement could be.

#1. The player base does NOT design or write code.
#2. The player base does NOT make any decision on what content will be implemenetd.
#3. The player base does NOT set pricing or do the marketing.
#4. The player base does NOT set values for weapons balance.
#5. The player base does NOT set deadlines and miss them.
#6. The player base does NOT make ANY decisions on ANY of the development for MWO.

You cannot blame the player base for using what's given them to use by the DEVs.
You cannot blame the player base for ANYTHING other then voicing their opinions, playing the game, FUNDING the game.

The DEVs get to pick and choose what's put into MWO to use, the DEVs get to pick and choose what player opinions to listen to, and what to do about them.

The only thing the player base gets to choose, is how much money they spend, and how to loadout their mechs.

Edited by Odins Fist, 25 May 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Dymlos2003, on 25 May 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

He's being neither of those. Did you guys even read the post?

HE is being both. his premise is that "bad game design is as much the players fault as it is the designers", a concept that is as patently false as it is an idiotic statement to make. Read Odins Fist's post above this one he nails it.

The players can make the community better or worse, they can make the in game experience better or worse, the players in a MMO can do a lot. What players can't do, don't do, and are not responsible for are the design and implementation of the game., If the design is bad then it's bad and players can only act within the bounds provided.

The worse the boundaries the worse the results. PGI is to blame and no one else, and don't let them off lightly by giving them a pat on the head and saying the mean players are doing it to themselves.

Edited by Agent of Change, 25 May 2014 - 11:29 AM.

[Roland]

Players have no control over game design.

Bad game design is 100% the fault of the designer, not the consumer.

[Bront]

There's a lot of hate for "them" and "they". Truth is, most people would like better balance. Sadly, the truth also is that folks have different ideas of what is balanced. The LRM outcry is a good example of that.

Beyond that, folks who enjoy a particular play style will always be upset when it changes, regardless of it it's a balance fix or not.

Not everyone is a self centered jerk, and those you see on the forums are usually a vocal minority rather than a majority.

[Zolaz]

Everyone calm down. PGI is doing the best they can. It is a weak company with a bad reputation of putting out really bad games. Do some research and you find that the people running the company are doing the same stuff they have been doing for awhile.

Does that excuse them? Nope, but you shouldnt be surprised. If you are mad because PGI misrepresented their time table and might have lied about stuff, you should be mad. However, the best indicator of future performance is past performance.

And PGI's past is "Failed To Meet Expectations". So, give em money or dont. We should have a barely viable game in a year or two.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 May 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

Sure.

Although when players have consistently and accurately predicted future issues based off of current decisions, and the company decides, instead of trying to listen and sort and test and see if maybe their community might be on to something, tells them they are on an island and that they don't listen to them, I would say that kinda skews the accountability ratio to like 90% the Devs, 10% the Players.

Cheers.

An example of bad design where the consumer is not at fault would be cars before they had seat belts. They originally didn't have many safety features because the vehicles didn't travel at speeds unless customized to do so. The more customized vehicles were made to exploit their speed, the more dangerous it was for everyone. The more customized mechs are made to exploit the meta, the more dangerous it is for everyone. Hell... ghost heat is already a form of speed limits to MWO. Hence... seat belts need to be installed in mechs... or people need to slow dow..... err no... THE MAPS NEED STOP SIGNS! (sorry I can't resist a good joke even at my own expense) Ok you get what I mean... regulation is coming if we don't self police it, and regulation can be MUCH worse than the alternative but because groups of players continue exploiting the meta, PGI's bound to come down hard not only to correct the situation but save face.

The current situation is more like an arms manufacturer that develops automatic weapons which do not come with a safety button. That doesn't mean pilots should go postal on a shooting spree. I know I'm appealing to higher powers that will not listen, but I didn't make this thread on a whim and I always bring the brass to take what they dish back. Human nature is a difficult thing to direct, let alone tame. We're all creatures of habit, some more than others. On top of that there's "conditioning" we need to take into account by fans who've also had service time. I take all of these things into account when climbing up on my soapbox to plead case after case for the sake of the public, and the game.

Thank you for taking the time to read and Cheers

[ArchSight]

Refusing to play with a player or tolerating their company is not adapting.

Adapting is what the ones that you labeled as a hardcore or try hard do every time the balance of the game is changed. They find whats the next best thing to be done easily and consistantly to use it to win because they find winning to be their source of fun. If they rage they are not having fun while trying to achieve that goal. Having fun while loosing is a game design choice that developer's are responsible for allowing to happen in their game.

Die instantly = Not playing anymore = Not participating in fun.
Die slowly = Played for awhile = Participated in the fun.

Adaptation of the game is apart of a human's understanding of what is possible and what isn't possible for them to do. What is possibly done can differ depending on the person and the circumstances they get themselves into. What is percieved easy to do is possible for that player but that isn't always easy for everyone. For example, a lone jump sniper if attacked out in the open would have a hard time defending themselves from LRMS, other weapons, or a light mech. This is not easy anymore because the circumstance they took was the wrong one for their mech. If this lone jump sniper got to cover, had teammates around, and ECM the circumstance changes to their favor making it easier. This is only possible because of the willingness of the players themselve's to choose to be in a pacific circumstance together.

The choice of circumstance or should I say the situation that a player and their teammates choose to get themselves into is what dictates who is going to have it easier or not.

The current gameplay balance doesn't choose what the player's will use to win it only ensures that there will be difficulty for both sides to accomplish their goals. The player's are the one's choosing to play this way instead of playing another way that helps those in the minority of those different choices with their own situations.

[xX PUG Xx]

To a certain degree, I agree with the OP...BUT

It is not exploitation to use the tools provided, it is simply not FUN for those of us who don't want to use the META. I hate getting stuck in matches with players I know will bring it and unfortunately this weekend this has been highlighted 10 fold. I'm (un)lucky enough to be in a bracket with some very good players and when a tournie/event I running, here comes the META.

and it is NOT FUN, hell out of a unit of 30+ only 5 came online tonight because they couldn't be bothered facing it.

Me? I'll keep PUGging and typing smart ar$ed comments in chat.

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 25 May 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

It is not the paying players' fault that PGI have decided to balance based by grab deals.
Stop trying to shift the blame.

>yes, sir, the burger's raw, but it's just as much your fault as it is mine!

Doesn't work.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

ArchSight, on 25 May 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Refusing to play with a player or tolerating their company is not adapting.

Adapting is what the ones that you labeled as a hardcore or try hard do every time the balance of the game is changed. They find whats the next best thing to be done easily and consistantly to use it to win because they find winning to be their source of fun. If they rage they are not having fun while trying to achieve that goal. Having fun while loosing is a game design choice that developer's are responsible for allowing to happen in their game.

Die instantly = Not playing anymore = Not participating in fun.
Die slowly = Played for awhile = Participated in the fun.

Adaptation of the game is apart of a human's understanding of what is possible and what isn't possible for them to do. What is possibly done can differ depending on the person and the circumstances they get themselves into. What is percieved easy to do is possible for that player but that isn't always easy for everyone. For example, a lone jump sniper if attacked out in the open would have a hard time defending themselves from LRMS, other weapons, or a light mech. This is not easy anymore because the circumstance they took was the wrong one for their mech. If this lone jump sniper got to cover, had teammates around, and ECM the circumstance changes to their favor making it easier. This is only possible because of the willingness of the players themselve's to choose to be in a pacific circumstance together.

The choice of circumstance or should I say the situation that a player and their teammates choose to get themselves into is what dictates who is going to have it easier or not.

The current gameplay balance doesn't choose what the player's will use to win it only ensures that there will be difficulty for both sides to accomplish their goals. The player's are the one's choosing to play this way instead of playing another way that helps those in the minority of those different choices with their own situations.

You're argument is a fallacy because the meta doesn't allow for a slow death, which you equate to hope and fun. Players exploiting the meta are the only instance where non-participation is required. They are being sent a clear message. I'm sorry you do not hear it.

[Sidekick]

All right.
I give Locke point for claiming that the players behavior is part of the problem.

Yet, it is only part of the problem. The sphere of influence in terms of "fair play" is limited to few players. If you check the threads on BV/Stock tournaments, you will see a different perspective on MWO gameplay than discussed in most threads. After playing some rounds stock and remembering the CB i can say: Limitations (Stock/Class/BV, others) would enrich the game.

But by all means, the players need to WIN. It is part of the system of gaming that there is a spirit of competition. This spirit is limited by rules. What is allowed in game and what is not. It IS allowed to pinpoint multiple ACs/PPCs in flight, to install DHS, to field multiple DDCs or use macros. You can set up rules of gentlemen´s play and say "We don´t want that because it makes the game bad".. but this isn´t a valid limitation if the devs are not setting (coding) these rules.

So yeah. Bad player behavior makes a situation worse, exploiting a systems weakness causes it to break. But the users of any system can not change it, they can only show HOW badly broken the system is (HINT HINT KNOCKDOWNS HINT)

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Roland, on 25 May 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

Players have no control over game design.

Bad game design is 100% the fault of the designer, not the consumer.

This is a fallacy. Game designers require both closed focus groups, and open testing to make sound decisions. They simply do not throw darts at a board and hope for the best. Where they aim those darts are influenced by the players. When bad design influences players, bad players encourage more bad design. This is something I'm making the community aware of.

Edited by lockwoodx, 25 May 2014 - 01:08 PM.

[Sidekick]

lockwoodx, on 25 May 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

This is a fallacy. Game designers require both closed focus groups, and open testing to make sound decisions. They simply do not throw darts at a board and hope for the best. Where they aim those darts are influenced by the players. When bad design influences players, bad players encourage more bad design. This is something I'm making the community aware of.

Are you implying that bad customer behavior has damaged the focus, methods and goals of the devs?

If so, I agree.

[Thorqemada]

Well, if you look at the Faction Revenge and what it has become....Super LRM Whores field Assault LRM Superboats to exploit the inefficient damage pattern of LRM to get huge Damage, Assist and Kill statistics...every match is ULTRA LAME now!

Then the ECM Lights with ERLL that play Assault and let the Team die bcs when the enemy goes for their base they can pick them off and harvest high Damage and Kill numbers.

Edited by Thorqemada, 25 May 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Silentium, on 25 May 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

I can't quote because phone posting, but EgoSlayer's observation vis-a-vis player behavior is spot on. Players will do what they can to win, any fairness dimension is immaterial. If the game allows you to do something, expect people to do it.

Normally I don't respond to first page posts when I drop bombshells, but this one is worthy of respect because it follows along the lines of human nature. Human evolution goes beyond following instincts tho, so just because you can do something harmful to the community doesn't mean you should.

Edited by lockwoodx, 25 May 2014 - 01:13 PM.

[BourbonFaucet]

This conversation touches on my favorite point about gameplay in MWO.

A lot of people want to play the game as a game. In layman's terms, this just means they want to experience the variety, gameplay, strategy, and enjoy things without the pressure of needing to win every single match. In fact, they get the concept that a loss can help you learn just as much as a win. They want to play, and enjoy themselves.

Then there's the crowd that insists that winning is an objective form of fun. They shouldn't even be here.

[Roadbeer]

@ OP... NOPE!




Who's fault is it really?

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Sidekick, on 25 May 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Are you implying that bad customer behavior has damaged the focus, methods and goals of the devs?

If so, I agree.

I did in my first post and I'm doing it again. It's ying and yang. Somehow the devs should find a way to make them co-exist, but in the meantime we are the masters of our own harmony. Those who seek discord, SHOULD be free to do as they please along with those who seek balance.... but in a closed environment such as MWO that draws from the same pool of players, those players are the lifeblood of the game. The ones who disrespect the natural balance of things... stripping away, using, devouring every last resource for the sake of their own personal greed and power are a cancer that PGI needs to expunge sooner than later.

They will just laugh and move on to infest some other game when it happens, but if we can all reach an understanding sooner rather than later, PGI won't have to be so harsh with the knife so there's less scar tissue to endure.

@Roadbeer: you've been on the road so long you're skunked. Players like myself prefer something cold and refreshing, not the same'ole swill tryhards dish out in a vain attempt to win at video games.

Edited by lockwoodx, 25 May 2014 - 01:20 PM.

[ninjitsu]

OP, don't hate on gumpy just because he's better than you