75 replies to this topic

[Abisha]

cSand, on 15 June 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

I'm guessing from your posts lately that either English isn't your first language or you need to work on reading comprehension..

i know exactly where this is going trying to talk something that's wrong, being right.

[qki]

Abisha, on 15 June 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Nerfing is more efficient then buffing.
what the hell do you think happens if they start buffing weapon?, you get single shot mechs back ingame you want that?.

It's not about what's more efficient (buffing or nerfing) - you generally need both to arrive at the right values. I'm more concerned about people asking for unnecessary nerfs/buffs because their own inability leads them to think something is out of balance, when it is a simple case of learning to play properly.

[Abisha]

qki, on 15 June 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

It's not about what's more efficient (buffing or nerfing) - you generally need both to arrive at the right values. I'm more concerned about people asking for unnecessary nerfs/buffs because their own inability leads them to think something is out of balance, when it is a simple case of learning to play properly.

it's just a mathematical equation, if 90% of all mech users using a certain weapon then it's bound to be OP.
for instance the AC2.

it don't take a whizkid or Einstein to figure that out.

Edited by Abisha, 15 June 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[qki]

Hardly. The number of people using a weapon does not indicate if it's OP, or not. And it's not a "simple equation" either. And people tend to use weapons that are considered good - which is exactly the problem here - nerfing weapons "because most people use them, so it must be OP", when the weapons are not really OP, just popular.

[xMintaka]

Abisha, on 15 June 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

it's just a mathematical equation, if 90% of all mech users using a certain weapon then it's bound to be OP.
for instance the AC2.

it don't take a whizkid or Einstein to figure that out.

People need to stop crying "OP".

I know someone who posts ridiculous scores in an Awesome or Dragon (heck, I'm pretty handy in my Flame). By the logic on these forums, those mechs are OP and need to be nerfed. Lolno, right?

Right.

In the case above, the players skill and knowledge of the mech makes the difference. A skilled player counters the weakness of their mech by playing to its strength.

This is, unfortunately, lostech in MWO. Most people who come up against a strong tactic immediately complain here on the forums rather than working out ways around that tactic. There is no single tactic that is unbeatable in this game, despite certain things being portrayed as such.

We have had next to no time in which to adapt to the new mechs and the tactics they bring to the table. It will take around a month for people to settle into builds, playstyles etc. Then is the time to start looking at things that might be overpowered and need bringing into line.

But crying out for nerfs before we have even had a week to play, adapt and learn to counter all the new Clan-tech is entirely unjustified. We just do not know if it is overpowered until we try various ways to counter it.

[C E Dwyer]

So basically if a games balance is so bad, that there are only one or two valid builds and tactics your saying that we should just get over it and learn the dull one dimenstional game, rather than try suggest idea's that might bring more variance and inrest into a game.

yeah..great post

[qki]

I think we are getting sidetracked here.

No one is arguing that instead of trying to balance the game, people should just learn to play it "as is".
The argument is, that people often demand "balance" changes for things that are balanced, because they don't know better.

[Lykaon]

Abisha, on 15 June 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

Yo mister perfect, show us your KDR and win/loss rate before pointing fingers.

You only read the post title didn't ya?

[Targetloc]

qki, on 15 June 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

No one is arguing that instead of trying to balance the game, people should just learn to play it "as is".
The argument is, that people often demand "balance" changes for things that are balanced, because they don't know better.

So how do we tell which is which?

[qki]

That's the paradox ;]
You can't reliably tell unless you are good at this game, and you can't know if you are good, unless you are good.

A reasonable approach, is to assume first that any problems you have are your fault, and try your best to understand the situation, and why things are the way they are.
If possible, try to be the devil's advocate and see how the system could be exploited. Then do the same again for the changes suggested.

It's not a simple process, which is why I find humorous all those self-proclaimed "i can balance the whole game in my head, and get it right in one go with no testing" experts.

[Targetloc]

qki, on 15 June 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

That's the paradox ;]
You can't reliably tell unless you are good at this game, and you can't know if you are good, unless you are good.

[Lykaon]

qki, on 15 June 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Hardly. The number of people using a weapon does not indicate if it's OP, or not. And it's not a "simple equation" either. And people tend to use weapons that are considered good - which is exactly the problem here - nerfing weapons "because most people use them, so it must be OP", when the weapons are not really OP, just popular.

We can begin with an observation like...

2 AC5s paired with 2 PPCs on jumping mechs is really popular.

Then we can examine the observation and look for a cause.

It would seem that the combination of these weapons allows for high volumes of pin point damage and the jump jets let them poptart and that is a superior method of deploying these high pin point alphas as it vastly reduces the time of exposure to enemy return fire.

So now we contemplate what this means.

There is a distinct advantage to using grouped pin point front loaded damage weapons.And a distinct advantage to using this damage application method paired with poptarting.The front loaded damage mechanic is what supplies the highly desireable mechanic and no other weapon mechanics can really efficently replicate the results of using this particular mechanic.
So it would appear that pin point front loaded damage is the clearly superior option and jump sniping is the clearly superior method of use of this mechanic.

Now we examine our findings

Pin point front loaded damage is superior to all other damage application methods.The prevailing build is 2 AC5s and 2 PPCs so it stands to reason that a counter tactic is to close to under the PPC min. range thus reducing the damage potential of the "poptart" but...AC5s have excellent DPS superior to any near equal weight of laser based weaponry are highly efficent for heat to damage output due to high recycle speeds.The poptart reduced to only 2 AC5s is still a potent damage dealing platform because it has traded 30 point alpha strikes for high DPS twin AC5s.Essentially this 2 AC5 2 PPC weapon loadout does not suffer at point blank and excells at long range it is essentially good at everything and superior at most.
There is no really effective counter tactic so the best tactic is adoption of the method "meta" so you will be on even footing with opposition that use the "meta".

Now we can examine what this means.

This means that when paired down to what is needed to compete on equal footing within a narrow meta is essentially AC5s PPCs jumpjets and any chassis that allows you to mount a sufficent number of these items to complete the task of meeting a victory condition. Essentially 2 weapons and 4 chassis is all anyone needs to play MWo at it's purely distilled level.

Now I examine what this means

Boring game.

[qki]

That is assuming you go and trade shots with the ppc/ac5 poptart. This aside, that's a good way to go about the analysis, as long as you are thorough.

I'd suggest leaving things like "clearly superior" and "without equal" to conclusions, as using them in the analysis is an easy way to get trapped.

In this case, the whole idea of poptarting stems from the fact, that gravity will put you behind cover faster, that coming out of cover on the ground, coming to a full stop and reversing back behind cover.
A popular opinion, but not 100% accurate. A good angle of attack will produce similar results. Especially if you have the advantage of shooting first - then even without jump jets, you can fire a shot and be back in cover before you are fired upon - enemies don't always have perfect awareness, or the ability to respond, especially when already engaging another mech.

[orcrist86]

This was a good post, and the psychology of self recognition is nothing new. It plays into the concept that a the mental and physical acuity for effective decision making has a minimum threshold for any given subject. Its why a college may not admit you to a masters program despite your GPA if you do poorly on the GRE. The issue that seems to be most controversial is that there is also a minimum threshold for self realization and actualization. This shouldn't surprise most people. How many times have any of us dropped a few IQ points with some adult beverages and described ourselves as fantastic dancers, bowlers, dart players, lovers etc? A little self awareness goes along way, just watch a young kid play a video game. As long as he thinks he is doing well he thinks hes great, when he loses its not his fault. The game cheated. He thinks this because he doesn't have the capability to grasp more than the system he can control. The same is true of some of the QQ OP crowd. This is not to say that all their gripes aren't valid... some are just backed by a minimum understanding of the system while others are a reaction to failure without an understanding of why.

[Toadkillerdog]

Lunatech, on 15 June 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

People need to stop crying "OP".

I know someone who posts ridiculous scores in an Awesome or Dragon (heck, I'm pretty handy in my Flame). By the logic on these forums, those mechs are OP and need to be nerfed. Lolno, right?

Right.

In the case above, the players skill and knowledge of the mech makes the difference. A skilled player counters the weakness of their mech by playing to its strength.

This is, unfortunately, lostech in MWO. Most people who come up against a strong tactic immediately complain here on the forums rather than working out ways around that tactic. There is no single tactic that is unbeatable in this game, despite certain things being portrayed as such.

We have had next to no time in which to adapt to the new mechs and the tactics they bring to the table. It will take around a month for people to settle into builds, playstyles etc. Then is the time to start looking at things that might be overpowered and need bringing into line.

But crying out for nerfs before we have even had a week to play, adapt and learn to counter all the new Clan-tech is entirely unjustified. We just do not know if it is overpowered until we try various ways to counter it.

It's always funny when I see one of these. Tell me, if there is a viable counter to an entire team of poptarts, what is it? And why was it never used in the entire tournament? I know poptarts aren't invincible, my lance and I kill them all the time, but the fact still stands that a coordinated group of poptarts can quickly kill off any other kind of group, no matter what tactic or builds they bring. There is such thing as inherent imbalance, and it shows when your top level players exclusively use few (or in this case, ONE) tactic over all others. If this game was balanced, you would have seen an anti-poptart team or two in the tournament that would rip all the mass poptarts to shreds, but we all know that never happened. Before you jump to your article from Sirlin, keep in mind he's using Street Fighter as an example, a game in which there are actual counters to every strategy. If Street Fighter became a game where shooting hadoukens repeatedly was a guranteed win, his points would not be valid. But here we are, with proof that all the best players all use the same guy and just shoot hadoukens until the match is over.

[Sjorpha]

qki, on 15 June 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

David Dunning is a professor of psychology at the university of Cornell. According to his research, in order to know how good you are at something, you must have exactly the same skills as it takes to be good at that thing in the first place. The resulting paradox is that if you are absolutely no good at something at all, then you lack exactly the skills that you'd need to realise that you are no good at it. Just listen to this guy:
https://www.youtube....Afv3U_ysc#t=213

That is very interesting, but when it comes to games you don't really need anything more than literacy and respect for evidence to know who is good and bad. The better player is simply whoever performs better according to the statistics of whatever the game uses to measure success. Good players win more than bad players, it's that simple and everything else is scrubby excuses.

In fact you don't even need to try the game or know how to play it. I can know who the best tennis/football/streetfighter etc players are just by looking at their tournament results over time. I may not be able to analyze WHY they are the best at that specific game, but I can know that they win consistently over other players.

You can also safely assume that the best players are in, and scoring high in, tournaments and official games. Tournaments elevate the game and there is no way to become top tier player without playing in them. It is where people perform their best and learn the most, and therefore also the most relevant win/lose statistic to look at.

So the only skill you need is the honesty to accept that overall skill is measured by your results and nothing else. From that baseline you can discuss who is better at specific parts of the game, maybe someone is better at aiming and another at avoiding damage etc, just as long as you don't fool your self into believing that the loser is better than the winner.

Apply to yourself and you will know if you are a good or bad player. I know I'm relatively bad, I also know that I have improved and how quickly. I just look at my results.

Balance is measured the same way, it's actually quite simple. What dominates tournaments is overpowered, what is viable but not dominating in tournaments is balanced and what isn't used at all ever is underpowered.

So by asking that question I can easily fact check my newbie hunches, let's say LRMS , are they dominating the tournaments? No? Ok, then I know the problem is with me. Solution? Go ask a better player for advice.

Edited by Sjorpha, 15 June 2014 - 11:40 AM.

[Nortalud]

qki, on 15 June 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

And every time we point out, that maybe their skills just weren't up to par, we are met with hostility:
"no, damn it! I know how to play this game, I'm not wrong, the game is wrong! And You are wrong! Everyone is wrong except ME!" (sounds familiar?). This is partially the fault of the current education system in many countries - instead of improving their skills to pass a test, people want to lower the requirements. And they have come to expect it too, because the super-PC (politically correct) culture of the modern world seems mortally afraid to offend anyone with suggestions that they, quite frankly, suck.

You started out so strong, and then veered off briefly into whatever this is.

Upon what evidence do you base these assertions? Or, to be a little snarky about it, are you highly skilled in the realm of the "soft" sciences and therefore in a position to correctly identify the existence of the effects and their antecedent causes which you cite?

But your overall point is well-taken: an individual's perception of "fairness" is a highly subjective thing.


(edited to amend quote and clarify endorsement of the post's primary thesis)

Edited by Nortalud, 15 June 2014 - 12:14 PM.

[Nortalud]

Sjorpha, on 15 June 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Balance is measured the same way, it's actually quite simple. What dominates tournaments is overpowered, what is viable but not dominating in tournaments is balanced and what isn't used at all ever is underpowered.

Ah, but this presupposes perfect rationality and discounts the psychologies of the tournament participants. This can be partially compensated for by utilizing sufficiently large and varied samples, but even then, the best that can be hoped for is a high degree of correlation between "OP" and "popular", not an absolute proof of causation.

[xMintaka]

Toadkillerdog, on 15 June 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

It's always funny when I see one of these. Tell me, if there is a viable counter to an entire team of poptarts, what is it? And why was it never used in the entire tournament? I know poptarts aren't invincible, my lance and I kill them all the time, but the fact still stands that a coordinated group of poptarts can quickly kill off any other kind of group, no matter what tactic or builds they bring. There is such thing as inherent imbalance, and it shows when your top level players exclusively use few (or in this case, ONE) tactic over all others. If this game was balanced, you would have seen an anti-poptart team or two in the tournament that would rip all the mass poptarts to shreds, but we all know that never happened. Before you jump to your article from Sirlin, keep in mind he's using Street Fighter as an example, a game in which there are actual counters to every strategy. If Street Fighter became a game where shooting hadoukens repeatedly was a guranteed win, his points would not be valid. But here we are, with proof that all the best players all use the same guy and just shoot hadoukens until the match is over.

I'm interested in how you came to the conclusion my post was about poptarts. The main point of my post and the point of this thread was that people are already whining about CLAN mechs before we have had much of a chance to test them.

Let me ask you, how many "Lrm's are OP" threads does this forum see per day?
There are ways around LRM's, but the people complaining refuse to learn those counters even though LRM's are clearly not overpowered once you know how to work around them.

Much the same as poptarts. It is, without a doubt, the strongest strategy in this game. No denying that, the tournament finalists proved it.
Completely ignoring the fact that in one of the opening matches a team DID go for an anti-poptart strategy (AC40 Jags in cave) that was only beaten because they were forced to change dropdeck, what would have happened if the poptart team had to change dropdeck as well?
But it's not the be all and end all. PGI have shown us that they are working to balance jump sniping, and we can hope they will use Clan tech as a basis to balance FLD for the IS as well.

There's a wonderful post up in the guides section by Eglar on how to combat jump snipers. The methods he has posted there all work very well. It's my belief that a lance of fast brawling Victors can happily beat a lance of VTR-DS poptarts, player skill being equal.

Again, PGI are working to balance jumpsniping.

The issue is when people cry for nerfs before even attempting to devise counter strategies. That is not how you balance a game.


Who the **** is Sirlin?

Edited by Lunatech, 15 June 2014 - 12:27 PM.

[cSand]

Lunatech, on 15 June 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

People need to stop crying "OP".

I know someone who posts ridiculous scores in an Awesome or Dragon (heck, I'm pretty handy in my Flame). By the logic on these forums, those mechs are OP and need to be nerfed. Lolno, right?

Right.

In the case above, the players skill and knowledge of the mech makes the difference. A skilled player counters the weakness of their mech by playing to its strength.

This is, unfortunately, lostech in MWO. Most people who come up against a strong tactic immediately complain here on the forums rather than working out ways around that tactic. There is no single tactic that is unbeatable in this game, despite certain things being portrayed as such.

We have had next to no time in which to adapt to the new mechs and the tactics they bring to the table. It will take around a month for people to settle into builds, playstyles etc. Then is the time to start looking at things that might be overpowered and need bringing into line.

But crying out for nerfs before we have even had a week to play, adapt and learn to counter all the new Clan-tech is entirely unjustified. We just do not know if it is overpowered until we try various ways to counter it.

Hey man, the Awesome is OP.



FTR, neither was a LRM boat, and there's plenty more where that came from

Edited by cSand, 15 June 2014 - 12:27 PM.