75 replies to this topic

[Praehotec8]

Interesting post. I would argue though, that there are shades of grey to this. Many people will fall somewhere on a spectrum between being very skilled and completely lacking certain skills.

For example, I would personally assess my ability to make snap shots my ability to track targets for long periods accurately as being relatively poor. On the other hand, I feel I can judge speed and distance well enough to lead targets with at least a modicum of accuracy.

This makes me relatively poor with long-rage sniping an poptarting. However, my skill level is not zero, and I can still make assessments about how various mechanics and gameplay types interact at my level of skill. I am also able to extrapolate that to consider how things would change with a different caliber of player skill. Thus, when I make comments about balance, I try to consider all of that in what I say, and how I interpret other players comments.

Certainly each person's views and skill levels will influence their views on balance, but it is incorrect to automatically dismiss a player's view just because they are not top-tier. Each opinion should be weighed for its merits (obviously blatant whining can be spotted and dismissed).

Don't misunderstand me, I actually do agree with a lot of what you say (certainly that there IS a population of people who lack the ability to have insight into WHY they cannot play well), but I think in total it is slightly too much like tunnel vision, failing to account for true variance in skill.

[Praehotec8]

Quote: "That's the paradox: You can't reliably tell unless you are good at this game, and you can't know you are good, unless you are good."

This is where I disagree. I do know that I am not GOOD, and have seen many players who are better. Further, I do know that most of the time when I lose, it is my fault, and can assess why and what I did wrong. I also can take steps to improve. There is a limit to my personal abilities. My hand-eye coordination, and my speed of reaction and tactical judgment can improve but will all have a personal limit. However, that does not preclude me from being able to accurately think, or make judgments about the game and its balance (and I can even attempt to limit personal bias as much as anyone else - even the "pros" will have differing opinions colored by their own abilities).

Ergo, some people have excellent technical knowledge of a field, and are wonderful instructors, but who would not be the "best" at personally applying such knowledge.

[qki]

Yeah, it does work to an extent.

I'm no expert on Dunning's research, but there's probably a provision somwhere, that it's possible to recognise your "lack of skill" based on empyrical evidence - in this case, people doing better than you, which leads to the conclusion, that since you cannot claim similar results, there is something you are doing wrong.

But to be fair - you have gained some insight and knowledge (if not practical skill) along the way to make this conclusion.


@ Nortalud:

I was merely suggesting, that people tend to go on the defensive whenever someone makes a suggestion that they are less skilled (not all of them, mind you). And obviously I don't know all the education systems everywhere (hell, the damd thing changed 2 or 3 times here since I went to school). But the general trend is that people have grown used to being rewarded. And many of these forum posts follow this rethoric - people refusing to learn anything new, and instead asking for changes in the rules that would arbitrarily deal with the problem for them.

[KhanCipher]

Lunatech, on 15 June 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

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.

LRMs being OP highly depend on the map, like on Caustic it's really silly on how there's so many hills that don't give any decent LRM coverage, but on frozen city LRMs are mostly useless when playing the south side because of all the lrm cover that's on the north side of the map. If anything LRM balance suffer from poor map design, and AMS may as well be a gamble if it'll be a waste of 1.5+ tons (which most people i know only really just put it on if they have the spare 1.5 tons and don't have a better investment to put it towards) or be marginally useful.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Yeah, Crimson Strait...EVERY ******* TIME I SEE IT...

North team goes up over that goddamn hill, south team goes the ******* train tunnel...

Guess what? Hill team wins, train tunnel team gets ******.

Guess what? I was just in a game on Crimson Strait, some exact thing happened...12-1 wipe.

I guess im allergic to getting a winning or atleast decent record in this game. 2 more losses, 2 more deaths lol. Today's been going like **** lol. I dont even get a chance to fire....

Prolly once these clans go live I will not even play cuz goddamn I am tired of being on fail ass teams....its like World of Tanks all over again. I try to do anything and get swarmed cuz my fail ass team goes off and lets themselves get flanked always.

Ugh....nothing kills my fun in games worse then derpy teams.

[Alex Warden]

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

That's how we got asault mode base turrets, which i dislike with all my being (at least in their current form), but have (learned) to deal with.

well... you are kind of wrong here i think... we got the turrets mainly because we ASKED for "Real" bases (instead of a yellow circle and a pumping station which i honestly don´t know why i should "capture" it at all^^) since forever... i guess the crying bout basecaps weighed a little into the decission to give us turrets, but the demand for them is older then most of the accounts still actively posting in these forums, and the statement "maybe later in development" dates back to CBT...

sadly it´s just a few turrrets slammed onto the maps and not bases as most of us imagined (hackable turret controls were part of it) , but it´s at least something... maybe base defense mode will show us a bit more effort, but that´s way out the window right now afaik...

btw, i like them, had some very nice approaches with a small " taskforce" to get the base mid match

Edited by Alex Warden, 15 June 2014 - 02:38 PM.

[Sjorpha]

Nortalud, on 15 June 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

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.

It presupposes no such thing, it's true that the sample size requires critical mass, but the winning strategies in competitive gaming are seldom "popular" in a sense of preference. Competitive players don't use poptarts because they want to, most of them are probably tired of it at this point, they are forced to do it. Maybe I was unclear, it's the strategies that consistently win tournaments over time I'm talking about as dominating. The MWO meta has been quite consistent so far, so it's pretty safe accumulated sample size to judge by at this point. Clans may of course take over in coming tournaments if they are strong enough.

The current meta is persistent also because it embodies core principles of game theory, focused fire is superior in most games where killing an opponent/piece on the opposing side reduces their offensive power. It follows that focused instant damage is hard to balance against DoT. It's the same in countless other games, take for example the target micromanaging in starcraft. A good exception to this is The Banner Saga, where killing opponents is often a bad strategy because it gives the opposing team a "turn advantage", and spreading damage weakens the enemy team more than killing warriors, a very interesting combat system.

One lesson to take from it is that there could be more subtle consequences to spread damage in MWO, slower speed, fall chance, reduced cooling, reduced accuracy, vision impairment and so on could be piled over time in small increments so that spread damage was not wasted damage.

[Zerberus]

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.

So medium lasers need to be heavily nerfed becasue they`re obviously horrendously OP, because literally everyone uses them at some point or another.

So much for faulty logic.

[Abisha]

Zerberus, on 16 June 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

So medium lasers need to be heavily nerfed becasue they`re obviously horrendously OP, because literally everyone uses them at some point or another.

So much for faulty logic.

dude you can do better then that!.
try again try harder, I know you can.

[Koniks]

qki, on 15 June 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

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.

The blatant ideological bias and tone of the original post are objectionable but you're not wrong about the implications of Dunning-Kruger. There was a similar study that showed some people aren't smart enough to realize they aren't smart.

Poptarting isn't only about getting in and out of cover. A good player is also harder to hit if they jump than if they're moving on the ground, especially if the player is skilled enough to jump on a vector perpendicular to a target, rather than towards it or straight up.

It's a less predictable movement, especially since dropping/adding thrust adjusts velocity faster than the groundspeed throttle, so it's harder to lead the target. Mechs like the Victor also have a lot of open space around the torso, so shots are more likely to pass through. And some of the jumping animations collapse the legs and/or bend the torso, making it an even smaller target.

It also makes up for the diminished turn speed of some mechs.

And jump jets also provide agility for navigating terrain. With the current mobility mechanics, if no jump jets were in the game, Jagers, Stalkers, Catapults, and Shadow Hawks would be the best mechs because their ballistics are mounted high on the torso or arms. You could probably also get by with the TDR-9S and the BLRs with high-mounted PPCs or ERLLs. And the ECM Cicada, Raven, and Spider would also be there. Maybe the Locust because of its climbing ability, but in a niche role.

This is why jump brawling and jump LRMishing are also superior tactics.

Edited by Mizeur, 16 June 2014 - 08:30 AM.

[SpiralRazor]

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

Made you look, didn't I? A little something to occupy my time (it's PDT -9 here) while waiting for the second trial to come online, and maybe occupy a bit of your time as well (caution, long rant incoming).



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

A consequence of this, is that countless people THINK they are good at something, precisely because they are not.

Now, normally, when you are confronted with superior tactics (and subsequently lose to them) in a game, you have two options. One, is to learn that tactic, and just try to be better at it than other players, and the other is to try to counter said tactic (perhaps even exploit the fact, that people using it are going to behave in a certain way).

Trouble is - some people refuse to learn. Not that they cannot learn, but they refuse to do so. Because in their own mind, their tactic is correct (remember the opening paragraph?). So they insist on using it, and then wonder why they keep getting blown up. This is the literal definition of insanity - repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome.

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.
The end result is that people refuse to make an effort to improve in any way, and ALSO refuse to acept responsibility for their defeats. And while it is tempting to focus your blame on incompetent teammates (and i've given in to this temptation many times), some people take it further.

When I talked about two options before, these people choose a third one - go on the forums and cry about it, until it gets nerfed. Rather than trying to overcome the obstacles, they want the easy way out, and ask for the obstacles to be arbitrarily removed from their way. And it bothers me, because it impacts the game in a strictly negative way.

You see - people seldom complain about winning. Most of the time, when you hear someone complain about "balance", they do it from the position of the victim. And amidst accusations of "overpowered weapons that allowed an inferior player to get an undeserved victory", and "underpowered weapons that should have given them a victory they so rightly deserve", these people are not really looking for balance. They are looking for vengeance. Even if only subconciously, their "suggestions" are meant to prevent people from defeating them using a certain tactic that they cannot be bothered to learn how to counter, and sometimes outright punish people for trying. That's how we got asault mode base turrets, which i dislike with all my being (at least in their current form), but have (learned) to deal with.



And now that the second round of testing the clan mechs and equipment is upon us, people will invariably offer their "valuable input" on matters they do not fully understand.
Personally, I have to say that I like how the clans are being treated in this game so far, even though i was cautious at first, when it was announced, that clan weapons will be tweaked to not be clearly and strictly 200% superior to the inner sphere ones. My initial reaction was along the lines of "what heresy is this?!", since clan tech in battletech lore is strictly superior, to Inner Sphere's - more powerful, lighter and with more range. That being said - while the numbers in the board game manual are clear, there has never been any official statement (that I am aware of, feel free to correct me) as to what exactly MAKES them better.

I must admit I really like PGI's (liberal) interpretation, that clan weapons have higher damage potential, than IS weapons, as long as you put in the extra effort required (Obviously, the UAC20 can shred a lot more armour, than the IS AC20, and the lasers do more damage, as long as you stay on target). And I am quite puzzled to see, that some people discount them entirely as impossible to use effectively (aka: it doesn't matter if the CERLL does more damage, since the burn time is 50% longer and you will waste all of it hitting something else).

Very much like the change to Gauss Rifle mechanic. A lot of people, who relied on the simple "point and click" nature of it, cried out that the GR is unusable now (nevermind the bit of effort and practice to go from aim-click, to click/aim-release). While I argued, that the GR has been made more powerful, since once you learn to handle the charge mechanic, you are given a very powerful option to cancel your shots, and refire quicker than after a missed one (not to mention saving ammo).


So, kindly, think before you type. And when it comes to posting "balance suggestions" think extra hard.

David Dunning is full of crap, and both the people in our machine shop and all the people I know that work at MercLabs think Psychology is junk science.

[qki]

SpiralRazor, on 16 June 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

David Dunning is full of crap, and both the people in our machine shop and all the people I know that work at MercLabs think Psychology is junk science.

Fascinating.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

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

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

KDR and win/loss ratio are meaningless in a team based game with 12 players. Especially in the public que. There are games that are won and lost because of other people on your team that you have no control over. There is disconnects, team killers, trolls, bad desicions, bad teamwork etc... the list goes on.

Anyone who thinks your stats are important in this game is a silly notion. Lets see what you can do on the battlefield, not what a stat page says lol.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cathy, on 15 June 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

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

Actually I don't use any of the OP builds (Excluding Jager40), I beat a good many of the supposed OP builds because I refuse to accept that skill and ingenuity have no place in this game. Its a combat game and combat is all about stacking the deck in your favor or improvising and overcoming when your gear isn't the top of the heap.

[Abisha]

Alwrath, on 16 June 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

KDR and win/loss ratio are meaningless in a team based game with 12 players. Especially in the public que. There are games that are won and lost because of other people on your team that you have no control over. There is disconnects, team killers, trolls, bad desicions, bad teamwork etc... the list goes on.

Anyone who thinks your stats are important in this game is a silly notion. Lets see what you can do on the battlefield, not what a stat page says lol.

that's just nonsense, a good kill rate indicate that the player knows what he is doing.

especially when PuG, when indeed lots of thing's go's wrong and those few matches where you get the bad luck. Get's hidden in the general data statics.

Edited by Abisha, 16 June 2014 - 01:24 PM.

[Lily from animove]

So much crap, most psychologicans talk crap

"This is the literal definition of insanity - repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome.." roflmao so any sportsman training the same action over and over is inane, becasue he expects a different outcome (getting better).


Also this is a game, and there are clearly unbalanced things tha have to be addressed. If you play a TT where oyu need to rol high numbers on a dice and the other has a D10 vs your D6? this is hardly anyones fault if the rules do not state what dice to bring. So whos right? the one saying we need a D6, so nerf your dice. Or the one saying the D6 is wrong and needs a buff?
They could also meet in the middle and create a D8. So when analysis show, one thing is off or the minority, its better to fix this one. And when it means to nerf it, so it be. Otherwise you run into the risk to buff MANY other things with the risk to imbalance something again making it OP.

The rest after the psycho crap is good.

the real problems are "opinions" or "what I would like to have"
There are seriously people who say the Nova prime should get no ghost heat penalty for firing all 12 CERML. The question to analyse this would be interesting why they want it. because this would clearly be OP by any means of objective judging.

Edited by Lily from animove, 16 June 2014 - 01:20 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

this....is lovely.


Shame the logic will be utterly lost on the QQ brigade, because..in a self fulfilling prophecy..this couldn't possibly be talking about them...... because they are really good, remember?

[smokefield]

haha..exactly my thoughts bishop

op has some very valid points. the game is now in a pretty good spot. i am happy with the clan...much more than anything else they did so far. so if they manage to bring a at least half working CW and a smurfy mechlab...well...i think its safe to say we are on the good road

[Biaxialrain]

Quote

Many people will fall somewhere on a spectrum between being very skilled and completely lacking certain skills

Yeah, what skills are these? Point and click?

The biggest skill I see lacking is how to think.

[Sandpit]

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

Now, normally, when you are confronted with superior tactics (and subsequently lose to them) in a game, you have two options. One, is to learn that tactic, and just try to be better at it than other players, and the other is to try to counter said tactic (perhaps even exploit the fact, that people using it are going to behave in a certain way).

Trouble is - some people refuse to learn. Not that they cannot learn, but they refuse to do so.

MWO has a 3rd option though.

Get beat by something, hit the forums to wail and flail about how "op" it is and expect the developers to "fix" it.

A rough translation to that equates to

Get beat by something, QQ about it on the forums. What PGI nerf everything to appease joe derp and watch as what was the "thinking man's shooter" get dumbed down into yet just another in a long list of run of the mill shooters with nothing special about it other than mechs.

Bishop Steiner, on 21 June 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

this....is lovely.


Shame the logic will be utterly lost on the QQ brigade, because..in a self fulfilling prophecy..this couldn't possibly be talking about them...... because they are really good, remember?

exactly
"I'm elite and uber good! I am losing too often. It MUST be the game since I'm FAR too good at video games for it to be MY fault"

Biaxialrain, on 21 June 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Yeah, what skills are these? Point and click?

The biggest skill I see lacking is how to think.

You are correct sir
"Thinking man's shooter" as originally intended

QQ brigade (thank you Bishop, I'm stealing that one lol) has their way and *poof* we now have "Shooter" instead