91 replies to this topic

[jaxjace]

Jman5, on 24 July 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Nerfs, buffs? It doesn't matter which one you choose because balance is relative.

Think about it this way: when you nerf a weapon, you're actually indirectly buffing every other weapon simultaneously. When you buff a weapon, you're actually indirectly nerfing every other weapon simultaneously. All other weapons are now stronger or weaker relative to the weapon that was changed.

People get mad whenever there is a nerf because they feel like someone is taking their toys from them. They usually fail to understand that a buff to another system is also nerfing their stuff even if the values were never changed.

Alistair Winter, on 24 July 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

So you think you can just walk in here with your fancy logic and apply reason, like some univeristy-educated hotshot?

Get the **** out of this thread.

LOL

[Agent 0 Fortune]

This is a much better thread than I expected, with tweaker FPS twitch-gamers vs. Battletech vehicle-sim gamers.
I think buff where it makes sense, Nerf where it makes sense. Basically if the solution is to buff 30 weapons and armor values vs. Nerfing 1 weapon, of course you Nerf the 1 weapon.

[Sephlock]

GreyGriffin, on 24 July 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Fun alone doesn't make good game design.

[GreyGriffin]

You missed a bit.

GreyGriffin, on 24 July 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

The counter argument is more nuanced and thus, will undoubtedly be quoted with a total lack of understanding as to what it means (emphasis mine, ed.), but here goes.

Fun alone doesn't make good game design.

Enjoyment of a game relies on a wide emotional range.

Edited by GreyGriffin, 24 July 2014 - 05:29 PM.

[Sephlock]

GreyGriffin, on 24 July 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

You missed a bit.

That statement is still absurd on the face of it, and the wrongness contained therein is almost beyond words...

Not to mention the fact that it relied on a definition of fun that is narrow to say the least (and then you went on to contrast it with "fun", which.. surprise surprise, normal people also put under the umbrella of 'fun').

Also, did the OP say "make the weapons more killy"?

Quote

It's just something to think about.

We need to work on ways to make this game better, come up with ideas for various buildings, points of interest, storyline senarious, and other aspects that will make MWO the best game possible

[GreyGriffin]

Fun is a surprisingly narrow word that is used in a surprisingly broad context, which makes it difficult to contextualize the experience of games. It's fun to shoot big guns at big robots and watch them blow up. It is less fun to whittle it down with small lasers or missiles. It is even less fun to get blown up by other big robots using big guns. However, all of these experiences are critical to the game's overall experience.

And making it a good experience is the goal. A good experience can't be all highs all the time. My post addresses the argument that nerfing weapons is nerfing fun. Big, overpowered weapons may be more fun to use, but they don't lend themselves to the most satisfying game, either for the user (who becomes bored because of the flat, oversaturated emotional curve, lack of challenge, etcetera) or the victim (who just blows up and dies.)

You have to acknowledge that the game can't be balanced constantly upwards without losing its defining characteristics. Lowering the effectiveness of certain equipment to bring more variety into gameplay is an essential balancing and gameplay engineering tool, and you can't be locked into the idea that making a weapon less effective overall makes the game a worse experience, even if that weapon is less fun to use.

Edited by GreyGriffin, 24 July 2014 - 06:40 PM.

[Cptn Goodvibes Pig of Steel]

G'day,


My heart bleeds for the Victor drivers out there. As the owner of that legendary heroic crap mech, the Pretty Badly in the (un)awesome series of assault chasis, I guess I'm fully entitled to respond to this thread with comments like "suck it up buttercup" or "welcome to the shite club". But I won't do this at this juncture! If fact, my Putrid Baby serves a very important role in MWO for me. Everytime I think about purchasing a new mech or something else for real dollars, I need only scan over my mech bays and see that colourful awesome reminder, that lends valid reason to NOT make a purchase. I'm not complaining though, I do acknowledge that the developers make occasional maintenance to things and is somewhat better than other computer programs that I've been aquainted with. Actually, I'd be mighty appreciative if the developers could see their way clear nerf the Awlful assault mechs even further, as this will clearly enhance my Pretty Blobby's existing role for me in MWO and save me some money.

P.S. Yes, I am a rubbish mech driver and perhaps deserving of rubbish pings and rubbish mechs!


Regards,
Draughluin

[HantuDuppy]

I would totally take out my own team's LRM boats if I didn't fear the ban hammer. I've been considering installing a NARC beacon to tag the boats on my team - that shouldn't count as team killing, should it?

[Mcgral18]

HantuDuppy, on 24 July 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

I would totally take out my own team's LRM boats if I didn't fear the ban hammer. I've been considering installing a NARC beacon to tag the boats on my team - that shouldn't count as team killing, should it?

Care to tell us why you consider that acceptable behaviour?

Friendly fire NARC doesn't either, I believe.

Edited by Mcgral18, 24 July 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[HantuDuppy]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, was I? In answering OP, yes, I would reject the power of having a LRM boat on my own team because I hate playing against them. Historically, enemies would often agree to terms of war, such as the Geneva conventions, to mutually agree not to use certain terrible actions against each other, like chemical or biological weapons, or targeting non-military targets. Team-killing LRM boats would by this type of 'agreement'. Obviously not acceptable behaviour, but I do hate the boats.

[Scurry]

I have the answer!

ELO-modified stats.

As your Elo falls, weapons produce less heat, they recharge faster, they have more range, Mechs move faster, hitboxes become smaller, you get more ammo per ton. Heck, Mechs at lower Elo will even get more hardpoints!

That way, everyone will be truly equal!

[GreyGriffin]

LRM boats are just a symptom of an incomplete Information warfare system, both when the enemy has ECM (useless) and when they don't (Devastating).

Once again, we need more middle states to give the game more tactical nuance.

[Odin]

Gallowglas, on 24 July 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

Honest question here, but if a developer is trying to cultivate balanced gameplay where people don't ragequit because of instant deaths and where "skill" counts for something by allowing tactical decisions to be made over time, how do you avoid nerfing a weapon? Sure, you could simply beef up the armor of all mechs, but instead of bringing one weapon into line, you've just rendered a lot of other weapons less effective. You could certainly just leave weapons unbalanced, but then everyone starts packing them and the imbalance gets further skewed by boating. It also starts impacting mech design decisions.

For years now I've heard this philosophy that you should never nerf anything but, rather, buff everything else up to be just as awesome. That sounds great on paper, but the reality is that all you've done is decrease survivability, limit tactical decisions, and reduce weapon diversity.

Absolute.
Another way to get things more on the tactical side: slow the game down.

[OneEyed Jack]

GreyGriffin, on 24 July 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Increasing TTK would also have the side effect of increasing the number of player states from Fine-Almost Dead-Dead, to Fine-Injured-Crippled-Almost Dead-Dead. By incorporating critical hits and giving wounded players a chance to gamble their 'mechs on offense, you create more decisions for the individual to gauge, exploit, and explore his own fitness to fight based on the condition of his 'mech.

The combination of these macro decisions (the ability to maneuver more freely without getting blown to bits), and the micro decisions (gauging your fitness to fight and changing your behavior based on the fitness of your 'mech) would create a much larger range of tactical situations and options than the current game-state, which encourages builds that can core a medium 'mech in 2 shots.

Horse-puckey.

Even with the big, bad, PP FLD meta touching you in bad places, the TTK still isn't too fast for anyone to react who's reactions might actually matter. If you're reacting that slow, you simply need to improve or find a turn-based game. You lay out scenarios in which people get all this time to make all these decisions, but completely ignore the fact that you take all meaning away from any of those decision, because the game devolves into nothing but a slugging match. It becomes nothing but a calculation of DPS and armor.

What you want is Strategy, which is something totally different, in a Tactical-level game where, IMHO, it doesn't belong.

[ecued]

nerfing mechs and weapons does not make the mediocre or below average player better, it just forces the every day player to make a different "meta" build, which they will then use to curb stomp the same said below average player to death in. i've been playing this game for 18 months, and quite honestly, the changes that this game has gone through have been implemented by a staff the obviously never played it.

they say don't be cynical, and offer helpful criticism. i have seen this being done by the everyday/heavy paper spending members of this community just to fall on deaf ears. here's the way this is going to shake out. if and when community war fare ever launches, at this point, it would have to be something so absolutely wonderful that i would rather play then get head from Pamela Anderson. this game has turned into one big cash grab, and the concept of the micro transaction was totally missed. honestly, why would i spend 20 dollars to change the color and pattern of my mech?

they say curiosity killed the cat. greed killed the mmo. its a damn shame, but look on the bright side, after this attempt falls apart and shuts down, ten years from now when another company decides to revive the battle tech game series, hopefully they will do a better job.

Edited by ecued, 25 July 2014 - 01:44 AM.

[Sprouticus]

GreyGriffin, on 24 July 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

This is another argument I see bandied around a lot, and the answer to this is much simpler. Low time to kill with no respawn essentially means that the first team to see the other wins. All things being equal, the 1 kill advantage and the relative ease of killing 'mechs means that no tactics can emerge from the forces meeting. Whereas with a higher TTK, a team can react to being attacked, retreat to a new position, while the offense can attempt to flank, provide covering fire for a frontal charge, or arrange themselves into an advantageous firing line.

Increasing TTK would also have the side effect of increasing the number of player states from Fine-Almost Dead-Dead, to Fine-Injured-Crippled-Almost Dead-Dead. By incorporating critical hits and giving wounded players a chance to gamble their 'mechs on offense, you create more decisions for the individual to gauge, exploit, and explore his own fitness to fight based on the condition of his 'mech.

The combination of these macro decisions (the ability to maneuver more freely without getting blown to bits), and the micro decisions (gauging your fitness to fight and changing your behavior based on the fitness of your 'mech) would create a much larger range of tactical situations and options than the current game-state, which encourages builds that can core a medium 'mech in 2 shots.

THIS.

There is a sweetspot for TTK that the designers are looking for to make the game 'feel' like a mechwarrior game. Now there is a=some vairance in what each person thinks it should feel like which is why we get conflict over TTK issues and are not all on the same page.

However, I would say that PGI has done a good job of coming close to meeting most peoples expectations. Soem folks want long battles, some shorter, but generally everyone is close.


Here is another factor on TTK. If TTK is too short, it favors long range weapons (all weapons being equal). If TTK is too long, then it favors rushes and close combat. Neither is particularly good IMO.

This is another reason why balance in TTK is so critical. Unbalance TTK can make a weapon system seem terrible when in fact it is just that it is always smarter to use a different range weapon system.

Now, in MWO right now long range weapons are still better, but not because of TTK (or map size which is another factor), but because of PP FLD. Of course PP FLD reduce TTK, so really it IS TTK that is the issue.


When you look at meta factors like TTK, ones which has a LOT of variables (weapon range, weapon damage, weapon damage concentration, ease of accuracy, map size, sensor system, pilot skill, etc etc) then you REALLY start to see the balance issues in the game. It is a fascinating interconnected web of variables.

[Angel of Annihilation]

GreyGriffin, on 24 July 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

Fun is a surprisingly narrow word that is used in a surprisingly broad context, which makes it difficult to contextualize the experience of games. It's fun to shoot big guns at big robots and watch them blow up. It is less fun to whittle it down with small lasers or missiles. It is even less fun to get blown up by other big robots using big guns. However, all of these experiences are critical to the game's overall experience.

And making it a good experience is the goal. A good experience can't be all highs all the time. My post addresses the argument that nerfing weapons is nerfing fun. Big, overpowered weapons may be more fun to use, but they don't lend themselves to the most satisfying game, either for the user (who becomes bored because of the flat, oversaturated emotional curve, lack of challenge, etcetera) or the victim (who just blows up and dies.)

You have to acknowledge that the game can't be balanced constantly upwards without losing its defining characteristics. Lowering the effectiveness of certain equipment to bring more variety into gameplay is an essential balancing and gameplay engineering tool, and you can't be locked into the idea that making a weapon less effective overall makes the game a worse experience, even if that weapon is less fun to use.

While this is true, any nerf has to enhance the overall game play experience, the big picture if you will.

Take the current JJ nerf. How does this enhance the overall game play experience? The community was never up in arms or making complaints about how OPed mounting max jumps on a mech was. In fact most complaints in regards to max JJs were centered around how they didn't offer enough mobility. The only related complaints about JJs were poptarting which PGI acknowledged as a viable tactic here to stay and how 1 or 2 JJs shouldn't offer such an advantage but even this complaints were more of an observation than a complaint. Again nothing in regards to how max JJs had a negative impact on the game.

However, PGI jumps (pardon the pun) in and nerfs the crap out of max JJ builds and practically breaks their usage in Heavy and Assault class mechs. The general result of this is frustration and disappointment for anyone who uses jump capable Heavy and Assault class mech while bringing no positive changes to the game.

So on the converse of your statement, the game also can't be adjusted constantly downward without also losing its defining characteristics. For example, nerf JJs enough and the game becomes entirely 2 dimensional and predictable. Basically we just end up with more Battlemasters, Atlases and Banshees wrapped up in different models that look like a Victor or Highlander, rather than having a specific type of Assualt mech that gives up firepower for mobility.

Honestly whether it is more balanced or not is irrelevant because the ultimate expression of balance, is having teams using only one mech class, using only one fixed set of equipment, mounting only one weapon. This is balanced, but definitely not fun.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 25 July 2014 - 05:35 AM.

[Tyman4]

Just get back to basics with balance. Make Narcing a friendly=3% repair to total armor value. Now you have a reason to take it ....also best in game tease ever for noobs.

Tyman

[PANZERKAT]

You see, to nerf is a point of view. Some would call it "content" *dies*

[DEMAX51]

Viktor Drake, on 25 July 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:

While this is true, any nerf has to enhance the overall game play experience, the big picture if you will.

Take the current JJ nerf. How does this enhance the overall game play experience? The community was never up in arms or making complaints about how OPed mounting max jumps on a mech was. In fact most complaints in regards to max JJs were centered around how they didn't offer enough mobility. The only related complaints about JJs were poptarting which PGI acknowledged as a viable tactic here to stay and how 1 or 2 JJs shouldn't offer such an advantage but even this complaints were more of an observation than a complaint. Again nothing in regards to how max JJs had a negative impact on the game.

However, PGI jumps (pardon the pun) in and nerfs the crap out of max JJ builds and practically breaks their usage in Heavy and Assault class mechs. The general result of this is frustration and disappointment for anyone who uses jump capable Heavy and Assault class mech while bringing no positive changes to the game.

So on the converse of your statement, the game also can't be adjusted constantly downward without also losing its defining characteristics. For example, nerf JJs enough and the game becomes entirely 2 dimensional and predictable. Basically we just end up with more Battlemasters, Atlases and Banshees wrapped up in different models that look like a Victor or Highlander, rather than having a specific type of Assualt mech that gives up firepower for mobility.

Honestly whether it is more balanced or not is irrelevant because the ultimate expression of balance, is having teams using only one mech class, using only one fixed set of equipment, mounting only one weapon. This is balanced, but definitely not fun.

But this isn't an argument against nerfs in general, it's an argument against one over-nerf.

And the "ultimate expression of balance" isn't having everyone in exactly the same build with exactly the same weapon. It's having weapons and 'Mechs that all do different things, but having none of them do something so well that it outclasses everything else.

Edited by DEMAX51, 25 July 2014 - 07:57 AM.