Deathlike, on 01 September 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:
Does that make the DS P2W? Although I'm not serious in wanting to discuss that at length, if you're saying it's the best mech for what it does, and requires actual upfront money... well...
P2LiterallyWin? No. P2GetLargeAdvantage? Not really. P2BecomeMarginallyMoreEffectve? Yes.
It used to fall under P2GetLargeAdvantage prenerf but the Cataphract and DS are more on par with each other now.
Quote
I swear... you are deflecting on points just to be agreeable. Noone had advocated (unless they are a complete newbie) that the Atlas should be XL favorable because of the Atlas-K. While yes, I agree that hardpoints, weapon locations, missile tubes all dictate what loadouts SHOULD be used, it is worth looking at the viewpoint depending on the context. Ignoring other viewpoints is like saying "I'm right and you're wrong". That's not how a discussion flows.
I'm trying to be nice here. I could not be nice I suppose. It would certainly make me feel better.
Let's examine what you said.
"
Why is it that every Victor has to be 320XL+ to even be competitive? It's bad enough the Highlander is capped @ 325."
My answer to that was basically that most mechs have an optimal loadout and optimal way to play them. The point of my examples was to show situations where this is already readily evident, with an emphasis on examples that nobody has ever had a problem with. The reason I brought up lights originally was because that was a direct comparison with a mech class that requires a large engine despite them coming with smaller engines. Basically the same exact thing you were complaining about with a Victor. The reason I brought up an Atlas later was because it was an assault mech.
Quote
When you're designing balance, the first thing you have to accomplish first and foremost is that it should be easy to play (I don't mean you have to dumb down the game... it simply has to be quirk to grasp), and hard to master. With the Victor nerfs as currently constituted, there's only hard to master and ZERO middle ground. That's not a good thing for loadout diversity... if anything it limits it to a very specific subset and essentially "you'd have to be very good" to execute. That's crazy considering what we have for a learning curve in this game... which isn't natural to many.
I don't even know how to respond to this. Let's look at DoTA. Is Meepo easy to play, hard to master? Is Invoker easy to play, hard to master? Let's look at CS. Is a deagle easy to play, hard to master? Is the AWP easy to play, hard to master?
It would certainly be nice if everything fell under that designation, but obviously it's not always possible and to make it so would limit possible mechanics. There's nothing necessarily wrong with balance
Quote
I've already suggested some posts ago that you've snipped. Either you skipped over it in TL;DR, or you're not even considering what I have to say.
Let's look at what you proposed.
"1) It still needs a torso twist/turn nerf, but closer to the "natural Highlander". -10% turn and 10% turn rates will stay. At worst, 15% is where it could be capped, but let's just work with the overall idea first before we keep tweaking further."
This is just a random throwout of numbers that you didn't really put much thought into. You basically just cut the values by half for the sake of doing so in pursuit of your probable ideal of the Victor having zero agility nerfs. You and I both don't know how a change like this would play out based only a flat percentage reduction. This kind of tweak would have to be played with, but in the end I'm guessing that it won't make much of a difference if it's only by 5%. In the end people will still probably be against it purely by the amount of red on the smurfy quirks page, without actually putting thought into what the numbers mean.
"2) Projectile speed nerf. Rather than just always nerfing PPCs/ACs/Gauss whenever it's in vogue, reducing the speed of the projectile by 15-20% (start @ 12.5%) is a significant enough nerf as it were. Of course, PPCs/ERPPCs primarily need to be buffed, but probably not back to the 1500 speed level.... perhaps 1150 (PPC) and 1300 (ERPPC) speed can stay where it's at. This DOES NOT harm brawlers in the same way, because AC10s and AC20s are slow enough as it is, so another nerf to speed isn't productive. This is based on how Targeting Computers work (boosting projectile speeds), so tweaking that does not sound complicated to add. This won't affect missiles at all."
This is based on the idea that the AC5/Gauss/PPC meta is still in full swing and that the Victor (Dragon Slayer) benefits greatly from it. The 'meta' DS, doesn't even use PPCs anymore. In any case, if no agility nerfs were implemented and this was kept instead, the Victor would still have all of its old problems. The Victor's original problem was its agility, much like how the Timberwolf's current problem is its agility. The TW is basically a repeat of the same exact issues the Victor had, except its even more egregious this time.
Quote
Every single time I read this, it's almost like it's an affront to you. As much as the is a competitive portion of this game, it doesn't mean that you should claim that opposing views are completely irrelevant. That's why we have discussions. Not everything is clear black and white. However, this game design is unfortunately bordering on that sometimes. We're not talking about massive complexities of LRMs (because, it is a bit more complex than just the weapon system itself)... we're talking about how one chassis is almost solely nerfed for only competitive play in mind. There IS a middle ground. It doesn't have to be "bad player friendly", but there are a lot of competent players not part of the Lords or other competitive groups that do not have "elite vision". It is POSSIBLE to bridge such gaps if you're willing to discuss it.
If I wanted to dismiss people's opinions I would have just literally said L2P, linked some Victor drops, and been done with it.
The Victor wasn't nerfed with comp play in mind. No comp unit was asked for their opinions before it went live. It was done, I imagine, because the metrics showed that the Victor was overperforming.
What's the middle ground your proposing? How will you adjust the Victor so it performs well for a new person picking it up but not overpowered?
Quote
Sometimes the status quo is broken. That's why discussions take place. What you're saying is "L2P", but the reality of the discussion is that sometimes that "L2P" isn't the appropriate response for something a bit more complex than just the term. I see the "don't nerf Clan" stuff ALL THE TIME, and I shudder to think why people don't know the true value of Clan XL engines. Whatever, I can't debate the obviously bad problems because they need no explanation. It's the details of existing stuff that is always up for debate.
First off let's look at what I said:
"so long as in situations
where something is balanced, the overall status quo is not adjusted.
ie., if something is balanced be careful that any changes you make to it do not make it unbalanced.
I'm not simply saying L2P. To summarize my entire viewpoint on this issue.
1) People say that the Victor is a bad brawler.
2) I say that the Victor is not a bad brawler and point to successes that it has.
3) People say that is only because it's in a group environment.
4) I say that the same thing happens in solo play, and point out that the Victor's speed is what makes it good in solo play as well.
5) People still say it's bad.
6) I wonder why people say this despite it being considered the best brawler in high levels of play, and realize that people would rather blame the mech than themselves.
If someone has success with something and you do not, despite being under the same environment, chances are you're doing something differently. Ideally people would look inward and make adjustments, but that's not what happens.
Quote
There's no right or wrong answer, but to say you or a group of people have all the right answers is disingenuous. I don't claim ANY of my balance ideas are perfect nor should they be. However, to tell people indignantly than their opinion is wrong "just because I'm better than you" is very demeaning and isn't why discussion exists. I accept and fully expect that my ideas can be totally wrong, but as long as we can have the conversation instead of "I'm right and you're wrong", then people will not look at competitive players with disdain. You are great at what you do, but people who are great can also be wrong. It happens. Noone is going to have the perfect solution... throwing alternative ideas is not a bad thing.
In the entire time I've posted on these forums I've never said or even implied that people are wrong and I'm right simply because I'm better than them. At worst I say 'I suppose it's just a difference in our queues' because I'm sure what they're saying is entirely true at their Elo. In other words they aren't wrong, but what they're saying doesn't apply to a level of play where people make less mistakes.
Like I said before I'm not against ideas. That would be stupid. I'm against things that are flat out wrong... like Victors being bad at brawling. Or lights being entirely useless. Or an average damage of 200 being acceptable (not Locust). Or a negative KDR not meaning anything. Or that W/L is entirely out of your control. Or that it's not possible to have an impact on a match. Or that Elo hell exists.
Edited by Adiuvo, 01 September 2014 - 07:45 PM.