63 replies to this topic

[luxebo]

Have EmP, SJR, 228th BW, CSJx, etc make the balancing.

Not whoever is doing it atm, whoever that is is not balancing, that group needs to be sent to another place, like improving maps or CW or anything else.

The top teams know what to change about balancing, and nerfing already underused IS mechs (and Clan mechs have well, less usability again) is NOT the way to go.

[LordKnightFandragon]

I would love to give weapon balancing a wack ha. Messing with numbers is fun.

[Skarlock]

luxebo, on 16 May 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

Have EmP, SJR, 228th BW, CSJx, etc make the balancing.

Not whoever is doing it atm, whoever that is is not balancing, that group needs to be sent to another place, like improving maps or CW or anything else.

The top teams know what to change about balancing, and nerfing already underused IS mechs (and Clan mechs have well, less usability again) is NOT the way to go.

While I feel the latest round of quirk (nerfs) are mixed, some good, some bad, I think at least *some* expert opinion needs to be injected into PGI. They just don't seem to understand their own game, or the effect the changes they make are going to have on it. I'd be all in favor of this.

[Milocinia]

Totally disagree.

Am I right in thinking that the "comp" players were part of reason why we had tiered mechs and all this quirk rubbish?

Comp players, min/maxers and meta chasers have no part in balancing any component of any game.

[luxebo]

Kyocera, on 16 May 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

Totally disagree.
Am I right in thinking that the "comp" players were part of reason why we had tiered mechs and all this quirk rubbish?
Comp players, min/maxers and meta chasers have no part in balancing any component of any game.

I don't see how it's not a good thing. Comp players almost always complain about anything balance wise PGI does. Nerfs to AC10s, many SJR/EmP say against, even just now I saw posts from EmP players arguing that the quirks did what they are not doing, rather than fix hitboxes, reduce insane mobility, etc.

In fact if anything, comp players would put in scouting, role warfare, a purpose for more than half the weapons in the game, balance of CW sides, etc etc etc. They know the game better than PGI does, playing it much more often.

[Milocinia]

I'm just sceptical about giving "elite" players too much of a voice because I always fear they have an ulterior motive with their ideas. I've seen it in other games where an elite few are allowed to dictate the course of the game while the vast majority of standard gamers absolutely hate the changes.

[Deathlike]

I wouldn't strictly hand it off to the comp groups.

They would've argued for different/harsher quirks for the Victor back when it was the meta.

I'm not saying that they can't help - because they have some idea, but you can't hand all the keys and expect perfect/intended results either. (I'm also not saying we should let bad players balance LRMs either, for obvious reasons just as well).

Whatever PGI's doing however, amounts to a random dartboard of balance.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 May 2015 - 03:53 PM.

[Lexx]

I think they should hand the balance back to Paul.

The nerfs we are getting on the 19th aren't nearly strong enough.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Lexx, on 16 May 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

I think they should hand the balance back to Paul.

The nerfs we are getting on the 19th aren't nearly strong enough.

Umm lol no.

[dario03]

I agree with this guy! (And in no way would I benefit from this and I am totally not being bias...nope not me )

[MechaBattler]

No. It's not simple. Regardless of how skilled the units are. Balance is not that simple. Sometimes when they do listen to the competitive scene. We get what they would like to see. Not necessarily what is balance.

[Milocinia]

Lexx, on 16 May 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

I think they should hand the balance back to Paul.

No, please god no. No no no.

[luxebo]

Not ONLY comp groups but maybe have polls, just like they did with Founder stuff, etc etc etc.

Comp groups get more power though imho, as they won't be bias and likely will have some good ideas, but they shouldn't get all of it.

[-Vompo-]

luxebo, on 16 May 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

Comp groups get more power though imho, as they won't be bias and likely will have some good ideas, but they shouldn't get all of it.

What do you base that on?
What makes a comp group less bias than any other group?
What makes their ideas better?

[Elizander]

It's hard to take any discussion of balance seriously without identifying and defining the key factors of what constitutes balance as well as specific examples for the before and after.

Balance should always be handled by developers. That's part of their job. Players feedback can be used, but probably never taken for face value most of the time.

[Gut]

Putting it strictly in the hands of comp groups, even with the best intentions, probably isn't the best.

However, I personally believe they should have a heavy voice in regards to this issue. And a non-forum, comp team on PGI team meeting for it.

[Taffer]

We need more convoluted ways of balancing the game, you know instead of actually balancing it. Like ghost quirks, traits, IS omnipods, triple heatsinks (not actually triple, just a name), ECM+, a host of consumables that add temporary quirks, etc.

oooh I just thought of the perfect thing, deterrent geometry. Yeah you know like geometry quirks. So you don't want people boating this or that? when they boat it the mech gets HUGE. Like for each weapon you add the pods, weapons, or mechs themselves get bigger and bigger. Yea that would be awesome. We could even add ghost geometry quirks where some mechs just get it anyway because balance.

Imagine a Firestarter the size of an atlas, or a stormcrow the size of 3 direwolfs. Talk about balance!

yea yea and negative sizes for buffs. Imagine an Awesome the size of an Urbanmech. Pretty freaking neato idea right?

and quirk modules. And anti-ghost heat quirks for certain mechs.

Edited by Taffer, 16 May 2015 - 04:52 PM.

[Mystere]

Why think of a comprehensive solution when this is much easier:

[Milocinia]

Mystere, on 16 May 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Why think of a comprehensive solution when this is much easier:

It's a good solution to creating a minimally viable product.

[Sable]

NOOOOOOO way screw the "competitive" players. They have ruined every single pvp game i've ever played. Take League of Legends for example, some super good competitive guy would master a champion and wreck everybody with his skill. Next thing you know completely absurd changes would come to that champion that wouldn't make any sense to normal players. I would stare at the patch notes in confusion because that champion wasn't even that good and now it got nerfed? I'd have to go looking in the forum for some explanation. Turns out the devs would even admit they might have overnerfed certain champions.

I don't want the same garbage happening here. When i listen to the no guts no galaxy podcast i disagree with half the stuff those guys talk about. They exist in a completely different mindset (almost a different reality) with whats good for the game. And i'm glad PGI hasn't listened to them very often and done their own thing up to this point. Guess i'll take a break til i get my cauldron born, maybe by then they'll fix some of this nonsense by then.

Edited by Sable, 16 May 2015 - 05:48 PM.