63 replies to this topic

[Kin3ticX]

Comp players directly balancing the game? Never going to happen.

I do think too much was expected from the quirk system. The DWF, TBR, SCR, HBR are pretty powerful and they set the bar high. At one point a 30-40 alpha was considred big, now ~45-84 alphas are everywhere. Light 'Mech can get one shotted but honestly a 30% heat quirk on the S was kinda dumb. Back when they buffed the SPL and the A at the same time...maybe that was a little dumb too. Was the FS9 really that far behind the Jenner? If the class balance was done right then wouldn't the old jenner be good enough?


Trying to quirk IS up to that high of a bar really requires quirks to become a giant fudge factor rather than real balancing. Why not buff Inner Sphere DHS if every IS 'mech needs a heat quirk? If every PPC mech needs PPC quirks then why not just buff PPCs? What happened to weapon, techbase, or hardpoint balance? If a 'mech needs a hardpoint, just give it a damn hardpoint. Didn't seem to have much trouble adding hardpoints to clan mechs..... What the hell is happening!!! AHHHHHH

Edited by Kin3ticX, 17 May 2015 - 01:55 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

Adiuvo, on 16 May 2015 - 11:49 PM, said:

The majority of posters here don't seem to get what competitive players want. You have these odd ideas in your head that are based off of assumptions.

Competitive players want options. it would be nice to be able to use more a few weapon systems. It would be nice to be able to use more than a few mechs. It would be nice for there to be more than a few viable playstyles. Comp players don't chase the 'meta.' Top tier groups set it by realizing what the best options are given what PGI provides. Things don't suddenly become good because a top tier group wills it. PGI is the one that decides that.

You do realize that the majority of comp players are exactly like the majority of all other players? Completely lacking in original ideas. Most just copy a build that's been hashed out by the few players who actually have a clue.
Leaving balance to the comp players would be no different than leaving it to the PUG herds, so I for one would prefer PGI to do their own balancing. Give feedback whenever you feel like it but don't expect to be treated any different than any other player.

[Black Ivan]

They should gove balance over to somebody who actually has a clue what they do with their changes and who has the faresightedness to guess what will happen. This short term hotwired nerfs after every big event,especiall when only CW data is used doesn't help any one.

[Tarogato]

I'm more willing to entrust quirking decisions to top competitive players than anybody else. I wouldn't even trust somebody with all the data in the world in front of him - people who play the game at the top level are better equipped to address balance than anybody else imaginable. They know why certain things are strong and others are weak. They know what things are strong and what other things are weak. Whoever at PGI makes the quirk adjustments has clearly demonstrated that they aren't armed with the knowledge and experience to make the most appropriate changes.

Personally, I feel that competitive play should come first in line.

Competitive players will always discover what mechs are strongest - if they find a "best choice" that stands above the rest, that thing needs nerfed. Example? Timberwolf, Stormcrow. If they find a "worst choice" that they never bother to use, that thing needs buffed. Example? Pre-quirk Raven 2X, pre-quirk Thunderbolts. Once there are multiple equal "best choices" and fewer "worst choices", then look at casual play. "Is this mech completely broken at the casual level?" If so, nerf it. If that then happens to affect its position on the competitive tier list, then so what, the competitive tier list should already have abundant options if it was done properly to begin with.

[Khan Warlock Kell]

The game needs to be balanced around the average teams and players, Yes Good players and good teams can make even she'ite look good. and a bad player can make a stormcrow look bad. PGI has to face facts some mechs, some pilots, and some teams are always going to be better than others. Its called life not everything can always be equal. You aim to balance for the middle and accept that either ends there will be imbalance. what you cant allow is a vocal minority who whine and complain that something is elite or is too hard to master divert you away from aiming to balance from the middle ground.

Thw reason we have ghost heat, Gauss that needs to charge, and mechs that should be good, weapons that should be better than they are, is because PGI Have listened to the whingers and the whiners and tried to balance across all levels, and this is a fools errand.

[P e n u m b r a]

The reason why comp players would be the best option for balance is because they have the mindset of *if this gets nerfed what's the next best efficient weapon system I can use or the strongest way to play to win* couple of examples.

Cone of fire = roll your mech close against the other mech to reduce spread, take high dps high rate of fire spam weapons in order to land as many shots inside the centre of the cone (game would turn into boring mech humping).

Jump jet poptart nerf = good players all ready knew the stalker was not far away if not equal in strength to the highlander, if used correctly people just replaced jump popping with land popping.

ac5/ppc nerf = people just moved to the next best thing erlasers.

erl nerf = people taking pulse.

effectively you are just gutting the game out by hitting the rising meta with a nerf bat until there is nothing left to do but play one way. It will end up like the beta again with small arms stacking on the least negative quirked mechs and holding W into the enemy.

If acs were left with their previous velocity and range and clan non auto acs acted like the IS ones. If ppc either had one of the previous, increased heat but kept velocity or lower heat and the current velocity. Increase lbx velocity by alot so not much lead needed. If SRM kept the old helix pattern so you could land missiles with less spread using skilful range play. Clan UAC rounds clumped closer together. Add strong postivie quirks to mechs that have less desirable geometry only like atlas / awesome / garg. you would have alot more variety and a better game.

By making weapons inefficient heat wise or having a long channel time you will pigeon-hole the game into a small arms stacking fest ill just compare these 2 weapons uac2 with 1 ton of ammo = 6 tons you can get 6 small pulse for that... It starts even before you use the weapon in cost effectiveness.

all this game has is player vs player its competitive in nature you are competing every time you play even if casual all the big successful games that dominate this area have really focused on that aspect and flourished it really should be that way.

Edited by L e 0, 17 May 2015 - 03:14 AM.

[KuroNyra]

Nightshade24, on 17 May 2015 - 01:28 AM, said:

Did I mention I like playing with fire?

You don't say. é_é

[Nightshade24]

Kin3ticX, on 17 May 2015 - 01:48 AM, said:

Comp players directly balancing the game? Never going to happen.

I do think too much was expected from the quirk system. The DWF, TBR, SCR, HBR are pretty powerful and they set the bar high. At one point a 30-40 alpha was considred big, now ~45-84 alphas are everywhere. Light 'Mech can get one shotted but honestly a 30% heat quirk on the S was kinda dumb. Back when they buffed the SPL and the A at the same time...maybe that was a little dumb too. Was the FS9 really that far behind the Jenner? If the class balance was done right then wouldn't the old jenner be good enough?


Trying to quirk IS up to that high of a bar really requires quirks to become a giant fudge factor rather than real balancing. Why not buff Inner Sphere DHS if every IS 'mech needs a heat quirk? If every PPC mech needs PPC quirks then why not just buff PPCs? What happened to weapon, techbase, or hardpoint balance? If a 'mech needs a hardpoint, just give it a damn hardpoint. Didn't seem to have much trouble adding hardpoints to clan mechs..... What the hell is happening!!! AHHHHHH

Stalkers back in ye old days in MW: O did 60 point alphas non stop vry' day.
The only bar setter now is the direstar at 110 point alpha + 55 splash damage

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

These are the folks who will break your game faster than a Virus. Their part in balancing a game is meant to happen in Beta Testing.

[Sjorpha]

Satan n stuff, on 17 May 2015 - 02:18 AM, said:

You do realize that the majority of comp players are exactly like the majority of all other players? Completely lacking in original ideas. Most just copy a build that's been hashed out by the few players who actually have a clue.
Leaving balance to the comp players would be no different than leaving it to the PUG herds, so I for one would prefer PGI to do their own balancing. Give feedback whenever you feel like it but don't expect to be treated any different than any other player.

I'd say, in general, someone who can do something very well is much more likely to understand what he is doing than someone who can not. Yes there are comp players who are good only by virtue of talent, but the ratio of people who also understand the game is much higher than among bad players. Also, there are ways to discern which they are by looking at how their opinions are received by other good players and what positions they occupy in teams and communities. A person who is a successful drop commander in competitive tournaments, or is leading a unit, for example needs to understand a lot more about the game than someone who simply is a very good pilot. Someone who produces well respected guides, analysis and commentary about the metagame is also likely to know better, it's not like you have to pick people at random.

The idea there is no relationship at all between playing the game competitively and understanding game balance is absurd, because understanding game balance is in itself one of the most important competitive advantages you can have as a player.

All in all, discussing balance with respected representatives of competitive units is PGIs best shot at understanding the balance of their game, maybe combined with analysis from a third party with general expertise on game balance, someone like David Sirlin.

[Lugh]

FupDup, on 16 May 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

I think the way that I would put it is that we shouldn't necessarily balance around competitive players, but "competent" players. The distinction here is that all competitive players . People who say "It's not the mech, it's the pilot" are instantly disqualified from this criteria. Competitive players are a part of this demographic, but they're not the entirety of it.

If you can't disqualify poor pilots for blaming a perfectly viable mech, you aren't qualified to speak on balance.

[FupDup]

Lugh, on 17 May 2015 - 06:53 AM, said:

If you can't disqualify poor pilots for blaming a perfectly viable mech, you aren't qualified to speak on balance.

The reason I made that comment is because a lot of people try to downplay or ignore a mech or weapon's weaknesses by saying that the other guy just has to L2P.

For example, there are people who actually thought that Dragons were viable mechs before they got any quirks, and told people that they just "had to play it right." "It's muh precious playstyle." "It's an escort heavy."


In order for somebody to be truly competent at balancing, they must be able to recognize that some mechs and weapons are currently inferior or superior to others.

[Satan n stuff]

FupDup, on 17 May 2015 - 07:00 AM, said:

In order for somebody to be truly competent at balancing, they must be able to recognize that some people blaming specific mechs and weapons for their failure are currently inferior or superior to others. full of ****.

[Lugh]

FupDup, on 17 May 2015 - 07:00 AM, said:

The reason I made that comment is because a lot of people try to downplay or ignore a mech or weapon's weaknesses by saying that the other guy just has to L2P.

For example, there are people who actually thought that Dragons were viable mechs before they got any quirks, and told people that they just "had to play it right." "It's muh precious playstyle." "It's an escort heavy."


In order for somebody to be truly competent at balancing, they must be able to recognize that some mechs and weapons are currently inferior or superior to others.

When the dragon is used that very way regardless of quirks it performs exceedingly well. As a skirmisher / striker supporting its assaults it was awesome. Now there are other mechs that do that job better. Is that bad? No. Does it make the dragon bad? No. It's a very light Heavy mech capable of speeds other heavies cannot reach.

It can be kitted to Hunt lights, do heavy fire support / suppression, whatever you may desire to do. Is it tanky? Hell no. "EVERYONE" wants every mech to perform like an assault. IN YER FACE PEW PEW IWIN. It doesn't work that way.

[Lexx]

Come on now, you know the game will be better if Paul did the balance changes again,...




Because then we'd have,...

[Yokaiko]

Lugh, on 17 May 2015 - 07:57 AM, said:

It can be kitted to Hunt lights, do heavy fire support / suppression, whatever you may desire to do. Is it tanky? Hell no. "EVERYONE" wants every mech to perform like an assault. IN YER FACE PEW PEW IWIN. It doesn't work that way.

Issue is that the way the maps are designed the slowest waddling assault isn't that much of a liability (pub queue)

[XX Sulla XX]

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 top comp players are a great resource the do have blind spots some times. Some things that are a problem at there level like the Dire Wolf are barely viable at the lower 80 of Elos. And ideas for how to fix things are still very much up to personal preference. For example I have seem comp players want to fix the TW by nerfing its mobility and leaving weapons alone. And I have seen comp players want to nerf TWs by nerfing weapons something like happened and leaving mobility alone.

The comp players should have a voice but it should not be the only voice.

The main thing you need is a team at PGI that can sort through input from all levels of play and come to good conclusions.

[Joseph Mallan]

E n e r g Y, on 17 May 2015 - 10:02 AM, said:

One actually understand game mechanics, strategy, structure, balance. We know what makes mechs good, what it takes to win, or how to win.

The others, well,.... they..... are just like ants, dependent on the changing seasons.

Funny I Understand all those thing, I also know what makes a Mech good, and what it takes to win. For the record knowing doesn't always translate into "Doing".

You could be the worlds greatest military mind and SUCK at actual combat.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach!

[LordKnightFandragon]

Khan Warlock Kell, on 17 May 2015 - 02:46 AM, said:

The game needs to be balanced around the average teams and players, Yes Good players and good teams can make even she'ite look good. and a bad player can make a stormcrow look bad. PGI has to face facts some mechs, some pilots, and some teams are always going to be better than others. Its called life not everything can always be equal. You aim to balance for the middle and accept that either ends there will be imbalance. what you cant allow is a vocal minority who whine and complain that something is elite or is too hard to master divert you away from aiming to balance from the middle ground.

Thw reason we have ghost heat, Gauss that needs to charge, and mechs that should be good, weapons that should be better than they are, is because PGI Have listened to the whingers and the whiners and tried to balance across all levels, and this is a fools errand.

Yeah, it just leads to endless over nerfing. Buffing this, it takes away time from more important content issues like PVE, Map remakes, more maps, CW depth, game mode depth....its why after 3 years MWO is pretty much unchanged except for now having like 40 more mechs added to it.

[Yokaiko]

LordKnightFandragon, on 17 May 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

Yeah, it just leads to endless over nerfing. Buffing this, it takes away time from more important content issues like PVE, Map remakes, more maps, CW depth, game mode depth....its why after 3 years MWO is pretty much unchanged still beta except for now having like 40 more mechs added to it.