5 replies to this topic

[JayStrider]

Regarding the Mech Rebalance Summary written by Paul Inouye…
http://mwomercs.com/...alance-and-pts/

I’ve read this “comprehensive summary” several times because I’d really like to hop on the PTS and provide feedback on the proposed changes. The problem I’m having is that I cannot discern what the objective is. If I were to ask a random group of my fellow players, I’m thinking the answer would be something like: “balance.” And from the widely varying responses seen so far, it’s obvious that not everyone’s vision of “balance” is the same. In order to evaluate a system, a person evaluating it really needs to know what the designer believes the SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM looks like. What is that vision?

Paul describes a 4-category rating system that will be used, and that makes sense. He also explains that the nominal score reference will be based on weight – i.e., “a 40-ton ‘Mech has a different score to adhere to than a 45-ton ‘Mech.” And that’s really the extent of what I know about the designer’s vision of “balance.” I have so many questions…

• If I’m in a dark alley on a 35-ton mech, and I run into an equal skilled enemy pilot in a 45-ton mech, who should win? Definitely the 45-ton mech? Should there be a 60% chance that the 45-ton mech pilot wins? What’s the vision there?
  
• If four 35-ton mechs that collectively are weighted towards mobility meet four 35-ton mechs that collectively are weighted towards protection, who should win? Is the objective that it’s a 50-50 chance? What’s the vision here?
  
• If four experienced 35-ton mech pilots meet four newer 35-ton mech pilots of identical type, who should win? Is the objective that the experienced pilots win every time? Is the objective that the experienced pilots win two out of three times?
  
• An experienced 35-ton pilot meets a newer 50-ton pilot. What does “balance” look like there? (Put tier rating numbers in place of “experienced” and “newer” if it helps.)
  
• [Insert some non-provocative questions about balance between IS-heavy team versus Clan-heavy team based on various scenarios here.]
  
• Does balance look like Rock vs. Rock, Scissor vs. Scissor, and Paper vs. Paper; or does it look like Rock, Paper, Scissor? (Rock says, “Paper is overpowered! … Scissor is fine.”)

I could go on, but you get the idea… What is the VISION? What does BALANCE look like? How do you know when you’re close to achieving it, or at what point is the designer satisfied? I think these are fundamental questions.

I don’t pretend to be plugged into all the info out there, so if more info is out there, and you have a link to share, I’d be interested to check it out.

[DivineEvil]

Yeah, those are definitely good questions PGI should ask themselves, and share so of their thoughts on that aspect, so that we as community would be able to see the final goal.

[oldradagast]

Good questions, but you're expecting way, WAY too much from them at this point.

The Unbalancing looks like something written on the back of a napkin because some guy had a neat idea in his dreams one night about "infotech" and how that'll magically fix the game. So, it'll become yet another "pillar" of the game, wedged in there between the other cracked and crumbling ones.

In short, I agree, but I expect that we'll have switchable ammo and a replacement for the Pinpoint skill before this Unbalancing makes sense in any way other than Random Quirks 3.0

Edited by oldradagast, 15 September 2015 - 03:17 AM.

[Daelen Rottiger]

I'd rather have multiple viable roles and therefor achievements and scores that have a meaning to the outcome of the match than the "who schould win" in a 1v1 or 4v4 scenario the OP is refering too.

[Mogney]

Pretty sure they thought that outside of a few tweaks these changes were going to balance the game. When they saw how wrong they were phil made a damage control video. I just wish they had the humility to scrap the whole plan and start over.

[JayStrider]

Daelen Rottiger, on 15 September 2015 - 03:24 AM, said:

I'd rather have multiple viable roles and therefor achievements and scores that have a meaning to the outcome of the match than the "who schould win" in a 1v1 or 4v4 scenario the OP is refering too.

Those were examples. Obviously it's a team vs team game. But you have to start a thought process somewhere.

How can you change anything if you don't have a clear idea of what you want the outcome to be? Even shuffling a deck of cards has an objective. Who among us after finishing a shuffle and sees an ace of spades at the bottom doesn't shuffle one more time? There is a sense of when it's sufficiently shuffled and when it is not.

Edited by JayStrider, 15 September 2015 - 09:00 AM.