91 replies to this topic

[Mazzyplz]

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[Dimento Graven]

Mystere, on 08 October 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

You think that way because you still believe there is such a thing as the "perfect" player and are already trapped inside that symmetrical 1-on-1 mode of balance thinking.

Player A is a great sniper, mediocre brawler, terrible harasser.
Player B is a mediocre sniper, terrible brawler, great harasser.
Player C is a terrible sniper, great brawler, mediocre harasser.

Who will win A, B, or C?

You can't base your balance based on what players are going to do. We already have 5 tiers of players, with the only the middle tier capable of playing against all other tiers.

If you balance the game based on bad players, good players will dominate.
If you balance the game based on good players, bad players will REALLY suffer.

The mechanics are out of whack, fix those and each player will have to adjust to the new balance based on their own skill level.

[Mazzyplz]

Dimento Graven, on 08 October 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

As far as me not 'comprehending the game as it is', take look to the left there, you see that banner, that's a Founders banner. I've been playing this game since closed beta. You see that number below it, that indicates that at least on some level I can operate this game effectively enough to not regularly be penalized for bad play.

But you on the other hand seem to be admitting to playing poorly. You apparently want to be able to cross open ground with no consequences so you can park yourself face-to-face with another 'mech and always win.

Got ya.

If that's your goal then maybe this 'thinking man's shooter' is not for you.

So, taking Caustic Valley as your example map, the Nova does what? Somewhere 80kph, probably more when elited (can't remember for sure, it's been a long time since I piloted my Nova's but I know I'm near enough correct). The prime variant for sure has JJ's making very maneuverable, and barring a very stupid low tier tactic of charging straight on at an enemy across open ground (whether or not he has gauss, LRM's, PPC's, ballistics, or lasers) you can use that speed and maneuverability to beat a lot of mediocre dual gauss pilots.

A smart player, a thinking man, will say "screw" crossing open ground, let's run up the two line behind the hills so conveniently provided, to the machinery area, where there's cover more cover closer to the crest, let's use that to get closer, then use our 80+ kph to close in, and with ONLY 8 Clan ERML's (we'll limit it to 8, because you can alpha 8 without shutting down, and you have extra tonnage for more heat sinks, you can load 12 CERML's, but yes, you do shut down, but on a lot of 'mechs, getting hit with an 84 points of pin point alpha damage can usually do you in), we can inflict a 56 point, pinpoint alpha... Let's pop the crest, hit his CT, pop back, run to another location along the crest allowing some time for cool down, pop up, hit his CT, run to another location along the crest allowing some time for cool down, pop his CT, he's dead (I think most 'mechs will be dead after the 3rd hit) and if he's not, then it's just one more time.

The disadvantage to the gauss carrier is that he can't maintain his charge infinitely. After a second it goes away, and he has to go through the charge cycle again. If you can keep moving and keep him guessing as to when/where you'll pop up, maybe fake him out into firing his gauss, you can beat him... BUT... It does require skill, and patience, and actual thought.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, 3 second flank with "nova's maneuverable jumpjets" not using the most direct route; but going all the way AROUND. right kid.

you're the 'THINKING MAN' derpp

it really impresses me zilch that you are founder, check my profile i have also been around since 2012, should i feel bad that you got a few months here? cause i totally dont. and it doesn't make you right

[Narcissistic Martyr]

FrontGuard, on 08 October 2015 - 07:50 AM, said:

Okay... so you guys think that all mechs by class should be equial?
Really
that is so boring and if you got it you would hate it.

Equal? No. They should all have something that sets them apart, something they excel at so you have a reason to play more than a handful of chassis.

[Dimento Graven]

Mazzyplz, on 08 October 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, 3 second flank with "nova's maneuverable jumpjets" not using the most direct route; but going all the way AROUND. right kid.

you're the 'THINKING MAN' derpp

it really impresses me zilch that you are founder, check my profile i have also been around since 2012, should i feel bad that you got a few months here? cause i totally dont. and it doesn't make you right

<sigh> I'm sorry little girl, no where did I ever specify that I'd be flanking in three seconds.

I did mention patience as a factor in good game play, did I not?

No, you'd take however much time you'd need to get closer to the crest the caldera utilizing the cover provided. Once you're out of sight the enemy has zero idea as to where you are, if he's smart he might guess what you're trying to do once you don't show up after a while, and try and be ready for you, but his dual gauss hit only does 30 (unless he's got other weapons too, which a smart player, typically will equip if possible), your 8 CERML's does 56, you have the advantage if you use your maneuverability to NOT charge him face on in open ground.

Seriously, child you need to learn to practice patience in the game and not charge the most direct route straight on... There's plenty of terrain on most maps to make this more than possible, I see people doing it all the time in the matches I play on the public queue. Not sure why you're not familiar with it...

[MischiefSC]

Balance is the only thing that really is critical. It's the basis of competition and this is a pvp game. Every match is competition.

In terms of bang for your buck it's the best investment. 95% of the existing content is largely inferior or useless. Fixing balance and making more mechs and weapons effective, more builds effective makes more content useful in the game.

Having ballistics useful enough to compete with lasers doesn't make everything the same. Balance doesn't mean identical - it means comparable.

I do have timber wolves. Have over 1K drops in them they are op and by being op make other mechs inferior by comparison, which reduces their value and appeal.

We are not just random people owning cars. We are people going to compete in a car race. If there is no balance it's a stupid, broken race isn't it. The guy who shows up in the sedan is just an idiot for even bothering to show.

Broken balance limits viable choices, kills competition and wastes tons of existing content. If balance is broken the game is broken.

[MischiefSC]

pwnface, on 08 October 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

Fine, assume all players are perfect. The point is you should balance on what is possible versus what a random individual is capable of doing with it.

Have you seen 1/4 mile time ratings or 0-60mph ratings for cars? The cars are capable of going X fast but just because your next door neighbor can only drive it Y fast it doesn't mean it should receive a Y rating. Balance on what the mechs and weapons are capable of, not individual pilot skill.

You liked your own post.

You're worrying me.

[pwnface]

Mystere, on 08 October 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

You think that way because you still believe there is such a thing as the &quot;perfect&quot; player and are already trapped inside that symmetrical 1-on-1 mode of balance thinking.

Player A is a great sniper, mediocre brawler, terrible harasser.
Player B is a mediocre sniper, terrible brawler, great harasser.
Player C is a terrible sniper, great brawler, mediocre harasser.

Who will win A, B, or C?

Dude you are missing the point, take player skill OUT of the equation.

[Rakshasa]

MeiSooHaityu, on 08 October 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

I was going to write this huge write up about how balance is important in an online competitive game and how the OP is wrong, but it isn't worth my time and energy for a troll thread.

So.....

Instead, enjoy this picture of a cute kitten!


Awwwweee it's so cute! look how cute he is!

Kitten/10, would squee again

[Triordinant]

FrontGuard, on 08 October 2015 - 07:37 AM, said:

IMHO F Balance...

[Mystere]

pwnface, on 08 October 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Dude you are missing the point, take player skill OUT of the equation.

And I have been saying don't, and by that I mean [1] design your game to require a certain set of skills, [2] assume that no two players can ever be equal in all skills, and [3] build and map sets of game assets (i.e. factions, mechs, maps, game modes, victory conditions) to certain combinations of skills required to win in such sets, with [4] the goal being building balance and variety via asymmetry to [5] avoid the "A should be equal to B" trap.

[Stickjock]

Sorry, everyone! This thread appears to have reached a point of no return.
We thank everyone who has constructively participated in the discussion until now.
As a result of the on-going hostilities coming out of this thread, I am closing it down now.
Thanks for your understanding!