BLOOD WOLF, on 24 November 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:
sure, the number of people complaining has nothing to do with the fact of something being balanced. Yea, you don't have any evidence for the favor rating so I am not going to contend with things that can not be proven.
It could be examined rather easily, it's just a lot of work to do for a simple forum debate. Approval rating for the game itself is obviously super easy, since there is already statistics on score from user game reviews online. For balance approval specifically you would have to look at all the input on balance over a set period and simply count it up and see which game has most approaval/complaining, and perhaps also look a little at how serious the concerns themselves are, and if the same concerns have many comments or a few. It's a lot more telling for approval the more people say the same thing than if one person does it.
Not impossible, just a bit grindy.
Quote
no, comp play focuses on enhanced performance, by nature some mechs are cut out, despite if they are balanced or not. Meta strategies and tactics, let alone stats of characters has nothing to do with balance. There is a smaller ratio becuase they have less characters. By nature of the games this is true, given the history of battletech and the approach to giving people the mechs they want regardless of mech performance. That doesn't prove that over watch has superior balance because you have to look at all characters in a game.
Stats on characters have everything to do with balance, in a character based game thew stats of characters are what balance is all about. The specifications of a mech, hardpoints, quirks and so on, are the stats on characters in this game.
Comp play is where balance is most relevant, it's also where the data on balance is the least contaminated. All competitive games are balanced around optimal play because that is the only place you can gather any meaningful information. I'm not sure what you mean by "enhanced play", that people are good at the game?
If you're saying that "the nature" of the games leads to battletech based games being "naturally" unbalanced that is simply conceding the point that it is, in fact, less balanced.
Quote
to be honest I can't verify much of what you are even claiming, but i will say that they do make videos on the subject. then again PGI explains the balance in patches, so you are saying video is better than text......so?
I'm saying that PGI has not adressed a number of balance concerns that have been ongoing, there is no text explanation of the lack of machine gun improvements, because there isn't any such action taken.
PGI also doesn't demonstrate any understanding of their game's balance in their patch notes, it doesn't matter that they explain something if the explanation is downright moronic and betrays complete ignorance of the metagame.
So the differenc is not text vs video, no obviously that doesn't matter.
The difference is understanding what you're doing versus not understanding what you're doing. And commonly doing something versus doing nothing for 3+ years.
As soon as they do the needed changes is a way that actually improves balance, they can communicate is anyway they want.
This is also a matter of improving balance versus deteriorating balance. Overgrowths balance has improved during this year. MWO balance was better in January than it is now.
One game going forward, one going backward. The blanket IS quirk nerfs in march reduced balance, the kodiak release reduced balance, the rescale and the second wave of IS quirk nerfs reduced balance.
4
