28 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

Armored Yokai, on 22 January 2018 - 05:19 AM, said:

How is balance decided?

How is babby formed?
.....
Nah, I couldn't keep going with the joke, but...

PGI enlists a series of "pilots" from the community, which then play together with things both released and unreleased, and then report how they feel about it and how to improve upon it. Sometimes PGI listens, sometimes it doesn't. Thankfully PGI doesn't listen to some of the ideas that were shoved their way.... and just as woefully, they don't listen to some of the ideas that were shoved their way.

Just remember, squirrel chasing started somewhere. Who do you think did it first?

The rest is metrics, apparently. Which I think is more solid than biased opinions... but still pretty bad if not read with all the factors in mind.

There's a World War I British commander whom saw the statistics of head injuries raise by over 600% compared to the days before issuing out the helmets to the men in the trenches. He immediately gave the order that all the soldiers were to remove them.
....Someone with half a brain and a higher rank overturned that order. Can you guess why?

No seriously, lets see who is smart enough to think of why this was..

[warner2]

BEST EGG, on 22 January 2018 - 08:01 AM, said:

The balance is done to maximize salt and whining on the forums, especially from bad pilots and people who don't display PSR. PGI doesn't run this game to make money - rather to entertain themselves while swimming in the endless river of pubby tears.

What about bad pilots who do display their PSR?

Edited by warner2, 22 January 2018 - 08:21 AM.

[Water Bear]

Koniving, on 22 January 2018 - 08:15 AM, said:

There's a World War I British commander whom saw the statistics of head injuries raise by over 600% compared to the days before issuing out the helmets to the men in the trenches. He immediately gave the order that all the soldiers were to remove them.
....Someone with half a brain and a higher rank overturned that order. Can you guess why?

No seriously, lets see who is smart enough to think of why this was..

Because the injuries were people who would have died without a helmet.

Edit: And, sad as it may be, this exact same train of thought was used by a mathematician in world war 2 to decide where to armor a plane. All the planes that came back from battle had bullet holes in every part but the engine. (Can you guess why?)

Conventional "wisdom" was to armor the planes everywhere but the engine...

Edited by Water Bear, 22 January 2018 - 08:25 AM.

[Koniving]

Water Bear, on 22 January 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

Because the injuries were people who would have died without a helmet.

Edit: And, sad as it may be, this exact same train of thought was used by a mathematician in world war 2 to decide where to armor a plane. All the planes that came back from battle had bullet holes in every part but the engine. (Can you guess why?)

Conventional "wisdom" was to armor the planes everywhere but the engine...

Ah I get. The planes that didn't come back, had their engines shot.

And yep. That was it exactly. They would have come back under the statistic "Dead" as opposed to head injury.
So while statistics are far better than opinions, that's only if they're complete. For example the Assassin 21 might do phenomenal as an SRM boat, but did it do any good as literally anything else to deserve the treatment it is getting? We'll never know.

But what I do know, is the Assassin hero sucks. It suffers Pretty Baby syndrome, too much variety of weapon options, in positions that cannot cooperate with one another, and not enough hardpoints for any of them to be worth focusing on.

[Water Bear]

Koniving, on 22 January 2018 - 08:30 AM, said:

Ah I get. The planes that didn't come back, had their engines shot.

And yep. That was it exactly. They would have come back under the statistic "Dead" as opposed to head injury.
So while statistics are far better than opinions, that's only if they're complete. For example the Assassin 21 might do phenomenal as an SRM boat, but did it do any good as literally anything else to deserve the treatment it is getting? We'll never know.

But what I do know, is the Assassin hero sucks. It suffers Pretty Baby syndrome, too much variety of weapon options, in positions that cannot cooperate with one another, and not enough hardpoints for any of them to be worth focusing on.

I liked the PB when it was quirked over 9000. Not because it was good, but because it was the Urban Mech before the Urban Mech - you died in shame when it was because an Awesome had flanked you and alpha'd into your back.

[Koniving]

Water Bear, on 22 January 2018 - 08:32 AM, said:

I liked the PB when it was quirked over 9000. Not because it was good, but because it was the Urban Mech before the Urban Mech - you died in shame when it was because an Awesome had flanked you and alpha'd into your back.

I dunno about it post quirks... But remember when it had the following base features: Twist 400% and BAD BRAKES?

Bad brakes was great...
Climb hill.
Bad brakes reduced how quickly you slow down.

...Think about this for a minute.

Now is it any wonder that for a time, the Pretty Baby was the only mech that could get on top of the spires on Tourmaline?

Negative quirks can be awesome... if used right.

[Koniving]

Also on the Pretty baby topic...

This has been my paintjob for years. This image specifically taken: 2013-07-06 20-17-40-66
First series is the date, second is the time down to the milisecond.

Now...

Published on May 29, 2014

That's "My" Pretty Baby, whether intentional or not.

[Metus regem]

BenAran, on 22 January 2018 - 05:28 AM, said:

simply put, PGI has telemetry data.
They can see how many shots of AC5 have been shot in total, by who, when, at what distance, if they hit, etc.
So basically they can analyze that data and make their own conclusions.
Now, obviously, they get the wrong conclusions half of the time, but still, thats how they do it.

My question is, where do they actually pull that data from? As what happens on the live servers, is often the counter of what they are "balancing", They have also seemed unable to do targeted adjustments, in favor of doing blanket adjustments. Point in example, the Kodiak 3 incident lead to the nerfing of the entire Kodiak chassis, as well as 100t mechs in general, rather than just adjusting the main offender.

Some weapons are left to languish in obscurity, while PGI insists that they are strong weapons often siting their "critical damage value"! Yet extra critical damage, is often not worth taking them over more base damage, unless they can be taken in bulk. (is(U)AC/20 vs isLB-20X, is(U)AC/10 vs isLB-10X... ect)

It is choices like these on the part of PGI that makes me wonder if they play their own game or if they do play the same version we do...

[Hit the Deck]

Armored Yokai, on 22 January 2018 - 05:19 AM, said:

...
I honestly also don't agree with allowing Competitive players to help on balance because there's a chance it may be biased to allow more benefits to them rather than casual players (Buff all sniper weapons and laservomit)...

Why would competitive players ask PGI to buff one thing only, assuming that "being competitive" means playing in competitions/tournaments and not wanting to becoming a god in quick play amidst potatoes.

Armored Yokai, on 22 January 2018 - 05:19 AM, said:

...after all Balance is all about being unbiased and keeping everything viable and properly structured to prevent 1 thing having more power than the other but sadly something like mounting ECM/Lasers/Radar Deprivation to counter lrms (which are already easily beaten by hiding behind cover or rushing the lrm boat) can render it completely useless.

It seems that this is what comp players want if I were one. Having more tools against your opponents (though they have the same amount) is good and makes playing in tourneys less boring.