1125 replies to this topic

[Brain Cancer]

You will never see balance, because balance is controlled by someone whose experiences with the games is being humiliated to make a point, and will never "git gud". Evidence numero uno, the infamous "Goons <3 Paul" video.

The problem is that to actually balance things, you do need that "git gud", because the only way to really understand how much you can push a system is being strong enough to bend or break it. No ifs, ands, or buts. Thus, the system of balance remains wobbly and wide rather than narrow and tight orbits around the theoretical Perfectly Balanced Giant Robot Game.

I'd also wonder if some of it simply isn't returning the pain given, but the Goons left long ago. Surely it's not that.

[Sereglach]

Mech The Dane, on 13 February 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

I get what you are saying.
Why bother fighting for an inch when what we need is a mile?

But as has been alluded to by others and myself, a mile is beyond my control. Hell, an inch might asking for too much for PGI. But, be that as it may, I am not ready to just lay down and accept what is happening. Perhaps if we get enough inches the mile wont look so distant, but we aren't there, not at all.

I fight for my inch, useless as it may be, because it's still closer to going a mile then giving up will get us.

While a mile might be too much to ask for at once, they at least SEEM to be receptive to that mile if it's laid out in quarter mile chunks. More literally, they're saying that they're receptive to any plan that could be accomplished over the course of several patches. Y'all are throwing out specific numbers of changes you'd like to see; and they may be willing (Paul even said as much in the podcast) to make those changes. However, they'll make them in bite-sized amounts until they get to where things "feel right" to them, and that might not be going as far as the originally proposed changes, or maybe not exactly in the same direction.

For reference, the podcast: HERE
A few quotes of significant note that I observed and why:

Quote

~17:03 in the Podcast, Paul: "I do want people to know that I do have Chris on a fairly tight leash. He has some of the same ideas that you guys have, but the thing is I'm not letting him dump it all at one time, in one patch. Right? There's some numbers that he wants to get to that totally coincide with what Dane and Tarogato have been talking about, and I'm telling him, 'You micro-change your way to that level.'

We all know that Chris actually does play the game; as he came from the community before he started working there. Aparently he does want the game balanced as well as possible. However, he has to lay out the same kinds of multi-level changes to Paul that any recommendations the community makes (through this initiative, or any others) should also have. Therefore, despite any "consensus" that y'all are reaching, it might be worthwhile to lay it out in more "bite-sized" portions, such as, "Target the DPS of the RACs first, and then target the firing time; and these are the targets we think the weapon needs to make it to."

Quote

~21:50 in the podcast, again Paul: "... but like I said, I have him on a tight leash. I'm not letting him do major swings in any direction. Right? I also don't want anything totally upsetting the apple cart right now. For example: like an engine change that would effect every single clan mech. That is something where I am like, 'No, that is not going to happen right now.' Right? And if it's something where you want to get to that position? Sure! Then come up with a plan to get there that micro-changes its way to that level."

Now, theoretically, that means we can ALSO encourage Paul to push balance in the direction of fundamental mechanical changes IF we lay it out to PGI in such a manner that we can get to that point over several months of patches. Again, any community initiative needs to start changing its thinking from "Here's what we want, period." to "Here's our end-game goal, and here's the roadmap for how we feel PGI can get there."

Quote

~34:20 in the podcast, Paul: "... counter to that death-balling capability ... poptarting. Right? And, yes! We nerfed the hell out of that capability. Right? Now is the time when we can say, 'Let's take a look back at it.' Right? Now, I'm not going to bring the Night Gyr from hell back, but, at the same time, I'm look at things like 'Can we get the jump jets to be more satisfactory'..."

Now we're at the prospect of "what does it take to make them address core mechanics?" Apparently it's a step-by-step process of addressing all of the symptoms of the problem, first, and then addressing the core issue. Nerf the surrounding problems first, and then fix the inherent issue . . . which, in turn, might allow for some buffs. This might seem bass-ackwards to most of us, but it does tell us HOW we need to address PGI with our concerns.

We may very well need to say, "Lets nerf the most egregious offenders of laser-vomit first. Then, once they're brought in line, we can see what ballistics and missiles are still under-performing and look at how to buff them."

On the other hand, we can say, "Hey, XYZ made LRMs uncompetitive, but these other attributes will cause a LRMageddon if we just buff the weapon systems. Lets nerf those features of LRMs first and/or buff AMS. Then we can start buffing these other features of LRMs one facet at a time until they feel better."

It might not be the most ideal -to us- way of addressing balance issues in the game, but it's apparently the way Paul/PGI want to address balance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granted, this is, I daresay, digging into a pit of optimism that I haven't had for MWO in literal years. However, it's the first time we've had some more direct communication from PGI on balance than we've had in quite a long time. Granted, Russ has gone over "Roadmaps" and "Production Plans" in his discussions with NGNG and the forum Roadmaps . . . but that's not really communication on gameplay balance; and that's something I feel we desperately need.

On the other hand, I'm really NOT happy that Paul is keeping such a tight leash on Chris. I think we could be seeing significantly more weapon balancing on a per-patch basis. However, sadly, it is what it is.

Regardless, I would like to see more actual engagement from PGI (be it Chris, Paul, or any of the community people) actually keeping us more up-to-date on plans for balance. Even if they're not giving us exact numbers, having more engagement with the community goes a long way towards keeping us from feeling completely isolated with a game that's being left to rot.

Although, last but certainly not least, I think PGI is going to need to make sure that they've put their money where their mouth is; and they're going to actually have to have some balance changes in February and March that are moving in the right direction . . . or any faith they may have garnered with this NGNG podcast #164 are going to be completely lost.

[sycocys]

Mech The Dane, on 13 February 2018 - 12:23 PM, said:

Some times that's the best place to be.

A better place to be would be you same guys recruiting some coders and artists then firing up a kickstarter to create a game to replace this one rather than continuing to waste your time with trying to convince Paul and Russ of anything.

[Sigmar Sich]

Bud Crue, on 13 February 2018 - 05:51 PM, said:

TLDR: I hear what you are saying but, I think that we really aren’t on the same team; PGI and the community. Not even remotely.

I agree with your emotions, game is not young, and i am, personally, a very tired unsatisfied founder. Development moves at a snail pace, and eventual disappointment is only held back by torturous waiting. I'm salty as one can be. Yet there is no point to dwell on it. If there is any chance of improvement, i'll grab it.
As you said:

Quote

Yet it is entirely within PGI's ability to change that.

Let's not push them away. We want them on same team. And they should want us - because one does not bite the hand that feeds him.

P.S. I'm too optimistic about PGI and MWO, i know. But without hope there is no point to stay here. And i'm not ready to let go this game. Or more a dream this game should have become.
Like a bad wife who you still love. Between love and divorce....

[Bud Crue]

Sigmar Sich, on 13 February 2018 - 06:21 PM, said:

I'm too optimistic about PGI and MWO, i know. But without hope there is no point to stay here. And i'm not ready to let go this game. Or more a dream this game should have become.

Well said.

[N0MAD]

This post is Directed at ASH and several others, i cant be bothered multi quoting over all the pages in this thread.
The best players in game arent necessarily the most knowledgeable players in game and it doesnt give them the qualification to best to balance the game.
Team coaches in any sport are probably the most knowledgeable people in the game, most if not all were players, but not all or the majority were the elite of the sport.
Lets take for example a couple of names ASH and i should be familiar with, Wayne Bennet, Laury Daily.

Wayne, was indeed a decent player in his time but played with relatively lower grade teams, he did some representative football but over all not one of the recognized greats of the game. His coaching ability is unparalleled tho, Took Brisbane and turned them into the best team in Australia for a long time, took the QLD team into an unbeatable position for a decade, took the Australian team into a position of unbeatable on the world stage, has trained teams in the UK and revitalized them, has rightly been hailed as the best coach in Australia if not the world. You would have to say he is one of the most knowledgeable players in Rugby in the world but if anything a Tier 3 player at the actual game.

Laury, one of the greatest players in the country when he played, played first grade footy for decades, played for state and county for a decade or more, truly one of the elites of Australian and international football.
Took up coaching and eventually took over the coaching job for his state, got to train the State of Origin team, best players in the country, couldnt lead them to a win, fired after a few years.
Who was the better player? if you look at stats Laury by a long margin, who would you say has the best knowledge of the game? me personally i would say good old Tier 3 Wayne.
Best players arent necessarily the most knowledgeable players in game, sure they know how to play their position well but it doesnt qualify them as anything more than a good player in their position.
Should they be directing the way a game is balanced? im most cases no they shouldnt.
Just an opinion.

[Mystere]

sycocys, on 13 February 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

A better place to be would be you same guys recruiting some coders and artists then firing up a kickstarter to create a game to replace this one rather than continuing to waste your time with trying to convince Paul and Russ of anything.

One thing would be absolutely impossible though. The game cannot be "A BattleTech Game".

Edited by Mystere, 13 February 2018 - 07:13 PM.

[A Headless Chicken]

N0MAD, on 13 February 2018 - 06:56 PM, said:

~The best players in game arent necessarily the most knowledgeable players in game and it doesnt give them the qualification to best to balance the game~

I'd put my money on the guy who knows ideal positioning, plus the uses of each and every weapon over a another bloke who just goes around with balance ideas when he runs into brawl range with laser vomit and says that meta builds suck.

This game's best have spent hours in lobbies experimenting, and in-game playing (effectively, might I add) using different meks and weapons. If someone else has put in equal effort despite being not as good, his feedback holds weight, as long as he is not an abysmal player because it calls into question his understanding of how the game is meant to be played. The devs don't even play their own game, neither were they good at it when they tried.

I have yet to see a planned and studied suggestion from anyone else on this thread, considering 15 pages of it is name calling and knee jerk `BALANCE THIS!` reactions.

[FireStoat]

sycocys, on 13 February 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

A better place to be would be you same guys recruiting some coders and artists then firing up a kickstarter to create a game to replace this one rather than continuing to waste your time with trying to convince Paul and Russ of anything.

If HBS were to create a game based in their shadowrun IP that took advantage of tracked tanks, hovertanks, ground and air drones, and yes, powered armor and striding Mech vehicles (all of these are contained in that IP), I'd throw money at them right now. No, it wouldn't be the Battletech universe, and no, it wouldn't be the same. But it just might be really freakin' well designed and more satisfying to play.

Edit - yes, I know the issue HBS would have with such a game is that up until now, turn based games have mostly been their thing. A vehicle combat first person shooter would be new territory for them. But let a guy dream, would ya?

As far as constructive feedback on the OP's topic goes, mech mobility and weapons possessing similar cooldowns and uses are very fun for me. Making the game more simple to fight with a machine as well as navigate it during the flow of battle, and respond to being shot at, are fun. Fire up the Trial Dire Wolf right now and let me know how much fun that mech would be for a brand new player, let alone a veteran. Getting the community to agree on elements of the game that are FUN that are NOT present isn't difficult at all.

Edited by FireStoat, 13 February 2018 - 09:36 PM.

[HammerMaster]

Irony?
Says "We're listening."
Podcast "No."


DON'T GET MODERATED!

Edited by HammerMaster, 13 February 2018 - 10:21 PM.

[visionGT4]

N0MAD, on 13 February 2018 - 06:56 PM, said:

Laury, one of the greatest players in the country when he played, played first grade footy for decades, played for state and county for a decade or more, truly one of the elites of Australian and international football.

its just a shame that like is old team mate Ricky, Laury is a d1ckhe4d who likes to blame others for his failures.

Just like how PGI high command like to blame the player/customer base for their failings

[JC Daxion]

I'm the first to say i am not a top player...


That said.. the game isn't for just top players...


BUT, i think the community and PGI can work together...


No clue what this adds to the post, other than i think the game should work for all players Top and scrubs. You can't get top players with out new blood, so new player experience can't suck. Like a whole LRM re-work.. though i do think the ATM's are kinda a LRM rework no?



at any rate, i am all for anything that makes this game better.. and personally i think that we need to bring back POWER DRAW.. though i think it needs 40 points, and a bit of rework on the total energy but it was a good system that i think got screwed over with to many changes
.

[PobbestGob]

JC Daxion, on 13 February 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

I'm the first to say i am not a top player...
personally i think that we need to bring back POWER DRAW.. though i think it needs 40 points, and a bit of rework on the total energy but it was a good system that i think got screwed over with to many changes.

ghost heat is already bad enough, "global" ghost heat and adding new energy values to all weapons just makes the game more convoluted than it already is. if you want to limit high heat, high alpha play just lower the heat capacity by making heat sinks have less or no effect on the cap. easy, predictable, and makes more sense. plus PGI would be more willing to do it, it can be done in the slow, small, iterative way they're comfortable with, it increases TTK, and could be rolled out with increasing ghost heat limits until those limits become unnecessary and ghost heat isn't around anymore. Lowering the heat cap also rewards builds with sustained dmg over peeking and vomiting huge alphas, which along with spread modifications to missiles etc could start bringing brawling back.

Edited by Kill2Blit, 14 February 2018 - 01:56 AM.

[sycocys]

Mystere, on 13 February 2018 - 07:10 PM, said:

One thing would be absolutely impossible though. The game cannot be "A BattleTech Game".

Base your company in the US and directly parody this game and you can parallel Battletech all you want.

* and seriously Paul + Russ have given a third party enough content to parody them well beyond the point that the servers for this game shut down even if they never make another post or podcast.

Edited by sycocys, 14 February 2018 - 02:37 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

A better place to be would be you same guys recruiting some coders and artists then firing up a kickstarter to create a game to replace this one rather than continuing to waste your time with trying to convince Paul and Russ of anything.

They should flood all the maps with brown water

And make a clone of subnautica

[Chados]

JC Daxion, on 13 February 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

I'm the first to say i am not a top player...
any rate, i am all for anything that makes this game better.. and personally i think that we need to bring back POWER DRAW.. though i think it needs 40 points, and a bit of rework on the total energy but it was a good system that i think got screwed over with to many changes
.

Careful. If you mention the eeeeebil power-draw PTS you’ll be drowned in shrieks of “heretic! Burn the witch!” Just don’t add the cone of fire mechanic. It’ll REALLY get scary then.

[JohnnyWayne]

Khobai, on 14 February 2018 - 02:43 AM, said:

They should flood all the maps with brown water

And make a clone of subnautica

Hol up. Subnautica has clean water only. I mean it is infected yes but clean.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 14 February 2018 - 04:55 AM.

[ROSS-128]

Regarding the football analogy... By the time anyone is paying you money to play the game, you're already a "top player". I know it seems weird that football can have thousands of top players, but billions of people play football.

Comparing Wayne and Laury is more like comparing a player from EON and EMP. They're both top players even if their strengths are in different areas or one is more top than the other. They're both good enough to play for money.

Now it is possible to have a very strong grasp on game theory despite not having the fine motor skills or conditioned reflexes to implement it, such a person would be more analogous to a knowledgeable commentator or a researcher. But that category of person had to prove themselves a different way: by making valid predictions, providing solid commentary, and having their theories pan out when other people try them.

The average potato isn't a Wayne, they're more like Billy from middle school. Billy isn't even on the school team, he just sometimes plays a pick-up game in the lot behind the abandoned factory, and his understanding of the game only extends to "don't use your hands" and "get ball in goal".

[JohnnyWayne]

ROSS-128, on 14 February 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:

The average potato isn't a Wayne, they're more like Billy from middle school.

I'd like to quite this. Hello.

[FireStoat]

Brain Cancer, on 13 February 2018 - 06:13 PM, said:

You will never see balance, because balance is controlled by someone whose experiences with the games is being humiliated to make a point, and will never "git gud". Evidence numero uno, the infamous "Goons <3 Paul" video.

This is actually a very good point, and I hope we're not straying too far away from the OP's topic. As an example of what you're saying though, Riot Games has a number of in house staff members and testers for League of Legends that DO play at a high tier of ability. One of their staff members, Phreak, has been with the crew from the start and while his gameplay isn't competitive, he's displayed that he has a sharp understanding of mechanics and his rudimentary play skill is very top notch.

We really don't seem to have this in PGI's company, and it shows. Instead of accusing PGI with being bad at their own game, I'd rather prompt a more positively phrased question of - "Why do you believe it's not important to be good at the game with your approach to balance issues?"