1125 replies to this topic

[The Lighthouse]

Antares102, on 13 May 2018 - 03:24 AM, said:

Wow this is truely hilarious. The gravity of that statement is on Trump tweet levels.
Being good does not mean one knows balance...
No, quite the opposite Mr. Bullock. Being good means you have to sit down, analyse sh|t and self-reflect.
Without analysis and self-reflection you would have never become good in the focking first place.
And both actions are the basis to learn the imbalances and thus also knoow how to balance it.

Do we need to know more?
So much appreciation of the community in one tweet.

Russ is actually semi-right on this issue, which reflects my experience during Heroes of Newerth days in 2009-ish when I was playing that game, part of volunteer balance team.

Here is the issue: If you are good at a game, you know what's wrong with the game, thus top players are able to exploit the balance issue hence they become at the top of the chain. Russ is wrong on this one.

For instance, if top MWO players say clan lasers are too powerful, the observation would be right, clan lasers are too powerful indeed.


The problem comes when we talk about how to solve the balance problem. Even if you are good at the game, it does not mean you know how to fix the wrongs you know. Back to clan laser examples, some top players would say just reduce the damage, others say increase the damage of IS lasers, or maybe put additional ghost heat limitations. See, this is where players' roles (picking out what's wrong with the game) end and gameplay designers' roles (fixing what's wrong with the game) start. This is what Russ got it right on this one.


Problem is, PGI does not know what's wrong with the game, because it refuses to listen to good players. So never mind about fixing the game; how can you fix the game when you don't know what's wrong with this game? This is the current situation of PGI.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 03 July 2018 - 12:00 AM.

[Vellron2005]

Antares102, on 13 May 2018 - 03:24 AM, said:

Well for once mr. Bullock and I agree.

Being good makes one loose perspective. You can self-reflect and know the material like the back of your hand, but you simply can't be objective.. because balance is not about being good, it's about being average..

It's just like a person that has grown up not worrying too much about putting food on the table simply can't understand most of the population that has to balance a monthly budget, checkbook and keep track of every single dollar.

Balance should not be determined by the best players in the game. It should be determined by the most average.

Also, I think many of us here have simply lost perspective of what "a balanced Mwo" should be..

It's like Obama's campaign slogan - "Change - yes we can" - which was very cleverly thought up, cose' it means different things to different people - to the poor it meant more money, to the rich, it meant more power, to the downtrodden it meant more freedom, to the bullies it meant less law enforcement - it meant to everybody that THEY will have it better.

But not everybody can have it better. We are not all the same. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Balance in this game can never truly be achieved - all that PGI can do is make a single certain playstyle players happy at a time.

Not everybody can be happy all the time.

If the Gaussvomit clan is happy, then Lurmers are not. If Lurmers are happy, then SRM brawlers are not. If laser vomiteers are happy, than Gausvomit clan is not, and so on..

So PGI can only make one group happy at a time, and can alternate which group is happy at any given time.

When are you people gonna finally understand this?

We can't all be happy with balance.

Edited by Vellron2005, 03 July 2018 - 04:05 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Antares102, on 13 May 2018 - 03:24 AM, said:

Wow this is truely hilarious. The gravity of that statement is on Trump tweet levels.
Being good does not mean one knows balance...
No, quite the opposite Mr. Bullock. Being good means you have to sit down, analyse sh|t and self-reflect.
Without analysis and self-reflection you would have never become good in the focking first place.
And both actions are the basis to learn the imbalances and thus also knoow how to balance it.

Do we need to know more?
So much appreciation of the community in one tweet.

To be fair, it's kinda true. Depends on where you get your idea of "good" -- and if "good" is having good win-rate.

Sticking to the meta just increases your win rate because you are using the most optimal builds, in which even bad players could perform well with basic knowledge in how to use them. Good players would have inherently high win-rate, and capable of compensating for their less efficient builds because they have the skills, and the knowledge to turn the game in their favor. The problem is isolating whether a good win-rate is either because a player is good, or he's using the meta.

Just my 2 cbills.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 03 July 2018 - 04:10 AM.

[MrMadguy]

My opinion - true balance just isn't possible. There are way too many possible 'Mech variants and builds in this game and freedom of choice - is it's core feature. We just can't balance anything, cuz we can neither balance around high end players, nor low end ones. What PGI fails to do and have always been failing - to provide good matchmaker, so players with weak 'Mechs and builds just would play against players with the same weak 'Mechs and builds. At least constant loses should be compensated somehow. When you lose again, again and again, but you don't see your rating dropping - you just realize, that all this loses are pointless and just will last forever. And this discourage you from playing this game. Players quit and situation becomes worse and worse. Now we can't even have proper matchmaking due to too low population. That's, what PGI should fix. Playing weaker, just for fun and non-Meta 'Mechs and builds shouldn't automatically mean, that you're going to lose forever - it should be encouraged somehow instead.

[Tarl Cabot]

The Lighthouse, on 02 July 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

Russ is actually semi-right on this issue, which reflects my experience during Heroes of Newerth days in 2009-ish when I was playing that game, part of volunteer balance team.

Here is the issue: If you are good at a game, you know what's wrong with the game, thus top players are able to exploit the balance issue hence they become at the top of the chain. Russ is wrong on this one.

For instance, if top MWO players say clan lasers are too powerful, the observation would be right, clan lasers are too powerful indeed.

The problem comes when we talk about how to solve the balance problem. Even if you are good at the game, it does not mean you know how to fix the wrongs you know. Back to clan laser examples, some top players would say just reduce the damage, others say increase the damage of IS lasers, or maybe put additional ghost heat limitations. See, this is where players' roles (picking out what's wrong with the game) end and gameplay designers' roles (fixing what's wrong with the game) start. This is what Russ got it right on this one.

Problem is, PGI does not know what's wrong with the game, because it refuses to listen to good players. So never mind about fixing the game; how can you fix the game when you don't know what's wrong with this game? This is the current situation of PGI.

There is a difference between not knowing what is wrong with game vs having goal posts that keep moving/changing, then coming up with a variable solution(s) and applying them in a timely manner.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 July 2018 - 02:39 PM.