347 replies to this topic

[Dogstar]

El Bandito, on 11 June 2018 - 12:26 AM, said:

Nah, lets keep the circle small, as any bigger we would have the famed donkey parable at hand, and nothing will go forward. Besides, in my 6 years of MWO foruming career I have not seen low level players contributing to anything significant in terms of balance ideas. They have plenty of horribad ideas though..

Wow, thats a big FU to the majority of the player base. While I appreciate that you have a lot of good ideas that I'm thoroughly behind there is definitely a problem with selecting only top tier players to have a say on balance changes.

While I don't think you should choose players who have only played for a month either, and nor should we have a huge number of players putting their personal bias in, there are plenty of middling and higher skilled players who have plenty of insight into game mechanics and balance who should have a voice in requesting changes.

Otherwise all we end up with is a bunch of minor tweaks that suit the modus operandi of the top players with no real changes - just like we have in this thread

Edited by Dogstar, 12 June 2018 - 03:34 AM.

[El Bandito]

Dogstar, on 12 June 2018 - 03:33 AM, said:

Wow, thats a big FU to the majority of the player base. While I appreciate that you have a lot of good ideas that I'm thoroughly behind there is definitely a problem with selecting only top tier players to have a say on balance changes.

While I don't think you should choose players who have only played for a month either, and nor should we have a huge number of players putting their personal bias in, there are plenty of middling and higher skilled players who have plenty of insight into game mechanics and balance who should have a voice in requesting changes.

Otherwise all we end up with is a bunch of minor tweaks that suit the modus operandi of the top players with no real changes - just like we have in this thread

This thread alone proved me that having more in the committee would mean even more complications and delays, as everyone has their own agenda. And the whole reason the creators had opted for minor tweaks rather than fundamental changes, is because small changes are far easier to sell to PGI, and far easier to sell to the community. The community is just as much of obstructionists, as PGI itself, if not more.

Every once in a blue moon PGI balls up and try to do something big, community shuts them down, and then have the gall to ask for more changes, saying the game is stale. I'm sick of the hypocrisy after so many instances.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 June 2018 - 04:05 AM.

[MTier Slayed Up]

Dogstar, on 12 June 2018 - 03:33 AM, said:

Wow, thats a big FU to the majority of the player base. While I appreciate that you have a lot of good ideas that I'm thoroughly behind there is definitely a problem with selecting only top tier players to have a say on balance changes.

While I don't think you should choose players who have only played for a month either, and nor should we have a huge number of players putting their personal bias in, there are plenty of middling and higher skilled players who have plenty of insight into game mechanics and balance who should have a voice in requesting changes.

Otherwise all we end up with is a bunch of minor tweaks that suit the modus operandi of the top players with no real changes - just like we have in this thread

[redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 20 June 2018 - 02:44 PM.
nonconstructive/insult

[Nema Nabojiv]

El Bandito, on 12 June 2018 - 04:00 AM, said:

Every once in a blue moon PGI balls up and try to do something big, community shuts them down, and then have the gall to ask for more changes, saying the game is stale. I'm sick of the hypocrisy after so many instances.

Wait what? Their "big" thing is usually some ridiculously stupid nerf which, as they think, will address a problem that didn't even exist to begin with.

No one objected when they did something sensible. Though the last sensible thing I remember was the thanatos buff a while ago.

[The Mysterious Fox]

Dogstar, on 12 June 2018 - 03:33 AM, said:

Wow, thats a big FU to the majority of the player base. While I appreciate that you have a lot of good ideas that I'm thoroughly behind there is definitely a problem with selecting only top tier players to have a say on balance changes.

While I don't think you should choose players who have only played for a month either, and nor should we have a huge number of players putting their personal bias in, there are plenty of middling and higher skilled players who have plenty of insight into game mechanics and balance who should have a voice in requesting changes.

Otherwise all we end up with is a bunch of minor tweaks that suit the modus operandi of the top players with no real changes - just like we have in this thread

so you mean the half dozen people on the balance team?

[El Bandito]

Nema Nabojiv, on 12 June 2018 - 05:24 AM, said:

Wait what? Their "big" thing is usually some ridiculously stupid nerf which, as they think, will address a problem that didn't even exist to begin with.

No one objected when they did something sensible. Though the last sensible thing I remember was the thanatos buff a while ago.

The problems did exist, and they still do. And we should have allowed PGI to go ahead with some of their changes, and fine tune it afterwards, cause that still beats stagnating with what we have right now--the game is stale as is.

PGI's intentions are solid, just their implementations are spotty. And we as community threw away the whole idea just cause the implementation was not to our taste. Then we are surprised that nothing is changing.

Besides, we are getting off topic. Stay within the main subject.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 June 2018 - 06:31 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

El Bandito, on 12 June 2018 - 06:12 AM, said:

The problems did exist, and they still do. And we should have allowed PGI to go ahead with some of their changes, and fine tune it afterwards, cause that still beats stagnating with what we have right now--the game is stale as is.

As did SPL meta "problem" for example. Fixing and fine tuning it later went really well, hasn't it?

[El Bandito]

Nema Nabojiv, on 12 June 2018 - 06:35 AM, said:

As did SPL meta "problem" for example. Fixing and fine tuning it later went really well, hasn't it?

Sure, but that's only one weapon. In the grand scheme of things, the mess up wasn't big. PGI tried to make pulse lasers into DPS weapons rather than alpha weapons and I applaud them for that. CSPL was shafted only due to numbers, not due to the intention. Keep PGI's intention and method separate. Besides, CSPL was OP.

[Nema Nabojiv]

El Bandito, on 12 June 2018 - 07:03 AM, said:

Besides, CSPL was OP.

I'd rather have them that way than being сrаp as they are now. Same can be said about other OP things like SRMs, annihilators, crit-lynxes and gauss+ppcs.

And no, good intentions do not justify failures.

[El Bandito]

Nema Nabojiv, on 12 June 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

And no, good intentions do not justify failures.

Pfft, that's basically telling PGI to never do any balancing, never add any features, and never take the community's feedback. Cause you know, whenever they fail we'll be on their arses and do not let go.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 June 2018 - 09:09 AM.

[LordNothing]

i for one am tired of tiny changes. im not talking core mechanics changes, though ive suggested a few that are. but i want to see major shakeup in the metas. it would be fun that if every 3 months pgi would pick a new godweapon to lead the meta bandwagon. like random buffs and nerfs of sufficient magnitude to be noticed. chaos is fun.

Edited by LordNothing, 12 June 2018 - 10:14 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Stuff from Paul

Stuff from Chris

It's a start?

[Tarogato]

Update! 12-Jun-2018


The spreadsheet and doc have been updated with the following changes:


- RAC2: has been simplified to a velocity-only buff. The spread, heat, and range buffs are gone.

- RAC5: has been simplified to just a velocity and spread buff. The heat buff is gone.

- LMG: the additional crit damage buff has been removed.

- cAC family: the shell-count reduction has been replaced with ~30% velocity boosts instead.

- Gauss family: the ExplodeChance buffs have been replaced by Health buffs, which are more effective. This includes cGauss now as well.

[Nightbird]

Well.. my comment actually agrees with PGI for once.. for every buff requested add an equivalent nerf. Pull weapons to the center rather than the top.

[Nema Nabojiv]

El Bandito, on 12 June 2018 - 09:06 AM, said:

Pfft, that's basically telling PGI to never do any balancing, never add any features, and never take the community's feedback. Cause you know, whenever they fail we'll be on their arses and do not let go.

Glad we come to an agreement that failure in those activities it the only outcome PGI can produce

[Grus]

Im getting a giggle at all the "clans dont need nerfs" on this thread.. *stares at the war log*

[FupDup]

Nightbird, on 12 June 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

Well.. my comment actually agrees with PGI for once.. for every buff requested add an equivalent nerf. Pull weapons to the center rather than the top.

While I understand PGI's fear of power creep and even share it to an extent, I don't think that means we need to match every single buff with a nerf because then we wouldn't be properly helping the stuff that sits below the "center" baseline you speak of.

Edited by FupDup, 12 June 2018 - 12:46 PM.

[Tarogato]

Nightbird, on 12 June 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

Well.. my comment actually agrees with PGI for once.. for every buff requested add an equivalent nerf. Pull weapons to the center rather than the top.

Respectfully... no.


More weapons in the game are in dire need of buffs than there are weapons which need nerfs.

Here's my personal perspective on the state of weapons in the game relative to one another. (may not be exact or final, but damn close) At least among the few people I've passed this around to, they've largely agreed with my assessment so far:

[Nightbird]

Well there's your problem, your average group is too high . Seriously, if you make the SPL, CAC10, CERPPC your center line then half the weapons will be above and half below.

Edited by Nightbird, 12 June 2018 - 12:53 PM.

[Tarogato]

I'm already second guessing whether cLB20 should be "Above Average" instead of "Average". Argh. Oh well, it's an image now, can't change it, lol.

Nightbird, on 12 June 2018 - 12:51 PM, said:

Well there's your problem, your average group is too high . Seriously, if you make the SPL, CAC10, CERPPC your center line then half the weapons will be above and half below.

And alas we have quickly arrived at what is perhaps an irreconcilable difference of opinion. Yours such that the SPL and cAC10 are well-balanced weapons, and my opinion that they are below par.

It is the weapons in the yellow and above which defines the landscape and meta of this game. Anything that is not at least yellow simply falls short of expectation. I do not find it acceptable to set the bar any lower than how I defined it here, otherwise you are balancing around crap tier equipment imo.