The panel in the Gulag that makes the editorial decisions is composed of high-end players, it's true. Some can even be fairly abrasive.
I imagine these two things are what are setting some people off. Not all the top players are abrasive and a good many of them are pretty level headed, but a good many of them are also caustic prima donnas in game.
Of course, there's always going to be an element of venom if you will in any online game, and the post isn't so much complaining about that so much as, getting an idea of where the primary push back is coming from.
I largely like the Gulag changes honestly, but I think part of the pushback is that many top players are serving as the 'face' of these gulag changes. And there have certainly been some pretty insufferable attitudes from upper crust players here before.
As to whether the pushback here is justified or not, is something I really can't speak on with much depth, I really only pug in QP, sometimes FP. So I only have a handful of run ins with the comp players at most.
On that premise though, I think I can understand the opposing side's stance on some level.
Edited by ColourfulConfetti, 20 March 2021 - 03:36 PM.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 20 March 2021 - 03:46 PM
ColourfulConfetti, on 20 March 2021 - 03:29 PM, said:
I imagine these two things are what are setting some people off. Not all the top players are abrasive and a good many of them are pretty level headed, but a good many of them are also caustic prima donnas in game.
Of course, there's always going to be an element of venom if you will in any online game, and the post isn't so much complaining about that so much as, getting an idea of where the primary push back is coming from.
I largely like the Gulag changes honestly, but I think part of the pushback is that many top players are serving as the 'face' of these gulag changes. And there have certainly been some pretty insufferable attitudes from upper crust players here before.
As to whether the pushback here is justified or not, is something I really can't speak on with much depth, I really only pug in QP, sometimes FP. So I only have a handful of run ins with the comp players at most.
On that premise though, I think I can understand the opposing side's stance on some level.
THIS^
I'll be the first to say i'm not above toxic behavior. I try to get above it, but it just seeps in eventually. Hell, I'm argumentative as ****.
I honestly don't know the gulag as a whole, I only know a few. But I agree that having the revitalization effort having the face of someone you loathe is going to cause some resistance. Don't get me wrong, again I don't know the names of ALL those involved in the gulag.
I remember that there's this comp guy that told me "I should have legged you", just because I happen to push further than him with my 8x SRM6 Pakhet. He's disappointed that "he's first", nevermind that going under and around to the rear of the Viridian Bog already was my direction, and he was just faster. And when I started my surprise attack from rear to brawl, I figure he didn't do as well when I ******* killed it.
I called him out on the forums -- granted I shouldn't have done that, should have let him go -- but they straight up just defended the other guy. I was just a nobody, and he's the comp so they trust him better.
Yes, not ALL, and i personally don't know ALL of them. I try to look past that and just judge the content of their points and statements, but I can't help to think back and just see just that.
That is forever the stain of Comps to my eyes, that they are douches entitled to good score.
While I agree with many of the gulag changes and some of their philosophy, looking back, I can see the selfish elitist cronyism that MIGHT seep through.
Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 March 2021 - 04:07 PM.
The6thMessenger, on 20 March 2021 - 03:46 PM, said:
THIS^
I'll be the first to say i'm not above toxic behavior. I try to get above it, but it just seeps in eventually. Hell, I'm argumentative as ****.
I honestly don't know the gulag as a whole, I only know a few. But I agree that having the revitalization effort having the face of someone you loathe is going to cause some resistance. Don't get me wrong, again I don't know the names of ALL those involved in the gulag.
I remember that there's this comp guy that told me "I should have legged you", just because I happen to push further than him with my 8x SRM6 Pakhet. He's disappointed that "he's first", nevermind that going under and around to the rear of the Viridian Bog already was my direction, and he was just faster. And when I started my surprise attack from rear to brawl, I figure he didn't do as well when I ******* killed it.
I called him out on the forums -- granted I shouldn't have done that, should have let him go -- but they straight up just defended the other guy. I was just a nobody, and he's the comp so they trust him better.
Yes, not ALL, and i personally don't know ALL of them. I try to look past that and just judge the content of their points and statements, but I can't help to think back and just see just that.
That is forever the stain of Comps to my eyes, that they are douches entitled to good score.
While I agree with many of the gulag changes and some of their philosophy, looking back, I can see the selfish elitist cronyism that MIGHT seep through.
I hear ya man. I remember in FP some dude screaming in VC that he's going to core out my back if I keep 'blocking him' cause somehow my 43 kph annihilator is really hard to walk around. He said this of course cause I'm not a part of a comp FP unit, I'm just a PUG after all, and you can treat pugs how you want cause they aren't attached to any recognizable unit. Which made it all the more funny when that the dude ended up getting a pretty poor score in the end. Sadly, that's the general attitude that tends to permeate FP.
I also recall a few times when a super cereal comp player started yelling at some random pug and calling them a total idiot cause oh noes, the pug bumped into the back of him when he was trying to fall back into cover.
There are definitely some obnoxious comp players for sure. Though, I tend to see those incidents as uncommon occurrences thankfully. For every ******** comp player I've bumped into, there was usual at least another pretty agreeable one. But you certainly notice the negative experience far more vividly than the positive ones.
So far I don't get the impression that the gulag changes have any elitism is playing any part of the motivation, but I think it has to be said, if you're getting elitist over playing a video game well, man, talk about having little else going on in your life. Christ almighty.
Edited by ColourfulConfetti, 20 March 2021 - 05:30 PM.
The6thMessenger, on 20 March 2021 - 01:36 PM, said:
That's true. But, I'd rather eliminate it as best as I can, as opposed of a high ceiling of damage output, i'd rather lower the ceiling and increase the floor. That is because the high-end is more likely to leverage said high damage output, and even more so against players of lower skill.
Emphasis mine.
What you are suggesting is exactly what PGI has been doing. Whenever there is something in the game that performs, but requires more than rudimentary ability to leverage, PGI smacks it down with a hammer. Piranhas is strong, but most people don't know how to survive more than 10 seconds of combat in them...nerfed. Gauss+PPC is strong, but most people don't know how to work the Gauss charge or properly lead their targets...nerfed. Agility allowed good pilots to keep vulnerable sections covered and track targets well...nerfed. Do I need to go on? All of these changes cumulatively adding up to create MWO 2021, which is a shadow of what the game used to be at its high point in early 2016. Everything is slow and clumsy, the weapons that take the least amount of brain-power and mechanical ability to use are the most powerful, nobody trades, everybody pushes.
I do not want more of this, and for that reason I am diametrically opposed your balancing philosophy. It just creates a game that is easy to learn, easy to master, and easy to get bored with.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 20 March 2021 - 05:43 PM
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 05:24 PM, said:
Emphasis mine.
What you are suggesting is exactly what PGI has been doing. Whenever there is something in the game that performs, but requires more than rudimentary ability to leverage, PGI smacks it down with a hammer. Piranhas is strong, but most people don't know how to survive more than 10 seconds of combat in them...nerfed. Gauss+PPC is strong, but most people don't know how to work the Gauss charge or properly lead their targets...nerfed. Agility allowed good pilots to keep vulnerable sections covered and track targets well...nerfed. Do I need to go on? All of these changes cumulatively adding up to create MWO 2021, which is a shadow of what the game used to be at its high point in early 2016. Everything is slow and clumsy, the weapons that take the least amount of brain-power and mechanical ability to use are the most powerful, nobody trades, everybody pushes.
I do not want more of this, and for that reason I am diametrically opposed your balancing philosophy. It just creates a game that is easy to learn, easy to master, and easy to get bored with.
The problem is the execution, not the philosophy. I don't even think that the last patch was that philosophy, because the PPCs just became harder, not easier. Honestly Dafuq are you even talking about? PGI is all over the place when they balance.
We both know that PGI barely plays their own game, and isn't on the same page -- even Chris apparently isn't. And that is why it results in the same ******** we got this March Patch.
The thing with easy to learn, easy to master, easy to get bored, is that it's also easy to balance.
The6thMessenger, on 20 March 2021 - 05:43 PM, said:
The problem is the execution, not the philosophy.
No, it's definitely the philosophy. There is no amount or method of truncating the ceiling while raising the floor that does not result in a bland game that fails to hold players for a long time. It just creates an instant-gratification queue with good short-term retention, but lots of long-term churn. To sustain a game like that requires an absolute bucket-load of continued investment to keep switching things up and making it fresh.
Quote
I don't even think that the last patch was that philosophy, because the PPCs just became harder, not easier. Honestly Dafuq are you even talking about? PGI is all over the place when they balance.
The last patch was just Chris being smug and throwing in some changes completely antithetical to what the Gulag was doing. Whether that was because he believed his own ersatz genius and thought they would be good changes or was just doing it to spite players who dislike him is immaterial, but it was not a change with any gameplay rationale behind it. They mean nothing.
Quote
We both know that PGI barely plays their own game, and isn't on the same page -- even Chris apparently isn't. And that is why it results in the same ******** we got this March Patch.
Most of the nerfs I mentioned did not happen on Chris's watch, they were on Paul's.
Quote
The thing with easy to learn, easy to master, easy to get bored, is that it's also easy to balance.
It's also easy to kill interest in your game. I rest my case.
The panel in the Gulag that makes the editorial decisions is composed of high-end players, it's true. Some can even be fairly abrasive. But if you have a case, and you can convincingly articulate that case, then your case will not be written off. That does not necessarily mean your proposal will be incorporated as submitted, as often there will be a compromise because there are many differences of opinion even within the panel.
Right now the Gulag focus is on making weapons useful. I don't think all of the values will result in weapons that are fun to use, and there is still an ongoing issue of significant overlap for some, but there is an undeniable improvement in the utility of several historic under-performers.
Not sure what you mean by min-maxing BS; you cannot even hope to escape min-maxing as it is an inherent part of the game.
The issue for me is whose balance, mine or theirs, because to me these mechs boat far too many weapons.. Far too much damage and the time to kill is incredibly too fast.. especially as a high ping player, yes thats my fault for playing an online game from Australia but it is a detriment..
I personally dream of a MWO that only allows table top mech builds.. I'd so much love that more, totally classic builds only but the top tiers would bring out their pitch forks, and most likely every one would go clanners.
Still thats my dream MWO. No BS like ghost heat or gauss ppc crap.. You play a mech you can only build Sarna type builds.
Obviously will never happen due to the min maxers.
The issue for me is whose balance, mine or theirs, because to me these mechs boat far too many weapons.. Far too much damage and the time to kill is incredibly too fast.. especially as a high ping player, yes thats my fault for playing an online game from Australia but it is a detriment..
I personally dream of a MWO that only allows table top mech builds.. I'd so much love that more, totally classic builds only but the top tiers would bring out their pitch forks, and most likely every one would go clanners.
Still thats my dream MWO. No BS like ghost heat or gauss ppc crap.. You play a mech you can only build Sarna type builds.
Obviously will never happen due to the min maxers.
MWO is a competitive game by its player-vs-player nature, there is always going to be min-maxing. If it's not in the MechLab, then it's going to be players always choosing the most effective TT builds in a match; that's exactly what happened with the MWO World Championships in 2018; PGI tried to force players into stock builds, and the result was only those builds that had some sort of synergy at a given range were used. It was not interesting.
The problem here is that you want an entirely different game than MWO and are trying to bend MWO into that game. Gulag is allowing MWO to be better at what it already is. If all you want to see are Table Top builds, and feel like a hero while playing Table Top builds, then MWO is clearly not the game for you and you should go play MW5 instead.
The issue for me is whose balance, mine or theirs, because to me these mechs boat far too many weapons.. Far too much damage and the time to kill is incredibly too fast.. especially as a high ping player, yes thats my fault for playing an online game from Australia but it is a detriment..
You are far from the only Australian. Many of the players in support of Gulag are also from Australia.
Samial, on 20 March 2021 - 06:21 PM, said:
I personally dream of a MWO that only allows table top mech builds.. I'd so much love that more, totally classic builds only but the top tiers would bring out their pitch forks, and most likely every one would go clanners.
Yeah... we already saw that BS in a World Championship, and that doesn't need a rerun.
Also while many TT builds are braindead bracket builds in need of a dozen weapon groups, there are still a good few stock builds that have the same breed of boating you're complaining about.
Samial, on 20 March 2021 - 06:21 PM, said:
Still thats my dream MWO. No BS like ghost heat or gauss ppc crap.. You play a mech you can only build Sarna type builds.
Obviously will never happen due to the min maxers.
Gauss&PPC builds exist in TT. Ghost Heat only exists because of the boating that you mistakenly believe wouldn't exist with lore TT builds.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 20 March 2021 - 08:17 PM
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 06:17 PM, said:
No, it's definitely the philosophy.
There is no amount or method of truncating the ceiling while raising the floor that does not result in a bland game that fails to hold players for a long time. It just creates an instant-gratification queue with good short-term retention, but lots of long-term churn. To sustain a game like that requires an absolute bucket-load of continued investment to keep switching things up and making it fresh.
No, you fail to actually connect and justify it. And I don't even think that you understand the philosophy and it's underpinnings. It isn't just balance, it's game design.
Do you know what is "Stupid Evil"? It's doing evil, regardless of utility. You're treating the philosophy like Stupid Evil, and that's just not the case. It's just a tool, and one that is used to just solve balance problems, not to guide the entirety of balance. It's pointless to exercise to a degree that it doesn't have utility.
And then trying to mitigate min-maxing, even eliminate min-maxing, how do you link that to "easy" or "instant gratification"? As in, why would people having a decent choice beside min-maxing is bad or reduce interest? Why would eliminating min-maxing make it dumb easy? How do you even figure that out?
You say that it reduces interest, that it becomes bland. But wouldn't min-maxing only generates few choices in the first place? Because it's always the meta, the optimal, those are the successful iterations of the builds. People just flock to the meta builds, and may not bother finding their own combination that they might find better success.
That is not to say that dumb-builds should also be effective, but the min-maxed approaches shouldn't be the only successful ones. You're right that Min-Max would always be there, but that doesn't mean the gulf should be gaping. There should be flexibility in the balance that allows them to stray away from the min-max. And you can solve that by reducing the ceiling, and raising the floor.
In the case of weapons, like the ATM, the 3 damage/missile sweet-spot is the defining trait of the weapon that it dwarfs other uses.
All the philosophy wants to do is find an acceptable gap between the floor and ceiling, it just has to be enough to be interesting, it has to make the other choices decent. It's self-serving to be incapable of reducing the ceiling. It's the muh-skeels talking, its that elitist entitlement.
And about the statement: "There is no amount or method of truncating the ceiling while raising the floor that does not result in a bland game that fails to hold players for a long time."
Have you checked every method available?
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 06:17 PM, said:
The last patch was just Chris being smug and throwing in some changes completely antithetical to what the Gulag was doing. Whether that was because he believed his own ersatz genius and thought they would be good changes or was just doing it to spite players who dislike him is immaterial, but it was not a change with any gameplay rationale behind it. They mean nothing.
Most of the nerfs I mentioned did not happen on Chris's watch, they were on Paul's.
So does PGI's dumb attempts, that means nothing.
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 06:17 PM, said:
It's also easy to kill interest in your game. I rest my case.
No, you don't have a case. You just insisted connections between one and another, and pointed that it's bad without adequate justification.
Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 March 2021 - 09:12 PM.
The6thMessenger, on 20 March 2021 - 08:17 PM, said:
No, you don't have a case. You just insisted connections between one and another, and pointed that it's bad without adequate justification.
How you can watch that video and come to the conclusions you did is absolutely mind-blowing. The entire point of that video is to say that all of the potential options your game has need to provide a baseline level of reward for newer players so that they are willing to use them and not get clubbed. It does not say that you need to compress the depth available in the game so that there's nothing for a skilled player to learn; in fact, it says the opposite by pointing out that if the baseline is too good, then nobody bothers to learn anything else.
Do not speak if you are not capable of understanding the concepts in the crap you are going to use to try and back your position up. And learn how to make your point more succinctly instead of posting walls of text.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 20 March 2021 - 10:47 PM
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 10:31 PM, said:
How you can watch that video and come to the conclusions you did is absolutely mind-blowing.
The entire point of that video is to say that all of the potential options your game has need to provide a baseline level of reward for newer players so that they are willing to use them and not get clubbed.
You know what else is the take away there? "Abuse".
Yes you want some form of reward with difficult execution to try and make them progress, but not to the point that it is ludicrous like the ATM is.That entire rangeband DWARFS the other use of ATMs, for that small window of use around 120m, and it outright rejects the ER ranges.
That's the problem with min-maxing. It justifies insanely high reward, to a ludicrous skill input.
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 10:31 PM, said:
It does not say that you need to compress the depth available in the game so that there's nothing for a skilled player to learn; in fact, it says the opposite by pointing out that if the baseline is too good, then nobody bothers to learn anything else.
And I did not say that we increase the floor, and reduce the ceiling to the point that there is nothing worth learning at all. I just said that it's an option to reduce the ceiling and increase the floor, and that is what I would rather take. You're the one that outright declared that there would be little, or lack learning, with ANY value that goes toward said direction.
Quote
as opposed of a high ceiling of damage output, i'd rather lower the ceiling and increase the floor. That is because the high-end is more likely to leverage said high damage output, and even more so against players of lower skill.
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 10:31 PM, said:
Do not speak if you are not capable of understanding the concepts in the crap you are going to use to try and back your position up.
I understand the concepts.
The problem is that you don't understand the position I take, and arguing precisely the position that isn't mine. Such as I don't intend to remove skill and learning, you're the only one who assumes it.
This either-or mentality is exactly what skews your perspective, that you only see the philosophy applied to the degree that it's unreasonable. Exactly the point with "Stupid Evil".
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 10:31 PM, said:
And learn how to make your point more succinctly instead of posting walls of text.
I wasn't just trying to make a point, I was asking questions to further the discussion. It's dialectics. If you're just too mired on your own point of view and don't want to discuss, that's fine.
Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 March 2021 - 02:57 AM.
The6thMessenger, on 20 March 2021 - 01:36 PM, said:
For example. The ATMs, that was supposed to be 2.5/2.0/1.5 damage on their initial proposal that I agreed with, was reverted. That incredibly high-risk high-reward of 3 damage/missile at 120-245m, it's that is what minmaxers bank on, and they opted to retain it for the first PTS iteration. I don't like that, it just serves the high-skill more that is a lot more able to maintain positioning.
Yeah they increased the heat penalty, that reduces over-all sustaining DPS, but that just reinforces poptarting more, like PPCs this patch right here just reinforces poptarting -- and it's even dumber because poptarting with homing weapons are actually easy. That also increases the risk by having to forcefully partitioning shots, but you STILL do monstrous damage.
They could just normalize ATMs to 2 damage with no minimum range, makes it useful at ANY range, even the ER ones. But instead they just retain the high damage in place so that they can leverage it.
I dont think its hard to see why their proposed change was dropped to keep it as is.
Examples based on an ATM 12
Long range 1.5 dmg per missile - 18 dmg, an LRM 20 does more damage, weighs 2 tons less and has a superior travel arc for long range fire as well as a faster refire rate, this mode is still inferior for usage at long range.
Medium range 2 dmg per - 24 dmg, This time we have a 4 dmg advantage over LRMs but again with the negatives of no indirect capability, a slower travel time in direct fire and weighing 2 more tons for the launcher.
Close range 2.5 - 30 dmg, Now we're getting somewhere but again this is a 7 ton launcher you can pack in 4 srm 6s for 6 tons for 48 dmg with the benefit of better aim leading to better hits as you won't be tossing SRMs into legs but mostly torso shots, much faster refire rates and much faster missile travel speeds.
Lets also not forget that ATM ammo is 100 per ton, if firing ATMs at medium to long range didn't sound bad before than keep in mind that the LRM20 not only fires faster, with quicker rounds (in direct mode) while having a superior firing mode available (indirect shots) but also gets 240 rounds per ton.
So if the idea is to make things worth using, reducing the close up firepower of ATMs which is their only real value in the game right now for the upshot of making its already inferior parts a little less inferior.. but still inferior doesn't do anything for the weapon.
Trading 6 up from damage for 6 long range damage does nothing to help the weapon as long range fire with ATMs is incredibly difficult due to terrain, broken locks, slower travel speeds (again if both are direct) and less missiles for AMS to gobble up ontop of less than half the ammo per ton.
You can still lob ATMs at long range if you want and sucker punch people up close so 'noob tube' effect is kinda there, but it does reward those people that are paitent and don't waste their ammo on long range shots waiting for those 3 dmg hits.
Edited by Lucian Nostra, 20 March 2021 - 11:49 PM.
What about us casual players that want the flavor of real battletech feeling? Why the game has to always shift to the minorities like "Gulag" and "champion" / "competitive people" that are not the majority?
You destroyed Gauss riffle by adding the charge , you gave the PPC splash only to clans, the same people held a campaign against the LRMS and now its a shame to play that weapon without being discriminated. Now you want to take away the fun we have from the PPCS (Since you all cry about reverting it). You keep destroying the very core of the playerbase ,the CASUALS.
Mechwarrior was about bringing different ideas to the table and surprise your enemies. Not ending up copying eachother's maximum effective builds that are already pre DECIDED by the minority.
You push a small company to do constant tuning according to your fetishes and not letting them develop SOMETHING NEW.
It's well known problem with devs, who want to shake balance from time to time to change Meta and force players to refit their 'Mechs. Ballistic nerfs -> going back to laser vomit. As simple, as that.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 20 March 2021 - 11:58 PM
Lucian Nostra, on 20 March 2021 - 11:37 PM, said:
So if the idea is to make things worth using, reducing the close up firepower of ATMs which is their only real value in the game right now for the upshot of making its already inferior parts a little less inferior.. but still inferior doesn't do anything for the weapon.
That's still min-maxing, that's still a really high reward within such unreasonably small rangeband. I don't like that. It just screams of the same elitist entitlement like I told before.
Lucian Nostra, on 20 March 2021 - 11:37 PM, said:
Trading 6 up from damage for 6 long range damage does nothing to help the weapon as long range fire with ATMs is incredibly difficult due to terrain, broken locks, slower travel speeds (again if both are direct) and less missiles for AMS to gobble up ontop of less than half the ammo per ton.
It already have increased missile health. Of course you can also increase velocity.
Lucian Nostra, on 20 March 2021 - 11:37 PM, said:
You can still lob ATMs at long range if you want and sucker punch people up close so 'noob tube' effect is kinda there, but it does reward those people that are paitent and don't waste their ammo on long range shots waiting for those 3 dmg hits.
At 2.5/2.0/1.5 damage/missile, it still rewards those that are patient and don't waste their ammo, but it doesn't mean that it's a debilitating step between distances. There are plenty of other weapons that have superior damage/ton too, but the point of ATMs is that you aren't limited like SRMs are.
If you're still concerned with the 30 damage under 245m, why not increase it to 270m? Surely there's no point in leaving it at 245m after outright damage nerf?
Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 March 2021 - 01:04 AM.
MWO is a competitive game by its player-vs-player nature, there is always going to be min-maxing. If it's not in the MechLab, then it's going to be players always choosing the most effective TT builds in a match; that's exactly what happened with the MWO World Championships in 2018; PGI tried to force players into stock builds, and the result was only those builds that had some sort of synergy at a given range were used. It was not interesting.
The problem here is that you want an entirely different game than MWO and are trying to bend MWO into that game. Gulag is allowing MWO to be better at what it already is. If all you want to see are Table Top builds, and feel like a hero while playing Table Top builds, then MWO is clearly not the game for you and you should go play MW5 instead.
I don't expect to get my dream MWO.. I don't want to take others fun away either i'm just saying different players have different wants and needs.. The Gulag or PGI they always seem to have their own prerogative in mind when they balance not the complete communities..
You get less "min-maxing" the better balance the weapons have. It is the imbalances that creates a metagame where certain strategies dominate. Better balance = more variety and more viable builds.
You're never getting rid of some things. For example it will always be better to focus your builds towards a specific engagement range so you can win your trades there. This isn't really a matter of game design, it's how the world works. It's the same in the real world, if you want to be good at something you have to focus enough resources on that. There is no way to rebalance the game so that a build mixing srms er large lasers is competitive, because that build will always be operating at reduced capacity. This is one reason so many stock builds are bad. In other words, you can't get rid of boating because boating is essentially specialisation and specialisation is favoured by how reality works not just in games.
Balancing for "comp" vs "casuals".
This is mostly a false dichotomy. For the most part balance is balance. There are a few weapons that perform differently at different skill brackets, because they are easy/hard to use or easy/hard to counter and avoid. LRMs might be an example of a weapon that can easily get strong in low skill brackets and weak in high skill brackets, and gauss rifles and PPCs might be the opposite. But for the most part the impact of balancing weapons aren't all that different in tier 5 and 1, although balance matters less in tier 5 as we'll get back to.
It's also quite misleading to talk about "comp vs casual". Comp play is a bit of a different beast and "Casual" is IMO more about why you play the game than about how good you are or about how much you min max or anything like that.
For example I'm a 100% casual player, my ONLY motivation for playing MWO is casual fun, but what IS casual fun for me is to play as effectively as possible and try my best to win. I like optimising my builds. I also love playing with my unit in groups and play against other strong groups. I'm floating somewhere between the 90th and 98th percentile on Jarls list depending on how active I am, I tend to get rusty so I perform much better the seasons where I play more (96% over time). So where do I belong in this "comp vs casual" argument, am I viewed as a comp or as a casual? I guarantee you there are much more players like me in the top 10% than actual "comp" players.
What it seems we are really talking about here is good players vs bad players. Good and bad here means players who get high stats over time vs players who get low stats over time, where the most important one is win/loss, regardless of the reasons behind these results.
That is not a dig on anyone, being bad in this sense doesn't mean your way of enjoying the game is less valid or that your fun is worth less or whatever. It also doesn't matter if your results are bad because you role play stock builds or other weak builds, often play drunk, have a handicap etc etc. Maybe you think your "true skill" is higher than your stats? That's not relevant here, "Bad player" here simply means that on average you score low and don't win a lot.
What does matter is that the variance decrease more and more as you become better.
When you are bad things are more random and chaotic, weapons or mechs may be perceived as weak or strong based on very subjective reasons, randomly doing well or bad in a string of games, or because you're not yet able to use them well. This means that the actual balance of the game is both harder to judge and matters less for the outcome if the players are bad. This doesn't mean that the enjoyment or feelings of the game being unbalanced is less important for bad players, it just means that both the data and subjective feedback on balance that comes from this group of players is very hard to get any useful information from.
It's not that you shouldn't balance "for casuals" (meaning bad players), it's that it can't really be done.
Conversely, when players are really good you start seeing the data and feedback converge and become readable. People start to agree more on what is strong and weak, and the opinions start agreeing with the data. In other words it's usable. Balance also matters much more relatively speaking, there is less variance and chaos involved and weapons and mechs are used effectively, so the actual strength of a weapon/mech becomes a much stronger predictor for the result. This is why you have to balance "from the top" in games, even if your goal is balance at all skill levels.
It's not because it's more important to balance "for comp players" (meaning good players), but because it's actually doable.
This thread is a fine example of the modern world 'common man'.
Totally ignorant. Throws blame around. Lies. Suggests nothing.
I do hope that this guy is on a payroll, for his own sake.
This thread is a fine example of the modern world 'common man'.
Totally ignorant. Throws blame around. Lies. Suggests nothing.
I do hope that this guy is on a payroll, for his own sake.
Oh great sage enlighten me. I ve been on discords of many communities man. I guess my beef is with the elitists not Gulag 100% but then again some of the elitists are included on this "balance program" which automatically makes it repulsive for me.
And Im not your common man.
And for the record : Not all top players are Elitists. (just making my self clear on this)
3
Y E O N N E, on 20 March 2021 - 12:56 PM, said:
