58 replies to this topic

[SmartAlec]

So a friend and I were talking a bit a couple days ago about the issue of balance in a game like this. There's obviously going to be a good chunk of people who spend 18 hours per day playing and practicing and otherwise being absolutely ridiculous. Then there's the normal people with a couple every other day or so.

I just wanted to see what other people think about balancing things out. With a system that's as complicated as MechWarrior tends to be (and we all know it's pretty freaking complicated...fraking torso twisting...), I don't think you can really count on a couple hours of game play really leveling the playing field like it can with standard FPSs. I can just picture myself ambling along, when all of a sudden someone jumps over a building, hits me in the head while in the air, then lands on my face...no way I'm ever going to be able to do that. What are people thoughts about different ways to balance the casual players and the hardcore nuts? Pro? Con? Speculations?

[Smurf O Pax]

i don't see a balancing need here ....

good player beats bad player .... as it should be

only solution practice more and get better ^^

[Eagyn]

Personally I think the game will be balanced enough for random teams. You will get both on either team and it will be balanced that way.

I don't think the game will be balanced for 1v1 in a manner that allows "hardcore" players to be on even terms to "casual" players. How well you manipulate the controls has everything to do with who wins in a 1v1 encounter due to both side having equal access to equipment. That means a casual player can outplay a hardcore player in some situations.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The only hope for balancing is in the matchmaking system, that and getting into a team and learning to play together. The other thing to do is to get MW4 or MWLL and practice a bit when you can before MWO launches.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 22 March 2012 - 01:18 AM.

[SmartAlec]

Smurf-O-Pax, on 22 March 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

i don't see a balancing need here ....

good player beats bad player .... as it should be

only solution practice more and get better ^^

You don't think a ranking system that pitted players against their equals would help? Playing and practicing will suck if it's against people who can take you down in 2 seconds flat. I'm just worried that without some sort of system that pits the hardcore player against each other and the casual players against each other, the game is quickly going to lose people who are tired of being rocked.

[Jetset Quasar]

there dosnt need to be balancing since when in war has there been balancing. all you have to do is make a loadout better than your opponants with a differant assorment of mechs. mechwarrior was never made to be balanced....

Edited by Dawn Treader, 22 March 2012 - 01:29 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Ranking system doesn't sound bad.
Question: How to realize this with company or lance battles - average ranking, maximum ranking, minimum ranking?
How is the ranking calculated?

War isn't balanced...i love this answers
...we have 12 vs 12 battles...if war isn't balanced i would say it should be able to have battles 23 vs 1 or similar. Yes we are dumb Steiner pilots with only Atlas Mechs but we can roll over you because we have Atlas we have more spare parts and we have more numbers.
Would be interesting to see all the "war isn't balanced" guys when they stood on the field and take a look where are their team mates...

Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 March 2012 - 01:32 AM.

[Jetset Quasar]

Karl Streiger, on 22 March 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Ranking system doesn't sound bad.
Question: How to realize this with company or lance battles - average ranking, maximum ranking, minimum ranking?
How is the ranking calculated?

War isn't balanced...i love this answers
...we have 12 vs 12 battles...if war isn't balanced i would say it should be able to have battles 23 vs 1 or similar. Yes we are dumb Steiner pilots with only Atlas Mechs but we can roll over you because we have Atlas we have more spare parts and we have more numbers.
Would be interesting to see all the "war isn't balanced" guys when they stood on the field and take a look where are their team mates...

well for matchmaking purposes ya it should be equal teams...but there shouldnt be a teir system it should be on a pick and choose bassis of filling a certain roll with a random pilote and mech that fits tha roll

[Bari Lorenz]

Dawn Treader, on 22 March 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

there dosnt need to be balancing since when in war has there been balancing. all you have to do is make a loadout better than your opponants with a differant assorment of mechs. mechwarrior was never made to be balanced....

War isn't balanced, fine. But games are. This is a game. It's meant to be fun, not a true representation of a war situation.

No one is going to want to play a game where they are going to get steamrolled every time. Sure, you don't want to make all the long hours hardcore players spend mean nothing, but wouldn't it be more fun for hardcore player to actually have a challenge against other hardcore people? It seems like the only people advocating no matching system at all would be the people who just want to troll and grief.

Maybe the team ranking could be set up so that each team falls within a certain range, or you match teams up pairwise (each team has the ame number of lows, mids, highs, etc.) Seems tricky, but definitely necessary.

[Jetset Quasar]

Bari Lorenz, on 22 March 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

War isn't balanced, fine. But games are. This is a game. It's meant to be fun, not a true representation of a war situation.

No one is going to want to play a game where they are going to get steamrolled every time. Sure, you don't want to make all the long hours hardcore players spend mean nothing, but wouldn't it be more fun for hardcore player to actually have a challenge against other hardcore people? It seems like the only people advocating no matching system at all would be the people who just want to troll and grief.

Maybe the team ranking could be set up so that each team falls within a certain range, or you match teams up pairwise (each team has the ame number of lows, mids, highs, etc.) Seems tricky, but definitely necessary.

well yes but if you've played most of the games its supposed to be a combat sim...therefor weapon and mech balancing is not needed but iv changed my mind about matchmaking. but i stand by my beleif of mechs not being balanced....

Edited by Dawn Treader, 22 March 2012 - 01:43 AM.

[Smurf O Pax]

SmartAlec, on 22 March 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

You don't think a ranking system that pitted players against their equals would help? Playing and practicing will suck if it's against people who can take you down in 2 seconds flat. I'm just worried that without some sort of system that pits the hardcore player against each other and the casual players against each other, the game is quickly going to lose people who are tired of being rocked.

yes i don't think that it is needed. since doom 1 over BNC cables has actually nothing changed. you suck you loose.

a long time ago people kicked me from CS servers because i cheat ^^ (no it can't be skill it has to be a cheater), actually i just were really good at counter-strike (4-6 hours training a day ^^ sick somehow) ... nowadays when i play a few matches in counter-strike i suck nearly all the time .... but i exactly know why (actually 0 hours training a day ^^) ... so no crying on my site

in my opinion it is a big problem today that people don't want to go through a meat grinder to get better. most people just want to see instant success on every game without any effort to learn it. this behavior actually messed up a lot of good games.

how do you get better in a competive thing (sports, games, etc)? you get better when you play against better players and learn from them. if you always play against people that are on the same lvl you never will get better because you don't see what to improve.

actually i expect to get killed by other players most of the time, but that's ok i'm not 16 anymore with tons of time

the other thing is you miss somehow that MW:O is a team game ... for sure hardcore players will wipe the floor with noobs ... but in the end single players won't matter too much in a team ... if role warfare is implemented right it won't be necessary that you go toe to toe with every enemy ... if you are a bad pilot stay away from close quarters and support your team mates with long range support

so i stay on my opinion

[crazy jake]

Bari Lorenz, on 22 March 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

War isn't balanced, fine. But games are. This is a game. It's meant to be fun, not a true representation of a war situation.

No one is going to want to play a game where they are going to get steamrolled every time. Sure, you don't want to make all the long hours hardcore players spend mean nothing, but wouldn't it be more fun for hardcore player to actually have a challenge against other hardcore people? It seems like the only people advocating no matching system at all would be the people who just want to troll and grief.

Maybe the team ranking could be set up so that each team falls within a certain range, or you match teams up pairwise (each team has the ame number of lows, mids, highs, etc.) Seems tricky, but definitely necessary.

Your confusing balance with skill, your asking for the game makers to give you more of an edge just in case you su-ck? or your ping to the servers isn't good enough?

So if you see a group of let's say mercs roll you, the next group they fight rolls them, could be because of tactics, not balance.

I usually solo in MMORPG games, this isn't one, it would be beneficial to you to seek and join a company of people you work well and communicate with.

In a game like WoW, I would join a PvP match, seek out the gnomes (which are disgusting creatures) and go kamakazi on them, I didn't care who was backing me up, who had my flank, I just mashed the gnome (which are disgusting creatures, btw).

Think differently, if you can't think differently, learn to and roll those that roll you, don't blame the system for your already possible future failure. Be optimistic!

[Karl Streiger]

Smurf-O-Pax, on 22 March 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

in my opinion it is a big problem today that people don't want to go through a meat grinder to get better. most people just want to see instant success on every game without any effort to learn it. this behavior actually messed up a lot of good games.

That absolute right, most games today lack a real challenge.

We are talking about random matches right? You fight with people you didn't know against people you didn't know...two ways ranking...for example you have uses a mech with 1000BV and you have done damage for 2000BV - so your ranking increased by 2 - if you would have done only 100dmg your ranking would have increased by 0,1.
You have the chance to train - if you have a good training effect you raise automatically fast through the ranks - if you are resistent to learn you still raise but it would last a long time till you meet people that are able to one shot kill you.

[Jetset Quasar]

im apposed to rank dividing hardcore players wiping the floor with noobs is the best way for a newb to learn. I beleive the terms called leading by example or killing by example either one works

Edited by Dawn Treader, 22 March 2012 - 02:13 AM.

[StaIker]

I would be really disappointed if any kind of skill balancing occured in this game. If MWO has to go that far to protect ego's I think society is doomed.

[Quicksand]

StaIker, on 22 March 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

I would be really disappointed if any kind of skill balancing occured in this game. If MWO has to go that far to protect ego's I think society is doomed.

Exactly, and making the game so equally ranked or closely ranked MW's can only fight one another will ruin the game.... lets see...

I am rank 20, I can only fight rank 18 to 22, hmmm none on, I guess I can't play.... that su-cks....

[Deeth]

I have nothing against a ranking system as long as it doesn't affect waiting time for matches, in my oppinion it doesn't matter if your level 1 or level 50 a AC 20 to the head is still going to have the same result.

Also as previosly stated in this thread I think it's going to be more team based with teamwork and tactics being more of an advantage than what level the individuals are in the lance

[Egomane]

The good player does not fear another good player, he will fear the new and bad ones, because he can't predict what they will do.

[Smurf O Pax]

Karl Streiger, on 22 March 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

That absolute right, most games today lack a real challenge.

We are talking about random matches right? You fight with people you didn't know against people you didn't know...two ways ranking...for example you have uses a mech with 1000BV and you have done damage for 2000BV - so your ranking increased by 2 - if you would have done only 100dmg your ranking would have increased by 0,1.
You have the chance to train - if you have a good training effect you raise automatically fast through the ranks - if you are resistent to learn you still raise but it would last a long time till you meet people that are able to one shot kill you.

yeah but why should it be needed at random matches?
chances are high that out of 12 players per team there a 2 good players, 8 average players and 2 bad players or something like that on both teams .... sure it will happen that your team collects the noobs and the other team has only pro's ... but that's life next match will be better

about one shot killing .... actually it is mechwarrior so one-shot kills should happen only in 3 ways .... lucky headshot with a big gun, lucky alpha strike of a heavy/assault vs. light mech or a mech behind you shooting at your back ^^

when i see it right your assumption is that there are a lot of hardcore player that kill noobs all the time in random matches. in my expierience that's just wrong because most player are only average and really good player are hard to find. so a enemy stuffed with hardcore player vs. a complete noob team just won't happen normally .... so no i don't think we need a ranking because out of expierience most players only have average skill lvls ... and on random matches there will always be much more average players then really good players

now i make a assumption .... out of 100 players it will be distributed like that ... around 20 noobs, around 60 average player, around 20 good players and one exceptional player ...

what i mean with exceptional player i will try to explain with my counter-strike expierience ... i was really really good at counter-strike but i never managed the step to outstanding players ...
why? not because i lacked training ... actually after i while you will reach a point where training doesn't make you better anymore, now only your genetics will count on some point i noticed that i wasn't able to improve precision and reflexes anymore because i reached the limitations of my body actually that was the point where i stopped playing competive Counter-Strike ... so i stopped @ good and never reached the top

for sure numbers will differ in every game but in random matches you should have fair teams most times without ranking ...
point is you don't have dedicated servers here, so chance is nearly zero that you stumble in a pro-only game by accident

you see my point?

@egomane
- sign -

Edited by Smurf-O-Pax, 22 March 2012 - 02:44 AM.

[Danko]

MW balance = wide range of functional tactics to floor enemy team