|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Victor 'LifeLine' Ramous
SyNergy Gaming
242
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 17:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Edit: There is a tl;dr... i respect the attention spans of some.
Now this forum, like any beta forum, is full of "this is OP" and "thats OP"... tbh some hold water, some clearly dont, and while others I may disagree with, they may still hold water and have some degree (large or small) of truth.
I am here, however, not to point at a particular item and say its OP, but instead creating a thread as a kind of attempt to build a standardized theory on how to depict that somethings OP in a game such as Dust 514 (which, makes a big difference).
At the core of this is micro-balance (small scale) and macro-balance (large scale). Before i get into the definition, I'll state right now that Dust 514 is concerned with Macro-balance.
So what is Micro-Balance?
Most of the FPS on the market, when discussing OP items, are concerned with micro balance. Its concerned about the 1v1s, comparing a small sample (1 item vs 1 item) and seeing if they both have a balanced chance of defeating each other. Stats may be different, but lets say Weapon A has increased RoF, it would then be in the favour of micro-balance to have 'Weapon B' with decreased RoF and perhaps increased damage.
Some level of balance is achieved by the two so they still hold an equal amount of chance to kill eachother, but have a -slight- stat difference in order to give the player a sense of choice and creativity when choosing a loadout. Its observing small scale fights, usually 1v1s, to determine if a weapon has too much of an edge or not. It does not observe tactics as generally 1v1s there is no space for tactics (just strafing and occasional use of cover, could be considered a tactic but its very basic).
This is fair enough, small scale games like CoD use this tactic to determine OPness, even BF, and in fact most games do. Its simple, its politically easy to implement, it kills the uniqueness of weapon selection but it makes casuals happy and even competitive players who think on a more '1v1' mindset rather then on a team mindset.
But that is not what CCP promised for DUST 514, that is not why competive clans joined DUST 514, and while you may be competitive, a team player, and have made the fallacy of making a micro-balance critique (perhaps emotionally backed)... it really is not in your best interest to do so as it sets a precedent for the rest of the game to be balanced in such a way.
DUST 514 ultimately a role-based team game, you can roll solo if you like, but understand without a proper setup and team to balance your setups counters, you probably will do worse than you could with an organized team.
So what is Macro-Balance?
Macro-Balance is looking at the 'big picture', not the 1v1s. The idea is every weapon will have a particular roll and excell in it, or have multiple roles but not be as effective as other weapons in said role. This isn't an excuse to brush off OP claims, it is the best way to determine OP claims.
One thing we all agreed (we = those of a rational mindset) was OP was missile turrets. Why did we see this as OP? Because missile turrets on a dropship was a trump card, if your team did not have a dropship, you automatically lost if the other team did.
Well does this not come into the macro balance arguement? It excelled in a role.
No, it is not justified, but rather determined OP by the macro-balance paradigm. An entire team could not move because it would get 1 shotted, dropships could also deal heavy damage to tanks. Not only that, but swarms were easily evaded and did not deal enough damage. There was no hard counter for some so strong, and if something is very strong it needs a hard counter.
Hard-counter means an obvious weakness, something it cant fight against if presented to it. For instance LRs are amazing at range, but if an enemy gets close to you, your toasted. While not to digress into an LR debate, LRs maybe could use an adjustment, but LRs dont win matches, LRs may **** you off on a 1v1, but LRs fill the role it was given in the macro-balance outlook without being a trump card.
Macro-balance outlooked is concerned with item/dropsuit composition on a team vs team-scale. It places focus on a teams ability to be tactical, and is less susceptible to ****** players, or players used to one role, claiming an Item is OP because they arent the proper fit to combat it and dont care to change.
TL:DR If your judging a weapon as OP by 1v1s you've had in a particular suit or strategy of approach (people who fight heavies head-on) you're doing it wrong. Not saying these OP threads don't have legitimacy, but a vast majority of them do not raise an appropriate argument. Need to look at the bigger picture, team v team balances. Does that weapon/item serve as a trump card that makes it extremely difficult FOR YOUR TEAM to compete with? |
Victor 'LifeLine' Ramous
SyNergy Gaming
242
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 18:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bumping in the name of justice. Hope CCP reads it, i really dont want to lose the unique selection in regards to weapons (and weapons that will come in the future) and general customization
Thanks lance and cipher... need to send down logic bomb strikes every once in a while. |
Victor 'LifeLine' Ramous
SyNergy Gaming
242
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 18:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Phoenix Archer 128 wrote:Do not forget CCP has something we do not, something very important to game balacing; actual data on what happens and what does not.
If they see an anomaly, something that does not line up with what they think should happen, they can watch it and adjust it to better fit with what they want.
We can alert CCP here, on the forums, to potential anomalies; that is our cries of "Nerf!" and "Buff!". Then, they watch the data, what people actually do in-game, and see if we're just complaining, or if our words have a foundation.
Ultimately, if something is to be nerfed, there is a LOT of in-game data to support a nerf. If something is to be buffed, there is a lot of in-game data saying the thing is not living up to its expectations. Just words on a forum do not buff or nerf something, it is what happens in-game that does.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt with regards to CCP data, its still a good post to make in order to critique and evaluate others OP claims (as well as your own).
But tbh, ultimately a dev is susceptible to player base suggestions, and this post will hopefully arm some people with how to go about deconstructing poor OP arguments and help CCPs forum observers not quickly jump on what they may incorrectly see as something majority of players want.
Also works the other way, helping some arm to build strong OP arguments. |
Victor 'LifeLine' Ramous
SyNergy Gaming
242
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 20:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sleepy Zan wrote:TL:DR not enough pictures
Ill publish a picture book addition for my next thread. |
Victor 'LifeLine' Ramous
SyNergy Gaming
242
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
DRAlgernop Krieger wrote:Well said.
I wish I could like this more than once....Everyone needs to read it...But, I'd lose the TL;DR if they don't have the attention span to read a bit of useful information and an extremely informative page...then, **** them. They wouldn't have the comprehension to read it anyways,
Of course, people will always complain....it's much easier then developing a strategy other than the "run head first at you, firing wildly" tactic.
Honestly i would like to have the confidence that i can get a point across, properly strengthened with logical backround, and assume readers will read it.
But if democracy has taught us anything, its that most people dont give enough fucks to read. They like soundbytes on the news, so i give them a soundbyte here, but also an expanded version for those that care.
It is the gist of my argument, i just provide the expanded version for those who may take issue with what im saying (fair enough, thats the fault of soundbytes, read the expanded version and im sure people will see the logic). So i can always just cite my post if people try to strike at me with faulty claims/arguments about what im saying. |
Victor 'LifeLine' Ramous
SyNergy Gaming
242
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 02:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Shameless bump |
Victor 'LifeLine' Ramous
SyNergy Gaming
242
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 02:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mars El'Theran wrote:Well, TL;DR is honestly an easier read than the full post. Summarizing does a lot to limit bias on a topic. OP is full of bias. It is literally dripping bias.
Let people post Nerf threads. Counter those nerf threads with your own arguments. Debate ensues, many opinions are voiced, CCP is informed of popular and not so popular opinion.
Also, the data is not always so cut-and-dried clear as some may assume. Sometimes, it is hardly even worth looking at if my experience watching CCP do their thing and collect feedback is any indication. Why ask for feedback if you can determine everything simply by looking at a spreadsheet? Why run a test server? Why beta test? Obviously it is necessary, so feedback.
There is 1 major bias, that's the bias on Macro-Balance... and its not like im hiding it, im blatantly saying this is my position, here is the other position. But CCP has said that they have been aiming to have the game more role based, role based is concerned with macro-balance over micro balance, because its about the unit not the individual.
As for the second part, i am with you there, thats why i made the thread. |
|
|
|