110 replies to this topic

[CounterlogicMan]

TL;DR

Solutions bad, feedback good.

Balancing only for high tiers bad, balancing for all tiers good.

Feelings good, solutions biased.

Have faith, don't stress, have fun.

 

To preface, this is a post spawned from discussion in another thread in which posters suggested that the game be balanced around the suggestions of high tier players. For the record I think that Hawken is well balanced for the most part. There are a few sore spots that I think have been discussed to death on these forums, that I am sure the development team are aware of. Now what is the actual point of this post you might ask?

 

A game should never be balanced around one skill tier of players. Here are my personal opinions on this and player feedback, in Hawken particularly. Plus I haven't fuzzy bunny posted in a while. :)

 

Only asking top mmr players what they think about balance will only get you biased answers. I am guilty of this and all you have to do is search my posts to see my overly specific biased suggestions. As I learn more about games from a design perspective I can see why super specific balance break downs by players can be double edged swords. They can be helpful insights as to what bug players. Yet these very specific posts hardly ever result in actionable suggestions in regards to the specific things the players suggest.

 

There is a saying when it comes to playtesting and it goes something like this:

When someone offers a solution in their feedback they are usually wrong. When someone offers their feelings in their feedback they are usually right.

 

I feel that X is too powerful, or I don't feel powerful when using X. Is much more useful feedback than, I think X needs to be changed in these ways. The designer sees the systems in far more detail and as a big picture. Players see the systems in very biased ways and without the big picture in mind. 

 

Before you say, "But I have been playing this game since CB or CA II I know everything about Hawken's balance!". You have seen many iterations of the game and may have different feelings about the different iterations but you still don't see the game in the same way a designer does. Not only do you not have the same amount of information available, but you also are very biased towards the game in ways that favor your own play style/experience. Players, in regards to balance, want to design the game for themselves. Designers have to design the game for others. 

 

Can very skilled players provide useful commentary on balance? Hell yeah. I think TPG and Priority Target have done really well in this regard. Can they provide useable specific solutions for balancing? Usually no. The reason? Confirmation bias and not seeing the big picture from the designers perspective (analytics, design documents, etc.). 

 

Hawken's balance is not only about the High Tier Cabal ™ , the Circle of Several Sabot ™ , or the EU Air Compressor Deniers ™ . There are definitely some sore spots in Hawken's balance that players can point to. Can high tier players say change this this and this in this way to fix all of Hawken? Sure, but will it be the correct solution? In the vast majority of cases no.There is another 99% of players worth of data to consider, that none of us can see but the designers can see. Not to mention all of the other factors that come into play when working on a game like Hawken.

 

If you have posted it here and enough people have complained about it, the designers probably know about it. That doesn't mean stop posting about it or discussing it. It just means you should curtail your expected outcomes from super specific balance discussions. Keep in mind that giving specific solutions to problems is typically invalidated by your bias and lack of user data/design knowledge of the game. Encourage average, and new, players to offer to the developers feedback on how they Feel about different things in the game.

 

In conclusion, changes to Hawken will either be good or bad for you on an individual basis. Try not to stress out about specific solutions because you have no control over the specifics. Play what you want and how you want then offer feedback based on your feelings not your bias. That is what will really help the designers balance the game further.

Edited by CounterlogicMan, 22 March 2016 - 12:05 PM.

[DerMax]

So, democracy vs autocracy. With your approach, it won't work at all. Many new players will report that "scout OP pls nerf", because that's how they feel, and then what? Nerf Scout? Or they'll never report that Scanner is bad in any way, because they couldn't care less. Does it mean Scanner's fine?

 

I disagree with your assessment that most of the top players are biased. Ask any omnis or top10 EUs, and I'm pretty sure they will give you some specific yet objective balance changes they'd like to see implemented.

Edited by DerMax, 22 March 2016 - 01:21 PM.

[TheButtSatisfier]

The points I keep coming back to in the "don't just listen to the high-tier players because they have bias" argument are as follows:

• Who would you trust more to develop a vaccine: an average parent, or a doctor (or biochemist or whoever makes vaccines)?
• Who would you trust more to engineer a bridge: a person who will drive on it, or a structural engineer?
• Who would you trust more to create policy related to addressing climate change: an oil tycoon, or a climate scientist?

I believe a reasonable person would trust the latter choice in each example. And if that's the case, then why aren't the "experts" regularly scorned for having confirmation bias? "Sorry, your HPV vaccine sucks because not enough anti-vaxxers have weighed in on the topic apply their bias to the sample." These are people that we trust daily without thinking about it, but it's uncommon to accuse them of confirmation bias. The first thing I think when a doctor tells me about a treatment isn't, "Well, that's just what you and your doctor buddies think is best because you all hang out together and have developed a unique bias with one another," I assume that they've been told to do those things as a result of rigorous research that will save my life.

 

To be clear, I'm intentionally using some extreme examples of someone with a lack of expertise versus someone who has a lot of expertise to better illustrate my point. We know that someone hasn't dedicated 4+ years of their life to Hawken like an engineer or scientist would dedicate to their own disciplines, but I think a Hawken player with 1000 hours logged is going to have opinions and beliefs that better reflect the state of Hawken than someone who has 100 hours logged.

 

With that in mind, we can say that we trust someone with additional (1) training and (2) experience pertinent to the topic at hand to provide more useful feedback than a layperson. If that's the case, then why is there any shame in giving additional consideration to the opinion of someone who has played this game at all levels versus someone who hasn't?

 

I'm not saying that a non high-tier player won't have valuable feedback. They certainly will, and I'm not just talking about mere datapoints for consideration on a graph. Conversely, I don't think that the only feedback that should be considered should come from the high-tier cabal. But I think that you are more likely to get valuable feedback from an experienced and and invested player than you would from someone who isn't, and I have a hard time understanding why that's taboo.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not extremely invested in the above opinion. I'm partly writing this in hopes that someone can present a convincing argument from the other side.

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 23 March 2016 - 02:15 PM.

[Nept]

The points I keep coming back to in the "don't just listen to the high-tier players" argument is this:

• Who would you trust more to develop a vaccine: an average parent, or a doctor (or biochemist or whoever makes vaccines)?
• Who would you trust more to engineer a bridge: a person who will drive on it, or a structural engineer?
• Who would you trust more to create policy related to addressing climate change: an oil tycoon, or a climate scientist?

Why isn't the latter choice scorned for having confirmation bias? "Sorry, your HPV vaccine sucks because not enough anti-vaxxers have weighed in on the topic."

 

 

Don't want to weigh in atm, but figured that fallacy was worth mentioning.

 

*Edit* Oh, and regarding this section: "Who would you trust more to create policy related to addressing climate change: an oil tycoon, or a climate scientist?"

 

"Two years later, when scientific documents were being doctored by the American Petroleum Institute's leader of the oil industry fight against limits on greenhouse gases - who had since become chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality - an analysis by Revkin (2005) showed that the major focus of the doctoring was to add an emphasis on uncertainty and remove references to scientific consensus" (Freudenberg, Gramling, & Davidson, 2008).

Edited by Nept: Ultra Lord of the God-Kings, 22 March 2016 - 02:03 PM.

[CounterlogicMan]

-snip-

 

I am not saying only high tier players are biased, I am saying all players a biased when it comes to offering solutions to perceived design issues. As far as valuing player feeling over the super specific suggestions of high mmr players, this is a general practice suggested by game designers, not just some method I came up with on the spot. 

 

If a bunch of players post on the forums "Scanner OP plz nerf" then that indicates that there is something about the scanner that some players are not enjoying. A designer would then go and investigate this in a variety of ways. If a lot of new players are saying that they feel the scout is too powerful the designers would surely consider this. Then when some other players say no the scout is fine, they will also consider this. Then they will look at the internal data and see whether what people are saying matches with that. If the scout is clearly winning in many cases then yeah there is something that needs changed. Then the designer will make a gut decision on the balance for the scout. Because that is what balancing is ,gut decisions by the designer, informed by player feedback and internal data, based on what they think will affect the game positively for all players interacting with it.

 

@TheButtSatisfier, Certainly you would consider all players feedback valuable. However, in the context of your metaphor, if a particularly skilled driver tried to lecture a civil engineer on how to build his/her bridge do you think that engineer will or should take that drivers advice over someone who is an average driver who does the same? I think the civil engineer should disregard both because neither are engineers.  Yet the engineer should listen carefully when either driver talk about how it felt when driving across the bridge. Did they feel safe? Did the bridge feel super bumpy? Was it a pleasant driving experience? There in which my point is. The engineer knows how to change the bridge so it is pleasant to drive across, the drivers do not even though they have driven across a lot of bridges.

Edited by CounterlogicMan, 22 March 2016 - 02:12 PM.

[TheButtSatisfier]

@TheButtSatisfier, Certainly you would consider all players feedback valuable. However, in the context of your metaphor, if a particularly skilled driver tried to lecture a civil engineer on how to build his/her bridge do you think that engineer will or should take that drivers advice over someone who is an average driver who does the same? 

 

I think we got some wires crossed. I'll come back and edit this comment later with more thoughts, but in my examples I was not suggesting that there is a third party to offer suggestions to. Instead I was saying that out of a pool of possible sources of input, there are only two choices: those who have the necessary experience to intelligently comment on complex topics, and those who have cursory experience but still expect their input to carry the same weight.

 

I agree with what DerMax said. Disciplines are not democracies. Their consensus is borne of peer review, argumentation, testing hypotheses, and validating results. I'm not saying that anyone over a certain MMR or a threshold of total hours played should get a golden ticket, but I don't think that it's a coincidence that the most compelling suggestions I've seen on these forums have come from people who are also skilled at playing this game.

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 22 March 2016 - 02:23 PM.

[TURDxSANDWICH]

 

 

For what it's worth, I'm not extremely invested in the above opinion. I'm partly writing this in hopes that someone can present a convincing argument from the other side.

 

 

Long-tenured, high-MMR Hawken players are the EXTREME minority.  Its entirely possible that there is some kind of anti-selection inherent in Hawken's game play that works for these players, but completely turns off a vast majority of normal gamers.  Given this, it simply could be the case that the opinion of the long-tenured, high-MMR Hawken player is the one that actually should be ignored and the feedback from the "average normal gamer who tried Hawken and gave up on it" is the opinion that is the most valuable.  If they work on getting the entry-level and mid-tier game properly balanced, a new high-tier metagame should emerge.  

 

Not sure i actually believe this, but its the other side of the argument.

[ATX22]

 

 

Long-tenured, high-MMR Hawken players are the EXTREME minority.  Its entirely possible that there is some kind of anti-selection inherent in Hawken's game play that works for these players, but completely turns off a vast majority of normal gamers.  Given this, it simply could be the case that the opinion of the long-tenured, high-MMR Hawken player is the one that actually should be ignored and the feedback from the "average normal gamer who tried Hawken and gave up on it" is the opinion that is the most valuable.  If they work on getting the entry-level and mid-tier game properly balanced, a new high-tier metagame should emerge.  

 

Not sure i actually believe this, but its the other side of the argument.

 

 

Why tailor a game for the masses instead of the elite few? 

 

Oh, right, F2P model and profit.. 

 

IMHO, unless there are fairly drastic changes to how players actually progress in Hawken (non-existent outside of a given player just getting better) along with possibly rethinking how they go about balancing the mechs/weapons; what you currently see in Hawken is what you've got.

Edited by ATX22, 22 March 2016 - 03:12 PM.

[CounterlogicMan]

-snip-

 

Our wires are not crossed. The point of my example is that both high tier and low tier players fall into the cursory experience category compared to the game designers actually working on the game. As you said, no skill level of player is more or less entitled to feedback being heard. The two camps are merely two different perspectives for a designer to listen to. You and other high mmr players might have more experience in FPS games but that doesn't mean you or other high tier player's suggestions are not anymore or less biased or valued more or less than a new player to Hawken. 

 

As I said before, the general rule of thumb in playtesting and player feedback is that players who offer feedback in the form of solutions are more often than not wrong, and those who offer feedback in the form of how they felt are more often than not right. This is not because the guy who says op plz nerf is more right than the guy who posts a super detailed reasoning on why something isn't OP. It is to say that any solution to a problem suggested by players, especially very experienced ones, are biased to their own experience and playstyle. 

 

I didn't suggest game design is a democracy, I honestly don't know how that idea even came up from what I had typed. A designer considers player feedback but doesn't bend to their will because the players are biased and not privy to all of the information regarding the design and balance.

 

You find other high tier player suggestions more compelling because you are also a high tier player with similar experience. Are there some good points to be made in these suggestions?  Yeah. Should they be implemented, neither the high tier nor low tier players are qualified to say. 

 

 

In a nuttshell turd is right in his assessment and pretty much nails what I am trying to get at (from the developer perspective). Just because the high tier players want and suggest one thing, doesn't mean that is any more right for the game than the suggestion of a low tier player. They are both inherently bias in what they want from the game and don't represent the majority opinion. Yet both opinions reflect how those perspective of players feel about the game. It is up to the designer to buttsatisfy and move the game forward in a positive direction that attracts and retains the target audience. 

Edited by CounterlogicMan, 22 March 2016 - 03:21 PM.

[crockrocket]

My only input here is that balance issues are often blown out of proportion. Experiment with tweaks not sweeping changes.

[devotion]

a nitpick: i personally think of design and balance as two related, but discrete things. i think of design as "a weapon should exist that can fire through shields and blockades" and i think of balance as "breacher rail does 100, breacher uncharged does 144 with a refire rate of .5".

 

to me, design deals in emotional response: "g2-raider is fun because the mech feels impactful", whereas balance deals in mechanical specifics: "this mech feels impactful because it has high potential speeds and inherent burst potential just shy of 300. does anything need addressing? does the mech, as it exists, stifle any otherwise viable options?"

 

having separated them out as such, i absolutely believe that high mmr players' feedback should be weighted more heavily for balance. these players, almost by definition, have more understanding of the game, and thereby more context with which to make informed decisions regarding balance, but not necessarily design (turn cap, weapon raise delay, etc.).

[Pandabaron]

I know Dermax was using the scout as an example because it's particularly complained about on the forums by newer players. But there are mech's in my opinion that cause new players to quit the game, make unfounded accusations of aimbottery and make the game generally awful for said newer players, the scout being one of them. Perhaps those particular mechs should be rethought. I think Higher tier players could evaluate their own strengths and help with player growth within the game by potentially changing these mechs in some way. So here's my two cents:

 

I do feel too powerful in the Raider, Beserker and (taking into account my utter lack of experience with this mech) the scout. (the Assault Just misses out)

 

I don't feel powerful in hellfire mechs the G2 Raider and anything in turret mode. 

I do however feel that experience really counts. I know that any New player is probably not going to be great with the mechanics of (citing a few examples) a predator, an incinerator or anything with a heat cannon or EOC attached to it, regardless of how much FPS experience the new player brings to the table. But we all know that with enough experience, all of these mechs and weapons can be very powerful. To a large extent i think it's the experience of the pilots that makes mechs good, not the balancing. ..saying that i honestly think the mechs i name dropped above need a rethink. 

Edited by (KDR) Pandabaron, 22 March 2016 - 04:24 PM.

[PoopSlinger]

This is why Counter is the coolest. 

 

I feel like the mirv is weak.

[hellc9943]

 

I do feel too powerful in the Raider, Beserker and (taking into account my utter lack of experience with this mech) the scout. (the Assault Just misses out)

Zerker is about right in the balance. Maybe a bit too weak when it comes to damage and health even for an A-class, but apart from that I wouldn't change anything except maybe longer ability time and improved airspeed.

But yeah I agree, Raider is almost as badly OP as Scout is or those MG turrets are now after the recent buff. Could deserve a hefty nerf, I don't even play it anymore due to it's OPness so I couldn't care less.

Leave the Assault alone though, that mech is just fine.

[TheButtSatisfier]

For the sake of uniformity, I'm going to call the process of retelling an experience with heavy emphasis on how you felt during that experience "feedback". Conversely, I'm going to call the process of offering concrete changes and tweaks "suggestions".

 

I didn't suggest game design is a democracy, I honestly don't know how that idea even came up from what I had typed. A designer considers player feedback but doesn't bend to their will because the players are biased and not privy to all of the information regarding the design and balance.

 

I didn't mean to insinuate that you suggested that game design be a democracy, so that was a poor choice of words on my part. What I mean instead is that I don't think that all input is equally valuable, as opposed to the general intent of a democracy where all votes are generally equal UNLESS YOU HAVE A fuzzy bunny ELECTORAL COLLEGE WHICH SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. I think all input from the playerbase is authentic and useful to a degree, but in aggregate the input of someone with more experience will be of higher quality than someone with less.

 

That being said, I appreciate that you took the time to write out your position a few times because I think I've gotten a better grasp of it now. Correct me where I'm off, but from what I gather, you are saying that:

• The developer should essentially take a dispassionate and "bird's eye view" position related to all player feedback, because all feedback is laced with a player's own bias
• Since a developer is looking for feedback and not suggestions, and everyone's feedback represents their own experience with the game, then all feedback holds roughly equal value from the perspective of the developer in terms of trustworthiness and utility

If I understand you correctly then I see what you're driving at. I hold the position that suggestions from experienced players will hold more value than the suggestions from inexperienced players. But your point is that the efficacy of a player's suggestions are, outside of specific instances, little to none. It's how they felt during those experiences that provides the best compass to developers in how to proceed.

 

So if I've got that all right, then would a developer find constructive criticism regarding a particular aspect of the game useful? For example, if I talked about how a scanner is broken but didn't go off on a tangent about to fix it, then the developer would find that feedback useful, correct? I don't just have to say, "Scanners make me sad," but instead I can put some concrete examples of why it makes me sad?

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 22 March 2016 - 05:31 PM.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

This is why Counter is the coolest. 

 

I feel like the mirv is weak.

 

I have this feeling, too.

 

For the rest of the discussion, I'll play the game anyway, until it changes to something I don't like.  No one's managed to reach that point yet, so I keep playing.

[Pandabaron]

Zerker is about right in the balance. Maybe a bit too weak when it comes to damage and health even for an A-class, but apart from that I wouldn't change anything except maybe longer ability time and improved airspeed.

 

Perhaps like devotion said, I have an emotional response, but with me it's to the Zerker. It is my favorite mech, but unless i'm against heavy resistance, I usually find the mech very powerful.

 

 

 

I feel like the mirv is weak.

 

 

The MIRV? the weapon setting that makes that beast of a shotgun? that makes an A class armor look like paper? Perhaps that's just my experience of the MIRV =D but I guess as far as balancing is concerned, that's for the community/Dev's to decide. I'll use it as fiercely as i can either way. 

 

I might even argue that i feel powerful in the predator. I feel when it really comes down to it, If Hawken was a match of rock paper scissors the predator seems to be the other player hitting you with a large invisible plank. In my experience, it seems to only really be weak to another better predator player and breaks FPS conventions, making it difficult to master. But when you do, Area denial, the powerful shield penetrating Breacher, the wallhack, and the unlimited invisibility make it an awesome power to behold. Though i remember thinking when I first started how difficult it was to score in a predator. So perhaps not that overpowered for new players.

Also there is something to be said for not as many new players using the forums, it took me well over 400 hours of gameplay to even look at these pages, so there is that to be said for more experienced users over new players opinions. They may not be voiced enough.   

[6ixxer]

To preface, this is a post spawned from discussion in another thread in which posters suggested that the game be balanced around the suggestions of high tier players. For the record I think that Hawken is well balanced for the most part. There are a few sore spots that I think have been discussed to death on these forums, that I am sure the development team are aware of. Now what is the actual point of this post you might ask?
 
A game should never be balanced around one skill tier of players.

I believe it (for the moment) should be balanced more for new players.
New players stay when they don't get rekt constantly. New players that stay eventually gain experience and bolster the number of top tier players.
Top tier players constantly look at the meta and ignore every mech that's not the current best thing [/generalisation]
Hence balancing for top tier doesn't mean much. Aim for player retention now, then change how balancing is approached once we have a bigger population.

[6ixxer]

The points I keep coming back to in the "don't just listen to the high-tier players" argument is this:

• Who would you trust more to develop a vaccine: an average parent, or a doctor (or biochemist or whoever makes vaccines)?
• Who would you trust more to engineer a bridge: a person who will drive on it, or a structural engineer?
• Who would you trust more to create policy related to addressing climate change: an oil tycoon, or a climate scientist?

...
For what it's worth, I'm not extremely invested in the above opinion. I'm partly writing this in hopes that someone can present a convincing argument from the other side.

Not relevant arguments. New players and top tier players ARE ALL PLAYERS, not a designer and a spectator, and you're ignoring the opinion of new players as you think they are irrelevant and they need to 'Git Gud'. Well if you ignore balance for lower skilled players you'll end up with a handful of Top tier well balanced players watching Reloaded shutdown Hawken.

You can design the most perfect bridge in the world but if no one wants to drive on it then its a waste.

Edited by 6ixxer, 22 March 2016 - 07:09 PM.

[DallasCreeper]

I don't feel like arguing over the finer points of Berzerker.

Edited by (TDM) DallasCreeper, 22 March 2016 - 07:08 PM.

[CounterlogicMan]

 

1. -snip-

 

2. So if I've got that all right, then would a developer find constructive criticism regarding a particular aspect of the game useful? For example, if I talked about how a scanner is broken but didn't go off on a tangent about to fix it, then the developer would find that feedback useful, correct? I don't just have to say, "Scanners make me sad," but instead I can put some concrete examples of why it makes me sad?

 

 

1. Yeah, you have largely summed up my point nicely. I think you understand my position, and I yours.

 

2. Yep.

[Draigun]

I made a thread some time ago about the state of the Technician. In addition to the bias that I was already introducing with my "suggested" modifications to the Tech, I had given very specific and fine points of an attempt at balance/tune for this class. While that post was in the making, I thought about the Tech a lot and what makes it overpowered. What I didn't include that I now realize is what also makes it good. I think having those two perspectives could have ended with an entirely different result.

 

In addition to my lack of playtime on the Tech, I have no doubt that all of my suggestions were ignored by the developers. Counter's insight on the inner-workings of game design would explain that precisely. Even though I have amounted a decent amount of time with this game, that matters not to those who are making the game.

 

 

So, in a nutshell, here's what I've learned:

 

• It is unwise to "play as developer" in community interaction, as this will hinder true feedback and will achieve nothing
• Suggestions posted by community members may be regarded as invalid due to bias, but not always (see Nept's post below)
• Suggestions will almost always imply that you would like, or even offer, something to be changed or added in, which already proves that this is an invalid form of useful information to the developers
• You, as a end-user to this game, can still provide incredible feedback; but you might have to stop overthinking and overanalyzing some of the details to access it
• The developers most likely do not care about your skill level and tier level, but will probably note that x comes from y skill level
• The Circle of Several Sabots officially approves of this thread (obviously)

 

TL;DR

 

My failed attempt at Technician balance was caused by me trying to balance it, developers are looking for how the game feels from all levels of skills, a large majority of players have not given feedback, which is extremely important to release a balance patch, and creating balance patch notes is fun.

Edited by Draigun, 22 March 2016 - 08:08 PM.

[Nept]

Meh, I wouldn't want people refraining from posting specific suggestions.  Let's return momentarily to buttsatisfier's doctor/engineer/researcher example and note that game designers are none of these things.  They have not (typically) attended 4-8 years of highly-specialized schooling; they do not necessarily possess knowledge beyond the layperson's understanding; and they're working with relatively simple systems.  We're talking about balance decisions within video games, not nuclear physics.  

 

You shouldn't automatically assume bias, either.

 

My suggestion?  Make your suggestions as specific as you like.  Include your reasoning.  An intelligent developer will separate the wheat from the chaff.

[CraftyDus]

Hawken's largely a bunch of ppl running around with remote detonating quake rockets

 

Even the best make a mess, it's not so much a science as it's an art

 

Spoiler

 

 

spoile

 

But experience does matter, and nothing can quite substitute for time played when it comes to practical applied knowledge.

Spoiler

Which is why game designers make lots of balance mistakes, and they're not all bad

[DerMax]

Counter, your assessment relies on trusting the designer's gut feeling. You think the designer will be able to separate the good from the bad and make an informed, rational decision based on the feedback. I, for one, don't trust it -- I've seen Adhesive repeatedly make retarded balance passes in spite of all the feedback of varied detail, and they probably knew their game much better than Reloaded do.

[MomOw]

The goal should be balance for high end, avoid low level stomping.

The issue with low MMR server stomping could have been avoided with more players, so nerfing / buffing to please these players ain't appropriate (democracy in video games is not a good idea, it's a sport so it must reward skill. Nadal and Federer are OP nerf plox)

 

You can achieve the balance in multiple ways, I prefer to have a lower number of Mech which all have a competitive use, another way is to assume the imbalance and realease shitton of mechs and only try to keep a balance for a few builds (as collectible card game does).

 

You can also avoid stomping with servers locked for low level / low MMR players and "smart smurf detection", or give better players some kind of penality in PvP modes (Mech restriction if MMR difference is too high to avoid noob stomping in scout or hellfire in bunker).

Edited by (KDR) MomOw, 23 March 2016 - 12:08 AM.

[harmless_kittens]

Sorry to be so blunt here, but aren't the DEVs just going to defer to the people who actually pay them real money?  In any business model it's the top paying customers who get top priority, and I can't really say this is a "bad" thing.  So what that you've played the game for 2 years and never spent a dime on any cosmetics or anything else.  Why should they listen to you if you are unwilling to financially support them?  If that noob over there just gave me $1000, I'm going to ask him what HE wants to spend more money on.

[Pandabaron]

I agree with you MomOw, as high tier players we should certainly try to respect players that are just starting off. Play a battle tech, or something you're horrible in just to balance things out, especially with the player base being as low as it is. Balance the game more by setting aside our OP abilities against new players.

Now.. If only we could stop the whole MMR system being a high tier *Fuzzy bunny appendage* waving contest, then no-one would care about stomping noobs in games that high tier players get forcibly thrown into.

Edited by (KDR) Pandabaron, 23 March 2016 - 05:42 AM.

[harmless_kittens]

Case in point, just last night for about an hour straight we had a player who was WORLDS above the rest of us in skill (keeping in mind that I am still new and also terrible).  No one else on either team was scoring over 200 points, except this player regularly topped 600.  These were NOT balanced matches at all, despite the matchmaker giving me a three star rating.  So was this an example of someone deliberately "seal-clubbing" the rest of us (which frankly makes me want to quit), or were there no other matches that this person could play in?

 

Well, I looked at the server list, and there WAS another Team Deathmatch going on that was 1 Star for me.  Why are these players not playing with those of the same skill level?  If I had to guess why this game's playerbase is not growing, this would be my # 1 reason.  Who wants to be just 1 minute into a match and already have a "nemesis" that keeps targeting them?

[MomOw]

Case in point, just last night for about an hour straight we had a player who was WORLDS above the rest of us in skill (keeping in mind that I am still new and also terrible).  No one else on either team was scoring over 200 points, except this player regularly topped 600.  These were NOT balanced matches at all, despite the matchmaker giving me a three star rating.  So was this an example of someone deliberately "seal-clubbing" the rest of us (which frankly makes me want to quit), or were there no other matches that this person could play in?

 

Well, I looked at the server list, and there WAS another Team Deathmatch going on that was 1 Star for me.  Why are these players not playing with those of the same skill level?  If I had to guess why this game's playerbase is not growing, this would be my # 1 reason.  Who wants to be just 1 minute into a match and already have a "nemesis" that keeps targeting them?

 

The MM fuzzy bunny and its link with the low player base is a separate issue of the overall mech balance.

 

Yolo dive with the EOC rocketeer with ISM and holo is the 2016 swag meta

[TheButtSatisfier]

Case in point, just last night for about an hour straight we had a player who was WORLDS above the rest of us in skill...  So was this an example of someone deliberately "seal-clubbing" the rest of us (which frankly makes me want to quit), or were there no other matches that this person could play in?

 

Honestly, we can't tell you what someone's intent was when they're in a server. Not unless you have screenshots of that player literally stating their intent like, "Hello everyone, I'm here to roflstomp you and get my jollies off."

 

Kind of a side note: did you happen to use the Hawken heroku server list to check the high-scoring player's MMR (if it was visible)? If you checked it, did that player's MMR fall in line with how well they were performing?

 

If so, then the most likely scenario is that the person couldn't find an active server through Hawken's in-game server browser. As a result they just selected "Team DM" and launched, then waited for MM to find the next most appropriate server (which wouldn't be visible to them in the server browser), and dropped them in there. And there you were, minding your own business when the heavens opened up and dropped that player into your match to ruin everyone's day.

 

If their MMR wasn't as high as you were expecting then maybe you had encountered a young smurf account. Fortunately smurf accounts have their MMR approach their "true" MMR value if they get enough playtime.

 

My own perspective: I've been using MM to put me into matches recently because I very rarely see an available match in the server browser. Yes, most of the time I end up landing in a server with players who I'm not properly matched against (full disclosure: there's still an auditorium full of Hawken players that are much better than I). I usually feel bad when I do it, and sometimes I leave after the match ends so that I'm not screwing up someone's night for too long.

 

But I need my Hawken fix, and I want to practice, and I'm not doing it with bots. So until the Hawken population increases you're going to encounter - sometimes regularly - players who are skilled enough to make your first 100 hours of Hawken an exasperating experience until you catch up.

 

Well, I looked at the server list, and there WAS another Team Deathmatch going on that was 1 Star for me.  

 

Just because it was 1 star for you doesn't mean it was an available server for the offending player.

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 23 March 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[coldform]

Cater to the noobs, cuz that's where the money is. The hi tiers can adapt and overcome, but won't spend as much as a noob who likes the game. That's how hi tier players become hi tier.

Simple.

[CounterlogicMan]

 

My suggestion?  Make your suggestions as specific as you like.  Include your reasoning.  An intelligent developer will separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

Poisoning the well would require me to advocate for the designers to completely ignore player feedback by attacking the position of one group of players. I am advocating for designers to treat feedback equally. I am advocating for players to curtail their expectations in regards to suggestions for specific balance changes. 

 

 

You are just reiterating my point.

 

Confirmation Bias

 

This is all considering that the players providing feedback are a part of the target audience. Something I neglected to mention but felt was assumed.

 

 

 

Before you say, "But I have been playing this game since CB or CA II I know everything about Hawken's balance!". You have seen many iterations of the game and may have different feelings about the different iterations but you still don't see the game in the same way a designer does. Not only do you not have the same amount of information available, but you also are very biased towards the game in ways that favor your own play style/experience. Players, in regards to balance, want to design the game for themselves. Designers have to design the game for others. 

 

Can very skilled players provide useful commentary on balance? Hell yeah. I think TPG and Priority Target have done really well in this regard. Can they provide useable specific solutions for balancing? Usually no. The reason? Confirmation bias and not seeing the big picture from the designers perspective (analytics, design documents, etc.). 

 

Hawken's balance is not only about the High Tier Cabal ™ , the Circle of Several Sabot ™ , or the EU Air Compressor Deniers ™ . There are definitely some sore spots in Hawken's balance that players can point to. Can high tier players say change this this and this in this way to fix all of Hawken? Sure, but will it be the correct solution? In the vast majority of cases no.There is another 99% of players worth of data to consider, that none of us can see but the designers can see. Not to mention all of the other factors that come into play when working on a game like Hawken.

 

If you have posted it here and enough people have complained about it, the designers probably know about it. That doesn't mean stop posting about it or discussing it. It just means you should curtail your expected outcomes from super specific balance discussions. Keep in mind that giving specific solutions to problems is typically invalidated by your bias and lack of user data/design knowledge of the game. 

 

A lot of you are taking very absolutist, black and white, night and day stances on my points. Which is completely missing the point. There is no black and white when balancing. The high tier players are not right or wrong, the low tier players are not right or wrong. Their feedback and suggestions are equally valuable because they offer different perspectives that are bias in their own ways. They also hold common that neither are designers working on the game trying to make the game fun for everyone in the target audience, not only the players over 2400 mmr.

 

Edited by CounterlogicMan, 23 March 2016 - 09:50 AM.

[MomOw]

Cater to the noobs, cuz that's where the money is. The hi tiers can adapt and overcome, but won't spend as much as a noob who likes the game. That's how hi tier players become hi tier.

Simple.

 

[Nept]

Keep in mind that giving specific solutions to problems is typically invalidated by your bias and lack of user data/design knowledge of the game

 

That's poisoning the well, Counter. 

 

*Edit* You've failed - at least from my perspective - to address my largest issue with your position: that game designers have arcane knowledge beyond the scope of their game's most dedicated players.  You can't simply dismiss that with "you're biased and not a game designer".

Edited by Nept: Ultra Lord of the God-Kings, 23 March 2016 - 01:30 PM.

[Xacius]

To the OP,

 

From what I can gather, you're asking the community to leave design decisions up to the game designers.  This is the exact same logic that went into the justification of Ascension, and we all know how that turned out.  

 

My question: Why should we leave it up to them?  Do they possess some otherworldly knowledge about game design that we simply can't comprehend?  I suggest not.  

 

 

As a student currently studying undergraduate computer science with an emphasis in game design and programming�in a well-renowned program, no less�here's what I can tell you about my curriculum: 

 

Required game design electives: 

Traditional Game Development - Students will study the fundamentals of game design theory and incorporate them into 2D gaming projects.  4 units

Alternative Game Development - 4 units

 

Game design is covered in two courses out of my entire curriculum, and it's not even mandatory.  You can choose between that and a two-series course in animation.  

 

My point here is that game design is not some highly-esteemed skillset that requires years of practice like working in a lab doing molecular chemistry or applying graduate-level knowledge in the field of nuclear physics.  

 

Uneducated people have been doing it for decades.  

 

Is it difficult?  Certainly.  There are very few multiplayer games that are well-balanced.  Is the process as difficult as you describe? No.  Hell, most balancing occurs through trial-and-error.  Data analysis comes into play after you've introduced or modified a set of variables.  

 

Proper game design requires both an extensive knowledge of a game's systems as well as how those systems play out in various tiers of play.  A powerful weapon in the hands of a high-tier player may not necessarily work in the hands of a low-tier casual, etc...  

 

In conclusion: should we defer to the experts?  Certainly.  

I'd argue, however, that the experts in this circumstance are the experienced players with thousands of hours of playtime, not necessarily the new developers that have minimal experience with the game.  The problem here is finding players with unbiased opinions on balance, but that's another topic for another time. 

Edited by Xacius, 23 March 2016 - 02:27 PM.

[Hyginos]

Hell, most balancing occurs through trial-and-error.

 

This is of understated importance IMO. There is nothing inherently permanent about balance tweaks, as they can be done, undone, and redone.

 

It isn't the end of the world if Reloaded's first balance patch is not very good so long as they address it punctually based on community feedback.

 

 

You can design the most perfect bridge in the world but if no one wants to drive on it then its a waste.

 

You ask the general public where to put it, and let the engineers decide how. The larger user base doesn't care about the carbon content of the steel or the composition of the concrete or the depth of the footings so long as they can drive on it, but if you want a bridge that isn't just functional but excellent you need to ask the experts.

 

This goes back to what devotion was saying about balance vs game design.

[6ixxer]

You ask the general public where to put it, and let the engineers decide how. The larger user base doesn't care about the carbon content of the steel or the composition of the concrete or the depth of the footings so long as they can drive on it, but if you want a bridge that isn't just functional but excellent you need to ask the experts.
 
This goes back to what devotion was saying about balance vs game design.

The rest of the point is that high tier players aren't engineers vs low tier players. Neither are actually building the bridge. They're just telling the engineers what they want it to look like and where they want it. Carbon content and footings are more akin to whether the developers use a database tweak or a line of programming code.

Really its two architect firms with different opinions of what a good bridge looks like and feels like to drive on.
Neither are wrong, they are just catering to different audiences. The company paying for the bridge to be built work out which audience they need to drive on it (and pay the toll).

Are you seeing where I'm going with this? The original engineer logic is hugely flawed.
The point is, if the low tier don't want to go where the game design takes them as the designer listened to te elite minority, then the game suffers in terms of new player retention. Elite players might love it; All 100 of them; Who don't spend any money.

PS. I've never gone out of my way to drive on a bridge that someone says is excellent. I know where I want to go and I take the bridge that gets me there.

Edited by 6ixxer, 23 March 2016 - 06:14 PM.

[TheButtSatisfier]

Don't dive too deep into the driver vs bridge engineer metaphor. If we're trying to measure the expertise required to build a stable bridge, then there's going to be a continent-wide chasm between what a driver can offer and what an engineer can offer. Keep in mind that the metaphor itself is a gross oversimplification because building bridges is a massive undertaking involving many disciplines.

 

If you want a more effective metaphor then I'd move away from a metaphor where there's just two parties and instead include a third.

 

Parties:

1. A company that makes mountain bikes called "Developerz"
2. Elite mountain bikers who represent the best mountain bikers around
3. Weekend warriors who use their mountain bikes occasionally, and when they do use them, they're mostly on roads

If Developerz wants feedback to push the limits of their product, then they are best served listening to the people who are pushing their product to the limit. Developerz can still get useful feedback from the weekend warriors, but it's going to be limited to broad-based marketing techniques. There's nothing wrong with that, and Developerz needs to pay attention to that, but if they want to continually push their product forward then they'll need to pay special attention to what their invested customers have to say.

 

On the other hand, the weekend warriors may suggest things that may seem appealing to another weekend warrior. But if the weekend warrior had invested as much time into mountain biking as the elite bikers have, then those suggestions wouldn't seem as pertinent. You may have an average joe saying something to the effect of, "I want more safety on my bike, and therefore I want more ways to use my brakes. As a result, you should manufacture a bike seat that I can clench with my buttcheeks that will pull on the brake lines and make my bike stop. This is perfect because when I sense danger my buttcheeks clench and therefore it's like bike ABS."

 

Nevermind. I've got to go patent something.

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 23 March 2016 - 06:30 PM.

[hestoned]

i mean i dont know what else needs balancing besides the incin sare dmg output. like seriously that thing does bonkers amount of dmg. honestly thinking about hawken feels like its in a really good place. most of the time the problem is between the keyboard and the chair.