How SOE have failed to balance the game properly and the real reason behind it - Page 2

Mietz · 2013-02-26, 05:32 AM

I'm not sure if its the translation but he is implying more firepower?

I dont want to read too much into his post as it can be read either way so a follow-up or interpretation of the original (not a translation) would be welcome.

Hes right that SOE is balancing without scope, but I'm not sure if his implications are all that fitting.

Mavvvy · 2013-02-26, 05:53 AM

Yay and nay.

This is why you had people complaining that magriders are op, but at the same time I have 6 guys with crows up in the hills at Tawich holding back a magrider zerg.

This is why people complain that esf's have been op since launch, yet couple of burster max's supported with hawks have been dealing with em since launch, not even since any buffing but always have been!

I could go on and on.....

Toy soldier outfits haven't helped either, you know the ones who refuse to use vehicles (because they are infantry only) who then have the nerve to complain about vehicle balance when their "OVER THE TOP LADS" charge at a tower fails because of a single enemy he lightning, which wouldn't have been a problem if they had tank support from the start.

You cant have inf without tanks, and tanks without air support. Its a simple equation lost on alot of people who come to the forums to rage about balance.

I am not saying balance is perfect (far from it actually) but I do agree with the op to some extent that due to loudest mouths being heard, the core balance issues have not being addressed.

Larington · 2013-02-26, 06:23 AM

I'd be more willing to believe they're using the Magic The Gathering model, by which I mean to say, everyone figures out what the dominant strategies are.

Developers change what is dominant, people are forced to either adapt, stop playing or grab new gear, sometimes with their wallet.
Everyone figures out what the dominant strategies are.

Developers change what is dominant, people are forced to either adapt, stop playing or grab new gear, sometimes with their wallet.
Everyone figures out what the dominant strategies are.

Etc. Over and over......
But I'm probably just being very cynical. In this situation, people are still playing it and getting their fun, but there's a very definite money making scheme going on in the background, possibly unintentional but still there.

Ghoest9 · 2013-02-26, 07:08 AM

Look - some dude who knows a little about warfare sim - and apparently nothing about player psychology.

RedKartel · 2013-02-26, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Also, the models shouldn't be completely different. If the monte carlo simulation is valid it should reduce to the larger theory at large scale

Well this is not always the case, models are builded with some parameters in mind, and when you push them out of they natural applications it might fail.

Monte Carlo model is based on interactions between two objects (microscopic interactions put together to generate the behaviour of the system). This kind of model can enhance local effects and lead to over or underestimate the behaviour at a larger scale but is very accurate at object scale.

Lanchester's model is based on macroscopic interaction between groups of objects, you cant see local effects but you can emulate pretty well the behaviour of the system at large scale.

For those who do some phase transition thermondynamic its the same comparison between Ising model (microscopic approach) and Landau model (macroscopic approach).

What this guy tryed to say (from what I've understood from the model comparison used there) is SOE need to balance trought a high statistical method and the not case by case method they've used until now.
The MBT balance is a good exemple as if they've only considered the K/D between MBT and not the overall K/D. So they lower a local effect (Magrider was to good in MBT vs MBT battle) but enhance other local effects (MBT acting differently after GU2 in their other roles) leading to a non desired overall system behaviour.

I hope this helped a bit.

PS: My thoughts on this balance issue is they'll never be able to have it perfect, consedering the astronomical amount of gameplays people have, using an approach or an other will always lead to frustation for some gamers.

Edited to avoid more confusions

ChipMHazard · 2013-02-26, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Look - some dude who knows a little about warfare sim[...]

As far as I know, Monte Carlo methods won't help in any war simulation and Lancaster's Law is outdated, it's actually completely useless in modern context.
I guess the former could be used in PS2's design but the latter?? If they for example had made a massive wargame set in the WW1, Napoleonic or classical area then sure. I don't see PS2 being "fair" enough to warrant the use of Lancaster's Law as an example. For a game like StarCraft? Sure, but not PS2.

HiroshiChugi · 2013-02-26, 07:44 AM

I got lost in the improper English... But seriously guys, what would we say to guy that has no idea what the Monte Carlo or Lancaster models are? from what I've heard, they're hard to describe.

Kerrec · 2013-02-26, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by RedKartel

...The MBT balance is a good exemple as they've only considered the K/D between MBT and not the overall K/D...

This is an error in your thinking. There is a difference between "only considering" one statistic, and only providing one statistic to the player base. Just because that is all the information we got doesn't mean that is all the information that was used to justify the changes that were made.

Even I can be wrong by stating the above, because neither of us know what information was used to make the decision.

You do no one a service by making unfounded allegations like the one above.

ChipMHazard · 2013-02-26, 09:17 AM

Well Higby has actually stated more than once that K/D wasn't the only thing taken into account when they made the changes.

RedKartel · 2013-02-26, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

This is an error in your thinking. There is a difference between "only considering" one statistic, and only providing one statistic to the player base. Just because that is all the information we got doesn't mean that is all the information that was used to justify the changes that were made.

Even I can be wrong by stating the above, because neither of us know what information was used to make the decision.

You do no one a service by making unfounded allegations like the one above.

I've puted my thoughts on balance at the end of my post, this "allegation" is no more than an explanation of what I've understood from OP post and not random unproven fact throwing, my apologies if it looked like so.

maradine · 2013-02-26, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by HiroshiChugi

I got lost in the improper English... But seriously guys, what would we say to guy that has no idea what the Monte Carlo or Lancaster models are? from what I've heard, they're hard to describe.

They're not.

Monte Carlo is a method for arriving at modeling conclusions without a clear understanding of how all the input factors are going to interact. In its simplest form, Monte Carlo is nothing more than playing a game randomly over a useful set of repetitions to assemble a corpus of "good" and "bad" moves for any given position. For a game like Go, with ~2x10^170 legal board positions, random sampling can be a healthy shortcut to assessing a move's strength when all the possible outcomes are computationally infeasible to play out. Indeed, the best computer Go algorithms currently in general operation use some form of Monte Carlo look-ahead.

Monte Carlo can be used in much more complicated circumstances, such as in physical simulation, as has been said here. We personally use it for Risk Management, where integrating all of the equations involved into a useful impact curve is harder than just rolling the dice a million times and extrapolating a curve from the resultant dots. At the end of the day, it's just a simulation tool, no more or less suited for a situation than the understanding of the inputs that go into it.

Lanchester's Laws, in contrast, describe force and casualty curves for two opposing groups - reminds me of a Figment armor argument months past. Although I guess that would be the Salvo Combat Model.

Figment · 2013-02-26, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

Lanchester's Laws, in contrast, describe force and casualty curves for two opposing groups - reminds me of a Figment armor argument months past. Although I guess that would be the Salvo Combat Model.

You mean the manpower based dedicated driver argument? Resulting in reduction of numberical presence == allowing slightly more powerful units instead, while being easier to handle still? >.>

So for example, 60 missiles needed to kill 30 solo player tanks from behind (two each), or 50 missiles needed to kill 10 three crew tanks with 5 missiles from behind each, but at a two thirds of the damage output of the 30 tanks? (Meanwhile of course, still balanced 1 on 1). More focused fire for small crews and easier to deal with by smaller groups of tanks?

That sorta thing?

Sifer2 · 2013-02-26, 06:19 PM

At first I was thinking this guy was smart since he was referencing mathematics models, and all that. But he proceeds to offer exactly jack **** in terms of a solution to the problem lol. Just a big rant with no point.

IMO if you ask me this games biggest problem is Map design. It does not feel well designed for a shooter on this scale. They have even often compared the Biolab to a Call of Duty map in interviews. Which is why it's no wonder why trying to fight in those feels like a cluster ****. Really if we had better maps I think a lot of stuff would sort itself out.

The best terrain currently ingame once again IMO would be southwest Indar. Rolling hills that break line of sight, and offer cover but also don't restrict movement of ground forces so much that they bottleneck creating a cluster ****.

maradine · 2013-02-26, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

You mean the manpower based dedicated driver argument? Resulting in reduction of numberical presence == allowing slightly more powerful units instead, while being easier to handle still? >.>

So for example, 60 missiles needed to kill 30 solo player tanks from behind (two each), or 50 missiles needed to kill 10 three crew tanks with 5 missiles from behind each, but at a two thirds of the damage output of the 30 tanks? (Meanwhile of course, still balanced 1 on 1). More focused fire for small crews and easier to deal with by smaller groups of tanks?

That sorta thing?

Yeah, that whole arc. At least, that's what I got out of the wiki on the topic, anyway.