Jump to content

AC4 and fA, balanced or not ?


Hollywood

Recommended Posts

Well we could look at arms for example. Straight away, Lemur 2 and Loris. Banned those, we ran to Macaque, FL, Gibbon 2 maybe etc. Ban those, and we go to what, XS, Gibbon 2, Lemur? Dunno what next after those, Gibbon 1 or something. Radiators. Ananda was the best. If we ever did ban that, R92, Hazel, etc. Ban those, go on to the next. Laser rifles. MiniK, Shade. Next, Hollow. Next, Sawa, Shade 2, Skull. Go on to the next.

 

Either way, you ban a few things in LR, the next choices were really obvious. Even if there was a gradient of some sort, the fact of the matter was you could pretty much tell someone cut and dry how to improve an AC. That's kinda there in FA, but you can still go a tier down, it's not going to screw you over as much even if the skill level between players is at least fairly close. Weapons especially show that. There's way more variety for weapons in FA even with lag. In LR, you used a couple things in even semi serious play and that was it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FL, Lemur, 72F, Gibbon1/2, XS, Macaque and A2 are all very good options in LR, and they all could be mixed/matched in certain situations. Your whole notion about banning things that aren't even remotely close to gamebreaking to yield a new set of best parts to used can be characterized throughout every AC game ever made-- let alone any competitive game ever made. People will always use the best thing they can get their hands on to win a competitive match.

 

Honestly I dont think you've played enough LR to really know how gentle the gradation is between its parts are.

 

About the only place where you see very little variety in Last Raven comes in left arm parts.

 

 

Internals shouldn't even really be factored into variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the way we're rating the WG Core is that we're thinking of it in stand-alone terms. When you want to rate the superiority of a part you need to see if it's replaceable on standard AC builds with it and if it can replace standard AC builds without it.

 

I'm gonna use concepts from another thread of mine in this post. >TAP / TDP / Usability

 

Let's say we use your Tiered Answer AC. If we switch it's core out for something like Ekhazar or Lancel and add extensions of some sort, such as supports or flares, the original design should be clearly better in combat. When we switch the core out, we likely cause our TAP value and Usability to drop. What we gain from switching is an ability to increase our own TDP value by adding support missiles or lowering our opponents TDP value by adding flares. When adding those extensions we may increase the difficulty of using the AC, as well. Using missile support extensions hardly decreases usability, they can be enabled at the start of a match and left on. Using flares is more difficult and they may not always be useful against every opponent. Some don't bring missiles.

 

The biggest advantage to extensions is that they can be used without impeding the use of other weapons. This means that in any given scenario where the two AC's in question are fighting, the AC with extensions can be using the same weapons as the original plus their equipped extensions.

 

So now we need to decide on whether these changes are favorable or not.

 

Can the gain in TAP for using WG core on this AC setup stand up to the extra TDP or TDP control granted by the core with extensions? Does the usability change enough to render one model better than the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt mean that, I just meant that the netcode fucking sucks therefore making some parts useless and some excell, as far as stats go theyre fine, but not perfect balance of course but enough to make all parts usable, well most, AAcannon wouldnt hit shit even offline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why even make the point in this thread? I realize all you were doing is clarifying, but I still feel that it's out of place. Mini-mod douchebaggery aside, I think that yes, the parts, on a macro level are balanced. A Heavy can counter a Light, a Quad can counter a Tank, etc. However, I feel that on a micro-level there are some issues. For instance, you've got parts like MP-O203 and MP-O200. They're both the same type of part, a back mounted missile launcher, however one vastly outperforms the other to such a degree so as to make the latter virtually obsolete. The same is true with other parts in different categories, essentially this is a tier argument. However, the thing I dislike about having tiers, isn't so much tier-whores, who are (in most cases) trash players to begin with, but the fact that this will force people to build tier in order to compete unless they are skilled enough to overcome regardless. This is robbing the competitive environment of most of the diversity the game has to offer. Now, I never said anything about broken combinations, because honestly I don't give enough of a shit to complain, what I am saying though is that I consider diversity to be a balance aspect of the game. If you don't have all aspects balanced, then whatever it is we're talking about, be it a game or a breakfast, isn't truly balanced.

 

Of course, the flip side of this point is that if we had all parts balanced, then it wouldn't really matter what you equip since all given combinations would yield some sort of archetype/s. So I think the conundrum we're going to hit here is how to make things balanced on both a macro and a micro level. To some of you, this might be apparent, in which case I'm asking you to please share, to others, this is not the case (myself included).

 

To kind of illustrate what I'm getting at here, you've got two Heavies facing off, identical builds, except for the arms. One is using Argyros/A, the other is using Hilbert. Based on what we know from the way the game is now, logic would point to the Hilbert equipped heavy having the advantage because of the arm's exceptional stats in offense. While the player using Argyros/A is at a disadvantage. Competency of the pilots aside (which is always a factor, but one I'm disregarding for the sake of this argument since it is, from a developer's point of view, an uncontrollable variable), the AC using Hilbert should win, if only for the fact that Hilbert's level of performance is greater than Argyros/A's, even though both parts are trying to fill the same niche (which is an EN oriented HW arm).

 

That's the kind of shit I don't like. I don't like seeing it, I don't like playing it either. If it were possible for me to provide my input directly to the development team, I'd try to make it so that situations like this don't arise without tossing the diversity of the game out of the proverbial window. But, like I said earlier, I don't really see how that can be done, so if someone does know, please speak up, if only for my own edification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're inferring too much from my clarifying. I was just trying to help /b/ understand the guy's post, since he asked for it.

 

If it were possible for me to provide my input directly to the development team, I'd try to make it so that situations like this don't arise without tossing the diversity of the game out of the proverbial window. But, like I said earlier, I don't really see how that can be done, so if someone does know, please speak up, if only for my own edification.

 

It's interesting that the Jap players actually did get to give input directly to the development team. They'd been doing that for years, in fact. I know that up to around SL or so the top Japan players were on speaking terms with the dev team. I dunno about NX and on, though. Probably?

 

It seemed around the AC3 to SL period that the US players would finally be able to get some input in, mainly because several of us had started talking to the Jap players frequently. Things never panned out, mainly cuz of NX.

 

I'm not totally surprised that From doesn't ask for customer input frequently with their games. They have a reputation for being a very "love it or leave it" type of company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of you guys are forgetting that AC has a single player mode that requires you to perform to unlock parts. Having a part that is better than your current setup gives you incentive to keep playing in order to improve your bot. If everything was more or less equal then the single player would be even easier than it is and boring as hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You balance higher tier parts against lower tier parts by altering their difficulty of use.

 

After that, you balance all the high tier parts against each other using expected performance in a five minute setting. That's all the macro/micro balancing you can get. If you have two missiles of the same type that are used in the same slot, balancing them would negate the need for the existence of both at the same time. The only reason to have two similar parts that are perfectly balanced is to have a different graphic for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ PD: Yeah, guess I was, my bad. Wasn't really an attack though.

 

Also, I had heard about that too, I was wondering what the hold up was on getting perhaps a handful of US players on the horn, then I realized From is more concerned with domestic sales, which makes sense given the fact that mecha in general is more popular in Japan than it is in the US. What I didn't know was the time frame, though I suppose none of that matters to us in the long run since our supposed chance to be included in the feedback was lost anyway.

 

@ Niji: That doesn't really do shit. Case in point, MP-O203 is considered high tier versus the MP-O200. The way you make it seem is that the 203 should be the harder part to use when this just clearly isn't the case. In pretty much every situation, the 203 not only beats out 200 in damage dealt, but also ease of use.

 

To make a cross category comparison, we'll say something like Spread Zook versus Sampaguita. The damage potential of the bazooka is greater than that of the shot gun (not going solely by attack power * ammo, but how hard it stuns and how quickly it would kill an AC as well), yet the shotgun is considered higher tier, but is also the easier of the two to use. I'll say it now, hit registration aside, which is sometimes dodgy for both of those weapon types, the Bazooka would beat out the Shotgun in a damage race every time.

 

Another one of parts in the same category would be the small Omer laser rifle versus Antares, they're both supposed to be low-impact laser rifles, but not only is the Omer one considered higher tier, its also easier to use because it drains and weighs less. Haven't looked at the stats recently, but I think it might shoot faster too.

 

Frame parts are harder to make these kinds of comparisons with, but I could use the already mentioned Hilbert v. Argyros case for arms, or I could make a new case with something like WG v. Lancel for legs. Same thing in this case too, WG is not only considered the higher tier, but is also easier to use. Or shit, Tellus v. Lancel would probably be the better comparison, but it comes down to the same thing there too. Lancel is the higher tier, but also far easier to use than Tellus (this especially is true if you consider Lancel v. Tellus for arms).

 

Unless of course you were telling me what should be done and not what is. In which case I both agree with you and apologize if this seemed like an attack on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, like I said earlier, I don't really see how that can be done, so if someone does know, please speak up, if only for my own edification.

 

That's what I was responding to.

 

-----

 

You pretty accurately summed up the problems in AC:fA here.

 

@ Niji: That doesn't really do shit. Case in point, MP-O203 is considered high tier versus the MP-O200. The way you make it seem is that the 203 should be the harder part to use when this just clearly isn't the case. In pretty much every situation, the 203 not only beats out 200 in damage dealt, but also ease of use.

 

To make a cross category comparison, we'll say something like Spread Zook versus Sampaguita. The damage potential of the bazooka is greater than that of the shot gun (not going solely by attack power * ammo, but how hard it stuns and how quickly it would kill an AC as well), yet the shotgun is considered higher tier, but is also the easier of the two to use. I'll say it now, hit registration aside, which is sometimes dodgy for both of those weapon types, the Bazooka would beat out the Shotgun in a damage race every time.

 

Another one of parts in the same category would be the small Omer laser rifle versus Antares, they're both supposed to be low-impact laser rifles, but not only is the Omer one considered higher tier, its also easier to use because it drains and weighs less. Haven't looked at the stats recently, but I think it might shoot faster too.

 

Frame parts are harder to make these kinds of comparisons with, but I could use the already mentioned Hilbert v. Argyros case for arms, or I could make a new case with something like WG v. Lancel for legs. Same thing in this case too, WG is not only considered the higher tier, but is also easier to use. Or shit, Tellus v. Lancel would probably be the better comparison, but it comes down to the same thing there too. Lancel is the higher tier, but also far easier to use than Tellus (this especially is true if you consider Lancel v. Tellus for arms).

 

Most of those differences aren't game breaking in a LAN environment. Online they are, though. That ease of use or difficulty of use is severly amplified by lag, which is game breaking. Naturally, barely anyone plays on LAN so I can understand how that's not a great way to balance a game that's almost exclusively online.

 

The biggest point is that even with those differences, this game is surprisingly balanced compared to older games like LR and SL.

 

It's too bad FROM SOFTWARE can't seem to catch all those points you made. It always seems so obvious to me.

 

=(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that what's I was getting at originally when talking to PD. Of course the LAN environment will have better balance because there's little, if any, lag to contend with, and if there is it doesn't have nearly the impact on part selection as it would online. The netcode aspect was a good thing to bring up, but I feel that more or less falls in with the LAN v. Online argument. I feel the lag issue may have less to do with the netcode, and perhaps more to do with the actual logistics of the networking (unless they're the same thing, then just ignore this), but IIRC that topic was hammered to death over on ACO a few months back.

 

Either way, I suppose this goes back to what PD said regarding From's (IMO) dubious reputation.

 

Edit: I lol'd ^

Edited by Genocide
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I planned on being dead until laptop repair, but Geno's point was interesting.

 

First off, I completely disagree that balance would lead to boring parts. Balance does not mean that two parts are equal, it means that out of 100,000 matches with two players of absolutely equal skill fighting in the absence of lag, each AC (they are comprised on different parts) wins 50,000 matches. That's it. One AC could be a super sniper backpedaler, the other a MG rusher, as long as they both have the same chance at winning they are balanced. It becomes up to the player to make the parts work. The sniper guy has to keep away, the MG guy has to keep the sniper guy up close. It is not easy to create a situation like this, and would probably involved much trial and error (regs) but it is possible. AC4 came reasonably close, and even regless games like SL were decent.

 

On the ease of use a balancer, I've never been into that. It's because I feel that people will not always find things as difficult as they were inteneded to be. An example is the Ford GT Spec II in GT5P. A lot of people find it impossible to drive, but the better players can wield it like any other car. The result is that the GT is pretty much auto win in high level play, but useless in beginner play. By going the easy of use route, it became unbalanced because the difficulty of use was over come. Now that's not to say this method can't work. Like going for the win ratio method, trail and error and testing can come into play and make it possible, but I'd prefer the first method.

 

This post was long for something that was supposed to be quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's supposed to be overcome, though.

 

 

 

EDIT: Ease of use isn't supposed to balance the high tier parts against other high tier parts. It's what's supposed to make the high tier parts so different from the low tier parts. People who take the time to get that good at the game should be awarded a clear advantage over their opponents for their efforts. It does make for a clear and unfair win in scenarios where the skill levels aren't balanced, but when skill levels aren't balanced you're in an unfair situation to begin with. Ease of use removes the ambiguity associated with the skill of the players.

 

Hence, we celebrate Olympic winners. They do the difficult through practice. There's nothing fair about Phelps and me having a swimming race. He's physically my superior in every way when it comes to swimming. I'm 100% certain on that. I guarantee you that what's hard for me is easy for him, too. Why? There's definitely nothing fair there, so why do we give him trophies?

 

Ease of use doesn't balance tiers internally. It balances them externally. In retrospect to each other. Easier to pick up and play should be lower tier. Should be. It hardly ever is, though.

 

FROM SOFTWARE has always had a hard time with stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes me like the idea even less. In my opinion, anything that is intentionally made worse than something else is pointless and a mistake.

 

My approach to balance is that everything has a learning curve, and in the end mastering that learning curve leads to the same amount of effectiveness (though not the same tactics/use/etc).

 

You seem to be using ease of use as an excuse to let low tier parts exist and to separate player skill. But as you said, in a good game skill differences should be obvious, so there is no need for low tier parts to separate anything. Give all the parts a learning a curve and then you will have two kinds of players, the good and the bad.

 

In your swimming example, the race is actually quite fair. You and Phelps both have the opportunity to practice the same amount (an idealization, yes). You just decided not to practice. That's how the game should work for all parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no, what I said is that in a game where everything is balanced skill differences are far, far less obvious. They're ambiguous. And the easier that it is to use higher end things in that game the more ambiguous it gets. A guy with a club can always hit a guy with a Katana and take him out, even if the guy with a Katana spent years mastering it. Who's better in that situation? Not exactly ideal for a game setting.

 

A guy with TP booster in LR can give another guy, an expert even, a run for his money. This shouldn't happen. The expert will likely win every match, but not by some clear method. What's worse. The expert may have spent 5 years playing that game and the new player may have spent 2 weeks. This has happened to people in LR. It happens to people in fighting games all the time, too. In nearly every game, tbh.

 

Yes. In a purely competitive setting, there isn't a reason for lower tier parts. The reason behind making lower tier parts is that you can create a story mode for the game that lets you grow into the higher tier parts and because they allow new players to learn the game and progress through the levels of difficulty, eventually entering the upper echelons of play and using higher tier parts and feeling accomplished. The accomplishment comes from clearly being in a new level of play compared to before. You can actually see it and so can all your friends.

 

Games that make your time spent playing/practicing seem worth the rewards are more likely to get a fanbase. The less your reward for your effort, the less likely you are to apply effort. The less clear the difference between you and someone who is worse, the less likely you are to treat the game seriously.

 

The question of balance is why? Why do you want balance? Is it to prove that you're better than someone? Being able to do what others cannot do is what determines whether others will see you as better than them. In the end, it's all a matter of overcoming a difficulty. Not about being balanced. There is no balance in being better. It is purely unfair. Purely imbalanced. We work to unbalance any situation we find. That's the point of competition. To be better.

 

To be... the UN-Balancer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So parts that are unlocked late in the game should be exactly as useful and easy to use as default parts you start out with and don't offer any incentive to up(?)grade, huh? That's cool, I guess. I mean, personally, I like to be rewarded for playing well with some kind of tangible improvement over my current bot/car/gun but whatever; I guess that's just me.

 

EDIT: Yeah, what Niji said. GG.

Edited by Gary the Tennis Coach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think they should be equally easy to use, or theyll completely outclass all of its kind, unless its something specialized like XMG(sobrero mg)which is built for a special purpose other than destroying the enemy, I think more powerful weapons should equal more talent and specialization to be used effectively.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...