Higby on Magriders - Page 5

Gatekeeper · 2013-02-19, 02:50 AM

I don't have a problem with them rebalancing the Mag vs the Prowler and Van, given the k/d stats they produced to support it.

And the Saron was (is?) clearly overpowered. It's really the only choice for Mag secondary, which is a clear indicator that it isn't balanced. Don't know how it compares to guns for the other tanks, but it's not balanced against the other options for the Mag, which is at least as serious a problem IMO.

However, nerfing the Mag at the same time as buffing the others seems a slightly suspect approach to balance. Surely it'd be better to do one or the other, see where that gets us, and only add the second change if it's still needed?

We saw a lot of see-saw balance in PS1 where things received multiple buffs or nerfs and so became far too strong or weak - it'd be nice to avoid that this time around.

Finally, I can't help feeling that if the Prowler was the strongest AI tank (which appears to be the case) then buffing it to be just as strong an AV platform as the Mag without either buffing the Mag's AI ability or nerfing the Prowler's AI power is not good balance. Tanks don't exist in a vacuum.

psijaka · 2013-02-19, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Yup, good job completely ignoring the fact that the graph Higby posted doesn't prove either one of us right.

Your argument that the Magrider has a lower "skill ceiling" for "high end" players is nothing but speculation.

Rothnang · 2013-02-19, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by psijaka

Your argument that the Magrider has a lower "skill ceiling" for "high end" players is nothing but speculation.

And your argument that the average on tank to tank K/D proves that the tanks are perfectly balanced at all levels of play is also pure speculation.

Like I said, if they can show us metrics that show the actual distribution of kills achieved (and not just tank kills) within the tanks and it turns out that top end Prowler and Vanguards aren't doing any better than top end Magriders since the patch I'll concede that I'm wrong about all of this.

I'm completely open to being proven wrong, I'm just not going to change my opinion just because being a dick to people who don't instantly jump on the "Average = Balance" bandwagon is in style right now.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-02-19, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Badjuju

The vanu ESF is very maneuverable yes, because ya know, its kind of their thing. Is the mossy not insanely fast and the reaver not heavily armored?

Heh, nope.

BIGGByran · 2013-02-19, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Prowler/Vanguard are much more difficult to use than the Magrider, because they have independent hull and turret angles, they have much stiffer movement, and their guns get rocked more by driving around.

Because of this lower end players do a lot better with the Magrider than lower end players do with the other tanks.

1000000% Agree.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

However, if someone is so good that they can deal with all those downsides, they can be about even with a Magrider in power.

Someone so good that they can be even with "Newbriders." 100% agree. I'm not saying a highly skill player in a Van is = to A newrider, but a more skilled player is.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

So that's the situation we had before the patch, and it obviously shows in the numbers. Magriders outperform the other tanks almost 2 to 1, which is huge.

I'm sorry but it's not almost, it is 2 to 1 Vs Vanguard and 3 to 1 Vs Prowler.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

They have to make some changes, and they give the other two tanks a significant buff to their stats.

Significant buff to Vanguard's stats? I must have missed something. I know we got a Velocity buff to our ... AP round? I think, I can't remember, but I think that was it. However I do remember the HUGE buff TR got on their tank lol which I think was over buffed. I think a 10% increase in dmg would be ok and a slight increase in velocity (not anchored).

Originally Posted by Rothnang

My argument now is that Magriders are still much easier to use than the other tanks, so low end Magrider players are still winning against low end Prowler/Vanguard players.

Ya I would agree.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

However, the Prowler/Vanguard are now actually much stronger than a Magrider when controlled by a player who is so good with them that he was fighting Magriders on even terms before the patch.

-I wouldn't say so, no matter how skilled you are, you cannot predict the uncontrollable movement of the gun when going over terran. Giving the Mag better controlled shots, while the prowler/vanguard is a kinda spray and pray, unless the prowler/vanguard slows down, stop, aim, and fight, but then he is an easy target, a free shot.
- A good magrider will always keep his distance to allow "dodge time" and also keep his movement sporadic so the vanguard/prowler cannot completely predict where he will be going next. If a Magrider does this, the Vanguard/Prowlers HAS to close to distance in order to prevent his shots from being easily dodge, and by moving, he loses control of his turret due to rough terrain, which beings the spray and pray. A good magrider also knows that the tanks cannot strafe and therefor can only move forward or slow down. Now they can turn a little bit but it is still moving forward and more easily predictable Vs the strafe of a Magrider.
- Vanguard/Prowler's movements are more predictable than a Magrider.

All I wanted was a Weapon Stabilization, slight increase in velocity in HEAT rounds, and increase in velocity to AP rounds. And I think that would put up in par, if not pretty close to, with the magrider.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

What I'm saying is basically that instead of changing how much of a tanks total potential people can easily accessed the patch has simply increased the tanks total potential to make the average players even, but by doing that has made the tank much more powerful for people who can access all or most of its potential.

How about we look at it this way, my version of your "Potential of Tank, Player's Access to It's Potential". I will call this "Tank's hindrance of a player's potential." (I think what your saying is that the potential of each tank has a cap but the cap of the vanguard/prowler is much higher than the Magrider. which I see on your graph. Lets look at my theory)

Tanks only hinder a player's skill by a certain amount. Vanguard -25%, Prowler -30% and Magrider -10%. So we say that a noob has 0% skill. So if we put that noob in a Vanguard, he has -25% skill due to the mechanics of the Vanguard, and -30% on a Prowler and -10% on a magrider. So the noob in the magrider has less hindrance on his skill than prowler/vanguard.

Now lets look at a highly skilled player. 100% skill, put him in a Vanguard, his effective skill becomes 75%, Prowler 70% and 90% in a Magrider. My model shows that the ease of use of a Magrider makes a highly skill (or a noob player) more effective. (which is the opposite of what your trying to say.)

Over all, I do agree with a few things you said. I am atleast glad you admit that Magriders were OP before the patch.

BIGGByran · 2013-02-19, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Like I said, if they can show us metrics that show the actual distribution of kills achieved (and not just tank kills) within the tanks and it turns out that top end Prowler and Vanguards aren't doing any better than top end Magriders since the patch I'll concede that I'm wrong about all of this.

1) Let's say that this data (after GU2) is of the data specifically on High Skill Player's (2/15/13). What would you say about the graph shown?

2)Let's say that this data (after GU2) is of the data specifically on Middle Skill Player's (2/15/13). What would you say about the graph shown?

3)Let's say that this data (after GU2) is of the data specifically on Low Skill Player's (2/15/13). What would you say about the graph shown?

4)Let's say that this data (after GU2) is of the data specifically on All Skill Player's (2/15/13). What would you say about the graph shown?

Rothnang · 2013-02-19, 03:42 AM

You have to keep in mind that there is such a thing as a "skill ceiling", which means a vehicle that's very easy to use doesn't add it's "ease of use bonus" to players who are extremely skilled anymore.

For example, imagine we have two rifles, one of the rifles has absolutely no recoil but very low damage, the other rifle has massive recoil and but very high damage.

Now we give them to two players who aren't highly skilled. The guy with the high recoil rifle can't hit anything, and consistently loses to the guy with the no recoil rifle because he has at least a small chance of landing hits.

Then we give the same rifles to two players who are about average. The guy with the high recoil rifle is missing a lot of his shots, but because of his higher damage he averages out with the guy with the no recoil rifle, who hits a lot more often, but does less damage.

Now we give the same rifles to two players who are amazingly skilled. The guy with the high recoil rifle compensates for the recoil and rails the other guy with huge damage. The guy with the no recoil rifle is hitting just as much without even needing any of his skill, but his weapon does way less damage.

Are those two rifles balanced? If you only look at the average, yea, they are balanced. But would you want to play on the faction that has the no recoil rifle, knowing that it gives noobs a big advantage, but can't hack it at the high end?

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

1) Let's say that this data (after GU2) is of the data specifically on High Skill Player's (2/15/13). What would you say about the graph shown?

I'm not sure what you mean, which data specifically?

What I can say about Higbys graph:

It only shows the average, it doesn't show the distribution of performance for the individual vehicles, which I highly suspect is much more consistent for Magriders than the other tanks, but drops off drastically near the high end.

It only shows tank on tank K/D, so it doesn't tell the whole story.
Were Magriders getting more kills than all other tanks against every single unit before the patch, or was it just tank vs. tank?

How did the kill-ratios vs. Lightning tanks look before and after the patch?
How do the kill-ratios vs. aircraft look before and after the patch?
How do the kill-ratios vs. infantry look before and after the patch?

Those are all things the graph doesn't address in any way.

What if it turned out that Magriders were only getting half as many infantry kills as Prowlers before the patch?
What if it turned out that Prowlers are killing 10 times more aircraft than Magriders after the patch?

Don't you think that would affect peoples opinion about whether or not the tanks were, or are balanced?

The reality is, the graph we were shown is just one tiny little piece of the story, and it just happens to be a point of comparison that neatly fits the "Magriders were OP and now everything is gravy" story. I'm just not satisfied with calling the entire debate on one single piece of evidence, when we're simply not shown any of the other data.

PredatorFour · 2013-02-19, 03:52 AM

Problem is these 1 v1 encounters rarely take place on he field. Other factors come into play like that mossie hover spamming their faster firing rocket pods. (there i said it, no else seems to have here )

Magrider is actually quite fine as it is but if they want to go ahead and buff it let them, they have different idea's to me anyway in this game. But all those people claiming VS is OP/easy mode? You should L2P. Truth is all factions have their qualities and you probably wont of found them due to concentrating on whining at the other factions being better.

Rothnang · 2013-02-19, 04:08 AM

Some of the changes they made are actually making some tanks OP in unintended ways. For example, locked down Prowlers are now a powerful AA platform because their shells are so fast that they can knock low flying aircraft out of the sky pretty easily.

Was that an intended consequence of trying to balance them with Magriders? I think not.

PredatorFour · 2013-02-19, 04:10 AM

True. I also think the dumbfire infantry rockets fire too straight. Our tanks have more arc in their shots which doesn't make sense to me (part from the issues been mentioned)

Rothnang · 2013-02-19, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

True. I also think the dumbfire infantry rockets fire too straight. Our tanks have more arc in their shots which doesn't make sense to me (part from the issues been mentioned)

Tank projectiles move a lot faster than dumbfire rockets, so it evens out I think.

BIGGByran · 2013-02-19, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

The reality is, the graph we were shown is just one tiny little piece of the story, and it just happens to be a point of comparison that neatly fits the "Magriders were OP and now everything is gravy" story. I'm just not satisfied with calling the entire debate on one single piece of evidence, when we're simply not shown any of the other data.

You right, this graph does show a tiny piece of the story. But this would have never have came up if people did not back up this graph. People, including myself, saw how powerful the Magrider was first hand, and I'm sure anyone not playing VS saw it (i'm sure alot of VS saw this too). Does it seem kind of strange that no (to very little) VS were complaining that the Vanguard or Prowler were OP, but yet nearly every TR and NC were. Higby only looked at that graph because so many TR and NC were reporting it and the graph backed up what the TR and NC were saying.

So the graph was the hard evidence of what the TR and NC were whinning about. lol

EDIT:
Player skill is too variable. One day an awesome player could be crappy, and the next he is rocking it out. So we have to look at the total average. Time for me to sleep. Check back later if this thread hasn't blown up yet.

@PredatorFour

VS are easy to play in comparison to NC. Stock VS Vs Stock NC. NC generally loses. Stock Inf, Stock ESF, and Stock MBT. (people of equal skill 1v1)

VS and TR are about equal.

ringring · 2013-02-19, 04:26 AM

Interesting stuff.

However my issue would be what is the definition of 'tank vs tank'?

In reality, well game reality, 1 vs 1 is not as common as multiple vs 1 or multiple vs multiple.

If one empire gets the idea that their tank is very good there will probably be a lot of them on the battlefield because that empires tank drivers have confidence in them and the encounters between their tanks and their enemy's will be more likely to be 'lots' vs 'fewer' resulting in more kills for the 'lots' side and fewer for the 'fewer'.

Conversely, if a side thinks their tanks are worse the opposite would apply and the upshot is everyone's perceptions would be borne out.

Having said that, this information from Higby is good to see but before puttting too much faith in it I would like to see data on the numbers of tanks being pulled and also to allow the change to bed in a little and reexamine the data over a longer period of time.

Rothnang · 2013-02-19, 04:41 AM

In all honesty, I'm not even sure what exactly the graph shows.

Tank vs. Tank K/D could mean that it's the average number of MBTs killed during the life of a tank.

It could also mean the average number of MBTs killed during the life of a tank that died to another MBT.

Ultimately the graph is just really really inadequate to prove anything, it's just that it fits what some people wanted to see so nicely that they latched onto it and think it proves their point. That's what you call confirmation bias.

Thunderhawk · 2013-02-19, 05:05 AM

I think we need to admit that the graph - even though not showing the environments in which they were taken - may actually be something we do need to take as evidence of balance (that needs some tweaks).

You need not look at the numbers per se, but look at the trend. You have to take into account the numbers were taken under the same conditions (on average) for before and after GU2, and those trends are the ones you have to compare against each other.

I for one am willing to admit that the numbers look fairer now, the whine is probably from people so used to the Mag characteristics beforehand and when comparing to what they are now feel hard done by, but, hey, I guess in the name of balance, you just have to suck it up and accept that the figures show more equality than before.

----------------

So, if these numbers are readily available, I would like to see these also for ESF vs ESF for all 3 empires, I have a feeling you'll see Mossie > Scythe > Reaver, I certainly have an easier time shooting down Reaver then i do shooting down Mossies. I also find it deadly to be hit by a mossie on my tail then by a Reaver. Thats all my personal experience, but would be nice to hear other opinions.

-----------------

Seeing as we're now going down the root of balancing with graphs and numbers, lets go all out and look at all Empire Specific Vehicles. Possible ? Probably not as there's not enough whine on the forums to make them release those figures anyway, and also, because everyones too busy whining about Air vs Ground. I just want parity on all things, we have had a good example of an "injustice" being fixed, lets for completeness sake do ESFs as well. (Vs each other)