82 replies to this topic

[Utilyan]

I heard some pug mechwarrior peasant say "Something about insulting pugs and whining about LRMs not being strong enough is like saying your a bad mf while you got someone's willy in your mouth."

Can you believe that!? how dare he!

I prefer woody woodpecker to chilly willy.

When I find him im going to......run back to base and premie 7 of my friends and then.....THEN im gonna kick his butt!

[Hammer Hands]

armyof1, on 21 March 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Which would still make his opinion purely subjective, as another experienced player could have a totally different opinion on the same matter.

Which is of course why you gather a pool of experienced players. :-)

[Victor Morson]

Hammer Hands, on 21 March 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

If used correctly the testing grounds create a perfect TESTING place as it gives you one of the most important aspects of scientific analysis A Control. It removes any external variables and allows you to modify the testing parameters to give you the best results.

I think his point is the testing grounds doesn't offer a way to test a weapons effectiveness, just it's stats. It's something that also has to be moddled in controlled testing environments.

There's no way to up the armor on the testing ground 'mechs, and more importantly, make them evade. When 50% of your missiles are missing and 40% are hitting the wrong parts of the body (due to pilot twisting), and you are relying on a lock that keeps coming and going, these factors quickly add up and seriously impact even the on-paper effectiveness of the 'mech.

I'm not sure the best way to do it with the limited tools we have. You could get a little more accurate results by repositioning yourself to different vantage points every attack, to try to compensate for damage spread, possibly. It wouldn't be very accurate though.

armyof1, on 21 March 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Which would still make his opinion purely subjective, as another experienced player could have a totally different opinion on the same matter.

I agree that my opinion may be subjective, but many opinions are generally shared by most experienced groups.

I will say PGI has done a sensible job at bringing up many other weapons from the trash bin in the past. AC/2, AC/5 and most notably UAC/5, for example, were entirely worthless weapons through much of the game's development (and table top), and no serious unit would use them. Patches to them (ironically after polling a number of serious units about weapon balance!) made them absolutely great weapons I can endorse.

In fact, a lot of the changes that have come to pass in MW:O were after that poll. Shortly after recommended things like a ship/some cover being added to the water on Forest Colony, PPC velocity increases, AC refire rates, and so forth showed up in subsequent patches.

If indeed these changes were made by that list, I would like to hold it is a great example of balancing around the thoughts of veterans, because it's brought about many excellent changes all of us enjoy right now.

Edited by Victor Morson, 21 March 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[Tekadept]

PGI should listen to PUGS, but they shout at least tell us what those PUGS are telling them and how they on plan on evolving their game around the PUG experience

[Keigo]

Unless I'm misunderstanding some things you've said, I find your post a little strange tbh. You make it sound like all PUG players are idiots, giving me the idea you mainly played with organized team. Let's suppose all PUG players really got no clue what they're doing, and you indeed mainly play in a truly competitive setting...

You're saying no one in their right mind would use LRMs in a competitive setting because every experienced/skilled player knows how to avoid getting hit by them, yet you then call them one of your favourite weapon systems. That itself doesn't really matter either, perhaps you're just talking about the weapon system for what it could be, not for what it is/was.

This 'hotfix' made them useless as you call it, while you already stated they were useless to begin with except to shoot down newbies who got no clue what they're doing. These same clueless people then complained about LRMs being too powerful and liked to see it nerfed, which they now did. Now, why does all this bother you is what I'm wondering. Clearly you and your competitive matches aren't affected by it because they were useless and avoided before the nerf (according to you, if I understand correctly).

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

Either way, I'm not saying LRMs are good as they are and should stay this way. I think it's good for now as a hotfix, though. As for the future of LRMs - They either seemed to do no damage at all to players who can avoid getting hit by these missiles at all times according to some claim-to-be professionals, or were obliterating every poor soul who wasn't able to do so as effectively. That makes it pretty clear there's something wrong with the way LRMs work for now (which many people, including yourself, already mentioned and proposed solutions for). Imho, they should leave the actual damage for what it is for now and look into ways of improving the whole system to make them more useful in all settings, pugging and competitive matches. THEN look if there's tweaking needed for the actual damage.

Edited by Keigo, 21 March 2013 - 10:32 PM.

[armyof1]

Hammer Hands, on 21 March 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

Which is of course why you gather a pool of experienced players. :-)

That could have very valid ideas about how organized 8 vs 8 matches should be balanced. But would those things work well in a totally randomized queue of players using all kinds of mechs? That is the million dollar question.

[Critical Fumble]

4/10, failed to make a point without scapegoating an entire bracket of players.

If only he had gone with "Don't take balance advice from people who clearly have no clue on how to play the game", or thereabouts, or just added to this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

LRMs need an overhaul, long and short of it there. With the current system, to make them viable by damage against experienced players, you'd need to up the damage to the point where they'd be most effective p0wning n00b0rz. Balance their damage so they're fair against newbies, they're worthless everywhere else.

[Feetwet]

I don't play organized matches. The question I have is how much mech diversity is there? My guess is there are a lot of ECM builds, but how many different chassis beyond those? Any hunchies or spiders...dragons or commandos?

S

[Mystere]

Wow! What a way to Insult a whole bunch of people. Elitism and sense of entitlement are very much overflowing from this self-proclaimed "pro".

Here's a tip. Stop deluding yourself that you're a part of the 1%. Your post makes you sound more like a part of the 47%.

[Nightcrept]

I do feel a bit insulted.

The fact is pug or pre-made anyone in the higher elo brackets doesn't get killed by lrms very often.
Lrm's have always sucked against good players.
Now i guess they will suck agaisnt all players....lol.

I haven't had a chance to find out yet.

[Renthrak]

OP: Turn off your computer, take a deep breath, and go outside. Find a sunny spot. Sit down and bask in the beauty of nature.

OK, now maybe enough oxygen has reached your brain that you can see how mind-blowingly biased and self-serving your ridiculous post is.

Stop acting like you're the designated representative of everyone who doesn't play PUGs. Your opinion isn't more valuable than any other.

Stop basing your perspective on the assumption that PUG player = ignorant noob. If I have to explain why THAT one is wrong, you're already beyond saving.

Stop acting as if, out of everyone PGI could listen to, YOU have the only correct ideas. If you know exactly what to do to make a game balanced, fun, and financially viable, make one. If it's any good, THEN you get to talk like an expert.

[Victor Morson]

Mystere, on 21 March 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

Wow! What a way to Insult a whole bunch of people. Elitism and sense of entitlement are very much overflowing from this self-proclaimed "pro".

Here's a tip. Stop deluding yourself that you're a part of the 1%. Your post makes you sound more like a part of the 47%.

This isn't something that's a personal viewpoint. It's something expressed across the board by all players in the upper brackets, or upper tier teams.

Again, as I keep repeating, PUG players benefit greatly from NOT getting involved in balancing. They are a sea of discordant voices, that tend to flock to a "flavor of the month" to complain about; it's like a snowball of attitude. There always has to be something to blame.

By having the top people - which I've never suggested was me personally, but the top league teams and even top Top Gun players - polled and communicated with first, they get a smaller set of voices that often will be saying a similar thing. It's far, far more constructive and helpful to everyone.

Renthrak, on 21 March 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

Stop acting as if, out of everyone PGI could listen to, YOU have the only correct ideas. If you know exactly what to do to make a game balanced, fun, and financially viable, make one. If it's any good, THEN you get to talk like an expert.

Don't take my word for it. I'm not saying anything new or revolutionary, even if it's not something people would like to hear.

Every company with highly competitive products does exactly this. Capcom does it with all their fighting games. Valve brings in the pro players every time they release a new game in a series; they flew all the best DOTA and CS players up to their offices when working on their Source remakes. Infinity Ward did this with CoD2-4, at the least. Blizzard does this with everything, most importantly StarCraft. Bungee did this with every Halo title. Sony did this extensively during the development of PlanetSide 2. I could go on.

That's my point. Sure, they bring in inexperienced players to make the experience clear and newbie friendly, but when it comes time to adjust guns, they ask these people. And thank God they do!

If you don't want to listen to me because I'm not claiming to be in the top %, please listen to all these great developers who have reached the same conclusion.

EDIT: Despite rather blunt wording, I'm not an elitist to PUGs. Every expert player started out pugging. Every single one. There's some people in the PUG community that are going to learn, and get invested in the game- and it will change their balance opinions along the way.

That's why I endorse supporting PUGs through asking them about things like interface, feedback, HUD information, training and instruction, etc.

Every single company I just listed above also brings in very inexperienced players even more often than experienced ones, to help tweak these kinds of experiences (or a single player experience). I'm sure tons of inexperienced players have tons of good feedback for these things.

Really this comes down to "Demonizing what you do not understand." And anyone who thought the LRM was overpowered, effectively, does not understand the weapon.

EDIT: Another anecdote was a AAA project I worked on (that will remain nameless) that started getting weapon feedback in beta. There was a lot of alarm initially as one weapon after another got reports. This alarm turned to face palming as the final tally ended up with every single weapon in the game being called overpowered by the public at large, equally, each convinced that gun was worse than all the others. This included the really bad guns.

This is common in any public test setting.

Renthrak, on 21 March 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

Stop basing your perspective on the assumption that PUG player = ignorant noob. If I have to explain why THAT one is wrong, you're already beyond saving.

There are some veterans that PUG by choice, but I think most will agree the overwhelming number only have experience in fighting other PUGs.

It's kind of like saying your high school football team kicked *** and should be allowed to alter NFL rules for the Superbowl.

Edited by Victor Morson, 21 March 2013 - 11:02 PM.

[Terror Teddy]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

This isn't something that's a personal viewpoint. It's something expressed across the board by all players in the upper brackets, or upper tier teams.

And this is where your argument fails.

I PUG but I dont go with flavor of the month and I simply PUG because I want to wind down after a day of work and simply want to shoot mechs.

That does NOT mean I'm not deeply interested in a flexible weapon and mech variety and overall game balance for a good gaming experience AND number crunch a lot too see what is viable or not.

Top tier to you is what exactly?
-Kills
-Damage Dealt per match?
-ELO rating
-Wins/Losses
-Teamspeak users

You generalise by only adding people within what YOU believe is a top tier.

[ShadowDarter]

remember PGI needs to balance for two groups,

Premade teams (the main compitition players.) and the Lonewolves. (i will refuse to call players pugs.)

once you understand that then you could understand some of the ideas that have made it into the live game.

[Pater Mors]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

This isn't something that's a personal viewpoint. It's something expressed across the board by all players in the upper brackets, or upper tier teams.

Again, as I keep repeating, PUG players benefit greatly from NOT getting involved in balancing. They are a sea of discordant voices, that tend to flock to a "flavor of the month" to complain about; it's like a snowball of attitude. There always has to be something to blame.

By having the top people - which I've never suggested was me personally, but the top league teams and even top Top Gun players - polled and communicated with first, they get a smaller set of voices that often will be saying a similar thing. It's far, far more constructive and helpful to everyone.



Don't take my word for it. I'm not saying anything new or revolutionary, even if it's not something people would like to hear.

Every company with highly competitive products does exactly this. Capcom does it with all their fighting games. Valve brings in the pro players every time they release a new game in a series; they flew all the best DOTA and CS players up to their offices when working on their Source remakes. Infinity Ward did this with CoD2-4, at the least. Blizzard does this with everything, most importantly StarCraft. Bungee did this with every Halo title. Sony did this extensively during the development of PlanetSide 2. I could go on.

That's my point. Sure, they bring in inexperienced players to make the experience clear and newbie friendly, but when it comes time to adjust guns, they ask these people. And thank God they do!

If you don't want to listen to me because I'm not claiming to be in the top %, please listen to all these great developers who have reached the same conclusion.

EDIT: Despite rather blunt wording, I'm not an elitist to PUGs. Every expert player started out pugging. Every single one. There's some people in the PUG community that are going to learn, and get invested in the game- and it will change their balance opinions along the way.

That's why I endorse supporting PUGs through asking them about things like interface, feedback, HUD information, training and instruction, etc.

Every single company I just listed above also brings in very inexperienced players even more often than experienced ones, to help tweak these kinds of experiences (or a single player experience). I'm sure tons of inexperienced players have tons of good feedback for these things.

Really this comes down to "Demonizing what you do not understand." And anyone who thought the LRM was overpowered, effectively, does not understand the weapon.

EDIT: Another anecdote was a AAA project I worked on (that will remain nameless) that started getting weapon feedback in beta. There was a lot of alarm initially as one weapon after another got reports. This alarm turned to face palming as the final tally ended up with every single weapon in the game being called overpowered by the public at large, equally, each convinced that gun was worse than all the others. This included the really bad guns.

This is common in any public test setting.

I'm not saying your idea is wrong or even a bad idea.

I'm saying your an *** for the way you've handled this whole thread and most people aren't going to give you any credibility after reading what you've written.

Why is this even here anyway? If the developers are going to use your idea, they sure as hell aren't going to pull it out of a condescending General Discussions post and the people in this part of the forum would likely never even hear about it. They would just contact players and say, "Hey, help us test."

You posting it here makes me feel like you want to flex your epeen more than anything else.

I look forward to seeing you on the battlefield so I can see how your 'top tier' status likes my lasers.

Edited by Pater Mors, 21 March 2013 - 11:03 PM.

[Erasus Magnus]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Indeed, a huge increase in speed from launcher-to-target would do a lot to justify their current damage. If the majority of my shots had a far better chance of registering consistently, I think the current damage levels would be more than fine.

Or a mix of two upgrades would help.

It's definitely a very good idea and worth putting forward.

EDIT: Notably when I was using LRMs in the last patch, I was effectively trying to stay in a quick 'mech to remain between 250-750, so I could use TAG/Artemis. It was very effective at suddenly delivering crippling damage to light skirmishes. With the nerfs, I wouldn't even do that.

funny. i am proposing the lrm speed up since CB...

the high speed, low damage approach makes LRMs a far less punishing weapon system for both sides.
perhaps even up the ammo per ton, so that lrms can be used consistently in a match without dedicating absurd amounts of tonnage to ammo just to stay in the game.

2 patches ago we had the low speed, high damage approach and now its low speed, low damage with lots of drawbacks. that doesnt work out.

Edited by Erasus Magnus, 21 March 2013 - 11:08 PM.

[Renthrak]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

Really this comes down to "Demonizing what you do not understand." And anyone who thought the LRM was overpowered, effectively, does not understand the weapon.

The very fact that you are able to make a statement like this is a red flag for your state of mind. This may come as a shock to you, but your point of view is not the whole of reality.

You also seem to be making an error in logic. It sounds like you think skill at a game = validity of opinion. Feedback from so-called 'top-tier' players will favor top-tier players. Not always out of spite, but because that is the only perspective they have. So, if the developers ONLY listen to the best players, the game will be balanced ONLY for the BEST players. If you're one of the best players, this probably doesn't bother you. But for the other 95% of people who play the game, you are taking a big steaming dump on their right to enjoy the game just as much as anyone else.

Pater Mors, on 21 March 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

I'm not saying your idea is wrong or even a bad idea.

I'm saying your an *** for the way you've handled this whole thread and most people aren't going to give you any credibility after reading what you've written.

Why is this even here anyway? If the developers are going to use your idea, they sure as hell aren't going to pull it out of a condescending General Discussions post and the people in this part of the forum would likely never even hear about it. They would just contact players and say, "Hey, help us test."

You posting it here makes me feel like you want to flex your epeen more than anything else.

I look forward to seeing you on the battlefield so I can see how your 'top tier' status likes my lasers.

SANITY!

[Iacov]

yeah, stop listening to your players!
very good advice xD

[Victor Morson]

Terror Teddy, on 21 March 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

I PUG but I dont go with flavor of the month and I simply PUG because I want to wind down after a day of work and simply want to shoot mechs.

Having good gun balance will trickle down to you, the PUG who wants to relax shooting robots. I've got no problem with your preferred play style, but do you think this is a good qualifier for balancing things?

Also the top tier to me are teams that actively play the other top teams in the game. There were a number of excellent units in RHOD that would all be very good sources of balance feedback.

[iusehaxs]

give this man his internets YOU Listening PGI don't make me change that to PIG hear us i love you guys don't turn into another blizztard company for the love of mechs!

and yes ignore the pugs all they do is complain for **** since they can't pilot mechs properly