82 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

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

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.

I'll admit, I was blunt to throw a bucket of cold water on the issue. That doesn't mean I was not truthful, or that bluntness was not called for.

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

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."

I would be more than fine with that. I don't want any credit for this. I'm not even asking to be polled. If this resulted in them contacting some top tier players and say that, then as far as I'm concerned, this thread succeeded beyond my wildest dreams for it.

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

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.

I'm an experienced player - veteran even - and I've played with and actively communicate with the top tier, but I've never once attempted to sell myself as top tier or that my suggestions should be listened to at face value. There is a reason I've not proposed sweeping LRM changes here, and instead focused on pointing out flaws or liking other ideas put forward. I'm not attempting to tell them how to balance things.

I'm pleading that before they implement balance changes, they talk to the top players and get their perspective and input first. "Nerf LRMs" would positively not be something that they would recommend.

Again, polling top players and teams is something AAA companies just do. It's expected of them. Having a few VERY top players as consultants of sorts is also very common. These ideas are not things I am pulling out of nowhere, or putting forth as a grand revelation. They are industry standard practice that would benefit MW:O greatly. That is all.

EDIT: Do you read many developer postmortems? Everytime the topic of multiplayer is brought up, inexperienced devs very often cite this kind of reactionary balance patching as something they did "wrong." They also almost never repeat the process in sequels, opting for the methods I've talked about here instead.

I cannot stress at all that inexperienced pugs doesn't mean stupid or terrible. It means they lack knowledge and insight that is required to properly criticize things they don't fully understand, based on incorrect information.

Iacov, on 21 March 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

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

Again, do you want the chef in your restaurant listening to the feedback of every patron that eats there, or a select few critics or other professionals? Everyone's going to have a different taste and you'll end up with a bland mishmash of crap that way.

By insuring top players are helping balance these weapons, you also insure inexperienced players have a rewarding experience to learn and improve upon, not a dumbed down one with limited options.

I'm saying to stop listening to the crowd, and start listening to the kinds of folks who memorized every unlisted spec for every weapon they use. They're the ones that have valuable performance feedback and you can filter out the "background noise."

EDIT: Also because someone has learned to get around a crappy computer doesn't mean they're somehow better (seriously?) than a disciplined and coordinated 8 man drop team.

Edited by Victor Morson, 22 March 2013 - 12:16 AM.

[Utilyan]

The best player doesn't have privledged advantages, thats why he's the best.

Throw the best pilot into a mg/flamer mech against a 8-man with his own team trying to tk him, he still wins, thats why he is the best.

Not the fellah who has a GOD-mode mech.

The best pilot has a crappy comp with bad frames per sec, his mech can only make left turns.....,..

The best pilot can do more with less.

Your shooting yourself in the foot. What takes more skill? having no communication to concentrate fire and still winning or having a 8 man premy with voip?

Everyone shoot charlie, everyone shoot alpha........you call that more skill?

Under your own logic, we should ignore you cause of your dependancy on advantages.


The blunt truth? Tell me pugging is easier, Then I can believe they got less skill.

[Victor Morson]

Utilyan, on 22 March 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

Everyone shoot charlie, everyone shoot alpha........you call that more skill?

If you think that's all there is to team strategy in MW:O, well.. that's part of the reason I created this entire thread in the first place. Folks that think like you are getting a voice in weapon balance.

There is a reason an 8 man with VOIP will dominate PUG games with such ludicrous landslides that they had to be separated into different match makers and it wasn't all focus fire. If that was all there was to it, you could replicate that by just typing the target-letter into the chat box.

[Hawks]

Awww...diddums. Did your LRM boat get killed by some nasty man with auto cannon? Well ignore him. He's probably just jealous of you, you precious snowflake.

[Lyrik]

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. This of course means you have to actually know how to test things to start with and I have been happily using the testing grounds to get baseline ideas on all type of weapon systems. So if you think I simply slap **** in a mech jump into the testing grounds and go "Ooh, pretty colors and esplosions!", you sir are a nitwit. :-)

Says the noob who doesn't know that the dev's stated that the testing ground has bug with weapon damage xD

And I watched your team yesterday on Twitch ... you noobs got in one match completely destroyed by LRM's :-P

The whining after it was: Could please use your ECM D-DC instead of the Jäger... the LRM's are too much.

If that is the level of the competitive play than I want to stay a PUG :-P

And besides, we don't have competitive teamplay. Except the few who are playing RHOD. Which is nice. But these aren't the top.players

RHOD doesn't have enough players to be a viable example of competitive teamplay and therefor for balance!!!

[Utilyan]

Victor Morson, on 22 March 2013 - 12:13 AM, said:

If you think that's all there is to team strategy in MW:O, well.. that's part of the reason I created this entire thread in the first place. Folks that think like you are getting a voice in weapon balance.

There is a reason an 8 man with VOIP will dominate PUG games with such ludicrous landslides that they had to be separated into different match makers and it wasn't all focus fire. If that was all there was to it, you could replicate that by just typing the target-letter into the chat box.

Victor,

Your not telling me what is easier, what takes more skill? Are you going to win more games if you start pugging now since pugging is so easy and takes little skill?

You mentioned Capcom, I remember playing street fighter sometimes we'd set handicaps just so wouldn't have to keep whooping a dude all the time.

Premies 100%, pugs 50%. what takes more skill?


I'm not afraid of a army of Lions led by a Sheep, I'm afraid of a army of Sheep led by a Lion. -- Alexander The Great.

[Aeon Slick]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

2 Raven pilots of moderate competence could shut down an entire lance of the things. They're a huge liability (including an XL engine), given the odds of them getting the necessary damage out before they're shutdown by ECM and swarmed is next to none.

True. Two Ravens could, if they approached via routes other than the one the LRM boats are watching, using ECM, and taking advantage of LRMs being long ranged support weapons and thus having minimum range, instead of just long-ranged SRMS, shut down 4 LRM boats using their superior speed, maneuverability, and size to avoid getting hit by the LRM-boating assaults and heavies lacking in backup weapons.

Yeah. Because two light mechs taking out some long-ranged support heavies who can't hit light mechs well and are heavily using weapons that cannot fire under a minimum range is totally unfair and unbalanced.

[Pater Mors]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

I'll admit, I was blunt to throw a bucket of cold water on the issue. That doesn't mean I was not truthful, or that bluntness was not called for.



I would be more than fine with that. I don't want any credit for this. I'm not even asking to be polled. If this resulted in them contacting some top tier players and say that, then as far as I'm concerned, this thread succeeded beyond my wildest dreams for it.



I'm an experienced player - veteran even - and I've played with and actively communicate with the top tier, but I've never once attempted to sell myself as top tier or that my suggestions should be listened to at face value. There is a reason I've not proposed sweeping LRM changes here, and instead focused on pointing out flaws or liking other ideas put forward. I'm not attempting to tell them how to balance things.

I'm pleading that before they implement balance changes, they talk to the top players and get their perspective and input first. "Nerf LRMs" would positively not be something that they would recommend.

Again, polling top players and teams is something AAA companies just do. It's expected of them. Having a few VERY top players as consultants of sorts is also very common. These ideas are not things I am pulling out of nowhere, or putting forth as a grand revelation. They are industry standard practice that would benefit MW:O greatly. That is all.

EDIT: Do you read many developer postmortems? Everytime the topic of multiplayer is brought up, inexperienced devs very often cite this kind of reactionary balance patching as something they did "wrong." They also almost never repeat the process in sequels, opting for the methods I've talked about here instead.

I cannot stress at all that inexperienced pugs doesn't mean stupid or terrible. It means they lack knowledge and insight that is required to properly criticize things they don't fully understand, based on incorrect information.

Yeah yeah you said all that before and it still sounds as condescending and stupid as it did last time. Seriously dude, you're rude and arrogant and you don't know what's best for this game and I am seriously glad you're not someone who is in charge because I wouldn't give you a cent of my money.

Edited by Pater Mors, 22 March 2013 - 12:50 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

yeah but this is because ECM is FUBAR

[PhaedrusBE]

As someone who pugs, and is honestly pretty terrible, I can see where this thread comes from. The last few days I've been doing nothing much but playing MWO (sick kids), and it's been interesting to watch the evolution of play. First you had a bunch of Jagers getting splatted by a few of us LRMers, and those that normally run "support" giggling with glee. Then the constant whining and cursing in chat, even from my own team. Then it became LRMwarrior, where every team had 6+ LRM boats, and I felt like a brawler with my few backup lasers on my C1.

And then . . . suddenly I was getting curbstomped. Brawlers could find cover and get behind me. Snipers headshotted me when I peeked up to TAG. Scouts were TAGing me, and I had to run for my life. It was fun! I can only guess that my ELO went up and I was suddenly against good players, and I wasn't overpowered. I was a high-priority target. And I imagine if I knew what I was doing, I would have been worthy of the attention.

So yeah, I had my 800-1200 damage games at low elo's, but it's a whole different world when people l2p.

[Lyrik]

Utilyan, on 22 March 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

I'm not afraid of a army of Lions led by a Sheep, I'm afraid of a army of Sheep led by a Lion. -- Alexander The Great.

Which describes a lot of the players in the competitive premades. I watched some youtube videos and streaming in the hope to learn to be a better pilot.

A ) Focus fire is OP
B ) Cheese mechs are boring
C ) Most of them don't shoot better than me, but are much better than me at positioning.
D ) They were afraid of LRM's
E ) Hiding behind cover for an entire match and then dying because you are ignoring your radar is boring .

That is the problem with MWO. If you want to balance , you have to do it with the competitive and elite players.

MWO doesn't have competitive and elite players. RHOD is not enough. We need leaderboards for teams. We need Guild/Mercs/Clans etc ingame. Without that, PGI will never gather enough data to balance weapons.

Even Garth and the NGNG guys were afraid of LRM's.

Edited by Lyrik, 22 March 2013 - 12:58 AM.

[DerSpecht]

Fun stuff. While pr0 elitist founder veterans demand changes and seem to know whats best 99% of the data used for balancing or ANYTHING in the game is generated by the PUG playerbase.

[Major Derps]

I'm a PUG, but I'm not clueless (but yes some of the population can painful to play with) . You're generalising and splitting the community. But what I believe you mean is perhaps, stop listening to the mainstream gamers?

But now to why that will never happen...It's F2P, so they need a large player base, and unfortunatly, us 'old school' mechwarriors just aren't enough. Therefore they need to tap into the mainstream gamers. To do this, they need to satisfy them with mainstream content and 'balancing'. And since the majority of these players appears to be pugs, they cant go balancing in ways that benifit only premades. Now from what I read, before buying in to the founders program, I don't believe this was PGI's initial view or direction (just my opinion, don't quote me, or take that as gospel), but may have been influenced by an epiphany that this is what's needed to make this game thrive (perhaps even a push from IGP).

All we can really hope for, is that this will lead to a game that is a little more traditional.

[jakucha]

benth, on 21 March 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Didn't you read Bryan's post about 3rd person?

They don't listen to anyone. Not the hardcore group, nor the solo droppers.

They simply want a wider audience, and will do whatever it takes to try to get it.

*image*

I'm not sure why you'd expect them to only listen to a minority for everything. Especially considering how they want to profit/are a business. We don't have to play with 3rd person at all one way or the other.

DerSpecht, on 22 March 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

Fun stuff. While pr0 elitist founder veterans demand changes and seem to know whats best 99% of the data used for balancing or ANYTHING in the game is generated by the PUG playerbase.

Not to mention mostly people who never even visit the forum

Edited by jakucha, 22 March 2013 - 01:23 AM.

[Brut4ce]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

There is a reason that almost every game company balances all high-level balance around the top players and teams in that game: PUGs have no idea at all what they're doing.

Nerfing LRMs is a joke, and any experienced unit is going to tell you the same thing: LRMs already have so many serious drawbacks, they are simply not worth using in any remotely competitive setting. For a while they had a small niche on fast mediums to support lights, but it was so borderline this nerf pretty much killed even that role for them outright.

Yes, they waste PUGs left and right. This we know. It's because they don't understand firing arcs, minimum range, how Artemis is LOS only, etc. They just run into range and die. ANY good player, or even small groups of good players, effectively destroy LRMs with a combination of ECM and simply swarming them up close. Direct fire is entirely superior across the board. Any weapon with this many drawbacks - including being entirely disabled by being anywhere near ECM - simply cannot be considered unless it deals damage to scale with those.

Before you answer with your own ancedotes, quite frankly, if you're not involved in organized play it might be better to stay out of the thread. You'll probably start citing things like the 100 LRM Stalker, which can work in a gimmick sucker punch, but again no serious unit would field this thing. Any competent light team would render it dead weight before it could even begin to do effective damage.

I'm mostly angry that because PGI is listening to what amounts to basically a misinformed lynch mob, they've taken one of my favorite class of weapons and thrown it ENTIRELY into the trash pile. There's not even a niche for these things anymore in real games.

Unless PGI plans on getting rid of all the other drawbacks to the LRM (LOS Artemis, ECM preventing locks without TAG, TAG range being 750m, Minimum Range, bad firing arcs that render indirect fire terribly ineffective, etc., they badly need to up it.

But again, this is about more than the LRM. It's about weapon balance going into the future. Please, poll the RHOD teams more for weapon feedback. That's where you'll get serious balance information, not forum posts of people screaming to nerf something that was already so easy to hard counter it's on the very bottom tier of weapon classes already.

If we keep this up, we're just going to be doing this in a giant circle, gun class to gun class. Whatever replaces LRMs as the new favorite will be next, instead of a more subtle tweak and adjustment. There's a reason when Blizzard patches Starcraft, they increase or decrease things by, at most, 2-5% after polling their top players because over reactive patches are poison.

(ED: I am positively not speaking of the broken LRMs from Tuesday, but in comparison to the previous major patch. Even a slight nerf to an already nearly trash weapon is enough to push it over the edge.)

What he said....Plus i will add something concerning the ppl sayin' "yeah its a support weapon..." or "now they are closer to TT values" and all that..
The mechs used in the game ARE NOT according to TT values...SURPRISE! If the armour on them would be close to TT values, they would die by TAG shooting them!
On a second note I am NOT an LRM user, but this thing is getting out of proportion...so in my mind there's only one solution to all this. PLEASE PGI, give us lobbies and manual matchmaking, so that ppl who wish to play competitively against each other, choose to do so, and fight with and against ppl and teams they choose to, and while you are at it, you could introduce broomsticks as weapons to be used in the PUG solo queue, so that ppl could head bang each other all day long!

*salutes*

EDIT...Oh wait...broomsticks are already in...MGs and flamers....nom nom nom

Edited by Brut4ce, 22 March 2013 - 01:40 AM.

[DerSpecht]

Brut4ce, on 22 March 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

On a second note I am NOT an LRM user, but this thing is getting out of proportion...so in my mind there's only one solution to all this. PLEASE PGI, give us lobbies and manual matchmaking, so that ppl who wish to play competitively against each other, choose to do so, and fight with and against ppl and teams they choose to, and while you are at it, you could introduce broomsticks as weapons to be used in the PUG solo queue, so that ppl could head bang each other all day long!

*salutes*

EDIT...Oh wait...broomsticks are already in...MGs and flamers....nom nom nom

So your solution is ruining the game? Its hard to find games at certain times of the day already and you want to put in more options to matchmaking to make it even harder?

[GalaxyBluestar]

[Sephlock]

[Ghogiel]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

I'd be in favor of increasing the TAG range to 1000m. It's an acceptable way to break ECM (BAP actually helps considerably if you combine it with TAG to get locks - the synergy basically means the TAG breaks the ECM and then the BAP gets a far faster lock, allowing you to get shots easily)

Can't you still dumb fire the LRMs then get a target with tag after the fact, so the missiles are half way there before the get a warning lol?

[Dreamslave]

Utilyan, on 22 March 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

The best player doesn't have privledged advantages, thats why he's the best.

Throw the best pilot into a mg/flamer mech against a 8-man with his own team trying to tk him, he still wins, thats why he is the best.

Not the fellah who has a GOD-mode mech.

The best pilot has a crappy comp with bad frames per sec, his mech can only make left turns.....,..

The best pilot can do more with less.

Your shooting yourself in the foot. What takes more skill? having no communication to concentrate fire and still winning or having a 8 man premy with voip?

Everyone shoot charlie, everyone shoot alpha........you call that more skill?

Under your own logic, we should ignore you cause of your dependancy on advantages.


The blunt truth? Tell me pugging is easier, Then I can believe they got less skill.

Clearly you have absolutely no grasp on the strategy behind competitive 8 man teams if all you think we do is call targets.