165 replies to this topic

[Pandamcpanda]

Reading this thread has been kind of funny, any veteran pilot is going to tell you that mediums are terrible. Simply put, the big boy mechs can just walk thru any medium with impunity, and alpha them down in short order without any fear of reprisal.

Mediums have:
-decent speed
-decent armor
-decent firepower

But that's the problem, decent is jack of all trades, excels at nothing. You cant outrun or catch a light, you can survive 1-2 hits from a heavy or assault, but your firepower isn't enough to ever trade with them. You WILL lose if you go toe to toe, so it becomes a game of hit and run. The problem with this is though, that a veteran assault pilot also has the reflexes to shoot back when you crest that hill and try and snipe, and thier firepower > yours.

Hopefully they will add a lobby for games soon, with weight restrictions for teams so you can pick what mech your going to roll in with, 200-250 tons per lance would mean 1 of every weight class (1 25, 1 50, 1 75, and 1 100), and pgi should make medium mechs slightly smaller.

[PEEFsmash]

Mercules, on 27 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

This is why Public Elo means absolutely {Richard Cameron} in the grand scheme of things and judging people based upon the logic of their statements, their thoughts, and what evidence they can provide on the topic is more important than if you have ever faced them in an 8 man or what their Elo score is.

You are still missing the point. If they don't play at a high level, aka they play with and against bad players who cannot execute things like aiming or positioning, their personal experience testimony is AUTOMATICALLY not relevant to balance, because their perceived imbalances are a direct result of their lack of skill.

I, for one, and I think Deity agrees, do not believe that being a good player makes you a competent or helpful poster. However, being a good player is a NECESSARY (not sufficient) condition to having relevant in-game experiences that can contribute to balancing the game. Any player can reference certain tournament trends if they have been keeping up, and any player can point out glitches, bugs, even unintended stuff that happens in game. You don't have to be good at all to do those sorts of things. However, when making a statement of the form, "Lights are overpowered because I can't hit them when they circle strafe" or "it is impossible to beat double AC20", you have to be a good player who is experienced in high-level competitive play for that kind of input to count. Otherwise, your inability to hit the lights or your inability to beat double AC20 is the result of your inability to aim or position yourself generally.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 27 June 2013 - 12:56 PM.

[xDeityx]

Mercules, on 27 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

I have and you did imply it by very nature of your post. The words, "I am competent" were not said but very much implied by stating that public Elo would show things thus proving that points made would be backed up by an arbitrary statistic.

You assuming something is not the same as me implying it. I can hold the position that the best players in the game should be listened to without being one of those players.

Mercules, on 27 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

No, I am not stating it as a rule. The study showed that those who truly are competent tended to be more realistic about their competence and actually tend to underestimate themselves. In fact further studies tended to show that those at the extreme ends of competency tended to misjudge their skill usually higher in the case of incompetent and lower in the case of the competent.

What comes from this is NOT that people who think they are competent are not but instead that we can't rely on anyone's self evaluation. Ironically it is typically those who believe others are incompetent(and thus they themselves are competent) who tend to bring up the Dunning-Kruger effect which in the end invalidates their point that someone else probably thinks they are good and are not.

You used an assumption you made about me (that I am competent or think that I am competent) to imply something about my actual competency based on where I fall on the K-D spectrum. The K-D effect doesn't go backwards. You can't just say "well this person thinks they are good and we all know what K-D says about those people!"

Mercules, on 27 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Then we run into a whole different problem if you are judged by your "peers" to be competent because we often fall into a "Group Think" at that point or as Whyte called it, Rationalized Conformity. I find the "Competitive Players" tend to often fall into this. They tend to enforce group conformity of action and belief through repetition and authority. We are competitive players, we know how to play, and so we must understand the game.

Yes they play harder and that will give them some understanding of things some others will not be privy to, but it makes them just as liable to overlook things or come to a fallacious conclusion because of that group thinking. You get that comment, "Well, everyone who understands this game on a high level agrees with me." with the implication that they must be right. While this doesn't mean they are wrong it doesn't mean they are right either, it simply means that their socialized group whole all likely think and believe certain things as a group have come to a conclusion that likely hasn't considered other possibilities.

You seem to be under the misconception that I am a competitive player. Please tell me what in MWO I've competed in, I must have missed it. You know an awful lot about me from just a couple of sentences. Are you perhaps an internet sleuth?

Mercules, on 27 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

This is part of that whole "Public Elo" thing. You have deluded yourself into thinking that a high Elo score will innately mean a better understanding of the game. It could, I'll give you that much, but in reality it doesn't conclude a knowledge of the game. I could have a High Elo from coat-tailing on three better player's actions and simply always 4-manning with them. Elo doens't account for MY contributions or understand of the game, simply my team's contributions. Alternately I person could have a very good understanding of the game and only play casually in the worst mechs they can conceive because they find that challenging and fun. His knowledge could be specifically much more in depth than someone who has a high Elo especially when dealing with a topic the high Elo person has never considered.

Yet another misrepresentation of my position. I don't think that a higher Elo score innately means a better understanding of the game. What I do think is that having a high Elo score gives you a better probability of having a better understanding of the game. I'm playing the odds. Are there exceptions? Sure. Would it still help clean up the anecdotal trash in these threads to have public Elo? Absolutely.

Mercules, on 27 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Is there a reason to put a MG on a mech? The High Elo person will dismiss this out of hand with a "No, they are worthless. No one uses them. They are a joke at high level play." He is right but his reasoning for why they are bad is fallacious. Group think has told him they are bad and he is conforming. A Low Elo person may have actually tried for months to find a mech and load-out that makes MGs worth taking and may not have found it or more likely found they are only good in a niche situation. The conclusion is the same but it is actually BASED on more in depth understanding of the nature of MGs, after all you do NOT bring MGs to a 8 man queue match, do you?

You're wrong here. Is there a reason to put a MG on a 'mech? The high Elo person doesn't dismiss this out of hand, they test the crap out of it up down and sideways. And then they conclude that it is a crap asset and don't bother with it until something in the metagame changes that gives them a reason to revisit MGs. Or maybe they read about the tests that somebody else has done and posted.

Mercules, on 27 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

This is why Public Elo means absolutely {Richard Cameron} in the grand scheme of things and judging people based upon the logic of their statements, their thoughts, and what evidence they can provide on the topic is more important than if you have ever faced them in an 8 man or what their Elo score is.

You keep coming up with specific cases of exceptions to the rule that higher Elo = better understanding. They don't matter. You need to look at it on the macro scale and stop focusing so much on the micro case-by-case examples. If public Elo were implemented, then in general the level of discussion in these threads would be raised and people wouldn't have to waste time explaining why the four screenshots where a player did well in a medium aren't reflective of the metagame as a whole. And all of your special snowflake examples of people who have this huge understanding of the game but choose to lose anyway and therefore don't have a high Elo would just have to work a little harder to get their opinion out and prove that they are the exception that is worth hearing.

[Mister Blastman]

Well said, OP. PGI is...




Lately.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 27 June 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Mercules]

...and again the point is completely missed, which is to be expected.


Because someone does not chose to play competitively does not invalidate their ability to understand the game, game balance, or systems in general. Playing competitively doesn't magically force people to try out non-optimized builds or learn anything in addition to what it takes to drop in an 8-man match. Some of those people are very motivated and dedicated to the came and spend a lot of time theorizing and trying things BUUUUUUUUT, it doesn't automatically qualify all their statements as true and valid.

My point is that pointing at the manner in which someone plays the game or their Elo does not automatically validate or invalidate their understanding. Some people seem to think it should. Some people are inherently dropping into the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy using Elo or Competitive Play as their authority.

See, both of you are right. To comprehend the game it is important to play the game. However not striving for Elo or joining an 8-man queue does not mean a person can not understand the game.


What both of you are misunderstanding is that I am not advocating someone new to the game who is a poor shot and whines about overpowered AC/20 cats has any sort of valid point or claim. I make serious fun of those guys. Just like I make fun of the people who can't stop a base cap. It really takes minimal skill for certain things in this game. At the same time am I a great player? Nope. I'm mediocre and I could be better for sure if I cared to spend more time or be more serious. Of course at that point I would probably stop liking the game as I see many more serious players have...

I've played since closed Beta. I've played in every single patch this game has seen since the Founders program started. I've played popular mechs and unpopular mechs. I've even hopped in TRIAL mechs and played. I have 20 some mechs and the only class I don't frequently play are Assaults. I pug and I 4 man I only don't play 8 man because frankly I can't be bothered to spend the time on a single game, even one I enjoy as much as this one. I keep games fresh by playing a variety of them. I've played all the iterations of Mechwarrior and Mechcommander even played some Mech Assault. I've played other mecha games and multiple FPS back to the days of Castle Wolfenstein and DOOM. I've played online games since the days of TEN.

I know my Elo probably isn't high because I PUG a lot and do so in non-optimal mechs. Last night I was running around in a JM6-S with 2 AC/2s, AC/10, and 2 MLas. Hardly optimal but fun and versatile and fitting with how I like to play. I killed, I died... My team won, my team lost... I had fun.


I can still use my deductive skills, years of experience with video games and MW games in particular, my time in MWO from Closed Beta to today, and more to come to valid and logical conclusions. My Elo doesn't affect that. Contrary to what some people believe, a low Elo doesn't keep me from playing people with higher Elo. The MM doesn't work that way. I play good, I play bad, I play people in the middle. I've played against people who are killer shots and use their mechs to the fullest and people who I have to admit just full out out maneuvered or out smarted me. I've learned from those experiences and tried not to let all the bad players out there allow me to think I can get sloppy despite PUGging.


TLDR: Elo and style of play do not determine validity of reasoning or arguments. Those must be addressed on their own merits.

[PEEFsmash]

Mercules, on 27 June 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Some of those people are very motivated and dedicated to the came and spend a lot of time theorizing and trying things BUUUUUUUUT, it doesn't automatically qualify all their statements as true and valid.

I never said that. I have said something very different many, many, many times including multiple itmes in this thread. Maybe if I make it bigger you will remember.

Playing at a high-level is not sufficient for your personal experience testimony and the information they take from it being true or right, but it is a necessary condition. You MUST play at a high level and against high level opponents in order for your in-game experience to be balance relevant. This does NOT mean that being high-level makes you right. You can be a high-level player, play against other top level players, but make stupid arguments or bad inferences based on experience. However, being a high level player is a MINIMUM requirement for relevance. No matter how clearly the low-level player points out how he can't hit lights or he can't deal with AC20s, etc, his experience is predicated on bad aim, bad positioning, bad awareness, etc. Personal experience testimony is of the form "Lights are overpowered because I cannot hit them when they circle strafe." This type of input is automatically not relevant.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 27 June 2013 - 03:14 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

p00k, on 25 June 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Remember how in closed beta, PGI made this big deal about how every weight class had a role, and how bigger didn't necessarily mean better? And yet, especially in the last few patches, the exact opposite has been true. It's been go-big-or-go-home. Assaults dominate the field. Lights and Mediums get 1- or 2-shot by their heavier brethren.

Well, apparently, this is working as intended. And PGI wants to make a buck off it.

See Project Phoenix. Unlike Founders, when we were all bright eyed bushy tailed optimistic gamers filled with the hope that PGI would rejuvenate the IP, and where if you chose to be an elite founder you could choose one of the four mechs, PGI tosses that purchase model out the window. While there was debate among elite founders which one to get (i went with the atlas), plenty of people chose jenners or hunchbacks as well.

Unlike the founders program though, Phoenix starts you off with light mechs, and only as you pay more do you get the heavier ones. Not hard to read between the lines here. In a meta dominated by assaults, if you want the assault mech, you have to buy the most expensive option. Because who are we kidding? The Battlemaster will clearly be better than the Locust. It HAS to be better. It financially benefits PGI for it to be better. And Assaults will continue to be better than their lighter counterparts. Not different, not playing a different role. Better.

So, thanks but no thanks. If I'm still playing this game when that content is released--if this game is still up and running when that content is released, I'll buy the assault mech with what will probably be upwards of 400m cbills i'll have by then, and stomp the talon/storm/guardian tier phoenixers. I'll just have to live with the knowledge that the overlord phoenixers got a bunch of mechbays and premium time and 9 crap mechs with their 3 decent ones. AND MEDALLIONS!

******** pgi, get off your ***** and fix the single-variable changes that have been broken for months now

It's a cable company deal.
You want to watch all these good movies? Pay to watch these not very good movies first. Oh, but before you can pay for that, you need to pay for playboy. Oh, but you can't pay for playboy unless you pay for this german car channel. But that's not available unless you buy cartoon network.

But you still need to pay cable license, and get this card.

[w0rm]

Good post p00k

[Taemien]

jakucha, on 27 June 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

I don't think the problem is that they need to make mediums better. I think it's that they need to make assaults and heavies used less, maybe by adding money or xp incentives to mediums and lights. Otherwise, heavies and assaults will always be better than mediums in terms of surviving and killing power. It's just the way it is, and the reason you didn't see tons of assaults in lore is because they were incredibly expensive and hard to maintain, hence a majority of mechwarriors had medium and lights, which is too bad we can't mimic that here.

Making mediums better will decrease the use of heavier machines.

And I think you're misreading the lore a tad. Cost was only a factor for militias, mercenaries, and armies of non-house powers. The premier units had the best that money could buy. If you look at the Davion Brigade of Guards specifically. They used locusts, and other smaller mechs not to cut on costs, but to fit the mission and the tactics of the unit.

There are players here with more cbills than most entire mercenary outfits. Cost is not an issue and nor will it be in a video game. The only time you will see cost be an issue is in a planetary league but we're not talking about league balance, we're speaking of general game play.

Lets look at what happens to someone who jumps in a Centurion. They drop into a match and one of two things happens:

1. Cored out at long range since he's as big as an Atlas.
2. Cored out at short range because he's not nimble enough to move out of LOS.

Giving a cbill/exp incentive bonus to mediums in both cases still results in a destroyed mech.

If we don't make the changes I indicated, then why worry about any other issues? Take Atlas DDC, Stalkers, and Highlanders for fighting and leave the 85> ton mechs as collector items for kicks and giggles. Which option do you all want?

[Tabrias07]

Good job OP

To everyone saying lights and mediums are fine; you're missing the point. If lights and mediums are equally effective, why can't you choose which mech you want like you could in the founder's sale? Why are they all bundled together and you're forced to buy 2/3rd's of a MG spider with no JJ? It's like a ****** cable package that forces you to pay for Nickelodeon to get HBO.

[Deathlike]

Tabrias07, on 27 June 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

Good job OP

To everyone saying lights and mediums are fine; you're missing the point. If lights and mediums are equally effective, why can't you choose which mech you want like you could in the founder's sale? Why are they all bundled together and you're forced to buy 2/3rd's of a MG spider with no JJ? It's like a ****** cable package that forces you to pay for Nickelodeon to get HBO.

Welcome to the business world... where you need to show me teh MONEYYYY!

[d3d3y3]

I challenge anyone of you to make a product that everyone loves. Hell, even ******'s are disliked by over 4 million men... And that's just in America! What's better than a ******???
Keep up the good/bad work PGI. I'm going down (pun intended) with the ship, or I'm making land. Either way, It'll be a fun trip.
And please, all of you Mechwarriors, remember that corperate boardrooms are a hellish place to exist, even if 90% of the people at the table are on our side...

[Adrian Steel]

p00k, on 25 June 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Remember how in closed beta, PGI made this big deal about how every weight class had a role, and how bigger didn't necessarily mean better? And yet, especially in the last few patches, the exact opposite has been true. It's been go-big-or-go-home. Assaults dominate the field. Lights and Mediums get 1- or 2-shot by their heavier brethren.

Well, apparently, this is working as intended. And PGI wants to make a buck off it.

See Project Phoenix. Unlike Founders, when we were all bright eyed bushy tailed optimistic gamers filled with the hope that PGI would rejuvenate the IP, and where if you chose to be an elite founder you could choose one of the four mechs, PGI tosses that purchase model out the window. While there was debate among elite founders which one to get (i went with the atlas), plenty of people chose jenners or hunchbacks as well.

Unlike the founders program though, Phoenix starts you off with light mechs, and only as you pay more do you get the heavier ones. Not hard to read between the lines here. In a meta dominated by assaults, if you want the assault mech, you have to buy the most expensive option. Because who are we kidding? The Battlemaster will clearly be better than the Locust. It HAS to be better. It financially benefits PGI for it to be better. And Assaults will continue to be better than their lighter counterparts. Not different, not playing a different role. Better.

So, thanks but no thanks. If I'm still playing this game when that content is released--if this game is still up and running when that content is released, I'll buy the assault mech with what will probably be upwards of 400m cbills i'll have by then, and stomp the talon/storm/guardian tier phoenixers. I'll just have to live with the knowledge that the overlord phoenixers got a bunch of mechbays and premium time and 9 crap mechs with their 3 decent ones. AND MEDALLIONS!

******** pgi, get off your ***** and fix the single-variable changes that have been broken for months now

You may be a bad pilot, but you're a great poster. This post is sanity in an insane world.

[PEEFsmash]

Adrian Steel, on 27 June 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

You may be a bad pilot, but you're a great poster. This post is sanity in an insane world.

Cept hes not a bad pilot.

[Adrian Steel]

PEEFsmash, on 27 June 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Cept hes not a bad pilot.

Your standards are low, unless he's been working the grindstone since I haven't been playing.

Edited by Adrian Steel, 27 June 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

>implying you can mow lawns to make money or run a lemonade stand in the state of new york without getting arrested and fined for not having a business permit and all other required permits.

i live in a state where letting a kid run a lemonade stand is a fine and a potential felony, god bless the american dream.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 27 June 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

Adrian Steel, on 27 June 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Your standards are low, unless he's been working the grindstone since I haven't been playing.

Hes been a starter for a very successful unit.

[Dudeman3k]

once ina blue moon, i feel the need to log on and comment (which is a bad thing).

I agree with the OP, heres why:

I read the post, understand what hes trying to say, and accept the meta for what it is. I play Mediums, I do very well in mediums, but it's not what I can do with MY mediums, it's what are mediums good for OVER-ALL.... and they're pretty much not good for anything with the current game mechanics (I say this out of comparision to the AC20 and PPC boats). You cannot mount 2 AC 20's effectively on a medium like you can on a heavy..... so why chose a medium over a heavy?? for role purposes? for a striker you say??? well, to be honest my AC20 cat does a whole lot better than my treb being a striker.... becuase it has 2 AC20's and the armor to **** when **** gets real.

I love my mediums... but seriously, a heavy can and will do it a lot better

and, YES they are trying to ROB us!!! more money for a heavier, more playable mech??? jesus christ PGI... WTF?!

Edited by Dudeman3k, 27 June 2013 - 08:20 PM.

[GingerBang]

xDeityx, on 27 June 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

ITT: Anecdotal evidence from people in lower Elo brackets.

This is yet another thread that would benefit from public Elo ratings. Discussion just gets totally sidetracked by Dunning-Kruger poster children coming in with their 'evidence.'

Umm, no? ELO is only useful for tryhards who "~have to be, the very best, like no one ever was~" Some people actually play games for fun, ELO doesn't account for that. You know damn well with public ELO everyone would be going "OH, YOU'RE [insert number here] YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LOOOL!"

[ShinVector]

p00k, on 25 June 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Remember how in closed beta, PGI made this big deal about how every weight class had a role, and how bigger didn't necessarily mean better? And yet, especially in the last few patches, the exact opposite has been true. It's been go-big-or-go-home. Assaults dominate the field. Lights and Mediums get 1- or 2-shot by their heavier brethren.

Well, apparently, this is working as intended. And PGI wants to make a buck off it.

See Project Phoenix. Unlike Founders, when we were all bright eyed bushy tailed optimistic gamers filled with the hope that PGI would rejuvenate the IP, and where if you chose to be an elite founder you could choose one of the four mechs, PGI tosses that purchase model out the window. While there was debate among elite founders which one to get (i went with the atlas), plenty of people chose jenners or hunchbacks as well.

Unlike the founders program though, Phoenix starts you off with light mechs, and only as you pay more do you get the heavier ones. Not hard to read between the lines here. In a meta dominated by assaults, if you want the assault mech, you have to buy the most expensive option. Because who are we kidding? The Battlemaster will clearly be better than the Locust. It HAS to be better. It financially benefits PGI for it to be better. And Assaults will continue to be better than their lighter counterparts. Not different, not playing a different role. Better.

So, thanks but no thanks. If I'm still playing this game when that content is released--if this game is still up and running when that content is released, I'll buy the assault mech with what will probably be upwards of 400m cbills i'll have by then, and stomp the talon/storm/guardian tier phoenixers. I'll just have to live with the knowledge that the overlord phoenixers got a bunch of mechbays and premium time and 9 crap mechs with their 3 decent ones. AND MEDALLIONS!

******** pgi, get off your ***** and fix the single-variable changes that have been broken for months now

I am having a lot of trouble trying understand what OP wants PGI to do with Lights/Mediums.

Lights and mediums has been getting the nerfed direct/indirectly due to many of recent patches.

But it is still not the worst to come. The thing should ultimately kill light pilots is 'Knock downs'.
Having been playing since closed BETA (kinda stopped now. taking a study break.) running into your team mates and is probably the most annoying thing that happens during a heated battle.

To me in generally:
Light mechs are for:

• Scouting and relying information back to the team.
  
• Capping bases.
  
• Light mech hunter.
  
• Spotting for LRMS barrages.
  
• Finishing off critically damage mechs regardless whether they are in a HOT zone or not.
  
• Harrasser. (I put this last as this is the most risky thing for a light mech.)

Mediums:

• Scouting if they are fast and there are no light mechs.
  
• Capping if they are fast and there are no light mechs.
  
• Light mech hunter.
  
• Support attacker / Harasser.
  
• Gaurd for Assault mechs.

This list generally gets more iffy when to go to 8 man and competative play.
Honestly I that in a light mech, I am able to influnce the outcome of a battle for victory.

Usually being the last mech alive and capping for the win in either assault or conquest.
Less common is assist or own self wipeout the remaining enemy team.