Ralgas, on 29 June 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:
I'm not suggesting they build the entire game around competitive players.
I'm stating as fact that a well-balanced armament system, and other mechanics (ECM/BAP/Seismic/etc) which produce a variety of useful mechs and tactics for top, competitive players will automatically make the average- and below-average players have a better experience, too.
Why?
- If both sniping and brawling are viable, then people can be useful in brawlers, and enjoy that play-style.
- If scouting has more team-benefit and rewards, players who wish to scout will enjoy themselves more
- It defending has more team-benefit and rewards, players who wish to defend ...
- get the idea?
Also it's ******* ridiculous that "new" players actually have a higher median and average ELO than experienced, 50+ game players. Know why they do? First, because new player ELO was too high (and still is.) Second, because relatively few players sit on MW:O all day long with their PPC mechs and shred the larger number of average- and below-average players.
Finally, there are clearly a few people posting in this thread who don't understand ELO. Most players will ALWAYS gravitate toward the middle, because the system "rewards" you (boosts your ELO rank) more when you defeat high-ranked players, then when you defeat crappy ones. Don't look at that graph and think, oh, most players must not be doing the PPC meta or there would be taller lines near the right. That is incorrect. The distribution of players-to-ranking is always going to favor the middle values; it's a design element of the system.
DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:
PGI claim to have many competitive gamers on their staff, well it certainly does not feel or look like it.
Because otherwise, Garth would understand why people play "boring" PPC boats, or someone in the office could explain to him why, and the mindset of why.
They do NOT make balance decisions based on numbers. If they did, they would realize several obvious things:
- pulse lasers are trash, and need a buff; yet they just got a nerf
- MGs are trash even after a 150% buff, after PGI claimed they were fine and doubling their damage (100% buff) would be "devastating" (their word)
- SRMs need attention more than any other type of weapon
- numerous mech-variants are worthless (SDR-5K, CDA-3C, etc.)
- too many assault games, on more maps than just Alpine, are won by base capture with minimal combat
- conquest resource cap needs increase on most maps
- rewards for defense are usually 0 unless your team loses, in which case, you get less reward anyway (no victory)
- Awesome is terrible. Dragon is terrible. why? hitboxes, duh!