578 replies to this topic

[PropagandaWar]

I feel I am competitive to a level. However I go at it differently. I look for builds that are good but not optimal. I like to challenge myself by comming in with something that can kick butt but not obliterate. I found that when I try comp builds that I can be quite lethal so I get bored quick with them.

[Elyam]

Op, you're right. It all comes down to whether or not you believe that adhering to the established norms of the BT universe and building upon that foundation and within that framework will end up, in the long haul, creating a better online competition game. Many who identify themselves as wanting the best online competition game do not see established BT/MW as a foundation and framework, but as an open list of items to be kept or tossed out based on immediate perceptions.

[Kunae]

Reverendk, on 24 July 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

What?

You seem to be confusing the moral judgement definition with the skill-level definition.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Yes, they are part of the problem with balance.

[1453 R]

PEEFsmash, on 24 July 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

They are the most inclined to run "the pinnacle mechs/loadouts" because they want to satisfy the win-conditions of the game, and there are other good players challenging them. In order to not have a disadvantage in their pursuits to win, they use good mechs. Surprise!

They point out that other players aren't doing it right BECAUSE THEY AREN'T. Assuming you want to win at a high level in this game, you aren't doing it right if you are using a terrible build. You will be putting yourself at an artificial disadvantage for the sake of some unspoken (aka nonexistent) rule.

As long as people playing this game want to win and don't want to lose, they will use the best builds they can make. It is the job of PGI to close the gap between the best builds and other builds so there isn't overcentralization on one type of build. It is not the job of players of a PvP game to not equip weapons that will help them win when the point of the game is to win.

This post is everything that's currently wrong with MWO.

Everything.

To pull up a second point of discussion:

scJazz, on 24 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

This is the reason why it is logical, proper, and reasonable for competitive players to request weapons/builds be balanced against their play. If they are then the weapons/builds are balanced for everyone.

Allow me to rewrite that the way scJazz, and other players who advocate such things as 'Make Elo scores public!' and 'balance around competitive league play first!' actually meant it to be read. Ahem:

scJazz, on 24 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

This is the reason why it is logical, proper, and reasonable for competitive players to request weapons/builds be balanced against their play. If they are then the weapons/builds are balanced for competitive players, because everyone knows that casuals, low Elos, and all the other scrubs and terribads are dirty leeches who don't deserve a fun and balanced game.

Why, exactly, are competitive players the only ones who are permitted to have fun with MWO? Do I need to try and join a cutthroat league-play clan in order to be worthy of having a fair and balanced game? Why does every jackanape on this forum insist that only the top two percent of MWO players have any right to play and enjoy the game? I'd bet you - whoever you are in this instance - money that you're not one of those top two percent. I don't even care who you are. Why? Because even if only half the players in this forum took me up on it, I guarantee I'd win far more than I lost.

Going back to PEEF's Post now.

PEEF. A question, from one of those filthy, no-talent scrubs who should just shrivel up and die and leave the game to his betters.

What if I don't like Stalkers?

See, to be a competitive player in this gamescape, you need to have a Stalker, and you need to load it up with every PPC you can reasonably sustain. Four if you're temperate, six if you're ballsy. There are no other acceptable builds. Buy a Stalker, put PPCs in it. NOW. DO IT OR YOU'RE A FAILURE AS A HUMAN BEING.

But...but, PEEF? I...sorta like Dragons. I've got mastery on them too, and a lot of practice in -

NO! STALKERS OR YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

But I hate being a lumbering, immobile weapons platform! Not only do I hate it, I'm not any good at it - I get twitchy under incoming fire and can never tolerate sitting in one place for too long. I play the 'Mechs I do kinda specifically because I'm a bad conventional assault 'Mech pilot, and I figure that if I play to my strengths I can -

STALKERS OR DOING IT WRONG.

...got it. Stalkers.

Is this really the sort of message we want people to hear? Is this really what cutthroat league-players want this game to be? If this is what you're shooting for, then maybe I should take my scrubby self - and the significant amount of money I've put into MWO, despite the fact that I'm a scrub and thus clearly never actually contribute to a game and franchise I love - elsewhere. Because I'm not going to put up with self-proclaimed elites telling me I can't play this game unless I play it their way.

I have spent over a decade and a half of my life playing TCGs on a competitive level. Given enough time to build up my knowledge of the game and my collection of cards, I am always one of the feared players in a local scene. I did well at the few regional competitions I managed to get to, to boot. And I did it with my own decks, formulated with my own cards to fit my own plans and preferences, because that is what I do. I take the junk no one cares about, the cards and the concepts that everyone tells me are rubbish, and I win games with them. I beat players running top decks, decks they've found on websites that have won Worlds-level competitions, because they play decks they didn't make, they didn't run, they don't know against a guy who knows everything he's got back to front and thinks the same way his deck does. I beat them senseless, and make them wonder why the deck they spent so much time and money aping is supposed to be so good.

Then I turn around and tell them why that deck they just lost with is so good and what they should have done with it to take me apart.

I will be damned if I let folks like you dictate to me what I should and should not pilot, because to do otherwise is Doing It Wrong. This may not be a TCG, and I'm well aware that many of the rules surrounding this game are completely different, but frankly I don't really care. I know what I like, I know what I'm good at, and I know what I can't, and thus won't, pilot. if that's being a useless scrub, then I'm a useless scrub. What you're not going to do is tell me that I can't voice my own opinions, or demand balance for my weapons and playstyles of choice as well as yours, just because you think yourselves above me, above DaZur, above everyone who isn't in your personal little clubhouse of Awesome League Guys.

By all means, demand balance for your level of play. You're as entitled to it as I am. But I am as entitled to balance at my level of play as you are, and you don't get to take it away from me. Not without a ********* fight.

[Kunae]

blinkin, on 24 July 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

the problem is that the ignorance gets vomited out at a far faster rate than anything that is well thought out, because thinking and maybe doing a little research takes more time than spamming rage posts.

also we have extremists on both ends. take a look at the rant by PEEF. i have read several of his posts and if he had his way the forums would become a good ol boys style club with probably less than 5 people that are allowed to post. PEEF is most likely the type of person that this thread was designed to combat.

That's an unfair characterization, in my opinion. You just have to understand that PEEF was speaking from a position of "frustration with blithering idiots". I have been in that state often enough myself, that I've come to recognize it when it manifests in others.

blinkin, on 24 July 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

as far as your CoD kiddie description of "those people" earlier, i don't think that works because not all of them are simply in favor of twitch shooter gameplay. streaks are a perfect example of where that description fails (generally lacking in the effort required by most other weapons).

No, "CoD kiddies" has nothing to do with "twitch", but more to do with the mentality. The people who wall-hack, exploit actual bugs, etc, not those who simply use the game design and aspects of it, to their fullest advantage.

[DaZur]

xDeityx, on 24 July 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

How are you still not getting that it isn't the competitive player dictating what 'mech to pilot it's PGI dictating this. The competitive gamer is recognizing the truth, not creating the truth. And the truth is that if you aren't in one of X number of load outs then you could be pulling more weight than you are.

It's not a problem, it's a reality. Unless you are on another level entirely, you can't be competitive with anything but the optimum builds dictated BY PGI NOT THE COMPETITIVE PLAYERS

Everyone is in agreement with this statement. That's why we want PGI to change their f'ed up balance so that there is actual variety in the metagame. You seem to prefer blaming players.

Interesting...

You saying it's all PGI's fault, yet I have never once seen a PGI representative tell anyone the mech they've chosen nor the weapons they mounted not their level of commitment is "wrong" and they are a gross liability to the game.

PGI has some balance issues to sort out no doubt... that's not in dispute. That said, blaming their mistakes lock-stock and barrel for the present balance meta is disingenuous and myopic. In order for balance to be a global issue it must be abused...

[hammerreborn]

Roland, on 24 July 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

One thing that always amazes me is that some folks seem to harbor some kind of resentment for players who are better than they are. They throw around terms like "tryhards".

If you call someone a tryhard, you know what that means? It means you are bad. Period.

Not caring much about winning is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm not nearly as competitive now as I was when I was a kid playing MW4.

But there is a problem when you refuse to exert the effort to get better at a game, and think that the problem is the guy who is better than you. If you care about winning, then you need to put in the work to win. You can't expect other people to simply fall down to your level.

If you say that you "play for fun" and then you complain when someone beats you, it means you're an imbecile.

I call them try hards because it's hilarious how angry they get.

Did it in the heat scale thread and I got at least 10 bites.

Also, try hards is a perfectly cromulent term for the tourney winners as the effort in just sheer time it takes to get there easily qualifies as a try hard.

[Kunae]

1453 R, on 24 July 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

<snip>

Wow.

You're brilliant.

--------

Persecution complex, much?

[Reverendk]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

You seem to be confusing the moral judgement definition with the skill-level definition.

No, I'm just confused about how equipping a mech is indicative of player skill.

[James The Fox Dixon]

I will explain my answer in further detail. It doesn't matter what system a game uses, computer and/or pen and paper, but the power gamers/min-maxers/competitive players will always break a system. One thing to keep in mind is that you will never have a balanced system for any game. I say this as a game designer. The goal of any game design is not to build around the power gamers/min-maxers/competitive players since they are the minority of all the players. The goal should be to limit how these power gamers/min-maxers/competitive players can break the system that makes it not fun for other players.

A good example of this is the pin-point alpha. How would you as a game designer limit the impact of the pin-point alpha? For me it would be the use of heat penalties that take effect immediately, not allowing them to begin with as the mech computers cannot keep up with by lore, adding in pilots and their skills ala War Thunder, and checking specific numbers for chassis, weapons, and equipment so that it provides an equal playing field for everyone.

[Kunae]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Interesting...

You saying it's all PGI's fault, yet I have never once seen a PGI representative tell anyone the mech they've chosen nor the weapons they mounted not their level of commitment is "wrong" and they are a gross liability to the game.

PGI has some balance issues to sort out no doubt... that's not in dispute. That said, blaming their mistakes lock-stock and barrel for the present balance meta is disingenuous and myopic. In order for balance to be a global issue it must be abused...

Ok, mate, that made no sense, as a response to what Roland said.

PGI created the game, and have balanced things to the point they are now.

It is PGI's responsibility if weapons are not balanced. It is not any fault of any player if they use the tools that PGI has placed in the game, to their best advantage.

Or are you trying to apply a "unicorn, rainbow and fairie" morality ethic to mechbuilding, in MWO?

[Athurio]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

The only reasons PPC's were considered OP is because PGI lowered their heat, sped up their shot times, put in HSR and nerfed the hell out of SRM spread and damage.

I'm in agreement here. PGI seems to favor these "sweeping changes" in weapon balance. It seems like it would be wiser to change a single aspect of a particular weapon at a time, and see what that avails. Back in closed-beta, the PPC was somewhat lack-luster (especially in comparison to the gauss). However, the only thing it really needed was the projectile speed.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 24 July 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Comp. players don't actually cause the weapons/mechs/whatever to be imbalanced, it's the devs that (unintentionally) input the wrong variables to make those items superior. Comp. players merely identify and capitalize on those imbalances left over by the devs. They bring the imbalances to light so that hopefully they can be fixed.



...And no, I'm not a comp. player myself. I pug pretty much exclusively and have fairly bad aim in many of my matches.

I don't know if this is true Fup. If a weapon is imbalanced it would be to effective singularly. Is One Gauss or One PPC game breaking? I have 2 PPCs on a Pract(Warhammer-6D). It is not OP cause it has PPCs Now 6 PPCs with 60 points of Pin Point damage, That is OP. In the Future we will be getting Heavy, Light and Snub nose PPCs. Maybe the Devs should separate PPCs from Energy Weapons and make a PPC hard point now.

[Roland]

1453 R, on 24 July 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

This post is everything that's currently wrong with MWO.

Everything.

I agree. Your post is indeed a good example of everything that is wrong with MWO.

You misunderstand a really fundamental aspect of game balance, and how it is improved.

See, taking terrible builds is not how you improve game balance. It's merely how you play poorly.

Do you like Dragons? That's cool. Do you like LBX? Me too!

But I don't USE LBX. Why? Because it's, easily, one of the worst weapons in the game. Taking it only makes me less effective, and playing poorly does not make anything "more fun".

Instead of simply taking terrible builds, the rational choice for improving the game is to argue for the improvement of those terrible weapons and mechs, in order to make them competitive... so that taking them is not an inherent liability.

In MW4, the LBX wasn't the worst weapon in the game, believe it or not! It was actually one of the BEST weapons in the game, especially compared to other infighting weapons. Do you know how they managed that? They increased its damage to 14, instead of 10. Suddenly, it was a competitive weapon, that you actually saw in competitive matches.

See, the changes that the competitive players are generally asking for will make the game more fun FOR YOU... because they are arguing for a more balanced game. And a more balanced game will result in the ability to field more diverse builds.

In many ways, you are actually hurting yourself by bringing terribad builds like LBX dragons, because you are then contributing to usage statistics which do not reflect the actual competitiveness of that equipment. PGI can then potentially look at those stats and say, "Hey, tons of people still use LBX, so they must not really be that bad!"

Thus, by playing bad builds, you are actually hindering those builds from ever being elevated to being competitive.

[xDeityx]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Interesting...

You saying it's all PGI's fault, yet I have never once seen a PGI representative tell anyone the mech they've chosen nor the weapons they mounted not their level of commitment is "wrong" and they are a gross liability to the game.

PGI has some balance issues to sort out no doubt... that's not in dispute. That said, blaming their mistakes lock-stock and barrel for the present balance meta is disingenuous and myopic. In order for balance to be a global issue it must be abused...

PGI doesn't need to make a statement, they created the game. Who made it so that PPCs are the best weapon? PGI. Whether you have a competitive player telling you your build sucks or not doesn't change the fact that it sucks or not.

Reverendk, on 24 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

No, I'm just confused about how equipping a mech is indicative of player skill.

The skill is called valuation. It is the ability to determine the relative value of the pieces in the game.

[Kunae]

Reverendk, on 24 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

No, I'm just confused about how equipping a mech is indicative of player skill.

Compare:

Player 1: DDC1: 1MG, 1LB10X w/2t ammo, 1 LRM20/10t ammo, 1 flamer, 1 ERLL
Player 2: DDC2: 2ML, 1 AC20/4t ammo, 3SRM6/5t ammo

Which is more skilled at building a mech?

[Deathlike]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Interesting...

You saying it's all PGI's fault, yet I have never once seen a PGI representative tell anyone the mech they've chosen nor the weapons they mounted not their level of commitment is "wrong" and they are a gross liability to the game.

This assumes that most of PGI is playing the game that we are playing.

I remember a discussion that evolved around Garth about that idea where "any mech should be viable" and any player can design around that basic idea. The problem with that is that every mech has a completely different function by design, and that they will naturally excel or fail at a particular type of role you wish to use it for. It sounds great in theory that every mech/chassis/variant SHOULD be viable, but there are many instances where some mechs are not (CDA-3C), Spider-5V/5K, Atlas-K (well, until it has a nice large missile option). We cannot strictly use idealism to apply practicality into a game that has effectively carved out the "role" of a mech (which is already lacking in this role warfare).

Quote

PGI has some balance issues to sort out no doubt... that's not in dispute. That said, blaming their mistakes lock-stock and barrel for the present balance meta is disingenuous and myopic. In order for balance to be a global issue it must be abused...

Human nature will cause people to find what works for them... whether they are good or bad ideas. For those of us who understand what is truly wrong (although disagreeing on the exact solution to address it), we can easily identify it, and abuse it as we so choose. Unless the system itself forces different decisions to be made due to design, people will continue to play builds that are within the "legal limits" of said parameters.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

This thread is dumb. Let it die already.

[Royalewithcheese]

1453 R, based on the buzz I've been hearing from the comp community, the average comp player would *love* it if your Dragon was viable. You seem to be conflating people saying "this robot is bad" with people saying "this robot *should* be bad."