578 replies to this topic

[Stoicblitzer]

i see your point and think you're wrong. blame the game, not the player. even competitive players are bored with ppc/gauss.

[Rippthrough]

Competitive builds are the result of balance issues. Not the other way around.

[IceSerpent]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

You are mistaken. "Highlighting" the issue, then using and abusing it is what causes even more of it to occur, thus the issue grows worse.

The OP is right, competitive players that min/max builds makes the problem worse.

I have to disagree - the problem is not that nobody uses LBX, the problem is that LBX is bad. Same goes for any other weapon or mech. It doesn't matter how many people use it or avoid it, that's just a symptom. What matters is how that weapon/mech compares to other weapons/mechs.

[Kunae]

Rippthrough, on 24 July 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Competitive builds are the result of balance issues. Not the other way around.

And it doesn't help when PGI makes these absurd new systems to "fix" something they broke in the first place.

[3rdworld]

Stoicblitzer, on 24 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

i see your point and think you're wrong. blame the game, not the player. even competitive players are bored with ppc/gauss.

I wouldn't say I am bored with it, or I wouldn't be still playing every night.

I am bored with there being no viable counters or competitors to it.

[z3a1ot]

I own 12 mechs and not even 1 of them carries PPCs. I simply refuse to be a part of the problem. Every time a new chasis comes out people only think about how many PPCs can it carry. I mean whats the point in that? Diversify a little, try some new things out (not just 2 or 3 ppc and gauss), don't be a d-bag every time you build new mech.

[scJazz]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Maybe "cause" is a poor descriptor... Maybe "magnify" would be a better one.

Do you think the present high-alpha meta and incessant forwarded premise to mitigate it would be as verbose if not for the maxim that not using the mechs and the weapons associated with it is "doing it wrong"?

You have a chicken/egg or horse/cart situation going here DaZur. Look I'm far from a competitive player. Hell I like it down here in Low/Middle ELO land.

Anyone playing this game while in possession of a reasonable IQ will learn very quickly what works and what doesn't. It doesn't take "Competition" or "Genius" to understand that standing around with a DakkaJager blasting away is not as effective as blasting a hole in someones CT, ducking cover, and blasting a 2nd time for the kill. The only thing the Competitive Player has going for him is that he already knows this stuff. He isn't experimenting with LBX/AC2 Builds... he knows Damage over Time sucks! He knows it sucks because the Heat System, Weapon Recycle times, and Separate Damage locations are broken.

Thought experiment for you...
Lets pretend that all those hit boxes CT, LT, LA, etc just disappear. Instead we have a "Total Health Bar". Now, who wins AC2 Cataphract or 2PPC+GR Cataphract? The AC2 Cataphract obviously because each miss has less meaning and firing rate means that as they both approach zero health the AC2s will manage the killing stroke while the PPCs are still in their cooldown.

Why is this instructive? Because is clarifies the gigantic flaws that are the basis of this game. CT Coring = Win and you can do that MUCH more effectively with "ballistic" weapons with Pin-Point Convergence. Therefore if we want weapon/build balancing "Ballistic" weapons like the PPC, GR, AC20 need some nerfs or every other weapon system needs some buffs. Alternatively, we need to ditch the idiocy of using Pin-Point Convergence on a target designed to absorb damage randomly aka a TT inspired Mech design.

[hammerreborn]

CancR, on 24 July 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

But what about us Competitive lights?

We set fire to the enemy team screaming squirrel and shooting 6 flamers into the air while running around like a pyro psycho from borderlands cackling and jumping on peoples heads?

At least that's what I do >.>

[DaZur]

It's human nature to emulate peers we deems as successful... So it's no surprise that the community gravitates to what is perceived and lauded by those who are successful.

That said... Can it not also be assumed that in the absence of the "competitive environment" and the success it exhibits, that the casual player would, with the greater goal of just "having fun" use the weapons and mechs that are presently qualified as "poor / worthless" influencing the present meta toward a more balanced battlefield?

Or in other words... which is more damaging to the game; unbalanced weapons or the disproportionate usage of them?

[tenderloving]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 July 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Be careful, however, guess what kind of person is most attracted to story-less PvP titles.

This game is 100% competitive. There is no other objective than to defeat a human enemy. It always puzzles me that people complain about "competitive players." What are you doing if you aren't trying to win?

[xDeityx]

Ok so let's carry out a thought experiment of removing all the competitive players.

Why do non-competitive players run the builds they run? For fun, right? That's always the justification I hear in the frankenmech threads, "I don't care if LBX are trash, I have fun with them so I run them." So you have fun running LBX and machine guns, another non-comp. player has fun running lasers and missiles, so that's what you put on your 'mechs. Does this just means that the guy who "happens" to prefer the PPCs and Gauss will have a huge advantage? Is that what you want? Instead of a fight being decided by skill, it instead is hugely weighted towards the person whose personal preferences happen to line up with the current OP weaponry?

This is the problem with "balancing by gentleman's agreement" as I call it. Not everyone plays by the same rules, and there are those who would still exploit overpowered weapons without intending to.

Any game where you have an opponent can be looked upon as an argument. You say, "THIS is the best way to win" and your opponent says "actually given the conditions on the field, THIS is the best way to win." In a good game the argument is detailed and complex, with point and counterpoint being exchanged and the advantage going back and forth as the opponents adapt to what each other are doing. For example you might bring out LRM 'mechs at a distance as your opening strategy, but I'll counter that strategy by staying near ECM and cover. Then you'll move your strikers on the flank to counter my counter-strategy and I sure as hell better have an answer to that counter-counter-strategy or I'll lose. The reality and problem is that PGI created a framework for the argument in which the end-all and be-all answer is PPCs.

And here you are saying that players who have the clarity to see the obvious and boring answer to PGI's puzzle are the problem instead of PGI for making such a simplistic framework for the "argument." It's scary and doesn't bode well for the future of the game if that is the mindset people in the community have.

[Roland]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

The AC-20?

AC20 hasn't ever been touched before - so why is it a problem? I know its the mechanics, but it was fine as a single AC20 on an Atlas right? Its not until the "competitive player" abuses it does it become the problem as they make it an obvious way to win. Then we end up having Paul making some nonsense heat system to fix it, when the problem itself isn't with the AC20 - its how the AC20 is used.

The whole issue with the game meta is perpetuated by competitive players abusing it.

No, you're wrong.
The game is broken, and good players exploit that brokenness.

You're kind of right, in that the AC20 wasn't the problem. The problem was the underlying game mechanics that mean high alpha strikes are the best way to kill mechs. The AC20 merely provided a mechanism by which to exploit that mechanic.

You're being foolish if you think that players are somehow creating the balance issues. As though the underlying issues, founded in the mechanics of the game, would somehow magically disappear if you didn't look at them.

Balance issues aren't some kind of quantum mechanical phenomenon, whose existence depends upon an observer. They are directly caused by the implementation of features in the game.

[Shae Starfyre]

I agree with OP, but, it is not wrong. The game has a venue for both game styles.

I strongly believe as time goes on, we will have the pug environment and the competitive environment to play in, and in both cases, a different set of maxims.

It will be such, that PUGs are chastised for even attempting to bring that hunk of metal to a competitive match, while at the same time, competitive peers will mock another competitive player for even dropping in the PUG scene.

But, as to the skew of oppinion and choice being dramatically influenced by competition, is right on the money. And, you can blame PGI for the issue, but in reality, they are looking at a huge list of do's and prioritizing on a couple of factors.... casual and competitive.

Another-words, we can only have it all when the time comes, but until then, we have what we have.

I choose to play like they are going to nerf the latest craze, so I will not be affected when the time comes, and you know what, I learn to pilot better, and find interesting uses for odd weapons like the LBX 10, and flourish with it.

Over all, a good find on the perspective.

[DaZur]

tenderloving, on 24 July 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

This game is 100% competitive. There is no other objective than to defeat a human enemy. It always puzzles me that people complain about "competitive players." What are you doing if you aren't trying to win?

I think you're getting caught up in semantics...

Yes, MW:O is a competitive game in that the end-game is to kill mechs and "win".

The deference between a casual player and a competitive player is their respective "end-game". A competitive player sees winning as end result of their efforts... This is "fun" for them. A casual player sees playing as "fun" and their end game is to having fun while attempting to "win".

A casual player will generally accept either a win/loss outcome so long as they have fun doing it. A competitive player generally has the most fun if they are ...well, competitive and win. And in order for 1 and 2 to be fully realized they expect the players around them to also exhibit the core aspects of a competitive player.

Edited by DaZur, 24 July 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[MechFrog1]

Before recent changes, bad builds were the fault of the player either through inexperience, ignorance, or deliberate action. Now that PGI has decided they have the free time to determine what builds we can use through the use of stealth heat changes, we are now no longer responsible. Welcome to the MWO nanny state. Open your mouth and be grateful when they come by to spew their changes into it.

[scJazz]

I do want to bring up one point that the "competitive players" constantly screw up. In their incessant demands for weapon balancing they always insist that anything not PPC/Gauss/AC20 be buffed to suck less. WRONG! We do not need more lethality on the battlefield. We need less! PPC/Gauss/AC20 need to be nerfed to suck as much as everything else!

It is a blind spot caused by their Competitive nature that they ask for balance by demanding buffs to everything because buff = good as opposed to nerfs.

[xDeityx]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

I think your getting caught up in semantics...

Yes, MW:O is a competitive game in that the end-game is to kill mechs and "win".

The deference between a casual player and a competitive player is their respective "end-game". A competitive player sees winning as end result of their efforts... This is "fun" for them. A casual player sees playing as "fun" and their end game is to having fun while attempting to "win".

A casual player will generally accept either a win/loss outcome so long as they have fun doing it. A competitive player generally has the most fun if they are ...well, competitive and win. And in order for 1 and 2 to be fully realized they expect the players around them to also exhibit the core aspects of a competitive player.

The stated objective of the game every time you load a map is to beat the enemy team by killing them or capping the base(s).

It sounds like you would be much more satisfied with a game mode that never ends and has infinite respawn so you can play with 'mechs without having to worry about winning or losing. But when you're in a game mode where there are winners and losers the entire concept is predicated upon the assumption that all of the players are doing their best to try to win.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I see where you are coming from.

Someone figures out what the best mech loadout is to kill people.

He tells his friends.

They start killing people with it.

It slowly spreads like a disease, as more and more people are killed by it, more and more people start to use it.

Eventually we end up with what we have now.

The problem is, PGI has to go all Dustin Hoffman from Outbreak, track down the monkey and catch it before Renee Russo dies.

Instead, they've gone more Johnny Knoxville from The Ringer.

[MaddMaxx]

Roland, on 24 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

No, the problem already exists.
They are merely making it obvious.

Competitive players do not make things imbalanced. They have no capacity to do so, as the weapons statistics are set by the game.

And as is, any Game that has more than 1 weapon has to have each separate weapon have some "statistical variety" to even begin to be "FUN" or Competitive. Otherwise the FIX is beyond simple.

Everyone gets just one weapon and it is the exact same for all. How utterly un-fun a game would that create.

We have been over this before. Game imbalance is a given and the perception of that imbalance is in the eye of the beholder.

Why does a PPC goes 1080m max., do 10 points of damage for 8 Heat?

Why does a AC10 go 1350m max., do 10 points of damage for only 3 heat?

Why don't all 10 point weapons go the same distance and have the same Heat? They do the same damage...

Hopefully CW will sort this out. Those who want that elusive PUG only queue will likely not play CW right off and the true LW and Mercs/House players will have their CW.

BUT, if anyone really thinks that will stop the cries for Nerfs and Buffs, please get a good grip. The ride will continue to be as bumpy then as it is now.

P.S. Good OP, OP.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 24 July 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[von Pilsner]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Or in other words... which is more damaging to the game; unbalanced weapons or the disproportionate usage of them?

Unbalanced weapons, you really want to blame the players, but it is the devs and their unbalanced game that is to blame... Not the players (they are simply playing the game as it was created)