578 replies to this topic

[Feetwet]

I really am only confused by one thing though:

1. It seems to that the competitive player only has fun while winning
2. This is accomplished by min/max ing
3. The current meta has builds that reflect 2

With the above in mind I don't understand why competitive players want balance. You want to win...and your winning what does it matter how?

On a side note what do you think the percentage of competitive players is to scrubs?

S

[Joseph Mallan]

Psikez, on 24 July 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Once again the solution is the commando with 1 small laser. Then all our mechs can be even!

But your Small laser is hitting more often than mine ya Hack!!!

[Psikez]

Feetwet, on 24 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

I really am only confused by one thing though:

1. It seems to that the competitive player only has fun while winning
2. This is accomplished by min/max ing
3. The current meta has builds that reflect 2

We have plenty of fun when losing. In general one learns more on a loss than a win.
Opportunity to look at your team, consider what you did wrong, pick up and try again.

Joseph Mallan, on 24 July 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

But your Small laser is hitting more often than mine ya Hack!!!

NERF PSIKEZ

[GaussDragon]

Homeless Bill, on 24 July 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

TL;DR: Competitive people are not the villains; they are currently the ones most vocally pushing for balance changes that are a mostly a direct nerf to what they run.

Pretty much this. Sure I can min/max builds, but if there's only really one build to min/mas, then what makes this game interesting? When balance is done well, there are so many builds at equal footing that it becomes harder to say that anything is min-maxed because there are more builds offsetting each other.

Sure I can kick *** with a sniper, but when there are only a few viable builds then there's not much of a surprise as to what my opponent is going to bring. It makes gameplay flat, stale and predictable. When there is more build variety through good balance (the current heat scale is anything but that) then the variety in play styles varies greater too. It means I have to understand my opponent and how they play, it means I have to plan. In a stale, unbalanced environment, you don't get that cerebral element because you know exactly what everyone is already taking. And to re-enforce Homeless Bill's quote above I'll quote something I posted a few days ago:

GaussDragon, on 22 July 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

Defend my try-hard builds? I never used the AC40 Jager, I never used the 6 PPC or 4 PPC Stalker, in fact, I don't own a ******* Stalker or Jagermech. The mechs that get most ham-strung by this system are ones I've never used (but killed a countless number of times). Here are the 4 builds I have used the most

• 2 ER PPC 1 Gauss 3D
  
• 3 SRM 6 CN9A
  
• 6 medium laser JR7F
  
• 3 medium laser 2 SSRM2 3L

Not a single one of those mechs has been affected by this heat scale system and yet I still think it's god-awful. What alternate reality are you occupying?

The heatscale system doesn't affect the already good mechs I use which only (conceivably) makes them comparatively stronger and in essence, benefiting me. Yet despite that, I'm actively against it because I know I'll never have any problem finding and adapting to good builds, as a competitive player that's what I do. What I want to do more than anything is have as many good builds to choose from as possible because it'll make the game far more interesting and far more fun.

[Feetwet]

Psikez, on 24 July 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

We have plenty of fun when losing. In general one learns more on a loss than a win.
Opportunity to look at your team, consider what you did wrong, pick up and try again.

NERF PSIKEZ

I agree with your statement about losing. If you keep a clear head and evaluate what you did or didn't do a lose is valuable. But if you also have fun in a lose and you think ppc/guass is boring then why do you play it. Im using the royal you here...competitive players in general.

[Psikez]

GaussDragon, on 24 July 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

The heatscale system doesn't affect the already good mechs I use which only (conceivably) makes them comparatively stronger and in essence, benefiting me. Yet despite that, I'm actively against it because I know I'll never have any problem finding and adapting to good builds, as a competitive player that's what I do. What I want to do more than anything is have as many good builds to choose from as possible because it'll make the game far more interesting and far more fun.

I've been dieing to use an LB-10X on a competitive brawler for near a year

[Joseph Mallan]

Psikez, on 24 July 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I've been dieing to use an LB-10X on a competitive brawler for near a year

Then do it! Just back it up with a few extra weapons.

[Psikez]

Feetwet, on 24 July 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

I agree with your statement about losing. If you keep a clear head and evaluate what you did or didn't do a lose is valuable. But if you also have fun in a lose and you think ppc/guass is boring then why do you play it. Im using the royal you here...competitive players in general.

Frankly they are boring for me. I bring them out to keep in practice for matches but more often than not if I'm just out for a pug I'll bring something like an AC20 hunch. When it comes to an 8v8 competitive match against another team I am out above all to win. I find competition fun and I like to win. Given that goal I am going to take whatever gives me an edge or at the very least that doesn't leave me at a horrible disadvantage.

And please don't think we're all a horribly conceited bunch. I play competitively but that doesn't make me better than anyone. I've had plenty of matches (to my embarrassment to admit) where I've died sub-100 damage doing something I had no reason to be doing.

Joseph Mallan, on 24 July 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Then do it! Just back it up with a few extra weapons.

I just can't justify an 11 ton weapon thats only good in knife fight range. Even an AC20 I can shoot out to 540m and do decent damage. I love running 3 on my ilya though, that thing is suprisingly nasty if you can get its slow bulk up into 180m or so

Edited by Psikez, 24 July 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[Entail]

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

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

Everything.

To pull up a second point of discussion:


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:




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.

I'm a really competitive player. I play purely to win. When I lose I get pissed. With that said, I don't play
a stalker or use PPC's. I stopped using PPC's on a catapult when I realized that whiners will
get PGI to nerf PPC's so I stopped using them. No one is telling you to use a stalker or PPC's so calm down.

I agree with you on one point. No one should tell me what I can and can't build. PGI shouldn't tell me that I shouldn't be firing
7 medium lasers, 4 SRM6's, or 3 large lasers at the same time, 3 PPC's at the same time.

GIve me the option to build and play what I want.

[DaZur]

Mystere, on 24 July 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Again, the PPC by itself is not OP. Shooting six of them with pinpoint accuracy is.

I counter... a player shooting 6 pin-point PPC with accuracy is an annoyance... 3/4th of a drop shooting them is what's OP.

[Feetwet]

Psikez, on 24 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Frankly they are boring for me. I bring them out to keep in practice for matches but more often than not if I'm just out for a pug I'll bring something like an AC20 hunch. When it comes to an 8v8 competitive match against another team I am out above all to win. I find competition fun and I like to win. Given that goal I am going to take whatever gives me an edge or at the very least that doesn't leave me at a horrible disadvantage.

And please don't think we're all a horribly conceited bunch. I play competitively but that doesn't make me better than anyone. I've had plenty of matches (to my embarrassment to admit) where I've died sub-100 damage doing something I had no reason to be doing.



I just can't justify an 11 ton weapon thats only good in knife fight range. Even an AC20 I can shoot out to 540m and do decent damage. I love running 3 on my ilya though, that thing is suprisingly nasty if you can get its slow bulk up into 180m or so

I will look for you on the field sir. Salute!

[Feetwet]

Entail, on 24 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

I'm a really competitive player. I play purely to win. When I lose I get pissed. With that said, I don't play
a stalker or use PPC's. I stopped using PPC's on a catapult when I realized that whiners will
get PGI to nerf PPC's so I stopped using them. No one is telling you to use a stalker or PPC's so calm down.

I agree with you on one point. No one should tell me what I can and can't build. PGI shouldn't tell me that I shouldn't be firing
7 medium lasers, 4 SRM6's, or 3 large lasers at the same time, 3 PPC's at the same time.

GIve me the option to build and play what I want.

My favorite mech to run was my flame with 4 llas. Well that non optimum build is crap now. Thx PGI.

[Psikez]

Feetwet, on 24 July 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

My favorite mech to run was my flame with 4 llas. Well that non optimum build is crap now. Thx PGI.

Dragons were my first love. My first favorite build way back in closed closed beta was the Dragon 1-C which I ran with an XL360 4 medium pulse and as many freaking single heat sinks as I could cram into that chassis

[Feetwet]

Psikez, on 24 July 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Dragons were my first love. My first favorite build way back in closed closed beta was the Dragon 1-C which I ran with an XL360 4 medium pulse and as many freaking single heat sinks as I could cram into that chassis

Hunchbacks were mine but I got tired of being outrun by dragons. Jumped in one and loved it. It has a big freakin nose but mechs with bad hit boxes can teach you alot about tactics to stay alive.

S

[Stoicblitzer]

Feetwet, on 24 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

I really am only confused by one thing though:

1. It seems to that the competitive player only has fun while winning
2. This is accomplished by min/max ing
3. The current meta has builds that reflect 2

With the above in mind I don't understand why competitive players want balance. You want to win...and your winning what does it matter how?

good question. read below for the answer.

GaussDragon, on 24 July 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

Sure I can min/max builds, but if there's only really one build to min/max, then what makes this game interesting? When balance is done well, there are so many builds at equal footing that it becomes harder to say that anything is min-maxed because there are more builds offsetting each other.

Sure I can kick *** with a sniper, but when there are only a few viable builds then there's not much of a surprise as to what my opponent is going to bring. It makes gameplay flat, stale and predictable. When there is more build variety through good balance (the current heat scale is anything but that) then the variety in play styles varies greater too. It means I have to understand my opponent and how they play, it means I have to plan. In a stale, unbalanced environment, you don't get that cerebral element because you know exactly what everyone is already taking.

[Sybreed]

I, like a lot of people, think competitive players abusing the meta isn't the cause of the problem but a symptom. They want the best chances to win, they'll abuse every exploit possible to gain those wins.

But, I'm also thinking that competitive players might NOT make the game more fun. They might make obvious what is broken, but when they say they want to fix the game... I have my own doubts. They'll forget what Mechwarrior is supposed to be and turn this game into another generic FPS, killing its spirit effectively.

That's my main gripe with competitive players... they don't understand the spirit of the game... yet they want to fix it. IMO, what we need is a TT specialist who is also a competitive player... then we have better chances of having a fun game.

Edited by Sybreed, 24 July 2013 - 07:52 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Daz, you've always been a pretty reasonable guy whose opinions I respected but your argument has tons of flaws.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

1.) A Comp. player will only pilot the mechs that provide the most efficient / lethal hard-point configuration. This leads to a meta where these “optimum” builds are more prolific than others.

Any game with imbalances leads to a game with optimum builds. The object in the vast majority of games is to win, that's the point, therefore people take the smartest builds tpo achieve this goal. This isn't a 'competitive player' thing, it's a rational human being thing.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

2.) A Comp. player only mounts the most efficient / lethal weapons. This leads to a meta where these weapons are more prolific than others and weapons deemed “worthless” are never used which in turn creates weapon imbalance.

This is so backwards. It's not people not using weapons that makes them worthless, it's worthless weapons that make people not use them. The onus is on the developers to ensure that there are as few worthless weapons as possible, not the player to hamstring himself with a variety of machine guns, flamers and TAG lasers.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

3.) A Comp. player will take advantage of game-mechanics to improve their odds of winning, even if that advantage is considered “gaming-the-game”. ** see #4.

Again, see my point about the onus being on the developer to not let these exploitable mechanics to happen.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

4.) A Comp. player is vehemently against any use of any “crutch” mechanism like consumables; mech quirks etc. but will use / exploit them to improve their odds of winning.

Where is it written that all competitors are against these things? I like the idea of mech quirks and some consumables as long as they contribute to making the game more interesting. I'm against poorly implemented ones that imbalance the game when they become must-haves.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

5.) A Comp player requires a level playing field, i.e. all “things being equal”. This is competitive arena pillar tenant… In order for competition to “work” neither side can be predisposed to have advantage and as such requires damage, speed, armor, etc.. to be linear.

The issue of linear and non-linear scaling is far too much of an issue unto itself to be able to adequately discuss here.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

So how does this create imbalance?
Casual players are more concerned about “having fun”. As such, a casual player will field builds that the Comp. player considers de-optimized… i.e “Frankenmechs” that typically are either “fun” configurations and or more balanced / conical. The casual player will readily mount weapons the Comp. player considers worthless and in doing so qualifies them as being a burden on their team. By itself this simply creates a polarity in play-style and a certain level of class-warfare. The problem manifest through community influence…

There's nothing wrong with taking sub-optimal weapons if you want to for the sake of being more canonical, I can't fault anyone for taking whatever weapon they want, it's their choice. The problem is that there doesn't have to be friction between optimal weapons and canonical weapons. If the game is well-balanced then there isn't as much of a friction between the two because they're all theoretically well balanced.
However, the problem is that with making balance around weapons (as you should) many canonical variants are going to be limited. This is virtually unavoidable. It's impossible to make all the weapons balanced at the same time as the hundreds of canon stock builds while still having a customizable mechlab, there are simply too many mutually exclusive relationships that emerge in this incredibly complex triangle.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

We've seen numerous instances where the Comp. player has forwarded the premise that the needs of this sub-group should be the metric by which MW:O should be modeled, even so far as to preclude that the casual players opinion should be ignored. Conversely… the casual player wants to win. The arguments forward by the Comp. Player make sense in regards to weapon-platform efficiencies and as a result, we see the “lemming effect”… where casuals will emulate what they see as the right mech / weapons to use, which artificially exacerbates the perception of imbalance.

There's nothing artificial about it, as the optimal builds get discovered, the knowledge of these builds spreads and so the prevalence of these builds naturally propagates, because as you say, people want to win. I'm having trouble following your 'casual player preference' argumentation. If a casual player truly wants to win, it's evident that they'll take the optimal builds. "..the needs of this (competitive) sub-group should be the metric by which MW:O should be modeled" again with the false dichotomy. All the players I've talked to in this sub-group want balanced weapons, this can only help alleviate the pressure on casual players to take optimal builds because they'll have more viable builds that involve using the weapons that they prefer.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

What are we left with?... A bias toward a specific sub-set of mechs, weapon configurations and forwarded prejudices against non-competitive play-styles, mechs and weapons. This in turn creates a cascade effect where public opinion is that certain weapons and certain mechs are OP and need to be nerfed...

This bias exists precisely because there's imbalance. If you're suggesting that this imbalance is necessary in order to preserve the viability of stock mechs then we fundamentally do not agree, and that's, again, an entire argument unto itself. That argument essentially says that the needs of people to run viable canon mechs takes precedence over the need to have balanced weapons. You can't have balanced canon builds and balanced weapons, the sheer variety in canonical mechs precludes them from ever being balanced with each other, regardless of how you try and balance the weapons.

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Classic "cause & effect"... particularly since at face value it all makes sense.

I guess the question is do we want a Mechwarrior game that concedes to the requirements of the competitive enviroment... or do we want a Mechwarrior game that accepts the inequities that are conical and find soft-nerfs to balance them, staying more true to essense of genre?

One side justifies that in order to have fun, winning is paramount. One side justifies that they want to win... so long it's fun. Neither is effectively "wrong"... just different end-games.

In my mind... I'm coming to the conclusion that the two cannot coexist and in order for MW:O to find it's balance, the casual player and the competitive player need to be separated and only commingle through community warefare where the "end-game" is effectively the same.

Thoughts?

Well it looks that as I've read your closing paragraphs that we agree on one thing; the viability of canon builds is not compatible with a balanced game. The canon builds, when put in an actual game environment, are inherently unbalanced amongst each other. That much should be evident to everyone... sadly, some people still argue that everything from the TT is fundamentally balanced as-is even when ported into a real-time gaming environment.

[DaZur]

Sybreed, on 24 July 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

I, like a lot of people, think competitive players abusing the meta isn't the cause of the problem but a symptom. They want the best chances to win, they'll abuse every exploit possible to gain those wins.

But, I'm also thinking that competitive players might NOT make the game more fun. They might make obvious what is broken, but when they say they want to fix the game... I have my own doubts. They'll forget what Mechwarrior is supposed to be and turn this game into another generic FPS, killing its spirit effectively.

That's my main gripe with competitive players... they don't understand the spirit of the game... yet they want to fix it. IMO, what we need is a TT specialist who is also a competitive player... then we have better chances of having a fun game.

Which IMHO is one of my biggest issues with the recent balance onslaught... It feels like too much of it is designed to mitigate the very thing about Mechwarrior that makes it interesting as a genre. BT and it's universe is wrought with inequities and fundamental quirks.

Overly aggressive efforts to fix these things though the nerf/buff machine will eventually leave is with a beige / bland iteration that is optimum for e-sport but is tasteless like wax fruit because all the flavor has been whitewashed...

[PEEFsmash]

DaZur, on 24 July 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

Overly aggressive efforts to fix these things though the nerf/buff machine will eventually leave is with a beige / bland iteration that is optimum for e-sport but is tasteless like wax fruit because all the flavor has been whitewashed...

Are competitive players why my fruit tastes like wax?

Are competitive players the reason why my girlfriend left me?

Are competitive players the reason my poop was watery last night?

Are competitive players what killed my grandmammy?

[Feetwet]

Stoicblitzer, on 24 July 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

good question. read below for the answer.

And I can see your point. And it makes perfect sense in the 8 man queue where if you are not a competitive group you should stay out. I learned that the hard way. What I don't understand is why I see so many competitive folks running min/max in the non 8 mans. (I'm not saying you particularly but I have run across some). It seems like overkill to me, especially considering how funky the MM is working right now. You guys are better, I get that, but do you have to feed it to me with the META.

S