578 replies to this topic

[Jestun]

Stockholm syndrome at it's best.

Everything PGI does is great, it's all the players fault!

[giganova]

I don't think Stockholm Syndrome means what you think it means. Buyer's remorse would have been more apt.

[tenderloving]

Denolven, on 26 July 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

I don't care if MWO is the only thing you think about. But don't expect others to be the same. I compare all kinds of stuff to other stuff. So when you say "characteristic X makes a bad game", then yes, I think "game" and not "MWO". Nothing to do with cleverness or stupidity. I tried to keep my first answer as short and simple as I could, because annoying people with a wall of text everytime is tiring. Obviously it was too short and simple for you to get it. Which again has nothing to do with cleverness or stupidity. It's simply a communication issue, which I tried to point out, and which you willingly or accidentally ignored.
Now if you don't mind, I suggest you stop trolling around and stay at topic.

It's not trolling or veering off topic when someone steers the conversation BACK to competitive PVP games and AWAY from cooperative puzzle games.

This is a PVP-only battle arena. It is not a puzzle game. It is not a game where I cooperate with a random person who wanders into the instance of the game I inhabit. I have teammates, and I have enemies. YOU steered the conversation off-topic with your Journey reference and I brought it back, let's make that clear.

People like you seem to be under the delusion that your enemies will reciprocate your poor game decisions, or that they should have some obligation to do so in the name of "fun."

First and foremost, this is supposedly a beta test. It is our job as beta-testers to find flaws in this game which includes the balance of the gameplay itself.

Secondly, this is a competitive game. The only way for balance to be achieved in a competitive game is to assume that all actors are striving to meet the win conditions. If you don't do that, you have to start introducing random elements or restrain skill gaps to even the playing field.
This is why family board games have spinners and dice and basketball does not; a board game needs to be accessible to a wide variety of players, and basketball operates under the assumption that everyone is trying their hardest and have equivalent levels of skill. Children's leagues introduce elements to mitigate skill gaps such as forcing coaches to put every player on the court.

I'm going to repeat that: Children's leagues introduce elements to mitigate skill gaps such as forcing coaches to put every player on the court. This is so everyone can have "fun."

Is this a board game? No. Is this a children's basketball league? No. Is this a competitive PVP-only multiplayer online game? Yes.

If your argument comes from outside the context of a competitive PVP environment with one win condition (no cooperative win conditions), then it's a bad argument.

Edited by tenderloving, 26 July 2013 - 07:46 AM.

[Kunae]

[giganova]

Yeah... sticking with the puppy, thanks. Those are too creepy. I'll name it Kunae and his bark will be worse than his bite.

Edited by giganova, 26 July 2013 - 07:49 AM.

[Jestun]

giganova, on 26 July 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

I don't think Stockholm Syndrome means what you think it means. Buyer's remorse would have been more apt.

Hmmm...

Quote

Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

You honestly don't see how that could apply here?

Hostages being the people who are not quite "forced" to play but due to time / cash investment feel obligated to do so.


And the hostages rushing to defend their captors. They say it's all their, the hostages', fault!

Edited by Jestun, 26 July 2013 - 07:50 AM.

[Master Q]

Jestun, on 26 July 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Stockholm syndrome at it's best.

Everything PGI does is great, it's all the players fault!

I don't think you've been paying attention.

There are some very good players who are saying, rightly, that PGI has not managed to get everything right. That's kind of why this thread exists.

There are also some players who show very poor sportsmanship and dismissive attitudes towards others, detrimental to the community as a whole (example #1, people posting insulting pictures rather than come up with a respectful and helpful response) who are convinced that their "success" rate is due to personal skill rather than abuse of broken mechanics, and bring to the table an insistence that "because I am always winning the balance is just fine, everyone should just play the same optimized build I do and then it'll all be balanced even if it goes from being MECHWARRIOR online to PPC-Gauss-Kneecap-Warrior Online."

[[Offtopic: anyone ELSE remember how completely un-fun it was to play Mechwarrior 3's online mode, aka "Legsnipe Warrior", where the build system was similar to the MWO mechbay, armor values were similar to TT values, and killing one leg instantly destroyed any mech?]]

I'm not sure stockholm syndrome is an appropriate description of either but I am definitely sure that the tone of the #2 crowd is just hurting the overall community.

Edited by Master Q, 26 July 2013 - 07:53 AM.

[mania3c]

The truth is always somewhere in the middle...

fact is..competitive players are not causing balancing problems within the game..and they can fast identify it which COULD help.. but history shown ..it also could make it even worse..

So yes, what competitive players.. or players in high Elo bracket say is not Holy grail, alpha and omega of all things.. There has to be consideration what level of play is affecting this balance issue.. it is affecting also casuals..the peak of ELO curve? If not, will balancing in high level play cause problems in casual play? If yes, it's even good to balance it?

Obvious answer is "Of course" ..developers always should strive for balance and while competitive players may have good suggestions what could fix these problems in they level of play, they are also very short sighted..or they just don't care about casual players at all..

So competitive players are good at identifying problems and have good suggestions..but we should take their opinions on how to balance certain issues and also how serious issue is with grain of salt.

Edited by mania3c, 26 July 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Jestun]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

I don't think you've been paying attention.

There are some very good players who are saying, rightly, that PGI has not managed to get everything right. That's kind of why this thread exists.

There are also some players who show very poor sportsmanship and dismissive attitudes towards others, detrimental to the community as a whole (example #1, people posting insulting pictures rather than come up with a respectful and helpful response) who are convinced that their "success" rate is due to personal skill rather than abuse of broken mechanics, and bring to the table an insistence that "because I am always winning the balance is just fine, everyone should just play the same optimized build I do and then it'll all be balanced even if it goes from being MECHWARRIOR online to PPC-Gauss-Kneecap-Warrior Online."

[[Offtopic: anyone ELSE remember how completely un-fun it was to play Mechwarrior 3's online mode, aka "Legsnipe Warrior", where the build system was similar to the MWO mechbay, armor values were similar to TT values, and killing one leg instantly destroyed any mech?]]

I'm not sure stockholm syndrome is an appropriate description of either but I am definitely sure that the tone of the #2 crowd is just hurting the overall community.

And then there's people like the OP and the guy in my forum sig who blame the players for the balance issues (or in the case of the guy in my sig, the game dying).

Which is what I was referring to, not your black and white thinking where there are only 2 types of players.

Edited by Jestun, 26 July 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[Master Q]

Jestun, on 26 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

And then there's people like the OP and the guy in my forum sig who blame the players for the balance issues (or in the case of the guy in my thread, the game failing).

Which is what I was referring to, not your black and white thinking where there are only 2 types of players.

Well actually, [link removed] . But when we're looking at the competitive bracket, we're looking at either people who are doing things to help the community grow, or doing things to drive new players away and keep the community small.

I want the community to grow. What do you want?

Edited by miSs, 26 July 2013 - 10:50 AM.
language

[Jestun]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Well actually, [link removed]. But when we're looking at the competitive bracket, we're looking at either people who are doing things to help the community grow, or doing things to drive new players away and keep the community small.

I want the community to grow. What do you want?

Why are you dragging this further and further off topic?

If you want to discuss whether the community should grow then go make a thread about it.

[Master Q]

Off topic?

The question was whether the competitive players are helping to create the meta-problems that are hurting the community.

I think I'm pretty on-topic here. I even humored your BS.

[giganova]

Diversionary tactics are easy to spot, especially when insults and random memetic images are involved

[Jestun]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Off topic?

The question was whether the competitive players are helping to create the meta-problems that are hurting the community.

I think I'm pretty on-topic here. I even humored your BS.

The topic has nothing to do with the size of the community.

My "BS" however was directly discussing the topic, which is the idea that it's the players' fault.

[Kunae]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Off topic?

The question was whether the competitive players are helping to create the meta-problems that are hurting the community.

I think I'm pretty on-topic here. I even humored your BS.

No, the topic is are the "competitive players" the catalyst for some of the balance issues. People's attitudes and how they affect the alleged "community" is an entirely different topic.

[Jonny Taco]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

O RLY?

I think he was a great example.

Calls new players "tryhards."
Says anyone who is noting bad mechanics is "blaming high end players" and "yelling at competent pilots."

That's a type #2 personality. I'm seeing far more of them than is healthy for the community. Some mistakenly think they are Type #1. The good news is that with a little attitude adjustment and learning to treat new players with respect, they could BECOME type #1. But we shouldn't mistake a Type #2 player for a Type #1 based on bad self-assessment by the Type #2 player, if we don't point it out then they will just continue driving new players away and the community won't grow and the game won't thrive like it should.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension... I never said "new players are try hards" I was refering to a particular type of player that is present in every online game. I was making a case against those accusing high elo players of "not wanting change" because it will effect their "Dominant" status in the game. The reality, as I stated, is that out of the high elo players that are "abusing" boats and what not, the VAST majority of them think the game is busted, not ok... The players in this bracket that think the game is fine, and that their dominant prowess is due to unimaginable player skill thus no changes are needed are the ones I was making a jaunt at...

I also never stated that "anyone who is noting bad mechanics is "blaming high end players" and "yelling at competent pilots." I was specifically referring to those people who seem to think the issues at hand are being generated by high elo players, which is undoubtedly a very bad opinion. If you're not part of this group, then fantastic, if you are... I'd suggest re-evaluating your opinion. Game play issues are NEVER created by players, they are simply HIGHLIGHTED... As with pretty much any game ever, the fastest way to get devs to address issues, is to make those issues as blatant as possible via usage.

Work on your reading comprehension, It's quite obvious that it could use some serious work.

Edited by lartfor, 26 July 2013 - 08:30 AM.

[giganova]

There are brackets now?

[Kunae]

lartfor, on 26 July 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

You really need to work on your reading comprehension... I never said "new players are try hards" I was refering to a particular type of player that is present in every online game. I was making a case against those accusing high elo players of "not wanting change" because it will effect their "Dominant" status in the game. The reality, as I stated, is that out of the high elo players that are "abusing" boats and what not, the VAST majority of them think the game is busted, not ok... The players in this bracket that think the game is fine, and that their dominant prowess is due to unimaginable player skill thus no changes are needed are the ones I was making a jaunt at...

I also never stated that "anyone who is noting bad mechanics is "blaming high end players" and "yelling at competent pilots." I was specifically referring to those people who seem to think the issues at hand are being generated by high elo players, which is undoubtedly a very bad opinion. If you're not part of this group, then fantastic, if you are... I'd suggest re-evaluating your opinion. Game play issues are NEVER created by players, they are simply HIGHLIGHTED... As with pretty much any game ever, the fastest way to get devs to address issues, is to make those issues as blatant as possible via usage.

Work on your reading comprehension, It's quite obvious that it could use some serious work.

It's not even worth tryin, mate. These two only deserve derision and mockery, as they're beyond the capability of discussion or comprehension.

[3rdworld]

giganova, on 26 July 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

There are brackets now?

σ

+1σ = 34%
+2σ = 47.5%
+3σ = 49.85%

Assuming players create a normal distribution of course.

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 July 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[giganova]

Which they don't

Oooo... derision AND mockery, someone's being redundant.