578 replies to this topic

[JingleHell]

DaZur, on 26 July 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Understood, but try and look at it from a casual players perspective... Absolutely the LBX, MG and the Flamer are nigh useless if our overarching goal is the despatch your foe as quickly and efficiently as possible. That said, a casual player will run these weapons, get occasional kills and ultimately have fun while doing it...

It's the competitive players perception that we fail to understand how useless they are and what an act of frustration they are... The reality is we do know it but still do it because it's "fun".

Don't forget that it's only an act of frustration if you're up against people doing TWO things.

The commonly remembered point A: Using the best builds, and,
The commonly forgotten point B: Doing the right things WITH those builds.

If the "Right" builds assume certain things are being done right, then people doing those things wrong WILL have drastically varying mileage.

If you look at something like Starcraft, there are builds available to low ELO (bad) players that pros can't use, and vice-versa. This is because without the mechanics to support those builds, or the mechanics to counter those builds, they suddenly become viable or non-viable.

The same can occur in MWO. Sure, my LBX Dragon would be horrendous if I dragged it into properly competitive play, but it's somewhere in the above average range in pubs at my ELO, just because people play differently.

Just like, in Tic Tac Toe, there should always be a tie between two people who understand the game, if you play against someone who doesn't understand it, you'll win a lot.

Whether the decisions, plans, and execution are ideal, or merely scripted, once variables get introduced to break the script, it can potentially shatter the carefully orchestrated system. If you knock over the wrong dominoes at the wrong time, it can seriously screw things up for people.

[DaZur]

tenderloving, on 26 July 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Why are you clinging to the idea that there has to be an apex? A well-balanced game has multiple paths to victory.

LOL! Why are you denying it when it's been shown to be an undeniable end-game in this thread?

Time and time again, it's been said that in order to compete at the highest level a competitive player must min/max lest they face the potential of falling short of the competitive norm...

If this is true and I do not personally doubt it, regardless of the state of balance the competitive player will gravitate to the panicle / apex mechs and weapon configurations. While there may be minor deviation allowed, the meta will ultimately not change...

[JingleHell]

DaZur, on 26 July 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

LOL! Why are you denying it when it's been shown to be an undeniable end-game in this thread?

Time and time again, it's been said that in order to compete at the highest level a competitive player must min/max lest they face the potential of falling short of the competitive norm...

If this is true and I do not personally doubt it, regardless of the state of balance the competitive player will gravitate to the panicle / apex mechs and weapon configurations. While there may be minor deviation allowed, the meta will ultimately not change...

I think his point is that if there are enough variables in place, it might create a happy medium where there's different best answers for different possible scenarios, which creates it's own balance through those scenarios.

Just like if there were only two maps, one a 3km square flat place, and the other a weird cityscape with multiple levels, and differing sized chokepoints, with no shots longer than 100 meters, you'd probably see builds that were ideal for one map blow chunks on the other, until people found the happy medium builds, which would still likely lose 1v1 to the ideal for an individual map on it's home turf, but have an overall higher success rate.

[Volthorne]

I would like to take a second and say to everyone pointing to LoL/Starcraft as being "good examples of balance": There are certain builds in the high-level competitive games that translate down in to being considerably OP at the mid-low Elo ranges (this is especially true for LoL - a good example is Katarina, who can solo entire teams if given the chance. Another good example is LeBlanc, who, until somewhat recently, was an absolute powerhouse in the mid-low Elo bracket unless you brought the one or two Champions that could effectively lock her down).

What is good for the competitive scene isn't always good for the casual scene.

[Fire and Salt]

lartfor, on 26 July 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Sync dropping is exploiting the match maker to intentionally create an 8vpug which the current system is specifically designed around avoiding. While obviously there are issue with the current "Drop" mechanics that have lead to this abuse, you cannot sit there and mislabel an exploit as "squeezing a little fun out of the game"

The proper solution to sync dropping is to find those who are doing it (not very hard) and reset their player stats. Obviously this would be a punishment to those abusing the current matchmaking system but also it would be a way to bring some level of "fairness" to the current stat pool. There are many people who have drastically inflated their stats to a point they would never have been able to achieve via sync dropping. The only problem I see with this is that some players not happy with their current stats may intentionally sync drop in order to get caught and have their stats reset.

Uhhh... you do realize that, all things being equal, they have a 50% chance of being on opposite teams, right? Are you sure they want to stomp as an 8 man, as opposed to being able to duel with their fellow faction mates?

And, if they are a super skilled team, the chance that they oppose each other will be grater than 50%, because the ELO balancer will put one highly skilled group on one team, and the other highly skilled group on the other.


I wish there was an easy way to duel against my clanmates... best way I know of is to sync drop and then both try to run off into some far corner of the map.

[JingleHell]

Fire and Salt, on 26 July 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Uhhh... you do realize that, all things being equal, they have a 50% chance of being on opposite teams, right? Are you sure they want to stomp as an 8 man, as opposed to being able to duel with their fellow faction mates?

And, if they are a super skilled team, the chance that they oppose each other will be grater than 50%, because the ELO balancer will put one highly skilled group on one team, and the other highly skilled group on the other.


I wish there was an easy way to duel against my clanmates... best way I know of is to sync drop and then both try to run off into some far corner of the map.

The guys I play with, we've basically just accepted that when we sync drop, it's grudge match time.

And if I had to guess, that's at an above average, but not amazing ELO. No clue, though.

Edited by JingleHell, 26 July 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[MisterFiveSeven]

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.

Bolded for your reference.

And no, you are wrong. This thread is saying COMPETITIVE PLAYERS are the root cause of BALANCE PROBLEMS.

The meta is a symptom of poor balance, silly.

[Vincent Quatermain]

Volthorne, on 26 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

I would like to take a second and say to everyone pointing to LoL/Starcraft as being "good examples of balance": There are certain builds in the high-level competitive games that translate down in to being considerably OP at the mid-low Elo ranges (this is especially true for LoL - a good example is Katarina, who can solo entire teams if given the chance. Another good example is LeBlanc, who, until somewhat recently, was an absolute powerhouse in the mid-low Elo bracket unless you brought the one or two Champions that could effectively lock her down).

Wait . . .

So you mean there were counters for those champions even in the low and mid Elo brackets, and definitely a counter in the high Elo bracket?

That's still balanced.

The example I just gave above (the BoomJager) is the closest MWO equivalent to your LoL examples. The BoomJager must be countered, but it can be countered, even by lower-Elo players.

The difference is that when you have something like the Sniperlander, which does not have a good counter, for any Elo level, the game is objectively broken at every level of play.

BTW, the cases you just cited are the exceptions that prove the rule. There will be occasional situations where balance is tough. This does not change the fact that balance is, for the most part, an objective property that affects all players and that high-Elo players are just more sensitive to. When we are talking about MWOs balance* issues, low-Elo players views are inherently less valuable.


* Note, I am only discussing balance. As noted above, things like UI and Tutorials are where low-Elo players are the best people to talk to. Different players are the best resource for different parts of the game.

[MisterFiveSeven]

Volthorne, on 26 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

I would like to take a second and say to everyone pointing to LoL/Starcraft as being "good examples of balance": There are certain builds in the high-level competitive games that translate down in to being considerably OP at the mid-low Elo ranges (this is especially true for LoL - a good example is Katarina, who can solo entire teams if given the chance. Another good example is LeBlanc, who, until somewhat recently, was an absolute powerhouse in the mid-low Elo bracket unless you brought the one or two Champions that could effectively lock her down).

What is good for the competitive scene isn't always good for the casual scene.

LRM's are the perfect example in MWO.

If you made them competitively good, pugs would just rain lurm death

[Vincent Quatermain]

MisterFiveSeven, on 26 July 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

LRM's are the perfect example in MWO.

If you made them competitively good, pugs would just rain lurm death

That has been the problem so far, but I actually think LRMs are one of the few things that are in a good state right now (probably because they are the part of the game that have been monkeyed with the most). The real reason you don't see LRMs in competition is that PPCs are too good in an absolute sense, as well as a relative sense. A regular PPC can basically perform the same role as an LRM20 for three fewer tons before ammo, and an ERPPC is even better.

But if PPCs weren't so good, then what other long range weapon is there? The ballistics are OK, but they have high tonnage. LRMs could totally work in competition play if PPCs were the worst long range weapon, rather than the best.

[MisterFiveSeven]

Vincent Quatermain, on 26 July 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

That has been the problem so far, but I actually think LRMs are one of the few things that are in a good state right now (probably because they are the part of the game that have been monkeyed with the most). The real reason you don't see LRMs in competition is that PPCs are too good in an absolute sense, as well as a relative sense. A regular PPC can basically perform the same role as an LRM20 for three fewer tons before ammo, and an ERPPC is even better.

But if PPCs weren't so good, then what other long range weapon is there? The ballistics are OK, but they have high tonnage. LRMs could totally work in competition play if PPCs were the worst long range weapon, rather than the best.

Even with having tissue paper holding it together, gauss is first choice for synergy with erppc, the best weapon in the game.

AC20 is better boating.

[PEEFsmash]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 July 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Why do so many players use Assaults? How do you make Lights more attractive?

He said there are multiple paths to victory in a well-balanced game.

BRACE YOURSELF FOR THIS! No competitive players think this is a well-balanced game.

[Skadi]

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.

IDK, half the matches I play I get the blame for being a "fail MechWarrior who rides the ppc bandwagon", clearly my fault for making horrible balance changes, not PGI, get it right.

PEEFsmash, on 26 July 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

He said there are multiple paths to victory in a well-balanced game.

BRACE YOURSELF FOR THIS! No competitive players think this is a well-balanced game.

Edited by Skadi, 26 July 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[Stoicblitzer]

Skadi, on 26 July 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

skadi

everything is your fault skadi.

[Skadi]

Stoicblitzer, on 26 July 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

everything is your fault skadi.

[Riptor]

3rdworld, on 26 July 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

okay sure, people that want gold stars for winning a pug tournament may be sync dropping. I have no idea. I never saw one. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But, no one here is talking about official tournaments. They are glorified pug stomps and you are surprised that people who want to win may be syncing? They have nothing to due with what team is the best.

BTW, when did you drop in 8s last? Cause we never have any issues finding opponents.

You are a complete fool if you think comp teams don't play other comp teams for practice. I mean you are so off base on all of your comments the only thing that I need to tell you:

You have no clue what you are talking about. Please, just go away.

You never have problems finding 8 mans?

Strange..

Quote

Answer from Paul: 8-man matches fail approximately 25-30% of the time.


We’ve known why the 8-man queue is suffering for quite a while. The number of teams lining up for 8-man games isn’t high enough for consistent match making. What’s causing that? Team imbalance in terms of weight and over use of the “sniper/longrange” meta.

This is directly from ask the devs 43...

So competitive players are not playing against other competitive players cause they use competitive builds and thats no fun... so they take their own competitive builds to play against pugs because those dont use competitive builds and they are more fun to play against.

So that makes them competitive how exactly?

But do go ahead and call me a fool.. aparantly youre playing a different game from everyone else where theres plenty of different teams in the 8 man que.

Ignore the fact that i said that you are allways fighting the same group when you drop in the 8 man que.. not that you dont find other teams at all.

But yeah.. im the one without a clue... so clueless infact that the Devs themselves had to adress the EXACT thing im talking about here.

Edited by Riptor, 26 July 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[Erata]

Riptor, on 26 July 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

So that makes them competitive how exactly?

Competitive players are allowed to be bored, too.

[KingCobra]

Mr. OP first of all to the competitive player any weapons placed in this game will be min-maxed to achieve 1 goal win matches that's it MWO is not a meta game it is only a FPS PVP game right now with mechs. OK OP here is a scenario for you playing MWO based on this criteria? First I remove the alpha strike then I lengthen all large weapons recycle time by 5 seconds then max large weapons per weapon group to 3 medium weapons per group to 4 then small weapons per weapon group to 6 max then I lengthen the cycle time on weapons group firing to 6 seconds per weapons group firing time. As a last criteria I x1 the armor again and double the ammo per ton on all weapons. Now OP tell what is going to happen in matches based on these criteria? Will the competitive player be more competitive or will he have to adapt to learn defensive tactics and skills to win matches?

[Riptor]

So they use their competitive builds mostly (and it is mostly.. i refer to my ask the devs quote) against non competitive players.. because thats more fun then playing against real competition. Because you know... playing against people who dont use the same min/maxed build you use is much easier and satisfying cause they are easier to kill.

We are not talking "getting bored"... we are talking about avoiding other competitive builds as much as possible. Are 8 mans currently boring ordeals? Yes...

Does that justify the competitive players need to take the very thing that they find boring when used against themselfs and then use it against people that dont play these builds? Hell no. Thats being a hypocrit.

Those competitive players are not the source of the games balancing problems but they sure as hell exaggerate it by taking their "comeptitivness" from their own playing field to the playing field of the guys who just want to have fun.

[Skadi]

@ Riptor, skrimming against other competitive teams as a competitive team is a very common thing...
You cant go into a tourney match (not the pgi tourney ****)and expect to stand a sliver of a chance if all you do is target terribads who run LBX atlai.