578 replies to this topic

[East Indy]

Quote

really need to learn to play

You just confirmed Pancho's observation.

[Taemien]

OP, I don't think the MMO definition of casual gamer applies. Everyone is a competitive player here. You're fighting players, not MOBs. Using it in this context only hurts the community. Every player here is fully capable of being veterans and elite players and they do not even have to play 8hours a day to do it.

By using the term casual, especially for balance reasons, it causes a rift between the players that shouldn't be there. Everyone should know they have the potential to be competitive with any other player they meet on the field. By using a label such as casual, it causes them to pigeon hole them into a role they believe subconsciously or consciously that they are stuck in. The mindset of "well I'm just a causal player, so I can't do what those hardcore players can do."

There is only two things that define a player in MWO:

Skill Level: Which can get better over time.

Social Level: Whether they be a PUG, Group, or Unit player.

[WVAnonymous]

Blood78, on 24 July 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

This is how I define competitive in MWO until PGI institues Ladder System which they said they would (see Ask Devs 41).

• Competitive Drop (8 man drop)
  
• Competitive Player (plays to get KDR, win/loss ratio in non-competitive drops)

Competitive players will utilize the most efficient build that fits their playstyle. It doesn't necessarily means using the latest fad build. As matter of fact, some competitive players will leave the game because the game balance changes negatively affect their build and playstyles.



In competitive drops, its a different ballgame and you can't win 8 man with 8 6PPC stalker (before heat change) or 6 Atlas DDC with SRM and AC20. You need a balance and good mix so these fad builds while are incorporated, its not like in non-8 man drops.

To answer the question, No.

^^^^
I was too slow. Competitive PUGs run very different builds than members of competitive 8-man teams. The scenario is totally different. No specialists allowed.

[blinkin]

competitive players don't directly cause all of the balance issues and they are good at highlighting them, BUT they are always the first ones to complain when any sort of change hurts the cheese they are currently abusing. JJ shake earned endless screaming from the poptart crowd (i still love my jump jets, they could use just a small power increase though). the well entrenched streak abusers threw a fit when streaks were finally given something resembling a downside to offset their 100% hit rate. hill humping assault mechs got angry when terrain physics were added and now they aren't able to just wander straight up a cliff face.

[DaZur]

xDeityx, on 24 July 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

You ignored an important part of what I said, which is that the entire concept of a game with winners and losers is predicated upon the assumption that all players are trying their best to win. When you equip a loadout that you know is objectively worse than another possible loadout, then you aren't doing your best to win. Yes, you're still trying to win with your less-than-optimal loadout, but you know that you could be doing better. By doing this you invalidate the entire premise of the competitive game, that the winner is the better player. What you're doing is totally understandable because you're trying to salvage some fun out of a boring game. That's fine, but my problem is when you try and blame the people who are doing their best to win for taking the fun out of the game. PGI did that.

Understood... That said, in fairness for the casual player this is effectively the competitive player dictating what mech to pilot and what weapon configuration to mount under the pretense that failure to do so is not "playing to win".

The problem here is the foregone conclusion is that someone cannot be competitive in anything but optimum builds predicated by the competitive players.

There's nothing fun about being pressured into playing a certain way or piloting only a select field of mechs and their respective loadouts.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

PanchoTortilla, on 24 July 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Where PGI goes wrong is listening to them for advice on what needs to be fixed or not. It's in their best interest to change nothing so they can continue to keep winning by running whatever they currently do.

I think this is probably the single biggest misconception in the MWO community right now. I have not seen any of the top groups who play this game advocate for the status quo. PPC poptart blah blah meta is not fun. No one who cares about the health of this game is saying it's fun. What they have been doing is coming up with simple and well articulated ways to address issues which PGI summarily ignores in favor of the most complex and least effective solution. And it takes them 6 months to do that.

The problem here is that the average pubby thinks all of these groups are out to get you. Well, they are. But not in the way that you think. There is no devious plot to gain an advantage through cleverly disguised game mechanics. The advantage is inherent. You have a choice. You can either keep grasping at an 'even playing field' that puts the nail in the coffin of the already dieing competitive community for this game. Or you can actually read and try to understand what people have been saying and why PGI is doing it wrong.

[Kunae]

East Indy, on 24 July 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

You just confirmed Pancho's observation.

Nope.

I speak truth to fools. If something is broken, it is broken, and only fools claim people need to learn to play to counter it.

Most things that people such as "Pancho" whine about are easily countered, mostly balanced, systems. They want things nerfed rather than be forced to learn anything.

The simple statement, "Learn to play", is an appropriate and justifiable thing to say, in many circumstances.

[Jestun]

scJazz, on 24 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

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.

This is far from being limited to competitive players, but you're right.

Far too often we see the situation where one weapon is clearly OP and people insist that the way forward is to design and apply a buff to every other weapons which improves them all by the exact amount that the OP weapon is ahead by.

Even ignoring the fact that this results in the average weapon strength to be sustained at the level which was previously considered to be OP without applying a similar change to defence, it also relies on a considerable number of changes to completely different types of weapon and if they are not all perfectly balanced both against each other and against the unchanged OP weapon the whole thing fails.

How is that better than bringing the OP weapon down to the level of the rest?

[Rippthrough]

blinkin, on 24 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

JJ shake earned endless screaming from the poptart crowd
No it didn't, all the good ones were happy
The well entrenched streak abusers threw a fit when streaks were finally given something resembling a downside to offset their 100% hit rate.
No they didn't, they sighed in relief and jumped in a jenner again
Hill humping assault mechs got angry when terrain physics were added and now they aren't able to just wander straight up a cliff face.
All the ones I play with spend more time laughing when someone gets stuck in a valley and they pound his face into the floor

What pugs see as 'competitive' players, versus what the actual competitive players see, appear to be 2 different things.

Edited by Rippthrough, 24 July 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[Kunae]

Jestun, on 24 July 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

This is far from being limited to competitive players, but you're right.

Far too often we see the situation where one weapon is clearly OP and people insist that the way forward is to design and apply a buff to every other weapons which improves them all by the exact amount that the OP weapon is ahead by.

Even ignoring the fact that this results in the average weapon strength to be sustained at the level which was previously considered to be OP without applying a similar change to defence, it also relies on a considerable number of changes to completely different types of weapon and if they are not all perfectly balanced both against each other and against the unchanged OP weapon the whole thing fails.

How is that better than bringing the OP weapon down to the level of the rest?

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.

Putting SRM damage and spread back to where they were before the nerf, where it wasn't overpowered, and raising the heat on PPC variants back to at least where they were before, would have fixed both the pop-tart and PPC-sniper-boat problems without the need for the complicated JJ-shake and "boating-penalty" mechanics to be added.

[Kunae]

Btw, here's a perfect example of someone who needs to "learn to play", rather than ask for the nerfs/buffs he's demanding.

http://mwomercs.com/...too-vulnerable/

[blinkin]

Rippthrough, on 24 July 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

What pugs see as 'competitive' players, versus what the actual competitive players see, appear to be 2 different things.

i suppose it depends on the definition of competitive players. i am using the word to basically mean the herd of power gamers that spend all of their time worshiping their precious KD and WL. probably not the most accurate use of the word, but i think that is how many people here interpret it.

my issue is directly with the groups who think that anything that can beat my build is OP and anyone who has a problem with my build needs to L2P. the players who outright hate any sort of change that forces them to adjust their play style.

[Jestun]

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.

Putting SRM damage and spread back to where they were before the nerf, where it wasn't overpowered, and raising the heat on PPC variants back to at least where they were before, would have fixed both the pop-tart and PPC-sniper-boat problems without the need for the complicated JJ-shake and "boating-penalty" mechanics to be added.

I quite like the JJ shake, if only for a little immersion. I see JJs as a mobility tools anyway and the shake didn't effect that.

But yes, obviously there are situations where a buff is more suitable than a nerf. The point is it's not always buff > nerf like some people argue.

[blinkin]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Btw, here's a perfect example of someone who needs to "learn to play", rather than ask for the nerfs/buffs he's demanding.

http://mwomercs.com/...too-vulnerable/

MadCat02 made one of those for the catapult as well i think. i love my catapults and as for assault mechs i like the extra tonnage the atlas offers even if all the weapons are a bit low slung.

[PEEFsmash]

This is hilarious.

"Competitive players cause balance problems by being good and using good mechs. Pls fix."

This community's hatred of good players never ceases to amaze me every single day. Top competitive players will ALWAYS beat you down in WHATEVER mech they use. Even your godawful frankenmech that you idolized in a 30 year old book. They would take that build and bring it to the highest levels of Elo and dominate with it, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD.

Here is how the flow of imbalance works:
Step 1: Top players are WORLDS better than the average player.
Step 2: Top players have to find ways to beat other top players of similar skill. (If there were no players of similar skill, they would just beat up on bads with whatever build they felt like that day, and they sometimes do that right now anyway.)
Step 3: Top players squeeze every ounce out of their builds so that they aren't at an artificial disadvantage vs the other top players.
Step 4: Mid-Level players see top players winning with those competitive builds, and, being human, assume that the top player is good because of the competitive build (that actually only provides him a miniscule advantage,) not because of the superior play of the top player.
Step 5: Low-Level bads see Mid-Level players winning with those competitive builds, and, being human, assume that the mid-level player is good because of the build, not because the mid-level player is just better than the low-level player.
Step 6: MOST IMPORTANT STEP! Low-level bad posts on the forum describing in fantastic detail how certain BUILDS AND WEAPONS are so overpowered, when all he/she really experienced was the unfortunate fate of getting matched up against better players and getting crushed as he/she would have if the better player was using ANY build, even the low-level bad's own.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 24 July 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[Kunae]

blinkin, on 24 July 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

i suppose it depends on the definition of competitive players. i am using the word to basically mean the herd of power gamers that spend all of their time worshiping their precious KD and WL. probably not the most accurate use of the word, but i think that is how many people here interpret it.

my issue is directly with the groups who think that anything that can beat my build is OP and anyone who has a problem with my build needs to L2P. the players who outright hate any sort of change that forces them to adjust their play style.

You are probably correct, that that is how certain people here interpret it, but it's highly inaccurate.

How you're defining "competitive player" is actually pretty close to the competitive community's definition of "CoD kiddie".

You may wish to rethink your usage of that term, as it is highly inaccurate with regards to the competitive playerbase in MWO.

[WVAnonymous]

Rippthrough, on 24 July 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

What pugs see as 'competitive' players, versus what the actual competitive players see, appear to be 2 different things.

Bad pugs, good pugs, competitive pugs are running different builds from each other, as well as different builds from what would be on a competitive 8-man. ( I assume. I'm surely in the bad pug bucket )

[scJazz]

Kunae, on 24 July 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Btw, here's a perfect example of someone who needs to "learn to play", rather than ask for the nerfs/buffs he's demanding.

http://mwomercs.com/...too-vulnerable/

Preach it brother!

*Hands Kunae a soap box and a megaphone*

[WVAnonymous]

PEEFsmash, on 24 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

This is hilarious.

"Competitive players cause balance problems by being good and using good mechs. Pls fix."

This community's hatred of good players never ceases to amaze me every single day. Top competitive players will ALWAYS beat you down in WHATEVER mech you used. Even your godawful frankenmech that you idolized in a 30 year old book. They would take that build and bring it to the highest levels of Elo and dominate with it, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD.

Here is how the flow of imbalance works:
Step 1: Top players are WORLDS better than the average player.
Step 2: Top players have to find ways to beat other top players of similar skill. (If there were no players of similar skill, they would just beat up on bads with whatever build they felt like that day, and they sometimes do that right now anyway.)
Step 3: Top players squeeze every ounce out of their builds so that they aren't at an artificial disadvantage vs the other top players.
Step 4: Mid-Level players see top players winning with those competitive builds, and, being human, assume that the top player is good because of the competitive build (that actually only provides him a miniscule advantage,) not because of the superior play of the top player.
Step 5: Low-Level bads see Mid-Level players winning with those competitive builds, and, being human, assume that the mid-level player is good because of the build, not because the mid-level player is just better than the low-level player.
Step 6: MOST IMPORTANT STEP! Low-level bad posts on the forum describing in fantastic detail how certain BUILDS AND WEAPONS are so overpowered, when all he/she really experienced was the unfortunate fate of getting matched up against better players and getting crushed as he/she would have if the better player was using ANY build, even the low-level bad's own.

This is why I have called for "All Trial Tournaments". For you acolytes at the Church of Skill.

[Kunae]

Jestun, on 24 July 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I quite like the JJ shake, if only for a little immersion. I see JJs as a mobility tools anyway and the shake didn't effect that.

Right. But something that so many detractors like to do is forget that just because they use an item in a certain way, doesn't mean everybody uses it in that fashion. And the change that was made was not for "immersion", but was done as a pointless and ineffectual counter to "pop-tarts".

It had much more far-reaching effects into how some light-pilots play, and didn't really hurt the target "pop-tarts" at all.

Jestun, on 24 July 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

But yes, obviously there are situations where a buff is more suitable than a nerf. The point is it's not always buff > nerf like some people argue.

No, but in this situation a buff and a nerf are necessary.

The real frustrating aspect of these discussions is that you have some people who don't comprehend, for whatever reason, that this issue was caused by a buff and a nerf, that PGI did in Jan/Feb, and is not people asking for a buff to balance something, out of the blue.