578 replies to this topic

[Mackman]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Some of what you are saying is true and some of it is not. DocBach took a Cent with AC10 2x MedLaers, 1 SRM6, Dubs to 6th place in a tournament to show what Competitive can be.

What I disagree with the most is if you can set rules for a competitive drop you can state no more than X PPCs per Mech. Then the opponents can only bring that. You want a league you set the rules not the game maker. And second if you are as good as you say you are maybe you could show the followers how to beat these Mega builds. Me I will contiue to not use them cause frankly I don't like em much.

Objectively good is 6 PPCs? Really? That is beating someone over the head with a mountain don't you think? A PPC is unquestionably the most powerful Energy weapon. That is its place. It should be more powerful than a Large laser. But the developers(FASA) did not put 6 PPCs on any Mech? Why? Probably cause they knew it would be to powerful.

You seem to be putting the responsibility for creating a fun, balanced game on someone other than the game developers. And that's not ok.

Your solution is fine for playing in an organized league, with people you trust to not screw you over. But it does absolutely nothing for changing what a typical PUG match looks like.

And if it takes someone on a pro level (which I am not, believe you me!) to "teach" people how to beat the most common builds in the game, then those builds need to be nerfed the hell back to a reasonable level. If, assuming equal skill, one build, mech, team composition or playstyle beats most other builds, mechs, team compositions or play-styles, the problem is not with the people, but with the game itself.

[JingleHell]

The problem, as I see it, and as it stands now, doesn't just revolve around weapons and mechs. Those just allow the clearest view of discrepancies.

Establishment of a healthy metagame requires one of two things.

A: An "Everything is as evenly matched as possible" mindset. If you have a game designed where the majority of time skilled players draw or, barring that, have a nearly 50% win rate, you have a "balanced" game, which creates a metagame around decision making processes. In these games, games are nearly always won or lost in the mind.

B: Self-regulating variables. MWO is designed to have these, they just don't seem to be fully implemented. Restrictive terrain can (theoretically) cause problems for big slow mechs, ECM, AMS, and terrain turn LRMs into a Hillbilly New Year Party, except with fewer injuries. Heat could balance big powerful weapons, assuming it wasn't really bizarre. (Come on, I can make a mech that's barely heat efficient on a -90C map, and it doesn't just melt like butter on the 90C map?) Tonnage, critical slots, and hardpoints can all also provide some modicum of balance.

What really happens here is that, for a specific style of play, one thing is ideal. Let's face it, if 8 Jenners went against 8 Atlases on Alpine peaks, the Jenners could absolutely just go cap and giggle a little bit. More variables could easily change the meta. How often do you hear "stupid captards, no honor" from somebody who just drives an assault and can't stand losing to the alternate wincon? Bet the meta would be different if Cap was easier and similarly profitable to wiping the enemy off the map.

Now, this would be mostly unconstructive criticism, if possibly revelatory of some of the inherent causes of imbalance, if I didn't make a suggestion.

Tonnage or cost restrictions. If an 8 man game only allows 450 tons per side, at most, for example, those AC40 builds would be less prevalent. As soon as you implement a cap, hard or soft, of mechs running certain things, it allows greater flexibility. When you know for a fact that at least some of your enemy every game will be lights (anyone else ever get tired of being the fastest thing on the map if you go over 65?) maybe weapons with a little less pinpoint alpha and a little more spread of damage will see use. AC20 may hit like a freight train, but it's not always easy to hit a Spider or Jenner with it. LBX may do less pinpoint damage, but that blast radius is great for a snapped shot.

Granted, either of these would require a couple of minutes as a formed team to mess with mechlab, or some really screwy queues, but could help considerably. Even if it was just "Each team will be 2 of each class for a total of 8", and then people had to take turns locking in their mech. Using trials if they don't own one of what their team needs filled in.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mackman, on 25 July 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

You seem to be putting the responsibility for creating a fun, balanced game on someone other than the game developers. And that's not ok.

Your solution is fine for playing in an organized league, with people you trust to not screw you over. But it does absolutely nothing for changing what a typical PUG match looks like.

And if it takes someone on a pro level (which I am not, believe you me!) to "teach" people how to beat the most common builds in the game, then those builds need to be nerfed the hell back to a reasonable level. If, assuming equal skill, one build, mech, team composition or playstyle beats most other builds, mechs, team compositions or play-styles, the problem is not with the people, but with the game itself.

Then what you are saying is make it so 6 PPCs cannot be brought. And not all direct fire weapons hit one Pixel? Maybe even a real heat scale system with penalties... real penalties! and slightly less convergence...

Personally I beat the Meta slightly more than 50 percent of the time (If my K/D is any indication) and I have never followed the Meta. Well Jager40, but frankly it hits in this game as hard as a single AC20 on TT so it is working as intended at double the mass!

[Erata]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Literal Nonsense

...What?

[Joseph Mallan]

Erata, on 25 July 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

...What?

That was...
...
...
Almost funny!

[Mackman]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Then what you are saying is make it so 6 PPCs cannot be brought. And not all direct fire weapons hit one Pixel? Maybe even a real heat scale system with penalties... real penalties! and slightly less convergence...

Personally I beat the Meta slightly more than 50 percent of the time (If my K/D is any indication) and I have never followed the Meta. Well Jager40, but frankly it hits in this game as hard as a single AC20 on TT so it is working as intended at double the mass!

You "beat the Meta" because Elo has put you where you win half your matches. That's what Elo does.

The question is: When you don't "beat the meta", is it because the other players were just a tiny bit more skilled than you, or is it because their build was just a little bit better? The vast proliferation of PPC/Guass builds suggests that it's the later.

I'd be absolutely fine with limiting the amount of weapons that can be fired at once. Only two <Large> weapons at a time? Fine by me. Reactor can't power two Gauss Rifles within .5 seconds? Fine by me. Limited (non-randomized) convergence? That could work too!

But anything more than an incredibly minimal CoF? I won't like that, and neither does PGI. Randomized game mechanics do nothing but soften the skill curve.

[Deathlike]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Some of what you are saying is true and some of it is not. DocBach took a Cent with AC10 2x MedLaers, 1 SRM6, Dubs to 6th place in a tournament to show what Competitive can be.

I was pretty sure he was riding something different (I played with him a few times during that tourney)... it was more like 2 meds, and 2 PPCs in a Cent-AL (he's also posted it on the boards)... which is pretty much on par with the meta.

[Spades Kincaid]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Personally I beat the Meta slightly more than 50 percent of the time (If my K/D is any indication) and I have never followed the Meta. Well Jager40, but frankly it hits in this game as hard as a single AC20 on TT so it is working as intended at double the mass!

Uhhh, 4 PPC hit like 2 in TT, so they are working as intended at double the mass!

That's true of every weapon in the game. I like how you tried to rationalize those dual AC20's like some kind of special case for yourself though.

Note, not that I care one way or the other that you're using them. The attempted rationalization is just really amusing. Every time you ride out in that mech, you're following the Meta. There is no 'but' about it.

Edited by Spades Kincaid, 25 July 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Spades Kincaid, on 25 July 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Uhhh, 4 PPC hit like 2 in TT, so they are working as intended at double the mass!

That's true of every weapon in the game. I like how you tried to rationalize those dual AC20's like some kind of special case for yourself though.

Note, not that I care one way or the other that you're using them. The attempted rationalization is just really amusing. Every time you ride out in that mech, you're following the Meta. There is no 'but' about it.

Ah but nobody complains about 2 PPCs do they or even 4 really? They complain about 6. Or the equivalent of 3 TT PPCs hitting one location. Not a constant ability on TT. Don't forget, I am also not having a problem BEING HIT with 2 AC20s thus I am not being hypocritical. I have multiple times said I don't have a problem facing 6 PPCs cause I do have double armor. Check my posts if you'd like. You will see I have said there is no problem with a 60 point alpha. What I do agree on is that 60 damage (and even the 40 of my twin ACs) should be spread out.

Deathlike, on 25 July 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

I was pretty sure he was riding something different (I played with him a few times during that tourney)... it was more like 2 meds, and 2 PPCs in a Cent-AL (he's also posted it on the boards)... which is pretty much on par with the meta.

It was AC10, 2 Medium, and an SRM6. Right now his Atlas has 2 PPC and a AC20 IIRC. Now if he as a Cent with 2 PPCs I can't say. I haven' dropped with the Law in a few Months. Beating the crap out of the PUG v Teams myth.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 July 2013 - 05:06 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

Ah but nobody complains about 2 PPCs do they or even 4 really? They complain about 6. Or the equivalent of 3 TT PPCs hitting one location. Not a constant ability on TT. Don't forget, I am also not having a problem BEING HIT with 2 AC20s thus I am not being hypocritical. I have multiple times said I don't have a problem facing 6 PPCs cause I do have double armor. Check my posts if you'd like. You will see I have said there is no problem with a 60 point alpha. What I do agree on is that 60 damage (and even the 40 of my twin ACs) should be spread out.

Not complain about 4? You must read different forums than I do. 4 was always a more effective build than 6.

I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy. I was accusing you of rationalizing your use of the Jager40. I was simply pointing out that the entire 'but' of your post was irrelevant. ie - it more properly would have read like this:

Quote

...and I almost never follow the Meta. Except for a Jager40.

Instead of giving the impression there is something special about the Jager40's dual AC20's needing doubled tonnage to reach TT 'power' that excuses it from that status.

The Jager 40 follows the Meta. No buts about it.

I never follow the Meta and I sometimes drive a Jager40, don't wash. No matter how you spin it.

[jper4]

GaussDragon, on 24 July 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

What can I say? The door had it coming, it was talking tons of ****. Had to put that thing in its place. Sadly, the opposite happened.

nerf doors. they're too OP and their hitboxes aren't showing damage either.

[Caviel]

Competitive players seek to win games. This is done by using the best "road to victory" possible. This could be high-alpha builds, ninja cap teams, whatever gets the job done as efficiently and, more importantly, as consistently as possible. Competitive players are not the catalyst of balance issues, just an indicator of where balance issues exist.

[blinkin]

has anyone insulted someone's mother yet? last i saw that looked like where this debate was headed.

22 pages in 2 days. i wonder if anything has been said in the last 17 pages that wasn't said in the first 3.

[Joseph Mallan]

Spades Kincaid, on 25 July 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Not complain about 4? You must read different forums than I do. 4 was always a more effective build than 6.

I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy. I was accusing you of rationalizing your use of the Jager40. I was simply pointing out that the entire 'but' of your post was irrelevant. ie - it more properly would have read like this:



Instead of giving the impression there is something special about the Jager40's dual AC20's needing doubled tonnage to reach TT 'power' that excuses it from that status.

The Jager 40 follows the Meta. No buts about it.

I never follow the Meta and I sometimes drive a Jager40, don't wash. No matter how you spin it.

Fair enough. ALMOST never follow the Meta.

blinkin, on 25 July 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

has anyone insulted someone's mother yet? last i saw that looked like where this debate was headed.

22 pages in 2 days. i wonder if anything has been said in the last 17 pages that wasn't said in the first 3.

I think there is a strict no mothers clause enforced by a Heat Penalty that doesn't follow reason.

[DaZur]

blinkin, on 25 July 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

22 pages in 2 days. i wonder if anything has been said in the last 17 pages that wasn't said in the first 3.

"Crusty eye-boogers".

There... I'm pretty sure that was never said in the first 21 pages.

[WVAnonymous]

Purgatus233, on 25 July 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

And some trial mechs are better than others, and will be used to dominate the others. This is obvious... isn't it?

There are only four to choose from, but OK, I'll do it your way.

We'll run the "light or medium or heavy or assault trial mech" against the world tournament. You want to compete, that's your mech. Now, outside of straight hacks, how do you game that system?

Is "skill" gaming the system too?

[Joseph Mallan]

WVAnonymous, on 25 July 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

There are only four to choose from, but OK, I'll do it your way.

We'll run the "light or medium or heavy or assault trial mech" against the world tournament. You want to compete, that's your mech. Now, outside of straight hacks, how do you game that system?

Is "skill" gaming the system too?

PM me when you do this. I am totally interested!

[WVAnonymous]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

PM me when you do this. I am totally interested!

Will do.

[Khobai]

Competitive players arnt the problem. But PGI needs to do what almost every other game does. Seperate the game into casual and competitive queues and dont allow groups in casual. Or if they allow groups, the biggest group allowed should be 2-3 in 12v12. Allowing competitive 4 mans into the pug queue has always been extremely unbalanced.

Edited by Khobai, 25 July 2013 - 11:11 PM.

[blinkin]

Khobai, on 25 July 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

Competitive players arnt the problem. But PGI needs to do what almost every other game does. Seperate the game into casual and competitive queues and dont allow groups in casual. Or if they allow groups, the biggest group allowed should be 2-3 in 12v12. Allowing competitive 4 mans into the pug queue has always been extremely unbalanced.

what about me and my friends? we often get together a group of 4 and i can guarantee you that we don't fall into the competitive category. every few weeks we get together and spend a few hours blowing up mechs.