269 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

NuclearPanda, on 07 November 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Consistency is something this game does NOT have!

So the equipment is not balanced. Does that stop me from competing with others?

[Docta Pain]

We faced them with their 12 Altai in a team of trial BJ1s, it was a funny drop on our side, we did 12 locusts after that!!! Because there isn't any *real* balancing at this point they're all just for fun... Many good points on the topic of balance v competition, but I don't think e-sport is what many people are playing for.

[Purlana]

Such a shame BadSanta had 941 DMG but no kills. Poor Santa....

[Bagheera]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

So less competitive than I am. Oh an our last examples are a joke. Being competitive means I would take on Michael Jordan in basketball and give it everything I have, fight Mike Tyson, or attempt to climb Mount Everest! If you never fight/play above your ability you are not competitive.

You're still mixing up the player with the equipment/options though. Going back to the boxing analogy; Tyson and Ali are players - not mechs. What we have right now is a pseudo-no-holds-barred match where a Boxer has to wear regulation gloves and fight by boxing's rules who is then thrown into the ring against a swordsman wielding their chosen sword and using the fighting style appropriate to that weapon. Sure, an Ali or a Tyson might still win the fight against a noob swordsman, but when they are facing Musashi (for lack of a better example - basically 2 players of equal skill) they're insta-jibbed.

Taking it to a team sport example; football teams (American or International) all play by the same rules ensuring (for the most part) that player skill, coaching leadership, and desire/will to win are the determining factors. (Barring wackiness on the part of officials, of course) MW:O is more like taking an American football team from 2013 (in modern gear) and putting them against one from the 1940s (in 1940s no pads and leather helmets). Sure, the lighter team would be faster***, but the second one of them got hit by an armored 250 lb linebacker that can run a 4.5 second 40 they're out of the game for good. Never mind what would happen to the unarmored team at the line of scrimmage on every single snap. A literal steamroll.

Which is why the player-organized events (RHoD, et al) use pre-determined drop decks (3-3-3-3, 4-2-2-4, etc) instead of just "bring whatever you want."



*** - Actually, that's not really true either. Modern day players are - by and large - bigger, stronger, and faster than they were ~70 years ago.

Edited by Bagheera, 07 November 2013 - 08:30 AM.

[Ecto Cooler]

Kunae, on 07 November 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

You need to get off this word mantra, Joseph. Competitive, in this context, is referring to tournament, ranked play. It's not about beating people, whatever the odds, as you're using it, it means that everyone starts with the exact same tools, which are designed to be balanced.

That way player skill is the only determining factor.

It does not require everyone playing the same thing, but rather that every option is balanced against the other available options. This allows people to choose a varied selection of builds and still have the same base chance of win/loss, before skill is factored in.

An example of this is not seeing rocket-powered bicycles competing in the "Tour de France", or "potato-gun" type launchers, being used in the "shot-put", during the Olympics.

I don't see the issue, any competitive league would have rules and limitations to create balance and fairness. Each league would probably have different rule sets or varieties of them. Such as you can't use a rocket-powered bicycle during the Tour de France, even though many people might have access to rocket-powered bicycles (I wish).

So do you need the game to create these rules and limitations to play, especially for casual gamers, because of some people wanting to e-sport or play competitively? There is nothing to stop competitive play by setting tonnage limits, equipment restrictions, or whatever other rules you want for your league.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kunae, on 07 November 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

You need to get off this word mantra, Joseph. Competitive, in this context, is referring to tournament, ranked play. It's not about beating people, whatever the odds, as you're using it, it means that everyone starts with the exact same tools, which are designed to be balanced.

That way player skill is the only determining factor.

It does not require everyone playing the same thing, but rather that every option is balanced against the other available options. This allows people to choose a varied selection of builds and still have the same base chance of win/loss, before skill is factored in.

An example of this is not seeing rocket-powered bicycles competing in the "Tour de France", or "potato-gun" type launchers, being used in the "shot-put", during the Olympics.


No, that is you being competitive. There's a difference.

Adj. vs noun.

Funny the Merriam-Webster dictionary does not define competitive as anything but an Adj. Now competition is a Noun. Competitive(Adj) Play(Noun).

[Kunae]

Purlana, on 07 November 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Such a shame BadSanta had 941 DMG but no kills. Poor Santa....

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Funny the Merriam-Webster dictionary does not define competitive as anything but an Adj. Now competition is a Noun. Competitive(Adj) Play(Noun).

It's called a colloquialism. As you're feeling pedantic, today, you can look up that word too.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bagheera, on 07 November 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

You're still mixing up the player with the equipment/options though. Going back to the boxing analogy; Tyson and Ali are players - not mechs. What we have right now is a pseudo-no-holds-barred match where a Boxer has to wear regulation gloves and fight by boxing's rules who is then thrown into the ring against a swordsman wielding their chosen sword and using the fighting style appropriate to that weapon. Sure, an Ali or a Tyson might still win the fight against a noob swordsman, but when they are facing Musashi (for lack of a better example - basically 2 players of equal skill) they're insta-jibbed.

Taking it to a team sport example; football teams (American or International) all play by the same rules ensuring (for the most part) that player skill, coaching leadership, and desire/will to win are the determining factors. (Barring wackiness on the part of officials, of course) MW:O is more like taking an American football team from 2013 (in modern gear) and putting them against one from the 1940s (in 1940s no pads and leather helmets). Sure, the lighter team would be faster, but the second one of them got hit by an armored 250 lb linebacker that can run a 4.5 second 40 they're out of the game for good. Never mind what would happen to the unarmored team at the line of scrimmage on every single snap. A literal steamroll.

Which is why the player-organized events (RHoD, et al) use pre-determined drop decks (3-3-3-3, 4-2-2-4, etc) instead of just "bring whatever you want."

Actually Bagheera it's not like your football analogy and here is why. The players would have to be allowed to choose between the 2013 and 1940s gear, Once the gear selection has been made, both teams go on the field and have at it. If you are bringing equipment picked from the same pool I am, that is balanced. If you make a mistake in selection and it costs you, you still played competitively.

If I am pitching to a known fastball hitter, do I try to pitch him change ups (the easy way) or try to blow three 106 MPH fastballs by him (Competitive)!

[Trauglodyte]

I'm just sad that, among the 12 Atlases that one, there was one that didn't break 100 damage and another that barely did break 100. That's really pathetic.

[Purlana]

Bagheera, on 07 November 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

You're still mixing up the player with the equipment/options though. Going back to the boxing analogy; Tyson and Ali are players - not mechs. What we have right now is a pseudo-no-holds-barred match where a Boxer has to wear regulation gloves and fight by boxing's rules who is then thrown into the ring against a swordsman wielding their chosen sword and using the fighting style appropriate to that weapon. Sure, an Ali or a Tyson might still win the fight against a noob swordsman, but when they are facing Musashi (for lack of a better example - basically 2 players of equal skill) they're insta-jibbed.

I think we should have regulation weapons. Only medium lasers and AC/20s sounds fun.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kunae, on 07 November 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

pedantic

A nice word. Thank you or adding it to my vocabuary!

Purlana, on 07 November 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

I think we should have regulation weapons. Only medium lasers and AC/20s sounds fun.

That's balanced.

[Purlana]

Trauglodyte, on 07 November 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

I'm just sad that, among the 12 Atlases that one, there was one that didn't break 100 damage and another that barely did break 100. That's really pathetic.

Obviously those are the recon Atlai. DUH!

[Joseph Mallan]

Purlana, on 07 November 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Obviously those are the recon Atlai. DUH!

LOL I had a game last night that I actually did 0 damage! I haven't done that since the first few weeks I played last year.

[Vodrin Thales]

Bagheera, on 07 November 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

You're still mixing up the player with the equipment/options though. Going back to the boxing analogy; Tyson and Ali are players - not mechs. What we have right now is a pseudo-no-holds-barred match where a Boxer has to wear regulation gloves and fight by boxing's rules who is then thrown into the ring against a swordsman wielding their chosen sword and using the fighting style appropriate to that weapon. Sure, an Ali or a Tyson might still win the fight against a noob swordsman, but when they are facing Musashi (for lack of a better example - basically 2 players of equal skill) they're insta-jibbed.

Taking it to a team sport example; football teams (American or International) all play by the same rules ensuring (for the most part) that player skill, coaching leadership, and desire/will to win are the determining factors. (Barring wackiness on the part of officials, of course) MW:O is more like taking an American football team from 2013 (in modern gear) and putting them against one from the 1940s (in 1940s no pads and leather helmets). Sure, the lighter team would be faster***, but the second one of them got hit by an armored 250 lb linebacker that can run a 4.5 second 40 they're out of the game for good. Never mind what would happen to the unarmored team at the line of scrimmage on every single snap. A literal steamroll.

Which is why the player-organized events (RHoD, et al) use pre-determined drop decks (3-3-3-3, 4-2-2-4, etc) instead of just "bring whatever you want."



*** - Actually, that's not really true either. Modern day players are - by and large - bigger, stronger, and faster than they were ~70 years ago.

This would all be true only if one team was forced to take an inferior setup. 12 v 12 is a big boy kind of fight. Bring your best or expect to lose. If you don't like this sort of mentality you can always drop in the 4 man/ pug queue. But if you want the challenge of taking all comers in whatever mechs they want to bring, drop in a 12 man. I do want to see some kind of drop composition limit, particularly for 12 mans, but until they come there is no reason to ever complain about a drop makeup being "unfare" in the 12 man queue.

Trauglodyte, on 07 November 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

I'm just sad that, among the 12 Atlases that one, there was one that didn't break 100 damage and another that barely did break 100. That's really pathetic.

Try arranging 12 Atlases so they all get clean shots on one focus target.

[Bagheera]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Actually Bagheera it's not like your football analogy and here is why. The players would have to be allowed to choose between the 2013 and 1940s gear, Once the gear selection has been made, both teams go on the field and have at it. If you are bringing equipment picked from the same pool I am, that is balanced. If you make a mistake in selection and it costs you, you still played competitively.

If I am pitching to a known fastball hitter, do I try to pitch him change ups (the easy way) or try to blow three 106 MPH fastballs by him (Competitive)!

You're confusing individual mech selection with overall team composition. There's a reason that the player run leagues don't use the "bring whatever you want" model of regular 12-man play. From the sound of your objection though, you are perfectly happy with the game being about who has the most HGN-733C's rather than letting player's skill and desire being the determining factors. If that is the case, more power to you.

Vodrin Thales, on 07 November 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

This would all be true only if one team was forced to take an inferior setup. 12 v 12 is a big boy kind of fight. Bring your best or expect to lose. If you don't like this sort of mentality you can always drop in the 4 man/ pug queue. But if you want the challenge of taking all comers in whatever mechs they want to bring, drop in a 12 man. I do want to see some kind of drop composition limit, particularly for 12 mans, but until they come there is no reason to ever complain about a drop makeup being "unfare" in the 12 man queue.

You do realize that I am advocating precisely what you said in the portion I emphasized, right? Drop decks are where it is at. I've not used the word "unfair" at all - current 12mans are what they are, but they would actually be much more fun and interesting with decks.

In every weight class there will always be a(few) "superior" choice(s) - it only makes sense to bring those to a competition. But right now, the nature of the "free-for-all" 12man doesn't foster competition except on the individual achievement ("I did well in a really unbalanced drop even though we got rolled") level - which is sort of the antithesis of team play.

Edited by Bagheera, 07 November 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[LordVanquish]

Trauglodyte, on 07 November 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

I'm just sad that, among the 12 Atlases that one, there was one that didn't break 100 damage and another that barely did break 100. That's really pathetic.

You probably don't play 12 mans really often.
There's lots of a reasons why Atlai don't do much damage in most 12 mans, and even more so in a crazy drop like this:

- They are usually the first ones in, drawing enemy fire. If you're good, you'd be too busy torso twisting to mitigate damage to fire back at the enemy. If you focus on firing the enemy, you'd get cored out pushing their firing line in no time.

-In pushing the enemy line, they are very easily stripped of weapons and will have to rotate out with no weapons left.

-It is also why a 12-Atlai drop deck aren't normally very successful - it is very hard to get all of them into a fight at the same time where they all can contribute damage. Most of the time, they are bunched up, or way too spread out, or blocking each other's firing lines. Much more often than not, 12 assaults running in 12 mans lose (though 12 Highlanders can be a different story...).

Now, that is not to say that Atlai CAN'T have good games in 12 mans, just there are a lot of reasons why they may not be able to (they are usually not the main DPSers).

Edited by LordVanquish, 07 November 2013 - 08:46 AM.

[Purlana]

Bagheera, on 07 November 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

You're confusing individual mech selection with overall team composition. There's a reason that the player run leagues don't use the "bring whatever you want" model of regular 12-man play. From the sound of your objection though, you are perfectly happy with the game being about who has the most HGN-733C's rather than letting player's skill and desire being the determining factors. If that is the case, more power to you.

Then really it's a balance issue based on mech design. Even if your restricted to have 3 assault mechs the problem remains. Your forced to take 3 highlanders or suffer...? 3 lights? Well take jenners / spiders or suffer...?

Edited by Purlana, 07 November 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bagheera, on 07 November 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

You're confusing individual mech selection with overall team composition. There's a reason that the player run leagues don't use the "bring whatever you want" model of regular 12-man play. From the sound of your objection though, you are perfectly happy with the game being about who has the most HGN-733C's rather than letting player's skill and desire being the determining factors. If that is the case, more power to you.

I am fine with it cause I do not use an HGN-733, and will take em on as they come up. I was in a match with the Law last night and our 3 D-DCs were matched against 3 HGN-733 and 3-4 AC/PPC Phracts. I loved the fight.I died with 3 assists and 240(ish) damage. That is competitive. So if playing to win is competitive playing, I am more competitive than most.

[Mister Blastman]

Bad Andy, on 06 November 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

They've said tonnage limits are coming, hopefully they apply to 12 mans too

Tonnage limits would be bad for the 12-man queue. It'd hurt a lot of leagues. Better would be a pre-drop lobby where you and your opponent can barter a tonnage limit in only the 12-man queue.

[Joseph Mallan]

Purlana, on 07 November 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Then really it's a balance issue based on mech design. Even if your restricted to have 3 assault mechs the problem remains. Your forced to take 3 highlanders or suffer...? 3 lights? Well take jenners / spiders or suffer...?

But how competitive is it, if you take only the top equipment? Am I really better than you if I win on even footing. Yes, Am I really better than you if I win in a less optimal(but more my style) build?