143 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

627, on 07 February 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

Ok, lets try it this way. First that screen was just an example what I experienced since that mech came out.

In MY opinion, the stalker is a bad mech for new players. Doesn't mean bad in general.

yes to learning curve. yes to complex systems. But if you do this you need some kind of tutorial for it. or warning signs, whatever. But you can't just toss them in there and expect to learn it by themselves. make the mech easier to understand. change the loadout or change the way how you get to it.
Imho loadout change is easier than making up new tutorials.

And one thought on the new players. we need every single one. getting new users is the most critical task for every free to play game. But that is not the topic here.

I agree 100% with you. I just think using hyperbole and anecdotal evidence can harm more than it can help. It's not going to affect PGI, they have the real factual data to use, so stuff like "Every game ends in a stomp" doesn't affect them and they know better. What it DOES hurt is the perception of new players. If every single game ended in a stomp I'd be one of the first ones standing up with a pitchfork. If I really felt this game was slanted against new players I'd do the same.

I've posted MANY times in feature suggestions on how I would improve the new player experience as well as retention.
Things like Solaris Training Academy, where all cadets drop in their own queue with veterans are approved (kinda like community volunteers) to drop with them in trial mechs and offer advice and tips and strategies and how to spend that first bundle of cash they get to help avoid the buyer's remorse. Help explain things (unbiased) like ghost heat without the added "Ghost heat sucks, you should post on the forums about it"

Also adding in daily login rewards. New and free players could earn 5MC or so for logging in and playing a match. That leads to a free mech bay per month or once they have a couple of those they can save up for a hero mech. It encourages players to login and play as well as creates more of a microtransaction market. If I save for 3 months I have 450 MC, I can buy another 500 and purchase that color or camo I want, etc.

wanderer, on 07 February 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

And highsec so you don't see newbies totally predated on by experienced players, even if the rewards aren't as grand for doing stuff in them.

Which is exactly why I think new players should have their own queue while going through their cadet bonus

[FactorlanP]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

My horse in the race is presumably the same as everyone else's I play the game, there's things I enjoy, there's things I think need to be fixed, there's some ideas and suggestions I agree with and there's some ideas and suggestions I don't agree with.
Everything working as well as it could be? Nah and that's just far too encompassing to do a complete list without compeltely derailing this thread.
As far as MM goes?
It could definitely be adjusted. here's the issue though. I'm not trying to be obtuse or stubborn. Since the last MM adjustment I've had closer matches with stomps occurring much less. So for me, the MM adjustment has made things more balanced. I'm sure there are others that have experienced a different scenario.
The point is that I understand my matches are anecdotal at best and grand sweeping changes shouldn't be made based solely on my experience. Those that are experiencing more stomps need to understand the same though. Posting a few screenshots or even a LOT of screenshots and giving personal experience is valid it just isn't anything mroe than anecdotal evidence which can be combined with other data to get a better idea of what to adjust.
The issue I had with the OP was simply that the screenshot does not show anything other than a one-sided game that tried to imply the stalkers used were new pilots when it simply isn't known and a bad assumption to make changes on.

It's not personal, it's just a matter of statistics. What if you and the others who are posting about "every" game being a stomp or majority of games are a statistical anomaly that only a select few are experiencing? The same could be said for my experience. I could very well be the statistical anomaly that gets more balanced matches. But I'm not posting screenshots and calling for dramatic changes to an entire game based on my personal experience either.

I just think it would be MUCH more beneficial to submit the data in an unbiased manner and that way instead of weeding through the "Yea, MM sucks! I love the op" and the "OP is wrong, I hate his idea" nonsense, PGI has more raw data to use. I have no doubts that there's still stomps happening. I never said otherwise. I do, however, recognize that a screenshot of a one-sided game claiming new players were dropping in a high elo match entirely based on the fact that trial mechs were used is not statistically true

I appreciate that. But we were talking about the possibility of putting new players at the bottom of the elo pool instead of the middle.

I think that it might have a positive affect on the way a new player experiences his first few matches. It shouldn't affect you at all, except maybe to put you into fewer games with new players (which also seems like a plus for you AND the new player)...

But your position seemed to be, "that's not how elo works and we don't have anything but anecdotal info, so it isn't allowed to be discussed".

Do you see where I'm coming from here?

I totally agree that screen shots of stomps mean nothing. I also agree that only PGI has the metrics that can be judged. But that isn't going to prevent me from talking about something that I feel may not be working as well as it could and what I think maybe could be done to alleviate the problem.

I would rather discuss ideas, in the perhaps futile hope that somebody from PGI will get something from the discussion.

I'm not here simply to say PGI sucks blah blah blah... I will confess that I have a pretty negative view of PGI right now, but from my point of view they've earned it.

On the other side of it though, refusing to even discuss ideas because we don't have the data mining, makes these forums completely pointless.

Edited by FactorlanP, 07 February 2014 - 05:42 PM.

[Bromineberry]

Way to many of the games I play end up like the one in the opening post. Elo- and weight balance is really, really bad right now. It's rare, that the teams are close to even. I don't understand why they still haven't fixed the MM. Why is it so hard?

For example, an elo raise of x% for every player that joins the match in a premade would help, I think. 8 guys with the same skill lvl, 4 drop solo, 4 drop in a premade. The four solo players would keep their elo (let's say 1000, just as an example) while the other 4 in the premade would get a "bonus" because they're dropping as a team. With the bonus, each premade player would be rated as 1200 (again, just an example). That means, the teams would be 4000 vs 4800 elo, because 4 solo players with the same mechs and skills can not be expected to work together as well as four players in a premade.

Wouldn't that be a way to handle and "rate" the advantage players have from dropping as a premade?

[Sandpit]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

I appreciate that. But we were talking about the possibility of putting new players at the bottom of the elo pool instead of the middle.

I think that it might have a positive affect on the way a new player experiences his first few matches. It shouldn't affect you at all, except maybe to put you into fewer games with new players (which also seems like a plus for you AND the new player)...

But your position seemed to be, "that's not how elo works and we don't have anything but anecdotal info, so it isn't allowed to be discussed".

Do you see where I'm coming from here?

I totally agree that screen shots of stomps mean nothing. I also agree that only PGI has the metrics that can be judged. But that isn't going to prevent me from talking about something that I feel may not be working as well as it could and what I think maybe could be done to alleviate the problem.

I would rather discuss ideas, in the perhaps futile hope that somebody from PGI will get something from the discussion.

I'm not here simply to say PGI sucks blah blah blah... I will confess that I have a pretty negative view of PGI right now, but from my point of view they've earned it.

On the other side of it though, refusing to even discuss ideas because we don't have the data mining, makes these forums completely pointless.

here's why I don't think that works. You're still going to have good pilots with high skill levels (not to mention the numerous players that create alts so they aren't truly a "new" player) so you'll have stomps. It's not going to solve the issue and forces a good player to suffer through a very long string of rough games due to being teamed with low elo players. They'll either skate through and think the game is easy and then hit that brick wall when their ELO catches up with them OR they'll get bored because there's no challenge.
Again, I think putting new players into their own queue while going through the cadet bonus is how you stop new players getting stomped.

No, I'm just pointing out that the evidence that was provided is far from conclusive or factual when discussing the entire community. Again, it's not personal, it's just the fact that the OP was a bit misleading in assuming those pilots were even new. Especially considering I've seen a LOT of vets runnign around in those stalkers because they're a fun build to play with and very effective at support.

I understand where you're coming from and I think we both want the exact same thing. I just think we have different ideas on how to get there. I don't see the adjustment you're suggesting as accomplishing that.

All we've been doing is discussing ideas. We also have to understand that ideas based on incomplete or anecdotal evidence aren't always what's best for the community as a whole. I agree 100% that the new player experience needs a lot of work. I might have gotten a bit overly aggressive with my opinion but it wasn't meant to be personal and (trying to ignore the personal attacks from mud aside) if I offended you I apologize

Bromineberry, on 07 February 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

Way to many of the games I play end up like the one in the opening post. Elo- and weight balance is really, really bad right now. It's rare, that the teams are close to even. I don't understand why they still haven't fixed the MM. Why is it so hard?

For example, an elo raise of x% for every player that joins the match in a premade would help, I think. 8 guys with the same skill lvl, 4 drop solo, 4 drop in a premade. The four solo players would keep their elo (let's say 1000, just as an example) while the other 4 in the premade would get a "bonus" because they're dropping as a team. With the bonus, each premade player would be rated as 1200 (again, just an example). That means, the teams would be 4000 vs 4800 elo, because 4 solo players with the same mechs and skills can not be expected to work together as well as four players in a premade.

Wouldn't that be a way to handle and "rate" the advantage players have from dropping as a premade?

Well I think the upcoming tonnage limits in April will solve a lot of this. That will eliminate the weight discrepancies and hopefully alleviate some of this

[FactorlanP]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

here's why I don't think that works. You're still going to have good pilots with high skill levels (not to mention the numerous players that create alts so they aren't truly a "new" player) so you'll have stomps.

Which is why you do as someone else suggested (I don't recall who) and make the changes in elo of new players move in larger steps. Perhaps larger steps in the upwards direction only.

The alt guys will move out of the new guy range faster than the real new guys.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

here's why I don't think that works. You're still going to have good pilots with high skill levels (not to mention the numerous players that create alts so they aren't truly a "new" player) so you'll have stomps. It's not going to solve the issue and forces a good player to suffer through a very long string of rough games due to being teamed with low elo players.

If Elo works in this game (which is highly questionable, but apparently an assumption by people like yourself who think PGI's approach has merit, so we will work with your assumption), then putting a good player at low Elo won't matter, because they will quickly rise through the Elo ranks.

That's a feature of the Elo system... the further you are from your "real" Elo, the faster the system tends to advance you.

The only time when this isn't the case, is if the game's outcomes don't actually reflect your own skill as a pilot, and are instead being determined primarily by other external factors (in this case, by the other 11 members of your team, mech configurations, etc.). But if this is the case, then Elo is a bad basis for matchmaking anyway, and should be modified.

So either you accept that Elo is a bad basis for matchmaking in a game like Mechwarrior Online, or you shouldn't worry about starting a player at low Elo, because their Elo will quickly rise to a level appropriate to their skill.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

If Elo works in this game (which is highly questionable, but apparently an assumption by people like yourself who think PGI's approach has merit, so we will work with your assumption), then putting a good player at low Elo won't matter, because they will quickly rise through the Elo ranks.

That's a feature of the Elo system... the further you are from your "real" Elo, the faster the system tends to advance you.

The only time when this isn't the case, is if the game's outcomes don't actually reflect your own skill as a pilot, and are instead being determined primarily by other external factors (in this case, by the other 11 members of your team, mech configurations, etc.). But if this is the case, then Elo is a bad basis for matchmaking anyway, and should be modified.

So either you accept that Elo is a bad basis for matchmaking in a game like Mechwarrior Online, or you shouldn't worry about starting a player at low Elo, because their Elo will quickly rise to a level appropriate to their skill.

I agree 100%
That's why I said the suggestion won't stop stomps. You have good players at low ELO stomping less skilled players until it rises. Given that you can only jump a maximum of 50 per match that could be a good long while before they reach their "true" ELO. So you're absolutely correct in everything you just said which is why that idea won't stop stomps

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

I agree 100%
That's why I said the suggestion won't stop stomps. You have good players at low ELO stomping less skilled players until it rises. Given that you can only jump a maximum of 50 per match that could be a good long while before they reach their "true" ELO. So you're absolutely correct in everything you just said which is why that idea won't stop stomps

The vast majority of new players are in fact not going to be good though. In your fear of putting a trivial percentage of new players at an Elo that is below where they belong, you are actually putting the vast majority of them at an Elo which is far ABOVE where they belong.

[FactorlanP]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

I agree 100%
That's why I said the suggestion won't stop stomps. You have good players at low ELO stomping less skilled players until it rises. Given that you can only jump a maximum of 50 per match that could be a good long while before they reach their "true" ELO. So you're absolutely correct in everything you just said which is why that idea won't stop stomps

The idea wasn't really aimed at stomps so much as it was aimed at improving the new player experience. Increasing the chances that a brand new player will only face off against others at his level.

The occasional alt player is an outlier, in my opinion, and shouldn't greatly sway the system design.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with elo is that it doesn't seem to account for players who are grouped. I support a system where a group of players gets a modifier added to their elo score to account for the synergy of players working together who are familiar with each other and likely on voice comms.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

The vast majority of new players are in fact not going to be good though. In your fear of putting a trivial percentage of new players at an Elo that is below where they belong, you are actually putting the vast majority of them at an Elo which is far ABOVE where they belong.

First, this is exactly how you DON'T hold an echange of ideas
"You fear of trivial percentage" first and foremost you have no basis for that. You have absolutely no idea what percentage it would be.
Secondly, you completely try to dismiss everything I said with that kind of remark while I've been doing nothing but trying to actually have a good exchange of ideas with everyone here. I don't like your idea but that doesn't mean I've once dismissed it or used adjective such as "trivial" or tried to stain what you said by saying you were afraid of anything so how about you cut the snark?

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

The idea wasn't really aimed at stomps so much as it was aimed at improving the new player experience. Increasing the chances that a brand new player will only face off against others at his level.

Which is exactly why I don't think that idea will work. Putting them at the low end doesn't increase their chances of facing others at their level, it increases the chance that they AREN'T playing others at their level because you're assuming every new player is "bad" which results in a low elo.
There's two main points of contention (not the only ones but I said main since everyone seems to want to nitpick)
1.) New Player Information: Which means Tutorials, explanations of the complex systems used in MWO for heat and such as well as easing them into a good mech selection for their play style.

2.) Stomps: Which means new players going through a string of stomps is bad. I've already pointed out why I don't think the idea of forcing them to start at a low elo will fix that

The more this goes on though the more it seems to be that instead of wanting an exchange of ideas you're just wanting to defend your idea as the only idea that will work?

I've made several suggestions in this thread on how to make a better new player experience and as usual instead of acknowledging them, they're ignored so that I can be "convinced" that I'm wrong and the your idea will work. I've not once ignored or refused to acknowledge your ideas, I've just stated why I don't think they'll work.

[Sephlock]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

I've posted MANY times in feature suggestions on how I would improve the new player experience as well as retention.

PGI has to get out of that burlap sack first .

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

That would still be nothing more than opinion. You can't determine a mech is "bad" for everyone. If that were true I'd never win a game in my energy boats because they're "bad" according to several in the community. That doesn't their opinion any more true.
I'm also willing to bet (if this thread were any indication) that there'd be just as many that agree with me as agree with you regarding the mech if you polled a few thousand players

It's not that it's bad for everyone... it's bad for newbies. There's a difference between constructing a mech that players would use (that isn't strictly meta, but rather usable) and one that is constructing something that is newbie friendly.

XL engines have been used in most of the Champion mechs... and not on the Atlas Champion (to date, STD engines have been used on the Hunchback, Centurion, Highlander as well). Why do you think that is? Giving an Atlas an XL engine (like when the Atlas-K was in the rotation) is a freaking death trap, even if there's some logic to using XL. Some mechs naturally use them... like light mechs... but what's the difference between a mech that has XL and one that does? MC cost. Compare the C-bill cost between the Raven AND Cicada variant. XL is what makes up the bulk of the cost, and it also translates into a higher MC cost. When the Stalker Champion is going to be sold for MC, it will cost more that the Stalker-5S. The XL engine choice on a Stalker is generally not a standard build... an exception can be made for the creation of a missile boat, but that's usually done with the understanding that you know what you're doing with it. The newbie is unlikely to be one of those people.

Quote

Give them advice even when they don't ask. That's what I was getting at. They don't ask for the exact reasons you stated sometimes. That's why if I'm spectating I'll offer them advice regardless
"Hey Mr. SnazzyMechPants, if you hit R it will target enemy mechs, letting your teammates know where they're at"
"Hey bud, if you hit z you can zoom in at range and aim in at longer ranges a bit easier"
"If you use chain fire you'll avoid overheating as much"

sometimes I get a "Thanks man! I appreciate the tips"
sometimes it's "Screw you buddy. Quit telling me how to play!"

I get griefed by people who think they know better or think I don't know. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to react. I'll give tips but at this point, it's simply an unthankful job.

Quote

either way I don't give orders I just offer information if they look like they might be new and if they get rude about it I just shrug and ignore it. If they say thanks I say no prob and give them links to websites and such.

Look, I care about the newbies, but as a person still concerned about the newbie experience.. giving a newbie unfriendly design is not the solution. Missile boats are fine and are not "newbie" mechs, but in my experience, I still see enough bad designs by players that would think what they are doing is "good", even they do very little on their end to reduce the negative aspects. XL engines on a Stalker is for advanced users. Putting them on a newbie makes them a target, especially when they cannot buy the mech (allowing for newbies to be smashed at will, regardless of the outcome of the match).

GalaxyBluestar, on 07 February 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

but can you tell the difference in a match? as 627 said that dragon c on your team unless you verify the loadout it could easily be a vet just boosting earnings on a fav build. i think you went off course about the bonus, that's not being discussed directly but it's a motivater for champion mechs turning up which aren't trials.

Most of the Champion mechs fielded by other players tend to be a bit different from the stock, but if you are fully aware of the trial mech rotation, there's only 4 mechs to memorize, and currently one mech (the Stalker Trial Champion) that isn't going to change since it isn't sold for MC yet. Unfortunately, the Spider-5K or Catapult-A1 Champions don't lend to too many variations in builds by design (thus, not mattering in the grand scheme of things).

Edited by Deathlike, 07 February 2014 - 07:19 PM.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

First, this is exactly how you DON'T hold an echange of ideas
"You fear of trivial percentage" first and foremost you have no basis for that. You have absolutely no idea what percentage it would be.

Yes I do. It's a trivial percentage.
If you dispute this, then think through the implications of what it means if the number of smurf accounts among new players ISN'T a trivial percentage. Consider what that means about the state of the game's population, and what it means for the future of the game.

Either I'm right, and it's a trivial percentage, or I'm wrong and the game's dead and the argument is moot anyway. Take your pick.

Quote

Secondly, you completely try to dismiss everything I said with that kind of remark while I've been doing nothing but trying to actually have a good exchange of ideas with everyone here. I don't like your idea but that doesn't mean I've once dismissed it or used adjective such as "trivial" or tried to stain what you said by saying you were afraid of anything so how about you cut the snark?

I'm dismissing what you said because you are worrying about a trivial percentage of the overall cases.

I'm not using the term trivial as a pejorative. I'm using it because the number of cases you are worried about constitute a very, very tiny minority of them. Trivial, as in most likely less than 1%. Even if it were a higher number, say 10%, then you're still worrying about a tiny minority, at the expensive of the vast majority. So you are making a mistake.

And if the number of smurfing players is really so high as to merit your worrying about that case, then as I pointed out, the game's on death's door anyway. It would mean that you are essentially attracting virtually no new players, and that would in turn mean that the overall population would likely be declining overall, since we all know players who have already abandoned the game.

Personally, I'm not sure about that later point, but I am virtually certain that smurf accounts do not constitute any significant percentage of new accounts.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 February 2014 - 07:10 PM, said:

It's not that it's bad for everyone... it's bad for newbies. There's a difference between constructing a mech that players would use (that isn't strictly meta, but rather usable) and one that is constructing something that is newbie friendly.

XL engines have been used in most of the Champion mechs... and not on the Atlas Champion. Why do you think that is? Giving an Atlas an XL engine (like when the Atlas-K was in the rotation) is a freaking death trap, even if there's some logic to using XL. Some mechs naturally use them... like light mechs... but what's the difference between a mech that has XL and one that does? MC cost. Compare the C-bill cost between the Raven AND Cicada variant. XL is what makes up the bulk of the cost, and it also translates into a higher MC cost.



I get griefed by people who think they know better or think I don't know. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to react. I'll give tips but at this point, it's simply an unthankful job.



Look, I care about the newbies, but as a person still concerned about the newbie experience.. giving a newbie unfriendly design is not the solution. Missile boats are fine and are not "newbie" mechs, but in my experience, I still see enough bad designs by players that would think what they are doing is "good", even they do very little on their end to reduce the negative aspects. XL engines on a Stalker is for advanced users. Putting them on a newbie makes them a target, especially when they cannot buy the mech (allowing for newbies to be smashed at will, regardless of the outcome of the match).




Most of the Champion mechs fielded by other players tend to be a bit different from the stock, but if you are fully aware of the trial mech rotation, there's only 4 mechs to memorize, and currently one mech (the Stalker Trial Champion) that isn't going to change since it isn't sold for MC yet. Unfortunately, the Spider-5K or Catapult-A1 Champions don't lend to too many variations in builds by design (thus, not mattering in the grand scheme of things).

Again, I disagree about it being a "bad" mech for new players. I think it's a good mech for them to learn how to manuever and use that style mech. The XL engine does NOT make it a bad mech for new players. It makes it a mech they can learn in. For free. With a really nice loadout.
I just don't see it as a bad mech for them. It may not be a "perfect" mech for new players but it's far from "bad".

Trust me I get just as many "stfu" responses as I do "hey thanks for the info". You take the good with the bad unfortunately. Doesn't stop me from offering to help them when I see someone who might need it though

I don't doubt your sincerity on wanting to help new players, I just think we disagree on this particular matter. It's a matter of opinion on whether this is a "good" mech for new players or not. To me it is.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

Yes I do. It's a trivial percentage.
If you dispute this, then think through the implications of what it means if the number of smurf accounts among new players ISN'T a trivial percentage. Consider what that means about the state of the game's population, and what it means for the future of the game.

Either I'm right, and it's a trivial percentage, or I'm wrong and the game's dead and the argument is moot anyway. Take your pick.


I'm dismissing what you said because you are worrying about a trivial percentage of the overall cases.

I'm not using the term trivial as a pejorative. I'm using it because the number of cases you are worried about constitute a very, very tiny minority of them. Trivial, as in most likely less than 1%. Even if it were a higher number, say 10%, then you're still worrying about a tiny minority, at the expensive of the vast majority. So you are making a mistake.

And if the number of smurfing players is really so high as to merit your worrying about that case, then as I pointed out, the game's on death's door anyway. It would mean that you are essentially attracting virtually no new players, and that would in turn mean that the overall population would likely be declining overall, since we all know players who have already abandoned the game.

Personally, I'm not sure about that later point, but I am virtually certain that smurf accounts do not constitute any significant percentage of new accounts.

No, no you don't. Neither do I. It may "likely" be anything, that's the point. You have absolutely no idea what a new player's skill level is going to be when they enter this game. based on normal statistics we can assume the majority are going to be "average" a few will be better and a few will be worse.
That still doesn't stop the fact that the average and above average players are going to stomp the below average new players while they climb up through (remember a 50 ELO max change per match under the best conditions) the elo brackets. That means the majority of new players will stomp on the minority low end players.
I'm not even counting the smurf accounts into that. That's purely based on a bell curve and where most players will fall statistically on average

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

Again, I disagree about it being a "bad" mech for new players. I think it's a good mech for them to learn how to manuever and use that style mech. The XL engine does NOT make it a bad mech for new players. It makes it a mech they can learn in. For free. With a really nice loadout.
I just don't see it as a bad mech for them. It may not be a "perfect" mech for new players but it's far from "bad".

The thing about fast engines is that a newbie is tempted to brawl, instead of staying/hanging back from the crowd. The problem is that LRMs are obviously not really a "brawling weapon". So, they tend to get into trouble when challenged (as in, the opponent is going to brawl against them). It probably won't make a lick of difference because when you're brawling in a Stalker, there are severe limitations (not that it can't be overcome, but not with a missile boat build).

Quote

I don't doubt your sincerity on wanting to help new players, I just think we disagree on this particular matter. It's a matter of opinion on whether this is a "good" mech for new players or not. To me it is.

All I'm going to say is.... crushing the Trial Champion Stalker build is unfortunately the easiest kills targets I have faced... and it's going to get worse over time.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 February 2014 - 07:26 PM.

[Sephlock]

Between the community battling it out amongst itself and PGI's almost non-existent presence on the forums, I can't help but think of this:

[Gambino87]

Sephlock, on 07 February 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Between the community battling it out amongst itself and PGI's almost non-existent presence on the forums, I can't help but think of this:

I was thinking more like this:

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 February 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

The thing about fast engines is that a newbie is tempted to brawl, instead of staying/hanging back from the crowd. The problem is that LRMs are obviously not really a "brawling weapon". So, they tend to get into trouble when challenged (as in, the opponent is going to brawl against them). It probably won't make a lick of difference because when you're brawling in a Stalker, there are severe limitations (not that it can't be overcome, but not with a missile boat build).




All I'm going to say is.... crushing the Trial Champion Stalker build is unfortunately the easiest kills targets I have faced... and it's going to get worse over time.

I agree, I just disagree that it isn't a good free mech for them to learn about it in. It's a good solid build and they learn that XL engines and LRMs aren't for brawling, same with vets as well. I think it will get better as new players and old alike learn on a free mech. They learn from their mistakes. When I see those mechs on my team I offer advice on how to use them "properly" and help out.
Are there better builds? Well sure, I'm not the best lurm guy in the world I'm much better with my energy boats so if I had my choice I'd have all 4 trials as energy boats with standard engines. That doesnt' mean those would be better or worse though. Also, as I said before, if it were their only option I might agree with you more. It isn't though so there's options other than that one particular mech.
There's just a lot of factors that go into it other than the fact that it carries XL engines. That seems to be the main complaint about it. So if a new player buys a hero mech and keeps XL engines in it they shouldn't use it or they should be deemed "bad"? (I'm not saying that's what you're getting at, just giving a different perspective)

Sephlock, on 07 February 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Between the community battling it out amongst itself and PGI's almost non-existent presence on the forums, I can't help but think of this:

Gambino87, on 07 February 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

I was thinking more like this:

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

No, no you don't. Neither do I. It may "likely" be anything, that's the point.

No, that point is moot. I explained why.
If smurf accounts don't constitute a trivial percentage of new accounts, then the game is dead, and it doesn't matter.
Presumably you don't believe that to be the case, thus you are left with the alternative that I am correct.

Quote

You have absolutely no idea what a new player's skill level is going to be when they enter this game.

I know that they are, in the vast majority of cases, going to be poor players in poorly equipped mechs.
And even in cases where you have exceptionally skilled players, like old Mechwarrior 4 veterans, they are STILL going to be at a significant disadvantage by being forced into trial mechs.

So, yes, I actually can say with a high degree of certainty that new players are going to be significantly worse than the average player with some experience under his belt.

Quote

based on normal statistics we can assume the majority are going to be "average" a few will be better and a few will be worse.

Nope, you are incorrect. I will explain exactly why.

The majority are going to be of "average" ability, COMPARED TO OTHER PLAYERS WITH NO EXPERIENCE. Not compared to players who actually have experience playing the game. Because playing the game, like playing any game, makes you better at it.

Your suggestion here, that the spectrum of new player skill is equivalent to the spectrum of experienced player skill is clearly incorrect.

For instance, you can take a person who has never played baseball, EVER, and put him in a game. Will he most likely be "average"? No, of course not. He will be significantly below average until he learns the basics of how to play the game, because he has never done it before. It's not a natural skill which is instinctually born into human beings through our genetic code.