143 replies to this topic

[Stelar 7]

627, on 07 February 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Killer argument. You expect a scientific study or everything I say on this issue are just the memories on a bad day?
Ok how is that: Take a look into the new players forum. Just look for threads about the 4 trial mechs.

No, but I do expect someone using anecdote to acknowledge that it is anecdotal, and that confirmation bias is unavoidable. It seems you think I should take your bad day recollections more seriously than anecdata though. Why do you think your perceptions are so special?

627, on 07 February 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Actually it is hard to hit center torso on a stalker. It has some of the biggest side torsos. Oh and as a proof I'd like to direct you to the hitbox thread so this is not anecdotal.

And here another thing:
twisting is very effective
....

Yes, there is a lot to learn, that is not about the Stalker it's about the new player information available. Tell me, how long did it take you to learn about twisting? I saw people doing it early and started trying myself. Also if it is hard to hit the center, then a lot of center of mass shots will hit the right or left, spreading the hits, which is pretty much why I said this is a good mech to learn about XL in. You seem to think no new player should ever drop with an XL.

627, on 07 February 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

The dragon was pretty good before the gauss change. Only two weapon groups, direct fire (point and shoot) a no heat weapon and no hidden ghost heat mechanics.

Gause Rifle charge was ok to inflict on noobs then eh?

627, on 07 February 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

First part: yes.
Second one: I don't know... if you get shot out of your mech in the first 2 minutes of the game without even seeing an enemy, over and over I doubt you have enough fun to stay and watch others who are doing so much better in tricked out mechs.

"Over and over"

Seriously, that is your expected result? Lots and lots of poor defenseless noobs being 1 shot in a STALKER. All I can say is when I was a noob I had an atlas, and I got killed a lot in my atlas, but I lived long enough to learn a little and then I did ghost around with the other pilots. Then I found a group and learned even more. I read the forums and I learned even more. Basically I took responsibility to learn the game since I wanted to get good at it. Why would I hold others to a lower bar?

You guys are talking like every new player will drop once or twice, get rolled and ragequit. If that happens, good, someone with that low a tolerance for adversity should probably not play PVP games. The official material might not be great, heck isn't great, but there is a ton of supplementary material, and lots of player groups willing to take in and train noobs. Players unwilling to put effort into the game aren't worth retaining.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Deathlike, on 07 February 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

They don't ask for advice, that's the problem. It's either that they are shy or that they simply don't know what to ask.

So they suffer. Social Darwinism at work.


Seriously, I used to have ONE friend and that was a guy I knew from <long story>. I lurked the forums, but when I finally took the plunge and joined the DHB full time (again, long story), my Elo grew three sizes (true story and obscure reference). If people don't want to learn, or grow etc, then let them suffer. All games lose new players. PGI has the numbers, and are apparently doing well enough to keep the servers running and extend the contract with MS.

So let's help the new players that want help, and let the rest drown.

[wanderer]

It's a good 'Mech. Not a great one, but it's a good one when used properly- I've seen a lance of the things decimate people.

What it isn't is a -simple- 'Mech. It needs a warning label: "Danger! This 'Mech should be practiced with in the Training Grounds before being used in real combat", because LRMs are THE dodgiest weapon a newbie fires.

The first thing I do seeing one on the team is ask "did you practice with it outside matches first?". If not, it's an 85t target in the hands of newbies.

[627]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

That's still anecdotal. You're getting too defensive. All that's being said is that the evidence you provided is purely anecdotal. In this particular case you provided a screenshot showing several pilots in the new Stalker and assuming they were new pilots with low elos and that's why that match was one-sided.
There isn't a single player on here that can provide more than anecdotal evidence. It's impossible because they don't have the data to support their evidence and no matter how many screenshots and matches you record data for it's still anecdotal because it's such a small sample size and includes your personal bias (in this case things like ELO, builds, etc.) as opposed to information garnered from the entire population.
The same goes for new player threads. Have you seen the number of &quot;new&quot; players that are nothing more than alts to try and garner support because now the idea is coming from a &quot;new&quot; player? You cannot rely on things like that because there's no way of verifying the validity of those claims

PGI can verify them. PGI has the data. PGI makes decisions based on that data. Any data submitted as factual evidence of anything in this game is nothing more than anecdotal simply because of the data gathering process and again because of the whole bias discussed earlier.

Then I have honestly no idea how we can discuss anything here.

[Prezimonto]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

I've always wondered why that is... Why put the new guy higher in the Elo rankings?

I say, stick him in at the very very bottom. Give him the very best chance to win his very first match. Hook him by letting him win more in the beginning.

If he has any skill, or is a quick study, he will jump up the Elo food chain in short order.

They could even build in flexible scaling so the low players gain elo value more quickly by allowing a greater than 50point shift for certain circumstances. But the method they're using is easy.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 February 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

It's not even a personal opinion. If we put a vote together, I'm willing to bet people will side on my end more than your end. It has less to do with being a missile boat. It is everything to do with it making the mech a newbie death trap.



They don't ask for advice, that's the problem. It's either that they are shy or that they simply don't know what to ask.

I do answer questions newbies give in game, as rare as that occurs.

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

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!"

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.

[Kenyon Burguess]

doesn't matter what (C) mech you put a new player in, they will be farmed until the day they L2P. you can white knight the situation over the stalker and refuse to kill them, but someone else will, so you might as well earn your c-bills and offer them ingame advice as they pass on to that eternal scrap yard in the sky each match. I'd suggest taking a screenie and offering them advice thru the forum message service but we all know how that would turn out.

[FactorlanP]

Nick Makiaveli, on 07 February 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

So they suffer. Social Darwinism at work.

If it was real life, I would agree with you. But PGI, and to a lesser extent us, have a vested interest in drawing and retaining as many new players as possible.

It is in all of our best interests to improve the new player experience. That's what I am interested in. I think most of you here are just wanting to argue for arguments sake...

[GalaxyBluestar]

Deathlike, on 07 February 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

All Champion mechs give an XP bonus (10%). Trial Champion mechs however give 0 ZERO bonus.

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.

[FactorlanP]

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

They could even build in flexible scaling so the low players gain elo value more quickly by allowing a greater than 50point shift for certain circumstances. But the method they're using is easy.

That's the beauty of it. PGI doesn't HAVE to stick to any elo system. They can, AND SHOULD, be actively adjusting the system until the desired result is achieved.

[Stelar 7]

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

If it was real life, I would agree with you. But PGI, and to a lesser extent us, have a vested interest in drawing and retaining as many new players as possible.

It is in all of our best interests to improve the new player experience. That's what I am interested in. I think most of you here are just wanting to argue for arguments sake...

I disagree, we don't want as many as possible. We want the kind who will stay, and spend some money. People who ragequit at the first sign of adversity and who will not seek help for complex tasks need not apply. They will never enjoy this game. Look at EVE, brutal learning curve, constant growth.

[Sandpit]

627, on 07 February 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Then I have honestly no idea how we can discuss anything here.

you can discuss things all day long and exchange ideas but you can't state my opinion is factual because I showed a single screen shot. It also doesn't take into account all the games you play with new players and win without a second thought that you had those players on your team.

Anecdotal evidence is what it is. We can discuss it but you can't base balance changes on it or claim it's fact. There's a good underlying discussion here but it seems some are getting too caught up on "My opinion of this mech is it's bad so it needs to be removed from rotation because I don't like it" instead of "how can we help new players" since that's REALLY what this thread is about

Stelar 7, on 07 February 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

I disagree, we don't want as many as possible. We want the kind who will stay, and spend some money. People who ragequit at the first sign of adversity and who will not seek help for complex tasks need not apply. They will never enjoy this game. Look at EVE, brutal learning curve, constant growth.

That's exactly why they SHOULD get a complex more difficult to use mech in their rotation once in while. If it were the only mech they had available to them I might agree more with the sentiment. It's not though and it's not nearly as bad as some are trying to make it out to be.
Again, it also has less to do with the mech itself and more to do with how can we help new players?

[FactorlanP]

Stelar 7, on 07 February 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

I disagree, we don't want as many as possible. We want the kind who will stay, and spend some money. People who ragequit at the first sign of adversity and who will not seek help for complex tasks need not apply. They will never enjoy this game. Look at EVE, brutal learning curve, constant growth.

Yes, but removing obstacles for new player retention is never a bad thing.

[Sandpit]

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

That's the beauty of it. PGI doesn't HAVE to stick to any elo system. They can, AND SHOULD, be actively adjusting the system until the desired result is achieved.

They are. That's why we get the MM adjustments. There's never going to be a complete elimination of stomps. It's PvP, some will always be better than others, sometimes players will have a bad day, bad round, trying out a new mech build, etc. So there are TONS of factors outside of elo and whether a player is new when it comes to one-sided games.

[GLIZZY GULPER]

I actually never owned a Stalker before and enjoy this LRM boat 3F. It's not that bad, really.

[MerryIguana]

I feel bad killing em too, but 90% of the time they are on my team.

[FactorlanP]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

They are. That's why we get the MM adjustments. There's never going to be a complete elimination of stomps. It's PvP, some will always be better than others, sometimes players will have a bad day, bad round, trying out a new mech build, etc. So there are TONS of factors outside of elo and whether a player is new when it comes to one-sided games.

Totally agree, except I don't feel that a single change affecting high elo players is very active... I thought we were discussing ways that things might possibly be improved. That was what I was most interested in talking about.

What's your horse in this race? Is everything working as well as it can now, in your opinion? Are you opposed to ideas that don't come from a PGI employee?

If you don't think my idea would help, that's fine, tell me why you believe what you believe. But please don't attempt to stifle ideas.

Edited by FactorlanP, 07 February 2014 - 04:50 PM.

[627]

Sandpit, on 07 February 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

you can discuss things all day long and exchange ideas but you can't state my opinion is factual because I showed a single screen shot. It also doesn't take into account all the games you play with new players and win without a second thought that you had those players on your team.

Anecdotal evidence is what it is. We can discuss it but you can't base balance changes on it or claim it's fact. There's a good underlying discussion here but it seems some are getting too caught up on &quot;My opinion of this mech is it's bad so it needs to be removed from rotation because I don't like it&quot; instead of &quot;how can we help new players&quot; since that's REALLY what this thread is about


That's exactly why they SHOULD get a complex more difficult to use mech in their rotation once in while. If it were the only mech they had available to them I might agree more with the sentiment. It's not though and it's not nearly as bad as some are trying to make it out to be.
Again, it also has less to do with the mech itself and more to do with how can we help new players?

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.

[wanderer]

Quote

Look at EVE, brutal learning curve, constant growth.

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.

[Sandpit]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

Totally agree, except I don't feel that a single change affecting high elo players is very active... I thought we were discussing ways that things might possibly be improved. That was what I was most interested in talking about.

What's your horse in this race? Is everything working as well as it can now, in your opinion? Are you opposed to ideas that don't come from a PGI employee?

If you don't think my idea would help, that's fine, tell me why you believe what you believe. But please don't attempt to stifle ideas.

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