373 replies to this topic

[Roadkill]

girl on fire, on 02 April 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

but... most people are probably playing in low tier ELO games. It makes no sense to balance a game around the minority of 'pro' players as opposed to the majority of "bad" players...

Actually, that's the only way to balance a game. If you balance the game for the majority of "bad" players, then the ones who are actually good at the game will horribly abuse the imbalance that you've created to pacify the "bad" players.

You have to balance the game for the best players or else it really isn't balanced at all.

Quote

And it seems like making the argument about "bad" versus "good" you are more trying to shame people into agreeing with your opinion, lest they think they are bad. And those that don't will just be more resentful by the implication that the way they play is "wrong" or "bad".

I understand what you are saying, but that's really not my intent. It's really not about play style or player skill. It's about the quality (read: balance) of the weapon system.

My point is that the LRM weapon system is different than FLD (front-loaded damage) weapon systems like the PPC and AC/5. FLD weapons are good or bad based almost entirely on the skill of the person using them. LRMs are also affected by the skill of the person using them, but unlike FLD weapons they're also highly dependent on the skill of the target.

Against a highly skilled target, LRMs are just plain bad. It almost doesn't matter how good the firer is, because a highly skilled target is going to avoid the bulk of the LRM damage. FLD weapons aren't affected in this way nearly as much.

LRMs are really only good against bad players. There is still skill involved from the firer in setting up a proper shot, knowing when to fire and when to not, and being able to make the best use of cover. But no matter how good the LRM-firer is, if the target is really good they're going to avoid most of the damage anyway.

FLD weapons are just plain good. If the firer sets up a good shot and pulls the trigger, the target has very little say in the matter - they're going to take the damage no matter what.

FLD weapons are just flat-out better than LRMs because of this, and it makes it deceiving to look at what happened after the 175 m/s patch and try to say that LRMs were OP. They weren't. They were still bad. But because everyone was trying them out to see how the patch had affected them, bad players were getting clobbered by them far more often than prior to the patch. And because everyone was using them, FLD weapons weren't suppressing missile boats as effectively as they normally do because they weren't being used.

Now that things have calmed down, missiles are back to being mostly junk. And that happened even before they were nerfed back to 160 m/s.

[Ultimax]

Corwin Vickers, on 01 April 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

What you said was:
[/font]
Sounds like you were saying people need LRMs to me.

Fair enough, I can see where you came to that conclusion.

Early on in the LRMfest it did feel like that. It's gotten better in most games - but it can still be horribly lopsided in others.

Corwin Vickers, on 01 April 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

When I poptart or use direct fire weapons in general, I tend to hug cover giving myself the widest angle of protection from that cover. I jump enough to clear my weapons, fire, drop down again, and usually move to another spot so that people aren't waiting for me to jump up in the same place again so they can return fire.

You can do the exact same thing with LRMs, including Jump firing.

I've done quite a lot of Jump firing LRMs on maps like Alpine.

You can find cover that provides similar protection and in many cases better protection as long as your missile flight angle can clear whatever is in front of you.

Corwin Vickers, on 01 April 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

When you are using LRMs you must stand away from cover, sometimes out of cover, in order to get a flight path to the target.

Standing back a touch from cover is not the same thing as standing out in the open.

You can have cover, fire LRMs and provide your opponent with 0 fire lanes on you.

I do it repeatedly, and I'm convinced it's not something unique to me.

Corwin Vickers, on 01 April 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

Also, not all LRM fire is indirect. Self targeted LRM fire requires you to expose your self for the travel time of the volley and all subsequent volleys. Direct fire requires you to expose your self for the 1 second you need to clear your arms over the object in front of you.

Yes, I know how direct fire works.

Those are exactly all of the drawbacks to using weapons that do not have an IDF mode and do not have the ability for multiple allies to all focus fire on a single target while tucked in safe firing positions.

Those same weapons that you need to keep the reticle directly on the target.


When I use LRMs in direct fire mode, it's much more forgiving in that one only needs to keep the targeting reticule anywhere inside the generously sized red box.

It has the very real drawback of min 180m but it also has the very real advantage of being able to run at top speed while firing with an exceptionally low chance of missing.

Corwin Vickers, on 01 April 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

The "teamwork is OP" argument is not a very strong one. Team work with any style of play is powerful. In fact, I, and others are saying, that direct fire team work is far superior to LRM team work.

Also TAG and NARC are primarily taken to counter ECM, not for the bonuses.

Teamwork is great, I'm all for teamwork.

I want teamwork to always defeat selfish play.


While several players noticing a red triangle pop up on their minimap because 1 guy pressed the "R" is in fact teamwork, it is low coordination required teamwork.

What this means is not that those players are bad, or noobs, or unskilled, it means they are able to leverage a mechanic to focus fire much, much more easily than if they tried to call out targets by typing in chat.


Sidenote: I'd kill for a small set of built in targeting hotkeys to help PUG teams focus fire without voice chat.

Corwin Vickers, on 01 April 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

Just to be clear, I am the poptart player saying LRMs are useless and you are the LRM user saying LRMs are over powered.

I'm not saying they are overpowered, I'm saying that IDF leverages several force multiplication tools too easily for the potential output that can be derived.

There is some nuance there, I'm sure several years of game forums have soured the pool for all of us - but not everyone is a black & white extreme viewpoint monger.

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:

It is a combat Video game and as such I will use Combat strategy and military science to hopefully put me in a position of beating someone not using those Skills. you know determining the right blend of short & long Range with Fast and armored forces that blend direct and indirect fire support. That is the thinking portion of the Thinking mans game. A good team that has the right blend of these qualities will kick the crap out of any improperly "balanced" team.

Of course, I wouldn't have it any other way.

That doesn't mean some mechanics shouldn't be tweaked to be less problematic in what is effectively a random team creator.

The goal should always be fun, enjoyable gameplay - there were many times last week that were not fun nor enjoyable even when I was on the winning team when my team was the one who got lucky with all of the ECM & LRMs.

I'm not like a lot of people, I have fun even when I lose if the game was a hard fought close battle. That's pretty much what I'm in this for.

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:

Point being that one of the Top 60 of the last Tournament made it there in almost Stock Builds! That is the guy to listen to. No Meta, Double sinks Endo as his major changes, and he made Into the top 60 or better!(IIRC) That sir is skill and Balance!

It sure is, I'd love to play with and learn from him.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roadkill, on 02 April 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

Actually, that's the only way to balance a game. If you balance the game for the majority of "bad" players, then the ones who are actually good at the game will horribly abuse the imbalance that you've created to pacify the "bad" players.

You have to balance the game for the best players or else it really isn't balanced at all.

Though true... you gotta admit balancing for the few seems... backwards.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

Though true... you gotta admit balancing for the few seems... backwards.

I think saying that balancing "for" the few is a bit of a misnomer. It implies that somehow we'd be trying to make the game enjoyable for only a few. And that would be untrue, because the intention of most balancing decisions is to make the game better for everyone (it'll all trickle down like it always does). I think a better wording would be along the lines of "balancing based on the few."

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 02 April 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

Of course, I wouldn't have it any other way.

That doesn't mean some mechanics shouldn't be tweaked to be less problematic in what is effectively a random team creator.

The goal should always be fun, enjoyable gameplay - there were many times last week that were not fun nor enjoyable even when I was on the winning team when my team was the one who got lucky with all of the ECM & LRMs.

I'm not like a lot of people, I have fun even when I lose if the game was a hard fought close battle. That's pretty much what I'm in this for.




It sure is, I'd love to play with and learn from him.

true, but what some find fun others find problematic... StJobe and I go around on this a lot. He is all for making our ACs all huge MGs cause the fluff says they are(even if it is the fluff out of the rule book), even though the Game Mechanics deliver the damage in a front loaded manner for 30 years.

FupDup, on 02 April 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

I think saying that balancing "for" the few is a bit of a misnomer. It implies that somehow we'd be trying to make the game enjoyable for only a few. And that would be untrue, because the intention of most balancing decisions is to make the game better for everyone (it'll all trickle down like it always does). I think a better wording would be along the lines of "balancing based on the few."

Nope... still sounds weird!

[Roadkill]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

Though true... you gotta admit balancing for the few seems... backwards.

It's just perception. You're not really balancing for the few... you're balancing for everyone. It's just that only the few are actually aware of the balance that has been created. The rest will become aware as they get better at the game.

FWIW, I'm not a member of "the few" in game. I often can't make use of the balance that I know exists because I'm just not good enough. But I'm aware enough to be able to see the balance while observing people who are clearly better than I am, and then I work toward emulating their play so that I can become better.

Had a great game last night in which I felt pretty useless. I'd just bought a new Banshee S and outfitted it, so it was slow, hot, sluggish, and I only had a vague idea that the loadout might be good. Naturally we dropped on Terra Therma.

Deathlike was on my team. Want to observe skill? Watch Deathlike play. (Among others, I'm only singling him out because I got to watch him last night.)

Some of what he did was obvious. He's just a damn good shot. But the biggest part of what he did was probably invisible to most players. He cooperated with me without saying a word. I'd said my Mech was new and not yet unlocked, so he gave me room to wallow around. He used my 95 tons as additional armor for himself, but never once got in my way as I desperately tried to wrestle my Mech into position and be effective.

Turns out the best things I could do was distract the enemy and keep them off him. So that's what I tried to do. And boy did he take advantage of it. Once I died I hopped into his cockpit to ride along and it was really awesome watching his tactics. Pretty damn flawless. I was reminded of several things that I already knew, but don't usually remember in the heat of battle. Hopefully that game will help me remember them in the future.

[Sam Slade]

Like high speed LRMs way more... made the game harder...

PPC/AC is easy mode, not skill.

[Pygar]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

Though true... you gotta admit balancing for the few seems... backwards.

You mean like, balancing the game for the few people who are camping here in the "game balance echo chamber" as opposed to all the other players who just play the game and rarely if ever come read this stuff?

[Joseph Mallan]

No as in... The needs of the many... kinda stuff!

That basic simple logic does not work in gaming!

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 02 April 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

Right. You just blew your own arguments out of the water.

With missiles, it isn't possible to be precise. They are only "low skill" in the sense that you are prohibited from exercising the same kind of twitch skill that poptarts use.

It doesn't harm my argument at all. It's the definitive PROOF of it.

The way LRM's work is that they PRECLUDE aiming skill. Exactly as you say here. The fact that you can't actually aim with them is what means that their use cannot possibly be exercising that element of piloting skill. That's why they are low-skill weapons.

Quote

Missiles aren't easy mode when looked at that way. They're hard mode. You are prohibited from using your twitch skills when you're using missiles. The best you can hope for is to scatter decent damage all over your target, unlike even an average poptart who can expect to at least hit a torso with every shot.

Low skill does not equal "easy mode".

Low skill simply means that they are weapons which do not require as much skill to use to their maximum effectiveness. It doesn't mean that their effectiveness is actually GOOD.

You can easily have a BAD weapon which is also LOW skill.

The LBX is a great example, for instance. It's basically a trash-tier weapon, but is also fairly low skill in that you don't really need to be good at aiming to use to to its maximum effectiveness... it just happens to be that its maximum effectiveness is low compared to other weapons.

I think that we've established where the disconnect was though, in that you were conflating the two terms, low-skill and easy-mode, when they really aren't related.

Although, as I've mentioned already, because LRM's are low-skill weapons, that effectively precludes them from being made into top-tier weapons... because if an LRM was as effective as a comparable to a direct fire weapon which requires some degree of skill to use effectively, then the LRM would be dramatically superior.. since you would at that point be able to achieve the same results without having to aim.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

No as in... The needs of the many... kinda stuff!

That basic simple logic does not work in gaming!

And the saying would have to altered slightly.

"The needs of the many, outweigh the wants of the few."

[Wolfways]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

It doesn't harm my argument at all. It's the definitive PROOF of it.

The way LRM's work is that they PRECLUDE aiming skill. Exactly as you say here. The fact that you can't actually aim with them is what means that their use cannot possibly be exercising that element of piloting skill. That's why they are low-skill weapons.



Low skill does not equal "easy mode".

Low skill simply means that they are weapons which do not require as much skill to use to their maximum effectiveness. It doesn't mean that their effectiveness is actually GOOD.

You can easily have a BAD weapon which is also LOW skill.

The LBX is a great example, for instance. It's basically a trash-tier weapon, but is also fairly low skill in that you don't really need to be good at aiming to use to to its maximum effectiveness... it just happens to be that its maximum effectiveness is low compared to other weapons.

I think that we've established where the disconnect was though, in that you were conflating the two terms, low-skill and easy-mode, when they really aren't related.

Although, as I've mentioned already, because LRM's are low-skill weapons, that effectively precludes them from being made into top-tier weapons... because if an LRM was as effective as a comparable to a direct fire weapon which requires some degree of skill to use effectively, then the LRM would be dramatically superior.. since you would at that point be able to achieve the same results without having to aim.

Been a while since i've seen a post this full of shite.

As far as you are concerned LRM's are inferior because they require a different skill set to FLD weapons than the one you consider important (i.e, point>click), therefore their ability in combat should be inferior.
Well guess what, you got your wish. They are inferior.
I don't use AMS or ECM and my slowest mech moves at 50+kph and i rarely get hit by LRM's. Funnily enough i get hit by AC's lasers, PPC's, SRM's, etc. all the time.

PGI could double the speed and damage and it will make very little difference as long as we are playing on arena-type maps that are nothing but cover (except for Alpine).


I'll tell you how good LRM's are.
Since starting MWO in CB all i've wanted is a Mad Dog Prime (and maybe a Timberwolf Prime) but the way LRM's work right now i would never consider buying them (other than "just because i can").

Edited by Wolfways, 02 April 2014 - 10:26 AM.

[Roland]

Again, it isn't that lrms use some totally separate set of skills compared to weapons you aim.

They use a subset.

And again, I just find it hard to take people seriously who try to minimize things like aiming skill in a shooter by saying "is just point and click!"

Yes, that is how computer games work. You click on things.

And yet, doing so requires skill, and most of the folks who try to minimize that skill tend to be people who aren't good at clicking.

You aren't running a hundred percent accuracy with your weapons. Obviously there is something more to it, since you can't do it perfectly.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 02 April 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

And the saying would have to altered slightly.

"The needs of the many, outweigh the wants of the few."

Where as in MW:O and gaming over all, it would be the,' Needs of the few, outweigh the Wants of the many!'

[StalaggtIKE]

[quote name=''Roadkill']My point is that the LRM weapon system is different than FLD (front-loaded damage) weapon systems like the PPC and AC/5. FLD weapons are good or bad based almost entirely on the skill of the person using them. LRMs are also affected by the skill of the person using them' date=' but unlike FLD weapons they're also highly dependent on the skill of the target.[/quote']

+1. Well stated.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 02 April 2014 - 10:39 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

Again, it isn't that lrms use some totally separate set of skills compared to weapons you aim.

They use a subset.

And again, I just find it hard to take people seriously who try to minimize things like aiming skill in a shooter by saying "is just point and click!"

Yes, that is how computer games work. You click on things.

And yet, doing so requires skill, and most of the folks who try to minimize that skill tend to be people who aren't good at clicking.

You aren't running a hundred percent accuracy with your weapons. Obviously there is something more to it, since you can't do it perfectly.

And you are trying to put all FPShooters into one group and use that as a basis for your argument.

MW:O itself, literally ONLY MW:O, is one of the EASIEST FPS games I've ever played.

This is due to the way mechs move, and the way projectiles work.

Mechs are slow and huge and do not have good reaction ability.

Weapons are fast, perfectly pinpoint and have no cone of fire, recoil, drop off or anything else that makes it hard to aim.

IN MECHWARRIOR ONLINE aiming and shooting is EASY.

There are a TON of bad players who play this game, probably more so than any other FPS game I've played.

Lastly, due to poorly thought out ammo mechanics, the only reason some people aren't at a higher accuracy is because we take a ton of stupid shots that probably don't have a chance of hitting just because there is no real penalty for doing so.

So PLEASE Roland, stop acting like MW:O is like other FPS games out there.

MW:O is not a thinking man's shooter. It's a derpy derp shooter, because PGI can't code their way out of a paper bag.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 02 April 2014 - 10:40 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

Again, it isn't that lrms use some totally separate set of skills compared to weapons you aim.

They use a subset.

And again, I just find it hard to take people seriously who try to minimize things like aiming skill in a shooter by saying "is just point and click!"

Yes, that is how computer games work. You click on things.

And yet, doing so requires skill, and most of the folks who try to minimize that skill tend to be people who aren't good at clicking.

You aren't running a hundred percent accuracy with your weapons. Obviously there is something more to it, since you can't do it perfectly.

I minimize it as I see it as hardly being skill. I have shot real weapons, and I have swung real weapons... Clicking a mouse is by no measure comparable... and shooting a real weapon is still just Point and Click! So keep trying to tell it to a Marine... Cause your story is falling way short on the buying it meter!

I didn't want to like your last post Nick. I really didn't... but dang it, it tickled me and I just had to like it!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 02 April 2014 - 10:43 AM.

[Roland]

As you say, the reason why you find mechwarrior so easy is because the player base is generally terrible. There were a tiny handful of pilots who were truly skilled, and not most have left the game now.

But as I already pointed out, your suggestion that it is easier than other shooters is a nonsensical statement, because like all shooters, the difficulty is determined by your opponent.

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

I minimize it as I see it as hardly being skill. I have shot real weapons, and I have swung real weapons... Clicking a mouse is by no measure comparable... and shooting a real weapon is still just Point and Click! So keep trying to tell it to a Marine... Cause your story is falling way short on the buying it meter!

And yet, there are tons of players who are much better at the game than you.

Just because you aren't good at something doesn't mean it doesn't require skill.

If it really didn't require skill, then everyone would be equally good at it.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

As you say, the reason why you find mechwarrior so easy is because the player base is generally terrible. There were a tiny handful of pilots who were truly skilled, and not most have left the game now.

But as I already pointed out, your suggestion that it is easier than other shooters is a nonsensical statement, because like all shooters, the difficulty is determined by your opponent.




And yet, there are tons of players who are much better at the game than you.

Just because you aren't good at something doesn't mean it doesn't require skill.

If it really didn't require skill, then everyone would be equally good at it.

A 60% win loss is not good since when Sir???
If I am winning more than I am losing i am having an easy time playing the game!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 02 April 2014 - 10:47 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

As you say, the reason why you find mechwarrior so easy is because the player base is generally terrible. There were a tiny handful of pilots who were truly skilled, and not most have left the game now. But as I already pointed out, your suggestion that it is easier than other shooters is a nonsensical statement, because like all shooters, the difficulty is determined by your opponent. And yet, there are tons of players who are much better at the game than you. Just because you aren't good at something doesn't mean it doesn't require skill. If it really didn't require skill, then everyone would be equally good at it.

Yeah except when I play with the good players, it isn't the ability to aim that sets them apart.

It's the situational awareness, spatial awareness, knowing the maps and their cover points inside and out. It's the teamwork that doesn't even require a voice com because they just know what to do.

I've never watched a good player play and said to myself "damn this dude can aim". It's WAY too easy for that to ever be something that stands out to me.