1821 replies to this topic

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Rhaythe, on 12 April 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

It's not a 'tutorial mode'. It's a selling point.

Nope, you are proposing to sacrifice good game play for tutorial mode delusions.
Not providing full data in this doc is a sin and no one should support it.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

I can understand Jack, that have basically zero experience in stock game play and was argue with me "(..) but, but Jenners job is not using hes MLs (..)", you should understand importance of balance and good game play more.
Game play is the most important thing, far more important then few different stats. That needs to be changed in the name of balance. Without good game play mode will fall. Specially for new and casual that are not that involved in BT and are here for good game.
Dev Team deserve to know what is needed for Stock to success and be best possible implemented if so.
My argues about that subject provide far more logic and reasons why we should not hide information about what is best for our proposed mode. Those acts more like sabotaging the whole idea in fact.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 13 April 2015 - 04:44 PM.

[Sergey Kosinskiy]

Well this was to fast and we didnt even talk about document:(

Edited by Sergey Kosinskiy, 13 April 2015 - 07:29 PM.

[Tesunie]

Gonzo, from what I recall, your proposal would have ignored almost half the mechs in the game and required just about every weapon system to be altered. May I remind you we've been playing with MWO weapon stats the whole time so far? Until quirks came in, things seemed balanced in SMM matches to me.

What we came up the proposal as a group going from the average vote of our members, we decided to propose the following changes for stock mode matches if it was created in this game:
- Remove skills. Not only makes things more stock like, but also happens to even the playing field for new players.
- Remove quirks. These unbalanced many stock mechs and was intended for balance in custom mechs. Also conveniently helps new players.
- Remove modules. Also is helpful to new players as well.
- Suggested that all ammo be doubled from TT values to counter double armor. This can be helpful and detrimental to new players.
- Strongly suggest that somehow a match maker be added to separate tech 1 and tech 2 mechs in stock matches. (Among other details.)


Only pieces of your concept that wasn't agreed on by the majority was:
- Era rotation. Would cause confusion to new players and players not familiar with BT eras. Also rotation itself can be confusing.
- Tech level 1 only stock mode. Excludes too many mechs.
- Weapon value changes. We felt this was asking too much of PGI. Maybe stock mode can show new light on weapon balance. Maybe this can be suggested and changed at a later date. For now, it seemed more confusing and demanding than was needed right now.
- Selective skills being permitted. I think PGI will go with all or none proposals. I don't think they would cooperate with selective skills to be used and others to be turned off. No skills is more stock anyway and helps with the selling point of "helpful to new players". Turning skills off completely make stock mode more about individual skills and less about in game experience that unlocks skills.


Your ideas where heard. Your ideas where not the only ones. Many logical and good suggestions where made, and many of them did not make it.

Pointing out that stock mode can be easier for new players is not designing it only for new players. Many of the things we all want for stock mode happens to coincide with this is all. So, with that in mind we only needed to adjust a few points, and place some stress on the parts that helps new players (such as no modules and no skills, as new players don't have many of these). Beyond that, I'm sorry if you felt excluded or hurt by our (majority of stock players working on the proposal) decisions. We did hear you. Just we didn't support you concepts is all. No slight not insults were meant. (Not all, actually I don't think any, of my own concepts or ideas made the cut either.)

I'll also mention, if you feel so strongly about your concepts, you can also always create your own proposal and see if they will take that instead. Just realize that the rest of us might not support nor find favor in it. You can try to go it alone if you wish. I won't even try to stop you. I'd even help you make it if you wished, even if I don't support it. You type it out and I can proof read it and try to draft it if you wish.

Edited by Tesunie, 13 April 2015 - 08:42 PM.

[Rhaythe]

Jeager, to say that your constant objections and belittlement are tiring is an understatement. You've been heard. Your suggestions have been shot down by us, as a community. Not by me personally. I actually agree with A LOT of what you said. But PGI is a business, and it is only going to undertake the addition of a stock mode if 1) it benefits more than just the stock community, and 2) the level-of-effort remains as low as possible.

The document is a community effort. Not just mine. It's not a delusion. It's an honest recommendation that 1) benefits us as stock players, 2) benefits the community as an escape from the constant metagame, and 3) benefits new players as a more tactical, less cut-throat learning environment. Everyone has had a chance to read, review, and offer recommendations to this document, and this is what we've come up with as a group. I'm sorry if you don't like it. But this is supposed to represent the community as a whole. Not just you.

I enjoy playing this game with you, Jaeger. Please. Enough of the personal attacks.

[Fragnot]

Fun games last night, the Urbie's were hilarious

I'm interested to see the 'document' discussed here; took a look in the Feature Suggestion forums and didn't see it...

I only did my first stock match last Dec but I do enjoy the format and hope PGI makes it an official mode. Likes others here suggest, I think it would be a great selling point for new players if they could earn C-Bills in stock matches to save up for custom mechs. It would provide a much more balanced environment for people with fresh accounts IMO.

I like the ideas of no modules, no skills, and no quirks, but I also like the idea of a stock mode that was only T1 too. The list of T1 mechs looks pretty long to me and I think it would make the game mode stand out more from normal 3050 gameplay. If they had to do T1 and T2 modes, that's adding 2 additional queue buckets to the 3 buckets PGI is running now, and I'm afraid the community isn't large enough yet to support it. If we did get an official stock mode, I'd bet we'd only get 1 queue bucket, at least for starters.

[Rhaythe]

Fragnot, on 14 April 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

I'm interested to see the 'document' discussed here; took a look in the Feature Suggestion forums and didn't see it...

Check your PMs.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Tesuni your racalls are amazingly selective. You take parts from my input that I already said several times are not that important. What is import are tools to balance game properly.
Said that, your proposal about melting all mechs from all techs in to one stock mode are crazy enough. About that I already came from the beginning, that the only way to adress excluded mechs is making several stock modes, like IS tech1 vs IS tech1, clans vs clans, IS tech2 vs IS tech2, clans vs IS tech2. Or rotation, that basically is just same thing. Different stock mods, just served one by one.
And with what did you guys came out for now? With 2 mods. IS tech1 vs IS tech1, clans vs clans.
Desire to just melt all together show basic lack of balance understandings.
If you say that game was balanced before quirks, your understanding of balance in stock tech1 is not complete as well.
Of course was better before quirks, but could be even better with BT weapons stats.
Hard to actually believe that we need to go pass all that here. I would understand someone from outside of SMM, that don`t understand how game can be in stock, but going by that internally with people that has some stock experience is surprising at best.

You Rhaythe alone are not a community as well, even less is Jack if we need to speak about it. Taking my objection that are supported by strong arguments and logic as some sort of personal attacks is very low. We, you and me, we do not have any personal connections. So basically we can`t have any personal contacts, attacks, whatever you wish to call. If you fell something like that because someone denied some of your ideas or argues... Well I don`t know what to say to you. You need to learn other way as your feelings are too touchy and false by that.

IMHO
Hiding information, trying to go around PGI and sell them thing as tutorial mode, and then come out after sh/it balance accusation with what is actually need for best game I consider as even morally wrong.
Saying that I think that you overrate as how much harder BT stats would be to swallowed by PGI. I already said, different set of stats could be actually even more comfortable for them.
As well I think that proposing to skill off and mods off could be actually possibly harder. As that would went too far from their business game model.
But anyway, we are not in place to judge, what PGI can take and what not. But our obligation is to provide possibly full information about the subject. That said what you want Rhaythe is to hide selective things and for that should not be allowed, as the thing possibly can put Stock Lobbing Party reputation in risk.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 14 April 2015 - 11:23 AM.

[Rhaythe]

Honestly, Jaeger, at this point I have to wonder if you've read a damn thing in that document or anything else anyone has said to you.

Your objections were noted and dismissed. Enough said.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

By who? By community that you self claim to be?
I wonder same thing if you read and understand what my points are. As I did not seen yet satisfactory contre polemic. All I see is "we as community ( read me ) dismiss your argue, without providing any contr argue and logic"

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 14 April 2015 - 11:41 AM.

[Tesunie]

Gonzo,
In address to myself, my proposal was not to mix techs, but was to suggest we find a way to make it so all mechs in the game could queue into stock mode. Then I suggested my favored match maker shortly afterwards. My proposal was to keep mechs in separate matches as much as possible, and only mix tech levels if the population for that mode was drastically to small to keep the matches moving.

As far as personal attacks go, you're the one that called any of us that questioned our disagreed with any of your concepts an idiot or stupid. Actually, you've continued that here. We've stated our reasons why we did not like your proposals. As a group, we had certain things we agreed on, certain things we debated, and other things we dismissed. But we did so as a group. There was about 8 people working on that document. Your concepts were not agreed on by the other members there, and most of us stated our reasons why. You do not make a community. I don't make a community. Neither one of us can dictate terms to everyone else, no matter what we individually believe to be correct or not. And basing someone's concept purely on their time or experience in stock matches also isn't a valid reason to dismiss them. (Might I also remind that my own concepts did not make it into the proposal?)


As has been said before, we are not proposing a "tutorial mode" but rather emphasizing the new user friendly aspects that the proposed mode would/could have within the game. Stock games do tend to be an easier place to learn, as there are less power plays and player in game experience and wealth don't take affect.

I'm thinking you are not grasping what we are saying. It sounds almost like we are having a major miscommunication here.

[SilentScreamer]

Fragnot, on 14 April 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

Fun games last night, the Urbie's were hilarious

I would have like a match with urbies, it could be fun.

A whole night of waiting for your team's urbie to waddle back into formation at 30 kph...not so much. Any of them score a kill?

[Rhaythe]

This is a quote from your own arguments, Jaeger:

Quote

For stock mode to be successful we need three rules adjustments:
double ammo,
BT weapons stats
and quirks off.

You do realize that 2 of those 3 ideas made it into the final document, correct? And that every talking point in the proposal was taken directly out of the brainstorming document? Jack and I conferred together as best we could as to what the consensus among The Community was - and yes, I mean Community. Everything that was posted in the brainstorming document was considered, and simply put, we had to go with ideas that seemed most popular. Including two out of three of yours.

Then, from that point, I gave every comment in the actual proposal consideration when I wrote it. I made changes where they were needed (For example, I completely changed how the tech tiers worked in the document based on feedback).

This proposal was not written in a vacuum. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise.

[Tesunie]

SilentScreamer, on 14 April 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

I would have like a match with urbies, it could be fun.

A whole night of waiting for your team's urbie to waddle back into formation at 30 kph...not so much. Any of them score a kill?

Looks like I missed a good time. Drats. Life got in the way this week. Still have a Grasshopper in stock saved. Don't know how much longer I can, but it should still be around next week.

[Rhaythe]

Tesunie, on 14 April 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:

Looks like I missed a good time. Drats. Life got in the way this week. Still have a Grasshopper in stock saved. Don't know how much longer I can, but it should still be around next week.

It was pretty fun. We attempted an Urbie-riding-an-Urbie mech conversion. It did not go well.

That said, two ammo-depleted urbies "chasing" a Shadowhawk across the map was *awesome*.

SilentScreamer, on 14 April 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

I would have like a match with urbies, it could be fun.

A whole night of waiting for your team's urbie to waddle back into formation at 30 kph...not so much. Any of them score a kill?

Absolutely. Provided you keep your urbie in its native environment, they actually perform decently well.

[BarHaid]

Rhaythe, on 14 April 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

Check your PMs.

Could I get in on this action as well? I should be able to upgrade my lurker status to elite with this.

[Tesunie]

BarHaid, on 14 April 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

Could I get in on this action as well? I should be able to upgrade my lurker status to elite with this.

I don't have the links right now. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll pm them when I get home.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Tesuni, please quote me where exactly I insulted someone and called him an idiot. If so its true, I`m deeply sorry, but honestly I don`t recall such a thing. At best I called some argues like that. Its quiet different thing to call some concept stupid then call a person.

I`m not auto dismissing be cause lack of experience. But I as far more experienced in that matter just know better, I can add as well, that actually I got some experience in balancing stuff in multiplayer video games (ok it was one mode, but good one, with plenty of ppl playing) and usually my feelings about balance was correct. Jack was arguing that Jenner job is not using hes ML, or that ML are strong enough, or that ML will be same on all mechs anyway. That is enough to judge and dismiss hes balance argues. So is not just lack of experience no matter what one have said.
Now imagine someone who play only stock that is arguing about balance in full custom set game that he played 2 times. You see the distortion?

"(..)[color=#000000] If that means we drop tech 1 against clan mechs, so be it. Don’t forget the clan mechs will be dropping on either side.(..)" is not something in sort of all in one Tesuni? quoted from you.[/color]


[color=#000000]While I [/color]appreciate that 2 out of 3 that I think are the most important things we manege to agree, there is still 3rd that rise resist. I actually reread some of the stuff and I just noticed that you Rhaythe was the one arguing against quirks off, as I more discuss with particular argues then people. Having that in mind maybe we need to discuss details why I think BT stats are that important and needed for balance. As I`m not sure anymore about your view on that subject and if my reasons are clear enough. I heard only too much work for upload different stats, or necessity of relearn whole game if few details would different from the main. Those both argues I feel are quiet weak, as I pointed them out in other posts. Seams quiet clear that is not enough reason why we should not to even mention about stats as well, as I find them pretty important, but again maybe is not clear why I think that way and maybe you think this change is not needed for stock, as you was or are thinking about quirks.

[Tesunie]

Gonzo, I value my friendship with you, whatever it may be, more than this disagreement. I don't think it's worth fighting over. I can be like a pitbull and not let go once I bite into something, and I'd rather not do that here. I don't feel it would be good for us to continue this. No matter which one of us "wins", we both end up losing when all is said and done.

I'd rather see you on the battlefield, in our stock mechs, blasting everything apart, whether as a teammate or an opponent.


Edit: I would like to just add quickly, many of the things debated did change my mind as people came up with good reasons for their suggestions. That's what a debate is for. The goal is to convince the other people why a concept is a good one, or a better one. Yes, I did change my mind a couple of times and refined what I wanted as other people mentioned why they proposed what they proposed. You actually was one of the big reasons why I agreed that tech 1 and other tech levels needed to be separated if possible. The problem after a while became, how do we do that? A few concepts were tossed around, many didn't make it. Era rotation and Favored Match Making were some that didn't make it (or at least not in it's original whole concept). I just believe PGI would not take a "tech level 1 only" mode, which means some solution had to be found to overcome the problem.

I'm not arguing that weapons may or may not need a rebalanced, and I do agree that TT values probably would be better. But I personally still don't see PGI preforming that for a Stock Mode. Turning things on and off (skills, quirks and ghost heat) appear to be much easier options than changing weapon stats. That is the only reason I wasn't on board with that concept. My reasons are to get a stock mode. We can recommend future changes later if we as players find problems in their stock mode. (I will add, I don't mind MW:O weapon stats so far, but I would not be opposed to TT stats either, which I believe probably would run better. This is a matter of what I believe PGI is willing to do. It's nothing against you.)

Edited by Tesunie, 14 April 2015 - 07:33 PM.

[Tesunie]

BarHaid, on 14 April 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

Could I get in on this action as well? I should be able to upgrade my lurker status to elite with this.

You may now check your PMs.