894 replies to this topic

[R Razor]

Mizeur, on 24 June 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

Regardless of my thoughts on anything else you've written, this is wrong. We don't employ PGI. Russ Bullock and IGP do. Russ and IGP pay PGI employees to make a game that we can pay to play or not.

We are just end users. They have no obligation to do anything we want except to the extent that they might make more profit doing it.

They can shut the doors tomorrow and start working on a console video game based on Edge of Tomorrow if they want. The only recourse we'd have would be to discuss what they did in a non-libelous and non-slanderous way that makes people unlikely to buy their games again.

I'll grant your point only insofar as we don't write their checks........they don't have a job if we don't spend money on their products though, essentially the same thing.

[Blacksoul1987]

wanderer, on 24 June 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

1) Recoil doesn't mean jack, 'Mechs can and do fire full salvos in Battletech...if it's sensible rangewise and heatwise to do so.
2) Mechs fire groups of weapons frequently. Go look up what a "Target Interlock Circuit" is for.
3) Alpha strikes don't break things. Being able to put all your damage instantly into a single location without any means of spreaing damage breaks things.

so what is your solution?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

pwnface, on 24 June 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

I feel like brawling with SRMs may become somewhat viable when being mixed with the poptart meta. A team of only brawlers would get absolutely wrecked in most cases though.

Maybe, but I'm just not seeing it. There is still a TON more risk to being a brawler and trying to close within 270m. And a well disciplined properly spaced out group of jump snipers is still going to be able to put a lot of FLD damage into them up close.

[pwnface]

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

The adults are talking now, you'll get your turn at recess.




Given that they run more than one style of mech, I'd argue that the least adaptable players are the ones that can't succeed on the same level whether they are utilizing meta or not............exploiters gon exploit.

I'm pretty sure 90% of the people reading this thread are better pilots than you in ANY build. Have u even broken 100 damage in a match? Show us a screenshot of your "non-meta" skills please!

[Wispsy]

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

But that is the point, you are not "the best", it's an illusion created and enhanced by poor game mechanics..........now were you capable of achieving the same or higher scores in a sterile environment utilizing NON meta then you would have a valid claim to skill...........all you have right now is a valid claim to being the top exploiter of a group of exploiters.

Well no that is not how it works...even if you play 100% perfectly with some non meta lbx mech...you will never be able to touch somebody who perfectly plays a DS...

I mean we are exploiting good aim and positioning...whilst picking the best mechs to utilize such things...hardly a damning thing to do in any game...some might even say that is the fundamental definition of skill in an fps...

[pwnface]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 24 June 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

Maybe, but I'm just not seeing it. There is still a TON more risk to being a brawler and trying to close within 270m. And a well disciplined properly spaced out group of jump snipers is still going to be able to put a lot of FLD damage into them up close.

Agreed for the most part, but if you can cover your brawlers with jump snipers it would help quite a bit. Also a timberwolf can easily run 2xerppc AND srms to counter snipe while pushing to brawl range. I don't think any high level teams have really played around with this in competition and it MAY be viable, maybe not

I feel like R Razor is a troll paid by PGI to keep the forums busy, this guy can't be serious can he?

[Ghogiel]

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

Given that they run more than one style of mech, I'd argue that the least adaptable players are the ones that can't succeed on the same level whether they are utilizing meta or not............exploiters gon exploit.

Make a support ticket and complain to support about all these exploiters out there then.

Exploiters lol. You'll be saying AC20 SHD comp builds are exploits too.

[R Razor]

pwnface, on 24 June 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure 90% of the people reading this thread are better pilots than you in ANY build. Have u even broken 100 damage in a match? Show us a screenshot of your "non-meta" skills please!

http://mwomercs.com/...r/page__st__220

No go over and sit and be quiet and let the adults continue talking child.

[Drasari]

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

Not necessarily. I know several people that would prefer to run light or medium mechs more often than they do, but in order to not gimp their team, jump into heavy or assault chassis. With the weapons balance as it stands, the majority of folks need the tonnage to stay alive long enough to deal out enough damage to help their team. There are of course exceptions to every rule, and I know plenty of folks capable of consistent 600+, 4 kill+ games in Jenners or other lights, but they are certainly not the rule.

I am one of those people.

Most of the time 70% of mechs are made up of heavy and assaults. It makes it brutal to pilot a medium or light. Yup I can perform well but only if the rest of my team is heavy too. Once the other team sees that we are light, they sweep through with impunity and hunt down the last few strays.

[Roland]

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Not even close............

Yes, what I said is in fact the reality of the situation. No matter how hard you deny it, you are always going to be wrong here.

Quote

just because you found an exploit and made the most of it does not make you the best by any stretch of the imagination

You are using a contrived definition of exploit.
Nothing which you are complaining about is actually an exploit in the game. No one is breaking any of the rules, or cheating in any way. Just because people are doing things which you are bad at, does not mean that those people are cheating.

Quote

it takes far more skill to achieve high damage numbers, high kill ratios and a high win loss ratio in a non meta mech than it ever will in a button pusher mech.

Certainly, if you are able to intentionally handicap yourself by using a sub-optimal build, and still consistently achieve victory, then you would be better than someone who requires optimal builds to achieve those results.

But the key factor here is achieving victory.

If you use suboptimal builds, but then cannot beat people who use optimal builds, that does not in any way indicate that you are in fact more skilled. Because the primary component of skill is in fact measured by ones' ability to achieve victory. You don't get credit for "fighting the good fight".

Being bad at mech building is not in fact a skill.

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Just because the mechanics of the game FAVOR button pushers does not make them more skilled, it allows them to win more often yes, but only because the broken mechanics reward a tactic that requires less skill.

Skill is measured by victory, not by arbitrary rules which you concoct in your head.

You are just creating artificial victory conditions in your head, which you are using to rationalize your lack of skill, and attribute your ineffectiveness to some imagined failing on the part of your betters.

[R Razor]

Wispsy, on 24 June 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

Well no that is not how it works...even if you play 100% perfectly with some non meta lbx mech...you will never be able to touch somebody who perfectly plays a DS...

I mean we are exploiting good aim and positioning...whilst picking the best mechs to utilize such things...hardly a damning thing to do in any game...some might even say that is the fundamental definition of skill in an fps...

If your definition of being the best is finding and exploiting a bad game mechanic then yes, you are the best. My bet is that most people with any sense of decency or common sense would disagree with you though.

With PP and FLD, aim is not nearly as relevant with a meta mech as it is to something utilizing DOT weaponry, so wrong. As to positioning, given the limited number of maps, much as a rat will always eventually find his cheese when dumped in a maze often enough, so too will anyone playing this game long enough find the optimal spots on a map, again not a skill but rather a learned behavior arrived at through exposure to fixed environmental conditions. As to picking the best mechs.......again, broken/bad game mechanics hand you "the best mechs" on a silver platter, no much need to pick anything there. And as you say, even playing at 100% with a non-meta you will never score as high as you will with one.......broken/bad game mechanics, not skill, make that possible.
So again I say, yes, you 1337 uber warriors may have a great deal of experience at exploiting those mechanics, but that doesn't mean you are n possession of any great amount of skill, it means you are at least as good as a rat going after his cheese, you learned through time where to go and you learned by trial and error, what weapons will deliver the most damage in the least amount of time. Congrats.........Swiss or Cheddar?

[Ghogiel]

Roland, on 24 June 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Skill is measured by victory, not by arbitrary rules which you concoct in your head.

You are just creating artificial victory conditions in your head, which you are using to rationalize your lack of skill, and attribute your ineffectiveness to some imagined failing on the part of your betters.

[YueFei]

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

If your definition of being the best is finding and exploiting a bad game mechanic then yes, you are the best. My bet is that most people with any sense of decency or common sense would disagree with you though.

With PP and FLD, aim is not nearly as relevant with a meta mech as it is to something utilizing DOT weaponry, so wrong. As to positioning, given the limited number of maps, much as a rat will always eventually find his cheese when dumped in a maze often enough, so too will anyone playing this game long enough find the optimal spots on a map, again not a skill but rather a learned behavior arrived at through exposure to fixed environmental conditions. As to picking the best mechs.......again, broken/bad game mechanics hand you "the best mechs" on a silver platter, no much need to pick anything there. And as you say, even playing at 100% with a non-meta you will never score as high as you will with one.......broken/bad game mechanics, not skill, make that possible.
So again I say, yes, you 1337 uber warriors may have a great deal of experience at exploiting those mechanics, but that doesn't mean you are n possession of any great amount of skill, it means you are at least as good as a rat going after his cheese, you learned through time where to go and you learned by trial and error, what weapons will deliver the most damage in the least amount of time. Congrats.........Swiss or Cheddar?

Don't worry Razor, if we ever meet in-game and you beat me, I'll just declare that you're not really the winner, you just used crutches to defeat me. I don't know how you sleep at night when you equip stuff like lasers and missiles on your mech. You oughta equip flamers and TAG beams on your mech like I do. It's the only way a Real Man ™ fights in MWO to prove his manliness.

LOL

[pwnface]

I think most people would define "best at a game" as winning the most. There really isn't any other reasonable way to define it, that is assuming winning is the point of the game.

[R Razor]

YueFei, on 24 June 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

Don't worry Razor, if we ever meet in-game and you beat me, I'll just declare that you're not really the winner, you just used crutches to defeat me. I don't know how you sleep at night when you equip stuff like lasers and missiles on your mech. You oughta equip flamers and TAG beams on your mech like I do. It's the only way a Real Man ™ fights in MWO to prove his manliness.

LOL

Did Pwn call you to skip class with him? I only ask because nobody has mentioned manliness (as far as I know anyway) until you came along..........go ahead and hit me with a "mom joke" while you're at it. Just make sure you stay between the lines when you color and for Gods sake don't eat the freakin' paste.

[Roland]

Quote

If your definition of being the best is finding and exploiting a bad game mechanic then yes, you are the best. My bet is that most people with any sense of decency or common sense would disagree with you though.

Every rational person agrees that understanding the rules of a game are usually a critical aspect to success in that game.

Your expectation that other people handicap themselves in order to play within your minimized view of what the game should be, is naive and irrational.

This isn't to suggest that improving game balance to make more varied mech builds and tactics viable would not be a great thing.. and indeed, would be welcomed by virtually all of the most competitive players. Competitive players tend to enjoy games which reward skill, and by increasing the viability of different play styles, it increases the depth of that game, and thus the skill required (as increased depth increases the understanding required to master a game).

But your attempt to minimize the skill of those who can consistently defeat you in the game is nonsensical, and it comes off as you simply crying about getting beaten.

If you want to improve the metagame, then you need to get PGI to change the game. But you can't fault those players who optimize their play around the CURRENT state of the game.

[Koniks]

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

I'll grant your point only insofar as we don't write their checks........they don't have a job if we don't spend money on their products though, essentially the same thing.

Not essentially the same thing. The difference between the two is stark. In the same way that the relationship between authors and readers is not the same as between the author and publisher.

PGI and authors tell you what they're going to produce. You can make suggestions but they're under no obligation to listen to them. The people they have a contractual or fiduciary obligation to listen to are their investors, publishers, and the licensor of the IP. Those stakeholders might decide there's more money to be made by listening to us. But they might not.

pwnface, on 24 June 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

I think most people would define "best at a game" as winning the most. There really isn't any other reasonable way to define it, that is assuming winning is the point of the game.

Whoever racks up the most C-Bills, XP, and GXP is another. There's probably a decent correlation among them but I doubt it's perfect. See e.g. the carry harder thread. I'm sure some of those games were more rewarding for the poster than they were for players on the winning side.

Edited by Mizeur, 24 June 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[Andreu Delaware]

Greetings and sorry for my english.

This discusión is non sense.

Logical argumetary as the solution.

1) Even Pilots
2) Even optimal construction

----------------------------------------------------------------

Clan mech.............................................................. IS mech

LRM with no mínimum.............................................LRM with minimum
Radiators x2.............................................................Radiators 1.5
AC/20 Ultra.............................................................. AC20
and more... ............................................................. and more....

Is a M1 Abrams ..................................................... Is a T-55 ...

GAME OVER.

Edited by Andreu Delaware, 24 June 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[YueFei]

R Razor, on 24 June 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

Did Pwn call you to skip class with him? I only ask because nobody has mentioned manliness (as far as I know anyway) until you came along..........go ahead and hit me with a "mom joke" while you're at it. Just make sure you stay between the lines when you color and for Gods sake don't eat the freakin' paste.

Nah dude, just frakking with ya before I head off to work. Not my problem if you can't see the satire for what it is and realize how DUMB you look to everyone else in this thread. =P

[R Razor]

Mizeur, on 24 June 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

Not essentially the same thing. The difference between the two is stark. In the same way that the relationship between authors and readers is not the same as between the author and publisher.

PGI and authors tell you what they're going to produce. You can make suggestions but they're under no obligation to listen to them. The people they have a contractual or fiduciary obligation to listen to are their investors, publishers, and the licensor of the IP. Those stakeholders might decide there's more money to be made by listening to us. But they might not.

All true, but those authors and publishers are not long in the business if they don't listen to the folks that buy their product, that is honestly my only point.