470 replies to this topic

[Wispsy]

PappySmurf, on 08 August 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

YA but I don't see Usain Bolt using exploits to win races?

Well actually he uses more exploits then is possible in this game...you know he has longer legs and better muscles...thats pretty op I do not see how to beat that.

[Adiuvo]

PappySmurf, on 08 August 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

YA but I don't see Usain Bolt using exploits to win races?

[Alistair Winter]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

If they'd been listening to the community then thousands of pages of feedback since 2012 wouldn't have been ignored.

FTFY

[ThermidorFallen]

I looked at it and laughed, does that count?

[Biglead]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 August 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

arent there a few "Comp" lapdogs who cozy up to NGNG?

Notice who in this thread jumped up in defense of these invisible "comp" players too, eh?

[Agent 0 Fortune]

After hearing some ideas from s self proclaimed top players, I realize the importance of coaches, trainers, and analysts. I am sure there are a few intelligent, articulate, and unbiased enough to be a real asset, but as a whole, no thanks.

[nehebkau]

It's funny how the whole (not whole but a crap-load) of the 'non - competitive' base has been saying that convergence is the problem and yet, we get weapon nerfs, maneuverability nerfs, module nerfs(for some mechs) etc. I suspect that near instant convergence is one of those things that the 'Top Men' of MWO love. I mean, really, what was the PPC / Cerll duration change except a monkey-arsed attempt and adjusting convergence.

Edited by nehebkau, 08 August 2014 - 05:10 PM.

[Sandpit]

Vercinaigh, on 08 August 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

Also all these people who keep bashing the people playing comp. Stop putting plugs in your ears over what leagues exist. If we are so bad that you have to mock us, come show us up. Won't even be mad if you do, we'd welcome new challengers, somehow though...I don't see it happening. Who knows why I have that feeling...

if that includes you, then yes you're part of the problem. Comp players are 1-2% of the entire population. So now the game should only be "balanced" for 1-2% of the player population? Let me know how balancing anything on the outliers of a bell curve works out for you

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

FTFY


If they'd been listening to the community than 56 pages of feedback wouldn't have been ignored.

they do listen, they just have the competitive players whispering in their ears. I think PGI assumes that the competitives know whats best for the game

[Randodan]

Did I miss something? Since when is MWO becoming an e-sport? Last time I checked, this was "A BattleTech Game" (says so on the front page).

Does that mean non-competitive players, i.e. us casual folks that want to enjoy Mechwarrior" for what it is - walking tank combat - are being driven away from the game?

[Mister Blastman]

PappySmurf, on 08 August 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

YA but I don't see Usain Bolt using exploits to win races?

lolwut?

Aim is an exploit.

[and zero]

nehebkau, on 08 August 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

I seriously doubt PGI actually consulted any "competitve players" . By competitive players, they probly mean they asked Paul-who is clearly so pro at MWO-and he then made the balance choices.

Seriously, when has PGI actually ever consulted the community, and then actually listened to what we've said???

[Wispsy]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 05:12 PM, said:

if that includes you, then yes you're part of the problem. Comp players are 1-2% of the entire population. So now the game should only be "balanced" for 1-2% of the player population? Let me know how balancing anything on the outliers of a bell curve works out for you

Well if you look at every other well balanced game...you will know where they balance it from!!!

Honestly though how can you balance a game when the person you are looking at does not understand the mechanics they are using and how to use it to their advantage...like there is no point...you could change 50 things about it and their performance will only change if you specifically change it for that exact person and their apparent decision making...

Instead you could balance the game using people with as close to perfect mechanics as possible and a solid understanding of what they are doing and why...so when there is a shift in who wins or does better...it is because of the game values involved being changed...and not just that one guy got a lucky 4 shots on the enemy and one got stuck a rock and missed all of his shots but 1 irregardless of weapons used...

[ThermidorFallen]

and zero, on 08 August 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

I seriously doubt PGI actually consulted any "competitve players" . By competitive players, they probly mean they asked Paul-who is clearly so pro at MWO-and he then made the balance choices.

Seriously, when has PGI actually ever consulted the community, and then actually listened to what we've said???

He plays on 8 different builds of MWO! What competitive player can claim that!?

[Sandpit]

Wispsy, on 08 August 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

Well if you look at every other well balanced game...you will know where they balance it from!!!

Honestly though how can you balance a game when the person you are looking at does not understand the mechanics they are using and how to use it to their advantage...like there is no point...you could change 50 things about it and their performance will only change if you specifically change it for that exact person and their apparent decision making...

Instead you could balance the game using people with as close to perfect mechanics as possible and a solid understanding of what they are doing and why...so when there is a shift in who wins or does better...it is because of the game values involved being changed...and not just that one guy got a lucky 4 shots on the enemy and one got stuck a rock and missed all of his shots but 1 irregardless of weapons used...

That's like saying

"We're nerfing this single weapon because when it's boated in 3+ loadouts or used in combination with these other weapons it's "OP" so we'll nerf the individual weapon instead of attacking the mechanics that are causing the alphas and groups to be "op". We're going to do this even though it's been pointed out numerous times over two years and we've been given plenty of examples of how to actually fix it. We're going to ignore every single viable alternative to nerf this singular weapon. Now that will make it useless when it isn't boated but ti won't be "op" when it's boated and/or used in conjunction with this specific weapon"
oh wait....
*looks over at PPC*
*then rereads the 56 pages of viable alternatives that were offered to Paul at his request*
*then watches all of that feedback get ignored*

sounds about right to me...

and zero, on 08 August 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

I seriously doubt PGI actually consulted any "competitve players" . By competitive players, they probly mean they asked Paul-who is clearly so pro at MWO-and he then made the balance choices.

Seriously, when has PGI actually ever consulted the community, and then actually listened to what we've said???

even if he did, like I said, that's 1-2% of the player population. SO I guess the game will be "balanced" for them and screw the other 98%

[and zero]

ThermidorFallen, on 08 August 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

He plays on 8 different builds of MWO! What competitive player can claim that!?

Thank you for making me laugh out loud

[and zero]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

even if he did, like I said, that's 1-2% of the player population. SO I guess the game will be "balanced" for them and screw the other 98%

haha, well done. And as we discussed some time ago, if you recall, I am still somewhat in favor of balancing the game around competitive play. Actually, let me rephrase that, balancing the game beginning at the competitive level and the going down the skill curve from there with adjustments to make it enjoyable for most players. Not like it matters here though since pgi balances based on...well...imaginary ****??

[1453 R]

Sandpit! What does the scouter say about Paul's ELO level?!

[Mystere]

BLOOD WOLF, on 08 August 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

they do listen, they just have the competitive players whispering in their ears. I think PGI assumes that the competitives know whats best for the game

[Wispsy]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

That's like saying

No that is completely different...did you even read what I put or are you just hating on PGI right now because what I wrote had nothing at all to do with PGI or this game. It is logic...get a grip....I do not know if you play LoL but in low elo you can watch a Lux absolutely destroy a Fizz in mid, even though he has an answer to her every move and it is a matchup Fizz should never lose. If you watched that happen you would think Fizz needs a massive massive buff...but oh wait...it is simply because the guy playing Fizz does not know what he is doing or how to properly counter or how the mechanics work and what he has to and makes many more mistakes then the Lux who is also playing badly anyway...however when both are played at maximum potential...Lux loses almost every time because that is how it is designed to be balanced (you know because team comps and counter picking is a thing). Looking at low Elo games though...you would have no idea...because it does not matter what people pick...like you can run around in low Elo with an LBX10 and do tons of work...anybody looking at this would then think "oh wow, he destroyed **** with that LBX I guess it is a completely fine weapon that is up to par with everything else" when really...if you play against somebody who understands a little about the game, him with the LBX will get wrecked...every time...because the LBX is actually a terrible weapon if people are accurate and position correctly...