438 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

I am actually more a play fair type then a play to win type.

But I think fairness is something the game designers have to work for. Not players. If it's broken, it's the game designer's job to fix it. Players can use whatever they want. Well,I'd still make a rule that hacking and aim bots are not okay, but whatever is the flavour of the month, year or the game's existence so far is okay to be used.

The game designer has the responsibility to ensure that the balance is good and there are a large number of builds that are considered competitive and useful. In a way, they have to ensure that the Flavour of the Month changes without them actually making any balance alteration in the end. That means if some guy figures out "Whoa, Double AC/20 are really cool" and people figure out he's effective with it and adopt the build, a few weeks later we find people having moved away and finding "whoa, LRM20s builds are really good, they take out those Dual AC/20 with easy", and the next week we see people in Dual AMS mechs or ECM to neuter those LRM20s builds, and the week after, we see people with PPC builds to take out those ECMs and AMS mechs from range.... and so on and so on.

[Nutlink]

The Centurion, on 31 March 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

I'm not upset. I'm amused. Smack talking, joking, taunting... however you spin it, it's the same thing. I'm very sorry you "crashed to desktop" at the exact moment you crested a hill to find me waiting for you. Convenient timing. I was looking forward to seeing if you could excel at anything besides typing and running away at full speed. Maybe next time, hotshot.

You still doubt it was a CTD, yet not long ago you started a topic on that very issue, remember?. Hooray for making assumptions that I cared about your Stalker after dancing with 2 Atlas' on the other side of that ridge. For the record, on my screen I crested the ridge, got 2 shots off on you, then went right back up it. Hell, I never even locked on so I didn't even know it was you until I came across your necro-post. I even thought you were one of the Atlas pilots until I saw "Stalker." I crashed when I came back around the other side. If you're that bothered that you had to come to the forums, search my name, and resurrect a thread that's been dead for almost a year that I posted in, well.....yeah. Think what you will, obviously nothing I say would change your mind. Keep on being the big badass you think you are stud

Edited by BOTA49, 31 March 2013 - 10:22 AM.

[Rayah]

Play to have fun.

[M0rpHeu5]

Mavairo, on 31 March 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

If I'm on Alpine, playing conquest, and I see an enemy Fatlas, I'll tell my team mates to leg him to make him completely worthless, especially if he's half way between cap points.
(Oh the hate I get for THAT) (and before anyone says "like an Atlas would notice the difference''

I loled at that thanks

[xhrit]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 March 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

But I think fairness is something the game designers have to work for. Not players. If it's broken, it's the game designer's job to fix it. Players can use whatever they want. Well,I'd still make a rule that hacking and aim bots are not okay, but whatever is the flavour of the month, year or the game's existence so far is okay to be used.

Yeha, going outside of the game's rules to win is absolutely not ok.

Fairness is different then balance. But both balance and fairness greatly depends on the type of game and type of player. Depending on if a player takes a Gamist or a Simulationist approach to the subject, some things may or may not be acceptable.

For example lets imagine a game set in 1939 Poland that featured one side in tanks and the other side mounted on horses, with one side vastly more powerful then the other. From a simulation standpoint this is acceptable. This is what actually happened and the game is supposed to create a simulation type environment. For a gamist however this is unacceptable, because from a game standpoint it is unfair, and therefore will demand that horses are balanced against tanks.

Edited by xhrit, 31 March 2013 - 12:23 PM.

[Vrekgar]

Adrian Carino, on 22 June 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

What would you do? Personally I play to win. If I see a weak point, be it the legs, head, neck or back or somewhere already damage I would hammer it.

I agree. I dont care about "Kills, or Kill Stealing". This is why I love that Assists are more valuable from a Cbills standpoint. I want to see a team where everyone has as many assists as possible. This way you know everyone was at least shooting at enemies.

Taking more weakened players off the field is always more valuable because it eliminates any more damage being done from that mech, as well as the wasting of any more damage in trying to hurt him.

I also advocate using the Cap as a focus point to draw enemy attention, much to their demise.

[Xetherius]

Fight to win or fight fairly. I don't care as long as it's a fun fight.

I'm a Hunchback pilot and I think I'm a pretty decent one (off days excluded), I mostly play to win, team up with an assault, crit seek and go for the throat. I play it as a skirmisher, I'll help in the brawl as long as I'm not taking all the flak, if I'm outnumbered I'll pull back (unless I'm one of say the last 2 guys left, then it's time to charge the lines and go down fighting), if you;ve got no leg armor I WILL take it off, but I'd prefer to core you, and if I find myself 1v1 with you, I'll duel it out, unless I see your friends are coming. It's just a game, you can steal my kills, I might steal yours, I don't really care as long as I'm having fun and feel like I'm contributing to the team.

[DeadlyNerd]

Play2Win ofc. I see a light, off with their legs, I see an assault, backstab it is, I see a heavy or med, time to rip that side torso apart.

The faster I kill 1, the sooner I get to move on to the next and the sooner I finish the match.

[OneEyed Jack]

How is playing to win not fair?

[Zylo]

OneEyed Jack, on 31 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

How is playing to win not fair?

Take capping for example which the players on the losing team often claim isn't fair:

Enemy team runs lots of snipers and as usual the desert map comes up. Enemy team gets set up perfectly as snipers but they have no light mechs because the premade group on their team chose only sniper type mechs. A few of the friendly team members are also set up as snipers and keep the enemy team distracted while 2 lights run in behind and cap their base.

I did this many times last night, the first time was when we dropped as a group of 4 and only started with 7 on the team and had another disconnect right away. The enemy team wanted a fight because they had an advantage in numbers but they scored 1 or 2 more total kills even with an advantage of 2 more mechs but lost to cap because they over extended and couldn't get back in time to stop me from capping them with another light on the team.

I will play to win EVERY time. I don't care if it's a kill or cap win though I do prefer kill wins because the rewards are better. I'm not going to pass up an easy win if the enemy leaves their base open for easy cap, especially if my team only starts the fight with 6 mechs vs their 8. The enemy wants a fight when they have an advantage and many times if you don't play on their terms but pull off a win, they whine about your team not playing fair because of a cap win.


My personal view of what is NOT fair:
Sync-dropping 2x 4-man groups into a match in solo/small group matches.
Any other game related exploit such as the map exploit when used to force or avoid maps to allow the use of a pure long or short range mech.

Edited by Zylo, 31 March 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

xhrit, on 31 March 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yeha, going outside of the game's rules to win is absolutely not ok.

Fairness is different then balance. But both balance and fairness greatly depends on the type of game and type of player. Depending on if a player takes a Gamist or a Simulationist approach to the subject, some things may or may not be acceptable.

For example lets imagine a game set in 1939 Poland that featured one side in tanks and the other side mounted on horses, with one side vastly more powerful then the other. From a simulation standpoint this is acceptable. This is what actually happened and the game is supposed to create a simulation type environment. For a gamist however this is unacceptable, because from a game standpoint it is unfair, and therefore will demand that horses are balanced against tanks.

OMG, don't use gamist or simulationst as term! You're triggering PTSD flashbacks from the D&D 4 Edtion Wars in me!

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

OMG, don't use gamist or simulationst as term! You're triggering PTSD flashbacks from the D&D 4 Edtion Wars in me!

LOL There was no war for me. I walked away from the game and went to Pathfinder.

I still play fairly... to win.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 01 April 2013 - 07:04 AM.

[Ganja Ninja]

Representing House Kurita - We play fair.

In Battletech days, if I legged a light with my Heavy/Assault, I would bow low and let them headshot me (or eject). I may get miffed when I get legged as a light, but I really don't hold it against anyone. It's a valid IS tactic... but if there's ever an honor system implemented, you better believe I'll sacrifice my K/D and W/L ratio for honor - just more engaging IMHO

[Noobzorz]

It's our job to do the former, and it's PGIs job to make sure that it is also the latter.

[Sheraf]

I play for fun

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 April 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

LOL There was no war for me. I walked away from the game and went to Pathfinder.

I still play fairly... to win.

I'll drag you into the war...

Paizo was always great at making interesting and compelling adventures.
But their rules were meh, as was their use of rules. Way too many overpowered NPCs that gamed the system. Heck, they gamed the CR system all the time, which is supposed to be a helpful tool for the DM in creating adventures, not something to be min/maxed.

[Kissamies]

I don't know this game well enough to really tell what would be considered unfair, really. In some other games I tend to play fairly. This is usually because I tend to play games with small communities where every player counts. If I chase off newbies by curbstomping them, it means there eventually will be no one to play with.

Don't think it's a problem with this game.

[DerSpecht]

Zylo, on 31 March 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

Take capping for example which the players on the losing team often claim isn't fair:

They had the opportunity to stop them and failed. Fairness was given.

BTW. I hate the term "fair". Its impossible to be fair in teamfights. We're not clanners and duke it out in 1 on 1 challenges while the others are watching.

[PurpleNinja]

Voted Play to Win because I read Pay 2 Win.