1017 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Increased TTK would reward teamwork and ff a bit more. Which is good. There is nothing bad boutique stretching the skill curve. The more depth to have in behaviors to separate players by skill the better. Currently the gap between top tier players and mediocre is more of a ledge than a curve. The more behaviors you have with a significant impact on win/loss the more gradual that curve.

12 comp players vs 12 scrubs is a wipe already. If the gap between them in bigger it doesn't make it more or less of a wipe. If however there's a more gradual curve to that variance it gives room for graduated improvement.

If TTK is good you decrease murderballs because being caught in the open is instant death.

Two ways to address the issue. One is to make it more 1 shot 1 kill so no point in sticking together. CoD/BF environment, go Rambo go! 180 no scope ftw.

The other is to make TTK long enough that pressure and positioning is a more critical skill and setting the enemy up for the kill shot is more important.

Obviously you don't want 30 seconds to kill a mech but the current 1-3 second duration is too low. It accelerates casualty cluster mechanics.

Not sure where the sweet spot is. Setting up focus fire by more than 3 or 4 mechs isn't easy. A murderball isn't that effective compared to a firing line. It's just easy to do.

[Roadkill]

MischiefSC, on 31 May 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

Do you remember when Clans first came out and the arguments over their being OP and a slew of people saying they were balanced just fine.

No, actually, I don't. At least not as you describe. I remember the vast majority of all players saying that the Clans were OP, with a few holdouts claiming they were just fine.

In this situation it's the opposite. A few people think the KDK-3 is OP; most people think it's fine. Granted those few are the very top tier players, but they got their primary impression of the Mech from an ideal environment for that Mech.

I don't believe their impressions are currently valid. Give it a few weeks and see what people think then.

Quote

That's why even general telemetry is semi-reliable compared to telemetry from a test group of comp tier players.

Stop. Just stop. You don't have ANY telemetry. You don't have access to PGI's behind-the-scenes information.

You have observations. They are NOT the same, and you know it.

Mcgral18 said:

I haven't played the older Uberquirks, just the Kodiak, and it's excessive. I only judge what I play.
Some have excessive quirks, and the power creep (as you just quoted me say) is bad.

Then why single out the KDK-3? Why not ask for them to all be nerfed? It's really no harder for PGI to edit 15 lines in a text doc than it is to edit 1...

[Mcgral18]

Roadkill, on 31 May 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

Then why single out the KDK-3? Why not ask for them to all be nerfed? It's really no harder for PGI to edit 15 lines in a text doc than it is to edit 1...

Because you quoted my reason: I've played it, it's too good.


And you know PGI isn't about to go and change a handful of attributes before going and coding an entirely new Ghost Feature.

[MischiefSC]

PGI doesn't have telemetry like you're talking about because there are no match environments conducive to accurate telemetry.

QP matches are moderately accurate for identifying mech performance. The reason private matches between comp tier players is more reliable is that it eliminates the variables that makes QP matches less reliable.

Currently the consensus between comp tier players is that it's OP in QP, remove the quirks on KDK3. I haven't seen any comp tier player say otherwise. I haven't seen the majority of people say it's fine - maybe 50/50, at best, with all the comp tier players and a few others (generally the best voices on balance btw) all lining up on one side.

I recently went walkabout in forum posts during and just after Clan release. While confirming for Gyrok that PGI never planned on. 10v12. Nope, most people said Clans were fine. It took a long while for the consensus to change and tons of people still thought the TBR was average. I'll give you some links when I get home. It reminded me how terribad we are on average.

Also how many people got banned. There's a post from now banned players in almost every Clan thread from back then. It's entertaining.

On a bit of a segue, remember when PGI would make a post on upcoming changes and link in a thread for responses which they would then respond in? Go on a 3 years back walkabout on PGI forum posts. They seemed downright chatty compared to now. Highlights how few f**ks PGI has to give about the game now.

[Shard Phoenix]

In the spirit of the thread I went ahead and self-nerfed my KDK-3. I put 2x LBX-10's on it.

Edited by Shard Phoenix, 31 May 2016 - 09:12 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 31 May 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

Because you quoted my reason: I've played it, it's too good.


And you know PGI isn't about to go and change a handful of attributes before going and coding an entirely new Ghost Feature.

The issue many have with this is how many times YOU (and Mischief and others) have EXPLICITLY dismissed personal performance in mechs as proof of viability, optimal capability, etc.

Yet now you ask us to accept EXACTLY that standard as "proof" of OP.

Not seeing the Double Standard? Or are you just so much better than the rest of us peasants that your performance is meaningful but the rest of ours is not?

Can't really have it both ways. Either personal performance "matters", or it doesn't. Which is it?

Because aside from a select few outliers, just not seeing raging Barbarian Hordes tearing down the gates with 1000 avg dmg KDK3s. Heck, El Bandito has tried to use his performance in the ARC-5W as proof it's a good robot.... where's it sitting on Gman's lists, ATM?

*shrugs*

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 May 2016 - 09:19 PM, said:

The issue many have with this is how many times YOU (and Mischief and others) have EXPLICITLY dismissed personal performance in mechs as proof of viability, optimal capability, etc.

Yet now you ask us to accept EXACTLY that standard as "proof" of OP.

Not seeing the Double Standard? Or are you just so much better than the rest of us peasants that your performance is meaningful but the rest of ours is not?

Can't really have it both ways. Either personal performance "matters", or it doesn't. Which is it?

Because aside from a select few outliers, just not seeing raging Barbarian Hordes tearing down the gates with 1000 avg dmg KDK3s. Heck, El Bandito has tried to use his performance in the ARC-5W as proof it's a good robot.... where's it sitting on Gman's lists, ATM?

*shrugs*

Truth be told, different people's experience holds different weights.
This is a consistent thing with competent pilots at the helm. Not only anecdotal, and more than 4 people saying the same thing while 12 say they are wrong.

Of course, we'll see in the coming Tourney how they actually perform in a Comp environment. Without the hitbox fix, but with full quirks.
I can almost see it in a long range setting as well, but evidence will tell.
Though, we may need to wait some time for the higher tier matches...the first set will be a mishmash of every skill level (aside from people refusing to fight EMP, apparently)

Edited by Mcgral18, 31 May 2016 - 09:25 PM.

[wanderer]

Rampage, on 31 May 2016 - 06:53 PM, said:

When the re-scale comes out in three weeks just eliminate all the quirks from all the Mechs and let the chips fall where they may. All Mechs were never intended to be equal. Certainly Mechs of diferent weight class are not supposed to be equal. That kind of balance will never be achieved unless they just make one Mech that everyone has to use. Now, that is balance! The question is: who would bother playing a game like that?

The devs who decided to balance Clantech 1:1 with IS tech, of course.

[DropshipPilot]

This is why clanners aren't likable.

[wanderer]

Roadkill, on 31 May 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

Then why single out the KDK-3? Why not ask for them to all be nerfed? It's really no harder for PGI to edit 15 lines in a text doc than it is to edit 1...

I just happened to be around when McGraf18 happened to be working out with the KDK-3.



He was basically bending teams over and giving them autoloaded enemas. Carrying is a polite term, considering the one kill I got in those two games was so badly torn to shreds by UAC/10 quad fire that I ended up dinking it to death with medium laser fire. From two medium lasers.

Again, my opinion is to take the quirks the KDK-3 got and put them on one of the other models that didn't. Maybe the KDK-1.

Edited by wanderer, 31 May 2016 - 10:08 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 May 2016 - 09:19 PM, said:

The issue many have with this is how many times YOU (and Mischief and others) have EXPLICITLY dismissed personal performance in mechs as proof of viability, optimal capability, etc.

Yet now you ask us to accept EXACTLY that standard as "proof" of OP.

Not seeing the Double Standard? Or are you just so much better than the rest of us peasants that your performance is meaningful but the rest of ours is not?

Can't really have it both ways. Either personal performance "matters", or it doesn't. Which is it?

Because aside from a select few outliers, just not seeing raging Barbarian Hordes tearing down the gates with 1000 avg dmg KDK3s. Heck, El Bandito has tried to use his performance in the ARC-5W as proof it's a good robot.... where's it sitting on Gman's lists, ATM?

*shrugs*

The difference between a controlled study group of people selected for the familiarity and understanding of a topic and a random sampling from a bar. If you want to see what people DON'T know about the topic, go to the bar. If you're looking for a perspective on how useful something is, go to people who've used it, understand it and can effectively identify its pros and cons.

This isn't new. Many comp players seem to be ******** in terms of personality. Not really the sort of people I'd recommend to watch your kids or invite over to help you move. However they are where they are in this game specifically because they're obsessive about understanding the mechanics and how they interact. Also they are in a narrow relative skill band and, as I said before, they're getting full use out of the mech. That can't be said of a random sample.

So their judgement on the relative value of a mech has most of the variables stripped out. Because they're close to effective peak their performance is also relatively consistent. Proton isn't going to have a 'perception breakthrough' with UAC10s and just become better at the game overall due to his experience in the Kodiak. That can (and likely has) happened for people closer to median. Closer to median = larger variance in performance.

They're the most reliable study group we have. You want to call their judgement into question please identify where as a whole they've identified a problem (or exploit or OP mechanic) that turned out to be wrong. I don't mean individuals, I mean like now where it's pretty much a consensus. They may vary on how to fix it but you'd be hard pressed to identify a comp player who doesn't start with 'remove the quirks'.

I get they're not saying what you want to hear. If they were saying 'Nah, it's fine, without the quirks it'd be garbage' you and I both know you'd be pointing to it and saying it's the gospel truth. If they were saying that I'd still be a bit dubious (best Dire loadout on the most agile Assault and super high mounts, sure that's going to be fine. If I wanted to buff the Banshee to do comparable damage at its existing speed profile I'd be burned at the stake - rightly so) but I'd put my opinion aside and wait.

However that's not the case. We have a lot of consensus among people who have A) the best command of the games balance and B ) the best history of accurately predicting balance issues.

That's the best method we have of gauging balance right now.

[JigglyMoobs]

wanderer, on 31 May 2016 - 10:07 PM, said:

I just happened to be around when McGraf18 happened to be working out with the KDK-3.



He was basically bending teams over and giving them autoloaded enemas. Carrying is a polite term, considering the one kill I got in those two games was so badly torn to shreds by UAC/10 quad fire that I ended up dinking it to death with medium laser fire. From two medium lasers.

Again, my opinion is to take the quirks the KDK-3 got and put them on one of the other models that didn't. Maybe the KDK-1.

Dang. You don't got swag until other people start full blown Epeening for you.

WP Mcgral, wp.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

I have nothing but respect for McGrawl's skill... but just because a single talented player can dominate with 1 type of mech doesn't mean the mech itself is flawed. Now if I can get into a KDK-3 and start putting up 1000+ matches you know there's a problem.

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 31 May 2016 - 09:24 PM, said:

Truth be told, different people's experience holds different weights.
This is a consistent thing with competent pilots at the helm. Not only anecdotal, and more than 4 people saying the same thing while 12 say they are wrong.

Of course, we'll see in the coming Tourney how they actually perform in a Comp environment. Without the hitbox fix, but with full quirks.
I can almost see it in a long range setting as well, but evidence will tell.
Though, we may need to wait some time for the higher tier matches...the first set will be a mishmash of every skill level (aside from people refusing to fight EMP, apparently)

This is false logic.

Personal experience is an opinion, regardless of who it comes from.

Either they all weigh the same, or they all weigh nothing. Which is it?

Are we looking at this objectively, or with rose colored glasses trying to say "some opinions are ok, other opinions are worthless" as per the genetic fallacy?

You are seriously showing bias here mcgral. If you are going to continue to use special pleading and appeal to authority to backup your anecdotal flawed logic, you are not contributing to the discussion.

[Gyrok]

MischiefSC, on 01 June 2016 - 01:39 AM, said:

The difference between a controlled study group of people selected for the familiarity and understanding of a topic and a random sampling from a bar. If you want to see what people DON'T know about the topic, go to the bar. If you're looking for a perspective on how useful something is, go to people who've used it, understand it and can effectively identify its pros and cons.

This isn't new. Many comp players seem to be ******** in terms of personality. Not really the sort of people I'd recommend to watch your kids or invite over to help you move. However they are where they are in this game specifically because they're obsessive about understanding the mechanics and how they interact. Also they are in a narrow relative skill band and, as I said before, they're getting full use out of the mech. That can't be said of a random sample.

So their judgement on the relative value of a mech has most of the variables stripped out. Because they're close to effective peak their performance is also relatively consistent. Proton isn't going to have a 'perception breakthrough' with UAC10s and just become better at the game overall due to his experience in the Kodiak. That can (and likely has) happened for people closer to median. Closer to median = larger variance in performance.

They're the most reliable study group we have. You want to call their judgement into question please identify where as a whole they've identified a problem (or exploit or OP mechanic) that turned out to be wrong. I don't mean individuals, I mean like now where it's pretty much a consensus. They may vary on how to fix it but you'd be hard pressed to identify a comp player who doesn't start with 'remove the quirks'.

I get they're not saying what you want to hear. If they were saying 'Nah, it's fine, without the quirks it'd be garbage' you and I both know you'd be pointing to it and saying it's the gospel truth. If they were saying that I'd still be a bit dubious (best Dire loadout on the most agile Assault and super high mounts, sure that's going to be fine. If I wanted to buff the Banshee to do comparable damage at its existing speed profile I'd be burned at the stake - rightly so) but I'd put my opinion aside and wait.

However that's not the case. We have a lot of consensus among people who have A) the best command of the games balance and B ) the best history of accurately predicting balance issues.

That's the best method we have of gauging balance right now.

Ok, let me reiterate.

Opinions are anecdotal.

All opinions weigh the same, which is either nothing or something. If you say some weigh different than others, you are committing the genetic logical fallacy.

So, either you and mcgral's opinions weigh the same as everyone saying nothing is wrong with them (i.e. 2 vs 20), or no opinions count and the discussion is moot.

Which is it?

[Mystere]

DropshipPilot, on 31 May 2016 - 10:07 PM, said:

This is why clanners aren't likable.

"Let them hate me as long as they fear me" - Caligula

[LordKnightFandragon]

A banana in the tailpipe, on 01 June 2016 - 06:28 AM, said:

I have nothing but respect for McGrawl's skill... but just because a single talented player can dominate with 1 type of mech doesn't mean the mech itself is flawed. Now if I can get into a KDK-3 and start putting up 1000+ matches you know there's a problem.

You know there is a problem when even scrubs(not saying you are one), are putting up obscene numbers. So far, I havent found Kodiaks to be any more vicious then anything else. Put the little blue square on them and click LMB, RMB, LMB, RMB, back up, wait for the red bar to get below 100%, RMB, LMB, RMB, LMB....wait a lill more...idk, they die just fine. IDK what people classify as an OP mech, but the Kodiak doesnt seem to be it....then again, I am a terrible brawler so I stay at range...

The last 2 days ive put tons of fire into many of them, I think I bagged a few Kodiaks, but I dont actually pay attention to what im killing, I just kill it.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 01 June 2016 - 07:46 AM.

[Lykaon]

Afuldan McKronik, on 23 May 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

Eh.. with the amount of hurt from players, the KDK-3 will get uac jame chance increased, the SB will get increased missile heat gen and the others will get Laser heat gen increased. Plus the hitboxes will get worse. /sarcasm off.

The three matches I have played since the Kodiak drop, they seem lile they are actually just in the right spot of what the Clans needed. Other than the wonky hitboxes, or is it HSR going beserk.

Tl;dr: remove the quirks and fix the hitboxes instead.

Here is what I find to be true.

Spirit bear and KDK 3 are exceptional at dishing damage and equally good at getting the CT cored out in a few seconds.

Essentially take these mechs very very seriously when encountered and for the love of all that is mechanical DO NOT stand in front of them if it can be helped.

The other Kodiaks seem effective but not horror inducing. They share the same weakness (super easy to hit) but lack the OMG make the pain stop effect of the KDK 3 (quad ultras) or Spirit Bear.( srms and ultra AC)

Over powered? nope.
Super dangerous? yep.

[Manei Domini Krigg]

Be different. This is how to buy a Kodiak pack and dont play KDK-3:

Edited by Manei Domini Krigg, 01 June 2016 - 08:05 AM.

[Roadkill]

wanderer, on 31 May 2016 - 10:07 PM, said:

Again, my opinion is to take the quirks the KDK-3 got and put them on one of the other models that didn't. Maybe the KDK-1.

How will this solve anything? The KDK-3's quirks are defensive, yet the main complaint seems to be that it is an offensive powerhouse.

The solution you're all proposing does not solve the problem you perceive.