270 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

justcallme A S H, on 30 March 2017 - 10:38 PM, said:

Just stop ffs.

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 March 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

My last post in here. I wasted enough space with airheads.

SO STOP ALREADY

[BLOOD WOLF]

huh.....This is what Blocking looks like.

[chucklesMuch]

Bud Crue, on 30 March 2017 - 04:20 PM, said:

So, stuck in a coffee shop waiting for my kids to finish their evening extracurricular activities and decided to read this whole thread.
Fascinating

First, to the folks complaining about Russ even holding a comp round table because: "comp is a tiny portion of the population", "that it takes away from other more important things", or whatever your beef...shut up please. Seriously, as much as I grief on Russ and the half-assed way he conducts himself and this product, it is his product. A year ago he said he wanted to explore and push the prospect of MWO as an e-sport. This is part of that. You may not like it, but it is as close to a vision statement or a consistent action plan as PGI has ever illustrated. To poopoo that serves no purpose, even if you disagree with it.

Second, as to those bi7ching about the ins and outs of balancing from the comp scene or balancing from gauss/ppc, the meta, etc. well maybe I am not the brightest bulb on the tree but I sure as hell hope they are balancing from the best, because if they balance from...oh, say IS small lasers, I think we are all well and truly screwed. Seriously, this is even a question? I fear that they don't even realize what is the best and that is why past balance efforts are so seemingly random. Maybe, just maybe this round table will give them information regarding what truly is comp/the best and thus maybe their future balance efforts end up being so tad more logical and consistent.

Third. My 2 cents relevant to the topic:
I like to watch an occasional comp match. What I would really like is to have after action reports from the players to give context to what I just saw. Maybe as part of MRBC play require team captains to submit a paragraph or two following every match regarding their builds, their strategy, what worked, what didn't etc. that might help not only scrubs like me, but also help PGI (if they read them) to understand what exactly makes a mech great in at least comp play, or what makes a particular map or feature exploitable/problematic. That sort of thing.

Fourth and finally, to whomever asked why they nerfed the Warhammer...because my now thrice nerfed Quickdraws since June (I count the arm spread nerf a direct nerf to the G and H) was getting lonely in the bin of PGI's dartboard victims.
Geezus I hope they gain some valuable info from this round table. Help us comp players...you may very well be our only hope.

I agree with all of this.


Especially the bit about interviews. Couldn't believe that there weren't any interviews at WC. ESports / comps needs interviews!!!

[MovinTarget]

Too busy trying to inject civility and logic into the FP lurm forumz... can't divest too much energy here, but...

Imagine a feast.

Imagine a spread that's loaded with all the best foods... it smells great and...

WAIT, WHY ARE THE POTATOES THE CENTERPIECE OF THE FEAST???


exactly.

It would make no sense for PGI to cater solely to the interests of the players that don't take advantage of what they have, that don't make it look good, and by extension, make PGI look good. Having said that, PGI needs to look after all its groups.

They've already invested time into FP, they are constantly working on game mechanics, WHY CAN'T THEY HAVE ONE SINGLE ROUNDTABLE FOR COMP PLAYERS?

There will always be casual gamers and try-hard/comp/omg-he's-gud-plz-nerf gamers... I am not comp, my schedule is too fluid, but i appreciate the attention they garner for the game.

Edited by MovinTarget, 31 March 2017 - 09:38 AM.

[Frisian Rebel Ace]

Do you guys rlly think Rush B. is capable to manage a decent roundtable.

I find it so strange they don't rotate a group of active Players from the small group to see how you can improve the game in total.
The roundtables have always ended in monologues by Rush or another from PGI, so a bit of a mess.

Any company asks there customers how this or that was, what can be improved in a controlled logical manner.

In MWO it's more like they do not quite know how to cook yet, but there changing the menu during the diner for the guests and the amount of guest able or willing to check in varies, but it must be the guests that are bit wonky.

[Marius Romanis]

Im just wondering will we get as great a meme as cheapskates this roundtable.

[Aylward]

Only thing I would hope to come out of this meeting is these comp groups and leagues are focused on at least convincing PGI to make/release an API to read match data and stats from private lobby matches. Help automate the reporting to these external leagues/automations to start...

[TercieI]

Aylward, on 31 March 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

Only thing I would hope to come out of this meeting is these comp groups and leagues are focused on at least convincing PGI to make/release an API to read match data and stats from private lobby matches. Help automate the reporting to these external leagues/automations to start...

I understand that's already in process. It's been the MRBC team's #1 request for awhile and they have the most contact/influence on PGI of anyone in the comp community (and Bandit has been a great advocate for the comp community in that position).

Edited by TercieI, 31 March 2017 - 05:44 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 March 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

I asked how do you know that they have not been talking to non-potatoes. The answer you give me is " the only data I can think of". Also 228 Black watch ran an ice ferret in the last MRBC I have seen. So need something more than what you just gave me. Also I don't care what you find is relevant in comp play, I'll judge that by watching the matches. It doesn't matter what the winning team used. If the winning team used a mech you didn't expect, I doubt you would account for an explanation.

Show me matches that the Warhammer was used successfully in a recent competitive match.

And frankly, what does "talking to non-potatoes" have to do with anything? They don't talk to players about balance, they look at data. If that data is taken from Tier 1 and Tier 2 players, that means that there are potatoes that are contributing to that data set, plain and simple.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tarogato, on 30 March 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

But the game is already very chess-y, as you expounded.

How? The game is most like chess when you are constantly seeing both teams take the same things (since that means they have the same strat at that point, the only difference becomes about tactics). The more diverse drop decs we see the better the game is and the less like chess it becomes (since both sides are not symmetrical in composition). Which is why I support more diversity and more options for drop decs rather than seeing everyone forced to play 8 of the same damn mech every time.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 31 March 2017 - 08:06 AM.

[MovinTarget]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 March 2017 - 08:04 AM, said:

The more diverse drop decs we see the better the game is and the less like chess it becomes (since both sides are not symmetrical in composition).

Consider that in comp play, that's exactly what any team wants; a chance to show that they are better than any other team in executing some operation. They probably take more pride if they are able to say they beat a near-identically equipped team because that would be about the close you can get to enforced tech balance. At that point they can show it was their skill and execution that won the fight, not tech imbalance.

I hope people are not projecting their thoughts about QP/FP balance onto a thread about comp play, seeing how they are entirely different beasts.

[Tarogato]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 March 2017 - 08:04 AM, said:

How? The game is most like chess when you are constantly seeing both teams take the same things (since that means they have the same strat at that point, the only difference becomes about tactics). The more diverse drop decs we see the better the game is and the less like chess it becomes (since both sides are not symmetrical in composition). Which is why I support more diversity and more options for drop decs rather than seeing everyone forced to play 8 of the same damn mech every time.

Ah, okay, I see what's going on.

You think "chesslike" means both teams have the same pieces, and the same options.

I think "chesslike" means that both teams are bringing out different pieces to make different plays. I view chess as a more assymetrical game, like you don't counter the opponents openings by mirroring them, you play your own opening with is designed to counter their opening, once you figure out what the goal of their opening is.

[Heffay]

Tarogato, on 31 March 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

I view chess as a more assymetrical game

I'm pretty sure chess is the textbook definition of a symmetrical game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tarogato, on 31 March 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

I think "chesslike" means that both teams are bringing out different pieces to make different plays. I view chess as a more assymetrical game, like you don't counter the opponents openings by mirroring them, you play your own opening with is designed to counter their opening, once you figure out what the goal of their opening is.

That doesn't make it asymmetric because both sides have the same options, what they CHOOSE to do is similar to a tactical decision in a match (since you aren't going to mirror an enemy even if they have the exact same drop dec and builds as you).

MovinTarget, on 31 March 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

Consider that in comp play, that's exactly what any team wants; a chance to show that they are better than any other team in executing some operation. They probably take more pride if they are able to say they beat a near-identically equipped team

I'm not sure why you are speaking for all comp players considering I am one and I don't think that way. I want to find that drop dec that happens to give me the edge AND defeat them with superior tactics and skill.

[0111101]

Heffay, on 31 March 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure chess is the textbook definition of a symmetrical game.

While you are 100% right that chess is a symmetrical game, the analogy still fits well.

The interactions between pieces are asymmetrical, despite the pieces available being symmetric (we all have access to the same mechs.) The pieces each team brings to the board and where those pieces are placed are where the asymmetry comes in. That make more sense?

[Heffay]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 March 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

That doesn't make it asymmetric because both sides have the same options, what they CHOOSE to do is similar to a tactical decision in a match (since you aren't going to mirror an enemy even if they have the exact same drop dec and builds as you).

Turns out it's something that is called nearly symmetric in game theory. The existence of turn order is something that affects that, but since it has no effect on balance, the game is also effectively symmetric.

I need to read up on game theory. Lots of cool stuff there.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

0111101, on 31 March 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

The pieces each team brings to the board and where those pieces are placed are where the asymmetry comes in. That make more sense?

Except you have the exact same starting positions and piece counts for chess, which is why the analogy only holds true if drop decs are mirrored.

[Tarogato]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 March 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

That doesn't make it asymmetric because both sides have the same options, what they CHOOSE to do is similar to a tactical decision in a match (since you aren't going to mirror an enemy even if they have the exact same drop dec and builds as you).

Heffay, on 31 March 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure chess is the textbook definition of a symmetrical game.

In chess, all the pieces have different rules. You bring out different pieces for different applications, and opening configurations have a very rock-paper-scissors relationship based on what pieces can do what in given positions and situations. I think of MWO comp as that rock-paper-scissors.

Contrasted with something like checkers, where every piece is the same, moves the same, captures the same, and has the same or similar roles/goals. There isn't really as much of a rock-paper-scissors relationship, it's more like rock-rock-rock.

But maybe I just look at it weird. Sorry for wasting your time. =3

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tarogato, on 31 March 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

In chess, all the pieces have different rules. You bring out different pieces for different applications, and opening configurations have a very rock-paper-scissors relationship based on what pieces can do what in given positions and situations. I think of MWO comp as that rock-paper-scissors.

Contrasted with something like checkers, where every piece is the same, moves the same, captures the same, and has the same or similar roles/goals. There isn't really as much of a rock-paper-scissors relationship, it's more like rock-rock-rock.

But maybe I just look at it weird. Sorry for wasting your time. =3

Sure inter team composition is asymmetric much like MWO is, but I'm not really talking about asymmetry between pieces so much as symmetry between players (or in MWO terms, a team). If it weren't for turn order chess would be perfectly symmetric at the player level (that is, what options do both players have), it would also be unplayable but you get the idea.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 31 March 2017 - 11:01 AM.

[Heffay]

Tarogato, on 31 March 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

But maybe I just look at it weird. Sorry for wasting your time. =3

Turns out there are many places you can measure for symmetry, so technically you aren't any more right or wrong than anyone else here other than Blood Wolf.