270 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 March 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

no.he had it center. I'll link the vid in a minute



57:45. People think I am playing when I say I watch these things.

No, I was right

It's an A, with ERPPCs in both STs
https://youtu.be/RHSEy0U4NSY?t=56m36s

There you see with with both STs intact, and 2 ERPPCs equipped

The mech screen updates as weapons are destroyed. Sometimes bugging out to Negative weapons, IIRC
But it goes from 2, to 1, because the ST was removed

Edited by Mcgral18, 31 March 2017 - 02:49 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mcgral18, on 31 March 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

No, I was right

It's an A, with ERPPCs in both STs
https://youtu.be/RHSEy0U4NSY?t=56m36s

There you see with with both STs intact, and 2 ERPPCs equipped

is it kyubert? I am looking at him right now, not seeing any red weapons?

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 31 March 2017 - 02:50 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 March 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

is it kyubert? I am looking at him right now, not seeing any red weapons?

Seriously, start at 57:01, you will notice his readout goes from 2 ERPPC to 1 ERPPC after he loses a side. If you can't see that then nothing will allow you to realize he had 2 ERPPC.

That was such a disappointing match for us too (even if we won, was way too close).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 31 March 2017 - 02:52 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

oh, but that black widow build tho...well, at least I got another reason earlier to watch the recaps again. its been months.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 31 March 2017 - 02:56 PM.

[Mcgral18]

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 March 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

oh, but that black widow build tho...well, at least I got another reason earlier to watch the recaps again. its been months.

2 PPC 2 UAC5 was pretty typical

Though, I thought the BW was generally a Quad Dakka, and another variant AC+PPC

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mcgral18, on 31 March 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

2 PPC 2 UAC5 was pretty typical

Though, I thought the BW was generally a Quad Dakka, and another variant AC+PPC

did a smidge more than the other warhammer in that match.

[Amro One]

This made sense after putting my ****** glasses on and sipping the Kool-aid.

[AnimeFreak40K]

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 March 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

wow, considering I was gone for more than 8 hours, nice assertion there. Tells me your "bleeding clueless on the topic of competitive play"(really)...(very crude} and game balance.

Anymore childish forms of logic?

Yeah, see, I can start at the front page of a topic, read over posts made by different people and make an assessment. I also have the ability to read other posts and responses, follow quotes back to their source (and get a bit of context), read those statements and responses and make an assessment. I can also travel across a thread's timeline, sometimes going two or three pages after my initial post was written, read responses made by people and choose to respond...or not.

It's a really neat thing to be able to be able to read multiple posts on the same thread and use that information to augment or modify my thoughts. You should try it sometime.

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 March 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

The post you quoted had nothing to do with game balance or talking about competitive play. It was me appealing to get back to the topic, This thread is not about nor was it about balance. The Fact that you pointed out my post and got it completely wrong in the conclusion tells me you weren't worth having discussion with in the first place. Funny how some people want to usurp the whole topic for themselves and their special buddies.

And my point, which you seemed to totally ignore, was that any discussion regarding the establishment and/or future of competitive play has *everything* to do with balance.

To put this another way:
This thread was started by PGI to advertise and open discussion about an upcoming roundtable in regards to competitive play. This, in turn brought about the discussion of game balance and the implications thereof. Things that competitive players are actually quite concerned about.
Your statements, posts and counter-posts have primarily focused on trying to shut down talk about game balance and get people to focus on a topic which is, again, important to the core topic of this thread.

With regard to me calling you out for being clueless, I stand by that assessment.
I have seen your past statements on the matter elsewhere and in this thread, you have consistently blasted the discussion on game balance because you do not feel that it is important for competitive play.

Frankly, if you understood competitive play, you would realize that game balance is incredibly important to the very foundation of competitive play.


The fact of the matter is that that there are glaring balance issues that exist in this game. Not just in map design, but also between different mechs and various technologies. These issues are things that really SHOULD be talked about and resolved. Which is exactly what the purpose of a roundtable with the developers *and* comp players should entail.

[BLOOD WOLF]

AnimeFreak40K, on 31 March 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

And my point, which you seemed to totally ignore, was that any discussion regarding the establishment and/or future of competitive play has *everything* to do with balance.

Sometimes I respond the way people respond to me, which means I take their post and bounce it back in the manner they gave it. You keep asserting that it has to do with balance, which has nothing to do with this thread. If people want to discuss game balance they could have simply made a thread about it. Their is more to the competitive scene than just game balance. As we all saw with the MWO championships. Your wasting your time, your efforts to justify more than crude behavior is wasted. General claims about how I "ignore" which I have not done,except when I snipped post simply because they were fallacious and need not addressing would be the special case.

Your usperping into a thread about balance, was nothing more than a shift in what you and other could have easily started in another thread, and left this one to the expansion of the comp scene. Somebody else had already said that throwing the word " balance" around doesn't mean much of anything.

It's never too late to get back to topic, Which still has some interesting facets to discuss, which their are some interesting tidbits here and there if you can weed through the garbage. as for the grudge posting, stop doing it or next time Its not a block or response, its an email to moderation.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 31 March 2017 - 03:31 PM.

[AnimeFreak40K]

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 March 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

Sometimes I respond the way people respond to me, which means I take their post and bounce it back in the manner they gave it.

Fair enough. I admit that I am about as diplomatic as a sledgehammer; I have this nasty habit of calling things like I see them and being fairly blunt about it.

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 March 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

You keep asserting that it has to do with balance, which has nothing to do with this thread. If people want to discuss game balance they could have simply made a thread about it. Their is more to the competitive scene than just game balance. As we all saw with the MWO championships.

And this is where I disagree with you.

Again, this thread was opened by PGI to advertise for and open up discussion about the competitive scene. The fact of the matter is that game balance is a huge factor of competitive play. I am well aware and understand that there are other factors involved, especially when it comes to organizations and events. I get that.

However, to suggest that a discussion about the concerns of and need for game balance does not have a place in a thread dedicated to competitive play is just plain silly. Attempts to derail, dismantle or otherwise shut down such discussions is a disservice to the intent of the thread and edging into a**hat territory.

My point at the start, and what I keep stating, is that game balance is a big part of competitive play and any discussion about competitive play should include talk about game balance.

As a point of clarity, I did NOT make an initial post on this thread, my first post was in direct criticism to your desire to pull the conversation away from game balance. And then outlined why I felt it is important to have game balance be a front-and-center topic in a discussion about game balance.

As another point of clarity, I really do not have a dog in the fight regarding the comp-scene. I don't care for it, never have (I'm a filthy casual in all things). However, I understand the need for game balance to exist for those who do have interest in the competitive side of things and I understand that when something is balanced for the comp-guys, that will in turn make for a generally better game and experience for the casuals.
I also know and understand that setting up and organizing comp-style events and looking to tap into groups that do the comp scene and such, balance *will* be at the forefront of their minds.

Edited by AnimeFreak40K, 31 March 2017 - 04:35 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

AnimeFreak40K, on 31 March 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

the thing is we have multitudes of threads about "balance", which is subjective so that goes nowhere. Your version of game balance is vastly different than someone else and you know that. Yet you wan't to go ring around the Rosie about that? which is already being had. Use this topic for a different approach.

the beginning of the thread suggest that the talk is more at the organization level. game balance is a never ending conversation that leads nowhere. Just people injecting opinions all over the place. I never said don't have it, I kept suggesting that it be taken to another place.

I watch the comp aspect of this game. I want to see it grow, and as a consumer there is a discussion to be had. Those are what the focus is going to be about. Gonna be funny seeing the people walk in the twitch thinking its going to be about "game balance".

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 31 March 2017 - 03:51 PM.

[General Solo]

I think that players that are not participants in some player driven competitive league should limit their posts so that comp players can get on with roundtable type stuff.

Cause I'm interested in hearing from people with comp experience.

If I was interested in anything else I would be reading a different thread in a different part of the forum.

Carry on

[Kurbeks]

Any transcript available for round table or something?

Edited by Kurbeks, 31 March 2017 - 08:50 PM.

[Lances107]

So I am no where near this level of play, and I am not going to pretend that I am, but this is a bad bad idea. First and foremost I get the impression your making this far too complicated. Especially when you started talking about restricting certain mechs from it. My thoughts on this is look what happened when you did this with scouting. You gave the IS 55 tons on scouting to help them out, nuked the clan stromcrow by dropping the weight to 50 tons. No surprise people run griffin in scouting dominating via srm load outs. If your insistent on competitive play then let people bring what they want. At some point your going to have to tell some IS pilots to grow up. I think many know what kind of mechs are going to find themselves on the banned list for this due to popular belief. So if you want people to duke it out then let them duke out.

Second problem, your afraid about stretching the player base too thin? Good. I do not see this working well at all. The veterans will love this, but the new players will get stuck in extremely long q times for quick play. Your barely holding the qs together with faction play and quick play. What is going to happen when you add those faction play events you were talking about before?

Third issue is man power. Creating individual teams for this competitive play. Again making something more complicated and potentially harmful to units, then it has to be. Create two sub rosters of eight in each unit. Those people in the rosters can run competitive play. Chosen by the unit leader. Yes someone could abuse this to get into competitive play, but so what. If they did at this level they would only get well smashed. This way you do not have people pulling out of units just create a teams for competitive play.

Lastly I think there is enough in MWO that needs working on, without creating a whole slew of new issues, by stretching the player base to the breaking point q wise. If you want something to work on, then improve faction play. Turning faction play into another quick play was not cool to say the least.

[Marius Evander]

Kurbeks, on 31 March 2017 - 08:49 PM, said:

Any transcript available for round table or something?

The whole thing
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/132586421
And you can read the viewers chat at same time.

[Kurbeks]

Not really lookign forward to hearign what Russ and Paul will babble for 3 hours. Thats why i asked is there a transcript or just main thought what they said there?

[Marius Evander]

Lances107, on 31 March 2017 - 10:10 PM, said:

So I am no where near this level of play, and I am not going to pretend that I am, but this is a bad bad idea..................

Err a lot of people dont play because theres nothing like this, if anything this will increase the number of people playing,

I dont get how scouting queue tonnage decrease for clan to balance mechs has anything to do with new mechs in the future available only for MC for 3 months possibly being overpowere for their tonnage before their balanced 6 months after release breaking comp scene by making it pay to win instead of most skilled player wins. Mechs not available for Cbills cannot be available in competitve. As for Scouting tonnage difference, HBK-IIC, novas, huntsmen and 1 other i forget because i dont own it are equal balance in power to IS griffins/centurions etc.

Quick play has never had long queue times as long as your willing to play mechs other than heavies if you dont want to wait a couple minutes, competitive will bring more ppl to the game to play QP.

Kurbeks, on 31 March 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

Not really lookign forward to hearign what Russ and Paul will babble for 3 hours. Thats why i asked is there a transcript or just main thought what they said there?

its one of the better round tables ive listened to, they dont start wasting time reapting themselves till almost the end.

[Liveish]

Kurbeks, on 31 March 2017 - 08:49 PM, said:

Any transcript available for round table or something?

Just announced:
Competitive mode for MWO. ( ranked Mode)
Register as a team of up to 12
Can freely switch players on your team except for certain locked leadups to events.[/color]

Play as a group of 8 vs other groups of 8
Expect harsh matchmaking
Prior to game, map elimination screen
After map ban, able to choose mechs
So far will be owned mechs, until they move to a locked server prior to worlds.

Not server locked.
If you are constantly playing on other timezone servers, increases weighting of playing on your local server.

Would be used to rank for MWO worlds


Then the MWO Leagues brought up the following problems with Comp play ( not balance but things that help leagues)

https://docs.google....w3Agwj_wcM/edit


Ap teams also put togeather this one

https://docs.google....luYFEeJLhw/edit


and a new sub forum
https://mwomercs.com...mpetitive-play/
[/color]

Edited by live1991, 01 April 2017 - 05:21 AM.

[Kurbeks]

live1991, on 01 April 2017 - 03:28 AM, said:

Just announced:
Competitive mode for MWO. ( ranked Mode)
Register as a team of up to 12
Can freely switch players on team except for certain locked leadups to events.


Play as a group of 8 vs other groups of 8
Expect harsh matchmaking
Prior to game, map elimination screen
After map ban, able to choose mechs
So far will be owned mechs, until they move to a locked server prior to worlds.

Not server locked.
If you are constantly playing on other timezone servers, increases weighting of playing on your local server.

Would be used to rank for MWO worlds



Then the MWO Leagues brought up the following problems with Comp play ( not balance but things that help leagues)





https://docs.google....w3Agwj_wcM/edit





Ap teams also put togeather this one

https://docs.google....luYFEeJLhw/edit

Thanx

[Lances107]

Cadoazreal, on 31 March 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

Err a lot of people dont play because theres nothing like this, if anything this will increase the number of people playing,

I dont get how scouting queue tonnage decrease for clan to balance mechs has anything to do with new mechs in the future available only for MC for 3 months possibly being overpowere for their tonnage before their balanced 6 months after release breaking comp scene by making it pay to win instead of most skilled player wins. Mechs not available for Cbills cannot be available in competitve. As for Scouting tonnage difference, HBK-IIC, novas, huntsmen and 1 other i forget because i dont own it are equal balance in power to IS griffins/centurions etc.

Quick play has never had long queue times as long as your willing to play mechs other than heavies if you dont want to wait a couple minutes, competitive will bring more ppl to the game to play QP.



its one of the better round tables ive listened to, they dont start wasting time reapting themselves till almost the end.

I understand your point, but its a huge risk. If it does not pan out, like your suggesting, they will have spread the player base too thin. My point on the scouting changes was, if they go down this road of restricting certain mechs in competitive play, they will more then likely end up just creating a mess. So why make a mess, when you can simply let people bring what they want, and destroy each other. Your always going to have some sort of unbalance at some point trying to cover every possible maybe does not seem wise. I really do not see the point of going down that path. It appears to me as though they are biting off more then they can chew, and getting too complex about it. Its the opinion of one player, and I highly doubt they will change anything because of what I have posted here. It was simple one time feed back nothing more nothing less.