270 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

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

Since you keep dodging what I am asking, I don't care to tell you anything. Answer me first then maybe I will oblige.

Also you two I don't really care for the specifics of comp play. Useless discussion that leads to nowhere in this thread. Go make a comp team mechs and load-out thread. This thread is about the expansive avenues of the competitive scene.

Oh give it a rest. He didn't dodge you at all. He's just not going to bite into your game of round and round the mulberry bush.
Mcgral18 clearly told you where it came from - the fact it is so rarely used in Comp. You never see a WHM for two reasons:

1. IS XL. Must have to be competitive. That rules out Gauss as it's a instant glass cannon.
2. There are half a dozen mechs that do what the left-over options the WHM has, but better. TBR, GYR, GHP, EBJ to name a few.

The WHM was a go-to mech for QP/FP because it was powerful in those scenarios. Does it mean it's powerful in a comp scenario? Nope. If it was, you'd see it in every match.

Does it therefore need a nerf?

It depends what side of the fence you sit on and understanding why you are sitting there in the first place. Also then knowing what you hope the outcome is from making said decisions. Only PGI knows that, as they are making those calls.

If the comp scene doesn't agree with it then the mech just won't get used. Hence you see Garg's, Ferrets and all sorts of "odd" mechs you don't see in QP all that often because their niche is in Comp in terms of various strategy.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 30 March 2017 - 03:57 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

justcallme A S H, on 30 March 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

In all honesty T1 and T2 is much of muchness and really, isn't a good gauge.

How often do you see people under performing in T1 QP? I see it basically every match. And it's not about the mechs being chosen, it's the loadouts and how they are being piloted.

That said PGI don't have much else to really go off. It still does not explain how global nerfs to things like UACs came about.




I 100% agree. SHC didn't need the nerf at all. I mean you put me in any mech with the Jesus Box and it's far easier to cause destruction than without it. Does that mean the mech is actually overpowered? IMO no. It means the T1 QP users just aren't decent (most of the time).

How many times have you seen the SadCat on the walls of HPG picking off people's backs. They either don't twist/turn around. If they do, they have NFI where the mech is shooting them from cause they can't "see" it on their HUD which apparently means it has gone... So turn around and resume standard programming, die to more backshots.

Said SadCat pilot then gets a big match/dmg score as this is the standard in T1 QP, given Tier is not really an accurate representation of skill as it is grinding. Yet in comp terms did the mech really need a nerf? Probably not in that respect.

Overall T2/T1 QP is not the most reliable source of information in competitive terms. But what else is there?

Actually a great, readily available resource is tournament and league play.

Look at RhoD 4v4, MRBC and SL 6v6 (and I don't mean to say you personally aren't aware, as I know you must be as a member of 54MR), and what's in use, what's effective etc is on full display. Admittedly, the higher you go in "Divisions" the more pigeonholed those selections/builds/roles become but that's normal as teams attempt to maximize effect.

What works in these leagues is readily apparent from league casts, and their own ability to do behind the scenes data pulls from lobby matches if they want to. In fact, it would be an even greater way to tie in the small but burgeoning competitive sub-community and PGI.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying comp players have all of the answers by any means, merely that among the playerbase, they've likely done the most study on the subject. PGI can obviously see things from their end that we simply cannot see.

But vague comments like "the SHC was overperforming" mean nothing really, ESPECIALLY when players can help PGI understand the context and consider it, when they pull that data. If the SHC was overperforming in solo queue, the contextual relationships of tiers, ECM, damage done vice simply outlasting the match etc could have been discussed had they utilized the community.

There are plenty of people who don't get the nuances of this game at the top tier, or care to but I'd argue they have more insight into things and can ask the right kinds of questions about PGI's concerns, over the tier 4/5 PGI emloyees who are often just flailing in the dark for a light switch.

[BLOOD WOLF]

justcallme A S H, on 30 March 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

snip

no, I asked how does he know what data they are accounting. when making decisions.

justcallme A S H, on 30 March 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

Only PGI knows that, as they are making those calls.

yea, funny how you told me he's not dodging and in the same post you answered the question he dodged. In light of what you said, I doubt he has evidence for the claim he made. I can venture to say they take data from relative avenues.

Also From what I am hearing about the nature of competitive play. Balancing from this angle would be the least likely since certain weapon groups are not used and therefore can not be accounted for.

[justcallme A S H]

Lukoi Banacek, on 30 March 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

Actually a great, readily available resource is tournament and league play.

Look at RhoD 4v4, MRBC and SL 6v6 (and I don't mean to say you personally aren't aware, as I know you must be as a member of 54MR), and what's in use, what's effective etc is on full display. Admittedly, the higher you go in "Divisions" the more pigeonholed those selections/builds/roles become but that's normal as teams attempt to maximize effect.

Didn't take it that way at all. I'm in our Oceanic comp team and help a few teams (OC/US) scrim/practice for various things when I can - I just cant get on for a lot of the US zoned stuff reliably due to work much as I would love to

I don't believe those stats/mechs from Competitive are are forming much of the decision on balance as it's private lobby. Maybe PGI does look at it, record it, make decisions from it, dunno? (I admit I haven't watched Chris' video yet, maybe that is answered there).

At the same time you can't take all private lobby information as helpful either. As part of strats/scrims, you are often trying strats so the data isn't at all accurate. Especially if you failboated like we did with our strats in some scrims last night lol

100% agree with the rest of your post btw.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Lukoi Banacek, on 30 March 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

What works in these leagues is readily apparent from league casts, and their own ability to do behind the scenes data pulls from lobby matches if they want to. In fact, it would be an even greater way to tie in the small but burgeoning competitive sub-community and PGI.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying comp players have all of the answers by any means, merely that among the playerbase, they've likely done the most study on the subject. PGI can obviously see things from their end that we simply cannot see.

But vague comments like "the SHC was overperforming" mean nothing really, ESPECIALLY when players can help PGI understand the context and consider it, when they pull that data. If the SHC was overperforming in solo queue, the contextual relationships of tiers, ECM, damage done vice simply outlasting the match etc could have been discussed had they utilized the community.

There are plenty of people who don't get the nuances of this game at the top tier, or care to but I'd argue they have more insight into things and can ask the right kinds of questions about PGI's concerns, over the tier 4/5 PGI emloyees who are often just flailing in the dark for a light switch.

But the problem is the leagues are not experimenting with a wider range of weapons, which would limit the data that can be given. In the end, to little is actually accounted for. Even if they are the most efficient. Which is why this is not about balance............nor is the round-table going to be about that.

I would venture to guess that the best data to be taken would be in FP.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 March 2017 - 04:19 PM.

[Bud Crue]

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.

[justcallme A S H]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 March 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

But the problem is the leagues are not experimenting with a wider range of weapons, which would limit the data that can be given. Even if they are the most efficient. Which is why this is not about balance............nor is the round-table going to be about that.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's not so much a problem, or questioning why it's not helpful.

The question really is, WHY? Why are certain weapons (and mechs) not being used? Put it that was into a discussion, maybe some changes come from it. Comp "meta" would then, maybe, alter. As it certainly has the past 12 months. Maybe it won't, doesn't mean it's invalid data or pointless to use/discuss/think about it.

[justcallme A S H]

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

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.

A great idea. When we did a in-house 4v4 tourney recently that we in-house cast, we did interviews after the matches with someone from the team to give a bit of insight from "on the ground".

I know that also happened in the MWO OC on some occasions from Bandit and other casters. It was really good, just didn't happen enough. So yeah making it a "requirement" perhaps to add some depth to cast matches, would be handy directly afte the match.

[Lukoi Banacek]

justcallme A S H, on 30 March 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

Didn't take it that way at all. I'm in our Oceanic comp team and help a few teams (OC/US) scrim/practice for various things when I can - I just cant get on for a lot of the US zoned stuff reliably due to work much as I would love to

I don't believe those stats/mechs from Competitive are are forming much of the decision on balance as it's private lobby. Maybe PGI does look at it, record it, make decisions from it, dunno? (I admit I haven't watched Chris' video yet, maybe that is answered there).

At the same time you can't take all private lobby information as helpful either. As part of strats/scrims, you are often trying strats so the data isn't at all accurate. Especially if you failboated like we did with our strats in some scrims last night lol

100% agree with the rest of your post btw.

Oh, if I implied lobby matches in general (i.e. practices/scrims) should be part of the pull of data, that's not intended. No, I meant the given league alerts PGI to what nights/teams are in lobby for a comp match (whether it's cast or not) so they can see it for themselves, without necessarily revealing some team's secret-squirrel tactics to the masses .

[BLOOD WOLF]

justcallme A S H, on 30 March 2017 - 04:20 PM, said:

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's not so much a problem, or questioning why it's not helpful.

The question really is, WHY? Why are certain weapons (and mechs) not being used? Put it that was into a discussion, maybe some changes come from it. Comp "meta" would then, maybe, alter. As it certainly has the past 12 months. Maybe it won't, doesn't mean it's invalid data or pointless to use/discuss/think about it.

Well, did you guys really need to use this thread for that? I would rather talk about how to expand the comp scene, or maybe how to grow it. or stuff, other stuff. Anything other than the 5 pages of balance

[Edward Hazen]

live1991, on 30 March 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

People have contracted support and PGI has told them to get better FPS change these settings ? If its not intended, why is PGI advising this, Why are they in the game ?

If you have to adjust settings by putting console commands in the user.cfg because there are not controls to adjust these things in the settings menu then it is not "in the game". If you are editing your user.cfg, you know what changes you are trying to make.

[BLOOD WOLF]

justcallme A S H, on 30 March 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

A great idea. When we did a in-house 4v4 tourney recently that we in-house cast, we did interviews after the matches with someone from the team to give a bit of insight from "on the ground".

I know that also happened in the MWO OC on some occasions from Bandit and other casters. It was really good, just didn't happen enough. So yeah making it a "requirement" perhaps to add some depth to cast matches, would be handy directly afte the match.

don't they do that? I don't think I have seen a match without an aftergame breakdown(maybe not in depth).

it annoys me that they sound like NBA commentators sometimes.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 March 2017 - 04:35 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Edward Hazen, on 30 March 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

If you have to adjust settings by putting console commands in the user.cfg because there are not controls to adjust these things in the settings menu then it is not "in the game". If you are editing your user.cfg, you know what changes you are trying to make.

What can you tweak in the user.cfg that wasn't transitioned to a slider by PGI?

[justcallme A S H]

Lukoi Banacek, on 30 March 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

Oh, if I implied lobby matches in general (i.e. practices/scrims) should be part of the pull of data, that's not intended. No, I meant the given league alerts PGI to what nights/teams are in lobby for a comp match (whether it's cast or not) so they can see it for themselves, without necessarily revealing some team's secret-squirrel tactics to the masses .

Was more me thinking out loud and wondering lol. I doubt PGI pull that data now, it wouldn't make sense. I like your idea for sure.

That said teams that "don't want to be cast" should grow a pair IMO. That stuff during the MWO OC was, silly. Look at any comp game at the high levels. They are all streamed no matter what, no one can "opt out cause I don't want people to know my play style/plan".

If you're scheduled to be cast, you're cast - or you forfeit your match.

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 March 2017 - 04:29 PM, said:

don't they do that? I don't think I have seen a math without an aftergame breakdown(maybe not in depth).

it annoys me that they sound like NBA commentators sometimes.

Casters would do a summary of the match. But not necessarily a post-match chat with a rep from the team, all the time. It happened sometimes but not always IIRC. Just something to add "more" depth to comp streaming etc.

Sometimes it is hard of course when there is a lot of matches to cast, no time for a player debrief, so understandable in that respect too.

[Liveish]

justcallme A S H, on 30 March 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

1. IS XL. Must have to be competitive. That rules out Gauss as it's a instant glass cannon.

Apart from the GH and Lights, we run most of our IS mechs with STDS.

IS have some great tank mechs.

[justcallme A S H]

Yeah that was just the WHM I meant

[Edward Hazen]

Lukoi Banacek, on 30 March 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

What can you tweak in the user.cfg that wasn't transitioned to a slider by PGI?

Almost anything that there is a Cry Engine console command for. Anyway, I have said my piece as a non-comp player looking in from the outside, I will go back to pugland.

Edited by Edward Hazen, 30 March 2017 - 05:56 PM.

[Crockdaddy]

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.


Since you keep dodging what I am asking, I don't care to tell you anything. Answer me first then maybe I will oblige.

Also you two I don't really care for the specifics of comp play. Useless discussion that leads to nowhere in this thread. Go make a comp team mechs and load-out thread. This thread is about the expansive avenues of the competitive scene.

zzzzzzzzz.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Crockdaddy, on 30 March 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

zzzzzzzzz.

pathetic dude, but At least make yourself look half than decent and don't go dumbster quoting.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 March 2017 - 06:03 PM.

[MischiefSC]

I would strongly hope that the comp teams in question get together in some way ahead of time, get some ideas fleshed out together and then the most socially adept then go into the round table.

Again, if history is any indication turning player feedback into action requires a consistent message as well as a clear what and why. Any mission drift or too many different ideas turns into nothing.