270 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

MischiefSC, on 30 March 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

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.

Then by the past roundtables usually people spin-off a ton of different ideas, and then PGI has to sift through them. That's actually a good thing. What is known as a wealth of information. most likely it will be a combination of ideas.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Edward Hazen, on 30 March 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

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.

I actually don't think this is true anymore, but no worries either way. As others have noted, folks really don't do much with this stuff anyway, since what matters is all tweakable per PGI.

[MischiefSC]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 March 2017 - 06:16 PM, said:

Then by the past roundtables usually people spin-off a ton of different ideas, and then PGI has to sift through them. That's actually a good thing. What is known as a wealth of information. most likely it will be a combination of ideas.

Which worked poorly for implementation. QP maps in FW, removing MY, those were solidly drilled down on and we got. The rest? Not do much.

[Unendingmenace]

Some great posts in this thread already so far. Rather than repeating everything that has been said I'll just say that I think everything that Odin has mentioned in his first post is BANG on in terms of issues/whats needed at the moment. The spectating stuff in particular would go a long way to both the community viewers experience and player teams post match analysis.

[TKSax]

Edward Hazen, on 30 March 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

My point is that someone who does use these "crutches" should not be able to claim that they have competed on equal footing as some who does not.

There is nothing in the user config anymore that cannot be done in the client. PGI has removed any of the variables that had effect on how terrian loads or does not load. The most any comp player will do is set most every thing to low in the client. So you are complaing about "crutches" that do not exist any longer.

Edited by TKSax, 30 March 2017 - 06:44 PM.

[TKSax]

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,

That would be incorrect, my Team(when we were competing) several others spend plenty of time messing most of the weapons as changes are made to them to find out if they are viable or not. Same with mechs, when changes are made most of the top comp teams are scrimmaging with those mechs/weapons to see how those changes have affected them.

[BLOOD WOLF]

TKSax, on 30 March 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

That would be incorrect, my Team(when we were competing) several others spend plenty of time messing most of the weapons as changes are made to them to find out if they are viable or not. Same with mechs, when changes are made most of the top comp teams are scrimmaging with those mechs/weapons to see how those changes have affected them.

I was responding to the guy I was quoting, so that had some context to it.

In either case, the experiment stage is where variation occurs but when they find the next best thing everyone switches to the same builds?

Or maybe its the case that people run more efficient builds, but even among the bigger tiers we can see some variation?

[Lukoi Banacek]

TKSax, on 30 March 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

That would be incorrect, my Team(when we were competing) several others spend plenty of time messing most of the weapons as changes are made to them to find out if they are viable or not. Same with mechs, when changes are made most of the top comp teams are scrimmaging with those mechs/weapons to see how those changes have affected them.

Not sure how BW would have any idea what teams are experimenting with anyway as he's not into competitive play in this particular game at this point.

So, mechs we've seen in competitive play recently:

SPL focused mechs like the Gargoyle/NVA for rushes
WHM's dakka/PPC in MWOWC
GR/PPC mechs
laser vomit of all types
SRM based brawlers (SMN, GRF, TBR, SCR etc)
ERLL based IS mechs for the cooler running (GHR, BLR)
SBear rushers
KDK's with dakka or GR/PPC
bracket builds with dakka/lasers
IS PPFLD dakka or dakka/PPC mechs
4xAC2 H2C's
SDR's with lasers+MG
MG heavy little mechs in general
LCT's with PL
milder versions of the poptart
various brawlers/tank attempts
the resurgence of the use of flamers (stunted tho that was)
etc etc. (the list goes on btw)

What you generally don't see much of:
LRM based mechs
mechs whose weapons loadouts don't allow for some kind of duration/range/velocity/recycle synergy
Vindicators

Teams gravitate to what works best for them on a given map, in a given rule-set, within whatever parameters of the drop there is. Idk why folks assume teams aren't trying all kinds of great stuff and instead just cry about the meta (which is something that SHIFTS as people figure what works better with the balancing changes PGI makes).

And yes, for any discussion about the competitive scene to occur, balance will undoubtedly come up, so saying it won't repeatedly, isn't in tune with reality really.

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 30 March 2017 - 07:01 PM.

[Tarogato]

Edward Hazen, on 30 March 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

To me it is unsportsmanlike because you are modifying the game in a way that it was not intended in order to ignore obstacles that are purposely put into the game to make it more challenging to maintain line of sight to your target.

PGI sets the baseline for graphics in this game. They provide the options. You can either play with minimum stuff, or you have the option to increase the eye candy. Turning up the eyecandy means lower FPS and lower visibility. Some people cannot play the game on High settings. It would be unfair to require that everybody played on High, because it might throw some players down into unplayable framerates (even beefy computers can struggle to get this game to 60 fps).

The most fair approach is for everybody to play at low settings. It is the lowest common denominator, it is accessible for more people. If there are competitive players who don't mind to shoot themselves in the foot and turn up the eyecandy, that's their prerogative. Who cares. They do what they want. If there are people who value eyecandy over competitive nature (actually most gamers), let them also shoot themselves in the foot competitively. If they aren't playing competitively anyways, who cares? It's their prerogative.

MookieDog, on 30 March 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

What I was getting at was, level the playing field. Dont even give the comp teams the ability to chose mechs. There are your eight griffins, bushwackers, or whatever, and PGI could even have a new previously unreleased mech for the final fight. Instead of: wow Kodiak-3's, Hunchbacks, Grasshoppers, and Arctic Cheeters.

Except the playing field is already pretty level. What happens when all of the teams collectively decide to run KDK-3, HBK-IIC-A, GHR, and ACH? If they've all decided to run the same mechs, the playing field is level between them. WC2016 was a fantastic example of this, because the meta was quite stale at the time - there were pretty cut-and-dry "optimal choices", and the high level teams virtually never deviated from them. So when the high level teams fought the other high level teams, it was skill that reigned supreme. Not who brought the better or worse mechs, because nobody brought worse mechs.

It's just as competitive, and no different from actually forcing them into identical mechs and builds for the sole purpose of forcing them into identical mechs and builds. The meta is already inclining them toward playing all the same mechs and builds. Nobody would dare play a KTO when you could bring a GRF. Nobody would bring a VND when you could bring a HBK-IIC-A. Why would you bring bad mechs? That unlevels the playing field, it works against you. You may have noticed, that many of the less experienced teams that played in the earlier parts of WC2016, did bring bad mechs. And their strategies were equally lacking. As was their gunnery. And they got rekt. And in WC, all mechs in the game were 100% free, they had all of the choice in the world, and they chose poorly.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 March 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

So you want this game to become chess? Part of the interesting part of comp is team composition and strategies. Playing comp isn't just about who has the better tactical sense and raw player skill, it is about the strategical aspect as well. You sound like the people in Guild Wars who wanted GvG to be the same bland generalist approach/team composition every game rather than someone actually trying a different approach and beating people with it.

Huh? He was suggesting locking everybody into the same mechs to level the playing field. That is the antithesis of chess in context. And the way you worded it, it sounds like you think him wanting the game to be more like chess is a bad thing. But the game is already very chess-y, as you expounded. So I'm very confused about what you're trying to say.

Edited by Tarogato, 30 March 2017 - 07:03 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

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

PGI sets the baseline for graphics in this game. They provide the options. You can either play with minimum stuff, or you have the option to increase the eye candy. Turning up the eyecandy means lower FPS and lower visibility. Some people cannot play the game on High settings. It would be unfair to require that everybody played on High, because it might throw some players down into unplayable framerates (even beefy computers can struggle to get this game to 60 fps).

The most fair approach is for everybody to play at low settings. It is the lowest common denominator, it is accessible for more people. If there are competitive players who don't mind to shoot themselves in the foot and turn up the eyecandy, that's their prerogative. Who cares. They do what they want. If there are people who value eyecandy over competitive nature (actually most gamers), let them also shoot themselves in the foot competitively. If they aren't playing competitively anyways, who cares? It's their prerogative.





Except the playing field is already pretty level. What happens when all of the teams collectively decide to run KDK-3, HBK-IIC-A, GHR, and ACH? If they've all decided to run the same mechs, the playing field is level between them. WC2016 was a fantastic example of this, because the meta was quite stale at the time - there were pretty cut-and-dry "optimal choices", and the high level teams virtually never deviated from them. So when the high level teams fought the other high level teams, it was skill that reigned supreme. Not who brought the better or worse mechs, because nobody brought worse mechs.

It's just as competitive, and no different from actually forcing them into identical mechs and builds for the sole purpose of forcing them into identical mechs and builds. The meta is already inclining them toward playing all the same mechs and builds. Nobody would dare play a KTO when you could bring a GRF. Nobody would bring a VND when you could bring a HBK-IIC-A. Why would you bring bad mechs? That unlevels the playing field, it works against you. You may have noticed, that many of the less experienced teams that played in the earlier parts of WC2016, did bring bad mechs. And their strategies were equally lacking. As was their gunnery. And they got rekt. And in WC, all mechs in the game were 100% free, they had all of the choice in the world, and they chose poorly.








Huh? He was suggesting locking everybody into the same mechs to level the playing field. That is the antithesis of chess in context. And the way you worded it, it sounds like you think him wanting the game to be more like chess is a bad thing. But the game is already very chess-y, as you expounded. So I'm very confused about what you're trying to say.

Maybe he meant checkers which might be a more accurate analogy. Now KING ME!

[Lukoi Banacek]

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

And in WC, all mechs in the game were 100% free, they had all of the choice in the world, and they chose poorly.

Just want to emphasize this point for all of the Mookies of the world who apparently know what's happening in comp play so well although they clearly don't attempt it themselves (although they should, as they'd likely have a very good time).

You couldn't have had a more level playing field than WC where you could choose ANY mech, customize it with anything it was capable of carrying, master it, module etc etc at zero real cost to you as the player. And we all played on the same map. Level playing field and skill still mattered in the end.

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 30 March 2017 - 07:10 PM.

[Nimnul]

I want to advise the developers.
 
1. In the CW, 50% of the maps must be CW maps. Now I see them only once a month.
2. Work harder. Make more maps, much more about 100. Make a map editor for the community.
3. Make a in-game video. All events are recorded on the game engine. Shooting. Damage. Then this game could be looked at. Seeing who is located. Who and when found on the radar. What a loss. This will allow you to see your bugs. And team mistakes in the game. I want see my games after played.
4. Add more weapons, much more. You need 30-40 more for each side.
5. Let's look at sample situation in CW. Over 4 times more players play for the sphere. When the sphere has no enemy. Let the battle go automatically IS vs IS. Loser pays their planetary points if he has.

Edited by Nimnul, 30 March 2017 - 08:42 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

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.

To add, from what Chris described it sounds like their curve is based on a glorified popularity contest. How does PGI account for the fact that something like the IS Medium Laser sees tons of use not because it is particularly good, but because it's the most tonnage-efficient weapon the IS has? How do they account for it behaving dramatically different from 'Mech to 'Mech because of quirks?

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 30 March 2017 - 08:19 PM.

[Tarogato]

Nimnul, on 30 March 2017 - 08:10 PM, said:

I want to advise the developers.

1. In the CW, 50% of the cards must be CW cards. Now I see them only once a month.
2. Work harder. Make more maps, much more about 100. Make a map editor for the community.
3. Make a video game. All events are recorded on the game engine. Then this game could be looked at. Seeing who is located. Who shot where. Who and when found on the radar. What a loss. This will allow you to see your bugs. And cheaters. And team mistakes in the game.
4. Add more weapons, much more. You need 30-40 more for each side.
5. Let's look at the situation in CW. Over 4 times more players play for the sphere. When the sphere has no enemy. Let the battle go automatically IS vs IS. Loser pays their planetary points if he has.

[justcallme A S H]

Odins Steed, on 30 March 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

Man, this thread is disappointing. It's just a cesspool of people on an anti-competitive crusade trying to derail any meaningful discussion with - at best - misinformed bullshіt. You guys really don't have any shame.

This round table was an opportunity to make things better for all sort of community run events. Competitive tournaments like Star League, stock mech nights like Peiper runs, campaigns with resource management like NBT and Proxis, people dueling - hell even units drunk FFA stuff would benefit. I hope that stifling it was worth it to get back at whoever prompted you to this childish vendetta.

smh

Yep, at least there are some good points in it, even if they have become a little buried.

While I'm pretty new to all this comp business, I learn fast. It's certainly a good challenge, I like it (even if you keep handing our ringholes to us each scrim lol). Some people just need to do as I said 3 pages ago and, move on.

I still think some good stuff will come from the RT, stuff that will benefit every player in MWO. Pity some cannot see past a single issue/point and look at something for the greater good of the community at large.

[justcallme A S H]

Just stop ffs.

[Cyrilis]

give us ammo dump pls!

[BLOOD WOLF]

Cyrilis, on 30 March 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

give us ammo dump pls!

People have asked for that before.

Let me back track a bit. It's not that they couldn't code it. The functionality of a feature like that would be so limited.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 March 2017 - 11:17 PM.

[0111101]

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. In the end, to little is actually accounted for.

Like I said in my last post which, I remind you, you chose to casually dismiss... competitive teams have already sorted out what works and what doesn't over the course of years of competitive league play with and against the top competitors in the game throughout numerous balance passes. The reason you don't see this "experimentation with a wider range of weapons" is because what works and what doesn't has been established for a very long time. It may shift an iota here or there, certain build archetypes may swing into or out of favor, but the point remains. Using this information to inform future balance passes is the next logical step. It is far from irrelevant to a general discussion of competitive play, in fact it is at the core of competitive play.

We are not the ones pulling this thread off topic by disputing your ill claims. I await your next proclamation of "I'm going to completely ignore what you've said and substitute it with my own marginally informed view of how things are." -- Followed by you self-censoring your posts after the fact in a transparent attempt to make us look like the unreasonable ones. And don't tell me I haven't read all your posts thus far. I have. Don't tell us we've misunderstood you. We've understood your posts as you've written them. It's your choice to deny what multiple people are presenting you.

You are not being attacked. We're attempting discourse here and feel that you're doing everything you can to shirk it or shut it down despite our best efforts.

(Edits: font size, which somehow shrunk to eye-straining levels.)

Edited by 0111101, 30 March 2017 - 11:22 PM.

[old man odin]

0111101, on 30 March 2017 - 11:21 PM, said:

The reason you don't see this "experimentation with a wider range of weapons" is because what works and what doesn't has been established for a very long time.

I feel bad for continuing a Blood Wolf tangent at all, but I feel like I need to add to this.

There is certainly truth to what you're saying, but I don't agree with you entirely. The reason you don't see experimentation is it doesn't happen in public, regardless of how stale the meta may have gotten. We've recently seen quite a few shifts in competitive play but all the theory crafting and testing was done before any of the actual matches. Because holy shіt why would you play anything untested when there are stakes to a match and you have plenty of opportunity to do it before hand.

We've developed sort of a mantra recently due to making exactly that mistake - if it doesn't get scrimmed it doesn't get played.