124 replies to this topic

[0regon]

PGI: (or anyone) Please explain why the FW leaderboards are ranked by a players total KMDD's when most of the matches we play are based upon winning objective? Did the developers get their certifications out of a *******-jack box? Do any of you even play this "game" you've created?? Or put ANY thought into the decisions you make regarding gameplay? I believe you simply don't care about the game or it's community, because, frankly, you couldn't be that inept. PGI's, no doubt, moving it's resources insto its next big money grab, after which, and with any luck, Microsoft will give the license to a developer that can actually do the Battletech universe proud, instead of the crap offering we're forced to deal with right now.

And to the community of FW players that have been grinding out KMDD's for the leaderboard (which is a lot of you) I understand why you guys get so pissed when we end a match early and don't farm out the 48 kills. I know that base and objective rushing really messes with those stats. Which is why most of you guys don't scout. Scouting does not sync with the FW leaderboard ranking system. None of the objective based modes in FW work well with the ranking system. SO WHY EVEN HAVE OBJECTIVES?!? To piss off the leaderboard enthusiasts?!?PGI, do you realize that you've fractured the COMMUNITY Warfare community by creating multiple objectives that are in conflict of one another. You've created leaderboard junkies that act aggressively to people that deny them KMDD's by playing the objectives. The junkies shout obscenities, name call, and even threaten teams that don't go for 48 kills. You've created this salt by making conflicting objectives. I feel bad for the cool guys that the objective rushers are affecting, but it's the spoiled little crybabies that make it not so bad. That's the only real joy I get out of objective rushing. Because the ones that cry the loudest, and this is the funniest part, the ones that have the biggest mouths when my team plays the objectives are the biggest sissies in the game. It's true, lol! The ones that cry the loudest every time they lose to objectives are the same sissies that will only drop when they're playing on a stacked team. They'll rarely, if ever, drop in a solo queue. They only come out to play when they're stacked. And they are probably the same people that talk sh!t to seals they've just clubbed. Which, to me, is the lowest form of evolution. It's somewhat understandable to be salty if you lose a match against a premade. But to be mean to the team you've just beaten badly? You'd have to be a pretty rotten person inside..

In conclusion: PGI, please get off your a$$I! Fix this sh!t excuse for a game. And raise the damn countdown timer to 2 ***** minutes so that we can discuss a damn strategy for a map and still have time to put a damn drop deck together. Play the damn game you've created so that you can get a clue for how damn broken it is and maybe a clue for how to fix it. Becasue if this is the best you can do, then maybe you shouldn't be developers. If you lack the competence, then humbly step aside for a developer that can make a game that attracts new players to the franchise, NOT exploit and alienate them. Thanks guys see you on the battlefield! <3

[justcallme A S H]

0regon, on 30 January 2018 - 03:04 AM, said:

PGI: (or anyone) Please explain why the FW leaderboards are ranked by a players total KMDD's when most of the matches we play are based upon winning objective?

You wanna know a secret? I mean I know it might be news to you...

But...

You don't HAVE to objective rush each and every game, even against PUGs like your unit does.

Stop Gen Rushing.
Learn to aim at something other than an inanimate objective..
Get KMDDs.
Leaderboard?

[justcallme A S H]

Legit there is maybe half a dozen units that constantly Gen/Objective rush and nothing else. Funny one of them was formed under the guise of becoming a 'elite group' only to succumb to rushing gens as a 12 man or hiding in the corner of Polar Highlands on skirmish... Really elite play there.

If by making the leaderboard KMDD based is somehow 'fracturing' the community, then woe be to those 50-60 players out of 3,500 that wanna play PvE in a PvP FPS game... Bring on all the fracturing possible.

Most players play a PvP FPS to shoot at each other. Not pat each other on the back saying 'good jerb' after just shooting a square thinking they've actually played well.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 30 January 2018 - 04:28 AM.

[_Casper_]

because he topic is double posted i copy pasta my reply here a second time:

Who cares about the stats? Rushing gens or bases or whatever is just no fun at all. Nor if you are rushing neither if you are being rushed. I play a game with big stompy robots to shoot at big stompy robots. I do not want a mech dating simulator, a mech soccer game, a mech racing simulation or something like that. I wanna shot robots while piloting a robot. Incursion is by far the worst mode in FP in my opinion. The only good thing about Linebacker, Assassin or whatever rushes is that the games end quickly and you can hope for a better mode next game. 99,9 % of games in which one team rushes the objectives right from the start are wasted time.

Edited by _Casper_, 21 March 2018 - 01:49 AM.

[Hobbles v]

As the leader of a farm first unit I like the fact that objectives exist. (Except incursion on tiny or gigantic maps)

Objective rushing is for the pathetic. Unless its late game to steal a win from the claws of defeat. Poorly designed event win conditions like in tuk 3 also justifies it.

Objectives arent there to be rushed they are there to be leveraged. Defending the base is required in invasion. Otherwise the defenders advantage would be even greater than it currently is. Hitting objectives can be used to pull campers out of hiding and force them to fight on your terms. This is why we had a certain "xtreme" guy from a comp unit was rage posting in fp a while back because he couldnt sit 2 grids behind the omega platform with his erll all game simply because that doesnt kill people quick enough to stop a determined enemy.

Out capping the enemy in conquest is useful for breaking apart unstoppable death balls since of they dont split up theyll lose. Gives smaller groups a chance to split up larger groups and defeat the peicemeal.

Tldr.

Taking the objectives because the enemy isnt defending or to pull them out of position = good

Avoiding contact with the enemy or simply ignoring them to kill boxes as plan A is pathetic. as plan c or d its ok.

Edited by Hobbles v, 30 January 2018 - 07:17 AM.

[K O Z A K]

people actually look at the FP leaderboard? As far as I can tell all it says is how much someone plays, to show anything useful at all you'd need stats like avg dmg/drop, avg match score/mech (not per drop), maybe avg kmdd/drop

the only remotely useful stat in the game right now is the quickplay avg match score, and even that can be gamed quite a bit

objective rushers are no fun imo because they kill the drop ASAP, getting into a drop with/against a rush team is effectively the same as getting a ghost drop, you spend the time to group up, get into a drop, setup your deck, get all excited to finally play just to have someone end the drop as soon as they can without even actually any PvP play

[Leone]

@OP, if folk are name calling and threatening teammates, the you should report them. If you've used up your native reports, take a screen shot and send an email. Posting here isn't going to let PGI know, so try reporting. You've got the capacity.

~Leone.

[Ivor]

I have to agree with Hobbles, though I would advise against describing things as pathetic. It's a bit ad hominum, dontcha think? un-sporting maybe instead?

Hazeclaw, on 30 January 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

people actually look at the FP leaderboard? As far as I can tell all it says is how much someone plays, to show anything useful at all you'd need stats like avg dmg/drop, avg match score/mech (not per drop), maybe avg kmdd/drop

the only remotely useful stat in the game right now is the quickplay avg match score, and even that can be gamed quite a bit

I have to admit I do enjoy checking out the leaderboard from time to time and seeing myself rise up the ranks, but I have to disagree with your proposal on what's useful. And I would have to allow that this is a bit complicated, though to be honest the stat calculation is a bit broken for FP. It basically boils down to getting punished for doing anything but killing mechs. So average match score/mech would be less than useful because mechs that are designed to do anything but kill other mechs will drag that down in a major way. As a light pilot, I'm more than willing to sacrifice myself to turn half a unit while my team pushes their advantage. Or to run caps so that even if we're getting steamrolled we at least have a chance. And while the tactical advantage of turning a team is pretty much intangible stat wise, keeping caps up get's me pretty much nothing. dmg/drop will be affected by tactical considerations as will KMDD. Basically, the way the stats are treated right now encourages skirmish style brawl matches over anything else.

Basically, I play the game for the tactical side. I personally think it would get pretty boring if everything was a skirmish match which (let's be honest) is basically what QP devolves to 95/100 times. FP for me is more, "What's the best way to win?" Do you fight toe to toe, or do you try to accomplish the objective? Or a mix of both? That being said the match doesn't need to end prematurely. Make it a good match. Some of the best matches I've had is where one of the teams stole the win in an assault match by capping while the other team was busy duking it out high on kills (and we get shafted in stats). Or when we pull a sneaky split push in siege (and get shafted in stats). Or win by caps after all our mechs are dead (and get... well you get it). And of course those 46/48 matches. It's about all of these things. To advocate one approach over the other is to miss a large part of the game, IMHO. That being said, I wish stats were more balanced and rewarded you for doing positive things for your team. Honestly, you'll get better stats right now by rolling the reds and camping the spawn than having a good fight and leveraging any objective and that's no fun either. But I also get that it's extremely complicated to balance stats to accomplish that.

[Windscape]

The way i determine how good someone is is biy dividing the KMDD by total matches
Kcom, evil, and other very strong FP players have 6+
Other good players have 4-5
Decent players have usually 3 KMDDs per game
Mediocre players have 1-2
Bad players will have a rating less than 1

Its not a perfect system, but thats what i use to roughly gage the preformace of players
Last time i checked mine it was around 5.5

[K O Z A K]

Ivor, on 30 January 2018 - 08:50 AM, said:

I have to agree with Hobbles, though I would advise against describing things as pathetic. It's a bit ad hominum, dontcha think? un-sporting maybe instead?



I have to admit I do enjoy checking out the leaderboard from time to time and seeing myself rise up the ranks, but I have to disagree with your proposal on what's useful. And I would have to allow that this is a bit complicated, though to be honest the stat calculation is a bit broken for FP. It basically boils down to getting punished for doing anything but killing mechs. So average match score/mech would be less than useful because mechs that are designed to do anything but kill other mechs will drag that down in a major way. As a light pilot, I'm more than willing to sacrifice myself to turn half a unit while my team pushes their advantage. Or to run caps so that even if we're getting steamrolled we at least have a chance. And while the tactical advantage of turning a team is pretty much intangible stat wise, keeping caps up get's me pretty much nothing. dmg/drop will be affected by tactical considerations as will KMDD. Basically, the way the stats are treated right now encourages skirmish style brawl matches over anything else.

Basically, I play the game for the tactical side. I personally think it would get pretty boring if everything was a skirmish match which (let's be honest) is basically what QP devolves to 95/100 times. FP for me is more, "What's the best way to win?" Do you fight toe to toe, or do you try to accomplish the objective? Or a mix of both? That being said the match doesn't need to end prematurely. Make it a good match. Some of the best matches I've had is where one of the teams stole the win in an assault match by capping while the other team was busy duking it out high on kills (and we get shafted in stats). Or when we pull a sneaky split push in siege (and get shafted in stats). Or win by caps after all our mechs are dead (and get... well you get it). And of course those 46/48 matches. It's about all of these things. To advocate one approach over the other is to miss a large part of the game, IMHO. That being said, I wish stats were more balanced and rewarded you for doing positive things for your team. Honestly, you'll get better stats right now by rolling the reds and camping the spawn than having a good fight and leveraging any objective and that's no fun either. But I also get that it's extremely complicated to balance stats to accomplish that.

Someone often has to take one for the team, so you will have the 1st guy in the push that suffers low score for the win, etc. But it shouldn't always be the same player, so overall, with a larger sample of games, your dmg/match score should still say something (but of course it still has limitations). If you're always the person that sacrifices their mechs for the team (when there are 11 other players with you), then your teammates are using you. Also caps in conquest should give a lot more match score than they do now, and I don't get the whole cut the score for losing a mech in a game mode that encourages you to play in waves

[Ivor]

Hazeclaw, on 30 January 2018 - 09:35 AM, said:

If you're always the person that sacrifices their mechs for the team (when there are 11 other players with you), then your teammates are using you.

I should probably clarify this point. Most times, I'm the best person for this job. I have a knack for being annoying enough to turn folks and living to tell the tale (or at least living much longer than I have any right to in that role). And of course, no one should build an entire kamikaze deck. My point is, that often when you have a nuanced tactic with finesse to accomplish the objective, you currently get punished in the stats. Basically, the stats are all skewed toward brute force skirmishes (the exception being UAVs).

Additionally, I think damage is an overrated statistic. You can pepper a mech all over and get, say 400 damage (I'm not 100% sure how much damage you can technically do to a mech, but let's work with 400 being enough damage to strip all armor and most structure from an XL mech) However, if you are able to take out a side torso, you don't get that 400 damage. You get credit for the torso and arm (so maybe 100-150? and kill/solo kill) but you're much more effective than that. I think I would prefer components destroyed/match or mech over damage. Or match score, if it were adjusted to take objective based action into better account. Naturally, killing mechs would add to that so to get max you would have to both kill mechs AND accomplish objective actions.

Edited by Ivor, 30 January 2018 - 10:29 AM.

[0regon]

I think base / objective rushing is not nearly as pathetic as the amount of FW players that will ONLY play invasion because they are afraid to lose a spot on the leaderboard, or have their "Games played" stat dilute their "KMDD" stat. THAT is pathetic. And then to cry about it like little spoiled ******* on the battlefield as if somebody slapped a lollipop out of your mouth or something. Do some scouting *******. Life in MWO shouldn't revolve around a leaderboard. All you "elite" players that are so afraid to lose a match you'll only play when there's 10 of you on a team. How pathetic is that? Quit revolving your lives around a ***** leaderboard and play to have fun. Quit hiding behind a stacked team. Grow some balls and do a solo drop once in a while. Then maybe some of the other players will actually take you seriously. You guys talk about objective rushing being dishonorable. I say hiding behind a stacked team of seal clubbers for 3 hours is even worse. How about adding a couple of pugs to your group? Maybe train a few noobs instead of just beating them down and then telling them to git gud. It's no wonder there are so few that even play FW.

[K O Z A K]

Ivor, on 30 January 2018 - 10:26 AM, said:

I should probably clarify this point. Most times, I'm the best person for this job. I have a knack for being annoying enough to turn folks and living to tell the tale (or at least living much longer than I have any right to in that role). And of course, no one should build an entire kamikaze deck. My point is, that often when you have a nuanced tactic with finesse to accomplish the objective, you currently get punished in the stats. Basically, the stats are all skewed toward brute force skirmishes (the exception being UAVs).

Additionally, I think damage is an overrated statistic. You can pepper a mech all over and get, say 400 damage (I'm not 100% sure how much damage you can technically do to a mech, but let's work with 400 being enough damage to strip all armor and most structure from an XL mech) However, if you are able to take out a side torso, you don't get that 400 damage. You get credit for the torso and arm (so maybe 100-150? and kill/solo kill) but you're much more effective than that. I think I would prefer components destroyed/match or mech over damage. Or match score, if it were adjusted to take objective based action into better account. Naturally, killing mechs would add to that so to get max you would have to both kill mechs AND accomplish objective actions.

There's definitely limitations to using damage as a metric, but not many other metrics are available to us

It would be good if there was some sort of a multiplier for using least amount of damage to kill a mech, as in rewarding headshots, IS XL ST kills, or CT kills without dealing damage to other components, over stripping the whole enemy mech with lrms, but there are a lot of other variables that would have to be considered, like mech geometry, etc

[r4zen]

I mainly don't understand how it feels better or is more fun to slam an objective than to fight the other team. ESPECIALLY if you have capable pilots on your team.

Exceptions where gen rushing or focusing objectives is less irritating:

• You're in the last hours of a phase and trying to dunk a planet cap
  
• You're in the last hours of a phase and trying to prevent a planet cap
  
• You're pugging or small group (1-4) and have 0 chance of winning by fighting
  
• It's 12-24 and there's no realistic path to victory without taking down the objectives

That being said, I've both been grouped with and dropped against very capable pilots/units who objective rush on Incursion because "the game mode isn't fun" ...so, there's definitely an element of pot calling kettle black here.

0regon, on 30 January 2018 - 03:04 AM, said:

I feel bad for the cool guys that the objective rushers are affecting, but it's the spoiled little crybabies that make it not so bad. That's the only real joy I get out of objective rushing.

While I believe this is true for you, I don't at all believe it's true for others in your unit. Especially when they're calling it against pugs.

[Ivor]

Hazeclaw, on 30 January 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

There's definitely limitations to using damage as a metric, but not many other metrics are available to us

It would be good if there was some sort of a multiplier for using least amount of damage to kill a mech, as in rewarding headshots, IS XL ST kills, or CT kills without dealing damage to other components, over stripping the whole enemy mech with lrms, but there are a lot of other variables that would have to be considered, like mech geometry, etc

I like that component multiplier idea. Maybe get points for any component. arm - 30 pts, Side torso - 30 pts (basically double with arm), head - 50 pts. (probably much less so as to no inflate match score). I guess maybe separate out match score stats so they're more transparent? That way you can see who is good/how good you are at killing mechs vs objective. And on top there's an average match score stat that combines both categories?

[0regon]

Windscape, on 30 January 2018 - 09:05 AM, said:

The way i determine how good someone is is biy dividing the KMDD by total matches
Kcom, evil, and other very strong FP players have 6+
Its not a perfect system, but thats what i use to roughly gage the preformace of players
Last time i checked mine it was around 5.5

I agree with you that that is the best way to determine a players skill level. And I always played to win KMDD's until I joined Bacon. And, yes, objective rushing hurts that score. I get that. And I wish there was another way that an average team could go up against an elite team of hand-picked killers and still have a chance of winning. But there isn't. The only way an average team has even a chance of winning against a good premade is to play the objective. So get over it cry babies. Accept that there are units and groups that consist of average players that don't like losing to a premade team of cry babies. I've seen teams of better players than you guys actually stop an objective rush. You want to know how? They stopped sniveling and actually adapted a strategy to combat it! THAT'S comptetitve. Whining like a ***** is not competitive, it's just childish.

[0regon]

r4zen, on 30 January 2018 - 10:39 AM, said:

I mainly don't understand how it feels better or is more fun to slam an objective than to fight the other team. ESPECIALLY if you have capable pilots on your team.

Exceptions where gen rushing or focusing objectives is less irritating:

• You're in the last hours of a phase and trying to dunk a planet cap
  
• You're in the last hours of a phase and trying to prevent a planet cap
  
• You're pugging or small group (1-4) and have 0 chance of winning by fighting
  
• It's 12-24 and there's no realistic path to victory without taking down the objectives

That being said, I've both been grouped with and dropped against very capable pilots/units who objective rush on Incursion because "the game mode isn't fun" ...so, there's definitely an element of pot calling kettle black here.





While I believe this is true for you, I don't at all believe it's true for others in your unit. Especially when they're calling it against pugs.

Well put Razen. I honestly hate winning by objectives. I played too long as a KMDD stat lover to ever feel good about disrupting the enthusiasm over it. But what I meant was that I hate winning that way LESS when the other team calls us all sorts of profanities because we won that way. When the other team does that, it doesn't hurt so bad to win by objectives.

Edited by 0regon, 30 January 2018 - 11:08 AM.

[K O Z A K]

Why are you so surprised and angry that when you choose to avoid fighting the enemy who came looking for a fight they call you out on it? If you're going to objective rush you should expect some unhappy players to voice their opinion, just like how there's plenty of opinion and hackusations being voiced about scary supervillain premade PAWGs who apparently live off the misery of poor innocent trial stalker baby seals

[Elad]

Hazeclaw, on 30 January 2018 - 11:12 AM, said:

PAWGs

I'm so glad this term is getting used, it makes me chuckle everytime I see it used in this context as I still read it as a different acronym.

[K O Z A K]

Elad, on 30 January 2018 - 11:17 AM, said:

I'm so glad this term is getting used, it makes me chuckle everytime I see it used in this context as I still read it as a different acronym.

our friends epic crusade on the forum may have been short lived but it must be remembered for all its hilarity