605 replies to this topic

[lazorbeamz]

The mobility buffs might make mediums and some heavies completely obsolete. Like that lb40 warhammer which works in solaris due to the advantage in twisting.

[Imperius]

lazorbeamz, on 17 August 2018 - 04:30 AM, said:

The mobility buffs might make mediums and some heavies completely obsolete. Like that lb40 warhammer which works in solaris due to the advantage in twisting.

Thank goodness a dead on arrival game mode / feature isn’t used for balance.

[Tarl Cabot]

Horseman, on 16 August 2018 - 10:21 PM, said:

An engine crit system would drastically increase TTK. And no, ISXL cannot be made equal with CXL - if it was then there's little to no reason to take LFEs.

I do not disagree TTK would increase with an actual fully functional engine crit system, primarily because it would not be made robust enough, and there would be a reason to not skimp on the rear armor

isXL equivalent to cXL means surviving the loss of one side torso, with each of them and the LFE would have differentiating penalties. And one of the biggest things that hurt going to a larger engine was the engine desync. And lets not forget there are now Clan battlemechs which benefit in the same manner as the IS battlemechs. Also, once PGI started to include non-lethal effects with the loss of one side torso for the cXL, they provided a way to add engine crit/heat scale flavor without actually the actual heat scale and a functional engine crit system.

My revision of the non-lethal penalties..

cXL 20% movement / 30% engine heat dissipation
isXL 25-30% movement / 40-50% engine heat dissipation
LFE 10-15% movement / 20% engine heat dissipation

Again, before the destruction of a ST the only difference is the weight and the number of slots taken. And quirks are and have been changed at the drop of a hat, though most structural/armor quirks are more due to geometry/hit boxes which both IS and Clan mechs have, and the IS mechs that have the heavier amount actually uses STD engines, not even LFE due to the need for the slots. Or do you really worry about an isXL Atlas with LRMS?

[suffocater]

How about the hitreg gets fixed before a try to balance some stuff? That would probably give a better picture from the data afterwards.
At the moment hitreg is at an all time low, Betty is now on the wrong side of the mech EVERY time she tries to tell something, missiles from the front hit in the back etc.
8vs8 would help here btw., the hitreg felt way better on the PTS under 4vs4, partly because the game runs better with less players. For me atleast, I had way better FPS.

Just my 2 cents...

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 16 August 2018 - 11:31 PM, said:

Again, I am not saying that IS have lower damage/heat, I am saying that IS is ergonomically fine, it's the Clans that are overperforming. The issue is the gulf between the two techbases, not whether IS lasers isn't that viable.

But thats exactly what you said right here:

The6thMessenger, on 16 August 2018 - 11:31 PM, said:

IS needs less DHS for the same amount of weapons, needs less DHS for the same amount of tonnage.

I swear its like you dont even know what you said. Then you backtrack making any argument with you impossible.

You said IS need less DHS for the same amount of weapons. Thats false. If you equalize firepower they actually need more DHS and they need to devote more crit slots to get those DHS because their DHS are bulkier.


And obviously the issue is the gulf between the two techbases. The whole point of buffing ISDHS is to help close that gulf.


No clan player wants clantech nerfed. It feels bad. Clans should be nerfed as little as possible. Instead IS should be buffed to clan level. Thats the correct way to balance this game while pissing off the least number of players.

[Navid A1]

A Reference on Mech Mobility stats

Pre- and Post- Engine Desync Comparison

Soon after the start of weapon balance discussions a couple months ago there has always been talks regarding mech mobility stats, its effect on mech survivability, TTK, and ultimately, how it was affected by the engine desync patch on 17^th of April 2017.

As a result, the team behind the community (weapon) balance sheet decided to conduct an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of mech mobility stats, and compare the results from pre- and post-desync periods.
Data comparison is summarized and presented using both an online sheet and bar graphs (links posted below) for the following mech mobility stats:

• Torso twist speed (in deg/s)
  
• Mech turn speed (in deg/s)
  
• Mech acceleration (in kph/s)
  
• Mech deceleration (in kph/s)
  
• Time to accelerate from 0 to 100% speed (in seconds)
  
• Time to decelerate from 100% speed to a full stop (in seconds)

It is worth mentioning that for a fair comparison, pre-desync mobility stats for non-omni mechs are obtained using typical engine ratings that are normally installed on said chassis, based on feedback from community. Also, mobility quirks from pre-desync period has been taken into account for analysis

Moreover, comparisons are done based on both skilled and un-skilled chassis.

Please note that fully skilled in the new skill-tree system means all the skill nodes regarding to that stats being unlocked and activated


Sheet link (gimme ALL THE DATA):
https://docs.google....#gid=1265493478

Image links:
Torso yaw speed changes, sorted by tonnage and chassis.
Torso yaw speed, sorted by change magnitude.
Turn speed changes, sorted by tonnage and chassis.
Acceleration changes, sorted by tonnage and chassis.

Interested reader can find details about various formulas and the method behind obtaining stats here:

Pre-desync:

Post-desync:


In game UI graph:



Created by the Gulag balance crew:
Tarogato - Navid A1 - Metachanic - denAirwalkerrr - Bowser - Bear Claw - QueenBlade

Edited by Navid A1, 17 August 2018 - 12:44 PM.

[Jman5]

Hey, I know this is a bit of an aside, but when Quickplay leaderboards first launched, we were promised by Russ that Group Queue and Solo queue would be split. This seems to have been forgotten and I wonder if this could be revisited. They're two completely separated queues, and I think they should be split on the leaderboard. (similar to how you have solaris split up by solo/group and division)

Many of the stats like WLR and KDR are virtually impossible to match in solo queue and it's unfair to lump the two queues together like that.

I think it would also help you guys make better decisions about balance when you can see how players/mechs perform in different queues.

Finally, I suspect many players who care about their WLR and KDR would be willing to play the game more if they felt they could drop into solo queue without ruining their stats.

Edited by Jman5, 17 August 2018 - 01:14 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

But thats exactly what you said right here:

Same amount of weapons, same amount of tonnage. Not same amount of damage.

As in 6 iERML vs 6 CERML.

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

I swear its like you dont even know what you said. Then you backtrack making any argument with you impossible.

Will you please stop putting words on my mouth?

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

You said IS need less DHS for the same amount of weapons. Thats false. If you equalize firepower they actually need more DHS and they need to devote more crit slots to get those DHS because their DHS are bulkier.

But their firepower isn't equalized, that is the god damn point.

One is IS, the other is Clan, why on earth would we equalize the firepower in the first place? That is not what i am arguing at all. I never said that same alpha, same firepower. I specifically said, as you even quoted, same amount of weapon, same amount of tonnage.

Am I talking to an imbecile? Cause that will explain a lot of things. If not, please straighten your ****.

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

And obviously the issue is the gulf between the two techbases. The whole point of buffing ISDHS is to help close that gulf.

And what I am trying to tell you is that IS DHS isn't much of a problem, mainly because it can be handled. Clan on the other hand, it is OP, it is inevitable to have so much god damn DHS, and they have a powerful set of lasers to god damn boot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it, but all things considering Clan just needs to get taken down a notch. It's that ******* simple.

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

No clan player wants clantech nerfed. It feels bad.

Well, I'm a clan player. And even so, feeling is subjective. It will affect more than just a single person, we must be subjective.

Khobai, on 17 August 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

Clans should be nerfed as little as possible. Instead IS should be buffed to clan level. Thats the correct way to balance this game while pissing off the least number of players.

You mean it's the correct way, because it pisses off the least number of people? Because, it would be far proper to nerf the Clan.

[justcallme A S H]

Good post Navid & everyone behind the math of the actual numbers.

Definitely tells a very different story to ahat we've been told since May last year.

Let's hope it gets addressed for many mechs that are outright junk since Skill Tree.

[SilentScreamer]

The6thMessenger, on 17 August 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

One is IS, the other is Clan, why on earth would we equalize the firepower in the first place? That is not what i am arguing at all. I never said that same alpha, same firepower. I specifically said, as you even quoted, same amount of weapon, same amount of tonnage.

You mean it's the correct way, because it pisses off the least number of people? Because, it would be far proper to nerf the Clan.

There is an alternative balance method, but most posts involving a point system do not get any traction. Funny thing is, there is already a point system in place, it is Tonnage. Dropdecks are built based on Tonnage, groups are validated based on total Tonnage, Solo queue fills teams based on Tonnage.

So, if Clan weapons and heatsinks are to stay superior (and I think they should), maybe assigning mech models (not builds) a specific point value instead of having a 30 ton Spider 5V take just as many points/tonnage as an 30 ton Arctic Cheetah? Numbers could be 1-100, 1-10, 1-1000...the scale doesn't matter. The problem is I don't think PGI knows if they want all mechs at the middle or Assault class at the top and Light class at the boton.

Regardless, there are plenty of posts out there, which is preferable, less powerful Clan weapons or making Clan mechs more costly to dropdecks/group play?

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 16 August 2018 - 11:31 PM, said:

I don't think RACs should get any more heat nerfs. Hell, they're already hard to use with other weapons right now because of the heat.

That's probably by design, because their DPS is insane for so few weapons. A pair of RAC/5 is not really that hot, and they dish almost 22 DPS all on their own; you used to need massed UAC/10s and 5s on a DWF or KDK to get there, but not anymore. Now your garden-variety IS Medium can run that, comfortably.

Throw on more powerful IS DHS, and things can get out of hand quickly on the larger 'Mechs.

If there is an issue with RACs, it's the spool-up time and the projectile spread and not the heat.

Rest spoiler'd below for the sake of peoples' eyes.

Spoiler

Quote

Crits is one thing. But hardpoint-inflation, allowing a small boat is a different story.

There was no hardpoint inflation on the Piranha or the Mist Lynx; the KDK-3 is the only historical offender that got hardpoint inflation. The boating of MGs wouldn't be an issue, anyway, if the crits were not so powerful.

Quote

I'm more for a different types of playstyles, but that would only really define IS lasers vs Clan lasers. It still does not account for Clan Lasers being the meta go-to.

They aren't the meta go-to unless you need laser vomit specifically (which, if you've watched any competitive game in the last 2 years, you'd know mid-range vomit is not a huge role), and even then it would be less attractive if IS fired colder and faster than they do now. There is already precedence for this working.

The playstyles are not strictly defined by the weapons, either. You have poking and you have pushing, that's it. Everything else is just how close you are to the target when you do it.

Quote

Yeah, but IS is generally not exactly capable of outputting the same amount of alpha for the same amount of efficiency.

….which is why you need to either increase their DHS dissipation strength or cut the heat generation...

They don't strictly need to be identically capable in alpha strength. Being within proximity and having tangible advantages in other departments is sufficient.

Quote

While sure, that is an issue, but if it's really impractical then why defend it? It's like PGI's 94-point alpha, funny that Dire could do 108.

Nobody is defending 94. They are defending the 50-80 that will be collateral damage from the changes being made to address something which isn't a problem.

Quote

Numbers is irrelevant when we're only talking about builds vs builds, and we couldn't deviate from it. We have the damn mechlab. Don't get me wrong, i am not defending idiocy like LRM80 annihilator, or Direstar. It's irrelevant to potency, just viability.

Builds vs. builds is literally the only thing that matters. What we are effectively discussing is which builds will be going up against which other builds.

Quote

Clan alpha is still a bigger issue. I honestly don't mind pokers being easy to push, the point was is that they punish passive play, and people holing up.

A bigger issue according to whom? You? PGI? Have you watched what happens in an FP match? It's push push push push push and even the Clan lasers hardly count for ****. If you don't have DPS on your side, you are nothing.

There is nothing wrong with using cover. Teams failing to proactively use the terrain to move and get better angles has nothing to do with weapon balance, because they have been the same passive lemmings from 2014 to present.

Quote

Nope, still power creep. Depends on the baseline. And i wouldn't put Clan on the base.

What you think is the baseline is irrelevant. There's only what the game currently is, and we aren't pushing past what it currently is.

Quote

Maybe. I liked pre-civil war, last august i think. Mech the Dane called it golden-era of balance.

He misspoke (and this was discussed on Reddit), the Golden Era was late-2015 to very early 2016, pre-rescale and pre-Kodiak. That later era he referenced was more of a Bronze era, because things had already been nerfed to **** but you had a handful of decently varied options in a 6v6 tournament taking bracket builds over dedicated builds, which was neat.

Quote

Yeah but, it's another experimentation that we could also use different values for either the mobility, and the previous values, so may end up different after all.

Not especially. I already know how the game plays with higher agility, more powerful and cooler IS lasers, and even things like HGauss don't change any equations since they are not heat- or agility-bound anyway.

Quote

Evident from what? The reject of PGI's attempt? ****'s poorly executed, not to mention that it's not exactly the same environment -- as in 12v12s.

Poorly executed or not, a nerf is a nerf is a nerf and will be received like any other nerf. Unless you are proposing a change that amounts to little more than lip-service, the backlash will be essentially the same (as it has been every time before) because people don't want their **** getting...nerfed. Again.

Basically, where PGI wants the baseline and where the community wants the baseline appear to be at odds. Since the community has the money PGI wants, PGI's desires for the game direction mean precisely f*ck all. The sooner they recognize that, the better off they will be.

Also, where there is smoke there is fire.

Quote

Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Speech is protection from being silenced.

That being said, i'm just being a local grammar-{Godwin's Law}, ignore that.

I don't think you read what I wrote, because nowhere in that post was the word "freedom."

Quote

I don't know, Gauss and Laser vomit is still potent. Besides, what is used frequently isn't the same as being meta. At this point, I'd like to have that Night-Gyr 2x-Gauss PPC back.

Is being used frequently a problem? Is being potent a problem? Should we nerf things just because imbeciles haven't clued into the superiority of alternatives, yet?

I'd like to have that NTG back, too. I'd also like to be able to run those builds on my Nightstar, which was the entire impetus for lobbying to get it in the game in the first place.

Quote

With confounding variables (look up experiments), I doubt that.

They are hardly confounding, they all fall within the boundaries of things I have already seen and experienced. If you had been here when we had 4 heat IS MedLas, with another 20% heat gen reduction and with +80 meters on them emulating ERMLs pretty well, you would know this.

But, since you weren't:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The6thMessenger, on 17 August 2018 - 04:29 AM, said:

Again, I am not saying that IS have lower damage/heat, I am saying that IS is ergonomically fine, it's the Clans that are overperforming. The issue is the gulf between the two techbases, not whether IS lasers isn't that viable.

Ergonomics between the two are the same, which is sort of the entire problem.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 August 2018 - 04:34 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

That's probably by design, because their DPS is insane for so few weapons. A pair of RAC/5 is not really that hot, and they dish almost 22 DPS all on their own; you used to need massed UAC/10s and 5s on a DWF or KDK to get there, but not anymore. Now your garden-variety IS Medium can run that, comfortably.

Not with how RACs are made with so much stare and slow projectile speed to boot.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

Throw on more powerful IS DHS, and things can get out of hand quickly on the larger 'Mechs.

If there is an issue with RACs, it's the spool-up time and the projectile spread and not the heat.

Well, true. But them being worse than what they are right now that already discourages use with other weapons, more heat is probably not the right thing to give it.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

There was no hardpoint inflation on the Piranha or the Mist Lynx; the KDK-3 is the only historical offender that got hardpoint inflation. The boating of MGs wouldn't be an issue, anyway, if the crits were not so powerful.

Unfortunately, Crits is a thing. So either crits go, or hardpoint inflation goes.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

They aren't the meta go-to unless you need laser vomit specifically (which, if you've watched any competitive game in the last 2 years, you'd know mid-range vomit is not a huge role), and even then it would be less attractive if IS fired colder and faster than they do now. There is already precedence for this working.

Never said that it's a huge role. Although considering how Laser works well.

But then it's not attractive right now isn't it? Likewise, what about the ranges on those thing? Or at least was. IS now has ERML so, that admittedly changes a lot of things.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

The playstyles are not strictly defined by the weapons, either. You have poking and you have pushing, that's it. Everything else is just how close you are to the target when you do it.

True. But while it's possible to brawl with a Laser Vomit that builds about 67% of your heat gauge each shot, maybe it's not really a question of whether you can, but whether you should.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

….which is why you need to either increase their DHS dissipation strength or cut the heat generation...

They don't strictly need to be identically capable in alpha strength. Being within proximity and having tangible advantages in other departments is sufficient.

I vote for Clan nerf. That's what i've been saying the entire time.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

Nobody is defending 94. They are defending the 50-80 that will be collateral damage from the changes being made to address something which isn't a problem.

But the point was, the IS couldn't output the same alpha and heat efficiency as Clans, so trying to build the same amount of alpha with poor heat-efficiency as a result is just as tenable as defending the 94-108 alpha.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

Builds vs. builds is literally the only thing that matters. What we are effectively discussing is which builds will be going up against which other builds.

Why are we balancing on the far-end? Why is that we would only balance based on specific setups? It's like you're trying to make MWO be played only with specific builds. Don't get me wrong, there should be ceilings to what mechs could do, but in the end there's just faction and mech differences that specifically allow these kinds of stuff.

Haven't we seen this before? KDK-3 overperforming, Piranha doing so much ****, i bet Bane/Kraken would be so ****** up.

But if we just balance by weapons and tech, we inevitably touch the other mechs, when these mechs, and specific builds are the ones to blame.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

A bigger issue according to whom? You? PGI? Have you watched what happens in an FP match? It's push push push push push and even the Clan lasers hardly count for ****. If you don't have DPS on your side, you are nothing.

There is nothing wrong with using cover. Teams failing to proactively use the terrain to move and get better angles has nothing to do with weapon balance, because they have been the same passive lemmings from 2014 to present.

FP is hardly the entire scope of the game. Similarly, I've played with FP matches, my best builds usually is laser-vomits. I know that's just anecdotal-evidence.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

What you think is the baseline is irrelevant. There's only what the game currently is, and we aren't pushing past what it currently is.

I'd rather pull back the Clans.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

He misspoke (and this was discussed on Reddit), the Golden Era was late-2015 to very early 2016, pre-rescale and pre-Kodiak. That later era he referenced was more of a Bronze era, because things had already been nerfed to **** but you had a handful of decently varied options in a 6v6 tournament taking bracket builds over dedicated builds, which was neat.

Yeah, I like bracket builds. I still love 3x UAC5 + 4x ERML + 2x LRM15A Direwolf -- cause it's the proper way to lurm a direwolf.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

Not especially. I already know how the game plays with higher agility, more powerful and cooler IS lasers, and even things like HGauss don't change any equations since they are not heat- or agility-bound anyway.

But with Lasers having more reach, with MRMs, ATMs, heavy lasers. Yeah, it's another set of experimentation.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

Poorly executed or not, a nerf is a nerf is a nerf and will be received like any other nerf. Unless you are proposing a change that amounts to little more than lip-service, the backlash will be essentially the same (as it has been every time before) because people don't want their **** getting...nerfed. Again.

Basically, where PGI wants the baseline and where the community wants the baseline appear to be at odds. Since the community has the money PGI wants, PGI's desires for the game direction mean precisely f*ck all. The sooner they recognize that, the better off they will be.

So basically, it's not that nerf won't work, but it's perceived to be the end of the earth undesirable.

Well, okay sure. What if we buffed IS lasers to 4/6/10 damage? Tell you what, okay let's buff IS laser damage to 10.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

Also, where there is smoke there is fire.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

I don't think you read what I wrote, because nowhere in that post was the word "freedom."

Lol, ok.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

Is being used frequently a problem? Is being potent a problem? Should we nerf things just because imbeciles haven't clued into the superiority of alternatives, yet?

Depends. Is it ruining the experience for others? Don't get me wrong, people should be free to play. But there could be valid reasons.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

I'd like to have that NTG back, too. I'd also like to be able to run those builds on my Nightstar, which was the entire impetus for lobbying to get it in the game in the first place.

I know right? I didn't liked the pokey Gauss-PPC, but that's from over-performing mechs. It's not like people whined about Direwolf doing gauss-ppc, King-Crab is doing Gauss-PPC too, it's always about Marauder IIC or Kodiak with it's damn high-mounts, or Night-Gyr cause it can poptart.

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

They are hardly confounding, they all fall within the boundaries of things I have already seen and experienced. If you had been here when we had 4 heat IS MedLas, with another 20% heat gen reduction and with +80 meters on them emulating ERMLs pretty well, you would know this.

But, since you weren't:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You didn't have new-tech before.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

Ergonomics between the two are the same, which is sort of the entire problem.

Not with Clan lasers having more heat per shot, not with longer duration.

[Kin3ticX]

Jman5, on 17 August 2018 - 01:12 PM, said:

Hey, I know this is a bit of an aside, but when Quickplay leaderboards first launched, we were promised by Russ that Group Queue and Solo queue would be split. This seems to have been forgotten and I wonder if this could be revisited. They're two completely separated queues, and I think they should be split on the leaderboard. (similar to how you have solaris split up by solo/group and division)

Many of the stats like WLR and KDR are virtually impossible to match in solo queue and it's unfair to lump the two queues together like that.

I think it would also help you guys make better decisions about balance when you can see how players/mechs perform in different queues.

Finally, I suspect many players who care about their WLR and KDR would be willing to play the game more if they felt they could drop into solo queue without ruining their stats.

PGI probably has stats on all of us chopped up every which way already in all different kinds of categories. It probably all has nothing to do with our leaderboards.

I dont think its that important to split the leaderboard. Stats are nice and all but its not the be all end all. With that said, I do my fair share of looking people up. Let me tell you, whenever I see some serious nonsense posted, it almost always jives, its like a colinear relationship almost.

[Jman5]

Kin3ticX, on 18 August 2018 - 06:45 PM, said:

PGI probably has stats on all of us chopped up every which way already in all different kinds of categories. It probably all has nothing to do with our leaderboards.

I dont think its that important to split the leaderboard. Stats are nice and all but its not the be all end all. With that said, I do my fair share of looking people up. Let me tell you, whenever I see some serious nonsense posted, it almost always jives, its like a colinear relationship almost.

Honestly, I'm just curious about a lot of stuff. What sort of WLR is possible in solo queue? Is there a difference in average match score between high performing group queue and high performing solo queue?

If there were a bunch of light pilots who were pulling 3.0 WLR in solo queue reliably, I'd love to zero in and figure out what they're doing that's working so well for them.

Also, I'm really more interested in who the top guys are dropping in solo queue where I am. I don't really care about some guy who I never compete against because he's group queue and competitive leagues only. And I imagine group queue people might feel the same way. Why should they care about my stats if I'm never going to fight them.

They're two separate queues so I think they deserve their own leaderboards. It wouldn't preclude you from keeping a combined leaderboard as well.

[Khobai]

i seriously doubt anyone is pulling a 3.0 WLR in solo queue

theres just way too many factors you cant control in solo queue

[justcallme A S H]

Khobai, on 18 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

i seriously doubt anyone is pulling a 3.0 WLR in solo queue

theres just way too many factors you cant control in solo queue

Well you're wrong there as well... You've done a lot of that in this thread.

Plenty of players are pulling 3.0+ in a season, I have multiple times without any GroupQ distortion of numbers. Then you step up to people like Proton who is even higher again and he so rarely does GroupQ. Are they doing it in lights? Possibly, Med-Assaults, absolutely.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 18 August 2018 - 07:23 PM.

[Khobai]

justcallme A S H, on 18 August 2018 - 07:21 PM, said:

Well you're wrong there as well... You've done a lot of that in this thread.

Plenty of players are pulling 3.0+ in a season, I have multiple times without any GroupQ distortion of numbers. Then you step up to people like Proton who is even higher again and he so rarely does GroupQ. Are they doing it in lights? Possibly, Med-Assaults, absolutely.

Again I seriously doubt that anyone who does only solo queue is pulling in a 3.0 WLR. And I doubt Proton hasnt done any groupQ whatsoever. So why even bring that up? Playing any number of GroupQ matches taints the results for SoloQ.

Until the stats are separated you really cant prove anything.

But if that day ever comes, and im proven wrong, I will freely admit it.

Edited by Khobai, 18 August 2018 - 07:39 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Look my name up on Jarls. There are at least two seasons in there I am over 3.0, no GroupQ was played. Hell most of the time I never do any GroupQ, only maybe the last 4-5 seasons have I done it occasionally.

Go watch all of Protons streams, evidence is right there for you to view anytime you want.

I don't get how can possibly doubt fact. That's utter silliness, yet you do it constantly.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 18 August 2018 - 07:45 PM.

[Tier5ForLife]

Gojira1308, on 07 August 2018 - 02:12 PM, said:

What can be done to attract new players?

A great ad placed during the Super Bowl would attract new players. Otherwise, I see zero happening towards that.

But PGI still cannot spend $1,200 for new drop voices and the Solaris guy only has 9 remarks. And you could have a "bring your kid to work day" and let some of them make a decent chat. This one looks like one from the 1980's. You cannot do links, enlarge it and there is no "friends chat". And LFG for friends seems like a basic thing to add.

The sheer amount that I do not give a funk about what you do would be hard to measure. I'm not a good player and I do not know the math etc on these mechs I just know that they are clunky as hell and they seem to be changing all the time. Your MO seems to be putting out a new mech pack then nerfing that mech after people have bought it so the NEXT mech pack looks better.

I only found out about this game after having a retinal tear surgery where I had to keep my head looking straight down for 10 days. I was listening to Youtube history videos and for some reason, a "SideStrafe" video came into my "feed" and in quick glances I thought, this looks cool. Wow, Mechwarrior has an online game now.

If not for that chance encounter, I'd not know about this game and would happily still be playing Total War. PGI owes me a few months of PT and I'm going to get every minute of it although I really play anymore. It is not fun to play this game anymore. It is as simple as that. I only play because I was freaking stupid enough to put money into this game. Money that could have been much better spent.

Right now Madden NFL is a much better and much more fun game and everyone is on the same level playing surface. Face it, with MWO, having a better PC helps you be a "better player". I'm in 3 Franchise Leagues in Madden and I'm less and less here. I've known and played against the same people for several years there. We are REAL friends.

There is no goal or purpose here. In Madden, we normally get at least 5 full seasons including the playoffs, free agency, the Super Bowl etc.

So every game matters. We have gone past text messages and we use Facebook now to set up our games. The point I'm making about Madden or other games is that there is a purpose, a reason to play and improve.

Delete whatever you need to to make you feel better.

P.S. Everytime you use the term "redacted" it makes me wet.

Edited by LikeUntoBuddha, 18 August 2018 - 09:29 PM.

[Dungeon 206]

PGI / Chris / Paul
i just had a 12-0 tier 1 game in QP where the highest dmg score on the enemy team was 182.
i took a screenshot to prove it. if this forum interface was simpler to use for uploading photos i would have uploaded it.

this is what happens when you keep pandering to bad players
this is what has become of the level of play.
this is why streamers have stopped streaming MWO, and ginormous numbers of players have left.
Not because of clan vs IS "imbalance".
Not because of 94pt boogeyman that hardly any player worth his salt uses.

this is a online multiplayer FPS.
you cannot, in the name of balance, reward players who play badly, refuse to listen and work as a team, and who cant be bothered to improve.
you cannot, in the name of balance, punish players who play well and work well as a team, players who put in the time and effort to improve and get good.
this is what you have been doing with round after round of nerfs and balance passes.

if players cant be bothered to learn things like torso twist, and just stand there like a stick getting shot at
if they cant be bothered to learn proper positioning, listening to comms, working together as a team
if they cant be bothered to think hard about their builds, and insist on running rubbish builds,
then they deserve to be deleted from the game quickly.
WHY ON EARTH INCREASE TTK FOR THEM??

the more you increase TTK for these bad players. the more you take away the incentive or motivation to actually improve and get good at the game.
which is precisely what your balance decisions have been doing.
this is what is causing so many of us frustrations.
NOT A 94PT DWF BOOGEYMAN.


What about new players learning?
they need to be group with other new players. obviously.
which brings me to my conclusion.

the only ever balance that was ever needed. was the a properly function Tier system
new players playing new players.
bad players playing bad players
average players playing average players
pros playing pros.

if you had a properly function tier system where players moved up and down tiers based on their skill level.
then we never would have had to implement round after round of game destroying nerfs and changes.
then we never would have had to say good bye to entire playstyles
THEN WE NEVER WOULD HAVE TO ENDURE USELESS STATIC LURM PLAY.

all these PTS and balance passes are and will be useless unless you fix the tier system.
it doesnt matter how much you reduce laser duration or increase ghost heat.
at the end of the day Pros will seal club bad players who cant torso twist or position properly.
bad players will get too afraid to do anything in a game except stand back and lurm, uselessly asking others to "HOLD LOCKS"
they will have occasional games where they do well and think to themselves "ah im getting better", when actually they are just as bad as before.
and at the end of the day. you'll be back at square one. trying to balance the game. killing the game play even more. losing even more of your player base.

please.see.reason.
and.please.listen.to.your.top.tier.comp.players.

Edited by Dungeon 206, 19 August 2018 - 08:41 AM.