Jump to content

No Guts No Galaxy Podcast #170 W/ Justcallme A S H (Vod)


157 replies to this topic

#21 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 08 January 2019 - 10:11 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 08 January 2019 - 10:10 PM, said:

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this forum.

Nice respectful disagree sir.

Look. I gave this video the time of day and watched the whole thing. This guys posts rubbed me the wrong way for a while and I still let him have his forum. I didn't denigrate his opinion, merely disagreed.
I agree with the psr change.
There obviously needs more work on other things.

The thing that sticks out for me is this LRM issue.
He puts up the troll super nova lrm build.
There is 100 other lrm rigs besides that broken one.
No case was made for a lore style machine with a single launcher.
No case was made for the removal of the free c3 style lock.
No case was made for huge spread for that out of LOS lock.
NOTHING WAS STATED FOR THE FACT THAT LRMS TODAY ARE SHUT DOWN BY THE CURRENT COUNTERS.

These things require a rework plain and simple. Calling for just a roll-back is not enough.
Sean also tried to point out to you, and I'll bring it up. You at your current level don't see it as we do.
Take your psr picture you put up. You're sitting at your 1%. The rest of the tiers 2-4 are 90% of people who are seeing different gameplay. Lets say half agree with you fine. But you are not experiencing what I am. From the video you just laugh at lrm. Doesn't feel like you want to give it the time of day.
LRM IS NOT A "NOOB TUBE". Please stop trying to treat it as such.

Edited by HammerMaster, 09 January 2019 - 08:14 AM.


#22 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 09:56 AM

View PostHammerMaster, on 08 January 2019 - 10:11 PM, said:

Nice respectful disagree sir.

Look. I gave this video the time of day and watched the whole thing. This guys posts rubbed me the wrong way for a while and I still let him have his forum. I didn't denigrate his opinion, merely disagreed.



And you're accusing someone of bias?

Quote

The thing that sticks out for me is this LRM issue.
He puts up the troll super nova lrm build.
There is 100 other lrm rigs besides that broken one.


That isn't even the trolliest troll build, just the most common. All LRMboats right now are broken because they encourage sand bagging your team for higher numbers. The mechanics that barely encouraged users to move up were nerfed.

Personally, I think the solution to that is to create an Artemis variant of streaks and ATMs that bakes in a longer lock time to compensate for the artemis exploit. This doesn't even have to be revealed to the player, it can work just like the difference between SRM and SRMa.

Quote

No case was made for a lore style machine with a single launcher.
No case was made for the removal of the free c3 style lock.
No case was made for huge spread for that out of LOS lock.
NOTHING WAS STATED FOR THE FACT THAT LRMS TODAY ARE SHUT DOWN BY THE CURRENT COUNTERS.


No one wants to play lore mechs in a game that offers nigh-unlimited mechlab. Furthermore, lore loadouts are terrible. They aren't even that fun to play See: Worlds 2018, its low turnout, and the frustration voiced by the community.

I also believe you may be conflating the content of novels, which barely have a central cannon, and the board game.

LURMS have been LURMS since Roger Wilco on the internet gaming zone. Accusing someone of being biased because of the way they choose to pronounce an acronym is dumb.

Taking away C3 isn't going to fix the game. If anything, that would be a huge disadvantage to players who generally lack situational awareness.

No case needed to be made for a bigger spread on IDF lrms. Its a small component of a very necessary series of nerfs to discourage parastic play. The goal here isn't to make IDF completely unviable, the goal is discouraging parastic play.

Quote

These things require a rework plain and simple. Calling for just a roll-back is not enough.


Any rework of LURMS are going to be a series of what mainline users are going to portray as nerfs. They like sitting in the back and farming damage. They enjoy sandbagging their team mates. They refuse to acknowledge Health and fire pooling.



Quote

Sean also tried to point out to you, and I'll bring it up. You at your current level don't see it as we do.
Take your psr picture you put up. You're sitting at your 1%.


Oh look, a little bit the ol' anti-comp bias.

Ash spends a lot of time trying to teach people, listening to complaints, and plays with people of all different skill levels. I'm more than sure he has a better understanding of what the community wants/needs than you do.

Quote

The rest of the tiers 2-4 are 90% of people who are seeing different gameplay.


Most of the userbase plays in the same matches (tiers 1 down to 3). They see the same gameplay. Most of the people playing this game have no interest in learning how to actually play better. And thats cool, they making a game just for these people, its called "MechWarrior 5."


Quote

Lets say half agree with you fine. But you are not experiencing what I am. From the video you just laugh at lrm. Doesn't feel like you want to give it the time of day.


Once again, the people we are talking about are the people who HIDE IN THE BACK. That is the whole issue. I don't give those people the time of day either.

You are in Tier 1. You see literally the same gameplay as every other Tier 1 player in the game.


Quote

LRM IS NOT A "NOOB TUBE". Please stop trying to treat it as such.


The weapon aims for you, it absolutely is a noob tube, and that is okay.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that the weapons are too strong for their ease of use and lack of meaningful risk vs reward.

#23 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 09 January 2019 - 10:36 AM

View PostPrototelis, on 09 January 2019 - 09:56 AM, said:

Stuff


Here's the thing.
I hate the sandbagging, parasitic gameplay of LRM users sitting back also.
That's the "can't change player behavior" issue.
This is solved by reworking the mechanic. Plain and simple. Is it feasible? Will they entertain it?
Likely no.
I called for removal of c3 lockon and in los buffs and out of los nerf because this would force the sandbaggers into the risk vs reward you are talking of.
I'll remind you. From your heated display above.
Keep up this status quo of not including us "Meat and Potato" players and you have exactly what you want all by your 20 total player base selves.
I came for BattleTech and Lore.
I wan't more BattleTech and Lore.
Keep pushing Lore and us away because you know so much better.
PGI just gave me a way to stay away from you with its MW5.
Do you wan't less people to engage in battles with? Because that's how you end up with less people to battle with.

Edited by HammerMaster, 09 January 2019 - 10:42 AM.


#24 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 11:58 AM

View PostNightbird, on 08 January 2019 - 09:22 PM, said:

As someone who does statistics and data analytics professionally, the whole concept of tiers, based on a progression bar or based on average MS and a bell curve, is insane. The variation within each tier from top to bottom is huge, and you're leaving yourself to luck as to whether one team will get the best from one tier and the other team the worst.

(For QP) The best way to make matches is to compute a number 1-100. or 1-1000 whatever, which A) represents the skill and expected contribution of a player, and B ) when two teams each have the same total summed across team members, results in a 50/50 chance for each team to win.

The way to compute this number is via a generalized linear model with all of the collected metrics as factors.

Match score by itself is useless because actions are assigned arbitrary values, not based on the actual impact it has on the match. A tier system based on MS would likewise be random and arbitrary, and will fail to produce even teams.


exactly this is what ive been saying

we need a true ELO system. not an absurd tier system that does NOTHING.

you cant fix the tier system. its an inherently broken and flawed system. not to mention its a bad idea to have different buckets of players that cant play eachother which will only get worse as the game loses more and more players (lets be honest we arnt gaining players).

we need a ONE bucket system and a matchmaker that sorts players from that one bucket using ELO.

every player should have an ELO score which should be based solely on their W/L ratio. because W/L ratio over time is the best way to determine if a player is helping their time win more often than not. And when matchmaker creates teams it should try to create teams with equal average ELO score +/- say 5%-10%.

and for faction play the matchmaker needs to be able to forcibly break up groups if it cant create an opposing group of equal average ELO score. the ability for groups/units to team stack needs to end.

Edited by Khobai, 09 January 2019 - 12:05 PM.


#25 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 11:59 AM

View PostKhobai, on 09 January 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:


exactly this is what ive been saying

we need a true ELO system. not an absurd tier system that does NOTHING.


Ummm, nothing I said relates to ELO? ELO is only for 1vs1 be it person or static team roster. It's not for QP.

#26 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:08 PM

View PostNightbird, on 09 January 2019 - 11:59 AM, said:


Ummm, nothing I said relates to ELO? ELO is only for 1vs1 be it person or static team roster. It's not for QP.


Well maybe you should start saying things related to ELO. Because ELO is what we need.

And ELO isnt just for 1v1 or static roster. It would work fine in quickplay too. Because better players have higher W/L ratios than worse players. So if ELO is based off of W/L ratios is going to be fairly accurate as to how good a player is.

What we dont need is a broken tier system that blocks players from playing other players and doesnt accurately reflect how bad or good players are because of huge disparities within each tier. The tier system doesnt work. So why keep trying the same fail idea over and over we know doesnt work?

If PGI is going to change it they need to change it the right way (i.e. get rid of it entirely and add ELO). Not change their flawed/failed system to be slightly less flawed/failed than it previously was.

Edited by Khobai, 09 January 2019 - 12:14 PM.


#27 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:27 PM

View PostHammerMaster, on 09 January 2019 - 10:36 AM, said:


Here's the thing.
I hate the sandbagging, parasitic gameplay of LRM users sitting back also.
That's the "can't change player behavior" issue.


This absolutely can be solved by buffing LOS missile usage and nerfing IDF usage. If it weren't more viable, easier, and almost without risk IDF spam wouldn't be the preferred way to play.

Quote

This is solved by reworking the mechanic. Plain and simple. Is it feasible? Will they entertain it?
Likely no.


Nerfing IDF while buffing LOS is reworking the mechanic, dingus.

Quote

I called for removal of c3 lockon and in los buffs and out of los nerf because this would force the sandbaggers into the risk vs reward you are talking of.


You called for c3 removal because of MUH LORE and MUH BORGAEM. It doesn't make any sense for this game and it doesn't make sense to nerf the entire game because ******** enjoy sandbagging.

Quote

I'll remind you. From your heated display above.


I'm not heated. I don't even intend to change your mind. But that doesn't mean I can't dedicate 10 minutes to pointing out how dumb your rhetoric is.

Quote

Keep up this status quo of not including us "Meat and Potato" players and you have exactly what you want all by your 20 total player base selves.


I never once mentioned discluding people because of skill, nor did I ever touch on matchmaker in this thread. I play with a pretty varied group of people.

Quote

I came for BattleTech and Lore.
I wan't more BattleTech and Lore.


Thats cool. I came to play a game with giant robutts. I don't see what YOUR personal needs have to do with adapting a board game into an action game.

Quote

Keep pushing Lore and us away because you know so much better.


Thanks, I do know better, at least in this case.

Quote

PGI just gave me a way to stay away from you with its MW5.


Cool, I'm glad you took my advice.

Quote

Do you wan't less people to engage in battles with? Because that's how you end up with less people to battle with.


Exactly the opposite.

Random adherence to board game rules and inconsistent cannon is one of the primary issues holding the game series back. Either way, I don't see how reigning in noob tube is going to create less opponents. Not a week goes by without a thread bitching about LURMS.

There have been many changes to the game rules to accomodate being an action series that aren't exactly in line with the "cannon." You're picking literally one of the best changes they've made to the basic construction rules.

This game would be so much better if they didn't put such an insane amount of effort into pleasing grognards. The whole IP really needs a reboot.

Edited by Prototelis, 09 January 2019 - 12:32 PM.


#28 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:40 PM

View PostKhobai, on 09 January 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

Well maybe you should start saying things related to ELO. Because ELO is what we need.


I think you're saying ELO and mean something else, because ELO doesn't mean any of the things you're associating with it.

#29 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 09 January 2019 - 02:46 PM

View PostNightbird, on 09 January 2019 - 12:40 PM, said:

I think you're saying ELO and mean something else, because ELO doesn't mean any of the things you're associating with it.


Well the user you are interacting with does have a long history of that kinda behaviour...

#30 Knuckles OTool

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 03:00 PM

I always believe that if the mediocre players are forced to play against the best of the best they wont play the game for long. It doesn't matter if 2 are on your team and a few are on the other team as much as it matters that the mediocre player does very little to affect the outcome of the match.

This game counts on the playerbase to keep the high end guys challenged and in matches and more so the new guys and mediocre guys having fun and wanting to improve. Watching beautiful proton(he gets used as an example a lot) get an ace of spades against your team in a tiny mech has to be just as annoying as working your *** off in a match that was hot, heavy and close and spectating your last team mate in 100 tons of worthless mech firing weapons into walls and watching birds in the sky.

It cant be good for the game to constantly mix everyone in a bucket or your population will tank. Oh wait...

#31 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 09 January 2019 - 03:01 PM

View PostNightbird, on 08 January 2019 - 09:22 PM, said:

Spoiler



I don't disagree for a second. PSR is overall, not a great system for match quality and has lead to a problem and shift that will actually get worse the longer it is left the way it is.

But as with you, I use my life experience, as a multi business owner...

What is the likelyhood of:
  • A ground up rebuild of the MM system? IMO, unlikely
  • Mild adjustments to existing system? IMO, more likely
That is looking from the most basic of things - The measurement of efficieny. So Time / Cost / Effort.

As I said would it improve all games, absolutely not. We all know that. Would it improve some matches, as long as the secondary sorting of the 24 players, yeah it will.

#32 Knuckles OTool

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 03:02 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 08 January 2019 - 09:11 PM, said:


Ask and ye shall receive... (dont view on a mobile lol)

Posted Image




Thanks ash and taragoto. That graph is both scary and very telling. Its actually more balanced around the median than I thought it would be once you drop the guys with less than a couple of hundred games played.

#33 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 09 January 2019 - 03:09 PM

No worries! Happy to help as is Taro, always.

View PostKnuckles OTool, on 09 January 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

I always believe that if the mediocre players are forced to play against the best of the best they wont play the game for long.


They wouldn't be though, if the population had not dropped by some 40% in the last 24 months.

The reason it has dropped - and that is LOADS of good players leaving IMO... Is for the balance / in game choices by PGI. I mean not the topic to go into that suffice to say if a bunch of things were not done the way they were - the player base would not have had the big dips it has and a LOT of good players would still be around.

This keeping things in balance. Them quitting / moving on though has lead to a bunch of players being able to climb to T1 faster or, even just being able to, because there is not enough of the higher skill left to essentially keep them where they should be.

#34 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 03:10 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 09 January 2019 - 03:01 PM, said:


I don't disagree for a second. PSR is overall, not a great system for match quality and has lead to a problem and shift that will actually get worse the longer it is left the way it is.

But as with you, I use my life experience, as a multi business owner...

What is the likelyhood of:
  • A ground up rebuild of the MM system? IMO, unlikely
  • Mild adjustments to existing system? IMO, more likely
That is looking from the most basic of things - The measurement of efficieny. So Time / Cost / Effort.



As I said would it improve all games, absolutely not. We all know that. Would it improve some matches, as long as the secondary sorting of the 24 players, yeah it will.



I don't expect the MM to be redone, but I also don't see avgMS (average match score) to be any better.

Suppose two players have 300 avgMS, one averages 600 damage and 0.5 kills with LRMs from the back, and one averages 400 damage and 1.5 kills per match. Are these two players equal? Not even close.

Basically, if we're not going to fix the MM right, then why waste effort fixing it wrong?

Edited by Nightbird, 09 January 2019 - 03:10 PM.


#35 John Bronco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 966 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 03:30 PM

Because some improvement is better than none?

#36 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 03:32 PM

View PostBlaizerP, on 09 January 2019 - 03:30 PM, said:

Because some improvement is better than none?


0 improvement, but since it would take too long to prove to you guys, you know what just implement it and we'll revisit OK?

#37 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 09 January 2019 - 04:00 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 09 January 2019 - 12:27 PM, said:


dingus

You called for c3 removal because of MUH LORE and MUH BORGAEM

I do know better

how dumb your rhetoric is

bitching

pleasing grognards





Keeping it on the up and up. Keep up the good work sir.
You're so bent on invalidating what I'm bringing here to HEAR that I agreed with you on a point or two.
You're so bent on keeping your high horse position that anyone detracting is gonna catch the heat that you purportedly didn't bring.

You're so bent on not hearing you can't agree to come to the table to find an agreeable point between us.
Again, I'll point out this elitist attitude will make the dwindling numbers continue downward.
Keep making it so the pool only includes you and your ilk and you stand atop a short heap.
Enough of this drek.
GOOD DAY SIR!

Edited by HammerMaster, 09 January 2019 - 04:48 PM.


#38 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 09 January 2019 - 05:42 PM

View PostNightbird, on 09 January 2019 - 03:10 PM, said:



I don't expect the MM to be redone, but I also don't see avgMS (average match score) to be any better.

Suppose two players have 300 avgMS, one averages 600 damage and 0.5 kills with LRMs from the back, and one averages 400 damage and 1.5 kills per match. Are these two players equal? Not even close.

Basically, if we're not going to fix the MM right, then why waste effort fixing it wrong?


Large percent of the population cant even make 200 dmg on average. There is zero balance to help teams who play with low skilled players.
So to answer your question i would take both of your players.

The avg match score system is to keep the very high and very low more balanced. The system doesnt have to be perfect .

Right now its putting groups of high skilled emp players with high skilled d5 players and the other side gets the mech dads :)

Edited by Monkey Lover, 09 January 2019 - 05:47 PM.


#39 John Bronco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 966 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 05:55 PM

View PostNightbird, on 09 January 2019 - 03:32 PM, said:


0 improvement, but since it would take too long to prove to you guys, you know what just implement it and we'll revisit OK?


I'm not at all sure how you ever could ever possibly prove that, as people commonly post here their lopsided match screen shots alongside the players Jarl's ranking which is based on, you guessed it, match score.

You can point out edge scenarios all you want but the fact of the matter is damage and kills are the main components of match score and that is precisely what wins games. If people with an artificially high match score are put into games as the "higher" score players then their score will decline over time as they aren't holding up their end of the effectiveness game.

But by all means continue to pine for a magical solution.

#40 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 06:09 PM

It's just understanding math and statistics, big data analytics is hot right now as far as the pay is concerned





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users