171 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Eatit, on 17 April 2019 - 01:26 AM, said:

I don't know how to stop the play style I don't like. I don't know if we should stop the play style we don't like. Some people must like it since they do it enough to bother others. Is our opinion more important than theirs? Can we reach some point in the middle?

When it comes to fundamentalist religious beliefs, there is no middle ground. Anti-IDF is in the same category as a fundamentalist religious belief.

PhoenixFire55, on 17 April 2019 - 03:07 AM, said:

His "playstyle" is actually borderline violation of CoC. So yeah, it IS wrong.

See what I mean? <shrugs>

Edited by Mystere, 17 April 2019 - 07:35 AM.

[Eatit]

Are any of them serious?

Why do we care?

[John Bronco]

So now we've hit the point where some people are defending their unwillingness to try and improve.

My question is how is it even humanly possible to play the same game and maps and mechs for 1000s of matches and not even improve by accident?

Are you wiping your mind with intense drugs, psychotherapy, blunt force trauma, after each playing session?

[thievingmagpi]

BlaizerP, on 17 April 2019 - 07:39 AM, said:

So now we've hit the point where some people are defending their unwillingness to try and improve.

My question is how is it even humanly possible to play the same game and maps and mechs for 1000s of matches and not even improve by accident?

Are you wiping your mind with intense drugs, psychotherapy, blunt force trauma, after each playing session?

Don't you understand, they're just trying to have fun bro

[Chortles]

Eatit, on 17 April 2019 - 06:58 AM, said:

Magpi,

Why should players work to improve? Because you or others think they should? If they just want to run around shooting stompy robots shouldn't they be allowed and not harassed?

What makes it your or anyone else's business? Are you paying them hourly to play the game giving you authority to tell them how to play?

Nerfing LRMS into oblivion or removing them from the game will eliminate the fun some people have. How can doing that be wanting them to have fun?

I believe that most comp players want others to have fun. The ones that want to remove other peoples fun are the ones I have issue with.

PGI should remove the tier limitation from matchmaking. I find it incredibly fun when I stomp beginners in this game. As long as I am having fun, that's all that matters and everyone should respect that.

That is how you sound like in this post. MWO is a pvp multiplayer game. Balance is more important than fun because when one player does well in a match, the other team probably has players that didn't. It is a slap in the face to players who actually put effort in the game to improve their score when you can just use an auto aim weapon while behind cover.

MWO LRMs isn't even the lowest possible skill based weapon PGI can offer within the Battletech universe. Swarm LRMs exist and we can only imagine what it would be like on day one if it were ever released.

[Eatit]

Chortles, on 17 April 2019 - 07:42 AM, said:

PGI should remove the tier limitation from matchmaking. I find it incredibly fun when I stomp beginners in this game. As long as I am having fun, that's all that matters and everyone should respect that.

That is how you sound like in this post. MWO is a pvp multiplayer game. Balance is more important than fun because when one player does well in a match, the other team probably has players that didn't. It is a slap in the face to players who actually put effort in the game to improve their score when you can just use an auto aim weapon while behind cover.

MWO LRMs isn't even the lowest possible skill based weapon PGI can offer within the Battletech universe. Swarm LRMs exist and we can only imagine what it would be like on day one if it were ever released.

Are you high? Nothing you said matches the quote.

Anyone in the game can use the auto-aim weapon. If you chose not to use it that's a YOU problem.

Do you game for balance or for fun? Please answer I'd like to know.

[Composite Armour]

Imagine if Vellron spent as much time actually learning to aim as he does complaining on the forums that the game doesn't play itself for him.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Eatit, on 17 April 2019 - 07:49 AM, said:

Do you game for balance or for fun? Please answer I'd like to know.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

[LordNothing]

wait to fire weapons will never be meta. because while you are waiting for a lock the other guy is putting a 60 point alpha into your st. a smart lermer would dumbfire them, an even smarter player would replace lrms with mrms, and an elite player uses lasers.

[Eatit]

FRAGTAST1C, on 17 April 2019 - 07:57 AM, said:

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Did you think they were?

[Bud Crue]

BlaizerP, on 17 April 2019 - 07:39 AM, said:

Are you wiping your mind with intense drugs, psychotherapy, blunt force trauma, after each playing session?

After?

No. During.

In all seriousness though, I think in SQ you have a duty to try and perform to the best of your abilities as possible. Some lack those abilities and some are just not interested in improving them. But you have 11 (arguably 23) other people relying on you to not screw up the gaming experience, so put some thought into what you are playing and how you play it. You may be leveling a mech, or trying some odd build, but one’s “fun” should at least try and take into consideration that of the others you are playing with and that means playing to win to the best of your ability, not being a jerk, or a load, or a potato standing behind a rock at 1000 m doing a whole lot of nothing. You may or may not improve doing that, but I think it is your duty to give it a shot.

Now GQ on the other hand, imo, that is the place for anything goes as long as you have a decent sized group of like minded players who know what they are getting into. Wanna play stoned and/or drunk and rush right in to the biggest blob of enemies doing a theme of all Spider 5Vs? Go do it there, as long as you have 11 other people willing to play along. Worst case then is you just gave the other team something to laugh about.

[Eatit]

Hi Bud,

I'm not advocating intentional throwing of a match or anything like that. I hope it doesn't sound like I am.

I'm saying that 100 is the average IQ. Half of us are above that and half below. If a person is say 50 IQ but can play a game for fun do they deserve to be yelled at because they aren't good?

Where do we draw the line? Maybe some players aren't good and aren't going to "Git Gud". Should what they consider fun not be taken into consideration? I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to let them play their game and I'm going to play mine.

[Prototelis]

Imagine a few weeks from now when elron blocked everyone on the forums and his whine threads look like they have no replies.

Edited by Prototelis, 17 April 2019 - 08:15 AM.

[thievingmagpi]

he wouldn't even notice, would just continue to shout into the void, like so many lrms smashing into solid terrain

Edited by thievingmagpi, 17 April 2019 - 08:16 AM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Eatit, on 17 April 2019 - 08:02 AM, said:

Did you think they were?

You certainly did 'cause you did ask a question that suggested that. Unless of course, you asked a loaded question to further your agenda.

[Bud Crue]

Eatit, on 17 April 2019 - 08:12 AM, said:

Where do we draw the line? Maybe some players aren't good and aren't going to &quot;Git Gud&quot;. Should what they consider fun not be taken into consideration? I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to let them play their game and I'm going to play mine.

Too subjective for me. I was just pointing out in response to BlaizerP when I think its perfectly fine to play “just for fun” regardless of what that means and what the consequences might be, and that is pretty much only when those you are playing with are on board with it. Otherwise, its a team game and you have to take into consideration those that you are playing with and that means trying your best imo.

[Chortles]

Eatit, on 17 April 2019 - 04:09 AM, said:

I don't see the problem. If standing in one spot getting 1500 damage is how he derives fun what's the problem? Nobody said you had to do that. You are saying the he has to conform to your style or he's wrong.

LRMs aren't affecting you at the top of the game. If they were so good you would all be using them. He isn't competing with you. He's dropping in Solo QP derp mode. There is no competition there. If you are saying that LRMs are breaking the competitive scene then I totally get it. They are breaking it are they? Did you lose the championship because people were LRMing too much? I don't think that was ever brought up as a concern.

Confusing the fun to play derp mode with competitive play seems to be the issue here. Maybe PGI should nerf them for comp, if you guys see it as a problem. I don't think it's an issue in QP, we're just here to have fun. Being the best in the world isn't how we derive that.

Eatit, on 17 April 2019 - 07:49 AM, said:

Are you high? Nothing you said matches the quote.

Anyone in the game can use the auto-aim weapon. If you chose not to use it that's a YOU problem.

Do you game for balance or for fun? Please answer I'd like to know.

Then let me include the other post you made. You stated that it should be okay for players to stand still using a low skill weapon dealing 1500 damage as long as they are having fun. I'm saying I want to use as little skill as possible against beginner players because I would find it fun. I don't see how these arguments differ from each other when the premise is based around fun.

That's usually the argument people make when they don't want their playstyle to be changed. If anyone is the high one here, it's not me. You're basically admitting that LRMs are overpowered with that statement. It's the same argument people make when they don't want their playstyle to change. The fact that anyone can use an auto aim weapon is the exact reason why IDF was nerfed. You may find it fun that you can deal 1000 damage with zero effort, but do you think the enemy enjoy being rained down by someone across the map while behind cover? "I believe that most comp players want others to have fun. The ones that want to remove other peoples fun are the ones I have issue with."

I can't tell if this last line is serious or rhetorical. If it's serious, you should read the post that you quoted. In case you can't be bothered, I'll write it again in more detail this time. MWO is a PVP multiplayer game. Balance should be at the forefront first because the developers usually derive it from data that they gather. Fun is subjective. What you find fun may not be fun for other players. When you're dealing with millions of players (in the case of MWO, even less), taking the utilitarian approach is the healthy choice over the seflish one. If I remember correctly, one of the previous LRM threads had a commenter post a chart that showed the game losing players when LRMs were buffed. I don't find it enjoyable facing the same players constantly, and I really won't find it enjoyable when the game no longer has any players.

[Captain Caveman DE]

Composite Armour, on 17 April 2019 - 07:52 AM, said:

Imagine if Vellron spent as much time actually learning to aim as he does complaining on the forums that the game doesn't play itself for him.

but he doesn't even have to; you can still play lurms and even better* than before.
you just have to get your own lock now most of the time.
and that's his problem right there...

somebody might scratch the paint on his lurm-fafnir, and we can't have that.
his 11 teammates are meatshields, and should learn
a ) to survive longer, to do their job (meatshielding) better
b ) to get him all the locks in the world and pls hold them.
-so he can hide his 20t or armor on his 100t assault in some bunker and can dish out dmg from there.

but when one sees -that- as parasitic behaviour, he feels offended.




*better is subjective ofc, but they work better -for me- in every way after that patch. I'm still not fond of the IDF-mechanic, but at least lurmers can lurm in LOTS of places now they could not before, and that's a good thing, no matter how you twist it.
just because some people don't want to use the options they have, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edited by Captain Caveman DE, 17 April 2019 - 09:15 AM.

[Athom83]

Personally, I don't care for LRMs and I hated how they used to be. In all honesty, if a certain weapon system or mech was actively seen as "OP" at the time I'd try and do my best to avoid using it. But with that said, I do have a few mechs that have a 'permanent' LRM build on them, and others with a LRM build saved for later use. For me, LRMs are situational in whether they feel right or wrong on a given mech, and usually they are almost always a secondary weapon or a second primary.

Now, I disagree with the sentiment that just because you want to IFD, that means your opinion is wrong. As much as I dislike Vell and his playstyle, that doesn't mean he doesn't have some point. Although, I do disagree with the premise Vell stated in the OP. I just watched a LRM80 Supernova try and target an ECM'd Cicada 300m away (exactly the situation Vell states) and fail quite a lot. However, the locking itself went pretty quick ,his problem was that he kept moving his aim too far from the Cicada while trying to lock and losing his lock just as it went full lock. However, that Supernova still finished the match with over 1200 damage.

Now, since the LRM changes I have been testing out some of my LRM mechs here and there. I will agree with one of Vell's previous points of AMS being too strong (because missiles' helth got nerfed too far), however the missile buff this patch largely fixed it. However, they are still plenty viable. They are very deadly in DF support while still being quite effective durring IDF support. If an enemy gets NARC'd... lol they're pretty much writen off from the match because you can put THAT much damage into them (or just outright kill him depending on whether or not he can find cover).

Also, I really like how Vell makes a post without really explaining or justifying his supposed buffs, then gets annoyed at the people saying no without justifying or explaining their position. I all honesty, they don't really need a lock-on time buff. Outside the cases of the enemy using equipment literally designed to counter missile locks and such, IDF lock times are just fine. However if you still really want lock on buffs, rather than directly buffing LRM lock times; instead why not buff TComps and make it so they buff all missile lock times (streaks and LRMs) against ECM as a factor of the TComp size? Basically, most infowar components of the game still needs to be worked on and tweaked here and there.

[Weeny Machine]

Gluten, on 17 April 2019 - 12:53 AM, said:

Troll post?

Nope, Vellron is a notorious lurmer and serious about his demands. I am not sure if that is funny or sad