47 replies to this topic

[K O Z A K]

What? Solaris? 4 tiny maps that provide the most repetitive gameplay known to man. Thank you, tried it. Had fun first 10 drops, started getting stale the next 10 drops, after that it just became like going through the motions. Plus no team aspect, no talking smack to unit mates (which is like 75% of the fun in this game at this point)

[John Bronco]

Trying to compare MWO to CoD leads me to believe you've never actually played CoD.

Objectives in this game are secondary priorities, they exist to get fights to happen in some different areas of the map, or to put pressure on the clock. That is unlikely to ever change.

[MadDach5und]

VonBruinwald, on 15 January 2021 - 05:12 PM, said:

And if you want to play pure PvP with no other objective but to kill the enemy we have a queue for that, well, 7 to be precise.

I would think after watching how Solaris has devolved into a leader board of nothing but the heaviest (near-identical) mechs people would see the flaw in constant death matches and the lack of creativity therein.

Part of the fun of the game is the customization factor of the designs - but if play keeps staying one-dimensional - why the hell bother? I know I'm playing the same mech in damn near every match simply because I can get a lot of damage points fast and nobody cares about objectives even if it does aid in a team win.

Just had 2 different matches - both team losses:
Game One - 580 Damage, 5 kills, 2 assists - but 81 team damage due to an air strike
Match score - 200 = RED arrow
Game Two - 610 Damage, 3 assists - that's it
Match Score - 315 = GREEN arrow

I'm just trying to understand the math for the Match Score, because it seems awful

Edited by MadDach5und, 15 January 2021 - 06:06 PM.

[K O Z A K]

Try not to strike your team. It really hurts your match score, as it should

[John Bronco]

You lost 101 ms points for that team damage (1.25 per 1).

[Vlad Ward]

Objectives are stupid in a game with no respawns. Full stop.

Why? Because when you lose before dying, it probably means you've barely had a chance to play the game. That's not fun.

Faction Play is the only mode where objectives have the capacity for both being relevant and fun and that is 100% due to the fact that there are respawns.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 15 January 2021 - 07:10 PM.

[crazytimes]

The common theme of these threads is always people struggling to have a game impact at the lower to mid tiers want their score artificially inflated so they can play with higher skilled players and achieve even less.

If you care about tier that much, then get better. Otherwise just have fun playing with your peers.

[MadDach5und]

crazytimes, on 15 January 2021 - 07:17 PM, said:

If you care about tier that much, then get better.

Funny - People say that about Solaris, too - but the word is "Fatter", not "Better"

[cougurt]

MadDach5und, on 15 January 2021 - 07:28 PM, said:

Funny - People say that about Solaris, too - but the word is "Fatter", not "Better"

lighter mechs are perfectly capable of achieving high damage and match scores as well. 1v1 performance is largely irrelevant in a team setting.

[letir]

crazytimes, on 15 January 2021 - 07:17 PM, said:

The common theme of these threads is always people struggling to have a game impact at the lower to mid tiers want their score artificially inflated so they can play with higher skilled players and achieve even less.

If you care about tier that much, then get better. Otherwise just have fun playing with your peers.

People in PvP games often don't udnerstand how bad they are. They trying to pass it on the team, balance, conditions, but cannot see real reason.

[General Solo]

MadDach5und, on 15 January 2021 - 10:53 AM, said:

Trying to fight back up Pilot Tiers into some sort of relevance is getting incredibly frustrating. Quick play rounds in off-peak times is generally awkward and uncoordinated, and yet - Match Score swings wildly depending on a winning team and NOT for generally the same performance.

Green Pilot (PSR) arrows get granted to a team winner for minimal damage / kills / points but yet need three or even five times as much points to accomplish the same thing on a losing team. I realize the motivation is to win as a team and keep the team experience key to advancing - but geez, I don't think this is what is happening.

I believe the Match score needs some re-working so it is not so heavily bound exclusively to damage and team score. Most Quick Plays are saturated with big heavy mechs and passive players who refuse to engage directly until forced into it. It's pretty obvious players are playing the slow game to 'whittle' as many long range damage points as they can off opposing players with hopes of building that score. Any alternate map forms to the basic Team Deathmatch mode are pretty much ignored for this same reason.

It's not a broken scoring system -- it just needs some tweaking. Base caps, base destruction, scouting - they all need more incentives to get people to run lighter and more strategic. Monotony is the death knell of games like this.

Personally I think don't worry about PSR, don't play for that

Play for yourself but for other better reasons instead

And eventually you will reach your Happy Tier, where your actions will have more impact and you can be Kai Allard from time to time

Its a painful process if you keep checking PSR

I hear in T4 and T 5 its pretty fun is all I'm saying

Edited by General Solo, 16 January 2021 - 12:05 AM.

[martian]

MadDach5und, on 15 January 2021 - 10:53 AM, said:

Green Pilot (PSR) arrows get granted to a team winner for minimal damage / kills / points but yet need three or even five times as much points to accomplish the same thing on a losing team. I realize the motivation is to win as a team and keep the team experience key to advancing - but geez, I don't think this is what is happening.

That is not true. The members of the winning team get some small additional bonus, sure, but I disagree that "yet need three or even five times as much points to accomplish the same thing on a losing team".

MadDach5und, on 15 January 2021 - 10:53 AM, said:

I believe the Match score needs some re-working so it is not so heavily bound exclusively to damage and team score. Most Quick Plays are saturated with big heavy mechs and passive players who refuse to engage directly until forced into it. It's pretty obvious players are playing the slow game to 'whittle' as many long range damage points as they can off opposing players with hopes of building that score. Any alternate map forms to the basic Team Deathmatch mode are pretty much ignored for this same reason.

I can not agree. My favorite 'Mechs are Lights and Mediums and I am not talking about sniper builds. You have my word that even with light and medium 'Mechs you can move to Tier 1.

MadDach5und, on 15 January 2021 - 10:53 AM, said:

It's not a broken scoring system -- it just needs some tweaking. Base caps, base destruction, scouting - they all need more incentives to get people to run lighter and more strategic. Monotony is the death knell of games like this.

The system is not especially good, but in this case it works as intended: Cap bases, scout, destroy objectives, etc. and eventually the system moves you to a Tier filled with players who share you approach to the game.

Do not think about it as a punishment. No, the movement between Tiers serves as a way how to move you to a place which will be the most suitable for your playstyle.

VonBruinwald, on 15 January 2021 - 11:48 AM, said:

And that's perfectly fine, it's also perfectly fine to play the objective. What is a problem is how heavily weighted killing opponents is compared to playing the objective.

A simple way to fix this is to reduce the value of killing opponents so that is less than that of the objectives. If a team secures all kills the remaining value from the objectives is divided between all players on that team.

It would result in cap races:

• well-protected well-paid decisive objective (with some powerful or numerous turrets arount it) - the entire team heads to the objective to destroy it. Either they destroy it without seeing any enemy 'Mech (no fun; just as happens from time to time) or they will meet the enemy team and will have to fight it out. The only result would be a higher number of no-fun drops.
  
• unprotected well-paid decisive objective - a pack of three to four light or low-end medium 'Mechs rushing the objective

MadDach5und, on 15 January 2021 - 05:52 PM, said:

Just had 2 different matches - both team losses:
Game One - 580 Damage, 5 kills, 2 assists - but 81 team damage due to an air strike
Match score - 200 = RED arrow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game Two - 610 Damage, 3 assists - that's it
Match Score - 315 = GREEN arrow

In the first game you lost about 100 points because of that team damage. That's a lot. Do you really think that a player, who did more damage to his friendly 'Mechs than some enemies, should be rewarded with PSR gain?

VonBruinwald, on 15 January 2021 - 11:48 AM, said:

I'm just trying to understand the math for the Match Score, because it seems awful

Check this post, please: Psr Community Version 1.0

[VonBruinwald]

VonBruinwald, on 15 January 2021 - 11:48 AM, said:

A simple way to fix this is to reduce the value of killing opponents so that is less than that of the objectives. If a team secures all kills the remaining value from the objectives is divided between all players on that team.

martian, on 16 January 2021 - 12:33 AM, said:

It would result in cap races:

• well-protected well-paid decisive objective (with some powerful or numerous turrets arount it) - the entire team heads to the objective to destroy it. Either they destroy it without seeing any enemy 'Mech (no fun; just as happens from time to time) or they will meet the enemy team and will have to fight it out. The only result would be a higher number of no-fun drops.
  
• unprotected well-paid decisive objective - a pack of three to four light or low-end medium 'Mechs rushing the objective

Not quite, you would still get a lower payout for rushing the objective compared to killing the enemy team seeing as the remaining value of the objectives are paid out at the end of the round. But it closes the gap. I'll try illustrate

Say each mech is worth 250pts (averaging here), that's 3000pts on the field.
Put the total value to be earned from objectives at 3000pts, so they're equal

On a pure base rush (no kills) that's 250pts per player (3000/12).
On a pure kills run that's 250pts per mech + the 250 from the objective for a total of 500.


Let's try domination:

Two locusts are capping for 12 seconds before the enemy contests, they score 200pts each from holding:
(3000pts / 90 seconds) / 2 players * 12s capture = 200pts)

If their team mops up the locusts get: 200pts + 216from the objective win + their share of 250 from kills for 666
(3000pts / 90 seconds) / 12 players * 78s remaining = 216pts)
Everyone else on the team gets 216 from the objective win and 250 from kills for 466.

If their team loses and scores 6 kills the locust get: 200pts + their share of 125 from kills for 325
Everyone else on the team gets 125 from their share of kills.

In either case it rewards the players who were capturing the objective more than the guys hanging back sniping. Obviously pts from kills won't be distributed evenly so it's perfectly possible to still hang back and score more through dmg/kills but it puts more incentive on the objective than pure kills.


In games like Assault it might be a better idea "reserve" some of the the objective points for the end payout and put a cap on what can be earned in match, something like 1000. So if a lance does break away and cap rush they score 250 from capping + 166 from the win. The rest of the team gets 166 from the win and whatver they earned during combat.

Edited by VonBruinwald, 16 January 2021 - 11:15 AM.

[Cherge]

Posting in yet ANOTHER thread where people pretend PSR means anything.

All good players are tier 1, but let's not pretend for a second you "need to get better" to rank up. Like I feel like I'm at a flat earth convention reading some of these comments.

OP, want to actually rank up? Play Kit Fox with 3x AMS and stand behind your assaults. Deal at least 100 damage a game. Congrats, you're tier 1. thank me later.

[VonBruinwald]

Cherge, on 16 January 2021 - 10:45 AM, said:

All "good" players are tier 1

Fixed

[martian]

VonBruinwald, on 16 January 2021 - 10:17 AM, said:

Not quite, you would still get a lower payout for rushing the objective compared to killing the enemy team seeing as the remaining value of the objectives are paid out at the end of the round. But it closes the gap. I'll try illustrate

Say each mech is worth 250pts (averaging here), that's 3000pts on the field.
Put the total value to be earned from objectives at 3000pts, so they're equal

On a pure base rush (no kills) that's 250pts per player (3000/12).
On a pure kills run that's 250pts per mech + the 250 from the objective for a total of 500.


Let's try domination:

Two locusts are capping for 12 seconds before the enemy contests, they score 200pts each from holding:
(3000pts / 90 seconds) / 2 players * 12s capture = 200pts)

If their team mops up the locusts get: 200pts + 216from the objective win + their share of 250 from kills for 666
(3000pts / 90 seconds) / 12 players * 78s remaining = 216pts)
Everyone else on the team gets 216 from the objective win and 250 from kills for 466.

If their team loses and scores 6 kills the locust get: 200pts + their share of 125 from kills for 325
Everyone else on the team gets 125 from their share of kills.

In either case it rewards the players who were capturing the objective more than the guys hanging back sniping. Obviously pts from kills won't be distributed evenly so it's perfectly possible to still hang back and score more through dmg/kills but it puts more incentive on the objective than pure kills.


In games like Assault it might be a better idea "reserve" some of the the objective points for the end payout and put a cap on what can be earned in match, something like 1000. So if a lance does break away and cap rush they score 250 from capping + 166 from the win. The rest of the team gets 166 from the win and whatver they earned during combat.

I still do not like the idea that a player who stands perfectly still in a flashing square should be rewarded better than a player who actually fights it out, kills enemy 'Mechs and ensures that these enemy Mechs won't be able to return to their base (objective) or countercap.

I think that the current PSR system (as flawed as it is) does it right: Player who likes to run around and cap eventually moves to Tier 4-5 where he will face other players who have the same idea how the game should be played. And player who likes fighting enemy 'Mechs and earns a high Match Score will move to Tier 1 eventually, so in theory those two groups of players should meet only rarely.

[VonBruinwald]

martian, on 16 January 2021 - 11:40 AM, said:

I think that the current PSR system (as flawed as it is) does it right: Player who likes to run around and cap eventually moves to Tier 4-5 where he will face other players who have the same idea how the game should be played. And player who likes fighting enemy 'Mechs and earns a high Match Score will move to Tier 1 eventually, so in theory those two groups of players should meet only rarely.

Good point and a good theory. But if we were to go with that theory we should place then newbies in T1 since new players are typically more focused on fighting than playing the objective...

[martian]

VonBruinwald, on 16 January 2021 - 11:49 AM, said:

Good point and a good theory. But if we were to go with that theory we should place then newbies in T1 since new players are typically more focused on fighting than playing the objective...

If they really are focused on fighting, they should be out of Tier 4 and Tier 5 in no time.

[Wildstreak]

Hazeclaw, on 15 January 2021 - 05:01 PM, said:

I keep having to repeat this, but here it is again: if you want to play an objective driven battletech game, play MW5

If objectives did not matter, all that would be in this game would be Skirmish.

BlaizerP, on 15 January 2021 - 05:44 PM, said:

Trying to compare MWO to CoD leads me to believe you've never actually played CoD.

Objectives in this game are secondary priorities, they exist to get fights to happen in some different areas of the map, or to put pressure on the clock. That is unlikely to ever change.

You're stating opinion, not fact and lead me to believe you have not played a lot of games.

Vlad Ward, on 15 January 2021 - 07:05 PM, said:

Objectives are stupid in a game with no respawns. Full stop.

Why? Because when you lose before dying, it probably means you've barely had a chance to play the game. That's not fun.

Faction Play is the only mode where objectives have the capacity for both being relevant and fun and that is 100% due to the fact that there are respawns.

Incorrect, plenty of other games with no respawns have objectives, players pursue them and quite often no one complains like people in this game do.

[Elizander]

Cherge, on 16 January 2021 - 10:45 AM, said:

Posting in yet ANOTHER thread where people pretend PSR means anything.

All good players are tier 1, but let's not pretend for a second you "need to get better" to rank up. Like I feel like I'm at a flat earth convention reading some of these comments.

OP, want to actually rank up? Play Kit Fox with 3x AMS and stand behind your assaults. Deal at least 100 damage a game. Congrats, you're tier 1. thank me later.

He might sound angry and annoyed, but the 3x AMS Kitfox is what I used to get through the "500 match score in one game" events. If you have decent assaults, they get ECM + 3x AMS, they tear down the house for you, you get +PSR from winning and shooting down 500-1500 missiles and like +20 protected light bonuses.