356 replies to this topic

[ScrapIron Prime]

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 08:42 AM, said:

[Redacted]

So... in order to give feedback, you must prove you are worthy.

I can see where people might consider that to be an elitist attitude, yes.

[Rhaelcan]

foamyesque, on 06 January 2024 - 07:48 PM, said:

Faction Play is a tiny percentage of drops and players, but even aside from that, the solution is, as I have said before and am going to keep saying, to nerf NARCs.

Give 'em the RAC treatment and chop the beacon duration in half and then boost ammo counts to compensate. Make the projectile more visible and generate a hit indicator.

That isnt even the reason of the rac change. the rac change was to prevent a macro use, and to make it sound cooler. smh

[Bassault]

ScrapIron Prime, on 11 January 2024 - 08:49 AM, said:

So... in order to give feedback, you must prove you are worthy.

I can see where people might consider that to be an elitist attitude, yes.

You can give feedback, its valuable. It lets whoever is balancing the game know what people think. But if you want your balance declarations of how "things should be like this!", It makes sense to me that you should prove to people that you know what youre talking about, right? This is why so many top player are in the Cauldron. High level players understand the ins and outs of how the game works, therefor they are qualified to talk about balance. I don't understand why that's controversial. Do you remember how bad the game was when Chris balanced it? 15 dmg erppcs. Lrmaggedon (tons of players quit).That's what happens when someone who doesn't understand how the game works takes the reigns.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 08:56 AM, said:

This is why so many top player are in the Cauldron. High level players understand the ins and outs of how the game works, therefor they are qualified to talk about balance. I don't understand why that's controversial.

Top players don't have the same experience as the majority of the player base, though. They are indeed experts at what they personally experience, but they never step outside the meta builds nor do they mix with in drops with the majority of the player base. That's the disconnect. Generally speaking, they balance for gameplay that the majority of paying customers do not experience, and inform the majority of players that things will get better if only they would "git gud", as the saying goes.

This is entirely why I don't have my Tier visible on my forum profile. I don't want weight to be added or subtracted from my ideas, I want the ideas themselves considered. But let's be real... the competitive folks who have spoken up in opposition to what I've said... a great many of them will have looked me up on Jarl's List before deciding how to address my words. You yourself have, in not so many words, just said that this is how it works.

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 08:56 AM, said:

Do you remember how bad the game was when Chris balanced it? 15 dmg erppcs. Lrmaggedon (tons of players quit).That's what happens when someone who doesn't understand how the game works takes the reigns.

No argument there, except to point out that its only an indication of how CHRIS balanced the game. People can understand a game without having the best reflexes or time to be on a competitive league. You get the best feedback when the people giving it are privy to relevant data or closed door discussions.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 11 January 2024 - 09:20 AM, said:

Top players don't have the same experience as the majority of the player base, though. They are indeed experts at what they personally experience, but they never step outside the meta builds nor do they mix with in drops with the majority of the player base. That's the disconnect.

So let me stop you there. So there are two things to kinda speak to.

Your experience in the majority of the player base does matter which as tactless as it was, was what Bassault meant by your feedback matters. If LRMageddon happens again, the majority experiences the brunt of it. However there are some grains of salt taken with all of this info though. Blue lightsabers are constantly complained about in this echo chamber, but is that a problem because a lot of lower level players are just timid, map design, or are they actually problematic? That's the questions that have to be asked over that feedback. Why haven't you seen anything done about blue lightsabers? Well because it really is just option one and two. They are great for farming in QP but I wouldn't say they are the most effective especially since it sort of depends on the map as well.

The other part is the whole "meta" builds. A lot of comp players experiment with builds to figure out the meta, this means running non-meta (well at the time) builds after all someone has to define the meta. Side note: almost every comp player has their pet mech/builds so yes, a lot of them do use stuff that isn't necessarily "the best", for example I love the Vindicator, knowing full well it is not the best at all. Either way, what I think you are really getting to is that comp players should try out bracket builds (outside smalls + big guns) and to that I say, there is a foundational reason to avoid that and it has to do with the balance between long/mid/short range. If generalist/bracket builds become meta, it means that pushes are the meta. Cover matters less because nothing can punish you being out of cover before you can close the gap. And thus the return of the brawl meta in QP. It would be fun for a little bit, but skill would show less and ironically the game would be more like CoD but with mechs by that point. Smash into each other and duke it out, but not really the tactical shooter that MWO has been (and its predecessor was.

Ignoring comp because at that point comp would likely die down.

Besh, on 11 January 2024 - 09:18 AM, said:

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Der Geisterbaer]

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 08:56 AM, said:

But if you want your balance declarations of how "things should be like this!", It makes sense to me that you should prove to people that you know what youre talking about, right?

Now the important question: Which threshold does a player have to overcome in order to "prove" that they know what they are talking about and where do "knowing what you're talking about" and the chosen threshold metric intersect exactly?

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 08:56 AM, said:

This is why so many top player are in the Cauldron.

And being a "top player" (by whichever metric and threshold you chose) shows how exactly that one actually understands what one is talking about? Do you really think it's a given that someone who has the necessary "twitch skills" to be a top player while using "meta mechs" and "meta weaponry" by virtue of these skills also means that this person knows anything about actual balance?

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 08:56 AM, said:

High level players understand the ins and outs of how the game works, therefor they are qualified to talk about balance.

The first part of this statement actually is an already flawed permise and the conclusion is actually a non-sequitur even if the premise can be assumed "true" for a particular individual.

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 08:56 AM, said:

I don't understand why that's controversial.

Because many on your arguments operate on the inherently flawed premise that certain game performance metrics do reflect actual understanding of the "ins and outs of the game" and / or qualification to properly "balance" things.

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 08:56 AM, said:

Do you remember how bad the game was when Chris balanced it? 15 dmg erppcs. Lrmaggedon (tons of players quit).That's what happens when someone who doesn't understand how the game works takes the reigns.

That's what happens when someone who doesn't understand the game's overall balance but there's still no direct link to particular gaming skill levels of an individual and only a decent correlation between balancing skills and understanding how the game "works" on either the "technical" level (which very few aside the coders do) or the tactical and strategical gameplay side.

Just for the fun of it: Do your best to "stat shame" me via Jarl's and tell me whether or not I meet any of your individual thresholds for "proving that I understand the game"!?
[edit]And while you're at it: Try to guess my current Tier[/edit]

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 11 January 2024 - 10:08 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 09:52 AM, said:

The other part is the whole "meta" builds. A lot of comp players experiment with builds to figure out the meta, this means running non-meta (well at the time) builds after all someone has to define the meta. Side note: almost every comp player has their pet mech/builds so yes, a lot of them do use stuff that isn't necessarily "the best", for example I love the Vindicator, knowing full well it is not the best at all. Either way, what I think you are really getting to is that comp players should try out bracket builds (outside smalls + big guns) and to that I say, there is a foundational reason to avoid that and it has to do with the balance between long/mid/short range. If generalist/bracket builds become meta, it means that pushes are the meta.

Okay then. Find me a couple of Cauldron players who routinely and for extended periods drop solo using the kind of LRM builds we're bantering about here. Builds like these, which are not competitive but use a mech's quirks to the fullest:

https://mwo.nav-alph...8ca3b50b_HBK-4J
https://mwo.nav-alph...=2d4768ea_ON1-K

You'll note they have Artemis on them because a solo dropper cannot rely on the space magic of NARC.

I would submit that you cannot find a couple players that run these builds. It was pointed out to me on the high holy Discord server that such builds are sub-optimal and no one runs them. But if that is the case, how can game balance be achieved?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Der Geisterbaer, on 11 January 2024 - 10:06 AM, said:

That's what happens when someone who doesn't understand the game's overall balance but there's still no direct link to particular gaming skill levels of an individual and only a decent correlation between balancing skills and understanding how the game "works" on either the "technical" level (which very few aside the coders do) or the tactical and strategical gameplay side.

So you are right about a few things. Being skilled does not necessarily mean you understand the game well ("PUG" stars come to mind here) or at least, can't articulate what makes them successful. Nor does it necessarily mean you can make balance decisions even if you understand those mechanics. Technical decisions are kind of a side note, generally technical limitations are impactful to balance decisions and the reasons why aren't necessarily relevant. That said, skilled players are more likely to have a grasp of how the game is played (or at least will be more towards the upper end) which is sort of a key point here.

That said, if you don't have some semblance of how the game is played, you aren't going to make good balance decisions and Chris and Paul are proof of that. Especially in the early years, the devs seemed antagonistic towards the comp players and their feedback. The real difference between having devs and players balance really comes down to cohesion of vision of what they want the game to be. I mean if I think about the difference between balance in other games like Counterstrike and this one is, the biggest difference is vision of what they want the game to be and tbh, that's the one thing that has plagued this game through its entirety is PGI's lack of long term vision. Short of having devs who actually understand how the game is played (they don't have to be good at it necessarily), the Cauldron is probably the best for what we have.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 11 January 2024 - 10:36 AM, said:

https://mwo.nav-alph...8ca3b50b_HBK-4J
https://mwo.nav-alph...=2d4768ea_ON1-K

I mean they aren't wrong about them being suboptimal. The 4J for example doesn't need medium lasers when small lasers work just fine and it's a little on the slow side. No BAP is rough. However it also hasn't been good since it lost the 50% cooldown and subsequent power creep sunk in. I do remember my days in QQ where Jman5 ran that thing often in comp but even he recognized limitations of LRMs back then. He wouldn't have suggested more than one LRM mech and that he was OFTEN the first gun online in trades and he had no issue with velocity. However those days were also before the proliferation of ECM (which isn't a coincidence IMO).

That said, 4J benefits from the same things that all LRM mechs do, especially things like nerfs to AMS which makes low volume LRMs like that less useful (AMS accelerates the tube arm race because much like lock-ons, and ECM, it also suffers from flawed mechanics).

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 11 January 2024 - 10:48 AM.

[Bassault]

ScrapIron Prime, on 11 January 2024 - 09:20 AM, said:

Top players don't have the same experience as the majority of the player base, though. They are indeed experts at what they personally experience, but they never step outside the meta builds nor do they mix with in drops with the majority of the player base. That's the disconnect. Generally speaking, they balance for gameplay that the majority of paying customers do not experience, and inform the majority of players that things will get better if only they would "git gud", as the saying goes.

I'm sorry but this is not true at all. Top tier players play quickplay solo all the time, with a variety of builds. Magic Pain Glove streams all the time, he plays solo almost exclusively, and he plays both good mechs and terrible ones. Geeram used to stream often, and he plays solo almost exclusively. Bear Claw streams every now and then and he plays solo very often, often plays a variety of mechs of many different varieties, some of his favorites include 48.6kph Atlas brawlers (Which are very bad). I've seen Dario03 playing quickplay solo all the damn time. Mister Somaru plays non-meta mechs all the time, plays solo very often. I can go on and on, but this idea that the top players just group up and only play the best meta mechs is false. Of course there are top players who group up and smash pugs, sometimes with meta mechs, but that does not represent all of them and it does not represent the cauldron.

There's also this pervasive idea that if I don't build my mech reasonably or if I don't use a horrible mixture of weapons that won't work together, that means I'm playing a meta mech. I hope this is not what you are referring to, because if you are, then the only thing I can say about that is that it's absolutely silly to run terrible builds that don't work. Putting the heatsinks in the right spot and putting weapons that work well with my chassis does not make a mech a "meta mech." One thing is playing a mech that is bad but doing your best to make it work, or giving it a fun loadout that works in a niche situation, or playing a mech for it's gimmick, but playing something that is just flat out bad with no redeeming qualities is not what the game should be balanced around, because if it was, balance would not exist.
.

ScrapIron Prime, on 11 January 2024 - 09:20 AM, said:

This is entirely why I don't have my Tier visible on my forum profile. I don't want weight to be added or subtracted from my ideas, I want the ideas themselves considered. But let's be real... the competitive folks who have spoken up in opposition to what I've said... a great many of them will have looked me up on Jarl's List before deciding how to address my words. You yourself have, in not so many words, just said that this is how it works.

Well, you can't expect to make declarations on how things work and should work and then not expect people to check for credibility. Think of it like this, It's like when a quack doctor tries to peddle some miracle diet, people will look at his credentials and merit, and come to the conclusion that he's an idiot or he's lying.

Edited by Bassault, 11 January 2024 - 11:31 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

That said, skilled players are more likely to have a grasp of how the game is played (or at least will be more towards the upper end) which is sort of a key point here.

What you call "the key point here" is actually just a repetitiion of the argumentative disconnect that I ponted out: a "skilled player" being "more likely to have a grasp of how the game is played" has no realiable correlation to them also being more likely being able to balance the game.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

That said, if you don't have some semblance of how the game is played, you aren't going to make good balance decisions and Chris and Paul are proof of that.

And this - despite the two negative examples that you have provided - is actually in a realm that verges on non-sequitur ... particularly with regards to players that - in terms of gameplay results - are "low skill" but actually by virtue of playing have a "semblence of how the game is played" but are simply limited by their twitch skills.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

Short of having devs who actually understand how the game is played (they don't have to be good at it necessarily),

Interesting: Here you explicitly exempt devs from having to be "good" at the game, however when it comes to other players there seems to be this notion (not explicitly stated by you) that they have to prove their understanding with "being good".

Side note: Frost_Byte may not qualify as a full blown engine related dev but he (allegedly) knows "how to play the game" and also belongs to "The Cauldron" at the same time. The problem being that his statements and positions - at least to me - raise just as many red flags as many of the statements of Chris and Paul did.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

the Cauldron is probably the best for what we have.

In the (strict) sense that we don't have an actual alternative: yes, indeed

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Der Geisterbaer, on 11 January 2024 - 11:03 AM, said:

What you call "the key point here" is actually just a repetitiion of the argumentative disconnect that I ponted out: a "skilled player" being "more likely to have a grasp of how the game is played" has no realiable correlation to them also being more likely being able to balance the game.

I'd argue the correlation is there, because as we both established, if you don't have any real understanding of how the game is played you can't balance. It's just not near as strong a correlation as skilled players likely want to think which is definitely fair.

Der Geisterbaer, on 11 January 2024 - 11:03 AM, said:

And this - despite the two negative examples that you have provided - is actually in a realm that verges on non-sequitur ... particularly with regards to players that - in terms of gameplay results - are "low skill" but actually by virtue of playing have a "semblence of how the game is played" but are simply limited by their twitch skills.

You act like twitch skills are the main limiting factor in this game. Don't get me wrong aim is important but compared to mainstream shooters, it is much less important or accentuated. If you have the foundational mechanics of positioning and movement down, you get a lot further than someone who can just shoot good.

I'm not disagreeing with you. To be clear, what you say is correct, you can understand the game and not be a great player. BUT you are likely going to find yourself above the average player, because of the above because again, this game isn't really that demanding on twitch aim. This should clear up the below where I feel like you were jumping to conclusions a bit.

Der Geisterbaer, on 11 January 2024 - 11:03 AM, said:

Interesting: Here you explicitly exempt devs from having to be "good" at the game, however when it comes to other players there seems to be this notion (not explicitly stated by you) that they have to prove their understanding with "being good".

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 11 January 2024 - 11:27 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

I'd argue the correlation is there, because as we both established, if you don't have any real understanding of how the game is played you can't balance.

And I'd answer that

• there's no indication of how "strong" said correlation is and the strength of said correlation determines the necessity of "proving" anything with metrcis from gameplay
  
• you're now sort of strawmaning me because I did not actually establish that if one doesn't have a real understanding of how the game is played one cannot balance.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

It's just not near as strong a correlation as skilled players likely want to think which is definitely fair.

Well, at least there we're fully in agreement.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

You act like twitch skills are the main limiting factor in this game.

And another strawman.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong aim is important but compared to mainstream shooters, it is much less important or accentuated. If you have the foundational mechanics of positioning and movement down, you get a lot further than someone who can just shoot good.

Movement is actually part of the twitch skill set and I still haven't actually acted as of twitch skill were the "main limiting factor" ... although they certainly are a "major" limiting factor.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'm currently a bit under the impression that you don't quite express your agreement in a way that doesn't disagree in large parts.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

To be clear, what you say is correct, you can understand the game and not be a great player.

The conclusion then would be that demands of "proving" yourself via gameplay metrics in order to be taken seriously are insubstantial.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

BUT you are likely going to find yourself above the average player, because of the above because again, this game isn't really that demanding on twitch aim.

Then do what I originally asked Bassault to do: Go look at my Jarl's and tell me if

• it looks as if I have proven "enough understanding"
  
• you'd consider me an "above average player"
  
• you can guess my player tier

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

This should clear up the below where I feel like you were jumping to conclusions a bit.

Which conclusions exactly are you talking about? Because nothing in your statements - even the disagreements where you strawmaned me - points to anything where I "jumped" to any conclusion ... which would mean that I came to my conclusions without proper reasoning.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 11:33 AM, said:

It's not a requirement for having an opinion, but it's usually correlated that the better you are the game, the more your opinions are based on the truth and not whatever whims and coping mechanisms people use to explain why they aren't good at the game.

Underlined section: Unproven claim about the nature and strength of correlation between gameplay success and opinions concerning "the truth" (whatever that "truth" might be there).

Overall just a variation of the previously made non-sequitur fallacy about gameplay success and supposedly related the ability to balance and from there you go directly into a vague but nonetheless direct insult against players that simply end up where nature regularly puts people (and who actually understand the "why" of this) ... within one standard deviation of the middle of the bell curce of a normal distribution that "skill" just happens to have.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Der Geisterbaer, on 11 January 2024 - 11:54 AM, said:

stuff

Alright, I'm gonna step back a second.

I don't care about the "show me your Jarl's" BS that happens especially since IMO match score is a garbage indicator as to skill. Yes it happens but honestly the fact it does is dumb because to your point, it doesn't mean someone has and understanding of the game. That said, much like any sort of "credential check" I get why it happens because there is some assumed correlation between the two (and likely there is, how strong that correlation is, well is anyone's guess because how do you even quantify either quality honestly). Even comp teams just use that "skill bar" as a scare tactic to weed out bad applicants, or used to at least.

Regardless, PGI took a step back for reasons I assume were related to a couple of seriously bad patches with balance and changes up that people don't fully understand the intent. IMO this is because they have lack understanding of how the game plays and/or don't have any serious vision for how they want the game to be played. Given that vacuum, yes I would prefer that balance happen amongst players who are skilled again because of what I mentioned earlier, how do you quantify understanding of the game? It just easier to assume skilled players and run with it.

Yes, the discord is a bit clique-y (my first interaction wasn't great either), then again, I've also seen some of the craziest suggestions come through and I could definitely understand how exhausting that could be, especially with threads and such controversial topics as LRMs (and I haven't been in comp circles since the stupid 2018 WC). I don't see eye to eye with all of them and some I disagree with what they would even like to see with MWO2 which kinda goes back to the whole vision thing (a lot want battlefield with mechs, or a better MWLL, not me), but that doesn't mean I think there is a better way to handle balance given the vacuum PGI left for better or worse. Especially given how in many ways their hands are tied due to lack of any serious engineering to fix problematic mechanics or even more self-imposed limitations like the whole not allowed to just rename HAGs to light, medium, heavy instead of 20, 30, 40.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 11 January 2024 - 12:22 PM.

[dario03]

Bassault, on 11 January 2024 - 11:02 AM, said:

I'm sorry but this is not true at all. Top tier players play quickplay solo all the time, with a variety of builds. Magic Pain Glove streams all the time, he plays solo almost exclusively, and he plays both good mechs and terrible ones. Geeram used to stream often, and he plays solo almost exclusively. Bear Claw streams every now and then and he plays solo very often, often plays a variety of mechs of many different varieties, some of his favorites include 48.6kph Atlas brawlers (Which are very bad). I've seen Dario03 playing quickplay solo all the damn time. Mister Somaru plays non-meta mechs all the time, plays solo very often. I can go on and on, but this idea that the top players just group up and only play the best meta mechs is false. Of course there are top players who group up and smash pugs, sometimes with meta mechs, but that does not represent all of them and it does not represent the cauldron.

There's also this pervasive idea that if I don't build my mech reasonably or if I don't use a horrible mixture of weapons that won't work together, that means I'm playing a meta mech. I hope this is not what you are referring to, because if you are, then the only thing I can say about that is that it's absolutely silly to run terrible builds that don't work. Putting the heatsinks in the right spot and putting weapons that work well with my chassis does not make a mech a "meta mech." One thing is playing a mech that is bad but doing your best to make it work, or giving it a fun loadout that works in a niche situation, or playing a mech for it's gimmick, but playing something that is just flat out bad with no redeeming qualities is not what the game should be balanced around, because if it was, balance would not exist.
.

Well, you can't expect to make declarations on how things work and should work and then not expect people to check for credibility. Think of it like this, It's like when a quack doctor tries to peddle some miracle diet, people will look at his credentials and merit, and come to the conclusion that he's an idiot or he's lying.

It's been about 3 years since anyone would have seen me as dario03 in a group drop in QP. Maybe a couple drops a couple years ago but I switched to just solo around the time Cauldron started balance decisions. And a couple years before that most QP games were solo, would usually play FP if grouping.
I might go back to solo/group though, can keep track of solo/group separately. Though I do think groups of 4 have to much sway on matches and would support at least trying a group of 3 limit.

[Duke Falcon]

So, if one is better in game "knows" how to balance? Or they know how to bent the game to keep them still "the best" players?
A game MUST NOT BE BALANCED around the best players. Just saying.
WHY?!
The bulk of players play for fun and not "being l33t comps" whom have no real life out of the game. The "balance" would piss of once enough players to leave a game demands a few mechs armed with a few weapons good for only a few certain playstyles.
Then?
You "super l33t compiez" remain alone and wonder why the game deserted and got shut down..?
A game must be balance around and for the weaker players because they grant the bulk of the playerbase. If one is so "good" then not need real balance BECAUSE learned how to adapt and learn new ways and tactics.
Being good in a game means nothing if you are not good in anything in LIFE. And that came from someone who bored by cancer and sometimes want to die. BUT because not belong to the "super l33ts" he's opinion is weightless. I play this game for fun but less and less fun remains because "bent things as balance".
And it's not about (just) the f*cking LRMs. The whole system were damned when neglected that all weapons need lock. You can snap-shot\dumbfire but that ALWAYS has a chance of miss. The solution would be introduce proper lock mechanics or %-chance of miss system shooting without lock. Targeting systems are not invented to waste money and place and have a reason installed on every single vehicles from tanks to f*king ships. Point toward something not MEANS your weapons also head that direction.
Of course mankind and technology seems more and more incompatible, my bad!

EDIT
You know what? I don't care! It's just a mere game...
Be it yours and be happy with it!

Edited by Duke Falcon, 11 January 2024 - 01:21 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Duke Falcon, on 11 January 2024 - 01:16 PM, said:

You "super l33t compiez" remain alone and wonder why the game deserted and got shut down..?

The game "died" well before "l33t compiez" even took over. I'm aware there is still a launcher but Steam is still a good gauge of player population.

https://steamdb.info...200/charts/#all

And pretty sure the cauldron didn't get keys until after this patch: https://mwomercs.com...atch-notes/2500

In other words, this game has long since been "dead"

Edit: I forget Jarl's also shows player count that happens to line up with the steam launch: https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/stats

And it bears a similar graph.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 11 January 2024 - 01:28 PM.

[Vxheous]

Duke Falcon, on 11 January 2024 - 01:16 PM, said:

So, if one is better in game "knows" how to balance? Or they know how to bent the game to keep them still "the best" players?
A game MUST NOT BE BALANCED around the best players. Just saying.
WHY?!
The bulk of players play for fun and not "being l33t comps" whom have no real life out of the game. The "balance" would piss of once enough players to leave a game demands a few mechs armed with a few weapons good for only a few certain playstyles.
Then?
You "super l33t compiez" remain alone and wonder why the game deserted and got shut down..?
A game must be balance around and for the weaker players because they grant the bulk of the playerbase. If one is so "good" then not need real balance BECAUSE learned how to adapt and learn new ways and tactics.
Being good in a game means nothing if you are not good in anything in LIFE. And that came from someone who bored by cancer and sometimes want to die. BUT because not belong to the "super l33ts" he's opinion is weightless. I play this game for fun but less and less fun remains because "bent things as balance".
And it's not about (just) the f*cking LRMs. The whole system were damned when neglected that all weapons need lock. You can snap-shot\dumbfire but that ALWAYS has a chance of miss. The solution would be introduce proper lock mechanics or %-chance of miss system shooting without lock. Targeting systems are not invented to waste money and place and have a reason installed on every single vehicles from tanks to f*king ships. Point toward something not MEANS your weapons also head that direction.
Of course mankind and technology seems more and more incompatible, my bad!

The l33t comps probably have more of a life outside of the game. Back when EmpyreaL won the World Championship 3 times in 4 years, the vast bulk of our players played maybe 30-50 quickplay matches a month. Outside of that, we would spend about 3 nights a week practicing in private lobbies for about 2 hrs each session. Add that all up and that's still far less playtime than the typical "I'm just casual" player that has 300+ quickplay matches a month, playing 1-3 hrs a night 5+ nights a week.

Many of us played at the highest level of the game while still having a "normal" life, aka, families with kids, full time professional job, other hobbies besides gaming, etc. We were successful in game and outside the game, unlike so many "casuals" that make excuses about their lack of skill.

Edited by Vxheous, 11 January 2024 - 01:27 PM.

[Bassault]

Duke Falcon, on 11 January 2024 - 01:16 PM, said:

So, if one is better in game "knows" how to balance? Or they know how to bent the game to keep them still "the best" players?
A game MUST NOT BE BALANCED around the best players. Just saying.
WHY?!
The bulk of players play for fun and not "being l33t comps" whom have no real life out of the game. The "balance" would piss of once enough players to leave a game demands a few mechs armed with a few weapons good for only a few certain playstyles.
Then?
You "super l33t compiez" remain alone and wonder why the game deserted and got shut down..?
A game must be balance around and for the weaker players because they grant the bulk of the playerbase. If one is so "good" then not need real balance BECAUSE learned how to adapt and learn new ways and tactics.
Being good in a game means nothing if you are not good in anything in LIFE. And that came from someone who bored by cancer and sometimes want to die. BUT because not belong to the "super l33ts" he's opinion is weightless. I play this game for fun but less and less fun remains because "bent things as balance".
And it's not about (just) the f*cking LRMs. The whole system were damned when neglected that all weapons need lock. You can snap-shot\dumbfire but that ALWAYS has a chance of miss. The solution would be introduce proper lock mechanics or %-chance of miss system shooting without lock. Targeting systems are not invented to waste money and place and have a reason installed on every single vehicles from tanks to f*king ships. Point toward something not MEANS your weapons also head that direction.
Of course mankind and technology seems more and more incompatible, my bad!

EDIT
You know what? I don't care! It's just a mere game...
Be it yours and be happy with it!

I'm sorry but do you remember WC 2018? It was stock mechs, what you guys always wanted. Claimed that the meta was tailored toward tryhards, that's why you guys weren't doing good. Well, the tryhard compies won that too, with stock mechs, so no you're wrong. Balance isn't tailored to compies, compies will beat you with anything any time, unfortunately for you.

It makes no sense to balance the game for the lowest denominator of skill because at that level, anyone can get away with anything. People stand still and don't realize they're being shot in the back, etc. And then, if players do improve, they will probably quit the game if it's unbalanced at the top. A good video game rewards players for learning how to play it, not handing them everything on a silver platter. Anyway, if you really want to go by that logic that the game should be balanced by the low tiers, we should SEVERELY nerf LRMs, because for the majority of the playerbase, LRMs are very strong because they don't have to aim or think, which covers their weaknesses.

Anyway, the Cauldron always takes into account lower tier experiences so I don't even know what you're complaining about.

As for lock-ons being reworked, it'll never happen because PGI is done putting effort into developing this game. And your suggestion... is awful. % based chance to hit is just a dice roll, and that is very bad game design that creates frustration for players who want things to be fair.