Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 02:44 PM, said:
Huh? That goes against the more common belief among competitive players across the sea of shooters. Most consider low TTK to be the most skillful games because mistakes are punished more.
foamyesque, on 16 June 2024 - 02:39 PM, said:
I don't think it's really in dispute that alphas have been climbing for a while, and then got supercharged with the release of HAGs and binaries alongside a whole stack of hardpoint-heavy assaults over the last year-ish, to the point where cDHS ate a nerf to try and control things on that side at least a little.
Whether that's good or bad for the game, I'm not sure. TBQH a high-alpha, low-TTK environment should in theory disadvantage skilled players -- the more times you need to win an encounter to take one out, the more likely their advantages in aim, positioning, etc mean you can't get it done. Whereas if all you need is a quarter-second of inattention to put 400 points of rockets into someone, you only need to get lucky once, you know?
You guys remember Deus Ex? That game's difficulty slider essentially just changed damage - both ways. So you would take less damage on Hard, but deal more damage as well, to the same proportion. And I found that while I had to be more careful at max level, I was a far more effective killer with the difficulty setting on max. Now, I know it's not a PvP game, but consider - as a human veteran gamer up against an FPS AI developed during the prior milennia, I was a lot better at the game than the bots were, and the extra damage (i.e. lower time to kill) helped me kill them more than it helped them kill me. I wasn't gaming the bots, either; I went full immersion and just fought them straight up.
I think similar things apply here. Sure, you can get lucky and merk a top level player if all you have to do is catch him out. But the relative ratio of mistakes made is going to favor the skilled opponent. Fortune may favor the bold, but chance favors the prepared, and high-skilled players are going to benefit in both cases. Consider; there is a guy who beat the entire Dark Souls Franchise without being hit. I don't like the low-skilled player's chances.
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 02:44 PM, said:
Huh? That goes against the more common belief among competitive players across the sea of shooters. Most consider low TTK to be the most skillful games because mistakes are punished more.
Those people are incorrect. Skill advantages you most the more time you have to apply it. In eggshells-with-hammers scenarios, any random can get lucky and delete even the best player in a way that doesn't happen if that player can survive to correct things.
S'true in CoD, s'true in Titanfall, and it's true in MWO.
For similar reasons, if you know the opposition is stacked with good players, you don't want to take trades with them, because over time you will lose unless you are also very good. You want to push aggressively into a pitched engagement and deny time and space.
Those people are incorrect. Skill advantages you most the more time you have to apply it. In eggshells-with-hammers scenarios, any random can get lucky and delete even the best player in a way that doesn't happen if that player can survive to correct things.
S'true in CoD, s'true in Titanfall, and it's true in MWO.
I think that is grossly underestimating other factors that make it easy to get those lucky kills in those other games, namely respawns and where spawn points are. Not to mention OG CoD and it's CoF mechanics.
I'm pretty sure if MWO had one taps less skilled players would get killed MORE often because a single player can have more influence on the outcome of a match. The more killing power a single player can have the more impact they can have in a shorter time frame. So yeah, pretty sure you are way off on that.
Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 June 2024 - 03:01 PM.
Taking that hypothetical scenario where everyone is as tough as an eggshell and armed with a hammer... You're going to have high-skill people breaking multiple eggs for every time one of them gets merked. Sure, there are instances where someone just dies who could have fixed the mistake if TTK was lower; but the people who are head-and-shoulders above the competition will make fewer mistakes in the first place.
I have seen this with my own eyes, playing Counterstrike with my troop during my first deployment. A lot of us had laptops, so we put up an ad hoc network and played. It's CS; getting shot makes you slower and destroys your accuracy, so the first mistake is often lethal - and I dominated those people, to the point they were getting mad. And brought in a ringer. See, there was one guy who was as far above me as I was above the other guys (even a couple who thought they were gamers.) He'd played with friends were were in the old CAL leagues and could manually put a line of AK rounds across a corridor at head level. He crushed me at least as badly as I was crushing the other guys.
The moral of this story isn't how awesome I was at Counterstrike. I was... decent, but that's not the point. Point is that I've seen how varying skill at a static TTK benefits high-skill players, and I don't think varying TTK while keeping skill levels constant will produce different results, because high-skilled players make fewer mistakes in the first place.
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 02:59 PM, said:
I'm pretty sure if MWO had one taps less skilled players would get killed MORE often because a single player can have more influence on the outcome of a match. The more killing power a single player can have the more impact they can have in a shorter time frame. So yeah, pretty sure you are way off on that.
Nah, because there are lots of times you can get one shot off against a good player in a mutual trade or even from ambush. If those were kills, then that removes them -- and their ability to influence the match via anything other'n comms -- completely.
What I am saying, essentially, is that the higher the TTK, the more consistently good players will outperform weaker ones. It's counter-intuitive, I know, but it's how things work out. In low TTK environments they're still better, but the matches have more variance.
Nah, because there are lots of times you can get one shot off against a good player in a mutual trade or even from ambush. If those were kills, then that removes them -- and their ability to influence the match via anything other'n comms -- completely.
What I am saying, essentially, is that the higher the TTK, the more consistently good players will outperform weaker ones. It's counter-intuitive, I know, but it's how things work out. In low TTK environments they're still better, but the matches have more variance.
Yeah, this just sounds like BS. I'm more inclined to agree with Void that TTK is irrelevant to skill than I am to the seemingly cope that TTK somehow increases the necessary skill.
Actually, I suspect that lowering TTK will benefit higher-skilled players more, based on my anecdotal observations on what happens when you decrease it at a known skill level (Deus Ex) or examine different skill levels with a known TTK (CS.)
The best you could hope for would be that performances remain static despite TTK. Note that what we're talking about here is different from the Noob Tube effect.
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 04:52 PM, said:
Yeah, this just sounds like BS. I'm more inclined to agree with Void that TTK is irrelevant to skill than I am to the seemingly cope that TTK somehow increases the necessary skill.
I'm not sure where 'cope' comes in, or the idea that it increases the required skill either.
What I am saying is the more dice you roll the closer you get to the expected result. It's a result people struggle to accept in in this context, but it's the truth -- the more time you give a top player, the more likely they are to win. It's genuinely that simple.
I'm not sure where 'cope' comes in, or the idea that it increases the required skill either.
What I am saying is the more dice you roll the closer you get to the expected result. It's a result people struggle to accept in in this context, but it's the truth -- the more time you give a top player, the more likely they are to win. It's genuinely that simple.
And what does long TTK do? Give people more time.
That's.....not how that works. TTK has more impact on pacing than it does skill. Faster paced games means you can have more rounds to prove that consistency out no different than Counterstrike. In MWO drops are typically a Bo5. In Counterstrike, its anywhere from Bo1 to Bo5, but maps are played with MR12 (max round 12, ie 13 round wins means you won the match) meaning a single Bo1 could have anywhere from 13, to 24+ (due to overtime) different rounds because a single round takes at most something like 2.5 minutes compared to MWO's 10-15 minute match time.
Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 June 2024 - 06:20 PM.
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 06:15 PM, said:
That's.....not how that works. TTK has more impact on pacing than it does skill. Faster paced games means you can have more rounds to prove that consistency out no different than Counterstrike.
And you need those extra rounds to prove out the consistency with low TTK because the individual matches become more variable. Many players want high TTK because they don't like dying without feeling like they at least got a chance to shoot back, but if you want to be able to generate wins against people of higher skill, it is actively counterproductive.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 16 June 2024 - 06:32 PM
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 02:44 PM, said:
Huh? That goes against the more conventional wisdom among competitive players across the sea of shooters. Most consider low TTK to be the most skillful games because mistakes are punished more.
I think that is exactly why it's "disadvantageous".
And you need those extra rounds to prove out the consistency with low TTK because the individual matches become more variable.
Yes, except one of those doesn't impact viability of different strategies/tactics, and hint, it's not TTK. Changing TTK can drastically impact weapon and mech viability. It's not a slider you can just adjust and "poof", better game.
Evidence also suggests lower TTK is actually more popular given well, most of the popular games don't really have that long of TTK. There are other ways to try to combat that feeling you mention beyond just TTK. Reducing the contrast in ranges of weapons, increasing mobility, map design, etc can all improve that without even touching TTK.
Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 June 2024 - 06:35 PM.
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 06:34 PM, said:
Yes, except one of those doesn't impact viability of different strategies/tactics, and hint, it's not TTK. Changing TTK can drastically impact weapon and mech viability. It's not a slider you can just adjust and "poof", better game.
Evidence also suggests lower TTK is actually more popular given well, most of the popular games don't really have that long of TTK.
You appear to be arguing against things I'm not saying. Would you mind laying out what you think my point is, so's we can sort out this miscommunication?
You appear to be arguing against things I'm not saying. Would you mind laying out what you think my point is, so's we can sort out this miscommunication?
You want higher TTK because you think it translates to higher skill. However the thing you aren't factoring there is how that impacts pacing of the game and the overall balance of the game. Alphas have to have some punch to be able to stop mechs in their tracks because that's the power that prevents people just blind rushing you when you have that long range punch.
What I am saying is game balance and pacing are complex systems and massive changes shouldn't be taken lightly. Increasing TTK can hurt game diversity and still not increase skill because suddenly people can just blind rush across terrain without sufficient stopping power to potentially stem the tide.
I also don't think it's healthy for the game to try and return to 15+ minute match timers to account for the slower pace. 15 minutes is already probably too long.
Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 June 2024 - 06:54 PM.
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 06:53 PM, said:
You want higher TTK because you think it translates to higher skill.
Not in the least. I think higher TTKs lead to more consistent results (per match, TBC) -- in other words, they make upsets harder to achieve. That's all.
The rest of this stuff is an argument you're having without reference to my posts, so my participation appears to be unnecessary. :v
Not in the least. I think higher TTKs lead to more consistent results (per match, TBC) -- in other words, they make upsets harder to achieve. That's all.
The rest of this stuff is an argument you're having without reference to my posts, so my participation appears to be unnecessary. :v
Specifically, your thinking has been that a longer Time To Kill allows more consistent results from given skill levels - because shorter TTK allows low-skilled opponents to get lucky, and kill them, more easily. It's this assertion underlying your primary claim that Quicksilver has been arguing against, which is how the conversation drifted.
That post by JumpingHunter your 1st link points to was awesome. The only thing I disagree with is his proposed spread values. 0.4 for the HAG20 might be a little low and 0.8 for the HAG40 is definitely too high. I tested with Clan machine guns and a C-MG with a spread of 0.84 will start spraying all over torso components at around 230m if you aim for the center. If you were to extend that behavior out to double or triple the range then HAG slugs would be flying all around the target. I can hit individual legs with a C-LMG out to the full 540m range of the weapon so their spread value of 0.23 would be too low for HAGs.
Also, there doesn't need to be such a large gap in spread value between different calibers of HAG. If a HAG40 had double the spread of a HAG20 that difference would be extremely noticeable and might make HAG40s unusable. One thing is certain though, the initial spread values of 0.14, 0.17, and 0.20 were FAR TOO LOW.
I propose: 0.50, 0.55, 0.60 for the HAG20, 30, 40 respectively.
=====
martian, on 16 June 2024 - 06:22 AM, said:
As for HAGs, for example, I have stated clearly that HAGs should be a long-ranged spread-damage weapon. You can read my post here.
Yes.
=====
Tarl Cabot, on 16 June 2024 - 07:35 AM, said:
...
PGI instructed dev codes to double the internal structure Done!!! When that was patched betas posted the armor values were doubled too. Russ/Paul didn't know what to say but allowed it to stay as is.
...
It's a good thing they let the doubled armor values stay. The game would be unplayable now if that had been reverted.
Tarl Cabot, on 16 June 2024 - 07:35 AM, said:
why the need to almost half the weapon delays used from the MPBT games?
...
Waiting 10 sec for a PPC to cooldown would be boring AF. Waiting 2.5 sec to plink someone for a measly 2 damage with an AC2 would be rather underwhelming as well. I can see the need to lower weapon cooldowns from a game pacing perspective alone.
=====
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 08:44 AM, said:
Maybe you can think it's condescending and dismissive, but you are acting like these are elite players but I'm treating it like I would if I were recruiting them into comp.
Why? Is the game meta only driven by comp level players?
You didn't say they weren't elite. You said they weren't "that good" which implies they're merely above average at best, like a 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 which is totally absurd. I think a solid case could be made that they're indeed elite players and if you disagreed you could at least make an argument for why they're not, but saying they're "not that good" was a lame attempt to discredit the fact that their videos clearly show how easy it is to target and pop individual components and the impact that has on helping to create a low TTK meta and how crippling it is to have a ST popped.
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 08:44 AM, said:
It is totally irrelevant.
This is a provably false statement since Void Angel said one of the reason slot and weight costs were kept the same as TT was to keep mech builds in MWO consistent with iconic TT mechs. So we know TT is most definitely relevant to weapon slot/weight cost and weapon names as well. Also, engine sizes and engine mechanics. In fact, I could probably make a pretty comprehensive list of things that match 1:1 with TT so your assertion here that TT is "totally irrelevant" is yet another absurd statement.
=====
CFC Conky, on 16 June 2024 - 10:48 AM, said:
...have such a hard time understanding that as a PvP game, MWO just can't incorporate some TT elements.
I know you're not directing this comment at me because I'm the one who brought up the fact that TT has strict rules for making aimed shots which are impossible to enforce in MWO. I'm sure you noticed me make that point right?
CFC Conky, on 16 June 2024 - 10:48 AM, said:
...we don't roll dice in MWO so get over it.
There's nothing to "get over" since everyone already knows this. The question is whether or not YOU understand the full implications of the fact that players can fairly easily aim at specific components in MWO.
CFC Conky, on 16 June 2024 - 10:48 AM, said:
In my opinion, MWO cannot be balanced effectively if you stick too closely to TT rules.
Which is why I suggested making the consequences for losing a side torso significantly more lenient than TT rules.
Who are you directing your comments at CFC?
=====
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
You play this game a lot:...
You're entering Ad hominem mode. I'm not playing games with what people say. What Quicksilver said was condescending towards a set of players who's Jarl's stats clearly show are WAY BETTER than the VAST MAJORITY of other players. It's getting boring going around in circles with you on such an obvious point.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
My comments about the Tabletop rulebook have made it abundantly clear that you are using the rulebook wrong ...
The only thing your comments about the rulebook make clear is that you don't like me using it to showcase just how far out of whack many weapons systems have become in MWO.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
... Your basic strategy is to pick a data point you think makes you right, insist that your subjective interpretation
There's nothing subjective about the fact that a HLL does 18 dmg in MWO and 16 dmg in TT, or that removing spread from HAGs made them OP AF. These are facts. No explanation has been given to justify these deviations from TT.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
This is why you resort to fallacious appeals to authority so often
The only fallacious appeals to authority going on here are your constant references to how much better players disagree with me so I should shut up.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
the rulebook for an entirely different game
MWO is not an "entirely different game" from TT. They're more similar than different. FAIL.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
When challenged successfully, you shift to attacking your opponents' behavior instead of defending your ideas...
More unfair ad hominem.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
Tabletop Rulebook, circa 1984: This is an entirely different type of Battletech game, and its mechanics don't match up here. Yet you specifically cited that rulebook as "proof" for game balance. That's like saying you should use the rules from Battle Chess to balance Starcraft. Despite the superficial similarities, they are two very different games - put the rulebook from the other game down, and stop hitting.
Battle Chess vs Starcraft? Sarcraft is an RTS with produced units that fight on an open map whereas Chess has a fixed set of units on a closed map. They're totally different. A truly awful example. EPIC FAIL.
The TT rulebook is the SOURCE MATERIAL for MWO though there are some differences where the two mediums, TT vs online, are incompatible. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of "Source Material". FAIL.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
Famous Streamer Videos: Those videos aren't representative of even those streamers' match results, much less the state of the game as a whole. This has been explained to you in several ways, but you refuse to accept that fact, dismissing the objections of several high-level comp players in favor of your own subjective experiences, which brings us to:
That's because you guys are wrong. Their videos do represent them and the state of the game. They don't only post matches where they do 1,000+ damage. Baradul routinely posts games where he gets 500-850 which is a solid amount of damage but nothing spectacular. Occasionally they do post matches where they get wrecked. For example, Sean Lang's most recent video shows him intentionally playing a bad build for fun where he gets wrecked:
The assertions you guys have made about these streamers only showing a "highlight reel" are just wrong and thus it's obvious you guys don't watch their videos and therefore you guys don't know what you're talking about. Why would I concede to people who don't know what they're talking about? FAIL.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
Your Subjective Experience: Long story short, all of the people you're arguing with have more subjective authority than you do. We've been playing longer, seen more of the game, and play at a higher level; we've played in competitive teams at high (and low!) levels as well. ...
Who's doing the fallacious appeal to authority here Void? Your Jarl's stats are barely better than mine with fewer games played than me. You don't show your tier level on the forums. Are you exaggerating your skill level or is Void Angel and alt account? Even if Void Angel is an alt account, how can your stats be so mediocre if you're a comp level player?
This is really the crux of your problem with me. You think skill level is all that matters and thus me questioning things and offering suggestions is uppity and out of line. This is very shallow thinking but typical of players who believe they've achieved a high level of status in a game.
I'm here to tell you there is another key factor, something more important than skill: Intelligence.
Many of the changes that have been made to various weapons are dumb changes. Removing the spread from HAGs was SUPER DUMB which is proven by the fact that they've had to twist themselves into pretzel's with weird nerfs to bring HAGs in line. I KNOW I'm smarter than anyone who supported removing the spread from HAGs. FACT.
The one guy you and Quicksilver acknowledged was good seems to have played a decisive role in BADLY SCREWING UP both HAGs and standard LRMs. Why would I care one iota what that comp level player thinks about weapon balance going forward?
You see Void, constantly falling back on skill level is an intellectually lazy argument. It doesn't mean much considering how many questionable balance decisions have been made by these superior skilled players. The fact that you keep using it doesn't reflect well upon you. FAIL.
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
...accept influence from other people and move on with your day, and you're just not willing to do that. ...
Another incorrect assertion. I accept what other people have to say when they make a valid point and have done so many times in the past
Void Angel, on 16 June 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:
Your thesis was that:This argument has been roundly trounced - you have not successfully answered a single objection raised in opposition - so why are we all still here?
No legitimate objection was raised, just a bunch of ad hominem and glib statements about "highlight reels" and "Put the 1980s rulebook down".
Do you support the removal of spread on HAGs?
Why does the HLL do 2 more damage in MWO than TT?
Is destroying the ST of an IS XL mech causing the mech to be destroyed good for the game?
You haven't actually committed yourself to answering any concrete questions. FAIL.
Is destroying the ST of an IS XL mech causing the mech to be destroyed good for the game?
You are aware that this has been a thing with XL engines ever since their introduction and that in TT you could actually crit them out without even needing to blow off the STs?
Why? Is the game meta only driven by comp level players?
Typically yes. Who else do you think typically drives the meta? Gaussapults, Splatcats, Splaturions, Poptarts, Whales, Timbies, etc etc
Generally playing comp means experimenting and figuring out what works and what doesn't. As you figure out what works, other people start to figure it out as well and slowly but surely things trickle down. Sometimes you'll see a non-comp person adopt it around the same time and kudos to them, but I'd argue a majority of the playerbase is honestly pretty particular about what they play, if not stubborn about what they play.
MechMaster059, on 16 June 2024 - 09:18 PM, said:
You didn't say they weren't elite.
Elite and good is a pretty meaningless distinction, one is typically meant to be be better than the other but what separates elite from good? What's the bar?
By good I'm meaning have a better understanding of the game. Being good at PUGs is like being top of the trash heap. These days it means facing off against lower tier players and being able to ego duel your way to victory as fast as you can more often than not. That's not really helpful in discussion of balance. QP is always going to be a mess of just everything, it was true in MW4 and is true here.
Now I'll backtrack a little bit and give Sean at least a bit more credit and last I knew TTB was at least trying to learn to play in comp (which hey isn't a bad thing), but still.
MechMaster059, on 16 June 2024 - 09:18 PM, said:
I think a solid case could be made that they're indeed elite players and if you disagreed you could at least make an argument for why they're not, but saying they're "not that good" was a lame attempt to discredit the fact that their videos clearly show how easy it is to target and pop individual components and the impact that has on helping to create a low TTK meta and how crippling it is to have a ST popped.
Again, using QP as an example is fairly awful example, we are talking a mode where you can catch people regularly standing still, not twisting, and/or making just awful peeks. This is the part where the sheer skill disparity in QP can make more the difference than anything. I use comp as a better example because skill disparity is at least lessened so you can make better judgements on how viable certain weapons are when facing. I just don't care if Sean or TTB are popping ST in QP, it's a meaningless accomplishment and not telling of anything other than the population in QP is....rough.
Now the part I will agree is that some weapons (HAGs post-spread/pre-splash and heavy lasers) offer too much damage volume that allows for obliterating lesser players but their usefulness diminishes quickly against better players. Those are symptoms of design issues with the weapon and are the reason why feedback of lower tiers is still worthwhile.
Lights, LRMs, etc all fall within this category. However some are easier to fix than others.
Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 June 2024 - 10:32 PM.
1
Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 June 2024 - 02:44 PM, said:
