439 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Again,

Void Angel, on 29 January 2025 - 06:38 AM, said:

You're not being asked to "play like Messi," you literally already are in the street ball league! And you still cry endlessly about how you get bad matches, supposedly all the time, and it's just so terrible and humiliating... for your stubbornly bad play to have consequences.

So the straw man you spent two paragraphs babbling about doesn't even apply to this conversation - that's a deliberate distortion that you have kept on bringing back up so that you can "debunk" a fake argument. You're not good at it; it's embarrassing - it's also a form of lying. Meanwhile, what you've actually been asked to do is look at your builds and playing tactics and see what you could do better. Claiming that you must either "spend 8 hours a day learning to be pro," or else refuse to learn anything new is a false dichotomy. Again. All you're being told to do is learn new things by doing. This is the level of sapience literally possessed by a dog, and you resent being asked to use it.


As you have been told before, ad nauseum, the matchmaker very much does try to match players with the closest possible match scores. The fact that you can, very occasionally, get higher tier players in your matches doesn't change that fact. Stupid metaphors about soccer leagues doesn't change that fact. In fact, if you want to use a soccer metaphor, you should say that since there is only one place to play, Messi might have to reluctantly play with lower-level players on his team and against him. That's different than the poor street footballers being arbitrarily forced into playing with a pro because the matchmaker doesn't care.

PS: Can you cite a source for your claim that "almost" all online games somehow meet their demise from "trying to be E-Sports," by the way? No, because you made that up out of whole cloth - it's an opinion, from someone who refuses to learn anything about the game he's playing. Why should we listen to your opinion about how games you don't know how to play very well (or at all) have failed?

[pbiggz]

MrMadguy, on 29 January 2025 - 08:44 AM, said:

stuff

This is a game. You are supposed to play and become more skilled. When you become more skilled, you overcome challenges. In overcoming challenges you become more skilled.

If you don't want to become more skilled, then you're not actually interested in playing.

You continue to conflate learning how to play better with "being competitive" and continue to insinuate competitiveness is tantamount to cheating.

Neither thing is true, and you are not a victim. Everything you are doing is your choice, and everything you are experiencing is an obvious consequence of your choices.

[GargoyleVine]

CFC Conky, on 29 January 2025 - 08:39 AM, said:

Sometimes you can play well and still get a down arrow. When it happens some players act like it's a crime against humanity.

@OP,
Reading your many posts on this subject, I now firmly believe that it's impossible to make a game and/or matchmaker that you will approve of.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

GG last night brother

[LordNothing]

all players peak somewhere. at some point the cost of improving is simply too high and you would just rather play with your own kind. some bowlers join leagues, but most just want to knock down some pins.

Edited by LordNothing, 29 January 2025 - 09:22 PM.

[MrMadguy]

Void Angel, on 29 January 2025 - 08:44 AM, said:

very occasionally

Problem is - this "very occasionally" is now ">75% of time". It was tolerable for me, when it was 50/50 + lower during events. 75% isn't tolerable, sorry.

pbiggz, on 29 January 2025 - 12:33 PM, said:

This is a game. You are supposed to play and become more skilled. When you become more skilled, you overcome challenges. In overcoming challenges you become more skilled.

What you describe isn't game. It's sport. And even in sport skill can have limitations. Top players are talented. Talent - is about some random genetic factors. You can't be talented, because you want to be talented. I shouldn't be required to be talented to play each and every video game in this world. It's nonsense.

Edited by MrMadguy, 30 January 2025 - 01:45 AM.

[Void Angel]

MrMadguy, on 30 January 2025 - 01:38 AM, said:

Problem is - this "very occasionally" is now ">75% of time". It was tolerable for me, when it was 50/50 + lower during events. 75% isn't tolerable, sorry.

And can you prove this wild allegation, or did you just make that up, too? Just because one player turns in a good performance relative to their peers, it does not follow that they must somehow be Tier 1 or "pro."

PS: The greatest determinant of skill isn't "talent" that magically happens to people to make them 1337. It's practice; effort - your laziness has consequences that you cannot shuffle off onto the perfectly functional matchmaker.

[Ken Harkin]

Oh god make it stop... Every sane person here, please look at his name and then evaluate the worth of continuing the debate. Some men just want to see the world burn and on the internet they occasionally even name themselves as such.

[pbiggz]

MrMadguy, on 30 January 2025 - 01:38 AM, said:

What you describe isn't game. It's sport.

Do you even know what a ******* game is?

MrMadguy, on 30 January 2025 - 01:38 AM, said:

And even in sport skill can have limitations. Top players are talented. Talent - is about some random genetic factors.

No it's not.

MrMadguy, on 30 January 2025 - 01:38 AM, said:

You can't be talented, because you want to be talented. I shouldn't be required to be talented to play each and every video game in this world. It's nonsense.

People are talented at things because they like to do them and they spend a lot of time practicing. You are as good at mwo as you are willing to be. Every word out of your mouth has been an attempt to make your losses someone else's fault. You cant escape reality.

[Der Geisterbaer]

pbiggz, on 30 January 2025 - 04:01 PM, said:

People are talented at things because they like to do them and they spend a lot of time practicing.

His overall arguments are still not worth the attention this thread gave them particularly after he said this:

"As soon, as event is completed - I'm done with this game." on December 27th just to prove himself a liar (again) when showing up a month later.

However, there is a semantic difference between being "talented at" vs. "practised at" vs. "trained at" that often gets overlooked and even disregared (or misused like you just did) in everyday speech in English by some speakers but not necessarily by others - particularly not by non-native speakers that happen to have native language where that semantic difference is far more pronounced.
A "talented" person indeed is - in the strictest sense of the semantics involved - not "talented" because they do like an activity and therefore spend a lot of time practicing (as you tried to suggest here). A "talented" person is so because they have some form of inherent predisposition of performing the particular task easier and equally good or even better than others when investing the same (or less) time as others. Their personal likes don't even need to come into the equation.

pbiggz, on 30 January 2025 - 04:01 PM, said:

You are as good at mwo as you are willing to be.

Not entirely true either: There is an objective upper limit. Even if he tried to learn / implement what people have been telling him for years now there's a good chance he'd still not progress much beyond his current play levels. At some point one is forced to acknowledge one's personal limitations / short-commings as well as the resulting consequences and ...

pbiggz, on 30 January 2025 - 04:01 PM, said:

Every word out of your mouth has been an attempt to make your losses someone else's fault.

... that's where he actually fails and thus tries to put the blame on others (and engages in intellectually dishonest ramblings like in this thread).

pbiggz, on 30 January 2025 - 04:01 PM, said:

You cant escape reality.

Well, the reality of things and what he thinks how things ought to be create a cognitive dissonance for him and he tries to esacpe that by giving us threads like this every once in a while. So he can't escape but that doesn't stop him from trying continously to do so ... just not within the actual game.

[Void Angel]

Yeah, I'm just here to slap down his disinformation. I know he's never going to accept reality because he's not here to understand - he's here to justify himself, and has proven willing to argue endlessly (and dishonestly) toward that end.

[PelinalWhitestrake]

The playerbase is getting even smaller, players hate curbstomps on each tier because of cookie cutter one shot builds, and there is the case of MW5 and now the shitshow happening at the battletech community over 2 individuals and CGL vs the community like the "thou shal not be remembered" incident of years ago that made the eridani unviable.

[Void Angel]

"Cookie cutter one-shot builds" - by which I assume you mean "meta builds with high alpha" - aren't really the reason for what appear to be lopsided matches. That goes down to player behaviors, including bad builds. But it's also a factor of how the game works. In a game of skilled attrition, snowballing is a fact of life.

Edited by Void Angel, 03 February 2025 - 06:26 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

MrMadguy, on 30 January 2025 - 01:38 AM, said:

Problem is - this "very occasionally" is now ">75% of time". It was tolerable for me, when it was 50/50 + lower during events. 75% isn't tolerable, sorry.

Impossible, you didn’t even lose 75% of your matches the last couple months, let alone to straight up blow-outs.

[Gas Guzzler]

PelinalWhitestrake, on 02 February 2025 - 03:41 PM, said:

The playerbase is getting even smaller, players hate curbstomps on each tier because of cookie cutter one shot builds, and there is the case of MW5 and now the shitshow happening at the battletech community over 2 individuals and CGL vs the community like the "thou shal not be remembered" incident of years ago that made the eridani unviable.

It will always baffle me how competent use of the mech lab gets villainized and blamed for the game’s issues.

No clue about the individuals or events you are referring to.

[Void Angel]

Gas Guzzler, on 03 February 2025 - 06:55 AM, said:

It will always baffle me how competent use of the mech lab gets villainized and blamed for the game’s issues.

No clue about the individuals or events you are referring to.

Well, if I parsed his totally coherent rant correctly - that even refers to an entirely different game.

[Moadebe]

PelinalWhitestrake, on 02 February 2025 - 03:41 PM, said:

The playerbase is getting even smaller, players hate curbstomps on each tier because of cookie cutter one shot builds, and there is the case of MW5 and now the shitshow happening at the battletech community over 2 individuals and CGL vs the community like the "thou shal not be remembered" incident of years ago that made the eridani unviable.

What?

Like wtf was even all of that. You put like 3 topics together that only have battletech as a common thing...

[GreyNovember]

Tangentially related to the concept of a matchmaker, how well would BV balancing help in terms of at least raw hardware potential of mechs on each team?

Very, very roughly, there are bad and good builds. The exact nuances of what makes a mech good or bad can be argued endlessly, but the basic premise should be universally agreeable.

The more factors you can identify in a mech that synchronize well ( Range, cooldown, burst damage, movement speed, armor, cooling), the more the mech's worth in BV points. Invert this relationship for undesirable traits.

This would in theory, roughly distribute mech potential somewhat evenly, even if the pilots behind them can't be distributed by the nature of who is available.

Worst case scenario I'm seeing is one team can sandbag with stock urbanmechs or something, to bring more valuable mechs on their team to bear.

[BlueDevilspawn]

BV is a horrible way to balance MWO. It's a TT mechanic and nothing else.

There are 3 ways to lose in MWO,
1. In the mechlab before you even make it onto the field
2. Positioning and movement (e.g., nascar or getting stuck low ground)
3. Mechanics (e.g., reaction time and accuracy)

When you consider that the very best players often play stock (with armor redistribution) to give themselves a challenge, it's no contest. I've seen perfectly good builds get headshot because they stared at a target for too long. There are many things that make a good player and BV will not come close to reflecting it.

Additionally, making a new mechanic, adding ratings, and then inputing it to Matchmaker is going to require coding time and that is not going to happen.

[LordNothing]

way i see it there are too many mechs and not enough warriors. you can build the most meta brawler, then have a team that glues itself to the ground far outside of your optimal range, leaving your only early game options hide and wait or yolo and probibly die. the latter actually being the better option because it usually inspires others to join you.

same goes if you build a meta range boat and your team wants to nascar. you end up spending more time repositioning than trading, and those builds require a great many trades to be effective. all while getting closer to the enemy thus stripping away the range advantage.

in almost all cases you are often better in a mid range build to give you something to work with in all situations. better be slightly better than mediocre all the time than spectacular sometimes and useless other times. if players would behave as if they belong in battle rather than at some pacifists convention, then the interesting situations would materialize. but it is not the warriors way to let that interfere with their performance. perhaps play a few rounds to gauge what the other players are doing at the time, and then change up builds accordingly to dominate that situation. or just use an all rounder that can find something to do in all situations.

[GreyNovember]

BlueDevilspawn, on 03 February 2025 - 04:23 PM, said:

BV is a horrible way to balance MWO. It's a TT mechanic and nothing else.

There are 3 ways to lose in MWO,
1. In the mechlab before you even make it onto the field
2. Positioning and movement (e.g., nascar or getting stuck low ground)
3. Mechanics (e.g., reaction time and accuracy)

When you consider that the very best players often play stock (with armor redistribution) to give themselves a challenge, it's no contest. I've seen perfectly good builds get headshot because they stared at a target for too long. There are many things that make a good player and BV will not come close to reflecting it.

Additionally, making a new mechanic, adding ratings, and then inputing it to Matchmaker is going to require coding time and that is not going to happen.

So there's no merit whatsoever in an attempt to balance by what you bring to the fight?

Because unless I'm mistaken, there is some kind of tonnage balancing system that tries to keep forces even-ish.

Would this not be a greater refinement and thus a net benefit? You can't control pilot actions, but reducing variables ( in this case mechs and equipment) would create a more even footing, no?

Ignoring whether or not it would actually be implemented. I'm speaking purely in theoreticals.