Jordache, on 15 November 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:
Do you expect me to believe that a founder who purchased every advantage available really wants a fair fight? I just can't.
Yes. We want a serious challenge.
Quote
I got pug stomped all night by premade groups of founders, they bought a leg up, and they love it. Why would they buy an advantage just to nullify it by fighting other people with the same advantages?
Yes, we want every advantage we can get.
I want to talk to you about serious gameplay - not just in MWO, but in every game - from chess to Call of Duty.
Every game worth playing presents choices to the player. As a player, it is up to me to make those choices. In nearly all cases, some choices are better than others, and it is not always obvious where those choices will lead due to the unknowns.
When you play to win, you focus on making the best choices you can. If you're up against players who don't consider their own choices or the consequences thereof, you will most likely win. There are many reasons players don't play optimally, ranging from simple inexperience, a lack of studying the game, experimentation with new options they haven't seen before, or perhaps they're just playing to have fun - there's any number of legitimate reasons for non-optimal play, but whatever the reason, if you go up against someone focused on victory, then your chances of winning are diminished.
The thing is, when you play to win against people who don't, the game is less exciting because you walk all over your opponent. The chess game can effectively be over by turn 4 as the non-optimal player loses their Queen to a mistake, but continue on for another 20 turns as the rest of it plays out.
That, however, does not mean that we are going to throw away any advantage to accommodate those who don't play at our level. That does them a disservice. They need to learn that their current methods aren't working, and we won't teach them that if we don't crush those methods. Because we play to win, we take every advantage we can get, and we use it. But for exciting games, we want to play against people who do the same thing. Our optimal play vs. their optimal play. If we lose, then we'll learn something ourselves. If we win, it'll be a hard-fought, satisfying victory.
Yes, if we chose our opponents as uncoordinated pugs, that would also be an advantage - but it's the one extra advantage we don't want, specifically because it's a handicap for our opponents rather than something that we earned for ourselves through superior builds or tactics and training.
The need for challenge in games is why Chess Grandmasters do not roll into high school chess clubs every day to increase their win/loss record. Chess Grandmasters also do not intentionally play badly to give a new chess player a 'fair game' (more likely he is teaching the game along the way to improve the skills of the student). They use every trick in their book to win, but they seek out other great chess players to play matches against because they enjoy the challenge.
We stomped pugs because before this, because that was our only option from the Matchmaker (aside from arranged drops, which we did quite often). We are very much looking forward to the 8-man drops because we will enjoy the challenge it offers.
You speak as through we are bullies looking for an easy win, but nothing could be further from the truth or more of an insult to our style of gaming. We will not let you off easily, and if you are uncoordinated we will beat you, but it is because we want to be the best rather than because we want to crush others. Crushing you is simply a side effect of working towards being the best.

Once the 8-man drops start, we'll be focused on playing other good teams, and you won't have to worry so much anymore.
Edited by Comassion, 16 November 2012 - 09:35 AM.