145 replies to this topic

[Hood]

Wispsy, on 18 November 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Really people should be judged on their deaths/gamesplayed ratio imo. Dying is bad. You have no idea what a good Jenner does if you think they are at their best scouting. That is but a tiny portion of what they should be doing.

lol I think you missed my point.. Yes Jenners can be used for other things, a smart jenner pilot knows what mechs to attack and when to attack them. My point is they are much easier to kill than someone in an Atlas. Epically if they do not work with a team..

I'm not sure how you use your Jenners in your lances but most of the ones I am in the Jenners first priority is scouting. After that situational awareness kicks in.

Can a Jenner be a killer? Sure, you get in close to an assault or heavy and get the circle of death going you can be deadly. But that's part of situational awareness..

[Quxudica]

SamizdatCowboy, on 18 November 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

... This IS a video game

Yes, but it's also supposed to be an immersive sim experience. Some game mechanics that are very "gamey" (for lack of a better term) cannot be avoided. These include things like launchers, in game tab score screen, base capture bar etc - other things can easily be done in a way that fits with the theme. When CW launches (if mwo lasts that long), houses could be able to post their combat results in a news-feed style presentation that doesn't just come off as a video game "leader board" with possible special attention given to the best of the best from each house or corps. This would be far less intrusive and just in general a more awesome idea then a relatively meaningless personal leader board in a game where half of what you should be doing is not actually quantifiable.

Further, having a personal stat centered leader board in beta is even more pointless, as everything is constantly changing as the game is being worked on.

[moneyBURNER]

The XP system is flawed for rewarding selfish behaviour. Some obvious problems are:

- spotting XP that encourages cycling through targets to maximize the number of assists rather than holding one target for LRM support. Spotters should be rewarded for maintaining a lock for indirect LRMs with a few XP points for each salvo that hits, which would also allow frontline brawlers to share in the benefit they provide to those in supporting roles.

- kill XP that is too high, encouraging various selfish tactics to get the final shot. I think it should be done away with altogether because many kill shots are just fortunate kill assist shots. That 50XP should be added to the pool for assists. On the other hand, headshot kills should be rewarded with a bonus 50XP.

- the lack of XP for cap defense. RIght now, there isn't a points-based incentive for a player to potentially sacrifice themself for the good of the team, or travel some distance back to the base without being able to do damage and rack up XP in that time. There should be a duration-based bonus per enemy capper for stopping the timer, a small one-time bonus for damaging a capper, and a bonus for killing a capper. This should make PUGers more interested in heading back to base instead of hoping someone else will go.

[Ricama]

Ritter Cuda, on 18 November 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

every thing you post come across as the GLORY OF ONE. nothing you look for permote team play. MY K?D ratio sucks I play a suport role . I get a peace of every mech in a good game but seldom get the kill shot. here is what I have seen with public stat .
1) greifing... hay your stat suck leave
2) disco before death
3) waiting to only take a kill shot
4) hey! you stole my kill!!

none of this is team play on the other hand I have never seen a player improve because of public stats

You forgot the wonderful gem that caused me to leave WoT once and for all
5) my stat analyzer says we're all going to die horrible so I'm outa here.

[Kousagi]

Honestly they need to add a system more like WoT for stat tracking. The way they have it setup is pretty good, and by looking at the stats of another player you can get a good feel of how well or bad they play and their general style of play. Since one stat in and of itself is never going to paint a clear picture if it even paints one to start with.

Stats are not bad in this style of game, but they have to be done right, and Lots of stats have to be tracked. Otherwise you do get in to the stat ho-ing mentality for people. Plus, any good players don't really care too much about their stats.

[Wispsy]

hood, on 18 November 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

lol I think you missed my point.. Yes Jenners can be used for other things, a smart jenner pilot knows what mechs to attack and when to attack them. My point is they are much easier to kill than someone in an Atlas. Epically if they do not work with a team.. I'm not sure how you use your Jenners in your lances but most of the ones I am in the Jenners first priority is scouting. After that situational awareness kicks in. Can a Jenner be a killer? Sure, you get in close to an assault or heavy and get the circle of death going you can be deadly. But that's part of situational awareness..

Mainly I was just being pedantic as many Atlas pilots appear to think all Jenners are meant to do is find targets for them to kill and run off to find more or cap.
That being said scouting is a very small part atm, the maps are not big and many people have a tendancy to not get too far apart from too many people. Hell loads even defend. If you run up the middle and poke your head out for a quick moving glance you can get a good estimate of where their entire force is. As you have the speed to reach your base from their base in less time then it takes 2 people to cap there is very little to worry about unless you completely lose track of a large group for an extended (minute or two at least) period of time. The rest of your time is spent harassing, distracting the enemy, protecting base, dealing with enemy lights, as well as taking out lone or paired mechs that have wandered too far and finishing those severely damaged mechs that managed to retreat to their team just in time. If you have a Jenner spending most of their time running back and forth between groups just keeping an eye on them they are being wasted.

[Obadiah333]

Question to all the players who want everyone's stats readily viewable: What do you intend to do with that information? My guess is that like most of the posters so far who are pro-stat, they want to see who the good players are. Why would you want to know that? Oh, to exclude the players who don't have stats "good enough for you" or who you deem are "bad players."

Nope, Like I posted much earlier, public stats will ruin this game. It's been observed in multiple other games, why would anyone think this game would be any different?

[Kaijin]

One Medic Army, on 18 November 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

K:D ratio is meaningless in this game.

I'm playing to win - not to pad my K:D ratio. If winning means me taking one for the team while they're capping the enemy base, I'm okay with that.

[SamizdatCowboy]

Obadiah333, on 18 November 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Question to all the players who want everyone's stats readily viewable: What do you intend to do with that information? My guess is that like most of the posters so far who are pro-stat, they want to see who the good players are. Why would you want to know that? Oh, to exclude the players who don't have stats "good enough for you" or who you deem are "bad players."

Nope, Like I posted much earlier, public stats will ruin this game. It's been observed in multiple other games, why would anyone think this game would be any different?

'excluding' players has zero reason to do with why I want public stats. I want ladders, leaderboards, and public stats because I'm competitive and I want to compete for a top ranking.

[Captain Midnight]

If you're a horrible player you should either get better or develop a thick enough skin not to care. If the only reason you play this game is because you've deluded yourself into thinking you are good I don't really feel the need to cater to you.

I frequently see people who contribute nothing getting carried in teamspeak groups (even in fourmans), it was REALLY bad before in the 8 mans. You'd see people with the WORST builds who did less than 200 damage in an assault talking about how fun and versatile their builds were and etc. Only a really bad player thinks kills or damage don't matter in a game where the ONLY way to win is to kill and inflict damage. There is literally nothing else that matters besides kills and damage. I would trade any amount of "scouting" information for 400 damage on the leaderboard and I don't feel bad at all saying that.

Which is not to say I want to push those people away from the game, I just want to push those people into a special bracket where horrible players face other horrible players (AKA an elo system). I saw a lot of people talking about WoW being elitist based on damage numbers, and you know why that is? Because bosses have an enrage timer and raids have a maximum size. Just because a great raid group could carry 1-2 worthless players doesn't mean they should. If everyone else in the raid does 25,000 DPS and you only do 17,000 DPS you really think you are equally qualified compared to those other plainly superior players? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a meritocracy and it's disturbing to see people that think that being worthless is okay as long as no one can really tell, because they KNOW that they are so worthless no one would play with them if they knew that up front.

ED: Don't be afraid of being bad, be afraid of never being good. Lying to yourself and convincing yourself that a 134 damage Raven contributed *ANYTHING* to his team is not how you get good. Hopping in a 600 damage Jenner is. Face facts, get good, and if you aren't willing to do that then accept your leaderboard stats will reflect the truth, and that matchmaking should not force a 600 damage jenner to try carry your 134 damage raven to a win.

Edited by Captain Midnight, 18 November 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Ritter Cuda, on 18 November 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

this is forums.

This.
Is.
MECHWARRIOR!

Captain Midnight, on 18 November 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

If you're a horrible player you should either get better or develop a think enough skin not to care. If the only reason you play this game is because you've deluded yourself into thinking you are good I don't really feel the need to cater to you.

I frequently see people who contribute nothing getting carried in teamspeak groups (even in fourmans), it was REALLY bad before in the 8 mans. You'd see people with the WORST builds who did less than 200 damage in an assault talking about how fun and versatile their builds were and etc. Only a really bad player thinks kills or damage don't matter in a game where the ONLY way to win is to kill and inflict damage. There is literally nothing else that matters besides kills and damage. I would trade any amount of "scouting" information for 400 damage on the leaderboard and I don't feel bad at all saying that.

Which is not to say I want to push those people away from the game, I just want to push those people into a special bracket where horrible players face other horrible players (AKA an elo system). I saw a lot of people talking about WoW being elitist based on damage numbers, and you know why that is? Because bosses have an enrage timer and raids have a maximum size. Just because a great raid group could carry 1-2 worthless players doesn't mean they should. If everyone else in the raid does 25,000 DPS and you only do 17,000 DPS you really think you are equally qualified compared to those other plainly superior players? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a meritocracy and it's disturbing to see people that think that being worthless is okay as long as no one can really tell, because they KNOW that they are so worthless no one would play with them if they knew that up front.

This. All of this.

[Vassago Rain]

Obadiah333, on 18 November 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Question to all the players who want everyone's stats readily viewable: What do you intend to do with that information? My guess is that like most of the posters so far who are pro-stat, they want to see who the good players are. Why would you want to know that? Oh, to exclude the players who don't have stats "good enough for you" or who you deem are "bad players."

Nope, Like I posted much earlier, public stats will ruin this game. It's been observed in multiple other games, why would anyone think this game would be any different?

I come from a time when we'd grade each other, and you'd not see a good P90 assaulter hanging out with babbys. It may seem strange to you, but back before the world became politically correct, it was okay to admit you had limits, and that some people where better or worse than you.

If there were stats on display, I'd go team up with people on my level, so I could fight others on my level, and thus not have to carry useless guys in trialmechs, OR have to be carried by people much, much better than me.

[SamizdatCowboy]

Captain Midnight, on 18 November 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Which is not to say I want to push those people away from the game, I just want to push those people into a special bracket where horrible players face other horrible players (AKA an elo system).

Fortunately this kind of 'skill bucket' based matching will be part of the revamped matchmaking system

[Streeter]

I used to kind of care about my stats, but after countless client crashes that left my mech in game to be killed and logged as a death, or being stuck in terrain and shot with out being able to move... bleh stats dont mean anything at all.

The game is buggy enough so that if people care about stats they need to be reset once they iron out all the problems cause at the moment its pretty much meaningless.

[Obadiah333]

Vassago Rain, on 18 November 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

I come from a time when we'd grade each other, and you'd not see a good P90 assaulter hanging out with babbys. It may seem strange to you, but back before the world became politically correct, it was okay to admit you had limits, and that some people where better or worse than you.

If there were stats on display, I'd go team up with people on my level, so I could fight others on my level, and thus not have to carry useless guys in trialmechs, OR have to be carried by people much, much better than me.

I believe you've mistaken me with someone who is not good at this game and is complaining that I can't hang with the big boys. Not true. My point in response to the original post was that the elitist players will not "inspire" other players to become better so that they can play with them, they will drive them away. I know and understand that some people are competitive and games like this have elements to them that invite that kind of play and expectation. However, I think that there is a large group of players out there that want to play this game to have fun. What's that you say? Play a game to have fun?! PREPOSTEROUS! Be the best or get out! Yep, I can see the writing on the wall. It's too bad that the competitive people can't, or won't. They will drive away the regular players in droves, until MWO is bereft of all but the elitists vs elitists.

The simple fix is not to make everyone's stats available for the public to view (and hence judge). Only make ladder/competitive stats available for public viewing, that way those who want to participate in those levels of play know what they are getting into and can thrive in their own environment with out intentionaly or unintentionaly scaring off the regular players. Nothing wrong with healthy competition for those that want it, just don't use stats of regular guys to judge them and exclude them from playing the game.

[Kronos907]

when they do compile stats i hope they take into consideration weather or not you are pugging or in a group, they should have different rankings for both, because there is no way you will be able to put up as good a stat as a pure pugger compared to someone who plays solely in premades.

[Blark]

First off: I love stats.

However, using stats to create an accurate rating of skill is not as easy as some seem to think: the problem lies in the fact to you have to be able to interpret stats correctly and see them in context.. most people don't seem to be able to. i.e. k/d, w/l has little meaning without knowing the circumstances.
xp per game is better, but far from perfect in it's current sate.. but I'm confident that pgi will figure it out.

[Captain Midnight]

Blark, on 18 November 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

First off: I love stats.

However, using stats to create an accurate rating of skill is not as easy as some seem to think: the problem lies in the fact to you have to be able to interpret stats correctly and see them in context.. most people don't seem to be able to. i.e. k/d, w/l has little meaning without knowing the circumstances.
xp per game is better, but far from perfect in it's current sate.. but I'm confident that pgi will figure it out.

W/L is a valuable stat regardless of context. As is average damage, average damage taken, average damage based on component (if you deal 60% damage to torso center, 30% damage to right arm, 10% spread among the rest, you are a totally elite mechwarrior).

How about we let players interrperet the data themselves instead of "protecting" them from confusing statistics? I think the playerbase can handle it.

[Streeter]

Captain Midnight, on 18 November 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

W/L is a valuable stat regardless of context. As is average damage, average damage taken, average damage based on component (if you deal 60% damage to torso center, 30% damage to right arm, 10% spread among the rest, you are a totally elite mechwarrior).

How about we let players interrperet the data themselves instead of "protecting" them from confusing statistics? I think the playerbase can handle it.

dont know if I agree with this, if I get T/Kd from the start from a random PUG and the team goes on to get stomped that is a loss against me and shows my skill? ummm ok.

[Blark]

Captain Midnight, on 18 November 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

W/L is a valuable stat regardless of context.[..]

Well, I disagree:

There is no matchmaking, so if you play solo or in a little group a huge component of who will win is up to luck.
For instance, say you play in a 4 man group, but the other group gets two 4 men groups and you get 4 new players in trial mechs on your side, you might loose even if you are exceptionally good.
Same goes for pure random groups or pure premade vs. random (before phase1).

Now with phase2 w/l will become more interesting in the 8v8 bracket, but even then it won't be really representative without mm (depending on the size of the player pool in the bracket of course).