A Hunchback without a big XL engine is basically food for a coordinated group of assaults (or even a single assault that does have a big XL engine, or another Hunchback that has one). You may be able to do well in a stock 4G, but that doesn't make it good in relation to other options, just effective against sucky PUG teams.
Obviously everyone should feel free to play whatever they enjoy, especially in random matches where there are no stakes and opposition will be minimal. If you want to actually compare 'Mechs to each other in terms of their utility in a competitive environment, though, the fact is that the game is currently trending pretty hard towards assaults as the dominant choice for anything that's going slower than 120kph, and towards XL engines on everything in most cases.
It's trending that way entirely because of the lack of any real matchmaking. People like me that aren't being a giant cheesecock are going to be laughing their asses off once these retarded all Assault teams go away because all those pilots aren't going to have a clue what to do or how to play the game. This isn't a competitive environment in the slightest and anyone treating BETA like one needs to be kicked in the dick as hard as possible.
Couldn't disagree any harder. The entire point of the beta is to test and balance the various mechs and weapon loadouts. The only valuable information towards that end is competitive games between skilled players competing. People playing the beta competitive are the ones who have discovered the problem weapons, the problem mechs, and which weapons still need a lot of work. The people playing casually LRM boating each other really bring nothing to the table when it comes to information regarding how the game is currently balanced. (Though the ideas on HOW to fix the issues from both sides are mostly terrible, regardless of the skill of the person commenting).
There is nothing immoral, cheesy, or wrong with playing the beta competitively. The point of the beta is to test the game, and that's best done by trying to break it. All of the problem builds were found by the "cheesecocks" as you so eloquently put it. PGI will release another patch, the cheesecocks will break it again, PGI will release another patch, and the cycle will continue and real balance between the mechs and weapons will gradually appear.
Finally, the cheesecocks most assuredly do know how to play. That's the reason they found those builds, and that's the reason they consistently win. When the balance layout changes so will they. There's nothing wrong with using a good build. Though I'd argue there is definitely something wrong with using a bad build and telling other people who are clueless that the build is good.
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
In terms of balancing, you can tell just as much from what builds are failing as which are succeeding.
You're suppose to break things, but that usually means testing a variety of test cases, not always running the same build as everybody else.
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
The problem with balancing some of this tech is that some items are meant to be straight upgrades. Omnimechs are better. Access to double heat sinks is an advantage. The limiting factors in the Battletech universe would have been money and access. A lance commander on some backwards shithole would be happy if he could keep his unit operational, much less with anything resembling current tech. A mercenary unit might be doing well, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to risk kitting out their mechs with fancy, hard-to-replace weapons and electronics.
I'm interested to see how they handle this. People hate losing stuff, so I can't imagine they'll implement anything like scarcity or onerous repair costs, which makes me think that it's inevitable that everyone will soon enough be running around min/maxed and the only reason to take the slow Hunchback over the Awesome would be a tonnage limit.
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
Also, are the devs at GamesCon? They might be showing a build, which usually means no new patches the week of. Unless you're Uber Entertainment, and then you accidentally slowdown all of PAX East
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
The fact that the majority think LRMs are not only good, but overpowered, is pretty convincing evidence that casual players are terrible sources of information regarding weapon balance.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I don't get the assault hate here or anywhere. Whats wrong with liking the Atlas? You get torn to shreads by little Jennars or Lunchbacks.
People don't hate assaults, they just hate the silly assault spam that's flooding the game right now. It's already way past "getting old" to have something like 80% of the players you come across sporting assaults, with another 15% being Gaussapults. It just ends up being one hell of an assload of armor to deal with with not a whole lot of variation in the loadouts, which makes things dull. Not worried about that on the PA front, though, since we've got a pretty even distribution of players across all the weight classes. I think I've come across something like 2-3 PAers that consistently play Atlas, so there won't be any issues there.
And yeah, a Jenner can be real trouble for a single Atlas, but with two, three, or four other Atlases around? Lunch meat in short order, unless they're all completely stupid and ignore you even as you drill the rear armor of the one in the back and kill the guy. Atlases aren't nearly as vulnerable to fast mechs as people think they are, the pilots of them are just generally lousy enough that they don't handle fast mechs right.
As for the patch this week, apparently it's not happening because there's a big chunk of stuff being added. The big three items noted were the addition of the River City map, salvage-based C-bill rewards, and an overhaul to the matchmaking system. Disappointed we don't get a patch this week, but I can definitely live with it if it means some major new additions next week.
0
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
... "casual" players aren't just running LRM boats. In fact, I bet most casual players have trended away from LRM boats. . . and into Atlases. Atlases who alpha strike err'day until they shutdown and then repeat ad infinitum.
though the ones still in LRM boats are still hilariously exclusively firing their salvos at me in my Jenner instead of at targets they could actually be useful against.
...This line of conversation has given me inspiration for pacifist Jenner v2.0...
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
The fact that the majority think LRMs are not only good, but overpowered, is pretty convincing evidence that casual players are terrible sources of information regarding weapon balance.
I'm just talking about basic datamining. I'm not talking about what people say. I'm talking about what people DO. The act of DOING provides useful balance information to anyone who cares to look.
ApogeeLancks In Every Game EverRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
Anyone had any luck with LBX cannons? They seem kind of useless, what with the spread damage and all. They're barely lighter than an AC/10, so you don't really gain anything by using one over the standard AC, and in fact have trouble killing anything. I've tried a quick Foudner's Hunchback with one (Shotback?) and all I can do is get people into orange armour all over before I finally eat it.
However, rolling an Atlas with dual LBX cannons is pretty hilarious. It more or less removes limbs in a single shot... provided you can get close enough to get past the massive scatter.
I don't see the point of using a LBX 10 over an AC10.
Once we get Clan weapons, I could see running a smaller LBX on a lighter chassis as a run-n-gun brawler. But right now, yeah, accuracy is so much better than spread damage.
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
The fact that the majority think LRMs are not only good, but overpowered, is pretty convincing evidence that casual players are terrible sources of information regarding weapon balance.
I can't believe this was said. I know, internet and all, but whoa.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I don't see the point of using a LBX 10 over an AC10.
When crits and ammo explosions are implemented thoroughly the LBX will definitely come into its own.
Crits or not, the LBX definitely needs that shot grouping tightened way up; the grouping should really be reflective of their optimum range, where the spread is mech-sized at the edge of that optimum range and then narrows as you get closer. Otherwise, you just have to get way, way too close for the thing to be useful; a target only has to be 100m away before the shot grouping is so wide that the damage is essentially meaningless.
I don't find the random loot system employed by ME3 appealing at all. I don't find this addicting only frustrating
PSN: Valiant_heartPC: Valiantheart99
0
ApogeeLancks In Every Game EverRegistered Userregular
The LBX fires 10 pellets, at 1 dmg apeice; the AC/10 does 10 dmg straight up. Really, it's the same gun with a spread. Pointless, if it weren't for the weight savings. Same fire rate and heat too, I think.
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
The fact that the majority think LRMs are not only good, but overpowered, is pretty convincing evidence that casual players are terrible sources of information regarding weapon balance.
I can't believe this was said. I know, internet and all, but whoa.
What, do you think someone who just likes the pretty colors of the large lasers, and the fact that they're "large," is going to give feedback that's as well-informed and valuable as someone who actually knows the damage and heat numbers involved and has bothered to do the basic math required to figure out that large lasers are currently garbage?
There's nothing wrong with being a casual player, or casuals giving feedback about stuff like look and feel or ease of use. In fact they're probably better-equipped to comment on some of those more user-experience related pieces because hardcore players are happy to look up weapon details from a hand-typed chart in a forum post and won't complain loudly enough about missing interface conveniences like that. But suggesting that someone who doesn't know the details is qualified to give useful feedback about fairly intricate mechanical systems is pretty silly. I mean when I get sick, I don't ask someone who watches House for advice, I go talk to a doctor who's actually put in some time to study the subject matter.
In previous games (particularly MW3), LBX weapons had the advantage of not requiring as steady leading as conventional AC (where, say, an AC10 would require you keep the target on mark for a half a second, but the LBX would take a fraction of that). Guess that's not much of an issue in MWO right now?
0
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
A Hunchback without a big XL engine is basically food for a coordinated group of assaults (or even a single assault that does have a big XL engine, or another Hunchback that has one). You may be able to do well in a stock 4G, but that doesn't make it good in relation to other options, just effective against sucky PUG teams.
Obviously everyone should feel free to play whatever they enjoy, especially in random matches where there are no stakes and opposition will be minimal. If you want to actually compare 'Mechs to each other in terms of their utility in a competitive environment, though, the fact is that the game is currently trending pretty hard towards assaults as the dominant choice for anything that's going slower than 120kph, and towards XL engines on everything in most cases.
It's trending that way entirely because of the lack of any real matchmaking. People like me that aren't being a giant cheesecock are going to be laughing their asses off once these retarded all Assault teams go away because all those pilots aren't going to have a clue what to do or how to play the game. This isn't a competitive environment in the slightest and anyone treating BETA like one needs to be kicked in the dick as hard as possible.
Let's see how they implement balancing before we all go "it'll be better after the post-beta rapture occurs."
kaliyama on
+1
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
The fact that the majority think LRMs are not only good, but overpowered, is pretty convincing evidence that casual players are terrible sources of information regarding weapon balance.
I can't believe this was said. I know, internet and all, but whoa.
Yes, yes, using "casuals" as a pejorative makes you a philistine. Also, outrage and indignation!
How do you figure people who have only a cursory knowledge of the game mechanics make GOOD judges of what is balanced and unbalanced?
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
The fact that the majority think LRMs are not only good, but overpowered, is pretty convincing evidence that casual players are terrible sources of information regarding weapon balance.
I can't believe this was said. I know, internet and all, but whoa.
What, do you think someone who just likes the pretty colors of the large lasers, and the fact that they're "large," is going to give feedback that's as well-informed and valuable as someone who actually knows the damage and heat numbers involved and has bothered to do the basic math required to figure out that large lasers are currently garbage?
There's nothing wrong with being a casual player, or casuals giving feedback about stuff like look and feel or ease of use. In fact they're probably better-equipped to comment on some of those more user-experience related pieces because hardcore players are happy to look up weapon details from a hand-typed chart in a forum post and won't complain loudly enough about missing interface conveniences like that. But suggesting that someone who doesn't know the details is qualified to give useful feedback about fairly intricate mechanical systems is pretty silly. I mean when I get sick, I don't ask someone who watches House for advice, I go talk to a doctor who's actually put in some time to study the subject matter.
Your metaphors for a casual gamer are so ridiculously blown out of rationality that I can't tell if you're joking.
You are doing nothing to prove your point, honestly. The fact that you think any of what you typed was true is something I can not quite wrap my head around. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not trying to avoid the debate. I am honest to god flabergasted that you compared a "casual" gamer to something who "think someone who just likes the pretty colors of the large lasers, and the fact that they're "large,"" Dude. What? That isn't a casual gamer. It never was a casual gamer. It never will be what a casual gamer is. A casual gamer is not someone who plays a game predicated on player v. player competition and is not in tune with what feels right or feels wrong when it comes to balance. Numbers matter, for sure. But that is not how balance tests are performed. They are performed on comments like "When I fire the AC/20, I feel like I am doing zero damage on a hit. Perhaps that needs to be looked at." They are not performed based on posts like "The AC/20 does 35 damage. It needs to be doing 37, due to armor ratings being in the 60's. This is because of the following formula...blah...blah...blah." In fact, the former are far (by orders of magnitude) more common and correct than the latter.
The concept you put forth, that "hardcore" gamers are the only ones able to understand balance is such an arrogant concept I...I...
Oh, and the "House" metaphor? Hey, let's avoid erecting straw-men, ok? They are such a bitch to deal with.
Unfortunately you kind of have to balance with the middle-of-the-road, average, "casual" players in mind.
The best players are always by definition a tiny minority.
Option A: You balance around the best players. 10% of your playerbase thinks the game is awesome, and 90% find it boring/frustrating/generally unenjoyable.
Option B: You balance around the average player. 90% of the playerbase have a pretty good time. Perhaps 10% of people can either completely break the game and own face OR feel they're being unjustly held back, or both.
Well, which one am I going to choose if I want lots of people to play my game and keep playing my game so I make money?
Obviously the ideal is to strike a balance where skill is rewarded and good players can play at a high level without being hamstrung, but average players still find the game accessible and can still compete enjoyably. But that's the ideal.
I remember having discussions similar to this about TF2.
Data from the small minority of elite players is useful to see how the game performs and breaks at the bleeding edge of what the players will be capable of, but balancing as if that stuff is going to be happening all the time isn't really practical.
At the end of the day, adding in voice chat to facilitate teamwork will break the game balance far more than any realistic weapons tweak or tonnage limit. There's a reason why a PA squad absolutely rolled with the Trollbacks.
Crit fishing is what made LBXs, SRMs, and LRMs worthwhile in TT. A Shame that it sounds like they do not have such properties yet.
Crit fishing is kind of a suspect mechanic since in practice a weapon that spread would also have a wider spread with a better chance to do partial damage but less of a chance of doing full damage, but that's just not how the TT works. A TT LRM-5 and an LRM-20 have the same chance to whiff completely and do no damage, and the same odds of scoring a perfect on-target volley.
Re: LBXes
In TT, you can choose between loading the shotgun ammo or slugs. I don't think any of the video games (other than MegaMek) have modeled this, but the slug mode is equal or better than a standard AC in every way. Less heat, longer range, lighter, smaller. I think later they made some fancy ammo types to give some reason for standard ACs to exist.
Unfortunately you kind of have to balance with the middle-of-the-road, average, "casual" players in mind.
The best players are always by definition a tiny minority.
Option A: You balance around the best players. 10% of your playerbase thinks the game is awesome, and 90% find it boring/frustrating/generally unenjoyable.
Option B: You balance around the average player. 90% of the playerbase have a pretty good time. Perhaps 10% of people can either completely break the game and own face OR feel they're being unjustly held back, or both.
Well, which one am I going to choose if I want lots of people to play my game and keep playing my game so I make money?
Obviously the ideal is to strike a balance where skill is rewarded and good players can play at a high level without being hamstrung, but average players still find the game accessible and can still compete enjoyably. But that's the ideal.
I remember having discussions similar to this about TF2.
Data from the small minority of elite players is useful to see how the game performs and breaks at the bleeding edge of what the players will be capable of, but balancing as if that stuff is going to be happening all the time isn't really practical.
This really isn't true. If the game is balanced for the 10% it is balanced for the 100%. There are few situations where this is not true, and those involve low skill / high reward weapons (think noob tubing in fps). Even still, the balance problems that are created by those weapons in the super casual arena are also a boon to casual players by negating the skill gap between them and the hardcore, so it's usually a wash. There are a few other exceptions, but the problems caused by balancing for the top 10% can be solved by further tweaking, and or putting in more effort into the balancing than "its not OP in top tier play, so we're done working on it".
Finally, the balance issues in this game right now are not what people think. The laser and srm are not OP, the other weapons are useless and need to be redesigned around roles in addition to numbers. There is no mid range combat right now, which created the brawler metagame. In addition to this, trying to balance the weapons before double heatsinks come out is a complete and utter waste of time, since they will completely change the landscape of every weapon.
A Hunchback without a big XL engine is basically food for a coordinated group of assaults (or even a single assault that does have a big XL engine, or another Hunchback that has one). You may be able to do well in a stock 4G, but that doesn't make it good in relation to other options, just effective against sucky PUG teams.
Obviously everyone should feel free to play whatever they enjoy, especially in random matches where there are no stakes and opposition will be minimal. If you want to actually compare 'Mechs to each other in terms of their utility in a competitive environment, though, the fact is that the game is currently trending pretty hard towards assaults as the dominant choice for anything that's going slower than 120kph, and towards XL engines on everything in most cases.
It's trending that way entirely because of the lack of any real matchmaking. People like me that aren't being a giant cheesecock are going to be laughing their asses off once these retarded all Assault teams go away because all those pilots aren't going to have a clue what to do or how to play the game. This isn't a competitive environment in the slightest and anyone treating BETA like one needs to be kicked in the dick as hard as possible.
Couldn't disagree any harder. The entire point of the beta is to test and balance the various mechs and weapon loadouts. The only valuable information towards that end is competitive games between skilled players competing. People playing the beta competitive are the ones who have discovered the problem weapons, the problem mechs, and which weapons still need a lot of work. The people playing casually LRM boating each other really bring nothing to the table when it comes to information regarding how the game is currently balanced. (Though the ideas on HOW to fix the issues from both sides are mostly terrible, regardless of the skill of the person commenting).
There is nothing immoral, cheesy, or wrong with playing the beta competitively. The point of the beta is to test the game, and that's best done by trying to break it. All of the problem builds were found by the "cheesecocks" as you so eloquently put it. PGI will release another patch, the cheesecocks will break it again, PGI will release another patch, and the cycle will continue and real balance between the mechs and weapons will gradually appear.
Finally, the cheesecocks most assuredly do know how to play. That's the reason they found those builds, and that's the reason they consistently win. When the balance layout changes so will they. There's nothing wrong with using a good build. Though I'd argue there is definitely something wrong with using a bad build and telling other people who are clueless that the build is good.
There is a massive flaw in this logic though. You see, the problem builds are being found just fine, what you're going around telling people is to keep using them because there's no reason to play anything else and that is goosery to the maximum level. You've basically found the problem, reported the problem, and are now just abusing it because your epeen demands you to be DABESS. I am definitely not a casual player by any means, but I don't touch the currently silly as shit loadouts because everyone is aware they're broken so other things need to be tested (also they're incredibly boring to play, but that's just anecdotal). People need to experiment with everything and telling them otherwise is completely counterproductive to what is supposed to be getting done. The "useless" stuff needs to played with just as much as the good stuff to check for bugs and hey, maybe that so called "useless" item turns out to have a use (i.e. the growing amount of Dragon pilots who are finding out that it's really good?)
I don't see the point of using a LBX 10 over an AC10.
Right now there kinda isn't one. Once criticals get put in stuff like the LBX and maybe even the MGs will come into their own. Right now the DRG-5N is hurting because it's got three ballistic slots and no real way to take advantage of them (I've been trying ) so I'm hoping that once crits do go in I'll be able to run something like LBX, 2MGs, SRM 6, 2MLAS and be a critting maniac.
Just because I'm not trying to "break" the game doesn't mean I'm not helping. I could load up my mech and just sit in it for 10 minutes if I wanted, and I would still be contributing, as long as I submitted bug reports based on what i saw.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
The fact that the majority think LRMs are not only good, but overpowered, is pretty convincing evidence that casual players are terrible sources of information regarding weapon balance.
I can't believe this was said. I know, internet and all, but whoa.
What, do you think someone who just likes the pretty colors of the large lasers, and the fact that they're "large," is going to give feedback that's as well-informed and valuable as someone who actually knows the damage and heat numbers involved and has bothered to do the basic math required to figure out that large lasers are currently garbage?
There's nothing wrong with being a casual player, or casuals giving feedback about stuff like look and feel or ease of use. In fact they're probably better-equipped to comment on some of those more user-experience related pieces because hardcore players are happy to look up weapon details from a hand-typed chart in a forum post and won't complain loudly enough about missing interface conveniences like that. But suggesting that someone who doesn't know the details is qualified to give useful feedback about fairly intricate mechanical systems is pretty silly. I mean when I get sick, I don't ask someone who watches House for advice, I go talk to a doctor who's actually put in some time to study the subject matter.
Your metaphors for a casual gamer are so ridiculously blown out of rationality that I can't tell if you're joking.
You are doing nothing to prove your point, honestly. The fact that you think any of what you typed was true is something I can not quite wrap my head around. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not trying to avoid the debate. I am honest to god flabergasted that you compared a "casual" gamer to something who "think someone who just likes the pretty colors of the large lasers, and the fact that they're "large,"" Dude. What? That isn't a casual gamer. It never was a casual gamer. It never will be what a casual gamer is. A casual gamer is not someone who plays a game predicated on player v. player competition and is not in tune with what feels right or feels wrong when it comes to balance. Numbers matter, for sure. But that is not how balance tests are performed. They are performed on comments like "When I fire the AC/20, I feel like I am doing zero damage on a hit. Perhaps that needs to be looked at." They are not performed based on posts like "The AC/20 does 35 damage. It needs to be doing 37, due to armor ratings being in the 60's. This is because of the following formula...blah...blah...blah." In fact, the former are far (by orders of magnitude) more common and correct than the latter.
The concept you put forth, that "hardcore" gamers are the only ones able to understand balance is such an arrogant concept I...I...
Oh, and the "House" metaphor? Hey, let's avoid erecting straw-men, ok? They are such a bitch to deal with.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because despite what you say you are in fact being incredibly rude and it doesn't seem like we're going to be able to have a productive discussion here.
A Hunchback without a big XL engine is basically food for a coordinated group of assaults (or even a single assault that does have a big XL engine, or another Hunchback that has one). You may be able to do well in a stock 4G, but that doesn't make it good in relation to other options, just effective against sucky PUG teams.
Obviously everyone should feel free to play whatever they enjoy, especially in random matches where there are no stakes and opposition will be minimal. If you want to actually compare 'Mechs to each other in terms of their utility in a competitive environment, though, the fact is that the game is currently trending pretty hard towards assaults as the dominant choice for anything that's going slower than 120kph, and towards XL engines on everything in most cases.
It's trending that way entirely because of the lack of any real matchmaking. People like me that aren't being a giant cheesecock are going to be laughing their asses off once these retarded all Assault teams go away because all those pilots aren't going to have a clue what to do or how to play the game. This isn't a competitive environment in the slightest and anyone treating BETA like one needs to be kicked in the dick as hard as possible.
Couldn't disagree any harder. The entire point of the beta is to test and balance the various mechs and weapon loadouts. The only valuable information towards that end is competitive games between skilled players competing. People playing the beta competitive are the ones who have discovered the problem weapons, the problem mechs, and which weapons still need a lot of work. The people playing casually LRM boating each other really bring nothing to the table when it comes to information regarding how the game is currently balanced. (Though the ideas on HOW to fix the issues from both sides are mostly terrible, regardless of the skill of the person commenting).
There is nothing immoral, cheesy, or wrong with playing the beta competitively. The point of the beta is to test the game, and that's best done by trying to break it. All of the problem builds were found by the "cheesecocks" as you so eloquently put it. PGI will release another patch, the cheesecocks will break it again, PGI will release another patch, and the cycle will continue and real balance between the mechs and weapons will gradually appear.
Finally, the cheesecocks most assuredly do know how to play. That's the reason they found those builds, and that's the reason they consistently win. When the balance layout changes so will they. There's nothing wrong with using a good build. Though I'd argue there is definitely something wrong with using a bad build and telling other people who are clueless that the build is good.
There is a massive flaw in this logic though. You see, the problem builds are being found just fine, what you're going around telling people is to keep using them because there's no reason to play anything else and that is goosery to the maximum level. You've basically found the problem, reported the problem, and are now just abusing it because your epeen demands you to be DABESS. I am definitely not a casual player by any means, but I don't touch the currently silly as shit loadouts because everyone is aware they're broken so other things need to be tested (also they're incredibly boring to play, but that's just anecdotal). People need to experiment with everything and telling them otherwise is completely counterproductive to what is supposed to be getting done. The "useless" stuff needs to played with just as much as the good stuff to check for bugs and hey, maybe that so called "useless" item turns out to have a use (i.e. the growing amount of Dragon pilots who are finding out that it's really good?)
This is true - testing everything is great - but there is some use in playing the heck out of FOTM builds, and that's that it makes it really obvious that there's a problem. It's one thing for the devs to see a small group of people on the forums saying "hey we think there's a problem here" and another for them to see, in-game, a glut of players using a few cookie-cutter builds outperforming everything else.
I keep using the good builds because I play competitively. I tried other builds. some are ok, i.e. the munchback. My desire to play this game competitively is not anymore a character flaw than your desire not to.
Posts
Couldn't disagree any harder. The entire point of the beta is to test and balance the various mechs and weapon loadouts. The only valuable information towards that end is competitive games between skilled players competing. People playing the beta competitive are the ones who have discovered the problem weapons, the problem mechs, and which weapons still need a lot of work. The people playing casually LRM boating each other really bring nothing to the table when it comes to information regarding how the game is currently balanced. (Though the ideas on HOW to fix the issues from both sides are mostly terrible, regardless of the skill of the person commenting).
There is nothing immoral, cheesy, or wrong with playing the beta competitively. The point of the beta is to test the game, and that's best done by trying to break it. All of the problem builds were found by the "cheesecocks" as you so eloquently put it. PGI will release another patch, the cheesecocks will break it again, PGI will release another patch, and the cycle will continue and real balance between the mechs and weapons will gradually appear.
Finally, the cheesecocks most assuredly do know how to play. That's the reason they found those builds, and that's the reason they consistently win. When the balance layout changes so will they. There's nothing wrong with using a good build. Though I'd argue there is definitely something wrong with using a bad build and telling other people who are clueless that the build is good.
I don't have a mind for "balance changes" on this scale. I can sure as hell provide player data though.
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
You're suppose to break things, but that usually means testing a variety of test cases, not always running the same build as everybody else.
I'm interested to see how they handle this. People hate losing stuff, so I can't imagine they'll implement anything like scarcity or onerous repair costs, which makes me think that it's inevitable that everyone will soon enough be running around min/maxed and the only reason to take the slow Hunchback over the Awesome would be a tonnage limit.
I didn't say non competitive players don't contribute to bugs, ui, mechlab, weapon "feel", graphics, driver issues, group systems, exp systems, mech efficiency systems, etc. They just don't contribute to mech and weapon balance in a meaningful way.
Contributing writer at Marooner's Rock
Twitch broadcasting! Currently playing through Wing Commander II
Pinny Lanyard
Their facebook says there is no patch today. So I think its safe to say there isnt one.
Contributing writer at Marooner's Rock
Twitch broadcasting! Currently playing through Wing Commander II
Pinny Lanyard
The simple act of playing the game contributes to weapon balance in a meaningful way. Unless PGI is outright ignoring data from matches. >:(
Also, are the devs at GamesCon? They might be showing a build, which usually means no new patches the week of. Unless you're Uber Entertainment, and then you accidentally slowdown all of PAX East
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
The fact that the majority think LRMs are not only good, but overpowered, is pretty convincing evidence that casual players are terrible sources of information regarding weapon balance.
People don't hate assaults, they just hate the silly assault spam that's flooding the game right now. It's already way past "getting old" to have something like 80% of the players you come across sporting assaults, with another 15% being Gaussapults. It just ends up being one hell of an assload of armor to deal with with not a whole lot of variation in the loadouts, which makes things dull. Not worried about that on the PA front, though, since we've got a pretty even distribution of players across all the weight classes. I think I've come across something like 2-3 PAers that consistently play Atlas, so there won't be any issues there.
And yeah, a Jenner can be real trouble for a single Atlas, but with two, three, or four other Atlases around? Lunch meat in short order, unless they're all completely stupid and ignore you even as you drill the rear armor of the one in the back and kill the guy. Atlases aren't nearly as vulnerable to fast mechs as people think they are, the pilots of them are just generally lousy enough that they don't handle fast mechs right.
As for the patch this week, apparently it's not happening because there's a big chunk of stuff being added. The big three items noted were the addition of the River City map, salvage-based C-bill rewards, and an overhaul to the matchmaking system. Disappointed we don't get a patch this week, but I can definitely live with it if it means some major new additions next week.
though the ones still in LRM boats are still hilariously exclusively firing their salvos at me in my Jenner instead of at targets they could actually be useful against.
...This line of conversation has given me inspiration for pacifist Jenner v2.0...
I'm just talking about basic datamining. I'm not talking about what people say. I'm talking about what people DO. The act of DOING provides useful balance information to anyone who cares to look.
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
However, rolling an Atlas with dual LBX cannons is pretty hilarious. It more or less removes limbs in a single shot... provided you can get close enough to get past the massive scatter.
If I understand it, the AC10 is good at range, but the LBX is like a shotgun up close.
That is to say, devastating.
Once we get Clan weapons, I could see running a smaller LBX on a lighter chassis as a run-n-gun brawler. But right now, yeah, accuracy is so much better than spread damage.
When crits and ammo explosions are implemented thoroughly the LBX will definitely come into its own.
I can't believe this was said. I know, internet and all, but whoa.
Crits or not, the LBX definitely needs that shot grouping tightened way up; the grouping should really be reflective of their optimum range, where the spread is mech-sized at the edge of that optimum range and then narrows as you get closer. Otherwise, you just have to get way, way too close for the thing to be useful; a target only has to be 100m away before the shot grouping is so wide that the damage is essentially meaningless.
penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/between-the-stacs-how-mechwarrior-tactics-will-monetize-free-to-play-mech-c
I don't find the random loot system employed by ME3 appealing at all. I don't find this addicting only frustrating
What, do you think someone who just likes the pretty colors of the large lasers, and the fact that they're "large," is going to give feedback that's as well-informed and valuable as someone who actually knows the damage and heat numbers involved and has bothered to do the basic math required to figure out that large lasers are currently garbage?
There's nothing wrong with being a casual player, or casuals giving feedback about stuff like look and feel or ease of use. In fact they're probably better-equipped to comment on some of those more user-experience related pieces because hardcore players are happy to look up weapon details from a hand-typed chart in a forum post and won't complain loudly enough about missing interface conveniences like that. But suggesting that someone who doesn't know the details is qualified to give useful feedback about fairly intricate mechanical systems is pretty silly. I mean when I get sick, I don't ask someone who watches House for advice, I go talk to a doctor who's actually put in some time to study the subject matter.
Thread for Mechwarrior Tactics: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/160662/mechwarrior-tactics-register-on-website-again-for-beta#latest
Random loot is fine. Paying for a random chance isn't, in my opinion.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Still waiting on Dan "Man of his Word" Ryckert to eat a hat
Let's see how they implement balancing before we all go "it'll be better after the post-beta rapture occurs."
Yes, yes, using "casuals" as a pejorative makes you a philistine. Also, outrage and indignation!
How do you figure people who have only a cursory knowledge of the game mechanics make GOOD judges of what is balanced and unbalanced?
Your metaphors for a casual gamer are so ridiculously blown out of rationality that I can't tell if you're joking.
You are doing nothing to prove your point, honestly. The fact that you think any of what you typed was true is something I can not quite wrap my head around. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not trying to avoid the debate. I am honest to god flabergasted that you compared a "casual" gamer to something who "think someone who just likes the pretty colors of the large lasers, and the fact that they're "large,"" Dude. What? That isn't a casual gamer. It never was a casual gamer. It never will be what a casual gamer is. A casual gamer is not someone who plays a game predicated on player v. player competition and is not in tune with what feels right or feels wrong when it comes to balance. Numbers matter, for sure. But that is not how balance tests are performed. They are performed on comments like "When I fire the AC/20, I feel like I am doing zero damage on a hit. Perhaps that needs to be looked at." They are not performed based on posts like "The AC/20 does 35 damage. It needs to be doing 37, due to armor ratings being in the 60's. This is because of the following formula...blah...blah...blah." In fact, the former are far (by orders of magnitude) more common and correct than the latter.
The concept you put forth, that "hardcore" gamers are the only ones able to understand balance is such an arrogant concept I...I...
Oh, and the "House" metaphor? Hey, let's avoid erecting straw-men, ok? They are such a bitch to deal with.
The best players are always by definition a tiny minority.
Option A: You balance around the best players. 10% of your playerbase thinks the game is awesome, and 90% find it boring/frustrating/generally unenjoyable.
Option B: You balance around the average player. 90% of the playerbase have a pretty good time. Perhaps 10% of people can either completely break the game and own face OR feel they're being unjustly held back, or both.
Well, which one am I going to choose if I want lots of people to play my game and keep playing my game so I make money?
Obviously the ideal is to strike a balance where skill is rewarded and good players can play at a high level without being hamstrung, but average players still find the game accessible and can still compete enjoyably. But that's the ideal.
I remember having discussions similar to this about TF2.
Data from the small minority of elite players is useful to see how the game performs and breaks at the bleeding edge of what the players will be capable of, but balancing as if that stuff is going to be happening all the time isn't really practical.
Crit fishing is kind of a suspect mechanic since in practice a weapon that spread would also have a wider spread with a better chance to do partial damage but less of a chance of doing full damage, but that's just not how the TT works. A TT LRM-5 and an LRM-20 have the same chance to whiff completely and do no damage, and the same odds of scoring a perfect on-target volley.
Re: LBXes
In TT, you can choose between loading the shotgun ammo or slugs. I don't think any of the video games (other than MegaMek) have modeled this, but the slug mode is equal or better than a standard AC in every way. Less heat, longer range, lighter, smaller. I think later they made some fancy ammo types to give some reason for standard ACs to exist.
This really isn't true. If the game is balanced for the 10% it is balanced for the 100%. There are few situations where this is not true, and those involve low skill / high reward weapons (think noob tubing in fps). Even still, the balance problems that are created by those weapons in the super casual arena are also a boon to casual players by negating the skill gap between them and the hardcore, so it's usually a wash. There are a few other exceptions, but the problems caused by balancing for the top 10% can be solved by further tweaking, and or putting in more effort into the balancing than "its not OP in top tier play, so we're done working on it".
Finally, the balance issues in this game right now are not what people think. The laser and srm are not OP, the other weapons are useless and need to be redesigned around roles in addition to numbers. There is no mid range combat right now, which created the brawler metagame. In addition to this, trying to balance the weapons before double heatsinks come out is a complete and utter waste of time, since they will completely change the landscape of every weapon.
There is a massive flaw in this logic though. You see, the problem builds are being found just fine, what you're going around telling people is to keep using them because there's no reason to play anything else and that is goosery to the maximum level. You've basically found the problem, reported the problem, and are now just abusing it because your epeen demands you to be DABESS. I am definitely not a casual player by any means, but I don't touch the currently silly as shit loadouts because everyone is aware they're broken so other things need to be tested (also they're incredibly boring to play, but that's just anecdotal). People need to experiment with everything and telling them otherwise is completely counterproductive to what is supposed to be getting done. The "useless" stuff needs to played with just as much as the good stuff to check for bugs and hey, maybe that so called "useless" item turns out to have a use (i.e. the growing amount of Dragon pilots who are finding out that it's really good?)
Right now there kinda isn't one. Once criticals get put in stuff like the LBX and maybe even the MGs will come into their own. Right now the DRG-5N is hurting because it's got three ballistic slots and no real way to take advantage of them (I've been trying
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because despite what you say you are in fact being incredibly rude and it doesn't seem like we're going to be able to have a productive discussion here.
This is true - testing everything is great - but there is some use in playing the heck out of FOTM builds, and that's that it makes it really obvious that there's a problem. It's one thing for the devs to see a small group of people on the forums saying "hey we think there's a problem here" and another for them to see, in-game, a glut of players using a few cookie-cutter builds outperforming everything else.