35 replies to this topic

[NBShoot_me]

DarkPulse, on December 02 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

NBShoot_me, on December 01 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Then maybe the DEVs could have Hawken run the K:D ratio (or some sort effectiveness metric) in the background and pair people up with others in the same "skill" bracket for MM induced games.  When using the server browser once it is added back in, I'd leave the choice entirely up to the player.

EDIT: but yes, you see a bunch of high lvl mechs against a bunch of 0 to low lvl mechs, they generally do chew through them with ease.

No, because pilot skill will mean that a L0 pilot who is good will stomp a L20 who is average. The L20s have boosts, but hardly huge ones (in fact, most feel it's insignificant for the most part compared to CB2 and earlier).

Also, K/D is a horrible metric to judge by. There are good players out there who aren't K/D Beasts (not to be confused with KGBeast) and it gives a disproportionate advantage solely on killing power. Better metrics would be XP/Minute, Mech Mastery scores, and so on.

I keep re-writing this paragraph, every time, I just feel like it’s a little too close to flaming.. I guess this will have to do: Take a look at what I put in the parenthesis, now put that into context with my post, now look at my reply to Akrium.  Am I going to have to re-re-explain this again_  If so, I’ll settle for agreeing to disagree with you, because you and I aren’t even remotely on the same page here.

In fact, I’m going to delete everything else I’ve written and stop here.

[NBShoot_me]

AsianJoyKiller, on December 02 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

ReachH, on December 01 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

But if your nerd says the difference is only 2 mph, well I guess that's a lot then.

After checking the optimizations, the best increase you can manage is about 2 meters per second faster, which works out to just about 6.5 feet per second faster.
6.5 feet per second = 4.4 miles per hour.

That's appreciable when your walking at 3 mph and a jogger passes your at 8 mph.
But with the walking speed on the mechs being faster than a human could even run, and their large scale, that 4.4 mph makes little difference.

So, does this shed some light on another problem Hawken has, and that being that optimizations need to be revisited and possibly made more relevant_

[AsianJoyKiller]

NBShoot_me, on December 02 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on December 02 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

ReachH, on December 01 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

But if your nerd says the difference is only 2 mph, well I guess that's a lot then.

After checking the optimizations, the best increase you can manage is about 2 meters per second faster, which works out to just about 6.5 feet per second faster.
6.5 feet per second = 4.4 miles per hour.

That's appreciable when your walking at 3 mph and a jogger passes your at 8 mph.
But with the walking speed on the mechs being faster than a human could even run, and their large scale, that 4.4 mph makes little difference.

So, does this shed some light on another problem Hawken has, and that being that optimizations need to be revisited and possibly made more relevant_

Actually, they are reworking the Optimizations (they've said so, and I know the post exists, I just don't want to dig for it.), which is part of the reason they were nerfed into the ground.
It's likely that until they get the reworked trees up and running, they didn't want to have people running around in fairly superior mechs, so they decided to just adjust the numbers to give optimizations only the slightest of edges.

[NBShoot_me]

AsianJoyKiller, on December 03 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

NBShoot_me, on December 02 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on December 02 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

ReachH, on December 01 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

But if your nerd says the difference is only 2 mph, well I guess that's a lot then.

After checking the optimizations, the best increase you can manage is about 2 meters per second faster, which works out to just about 6.5 feet per second faster.
6.5 feet per second = 4.4 miles per hour.

That's appreciable when your walking at 3 mph and a jogger passes your at 8 mph.
But with the walking speed on the mechs being faster than a human could even run, and their large scale, that 4.4 mph makes little difference.

So, does this shed some light on another problem Hawken has, and that being that optimizations need to be revisited and possibly made more relevant_

Actually, they are reworking the Optimizations (they've said so, and I know the post exists, I just don't want to dig for it.), which is part of the reason they were nerfed into the ground.
It's likely that until they get the reworked trees up and running, they didn't want to have people running around in fairly superior mechs, so they decided to just adjust the numbers to give optimizations only the slightest of edges.

Don't worry about it, I'll take your word on it.

While I hope lvl 20 mechs don't become invincible, it'd be nice to see some reward for the effort needed to reach a higher level.  Which this could possibly mean that the whole “LVL doesn’t matter” argument might change.. ever so slightly.. in the future.

[Akrium]

A lot of us are just hoping for cosmetic upgrades for hitting the higher levels.. not ability upgrades.

[defekt]

Akrium, on December 03 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

A lot of us are just hoping for cosmetic upgrades for hitting the higher levels.. not ability upgrades.

Additional utility options coupled with top level cosmetics is what I’m hoping will result; no additional resources, just the option to reallocate what you start with as a proportional function of mech level.

I’m also not naïve enough to think that a system such as that will work straight off the bat; there will be anomalies and it will require fine tuning.  It's a shame that there isn't another closed beta event to test this new stuff (whatever shape it arrives in) as these events are more tolerant to big changes than an Open Beta will be, particularly if stats aren't reset at the end of the open test.

[Frenotx]

Tie available optimization points to player, instead of mech level. Matchmake players of similar level together, with a modifier based on average XP per game.

[Spawny]

Frenotx, on December 03 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

Tie available optimization points to player, instead of mech level. Matchmake players of similar level together, with a modifier based on average XP per game.

I agree.

I always thought is was a bit odd the mech gained levels and not the pilot. I'm pilot the thing, I get better at piloting it, why isn't my pilot leveling up_

[Karaipantsu]

But then the player with 5 lvl 10 mechs will always get matched with the people with 2 level 20's.  Alternatively, people with ONLY a lvl 20 mech would get matched lower than they should.

If you want a serious indicator of skill, just use overall kill-death ratio.  Players with a higher KDR are clearly more skilled than players (like me) with a KDR closer to 1.0.

Also, you do "level".  There's a stat called Mech Proficency, or something like that, in your player profile, that rises as your stats with your mechs rise.

[NBShoot_me]

Spawny, on December 03 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Frenotx, on December 03 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

Tie available optimization points to player, instead of mech level. Matchmake players of similar level together, with a modifier based on average XP per game.

I agree.

I always thought is was a bit odd the mech gained levels and not the pilot. I'm pilot the thing, I get better at piloting it, why isn't my pilot leveling up_

With the ability to change your mech mid-game from the staging area, tracking the pilot is just about the only way to really keep track of who knows what their doing VS who doesn't...

[Frenotx]

Karaipantsu, on December 03 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

But then the player with 5 lvl 10 mechs will always get matched with the people with 2 level 20's.  Alternatively, people with ONLY a lvl 20 mech would get matched lower than they should.

The nice thing about tying optimization points to pilot level instead of mech level is that this wouldn't matter. If I have 3 level 10 mechs and you have 1 level 20 mech. For the sake of conversation, this puts us at the same pilot level. The level 20 mech doesn't have an advantage over the 3 level 10 mechs, because both pilots have access to the same number of optimization points for all of their mechs. Ideally, a level 20 mech would just have access to more sidegrades.

Really, in this scenario, the 3 level 10 mechs probably have a slight advantage. With 3 mechs at the pilot's disposal, they've got a higher chance at having the right mech for whatever scanario.

[virella]

you k/d ratio can depend heavily on type of matches you play as well as the class of mech you are playing in them,went 2 and 20 in a missile assualt the other day in an A-class mech that we won the match but lost in kills by 30, they were using alot of rocketeers and we had alot of a-class, bazaar wide open on side points one shot with 5 rocketeers hellfires hitting at about the same time ended with lots of deaths, couldnt take them head on but we could easily out capture them on the points since we could out maneuver them in our a-class, it really hurt our k/d ratios but we got more xp from all the captures and won the match. though you wouldnt beleive how many times we got them to chase one really hurting mech way out of position. if the only modes were deathmatch and team deathmatch k/d ratio would be usable but once you add objective modes in it starts being more about win/lose ratio in those matches than k/d ratio.

Mech level should just be hidden in the first place, atleast with the current optimizations, my lvl 5 rocketeer in most cases out performs my lvl 20 berserker, not always but most of the time. added up the percentage of optimizations and internals and could only get a single point of increased damage, and only then after it rounds up, for either of the primary weapons for the berserker at lvl 20, didnt do the math for the unlockable weapon. though in the time it took me to get to lvl 20 i've gotten very good at placing tow missiles,

Though tracking pilot doesn't solve the issue either with anyone thats playing alot but not very good could easily end up with exaggerated scores especially if it was just straight xp earned and nothing else, best thing to use would probably be a percentage of all good stats, a percentage of all bad stats removing from the total of the good stats and that being their rating, im assuming this is probably what the mech mastery rating is as it doesn't always go up when a mech levels. Im assuming that mech mastery if derived this way is what they use for the matchmaking system, since there is a low ammount of players on the server they probably had to widen the tolerances of the MM system to ensure matches could be played. though if the ever released exactly how they derive this rating and it was something similar to what ive posted it would be easy to manipulate to lower your rating to get easier opponents.

Im for keeping the optimization points tied to the mech, as its more of your pilots knowledge of where they can squeeze more out of that particular mech than general pilot knowledge.

Though with the current low values of optimizations they are putting a slight bonus to heavy mechs over light mechs since they can actaully get a bonus out of the trees almost immediately but its only a point or two more damage, nothing game breaking since it generally goes to whoever gets the first shot if neither runs, or who dodges better if ones in a smaller mech.

In a-class vs a-class who ever dodges better will most likely win unless terrain ends up playing a factor and one hits the terrain while dodging and doesn't get out of the way, or gets suprised by the weaker dodger, in two c-class mechs it usually goes to who ever gets the first shot off. from what ive heard most people in a-class mechs use the mobility tree since the other two give almost nothing to them, and c-class mechs use either offensive or defensive tree depending on preference as they rarely end up running away since they either would get caught by a lighter mech or have won and are chasing the opponent down.

Edited by virella, December 03 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[FluxX]

If the Dev team/Meteor wish to give me a full garage of level 0 mechs, permanently stuck at level 0, I'll prove this true/false for you all!
I'll take on the level 20 mechs, and see who wins.

[ReachH]

If you don't have the stomach for all the mindless wall-o-texts in this topic, I highly recommend you at least skip to the end of mine.

Storytime

I actually started playing my 0-Assault because people kept complaining and leaving games if I used my 20-SS. My score didn't change much, kills stayed stagnant (better damage offset by closer range) and so did my deaths (closer to the action, but faaar better survive-ability and more dangerous up close)[okay I'll admit, it dropped slightly - the assault is overall a better, more survivable class atm]. So even though the assault is unbound by all these damage and movement nerfs, the practical reality of k/d score didn't change much because I played each class as it should be played.

I was beating 20-scouts (mostly due to assault being a natural soft-counter, mind you) in my lvl 0 assault soundly, both in score and in person. Harder to take out a conservative infiltrator than in a SS due to range advantages, but still easy up close. I thought I would have a hard time vs rocketeers to compensate switching to assault, but this was not the case at all.

Then within one sunday I was lvl 17 :/ Can't be bothered for the 17-18-19-20 grind, not even for the vulcan. CB2 is pretty much done and dusted for me, I've played SS, Infiltrator and Assault 0-somewhere around 20. Maybe its that playing SS first teaches you to be a good player because it is so much more punishing on all kinds of mistakes than other classes. My Infiltrator is lvl 10 and I still haven't figured out how to use it to full effect. I get sub-par k/d with it even though its supposed to be the best, but most importantly I don't blame levels or mech balance. There are people who can step into a 0-infiltrator and wipe the floor with everyone.

The key point

Anyway the point is, I can assure you that level has very little impact on your performance.Even a small thing like glancing at your radar - even in the middle of the most heated, scrappy 1v1 - to ensure best positioning and that you don't get sandwiched, will have an astronomical affect on your score compared with going from 0-20.

If you are far from the score leaders, it is not because of level - but because they are making less mistakes. More importantly however, it is because they are consistently converting more opportunities into kills, in a safer, more efficient way.

When people say L2P, it is not the same as calling you a noob, it is saying, 'there is a reason why you lost based on how you play, and there's a way forward, stop being a little btch'. But yes, basically everyone agreeing with the OP is a plain-as-day, turboscrub noobtard - it is actually the undeniable and incontestable truth.

TLDR:

This is not mechwarrior. This is not a RPG-FPS hybrid. Learn to fvcking play.

FluxX, on December 04 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

If the Dev team/Meteor wish to give me a full garage of level 0 mechs, permanently stuck at level 0, I'll prove this true/false for you all!
I'll take on the level 20 mechs, and see who wins.

^Agree wholeheartedly.

Edited by ReachH, December 04 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[defekt]

*sad face that Storytime is now over*

Anyhoo...

Quote

Skill trumps stats every time; however, where skill can sometimes faulter stat buffs will always prop you up.  The improvements that a fully specced mech benefits from cannot be easily quantified; their [level buffs] impact is far more intricate than merely comparing damage and armour levels.  One also can’t easily conclude that because the sum of all bonuses adds up to only '3%' that this will directly translate into a 3% improvement in performance; that’s not how this stuff works.  For example, if one kept winning engagements by small margins that '3%' then translates into a scoreline that is improved by far more than merely '3%'; it’s all or nothing out there, especially in a 1v1 situation.

Stat buffs are insidious and slippery little feckers that often have far reaching effects on game play that are very rarely apparent if all you’re doing is reading what it says on the tin.

The above assumes comparable levels of skill.  In games where the gamut of skill is so wide, as Storytime describes, these buffs are of significantly less worth.  At higher level play victories are attained through the accumulation of marginal gains; hopefully the aforementioned gains won’t be straight buffs come the OB.

[Timber_Wolf]

Also, elaborating on what others have said about optimizations and levels getting reworked, devs have said they're going to become more of a sidegrade or benefit/drawback situation, similar to how internals work right now.  I don't want to find the post either, but basically TF2 style.  When I level up my hellfires, I can increase damage in exchange for missiles fired, or increase RoF and damage in exchange for not being able to lock on at all, etc.