Tired Of Cheese. Canon, Please.
#1
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:03 PM
Lag Jenners (all variants successful)
Cataphracts with god knows how many UAC5's or AC5's.
Streakapaults, again.
Gaussapaults, again.
Barely seeing anything but this.
My stock build Cataphract (the one with the XL engine) just gets violated like its a stationary light.
With all the QQ aside, PGI, could we please get a "canon option" in the future? I would love to join battle with stock builds...
Hey, its why "stock car racing" is so popular, right? Because all those cars have a very similar base to build on..?
#2
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:05 PM
#3
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:09 PM
#4
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:12 PM
MrKnox, on 21 November 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:
Lag Jenners (all variants successful)
Cataphracts with god knows how many UAC5's or AC5's.
Streakapaults, again.
Gaussapaults, again.
Barely seeing anything but this.
My stock build Cataphract (the one with the XL engine) just gets violated like its a stationary light.
With all the QQ aside, PGI, could we please get a "canon option" in the future? I would love to join battle with stock builds...
Hey, its why "stock car racing" is so popular, right? Because all those cars have a very similar base to build on..?
IMO, I think that once the netcode is fixed up good, the light mechs wont be near as much of a thorn in your side.
Cataphract AC builds aren't that bad except for the screen shake that basically 'stun locks' a pilot. They could tweak that to only occur on lower tonnage mechs, etc.
Streak and Gauss boats, meh. --- Stay out of their range, or focus fire them right off the bat.
And yes, I would love to see a stock-mech only option, but because I am more of a BT purist.
#5
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:13 PM
#6
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:16 PM
Desrtfox, on 21 November 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:
Yeah, but adapt or die is boring when I'm forced to use a small subset of builds. Same goes with mechs like the Raven... I wish they'd keep specialisation so there's reason to use more mechs and more varied builds.
And this also speaks to another poster above, longevity will only come if the customisation allows for people to make effective and varied builds. Not, "build x or y will **** you".
#7
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:17 PM
#8
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:18 PM
Given the crazy builds we like to come up with (I am one of them) it does feel less like Battletech and more like flavour of the month (depending on what gets nerfed/buffed this patch)
The thing is though that stock builds just dont work given the increased ROF and double armour. Not to mention the heat system.
However I too would play a "Cannon only" mode, and I would enjoy it. I accept there are far more pressing priorities, but in the future why not?
#9
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:18 PM
MrKnox, on 21 November 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:
Yeah, but adapt or die is boring when I'm forced to use a small subset of builds. Same goes with mechs like the Raven... I wish they'd keep specialisation so there's reason to use more mechs and more varied builds.
And this also speaks to another poster above, longevity will only come if the customisation allows for people to make effective and varied builds. Not, "build x or y will **** you".
theres a simple rule : adapt your tactics and gameplay
because you dont want to learn how to be better .. you ask PGI to fix it for you.. after they fixed that problem and you getting "owned " ( i dont like that word ) by the same stock build as your mech.. your coming here and want a gamemode where just ppl with the same skill and same mechs can play ?
serious.. sometimes you just need to learn how to play.. and thats an advice and not a flame.
#10
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:19 PM
Dakkath, on 21 November 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:
Likewise.
But I don't think the customization system we have is too bad, it at least tries to preserve some flavor of the original chassis/variant. I don't love the focus on mechlabwarrior, but I've really encountered no builds I couldn't beat, even using the stock variants without any modifications.
#11
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:20 PM
Kind of like the mechlab system of hardpoints and weight limitations. You can show up with any applicable chassis (we have more than NASCAR), and nearly any combination of engine/armor/armaments - with specific limits on WHAT kind of armaments we can load.
CANON is a bad word to use, because basically everything in MWO's mechlab could be done in "CANON" tabletop mech construction. A better word to use would have been 'original variants.'
#12
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:22 PM
Streaks have been buffed, why would people not want to test what has changed...
Jenners are the best lights by far, why would you not want to see light mechs be successful?
Seen more cats with ac20s then Gauss myself.
Canon mode stock mech choices would be very limited.....you would probably only see 2/3 used for ever, no changes so no change :/
#13
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:22 PM
MrKnox, on 21 November 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:
Lag Jenners (all variants successful)
Cataphracts with god knows how many UAC5's or AC5's.
Streakapaults, again.
Gaussapaults, again.
Barely seeing anything but this.
My stock build Cataphract (the one with the XL engine) just gets violated like its a stationary light.
With all the QQ aside, PGI, could we please get a "canon option" in the future? I would love to join battle with stock builds...
Hey, its why "stock car racing" is so popular, right? Because all those cars have a very similar base to build on..?
this aint TT cannon schmannon as theyve SHOWED with the "double" heat sinks. Cant wait to see what the clanners bring.
Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 21 November 2012 - 04:23 PM.
#14
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:23 PM
Quote
because you dont want to learn how to be better .. you ask PGI to fix it for you.. after they fixed that problem and you getting "owned " ( i dont like that word ) by the same stock build as your mech.. your coming here and want a gamemode where just ppl with the same skill and same mechs can play ?
serious.. sometimes you just need to learn how to play.. and thats an advice and not a flame
Sorry dude, but you need a slap in the face with a AC20. It has nothing to do with L2P, and I would gladly take you on in a mech of your choice and show you that (Only we cant because PGI is working on 3rd person).
Its about capturing the flavour and feel of the mech battles we read about in the books. Its more about tactics and individual skill rather than min/max builds that wouldnt work in the cannon universe.
I hope the meta game introduces stuff like supply, where if you field a streak cat you run the chance of not getting resuppiled with ammo for a week. That would be a great leveler.
In the meantime, I look forward to the time the MM pitches us against each other.
#15
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:23 PM
MrKnox, on 21 November 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:
Yeah, but adapt or die is boring when I'm forced to use a small subset of builds. Same goes with mechs like the Raven... I wish they'd keep specialisation so there's reason to use more mechs and more varied builds.
And this also speaks to another poster above, longevity will only come if the customisation allows for people to make effective and varied builds. Not, "build x or y will **** you".
Except, you do realize, that you are advocating a game mode that purposely restricts players to a small subset of builds?
I'm not saying that a canon mode wouldn't be fun, but let's not pretend it's going to lead to diversity. There will still be flavors of the month, etc. We'll just have a different - and noncustomizable - set of them.
Edited by Desrtfox, 21 November 2012 - 04:25 PM.
#16
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:24 PM
Lag shields? Streaks.
Working hit detection, registration, etc? Lasers.
And so on,
#17
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:26 PM
Vermaxx, on 21 November 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:
Technically, but the construction rules aren't there to turn K2's in Gauss puking machines, it's to make your own Gauss puking machines. Though I think the modification rules on the other hand worked similar to the mechlab.
Either way I think a Stockmech option would be very interesting. Seems like it would be harder to enforce at the owned mech level unless they added a "revert to stock" button. Which wouldn't be to hard to do I guess. Though it seems like it would be easier if they made the trial mech roster bigger and had a trial only option maybe.
#18
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:32 PM
Karyudo ds, on 21 November 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:
Technically, but the construction rules aren't there to turn K2's in Gauss puking machines, it's to make your own Gauss puking machines. Though I think the modification rules on the other hand worked similar to the mechlab.
Good point, but I think by virtue of the fact that we can rename the mechs in the mechlab indicates that we are creating our own mechs. The only reason they look like a k2, etc. is due to engine/art limitations.
#19
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:37 PM
The costs for radically modifying a mech away from stock should be crazy.
In cannon there were many custom mechs, but they were the exception rather than the rule. In MWO its the reverse.
I am all for player freedom and giving the choice to the player, but we should do so within constraints. The HP system is too flexible IMHO and allows players too much freedom to try to exploit the system.
#20
Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:41 PM
Squid von Torgar, on 21 November 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:
The costs for radically modifying a mech away from stock should be crazy.
In cannon there were many custom mechs, but they were the exception rather than the rule. In MWO its the reverse.
I am all for player freedom and giving the choice to the player, but we should do so within constraints. The HP system is too flexible IMHO and allows players too much freedom to try to exploit the system.
Fist off it's canon, not cannon. Secondly, I see your point, but let's remember the TT game is canon, and (really) so are the previous MW titles to most people. The original game and all previous games have allowed, in most cases, even greater freedom of customization than MWO. So, to me, the current system seems like a pretty good compromise.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users