58 replies to this topic

[DowncastAcorn]

I feel that this is the inevitable problem when you try to adopt a setting with scarcity, like mechwarrior, to a medium without. In cannon, the only reason there are so many different types of mechs is because not everyone has the same factories, same resources. This doesn't work well in a game like mwo however, because if everyone can actively choose between a trebuchet and a catapult, no-one's going to choose a treb. Now, it'd be interesting if we could have asymmetric teams of different weight classes, but that opens up a completely different can of worms that I'm not sure PGI essentially wants to deal with with the game in the state it's in right now.

tl;dr, buff bad mechs, re-balance crit slots, integrated teamspeak, and free pancake breakfasts on sunday.

[MustrumRidcully]

You can be a bad player and demand bad changes.
You can be a good player and demand good changes.
You can be a bad player and demand good changes.
You can be a good player and demand bad changes.

Though I am not sure about the last thing. Usually, if you're good at something, you also know why you're good. You might still recommend a "bad change" for your own personal gains, well knowing they don't serve the interests of balance and fairness.

Personally I like to point out a lot of flaws in the game even if I am not suffering majorly from them. I use ECMs, and don't use mechs that are nerfed by them. I use SRMs. I will apply tactics that I believe will work, and have often good reason to believe they work - even if I think the game could be designed in a better manner so that it offers more diverse tactics.

[Rhent]

DowncastAcorn, on 10 March 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

I feel that this is the inevitable problem when you try to adopt a setting with scarcity, like mechwarrior, to a medium without. In cannon, the only reason there are so many different types of mechs is because not everyone has the same factories, same resources. This doesn't work well in a game like mwo however, because if everyone can actively choose between a trebuchet and a catapult, no-one's going to choose a treb. Now, it'd be interesting if we could have asymmetric teams of different weight classes, but that opens up a completely different can of worms that I'm not sure PGI essentially wants to deal with with the game in the state it's in right now.

tl;dr, buff bad mechs, re-balance crit slots, integrated teamspeak, and free pancake breakfasts on sunday.

The Trebuchet is very viable in comparison to the Catapult. Its faster, has a much smaller profile than the cat and it has lateral arm radius, If you have to chose between killing a Cat or Treb, always chose the Cat, it will die quicker and be disarmed quicker than the Treb. I've seen some very good Treb ERPPC jumpers that are an incredible pain to deal with.

[Bren McGuire the 2nd]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 10 March 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

yeah they seem to call them "golds" in this community. Does that make it better?

In 2000+ matches I've never seen that. Nevertheless that is also disrespectful.

[Rhent]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 March 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

You can be a bad player and demand bad changes.
You can be a good player and demand good changes.
You can be a bad player and demand good changes.
You can be a good player and demand bad changes.

Though I am not sure about the last thing. Usually, if you're good at something, you also know why you're good. You might still recommend a "bad change" for your own personal gains, well knowing they don't serve the interests of balance and fairness.

Personally I like to point out a lot of flaws in the game even if I am not suffering majorly from them. I use ECMs, and don't use mechs that are nerfed by them. I use SRMs. I will apply tactics that I believe will work, and have often good reason to believe they work - even if I think the game could be designed in a better manner so that it offers more diverse tactics.

I've been one of the biggest ******* on ECM, however with the implementation of PPC fire, I can live with ECM as it stands now. Everyone has a way to disable ECM. Not saying the game is balanced, no game will be balanced. But a lot of the call outs for change almost invariably will lead to longer matches for people who don't want to use mech lab, cover or who want to be rambos. A single Atlas in the open should die in 3.5 secs to sniper fire and it deserves to.

[John Johnson]

I hate these topics just as much as I hate the "whine with cheese" topics. Fine, we get it, you're a super mechwarrior and I'm not, good for you.

Saying "yuo suck noob uninstall teh game ur opinion sux lawl" (yes, that's what you people sound like) doesn't convince me of your stance and doesn't help me stop sucking. Yes, in theory, boated SRM's are countered with range. That doesn't help me when in frozen city an srm catapult waltzes out at top speed from around a building, crashes into me and shoots an alpha before I can move my torso around.

Yes, in theory LRM's are countered by cover. That doesn't help me when my whole team decides to go into the river in river city, ceding cover and high ground to the enemy. What am I supposed to do at that point huh? Rambo to victory?


TL;DR - I suck at the game, but you're beyond ****** up if you have contempt for bad players.

[Rhent]

John Johnson, on 10 March 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

I hate these topics just as much as I hate the "whine with cheese" topics. Fine, we get it, you're a super mechwarrior and I'm not, good for you.

Saying "yuo suck noob uninstall teh game ur opinion sux lawl" (yes, that's what you people sound like) doesn't convince me of your stance and doesn't help me stop sucking. Yes, in theory, boated SRM's are countered with range. That doesn't help me when in frozen city an srm catapult waltzes out at top speed from around a building, crashes into me and shoots an alpha before I can move my torso around.

Yes, in theory LRM's are countered by cover. That doesn't help me when my whole team decides to go into the river in river city, ceding cover and high ground to the enemy. What am I supposed to do at that point huh? Rambo to victory?


TL;DR - I suck at the game, but you're beyond ****** up if you have contempt for bad players.

Read the post high and mighty. I wrote that I get rolled and I roll people, I just make it a point to change tactics/mechs when I see what I'm doing isn't working for whom I'm quing against, no one is a "super mechwarrior". If you choose to ignore the post that's your choice. However, don't roll me up in your imagined strawman argument.

[MischiefSC]

There is a world of difference between recommending changes and giving feedback in a game that's in beta and changing all the time and being a 'bad'.

A 'bad' is someone who can't do well in a 3L or an LRM boat. It's someone who plays to the advantages of the games imbalances and still can't do well. You've got it backwards.

I do fine with ECM and LRMs. Can I run an LRM boat successfully? Of course. I wouldn't say it's 'skillless' but I wouldn't put it anywhere near being a solid Jenner pilot. I run a D-DC Atlas and it's my most successful mech.

That doesn't mean I don't have negative feedback about the balancing between ECM and missiles. Same with direct fire weapons and pinpoint accuracy. Any solution is going to have drawbacks of its own but there's no harm, or negative, in recommending them. The goal is to make as many builds and options viable as possible and avoid a 'run this way or lose' environment. It's a problem and it will make the game stale and kill it over time.

Another term for it is 'inbred'. A rehashing of the same techniques and tactics so that only a few things are truly successful and everything else is just screwing around. Poptarts from MW4 being a huge example of this.

If your basis for debate is to say that everyone who disagrees, recommends changes or the like is a 'bad' then you have no basis for an argument, just a logical fallacy. Insulting people for recommending changes in an open beta is like trying to tell a yo' mama joke to explain why someone is wrong.

I run ECM, LRMs sometimes, I've got a sweet little SRM boat I enjoy. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the flaws in them.

You don't have to like or agree with peoples suggestions but if you want to be taken seriously debate them on merit. Saying 'if you recommend X then you're just bad' implies that you just don't, or can't, understand the concept and are just going to ad hominem insults to avoid having to make a point.

People tend to be scared of change. That's normal. If someone making recommendations that threaten how you play successfully then debate the points on merit or just stay quiet and assume the developers know better. Saying 'don't suggest/complain about X or you're just a bad player' is.....

Well, the opposite of successfully debating a point.

[NKAc Street]

Rhent, on 10 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

A "bad" to me is someone who hasn't figured out basic game mechanics for a game and then dies doing little to no good for their team. How does "bad" translate to MWO?

-Can't deal with aimed fire, asks for nerfs on sniper weapons (gauss, ppc) rather than use cover or heat vision to scan ahead

-Can't deal with lrm fire, asks for nerfs on LRM damage and ECM, rather than use cover, ignores the warning that lrm fire is coming, or heat vision to scan head

-Dies too quick in combat, asks for quadrupling of armor (we have double now) rather than use speed (play a faster mech) to avoid fire, torso twists to spread damage around, situational awareness to avoid ambushes, play a slower heavier armed (play a heavier mech) to absorb damage, or stay with the group and focus fire

-Doesn't like to optimize their build and complains about other people using good builds for the current rule set

There are a lot of things in this game that sucks for balance, but its life. If you don't like something, change your gameplay. Eventually some things will get fixed. I dislike hugging with a passion, but hopefully collisions will be back in the game. If I notice an increase in hugging in my bracket, I switch to a SRM Boat OR a PPC/SSRM stalker and I fix the idiots I'm pairing against from doing that.

Most bads seems to want to play a game where the game is set up in a way in which they will last the entire match, ie no focused fire and weapons do jack squat for damage. Sorry, but no one wants to play a game where everyone wins. It's bland. If you notice something you don't like, then pick a better mech to counter it and drive on. If you can't change your tactics you deserve to be rolled. I roll a lot of players and I get rolled myself, however I change tactics to minimize and maximize the pros and cons in my favor.

The bads translate to match maker fail.

[Bren McGuire the 2nd]

Rhent, on 10 March 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

A bad is a bad. If someone is calling for quadroupled armor, they are a bad, there is no ifs ands or buts about it. Coddling players and letting them put out extremely bad balance ideas is not great for the game. Especially if enough bads actually get the developers to go "what's the worst that can happen" and they implement a bad change.

As it stands now, my 2 ERPPC, 2 PPC, 4 Streak Stalker has about 2/3rds the fire power of a Warhammer. Increasing the armor anymore, and my Stalker is doing about the same damage as a Wolverine.. Sorry if you don't get those references. From your posting attitude, I'm assuming you aren't mature enough to have been playing BT since the 80's.



Weapon wise, the game is fairly balanced for ballistic and energy weapons with the ammunition/heat trade off. There is NO issue with sniper fire in the game. If you see a 4 to 6 PPC sniper, then you close and fire on them continuously as they overheat OR they have to switch to single fire PPC fire. And if it is a regular PPC, if you get to 20M, they are at doing equivalent damage of a ML to SL, if that.

I'm not disagreeing with the content of your posts. What I do disagree with is the adoption of language from other games that have an immature playerbase and bringing it here to a community that is above that childish namecalling. We don't want it. The topic title and references are in bad taste and apparently you're old enough to know better.

[Tickdoff Tank]

MischiefSC, on 10 March 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

There is a world of difference between recommending changes and giving feedback in a game that's in beta and changing all the time and being a 'bad'.

A 'bad' is someone who can't do well in a 3L or an LRM boat. It's someone who plays to the advantages of the games imbalances and still can't do well. You've got it backwards.

I played a Raven 3L for about 3 weeks. I managed 1 kill and only once did I get over 100 damage. Same for my SRM6 cat, I had one good game and got 2 kills, usually dont manage 100 damage though.

And I have only ever gotten over 100 damage with a Jenner once as well, despite playing them since CB. Still have not gotten a kill with one either.

With LRMs... I average about 200 damage per game, might get a kill once in a while, but only if the team manages to get it almost dead first.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 10 March 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[General Taskeen]

The lowest ELO brackets use MG's, Flamers, NARC, and LB-X

[Rhent]

Bren McGuire the 2nd, on 10 March 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

I'm not disagreeing with the content of your posts. What I do disagree with is the adoption of language from other games that have an immature playerbase and bringing it here to a community that is above that childish namecalling. We don't want it. The topic title and references are in bad taste and apparently you're old enough to know better.

You are playing a competitive FPS shooter game, people who ignore game mechanics, are a major hindrance to their teams and ask for the game to be changed to be easier are called "bads" I've seen plenty of newbies who in their first match can outplay guys who have 1,000 games under their belts. Its not that the guys are *lucky* their first time, they just understand basic tactics and aiming.

[Tickdoff Tank]

General Taskeen, on 10 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

The lowest ELO brackets use MG's, Flamers, NARC, and LB-X

I rarely see those in the game, and I play on the lowest Elo that is possible.

[ThunderOverWater]

Tickdoff Tank, on 10 March 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I played a Raven 3L for about 3 weeks. I managed 1 kill and only once did I get over 100 damage. Same for my SRM6 cat, I had one good game and got 2 kills, usually dont manage 100 damage though.

And I have only ever gotten over 100 damage with a Jenner once as well, despite playing them since CB. Still have not gotten a kill with one either.

With LRMs... I average about 200 damage per game, might get a kill once in a while, but only if the team manages to get it almost dead first.

Tickdoff Tank, on 10 March 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

I am probably the worst pilot in this game

I've dropped with Tank in a 4-man a few times. Confirming he is the worst pilot in this game.

Tickdoff Tank, on 10 March 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I play on the lowest Elo that is possible.

Once Tank joined our 4-man, our enemies were invariably 7-8 trial mechs.

Edited by colorado, 10 March 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Sifright]

Rhent, on 10 March 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

The Trebuchet is very viable in comparison to the Catapult. Its faster, has a much smaller profile than the cat and it has lateral arm radius, If you have to chose between killing a Cat or Treb, always chose the Cat, it will die quicker and be disarmed quicker than the Treb. I've seen some very good Treb ERPPC jumpers that are an incredible pain to deal with.

lol did you really say the treb has a smaller profile than the catapult?

edit: My eyes are clearly mistaken. No one can possible think the trebs silhouette is better than the catapults do they? :|

the only reason treb jumpers are hard to hit is because hit detection is still garbage for dumb fire missiles and ballistics.

Lasers very reliably shoot trebs out of the air.

Catapults are waaaaaaaaaaay smaller profile than the treb fyi.

Edited by Sifright, 10 March 2013 - 01:19 PM.

[Rhent]

General Taskeen, on 10 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

The lowest ELO brackets use MG's, Flamers, NARC, and LB-X

Kill me, but a 2 LBX-10 + 4 ML K2 can be fun. Not saying its a great build, however having a long range SRM can be good. Light mechs that mass mg's, can read armor damage readouts and aim accordingly and work with their team can quickly disable/kill a mech via massed MG's. A light trying to solo a mech with MG's is an *****, however pair him with some heavies and have him rush in a heavily damaged assault, disable and rush out, it can be useful.

[Vassago Rain]

General Taskeen, on 10 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

The lowest ELO brackets use MG's, Flamers, NARC, and LB-X

The steering wheel underhive, where LBX and machinegunls are considered good for crit-seeking.

[Rhent]

Sifright, on 10 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

lol did you really say the treb has a smaller profile than the catapult?

edit: My eyes are clearly mistaken. No one can possible think the trebs silhouette is better than the catapults do they? :|

The Catapult profile is a GIANT BOX with a HUGE HEAD slot to hit and it tends to have all of its weapons in EXTREMELY OVERSIZED ARMS. The Trebuchet profile is a SLIM STICK MAN from the side, with a NORMAL SIZED HEAD slot that isn't easy to hit and it tends to have its weapons spread across its body and it is faster than the Cat.

So yes, the Trebuchet is infinitely more survivable than a Catapult in combat.

[Vassago Rain]

Tickdoff Tank, on 10 March 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I rarely see those in the game, and I play on the lowest Elo that is possible.

I've seen far worse players than you, and I've played alongside you plenty of times. There's a level below yours.