443 replies to this topic

[Badgerthej]

Valrin, you are right i dropped in the dragon from the get go of joining mechwarrior and yes its a hellmech to train pilot skills....I've had my fair share of games where i've bulldozed through some people but alas good pilot skill can only go so far....especially when i get circled by streak lights or splat mechs come a rollin by....I flinch when i see them approaching and hope to hell that something else takes their attention ... i'm not a terrible pilot but i find i rage at what i call lazy builds.

splatapults
streakapults
any light with any streaks
gauss cataphracts and uac ilya's

these are my bane because they gut hit my giant silouette so hard it puts me out the fight after only a few volleys even if i'm not dead.

Edited by Badgerthej, 18 March 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[armyof1]

Vassago Rain, on 18 March 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Dude, it's a PVP game. I don't care how special snowflake your dragon or spider is.
Don't bring that to a game. You're gimping us all to feel unique.

I can understand if you're going into an 8-man queue and someone wants to play his Dragon and you don't want to join that team, no problem that's your choice. But to expect people to not play with a mech they like because you feel gimped by it in the standard queue, I guess all I can say is don't ever play outside the 8-mans.

Edited by armyof1, 18 March 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[3rdworld]

Allister Rathe, on 18 March 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

And that right there is part of the problem. Everything is so polarized in 8v8 play that it leads to a culture of discrimination against any 'Mech that doesn't conform to the competitive notions of what is effective. The game shouldn't have to balance entirely around competitive play or entirely around Pug play. They're two facets of the experience and while some builds might be more commonly accepted as the "best" in the 8v8 scene, that does not suddenly invalidate the rest.

And that's exactly what's happening in this thread. Because the Dragon is considered sub-par in the ultra-competitive world of 8v8, those who regularly play with a competitive group suddenly have an intense disgust for it that translates to being dismissive to any other viewpoint.

Ya, we are biased against it.

It wouldn't have anything to do with it being not as good.

[Orzorn]

I think Roughneck has it mostly right. The Dragon can be 20 kp/h faster than the next fastest heavy, but speed is heavily devalued for most mechs because many reach 80, or if they go faster they reach the speed cap of 145 or so. The Dragon CAN be some good firepower even with a massive XL 360, but it all goes to waste in the tight knit world of 8 man competitive play.

Somewhere along the line, I think the devs mixed up the torso twist on the Dragon and the Catapult. I think that would have given the Dragon a sizeable boost. The ability to run away going 106 kp/h while shooting directly behind itself would have been amazing, while also reducing the "owl" effect we get out of the Catapult.

As it is, I have moved on from my Dragon for the purposes of 8 man play. Its main use would be to fill a tonnage gap in the case of tonnage restricted drops in particular tournaments, if for whatever reason we're left with 60 tons leftover.

[Allister Rathe]

Vassago Rain, on 18 March 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Dude, it's a PVP game. I don't care how special snowflake your dragon or spider is.
Don't bring that to a game. You're gimping us all to feel unique.

Exactly where am I claiming any of that, or "gimping" you at all? It's just a trend that I've noticed in this thread, that people are being dismissive of other viewpoints because of their own personal experiences and disregarding the fact that each person plays differently. I love this game, I like piloting my Dragon, and I have decent success in it. That's all I've said. You're being unnecessarily antagonistic for no reason.

How I like to play the game has no impact on how you play it, and vice a versa. If you don't like the Dragon, that's perfectly fine. There's no need to attack me for making an observation or stating my opinion.

[3rdworld]

Allister Rathe, on 18 March 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Exactly where am I claiming any of that, or "gimping" you at all? It's just a trend that I've noticed in this thread, that people are being dismissive of other viewpoints because of their own personal experiences and disregarding the fact that each person plays differently. I love this game, I like piloting my Dragon, and I have decent success in it. That's all I've said. You're being unnecessarily antagonistic for no reason.

How I like to play the game has no impact on how you play it, and vice a versa. If you don't like the Dragon, that's perfectly fine. There's no need to attack me for making an observation or stating my opinion.

And this discussion isn't about how amazing you can do in the dragon.

The topic is that dragons are inferior. You have given no evidence to cause reevaluation of this statement.

[Serapth]

Vassago Rain, on 18 March 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

But my atlas is decent at everything, and exceptional at tanking. The dragon does...what? It loses the arm to gauss explosions?

This has nothing to do with the Dragon though, and everything to do with the game not weight matching.

This is the ultimate stupid factor of MWO... without BV or equivalent, the Atlas *IS* the superior mech on the battlefield, because it's supposed to be!

Mediums exist because they are cheaper than heavies. Heavies exist because they are cheaper than Assaults. LIghts have their special niche ( speed ), but even then, a lot of it came down to cost.

This game has none of that, and until it does, balance is going to be ... well, unbalaned.

But piloting my D-DC 24/7 is boring as ****, so I pilot "less optimal" builds.

[Kaox Veed]

Because they aren't ezmode.

[xDeityx]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Well, I can't defend the claim that it's about boating. Boating is something that can be very effective, but it's not the only way.

The D-DC is an excellent Brawler because it can specialize in 5 of the arguably best weapons in the game:
- Medium Laser
- AC/20
- SRM6
- Gauss Rifle
- Ultra AC/5
And equip the most powerful 1.5 ton item in the game:
- ECM

If we limit the weapon list to ML, AC/20 and SRM6, it should also be noted it shares the usual boating characteristics - similar range. Also, these 3 weapons and the Gauss have very simlar cooldowns, so the weapon cycle is also easy to work out.

It's not a boat, but it has some of the same perks.

When someone says boat, I think of something with all of the same weaponry like the 6xPPC Stalker or the 6xSRM CAT, or maybe even the 2x Gauss CAT. If boat is watered down to just mean "weapons at the same ranges with similar-ish cooldowns" then it's getting too ridiculous to have a discussion around.

A boat is something that has the same weapons so that the pilot doesn't have to think at all about different ranges, cooldowns, lead times, etc. IMO there's nothing wrong with boats. They trade versatility for simplicity so that you can spend your limited concentration on things other than managing your weapons such as positioning, awareness, spreading damage, and possibly directing the flow of the battle and making strategic decisions if you are the leader of your premade.

[Serapth]

Allister Rathe, on 18 March 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Exactly where am I claiming any of that, or "gimping" you at all? It's just a trend that I've noticed in this thread, that people are being dismissive of other viewpoints because of their own personal experiences and disregarding the fact that each person plays differently. I love this game, I like piloting my Dragon, and I have decent success in it. That's all I've said. You're being unnecessarily antagonistic for no reason.

How I like to play the game has no impact on how you play it, and vice a versa. If you don't like the Dragon, that's perfectly fine. There's no need to attack me for making an observation or stating my opinion.

You don't get Vassagos mindset because you aren't
- a min/maxing power gamer
- a bit of a douche

Dont try to factor in things like your personal playstyle, or... you know, fun. They don't understand those concepts.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Specific issues with the Dragon Chassis.
The issues isn’t that players cannot make an effective Dragon, the issue is the Dragon chassis supports very limited builds. While you might see dozens of effective Catapult and Cataphract builds on each variant, the Dragon shoehorns players into a very restrictive builds, with little flexibility.
In the past the Dragon had a niche role by being able to juggernaut its way through anything via knockdowns. This should absolutely not return. Knocking down light mechs is one thing but knocking down Awesomes and Atlases is taking it too far.

General Issues.

• Hardpoints: The CT missile hardpoint(s) exclude almost half the available missile weapons, and if Artemis is selected the options are further restricted.
  
• Model: Center Torso size (although personally I think it is much better than the Catapult)
  
• Model: low slung arms and wide-stance arms that make it difficult to shoot over and around terrain.
  
• Model: Ballistic on RA and Energy on LA create massive convergence problems. First you cannot lead with a ballistic and trace with a laser at the same time. Secondly even if a ballistic style Energy weapons is mounted (PPC), convergence issues are still a significant problem for arm mounted weapons, especially when leading the target.

DRG-1C
This is likely the most popular model of Dragon since it has the most usable hardpoints of all Dragon models. And lighter energy weapons allow for larger engines, which support more internal heat sinks.
Effective Weapon hardpoints = 5.5 (1xRA, .5xCT, 2xLT, 2xLA)

DRG-1N
This model has 2 Ballistic hardpoints, but the weight of ballistic weapons make it difficult to carry more than 1, additionally this model is saddled with 2 CT missile hardpoints with only 2 critical slots between them (the good news is most people would put SSRM2 there anyway so at least you can fit 2, the bad news is they don’t work against ECM). Only very specialized builds can take advantage of the wasted hardpoints on this chassis.
Effective Weapon hardpoints = 3.5 (1xRA, .5xCT, 1xLT, 1xLA)

DRG-5N
This suffers from similar problems to the 1N model, only more extreme. Utilization of 3 ballistic hardpoints in the RA is virtually impossible given the weight and critical slot constraints. All the energy hardpoints on the right arm making them more vulnerable and subject to convergence problems.
Effective Weapon hardpoints = 3.5 (1xRA, .5x CT, 1xLA)

Solutions:

• More usable hardpoints is a good start, maybe an additional energy RA, RT, or LT.
  
• I would even consider implementing the first Inner Sphere Omni by allowing any weapon type in the CT.
  
• Even more radical, make the Dragon and eXperimental design with split engine design. Placing 3 Engine and 2 Gyro components in the RT and LT leaving the CT empty. This is totally non-cannon, but from a design standpoint allows the Dragon to be less disadvantaged by the massive CT and mount a greater variety of missile systems.
  
• I would almost suggest ECM, but I am adamantly opposed to the method in which ECM is allowed only to specific mechs.
  
• Change the mech model making arms a little more accurate/effective. Or fix convergence issue.

[MustrumRidcully]

xDeityx, on 18 March 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

When someone says boat, I think of something with all of the same weaponry like the 6xPPC Stalker or the 6xSRM CAT, or maybe even the 2x Gauss CAT. If boat is watered down to just mean "weapons at the same ranges with similar-ish cooldowns" then it's getting too ridiculous to have a discussion around.

No, that's definitely not a boat, but it shares some of its trappings, and I believe that is something that sometimes eludes people - boating isn't done just because people prefer all their lasers to be green. It is used because you:
- All the weapons behave identical, making it easier to manage
- You can ensure that ll your weapons have not just the same characteristics, but that htey all have particularly good characteristics.

Let's say AC/20, Medium Laser and SRM6 are the best possible weapons in the game (not saying they are, just saying imagine they were):
The ideal thing to do is to pick one and boat it. Put as many as you can on your mech and beat everyone by superior firepower, and anyone that did the same as you by superior skill.
If you can't do that, you need to do the next best thing. That is pick 2 and use these two in the best combination you can fit.
If you can't do that, pick all 3 and mix them as you can make it work out best.

The DDC is basically Option 3. There is no Option 2 and 1 in the 100 ton weight range. THere is an Option to in the 85 ton range, but it has poor torso twist. There is an option for 1 in the 80 ton range, but if you take that option, you might end up underweight and underarmoured. IF you take 85 or 80 ton, you are definitely underweight compared to someone that risked going with option 3 and take the 100 ton mech, so the advantages of option 1 and 2 over 3 might no longer hold true.

[xDeityx]

Serapth, on 18 March 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

This has nothing to do with the Dragon though, and everything to do with the game not weight matching.

This is the ultimate stupid factor of MWO... without BV or equivalent, the Atlas *IS* the superior mech on the battlefield, because it's supposed to be!

Mediums exist because they are cheaper than heavies. Heavies exist because they are cheaper than Assaults. LIghts have their special niche ( speed ), but even then, a lot of it came down to cost.

This game has none of that, and until it does, balance is going to be ... well, unbalaned.

But piloting my D-DC 24/7 is boring as ****, so I pilot "less optimal" builds.

This is why 'mechs should cost a lot less to build but should actually be gone when you get one exploded. It should be a risk vs. reward thing - a Gauss is very expensive but also very powerful. Do you gamble taking it onto the battlefield and utilizing that power knowing that you could lose all that investment?

How cool would it be to explode that 3L with Endo, Ferro, DHS, etc. knowing that you just set that pilot back significantly since he was running with all the bells and whistles? Especially if you did it in your stock hunchback that you could replace easily. And now imagine if you actually got to salvage his Raven 3L...

[Allister Rathe]

3rdworld, on 18 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

And this discussion isn't about how amazing you can do in the dragon.

The topic is that dragons are inferior. You have given no evidence to cause reevaluation of this statement.

I made a longer post back on the 5th page talking about the Dragon and how I see it stacking up against other 'Mech's, and what makes it seem inferior to them. You can go read it if you like. I never claimed to be amazing, just that I have decent success and I enjoy piloting it. Which is part of the point in playing any game: to enjoy yourself.

Serapth, on 18 March 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

You don't get Vassagos mindset because you aren't
- a min/maxing power gamer
- a bit of a douche

Dont try to factor in things like your personal playstyle, or... you know, fun. They don't understand those concepts.

I suppose I shouldn't. I play MWO to pilot a big stompy robot and melt my enemies faces when I feel the urge and not to play in a competitive 8v8 setup. It's like I've said before though, we all have different goals and experiences playing the game, and just because we prefer our own play style doesn't mean everything else is suddenly invalid. That's my main contention. People tend to think in terms of black and white as opposed to trying to accept that their way is not the only way and allowing other people to have their own opinions.

[MustrumRidcully]

Allister Rathe, on 18 March 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

And that right there is part of the problem. Everything is so polarized in 8v8 play that it leads to a culture of discrimination against any 'Mech that doesn't conform to the competitive notions of what is effective. The game shouldn't have to balance entirely around competitive play or entirely around Pug play. They're two facets of the experience and while some builds might be more commonly accepted as the "best" in the 8v8 scene, that does not suddenly invalidate the rest.

And that's exactly what's happening in this thread. Because the Dragon is considered sub-par in the ultra-competitive world of 8v8, those who regularly play with a competitive group suddenly have an intense disgust for it that translates to being dismissive to any other viewpoint.

There are two solutions to this:

1) Fix game balance and match-making, so you don't need to get into the conflict between min/maxed optimums and the mediocre or weak.
2) Fix human behaviour.

What are you going to do?

xDeityx, on 18 March 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

This is why 'mechs should cost a lot less to build but should actually be gone when you get one exploded. It should be a risk vs. reward thing - a Gauss is very expensive but also very powerful. Do you gamble taking it onto the battlefield and utilizing that power knowing that you could lose all that investment?

How cool would it be to explode that 3L with Endo, Ferro, DHS, etc. knowing that you just set that pilot back significantly since he was running with all the bells and whistles? Especially if you did it in your stock hunchback that you could replace easily. And now imagine if you actually got to salvage his Raven 3L...

I would feel a little bad. That guy just build his dream mech, and I destroyed it. [/NotEveMaterial]

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 March 2013 - 12:56 PM.

[Serapth]

xDeityx, on 18 March 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

This is why 'mechs should cost a lot less to build but should actually be gone when you get one exploded. It should be a risk vs. reward thing - a Gauss is very expensive but also very powerful. Do you gamble taking it onto the battlefield and utilizing that power knowing that you could lose all that investment?

How cool would it be to explode that 3L with Endo, Ferro, DHS, etc. knowing that you just set that pilot back significantly since he was running with all the bells and whistles? Especially if you did it in your stock hunchback that you could replace easily. And now imagine if you actually got to salvage his Raven 3L...

I don't persay disagree with this. In some was, this is what RnR was all about. I think its wayyyy too harsh to have permadeath in this game, people would quit on mass, but having repair based on the cost of mech you brought in, would give an advantage to piloting cheap, non-tricked out ( Artermis, endo, gauss, ECM!! ) etc... mechs.

That said, it would be really unbalanced. I know for example I have about 30m cbills in the bank right now, and know players with many many many times more than that. I could then bear the cost/risk aspects better than many others. Its a step towards the hated P2W.

[M4rtyr]

Aside from being ugly as sin?

Well it filled a role in the Btech universe that doesn't exist in MWO. They have good spead but not the weapon loadouts for a brawl, they don't make great snipers, etc etc. What a Dragon primarily is is a light/med hunter, a flanker geting into the enemies rear. But the game play just doesn't really provide well for such roles. Because even if you flank then the enemy brawlers are right there anyway and the Dragon just got caught in a net.

[Trauglodyte]

Valrin, on 18 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

The dragon can go 106.9 with a max engine. The fastest heavy behind this is the 'phract at 86.6 with a max engine. I'd say 20+ kph is a fairly big margin. You are giving up firepower for speed and maneuverability with the dragon. Can other mechs stack missiles and hit a higher alpha? Sure. But I've had some very nice damage games with many kills. It's all about the pilot. Still, though, it is harder to compare this to other mediums (the cent comes to mind with the zombie variant that is so popular). It is not for everyone, but can be very effective if played correctly.

Speed is all fine and good. But, there comes a time when you'll either be cornered and/or you'll be at a point where you need to put one game/life defining Alpha on someone. In both those cases, that extra speed gets you nothing and the lack of punch saves nobody. I take no pleasure in writing it but speed is only good if you've got all the room in the world to meneuver and does not, at any point, out balance punch. If you want to roll fast, you run a Light or a Cicada. If you want to impact the group, you roll in something that boats (ugh, I hate it) or something that has a weapons platform where all weapons compliment each other.

[malibu43]

xDeityx, on 18 March 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

This is why 'mechs should cost a lot less to build but should actually be gone when you get one exploded. It should be a risk vs. reward thing - a Gauss is very expensive but also very powerful. Do you gamble taking it onto the battlefield and utilizing that power knowing that you could lose all that investment? How cool would it be to explode that 3L with Endo, Ferro, DHS, etc. knowing that you just set that pilot back significantly since he was running with all the bells and whistles? Especially if you did it in your stock hunchback that you could replace easily. And now imagine if you actually got to salvage his Raven 3L...

We kind of had that when R&R was still in the game. And it didn't work because that guy in the 3L might be using premium time and has more real $$$ than you. So he just uses MC to buy another 3L and uses the banked CB from all his premium time to re-fit it with all the bells and whistles. In other words, it doesn't prevent people from running expensive mechs; it just limits running of expensive mechs on a regular basis to those you have $$$.

[KharnZor]

Roughneck45, on 18 March 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Unfortunatley, you get better heat dissipation in a catapult with 4 LL at the cost of just a few KPH compared to the Dragon.

Gauss, SRM6, 4xMlas still reigns supreme IMO.

I use that setup in my Flame and it absolutely destroys stuff. The Flames only drawback is that you have to pay MC for it.