150 replies to this topic

[xDeityx]

Stat1cVoiD, on 01 July 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

There is no code of honor, how to fit your mech and what is a no-no.

Because if I don't go full PPC, I will fall victim to those who do.

So don't blame the players, blame the devs, who are obviously not able to do a good job in balancing weapons, gameplay and maps but are currently trying to sell you stuff for Oct 15.

These three sentences sum this whole mess up for me.

The first sentence is what a lot of people have problems with, but it's absolutely true. There is no code of honor when it comes to fitting a 'mech, there is only effective and not-effective. Yet people try and make you feel bad for fitting something that works optimally by calling it cheese or cheap or whatever scrub word of the week.

They are the people who don't understand the truth in your second sentence, or are ok with dying to someone in a min/maxed optimal build because at least they have a moral victory (lol) because they didn't "compromise their honor."

And the third sentence is where these players who are critical of boats always seem to fail. They blame players for making intelligent decisions in a flawed environment that leads to unsatisfying gameplay. In their mind the devs can do no wrong and it is the players who should all make some gentleman's agreement not to use the obviously powerful loadouts. It's ******* crazy.

And Victor, I feel bad for you. It's painful to see these people attacking the straw man that you never argued, that "everyone should be in a 1-click alpha boat" or some similar nonsense. Just keep patiently explaining things and don't get sucked into any particular foolish tangents like with Taskeen and his TRO loadouts.

[Sharknoms]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Only against inferior and less skilled pilots. If you drive terrible builds all the time you will almost exclusively face people in terrible builds.

If that is what I need to do to play have fun with this game, I gladly will do that.
Also I'm always happy not to fight against these grumpy people who Min/Max their stuff.

[Deathlike]

Here's something to think about...

The Stock Primary Madcat is a shining example of how some people that hate boating would like a mech to look like:
2 Clan ER Large
2 Clan ER Med
1 Clan Med Pulse Laser (which have more range than the IS versions)
2 Clan Machine Guns
2 Clan LRM20s

Of course, you would never be able to have an IS equivalent loadout on a Catapult (you will fail just because of the requirements on the IS LRM20).

For the purposes of MWO, this could be OK stock build. However, in practical play (and basic customization), you'd probably strip the MGs, and convert all the lasers to all Clan ER Meds or Clan Med Pulse and use the rest of the spare tonnage for more DHS.

The great thing about customization is that you pretty much construct anything you desire. The practical problem is that you have to design them well or you simply will suffer. It's how MWO and most MW based games (to my knowledge) have been built.

The sad part is, my frakenbuild of an Atlas-D was... more survivable than whatever I built for the Atlas-RS:
2 ERPPC
1 Large Pulse Laser
2 LBX10
2 SSRM2

The only way I got through that was chaining the LBX+Streaks into the same group... it wasn't great, but it was "good enough" to get by.

I'm not sure if I could've built something better (at the time, that was the best I could come up with), but I'd probably less likely do that disaster again...

[tuffy963]

I believe the real issue is that MWO really only has one game mode at the moment.... Kill the other mechs as fast and as efficiently as possible. Even in the Capture game mode many teams still find that killing the opposing force is the simplest path to success. This is an important point because it means that as long as the primary role of the mech is to put damage into another mech, we will keep having conversations like these that are focused on maximizing mech on mech direct damage. That is OK... for now.

It is important to remember that the original Battletech game (and the resulting mech designs) were focused on the mech as a multirole war-fighting machine. This is the reason that basic mech variants come with a collage of weapons that could be used in multiple situations. Some common examples of scenarios that "franken mechs" were intended to face in the original game included:

• Extended Missions - The needs to manage field inventory, repairs, replacements, and ammunition across multiple engagements.
  
• Destroying fixed/protected structures - Targets that are hard to get hit with direct fire weapons, or are heavily defended.
  
• Anti-Anything Except Mech - Anti-tank, anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-infantry, anti-artillery, etc. Each of these weapon systems represent interesting obstacles a mech and it's pilot would have to overcome.
  
• Reconnaissance missions - Where collecting information, surviving, and avoiding detection are the primary goals of the mission
  
• Delaying & Defensive actions - Missions where slowing, wearing down, and harassing the enemy force is primary goal because the force capabilities are lopsided and the defending force simply cannot win by head to head conflict
  
• Real estate grab - When covering, taking, and holding a piece of ground is the primary goal.
  
• Defending a perishable resource - The defense of something that can be easily destroyed if the enemy can get within striking range

None of these original Battletech scenarios exist in MWO at the moment, so it is no surprise when these Battletech TT weapons (and combinations of those weapons) get looked at through the "kill another mech" lense and some of them come up lacking. Granted, this is the logical lense to use in the game we have today, but it also begs the question... When is the MWO metagame going to get broadened to include more interesting scenarios that allow "franken mech" designs to shine due to their flexibility on a diverse and changing battlefield?

What we have today is a very sophisticated ROCK'EM SOCK'EM ROBOTS video game.

[Roland]

Quote

It is important to remember that the original Battletech game (and the resulting mech designs) were focused on the mech as a multirole war-fighting machine.

In the original battletech game, all you did was kill other mechs.

[Trip Hammer]

PEEFsmash, on 01 July 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

I just want to see someone run a mech with 1 of each Autocannon and just hold the button down on all of them at once. Call it the "one man drummer-band."

chicka chika clak chika chika boom chika clack boom clack chika chika BADOOM ckika clack boom chika clak chika BADOOM

LOL....that really cracked me up...thanks!

[Blackadder]

While in principle i agree with you Victor, i have an issue saying that 2 LL , AC/20 + srms or SSRM's on a DDC is a bad build. The problem is on larger mechs you can absorb slightly less optimal equipment setups in exchange for more versatility, and optimal builds are sadly based in some extent to current weapons systems being good or bad, so hardpoint limitations on mechs do matter. On a smaller mech there is no doubt that 2 X LL & AC20 is really not all that good, and a GR would be better even on a DDC, its not a pure black and white situation in all cases.

I also have a question, why do you not address range in relation to synergy, other then in response to some other posts? its a topic most people seem to ignore, and the current soft caps on range have an overall negative impact on quite a few weapons systems when judging them.

[MustrumRidcully]

Maybe, you need to add this in bold letters to your post, Victor:

You are not dumb for not wanting to boat and not using a homogeneous weapon layout.
The game is dumb because it rewards boating and homogeneous weapon layouts.

It's not exactly your primary message, but it's better than someone reading:
"DurHur, boat or get out" and feels offended and stops reading the actual meat of the topic.

[Alistair Winter]

Victor Morson, on 30 June 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

So really encouraging PGI to make more weapons synergize well is a good way to get rid of boating without forced "penalties" in the end. This is more a breakdown of why 'mechs that lack weapon synergy are doomed to be inferior.

It's not a good way, it's an easy way out.

A good way to discourage boating would be to create a game that rewards versatility. The penalty for running a 4-man group of boats is next to zero in this game, unless you're boating a weapon that sucks in the current meta. In many games, different weapon types correspond to different types of armor. For example, you have some weapons that take down shields, some weapons that penetrate armor, some weapons that cause structural damage. Alternatively, you have long range weapons that work poorly at close range, or short range weapons that work poorly at long range.

Not in MW:O. In this game, you have weapons like the large laser that work equally well at 0 meters and 450 meters, against any target, regardless of armor type or whatever else. It doesn't matter if you're piloting a Raven 2X at 130 kph through dense urban battlefields or sniping across snow covered plains in your 50 kph Stalker - the weapon works great in any condition. Just point and shoot.

It doesn't really matter that maps are selected randomly, there is no need to be versatile on account of the maps, or even the game modes. I don't care if it's Conquest or Assault, or if the map is Canyons or Tourmaline. Just give me 4-6 large lasers and I will be fine.

I'm really not interested in easy, short-term solutions. If we're going to suggest ideas that PGI are going to ignore anyway, let's at least be honest and deal with the real underlying problems, treating the disease and not the symptoms.

[Mycrus]

OP makes sense... If you want to play that kind of game...

Except ppcs+ssrms though - if you really want to minmax you shouldn't have lock on weapons as it hinders your aim..

Not for me, I revel in my terribadness...

My aws-pb has erppcs/lurm10+art/ssrms/lazors/xl400 -- I call it a mech that is agile and can hit at all ranges... Do you call it a frankenmech?

[Fate 6]

CTF-2X mini-Atlas:
1 ER LL (arm PPC is not my thing since I have torso Gauss)
2 SRM4
1 Gauss
2 ML

BALANCED LOADOUT. Also the only mech I've ever gotten 5 kills in.

[Throat Punch]

Roland, on 01 July 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

In the original battletech game, all you did was kill other mechs.

If by "original" you mean Battledroids/Battletech box sets then i agree, because I remember random roll scenarios rules (capture and hold, defend the base, destroy the com relay etc.) that were included in the master rulebooks going back to 1st edition, as well as the separate scenarios that came in various other books. Even some early tournaments were scenario based. Battletech was never solely just battlemech deathmatch.

[Trauglodyte]

In a nutshell, the OP is saying two things:

• Run weapons that have similar ranges so that they're complimentary
  
• Try to utilize weapons that have similar projectile speeds

The primary reason behind this is so that aiming is simpler and you don't end up with many weapon groups for differing situations. This is the best means of playing without boating a single weapon.

[Hellcat420]

mixed loadouts are the battletech way. boats are ezmode for noobs.

[Monky]

Franken Mechs can work but are generally better suited to PUG play. It depends on how well you understand the weapons and putting the weapons into practical firing groups that you can work, which also allow you to reach relatively high alphas. Managing cooldown rotations in the heat of a fight is a critical skill. I'm not saying you want to take one in to 8 mans, but they can easily top the charts if managed well in pug play.

[Victor Morson]

Deathlike, on 01 July 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Here's something to think about...

The Stock Primary Madcat is a shining example of how some people that hate boating would like a mech to look like:
2 Clan ER Large
2 Clan ER Med
1 Clan Med Pulse Laser (which have more range than the IS versions)
2 Clan Machine Guns
2 Clan LRM20s

Honestly, if we assume that Pulse and ER Lasers will be fixed to a usable status... that's probably really not all that unplayable, honestly. A bunch of beam weapons synchronize well, and the LRMs for the Clans have no minimum, so you'd basically be holding a lock over the target the whole time. The only odd man out (even if they made them good) is the MGs, quite honestly. Well, it depends if they take anyone's advice about front-loading MG damage and giving a cooldown - if they did, then yeah, these might even pair with the MPL.

Beam weapons always have good synergy with each other, and like Streaks, missile locks are easy to obtain while using them.

Again that build would be God awful right now, but not because of a lack of synergy but instead only because the (IS versions) of those weapons are horrendous.

Deathlike, on 01 July 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Of course, you would never be able to have an IS equivalent loadout on a Catapult (you will fail just because of the requirements on the IS LRM20).

There's no contest if they maintain the no-mimimum range thing on the Clan version alone.

Deathlike, on 01 July 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

For the purposes of MWO, this could be OK stock build. However, in practical play (and basic customization), you'd probably strip the MGs, and convert all the lasers to all Clan ER Meds or Clan Med Pulse and use the rest of the spare tonnage for more DHS.

Again, it really depends on what they do with the weapons. If ER Large could give a decent discharge of firepower in less than it's abysmal 1 second burn time (rendering it's range useless), I could easily see ER Large working along side Medium Pulse Lasers as good weapons with different range brackets - allowing the player to gain firepower (at the expense of heat) the closer he gets, for example.

Really it depends on what they do to the guns. The biggest reason really isn't the mix, it's the guns themselves have had no love and are terrible. I'd love to see that change.

Deathlike, on 01 July 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

,
The great thing about customization is that you pretty much construct anything you desire. The practical problem is that you have to design them well or you simply will suffer. It's how MWO and most MW based games (to my knowledge) have been built.

This is true. Synergy has always been important. However, if you improve the overall guns and then make them work well with others, then you fix much of this.

For example in MW4:M you could get away with running LBX/20, 2 Large Lasers and a PPC and it could work just fine. That's because all the weapons were great on their own, the Large Lasers were hitscan (I'm not advocating that here, just shorter burn) so they'd work fine with the rest, and the PPC/LBX traveled roughly at the same speed, meaning that they were actually a really brutal combo.

Again MW4 had a ton of bad guns, but it had a handful of good ones in each category, so a lot of designs clicked together fine. Sure you had 7 Large Laser Novacats out there as a very common, and effective, build - but even they saw viable alternatives, using anything from LBX/20s to Gauss in their line-up.

Hell even if you look at the energy boat Black Knight, there never did come a "standard config." My favorite was 5 Large, 5 Meds as the IS answer to the Novacat, but you could literally configure it with brawler weapons or missiles and it wouldn't ruin the 'mech.

So while there were some high tier designs, there really were way way way more viable alternatives to play. The only loadouts I ever saw that didn't change much was the previously mentioned Novacat, the 2 PPC 1 Light Gauss Uziel (even that had room to customize), the 4 ER Large jumping Ryoken, and the LBX/20, LBX/10, LL Bushwhacker. And even then, you could still run competitive alternative load outs.

Deathlike, on 01 July 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

The sad part is, my frakenbuild of an Atlas-D was... more survivable than whatever I built for the Atlas-RS:
2 ERPPC
1 Large Pulse Laser
2 LBX10
2 SSRM2

Oofh. The biggest problem with this build is how bad LPLs and LBX/10 are. If LBX/10 were viable weapons, the only odd man out on the 'mech would be the LPL.. which could easily convert to a PPC. Yes, that'd be 3 PPCs.. but 3 PPC, 2 (if they were good) LBX10 and 2 Stream 2s would be a really awesome design, honestly.

Deathlike, on 01 July 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

The only way I got through that was chaining the LBX+Streaks into the same group... it wasn't great, but it was "good enough" to get by.

I try to avoid putting streaks in the same group with weapons that have more than 270m range. So in other words I'd only group them with MGs (lol) or Small Lasers.

Deathlike, on 01 July 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

I'm not sure if I could've built something better (at the time, that was the best I could come up with), but I'd probably less likely do that disaster again...

Really, trying to force that bum gun in the form of the LPL is where your first problem is; the LBX/10 is bad but it's not that bad. It is however your second problem - your primary weapons are effectively horribly underpowered.

Honestly if you really wanted to run this thing right now, in the current meta, it would be a little better if you swapped the LBX to regular AC, brought that LPL to a PPC (or the LPL and all the PPCs down to regular LL), and used the weight to buff your DHS. It would not be a competitive Atlas because of how bad your main weapon system is, but it would do far, far better in pugs and allow you to manage your weapons far more effectively.

[Victor Morson]

xDeityx, on 01 July 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

These three sentences sum this whole mess up for me.

The first sentence is what a lot of people have problems with, but it's absolutely true. There is no code of honor when it comes to fitting a 'mech, there is only effective and not-effective. Yet people try and make you feel bad for fitting something that works optimally by calling it cheese or cheap or whatever scrub word of the week.

They are the people who don't understand the truth in your second sentence, or are ok with dying to someone in a min/maxed optimal build because at least they have a moral victory (lol) because they didn't "compromise their honor."

Extremely well said, and sadly, what I'm seeing a lot.

xDeityx, on 01 July 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

And the third sentence is where these players who are critical of boats always seem to fail. They blame players for making intelligent decisions in a flawed environment that leads to unsatisfying gameplay. In their mind the devs can do no wrong and it is the players who should all make some gentleman's agreement not to use the obviously powerful loadouts. It's ******* crazy.

I keep saying I would love a world where more weapons were viable, and more designed to work with each other, but..

xDeityx, on 01 July 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

And Victor, I feel bad for you. It's painful to see these people attacking the straw man that you never argued, that "everyone should be in a 1-click alpha boat" or some similar nonsense. Just keep patiently explaining things and don't get sucked into any particular foolish tangents like with Taskeen and his TRO loadouts.

.. yep, people keep reading the topic and immediately jumping in here to exclaim why their Frakenmechs are fine while thinking all I'm doing is suggest everyone go buy a Stalker and fit on as many PPCs as possible.
Which I have not once endorsed in this thread, even if I discuss it as one of the current problems.

And yep. I honestly only started debating it because for a second I thought he meant he was running 2 ER PPCs and 4 MLs, which wasn't too bad, then I started thinking "Wait, the K2 can't fit all that.." and looked up the K3 again. Yikes.

I'll continue trying to break down why some posted builds are not functional at the moment (the number running LPL and LBX is a big part of it - largely because both of these guns need massive amounts of love!), but yeah, I don't really want to get into a KDR ******* match. I don't even know how that started.

EDIT: In retrospect, stating my previous KDR looks like bragging but I assure everyone I meant it rather to show how easily inflated/deflated the stat is. That 80:1 came from almost exclusively playing 8 mans before they were restricted into a different part of the matchmaker. Still I'm positive that anyone's KDR is heavily tied to what types of games they play - you literally have no control if you die in pure PUG games, once your team is dead - making it a totally worthless stat to bring up. I personally care less than 0 about it; if it only tracked "ranked" matches or something, it would be far more worthwhile.

[Mr 144]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 July 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

The LLs are on a 4.25 second cycle, the AC/20s on the Mediums on a 4 second cycle.

Very rarely is my timing or opportunities so perfect that 1/4 of a sec matters....it's not like I stare at my targets and hold down da buttons

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

The problem is if you want to get the optimal range and damage out of both your AC/20 and LL, you will have to manage a lead time weapon - a long lead time - with a long burn time weapon that needs to be dead-on. You can't fire both at once at optimal range and expect to hit anywhere near the same location.

I consider my RS a brawler. The extra range of LLs is nice, and i make use of it for 'Attacks of Opportunity'...but not my primary role. I don't even bother trying to synch the 20 at range unless the target is easy pluckings...but in those cases, the build doesn't really matter. 'Shift arm lock' + 56 point alpha x 3 times before shutdown is nothing to sneeze at in a brawl (before CS)...36 points on the sweeping arms with alternate AC/20 pops on torso twist catch-up works quite fine also. Exposure time is not limited at all with lead times in this manner.

Quote

Try it with 4x LL and a Gauss. It is far superior.

I doubt it's possible to find an Atlas build I haven't put hundreds of matches of testing into. The gauss version runs cooler for sure, but breaks into your point on timing with range. The AC/20 version, while hotter, is more survivable for brawling in my experience. I run Seismic + Both Coolshots, and consider them almost mandatory for such a hot build...but either way, module selection doesn't lend much else to either build.

Just a playstyle thing...but the gauss+LL pairing is worse imo than the AC/20+LL due to your exact reasoning on leadtime and exposure. With the Highlander's relative 'safe' mounting location in the arm...I no longer run Gauss in my Atlas side torsos.

[East Indy]

Reaching back into the years, the factory-spec Crusader, Thunderbolt and Stalker are my favorite 'Mechs. Why? Each has armament far in excess of single-round heat thresholds, for multiple ranges and target types.

BattleMechs are destroyers on legs — they're imagined as versatile, with primary and auxiliary weapon systems. That's the fun of the game, and at least ostensibly the draw to MWO for many, including me.

[Victor Morson]

East Indy, on 01 July 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Reaching back into the years, the factory-spec Crusader, Thunderbolt and Stalker are my favorite 'Mechs. Why? Each has armament far in excess of single-round heat thresholds, for multiple ranges and target types.

I love the TT Stalker. If weapons were made as such that brimming-with-lasers and missiles were viable - including, say, twin LRM/10s because AMS effectively REQUIRES you to shoot 30 at a time or waste your ammo - I'd be very happy, honestly.

The problem is recognizing the difference between the game you wish you were playing (or making in PGIs case) and the game we have. The game we have punishes you for breaking out of a few set rules and thus far PGI has said absolutely nothing to convince me - or many others - that they understand this difference either.