268 replies to this topic

[P e n u m b r a]

the "balanced" build idea is such a rubbish fantasy. This is a team game and guess what? I dont know why this would come as a surprise. But the most effective tactical way to play is the same way any intelligent person would in real life its simply more efficient having designated role warfare. there is tanks built for anti infantry or anti tank like you also have DMR and regular assault infantry not some mad abomination of strapping loads of different weapons on a mech the PROBLEM is the fact most of the brawling weapons are in a poor state that its simply better just to use ppc on everything.

same on table top by the way boats are more effective and they also have roles...

Edited by Le0yo, 06 July 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[Kattspya]

Legolaas, on 06 July 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

OFC a balanced build should be as effective as a maxed build. But thats not the fact right now

Specialization and/or risk taking should be rewarded. Playing to your strength should be rewarded. A generalized mech should be slightly poorer "overall" than a specialized build if possible.

[MustrumRidcully]

Legolaas, on 06 July 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

OFC a balanced build should be as effective as a maxed build. But thats not the fact right now

I don't know if possible can.

IN pretty much every game I've played, specialization wins the day. Don't build a hybrid, build DPS, Tank, Healer. Build a short range specialist or a long range specialist, something in between doesn't work.

I believe it is reflected in the real world, too. Star Wars may have Star Destroyers that act as battlecruisers and as air craft carriers, but in reality, we build either cruisers or aircraft carriers, not hybrids. We build planes for bombing and planes for fighting other planes. We build missiles for ground targets, missiles for air targets, and missile for naval targets, not mixed missiles. Soldiers are trained for specific roles and tasks. The bomb disposal export isn't also working as traffic cop. Heart specialists don't do much brain surgery.

I think "balanced" builds are just an example of FASA even not really understanding their system either, or deliberately gimping mechs. (Just like so many mechs uselessly carry a Machine Gun and a full ton of MG fire, even though half a ton would work just as well but at least only explode half as violently on a crit.)

If you want a system to encourage versatility, you need very, very strong diminishing returns. Basically, if you equip 2 long range weapon, they deal only 150 % of the damage a single long range weapon would deal.
In BT terms, you would basically need a tonnage discount for adding weapons that work in a range category you're not focused on. If you equip a PPC, you get a total 2 ton discount on medium lasers and AC/20s you equip.

[SleepTrgt]

Le0yo, on 06 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

the "balanced" build idea is such a rubbish fantasy. This is a team game and guess what? I dont know why this would come as a surprise. But the most effective tactical way to play is the same way any intelligent person would in real life its simply more efficient having designated role warfare. there is tanks built for anti infantry or anti tank like you also have DMR and regular assault infantry not some mad abomination of strapping loads of different weapons on a mech the PROBLEM is the fact most of the brawling weapons are in a poor state that its simply better just to use ppc on everything.

same on table top by the way boats are more effective and they also have roles...

Either everything is in poor state besides PPC or PPC are just too efficient?

[MustrumRidcully]

Legolaas, on 06 July 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

We are not in olympics nor we earn money by playing mwo. The only thing is to have fun i´d say. At least for me

But how do you have fun? WHat gives you fun? Is it just walking around with a big stompy robot and shooting a few guns?

Do you have as much fun losing 20 matches in a row as you do with 10 victores and 10 losses?

One of the most fun experiences can be a hard-fought battle where both sides did their best. But can you honestly say you gave your best if you didn't use the best build? Isn't there always this little voice in your head, saying "yeah, if I had use cheese, I would have beaten them"?

Maybe it'S not that way for you. But I think it's that way for most players.

Quote

BTW Ronnie O´sullivan played a full championsship with his weaker arm just because he got bored and wanted a competition. Iam not saying iam as awesome as O´sullivan but still there are even sportsman who give themself a disadvantage just to have fun agin by a new competition

Edit : O´sullivan is a Snooker player

That's the kind of thing happens when not your tools, but yourself are OP. And I suspect O'Sullivan would enjoy it even more if a player would rise up to challenge and beat him. (Of course that might have already happened, I don't know anything about Snooker championships.)

[FactorlanP]

Le0yo, on 06 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

the "balanced" build idea is such a rubbish fantasy. This is a team game and guess what? I dont know why this would come as a surprise. But the most effective tactical way to play is the same way any intelligent person would in real life its simply more efficient having designated role warfare. there is tanks built for anti infantry or anti tank like you also have DMR and regular assault infantry not some mad abomination of strapping loads of different weapons on a mech the PROBLEM is the fact most of the brawling weapons are in a poor state that its simply better just to use ppc on everything.

same on table top by the way boats are more effective and they also have roles...

The problem occurs when only ONE role (boated PPC/Gauss sniper) is so dominant that bringing ANY other build puts you at a severe disadvantage.

[Victor Morson]

Further, on 06 July 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Me and my house dropped against them once. It was a roflstomp. 8-0 I've dropped against better pugs.

Maybe a bit harsh. But even in their stream they said they weren't that good and don't play much. Ibdont think devs should or need to be the best. I just want to be confident that they understand the game, fans, and player base well enough when they make design choices.

The reason for the concern isn't their skill level (they aren't terrible pilots, to be honest), as much as it is the kind of builds they are running simply having no place in the 8 man games they are dropping. Part of why it's frightening is it indicates that they think said designs should prove effective.. when they can't.

I am genuinely concerned they will scapegoat the PPC entirely, instead of looking at the other weapons around it that put it in it's place. I'm OK with more of a nerf to the PPC - I hadn't been previously - but I absolutely do not want to see it getting hit TOO hard, when increasing the surrounding weapons will fix a mech.

However, again, they have been trying to make some serious effort to get things back on track it feels like with good changes to how they're handling communication with the community. We'll have to see what the future holds, now.

FactorlanP, on 06 July 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

The problem occurs when only ONE role (boated PPC/Gauss sniper) is so dominant that bringing ANY other build puts you at a severe disadvantage.

Yep, which itself stems from the fact they're too solid at any range. The infighting weapons need to out-DPS the sniping weapons or there is no point not sniping.

[P e n u m b r a]

FactorlanP, on 06 July 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

The problem occurs when only ONE role (boated PPC/Gauss sniper) is so dominant that bringing ANY other build puts you at a severe disadvantage.

I did address that in saying the other weapons are not viable and even suggested buffs and nerfs?

[Sephlock]

Le0yo, on 06 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

the "balanced" build idea is such a rubbish fantasy. This is a team game and guess what? I dont know why this would come as a surprise. But the most effective tactical way to play is the same way any intelligent person would in real life its simply more efficient having designated role warfare. there is tanks built for anti infantry or anti tank like you also have DMR and regular assault infantry not some mad abomination of strapping loads of different weapons on a mech the PROBLEM is the fact most of the brawling weapons are in a poor state that its simply better just to use ppc on everything.

same on table top by the way boats are more effective and they also have roles...

I agree with you but there should at least be SOME variety- I mean, MBTs have machineguns and the like to pick off infantrymen...

At the very least, it'd be nice if things were balanced to the point where it might be preferable (or at least, feasible in the sense that doing so wouldn't be gimping yourself) to take at least 1 less ppc in favor of a backup weapon for some other purpose.

AND NO, GAUSS RIFLES DON'T COUNT .

[Comguard]

Wait a second, the PPC-boats are alphastriking in MW:O since aroundApril...and balance was still not touched?

I don't play anymore because I'm waiting for "that patch...", but the regular checks of the message boards show me that the development pace has not changed.

[P e n u m b r a]

Sephlock, on 06 July 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

I agree with you but there should at least be SOME variety- I mean, MBTs have machineguns and the like to pick off infantrymen...

At the very least, it'd be nice if things were balanced to the point where it might be preferable (or at least, feasible in the sense that doing so wouldn't be gimping yourself) to take at least 1 less ppc in favor of a backup weapon for some other purpose.

AND NO, GAUSS RIFLES DON'T COUNT .

you probably would have them on mechs if there was infantry in mwo but do you think they would use those guns if it was tanks only? I dont think so we did have ssrm on some of the mechs to handle the lights in those matches but never got to that point...

[Aaron45]

Comguard, on 06 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Wait a second, the PPC-boats are alphastriking in MW:O since aroundApril...and balance was still not touched?

I don't play anymore because I'm waiting for "that patch...", but the regular checks of the message boards show me that the development pace has not changed.

Exactly the high alpha 30+ is the annoying part. 1-2 (as devs probably planed to be used) ppc is pretty rare(except lights and mediums)

Kattspya, on 06 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Specialization and/or risk taking should be rewarded. Playing to your strength should be rewarded. A generalized mech should be slightly poorer "overall" than a specialized build if possible.

wheres the risk by using 2 ppc and 2 erppc? ofc there never the riskless weapon but you can pretty own with 4 ppc´s

[Sephlock]

Le0yo, on 06 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

we did have ssrm on some of the mechs to handle the lights in those matches

That's the kind of thing I was/am hoping for, although SSRMs are getting nerfed...

[Aaron45]

Le0yo, on 06 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

the "balanced" build idea is such a rubbish fantasy. This is a team game and guess what? I dont know why this would come as a surprise. But the most effective tactical way to play is the same way any intelligent person would in real life its simply more efficient having designated role warfare. there is tanks built for anti infantry or anti tank like you also have DMR and regular assault infantry not some mad abomination of strapping loads of different weapons on a mech the PROBLEM is the fact most of the brawling weapons are in a poor state that its simply better just to use ppc on everything.

same on table top by the way boats are more effective and they also have roles...

i dont agree. All ac´s (even the lbx10) srms streaks large medium lazers (probably except pl lazers) are pretty where they should be. Maybe buff srms to dmg 2. there are so many players who use their so called sniper build(3-6 ppc) even as a brawl build. Because ITS TOO EFFECTIVE.

Balanced means: you do have Long/ mid and effective small range weapons as streaks against lights.
a Balnced mech allowes you to fit in many roles.

Edited by Legolaas, 06 July 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

SilentWolff, on 06 July 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

For the record, every MW game has had pinpoint accuracy. This is nothing new. PPC's aren't operating any differently from past MW games.

Mechwarrior 2 / Mechwarrior 2 Mercenaries DID NOT. The problems started with Mechwarrior 3.

Go from MW 2 to MW 3 and in 3 they operate the same as they do now. In 2, damage spread out. The online component was a million times more fun and back then it was only 2 - 3 people a team.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Comguard, on 06 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Wait a second, the PPC-boats are alphastriking in MW:O since aroundApril...and balance was still not touched?

I don't play anymore because I'm waiting for "that patch...", but the regular checks of the message boards show me that the development pace has not changed.

I guess changing a few sets of numbers around it too hard and costs way too much money for a timely fix.

[P e n u m b r a]

devs all ready said 2.0 is to strong for srms yes it seemed balanced in solo que but in team matches it was crazy games used to last a mere couple of minutes when it was like that. did you even read my post on balance? you are just mad about ppc in a state of cognitive dissonance.

[Aaron45]

Le0yo, on 06 July 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

devs all ready said 2.0 is to strong for srms yes it seemed balanced in solo que but in team matches it was crazy games used to last a mere couple of minutes when it was like that. did you even read my post on balance? you are just mad about ppc in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Assuming that anyone is mad because ..... is just cheap. Maybe its you cuz you dont likethem to be nerfed?

[P e n u m b r a]

devs all ready said 2.0 is to strong for srms yes it seemed balanced in solo que but in team matches it was crazy games used to last a mere couple of minutes when it was like that. did you even read my post on balance? you are just mad about ppc in a state of cognitive dissonance.

and blastman it was pin point in mw2 what the heck are you on about you aim you fire projectiles land at crosshair and deal damage to that that point same here?

http://www.youtube.c...ZhuyNnTA#t=202s

get your facts right...

Edited by Le0yo, 06 July 2013 - 01:03 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

Le0yo, on 06 July 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

devs all ready said 2.0 is to strong for srms yes it seemed balanced in solo que but in team matches it was crazy games used to last a mere couple of minutes when it was like that. did you even read my post on balance? you are just mad about ppc in a state of cognitive dissonance.

It wasn't the SRM damage that was too high, it was the fact that missiles were splashing for 7-8x as much damage as they should. If SRMS did 2.5 damage without splash bugs, it would be fine.