242 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Carcass23, on 16 August 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

See how superior your i7 is to my 8086 after your machine has been shot by a musket.

You have a 4Mhz computer and a musket? Are you a time traveler?

[Marmon Rzohr]

Victor Morson, on 15 August 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

I believe rather firmly that balance should be done by observing high-tier players for weapons balance, and casual players for ease-of-use mechanics. i.e. making it clear to newbies how to deal with LRMs so they don't have to complain a weapon that's actually not very good is overpowered would be ease-of-use mechanics, where watching the competitive players would likely tweak the weapons usefulness.

+1
This is how WoW is balanced. And DotA. And LoL. And every game that wants to have serious and lasting PvP appeal.

Again I have to say I'm still perplexed at the hate on this post. You guys calling out for different builds and strategies as vaiable in these or those conditions, or call out the OP for stifling creativity: THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR YOU !
- This thread is for me and other n00bs. People who start this game deserve to know how to cut cookies. It makes the game more accesible. They need posts which help them understand the metagame without grinding for hours only to invest the money in a build that seems lackluster and they can't tell why. On the surface AC5s, AC10s, Pulse lasers do seem to make just as much sense as any other weapon. But they don't. Especially with the game as is

This is beacuse these "low tier" weapons are harder to use. It takes more effort to win with them.

I'm perplexed. Instead of posting your best cheese or cookie cutter for the least C-Bills to help jump start new Mechwarriors, you do this.

This is a "Guides" thread.
Leave the discussion on experimentation and ways to implement underused weapons to another thread or forum section. It isn't about who's the most right, it's about what will help new guys kick *** so they can enjoy the game.

Cheers

P.S.:
@Victor: you mentioned the current League mechs of choice as the Victor, Stalker, Raven and Treb.
How come the Treb became popular ? I was under the impression that the Treb was relegated to the "garbage" category.

[Fire and Salt]

Balancing for low end players and high end player is easy in theory:

Make sure there are no OP weapons in either class.


LRMs are PWNING pugs - Nerf Them - even if that means that the high end players never use them.

PPCs are the only weapon high level players are using - Nerf them - even if that means that noobs cant hit anything with them and think they need a buff.





An underpowerd weapon means 1 weapon is on the shelf in a particular setting.

An overpowered weapon means that ALL OF THE REST of the weapons become shelved.




------

This is also one of the reasons that i fundamentally disagree with this "guide for noobs"
You are telling them what weapons high level payers use to beat other high level players.


What you SHOULD be telling them is what weapons you use to pugstomp, and why.



Case in point: All of my highest scoring (damage AND kills) games in heavies and assault mechs have used UAC5s. These were when PUGing.

Every time I placed on the tournament leader boards, it was with a "crap" build.

Highlander773P leaderboard - Using LRMs (When they were worse than they are now - slow and less arc, less damage too, no BAP countering ECM)
Jager/Heavy leaderboard (twice) - Using UAC5 and/or AC2s
Light Leaderboard - OK I admit i used a jenner for a lot of my games, but my best game was still in a Raven 3L - a build that I have avoided in 12 mans (took my jenner instead)


Now I DON'T use those same builds in 12v12 games - but is this a guide for players attempting 12 mans? Because it seems like its trying to be a beginners guide....

[1453 R]

There's something of a misunderstanding at play here, Marmon.

Despite what Victor thinks, I'm not actually arguing that bad guns are not bad, or that bad 'Mechs are not bad. I can't find any more realistic a purpose for non-1X Blackjacks than anyone else, and I wish to note that my best/favorite 'Mech – my DRG-FLAME – used to run the LBX/SRM scattershot striker build but has since migrated to Gauss/mediums because that's about the only thing you can realistically do with it. I love the LB/X-10 autocannon, it's quite possibly my favorite weapon in this game based on raw feel, but I don't actually use it anymore.

Fundamentally, I'm arguing two things. One, that there exists a greater range of viable – not optimal, but not terrible, either – weapons/builds at the raw noob level than is indicated by this guide. Large lasers and Ultra autocannons still work down here, Catapults are still cool down here, Trebuchets aren't instant death down here. The sorts of players who're interested in raw, bleeding-edge optimization at the expense of absolutely everything else – including fun, for the most part – are not going to be reading guides to obtain that information, they're going to be joining competitive units and learning directly from folks like Victor. Provided, of course, that they don't fall victim to the more recent second line of argument I've opened given some of the responses in this thread.

Prior to discussing that line of argument, I'm going to ask you a question, Victor. Are you, by chance, a TCG gamer? I am, or was rather. No card shops up here for me to go and play at anymore. Sadness. Anyways. It would no doubt surprise you, Victor, that in the area of TCG gaming I'm on the other end of this equation. In a game which challenges my mind, rather than my fingers and reflexes as MWO does, I am quite competitive indeed and have won my share of tournaments just fine. The difference, methinks, is in what happened when I wasn't actively playing a round and advancing in the tournament.

Between rounds, or after the tournament, or in General Hang-Out before the tournament, I'd be there laughing and joking around with my buddies, of course – but I'd also be sitting down across from the new players and going “Hey! How ya doing?”, and seeing what they needed help with. I can, will, and have sat down with a rookie player and gone over his deck with him card-by-card, pointed out where he could make some low-cost modifications to improve his odds, and even given him a few of those cards where and when I could. I also can, will, and have sat down and gone through my deck with somebody I'd just gotten through poleaxing, showed him why I could do what I did, how my deck worked and the guiding principles behind it.

Nor was I the only one who did so. Back in the good old days of the early WoW TCG, my entire build group did the same – we'd hold semi-official Deck Shops to work on folks' stuff with them, we'd build entire spare decks for players who forgot theirs or weren't confident in their own to try out. It was the best way to play, to us. After all, if the new blood got better and started giving us proper runs for our money, then we had more fun with our games too, and more opportunity to give our ideas a real workout. Surly, unfriendly Prize Sharks were cause for the players to close ranks and bust out their best decks – we won, too; you didn't get cards from our venue unless you were either good peoples or really damn good – and any sort of open hostility or aggression was grounds for ejection from the event.

Imagine my surprise then, Victor, when I came into online gaming a couple-odd years ago and found out that open hostility and naked aggression were not only not frowned upon, but were the ******** norm.

High-level players in games like Firefall or League of Legends didn't take pleasure in showing new folks the ropes and watching them smile when they finally got it, they took pleasure in brutalizing new players. In crushing their egos, destroying their confidence, and generally inflicting pain and misery as often and as strongly as they could. High-level players in these sorts of games seem to feel that anyone who didn't bleed to reach the top – who didn't suffer humiliation, degradation, and torment in spades while clawing their way up through the unforgiving hordes – didn't really earn their skill, or their rating, or their Elo, or their whatever-the-hell the latest mark of acceptance is. And predatory balancing is one of their favorite tools for doing just that. Example, of course, being Firefall, where players were constantly, constantly farking on about raising skill floors, raising more barriers for entry, making things harder, making things MOAR SKILL'D. Rather than “everything is good, you just have to know how to use it!”, which is where we all want to be, or “most everything is bad, no matter how you use it,” which is where we're currently at, these players desire “everything is frickin' terrible, until and unless you learn just the right way to use it.”

This is the tendency I cannot stand, and the tendency the first Town Hall made me deeply afraid ran through the roots of the high-level Leagueian community. The basic structure of MechWarrior, with locational damage, unusual movement systems and strange weapons like NARC, is already hard enough for new players to adjust to. Mechanics like ghost heat are so opaque and unintuitive that they're actively harmful to new players – how the hell are they supposed to know that adding a third large laser to their Victor is going to double their lasers' heat generation, not just kick it up fifty percent?

Why does this game need to be even more complex, Victor? Why does it need to be even more impenetrable to newcomers, even more impossible to play unless one has spent what may as well be their entire life playing MechWarrior one way or another, as I have? I'm only still here because this is my game, and because my experience with the series gave me a strong knowledge base coming into MWO that let me skip most of the real fresh-fish floundering, and I'm still terrible.

Why do high-level players feel the need to make this game harder, even more unforgiving, and then claim that it's somehow for our own good because trickle-down? You don't seem to believe it needs to be, which makes you largely unique in my experience of League players so far, but can you honestly tell me that the rest of your compatriots don't want just exactly what I've laid out above? Can you honestly tell me that this disgusting 'Official Clans and Units' initiative of the Town Hall isn't just a way to funnel new players into a conveniently accessible metaphorical garbage bin for all of your guys to heap abuse on until they leave?

Can you tell me why open hostility and naked aggression is the expected norm from the folks who should be ******** mentors and teachers instead of bullies and tyrants, Victor? I'd really, really like to know, because I'm pretty sure it makes me want to punch some folks' teeth right out of their heads. Perhaps not yours, but I'm betting you wouldn't have to try very hard to come up with some teeth that fit the bill, would you?

[StaIker]

Ahh, I see now that this isn't about balance at all. It's a morality tale, the elites are not behaving "properly" so their ideas must be spat on until they become better people.

Carry on.

[Dredhawk]

I could be wrong but would-en your mech explode ether way with a XL engine so why would it matter if you store the ammo in side torso..

[ImABaer]

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

There's something of a misunderstanding at play here, Marmon.

Despite what Victor thinks, I'm not actually arguing that bad guns are not bad, or that bad 'Mechs are not bad. I can't find any more realistic a purpose for non-1X Blackjacks than anyone else, and I wish to note that my best/favorite 'Mech – my DRG-FLAME – used to run the LBX/SRM scattershot striker build but has since migrated to Gauss/mediums because that's about the only thing you can realistically do with it. I love the LB/X-10 autocannon, it's quite possibly my favorite weapon in this game based on raw feel, but I don't actually use it anymore.

Fundamentally, I'm arguing two things. One, that there exists a greater range of viable – not optimal, but not terrible, either – weapons/builds at the raw noob level than is indicated by this guide. Large lasers and Ultra autocannons still work down here, Catapults are still cool down here, Trebuchets aren't instant death down here. The sorts of players who're interested in raw, bleeding-edge optimization at the expense of absolutely everything else – including fun, for the most part – are not going to be reading guides to obtain that information, they're going to be joining competitive units and learning directly from folks like Victor. Provided, of course, that they don't fall victim to the more recent second line of argument I've opened given some of the responses in this thread.

Prior to discussing that line of argument, I'm going to ask you a question, Victor. Are you, by chance, a TCG gamer? I am, or was rather. No card shops up here for me to go and play at anymore. Sadness. Anyways. It would no doubt surprise you, Victor, that in the area of TCG gaming I'm on the other end of this equation. In a game which challenges my mind, rather than my fingers and reflexes as MWO does, I am quite competitive indeed and have won my share of tournaments just fine. The difference, methinks, is in what happened when I wasn't actively playing a round and advancing in the tournament.

Between rounds, or after the tournament, or in General Hang-Out before the tournament, I'd be there laughing and joking around with my buddies, of course – but I'd also be sitting down across from the new players and going “Hey! How ya doing?”, and seeing what they needed help with. I can, will, and have sat down with a rookie player and gone over his deck with him card-by-card, pointed out where he could make some low-cost modifications to improve his odds, and even given him a few of those cards where and when I could. I also can, will, and have sat down and gone through my deck with somebody I'd just gotten through poleaxing, showed him why I could do what I did, how my deck worked and the guiding principles behind it.

Nor was I the only one who did so. Back in the good old days of the early WoW TCG, my entire build group did the same – we'd hold semi-official Deck Shops to work on folks' stuff with them, we'd build entire spare decks for players who forgot theirs or weren't confident in their own to try out. It was the best way to play, to us. After all, if the new blood got better and started giving us proper runs for our money, then we had more fun with our games too, and more opportunity to give our ideas a real workout. Surly, unfriendly Prize Sharks were cause for the players to close ranks and bust out their best decks – we won, too; you didn't get cards from our venue unless you were either good peoples or really damn good – and any sort of open hostility or aggression was grounds for ejection from the event.

Imagine my surprise then, Victor, when I came into online gaming a couple-odd years ago and found out that open hostility and naked aggression were not only not frowned upon, but were the ******** norm.

High-level players in games like Firefall or League of Legends didn't take pleasure in showing new folks the ropes and watching them smile when they finally got it, they took pleasure in brutalizing new players. In crushing their egos, destroying their confidence, and generally inflicting pain and misery as often and as strongly as they could. High-level players in these sorts of games seem to feel that anyone who didn't bleed to reach the top – who didn't suffer humiliation, degradation, and torment in spades while clawing their way up through the unforgiving hordes – didn't really earn their skill, or their rating, or their Elo, or their whatever-the-hell the latest mark of acceptance is. And predatory balancing is one of their favorite tools for doing just that. Example, of course, being Firefall, where players were constantly, constantly farking on about raising skill floors, raising more barriers for entry, making things harder, making things MOAR SKILL'D. Rather than “everything is good, you just have to know how to use it!”, which is where we all want to be, or “most everything is bad, no matter how you use it,” which is where we're currently at, these players desire “everything is frickin' terrible, until and unless you learn just the right way to use it.”

This is the tendency I cannot stand, and the tendency the first Town Hall made me deeply afraid ran through the roots of the high-level Leagueian community. The basic structure of MechWarrior, with locational damage, unusual movement systems and strange weapons like NARC, is already hard enough for new players to adjust to. Mechanics like ghost heat are so opaque and unintuitive that they're actively harmful to new players – how the hell are they supposed to know that adding a third large laser to their Victor is going to double their lasers' heat generation, not just kick it up fifty percent?

Why does this game need to be even more complex, Victor? Why does it need to be even more impenetrable to newcomers, even more impossible to play unless one has spent what may as well be their entire life playing MechWarrior one way or another, as I have? I'm only still here because this is my game, and because my experience with the series gave me a strong knowledge base coming into MWO that let me skip most of the real fresh-fish floundering, and I'm still terrible.

Why do high-level players feel the need to make this game harder, even more unforgiving, and then claim that it's somehow for our own good because trickle-down? You don't seem to believe it needs to be, which makes you largely unique in my experience of League players so far, but can you honestly tell me that the rest of your compatriots don't want just exactly what I've laid out above? Can you honestly tell me that this disgusting 'Official Clans and Units' initiative of the Town Hall isn't just a way to funnel new players into a conveniently accessible metaphorical garbage bin for all of your guys to heap abuse on until they leave?

Can you tell me why open hostility and naked aggression is the expected norm from the folks who should be ******** mentors and teachers instead of bullies and tyrants, Victor? I'd really, really like to know, because I'm pretty sure it makes me want to punch some folks' teeth right out of their heads. Perhaps not yours, but I'm betting you wouldn't have to try very hard to come up with some teeth that fit the bill, would you?

No offense, but what the hell are you smoking? I think he's said several times in this thread alone that he's not advocating the current system, he's just describing it.

What's more newb friendly: letting a new player to outfit his mech with flamers and MG's and then watching him flail about because he's using absolutely terrible weapons? Or giving them a concise cheat sheet on exactly what they need to do to in order to mechanically level the playing ground?

You also need to consider the sort of person who's looking at guides or forums. People look at guides because they want to get better or get stronger. People don't look at guides to hear general platitudes of reassurance. "It's ok, there's no WRONG choices. Everyone is special and your build is probably ok." does jack to help someone improve. If someone in MTG went for a penta colored deck without a very special setup, if you were trying to help them, you would let them know it's probably not a great idea. It doesn't make them a terrible person for doing so, but if they want to win, they'll swap up their strategy.

Edited by ImABaer, 16 August 2013 - 05:51 PM.

[Marmon Rzohr]

Dredhawk, on 16 August 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

I could be wrong but would-en your mech explode ether way with a XL engine so why would it matter if you store the ammo in side torso..

The ammo explostion system works like this:
- A side torso's internal structure has a set number of hit points. Only once the get to 0 does the section explode taking the XL engine with it
- once there is no armor on a section of the mech every hit on that section has a random chance of being a "Critical Hit". Critical hits deal additional damage and affect a random component in the section. If the affected component is a weapon it takes damage and can be destoyed for instance. If the affected component is Ammo, then the ammo explodes, causing even more damage (quite a bit of damage, depending on the ammo type).
- This means that storing ammo in a side torso means it will likely get destoryed (on average) much faster than it would otherwise because of the additional damage from ammo explosions.

Cheers


@1453 R:
I think there is very little actual disagreement here. Both you and the OP think new players deserve some help in getting them started with their first builds. While the rethoric has degraded a bit, this is not due to bad attitudes , IMHO, but rather some trolling and some people missing the point of the thread, turning their frustration with the meta on to the list.

Of course that there are other solid and useable and PUG firendly builds. But this is about trying to guide people to best possible mechs using a brief set of principles. These weapons set as top tier are top tier because they are dependable, useful in any match and require little to no introduction. Of course the guide could give swings and roundabouts ("yes, you see this weapon can be used by this type of mech, especially in a group.." etc). But that just makes the issue more confusing.

That is why Victor defended the simple black/white nature of his list,

Think of this list as a card review before a new set is released. Reviews are posted once the cards are known, rating everthing in the set so that players going into the release tournaments know which cards to choose and build decks with.
(at least this is common for MTG)

Sure some cards find incredible uses later, values change etc, but when getting started with something new, this type of concise information is very important because it lets you get into the game with a shot against educated players without going through lots of research. Or lots of indecision.

If you named every build that can work or that someone can make work, or every weapon that can be put to good use especially in low-mid PUGs (where I play, that's how I know), you'd end up with a list of everything (minus the flamer and NARC). Which would get new guys nowhere.

(that's why If someone were to ask me "Heavy do i get?" I'd say: "Cataphract" because it does all you could ever want (except not looking like someone crashed a better looking mech into a wall) and is just so good. If I said: "Well Cataphracts are kinda the mech of choice now, the Quickdraw is also a pretty nice mech, the Dragon can be fun if you get used to it, the Jager is really potent but kind vunerable, the Catapult does lots of stuff is user firendly and fun", they'd say: "Mmm that's interesting" and go ask someone else for a shorter answer or they'd simply ask "But which is the best ?")

Trust me, once they get rolling everyone's gonna try to find something new on their own anyway

Cheers

[Victor Morson]

Marmon Rzohr, on 16 August 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

P.S.:
@Victor: you mentioned the current League mechs of choice as the Victor, Stalker, Raven and Treb.
How come the Treb became popular ? I was under the impression that the Treb was relegated to the "garbage" category.

A lot of leagues put in a Chassis limit along with a weight limit; so if you want 5 50 tonners in Marik, for example, you will have to use 3 Centurions and 2 Trebuchets. Same with the Stalker and Victor, and to a degree, the Raven. Those are more the B team though. The A team is Jenner, Cicada, Centurion, Cataphract, Highlander and sometimes Atlas. (Arguably in tonnage games the Quickdraw is surprisingly decent, despite being huge.)

This very much depends on which league you're playing in of course. I agree, Trebs (while not terrible) aren't as good as a Centurion objectively, so we'd fill our Centurion slots first almost every time.

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 August 2013 - 10:15 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Fire and Salt, on 16 August 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Balancing for low end players and high end player is easy in theory:

Make sure there are no OP weapons in either class.
LRMs are PWNING pugs - Nerf Them - even if that means that the high end players never use them.

PPCs are the only weapon high level players are using - Nerf them - even if that means that noobs cant hit anything with them and think they need a buff.

To a degree, I agree. For example with LRMs, I would have loved to see changes to their mechanics to make them useful for both groups, even if it means radically changing the way they work. i.e. I would be fine with making their LOS firepower far superior to their indirect firepower (it already is the case to a degree), since indirect fire is what primarily caused problems with the lower brackets in the first place.

So I think there's a middle ground, for sure. MW:O hasn't any of the high tier problems a game like StarCraft 2 might have: Most new players can adapt high-end gear immediately and use it correctly right off the bat.

Fire and Salt, on 16 August 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

An underpowerd weapon means 1 weapon is on the shelf in a particular setting.

An overpowered weapon means that ALL OF THE REST of the weapons become shelved.

Yep. And I hate guns being on the shelf at all!

Fire and Salt, on 16 August 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

This is also one of the reasons that i fundamentally disagree with this "guide for noobs"
You are telling them what weapons high level payers use to beat other high level players.

What you SHOULD be telling them is what weapons you use to pugstomp, and why.

Case in point: All of my highest scoring (damage AND kills) games in heavies and assault mechs have used UAC5s. These were when PUGing.

It's one and the same, though. I do in fact bring up both LRMs and UACs as viable weapons in pugstomp environments, even.

In fact I have brought up the UAC/5 as an excellent high-damage weapon that's useful for pugs, and also tried to explain - at some point - that it's bad in competitive games only because of the need to stay on target. If you're not dealing with 8+ people focus firing, it's great.

Fire and Salt, on 16 August 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Every time I placed on the tournament leader boards, it was with a "crap" build.
Highlander773P leaderboard - Using LRMs (When they were worse than they are now - slow and less arc, less damage too, no BAP countering ECM)
Jager/Heavy leaderboard (twice) - Using UAC5 and/or AC2s
Light Leaderboard - OK I admit i used a jenner for a lot of my games, but my best game was still in a Raven 3L - a build that I have avoided in 12 mans (took my jenner instead)

Now I DON'T use those same builds in 12v12 games - but is this a guide for players attempting 12 mans? Because it seems like its trying to be a beginners guide....

Those have more to do with playing a lot of matches and hitting several in which you are ignored. In fact, the only real advantage to taking those guns is that you are likely to be low priority.

Really though, on average, I wouldn't recommend most of those setups to pug stomp. They're more a handicap than anything. Excluding the UAC of course, because I've said several times I think it's "2nd tier" and not trash by any means.

[Victor Morson]

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

There's something of a misunderstanding at play here, Marmon.

Despite what Victor thinks, I'm not actually arguing that bad guns are not bad, or that bad 'Mechs are not bad. I can't find any more realistic a purpose for non-1X Blackjacks than anyone else, and I wish to note that my best/favorite 'Mech – my DRG-FLAME – used to run the LBX/SRM scattershot striker build but has since migrated to Gauss/mediums because that's about the only thing you can realistically do with it. I love the LB/X-10 autocannon, it's quite possibly my favorite weapon in this game based on raw feel, but I don't actually use it anymore.

Fundamentally, I'm arguing two things. One, that there exists a greater range of viable – not optimal, but not terrible, either – weapons/builds at the raw noob level than is indicated by this guide. Large lasers and Ultra autocannons still work down here, Catapults are still cool down here, Trebuchets aren't instant death down here. The sorts of players who're interested in raw, bleeding-edge optimization at the expense of absolutely everything else – including fun, for the most part – are not going to be reading guides to obtain that information, they're going to be joining competitive units and learning directly from folks like Victor. Provided, of course, that they don't fall victim to the more recent second line of argument I've opened given some of the responses in this thread.

This thread again is about optimal 'mechs, and the best configurations. I don't know how many times I can explain that. It is not about "what works at lower levels." It's about "what is the best at all levels."

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Prior to discussing that line of argument, I'm going to ask you a question, Victor. Are you, by chance, a TCG gamer? I am, or was rather. No card shops up here for me to go and play at anymore. Sadness. Anyways. It would no doubt surprise you, Victor, that in the area of TCG gaming I'm on the other end of this equation. In a game which challenges my mind, rather than my fingers and reflexes as MWO does, I am quite competitive indeed and have won my share of tournaments just fine. The difference, methinks, is in what happened when I wasn't actively playing a round and advancing in the tournament.

The closest I ever got to TCG was playing a few rounds of Magic 2012 on steam with some friends. I've played plenty of war games, however.

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Between rounds, or after the tournament, or in General Hang-Out before the tournament, I'd be there laughing and joking around with my buddies, of course – but I'd also be sitting down across from the new players and going “Hey! How ya doing?”, and seeing what they needed help with. I can, will, and have sat down with a rookie player and gone over his deck with him card-by-card, pointed out where he could make some low-cost modifications to improve his odds, and even given him a few of those cards where and when I could. I also can, will, and have sat down and gone through my deck with somebody I'd just gotten through poleaxing, showed him why I could do what I did, how my deck worked and the guiding principles behind it.

I'm sure you did. There also exists many good guides to Magic: The Gathering online I am absolutely positive that tell you precisely which cards are good, which cards are bad, and how to compete in tournaments. I don't know enough about TCGs to give you details, but I have heard many times over there is a VERY, VERY strict meta to these games, and taking even a single "scrub" card will wreck your deck.

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Nor was I the only one who did so. Back in the good old days of the early WoW TCG, my entire build group did the same – we'd hold semi-official Deck Shops to work on folks' stuff with them, we'd build entire spare decks for players who forgot theirs or weren't confident in their own to try out. It was the best way to play, to us. After all, if the new blood got better and started giving us proper runs for our money, then we had more fun with our games too, and more opportunity to give our ideas a real workout. Surly, unfriendly Prize Sharks were cause for the players to close ranks and bust out their best decks – we won, too; you didn't get cards from our venue unless you were either good peoples or really damn good – and any sort of open hostility or aggression was grounds for ejection from the event.

Imagine my surprise then, Victor, when I came into online gaming a couple-odd years ago and found out that open hostility and naked aggression were not only not frowned upon, but were the ******** norm.

But nobody is being openly hostile or aggressive here.

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

High-level players in games like Firefall or League of Legends didn't take pleasure in showing new folks the ropes and watching them smile when they finally got it, they took pleasure in brutalizing new players. In crushing their egos, destroying their confidence, and generally inflicting pain and misery as often and as strongly as they could. High-level players in these sorts of games seem to feel that anyone who didn't bleed to reach the top – who didn't suffer humiliation, degradation, and torment in spades while clawing their way up through the unforgiving hordes – didn't really earn their skill, or their rating, or their Elo, or their whatever-the-hell the latest mark of acceptance is. And predatory balancing is one of their favorite tools for doing just that. Example, of course, being Firefall, where players were constantly, constantly farking on about raising skill floors, raising more barriers for entry, making things harder, making things MOAR SKILL'D. Rather than “everything is good, you just have to know how to use it!”, which is where we all want to be, or “most everything is bad, no matter how you use it,” which is where we're currently at, these players desire “everything is frickin' terrible, until and unless you learn just the right way to use it.”

I don't play LoL but I've heard that they've gone out of their way to do a good job balancing Elite and Basic tier stuff, addressing characters that were imbalanced in both, and have a great reputation online for doing so.

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

This is the tendency I cannot stand, and the tendency the first Town Hall made me deeply afraid ran through the roots of the high-level Leagueian community. The basic structure of MechWarrior, with locational damage, unusual movement systems and strange weapons like NARC, is already hard enough for new players to adjust to. Mechanics like ghost heat are so opaque and unintuitive that they're actively harmful to new players – how the hell are they supposed to know that adding a third large laser to their Victor is going to double their lasers' heat generation, not just kick it up fifty percent?

Why does this game need to be even more complex, Victor? Why does it need to be even more impenetrable to newcomers, even more impossible to play unless one has spent what may as well be their entire life playing MechWarrior one way or another, as I have? I'm only still here because this is my game, and because my experience with the series gave me a strong knowledge base coming into MWO that let me skip most of the real fresh-fish floundering, and I'm still terrible.

Why do high-level players feel the need to make this game harder, even more unforgiving, and then claim that it's somehow for our own good because trickle-down?

.... and you're yelling at me, because...? You are aware I've been actively campaigning against Ghost Heat - in part because it's so newbie unfriendly? Are you aware the whole townhall you keep fearing thinks Ghost Heat is awful, demands it's removal, and hates how unfriendly it is too?

Go check the Ask the Devs thread. I have a question up right now, specifically attacking Ghost Heat for being too complicated.

I've said it before but you're going after the wrong people, dude.

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

You don't seem to believe it needs to be, which makes you largely unique in my experience of League players so far, but can you honestly tell me that the rest of your compatriots don't want just exactly what I've laid out above? Can you honestly tell me that this disgusting 'Official Clans and Units' initiative of the Town Hall isn't just a way to funnel new players into a conveniently accessible metaphorical garbage bin for all of your guys to heap abuse on until they leave?

... uh yeah, I can, because that's not what it's there for at all. Take off the tinfoil hat man. PGI has failed to provide a decent tutorial and pushes people into a handicapped map for their first 25 matches. If they're not going to improve that before launch - do you really think we're getting a tutorial in time for launch!? - then newbies need SOME kind of training experience other than outdated youtube videos.

Nobody is out to get you, Jesus Christ!

1453 R, on 16 August 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Can you tell me why open hostility and naked aggression is the expected norm from the folks who should be ******** mentors and teachers instead of bullies and tyrants, Victor? I'd really, really like to know, because I'm pretty sure it makes me want to punch some folks' teeth right out of their heads. Perhaps not yours, but I'm betting you wouldn't have to try very hard to come up with some teeth that fit the bill, would you?

... let go of your presumptions and actually look at what's being said man. You are so far off target not only about me, but about #savemwo and competitive players in general, you're not even in the right universe.

---

Given what you've said about me, the other competitive players, etc. I'm under the impression that you think we want balance this way, and have a direct line up to the devs that we called to get Ghost Heat happening.

When every single thing we've said has been demanding balance, and Ghost Heat is the very thing that really broke the Camel's back and started the protests in the first place! Go read The Maths thread and look at all the trash the competitive community talks about it!

You are so intent on vilifying us and putting us into some box in your head, you're not listening to a thing we're saying. We're on the same side wanting more things to be fun, and a better new user experience.. and that goes for most everyone at the Town Hall meeting too.

Let go of the prejudice and look again.

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 August 2013 - 10:25 PM.

[MnDragon]

Victor, I thought perhaps I could redress this again since you brought it up in another forum..(honestly, poor form to drag a forum post to someone else's post) So I will bite and TRY to explain my points as to why you are being a tad narrow minded in your list:

• I agree with you that PPC/Gauss are great weapons. They are currently, until they get nerfed, a great combination, and put out high levels of damage. They are especially good when used in the ROLE THEY WERE INTENDED: Sniper builds.
  
• I make the point that all weapons have niches. There are no suck weapons, (yes even flamers have a use somewhere) and about all I can say is that some weapons need to have certain things tweaked to make them perfect for THEIR ROLE.
  
• I am NOT advocating that someone shouldn’t use PPC/Gauss builds. I’m saying that there is a place for it, and it is a sorry state that all the elitist pilots with their nose up in the air think you are n00b because you don’t carry the current “meta” weapons. I despise that when I drop into matches all I see is PPC/Gauss. An Atlas with missle hardpoints will spam PPC/Gauss. A jagermech will strip down armor to put in PPC and gauss. To me, its ridiculous. If you are playing a sniper, fine, PPC/Gauss away. But, If you are supposed to be brawling, why are you toting it around?
  
• Finally, I think that telling someone to only use this weapon, or that chassis if you want to win is against the spirit of the game. The game is meant to have fun, not be the number one cheese builder of all time. I think it more constructive to illustrate what each chassis’ strong points are and weak points are and that its okay to put an XL engine in a Catapult, but a really bad idea to put it in the Jager. But then, some people play with XLs in Jagers and are really good with them. This point is that there is no “cookie cutter” elitist mech or weapons build. It is all in what you are good with, what play style you prefer, and how well you are in that particular mech. What is good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander.

I hope that I was able to show you how my opinion is different than yours, and that I made some points that you were able to at least consider valid. My whole point is that the game is supposed to be fun, and to tell new players that they have to embrace the meta or they will lose, is poor form, and basically wrong. I have plenty of fun, I win often enough for my tastes, and I only use PPC/Gauss on my sniper build. I have not embraced the meta, and I still win.

[Fire and Salt]

Victor Morson, on 16 August 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

Those have more to do with playing a lot of matches and hitting several in which you are ignored. In fact, the only real advantage to taking those guns is that you are likely to be low priority.

Really though, on average, I wouldn't recommend most of those setups to pug stomp. They're more a handicap than anything. Excluding the UAC of course, because I've said several times I think it's "2nd tier" and not trash by any means.

I can't imagine that taking a super-loud-and-annoying ac2 uac5 combo would make you a low priority in a pub match.

I think that the only reason that dps weapons are effective in publuc games, is that disorganized players are more likely to get caught out in the open than an organized team player.

[ThatDamnGernade]

At the expense of revealing how new I am to things, and possibly getting torn a new one, I must ask:
What is it about the LB 10-X that makes it terrible?

I know I read about the spread, but that seems like normal scatter gun behavior: less spread the closer you are.

The only thing I could gather myself is the Ammo Per Ton is on the low side for my tastes, but I'm pretty sure it takes more than just a low ammo capacity for a weapon to (seemingly) unanimously be considered 'scrap'

Edited by ThatDamnGernade, 19 August 2013 - 11:32 PM.

[Victor Morson]

ThatDamnGernade, on 19 August 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

At the expense of revealing how new I am to things, and possibly getting torn a new one, I must ask:
What is it about the LB 10-X that makes it terrible?

I know I read about the spread, but that seems like normal scatter gun behavior: less spread the closer you are.

The only thing I could gather myself is the Ammo Per Ton is on the low side for my tastes, but I'm pretty sure it takes more than just a low ammo capacity for a weapon to (seemingly) unanimously be considered 'scrap'

The LBX/10 is basically inferior to the AC/10 because it's scatter shot; it doesn't do more damage that degrades over time, it does the same damage, spread over multiple locations. In a game focused entirely around damaging single locations, hitting several locations does you very little good.

Combined with the fact the AC/10 itself is not a very good damage-per-ton situation and you're almost universally better off going with a Gauss or AC/20 in the ballistic slot, or to shun ballistics entirely; the SRM6 operates in a similar "scatter shot" way, except it does incredible damage at point blank, making the trade-off worthwhile - not to mention each gun is only 4 tons comparatively.

Long story short - AC/10s are already underpowered for their weight & size, LBX/10 just further dilutes it. I highly recommend the SRMs again though, if you want scatter shot brawling.

[Victor Morson]

MnDragon, on 19 August 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

I hope that I was able to show you how my opinion is different than yours, and that I made some points that you were able to at least consider valid. My whole point is that the game is supposed to be fun, and to tell new players that they have to embrace the meta or they will lose, is poor form, and basically wrong. I have plenty of fun, I win often enough for my tastes, and I only use PPC/Gauss on my sniper build. I have not embraced the meta, and I still win.

Really everything you said is much less radical than what you've said throughout the thread ("PPC groups can be defeated by lances of Commandos!") and is far more reasonable. These threads have only existed to help players learn which guns are good, not to force them to use good weapons if they don't want to.*

* I imagine most new players who don't know about BattleTech will wonder why anyone would even consider using bad weapons, though.

[Vandruis]

I use ERLL's on my Slayer all the time... I think it's the fact that if you can't aim they're bad. If you can keep fire on target at range, they're fantastic...

This post doesn't take into account Hit-prediction. I have had countless times using PPC/ERPPC where hit prediction showed me hits on target, but registered zero damage. Never happened with the lasers.

It's all skill, my friend, yes, there are ****-tier weapons (LPL, LB10X, Streaks, AC/10, I'm looking at you.) but I don't think classifying the ERLL as a bad weapon. With the heat reduction, the ERLL's are viable to the skilled player now.

DRAGON SLAYER 871 505 366 2.37 574 287 2.00 262,651 1,263,499
4 days
18:06:33

ER LARGE LASER 741 11,357 11,129 97.20% 13:52:08
45,928

Edited by Vandruis, 20 August 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[qki]

Heh, sorry about the sarcasm - I had you figured for someone who'd understand sarcasm. Thing is, you need to grow a brain first.


Crit space is not the only issue. More often than not, hardpoints are. This thread is a classic example of a misguided guide written by a self-titled "elite mechwarrior" with very little actual understanding of the game, that just happens to ride the deathball with his team and thinks that is reason enough to call himself good.

Go on mate, tell me more about your K/D ratio...

then ask if I care.


Thing is, there are more than two variables here. The game is not pure black and white, yet you are hell bent on dividing all weapons into "use this, and this only" and "never, ever take this, completely worthless" categories.

According to snobs like yourself, unless someone is taking the absolute best, cookie cutter loadout, he is using a worthless config, with zero chance of ever doing anything useful for the team. And if that's not what you meant, then you should work on your literary skills, because that sure as hell is the impression you give with your posts.

The main mistake of the self-titled elite, is the assumption that all mechs are the same, and have the same job. This, like judging performance by damage dealt, is a dead giveaway of someone who hasn't got a clue.


hey, here's a thought. According to your list this:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...99a69194d063551

is better than this:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...87a9498bcc3b47c

because the former uses a good gauss rifle, while the latter has a crappy LPL.

And before you go nitpicking - yes, i know both loadouts are rubbish - they were meant as a joke.

Thing is, you can't judge individual weapons accurately. A fast mech like the Jenner will make better use of medium, and small lasers, than it will of a PPC, and the other way round. A mech intended as a standoff sniper will heve more chances to use its gauss rifles, than its medium lasers.


If there are weapons that should be avoided, it's flamers, machine guns, and medium pulse lasers. The first is nearly useless, the second is very situational, and the third has a much better alternative in the standard ML.

Edited by qki, 20 August 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[ImABaer]

qki, on 20 August 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Heh, sorry about the sarcasm - I had you figured for someone who'd understand sarcasm. Thing is, you need to grow a brain first.


Crit space is not the only issue. More often than not, hardpoints are. This thread is a classic example of a misguided guide written by a self-titled "elite mechwarrior" with very little actual understanding of the game, that just happens to ride the deathball with his team and thinks that is reason enough to call himself good.

Go on mate, tell me more about your K/D ratio...

then ask if I care.


Thing is, there are more than two variables here. The game is not pure black and white, yet you are hell bent on dividing all weapons into "use this, and this only" and "never, ever take this, completely worthless" categories.

According to snobs like yourself, unless someone is taking the absolute best, cookie cutter loadout, he is using a worthless config, with zero chance of ever doing anything useful for the team. And if that's not what you meant, then you should work on your literary skills, because that sure as hell is the impression you give with your posts.

The main mistake of the self-titled elite, is the assumption that all mechs are the same, and have the same job. This, like judging performance by damage dealt, is a dead giveaway of someone who hasn't got a clue.


hey, here's a thought. According to your list this:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...99a69194d063551

is better than this:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...87a9498bcc3b47c

because the former uses a good gauss rifle, while the latter has a crappy LPL.

And before you go nitpicking - yes, i know both loadouts are rubbish - they were meant as a joke.

Thing is, you can't judge individual weapons accurately. A fast mech like the Jenner will make better use of medium, and small lasers, than it will of a PPC, and the other way round. A mech intended as a standoff sniper will heve more chances to use its gauss rifles, than its medium lasers.


If there are weapons that should be avoided, it's flamers, machine guns, and medium pulse lasers. The first is nearly useless, the second is very situational, and the third has a much better alternative in the standard ML.

Gosh, so much eloquent writing in here that really effectively illustrates your point. I don't know whether the personal insults, the strawman mech builds, the vague generalities, the admitted lack of experience, or the persecution complex are the most convincing part. I do know that you're at least the 10th post to use the "it works in pugs so you can't say it's bad" argument, but really, you've added your own personal touch to it that makes this truly a pleasure to read.

A++++ 10/10 would read again

[qki]

and you should read it again. and again, until you are able to comprehend the damned words.
There are no vague generalities here, and it's not a case of "don't say it's bad cause it works in pugs".

It's a case of OP (and you, by the looks of it) not having a clue. The whole thread, starting 11 pages ago, is basically a willy waving "look how cool I am, and if you're not playing the game my way, you're playing it wrong".
As a rule of thumb, whenever you see a guide that deals in absolutes, you can safely throw it away, and you won't be missing anything of value.