Jump to content

The Checklist Of What Not To Do!


242 replies to this topic

#221 Valdemaar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 227 posts

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:27 AM

I'd like to argue that situationally some of these weapons listed in your first point can be effective. I agree that in general the weapons you listed are lack-luster in comparison to others but on certain mechs they do perform much better if used wisely.

For example, my favorite build currently is a Jagermech-DD equipped with two LBX10 AC's and four MG's. Why do I prefer these weapons? They actually make for an amazing brawling combo. With a firepower of 20, sustained DPS of 9, and cooling efficiency of 63% this mech can keep on churning out an impressive DPS even in Caustic Valley and Terra Therma.

Swapping out the LBX10 for AC10 keeps the same firepower, lowers the sustained DPS to 7.3, lowers the cooling to 42%, and you lose 30 rounds of ammunition to make the AC10's fit. The only advantage is that you have a longer effective range. Thus, in this instance, the LBX10 has several advantages over the AC10 which is generally considered superior because of it's single projectile.

Also with the Jagermech-DD is my Can Opener build utilizing six MG's and two Large Pulse Lasers. Much like the previous built, it boasts an impressive DPS and cooling efficiency with the trade-off being you're only suited to close range combat. However, if replace the LPL's with ERPPC's you arrive at a decent compromise of DPS, cooling, and effective range.

So, in short I would encourage people to try new things rather than adhering to the idea of "Only this works, don't try new ideas."

Edited by Valdemaar, 20 August 2013 - 11:29 AM.


#222 ImABaer

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • 6 posts

Posted 20 August 2013 - 12:45 PM

View Postqki, on 20 August 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

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.


I'd love to pick your post apart, but suffice to say, there's not much of substance worth responding to. Other posters are at least trying to say "hey, what about a situation like this" or list the qualities of a weapon that make them feel it's a worthy pick. You're too interested in trying to dismiss people that disagree with you and present a stance of righteous outrage. You then concede in the very same post that, in fact, there ARE weapons that are comparatively useless and should never be used, but since his list is more extensive than the 3 you listed, he's clearly trying to stifle innovation and circle jerk with the other elite mechwarriors. No, it's not possible that he's got a better understanding of the game than you, he's just being a pompous ******* for the internet accolades, and his greatest reward is the honor of dealing with a shining personality such as yourself.

Your two mechs you presented as a "joke" say it all. You're more interested in winning an argument through hyperbole than trying to open up reasoned discourse, and you also don't know enough about the game to actually post a viable build with the weapons you're trying to defend.

Edited by ImABaer, 20 August 2013 - 12:47 PM.


#223 qki

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • LocationWarsaw

Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:58 PM

That's just it. OP has no understanding of the game, and you are just being contrary for the sake of it.

You want an actual build? Here:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b8c07db0bb8cc60

feel free to take your pick of PPC, ERPPC or LPL:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...2e5aac67c5d8d70
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e2ca4e68cc354b1
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...deb12ad6bb2c054

with a LL loadout for comparison:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f125677f4de8243

Here's a ML loadout, if you're obsessed with pure numbers:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...4d6cd1b0114e129



Now, the extremists here say that the best loadout is the only one worth using, while something that posts 5-10% worse stats is a piece of garbage.

Truth is - that difference is negligible once you factor in the pilot. Is the ML loadout superior to the LPL one? Probably, if you're obsessed with nothing but nubers. Is it a complete disaster if you go with the LPL one? Hardly.

The ERPPC build is a neat little sniper. The closer you get to your target, the better the other two builds (PPC/LPL) are. Going by the numbers, the LPL one is the best of the three. Question is - are you willing to get within 300m, rather than ERPPC range? And if you're getting that close, isn't the 3xML, with an effective range of 270m better?

The numbers again, say that the 3xML loadout is indeed better than LPL/SL.
Experience says - it doesn't matter. Real (not mathematical) DPS is very comparable on the two (and the LL one), and each has its quirks (like losing less firepower when RA is shot off, although that's rare enough to be negligible).

Once you start to optimize, trying to squeeze out every last ounce of performance out of your mechs, the choice will likely come down to ERPPC vs 3ML. And that's fine. Meanwhile, pilot performance will make or break any of the above builds. Use whichever and you will get similar results.

Edited by qki, 20 August 2013 - 02:20 PM.


#224 ImABaer

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • 6 posts

Posted 20 August 2013 - 03:17 PM

View Postqki, on 20 August 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

That's just it. OP has no understanding of the game, and you are just being contrary for the sake of it.

You want an actual build? Here:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b8c07db0bb8cc60

feel free to take your pick of PPC, ERPPC or LPL:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...2e5aac67c5d8d70
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e2ca4e68cc354b1
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...deb12ad6bb2c054

with a LL loadout for comparison:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f125677f4de8243

Here's a ML loadout, if you're obsessed with pure numbers:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...4d6cd1b0114e129



Now, the extremists here say that the best loadout is the only one worth using, while something that posts 5-10% worse stats is a piece of garbage.

Truth is - that difference is negligible once you factor in the pilot. Is the ML loadout superior to the LPL one? Probably, if you're obsessed with nothing but nubers. Is it a complete disaster if you go with the LPL one? Hardly.

The ERPPC build is a neat little sniper. The closer you get to your target, the better the other two builds (PPC/LPL) are. Going by the numbers, the LPL one is the best of the three. Question is - are you willing to get within 300m, rather than ERPPC range? And if you're getting that close, isn't the 3xML, with an effective range of 270m better?

The numbers again, say that the 3xML loadout is indeed better than LPL/SL.
Experience says - it doesn't matter. Real (not mathematical) DPS is very comparable on the two (and the LL one), and each has its quirks (like losing less firepower when RA is shot off, although that's rare enough to be negligible).

Once you start to optimize, trying to squeeze out every last ounce of performance out of your mechs, the choice will likely come down to ERPPC vs 3ML. And that's fine. Meanwhile, pilot performance will make or break any of the above builds. Use whichever and you will get similar results.


Disclaimer: will be the first to say my build knowledge of mechs is flawed at best.

That being said, the PPCs in particular allow you to do a completely different playstyle from the Lasers, especially on a light mech. You can pop out of cover, squeeze off a shot, then pop back into safety and pop out from a different position. The "tracer" from the PPC is harder to track as well. Using a laser to snipe is basically broadcasting your position for the entire duration of the laser shot, which can basically mean death if you want to get the full DPS out of it.

The 3 MLAS delegate you to more of an evasion role, with a focus on fighting off other lights if they get too close. You've got a 15 point alpha and the best DPS in case you get caught.

The LPL build looks terrible in comparison to either build. The tradeoff is a marginal increase in DPS for about half the range of a regular PPC. If you compare it to the other end, you're generating more heat, getting a weaker alpha, and losing a chunk of DPS compared to the 3 MLAS build, for a marginal increase in range. You're either going to commit to a fight and try to cripple the other guy as soon as possible, or you're going to evade and pick off from a distance. The LPL build makes you crappier at both.

This is not a matter of a slight 5-10% difference. You're either crippling your range or your DPS, and by a big chunk on either.

#225 qki

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • LocationWarsaw

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:43 PM

See, the problem with this is the assumption that every mech has the same role, and that is to do nothing but damage other mechs, and that's not always the case.

Being a harrasser works as well, and some things don't show up on the scoreboard.

I'm not arguing that the LPL build is better than the ML one - that would be silly. What I'm saying, is that you CAN do more dps with it, than with the PPCs.

Sure, it's a totally different sport - instead of sniping from a big distance, you have to get in there, preferably with big friends, and lend your firepower where it matters. If you want to play a super sleek, maximum efficiency build, you go with the ERPPC, or the 3ML one, but if you go with the LPL, you can be just as helpful to your team.

And that's my point. Equipping one of the "crappy" weapons is hardly the disaster some people are advertising. But they ca't get past the elitist notion, that if there's a better build, it makes all other, similar builds, worthless.

#226 Lance425

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 110 posts
  • LocationBaton Rouge

Posted 21 August 2013 - 12:34 AM

It's a good thing I didn't read more than a few of these... In my opinion you are all idiots. Lovable ones, but dumb as rocks nonetheless.

The important thing to do is play what makes you happy. I prefer not to play with cheesy or win at all costs builds, but its for the same reason I couldn't be a used car salesman. I'd feel greasy and gross at the end of every day. Although I do understand the OP posters reasons for his "Checklist."

So I'll reiterate again, try things out and figure out what you like best.

Edited by Lance425, 21 August 2013 - 12:35 AM.


#227 Gofer

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 50 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, Texas

Posted 21 August 2013 - 11:32 AM

It the world of Beta Games... oh.. like this one... the environment changes constantly as the game develops, finds balance, is broken, and finds balance again.

WIth all due respect to the original poster, the last three patches have changed most of the original posters contentions from "ok or ok from a certain point of view" to simply "no longer valid". This would be a good topic for the mod's to close up and archive.

In some distant future we'll all read through the dusty archives, opening and adult beverage for refreshment, and say: "remember when machine guns sucked?" and then we all laugh as it fades to black.

#228 Julius Septim

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 173 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 21 August 2013 - 07:32 PM

Dunno if i should cry or laugh about that List but hey if the Thread Opener thinks he is Competitive i wanna meet him ingame. Even before the Heat Patch, LBX or LPL´s were NEVER useless, just because ppl are too dumb to use the right Mech for it, the Weapon is {Scrap} or what? OH.. MY.... GOSH

Edited by The Man of Steel, 21 August 2013 - 07:33 PM.


#229 Marmon Rzohr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Warden
  • The Warden
  • 769 posts
  • Locationsomewhere in the universe, probably

Posted 22 August 2013 - 06:01 AM

He uses strict language. Of course you could use LBX10s, LPLs etc and get away with it. It's just that it isn't optimal.

This thread (stated about a thousad times). Isn't about what can or can not work. It's about what to do when you want to make a mech designed to simply win.

Hell I've seen DPS builds win games like hell (and have done so myself in one), but that usually requires the team to support them well and no coordinated sniper/LRM fire form the opposition.

It's the same reason I wouldn't reccommend a new player to run and LRM stalker. Sure it can kick *** and PUG stomp like a boss, but it's success is more situational than a Cent-A mounting SRMs and MLs for instance (which works every time).

View PostGofer, on 21 August 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

It the world of Beta Games... oh.. like this one... the environment changes constantly as the game develops, finds balance, is broken, and finds balance again.

WIth all due respect to the original poster, the last three patches have changed most of the original posters contentions from "ok or ok from a certain point of view" to simply "no longer valid". This would be a good topic for the mod's to close up and archive.

In some distant future we'll all read through the dusty archives, opening and adult beverage for refreshment, and say: "remember when machine guns sucked?" and then we all laugh as it fades to black.


What is no longer valid ? PPC/Gauss is as good as ever. SRMs too. AC20s are unchanged. LRMs too. MGs are even worse in the latest patch (and they were meh before it). Pulse lasers are the same.

SSRMs are back and good now though with the damage buff, so you're right there. Although still inferior in mechs that won't go hunting lights IMHO.

Cheers :D

#230 Barrett

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 76 posts
  • LocationSouth Africa

Posted 22 August 2013 - 06:16 AM

Quote

want to make a mech designed to simply win.


Really? Then why do we need pilots? Why bother sneaking around the opponents to get at their soft back armor if there are these Hercules builds available? :D

Jokes aside: Experiement! That's what makes owning your own Mech so much fun.

#231 Marmon Rzohr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Warden
  • The Warden
  • 769 posts
  • Locationsomewhere in the universe, probably

Posted 22 August 2013 - 07:55 AM

True. I love to experiment.
But when i first started playing I didn't know what was functional and effective and what wasn't. Especially since MWO has a lot more customization than MW4, for example.

So I found a thread with competitive builds and made a 4sp zombie for myself.
Otherwise I would have had to go though a lot of the forums to try and understand everything about mech creation, or even worse learn by trial and error. Everyone likes an easy, safe entry ticket. Once players are introduced they will eventually all try to make something of their own, anyway. :D

#232 Barrett

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 76 posts
  • LocationSouth Africa

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:51 AM

I know what you mean. I got two noobs under my wing and through their questions I can actually understand what sort of sharp learning curve this game has. Prime example: LRMs and waiting for the circle to actually lock before firing. Seems stupid to us now, but not to a brand new player.

#233 qki

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • LocationWarsaw

Posted 22 August 2013 - 01:43 PM

Yeah, but going full on "look kids, play the game my way, or you are not doing it right" is a poor way to start.

IMO the checklist of what not to do should be limited to the absolute worst things you could do. And no - using LPL instead of erppc does not qualify. Sure - it's not optimal, but you could do a lot worse than that.

MWO leaves enough room for second, and third best builds to work just fine, not just the optimal, cutthroat ones. Different weapons require different approaches to make them effective, and finding a config that you are naturally comfortable with, goes a long way towards winning.

#234 WaddeHaddeDudeda

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,567 posts
  • LocationAllocation Relocation Dislocation

Posted 22 August 2013 - 02:02 PM

Good thread is good until the "Nooooo! Every weapon has its place!" sayers crashed it.

Guys, in EVERY single MW game released for the PC to date at least 50 % of all weapons been totally garbage and the only reason they were still there was the BTU/canon background.

And posting Spider configs (one of the most useless mechs in the entire game - at least from an assault mode point of view AND competitive gaming) with bad weapons (few exceptions like LL's on a Spider - but they wouldn't work as well on bigger mechs - which is like EVERY OTHER mech in the game!) just pushes it over the top (ESPECIALLY the Spider with the gauss rifle, next to zero armour and the comment: "Here, according to your list THIS is better than my other ***** config.").


View Postqki, on 22 August 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

MWO leaves enough room for second, and third best builds to work just fine, not just the optimal, cutthroat ones. Different weapons require different approaches to make them effective, and finding a config that you are naturally comfortable with, goes a long way towards winning.

If I got it right this thread is made for newbies.
Newbies WILL have a super hard time in this game, even when given 1st hand tips and configs.
There is absolutely no need to hand out lesser tips and configs.

I'm driving Dragons and other (official) garbage mechs when I'm really bored and know how to have fun with them.
Newbies don't. Period.


EDIT: As for people calling Victor out as a "noob" and "not competitive": I'm looking forward to see your butts getting ***** by the fine men and women of [BA]. Those guys have already right now much more MW online (read as in other mechwarrior games for the PC - NOT MWO) experience under their belts than what most of you will have in 5 years (if this so called "game" lasts long enough anyway).
This alone is not an argument that they know ****.
But they know about competitive gaming since almost a decade and therefore have a different, much broader point of view about the whole game and how to play things out.

/Rage


EDIT of the EDIT: And none is thinking "lesser" of anyone if people refrain to use...let's say gauss and ppc combinations.
As long as people have fun they are of course entitled to make use of whatever they want!!!
But if weapon A outplays weapon B in 99,9 % of all cases it's kinda safe to say that weapon A is clearly a better than weapon B, thus new players who like to celebrate first successes should go for weapon A - and not B.
And that's what this thread (or at least the OP) was about.

Edited by WaddeHaddeDudeda, 22 August 2013 - 02:23 PM.


#235 qki

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • LocationWarsaw

Posted 22 August 2013 - 11:48 PM

good lord, another clueless one...


get this through your thick, elitist skull already:

showing up with a "play the game my way, or don't bother playing" attitude that you and the OP represent is a surefire way to discourage new players faster, than having them play the 3rd best loadout instead of the best one.



At least you gave me a chug - your reading comprehension is hovering somwhere around 0 deg K, to say the least.
Or maybe it's just your elitist attitude, in which case you REALLY need to take a chill pill.

The whole buisness with the (intentionally) crappy gauss spider, was to show that judging a design purely by what weapons it has equipped, and not as a whole is stupid. Instead you get hung up on the actual design, put on your nerdrage pants and go "you posted a design that's not the single, 100% optimized, community approved cutthroat build. Wow you must suck".
What the hell are you man? 13?

Understand already, that the list of "total garbage" in this game includes the entirety of this guide, which is nothing more than a sad attempt by OP to stroke his own ego and show the newbies that they are playing the game wrong, than to be actually helpful.

I did read through your guide (by following the link in your sig), and it's not newbie-friendly either.

Don't get me wrong - your work contains scores of good info - too much in fact. Enough to overwhelm the begginers, who tend to need a rather minimalistic summary, but that's a side note.

#236 Taxxian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • LocationLeipzig

Posted 23 August 2013 - 12:09 AM

Sometimes people just write things to prove someone wrong, absolutely not caring if that someone is right or not...

You can build any Mech that has working weapons and launch a PUG game, if you know how to play, you will kill some pugs! Always! In those uncoordinated games someone will always aim bad, or rush forward needlessly or hide behind bad cover not knowing where the good spots are... that does not prove that your Mech is viable it only proves that there are some people playing worse than yourself.

In a coordinated game, where your enemies actually work together, only some builds, some Mechs and some Weapons are viable! And those builds work in both worlds, they are the ones we should recommend to new players.

Again: You can make a new account build a bad Mech with lots of bad weapons and easily get a 1000 Damage game given some tries, that DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING!

#237 qki

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • LocationWarsaw

Posted 23 August 2013 - 01:09 AM

or you an build the best mech under the sun, and still get rolled 12-0, because that's how pugging goes.


It is natural, that some loadouts will be much better, than others, and in the competetive environment (or at least the self-proclamed competetive players) will opt for the strongest configs.

This is nothing new, and certainly not limited to MWO.

No one is disputing, that a 3ML/3SL jenner F is a beter choice of a light 'mech, than a 4MG spider K.
But as I said - this kind of approach is at the very least offputting to newbies. This thick-skinned, thick-skull attitude of "i'm a competetive gamer, play my way, or you are not doing it right".


I've written more than a few, various guides in my time, and this is NOT a correct way to do one.
Taxxian - no offense mate, but your post is a classic "stop liking what I don't like" nonsense. "getting good results with something does not prove it is viable, only the absolute best is viable, the rest is totally useless" is what you are saying.

And nothig can shake your established view of the world. orry to break it to you, but getting results is exactly what makes a design viable.

Viable - as in: good enough to play and not be hindered by. It's people like these, who can't help but stroke their own ego showing up and bestowing their "competetive wisdom" where it's not wanted that annoy me.

#238 Marmon Rzohr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Warden
  • The Warden
  • 769 posts
  • Locationsomewhere in the universe, probably

Posted 23 August 2013 - 01:28 AM

I'm slightly baffeled qki. :rolleyes:
I agree with you. But you seem to forget, this is the "guides" section :D
It's for n00bs like me :D

Look, I'm not a competitive player, nor am I elitist, and yet I see the point. In fact I have spent several mostly long posts trying to explain it from the point of view of a new player.

I know the meta annoys you. It annoys everyone. :D

However, you're a Founder. You've had quite a bit of experience with this game. Try to imagine someone who just stepped in. Especially if they have no BT/MW experience. What they want is an introduction to the game. They don't want swings and roundabouts, about well this weapon is a bit worse than that one, but you can use it just fine. Nobody wants to spend hours playing and being able to contribute very little because of a bad build/trail mech.

Especially since this game is all about mechs. Like it or not, new players will go up against optimized builds taught to others by mentor players or simply copied off others. This means that the playing field in nowhere near level.

So they want a good mech. A mech designed to be powerful so it compensates for lack of experience.
Imagine how much learning and reading a completely new player has to do to understand the mechlab and what makes even a solid mech. How much testing and playing does it take to get a feel for what works and what doesn't (not on the top level, on any level) ?

Spoiler


Quite a bit. And this is bad. In other games you can pick up and play on a even level in one tenth the time. :(

This is such a big deal that trial mechs themselves should be as nasty and meta-adapted as possible (IMHO), so that new players can play something really good right off the bat. It also would give them a guideline on how to build future mechs.

That is why a list like this and mech tier lists are important. There is also a reason why they are very strict. That is because if you allow for situational builds (e.i. Ac2 jagers which can be utterly devastating if left alone, but get killed quickly 1on1, or in brawls), you end up with a confusing and very long list of things that work if played right.

Imagine if you wanted to buy a car. It's a lot of money and you have a friend who knows all there is to know. If he goes and says "Well if you value the handling feel of a good double wishbone setup more than the steering directness of a fully hydraulic servo, then I say, go with this one. But then again, you might like the immediacy of atmospheric power output more than the big whumps of tourqe from the turbo..."

What has he told you (unless you know just as much as he does) ? Nothing.

Yes it's fun to learn all these nuances and such, but sometimes you don't want to need a glossary to get started.
You want him to say, "Buy that one, you'll love it".

This is especially true since new players with PvP experience form other MMO games, will come LOOKING for a tier list and such, because they understand this.
Budding LoL players, for instance, don't want to "try on their own" or "use and underrated build" that a much senior player can work wonders with. They want to cut cookies. ;)

And the same is with new MWO players.

That is why something like this, condensing advice to the only absoulte best to keep it as simple as possible is a good thing.
Doesn't help you much. But it helped me a lot. :)


Also: it does not stifle creativity. Everyone will try their own thing once they get comfortable. The idea is to make this as easy as possible.

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 23 August 2013 - 01:32 AM.


#239 qki

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • LocationWarsaw

Posted 23 August 2013 - 01:40 AM

We got carried away I guess, and the essence has been lost in trying to prove one another wrong.

Here are a couple of interesting facts:

Fact#1: Newbies are most likely to start playing with PUGs. Just hitting the launch button and landing with a random team.
Fact#2: PUGs tend to be one sided, and having the best (or the worst) mech around may not make a difference.
Fact#3: From a new player's perspective, HOW you play makes a much bigger difference, than WHAT you play.
Fact#4: in PUGs, people tend to play mechs they wouldn't play otherwise, and for reasons other than "it's the best". Reasons like "I feel like it today", or "I like this chassis from the boardgame", or whatever.

From that standpoint, the PUG is a much more forgiving environment. Sure, stepping into the game at the controls of an optimized JR7-F c=will be totally different, than trying a mismatched loadout that never had a chance. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying, that this is no way to make a guide.

#240 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 23 August 2013 - 05:08 AM

View PostGofer, on 21 August 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

It the world of Beta Games... oh.. like this one... the environment changes constantly as the game develops, finds balance, is broken, and finds balance again.

WIth all due respect to the original poster, the last three patches have changed most of the original posters contentions from "ok or ok from a certain point of view" to simply "no longer valid". This would be a good topic for the mod's to close up and archive.


I actually opened a new thread that I am updating in New Player Help, a guide for competitive players. I figured this thread had died so hadn't been keeping up on it.

That said.. the last patch really only bumped Ultra AC/5 from Tier 2 to Tier 1, and then knocked Streaks from "Total trash" to "Maybe Tier 2." Very little else has changed, because the balance team on MW:O is.. questionable.

Machine Guns almost made the list. They then got nerf'ed right back off of it, though.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users