25 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Just testing a theory...



Feel free to discuss.

Edited by DaZur, 28 July 2013 - 07:43 PM.

[Clit Beastwood]

I'm going to assume you mean canonical instead of conical?

Anyways...

Fun I like my spider 5d, though I started with a 5v because I figured if I could do well in that I could do ok in anything

Fun I like lasers, went 4-5 months into the game without ever using missiles. I like the pulse laser sounds so I run those a lot

Fun whatever makes me smile goes on my mech

Casual I feel bad when dudes treat this game like a second job

Don't care

And surprisingly: stick to the lore. This is called MechWarrior Online. Not chunky robot of duty.

Edited by Fierostetz, 26 July 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[DaZur]

Fierostetz, on 26 July 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

I'm going to assume you mean canonical instead of conical?

Fixed... and thank-you.

[Oppresor]

Ref: Which is more important to longevity of MW:O IP. Where I accept that we should where possible adhere to conical / TT / Lore - Mechwarrior genre purity; I also believe that we should be open minded to development in terms of Ammunition types, Weapons and even new Mech types. I feel that if we don't do this MW will ultimately stagnate.

[Clit Beastwood]

DaZur, on 26 July 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

[/size]
Fixed... and thank-you.

haha no problem

a conical mech would be cool - high density pointy hat like a garden gnome, lrms slide right off it!

[LauLiao]

I've got easy definitions for you.

Competitive/Hardcore player: Anyone who plays more than me
Casual player: Anyone who plays less than me

[Wintersdark]

I choose my mech based on what "combat profile" I want to play. I select my load out based on actual performance within the combat profile I'm looking for - be it brawling, fire support, skirmishing or what have you.

I change things up practically on a drop by drop basis.

I'm utterly unconcerned with community opinion. I've been a gamer for a very very long time, and am perfectly capable of optimizing my own builds.

[Redshift2k5]

I don't build my loadouts based on lore/TT or based on perceived community influence. I build fun but effective loadouts (such as my classic 4 large laser K2, which I was playing all the way back in closed beta when everyone else used K2s for dual;-ballistic builds)

A main focus for me is keeping up good damage and heat scale wile minimizing range and weapon grouping: I love mechs that can make a good build with only two weapon groups.

[Royalewithcheese]

I build robots to be good at blowing other robots up. I tend not to make something just because it's the flavor of the month (my robots are currently all short-range because, long-range meta or no, I like short-range fights) but I do look at confirmed good builds for design elements to steal.

[Belorion]

Balance is over rated.
Canonical where appropriate.
I chose mechs based on a combination of what I want to play and what the group needs.
I try out many builds on many mechs.
My loadout is based on what works for me with a given chassis.
...
Mech **** thats why.

Answers not in any order.

[jper4]

1) weight class and looks
2) heat and dps
3) bit of community influence and a bit of what works best for me
4) casual
5) don't care just having fun- which for me is an 8-4 or closer match whether i die early or late or not at all win or lose. obviously a win would be nice but if i have a good match personally and lose that's ok too since i feel i actually accomplished something despite losing.stomps on either side of the ledger is just a wasted match to me. would rather get capped/cap in two minutes since it'd end the match quicker than the 3-5 minutes required to stomp.
6) global balance in that multiple weapon setups on the same mech can be almost as effective as any other (perfect balance not necessary) in their respective roles (long, medium and short range loadouts)

[Boyinleaves]

1) Once I have every 'Mech in the game mastered, I'll probably go with Weight Class > Hardpoint type > Hardpoint potential > Looks. At the moment, I'm just playing everything to max out skills.

2) I don't choose weapon configs based on any of the above, and I don't like going with what's considered 'good' or 'competitive'. I often change drop to drop on heavier 'Mechs, and I'm still trying out every weapon in the game with every new patch to get a feel for how they all work, and how they work on each chassis.

3) I try and run balanced builds as often as I can, with at least 3 major weapon groups.

4) I'm competitive, but I don't really play in teams much. At the most I drop with 2 mates, and we play in the same room.

5) I always aim to win (of course), but I don't take losses very hard, after all, there's not really anything to lose. If taking a sub-optimal build is not the best way to support my team, then I'm not supporting my team. However, I'm rarely not in the top 3 players in a match (if that even means anything), and I support my team by indicating tactics and enemy positions, rather than optimising a build.

6) I would love to see MW:O become more of a true to TT BT sim game that the 'Mech based shooter it currently is (as there are a plethora of other games out there that already fill the current niche), but I highly doubt that such a game would have a large enough supporting player base to continue to exist. If such a player base does exist, then sign me up, i'll gladly contribute. Neither of the options are going to ensure longevity. IGP needs to see MW:O making money. If it were me directing the game, I'd be trying to provide the sort of experience that the largest majority of long time BT fans and/or long time MechWarrior fans want, as they tend to be an older, more focused, more consistent contingent, with ample spending money, and a strong desire to see a 'MechWarrior game succeed. They are likely to keep playing the game for a long, long time, and if they can be convinced to part with their money on a continual basis to support the game, it will have a long, consistent future.

For example, I have absolutely no qualms about dropping $500-$1000 on new Kickstarted games to see them succeed. I have a lot of nostalgia for the games of my youth, and am absolutely overjoyed to see smaller, independent publishers getting the opportunity to bring some of these IPs back to life, or even starting new ones. I have dropped about $400 on MW:O in the last 3 months, and I consider that chump change to see a franchise I love given hope again. I love BattleTech, and particularly the MechWarrior games, and will be more than happy to spend more money on MW:O for a long time, provided that it continues to have a community to play against. I still play MW3 and 4 through about once a year, and am loving that I now also have another option for my fix. That said, money is pretty much a non-issue for me, and I know most people are not in the same boat. Not quite sure what the best path forward is for PGI in terms of revenue raising, but I would certainly be aiming for a consistent income if possible with an F2P model.


Edit - Nice poll, btw

Edited by Boyinleaves, 27 July 2013 - 04:43 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Well my plan which may or may not happen is to master each I.S mech, unlikely to bother with Clan mechs, or Is mechs that are purely OMG look at all the nice new shiney spend dollars pound franc yen !, none really floated my boat, which 'suddenly appeared' over night it was just a franchise extender and something to have models made and bought.

Those that were in the 3029 book will find aplace, those that were added afterwards had better look alot better.
Example the King Crab, will never appear in my inventory or, the power ranger mech with sword, which are ROFL you got to be kiddding me, so lame..

While it depends alot on how you qualify casual and competitive, I'm sure there are casual players that have nearly all cheese builds in their mech bay, because while they might play an hour aday they must win all the time and have the bestest builds.

Also is a player that only plays pugs and isn't in a clan, a competitive player ?

Or worse a person that joins a clan and then never uses Ts3 or drops with them, these people are the kind that are usually raging at the NOOB team after being the first to fall over and doing minimal damage, I'm quite sure that person considers themselves a competitive player when the reality is, he is a stupid git (which isn't a voting option btw).

weapon load outs I do look at the builds in smurfy, which contain alot of good builds and quiet a few that are.well not so good..

Will use the better as a base to modify, to make maybe less cheesy or add ams for the sake of a bit of armour and a DHS, there are no cheese builds in my mech bays, and I do strive to make all the variants different

Well this is a load of old waffle but I comented,

[3rdworld]

Interesting.

More self described casuals have voted.

and Balance is the favorite for MWO longevity.

Did not see that coming.

[Elyam]

This whole thing isn't about competition vs casual, and everyone knows it. It's about rejection of the innate tech inaccuracy layer in BT/MW. This one factor is the colossal creature in the room. It spawns double armor, direct-fire weapons that simultaneously impact the same point, the resulting boating concerns, and everything that follows. Competition vs casual is only a misperceived effect...not a cause.

Edited by Elyam, 27 July 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[DaZur]

3rdworld, on 27 July 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

Interesting.

More self described casuals have voted.

and Balance is the favorite for MWO longevity.

Did not see that coming.

Are you being facetious?

Actually, I presumed causal would be the leading descriptor but I am surprised by the balance over lore result...

If I had to guess, I would speculate that the dyed in the wool BT / TT contingency is withering on the vine due to the existing deviation from the TT / lore... Lot of "old-timers" were expecting MW:O to be a first-person iteration of TT, not understanding this was tried early on in closed beta and it was laughingly bad.

[Archon Adam Steiner]

Besides the fact that the forums are a pretty limited sample compared to the game's actual population, some of the questions are a bit loaded.

I still think I see what you're driving at, though.

[3rdworld]

DaZur, on 27 July 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Are you being facetious?

Actually, I presumed causal would be the leading descriptor but I am surprised by the balance over lore result...

If I had to guess, I would speculate that the dyed in the wool BT / TT contingency is withering on the vine due to the existing deviation from the TT / lore... Lot of "old-timers" were expecting MW:O to be a first-person iteration of TT, not understanding this was tried early on in closed beta and it was laughingly bad.

Not at all.

Just surprised. I really thought with Casual leading in the votes, that BT/TT would be the leader of the last question.

[DaZur]

3rdworld, on 27 July 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

Not at all.

Just surprised. I really thought with Casual leading in the votes, that BT/TT would be the leader of the last question.

Not only leading but leading by a sizable margin...

Either competitive play advocates are are winning hearts and minds of casual players or they really don't quite understand / see the fundamental difference.

All being said, the metrics did prove interesting.

Edited by DaZur, 27 July 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Poll #5 needs an option that says "I self identified as competitive" so people who do, do not have to give a bs answer to complete the poll.