86 replies to this topic

[Blue Footed Booby]

I've seen PGI say on multiple occasions that they don't like people running around alphaing all the time, and they don't like builds built around their alpha. Have they ever explained why this is--that is, exactly how they WANT the game to play? Do they want every mech to be a generalist, do they want all bracket builds all the time, do they want what we have now just with chain firing, or what?

Edited by Blue Footed Booby, 10 September 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Rhaythe]

Karl Streiger, on 10 September 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Well - do you think thats the way MWO should be played?
It just degenerate into a "Arms Race" to the next All-Nothing FotM Build that is able to deal as fast damage as possible - for better gain.

Thats the third fundamental problem

I'm not defending this. It saddens me, too, that the game has gone this route. When I originally started this thread, I was against any sort of alteration against this weapon, but as it's gone along, I think I've come around a bit. Of course, it comes down to *how* PGI will implement a "fix" of some kind, but that's a whole different thread and I really don't want to go there.

But to turn the question around, are you telling me it's *NOT* your goal to inflict as much damage on your opponent as quickly as possible? In that respect, yes, that is how the game is played, so in effect, this *IS* a perfectly valid build.

Not sure where I stand. I would put this mech more along the lines of a suicide bomber.

[Karl Streiger]

Rhaythe, on 10 September 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

But to turn the question around, are you telling me it's *NOT* your goal to inflict as much damage on your opponent as quickly as possible? In that respect, yes, that is how the game is played, so in effect, this *IS* a perfectly valid build.

Not sure where I stand. I would put this mech more along the lines of a suicide bomber.

Well I - always trie to field - rounded build - most of them you can find in my tt games too (for example my most successfull Atlas build - is as deadly in table top as it is in MWO.

I don't want to **** the BattleTech story behind - that means your comrades comes first.

Surving a battle - including retreat - has to be more important over killing numbers and damage dealt - when it means you loose a game but in the end you have 12 mechs standing - than its a good defeat (you can fight on)
If you win and have lost 10 of your Mechs its a bad victory - and not worth the money - we are not the Clans - the ability to fight on should be the most important fact in any battle.

I knew its kind of romantic and maybe even stupid to thinks so.... but I really wished that the battles start to have more importance -
(CW on the same system will make no sense - in the contrary will be a complete abdomination.

For the example with the your team looses 0:10 - your team stayed together and killed 10 enemy mechs - the last howver were able to capture an outpost - or even destroying a strategic point (dunno)

However do you loose the planet?
Is the enemy able to salvage any of its lost units?
Does his victory has any value?

No neighter of those - you may have lost the battle - but you have won the war.
And this logic has to find its way into the game.

I'm pretty sure some of the current and past QQ (about SplashCats, Hex Stalkers, Streak Cats etc - would have never poped up when the "next" imaginary battle would have played a major role

Edited by Karl Streiger, 10 September 2013 - 07:23 AM.

[WarHippy]

This thread makes the Jupiter sad.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jupiter

[oldradagast]

What troubles me is that there is no end in sight to the "fixes" and each "solution" is becoming more "creative" and making the game more annoying to play.

Ghost heat fixed some problems, yes, though I would have been happier if they just capped the number of big weapons per mech (1 Ac20, etc.), but it is still a clunky system with almost no logic or explanation. The Gauss Rifle change basically rendered that weapon useless except for dedicated snipers, meaning that, ironically, snipers were the only ones to benefit from it... because the game needs more sniping. A book could be written on the wild swings in power balance between LRM's, SRM's, ECM, and so - at least that situation seems to be under control... And now we have the UAC5, which I fear will be the victim of some new, crazy mechanic to give the weapon more "flavor" while making it useless for anyone who doesn't have a proper macro written to handle the change.

And then what? Will the AC20 be considered too powerful and nerfed? And then the AC10? When does this end?

[ShadowbaneX]

Rhaythe, on 10 September 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

I'm rather comforted that I'm a lousy trolling mech-builder!

I wouldn't entirely say that. I've come up with very similar builds elsewhere, including dual Gauss/dual PPC Phracts, The Conjoined Urbanmech (aka a Dual AC/20 JJ equipped Blackjack) and other stupid builds. They're Glass Cannons though and while some consider them to be the epitome of skill, frequently they're just excessively strong on the offense and equally weak when it comes to taking damage. It's still fun to design stuff like that though.

Thing is, there's still a weakness to them, low ammo & armour, slow speed, etc. The problem with uAC/5s right now is that they're very strong without having something to offset it, other than them being ammo hogs. I've got 7 tons of ammo on my K2...and I still run out of ammo. That's a bit much.

Rhaythe, on 10 September 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

When I originally started this thread, I was against any sort of alteration against this weapon, but as it's gone along, I think I've come around a bit. Of course, it comes down to *how* PGI will implement a "fix" of some kind, but that's a whole different thread and I really don't want to go there.

I'm in the same boat. I love me the uAC/5 (in MWO, I've got some problems with it in TT), it was the primary weapon of my first mech that I still use. This was the mech that I learned to play MWO in, and is still my favourite. With the recent change thought, it is a bit too powerful, and it needs something to bring it in line with the other weapons, and hopefully not just a reverse back to the 25% jam rate.

Blue Footed Booby, on 10 September 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

I've seen PGI say on multiple occasions that they don't like people running around alphaing all the time, and they don't like builds built around their alpha. Have they ever explained why this is--that is, exactly how they WANT the game to play? Do they want every mech to be a generalist, do they want all bracket builds all the time, do they want what we have now just with chain firing, or what?

I think I might have come up with something along the lines...at least, It's not an "all alpha, all time" build. You can get in close and alpha, two, maybe three times, but mainly it's chaining the weapons for best effect. ER PPC for long range, LB-10/X for mid range. SMRs for close range. Lasers for back up.

It works on most heavies, but is a little low on the fire power for an Assault mech.

The thing is, it's not a gimmick, it's not a boat, it's not an alpha strike mech, it's not abusing cockpit shake or something similar. It's just a highly mobile, highly armoured weapons platform that can do a lot of damage...which, if you think about it, is kind of the definition of a Battle Mech.

WarHippy, on 10 September 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

This thread makes the Jupiter sad. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jupiter

I'm trying to figure out how this thing works and still have hands & lower arm actuators. Wait. What? Clan uAC/5s only take up three crits?! Ugh. Even more reason to hate the Clans.

[Rhaythe]

One good thing about the UAC/5 kiddies - I don't feel bad about running dual-gauss anymore.