103 replies to this topic

[Roland]

It relates to your thread because I dispute the notion that such garbage builds are effective, even in non competitive games.

[Roadbeer]

Roland, on 10 November 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

It relates to your thread because I dispute the notion that such garbage builds are effective, even in non competitive games.

My "non-competitive" Battlemaster D would argue that. But it's nice you have an opinion.

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 10 November 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

Neither of which has aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanything to do with this thread. Come on guys, I don't want this turning into another "what's wrong with MWO" thread. Lord knows there's more than enough of those.

Roland, on 10 November 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

It relates to your thread because I dispute the notion that such garbage builds are effective, even in non competitive games.

So what is the place of 'non-competitive' weaponry if team limits are expanded and the 12 man boogie man enters into pug play?

[Roadbeer]

Davers, on 10 November 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

So what is the place of 'non-competitive' weaponry if team limits are expanded and the 12 man boogie man enters into pug play?

I think the meta-humping cookie cutter builds are going to find how competitive "non-competitive" builds really are.

[Deathlike]

Davers, on 10 November 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

So what is the place of 'non-competitive' weaponry if team limits are expanded and the 12 man boogie man enters into pug play?

Depends what you classify as non-competitive weaponry.

If you think the consider the following:
MG
Flamer
NARC
SRM2
LBX10

They are considered "irrelevant".

If 12-mans are involved, there will be lots of QQ to be had if you attempted this.

[Davers]

Roadbeer, on 10 November 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

I think the meta-humping cookie cutter builds are going to find how competitive "non-competitive" builds really are.

Then the non-competitive builds would become the new cookie cutter build.

Deathlike, on 10 November 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Depends what you classify as non-competitive weaponry.

If you think the consider the following:
MG
Flamer
NARC
SRM2
LBX10

They are considered "irrelevant".

If 12-mans are involved, there will be lots of QQ to be had if you attempted this.

Such a shame. So many things could be done with NARC, like having arty centered on a NARC'd target.

[Sandpit]

My energy boats that consistently do over 500 damage and has a positive k/d ratio beg to differ with the "competitive" builds. It's generally called playing to your strengths.

As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as "non-competitive"

[Roadbeer]

Davers, on 10 November 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Then the non-competitive builds would become the new cookie cutter build.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's kind of a myopic view when someone says "non-competitive" or "ineffective" because it assumes that everyone plays the same, has the same ping, same hardware, same reflexes, etc etc etc.when in reality it's fishing for the biggest YMMV ever posted.

I have seen, and have run some completely JOKE builds that have ruled the roost... oh sure, that may be in the PUG queue, but what happens when those competitive 12 player teams are thrown into the PUG queue and suddenly find that their well honed tactics that are tried and true against other competitive 12 player teams completely fall apart from a zergling rush?

LULZ, that's what.

Edited by Roadbeer, 10 November 2013 - 06:05 PM.

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 10 November 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Stuff.

No **** Sherlock.

Quote

I know, I know, you're thinking "That's unusual, Sand NEVER posts on the forums

Starting to wonder if you read the forums though

Myself and others have been saying this since before release, when players post "Waaah, my light gets pasted in 1 hit." Erm...yeah. No it doesn't. Unless of course you're playing against premades who tend to use a lot of big damage weapons like PPC, AC20, etc.
Pugs used to have a lot more variety, and still do somewhat, but i've seen this {Scrap} starting to filter into pugs too...especially since players got to "create" the Champion mechs. Nothing but AC20 BJ's everywhere now
I'll always stand by my opinion that the mechlab (and min/maxers...and PGI) ruined this game.

[Sandpit]

I think the mech lab was the start of issues. Any time you give certain players the option they will go out of their way to max out and totally optimize a build based on mathematical equations and then declare it the "best".

My point with this post was that I don't see it affecting CW and pugs. I believe we will have two metas going on within the game. Those that run 12 mans a lot are usually the first ones to cry "Stupid team, that's why I lost" because they get so used to their tightly formed units and builds they have no idea how to adapt to something different. Thus they spend more time doing that than anything else. Then they claim everyone else is "wrong"

[Mycrus]

Roland, on 10 November 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Garbage builds like lbx mechs are garbage even in pug matches, even if folks don't comprehend their badness.

My founder's atlas wants a word with you.

I was using lbx sucessfully even before the series of buffs , so think how good I am at the lbx now

[Davers]

Mycrus, on 10 November 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

My founder's atlas wants a word with you.

I was using lbx sucessfully even before the series of buffs , so think how good I am at the lbx now

This is why LBX users cannot be trusted for evaluating the LBX.
If it was good before after all the buffs it has gotten it should be incredible. But it's not.

[Roland]

Mycrus, on 10 November 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

My founder's atlas wants a word with you.

I was using lbx sucessfully even before the series of buffs , so think how good I am at the lbx now

Your lbx atlas is terrible.

[Roadbeer]

Roland, on 10 November 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Your lbx atlas is terrible.

If this was K Town, there'd be a "your mom" joke in there somewhere.

[Mycrus]

Davers, on 10 November 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

This is why LBX users cannot be trusted for evaluating the LBX.
If it was good before after all the buffs it has gotten it should be incredible. But it's not.

like in the 80s movies where the cops during a bust tasted the white stuff to make sure it is legit.

Btw, I was using AC2/AC5/AC10/UAC5 even before they were cool... So I guess by that logic I just have invalidated myself from the discussion...

Roland, on 10 November 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Your lbx atlas is terrible.

Video proof?

[Laniarty]

Xie Belvoule, on 10 November 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Your mistaken Sandpit, 12v12 will be the only thing that matters in CW. They have already said merc corps will be the only ones who can own planets. They outlined that control of a planet will be determined by who wins a prearranged 12v12 match. Thus the only thing that will matter in CW is 12v12. Everyone else will be stuck pugging in a meaningless grind to push a red or blue line back and forth.

I giggle at this.

How many times has PGI said one thing and then done another. If you think that they'll lock off a major part of the game to the minority percentage of the playerbase who run in merc corps you have another thing coming.

You can quote them as many times as you want but in the end it comes down to $$, and that means they'll go back on their word and open it up to pugs.

Edited by Laniarty, 10 November 2013 - 08:03 PM.

[Roland]

Mycrus, on 10 November 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Btw, I was using AC2/AC5/AC10/UAC5 even before they were cool... So I guess by that logic I just have invalidated myself from the discussion...

The reason that lower caliber AC's weren't popular before isn't because they were secretly good. It was because there were other, better weapons. They're popular now because those other, better weapons have been nerfed.

Mycrus, on 10 November 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Video proof?

I only have a still image. Sorry.


All jokes aside, when I say your LBX atlas is terrible, I'm not saying that you are a terrible pilot. I'm not making some slight against your honor. I'm merely making an objective statement that the LBX is currently a trash tier weapon. It is less efficient at the task of killing mechs than other weapons loadouts of equivalent tonnage.

You could in fact be the best pilot ever, and just faceroll everyone with an LBX atlas, and that wouldn't change anything, because the fact remains that if you brought other weapons, you would do even better.

This is the thing that seems so odd to have to explain. The measure of a weapon's quality is not whether or not you can make it work. It's whether or not you can do better using other equivalent weapons.

[wolfmanjake]

Roadbeer, on 10 November 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's kind of a myopic view when someone says "non-competitive" or "ineffective" because it assumes that everyone plays the same, has the same ping, same hardware, same reflexes, etc etc etc.when in reality it's fishing for the biggest YMMV ever posted.

I have seen, and have run some completely JOKE builds that have ruled the roost... oh sure, that may be in the PUG queue, but what happens when those competitive 12 player teams are thrown into the PUG queue and suddenly find that their well honed tactics that are tried and true against other competitive 12 player teams completely fall apart from a zergling rush?

LULZ, that's what.

If you think that barely organized players rushing organized players who have voice comm's and focus fire you are either very confused or very drunk. Maybe both.

Laniarty, on 10 November 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

I giggle at this.

How many times has PGI said one thing and then done another. If you think that they'll lock off a major part of the game to the minority percentage of the playerbase who run in merc corps you have another thing coming.

You can quote them as many times as you want but in the end it comes down to $$, and that means they'll go back on their word and open it up to pugs.

While I agree with PGI doing whatever they think will bring in the $$, you will need organized units to do anything more than affecting the planetary control for the faction that you sign up for. At best maybe they could allow higher ranking members to affect some of the decisions that are made regarding controlled planets.

[Mycrus]

Roland, on 10 November 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

All jokes aside, when I say your LBX atlas is terrible, I'm not saying that you are a terrible pilot. I'm not making some slight against your honor. I'm merely making an objective statement that the LBX is currently a trash tier weapon. It is less efficient at the task of killing mechs than other weapons loadouts of equivalent tonnage.

You could in fact be the best pilot ever, and just faceroll everyone with an LBX atlas, and that wouldn't change anything, because the fact remains that if you brought other weapons, you would do even better.

This is the thing that seems so odd to have to explain. The measure of a weapon's quality is not whether or not you can make it work. It's whether or not you can do better using other equivalent weapons.

Outfitting 66 mechs the same way is boring..

Can I do better with other builds, probably... Would it be fun? Nope, I would have rage quit a long time ago if I played the same weapons again and again and again..

Pity the pilot who outfitted all their mechs with goose riffles and erm pee pee cees... I heard there was a fire sale when that happened..

[ATao]

Mycrus, on 10 November 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

Pity the pilot who outfitted all their mechs with goose riffles and erm pee pee cees... I heard there was a fire sale when that happened..

Played 4ppc stalker in randoms since January till July. Never got bored of it. Don't forget that for some of us fun comes not only from running different mechs&weapons but from fighting against interesting opponents. I'd rather fight 100 different people with a single weapon than use 100 weapons against same opponent every time. More fun for me that way + weapon mastery.

On topic:
In 12v12 people tend to pick the most effective builds. So it's not "meta in meta". It's "the best of current meta".

Yep, random has it's own flavour. But it's born not because of some special gameplay or whatnot. It's source is people's love to play suboptimal builds just because they like to stand out from the crowd. Like "hey, I'm kewl cause I'm not on your fotm bandwagon, so I'll use this xxx trash of a weapon" or "hey, Bentley suxx and my original one of a kind mongolian made garbage on four wheels makes me smart" sort of thing.

Some people are not too sharp but they don't like to admit it and boost their egos in such way. And that fills random with trashy builds. There are other factors of course. Like good players experimenting with things to improve old or find new better setups. Or bored oldfags (never underestimate that one) . But the former is more prevalent. Well... whatever .

Edited by Alexander Malthus, 10 November 2013 - 09:47 PM.