103 replies to this topic

[Roland]

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

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..

Yes, I have tons of mechs too.
Running sub-standard mechs is fine. There's nothing wrong with that.

But when we evaluate those mechs and equipment with a fair eye, we must admit that they are sub-optimal. That those weapons and mechs are inherently inferior to others.

And really, the answer is not to simply cast them aside then. The answer is to buff those other weapons and mechs until they are competitive. Until your LBX atlas is not simply outright inferior to other builds.

See, that's the ultimate point here.. Not that LBX is terrible and should always be relegated to the trash bin.. But rather that it should be improved, such that folks no longer only take it "for fun" or to be "different'. But rather, in the future, folks should take it because it is legitimately a good weapon, just like it was in prior mechwarrior games.

[Mycrus]

Alexander Malthus, on 10 November 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

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.

So why aren't you playing you pee pee cee stalkerrrrrr now?

[ATao]

Mycrus, on 10 November 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

So why aren't you playing you pee pee cee stalkerrrrrr now?

Cause 2ppc2ll misery is better for farming and uacppc hgn is just better? Oh I still run AC40 firebrand cause it's less of a problem to manage 40 dmg 23,5 heat alpha than same dmg and 73,6 heat. Your captain.

[Mycrus]

Roland, on 10 November 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

See, that's the ultimate point here.. Not that LBX is terrible and should always be relegated to the trash bin.. But rather that it should be improved, such that folks no longer only take it "for fun" or to be "different'. But rather, in the future, folks should take it because it is legitimately a good weapon, just like it was in prior mechwarrior games.

That as a goal is well and good.

We have to accept though that we will never reach that kind of level of balance... Not when devs say the awesome is a "starter" assault and by inference is supposed to suck (some ngng podcast don't ask me to reference it)..

There will always be "better" weapons and "better" mechs... What c0mp3t1t1ve really means is that it is easy to use...

Me, imma special snowflake - I will pilot the most gimped mech possible and I will do good in it. You do know I joystick right? (yes I know I won't be as accurate as a mouse)..

(again caveat on the locust... even I am having a hard time with the 1V)..

[Mycrus]

Alexander Malthus, on 10 November 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

Cause 2ppc2ll misery is better for farming and uacppc hgn is just better? Oh I still run AC40 firebrand cause it's less of a problem to manage 40 dmg 23,5 heat alpha than same dmg and 73,6 heat. Your captain.

Tsk, pity all that four pee pee cee
"weapon mastery"...

[Nryrony]

I don't really see an issue here between pug games and 12 mans.

Yes pugs are generally unorganized, as well as less optimized or dedicated (in therms of builds and strategy). Yet the enemy they face are the same. Ofc you will usually see more mech diversity in pugs then in 12 mans, but balancing issues don't exclusively exist in 12 mans.

Take the hitboxs/hard-points as an example, ofc a K2 can be a decent mech, yet its hitbox and hard-points as well as the hard-point layout favors other mechs. This is an issue for both metas.

Same deal with the higlanders and the scouts, commandos lack JJ, and the spider does its job better, while jenners are mobile gun-boats more of a light/medium striker. A Highlander can pop and has more mobility due to jj then a Stalker.

If they ever "balance" these problems out, I don't see an issue for both metas. With the exception of lrms - since the current mechanics clearly favors strict team-play, in both, using and countering them. That is if its mechanic stays and they become "effective".

[Sandpit]

Nryrony, on 10 November 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

I don't really see an issue here between pug games and 12 mans.

Yes pugs are generally unorganized, as well as less optimized or dedicated (in therms of builds and strategy). Yet the enemy they face are the same. Ofc you will usually see more mech diversity in pugs then in 12 mans, but balancing issues don't exclusively exist in 12 mans.

Take the hitboxs/hard-points as an example, ofc a K2 can be a decent mech, yet its hitbox and hard-points as well as the hard-point layout favors other mechs. This is an issue for both metas.

Same deal with the higlanders and the scouts, commandos lack JJ, and the spider does its job better, while jenners are mobile gun-boats more of a light/medium striker. A Highlander can pop and has more mobility due to jj then a Stalker.

If they ever "balance" these problems out, I don't see an issue for both metas. With the exception of lrms - since the current mechanics clearly favors strict team-play, in both, using and countering them. That is if its mechanic stays and they become "effective".

I don't see a problem between the two either. That was kinda my point. It seems like there are going to be two separate metas going on and the two may never cross paths

[Joseph Mallan]

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

Ok so I've been perusing the forums (I know, I know, you're thinking "That's unusual, Sand NEVER posts on the forums") and I had an epiphany

There's a LOT (too many?) of discussions about teams, 12v12, competitive builds, OP weapons, etc. There was a post in particular that made a light go off for me today. Essentially it talked about how a few points about certain builds were wrong because in "competitive" play those builds will not be viable. Although I still disagree with that statement it made me understand a unique dynamic we have going on in MWO.

First let's look at "competitive play". I think one of the fallacies of this is that only 12v12 is considered "competitive". Every game played will be competitive, especially once CW becomes implemented and every game played will have planetary ramifications.

Right now 12v12 is almost a metaverse within a metaverse. It harkens back to the leagues of old when players created their own metagame and record keeping. Player designed rules and leagues were at the heart of comabt, especially in the Btech universe. I can remember playing in various leagues in MW2, MW2 Mercs, Mech Commanders 1&2, MW3 (I didn't play MW4 in a league but played it nonetheless), and even megamek. These leagues had a competitive edge to them that the casual player didn't have to adhere to or participate in. Ahhh good times, but this reiterates my point. There was a game within the game that was entirely player driven.

This is where we are at with MWO in my opinion. Every game is played by the same mechanics but you have this entire metagame that is exclusive to 12v12. What many fail to understand is that while certain things might not be quite as effective in a high end competitive environment like that due to very tight teamwork and tactics, it's not going to be the same for those outside of that environment.

I see a lot of players saying things like "This wont' work in a 12v12" or "Good luck being "competitive" in a 12v12 with that once CW is here" What they fail to understand is that CW doesn't mean 12v12 will be the new meta. It just means there will still be that high end player driven meta within the meta.

Now I would like to say here that I am in NO way bashing 12 mans or any other premade in any way. I am merely pointing out that with two separate meta going on within the same game you need to understand that not everyone is going to play they way you do or use the same 12 man tactics and loadouts. Nor will players have to play in 12 man groups in order to be "competitive". So the next time you get ready to say something along the lines of "Good luck using that in competitive 12 mans" remember that CW is not going to force anyone in this game to play in 12 mans in order to compete in the metaverse for planetary control.

I envision more teamwork and cohesion in pugs after CW and lobbies simply because it will give you a sense of "belonging" and having a goal other than just dropping and playing for personal glory and bragging rights. I'm not saying there won't still be the malcontents the groan and moan or that there won't be players who just don't "get it" when it comes to teamwork and tactics, but I do think that it will change the face of the game in general. 12 mans will still ahve their high end meta but that won't apply to the average joe who wants to pug or play in 4 mand and such.

What about the 3rd MetaUniverse? The one where we are here to play the actual game, The Clan invasion! I don't care if Murphy's Law can beat Wolf's Dragoons, House Liao (either Goons or House Loyalists for instance) I only care that if Clan Wolf/Jade Falcon comes to the planet 'A Place' and attack the city 'Here', I have a slim chance of winning!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 November 2013 - 07:08 AM.

[mekabuser]

CW , soup to nuts needs to be discussed till we are blue in the face as its implementation is literally the lynchpin to mwo's success.

At this point I think speculation is helpfull as it can be fertile ground for ideas.
One great idea in CW can make a huge difference.

I would like to see a whole section for this discussion , but for now this thread will do.

If anyone could chime in about how other mw titles , or other games enact their CW it would be great.
A foundation of sorts.
THats not to say pgi may do whatever they please , if the community has some coherent consensus it would help to ensure we get what we want.
Id say there are many pilots "waiting" to join a unit or group .
Just waiting for CW to materialize.

I know i am.

I dont have much experience in everything I said above, but I thought the MWLL planetary league had a fairly good dynamic about it. From forces allocated and what it took for the lines on the map to move.

They almost pulled it off with id say 200 odd pilots total.
With several hundred to several thousand, should be easy peasy.

Edited by mekabuser, 11 November 2013 - 07:19 AM.

[ShadowbaneX]

Having played a bit of Guild Wars in my past your epiphany is kinda obvious to me. That was a game that had as much, perhaps more, customization as MW does. You can see it in that originally all skills were the same in both PvE & PvP. PvE doesn't really care about balance, unless it was so strong that you were able to solo high-level content (Protective Spirit I'm looking at you).

That said, most of the nerfs came down on the PvP side of things, but those nerfs essentially made those skills useless for PvE. Eventually it got to the point where having the skills be the same for both sides was useless and many of them were split and even had entirely different effects depending on what you were playing. I doubt that MWO will come down to this, but yes, there is a great divide between the competitive side of things and the non-competitive side.

You also run into the snobbery effect of competitive players are "superior" to non-competitive players for reasons...although typically anyone that was generally concerned with this were egotistical ********.

[Itsalrightwithme]

12-mans isn't just one universal meta. The meta for 12-mans with tonnage limits (e.g., RHOD) is different from that for 12-mans with tonnage and loadout limits (e.g., Marik Civil War), and the meta is different again for 12-mans pugging with no restrictions.

Contraints that matter: do you ton up your Victor to a Highlander at the cost of the Jenner going down to a Locust? Do you ton up your Ravel 3L to a Cicada 3M to get more meat on your ECM scout? Do you then ton down your Victor to a Cataphract?

Likewise, when class-matching returns to 4-mans, we'll see the meta shift for that universe. And if we get weight-matching instead of class-matching, it will be different once again since Cicadas will not be considered equivalent to Shadowhawks.

[mekabuser]

MadcatX, on 10 November 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

Well, could you at least pretend to theory-craft? We're really running out of non-negative threads, and the negative ones we do have degraded to simply throwing around the word "fallacy" like it's going out of style.

MWO in the News: The Pcgamer review thread that will... not.... die....
Gameplay Balance: Elo sucks, ACwarrior
Maps & Modes: Capracing and "I hate map X"
Metagame: c-bill grinding
Upcomming Features: When are these features comming? Soon.
Feature Suggestions: Fix this feature!!!

the Mechs & Loadouts subforum sees less vitriol then the others, with folks actually making some interesting talk about mechs and loadouts

And the Tournaments & Events subfolder has the least griefing. There may be a correlation betweeen that and the lack of tournaments and events.

THats your interpretation .
You can have ONE person making threads or participating in all the discussions and you could"say" its all vitriol etc, but its really not.
Its just a discussion with one or more people who will monkey up the works.

I dont see what you see. Saying everything is all complaints is false. It was NEVER the case here with the only exception being 3pv.

So, ignore the garbage and carry on with what YOU want to discuss.
complaints about the "spirit " of these forums has led to forums that are a shadow or what they once were. You figure out why.
I cant spell it out bec now ... well you cant. lame.

We are actually all collectively not as dumb as many think we are.
We realize now that the mwo experience is a multifaceted meta. THat in itself is huge and actually illustrates quite nicely what is awesome about BT combat in general.

[Corvus Antaka]

mekabuser, on 11 November 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

CW , soup to nuts needs to be discussed till we are blue in the face as its implementation is literally the lynchpin to mwo's success.

At this point I think speculation is helpfull as it can be fertile ground for ideas.
One great idea in CW can make a huge difference.

I would like to see a whole section for this discussion , but for now this thread will do.

If anyone could chime in about how other mw titles , or other games enact their CW it would be great.
A foundation of sorts.
THats not to say pgi may do whatever they please , if the community has some coherent consensus it would help to ensure we get what we want.
Id say there are many pilots "waiting" to join a unit or group .
Just waiting for CW to materialize.

I know i am.

I dont have much experience in everything I said above, but I thought the MWLL planetary league had a fairly good dynamic about it. From forces allocated and what it took for the lines on the map to move.

They almost pulled it off with id say 200 odd pilots total.
With several hundred to several thousand, should be easy peasy.

The Battletech Universe league in mech3 used a tonnage balancing system that wieghted clan mechs as about 30-50% % heavier than IS mechs. Thus 2 madcat D's would drop vs 3 Orions in example.

Given that the entire reason for building mechs bigger than 20 tons is because they perform better, the concept that every mech from 20-100tons must be equally viable ala light/med/hvy in other shooter games is highly flawed. We see this now in the lack of mediums.

Mechs are chosen not just for tonnage but production value.

1. I would like to see gamemodes like "assault planet, skirmish, only light & medium mechs allowed", or "final capital assault, assaults, hvy, med, light for a total tonnage of X

2. ability to drop ton for ton vs other units, ie 400 tons of atlas vs 400 tons of hunchbacks, because the dropship holds X tons of mechs, not a # of mechs.

3. CW units will need 12 pilots to form. since it's obvious if you have 12 men on your roster you''ll probably never have all 12 on at the same time, PGI must be planning to have 4 mans from units drop with other allied units in 12 mans, which will not drop vs full 12 man premades. Thus even in the CW meta the current lances together drops will have a significant role - most likely much more numerous than the pure 12 man drops.

4. The current 12 man meta is heavily evolved from minmaxing the pinpoint & jumpjet mechanics which given PGI's track record for adding jumpshake is most likely not the future direction PGI wants to see the endgame at. Arty/air strike buffs already have allowed more options dealing with this meta.

[Sandpit]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 11 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

4. The current 12 man meta is heavily evolved from minmaxing the pinpoint & jumpjet mechanics which given PGI's track record for adding jumpshake is most likely not the future direction PGI wants to see the endgame at. Arty/air strike buffs already have allowed more options dealing with this meta.

One thing that would reduce this tactic (not that I find anything wrong with it, before someone quotes this and says, "See Sand just contradicts himself!" which is a shame I feel the need to do this but still) is to allow arty and air strikes to be dropped via the battlegrid. Thus players can call in the strikes on specific locations instead of having to have LoS

[Joseph Mallan]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 11 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

2. ability to drop ton for ton vs other units, ie 400 tons of atlas vs 400 tons of hunchbacks, because the dropship holds X tons of mechs, not a # of mechs.

this is only if you are willing to to store mechs as cargo. Otherwise there is a finite number of Bays on a Dropship. Each bay capable of holding from a Locust to an Atlas.

[mekabuser]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 11 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

The Battletech Universe league in mech3 used a tonnage balancing system that wieghted clan mechs as about 30-50% % heavier than IS mechs. Thus 2 madcat D's would drop vs 3 Orions in example.

Given that the entire reason for building mechs bigger than 20 tons is because they perform better, the concept that every mech from 20-100tons must be equally viable ala light/med/hvy in other shooter games is highly flawed. We see this now in the lack of mediums.

Mechs are chosen not just for tonnage but production value.

1. I would like to see gamemodes like "assault planet, skirmish, only light & medium mechs allowed", or "final capital assault, assaults, hvy, med, light for a total tonnage of X

2. ability to drop ton for ton vs other units, ie 400 tons of atlas vs 400 tons of hunchbacks, because the dropship holds X tons of mechs, not a # of mechs.

3. CW units will need 12 pilots to form. since it's obvious if you have 12 men on your roster you''ll probably never have all 12 on at the same time, PGI must be planning to have 4 mans from units drop with other allied units in 12 mans, which will not drop vs full 12 man premades. Thus even in the CW meta the current lances together drops will have a significant role - most likely much more numerous than the pure 12 man drops.

4. The current 12 man meta is heavily evolved from minmaxing the pinpoint & jumpjet mechanics which given PGI's track record for adding jumpshake is most likely not the future direction PGI wants to see the endgame at. Arty/air strike buffs already have allowed more options dealing with this meta.

all manner of asymetric , weight or numbers , attack ,defend should be highly entertaining.

[Joseph Mallan]

mekabuser, on 11 November 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

all manner of asymetric , weight or numbers , attack ,defend should be highly entertaining.

Unless you get clobbered by them, then most seem to think they are some how cheap.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Unless you get clobbered by them, then most seem to think they are some how cheap.

You just described 90% of the posts on the forums sir

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 11 November 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

You just described 90% of the posts on the forums sir

Yes. Yes I did, an 0% of mine!

[Corvus Antaka]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

this is only if you are willing to to store mechs as cargo. Otherwise there is a finite number of Bays on a Dropship. Each bay capable of holding from a Locust to an Atlas.

while this may be the case, using tonnage limits per dropship is obviously necessary to avoid the 12 locusts vs 12 atlai.