179 replies to this topic

[Shakespeare]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 November 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

It's OK, but never been great for me. I like high alpha in my Hunch, so I can hit and spin my hunch outta the line of fire again.

Definitely. While I love the AC/10 in larger mechs, or on arm actuators, having one in my hunchback just required too much time on target for me. Better to 'Thwack!' and run.

[Kubernetes]

Pilots are like water: they will find the easiest path. And if you think about it, there really isn't that much room for real originality--there are only so many different possible combinations on any given chassis (ones that make sense, anyway). Implicit is that people are trying to find that optimum balance of mobility/protection/firepower, but because most are terrible at taking hits, it pays off to be powerful glass cannons. High risk, high reward.

I've only been playing two months now, but what I'm finding out is that I don't have "a playstyle." How I pilot a Blackjack is very different from how I pilot a Stalker or an Orion, and my weaponry is totally different as a result. I get destroyed if I try to play the AC20Jack or a Phract 3D PPC jumper, but switch the weaponry on these two chassis, and I feel right at home.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Quote

Quote


Real Pilots Don't Need Meta Builds REAL PILOTS PLAY THE BEST BUILDS AVAILABLE


Fixed your topic title OP.

Rhaythe, on 12 November 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Real pilots play whatever build best suits their playstyle.

Can't believe how many people get this wrong.

Unspoken truths are unspoken for a reason as it is obvious, if sniping is not your play style in turn meaning not good at it then naturally its not the build for said person.

Edited by xMEPHISTOx, 12 November 2013 - 08:32 PM.

[Sandpit]

xMEPHISTOx, on 12 November 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

Unspoken truths are unspoken for a reason as it is obvious, if sniping is not your play style in turn meaning not good at it then naturally its not the build for said person.

but but....

that means my opinion isn't a unilateral universal factual truth for everyone else in existence!

[Alaskan Nobody]

Sandpit, on 13 November 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

but but....

that means my opinion isn't a unilateral universal factual truth for everyone else in existence!

Of course not, you have some measure of common sense and presumably humility.

Edit: Oh wait....

xMEPHISTOx, on 12 November 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

Unspoken truths are unspoken for a reason as it is obvious, if sniping is not your play style in turn meaning not good at it then naturally its not the build for said person.

That covers it doesn't it?

Edited by Shar Wolf, 13 November 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

xMEPHISTOx, on 12 November 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

Unspoken truths are unspoken for a reason as it is obvious, if sniping is not your play style in turn meaning not good at it then naturally its not the build for said person.

to qoute Pontious Pilate: "What ARE the best builds"?

[Alaskan Nobody]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 November 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

to qoute Pontious Pilate: "What ARE the best builds"?

/Troll_On
Ones you can strap as much salmon over as possible?
/Troll_Off


..........Or does that sound as fishy to you as it does me?

[DelRico]

Everyone keeps telling that Dragons sucks, yest I kill from 4 to 8 enemies with those. I died a lot before I found an interesting setup, but I pushed on and finally acquired the skills needed.

I'm not sure I would have been playing constantly for the last year if it had all been about buidling THE generic power mech that wins all...

[Alaskan Nobody]

Eylradjaw, on 13 November 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Everyone keeps telling that Dragons sucks, yest I kill from 4 to 8 enemies with those. I died a lot before I found an interesting setup, but I pushed on and finally acquired the skills needed.

I'm not sure I would have been playing constantly for the last year if it had all been about buidling THE generic power mech that wins all...

Their big argument, is that it is much easier to kill than its comparative rivals - thus you would (in theory ) do much 'better' in another mech.

That is completely ignoring that not all mechs move the same - people LOVE the Stalker, but it feels way to unmaneuverable for me to even consider it (add to that the weird windshield....)

In sheer #s mechs like the Dragon and Commando lose out - but there is a lot more to the game than sheer #s now isn't there.

(Exception: very high end, intensive competitiveness, if that)

[JHackworth]

Funny rant but "metas" are misunderstood.

These so called "meta" builds for team play aren't about individual player performance. As a drop officer, I could care less if the standardized HGN-733C I want you to drive isn't your best performing mech. You need to be competent in it, sure. The whole point is to reduce the number of variables on the field for the entire team and to drop with a good understanding of ranges, optimal damage outputs for the various combat scenarios. It is much easier to position a lance of similar (if not identical) loadouts than otherwise. All this bitching about how this marginalizes individual player experience completely misses the point.

Cheers

[FupDup]

It's better to have and not need than to need and not have.


(That being said, right now I'm grinding Griffins and Wolverines, which couldn't be built into meta-builds even if I wanted to).

Edited by FupDup, 04 January 2014 - 06:06 PM.

[Hellen Wheels]

Mystere, on 10 November 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

As I have been saying all this time ...

"Meta" this, "Meta" that, I am really sick of this "Meta" {Scrap}. But, what can I do? The gaming world -- very much like the real world -- is infested by a lot of "Monkey see, monkey do" types.

"Meta" is a euphemistic attempt to disguise what their mechs really are: Munchkin Mechs. They don't have a clue what the term really means.

[-Muta-]

It all comes down to what people are used to play with... for example there are guys that are soooooooooo used to poptart builds like 2ppc+ac10 or uac5... and they are actually good at it. (I am super bad at portating).

And some others like me are used to brawling builds.

At the end of the day it all comes down to teamwork. (I love playing on a 4 man group all using RVN 3L)<<<< so much fun crushing people and getting crushed now and then.

Just play what you like the best!

Edited by Mutaroc, 04 January 2014 - 06:18 PM.

[NRP]

Mutaroc really should stop liking his own posts.

It's bad form.

And it's kinda creepy.

Edited by NRP, 04 January 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

NRP, on 04 January 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

Mutaroc really should stop liking his own posts.

It's bad form.

And it's kinda creepy.

yeah, and kinda detracts from the fact he made a good point.... but just never got the "liking myself" thing.

[DrxAbstract]

ManusDei, on 10 November 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

Apologize for the long rant but it needs to be said.

I prefer to play according to my style and not what the communist regime would like me to build. I've played in many organized groups and some are more organized than others. One common theme reappears over and over ...group leaders believe they can be the best clan, merc corp, group whatever by using meta builds in competitive 12 man drops. Square peg, round hole.

You can't fit a pilot into the mech build without first building skill. Skill is developed over time through many trails of experimentation.....try this weapon, try that weapon, try this mech, try them all. See what works for you and what doesn't. Nobody can tell you what is the "Best" mech build because there isn't one. Anyone that tells you otherwise is full of it.

If winning every match only required building meta then why don't they win every match? When they do lose a match, the meta build requirements are not the problem. Relying on Meta solely is not how the game is won in competitive 12 man drops. The game is won by a strong leader with superior tactics and exploiting the strength of each team member's unique ability.

Sometimes I have the privilege to play in a 12 man pug match where the entire team did not have a single meta build and we won. Why? Because the entire team wolf packed. It was a glorious battle at the end we only lost maybe 2 or 3 pilots. Everyone is smoking from their arms like they were in the brawl of their life....but we won. No meta builds. It can be done, I've seen it done before.

With over 11,000 drops and experience playing with at least 7 different organized groups now, I'm still looking for a competitive group that does not require me to use meta builds for 12 man drops. I know there are a few out there. Please name a few groups I can join to demonstrate my skill as a true warrior which does not restrict my ability to mech loadouts.

It's not about the size of the gun you bring to the battlefield its how you use it that matters most.

I heard you hate Meta so i filled your Meta with Meta loving clans.

[Marmon Rzohr]

I'm confused about all this meta discussion. The metagame of any game, including MWO isn't something that someone says is true or determined in a meeting. It develops organically. It represends the theorycrafting and practical testing of what wins most consistently.

It does change. Since I've been playing, there have been 3 big shifts when it comes to mech construction. It's also not very limiting. Barring the LBX, AC2, Machine Gun, Flamer, small and pulse lasers every single weapon is used. And even these weapons would be used if they weren't badly designed.

Look at the RHoD league. The teams are quite varied in tactics and people are trying new stuff.

So why is this theorycraft a bad thing ?
I don't get it.

It's not stifling creativity or something.
The first person to think of the 3D poptart was creative and people are trying to find new builds that will win. It's just that with JJs being OP and some HSR problems, it's a bit limiting.

I'm a bit puzzled since MWO is the only PvP game I've played where I've seen this attitude. In LoL, WoW, SC, you name it, people are glad to know about strategies and builds others have theorycrafted and tested to the max. When they try to invent something new, they try to shift the meta by using something new that wins consistently.

So why so negative about all that ?

DISCLAIMER:
This is not so much a comment on the OP, I wanted to comment on the confusing attitude demonstrated in this thread.

[Sephlock]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 January 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

yeah, and kinda detracts from the fact he made a good point.... but just never got the "liking myself" thing.

I was going to make a NSFW joke, but couldn't be bothered to figure out how to word it so as to get past the mods, so just use your imagination here .

[MadcatX]

Marmon Rzohr, on 05 January 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

I'm confused about all this meta discussion. The metagame of any game, including MWO isn't something that someone says is true or determined in a meeting. It develops organically. It represends the theorycrafting and practical testing of what wins most consistently.

It does change. Since I've been playing, there have been 3 big shifts when it comes to mech construction. It's also not very limiting. Barring the LBX, AC2, Machine Gun, Flamer, small and pulse lasers every single weapon is used. And even these weapons would be used if they weren't badly designed.

Look at the RHoD league. The teams are quite varied in tactics and people are trying new stuff.

So why is this theorycraft a bad thing ?
I don't get it.

It's not stifling creativity or something.
The first person to think of the 3D poptart was creative and people are trying to find new builds that will win. It's just that with JJs being OP and some HSR problems, it's a bit limiting.

I'm a bit puzzled since MWO is the only PvP game I've played where I've seen this attitude. In LoL, WoW, SC, you name it, people are glad to know about strategies and builds others have theorycrafted and tested to the max. When they try to invent something new, they try to shift the meta by using something new that wins consistently.

So why so negative about all that ?

DISCLAIMER:
This is not so much a comment on the OP, I wanted to comment on the confusing attitude demonstrated in this thread.

Well, having played extensively (probably too much) WoW, SC & LoL, my experience are:

WoW, SC, LoL: they're good at balancing things so that although you may have a couple top builds\strats, there's a much more viable pool of alternatives in the end game that may not be the absolute best, but are close enough so you can play around a little bit.

I've also run across other PvP games however that have one or two top builds and everything else is not as effective by a significant margin.

As mentioned above, it's a path of least resistance issue, and this is not uncommon. I remember the good ol' zerg rush of the first SC being the go-to strat for many players. You'd have folks who would call it cheap and whatnot, but it was effective.

As for having a "real pilots don't need to run the best cookie-cutter build", I've seen that attitude everywhere's online and honestly it it's never led to anything but flaming. Whenever you start a sentence with "Real players do/don't.....", you're going to offend a part of the player base anyways and don't expect much constructive feedback in a thread like that.

[CrashieJ]

incentives to not use builds and weapons used by the majority

Lower weapon costs on the market
Lower repair costs for mechs
Lower ammunition prices
Better experience bonuses

Done, problem solved.