29 replies to this topic

[Navy Sixes]

Hello. Let me start by saying this is not exactly a L2P thread. I myself am still learning and growing and, while my pride won't allow me to go into detail, suffice to say I am still more than capable of making some pretty stupid mistakes on the field. I have by no metric "mastered" MWO, and so would consider it hypocrisy for me to dismiss any problem someone else has as solely a lack of skill. Nor is this an attempt to discourage discussion on a given system's possible imbalance. There are real problems with balance in the game, although to be fair I feel they are nowhere near as severe as they were four or five months ago when I started playing. The forums are a valid place for members of the community (new, veteran, and everyone in between) to voice our opinions and concerns regarding those problems, and the ensuing responses serve as a good educational tool to understand opposing viewpoints. At the very least, they make for entertaining reads.

Rather, I wanted to express my own concerns at the troubling trend of players posting threads declaring absolutely that this or that weapon/system/mech is OP, when I (and many others) feel they clearly are not. I wanted to talk a bit about the rewards for good play and how I think we should define OP. Finally I wanted to offer a broad-stroke strategy for figuring out how to beat a particular build that has you down before coming to the forums and calling for nerfs. I want to clarify that I cannot speak to what goes on at the highest ELO brackets; I'm not there yet. I can only speak to what I see going on in the PUGs I play and how they plumb with the forum posts I read. It is my hope that this thread will help to elevate OP/Meta/Broken/Nerf discussions by calling for the aggrieved to form more complete and well-rounded arguments.

I. LRM5s and AC2s are OP... really?

We all know that the call for nerfs/buffs comprise a hefty chunk of these forum's overall content. Most of us (myself included) are guilty of coming here after a night of losses to the same or similar builds and complaining that this build is "the new broken meta." Sometimes these concerns are real and valid (Who wants to go back to seeing every match amount to eight 5-or-more PPC alpha-snipers vs. eight 5-or-more PPC alpha-snipers?) Often they are not. (Who in any mech that weighs more than 45 tons is worried about OP streak-boats?)

My problem is that all of a sudden there seems to be a lot of concern over systems that are roundly dismissed as garbage, but when grouped ("boated") they suddenly manifest as un-counterable death-dealers that are ruining the game. I disagree with this almost completely, and from the threads I've read, I've yet to be convinced otherwise. My reasoning follows.

II. Broken (You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...)

Let me begin by eating some crow. I have been involved in several discussions about the broken state of Spiders and ECM. I have seen enough evidence (both on the field as well as in arguments and video posted in these forums) to believe that both are at least a little out of balance and diminish overall game play (you can of course disagree, but that's not my point). The thing is, since those threads were all the rage, I've seen a rash of newer players taking up these systems in order to get an edge (For the record I don't blame them; new players need every advantage they can get!) and I've been absolutely lunching on them. They are not "win buttons" or "god mode." They are very potent and hard to beat in the hands of experienced aces who know how to employ them, but this can be said of any system in the game. I'd still like to see them tweaked a little, but in seeing the downsides to using these systems without skill, I understand their limitations and how to counter them, even when used by an experienced pilot. As a result, I don't think they are the "game-breakers" I used to.

I think a reasonable definition of "broken" is a system that has no substantial downside and therefore can only be countered consistently by an opponent who adopts that system themselves. I don't think Spiders fit into that category, although ECM comes much closer. Still, ECM is not unbeatable without your own ECM either. You just have to modify your tactics and style of play to counter effecively.

My own experiences in the game have resulted in my following conclusion, one that may seem obvious, but I think deserves stating and real consideration: Any opponent who, through skill or the occasional blind luck, can take advantage of a tactical superiority, regardless of their build, is probably going to kill you. This fact cannot be nerfed, no matter how many times PGI patches the game, nor should it. There are rewards attatched to knowing how to run/build a mech in this game, as well as how to use teamwork and terrain to minimize your mech's weaknesses and optimize your mech's strengths. Conversely, there are penalties attatched to poor performance, regardless of your loadout. To be sure some systems are more forgiving than others, and that skill cuts both ways: a good pilot can begin at a disadvantage and turn it around on their opponent. But in the end skill (both on the field and in the mechlab) will always be OP. Note that I say "OP" and not "broken:" Less-skilled groups working in unison can easily beat a team of highly skilled "loners." Teamwork is a consistent counter to skill, the "rock" to skill's "scissors." This is evident in the amount of grievance apparent in these forums from individual skilled players unable to carry a team of solo PUGs, as well as the advantages premade teams enjoy in the PUG against less coordinated solo teams.

I feel we come to the erronious conclusion that a given system is "broken" by taking a narrow appraisal of that system; we face an opponent that is good at minimizing his build's weaknesses, so we come to the conclusion that they don't exist. We are playing "our game" and the system in question thwarts our play style repeatedly; it must follow then that this system is unfair. We look at its DPS in Smurfy and find incontravertable proof that it will theoretically core anything that comes under its crosshairs in six seconds, so it must be broken.

When we do this, we fail to consider any facts that complicate our myopic assertion. In the case of the former, there's a little vanity involved. It's easier to tell ourselves that the system is too powerful than to consider what we might have done differently on the field to defeat it. In the case of the latter, I think it is a case of trying to apply mathematics conditionally, assuming that DPS is an end-all-beat-all statistic, and not bothering to consider the many other variables, both on the field and in the mechlab, that apply to the system in question.

III. Lunchbox Online

I finally feel I'm on my way up the ELO brackets. My understanding is that everyone starts somewhere in the middle and invariably falls to a point where they start winning matches regularly before they begin to climb. I'm not past the 1:1 win/loss ratio yet, but I'm really close. As a result, I'm seeing an odd mix of players in my matches. There are players like me who are beginning to get a real sense of what works and what doesn't, in terms of loadouts, tactics, execution, and maps. We are often mixed in with brand new players on their way down (don't take it personal if this is you; we've all been through it and for the record it is a safe bet you will "bottom out" way before I did. I was terribadbadbad when I started out!).

In game I'm seeing a lot of us climbers tearing the holy hell out of those newer 'lunchboxes,' and I'm hearing a lot of grief from those players regarding the OP/broken state of the systems being employed against them. Again, we've all been through it, so I'm not judging. Without telling you specifically how to defeat a given system you are sure is unfair (Sorry, I think it's unfair for me to have to tell you what you should be doing to destroy me... just funny that way, I guess!) I'd like to offer some advice that you can take or leave...

Know your enemy. I mean really know them. Learning to defeat a build that has your number in MWO usually takes a lot more than continuously driving at it like some pve "boss" until you get the twitch/timing down. There's a human being on the other side of your screen driving that thing, and their twitch/timing is growing right alongside yours. You may have heard that MWO is a thinking person's shooter. I believe this is true, and here's why:

If a particular system is beating you, you need to do some homework. Get on Smurfy and build it yourself. Get into the forums and get advice. I'm not talking about advice on how to beat them. I'm talking about advice on how to optimally build them. Finally, and I know this sounds crazy, you need to go into the mechlab and build one yourself. Then run it until you're good at it. "But I don't want to waste my c-bills on a mech I don't even want to play!" you say. Personally, I don't consider it a waste to figure out how to defeat the mechs that give me the most trouble, especially since I'm spending pretend money to do so. And you will figure out how to defeat them. You'll see all the problems that go along with devoting 30+ tons of mech to fielding a 4xAC2 Jag first hand, and you'll see how easy it is for your opponents to smash a 6xLRM5 spam-cat in the PUG. You'll understand the tactics good players use to minimize these systems' disadvantages, and you'll see what good players do to expose and take advantage of them. I won't promise you will always beat them, but you will improve against them to a point where you will no longer see them as "broken." They'll be just another system that bad players die in and good players kill in. Which is just as it should be.

This is not to say you shouldn't raise concerns in the forums when you think a system is broken. I think, should you follow this advice and find yourself with loadout that no one can counter without fielding it themselves, you will have an excellent case for it being broken and should definitely bring it to the community's attention. When the invariable arguments against your position come back, you will have a much better counter than "but I get killed by it a lot!" or "look at this graph!" Neither of which are particular case-makers, in my opinion.

Just don't be suprised in the weeks that follow if you see a lot of new and less-skilled players using it because they think it will give them an edge, and you find yourself absolutely lunching on them.

Good hunting.

[AlmightyAeng]

Preface: I read this wall-of-text, and I 'liked' it.

TL;DR: As you learn to play, you figure out how to beat things you thought were 'broken.' To figure out how to beat something, try it yourself. Teamwork is the counter to skill. There is no insta-win, because the guy in your crosshairs can aim just as well as you can more often than not.

[Stygian Steel]

Ac 20 shot to the legs fixes all broken lights

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Also AC2's and LRM5's are more annoying than an actual threat.

Keep playing and keep improving.


Also, three best peices of advice I can give you...

1) NEVER stop moving, ever
2) TORSO TWIST!!!
3) Never face hug, or stare at the thing you are shooting. See #2

[FupDup]

(Credit goes to Alex Iglesias).

[Navy Sixes]

Ghost Badger, on 25 November 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Preface: I read this wall-of-text, and I 'liked' it.

TL;DR: As you learn to play, you figure out how to beat things you thought were 'broken.' To figure out how to beat something, try it yourself. Teamwork is the counter to skill. There is no insta-win, because the guy in your crosshairs can aim just as well as you can more often than not.

Looking back at it, it was probably way longer than it needed to be. What can I say? I like to write and when I get started I have a tendency to go on and on. I hope my writing is clear and entertaining enough that it wasn't too painful a chore to get through.

Thanks, GB, for both the like and the apt summary.

[RF Greywolf]

Should be pinned! You have hit many good points that I think everyone should read from time to time, new and old.

[42and19]

100% support this thread.

Want to know a counter to ballistics? LRMS

Want to know a counter to LRMS? ECM, AMS, and fast moving strikers like my 6 splas jenner-f or 5 sml locust-3m

Want to know a counter to the above? BAPS, TAG, UAV, ssrms, lb10x

Want to know a counter to that? Ballistics.


I'm sensing a pattern here. Honestly at this point most of the weapon systems are fairly balanced. You can tell when a weapon hits that point when half the community thinks it sucks and the other half doesn't. My dual guass illya is a great example. Half the people I talk to say gauss is {Scrap}...till I core them in three shots.

I suppose the only weapon system that really is kinda crappy ( and even then only for certain people and I think this has to do with server load and HSR) is SRMs. I personally find that they do damage about half the time and the more missiles I shoot the less damage I do.

Again, that may be due to latency and HSR, I tend to float around 70-90 ping so who knows.

[William Mountbank]

Great post Tycho, although I don't think it'll be stemming the stream of 'SPIDR UR INVUNCIBALL!!' threads from some guy who happens to not hit a Spider once in every 100 matches.

But from the topic I thought this would be a discussion about the new hip hit boxes and how the crotch shot is now OP. I was pleasantly surprised instead!

[Sephlock]

In order to help newer players get through the process that the OP did more quickly, this should be mandatory reading for all new pilots:

http://www.sirlin.ne...win-part-1.html

Or at the very least, it should be read at least once prior to making a post on the forums.

Because until more people come to the OP's realization, we are going to get more and more nerfs to fun and harmless weapons.

[mekabuser]

I read most of it OP. and if this is your first mechwarrior game WELCOME !!
It looks like we have another real pilot in the making. Now you understand why there are so many of us who are PASSIONATE about mechwarrior combat.

The thing is, its not for everyone, but for those who get it, it cant be beat.
now if only the devs had the same passion. Sorry if this is a mischaracterization but its the impression I get. I suspect there are many devs at mwo who love it but idk, perhaps the corporate side of things is just toxic.
The still hiring banner just mystifies me, The no"hey we just got so and so and he does this and that" fills me with doubt.
but we carry on, hoping that we will get the content promised .

But either way, we carry on. All and all its all moving slowly in the right direction. IMO the major problems are largely ironed out. The supposed top tier eloers might disagree, but ill tell you there is a nice wide swath of elo that is filled with good pilots , good battles, and good games.

All that is needed is for pgi to step up and deliver.

Soon.

[mekabuser]

bump for OP .
/S

[Joseph Mallan]

Sephlock, on 27 November 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

In order to help newer players get through the process that the OP did more quickly, this should be mandatory reading for all new pilots:

http://www.sirlin.ne...win-part-1.html

Or at the very least, it should be read at least once prior to making a post on the forums.

Because until more people come to the OP's realization, we are going to get more and more nerfs to fun and harmless weapons.

Sirlin is an Amazing read! I totally love his perspective!

[Navy Sixes]

@ Mekabuser,

Thanks for the bump and the welcome. I played TT a while back, and there was one of the playstation games my roommate had, I don't remember which (MW3, I think). This is why I think I'm willing to cut the devs a lot more slack than some others. Coming from a TT background, MWO is pretty amazing. As it stands it's basically the TT game without a whole bunch of paperwork, way better maps than a hex-grid dry-erase mat, and you get to pilot one of the mechs on the battlefield!

The problem comes when we start comparing it to any pve video game in the franchise. I imagine coming from a computer-gamer's perspective, driving 12 mechs against 12 mechs over and over would get boring quick, compared to all the missions the video games had to offer. But from a TT perspective, that's pretty much all we did when we played. Only now a company vs. company match takes 15 minutes, instead of a whole night of counting hexes, rolling dice, and filling-in and erasing little dots on 24 different sheets of paper!

Of course CW is what we're all waiting on, and I agree that PGI is going to have to deliver big and hit that out of the park or this game will be in trouble.

@ Sephlock,

I've read this article by Sirlin, it was linked a few weeks ago in another thread (I can't remember it's name or author, another wall o text, as I recall. What's with those people?!). While Sirlin's article is well written and makes some good points that everyone could get something from, it also made me realize that I am one of the self-defeating losers. While I want to win, I have never completely equated winning a game with having fun playing a game, and there are things in MWO I'd personally not do, even if they would lead to more victories.

I think the biggest difference between my assertion and Sirlin's is that I believe if you pick any system in the game (with the probable exception of NARC and flamers!) and devote yourself to getting good at them, you will take a lot of beatings along the way, but if you stick with it you will make it look easy and eventually someone will take a drubbing by your hand enough to say that system needs a nerf. To be sure, as I wrote, some systems are more forgiving than others, easier to use to their fullest potential "right out of the box." But my personal revelation was that that doesn't make them necessarily "broken."

While it may take longer for someone to get good enough with a pair of AC5 (or any of those other systems) to post comparable numbers to someone running a Jagger-bomb, for example, it is very possible. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, and the definition of a good player is knowing how to capitalize on the former when you run them and how to exploit the latter when you confront them. I was trying to say that if you like to run AC5s, for whatever reason, you should. What's more, if you tough out the learning curve and stick with it, you can expect to get pretty handy with them. When your enemies are telling you that you are running an OP broken "cheese build" while your allies are telling you your build is a bad "drag on the team," that's about the best compliment to your skill you can get.

In contrast, Sirlin seems to be saying that a player should be committed above all else to winning, and with that as their sole criteria, they should be running those "more forgiving" systems exclusively. If they don't run them, they are committing themselves to failure and only have themselves to blame. Again, I only read the article once a few weeks ago, and if I misunderstood its thrust I apologize. That said, I really can't get behind Sirlin's assertion.

I think players should be playing the systems they want to play, and what's more, PGI has an obligation to ensure that it is at least possible for those harder systems to beat the more forgiving ones, even if it takes a steeper, more drubbing-laden learning curve to get there. If it is simply impossible to beat a system with consistency, regardless of skill, without conforming and fitting it ourselves, then that system is broken and we have a right to complain and expect PGI to do something about it.

This may keep me from the highest ELO matches, where I am to understand Sirlin's ethos reighns dominant. So be it. I'd rather lose occasionally playing the game I want to play than win more often playing a game I don't. But that's just me, and if I don't want anyone to begrudge me my style of play the least I can do is not begrudge anyone else thier own.

Man, another wall of text. I think I need to get help. Or an editor.

[FupDup]

Sephlock, on 27 November 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

In order to help newer players get through the process that the OP did more quickly, this should be mandatory reading for all new pilots:

http://www.sirlin.ne...win-part-1.html

Or at the very least, it should be read at least once prior to making a post on the forums.

Because until more people come to the OP's realization, we are going to get more and more nerfs to fun and harmless weapons.

While Sirlin does certainly have a few valid points, the way he chooses to express them makes him a colossal doucheb*g, perhaps even the king of all douchebags.

Edited by FupDup, 27 November 2013 - 01:09 PM.

[Sephlock]

FupDup, on 27 November 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

While Sirlin does certainly have a few valid points, the way he chooses to express them makes him a colossal doucheb*g, perhaps even the king of all douchebags.

How come that warranted a star in the one case but not in the other ?

That aside, I'd grant that his writing has.... a bit of an edge to it.

[xMEPHISTOx]

WTF is this massive wall of text...am I really expected to dedicate that much of my time to read this OP ::sigh::. Some of you need to learn to consolidate your posts better. I see more than 2 paragraphs and I move on.

[Captain Stiffy]

Stygian Steel, on 25 November 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Ac 20 shot to the legs fixes all broken lights

Yeah OK good luck!

[YueFei]

There's nothing wrong with playing to have fun and not to invest massive time into it to become amazing at it. Just as long as you don't complain that the *game* needs to change to give you the level of success you feel entitled to, rather than realizing that what you need to change is *yourself*.

That's the real problem with some people. They feel entitled to having a high success rate *without* putting in the hard work it takes to become successful.

I must also point out the converse: when established "authorities" try to alter the game rules to suit their vision of how the game should be, because someone came up with a tactic that they couldn't beat, and that they couldn't be bothered to think of a way to counter. Case in point: the Rockne shift in American football. The other teams couldn't figure out how to counter it, so they manage to convince the authorities to ban it. What a shame.

Me? I ain't ever gonna be super good at this game. But I'm OK with that. I continue to try to learn and discover new things, because if I didn't improve I'd get bored, but I don't expect to be amazing.

[Kat Kerensky]

xMEPHISTOx, on 27 November 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

WTF is this massive wall of text...am I really expected to dedicate that much of my time to read this OP ::sigh::. Some of you need to learn to consolidate your posts better. I see more than 2 paragraphs and I move on.

Yeah, you probably said the same thing about your school's textbooks. If a few paragraphs fatigue you so much, then the people who fail to comprehend one sentence requests in my pugs begins to make more sense now....

Edited by Kat Kerensky, 28 November 2013 - 02:22 PM.