46 replies to this topic

[HeliosRX]

I'm relatively new to the game, but I have a decent head for maths and a pretty good knowledge of old BT rules. In CBT, it was almost a given that one did not run 60-tonner jump-capable mechs for any reason, because a 55-tonner or a 65/70-tonner could do the job better (weapons and tonnage capacity) at either 4/6 (64.8 KPH) or 5/8 (87.6 KPH) and in any region in between. Similarly, one simply did not run an 80 KPH Awesome because the Dragon actually has similar if not better performance at the 80-90 KPH region, while packing a similar weapon and armor configuration. So it confounds me that I keep seeing Quickdraws with max JJs and XL 400 Pretty Babies, given that each is very much suboptimal at its given role. I understand that there are considerations to be made for weapon hardpoints and actual in-game capabilities, but is there any underlying reason the game isn't full of Dragons/non-jumping Quickdraws (which are optimal 80 KPH mechs), Shadow Hawks/Wolverines (55 tonner jumpers, the holy grail of manoeuvrability and firepower) and Orion/Victors?

[Victor Morson]

The reason is, pretty much, a lot of people cling to the idea of making bad 'mechs viable (and even claiming they aren't bad.)

There's some decent 60 tonners that can happen and a couple alright fast-moving assaults like the Battlemaster (it is far and away better than the Awesome for the role), but ultimately, you're pretty much dead on. It's nice to see someone who realizes that's because of the way things work on TT rather than despite them, which a lot of folks claim.

Pretty much the kings out there are:

Jenners
Shadow Hawks
Cataphracts
Victors
Highlanders

With honorable mentions to:
Centurion
Cicada
Blackjack
Jagermech
Atlas
Catapult K2

Bottom line is there are a ton of bad builds out there and a lot of people who will defend those builds and chassis to the death, but in competitive games, you're going to find pretty much these 'mechs entirely for largely the reasons you bring up.

EDIT: There are a couple cross-niche 'mechs too. The Centurion 9D and Treb 3C both can ton up to keep up with Jenners, and offer some extra armor and in league games, a "tonnage sink" if you want to run light.

EDIT 2: The Dragon is bad because of bad hardpoint layouts, and a bad hitbox layout. The Flame isn't awful though. The Quickdraw is alright, far better than the Dragon, but ultimately loses out to the Shadow Hawk for the reasons you describe in the same role.

Also the Quickdraw is huge for it's weight, just like the Kintaro. It's an assault sized 'mech with a 60 tonners stats.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 December 2013 - 04:40 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Add to Vics statement that there are a lot of people (HELLO VIC) who dislike anyone doing much experimenting - if they allow for any experimenting.

At some point one of the more competitive people did well in one of those mechs, in a competitive match - and "everyone" (HELLO VIC) has taken that to mean that those mechs are god-blessed killing machines along the lines of WH40k's titans.

A fine example would be the 4-6 ppc stalker, which was the FotM for several months, despite obvious glaring flaws - anyone who dared say anything against it (HELLO VIC) was mocked until they either left the game, or bowed to the bull-headed might of the mockers (HELLO VIC)

As you might guess, me (and a large portion of the people trying to help in the new player portion of the forum) and Vic clash quite a bit.

[Victor Morson]

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Add to Vics statement that there are a lot of people (HELLO VIC) who dislike anyone doing much experimenting - if they allow for any experimenting.

On the contrary, I always experiment with stuff. I always try to walk a mile with any piece of gear before giving it a final evaluation.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

At some point one of the more competitive people did well in one of those mechs, in a competitive match - and "everyone" (HELLO VIC) has taken that to mean that those mechs are god-blessed killing machines along the lines of WH40k's titans.

Absolutely not what happened. There's basically a set of criteria we look for: On point damage, responsiveness, etc. The weapons best at these categories are dominant.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

A fine example would be the 4-6 ppc stalker, which was the FotM for several months, despite obvious glaring flaws - anyone who dared say anything against it (HELLO VIC) was mocked until they either left the game, or bowed to the bull-headed might of the mockers (HELLO VIC)

6 PPC Stalker was terrible, and a newbie build only. Horrendous 'mech. The 4 PPC Stalker was OP, but only because PPCs were OP. They're fixed now so yeah, Ghost Heat should die and 4 PPC Stalkers should come back. They'd be fine.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

As you might guess, me (and a large portion of the people trying to help in the new player portion of the forum) and Vic clash quite a bit.

It is true. I'm of the mindset that newbies should have access to information for how competitive players operate so they know what the best 'mechs and guns are, and can enter the game doing the best they can.

Shar is under the impression it's better to let anyone buy whatever and tell them it can work if they just believe.

Maybe if we all believe hard enough, the Dragon will be great!

(Maybe a bit harsh but that's the long and short of it. )

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 December 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

On the contrary, I always experiment with stuff. I always try to walk a mile with any piece of gear before giving it a final evaluation.

Allow me to put it this way dear friend vic:

My builds, which you consider so terrible, are the result of aproximately 6,000+ matches in the Centurion9-A alone
6k matches where I carefully watched how people reacted, and how the different weapons worked.

It will not Rambo through the enemy team like you seem to feel everyone should: but it will let me do what needs to be done, and it does so well enough for me to counter any meta build I have seen: up to and include wiping the ground one on one against any and every assault mech in the game

And before you make yet another comment about my ELO: I have seen you in my matches, and I have repeatedly outscored you.

There are three ways to build a mech:
1: Experiment for yourself to find what works
2: Find a teacher
3: Copy-paste a meta build.

You insist (repeatedly) that the only viable option is the 3rd.
THIS IS WRONG.

There are bad mechs out there: there are mechs that will do (almost) the same thing but better.
But there are a LOT of different ways to go about it - and on-paper stats are only one aspect.

As for the TT-VG comparison that the OP made:
There are a lot of things that TT doesn't cover, slight differences in turn-rates, or twist angles, that make one mech look bad on paper, but out perform another in practice.

Unless you ask Vic: in which case the only TRUE viable mech is currently the Highlander with 2 AC/5 and 1-2 PPC.
IE: the current "Meta" King.

[Koniving]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

On the contrary, I always experiment with stuff. I always try to walk a mile with any piece of gear before giving it a final evaluation.

Note there's a track record here of giving a final evaluation months before and not updating the opinion when changes are made, accompanied with shooting down any encouragement for other people to experiment.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

There are three ways to build a mech:
1: Experiment for yourself to find what works
2: Find a teacher
3: Copy-paste a meta build.

There's a few more. 4. Ask someone to custom tailor a mech for your desired playstyle. 5. Watch someone else's build on a video to see if it's something you might try.

Sadly none of them are actually wrong. In my personal opinion a new player should be open to all 5 possibilities. At the same time, preaching that only one way is right is not correct either. There is also deliberately giving bad designs (not that you're guilty of it Shar) which is something that Victor often sees in others. Mind you that's bad designs in his eyes or at least to his playstyle, for one playstyle's good designs is another playstyle's bad designs.

Still I ask that both of you reign it in. There's another place for debating opinions.

-----------

But on a more serious note. You will find mechs out there running different rigs for a number of reasons. Below are a few examples of a tiny sliver of various reasons.

Example: Some are running mechs for the cockpit view: Yes, one mech might be more optimum but at the same time another mech might have a better view which is important for those who cannot hear the stomping of battlemechs.

Example: While a Shadowhawk may be the optimum medium mech overall at the moment when it comes to missiles, people run Kintaros due to the superior arm and torso twisting ranges which in turn allows better lock ons with LRMs and Streaks, as well as better attack range with SRMs. The missile door on the Kintaro also add a 10% protection to the center torso. Models with 2 doors are rumored (but not proven) to get 20% protection on the CT.

Example: While the Catapult has both superior missile tube counts and significantly more missile points accompanied with all missile carrying variants being jump capable, people may prefer the Thunderbolt because use of the arm crosshairs allows for side-ways locks and high speed locks as well as superior control over dumbfired missile spam against ECM units. There is also the smaller hitbox. But at the same time someone will prefer the Catapult due to the significantly higher missile tube counts, superior torso twist, and 10% protection on each arm when the doors are closed. There's also the Catapult's difficult to kill nature (assuming someone doesn't shoot the glass).

Example: A Battlemaster generally carries superior weaponry and has better agility compared to a Stalker. It also has a better view and quite exceptional arm range. When compared however the Battlemaster loses its arms considerably faster even when both it and the Stalker simply standing still under direct fire due to the Stalker's +10 protection to its missile-door arms when the doors are closed. The huge side torsos covering much of the center on the stalker provide a 50% damage reduction when the sides are blown off, where the Battlemaster's sides are nearly useless after being blown off. And sure the Stalker is clumsy, slow to stop, slow to turn, can't twist for {Scrap}, can't mount a ballistic (unless you're spreading Misery), and runs hot as heck... one thing is for sure you can take more abuse in a Stalker despite having identical armor to a Battlemaster.

There are many reasons to run anything.

Problem is there are some who will tell you not to run a mech, weapon or build for this reason or that. They're entitled to their opinions, so long as they remember everyone is entitled to their opinions and it's offensive when it is presented as undeniable fact. One amusing example is that a Locust is more powerful than a Commando because a Locust can mount an AC/10. ...Sure, in that instance but it's one of thousands of instances and thus it's simply an opinion. Centurion faster than a Hunchback? One variant is. Doesn't mean they all are. But in that case my Raven 4x is better than a Raven 3-L because I could knock down Atlases with a jump-jet drop kick and then shoot them in the skull with an AC/20 and 3 mediums back in closed beta for an instant kill. Information's old now, but if people don't update their beliefs they will continue to preach outdated info.

While mentioned earlier about Victor's track record (no offense), I believe that my statement should apply to everyone who gives advice from the so called top tiers (not just Victor there's at least 4 of you I can think of) to the casuals to the insane (I'm over here). It is very imperative to keep our information up to date if we wish to continue to advise others, and equally so we must remember that our word is not the final word.

Games are meant to be played, not dictated from the background.

On random but fun notes to lighten the mood: The Shadowhawk is larger (both in frame and in height) than the Kintaro. The Kintaro is just barely taller than a Centurion, unless you count the Centurion's head-fin in which case the Centurion is taller. Kintaro is also narrower. Shadowhawk and Centurion share arm sizes where a Kintaro shares its arm size with the Trebuchet.

A Centurion is the same size vertically as a Dragon and shares identical animations. The Quickdraw shares animations too, with the modification of squatting more. The head and 'bent' legs are what makes the Quickdraw larger than the Dragon, but side by side the two are vertically identical when stationary (in the Quickdraw's 'squattest' position).

And this one I thought was cute. An Awesome is slightly skinnier (in terms of shoulder to shoulder width) than a Battlemaster and much shorter. Do we change the phrase now? "I can't hit the broad side of an Awesome a Battlemaster!"

A unique note: The Shadowhawk is the only jump-jetting mech that does a 'leg tuck' when falling after leaping. This reduces its vertical size in half as it falls.

Edited by Koniving, 11 December 2013 - 06:39 PM.

[Redshift2k5]

I will also note that sometimes optimal fun can be had with a suboptimal build or chassis. Depends on how you roll. Sometimes an aesthetic value is worth more than an extra few damage per match or a few KPH slower.

I'm not big on what's bleeding edge competitive, but I do at least try to recommend solid, dependable, timeless mechs/builds for the new players.

[Victor Morson]

Koniving, on 11 December 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

Note there's a track record here of giving a final evaluation months before and not updating the opinion when changes are made, accompanied with shooting down any encouragement for other people to experiment.

Except I've recreated new threads to address major meta shifts each time. Yeah my last weapons/mech review thread got outdated, why I made a new one; the meta changed too much to simply update it.

Redshift2k5, on 11 December 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

I'm not big on what's bleeding edge competitive, but I do at least try to recommend solid, dependable, timeless mechs/builds for the new players.

As do I, hence the reason I still bring up the Centurion despite the fact it's outdated by the Shadow Hawk. If you're really, really new to the game, the Cent 9A is still a good training 'mech.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Allow me to put it this way dear friend vic:

My builds, which you consider so terrible, are the result of aproximately 6,000+ matches in the Centurion9-A alone
6k matches where I carefully watched how people reacted, and how the different weapons worked.

It will not Rambo through the enemy team like you seem to feel everyone should: but it will let me do what needs to be done, and it does so well enough for me to counter any meta build I have seen: up to and include wiping the ground one on one against any and every assault mech in the game

Your objective: Kill the enemy team

Select your 'mech:
A: 'mech that is the best at killing, and thus winning
B: 'mech that does kinda OK at killing I guess

Everything I write here is for players who chose A. You choose B.

Granted again, I do not have a problem with fun non-meta goof around builds. But if I bring one up I disclaim what it is; I don't tell a newbie that this is a "great 'mech" or something, when it's clearly not. That's the difference.

If you want to ignore this advice and run something silly for kicks, go for it.

As I've said myself many times, if they ever sell Urbanmechs, I am so driving one even if I have to go in MC for a hero. They're going to be awful, mind you, but I'll get a kick out of it.

What I won't be doing is going into the new user forum and telling people that an urbie is just as good as a Jenner.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

And before you make yet another comment about my ELO: I have seen you in my matches, and I have repeatedly outscored you.

ELO gets to be more of a joke by the day with matchmaker randomly throwing the craziest weight mismatches ever now.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

There are three ways to build a mech:
1: Experiment for yourself to find what works
2: Find a teacher
3: Copy-paste a meta build.

You insist (repeatedly) that the only viable option is the 3rd.
THIS IS WRONG.

There are bad mechs out there: there are mechs that will do (almost) the same thing but better.
But there are a LOT of different ways to go about it - and on-paper stats are only one aspect.

4: Look at the meta builds, understand WHY they are good/bad, and then modify from there.

That's what most people do.

Again, I'm not just going "Shadow Hawk is better because everyone likes it haha" as my reasoning, for example. It outclasses the other mediums because:

• Runs powerful meta heavy configs
  
• Jump jets on all variants
  
• High mounted ballistics
  
• Low mounted shield-like arms
  
• Excellent hard points that allow for ballistics and heavy energy
  
• Three variants each with a niche
  
• Can fill light hunter, brawler and sniper roles
  
• Good hit box distrubtion
  
• Models that can carry "damage sponge" sides sans weapons

So far the best argument by contrast I've heard for, say, a Kintaro is "Nuh-uh it did 450 damage here's a screenshot."

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Unless you ask Vic: in which case the only TRUE viable mech is currently the Highlander with 2 AC/5 and 1-2 PPC.
IE: the current "Meta" King.

2 UAC/5 2 PPC actually.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

There's a few more. 4. Ask someone to custom tailor a mech for your desired playstyle. 5. Watch someone else's build on a video to see if it's something you might try.

Again I highly recommend you start with meta, then experiment by branching off that.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Sadly none of them are actually wrong. In my personal opinion a new player should be open to all 5 possibilities.

Again, feel free to start your own "Just for fun" newbie help thread I suppose, but I simply give them access to the best possible information to play the best they can. Period.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

But on a more serious note. You will find mechs out there running different rigs for a number of reasons. Below are a few examples of a tiny sliver of various reasons.

Example: Some are running mechs for the cockpit view: Yes, one mech might be more optimum but at the same time another mech might have a better view which is important for those who cannot hear the stomping of battlemechs.

Are you seriously trying to say Kintaros are better for deaf people and those who don't own speakers?

Also they are incapable of moving their torso around and remaining alert because of a gun blind spot?

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Example: While a Shadowhawk may be the optimum medium mech overall at the moment when it comes to missiles, people run Kintaros due to the superior arm and torso twisting ranges which in turn allows better lock ons with LRMs and Streaks, as well as better attack range with SRMs. The missile door on the Kintaro also add a 10% protection to the center torso. Models with 2 doors are rumored (but not proven) to get 20% protection on the CT.

What are you talking about? Better attack range with SRMs? That's just not true. Bay doors are nice but in SRM builds you want them open anyway and the angles accomplish almost nothing.

Again, go watch the video I posted. I'll be posting more. The arm range and torso twist range are far more than acceptable and the Shadow Hawk 2D2's only weakness compared to the Kintaro is the loss of a single missile hardpoint. It makes up for it with jump jets.

Point: Shadow Hawk

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 December 2013 - 08:55 PM.

[sneeking]

its the underlying definitions of the building criteria you must question.

the metta = formula for shake and bake success where players conform to accepted norms.

frankenmech = creative thinking outside the box where players experiment with configurations and styles of play.

meta players greatest fear is the moment they may meet up with a franken player on the field who cracks a combo and style that catches them out.

franken players face frustration of the seemingly impenetrable wall of clone soldiers marching forwards with a statistically calculated advantage.

really its all just opinion ( including this very post )

[Victor Morson]

Frankenmechs are mismatched 'mechs, not just outside of the box 'mech.

An AC/2-Large Laser config is out of the box, but they're fairly well paired weapons, so is just a questionable 'mech.

A 'mech running an SRM4, AC/5, Medium Lasers and a Machine Gun.. that's a Frankenmech.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

I always tend towards the franken, myself... it helps keep the game interesting for me. Meta wouldn't be meta if the builds weren't viable, or easy to use, or whichever criterion it takes to make the build spread like a rash.

It's for that reason that I encourage people/newbies here away from the meta - they'll find it eventually anyway and if they like it, they like it. But on the off chance a newbie strikes luck and finds an 'odd' build they do well in, they might never have found it if they stuck to the meta.

And re: VM's sample-franken above, I think I ran that on my SHD-5M briefly...

[Rushin Roulette]

As a bottom line, there are no bad mechs, just bad pilots.

Ive seen players do really well in Dragons (non Flame variants included), Ravens other than 3L, Awsomes and Victors (and very rarely even Locusts beleive it or not).

Although the upper tonnage mechs may be more effective you also have to note that the lower weightbracket mechs have one gigantic advantage. In league fights where each team has a max dropweight, a 80 Ton Assualt may mean you can take an extra Jagermech.

Example for an 80 Ton Awsome over a 100 Ton Atlas:
Those 20 Tons saved means that you can upgrade a Hunchback or Shadowhawk to a Cataphract or an Orion.

It is all down to how the Awsome pilot works with his mech. They can be just as good as an Atlas/Highlander in terms of damage if they use their advantages (that terrible wide torso also means that you can shoot around a corner of a building while exposing none of your centre torso and the built in Standard engine for example). In a brawl, the Awsomes also have a nice torso twist speed which means you can protect your centre torso with the shield arm quicker than with most other Assault mechs.

[sneeking]

I consider my 350xl cn9-d 1xac2 2xml 2xstreak beagle case adv zoom adv sensor rangex2 max ferro double heat sinks as some outof the box thinking, not because I belive im the first to do it ( iv only been here three weeks or so ) but because I actualy arrived at it the expensive way around and didn't read the recipe from anywhere.

great little mech plays well now iv learned to use it, I don't belive ive peaked with it yet either

[Kekkone]

HeliosRX, on 11 December 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

but is there any underlying reason the game isn't full of Dragons/non-jumping Quickdraws (which are optimal 80 KPH mechs),

Jump jets offer way more maneuverability in MWO when compared to TT. Slapping on 1 JJ on any mech that can mount them offers enough jump-capability for most situations.

[sneeking]

yep, just one jj can save a heavy class lrm from certain death ( especially solo dropping ) if you find yourself separated in canyon with a light ecm sniffing about.

don't expect pugs to come back from the wild hunt to keep you company, not happening !

[aniviron]

Rushin Roulette, on 12 December 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

As a bottom line, there are no bad mechs, just bad pilots.

Ive seen players do really well in Dragons (non Flame variants included), Ravens other than 3L, Awsomes and Victors (and very rarely even Locusts beleive it or not).

Although the upper tonnage mechs may be more effective you also have to note that the lower weightbracket mechs have one gigantic advantage. In league fights where each team has a max dropweight, a 80 Ton Assualt may mean you can take an extra Jagermech.

Example for an 80 Ton Awsome over a 100 Ton Atlas:
Those 20 Tons saved means that you can upgrade a Hunchback or Shadowhawk to a Cataphract or an Orion.

It is all down to how the Awsome pilot works with his mech. They can be just as good as an Atlas/Highlander in terms of damage if they use their advantages (that terrible wide torso also means that you can shoot around a corner of a building while exposing none of your centre torso and the built in Standard engine for example). In a brawl, the Awsomes also have a nice torso twist speed which means you can protect your centre torso with the shield arm quicker than with most other Assault mechs.

Hey, I'm a longtime pilot of the unwanted, unwashed, unloved mechs. I have over 400k XP past mastery on my AWS-8Q and almost as much on all my other Awesomes; my other favourite rides are Ravens and Hunchbacks. I'm pretty good (you can look at my Awesome standings there) but I would never recommend anyone pilot the Awesome if they want to do well. Yes, you can have great games in an Awesome. But it's much easier and more fun to do it in a Victor, or really any other 80-85 tonner.

See, the thing is, lighter mechs can do better, but weight is not the only determining factor of effectiveness. If you want to run an extra Jagermech and your team is out of weight, you can free up enough tonnage by switching to a Victor, Stalker, or Battlemaster, all of which are objectively better than an Awesome, and then you're not a liability to your team.

Oh, and the thing about being able to shoot around corners is bunk. You still have to see to be able to shoot, which means exposing your centerline and thus your massive CT, and because you have the worst acceleration/deceleration in the game, you'll be exposed for a while.

[Rushin Roulette]

aniviron, on 12 December 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

Oh, and the thing about being able to shoot around corners is bunk. You still have to see to be able to shoot, which means exposing your centerline and thus your massive CT, and because you have the worst acceleration/deceleration in the game, you'll be exposed for a while.

You forgot about the invisible corner extensions on every object in the game... you can see long before you are actually able to shoot around a corner or over an object (Blackjacks, Battlemasters and Jagermechs profit from this as well).

With the Awsome and Cataphract (as long as you are shooting down a hill in this case) you will get the change in reticule focus distance much earlier meaning you can shoot much earlier as well. In these cases you dont need to fiddle backwards and forwards with your whole mech to get back behind cover.. just twist your torso to the side and you will be behind cover for enemy fire (although they can still see you clearly). Just twist forwards again once you have cooled down/the weapon is ready to shoot and you already have the sweet spot for shooting around the corner again.

[Victor Morson]

Rushin Roulette, on 12 December 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

As a bottom line, there are no bad mechs, just bad pilots.

People need to get out of this mindset.

It's like people who play bad tier characters in a fighting game claiming they are just as good, then get really mad when someone takes a "cheesy" character (that's not bad).

Being a good 'mech pilot begins in mechlab, not the field. If you bring {Scrap} intentionally, you've already made the biggest piloting error possible before the match even begins.

Rushin Roulette, on 12 December 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

Although the upper tonnage mechs may be more effective you also have to note that the lower weightbracket mechs have one gigantic advantage. In league fights where each team has a max dropweight, a 80 Ton Assualt may mean you can take an extra Jagermech.

Example for an 80 Ton Awsome over a 100 Ton Atlas:
Those 20 Tons saved means that you can upgrade a Hunchback or Shadowhawk to a Cataphract or an Orion.

Also remember nobody is dropping Awesomes in most leagues. The only leagues that do use Awesomes have artificial restrictions to force them.

You're basically right though, but you'd pick a Victor for the 80 ton slot every single time.

[Rushin Roulette]

That line was for you specifically... Im glad you noticed it.

Victor Morson, on 12 December 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

Also remember nobody is dropping Awesomes in most leagues. The only leagues that do use Awesomes have artificial restrictions to force them.

...as opposed to natural or generic restrictions? Yo do know that MWO is a game made out of loads of zeros and ones dont you? there is absoutley nothing "natural" about the whole game so therefore anything and everything is by definition already artificial.

Just about every serious league has some sort of restrictions in it (starting on simple things as limiting the number of Assault mechs per team) so that it doesnt end up in a boring 12 Atlas vs. 12 Atlas cavemenfights.

Edited by Rushin Roulette, 12 December 2013 - 02:45 AM.

[sneeking]

victor was that guile freeze run the clock out then secret throw guy ....

I can just tell