46 replies to this topic

[sneeking]

hardpoint location is almost exclusively the ruling factor in how I perceive a platform and if I find it desirable or not.

pgi seem to have gone to great effort to make sure most ballistic points are in torso and energy are outboard ( this seems backwards to me ) logic demands that I place ballistic munition dependant weapons outboard so that hopefully I can consume ammunition while at same time using the limb as a shield. once expended and lost the inboard energy points become the fallback defence.

iv scoured the list of available mech for purchase and due to this mine is a general feeling of reluctance to invest.

[Buckminster]

For a large part they are hamstrung by canon. The mechs they are laying out are all based on existing designs, so they aren't in a position to just put hard points where they'd like.

And not all mechs have torso ballistics. Blackjacks, Centurions, Dragons, Jagermechs, Cataphracts, Victors, Highlanders and the upcoming Wolverine all have arm ballistics. It looks like you have plenty of options.

[sneeking]

not all, but its a small list.

im loving the centurion platform at the moment, its got to be my no.1

[Buckminster]

Yeah, but I think PGI's done a decent job of giving us a lot of options. I can't wait to see what the next batch of mechs will be.

Although I'm loving that shoulder ballistic on my Shadow Hawks. It's so nice and high...

[Enoch Xarr]

Do not concern yourself with the likes of players like Victor. Players like him rant and scream because of outside forces messing up their perfect plays when the fault is almost entirely caused by bad decisions made by players. (And I'm not talking about mech builds.) Take some responsibility for your bad plays. Figure out what you did wrong and don't do it again. Did you charge around a corner into a lance of assaults and heavies? Maybe you shouldn't have done that. If your mech makes use of all or nearly all available tonnage and free slots, then it is a functional effective chassis. Assuming of course you're taking it seriously and not trolling with nine tags or something else equally silly. You can't give a bad pilot at "meta" mech and suddenly see massive improvement because skill determines result. Any mech can win matches when the pilot is making correct decisions. I have seen too many times a mech I had never thought about playing or read about in competitive games change the course of battles and single-handedly win matches. Good pilot in Victor's "scrap">bad or mediocre pilot in a competitive build every time.

Edit: I will not respond to your future attempts to argue with me. I know your mind can't be changed because it's closed.

Edited by Enoch Xarr, 13 December 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Buckminster, on 13 December 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

For a large part they are hamstrung by canon. The mechs they are laying out are all based on existing designs, so they aren't in a position to just put hard points where they'd like.

And not all mechs have torso ballistics. Blackjacks, Centurions, Dragons, Jagermechs, Cataphracts, Victors, Highlanders and the upcoming Wolverine all have arm ballistics. It looks like you have plenty of options.

They are also hamstrung by not having a tiered hardpoint system like 4 did instead of just flat "Ballistic = Ballistic." That'd given them WAY more freedom.

[Victor Morson]

Enoch Xarr, on 13 December 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Do not concern yourself with the likes of players like Victor. Players like him rant and scream because of outside forces messing up their perfect plays when the fault is almost entirely caused by bad decisions made by players.

No, we shut down misinformation and bad advice so newbies get a POV based on fact.

Too many people around here keep trying to sell new players on the game they WANT MW:O to be, and not help them with the game MW:O is. Period.

Enoch Xarr, on 13 December 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

(And I'm not talking about mech builds.) Take some responsibility for your bad plays. Figure out what you did wrong and don't do it again. Did you charge around a corner into a lance of assaults and heavies? Maybe you shouldn't have done that. If your mech makes use of all or nearly all available tonnage and free slots, then it is a functional effective chassis. Assuming of course you're taking it seriously and not trolling with nine tags or something else equally silly.

Can't argue with any of this.

Enoch Xarr, on 13 December 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

You can't give a bad pilot at "meta" mech and suddenly see massive improvement because skill determines result.

Oh hahahaha, yes you can.

We've taken on many pilots that have only played in pugs before in my unit. They generally try to sell the rest of us on their builds/mechs, but once we get them to setup in a proper meta 'mech and their performance jumps three fold pretty much overnight, they never look back.

Enoch Xarr, on 13 December 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Any mech can win matches when the pilot is making correct decisions. I have seen too many times a mech I had never thought about playing or read about in competitive games change the course of battles and single-handedly win matches. Good pilot in Victor's "scrap">bad or mediocre pilot in a competitive build every time.

The game begins in Mechlab, not the drop screen. You can win with a disadvantage, sure, but it's a disadvantage based on mistakes made in the pregame.

Enoch Xarr, on 13 December 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Edit: I will not respond to your future attempts to argue with me. I know your mind can't be changed because it's closed.

I will however reply to your future posts, even though I suspect the same of you.

Of course that my views align closely with the best players in the game and your views align closely with people who still think if they wish hard enough, their 'mechs/guns will get useful.

EDIT: I really don't get this. It's like a casual SC2 player trying to say that the accepted pro build orders aren't necessary and that your casual ones are "just as good."

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 December 2013 - 02:29 PM.