194 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 February 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Your request is granted.

[Thrudvangar]

hello again,

the assault coward thing: i dont want them to push forward to take out the LRMs, i want them to fight. they dont have to stay in the LRM rain but if a whole lance of assaults facing ONE hunchback and NOBODY wants to make a step forward and fight the hunchback (and make room for others) then there is something wrong. I understand that they are slow and, of course, dont get melted by LRM rain.. but i didnt said that. I'm talking about those who only hides, doesn't matter whats going on...

2nd: i'm not far away in front of my teammates, i mostly search cover and try to scout a bit to see where the enemy is (taking a step out of cover, have a look around, locking targets and take a step back if needed)... After it's clear what type of enemy mechs are around and where they are, i'm trying to look for single LRM boats or other mechs hiding, trying to get locks and post this in the chat. But mostly i'm on my own with that.

Lights aren't really a problem for my mechs, the problem is fighting them while they lock me and the LRM rain begins and its clearly NOT possible to avoid that on every map, i get hits while searching covers behind houses, hills or even in a "valley" surrounded by hills, just because that one light mech i'm fighting has locked me.

i will deal with that, there is no option, i just wanted to say that it is TOO MUCH at the moment. Hopefully this changes when the trial stalker disappears but there is no great hope since there are many more mechs only launching LRMs.

sure i do have times where i'm not prepared or didnt take cover fast, my own fault then. But when i get hit while IN cover and my screen doesn't stop shacking for 20 seconds... thats wrong! And all of you who say that they never move out of cover while fighting other mechs around you are just not telling the truth... i only once saw a guy not moving while fighting... and he died within seconds.. You have to move and there isn't always a place to take cover. Especially when the enemy is all over, flanking and you're on the search for cover... I directly hear "Warning, Incoming Missile" as i make any step or a mech is targeting me.

This is annoying and if i'm unlucky to flee fast enough i'm just dead. The ppl i'm playing with know how i play and they know that i'm a cautious player in my medium but this is ridiculous.

what else should i do instead of : sneaking up, hit and run, take cover.. hit and rund, take cover... what else?

and really, i don't wanna build an LRM boat or Medium LRM harasser. its not my playstile. i've tried it out but it is no fun for me. i'm trying to get behind the enemies, playing my mech like a light mech with just more armor and firepower.

and seriously, i dont circle around others, its for dummies

[Sephlock]

Enzlaved, on 23 February 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

hello again,

the assault coward thing: i dont want them to push forward to take out the LRMs, i want them to fight. they dont have to stay in the LRM rain but if a whole lance of assaults facing ONE hunchback and NOBODY wants to make a step forward and fight the hunchback (and make room for others) then there is something wrong. I understand that they are slow and, of course, dont get melted by LRM rain.. but i didnt said that. I'm talking about those who only hides, doesn't matter whats going on...

2nd: i'm not far away in front of my teammates, i mostly search cover and try to scout a bit to see where the enemy is (taking a step out of cover, have a look around, locking targets and take a step back if needed)... After it's clear what type of enemy mechs are around and where they are, i'm trying to look for single LRM boats or other mechs hiding, trying to get locks and post this in the chat. But mostly i'm on my own with that.

Lights aren't really a problem for my mechs, the problem is fighting them while they lock me and the LRM rain begins and its clearly NOT possible to avoid that on every map, i get hits while searching covers behind houses, hills or even in a "valley" surrounded by hills, just because that one light mech i'm fighting has locked me.

i will deal with that, there is no option, i just wanted to say that it is TOO MUCH at the moment. Hopefully this changes when the trial stalker disappears but there is no great hope since there are many more mechs only launching LRMs.

sure i do have times where i'm not prepared or didnt take cover fast, my own fault then. But when i get hit while IN cover and my screen doesn't stop shacking for 20 seconds... thats wrong! And all of you who say that they never move out of cover while fighting other mechs around you are just not telling the truth... i only once saw a guy not moving while fighting... and he died within seconds.. You have to move and there isn't always a place to take cover. Especially when the enemy is all over, flanking and you're on the search for cover... I directly hear "Warning, Incoming Missile" as i make any step or a mech is targeting me.

This is annoying and if i'm unlucky to flee fast enough i'm just dead. The ppl i'm playing with know how i play and they know that i'm a cautious player in my medium but this is ridiculous.

what else should i do instead of : sneaking up, hit and run, take cover.. hit and rund, take cover... what else?

and really, i don't wanna build an LRM boat or Medium LRM harasser. its not my playstile. i've tried it out but it is no fun for me. i'm trying to get behind the enemies, playing my mech like a light mech with just more armor and firepower.

and seriously, i dont circle around others, its for dummies

Someone less lazy than me friend this guy and drop with him.

[Damocles69]

@op

/facepalm

[Nick Makiaveli]

NRP, on 23 February 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

@OP
For what it's worth, I totally agree with you. This game has far too many cowards and too much LRM spam, which itself is a form of cowardice. This whimps would rather sit back in relative safety lobbing indirect fired noob rockets instead of fighting their enemy straight up "eye-to-eye" like a man.

Only thing you can really do while running solo is to build yourself an LRM hunter. It has to be fast and it should have ECM so you can move relatively undetected. Some good choices:

Raven 3L with 2 ERLLs
Spider 5D with ERLL+2 MLs
Cicada 3M with 4 MLs+MG

Once you find the LRM lobbing pansy, work on their legs exclusively (their ammo is almost always stored there). Really, you can use just about any light mech, but the above make the job easier due to the ECM. This is a very satisfying role for solo PUGing.

Bottom line: Don't get mad. Get even.

So LRMs are cowards, but ECM is ok?

Great logic there.


Oh and please explain this "noob" weapon crap I keep hearing about. If any one can get kills with them, then why are the competitive Meta builds all about LRMs? Seems an expert should be able to melt faces with them if a newbie can get kills?

Oh wait that's right, they are only OP against people who no actual talent or skill, and just want to rush to the center and poptart.

[Thrudvangar]

Damocles69, on 23 February 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

@op

/facepalm

and that means exactly what? nothing to say? keep moving!

[Damocles69]

Enzlaved, on 23 February 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

and that means exactly what? nothing to say? keep moving!

it means that your post is bad and you sould feel bad. currently LRMs are one of the worst weapon systems in the game. if they beat you, you need to realize it is because you are terrible not because they are a good weapon system.

[Sephlock]

FWIW you don't have to move forward, you can move backwards and to the side behind a ridge. That's what people typically do.

[Prezimonto]

Noesis, on 23 February 2014 - 03:43 AM, said:

and/or tonnage restrictions are applied in April

Supposedly they might not be adding tonnage restrictions again, in favor of dropping groups to 3 players in pugs and opening private matches (where you earn no rewards).

As bad as they'd be (instead of BV or better market based BV) they're better than anything else I can think about.

[Prezimonto]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 February 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

Just the ones that want their toons to live forever Carrion.

As to the 50% or more Missiles doing a disservice... the Trial Stalker gave me a 200+ damage average increase, and I aided in the killing of 50% or more enemies in every match I used it. I however had a very good dedicated spotter doing his job very effectively.

Dedicated LRM boats with 40+ missile tubes are quite good, and are the reason we have ECM that a hard counter to lock-on mechanics, as well as AMS when no other weapon system has any hard or soft counters really (ams is of arguable ustility vs SRM/SSRM).

LRM's are in a bad place vs. good players because they can be directly countered in so many ways(and consequently require good to excellent spotting and support to be effective at all), against unorganized, unknowlegable players large missile boats are still very powerful.

LRM's are just a bad use of tonnage (for most players and situations) when taken in small numbers, which is how most mechs can equip them.

Long and short: wait until we get a set of trial mechs without a well built dedicated missile boat and we'll go back to seeing a lot less missiles.

Edited by Prezimonto, 23 February 2014 - 01:20 PM.

[Noesis]

Prezimonto, on 23 February 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

Supposedly they might not be adding tonnage restrictions again, in favor of dropping groups to 3 players in pugs and opening private matches (where you earn no rewards).

As bad as they'd be (instead of BV or better market based BV) they're better than anything else I can think about.

Tonnage restrictions, BV, fixed Mech numbers by class or weight, economic overhead considerations. All apples and oranges to making a better representation in the demographics than the current overweight situation we have now that limits roles, tactics and game play styles.

Private matches as I understand intentionally flexible as to how players want to use them since they are "private" concerns that do not effect public concerns like CW. So no rewards as indicated makes a lot of sense to me.

Still as far as I'm aware with "official" messages; "tonnage restrictions" is the current strategy to be employed by PGI.

[Prezimonto]

Noesis, on 23 February 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

Tonnage restrictions, BV, fixed Mech numbers by class or weight, economic overhead considerations. All apples and oranges to making a better representation in the demographics than the current overweight situation we have now that limits roles, tactics and game play styles.

Private matches as I understand intentionally flexible as to how players want to use them since they are "private" concerns that do not effect public concerns like CW. So no rewards as indicated makes a lot of sense to me.

Still as far as I'm aware with "official" messages; "tonnage restrictions" is the current strategy to be employed by PGI.

http://mwomercs.com/...-3-aired-22214/

They're going to match people based on weight class.. .so matches will have 4 of each weight class.. at least that what this interview made it sound like.

Which is kind of, sort of, squishy tonnage matching... where there's potentially still 195tons difference between teh two teams.
(3x20's vs. 3x35's + ect. ect. 3x80's vs. 3x100's).

And also player group sizes go down to 3 mans for actually earning game play rewards.

So: want to earn in-game loot? Go pug,
want to play on a team: go play for no rewards to your account.

[Noesis]

NGNG comment about 3A-3H-3M-3L is useful to see but it still does not best represent the demographic as expected by precedents of BT.

We would expect to see less assaults and more mediums as best represented and is how the more "average" use of the tech is best applied and designed for. But I'm assuming they have suggested the above to allow for the ability to still sell as significant number of Assault Mechs. It is the most egalitarian perspective of player choice, but if so would need to consider from a design perspective that it might disadvantage other lighter Mechs like mediums as a result still.

I'd much prefer to see a system of 2A-3H-4M-3L, but the above suggestion will hopefully still be a big improvement from what we see in the current Meta. Which when you consider the overall potential range of Mechs to utilise would also allow for a better choice of sale of all Mechs where Mediums have a more abundant selection even if cheaper. So "potential" overall sales perhaps reflected better with a system apportioned to this relationship also.

The above format with fixed Mech numbers also exercises more constraints on the applied use of Mechs than the idea of at least having some flexibility and variable tactics with tonnage or BV which is less prescriptive. Perhaps it might be a necessary evil?

Another way of course might be to limit the extreme end of the scale so you can have say a maximum of 2 Assaults with tonnage restrictions but leave the rest open and flexible in the assumption it encourages more diverse use of mobile Mechs?

[Noesis]

Prezimonto, on 23 February 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

So: want to earn in-game loot? Go pug,
want to play on a team: go play for no rewards to your account.

Since private matches can be arranged and the outcome scripted to abuse CW outcome or garner specific gains or rewards in a particular way.

This is why Private queues are separate from Public concerns with CW.

And whilst I appreciate this may limit the capabilities of 12 mans being represented well in group play, I guess this is to limit the overpowering capabilities of communication and teamwork. And I can only echo similar concerns that this does not help to represent the idea of teamwork or organisational interests again perhaps a simplified model as a necessary evil of merging organised groups with the Pug queue.

I'd much prefer to see the outcomes of more flexible concerns and the idea of having perhaps pug and 12 man queues with private matches external to these interests. However PGI seem to be responding to player demographic choices perhaps than trying to encourage the idea of team play and enthuse participation in player organisations.

Perhaps also it helps to diminish problems with player politics and all the drama this could create. But it also seems to take away an important element of player involvement with loyalty to a specific unit. More so relevant I feel to Merc groups than Houses or clans perhaps where at least representation can be taken from affiliations with those groups to suggest loyalty interests.

This is why I guess I would prefer to give tonnage restrictions a change even if being aware to underlying problems in the meta that suggest this might not end in expected desirable outcomes and similar problems persist. Which you'd think would encourage the designers to correct the underlying root problems or adjust the game play parameters to account for them?

[Abivard]

LRM's owns pugs
Premade owns LRM teams

Pop tart premades owns PUG brawlers
Premade Brawlers owns PUG poptarts

Premade air/arty owns PUG premade arty

Premade long range snipers owns PUG Long range snipers

Intelligence owns stupidity
Skill owns ineptitude

Can you not see the pattern yet?

[Prezimonto]

Noesis, on 23 February 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

NGNG comment about 3A-3H-3M-3L is useful to see but it still does not best represent the demographic as expected by precedents of BT.

We would expect to see less assaults and more mediums as best represented and is how the more "average" use of the tech is best applied and designed for. But I'm assuming they have suggested the above to allow for the ability to still sell as significant number of Assault Mechs. It is the most egalitarian perspective of player choice, but if so would need to consider from a design perspective that it might disadvantage other lighter Mechs like mediums as a result still.

I'd much prefer to see a system of 2A-3H-4M-3L, but the above suggestion will hopefully still be a big improvement from what we see in the current Meta. Which when you consider the overall potential range of Mechs to utilise would also allow for a better choice of sale of all Mechs where Mediums have a more abundant selection even if cheaper. So "potential" overall sales perhaps reflected better with a system apportioned to this relationship also.

The above format with fixed Mech numbers also exercises more constraints on the applied use of Mechs than the idea of at least having some flexibility and variable tactics with tonnage or BV which is less prescriptive. Perhaps it might be a necessary evil?

Another way of course might be to limit the extreme end of the scale so you can have say a maximum of 2 Assaults with tonnage restrictions but leave the rest open and flexible in the assumption it encourages more diverse use of mobile Mechs?

Any of those ideas are better than 3/3/3/3

The problem with 3^4 matching is that the spread between the high and low end of each weight class is very large relative to the spread they were originally discussing between the teams for tonnage restrictions. Tonnage restrictions also allow for scaling matches... so if the MM sees a surplus of heavy/assault players they can create a 960 ton/team game to push a pile of people into a match.

Also it was my understanding that only teams would have been restricted to tonnage limits in pug drops(was the last idea I had heard before the NGNG podcast). I don't see why that would be a bad model if you set a group's tonnage limit to 50±5 tons per player the team would then have to keep to a fairly moderate total tonnage and can't over or under drop. Yes, communication counts for a lot, but the most overbearingly painful losses happen when you get paired against 2 Steiner scout lances and your team is centered around mediums and heavies, and there's nothing to do but fight.

AND they could add in that teams over certain sizes need premium time to form up (maybe over 3 or even 2) or to form private matches. Add in a symbol on the game score board, so you know when your facing a team... take care with these chappies and/or focus them first if you see them. They could do a lot of things to help sell "group play" and profit.

Final thought, the lack of support for group play has stifled group play in a team game, their metrics are intrinsically biased already and making decisions based on them is awful.

Edited by Prezimonto, 23 February 2014 - 02:43 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

I personally like the fact that he's complaining about LRMs but has only been playing for 5-6 weeks. Wonder how many threads or how full of bile his posts would have been had he been here for even one of the many LRMpocalypses.

[Domoneky]

[Abivard]

The OP is right about one thing, the amount of cowardice displayed in most pug matches is nauseating.

[hercules1981]

Trauglodyte, on 23 February 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

I personally like the fact that he's complaining about LRMs but has only been playing for 5-6 weeks. Wonder how many threads or how full of bile his posts would have been had he been here for even one of the many LRMpocalypses.

I think he mentioned something about the trial stalker being all over the place so he must be knew to this game I think others have mentioned this as well. So he sees tons of LRMS at the newbie level, imagine if he was higher in the Elo bracket to c tons of pop tarts all over the place, and I don't mean 4 of them I'm talking 6 to 8 of these things with good pilots focusing fire and just dropping mechs, u know he would just be complaining about. Guess time will tell if he gets that far to c and wine about it.