97 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

Charons Little Helper, on 08 March 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

Every so often - people claim that brawling is dead. And the meta builds are all long-range based.

If you want to see brawling - just play conquest.

When people deathball in assault/conquest - long range is king. In a 12v12 scenario - the 1st person to stick their head up gets hit by 12 people.

In conquest - the cap points force mechs to split up to come degree. In a 4v4 scenario or less - brawling is quite effective. If you're pretty quick - you close to brawling range from 2-4 mechs long-range firepower.

Long-range firepower is still effective - but it doesn't totally outshine brawling.

So - as more objective-based scenarios get in the game - brawling will inherently get better.

I don't know about everyone else - but I can only hope for those scenarios to come. Until then - I'll be playing conquest 95% of the time.

I brawl all of the time. Unfortunately, my Locust is lacking the appropriate number of JJs, armor, weapons, and that much needed Stealth suite. Other than that, I do just fine.

[Thorqemada]

Well, no, most i see is Long Range DD or superheavy LRM abuse combined with Strikes - total Mechwarrior!

[Charons Little Helper]

Bobzilla, on 10 March 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

Yes my math was bad, but what i'm saying still stands.

If the brawling weapons are so great, how come noone is brawling????

And as far as using cover don't put words in my mouth. You can advance using cover, you can just as easily take a position to have a clear shot. It's about the weapons, not skill, as for every tatic there are counter tatics.

I would like to see more brawlers but, I guess we can just stick with the current meta if everyones happy with the short range weapons, that's cool too.

That's my whole point - in Conquest - people ARE brawling.

In skirmish / assault - brawling is weak.

In conquest - it isn't.

As they put in more scenarios with objectives - brawling will inherently become more useful.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Charons Little Helper, on 10 March 2014 - 05:13 AM, said:

Wait - your logic is that brawling is weaker on the maps with tons of cover that lets you get close without being seen first?

When did I say that? I was only commenting on how difficult it is to counter a deathball on certain maps without walking in a deathball yourself. Perhaps read the quote tree better?

[Straylight]

Charons Little Helper, on 08 March 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

Every so often - people claim that brawling is dead. And the meta builds are all long-range based.

If you want to see brawling - just play conquest.

When people deathball in assault/conquest - long range is king. In a 12v12 scenario - the 1st person to stick their head up gets hit by 12 people.

In conquest - the cap points force mechs to split up to come degree. In a 4v4 scenario or less - brawling is quite effective. If you're pretty quick - you close to brawling range from 2-4 mechs long-range firepower.

Long-range firepower is still effective - but it doesn't totally outshine brawling.

So - as more objective-based scenarios get in the game - brawling will inherently get better.

I don't know about everyone else - but I can only hope for those scenarios to come. Until then - I'll be playing conquest 95% of the time.

From the cockpit of the Spider sitting on Kappa thirty seconds into every match, I /salute you, Sir.

[Joseph Mallan]

Charons Little Helper, on 10 March 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

That's my whole point - in Conquest - people ARE brawling.

In skirmish / assault - brawling is weak.

In conquest - it isn't.

As they put in more scenarios with objectives - brawling will inherently become more useful.

But isn't the whole point of Skirmish...fighting?

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Yeah, just ganna throw in my $0.02


From the past week, I've seen less Highlanders...


...and games entirely composed of Miserys, CTF-3D's, Victors and Jagers, mixed with a few jenners and Firestarters.

Nothing has changed from the games I've played, the only few brawlers I've witnessed were Charlie Lance Special™ mediums who died faster than your average team fodder and a couple of Atlas D-DC's hiding in the back waiting for the end game cleanup.


@OP

You're right, brawling isn't dead...

...its just in a coma waiting for fundamental game changes that Paul won't make.

[Charons Little Helper]

mwhighlander, on 12 March 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

Nothing has changed from the games I've played, the only few brawlers I've witnessed were Charlie Lance Special™ mediums who died faster than your average team fodder and a couple of Atlas D-DC's hiding in the back waiting for the end game cleanup.

How many of those games were conquest?

In other game modes - I agree - brawling is in a vegatative state at best (step up from a coma ).

[Varent]

mwhighlander, on 12 March 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

Yeah, just ganna throw in my $0.02


From the past week, I've seen less Highlanders...


...and games entirely composed of Miserys, CTF-3D's, Victors and Jagers, mixed with a few jenners and Firestarters.

Nothing has changed from the games I've played, the only few brawlers I've witnessed were Charlie Lance Special™ mediums who died faster than your average team fodder and a couple of Atlas D-DC's hiding in the back waiting for the end game cleanup.


@OP

You're right, brawling isn't dead...

...its just in a coma waiting for fundamental game changes that Paul won't make.

Ive been seeing alot of missle boats and medium brawlers.

[Bagheera]

Varent, on 12 March 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

Ive been seeing alot of missle boats and medium brawlers.

Just a theory, haven't really been around to check myself, but maybe you're in matches against people practicing for the Second Coming Of Class Limits?

mwhighlander, on 12 March 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

Charlie Lance Special™

Yeah, as a "Charlie Lance Medium Specialist" I'm sure I'll be borrowing that phrase at some point or another!

Edited by Bagheera, 12 March 2014 - 07:01 AM.

[Amsro]

I see, so conquest mode buffs close range weapons.. or ...

?

Charons Little Helper, on 10 March 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

That's my whole point - in Conquest - people ARE brawling.

In skirmish / assault - brawling is weak.

In conquest - it isn't.

As they put in more scenarios with objectives - brawling will inherently become more useful.

Once again, game modes do NOT improve weapons. I'm at a complete loss with this logic.

[Bagheera]

Amsro, on 12 March 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

I see, so conquest mode buffs close range weapons.. or ...

?

I think the point is that when there are multiple objectives that need to be held around the map, the "brawler" starts to have more of a role than in other game modes.

What a concept. Adding objectives diversifies the game. Baffling. Sorry, that /sarcasm is directed at PGI for their hauntingly basic game modes - not directed at anyone in the thread.

[Charons Little Helper]

Amsro, on 12 March 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

I see, so conquest mode buffs close range weapons.. or ...

?



Once again, game modes do NOT improve weapons. I'm at a complete loss with this logic.

Long range weapons are supieror when mechs are clumped in groups.

Conquest forces mechs to move towards objectives & split up to some degree.

Therefore brawlers are better in conquest than they are in assault / skirmish.

In no way am I saying that sniping isn't still useful in conquest - but so is brawling.

[DONTOR]

Lukoi, on 08 March 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

I enjoy conquest and can see the logic of OPs commentary but has been noted it does not change the truth of the matter (in my opinion admittedly) that long range weapons tend to work just fine in brawls right now. My ERLL or PPC + UAC builds dont suffer at all in the face of a ML+SRM6 or AC40 (etc. etc.) opponent atm.

Really? your PPC doesnt suffer in a brawl... interesting.

[Varent]

Bagheera, on 12 March 2014 - 06:59 AM, said:

Just a theory, haven't really been around to check myself, but maybe you're in matches against people practicing for the Second Coming Of Class Limits?

every game only 2-3 jump snipers, 2-3 lrm boats, a few assaults TANKING, usually atlas, some lights and mixed mediums? So far honestly its looking like what a drop should look like. for the last week, just about every game this is the average. I dont think they are just practicing.

That said I have been in one or two drops with 4-5 jump snipers... who were rushed and quickly died because they had no manueuverability and then raged in all chat about the changes. I smiled.

Lukoi, on 08 March 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

I enjoy conquest and can see the logic of OPs commentary but has been noted it does not change the truth of the matter (in my opinion admittedly) that long range weapons tend to work just fine in brawls right now. My ERLL or PPC + UAC builds dont suffer at all in the face of a ML+SRM6 or AC40 (etc. etc.) opponent atm.

I missed that one, must have been skimming over. Lets break this down abit. UAC have a jam chance, ERLL and PPC are SUPER hot and ppc have no damage at 90 meters under. And you think srm wouldnt win in this circumstance...

[Bagheera]

Varent, on 12 March 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

every game only 2-3 jump snipers, 2-3 lrm boats, a few assaults TANKING, usually atlas, some lights and mixed mediums? So far honestly its looking like what a drop should look like. for the last week, just about every game this is the average. I dont think they are just practicing.

That said I have been in one or two drops with 4-5 jump snipers... who were rushed and quickly died because they had no manueuverability and then raged in all chat about the changes. I smiled.

Interesting. There tend to be a lot of reasons to see mech variation in the field, so just eliminating possibilities really. For example: the Wolvie just dropped for c-bills and the Griffon is still fairly new. That could also have an impact, but perhaps also not the case.

Sounds like an improvement of a sort.

[Amsro]

Bagheera, on 12 March 2014 - 07:03 AM, said:

I think the point is that when there are multiple objectives that need to be held around the map, the "brawler" starts to have more of a role than in other game modes.

What a concept. Adding objectives diversifies the game. Baffling. Sorry, that /sarcasm is directed at PGI for their hauntingly basic game modes - not directed at anyone in the thread.

But this is mostly a dream though. Only the Larger maps offer the gameplay you refer to. (Alpine, Tourmaline and Crimson) Small maps on conquest still rewards the zergball more then the scatter cap team. Even Alpine is ****** now.

If your team is winning on caps at the begining of the match by 3-4 cap points likely your team is about to get rolled. Its the unfortunate truth of 12vs12 conquest. Maps are too small and spawn points are too close.

Once 3+3+3+3 comes out it will become kill the 3 cappers quick then profit.

[Varent]

Bagheera, on 12 March 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

Interesting. There tend to be a lot of reasons to see mech variation in the field, so just eliminating possibilities really. For example: the Wolvie just dropped for c-bills and the Griffon is still fairly new. That could also have an impact, but perhaps also not the case.

Sounds like an improvement of a sort.

its possible yes. who knows. all I know is so far its been quite enjoyable. It feels like what a mech battle should to me.

[Bhael Fire]

Can't wait until SRMs get some love...I miss using them.



I literally miss using them.

[Bagheera]

Amsro, on 12 March 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

But this is mostly a dream though.

I see you have been reading my post history.

Actually ...