72 replies to this topic

[RussianWolf]

Lefty Lucy, on 22 September 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

I disagree with virtually everything the OP claims, but this statement is the one that cements that he doesn't know what he's talking about for competitive play, or even in the PUG queue really.

PPC lights are virtually non-existent these days, aside from a few spider Ds roaming around, and in competitive play lights are designed as short-ranged brawlers to play cleanup after the main fight or to chase down stragglers.

Of course in competitive play all of the little factors that the OP thinks are inconsequential add a lot to mech variety. If you're in an SRM brawler medium do you take a SHD2D2 because it has higher hard points and better vertical torso tilt, or a Griffon because it has a really wide torso twist? Do you take a Jenner because it can aim up and down really well and has great twist radius, or do you take an Ember for crit-seeking and much better hard points?

When every little edge counts, every little factor like that becomes quite important.

Can only tell you what people say in chat Lucy. Do I lean towards this thinking? I run a 2ML + NARC 160XL Locust regularly.

[Dracol]

I'm going to use an argument others on these forums like to use when they see something they don't like:

It wasn't in BT so it shouldn't be here.

From the basic box set to the comprehensive rules compendium, BT always had full customization rules. Ya, the catapult doesn't come with anything bigger then an mg, but the rules were there that you could build a 60 ton mech with dual gauss in the torsos and then use the catapult mini to represent it.

But, pointless point aside, as has said before, if you limit hard points, then we'll see less variety as people will just pilot the mechs that can load up on the weapons they prefer to use.

I like using PPCs and speed, so I've used a PPC spider, then 2xPPC cicada, then 2xPPC Treb, puma, and now a vindi with a PPC and LRM launcher. Restrict hard points, and I would have just stayed in the mech that had speed and PPCs.

[TyphonCh]

From a different thread discussing mechs we rarely see:

Russ Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

Four words "Inner Sphere Mech Quirks"

At least this is my hope.

Edited by Team Chevy86, 22 September 2014 - 08:26 AM.

[Felbombling]

Yeah, it gets to the point that you are just shooting shapes, not fighting anything in particular. Same weapons configurations, same top speeds, etc. I think we have too many engine choices at the moment, so it is very easy to work the weapon configuration first, then use whatever tonnage is left over for an engine. Back in the tabletop days, the engine was the single most important design decision you would make, then everything else had to be fit around it. I'd give each Mech a choice between six different engine sizes, randomly selected between the stock engine and the max engine. At the very least we wouldn't have the wall of engines in the Inner Sphere Mech Lab we see now, which is a positive in my book.

[Murphy7]

Kiiyor, on 22 September 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

My Yager is DAKKA flavoured.

Not anise flavored?

[Joseph Mallan]

Kiiyor, on 22 September 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

My Yager is DAKKA flavoured.

And now can be ordered... Gluten free!

[Bilbo]

I do like my AC/20, but I haven't used a gauss rifle or PPC since closed beta.

[stjobe]

Dracol, on 22 September 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

From the basic box set to the comprehensive rules compendium, BT always had full customization rules.

No. It came with full CONSTRUCTION rules. It also came with customization rules, called the Field Modification Rules.

That is (as you point out in the part of your post I didn't quote), your MWO-customized Catapult is NOT A CATAPULT AT ALL, it's something else. A Catapult comes in a few stock variants, and if you want to make any modifications to those, you use the Field Modification Rules and hope you have lots of C-Bills, an army of really, really good MechTechs, and a lot of free time on your hands. And you still might end up with a lemon with a glitchy PPC that misfires one in three times.

The more customization we have, the more our 'mechs becomes feature-less gunbags and the less a non-top-of-weight-class 'mech is worth.

There's a reason there's over 500 'mech chassis in BT, and there's a reason most of them have very varied loadouts.

Edited by stjobe, 22 September 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[kesmai]

stjobe, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

No. It came with full CONSTRUCTION rules. It also came with customization rules, called the Field Modification Rules.

That is (as you point out in the part of your post I didn't quote), your MWO-customized Catapult is NOT A CATAPULT AT ALL, it's something else. A Catapult comes in a few stock variants, and if you want to make any modifications to those, you use the Field Modification Rules and hope you have lots of C-Bills, an army of really, really good MechTechs, and a lot of free time on your hands. And you still might end up with a lemon with a glitchy PPC that misfires one in three times.

The more customization we have, the more our 'mechs becomes feature-less gunbags and the less a non-top-of-weight-class 'mech is worth.

There's a reason there's over 500 'mech chassis in BT, and there's a reason most of them have very varied loadouts.

Still do not agree with "mechs have no flavor" though.

Edited by kesmai, 22 September 2014 - 08:54 AM.

[Apnu]

RussianWolf, on 22 September 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

This is been said in other ways before, but as the system is now. 95% of mechs in the game have nothing that makes them remotely unique.

All the mechs are just a collection of hardpoints with some minor quirks to differentiate them (high mount hardpoints vs low mount, torso twist range, etc.)

Most players and nearly all comp players it seems will load the exact same weapons in just about all mechs. If it fits, AC20, if it doesn't Gauss. Squeeze 2 or 3 in if possible. The more the merrier. Add some PPCs. There, done.

Light mech? 2 PPCs. Everything else is "Lame".

And so it goes.

I would love to see the restricted hardpoints from MW4 brought in (as unpopular as I know that those are around here). I think it is the only way that you can really make all the mechs have a place in the system and not become cookie cutters as much. I think it would also go a good way to preventing the pinpoint alpha problem that we currently see.

I going to go back to the original argument for this as it is still very valid in my opinion. The Pult K2 should not be able to replace machine guns with AC20s or Gauss. Those slots shouldn't be able to go above AC5s (really AC2s in my opinion), The Jager should be able to carry larger guns. Most lights shouldn't be able to carry a PPC at all, much less 2 of them.

Though I have to admit that I love when people spectate me in game and call my builds "Lame" because I'm not running the "super-Optimized" Standards and when the match ends I am either in the middle or high end of scores. No easy mode for me thanks.

You're a legendary founder so I presume you were here in CB? We had this discussion then. One of PGI's main elements of the mech pillar is customization. The customization aspect of the game comes from Battletech's customization, which was pretty extensive. But the way the nuts and bolts of it works, there's no real difference between any two mechs of the same weight. You can customize a 55 ton Dervish the same as a 55 ton Shadow Hawk. The only thing that separates them is what mini you slap down and what you call it.

Every Mechwarrior title that allowed full customization had this problem. No matter what system is used, players will find a way to pervert a mech to their aims.

Believe me, I'm sensitive to your point. A K2 is supposed to be something of a Catapult energy boat, but with our system it becomes a Jager that can't point its guns up or down. I find the AC40 or dual Gauss K2 an offense. I'm fine with it on the Jagers because they're meant to boat ballistics in the arms.

However, since PGI, felt that customization is a major feature of this game, we must suffer the perversions players will bring to various chassis.

When I played MPBT:3025's open beta I loved that there was no customization. You bought a mech, stock, that's what you got. You wanted something different, you buy a different mech that's a variant of that stock. (Say HBK-4G to HBK-4P). I found the game rewarding and challenging because we had to work with what we had, not look up online somewhere for the most efficient <fill in the blank>boat and replicate the build. It also meant that if we ran into a RVN-3L, or AS7-D, we knew exactly what those mechs had and how to deal with them.

Also of interesting note, every player had a character that gained levels. Starting off, the player was gifted the stock Commando. As we gained levels more mechs became available to us for purchase. The highest level (and various faction leaders) had Atlases.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Also, just food for thought.

There is a thread currently active at the same time as this one about what build you were surprised with. The thread has a lot of interesting and unusual builds. Many that wouldn't quite work on other chassis.

Kind of also shows that mechs can be built that works for people and can be very unique at the same time.

[Dracol]

stjobe, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

No. It came with full CONSTRUCTION rules. It also came with customization rules, called the Field Modification Rules.

Ah, yes, I used the wrong term. I remembered them as customization rules since it was all that I used. One off games and all that.

The field mods you brought up only really mattered if you played a persistent campaign, some thing I never got into since the games themselves took so long to begin with. Also, its something that MW:O is not trying to simulate. If it did, our mechs would be locked out of combat for hours/days/weeks while we were shipped from planet to planet.

So, for those of us who liked playing BT but not the campaign, a 60 tonner with dual gauss is a catapult if the person choose to use that fig.

[DaZur]

You're tired of rice and beans?... Don't eat at Toco Bell.

Meta builds... to include boats and composite high-alpha builds are as prevalent on the battlefield because we only have one real mission perimeter... "kill or be killed" and the mission ends when that goal is achieved and or time expires

If / When mission parameters extend to multiple goals via protracted engagements and rearm and re-supply become a consideration... it is only then will be see the abject failures meta and boat builds are.

Till then... the goal is to kill as swiftly and efficiently as possible... And nothing does it better than plying the meta crap as a singular myopic tool of destruction.

[MeiSooHaityu]

DaZur, on 22 September 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

You're tired of rice and beans?... Don't eat at Toco Bell.

Meta builds... to include boats and composite high-alpha builds are as prevalent on the battlefield because we only have one real mission perimeter... &quot;kill or be killed&quot; and the mission ends when that goal is achieved and or time expires &lt;_&lt;

If / When mission parameters extend to multiple goals via protracted engagements and rearm and re-supply become a consideration... it is only then will be see the abject failures meta and boat builds are.

Till then... the goal is to kill as swiftly and efficiently as possible... And nothing does it better than plying the meta crap as a singular myopic tool of destruction.

To some extent, but ultimately the meta would just change. Laser boats might come to the fore front. Now people are running with 4LLasers or PPC/laser combo.

Meta will always exist in one form or another. If there is a "best" way of doing things, people will flock to it.

[Eddrick]

I don't stray very far from the stock loadout. So, restricted Hardpoint size would have little effect on me. But, most don't care about what the intended role of a Mech is. They pick a Mech based on what it can carry. Not, what it is.

If Hardpoints were limited in size. You would really only see Mechs that can still support what loadout of choice. You would still see the same loadouts as before. Just, a much smaller veriety of Mechs.

Best way to add "Flavor" to Mechs is to make them act differant no matter what they have on them. Quirks are a great way to do that.

I can't stand seeing multiple copies of the same thing. But, I would rather only see copies of the same loadout. Then see copies of the same loadout AND Mechs.

[DEMAX51]

Lefty Lucy, on 22 September 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

I disagree with virtually everything the OP claims, but this statement is the one that cements that he doesn't know what he's talking about for competitive play, or even in the PUG queue really.

PPC lights are virtually non-existent these days, aside from a few spider Ds roaming around, and in competitive play lights are designed as short-ranged brawlers to play cleanup after the main fight or to chase down stragglers.

Of course in competitive play all of the little factors that the OP thinks are inconsequential add a lot to mech variety. If you're in an SRM brawler medium do you take a SHD2D2 because it has higher hard points and better vertical torso tilt, or a Griffon because it has a really wide torso twist? Do you take a Jenner because it can aim up and down really well and has great twist radius, or do you take an Ember for crit-seeking and much better hard points?

When every little edge counts, every little factor like that becomes quite important.

RussianWolf, on 22 September 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

Can only tell you what people say in chat Lucy. Do I lean towards this thinking? I run a 2ML + NARC 160XL Locust regularly.

I have to agree with Lucy. I play comp, and run Lights in 100% of the comp matches I play; the Lights in use in comp play are the 6ML Jenner-F, the 4ML/4MG Ember, occasionally the 2ERLL Raven-3L, and recently I've seen a smattering of Kitfoxes (either 2ERLL, or 4SSRM4/6). Occasionally you'll see ERLL Spiders and Light-Hunter Jenner-Ds, and Oxides (either 4xSRM4 or 4xSSRM2, but streaks are rarer nowadays). I can't, for the life of me, remember anyone, ever, bringing a PPC Light into comp play.

That may not be a ton of variety, but it's a lot more viability than just one build like the OP makes it out to be.

Edited by DEMAX51, 22 September 2014 - 10:33 AM.

[Wolfways]

The problem isn't so much the mechs themselves, it's the players. Many will choose a build that they believe to be the best (I'm still not convinced that these "meta mechs" are the best) instead of just enjoying some mech that they like. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of players who look up the "best" builds on Smurfy or MechSpecs and never even try to find something they like.
Unfortunately you can't fix people (Well you can, but if you get caught you'll go to prison )

But what do i know? I only pilot stock mechs

[Lil Cthulhu]

My Timber Wolf tastes like the tears of a thousand IS pilots.

[DaZur]

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 September 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

To some extent, but ultimately the meta would just change. Laser boats might come to the fore front. Now people are running with 4LLasers or PPC/laser combo.

Meta will always exist in one form or another. If there is a "best" way of doing things, people will flock to it.

Understood and agree... Meta is essentially synonymous with what is popular through a given period of time.

That said, there is a big difference between a meta that hangs itself on the linchpin of pin-point high-alphas and one that embraces a more balanced and therefore forgiving meta.

The funny thing is... meta builds make "good pilots" great... while meta builds in marginal players hands are far less forgiving and more often than not, I find meta builds actually make bad players even worse.

Sadly... Far too many players get caught up in the presumption that the machine makes the man.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lil Cthulhu, on 22 September 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

My Timber Wolf tastes like the tears of a thousand IS pilots.

So does another bodily fluid I hear.