45 replies to this topic

[cSand]

I had been playing my new Summoner D a bunch more last night.

After some initial growing pains (like any mech) I have decided that this mech is great and and also a satisfying challenge to play.

I have also been thinking. Many people seem to use TBW or some other "good" mech as a measuring stick with which to judge all other chassis.

Why? Is challenge factor not a good thing? Some mechs are simply less difficult to pilot than others, much like setting the difficulty level in any other of your favourite games. Tier 1 the TBW may be, but also presents the least challenge and skill level to excel in. That's not to say all TBW pilots are hacks either.

I say who cares. Like it or not anyone with even a small amount of ability will not find it too hard to hop in certain chassis and do 1000 damage. Then they step into something that demands a bit more work and they just eat it hard. This isn't a bad thing at all, to have chassis of varying difficulty levels.

You wanna seperate the men from the boys though, get those same folks in SMNs and QKDs and VNDs and HGNs. Hard mechs. But incredibly good in the right hands.

This is also why some mechs will never be seen at the competetive level (such as it is in this game). Min-maxing style dictates you go for the maximum damage for the least effort for greatest "winning efficiency". Once again, no problem with that, not really my style but hey, someone's gotta take those planets.

I for one take a certain pride in excelling in what most people call "sh*tty" mechs.

This may also be why I don't think it's necessarily bad that new players have to deal with stock chassis and champion mechs (of which some are pretty good too).
It is an essential learning experience, and if you can power through it you will become better for it in the long run.

...Or you'll just plonk down 60$ for a TBW and away you go. Either way works for me

Edited by cSand, 31 December 2014 - 09:37 AM.

[DaZur]

cSand, on 31 December 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

I have also been thinking. Many people seem to use TBW or some other "good" mech as a measuring stick with which to judge all other chassis.

Why? Is challenge factor not a good thing? Some mechs are simply less difficult to pilot than others, much like setting the difficulty level in any other of your favourite games. Tier 1 the TBW may be, but also presents the least challenge and skill level to excel in. That's not to say all TBW pilots are hacks either.

I say who cares. Like it or not anyone with even a small amount of ability will not find it too hard to hop in certain chassis and do 1000 damage. Then they step into something that demands a bit more work and they just eat it hard.

You wanna seperate the men from the boys though, get those same folks in SMNs and QKDs and VNDs and HGNs. Hard mechs. But incredibly good in the right hands.

This is also why some mechs will never be seen at the competetive level (such as it is in this game). Min-maxing style dictates you go for the maximum damage for the least effort for greatest "winning efficiency". Once again, no problem with that, not really my style but hey, someone's gotta take those planets.

I for one take a certain pride in excelling in what most people call "sh*tty" mechs.

This may also be why I don't think it's necessarily bad that new players have to deal with stock chassis and champion mechs (of which some are pretty good too).
It is an essential learning experience, and if you can power through it you will become better for it in the long run.

...Or you'll just plonk down 60$ for a TBW and away you go. Either way works for me

It's pretty simple buddy... The desire to win at all costs supersedes any premise of chivalry or self-imposed challenge for a lot of players in this community.

It doesn't help when the community intelligentsia and the top-tier elitists constantly drive home the inference that if you are not piloting the vetted meta cream of the crop, you're a burden on a team and a liability...

I, like you, play for the challenge...

I have a strong sense of accomplishment when I play marginal mechs and have success piloting them. Without a doubt a lot more than I ever would running around in an "easy-button" mech...

Edited by DaZur, 31 December 2014 - 09:52 AM.

[Jacon Ceronia]

Yup. Summoner is a very solid machine. It just takes finding the right load-out, the right pod perks, and some patience/practice.

[DaZur]

Understand... Some players cannot rationalize purposely placing one self at deficit when playing a game with a win/lose scenario.

I'm weird I guess. It makes perfect sense to me.

I remember as a youth when involved in high-school wrestling and feeling bad when I got matched against a wrestler who I knew was physically not a match against me... I'd wrestle to win of course but I'd try not to humiliate the guy and shy away from using moves I knew I could instantly pin the guy with.

That said... This same moral equivalency I carry probably would not serve me very well in an actual "war" scenario.

[blood4blood]

This is worth reposting and debating every now & again: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

Playing for challenge, playing for fun, playing to win, etc. - there's plenty of different approaches, and personally I think there's room for each, but there will always be friction between them (hardcore play-to-win vs. self-handicapped play-for-challenge vs. casual play-for-fun vs. Pokemon style play-to-collect-stuff etc.).

[PilgrimX]

I started with Spiders because I like Challenge. I moved on from those to Shadow-hawks, which I found boring once leveled, now I run Jaegers and Cents for CW and Locusts for everything else.

I run these mechs because I enjoy them. (the auto-shotty Cent-D is right on the edge of overpowered) it gives me the variety I like without sticking me with an obscenely slow mech (something I just don't enjoy)

There will be plenty of people who min-max and only run the greatest mech/build they can find... they are often beaten by people who are dedicated to a chassis and know it like it's a part of them. Honestly play what you enjoy and you'll tend to enjoy a lot more when you play.

[Apnu]

DaZur, on 31 December 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Understand... Some players cannot rationalize purposely placing one self at deficit when playing a game with a win/lose scenario.

I'm weird I guess. It makes perfect sense to me.

I remember as a youth when involved in high-school wrestling and feeling bad when I got matched against a wrestler who I knew was physically not a match against me... I'd wrestle to win of course but I'd try not to humiliate the guy and shy away from using moves I knew I could instantly pin the guy with.

That said... This same moral equivalency I carry probably would not serve me very well in an actual "war" scenario.

I've not served and I'm too old to serve now. But having studied military history as a small hobby and knowing many people who have served, I've learned this: You use what they give you to use. If the gun sucks, if the tank sucks, too bad, that's what you get and you live and die by that. Ask any Sherman tank drive with a pathetically small canon or any infantry man in Viet Nam with an M16.

But beyond that, I agree with others in the thread. I'm not attracted to min/max meta gaming. Its so boring. Nothing is more satisfying than taking out a middle tier mech (such as my TDR-5S) being jeered by players for it, then winning the match. That beats every top tier mech and build I've ever driven and won in.

[El Bandito]

I play mechs that I want to play. It just so happens that most of the "good" mechs are the ones I am interested in playing.

Except the A1 during 2013. Oh, the challenge of zig-zagging between enemy ECM bubbles to fire off my SSRMs between 180-270 meters (mere 90 meter window)--BAP did not counter ECM at that time. Not to mention I had to makes sure not to get one-shotted by those Gauss+3ERPPC Highlanders and poptart 3Ds. I believe I was the only one who had consistently driven the A1 during the 3L-pocalypse and poptarting hey-day.

Still my highest scoring mech to date.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 December 2014 - 10:08 AM.

[Fate 6]

DaZur, on 31 December 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

It's pretty simple buddy... The desire to win at all costs supersedes any premise of chivalry or self-imposed challenge for a lot of players in this community.

It doesn't help when the community intelligentsia and the top-tier elitists constantly drive home the inference that if you are not piloting the vetted meta cream of the crop, you're a burden on a team and a liability...

I, like you, play for the challenge...

I have a strong sense of accomplishment when I play marginal mechs and have success piloting them. Without a doubt a lot more than I ever would running around in an "easy-button" mech...

Some mechs are simply worse than others, so why use them? For example, the Summoner is, with few exceptions, simply worse than the Timberwolf because Timby can do the same things but do them better. On the other hand, the Nova may be a bit worse than the Stormcrow if you try to run the same build, but if you run a Nova-unique build (literally only the Nova can have that many weapons) you can do things other mechs can't, and while it is harder, you aren't simply gimping yourself. I can't think of anything lighter than a Timberwolf that can kill a Dire Wolf as fast as my Nova can.

[Burktross]

The challenge should come from the opponent. If you struggle with a bad mech, it only detriments your team.

But if you are good in a summoner, have at it.
(I for one get wreck shop with the nova, but can't do **** in a summoner. So for my own sanity, I only use the nova)

Edited by Burktross, 31 December 2014 - 01:48 PM.

[Fate 6]

El Bandito, on 31 December 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

I play mechs that I want to play. It just so happens that most of the "good" mechs are the ones I am interested in playing.

Except the A1 during 2013. Oh, the challenge of zig-zagging between enemy ECM bubbles to fire off my SSRMs between 180-270 meters (mere 90 meter window)--BAP did not counter ECM at that time. Not to mention I had to makes sure not to get one-shotted by those Gauss+3ERPPC Highlanders and poptart 3Ds. I believe I was the only one who had consistently driven the A1 during the 3L-pocalypse and poptarting hey-day.

Still my highest scoring mech to date.

I miss the 6SRM6 A1. I was one of the first to start piloting it, back in the days when everyone was using the 6SSRM2 build (before ECM was even introduced into the game). That and the CN9-A with 3SRM6+2ML, which I piloted in a huge amount of games until they destroyed SRMs with several changes. I replaced that with my YLW which basically does the same thing, although it doesn't kill the big things quite as fast.

[Ultimax]

DaZur, on 31 December 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

I, like you, play for the challenge...

I want to try and frame my response to this concept without directing insulting you, because you are a reasonable and civil poster and I like most of your posts.


To me the concept of "playing for the challenge" by using a "bad mech" is fine to an extent, but it also seems somewhat born of what might be misguided pride or outright arrogance (I don't consider you arrogant at all, at least not from your posts).


The reason I say this is because touting your "bad mech" and how good you are able to do with it, is like saying you are so much better than everyone around you that you can handicap yourself and still be better than them.


It also indirectly tries to take a jab at others who think just competing against equally skilled opponents is enough "challenge".





I try not to make any assumptions, but in general I prepare for the other guy thinking they will at least be equal to me or outright superior to me and to be using the best build/mech they can.


I'm not so arrogant to think that I can defeat an equally skilled opponent who will be using a better designed mech and build than I am.

I play a lot of mechs, even ones that are not optimal or "the best", but it's more the mental approach that I'm not doing it to "challenge myself" since fighting against good competition is already the challenge in my mind.


I hope that came across well enough, just trying to provide a different perspective.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 31 December 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[Suko]

I play a mech almost entirely based on how much I like it from "back in the day". The Mad Cat and Marauder were always two of my favorite designs (aesthetically speaking), so even if they nerf the Mad Cat until it played like a **** (apparently t-u-r-d is censored? lol), I would still use it.

My buddy has always loved the Thor and he uses it and does VERY respectful damage with it. He knows that "on paper" it's not as good as the Timberwolf or other mechs, but that doesn't matter, because it's the mech HE likes.

This is essentially the story of my Catapult. It is one of the few IS mechs I like for nostalgic and/or personal reasons and I used that sonofabitch through thick and thin. Even when it's head hit box was 90% of it's CT. I played that thing better than most of those chumps doing the meta jump-sniping Phract-3D's. I didn't care if my mech wasn't the "hot meta mech of the month", it's the mech I like and I will play it, regardless.

Edited by Suko, 31 December 2014 - 10:30 AM.

[Pjwned]

If a mech or particular strategy is too good and has very little/no weakness then it stifles variety as a result; this is why pop tart sniping was nerfed extensively.

Therefore, attempting to justify mechs that are too good with "you just hate challenge" is stupid and doesn't even attempt to look at the big picture.

[Metus regem]

Well my first mech was a Highlander 732, I had no idea what I was in for, being 26 games in....

That said I sold it, and bought a Dragon 1C, and to this day, I say one should star with a Dragon or Locust, they will teach you to be a pilot first and gunner second. That is on top of teaching risk vs reward as well. But once I decided that I liked MWO enough, and learning that CW was coming, I bought a War Hawk package, knowing I was going Clan. And what I found compared to the Dragon, the Timber Wolf was very forgiving, to someone with less than 200 drops.

Now my go to mechs clan side are:

Hellbringer
War Hawk
Mad Dog
Adder

IS side:
New IS alt, so no cash yet....

[bmulkshake]

I like how the op thinks. It's much more fun to master a difficult mech then to simply use the most powerful mech and destroy everybody not using the most powerful mech.
I love this game but one thing I don't like about it is there's no real progression.
In all of the other MW games (including the original one from the 90s) they would start you out in the smallest POC mech with the lamest weapon loadout and force you to learn that mech and different tactics. Then you would slowly move up to bigger mechs with better weapon loadouts.
In MWO, anybody with a few extra bucks in his pocket can buy the biggest baddest mech with the biggest baddest weapons. Where's the fun in that?
My favorite mech in this game is the founder's hunchie with 3 med lasers and an ac20. Even my own clan used to make fun of me for using it until they saw how good I was in it.
I like to play for the challenge. However, I can understand why people would rather play for the win, there's more rewards.

[DaZur]

Ultimatum X, on 31 December 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

Am I prideful that I'm not a slave to the meta and can find success with mechs the intelligentsia have unceremoniously written off? Absolutely. Am I being unreasonably boastful with this claim? Depends on who is reading the assertion and their frame of mind...

Am I poking fun at players who bend to the meta?... Not really. I'm more so poking fun at the players that demean players like myself and essentially infer we are "doing it wrong" and should feel bad for being liabilities to the teams we play on.

The reality is there is no right or wrong way to play MW:O so long as you are having fun...

That said, it seems like the more "l333t" a player is the less fun they have because they seem to lose perspective on the reality that this is a game and games are intended to be fun.

I question how can you have fun when the only qualifier for so many is did I win or did I lose?...

Edited by DaZur, 31 December 2014 - 12:03 PM.

[cSand]

Ultimatum X, on 31 December 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

I want to try and frame my response to this concept without directing insulting you, because you are a reasonable and civil poster and I like most of your posts.


To me the concept of "playing for the challenge" by using a "bad mech" is fine to an extent, but it also seems somewhat born of what might be misguided pride or outright arrogance (I don't consider you arrogant at all, at least not from your posts).


The reason I say this is because touting your "bad mech" and how good you are able to do with it, is like saying you are so much better than everyone around you that you can handicap yourself and still be better than them.


It also indirectly tries to take a jab at others who think just competing against equally skilled opponents is enough "challenge".

I hope that came across well enough, just trying to provide a different perspective.

I should be clear that this isn't the point of my thread

@ Pjwned

I don't think having mechs of varying difficulty stifles anything. As you can see from this thread there are plenty of folks who don't auto-migrate to the most powerful chassis and strategy. In fact I would say most people seem to play what they want. Which is great. These days I am seeing a wide variety of chassis being used effectively all over the place!

There are no mechs that are too good (in my experiences). Unless every mech is the same you will have some that naturally are more forgiving and more dangerous even in less experienced hands. Right now there are a handful I can think of that fall under that category, and down the road as mechs get buffed and nerfed, those in that category will also change.

Some chassis simply give the pilot more room for error. The TBW is one of these right now and there are several others of course. Is this a bad thing? No, similar to the way that having a difficulty option in other games is perfectly fine. And I'm really not trying to sound pretentious here. It just is the way it is.

End of the day though, good piloting can and will make up for any shortcomings of any chassis.




Anyways. What's wrong with the fact that I love the feeling of standing down a guy in a TBW with my QKD?

Edited by cSand, 31 December 2014 - 12:24 PM.

[DaZur]

cSand, on 31 December 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

End of the day though, good piloting can and will make up for any shortcomings of any chassis.

While it's obviously not unequivocal, a mech like the Timby can make a bad pilot look marginal, a marginal pilot look good... and a good pilot look absolutely unstoppable.

One of the reasons I like piloting the marginal mechs is a marginal mech is unforgiving and it hides nothing... You are either really good or really bad.

Because of this, when I see a pilot going on and on about how bad "X" mech is compared to the Timby... I'm always asking myself is mech "X" really that bad or is the pilot actually what is bad in the scenario?

[mogs01gt]

The dilemma will always be:
1. should I choose the mech I prefer to pilot
2. should I choose the mech that fits the current meta in a attempt to guarantee victory

I'll choose 1 every time.