322 replies to this topic

[Sarlic]

Haji1096, on 17 February 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

Sarlic, I respectfully disagree with you here on one point.

I assert that (boating one type of weapon loadouts) is actually better for the team because its more efficient at killing the enemy team if that mech is played for the type of engagement that best suits its load out.

Its actually more team play oriented because a pilot has to trust his teammates to perform their respective role.
Furthermore, If I use a generalist load out I'm likely nerfing my own team's chances to win because I won't be as effective.


I agree that boating weapons is boring, but its the most effective way to play. A generalist build is too clunky to use effectively.

If your a generalist you are not nerfing your team. A generalist still contributes to the team in damage caused. It's not suppose to take the kills but giving a helping hand.

Here is example of the whole situation which is not uncommon at all:

If you ever have watched several decks since the latest quirks in the solo que you will notice that there are tons of specialists on your team. And this is the whole problem i am trying to discuss. Not to mention C.W.

Where are the generalists? Just because we have too many specialists the whole team is at nerf because nobody tends to have a mixed loadout.

It's already hard enough to explain to what i am trying to say..Also in Post #31.

Edit: I cant keep up the replies, but will try to do so when i have more time.

Edited by Sarlic, 17 February 2015 - 08:31 AM.

[Sarlic]

Rebas Kradd, on 17 February 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

Boating is a result of open customization. Open customization means you can put any weapon of a certain class (say, ballistics) on any mech with hardpoints of that class. The result of that is that PGI has to think of that weapon's max boating potential when deciding its strength, or it creates a massively overpowered chassis. Ex: When it comes to the AC/2, PGI has to design it around the JMG-DD and its ability to load six of them, so it holds down the damage of the AC/2 to prevent the DD from becoming godmode.

Unfortunately, that means that when you try a mixed build on some other chassis, which would typically feature only a couple of AC2s, the AC2s are pretty underwhelming because they've been nerfed out of fear of the JMG-DD (and now, of course, the King Crabs). So mixed builds become a jumble of weapons that are each underpowered because of what they could be on different chassis.

So...wide-open customization is the culprit. There's been talk of limiting this effect by forcing hardpoint restrictions on mechs. My stance is that it would be a design nightmare for PGI, that the playerbase wouldn't agree on WHICH restrictions to implement, and that the "sandbox" aspect of customization has been more of an asset rather than a strength. At this point, balance has at least created some variety in what we see. The answer to metas isn't to remove them, it's just to make them require high skill and other cost (e.g. more heat for lasers).

I really don't understand the impulsive desire some people have to see EVERY weapon validated and used on the battlefield. I just don't get it. CounterStrike players use a very narrow subset of the available weapons. In the end, I think it just comes back down to gamer pride..."We're MechWarriors and everything should be nice and complicated because we're MechWarriors"...instead of real design issues.

I dont want every weapon on the field or on one particular chassis. But some variety would be a welcome guest...

[Lily from animove]

Rebas Kradd, on 17 February 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

Boating is a result of open customization. Open customization means you can put any weapon of a certain class (say, ballistics) on any mech with hardpoints of that class. The result of that is that PGI has to think of that weapon's max boating potential when deciding its strength, or it creates a massively overpowered chassis. Ex: When it comes to the AC/2, PGI has to design it around the JMG-DD and its ability to load six of them, so it holds down the damage of the AC/2 to prevent the DD from becoming godmode.

Unfortunately, that means that when you try a mixed build on some other chassis, which would typically feature only a couple of AC2s, the AC2s are pretty underwhelming because they've been nerfed out of fear of the JMG-DD (and now, of course, the King Crabs). So mixed builds become a jumble of weapons that are each underpowered because of what they could be on different chassis.

So...wide-open customization is the culprit. There's been talk of limiting this effect by forcing hardpoint restrictions on mechs. My stance is that it would be a design nightmare for PGI, that the playerbase wouldn't agree on WHICH restrictions to implement, and that the "sandbox" aspect of customization has been more of an asset rather than a strength. At this point, balance has at least created some variety in what we see. The answer to metas isn't to remove them, it's just to make them require high skill and other cost (e.g. more heat for lasers).

I really don't understand the impulsive desire some people have to see EVERY weapon validated and used on the battlefield. I just don't get it. CounterStrike players use a very narrow subset of the available weapons. In the end, I think it just comes back down to gamer pride..."We're MechWarriors and everything should be nice and complicated because we're MechWarriors"...instead of real design issues.

itwill still cause a streakcrow to boat and still cause the crow to laservomit or the timberwolf to laservomit.

The problem with restricting hardpoints to sizes is, that some mechs will be balanced by this not able to boat, while others still will continue to boat like before. And so hardpoint size restrictions will not be a solution. It will just be a biased filter sorting out some boats but not all. Doomcrow and timbergod, once again would not care.

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 February 2015 - 08:44 AM.

[Gamuray]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this:

Specialist teams are effective when working together to create the situation they desire. But are at a loss if they can't create the desired situation. (luckily, most teams want similar situations due to generally using similar things, aka meta..ish)

Generalist teams are effective no matter the situation, but must always ALL be working together at once, and are slightly less effective in each situation. The benefit being it doesn't matter what situation they end up in, they'll still put up a good fight, and they can try to see what situation the opponent needs, and just make sure they utilize other situations to combat it.

Teams use the specialist strategy because they can fodder off the people they don't need in the situation, and are at peak efficiency when they get want they want. They also don't need to focus on preventing the enemy from getting what they want, they just need to have what their team wants.

Generalists can fodder anyone equally if needed, and will never suffer a huge loss from it, but will always lose more than a specialist's fodder. They also have to scout out the situation the enemy wants, and prevent it.

tldr: Specialist teams are high risk high reward when against a different style of play. But not when against their own style, which is common. Generalists are low risk, but require heavy prediction and scouting.

Edited by Gamuray, 17 February 2015 - 08:48 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

When you look at other games, whether it's computer games or tabletop, where you have different types of weapons, there's usually at least two reasons you want to give your unit(s) a combination of weapons.
1) Tactical considerations. i.e. you want both long range and short range, direct and indirect, or whatever other combination you can think of, because you don't want to have a glaring weakness that leaves you outmaneuvered and helpless.
2) Damage system considerations. i.e. you may have to take out a unit's shields, armour and internal structure, so you need ion cannons, lasers and mass drivers, for example. If your unit(s) only have one weapon type, it/they will be ineffective.

To encourage mixed loadouts in MWO, I can only think of three remedies:

• Arbitrary limits to boating, such as ghost heat and the anti-triple-gauss mechanic. This is a heavy-handed, poor solution.
  
• Completely change the tactical function of all weapons in the game. Right now, LRM boats have a very narrow window of opportunity in every match and they are easily rendered helpless if you take them out of their comfort zone. This should be the case with all weapon boats, but it's not. The Dakkawolf does great at 0 meters and at 500 meters. Same with the laservomit builds, the gaussjagers, the er ppc thunderbolts, etc. That's why they're so popular. SRM and SSRM boats aren't good at range, but there are very few maps that properly punish SRM boats for their lack of ranged weapons.
  
  In a normal FPS, the sniper rifle is balanced by the fact that it sucks in a brawl, due to aiming difficulties and low rate of fire. In MWO, most long range builds except for the LRMs are equally usefull at point blank range. Sure, a medium pulse laser boat has the DPS advantage, but TTK is so low in a brawl that it may not make a difference.
  
• Divide weapons into armour-piercing and structure-busting (I made that word up). E.g. ACs and lasers are extra effective against armour, SRMs, LRMs and flamers (lol) are extra effective against internal structure. So a Laservomit Timber Wolf will strip you of armour real fast, but unless it has the aid of teammates with explosives and flamers, it's going to struggle a little bit to actually get the kill. Similarly, an SRM boat will have a hard time cracking your armour, but will be devastating against stripped targets.

I don't know which of the last two I prefer. But it seems to me that those are the most obvious, tried-and-tested solutions that are used in pretty much every other successful computer game we might compare MWO to.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 17 February 2015 - 09:01 AM.

[Rogue Jedi]

I am glad the "must fill all hardpoints" request was removed, not only would that invalidate some stock builds but the AWS-9M has 4 CT hardpoints.

on some Mechs is it hard to justify a multi weapon build, e.g. if you are using a Mech capable of 120+KPH you may as well use all weapons with the same range profile because you can usualy dictate the range of the engagement. however on slower Mechs I almost always use weapons with multiple range profiles because there is nothing more frustrating than finding myself on a large map and having nothing to do for most of the match because most of the team is sniping, a single large class laser or LRM5/10 means my brawler can at least do something while waiting for the real fight to start, the same with a few Medium Lasers on a long range Mech/LRM boat

[Phil Tackett]

Rebas Kradd, on 17 February 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

Boating is a result of open customization. Open customization means you can put any weapon of a certain class (say, ballistics) on any mech with hardpoints of that class. The result of that is that PGI has to think of that weapon's max boating potential when deciding its strength, or it creates a massively overpowered chassis. Ex: When it comes to the AC/2, PGI has to design it around the JMG-DD and its ability to load six of them, so it holds down the damage of the AC/2 to prevent the DD from becoming godmode.

Unfortunately, that means that when you try a mixed build on some other chassis, which would typically feature only a couple of AC2s, the AC2s are pretty underwhelming because they've been nerfed out of fear of the JMG-DD (and now, of course, the King Crabs). So mixed builds become a jumble of weapons that are each underpowered because of what they could be on different chassis.

So...wide-open customization is the culprit. There's been talk of limiting this effect by forcing hardpoint restrictions on mechs. My stance is that it would be a design nightmare for PGI, that the playerbase wouldn't agree on WHICH restrictions to implement, and that the "sandbox" aspect of customization has been more of an asset rather than a strength. At this point, balance has at least created some variety in what we see. The answer to metas isn't to remove them, it's just to make them require high skill and other cost (e.g. more heat for lasers).

I really don't understand the impulsive desire some people have to see EVERY weapon validated and used on the battlefield. I just don't get it. CounterStrike players use a very narrow subset of the available weapons. In the end, I think it just comes back down to gamer pride..."We're MechWarriors and everything should be nice and complicated because we're MechWarriors"...instead of real design issues.

I absolutely disagree with you. The example of counterstrike players only using a certain set of the available weapons is exactly what needs to be AVOIDED. It's one of the worst flaws a game can have when it railroads players into using only a certain small selection of equipment to be competetive. That's not about skill, that's about who can read up new flavor of the month builds on the internet and get practiced with them faster. There's no creativity, there's no innovation. "Hey man don't get that gun it sucks compared to this one" is ******* ********, pardon my french. Leads to lack of variety in games as well as a playerbase with an overall lower skill level(as well as very very limited tactical innovation, most games I play like this teamplay consists of 3-4 well practiced strategies used match after match with almost no innovation because everyone is always using the same 5 builds.

[Lily from animove]

@Alistar, and again this will cause very much losermechs because some can not have laodouts being univerrsally suitable.

all what many of you bring as "suggestions" do cause the same as before: they bring a system that favours some mechs while others would be obsolete.


and by this you just would replace a broken system with a differently broken system. But in the end switching a problem to another is not a solution, its just a change.

[Sarlic]

Lily from animove, on 17 February 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

@Alistar, and again this will cause very much losermechs because some can not have laodouts being univerrsally suitable.

all what many of you bring as "suggestions" do cause the same as before: they bring a system that favours some mechs while others would be obsolete.


and by this you just would replace a broken system with a differently broken system. But in the end switching a problem to another is not a solution, its just a change.

Problem it has so many factors.. Ugh dont know where to begin with. Like you said the module system, other people pointed convergence out, and then we have the HP loadout and the quirks itself.

But i believe its the right thing that i shouted out. It's really getting out of hand. Agree or disagree but its coming sooner then i though it would be.

Edited by Sarlic, 17 February 2015 - 09:12 AM.

[Metus regem]

Ultimatum X, on 17 February 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

Generalist builds are the ones that don't plan for teamwork, they want to cover every range or situation because they feel they can't rely on teammates.

Specialists rely on teammates to perform their specialty, most specialists have a weakness of some kind.

A generalists weakness is that they aren't very good at any particular thing.

If you want to play one, play it.

That's very true, but as I got my start in PUGLife, I learned that if I wanted something, I should carry it myself, that being said, I like to have a generalist build, as it lets me adapt to changing conditions in the game, rmostly due to the nature of PUGLife...

For example, a couple of my go-to mechs (when I can swing the heavy bracket anyways):

ADR-COUGAR
TBR-D3
TBR-PRYDE

[NextGame]

Phil Tackett, on 17 February 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

I absolutely disagree with you. The example of counterstrike players only using a certain set of the available weapons is exactly what needs to be AVOIDED. It's one of the worst flaws a game can have when it railroads players into using only a certain small selection of equipment to be competetive. That's not about skill, that's about who can read up new flavor of the month builds on the internet and get practiced with them faster. There's no creativity, there's no innovation. "Hey man don't get that gun it sucks compared to this one" is ******* ********, pardon my french. Leads to lack of variety in games as well as a playerbase with an overall lower skill level(as well as very very limited tactical innovation, most games I play like this teamplay consists of 3-4 well practiced strategies used match after match with almost no innovation because everyone is always using the same 5 builds.

On the other hand people like myself don't want to have to play a game with 6 different weapon groupings because it is neither convenient nor fun to play and would go play something else instead (as well as cease spending money here) if mixed loadouts were somehow forced. Ghost heat was the last attempt at this. It probably cost the game many players, most of us hated it, and are glad to finally see it getting tempered somewhat to re-open up previous viable builds.

I also find it a bit humorous that you imply players who prefer mixed loadouts are somehow more highly skilled than players who make the effort to put a build together that's actually effective at a competitive level, which = boating same range weapons.

That said, don't get me wrong, I think people should run whatever they like when it comes down to it. Just be on the other team from me and don't complain about my choice of loadout.

Edited by NextGame, 17 February 2015 - 09:26 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

Problem it has so many factors.. Ugh dont know where to begin with. Like you said the module system, other people pointed convergence out, and then we have the HP loadout and the quirks itself.

But i believe its the right thing that i shouted out. It's really getting out of hand. Agree or disagree but its coming sooner then i though it would be.

I hope not, some emchs will eb plain dead because of this, adder currentl yhas only like 2 or 3 rela good loadouts, one is makign hardpoitusage of the high Torsi hardpoints. take this away, and you will not see any adders anymore in CW. The system of hardpoitn iszes will not change much except being toobiased again by the way how TT designed mechs.

[Lucian Nostra]

It's one of those things.. People want customization because they think it personalizes the mech or they can put their own spin on it but all that happens in the long run is what we see today, boated weaponry, practically no difference on the mechs.

I mean think about the Firestarter.. if PGI sold it to you stock with max engine and 8 SPLs people would sit and whine about how they want to customize it..

Give them the illusion they customize it and everyone ends up with max engine and 8 SPLs anyway.. everyone thinks their Firestarter is something special cuse they built it..

Interesting how the Human brain works..

[Rebas Kradd]

Phil Tackett, on 17 February 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

I absolutely disagree with you. The example of counterstrike players only using a certain set of the available weapons is exactly what needs to be AVOIDED.

CS' popularity doesn't suggest to me that it needs to be avoided.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 17 February 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

Generalist builds are the ones that don't plan for teamwork, they want to cover every range or situation because they feel they can't rely on teammates.

Specialists rely on teammates to perform their specialty, most specialists have a weakness of some kind.

A generalists weakness is that they aren't very good at any particular thing. You are part of a team, each member has to be ready to fight at all ranges. Any other manner

If you want to play one, play it.

A Generalist is able to assist any teammate at any time. My pure brawler is no good at range and a waste of tonnage in a long range fight.

[Phil Tackett]

Rebas Kradd, on 17 February 2015 - 09:33 AM, said:

CS' popularity doesn't suggest to me that it needs to be avoided.

CS' popularity is a very double sided coin. There are just as many gamers who despise it as there are who love it.

[Demoncard]

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 05:34 AM, said:

Obviously alot of people don't want to play or have mixed loadouts.

Role warfare, mech quirks, etc. Anything else is suboptimal in a team setting.

By all means, carry a small, medium and large laser, an AC5, an LRM 5 and SRM 2 if it stops you from running out and soloing.

You're right about the thunderbolt build. It needs to burnt alive. There are a lot of unimaginative people picking up on the fact that if their entire team perches on a hill, and they each fire a single ppc at a target, it will die, and they can do it again with their other PPCs not on cooldown. It's the cheapest way to win. I don't think I'll ever be that desperate for cbills or loyalty points, not even when I was with Kurita.

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2015 - 09:35 AM, said:

A Generalist is able to assist any teammate at any time. My pure brawler is no good at range and a waste of tonnage in a long range fight.

That's not how it works. You're able to engage at any range, but you're going to be weak at all of them. You're assisting in the sense that you're accumulating assists, but you're not helping your team as much as someone in a dedicated role might.

Using general builds is a way to wuss out and make sure your build is usable (in the same way a featherduster is usable against a tank) in any circumstance, rather than being forced to communicate or move into position. You're going to be doing very little compared to when you run a so called "specialised" build and actually perform your role.

Edited by Demoncard, 17 February 2015 - 09:48 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Phil Tackett, on 17 February 2015 - 09:35 AM, said:

CS' popularity is a very double sided coin. There are just as many gamers who despise it as there are who love it.

True, and MWO has experienced the same to a degree. But CS is succeeding. If MWO's wide-open customization and the resulting sandbox effect draws more people in than it repels, it's a positive that a niche game such as MWO can't afford to let go. And like Lucian Nostra pointed out, the desire for customization is a big draw.

I think a post-Steam single player mode would be a good place for immersive elements like you're suggesting. Stock loadouts, fewer configurations, made possible by the luxury of having a larger playerbase.

[Dock Steward]

Rebas Kradd, on 17 February 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

True, and MWO has experienced the same to a degree. But CS is succeeding. If MWO's wide-open customization and the resulting sandbox effect draws more people in than it repels, it's a positive that a niche game such as MWO can't afford to let go. And like Lucian Nostra pointed out, the desire for customization is a big draw.

I think a post-Steam single player mode would be a good place for immersive elements like you're suggesting. Stock loadouts, fewer configurations, made possible by the luxury of having a larger playerbase.

People have been asking for a "Stock Queue" for a long time. If I were a betting man, I'd say that if the playerbase every gets big enough, we'll definitely see it.

[Krivvan]

Bracketed fire generalist builds are just bad, illogical, and unfun (imo) in this game. It's like running a marathon and breaking one of your legs on purpose because you don't want to "just run forwards" to win.

For Lights, 1-2 weapon types is what works best. For heavier mechs 1-3 should be your limit. Any more than 3 weapon types (an LRM, an SRM, a pulse laser, and a regular laser) is the equivalent to breaking your own leg because you think it's more fun that way.

The way I see this topic is like someone asking for a Flamer boat to be better because they refuse to run anything but a Flamer boat.

How is it any more fun or tactical to know that you could theoretically do a tiny bit at every range, but you'll horribly suck at every range? Preparing for different situations, if you have to do that, should occur on a team level. Have one person be the brawler and one person be the longer range trader.

These generalist builds are like asking for someone to be a Sniper and Engineer and Medic in Battlefield.

Maybe it's just because I main Lights, but shifting weapons to different areas of the mech, adjusting armor/engines for more or less JJ, and switching out the number of a boated weapons is a lot of customization for Light mechs to me.

Dock Steward, on 17 February 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

People have been asking for a "Stock Queue" for a long time. If I were a betting man, I'd say that if the playerbase every gets big enough, we'll definitely see it.

From playing in Stock Mech events, I find that there is still a meta, and that meta still disfavours generalist bracketed builds. People end up running Hunchbacks, Awesomes, and etc.

Edited by Krivvan, 17 February 2015 - 09:49 AM.