322 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

terrycloth, on 17 February 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

You know what my best generalist build is? It's the 4 LL stalker with all the rest being heat sinks. Good at most ranges.

I've got another stalker with 4LL and some LRMs. It's a little worse because to get those LRMs it had to use fewer heat sinks and a smaller engine, but chain-firing LRM5s at people is enough fun that I'll still play it even though I have to worry about overheating more.

I've got a third stalker with just 2 ERLLs, and the rest shoved into MPLs and SRMs. It works well at point-blank ranges (MPLs and SRM6s are relatively low heat), but I had to group the MPLs on each side with the SRMs on each side to make the weapon groups manageable, so at longer ranges (100m or so) it tends to miss with one or the other. They also don't recharge in sync with each other which turns it into a DPS loadout when it could have been an alpha loadout.

So, it's sort of a graduated scale, most to least effective, based entirely on how many different kinds of weapons I tried to use.

Some people might laugh at me when I say this, but I actually classify my 4 LPL Warhawk as a generalist.

Why?

At extreme ranges, Gauss and ERLL specialists have the advantage.
At medium-ish ranges, things like dakkaboats have the advantage.
At short range, brawlers like SRM carriers and AC/20 have the advantage.

...But, the Clan LPL can contribute damage in each of those situations, even if it's not the best at any one category.

[Krivvan]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2015 - 10:52 AM, said:

They work pretty well. But getting folks to actually follow combat doctrine is often like herding cats.

That's like talking about applying Napolean era formations to Starcraft 2. Tactics change according to what tools are given to you.

MWO is not the same as modern combat. Even in reality, combat doctrines that make sense today would make no sense whatsoever even just 100 years ago.

Modern combat tactics are not applicable in MWO or really pretty much every videogame in general, and if they were, you'd see meta tryhards using them. But they don't.

Edited by Krivvan, 17 February 2015 - 10:59 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

StaggerCheck, on 17 February 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

PGI could go a long way to fixing this problem with something as simple as a 'stock load out bonus' of some sort, be it XP or earnings. Then, as you upgrade the Mech, you could upgrade the weapon systems. LRM 5 to LRM 10, for example, or Medium Laser to Medium Pulse Laser. Autocannon 5 to Ultra Autocannon 5/Autocannon 10. If you take a Mech like the JagerMech and drop all the small Autocannon to paired Gauss Rifles, you lose the whole bonus or portion thereof. Incentivise the play and original 'feel' of the Mech, as intended. Nothing saying you can't play with a min/max load out, but at least make it look appealing to play stock or close to stock.

Of course, many players will just gravitate to the Mechs that are superior or have superior potential in stock configuration, but I'm for anything that snuffs out the cheesy builds.

Thats fine and all, but what it will lead to is some people ignoring the Cbill/XP bonus because they prefer doing well (id be in this camp) getting an advantage over other people who are trying to farm money, causing people to cry.

[Krivvan]

FupDup, on 17 February 2015 - 10:52 AM, said:

Some people might laugh at me when I say this, but I actually classify my 4 LPL Warhawk as a generalist.

Why?

At extreme ranges, Gauss and ERLL specialists have the advantage.
At medium-ish ranges, things like dakkaboats have the advantage.
At short range, brawlers like SRM carriers and AC/20 have the advantage.

...But, the Clan LPL can contribute damage in each of those situations, even if it's not the best at any one category.

You do actually have a point. I used the term generalist since people have seemed to be using it as a synonym for bracketed builds. I consider the cERML + Gauss Timber to be a build that can perform adequately to great at every range.

The real issue is not so much how generalist a build is, but how well all the weapons on a build can mesh together. A 2xPPC + 2xMed Laser + 1xSRM build does not mesh well together since you're completely cutting out usage of some of your weapons at certain ranges meaning that there is no optimal range at which you are at your full potential.

Edited by Krivvan, 17 February 2015 - 11:08 AM.

[Metus regem]

Krivvan, on 17 February 2015 - 10:59 AM, said:

That's like talking about applying Napolean era formations to Starcraft 2. Tactics change according to what tools are given to you.

MWO is not the same as modern combat. Even in reality, combat doctrines that make sense today would make no sense whatsoever even just 100 years ago.

Modern combat tactics are not applicable in MWO or really pretty much every videogame in general, and if they were, you'd see meta tryhards using them. But they don't.

Flanking works pretty well in MWO...

I've messed up a few teams, simply by slipping in behind them with a my Timber D build with cERPPC's and 6xcSRM6 packs, or hell even using a Locust 1V with just an ERLL in their back feild can cause confusion and brake their ranks, letting the rest of my team capatilize on their panic, beacuse of a single mech in their back feild.

[Tombstoner]

Ultimatum X, on 17 February 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

No tag i direct fire into ECM, Artemus, 6 tons of ammo, 4 med lasers and a few double HS, Max armor, full JJ's and fat XL engine for a run speed of ~85 kph. pilot tree is maxed out with 65,000 xp accumulated. i used to run a begal at some point.

My speed keeps me out of trouble and **** in responding to opportunities. the JJ help with pop tarting. never had an ammo issue. lrm 10's being efficient. 4 med lasers are sufficient back ups. Games basically over within 3-4 minutes anyway if one side get a numerical advantage and knows how to use it. i can still post 600 point games and be 1-4 top damage dealers with only 2 x lrm 10's. just need to know how to play the map.

Issues with the build are the same as any other support mech. lights are an issue. Relies on teammate lock on

[Phil Tackett]

Krivvan, on 17 February 2015 - 10:59 AM, said:

That's like talking about applying Napolean era formations to Starcraft 2. Tactics change according to what tools are given to you.

MWO is not the same as modern combat. Even in reality, combat doctrines that make sense today would make no sense whatsoever even just 100 years ago.

Modern combat tactics are not applicable in MWO or really pretty much every videogame in general, and if they were, you'd see meta tryhards using them. But they don't.

Have you ever actually tried? A lance of mechs flanking around the enemy team w/o them knowing about it pretty much always turns into a landslide victory, whether you're fighting a pug or a premade(at least in pub matches w/ no respawns). Players chilling on the reverse side of a hill waiting for enemies to crest so they get the first shot before enemy weapons can come to bear on them? That IS a napoleonic tactic, and I see it used to great effect in this game on a regular basis. Modern combat tactics are most definitely applicable in MWO or nearly any other FPS that isn't a respawnfest. Modern tactics largely revolve around concealment, maneuver, being able to apply more of your strength to a fight than the enemy can. There is almost nothing there that doesn't relate in some way to gaming.

Edited by Phil Tackett, 17 February 2015 - 11:23 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Krivvan, on 17 February 2015 - 10:59 AM, said:

That's like talking about applying Napolean era formations to Starcraft 2. Tactics change according to what tools are given to you.

MWO is not the same as modern combat. Even in reality, combat doctrines that make sense today would make no sense whatsoever even just 100 years ago.

Modern combat tactics are not applicable in MWO or really pretty much every videogame in general, and if they were, you'd see meta tryhards using them. But they don't.

A lot of Space Naval fighting draw from Both Air Force and Navy tactics, so You would likely be wrong. Though being a grunt I Don't do naval and air tactics.

[Sarlic]

Quote

The world is full of specialized equipment, specialized machinery, specialized weapons and people filling specialized roles.


I struggle to understand why some gamers find this unacceptable.

Are you not seeing the problem or am i having difficulties trying to explain?

I am trying to be clear, but what's the point of having for example ten specialists on your team and two generalists. You are nerfing your team with that many specialists. They have to wait each other off to get in range.

Obviously the specialists cannot respond in certain situations because they are specialists.

The generalist can -almost- respond to any situation without having to worry to get in range.

I-ask-to-have-more-variety-in-loadouts. Point. Specialists are not obseleted, but that many stacked together is not even helping.

Because that's what currently is going on and that's currently the problem i am discussing. Why do you think alot of these so called specialists are carrying arty and air? For obvious reasons.

Edited by Sarlic, 17 February 2015 - 11:25 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

Are you not seeing the problem or am i having difficulties trying to explain?

I am trying to be clear, but what's the point of having for example ten specialists on your team and two generalists. You are nerfing your team with that many specialists. They have to wait each other off to get in range.

Obviously the specialists cannot respond in certain situations because they are specialists.

The generalist can -almost- respond to any situation without having to worry to get in range.

I-ask-to-have-more-variety-in-loadouts. Point. Specialists are not obseleted, but that many stacked together is not even helping.

Because that's what currently is going on and that's currently the problem i am discussing. Why do you think alot of these so called specialists are carrying arty and air? For obvious reasons.

you think they are nerfign your team, yet no on in the torunaments we had run gerneralists builds, and this indicates you already what is the better way to play MWO successfully. Now stop trying to bring an obviously incorrect opinion into a generalised rule that claism to be true.

[Dock Steward]

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

Are you not seeing the problem or am i having difficulties trying to explain?

I am trying to be clear, but what's the point of having for example ten specialists on your team and two generalists. You are nerfing your team with that many specialists. They have to wait each other off to get in range.

Obviously the specialists cannot respond in certain situations because they are specialists.

The generalist can -almost- respond to any situation without having to worry to get in range.

I-ask-to-have-more-variety-in-loadouts. Point. Specialists are not obseleted, but that many stacked together is not even helping.

Because that's what currently is going on and that's currently the problem i am discussing. Why do you think alot of these so called specialists are carrying arty and air? For obvious reasons.

I guess my response to this is: if there were any merits to running bracket builds, don't you think after three-ish years, people would have realized it and done it? The fact that "most" people don't run those builds, speaks volumes.

[Sarlic]

Lily from animove, on 17 February 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

you think they are nerfign your team, yet no on in the torunaments we had run gerneralists builds, and this indicates you already what is the better way to play MWO successfully. Now stop trying to bring an obviously incorrect opinion into a generalised rule that claism to be true.

Not talking about competitive play. Get a gripe on it.
If you believe this game is compettive, sorry but then your worse then i though.

Edited by Sarlic, 17 February 2015 - 11:37 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

Not talking about competitive play. Get a gripe on it.

its pvp its always competitive.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

Not talking about competitive play. Get a gripe on it.

With the exception of my Atlas-S, My builds incorporate at least 2 ranges. Those who don't like the concept are free to disagree. I happened to have a lot of success using a mixed bag of weapons.

My Atlas-D-DC carried a Gauss,ERPPC, 2 mediums and an SRM6. It got me 100th place out of 3,500 Assault players. And I worked that tournament.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Dock Steward, on 17 February 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

I guess my response to this is: if there were any merits to running bracket builds, don't you think after three-ish years, people would have realized it and done it? The fact that "most" people don't run those builds, speaks volumes.

Actually, it only speaks to the 'want it now' mentality and the dismal lack of good maps to allow real tactical combat to take place. CW, tactics..simple, SWARM! Welcome to StarCraft, in giant stompy robots, that's CW currently. Break the swarm and you win, the swarms gets over you, you lose. Not exactly a tactical game mode there by any means. Assault, Conquest and Skirmish all allow for some tactical playing, but it's usually ignored in favor of the deathball, again, SWARM! weclome to Starcraft once again. That's purely a player driven tactic, the deathball, and it's all about getting the kills as fast as possible. No need to sneak around, get intel, place forces, just SWARM!

Welcome to the standard CoD gameplay mentality, just happen to have giant stompy robots as avatars. It's annoying, it's a PITA, and there's really no way for PGI to change it. The previous MW titles had the exact same issues with everything but the planetary leagues, because in those, losing a Mech was not just a death, it was a loss of valuable resources, and that was something you did your best to avoid, so tactics were a huge deal. PGI doesn't have any resources for us to lose, so who cares, toss another Atlas in the blender, so what?

[Dock Steward]

Kristov Kerensky, on 17 February 2015 - 11:42 AM, said:

Actually, it only speaks to the 'want it now' mentality and the dismal lack of good maps to allow real tactical combat to take place. CW, tactics..simple, SWARM! Welcome to StarCraft, in giant stompy robots, that's CW currently. Break the swarm and you win, the swarms gets over you, you lose. Not exactly a tactical game mode there by any means. Assault, Conquest and Skirmish all allow for some tactical playing, but it's usually ignored in favor of the deathball, again, SWARM! weclome to Starcraft once again. That's purely a player driven tactic, the deathball, and it's all about getting the kills as fast as possible. No need to sneak around, get intel, place forces, just SWARM!

Welcome to the standard CoD gameplay mentality, just happen to have giant stompy robots as avatars. It's annoying, it's a PITA, and there's really no way for PGI to change it. The previous MW titles had the exact same issues with everything but the planetary leagues, because in those, losing a Mech was not just a death, it was a loss of valuable resources, and that was something you did your best to avoid, so tactics were a huge deal. PGI doesn't have any resources for us to lose, so who cares, toss another Atlas in the blender, so what?

It took the community less than a day to figure out the Light zerging worked well in CW. If bracket builds were worth more than "fun," the community as a whole would favor those types of builds. The examples of the community gravitating toward what works are so numerous as to not even be worth my time mentioning.

[HlynkaCG]

Ghost Badger, on 17 February 2015 - 07:28 AM, said:

INCOMING MISSALS!

Long range Missals for those missionaries far from home, short range missals for the local parish and mid range missals for Catholics on vacation.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dock Steward, on 17 February 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

It took the community less than a day to figure out the Light zerging worked well in CW. If bracket builds were worth more than "fun," the community as a whole would favor those types of builds. The examples of the community gravitating toward what works are so numerous as to not even be worth my time mentioning.

No they wouldn't. They think first and foremost about Kills and Deaths, not teamwork and mission success.

[Dock Steward]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

No they wouldn't. They think first and foremost about Kills and Deaths, not teamwork and mission success.

I think they think about winning just a little bit more than you're giving them credit for.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dock Steward, on 17 February 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

I think they think about winning just a little bit more than you're giving them credit for.

Obviously not if they are not doing what needs to be done to win.