

Player Choice
Started by Evex, Feb 20 2015 11:04 AM
8 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 20 February 2015 - 11:04 AM
Let me ask you folks a simple question. Where has player choice gone ? Now before you answer let me ask you a second question. When was the last time you and your buddies played the mechs you wanted to play in the group que ? It appears that player choice has seemingly vanished from MWO, and players are required to "meta up", if they want to have any sort of enjoyment in this game. Below are a few things that may or may not have lead up to the cause to "meta up" and the disappearance of player choice.
Speed and Alpha
These are two things MWO has come to revolve around. The mentality is normally summed up with the following question. How fast can I make this mech and how damaging can I make the alpha strike. Ever wonder how the enemy got from there side of the map to yours when the match just begun ? Well often times it is the result of this mentality.
Quirks
There is no denying it that quirks have changed the landscape of MWO and the meta from the wub bolts, and there ppc cousin. To other mechs that are considered meta do to their quirks. In short the quirks have a compounding nature when combined with weapon modules. Take any mech with a a genral and weapon specific cool down quirk. You will normally get around a decent reduction in firing rate.
Other times the quirk gives more then an actual weapon module. Add on top of that the cool down module at max rank for any weapons system is a 12% reduction, and at times the situation is made worse since the cool down goes down even further, sometimes even doubling the cool down reduction. This can make good quirks even better, making the mech seem even more potent then was intended. For the most part it might be better to give mechs general quirks and leave the more specific weapon quirks to the modules a player equips.
Survivability
Most of us know time to kill is up, and that making one mistake can result in you losing half your battlemech. A way to solve this is to give the battle mechs in a certain class, and role the same survivability, or life span. Now I realize in lore and tabletop battle mechs are not supposed to have the same survivability, but for this game that might have to change.
This mostly has to do with armor and internal structure of the battle mech, so nothing else about the mech would change. Essentially you balance for wait class and what the role of the battle mech is. For instance the Commando and Jenner are both striker battle mechs they are meant to get in Alpha a mech and get out. The commando is notorious for how squishy it can be compared to a jenner. The solution then comes down to then increasing the commandos survivability by modify its armor and internal structure, until it has the same survivability as a jenner. Then the only thing deciding how long the mech lives is what choices the pilot/player makes during a match.
The only thing keeping a player from taking a commando over a jenner is then up to the mechs personality. By personality I mean how the mech looks, handles, hard points available etc.
Big Swings
PGI is known to change its mind on mechanics and change things in patches, sometimes for the better and other times for the worse. This is mostly due to the big swings they tend to take with some of there patches. Proof of this is in the latest patch and of how the quirks were suddenly changed on mechs. Some mechs receiving entirely new quirks, while other mechs that didn't need change were changed.
These changes need to be less detrimental, and big. Instead the game should be being tweaked in small intervals until something reaches the middle ground. Whether this be a mechs survivability or the quirks applied to a battlemech. In this case it might be time PGI put the public test server up full time. This would allow them to make smaller incremental changes to the game and see there effect, and decide if the changes need to be increased or decrease more. By making sure everything is at a middle ground the game should self balance itself, even if you throw a new mech into the mix. If something needs to be changed drastically then that is when the development team should step in.
These seem to be the underline causes of the disappearance of player choice, and the recent rise of the "meta up" situation that has taken a hold of the game. There is also the possibility that I have also missed some other causes. These are the ones that I have noticed.
Speed and Alpha
These are two things MWO has come to revolve around. The mentality is normally summed up with the following question. How fast can I make this mech and how damaging can I make the alpha strike. Ever wonder how the enemy got from there side of the map to yours when the match just begun ? Well often times it is the result of this mentality.
Quirks
There is no denying it that quirks have changed the landscape of MWO and the meta from the wub bolts, and there ppc cousin. To other mechs that are considered meta do to their quirks. In short the quirks have a compounding nature when combined with weapon modules. Take any mech with a a genral and weapon specific cool down quirk. You will normally get around a decent reduction in firing rate.
Other times the quirk gives more then an actual weapon module. Add on top of that the cool down module at max rank for any weapons system is a 12% reduction, and at times the situation is made worse since the cool down goes down even further, sometimes even doubling the cool down reduction. This can make good quirks even better, making the mech seem even more potent then was intended. For the most part it might be better to give mechs general quirks and leave the more specific weapon quirks to the modules a player equips.
Survivability
Most of us know time to kill is up, and that making one mistake can result in you losing half your battlemech. A way to solve this is to give the battle mechs in a certain class, and role the same survivability, or life span. Now I realize in lore and tabletop battle mechs are not supposed to have the same survivability, but for this game that might have to change.
This mostly has to do with armor and internal structure of the battle mech, so nothing else about the mech would change. Essentially you balance for wait class and what the role of the battle mech is. For instance the Commando and Jenner are both striker battle mechs they are meant to get in Alpha a mech and get out. The commando is notorious for how squishy it can be compared to a jenner. The solution then comes down to then increasing the commandos survivability by modify its armor and internal structure, until it has the same survivability as a jenner. Then the only thing deciding how long the mech lives is what choices the pilot/player makes during a match.
The only thing keeping a player from taking a commando over a jenner is then up to the mechs personality. By personality I mean how the mech looks, handles, hard points available etc.
Big Swings
PGI is known to change its mind on mechanics and change things in patches, sometimes for the better and other times for the worse. This is mostly due to the big swings they tend to take with some of there patches. Proof of this is in the latest patch and of how the quirks were suddenly changed on mechs. Some mechs receiving entirely new quirks, while other mechs that didn't need change were changed.
These changes need to be less detrimental, and big. Instead the game should be being tweaked in small intervals until something reaches the middle ground. Whether this be a mechs survivability or the quirks applied to a battlemech. In this case it might be time PGI put the public test server up full time. This would allow them to make smaller incremental changes to the game and see there effect, and decide if the changes need to be increased or decrease more. By making sure everything is at a middle ground the game should self balance itself, even if you throw a new mech into the mix. If something needs to be changed drastically then that is when the development team should step in.
These seem to be the underline causes of the disappearance of player choice, and the recent rise of the "meta up" situation that has taken a hold of the game. There is also the possibility that I have also missed some other causes. These are the ones that I have noticed.
#2
Posted 20 February 2015 - 11:08 AM
Buy the mechs you like, set them up the way you want, play in the manner that you want to. If folks try to give you crap for it, ignore them. <<shrugs>>
#3
Posted 20 February 2015 - 11:41 AM
Player choice? I was using a Panther last night with a friend who was doing the same. It had a PPC and 8 JJs. Not really Meta.
Nor does anything stop me from using a XL400 Assault mounted with Wub. All the Wub.
It seems there's plenty of choice.
Nor does anything stop me from using a XL400 Assault mounted with Wub. All the Wub.
It seems there's plenty of choice.
#4
Posted 20 February 2015 - 11:46 AM
OP,
You are correct -- I play the mechs I play (and I have been playing mostly CW) because they are the best mechs for the drop -- not because I like them very much. I do this because to do otherwise would handicap the rest of my team. This bespeaks more towards balance issues in the game.
Many, many people in my faction believe that the imbalances are there so that PGI can sell more of the more powerful mechs -- and I have a hard time disputing their reasoning.
Having said all that and with the EXCEPTION of challenge weekends, in solo PUG queue I get to choose what I want -- and that is refreshing. (I don't care if the pug wins, loses or even does marginally well)
You are correct -- I play the mechs I play (and I have been playing mostly CW) because they are the best mechs for the drop -- not because I like them very much. I do this because to do otherwise would handicap the rest of my team. This bespeaks more towards balance issues in the game.
Many, many people in my faction believe that the imbalances are there so that PGI can sell more of the more powerful mechs -- and I have a hard time disputing their reasoning.
Having said all that and with the EXCEPTION of challenge weekends, in solo PUG queue I get to choose what I want -- and that is refreshing. (I don't care if the pug wins, loses or even does marginally well)
Edited by nehebkau, 20 February 2015 - 11:47 AM.
#5
Posted 20 February 2015 - 11:52 AM
Lack of choice is in your head.
If you feel forced to meta, that's on your shoulders!
Lots of us riding whatever we want and doing just fine sir
If you feel forced to meta, that's on your shoulders!
Lots of us riding whatever we want and doing just fine sir
#6
Posted 20 February 2015 - 12:07 PM
I like OP's comments mostly.
I disagree with the survivability one (every bit as much as I disagree with the armor-buffing mech quirks) because I don't think a mech game should come with "magic" upgrades, but on the same vein I would support certain mechs having the capability to devote more tonnage to armor than others.
I also disagree that it's become all speed+alpha=superior, and even where that is true, it's more a result of the map features rather than the game as a whole. Every single map is dominated by one or more tunnels or narrow passageways that become huge chokepoints, promoting the speed+alpha mentality. Map obstacles on the whole need to be a lot smaller and more traversable in order to facilitate the swarming, sparring, and flanking types of attacks that benefit other schools of strategy.
The part about weaponry is spot-on, as is the part about PGI often "over-fixing" things with huge, sweeping changes.
I disagree with the survivability one (every bit as much as I disagree with the armor-buffing mech quirks) because I don't think a mech game should come with "magic" upgrades, but on the same vein I would support certain mechs having the capability to devote more tonnage to armor than others.
I also disagree that it's become all speed+alpha=superior, and even where that is true, it's more a result of the map features rather than the game as a whole. Every single map is dominated by one or more tunnels or narrow passageways that become huge chokepoints, promoting the speed+alpha mentality. Map obstacles on the whole need to be a lot smaller and more traversable in order to facilitate the swarming, sparring, and flanking types of attacks that benefit other schools of strategy.
The part about weaponry is spot-on, as is the part about PGI often "over-fixing" things with huge, sweeping changes.
Edited by NeoAres, 20 February 2015 - 12:12 PM.
#7
Posted 20 February 2015 - 12:12 PM
Everyone in every multiplayer online game plays the meta except casuals. It's nothing new, and it wasn't just suddenly "created" in MWO. It's ALWAYS been in the game. Splatcats, streakcats, gausscats, laserbacks, shoot here's me playing the meta in the closed beta. If you want to be competitive, you play the meta, and people actually enjoy doing so. Player choice is still here, no one is forcing you to play anything. Unless you're in a top tier unit doing tournments, but if you are it's because you want to play the meta.
Edited by lsp, 20 February 2015 - 12:15 PM.
#8
Posted 20 February 2015 - 12:18 PM
LSP, I heard that no true scotsman would ever play non-meta
#9
Posted 20 February 2015 - 12:22 PM
lsp, on 20 February 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:
Everyone in every multiplayer online game plays the meta except casuals. It's nothing new, and it wasn't just suddenly "created" in MWO. It's ALWAYS been in the game. Splatcats, streakcats, gausscats, laserbacks, shoot here's me playing the meta in the closed beta. If you want to be competitive, you play the meta, and people actually enjoy doing so. Player choice is still here, no one is forcing you to play anything. Unless you're in a top tier unit doing tournments, but if you are it's because you want to play the meta.
If that video is supposed to show me meta, I have to laugh heartily. All I saw was a energy weapon boat on the coldest map available helping gang up on morons who wandered into the midst of an enemy formation one by one to get slaughtered. Congrats on the rear torso kills and on controlling your heat buildup.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users