27 replies to this topic

[Averen]

The simple idea that a mech can fire a douzend different weapons at once without some harsh penalties also made the lore/bt-system kinda weird. Even more of an issue in a videogame, where heavy cpu-assists would make the game generally less interesting.

Tbh, I don't mind the meta, aside from smaller things like lrm-boats (which aren't overly strong most of the times). There is quite a bit of diversity in playstyle. A meta isn't notably a bad thing if you have around 20+ meta builds.

[Dolph Hoskins]

Yes...

The meta and lore builds should be harnessed.

Metalore builds.

And then with the power of anagrams combined they will be known as Morleeta builds....yes this is the way.

[FupDup]

I predominantly use builds that qualify as fairly good/decent but not 100% optimized. Things like the 4 LPL Warhawk and 4 ERML + 2 UAC/5 Loki, for instance.


I've never understood the appeal behind "lore" builds because I can virtually always see a way to make them stronger. Even in TT's game mechanics, a mech with 6-7+ weapon groups is just trash. Boats and other optimized builds have always been the king of Battletech. Mechs with things like Flamer + LB 10-X + LRM5 + Small Laser + 2 Machine Guns + SRM2 have always been trash, and always will be.

Mixed builds can work, but only if there's an actual sensible synergy between each of the groups, and you don't have more than like 3 groups (4 is seriously pushing it).

[xDust]

Raggedyman, on 22 May 2015 - 08:28 AM, said:

The problem is that language, especially jargon, evolves. And whilst the word "meta" is being used horribly inaccurately it is correct by the argot of the forums. Plus trying to get anyone to shift to a better terminology would be a sisyphean task due to the stubbornness around here.

I thought that the common usage of 'meta' in these forums (and most game forums) was a shorthand for metagame, wherein the metagame is the game outside of its programming structure, i.e., the successful strategies/playstyles devised by players/evolved through gameplay (e.g., the current laser vomit due to hit reg issues and whatever). So in common forum usage, a meta build/mech is a build/mech fitted to perform successfully according to thr current metagame. And a metagame is constantly existing and evolving as game balance shifts.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

JSmith7784, on 22 May 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

I've been playing mechwarrior since the very first game on my 286 12.5mhz and every game since. I've always loved the tactical decisions required like weapon management, heat management etc involved with mechwarrior. I guess that's why I don't like the meta builds, boats, cheese builds or whatever you want to call them. They just don't seem like mechwarrior to me or maybe I'm just sick of turning a corner and getting blasted by a meta build sporting 1 weapon group who can almost kill me with one shot.

Do you think they will ever have a stock build game mode? I know some mechs are "boats" with their stock load out but those seem to be the exception.

It's a misconception to think that you can't or are not allowed to play stock mechs in MW:O. Feel free to do so. It's your game experience.

[1453 R]

Another problem is that a number of units in the lore were either specifically built as 'failed' 'Mechs (the Blackjack, for example, is generally considered a poor choice for most any job, as it was built for a mix of anti-insurrection and fire support roles and acknowledged in the in-'verse canon to kinda suck at both), 'Mechs for very specific markets/roles that don't exist in MWO (the Marshal was build specifically for Concordat Colonial Marshals as a solo law enforcement/ranger-type 'Mech and was never intended to be a frontline fighter. Also Firestarters), or built as outright replacements for older, increasingly obsolete designs (basically everything from 3068 onwards replaces something from the Succession era).

You can't really rely on lore-based builds in a competitive PvP game when the lore-based builds were there mostly to tell stories in this universe. It's great to see how far you can go in TT running a ragtag group of mercs in the Periphery with a bunch of ratty, broken-down equipment they only have because nobody else wanted it. That's an awesome story to tell. Being those guys in a gameful of Solaris Champion-level custom builds would, and indeed does, kinda totally suck.

[Wildstreak]

Cathy, on 22 May 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

There should have been a more lore based system, customization is way to open, but imagine the tears

Customization is actually the fault of the boardgame. MWO may do somethings differently but CBT caused to customization problem and it has become too late to close Pandora's box.

[Zordicron]

1453 R, on 22 May 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

Another problem is that a number of units in the lore were either specifically built as 'failed' 'Mechs (the Blackjack, for example, is generally considered a poor choice for most any job, as it was built for a mix of anti-insurrection and fire support roles and acknowledged in the in-'verse canon to kinda suck at both), 'Mechs for very specific markets/roles that don't exist in MWO (the Marshal was build specifically for Concordat Colonial Marshals as a solo law enforcement/ranger-type 'Mech and was never intended to be a frontline fighter. Also Firestarters), or built as outright replacements for older, increasingly obsolete designs (basically everything from 3068 onwards replaces something from the Succession era).

You can't really rely on lore-based builds in a competitive PvP game when the lore-based builds were there mostly to tell stories in this universe. It's great to see how far you can go in TT running a ragtag group of mercs in the Periphery with a bunch of ratty, broken-down equipment they only have because nobody else wanted it. That's an awesome story to tell. Being those guys in a gameful of Solaris Champion-level custom builds would, and indeed does, kinda totally suck.

I like this perspective on lore based loadouts and mechs.

i think what OP is after, and I think quite a few others, is something "different" to do in the game. There are some big benfits to a stock only mode, like making the paywall for upgrades etc basically vanish(IMO stock mode should have none of the skill unlocks either) like one gigantic trial mech mode where new players and old alike are held to the same equipment. It also has been shown that some of the "really bad" mechs we see are actually pretty decent when compared to other stock loadouts, so in a way it adds some variety to what "the best mechs" actually are.

it also would divide the playerbase more, which is against PGI current standpoint on "buckets". I would be for it- if it could be implemented where any mech I own is autmatically put into stock config when I launch. i do not want to pay to "downgrade" a mech to run in both stock and non stock matches, nor do I have an urgent need to own doubles of every mech I would want to use there.

maybe if steam brings in thousands of thousands of players we will see this put in.