209 replies to this topic

[Kuritaclan]

Envisage, on 30 November 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

Meta isn't just load outs though... it's mind set too. Just saying.

hummm - yes sir.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Kristian Radoulov, on 30 November 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

I still need to buy 2 more Catapults and master them; I just might have to play that Snaggle Tooth you put up. Thanks for the idea.

Its pretty fun. I think you will like it.

[Davegt27]

Op I see you start off most of your builds with the quirks?

I am starting to dislike quirks it changes the game from a 31st century Mech simulator to a FPS
I think weapons should be normalized by class that is weapon mounted on a light would produce the same pwr
(or Mech are balanced by the class they are in)

This is just the start of my opinion so I could be wrong but when I look at the Orion for example I roll play into the Battletech
Universe. I now become merc commander or a faction general and I am looking for a Mech that can best counter the Clan TW (they have a 75 ton Mech I counter with my own 75 ton Mech)

I would shoot for balance in terms of weight class using the broad parameters of MMLI (mobility, maintainability, lethality, Info tech/electronics)

Anyway thanks for the videos and sorry to get off topic but I hardly use the quirks section

Edited by Davegt27, 07 April 2016 - 02:13 AM.

[Kristian Radoulov]

Davegt27, on 01 December 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

Op I see you start off most of your builds with the quirks?

Yeah, I pretty much look at what the mech excels at doing and build it around that while still trying to keep the flavor of the mech.

Glad you liked the videos.

EDIT: Technically I look at hitboxes first to see if the mech is XL viable or not, THEN look at the weapon quirks.

Edited by Kristian Radoulov, 01 December 2015 - 09:39 AM.

[Kristian Radoulov]

Been a while since I did one of these, but bumping it for the "DAKKA" Orion V this week.

[Davegt27]

I ran some of my IS mechs this past weekend and I kept saying what is wrong with these Mechs

I did not even complete the challenge

So sad about the IS Mechs some of them really suck

Orion’s are cool and fun but they suck

I ran a 4PPC Cataphract for awhile you should try that lol

[The Mecha Streisand]

Some of my best matches lately have been in a CRB-27B, which isn't even the best variant of that kinda ho-hum medium. Best KDR result of any mech I've had in a long time.

[627]

Davegt27, on 15 February 2016 - 05:45 PM, said:

I ran some of my IS mechs this past weekend and I kept saying what is wrong with these Mechs

I did not even complete the challenge

So sad about the IS Mechs some of them really suck

Orion’s are cool and fun but they suck

I ran a 4PPC Cataphract for awhile you should try that lol

The Orions sure are special and by no means any kind of meta mechs, but they can work pretty well.

What I'm struggling with atm are the IIC Orions. I really want to like those but they feel extremely squishy. Maybe I'm too used to IS armor buff quirks but I lose my sides faster than I can charge up a gauss rifle. Being broad as an awesome doesn't help either.

[Kristian Radoulov]

627, on 15 February 2016 - 11:40 PM, said:

The Orions sure are special and by no means any kind of meta mechs, but they can work pretty well.

What I'm struggling with atm are the IIC Orions. I really want to like those but they feel extremely squishy. Maybe I'm too used to IS armor buff quirks but I lose my sides faster than I can charge up a gauss rifle. Being broad as an awesome doesn't help either.

Orion brother! The IIC is definitely hampered by the lack of agility/durability quirks for sure, BUT you can overcome it somewhat by superior firepower and bigger engines. I run 350XLs on my IIC-O and IIC-A and barely get away with 325XLs on my IIC-B and IIC-C. However my IIC-B for example has a 65 point alpha (of which 55 is pinpoint - 2xLPL 2xERML 1X GAUSS). You just have to be SUPER aware of positioning to make sure as many of your trades are 1v1 since you can't avoid/absorb damage like the original can. Hope this helps bro!

[1Grimbane]

The meta is all in your heads laser haters lol. i don;t know i see a wide variety of mixed builds out there as of late. as far as "meta goes" isn't the as7-s with no lasers just an ac/20 amd srm6's "meta" since that's the most optimized build on that chassis

to me in this game the word meta is synonymous with optimized. again sorry you guys hate people using easier to run builds. i have never once been to the point of saying fill in the blank build type is ruining this game. if all it takes is a laser centric playerbase to rustle those jimmies then maybe a canon universe that uses lasers as the workhorse weapon isn't for you

[GRiPSViGiL]

Positioning, awareness, and right circumstance is what gives the illusion of breaking the meta. I long thought you can do well in anything as a noob regardless of what was considered meta and you can in quick launch PUGlandia. Even in group queue with a good group.

However, the meta is defined by what mechs go head to head and which one comes out on top in a regular basis within ranges of engagement. As someone who has fought with and against the known comp players I trust the comp community when they tout the mechs and builds that are meta. I have been playing A VTR-S(C) with 2 UAC5s and 2 LLs racking up 600 damage a game this weekend. Does that mean I broke the meta? Nope. It means I can position myself within its best range of engagement in ideal circumstances to dish out a decent amount of damage.

[Sandpit]

GRiPSViGiL, on 16 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Positioning, awareness, and right circumstance is what gives the illusion of breaking the meta. I long thought you can do well in anything as a noob regardless of what was considered meta and you can in quick launch PUGlandia. Even in group queue with a good group.

However, the meta is defined by what mechs go head to head and which one comes out on top in a regular basis within ranges of engagement.

I agree completely with the first half there. It's exactly why "meta" isn't "meta" honestly

The second half, "meta" is defined by whatever mathematics support a mech's "optimization" according to the min/max of that chassis based on quirks, math, etc.

Nothing more

"Meta" builds are a good place to start sometimes, especially when you're new at building mechs, but if and when you buy into the "best build" philosophy, you lose sight of what mech building actually is in my opinion, which is a mech optimized for the player as opposed to the "best" DPS according to pen and paper math.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Sandpit, on 16 February 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

I agree completely with the first half there. It's exactly why "meta" isn't "meta" honestly

The second half, "meta" is defined by whatever mathematics support a mech's "optimization" according to the min/max of that chassis based on quirks, math, etc.

Nothing more

"Meta" builds are a good place to start sometimes, especially when you're new at building mechs, but if and when you buy into the "best build" philosophy, you lose sight of what mech building actually is in my opinion, which is a mech optimized for the player as opposed to the "best" DPS according to pen and paper math.

I can see your point and it goes back to circumstance and range of engagement in my mind. Considering there are so many factors at play whether you have a favorable situation almost anything can work at times.

However, if you have the most efficient mech capable of trading favorably with any other build at any given range then I would consider that the meta. Pilot error is the equalizer to any build though. Step in poo and you reap the consequences. Play style dictates effectiveness as well. Aggressive players are the gamblers of the inner sphere, the day traders of damage and kills, sometimes you see the head of the spear get 12 assists and multiple kills and other times that guy gets 200-300 damage and a pat on the back for being first through the door.

Lots of subjectivity in this topic but I think there is a meta that is evident at any given time and we have seen PGI change and sway it every single time. Lasers were no counter to jump sniping until it was made to be so.

[jaxjace]

Just pulled 1.3K 6 kills in a xl360 King Crab with 4 srm 4 and 4 small lasers with 2 ac10s... that doesnt mean i broke the meta or that its a particularly good mech.

[Sandpit]

GRiPSViGiL, on 16 February 2016 - 01:32 PM, said:

However, if you have the most efficient mech capable of trading favorably with any other build at any given range then I would consider that the meta.

Agree completely here, that's where individual skill comes into play. The "meta" propagates because some of the top tier players are not only "good" individually, but they're also using "meta" builds on top of that. Then player B gets dominated by a build a few times so they go out and replicate the build.

That goes on for a while until it's commonplace enough to call a "meta", then EVERYbody jumps on the "meta bandwagon" and players start assuming that it's the mech doing well as opposed to the player. Then lower tier skilled pilots get into those mechs and get rolled just like they did with whatever other mech they were driving because it has very little to do with the mech build itself, and much more to do with the pilot in the mech

I think we agree quite a bit, my main goal is just to get other players, especially newer ones, that there's no "meta" build out there that is going to magically improve their win rate or stats. "Meta" builds are sometimes very difficult to pilot in general depending on the current meta and serve as very niche role type mechs honestly.

Those types of builds need an experienced pilot to do well in them. You have to know where to position yourself in comparison to both enemy and friendly forces. You have to know what mechs to pick a fight with and what mechs to avoid at various ranges, etc.

New and inexperienced players get into "meta" mechs all the time and faceplant. Heck, I've done it a few times myself because the meta just didn't click with my personal play style and I didn't do well in that specific build.

Yet you have some on the forums and in the community that seem to want to propagate this idea of "meta". I don't get it myself, but to each their own. I just don't want new and inexperienced players thinking there's some "best" mech build out there when there just simply isn't.

Players need to find mechs and builds that are "best" for them.
Group minded players find mechs that are "best" for roles on their team
CW minded players find mechs that are "best" for a 4 wave objective based drop deck.

There are many mechs that will do well in the group or CW format for me, but do horribly in solo queue because they require some supporting roles from teammates which isn't always easy to find in the solo queue.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Sandpit, on 17 February 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

snip

If MWO has done one thing right it is that team play can be very diverse with loadouts in an organized group used to compliment each other. I know how rigid and close minded people or entire units can be concerning builds though. I am guilty of it as well. It really is good in terms of solo vs group play that builds can compliment each other. It just seems like the solo self sufficient mind set drives the meta sometimes.

I used to do really well damage wise (albeit spread damage) on a Shadow hawk with 3xSSRM2s 1xML 1xAC2 2xMGs during the poptart meta. My unit naysayed the build because it wasn't pinpoint but I could harass and wreak havoc on opened up internals for the build concept and playstyle. It was literally the most fun build I ever used and had. It was without a doubt a support build, deterring lights and finishing off components and mechs. Even when I was out damaging many members of the unit each game they still gave me a hard time about it. Needless to say I left that unit for that reason among others but I think you make very valid points concerning player skill, build philosophy, and the build being applied to a role or setting.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 17 February 2016 - 09:14 AM.

[Aramoro999]

I made 4 ERLL atlas a while ago.
350 STD
24 DHS
BAP

It was nonstop laser fire.
Does it qualify as meta breaking?

[Davegt27]

nope

Atlas got a big buff so

[Sandpit]

GRiPSViGiL, on 17 February 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

If MWO has done one thing right it is that team play can be very diverse with loadouts in an organized group used to compliment each other. I know how rigid and close minded people or entire units can be concerning builds though. I am guilty of it as well. It really is good in terms of solo vs group play that builds can compliment each other. It just seems like the solo self sufficient mind set drives the meta sometimes.

I used to do really well damage wise (albeit spread damage) on a Shadow hawk with 3xSSRM2s 1xML 1xAC2 2xMGs during the poptart meta. My unit naysayed the build because it wasn't pinpoint but I could harass and wreak havoc on opened up internals for the build concept and playstyle. It was literally the most fun build I ever used and had. It was without a doubt a support build, deterring lights and finishing off components and mechs. Even when I was out damaging many members of the unit each game they still gave me a hard time about it. Needless to say I left that unit for that reason among others but I think you make very valid points concerning player skill, build philosophy, and the build being applied to a role or setting.

I love other players telling me how "bad" my mech is lol

I think one of the biggest mistakes I see newer or inexperienced players make is not understanding the whole "role warfare" ideology (well aside from not paying enough attention to the mini map that is)

[Tasker]

Davegt27, on 01 December 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

I am starting to dislike quirks it changes the game from a 31st century Mech simulator to a FPS

This game is a first person shooter.