246 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

pwnface, on 30 October 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

As far as MischiefSC's point, I do think a lot of people fall into his characterization. I don't think it's fair to group ALL players who don't use meta builds in that category though. I think a lot of players are capable of doing very well with meta builds but choose not to because they enjoy playstyles that have more "flavor".

A more precise term would be "roleplayers."

[Lightfoot]

FupDup, on 30 October 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

Actually, Clan lasers absolutely dominated in Battletech. Well, all of them except the Clan SPL (which was atrociously terrible in TT).

The Clan LPL in particular was crazyballs even in TT. The -2 to-hit modifier combined with 10 pinpoint damage (TT doesn't have beam durations, lasers are basically PPFLD in TT) made the Clan LPL in a lighter and smaller PPC that didn't miss and had longer range. The Clan ERML was also even better with only 5 heat and 450m range...

MechWarrior offers a more 3 dimensional game of Battle Tech than TT. Lasers are still easy-mode, but player skill can make the other weapons just as deadly.... unless they are nerfed to junk. If you have played the other MechWarrior games you know this. Those games had basically the TT damage/heat/weight/recycles but none of it was nerfed and the gameplay was very tactically challenging.

[pwnface]

FupDup, on 30 October 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

A more precise term would be "roleplayers."

Too bad the only roleplaying aspect of MWO is running "lore" builds for fun at some detriment to your own team.

[ChapeL]

FupDup, on 30 October 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

A more precise term would be "roleplayers."

That's a pejorative therm around here and you know it. Someone once posted a comic strip about the different kinds of players ( I think it was relating to magic the gathering cards at the time ) that illustrates very well the divide. Would have spared us 9 pages of this "stuff"

[FupDup]

Lightfoot, on 30 October 2015 - 02:42 PM, said:

MechWarrior offers a more 3 dimensional game of Battle Tech than TT. Lasers are still easy-mode, but player skill can make the other weapons just as deadly.... unless they are nerfed to junk. If you have played the other MechWarrior games you know this. Those games had basically the TT damage/heat/weight/recycles but none of it was nerfed and the gameplay was very tactically challenging.

I remember energy weapons being very meta in MW3 and MW4.

In MW3 the very fast heat dissipation made laser boating easy to manage, which made most ballistics kinda pointless (especially because they had low velocity in that game). But then again, even a handful of Machine Guns in MW3 could chainsaw a full-armor Atlas in half in less than 10 seconds... One of the most infamous builds was the 14 ERSL Strider that had very fast speed.

In MW4 the good ballistics were Gauss, Light Gauss, and LBX. The lower rated ACs and Ultras stunk in that game, and most missiles were kinda meh. Medium and small lasers were nerfed fairly hard, but the ERLL remained quite effective. ERPPCs were prevalent, given that MW4 was the game where poptarting was BORN.

ChapeL, on 30 October 2015 - 02:44 PM, said:

That's a pejorative therm around here and you know it. Someone once posted a comic strip about the different kinds of players ( I think it was relating to magic the gathering cards at the time ) that illustrates very well the divide. Would have spared us 9 pages of this "stuff"

Well, it is kinda true though.

Those folk essentially want to picture themselves as characters in an actual BT novel, living in the universe and all the jazz.

Edited by FupDup, 30 October 2015 - 02:48 PM.

[ChapeL]

Lightfoot, on 30 October 2015 - 02:42 PM, said:

If you have played the other MechWarrior games you know this. Those games had basically the TT damage/heat/weight/recycles but none of it was nerfed and the gameplay was very tactically challenging.

Rose tinted goggles aside, MW3 was the domain of lagging striders/Shadow cats boating cErML and vanilla MW4 was about 6-7 guns Nova Cats and Timber Wolves with pin point instant damage cErLL.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 30 October 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

Heh thanks guys. I just want to be clear because sometimes people get the wrong impression about me. I don't look down on meta mechs or players who pilot them. I think they're great mechs and some of the best players in the game will run them. In fact most of the players who I would say are flat out better than me tend to gravitate toward those laser/Gauss clan builds.

I will admit I'm a bit of a contrarian. However, I get really frustrated with the black and white mindset so many people have toward balance as if meta is some magical auto-win button.

Laser/Gauss is really good at what it does. But it's mediocre to bad at other things.

If people want to succeed with something that isn't meta then you can't play its game. It will out-burst trade you poking from cover. That's its niche. It's what it does best. Unless you have a numbers advantage, a significant skill advantage, or a tonnage advantage, it will do more damage to you than you do to it.

There's plenty of rebalancing left to be done with this game, but I get really fed up with people who insist there is no counter to meta. There are lots of mechs, lots of weapons, and the map/game mode/tactics play a large role in what builds do best.

My approach has always been: think of something that sounds fun and seems viable. Build it smartly. Practice the hell out of it. Tweak it until you're happy. Compare its performance with other established builds. Find its niche, and then exploit the hell out of it.

Hey man.

Yeah, I hope people didn't think I was painting you as angry-anti-meta, or the like.

It's the fact you run a non meta machine, and do it so well, combined with never having seen you be a dbag, or promote either direction.

And here's the thing. I'm actually NOT anti meta. I don't personally care to run it, but mostly because the meta on MWO is so pronounced, and so vanilla, it bores me.

If it wasn't such a separation, I might run it. If it were to fall to weapons I like more, (ppc and ac) I'd end up running it more (though I never catered to the poptarting meta. Especially the way it ended up).

That's never been the issue.

For me, I come off anti meta, because of the utter arrogance of posts like the OP.

And the fact that 90% of the most vocal tryhards seem utterly invaluable of backing it up in solo queue, when they don't have a bunch of teammates to help carry them.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 October 2015 - 03:03 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 30 October 2015 - 02:30 PM, said:

This was full of so much crap I wasn't sure where to start 'calling you out' on it. So we will start here:
When Clans were introduced I was running Stormcrows, and wreaking face. It didn't take long to realize that wasn't fun. Since then I have hung up my Clan mechs and meta mechs in favor of playing the game the way I want to play it. at the same time I feel it is incumbent upon me to lobby PGI for better gameplay and better matchmaking. That that is my challenge and fight.

As for your characterization of a sociopath, not carrying if they win, you have completely backwards. That is all they care about, elevating themselves at the expense of others. It is both hilarious and ironic that you even mentioned it.

You care if you win. You prefer it to losing - that's why you want better game balance.

Being competitive is not in any way associated with being sociopathic - just the opposite. Sociopaths don't care; a competitive person absolutely does care.

We all complain about game balance - especially the competitive players. Everyone wants more options. Everyone. That's totally divorced from the meta; the meta is what currently wins.

I'm not talking about people who play various mechs instead of just one. Everyone, comp to dedicated casual, plays a variety of mechs and has playstyles they enjoy more than others. That's fine and normal.

I'm talking about the significant undertones of 'I won't ever play meta/meta is a lie/my LRM boat is better than any meta build/people play meta to ruin the game for everyone else' BS that's common here (and elsewhere). Your characterization of people who play to win as only wanting to ruin the game for others speaks to that. Winning is more fun than losing; that's why we have contests at all. That's why your brain tracks win/loss to some greater or lesser degree in everything you do.

Someone who plays to win and enjoys winning and understands/plays the meta does so as a given rule with perfectly legitimate reasons. They may not enjoy the playstyle of it but they try to learn it and play it and practice it. That's part of what makes someone successful.

Take the poptart meta. I don't enjoy it. I found it painfully boring. I still learned it, got good at it and when needed played it. Also lobbied (and still do) against it and cheered when the mechanics changed.

That is 100% different from 'hating the meta'. Does that make sense? The game meta (as in what wins currently) isn't a playstyle, it's an acknowledgement that some things work better than others. Some processes, some tools, some behaviors. Learning and using those makes you more successful both at the given task and associated ones. That's completely different from enjoying different playstyles. Take an Iron Man athlete. He may love biking and hate swimming. He's going to be a damn good swimmer who keeps up open water swimming and has the best tools to practice doing so though because that makes him a better athlete at his sport. If instead he said all swimming sucked and people who are good at swimming are a-holes and everyone who times well in the swimming segment is a bad person who just wants to ruin the competition for people who are good at biking.... that would make him a complete and total jacka$$.

That's the difference. The problem isn't 'the meta'. Raging against the meta isn't just absurd it's counter-productive. Rage against game balance; it sucks. However learning to play the current meta, learning what works will make you better at playing the game overall regardless of your opinion of the meta. Also, you prefer to win. You'd prefer to win playing your favorite builds. It's flat out ******** to say otherwise. Everyone cares if they win or lose. The difference is that learning to win even when it involves doing something you don't enjoy as much is harder than learning to win by doing what you're already doing, so people make excuses for why they don't put in the effort. Maybe it's more effort than it's worth, maybe any number of things but that doesn't make people who do put in that effort somehow evil or trying to ruin your gameplay. They are putting in an effort you are not. Your reasons for not doing so are yours, nobody elses.

I say this as a solid Tier 2 player. I will never have the time or the ***** to give to polish my skills to a top tier 1 level. Too much else going on. I am not, however, going to rail against those who do or pretend that's a byproduct of anything but my own choices.

Edited by MischiefSC, 30 October 2015 - 03:13 PM.

[pwnface]

I feel like a lot of the people who are very good at the current "meta" or play at high levels have the most vested interest in improving gameplay balance. Tons of high level players are constantly making suggestions on how we can fix weapons so that there are MORE viable builds for competitive play. Do you think people enjoy ONLY poptarting or ONLY laser vomit? People want LRMs to be viable, SRMs to actually be great for brawling. Competitive players understand and want gameplay balance more than casual players who don't fully understand the game mechanics. Yes, people use the current "meta" because that's what is required to be successful, doesn't mean they don't want a more balanced game.

[Mystere]

Lightfoot, on 30 October 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

Why not create a Battle Tech balance and let the tears fall?

But, but, but .... what about eSports?

<"**** eSports!" I say.>

[PholkLorr]

FupDup, on 30 October 2015 - 07:34 AM, said:

When you cut the head off a hydra, three heads will take its place. When the only tool you have is a sledgehammer, everything around you starts to look like a nail. This is a cyclical process right now. All of this has happened before, and I can assure you that it will happen again. And when it does happen again, all of those who are calling laser users meta-baby-eating no-skill-scumbag-tryhards will say all of the EXACT same things about the new meta as they say about the current one. This is not speculation or hypothetical, this is a prophetical foretelling.

Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before.The best players then are the best players now and will continue to be the best players with every shift of the meta. The worst players will still be the same teeth gnashing cryhards spewing forth excuses about their ineptitude.

[Kira Onime]

MischiefSC, on 30 October 2015 - 03:10 PM, said:

-snip-

[pwnface]

PholkLorr, on 30 October 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before.The best players then are the best players now and will continue to be the best players with every shift of the meta. The worst players will still be the same teeth gnashing cryhards spewing forth excuses about their ineptitude.

I mean you could be nicer about it at least. You know there isn't a prize for being number 1 *sshat.

Edited by pwnface, 30 October 2015 - 03:48 PM.

[MischiefSC]

pwnface, on 30 October 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

I feel like a lot of the people who are very good at the current "meta" or play at high levels have the most vested interest in improving gameplay balance. Tons of high level players are constantly making suggestions on how we can fix weapons so that there are MORE viable builds for competitive play. Do you think people enjoy ONLY poptarting or ONLY laser vomit? People want LRMs to be viable, SRMs to actually be great for brawling. Competitive players understand and want gameplay balance more than casual players who don't fully understand the game mechanics. Yes, people use the current "meta" because that's what is required to be successful, doesn't mean they don't want a more balanced game.

*exactly*.

The meta isn't people loving broken game balance. The meta is just... what wins. People who use what wins in order to win and, in turn, learn the behaviors that drive winning are just like everyone else in wanting that to be as wide a set of options as possible.

The OP put it in a bad way but the underlying concept is true. If the meta changes tomorrow the people who are currently winning all the time will continue to win all the time. Changing the meta will, in no way shape or form, change who wins or loses. Not by a 0.001 w/l shift.

Game balance is an problem everyone wants fixed. It's got nothing to do with 'the meta'.

[Bishop Steiner]

People who can get so arrogant and angry over a video game, really can't have much going for them IRL to need the validation of being the bestest stompy robot jock.

[pwnface]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 October 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

People who can get so arrogant and angry over a video game, really can't have much going for them IRL to need the validation of being the bestest stompy robot jock.

You do realize how ironic that is coming from you though right? Mr. 30,000 forum posts totally has a social life.

[TLBFestus]

This complaint about complainers sounds just as salty as the posts he is complaining about and is using a pretty broad brush as well.

[Druarc]

Never understood the whole he's better than me it's gotta be his build so nerd it logic.

There's always gonna be a meta, and the better your T rating the more likely you are to see them, it's the price of being competitive.

If it's that much of an issue create a 2nd account and come slum with us T5's

[PholkLorr]

MischiefSC, on 30 October 2015 - 03:10 PM, said:

You care if you win. You prefer it to losing - that's why you want better game balance.

Being competitive is not in any way associated with being sociopathic - just the opposite. Sociopaths don't care; a competitive person absolutely does care.

We all complain about game balance - especially the competitive players. Everyone wants more options. Everyone. That's totally divorced from the meta; the meta is what currently wins.

I'm not talking about people who play various mechs instead of just one. Everyone, comp to dedicated casual, plays a variety of mechs and has playstyles they enjoy more than others. That's fine and normal.

I'm talking about the significant undertones of 'I won't ever play meta/meta is a lie/my LRM boat is better than any meta build/people play meta to ruin the game for everyone else' BS that's common here (and elsewhere). Your characterization of people who play to win as only wanting to ruin the game for others speaks to that. Winning is more fun than losing; that's why we have contests at all. That's why your brain tracks win/loss to some greater or lesser degree in everything you do.

Someone who plays to win and enjoys winning and understands/plays the meta does so as a given rule with perfectly legitimate reasons. They may not enjoy the playstyle of it but they try to learn it and play it and practice it. That's part of what makes someone successful.

Take the poptart meta. I don't enjoy it. I found it painfully boring. I still learned it, got good at it and when needed played it. Also lobbied (and still do) against it and cheered when the mechanics changed.

That is 100% different from 'hating the meta'. Does that make sense? The game meta (as in what wins currently) isn't a playstyle, it's an acknowledgement that some things work better than others. Some processes, some tools, some behaviors. Learning and using those makes you more successful both at the given task and associated ones. That's completely different from enjoying different playstyles. Take an Iron Man athlete. He may love biking and hate swimming. He's going to be a damn good swimmer who keeps up open water swimming and has the best tools to practice doing so though because that makes him a better athlete at his sport. If instead he said all swimming sucked and people who are good at swimming are a-holes and everyone who times well in the swimming segment is a bad person who just wants to ruin the competition for people who are good at biking.... that would make him a complete and total jacka$$.

That's the difference. The problem isn't 'the meta'. Raging against the meta isn't just absurd it's counter-productive. Rage against game balance; it sucks. However learning to play the current meta, learning what works will make you better at playing the game overall regardless of your opinion of the meta. Also, you prefer to win. You'd prefer to win playing your favorite builds. It's flat out ******** to say otherwise. Everyone cares if they win or lose. The difference is that learning to win even when it involves doing something you don't enjoy as much is harder than learning to win by doing what you're already doing, so people make excuses for why they don't put in the effort. Maybe it's more effort than it's worth, maybe any number of things but that doesn't make people who do put in that effort somehow evil or trying to ruin your gameplay. They are putting in an effort you are not. Your reasons for not doing so are yours, nobody elses.

I say this as a solid Tier 2 player. I will never have the time or the ***** to give to polish my skills to a top tier 1 level. Too much else going on. I am not, however, going to rail against those who do or pretend that's a byproduct of anything but my own choices.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Except that my OP was worded the way it was because 1) I have a big ego and 2) I absolutely abhor stupid people.

The post was designed to call out the logical fails of a type of people , who as you can see, still fail to get it.

Another thing that some people have problem comprehending: thread title says weak, illogical people are destroying THEIR OWN game. Not destroying THE game. My game is fine. Could use better balance and faster wait times, but otherwise fine. It's those who say meta is destroying THE game that irks me. It is so full of logical, entitled fail.

[Dino Might]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 October 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:

With the exception that since it is a war game I tend to play it with the same thinking I had when I was using when I was a Marine. The sooner you die (in game) the long I live (in game). Is that wrong?

Not quite sure of your meaning here (might be facetious, I can't tell), but it ignores the most basic difference, that this is a game where the express purpose is fun, and there is relatively no consequence for errors, poor decisions, etc. The worst thing that happens here is losing your mech for 10 minutes or so. Being a war game, the operative word is game. The "war" part of that moniker is almost irrelevant.