119 replies to this topic

[Tyler Valentine]

Sader325, on 04 March 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:

How it information i have "no way of knowing?".

Because it is possible that they were skilled LRM players and only used the tactics you witnessed because of the map, which secured them the win. They may have used completely different tactics on another map. The fact that you just dismiss that possibility is either lazy or elitist, as I expressed earlier.

Sader325, on 04 March 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:

Win, lose, loss, tie, dead, alive, assault, light, heavy whatever the hell else. The only number that matters to me is 400. The \
outcome of the match I could give a **** about...

Okay. But it didn't feel that way when I read your OP.


Day's over. Time to stop being a forum warrior and start actually playing
Maybe I'll see you out there in my Awesome 8R <o

[Piney II]

Looks like the OP got caught doing a little elitist preen / whine here.

"Pro Gameplay Within"...................

You got beat down..............rinse.wash, repeat.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 04 March 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

No complaints about Griffins being SRM boats instead of being the Vindicator's more mobile big brother? I am disappoint

Oh, the list could have been massive.


I just chose to limit it. The simple fact that with doubled armor, to counter focus fire, mechs carrying single "heavy" weapons like PPCs and AC10s, Gauss, and 20s are largely pointless, is a matter of much frustration.

[Wintersdark]

LordSkyKnight, on 04 March 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

I'm not trying to defend him or excuse his salt, but people get upset when they lose. It just makes winning all the sweeter.

Still a sad state of today's gamers. But whatever; I'm just old and grumpy.

Quote

And yes, they're a viable way to damage an opponent. However, at the highest levels of play (which we're not talking about, i know), I'd argue that they are pretty close to nonviable, if you take viable to mean "capable of winning you the game." They're that badly outclassed. They need a buff badly, but PGI is as likely to overbuff it as make it playable at the highest level.

Yeah, nobody is arguing that. But, as you said, we aren't talking about that here. We're talking about T1 solo queue play - that has no relation at all to comp play.

[Sandpit]

LordSkyKnight, on 04 March 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

That's the thing though, the "people" who claim that typically have math and results to back up their statements. You can say "oh difference of opinion" all you want, but in the end the weapon system is objectively worse than most other options right now, and as such could use a buff. Until then they'll continue to be a poor option if you're looking to give yourself the best chance of winning. Finding the strongest and weakest strategies or tools in any game is really not an "opinion" thing.

and I can counter their claim
as I said, I can consistently do 5-600 damage with 1-2 kills in my lurm boats. If you call that "subpar", well that's an opinion

"Meta" or "strongest" is nothing but min/max and squeezing as much DPS out of a frame as possible. Trust me when I say that's not the "best" of anything other than the "best" amount of alpha or DPS you can get.
Yes, it'a matter of opinion. MWO "math" consists of controlled tests using the "best" weapon loadout according to a stats sheet. A lot of meta humpers are going to have hurt feelings I think when the new heat system comes into play because those players that can and do, do well in well-rounded mech builds will still shine while those who rely exclusively on that spreadsheet type info to determine "best" loadouts are probably going to be a lot saltier than usual.

I don't use meta mechs. Never have. I build according to my play style, the role I want a mech to fill, and sometimes towards a mech's quirks if it fits into the previous two sections I jsut mentioned.
I do very well as do many many others I play with and against.

I play against you guys and other top tier units and players in the game on a pretty regular basis. Over the years I can safely say it is VERY rare that the reason a team lost was because one side used meta mechs and the other didn't.

Even against you guys, most times I can tell our team exactly what's going to happen (your tactics are a little predictable at times ) and when they listen and coordinate, we win more often than not.

It wasn't too terribly long ago that I was in one of our Marik PUGs and we ran into a 12man of either 228 or MS (can't remember, all you big units look alike to me ) and we had are usual random mix of pilots and mechs. The other team was running to prototypical storms and twolves with a few cheetahs tossed into the mix and maybe an ebon or two.

I knew exactly what was going to happen because it's the best tactic to use for a force composition like that. (We were a 12man as well so no weight advantage) We knew they were going to come in fast and try to overwhelm early before our team could really know what hit them.

Well, we were prepared for it and after we repelled the initial push and blunted their assault they kind of fell apart because they weren't used to another team being able to coordinate against them like that. It had nothing to do with mechs or builds or even individual skill. It had to do with us not panicking because there was a top tier unit on the other side.

You big units get a bit lazy at times because you don't realize how much of a psychological effect the unit tag has on opposing forces. The number of times I hear "Oh, well it's (insert unit here) so we might as well give up now" is crazy.


Point being? The builds are secondary and possibly even third to tactics and teamwork. I can take any one of my builds and feel confident that I'm going to do well regardless of who I'm facing. Those "best" builds are only as good as they are because they're in the hands of top tier players on top tier teams. Feel free to watch newer and lower tier players use those same builds. You'll see a world of difference in their damage output and match scores as compared to in the hands of a more skillful player

[Clownwarlord]

Amsro, on 04 March 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

difference between tier 5 and tier 1


Experience.

This is so true. Although the weapon system LRMs while it works in tier 5 because lack of skill it could still work in Tier 1. BUT only if it is done by team work and setup to be like that. In tier 1 players know stay near cover. They know where the cover is because of experience on every map (except new one which takes awhile but not long to figure out). So because of this to get those tier 1 players with lrms you have to have people who narc, who tag, who spot, and then combine fire with lrms. Now it is do able but not highly seen after because in pug you can't guarantee team work.

[Wintersdark]

clownwarlord, on 04 March 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

This is so true. Although the weapon system LRMs while it works in tier 5 because lack of skill it could still work in Tier 1. BUT only if it is done by team work and setup to be like that. In tier 1 players know stay near cover. They know where the cover is because of experience on every map (except new one which takes awhile but not long to figure out). So because of this to get those tier 1 players with lrms you have to have people who narc, who tag, who spot, and then combine fire with lrms. Now it is do able but not highly seen after because in pug you can't guarantee team work.

In T2, I'm able to take my Lurmboats and score high enough regularly to only lose rank in at worst 1/5 losses, the rest I'll break even or occassionally gain ranking. Essentially, the only time I lose ranking in one of my lurmymechs is when my whole team gets steamrolled instantly (and my loadout thus wasn't even relevant), or I do something appallingly stupid right out of the gate.

This means I'm averaging 400-600 damage and a couple kills in losses. I'm still doing enough damage, getting enough kills, that my LRM's are not holding me back at all.

And cover is useless; I'm using LRM's close. Typically with line of sight, though often obscured by friendly mechs initially.

Now, you can argue that the really indecent results I get with my LRM mechs will suddenly change when I pop over into T1, well, I guess I'll see soon enough, but I don't think that's the case.

I've been playing this game a very long time. I've long been a proponent of LRM's being fixed, and am totally cognizant of their many issues. But they are also grossly underestimated.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 March 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

The simple fact that with doubled armor, to counter focus fire, mechs carrying single "heavy" weapons like PPCs and AC10s, Gauss, and 20s are largely pointless, is a matter of much frustration.

I've toyed around with an idea to bring it back so that single heavy weapons were actually threatening and boating them was not really a good idea, but I'm still not sure how much I like it. It would be interesting though, for sure (provided Gauss was ever "fixed").

[Nighthog]

I like ballistics mostly but I take out my dreamboats now and then. The dream of a swarm flying smashing into your face.

I typically go for high alpha lurms. Meaning I want to shoot as many lurms as possible in a single burst. I try to avoid streaming missiles even though you are forced to at times because heat eats at your ankles the moment you alpha too many launchers. They are mostly for fun and not too many games at a time. They don't work out too well too often, you get sour from the bad games. I still dream of that swarm smash hitting your face when you aren't expecting it.

[Doman Hugin]

In answer to your question on the stream, no AMS doesn't need a buff, it just needs to be installed.

[Yosharian]

Doman Hugin, on 05 March 2016 - 02:06 AM, said:

In answer to your question on the stream, no AMS doesn't need a buff, it just needs to be installed.

Bringing AMS means you are using tonnage that only works against certain weaponry.

Would you bring a laser that only worked in some matches and was totally useless in other ones?

No you wouldn't.

In fact it's even worse than that because even against LRMs, you often don't need AMS because there is nearby cover.

Edited by Yosharian, 05 March 2016 - 06:06 AM.

[Zibmo]

Yosharian, on 05 March 2016 - 06:05 AM, said:

Bringing AMS means you are using tonnage that only works against certain weaponry.

Would you bring a laser that only worked in some matches and was totally useless in other ones?

No you wouldn't.

In fact it's even worse than that because even against LRMs, you often don't need AMS because there is nearby cover.

I play LRMs occasionally and have a good time, usually. I almost never carry AMS. I'm not a great player. At all. But I can count on one hand the number of times I've died to LRMs in the last two years.

[Zerberus]

Wintersdark, on 04 March 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

I don't argue this.

What I object to in this is the "elite players" getting salty because they got trounced by those sub par weapons, and actively calling them unskilled and such in that match.

It's the salt that's at issue here.

I mean, it was a fairly cool view, all those LRM's constantly streaming, and without the salt I know I wouldn't have commented at all.

If It weren´t for that, I would have simply enjoyed the video as well, instead of laying out just what happened in that match

[Sandpit]

Yosharian, on 05 March 2016 - 06:05 AM, said:

Bringing AMS means you are using tonnage that only works against certain weaponry.

Would you bring a laser that only worked in some matches and was totally useless in other ones?

No you wouldn't.

In fact it's even worse than that because even against LRMs, you often don't need AMS because there is nearby cover.

if you don't want to bring it, that's great. That's your build style. It's a situational system. The same with BAP. There are instances where BAP is a "waste" of tonnage if it isn't needed.

[Zerberus]

Sandpit, on 07 March 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

if you don't want to bring it, that's great. That's your build style. It's a situational system. The same with BAP. There are instances where BAP is a "waste" of tonnage if it isn't needed.

EVERY weapon or piece of equipment is a "waste of tonnage" in at least 1 commonly encountered scenario. And that´s what the AMS -"Its so situational" crowd will likely never comprehend. They also often have no concept of supporting other teammates, which is why the don´t even consider that aspect of AMS use.

Or, to turn the point around: How useful are 4 ERLL and 5 MPL in a match where LRMs are blotting out the sky and you can´t leave cover, leaving you as easy prey for flanking light mechs, as well as the mediums and heavies that are moving in while you can´t see jack becasue your head is behind a rock /in a tunnel?

I´d personally rather have 1 ton of "wasted" tonnage than 35, but to each his own

Edited by Zerberus, 07 March 2016 - 09:14 AM.

[Sandpit]

Zerberus, on 07 March 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

EVERY weapon or piece of equipment is a "waste of tonnage" in at least 1 commonly encountered scenario. And that´s what the AMS -"Its so situational" crowd will likely never comprehend. They also often have no concept of supporting other teammates, which is why the don´t even consider that aspect of AMS use.

Or, to turn the point around: How useful are 4 ERLL and 5 MPL in a match where LRMs are blotting out the sky and you can´t leave cover, leaving you as easy prey for flanking light mechs, as well as the mediums and heavies that are moving in while you can´t see jack becasue your head is behind a rock /in a tunnel?

I´d personally rather have 1 ton of "wasted" tonnage than 35, but to each his own

you and me both, and sometimes 3 tons 'wasted" if I gots me a dual ams system.

[Cy Mitchell]

Thanks for posting the videos. I have been on both sides of LRMs blotting out the sun. I do not use them and find it very frustrating when I am Tagged or NARCed and getting pelted mercilessly. However, it is nice to see that LRM have a place in the game even at higher Tiers. Since I came back to the game and started reading post in the New Player Help section I have been inundated with post about LRMs being worthless and a "no skill"weapon. Those videos showed that with skill and teamwork LRMs can be deadly. I have no more problem with LRMaggeddon than I do with Laser Vomit Alpha or Laser/Gauss Vomit Sniping.

Maybe all those Tier 1 and 2 players tell the new guys that LRMs are useless so that they will not have to sacrifice a few Medium Lasers to carry ECM, AMS and AMS ammo when they play against them someday? Wouldn't want to lower the DPS of that Laser Vomit Alpha!

[Yosharian]

I've been dropping in my NARC Raven over the past few days and basically most of the time there are no LRM users at all on my team.

[LordSkyKnight]

Oh boy. This should be a fun one to go through with a fine toothed comb.

Sandpit, on 04 March 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

and I can counter their claim
as I said, I can consistently do 5-600 damage with 1-2 kills in my lurm boats. If you call that "subpar", well that's an opinion

I can do 400 damage with a single ER large laser locust against PUGs. That doesn't mean it's a good mech, or one that I would ever consider bringing except for when I'm screwing around.

Sandpit, on 04 March 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

"Meta" or "strongest" is nothing but min/max and squeezing as much DPS out of a frame as possible. Trust me when I say that's not the "best" of anything other than the "best" amount of alpha or DPS you can get.
Yes, it'a matter of opinion. MWO "math" consists of controlled tests using the "best" weapon loadout according to a stats sheet. A lot of meta humpers are going to have hurt feelings I think when the new heat system comes into play because those players that can and do, do well in well-rounded mech builds will still shine while those who rely exclusively on that spreadsheet type info to determine "best" loadouts are probably going to be a lot saltier than usual.

Yes, You are exactly correct. The "meta" is simply what's strongest in the game currently. It's not an subjective thing. It's what wins more often than it loses. The real "meta" players are not going to be bothered or butthurt at all with the new heat system, they're simply going to find whatever the new best builds are. There is ALWAYS better or worse ways to do things in ANY GAME EVER. The sooner more people realize this the less salt there will be in internet gaming in general.

Sandpit, on 04 March 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

I don't use meta mechs. Never have. I build according to my play style, the role I want a mech to fill, and sometimes towards a mech's quirks if it fits into the previous two sections I jsut mentioned.
I do very well as do many many others I play with and against.

The "meta" mechs and builds change every patch. The builds are created by people doing exactly what you just described. Find a role you want the mech to fill. Then build the best mech to fill that role. That's how you build mechs intelligently. Some mechs and builds perform those roles better than others. And thus the "meta" is born.

Sandpit, on 04 March 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

I play against you guys and other top tier units and players in the game on a pretty regular basis. Over the years I can safely say it is VERY rare that the reason a team lost was because one side used meta mechs and the other didn't.

Even against you guys, most times I can tell our team exactly what's going to happen (your tactics are a little predictable at times ) and when they listen and coordinate, we win more often than not.

It wasn't too terribly long ago that I was in one of our Marik PUGs and we ran into a 12man of either 228 or MS (can't remember, all you big units look alike to me ) and we had are usual random mix of pilots and mechs. The other team was running to prototypical storms and twolves with a few cheetahs tossed into the mix and maybe an ebon or two.

I knew exactly what was going to happen because it's the best tactic to use for a force composition like that. (We were a 12man as well so no weight advantage) We knew they were going to come in fast and try to overwhelm early before our team could really know what hit them.

Well, we were prepared for it and after we repelled the initial push and blunted their assault they kind of fell apart because they weren't used to another team being able to coordinate against them like that. It had nothing to do with mechs or builds or even individual skill. It had to do with us not panicking because there was a top tier unit on the other side.

-MS- and 228 are HUGE units, and only the very best of them can be considered top tier at the level I'm talking about. EMP. 228 Black Watch, SJR, S RS, maybe a couple others. Those are the types of teams I'm talking about. Those are the teams that "set the meta." The rest watch and learn and try to "follow the meta." No team is unbeatable, but if you think you're going to beat the likes of those teams by just not panicking, you've got something else coming. If you'd like proof of what I'm saying, I'm sure you could get a team together and try to scrim one of them. Until you decide to do that or decide to play in MRBC or RHOD or the current MS invite and play against them and beat them regularly, you don't have a lot of "proof" for your own claims over theirs.

Sandpit, on 04 March 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

You big units get a bit lazy at times because you don't realize how much of a psychological effect the unit tag has on opposing forces. The number of times I hear "Oh, well it's (insert unit here) so we might as well give up now" is crazy.


Point being? The builds are secondary and possibly even third to tactics and teamwork. I can take any one of my builds and feel confident that I'm going to do well regardless of who I'm facing. Those "best" builds are only as good as they are because they're in the hands of top tier players on top tier teams. Feel free to watch newer and lower tier players use those same builds. You'll see a world of difference in their damage output and match scores as compared to in the hands of a more skillful player

Yes. Teamwork and individual skill mean a HUGE amount. We could take 12 flamer novas into a pug match, and as long as we don't run into another good team, we'll win. But if we do happen to run into another good team, we'll get crushed. Because our builds were bad. But If I'm going into a competitive match against people I know are extremely talented, I'm going to want to give myself the best chance of winning. At the highest level of play, the skill levels are much closer, and as such the individual builds do matter a lot more. A 5% performance difference all of a sudden means a LOT. So you pick the best mechs with the most optimized builds for those mechs, because doing anything else is reducing your chance of winning. And winning is the ultimate goal.

Also my unit has 16 pilots as of right now. Not exactly a "big unit" like you seem to think. But we do have some experience with playing at the highest level.

[LordSkyKnight]

Wintersdark, on 04 March 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

Still a sad state of today's gamers. But whatever; I'm just old and grumpy.

Agreed. Not much you can do about it other than be an example of what sportsmanship is.

Wintersdark, on 04 March 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

Yeah, nobody is arguing that. But, as you said, we aren't talking about that here. We're talking about T1 solo queue play - that has no relation at all to comp play.

There is some relation. Small adjustment to some of the best comp builds give you a mech that is highly capable of carrying games by itself. It isn't always the exact same builds, as some comp builds are built for such a specific map and game mode and team strategy that they don't translate well into the randomness of pug games. But a lot of the same build decisions can carry over into making the best PUG mech you can make.