22 replies to this topic

[Benjamin Kirsch]

I didn't want to dilute Mech the Dane's thread, so I decided to start another topic. I've been giving some thoughts to drop decks, and while I'm generally for unified drop decks, I don't think it's particularly realistic with the casual user base. Perhaps what we need is a way for both players and drop commanders to quickly describe their drop deck or what the DC is looking for from a player. I propose to break up the guidelines into two sections, Speed and Range.

Speed
Your mechs will fall into one of several speed categories that can be used to sync a wave together.

SLOW: 55-70 kph. This includes most IS assaults and some heavies, examples would be Atlas, Stalker, Jagermech.

MEDIUM: 75-90 kph. This includes most IS mediums and some heavies, examples would be Quickdraw, Griffin, XL Black Kinight, Thunderbolt.

FAST: 95+ kph. This includes most IS lights and some mediums, examples would be Firestarter, Blackjack 1X.

Range

SHORT: sub-300m optimal range. Brawler type mechs.

MEDIUM: 300-500m optimal range. Often fire support or laser vomit type mechs.

LONG: 500m+ optimal range. Usually armed with ERLL.

Then a drop commander can say I want the wave progression to be S-S-F-M (using a notable FRR DC as a reference ). Then a player can try to adjust their drop deck to suit. This is based on Speed, Range will dictate where in the lineup a player should be. Alternatively this info can be used to guide a DCs battle plan. I did use my experience with said DC to tweak my deck and play style to suit. Since I'm not much of an assault pilot, my first 2 drops were in JM6-DDs (SLOW speed and MEDIUM range). I matched speed with the assaults, and provided fire support and suppression for the Frontline from the second line. I then dropped in a fast medium to add a little weight to the 3rd wave, and then an XL Black Night for the 4th for cleanup.

This sounds better in my head, but hopefully you understand my point. Anyways, shoot the enemy in the face, and kill the turrets, cuz they killed your family.

[Val_Z]

From my perspective, all you have tried to do is legitimize any crappy drop deck someone chooses to bring, and then suggest a method for drop callers to use directing ""casuals"" with bad mechs.

The whole point of the thread was to try and remove the 'choosing bad mechs' from the casual NEW person equation. There is also another drop deck there, as well as a 'advanced' drop deck coming, for those 'casuals' who want to improve their game. If they don't want to improve, then they simply wont be reading that thread so no need to stress.

Benjamin Kirsch, on 04 March 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

I don't think it's particularly realistic with the casual user base.

Nothing is particularly realistic with the casual user base. They are either nostalgic and choose mechs via an old emotional connection, with nothing you can say getting through, or they are simply bad players (either through skill or time deficiency) and regardless of mech choice will perform poorly.

As for a method of crop calling, unless you drop call yourself, i would suggest leaving it to those that do. If you believe you can organize people and their mechs before a drop, i would encourage you to try. I certainly have, i wish you more success than i was capable of with these 'casuals'.

I was going to break down your methodology but tbh i can't be bothered. Lets just say that those mechs selected in the other thread were selected for good reason. I am usually lurking in the hub, poke me and have a chat if you would like to know more.

Now, you mention you have Jager's and lots of other mechs, so you are a veteran in my eyes. You the fall into either of these 3 categories:

1.) You have success in game and can bring whatever you like, so the other post doesn't apply to you.

2.) You are struggling and looking for ways to improve, hence you should follow MtD's post, and pay attention to the advanced drop deck when up.

3.) You believe you are category 1, however the reality is you are not and do not realize it. Hence nothing anyone (or me) can say will really help.

Just for the record, I have no idea which you fall in so i am not making accusations.

TL;DR: justifying every crappy ""casuals"" drop decks choice will not work.

[DaemonWulfe]

Lol, well stated! Yeah, we don't expect to get all to follow, but if we can get enough on board to improving, it'd be awesome to see the faction benefit from it as a whole. If, at the minimum, we can at least push towards training up new guys with all direct fire, and how to apply it in the most effective manner, it'll be a nice step forward. If that ends up being a success, who knows? Maybe we'll be on the way to an RKA Military Academy for Mechwarriors or something like that.

[nehebkau]

Sorry. (Can you tell I am Canadian?) I don't really want to try to shoehorn people into specific mech builds if the build is something that they like to play. While I understand the desire for competitive drops and the like, not everyone can drive an Abrams. Some times you have to accept that the militia fighting with you will be carrying a board with a bent nail in it rather than a rifle.

I have seen many of our brothers shining using non-standard builds and I have to believe that is due to the pilot. If we could teach awareness, target selection proper poking and movement then non-standard builds become a bit of a moot point in all but the most competitive of engagements. It also requires that those leading raids adjusting plans based on the equipment on hand. People first mechs second?

[Scurro]

nehebkau, on 07 March 2016 - 06:47 AM, said:

People first mechs second?

Dane is trying to get everyone on the same page with mechs so that drops can be more productive. Having everyone in different mechs/builds will lead to delays.

This would help maximise CW drop deck potential regardless of pilot.

Edited by Scurro, 07 March 2016 - 08:20 AM.

[nehebkau]

Scurro, on 07 March 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

Dane is trying to get everyone on the same page with mechs so that drops can be more productive. Having everyone in different mechs/builds may lead to delays as well it helps maximise the drop deck potential.

I just don't want to lose sight of what makes FRR great -- we are here for a good time and try to be open and accepting. A true space-viking doesn't need a Gucci battle-axe to fark you up -- a K-mart special battle-axe will do just fine.

[Mechronomicon]

nehebkau, on 07 March 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

A true space-viking doesn't need a Gucci battle-axe to fark you up -- a K-mart special battle-axe will do just fine.

And he could probably fark you up with a blunt stick, but as others have stated, this is about encouraging people to improve their builds in order to do better, not to be satisfied being mediocre in slap-dash machines.

[Bud Crue]

Mechronomicon, on 07 March 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

And he could probably fark you up with a blunt stick, but as others have stated, this is about encouraging people to improve their builds in order to do better, not to be satisfied being mediocre in slap-dash machines.

To that end I started a thread to try and get folks to discuss their "slap-dash" builds (see "Stormtroopers, but not quite" thread) and get their input as to why they like their builds/decks better than Dane's proposals or visa-versa.

I think what the RKA folks are doing is certainly a good idea, at least as far as the recommended deck for new players goes. My view in re the proposed "stormtrooper deck" is similar to Nebs, however in that I have lots of mechs and I have them organized the way I like them for specific maps and modes. In this specific circumstance, I have no intention of altering any of my 13 Quickdraws to make them exactly like those Dane has proposed. Yet, I am not so arrogant as to be above learning from him or anyone else as to why they prefer a specific build or specific deck over all others. That's the discussion I would like to have.

Given how important mech builds and the minutia of configurations can be to one's success on the battlefield, I think that a discussion of what mechs to bring AND WHY they are good, WHY a player likes them over others, etc. could be just as useful for helping folks get better at the game as much as actually playing them given how significant builds are to what we do.

I started off the discussion regarding the proposed 4H stormtrooper build and if I get more feed back (Dane already commented) I will move on to the other mechs in the list and compare and contrast to my variants. I think it could be very educational if others do the same.

Edited by Bud Crue, 07 March 2016 - 08:58 AM.

[Mechronomicon]

Bud Crue, on 07 March 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

To that end I started a thread to try and get folks to discuss their "slap-dash" builds (see "Stormtroopers, but not quite" thread) and get their input as to why they like their builds/decks better than Dane's proposals or visa-versa.

It's funny how quick people are to argue about Dane's helpful posts and how slow they are to make helpful posts in the first place.

Edited by Mechronomicon, 07 March 2016 - 09:32 AM.

[Jarl Dane]

nehebkau, on 07 March 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

I just don't want to lose sight of what makes FRR great -- we are here for a good time and try to be open and accepting. A true space-viking doesn't need a Gucci battle-axe to fark you up -- a K-mart special battle-axe will do just fine.

First off, having a poorly smithed Battle-Axe would have been a terrible hindrance for any Norseman on a raid. There are actually famous Viking swords renowned because they were stronger then others in their day.
https://en.m.wikiped...Ulfberht_swords

They took the best equipment they could and that is why they were successful. To argue otherwise does them a disservice, the Norsemen were not hulking idiots hitting dirty peasants with clubs and random clutter. They were a cunning and sophisticated folk.

Second of all, holy Thor. There are a million threads all over the place about what people bring or want to bring or whatever. There are multiple ones in our faction forum right now. But how many threads are there about standardized options for our faction? Until a few days ago there were none.
I am not even making anyone do anything. It says front and center in my post nothing is mandatory, I put it up as a service to our community. You don't need to fall over yourself in alarm because it exists either, as it is non-mandatory all that you need to do it ignore it. Which is all anyone needs to do that isn't interested.

You are worried this will infringe on people taking what want that it'll limit the FRR pilots, but it is the opposite. It now gives them another option, the option to standardize, something there wasn't before. It is the people rallying against it who are not friends of freedom and choice.

It is also kind of insulting that there is a thread to discuss why people like their builds better then the ones I posted. Either you do it or you don't. Like someone already said in my original topic, I can lead a horse to water but I cannot make them drink. I am sure people can come up with a million reasons why their personal dropdecks are better, and situationally, they might even be right - but that is both missing the point and obscuring my purpose.
This is about making a 12 man dropdeck, not 4 man dropdeck, it is about giving our faction the option and ability to put together a gestalt dropdeck. If some one is not interested in that, okay great, I have zero problem with that.
But to work against the principal itself is asinine, destructive, and limiting.

Finally, a battle-axe or any weapon isn't a ******* purse. And nothing about the optional decks is done for "cosmetic" purposes. If people want to bring poorly smithed unbalanced, dull and brittle axes to the fight.. I cannot stop them.
But I can at least give them the option bring well-forged axes instead.

Edited by Mech The Dane, 07 March 2016 - 10:32 AM.

[SuperAtomicAirplane]

Dane's "Stormtrooper" deck is labeled as advanced for a reason: it is designed to be used with a full team running the same deck. Stormtroopers in WW1 were soldiers that used, then unorthodox, shoot-and-move tactics to overwhelm defensive positions and break stalemates. Dane's deck consists of 4 fast moving heavies that can put out big time damage very quickly; 3 of which have JJ's to make the most use of any terrain. The idea is that a full team running this deck can overwhelm enemies through speed and raw damage.

As of now Dane's deck remains untested because we have not been able to put together 12 guys that want to run it. Dane and I have been running it with mixed teams, but the deck's advantages can't be forced in those situations. The mechs are very fast, but if 3 or 4 guys decide to being slow LRM boats or Maulers or King Crabs, that speed advantage has already been negated by our own team. There is no point in bringing fast Mechs when you have to constantly wait for the slow 60 kph Atlas to drag his butt to the fight.

If more people get on board and we can actually run this deck in a 12 man, then we will have an accurate picture of whether or not it works. Until then, there's no point in arguing against it.

[Bud Crue]

Not sure why all the heat above.

As for me, I am asking questions in what I see as the same spirit as Dane's original post. I want to learn and get better, and am trying to understand WHY those specific builds are the ideal (or whatever) WHY that specific order of mechs, WHY those particular variants, etc. This seems to be an intuitive and necessary part of learning how to make intelligent build decisions.

I felt that asking these sorts of questions might lead to an interesting discussion of builds and help others in the faction, particularly new folks, get some guidance for building there own mechs.

I guess that is not the case.

[Jarl Dane]

Bud Crue, on 07 March 2016 - 10:32 AM, said:

Not sure why all the heat above.

The resistance to something which is utterly optional is frustrating.
Maybe that isn't directed at you, so much Bud, but this is: you have 13 QuickDraws, and no interest in trying out our experiment, but a burning desire to dissect it. Sorry but that comes across poorly.

[DaemonWulfe]

Why is an excellent question, and I'm glad to see this asked. For starters, the Quickdraw is an extremely agile and fast heavy able to field an impressive load out of direct fire weaponry. It's agility allows the end-user to spread damage effectively across components. The quirks available to Quickdraw variants allows for relatively easy heat management, which in turn allows the team to keep sustained fire for longer periods of time.

When firing lines are established, the relatively high weapon mounts allow the Quickdraw to hill hump, and the 4G LPL build allows excellent right-side firing when popping in and out of cover.

In a team setting, the Quickdraws are able to quickly set up firing lines, and when needed, provides the entire team the ability to quickly relocate their lines as the battle unfolds. With the proper use of terrain and timing, a solid line of Quickdraws should be able to shoot down a charging team of brawlers in seconds, with the initial targets dropping almost instantaneously with the requisite level of firing line discipline.

[nehebkau]

Mechronomicon, on 07 March 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

It's funny how quick people are to argue about Dane's helpful posts and how slow they are to make helpful posts in the first place.

It's not that -- you misunderstand. His builds are great for CW, I use them and I would direct anyone new to CW to the thunderbolt builds. However, someone must be the voice of caution lest we become exclusionary.

[Bud Crue]

Mech The Dane, on 07 March 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

The resistance to something which is utterly optional is frustrating.
Maybe that isn't directed at you, so much Bud, but this is: you have 13 QuickDraws, and no interest in trying out our experiment, but a burning desire to dissect it. Sorry but that comes across poorly.

Couple things.

On your original thread it was made pretty clear that you and yours didn't want to discuss reasons or options for the specific builds or decks. Cool. So, like the OP here I started my own thread to have those discussions. I can't speak for the OP's intentions, but my own are indeed academic. I want to learn. I don't care about why someone just likes something or considers something optimal or even merely better unless they can tell me WHY. That is what I had hoped to discuss.

As to my mentioning of my collection of Quickdraws it was intended to illustrate that there are many ways to build a mech and that I want to know WHY you or anyone else insist on only those builds you put forth as being proper for the stormtrooper deck. Many of my builds are a just a bit different than those you proposed. But since you didn't want to discuss particulars on your thread I started my own to have those discussions.

Look at the example on the thread I started I described and posted my 4H. I would love to run it as part of your proposed stormtrooper deck, I have no idea if I can though. So I thought perhaps I would put it out there for criticism and discussion. I was glad you responded, but rather than give me any insight as to why you preferred your build over mine, you proposed a third build. "This is Great!" I thought, now lets discuss WHY either of your builds are preferred. Alas. I guess not. But this does segue nicely to another point:

If your original builds are the only builds suitable for the stormtrooper deck, so be it. I'm cool with it. I have in no way shape or form criticized the idea other than to ask some WHYs about it. Now I am in the awkward position: what am I or others supposed to make of the above? On my thread you seem to be indicating there is some wiggle room with the builds, but here and on your original post, questioning is apparently not allowed or something you are now strangely insulted by!
I don't want to insult anybody, I just want to know If I can run your "stormtrooper" tag with my slightly different builds, and I don't know how to have that discussion without describing my builds...that you now say you are insulted by!

Sorry, but the more I wrote, the more this situation just seems absurd. Again, I am sorry for asking questions about this stuff. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Daemon, thanks for the thoughful response. Much appreciated.

Edited by Bud Crue, 07 March 2016 - 11:38 AM.

[habu86]

nehebkau, on 07 March 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

It's not that -- you misunderstand. His builds are great for CW, I use them and I would direct anyone new to CW to the thunderbolt builds. However, someone must be the voice of caution lest we become exclusionary.

Here's the thing though. Dane's decks (especially the Stormtrooper deck) aren't about being exclusionary. They are about establishing certain qualifications that people can choose to meet or not meet. It's kind of like a Special Forces tab. If you want one, apply for selection, pass said selection and training, and you get your SF tab and get to go to all those places you can't talk about. But you HAVE to meet the criteria.

If you don't want to do that, that's fine too, just understand that there will be things you won't be called on for, because you will not be able to bring the minimum required contribution to the team. All there is to it.

Edited by habu86, 07 March 2016 - 11:31 AM.

[DaemonWulfe]

It's good to know why, so I see where you're coming from. That's where teaching "theory" comes into play. I learned the majority of the "theory" from reading Gman's metamechs website (read through the articles as well as examining the builds) and through watching videos of competitive teams (from the best to the worst). We also have egg-heads who can crunch the numbers and vet builds for optimized punch and fire sustainability.

We also have a small team of mechwrights who dedicate spare time to testing builds for effectiveness, checking every detail from hard point locations, mech geometry, heat/damage output, to current quirks available. Much of what has been suggested has been through extensive examination and debate before presenting it to the community. The Stormtrooper deck it's self contains mechs that have been proven effective under dynamic circumstances. The Quickdraw 4G and 5K, for example, have been proven to be excellent choices even before The Quirkening.

To allay the fears of becoming exclusive, the experiment overall is to see how well the general population of the FRR can be trained. There are always going to be those pilots who want to cling to their LRMs as a crutch. What we're attempting to do here is provide an avenue for those pilots who wish to improve their experience with community warfare beyond a casual setting. With two seasons of community warfare under our belts, we've learned that the casual approach can be an extremely frustrating endeavor. We know for a fact that the next team of enemies can be organized or skittles, chock full of noobs or against a professional fighting force. Because of this uncertainty, we want to ensure our organized elements have the best possible chance to succeed. It really hasn't been tried on this level before, so we'll need a significant level of support to achieve our goals.

We also have to fight two perceptions that have solidified throughout the lower skill pilots, the belief that "meta" (optimized configurations) are only for "try-hards" and that organized teamwork kills the fun factor. In reality, optimized builds should be encouraged! The system provided to us for mech customization is extremely versatile, but that can lead to some hilariously bad builds. Fortunately, we have excellent members in our community that can provide the knowledge to help us prevent wasting c-bills and matches, and that system of customizing mechs is always there for tweaking as balance changes are made.

How do we change the perception that teamwork kills fun? That's actually easier when you can see it in action. When you get a full team of pilots dedicated to murdering the enemy with extreme prejudice, you'll notice the fun factor increase dramatically! Have you ever been on a team of skittles and felt that fear hit when you see a bunch of KCOM? Imagine what it would be like if you had a system that could possibly train your friends up to that level. Instead of fear you will feel excitement at the challenge presented before you. Anything less than that becomes easy money. Even if you lose a match, if you make that fight as hard as possible and still lose, you should still walk away satisfied that the other team couldn't just roll over you.

Some of those pro level teams will also appreciate a good hard fight. I've had the honor of dropping with some really good teams, some active in the competitive scene. I've noticed in their casual conversations they actually get bored with fighting ransoms all day.

At the core though, we'll need a strong, unified approach to help make this work. I hope no one feels like their suggestions aren't wanted. If the end result is you like what you see, feel free to help us promote the agenda. The more people who participate, the more attractive the idea will be for the people who are reluctant to try. For example, we could use a couple dozen pilots who are willing to try out some full drop decks, and run several matches over a period of time to help familiarize and build synergy between the team and their equipment. Doing this on our FRR hub will attract attention from others who are LFG, and gives us the opportunity to spread the vision.

If it takes off and becomes a wild success, we could very well be the first faction to dedicate a system to training up a fully functional, organized military presence within the MWO platform. So, in essence you don't just receive an FRR logo with your contract upon signing up. You get an entire faction dedicated to creating graves for those who wish to challenge our presence. As the faction that has become the punching bag for organized units that roll clan, we would do very well to make sure that all who choose our faction roll into battle with the best knowledge and equipment available.

[crustydog]

Standardized dropdecks are not a new initiative so much as a guideline. A standard is established as a waypoint in part to help you define how far you are deviating from the standard.

We use recommended standards designed to fit into the tactics our drop commanders use on the various maps and scenarios. The standards are not written in stone, and they tend to change as the tactics on the battlefields change.

The thing is the standards, when applied, give the drop commanders more available options in terms of tactics that are likely to succeed. Many of you have faced the famous Night Scorn and 228 tactic of the light mech legging rush with arty equipped Firestarters or Arctic Cheetahs.... and you know just how devastating that can be when applied in the right scenarios. It does not work well in all scenarios. Meeting this standard means you have one of these mechs elited out, appropriately camoed, fully armed, consumables equipped and waiting in your mechbay, so that if the drop commander calls for this option, you can quickly swap this mech into your drop deck.

Recently NKVA has developed a standard for defending The Vitric Forge using jumping Grasshopper heavy mechs, and their entire team camps on top of the building between the gates, perfectly positioned to react to whatever move your team makes. It is a highly effective tactic that is difficult to counter, only made possible through using a standardized deck. This is the kind of thing I am referring to in terms of drop commander tactical options.

Speed of your mechs is another factor. At MS, we tend to focus our standards around deploying mechs in each wave of the drop that are following a fairly uniform speed. Looking at the Rift, for example, a hot map with a short distance for the defenders drop zone, and a long walk for the attackers. If the defending drop commander is intending to stay in the base, a wave of dakka assault mechs is preferred. If he is going out to ambush, then perhaps faster dakka heavies are called for. You can also do the light mech rush here. For the attacking commander, dakka assaults can be used, but the commander needs to know it can take upwards of five minutes just to group up those mechs and get them to the gates. You don't want to be leaving those assault mechs for the last wave of that attack.

Now, if four warriors come in Dire Wolves, while the rest are in heavies, it means that the commander cannot take full advantage of the speed offered by those heavies. If a push is called for, inevitably the group is going to become strung out, and usually destroyed piecemeal while the assaults fall behind. This means at any point in the battle, your unit is usually not bringing the full strength of it's firepower and armor to bear at the same time, so you are forgoing your maximum strength, and not yielding the maximum results.

Standards are as much about improving your score, and your earnings, as they are about giving your drop commanders greater flexibility in terms of available tactical options. If the drop commander knows he is equipped with 12 mechs of similar speed and weapons loadouts, then he or she can take advantage of battlefield opportunities that might otherwise not be available. If the commander knows his troops have additional mechs with specialized loadouts waiting in their mechbays, ready to roll, then the commander can switch tactics on the fly based on the scenario that is facing the team.

This is exactly the sort of thing that promotes victory against the more experienced teams, and it is something you need to do, because that is exactly what they are already doing. It gives you an edge on the battlefield, just as the FRR pugs gain an edge by dropping on the same channel on the FRR teamspeak hub.

[MischiefSC]

The difference between synergy and 'bring what you're good at' is significant. It gets even more significant as the personal skill of the players involved increases.

The entire point of a synergy team deck is unified speed and performance envelope. That's a big advantage; it's why a Clan push can overrun an IS line that may out-ton it by 30% or more. Mobility tactics, repositioning, flanking, all these things involve getting the right tools in place at the right time. If one person is 20% slower than the others he's not going to arrive at the same time. He's going to be out of position for the whole transition unless the whole group slows up 20%.

You see this even more on bigger pushes; the whole line stretches out and becomes very vulnerable.

Firepower envelope is another important factor. If the DC knows the performance ranges of his team he can easily see potential issues and how to address them. If he calls on Charlie to move up the right flank and suppress but actually only 2 of them end up with weapons that range beyond 300m effectively then Charlie can not do the job he needs done. If he calls Alpha to sweep the ramp but that Atlas in Alpha is an XL with LRMs, again. Same issue.

In theory you can have all 12 people go over their drop-decks with the DC and have him try to memorize the setup for 48 completely different mechs but that's not realistic. A synergy deck where the DC knows the speed and performance envelopes of his team and can make and practice strategies around that is, quiet simply, superior to a 'bring what you like/are good at' deck. If you want to argue that you'd need to explain how all of competitive play is wrong which, again, isn't going to happen.

It's not about making someone feel threatened for not running meta or the like. It's a game, play what you want.

If you want to take it to the next level though a synergy deck is it. That's the next level of coordination and it's superior to how we all generally play. If you don't want to do that then great. Again, a game, play it how you enjoy. Some of us enjoy winning and improving and learning new skills and how to use new tools. That IS the fun part. Getting better at winning. A good synergy deck does that.