

Why Many Mechs Are Obsolete
#1
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:07 AM
thanx to map vote a ever growing group of players is present who focuses
on close range fighting, favorizing OMFG levels of medium/small lasers mounted.
This is possible because maps can be voted
and therefor close quarter battle favorizing maps get picked by named group.
With this situation a mech who has lets say
2 balistic mounts and 4 energy mounts
cant keep up with a 7 energy mounts mech.
Back in the days without map vote there was at least a 50% chance to get a map
that made medium/far range fights likely (disliked as "meh" maps by some guys..
guess why eh?).There a 4E 2B mounts mech coud be very usefull.
But on close range maps it only counts how many medium/small lasers you can
mount, the more the better obviously.This leads to obsolete chassis that
simply cant keep up with the laser vomit.
And PGI rewarding this with map vote.Its unclear to me why they not see this oO?
#2
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:10 AM
#3
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:31 AM
The truth lies some where in the middle. Both types of fighting are viable.
#4
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:31 AM
Come on, really? All maps, potentially can be fought using close range brawlers or long range snipers. Good snipers (I am not one) know how to pick their spots well. Good Brawlers know how to maneuver to the locations to get close. Both play styles require some strategy and patience to excel.
The issue I see is the game tends to favor highly specialized setups, 100% Long range or 100% short Brawlers. Setting your mech up the way lore intended with a mix of short, medium and long range weapons, usually finds you at a disadvantage, to those that maxed out one or the other. (I know there are some that can make the mixed bag work, but you guys are the exception).
#5
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:35 AM
#6
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:37 AM
Maps are not the reason. Terra Therma is awful not because it's hot...it's because it's designed poorly (except ironically for Conquest). Tourmaline is just as hot and still a very good map.
#7
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:39 AM
terra therma long range sniping with brawl rushes to finish, favors medium-long range ballistics and limited laser setup.
desert, again same as above.
river city, again same as above but this time all lasers are viable because its not mordor
frozen city, again same as above
polar highlands, again same as above
alpine peaks, long range ballistics and lasers.
grim plexus, same as above.
caustic valley, lurms and brawling
crimson strait, mix of everything
canyon, mix of everything
hpg, depends on tactic but generally anything but lurms go
viridian bog, mix of everything
mining collective, brawling
forest colony, mix of everything.
out of 14 maps only 2 favor brawling, 5 are generally open to all playstyles and 7 are goddamn sniping fests...
Its not maps.
Also 2 ballistic and 4 energy?? yea pretty bad for heavy(but still you can do some nice **** with that k2...), but decent enough medium and hell 2erml 2 uac10 is what im running on my hunchback IIc and i outdo novas everytime.
Even on mentioned k2, its 2 uac5, 4 mlas with std or you can put xl and upgrade 2 to llas, or go 2ac10 4mlas, or drop ballstics and go 4 llas. Certainly it cant compete at brawl but in sniping it eats 7e boats due to hardpoint placement.
if you want to blame something start with original art, cause it dictated ingame design.
Orion looks pretty much like it did in tt, so its big boxymech with low placed weapons. Low hardpoints prevent it from sniping and being big and boxy prevents it from brawling. It was obsolete the moment it showed up in the game as even phract managed to outdo it at brawling and phract isnt either small or got good hardpoint placement either, so again no wonder it was replaced by quirked thunderbolt and black knight.
Edited by davoodoo, 26 July 2016 - 11:50 AM.
#8
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:48 AM
FupDup, on 26 July 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:
Sometime they help but some are unfixable. I don't care what you do to a Yugo, it is still a Yugo.
http://content.time....1972071,00.html
Just buy a new car, it will save a lot of heartache.
#9
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:51 AM
Tell the splatapult I saw doing a suicide rush this morning on Alpine that map voting favors his build.
#10
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:53 AM
#11
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:57 AM
Felio, on 26 July 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:
Tell the splatapult I saw doing a suicide rush this morning on Alpine that map voting favors his build.
He should have been patient and waited for the fight to come to him, instead of charging in because he couldn't hold his load. That's certainly not the map's fault.
#12
Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:58 AM
Tyler Valentine, on 26 July 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:
He should have been patient and waited for the fight to come to him, instead of charging in because he couldn't hold his load. That's certainly not the map's fault.
Well, yeah. We did meet in a brawl eventually. They probably would have won if he'd stayed till then. We only won by one or two kills.
#13
Posted 26 July 2016 - 01:33 PM
I'm not a fan of map voting either. I wish it was like in MW4:Mercs where you got to choose your mech after the map came up. In fact, in many servers that had a map cycle list, you actually knew what map was coming next after the current.
#14
Posted 26 July 2016 - 01:34 PM
Yeah that mentality is what people subscribe to when they can't overcome and adapt because they choose not to.
#15
Posted 26 July 2016 - 01:38 PM
Felio, on 26 July 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:
Tell the splatapult I saw doing a suicide rush this morning on Alpine that map voting favors his build.
I only get to play these 4 maps really.
#16
Posted 26 July 2016 - 01:53 PM
People love to blame PGI, but a large part of the problem come from choices that were asked for.
More choices == more problems. Less choices == more upset players. This is an issue in every game. We all forget about these issues when we are playing a different game.
#17
Posted 26 July 2016 - 01:56 PM
Deathlike, on 26 July 2016 - 11:37 AM, said:
I think you mean Assault since that's the only mode you can avoid the center completely and come out ahead.
#18
Posted 26 July 2016 - 02:06 PM
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 July 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:
I actually do mean Conquest. While the controlling the middle is important, it doesn't necessarily define the match.
#20
Posted 26 July 2016 - 02:15 PM
SHRedo, on 26 July 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:
thanx to map vote a ever growing group of players is present who focuses
on close range fighting, favorizing OMFG levels of medium/small lasers mounted.
This is possible because maps can be voted
and therefor close quarter battle favorizing maps get picked by named group.
With this situation a mech who has lets say
2 balistic mounts and 4 energy mounts
cant keep up with a 7 energy mounts mech.
Back in the days without map vote there was at least a 50% chance to get a map
that made medium/far range fights likely (disliked as "meh" maps by some guys..
guess why eh?).There a 4E 2B mounts mech coud be very usefull.
But on close range maps it only counts how many medium/small lasers you can
mount, the more the better obviously.This leads to obsolete chassis that
simply cant keep up with the laser vomit.
And PGI rewarding this with map vote.Its unclear to me why they not see this oO?
That is so funny:
The brawlers complain that "only long range $hit is voted" and the long range guys (you, i suppose?) complain that only close range maps are voted.
So which is it, then?
It actually doesn't matter, because both are ridiculously wrong.
Some maps are preferred, yes.
Crimson, HPG, Canyon.
But almost every map except terror therma is played quite frequently.
And every map has short range and long range opportunities. You only have to know how to play the game.
I play a long range build (800-1600m) 90% of the time and I get along on every map.
I get along with close range as well, although not as well as with a pure brawler, of course.
In short:
It's you, the whiners, who suck.
Not the voters.
Not the voting.
You alone.
Grow up.
Edited by Paigan, 26 July 2016 - 02:23 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users