132 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

After helping a new player try and learn the game, we came across an issue, and I quote, "These Champion builds suck" was his exact words. And you know what, he's right. This time, we have no one else to blame but ourselves.

There are many issues with the current champion builds, and their concepts. For the most part they just are not "new player friendly". For more depth:

1- They all follow the meta, be it one from the past or even the current meta. Sure, there is nothing wrong with meta's and their use. However, most metas reward experienced players more than they do new players.

2- They incorporate advanced piloting mechanics. I know you all think this will help "teach them" those mechanics, but not really. Until they learn or are told about those tactics, they don't utilize it and thus new players become frustrated. New players need mechs that are forgiving, not specialized focused mechs that shield side/arm and utilize XL engines and "spreading damage". Most new players are concerned with just moving their mechs around and keeping their targeting crosshairs on target (or in other words "staring down their targets").

3- They are competitive builds. Now, there is nothing wrong with competitive play and competitive builds. They are great builds in the hands of experienced players. However, as point 2 references, the players who are mostly going to use the Trial (and thus the Champion) mechs are going to be new players. Any player with 6+ mechs probably will have no need for the trial mechs any longer, and probably wont play with them. So, why are we building the champion mechs for more advanced players? Shouldn't they be geared for new players to learn on?

4- Some Champion mechs have very diverse builds in weapon count, or super focused builds (as in, a single weapon type). This can often lead new players into situations where they feel "useless", and thus frustrated. Too many different weapons can lead to confusion. Too focused of a build can lead to frustration when unable to do anything because "I can't snipe/brawl/etc". They need to be builds that are diverse in what they can do, yet focused enough that they can do something "well enough".


I'll present some examples:
- The old Champion Stalker. Anyone remember that? The LRM based one with an XL engine? People decried it as a horrible champion mech, and I have to agree. One of it's largest grievances was it's XL engine. In an experienced players hands, they can rotate that damage from one side torso to the other without to much difficulty. In a "stare the opponent down" new player... that XL led to a very quick and painful defeat. (This was PGI, but was a Meta at one point.)

- The new Crab build. It's a Crab with an XL engine. This is a mech known for having larger side torsos, much like the Stalker. It's reasonable with an XL engine, if you know what you are doing and how to roll damage around a bit. It's also easy to roll damage around. However, a new player will "stare" their opponents down, so this is not very conductive to their survival. Not to mention, all the weapons are on one side of the mech, to provide a "shield arm". The Crab is not known for arms that shield well at all. This will lead to greater frustration if a new player gets paired off with a more experienced player, who can (if they choose) to shoot off that one arm, leaving the new player frustrated with only a third of their weapons remaining (though thankfully a single LPL is still a reasonable threat). More than likely, any semi-experienced player will just aim for a single side torso, and get the quick kill. (Do recall, all trial mechs will have that (C) next to their name. If it's got a (C) in it's name, it's probably a trial mech. Aim for it's known weak spots. AKA: Everyone will know how to kill the trial mech quickly.)

- The new Panther. Great mech design for more experienced players. However, with them being standard PPCs and not ERPPCs... New players will cram themselves within the 90m minimum range, and.... wonder why they aren't doing damage. Two LPLs or two ERPPCs may have been a better selection here... Even 2 LLs with additional heat sinks, or an SRM4/6 launcher in the chest. I also see the "lose the weapon arm" weakness with this build, which can also lead to new player frustration.

- The new Zeus Champion. Not bad for an experienced player, but is an assault with an XL engine. I'd like to remind that new players don't "twist" to distribute damage around. They tend to stare down their opponents until one of them are dead.


To be honest, it seems more like the Champion builds are acting a bit more like a popularity contest than actually "what would new players need". The builds presented are often good builds, but not what a new player needs to learn this game. Setting them up to "teach" them skills with a build is setting a new player up for failure. Shield siding is a great tactic, but setting up champion mechs that way will set up new players (who will stare opponents down) to frustration and failure. Placing an XL engine in a mech known for larger side torsos (Stalker, Crab, King Crab, Atlas, etc), is setting a new player up for a very quick death.

A new player needs versatile builds, something that is "always going to be useful", but has a delicate focus so that they "are stronger still in this situation". They need forgiving builds that don't involve advanced piloting skills and tactics to survive, but that can launch them into those more advanced concepts as they grow.

Build mechs not with advanced piloting concepts, but with advanced building concepts. Such as Artemis if you have SSRMs to have increased lock on speeds. AP as well for SSRMs to cut through ECM (unless it is an ECM mech). If it has LRMs, place a TAG in there as well. Etc. These are things new players can learn from seeing how the champion builds are. Learning to twist damage by having a champion build with a shield side? Not so much.


Lets face it. How many "experienced" players use trial mechs? We require trial mechs that are "newb" friendly. If the community is voting for these builds, than we need to consider these facts when we present options and decide to cast our votes. In this, I think we all have failed.

[FupDup]

Tesunie, on 20 September 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

...
1- They all follow the meta, be it one from the past or even the current meta. Sure, there is nothing wrong with meta's and their use. However, most metas reward experienced players more than they do new players.
...

You mean like the STD engine Commando or the Raven with 50% leg armor?

Most of the champion builds are trash. Not as trash as their 3025 equivalents, but still trash nevertheless.

[Deathlike]

Tesunie, on 20 September 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

I'll present some examples:
- The old Champion Stalker. Anyone remember that? The LRM based one with an XL engine? People decried it as a horrible champion mech, and I have to agree. One of it's largest grievances was it's XL engine. In an experienced players hands, they can rotate that damage from one side torso to the other without to much difficulty. In a "stare the opponent down" new player... that XL led to a very quick and painful defeat. (This was PGI, but was a Meta at one point.)

LRMs have NEVER been a meta... unless you call the exploitation during the Festivius of Artemis.

Stalkers and XL are a bad design, no matter how you try to justify it. It's like running an XL on an Atlas... bad players don't know how often they lose a side torso (usually the same players that don't remove a side torso of an Atlas on a consistent basis).

Quote

- The new Crab build. It's a Crab with an XL engine. This is a mech known for having larger side torsos, much like the Stalker. It's reasonable with an XL engine, if you know what you are doing and how to roll damage around a bit. It's also easy to roll damage around. However, a new player will "stare" their opponents down, so this is not very conductive to their survival. Not to mention, all the weapons are on one side of the mech, to provide a "shield arm". The Crab is not known for arms that shield well at all. This will lead to greater frustration if a new player gets paired off with a more experienced player, who can (if they choose) to shoot off that one arm, leaving the new player frustrated with only a third of their weapons remaining (though thankfully a single LPL is still a reasonable threat). More than likely, any semi-experienced player will just aim for a single side torso, and get the quick kill. (Do recall, all trial mechs will have that (C) next to their name. If it's got a (C) in it's name, it's probably a trial mech. Aim for it's known weak spots. AKA: Everyone will know how to kill the trial mech quickly.)

To my understanding, using the arms to shield is a bad thing for this mech, so minimum torso twisting is required here.

Quote

- The new Panther. Great mech design for more experienced players. However, with them being standard PPCs and not ERPPCs... New players will cram themselves within the 90m minimum range, and.... wonder why they aren't doing damage. Two LPLs or two ERPPCs may have been a better selection here... Even 2 LLs with additional heat sinks, or an SRM4/6 launcher in the chest. I also see the "lose the weapon arm" weakness with this build, which can also lead to new player frustration.

I should remind you that PGI still ends up picking the mechs, and there probably was a vote... I think that the people that vote honestly don't understand who they gear this stuff to.

Then again, it's a Panther... a mech a new player SHOULD NOT BE USING ANYWAYS. It's just a selling point for mechpacks or whatnot for PGI.

Quote

- The new Zeus Champion. Not bad for an experienced player, but is an assault with an XL engine. I'd like to remind that new players don't "twist" to distribute damage around. They tend to stare down their opponents until one of them are dead.

The problem though is that there's very few Zeus builds that use a STD engine (I have one built, and it's a laservomit/non-meta compliant build) and the only way to make it effective is with an XL. It's more of a chicken or the egg problem and PGI is unlikely to redo the Champion mech variant.

ZEU-9S

Note that the problem then becomes torso twisting again as you want to use the "shield" side. So, again, it won't change the issue you're presenting.


I would argue that it is very difficult to put builds in some variants that naturally need help such as a Commando that doesn't involve the player to have learned something about piloting a mech. The "meta" builds are optimal usually in that they already have the "built in advantages" (including durability) that a new player benefits and that trying to fit them in sub-optimal mechs and mech variants w/o balancing them properly will inevitably get them killed faster anyways.

TTK isn't just about mech building, but also about skills. If you are the kind of player that walks around the corner and gets double or triple teamed immediately (and you're going by yourself), then no form of TTK boosting will improve your situation.


Some of the builds, you can blame... but some of the mechs and mech variants in question have further underlying issues that cause them to be less than effective from the offset regardless of your skill... and for good players... it would be considered a "handicap".

That is the core basic issue with balance in this game... not so much about the builds.

[JediPanther]

I still blame pgi not people who said use build X because in the end it is pgi who decides what goes on the trial mechs. The only real use of trial mechs is one simple fact: any mech xp you get stays on that variant of mech which allows you to have one less mech xp-ed out without having to spend the c-bills or mc on it first. This in theory will let you mech xp out a mech if you are patient enough to wait for the next variant of the mech to rotate as a trial. I normally just play a mech until l I have the roughly 44,000 mech xp needed to basic and elite it or at least long enough to get the all important speed tweek.

[Mechteric]

Personally I'd prefer they get rid of Trials and add in a Mech rental system, whereby you can make full changes to a stock mech in the Mech Lab, and only pay either a flat fee per day or a percentage of each match's earnings to keep using it.

Then if you decide to end the rental, you keep whatever equipment you purchased to put on the Mech and maybe a percentage refund of any Ferro/Endo/Artemis upgrades/downgrades that were made.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 20 September 2016 - 12:00 PM.

[KodiakGW]

Agree with your assessment OP. We need good all purpose loadouts. Does the new champion HBK-IIC need that much ammo, and one JJ? To me, it seems more like players are suggesting builds so they can easily troll new players.

Why do I think that? Not tin foil. I've been playing an alt account a bit lately and decided to focus on SCats. Now, the trial mech has two large pluse lasers on the right side. Not taking advantage of the free extra armor on the ECM torso. What I noticed is that the few times I stopped to take shots, that some enemies take a shot at my rear right torso, instead of the CT rear kill shot. Which, if I was running the trial loadouts, would have stripped me. And, it's always players who seem to have really good builds and do really well in them (like 6 SPL ACH instead of the trial one, doing 600+ damage).

[Rock Roller]

I got to say that the OP is right. Maybe the plan needs a review. I use a lot of the build technics on Metal Mechs now. That being said the 1st 6 months I played it needed simple 2 or max three weapon options that were durable and heat safe.

[Deathlike]

KodiakGW, on 20 September 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

Agree with your assessment OP. We need good all purpose loadouts. Does the new champion HBK-IIC need that much ammo, and one JJ? To me, it seems more like players are suggesting builds so they can easily troll new players.

No.

The build is well-meaning.. although personally I'd shave a bit of ammo and put that towards the engine.

The build is functional, but the problem is most new players would be too scared to engage (the side torso ammo is too much and any ammo explosion due to not using that bit up will reduce TTK quickly enough).

Examples:
HBK-IIC(C)

HBK-IIC(C)

I don't think CERMEDs are ideal, and would prefer CSPL, but again.. this would be a personal preference.

Quote

Why do I think that? Not tin foil. I've been playing an alt account a bit lately and decided to focus on SCats. Now, the trial mech has two large pluse lasers on the right side. Not taking advantage of the free extra armor on the ECM torso. What I noticed is that the few times I stopped to take shots, that some enemies take a shot at my rear right torso, instead of the CT rear kill shot. Which, if I was running the trial loadouts, would have stripped me. And, it's always players who seem to have really good builds and do really well in them (like 6 SPL ACH instead of the trial one, doing 600+ damage).

The ECM torso tends to get shot off, despite that.

This again is a build preference deal... where it probably is better for the new player to have the lasers on the arms (ideally with arm articulation), but the entire deal comes with tradeoffs.


The Trial ACH is OK, but I like CSPL far more than CSL and would obviously prefer a CSPL ACH Trial... but again that comes with the tradeoff of less DHS. This comes back to it being a preference thing.

These issues as I see them are really just minor nitpicks, and not a core issue.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 September 2016 - 12:19 PM.

[Tesunie]

FupDup, on 20 September 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

You mean like the STD engine Commando or the Raven with 50% leg armor?

Most of the champion builds are trash. Not as trash as their 3025 equivalents, but still trash nevertheless.

Was that back when R&R was in the game? Or before the Raven became "Thunderthighs"?

I'm just advising that some mechs really could use certain gear to make them more new player friendly. If it's a mech that, though it may roll damage easily, takes damage easily to specific parts (Side torsos), that certain concepts (XL engines) probably are not "new player friendly" in it's design concept. When creating/proposing/voting on champion builds, we of the community really should consider these points.

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

LRMs have NEVER been a meta... unless you call the exploitation during the Festivius of Artemis.

Stalkers and XL are a bad design, no matter how you try to justify it. It's like running an XL on an Atlas... bad players don't know how often they lose a side torso (usually the same players that don't remove a side torso of an Atlas on a consistent basis).

They've had their moments, and some LRM designs have become "meta" to some extent. At one time, the Griffin 3M was considered a Meta LRM mech, as an LRM skirmisher. Then LRMs got changes, ECM got changes, AMS got changes, Radar Dep was added in, etc...

I've never used XLs in my Stalkers. I'm hard pressed to place an XL into any assault mech (though some get it). When you die by side torso, so much armor and possible damage lost.

However, I'm not going to bash what may work for some people. But for new players? Yeah. I think you agree where I'm going here...

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

To my understanding, using the arms to shield is a bad thing for this mech, so minimum torso twisting is required here.

I know, which is why I kinda don't understand why it has a dead arm. I would have placed the LPLs one on each arm instead, and maybe downgrade the engine a bit to fit it in with full armor. (The Crab can actually have a little less than full armor on the arms, for your exact stated reasons.) Combine that dead arm and weapons on one side with an XL... You can't even effectively shield anyway...

I feel a STD engine Crab would have been a much better trial/starter mech. More forgiving, and if they do figure out and learn to twist damage, than they get extra benefit from the mech. Instead of that skill being a "must have" to pilot the XL Crab effectively... (And there were a lot of STD engine designed proposed.)

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

I should remind you that PGI still ends up picking the mechs, and there probably was a vote... I think that the people that vote honestly don't understand who they gear this stuff to.

Then again, it's a Panther... a mech a new player SHOULD NOT BE USING ANYWAYS. It's just a selling point for mechpacks or whatnot for PGI.

PGI picks the mech chassis, the players create and propose builds on any variant of that chassis to other players to vote on. The mech post with the highest total amount of likes on it wins.

As far as the Panther... It's a light mech. But even then I know of several builds I'd recommend over the 2 PPC version we got. 2LLs and an SRM rack would have been nice. Some Panthers can even fit in two SRM racks, such as my 8Z, which has 1 LLs, 1 ML, 1 SRM4 and 1 SRM2 (better spread, less chance of losing all CT weapons to crits).

I do want to note, I'm not saying the Champion builds are "bad", just that they aren't "New player friendly".

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

The problem though is that there's very few Zeus builds that use a STD engine (I have one built, and it's a laservomit/non-meta compliant build) and the only way to make it effective is with an XL. It's more of a chicken or the egg problem and PGI is unlikely to redo the Champion mech variant.

ZEU-9S

Note that the problem then becomes torso twisting again as you want to use the "shield" side. So, again, it won't change the issue you're presenting.


I would argue that it is very difficult to put builds in some variants that naturally need help such as a Commando that doesn't involve the player to have learned something about piloting a mech. The "meta" builds are optimal usually in that they already have the "built in advantages" (including durability) that a new player benefits and that trying to fit them in sub-optimal mechs and mech variants w/o balancing them properly will inevitably get them killed faster anyways.

TTK isn't just about mech building, but also about skills. If you are the kind of player that walks around the corner and gets double or triple teamed immediately (and you're going by yourself), then no form of TTK boosting will improve your situation.


Some of the builds, you can blame... but some of the mechs and mech variants in question have further underlying issues that cause them to be less than effective from the offset regardless of your skill... and for good players... it would be considered a "handicap".

That is the core basic issue with balance in this game... not so much about the builds.

The Zeus would be a hard one to make into a good new player friendly design. It probably would be forced to shield side some, or take a very generalistic build design due to hard point variety. I probably would have recommended the one with 3 missile hardpoints in the arm (or at least two). Load up with some SRMs/LRMs (LRMs are reasonably new player friendly) and some LLs.

I do agree that some mechs will just be harder to work with. I believe though that what might not work for one person may be a little gem for another player. (Such as the Adder as a good current example. I'm loving my Adders at the moment, as I repurchased them. Trying to recall why I sold the one I had bought before hand...)

JediPanther, on 20 September 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

I still blame pgi not people who said use build X because in the end it is pgi who decides what goes on the trial mechs. The only real use of trial mechs is one simple fact: any mech xp you get stays on that variant of mech which allows you to have one less mech xp-ed out without having to spend the c-bills or mc on it first. This in theory will let you mech xp out a mech if you are patient enough to wait for the next variant of the mech to rotate as a trial. I normally just play a mech until l I have the roughly 44,000 mech xp needed to basic and elite it or at least long enough to get the all important speed tweek.

PGI has long since changed Champion build construction over to the community. It's now done on a voting system. PGI says there will be a new champion mech on X mech chassis, and the players create the builds on said chassis but any variant of that chassis. Then, the players post those builds onto the webside in a dedicated thread, and then the one with the most likes on it get added into the game.

PGI did this a while ago when everyone complained about how bad some of the champion builds PGI created where. So now, we can't exactly blame PGI if a champion build is bad (by our considerations).

As far as experience, there is currently (to my knowledge) no mech chassis with more than one champion variant. You also need to personally own the mech to be able to unlock any skills on it. This can be good to skill a mech you don't wish to own 3 variants on and wish to sell 1 or 2 other variants (keeping the one you want to keep for Masters). You can then gain experience on the Champion, but that variant, skill it up, and then sell it without having to modify the chassis at all (saving your C-bills in the end).

[Tesunie]

KodiakGW, on 20 September 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

Agree with your assessment OP. We need good all purpose loadouts. Does the new champion HBK-IIC need that much ammo, and one JJ? To me, it seems more like players are suggesting builds so they can easily troll new players.

Why do I think that? Not tin foil. I've been playing an alt account a bit lately and decided to focus on SCats. Now, the trial mech has two large pluse lasers on the right side. Not taking advantage of the free extra armor on the ECM torso. What I noticed is that the few times I stopped to take shots, that some enemies take a shot at my rear right torso, instead of the CT rear kill shot. Which, if I was running the trial loadouts, would have stripped me. And, it's always players who seem to have really good builds and do really well in them (like 6 SPL ACH instead of the trial one, doing 600+ damage).

Although I don't wish to believe it, I'd suspected some of this may be getting attempted. However, I'd like to say that, being anyone in the community can vote for these designs, that enough people would see through the smoke and pick designs that they actually feel would be worth while to a new player.

What influences those players votes, I can't say. I can still recall when I was a new player and how I use to play back then. I continue to try and help new players as they join my unit (and in the game in general) and I hear what they have to say and observe how they are piloting. I can only guide someone so far, but if the builds aren't forgiving enough...


As Deathlike stated, there is merit to the design choices. Though I'd rather see a SCat trial with LPLs one on each arm (to prevent all weapon loss with the destruction of one component) if possible, it having an arm mount location helps with getting damage on target. BUT, I would counter this with the fact that new players start off with arm lock on by default, meaning that torso mounted weapons would be safer for the same effectiveness, at least until they figure out (or someone tells them) to turn off arm lock and give that a try...

[Bobzilla]

I personally think a new player is going to do better in a better made mech. All trials shouldn't be brawlers nor all long range.

This game rewards specializing, so good mechs are that. Sticking a new player in a underperforming mixed mech just adds to the learning curve and frustration of sucking at first.

All in all, there should be tons of trials to choose from so this isn't even a conversation.

[Deathlike]

Tesunie, on 20 September 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

They've had their moments, and some LRM designs have become "meta" to some extent. At one time, the Griffin 3M was considered a Meta LRM mech, as an LRM skirmisher. Then LRMs got changes, ECM got changes, AMS got changes, Radar Dep was added in, etc...

They were not ever. Good enough for trolling (I did some of that), but not good enough vs good competition.

Let me repeat... "LRMs" and "meta" HAVE NEVER been in used together ever in this game.

Quote

I know, which is why I kinda don't understand why it has a dead arm. I would have placed the LPLs one on each arm instead, and maybe downgrade the engine a bit to fit it in with full armor. (The Crab can actually have a little less than full armor on the arms, for your exact stated reasons.) Combine that dead arm and weapons on one side with an XL... You can't even effectively shield anyway...

I didn't look at the build when you posted the original post... but for the build itself, it's workable. This still comes back to torso twisting (which is the crux of every good build in this game). I'm OK with the build, but outside of reworking the concept to an even distribution of weapons... there's nothing horribly wrong with it.

Quote

I feel a STD engine Crab would have been a much better trial/starter mech. More forgiving, and if they do figure out and learn to twist damage, than they get extra benefit from the mech. Instead of that skill being a "must have" to pilot the XL Crab effectively... (And there were a lot of STD engine designed proposed.)

I know there's a joke there, so I'll leave it as is.

A Crab with a Standard engine is better off with like 5 MPL because of the tonnages involved.

Still, I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with the build though.

Quote

PGI picks the mech chassis, the players create and propose builds on any variant of that chassis to other players to vote on. The mech post with the highest total amount of likes on it wins.

I'm aware... and the problem with community voting inherently is that bad players will still pick bad designs. While I like people having their own designs and such... I almost feel the builds would have to come from the comp community and let people pick from the best designs. Unless the "lesser skilled" players evolve on their building strats (and I'm not even happy using the terms that I'm using), people that don't know better honestly hurt the process. I don't even want a "you must be Tier 1" to do build proposals, but I almost feel that might have to be a minimum bar. Again... you have to be educated in good building or you never progress in this critical part of the game (it's fine to have fun builds - it's another to suggest a build to someone else trying to learn to play the game - that's a core difference).

Quote

As far as the Panther... It's a light mech. But even then I know of several builds I'd recommend over the 2 PPC version we got. 2LLs and an SRM rack would have been nice. Some Panthers can even fit in two SRM racks, such as my 8Z, which has 1 LLs, 1 ML, 1 SRM4 and 1 SRM2 (better spread, less chance of losing all CT weapons to crits).

2 LPL served me OK, but I dunno where the quirks are on that... so whatever.

Quote

I do want to note, I'm not saying the Champion builds are "bad", just that they aren't "New player friendly".

I could agree with the premise, but not necessarily your presentation of your argument though or the reasoning.

I've already cited my examples on this many times in similar/previous discussions - it comes back to our balance overlord.

Quote

The Zeus would be a hard one to make into a good new player friendly design. It probably would be forced to shield side some, or take a very generalistic build design due to hard point variety. I probably would have recommended the one with 3 missile hardpoints in the arm (or at least two). Load up with some SRMs/LRMs (LRMs are reasonably new player friendly) and some LLs.

LRMs are not new player friendly IMO. I guess if you don't know any better, then it seems powerful... but just run that in CW (like the Trebuchet trial).. it's om nom nom nom for people that do know better.

It's extraordinarily hard to build variants for a bad mech w/o making serious compromises in the design.

It's very difficult to put together a Zeus build with a STD engine (probably between 300 and 325) while having a decent weapon loadout and keeping durable (it's going to be a slow mass - a thing any Awesome-8X series knows).

Quote

I do agree that some mechs will just be harder to work with. I believe though that what might not work for one person may be a little gem for another player. (Such as the Adder as a good current example. I'm loving my Adders at the moment, as I repurchased them. Trying to recall why I sold the one I had bought before hand...)

The Adders have decent quirks that are easily exploitable. They aren't meta, but they are pretty close in certain builds.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 September 2016 - 12:44 PM.

[FupDup]

Tesunie, on 20 September 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

Was that back when R&R was in the game? Or before the Raven became "Thunderthighs"?

No. Both of those designs were added during the post-Clan era. That makes it even more hilarious.

Tesunie, on 20 September 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

I'm just advising that some mechs really could use certain gear to make them more new player friendly. If it's a mech that, though it may roll damage easily, takes damage easily to specific parts (Side torsos), that certain concepts (XL engines) probably are not "new player friendly" in it's design concept. When creating/proposing/voting on champion builds, we of the community really should consider these points.

For XL engines, it should really depend on the mech. Trying to make every trial mech use STD will make the new player builds really weak. Plus, nubs might just facetank anyways and get CT cored without losing side torsos.

Some mechs probably shouldn't get trial builds at all if they are crappy enough, like the Mist Lynx. Making a newbie-friendly build on that thing is impossible by the laws of physics...

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 20 September 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

For XL engines, it should really depend on the mech. Trying to make every trial mech use STD will make the new player builds really weak. Plus, nubs might just facetank anyways and get CT cored without losing side torsos.

Well, ironically the Commando Trial is living up to its durability design in CW... but... I have a reservoir of facepalms (and salt) for that design in the first place.

Quote

Some mechs probably shouldn't get trial builds at all if they are crappy enough, like the Mist Lynx. Making a newbie-friendly build on that thing is impossible by the laws of physics...

Unless our balance overlord overbuffs it (maybe in 2020), it is a painful exercise in futility. I don't even want to ponder a build... it hurts... a lot.

The arms would need "Popeye" level durability (yes, Mist Lynx needs to be powered by spinach).

Edited by Deathlike, 20 September 2016 - 12:49 PM.

[Mystere]

JediPanther, on 20 September 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

I still blame pgi not people who said use build X because in the end it is pgi who decides what goes on the trial mechs.

PGI deploys trial Mechs without user input ... players ***** and moan that they are trash and demand that players specify trial Mechs.

PGI deploys player-specified trial Mechs ... players ***** and moan that they are trash.

As I keep saying, it can be reasonably argued that at least 50% of the problems facing MWO can be traced back to the player base. <shrugs>

Edited by Mystere, 20 September 2016 - 12:53 PM.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 20 September 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

PGI deploys trial Mechs without user input ... players ***** and moan that they are trash and demand that players specify trial Mechs.

PGI deploys player-specified trial Mechs ... players ***** and moan that they are trash.

As I keep saying, it can be reasonably argued that at least 50% of the problems facing MWO can be traced back to the player base. <shrugs>

That's... insulting.

Mind you, there will be derp suggestions and just derp in general, but then again there are people that want the game to work a certain way (like doing 10v12) when it's not really doable (unless you want to split the playerbase further than what it already is).

It's technically PGI's job to filter trash from treasure, but then again, I see a lot of trash being regarded as treasure, and a lot of treasure being outright ignored or implemented/deployed poorly.

Blaming the playerbase does not get you anywhere. The people "that should know better" (the devs) are the ones ultimately responsible for this.

[FupDup]

Mystere, on 20 September 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

PGI deploys trial Mechs without user input ... players ***** and moan that they are trash and demand that players specify trial Mechs.

PGI deploys player-specified trial Mechs ... players ***** and moan that they are trash.

As I keep saying, it can be reasonably argued that at least 50% of the problems facing MWO can be traced back to the player base. <shrugs>

You're a part of that demographic.

[JC Daxion]

I agree.. the last round of champion mechs people voted on.. I tried and tried to get people to listen about boating all weapons on one side, Or skipping the Big XL's to add a few more weapons, or extra heat sinks, or AMS and such.. Or putting Good XL's that are used in many mechs..

I tired to get people to think about builds that work as semi jack of all trades, and not one trick nitches.. But in the end we got a ton of meta builds, that are just like you said.

IMO a champion should be a nice all around performer, that comes with good engine, and a balanced load out, as they are going to be trails, and many folks might buy them for MC, to get the GXP bonuses. So that said, they should be getting a decent value, with upgrades/engines, weapons.. that can work for the masses.


There are not perfect trail mechs.. But a good idea would be to go with common builds, that work in many situations. Don't run to hot, and preferably have AMS, and enough ammo. And yea, we need them to use SRM's, lrms, auto cannons, all size lasers.. ect..

[Tesunie]

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

They were not ever. Good enough for trolling (I did some of that), but not good enough vs good competition.

Let me repeat... "LRMs" and "meta" HAVE NEVER been in used together ever in this game.

Without going too far, I feel LRMs can be good, depending upon how one uses them.

Besides that, what I mean by "Meta" is, at one time, it was one of the suggested builds for LRMs. One of those "If you are going to use LRMs, this is the recommended within the current meta". Kinda like it is the current meta to take "LRM5 spam". Not Meta as in "high competitive".

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I didn't look at the build when you posted the original post... but for the build itself, it's workable. This still comes back to torso twisting (which is the crux of every good build in this game). I'm OK with the build, but outside of reworking the concept to an even distribution of weapons... there's nothing horribly wrong with it.

Triple LPLs is very doable. Even an XL engine on a Crab is "doable" for more experienced plays. My main argument is the one sided design (not overly new player friendly) and the XL engine coupled with the hitboxes of the Crab with it being a "new player" trial mech.

As I said, they are good designs. Just, not always good "new player" designs. And that is where I have the issue with it.

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

A Crab with a Standard engine is better off with like 5 MPL because of the tonnages involved.

Still, I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with the build though.

I have a standard engine 3 ERLLs design. Moves ~80KPH and has reasonable cooling. In the thread I saw several STD engine designs that I felt were very new player friendly.

As for the 5 MPL design, I'd only desire a single LL (CT?) to pair with it. This leaves new players never feeling helpless. After they purchase the mech, they could focus it to a more specialized role.

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I'm aware... and the problem with community voting inherently is that bad players will still pick bad designs. While I like people having their own designs and such... I almost feel the builds would have to come from the comp community and let people pick from the best designs. Unless the "lesser skilled" players evolve on their building strats (and I'm not even happy using the terms that I'm using), people that don't know better honestly hurt the process. I don't even want a "you must be Tier 1" to do build proposals, but I almost feel that might have to be a minimum bar. Again... you have to be educated in good building or you never progress in this critical part of the game (it's fine to have fun builds - it's another to suggest a build to someone else trying to learn to play the game - that's a core difference).

I feel that players should submit designs to PGI (same as before), maybe even with the "like" voting to show which ones have interest. Then, from there, PGI should select either a theme or specific designs (considering voting preferences) and present them for official votes. This way, PGI can select what should be the best builds suggested, and yet still giving people options to vote for. (I say this because, do you know how many 5 MPL builds there were? Often with the only difference being a couple of armor point allocation,)

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

2 LPL served me OK, but I dunno where the quirks are on that... so whatever.

The quirks are for pulse lasers. However, I have mine set up with 2 PPCs and 3 SLs. Then again... I like to do strange stuff sometimes. (There was a reason I did not suggest it as a champion.)

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I could agree with the premise, but not necessarily your presentation of your argument though or the reasoning.

I've already cited my examples on this many times in similar/previous discussions - it comes back to our balance overlord.

Balance will probably never be perfect. There are so many aspects, and each person has a different vision for "balanced".

I do feel that we've hit a reasonable point in some balance spots. Not saying it's perfect, but it's much better than it has been in the past.

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

LRMs are not new player friendly IMO. I guess if you don't know any better, then it seems powerful... but just run that in CW (like the Trebuchet trial).. it's om nom nom nom for people that do know better.

It's extraordinarily hard to build variants for a bad mech w/o making serious compromises in the design.

It's very difficult to put together a Zeus build with a STD engine (probably between 300 and 325) while having a decent weapon loadout and keeping durable (it's going to be a slow mass - a thing any Awesome-8X series knows).

In QP, LRMs in T4 and T5 ranks are fairly strong. So having an LRM based (not boated) mech isn't bad. Like, for the Zeus, I might have recommended a 3 LL build with a single LRM10-15. Provides a bit of support while you close to engage with direct fire weapons. Balanced, but not overly "weak". (My opinion.) Not saying it would have been a good trial, but it's diverse enough that it would have been a little better for new players to grasp (maybe). (Probably better builds out there for new players though.)

I do agree that some mechs will be very hard to make not only a functional build, but also even more difficult to make a balanced trial mech good for new players. A good example was the Panther.

Deathlike, on 20 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

The Adders have decent quirks that are easily exploitable. They aren't meta, but they are pretty close in certain builds.

But, compared to the "meta lights", a lot of people refer to Adder as "weak" and "underpowered" (Large and slow). So... That's why my remark.

FupDup, on 20 September 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

For XL engines, it should really depend on the mech. Trying to make every trial mech use STD will make the new player builds really weak. Plus, nubs might just facetank anyways and get CT cored without losing side torsos.

Some mechs probably shouldn't get trial builds at all if they are crappy enough, like the Mist Lynx. Making a newbie-friendly build on that thing is impossible by the laws of physics...

Oh. Of course. Like, and example of a good XL champion mech from the recent new ones, the Grasshopper. It's a solid new player mech from what I can tell on paper. Could use some arm mounted weapons, but at the same given time most new players have Arm Lock turned on. So it isn't make or break on that design. And the Grasshopper lends itself to XL engines well. Solid choice from what I can see. (Right on down to some extra rear armor, a good thing for many new pilots.)

Mystere, on 20 September 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

PGI deploys trial Mechs without user input ... players ***** and moan that they are trash and demand that players specify trial Mechs.

PGI deploys player-specified trial Mechs ... players ***** and moan that they are trash.

As I keep saying, it can be reasonably argued that at least 50% of the problems facing MWO can be traced back to the player base. <shrugs>

I agree with your statement because I've seen it happen PGI is bad if they do, bad if they don't. There seems to be no pleasing people.

Of course, the same statement could be made that you can't please everyone...

JC Daxion, on 20 September 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

I agree.. the last round of champion mechs people voted on.. I tried and tried to get people to listen about boating all weapons on one side, Or skipping the Big XL's to add a few more weapons, or extra heat sinks, or AMS and such.. Or putting Good XL's that are used in many mechs..

I tired to get people to think about builds that work as semi jack of all trades, and not one trick nitches.. But in the end we got a ton of meta builds, that are just like you said.

IMO a champion should be a nice all around performer, that comes with good engine, and a balanced load out, as they are going to be trails, and many folks might buy them for MC, to get the GXP bonuses. So that said, they should be getting a decent value, with upgrades/engines, weapons.. that can work for the masses.


There are not perfect trail mechs.. But a good idea would be to go with common builds, that work in many situations. Don't run to hot, and preferably have AMS, and enough ammo. And yea, we need them to use SRM's, lrms, auto cannons, all size lasers.. ect..

I recognize your name. I believe we each were saying that several times in those threads. But, it seems it was to no avail.

[vVaeVictusv]

Havent had a chance to play. Did we lose some trial mech options to make way for the new ones?