132 replies to this topic

[xengk]

FupDup, on 21 September 2016 - 04:23 PM, said:

Grasshopper: SPL don't have good synergy with LPL.

Tesunie, on 21 September 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

Grasshopper: I think (I'm not sure, been a while since I messed with my Grasshoppers) that the SPLs were added to possibly boost the LPLs up? If so, it failed on one side... Does give a bit more punch up close, but I agree that the SPLs do seem a bit odd in an otherwise decent loadout. (Admit it. Triple LPLs isn't a bad thing...)

FupDup, on 21 September 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

What I was trying to get at is that ML's would have been better for that role, since their range and beam duration are somewhat close to the IS LPL. They also have the same tonnage as the SPL.

I run SPL on my grasshopper as backup and heat management weapon.
SPL's duration is 0.5s against ML's 0.9s, and only half the heat, allowing me to snap fire them before twisting away.
If you are comparing SL to ML, I will agree that the 0.5 ton is not worth the disadvantage.

My build is 5N energy brawler with 4 ML, 3 SPL and 1 PPC. 3JJ, STD320, 17DHS.

[Dee Eight]

Intrepid, on 22 September 2016 - 12:29 AM, said:

Not even remotely the case. I have more time on the drop screen than you have total. Keep trying!

Delusional and in denial - that is a bad combination. Certainly explains your builds, and they certainly explain your performance.

You really want to compare numbers ? Ok fine...

Season 1.... Wins Losses W/L ratio Kills Deaths K/D ratio Games Played Avg Match Score

98th place Dee Eight 529 597 0.89 727 872 0.83 1134 180

21388th place Intrepid 36 34 1.06 5 65 0.08 70 76


Season 2....

175th place Dee Eight 401 417 0.96 547 671 0.82 827 198

24425th place Intrepid 21 15 1.40 13 22 0.59 36 146

Season 3 thus far (and I've spent most of this month leveling twenty new mechs)

231th place Dee Eight 246 257 0.96 252 392 0.64 504 159

6726th place Intrepid 65 60 1.08 86 97 0.89 126 176

[Dee Eight]

And for the FP leaderboards, you have TWO total games and ranked in the 23000 range. I've got 402 games and am ranked 2388 for merc pilots.

[Tesunie]

Please watch your posting and remain civil.

I don't mind disagreements and discussion, but we can do so and maintain respect for each other.

[Naduk]

i noticed this a while ago
and it seems that the champion builds are only getting worse and worse

i think that community based designs are a good idea
the voting needs to be much more public, instead of hidden away deep in a dark corner of the forums

also they need to instigate a rule for design submissions
every hard point on the mech should be used
something like this would help at least carry some of the flavor of the chassis across to the design

the amount of champions that are simply copy paste meta is just terrible
there is a disturbing number of champion mechs that are based on or use only large pulse
weapon diversity is almost exclusive to clan mechs
HGN-IIC-C

GHR-5H

CRB-27B

DWF-W(C)

WHK-C(C)

BNC-3M(C)

HGN-733C(C)

BLR-2C(C)

VTR-9S(C)

AWS-9M(C)

TBR-C(C)

EBJ-PRIME(C)

TDR-9SE(C)

SHC-PRIME(C)

WVR-6K(C) (not large pulse but honestly the build is just as bad for promoting the game as the rest)

as noted by the last patch notes, this trend is only continuing

look at that list , its disgusting
how is a new player supposed to get excited about this game when this is what they get to drive out of the gates

on top of that, many of those mechs have absolutely no business running large pulse lasers
like the awesome for example , what the hell ! it has -25% ERPPC heat generation
why the frack is it using LPL! it should be doing something interesting and showing what the chassis can do
like this AWS-9M(C)

[Tesunie]

Naduk, on 22 September 2016 - 06:48 AM, said:

every hard point on the mech should be used


the awesome for example , what the hell ! it has -25% ERPPC heat generation

I too think that more community run designs are a better choice. I'd almost consider that, maybe, PGI should delve into their databanks a little and see what meh designs are actually run the most for each chassis proposed. From there, give a vote on those maybe? Though, that might not lead to new player friendly designs, and we'd have the same issue of "meta" or "metas gone by", if not a lack of weapon divergence.


As for needing to fill every hardpoint... I'd have to say no to that. Sorry. I wouldn't be opposed to possibly having at least every hard point type on the mech filled (for example, a mech could have 3 energy hardpoints and 6 missile hardpoints. You could fill in all 3 energy hardpoints and only a single missile hardpoint and it would qualify), but I don't see that being very conductive to trial mech design and new player friendliness.


As for that Awesome concept... ERPPCs run hot and actually are not very new player friendly. Lasers are more friendly to new players. However, I also believe that PPCs and ERPPCs should be placed into trial mechs anyway, so new players can get experience with them if they desire to. So, I wouldn't be opposed to an ERPPC trial Awesome. I'd almost rather those CT weapons be SLs (pulse or otherwise) for some zombie abilities. That could be 3 small lasers, a reasonable threat if needed.

Those quirks also run with the PPCs, right? I might more recommend a normal PPC build, with 3 lasers and maybe an SRM4 or something for a new player. Sure, the PPCs have a minimum range, but the lasers and SRM can cover close range at least.


Something that seriously could help new players. A one time warning when dropping the first time with specific weapons to inform you of their weaknesses. Such as LRMs and PPCs minimum range. Might be even more helpful...?

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

Dee Eight, on 21 September 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

Fortunately PGI did put LRM mechs back into trial rotation, maybe they paid attention to forum complaints after the last champions arrived and they were all high energy builds or gauss rifles. The stalker champion is back in the pool with quad LRM10-Artemis.

Not nitpicking, but the STF trial is horribly hot. It's far hotter than any "high energy" builds that made it as a trial.

30% heat efficiency, and there's no chain fire group for LRMs, so new players will alpha strike and quickly overheat themselves. 14 heatsinks is nowhere near enough to sustain that firepower.

Edited by Keshav Murali, 22 September 2016 - 07:51 AM.

[Jables McBarty]

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

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.

Just read OP (not the rest of the thread). Wanted to chime in and agree with the general point.

Subsidiary effect: When all champions are meta, trials all look the same. Not sure if they've changed (I've taken a 3-month hiatus), but for most of Spring/Summer '16, 75% were variations of LPL/ML with XL. The only question was how many of each.

Only one 'mech had LRMs (treb), and possibly only one had AC (Orion).

If the point of trial 'mechs is to figure out how different weapon systems work, then this was a complete failure. No clan ACs or LRMs. Only 1 IS PPC, and on a famously sub-par 'mech. No wonder noobs don't know how half the weapons work!

[Dee Eight]

The five IS spring champions were used to in the mastery bundles as well. Not so this time because of course, they picked mechs without hero models.

[Tina Benoit]

I can see the concern that OP is bringing up and I'm only going to suggest something regarding that for the future Champions.

for 1, I could be more specific in my posts when requesting for builds for the next champions, asking everyone to make sure their submissions are new player friendly, however there's still a chance the same thing will continue to occur the same way as current, where some of you worry it might be a popularity contest or due to being a "meta".

I think most of you agree that you still prefer letting community members make these builds, so maybe instead of having everyone submit a build and then vote, let's add a rule where the person who submits a build HAS to explain how that build will be compatible for new players the most.
Maybe we can even have more detailed discussions elsewhere on some of the specific submitted builds explaining why. We can still use the vote system, and at the end we could also make sure a designer reviews the discussed builds and let them make the final call as to which one would make it, rather than take the build with the highest votes like we have been.

We can try to make a judgment call upon your discussions of the build that most seem to agree for new player compatibility. Not everyone will always come to an agreement, there will most likely be debates where some will disagree but perhaps having us overview everyone's discussions rather than a vote system might just be the better way to pick the one.

[Scout Derek]

Tina Benoit, on 22 September 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

I can see the concern that OP is bringing up and I'm only going to suggest something regarding that for the future Champions.

for 1, I could be more specific in my posts when requesting for builds for the next champions, asking everyone to make sure their submissions are new player friendly, however there's still a chance the same thing will continue to occur the same way as current, where some of you worry it might be a popularity contest or due to being a "meta".

I think most of you agree that you still prefer letting community members make these builds, so maybe instead of having everyone submit a build and then vote, let's add a rule where the person who submits a build HAS to explain how that build will be compatible for new players the most.
Maybe we can even have more detailed discussions elsewhere on some of the specific submitted builds explaining why. We can still use the vote system, and at the end we could also make sure a designer reviews the discussed builds and let them make the final call as to which one would make it, rather than take the build with the highest votes like we have been.

We can try to make a judgment call upon your discussions of the build that most seem to agree for new player compatibility. Not everyone will always come to an agreement, there will most likely be debates where some will disagree but perhaps having us overview everyone's discussions rather than a vote system might just be the better way to pick the one.

Perfect

[Tesunie]

Keshav Murali, on 22 September 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

Not nitpicking, but the STF trial is horribly hot. It's far hotter than any "high energy" builds that made it as a trial.

30% heat efficiency, and there's no chain fire group for LRMs, so new players will alpha strike and quickly overheat themselves. 14 heatsinks is nowhere near enough to sustain that firepower.

With Ghost Heat added in... It's a heat trap. But, it does at least (if I recall the build correctly) has alternative weapons than just LRMs.

It's not "the best" build for a new player (in "some" opinion/concept), but it isn't exactly a bad build either. (XL Stalker was worse!) It does at least have some LRMs, which helps diversify the current "meta" (LPL) build trials. I'd rather see some variety, not necessarily "the best". (If you get what I mean.)

I personally would have preferred something closer to my own Stalker 3F (which some of course will disagree with), which has 2 LRM15s, 4 MLs, 2 SSRM2s, BAP and TAG. Can defend itself from a light mech, and support enough at range with it's LRMs. Two weapon groups for damage, a third for the TAG. (LRMs on one group and close combat weapons one a second group.) SSRMs help with light mechs, and 4 MLs gives enough punch to at least be a threat. (I know, people will disagree with this build. But, I always do consider other people's builds in the vote. Some of the builds presented in the champion vote are really good too.)

Tina Benoit, on 22 September 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

I can see the concern that OP is bringing up and I'm only going to suggest something regarding that for the future Champions.

for 1, I could be more specific in my posts when requesting for builds for the next champions, asking everyone to make sure their submissions are new player friendly, however there's still a chance the same thing will continue to occur the same way as current, where some of you worry it might be a popularity contest or due to being a "meta".

I think most of you agree that you still prefer letting community members make these builds, so maybe instead of having everyone submit a build and then vote, let's add a rule where the person who submits a build HAS to explain how that build will be compatible for new players the most.
Maybe we can even have more detailed discussions elsewhere on some of the specific submitted builds explaining why. We can still use the vote system, and at the end we could also make sure a designer reviews the discussed builds and let them make the final call as to which one would make it, rather than take the build with the highest votes like we have been.

We can try to make a judgment call upon your discussions of the build that most seem to agree for new player compatibility. Not everyone will always come to an agreement, there will most likely be debates where some will disagree but perhaps having us overview everyone's discussions rather than a vote system might just be the better way to pick the one.

As I've said before, most of the trial builds that got in are "good builds", but I don't feel they are very new player friendly. So, I don't want people to think I'm bashing builds.

There is one build I will ask if you can (or if you can relay this to whomever can) that needs to be adjusted. The Hunchback IIC has a 1/2 ton of AC10 ammo when it carries two UAC10s... Can you get that 1/2 ton of ammo changed to the correct ammo type? (Can't believe people didn't see that before. But it is easy to miss...)


Your new proposed method of voting probably would be the best middle ground, but probably would take the most work to organize. If you/PGI would be willing to do the extra work there, I do think it would be the best compromise. Let the community present ideas, but sift through or force them to provide reasons why they feel it would make a good trial mechs (with new players in mind). This should also prevent issues from slipping through like the above mentioned issue with the Hunchback IIC.

And of course everyone wont agree. That is why we debate!

[Tina Benoit]

Tesunie, on 22 September 2016 - 04:51 PM, said:

There is one build I will ask if you can (or if you can relay this to whomever can) that needs to be adjusted. The Hunchback IIC has a 1/2 ton of AC10 ammo when it carries two UAC10s... Can you get that 1/2 ton of ammo changed to the correct ammo type? (Can't believe people didn't see that before. But it is easy to miss...)


Your new proposed method of voting probably would be the best middle ground, but probably would take the most work to organize. If you/PGI would be willing to do the extra work there, I do think it would be the best compromise. Let the community present ideas, but sift through or force them to provide reasons why they feel it would make a good trial mechs (with new players in mind). This should also prevent issues from slipping through like the above mentioned issue with the Hunchback IIC.

And of course everyone wont agree. That is why we debate!

Regarding the Hunchback, yea it's a mistake. QA has it filed in for a fix already for next patch~

It may take more time with this method but the process will feel more organized. ^^
As long as everyone in the thread stays on topic!

[Hit the Deck]

I guess PGI has to do a second run of community built trial 'Mechs voting after Energy Draw is implemented.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

This would be a moot point if people would vote for my Champion build suggestions instead of the meta XL crap that keeps winning.

[Deathlike]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 22 September 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

This would be a moot point if people would vote for my Champion build suggestions instead of the meta XL crap that keeps winning.

You have good examples? I didn't vote.

[Tesunie]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 22 September 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

This would be a moot point if people would vote for my Champion build suggestions instead of the meta XL crap that keeps winning.

Just recall, everyone (almost) always feels that their build is "best". Just saying...

There were a lot of good builds that were suggested. Many of them would have been decent choices even in the current meta, and would have been fine even with Energy Draw (for the most part).

That is kinda the problem with community made builds, but also kinda the blessing. We can either choose to submit more balanced and new player friendly builds, considering possible balance effects and that metas come and go. OR we can submit and create trial mechs that follow the current meta, and then when the meta next shifts it's considered garbage all over again...

However, this is now OUR responsibility. We, as a community, need to make these decisions. I really hope that the new proposed champion creation system does get considered. It really will help to keep champion builds on track and keep people's mindset on the goal of the champion builds. (Not to be "the best", but to instead be "easy to use".)

[Dee Eight]

I haven't looked, but next time around something with flamers might be nice as they're another weapon that new players would probably like to practice using.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Deathlike, on 22 September 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

You have good examples? I didn't vote.

Take the Crab, for instance. CRB-27SL is what I offered. Standard engine while still quick, full armor with decent frontal weighting sans stripping the rear down to 4 or less, and two triggers (arms and torso lasers) with good enough heat efficiency for players to manage without too much trouble. All it lacked was some kind of long-range poke, but with the profile and speed of a Crab with a STD300 that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

My Panther suggestion would have done decently as well: PNT-10K. It has an XL, but it's a light, so that's almost always going to be the case. I maxed the armor everywhere but the empty arm, gave it an ERPPC, and put enough missiles on there that pilots can hit hard close-in, and if they lose their gun arm early they still have meaningful punch, at least until the ammo goes.

I could go back to older threads for more examples, but those two are specifically called out in the OP, so I thought I'd use them as examples. I'd offer my Zeus build, too, which is an incredibly powerful STD build with ASRMs and MPLs, but it lacks ranged poke, which in a slow-ish assault can be an issue, so I stuck with the light and the medium.

[Deathlike]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 22 September 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

Take the Crab, for instance. CRB-27SL is what I offered. Standard engine while still quick, full armor with decent frontal weighting sans stripping the rear down to 4 or less, and two triggers (arms and torso lasers) with good enough heat efficiency for players to manage without too much trouble. All it lacked was some kind of long-range poke, but with the profile and speed of a Crab with a STD300 that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

My Panther suggestion would have done decently as well: PNT-10K. It has an XL, but it's a light, so that's almost always going to be the case. I maxed the armor everywhere but the empty arm, gave it an ERPPC, and put enough missiles on there that pilots can hit hard close-in, and if they lose their gun arm early they still have meaningful punch, at least until the ammo goes.

I could go back to older threads for more examples, but those two are specifically called out in the OP, so I thought I'd use them as examples. I'd offer my Zeus build, too, which is an incredibly powerful STD build with ASRMs and MPLs, but it lacks ranged poke, which in a slow-ish assault can be an issue, so I stuck with the light and the medium.

Both looks OK.. I'm not hating on the latter one... I don't think it's ideal for new players though. My personal substitution would probably be SSRM2s instead of SRM4s, but otherwise there's nothing wrong with it.