152 replies to this topic

[RestosIII]

Requiemking, on 07 December 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Every Dragon ever. Also, LOCUSTS.

EDIT:can't forget the Firestarter either.

Honestly, most IS lore loadouts are just abysmal right now. There are some perks to being a Clanner, and not having to deal with SHS in your lore loadouts is one of them.

[DGTLDaemon]

Pariah Devalis, on 07 December 2016 - 12:03 AM, said:

A furthering of the above background post, in relation to the context of MWO specifically, is that the current meta builds thrive on inflicting as much pinpoint damage as possible in the shortest space of time. In other words, these current meta builds are designed to cripple mechs in one or two salvos. This drives the time to kill to uncomfortably low levels for a game that not only lacks respawns, but a game that comes from a source known for the slow, grinding death of your machine as its parts get blown off around you.

This is actually arguable Focus-firing is one of the fundamental tactics in MWO, and is one of the first thing you learn when you start playing in a team/unit. Pinpoint meta builds are just emulating that tactic on a single-mech level. If we call focus-firing "meta", that would imply that in MWO the term "meta" refers not only to a certain way of building one's mechs, but also to a certain way of playing them... And while you can try to limit pinpoint damage from a single mech through such mechanisms as ghost heat or energy draw, there is no way to prevent a coordinated team from achieving the same effect through focus fire.

Edited by DGTLDaemon, 07 December 2016 - 12:35 AM.

[meteorol]

You always find hate for people who are using the best weapon/skills/build in PVP games.

Lets just take BF3 as example. For a very, very long time the M16 was the best all around assault rifle in the game.
You would frequently find someone from the bottom of the scoreboard calling the top player (who went like 69:3, totally owning the whole server) a "M16 noob", accusing him of "being bad with every other weapon". When it was absolutely clear that said bottom player would "never" be able to get scores like 69:3, even when using the M16 all day long.

Imo, atleast a part of the "meta hate" comes from people who can't admit they are simply not good enough to play decent even when using "meta". They can't confess their lack of skill, so they are talking themself into "they are only good because they are abusing the meta, i would easily be as good as them, but i don't want to be a cheap meta scrub, so i won't do it".

That aside, MWO is a special community with a lot of old players that (i would guess), don't play other multiplayer shooters very frequently. They are here for their battletech fix, and for some that includes playing with terrible stock builds. Which puts them into a severe disadvantage compared to min/maxed builds, which means min/maxers interfere with the experience they hope to get from playing a mech game. Frankly speaking, i believe a considerable part of this playerbase is better preserved with the singleplayer mode that MW:5 will bring than with MWOs PVP multiplayer.

[Rift Hawk]

DGTLDaemon, on 06 December 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

OK, I've been wanting to ask this question for a long time, because after spending almost a year in MWO, there's something I still fail to understand about this game's community. I personally come from an RPG background, and have played a variety of games of this genre over the years - from classic isometric RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, to action/RPGs like Diablo and Dark Souls, and all the way to "hybrids" like Mass Effect and Deus Ex. In all those games, there was some sort of a character development system present, which, in combination with the inventory/equipment system, allowed you to "build" your character in a way that would make it effective under the specific game rules while at the same time suiting your personal preferences. And as far as I can remember, trying to build your character in an optimum way has never been frowned upon in any gaming community I was ever engaged in. Well, if you became overzealous with your optimizations, you could earn yourself a nickname of a "power gamer", but that was not necessarily a bad thing However, MWO is the first game in my experience where any attempt to look at the available options, analyze the current game rules, and try to build your "character" (or, in this case, your mech) in a meaningful way rather than slap a random selection of weapons and gear all over it is met with an almost universal hatred. The last such thing that actually prompted this post from me was a reply in a thread where we discussed possible MC costs of respeccing under the new skill system:



And this is what I've seen a million times on this forum. Trying to build your mechs in an optimum, meaningful, performance-oriented way that is consistent with the current state of the game rules? Then you need to be punished for that, because... Because what? All I hear is that "meta ******" and "meta chasers" are "ruining the game for everybody else". But why? What is so objectionable about using the customization options that are an integral part of this game to achieve the desired performance? I know that I'm starting a potential flame war here, but this is an honest question. I am truly baffled here. Can someone from the anti-meta crowd at least try to explain why you hate meta builds and meta gamers so much? Or is it some sort of underlying, self-evident concept of MWO that doesn't warrant an explanation?

Your right, there is a very real hatred of Meta builds in this game. Over my four years of "off and on" playing, I discovered something very early. The Meta in MWO is based on whatever broken mechanic is the flavor of the day. You can ask a lot of the other guys that have been here since Closed/Open Beta, that the Meta is constantly changing based on "balance fixes" put out by PGI. There is always one weapon type generally more powerful than others. Operating way above the "line" so to speak.
The same is true for certain mechs and the power creep is real. Basically putting some older mechs into complete retirement. There is a good reason you see Kodiaks and Dire wolves everywhere and little to no Victors.

Anyway, Its not so much that people want the best build possible for their mechs. That is understandable. Its that those builds are based on broken balance and power skewed mechs.

[Mcgral18]

Requiemking, on 06 December 2016 - 11:58 PM, said:

The main reason people hate "meta chasers" around here is because, as is our experience, these sorts of people tend to get in the way of having a balanced game were all the mechs can have a fair shot at victory. Take, for example, the Kodiak 3. For months after the thing's release, it was OP as hell. Naturally, people wanted it nerfed to make the game balanced. However, the "meta chasers" constantly obstructed this, making several people quite angry.

Just as a PSA:

It was the Potato's who didn't want the KDK3 nerfed

[Pariah Devalis]

DGTLDaemon, on 07 December 2016 - 12:34 AM, said:

This is actually arguable Focus-firing is one of the fundamental tactics in MWO, and is one of the first thing you learn when you start playing in a team/unit. Pinpoint meta builds are just emulating that tactic on a single-mech level. If we call focus-firing "meta", that would imply that in MWO the term "meta" refers not only to a certain way of building one's mechs, but also to a certain way of playing them... And while you can try to limit pinpoint damage from a single mech through such mechanisms as ghost heat or energy draw, there is no way to prevent a coordinated team from achieving the same effect through focus fire.

Small steps. Teamwork is OP regardless of the game, and that cannot be eliminated. However, from a TTK standpoint, allowing the current high alpha, high pinpoint, low exposure trend only adds fuel to the fire. The ultimate solution, removal of absolute pinpoint convergence, just won't happen in this game given how the community handles anything that threatens its pinpointnascar online, however that is the root of the problem.

A problem that became almost overnight significantly more noticeable, even to the virtually blind, when HSR was switched on. I find it odd. We all like being able to calculate a shot based on where we see a target, yet that removal of location uncertainty opened the floodgates on us. As soon as you knew you'd hit what you aimed at, all pretenses of lag compensating weapon systems went out the window.

[Wil McCullough]

thing is... min-maxing is a sliding scale with everyone having different threshold levels.
it's not as simple as "omg its a dakka uac10/5s kdk3 i've never seen one before" *rolls eyes* or "look, yet another 2xerppc 2xgauss direwhale".

is a 6xasrm6 mad dog a min-maxer?
is a 1xclpl 5cerml hellbringer a min-maxer?

some players would say yes. others would just call it a mech customized for pilot preference. of which many existed even in lore.

it's very fascinating that the player base seems to universally hate something they all have different ideas of.

[DGTLDaemon]

Imperial X, on 07 December 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

Anyway, Its not so much that people want the best build possible for their mechs. That is understandable. Its that those builds are based on broken balance and power skewed mechs.

So the problem isn't in people optimizing their mechs, the problem is that at any given time PGI gives players very few options to optimally build their mechs due to PGI's lopsided balancing... Now that actually makes sense.

[Navy Sixes]

Wow. Way to take it out of context, and to not engage at all in the original discussion.
The actual discussion is here.

https://mwomercs.com...kill-tree-free/

Tycho von Gagern, on 06 December 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

The more I think about it, the more okay I am with PGI soaking the "meta chasers" who will constantly want to respec for "optimization" after each balance pass.

In the same way I don't mind them soaking the "pokemon" players who need to collect all the "early adopter" junk, or the lazy players like me who will break down and pay real money for a 3-variant pack to skill up rather than grind the cbills to buy them in-game.

They've got to make their money somehow.

I invite everyone interested to read what was said in its entirety there. Also read what has officially been announced about respec:

https://mwomercs.com...-on-skill-tree/

Respec will be available to everyone for free via grind. If you want to avoid the grind, you're going to have to pay.

It's only punishment, in as far as capitalism is always punishing someone.
It's not hatred. On the contrary, PGI loves your desire to have the optimized skill tree at all times, and they are banking on the idea that there are some who would rather pay than grind. They wouldn't have you any other way. It's just the f2p business model.

Edited for clarity

Edited by Tycho von Gagern, 07 December 2016 - 01:43 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Maybe the SQUIRK Tree is the ultimate tool to stop the Meta Chasing..

Before you start placing pictures from Jackie or a Granny with "WUT????"

Think for yourself what is the logical step after "no 3 variants" and "huge amounts of XP to level a single Mech?"

Exactly to force players to still have a huge number of Mechs and to deny those mechs any Squirks.
The next thing to come -in FP 5.0 will be the:
PRFSSNSDD - need a better name.
"Precondigured Random Faction Specific Stock No Squirk Drop Deck"

want to drop for Kurita don't have a Panther - go the other way Gaijin
want to drop for Steiner don't have an Atlas - you beggar

[KoalaBrownie]

DGTLDaemon, on 06 December 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

However, MWO is the first game in my experience where any attempt to look at the available options, analyze the current game rules, and try to build your "character" (or, in this case, your mech) in a meaningful way rather than slap a random selection of weapons and gear all over it is met with an almost universal hatred.

People are going to complain about any idea you bring to the table.
I've tried to discuss LRMs on various occasions and have been told to follow the meta by taking Radar Deprivation for example. In order to deal with a problem I was directed to min/max my "build" to counter it.

Same crap different pile. Just play the game how you want to play and ignore the forum jockeys who have more posts than games played.

[DGTLDaemon]

Tycho von Gagern, on 07 December 2016 - 01:04 AM, said:

Wow. Way to take it out of context, and to not engage at all in the original discussion.

Pardon me, but I couldn't help feeling that you referred to optimization as something... objectionable and something players should be "taxed" for. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.

[Navy Sixes]

DGTLDaemon, on 07 December 2016 - 01:12 AM, said:

Pardon me, but I couldn't help feeling that you referred to optimization as something... objectionable and something players should be "taxed" for. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.

You are pardoned. In the future, if you have a problem with something I or anyone else says, you should engage in that discussion thread. Snipping a piece of something someone writes and taking it into another discussion thread is no way to communicate reasonably.

[Goober Gabber v2]

I usually avoid meta builds unless it's something I find interesting and isn't something that even a vegetable can play and wreck half of the enemy team.
As an example, when the Kodiaks joined the party, I built it (like almost everyone and their beloved mother) with 4 UAC10. The first two or three rounds amazed me, then I started to feel bad because it was way too easy and powerful. I was still a newbie back then and if it allowed someone like me to rake in kills, it's just terrible.
My friend came with the Quad Gauss build and it was so much more satisfying.
It was powerful, but needed more skill to handle and was a bit slow (Inb4 someone says UACs require skill).

It was still a meta build (I believe) But wasn't terribly unbalanced

Nowadays, I build my mechs that fit both long and close range encounters.


Whenever I see enemy meta players, I tend to warn my team about their location in hopes they are more capable of taking it down so I won't have to deal with it and my futile attempts.
Although I am terribly tempted to shoot friendly KDK-3 players in the back when they show up with their Quad UACs. Of course, I won't actually TK them but the temptation is very alluring.

I simply believe any build can be viable in a way that, when played well, it could be a good step towards victory.
But alas, people will play Meta builds because people have a free will. It's the reality we will have to accept one way or another.

Simply put, I'm mostly against meta play because there are builds out there which are outright crazy and overpowered, which ruin the experience of other people, however we are allowed to play however we want. Why shouldn't they?

There's also this thing.
People get frowned upon for playing a non-meta build (I love my Lurm Spirit Bear, you mean bullies!), by meta players.
This is something that bothers me the most.
It's not the build that determines wether your team wins or loses (except for one or two scenarios), it's your know-how.

But yeah. People have their own way of having fun. You've got those who have fun in matches wether they win or lose as long as it was a close battle (mostly ending around 12-10 or something), and you've got those who have fun by steamrolling.

[Silra]

For everyone there comes times when trying to min/max absolutely everything gets tiresome.

After all, when you figure out exactly what is the best mech variant and weapon combination, why would you ever buy or play any other mech? It is after all the most powerful, so nothing else matters right?

Many people work in various sectors where they have to compete every day, or have other hobbies which are competition based, like sports, and play this game for relaxation instead. Everyone needs time when they let themselves cool off from competition, time when their minds can relax.
If you take that point of view in mind, people who wish to try to relax come up against those of the first paragraph, you have a conflict of interest right there.

For me personally, I dislike it in games when you have one strategy, tactic, weapon, class or whatever be the clear go-to. I prefer variety, I love using things which are considered 'subpar' and seeing how much I can do with them in any particular game.
This is how my competitive nature manifests after having competed on various things before, because I used to also do those same competitive activities with people who weren't into them for competition and thus needed to learn how to handicap myself to keep it entertaining for everyone.

For me in MWO that right now manifests in the simple fact I have no Gauss Rifles or PPCs mounted on any of my about 200 mechs.

Edited by Silra, 07 December 2016 - 02:22 AM.

[Keeshu]

Playing the meta of a game isn't inherently a bad thing. It's a combination of things that make it bad, and it's not exclusive to MWO either by a long shot.

1. Games get stale fast because there is a vastly reduced amount of options. In a perfectly balanced game, you could use any option. Though there are no perfectly balanced games, just nearly perfect ones. Unfortunately MWO isn't the most balanced game and if you use a badish build, you'll probably get rocked by a meta build. Mercy on you if you dare try using many of the Inner Sphere stock mechs (many clan stock mechs are usually powerful enough to not really care though). Why use a build close to stock? That leads into the next point that's a bit more specific to MWO than other games.

2. Stock mechs have more individuality to them and there's reasons why they were all made the way they were. Not only is there nostalgia behind this, but this opens up for a lot more ways to play so that each mech feels different as opposed to using a meta build that other mechs could use. Though, this wouldn't even be able to happen if we weren't able to customize our mechs so much. However you have to be careful how much you let people customize. Too much and nothing is unique, too little and you remove half the fun of the game. Personally think we could reduce some customization in some ways since we have vastly more than just a mere 10 mechs, but I don't think that would happen until a MWO 2 or something like that.

Ultimately, it is up to the company to fix these problems in whatever game it is in. However, if the company doesn't fix it, then it's nice when players don't play in a boring repetitive way, as that's how some competitive scenes in games die.

I think everyone has been a "meta chaser" at some point in their life when it comes to video games. I mean literally everyone I knew when I was a kid would cheat if they had the chance to. Some people grow out of it, others don't. Depending on the game someone plays, sometimes it won't even matter. However for MWO, I'm generally not a fan of meta chasers.

[The Lobsters]

MWO is still seen as an interloper in the BT/MW universe somewhat, and many players would say they are 'forced' to play it as there's been no other game from the ip recently. I think the 'meta hate' can be an expression of unresolved cognitive dissonance between the recent medium of quick, universal access online pvp, and the ip's previous iterations. Which were different mediums.

In tabletop there were dudes running around in the powerful clan mechs they shouldn't be driving, but justified them as 'captured, spoils of war". Then other players had to follow suit, just to stay competitive, or they simply just didn't want to miss out on the fun. That could be considered min/maxing metagaming within the context of the TT medium. Also, Urbanmech's on the back of trucks to get around the slow speed. Same crap really.

Other times, it's just because it's boring


Personally, I don't think a player of one medium owes another version of the medium a thing, other than fraternity. If you don't play the medium fully, you do it a disservice. I shouldn't get annoyed if a player leverages it's character to gain a fuller experience, even if I think it's unfair or unrealistic. Hate the game, not the player and that...



If everything was totally, completely balanced and perfect and nice, that would in no way ensure an end of metagaming. The most to hope for is a game of rock, scissors, paper with seasonal trends. Some guy makes a cool video, some streamer only rocks one build but is entertaining and informative with it, and bingo, a new meta.

It is an overused and often misunderstood term though. Much like the term 'Meme', or 'Terrorist'.


I get the feeling that some players understand meta to mean, 'It was posted on metamechs by GMan'.

Edited by The Lobsters, 07 December 2016 - 04:04 AM.

[The Lobsters]

Also, with maybe one exception, this is the most mature sounding thread I've read on these forums in a while. Well done lads, well done x

[PhoenixFire55]

People who play this game for fun and use all sorts of builds they want don't care about what others bring. On the other hand baddies who for some sort of reason can't make current meta work for them are the ones who display this kind of behavior. Funny thing tho is when meta shifts for "their" mech builds they don't suddenly rebuild them to become non-meta.

Its just one of those things you gotta ignore.
Bads are gonna bad. Keep calm and farm meta them.

[The Lobsters]

PhoenixFire55, on 07 December 2016 - 04:07 AM, said:

Its just one of those things you gotta ignore.
Bads are gonna bad. Keep calm and farm meta them.

So the meta's either Dakka or Alpha and Hide?


So I'll roll the Dakka with a standard engine and pack more heatsinks.


Just don't everybody do it please. You'll make me a metawhore.