4 replies to this topic

[Rho Treska]

Grab a coffee, this one will be a bit longer.

As many players have experienced, Meta Builds rule and generally wreck faces, and facing a team with a high percentage of such builds who also coordinate their efforts is absolutely not fun. I even find it boring, it's just waiting to die or imitating the builds.

However, just crying for more Ghost Heat, Quirks, Buffs and Nerfs doesn't produce any constructive results, so I tried to come up with a different approach and think I found one that could be interesting.


What do I suggest?

Capping the Meta Built 'Mechs in each game to an equal number for each team.
More specifically, between 1 and 3 Meta Builds per side.


How is this supposed to work?

Step 1: The MechLab already counts the built-in number of weapons and warns the pilot of Ghost Heat or ammunition issues; the same piece of programming could likely check the used weapons against a filter list of Meta Builds and flag a 'Mech as such. Yes, this includes Stock Meta Builds.

Step 2: At least in QP, there's a better chance to get a quick match if one selects a chassis belonging to a currently underutilized weight class. The category Meta'Mech could be included in this process in some fashion.


What do I hope the results to be?

1) Rising variety of 'Mech chassis, variants and builds, making the game more interesting and less AlphaWarrior/ERLL-Warrior.

2) Increased Time-To-Kill.

3) Shift of Meta'Mechs from the standard, to valuable assets.

4) Evolution of tactics and increase of communication amongst Premade Teams and PUGs alike, to maximize results.


Is this supposed to work in fp TOO?

I don't see why not; with 3 Meta'Mechs per 12 'Mechs in a wave, all pilots can bring one for their Drop Deck. Premades will not have any problem at all to coordinate who brings which 'Mech in which wave; PUGs will most likely work on a "Select first, drop first" basis unless their pre-drop communication (and tools - Lobby VOIP?) improves.




And that's it, folks. Thoughts, constructive criticizm and discussions are most welcome.

[Guile Votoms]

This sounds kind of awkward since you would penalize players for using the tools provided.

The main reason for why boating is so effective is because variety isn't needed in the small arena-style maps.
In Crimson Strait short range high damage weapons reign supreme since the map is tiny.

In Polar Highlands you may feel inclined to think that LRM boats are the way to go but with some clever positioning you can actually push over an LRM heavy team quite easily, even with short range weapons like SRMs.

Generally, it's always good to have a variety of weapons to be useful at all ranges instead of putting all your eggs in one basket, but it requires a certain amount of space.

So how do we fix the meta/boating/high alpha issues?

Aside from adding large maps, either by introducing some limiting factors like the possibilities of heatsinks melting due to the extreme jump in heat of large alphas, or by incentivizing the use of a healthy variety of weapons, for example by giving them all one free ton of ammo, or by adding more useful non-weapon tech to take up slots and tonnage.

Giving players the option of adding armour that halves all laser damage for 14 slots and some tonnage would already change the meta drastically even though it severely cuts into the amount of weapons you can carry.

Edited by Guile Votoms, 05 February 2017 - 10:18 PM.

[The Basilisk]

This discussion exists even since before the existance of mechwarrior 1.

Its a Battletech inherent problem that is actually non existant when the game is set up and played properly.

Wait .... what?

Yes, actually the only games where this is an issue is where the Construction rules aka the Mechlab are/is used by the players at all or on match level.
Battlemech construction is an aspect of the game that touches more than getting some archetypical components and throw them together.
This game feature is a part of advanced campaign rules and is balanced by know how, availability and how complicated a certain modification is.

This problem shows its uggly face every time when the construction rules/ modifications in mechlab are used without the URR (Upkeep, Repair, Rearm,) costs a Battlemech causes.

The more you go from the "standart" the more complicated it will get to come by the propper parts and know how to service the build.

Well now you say: "Waaaaait a minute, if you implement this players will just shift to the mechs coming close to a certain meta in their standart configs and clan mechs will be overpowered tripple."

Well....yes....and whats your point ? If you are sitting in a mech that contains high tech components and hard to come by stuff from the start it will be quite expensive from the start and risky to use. Sure you may safe some money (IS) or ressource points/honor points (Clan) because you don't need to modify it but thats pretty much the situation we already have.

So what do I want to achieve by this?

Simply make certain builds that are tooooooo meta to expensive to buy or to maintain.

When everyone wants to pilot cheetas they and their parts get rare and hard to come by aka expensive.

[Van Tuz]

As much as i dislike "meta builds", i have to agree that this is a very awkward way to limit them. People won't stop using them. It will just create 2 separate queues: "meta" queue with a huge congestion and "cannon fodder" which barely anyone at high-tiers will want to be in.

The only way to offset the advantages that "meta" provides is to make non-meta builds viable.
Look at what all metas have in common be it "gauss-PPC", "laser-vommit", "LRM-vommit" or even SRM-boats: range synergy.
Compare it to stock King Crab (2 AC/20, 1LL, 1LRM15) for example. Lack of range synergy makes LL and LRM15 have little to no impact while AC/20 cannot be "delivered" because of low speed and bad DPS/armor ratios in the game.

Therefore to limit Meta-power we need to find a way to make mechs without range synergy to be good jacks of all trades instead of being garbage at everything.

[Rho Treska]

Guile Votoms, on 05 February 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

This sounds kind of awkward since you would penalize players for using the tools provided.

I feel that by either forcing other players to go Meta or serve as glorified cannon fodder as it currently is, and thus severely cutting into the fun of people who either cannot affort Meta or reject it for personal reasons, the system feels more abused than just used. Yes, it is a great tool to personalize your loadout, but the moment everyone drives the same builds it becomes obsolete again.

Guile Votoms, on 05 February 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

The main reason for why boating is so effective is because variety isn't needed in the small arena-style maps.
In Crimson Strait short range high damage weapons reign supreme since the map is tiny.

In Polar Highlands you may feel inclined to think that LRM boats are the way to go but with some clever positioning you can actually push over an LRM heavy team quite easily, even with short range weapons like SRMs.

Generally, it's always good to have a variety of weapons to be useful at all ranges instead of putting all your eggs in one basket, but it requires a certain amount of space.

The old cry for new and better maps. I'll cry with you, though. Alpine Peaks with a city or refinery complex added comes to mind.

Guile Votoms, on 05 February 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

So how do we fix the meta/boating/high alpha issues?

[...]heatsinks melting due to the extreme jump in heat of large alphas[...]

I really like this idea. Since heat can already crit, it sounds like a matter of adjusting it...

The Basilisk, on 06 February 2017 - 01:42 AM, said:

So what do I want to achieve by this?

Simply make certain builds that are tooooooo meta to expensive to buy or to maintain.

When everyone wants to pilot cheetas they and their parts get rare and hard to come by aka expensive.

So a finite pool of chassis and resources? Sounds interesting, would open up possibilities of trading among players, with all the good and bad that includes.

Van Tuz, on 06 February 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

[...]It will just create 2 separate queues: "meta" queue with a huge congestion and "cannon fodder" which barely anyone at high-tiers will want to be in.

My hope was to incentivize the use on non-Meta 'mechs by reduced waiting times. Also, three Meta'Mechs against nine non-Metas who know it's a 3-on-9 shifts the balance psychologically. As mentioned, a handful of Meta'Mechs would turn them into an asset to develop tactics around.

Also, anybody deserving to be in a high tier should be able to utilize his 'Mech to the fullest, no matter the build.

Van Tuz, on 06 February 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

The only way to offset the advantages that "meta" provides is to make non-meta builds viable.
Look at what all metas have in common be it "gauss-PPC", "laser-vommit", "LRM-vommit" or even SRM-boats: range synergy.
Compare it to stock King Crab (2 AC/20, 1LL, 1LRM15) for example. Lack of range synergy makes LL and LRM15 have little to no impact while AC/20 cannot be "delivered" because of low speed and bad DPS/armor ratios in the game.

Therefore to limit Meta-power we need to find a way to make mechs without range synergy to be good jacks of all trades instead of being garbage at everything.

Combined with @Guile's call for mixed terrain maps, this might just be possible.


Overall impression of the feedback?
Being called "Awkward" is a hell of a lot better than anything I expected.