310 replies to this topic

[Valleric]

But at the same time if u HAVE to take them, I won't tell you in game I think otherwise because I show respect to people. If you kick *** in it right on man. Just don't play like Dee Eight. If you fight beside me fighting with the team then right on man. Let's have some fun.

Edited by Valleric, 11 April 2017 - 10:06 AM.

[ANOM O MECH]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 10 April 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

If you want to call me "bad" & "Wanna-be"... then you are required to actually demonstrate that I am incorrect in my assessment & statements. There is a a whole annotated map for you to use where I laid out EXACTLY was wrong with his play and how we had to carry him to victory because he was utterly useless the entire time it mattered. So how was my trying to get him to move 700m to a different part of the map a "bad" call when he is in a LRM Assualt that lacks any Line of Flight on the enemy where he currently was the wrong thing??? Oh yeah... cause you can not and you are just someone who refuses to listen and then says the plan does not work when you convince 5 people not to follow it.

I am not required to do any such thing especially if the demand is coming from you.

What I can speak to is my experience with you, which is that you are prone to bark orders about and if things don't go well you start yelling at the team you are on and blaming everyone else.

Personally would not care if you were right or wrong as you are so disagreeable I simply would never follow anything you would ever have to say. If you don't understand that being a leader is more than yelling orders around and blaming people than I don't know what to tell you.

Also to be honest I have never seen you display any knowledge or skill that makes you stand out as someone to listen to in the first place.

Then again, to each his own. You want to continue pretending to be a drop caller in public queue, well by all means the best of luck to you. Just remember that not everyone is going to listen and the mute button is pretty handy.

Edited by tker 669, 11 April 2017 - 10:38 AM.

[Ruar]

Valleric, on 11 April 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

It's actually only recently ive taken a firm stance against lrm assaults. After the patch that decreased the tons recently the assault became the most important role in any drop. And if said assault or assaults drop as lrm boats it handicaps the team. That's cool a battlemaster is the 4th best lrm boat in the game, that dosnt mean you should do it though. Sorry if that upsets you but that's just being objective. At least in my mind. I could be wrong. But from my experience lrm assaults on a team means defeat. But maybe I just had bad luck in those drops. Until I'm proven wrong that's my stance on the matter.

The problem I see is how the different mech classes and type are meant to work together. Thinking of them in other terms.

Light mechs are the equivalent to light horse cavalry. They can scout early, engage if needed, and mix it up in the middle of a fight. They are best at whittling down flanks or mechs that are out solo. They are also the best counter to other light cavalry because of the similarity in speed. There are both tactical and strategic advantages that can be exploited by their speed and it depends on map and objective how best they can be used.

Medium mechs are the equivalent of the skirmish line with decent weapons but not a lot of armor. They can be tasked to fill a variety of roles depending on what is needed. Some of them can hop on a mount and be nearly as fast as the light horse cavalry, some can wield heavier weapons or armor, and some are middle of the pack. They can be fast or slow. Their main value is they can adjust faster to the main fight and are best used on the flanks either defending or attacking.

Heavy mechs are the scale mail/chain mail wearing, two-hand weapon swinging, berzerkers. They should be in the middle of the fight, hitting hard, and taking some hits in return. They are the ones who create the foundation of the fight. Everyone else is watching the heavies because wherever the heavies go there is where the fight will be.

Assaults are the armored knights on foot. Hulking plates of armor and a fearsome weapon. They follow the heavies and exploit a weakness or shore up a failing defense. Anytime an assault approaches the battleline the enemy is forced to react or risk defeat. The problem with knights is they can't adjust position very well and they require support. A knight left alone is a dead man walking.

But what happens when we start adding in weapon preference to these roles? Light cavalry with heavier weapons becomes a dragoon who might be a little slower but can deal some significant damage if left alone. The skirmisher becomes a close in fighter, or an archer. The berzerker becomes an even better archer or sniper, or close in fighter.

The knight however remains relatively the same. He might get a bit longer range weapon, but he still is encased in armor and is expected to support the heavies. Hand a bow to a knight, strip him of his armor, and he's just a slow archer who can carry more arrows but doesn't really give you a lot more damage than the medium or heavy. He can only pull the bow string so fast, nock so many arrows, and can't adjust as quickly to changes in the battle. Not to mention his team was relying on him to show up in plate armor but he arrived in leather instead.

Light mechs are almost as rigid in how they have to be played as assault mechs. Mediums and heavies are the place for fluidity in build and play style.

I get it... people want to put the most weapons on a mech and just blast away. However, that is an incredibly selfish way to play and can be easily avoided by simply taking a medium or heavy already designed to fill that role. Sometimes it's great to think outside of the box, sometimes that box is there because it's the only thing that will fit in the square hole.

Edited by Ruar, 11 April 2017 - 11:19 AM.

[Valleric]

Ruar, on 11 April 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

The problem I see is how the different mech classes and type are meant to work together. Thinking of them in other terms.

Light mechs are the equivalent to light horse cavalry. They can scout early, engage if needed, and mix it up in the middle of a fight. They are best at whittling down flanks or mechs that are out solo. They are also the best counter to other light cavalry because of the similarity in speed. There are both tactical and strategic advantages that can be exploited by their speed and it depends on map and objective how best they can be used.

Medium mechs are the equivalent of the skirmish line with decent weapons but not a lot of armor. They can be tasked to fill a variety of roles depending on what is needed. Some of them can hop on a mount and be nearly as fast as the light horse cavalry, some can wield heavier weapons or armor, and some are middle of the pack. They can be fast or slow. Their main value is they can adjust faster to the main fight and are best used on the flanks either defending or attacking.

Heavy mechs are the scale mail/chain mail wearing, two-hand weapon swinging, berzerkers. They should be in the middle of the fight, hitting hard, and taking some hits in return. They are the ones who create the foundation of the fight. Everyone else is watching the heavies because wherever the heavies go there is where the fight will be.

Assaults are the armored knights on foot. Hulking plates of armor and a fearsome weapon. They follow the heavies and exploit a weakness or shore up a failing defense. Anytime an assault approaches the battleline the enemy is forced to react or risk defeat. The problem with knights is they can't adjust position very well and they require support. A knight left alone is a dead man walking.

But what happens when we start adding in weapon preference to these roles? Light cavalry with heavier weapons becomes a dragoon who might be a little slower but can deal some significant damage if left alone. The skirmisher becomes a close in fighter, or an archer. The berzerker becomes an even better archer or sniper, or close in fighter.

The knight however remains relatively the same. He might get a bit longer range weapon, but he still is encased in armor and is expected to support the heavies. Hand a bow to a knight, strip him of his armor, and he's just a slow archer who can carry more arrows but doesn't really give you a lot more damage than the medium or heavy. He can only pull the bow string so fast, nock so many arrows, and can't adjust as quickly to changes in the battle. Not to mention his team was relying on him to show up in plate armor but he arrived in leather instead.

Light mechs are almost as rigid in how they have to be played as assault mechs. Mediums and heavies are the place for fluidity in build and play style.

I get it... people want to put the most weapons on a mech and just blast away. However, that is an incredibly selfish way to play and can be easily avoided by simply taking a medium or heavy already designed to fill that role. Sometimes it's great to think outside of the box, sometimes that box is there because it's the only thing that will fit in the square hole.

I agree completely.

[FireStoat]

Ruar, on 11 April 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

Sometimes it's great to think outside of the box, sometimes that box is there because it's the only thing that will fit in the square hole.

The absolute rendered truth.

[Snukums]

I'll weigh in on this thread b/c I play an assault much of the time. I don't think there is one right way to play an assault - it depends on the implied or explicit strategy of the team....and yes, the strategy (or lack thereof) can be difficult in a solo drop.

I've been (as many of us have) on both sides of the abuse, as an assault being criticized for not advancing as lights and mediums charge into a kill box and die. It's also fun getting agreement for a push then dying alone as an assault as the team hangs back as soon as they crest the hill or come under fire - hard to trust after a while. On the other hand, assaults that will not engage or push with the team can drive one mad.

I think part of the issue is experience and skill but there are other factors. Some assault builds (e.g. PPC/Gauss) are best dealing damage in the early game and who can fault them for wanting to help the team in the best way they can. A team that launches into a frontal assault without any communication or agreement from the assaults (especially if they are not correctly positioned) can hardly expect them to lead the push.

A bigger issue is the behavior of many players when they see builds or tactics that they do not agree with. Look, I understand it drives us all mad but name calling and venting isn't going to help anyone. Not that I haven't vented myself but I think that if we care about the game (and after lots of crap games...that one sweet match makes up for much) we should just leave the game or offer constructive advice when we get into these games. Nuff said.

[Acehilator]

Is this BS thread still going?

You need to realize that the only difference between a badly played LRM Assault and an regular Assault is how easy it is to spot that bad play. The forums should (on a daily basis!) be overflowing with complaints about Heavies and Assaults doing sub 150 damage, but somehow, they are not.

Then you need to realize that after PGI in their infinite wisdom destroyed LRM5s last patch, that almost all remaining mechs worth playing as LRM boats are in fact Assaults. And although there is a difference in expected performance, even the "worst" of those still worth taking are a solid addition to any team.

And on the most basic level, you need to realize that solo QP is the ONLY mode where LRM Assaults can be played without a problem, being a detriment to the team or requiring any form of special teamplay or whatever.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

tker 669, on 11 April 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

I CAN NOT do any such thing

Fixed it for you... so thankful for reaffirming that you are wildly incompetent to the point you are unable to refute what should have been so easy if your premise about how "bad" & "wanna be" I am was true. So you do not have any ability to judge what is actually happening throughout the entirety of the match besides the the very narrow window of what pops up in front your targeting reticle. So you become a huge detriment where instead of listening and allowing me to put you where your targeting reticle should be, you are almost always to my recollection wandering confusedly in random wrong parts of the map. If you would listen then you would learn what you did wrong... I am not "blaming" people, I am explaining how they were WRONG (cause they were wrong in some of a various manners) so that they will be able to learn how to not repeat the clear mistakes they made which made the team lose. Acceptance is the first step and well over 90% of matches are Lost not Won, and there is a very distinct difference between how those 2 outcomes came to transpire.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 11 April 2017 - 02:01 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Valleric, on 11 April 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

Honestly dude a good pilot can make most builds or mechs work. I got friends I see in sub par mechs doing great. I got friends I see in not optimised builds and they do great. But when they run top tier mechs with optimised builds they become gods of war. Though many say the optimised mechs and builds are not they favorite. **** even my favorite mech isnt optimized with a meta build. I think what matters more is "do you enjoy the weapons and playstyle". My favorite weapon is gauss. So should I not run my fave weapons just because people call it meta cheese? No way. I play what I enjoy as long as it dosnt hurt my team( cough, cough, assault lrms). Its all subjective, while meta players talk **** about players who talk **** about meta, and non meta players brag about how they are better because they don't play meta, and the world keeps spinning. Honestly I don't care if people bring meta builds or not, I just care if they are competent players who are team players.

Calm down man. I was just clarifying why people would feel strongly about the Meta.

[Ruar]

Acehilator, on 11 April 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

Is this BS thread still going?

You need to realize that the only difference between a badly played LRM Assault and an regular Assault is how easy it is to spot that bad play. The forums should (on a daily basis!) be overflowing with complaints about Heavies and Assaults doing sub 150 damage, but somehow, they are not.

Then you need to realize that after PGI in their infinite wisdom destroyed LRM5s last patch, that almost all remaining mechs worth playing as LRM boats are in fact Assaults. And although there is a difference in expected performance, even the "worst" of those still worth taking are a solid addition to any team.

And on the most basic level, you need to realize that solo QP is the ONLY mode where LRM Assaults can be played without a problem, being a detriment to the team or requiring any form of special teamplay or whatever.

You are wrong, but if my last two responses don't change your mind then I'm afraid nothing will.

[Acehilator]

Ruar, on 11 April 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

You are wrong, but if my last two responses don't change your mind then I'm afraid nothing will.

Well let's see... your second to last response get invalidated pretty early on by this uninformed drivel:

Ruar, on 10 April 2017 - 06:06 AM, said:

The OP is absolutely correct that assaults need to learn to stay with the team and be up front regardless of loadout when playing QP. That doesn't mean they have to be the tip of the spear the entire time, but they do need to be close enough to share some armor and provide some intimidation to any push.

That also means assaults should never be full LRM builds in QP. LRMs should be considered support weaponry to provide a little punch at long range while closing the gap. Assaults have to be effective at 300m or less in order to truly fill their role of assaulting.

This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start, and not only on the LRM part. "300m or less", dafuq? Not really the position where you see THE meta Assault with THE meta loadout normally, and people piloting it get no flak for that at all. Nice double standard going on there. Also, why wouldn't properly piloted Assault LRM boats not be part of the push? When piloting one of mine, I lead the damn push 50% of the time, even in my totally tanky IS XL Awesome.

The real life analogy invalidates itself, please stop bringing this stuff up in conversations about computer games, it does not work... at all. So many sweeping generalizations in your version, geez.

And it would be nice if you did your research when commenting on this topic. Getting familiar with LRMs takes a while, three matches played in a subpar LRM boat when you have almost no experience with the weapon system are not going to cut it. But of course, LRMs are a weapon for skill-less noobs, just keep telling yourself that. I'll be over here, enjoying my 61-65% winrate on my useless LRM Assaults. But sure, I only got lucky with my teams.

Yep, yep

[Khobai]

Quote

Not really the position where you see THE meta Assault with THE meta loadout normally,

spirit bears and atlas-s are the only assaults that wanna be that close usually

most assaults like to be 400m-600m to maximize their damage

[Ruar]

Acehilator, on 11 April 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

Well let's see... your second to last response get invalidated pretty early on by this uninformed drivel:



This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start, and not only on the LRM part. "300m or less", dafuq? Not really the position where you see THE meta Assault with THE meta loadout normally, and people piloting it get no flak for that at all. Nice double standard going on there. Also, why wouldn't properly piloted Assault LRM boats not be part of the push? When piloting one of mine, I lead the damn push 50% of the time, even in my totally tanky IS XL Awesome.

The real life analogy invalidates itself, please stop bringing this stuff up in conversations about computer games, it does not work... at all. So many sweeping generalizations in your version, geez.

And it would be nice if you did your research when commenting on this topic. Getting familiar with LRMs takes a while, three matches played in a subpar LRM boat when you have almost no experience with the weapon system are not going to cut it. But of course, LRMs are a weapon for skill-less noobs, just keep telling yourself that. I'll be over here, enjoying my 61-65% winrate on my useless LRM Assaults. But sure, I only got lucky with my teams.

Yep, yep

Whatever helps you feel better about your style of play.

[ANOM O MECH]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 11 April 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

Fixed it for you... so thankful for reaffirming that you are wildly incompetent to the point you are unable to refute what should have been so easy if your premise about how "bad" & "wanna be" I am was true. So you do not have any ability to judge what is actually happening throughout the entirety of the match besides the the very narrow window of what pops up in front your targeting reticle. So you become a huge detriment where instead of listening and allowing me to put you where your targeting reticle should be, you are almost always to my recollection wandering confusedly in random wrong parts of the map. If you would listen then you would learn what you did wrong... I am not "blaming" people, I am explaining how they were WRONG (cause they were wrong in some of a various manners) so that they will be able to learn how to not repeat the clear mistakes they made which made the team lose. Acceptance is the first step and well over 90% of matches are Lost not Won, and there is a very distinct difference between how those 2 outcomes came to transpire.

No, it was good the way it was.

See the thing is you provided a visual aid and whatnot detailing your story, your account and your version.

Who are you to decide who is a detriment or where people should be positioned?

I get that you are really high on yourself and think you know what you are talking about. You might even convince people if you went about it differently or when things went bad you calmly chipped in what you think went wrong or what could have been done better.

However that is not your style apparently. So be it. Just going to have to accept that if you want to yell and call people names and blame people, they might not want to follow your call next time they run into you.

I bet however if you dialed the anger and rage down over the comms and stopped calling people names, since barely anyone steps up to drop call anyways, you'd probably do a whole lot better. Not that you neccessarily have the knowledge, it is just any organization in pugland has a much higher success rate, even if it is bad.

[Valleric]

The6thMessenger, on 11 April 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

Calm down man. I was just clarifying why people would feel strongly about the Meta.

I am very calm. Just being kind.

Acehilator, on 11 April 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

Well let's see... your second to last response get invalidated pretty early on by this uninformed drivel:



This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start, and not only on the LRM part. "300m or less", dafuq? Not really the position where you see THE meta Assault with THE meta loadout normally, and people piloting it get no flak for that at all. Nice double standard going on there. Also, why wouldn't properly piloted Assault LRM boats not be part of the push? When piloting one of mine, I lead the damn push 50% of the time, even in my totally tanky IS XL Awesome.

The real life analogy invalidates itself, please stop bringing this stuff up in conversations about computer games, it does not work... at all. So many sweeping generalizations in your version, geez.

And it would be nice if you did your research when commenting on this topic. Getting familiar with LRMs takes a while, three matches played in a subpar LRM boat when you have almost no experience with the weapon system are not going to cut it. But of course, LRMs are a weapon for skill-less noobs, just keep telling yourself that. I'll be over here, enjoying my 61-65% winrate on my useless LRM Assaults. But sure, I only got lucky with my teams.

Yep, yep

That is why you will always be bad and get rolled by my crew every game. Keep it up. I like the wins.

Khobai, on 11 April 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

spirit bears and atlas-s are the only assaults that wanna be that close usually

most assaults like to be 400m-600m to maximize their damage

LoL ya whatever you say brah.

[Valleric]

This thread was reasonable fo a second there at least. LoL

[Valleric]

Like Snuggles Time said...Some people just wanna watch the world burn.

[Ruar]

Valleric, on 11 April 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

Like Snuggles Time said...Some people just wanna watch the world burn.

From long range, while wasting all that armor.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 11 April 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

spirit bears and atlas-s are the only assaults that wanna be that close usually

most assaults like to be 400m-600m to maximize their damage

Scorch.

Because all brawls should be all Scorch all the time.

Also there are few problems in life that can not be solved by adding a second LB20X and 4 x SRM6 - just because they fit.

[Dee Eight]

MischiefSC, on 11 April 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

Scorch.

Because all brawls should be all Scorch all the time.

Also there are few problems in life that can not be solved by adding a second LB20X and 4 x SRM6 - just because they fit.

Unless your name is Pat Kell. Then its not so good for your health.