223 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 29 April 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

It is okay man... you are fine by me, being a decent player with a rote learned understanding of the game still puts you far ahead of the majority of players. A true understanding would be better but not that necessary since that is only required for theoretical applications to figure this kind of stuff out... you can not figure out the WHY of it but at being able to figure the WHAT is enough to play well

The "WHY" isn't an answer you get by armchair theorizing. I play regularly with 4 teams depending on time of day. I've played with over 30 on mech bay tour - from LRMs, NARC and tag in old school Davion and Marik to fastphract rushes with ex-liao mercs to Stalker LL walking firing lines in Steiner. ERLL spam in Kurita and "Reach-Around" fast medium/heavy flank pushes. SplatTBRs, uac and laservomit pushes in Clans, EBJ sniping and HBK IIC poptarting. Light rishes, objective pushes.

The "WHY" is not shown by theorizing but by what wins and why it wins. D5 is sweeping this season in MRBC and the decks and strats from last season and even MWOWC are different. WHY is shown in those matches. It's not shown in theorycrafting or anecdotal personal experiences but in the aggregate of overall gameplay that creates leaderboard positions and tested in repeated and repeatable success in matches.

There is no group of players more adaptable to change than people with a competitive mindset. It's not rote - it's the flexibility to discard bad ideas when they are tested and fail.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

The "WHY" isn't an answer you get by armchair theorizing. I play regularly with 4 teams depending on time of day. I've played with over 30 on mech bay tour - from LRMs, NARC and tag in old school Davion and Marik to fastphract rushes with ex-liao mercs to Stalker LL walking firing lines in Steiner. ERLL spam in Kurita and "Reach-Around" fast medium/heavy flank pushes. SplatTBRs, uac and laservomit pushes in Clans, EBJ sniping and HBK IIC poptarting. Light rishes, objective pushes.

The "WHY" is not shown by theorizing but by what wins and why it wins. D5 is sweeping this season in MRBC and the decks and strats from last season and even MWOWC are different. WHY is shown in those matches. It's not shown in theorycrafting or anecdotal personal experiences but in the aggregate of overall gameplay that creates leaderboard positions and tested in repeated and repeatable success in matches.

There is no group of players more adaptable to change than people with a competitive mindset. It's not rote - it's the flexibility to discard bad ideas when they are tested and fail.

There is truth to this, and there is an inherent blindness to it.

Simple fact, if you want to know what works... the Comp Teams will show you.

The issue comes in the second category. You see to the Comp Mentality, you take what is in the top 1% of Optimal, and discard the rest (if possible). Period.

But literally anything that does not crack that "Competitive Optimal" ceiling, gets little further review or testing by the masses, and even the Meta, is largely formulated by a handful of guys, and reinforced by other players who's strength is in their reflexes not their Einstein like build theory. (biggest myth to this day is that being on a comp team automatically imparts some insight as to how things work. Even at comp tier, it's still largely Monkey See, Monkey Do, just with monkeys who have better reflexes and discipline for the most part. The actual brain trust in in the Comp Scene is still a relative minority)

That means that the actual overall value of the non top tier weapon, comparable to each other, is far less tested and known, in general. Which is why when people compare stuff in the 85% or 92% of or what not, it confuses some of these players...because if it's not 99-100% why would you even use it?

And the fact is.... for the majority of the playerbase? Th effective difference between Viable, and Optimal, is often MUCH smaller than the relative difference as seen in the competitive scene. In Olympic swimming, those new swimsuit designs are the difference between Gold and not medalling. You take a bunch of weeked semi pro swimmers? Those suits will literally mean nothing. It's like being the fat guy bicycling in the lance armstrong outfit..... it literally doesn't do anything to help you.

So there is a lot to be learned from the Comp Scene. But not all of it translates to the game most of us actually play here, outside of the Comp Leagues. And what get's overlooked by that myopathy, is what actually can be effective here, in Non Comp Land.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 April 2017 - 10:45 AM.

[Scout Derek]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

So there is a lot to be learned from the Comp Scene. But not all of it translates to the game most of us actually play here, outside of the Comp Leagues. And what get's overlooked by that myopathy, is what actually can be effective here, in Non Comp Land.

There's always been a defining line too between Comp and the mainstream players, us for example. What one defines as viable, and what one defines as playable. Do I like playing Night Gyrs because they're viable? No, I don't. I like playing My Orion IIC(O) more. Would the Orion IIC-C be a better choice because it's more viable? Yes, but do I find it to be a playable mech, in my eyes? No, I don't.

This logic applies to everything as well. AMS much? Small Lasers, Flamers? The list can go on for what a player finds viable or playable. Huntsman against the Hunchback IIC for example.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

There is truth to this, and there is an inherent blindness to it.

Simple fact, if you want to know what works... the Comp Teams will show you.

The issue comes in the second category. You see to the Comp Mentality, you take what is in the top 1% of Optimal, and discard the rest (if possible). Period.

But literally anything that does not crack that "Competitive Optimal" ceiling, gets little further review or testing by the masses, and even the Meta, is largely formulated by a handful of guys, and reinforced by other players who's strength is in their reflexes not their Einstein like build theory. (biggest myth to this day is that being on a comp team automatically imparts some insight as to how things work. Even at comp tier, it's still largely Monkey See, Monkey Do, just with monkeys who have better reflexes and discipline for the most part. The actual brain trust in in the Comp Scene is still a relative minority)

That means that the actual overall value of the non top tier weapon, comparable to each other, is far less tested and known, in general. Which is why when people compare stuff in the 85% or 92% of or what not, it confuses some of these players...because if it's not 99-100% why would you even use it?

And the fact is.... for the majority of the playerbase? Th effective difference between Viable, and Optimal, is often MUCH smaller than the relative difference as seen in the competitive scene. In Olympic swimming, those new swimsuit designs are the difference between Gold and not medalling. You take a bunch of weeked semi pro swimmers? Those suits will literally mean nothing. It's like being the fat guy bicycling in the lance armstrong outfit..... it literally doesn't do anything to help you.

So there is a lot to be learned from the Comp Scene. But not all of it translates to the game most of us actually play here, outside of the Comp Leagues. And what get's overlooked by that myopathy, is what actually can be effective here, in Non Comp Land.

I would say that all the teams I play with test non-meta stuff constantly. Even LRMs, MGs, etc. Theorycraft, build and test new stuff both in duels, private matches and live at. Every day. For example Merata runs a laservomit MDD with incredible success. Noleet turned me on to a 2xUAC10, 1xUAC2, 4cerml MADIIC that's an awesome performer. You'll see Gargoyles about as often as MADs in our heavy waves and no few Adders in the light ones.

I see that MORE with competitive players and teams, not less. Also a much bigger willingness to accept 'player preference'. There was a Kit Fox in a Div A MRBC match I saw the other night.

The stuff you see played out in comp and play between competitive players and teams is the result of constant tweaking and theorycrafting. More adaptive, not less. Willingness to change their preconceptions in the face of tested evidence. The other side of that is an unwillingness to accept ideas that are not tested or when tested, fail. That's not a lack of flexibility it's moving forward.

[Bishop Steiner]

Scout Derek, on 29 April 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

There's always been a defining line too between Comp and the mainstream players, us for example. What one defines as viable, and what one defines as playable. Do I like playing Night Gyrs because they're viable? No, I don't. I like playing My Orion IIC(O) more. Would the Orion IIC-C be a better choice because it's more viable? Yes, but do I find it to be a playable mech, in my eyes? No, I don't.

This logic applies to everything as well. AMS much? Small Lasers, Flamers? The list can go on for what a player finds viable or playable. Huntsman against the Hunchback IIC for example.

The terms really are Viable and Optimal. The funny thing for me, is for the 5 years I've been here, the usual use of Viable, they literally mean optimal, because to the comp scene, non optimal IS non viable.

When the truth is, viable simply means useful?usable, and to the non comp scene, has a far different level of usefulness. And in fact many normal players do not have the skill set (nor the team backing him) to really always get use out of the "optimal" designs.

Over the years, may "optimal" comp designs have actually proven mediocre in Pug play because of concepts that in comp team play (shared armor, for one, there was a time at least where some teams paired up complimenting sword and board designs that allwoed them to further strip armor from one side...but without your wingman, you are dead), or the skill needed to maximize it (one average player in a Night Gyr poptart doesn't produce the shock and awe, nor DPS, needed to steamroll that a 3-4 as part of a full team strategy does). Thus while a solo comp player using his whole PUG team as meatshields will still usually get his normal high scores, often to the detriment of the team actually winning, the average joe will be more useless than he might have been in a simple peek build or brawler.

[Jackal Noble]

OK I've cooled off, don't care about the ballistic orientation/placement of the mkII anymore.

[Tarogato]

Hrmmmm...

[Pariah Devalis]

Tarogato, on 29 April 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hrmmmm...

Taking aside the different arm weapons and missile weapons, looks like the CT is smooshed in a little, which is why it looks more bulbous. It isn't that it is wider, but that it is flatter. The crotch was made smaller on the actual model, too. Not as tall. Which I am fine with, honestly, as it reduces the profile of the mech.

The arms themselves lost about 20% of their overall length, as well, which I am not a fan of. It might be partially based on perspective (translating a 2D image to 3D), but they almost look like they are sawed off. The overall arm length is just a little too short, IMO.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Tarogato, on 29 April 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hrmmmm...

I... that is weird, is this a perspective issue (I know from experience 3d programs do some weird perspective things) or maybe this is them doing stuff for the scaling. I really wished they had some shot showing it from more angles because you would get a better feel. Camera focal length means a lot for this sort of thing and would explain a lot.

[Cy Mitchell]

Well said Bishop. I have been a comp player in other games, including a couple MechWarrior titles. I always cringe when I see the known comp players on this forum come in an pronounce a new Mech as DOA or non-viable because it does not meet the criteria on MWO comp play. And just for the record I do not consider FP as comp play. It can be, I suppose, but for the most part it is not.

How many of the almost 500 Mechs in MWO do comps currently utilize in Competitive play, perhaps 30?

Edited by Rampage, 29 April 2017 - 12:17 PM.

[Tarogato]

I tried to outline the features of each and overlay them, I think it kinda shows what I don't like about the model compared to the art.








Model is definitely more bulbous, fatter, and bug-like. Concept looks leaner and meaner to me, especially to do with the cockpit panes.

[Y E O N N E]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 29 April 2017 - 12:07 PM, said:

I... that is weird, is this a perspective issue (I know from experience 3d programs do some weird perspective things) or maybe this is them doing stuff for the scaling. I really wished they had some shot showing it from more angles because you would get a better feel. Camera focal length means a lot for this sort of thing and would explain a lot.

The nose on the model is absolutely more rounded than the pointy concept, and both the arms and torso are shorter. Some of it could be innocent translation error, but it also wouldn't surprise me to find out that they want this 'Mech to be a certain size, so they keep the arms smaller so they don't soak up the volume that they want for the torso.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

MischiefSC, on 29 April 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

The "WHY" isn't an answer you get by armchair theorizing. I play regularly with 4 teams depending on time of day.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!! My whole point is there a difference between Group & Solo strategies... I have FUC KING REPEATEDLY said that D5 is the correct thing to do in TT or Group, BUT IT THE WRONG THING TO DO IN SOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!! It will fail almost every single time because while you are trying to poo-poo away the effectiveness that shooting mainly Arm weapons (we all know the best meta is Torso based weapons to start with) from above into the sides & backs of people from being able to actually counter the maneuver is based ENTIRELY upon there being High Trust relationships & Good Discipline to make it work. In Solo queue you are dealing with Low Trust relationships & Sketchy Discipline at best, therefore the team will break from a psychological point of view when coming under fire in those conditions almost always... so all you accomplish is fragmenting a whole team into 2 separate groups that are easily focused down. What is "comp" is generally not actually that good in Solo because you are operating under very different conditions... so something like a Pokebear which is as "Comp" as it gets is next to useless while the Dakka Bear is the God-Emperor Mech of the battlefield, all the Meta mechs are actually very sub-optimal for Solo play and too many of those Cancer Mechs will always kill a team. It is hard enough for the Team to carry a Pokebear and ACH/RVN-3L but once you start adding a NTG or two and that team is guaranteed to lose most of the time, having too many Win More mechs without enough mech to get to the be in the winning state is just a frustrating defeat.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 29 April 2017 - 12:50 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Thus while a solo comp player using his whole PUG team as meatshields will still usually get his normal high scores, often to the detriment of the team actually winning, the average joe will be more useless than he might have been in a simple peek build or brawler.

This is exactly what I mean when I said they are Win More mechs, the playstyle & mentality of using the other 11 people as disposable NPC meatshields is what makes them Cancer.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tarogato, on 29 April 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hrmmmm...

got one of these with the base loadout for less visual disparity/clutter? (Arms are definitely waaaaaay off the mark though)

While I actually generally like the model, I am curious just how far off the mark it is. (and let's be honest, it actually has helped the Cougar, IMO)

Yeonne Greene, on 29 April 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

The nose on the model is absolutely more rounded than the pointy concept, and both the arms and torso are shorter. Some of it could be innocent translation error, but it also wouldn't surprise me to find out that they want this 'Mech to be a certain size, so they keep the arms smaller so they don't soak up the volume that they want for the torso.

I think this is true, to some degree. As translation form 2D art to 3D model might actual cause some volume issues, depending on other desired size parameters.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 April 2017 - 12:54 PM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 April 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

The nose on the model is absolutely more rounded than the pointy concept, and both the arms and torso are shorter. Some of it could be innocent translation error, but it also wouldn't surprise me to find out that they want this 'Mech to be a certain size, so they keep the arms smaller so they don't soak up the volume that they want for the torso.

That sounds rather likely, but, it would be nice if they turned the perspective view off and took photos instead, yeah wouldn't resemble how it looks in game where it takes into consideration how things get smaller with distance but IDK, it gives a better idea of how the darn thing looks. Or give an engineers 3 view of it with an isometric stance mimicking the concept art so we see from in front, above, and from left or right side.

[CK16]

I hope the ears have paint on them this time. They are not omni pods so makes.more sense to have them be painted since fixed launchers (besides how MWO handles them.)

[Scout Derek]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

The terms really are Viable and Optimal. The funny thing for me, is for the 5 years I've been here, the usual use of Viable, they literally mean optimal, because to the comp scene, non optimal IS non viable.

When the truth is, viable simply means useful?usable, and to the non comp scene, has a far different level of usefulness. And in fact many normal players do not have the skill set (nor the team backing him) to really always get use out of the "optimal" designs.

Over the years, may "optimal" comp designs have actually proven mediocre in Pug play because of concepts that in comp team play (shared armor, for one, there was a time at least where some teams paired up complimenting sword and board designs that allwoed them to further strip armor from one side...but without your wingman, you are dead), or the skill needed to maximize it (one average player in a Night Gyr poptart doesn't produce the shock and awe, nor DPS, needed to steamroll that a 3-4 as part of a full team strategy does). Thus while a solo comp player using his whole PUG team as meatshields will still usually get his normal high scores, often to the detriment of the team actually winning, the average joe will be more useless than he might have been in a simple peek build or brawler.

Pretty much sums up what I had in mind.

[Hit the Deck]

I think I'm glad that I waited until the very end before buying the Mad Cat Mk. II because the 3D model isn't as nice as the concept art.

I do hope that they will fix that so I can buy it for C-Bills.

[Scout Derek]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 April 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

got one of these with the base loadout for less visual disparity/clutter? (Arms are definitely waaaaaay off the mark though)

While I actually generally like the model, I am curious just how far off the mark it is. (and let's be honest, it actually has helped the Cougar, IMO)


I think this is true, to some degree. As translation form 2D art to 3D model might actual cause some volume issues, depending on other desired size parameters.

One thing I noticed is the leg joint design. I'll circle it right now in this crudely made red piece O' crap circle image I made:



- In the in-game model art, the circle piston found on the back of the leg is larger and longer than the original concept art.
-The In-game model has a pad of sorts for it's thigh. It's the circle closest to where the torso meets with the legs. The pad (not the one facing upwards, but outwards), is a bit elongated more than what the concept art had originally had.

At Least, that's what I see as far as differences that are noticeable aside from the arm lengths.