224 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 July 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

So imagine that we are both going somewhere in a bus. By your logic it would be fine if I put my a** an inch away from your face and f*rt a dozen times or better yet lay a few bricks. And of course it would be a crime on your part to dictate that I shouldn't do that.

I'm so sorry, but I gotta ask...

Given the context here, so, would the LRMS be the "f*rt" or the "bricks" in this extended metaphor?

[Ryllen Kriel]

The Meta of this game is something I have a love/hate relationship with. Some players only run Meta mechs because they only care about winning. I'm not that kind of player. I play for fun. Sometimes "fun" builds coexist with the Meta, sometimes they are fairly far off from it. The only difference I see with most Tier 1 players is how beaten down they are by the Meta and how they adhere to its dogma. As the community has stated before, Tier level is an experience counter and at Tier 1 a lot of people submit to Meta.

I made an alternate account almost a year ago and found Tier 5 to be much more creative...in good and bad ways. Sometimes you fight players with ridiculous builds which make no sense whatsoever, but also you don't usually get chewed out by some Meta-obsessed try-hard for having anything different than a singular template competition build over VOIP. It's exciting to never know exactly what you are up against after facing the same cookie cutter builds copy-pasted off Metamechs, or some other guide for the uncreative souls.

[Jaster Me Reel]

Wow, so many divergent points from the OP. Gotta love interweb experts and as much as I hate to add anything to this drivel, I can't help but comment ON THE ORIGINAL POST. The OP states he has an issue with higher Tier players and the similar builds they tend to always use to remain "successful" in their drops. As some have pointed out, taking a Gauss/Peep build or standard clan lasor vomit (as the OP stated is the monotonous meta most teams keep using) is the easiest way to ensure you have a workable load out on the vast majority of maps/situations. I really don't see an issue with any one loud out. I see a lot of comments regarding "brawling is dumb", "taking LURMS is dumb", etc, etc. Let's drill down to one simple point (other than some of the off beat map modes like capping points) most games are won by a team's ability to focus down and remove an enemy mech from the battlefield faster than they can to your team. With that being said, a coordinated effort by your own team is key. There are many factors to this....communication, blah, blah but I digress and let's get back to the issue of the original post. Most of your quick play drops have ill coordinated load outs. Sorry for the long post but here is my suggestion for addressing the OP and what I feel is the root cause......allow everyone to drop into QP by picking IS or Clan and then picking a tonnage or a weight class. This will allow whatever match making magic to happen and then once the map and mode have been selected you can pick your mech (like CW/FP). This would allow you a minute or so to work out a quick and dirty approach to your team's strategy. Brawl, LURM, PPFLD, etc etc. There are potatoes who will do whatever they choose but this would be a way to NOT end up with a brawl mech on Polar with the majority of your team being Gauss Peep and you can't seem to get close. The ONLY way brawl works is if there is a coordinated push by your team so you can share armor and not get focused one at a time. So, there you go. One more "opinion" for mottled stew of issues with MWO.

[kesmai]

lol @ op.
Wanna brawl?
Join -42-.
Not always successful, but w\l ratio doesn't lie.

[Vellron2005]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 July 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

So imagine that we are both going somewhere in a bus. By your logic it would be fine if I put my a** an inch away from your face and f*rt a dozen times or better yet lay a few bricks. And of course it would be a crime on your part to dictate that I shouldn't do that.

Your example has nothing in common with what I'm saying. What you said would be the in-game equivalent of you constantly standing behind my mech, making me unable to move or back away and doing that on purpose just to spite me (Also, extremely childish).

The real-life equivalent of what I'm saying it looks to be a LRM boat these days would be if saaay, Michael Jordan walked up to Pipen, ordered him to score every point by dunking only, then stopped the match to berate him verbally for half an hour about him only hitting 3-pointers and how lame it is to only hit 3-pointers and not slam dunk.

(Disclaimer: its just a metaphor, I don't know or care about Jordan or Pipen's play style or stats. I'm not really that much into basketball anyway)

That would be a more realistic approximation.

Edited by Vellron2005, 06 July 2017 - 05:31 AM.

[El Bandito]

Vellron2005, on 06 July 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

Your example has nothing in common with what I'm saying. What you said would be the in-game equivalent of you constantly standing behind my mech, making me unable to move or back away and doing that on purpose just to spite me (Also, extremely childish).

The real-life equivalent of what I'm saying it looks to be a LRM boat these days would be if saaay, Michael Jordan walked up to Pipen, ordered him to score every point by dunking only, then stopped the match to berate him verbally for half an hour about him only hitting 3-pointers and how lame it is to only hit 3-pointers and not slam dunk.

(Disclaimer: its just a metaphor, I don't know or care about Jordan or Pipen's play style or stats. I'm not really that much into basketball anyway)

That would be a more realistic approximation.

Depends. If you bring LRMs in SQ or GQ, I have no issues with that--as anything goes there. But if you bring LRMs in CW Invasion maps then you are severely gimping your team. CW maps, especially Invasion ones are not for "3-pointers".

[Asym]

Greetings !

The original post is spot on....

I'm just a 4 month NOOB in the game but what I actually did for a living was all about efficiency, tactical doctrine and innovation... In my masters program we used video games as a way to see the relationship between cultural associations and economic sales innovation...... Sorry, I lnow, that's boring.

To solve the original post's paradox, you first need to understand the dynamics of the environment....

Fun = Variation. Variation = Cost. There is the rub for PGI... MWO is based on "a" tactical doctrine of the future. We all know that: after all, we're talking about "walking armored vehicles" that are illogical for a space based culture with anti-gravity and faster than light space vehicles...........

What really keeps people interested is actually variation........ Look at the space games where there are literally thousands of "maps" and "missions." My entire brand new team left for space BECAUSE of a lack of variation AND the game itself being changed intentionally into an endless circle of linear changes that are linked to a micro-sales economy.

If we want MWO to thrive, as League of Legends (LoL) does and have "a million players on-line every day", PGI has to do something that defies their version logic: they must de-evolve their entire game platform back to the beginning.... In other words, un-nerf everything: weapons, armor, speed, mobility and everything else.... PGI must make all of the maps a "deadly place" for everybody.....

Why? Because as someone earlier stated, fighting is not a two dimensional environment (forward and backward, left and right); it's a lot more complicated than that. Warfare, in a space capable, faster than light tech base is directionaly proportional to the number of dimensions that technology operates on. Space is roll, pitch, yaw, gravity and radiation (5D). So, to have the MWO universe be true to the "reality of space technologies", the only way to get there is to take all of the "limiters" off of the game. Fighting with space age weapons should be all about what someone else said earlier as well: tactics, concealment, cover, doctrine and in the end, intuition and initiative (the stuff that keeps it fun!)

PGI is headed towards a 2D platform to contain costs and appease the "brawling" core that don't want to have to think and their sales engine will contineously NERF everything so that you'll have to "buy" to remain relevant.....

Is stagnation fun?

Just my thoughts and opinion......

[R Valentine]

PGI created this mess in large part due to random maps that lock you into your mech before you even know where you're dropping. No one wants to bring their SRM brawler to Polar Highlands. Given how often I see Polar, taking my SRM mech would mean 50% of the time I suffer at the hands of LRMs and Gauss/PPC while being next to useless for my team unless they push, which is by no means a guarantee. Conversely, no one wants to take the LRM mech to Mining Colony or Crimson Straight. So given this uncontrollable variable, what would you do to ensure that your chances of success are at least comparable across multiple map types? That would be take a mech and loadout that works in all situations, even if some better than others. Gauss/PPC works on every map. Mining/Crimson/Polar/Frozen/Alpine/Bog/Canyon you name it, Gauss/PPC can handle it. Yes, you don't want to get stuck at point blank with that Atlas with SRMs and an AC/20, but you can still find places to post up and wreak havok while remaining well outside of SRM range. You're also king of the ranged game already, so Polar and Frozen don't bother you in the least bit, and both maps are great for pop tarts. Clan laser vomit is very much the same. Good at range. Decent in close. It's never truly gimped on any map.

So the choice befalls you. Do you risk taking your favorite brawler to Polar Highlands and swearing at your screen for 10 minutes, or do you just bite the bullet and take a meta pick that will work just about anywhere? "Fun" mechs are only fun when you have a chance. Without knowing where you're going ahead of time, it makes less sense to play for "fun" when there's a good chance you won't have any fun at all.

[Bud Crue]

Asym, on 06 July 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

Greetings !

Fun = Variation. Variation = Cost.
...
Is stagnation fun?

Just my thoughts and opinion......

More to it than that though. Specifically:

Variation = Fun
Winning = More "fun"?

And to me that is what the whole "higher tier games...Just...Boring" of the OP is getting at. Sure we all like variation, but in this game certain builds, on certain mechs are in fact better than the others. Those who are the best at this game recognize that and take advantage of it. That's the meta, and the meta may be boring, but people like winning more than they like losing or even more than they like the "fun" of variation. If PGI could ever achieve a truly balanced game where all mechs and builds were equally effective, then while there would be no meta, but there would also be no real variation. There's your paradox.

[PhoenixFire55]

Vellron2005, on 06 July 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

Your example has nothing in common with what I'm saying. What you said would be the in-game equivalent of you constantly standing behind my mech, making me unable to move or back away and doing that on purpose just to spite me (Also, extremely childish).

The real-life equivalent of what I'm saying it looks to be a LRM boat these days would be if saaay, Michael Jordan walked up to Pipen, ordered him to score every point by dunking only, then stopped the match to berate him verbally for half an hour about him only hitting 3-pointers and how lame it is to only hit 3-pointers and not slam dunk.

(Disclaimer: its just a metaphor, I don't know or care about Jordan or Pipen's play style or stats. I'm not really that much into basketball anyway)

That would be a more realistic approximation.

I can't care less what weapons you have on your mech as long as you are actively contributing towards team success. But when you say that it is YOUR game ... now this, I have an issue with.

Just like we all agree to follow certain rules while riding a bus, we also agree to follow certain rules while playing a multiplayer game. Claiming that its YOUR game and that you can play it however YOU want is as good as refusing to follow said rules, i.e. griefing.

I haven't seen you play, so I have no knowledge how you play, in what mechs and what you do with them, and thus I am not commenting on any of that. What I do comment, and what I do have an issue with is your declared refusal to abide by the local rules. Because that is a rather slippery slope, and what you might consider playing the game how you want others may consider griefing, especially since you refuse to acknowledge both written and unspoken rules.

Bud Crue, on 06 July 2017 - 04:59 AM, said:

I'm so sorry, but I gotta ask...

Given the context here, so, would the LRMS be the "f*rt" or the "bricks" in this extended metaphor?

LOL ... neither.

[Asym]

The only solution in a linear risk model, where PGI has left us, is the devolution of the entire system back to a place where the mechs that were originally created are return to their full capabilites.... Where the entire environment "depends" on the cooperative effort of all 12, 8, 4 mech's BECAUSE, everyone will perish because it is soooooooo dangerous.

Meta will go away in that environment because "specialization" would equate to inflexibility....

Lights would go back to their "real world" roles because if they showed up in the frontal 60 degree arc of a main batle mech, they die: period. Mediums and heavies would resume their flanking and interdiction roles.... Assaults would anchor teams and dictate specific areas of control......

Indirect fire would be fatal if you give up cover without counter indirect fire....

It would be a lot more real and dynamic. Every choice would be decisive.....one way or another....

Everyone, no matter the Tier would die if they got "Darwinian". What could be seen can be hit. And, what can be hit will be killed. Real world.......

Want real change? To exit linear risk one must turn 90 degrees off of the linear path you are on and face "real risk" vis-a'-vis existencial risk..... (Test this with a Mobius loop if you doubt me... Freshman level Euclidian math....) Sorry, it's the way the real world works....

Again, as a new player who loves the mechwarrior concept, with repsect, I offer no offense............

[Coolant]

I "Liked" the OP's post (although it was very long) because almost all gamers are somewhat competitive and to be competitive it does seem like you are funneled into a certain gamestyle, mech or weapon. Many times though my boredom overcomes my competitiveness and I have to switch mechs often. I get to the point at which I would rather not play then play a certain mech anymore. I prolly have about 20 mechs that I pilot fairly regularly from Mediums to Assaults (can't stand lights in MWO, they are too OP'd compared to MW4).

[KekistanWillRiseAgain]

Vellron2005, on 05 July 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

Its MY GAME.

You are looking at this incorrectly if that is your stance. You are expressing the disproven concept of Adam Smith that "what is best for the Individual & Group is that all Individuals do what is best for ONLY themselves." The Nash Equilibrium (he won a Nobel prize for this & they made that movie A Beautiful Mind about because it is such a revolutionary concept in Ecomonics & Game Theory) shows that "what is best for the Individual & Group is when all Individuals do what is best for themselves AND THE GROUP." It is your game if you are playing a single player game, it is Our game when we are playing in a Team based game. Especially in a game that requires Team based cooperation to win, this is not Hawken or CoD or BF where the "teams" are in name only and it is just a bunch of Individuals running around doing their own independent actions not really interacting with each other.

[Pur]

Tbh, a proper squad in BF absolutely demolishes everything.

[KekistanWillRiseAgain]

King Harkinian, on 06 July 2017 - 07:58 AM, said:

Tbh, a proper squad in BF absolutely demolishes everything.

A "proper squad" of anything demolishes in pretty much all aspects of life in that cooperation trumps disparate individual actions, but most BF games are just Individuals running around against other Individuals which is all that is required to Win.

[El Bandito]

KekistanWillRiseAgain, on 06 July 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

Especially in a game that requires Team based cooperation to win, this is not Hawken or CoD or BF where the "teams" are in name only and it is just a bunch of Individuals running around doing their own independent actions not really interacting with each other.

Except you have perfectly described the MWO quickplay mode. Just drop into an average SQ match and see.

Edited by El Bandito, 06 July 2017 - 08:15 AM.

[The Basilisk]

I realy don't knowwhat some of the ppl here is driving but if I learned one thing its that a good pilot can do good on any chassis in next to any qp or FP environment.
I'm not talking about the stuff the league pros are doing just about the realm where most of the games take place.

Grid Iron with 3MLasers 1 AC2 and 1 LBX ?
Does this sound like a good build ?

Well there are some players on the leaderboards that go with builds like that and still rule.

Those guys that adhere to only a little fraction of chassis like the drug addicted to his favorit dope and claim those are the only chassis you can realy be good in .... well

[S p a n i a r d]

Just save a screenshot of your overall best season stats to remind yourself in the future that

"I'm not a bad player.. See? I had X W/L and K/D ratio when I was serious"

Lol.

Then after that, feel free to think of whatever build/gimmick that will make you happy with this game,
like what Th3B33f does in his videos. No worries about how stupid it might look like for other players.

With that, hopefully you will enjoy this game better

Edited by S p a n i a r d, 06 July 2017 - 08:26 AM.

[Pur]

Problem isn't the match making itself, it's that you're carrying oblivious potatoes who truly do not care at all about sharing armor, focus firing, teamplay, group movements, or reacting to info or communication.

Therefore, regardless of how well or long you carry, the problem will always remain, because these players choose, willingly, to remain ignorant and selfish with regards to their play.

In other words, being a butterfly chaser who only does whatever they feel like, is a bigger liability than a day 1 LRMer. And at least the day 1 player has potential, has promise, to foster a playstyle that is both more enjoyable to them as they get better, and will actually augment their team and be a productive member when they drop. The people who have played for years but still "do me" 100% of the time are the culprits.

In addition, the scary monster that lurks in the dark is betas. Private Uphams. The type of player who spends the vast majority of their time thinking about they can continue running away from threats rather than playing with any shred whatsoever of confidence. You can be a LRMer with confidence. But a coward will never be of much use, regardless of their weapons, in almost any situation.

Just some thoughts, not that they matter at all on this forum.

[Clownwarlord]

It sounds more like you do not enjoy solo cue tier 1. If that is the case try group or faction warfare.