99 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Precisely. There is no need to get personal on either side. I've tried both builds and dropping those 2 heatsinks means that instead of 58-59% on first 6 laser (2HLL 4 ERML) alpha on Crimson, standing still, not using coolshots, you go to 65-66%. You can still get a second alpha x6 in as soon as all weapons are off cooldown, but that takes you to 90+% and requires you to wait an extra 5-6 seconds before going for a third alpha. Conversely, with just the 6 lasers and extra heatsinks, you can get the 3rd Alpha in within 1 sec of all lasers coming off cooldown.

well the assumption is youre poking at midrange with time to cooloff in between alphas. youre not trying to fire off alphas as quickly as possible. since you have time to cool off between alphas, the larger alpha capability is better IMO (more damage for the same exposure time). For a poking build, Id rather be able to do 25% more damage upfront than have slightly more cooling efficiency. Because every time you expose your mech you need to be doing more damage than you take in return for it to benefit your team, a higher max alpha helps achieve that.

but yeah in a brawl the extra DHS and being able to fire off alphas faster is better. but you should be avoiding brawling with that build because its designed for midrange poking. If you wanted to brawl and fire off alphas as quickly as possible youd be using medium pulses instead. you wouldnt be using CERML and HLL.

so I mean its really about designing the mech to be the best at what its intended to do. for me that means maximum damage with minimal exposure. thats what midrange poking is all about.

Edited by Khobai, 19 November 2017 - 01:55 PM.

[ANOM O MECH]

Wolfways, on 19 November 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

He knows that games are supposed to be fun...which seems to be something you haven't figured out yet.
But you go ahead not having fun with meta builds and sucking up to the "top players". After all, MWO was made for you.

You know what? Baseball is supposed to fun as well. Yet for some reason people playing it still try and complete the objectives (ie hit ball and run around bases) and try to win by getting more runs than the other team.

Still on baseball, there is actually a professional league for this game. The players are respected. Often when they are done they teach others the game, go on to broadcasting and inform the general public about the game.

So yeah, it is not unreasonable to consider a top players opinion as informed one in this game. You will be unable to give a reasonable reason why it wouldn't be. Pretty simple as far as this debate goes.

Do go on hating meta and top players though. If that is fun for you by all means. However if the day passes where you think it would be nice to have a winning record and positive kdr, or if you just want to be the best you can be at a game, there are great resources and videos that will help.

Edited by tker 669, 19 November 2017 - 02:22 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

So yeah, it is not unreasonable to consider a top players opinion as informed one in this game

but it is unreasonable to consider everyone elses opinion uninformed because theyre not a top player

thats the mistake you made

[ANOM O MECH]

PurplePuke, on 19 November 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

You're doing a terrible job of making an actual argument. Better retire and lick your wounds.

It is no strange coincidence that the three of you are all in the negatives in winning and killing.

You are also doing an incredibly poor job at following.

I did not make the argument against the build. A player much more qualified than myself or the guy arguing fruitlessly did. What I did was question the credibility of the guy who doesn't understand mech efficiency, dps, etc.

Are you really someone who would not respect someone at the top of their field/game/sport or whatever? Would someone who played rec hockey actually ever think they had a better understanding or grasp on the game than say Sydney Crosby? Really seem preposterous that you could really think like that....

[ANOM O MECH]

Khobai, on 19 November 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

but it is unreasonable to consider everyone elses opinion uninformed because theyre not a top player

thats the mistake you made

Actually that is a poor interpretation of what I did and not accurate. I made no assumption about any player. I also specifically said that you are not very good at the game and that makes your opinion suspect in comparison to someone who is very good.

So no this isn't about everyone and generalizations.

It is about you and your qualifications or knowledge of the game vs a guy on the team that won the world championships last year....

Think if you were arguing with one of the Cubs after they won last year about which bat was better how utterly silly you would look.

[Wolfways]

tker 669, on 19 November 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

You know what? Baseball is supposed to fun as well. Yet for some reason people playing it still try and complete the objectives (ie hit ball and run around bases) and try to win by getting more runs than the other team.

Still on baseball, there is actually a professional league for this game. The players are respected. Often when they are done they teach others the game, go on to broadcasting and inform the general public about the game.

So yeah, it is not unreasonable to consider a top players opinion as informed one in this game. You will be unable to give a reasonable reason why it wouldn't be. Pretty simple as far as this debate goes.

You do know that in baseball players are forced to use the same equipment right? If there was meta in baseball it would be players using extra large bats.

Quote

Do go on hating meta and top players though. If that is fun for you by all means. However if the day passes where you think it would be nice to have a winning record and positive kdr, or if you just want to be the best you can be at a game, there are great resources and videos that will help.

I don't hate the players, I just consider meta a crutch that improves players beyond how good they actually are.
Also I tried playing meta once, then I quit for 2 years due to boredom.

Besides, why would I want to be the best I can be in a game that isn't fun?

[Wolfways]

tker 669, on 19 November 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Are you really someone who would not respect someone at the top of their field/game/sport or whatever? Would someone who played rec hockey actually ever think they had a better understanding or grasp on the game than say Sydney Crosby? Really seem preposterous that you could really think like that....

It's actually preposterous that you think there's no-one better than someone "at the top of their field/game/sport or whatever".
Have you actually never considered that out of the millions of people who play sports for recreation there are those who are better than the aforementioned players, but who don't get famous because they don't want to?
Just because you don't strive to reach the "top" doesn't mean you couldn't get there if you wanted to.

Also,. you cannot judge a players performance by stats alone.

Edited by Wolfways, 19 November 2017 - 02:50 PM.

[bayoucowboy]

Admittedly, I did not read all 5 pages of this post (I read pg 1 and some of pg 5). I find it amusing that clan players are complaining that the "poke/meta" style is "too boring" for them. Solution = play IS. We have many ways to play the game creatively (because we have to) and lots of different tech to choose from (but they tend to be inferior - hence the constantly changing tactics).

You might have to sacrifice some of your KDR. And do crazy things like push over a hill. With autocannons.

[JediPanther]

This thread has turned into another:

[SFC174]

Khobai, on 19 November 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

but yeah in a brawl the extra DHS and being able to fire off alphas faster is better. but you should be avoiding brawling with that build because its designed for midrange poking. If you wanted to brawl and fire off alphas as quickly as possible youd be using medium pulses instead. you wouldnt be using CERML and HLL.

so I mean its really about designing the mech to be the best at what its intended to do. for me that means maximum damage with minimal exposure. thats what midrange poking is all about.

No plan survives contact with the enemy....

[Nema Nabojiv]

bayoucowboy, on 19 November 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

I find it amusing that clan players are complaining that the "poke/meta" style is "too boring" for them. Solution = play IS.

The ones who like poking will do it regardless of techbase. That's if we for a second assume there are players so dedicated that they play only clans or IS.

[Humpday]

In all honestly though the smart way to play is poke just outside 400, the fun way to play is to brawl.
Unfortunately the brawl is kinda dead right now.

Gotta wait a bit for the L-vomit to calm down. Namely, they'll probably increase the energy duration more.

I know I'm naturally a brawl dude, but to score high and kill well, its smarter to stay at distance.

i should say that the splat lbx20 MAD and MKII are excpetionst to this since they just wreak everything.

Edited by Humpday, 19 November 2017 - 04:12 PM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Humpday, on 19 November 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

In all honestly though the smart way to play is poke just outside 400, the fun way to play is to brawl.
Unfortunately the brawl is kinda dead right now.

Oh come on. Every game ends up in brawl after some initial trade.
What really makes live harder is that brawler builds are useless in the first stage.

[Vxheous]

tker 669, on 19 November 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

Actually that is a poor interpretation of what I did and not accurate. I made no assumption about any player. I also specifically said that you are not very good at the game and that makes your opinion suspect in comparison to someone who is very good.

So no this isn't about everyone and generalizations.

It is about you and your qualifications or knowledge of the game vs a guy on the team that won the world championships last year....

Think if you were arguing with one of the Cubs after they won last year about which bat was better how utterly silly you would look.

I appreciate your attempts to explain/justify why I would prefer the 64 alpha + 2 heatsinks vs 78 alpha. It comes down to the fact that rarely (if ever) in my hunchback have I wished my alpha was bigger than what it is (64) while I constantly wish that my build would cool faster, or have a larger heat bar to work with. The upside on having the 2 extra ERML, and only maybe using them sporadically vs having being able to spit out more consistent 64 alphas is why I choose to use the 2 HLL + 4 ERML (and really only in quick plays). I mean, if the 2 HLL + 6 ERML works for Khobai, then good on him, he should run it. My experience is that the 2 HLL + 4 ERML is more well rounded and allows higher damage output over time (not that the 64 alpha is anything to sneeze at). To be fair, I run the 2 HLL + 6 ERML builds on one of my Mad IIc and one of my Super novas (but then I have another 6+ heatsinks to work with in those builds)

Let me put it another way. Builds like 2 HLL (or ERLL) + 4-6 ERML (variable) really depends on the user in the end. It's a balance of how much heat you're willing to build up for 1 alpha vs how often you want to be able to shoot, and how comfortable you are with heat management. If the build works for you and is achieving whatever goal you have set for yourself to determine efficiency (average kills/game, w/l, matchscore, whatever metric you want to use), then by all means use it.

Edited by Vxheous, 20 November 2017 - 12:21 AM.

[adamts01]

Nema Nabojiv, on 19 November 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

Oh come on. Every game ends up in brawl after some initial trade.
What really makes live harder is that brawler builds are useless in the first stage.

Oh come on. Every brawl starts once the match has been decided by poking.

[Khobai]

Quote

Close range weapons are way harder to use and you aren't rewarded in the slightest for using them.

Agreed.

I would like to see SRM damage increased by about 15% (2.5 for IS SRMs and 2.3 for Clan SRMs)

I feel like SRMs just arnt good enough to justify their spread and the risk of how close you have to get to use them

And obviously all the various small lasers, small pulses, micro lasers, etc... need help as well.

The short range ballistics also need help. LBX needs more damage. heavy machine guns need more range.

pretty much every short range weapon could use a buff. thats why this midrange meta dominates because theres no incentive to close to short range.

Edited by Khobai, 19 November 2017 - 10:10 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Vxheous, on 19 November 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

I appreciate your attempts to explain/justify why I would prefer the 64 alpha + 2 heatsinks + 78 alpha. It comes down to the fact that rarely (if ever) in my hunchback have I wished my alpha was bigger than what it is (64) while I constantly wish that my build would cool faster, or have a larger heat bar to work with. The upside on having the 2 extra ERML, and only maybe using them sporadically vs having being able to spit out more consistent 64 alphas is why I choose to use the 2 HLL + 4 ERML (and really only in quick plays). I mean, if the 2 HLL + 6 ERML works for Khobai, then good on him, he should run it. My experience is that the 2 HLL + 4 ERML is more well rounded and allows higher damage output over time (not that the 64 alpha is anything to sneeze at). To be fair, I run the 2 HLL + 6 ERML builds on one of my Mad IIc and one of my Super novas (but then I have another 6+ heatsinks to work with in those builds)

Let me put it another way. Builds like 2 HLL (or ERLL) + 4-6 ERML (variable) really depends on the user in the end. It's a balance of how much heat you're willing to build up for 1 alpha vs how often you want to be able to shoot, and how comfortable you are with heat management. If the build works for you and is achieving whatever goal you have set for yourself to determine efficiency (average kills/game, w/l, matchscore, whatever metric you want to use), then by all means use it.

Having spectated a lot of good players it seems to come down to mentality.

Some good players seem to like to stalk a specific kill. They'll play a higher alpha, longer cool and reposition a lot. They'll try to anticipate where the guy they just opened up is going to so they can shoot him again. They have less firing time total and are behaviorally very much a sniper. They tend to put up high damage by going the distance and kiting well. People trying to do this and doing it poorly are very much hated by their teams for obvious reasons; however some people do it really, really well and are very, very frustrating to play against.

Others tend to be super-aggressive. The only reason you're not constantly at 99% heat is waiting to the point where you can shoot again. Repositioning is often done on the fly and in a firing position unless there's a need to flank or there's no targets. They take any/every shot available against any target, locked or not. Positioning for them seems to often be about being the one in position to fire FIRST, then fade the return fire. They can often put up 700-1000 damage in 7 or 8 minutes. Usually they play super aggressive until they're open, then they fade and switch to targets of opportunity engaged with other teammates. They are way less likely to survive the whole match/be the last to die than the first group.

I'm in no position to say one is better than the other but it's two very distinct behavior sets. In any skill, the end game for Git Gud is knowing how everything works well enough to identify how you can optimize what you do best.

[YueFei]

Brawling is inherently high risk. The risk goes higher and higher as you face better and better teams/players, who are able to maintain overlapping fire upon large areas of the map.

You have few tools of your own to suppress the enemy at range. You present no threats to the enemy at range, you cannot overlap your fire with teammates to control large parts of the map. You can maybe throw some strikes around at the long-range phase.

If you manage to close in, you put yourself in a position where, if you get pushed on, you have no fall-back and either you win or die (at least if you're in anything other than a light mech). Risky.

And when you're in position and make a move to strike, due to your shorter weapon ranges, it's harder to effectively slice the pie when cornering, which can lead to awful moments where you turn a corner into 2+ enemies.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's the brawling weapons alone that need buffing to make brawling stronger. The bigger issue to me is simply surviving against all that damage (especially those double-alphas with coolant flush as a get-out-of-jail card). A dead mech does zero DPS. A brawler naturally will expose to more enemies to get into range for his own weapons, unless the enemy team splits itself into mutually-unsupporting positions or is badly suppressed and hugging cover for dear life.

I still think coolant flush should be removed from the game, but I doubt that will happen.

I've been on the flip side of things where my own teammates have so badly suppressed the enemy that I can just approach frontally across half a kilometer of open ground and I won't even get any enemies shooting at me. But that's just because my teammates have created that opportunity for me. I can't create that opportunity on my own.

[UnKnownPlayer]

.

Quote

I don't hate the players, I just consider meta a crutch that improves players beyond how good they actually are.
Also I tried playing meta once, then I quit for 2 years due to boredom.

Besides, why would I want to be the best I can be in a game that isn't fun?

Really?
Half of this game is building the mech for the playstyle that you want to maximise. "meta" is a relative term, if by meta you mean the mathematically best builds for poking and hiding then yeah there is that meta and it will improve the scores of people that play in that style.
If by meta you mean the 4 SRM ASN-21 or 6 SRM LBK kill teams then yeah there is that meta and, again, it will improve the scores of people that like to ambush and use mobility.

I am a terrible sniper, absolutely awful so playing "meta" makes me worse than I actually am.
If people want to spend the time understanding the meta, maximising their builds for it and getting better scores in QP then fair enough. If they are part of a team / unit that plays in a particular way and they are fitting in with that play style with the unit's "meta" then great, they are working effectively.

Meta builds will never make people better than they are if the people using them can't use them properly. They will make people better than others who don't bother to maximise their play style. There is always another way to play, you just need to practice, optimise your builds and play your own game rather than theirs.