13 replies to this topic

[MavRCK]

This is a repost but I thought would be useful information for new players getting into the game and trying to understand what makes a good mech and a bad mech in the MWO universe:


The truth is that there are rarely any bad mechs in the MWO game. For the average player, or PUG (pick-up group) player, almost all mechs are "good" or "viable". Each mech has their strengths and weaknesses. A skilled player can make a difference to a team in any mech - this difference or ability to help a team or ability to win a game is called "carrying".

However, at the competition level of play, there are viable mechs and non-viable mechs. Competition level denotes the highest level of min-max'ing where players try compete with the "best" mechs and their "best" configurations to do the most amount of damage in a limited period of time. However, what defines "best" is strategy and is a concept called "META" - META exists in any team game.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Metagaming

In MWO, as previously mentioned, the meta is the ideal min-max of units with certain weapon layouts that effectively counters the most popular / common units and layouts AT THE MOMENT.

The key to the meta is the "AT THE MOMENT" condition - that is, the META constantly evolves and rotates as new units and weapons are added to the game. Eventually, you may even see a return to an "older" META that counters the "newest" META.

Hence, it is important to realize that every mech may be useful or "good" at one time or another. There are rarely any bad mechs in PUG play. In competition play, for the current META, there are viable mechs and viable layouts and non-viable mechs and non-viable layouts.

This every-changing META is why serious players have and have used almost every mech and every weapon in the MWO game: we have numerous mechs and for each mech, numerous layouts. ( By analogy, this is why Pro Players in League of Legends have and have played every champion! )

MWO is a strategic first-person shooter. Strategy and understanding the META is key to mastering the game!




I hope this helps explains why there are very few "bad" mechs in MWO game.

MavRCK
-be a better pilot.

PS:

For those who desire. Here is my list of what I consider the "best" in each weight class as of 12/12/15 for competition-level play:

Light - Raven 3L
Medium - Hunchback 4SP
Heavy - Catapult K2
Assault - Atlas DDC

On second thoughts, I will start a list of "bad" mechs for competitive play using a 2-2-2-2 (2 light - 2 medium - 2 heavy - 2 assault) meta:

Commando - all variants - 2D - gives up 10 tons which makes it too slow when fitting in ECM and 3 streaks +/- 1 SL / tag.
Jenner - K - not bad per se, but why choose over the D or F?
Raven - 2X, 4X - too slow, no ECM
Cicada - all but the 3M - no ECM
Centurion - as per the K - not "bad" per se, but why choose over a hunchback 4SP?
Hunchback - the 4SP shines as the best of the bunch.. why choose other variants?
Dragon - like the centurion and the Jenner K, why choose over a Catapult or Cataphract
Cataphract - 4X, really does nothing that the Catapult K2 does better.
Awesome - all variants - so not awesome - may improve when PPCs are buffed ( a big maybe)
Atlas - K and D are tied - the DDC is the best due to ECM, 2 ballistic slots and 3 module slots - the RS is the next best with 4 laser hard points in the arms - why choose the K or D when there are 2 laser hardpoints into the torso? However, the K does benefit from double AMS.

Will update!

GL HF HH! (Good luck, Have Fun, Happy Hunting!)

Edited by MavRCK, 16 December 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[shabowie]

The RS is the atlas with 4 energy in the arms, not the K.

[MavRCK]

shabowie, on 15 December 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

The RS is the atlas with 4 energy in the arms, not the K.

Thanks! Edited for the slip!

Edited by MavRCK, 15 December 2012 - 08:52 PM.

[Vechs]

Ummm... the Atlas K is the one with two AMS, although I think it's the worst of all of them.

The K is basically the D, but take off 1 missile and 1 ballistic hardpoint, and add an extra AMS, and there you go, you now have a K.

[Ascendent]

As Vechs pointed out (probably just a typo) its the K that can mount 2 AMS, not the RS. Otherwise it was a good read, thanks.

[Murku]

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to acheive with this post......

It begins well, where you advise that intelligent playstyle in using your mech of choice is more important that the mech's chassis itself. Learning to be patient enough not to be prime target in a medium, NEVER to stop and reverse in a light, or not to get seporated in an assault are all more important that which chassis you field.

However, I strongly dissaprove of your METAgame comments. While I cannot argue with the viability of some units over others, reinforcing that you are WRONG to use anything but a list of approved cookie-cutter chassis/builds is NOT where our player-base should be headed. It's being spoon fed all the worst elements of old-school MMOs until we gag and realise we're not hungry anymore.

For shame sir,


For shame.

[MavRCK]

Murku, on 16 December 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to acheive with this post......

It begins well, where you advise that intelligent playstyle in using your mech of choice is more important that the mech's chassis itself. Learning to be patient enough not to be prime target in a medium, NEVER to stop and reverse in a light, or not to get seporated in an assault are all more important that which chassis you field.

However, I strongly dissaprove of your METAgame comments. While I cannot argue with the viability of some units over others, reinforcing that you are WRONG to use anything but a list of approved cookie-cutter chassis/builds is NOT where our player-base should be headed. It's being spoon fed all the worst elements of old-school MMOs until we gag and realise we're not hungry anymore.

For shame sir,


For shame.

I don't understand your response. You don't agree with a meta? You don't believe there exists a meta? Your response is vague and thus requires that I guess at what your argument is, if any.

Furthermore, this is a game - there is nothing to be ashamed of!

Edited by MavRCK, 16 December 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Wrenchfarm]

Does this game even have a comp scene? I get the idea of meta-game and top-level play, but I'm not sure this game is even ready for that yet.

[Kmieciu]

In my humble opinion CN9-A is a better brawler than HBK-SP. Smaller torso hitboxes, larger arm hitboxes, more staying power and one more slot for SRM.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

tl;dr
Best are Raven-3L and Atlas D-DC bcuz of ECM.If you want sniper then pick K2 dualgauss.If you wand brawler take hunchback-4SP.
Rest of mechs sux anyway.

You know what is rly sad?
It is true.Especially that with ECM.

[MavRCK]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 17 December 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

tl;dr
Best are Raven-3L and Atlas D-DC bcuz of ECM.If you want sniper then pick K2 dualgauss.If you wand brawler take hunchback-4SP.
Rest of mechs sux anyway.

You know what is rly sad?
It is true.Especially that with ECM.

^^ What Judge said!

[NinetyProof]

Murku, on 16 December 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

However, I strongly dissaprove of your METAgame comments. While I cannot argue with the viability of some units over others, reinforcing that you are WRONG to use anything but a list of approved cookie-cutter chassis/builds is NOT where our player-base should be headed. It's being spoon fed all the worst elements of old-school MMOs until we gag and realise we're not hungry anymore.

For shame sir,


For shame.

The player base is going to HEAD where the developers lead them. If the developers basically make 4 chassis the defacto go-to chassis cause they can't properly balance the game that is NOT the players fault. If you want to 'SHAME ON' somebody, place the shame where it belongs.

Don't advocate ignorance ... and choosing bad chassis and making bad loadouts is fine in a single player game ... in a multiplayer game your part of a team ... and if that means you choose cookie cutter chassis / loadouts to support the team and do your job you better dam well do it.

Shame on you for telling people it's OK to be bad cause you don't like the direction the Developers are taking the game.

[Raso]

Not counting instances of pure nubness..... I know Centurion pilots who will eat 4SPs with finely tuned builds. I have seen Commandos chase down and murder ECM Ravens. I have seen Awesomes rock an Atlas's world. I have seen Gaussbacks pick Gausspults apart like a gun on a stick poking over a wall.

There are many creative and specialized builds that, when employed properly, will stand toe to toe with or dominate the average cookie cutter builds. These same builds may fall to pieces when employed in more conventional ways or may require a different approach to accomplishing the same goals a other builds but they are very much viable builds.

A Centurion can be a deadly brawler (zombie or not) and as a Hunchback 4SP pilot I respect them. They require an entirely different mindset that that of a Hunchback but in the right hands they are very deadly.

A Hunchback with a gauss can be a deadly sniper if employed on rough terrain where it can take advantage of it's high mounted ballistic slots while the gauss equipped Catapult must expose more of itself to make a shot despite being able to mount a second gauss.

Triple SRMs on a Commando running down and ambushing other lights and ripping rear armor to pieces can be a very scary sight on the battlefield.

My point being that there are pros and cons to less conventional builds and less used mechs. Your "guide" is basically telling nubs that the "best" mechs and load outs have been found and to stop trying until the next patch. You list a great many, no nonsense, cut and dry, general purpose brawlers or snipers or whatevers but fail to point out that more creative builds used in creative ways can be down right scary (strange and lesser known tactics are often the hardest to counter).

And that's not even addressing certain fundamental flaws in your write up, like how you forgo roles in favor of the best light, medium and so on. What's the best scout killer? What's the best light recon? What's the best heavy recon? ECM hit and fade build? Point defense unit? Brawler while under ECM? Brawler while outside of ECM? Mid range support? Indirect fire support? Best unit to lay down suppressive fire with? Best unit to help guard an assault's flank? Best unit to use in small detachments as decoys or sheep dogs? Best unit for a certain role on game type?

Based on the make up of your team and how you operate you'll be much more richly rewarded knowing all of those ins and outs rather than having someone simply say 'Dragon sucks nub, play a Gausscat or go away." Is there no role made to serve heavily armed, mech that can be built to break 90kph? Perhaps the problem isn't so much that the game's meta has come down to 4 "acceptable" builds. Perhaps the problem is that some people do not want to think outside of the box and are only concerned with boring and safe builds.

I use to rock dual large pulse lasers on my 4SP along side dual SRMs. Ask me if I care LPLs suck. I adapted my play style to make the build work and it did. You know why I went back to 4 medium beam lasers? Because it required less skill and patience on my behalf. Because it was less niche. Because it reward more conventional and didn't require me to think outside the box. I switched back because I got lazy and sloppy and didn't feel like dealing with what little extra brain load was required operate such a fun build. There's your reason to min/max right there: minimal cognitive investment while in play in order to maximize net gains. That's something a wall street banker would do. That's boring.

Pardon my rant. I've been hitting up the nog tonight.

Edited by Raso, 24 December 2012 - 12:49 AM.

[MavRCK]

Raso, on 24 December 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Not counting instances of pure nubness..... I know Centurion pilots who will eat 4SPs with finely tuned builds. I have seen Commandos chase down and murder ECM Ravens. I have seen Awesomes rock an Atlas's world. I have seen Gaussbacks pick Gausspults apart like a gun on a stick poking over a wall.

...

Pardon my rant. I've been hitting up the nog tonight.

I disagree. You are basically saying you can run builds which competitive players won't run and do well in random scenarios. Okay, that's a point we agree upon.

The meta as I discussed is saying that in a competitive environment where competitive players are looking to compete at the highest level of competition that there are inherently better designs of mechs.

What you said is that you can put your 5'8" 170 lb friend as a linebacker in a game of touch football. No problem, I agree.

What I'm saying is that your friend doesn't have a prayer of hope playing as linebacker for New England versus Texas this weekend.

Hopefully people will see the common sense in this article.