111 replies to this topic

[Guy Grand]

Astroniomix, on 01 February 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

So because you can't figure out how to use anything, there is no mech variety?

Pretty much his beef.

[Zero Neutral]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 01 February 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

If only. Would make for better boards. There is a ton of constructive criticism that gets ripped by people being white knights for the devs. And then they scream it's a beta. Which is silly, because in every beta i've been in (about 20) normally the whole point is bringing up the major issues in the game which get fixed in a week or two.

Here it's the opposite, people almost seem to want people to stick their heads in the sand, and ignore problems. Then hope they get fixed two or three months later.

You are wrong completely, imo.

Here, most people would rather complain about ECM not adhering to table top without realizing that nothing in this game is exactly like table top. The amount of information in this game that is different than table top is far greater than the information that is exactly like table top.

People come here to complain non-stop and post I quit threads while the true fans and players of the game have to watch and bite their tongues.

The OP has obviously put zero effort in to this game and squandered the MC he had purchased for $50. Those of us who are more frugal with our MC probably realize that the best thing to do with MC is to purchase premium time and grind C-Bills for mechs, instead of spending insane amounts of MC for a mech.

Had the OP realized this fact, he probably would not have squandered his MC on mechs that he no longer enjoys playing due to changes in the gaming environment. The OP has zero desire to adapt to the current climate of the game, which makes him an awful beta tester, and yet again, rendering his opinion void, imo.

[Zero Neutral]

Pugastrius, on 01 February 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

I’m sure there is a lot more that I just forgot about, but this is more than enough for them to work on.

"Cater to me!"

BARF

[Raidyr]

I don't agree entirely with OP's analysis, particularly about optimal mechs/weapons (Streaks and Gauss are good weapons, while the 4SP Hunchback and some Cataphracts, Catapults, and Stalkers are quite well performing) but this is about the most honest feedback I've seen along the lines of the current metagame.

I'll completely agree with OP on the maps issue; I'm shocked to see so many people demanding new maps when we have 3 or 4 decent ones in a game riddled with extremely poor performance and balance.

Finally, loving the replies. OP brought up good points? Lets just call him bad and make non-meaning fluffy statements like ~its not the mech its the pilot~ and ~everything is viable as long as your are GOOD~ that sound absurd when actually said out loud. Shine on you diamonds, shine on.

[Raidyr]

Zero Neutral, on 01 February 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

You think that only two mechs are viable

Not viable, optimal. I'd add a few mechs in there but the 3L and DDC are definitely the optimal mechs for their weightclass and role and to say otherwise is absolutely delusional.

[Zero Neutral]

Raidyr, on 01 February 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Not viable, optimal. I'd add a few mechs in there but the 3L and DDC are definitely the optimal mechs for their weightclass and role and to say otherwise is absolutely delusional.

Nice opinion. Yet again using a statement of certainty like, "To say otherwise is absolutely delusional," just makes you lose credibility since you are obviously, imo, clueless as well.

Raidyr, on 01 February 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

I don't agree entirely with OP's analysis, particularly about optimal mechs/weapons (Streaks and Gauss are good weapons, while the 4SP Hunchback and some Cataphracts, Catapults, and Stalkers are quite well performing) but this is about the most honest feedback I've seen along the lines of the current metagame.

I'll completely agree with OP on the maps issue; I'm shocked to see so many people demanding new maps when we have 3 or 4 decent ones in a game riddled with extremely poor performance and balance.

Finally, loving the replies. OP brought up good points? Lets just call him bad and make non-meaning fluffy statements like ~its not the mech its the pilot~ and ~everything is viable as long as your are GOOD~ that sound absurd when actually said out loud. Shine on you diamonds, shine on.

And the current metagame being........?

The OP is clueless, imo, asserting certainties while obviously coming from a position of only opinion. "It's as simple as that."

I cannot personally identify one, "good point," that the OP has raised that isn't already a known issue and slated for change.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 01 February 2013 - 07:23 PM.

[MWHawke]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 01 February 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

That's not what we're talking about in this situation. I get what you are saying. But this isn't RL. It's a video game. The skill-set doesn't vary as much as it does in the real world.

Also, I think if you were to ask a marine who was equally trained in a pistol and a machine gun. He'd pick a machine gun for an all out brawl.

Really what we are talking about is the fact that when you really break games like this down, it's all numbers and math.

And there is always a mathematically best way to do things.

Once again there is nothing to disagree with in my post. What you are doing is playing what "feels" better. Which is fine, but you can't compare feelings, everyone has different feelings.

I disagree. So, you say there is a mathematically best way to do things. Then how is it that I managed to take down 2 DDCs and a Raven in my Atlas-D? They used all the weapons described by OP but they still died. And if you are going to say that it was luck and my teammates, then fact was I took on one DDC on my own cause I moved behind enemy lines and the other DDC was damaged but so was I. There were no superior numbers on my side as the number of kills were pretty even on both sides. The Raven was killed near end game when we went out hunting for him and I spotted him.

They were not new to the game and were pretty good players. I do not claim to be an elite or superb player. How does that fit into your mathematical best?

Raidyr, on 01 February 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Not viable, optimal. I'd add a few mechs in there but the 3L and DDC are definitely the optimal mechs for their weightclass and role and to say otherwise is absolutely delusional.

What a delusional statement.

[Shard Phoenix]

Just about the only thing I agree with the OP on is the map sizes. Not because I'm against brawling, but because I'd like there to be a little more effort put into finding the brawl in the first place. Oh, and I'd also like to see long range builds get a little more time to flex their particular advantage before the brawl comes to them.

The rest of it.. meh...

Being in the mathematically superior loadout really isn't that important to me. I have more fun playing in builds that actually require me to put some effort into dealing damage etc. I get bored otherwise. Every time I've tried out the latest and greatest min/maxed build I've made it about 5 games before selling the darn thing.

Edited by Shard Phoenix, 01 February 2013 - 07:38 PM.

[Raidyr]

Zero Neutral, on 01 February 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Nice opinion. Yet again using a statement of certainty like, "To say otherwise is absolutely delusional," just makes you lose credibility since you are obviously, imo, clueless as well.

I'd argue that the clueless person here is the one incapable of defining either viable or optimal in the context of theorycrafting. Maybe if you keep parroting white noise ad hominem something will get through.

Quote

And the current metagame being........?

Random battles and 8v8 drops

Quote

The OP is clueless, imo, asserting certainties while obviously coming from a position of only opinion. "It's as simple as that."

Yes this is the fourth time you have said "clueless" without actually backing it up, simply that he is. Can you explain why he is wrong?

Quote

I cannot personally identify one, "good point," that the OP has raised that isn't already a known issue and slated for change.

So now you are backpedaling. Now he has a clue, it's just that he is late to the party.

MWHawke, on 01 February 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

I disagree. So, you say there is a mathematically best way to do things. Then how is it that I managed to take down 2 DDCs and a Raven in my Atlas-D? They used all the weapons described by OP but they still died. And if you are going to say that it was luck and my teammates, then fact was I took on one DDC on my own cause I moved behind enemy lines and the other DDC was damaged but so was I. There were no superior numbers on my side as the number of kills were pretty even on both sides. The Raven was killed near end game when we went out hunting for him and I spotted him.

They were not new to the game and were pretty good players. I do not claim to be an elite or superb player. How does that fit into your mathematical best?

Okay, so the person you replied to has laid this out in three separate posts that were either too complex for you to understand, or you just outright ignored. I'll try to get this through to you myself, for all the good it will do

There is a difference between viable and optimal. OP is not stating that DDCs and 3Ls will win 100% of their engagements, just that they are more optimal for overall performance. The Raven 3L is the optimal light mech in the game currently but I've killed loads of them as the Jenner or Commando. Hell I've even killed a Raven as a Spider 5V, likely the worst mech currently in the game.

I'm glad you do well in your Atlas-D. You just should know that you would perform better in the DD-C, because ECM breaks balance and the DD-C has better hardpoints.

MWHawke, on 01 February 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

What a delusional statement.

How so? Explain why the 3L and Atlas DDC are not the optimal mechs, atleast for their weight class, please.

[Spike Brave]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 01 February 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Once again, I was like you. I played what I enjoyed. But you cannot really deny that there is a "best" in these games. If you choose not to do it, that's up to you.

Ignoring that is fine, but you cannot say someone is wrong if they say that mathematically there are "best" weapons, mechs and equipment. It's true.

I'm not disagreeing with the math. You're mathematically correct. I'm saying the best stuff doesn't matter if you can't get it on target or use it properly. Your also correct in saying skill in a video game is in no way the same as in real life. It's more a matter of time and fun there.

I was more trying to point out the factors of teamwork and tactics. If you play well, you can make the math unimportant.

[EmCeeMendez]

Goodbye OP. Maybe some other game will satisfy you.

[Spike Brave]

Alexii, on 01 February 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Spike but who would u say is a better scout. A spider with no ECM or the Raven with ?

Honestly, it depends. If the ECM Mech who runs off by himself and attempts just to play for score and the non-ECM Mech plays well and makes an effort to help the team, I'd go for the non-ECM every match.

[Heeden]

I have to disagree with the peeps who think MW:O can be theorycrafted like WoW.

PvE encounter like raids (where theorycrafying is relevant) are heavily scripted events which rely on fairly basic positioning and a lot of pattern recognition/muscle memory. Crunching numbers is easy especially when the (damage-dealers) differing mechanics qualitatively break down to "ranged" or "mellee".

Mechwarrior is very different. In a PvP environment you have to consider a lot more than simple number crunching - even in WoW the popular PvP classes relied on combining utility and burst damage. You can't easily accomodate the advantages of weapon damage vs. range, mech speed vs firepower vs. protection, high DPS vs. low HPS etc,with this kind of unpredictability; let alone more complex issues like mech manoeuvrability (including arms and torso) and the differing mechanics in AC, laser and missile weapons. You even have to consider the layout of your mech.

The other day I was treated to a master-class in Centurion driving by a guy who was last-man-standing. It was a fairly nippy thing (around 100kph) with 2 MPLas and 2 SRM6, no ballistics. 5 enemy players remained and this fast medium ran rings around them. True they were spread out and probably not the greatest pilots, but this Centurion gave them very little time to fire on him and twisted perfectly - both (useless) arms were gone by the end and most of his armour was orange but he took down 3 heavies, a medium and an assault (ECM Atlas no less) with quick, precision burst. A Raven 3L wouldn't have had the punch or the durability to fight like he did. An Atlas wouldn't have the agility to avoid so much fire or hit with such precision. The value that pilot in that mech brought to the fight can not be measured mathematically ascertained to be better or worse than other successful builds.

[Scratchicus]

Hmm haven't been playing for a whole long time but ill say this.

I like the mechs. My main is a Centurion. When i go in i have x4 ML, x2 SM4, ams. Works pretty well to harass and hurt the enemy. Im getting better but its still a challenge. Really the lights are annoying to me but, i understand thats their job. One of the best builds i've seen is a spider with 4 machine guns it is mean in hunting other lights.

The Hunch, Its cheap, its easy, its MEAN. Great turn rate and good speed. Amazing damage in those close in fights. So there is that. Some builds suck thats life. The Devs will rework the stats on several things, they will change.

I have a couple idea's with the ECM. Make them A) Very power intensive. When they turn on it reduces how fast certain weapons recharge they build heat slowly but surely. RL modern ECM and radar take alot of power so this would reflect that. Another thing things like the F-18SH/Growler ECM aircraft when they go hot show up like a light bulb in a cave. Everything see's them. Doing something like this would make it so you wouldn't have untouchable scouts everywhere with ECM. It would make them worthless for scouting with them on.

Just a few thought........

Oh yea. To the dangers of games and the maps and ranges issues.... I played a game a few years back a mech warrior game which i quite after a couple weeks. Why? The only things worth playing were the sniper mechs. Everyone knew the One spot to be in and they could one shot you all day. Aim bots were common. The game was unplayable. I'm loving this game and the current path its one and the idea's and wishes of the developers look awesome. So i want them to come to pass.

Just a semi-noobs opinion on MWO.

[Ryvucz]

I think it would be more fair to post it as -

There are only two mechs I can pilot that does not feel like I am gimping my team.

[SilentWolff]

herosson, on 01 February 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Really.........that is your reply, its so pointlessly stupid I had to let you know.

Except that part that I posted that was true. Oh wait, it was all true. You must be part of the fail club as well.

[Mechteric]

only 2 usable mechs? damn I guess all this time KICKING BUTT with the cataphract, centurion, stalker, awesome, hunchback, and dragon were just some dream I had where unicorns shot out of my autocannon and leprechaun gold appeared where my PPCs struck!

[Dmitri Valenov]

Pugastrius, on 01 February 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

So I’ve posted quite a bit, so I thought I would fill in the developers why I’ve decided (at least temporarily) to put MWO on the back burner.

Mech Variety: In the current state of the game, there are very few legitimate mechs that can be played without feeling like you’re gimping your team. Here is the short list:

Two mechs… that’s it. If you’re using anything other than these two mechs you’re probably hurting your team more than you’re helping them. In my opinion PGI really needs to stop introducing more mechs and make sure every mech they have introduced is actually useful.

No mech variety ? Really? Other than the troll teams in 8 man that use just those two mechs I see incredible variety in my matches as far as chassis go. There are usually a decent number of cataphracts, but saying that taking anything other than a Raven or Atlas will hurt your team is just plain ignorance. Personally, I hate the Atlas and Raven, because I'm absolutely no good with them, at all. Put me in a Commando (any commando, not just the ECM variant) and I do pretty well. Same goes for the Centurion and Cataphract.

Just because those two mechs are the best for your play style does not mean that they are the only mechs that are useful in the game. Please don't mislead any new players in to thinking that they have to be limited in their play style and mech loadouts by suggesting that only a few are viable. It won't help the game at all.

[Thirdstar]

The only thing I gleaned from this thread is that there are a LOT of MWO vets who have no understanding of metagame.

And that's actually quite surprising.

Hmm.

[jakucha]

Lacks a lot of content it will have when it's out of beta for a month or two, lacks balance changes and weapon changes that it will have by then as well, you're treating it as a complete game when it isn't yet op.