118 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

There are intended roles. An Awesome is intended as a long range support Mech. Either direct or indirect methods.

Is that so?

"...Rugged and reliable, the Awesome is traditionally used in a vanguard role when penetrating enemy defenses. The Awesome's massive firepower also lends it to defensive actions, acting as a mobile turret when necessary. Because of its reliance on PPCs, the Awesome is able to act independently for extended periods of time. This trait is also useful in siege situations where the 'Mech can keep up a constant barrage, allowing it to win battles of attrition through bleeding an enemy dry...."

[Asmudius Heng]

I find it highly amusing that people think this idea is about restricting what they can do with their mech.

Lets just clarify that again ... a quirk is a small BONUS for keeping closer to the mechs intended role and original loadout.

It doesnt stop ANYONE from doing ANYTHING different than they are doing now.

No one has mentioned any restrictions - you can do what you are doing now and more power to you. Just because some people want to encourage more character to a mech that does not skew the battlefield in any massive way does not stop you from min maxing to your hearts content,

Hell you can still min maxx within the damned role by tweaking the mech greatly.

I am absolutly baffled at the anger and ignorance over this - this idea would not stop anyone who is against it playing the game EXACTLY the same way.

[anonymous175]

Wait for these to take effect if they're still in it to win it.

http://mwomercs.com/...3-role-warfare/
http://mwomercs.com/...e-warfare-cont/

[Joseph Mallan]

IceSerpent, on 07 February 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Is that so?

"...Rugged and reliable, the Awesome is traditionally used in a vanguard role when penetrating enemy defenses. The Awesome's massive firepower also lends it to defensive actions, acting as a mobile turret when necessary. Because of its reliance on PPCs, the Awesome is able to act independently for extended periods of time. This trait is also useful in siege situations where the 'Mech can keep up a constant barrage, allowing it to win battles of attrition through bleeding an enemy dry...."

Look at it's usual weapons load. PPCs and LRMs tell me those are Vanguard weapons? Leading the charge? I know you pulled it from a TRO but dude, the Awesome is not a lead from the front Mech.

[Jack Corban]

This thread shows me on thing clearly there i stil people with brains aka Karl Streiger and Tichorius Davion who wanna have this game be a real Battletech experience.

Sadly it shows me that we (yes i consider myselfe more towards the classic BT experience) are vastly outnumbered by Min/Max players not giving a damn about how BT should play but for their own gratification as badass of the year. It is the same over and over with games like these. I'm making the bold statement that CoD has much to do with this attitude towards competitive gameplay. Fun is only if i am able to waste a opponent within the first 5 seconds of engagment not the engagment itselfe hence Min/Max builds are mandetory. Heck if i was to join any Merc Corp or House unit out there right now i know what will happen 5 mins into me playing with them. "You better have a Gauss-Cat or get one. You better build this and build that otherwise you are not a viable player." .Been there done that. To Hell with you! leave this game to the people who care about this IP and ruin some other game with your stupid crap.

Edited by Jack Corban, 07 February 2013 - 02:24 PM.

[FupDup]

IMO, the big issue we're facing with min/maxing right now it just the fact that there are so few "optimal" builds. If the number of "competitive" builds was much, much higher than the handful we have now and more builds would be considered viable, then it would be much less annoying. The way to do this is to buff crappy weapons/equipment and/or the mechs currently lacking in some areas (i.e. hardpoints).

Edited by FupDup, 07 February 2013 - 02:34 PM.

[TheForce]

Jack Corban, on 07 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

This thread shows me on thing clearly there i stil people with brains aka Karl Streiger and Tichorius Davion who wanna have this game be a real Battletech experience.

Sadly it shows me that we (yes i consider myselfe more towards the classic BT experience) are vastly outnumbered by Min/Max players not giving a damn about how BT should play but for their own gratification as badass of the year. It is the same over and over with games like these. I'm making the bold statement that CoD has much to do with this attitude towards competitive gameplay. Fun is only if i am able to waste a opponent within the first 5 seconds of engagment not the engagment itselfe hence Min/Max builds are mandetory. Heck if i was to join any Merc Corp or House unit out there right now i know what will happen 5 mins into me playing with them. "You better have a Gauss-Cat or get one. You better build this and build that otherwise you are not a viable player." .Been there done that. To Hell with you! leave this game to the people who care about this IP and ruin some other game with your stupid crap.

THE 20 LASERS ON MY BIG ROBOT SHOULD HIT WHERE I POINT THEM!!!!!!!!!

Its a love-hate relationship. Without them we wouldn't have this game. With them, all we get is MinmaxWarrior Online.
The sad truth

RANT RANT WHINE WHINE QQ!@!!!!@!@!@!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sidekick]

Yes. That´s the point. The intellectual property of Battletech is ***** here, by the intend of "balance" and "player-friendlyness". I think this is just a nail to the coffin of this game.

At first, you open up for modification, because you want the players to be "creative"... but later you will realize that the creativity is slimmed down to "effective/not effective" designs. Small hit boxes, large amounts of slots, high maximum engine rating and ecm-capability is what the mechs are distilled down to at the moment. And this trend will get worse with every next mech.

Rifleman, or Blackjack? Why, we have a pract for that... besides, the K2 can hold dual AC20 in the torso, can they? Nope, they can´t. They are inferior and will not play a role.

If the designers would understand that slimming down the possibilities of modification by assigning maximum weapon classes to the slots or even specific weapon types to the slots, reducing the span of engine ratings per mech and focussing certain mechs on certain loadouts would help the diversity on the battlefield, then we´d be glad for the next mechs to come and we would "learn to play". Right now, nobody needs to learn how to play.
"learn to adapt" is all we need. We won´t be botherd by something trivial like learning to pilot to compensate the mechs disadvantages.

[Dagger6T6]

Jack Corban, on 07 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Heck if i was to join any Merc Corp or House unit out there right now i know what will happen 5 mins into me playing with them. "You better have a Gauss-Cat or get one. You better build this and build that otherwise you are not a viable player."

agree, but that is the nature of competitive play... if you can't keep up with the Joneses then you will find yourself at the bottom of the ladder or leaderboard. I'm fine with people wanting to play that way... the mechlab is for min maxing all day or whatever fits your playstyle... but I would also like to see a stock mode... or even access to just all trial mechs for the stock experience.

i wasn't trying to muddy the waters of the OP original point, and i don't want to derail their thread.

[Harrison Kelly]

Honestly, the best thing that can happen for the StockWarrior Online people is custom drops, where the whole 40 of them can drop with other like-minded people in their stock configs to their hearts' content. Then MAYBE we'll have some peace from the complaints that we're USING the Mech Lab (never mind that TT allowed similar customization) instead of just ogling wistfully at it.

If I met someone IRL who told me that I couldn't reconfigure my BattleMech as I pleased and the reason given was "that's not its role," I'd laugh at them, because who are they to tell me what role I can assign to a fictional piece of metal and ceramics based on my config?

[DEN_Ninja]

Jack Corban, on 07 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

This thread shows me on thing clearly there i stil people with brains aka Karl Streiger and Tichorius Davion who wanna have this game be a real Battletech experience.

Sadly it shows me that we (yes i consider myselfe more towards the classic BT experience) are vastly outnumbered by Min/Max players not giving a damn about how BT should play but for their own gratification as badass of the year. It is the same over and over with games like these. I'm making the bold statement that CoD has much to do with this attitude towards competitive gameplay. Fun is only if i am able to waste a opponent within the first 5 seconds of engagment not the engagment itselfe hence Min/Max builds are mandetory. Heck if i was to join any Merc Corp or House unit out there right now i know what will happen 5 mins into me playing with them. "You better have a Gauss-Cat or get one. You better build this and build that otherwise you are not a viable player." .Been there done that. To Hell with you! leave this game to the people who care about this IP and ruin some other game with your stupid crap.

Most 8 vs 8 matches have devolved into flavor of the month matches. In fact I had a game where a premade of 4, read that 4 k2 with the exact same AC/20 builds.

There is a balance to it though. Like some one said. I would rather have it so mechs and the respective variants play to their role or at least have a quirk that assists in their role. As it stands with the standard min maxing we get very limited diversity. Common Mechs? K2, 3l, DDC, A1. etc.

If we wanted the ability to end games in 5 minutes or less I would go play Hawken. The original BT/MW/TT was to build mechs that played their strengths and used them. You could use a single mech throughout all of MW4 but what is the point? You would have to change the loadout for every mission. I'd rather have a mech on standby to fill the role.

Escort mission? I'd grab a medium so I am fast enough to respond without enough fire power to deal with it.
I have to assault a base? Assault or heavy, for firepower.
And so on and so forth.

[Yokaiko]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Look at it's usual weapons load. PPCs and LRMs tell me those are Vanguard weapons? Leading the charge? I know you pulled it from a TRO but dude, the Awesome is not a lead from the front Mech.

In TT you used it to shut down entire sections of the map.

NOTHING wanted to eat three PPCs so they stayed covered rather than chance it.

[DEN_Ninja]

Yokaiko, on 07 February 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

In TT you used it to shut down entire sections of the map.

NOTHING wanted to eat three PPCs so they stayed covered rather than chance it.

Man it would cool if Ammo was halved again and you had to go back to base to get resupplied, with the base carrying limited amounts of ammo. Ofc it would take a complete overhaul of the heat system so that you can't win by boating lasers.

it would be so much more tactical. You would see less shots wasted too. Energy weapons would be the attrition battle winners but still pale in comparison to the DPS of ballistics and missiles.

[TheForce]

Harrison Kelly, on 07 February 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Then MAYBE we'll have some peace from the complaints that we're USING the Mech Lab (never mind that TT allowed similar customization) instead of just ogling wistfully at it.

I promise to stop complaining if we get stock battles! I will change my signature from MinmaxWarrior to MechWarrior too!

[Jack Corban]

Yokaiko, on 07 February 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

In TT you used it to shut down entire sections of the map.

NOTHING wanted to eat three PPCs so they stayed covered rather than chance it.

Yeah in TT Mechs didn't have double Armor either ontop of that Maps played were 5 - 10 times bigger then the maps we play these days hence you could flank our run passive to cover your movement ontop of that Sensore enhancements like Beagle active Probe had a meaning. All we have these days is ECM to prevent guided Missiles and tiny maps not worth mentioning. How is an AWS-8Q supossed to play is strongside if it is surrounded by medium mechs within the first 1.5 mins of the game? What role does a Scout really have in this? All i have to do is activate Heat Vision and i know where my enemy is from one end of the map to the other. This Game has great possibilities but as is right now its a Arena TDM with Mechs. Might aswell be called Solaris VII Online.

Edited by Jack Corban, 07 February 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[Dagger6T6]

Harrison Kelly, on 07 February 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Honestly, the best thing that can happen for the StockWarrior Online people is custom drops, where the whole 40 of them can drop with other like-minded people in their stock configs to their hearts' content. Then MAYBE we'll have some peace from the complaints that we're USING the Mech Lab (never mind that TT allowed similar customization) instead of just ogling wistfully at it.

If I met someone IRL who told me that I couldn't reconfigure my BattleMech as I pleased and the reason given was "that's not its role," I'd laugh at them, because who are they to tell me what role I can assign to a fictional piece of metal and ceramics based on my config?

I don't see anyone complaining on one side or the other really... and there is no reason everyone can't have their PPC and shoot it to. I find it much more the case that at the mere mention of the word Stock that the Min/Maxwarriors panic for fear that somehow this means the mechlab is going to be removed for everyone.

There are more people out there to play stock matches than 40...

probably at least 50... but if it was a server option then what's it hurting? Only the most hardcore zealots are out there trying to impose TT across the board and want to ban customization... yes Tabletop rules did allow for the building of mechs, but those were in the advance rules, and basic play relied on stock mechs from the readouts. There are plenty of zealots that live in the mechlab as well.

[DEN_Ninja]

I guess a better fix rather than ruining the current system of balance is a better way to organize drops.

I would rather have a place holder system where PGI makes some sorta drop menu with a planet for every map. Have it set to any gamemode always. You then pick a planet to drop on/
You are placed into a random group you pick your mechs and lock it in and then find another group.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 07 February 2013 - 02:57 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Look at it's usual weapons load. PPCs and LRMs tell me those are Vanguard weapons? Leading the charge? I know you pulled it from a TRO but dude, the Awesome is not a lead from the front Mech.

This is the entire problem with the overall train of thought being pursued in this thread....(I don't mean JM, I mean the debate between the two basically).

The TRO actually states the role and yet the loadouts don't reflect that role necessarily in many people's minds.....there's a distinct disconnect between envisioned and in practice by the original TT and the novels. Yet another reason people are never going to see eye to eye on this sort of stuff and ultimately why the roles of these Mechs will emerge through use and testing by the playerbase in the actual game and not as people expect it to be derived from a book written in the 80's and early 90's.

Btw, I'm all for stock-servers as an option for players who want that...doesn't bother me at all. I just hope such servers aren't required for community warfare (an option, not a requirement). And I'm not someone worried about the "splintering" of the community because if the game takes off big enough as I hope it does, there'll be plenty of room/game left over for all of us differing in our preferred game styles.

[TheForce]

Dagger6T6, on 07 February 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

There are more people out there to play stock matches than 40...

probably at least 50...

How many players were there in MPBT?

[Like a Sir]

IceCase88, on 07 February 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Each mech does have an intended role. Obviously, people can deviate from that role but they will probably be disappointed with the mech. Certain mech types do not suck it is just players are using it wrong and no matter how you change the weapons loadout it is not going to function the way you want it to.

You cannot turn a CN9 into a brawler. It is a mech designed to support the Trebuchet and other LRM support mechs. The CN9-D can be a medium scout and a skirmisher but that is about it. I am sure there are anecdotal stories of a CN9 taking on an Atlas and winning. However, it was probably a good CN9 pilot against a bad Atlas pilot and ultimately the CN9 pilot was lucky.

Turning an AWS into a brawler is making the mech a failure. It is a huge barn that only the worst pilots cannot hit. It is not designed for brawling. The only times I have lost one-on-one to an AWS is if their teammate saved them when using my Flame and I am an average pilot. Even with the PPC buff I have no fear charging directly at an AWS.

Research the mech you want to buy to see if it fits your play style. Buying a mech because it looks cool and trying to adapt it to your play style will more often than not end in failure. By all means though... Mech your mechs failures because it only helps me in the end!

I highlighted the part that I like... I like that you say probably, I hate people who propose quirks, or penalties, for using the variant in any way but the intended one, that is like saying "let's turn that probably disappointed with the mech, in to definitely disappointed with the mech"

The beauty of MWO is that you don't know what that hunchback (or anyone else) is packing, for all I know it could be prosperity park with 5 ppcs on it. That is why I love my target acquisition module. It also allows me to exercise my brain, and figure out ways to deal with those builds on the fly, instead of figuring out the strategy for each variant before I even drop, and sticking with it.

One more thing, turning AWS in to a brawler does not make it a failure, I won't lie, sometimes I get cocky in my 9m and PB and end up cored out in the middle of the whole enemy team. But when I play it smart, as a fast hard hitting flanker, I tear people apart, QQ doesn't mind me running it in 8 mans as well, I simply switch the XL engine for 350 standard. The beauty of brawling with the "barn" is I can choose which side of the barn to give you after I do a quick alpha, and if you are facing the side of the barn, you will not be hitting the front.