88 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Mike Townsend, on 21 February 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

It also makes the game terrible for a lot of non-cheese builds. Imagine new players running trials, with the hunchie P as a trial, on Alpine. Even modified, that variant is basically designed as a pure short mid ranger. You could swap out for a pair of ppc and nothing else or swap some mediums for smalls and put a single large on, but it'll never be decent on Alpine and it'll be less effective everywhere else. They should force you to pick a chassis or class before drop but let you choose your variant after. Elo is only on a class by class basis, so it wouldn't impact matchmaking.

I have a Hunchback 4sp myself. It would love the larger map. You seem to forget about LRMs. I replaced the SRMs with LRMs and it's been working even on the smaller maps. And if get too close, I still have 4-5 med lasers on it. The default 4sp would have trouble on a large map, but then again it was designed for in city fighting. Ever wondered why it has its main weapon on a hunch to one side? So it could point that one shoulder around a corner and shoot down an ally way. Then again, with a good team, it can still use that shoulder to shoot over a hill in an ambush, or pay guard to a larger mech, encase someone gets too choose to them (can make a good guard to those LRM boats...).

Most trial mechs would actually do well on the new map, as most of the trial mechs have a good mix of ranged weapons.

[Kraven Kor]

Zeh, on 20 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Because it would lead to more min-maxing which is ultimately detrimental to gameplay, regardless of how much people crave it sooooo hard.

Well, I think we will see this feature eventually, in some fashion. With Dropship Mutator maybe, or come Community Warfare. It might be you get to fully customize your mech for each drop, but most likely, you'll have your 4 mechs and then get to select one of those four at the start of a match. So make one a long range build or fast striker for Alpine, one a long to mid-range cooler-running build for Caustic, one a short to mid-range brawler for River City, and one last hotter-running higher-damage mid-range build for Frozen City.

I sincerely hope they don't allow too much flexibility there, or every map will be optimized mechs for that environment, where I think a lot of us do really want "versatile" builds to work. So I think you should just have your four, but no option to change loadout once in queue or whatever (ie. you select your four mechs, fit as they are, and they are locked in for the duration of the Dropship Mutator match or matches, etc.)

-----

Lastly, right now we can't see what is coming next, either in the sense of the map, or the foes we will be facing, and that is probably a good thing for data mining at this stage of beta - what builds do or don't work on given maps, how that affects ELO rankings, etc.

Edited by Kraven Kor, 21 February 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[Vasces Diablo]

Lycanstrom, on 20 February 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

I'm not saying I agree with the post you quoted by keith, but I will say this about the above quoted snippet:

It amazes me that you think your opinion of what will happen is the only valid opinion.

I'll reiterate once more: the vast majority of my own mechs are well-rounded even though most of the current maps lead to brawling. Assuming that everyone will play "a single play style" makes it sound like you're too simple-minded to see any other route. Judging by some of your previous posts it's obvious you're smarter than that, but that comment really irks me.

I actually agree with your statement here, I am pushing the point to a far degree. There are differnt types of players, plain and simple. I tend to play rounded flexible mechs, that's just the way I enjoy the game. Then you have "power players" for lack of a better term, that will look for every possible way to maximize damage and kills, often by using specialized builds. That's fine, as long as you don't have mechanics that encourages one play style over the other. Heck, DPS is one of the holy trinity of online gaming.

I'm not saying random mapping is a be all end all solution to boating, but it introduces a potential drawback to it.

Edited by Vasces Diablo, 21 February 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[DoktorVivi]

I WOULD like to be able to choose my camo based on map. Maybe allow module changes too.

[Kraven Kor]

DoktorVivi, on 21 February 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

I WOULD like to be able to choose my camo based on map. Maybe allow module changes too.

That I would agree on.

Things you should be able to change "pre Drop" for any match: Modules, Camo, Ammo Type (if optional ammo types are ever introduced.)

Things you should not be able to change "pre Drop": Engine size, Weapons, or any equipment which takes up critical spaces in any way (again, other than ammo type.)

But that's just, like, my opinion. Man.

[Eddy Hawkins]

I wonder, of all the people here who are sayan (DAMN IT NAPPA) that we should be able to swap loadouts because real solders know what they are getting into before a mission, how many of them have actually served in a military, and of those that have served, how many have done so in a combat zone?

let me tell you something, you DONT always know how long a mission is going to be, and you dont always know where you are going and sometimes you only have hours or even mins to get into the field.

and that is just with infantry

ohh ok ill put in a movie example, in the movie Black Hawk Down, some of the US Rangers took the back plates out of their armor, or didnt take night vision goggles or as much water because "this will be a 2hr op" and wanted more ammo instead. How did that work out for them?

Now with the MW universe... you add in these three story tall stompy robots with fusion reactors things get complicated fast. How long do you think it would take to say swap out that AC20 to put in an UAC5 instead? Now remember we are not talking omi mechs, we are talking crap IS tech. How does said mech get to the combat zone? via dropship or carryall right? Who fuels and maintains those? Perhaps you only had a small dropship available so lighter mechs had to be taken. Using your camo example, tell me, how long do you think it takes to repaint said THREE STORY stompy war robot or how about EIGHT of them? (btw, real militaries dont use the standard paint you get from the hardware store ether)

Also, look at the cannon about the different units out there in the MW universe; it was very rare that they had several mechs on "stand by" to take the one best suited for the job. Look at the MW4 opening... they are being attacked by at least 4 heavy clan mechs and the defenders (who are part of the royal guard and should have access to the best equipment) roll out in two lights, one med, and one heavy. didnt work out for them.

Once CW hits then there will be reason to yell at PGI, where i would expect that in most cases the attacker would be choosing the time and place, but until that time, just assume you are on a quick reaction force responding to an attack and you had to get there as soon as possible.

[Mike Townsend]

Tesunie, on 21 February 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

I have a Hunchback 4sp myself. It would love the larger map. You seem to forget about LRMs. I replaced the SRMs with LRMs and it's been working even on the smaller maps. And if get too close, I still have 4-5 med lasers on it. The default 4sp would have trouble on a large map, but then again it was designed for in city fighting. Ever wondered why it has its main weapon on a hunch to one side? So it could point that one shoulder around a corner and shoot down an ally way. Then again, with a good team, it can still use that shoulder to shoot over a hill in an ambush, or pay guard to a larger mech, encase someone gets too choose to them (can make a good guard to those LRM boats...).

Most trial mechs would actually do well on the new map, as most of the trial mechs have a good mix of ranged weapons.

The 4SP is fine, especially with speed. The P, unless you are mounting more than four energy weapons, is just a much worse SP due to the massive target hunch and the slower traversal and lack of pitch on the torso weapons. It is a chassis which has little to no use outside a city. I was grinding mine up to get my third elite and it wasn't much fun to begin with. It's now worse. Love the SP, though. Even stock it isn't terrible.

[Tesunie]

Mike Townsend, on 21 February 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

The 4SP is fine, especially with speed. The P, unless you are mounting more than four energy weapons, is just a much worse SP due to the massive target hunch and the slower traversal and lack of pitch on the torso weapons. It is a chassis which has little to no use outside a city. I was grinding mine up to get my third elite and it wasn't much fun to begin with. It's now worse. Love the SP, though. Even stock it isn't terrible.

Ah. My bad there. That hunch would have a little more problems, but maybe a dual PPC with a couple med lasers could work? Chain fire the PPCs to manage heat... (Place PPCs in arms and watch as people aim for that hunch still.)

I'm grinding with one of the AC variants. It's being a pain. Some nights I do well with it, other nights I can't kill a paper bag... The hunch is still useful to poke around cover and shoot,then disappear again. It is also great at being a big target too. I find I do best of I can shoot around objects, or by staying near a larger mech and guarding them.

Some mechs just might not be right for you. I've found some mechs just don't seem to work for me, or they do work but only after a lot of work with it. My Stalker was like that. I had to work with them to get a build I liked, then had to learn how to use it.

[PwnStars]

Tesunie, on 21 February 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

If this is how you feel, you apparently don't know anything about battletech and just here for the "stompy giant robots". You want CoD? Play CoD. You want Mechwarrior, then play this game. If you want to know what us fans expect, read some of the Battletech novels.

In the novels (other games for the most part, and TT as well), you had normally one mech per mechwarrior. They were expensive and most mechs lasted for generations being passed down through a family. It normally didn't get customized (expensive to do) and you brought it into whatever battle you needed to, whether it was suited to the job or not. They normally tried to match mechs to the role they were best suited to, but couldn't always do so. The only mechs that could change weapons easily and on the fly were omni mechs, which don't exist right now. It was what made the clans brutal compared to the inner sphere. Being able to change their mechs on the fly in a few hours of work made their mechs fit any situation. But even the clans knew not to boat a weapon system and keep good balanced weapons on ready for anything.

To quote you, it looks like you want to control who other people play the game. You're the one asking changes to the game, not us. You seem to want to make this Call of Duty: Mechwarrior edition.

I assure you, this is not the reason a dozen of the other players gave when they wanted others to play balanced mechs. I could list them off, but I'm sure you'll find them throughout this thread easily enough.

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble but... you can already customize your mech! MWO makes customization easy. Are you trying to say that all mechs we see in the field should always be stock? And only the players with hundreds of millions of c-bills can customize? I mean, I can swap in a weapon for a mere 400k, doesn't seem exorbitant. If the swap-in cost me 50 mil, then your point would hold some weight. Also, I own 4 mechs.

I was merely offering a suggestion, no need to get offended. I play this game because I like the gameplay. I wouldn't be playing it if I didn't. Mechwarrior is the only shooter I am playing right now.

[Denninos]

My idea would be that you can choose 1 or 2 maps that are taken out of your search pool, so you have atleast a higher chance on getting your map but still have the risk to get a map you dont want to play.

Edited by 2NoOB4YoU, 21 February 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[Blizow]

I'd like to see custom matches implemented in the future at some point. And to retain the viability of the metagame aspect all custom matches would gain you no c-bills or xp, but allow you to have control over which map and who is playing in the match. This way you can dink around with your favorite build and go at it with others who share your viewpoint on what makes playing this game fun as well as appealing to all the 3rd party leagues and clan practices. However to actually make any progression from a c-bill and xp standpoint you would have to take part in the random aspect of matchmaking and map selection.

I think this is something the devs will most likely implement in the future because honestly right now custom matches would be of no help to making the game balanced for the main purpose of where they want to take this game.

[Taemien]

The reason you can't choose a mech for a map is the same reason why the team with the highest score wins the match. Its part of the game.

Use a mech suited for any battlefield, part of the skill in this game is coming to a match fully ready and able to face the opposition. Taking nothing but short range weapons with no support is akin to saying, "I think we can win this match by losing all of our mechs first."

This is part two of my 3 principles of successful online gaming:

1. What you know.
2. What you have.
3. Who you know.

All three come into play into this situation, but number two is what most players are lacking in this regard.

1. What you know - You know Alpine is part of the map rotation. You know short range weapons are a liability here.
2. What you have - Continuing to use only short range weapons means you will fail when the Alpine map comes up.
3. Who you know - Using short range weapons with support will net you a success. Teammates can exchange fire while you flank. However many are going solo and thus their short range weapons are a liability.

[Donas]

Respectfully agreeing to disagree, with my reasoning.

De La Fresniere, on 20 February 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

1> I don't give a damn about Lights, I don't play them.

2> I do also have a big issue with specialized builds being either too good or terrible depending purely on *random chance*. It's stupid and it's a totally unnecessary loadout restriction.

3> So if we can pick our maps, we'll see only brawlers in brawler maps and long-range/sniper mechs in large maps with little cover. What's wrong with that? At least it'll be balanced every time, and everyone will be able to use specialized builds without either dominating completely or being completely useless.

1> The folks playing lights pay just as much money as anyone else. Just because you dont use them is no reason to think that a solution that completely disregards them will be seen with any credibility, since it does not address the community as a whole.

2> Actually, That random chance is what makes a specialized build balanced. A high reward build is balanced by being high risk. Up until now, many of those builds have been spoiled by the maps we've had to work with.

3> They key wording here that is the problem with this line of reasoning is "everyone will be able to use specialized builds without either dominating completely or being completely useless" when in actuality that scenario becomes "everyone will be required to use specialized builds or be completely useless".

And whether its choosing the mech at the beginning of a match or choosing the map, that's a semantic difference, they are basically the same thing once you have one mech supertuned for each map.

All snipers on a wide map? boring. all brawlers on a brawler map? just as boring.

Again, the place for such control over what you play and where is in a training room, where no exp and cbills are on the line, or in the community warfare when its released. In random drop, instant action style matches? Nope. Get in there and earn it. And if you get dropped into a match that isn't the ideal for your particular build? Challenge yourself to work with your teamates and get it done.

[Rovertoo]

I think that Dropship mode will be so awesome on Alpine!

[Tesunie]

PwnStars, on 21 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

I assure you, this is not the reason a dozen of the other players gave when they wanted others to play balanced mechs. I could list them off, but I'm sure you'll find them throughout this thread easily enough. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble but... you can already customize your mech! MWO makes customization easy. Are you trying to say that all mechs we see in the field should always be stock? And only the players with hundreds of millions of c-bills can customize? I mean, I can swap in a weapon for a mere 400k, doesn't seem exorbitant. If the swap-in cost me 50 mil, then your point would hold some weight. Also, I own 4 mechs. I was merely offering a suggestion, no need to get offended. I play this game because I like the gameplay. I wouldn't be playing it if I didn't. Mechwarrior is the only shooter I am playing right now.

I actually like mechlab and mech customization. If you read, I said in the Battletech universe customizing mechs were very expensive, took a lot of time to change, and didn't happen very often. Minor alterations where more known to happen.

Yes. I know this is a game. customizing your mechs have been a big thing since any Mechwarrior game and TT. However, choosing a special mech for each map would really ruin this game. Stock mechs should have some use. I'll once more point out that most stock mechs has generalized builds for a reason, with a few specialist designs to complement them. They where set up that way for a reason, because the pilot normally didn't have a legion of mechs to choose from not could they afford to special custom their mechs between every engagement, nor the time to.

What we are saying here are close range builds which were made to take advantage of the smaller map sizes feeling a little cramp on a larger map. That doesn't mean the idea behind the map is bad, and no one complained about picking their map to mech till now that I know of. Because one map doesn't favor you doesn't mean it's bad.

I will agree after finally playing the map that it's maybe a little too large, but it feels nice. Needs either more people or more reason to take paths that will intersect. Some vital point that needs to be fought over. But, at the same time I can see grade defense lines along the hill tops, with a fast lance to herd enemies and capture points.Next time I'm on that map, I intend to hold the ridge covering two bases, and see if I can get others to join in the defence while fast mechs cap points.

And for the record, I was just saying that this isn't CoD. So many people compare this game to CoD and whine that CoD has this or that so this game should too.

Edited by Tesunie, 22 February 2013 - 10:49 AM.

[Lycanstrom]

Donas, on 21 February 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

<snip>

And whether its choosing the mech at the beginning of a match or choosing the map, that's a semantic difference, they are basically the same thing once you have one mech supertuned for each map.

<snip>

This is completely and totally wrong. Choosing a mech VS choosing a map is NOT the same thing.

Choosing a map would mean some maps would become ghost towns as people get bored of them or just decide to only play their favorite map. It would obsolete a lot of the work being done by the devs to develop said maps.

Choosing a mech on the other hand allows you to say, "Oh I'm gonna be on River City, I'd like to play my sniper/brawler/mid-range mech (or whatever role YOU want to fill on said map)".

They are NOT the same. Stop trying to make a false equivalency.

Some people have brought up good arguments against my suggestion and since I'm an open-minded guy I am willing to listen to them and adjust my views based on the arguments that make sense to me. The argument that choosing a mech and choosing a map are the same thing is not a good argument. It's not even the same argument.

edit: spelling

Edited by Lycanstrom, 22 February 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[Tesunie]

Lycanstrom, on 22 February 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

This is completely and totally wrong. Choosing a mech VS choosing a map is NOT the same thing. Choosing a map would mean some maps would become ghost towns as people get bored of them or just decide to only play their favorite map. It would obsolete a lot of the work being done by the devs to develop said maps. Choosing a mech on the other hand allows you to say, "Oh I'm gonna be on River City, I'd like to play my sniper/brawler/mid-range mech (or whatever role YOU want to fill on said map)". They are NOT the same. Stop trying to make a false equivalency. Some people have brought up good arguments against my suggestion and since I'm an open-minded guy I am willing to listen to them and adjust my views based on the arguments that make sense to me. The argument that choosing a mech and choosing a map are the same thing is not a good argument. It's not even the same argument. edit: spelling

In this case, they are almost the same deal. It would lead to the same problem. People would make mechs that suit certain map types, making certain maps always find "such and such mech". It will become a "play this mech type on this map, or go home".

I do see your point though, and there is a slight difference, but as far as mech builds, we would have the same problem if it was choose your mech or your map. Choosing your map would lead to more problems as you stated, with certain maps becoming ghost towns, so I can see the difference between the two, but it really is only a small difference compared to the larger problem the rest of us see with this.

Edited by Tesunie, 22 February 2013 - 12:04 PM.

[Lycanstrom]

Tesunie, on 22 February 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

In this case, they are almost the same deal. It would lead to the same problem. People would make mechs that suit certain map types, making certain maps always fun "such and such mech". It will become a "play this mech type on this match, or go home".

I do see your point though, and there is a slight difference, but as far as mech builds, we would have the same problem if it was choose your mech or your map. Choosing your map would lead to more problems as you stated, with certain maps becoming ghost towns, so I can see the difference between the two, but it really is only a small difference compared to the larger problem the rest of us see with this.

I disagree. I run with the same people a lot. Some of them want brawlers on maps that others prefer snipers, scouts, or long range support builds. Just because you would play X Y or Z on maps A B or C doesn't mean everyone else will. Different play styles for different people.

I've had some awesome success using builds that no one else uses on maps like river city. It's all about adjusting your playstyle to suit the mech you're in. My problem is that everyone is assuming no one would bring any build other than what *they* would choose for a given map. That's just not accurate.

[Tesunie]

Lycanstrom, on 22 February 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

I disagree. I run with the same people a lot. Some of them want brawlers on maps that others prefer snipers, scouts, or long range support builds. Just because you would play X Y or Z on maps A B or C doesn't mean everyone else will. Different play styles for different people.

I've had some awesome success using builds that no one else uses on maps like river city. It's all about adjusting your playstyle to suit the mech you're in. My problem is that everyone is assuming no one would bring any build other than what *they* would choose for a given map. That's just not accurate.

I'm sure some people would do what you and I seem to do, which is play a mech even in non ideal maps, and still do well. However, a lot of people would flood the field with mechs best suited to the map. Read the Alpine map feedback for a hint. A lot of people there say that if they knew that map was coming up, they would get into x mech with y load it in it, because it would be better suited to the map than their brawler Atlas they ended up dropping in.

We are just saying that the chances of people balancing their mech designs and lessen the boating so many people are complaining about wouldn't happen if you choose a mech after the map is known. The boating would probably get worse, and no one would get to see that their boated mech isn't as good as they think. PGI has already started that they didn't want the boating that has been going on, but they don't want to limit people customizing choices. Forcing you to play random maps is suppose to help remove the boating practice, while at the same time let people continue to play in a style they wish. They want you to actually take a risk if you load up on all close range weapons, not be slightly inconvenienced as you quickly closer the gap because the map is small and your pray can only back up so much. (Not saying long range builds are useless, but they don't have the easiest of times on some maps.)

[Garagano]

Lycanstrom, on 20 February 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

This has been bugging me since I first started playing MWO way back in closed beta. Why is it that we choose our mech and hit launch w/o knowing which map we're going to be on?
...

because this game have currently beta status in PGI terms, what in other words is alpha or experimental status for any other serious game developer companys.

things may change on the long road of developing this game. Hopefully it convergence to the state of usability anywhere down the road...

good advice:
keep buying MC, keep playing the experimental game experience and press your thumbs that this will end good.