During a recent online discussion, a remark, intended to be insulting, was thrown my way. Being discussed was the viability of brawling vs. sniping. The remark was that sniping has been nerfed, and brawling buffed, to the point that sniping is only viable in (expletive) PUG matches.
While this was clearly intended to insult me, by implying I was not an elite competitive player, it did not. Firstly, because being an adult with a life, who lives in a home I pay for myself, I don't have the time to devote to competitive play. Secondly, it's true. Sniping is mostly for PUGs.
This caused me to reflect on the dual nature of this game. In competitive play, you have a team that communicates via voice comm., (via third party software AHEM) and has a team created to support each other in the various combat roles. To see one in action is amazing, and shows a simple fact, since even the bad teams are good compared to a PUG team. Communication and coordination trump individual play, no matter how skilled the player, and always will.
The competitive community is what you will mostly see in the forums. They are into this game far more than the casuals, like myself, and it shows in many ways. Mostly in their assumption that everyone in the forums plays competitively. The numbers do not reflect this, but the online community is mostly competitive players, so they tend to forget that most people only play pick up games.
The PUG community, (if it can even be called that) is a mixture of beginners, casuals, and those of us who actually used to go to the local battletech center to play. ($20 for 10 minutes. {that's about $33.00 in today's dollars} Bear that in mind when complaining about the cost of this game). The game play in PUGs is markedly different. The lack of coordination, or the ability to count on your teammates to act for the good of the team, or even in a sensible way, results in a very different successful play style.
There are very few pushes, almost no planning, and many unintended friendly fire accidents. And while you would think that this environment would lend itself to up close and personal combat, it doesn't. It happens, but it is not the productive brawling that occurs in competitive play. It is simply a way for LRM boats on each team to get locks on a Mech that someone else is targeting.
So the game is really two completely different experiences, depending on how you play. Most of the disagreements we have about balance stem from this fact. While there is no ready fix for this, native voice support would go a long way. Good Hunting.
Showing posts with label mech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mech. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
ELO and you.
First I want to address something. I have previously written about the way to pilot lights and mediums. I have not written about heavies and assaults. This is not because I dislike them or lack experience with them, those are my favorites, actually. It is because so many, have written so much, and a lot of it is good, that I simply have nothing to add.
I will say that for heavies: here be meta. The min/max build reigns supreme and the jump snipers are the regents among regents. Some assaults as well, but generally an assault's job is to be a menace, by any means necessary. This means taking one for the team in a lot of cases. It means being the priority target in every case.
On to the topic...
On to the topic...
I enjoy the occasional stat rest, and honestly, I am not sure how I feel about ELO. Getting smoked is part of any game. And by only battling those of your own ability level, you limit your ability to learn from your betters. It is certainly frustrating to have pro-level gamers pound you into the dirt every game, and it would be discouraging to most. But the learning curve, while steeper, is also shorter.
Before Mechwarrior Online I hadn't played a mech game since Microsoft picked up the franchise years ago. (not anything against them, that's just when I had some major life events that prevented me from owning a good computer.) Honestly I played more games at the Battletech Center at North Pier than I ever did the PC version.
If you have never been to one I will sum up the experience for you. Strategy is non-existent, the points were awarded based on damage done, with very little penalty for dying. You paid for ten minutes, and kept re-spawning until it was up. It was not, as you might imagine, good training for competitive play.
There were leagues, of course, where strategy was employed, but my income was not reliable enough for me to commit to that weekly expense. 20 bucks for the game, 40 for parking, plus food and drinks. It was most of my month's savings, after expenses, at the time, and really cut into my drinking money.
Although wasting money on 10 minutes in a pod, in imaginary robots ate up so much money I couldn't afford an engagement ring. I eventually did buy a ring, but for someone infinitely better. Given how happy I am now, I suppose that 6 bucks a minute was a hell of a bargain, but that is a post for another blog.
As a result I was rusty terrible. If ELO was in place during that time I would not have (re)-learned the art of dodging behind cover when Betty told me I was being rained on. I would have taken longer to learn twist-jutsu if I hadn't been smacked around by my betters, who employed this technique.
So while I accept that for many players, ELO is the way to ensure they don't get too frustrated, and come back; it does stifle learning. Despite the complaints that, occasionally, you drop with new players; or that, as a new player, you drop with experts, ELO is working as intended. In fact I would say it is working optimally, because the occasional mismatch is a golden learning opportunity. If you take the time to watch your team, should you die early, you will undoubtedly see a technique, or a way of using a certain weapon, or maybe even observe a build, that might never have occurred to you.
Happy Hunting.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Submarines and you.
I am setting out to change your mind. I say this up front because, hopefully, you will be less resistant to honesty than coercion. Most of the debating I do with people about this game is because I think of things in a completely different way than most.
Most seem to regard mechs as either giant soldiers, or only in the terms described in canon. The roles of the mechs are as defined by a small game company who thought giant stompy robots with axes and guns were kewl. I don't disagree with that sentiment. And who doesn't dig giant robots? But these were not military geniuses. I am not either. But I know enough to look for analogs of mechs in the modern world to see what military geniuses think they should be doing.
Some have suggested that mechs are like bombers and fighters in WWII. The assaults being the bombers, and that they needed protection from enemy fighters. The lights and mediums being the fighters, and the heavies... well it goes off track here because this comparison is flawed.
Mechs are analogous to ships. Think of the role a submarine plays in naval warfare. Scouting, hit and run, harassing (and hopefully sinking) larger ships, disappearing after a single shot only to reappear and shoot again. Sounds like a light mech, doesn't it.
Frigates are smaller than destroyers. They are designed to protect larger ships, and perform anti-submarine duties. naturally they also get used for basic attack and defend scenarios. Sounds a lot like mediums.
Destroyers are larger and have a primary role of defending larger ships against attacks by smaller, faster ones, like frigates and submarines. Originally called "torpedo-boat destroyers" it was shortened to just, destroyers. Many have become the primary surface combatants of the navies of the world. This fits nicely with Heavies.
Cruisers are the largest of ships. They have the most displacement and exist solely to lay down some hurt, in the most efficient manner possible. (Battleships and Battlecruisers are no longer in main use by the world's navies, and in fact only three countries use cruisers at all) This is obviously the Assaults.
So if we play the mechs to the roles of ships, we should, in theory, be an efficient, powerful, battlegroup. You will note that the role of a cruiser is not to draw fire away from the rest of the group. Nor is it to lead the charge. The role of the cruiser is to fire on targets, while smaller ships see to its protection.
So when I am confronted by angry voices saying that the most angering sight in the game is a barely damaged Atlas, that the job of the assault is to be a laser-sponge, that the entire point of an assault is to die in a "loud, grotesque, military manner", (extra internets if you get that reference), I reflect on two things. First, that the person saying this, while passionate and well-versed in the game's lore, probably hasn't looked at ships.
Second, that they don't realize that a mech is not a soldier, it is an expensive piece of hardware. A captain's responsibility is their very expensive ship. If this game were as real as some of you think, having your mech destroyed would be worse than hiding or running, despite what the lore says.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_ships
Most seem to regard mechs as either giant soldiers, or only in the terms described in canon. The roles of the mechs are as defined by a small game company who thought giant stompy robots with axes and guns were kewl. I don't disagree with that sentiment. And who doesn't dig giant robots? But these were not military geniuses. I am not either. But I know enough to look for analogs of mechs in the modern world to see what military geniuses think they should be doing.
Some have suggested that mechs are like bombers and fighters in WWII. The assaults being the bombers, and that they needed protection from enemy fighters. The lights and mediums being the fighters, and the heavies... well it goes off track here because this comparison is flawed.
Mechs are analogous to ships. Think of the role a submarine plays in naval warfare. Scouting, hit and run, harassing (and hopefully sinking) larger ships, disappearing after a single shot only to reappear and shoot again. Sounds like a light mech, doesn't it.
Frigates are smaller than destroyers. They are designed to protect larger ships, and perform anti-submarine duties. naturally they also get used for basic attack and defend scenarios. Sounds a lot like mediums.
Destroyers are larger and have a primary role of defending larger ships against attacks by smaller, faster ones, like frigates and submarines. Originally called "torpedo-boat destroyers" it was shortened to just, destroyers. Many have become the primary surface combatants of the navies of the world. This fits nicely with Heavies.
Cruisers are the largest of ships. They have the most displacement and exist solely to lay down some hurt, in the most efficient manner possible. (Battleships and Battlecruisers are no longer in main use by the world's navies, and in fact only three countries use cruisers at all) This is obviously the Assaults.
So if we play the mechs to the roles of ships, we should, in theory, be an efficient, powerful, battlegroup. You will note that the role of a cruiser is not to draw fire away from the rest of the group. Nor is it to lead the charge. The role of the cruiser is to fire on targets, while smaller ships see to its protection.
So when I am confronted by angry voices saying that the most angering sight in the game is a barely damaged Atlas, that the job of the assault is to be a laser-sponge, that the entire point of an assault is to die in a "loud, grotesque, military manner", (extra internets if you get that reference), I reflect on two things. First, that the person saying this, while passionate and well-versed in the game's lore, probably hasn't looked at ships.
Second, that they don't realize that a mech is not a soldier, it is an expensive piece of hardware. A captain's responsibility is their very expensive ship. If this game were as real as some of you think, having your mech destroyed would be worse than hiding or running, despite what the lore says.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_ships
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
The Atlas Experiment part duh
So. After much criticism, many helpful suggestions, and some soul searching I have completed another week in the refitted Atlas. I now sport an AC20, (having given up on the Gauss) and a machine gun in the ballistic points. One ER PPC on the side opposite the AC20, so I always have something pointed at someone, and a flamer. I also placed three LRM 5s. I will explain these choices.
The AC20 is because it's a beast. The ERPPC, because the heat is worth the extra range, and damned-sure worth not having a minimum. The 3 LRM 5s are because three 5s weigh less than a 15. Every little bit helps. Also it kind of matches the tube layout. Originally I did not include the MG or flamer.
But then I was forcibly reminded about the nature of PUGs. My team mates rushed headlong into the mists ahead and left the slow Atlas and his massive artillery behind. And then I get light swarmed. I didn't exactly have the time to type a request for help while backpedaling, so it didn't end well.
Adding the Flamer and MG helps keep lights at bay long enough to dispatch them, or for help to arrive. They aren't exactly a waste of space in close quarters fighting either. This brings me though to why I built the, admittedly gimmicky, 2xAC2, 2xLL, damage machine I was using. In a PUG your teammates are rarely to be counted on. No matter how well they play as an individual, they lack coordination. This is where the "role specific" mech methodology fails.
But I digress. After another week I am more comfortable with the "more traditional" Atlas I now run. The other night I had a game that came down to 2 on 1, with me being the 1, and an Atlas being one of the other 2. Looked mostly intact too. Great. My AC20 was nearly out, missiles long used up. I won't bore you with the details, but I pulled a win right out of my ass. (OK, by request details below)
HPG map. I just had my last teammate and the mech we were engaging go down nearly simultaneously. I had already used my LRMs and had gotten notice that my AC20 ammo was 25%. I peeked over a ramp that I was on to see an Atlas and another mech that, sadly I didn't recognize. Both because I don't have them all memorized, and because I was focused on the bigger threat. (other mech was tore up).
I fired the AC20 into the Atlas' back, and backed up so as to not be seen. 4 count and peek. Back was to me again. Fire again and back down. 6 count this time (Figured they'd take a longer look around.) Peek, back to me again, fired... Just as the Atlas turned. OK time to back into a corner to waited for them to come to me.
Smaller guy was first. I fired the flamer, MG and AC, which then was out of ammo, in a vain attempt to at least make the battle even. While I would like to dazzle you all with the story of how I didn't take a hit, that would be a lie. I was pounded. Torso twisting like an epileptic doing the Humpty-hump, I managed to not lose anything more than armor. At this point I was mostly keeping my right side, with the now inert AC20, and fairly useless flamer toward them.
Honestly if they had headsets I would not have pulled that out. I managed to keep both of them where I could see them most of the time. Firing the flamer/MG combo at the smaller opponent seemed to be keeping him from hurting me too much. I lined up on the Atlas, was thankful I opted for the ERPPC for the 100th time that match, and fired. His left arm came off.
Now I felt like I could win this, for the first time since seeing that dreaded skull. Circling the Atlas, (and absentmindedly shutting down once myself), it took three more shots with that ERPPC to down him. The smaller mech, (that I really do feel like an idiot for not knowing) was backed against the wall, I don't think he was even firing at that point. Maybe out of ammo, or guns blown off, since he was short a limb or two.
While I would like to say it was a clean death, that would be a lie. Apparently they added shake to the aiming reticle for close matches. It took me three shamefaced shots to take that thing down. But I did take it down. I don't exactly think it was a statue worthy performance, but it was a win.
The end result was 4 kills, 5 assists, just over 700 damage. So almost as well as I was doing after months with my other build. I suspect with enough time I would hit the same levels as my "terrible" build.
I am curious why there was such a visceral reaction against this Terrible Atlas build Does it look wrong? Yes. Is it counter-intuitive? Yes. Is the chassis, in fact, a terrible fit for the build? Yup. Did it work? Absofreakinlutely.
See the build was born out of frustration with my Jagers. They kept overheating when I needed them up and running, and I was tired of compromising on that. More heat sinks meant less ammo. I tried the infamous AC40 build, but I felt dirty running it. Also, it lacked the range, and honestly the fun of the AC2 builds I ran. I wanted a mech with enough weight allowance to not ever worry about heat. So I made that Atlas that you all hate.
So I had made the longest range machine I could. LRMs, as I know from using my own ECM, aren't much good against some mechs. One person asked; with all of the ammo I carried, if I ever ran out, because if not, that meant it was too much. In reply: Yes. Yes I run out of AC2 ammo frequently. Even with that much. That happens when you are shooting people from further away than they can return fire.
So my point, is that if the performance is the same, but more c-bills are awarded when you do more damage, why not use it?
The AC20 is because it's a beast. The ERPPC, because the heat is worth the extra range, and damned-sure worth not having a minimum. The 3 LRM 5s are because three 5s weigh less than a 15. Every little bit helps. Also it kind of matches the tube layout. Originally I did not include the MG or flamer.
But then I was forcibly reminded about the nature of PUGs. My team mates rushed headlong into the mists ahead and left the slow Atlas and his massive artillery behind. And then I get light swarmed. I didn't exactly have the time to type a request for help while backpedaling, so it didn't end well.
Adding the Flamer and MG helps keep lights at bay long enough to dispatch them, or for help to arrive. They aren't exactly a waste of space in close quarters fighting either. This brings me though to why I built the, admittedly gimmicky, 2xAC2, 2xLL, damage machine I was using. In a PUG your teammates are rarely to be counted on. No matter how well they play as an individual, they lack coordination. This is where the "role specific" mech methodology fails.
But I digress. After another week I am more comfortable with the "more traditional" Atlas I now run. The other night I had a game that came down to 2 on 1, with me being the 1, and an Atlas being one of the other 2. Looked mostly intact too. Great. My AC20 was nearly out, missiles long used up. I won't bore you with the details, but I pulled a win right out of my ass. (OK, by request details below)
HPG map. I just had my last teammate and the mech we were engaging go down nearly simultaneously. I had already used my LRMs and had gotten notice that my AC20 ammo was 25%. I peeked over a ramp that I was on to see an Atlas and another mech that, sadly I didn't recognize. Both because I don't have them all memorized, and because I was focused on the bigger threat. (other mech was tore up).
I fired the AC20 into the Atlas' back, and backed up so as to not be seen. 4 count and peek. Back was to me again. Fire again and back down. 6 count this time (Figured they'd take a longer look around.) Peek, back to me again, fired... Just as the Atlas turned. OK time to back into a corner to waited for them to come to me.
Smaller guy was first. I fired the flamer, MG and AC, which then was out of ammo, in a vain attempt to at least make the battle even. While I would like to dazzle you all with the story of how I didn't take a hit, that would be a lie. I was pounded. Torso twisting like an epileptic doing the Humpty-hump, I managed to not lose anything more than armor. At this point I was mostly keeping my right side, with the now inert AC20, and fairly useless flamer toward them.
Honestly if they had headsets I would not have pulled that out. I managed to keep both of them where I could see them most of the time. Firing the flamer/MG combo at the smaller opponent seemed to be keeping him from hurting me too much. I lined up on the Atlas, was thankful I opted for the ERPPC for the 100th time that match, and fired. His left arm came off.
Now I felt like I could win this, for the first time since seeing that dreaded skull. Circling the Atlas, (and absentmindedly shutting down once myself), it took three more shots with that ERPPC to down him. The smaller mech, (that I really do feel like an idiot for not knowing) was backed against the wall, I don't think he was even firing at that point. Maybe out of ammo, or guns blown off, since he was short a limb or two.
While I would like to say it was a clean death, that would be a lie. Apparently they added shake to the aiming reticle for close matches. It took me three shamefaced shots to take that thing down. But I did take it down. I don't exactly think it was a statue worthy performance, but it was a win.
The end result was 4 kills, 5 assists, just over 700 damage. So almost as well as I was doing after months with my other build. I suspect with enough time I would hit the same levels as my "terrible" build.
I am curious why there was such a visceral reaction against this Terrible Atlas build Does it look wrong? Yes. Is it counter-intuitive? Yes. Is the chassis, in fact, a terrible fit for the build? Yup. Did it work? Absofreakinlutely.
See the build was born out of frustration with my Jagers. They kept overheating when I needed them up and running, and I was tired of compromising on that. More heat sinks meant less ammo. I tried the infamous AC40 build, but I felt dirty running it. Also, it lacked the range, and honestly the fun of the AC2 builds I ran. I wanted a mech with enough weight allowance to not ever worry about heat. So I made that Atlas that you all hate.
So I had made the longest range machine I could. LRMs, as I know from using my own ECM, aren't much good against some mechs. One person asked; with all of the ammo I carried, if I ever ran out, because if not, that meant it was too much. In reply: Yes. Yes I run out of AC2 ammo frequently. Even with that much. That happens when you are shooting people from further away than they can return fire.
So my point, is that if the performance is the same, but more c-bills are awarded when you do more damage, why not use it?
Friday, January 17, 2014
Mech layout
In the creation of a customized mech there are so many options that it is overwhelming to even the best players. That does not stop people from complaining that there are not enough, but that is another post. The options are, thankfully, approachable by intuitive math. Don't panic, I'm not going all "spreadsheet warrior" on you. (although I can do that with the best of 'em.) I'm talking out ballistics, lasers, and you.
I like to run mechs designed so that I have only two or three weapon groups, and rarely need to worry about heat. There are many who can juggle SRMs, LRMs, lasers, and ballistics, with way too few heat sinks, dance around and do just fine. I am not one of them. These guys have a weapon, or counter, for every occasion. The way I see it that is unnecessarily complicated. Also, Omnimechs are a long way off, yet.
In the simplest terms there are low-heat, high ammo weapons: ballistics. There are medium (though still too high) heat, high ammo weapons: missiles. There is one low ammo, no heat option: the machine gun. And there are high heat, no ammo lasers and PPCs.
When you get right down to it though, heatsinks are to lasers (and PPCs) what ammo is to an autocannon. The great thing is that unlike mass-drivers, which require a different ammunition for each type, energy weapons can all share the same heatsinks. (so do the ballistics, I know)
The best builds, I have found, carry two types of weapon, at most three, divided into two (or three) groups. For example, two AC2s, and two large lasers. The ACs deal damage at a distance, and have a high rate of fire. The lasers deal better damage, especially close in, but generate a ton of heat, and have a long cycle time. Together they can alternate fire and be a real pain. If you were to add another laser, it would be grouped in with the others. Add a machine gun and it should be a separate, special use, group.
Another option would be two LRM15s and two lasers. While less flexible in terms of rate of fire, this allows for indirect fire, doing damage at a distance, and still maintains some close in punch. If you only take one kind of weapon though, make it energy weapons.
I have seen that guy running the min/maxed JM-glasscannon, that needs extra cool down time, and has no extra weight allowance for a backup laser. Hell, I've been that guy. It is a fun build. Right up until that match where it is you, out of ammo, and your arm-less Centurion teammate, trying to keep a relatively healthy Dragon off of a contested resource; and you end up trying to ram a Dragon to death.
The benefits of a simpler set-up are many. Fewer things to screw up. Fewer types of ammo to carry means more of the ones you do carry, which means not running out. More room for heat sinks, and that means rarely over-heating. More room for a bigger engine. Simpler affords you much more flexibility. More engine, and average heat sinks for those that like to run. More heatsinks and average engine for brawlers, who can just keep laying down a drum-solo of fire without over-heating.
The downsides... Well sometimes you are really banged up and want to hide and cap, while firing missiles indirectly, so as to remain alive. With some simple builds, you can't do that. Sometimes the enemy won't be nice and stand still to be shot. Missiles won't help you much here, if they are diving in and out of cover.
PPCs are essentially AC20s dressed up like lasers. They require a lot more heatsinks, (ammo) and do all of their damage in one shot. The slow projectile speed makes shooting a moving target... interesting, but they make a mess when they hit.
The argument for lasers is that they are perfect general-purpose weapons. They do not have a fast cycle time, but they do good damage per ton. My only complaint is that they spread damage over time. Which means keeping them on a moving target, or only dealing partial damage. They are the workhorses of this game though, and despite my distaste for them, need to be given respect. (There is something inherently dissatisfying about firing a laser. Just in game though. Firing one in real life is amazing.)
I like to run mechs designed so that I have only two or three weapon groups, and rarely need to worry about heat. There are many who can juggle SRMs, LRMs, lasers, and ballistics, with way too few heat sinks, dance around and do just fine. I am not one of them. These guys have a weapon, or counter, for every occasion. The way I see it that is unnecessarily complicated. Also, Omnimechs are a long way off, yet.
In the simplest terms there are low-heat, high ammo weapons: ballistics. There are medium (though still too high) heat, high ammo weapons: missiles. There is one low ammo, no heat option: the machine gun. And there are high heat, no ammo lasers and PPCs.
When you get right down to it though, heatsinks are to lasers (and PPCs) what ammo is to an autocannon. The great thing is that unlike mass-drivers, which require a different ammunition for each type, energy weapons can all share the same heatsinks. (so do the ballistics, I know)
The best builds, I have found, carry two types of weapon, at most three, divided into two (or three) groups. For example, two AC2s, and two large lasers. The ACs deal damage at a distance, and have a high rate of fire. The lasers deal better damage, especially close in, but generate a ton of heat, and have a long cycle time. Together they can alternate fire and be a real pain. If you were to add another laser, it would be grouped in with the others. Add a machine gun and it should be a separate, special use, group.
Another option would be two LRM15s and two lasers. While less flexible in terms of rate of fire, this allows for indirect fire, doing damage at a distance, and still maintains some close in punch. If you only take one kind of weapon though, make it energy weapons.
I have seen that guy running the min/maxed JM-glasscannon, that needs extra cool down time, and has no extra weight allowance for a backup laser. Hell, I've been that guy. It is a fun build. Right up until that match where it is you, out of ammo, and your arm-less Centurion teammate, trying to keep a relatively healthy Dragon off of a contested resource; and you end up trying to ram a Dragon to death.
The benefits of a simpler set-up are many. Fewer things to screw up. Fewer types of ammo to carry means more of the ones you do carry, which means not running out. More room for heat sinks, and that means rarely over-heating. More room for a bigger engine. Simpler affords you much more flexibility. More engine, and average heat sinks for those that like to run. More heatsinks and average engine for brawlers, who can just keep laying down a drum-solo of fire without over-heating.
The downsides... Well sometimes you are really banged up and want to hide and cap, while firing missiles indirectly, so as to remain alive. With some simple builds, you can't do that. Sometimes the enemy won't be nice and stand still to be shot. Missiles won't help you much here, if they are diving in and out of cover.
PPCs are essentially AC20s dressed up like lasers. They require a lot more heatsinks, (ammo) and do all of their damage in one shot. The slow projectile speed makes shooting a moving target... interesting, but they make a mess when they hit.
The argument for lasers is that they are perfect general-purpose weapons. They do not have a fast cycle time, but they do good damage per ton. My only complaint is that they spread damage over time. Which means keeping them on a moving target, or only dealing partial damage. They are the workhorses of this game though, and despite my distaste for them, need to be given respect. (There is something inherently dissatisfying about firing a laser. Just in game though. Firing one in real life is amazing.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)