1107 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Thirdstar, on 26 March 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

I wish I had the patience you always display Mustrum.

You're not a high school teacher are you?

Thank you.

Weirdly enough, I already find that I am too aggressive in these topics and might be off-putting people with my vehemence of putting wrong things right, and constantly fear that I must somewhere make a frigging big mistake and no one told me.

But then... that's kinda preferable to the likely reality - that whoever is balancing this game doesn't know what he's doing.

[Thirdstar]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 March 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Thank you.

Weirdly enough, I already find that I am too aggressive in these topics and might be off-putting people with my vehemence of putting wrong things right, and constantly fear that I must somewhere make a frigging big mistake and no one told me.

But then... that's kinda preferable to the likely reality - that whoever is balancing this game doesn't know what he's doing.

No, no. I'M too aggressive. You're always patient, you never insult anyone and your knowledge of the game's mechanics are top notch.

I tip my hat to thee. You do what I cannot.

As to your last point I don't think balance and MWO belong in the same sentence.

[Shumabot]

Mercules, on 26 March 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Battle Value. Amazing how many balance issues are fixed in the matchmaker with a Battle Value mechanic. Match up BV and you won't have 1 twinked out, 1 good, and 6 "cheap" mechs facing 8 twinked mechs.

I'm not sure I trust the games designers to assign BV values in a way that creates balanced matches. That would be an exceptionally subjective mechanic. The BV on an XL300 in an awesome should be wayyyyyyyy lower than the BV of an XL300 in a catapault for instance. Point valuing based off competitive efficacy in a game like this would be a herculean task given current systems implementation. it would also require exceptional foresight into what the impacts of future content would be and the system would require an overhaul in every meta shift and with every content addition. I don't even think I could get it right without months of trial and error and I'm a supergenius from the future.

Edited by Shumabot, 26 March 2013 - 12:24 PM.

[Fenix0742]

Mercules, on 26 March 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Battle Value. Amazing how many balance issues are fixed in the matchmaker with a Battle Value mechanic. Match up BV and you won't have 1 twinked out, 1 good, and 6 "cheap" mechs facing 8 twinked mechs.

Yeah, except how does that work in the 8man queue? Will it be a 2000 point game that you're trying to hit? Does the new guy in the group get stuck on garbage mech duty because the guildmaster is driving his TurboJager9000? What happens when someone wants to mix it up, picks a mech 128 points bigger than what he was driving and now the whole group has to figure out who else switches to what?

BV, and even tonnage limits just aren't that great when one person isn't in control of all the units. Maybe if conquest mode was a tickets system with respawn, and each mech costing it's "bv" in tickets to respawn into the match, a cost system would be feasable. But as for BV for team matching? It is just too cumbersome for group play. And even then, SHS are so bad that Dubs would just be factored into the baseline, even if it meant no one could afford to drive assault mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Fenix,

I could certainly work with something like that. But this ridiculous instagratification + nerf/remove anything a person doesn't personally like, is silly. Which is what a huge chunk of these 600 posts are basically saying.

@MuKen,

And if this game was only meant to be a casual TDM, that would be fine. Believe it or not though, there are other game models that aren't that. Heck, I haven't played it in forever, but last I checked, WoT and the rest like it used economies. If people would actually jot chery pick, and look at the whole of a conversation, one would see I am all for what tlyou say. As ONE ASPECT/FEATURE of the game. But instabjoin, TDM is not the game they advertised when they sold these founders packs. If they decide to backtrack on that, then there is a whole new set of issues, totally unrelated to heatsinka of any sort.

[Thirdstar]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 March 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

When people remotely try to be open to actual debate, I am all for it.

No Bishop you're not. No trolling, no attempt at insulting you, even though I don't really like you. Seriously, no. You aren't.

The minute someone disagrees with you, you fall back on 'DEM KIDS' and ranting at 'THOSE GAMES' and 'THOSE PEOPLE'.

I've seen it over and over again.

I've disagreed with plenty of people on these forums often, I'm caustic and very opinionated but I've had some good discussions with others. You on the other hand always do what I described, and it makes having a real discussion/debate with you impossible.

In case it wasn't obvious though, I'm not Kong. Just a plain Ghetto PUG.

Edited by Thirdstar, 26 March 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Shumabot

On that point about assigning BV, I find myself forced to agree with you. Especially noting that an engine would have a differing actual value based on the mech it is used in. I still think even with potential warts, it would be worth trying tho. The current status quo in matchmaking and balancing is not viable, nor optimal. In fact, more than any other issue, i think is the one they are currently furthest from solving.

[Deathlike]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 March 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

But then... that's kinda preferable to the likely reality - that whoever is balancing this game doesn't know what he's doing.

The PGI dartboard thanks you.

[Mercules]

Fenix0742, on 26 March 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yeah, except how does that work in the 8man queue? Will it be a 2000 point game that you're trying to hit? Does the new guy in the group get stuck on garbage mech duty because the guildmaster is driving his TurboJager9000? What happens when someone wants to mix it up, picks a mech 128 points bigger than what he was driving and now the whole group has to figure out who else switches to what?

BV, and even tonnage limits just aren't that great when one person isn't in control of all the units. Maybe if conquest mode was a tickets system with respawn, and each mech costing it's "bv" in tickets to respawn into the match, a cost system would be feasable. But as for BV for team matching? It is just too cumbersome for group play. And even then, SHS are so bad that Dubs would just be factored into the baseline, even if it meant no one could afford to drive assault mechs.

That would actually be part of the whole Community thing. It doesn't work as well for PUGging but it still will work because Every 2000+BV mech on a team is going to limit what else they get. They are going to get either the rest all moderate BV or moderate to good with a LOW BV mech. In premade groups you can all play the BV game and make 1,500 point mechs or balance it out with 4 2,000 and 4, 1,000. alternately you could have a couple mechs with all the bling and a couple inexpensive but still effective mechs.

The meta switches away from what is "Optimal" to what is "Optimal given the BV." Obviously DHS is a no brainer upgrade, but what if BV for SHS was MUCH lower than for DHS. On a Gauss cat it would be foolish to pay more and bump up your BV when someone else could expend that BV much better.

Do you see how it makes less optimal more attractive?

[Thirdstar]

Shumabot, on 26 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

It would also require exceptional foresight into what the impacts of future content would be and the system would require an overhaul in every meta shift and with every content addition. I don't even think I could get it right without months of trial and error and I'm a supergenius from the future.

Indeed. BV would require constant tweaks whenever new mechs are introduced, new weapons come out, old weapons are balanced, miscellaneous technology is added, etc etc.

Hah. I wonder how much BV will have to be attached to Coolshot

Edited by Thirdstar, 26 March 2013 - 12:41 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Thirdstar,

Actually, u r wrong. Your initial statement says it all. "I don't like you". Totally on with that. Can't say I'm voting you man of the year, either. But human nature is to remember and focus on the negative. And more so when we don't like something or some one. We overlook patronizing and belittling behavior more often than not from those we agree with. Time and again, you jump in on something 10 pages in, and form your opinion on what you see then. When you look at previous posts, you gloss over the ones that don't support your worldview. My tone becomes aggressive and such when that is the tone I am answering. Seldom otherwise, unless I am starting a new topic inspired by a ragequit worthy episode.

But continue to believe as you like. Any unbiased reading of my posts, just using this topic as an example, will find a mix of question, suggestion, cooperation, scorn and such. All reactionary, as I entered late in the discussion. And yes, I am scornful whenever I sees the tired old Argument about "competitive builds" because it is a nonsense argument. I am free to run whatever mech I desire as is everyone else. Anyone who wants to micromanage it, needs to go to 8man, as I am here to play for fun, not pilot according to some other persons opinion.

[Protection]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 March 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

But then... that's kinda preferable to the likely reality - that whoever is balancing this game doesn't know what he's doing.

But the sad truth is that our expectations for Community Warfare are so deflated at this point, I will be amazed if the entirety of Community Warfare isn't just one six-coloured scoreboard that has listings of points for the player who TAGed the most Ravens in a Jagermech over a weekend without sleeping.

[Shumabot]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

But the sad truth is that our expectations for Community Warfare are so deflated at this point, I will be amazed if the entirety of Community Warfare isn't just one six-coloured scoreboard that has listings of points for the player who TAGed the most Ravens in a Jagermech over a weekend without sleeping.

I assumed thats what it was going to be all along. I figured a static map and better social integration was what everyone had been promised. When I heard what was actually promised I chuckled.

[Mercules]

Thirdstar, on 26 March 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Indeed. BV would require constant tweaks whenever new mechs are introduced, new weapons come out, old weapons are balanced, miscellaneous technology is added, etc etc.

Hah. I wonder how much BV will have to be attached to Coolshot

But see... it would be attached to it. Why? Because it is a module that is equipped and can be accounted for, even the MC one.

Yes, PGI would have to keep it up to date and actually listen to the community. It also has the side effect of allowing them to "balance" a weapon quickly that coding can't quickly fix. Say they find out in a patch that Lasers now to 5% more damage than intended. Not enough for a hotfix, but maybe enough to tweak the cost in the BV while they figure out what bug caused that and can fix it. Balance pseudo-restored.

[Thirdstar]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I am free to run whatever mech I desire as is everyone else. Anyone who wants to micromanage it, needs to go to 8man, as I am here to play for fun, not pilot according to some other persons opinion.

And that's just it. You haven't really understood the topic at all if this is your takeaway from the whole thread.

And then you pile on your usual 'entitled kids, new generation' silliness on top of that.

The issue is that the gulf between SHS and DHS impacts new players to a far greater degree than it does veterans. This is the heart of the topic, everything else just revolves around it. The people going 'well SHS is fine' are being told that no, it isn't. That they're then responding in a arsehurt manner is what's escalating things.

[AndyHill]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 March 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

An improvement that is not necessary to make a Gauss Cat deadly. And you should put the Lasers in the arms. Also Cycling Gauss then Lasers you should stay active just fine with singles.

But it makes it even deadlier, necessity is in the eye of the pilot. And the armorless arms fly off at the start of any match. Also why would I cycle when I can do maximum damage at will with doubles (for a while)?

[Tesunie]

Thirdstar, on 26 March 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Where in heaven's name is all your weight going in that stalker? I'm sorry if I come off rude but that's a terrible build.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...889c0255f202db9

I tried to follow your build as closely as possible and still had spare tonnage to upgrade two of the LRM5s to LRM10s.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Also R&R was bloody stupid. That is all.

You seemed to have assumed a lot about my build. Who said I ran that engine size? Who said I ran four tons of ammo? Who said I placed that ammo in the legs? Who said I stripped armor off the legs too? You assumed a lot from me just saying mech type and payload.

Thank you for calling my best build, with my highest kill to death, with my best damage output, a terrible build. Tact any? It works well for me, and I do very well with it. Does that mean it can't be improved? It probably could be tweaked more. But I don't feel the need to.

I don't have the stats on hand, but when I get home I'd be more than happy to post the whole thing up for you. Do keep cost in mind, as mine has full armor, a large standard engine, endo steel (bought it as a cheap upgrade when I first got the mech, so you would have to consider the c-bill cost for downgrading that), and I think about 31 standard heatsinks, 6 tons of ammo and 6 med lasers. (Guessing here.)

This build is best at protecting other missile boats, being confused as a missile boat itself, while melting things with 6 med lasers. My Hunchback 4sp is set up in a similar manner and does well. The idea is balance between range and support with a good tight self defense system. If I need to, I'll charge an Atlas in this. I've melted them before. Hopefully I'll get some damage with the LRMs as I close in if I need to close. If ECM pest charges me or some fool closes to negate my LRMs, they normally quickly find the mistake with that. If they manage to run away after closing, I can normally finish them off with missiles as they run. (I love when people charge me because they think I'm a missile boat...)

For the record, I'm not saying single heatsinks are better than double, but there are cases where singles can be legitimized. And R&R wasn't stupid, the free 75% ammo and repair was stupid. Prices on repairs could be cheaper, but I never had money making issues in R&R days. Now, why not run an XL? Why not run double heat sinks? Why not run all the good expensive gear? I felt we had more variety during R&R days. Should it have been removed? Probably. Was it a bad idea? I don't really think it was, though that could be debated on either side of the argument, with probably good points for and against it.

I liked R&R, but I do agree that, at least without CW out, it isn't needed and was being scammed when it was in use. If one could balance the costs and remove the scams then I think it would be good. Make it so you can run any mech without going into the negatives, but at the same time be penalized for running in a mech that only royalty would be able to own in the lore.

As a final note about myself, I don't min max. I play by feel. I play what seems to work for me. I build around a role. I'm also a fan of the game, novels, backstory, fluff, etc. I'd rather field something closer to fluff than a min maxed mech that doesn't feel right. Sometimes you just have to go with what's fun, and not with what's strongest.

[Bishop Steiner]

And u prove my point.

The people whose argument you support are being"reasonable" even when they revert to insults.
The people who disagree with you, are just being arsehurt, and when they respond back to the insults, then they are just being condescending.

When I can point to multiple conciliatory posts from Mercules, Joseph and Myself. But instead of trying to achieve any common ground, they are twisted and used for further insults. But of course 600 posts of rage and arguments are caused by me calling someone kid or Timmy..... 500 posts in. After being called an I d I o t and a liar.

Yup. Not biased at all.
And no, the post was "we don't feel SHS work, only idiots think they do". To which multiple people responded why they did work, even if they are not ideal. And the flaming ensues.

[Shumabot]

Quote

And u prove my point.

Stop typing like a tween on her phone.

[Thirdstar]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Sometimes you just have to go with what's fun, and not with what's strongest.

And that's perfectly fine, I would never begrudge anyone's fun.

But that's not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread IS centered on min-maxing and optimal builds. Because that's the most objective way to compare systems like SHS and DHS.