49 replies to this topic

[Deamonition]

blinkin, on 07 April 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

if you are going to dance around the real arguments that are made then i shall dance with you.

there is no clearly defined size for any AC weapon:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon
"Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor.^[1] The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes:"

It's funny that "Cheesebuilds" is a known concept in this game, term created by its own community. I was indeed expecting the cheesebuilders to complain a lot about my post but whatever...

And, of course, people using cheesebuilds are not going to admit that it is easier to play with cheesebuilds than with non-cheesebuilds.

The term "cheesebuild" was created for a reason and what you are pretty much arguing is that "cheesebuild" don't exist. Most of the community created that term out of the blue for no reason.

You're just trying to defend the use of such builds, and not even talking about the size limitation.

Finally, regarding the "dance" that you are talking about, you can go on wikipedia and quote whatever it says, but in the MW universe, an AC20 is bigger than an AC2. How could you fit something big in a space made for something small?

[Royalewithcheese]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

And, of course, people using cheesebuilds are not going to admit that it is easier to play with cheesebuilds than with non-cheesebuilds.

Of course it's easier to play with what some folks call a "cheese build" than with something folks don't call a "cheese build." That doesn't mean that "cheese builds" don't require skill to use well, or that they don't become more effective with skill.

You know how it's easier to run a race if you're fit than if you're not fit? But how if you're fit, and want to win a race against other people who are fit, you need to have good running form? Same principle.

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 07 April 2013 - 10:45 AM.

[blinkin]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

It's funny that "Cheesebuilds" is a known concept in this game, term created by its own community. I was indeed expecting the cheesebuilders to complain a lot about my post but whatever...

And, of course, people using cheesebuilds are not going to admit that it is easier to play with cheesebuilds than with non-cheesebuilds.

The term "cheesebuild" was created for a reason and what you are pretty much arguing is that "cheesebuild" don't exist. Most of the community created that term out of the blue for no reason.

You're just trying to defend the use of such builds, and not even talking about the size limitation.

Finally, regarding the "dance" that you are talking about, you can go on wikipedia and quote whatever it says, but in the MW universe, an AC20 is bigger than an AC2. How could you fit something big in a space made for something small?

wow i apparently said a lot of stuff in those two lines of text.

in the mechwarrior universe there is no size deffinition for any AC weapon. we could have an AC2 that fires one massive shell every 10 seconds and at the same time we could have an AC20 that fires a vulcan cannon from an A10 wart hog at 100 rounds per second.

a cannon with larger shells is going to have a bigger gun barrel than a smaller caliber that fires faster.

you said that the AC20 barrels in that image weren't the right size, and i am saying there is no right size for any AC barrel.

had you been smart about this you would not have wasted time trying to put words in my mouth and simply pointed out that the hunchback AC20 and the K2 AC20 fire the exact same shots at the exact same rate of fire. of course even that can be countered with different types of ammunition (kinetic slugs vs. explosive cannon rounds).

[Deamonition]

blinkin, on 07 April 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

wow i apparently said a lot of stuff in those two lines of text.

in the mechwarrior universe there is no size deffinition for any AC weapon. we could have an AC2 that fires one massive shell every 10 seconds and at the same time we could have an AC20 that fires a vulcan cannon from an A10 wart hog at 100 rounds per second.

a cannon with larger shells is going to have a bigger gun barrel than a smaller caliber that fires faster.

you said that the AC20 barrels in that image weren't the right size, and i am saying there is no right size for any AC barrel.

had you been smart about this you would not have wasted time trying to put words in my mouth and simply pointed out that the hunchback AC20 and the K2 AC20 fire the exact same shots at the exact same rate of fire. of course even that can be countered with different types of ammunition (kinetic slugs vs. explosive cannon rounds).

I understand what you are trying to say. But from what I have read, the lower ACs have smaller calibers. Caliber is the diameter of the barrel/ammo it uses.

I don't understand why so many people are so quick on saying stuff like "You are stupid" or "Had you been smart"...

Are you always insulting people when you argue?

Your sources are different then mines it seems. You say that there is not related size to the gun, I say it does. As from what I have read, it's related to the caliber, which means the size. AC20 being a bigger caliber than an AC2, 5 or 10.

So who's got the best sources? We can't really say.

Had you been smart (I can also insult people), you would have googled more than one website and realized that there are many different point of views/information given. I have indeed seen some say that there is no size related to it, but that would make no sense at all.

Weapons are almost always named by their calibers. Which is why I tend to believe the version where it says that the AC20 has a certan caliber, which is the biggest you can have in the MWO autocannon universe.

[Deamonition]

I must add that the whole double AC20 physical size thing is bringing us slightly off topic. The double AC20 on the CAT was an example, first of all.

Moreover, the actual physical size of the cannon, as seen on the mech, was mentioned as an additional info/argument to the principal matter, which is balancing the game a bit more by adding size limits to hardpoints.

As sombody mentioned earlier, I don't think MWO was made to be a Giant Robot Quake/Unreal shooter kind of game. MWO is suppose to have a more realistic/simulator aspect to it. I totally think the size limitations would make it more realistic.

[blinkin]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

I understand what you are trying to say. But from what I have read, the lower ACs have smaller calibers. Caliber is the diameter of the barrel/ammo it uses.

I don't understand why so many people are so quick on saying stuff like "You are stupid" or "Had you been smart"...

Are you always insulting people when you argue?

Your sources are different then mines it seems. You say that there is not related size to the gun, I say it does. As from what I have read, it's related to the caliber, which means the size. AC20 being a bigger caliber than an AC2, 5 or 10.

So who's got the best sources? We can't really say.

Had you been smart (I can also insult people), you would have googled more than one website and realized that there are many different point of views/information given. I have indeed seen some say that there is no size related to it, but that would make no sense at all.

Weapons are almost always named by their calibers. Which is why I tend to believe the version where it says that the AC20 has a certan caliber, which is the biggest you can have in the MWO autocannon universe.

i am steadily losing patience with much of the forum community. we have plenty of people saying everything MUST be exactly true to lore and table top rules. then we have others who say that lore and TT rules ruin everything. and we have almost everyone saying my way is the only way and anyone who disagrees is either trolling, never played the game, or is just plain stupid.

i have found that many of the more self absorbed forum posters only pay attention to your points if you throw a well timed insult in too.

i also lose most of my patience when people start putting words in my mouth.

blinkin, on 07 April 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

if you are going to dance around the real arguments that are made then i shall dance with you.

there is no clearly defined size for any AC weapon:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon
"Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor.^[1] The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes:"

^^
where in my post do you find anything like: "what you are pretty much arguing is that "cheesebuild" don't exist."


don't start the argument with me off with lies and i tend to be much nicer.

[Deamonition]

Royalewithcheese, on 07 April 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Of course it's easier to play with what some folks call a "cheese build" than with something folks don't call a "cheese build." That doesn't mean that "cheese builds" don't require skill to use well, or that they don't become more effective with skill.

You know how it's easier to run a race if you're fit than if you're not fit? But how if you're fit, and want to win a race against other people who are fit, you need to have good running form? Same principle.

I'm not sure yours is the greatest comparison ever. No offense, but fitness and cheesebuilds are 1000 of miles appart. Fitness takes a lot of work and time, while cheesebuild is just... well it doesn't take any effort at all. But, if you really want to use that comparison, take football as another example. What will make you an NFL player? Fitness or skills? You would perhaps say Fitness, as it is obviously a requirement. But anyone can be as fit as an NFL player if he puts the time for it. But skills, you are born with it. NFL players are the most skilled guys playing football on the planet. Fitness won't buy skills.

So anyway... again, I'm not sure that comparing sports/fitness to cheesebuilds is a great idea.

[Deamonition]

blinkin, on 07 April 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

i am steadily losing patience with much of the forum community. we have plenty of people saying everything MUST be exactly true to lore and table top rules. then we have others who say that lore and TT rules ruin everything. and we have almost everyone saying my way is the only way and anyone who disagrees is either trolling, never played the game, or is just plain stupid.

i have found that many of the more self absorbed forum posters only pay attention to your points if you throw a well timed insult in too.

i also lose most of my patience when people start putting words in my mouth.

^^
where in my post do you find anything like: "what you are pretty much arguing is that "cheesebuild" don't exist."


don't start the argument with me off with lies and i tend to be much nicer.

OK, well then you got some issues if you thought that because I quoted your post, and then mentioned something, meant that I was puting words in your mouth....

If you read my post again, I quoted your text because the last paragraph of it refered to the "dance" that you talked about. The rest was a general comment to what was being said in the whole thread. So, as you should understand, there is no reason to think that I put words in your mouth.

You should really chill out, you get upset waaayy too easily.

Edited by Deamonition, 07 April 2013 - 01:14 PM.

[blinkin]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

It's funny that "Cheesebuilds" is a known concept in this game, term created by its own community. I was indeed expecting the cheesebuilders to complain a lot about my post but whatever...

And, of course, people using cheesebuilds are not going to admit that it is easier to play with cheesebuilds than with non-cheesebuilds.

The term "cheesebuild" was created for a reason and what you are pretty much arguing is that "cheesebuild" don't exist. Most of the community created that term out of the blue for no reason.

You're just trying to defend the use of such builds, and not even talking about the size limitation.

Finally, regarding the "dance" that you are talking about, you can go on wikipedia and quote whatever it says, but in the MW universe, an AC20 is bigger than an AC2. How could you fit something big in a space made for something small?

seems pretty consistent and focused to me. when you use the words "you" and "you're" after quoting someone it tends to suggest that you are referring directly to them. <-notice how i used the word "you" to refer to the person i was quoting.

and up until the end you seemed to stay very focused on the "cheese build" topic. i had significant reasons to believe those words, you were obviously putting in someones mouth, were intended for me.

Edited by blinkin, 07 April 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

What will make you an NFL player? Fitness or skills? You would perhaps say Fitness, as it is obviously a requirement.

I'd say both. Which is the point.

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 07 April 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[Deamonition]

Royalewithcheese, on 07 April 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

I'd say both. Which is the point.

Ok, but I can't agree. I have a friend that was in better shape than some NFL players but never made it to the starting line-up. Main reason was that he was good, but not great. But in perfect shape. So, I'd say the Skills is the most important.

blinkin, on 07 April 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

seems pretty consistent and focused to me. when you use the words "you" and "you're" after quoting someone it tends to suggest that you are referring directly to them. <-notice how i used the word "you" to refer to the person i was quoting.

and up until the end you seemed to stay very focused on the "cheese build" topic. i had significant reasons to believe those words, you were obviously putting in someones mouth, were intended for me.

Ok, then I apologize if I offended you. The post I made was mostly related to the rest of the thread and just the last paragraph was really meant for you. My bad, that wasn't clear.

Edited by Deamonition, 07 April 2013 - 02:10 PM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Ok, but I can't agree. I have a friend that was in better shape than some NFL players but never made it to the starting line-up. Main reason was that he was good, but not great. But in perfect shape. So, I'd say the Skills is the most important.

Have you heard the term "necessary but not sufficient?"

As in "physical fitness is necessary but not sufficient to be a professional athlete" or "a good build is necessary but not sufficient to perform well against high-tier players in an online video game about shooting robots?"

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 07 April 2013 - 02:11 PM.

[Solidussnake]

PGI has already said they will *never* do this. So all these post are just ******* in the wind.

[Deamonition]

Royalewithcheese, on 07 April 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Have you heard the term "necessary but not sufficient?"

As in "physical fitness is necessary but not sufficient to be a professional athlete" or "a good build is necessary but not sufficient to perform well against high-tier players in an online video game about shooting robots?"

You are arguing against me on your sport thing but you are actually saying exactly the same thing as say.

It is still a bad comparison hence I don't see how you can think of making a point on cheesebuilds with that example.

I don't think you can include cheesebuilds in the "good builds". It's a build for people that aren't super good and want to make the game slightly easier.

Edited by Deamonition, 07 April 2013 - 05:10 PM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

I don't think you can include cheesebuilds in the "good builds". It's a build for people that aren't super good and want to make the game slightly easier.

There are no builds that are not better in the hands of skilled players than unskilled players. Many of the builds that get called "cheese builds" (the precision alpha builds and poptarts) are in fact very skill-intensive - their big advantage, the ability to precisely destroy targeted components, is useless in the hands of people who are not good at aiming or who don't know what to aim at.

[Mechafruit]

Solidussnake, on 07 April 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

PGI has already said they will *never* do this. So all these post are just ******* in the wind.

PGI has also said they will *never* add coolant flush, or third person. One has already been added, and the other now planned to be implemented. I'm not looking to start an argument or anything, nor do I mean any offense, but going by what PGI has said will or will not happen isn't exactly reliable.

Getting on topic though, I do like the idea of a redone hardpoint system. It worked pretty well in MW4, and a similar system that limits customization a little bit would help Mechs stay true to the role the stock variant is supposed to be filling. Sized hardpoints for lasers and cannons, as well as tube restrictions for missiles seems pretty good. I support this.

[Sybreed]

When I asked some guys at PGI about this, they said they weren't considering it because their philosophy was "let players buy a chassis they like and modify it so it suits their playstyles". While it makes sense for them, it made little for me, as I believed in the opposite philosophy. If my playstyle was closed range brawling, I'd pick a Hunchback 4SP or an Atlas. If I wanted to fill long-range support role, I'd pick a Cat or a Awesome. I would actually pick a chassis that fits the playstyle, not the other way around.

So, I guess it's a matter of having opposite philosophies, but PGI's current "all mechs are almost omnimechs" system makes weapon balancing, especially LRMs, a pain in the arse and turned MWO into boatwarrior online. I doubt this is something that will change in the future, but it seems a lot of people would not be against it........

Although, those who would be against it will probably be the loudest to cry on the forums...

[Rhent]

The fail is strong in this topic.

[Dirkfall]

There were alot of discussions concerning this topic, especially when Gauss Cats rocked. But you know, after improving balance - it became obsolete. The thing is about weapon balance. Perhaps you just got in wrong momement to the wrong place.

P.S. Seems like you haven't met gauss ravens, etc. Frustraiting, really.

Edited by Dirkfall, 07 April 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[Wildstreak]

blinkin, on 07 April 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

if you are going to dance around the real arguments that are made then i shall dance with you.

there is no clearly defined size for any AC weapon:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon
"Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor.^[1] The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes:"

I have zero idea what this 'dance' is,, but whoever wrote that piece from Tech Manual should be shot for major failure.

No Mech artwork I have ever seen shows an AC/20 as a small caliber or an AC/2 as large caliber. That is because artists know a big caliber does more damage than a small one. That's just how Ballistics work.

This quoted nonsense was never in BT when I played and if I played now, I would either ignore the quote or not play in any game that followed it.