6
This topic is locked
Seen as I wasn't even trying to bring up DHS, and I knew ELO was going to get mentioned... I was playing this Stalker back when it first came out,before ELO I believe (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I am). So, just to show how much I have played this mech since the individual mech stats came out... you tell me if it's worth a week or two of play just to upgrade this mech.
Tesunie, on 26 April 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:
I'll just let my states speak for themselves.
Sure, my Stalker 3F may have more kills, but I think that's expected for an Assault. But I feel I've done well enough for my mediums. They are still very viable, in their own way. Now if only assists where counted into these stats. I feel you'd see a much different and important changed between my weight classes of my mechs. Mediums would probably have a ton of assists, where as my assaults and heavies have more kills. That is the true role of the medium mech, assisting other mechs.
EDIT
The break down:
Dragon 1N = LBXAC10, ERPPC, 2 LRM5s= 250 damage average per match
Hunchback 4SP= 5 med lasers, 2 LRM5s = 238 damage average
Centurion AL= PPC 2 SRM4s = 318 damage average (5 matches) <before missile hotfix
Cicada 2A= 6 med lasers = 281 damage average (6 matches)
Cicada "Hollander 2" 3C= 98 KPH Guass, med laser = 115 damage average (6 matches)
Stalker 3F= 6 med lasers, 4 LRm5s = 345 damage average (9 matches)
Jagermech S= 2 AC20s = 239 damage average
I have marked those with too few real matches to give a decent rating, but I have 2 heavies and a medium that has a good pool of data to reference too.
Stalker just goes to show you that damage isn't everything, and/or that I'm probably best with a Stalker.
Centurion shows that a medium can be a viable threat. My Hunchback shows that they can be fairly deadly even with a build most people say is "junk" (I've heard that before on my hunchback build).
Does any of this mark me as a great pilot? I don't think so, but it gives some numbers to crunch on if mediums really are outclassed by other weight classes. I'd have to say... no.
Posted that in another thread, and for some decent information on mech usage and stats on different class mechs. Here, you can see that this Stalker, non optimized or not, is a fairly effective build, but did I argue that it couldn't be improved upon? I don't believe I did. However, sometimes, you just need to play what feels right. I play for fun. That means playing whatever I feel like. I need no other reason besides that.
<p>
Purgatus233, on 02 May 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This confirms my assumptions about your build, which I estimated to be the 300 standard engine with 5 ML, 2 LRM 10, 2 tons of ammo, 29 heat sinks, and nearly maxed armor.</p>
<p>
<p> </p>
<p>This confirms my assumptions about your build, which I estimated to be the 300 standard engine with 5 ML, 2 LRM 10, 2 tons of ammo, 29 heat sinks, and nearly maxed armor.</p>
<p>
So close, but wrong. You want to talk about efficiency, and then add in two LRM10s instead on 4 LRM5s? 2 tons ammo? Guess that's not going to be planned to be a long fight. And no. I'm not going to bother posting my build here. I did that in another thread and people wanted to change it to "make it better". If you change it, then it is your build, not mine. I also think you underestimate the extra armor of an assault compared to a medium. And, you forgot about a laser... Saved 2 tons with the LRM5s which is what's throwing you off.
I will tell you, I believe it runs stock armor, but I might be wrong. Not going to waste my time again to just be told how low my ELO must be by people who can't understand personal taste. Actually, I'll let my Stalker stats speak for themselves, in its whole total of 9 matches. Make of it as you will, it's effective as is. Effective by the way, means it works well, not works the best out there.
<p>
Purgatus233, on 02 May 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:
</p>
<p>I just want to point out the transition in your arguments over time.</p>
<p>You start by basically asserting that certain things work for certain people. On its face, this is undeniably true, but the subtle underlying argument is that there are some items/builds which, when matched with the appropriate skillset/playstyle, provide some kind of synergy that makes them better *for that person.*</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You provide examples of a slow light mech, and single heat sink Stalker.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You then transition to saying that you’ve “done the math” and that the differences are negligible.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You mention that “<em>A Jagermech with dual AC20 can be just as effective as one with dual gauss, or 4 AC5s, or 2 AC2s and 2 UAC5s. It's all in how it's played and what you want it to do.”</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>And finally <em>“A Jagermech with dual AC20 can be just as effective as one with dual gauss, or 4 AC5s, or 2 AC2s and 2 UAC5s. It's all in how it's played and what you want it to do.”</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, this is classic.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Making vague statements about “preferences” is fine, if a bit hard to really pin down. Some people might prefer their mechs to perform worse, that’s true.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But it’s where you are basically asserting that “all choices are equally effective in the right hands (paraphrasing but the idea is there) that you start to really go astray.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It’s simply. Not. True.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A slow light might be “effective” i.e. it can “do something,” but it will always be less effective than a heavier mech which can carry more armor and more weapons while achieving the same speed. This is not a matter of preference; this is simply an objective fact.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Likewise, your Stalker might be “effective” in terms of being able to accomplish things, but it will always be more effective with DHS. It’s simply a fact.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You say you have 30 heat sinks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well, let’s call it 29 heat sinks, with nearly maxed armor except the legs, 5 medium lasers, 2 LRM 10s and 2 tons of ammo. This sounds pretty close to your build, but I might be off by a bit. It’s irrelevant. Smurfy lists your cooling efficiency at 40%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Moving to double heat sinks, your engine heat sinks immediately replace 20 of your 29 original heat sinks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In order to replace the other 9, you must purchase and install 7 more (that gives you a bit more efficiency, actually).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You now have 12 tons of additional weight available.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>12 TONS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, you could do all kinds of things with that weight. You could add weapons or upsize them, using some of the additional tonnage for more heat sinks. You have plenty of room. You could go for a bigger engine (though not that much bigger than the 300 I already have in there). You could go “INFINITE AMMO UNLOCKED” mode on your LRMs and spam them to your heart’s content.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lots of things. But the point is, for the exact same performance, you get a huge amount of extra tonnage to work with. And crit slots are simply not an issue for this build. And at this precise cooling performance, you are only using TWO more crit slots than with the singles.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The issue is that you just don’t like that it’s simply “better.” You eventually start discussing that this is a “remnant” mech from “back in the day” that you just basically can’t be arsed to change.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Finally, you make the classic fluff appeal in a last, desperate attempt at justification.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The reality is, you don’t need to justify anything.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you like to see steam rising from your legs when standing in water (that’s been implemented, right…? It’s been a while since I’ve driven a SHS mech…), or if the sight of bulky doubles in your mechlab crit layout visually offends you, of if you simply don’t want to be like everyone else, then that’s “valid.” But it isn’t “just as effective”… it’s not. The danger comes when you try to propagate the idea that they are all “equally effective” choices.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even your c-bill argument is simply rationally lacking. Having 12 extra tons to play with will simply make your mech better, making your income go up with that mech. We see 15% of our tonnage made available but in reality you will see more than a 15% increase in your effectiveness, because the last 25% of your tons are simply more meaningfully spent than the first 75%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you have an aesthetic and emotional attachment to single heat sinks and being unique, just say that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But this thread is fundamentally about balance, and the injection of those kinds of appeals to emotion camouflaged in pseudo-logic and 3<sup>rd</sup> grade “everyone’s entitled to their opinion” stuff is just not going to pass the sniff test.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You are suffering from cognitive dissonance, trying to rationally justify an irrational decision. Just embrace the irrationality, admit that it’s an emotional choice and move on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It should be noted, that if this is a “flaw” it is fundamentally a flaw in design. XL engines, which you also note are prolific, are NOT “simply better” than standard engines and in some cases are much worse. This is because there are genuine trade-offs in survivability and crit-space which make that decision much more situational, much closer to your above explanation of “the right choice for the right situation.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So if you are irritated that DHS are not balanced, then just say that, but don’t argue that, in some weird way they actually are.</p>
<p>
<p>I just want to point out the transition in your arguments over time.</p>
<p>You start by basically asserting that certain things work for certain people. On its face, this is undeniably true, but the subtle underlying argument is that there are some items/builds which, when matched with the appropriate skillset/playstyle, provide some kind of synergy that makes them better *for that person.*</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You provide examples of a slow light mech, and single heat sink Stalker.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You then transition to saying that you’ve “done the math” and that the differences are negligible.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You mention that “<em>A Jagermech with dual AC20 can be just as effective as one with dual gauss, or 4 AC5s, or 2 AC2s and 2 UAC5s. It's all in how it's played and what you want it to do.”</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>And finally <em>“A Jagermech with dual AC20 can be just as effective as one with dual gauss, or 4 AC5s, or 2 AC2s and 2 UAC5s. It's all in how it's played and what you want it to do.”</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, this is classic.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Making vague statements about “preferences” is fine, if a bit hard to really pin down. Some people might prefer their mechs to perform worse, that’s true.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But it’s where you are basically asserting that “all choices are equally effective in the right hands (paraphrasing but the idea is there) that you start to really go astray.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It’s simply. Not. True.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A slow light might be “effective” i.e. it can “do something,” but it will always be less effective than a heavier mech which can carry more armor and more weapons while achieving the same speed. This is not a matter of preference; this is simply an objective fact.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Likewise, your Stalker might be “effective” in terms of being able to accomplish things, but it will always be more effective with DHS. It’s simply a fact.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You say you have 30 heat sinks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well, let’s call it 29 heat sinks, with nearly maxed armor except the legs, 5 medium lasers, 2 LRM 10s and 2 tons of ammo. This sounds pretty close to your build, but I might be off by a bit. It’s irrelevant. Smurfy lists your cooling efficiency at 40%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Moving to double heat sinks, your engine heat sinks immediately replace 20 of your 29 original heat sinks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In order to replace the other 9, you must purchase and install 7 more (that gives you a bit more efficiency, actually).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You now have 12 tons of additional weight available.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>12 TONS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, you could do all kinds of things with that weight. You could add weapons or upsize them, using some of the additional tonnage for more heat sinks. You have plenty of room. You could go for a bigger engine (though not that much bigger than the 300 I already have in there). You could go “INFINITE AMMO UNLOCKED” mode on your LRMs and spam them to your heart’s content.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lots of things. But the point is, for the exact same performance, you get a huge amount of extra tonnage to work with. And crit slots are simply not an issue for this build. And at this precise cooling performance, you are only using TWO more crit slots than with the singles.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The issue is that you just don’t like that it’s simply “better.” You eventually start discussing that this is a “remnant” mech from “back in the day” that you just basically can’t be arsed to change.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Finally, you make the classic fluff appeal in a last, desperate attempt at justification.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The reality is, you don’t need to justify anything.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you like to see steam rising from your legs when standing in water (that’s been implemented, right…? It’s been a while since I’ve driven a SHS mech…), or if the sight of bulky doubles in your mechlab crit layout visually offends you, of if you simply don’t want to be like everyone else, then that’s “valid.” But it isn’t “just as effective”… it’s not. The danger comes when you try to propagate the idea that they are all “equally effective” choices.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even your c-bill argument is simply rationally lacking. Having 12 extra tons to play with will simply make your mech better, making your income go up with that mech. We see 15% of our tonnage made available but in reality you will see more than a 15% increase in your effectiveness, because the last 25% of your tons are simply more meaningfully spent than the first 75%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you have an aesthetic and emotional attachment to single heat sinks and being unique, just say that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But this thread is fundamentally about balance, and the injection of those kinds of appeals to emotion camouflaged in pseudo-logic and 3<sup>rd</sup> grade “everyone’s entitled to their opinion” stuff is just not going to pass the sniff test.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You are suffering from cognitive dissonance, trying to rationally justify an irrational decision. Just embrace the irrationality, admit that it’s an emotional choice and move on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It should be noted, that if this is a “flaw” it is fundamentally a flaw in design. XL engines, which you also note are prolific, are NOT “simply better” than standard engines and in some cases are much worse. This is because there are genuine trade-offs in survivability and crit-space which make that decision much more situational, much closer to your above explanation of “the right choice for the right situation.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So if you are irritated that DHS are not balanced, then just say that, but don’t argue that, in some weird way they actually are.</p>
<p>
I thought I had 31 SHS, but that could have been my old PPC Stalker before I upgraded it with DHS... Still. 12 tons. Okay. Your point? Larger engine, slightly better cooling and heat cap... maybe replace a set LRM5s for LRM10s... I've been down this road before. I know. The design could possibly be upgraded... wait. Didn't I already say that?
Oh, and you missed the point where I was trying to mention different mechs and load outs for different people... I can use and do what I feel is a good amount of work in the team with a cicada that doesn't even breach 100 kph. Can everyone? Probably not. I've heard of one person in a mocked up Urbanmech doing tons of damage. Could I pull that of? I don't think I could. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned my Stalker and only mentioned slow light mech designs that I've used well myself. Then, the typical "DHS are betta" crowd could have stayed out of it and we could discuss slow moving lights, which was my primary reason for responding. (Actually, I was reading the thread because I had a question I had asked get answered, and then wanted to join in the conversation about the Spider 5k, which can make some decent builds. I even wanted, and did, mention that a standard 5k can do well, in a team with the right pilot.)
This thread actually isn't about balance, it's about questions the devs decided to answer from questions brought up by the community. Balance might be raised in a question, but the thread itself was not created with the soul purpose of discussing balance. A question raised was for someone to call out a single build for the Spider 5k that doesn't involve the "underpowered machine guns". I did, as well as mentioning a couple Cicada 3c builds, which was another ballistic "light" mech mentioned in the thread. I only pointed out my Stalker build to show that, sometimes, builds someone else thinks can't work ends up working well, in the right hands. Effective also does not mean best.
Now, why don't you just admit you don't like people who mention something that goes counter to your belief of mech construction, and admit you are responding with emotion. Yes, I like my Stalker as is right now. Didn't I say that? I believe I said I also don't wish to spend the c-bills (which are more than just the advertised 1.5 million when finished) on the upgrade at this time. Key words here are "at this time". Maybe if/when I feel like playing the Stalker more often, I might decide to upgrade...
Last I knew, everyone was entitled to their opinion. I will tell you I once ran as 4 PPC Stalker with SHS. Upon advise and new information (someone's advice/opinion) I upgraded it to DHS. Maxing crit space after weapons on DHS, I got a marginal heat efficiency increase according to the in game mech lab, and all I could do was add in a bigger engine to fill in the extra weight. So, in the end, for all the c-bills I placed into it, I didn't see improvement on heat management, but I did get a boost to speed... on my sniping mech. Didn't need the speed, but it does come in handy sometimes. Shall I post a smurfy on this one? Am I saying it didn't improve that build? Nope. It did. Do I regret the upgrade? No.
Oh, and your understanding of logic is... interesting. It's not logical to save time and c-bills by not upgrading a mech I'm really using right now? So mechs I'm not should be upgraded first over mechs I am using? How does that make sense? Think you logic, then get back to me. I thought it was perfectly logical to not upgrade a mech not being used right now in favor of mechs I'm more interested in mastering as of this moment, like saving up for my next Jagermech to get the basics done, and elites after that.
<p>
Purgatus233, on 02 May 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:
</p>
<p>One other thing to keep in mind is that ELO will make people think that things are more effective than they really are, for reasons that should be obvious.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The fact that you say you can "melt an Atlas" with 6 medium lasers before he can melt you back suggests that something else MIGHT be going on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My atlas, for instance, with my AC20, 3xASRM4 and twin Large Lasers, has the same heat efficiency as your Stalker, and MASSIVELY more effective short/mid range dps. In a "melting match" you are certain to lose against a properly built Atlas unless piloted by someone who is incapable of hitting a 50 kph Stalker at close range.</p>
<p>
<p>One other thing to keep in mind is that ELO will make people think that things are more effective than they really are, for reasons that should be obvious.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The fact that you say you can "melt an Atlas" with 6 medium lasers before he can melt you back suggests that something else MIGHT be going on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My atlas, for instance, with my AC20, 3xASRM4 and twin Large Lasers, has the same heat efficiency as your Stalker, and MASSIVELY more effective short/mid range dps. In a "melting match" you are certain to lose against a properly built Atlas unless piloted by someone who is incapable of hitting a 50 kph Stalker at close range.</p>
<p>
You forget, I have LRMs. I can strike with those at range, hiding when needed. You forget that we work in teams. You forget that some pilots might have pin point accuracy with some weapons. If I can, theoretically, weaken a spot with some LRMs, when I do get closer, 6 med lasers can finish a section off. I might even have some allies help me with this. Or, because I am slow, being an assault and all, by the time I get to you, you might have already gotten beat up by an ally, letting me take advantage of either a spotter, or previous damage to pin point destroy. Or, a common error people make with me, charge into me recklessly because you see LRMs, think I'm a stupid easy to kill LRM boat, find out I've got more bite than you expected, and I'm near other LRM mechs who are using my distraction and defence to get range on you to continue to shoot their LRMs at you add I blunt your attacks, soak up your damage, and together we take you down, as a team.
Many factors come up in battle. I'm just relating what normally happens with me. And I won't say I get way unscathed.
Oh, and if I could, I wouldn't mind a 1 on 1 challenge. But we can't, and it probably would not prove much of anything anyway.
So, once more, just encase you didn't get it, yes. My Stalker could probably use DHS and could be improved by them. However, I do not wish to spend the c-bills on it. You forget to include into your math the cost of the additional DHS needed after the upgrade. I've also already mastered the Stalker, and have moved onto the Jagermech, Hunchback and Centurion as my current projects. And as a side note, if I want to be a wrecking ball and earn more c-bills, I still jump into my Stalker 3f, as it seems to be efficient in my hands, even now with the current state of LRMs or in the older version of LRMs.
So, are you guys done trying to pick apart a stalker build you want to guess at how it's made and plays , or is this discussion going to revolve off an old Stalker that still kicks butt when it needs to? Personally, I've been really tempted to pick up a Spider 5k to try my hands at a real Hollander design (of something closer than my Cicada). Maybe I'll rebuy my Spider when I finish the Jagermech...
Edited by Tesunie, 02 May 2013 - 11:43 PM.
