8 replies to this topic

[MrVop]

Every weapons thread I read I tend to run into the same exact fallacies and it slows down the conversation over all to address those every single time (I don't like to ignore people cause last thing we need is elitist jerks).

So here we go, A list of arguments NOT to be used unless you want to troll and derail.

*KDR or kills in general.
These provide no data what so ever. You can get a kill with a machine gun, You can purposefully try to get kills (waiting for the torso to be red before firing your alpha while everyone else uses teamwork to actually take the target down faster), you just don't prove anything with these statements.
Screen shots that show your damage and awesome kills don't add to the conversation I have 2 kills in a fight with Machine gun build dragon. Does not make a viable build, I still gimped the team by bringing useless weapons. Getting one game out of 100 with average damage also doesn't add. to the conversation unless you have 30 screenshots for me, its simply isn't good data.
Kills and KDR do not matter for the sake of conversation.

*Spread Sh*t Warriors
I am one myself. But straight numbers when brought to a real time game often don't reflect reality. So its important to look at the data as implemented not as intended. So if you want to raise a red flag on some math you're crunching make sure you provide some "actual" effect, Like all the talk of PPC's being fine with heat and numbers are looking evenly balanced with drawbacks. but in game PPC's are easily superior.

*Item X works fine in situation X and hence is fine.
All Items are institutional, But it dos not mean the item is "fine" if it works in one very specific spot. This is a real time game, anything that lacks utility with slight situation change will be ignored, You simply cant afford things that are completely nullified by something else as they will die off rapidly and get replaced by something a lil more jack of all trades.

There are more but my work is calling me away at the moment. Please discuss and add your own.

[Davers]

Most people complain about what kills them. Play a match, die to X, go on forums and say X is OP let's nerf it. Rinse and repeat. Usually they have some flimsy anecdotal evidence like 'I kill Atlases all the time in 2-3 hits with my Gauss+2ERPPC build', completely ignoring that most Atlases have 90+ CT armor, have huge shield arms that can absorb 2-3 hits by themselves, and few have XL engines. Then everyone agrees with them. It boggles the mind.

[Terror Teddy]

We can also add the "Fluff text says anti-infantry" or the equivalent as this counter argument completely ignores base values a weapon is taken from and how it's damage is compared to other weapons and how it was individually treated compared to it's peers.

It also makes the poster come off as a complete ***** that hasn't bothered to look through the data and only states an opinion not backed up by any hard data.

[Void Angel]

Terror Teddy, on 24 April 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

We can also add the "Fluff text says anti-infantry" or the equivalent

Don't get me started on the Holy Word of Weisman ("praise FASA!") Sarna.net, and/or the BattleTech Master Rules are not authoritative sources for testing and balancing this separate game simply because they concern the same fictional universe.

[Troutmonkey]

Please, don't talk about TableTop values.. I don't care, this isn't TT..

[Terror Teddy]

Troutmonkey, on 25 April 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

Please, don't talk about TableTop values.. I don't care, this isn't TT..

I understand that, but the values are based on them so when they diverge A LOT, not a little, but A LOT on some things you have to wonder why - that's why you go back and found an argument on collected data, not just fluff text.

A well founded argument backed up by data is often better than just copy and paste a sentence from a book.

[Karl Streiger]

Do not refer towards any table top values... they have no weight here.
Means...a AC 5 has to do 5 damage.

The simple fact that the Laser 8 (Large Laser) does 9 damage is ruining this argument.
So lets stop talking about AC # and start talking about Light, Medium, Heavy and Very Heavy Autocannons... That is just an example.

On the other hand...as said... every sentence like.
Go - play game xy
Go - play game yx
is not very useful

Good sentence about the SpreadSheet Warrior... I have seen a lots of figures in the past... and i believe they are just founded on feeling or "could" have sustained DPS.

Oh actually every sentence about weapon x is fine is also not usefull.
Some say this because they don't use that weapon - but it could counter their weapon they use:
LRM are fine - because they are useless in counter my PPCs that are fine too, because i can kill everything, you have problems L2P.

L2P, or use tactic X or use team work is also not very usefull in weapon balancing topics

[Mr 144]

The problem most people over-look is not to do a direct comparison between weapon A and weapon B. Hardpoints, and to a lesser extent hardpoint location of variants and chassis will have huge differences to the effectiveness of a specific weapon. This flawed argument is usually shown when a typical rebuttle includes vs (insert stack size) of MLs.

As far as spreadsheet warrior? I'll disagree...Mechwarrior = Mathwarrior. This is even more apparent in MWO, as when skill and tactics can be used to compenste for wepaon shortcomings, then min/maxing a build is paramount for a role and player tactics are adjusted accordingly.

It really is a mathematical and logical progression.

1. Choose Role
2. Math based min-maxing (aka spread-sheeting) of weapons govern selection
3. Weapon Selection now governs chassis/variant selection.
4. Tactics are now used to place the pilot in the preffered mathematical enviornment for the weapons chosen

So many times in weapon balance discussions do people not use these steps. Once you change a value when theory crafting, it does not really matter what it does to a specific mech, if you have not gone through the proccess again to see if that mech still fufills the best-suited chassis based on the new weapon spread-sheet numbers.

If Mathwarrioring is not the definative role in weapon balance, then everything else is subjective and you might as well post that one screenshot to prove your case. Skill and tactics have very little value in weapon discussion. Proper Skill and Tactics will always be either possesed or learned to make the best use of the most mathematically superior weapons.

Mr 144

[Tickdoff Tank]

TT values can not be totally ignored. I am not saying that they need to be adhered to strictly, but they do form the basis of our current game. When you take the base weapon stats for 90% of the items but not the other 10% then you should at least explain WHY you chose a different path.

I am fully in favor of changing the TT values to work better in MWO, just make sure that you are changing the values while keeping the "flavor" of the weapon.