43 replies to this topic

[Hexenhammer]

It wouldn't be a problem if we couldn't aim.

[Gaan Cathal]

Hexenhammer, on 19 June 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

It wouldn't be a problem if we couldn't aim.

I dunno. One of my dropmates can't aim for **** and he hates alphaboats.

[Voivode]

I think the difference between ballistic boating and energy (PPC) boating is that no assault currently in game can boat 3 UAC5 or 2 AC20 or 5AC2. The only mechs that can do this are heavy mechs and despite their high damage output in relatively pinpoint areas, they are fairly killable. There may be an adjustment later if they introduce an assault capable of outputting that kind of pinpoint ballistic damage with enough armor to take it on the chin while it aims carefully and cores people out.

[Petroshka]

can't tell if ePeen stroke post or legit game balance thread ...

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Rippthrough, on 19 June 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

I used to brawl in my twin guass, 4 x MLas K2.
Whilst they're busy lining up a shot on your cockpit, you can just facerape them back, the agility and torso twist speed gives you some serious accuracy for just blowing the cockpits out of other mechs even in a brawl.
Anything that wasn't dead on the way down to get me got a shock in close combat too....

someone who needs all their concentration to hit something right in front of them is a bad player.

[MasterErrant]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

Just to be clear, by "boating", I mean carrying as many of the same ballistic weapon as possible, whether it's 4 AC5s, 3 UAC5s or 2 AC20s. Some of you may reserve the term "boating" for 4+ of the same weapon, but just bear with me here.

Now, it's almost a given at this point that boating energy weapons is bad. PGI are apparently looking into it and planning some kind of nerf. Boating missile boats is kind of a hit or miss these days, especially in PUGs. But I really think a lot of people are underestimating the effectiveness of "boating" ballistics, especially the UAC5s and AC20s.

I did an experiment by printing screenshots after 20 matches of my Ilya Muromets with 3 UAC5s (arguably not as effective as the 3 UAC5 Jager, but still good). I originally intended this to be proof that I'm losing most of my matches, despite doing ok damage, but I ended up with completely different results than I was expecting.

You can see the result of my experiment below. To sum it up, I had the following results with my 3 UAC5s.

• Top score on my team in 15/20 matches = 75% of all matches
  
• Victory in 14/20 matches = 70% of all matches
  
• 10289 dmg over 20 matches = average 514 dmg per match
  
• 35 kills, 6 deaths = 5,83 kill / death ratio

I'm having a hard time reaching the same stats in my other heavy mechs, not to mention light or medium. So it's not really a matter of skill.

Spoiler

Match 1 - Defeat. Conquest. Average score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 2 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 1 kill. Died.
Match 3 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills. Died.
Match 4 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 5 - Victory. Conquest. Average score, 2 kills
Match 6 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 0 kills.
Match 7 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, almost. 2 kills.
Match 8 - Victory. Assault. Top score, 1 kill.
Match 9 - Victory. Assault. Average / bad score.
Match 10 - Victory. Assault. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 11 - Defeat. Assault. Top score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 12 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 2 kills.
Match 13 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills.
Match 14 - Victory. Conquest. Good score, 1 kill.
Match 15 - Victory. Conquest. Average score, 2 kills.
Match 16 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 17 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 2 kills.
Match 18 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills.
Match 19 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 20 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 1 kill.

Note: I did not include matches with less than 7 players on either team.

If someone wants to do a similar experiment with an AC20 Jager, I'd be interested in seeing it. When I get my Cataphract 4X, I'll be trying the same with 4 x AC5s. I think it'll do fairly well, as my Ilya Muromets was doing quite a lot of damage just with 3 x AC5s and medium lasers.

there's less bitching about this kind of boating because there are more plauyer who prefer it. they are the ones bitching about ppcs

[Gaan Cathal]

Le sigh. Page one of this thread was actually...good.

[Vodrin Thales]

How exactly are 3 UAC5's high alpha pinpoint weapons. Is 15 really a "high pinpoint alpha"?

[One Medic Army]

A 4x AC/5 boat has a pinpoint damage of... 20 at PPC ranges, but with lower heat, ammo usage, and faster fire rate.
A 2x AC/20 boat has a pinpoint damage of 40, but at 270m or less with heat issues and ammo issues.
3x UAC/5 is devastating, but it eats ammo tremendously fast and spreads damage out, especially on the Ilya where one's torso mounted. It also jams if you double-fire.

2x AC/10s? 4-6 AC/2s? These are generally ignored.

[Alistair Winter]

Petroshka, on 19 June 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

can't tell if ePeen stroke post or legit game balance thread ...

... can it be both?

In all seriousness, most of my mechs are between 1.00 and 2.00 in KDR. So 5.85 is quite significant.

Howdy Doody, on 19 June 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Or maybe you found a Mech that matches your play style.
I've had many times where a Mech I was destroying folks in one night, I was getting rocked another night. I have noticed (for me anyway) that a lot of it depends on what type of mood I'm in and/or how focused I am I playing WITH the type of Mech I have.

For sure, for sure. It's a valid argument. But I don't think that's the key factor here, although I'm certainly a brawler rather than a sniper, which works well with 3UAC5's. That, incidentally, is part of the reason I won't be trying 3 UAC5s on a Jager.
I did try 4 UAC5s on a Jager for a while. Sure, I lost most of my matches. But every once in a while, you'd be walking in the tunnel under the base on River City, and an enemy Atlas would step in front of you, thinking you were easy prey for his brawler build. And lo, the angels would sing as 4 UAC5s hurled out shells like Jesus hurling out fish and bread for the hungry. And it was good.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

For the Swayback? 6ML+3SPL. For 4PPC Stalkers? 2PPC+2ERPPC. Heat-penalty-begone!

An easy workaround is easily fixed by PGI.


... but who am I kidding

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Don't deal with those factors, improve the other aspects of the Hunchbacks so they're worth the drawbacks. They don't have to be arithmetically dead equal to the Swayback. Just workable. (Gaussback!)

I suppose you could try to balance them in other ways, like using various quirks. But that also seems more difficult, and certainly too difficult for PGI at the moment.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Personally I only find they dominate in River City and Frozen City. Both building-dense urban combat maps where they should shine.

Well, I think they tend to do well on any map where short range brawls are frequent. So Forest colony, unless everyone runs into the water, Caustic Valley and Canyon are definitely on the list.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

The main point I'm taking from that is that you find the overall speed of combat (as in TTK) a problem. The AC/40 is symptomatic of that, but not the actual problem. If we want a game where limbs and weapons are blown off during a fight and gradual degradation of mechs is a more prominent thing, then Internal Structure hitpoints need a dramatic increase. Increasing armour will only precipitate even more concentrated CT-burning. However if you can actually rip the AC/20 off a Wang's arm fairly sharpish compared with burning through his CT, it becomes an actual choice. Sure, right now I'll put damage into that arm if it's facing me as I make an attack run, but if I have the option it's either front or rear CT getting burned out no matter the mech. Unless I'm trolling. Then the arms come off, then a leg, then...etc, etc. Works best with two lights.

Essentially if you doubled the TTK by increasing armour, I would probably feel like I was using nerf weapons, and I would gravitate even more towards high pinpoint alpha and headshotting. If you doubled the TTK by increasing structure, I would take twice as long to kill anything, but be blowing off limbs and guns and heatsinks right and left. This would not feel like I was using nerf weapons, and it would make non-pinpoint-alphaspike weapons a little more viable.

If that was the effect, I would love it. All the MechWarrior game trailers, all the cartoon episodes, all the novels (I'm assuming) where the hero takes damage, loses a weapon here, and arm there, and manages to keep fighting... that's what I want. A 12 round boxing fight, not a 10 second knockout. One of the most entertaining aspects of Mechwarrior, lacking in almost every [other] FPS, is when you take damage and you have to think on your feet in order to fight optimally. "Ok, I've lost my AC20. Now I can use my right torso as a shield, to protect my other side. Ok, I've lost my front armour. Now I need to absorb damage with my rear armour. Ok, I've lost a leg. I need to use my damaged leg to shield my working leg"

That's when the game really shines, IMO.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

The problem with the 'medium mechs are this' thing with that analogy is that no weight class is anything. A two-ERPPC light is a sniper, a quad-LPL AS7-RS is a brawler. The problem mediums have is that they don't have the tonnage/hardpoints to stand up to heavies, but nothing under 140kph is capable of using speed as a defense (or offense). Even the slower lights have this issue. The RVN-2X should be, all things considered, as much of a threat as the JR7-D (ok, the worst of the Jenners, but the worst of very good is still very good). I mean it has all that extra engine tonnage to spend on a bigger missile pack and toys like more DHS and so on, right? Wrong. 125kph in this game means you get hit even by below-average shots with impact weapons, and the shooter has to be abysmal to miss you with beam weapons. This is the problem the mediums have. They trade armour and weapons for not quite enough speed to matter. The Cicada is actually probably one of the most viable mediums at the moment by virtue of being a slightly sub-par Jenner.

As a side note, Garth has said they're going to look at the engine cap for the Raven 2X and 4X. Soon^TM
.
I agree that no medium class is anything. But any mech can't take any role. A Spider can't be a brawler. An Atlas is no good for scouting and capping. And while some medium mechs may sacrifice speed to be dedicated support mechs or gunboats (I once saw a Blackjack with 36 kph max speed, I kid you not), most medium mechs have enough speed to provide the flexibility I mentioned.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Mostly that was both a description of how it should be and (largely) how it is. Balanced Lances (not Lances of 'balanced' mechs) are fairly good at the moment. Lances of alphasnipers are better than they should be, but that's getting fixed. Brawler and Lightswarm Lances work more or less as described. Brawler Lances will work better when SRMs start behaving. Lances of individually balanced mechs are, and should be, crap. There's a certain degree of rock-paper-scissors, or will be when snipers are downtuned. Lightswarm>Sniperlance>Brawlerlance>Lightswarm with the Balanced Lance able to deal with all three on more or less equal ground, but likewise dealable with by said Lances if they negate the advantage (gank the Sniper, refuse to let the light squirrel them, etc). There's also a degree of resistance to being screwed by random map selection with the Balanced Lance. Any decent team, pug or otherwise, can give massed snipers a bad day in Frozen City if they know what they're doing. Especially on Conquest. Slow brawlers are well known for finding Alpine a particularly cold circle of hell. Caustic is hell on Lights because of the minimal cover.

I find it illogical that you consider the Balanced Lance viable, but the Lance of individually balanced mechs "crap". I mean, I agree that this is the way it is right now. But I don't think it's the way it should be. I think the idea should be that a cunning team commander would have the ability to make the most of his advantages by, for example, drawing slow brawlers into open areas where a balanced mech can wear them down by the time they get into close range, or by making use of cover to engage enemy snipers at close range, where they should be at a disadvantage.

Again, we run into the problem of mixing up what is and what should be. But in my mind - at the risk of repeating myself - individual versatility should not be a weakness.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Agree completely with the op, I've tried to make the same point a couple times over the last 6 months - http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry2341870

Lupus Aurelius, on 11 May 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

With all the jump sniping and PPC/Gauss rage going on ( btw, look at the thread sizes, they are small compared to the real issues, like ECM, that effect game balance) not much gets said about the AC2 boating Jagers, which is supprising. Usually, I see them boating 4, but yesterday, i Ran up against a 5 and a 6 AC2 boating Jager.

Here's what happens, you get 2 of these on you, and you have no visibility, because of all the impact blooms, you cockpit shake is to the extent that you can't even keep on a target to try and get at least one of them off you, and within seconds, you are dead, with little or no chance to even fight back.

Lets look at the math:

AC2: 2 damage every .5 seconds ( that's 4 damage per second)

4 AC2s: 8 damage every .5 seconds DPS: 16
5 AC2s: 10 damage every .5 seconds. DPS: 20
6 AC2s: 12 damage every .5 seconds. DPS: 24

4 AC2 Jager, in 2 seconds they have done 32 damage and used 16 rounds of ammo. In 3 secs, the cooldown time of a PPC, they have done 48 damage and used 24 rounds of ammo. One ton of ammo is 75 rounds, 4 tons 300 rounds representing a damage potential of 600 total damage just from 4 AC2s with a ton of ammo each.

Nothing else in the game has this damage potential. A DPS of 20 means in 2 seconds time ( min time to react and try and do something) you have already taken 40 damage. And you can't even see the attacker or aim at the attacker because of the visual effects.

If anything need to be looked at in the game right now, it's this, far more than jumpsniping or PPCs. With the short recycle time, and also people setting up chain fire with macros, or just pumping the button fast 4-6 times and then just holding it down, by the time you try to maneuver out of fire or respond, you are already going down.

EDIT: Before another person references brawling "not being effective" (that's BS too) and refers to the AC2 as a "brawling weapon" :
AC2 - range720, max range 2,160, speed 2000m/sec.
AC2 is a long range/sniping weapon as well as brawling

[Gaan Cathal]

Vodrin Thales, on 19 June 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

How exactly are 3 UAC5's high alpha pinpoint weapons. Is 15 really a "high pinpoint alpha"?

30. Pinpoint damage of 30.

One Medic Army, on 19 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

A 4x AC/5 boat has a pinpoint damage of... 20 at PPC ranges, but with lower heat, ammo usage, and faster fire rate.
A 2x AC/20 boat has a pinpoint damage of 40, but at 270m or less with heat issues and ammo issues.
3x UAC/5 is devastating, but it eats ammo tremendously fast and spreads damage out, especially on the Ilya where one's torso mounted. It also jams if you double-fire.

AC/40 does 20 damage out to 540m as well, which is relevant (mostly to the irrelvance of the AC/10).
And the spread on the Ilya is easily solved with Arm Lock. You should have a weapon group for just the arms anyway so if you need the lateral it's merely a matter of putting your pinky on shift and bob's your autocannon.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

I find it illogical that you consider the Balanced Lance viable, but the Lance of individually balanced mechs "crap". I mean, I agree that this is the way it is right now. But I don't think it's the way it should be. I think the idea should be that a cunning team commander would have the ability to make the most of his advantages by, for example, drawing slow brawlers into open areas where a balanced mech can wear them down by the time they get into close range, or by making use of cover to engage enemy snipers at close range, where they should be at a disadvantage.

Perhaps 'should be' is the wrong phrase. Will be. It's what I was saying on page one about why boats exist and are always among the more effective mechs (within reason, derp weapon boated is still derp), and why other effective mechs are high-synergy mechs like the Atlases I pointed out. If you've got a bit of snipe, a bit of brawl and a bit of knife-fight, you loose to a sniper at range, a brawler brawling and a knife-fighter in a knife-fight. The specialist is built to dominate at what they do. The generalist is just 'not quite good enough' at any role. It's an inevitability because (even marginally) competetive people will always engineer their builds to be the optimum at what they do. And once you have a set role like that your first step in any game is to engineer the situation such that you can enter your ideal engagement. A generalist has no ideal engagement.

My hypothetical sniper/LRM, two brawlers, one striker Lance will always, in practice, dominate over a lance of four generalist builds because they have focus. It's how modern military machines are designed. It's how beat-em-ups work (jack of all trades = hardmode at best, if not downright suck). Every competent ship design in Eve (one of the most competetive games in existance, for all that it completely lacks twitch) is focused on doing one role to the exclusion of all else. I stand by my example on page one about a 'generalist' in an FPS loosing out to a specialist in any circumstance (sure, you can out-CQC a sniper, why is a sniper in CQC to be out-done?). Even in RPGs unfocused generalists are crap compared with specialists.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 19 June 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Lupus Aurelius, on 19 June 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Agree completely with the op, I've tried to make the same point a couple times over the last 6 months - http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry2341870

I'll have to try out a 4AC2 build again, I haven't used it since I first started playing this game. I have a feeling that it will be too hard to land shots at the same damage in order to make use of the high DPS. Most of the time, when I encounter mechs with AC2, I just hug them and shoot them in the face. They can't deliver damage quickly enough.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Le sigh. Page one of this thread was actually...good.

Always fun to discuss with people who refrain from saying "L2P" and "herp derp"

One Medic Army, on 19 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

A 4x AC/5 boat has a pinpoint damage of... 20 at PPC ranges, but with lower heat, ammo usage, and faster fire rate.
A 2x AC/20 boat has a pinpoint damage of 40, but at 270m or less with heat issues and ammo issues.
3x UAC/5 is devastating, but it eats ammo tremendously fast and spreads damage out, especially on the Ilya where one's torso mounted. It also jams if you double-fire.
2x AC/10s? 4-6 AC/2s? These are generally ignored.

Speaking of double-fire, I should say that before I did this experiment, I tested out the UAC5 in the testing ground, to see which way of shooting did the most damage. To my surprise, just holding down the button consistently did more damage over time. So I very rarely do anything except just hold down the buttons. The only exception is if I'm sniping or running low on ammo, or if I'm badly damaged and need to be 100% certain that I don't jam.

[One Medic Army]

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

30. Pinpoint damage of 30.

AC/40 does 20 damage out to 540m as well, which is relevant (mostly to the irrelvance of the AC/10).
And the spread on the Ilya is easily solved with Arm Lock. You should have a weapon group for just the arms anyway so if you need the lateral it's merely a matter of putting your pinky on shift and bob's your autocannon.

It's 15, and another 15 0.5seconds later, which is long enough that either the user is forced to maintain aim, or they hit a different bit.

Yes, the AC/20 still deals 10 dmg at 540. An alpha of 20 pinpoint isn't much of an issue though.

As far as the triple-UAC/5 builds go, I've never feared them much. Just twist and let them spread the damage then turn back and shoot them in the XL engine.

[Pater Mors]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

Just to be clear, by "boating", I mean carrying as many of the same ballistic weapon as possible, whether it's 4 AC5s, 3 UAC5s or 2 AC20s. Some of you may reserve the term "boating" for 4+ of the same weapon, but just bear with me here.

Now, it's almost a given at this point that boating energy weapons is bad. PGI are apparently looking into it and planning some kind of nerf. Boating missile boats is kind of a hit or miss these days, especially in PUGs. But I really think a lot of people are underestimating the effectiveness of "boating" ballistics, especially the UAC5s and AC20s.

I did an experiment by printing screenshots after 20 matches of my Ilya Muromets with 3 UAC5s (arguably not as effective as the 3 UAC5 Jager, but still good). I originally intended this to be proof that I'm losing most of my matches, despite doing ok damage, but I ended up with completely different results than I was expecting.

You can see the result of my experiment below. To sum it up, I had the following results with my 3 UAC5s.

• Top score on my team in 15/20 matches = 75% of all matches
  
• Victory in 14/20 matches = 70% of all matches
  
• 10289 dmg over 20 matches = average 514 dmg per match
  
• 35 kills, 6 deaths = 5,83 kill / death ratio

I'm having a hard time reaching the same stats in my other heavy mechs, not to mention light or medium. So it's not really a matter of skill.

Spoiler

Match 1 - Defeat. Conquest. Average score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 2 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 1 kill. Died.
Match 3 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills. Died.
Match 4 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 5 - Victory. Conquest. Average score, 2 kills
Match 6 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 0 kills.
Match 7 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, almost. 2 kills.
Match 8 - Victory. Assault. Top score, 1 kill.
Match 9 - Victory. Assault. Average / bad score.
Match 10 - Victory. Assault. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 11 - Defeat. Assault. Top score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 12 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 2 kills.
Match 13 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills.
Match 14 - Victory. Conquest. Good score, 1 kill.
Match 15 - Victory. Conquest. Average score, 2 kills.
Match 16 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 17 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 2 kills.
Match 18 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills.
Match 19 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 20 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 1 kill.

Note: I did not include matches with less than 7 players on either team.

If someone wants to do a similar experiment with an AC20 Jager, I'd be interested in seeing it. When I get my Cataphract 4X, I'll be trying the same with 4 x AC5s. I think it'll do fairly well, as my Ilya Muromets was doing quite a lot of damage just with 3 x AC5s and medium lasers.

I am not about to say that you're wrong, only that your sample size is far too low to show any kind of trend.

It's possible that your ELO needed to be raised and so matchmaker was throwing you in matches that you were likely to win regardless of build.

Again, not saying your wrong, just taking your results with a grain of salt.

[Alistair Winter]

Pater Mors, on 19 June 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

I am not about to say that you're wrong, only that your sample size is far too low to show any kind of trend.
It's possible that your ELO needed to be raised and so matchmaker was throwing you in matches that you were likely to win regardless of build.
Again, not saying your wrong, just taking your results with a grain of salt.

As you should. Of course, it's impossible for me to provide any numbers that would be statistically significant for thousands of players. Only PGI has those numbers.

Brother, in regards to ELO, I have never seen anything that gives me the impression that ELO even exists. As far as I know, it's a lie created by PGI's minister of propaganda, Garth. Don't let them delude you.

Assuming that it does exist, ELO doesn't quite explain why I'm doing so much better with this build than other builds. As I said, I'm not getting the same numbers in my C4 Catapult. If ELO had any pity, it would match my pitiful C4 up against the lowest ranked players on the server. But of course, we'd need a bigger sample to be sure.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Howdy Doody, on 19 June 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Or maybe you found a Mech that matches your play style.

I've had many times where a Mech I was destroying folks in one night, I was getting rocked another night. I have noticed (for me anyway) that a lot of it depends on what type of mood I'm in and/or how focused I am I playing WITH the type of Mech I have.

Quoted for truth. There are some times where I'm "on" with my lights and I wind up being nearly untouchable, and others where I invariably die fast without doing anything. There are some times when my Assaults are walking targets and others where I nearly solo the entire enemy team - and it seems to happen in streaks. For that matter, there are times when my Hunchbacks are all amazing kill machines and others where they just fall apart (again, it tends to happen in streaks).

Re. UAC5 boating, my 4X currently has a pair of UAC5s, a SSRM2, and some MLs. I had a game a few weeks back where somebody was QQing about my UAC spam being exploiting. Really, he was saying that 2 UAC5s was OP and very unfair. It was funny.

[Pater Mors]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

As you should. Of course, it's impossible for me to provide any numbers that would be statistically significant for thousands of players. Only PGI has those numbers.

Brother, in regards to ELO, I have never seen anything that gives me the impression that ELO even exists. As far as I know, it's a lie created by PGI's minister of propaganda, Garth. Don't let them delude you.

Assuming that it does exist, ELO doesn't quite explain why I'm doing so much better with this build than other builds. As I said, I'm not getting the same numbers in my C4 Catapult. If ELO had any pity, it would match my pitiful C4 up against the lowest ranked players on the server. But of course, we'd need a bigger sample to be sure.

The thing is, that to really find out whether its the build or just a trend you need to run closer to 1000 matches in that build and then another 1000 matches in a control build, one considered to be versatile. Only then will you have enough data to tell whether it's the build or you. At best, the results you have here are an indication of a trend but they're still far too low to provide any solid conclusions.

The way Elo works is that it will try and balance you out at a steady 1 for your W/L. So you'll find that sometimes you win heaps of games and sometimes you will lose heaps. This is an unfortunate side effect of using Elo to match us up against random teams and why you need to run thousands of matches to account for that Elo swing.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

jager with 2 lbx 10 2 machineguns and 4 medium lasers is pretty fun. if you drop the machine guns put on some more armor

[Nebuchadnezzar2]

It is true that ballistics are powerfull enough (except mg of course) and it is the reason why i love bllistic dragon so much and i do more consistently on ballistics dragons opposed to energy oriented one such 1C

And i also belive that high energy alpha that you can use only 1 or 2 times before strat concerning about overheating is somewhat overated

For me most of the energy and ballistic loadout ore somewhat balanced now

High pinpoint alpha is more powerful in the longer range due to their pinpoint burst damage while high dps is stronger in the shorter range when it is easy to consistently land them on the enemy

Once people realize the power of smaller ballistics we will start leaving high alpha sniper meta to a more balanced one

Ill say that they are working as intended