10417 replies to this topic

[Whiskey Dharma]

That's disappointing, but good to know. Thanks.

[Tesunie]

Spangle, on 05 January 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

Good point I'll just keep dropping and wait and see what the gods of PGI have planned

I find it's always best to work with what's here at the moment. I personally have found PGI to be really good about reimbursing players "stuff" when a change happens that removes something.

As an example, not that it is going to happen, but if PGI (for some crazy reason in this example), removed the Timberwolf, you would probably find that every player with one would have their C-bills reimbursed and Exp earned turned into General Experience (if not even more done). And just to state it, no. They are not removing the TImberwolf. It's just an example. (No need to panic.)

Whiskey Dharma, on 05 January 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

Does the matchmaker try to match weights between teams?

If I have a design that I like that weighs (say) 55 tons, but then I realize that I can do something similar with a different mech that weighs (say) 45 tons, should I go with the lighter mech to "give" my team 10 tons for someone else?

This is a "yes and no" kind of answer.

MM prioritizes PSR first, then weight class, and then (if it can) will try to balance the tonnage per side as a total tonnage.

This, by no means, actually means that it will balance tonnage between teams. But it will try to get it as close as it can. MM will look for "rule of 3s" first for tonnage. This is 3 mechs of each weight class. Then, from there, it will try to balance the total tonnage of each team not the tonnage of each individual mech's weight though. So, one team may end up with 3 Shadowcats, and the other team with 3 Shadowhawks, but the Shadowcat team may end up with 3 Atlases and the Shadowhawk team with 3 Stalkers. (Just as examples.)

This is, of course, not always possible. The longer the wait to form a match, the less restrictions MM applies, and the more unbalanced a match is likely to become. There are even rumors that if MM waits long enough it will even throw out the PSR balancing, though I have yet to see proof of that myself...


To answer the basis of your question: If you are in a group, the lighter mech probably will be appreciated, as premade groups have to start working within tonnage restrictions as they get larger in size. (A 12 man premade has very little tonnage to work with, I think 50 tons per player?) If you are just solo playing it in the Quick Play, bring whatever mech you want. It honestly wont make that much of a difference if you are 10 tons lighter or not. So being what you enjoy. (Though, that 10 ton lighter mech may be handy to have around anyway, encase you do join any groups.)

[DavidStarr]

Tesunie, on 05 January 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

A 12 man premade has very little tonnage to work with, I think 50 tons per player?

Yes, 600 tons per team.

[Tesunie]

DavidStarr, on 05 January 2017 - 11:04 PM, said:

Yes, 600 tons per team.

Sounds about right. Lets just say, my unit's often been happy that I like my medium mechs. Huntsmen, Novas, Adders (it's a "light" medium, right? My Adders are always so confused...), etc. Saves a lot of tonnage for others who may wish for more. (And more tonnage for me? I... really don't perform better with it anyway. So I'd rather it go to someone who enjoys those mechs more.)

[DavidStarr]

When I equip a consumable, i. e. UAV / air strike, does it only get expended if I actually deploy it, or do I have to buy a new one for each battle no matter if I used it or not?

Edited by DavidStarr, 06 January 2017 - 05:49 AM.

[Tesunie]

DavidStarr, on 06 January 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

When I equip a consumable, i. e. UAV / air strike, does it only get expended if I actually deploy it, or do I have to buy a new one for each battle no matter if I used it or not?

Only if you use it.

[el piromaniaco]

DavidStarr, on 06 January 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

When I equip a consumable, i. e. UAV / air strike, does it only get expended if I actually deploy it, or do I have to buy a new one for each battle no matter if I used it or not?

They also don't get expended when you use them in training grounds.
So you can safely experiment with them without wasting c-bills.

[Tesunie]

Here is a question I have for people:
Clan Targeting Computer affects. I read that it doesn't provide some benefits for the LBx ACs. I'm going to guess that it probably provides no bonuses to them, but I wanted to be certain.

My Huntsman B build has 3 ERMLs and an LBxAC10 with a level 4 TC. This was once an UAC10, which the TC helped with crit chances, range on the lasers and the UAC, and ballistic travel speeds for the UAC. Now that I changed out the UAC, is there any point to keeping the TC? Is it worth the weight for the benefits at this point? (I had to change out the UAC with the recent nerf for them. I went from getting an average damage score of 250-500, and it dropped down to 150-300. With the LB, I'm back up to expected operational levels.)

So far, I've already removed the TC from the build, and replaced it with more ammo and DHS (didn't need the ammo so much, DHS always helps). I'm just curious if it may have been worth keeping the TC instead (just did this change, so I haven't tested it yet without the TC).

I didn't use Clan tech so much until recently. I'm just hesitant to change a build that once earned me a decent ranking on the Huntsman leader board. (Sorry. My questions posts never seem to stay short, even if the question itself is...)

Edited by Tesunie, 06 January 2017 - 10:19 AM.

[Audacious Aubergine]

From what the hover-text says, the TC doesn't provide any bonuses to the LB types at all. However, it will still increase crit chances and range of those lasers and arguably more importantly also speeds up targeting info. Personally I'd ditch it - the LB already has a higher crit chance, and beam range on medium lasers seems to defeat the mid-range purpose of them

[DavidStarr]

I want to give Koniving credit for his reply some time ago when we were discussing Tempest:

Koniving, on 26 December 2016 - 03:10 AM, said:

As a practical LRM boat it is perfect. Twin LRM 20s or 15s, SRM 6 or SRM 4 + Artemis, ammo and backup weaponry to avoid the melancholy of the LRM boat.

It was a great suggestion to try LRMs, it's possibly the most fun and versatile LRM mech I've ever played. I haven't tried the suggested loadout yet, instead I did this and I love it. How does it look? What would you change?

[Leone]

Personally I'd take that one tonne of ammo outta the torso. Jam it in the arm with the other, just to be safe. Folk're gonna shoot the torso up on that.

Hmmm, I'd be tempted to swap for narc of tag on the CT for better targeting locks, but I'd prolly be unhappy with the damage output of the switch and go back. Seems solid.

-Zack

[DavidStarr]

Leone, on 07 January 2017 - 02:29 AM, said:

Personally I'd take that one tonne of ammo outta the torso. Jam it in the arm with the other, just to be safe.

Good idea. Especially since that ton of ammo will only get expended after the one in the head (I believe).

I thought of BAP but the benefit doesn't seem to be worth losing 1.5 tons of ammo. It's very rare that I cannot target anyone because of their ECM, and if I get jammed I can just switch my Guardian to counter.

Is it still the case that the more LRM tubes fire at once - the wider the spread, regardless of whether the tubes are in the same launcher or across a number of launchers?

Edited by DavidStarr, 07 January 2017 - 02:52 AM.

[TercieI]

Torso ammo is expended first. Order is: CT-RT-LT-RA-LA*-LL-RL-HD. Don't worry about one torso ton, it'll be gone fast.

(Don't LRM, though, of course).

*Arm order may be backwards, sources vary and I haven't tested that personally.

Edited by TercieI, 07 January 2017 - 06:40 AM.

[DavidStarr]

Hmm, I've seen a totally different order listed - head first, then the whole right side, then the whole left side and then CT. Are you sure yours is the correct one?

[TercieI]

DavidStarr, on 07 January 2017 - 07:20 AM, said:

Hmm, I've seen a totally different order listed - head first, then the whole right side, then the whole left side and then CT. Are you sure yours is the correct one?

Aside from the caveat about the arms, 100%. I've been battling misinformation on this on the forums for a year at least.

Edited by TercieI, 07 January 2017 - 07:23 AM.

[Koniving]

DavidStarr, on 07 January 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

I want to give Koniving credit for his reply some time ago when we were discussing Tempest:

It was a great suggestion to try LRMs, it's possibly the most fun and versatile LRM mech I've ever played. I haven't tried the suggested loadout yet, instead I did this and I love it. How does it look? What would you change?

Leone, on 07 January 2017 - 02:29 AM, said:

Personally I'd take that one tonne of ammo outta the torso. Jam it in the arm with the other, just to be safe. Folk're gonna shoot the torso up on that.

Hmmm, I'd be tempted to swap for narc of tag on the CT for better targeting locks, but I'd prolly be unhappy with the damage output of the switch and go back. Seems solid.

-Zack

Personally the very first thing I did was take the ammo out of the arm and shoved it into the other torso.
The arm has 5 slots of protection, 1 slot of ammo vulnerable.
The side torso (right) has 8 slots of protection, 1 slot of ammo vulnerable. (after moving it from the arm)
The side torso (left) has 10 slots of protection, 1 slot vulnerable (with the ton of ammo already there).

Absolutely no fear of ammo explosion here.
I will lose my heatsinks and possibly my weapons long before the ammo even has a hope of being destroyed.
Also, torso ammo is used up long before arm ammo, it will be gone before we tap into the leg ammo.

I do agree, TAG or NARC. 3 LRM 10s is good, still partial to 2 LRM-15s or 2 LRM-20s with SRM or NARC backup +/- CT lasers.

Also thanks for the shoutout.

Stock Centurion crit chances (percentages are chances of each thing listed being hit provided a crit Does occur.)

Provided by former technical director, Karl Berg.
The "protection" I referred to in the arm included all actuators and the other weapons.

Edited by Koniving, 07 January 2017 - 10:13 AM.

[Koniving]

The current official order does start with the head first. Beyond that it is a mess that favors torsos, arms, legs.. Yay.

Many still believe in the old order.
http://mwomercs.com/...mmo-being-used/

Currently:

Ammo is consumed in the following order according to PGI developer Karl Berg:

CT -> RT -> LT -> RA -> LA -> LL -> RL -> HD

As of 2014.

The Ruskies and evidently (through google search) sites whose sole purpose is to break the game has this information as "tested" and "confirmed" as of January 23rd 2016 along with the caveat that certain specific mechs will reverse the left/right rotation.

2014, we definitely could test and confirm through normal means due to the ammunition consumption monitor (and I do note I did after reading that; and noted in response that certain mechs are ignoring the order that Karl Berg gave, to which he replied that those 'must be bugged'. My post even listed a few specific examples.)


I miss this monitor.

And this one.

I do not know how someone can claim they tested it 'now', but given the site and its purpose I have no reason to believe it is not within their means. Of other interesting note: Before some of the recent movement code fixes for Escort... the limit of 'Mechs that could be put into a totem was 14; the limit of those that would move with the totem was 9, leaving the remaining 5 to hover in the air.

(The totem I'm speaking of)

Edited by Koniving, 07 January 2017 - 11:04 AM.

[DavidStarr]

Koniving, on 07 January 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

The current official order does start with the head first.

Koniving, on 07 January 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

Currently:

Ammo is consumed in the following order according to PGI developer Karl Berg:

CT -> RT -> LT -> RA -> LA -> LL -> RL -> HD

That makes sense... Not to me, though

Edited by DavidStarr, 07 January 2017 - 10:30 AM.

[DavidStarr]

Koniving, on 07 January 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

I do not know how someone can claim they tested it 'now'

I was thinking: take an STD engine mech with suitable hitboxes; put 1 ton ammo into each component; expend N tons (starting with 1 ton); then make a hypothesis as to which component the last ton went away from. Test the hypothesis by blowing that location off. Kinda hard to do with the head, though. And CT. But if you test everything else, these should become clear. Maybe do a variation with no ammo in the head / CT and see how it affects the results to infer the order. Lots of tedious work, but seems doable thanks to the "LRM AMMO DESTROYED" notification.

Edited by DavidStarr, 07 January 2017 - 10:34 AM.

[Koniving]

DavidStarr, on 07 January 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

That makes sense... Not to me, though

It should tell you how bad the "misinformation" and debates are. I myself wound up quoting the 2012's 'head' before hunting it down and giving the proper list.

DavidStarr, on 07 January 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

I was thinking: take an STD engine mech with suitable hitboxes; put 1 ton ammo into each component; expend N tons (starting with 1 ton); then make a hypothesis as to which component the last ton went away from. Test the hypothesis by blowing that location off. Kinda hard to do with the head, though. And CT. But if you test everything else, these should become clear. Maybe do a variation with no ammo in the head / CT and see how it affects the results to infer the order. Lots of tedious work, but seems doable thanks to the "LRM AMMO DESTROYED" notification.

This method could work, if it truly has a term for each type of ammo destroyed, then you will get information via each body part by loading a unique type of ammo into each.

....Scratch that. What I said wouldn't tell you the consumption order. But you could use a unique type of ammo in two different spots to determine which one is preferred over the former by watching the ammo counter (even if the ammo isn't 'destroyed', if the limb is and it has the ammo the ammo will hit zero, assuming 1 ton of ammo per location for two locations).

Whatever the case, after 2015 I decided to stop conducting experiments. I have nothing to gain.
Simply 'crit stuffing' will solve any ammo explosion worries. More crit slots being full = safer = no go boom.

Edited by Koniving, 07 January 2017 - 11:24 AM.