388 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

You took the time to See if you could win vs the present metawhine?

You heathen! You cannot deny the forum gods of their superior Knowledge by practice an execution!!!

[Sandpit]

I run a loooooooooooooot of energy builds. I shoot a looooooooooooooot of mechs. I kill a loooooooooooot of mechs. Thread debunked. That's all that really needs to be said

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 11 November 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I run a loooooooooooooot of energy builds. I shoot a looooooooooooooot of mechs. I kill a loooooooooooot of mechs. Thread debunked. That's all that really needs to be said

If its true then yes. Yes it is.

[DaZur]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

You took the time to See if you could win vs the present metawhine?

You heathen! You cannot deny the forum gods of their superior Knowledge by practice an execution!!!

Pffft...

I bite my thumb at the intelligentsia and wave my genitals at their Aunties...

[Joseph Mallan]

DaZur, on 11 November 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Pffft...

I bite my thumb at the intelligentsia and wave my genitals at their Aunties...

Oh Dear

I merely fart in their general direction!

[Cycleboy]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 November 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

But of course, consider what an auto-cannon costs you. Even the lightest costs you 6 tons, and you need extra ammo. the heaviest energy weapon sits at 7 tons, and your engine heat sinks come for free (or at least are non-negotiable- you'll have your 10 heat sinks, ammo always costs extra). Of course - once you start installing a ballistic at all (and plenty of mechs have ballistic hard poitns), you can't help but devote a lot of tonnage on ballistics. So how can we really compare these?
And I suspect that if you compare just by weapons mounted, I strongly suspect that medium lasers will win the count and lead to an overall energy weapon dominance in weapon spend. Tonnage-wise, energy weapons alone can't win, because ballistics are so freaking heavy. You'd have to count heat sinks, but every mech has them.

I think it might be more useful, if anything, to see how well energy only mechs fare against mixed loadouts and specialized ("only") ballistic loadouts, possibly compare by weight class. (Because I strongly suspect, based on my own mathematical analysis, that you'll see energy weapons clearly dominate the low weight classes, while ballistics will be crucial in the heavy and assault categories - a direct of the "race-to-heat-threshold" heat system.)

Yes, ACs vs Laser by weight is a factor. You don't put just 1xAC2 on a Locust and expect to do anything significant. But once you cross the 45-55ton range, ACs rock. And at the lower weights, the only reason Lasers are usable is the ability to disengage and hide until heat drops. I've been playing my Quickdraws and Jagers a lot lately. At that weight, the ACs on Jagers tear it up compared to my Laser/SRM builds. Even with the enhanced mobility and speed, the AC Jager puts out almost 2x damage, and 3x total kills, in 99% of my games with them.

[Sandpit]

Cycleboy, on 11 November 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Yes, ACs vs Laser by weight is a factor. You don't put just 1xAC2 on a Locust and expect to do anything significant. But once you cross the 45-55ton range, ACs rock. And at the lower weights, the only reason Lasers are usable is the ability to disengage and hide until heat drops. I've been playing my Quickdraws and Jagers a lot lately. At that weight, the ACs on Jagers tear it up compared to my Laser/SRM builds. Even with the enhanced mobility and speed, the AC Jager puts out almost 2x damage, and 3x total kills, in 99% of my games with them.

I consistently tear up jaggers and above in my energy builds. Just as you do to others. They are played differently. I know how to use my LLs to keep distance (negating those pesky dual AC20 jaggers) and use cover to pop off a few shots and get back so that an AC monster can't just continuously fire.

I also find it quite common to watch those AC builds shutdown from heat because they are hitting that trigger as fast they can while I am steadily firing off a continuous beam of laser by chain firing and timing the next shot to start just as the previous one is ending unless I'm in a last ditch effort to kill off a mech or pop off as much damage as possible before I go down, I don't alpha strike. If you do that, you'll be surprised at how little heat you generate in comparison

EDIT:

I just did the math and my average damage dealt out per match in my Stalker-5M is 264 over 96 matches with a k/d of 1.13 and that's without having the double bonus for having 3 chassis leveled up in pilot skills. It's not an amazing number but it IS proof that energy builds are perfectly viable.

Edited by Sandpit, 11 November 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[Bacl]

Sandpit, on 08 November 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

There's no "argument". There is a factual trade-off regardless of what your opinion on it is. I could go just as deep with the trade-offs. You can't prove me wrong because it isn't factual it's opinion. The same goes for myself. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong. What I AM doing is pointing out that no matter how hard you try, how much factual evidence you provide, you are still giving an opinion based on that information. There's no "right or wrong", there is only YOUR opinion on the matter.

The minute you make statements like. "Everyone uses ballistics because energy weapons are useless", THEN you become wrong. You're not wrong because that's your opinion, you're wrong because you're stating your opinion as a universal and lateral blanket statement regarding every player in the game.


My OPINION is that there is not.

Stop trying to prove me "wrong" and make a case to PGI. No amount of "x+y = AC op and unbeatable" will change my mind on the subject.

I don't make my posts to prove you wrong, I make my posts to let the devs know (if they happen to be reading these types of threads) that not everyone agrees with your opinion. Do you see the difference in what I'm saying and what you're trying to make this into?

The numbers cant really lie, opinions or not the ballistics is by far superior to energy, period. After that there is always interpretation but the goal of my post earlier was to clearly demonstrate that energy weapons even tho the weapon itself is lighter requires much more critical slot and tonnage to be ( not even in this case) on even ground with ballistic, thats all.

The numbers are there, opinion or not and i will gladdly shut my self up the day i can get the numbers even between energy and ballistic, till then i will try to show my results to the public until the QQers who said that ballistics are fine actually realises that there is a problem.

Your opinion the balance is fine, my facts proves the opposit.

It is normal to have a favorite weapon type, mech chassis, etc, but dont let that blind your judgement about the rest and also everyone should'nt be penalised because your actual favorite mech cant run ballistic.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cycleboy, on 11 November 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Yes, ACs vs Laser by weight is a factor. You don't put just 1xAC2 on a Locust and expect to do anything significant. But once you cross the 45-55ton range, ACs rock. And at the lower weights, the only reason Lasers are usable is the ability to disengage and hide until heat drops. I've been playing my Quickdraws and Jagers a lot lately. At that weight, the ACs on Jagers tear it up compared to my Laser/SRM builds. Even with the enhanced mobility and speed, the AC Jager puts out almost 2x damage, and 3x total kills, in 99% of my games with them.

AC5 gets .625 points per ton of weapon ton, a Medium laser gets 5 points of damage per weapon ton...
...
...

[Sandpit]

Bacl, on 11 November 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

The numbers cant really lie, opinions or not the ballistics is by far superior to energy, period.

Nope, that is opinion based on fact. Until you understand that you can't understand how many feel the weapons are pretty well balanced.Superior implies better which implies a disadvantage to using. I am not at a disadvantage in my energy builds. If I were I would never win a game according to your very logic. The fact that I can and do win games, am successful, and often times do more damage than ballistic mechs I'm facing stands in direct contradiction to that very statement. THAT'S a fact.

It's not my opinion that I do well in energy builds. It's a fact. It would be my opinion if I said that based on my performance and the numbers that energy weapons were superior to ballistics

[Khobai]

Quote

AC5 gets .625 points per ton of weapon ton, a Medium laser gets 5 points of damage per weapon ton...

Under 270m. Above 540m the AC5 still gets .625 point per ton while the laser gets 0 points per ton.

When you factor in range its pretty clear ballistics are better.

[KinLuu]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Under 270m. Above 540m the AC5 still gets .625 point per ton while the laser gets 0 points per ton.

When you factor in range its pretty clear ballistics are better.

AC/5s are only so good, because of their synergy with PPCs.

You rarely see AC/5s alone. PPCs need to be reworked - right now, they are only usefull, if paired with a low heat weapon, like ACs. They are bad if boated, they are bad with missiles, and they are bad with energy. But with dual AC/5s, they are like a hammer of doom.

Like the Gauss before it, the AC/5 is not the real problem.

Sandpit, on 11 November 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

EDIT:

I just did the math and my average damage dealt out per match in my Stalker-5M is 264 over 96 matches with a k/d of 1.13 and that's without having the double bonus for having 3 chassis leveled up in pilot skills. It's not an amazing number but it IS proof that energy builds are perfectly viable.

Are you serious?
Even my HBK-4G has better stats.

AND HE DOES NOT EVEN FIRE AT THE CROSSHAIR!

Edited by KinLuu, 11 November 2013 - 12:17 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

KinLuu, on 11 November 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

AC/5s are only so good, because of their synergy with PPCs.

You rarely see AC/5s alone. PPCs need to be reworked - right now, they are only usefull, if paired with a low heat weapon, like ACs. They are bad if boated, they are bad with missiles, and they are bad with energy. But with dual AC/5s, they are like a hammer of doom.

Like the Gauss before it, the AC/5 is not the real problem.

Make PPCs spread or/and give splash damage plus damage over time.

Win.


ACs will still be a problem. They still do direct damage.

[KinLuu]

Mister Blastman, on 11 November 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Make PPCs spread or/and give splash damage plus damage over time.

Win.


ACs will still be a problem. They still do direct damage.

The AC/20 might be a problem. AC/10 maybe.

AC/5 and AC/2 are DPS weapons already, more or less.

[Khobai]

Quote

You rarely see AC/5s alone

Thats not true at all. Ilyas, Cataphracts, Jagers all use AC/5s alone quite frequently. And they are some of the most dangerous mechs in the game.

[Mister Blastman]

KinLuu, on 11 November 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

The AC/20 might be a problem. AC/10 maybe.

AC/5 and AC/2 are DPS weapons already, more or less.

AC/10 isn't a problem at all. AC 20 is... well, the AC 20. Of all the weapons it IS supposed to hurt. Though, I wouldn't mind 5 slugs coming out of it like in the Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries intro, maybe 5 slugs coming out over one second. That'd be neat, actually.

But here's the thing, if you turn AC 20 into a DPS stream over a second... you have to consider lowering the overall DPS of the AC/2 and AC/5 -- which is probably a bit high still. The AC/10 would need to go to a stream, too, even though it is like the poor little ******* child of Autocannons due to its high tonnage/slot requirements.

[KinLuu]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Thats not true at all. Ilyas, Cataphracts, Jagers all use AC/5s alone quite frequently. And they are some of the most dangerous mechs in the game.

But they need to expose themselfes, to bring their dps to bear. Otherwise they just have a lousy alpha.

I fear PPC + dual AC/5 (AC/20) combos a lot more.

/e: AC2 dps is ********. It is only kept in check by ghost heat.

Edited by KinLuu, 11 November 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[Bacl]

Sandpit, on 11 November 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Nope, that is opinion based on fact. Until you understand that you can't understand how many feel the weapons are pretty well balanced.Superior implies better which implies a disadvantage to using. I am not at a disadvantage in my energy builds. If I were I would never win a game according to your very logic. The fact that I can and do win games, am successful, and often times do more damage than ballistic mechs I'm facing stands in direct contradiction to that very statement. THAT'S a fact.

It's not my opinion that I do well in energy builds. It's a fact. It would be my opinion if I said that based on my performance and the numbers that energy weapons were superior to ballistics

Lol i almost fell off my chair when i saw your comment, "Nope, that is opinion based on fact", did you even take the time to click on any of the links i posted? Well guess what these trials in the lab are SOLID numbers and not opinions, the best part is i did not only try with AC5, vs medium i did ALL of them. At any given points the energy outperforms the ballistics in DPS ( damage per second) HPS ( heat per second) while having more range and less tonnage/ critical space. "Until you understand that you can't understand how many feel the weapons are pretty well balanced", simple those who think that the current weapons are balanced are those mostly running ballistics and if you dont see any disadvantages of using pure energy weapons well my friend tell me what your consuming because it looks like good stuff ( or maybe its an opinion ?)

While we are there if this was a dueling game, a pure energy boat that is not a light or a fast medium is dead against a ballistics focused mech. The reason why you are still winning its because you have a team lol, and some time in pure PUG games you have the winning side.

If for you 1+1=2 is an opinion and 1+1=11 because you decide it is well i cant take you on seriously on this forum, the game is balanced for you well glad there is at least one who enjoys it because from what i can see most of the people, specially the BT veteran dont seem quite happy.

So before you say " this is an opinion" to someone, go spend a few hours on the mechlab and gather some numbers other wise i can only see you has the "mommy knows best so stop talking" shaking her index in the face of all the people who saw that there is a problem.

I have to give you this tho you made my day rofl!

Edited by Bacl, 11 November 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[Cycleboy]

Sandpit, on 11 November 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

I consistently tear up jaggers and above in my energy builds. Just as you do to others. They are played differently. I know how to use my LLs to keep distance (negating those pesky dual AC20 jaggers) and use cover to pop off a few shots and get back so that an AC monster can't just continuously fire.

EDIT:

I just did the math and my average damage dealt out per match in my Stalker-5M is 264 over 96 matches with a k/d of 1.13 and that's without having the double bonus for having 3 chassis leveled up in pilot skills. It's not an amazing number but it IS proof that energy builds are perfectly viable.

Not a BoomJager, sometimes a dakkaJager. But usually a good mix... and Stalker weighs 1.5x as much for big lasers and heat sinks. Yes, big energy boats CAN do some damage. I was trying to show my point of the 55ton threashold of energy/AC changeover.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

AC5 gets .625 points per ton of weapon ton, a Medium laser gets 5 points of damage per weapon ton...
...
...

As was said... damage still hitting at range. Weapon fires 2.67x as fast... so actually 1.67 Damage per Ton per ML firing cycle. And only 2.67 heat vs 4 heat per ML firing cycle (if we peg everything to Internation Medium Laser Units... IMLUs). So, again, if you have the chasis that can handle the weight, putting in 2xAC5 = 3.33 DPT/IMLU at only 5.33 heat IMLU. And that isn't even accounting for the actual DPS, blah blah blah.

TL/DR: Put your $ where your mouth is... if you had an 80t chasis with a possible 3 ACs (arms & RT) or with 8 energy ports (2 arms, 2 each torso), would you go 2xUAC5+AC20 or 2LL+6ML? Which would you buy???

[Khobai]

Quote

But they need to expose themselfes, to bring their dps to bear. Otherwise they just have a lousy alpha.

If you say so. Its still a 15-20 point alpha. Even what most people consider the best build in the game only does a 30 point alpha. So their alpha is hardly lousy. And they have the best sustained dps in the game. Ballistic heavies are very strong, especially the Jager with those high up guns that let it fire over obstacles. They can also move ~80kph.

Edited by Khobai, 11 November 2013 - 04:21 PM.