181 replies to this topic

[Modo44]

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 May 2014 - 03:04 AM, said:

Whats Ghost heat all about?

When you fire a certain number of certain weapons together, you get an additional heat spike over their normal heat. When you fire multiple similar weapons, you get ghost heat for the hottest of them. For example, firing LRM5+LRM10+LRM20 together will generate as much heat as firing 3xLRM20 together. This table shows the specific penalties.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Modo44, on 19 May 2014 - 03:08 AM, said:

When you fire a certain number of certain weapons together, you get an additional heat spike over their normal heat. When you fire multiple similar weapons, you get ghost heat for the hottest of them. For example, firing LRM5+LRM10+LRM20 together will generate as much heat as firing 3xLRM20 together. This table shows the specific penalties.

Oh, wow, yeah, that ghost heat is ******** lol.

The game engine not advanced enough to just give the weapon's own heat lol? It has to default to the hottest of them all together? ...thats funny.

[Rhaythe]

Quote

...a diverse set of load outs...

Meaning nothing but PPCs and AC5s.

(probably already mentioned but meh. not reading through 7 pages to find it)

[Modo44]

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 May 2014 - 04:45 AM, said:

The game engine not advanced enough to just give the weapon's own heat lol? It has to default to the hottest of them all together? ...thats funny.

Weapons do have separate heat ratings. This system was designed to counter heavy weapon boating (think 6 PPC Stalker). I doubt anyone would call it great, it is just something PGI came up with. Simpler-looking mechanics, like cone of fire, could not be done reliably for technical reasons (timings break when you add lag compensation and vastly different pings).

[LordKnightFandragon]

Modo44, on 19 May 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

Weapons do have separate heat ratings. This system was designed to counter heavy weapon boating (think 6 PPC Stalker). I doubt anyone would call it great, it is just something PGI came up with. Simpler-looking mechanics, like cone of fire, could not be done reliably for technical reasons (timings break when you add lag compensation and vastly different pings).

So is the hit detect in this game hosed as well? I know it is horrific in Planetside 2 atm. TTK says about 8-12 bullets, but I cant usually drop a target in that game with less then 20 or sometimes 30.

I did play this game for 11 games back in beta, how has it changed? I know I couldnt seem to do anything, I would walk out and die in seconds, I would unload AC20s and crap from 2 inches, unloading medium lasers in groups and at the end of the day I would see no damage on the enemy yet I would be dead instantly.....prolly this game's horrific Hit detect issues? lag? what?

I stopped playing this game cuz of that....seemed to not matter what I did, whcih mech I took, I just died effortlessly and absurdly fast, regardless of mech.

Most damage I ever dealt I think was like 240 or something.

[Modo44]

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 May 2014 - 05:10 AM, said:

So is the hit detect in this game hosed as well?

It is actually pretty good, though not bug-free (a potentially great fix is coming literally next patch -- tomorrow). For most players, hit detection works OK even with pretty high pings as long as they have stable connections. If you are in a rural area and/or on wireless, it may be spotty.

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 May 2014 - 05:10 AM, said:

I did play this game for 11 games back in beta, how has it changed?

I hear it is way more stable and balanced. Having only joined a year ago, I can say it is steadily improving, though there is always more to do.

MWO is very hard to learn and master. Unless you start by reading a lot and finding friends to teach you, 1000 matches of sucking seems like a safe assumption. This is something you can probably not go around, only lessen. The guides should help. Even then, expect to die a lot early on.

[SethAbercromby]

I don't like this "guide" because of its obvious build-bias. there is no actual reasoning why the 'Mechs perform better or worse, the only real argument is "because Meta says so".

There is a number of people than can pilot an Awesome better than any other Assault 'Mech. The question is then "what can make the Awsome an awesome 'Mech and what are things the pilot needs to consider?" and that should be the thing a 'Mech guide for newcomers should be about. New players have no idea of how the Meta works or the tricks the player needs to use to make them viable, so it's important to compile all basic information into a easy to understand format so everyone can make an educated decision of what 'Mech they will try first/next.

How about a proper collaborative guide where everyone contributes information and tips for their personal favorite 'Mechs?

[Mycrus]

SethAbercromby, on 19 May 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

I don't like this "guide" because of its obvious build-bias. there is no actual reasoning why the 'Mechs perform better or worse, the only real argument is "because Meta says so".

There is a number of people than can pilot an Awesome better than any other Assault 'Mech. The question is then "what can make the Awsome an awesome 'Mech and what are things the pilot needs to consider?" and that should be the thing a 'Mech guide for newcomers should be about. New players have no idea of how the Meta works or the tricks the player needs to use to make them viable, so it's important to compile all basic information into a easy to understand format so everyone can make an educated decision of what 'Mech they will try first/next.

How about a proper collaborative guide where everyone contributes information and tips for their personal favorite 'Mechs?

[Modo44]

SethAbercromby, on 19 May 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

There is a number of people than can pilot an Awesome while not understanding any other Assault 'Mech.

FTFY.

While this guide badly needs a preface and a "good pilots do decently in anything" disclaimer, it is mostly correct from a general mech strength perspective. If you buy a low-scored mech from it early on, you will have a doubly bad time.

[SethAbercromby]

Modo44, on 19 May 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

While this guide badly needs a preface and a "good pilots do decently in anything" disclaimer, it is mostly correct from a general mech strength perspective. If you buy a low-scored mech from it early on, you will have a doubly bad time.

This is why the question I wrote is so important. Why can a "good pilot" perform well in a "bad 'Mech"? The "bad 'Mechs" are considered inferior because they have certain quirks new players might not be aware of but that doesn't make them bad. It just makes them less approachable for a player that has just joined the game.

What can a certain Chassis do well and what does it not do well? These are the questions newcomers are asking and this "guide" provides them with incomplete assumptions that they have only minimal benefit from.

[xMintaka]

SethAbercromby, on 19 May 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

I don't like this "guide" because of its obvious build-bias. there is no actual reasoning why the 'Mechs perform better or worse, the only real argument is "because Meta says so".

There is a number of people than can pilot an Awesome better than any other Assault 'Mech. The question is then "what can make the Awsome an awesome 'Mech and what are things the pilot needs to consider?" and that should be the thing a 'Mech guide for newcomers should be about. New players have no idea of how the Meta works or the tricks the player needs to use to make them viable, so it's important to compile all basic information into a easy to understand format so everyone can make an educated decision of what 'Mech they will try first/next.

How about a proper collaborative guide where everyone contributes information and tips for their personal favorite 'Mechs?

Bear in mind that it's a guide for new players. While I don't agree with the "meta or nothing" mentality, there is an undeniable effectiveness there. You simply cannot argue against pinpoint damage, especially when on a mech that only has to expose itself for half a second to fire.

I'd be pretty pissed if someone recommended me an Awesome for my first mech, for example.

Edit for your second post:

SethAbercromby, on 19 May 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

This is why the question I wrote is so important. Why can a "good pilot" perform well in a "bad 'Mech"? The "bad 'Mechs" are considered inferior because they have certain quirks new players might not be aware of but that doesn't make them bad. It just makes them less approachable for a player that has just joined the game.

What can a certain Chassis do well and what does it not do well? These are the questions newcomers are asking and this "guide" provides them with incomplete assumptions that they have only minimal benefit from.

A good pilot can perform well in a bad mech because they already have the important skills down. Positioning, damage rolling, aiming at certain sections, etc. Put an experienced Awesome pilot against a newbie in a Victor, and chances are the Awesome will come out on top. If the newbie is in an Awesome (or Dragon, Locust, Commando, etc) they're likely to get torn apart frequently.

There's an issue in that everything the Awesome can do, the Stalker or Banshee can do better. Likewise, the Dragon is just a more vulnerable Shadowhawk (extra 5 tons mitigated by the "snout") without jumpjets.

As a new player you would, ideally, want something fairly durable and capable of running diverse loadouts, but more importantly the mech should be able to run strong loadouts.

Edited by Lunatech, 19 May 2014 - 06:25 AM.

[SethAbercromby]

Lunatech, on 19 May 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

I'd be pretty pissed if someone recommended me an Awesome for my first mech, for example.

That isn't my point. A "complete 'Mech guide for new players" should be as unbiased as possible and outline both the benefits and the drawbacks of each chassis. The Awesome example simply served as a "the most hated 'Mech with the worst reputation performing well? What is this witchcraft?". There are other 'Mechs that get a similar treatment, such as Dragons but the fact they can perform well begs for the need of doing some research why they can perform well. And that would be where a complete and throughout guide would be necessary to explain all these quirks to someone that has no idea of the game.

[Modo44]

You are repeating my own reservations voiced earlier in this thread. Even with that, the list is a solid "buying this is safe, buying that will make you cry" differentiator.

SethAbercromby, on 19 May 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

Why can a "good pilot" perform well in a "bad 'Mech"?

Because until you reach the very top skill bracket, you will find plenty of builds and skill levels -- from virtuosos in Dragons to noobs in Dragon Slayers. The really great mechs are separated by 1) being easier to play for new players (or would you really tell a noobie to buy a Lolcust over a Firestarter?) and 2) being strictly stronger when player skill levels are similar (hence meta on meta matches between competitive teams).

Edited by Modo44, 19 May 2014 - 06:27 AM.

[SethAbercromby]

Modo44, on 19 May 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

or would you really tell a noobie to buy a Lolcust over a Firestarter?

No because I wouldn't recommend either as I don't have enough experience with light 'Mechs to make a good recommendation for either. But again, the point is no to recommend a "sub-par" 'Mech to a newcomer, but to properly outline what makes a "good 'Mech" outstanding and a "bad 'Mech" less desirable.

Each of us has a bias towards certain things and that continues on into our preferred 'Mechs and loadouts. A collaborative effort will help clear out most of the personal biases as much as humanly possible and be more beneficial to newcomers that, again, wouldn't know the difference between the Locust and a Firestarter unless you told them what makes either of them special and how the Firestarter would usually be a more viable choice, but also where the Locus can perform well to allow the player to make an educated decision of what to pick.

[xMintaka]

SethAbercromby, on 19 May 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

Each of us has a bias towards certain things and that continues on into our preferred 'Mechs and loadouts. A collaborative effort will help clear out most of the personal biases as much as humanly possible and be more beneficial to newcomers that, again, wouldn't know the difference between the Locust and a Firestarter unless you told them what makes either of them special and how the Firestarter would usually be a more viable choice, but also where the Locus can perform well to allow the player to make an educated decision of what to pick.

No one could possibly disagree with you that this guide is heavily biased. But, imho, it's one of the occasions where bias is a good thing. Victor Morson is/was a competitive player and he approached this guide from that angle. No doubt he correctly assumed that if it works in competition, it works in PUGland.

What you're saying seems to be copy this guide to an extent, but include more information on each chassis. Possibly comprising builds, playstyles etc. This is a brilliant idea, but there would need to be BIG disclaimers on some chassis'.

For example, I'm running this DRG-Flame to great effect and having far more fun than I do in my AC5 + PPC Shadowhawk. But I would never recommend it for a new player due to the difficulty in using it. A similar build on a jumpy Shadowhawk is just flat-out better, no matter how you look at it.

The key here is that better =/= more fun. But for a newbie, they're not likely to be having fun if they get CT cored in seconds every single game. They'll have more fun doing decent damage and getting kills while they learn the game.
For most newbies better does = more fun. No one wants to get insta-gibbed every game.


Although thinking about it, experienced players do tend to insta-gib any poorly played meta mech so perhaps going full meta is a bad idea for new players.

In summary, I thoroughly enjoy contradicting myself.

Edited by Lunatech, 19 May 2014 - 07:17 AM.

[Shatterpoint]

Man up, grow a pair or just pilot something that isn't an XL Awesome.

[Mycrus]

Lunatech, on 19 May 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

Bear in mind that it's a guide for new players. While I don't agree with the "meta or nothing" mentality, there is an undeniable effectiveness there. You simply cannot argue against pinpoint damage, especially when on a mech that only has to expose itself for half a second to fire.

I'd be pretty pissed if someone recommended me an Awesome for my first mech, for example.

Edit for your second post:



A good pilot can perform well in a bad mech because they already have the important skills down. Positioning, damage rolling, aiming at certain sections, etc. Put an experienced Awesome pilot against a newbie in a Victor, and chances are the Awesome will come out on top. If the newbie is in an Awesome (or Dragon, Locust, Commando, etc) they're likely to get torn apart frequently.

There's an issue in that everything the Awesome can do, the Stalker or Banshee can do better. Likewise, the Dragon is just a more vulnerable Shadowhawk (extra 5 tons mitigated by the "snout") without jumpjets.

As a new player you would, ideally, want something fairly durable and capable of running diverse loadouts, but more importantly the mech should be able to run strong loadouts.

For new players I would recommend

Locusts
Trebuchet
Dragons
Awesomes

If you can successfully pilot that you would have learned to be a very good pilot and I'm talking about building, maneuvering, and gunnery.

[Tekadept]

Just like learning to drive a car new players should learn to drive a stick..Yes It will be harder at first, but they will be better for it.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Mycrus, on 19 May 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

If you can successfully pilot that you would have learned to be a very good pilot and I'm talking about building, maneuvering, and gunnery.

To a point yes - but if the person knows that they have no patience, or have problems learning through uphill battles....

Let us not chase off decent targets.

I would lean more toward putting them in the middle-of-the-road chassis myself - stuff like the Centurion or the Hunchback.

Give the some of an uphill climb (so that they actually have to learn what they are doing) but not to gimp them too much.
(Though I am one of those who believes a lot of 'gimped' mechs are a lot less gimped than most people would have you believe - if they are piloted right )

[Modo44]

Shar Wolf, on 19 May 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

Give the some of an uphill climb (so that they actually have to learn what they are doing) but not to gimp them too much.

Like MWO does not provide a near-vertical ice wall already? Come on.