93 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Even 6 medium lasers in an Assault with 22-23 heatsinks cooling them should be absolutely scary. At the moment you can only fire an extra alpha or maybe two compared to a Jenner

Yep. And when you consider the fact the Jenner is getting rear torso shots, the Jenner actually comes out ahead compared to a Battlemaster.

The problem is the way DHS work. The internal ones are 2.0 but the external ones are 1.4. It makes absolutely no sense that the DHS that actually cost crit slots are worse than the ones that come free inside the engine. IMO all DHS should be 1.7 for sake of consistency.

Edited by Khobai, 26 November 2013 - 02:44 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 26 November 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Yep. And when you consider the fact the Jenner is getting rear torso shots, the Jenner actually comes out ahead compared to a Battlemaster.

The problem is the way DHS work. The internal ones are 2.0 but the external ones are 1.4. It makes absolutely no sense that the DHS that actually cost crit slots are worse than the ones that come free inside the engine. IMO all DHS should be 1.7 for sake of consistency.

This reminds me of a match I saw this weekend. There was a Jenner on my Team, he was our last Mech left. He was running up to Assaults stopping in their rear arc and lasering the legs. He was doing this with near impunity! It was both horrifying and interesting to watch at the same time.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 26 November 2013 - 05:53 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 23 November 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

STK-5M

Firing discipline is more important than anything else. Chain fire is your friend and learning WHEN to risk an overheat on an alpha.

I don't agree with the whole "standing still" thing but I do think you have to be very aware situationally. You have to be very aware of your location and enemy positions. It's always a good idea to have a plan to be able to pull out of the conflict for a few seconds to cool off when needed. You're not going to out brawl anything. You can do just as much if not more damage but you can't fire off all your weapons as often as those brawl builds can especially when dealing with a dakka dakka.

Which is why for most fights ballistic weapons are just better. You can deal more damage, faster, and on a point with each hit. Unless you're using relatively fast mechs that can get in and out energy weapons (other than as a supplement) are a bad idea and you'll lose nearly every fight. I smell some complaining about convergence coming on, but I'll manfully refrain given your hatred of the topic.

[Joseph Mallan]

Prezimonto, on 26 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Which is why for most fights ballistic weapons are just better. You can deal more damage, faster, and on a point with each hit. Unless you're using relatively fast mechs that can get in and out energy weapons (other than as a supplement) are a bad idea and you'll lose nearly every fight. I smell some complaining about convergence coming on, but I'll manfully refrain given your hatred of the topic.

The reason Energy weapons were so popular in the (Canon) TT game was logistics. Lasers were not tied to a logistic chain because of 0 ammo dependence. Face it on TT the TROs were filled with designs that a Government would put its troops in bases on... Fiscal limitations.

It is better to put 2 Hunchbacks(7Mil) and a Jenner(3.1 Mil) on the field than a single Atlas-D(9.6 Mil) if you have to pay for the forces!

We don't have this limitation here now do we. When single players have over a Battalion of Mechs of their own!!!! Unless you are a Merc Commander at the least, general maintenance alone would render you bankrupt with more than One Mech.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 26 November 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[stjobe]

Khobai, on 26 November 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

The problem is the way DHS work. The internal ones are 2.0 but the external ones are 1.4. It makes absolutely no sense that the DHS that actually cost crit slots are worse than the ones that come free inside the engine. IMO all DHS should be 1.7 for sake of consistency.

I'd say it's the way the heat system is designed, not particularly just the DHS (even though I think they all should be 2.0).

Weapons fire three times faster than in TT, but cooling is still at the same old 10 second cycle; of course energy weapons - whose balancing factor is high heat - will get affected more than ballistics whose balancing factor (weight) hasn't changed from TT.

To use energy weapons effectively you have to use them as if we had a 10-second turn still - something a ballistic-toting 'mech doesn't really have to; they paid for their low heat with tonnage, and they can therefore just use the broken heat system to their benefit.

Problem is there is no way for an energy 'mech to mount the number of heat sinks it would need to compensate the increase in rate of fire - there's just no space to mount double or even three times the heat sinks we currently use.

The whole heat system is fundamentally broken; always has been, and always will be unless someone at PGI grows a pair and starts redesigning it from the ground up, increasing cooling to match the increase in rate of fire.

Sadly, PGI erroneously believe heat-neutrality is the devil and would be the end of MWO.

Edited by stjobe, 26 November 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[Lord de Seis]

Pulse lasers need some kind of tweek, you don't see them that much and if you do it up is usually a LPL. MPL need to be more effective, they have a short range but are completely not worth while.

[Sandpit]

Prezimonto, on 26 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Which is why for most fights ballistic weapons are just better.(In my opinion and personal play style because I understand this isn't a universal truth or fact for every other player in the game) You can deal more damage, faster, and on a point with each hit. Unless you're using relatively fast mechs that can get in and out energy weapons (other than as a supplement) are a bad idea and you'll lose nearly every fight. I smell some complaining about convergence coming on, but I'll manfully refrain given your hatred of the topic.

I fixed that for you. I'll happily continue proving players thinking this is a universal truth wrong on the battlefield.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

I fixed that for you. I'll happily continue proving players thinking this is a universal truth wrong on the battlefield.

Beating the Meta... One enemy at a time! I like your Moxy.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 November 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Beating the Meta... One enemy at a time! I like your Moxy.

I do what I can for the community

I'm merely a humble servant of the M to the WO lol

[Prezimonto]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 November 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

The reason Energy weapons were so popular in the (Canon) TT game was logistics. Lasers were not tied to a logistic chain because of 0 ammo dependence. Face it on TT the TROs were filled with designs that a Government would put its troops in bases on... Fiscal limitations.

It is better to put 2 Hunchbacks(7Mil) and a Jenner(3.1 Mil) on the field than a single Atlas-D(9.6 Mil) if you have to pay for the forces!

We don't have this limitation here now do we. When single players have over a Battalion of Mechs of their own!!!! Unless you are a Merc Commander at the least, general maintenance alone would render you bankrupt with more than One Mech.

Oh I know. I even suggested a game mode where sub-points are added to maps that are supply depots.. and if you don't take and hold different kinds of supply you end up with deficiencies in the next match (lower armor, slower engine, less ammo/ton, longer recycle times, poorer heat control, added jam chances, ect...). It would go a long way to helping balance the lack of an economy if players had to make in-game decisions that affect down stream play. RnR isn't coming back, but this is a kind of enforced RnR divorced from cash earned and tied to gameplay.

[Almond Brown]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

I may try that. I've toyed with the idea of dropping 1 LL, switching 2 LLs out for ER LL, then adding in a larger engine and AMS to see how that works. 5 can't alpha, but having that 5th LL allows me to chain fire and I can literally have one continuous stream of LL goodness going for about 30-40 seconds before I have to worry about heat on most maps (little longer on cold maps, little shorter on hot maps). I love finding those stationary LRM boats and lighting them up. They'll start to pull back and then they start cussing because they realize they haven't stopped taking damage since I first opened fire lol

So much for not being able to sustain damage in an energy boat

AMS is a good call as well. I may actually carry it rather than BAP, now that you mention it.

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

I fixed that for you. I'll happily continue proving players thinking this is a universal truth wrong on the battlefield.

I qualified my statement. Ballistic weapons are better in most situations. They are better still backed by energy weapons. They are better again in a brawl with even more ballistic weapons.

Pure energy builds are very hard to manage on non-skirmish mechs. Snipers run too hot, and brawlers don't do enough dps to compete.

My best performing mechs use mixed loads: victor 9B with an AC20, 2LL, and an XL350, and a shadowhawk with either an AC20 or 2AC5 and some supporting medium lasers and/or srms.

I'm not saying energy weapons are awful, just that ballistic weapons... having at least one is essentially always better than energy load outs on all but a very specific type of mech: the skirmisher.

This is due to heat and convergence issues, as well as the dogs that missiles actually are without significant team support or a stupid enemy to shoot at.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 November 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

The reason Energy weapons were so popular in the (Canon) TT game was logistics. Lasers were not tied to a logistic chain because of 0 ammo dependence. Face it on TT the TROs were filled with designs that a Government would put its troops in bases on... Fiscal limitations.

It is better to put 2 Hunchbacks(7Mil) and a Jenner(3.1 Mil) on the field than a single Atlas-D(9.6 Mil) if you have to pay for the forces!

We don't have this limitation here now do we. When single players have over a Battalion of Mechs of their own!!!! Unless you are a Merc Commander at the least, general maintenance alone would render you bankrupt with more than One Mech.

And add to that that in TT a Stock (base model used) HBK-4G carries only 2 tons of AC20 ammo. Try that in MWO and see how it goes if a Match last more than 8-10 minutes.

[Almond Brown]

Prezimonto, on 26 November 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Oh I know. I even suggested a game mode where sub-points are added to maps that are supply depots.. and if you don't take and hold different kinds of supply you end up with deficiencies in the next match (lower armor, slower engine, less ammo/ton, longer recycle times, poorer heat control, added jam chances, ect...). It would go a long way to helping balance the lack of an economy if players had to make in-game decisions that affect down stream play. RnR isn't coming back, but this is a kind of enforced RnR divorced from cash earned and tied to gameplay.

Sadly all that fancy downstream stuff is great for the hardcore MechWarrior geeks but assumes that at some point in any "String of Matches" you HAVE to WIN to keep going with any chance at all.

That **** sounds all wonderful but once you get to Match 3 and your Team didn't get anything to keep them going, what do you think happens? Match 4 never happens and a lot of players are simply pissed off they never had a real chance based on a new start.

Let's go forward, not kill it off totally of anyone but the MW Geek Squads. We have been there and done that. Not again...thanks.

[Prezimonto]

Almond Brown, on 26 November 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Sadly all that fancy downstream stuff is great for the hardcore MechWarrior geeks but assumes that at some point in any "String of Matches" you HAVE to WIN to keep going with any chance at all.

That **** sounds all wonderful but once you get to Match 3 and your Team didn't get anything to keep them going, what do you think happens? Match 4 never happens and a lot of players are simply pissed off they never had a real chance based on a new start.

Let's go forward, not kill it off totally of anyone but the MW Geek Squads. We have been there and done that. Not again...thanks.

What I proposed is that you reach a maximum low point of no more than 3 "stacks" of bad results with each "stack" lowering your totals by ~15% (or 1 round of AC20 ammo/ton, ect), and that getting a single supply of any type resets that issue for you... It assumes that you have some kind of background supply coming in but that those resources are finite and not enough to keep your mech running at peak efficiency.

I also suggest that you do these types of matches in a series (3+ games) but when you're done with the series things reset... or you could opt out at any point but it costs you cash out of game to bring your mech home (get out of the series). So you'd sort of lock in a mech or stable of mechs for a set of matches and have to deal with those configurations for a length of time, including potential low supply issues.

Edited by Prezimonto, 26 November 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

Almond Brown, on 26 November 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

And add to that that in TT a Stock (base model used) HBK-4G carries only 2 tons of AC20 ammo. Try that in MWO and see how it goes if a Match last more than 8-10 minutes.

Bringing more than 2 tons doesn't guarantee you'll get to use more than 2 tons. Back in closed beta I'd consistently lose my AC after using 2 so I decided I didn't need ammo I can't use and invested the tonnage elsewhere. With HSR it's actually a lot harder to keep the AC working that long, so 2 tons of ammo isn't bad.

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

I fixed that for you. I'll happily continue proving players thinking this is a universal truth wrong on the battlefield.

I really don't understand this campaign you're on with other peoples opinions. If someone is posting something then it's obviously their opinion. It's common sense, and when i post something i (usually) assume the reader is using it.
Do we really need to add "imo" to everything we write?

[Joseph Mallan]

Wolfways, on 26 November 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

I really don't understand this campaign you're on with other peoples opinions. If someone is posting something then it's obviously their opinion. It's common sense, and when i post something i (usually) assume the reader is using it.
Do we really need to add "imo" to everything we write?

IMO maybe we should!

[Sandpit]

Wolfways, on 26 November 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

I really don't understand this campaign you're on with other peoples opinions. If someone is posting something then it's obviously their opinion. It's common sense, and when i post something i (usually) assume the reader is using it.
Do we really need to add "imo" to everything we write?

you obviously haven't paid much attention to the posts littered throughout the forums. Check out the "balance", ghost heat, and weapon "fix" threads some time. My personal favorites are the ones the have pretty graphs to accompany their 2 page mathematical equation just so they can "prove" their opinion is "right"

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

you obviously haven't paid much attention to the posts littered throughout the forums. Check out the "balance", ghost heat, and weapon "fix" threads some time. My personal favorites are the ones the have pretty graphs to accompany their 2 page mathematical equation just so they can "prove" their opinion is "right"

Well there's a difference between giving an opinion and using incorrect data to "prove" an opinion. But even if the data is wrong the poster is still giving his/her opinion even if you discount the data. Imo

I read these forums way too much. Opinion is starting to look the same as Orion...and onion