Jump to content

Energy Weapons Arent That Bad!


93 replies to this topic

#81 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 26 November 2013 - 06:31 PM

View PostWolfways, on 26 November 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

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 :blink:

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

Honestly? The real reason I point out something is an opinion as opposed to fact (other than to just irritate those that can't understand the difference and watch them rage and QQ about it) is altruistic in nature believe it or not.

This game has a VERY complex and steep learning curve and new players coming in can easily mistake those opinions for gospel fact. Spouting QQ like it is fact does nothing to help that

#82 42and19

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 197 posts

Posted 26 November 2013 - 08:33 PM

*sigh*

ok

so

Just bought my awesome again, went with a 9m this time. Guess what? Boating 4 LL and averaging 500 damage.

Here are a few things that I only recently figured out.

1) Lasers are great training weapons, they allow you to adjust a shot and still deliver some of the damage.

2) High damage for low tonnage makes them often better for lighter mechs.

3) Lasers have a HIGHER reward for accuracy than ballistics. Why? Because if you can keep that entire stream on a component than you have dealt a much higher amount of damage for less tonnage. Golng back to my awesome. That's an alpha of 36 for 20 tons, plus heatsinks needed to run the mech ( I have 19 ) That's a total of 29 tons. On chain fire that is 9 damage about ever second. Now let's look at a comparable ballistic build ac/20 and ac/10. Total tonnage is 32 if you add three tons of ammo per weapon. This comes with a max damage output of 870 and a high chance of ammo explosion. Not to mention the fact that the only mechs able to run this now are the k2, jager and phract and with the exception of the phract those build pretty much require an XL.

Now, I am not saying energy weapons are better. However, in specific situations and in the right hands (someone who can actually maintain focus on an enemy rather than brushing their retacle across a part for a brief second and firing,) they are more than viable.

#83 Lupus Aurelius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 509 posts
  • LocationHarlech, Outreach

Posted 27 November 2013 - 07:48 AM

View PostSandpit, 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"



Opinion:

"In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred.

An example is: "America was involved in the Vietnam War" versus "America was right to get involved in the Vietnam War". An opinion may be supported by facts, in which case it becomes an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts.

Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact."

No, all opinions are not equal. And your laughing at supportive data to an argument just shows your ignorance. An opinion that is supported by factual data is a logical extrapolation, and is more substantive than an opinion not based on supportive data. Your stance on this subject equates to " ..I have no data to support my opinion, but my opinion is equally valid as yours which has supportive data". This is a false conclusion.

If you cannot bring anything to the debate other than "my opinion is as valid as one supported by the factual data", then do not debate the issue. Untill you can provide factual data and logical arguments to support your opinion, it is valueless.

After all, in the gods we trust, all other bring data!

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 27 November 2013 - 08:29 AM.


#84 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 27 November 2013 - 09:00 AM

View PostLupus Aurelius, on 27 November 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:



No, all opinions are not equal. And your laughing at supportive data to an argument just shows your ignorance. An opinion that is supported by factual data is a logical extrapolation, and is more substantive than an opinion not based on supportive data. Your stance on this subject equates to " ..I have no data to support my opinion, but my opinion is equally valid as yours which has supportive data". This is a false conclusion.

If you cannot bring anything to the debate other than "my opinion is as valid as one supported by the factual data", then do not debate the issue. Untill you can provide factual data and logical arguments to support your opinion, it is valueless.

After all, in the gods we trust, all other bring data!

See? You're quick to point out someone's opinion is "wrong". I know ALL the math behind it, I understand it, and in my opinion things are balanced. Just because you have a different opinion based on the same information doesn't make you "right" nor does it make you "wrong". It DOES, however, make you just another in a long list of players that some how feel their opinion is "right" because they don't like how it works and the rest of the community that doesn't agree with that is just a "poopy head".

The data shows me that xx heat will happen if you boat. The data shows me that ACs have trade-offs for their pinpoint damage. The data shows me that lasers are just as effective in combat. I'm sorry that you don't seem to be able to cope and adapt to the new mechanic, but that doesn't limit the rest of us.

I'd like to see where I "laughed at supporting data". Please point that one out to me. Maybe I missed it? I looked at the data and drew a different conclusion on it than you did. The fact that you have to prove me "wrong" goes to show my point though.

I've provided all the data I need to. I don't rightly care what yout OPINION on it is because it doesn't affect me or how I play the game one way or another. I do care, that PGI get more than just your opinion though since, ya know, I play the game too. So I have shown my opinion on the matter as well.

2+2 = 4 fact
2+2 = 4 but 2=3 = 5 is better opinion

The only one showing fallacies here is you, simply by trying to invalidate someone else's opinion because yours differs.

#85 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 27 November 2013 - 09:03 AM

The factual data actually disproves the whole "energy weapons are useless"

The facts are people use them, people win with them, people get kills with them. If they were factually "useless" that wouldn't be the case. THOSE are the facts of the matter. Not your opinion on how the ghost heat, dps, etc. works.

Useless

The other side of it is "ACs are OP"

IF THIS were the case, they'd never get beat. They definitely wouldn't get beat on a regular basis, which they do.

You can draw whatever opinion based on the data that you like, that doesn't make you "right"

#86 Lupus Aurelius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 509 posts
  • LocationHarlech, Outreach

Posted 27 November 2013 - 09:18 AM

View PostSandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

See? You're quick to point out someone's opinion is "wrong"....


No, it's critiquing the argument...

Critique:
"Critique is a method of disciplined, systematic analysis of a written or oral discourse. Critique is commonly understood as fault finding and negative judgement, but it can also involve merit recognition, and in the philosophical tradition it also means a methodical practice of doubt. The contemporary sense of critique has been largely influenced by the Enlightenment critique of prejudice and authority, which championed the emancipation and autonomy from religious and political authorities. Critique is an accepted format of written and oral debate.

Some authors draw a distinction between critique and criticism.[better source needed] The distinction is not made in French, German, or Italian, where the two words both translate as critique, Kritik, and critica, respectively. According to philosopher Gianni Vattimo, criticism is used more frequently to denote literary criticism or art criticism, that is the interpretation and evaluation of literature and art; while critique may be used in the English language to refer to more general and profound writing as Kant's Critique of pure reason.

Another proposed distinction is that critique is never personalized nor ad hominem, but is instead the analyses of the structure of the thought in the content of the item critiqued.[citation needed] This analysis then offers by way of the critique method either a rebuttal or a suggestion of further expansion upon the problems presented by the topic of that specific written or oral argumentation. Even authors that believe there might be a distinction, say that there is some ambiguity that is still unresolved.

Critique is an accepted and established process of orderly scholarly and public debate. In the fine arts and the humanities, and especially in writing, critique is influenced by the scientific method of analysis. Critique is based upon an informed opinion, and never upon personal opinion. Informed opinion is accepted as being technical knowledge, personal or professional experience, or specified training.

The term 'critique' derives, via French, from Ancient Greek κριτική (kritikē), meaning "the faculty of judgement", that is, discerning the value of persons or things.

Philosophy is the application of critical thought, and is the disciplined practice of processing the theory/praxis problem. In philosophical contexts, such as law or academics, critique is most influenced by Kant's use of the term to mean a reflective examination of the validity and limits of a human capacity or of a set of philosophical claims. This has been extended in modern philosophy to mean a systematic inquiry into the conditions and consequences of a concept, a theory, a discipline, or an approach and/or attempt to understand the limitations and validity of that. A critical perspective, in this sense, is the opposite of a dogmatic one. Kant wrote:

We deal with a concept dogmatically ... if we consider it as contained under another concept of the object which constitutes a principle of reason and determine it in conformity with this. But we deal with it merely critically if we consider it only in reference to our cognitive faculties and consequently to the subjective conditions of thinking it, without undertaking to decide anything about its object.

Later thinkers such as Hegel used the word 'critique' in a broader way than Kant's sense of the word, to mean the systematic inquiry into the limits of a doctrine or set of concepts. This referential expansion led, for instance, to the formulation of the idea of social critique, such as arose after Karl Marx's theoretical work delineated in his Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), which was a critique of the then-current models of economic theory and thought of that time. Further critique can then be applied after the fact, by using thorough critique as a basis for new argument. The idea of critique is elemental to legal, aesthetic, and literary theory and such practices, such as in the analysis and evaluation of writings such as pictorial, musical, or expanded textual works.
"

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 27 November 2013 - 09:19 AM.


#87 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 27 November 2013 - 09:43 AM

View PostLupus Aurelius, on 27 November 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

snip


lol again, you stated everythign all over again just to prove my opinion wrong.

I use laser boats
I'm successful in laser boats
I beat AC mechs
I kill AC mechs
I am an effective pilot in energy boats

Those are facts

Laser boats suck
Nobody can do as well in energy boats as ballistic mechs
Ballistics are OP
AC mechs are better than energy boats

Those are opinions

Ghost heat destroyed energy boats- Opinion
Ghost heat limits the ability to boat and alpha strike weapons and requires more firing discipline - Fact

ACs are better than laser - Opinion
ACs have pinpoint damage but require trade-offs of weight, slots, ammo, ammo explosions, hit or miss dynamic as tradeoffs for pinpoint damage - Fact

ACs are better then Lasers because of Ghost Heat - Opinion
ACs and Lasers are affected by Ghost Heat in the same manner - Fact

#88 Lupus Aurelius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 509 posts
  • LocationHarlech, Outreach

Posted 29 November 2013 - 09:10 AM

View PostSandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

I use laser boats
I'm successful in laser boats
I beat AC mechs
I kill AC mechs
I am an effective pilot in energy boats

Those are facts


No, that's subjective opinion. It's called anecdotal - not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

View PostSandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:


Laser boats suck
Nobody can do as well in energy boats as ballistic mechs
Ballistics are OP
AC mechs are better than energy boats

Those are opinions

-The first item is an opinion.
-The second item, based on the math, is true from a statistical point of view. Given the same amount of time, 15minutes per match, a ballistic heavy mech vs a energy heavy mech can outperform significantly. On average, ballistic heavy builds do up to twice the damage, on average, and half the heat, on average, than energy only builds.
-The third item is an informed opinion based on the concept of balance - a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.
-The forth item, based on the math, is true from a statistical point of view and potential damage output during a limited engagement. It does not factor in pilot personal skills or tactical situations Given the same amount of time, 15 minutes per match, a ballistic heavy mech vs a energy heavy mech can outperform significantly. On average, ballistic heavy builds do up to twice the damage, on average, and half the heat, on average, than energy only builds.

View PostSandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Ghost heat destroyed energy boats- Opinion
Ghost heat limits the ability to boat and alpha strike weapons and requires more firing discipline - Fact


-First item is an opinion, but not really an accurate reporting of what is being said. A more accurate portrayal would be that the current heat mechanics, and balancing by heat and additional mechanisms like ghost heat, has created an inbalance between ballistics heavy mechs and energy heavy mechs.
-The second item is a fact, however, you neglect to add that it effects energy weapons far more severely than ballistic weapons. getting quad ac5s on a mech is nigh unto impossible, but getting 4 LL is. So the ghost heat penalties are really specifically targeted at energy weapons.

View PostSandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

ACs are better than laser - Opinion
ACs have pinpoint damage but require trade-offs of weight, slots, ammo, ammo explosions, hit or miss dynamic as tradeoffs for pinpoint damage - Fact

-First point, is fact, not opinion. Better - More advantageous or favorable; improved (ie: a better chance of success). Ballistics fire on average 1.33 times faster with an average of 1.26 times more damage, than energy weapons. If you ratio the differences to bring them in line, in the 2.36 average firing time, energy weapons average 4.76 damage, vs 8.39 of ballistics. Thats half the damage in the same amount of time, on average. Heat is approximately half that of energy weapons, on average. So twice the damage at half the heat, on average, would rate ballistics as having a higher performance potential, or rather, a better performance potential.
-Second point is inaccurate due to actual useage in game.
  • They have less criticals and less weight when you figure in DHS criticals to run energy weapons. In order to even run 1 ERPPC you are going to have 4 engine external DHS, that adds 4 tons and 12 criticals to that weapon, making it 15 criticals at 11 tons.
  • Ammo is not a consideration due to match time, 15 minutes. 3 tons of ammo on any ballistic equals 450 damage potential, a dual ballistic build thus had a damage potential of up to 900 damage, vs 12 opponents, during that 15 minutes. If matches were longer or teams larger, running out of ammo would be a consideration, but currently, it hardly factors in unless you spam fire everywhere.
  • Ammo explosions - will only happen if there is no armor to protect the ammo, which will only happen if you are standing out in the open letting everyone hit you, or if you get flanked or overrun hard, in which case you are going to die anyway, regardless of the ammo exploding.
  • Hit or miss dynamic - this applies to every weapons, so it's not a unique consideration as a ballastic "disadvantage"

View PostSandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:



ACs are better then Lasers because of Ghost Heat - Opinion
ACs and Lasers are affected by Ghost Heat in the same manner - Fact

-First point, ballistics are less effected by ghost heat than energy weapons, therefore it is a fact, not opinion. However, it is not because of ghost heat solely, but because of the heat systems and porting heat dissipation rates from BT but increasing weapons firing speeds for 2.5 times faster to 19 times faster than BT. Low heat weapons are less effected by this than high heat weapons, making them more sustainable in longer engagements.
-Second point, not a fact, false. Due to the difference between heat levels in ballistics and energy weapons, the penalties are more severe for energy weapons, therefore ghost heat does not effect them equally.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 29 November 2013 - 09:14 AM.


#89 Almond Brown

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 5,851 posts

Posted 29 November 2013 - 12:07 PM

View Post***** n stuff, on 26 November 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

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.


With just 2 tons, if the Match went 15 minutes and you survived, you could not even shoot your AC20 once per minute and not run out. ;)

How much ammo to carry is a very variable variable. B) Running out totally sucks, but as you noted, having way to much, just burdens other areas of a build that could have better used the tonnage.

#90 Satan n stuff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 3,508 posts
  • LocationLooking right at you, lining up my shot.

Posted 30 November 2013 - 01:26 AM

View PostAlmond Brown, on 29 November 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:


With just 2 tons, if the Match went 15 minutes and you survived, you could not even shoot your AC20 once per minute and not run out. ;)

True, but you don't shoot it once per minute, you shoot it at every good target you can until you run out, and if you use the lasers whenever possible by the time you run out you'll have dealt enough damage to kill several mechs, or just one if your aim is really bad. Keep placing those shots where it matters and soon enough there won't be an enemy team to shoot, regardless of whether or not you're able to finish them yourself.

#91 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 30 November 2013 - 01:52 AM

One thing to consider regarding ammo is: How much damage do you actually need, and how well do you hit usually?

An Atlas is the hardest possible target to kill, with the most armor points and internal structure on the battlefield.
If I have enough ammo that, even considering my general accuracy, I can core an Atlas, I already have a good chance of being a contributor to my team, assuming that on average, every player needs to bring damage to kill one enemy. If you have enough ammo to reasonably kill one enemy mech, you basically can cover what you need to cover, unless you need to actually compensate for someone performing extremely poorly. You probably want a bit of a safety net, and bring enough ammo to kill 2-3 mechs.


Incidentally, I believe I bring around 700 points worth of AC/20 ammo on my Jagermech, with my 63 % accuracy it should allow me to deal around 441 damage. So I could core about 2.3 Atlai (assuming every shot that hits hits the CT, which it likely won't)

In my experience, this is sufficient. The mech I usually drove this loadout with has an average damage of 311 per match, which might fit with taking shots beyond normal range and the fact that I lose, and actually sometimes still have ammo left at the end of a match. (the earlier I die, the more ammo remains unspent, of course.)

It doesn't really matter if our matches are 15 minutes long or 30 minute long. As long as the most common way to end a match is the complete destruction of the enemy team, all that matters is how much damage you need to inflict to achieve that.

If there was a game mode with reeinforcements or field repairs, and winning was not achieved by mere destruction of the enemy team, dragging the fight out for longer, then this becomes more dynamic and the amount of ammo you need could change coniderably. (Of course, if you allow field repairs or respawns but no reloads, things get deliberately imbalanced against ammo-based weapons.)

#92 Whatzituyah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 1,236 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationIn a dark corner waiting to alpha strike his victim.

Posted 01 December 2013 - 07:37 PM

Posted Image

This has turned out to be a bigger arguement then I can handle one side says one thing the other says another.

#93 Sug

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 4,629 posts
  • LocationChicago

Posted 01 December 2013 - 07:41 PM

View PostWhatzituyah, on 23 November 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Ignore my grammer and spelling errors I am sorry cannot understand.


You were able to master enough of the idiosyncrasies of the English language to come up with the name Whatzituyah but for some reason you can't put your thoughts into complete sentences?

#94 Whatzituyah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 1,236 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationIn a dark corner waiting to alpha strike his victim.

Posted 01 December 2013 - 07:45 PM

View PostSug, on 01 December 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:


You were able to master enough of the idiosyncrasies of the English language to come up with the name Whatzituyah but for some reason you can't put your thoughts into complete sentences?


My English has been rusty for awhile "Just because I dont type online very much" I need a dictionary or thesaurus on my table to keep me on track.

Besides I meant to say "I am sorry you cannot understand"

Edited by Whatzituyah, 01 December 2013 - 07:48 PM.






31 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 31 guests, 0 anonymous users