25 replies to this topic

[Roland]

sneeking, on 09 December 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

dude , we are very close.

except I wedged xl350 in and went streaks.

nice one

Running an XL in a centurion is generally a terrible idea.

[Damocles69]

Meta builds>non meta builds.

The math behind them is just outright better. There is a reason why competive 12 mans will always use meta friendly builds on those mech. Having more of the best build gives you a better chance to win. In the competive circle you can't afford to have less optimized mech than your oppenet. You will lose

[Alaskan Nobody]

Damocles69, on 10 January 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

The math behind them is just outright better.

Part of the problem I am having is no one is SHOWING the maths - they just say "See? Higher ALPHA!!!!" and proceed to ignore/mock those who ask for more info.

IE the aproach people would have taken from WoW would have been something like:
40 point alpha that takes 3.9 seconds to fire off (exposure + beam duration + speed of mech to get back in cover + whatever else) vs 19 point alpha that takes 1.8 secons vs....
The would have worked on all those little fiddly bits - broken it down by map and the like (We may not be able to chose maps, but we can still work out what areas work well for what builds and the like)

People used to do that (IE - Atlas build X works best if you stick to F9-Q23 area of river city and d98-m42 area of forest colony - coordinates made up obviously) but they do not anymore - and there IS more depth to the game than the "guides" show - maybe not at the absolute top tier, but here in the mid-low tiers definitely.

That make sense?

[Mercworks]

When I first started, I liked the single weapon mechs. Now that there's a diversity of maps and mechs, I like fighting mixed weapon mechs. My favorite is LRMs with AC20 backup.

[Trauglodyte]

Damocles69, on 10 January 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

Meta builds>non meta builds. The math behind them is just outright better. There is a reason why competive 12 mans will always use meta friendly builds on those mech. Having more of the best build gives you a better chance to win. In the competive circle you can't afford to have less optimized mech than your oppenet. You will lose

Nobody is arguing that the meta builds aren't the best. Just like nobody is saying that XL engines on mechs other than Lights isn't anything but a death sentence.

What the OP is saying that, outside of the Meta, being balanced provides a lot of benefits. And, for quite a lot of the Mech Warriors out there, they fail greatly at trying to replicate the Meta (we've all seen them try and fail). I run an LRM5 on my meta Victor simply because most people still fear LRMs and never bother to look at how many are incoming or who around them has AMS. So, it provides me a good way of keeping a target pinned down through Bitching Betty fear while I move around to a better location. Running a non-meta build also allows people to have fun when they're PUGing. The overall purpose of this game is to have fun and winning is fun. But, a lot of people confuse which is best.



PS> The RHoD finals between Steel Jaguars and Swords of Kintares clearly showed that a single Highlander switched out for even a 733P with PPCs and LRMs would have been much more beneficial than all of them running PPCs and AC5s. Sometimes it isn't about the damage you do but how you force your enemy to move.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 10 January 2014 - 01:45 PM.

[Bagheera]

Shar Wolf, on 10 January 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

That make sense?

In a game like WoW, where you have to completely deplete your opponents pool of hit points to defeat them, that approach makes sense.

Here it does not, because you can destroy a mech by depleting only part of it's total health value. For standard engine mechs this means the CT armor + internals. For XL mechs that is ST armor + internals. Both of those are the fastest way to destroy an enemy mech. (Barring headshots, natch. If, dear reader, you can reliably headshot mechs on a routine basis, you need no advice from little old me)

Also, in a game like WoW, you tab select a target and then you are damaging them. Here you have to aim each individual shot. As much as people want to examine combat in the same mathematical way (more DPS == automatically better) they are only seeing part of the picture.

It doesn't matter if X number of Y weapons produces more damage over Z time than your opponent, if Z is greater than the time it takes your opponent using alpha striking (front loaded damage) to destroy your CT or ST (as appropriate). As player skill (ability to position, aim, and coordinate) increases, the disparity between the front loaded approach and the DPS approach becomes more apparent.

This is why no one is sitting down and using math to explain why the "40 point alpha" is dominant, even if it takes X seconds (to cooldown) and in that time weapons A, B, and C can theoretically put out more damage/sec but take 12-24 seconds to surpass the total damage number of the front loaded weapons. And all of this is before accounting for damage spread, defensive twisting, and combined fire.


---

All of that is to say that the reason you don't see so much fiddly damage math as a rationalization is that the math required isn't as straight forward as "X damage" in "Y time."

Edited by Bagheera, 10 January 2014 - 02:07 PM.