1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 10 January 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

You may be better at SRMs than ACs, and that is great for you. I'm pretty sure Sandpit is a snap shot with lasers, too. Neither of those mean that FLD isn't better as a damage system, though. You keep using the Jagers weaknesses as reasons why FLD isn't an issue, when the chassis has nothing to do with it - the Jäger has the same weaknesses regardless of build, and it would be willing to bet there aren't many SRM boating Jagers out there right now... That should tell you which system is better with that particular mech.


I agree, it is very subjective to the situation at hand.


If they increase the rate of fire and decrease the damage per hit, shake should be reduced relative to those. I'm not complaining about the current shake, just responding to what would be needed IF the ACs had a firing rate change.


Testing in a controlled environment is important for certain situations, and this was one of them. In OPTIMAL conditions, the SRM takes much longer to kill a target than an AC. In less than optimal conditions, the difference is even more significant, because the AC delivers 100% of its damage to the targeted hitbox, while the SRM is going to have a much higher chance of spreading the damage due to how it is delivered.


No, it's that I won't duel you - that's two different things. If we ever meet in a match, I would be happy to see who wins, but going into a testing grounds match will only show who is the better dueler (which I will admit likely wouldn't be me).

1) If everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you? Just because people use something does not mean its better or worse, It means people are following a fad and hoping for similiar results. Most games im in I dont see many ac40 jagers doing anywhere near amazing. The reason for this is the numbers in game dont add up to actual damage and useability.

Now if you want to argue the ac20 in general I would still say pound for pound srm are better just because of the overall advantages. That said the ac20 has its place and so do the srm. It also does in fact come down to preference. However just to say FLD is amazing and the best because it is? As upposed to testing it in game against other mechs and in numerous situations is not a good study.

2) We agree on something! All is not lost! Though honestly I truly am happy we can have these talks and stay civil. Kinda nice. I actually am not getting anoyed debating these points

3) It would depend I guess, more testing maybe? They may even change the module... Im not even gonna foot another guess there, too speculative.

4) Depends on what ranges. At closer ranges the srm wins, shorter cooldown more damage long as you can get it all in one area. You also are taking out the fact that the combined weight of 2 srm 6 (with artemis) is 8 tons. where as the ac20 is 14 tons. thats a 6 ton difference that I think is decent to pay for for pin point damage (if you value it that highly) where as the kill potential still remains strong with the srm. That said Im not home yet but im gonna go into game once I go home to provide some shots (3 hour eta).

5) Dude im not asking for a duel. Im asking to test things? As I said my clan has been testing srms lately for hit detection issues and often will stand to the side in matches to explore viability and test in different scenarios. It has nothing to do with skill. It has everything to do with firing weapons in different situations at different targets from various ranges with torso twisting and such in play. its janky but it still works and helps to figure things out.

Cimarb, on 10 January 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

I agree - it is a cheesy build, and one I use just for the fun of it to see how many kills I can rack up before dying. I'm one of those horrible pilots, lol!

I'm not going to get into an argument about jäger builds, though - that was the opposite of what I wanted. You can use the HGN/Victor as better examples, if you want, since they are the reason for the Gauss nerf, AC20 velocity nerf, etc.

Regardless of chassis, FLD is a significantly better system for applying damage than spread or duration - that is the issue. It is complicated by convergence, jump sniping, hitboxes, and many other factors, but FLD is the root issue of all of them.

I take issue. Ive tested this and srm and medium laser or srm and quick firing autocannon beat the same chasis that has equipped front load damage.

The variable is the range of engagement and reaching that point.

The variable is then the ability to not take damage incoming or at least not constantly. IE Jump capability and viability. In close SRM are much better then front load since ppc are completely taken out of the equaction in those mechs and your left with one ac20 vs alot more firepower then you can manage.

Mawai, on 10 January 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Well - I took the JM6-A with 4ASRM6 and 2 LL out for a spin ... it was a fun build and I will try it again. It is not as effective as the 4xAC5 JM6-S ... but I haven't found anything as effective as that yet ... even the vaunted AC40.

Also, I have to admit that out of at least a couple of hundred games in various Jaegermechs ... the number of times I have lost an arm rather than the side torso is very small ... most folks hold their fire when you torso twist until you start to twist back and then hit the side torso in the hopes that you have an XL engine.

The advantage of the AC40 over the 2 LL + 4ASRM6 is pinpoint damage. I think that is all anyone has really said. The AC40 will do 40 points of damage to one specific mech segment while the other combination (which can be very effective as well) will spread the damage (both over time with the lasers and through spread from the SRMs).

ive heard good things about the 4ac2 but I cant deal with running something that heat inefficient myself.

[Mawai]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

4) testing outside of combat situations is always a bad idea, sorry but thats the basis for the vast majority of my arguments since numbers in a static environment are pretty but dont usually equate well to how they will perform in a field test.

Testing in a static or dynamically repeatable environment is the only way to directly compare the weapons themselves. Everything else you mention comes down to piloting by both you and your opponent.

Making comparisons in a combat environment requires the caveats -
- the specific weapon used by a specific player against a specific target was found to be [more/less] effective

- the same or different weapons used by different players against other opponents might be found by that player to be [more/less] effective

Your entire argument is: "In my experience, I find my use of ASRM6, in the groups I drop in and with the opponents I face, to be more useful and effective for me than the same mech equipped with AC40". The opinions of other players may differ and there is NO right or wrong answer.

The only hard numbers are in the comparison of the basic weapon functionality ... ASRM6 spreads damage over much more of the target than an AC20 ... under equivalent static conditions an AC40 will eliminate an opponent in fewer shots than an ASRM6. An AC40 has a longer effective range than an ASRM6. The DPS and tonnage advantages go to the ASRM6.

Both can be good weapons in the right circumstances in the hands of a good pilot.

[Varent]

Mawai, on 10 January 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

Testing in a static or dynamically repeatable environment is the only way to directly compare the weapons themselves. Everything else you mention comes down to piloting by both you and your opponent.

Making comparisons in a combat environment requires the caveats -
- the specific weapon used by a specific player against a specific target was found to be [more/less] effective

- the same or different weapons used by different players against other opponents might be found by that player to be [more/less] effective

Your entire argument is: "In my experience, I find my use of ASRM6, in the groups I drop in and with the opponents I face, to be more useful and effective for me than the same mech equipped with AC40". The opinions of other players may differ and there is NO right or wrong answer.

The only hard numbers are in the comparison of the basic weapon functionality ... ASRM6 spreads damage over much more of the target than an AC20 ... under equivalent static conditions an AC40 will eliminate an opponent in fewer shots than an ASRM6. An AC40 has a longer effective range than an ASRM6. The DPS and tonnage advantages go to the ASRM6.

Both can be good weapons in the right circumstances in the hands of a good pilot.

Well said.

This being the case why does no one want to do in game testing and create scenarios and actually try this... there cant be no one else that actually wants to test out these things in a multitude of scenarios?

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

Well said.

This being the case why does no one want to do in game testing and create scenarios and actually try this... there cant be no one else that actually wants to test out these things in a multitude of scenarios?

Well, if we're allowed we could try a 1 VS 1 while they do their thing (assuming they allow us to):
http://mwomercs.com/...osition-14-jan/

I might not be able to do it myself depending how late it's happening. But, one person takes an AC40, you take your SRM24 and decide how to go about starting it.

Of course, any 12 man sync drop would work, this one might be easy to attend and it's coming up soon.

My AC40s always have an STD engine, which helps survive, since they normally go for a ST. Although I do prefer other builds, this thing is certainly effective in its brawling niche. Haven't taken it out since the speed nerf though.

Edited by Mcgral18, 10 January 2014 - 02:13 PM.

[Cimarb]

Mawai, on 10 January 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

Testing in a static or dynamically repeatable environment is the only way to directly compare the weapons themselves. Everything else you mention comes down to piloting by both you and your opponent.

Making comparisons in a combat environment requires the caveats -
- the specific weapon used by a specific player against a specific target was found to be [more/less] effective

- the same or different weapons used by different players against other opponents might be found by that player to be [more/less] effective

Your entire argument is: "In my experience, I find my use of ASRM6, in the groups I drop in and with the opponents I face, to be more useful and effective for me than the same mech equipped with AC40". The opinions of other players may differ and there is NO right or wrong answer.

The only hard numbers are in the comparison of the basic weapon functionality ... ASRM6 spreads damage over much more of the target than an AC20 ... under equivalent static conditions an AC40 will eliminate an opponent in fewer shots than an ASRM6. An AC40 has a longer effective range than an ASRM6. The DPS and tonnage advantages go to the ASRM6.

Both can be good weapons in the right circumstances in the hands of a good pilot.

Very well said.

I'm not saying other builds aren't good, and I feel like a broken record about this, nor that there aren't pros and cons to all weapons, chassis and loadouts, but I am saying that POINT FOR POINT, FLD is far better than either spread or duration damage systems and needs to be looked into. No testing needs to be done to establish that, as we have already proved it with data from the game. The only testing that needs done is how to address that problem, be it with burst, convergence, CoF, or whatever else.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 10 January 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

Well, if we're allowed we could try a 1 VS 1 while they do their thing (assuming they allow us to):
http://mwomercs.com/...osition-14-jan/

I might not be able to do it myself depending how late it's happening. But, one person takes an AC40, you take your SRM24 and decide how to go about starting it.

Of course, any 12 man sync drop would work, this one might be easy to attend and it's coming up soon.

My AC40s always have an STD engine, which helps survive, since they normally go for a ST. Although I do prefer other builds, this thing is certainly effective in its brawling niche. Haven't taken it out since the speed nerf though.

same name in game? ill add ya and we can test some stuff. When 1 v 1 comes out I know that will be devoted to alot of testing though thats still a wish and a prayer and im making a point to not get my hopes up anymore on pgi. Id rather be happily surprised then let down again.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 10 January 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Very well said.

Same argument FLD is better.

Same argument, many other weapon types are better depending on the situation. All have there place, strengths and weaknesses. None are dominant.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

same name in game? ill add ya and we can test some stuff. When 1 v 1 comes out I know that will be devoted to alot of testing though thats still a wish and a prayer and im making a point to not get my hopes up anymore on pgi. Id rather be happily surprised then let down again.

Yes, same name. I frequent the Comstar NA TS3, if that helps as well. It might make organizing easier.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Same argument, many other weapon types are better depending on the situation. All have there place, strengths and weaknesses. None are dominant.

Not true. If every weapon did FLD, your statement would be true that none are dominant. If an ERLL did FLD, it would be equivalent to an AC10 (roughly). If an LRM20 did FLD, it would be equivalent to an AC20. As it is, they are not. Duration and spread damage are both inferior to FLD, with pros and cons making them roughly equivalent to each other depending on situation.

A PPC and a LL are not equivalent. While a LPL is closer to a PPC in damage delivery, the PPC is still better. If you have 10 points of damage, it is always better to apply that 10 points to a single spot rather than several spots - always.

FLD is not as noticeable with smaller weapons because you get to a point where they are doing the same amount of damage in the same manner. When the weapon only does 2 points of damage, it doesn't really matter how it is applied. Even 5 points of damage isn't a huge deal, but when you get up to 10+ points in a single trigger pull, FLD starts making a huge difference.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 10 January 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

Not true. If every weapon did FLD, your statement would be true that none are dominant. If an ERLL did FLD, it would be equivalent to an AC10 (roughly). If an LRM20 did FLD, it would be equivalent to an AC20. As it is, they are not. Duration and spread damage are both inferior to FLD, with pros and cons making them roughly equivalent to each other depending on situation.

A PPC and a LL are not equivalent. While a LPL is closer to a PPC in damage delivery, the PPC is still better. If you have 10 points of damage, it is always better to apply that 10 points to a single spot rather than several spots - always.

FLD is not as noticeable with smaller weapons because you get to a point where they are doing the same amount of damage in the same manner. When the weapon only does 2 points of damage, it doesn't really matter how it is applied. Even 5 points of damage isn't a huge deal, but when you get up to 10+ points in a single trigger pull, FLD starts making a huge difference.

its the same argument. different weapons have there uses. FLD weapons have drawbacks and benefits just as every other weapon in the game does.

Could some weapons use some tweaks? sure.

Should we take out FLD. No.

[Tombstoner]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

nggghhh....

can we just all agree to leave TT rules and numbers and real life comparisons out of this game?

Its not TT and it most certainly has very little to do with RL.

Its a video game shooter simulation.

Nope....

Its a video game shooter simulation of..... a science fiction world, but using game mechanics that are magical: accuracy and ghost heat. Those same mechanics have been cited multiple times as being at the root of many of this games balance issues/ limitations.

Are we walking around in mechs or iron golems ....
Are we using PPC's or casting lighting bolts at each other.....

Cant we agree to keep the game clean of magic and base as much of the game/ how to fix it on some abstraction of science

[Varent]

Tombstoner, on 10 January 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

Nope....

Its a video game shooter simulation of..... a science fiction world, but using game mechanics that are magical: accuracy and ghost heat. Those same mechanics have been cited multiple times as being at the root of many of this games balance issues/ limitations.

Are we walking around in mechs or iron golems ....
Are we using PPC's or casting lighting bolts at each other.....

Cant we agree to keep the game clean of magic and base as much of the game/ how to fix it on some abstraction of science

So much for the joys of sci-FANTASY....

*headdesk*

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

Customer feedback entails sending a message to customer support or writing a nice detailed letter. I know this because (gasp) ive seen responses to those directly a few times now and seen nice feedback back and forth.

Posting on a forum and complaining and raging (mostly) while using examples about how item(a) ruins item( for you in game without providing any reasoning besides "I dont like it" is not feedback. That is called "complaining".

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the developer feedback I'm getting by posting on the forums.

[Varent]

lockwoodx, on 10 January 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the developer feedback I'm getting by posting on the forums.

I have yet to see any dev post in the balancing thread for any type of actual feedback for any extended period of time. That said im not surprised since, "The rage is strong here" Though kudos on getting some feedback elsewhere. *thumbs up*

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

"The rage DERP is strong here"

Fixed that for ya

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Sandpit, on 10 January 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

Fixed that for ya

Spampit strikes again!

[Rhent]

Only 52 pages on the topic. Good thing Piranha isn't reading the forums, even if they decided to reply they'd hire the former Iraqi minister of disinformation.

Edited by Rhent, 11 January 2014 - 01:22 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sandpit, on 10 January 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Most "op" threads come about because someone got rolled by a specific weapon being fired in a coordinated effort by a decent team working together. AC20 is fearsome. Getting hit by 2, 3, or 4 at once? Your mech melts. That's why I usually argue about the whole "op" thing. If a single weapon is not "op" then it doesn't magically become "op" just because you got hit by a few of them

This is a common stance, but I always doubt that, because when I talk about balance, I am not talking about what last killed me. I am trying to see what is going on the field and getting whatever data and data analysis I can make to see what is happening. There isn't always much, and sometimes you have to get really inventive to make analysis happen, but it's not just a gut feeling, and I at least used to learn new stuff to consider over time.

Maybe most people really only cry because they died to something. But since that's not how I am doing it, so I don't presume this as the default. I don't think you can have any constructive discussion if you just think everyone is just in it so his personal build gets buffed and each counter build is nerfed.

[Varent]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 January 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

This is a common stance, but I always doubt that, because when I talk about balance, I am not talking about what last killed me. I am trying to see what is going on the field and getting whatever data and data analysis I can make to see what is happening. There isn't always much, and sometimes you have to get really inventive to make analysis happen, but it's not just a gut feeling, and I at least used to learn new stuff to consider over time.

Maybe most people really only cry because they died to something. But since that's not how I am doing it, so I don't presume this as the default. I don't think you can have any constructive discussion if you just think everyone is just in it so his personal build gets buffed and each counter build is nerfed.

I believe he said MOST, not ALL. Wich I agree most of the time that is honestly the case and most people tend to argue against what kills them and what they personally dont like.

[Sandpit]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 January 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

This is a common stance, but I always doubt that, because when I talk about balance, I am not talking about what last killed me. I am trying to see what is going on the field and getting whatever data and data analysis I can make to see what is happening. There isn't always much, and sometimes you have to get really inventive to make analysis happen, but it's not just a gut feeling, and I at least used to learn new stuff to consider over time.

Maybe most people really only cry because they died to something. But since that's not how I am doing it, so I don't presume this as the default. I don't think you can have any constructive discussion if you just think everyone is just in it so his personal build gets buffed and each counter build is nerfed.

MOST not all

Take a look at all of the "op" threads (my personal favorites are the LRMs and Gauss that have popped up over the last couple of days) MOST of them are not constructive nor are they even legitimate (in my eyes anyhow)
They equate to "I derped out on to the map and (insert weapon here) rained down on me from 3-4 different mechs.
LRMs for example.
"I got hit by a few hundred LRMs raining down on me from a few mechs and died fairly quickly. They need to be nerfed" That's NOT an "op" weapon. That's the reason you never go full derp. When a discussion on here turns constructive I contribute as much as I can in a constructive way and give my thoughts.
But MOST are not as constructive as this one has turned out.