121 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

*reason* Depends how much of a true to lore feel that you want and an actual return investment on what you payed for the mech.

http://www.sarna.net...tleMech#Assault

Quote

Assault 'Mechs are the heaviest regular class of BattleMechs, weighing in between 80 and 100 tons. Some of these huge 'Mechs can mount up to 50 tons of weapons as well as very thick armor protection. They can project tremendous firepower, and perform best as the spearhead of frontal assaults or in defending entrenched positions. The trade-off is in speed and maneuverability, as assault 'Mechs are generally very slow. As such, they often require friendly units to protect them from being outmaneuvered. Assault 'Mechs are typically used as command units, heavy assault platforms, and in fire-support roles, but due to their prohibitive costs and limited production, they actually make up only a small fraction of all BattleMechs.

12.7 Mil Cbills: Raven 3L Build

for two pilots = x2 = "25.4 Mil Cbills" (excluding potentially further expensive module costs.)

14.7 Mil Cbills: HGN-733C Build

QED

Edited by Noesis, 02 January 2014 - 05:26 PM.

[Mcgral18]

SirLANsalot, on 02 January 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

That statement I made about the PPC/Gauss was an example of what to do when you come across some so called "meta". Think of WHY people are using that, and then think of ways to BEAT that way of thinking. You will become a better player for it.

...The problem is the most effective method is to take an AC20 or (2) 5's along with two PPCs to core out their side torso, since it delivers all that damage on one component...Frontloaded master race of the weapons.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 02 January 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...tleMech#Assault



12.7 Mil Cbills

for two pilots = x2 = 25.4 Mil Cbills excluding potentially further expensive module costs.

14.7 Mil Cbills

QED

outmaneuvered does not mean dieing to a light mech. very different.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

outmaneuvered does not mean dieing to a light mech. very different.

Then why would protection be needed?

[Varent]

Flanking maneuvers . General combat. Getting caught out in the open. Same reason normal tanks are often hiven escorts in todays times. That daid the tank has a massive cannon that does direct fire damage to defend itself now and then. Your wanting to take away the cannon

[Noesis]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

Your wanting to take away the cannon

More creative projections from Varent. Not indicating anything of the sort.

Roles and Interplay, roles and interplay, the assault has a purpose and its strengths and weaknesses.

(Tip: When your in a hole stop digging, but at least don't dig so deep you could potentially drown from your own bovine excrement.)

[Varent]

Noesis, on 02 January 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

More creative projections from Varent. Not indicating anything of the sort.

Roles and Interplay, roles and interplay, the assault has a purpose and its strengths and weaknesses.

(Tip: When your in a hole stop digging, but at least don't dig so deep you could potentially drown from your own bovine excrement.)

Not really, you have stated multiple times in many posts your basically trying to do that. But nice try with the determent good sir.

[colsan]

Dock Steward, on 02 January 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

There was this suggestion:



But your reply was basically, none of those weapons work. I'm sorry, I'm never one to lower myself to the "L2P" response, but practice might be what you need in this situation. I mean that with absolutely no snark.

You're telling me to learn to play, with weapons THAT LITERALLY WILL NOT FIRE IN THE SITUATION I KEEP RUNNING INTO. How many times do I need to repeat this: BAP is not an effective counter, they just get 2 ECM mechs and run together.

Dock Steward, on 02 January 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

Do you know the trick with walking backwards to screw up their circle of death? Quite an effective counter-tactic...

No, because those 1500 matches were all since yesterday, and my win/loss ratio is >1 out of pure luck /sarcasm

Of course, that tactic also worked a lot better when the top speed was capped at ~130kph; at 150, it doesn't work so well.

But so be it: You have convinced me; I just need 2 or 3 friends, all of us in light ECM mechs, preferably 2d commandos so we cal load up on streaks, and we'll just abuse the **** out of it.

Gonna be an awfully boring game with everyone doing that, though.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

Not really, you have stated multiple times in many posts your basically trying to do that. But nice try with the determent good sir.

If anything I have gone out of my way to suggest that balance corrections should make roles as having an effective purpose and that modifications should not eliminate any meta but allow things to have more diversity by allowing other and more meta to be as viable. I have even stated specifically in other posts that corrections to dominant meta should not eliminate that Meta in the process. This has been a consistent message.

Next fabrication?

[Sharknoms]

colsan, on 02 January 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

You're telling me to learn to play, with weapons THAT LITERALLY WILL NOT FIRE IN THE SITUATION I KEEP RUNNING INTO. How many times do I need to repeat this: BAP is not an effective counter, they just get 2 ECM mechs and run together.






No, because those 1500 matches were all since yesterday, and my win/loss ratio is >1 out of pure luck /sarcasm

Of course, that tactic also worked a lot better when the top speed was capped at ~130kph; at 150, it doesn't work so well.

But so be it: You have convinced me; I just need 2 or 3 friends, all of us in light ECM mechs, preferably 2d commandos so we cal load up on streaks, and we'll just abuse the **** out of it.

Gonna be an awfully boring game with everyone doing that, though.

Nope you don't need friends, but it helps.
Oh and:
Pro Tip: Stick with the team.

[Mister Blastman]

SirLANsalot, on 02 January 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

watch the videos, and learn.

I think I know... slightly more about this game than you do. Slightly. Just a hunch.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 02 January 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

If anything I have gone out of my way to suggest that balance corrections should make roles as having an effective purpose and that modifications should not eliminate any meta but allow things to have more diversity by allowing other and more meta to be as viable. I have even stated specifically in other posts that corrections to dominant meta should not eliminate that Meta in the process. This has been a consistent message.

Next fabrication?

and yet your changes would elminate several playstyles, builds, and concepts.

Not even close to a fabrication, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 02 January 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

BAP stop a single ECM within around 150M, longer with Adv sensor range.

Advanced Sensor Range doesn't affect the effect of BAP's "ECM counter".

I do think it helps with picking up the ECM user though, but not by much.

[Praehotec8]

I do think there is a problem when two 30 ton mechs can easily overpower an assault mech that has a 20+ ton weight advantage. In the lore, two lights would still get reamed by an assault, and easily. I do understand that the game has little else but combat, so even lights ought to be viable...but, I think they ought to be relegated to being dangerous (unless in overwhelming numbers) largely to light and medium opponents, or against opponents of vastly different skill level.

It is telling that the general gameplay rule is: "speed is life," for all classes of mechs. Speed > Armor in this game, which is a problem with the balance. The most durable tanks in the game are the assaults, but who is often left at the end on the losing team? The atlas or the spider? I would argue that most assault pilots struggle more against lights than other assaults, at least in the mid-tier ELO ratings.

That being said, Colsan, lights rarely are deadly for a decent heavy or assault pilot if the larger mech plays well. ACs are (IMO) the best at killing lights. One or two well-placed larger caliber AC shots to the leg and the light is effectively dead. Missiles would be great if hit reg. was better. Lasers are trickier, but if you find them difficult (tracking lights with my joystick is rough!), consider pulse lasers (people poo-poo them but played well, they are quite effective).

Often I don't even bother to kill them, as my assault's firepower is often best used elsewhere. I just drive them off and return to what I was doing before. If your team (or at least lance) is near, most of the time lights or mediums better suited to anti-light duty will engage them leaving your heavy mech to do what it does best: wreck other heavies. Usually there is no need to engage in a prolonged duel vs. lights. Now a multi-mech wolfpack is another issue, but you need to have friends/teammates with you or you lose regardless (but 4v1 is a death-sentence anytime).

[Noesis]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

and yet your changes would elminate several playstyles, builds, and concepts.

Not even close to a fabrication, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

More fantasy, maybe go to bed yourself as these day dreams are simply amazing.

You know I have suggested small subtle changes to correct differences that will help to encourage more diversity. In fact taking a more measured approach to "avoid paradigm shifts" (mentioned more than once) with suggesting making refinements or tweaks to existing mechanics as opposed to a dramatic change.

This again for the very reason to try and avoid simply creating new dominant FOTM or simply destabalising things but trying to offer more choice by equivalence in the various roles. This is the very reason for the measured approach.

Next assumption/projection/strawman/stalker like statement please? Don't ask for clarification of course, please tell me how I think based on the fantasy going on in your head.

Edited by Noesis, 02 January 2014 - 07:03 PM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 02 January 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

More fantasy, maybe go to bed yourself as these day dreams are simply amazing.

You know I have suggested small subtle changes to correct differences that will help to encourage more diversity. In fact taking a more measured approach to "avoid paradigm shifts" (mentioned more than once) with suggesting making refinements or tweaks to existing mechanics as opposed to a dramatic change.

This again for the very reason to try and avoid simply creating new dominant FOTM or simply destabalising things but trying to offer more choice by equivalence in the various roles. This is the very reason for the measured approach.

Next assumption/projection/strawman/stalker like statement please? Don't ask for clarification of course, please tell me how I think based of the fantasy going on in your head.

As Ive said, your changes would completely take a section of the gamers out of this game. I dont really feel I need to say more. I have commented on it repeatedly and explained and you have counterexplained and we have butted heads on every single thread to date with the exception of like... 2... maybe.

If your comfortable completely ruining this game for a large section of people and eliminating weapons from use as well as overpowering light mechs then you just go right on ahead :3

[SirLANsalot]

Mister Blastman, on 02 January 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

I think I know... slightly more about this game than you do. Slightly. Just a hunch.

This game? As in MWO? Because your posts show otherwise. If you mean BT, then I don't give a flying monkey because that means NOTHING here in this game as to how it partanes to it balance. Game is based on, but not is, battletech for i care not whatever knowledge you may think you know of BT or TT.

As from your profile it seems your more akin to being a forum troll and luker then an actual player of the game. It also seems you are more of the problem then the solution to game-play balance. Which is what I was originally posting about, how to help players become the SOLUTION rather then propagate a game-play problem. But it seems like it fell on deaf ears and thick skulls like you.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

As Ive said, your changes would completely take a section of the gamers out of this game. I dont really feel I need to say more. I have commented on it repeatedly and explained and you have counterexplained and we have butted heads on every single thread to date with the exception of like... 2... maybe.

If your comfortable completely ruining this game for a large section of people and eliminating weapons from use as well as overpowering light mechs then you just go right on ahead :3

I will continue to endeavour to provide suggestions for gaming balance with the best applied understanding and control associated with helping to improve MWO game play and trying to ensure multiple play styles are still effectively represented.

I will also try to do this using empirical evidence and data as opposed to offering conclusions from "gut reaction", anecdotal evidence (unless of logical benefit) or merely based on subjective opinion. As to me this kind of approach to planning and design has the potential to do more harm than good than actually trying to understand the issues.

This is the reason we as a community have a forum to have a dialogue together about game balance, so I don't really need your permission anyhow.

And it is your problem if you think we "butt heads" and see it is an issue, this is your labeling not mine. I see it as a process of debate and education. I don't have to agree with anyone's opinion and rightly I can stand by my own convictions as needed. All the imagination and fabrication in the world won't prevent that, but I tire of having to justify myself to those things.

Edited by Noesis, 02 January 2014 - 07:20 PM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 02 January 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

I will continue to endeveour to provide suggestions for gaming balance with the best applied understanding and control associated with helping to improve MWO game play and trying to ensure multiple play styles are still effective represented.

I will also try to do this using empirical evidence and data as opposed to offering conclusions from "gut reaction", anecdotal evidence (unless of logical benefit) or merely based on subjective opinion. As to me this kind of approach to planning and design has the potential to do more harm than good than actually trying to understand the issues.

This is the reason we as a community have a forum to have a dialogue together about game balance, so I don't really need your permission anyhow.

And it is your problem if you think we "but heads" and see it is an issue, this is your labeling not mine. I see it as a process of debate and education. I don't have to agree with anyone's opinion and rightly I can stand by my own convictions as needed. All the imagination and fabrication in the world won't prevent that, but I tire of having to justify myself to those things.




I will continue to endeavour to provide suggestions for gaming balance with the best applied understanding and control associated with helping to improve MWO game play and trying to ensure multiple play styles are still effective represented.

I will also try to do this using empirical evidence and data as opposed to offering conclusions from "gut reaction", anecdotal evidence (unless of logical benefit) or merely based on subjective opinion. As to me this kind of approach to planning and design has the potential to do more harm than good than actually trying to understand the issues.

This is the reason we as a community have a forum to have a dialogue together about game balance, so I don't really need your permission anyhow.

And it is your problem if you think we "but heads" and see it is an issue, this is your labeling not mine. I see it as a process of debate and education. I don't have to agree with anyone's opinion and rightly I can stand by my own convictions as needed. All the imagination and fabrication in the world won't prevent that, but I tire of having to justify myself to those things.

And just as you dont have to, others dont have to agree with you. Keep in mind as if said before numbers can be skewed and in a shooting game weapon uses need to be evaluated for more then just numbers but also versatility as well as the mechs they can be used on in addition to how it effects the game as a whole. You also must evaluate how your changes would affect the community and game as a whole.

I dont believe you have done this.

[Noesis]

Belief?

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

I dont believe you have done this.

hmm, belief, dangerous thing to assume things for others as opposed to getting "an understanding". But lets not start a debate about truth or faith.