479 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

I'm the joke? lol ok
You can't use these weapons well. I get it. It's ok skippy. But based on the very nature that I can and you can't? I'd say I'm a bit better at being competitive if I can take those "useless" mechs and win.

"You can't be competitive with lasers"
"Tes you can, here's what you can use and do it with"

"You're a joke because you use those mechs that nobody can win with. You're good for lulz because I can't play well enough whit those weapons but you can so you're lying"
"uhm ok, can I direct you to the word irony?"

Joe Derp "Well this weapon sucks, I can't use it well against ballistics"
Me "I can, here's several examples"

Joe Derp "Lies, propaganda, you suck, rant, rage, opinion opinion opinion, berate your skill level because you're obviously wrong"
Me "Uhm ok, good ideas skippy"

Friends don't let friends derp. That is all

Do the math it does not lie.

Ballistic/PPC builds perform better for several reasons that I can state over and over until I'm blue in the face but it won't make a difference because you have an opinion opposed to what I think is fairly obvious and based in reality.

You can not effectivley refute my claims so you attack my skill or intelligence,this is also amuzing so keep slinging.

I actually did later agree that some players can get results from inferior designs.It's not the Lasers doing well it's the player.
(in fact I get those results myself I'm just willing to admit that it's not even remotely an even playing field.)

You can not dispute the facts I outlined.Your 5 laser Battlemaster example is inferior performance wise in nearly every way to my given example meta build (that was intentionally not optimized and used only 3 guns)

The meta build had superior...

Damage dealing mechanics
Heat efficency (by 50%)
No ghost heat issues
Higher DPS (my 25%)
Similar speed characteristics
Similar armor values
No XL engine
Longer effective range

These are not opinions they are facts that can be tested and proven.

The one area where your "competitive design had a stat that was significantly higher was it's alpha that humorusly instantly shuts you down if you try it thus as lasers are hitscan misses most of the target leaving you building internal damage and standing still being pummeled by PPC and ACs. so Yeah it was funny to me that anyone would suggest this as a competitive option.

Personally I would have used an example of a laser based mech that wasn't garbage like 5 and 6 large lasers battle maters and stalkers are.

Like 4 ER-Lrg laser Stalkers with std 300 engines or something effective like a medium laser based medium with enough speed to hit and run.

The ER-Lrg Las stalker has the range to compete with PPC/AC5s.Has no XL engine so it can survive longer in a 40 point alpha enviorment. and honestly can put out respectable damage.It is clearly a fire support/suppression design and not a pinpoint sniper.It is also not capable of ever doing 80 damage to a single body location with two trigger pulls.

I suppose my point may be that laser boats may get you kills and damage similar to a meta build for way way more applied effort and skill with a narrow margin of forgivness requireing extensive awareness and target selection.

So yes an ace mechwarrior fighting morons who don't realize they can torso twist the damage all over and lack the forsight to build a meta mech will be beaten.

Another mech ace in a meta build has so many advantages it is unlikely that a 5 large laser Battlemaster could win.

That is my point.

Just realize that I am not spouting off without the means to defend my point of view you can simply call me stupid but it hasn't actually refuted my data or enhanced your claims.

Your point of view is sourced from personal ego and experiences not from neutral data examining comparative statistics.

Great Sandpit is a mega awesome mechwarrior that can "win" with a garbage can and a flashlight cause he is so full of awesome that everyone else is derpy.

Perfect argument Sandy you do not need to project any point in a neutral enviorment with consideration of any implications pther than how awesome you are and not be concerned with anything trivial like game mechanics.

[Sandpit]

Lykaon, on 08 January 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

Great Sandpit is a mega awesome mechwarrior that can "win" with a garbage can and a flashlight cause he is so full of awesome that everyone else is derpy.

Read this statement. Think about it
Then read the statements you made of similar nature in the post prior to that. Think about those

Do you see why I'm disregarding anything else you have to say at this point?

Let's see.........

I've posted SEVERAL alternative and suggestions that I felt would help bridge the gap between energy and ballistics.

You?
You've resorted to 6th grade name calling about the people posting the ideas.
GL&GH Skippy

Oh and the obligatory

"Read my maths. They make me right because math means my opinion is fact"

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

Oh and the obligatory

"Read my maths. They make me right because math means my opinion is fact"

Nothing obligatory about it, you're just confirming you choose to be arrogant of your own opinions if you don't want to help indicate the reasoning for them.

Maths should prove themselves as objective content.

Evidence usefully then adding a point of collaboration and reasoning as to why you have arrived at your opinion for discussion with others.

Edited by Noesis, 08 January 2014 - 04:38 PM.

[Varent]

Lykaon, on 08 January 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

Do the math it does not lie.

Ballistic/PPC builds perform better for several reasons that I can state over and over until I'm blue in the face but it won't make a difference because you have an opinion opposed to what I think is fairly obvious and based in reality.

You can not effectivley refute my claims so you attack my skill or intelligence,this is also amuzing so keep slinging.

I actually did later agree that some players can get results from inferior designs.It's not the Lasers doing well it's the player.
(in fact I get those results myself I'm just willing to admit that it's not even remotely an even playing field.)

You can not dispute the facts I outlined.Your 5 laser Battlemaster example is inferior performance wise in nearly every way to my given example meta build (that was intentionally not optimized and used only 3 guns)

The meta build had superior...

Damage dealing mechanics
Heat efficency (by 50%)
No ghost heat issues
Higher DPS (my 25%)
Similar speed characteristics
Similar armor values
No XL engine
Longer effective range

These are not opinions they are facts that can be tested and proven.

The one area where your "competitive design had a stat that was significantly higher was it's alpha that humorusly instantly shuts you down if you try it thus as lasers are hitscan misses most of the target leaving you building internal damage and standing still being pummeled by PPC and ACs. so Yeah it was funny to me that anyone would suggest this as a competitive option.

Personally I would have used an example of a laser based mech that wasn't garbage like 5 and 6 large lasers battle maters and stalkers are.

Like 4 ER-Lrg laser Stalkers with std 300 engines or something effective like a medium laser based medium with enough speed to hit and run.

The ER-Lrg Las stalker has the range to compete with PPC/AC5s.Has no XL engine so it can survive longer in a 40 point alpha enviorment. and honestly can put out respectable damage.It is clearly a fire support/suppression design and not a pinpoint sniper.It is also not capable of ever doing 80 damage to a single body location with two trigger pulls.

I suppose my point may be that laser boats may get you kills and damage similar to a meta build for way way more applied effort and skill with a narrow margin of forgivness requireing extensive awareness and target selection.

So yes an ace mechwarrior fighting morons who don't realize they can torso twist the damage all over and lack the forsight to build a meta mech will be beaten.

Another mech ace in a meta build has so many advantages it is unlikely that a 5 large laser Battlemaster could win.

That is my point.

Just realize that I am not spouting off without the means to defend my point of view you can simply call me stupid but it hasn't actually refuted my data or enhanced your claims.

Your point of view is sourced from personal ego and experiences not from neutral data examining comparative statistics.

Great Sandpit is a mega awesome mechwarrior that can "win" with a garbage can and a flashlight cause he is so full of awesome that everyone else is derpy.

Perfect argument Sandy you do not need to project any point in a neutral enviorment with consideration of any implications pther than how awesome you are and not be concerned with anything trivial like game mechanics.

Numbers =/= true in game versatility.

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Maths should prove themselves as objective content.

Actually its been shown throughout history that numbers and math have often been used to manipulate rather then actually aid. Keep in mind numbers are not always fact but rather just showing one aspect of an overall situation. I often find most answers (especially when it has to do with something like war[games]) tend to be more dynamic.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Nothing obligatory about it, you're just confirming you choose to be arrogant of your own opinions if you don't want to help indicate the reasoning for them.

Maths should prove themselves as objective content.

Evidence usefully then adding a point of collaboration and reasoning as to why you have arrived at your opinion for discussion with others.

No, I'm refusing to continue to acknowledge people in threads that disregard anything said any anyone else by calling them names. It's nice to know you support this kind of stuff though. Sad thing is that even though you and I have personally gone back and forth between several different threads and we've dug at each other a few times I've said numerous times I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it as opposed to calling you names and disregarding any and every idea and suggestion you've had. GL&GH to you as well skippy

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

No, I'm refusing to continue to acknowledge people in threads that disregard anything said any anyone else by calling them names. It's nice to know you support this kind of stuff though. Sad thing is that even though you and I have personally gone back and forth between several different threads and we've dug at each other a few times I've said numerous times I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it as opposed to calling you names and disregarding any and every idea and suggestion you've had. GL&GH to you as well skippy

Have to agree here. even if there is a few people on the forums that I disagree with on some sections I actually have had good dialogue and back and forth chatter on other sections. Where as Noesis is the one person that so far I have had nothing but negativity from on every level.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

Numbers =/= true in game versatility.

Actually its been shown throughout history that numbers and math have often been used to manipulate rather then actually aid. Keep in mind numbers are not always fact but rather just showing one aspect of an overall situation. I often find most answers (especially when it has to do with something like war[games]) tend to be more dynamic.

Well then you have just omitted science as a capable medium for dialouge so I don't know what to do with that one if your simply going to ignore maths.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

Have to agree here. even if there is a few people on the forums that I disagree with on some sections I actually have had good dialogue and back and forth chatter on other sections. Where as Noesis is the one person that so far I have had nothing but negativity from on every level.

I see so anyone who disagrees with you or has a counterpoint or alternative opinion or presents factual content that indicates an error in your thinking is being "negative"?

[Varent]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

I see so anyone who disagrees with you or has a counterpoint or alternative opinion or presents factual content that indicates an error in your thinking is being "negative"?

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

even if there is a few people on the forums that I disagree with on some sections I actually have had good dialogue and back and forth chatter on other sections.

you accept nothing but your own opinion and thoughts noesis.

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

Well then you have just omitted science as a capable medium for dialouge so I don't know what to do with that one if your simply going to ignore maths.

I have nothing to add since you simply ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrow minded approach of what this game is about.

Edited by Varent, 08 January 2014 - 04:58 PM.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

Well then you have just omitted science as a capable medium for dialouge so I don't know what to do with that one if your simply going to ignore maths.

2+2 = 4 Fact
3+1 = 4 Fact

3+1 is a better way to use addition to get to 4 than 2+2 Opinion. That's the difference

Weapon A has front loaded damage for xx damage and xx trade-offs Fact
Weapon B has DPS for xx damage and xx trade-offs Fact

Weapon A is better than Weapon B Opinion
Weapon B is "useless" Opinion

You use weapon B so you're dumb.
You give examples of how weapon B isn't useless so you're just invalid and only good for laughs, you're a joke

Weapon B is useful in these ways and because of these trade-offs so I don't agree with your opinion
Well you're just dumb then

Do you see the point now? Do you also see how math does not make opinion based on the math fact?

[Foxfire]

Just change AC's from slug weapons to burst weapons(aka AC20's shoot 20 one damage shots) and be done with it. You will never be able to achieve balance between two weapon types when one does full frontload damage and the other is a DoT weapon in a game like this.

[verybad]

Myomes, on 07 January 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

In TT:

Large Laser

Min range: 0
Short Range: 450
Max Range: 1350

ER Large Laser

Min range: 0
Short Range: 630
Max Range: 1710

In MW:O

Large Laser

Min range: 0
Short(long in MWO) Range: 450
Max Range: 900

ER Large Laser

Min range: 0
Short (long in MWO) Range: 675
Max Range: 1350

In TT, damage is fully retained, but you get to-hit modifiers for further away.
In MWO, damage scales down linearly from 100% to 0%.

The heat of these weapons has remained the same, while the firing rate goes up.

Lasers already have the ill effect of Damage Over Time, a mechanic introduced to spread damage out like you're watering a garden and thus preventing the surgical destruction of lasers like in TT or old mechwarrior titles. No longer does a medium laser do exactly 5 points of damage to a 40 point Atlas torso, Now it does 2 damage and some change as the atlas rolls around. Even worse damage is applied for outside range. The same thing happens to large lasers as well, making them non-competitive with AC5 and AC2.

Both of these weapons have a max range triple their "long" range. Lasers do not. Lasers have DoT, damage reduction for "over'range, and have had 1/3 of their TT range neutered. That means a sharper decline in damage for being outside "long" range.

This is what makes AC20, AC5, AC2 so powerful compared to lasers. It has nothing to do with people wisely choosing the weapons which aren't nerfed into the ground. It's really about how lasers have been dealt a bad hand every time.

lasers should either have more maximum range, thus extending their damage drop to at least compete with AC, if not be superior (they still generate more heat and LESS DPS), or lasers should do their full damage over their entire much shorter range.

Messing around with projectile speeds on guns and making everything suck isn't the way to go.

Umm, no an ERLL in Battletech has a range of 19 30 meter hexes...570 meters. Where'd you get your numbers because they're WAY off.

[Sug]

Kearny-Fuchida drive malfunction incoming....

[Noesis]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

you accept nothing but your own opinion and thoughts noesis.

I have nothing to add since you simply ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrow minded approach of what this game is about.

Ok, claims without evidence, an ongoing trend it seems. Usual ad hominen.

Oh and check out the thread about NARC that Sandpit started, where I supported the idea. Clearly I never gave any consideration to the good ideas being presented in that thread.

Edited by Noesis, 08 January 2014 - 05:08 PM.

[Craig Steele]

IMO this current Meta is more of playing on the weakness of this game (being the lack of comms and in game information) than anything because pinpoint sniping is defeated by teamwork and suppression.

Players are being forced to adopt the current Meta or leave to meet their entertainment desire. So if the Meta is not balanced we will eventually have the few players left playing the same mech chassiss with the same weapons trundling around. Don't have to worry about balance then.

The new tactic I am going to try is to load up with bucket loads of Artillery in my Raven and get around their flanks and then call in as many as I can in their rear.

Theory is the min / max's have paper thin rear armour and are largely stationary in the "good" spots. I know roughly where they will be. 3 slavo's staggered at the backs should be enough? Hopefully I don't have to fire a shot. Every modern military uses the tactic irl and you know what, I bet the forums come ALIVE with Nerf artillery calls if it is effective.

[Wildstreak]

No disrespect to the OP but.....
Another topic on the same subject?
7 pages in one day too.

dons clown wig.
THUNK! THUNK! THUNK!

What do we need, an open petition on Change.org or Causes? I hear the White House allows petitions.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

Ok, claims without evidence, an ongoing trend it seems. Usual ad hominen.

Oh and check out the thread about NARC that Sandpit started, where I supported the idea. Clearly I never gave any consideration to the good ideas being presented in that thread.

Im honestly starting to think your just naturally argumentative and sour and dont realize it, reread that thread over a few times. That said rather not argue over a thread anymore, its getting old. You feel one way and back it up how you feel is correct and others feel another way and back it up how they feel is correct.

[Sug]

Foxfire, on 08 January 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

You will never be able to achieve balance between two weapon types when one does full frontload damage and the other is a DoT weapon in a game like this.

They can either buff beams by reducing the duration and cooldowns or increasing range, making them more like ballistics

Or they can give ballistics more disadvantages like cutting ammo per ton back to TT levels, increase cooldowns and durations, oh and here's a thought:

MAKE AMMO EXPLODE WHEN IT TAKES A HIT

[Varent]

Merchant, on 08 January 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

No disrespect to the OP but.....
Another topic on the same subject?
7 pages in one day too.

dons clown wig.
THUNK! THUNK! THUNK!

What do we need, an open petition on Change.org or Causes? I hear the White House allows petitions.

Threads OP Need Nerf.

[Sandpit]

Foxfire, on 08 January 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Just change AC's from slug weapons to burst weapons(aka AC20's shoot 20 one damage shots) and be done with it. You will never be able to achieve balance between two weapon types when one does full frontload damage and the other is a DoT weapon in a game like this.

boooooooooooooooooooooo no please lol

I just think there's too many other better options that have been discussed.

The speed adjustment yesterday was a good start in my opinion
If we still see big disparities then move on to reducing the 3x range
If that doesn't get the job done then look into preventing convergence when firing multiple big bore caliber weapons at once instead of chain firing them. (Which I still think gives things like pinpoint skill and targeting computer a good use)

THEN if those steps don't mitigate after a month or so I'd look elsewhere.
I'd also buff the heat generated by JJs so that they're still extremely useful for mobility but make you think twice about hitting them and firing off weapons as well. (Which is more inline with TT incidentally)