479 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Noesis, on 07 January 2014 - 11:39 PM, said:

Opinions, people have them, doesn't make them right.

LL are showing to be about 10% more effective in terms of their potential than MLs, fact.

As has been commented above LL's seem to operate well for Assault and Heavy platforms, but if small additions in range will help them compete with other Meta I similarly wont object.

As to the logic of rock, paper, scissors. Effectiveness is not a logic issue, since these things are measured in terms of relative effectiveness.

E.g. if it takes 2 mediums to be as relatively effective as an Assault for their role then on paper to do the job, then you need 2 bits of scissors to beat the rock.

The rock, paper, scissors analogy is only there to help understand what kind of roles perform well at certain tasks, but the reality is it is still about relatives not logic.

I really don't wanna argue with you tonight Noesis. But fine. a 10% gain is not worth 4 extra tons, the range does not make that great of a difference either and the damage bonus is not amazing as well. Medium lasers overall are better ton for ton. When you are creating a brawling mech you are using medium lasers. The only time large lasers make there appearance is on supportive mechs currently. You yourself have argued for the buffing of laser weapons? Now you want to argue because....? Because you just want to argue? Its logical... in every way.... That said There is a distinct rock paper scissor system in MWO currently. It shouldn't be upset.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 07 January 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

I will get you Wrong, because you are wrong.

Medium lasers have less demonstrated effectiveness than LL. And whilst LL might also need something to help them, MLs are in fact in more need of improvement.

Also Mediums and especially Lights tend to use MLs as an option to their more "limited" build arrangements as opposed to LLs which are more prevalent on Heavy or Assault platforms but of course these having much more build options and flexibility to utilise other weaponry also like MLs. So overall the ML needs to be considered as it is has more significance to some platforms.

HBK-4P

ego1607, on 07 January 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

Yeah, those totally destroy 2xAC20, 3xUAC5 amd similar configs...

they do on a regular basis. Fact, not opinion.

[Varent]

actually the jump capable thunderbolt would be quite good against that jager. and depending on if the battlemasters have er large, they should be able to take the jager out at range easily.

[Sandpit]

Anyone who drops with me or aces off against them knows they do

[Noesis]

Varent, on 07 January 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

I really don't wanna argue with you tonight Noesis. But fine. a 10% gain is not worth 4 extra tons, the range does not make that great of a difference either and the damage bonus is not amazing as well. Medium lasers overall are better ton for ton. When you are creating a brawling mech you are using medium lasers. The only time large lasers make there appearance is on supportive mechs currently. You yourself have argued for the buffing of laser weapons? Now you want to argue because....? Because you just want to argue? Its logical... in every way.... That said There is a distinct rock paper scissor system in MWO currently. It shouldn't be upset.

No this is where your wrong as the characteristics of the weapons actually allow for them to be balanced and balanced on the platform to be used accordingly, these are the mechanisms that exist for build mechanics.

I'm not arguing, I'm debating a point and correcting miss-information as I see it from my perspective. Also trying to use objective points and education to explain why as opposed to just "opinions". Sorry if you take offense from having a dialogue but it won't change the content of what needs to be commented on. Do you want me to sugar coat it for you to make it more palatable, or keep things real?

There is a distinct rock, paper, scissors system, but again this is for understanding roles and build practices. It is there only as a helpful guide. It is not helpful in a "discussion" about RELATIVE effectiveness of tech, which as it happens funnily based on what it is "could" also be used by all rock, paper and scissor options in different ways in certain models.

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:

they do on a regular basis. Fact, not opinion.

Only a fact if you can support the statement, you have not presented evidence of frequency of either models defeating the other. Yet I think I know which is more prevalent in the Meta. Most likely due to "relative" effectiveness.

Doesn't mean the LL boats are bad, just that there is something better to use.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

Doesn't mean the LL boats are bad, just that there is something better to use.

Which is truly subjective. "Better" is dependent on individual perception. Just because you think something is better doesn't make it true for me.
LL and ML builds are better for me. I do better with them
My cbill earnings are better with them
My KDR is better with them
My win.loss is better with them
So lasers are better

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:

HBK-4P

Really your showing me a specific model that overheats badly, is a slow Mech with an easily taken out hunch as evidence? lol

This is only considered seriously in a "specialised" capacity.

Edited by Noesis, 08 January 2014 - 12:14 AM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

No this is where your wrong as the characteristics of the weapons actually allow for them to be balanced and balanced on the platform to be used accordingly, these are the mechanisms that exist for build mechanics.

I'm not arguing, I'm debating a point and correcting miss-information as I see it from my perspective. Also trying to use objective points and education to explain why as opposed to just "opinions". Sorry if you take offense from having a dialogue but it won't change the content of what needs to be commented on. Do you want me to sugar coat it for you to make it more palatable, or keep things real?

There is a distinct rock, paper, scissors system, but again this is for understanding roles and build practices. It is there only as a helpful guide. It is not helpful in a "discussion" about RELATIVE effectiveness of tech, which as it happens funnily based on what it is "could" also be used by all rock, paper and scissor options in different ways in certain models.



Only a fact if you can support the statement, you have not presented evidence of frequency of either models defeating the other. Yet I think I know which is more prevalent in the Meta. Most likely due to "relative" effectiveness.

Doesn't mean the LL boats are bad, just that there is something better to use.

Circular argument again of real game experience versus numbers. Im not gonna go into that since its been debated across at least a dozen threads by now. You and others are on one side, me and others are on the other. Is what it is. That said do you not agree that you should balance weapons based off of how they will be used during certain classes as well? That directly effects how the game is played. You should therefore look into who would use what and in what fashion to determine how to alter something. Actually that's one of the major reasons im happy with how they changed the ac recently, effects the jump snipers (who were abusing them) without effecting the brawlers much who use them in close.

Edited by Varent, 08 January 2014 - 12:19 AM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

After looking at that chart for hex range again. I thought hey, what if those original numbers were kept, but multipled by a different value for hex size?

Currently it looks that we are only utilzing part of the original chart (long range) and also using 1 hex = 30 meters and then going from there with further range tweaks.

So, what if we use the full chart, (Short, Medium, Long and maybe Extreme too) along with 1 hex = 90 meters?

The MWO short ranges stay more or less the same to the current MWO Range, and we then have other defined ranges to then try to do any further balance tweaks for weapons.

Here is a chart of current weapons with current ranges and the mentioned translation that uses 90 M instead of 30 M for comparison.



And I don't care if min ranges are used on more weapons or not; or if min ranges change up or down (however interesting that might be to at least consider), I'm just trying to use the existing BT numbers and apply them differently to MWO.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 12:13 AM, said:

Circular argument again of real game experience versus numbers. Im not gonna go into that since its been debated across at least a dozen threads by now. You and others are on one side, me and others are on the other. Is what it is. That said do you not agree that you should balance weapons based off of how they will be used during certain classes as well? That directly effects how the game is played. You should therefore look into who would use what and in what fashion to determine how to alter something. Actually that's one of the major reasons im happy with how they changed the ac recently, effects the jump snipers (who were abusing them) without effecting the brawlers much who use them in close.

Then stop repeating the same fallacies.

The numbers I use are based on actual applied stats in game. Therefore they inherently include all associated mechanics and labels you might want to present for them. I like to play varying roles also.

[cynical]Ok so how do I use the ML as a sniper weapon please, cause I want to measure how effective it is in that role?[/cynical]

And I do agree that it would be helpful to look at how classes use them. I have argued that due to light and medium mobility and the fact that MLs have a shorter range that the combination of these things will actually not help their use as is compounded further by the apparent target. So in the case of lights who might want to take on other lights occasionally the apparent effects of beam spread will be worse for them in these situations. This could be one of the reasons why MLs are under performing overall, yet I will still use MLs on brawlers and maulers as part of their weapon sets who if used in close proximity with larger Mechs will have less applied beam spread for those targets.

But more importantly is to remember that MLs are a limited weapon choice for a number of Light or Medium roles so the effectiveness of this weapon or in this case apparent lack of will have a greater impact here to these roles and platforms.

Edited by Noesis, 08 January 2014 - 12:26 AM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 12:25 AM, said:

Then stop repeating the same fallacies.

Right back at you.

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 12:25 AM, said:

[cynical]Ok so how do I use the ML as a sniper weapon please, cause I want to measure how effective it is in that role?[/cynical]

And I do agree that it would be helpful to look at how classes use them. I have argued that due to light and medium mobility and the fact that MLs have a shorter range that the combination of these things will actually not help their use as is compounded further by the apparent target. So in the case of lights who might want to take on other lights occasionally the apparent effects of beam spread will be worse for them in these situations. This could be one of the reasons why MLs are under performing overall, yet I will still use MLs on brawlers and maulers as part of their weapon sets who if used in close proximity with larger Mechs will have less applied beam spread for those targets.

But more importantly is to remember that MLs are a limited weapon choice for a number of Light or Medium roles so the effectiveness of this weapon or in this case apparent lack of will have a greater impact here to these roles and platforms.

Medium lasers are the most versatile weapon in the game. Period. Explanation point. Also keep in mind it already is starting to become meta for light mechs to use large scale lasers at higher elo. They want the range. If you add that to medium mechs you will be increasing there strength exponentially in ways they do not need nor warrant and you will upset the current fragile balance of the game. I can only guess that you are not playing with players that do this or have not experimented with it yourself. Which also goes back to the argument of in game experience versus numbers. Numbers can be manipulated. In game experiences are a better judge.

[Name113200]

Lasers are terrible and I will continue using autocannons, gauss and ppc until PGI reduces duration time to a point where I start to find them actually useful.

[Warge]

Khobai, on 07 January 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

And that same solution needs to be applied to both Autocannons (burst fire)

U r on island, bro.

[VtV Pilot RAID]

Well i could get into all the tech specs, but ppls already are discussing that to death already. Lasers non competitive.. HAH.. complete BS. I use lasers (er lrg, lrg, meds) on all my mechs. I do just fine with em. They are great for the pew pew brawls. come up fast , only the Er is a heat monster. But the ER is primarily for sniping to get asissts. All the differing weapons have thier pros n cons.. we can argue those points till we r blue in the face. These weapons are merely tools. they are as good as we use them. if u r a bad shot, go with lbx & boats.. problem solved. if u dont like the fact that damage goes down at long range.. be a brawler. I chose to look at solutions rather than problems.

Have a great day
Honor to u
RAID

[Craig Steele]

PGI, please make the following amendments with the game next patch.

One LOS direct fire weapon with damage over time beam / burst mechanic
One indirect fire weapon
One mech chassis with a fixed speed and armour factor (your choice)

Thanks

[Cerberias]

Dont you love it when people think a weapon system works when they use it in pugs. If they came into a 12 man team with a laser build they'd be ripped a new one, there's a reason why good players use ppcs/ac's. Lasers, like LRM's, are countered somewhat by an enemy being good in that if someone notices they're being hit by lasers, which you'd assume considering the effects, they can quickly turn and spread the damage around a lot easier than the instant damage of the projectile weapons. They also force you to stay on target for a full second, increasing the likelihood that you will be hit in a vital area. Lastly, they don't work well with jumpsniping, which is by far and away the most powerful method of firesupport in the game, and even in a brawl being able to spread damage to legs and provide an added axis for which the opponent has to account.

Good players expose themselves for a fraction of a second, fire off a full alpha and instantly pop down, all in a split second. Lasers can't counter that well, nor can they do it themselves. Or, in a brawl, good players turn and snap off a shot, usually in midair, then turn back to absorb more damage to extremities upon landing. Youd be a lot harder pressed to do either of these things with a laser heavy build, or at least nowhere near as effectively as an instant damage weapon.

[Jman5]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Right back at you.


Medium lasers are the most versatile weapon in the game. Period. Explanation point. Also keep in mind it already is starting to become meta for light mechs to use large scale lasers at higher elo. They want the range. If you add that to medium mechs you will be increasing there strength exponentially in ways they do not need nor warrant and you will upset the current fragile balance of the game. I can only guess that you are not playing with players that do this or have not experimented with it yourself. Which also goes back to the argument of in game experience versus numbers. Numbers can be manipulated. In game experiences are a better judge.

What else can lights use? Machine guns are the only low-ton ballistics and that's clearly not an option for your typical light pilot. SRMs are inaccurate/low damage and suffer hit registration issues. LRMs are heavy and don't do a whole lot of damage unless boated.

They don't use lasers because they're strong. They use lasers because there aren't a whole lot of options when you're 20-35 tons. Realistically, lights only have two general choices: Lasers and Streaks.

[Craig Steele]

Cerberias, on 08 January 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

Dont you love it when people think a weapon system works when they use it in pugs. If they came into a 12 man team with a laser build they'd be ripped a new one, there's a reason why good players use ppcs/ac's. Lasers, like LRM's, are countered somewhat by an enemy being good in that if someone notices they're being hit by lasers, which you'd assume considering the effects, they can quickly turn and spread the damage around a lot easier than the instant damage of the projectile weapons. They also force you to stay on target for a full second, increasing the likelihood that you will be hit in a vital area. Lastly, they don't work well with jumpsniping, which is by far and away the most powerful method of firesupport in the game, and even in a brawl being able to spread damage to legs and provide an added axis for which the opponent has to account.

Good players expose themselves for a fraction of a second, fire off a full alpha and instantly pop down, all in a split second. Lasers can't counter that well, nor can they do it themselves. Or, in a brawl, good players turn and snap off a shot, usually in midair, then turn back to absorb more damage to extremities upon landing. Youd be a lot harder pressed to do either of these things with a laser heavy build, or at least nowhere near as effectively as an instant damage weapon.

I'm confused, are you saying that casual recreational gamers should not have a game that suits their desires and this game should only cater to the elite competitive player?

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 08 January 2014 - 12:12 AM, said:

Really your showing me a specific model that overheats badly, is a slow Mech with an easily taken out hunch as evidence? lol

This is only considered seriously in a "specialised" capacity.

lol ok uhm overheats? I can cycle through all 8MLs on caustic 3-4 times without overheating, I can also alpha strike twice without overheating as well. Maybe we have different definitions of "overheats badly"? not to mention the all of the other builds I showed

Cerberias, on 08 January 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

Dont you love it when people think a weapon system works when they use it in pugs. If they came into a 12 man team with a laser build they'd be ripped a new one, there's a reason why good players use ppcs/ac's. Lasers, like LRM's, are countered somewhat by an enemy being good in that if someone notices they're being hit by lasers, which you'd assume considering the effects, they can quickly turn and spread the damage around a lot easier than the instant damage of the projectile weapons. They also force you to stay on target for a full second, increasing the likelihood that you will be hit in a vital area. Lastly, they don't work well with jumpsniping, which is by far and away the most powerful method of firesupport in the game, and even in a brawl being able to spread damage to legs and provide an added axis for which the opponent has to account.

Good players expose themselves for a fraction of a second, fire off a full alpha and instantly pop down, all in a split second. Lasers can't counter that well, nor can they do it themselves. Or, in a brawl, good players turn and snap off a shot, usually in midair, then turn back to absorb more damage to extremities upon landing. Youd be a lot harder pressed to do either of these things with a laser heavy build, or at least nowhere near as effectively as an instant damage weapon.

I do take it into 12 mans. Feel free to stop by house marik some time

Craig Steele, on 08 January 2014 - 01:12 AM, said:

I'm confused, are you saying that casual recreational gamers should not have a game that suits their desires and this game should only cater to the elite competitive player?

and this

somehow 12 mans are magically the "competitive" version? lol So everyone who plays outside of 12 mans is a scrub I guess

[Sandpit]

Not to mention I love how when you give examples that contradict "(insert whatever here) is useless" statements they're always somehow "invalid"