219 replies to this topic

[Sephlock]

Spades Kincaid, on 18 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Let's just invert them all. We'll standardize AC dps, then make the AC20 longer range and cooler than the 10, and the 10 than the 5....That makes perfect sense right? Noone should be bothered by that.

Actually I'd LOVE that!

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 19 April 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

The number of people who think that DPS is even in the same league as alpha striking is truly astounding.

actually, that is not what is being discussed, What IS being discussed is "What Is META". FLD alone a Meta does not make.

Mcgral18, on 19 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

True, you need a 30-40 FLD pinpoint alpha. Jumping is a big plus.

But, the gausscat can still be considered meta. But...I guess the tri-Gauss Ilya can't. You still need some armor to be meta.



And whoever gets the most artillery shells to hit.

And no, no one has considered the Gauss Cat Meta in forever. Why? Because the Gauss charge mechanism requires a high initial learning investment. That alone removes it from what is Meta, because it is not the easiest path to Low Risk/High Reward.

Again, McGral, usually I agree with you, but I honestly not sure you understand what actually comprises Meta.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 April 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

actually, that is not what is being discussed, What IS being discussed is "What Is META". FLD alone a Meta does not make.

The specific guy I quoted did actually try to say that the "AC/2 could match the DPS of a larger gun for less tonnage." See below:

Pjwned, on 19 April 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Yep it's totally pointless to have something with the same DPS as a bigger gun, except it weighs less and takes less slots.

Who could possibly have any use for something like that.

I wasn't trying to interject into your exchange with McGral.

Edited by FupDup, 19 April 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

And no, no one has considered the Gauss Cat Meta in forever. Why? Because the Gauss charge mechanism requires a high initial learning investment. That alone removes it from what is Meta, because it is not the easiest path to Low Risk/High Reward.

Being easy to use is not a requirement of a meta build though.

A meta build typically just refers to a dominant build, not necessarily a build thats easy to use. if you have two players of equal skill and one is in a meta build and the other isnt, the one thats in the meta build should win 99% of the time. The exception to that is if the other player is in a counter-meta build.

So for example, if you know before you enter a game that most players will be using PPCs, and knowing that, decided to take a fast mech that can get inside that 90m deadzone of PPCs, then youve just built a counter-meta mech.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2014 - 06:28 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 April 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

actually, that is not what is being discussed, What IS being discussed is "What Is META". FLD alone a Meta does not make.


And no, no one has considered the Gauss Cat Meta in forever. Why? Because the Gauss charge mechanism requires a high initial learning investment. That alone removes it from what is Meta, because it is not the easiest path to Low Risk/High Reward.

Again, McGral, usually I agree with you, but I honestly not sure you understand what actually comprises Meta.

Well, I certainly consider 30 FLD meta. I guess we just have different views on it. Ease of use does go into it, but I wouldn't say gauss is excluded, because it's very effective once you get the hang of it. Fastest travel speed gives it another edge. Certainly better on a 3D (40 pinpoint beats any of the victors loadouts) since you can mount 2 of them, plus a PPC.

Specific meta is subjective, but it's comprised of the most effective builds. I consider FLD to be a big part in that, when combined with our lacking game mechanics to prevent all weapons hitting the identical location.

I don't feel either of us are wrong, since there are a couple meta builds, largely being 2(u)AC5+2PPC, but personally I consider anything jumping with 25-45 FLD to be present meta. It's the most effective way to kill, which meets my definition of "meta" for MWO.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 19 April 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

Being easy to use is not a requirement of a meta build though.

A meta build typically just refers to a dominant build, not necessarily a build thats easy to use. if you have two players of equal skill and one is in a meta build and the other isnt, the one thats in the meta build should win 99% of the time. The exception to that is if the other played is in a counter-meta build.

So for example, if you know before you enter a game that most players will be using PPCs, and knowing that, decided to take a fast mech that can get inside that 90m deadzone of PPCs, then youve just built a counter-meta mech.

Khoabi, do you understand what makes a build dominant?

Three factors:
High Reward
Low Risk
Ease of Use

PERIOD. You remove any of the 3, and it is no longer the dominant force, and hence, not Meta.

[Khobai]

Quote

Khoabi, do you understand what makes a build dominant?

Three factors:
High Reward
Low Risk
Ease of Use

Ease of use is not a requirement for a dominant build. If you have a build which can win games singlehandedly, but only a very small handful of players can play that build because of a high skill cap, its still a dominant build. Dominance has absolutely nothing to do with ease of use. Ease of use simply makes dominant builds more accessible.

A good example of a dominant build that lacks ease of use is the ERLL Raven. Its not an easy mech to master, has higher than average skill cap, but its very powerful when played correctly. Ive seen some amazing players in ERLL Ravens kill half the enemy team by themselves.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2014 - 06:37 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 19 April 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

Ease of use is not a requirement for a dominant build. If you have a build which can win games singlehandedly, but only a very small handful of players can play that build because of a high skill cap, its still a dominant build. Dominance has absolutely nothing to do with ease of use. Ease of use simply makes dominant builds more accessible.

A good example of a dominant build that lacks ease of use is the ERLL Raven. Its not an easy mech to master, has higher than average skill cap, but its very powerful when played correctly. Ive seen some amazing players in ERLL Ravens kill half the enemy team by themselves.

keep telling yourself that. There is a reason Gauss is not dominant anymore. Lack of ease of use. Please explain.

Dominant build implies a build used in high numbers. Otherwise any build a skilled player wrecks face in, is a dominant build.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 April 2014 - 06:39 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Khobai, on 19 April 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

Ease of use is not a requirement for a dominant build.

Funny - you know what took the Gauss off the meta builds?
The biggest complaint against it?

The charge makes it to "difficult to use"

Up to that point it was preferred over any of the AC.

[Khobai]

Quote

keep telling yourself that. There is a reason Gauss is not dominant anymore. Lack of ease of use. Please explain

If Gauss was worth using, players would use it regardless of how hard it was to learn. The reason Gauss is no longer worth using is because its rate of fire and DPS were nerfed into the ground. They added 0.75 chargeup time but never took 0.75 seconds off the cooldown. It no longer competes with autocannons for DPS.

Quote

The charge makes it to "difficult to use"

"Difficult to use" is the reason why Gauss isnt used as often.

Its not why Gauss isnt dominant though. The reason why Gauss isnt dominant is because its dps was nerfed. The thing weighs 15 tons and does the same dps as an 8 ton AC5.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2014 - 06:52 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Khobai, on 19 April 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

They added 0.75 chargeup time but took 0.75 seconds off the cooldown.

Unless you made a typo there you just shot your own argument into the ground, 6 feet deep.

Khobai, on 19 April 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

Its not why Gauss isnt dominant. The reason why Gauss isnt dominant is becasue its dps was nerfed.

And here people keep arguing that DPS is less valuable than FLD.....
Only single weapon more FLD than the Gauss is the AC/20


Sorry buddy - but you either want to get your story right with McGral and everyone else arguing against bishop or you might want to think a bit about what you actually are saying.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 19 April 2014 - 06:48 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Unless you made a typo there you just shot your own argument into the ground, 6 feet deep.

It was a typo. Im on my phone its hard to type. Gauss cooldown used to be 4.0s. Now its 4.0s plus a 0.75s chargeup making it 4.75s. That is the reason why Gauss dps was nerfed substantially.

Quote

And here people keep arguing that DPS is less valuable than FLD.....
Only single weapon more FLD than the Gauss is the AC/20

Three AC5s do the same FLD as a Gauss but fire three times faster. I run that on my Banshee along with two PPCs. Boated AC5s give you both FLD and DPS at the same time. Not only that but theyre easier to use.

A weapon thats harder to use should be better than a weapon thats easier to use. Thats common sense. And because boated AC5s are better than Gauss, Gauss is no longer used.

If Gauss was better than boated AC5s, but harder to use, it would become a dominant weapon again. But anyone who couldnt use Gauss because of the higher skill cap would still use AC5s.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2014 - 06:59 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 19 April 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Three AC5s do the same FLD as a Gauss but fire three times faster.

...and weigh 24 tons minimum, plus ~7 tons of ammo on top of that. And requires 3 hardpoints. And requires 12 slots.

Gauss is 15 tons minimum and ~3 tons of ammo, bringing its final cost to 18 tons.

Edited by FupDup, 19 April 2014 - 06:54 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

...and weigh 24 tons minimum, plus ~7 tons of ammo on top of that. And requires 3 hardpoints. And requires 12 slots.



Gauss is 15 tons minimum and ~3 tons of ammo, bringing its final cost to 18 tons.

Yes but the three AC5s fire three times faster.

Three AC5s = 15 damage and 9dps, or 3.4 tons per DPS, plus theyre easier to use.

Gauss = 15 damage and 3.1 dps, or 5.8 tons per DPS, plus its harder to use.

x3 AC5s is the clear winner. There is a reason no one sticks a Gauss in their Banshee-3E.

People didnt stop using gauss because its difficult to use. People stopped using gauss because its TERRIBLE compared to AC5s. Its DPS is atrociously low by comparison.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2014 - 07:08 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 19 April 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

Yes but the three AC5s fire three times faster for only marginally more tonnage.

Gauss = 15 tons
Most people use 3 tons of ammo per Gauss.
15 + 3 = 18

3 AC/5 = 24 tons
I don't know what most people use for ammo on this build, but since my 2 AC/5 builds used to use 5 tons of ammo I'll go with 7. 7 seems like a nice bet for a triplet of AC/5.
24 + 7 = 31


How much higher is that? Let's take a look. 31 / 18 = 1.7222. It's ~72% heavier. I wouldn't call 72% "marginal" by any means...



The alpha is the same between both builds. You just gain faster RoF and a lowered skill floor for the cost of ~72% higher tonnage. You get what you pay for.

Edited by FupDup, 19 April 2014 - 07:06 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Khobai, on 19 April 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Three AC5s do the same FLD as a Gauss but fire three times faster. I run that on my Banshee along with two PPCs. Boated AC5s give you both FLD and DPS at the same time. Not only that but theyre easier to use.

And weigh how much more?

You really aren't doing your argument any good here.
"Here ItemB that weighs 9 tons more (not counting ammo) is better!!!111! So ItemA sucks!"

That is exactly like arguing that given only one slot and the heatsinks to do it with you should only take an ERPPC over a medium laser.

NO DUH.

Very very few can take that much though - certainly not most Jagers or Cataphracts (the standards for blalistic mechs), who, if you haven't noticed, prefer AC/20s or Gauss over quad AC/5 (CTF-4X being the exception - which, would probably mount dual-20s if it could)

Edited by Shar Wolf, 19 April 2014 - 07:11 PM.

[East Indy]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 April 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

Why? Because the Gauss charge mechanism requires a high initial learning investment.

Not just initial — it's perpetual, and generally turns away players who aren't interested in challenge. I didn't ask for it, or see it coming, but it was a clever change on PGI's part.

Anyway, good to see you and others making things clear, even if it's against players who'll always fidget when one thing looks better than another.

[Khobai]

Quote

And weigh how much more?

The problem isnt weight. A 95 ton banshee has no shortage of tonnage. The problem is hardpoints. Nothing above 70 tons can run dual gauss. But a banshee can run dual ppc AND three Ac5.

If we had an assault mech that could run dual gauss, you probably would see dual gauss, dual ppc builds. But the fact is we dont have anything like that right now. Maybe once the Mauler comes out.

But theres also the fact the Gauss does lousy dps and a weapon thats harder to use should outperform a weapon thats easier to use. Gauss should outperform dual AC5s and doesnt.

[Soulscour]

FupDup, on 19 April 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

The number of people who think that DPS is even in the same league as alpha striking is truly astounding.

I'm not saying that DPS is better than alpha striking but can we at least have it as a freaking option?? According to PGI only effective builds will be pinpoint damage and LRM spam. When I had my AC2 build it was effective and I was pumping out 800 damage, sometimes more per game. Do you think I care that I could have gotten more kills with a meta build at the time? Now it is garbage. With this ac2 nerf PGI pretty much says, you can't run builds that are good but not the best without us making them worse. They want to force you to either play wack a mole pinpoint meta BS or run around like a gimped punk.

Edited by Soulscour, 19 April 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[FupDup]

Soulscour, on 19 April 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

I'm not saying that DPS is better than alpha striking but can we at least have it as a freaking option?? According to PGI only effective builds will be pinpoint damage and LRM spam. When I had my AC2 build it was effective and I was pumping out 800 damage, sometimes more per game. Do you think I care that I could have gotten more kills with a meta build at the time? Now it is garbage. With this ac2 nerf PGI pretty much says, you can't run builds that are good but not the best without us making them worse. They want to force you to either play wack a mole pinpoint meta BS or run around like a gimped punk.

That's exactly what I meant in the post you quoted. My comment was directed at people who believe that the AC/2's DPS made it some kind of "OP" meta death machine, even though it really didn't.


WON'T PGI PLEASE THINK OF THE DAKKA??

Edited by FupDup, 19 April 2014 - 08:08 PM.