336 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

You do realize that the Warhawk moves at the same speed as the 65 tonners, with more armor, more heat efficiency, and backup weapons, right?

Also, it seems that you stopped playing this game ~6 months ago. The 2x AC20 Jäger hasn't been a serious player in the meta since before the Victor was introduced. The K2 has similarly almost completely disappeared. The PPC/Gauss combination has, likewise, disappeared in favor of PPCs/AC5s, as they have a similar rate of fire and the AC5 is better for snap shots. Twin gauss mechs have, likewise, gone the way of the dodo as far as serious meta contenders. They're still good, sure, but they're hardly what all the cool kids are running around in these days.

Right now, the top tier mechs are the 2x cERPPC/2x cGauss Dire Whales, the 6x UAC5 Dire Whales, the Timber Wolf (there's no one agreed upon meta build for this one. It's just a damn good mech), and the Stormcrow (see what I said about the Timber). Even then, the meta is in such flux that we haven't really had something like the 2x PPC, 2x UAC5 Victor crop up, a clear top choice that is effective at all ranges, fast, agile, mobile, and taking advantage of the games mechanics in the most exploitative way possible. Even then, the Victor had huge side torsos and was quite prone to exploding hilariously once you forced it into a close fight.

Welcome to the new meta! We're talking about an outdated meta that was indeed quite tough at the time, but has improved vastly in the last few months.

I've asked a few of the top-end players (Adiuvo, Roland), and the meta these days actually tends more towards high mobility blitzes according to them. Clan lasers are the go-to weapon, with top players stating, essentially, that the TBR Laser Vomit has largely replaced the VTR dua-PP(A)C/5 build as the dominant force. Some of the top guys are actually going so far to state that the Summoner should actually be classified as a Tier 2 'Mech that holds its own against most any IS heavy without issue, and is only seen as "The Suckoner" because the Timber Wolf is so overwhelmingly better than both it and everything else that nothing can compare.

Additionally, top guys are mostly "Meh. Pass" where the Whale is concerned, at least in organized or semi-organized competition. Its complete lack of mobility really, truly does kill it; ultracomps still prefer VTRs in their assault slots for competitive drops. The Whale may have unmatchable firepower, but an ultracomp doesn't need unmatchable firepower to win a fight. He needs sufficient firepower on a frame able to move that firepower around to where it's needed. The Whale is a giant boat anchor that slows entire teams down trying to protect it, and it's too easy to avoid its firepower for the thing to be worth much in even semi-organized competition. It's only in Puglandia, where people are too dumb to come in out of the rain and/or insist on trying to fight the blasted things face-to-face and DPS-to-DPS, that Whales are the horrendous game-wrecking force everyone thinks they are.

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

Would you take a Warhawk over a Dire Wolf into a competitive match?

Yes, I would take a Warhawk over a Whale if, for whatever random reason, I was being dropped in an ultracomp fight and had to choose between the two current Clan assaults. The Warhawk may be almost as easy to saw apart as an Awesome is, but the Whale is even easier to cut to pieces, and I've actually done some really solid work in Puglandia with the Warhawk. yes yes, I know, Puglandia is Puglandia, but frankly a quad C-LPL Warhawk or something similar - or ganged C-ERLL and a C-Gauss or similar, for sniping - would be a much more serious threat to most folks with a brain in their skulls than a Mired Whale would be.

Frankly, in a couple of months here I'd take a Gargoyle over either of them. I'm thinking the Gargoyle's dual center-torso C-ERLL build, with accompanying C-ERML in the arms, will make a surprisingly not-terrible rugged Laser Vomit build itself, able to retain well more than half its firepower after losing either of its shoulders. Yes, it needs Endo and has too much engine, but I think it may surprise people.

And much like every other Clan Laser Vomit 'Mech, it'd be able to do so completely unaffected by your sized hardpoint shenanery because every Clan laser - currently the top-performing weapons class, recall - is a 1-slot weapon save for the C-LPL. Leaving Ghost Heat (or a saner, more universal and intuitive implementation of a Ghost Heat-ish system, by preference) as the only real control on a Clan Laser Vomit build regardless of chassis.

[Josef Nader]

1453 R is a bit more in touch with the bleeding edge top tier comp meta than I am, it seems. I concede to you. The ELP has gotten out of the game when it comes to competing as of late. Too much time spent running terrible builds in team battles and doing fairly okay with them.

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Where do you see stock 'Mechs existing in this game? The heat system alone is too punishing for stock 'Mechs to be run against anything other than other stock 'Mechs -- hard point restrictions or not.

Bone stock, non-upgraded mechs? They have no place. Not in competition, at least. Mechs running stock weapons loadouts with significantly upgraded internals (DHS, bigger engines, more ammo/heat sinks)? Depends on the mech. A number of my favorite "for fun" mechs I run with stock weapons loadouts, like my BLR-1G (fantastic pug brawler with great heat efficiency and some nice handling), my HBK-4G (it's the first mech I got in this game, and it hasn't changed much since I got it), my AS7-D (single SRM6 and LRM20 and everything), my COM-2D (ECM is for squares, daddy-o), my ADR-PRIME (it was a favorite tank hunter in TT, and I like it now.), and my BJ-1, to name a few.

Are any of these mechs serious competition machines? No, they're not. Can I put out 800-1000+ damage numbers in them in a good match? Damn skippy.,

As far as serious competition? Stock mechs will never belong there. They never have, and they never will. Squeezing out every ounce of performance is too damn important to make concessions to preserve the nature of the machine you're driving. It's the nature of the beast. Trying to force these things onto players is only going to narrow the competitive field even further.

[3rdworld]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Where do you see stock 'Mechs existing in this game? The heat system alone is too punishing for stock 'Mechs to be run against anything other than other stock 'Mechs -- hard point restrictions or not.

They don't. If you played a stock mech mode, they would simply be ruled by the decent champs and Heroes anyhow.

The heat system even excluding GH, means most stock mechs are going to run way to hot to be useful.

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

Would you take a Warhawk over a Dire Wolf into a competitive match?

Depends on tonnage map and mode. But I would probably just stuff as many Timbers as I could get instead of using either of them.

Edited by 3rdworld, 09 October 2014 - 01:22 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 09 October 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

False, this game is not well-balanced. It just has a very small population and a lot of terrible players.

This game gets exposed every time they do any kind of serious tournament, and once CW rolls in and people have a reason to actually play, it will be even more evident.

In addition this game is a flat boring-ass arena game, with terrible modes and a MAJOR lack of anything that could be considered dynamic.

People like you are why this game is floundering, which is why Russ has had to wage a one man campaign to try and save things.

It's why they instituted Mode Voting and IMMEDIATELY removed it in fear of losing more people.

It's a sad state, and you perpetuate it.

Sorry but hard point sizing isn't going to fix it. The first thing that you are going to see is everyone RAIL against eliminating the open configuration. Also as soon as the comp players figure out how to max it, we'll be back here again... complaining about another build.

Wait for the quirk system then we can take a better look.

And to the folks that would take a Warhawk over a Dire.... lol... :|

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 01:30 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I love the Shawk vs 4G debate, lets break down WHY the Quirk System has more potential than the Hardpoint Size System.

SHD-2D
HBK-4G

SHD-2D Stats:
-55 tons
-3x Hoverjets
-52 points of armor on ballistic torso
-72 points of armor on center torso
-all arm mounted energy
-87.5kph tweaked
-108 degrees of torso yaw
-30 degree torso pitch
-35 degree firing arc on arms for a 143 degree firing arc on Medium lasers
-56 degree/sec twist speed
-98 degree/sec torso yaw speed

HBK-4G Stats:
-50 tons
-48 points of armor on ballistic torso
-64 points of armor on center torso
-head laser
-89.1kph tweaked
-150 degrees of torso yaw
-40 degree firing arc on arms for a 190 degree firing arc on medium lasers
-57 degree/sec twist speed
-100 degree/sec torso yaw speed


So according to those stats, they're nearly equal all things considered. With the slight upper hand in a knife fight going to the 4G. So why is the Hawk the better mech? And don't say Hoverjets™

So what did we not look at?






Oh.... that's right.... We didn't look at hitboxes... Hitboxes make or break a mech more than anything else in this game...

the Hawk is more likely to die with it's AC20 intact and ammo bins dry while the Hunchback is likely to lose it's AC20 before it even gets halfway through it's second ton of ammo.

So what can quirks do that hardpoint sizes can't? Oh yeah... make the AC20 with feet into an AC20 with feet.

Some quirks that the HBK-4G can receive to make it the Walking AC20 this game needs:
-25% cooldown on large bore ballistics (AC20, AC20, LB10X, Gauss) meaning it's AC20 belches a round every 3 seconds instead of 4.
-25% internal structure buff (up form 24 to 30)
-50% resistance to weapon crits in right torso (making the AC20 live longer, all too often it gets critted the moment the armor is gone, making the internal structure buff worthless)


Available hardpoints aren't the lower tier mechs problem, or This would have been as much of a problem as This. No, hitboxes play a FAR larger role in what's "good" and what's "bad."

Because what it ultimately is RIGHT NOW:
-Mech A can carry X loadout
-Mech B can carry X loadout
-Mech B has better hitboxes than Mech A
-Ergo, Mech B > Mech A

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 09 October 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

Available hardpoints aren't the lower tier mechs problem, or This would have been as much of a problem as This. No, hitboxes play a FAR larger role in what's "good" and what's "bad."

Exactly why hardpoint restrictions which limit certain 'mechs with certain hitboxes from carrying certain weapon systems could go further in determining which is good and what is bad -- if the Hunchback can carry an AC/20 while the Shadow Hawk can't, the argument of which can carry an AC/20 better is completely void. Players who want to take an AC/20 would have to choose a 'Mech that many would consider to have sub-optimal boxes, and conversely, players who wanted to take a 'Mech that had what was considered good hitboxes would have their ability to bring certain weapons restricted.

Thus, choice beyond just what 'Mech has the best hitboxes would need to be made.

[ApolloKaras]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Exactly why hardpoint restrictions which limit certain 'mechs with certain hitboxes from carrying certain weapon systems could go further in determining which is good and what is bad -- if the Hunchback can carry an AC/20 while the Shadow Hawk can't, the argument of which can carry an AC/20 better is completely void. Players who want to take an AC/20 would have to choose a 'Mech that many would consider to have sub-optimal boxes, and conversely, players who wanted to take a 'Mech that had what was considered good hitboxes would have their ability to bring certain weapons restricted.

Thus, choice beyond just what 'Mech has the best hitboxes would need to be made.

Then you would just take the SHD anyway and load it with dual ac5's and an erppc

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 01:36 PM.

[Josef Nader]

Johan gets it. The statistical differences between the Shadow Hawk and the Hunchback are miniscule, and the only reason the Shadow Hawk is more "meta" than the Hunchback is it's superior hitboxes. The hardpoint size crowd wants to balance the two by smashing the Shadow Hawk in the kneecaps and leaving it with a worthless hodge-podge of hardpoints that can't mount any serious firepower and would only be taken into battle by pure masochists in order to give the Hunchback a "role".

What PGI is going to do is make the Hunchback better at what it does than the Shadow Hawk, so that if it came down to a fight between the AC20 Hunchback and the AC20 Shadow Hawk, it -WOULD- have a statistical advantage that would allow it to edge out the Hawk and make up for it's slightly worse hitboxes. The Shadow Hawk would still have superior hitboxes and jump capability (remember, JJs are getting buffed very soon. Those hoverjets won't be useless forever!), but the Hunchback will be the superior AC20 platform because of its faster rate of fire and tougher side torso (in your example). This nudges the Hunchback up to even with the Hawk without taking away what makes the Hawk awesome.

Edited by Josef Nader, 09 October 2014 - 01:46 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

Then you would just take the SHD anyway and load it with dual ac5's and an erppc

And if sizes of hard points did not allow the SHD to carry that? Sure, other medium 'Mechs would be able to carry similar load outs with multiple AC's and PPC's, but what if they were ones that players considered to have sub-optimal hit boxes? Would players risk making trade offs by bringing weapons proven to be effective on chassis that are capable of carrying them but do not spread damage as well?

[3rdworld]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Exactly why hardpoint restrictions which limit certain 'mechs with certain hitboxes from carrying certain weapon systems could go further in determining which is good and what is bad -- if the Hunchback can carry an AC/20 while the Shadow Hawk can't, the argument of which can carry an AC/20 better is completely void. Players who want to take an AC/20 would have to choose a 'Mech that many would consider to have sub-optimal boxes, and conversely, players who wanted to take a 'Mech that had what was considered good hitboxes would have their ability to bring certain weapons restricted.

Thus, choice beyond just what 'Mech has the best hitboxes would need to be made.

Didn't you just effectively remove choice? If that was the case there are only 2 mechs in the medium class that can carry a AC/20. Not exactly what choice means IMO.

Edited by 3rdworld, 09 October 2014 - 01:41 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

And if sizes of hard points did not allow the SHD to carry that? Sure, other medium 'Mechs would be able to carry similar load outs with multiple AC's and PPC's, but what if they were ones that players considered to have sub-optimal hit boxes? Would players risk making trade offs by bringing weapons proven to be effective on chassis that are capable of carrying them but do not spread damage as well?

Then you move to a Griffin 3M and move closer. The AC20 in a Hunchback is a non issue. If you truly want the AC20 then you take a Yen-Lo

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 01:43 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Exactly why hardpoint restrictions which limit certain 'mechs with certain hitboxes from carrying certain weapon systems could go further in determining which is good and what is bad -- if the Hunchback can carry an AC/20 while the Shadow Hawk can't, the argument of which can carry an AC/20 better is completely void. Players who want to take an AC/20 would have to choose a 'Mech that many would consider to have sub-optimal boxes, and conversely, players who wanted to take a 'Mech that had what was considered good hitboxes would have their ability to bring certain weapons restricted.

Thus, choice beyond just what 'Mech has the best hitboxes would need to be made.

SO I have to choose a mech with shitboxes or a mech with a **** loadout?

Looks like I'll be picking a mech that works around that. Kinda like this SCR-PRIME (which fits the bill for Hardpoint sizes), since that build is no different than this SCR-PRIME, and the second is considered a problem build.

So you want to nerf the ONLY IS medium that has ANY chance against the clan medium?

Edited by Lord Scarlett Johan, 09 October 2014 - 01:45 PM.

[Josef Nader]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Exactly why hardpoint restrictions which limit certain 'mechs with certain hitboxes from carrying certain weapon systems could go further in determining which is good and what is bad -- if the Hunchback can carry an AC/20 while the Shadow Hawk can't, the argument of which can carry an AC/20 better is completely void. Players who want to take an AC/20 would have to choose a 'Mech that many would consider to have sub-optimal boxes, and conversely, players who wanted to take a 'Mech that had what was considered good hitboxes would have their ability to bring certain weapons restricted.

Thus, choice beyond just what 'Mech has the best hitboxes would need to be made.

And around we go again!

No, what happens is that the field of viable mechs drops to those mechs that can field good loadouts AND have good hitboxes. Nobody really cares about mounting an AC20 -that badly- that they're willing to take an inferior mech (not that I think the Hunchback is -that- bad. I used to run the things in competition back in the day, and I have a soft spot for the little guy. He's just the example we're using) to do it. Nobody cares about mounting multiple PPCs enough to ever, ever, ever, ever field an Awesome in serious competitive play.

No, the comp crowd is going to define a new meta using whatever mechs have good hitboxes AND can sport good loadouts. I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll undoubtedly say it again in this useless circular argument, nobody really gives two shakes of an Urbie's small laser what weapons they're using or what chassis they're using. They care about the most effective weapons on the most effective mechs, whatever that combination might be, and they will run that combination exclusively to the detriment of everything else. Imposing further restrictions on customization only serves to choke out variants that have bad hitboxes by preventing them from even mounting good weapons (see, the Dragon, Quickdraw, Awesome, Jägermech, Battlemaster, Banshee, etc. etc. etc.).

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Main issues with sized hard points include removal of choice, arbitrary balance changes, uneven penalty on "Problem builds" that can be built on other mechs, and a widening gap between IS and Clan mechs. And best case scenario we achieve what we already have. Again, I'd rather have ghost heat.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

And around we go again!

No, what happens is that the field of viable mechs drops to those mechs that can field good loadouts AND have good hitboxes. Nobody really cares about mounting an AC20 -that badly- that they're willing to take an inferior mech (not that I think the Hunchback is -that- bad. I used to run the things in competition back in the day, and I have a soft spot for the little guy. He's just the example we're using) to do it. Nobody cares about mounting multiple PPCs enough to ever, ever, ever, ever field an Awesome in serious competitive play.

No, the comp crowd is going to define a new meta using whatever mechs have good hitboxes AND can sport good loadouts. I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll undoubtedly say it again in this useless circular argument, nobody really gives two shakes of an Urbie's small laser what weapons they're using or what chassis they're using. They care about the most effective weapons on the most effective mechs, whatever that combination might be, and they will run that combination exclusively to the detriment of everything else. Imposing further restrictions on customization only serves to choke out variants that have bad hitboxes by preventing them from even mounting good weapons (see, the Dragon, Quickdraw, Awesome, Jägermech, Battlemaster, Banshee, etc. etc. etc.).

Even with a new meta, which of course will emerge (even in stock 'Mech games like MPBT there were some builds considered better than others, there always will be), restrictions of hardpoints will still increase a 'Mechs time to kill -- which is the whole overall aim in such a mechanic like hard point restriction.

[Xanquil]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

Even with a new meta, which of course will emerge (even in stock 'Mech games like MPBT there were some builds considered better than others, there always will be), restrictions of hardpoints will still increase a 'Mechs time to kill -- which is the whole overall aim in such a mechanic like hard point restriction.

No it only increases the TTK that some mechs have, and any one not using the best alpha mech will be just free kills. There really only one thing that would change TTK for the better, and that is changing how alpha strikes work. Not just for some mechs but all mechs, and not for some weapons but all weapons. Sized hardpoints will not do this.

[Josef Nader]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

Even with a new meta, which of course will emerge (even in stock 'Mech games like MPBT there were some builds considered better than others, there always will be), restrictions of hardpoints will still increase a 'Mechs time to kill -- which is the whole overall aim in such a mechanic like hard point restriction.

Slight increase in TTK (that can be achieved through weapon balancing) that completely axes 9 out of 10 mechs from the game as useful or viable.

Good trade.

[Celthora]

Creativity? Do you mean loading Gauss on a Spider by this?

Every mech supposed be unique, and they must add different things to the game. Thats how it makes sense.

What happens when they release Hollander? Do you think ppl will rush it? No, it wont add something to game because Blackjack already covers its ability.

You are not supposed to create millions of builds on 1 mech. But you should buy many mechs to play any builds you want.

Atm, mechs are similar to each other, and its an extremely boring situation even you dont realize it.

[Josef Nader]

Celthora, on 09 October 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Creativity? Do you mean loading Gauss on a Spider by this?

Every mech supposed be unique, and they must add different things to the game. Thats how it makes sense.

What happens when they release Hollander? Do you think ppl will rush it? No, it wont add something to game because Blackjack already covers its ability.

You are not supposed to create millions of builds on 1 mech. But you should buy many mechs to play any builds you want.

Atm, mechs are similar to each other, and its an extremely boring situation even you dont realize it.

Delete the mechlab. Stock mechs only! If the Raven can mount a gauss rifle, why introduce the Hollander?

Well, for starters, the Hollander might have better hitboxes or a more advantageous hardpoint layout for running that particular loadout than the Raven.

With the massive upcoming quirk pass, the Hollander might fire the gauss rifle faster, be more resistant to losing the gauss rifle, or have better weapon characteristics, making it an appealing alternative for that specific build.

Of course, this is completely ignoring that the gauss Raven is and always has been a joke build, as are most of the silly edge cases folks in the "hardpoint limitation" camps throw out there. Go ahead, throw a gauss rifle on a spider. Let me know how many 800+ damage games you have in that little guy.

[Lightfoot]

Ultimatum X, on 09 October 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

I once asked Russ about the Gauss charge-up mechanic, and this was his response.







So please do not be under any illusion that sized hardpoints would see the Gauss rifle charge up disappear.

The way you "fairly" remove the Gauss Rifle as a brawling weapon is give it a 25-33% longer recharge than brawling weapons. Strange how this one little oversight PGI made back in the MWO alpha got so blown out of proportion as to require the Gauss Rifle be given the charge-up mechanic of a 3rd person shooter sniper rifle. The Gauss doesn't do anywhere near the damage of a sniper rifle, which, just guesstimating, would be more like 24-27 damage in MWO. That's why you almost never see players using just one.

I just wish they would make the Gauss de-sync into something that worked for something other than just the Mouse. That is just not fair, and why all the fear about what is really a mediocre weapon except for it's accuracy?