110 replies to this topic

[Willard Phule]

Gyrok, on 25 March 2015 - 06:26 AM, said:

LOL....yes they can...it usually takes 2 volleys of 5xSSRM6s to drop one...sometimes 3 depending upon how bad the "bones" mechanic spreads your volley...

At this point, I thought it was common knowledge that CSSRM6s aren't worth the weight, ammo consumption and heat they produce....most of the time, at least 2 of them go MIA (I know I said 6s previously). CSSRM4s are the way to go...if the HSR is on a smoke break, you'll still get 2 to hit. 5 of them on chainfire keeps a constant stream of "try to outrun this, bonehead" missiles out there.

Chainfire, cooldown and range modules are your friend. As is the 360 degree target retention. And, if you're real dirty...the "artemis bug" still effects streaks.

Trust me, I've got a couple of interceptor builds I made specifically for the ECM light rush. CAP is a must, as is UAV. Back the SSRMs up with some sort of pulse lasers on chainfire as well. Mediums if you can handle the heat, smalls if you can't (they've got the same range, more or less, as the streaks anyway).

LBX autocannons are a decent backup as well, if you've got one of those new "shotgun choke" tweaks. Try it with a Summoner....LBX5, SSRM4s, CMPLSs...it works pretty well. Granted, it sucks against anything bigger than a Medium or a weak Heavy....

[Gyrok]

Willard Phule, on 25 March 2015 - 07:02 AM, said:

At this point, I thought it was common knowledge that CSSRM6s aren't worth the weight, ammo consumption and heat they produce....most of the time, at least 2 of them go MIA (I know I said 6s previously). CSSRM4s are the way to go...if the HSR is on a smoke break, you'll still get 2 to hit. 5 of them on chainfire keeps a constant stream of "try to outrun this, bonehead" missiles out there.

Chainfire, cooldown and range modules are your friend. As is the 360 degree target retention. And, if you're real dirty...the "artemis bug" still effects streaks.

Trust me, I've got a couple of interceptor builds I made specifically for the ECM light rush. CAP is a must, as is UAV. Back the SSRMs up with some sort of pulse lasers on chainfire as well. Mediums if you can handle the heat, smalls if you can't (they've got the same range, more or less, as the streaks anyway).

LBX autocannons are a decent backup as well, if you've got one of those new "shotgun choke" tweaks. Try it with a Summoner....LBX5, SSRM4s, CMPLSs...it works pretty well. Granted, it sucks against anything bigger than a Medium or a weak Heavy....

That is partly what drives me nuts, would rather have plain SRMs, I can aim well enough to hit lights with the largest chunk...plus, no BS about ECM, you aim they die, regular SRMs do not suck against bigger stuff either.

Edited by Gyrok, 25 March 2015 - 07:09 AM.

[Dulahan]

My own druthers here?

Having CW alongside the other modes, and trying to balance in a way that works for all of them is… just not possible. CW adds the additional factor of the weight limit and minimums to the balancing act, which can make certain mechs that aren’t as good as other options in 12 v 12 (why use an 80 tonner Assault mech and take up that slot, when you can use a King Crab or Dire Wolf?) actually viable options because there’s the 3 other mechs of your deck in there too.

So that’s where the most delicate issue is. The Thunderbolt 9s is a textbook example here. It was hardly as dominant mech in 12 v 12 (very good, for sure, but not so much as to be king). But in CW it was beastly due to the way the maps are set up and its weight plus the ability it had.

[DaZur]

Here's the idiocy of balance discussions...

You can take two mechs, that are identical in tonnage, number/type of hard-points, hit-boxes armor, engines...etc..etc..

By virtue of the location / position of one or more of the hard-points, these two mechs can be at opposite ends of the tier spectrum.

All the arguments over balance via battle-values, tonnage, etc are ultimately nullified by the simple reality that secondary to the wide open configuration system, GH, quirks and the natural slide to the next metta-vetted composite means "balance" in any true sense of the meaning is impossible...

Mind you... I don't want to give up customization but that's the reality.

In short, Chaos Theory is a Bi@tch...

Edited by DaZur, 25 March 2015 - 08:01 AM.

[Willard Phule]

DaZur, on 25 March 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

Here's the idiocy of balance discussions...

You can take two mechs, that are identical in tonnage, number/type of hard-points, hit-boxes armor, engines...etc..etc..

By virtue of the location / position of one or more of the hard-points, these two mechs can be at opposite ends of the tier spectrum.

All the arguments over balance via battle-values, tonnage, etc are ultimately nullified by the simple reality that secondary to the wide open configuration system, GH, quirks and the natural slide to the next metta-vetted composite means "balance" in any true sense of the meaning is impossible...

Mind you... I don't want to give up customization but that's the reality.

In short, Chaos Theory is a Bi@tch...

True, but how much of the nonsense that is broken beyond repair is simply because PGI is physically incapable of doing anything that isn't poorly thought out, overcomplicated and undertested before it's released?

Ghost Heat wouldn't have to exist if they simply stuck to the whole 30 point heat scale and worked from there....or, and here's a hard one to contemplate....adjusting the rate of fire *gasp*.

Or this whole Elo/Matchmaker system...assign skill ranks based on GXP earned and go from there.

PGI doesn't like simple. They like it so complicated that not even they can understand their coding...it helps prevent intellectual theft, I guess

[Adamski]

Willard Phule, on 25 March 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

True, but how much of the nonsense that is broken beyond repair is simply because PGI is physically incapable of doing anything that isn't poorly thought out, overcomplicated and undertested before it's released?

Ghost Heat wouldn't have to exist if they simply stuck to the whole 30 point heat scale and worked from there....or, and here's a hard one to contemplate....adjusting the rate of fire *gasp*.

Or this whole Elo/Matchmaker system...assign skill ranks based on GXP earned and go from there.

PGI doesn't like simple. They like it so complicated that not even they can understand their coding...it helps prevent intellectual theft, I guess

When they implemented Ghost Heat, PPCs were only 8 heat and ERPPCs were only 10 or 12.

Then, after ghost heat failed to bring PPCs in line, then the actual stats of the PPCs were looked at.

[F4T 4L]

Gyrok, on 23 March 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:

This is an explanation as to why what everyone thinks is possible, will never happen...

1.) Balance can be done from multiple angles, but there will always be variables in play that cannot be properly compared side by side. The only way to avoid this is to do something along the lines of SWTOR or another MMO where both sides are the same classes and same abilities EXACTLY with slightly different aesthetics sprinkled on top (also tends to be boring, but I digress).

2.) Regardless of all things being equal, there will always be a class/build/weapon/ability that is the "Flavor of the Month" or the strongest in the evolving meta game. Once that build is "tuned" something else will take the place of that one.

3.) Some things will never be top performing. This is something many of you must learn to accept, and just deal with it. The AWS will never have FS9 hit boxes...sorry...it will always be a tier 2 mech unless it is buffed to be so overpowered it has to be tuned back down. Why? Because even the Gargamel Clan mech has better hit boxes...and the Gargamel is worse than the AWS. This can be the result of poor hardpoints, poor hit boxes, bad equipment, or, in the case of clan mechs, over/under engined, no endo, limited hardpoints, bad hardpoint locations, etc.

4.) The meta is going to evolve, sometimes rapidly, sometimes not. Anyone else remember the jump snipe meta? Remember the QQ over it for an entire YEAR?! Now, we are down to several emergent meta games that depend on what you are bringing to what map. The current state of the meta game now is more diverse and balanced than it ever has been in the entirety of MWO's history. How people are complaining about that is beyond me...however, to each their own.

Hopefully this at least enlightens some of those making all the QQ threads with some insight from a developer. Balancing things is not easy, especially something like this. Frankly, the fact that this game has a performance delta around 5-ish% between the 2 tech trees is an achievement for this team. When you consider what was...this is a time where more chassis are viable, and more play styles are viable, than ever have been at once in the history of MWO. Enjoy it, and stop complaining. Go shoot stompy robots.

I dont care what you said.

I'll tell you something for sure though.. if they balance CW with tonnage, all hope is lost for the PUG game.

[Fate 6]

Adamski, on 23 March 2015 - 07:18 AM, said:

If PGI was interested in balance, CW would consist of the Clans fighting over Strana Mechty and the homeworlds for invasion corridors, while the Successor Houses fought over the Inner Sphere. This would allow the faction mechs to be balanced within their faction, then AFTER that is completed, begin the invasion and begin balancing the factions against one another.

All the internet points belong to you

[Willard Phule]

Adamski, on 25 March 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

When they implemented Ghost Heat, PPCs were only 8 heat and ERPPCs were only 10 or 12.

Then, after ghost heat failed to bring PPCs in line, then the actual stats of the PPCs were looked at.

True enough...and their velocity was different and lots of stuff.

Ghost heat was supposed to be a temporary fix until they figured out the right mix of "rate of fire, dps, velocity, heat, etc"....which means, at least to me, "Um..we don't understand the basic concept of what we're doing, so we're going to throw a whole lot of patches into the mess and hope it works. Keep your fingers crossed."

We both remember what happened when Ghost Heat first came out, right?

[ShinobiHunter]

Well said OP. +1

[Mystere]

DaZur, on 25 March 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

Here's the idiocy of balance discussions...

You can take two mechs, that are identical in tonnage, number/type of hard-points, hit-boxes armor, engines...etc..etc..

By virtue of the location / position of one or more of the hard-points, these two mechs can be at opposite ends of the tier spectrum.

All the arguments over balance via battle-values, tonnage, etc are ultimately nullified by the simple reality that secondary to the wide open configuration system, GH, quirks and the natural slide to the next metta-vetted composite means "balance" in any true sense of the meaning is impossible...

Mind you... I don't want to give up customization but that's the reality.

In short, Chaos Theory is a Bi@tch...

As I have been hinting or directly saying in other threads, it is essentially an N-dimensional problem with N > 100 (or thereabouts). I seriously doubt many here can even comprehend, much less solve, such problems.

Hence my preference is for finding asymmetric solutions instead:

• X Clan vs. Y IS
  
• game modes with different drop weights and sizes
  
• different win conditions for Clans vs. IS
  
• maps favoring one side vs. the other
  
• game modes favoring one side vs. the other

In other words, think outside of the box and be creative, while at the same time adding variety.

[Gyrok]

F4T 4L, on 25 March 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

I dont care what you said.

I'll tell you something for sure though.. if they balance CW with tonnage, all hope is lost for the PUG game.

The pub queue is pretty well balanced, hence no real QQ from them...

[DaZur]

Willard Phule, on 25 March 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

PGI doesn't like simple. They like it so complicated that not even they can understand their coding...it helps prevent intellectual theft, I guess

PGI does tend to use the Rube Goldberg methodology of balance solution's don't they?

That said... while they are ungainly, ugly and arbitrary... They do in principle tackle their intended vice.

IMHO I think PGI has kind'a painted themselves in to proverbial corner with these patch-work solutions and it'd be very tough to reverse course...

[Gyrok]

DaZur, on 26 March 2015 - 06:32 AM, said:

PGI does tend to use the Rube Goldberg methodology of balance solution's don't they?

That said... while they are ungainly, ugly and arbitrary... They do in principle tackle their intended vice.

IMHO I think PGI has kind'a painted themselves in to proverbial corner with these patch-work solutions and it'd be very tough to reverse course...

This is probably the biggest issue.

[Vocis]

CocoaJin, on 23 March 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:

Sometimes I think the best thing PGI can do is implement a cycle of varying buffs/quirks, specs and attributes of weapons and chassises. Just keep the specs churning one or twice a month. It'll keep us on our toes and the meta on it'd heels. Nothing will persist long enough to illicit any major complaint.

It can all be chalked up to the ebb & flow of advantage and disadvantage of systems dusting a technological race war as technology counters and counter-counters competing systems.

Ahh, DOTA balance.

The Best Balance.

As soon as a Meta solidifies around an item or hero Ice Frog (DOTA Dev) will either nerf the item, or buff the counter.

And sometimes he'll change random ****. Just because he can.

Anything to prevent the game from becoming stale.

[cSand]

F4T 4L, on 25 March 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

I dont care what you said.

I'll tell you something for sure though.. if they balance CW with tonnage, all hope is lost for the PUG game.

Nay sir, cause balance is pretty fine as it is in those queues

In the group/pug queue it really does come down to individual skills or the skills of your group


So, us non-CWers, we'll be OK, I promise

In fact, balancing by tonnage for CW is a great way to do it becuase it affects the actual mechs involved and the balance of solo/group very little. AS LONG AS PGI keeps the relative "maximum power" of mechs about where it is now

10v12 OTOH, would have absolutely ruined the PUG and solo queues

[Mystere]

Vocis, on 26 March 2015 - 06:40 AM, said:

Ahh, DOTA balance.

The Best Balance.

As soon as a Meta solidifies around an item or hero Ice Frog (DOTA Dev) will either nerf the item, or buff the counter.

And sometimes he'll change random ****. Just because he can.

Anything to prevent the game from becoming stale.

My main issue with such methods is that it is like saying my rifle sometimes shoots bullets and sometimes shoots flowers, depending on the moon cycle.

[Kensaisama]

Most mechs are balanced within their weight class, stock mechs that is. They deliver a good mix of short, medium, and long range capabilities, then you have your niche mechs within the weight class, they excel at one particular role better than the rest, be it brawler, sniper, support etc. In short you have parity within the weight class, balance so to speak. You get an imbalance when you introduce customization into the mix with little or no restrictions, now parity within a given weight class has been flushed down the toilet, as well as some disparity between the weight classes. This is to say how I view the issue currently plaguing the balance/parity debate.

[Willard Phule]

DaZur, on 26 March 2015 - 06:32 AM, said:

PGI does tend to use the Rube Goldberg methodology of balance solution's don't they?

That said... while they are ungainly, ugly and arbitrary... They do in principle tackle their intended vice.

IMHO I think PGI has kind'a painted themselves in to proverbial corner with these patch-work solutions and it'd be very tough to reverse course...

Well, y'know....back in the Army, we had a term we used for how PGI is slapping this thing together...a more polite term would be "Farm Technology" or "Jury Rigging."

Eventually, the 550 cord and 100mph tape is going to come apart. And I'll be here, watching it happen.

[Vocis]

Mystere, on 26 March 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:

My main issue with such methods is that it is like saying my rifle sometimes shoots bullets and sometimes shoots flowers, depending on the moon cycle.

Because the changes come quickly they are rarely that big.

In DOTA parlance a nuke costing 200 mana and doing 350 damage can get a "major nerf" to 225 mana and 325 damage.

A few +-.5 damage or heat on weapons would go a long way to shaking up the laser vomit meta.

Edited by Vocis, 26 March 2015 - 12:25 PM.