48 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Alwrath, on 30 December 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

Actually they do, you just choose not for them to hold relevance for you, which is, imo... kinda silly.

His tournament stats do not.

Tournament stats overall could: Compare average tournament results over the, say, top 50 of different mechs to get a very good idea of overall mech performance? That's very usable.

One player's tournament results on their own is totally useless information. It's not just irrelevant to me, it's irrelevant overall. Being good at stompy robots doesn't mean you know anything at all about what changes could make a mech better or worse.

Note that I am NOT insulting V here, not at all. I am not saying he's wrong, nor did I say he deliberately insulted anyone. I said - and I thought I was quite clear - that it gives those implications, "whether he intended it or not."

I was agreeing with him. Just pointing out that he was doing himself and his thread a disservice by posting tourny results.

[Duke Nedo]

You can choose what to read.. I read that he actually did more than 300 drops in the hunchies before playing his opinion. I didn't really register the rest. :-)

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 30 December 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yeah, the HBK IIC mechs need help. They're too bulky and fragile, and 100% reliance on torso mounted weapons with limited torso pitch is a CRITICAL disadvantage. The total inability to shoot down UAV's matters, as well as complete uselessness around hills. That one (currently unobtainable) variant has arm mounted weapons doesn't solve the problem for the 3 other variants.

The Orion? Not so much of a problem. It's a bit fragile, but is at least capable of pushing very heavy alpha strikes to compensate. I have no trouble posting very strong results in mine in T2 matches - 80-100pt alpha strikes go a long ways to covering fragility issues. A shield side that is larger than the sword side is helpful as well. I'd argue it needs some structural buffs, OR some agility buffs, but not both.

The Jenner is fine. It's made of paper, but hits like a truck. Any defensive buffs would make it grossly OP IMHO.

I haven't played the Highlander yet, but as it has no mobility quirks, it handles like a pre-buff Highlander. Ugh.

I think the point you make on the Orion bears repeating. It needs structure buffs OR Mobility...one or the other. IMO, since it's not a great "shielder" (bad arms for that, not hugely agile to begin with with big torsos) it's a perfect candidate for Structure.

So running off that theme, in Origins IIC pass one?

-Jenner:
Honestly, nothing. I think once things settle and sort out, it's niche will be clear. It's the one I'd be most leary of buffing because it's the easiest to turn into a terror that makes the the old over quirked ACH seem like a chihuahua in comparison. It quite simply packs too much firepower, on too fast and agile a package to not have a downside. IMO, it shoudl be what it is, a total Glass Cannon. Easy to kill in the open, but a premier backstabber.

IF, after another patch cycle or two, it's truly found wanting, then it's the sole IIC I would recommend Offensive Quirks for. Buff it's structure or mobility, we will have a problem child on hand. But make it's SRMs cluster tighter, better range, lower heat? Aka, make it even more of an all or nothing design? That I could see IF, again I say IF, for those who can't keep ideas in context, it actually needs anything.

-Hunchback:
Again, it's getting it's arm hitbox extended onto the shoulder part of the ST. Hopefully that helps it shield a little bit of incoming fire.

The most crucial thing it needs fixed, IS the Torso Pitch. It's quite simply untenable ATM. As mentioned before, the lack of arm weapons leave sit too vulnerable to UAVs and thus LRMageddon, and to ankle hugging Lights. 30-35º would be the optimal pitch range.

Beyond that, a ST buff similar to the IS HBK, perhaps 12 pts structure per torso, I think is more crucial than actual mobility on the HBK-IIC. Once unlocked I find it reasonably agile. But it loses those STs far too easily. I would probably NOT add the 18 pts to the armor though, considering the ability to pack extra firepower and the Clan XL. Perhaps after a couple passes if it was still found lacking then we might revisit armoring the STs.

-Orion:
On this one, I don't think Mobility is so much the matter as structure buffs. It packs a lot of firepower, swords and boards pretty well, but it's arms are of minimal use as a shield anyhow. What betrays it is it's huge and boxy torso. So IMO, focus on giving it's ST and CT some Structure and possible Armor buffs. I agree with Wintersdark that one or the other, and I think toughness is more suitable and useful to this chassis.

-Highlander:
This is the reverse of the Orion. I think it's geometry is OK, overall, but every indication is it moves like a sow wallowing in a sty. Give it the same mobility quirks it's IS version has. This will do a lot for it. And again, IF, after a few passes, it still is a little weak, then we can consider toughness buffs.

Big thing to recall, is that NONE of the parent chassis are exactly Tier 1 Meta Mechs, either. As long as the IIC are on par with their parent design, then mission is accomplished. For those who want to see them buffed to be the next Metalords, sorry, but no.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Wintersdark, on 30 December 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

Being good at stompy robots doesn't mean you know anything at all about what changes could make a mech better or worse.

Actually most of the time it does, so you are wrong. The really good pilots in this game know all about the mechs they are piloting, what they are good at, and how to use there advantages. Hence why recommended buffs or nerfs from a skilled pilot such as V O L T R O N is usually good advice, because he knows the strengths and weaknesses of ALOT of mech's in this game. But if you want to disregard a pro players advice, go ahead and live in your little bubble.

[Bishop Steiner]

V O L T R O N, on 30 December 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

Yet threw all the personal attacks, everyone has Agreed with me. Hilariously interesting.

Well, if by everyone you mean Explicit and Alwrath, then sure.....

As for "personal attacks"...if you find someone saying that it might be nice if you toned down tooting your own horn a little.... *shrug*

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:

So IMO, focus on giving it's ST and CT some Structure and possible Armor buffs.

Maybe +4 armor and structure to all locations. Cant give it too much, otherwise it will be op, and the IS Orion will be crying in the corner powered down.

[Bishop Steiner]

CygnusX7, on 30 December 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

Personal attacks and negativity from Bishop?
Never seemed that way to me.. Always felt he was pretty neutral and not a Richard.
Probably why I always say hi when I notice we're in a match.

yeah man, always appreciate seeing other forum types. Heck you didn't even cuss me after I went out of my way to hunt you down on Ewok Colony, lol. Was so mad someone else got sycosys before I could ..... (I started a little trophy wall of when I get a kill on other people I recognize, lol)

Alwrath, on 30 December 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

Maybe +4 armor and structure to all locations. Cant give it too much, otherwise it will be op, and the IS Orion will be crying in the corner powered down.

yeah something like that. With Clan XLs and their firepower, I think these need to be the epitome of "iterative" changes. Of course, that would actually require us the players to keep on top of PGI, because we all know that their idea of iterative usually means forgetting about stuff for 6 months.

I might even go for a simple 8 structure per section. No armor at all.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

yeah something like that. With Clan XLs and their firepower, I think these need to be the epitome of "iterative" changes. Of course, that would actually require us the players to keep on top of PGI, because we all know that their idea of iterative usually means forgetting about stuff for 6 months.

I might even go for a simple 8 structure per section. No armor at all.

Agreed. People just dont realize the level of firepower a clan 75 ton mech with an xl300 can bring. Its scary. Heck im surprised I havent seen people trying out xl270 or xl280 builds with it lol. MOAR FIREPOWER.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alwrath, on 30 December 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

Agreed. People just dont realize the level of firepower a clan 75 ton mech with an xl300 can bring. Its scary. Heck im surprised I havent seen people trying out xl270 or xl280 builds with it lol. MOAR FIREPOWER.

Yeah, though it's also doing a nice job, IMO, of showing that the Timberwolf is not over-engined either...since I think it's still a more overall vicious machine than the Orion. IMO it's the speed that makes the TBR so deadly. ON-IIC packs a punch, but is not as tactically flexible, and is a lot easier to counter because it can't disengage at will.

[Alistair Winter]

V O L T R O N, on 30 December 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

Yet threw all the personal attacks, everyone has Agreed with me. Hilariously interesting.

You have to realize, some people aren't even aware of when they're being rude, hostile or passive agressive.
Which isn't to say I'm never guilty of doing it. But I won't plead ignorance either.

That being said, the OP would probably have had more effect if you'd provided some really visible, clear and concise analysis about the Origin mechs, backed up by your accomplishments. "Highlander and Orion need some movement quirks, Hunchback and Jenner are both fine". The most eye-catching content in the OP was your personal statistics, which is probably why the thread got derailed.

The MWO forums have changed a lot in the past 2 years. We used to see a lot more analytical threads with statistics, and we also used to see a lot more constructive posts from skilled players. Today, it's mostly just rhetoric and anecdotes. People throw arguments back and forth like greek philosophers debating the prime elements, without getting anywhere at all, without proving anything. And people who try to use skill as an argument get shouted down.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

Yeah, though it's also doing a nice job, IMO, of showing that the Timberwolf is not over-engined either...since I think it's still a more overall vicious machine than the Orion. IMO it's the speed that makes the TBR so deadly. ON-IIC packs a punch, but is not as tactically flexible, and is a lot easier to counter because it can't disengage at will.

I'd argue a lot of this has to do with the mobility nerfs. Before the skill tree changes, I'd have been (and was) at the front of the line claiming the tbr was overengined by a large margin.

The game is different now. After those mobility nerfs, a bigger engine is a lot more valuable.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alistair Winter, on 30 December 2015 - 12:33 PM, said:

And people who try to use skill as an argument get shouted down.

and vice versa.
"
You're no LORD/EMP/228 etc... your knowledge and input is meaningless!".

Basic point I was trying to make, nothing more, is time in saddle means more than how well one does in a match a tourney, etc. VOLTs total number of matches in said chassis is actualyl far more meaningful than his tourney placement, for statistics and actual analysis. I have seen good ideas posited by high scoring players....I've also seen some abjectly clueless, or clearly biased (keep my meta alive!) posts from high scoring comp players. And the same can be said about noobs, under hives, casuals, joe average, etc.

I actually agree with the entire premise of the OP. But who did what in a tourney has no bearing to my analysis on that. (I was top 3 most of the first day and a half... then I stopped playing because "IRL". Still ended up 16th, and that was playing a grand total of 12 matches in my IIC-A. And I came to the same conclusions largely as the OP..... so my tourney played proved what? ).

As Wintersdark said... if we see a trend of a chassis across the board scoring extremely high or low compared to the median of other similar chassis.... that's much more bearing than what any one player can or cannot do.

Nothing more, nothing less. No attacks made, shots fired, etc. But facts, details, specifics...ain't about holding hands or guiding toddlers, as the OP claims, but about putting out a coherent debate and something that is concise in analysis and result for pressing on to PGI.

There's a reason I have some history of getting results talking to Russ. Not my scores or my checkbook, but my preference for presenting clearly spelled out objectives, that take the big picture into consideration, and yet are usually simple and concise to implement. (And the blackmail photos don't hurt either)

[Dread Render]

VOLTRON was simply trying to establish some credibility before he made his primary statement. This is a good thing to do. He deserves credit for this, not a hard time.
Those of you who gave him grief for it need to soak your head in humble soup for a few hours.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 30 December 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

I'd argue a lot of this has to do with the mobility nerfs. Before the skill tree changes, I'd have been (and was) at the front of the line claiming the tbr was overengined by a large margin.

The game is different now. After those mobility nerfs, a bigger engine is a lot more valuable.

TBR was king before, and it's King now. To my mind it always had as much firepower as it could reasonably and repeatedly bring to bear. The ability to engage and disengage like a Medium Mech, while still punching like a low end assault, is IMO, why.

Thing I notice with Orion IICs when I see them...is how many are shut down...because smaller engine and way too much firepower means massive heat burdens. And even they start running out of crits to store DHS without a large engine. Add to it the need to commit, almost like an Assault?

[Wintersdark]

Render, on 30 December 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

VOLTRON was simply trying to establish some credibility before he made his primary statement. This is a good thing to do. He deserves credit for this, not a hard time.
Those of you who gave him grief for it need to soak your head in humble soup for a few hours.

A well presented and reasoned argument does that better than tournament stats. While his # of matches played had value there (proof at least that he'd played the mech before writing about it, which is more than most people do I'll admit) his skill with a mech doesn't bear on it either way.

But my point here was that the way he did it overshadows his whole post. I didn't say he didn't know what he was talking about, just that the means there clouded the message, and made his post *look* like it was just a bragging post. Note that I'm not saying he intended the post that way - I'm in no way insulting V here, or accusing him of anything.

[Alistair Winter]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

and vice versa.
"You're no LORD/EMP/228 etc... your knowledge and input is meaningless!".

I don't think I've ever seen anything remotely similar to that statement. And I'm on the forum a lot, for those who haven't noticed. It has probably happened, but it's so rare as to be insignificant, in my opinion.

There are some discussions where skill is relevant and some discussions where skill is irrelevant. If we're talking about artistic choices or what the game should look like (e.g. lower TTK or higher TTK), then skill is irrelevant. Those are personal preferences. If we're talking about the viability of certain mechs, strategies or builds, then skill is highly relevant.

It's like sports. Sometimes good trainers / coaches have no personal merits as athletes, but usually they do. In other words, the people who understand the game are usually skilled, but not always. Similarly, good athletes often make good trainers / coaches, but very often they don't. In other words, people who play the game well don't always understand it.

This does not, however, mean that personal skill and experience is irrelevant. It simply means there's no 1:1 correlation. Having an olympic gold medal is relevant if you're discussing sports. It doesn't mean you're right or everyone else is wrong, but obviously having that medal increases the chances of knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

Basic point I was trying to make, nothing more, is time in saddle means more than how well one does in a match a tourney, etc. VOLTs total number of matches in said chassis is actualyl far more meaningful than his tourney placement, for statistics and actual analysis. I have seen good ideas posited by high scoring players....I've also seen some abjectly clueless, or clearly biased (keep my meta alive!) posts from high scoring comp players. And the same can be said about noobs, under hives, casuals, joe average, etc.

Time in the saddle means a lot, though I don't think it's very useful to weigh experience against skill. But in this case, winning the "tournament" / grind fest means you're probably both relatively skilled and you've had a lot of time in the saddle. The guy has played hundreds of matches in the Origin mechs already, which is crazy.

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

As Wintersdark said... if we see a trend of a chassis across the board scoring extremely high or low compared to the median of other similar chassis.... that's much more bearing than what any one player can or cannot do.

I whole-heartedly agree.

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

There's a reason I have some history of getting results talking to Russ. Not my scores or my checkbook, but my preference for presenting clearly spelled out objectives, that take the big picture into consideration, and yet are usually simple and concise to implement. (And the blackmail photos don't hurt either)

With all due respect, I think there's more to it than that.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

TBR was king before, and it's King now. To my mind it always had as much firepower as it could reasonably and repeatedly bring to bear. The ability to engage and disengage like a Medium Mech, while still punching like a low end assault, is IMO, why.

Sure, due to unlimited hardpoint flexibility, optimal overall tonnage, and perfect storm of upgrades. I'll still hold that a 350 rated Timberwolf would be an objectively better mech, as those 4.5t would be very, very useful for a great many builds.

With that said, as laser vomit is the way to go currently, a larger engine is better there: The weapons used are light and small, and using them well needs maximal cooling. A large engine is often a better choice for that build specifically. As soon as you're adding ballistics, though, even gauss - going down to a 350 would be a much better option. A 350, or 325 would allow MUCH more variety in ballistic TBR builds too.

Quote

Thing I notice with Orion IICs when I see them...is how many are shut down...because smaller engine and way too much firepower means massive heat burdens. And even they start running out of crits to store DHS without a large engine. Add to it the need to commit, almost like an Assault?

Not so much the problem. Right now, everyone's levelling Orions, so they're either lacking the heat management skills entirely or just don't have them doubled. Wait till people have more experience with them.

Orion IIC's are not particularly hot mechs, even with the massive firepower. Consider ON1-IIC for example. This can push 90 points of damage over the LPL burn time, with a heat efficiency comparable to (and better than) many clan laser vomit mechs. At range, it can fire the twin LPL's essentially forever (well, 1 minute 20 seconds of continuous fire).

But, when you have room for lots of big guns, AND no heat management pilot skills, it can be tough

Alistair Winter, on 30 December 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

With all due respect, I think there's more to it than that.

I doubt it. I've seen those blackmail photos! I'm amazed Bishop doesn't get better results.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alistair Winter, on 30 December 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

With all due respect, I think there's more to it than that.

do enlighten us?

Alistair Winter, on 30 December 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

I don't think I've ever seen anything remotely similar to that statement. And I'm on the forum a lot, for those who haven't noticed. It has probably happened, but it's so rare as to be insignificant, in my opinion.

Then you haven't been paying attention, or overlooked it due to confirmation bias blinders (we all tend to overlook or minimize bad traits and dbaggery in posts and people we agree with, whether we realize it or not). But that was very much the common refrain, especially during the Poptart Nerf discussions. And I still see it pop up at least as often as I see people bagging on somebody because they ARE skilled. I see people bag on people who use the "i'm skilled so that why" line quite a bit, but not all that often on folks just for having skill.

One usually has to have a reputation as a swaggering Epeen (Crunk Prime) to get targeted.... and it's not because they have skill or anyone is jealous of their skill. It's usually because the person in question is just a douche.

[Mcgral18]

Well, here's my Hunch stats:


As you can see, only really used the (O), aside from Basic'ing 2 of them.


I found them fine...as long as nothing ever shot you. Missile hunch was a SSRM24 with 4JJs, tarting until it was out of missiles.
SRM24+A was simply too fragile to brawl with.

My A was 6ERMLs with 24 DHS...can't remember how many JJs. Can't really poptart with ERMLs, and the torso pitch was frequently an issue.

The (O) started as a poptart (Gauss+ERPPC), max JJs, 35 rounds. It did pretty well with that, and without Doubled Basics, it ran cool, and didn't need to be too agile.
After mastery, it went to a Dual UAC10+2ERML build, for SO MUCH MORE damage. It can peek and let out 54 damage if RNGeesus loves you, but in more time than the 30 (well, 25+2.5+2.5) of the first build.

I did not Sword and Board it, because I wanted the higher mounts. First build can be either right or left, but the PPC is in the right E mount, so I went that route.


Missile hunch was painful to use. LRMs suck balls, too fragile SRM (and their performance mediocre) and inability to mount multiple LPLs meant damage padding until I levelled it.
Sure, you could quirk it, but then it can invalidate the IS Hunches if you go too far.



Hitbox adjustment would be the most important thing, adding another ~100 points of damage it can tank on the arms/shoulder, which goes a long way.


For the mean time...I think I'll stick to the poptart. More potent than the ShaqHawk ever was in that role, with a higher PPC, equally high Gauss, but more ammo, better cooling, higher jumps...but not necessarily superior hitboxes. Worse hitboxes, in fact...but cXL, so the Gauss isn't suicidal.

Edited by Mcgral18, 30 December 2015 - 02:38 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 30 December 2015 - 02:37 PM, said:

Well, here's my Hunch stats:


As you can see, only really used the (O), aside from Basic'ing 2 of them.


I found them fine...as long as nothing ever shot you. Missile hunch was a SSRM24 with 4JJs, tarting until it was out of missiles.
SRM24+A was simply too fragile to brawl with.

My A was 6ERMLs with 24 DHS...can't remember how many JJs. Can't really poptart with ERMLs, and the torso pitch was frequently an issue.

The (O) started as a poptart (Gauss+ERPPC), max JJs, 35 rounds. It did pretty well with that, and without Doubled Basics, it ran cool, and didn't need to be too agile.
After mastery, it went to a Dual UAC10+2ERML build, for SO MUCH MORE damage. It can peek and let out 54 damage if RNGeesus loves you, but in more time than the 30 (well, 25+2.5+2.5) of the first build.

I did not Sword and Board it, because I wanted the higher mounts. First build can be either right or left, but the PPC is in the right E mount, so I went that route.


Missile hunch was painful to use. LRMs suck balls, too fragile SRM (and their performance mediocre) and inability to mount multiple LPLs meant damage padding until I levelled it.
Sure, you could quirk it, but then it can invalidate the IS Hunches if you go too far.



Hitbox adjustment would be the most important thing, adding another ~100 points of damage it can tank on the arms/shoulder, which goes a long way.


For the mean time...I think I'll stick to the poptart. More potent than the ShaqHawk ever was in that role, with a higher PPC, equally high Gauss, but more ammo, better cooling, higher jumps...but not necessarily superior hitboxes. Worse hitboxes, in fact...but cXL, so the Gauss isn't suicidal.

hitbox adjustments will only go so far. I highly doubt that alone will buy an extra 100 dmg a match. That said, still would prefer slow and steady tweaks, for a certainty.