67 replies to this topic

[jss78]

They really should resume working on the information warfare. Apart from the "ghost range" thing it was filled with good ideas.

Ghost range never made sense. Having convergence depend on target lock would make sense. I don't understand how the weapons could ever converge at a specific distance without target lock. Make convergence happen only when target lock is achieved, but even then maybe with a slight delay, and definitely never give the pinpoint perfect convergence we currently have.

This would achieve a lot: more realistic/better immersion, higher TTK, the information warfare (fight for obtaining/denying radar locks) would be real.

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

Ah good, that one mech is still good, out of...how many exactly?

Not a solid win rate there it seems.

And it doesn't matter if my shoulder is a juicy target when I'm peeking from cover and YOUR SHOTS CAN'T CONVERGE ON IT. You'd have to take the same type of build to stand a chance.

Understand the problem yet?

I don't have access to MWO right now so I can't test it myself. But, why don't you show me the highest damage long-range and non-missile alpha strike monster poker you can build using a single shoulder or high torso mount?

Edited by Mystere, 04 February 2016 - 01:07 PM.

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

I don't have access to MWO right now so I can't test it myself. But, why don't you show me the highest damage long-range and non-missile alpha strike monster poker you can build using a single shoulder or high torso mount?

Try to not focus too much on the outliers. It's the overall picture that is the problem. Any mech that CAN'T effectively mount large weapons tightly together will be bad, and any weapon that requires you to deal with a bunch of non-convergence BS will be unusable by comparison. So yeah, compared to today's meta, they wont seem OP, but once nothing else works? That's a serious problem. Any competitive shooter that breaks up convergence involves a metagame that revolves around mitigating non-convergence as much as possible, because a random factor can't stand up to skill. In MWO, that will mean using as few weapons as possible, front loaded with as much damage as possible, and packed together as tight as possible to reduce the effect of the convergence mechanic on your aim. Nothing else will compare to that meta even in quickplay.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

I don't have access to MWO right now so I can't test it myself. But, why don't you show me the highest damage long-range and non-missile alpha strike monster poker you can build using a single shoulder or high torso mount?

3LPLs on the Banshee or TimberGod?

Banshee isn't quite long range, only reaching to ~800M, but the Timber God is 1300+M tickle range.

39 damage at 660M. Similar heat to the 3-4ERML 2LPL builds.

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Try to not focus too much on the outliers. It's the overall picture that is the problem. Any mech that CAN'T effectively mount large weapons tightly together will be bad, and any weapon that requires you to deal with a bunch of non-convergence BS will be unusable by comparison. So yeah, compared to today's meta, they wont seem OP, but once nothing else works? That's a serious problem. Any competitive shooter that breaks up convergence involves a metagame that revolves around mitigating non-convergence as much as possible, because a random factor can't stand up to skill. In MWO, that will mean using as few weapons as possible, front loaded with as much damage as possible, and packed together as tight as possible to reduce the effect of the convergence mechanic on your aim. Nothing else will compare to that meta even in quickplay.

In other words, the biggest long range single location alpha poker will be smaller, probably even much smaller, and as such you will be forced to aim more. Got it.

And what "random" factor are you talking about? There is nothing random in a combined "convergence on lock" plus "fixed convergence on no lock" (or "zero convergence on no lock") scheme.

Mcgral18, on 04 February 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

3LPLs on the Banshee or TimberGod?

Banshee isn't quite long range, only reaching to ~800M, but the Timber God is 1300+M tickle range.

39 damage at 660M. Similar heat to the 3-4ERML 2LPL builds.

39 damage? That's it? If so, then I say it's a good thing, compared to the current 60++ long range alpha strikes we have now.

Edited by Mystere, 04 February 2016 - 01:35 PM.

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

In other words, the biggest long range single location alpha poker will be smaller, probably even much smaller, and as such you will be forced to aim more. Got it.

And what "random" factor are you talking about? There is nothing random in a combined "convergence on lock" plus "fixed convergence on no lock" (or "zero convergence on no lock") scheme.

The mechs don't matter that much to meta, if you never noticed. The weapons do. Whatever mech takes the meta weapons well, and has a decent defensive profile, is meta itself.

The existence of ECM and Radar Deprivation make locking convergence incredibly unpredictable and unreliable(in effect, random), making you waste damage and heat all over. That is why competitive players will just avoid it as much as possible with single location weapon systems. It will honestly be stupid to even try making a build that requires it.

Long range poke will be virtually unaffected, I don't know where you got that idea.

Edited by tortuousGoddess, 04 February 2016 - 01:41 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

The mechs don't matter that much to meta

Thats simply not true at all.

The mech DOES matter. Better weapon hardpoints means less exposure to enemy return fire. Better hitboxes and scaling means damage gets distributed across your hit locations and you live longer. Not to mention quirks.

[Ratpoison]

Khobai, on 04 February 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Thats simply not true at all.

The mech DOES matter. Better weapon hardpoints means less exposure to enemy return fire. Better hitboxes and scaling means damage gets distributed across your hit locations and you live longer. Not to mention quirks.

Look at that closer. Hitboxes and scaling are your defensive profile as I mentioned. Hardpoints and quirks are the mech's ability to utilize weapons. If it's set up to use the meta weapons well, and has a defensive profile, it's a meta mech. You really don't have to think about it much harder than that. Weapons make the meta, mechs just carry them.

[Khobai]

Quote

Weapons make the meta, mechs just carry them.

yeah no. again thats simply not true. The meta is a combination of BOTH weapons and mechs.

You can have two different mechs with the same exact weapons and one will be meta and the other will be garbage.

stalker vs awesome for example. awesome can boat the same energy loadouts the stalker can but it will NEVER be meta like the stalker is.

Edited by Khobai, 04 February 2016 - 02:00 PM.

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

Look at that closer. Hitboxes and scaling are your defensive profile as I mentioned. Hardpoints and quirks are the mech's ability to utilize weapons. If it's set up to use the meta weapons well, and has a defensive profile, it's a meta mech. You really don't have to think about it much harder than that. Weapons make the meta, mechs just carry them.

Hmm. We have a current 60++ damage "meta" (Gosh! I hate that word!) that when hit on the right spot results in less damage potential, as opposed to a new 39-damage "meta" that goes to 0 when hit.

I call that progress.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Sandpit, on 04 February 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

That (again) is convergence, not a target lock mechanic.

I didn't see anything stated where that laser array requires a separate computer system to actively lock a target to obtain that convergence

You don't think they used / use a computer to align those lasers?

Really? REALLY?

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

Hmm. We have a current 60++ damage "meta" (Gosh! I hate that word!) that when hit on the right spot results in less damage potential, as opposed to a new 39-damage "meta" that goes to 0 when hit.

I call that progress.

But is it really? You're okay with ridge sniping 24/7 both sides because it's the only thing that works? You're okay with the majority of weapons being pointless? You'd take all that to reduce alphas down a few damage points, even if it restricts you to only using said alpha builds yourself to stand a chance? Sounds to me like you want to be right more than you want a good game.

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 02:20 PM, said:

But is it really? You're okay with ridge sniping 24/7 both sides because it's the only thing that works? You're okay with the majority of weapons being pointless? You'd take all that to reduce alphas down a few damage points, even if it restricts you to only using said alpha builds yourself to stand a chance? Sounds to me like you want to be right more than you want a good game.

My POV is quite the opposite. I foresee aggressive actions potentially being richly rewarded even more and poking rewarded less.

[Ratpoison]

Khobai, on 04 February 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

yeah no. again thats simply not true. The meta is a combination of BOTH weapons and mechs.

You can have two different mechs with the same exact weapons and one will be meta and the other will be garbage.

stalker vs awesome for example. awesome can boat the same energy loadouts the stalker can but it will NEVER be meta like the stalker is.

Yeah, and when a meta mech is nerfed down, it's simply replaced with the next best mech that holds the meta better. Mechs are a part of the meta, but what makes them meta is simply how well they carry the meta and how well they protect it. Any time a meta weapon system is nerfed down on the other hand, all the mechs who depended on that weapon to stay meta are suddenly dropped into mediocrity. Lots of mechs are great at using lots of different weapons, but not all those weapons are that great themselves, which is the factor that makes the difference. If a weapon is meta, the mechs that use that weapon the best end up meta by proxy. Weapons hold the meta.

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

My POV is quite the opposite. I foresee aggressive actions potentially being richly rewarded even more and poking rewarded less.

Exactly how? Brawling will be weak due to reduced ability to keep groups of short range weapons on target, but shoulder mounted long range still shoots all its force in a straight line, to nearly the same spot. Poking will be practically unaffected, since shoulder mounted large weapon groups will let you deal accurate location damage at long range, even with no convergence. Even if you did get close, accurate pinpoint damage will core you before any damage spreading short range weapons can even breach my armor. I wouldn't be at any disadvantage close up, it's just easier for me to land my pinpoint damage on the right spots. The only way you'd stand a chance is to take up the same kind of builds and tactics.

Oh, and let's not forget that locking convergence means nothing but ECM mechs with radar derp in every game, making long range poke even stronger than all that.

[Lord Perversor]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

Exactly how? Brawling will be weak due to reduced ability to keep groups of short range weapons on target, but shoulder mounted long range still shoots all its force in a straight line, to nearly the same spot. Poking will be practically unaffected, since shoulder mounted large weapon groups will let you deal accurate location damage at long range, even with no convergence. Even if you did get close, accurate pinpoint damage will core you before any damage spreading short range weapons can even breach my armor. I wouldn't be at any disadvantage close up, it's just easier for me to land my pinpoint damage on the right spots. The only way you'd stand a chance is to take up the same kind of builds and tactics.

Oh, and let's not forget that locking convergence means nothing but ECM mechs with radar derp in every game, making long range poke even stronger than all that.

Seriously Go play World of tanks, check how convergence and aiming works there with a single turret tank, now imagine THAT happening to each weapon of your mech, that's what convergence means on this discussion.

right now you are just trying to defend your narrow idea that shoulder mounts will remain pinpoint accuracy while anything else will not...

Edited by Lord Perversor, 04 February 2016 - 03:00 PM.

[Pjwned]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

Think harder about how the meta will respond to that. MechWarrior has always been a game of maximizing your damage output efficiency, while minimizing your facetime so you can perform defensive maneuvers. Do you REALLY think any competitive player is going to accept the enormous increase to facetime on top of the limited range that smaller arms already have? There's no point to them, as they can't keep up in damage, and they make you more vulnerable than the old shoot and twist ever will. PPFLD and large lasers stacked directly on each other are the only things that work in that environment. By proxy, the skill requirement of the game is also trashed, since the go to meta will be nothing but a very limited selection of large weapons and mechs playing in the same styles.

Good luck playing that way effectively if your limited set of weapons (due to being all stacked in 1 spot) don't converge at the range you're aiming just because you refuse to get a target lock.

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Try to not focus too much on the outliers. It's the overall picture that is the problem. Any mech that CAN'T effectively mount large weapons tightly together will be bad, and any weapon that requires you to deal with a bunch of non-convergence BS will be unusable by comparison. So yeah, compared to today's meta, they wont seem OP, but once nothing else works? That's a serious problem. Any competitive shooter that breaks up convergence involves a metagame that revolves around mitigating non-convergence as much as possible, because a random factor can't stand up to skill. In MWO, that will mean using as few weapons as possible, front loaded with as much damage as possible, and packed together as tight as possible to reduce the effect of the convergence mechanic on your aim. Nothing else will compare to that meta even in quickplay.

That would only be the case if you stubbornly refuse to adapt.

Edited by Pjwned, 04 February 2016 - 03:26 PM.

[Pjwned]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

The mechs don't matter that much to meta, if you never noticed. The weapons do. Whatever mech takes the meta weapons well, and has a decent defensive profile, is meta itself.

Fair enough, there are at least a dozen examples of this being the case.

Quote

The existence of ECM and Radar Deprivation make locking convergence incredibly unpredictable and unreliable(in effect, random), making you waste damage and heat all over. That is why competitive players will just avoid it as much as possible with single location weapon systems. It will honestly be stupid to even try making a build that requires it.

That is actually a good point, and the solution is to address ECM and radar deprivation as well.

Quote

Long range poke will be virtually unaffected, I don't know where you got that idea.

Then you underestimate how much convergence matters at long range because that's wrong.

[wanderer]

Quote

You're okay with ridge sniping 24/7 both sides because it's the only thing that works? You're okay with the majority of weapons being pointless?

In terms of the meta, the majority of weapons already are. Let's take a look at what's considered tolerable from the current comp-tier builds on Metamechs.

IS Ballistics? AC/5, UAC/5, Gauss. AC/20 in a few assaults. Half the ballistics are pointless to the meta. 4/8.
IS Energy? Pretty much everything. This is the laservomit meta. No PPCs. And no flamers, but that's a given. Small lasers we'll give a pass to. 7/10.
IS Missiles? SRM 4/SRM 6. That's it. LRMs are for lulz, not meta. 2/8.

13/26 of IS weapons are metaworthy. Really 12, but hey. You might put SL's on that Firestarter. Charitably speaking, half the choices are garbage-tier to the top.

Clan Ballistics? Gauss, UAC/5, UAC/10, UAC/20 (maybe). 4/14.
Clan Energy? Again, we're the lasermeta, everything but the CERPPC and flamer get in here- 6/8.
Clan Missiles? SRM 4/6, Streak SRM 6 gets in on scoutkiller duty (though it really shouldn't, but I feel sorry for it.) 3/10.

13/32 of Clan weapons are metaworthy.

26/58. The majority of -all- weapons aren't considered worth mounting on a 'Mech as far as the meta is concerned. If we're charitable and get rid of standard Clan AC's from the list, it's 26/54. Still more than half.

And by far, the big factor that puts most of the chaff in the trash is you can't combo-blast them. And the reason you can is perfect convergence.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 04 February 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

That is actually a good point, and the solution is to address ECM and radar deprivation as well.

Well, to me it's "See ECM Mech, kill ECM mech". It seems to be still working just fine for me. But then again I have specialized in ECM hunter-killers.

Besides, ECM range is so small right now I'm barely seeing Mechs being covered under it's umbrella, and those that do so look like juicy targets for artillery.

Edited by Mystere, 04 February 2016 - 04:40 PM.