159 replies to this topic

[dario03]

Void Angel, on 15 April 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

You've never seen anything official about release valves since August 18th, 2015, because "With the release of PSR, that system is now gone." People claim a lot of things - this is why anecdotal experiences (even mine!) aren't authoritative by themselves, though they can be used to pick from alternatives if multiple explanations are supported by the data. There's still a high degree of inaccuracy if you do that, so take anything people claim with a grain of salt; or a pound of salt, if "everyone says" it, but there's no verification from data. I can give you a tonof anectodal examples...

Yeah I've seen that, and have quoted that and the clarification post. Problem is they just say that info is outdated and not every change gets documented (if they respond at all). For instance the clarification post still says new players start in tier 4 even though that was changed to T5 around December. The patch notes list the change but not the clarification post. Be nice if things like PSR changes had a constantly updated detailed clarification post so all the current info was in one spot. Info like exactly what tiers face each other, if release valves still exist, what tier players start in.
Because without something like that misinformation gets taken as fact. Like how I had some guy rage at me in game because I told him that in the current system T5 shouldn't be able to play with T1 in solo queue. He then told me that I clearly haven't read the forums because the forums tell you that release valves make that happen and I shouldn't be spreading misinformation.

[dario03]

Roadkill, on 14 April 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

It's all from the same post.

What's the opposite of "T1 is never matched against T4 or T5?"

T5 can play anyone but T1.
T4 can play anyone but T1.
T3 can play anyone.
T2 can play anyone.
T1 can play anyone but T4 or T5.

That one post is the only definitive statement that anyone has been able to repost. A lot of people "have heard" that it's +/- 2 Tiers, but I've never seen a link with proof of that.

Void Angel, on 15 April 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

That's... wrong. You're committing a fallacy, here. Just because Tier 1 is never matched against Tier 4 or 5, it does not follow that everyone else must be able to play against each other. This is a false dichotomy. Like Dario, I cannot locate that +/- something reference, but I do recall seeing it somewhere in blue. If they only allow one step of difference, then tier 1 will only play Tier 1 and 2 players will only play with each other, Tier 2 players will play with Tiers 1 through 3, Tier 4 will play with 3 through 5, etc. The statement is satisfied, and with a much more reasonable system which matches the anecdotal evidence: players' recollection of Blue posts, and of seeing different names as they climbed the Tiers.

Found it, most recent was the townhall that I thought. Not super detailed but Russ says spread max of 2 tiers.
https://youtu.be/CGTlMDoG4Io?t=983

[Void Angel]

Neat, thanks.

[Void Angel]

To be clear for those of you following along at home, that means +/-1 Tier; for example, "you could have one, two, and three together." You're probably not going to get that unless the match has been building for two minutes, though - so what they meant by "release valves" being gone is that the equation doesn't change based on demand, I guess. Or else, they re-implemented them and forgot to tell us. =)

[Ted Wayz]

Just reduce the heat generation of the bigger tubes. Otherwise LRMs are a-ok.

Direct fire at short ranges, please no. Prefer to lob over my team at 300-400M.

How to not make LRMs terrible? Don't lob them at long ranges, get your own locks and stay mobile.

[Roadkill]

Void Angel, on 15 April 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

That's... wrong. You're committing a fallacy, here. Just because Tier 1 is never matched against Tier 4 or 5, it does not follow that everyone else must be able to play against each other.

Except that it does.

The only restriction that anyone can find is that T1 cannot play T4 or T5. That is the only limitation provided by the system.

Sure, there may be others, but until someone can actually prove that there are other limitations the natural assumption is that no other limitations exist. And, based off of personal experience (as well as multitudes of reports on the forums), what I've stated above appears to be correct. When I was T3 and T2, I found people from all tiers in my games.

I'm perfectly happy to have my mind changed, but it's going to require a link to a statement from PGI. Until then, there's no proof that it works any way other than what I've said, because the system you've posted requires more rules than the system that was told to us by PGI. Ergo, because PGI, your system doesn't exist. They only do the very minimum required.

Note that I do agree that your system makes more sense, but again... because PGI.

[dario03]

Roadkill, on 15 April 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

Except that it does.

The only restriction that anyone can find is that T1 cannot play T4 or T5. That is the only limitation provided by the system.

Sure, there may be others, but until someone can actually prove that there are other limitations the natural assumption is that no other limitations exist. And, based off of personal experience (as well as multitudes of reports on the forums), what I've stated above appears to be correct. When I was T3 and T2, I found people from all tiers in my games.

I'm perfectly happy to have my mind changed, but it's going to require a link to a statement from PGI. Until then, there's no proof that it works any way other than what I've said, because the system you've posted requires more rules than the system that was told to us by PGI. Ergo, because PGI, your system doesn't exist. They only do the very minimum required.

Note that I do agree that your system makes more sense, but again... because PGI.

I posted a statement a few posts up. Its not super detailed but Russ says it spreads by 2 tiers and if he set it to zero it would mean T1 would only play T1.

https://youtu.be/CGTlMDoG4Io?t=983

[Void Angel]

One, technically. It's a two tier spread, so that (up to, I think) three tiers can interact with each other at once, according to the post. Russ says two tiers, but what he means is that the matchmaking spreads to the two tiers adjacent to the one in question... This is probably what you mean, but precision (precision, PGI!) in communication is important to ensure that yet more fracking rumors don't start.

Roadkill, on 15 April 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

Except that it does.

No, it does not. Forgive me, but you're using one statement on a specific topic (the author was concerned with newbies getting stomped by vets, and only clarified that specific point,) to create a sweeping generalization. Now, Dario's already hunted up the primary source, but you weren't wrong because you didn't have that information - rather, it was because your argument was incorrect.

First, you're making assumptions beyond what the quote actually says, and then insisting on it because you haven't seen proof otherwise. That's called the argument from silence, I'm afraid. Second, you're taking those assumptions and treating them as a more reliable form of evidence than people's own anecdotal experiences (eyewitness testimony, in other words,) when in fact they are your conclusion, and not evidence at all - and several people (including myself) on this thread reported seeing different names as they ranked up through the tiers. Anecdotal evidence is not as reliable as hard data, true; but when multiple explanations fit that data, you must take anecdotal and circumstantial evidence into account when deciding which alternative is most likely to be true.

I belabor this point because this very kind of logic is the source of so many false rumors and myths in MWO. "Alpine Peaks isn't getting a rework any more" is the latest example - one that later clarification also proved false. "Heat sinks that you place in the extra slots of an engine are true doubles" also comes to mind. There are right and wrong ways to treat a texts and testimony, and a distressingly common error is to build up imaginary edifices by extrapolating from conjecture and assumptions.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Void, I thought that heat sinks in engines did indeed have a higher rating. Is that not so? I would use them as damage buffers in the rest of the mech in a lot of cases if they are only the same.

[dario03]

The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, on 15 April 2016 - 11:09 PM, said:

Void, I thought that heat sinks in engines did indeed have a higher rating. Is that not so? I would use them as damage buffers in the rest of the mech in a lot of cases if they are only the same.

Only the unseen heatsinks aka the 10 heatsinks that come with the engine (unless you are running smaller than a 250 then you miss out on some trudubs). Just compare something like these 2 Boars Heads that have all the same heat ratings even though one has all the heatsinks in the engine and one has them all out of it.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0161867f517b34d
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1c159c242092f8f
Also the extra dhs that come with some clan mechs still follow those rules. So the 5 extra mandatory dhs in a Timber are still poordubs.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f1f82e0de10d9d1
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...52d6618b7f985cd

Edited by dario03, 16 April 2016 - 03:07 AM.

[Navid A1]

The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, on 15 April 2016 - 11:09 PM, said:

Void, I thought that heat sinks in engines did indeed have a higher rating. Is that not so? I would use them as damage buffers in the rest of the mech in a lot of cases if they are only the same.

Extra double heat sinks in the engine slots (not the internal ones) are the same as the ones you equip anywhere on your mech.... i.e. poordubs

If you have enough crits, put them in your torsos as crit fodder.

[Void Angel]

The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, on 15 April 2016 - 11:09 PM, said:

Void, I thought that heat sinks in engines did indeed have a higher rating. Is that not so? I would use them as damage buffers in the rest of the mech in a lot of cases if they are only the same.

Like the other guys said, the true doubles are only the ones that are inextricably part of the engine - this is one of the ways Lights have suffered in the past (though now they've just given them amazing alphas.)

Essentially, if you have to place the heat sink when building the 'mech from scratch, (or would have to, if it wasn't an omnimech,) it's not a true double. You are absolutely right about the implications: those heat sinks are better used to soak up crits.

Edited by Void Angel, 16 April 2016 - 10:42 AM.

[SplashDown]

LRM's are a leechers weapon and do not need buffed in any way

[Steve Pryde]

SplashDown, on 16 April 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

LRM's are a leechers weapon

At the moment state yes. It's always funny to read when people think that firing from cover is a good thing when someboy else has to lock for you and takes the dmg that u should take. xD

Edited by Steve Pryde, 16 April 2016 - 12:04 PM.

[Void Angel]

Don't feed the troll. People who hate LRMs and don't want them fixed are the ones that are too lazy to work around them - in which case they're useless.

[wanderer]

SplashDown, on 16 April 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

LRM's are a leechers weapon and do not need buffed in any way

Steve Pryde, on 16 April 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

At the moment state yes. It's always funny to read when people think that firing from cover is a good thing when someboy else has to lock for you and takes the dmg that u should take. xD

Let's just take your ability to actually aim your damage away and see how much you enjoy trading fire with opponents who can. Also, LRMs are generally at their weakest in indirect fire mode, what with no Artemis working at that point. I prefer direct fire, but being as Joe Black Knight over there will carve my torso like a turkey while I have to sit there looking at him to hold my lock it means that you take what you can get. Or you're dead in a few good hits. You do realize a lurmboat can't really twist damage away while firing, right?

On the other hand, I can help one group nail a 'Mech 400m away, then swap to another one 800m away from THEM on the fly as needed. And I still get shot at, mind you. A missile lobber that isn't in threat range for enemy guns is a missile lobber that isn't effective to begin with. I'd just much rather be sandblasting targets I can't kill quickly with the help of a NARC beacon, a UAV, or if I really have to, a team-mate lockon.

And think about it. If I'm not taking fire, how the heck am I getting killed, and no not being last in line to do so? The missile boat that you watch be the last lone guy with near perfect armor prior to being reamed by the enemy team was the one who was too chicken to actually use his weapons, period. He's generally a stinking stain on the names of LRM pilots, as he epitomizes everything you should NOT be doing- hiding, relying on nothing but team locks, and firing from "safe" ranges that are really spots where your missiles whiff with depressing predictability.

That guy is a potato pilot. He's the same guy who "snipes" with ERLL's at tickle-me-robot ranges under ECM, or any number of attempts to avoid engagement entirely at extreme ranges.

[Khobai]

as long as ECM gives stealth lrms are gonna be bad. period.

Quote

LRM's are a leechers weapon and do not need buffed in any way

dude mwo is a team game. you win and lose as a team. mwo does not revolve around you and how much damage you do.

if someone does like 500 damage with lrms theyre not leaching they helped the team win. Conversely if someone does less than 100 damage with lasers theyre a leacher.

Whether youre a leacher or not depends entirely on if you pulled your weight as part of the team. And more often than not LRMs are gonna be worse than direct fire weapons.

Edited by Khobai, 16 April 2016 - 06:00 PM.

[2fast2stompy]

Regarding the "bigger should be better" argument:

This is not the case with ballistics.
2 AC5 have more dps at a longer range than a single AC20. In fact, 2 AC2 have more dps and range than a single AC20.
Bigger C-UAC fire more bullets per burst, spreading damage.
Bigger AC ammo also has less damage per ton.

LRM5 are better at killing, bigger launchers are better at the whole "fire support" shtick.
Fire support being useless is a different problem, mainly having to do with 60 point alphas to the core.

Edited by 2fast2stompy, 16 April 2016 - 06:01 PM.

[Navid A1]

SplashDown, on 16 April 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

LRM's are a leechers weapon and do not need buffed in any way

People with your mindset are the real problem.

Leechers weapon?
what does it even mean?

If you are losing your damage and kill shots to am LRM boat.... then: 1- you should be thankful, 2- you suck at aiming and positioning and 3- you don't like winning.

[2fast2stompy]

That's not what he meant. He was referring to players going "hold locks pls" and then sitting 300m behind the front lines expecting their teammates to face tank so they can lock on.

Which is honestly a problem with players, not the weapon. The game already gives you plenty incentive to have LoS with Artemis, people just don't care.