122 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

Haha, just a final parting shot here: Mad 'cuz bad. That must be your problem, tier 3 potato. You can't even get a glorified XP bar higher than that, and I quit playing for 6 months just after the tier system came out. Your STILL stuck barely above the lowest rung of the ladder while I barely played and am near the top. All that butthurt must be why you immediately started typing insults in all caps when you first entered the thread instead of presenting a reasoned argument. Make no mistake, I may think a map is imbalanced, but that doesn't prevent me from nearly always being the top scorer in most matches. I would crush you. And I bet it bothers the shite out of your salty little heart. I am normally very civil, but I can make an exception for someone so incredibly rude and belligerent because that is all such people understand.

Good day, sir.

Yes, because Tier 2 makes us Ubercomp Pros.

And yet...you have not had one riposte for me? Same tier, so MadcuzBad? I normally don't go out of the way to call bullcrap, but sorry dude, from tier 1 to tier 5 you've been told you are just wrong, and had a million reasons thrown at you. Just cuz your XP Bar has put you into Tier 2 don't make you a "Good".

In fact posts like your OP just reinforce how meaningless the Tiers really are since pretty much nobody outside the underhive cries about how OP bad LRMs are on Polar.

Mystere, on 27 June 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Whoa??!!! Did someone just pull out the tier card?

Which might almost, ALMOST actually carry weight if he were Tier 1, played for Night Scorn, 228, SJR, Lords, etc.

But if anyone iz MadcuzBad? Gotta say it's the dude who's scared of a LRM Oxide.

[Pjwned]

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

Haha, just a final parting shot here: Mad 'cuz bad. That must be your problem, tier 3 potato. You can't even get a glorified XP bar higher than that, and I quit playing for 6 months just after the tier system came out. Your STILL stuck barely above the lowest rung of the ladder while I barely played and am near the top. All that butthurt must be why you immediately started typing insults in all caps when you first entered the thread instead of presenting a reasoned argument. Make no mistake, I may think a map is imbalanced, but that doesn't prevent me from nearly always being the top scorer in most matches. I would crush you. And I bet it bothers the shite out of your salty little heart. I am normally very civil, but I can make an exception for someone so incredibly rude and belligerent because that is all such people understand.

Good day, sir.

You are so mad.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

And yet...you have not had one riposte for me?

You are always polite, even when disagreeing. He was just yelling insults and being a loudmouth. I got tired of it and having to listen to his garbage about "Your bad cause LRM complaints" when the whole topic was about map balance, not about problems with LRMs. I don't have problems with them, and even on Polar I rarely get actually killed with them. I just think the map caters too heavily to LRM/long ranged builds, and that this can make it harder for the devs to balance weapons when buffing them, because those that are good on certain maps can then end up OP on them. I worry that could keep a weapon system notoriously regarded as sub-par (LRMs) from getting some love. Some people disagree. Fine with me. It's an opinion and like arseholes, everyone has one. That doesn't mean you have to BE one. Which is why I got tired enough of his "git good, scrub!" superior attitude and let him have both barrels back. Maybe I was a bit out of line, but I don't really feel bad about it when someone repeatedly asks for it.

Anyway, I think a good solution to this potential weapon balance problem is mixed-terrain maps, and then an LRM buff. That would make it so you don't have to roll the dice every time you want to play a brawler, or LRM support mech, or sniper, etc...and would make taking AMS much more attractive since right now you only might potentially need it for two maps and so few people opt to use it. I don't really think being able to select a mech after you know which map you will be playing on is the answer, because then you would get open maps with nothing but long-range and LRM boats, and short-range maps with nothing but brawlers. That's why I like the new Frozen City so much. You can snipe, you can brawl, you can use LRMs, and your success mostly depends on how and where you position yourself in the map to take advantage of the strengths of your build over the different distances and terrain types found in it. Not the random chance of getting a one-terrain type map.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 27 June 2016 - 03:11 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

You are always polite, even when disagreeing. He was just yelling insults and being a loudmouth. I got tired of it

I can get that. It's one reason I usually don't get offended by you even when I disagree with you. And plenty of times I have been the guy who got tired of spammed nonsense. So I can get feeling frustrated. Still disagree with you on this issue, but I've said my piece on that.

Cheers.

[Kroete]

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

Haha, just a final parting shot here: Mad 'cuz bad. That must be your problem, tier 3 potato.

If you tell me how i can show my tier in the forum, maybe i can help you with :

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

... beating off to yourself ...

But it seems its not needed, you have done it for yourself ...


After acceptig that there is only 1 mech without ams and not plenty, as you claimed, we should also discuss your assertion that ams will do nothing.

Mcchuggernaut, on 26 June 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

Dude, I have a Warhawk missile boat that runs quad LRM15s. AMS? Don't make me laugh. You will die exactly one volley slower.

I have asked on the second page of your thread: How many of your 60 missiled will go through 8 ams?
I have asked you again multiple times in this thread and i still miss your answer...

Are you not able to answer or is the answer not what you want to admit?

Edit:
We are in the same tier and i have played a lot with missiles and found, that i do best with only 2x15calrm and some cml and a tag (and ams). The 6x5 dog is fun, the 3x15 is also fun with the right torsos to use the quirks, but both are not that effective then the mentioned config at around 300-400m for me.
I would like to have repair and rearm back, but most times i have under 50% of my mech left, so it would ruin me....

Edited by Kroete, 27 June 2016 - 03:43 PM.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Kroete, on 27 June 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

If you tell me how i can show my tier in the forum

I have asked on the second page of your thread: How many of your 60 missiled will go through 8 ams?

Here: http://mwomercs.com/...um-information/

Should be a little white check-box on your main profile page.

About the 8 AMS vs. 60 missiles, I thought that was just a rhetorical question. Obviously it wouldn't be a good thing, but here's some math I found on this I think is accurate, or pretty close:

"AMS range = 240m, LRM speed = 160m/s, AMS does 3.5 dps, so on average youll shoot down ~5.25 LRMs.

With the +10% rate of fire module you do 3.85 dps so youll shoot down ~5.78 missiles

With the AMS range 2 module your AMS range is 256m so youll shoot down ~5.6 missiles

With both modules youll shoot down ~6.16 missiles."

So 6.16 x 8 AMS systems = about 49 missiles. I would be landing only 11 missiles. Not good, but even with a VERY unlikely 8 AMS-equipped enemy mechs all standing close enough that all their AMS systems are in range to work together AND using AMS overload AND range modules, I'm still hitting my target with 1\6 of my volley. Of course, some of even those missiles may just miss the target because of the ridiculous spread mechanic LRM15s have right now, but you get the point.

Without the exception of that nearly worst-case 8 x AMS + modules scenario, I'm usually just cutting right through AMS. With a couple AMS mechs standing together or maybe a triple AMS Kit Fox running around, LRM5 spammers will have a bad day, but massed volleys of 10s and 15s are still going to ruin someone's day pretty fast. Which is the reason to take the bigger, more inaccurate launchers at all.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 27 June 2016 - 03:48 PM.

[Kroete]

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

Here: http://mwomercs.com/...um-information/

Should be a little white check-box on your main profile page.

I have searched but it was not that easy to find it.
Say if you have seen it, then i can remove it.

Tiers are nothing, its a game, its for fun and relaxing.
The challenges in rl pay my bills, not a virtual computer game.

Edit:
Not that bad that my little fox can kill around 20 lrms.
Now let two allys have a single ams and we 3 have cut your whks damage to less then half.
And it only costs a 30 ton mech that still have 3 clm and ecm and two allys that devoted 1.5 tons.
(Removing 42,5 tons for 33 tons looks like a good trade for me ...)

Edited by Kroete, 27 June 2016 - 03:56 PM.

[Jables McBarty]

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

...
Anyway, I think a good solution to this potential weapon balance problem is mixed-terrain maps, and then an LRM buff. That would make it so you don't have to roll the dice every time you want to play a brawler, or LRM support mech, or sniper, etc...and would make taking AMS much more attractive since right now you only might potentially need it for two maps and so few people opt to use it. I don't really think being able to select a mech after you know which map you will be playing on is the answer, because then you would get open maps with nothing but long-range and LRM boats, and short-range maps with nothing but brawlers. That's why I like the new Frozen City so much. You can snipe, you can brawl, you can use LRMs, and your success mostly depends on how and where you position yourself in the map to take advantage of the strengths of your build over the different distances and terrain types found in it. Not the random chance of getting a one-terrain type map.

Back to the original topic, I have to disagree for the reason I mentioned above:

Few are the soldiers allowed to choose the battlefield they die on.

I understand in an abstract sense the various obsessions over balance and introducing new weapons, but I much prefer to see variety between maps as well as within maps. So Canyon is well-balanced between all playstles--hough somewhat favorable to brawlers and 'mechs with JJs IMO--lending variety within; Polar Highlands somewhat less so--it favors long-range 'mechs and LRMs and flanking ECM lights (and, apparently, LRM Oxides), but this fundamental difference between the two creates a different type of variety at a higher level.

I think your complaint is better addressed by Sader's thread (which was possibly a response to this one) that you should be able to choose 'mech post-map selection.

Because if you are fighting over vast desert terrain, tanks are better than infantry. But if you are in a city, the infantry is better.

Conversely, if I'm running a sim of the North African campaign, I don't want door-to-door fighting in Tunis, I want the vast landscape with tank battles between Patton and Rommel.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Kroete, on 27 June 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

I have searched but it was not that easy to find it.
Say if you have seen it, then i can remove it.

Tiers are nothing, its a game, its for fun and relaxing.
The challenges in rl pay my bills, not a virtual computer game.

Edit:
Not that bad that my little fox can kill around 20 lrms.
Now let two allys have a single ams and we 3 have cut your whks damage to less then half.
And it only costs a 30 ton mech that still have 3 clm and ecm and two allys that devoted 1.5 tons.
(Removing 42,5 tons for 33 tons looks like a good trade for me ...)

Yeah, the consensus is it's a glorified XP bar because if you play long enough you will likely eventually reach tier 1. But how fast you get there, that is a bit better indicator of skill. the people that achieved tier 1 very quickly or in the fewest games are probably the better players. I display it because a high one at this late stage at least shows you have a decent number of matches under your belt, and therefore a decent amount of experience, even if nowadays you can't count on it to = general skill.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 27 June 2016 - 04:17 PM.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Jables McBarty, on 27 June 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

Back to the original topic, I have to disagree for the reason I mentioned above:

Few are the soldiers allowed to choose the battlefield they die on.

Very true, but I would also counter that this is a computer game. In a real-life battle all the effects of a vast and complex reality come into play, and "fairness" and "balance" don't really apply. One side could have high ground, overwhelming numbers, be sick with dysentery, not have enough warm winter clothing, moral comes into play, ad nauseum...

But I view that as reality, and separate from a computer game with rules meant to ensure those with skill do well, not an advantage based on luck. I just don't like any kind of random chance mechanic tilting whether I win or lose at a game (probably why I don't gamble). That's just how I feel about it personally.

[Mystere]

Jables McBarty, on 27 June 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

I understand in an abstract sense the various obsessions over balance ...

And this is my problem with this game, Everything needs to be equal:

• every map must be symmetrical
  
• every game mode must be symmetrical
  
• every mech must be equal to every other one
  
• every weapon must be equal to all others
  
• both teams much be equal in number, weight, class distribution, and skill

This extremely obsessive desire for all things to be 1:1 or N:N every time all the time shows an extreme lack of imagination on both PGI and the player base ... unless of course it's the goddamed eSports that was the goal all along and everything was just pure lies to string along BT fans.

Damn, my vacation is just a few days away but it just can't come soon enough.

Edited by Mystere, 27 June 2016 - 04:36 PM.

[Pjwned]

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

Here: http://mwomercs.com/...um-information/

Should be a little white check-box on your main profile page.

About the 8 AMS vs. 60 missiles, I thought that was just a rhetorical question. Obviously it wouldn't be a good thing, but here's some math I found on this I think is accurate, or pretty close:

"AMS range = 240m, LRM speed = 160m/s, AMS does 3.5 dps, so on average youll shoot down ~5.25 LRMs.

With the +10% rate of fire module you do 3.85 dps so youll shoot down ~5.78 missiles

With the AMS range 2 module your AMS range is 256m so youll shoot down ~5.6 missiles

With both modules youll shoot down ~6.16 missiles."

So 6.16 x 8 AMS systems = about 49 missiles. I would be landing only 11 missiles. Not good, but even with a VERY unlikely 8 AMS-equipped enemy mechs all standing close enough that all their AMS systems are in range to work together AND using AMS overload AND range modules, I'm still hitting my target with 1\6 of my volley. Of course, some of even those missiles may just miss the target because of the ridiculous spread mechanic LRM15s have right now, but you get the point.

Without the exception of that nearly worst-case 8 x AMS + modules scenario, I'm usually just cutting right through AMS. With a couple AMS mechs standing together or maybe a triple AMS Kit Fox running around, LRM5 spammers will have a bad day, but massed volleys of 10s and 15s are still going to ruin someone's day pretty fast. Which is the reason to take the bigger, more inaccurate launchers at all.

Are those numbers against clan LRMs or IS LRMs? Important distinction if your example is "my LRM60 Warhawk."

[Mcchuggernaut]

Mystere, on 27 June 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

And this is my problem with this game, Everything needs to be equal:

• every map must be symmetrical
  
• every game mode must be symmetrical
  
• every mech must be equal to every other one
  
• every weapon must be equal to all others
  
• both teams much be equal in number, weight, class distribution, and skill

True, but obviously sometimes changes need to happen or an exploit or imbalance will turn a game of rock, paper, scissors into one where, say, rock always won an extra 20% of the time and the game doesn't work like it should any more. I agree it is impossible to make any system absolutely perfect, but striving for near-perfection should be the goal. You don't leave a hole in the roof of your house even though the rest of the house is fine and sturdy. Since map balance has an effect on weapon balance it is a factor that needs at least a good bit of care and scrutiny invested in it.

[Mystere]

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

True, but obviously sometimes changes need to happen or an exploit or imbalance will turn a game of rock, paper, scissors into one where, say, rock always won an extra 20% of the time and the game doesn't work like it should any more. I agree it is impossible to make any system absolutely perfect, but striving for near-perfection should be the goal. You don't leave a hole in the roof of your house even though the rest of the house is fine and sturdy. Since map balance has an effect on weapon balance it is a factor that needs at least a good bit of care and scrutiny invested in it.

I think you missed my point: I have a great dislike (to put things ever so mildly) of the obsessively symmetrical nature of the game. Everything must be absolutely equal on both sides.

It is the reason we cannot have siege game modes with the traditional 3:1 ratio, or a recon-interdiction mode, or search and destroy, or any other asymmetrical game mode for that matter.

Edited by Mystere, 27 June 2016 - 04:55 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Mystere, on 27 June 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Whoa??!!! Did someone just pull out the tier card?

That gif. +1

Mcchuggernaut, on 27 June 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

Very true, but I would also counter that this is a computer game. In a real-life battle all the effects of a vast and complex reality come into play, and "fairness" and "balance" don't really apply. One side could have high ground, overwhelming numbers, be sick with dysentery, not have enough warm winter clothing, moral comes into play, ad nauseum...

But I view that as reality, and separate from a computer game with rules meant to ensure those with skill do well, not an advantage based on luck. I just don't like any kind of random chance mechanic tilting whether I win or lose at a game (probably why I don't gamble). That's just how I feel about it personally.

I could easily see this taking a turn towards what game balance means to everyone.

I suspect there would be a lot of these responses, beginning with the term "game balance".

Mystere, on 27 June 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

And this is my problem with this game, Everything needs to be equal:

• every map must be symmetrical
  
• every game mode must be symmetrical
  
• every mech must be equal to every other one
  
• every weapon must be equal to all others
  
• both teams much be equal in number, weight, class distribution, and skill

This extremely obsessive desire for all things to be 1:1 or N:N every time all the time shows an extreme lack of imagination on both PGI and the player base ... unless of course it's the goddamed eSports that was the goal all along and everything was just pure lies to string along BT fans.



Damn, my vacation is just a few days away but it just can't come soon enough.

Exacta. Some of us might need "Game Balance for Dummies" books. Myself included. :/

Killjoys and Dark Matter return on, I think *glances at calendar* july 1st.

At least I'll have something decent to watch on tv while I workout to intersperse my shitposting on the forums.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 27 June 2016 - 05:09 PM.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Pjwned, on 27 June 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

Are those numbers against clan LRMs or IS LRMs? Important distinction if your example is "my LRM60 Warhawk."

Well, if you are going to be civil and ask a legitimate question I have no problem answering:

I know exactly where this is going. Your bringing up the point that clan LRMS don't come out all in one burst, like IS LRMs. Because of this, AMS is a bit harder on Clan LRMs than IS LRMs. This is true. It's also why I don't chain-fire Clan Lrms. I also believe these numbers are for IS LRMs vs. AMS. Can't be absolutely certain about this, but I'm sure at 3.5 DPS the AMS is still only getting an extra missile or two per volley at most. This doesn't matter much at all in the whole scheme of things when you can pack bigger launchers in Clan mechs because of lower tonnage, space requirements, and better heat dissipation. Your still going to overwhelm multiple AMS systems relatively easily.

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 27 June 2016 - 06:20 PM.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Mystere, on 27 June 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

I think you missed my point: I have a great dislike (to put things ever so mildly) of the obsessively symmetrical nature of the game. Everything must be absolutely equal on both sides.

It is the reason we cannot have siege game modes with the traditional 3:1 ratio, or a recon-interdiction mode, or search and destroy, or any other asymmetrical game mode for that matter.

Well, in a siege-mode game type you would need to have something favoring the smaller defending group to make it possible for them to win against numbers like that (especially in MWO, where focused fire is so devastating). In a Skirmish game, not so much. And with most game modes just being glorified Skirmish mode at this point in time...

[Felicitatem Parco]

Insisting on fighting in the Open is not an excuse to nerf LRMs. Polar contain many structures and other terrain features that you can utilize. Although there Mass expanses of flat snow that doesn't mean you have to fight in them.

[Green Mamba]

I very rarely see DEVS play this game,So I don't think they truely have an idea of balance

[Malachy Karrde]

I've decided that the OP is a skill less moron and that he doesn't have enough gray matter to understand how to play the game let alone advanced tactics. So let's let him fade into his ignorant stupor and get about the business of not getting killed by lrm on polar highlands lol