66 replies to this topic

[Albino Boo]

Karl Streiger, on 30 June 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

well but that is a shite system. When the best killing weapon is the Gauss all peopls run the Gauss.
And when you drive this power creep to overdrive - you just need one Mech with a Gauss - maybe the Shadow Hawk?
Everything else would be worse.

This however is hardly something you really wish for - didn't Hawken use it? (I don't want to use Hawken in a negative sense, i think this game had its merit mainly because it doesn't get strangled by lore)
Oh and to get a rope by lore isn't bad either - because its' your fault when you put it around your neck.

sorry for the disgression

People play this game to win and maximise their chance of winning. When you have a competitive game, its human nature to do so. Where you have choice there has to be the option to make a the wrong one. If you make all weapons equally effective then its no longer a choice. If you run a 6 mg Direwolf you should lose.

[Karl Streiger]

Albino Boo, on 01 July 2016 - 01:55 AM, said:

People play this game to win and maximise their chance of winning. When you have a competitive game, its human nature to do so. Where you have choice there has to be the option to make a the wrong one. If you make all weapons equally effective then its no longer a choice. If you run a 6 mg Direwolf you should lose.

Not equal effective at any range - some weapons have to be more effective at a specific task then others - when the other guy has PPCs and you have PPCs the one with the "better" skill might win - usually its 50:50

But when the other guy has PPCs and you have Large Lasers you might have the ability to turn the combat in your favour - while the other guy don't want to fight at your comfortable range. This makes skill even much more important.

When you have backup weapons (THug) and the other not (Awesome) the other might try ot overwhelm you in the beginning even when it comes at costs (broken heatsinks, overheat damage - while you try to close - using the terrain and shots from time to time to keep him distracted.

Think of the perfect battleTech style MWO as a kind of highspeed chess.

[Albino Boo]

Karl Streiger, on 01 July 2016 - 02:01 AM, said:

Not equal effective at any range - some weapons have to be more effective at a specific task then others - when the other guy has PPCs and you have PPCs the one with the "better" skill might win - usually its 50:50

But when the other guy has PPCs and you have Large Lasers you might have the ability to turn the combat in your favour - while the other guy don't want to fight at your comfortable range. This makes skill even much more important.

When you have backup weapons (THug) and the other not (Awesome) the other might try ot overwhelm you in the beginning even when it comes at costs (broken heatsinks, overheat damage - while you try to close - using the terrain and shots from time to time to keep him distracted.

Think of the perfect battleTech style MWO as a kind of highspeed chess.

This may come as surprise to you but mechs move and maps are not flat featureless plains. If they were then you would only get gauss/large er laser builds and nothing else. Again its about choice, most engagements take place and medium and short range so people maximise damage at that range. If you chose a long range mech dont be surprised when you lose and everyone else on your team is annoyed you with for not sharing armor.

[Karl Streiger]

Albino Boo, on 01 July 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

This may come as surprise to you but mechs move and maps are not flat featureless plains. If they were then you would only get gauss/large er laser builds and nothing else. Again its about choice, most engagements take place and medium and short range so people maximise damage at that range. If you chose a long range mech dont be surprised when you lose and everyone else on your team is annoyed you with for not sharing armor.

You are talking about the current state of the game - I'm talking about how it could be.

So in the current situation yes you are right - primary because the Sniper was nerfed and nerfed again.
But afaik this topic is about how to change this stale - rush into short range and mini deathstar or overshrimp the enemy

Edited by Karl Streiger, 01 July 2016 - 03:35 AM.

[Albino Boo]

Karl Streiger, on 01 July 2016 - 03:34 AM, said:

You are talking about the current state of the game - I'm talking about how it could be.

So in the current situation yes you are right - primary because the Sniper was nerfed and nerfed again.
But afaik this topic is about how to change this stale - rush into short range and mini deathstar or overshrimp the enemy

No you clearly dont understand the point. If you change the game you will just make the most effective build something different different because people will maximise damage at average engagement range whatever that range is. If you turn every weapon into sandpaper then everyone will run the most most effective sandpaper build. If you increase the range and size of the maps then people will only run sniper builds. The point of the game is get as much damage in the shortest time. People will not spend 4 minutes walking with a brawler when you can blow out 4 cts with a quad gauss kodiak in the same time.

Edited by Albino Boo, 01 July 2016 - 03:48 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

When the shortest possible time includes multiple weapon systems and engagement ranges everything is fine.

Isn't this the idea of this topic:
not
x= 1;
x+x+x=3
x/x/x = 1

but
x =0.5;y=0.5;z=0.5
x+y+z = 1.5
x/y/z = 2

or in other words multiple weapons alpha at one range boat is the way to go
but the boat can be beaten by the right composition of other weapons.

Speaking of TT:
Gauss + LBX > Gauss + Gauss



Hm- in real we have multiple systems for multiple task but in MWO the only tasks is killing enemy mechs, maybe that is the problem. without arbitrary mechanisms like heat scale no simple solution

Edited by Karl Streiger, 01 July 2016 - 04:03 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Based off the Solaris rules/delay (cooldown) ERLL/LPL/ER-ppc had longer cooldown than Gauss Rifle. With MWO cooldown timers those high energy weapons pulling lots of power fire almost as quickly as the med range weapons, so many players forego med/short range weapons. And reviewing my sheets, the Clan versions of those weapons have a slightly lower cooldown rate.

PGI should remove the weapon quirks while balancing said technologies slightly closer together then add for flavor.

[Hit the Deck]

Karl Streiger, on 01 July 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

When the shortest possible time includes multiple weapon systems and engagement ranges everything is fine.

Isn't this the idea of this topic:
not
x= 1;
x+x+x=3
x/x/x = 1

but
x =0.5;y=0.5;z=0.5
x+y+z = 1.5
x/y/z = 2

Yes, that's how it would turn out without perfect convergence I imagine. Because you get a decreasing return each time you add the same weapon, you turn to other weapons to be mounted because adding another weapon adds a significant value to your build. TT's style punishing heat mechanics could give further incentive to not boat, perhaps.

[Ultimax]

I think a mech bristling with 12 lasers or loaded with cannons looks much cooler than a mech that looks like it has no idea what it wants to be doing taking 3 or 4 different weapon systems.

[Hit the Deck]

Ultimax, on 01 July 2016 - 04:27 AM, said:

I think a mech bristling with 12 lasers or loaded with cannons looks much cooler than a mech that looks like it has no idea what it wants to be doing taking 3 or 4 different weapon systems.

Dude, you know that's not true.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Karl Streiger, on 01 July 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

Hm- in real we have multiple systems for multiple task but in MWO the only tasks is killing enemy mechs, maybe that is the problem. without arbitrary mechanisms like heat scale no simple solution

There weren't that many different tasks in TT that required special weaponry, I mean infantry can be killed just fine with small pulse or something like that without requiring you to take a flamer *just* for infantry (and even then it wasn't all that necessary). LBX/AC2 for aerospace, but outside that you didn't really need specialized weapons (inferno ammo was good against mechs AND infantry/BAs/tanks so that doesn't count).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 01 July 2016 - 06:48 AM.

[Idealsuspect]

XtremWarrior, on 01 July 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Another thing that kills Mixed Loadout: Weapons Module.

I have no real problems with them, but it's true that as long as you use one, you'd better boat the weapon it enhances to maximize the benefits.

Take the OP's Stormcrow: you'd put a Cooldown Module on the PPCs and the SRMs? Now pick a 12 ERSLas Crow, put SLas Cooldown and Range and whoop!, you have 12 empowered weapons.

You dont really need cooldown module if you have 12 small lasers lol ...
Range module of course yea ( and in fact its only 10% of 200 meter also 20 meters but you have 12 ermsl also it count like x12 isnt same with 4 is small pulse for example: 10 meters won x4 )

IMO better to take radar deprivation, targeting info module for know where it will really hurt or better adv target decay for hunt your prey even between buildings

[Chuck Jager]

This is a design question if you are shooting for performance.
What do you want to do and how is this best done.

Not
This is what I want and why is it not working (this can still be a secondary question)

There is a reason why ice cream trucks do not equip a backhoe. That being said if you could find a place where this is a real need - DO IT NOW.

Edited by Chuck Jager, 01 July 2016 - 06:21 PM.

[1453 R]

El Bandito, on 30 June 2016 - 04:29 AM, said:

Which is why I am advocating

SIZED HARDPOINTS

"Making bad 'Mechs worse since 2017."

Seriously. Sized hardpoints does nothing positive for this game. Consider the following table:



Makes sense, yes? A Good base 'Mech chassis, graced with Good weapons, is Good. A Bad chassis with Bad weapons is Bad. A Good chassis, but one which suffers from Bad weapons, is Meh. A Bad chassis which is somehow fitted with Good weapons is similarly Meh. One case of Good, two cases of Meh, and one case of Bad.

Currently, however, you can alter the weapons layout of any 'Mech in the game, to a greater or less extent. This allows you to take Bad stock weapons loadouts and in many cases make them Good, following the green arrows shown in the table. A Bad 'Mech with Bad stock weapons is Bad...but a Bad 'Mech whose crappy stock weapons have been replaced with Good weapons migrates up to the 'Meh' box, and is much more playable. A Good 'Mech chassis with its Bad stock weapons replaced by Good weapons migrates from 'Meh' to Good.

This creates two more cases, for a current total of six. One of those cases is Good, the other is Me .. This totals out to two cases of Good, three cases of Meh, and one case of Bad.

33% of possible states are Good.
50% of possible states are Meh.
17% of possible states are Bad.

Consider, however, this version of the same chart:



Notice that the green arrows, representing the ability to change from Bad weapons to Good weapons, are gone, as sized hardpoint systems eliminate the ability to make meaningful changes to any given 'Mech's armament. We're down to four state cases again instead of six - Good 'Mechs with Bad weapons are doomed to remain Meh, with no ability to make up for their lackluster stock loadouts and compete with G/G machines (funny how that acronym works out, eh?). And Bad 'Mechs with Bad weapons remain completely pointless, as they lose the ability to switch out to Good weapons and upgrade themselves to Meh.

25% of possible states are Good.
50% of possible states are Meh.
25% of possible states are Bad.

This is a concrete, objectively observable reduction of Goodness in MWO, even before taking into account the fact that the number of Bad stock chassis and Bad stock armaments vastly outweighs their Good counterparts, and thusly that the majority of Good or Meh machines is made up of the two green-arrow case states in the uppermost table.

Why should we do that to ourselves?

*****
On the original post topic:

Yeah...never mind. I'm mostly done trying to talk sense into (de)convergence people. Mostly just caught a case of the Logics when reading Bandito's post where he's being Bandito again.

Edited by 1453 R, 01 July 2016 - 12:33 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

LordNothing, on 01 July 2016 - 12:38 AM, said:

the point of a mixed build is to have a mech that can do battle in as many situations as possible, as opposed to situational builds who have to in various situations stay hidden in cover until the situation it was built for materializes (which may never happen). so while the mixed build is fairly consistently dealing damage as battlefield situation changes, that situational mech is more or less doing nothing.

convergence really doesnt play into it at all, because you usually dont use all your weapons all the time, just the ones relative to your current situation. i might stick a few lerm tubes on my highlander iic and then end up not using them while i brawl with my uac10s and er medium lasers. sometimes the battle goes the other way and i end up lerming for the first 5 minutes (then when i run out of ammo fix bayonets and charge). the odd pairing of srms and (not er) ppcs usually have you using the ppcs outside of 250 and the srms the rest of the time. alpha strikes are usually to be avoided and instead you can use the best tool for the job. you try to use everything at once you just overheat and die.

I'd argue that the mixed build isn't doing as much as it could do, given that it is built for various ranges. How great is that brawler built at 1000m? How good is the sniper built in a brawl? You can do a good job with a mixed build but you can't do a good job if you're not aggressive. The point of mixed builds is to maximize your potential at multiple ranges. If you're going to do nothing but peak and poke, you've just ****** your team over hard.

[Steel Claws]

perfect convergence is a myth outside of lasers. All other weapons have travel time - thus requiring lead. If your cross hairs aren't on the target - they aren't going to impact in the same spot. This is also why we have burn time on lasers - to spread the damage around.

Move along. This has been discussed to death. Get over it please.

[Hotthedd]

1453 R, on 01 July 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

SIZED HARDPOINTS

"Making bad 'Mechs worse since 2017."

Seriously. Sized hardpoints does nothing positive for this game. Consider the following table:



Makes sense, yes? A Good base 'Mech chassis, graced with Good weapons, is Good. A Bad chassis with Bad weapons is Bad. A Good chassis, but one which suffers from Bad weapons, is Meh. A Bad chassis which is somehow fitted with Good weapons is similarly Meh. One case of Good, two cases of Meh, and one case of Bad.

Currently, however, you can alter the weapons layout of any 'Mech in the game, to a greater or less extent. This allows you to take Bad stock weapons loadouts and in many cases make them Good, following the green arrows shown in the table. A Bad 'Mech with Bad stock weapons is Bad...but a Bad 'Mech whose crappy stock weapons have been replaced with Good weapons migrates up to the 'Meh' box, and is much more playable. A Good 'Mech chassis with its Bad stock weapons replaced by Good weapons migrates from 'Meh' to Good.

This creates two more cases, for a current total of six. One of those cases is Good, the other is Me .. This totals out to two cases of Good, three cases of Meh, and one case of Bad.

33% of possible states are Good.
50% of possible states are Meh.
17% of possible states are Bad.

Consider, however, this version of the same chart:



Notice that the green arrows, representing the ability to change from Bad weapons to Good weapons, are gone, as sized hardpoint systems eliminate the ability to make meaningful changes to any given 'Mech's armament. We're down to four state cases again instead of six - Good 'Mechs with Bad weapons are doomed to remain Meh, with no ability to make up for their lackluster stock loadouts and compete with G/G machines (funny how that acronym works out, eh?). And Bad 'Mechs with Bad weapons remain completely pointless, as they lose the ability to switch out to Good weapons and upgrade themselves to Meh.

25% of possible states are Good.
50% of possible states are Meh.
25% of possible states are Bad.

This is a concrete, objectively observable reduction of Goodness in MWO, even before taking into account the fact that the number of Bad stock chassis and Bad stock armaments vastly outweighs their Good counterparts, and thusly that the majority of Good or Meh machines is made up of the two green-arrow case states in the uppermost table.

Why should we do that to ourselves?

*****
On the original post topic:

Yeah...never mind. I'm mostly done trying to talk sense into (de)convergence people. Mostly just caught a case of the Logics when reading Bandito's post where he's being Bandito again.

The fallacy in your reasoning is that you equate the size of the hardpoint with the total effectiveness (good/bad) of the weapon.
However, since range, heat, burst damage, DPS, and ammo/ton ALSO play an important part, your assumptions are illogical.

Steel Claws, on 01 July 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

perfect convergence is a myth outside of lasers. All other weapons have travel time - thus requiring lead. If your cross hairs aren't on the target - they aren't going to impact in the same spot. This is also why we have burn time on lasers - to spread the damage around.

Move along. This has been discussed to death. Get over it please.

They are not going to impact the same spot, but they are all going to CONVERGE on the reticle.
Hence, perfect convergence.

[Y E O N N E]

My MAD-5D currently has 2xERPPC + 2xSRM2 + 3xML on it and a crapton of DHS. With the cool-down quirk, I can alternate the two SRMs with the left and right PPCs with about the same rate of fire as an AC/40 Jagermech, dealing 18.6 damage every 1.5 seconds or so. It has enough DHS that I can do this long enough to gut the CT on any Medium or remove an ST on any Heavy and most Assaults. MedLas are there for supplements if I need them.

Basically, it looks like a bracket-build, but it's not. It plays as a brawler-striker, with the flexibility to punch something at 1000 meters as a happy coincidence.

El Bandito, on 30 June 2016 - 04:29 AM, said:

Which is why I am advocating

Fixes nothing. We have the problem we have because some weapons are simply too good for the amount of tons and slots they occupy. All you are doing with sized hardpoints is adding a third resource, with which we can still have weapons that are too good for how much of it they require.

[1453 R]

Hotthedd, on 01 July 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

The fallacy in your reasoning is that you equate the size of the hardpoint with the total effectiveness (good/bad) of the weapon.
However, since range, heat, burst damage, DPS, and ammo/ton ALSO play an important part, your assumptions are illogical.

Let's take the case of the Dragon, shall we?

The Dragon has (generally) an LRM launcher in the CT, an AC/5 in the right arm, and one medium laser apiece in LA and LT. This shakes out as one or two ballistics per RA, one or two energy per LA and LT, and one missile hardpoint nobody uses per CT, variant-dependent.

No one can really argue that the Dragon is a bad chassis. The 60-ton mark is hard to be good in, and the Dragon's geometry makes it very fragile. This was the 'Mech I learned MWO in - I can personally attest that it's not a top-flight chassis by any means or manner. However...with a Gausslasers weapons mix, or some PPCs/large lasers substituting for medium daggers, it can (theoretically, or at least it could back in the day) be made to be halfway workable - the Mehcategory mentioned above.

Assuming sized hardpoints, however...Every. Single. One. Of the Dragon's hardpoints would be classified as 'small'. it could not mount gauss rifles. It could not mount PPCs or large lasers. It can't even mount an SRM-6, since most sized hardpoint systems I've seen classify the SRM-6 as a 'large' hardpoint. It is stuck with a horribly suboptimal, utterly non-impactful mix of low-damage popguns in bad locations, and would almost be worse than dropping into the match with a bolt-action rifle and a pair of stompin' boots.

Sized hardpoints would thoroughly, irrevocably destroy what little viability the Dragon has left. And I'm pretty sure you could easily come up with other examples. Wouldn't even be hard, eh?

[Red Shrike]

1453 R, on 01 July 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

Let's take the case of the Dragon, shall we?

The Dragon has (generally) an LRM launcher in the CT, an AC/5 in the right arm, and one medium laser apiece in LA and LT. This shakes out as one or two ballistics per RA, one or two energy per LA and LT, and one missile hardpoint nobody uses per CT, variant-dependent.

No one can really argue that the Dragon is a bad chassis. The 60-ton mark is hard to be good in, and the Dragon's geometry makes it very fragile. This was the 'Mech I learned MWO in - I can personally attest that it's not a top-flight chassis by any means or manner. However...with a Gausslasers weapons mix, or some PPCs/large lasers substituting for medium daggers, it can (theoretically, or at least it could back in the day) be made to be halfway workable - the Mehcategory mentioned above.

Assuming sized hardpoints, however...Every. Single. One. Of the Dragon's hardpoints would be classified as 'small'. it could not mount gauss rifles. It could not mount PPCs or large lasers. It can't even mount an SRM-6, since most sized hardpoint systems I've seen classify the SRM-6 as a 'large' hardpoint. It is stuck with a horribly suboptimal, utterly non-impactful mix of low-damage popguns in bad locations, and would almost be worse than dropping into the match with a bolt-action rifle and a pair of stompin' boots.

Sized hardpoints would thoroughly, irrevocably destroy what little viability the Dragon has left. And I'm pretty sure you could easily come up with other examples. Wouldn't even be hard, eh?

An LRM, an AC/5 and a handful of medium lasers sounds decent to me.