211 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

My metric for efficacy? How I'm judging good vs. bad builds?

A few things:

• The build's ability to use all of it's weapons effectively. The 2UAC10+2LPL build fails here, as you pointed out. However, a 2LBX10+2LPL build works just fine, as does a large number of other builds on the chassis. 2UAC10 doesn't really pair with much due to how the weapon works. 1UAC10 is fine mixed in with other stuff though. Ultimately, this is a minor problem given how few builds can run 2UAC10+other heavy weapons, and there are other solid options. Running a couple ERML and LRM's with it works fine though. More UAC10's is right out (look, boating is bad!)
  
• The build's ability to perform well within it's bracket, outputting enough useful damage(that is, damage that goes where you want it to go) vs. other builds in it's class while still maintaining usable defensive piloting. As an example, I found quad CLPL to work, but not be a very good option for a mech like the Kodiak because you're heatcapping in damage output with unimpressive DPS and insufficient speed to really use it in a peek and poke manner. I'm most interested in how brawlers function vs. other brawlers as an example.

Actually 3 UAC10s is better than 2 UAC10s with lasers. Because at least you get a 30 damage burst, and then can follow it up with another 30 damage burst 1.5 seconds later. The projectiles are all the same speed, no blending of hit scan with slower projectiles, boating is better. Its just... most mechs can't do that.

Honestly, I think they just should have decreased laser energy instead of raising the other energies, and then gone ahead with the more severe penalties. That effectively reduces the restrictions a little. I think that's the better option because you don't screw over the MechWarrior aspect of it, which has always been, if you are in a big mech you can shoot lots of guns.

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

If anything, there's a strong argument to be made that longer TTK means an unfair advantage for stronger players.

Stronger players should have the advantage... they are stronger players...

[Wintersdark]

Gas Guzzler, on 24 August 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

As an academic exercise, can you list out some builds to get excited about on the MAD-IIC? I can think of one...

The Scorch with 4 SRM6 w/art and 2 LB20s.

Otherwise its all 2 UAC10s or 3 UAC5s, plus lasers or ERPPCs, or dual gauss with an ER PPC (now a 42 heat alpha..). OR that energy boat.. What do you do there? 5-6 cERLL? 4 cLPLs? Sounds so fun and interesting.

Energy boat is energy boat. I can't say that excites me either, but it makes no difference with or without ED there; that's boring no matter what. Even so, there's plenty of great energy boat builds under ED.

But, other decent builds on the other chassis:

Gauss+lasers.

UAC10+lasers+missiles

dual LBX10+lasers+missiles.

3UAC2+lasers

lasers+missiles

2UAC5+lasers


PPC's are kind of broken right now, and definitely need less cooldown.

Seriously, I look over the builds I've been running successfully (against players better than me) and pretty much everything is applicable to the MadIIC.

Just because 2LPL+2UAC10 isn't viable doesn't mean "Oh my god all mixed builds are trash it's all ruined." It's just one build type that's not working as well.

Edited by Wintersdark, 24 August 2016 - 08:39 AM.

[TKSax]

Gas Guzzler, on 24 August 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

How did he act?

Basically told me I was complaining just to complain, when I asked why they were changing things were not related to Energy Draw between the pts 1 and 2. (SRM Spread for example)

Edited by TKSax, 24 August 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Gas Guzzler, on 24 August 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

Actually 3 UAC10s is better than 2 UAC10s with lasers. Because at least you get a 30 damage burst, and then can follow it up with another 30 damage burst 1.5 seconds later. The projectiles are all the same speed, no blending of hit scan with slower projectiles, boating is better. Its just... most mechs can't do that.

Yes. But even 3xUAC10 isn't really a particularly strong build because you're energy capping hard, which helps reign in the mechs that can do it. Ultimately, 2UAC10 is strong, but it's self limiting in terms of what you can fire with it due to it's very nature. It's got high burst AND high DPS; it's basically a perfect weapon in an environment where DPS is encouraged.

This is the system working.

Quote

Honestly, I think they just should have decreased laser energy instead of raising the other energies, and then gone ahead with the more severe penalties. That effectively reduces the restrictions a little. I think that's the better option because you don't screw over the MechWarrior aspect of it, which has always been, if you are in a big mech you can shoot lots of guns.

I also suggested lower Laser energy draw, you may recall.

I understand why they didn't (people where boating lasers hard) but think somewhat lower draw was appropriate given the DOT nature of beams.

Quote

Stronger players should have the advantage... they are stronger players...

And that's why *I* like longer TTK, yes.

TKSax, on 24 August 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:

Basically told me I was complaining just to complain, when I asked why they were changing things were not related to Energy Draw between the pts 1 and 2. (SRM Spread for example)

They said in the post why they changed SRM spread; indeed, why they changed everything they changed. I don't agree with all of it, but the did explain the why's. Thus... why even ask? It's in the post.

[Gas Guzzler]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

Just because 2LPL+2UAC10 isn't viable doesn't mean "Oh my god all mixed builds are trash it's all ruined." It's just one build type that's not working as well.

Its not that... 2 UAC10 and ER MLs is the same story.

Yeah Gauss and lasers, it was nice being able to run 2 UAC10s instead of Gauss on mechs though. AC2s... nah. That's medium mech shenanigans. Sorry I can't get behind that. Glad to see all my mech pack money has gone to work in making the game worse.

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

I also suggested lower Laser energy draw, you may recall.

I understand why they didn't (people where boating lasers hard) but think somewhat lower draw was appropriate given the DOT nature of beams.

Well, with the increased penalties, it wouldn't have been such a problem as 5 LPLs would shut you down.

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

Yes. But even 3xUAC10 isn't really a particularly strong build because you're energy capping hard, which helps reign in the mechs that can do it. Ultimately, 2UAC10 is strong, but it's self limiting in terms of what you can fire with it due to it's very nature. It's got high burst AND high DPS; it's basically a perfect weapon in an environment where DPS is encouraged.

This is the system working.

I think you and I just have a different definition of how much firepower is acceptable, and whether or not playing defensively (I.E. firing more weapons and getting into cover) should be acceptable or not.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 24 August 2016 - 08:44 AM.

[Navid A1]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

That's such a load of crap, and you know it. I'm tempted to do the math and show how much heat is involved, but you know this is an absurd overexaggeration. Running a pair of UAC5's is trivial alongside lasers (or even lasers and missiles); you don't need to count milliseconds, just fire lasers in between shots of the UAC5's.

On a Direwolf, you can run a good chunk of lasers and massive LBX autocannons as well for really great face-punching power.

Theories!
So I take it that you did not test the direwolf then.

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

Position and plan are every bit as important. But now you need to think about which weapon you fire and when as well, as opposed to just peek and BLAM!


Again a gross over-exaggeration.

But again, and I said this earlier: Longer TTK benefits skilled players more than it does unskilled players.

This is because in a short TTK situation, a single mistake can end you quickly - or your opponent. In a long-TTK situation, a single mistake isn't the end, but neither is a single bit of luck a win. You need to be consistently good, because you're very unlikely to be consistently lucky or unlucky.

If anything, there's a strong argument to be made that longer TTK means an unfair advantage for stronger players.

We'll see how that thinking is going to work out for you in 12 v 12
Everyone has a 30 damage shooting window. The player that has the most efficient 30 damage alpha wins.
Pack 8xC-MPL = win
Pack 6xLL = win
Pack 3 UAC10s = win

It is thinking on plan and positioniing that makes this game a thinking man's shooter.
A better player wins with better positioning anyway.
ED is not adding to that thinking aspect.

You can be a better player with no ghost heat and no ED restriction with mega alpha builds... yet a lower skilled player with ED restrictions can still kill you from better positioning

[TKSax]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

They said in the post why they changed SRM spread; indeed, why they changed everything they changed. I don't agree with all of it, but the did explain the why's. Thus... why even ask? It's in the post.

So are we testing Energy Draw or are we testing weapon changes? It's hard to get accurate feel of how weapons are being affected by Energy Draw Changes when unrelated weapon changes are happening.

[Navid A1]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

They said in the post why they changed SRM spread; indeed, why they changed everything they changed. I don't agree with all of it, but the did explain the why's. Thus... why even ask? It's in the post.

Lets see what they said:

Quote

SRM's

Some of the feedback we've received regarding SRM behavior on the PTS has trended toward a desire to simultaneously fire 4xSRM6. This feedback makes sense, given the number and viability of Loadouts using 4xSRM6 configurations and the role they can play in brawling. However, testing has shown this weapon to be relatively on-target in its efficacy based on its existing values in the PTS.

A Desire... that was the reason.
A DESIRE!

not balance.

Edited by Navid A1, 24 August 2016 - 08:55 AM.

[Wintersdark]

TKSax, on 24 August 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

So are we testing Energy Draw or are we testing weapon changes? It's hard to get accurate feel of how weapons are being affected by Energy Draw Changes when unrelated weapon changes are happening.

They aren't unrelated.

Quote

That said, we are going to explore some options in this PTS update to help justify 4xSRM6 loadouts within the context of the Energy Draw system. To that end we have decreased Energy Consumption for SRM 6 and C-SRM 6 weaponry. However, these Energy reductions must come with a trade-off. To that end we have increased Missile Spread for all SRM 6's and SRM 4's by 20%.

People wanted to fire more SRM's, as 4xSRM6 is a very common brawling build setup. However, they felt purely allowing that many to fire so narrow was a problem.

Remember, weapon draw is directly correlated with spread. Larger spread weapons get less energy draw. They wanted to allow players as was requested to run thost 4xSRM6, but for that to still be balanced they felt it would require a larger spread.

These are interrelated variables.


Now, with that said? I've run a bunch of SRM builds, and they're great. Artemis is a much stronger addition now, and worth taking more often, but SRM's are able to pump out a tremendous amount of damage vs. other weapon times per energy drawn.

Navid A1, on 24 August 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

A Desire... that was the reason.
A DESIRE!

not balance.

Read it all. Jesus, man, settle down. People wanted to fire more, they allowed people to fire more, BUT INCREASED THE SPREAD FOR BALANCE. The spread changed for balance, the draw changed because people wanted to fire more.

[Cy Mitchell]

TKSax, on 24 August 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

So are we testing Energy Draw or are we testing weapon changes? It's hard to get accurate feel of how weapons are being affected by Energy Draw Changes when unrelated weapon changes are happening.

All of this is about damage output. Energy Draw is not a separate entity by itself. It is part of a system that controls damage along with other things like heat, rate of fire, cooldown, weapon spread, burn duration, range, etc. All that is related and they are making changes to some values to compensate for changes in other values to see what the effect will be on the whole.

[Wintersdark]

Navid A1, on 24 August 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

Theories!
So I take it that you did not test the direwolf then.

No, I have not run a Direwolf yet, though I do have a lot of runs in my Kodiaks, which are quite similar.

Quote

We'll see how that thinking is going to work out for you in 12 v 12
Everyone has a 30 damage shooting window. The player that has the most efficient 30 damage alpha wins.
Pack 8xC-MPL = win
Pack 6xLL = win
Pack 3 UAC10s = win

Except the player who can fire way more than 30 damage, cooler than the 30 damage alpha build. Mixed builds allow this.

Strangely, I faced these sorts of builds above, piloted by strong players, and had no problem whatsoever in my builds. *scratches head* But clearly, this is because of your strange view that ED somehow lets bad players beat good players. Badness trumps good builds! rofl.

Quote

It is thinking on plan and positioniing that makes this game a thinking man's shooter.
A better player wins with better positioning anyway.
ED is not adding to that thinking aspect.

You can be a better player with no ghost heat and no ED restriction with mega alpha builds... yet a lower skilled player with ED restrictions can still kill you from better positioning

Positioning and plan are every bit as important with or without ED. Are you seriously complaining that the ED restrictions give players who aren't as good as you an advantage? That's a load of crap. ED doesn't make poor players better; it doesn't help poor players at all (or really hinder them either).

If you're positioned better than they are, you're still going to win; it's just going to take a bit longer. Given longer TTK was a goal of Russ's, I guess that's the system working.

As I said above - and even Gas confirms - Longer TTK benefits skilled players more. Luck won't save you or kill you, consistency is what matters. Skilled players = consistent players. (well, consistently solid play)

[Navid A1]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

Read it all. Jesus, man, settle down. People wanted to fire more, they allowed people to fire more, BUT INCREASED THE SPREAD FOR BALANCE. The spread changed for balance, the draw changed because people wanted to fire more.

that simple?

Ok... I desire to fire 2 gauss rifles...
I "desire" to be able to fire 1 UAC5 with 4 ERMLs with no penalty.
I desire my UACs to draw energy on each shell fired, not instantly on pulling the trigger
Desire, Desire, Desire.
They can change the max ranges and cooldowns all they want for balance.


The whole point is that they did this change based on ONE person's DESIRE... not balance.
Balance came after desire.


I quote again for you:

Quote

SRM's

Some of the feedback we've received regarding SRM behavior on the PTS has trended toward a desire to simultaneously fire 4xSRM6. This feedback makes sense, given the number and viability of Loadouts using 4xSRM6 configurations and the role they can play in brawling. However, testing has shown this weapon to be relatively on-target in its efficacy based on its existing values in the PTS.

That said, we are going to explore some options in this PTS update to help justify 4xSRM6 loadouts within the context of the Energy Draw system. To that end we have decreased Energy Consumption for SRM 6 and C-SRM 6 weaponry. However, these Energy reductions must come with a trade-off. To that end we have increased Missile Spread for all SRM 6's and SRM 4's by 20%.

A 20% increase to Missile Spread will look (approximately) like this:

WOW... much trade off... much balance.
I going to bet who's desire was this.... Just like the rest of feedback through the recent 3 years.

Edited by Navid A1, 24 August 2016 - 09:24 AM.

[TKSax]

Rampage, on 24 August 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

All of this is about damage output. Energy Draw is not a separate entity by itself. It is part of a system that controls damage along with other things like heat, rate of fire, cooldown, weapon spread, burn duration, range, etc. All that is related and they are making changes to some values to compensate for changes in other values to see what the effect will be on the whole.

I understand that, but the point is how are you going to accurate data on what adjustments have been made if you are adjusting multiple Values. Personally, I think they should have adjusted the Energy Draw to allow firing of 4 Srms. If people like how they felt then came along and adjusted the weapon values. By adjusting both your do not get an accurate idea on how the weapon performs. ITs called iterative changes... which we all know PGI does not do real well.

I will admit and I said this last night to Phil before I asked the question, I do design and testing for a living, so this bothers me, but the is poor methodology for testing and can lead to bigger issues down the road.

Oh and Winters, Phil was being very aggressive to people who were giving Constructive but negative feedback in chat.

Edited by TKSax, 24 August 2016 - 09:07 AM.

[Navid A1]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

Positioning and plan are every bit as important with or without ED. Are you seriously complaining that the ED restrictions give players who aren't as good as you an advantage? That's a load of crap. ED doesn't make poor players better; it doesn't help poor players at all (or really hinder them either).

If you're positioned better than they are, you're still going to win; it's just going to take a bit longer. Given longer TTK was a goal of Russ's, I guess that's the system working.

As I said above - and even Gas confirms - Longer TTK benefits skilled players more. Luck won't save you or kill you, consistency is what matters. Skilled players = consistent players. (well, consistently solid play)

Your answer does not make any sense... I don't know who you are responding to.
What are you talking about?
Have you read what I said?

Read again.
A thinking player wins by positioning right... not by ED
A lower skilled player beats a good player if he is in a better position... even without ED restrictions

That is what thinking in this game is about.

Even with energy draw, you win by positioning against other players... not by convoluted fire mechanics.

Edited by Navid A1, 24 August 2016 - 09:12 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

As I said above - and even Gas confirms - Longer TTK benefits skilled players more. Luck won't save you or kill you, consistency is what matters. Skilled players = consistent players. (well, consistently solid play)

Hold up.. i misunderstood your post, I didn't mean to confirm that.

I said stronger players should have the advantage, as I thought that is what you said. Lower TTK means you can't make as many mistakes. Luck has not much to do it, its more if your enemy makes a mistake they get punished for it.

Also just to add to something else... yeah 2 LPLs and 2 UAC10s double tapped is 66 damage... spread over 1.5 seconds with 0 FLD. 66 damage is misleading there, as its in fact much less effective than 66 damage through other means.

[Cy Mitchell]

Gas Guzzler, on 24 August 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Also just to add to something else... yeah 2 LPLs and 2 UAC10s double tapped is 66 damage... spread over 1.5 seconds with 0 FLD. 66 damage is misleading there, as its in fact much less effective than 66 damage through other means.

I am curious as to examples of what the more effective 66 damage would be.

[TKSax]

Rampage, on 24 August 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

I am curious as to examples of what the more effective 66 damage would be.

Thats easy, 30 damage to the same part of mech will be better than 66 spread out all over a mech,

[Navid A1]

Rampage, on 24 August 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

Gas Guzzler, on 24 August 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Also just to add to something else... yeah 2 LPLs and 2 UAC10s double tapped is 66 damage... spread over 1.5 seconds with 0 FLD. 66 damage is misleading there, as its in fact much less effective than 66 damage through other means.

I am curious as to examples of what the more effective 66 damage would be.

3xUAC10s?

Boating my friend.. boating the most efficient 30 amage combo.
Why bother with lasers+UACs any more

[Wintersdark]

Gas Guzzler, on 24 August 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

I think you and I just have a different definition of how much firepower is acceptable, and whether or not playing defensively (I.E. firing more weapons and getting into cover) should be acceptable or not.

Probably, because all I care about is:

1) Being able to bring as much firepower as my mech is capable of bring to bear. Under this PTS, I can do that. I can't do it all very quickly, but heat is capping my damage output, not ED. You can definitely make builds where ED caps damage output (specifically adding things to 2xCUAC10) but there are other builds that work just fine.

2) So long as mechs are able to bring all their firepower to bear and not be ED-capped in damage output, burst damage amount isn't important to me. If it's less (for everyone, in every build) then it doesn't bother me in the slightest. It just means longer TTK, which means personal skill is more important.


Now, just to be clear: I actually preferred less restrictive numbers. But that preference is easily offset by just how incredibly effective mixed builds are being; I'm really enjoying this.

[Gas Guzzler]

Rampage, on 24 August 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

I am curious as to examples of what the more effective 66 damage would be.

5 LPL would be more effective at 50 damage, given its much easier to put it all in the same place. Obviously. Fire 3, wait 1 second, fire 2