43 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Ran my Yeonne inspired build in group queue last night. Did okay...certainly better than the metamechs build. Don't understand how a mech with 1.12 heat efficiency seemed to run way cooler than the 1.2-1.3-ish builds I had tried previously but whatever. Anyway, thanks for the ideas and the suggestions. Will probably try Tarogato's pulse boat this evening if I get a chance to play.

As to the other commentaries. Yes, I get that the thing is crap and that just about any build can be done better on a different mech. All I am trying to do here is come up with something remotely distinctive that I am NOT currently running on another mech, so as to convince my OCD addled brain that it is OK to keep the thing.

[xengk]

The 5N is my favourite variant of the Grasshopper, run as energy brawler/direct fire support.

4x ML in the arms
3x SL in torso
1x PPC in high mount shoulder
300 STD engine
19 DHS
4 Jump Jets

[Bud Crue]

xengk, on 03 April 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:

The 5N is my favourite variant of the Grasshopper, run as energy brawler/direct fire support.

I cannot go that slow in a Hopper. I just can't do it. I've tried, I really have, but I feel like I am a giant slow target when going that slow. Min engine I can stomach in a hopper is a 325.

Edit, oddly, I have no issues going that slow in a Warhammer or Cataphract. I suspect the movement profile and/or the perspective of all that height in the Hopper has something to do with it. c'est la vie

Edited by Bud Crue, 03 April 2017 - 03:36 AM.

[El Bandito]

I boat ERLLs on it and right side poke.

Edited by El Bandito, 03 April 2017 - 03:35 AM.

[Bud Crue]

El Bandito, on 03 April 2017 - 03:33 AM, said:

I boat ERLLs on it and right side poke.

I like the ERLL build I have on my 5P, not to mention one of my Quickdraws. I think a third would feel a bit excessive, but what the hell, I'll give it a shot after the others suggested thus far.

[C E Dwyer]

5N is just the red headed step child.

Nothing you can do with it that other Grasshoppers do better, due to only one high shoulder mount.

4ml's in the arms at least then you can shoot down UAV's

I guess you keep it, because a bullet in the forehead, and a trip to the scrapyard is just inhumane.

[Bud Crue]

Cathy, on 03 April 2017 - 04:05 AM, said:

5N is just the red headed step child.

Nothing you can do with it that other Grasshoppers do better, due to only one high shoulder mount.

4ml's in the arms at least then you can shoot down UAV's

I guess you keep it, because a bullet in the forehead, and a trip to the scrapyard is just inhumane.

Yeah...as an aside this is exactly the kind of mech that ought to have relatively superior quirks imho, so as to offset its obvious drawbacks. But nope. In PGI's view, the 5N along with all other Hoppers EXCEPT the 5P, keep getting hit with the nerf bat. It is the kind of thing that REALLY makes me question PGI's so-called "data" driven quirk passes. Based on the nerf history, PGI thinks the 5N is one of the better performing Hoppers...inferior only to the 5J which was hit particularly hard over the summer following rescale. Sigh.

Edited by Bud Crue, 03 April 2017 - 04:14 AM.

[Acehilator]

WTH happened to the "Guides" section?

Sent into archives? Where? And more importantly, why?!?

[Bud Crue]

Acehilator, on 03 April 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

WTH happened to the "Guides" section?

Sent into archives? Where? And more importantly, why?!?

Where: New player archives.
Why: Apparently hiding the build threads in the archives is good for the NPE and overall health of the game. PGI knows best and all that.

[Ultimax]

FupDup, on 02 April 2017 - 06:16 PM, said:

Mechs like the Grasshopper highlight why having a half dozen variants of every mech was a bad gameplay choice. Having only one variant that encompasses the "overall flavor" of the chassis as a whole is much better since it makes it far easier to distinguish mechs from one another.

Also why I dislike trying to balance for EVERY VARIANT in the game.

It's hard enough to balance all of the chassis across two factions.


Since the cat is out of the bag, I would just go in the direction of ranking the variants accordng to performance.

Focus on balancing the top performers against other top performers across CHASSIS.

The other variants continue to exist and can continue to be implemented.

For every 2 variants of a chassis mastered the pilot earns a stacking +5% CBill and +5% XP modifier when piloting any variant of that chassis.

Master 6 variants, and that would be a +15% CBill and +15% XP bonus when piloting ANY variant of choice, that would also stack with Hero & Champ bonuses (so piloting the hero would be +45% CBill bonus)


Numbers are just rough spitballs, mostly the concept could work to keep the "extra" varants relevant and not change too much with regards to new mechs being added to the game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 02 April 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

This was a nice case study in why "sized hardpoints" is not any kind of a real solution.

No, that is a good case study based on a SPECIFIC implementation of sized hardpoints, there is nothing about sized hardpoints that says they have to be limited to the size of the stock weapons.....just saying.

FupDup, on 02 April 2017 - 06:16 PM, said:

Mechs like the Grasshopper highlight why having a half dozen variants of every mech was a bad gameplay choice. Having only one variant that encompasses the "overall flavor" of the chassis as a whole is much better since it makes it far easier to distinguish mechs from one another.

Quoted for extra emphasis, we need to do some variant "cleanup"

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 April 2017 - 06:57 AM.

[Ultimax]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

No, that is a good case study based on a SPECIFIC implementation of sized hardpoints, there is nothing about sized hardpoints that says they have to be limited to the size of the stock weapons.....just saying.

If they don't base it on stock loadouts, it is left to PGI's discretion - it will be arbitrary and simply create a different set of winners and losers. (basing it on stock loadouts would also create winners and losers)

They've already failed (repeatedly) in this endeavor with quirks.

There is nothing in their track record to suggest this would be successful, and it would require a great deal more work to implement than quirks did.

Edited by Ultimax, 03 April 2017 - 07:05 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 07:04 AM, said:

If they don't base it on stock loadouts, it is left to PGI's discretion

This goes back to the engine decoupling argument, yes, it is arbitrary and up to PGI's decision, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad concept.

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 07:04 AM, said:

- it will be arbitrary and simply create a different set of winners and losers.

They do that anyway with quirks, lol. The difference is they have more control over loadouts so they can be more generous with quirks in some cases without fear of being abused as well as making sure certain mechs stick with weapons more inline with their 'feel' of the mech.

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 07:04 AM, said:

There is nothing in their track record to suggest this would be successful, and it would require a great deal more work to implement than quirks did.

Oh, the work entailed is why it will never happen unless we get an MWO2, as for their track record, that is the case regardless of what systems are in place (like right now), so that point is moot.

[Ultimax]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

This goes back to the engine decoupling argument, yes, it is arbitrary and up to PGI's decision, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad concept.

For this particular case, I dislike it because it decides winners and losers based on ... well who knows what it would be based on.

I much prefer to simply let the chips fall where they may, and have the best mechs rise to the top.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

They do that anyway with quirks, lol. The difference is they have more control over loadouts so they can be more generous with quirks in some cases without fear of being abused as well as making sure certain mechs stick with weapons more inline with their 'feel' of the mech.

Quirks are (or at the least should be) pretty simple numerical changes they can make, sized hardpoints would be an entirely different implementation that would require quite a bit more backend work on top of basically doing a full analysis of every single variant in the game and then doling out hardpoints (so basically the workload of quirks + the added portion of creating the system to manage hardpoint sizes).

Since we don't know what that backend portion of the system entails, we have no idea how much flexibility they would have to tweak (yes, ideally it should be designed with that in mind...) so unlike quirks we have no idea what "iterative balance" would even look like (and it has been pretty bad as a whole when it comes to quirks)

(I also suspect that we will see less actually good mechs, and more mechs forced to be average or garbage tier - as PGI seems terrified to buff the bottom).

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

Oh, the work entailed is why it will never happen unless we get an MWO2, as for their track record, that is the case regardless of what systems are in place (like right now), so that point is moot.

The point on track record is because we already have a poorly implemented system of quirks - this would take more effort than quirks.

If you take "Basic Calculus" and do poorly and over 2+ years show no improvement, suddenly deciding to take "Advanced Calculus" seems like a bad idea at best.

Edited by Ultimax, 03 April 2017 - 07:24 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Supposedly the new Skill tree is going to help lame ducks like this one, but I just don't see it.

From Memory, there is no route on the node web you can take for this variant, that will not also be the best for every other variant, unless of course people plan on using the missile hard point.

No I didn't think so.

Same goes for the up and coming hero variant, it's quaint having a ballistic arm, but from a min/max perspective, it will perform best as an energy boat, like all the rest.

Sure if I do ever buy it, then I will use that dakka point, for the sake of using a hopper in a different way, but if I was a min/maxer, I'd know I wasn't putting the best build I could on the mech.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

For this particular case, I dislike it because it decides winners and losers based on ... well who knows what it would be based on.
I much prefer to simply let the chips fall where they may, and have the best mechs rise to the top.

You realize quirks are deciding "winners and losers" right now right? This is a poor argument.

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

quite a bit more backend work on top of basically doing a full analysis of every single variant in the game and then doling out hardpoints (so basically the workload of quirks + the added portion of creating the system to manage hardpoint sizes).

I'm not arguing about the workload, I'm arguing about the concept, and quirks SHOULD be requiring a full analysis of every single variant to begin with otherwise again, it is picking "winners and losers" no different than bad sized hardpoint implementations.

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

Since we don't know what that backend portion of the system entails, we have no idea how much flexibility they would have to tweak (yes, ideally it should be designed with that in mind...) so unlike quirks we have no idea what "iterative balance" would even look like (and it has been pretty bad as a whole when it comes to quirks)

Unknowns don't make it necessarily bad.

(I also suspect that we will see less actually good mechs, and more mechs forced to be average or garbage tier - as PGI seems terrified to buff the bottom).

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

The point on track record is because we already have a poorly implemented system of quirks - this would take more effort than quirks.

If you take "Basic Calculus" and do poorly and over 2+ years show no improvement, suddenly deciding to take "Advanced Calculus" seems like a bad idea at best.

This is assuming sized hardpoints are more complicated than quirks. For example, we could have sized hardpoints right now and you could not even know it because sizes are arbitrary (meaning they could be all set to allow the biggest weapon possible).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 April 2017 - 07:32 AM.

[Ultimax]

Yikes, don't know what went wrong with my copy paste!

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

You realize quirks are deciding "winners and losers" right now right? This is a poor argument.

Yes, of course I do - but it's impact has been extremely minimized. For good or for ill, PGI can easily choke off quirk impact by reducing the amounts.

The current crop of best mechs in each class don't even rely on quirks (Read: Clan Tech), so it's not creating "winners & losers" in the way that it was when the Black Knight was one of the top heavies.

(It's also been used very heavily to incentivize mech purchases, which is a whole other issue - but I digress)


I don't think that sized hardpoints as a system could be so easily reigned in or buffed in the way that quirks have been (where all that needs to be done is to reduce or raise a number, or change it from "ER" to "Lasers", etc) because it's more than just adjusting a number.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

I'm not arguing about the workload, I'm arguing about the concept, and quirks SHOULD be requiring a full analysis of every single variant to begin with otherwise again, it is picking "winners and losers" no different than bad sized hardpoint implementations.

It is different, already covered above.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 April 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

This is assuming sized hardpoints are more complicated than quirks. For example, we could have sized hardpoints right now and you could not even know it because sizes are arbitrary (meaning they could be all set to allow the biggest weapon possible).

I would say it's more complicated at the very least in implementation, it adds an extra layer of hardpoint placement to the decision making which currently does not exist with quirk application.

I would hazard a guess that the backend doesn't exist for this, and a hardpoint is a hardpoint as far as the current system goes - but that's just a guess so I could be wrong.

Edited by Ultimax, 03 April 2017 - 08:53 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

Yes, of course I do - but it's impact has been extremely minimized.

Depends on the mech, for mechs like the Vindicator the impact can be extreme. I mean sure it is bad even with the massive quirks it has, but without them can you imagine just how bad they would be? I can, those were horrible days, right now it is at least playable and some enjoyment can be had out of it.

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

I don't think that sized hardpoints as a system could be so easily reigned in or buffed in the way that quirks have been (where all that needs to be done is to reduce or raise a number, or change it from "ER" to "Lasers", etc) because it's more than just adjusting a number.

That's because they are still dependent on number of hardpoints (depending on how they are implemented mind you). They have a different impact on a mech than most. Ideally, the sized hardpoints shouldn't really impact balance as quirks should be emphasizing a certain loadout already (sized hardpoints should just be there to lock that variant down to be more about that loadout) that way if quirks change something like a Stalker doesn't get better at doing PPCs than an Awesome or something like that.

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

I would say it's more complicated at the very least in implementation, it adds an extra layer of hardpoint placement to the decision making which currently does not exist with quirk application.

That's something quirks already have to take into consideration, lest we forget the TDR-9S.

Ultimax, on 03 April 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

I would hazard a guess that the backend doesn't exist for this, and a hardpoint is a hardpoint as far as the current system goes - but that's just a guess so I could be wrong.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't, just wanted to point out that the numbers are purely arbitrary such that it could exist and still allow the exact same loadouts we see today.

[Pyed]

Bud Crue, on 03 April 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

Yeah...as an aside this is exactly the kind of mech that ought to have relatively superior quirks imho, so as to offset its obvious drawbacks. But nope. In PGI's view, the 5N along with all other Hoppers EXCEPT the 5P, keep getting hit with the nerf bat. It is the kind of thing that REALLY makes me question PGI's so-called "data" driven quirk passes. Based on the nerf history, PGI thinks the 5N is one of the better performing Hoppers...inferior only to the 5J which was hit particularly hard over the summer following rescale. Sigh.

I strongly suspect that a lot of their data for unpopular mechs comes from good players giving themselves a challenge by playing them.

I screwed around with the Dragon 5N for 19 matches and managed to average just over 350 damage somehow. Nothing I would brag about but PGI's data probably tells them it was "fine" based on those 19 games.
(AC5/UAC5/ERPPC in the arms)

I gave up on and sold that heap. It was just too damn frustrating to play.

[Y E O N N E]

Bud Crue, on 03 April 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

Ran my Yeonne inspired build in group queue last night. Did okay...certainly better than the metamechs build. Don't understand how a mech with 1.12 heat efficiency seemed to run way cooler than the 1.2-1.3-ish builds I had tried previously but whatever. Anyway, thanks for the ideas and the suggestions. Will probably try Tarogato's pulse boat this evening if I get a chance to play.

Some 'Mechs let you shoot more often, giving the illusion of greater heat. I know I overheat more in my MAD-5D when I run SRM4A than when I run SRM6A despite having one less DHS in the latter and the latter generating more heat, all due to rate of fire.