255 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Inner Sphere weapons are all good to OP.

YEP. MRMS ARE WAY BETTER THAN ANYTHING CLANS GET.

THEY TRACK THE RETICLE OMG THATS SO OP.

WHY DONT ATMS TRACK THE RETICLE WHY DO THEY JUST CRASH INTO TERRAIN AND LEGS

[Lightfoot]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

YEP. MRMS ARE WAY BETTER THAN ANYTHING CLANS GET.

THEY TRACK THE RETICLE OMG THATS SO OP.

WHY DONT ATMS TRACK THE RETICLE WHY DO THEY JUST CRASH INTO TERRAIN AND LEGS

I like the MRMs. nobody will be standing still on July 18th that's for sure.

[Andi Nagasia]

Lightfoot, on 07 July 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

I like the MRMs. nobody will be standing still on July 18th that's for sure.

i do too, although im kinda hoping they get a spread reduction, planing to use them as low weight LBX10s,

[Felicitatem Parco]

Andi Nagasia, on 07 July 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

i do too, although im kinda hoping they get a spread reduction, planing to use them as low weight LBX10s,

Low weight LBX? I intend to use them as ERSRMs. I just slapped MRMs on to all my Stalkers and my Splatclops, and OMG it is glorious.

I will rue every Nova S on the field, though...

[Pjwned]

DrxAbstract, on 07 July 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

As I've already said, SRMs are not the centerpiece of the build. The only reason people use the S over the D-DC is it has ONE more Missile Hardpoint - That's it. Multiple Mechs can use 4xASRM6 builds - It's nothing special. Not many can combine an AC20/2LBX10 with it, while having layers of armor however... That is what makes the S/D-DC unique.

If you want a LFE and the restrictions associated with it then you're better off using the D-DC.

Quote

The 'penalties' for LFE are not set in stone regardless of what you think about it or reducing them, so basing your reasoning on it and these 'other factors' is not ideal for your argument,

There's no reason to think they will change though, and there are multiple reasons why they should not change.

Quote

nor is this obsession you have with Endo Steel because by your logic 5 tons is pittance for all the space it costs you.

I suppose I should have made it more clear that the tonnage savings are a pittance for the cost that you're proposing, but that's not the case with endo steel which more or less comes for free unless you try to cram way too much stuff into the mech. It's a sign of a bad build to not have endo steel on pretty much anything except for pure energy boat assault mechs, and the only reason they would consider not taking endo steel is because standard heatsinks are garbage.

If you were talking about putting a LFE into a build that didn't have to remove endo steel (and multiple SRM tubes from the torso) to make room for it and other equipment then that would be a much stronger case.

Or I could just be disingenuous and yell at you for not seeing that as obvious, kind of like you just below.

Quote

What I said vs. what you said: The 2 CT lasers were already part of the build, which means the only change/addition of energy weapons would have been the vacant Energy slots: That's bloody obvious to anyone capable of following a conversation, so conclude what you will from that.

That still wasn't clear because I can't read your damn mind and it still was not obvious what you meant since "those hardpoints" was ambiguous and not obvious in that context.

Quote

That you still can't get over, or even understand, the fact all I did was make a direct translation from STD to LFE of the build you provided goes to show you really just don't understand what you say or read that well, and my patience/energy for trying to explain what's right in front of you, clear as day in black and white, has run out. It had literally nothing to do with what I would have done, used, changed or recommended. Nor was I saying "Oh, don't use this because..." It was a direct translation with a brief list of potential directions to take it--Learn how to read.

You said it was an improvement, I argued it wasn't and gave reasons why, and apparently it isn't, so the only thing I have to wonder is why you kept going and didn't just say "yeah you're right actually that's a really piss poor, inefficient way of building the mech and I wouldn't build it that way either."

If you had said "here's what you can do but oh by the way it's a really bad way of building the mech" then there wouldn't have been an argument about that.

Quote

AS7-S: STD 325

Superior to the 350 in every way except Top Speed, because 4 KPH is worth it...

Go nuts then, let me know how that works out for you.

Quote

1. Were talking about one build that you brought up.
2. I did not suggest anything--I showed what was possible.

I'm actually pretty annoyed how obvious it is that you were just being a contrarian in the first place.

My whole point from the beginning was that it's not an improvement because of the costs & restrictions from using a LFE and you were the one defending it as if it was an improvement.

BLUH BLUH BLUH I WAS JUST PROVIDING OPTIONS AND YOU'RE THE BIG MEANY FOR POINTING OUT THAT MY BAD OPTIONS ARE BAD.

Good thing we're wrapping this up now finally.

Quote

3. Ammo Efficiency was never a topic of discussion: Ammo Reserves was, and should be a chief concern regardless of how much boom boom a build has.

Considering there's only so much damage that you can do in a match, which is limited by multiple factors such as how much armor & structure the enemy team has and your ability to survive to dish out all that damage as well as other factors, I'm pretty sure I do have a more than valid point about ammo reserves--which is what I meant by ammo efficiency [of the build] by the way, so whatever term floats your boat, jackass--past a certain level of firepower, unless you're saying that you intentionally spread your damage all over the place or something.

I guess if you know for a fact that you're frequently going to be fighting against extremely heavy, slow teams with lots of armor & structure to go through and you know that you're likely to live through all that then go ahead and load up even more ammo.

[Mcgral18]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 July 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

Machine guns are whatever to me. I tried running a VPR with 5 HSLs and 4 HMGs, and they seemed okay, didn't do extensive testing there.

HMGs did some big changes, to some robots, IMO
Arrow and SadCat felt outright strong.

Viper won't be as good, but 7 uPL (Medusa requirememt) and 4 HMGs felt okay, but weaker than it once was.

[Jackal Noble]

Read through the last two pages before I couldn't go back anymore. Christ on a Pogo stick, guys...

Edited by JackalBeast, 07 July 2017 - 02:36 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Mcgral18, on 07 July 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

HMGs did some big changes, to some robots, IMO
Arrow and SadCat felt outright strong.

Viper won't be as good, but 7 uPL (Medusa requirememt) and 4 HMGs felt okay, but weaker than it once was.

HMGs on the Arrow is a poor choice. Not fast enough to be consistent. I really preferred the LMGs, since with the 10% quirk they are in spitting distance of the pre-buff DPS on standard MGs and, when combined with 260+ m range, they became quite useful at getting damage out more often.

That Shadowcat, tho...

[Khobai]

Quote

HMGs did some big changes, to some robots, IMO
Arrow and SadCat felt outright strong.

HMGs are gonna get nerfed its only a matter of time.

Just because the amount of dps they allow for 0 heat is a bit too high.

[Mcgral18]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 July 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

HMGs on the Arrow is a poor choice. Not fast enough to be consistent. I really preferred the LMGs, since with the 10% quirk they are in spitting distance of the pre-buff DPS on standard MGs and, when combined with 260+ m range, they became quite useful at getting damage out more often.

That Shadowcat, tho...

I also enjoyed that
The damage buff helped, and it is 256*2

They still Crit things fairly well at 400M, which isn't worthless. Half the outright damage of the HMGs, however.
Ammo per ton afflicts them both,140 Dam/ton for both weapon systems, to the 190 of MGs and 150 of most Dakka

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

HMGs are gonna get nerfed its only a matter of time.

Just because the amount of dps they allow for 0 heat is a bit too high.

They were nerfed

0.1 DPS and a lesser CritDamMult

[Khobai]

Quote

They were nerfed

0.1 DPS and a lesser CritDamMult

Nerfed more

1.4 dps is still too good

A shadowcat with just 7 HMG does roughly the same sustained DPS that a brawler atlas can put out.

except for 0 heat. and thats not including its other weapons.

PGI was wary about even putting MGs back upto 1.0 dps. So I can imagine how heavy handed theyre going to be with the HMG.

I expect HMG will end up at 1.2 dps eventually.

Probably be down to 1.3 by the time the patch notes hit. Then youll have a bunch of asses abusing 7-8 HMG mechs and itll get nerfed to 1.2. you saw it here first.

Edited by Khobai, 07 July 2017 - 03:18 PM.

[J0anna]

Anyone that thinks ALL the new IS toys are inferior - you have a surprise coming in a couple weeks. Some of them are completely useless - like RACs, but some of them are rather nice. Some could use a small buff - but overall there are many mechs that are very nicely improved by this release.

Here's another news flash, the IS mechs didn't lose any quirks on PTS, so some will be downright monsters. And IS quirks seemed to be working on the newer weapons (AC20 quirks worked with UAC20's). Many IS mechs received structure and/or armor buffs to help their XL engines, and a good many of them can easily use LFE's instead. Knowing how well PGI can balance quirks, I expect quite a few IS mechs to be a lot stronger. I, for one, don't want ISXL engines to survive a side torso loss, because if they do it will give PGI an excuse to remove the structure and armor quirks many mechs have.

For example, Currently I run an Yenlo with an XL engine. With it's short ranged weapons it needs structure quirks to survive getting close - Because of slot restrictions you can't run endo and FF. New tech allows endo and ferro and I only downgrade my engine from a 300 to a 280 losing 7kph. All this for the ability to double tap the UAC20 and get much more range out of my lasers. Since you could still put an xl in there and die to a loss of a side torso, I doubt it will lose it's structure bonuses....

[Zergling]

Lightfoot, on 07 July 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

Yes, completely skewed to Inner Sphere. DHS 1.4 makes Heavy Lasers useless or not better than er lasers.

That's the fault of PGI's poor balancing of the Heavy Lasers, not because of DHS being only 1.4.

The Heavy Medium Laser, due to having better DPS and damage/heat ratio than the Clan ER Medium Laser, might actually be decent and worth using.

The Heavy Small and Heavy Large are definitely junk though.

Lightfoot, on 07 July 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

ATMs are a joke. They are like short, medium, and long rang range ATMs nerfed into one useless missile system. Short range with a minimum range. Long range that doesn't clear hills. Total imbalance.

ATMs should be firing in a totally flat trajectory; they should have no ability for indirect fire, as in TT.

All PGI had to do was give them a large spread at close range, and the minimum range wouldn't have been necessary.

Lightfoot, on 07 July 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

Inner Sphere weapons are all good to OP.

Lol no, they are almost all worthless or underpowered.

[Khobai]

Quote

ATMs should be firing in a totally flat trajectory; they should have no ability for indirect fire, as in TT.

no their trajectory should not be totally flat

because terrain isnt totally flat. they need to be able to clear small rocks at least.

the trajectory is pretty good how it is now. its pretty impossible to fire over large obstacles or indirect fire with them unless you have a substantial elevation over the enemy mechs.

and missiles being fired from an elevated position should be deadly. so i have no problem with that.

Quote

The Heavy Medium Laser, due to having better DPS and damage/heat ratio than the Clan ER Medium Laser, might actually be decent and worth using.

The heat is still too high for a laser that only has 270m range. The heat should go down to 7. Because the HML is essentially two IS-MLs combined together (5 damage, 3.5 heat, 270m range). And theres already enough tradeoff for weighing 1 less ton and 1 less hardpoint with the longer beam duration and longer cooldown. It doesnt need to run hotter too.

Same with the HSL. Its heat needs to be reduced from 4.25 to like 3.4. Because it should have heat performance roughly equal to two IS-SLs.

And the HLL is just fail all around. 16 damage for 17 heat? why? That might be reasonable if it was like 12.5 heat.

Edited by Khobai, 07 July 2017 - 04:35 PM.

[Pjwned]

DrxAbstract, on 07 July 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

4. With stats like yours, you're in no position to act as an authority on anything, much less what a good or bad build is. It's been clear from the start your rigidity and lack of design imagination is a contributing factor to your otherwise underwhelming performance.

And since I wanted to respond to this separately, if at all:

If those stats suggest anything it actually says more about my piloting skills, which would make sense since I don't take the game super seriously and I often mess around with gimmicky builds (that usually end up being bad) or I just have the occasional unimpressive/bad game, which reflects on those stats. Additionally, if you look at my stats on the light mech leaderboards then I have a much better position there than on the global leaderboards, my position on the medium mech leaderboards is also a bit better, and the only real reason I have such a terrible position with heavy mechs is because I barely play them, which just kind of proves my point, but I guess a neutral W/L ratio and a positive K/D ratio with a nearly 300 average match score is garbage when it fits your narrative.

I still consistently get near the top or top of the scoreboard the rest of the time though, and that wouldn't happen if my better builds were bad.

Everything that I said in response to your crappy, inefficient options made sense, so if I know better than you at my level then I think that says more about how little you know.

Edited by Pjwned, 08 July 2017 - 12:20 AM.

[Johnny Z]

One of my greatest hopes for this update was it would help some of the lower hardpoint mechs and I'm not sure if that will happen. Have to wait and see what the big update brings later this month I guess. Should be fun.

Edited by Johnny Z, 07 July 2017 - 08:09 PM.

[Zergling]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

no their trajectory should not be totally flat

because terrain isnt totally flat. they need to be able to clear small rocks at least.

the trajectory is pretty good how it is now. its pretty impossible to fire over large obstacles or indirect fire with them unless you have a substantial elevation over the enemy mechs.

They are direct fire in TT just like a Gauss Rifle or Laser, so they should have a trajectory to match in MWO.

If a Gauss Rifle or Laser can't clear an obstacle in MWO, then neither should ATMs.

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

The heat is still too high for a laser that only has 270m range. The heat should go down to 7. Because the HML is essentially two IS-MLs combined together (5 damage, 3.5 heat, 270m range). And theres already enough tradeoff for weighing 1 less ton and 1 less hardpoint with the longer beam duration and longer cooldown. It doesnt need to run hotter too.

Here's the damage/heat ratios of the Clan weapons that fill a similar niche to the Heavy Medium:

Medium Pulse: 1.50
ER Medium: 1.17
Small Pulse: 1.48
Heavy Medium: 1.25

Problem there is that if the Heavy Medium's heat is lowered from just 8 to 7, it's damage/heat ratio increases to 1.43.
At that point it is too close to the Small Pulse and Medium Pulse, and the ER Medium is definitely looking weak in comparison.

The Small Pulse certainly could be dropped from 2.7 to 2.3 (raising its damage/heat ratio to 1.74), but dropping the heat of ER Medium and Medium Pulse too would cause some IS vs Clan balance problems.

Hell, Heavy Medium Laser itself at 1.43 damage/heat would only be slightly behind the regular IS Medium Laser at 1.47 damage/heat, which combined with superior Clan double heat sinks would result in some serious balance issues.

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

Same with the HSL. Its heat needs to be reduced from 4.25 to like 3.4. Because it should have heat performance roughly equal to two IS-SLs.

The Heavy Small definitely needs buffs; I favor buffing its damage from 6 to 7, so it has a greater alpha advantage niche over the Clan ER Small.

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

And the HLL is just fail all around. 16 damage for 17 heat? why? That might be reasonable if it was like 12.5 heat.

12.5 is too low; at that point the damage/heat ratio would be 1.28, better than the Clan Large Pulse Laser at 1.20 and just behind the regular IS Large Laser at 1.29.

I think 14 heat is fine (for a damage/heat ratio of 1.14), along with a beam duration drop (if I had my way, Heavy Lasers would only have 0.05-0.10 seconds worse duration than comparable Clan ER Lasers).

Edited by Zergling, 07 July 2017 - 08:22 PM.

[Lightfoot]

Zergling, on 07 July 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

That's the fault of PGI's poor balancing of the Heavy Lasers, not because of DHS being only 1.4.

The Heavy Medium Laser, due to having better DPS and damage/heat ratio than the Clan ER Medium Laser, might actually be decent and worth using.

The Heavy Small and Heavy Large are definitely junk though.





ATMs should be firing in a totally flat trajectory; they should have no ability for indirect fire, as in TT.

All PGI had to do was give them a large spread at close range, and the minimum range wouldn't have been necessary.



[/size]

Lol no, they are almost all worthless or underpowered.

Inner Sphere stuff brought so many worthless mechs back to life for me so I think you will be surprised once you experiment a bit more.

ATMs are total junk. I reject PGI's vision of them completely. They should have just created 3 ATM ranged launchers and balanced them for the intended range and damage.

[Zergling]

Lightfoot, on 07 July 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

Inner Sphere stuff brought so many worthless mechs back to life for me so I think you will be surprised once you experiment a bit more.

Yeah... except you don't have a credible opinion on what is good and what is not.

Lightfoot, on 07 July 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

ATMs are total junk. I reject PGI's vision of them completely. They should have just created 3 ATM ranged launchers and balanced them for the intended range and damage.

Short Range ATMs = Equal or inferior to Streak SRMs
Long Range ATMs = Equal or inferior to LRMs

So the only version that would actually be worth implementing would be the medium range ATMs. This would be a totally different to the TT version of the ATM, which is a flexible weapon system that can be used at any range.

[Andi Nagasia]

Zergling, on 07 July 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

Short Range ATMs = Equal or inferior to Streak SRMs
Long Range ATMs = Equal or inferior to LRMs

So the only version that would actually be worth implementing would be the medium range ATMs. This would be a totally different to the TT version of the ATM, which is a flexible weapon system that can be used at any range.

well i suppose if they just made ATMs and modeled them after their Standard Ammo,
2Damage, 120-450m, give them 240Velocity and let them Compete with IS MRMs,
reduce their Spread to that of LRM+A, to account for them only doing 2Damage,

LRM20 vs ATM9(STD Ammo)
both have the same Weight and Size but the ATM9 does 2 Less Damage (20(LRMs) vs 18(ATMs)
giving them the Spread of LRM+A(as they have in Lore) would help alleviate this problem,
giving them Faster Velocity makes them more reliable to hit with at 120-450m,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 07 July 2017 - 09:24 PM.