190 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Dimento Graven, on 29 March 2019 - 01:38 PM, said:

Pretty much everyone playing who is capable of aiming for themselves, is for some form of pin point convergence.

Those who are bad at aiming are the ones who, generally, are the loudest complainers against pin point.

I don't believe that to be true, and I'll also mention that neither of us have any data to prove nor disprove the statements.

All I can say is that I recall the days where there was a delay in convergence. You could still get pin point convergence, but it would be delayed before achieving said perfect convergence. (Your account is old enough, you should also recall those days.)

I'll also mention that, without instant pin point convergence, the multi health hit boxes play a little better. (For the record, I'm not saying "random hit locations", only that we once had delayed convergence and then game did seem better for it, but lag shield also made things more... interesting.)

Dimento Graven, on 29 March 2019 - 01:38 PM, said:

Those of us that are pretty good with gauss, even in spite of all that PGI has done to apparently try and eliminate them from the game (so that the majority of potatoes would have less to cry about) know that the gauss has issues that need to be addressed.

For a weapon of its size, weight, and multiple firing limitations, its 'coolness' and 'range' really don't compensate nor balance it against other ballistics which have as much (if not more) range, and SIGNIFICANTLY higher DPS and DPS/T.

I have a hard time with weapons that require a charge up. I also don't do well with rotary ACs either for much the same reason. I leave much of the Gauss conversations and analysis to those more experienced and proficient with the weapon. Only Gauss I seem to have any luck with using is Lt Gauss, which has the damage output problem...

Though, I will comment that if Gauss was as bad as people claim, why is it seeming to be the meta? I've been seeing a lot of comp teams fielding almost nothing but Gauss. (This is not to say it may need adjustment.)

[Mystere]

Dimento Graven, on 29 March 2019 - 01:38 PM, said:

Pretty much everyone playing who is capable of aiming for themselves, is for some form of pin point convergence.

This is when I should probably note that the old "delayed convergence" system did not exclude the possibility of "pinpoint convergence". The former just stipulated that the "pinpoint" state existed much less than 100% of the time -- hence why it was called "delayed".

Dimento Graven, on 29 March 2019 - 01:38 PM, said:

Those who are bad at aiming are the ones who, generally, are the loudest complainers against pin point.

I think it is safe to assume that those who were able to time their shots at the moment of "pinpoint" convergence during the "delayed convergence" days benefited greatly from the transition to the current "instant pinpoint convergence" system we have today.

However, it would be really interesting to find out how many players will still be able to make well-timed "pinpoint" shots if "delayed convergence" were to return.

Edited by Mystere, 29 March 2019 - 02:08 PM.

[HammerMaster]

Tesunie, on 29 March 2019 - 01:24 PM, said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, you probably are making a generalize opinion based statement here based off your own opinion, rather than what may or may not be the general consensus.

I can say, back in the days when we did have delayed convergence, it was a lot of fun and damage was more likely to spread out across a target (leading to additional survival times). Delayed convergence was only removed for lag compensation tools (otherwise known as HSR). Lag shield was the only issue at the time (that I can recall).

I'm gonna make the general assumption that, if we could have delayed convergence AND a reasonable lag compensater (like HSR), it possibly would be more preferred to the current pin point instant convergence.



As I rarely use Gauss (I am really bad with them), I'm going to just take your word on this at the moment.
(I could have sworn they removed it...)

And even though we won't get it back, it was better.
It rewarded people who were patient and could aim.
It DID punish those were impatient and those who ran full throttle constantly. (Would curb some nascar nonsense)

Dimento Graven, on 29 March 2019 - 01:38 PM, said:

Those who are bad at aiming are the ones who, generally, are the loudest complainers against pin point.

Please.

Edited by HammerMaster, 29 March 2019 - 02:35 PM.

[Grus]

My 3ams kitfox is loving this.

[Dimento Graven]

Tesunie, on 29 March 2019 - 01:50 PM, said:

I don't believe that to be true, and I'll also mention that neither of us have any data to prove nor disprove the statements.

All I can say is that I recall the days where there was a delay in convergence. You could still get pin point convergence, but it would be delayed before achieving said perfect convergence. (Your account is old enough, you should also recall those days.)

I'll also mention that, without instant pin point convergence, the multi health hit boxes play a little better. (For the record, I'm not saying "random hit locations", only that we once had delayed convergence and then game did seem better for it, but lag shield also made things more... interesting.)

Mystere, on 29 March 2019 - 02:06 PM, said:

This is when I should probably note that the old "delayed convergence" system did not exclude the possibility of "pinpoint convergence". The former just stipulated that the "pinpoint" state existed much less than 100% of the time -- hence why it was called "delayed".

I think it is safe to assume that those who were able to time their shots at the moment of "pinpoint" convergence during the "delayed convergence" days benefited greatly from the transition to the current "instant pinpoint convergence" system we have today.

However, it would be really interesting to find out how many players will still be able to make well-timed "pinpoint" shots if "delayed convergence" were to return.

Actually we all agree.

Reintroducing delayed convergence would be best for the game. It's just 'too hard' to program given PGI's existing talent pool.

It's just that you have a LOUD minority that decry ANY convergence at all.

Those are the people I'm trying to educate/call out.

Tesunie, on 29 March 2019 - 01:50 PM, said:

I have a hard time with weapons that require a charge up. I also don't do well with rotary ACs either for much the same reason. I leave much of the Gauss conversations and analysis to those more experienced and proficient with the weapon. Only Gauss I seem to have any luck with using is Lt Gauss, which has the damage output problem...

Though, I will comment that if Gauss was as bad as people claim, why is it seeming to be the meta? I've been seeing a lot of comp teams fielding almost nothing but Gauss. (This is not to say it may need adjustment.)

I haven't seen the extreme you're speaking of at all, and I've been participating as much as I can in 228's comp efforts. In fact, because I LOVE gauss so much I've always fought a LOSING battle trying to get more gauss 'mechs in.

I've seen comp play where one or two 'mechs will have gauss, but the rest will have laser/PPC/ballistic combos other than gauss. I've yet to see a match where the majority dropping are equipped with gauss (not saying it isn't happening either, just telling you what I've observed from the matches I've personally played in and those that were streamed and I've watched).

The DPS and DPS/T of gauss, even (and maybe especially) HG can result in a serious handicap in a match where its maximum sustained DPS that will win most matches.

[Feral Clown]

Skrapiron, on 29 March 2019 - 05:14 AM, said:

Before the nerf, most of my mediums and 3 of my lights were built around LRM - straight out of MW Lore. PGI is getting ready to drop the Dervish which is ANOTHER LRM support medium mech from lore. When you swap out the LRMs for other missiles, you turn a support mech into a brawling mech - which it neither has the armor or maneuverability to become.

Right here you are showing the gap in understanding the game, the one we actually have and play, not the one everybody thinks it should be.

LRM's on a light is completely ineffective in this game and being that support mech is absolutely not needed in this game we play. That role you apparently enjoy, doesn't exist in Mechwarrior Online outside of very specific things such as narcing and even then that narc mech launched into quick play is a gamble at best (tag? self tag or don't do it all). It existed in Battletech sure, but not here.

I do feel bad that there is not a place for lore guys to go and have fun and experience the IP the way they would enjoy. Instead we are all mixed together and meta clearly rules. It also exacerbates the tier/experience system which PGI has overtly said is working as they intended.

Basically we are pitted against each other this way and the community fragments further and further apart. Which is a shame, because the lower tiers should be a place for people who don't care about what is good or effective, are not really competitive, or want to run fun mixed bracket or lore builds. Keeping like minded folks together would be better for everyone and increase fun while decreasing agro. Too bad we can't get PGI to recondsider.

[Tesunie]

Feral Clown, on 29 March 2019 - 02:43 PM, said:

(tag? self tag or don't do it all).

I do feel bad that there is not a place for lore guys to go and have fun and experience the IP the way they would enjoy. Instead we are all mixed together and meta clearly rules.

For the record, as of the most recent patch, TAG now only assists with indirect missile locking speeds. It makes it act as though allied mechs have direct line of sight for missile lock times. What you said there would have been relevant a patch ago...


And we use to have Stock Mech events, which we'd run in private lobby. However, I've not participated in one of those events in a while and can't seem to find another to join...

PS: I do well in my slightly mixed (no more than two roles/ranges) builds. It depends upon how you play them, and how diverse you make it. I keep a good focus on a primary role, and might (if I do a mixed build) have a weaker secondary role. I do this especially with LRM builds. Some people though make builds that are too diverse, to mixed. It's often a fine line between too mixed and a reasonable balance between to roles.

[Feral Clown]

Tesunie, on 29 March 2019 - 02:51 PM, said:

For the record, as of the most recent patch, TAG now only assists with indirect missile locking speeds. It makes it act as though allied mechs have direct line of sight for missile lock times. What you said there would have been relevant a patch ago...


And we use to have Stock Mech events, which we'd run in private lobby. However, I've not participated in one of those events in a while and can't seem to find another to join...

PS: I do well in my slightly mixed (no more than two roles/ranges) builds. It depends upon how you play them, and how diverse you make it. I keep a good focus on a primary role, and might (if I do a mixed build) have a weaker secondary role. I do this especially with LRM builds. Some people though make builds that are too diverse, to mixed. It's often a fine line between too mixed and a reasonable balance between to roles.

Ok I stand corrected, don't use tag at all then. As far as you doing well... again more evidence that tier system is terrible at separating players that don't belong in the same match.

[Tesunie]

Feral Clown, on 29 March 2019 - 03:45 PM, said:

Ok I stand corrected, don't use tag at all then. As far as you doing well... again more evidence that tier system is terrible at separating players that don't belong in the same match.

TAG just changed. Nothing more than that.

What tier do you think I am? And, for the record, I don't always use mixed build mechs (nor LRMs). I'm just saying I've had reasonable success with them over the course of my time here. I mix my builds on particular note with LRMs, though this latest change to AMS makes my mixed LRM mechs (because I don't like boating) questionable at the moment. I'm still waiting and watching with AMS, as it's out in force at the moment.

[Feral Clown]

Tesunie, on 29 March 2019 - 04:07 PM, said:

TAG just changed. Nothing more than that.

What tier do you think I am? And, for the record, I don't always use mixed build mechs (nor LRMs). I'm just saying I've had reasonable success with them over the course of my time here. I mix my builds on particular note with LRMs, though this latest change to AMS makes my mixed LRM mechs (because I don't like boating) questionable at the moment. I'm still waiting and watching with AMS, as it's out in force at the moment.

My point is it doesn't matter what tier you are, eventually you'll hit tier one. And I know who you are having faced you in CW. It didn't go well for you. I have seen first hand how ineffective your playstyle works against metatryhards. Having like minded players pitted against each other would make the game better for everyone.

[Tesunie]

Feral Clown, on 29 March 2019 - 04:35 PM, said:

My point is it doesn't matter what tier you are, eventually you'll hit tier one. And I know who you are having faced you in CW. It didn't go well for you. I have seen first hand how ineffective your playstyle works against metatryhards. Having like minded players pitted against each other would make the game better for everyone.

And here we go again... Yet, the funny thing is I don't recall your name at all. I also, in CW, tend to take more focused builds and less "mixed builds with LRMs", unless I am with a large group of my unit and they request/call for LRMs. (For a while there, I was taking quad Crabs.) Even then, a singular match against you does not measure to what my average performance might be.

So... what exact "play style" did I use against you again? Who are you exactly? How long ago was this?

And then, finally, why do people bring forth either "your stats..." or "I fought against you..."?

Spoiler

For example (anyway), one of my best LRM mixed builds, my Huntsmen Prime (S). Has two LRM15s and four ERMLs.
Matches:177; Wins:98; Losses: 79; W/L: 1.24; Kills: 107; Deaths: 112; K/D: 0.96; Damage:78,560;
Stats not included: Damage per match: 443.84; Damage per match per ton: 8.88.
Stats not available: KMDD, Assists, Average Match Scores, etc.

One of my oldest mix builds, Hunchback 4J (first mech I owned and piloted in MW:O), two LRM10s and five MLs:
Matches: 138; Wins: 74; Losses: 63; W/L: 1.17; Kills: 112; Deaths: 97; K/D: 1.15; Damage: 55,675;
Stats not included: Damage per match: 403.44; Damage per match per ton: 8.07.
Stats not available: KMDD, Assists, Average Match Scores, etc.
(This mech also has historical stats, if we wish to observe how well I could use it back then.)

I'm not going to say I'm the best in the game, but for me those look like reasonable numbers. Of course, this does exclude the most recent changes to the game. Not sure how these builds will operate now in the current game.

For the record, all I was commenting on was that mix builds can work.

[Tesunie]

Feral Clown, on 29 March 2019 - 03:45 PM, said:

As far as you doing well... again more evidence that tier system is terrible at separating players that don't belong in the same match.

Oh, and quoted in response of "My point is it doesn't matter what tier you are". It seemed to imply that my tier was relevant. I think, though not perfect, that PSR is being a better system than Elo was. That... doesn't mean I think it's great. PSR really just needs to remove W/L from the equation completely, and just move people's PSR based on match performance alone. That's about the only (and I guess it's a big one) grip with the current system.

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

Tesunie, on 29 March 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

The only aspect of lore that basically has to be followed would be tonnage of equipment and crit slot consumption.

Even some of that can be tossed in the trash. Since crit splitting is apparently lostech on cryengine, we can't get some lore builds like arm-mounted IS LBX20s, or Heavy Gauss mounted with Light/XL engines. IS LBXs in general are overtonned and/or -slotted (minus maybe the -10) since ammo switching is equally unusable.

[Tesunie]

IdToaster, on 30 March 2019 - 01:53 AM, said:

Even some of that can be tossed in the trash. Since crit splitting is apparently lostech on cryengine, we can't get some lore builds like arm-mounted IS LBX20s, or Heavy Gauss mounted with Light/XL engines. IS LBXs in general are overtonned and/or -slotted (minus maybe the -10) since ammo switching is equally unusable.

True with some of that. How about what needs to remain the same is whatever makes stock mechs remain valid? Crit sharing is one of those points, for certain, and I do wish they would add it back in. Make it so arm and side torso crit sharing happens for specific weapons, so that not everything can be crit shared. (But that starts to make things more confusing.)

LBs not having switchable ammo is a minor concern to me. I do understand why it's an issue for some, but I'm also not overly bothered by this lacking feature. If anything, switchable ammo is more relevant to CLBx and ATMs than they are IS weapons. IS needs the crit sharing more though.

[Prototelis]

I actually skill boated quite a bit today for the trololol.

IDF lock on times feel fine, I barely noticed a difference. LOS locks at 600 meters **** things up before they have a chance to get away. Chaining big **** size groups together in LOS so your opponent gets stuck doing the twist and can't fire back is even easier.

Any time AMS was an issue I cycled to a different target, there aren't a bajillion AMS boats in every match like there were the first few days of patch.

[Thorqemada]

Did a few matches and find it astonishing how PGI is able to improve things on one side but the same time undertaking measures to ensure the result is twice as worse as the starting point of their changes in almost every other direction.

In the end Superboating is enforced even more than b4...

...and PGI did a PGI again!

[Chados]

Overall the LRM change was a net plus to me because it fits the style I use. Lock timing is almost what it was with Artemis before the nerfs started, if you have a sight lock. That plus the shorter trajectory and tighter spread make Artemis worth it again to me for tactical LRM use. Combined with near-full sensor tree, and an active probe, LRMs are a challenge to use. I’d like to see a health improvement because AMS is strong and one Nova S can eat a 30 round salvo fired indirectly even from close range. I’m not sorry to see long distance boating take a kick to the crotch, tho, but for streaks and close range ATMs and LRMs it would be nice to see the lock cone open back up, too.

It needs some work still, but overall I like it. You can LRM underneath the platform on Crimson Strait. That’s pretty cool.

[Skippy The Danger Squirrel]

LRMs are too easy to defeat. The countless games I've played in classic frozen city, or classic forest colony or others where there is good cover proved the weapons system utterly useless. Between the AMS and the pitiful sensor performance, all I have to do is duck behind a building and the entire salvo hammers harmlessly away at the face of the building. What's even more amusing is radar deprivation makes my non-ecm shielded mech almost as difficult to target, even at short range.

Just for giggles, I pulled the StupidNova out again and put the LRM20s back on. I fired 2200 missiles and did a grand total of 177 dmg. It and all the other LRM heavy mechs are now parked in the garage and the omni mechs are being refitted for ballistic weapons. I even sold three dedicated LRM boats, because there's no point in playing them anymore, even with SRMs.

[Corvus Antaka]

Completely dropped all missiles. Sad LRMS are no longer useful at all. Anything else is better at direct fire. risk reward is non existant for missiles now. everything seemed fine to me before this patch. fine as in, kinda crappy lrms but meh, it's PGI.

Mech3 LRMS, and we have skilled lrm useage. that is all.

[Omniseed]

BlueStrat, on 27 March 2019 - 02:56 AM, said:

To be fair, a SN-PPC is 6 tons, a L-PPC is only 3 tons with much lower heat and I believe (IIRC) a shorter cooldown, so there's that.

A light PPC does half the damage for half the tonnage and about half the heat, but it also has a minimum range.

Snubs are far better as close-range weapons, like against the stealth lights we're talking about here.

Skrapiron, on 31 March 2019 - 08:16 AM, said:

LRMs are too easy to defeat. The countless games I've played in classic frozen city, or classic forest colony or others where there is good cover proved the weapons system utterly useless. Between the AMS and the pitiful sensor performance, all I have to do is duck behind a building and the entire salvo hammers harmlessly away at the face of the building. What's even more amusing is radar deprivation makes my non-ecm shielded mech almost as difficult to target, even at short range.

Just for giggles, I pulled the StupidNova out again and put the LRM20s back on. I fired 2200 missiles and did a grand total of 177 dmg. It and all the other LRM heavy mechs are now parked in the garage and the omni mechs are being refitted for ballistic weapons. I even sold three dedicated LRM boats, because there's no point in playing them anymore, even with SRMs.

Try turning on color blind mode so you can see when your missiles aren't connecting.