185 replies to this topic

[NoxMorbis]

Horseman, on 08 February 2022 - 08:49 AM, said:

Then devise and present a way to objectively quantify the metrics you think are important and adjust the ones we already have (eg: score kickers).
But FYI... WLR is the most objective metric there is. If the mech has a major impact on the games it engages in, it will come out in the WLR.

WLR?

Mechs don't have to have an obvious "major" impact on match using current calculated metrics. Consider it only takes .0xx% or less demand for fuel, and we have 100.00 USD fuel per gallon. If there were 0.0xx% less demand than supply, we'd have 20 USD fuel per gallon.

I've used this example before, but I'll use it again. If a light can score only 175 damage in a match with no kills and no KMDDs, but kept turning heavies, an assault, or an LRM boat away from the front line, that could win a match every time. I've seen it happen many times. However, there is no metric for that type of game play, to my knowledge, that assigns some over all performance.

The way I see it on the battlefield, many lights, if they were increased to where you and others think they were "performing" well, no one would be running anything but lights. And, that's because current metrics do not account for many of the things lights do well. I don't even know if there can be metrics assigned to that sort of thing. I guess there cold be a metric for shooting someone in the back as apposed to shooting them in the front or sides. then, the same metric could calculate if the mech getting hit in the back turns away from the main battle or not, and if it does, calculate how much less damage over time it is doing, somehow, I have no idea. That seems pretty involved.

The problems for many lights is not that they aren't good enough now after patches, but that they are not getting credit for what they can do, and other mechs can't. Of course, if you're not measuring those things, then the mech will seem like it is performing worse than it is.

[Aidan Crenshaw]

NoxMorbis, on 08 February 2022 - 04:49 PM, said:

I've used this example before, but I'll use it again. If a light can score only 175 damage in a match with no kills and no KMDDs, but kept turning heavies, an assault, or an LRM boat away from the front line, that could win a match every time. I've seen it happen many times. However, there is no metric for that type of game play, to my knowledge, that assigns some over all performance.

That is debatable. I would argue that such a positive influence towards a win would reflect in the metric Win-Loss-Ratio (WLR), especially over a large sample size.

[Horseman]

NoxMorbis, on 08 February 2022 - 04:49 PM, said:

WLR?

Bruh... Win/Loss Ratio?

Quote

I've used this example before, but I'll use it again. If a light can score only 175 damage in a match with no kills and no KMDDs, but kept turning heavies, an assault, or an LRM boat away from the front line, that could win a match every time. I've seen it happen many times. However, there is no metric for that type of game play, to my knowledge, that assigns some over all performance.

The metric you are talking about is Win/Loss Ratio. If the light mech is capable of consistently making a positive impact on the match, that contribution will come across in the WLR over time.

Quote

And, that's because current metrics do not account for many of the things lights do well. I don't even know if there can be metrics assigned to that sort of thing.

Assuming they can't amounts to conceding that you have no way to improve the current system.

Quote

I guess there cold be a metric for shooting someone in the back as apposed to shooting them in the front or sides. then, the same metric could calculate if the mech getting hit in the back turns away from the main battle or not, and if it does, calculate how much less damage over time it is doing, somehow, I have no idea. That seems pretty involved.

The first part is covered by the existing Flanking score kicker. The second part could be pared down to one of several things, including the target trying to lock you, firing at your direction, losing cohesion with the rest of their team (teammate proximity is already tracked) or trying to close with you.

Edited by Horseman, 09 February 2022 - 09:31 AM.

[NoxMorbis]

Horseman, on 09 February 2022 - 09:31 AM, said:

The metric you are talking about is Win/Loss Ratio. If the light mech is capable of consistently making a positive impact on the match, that contribution will come across in the WLR over time.

Fair enough, but even if you lose the match, you can effectively turn enemy away from the front line, and that doesn't show up in any metric. For an example of how Win Loss doesn't account for everything, consider a light that does a lot of damage during a match, such as in my incubus where I score over 500, and we lose the match. That counts against a light's WLR, but it should count for it.

Again, if you use the current given metrics, and bring lights in line with other well performing mechs, including Assaults, MWO would become Light Mech Warrior Online.

Lights, many of them now, are not poor performers. They just lack the metrics to show what they can do.

[Knownswift]

NoxMorbis, on 07 February 2022 - 06:09 PM, said:

Like I said before, lights can do a lot of things other mechs can't that can tip the balance of a match, but they don't have metrics to measure those things. If they did, light mechs would "perform" much better on paper.

Every in game emergent event you have mentioned is represented in the win loss ratio. Light mechs are; The least winning, least played, lowest scoring class in the game.

Quote

It's mystifying you refuse to understand that. I guess it's the difference between synchronous thinking and asynchronous thinking.

Whats mystifying is that you refuse to understand some pretty basic statistics.

[Horseman]

NoxMorbis, on 09 February 2022 - 09:42 AM, said:

Fair enough, but even if you lose the match, you can effectively turn enemy away from the front line, and that doesn't show up in any metric.

... it counts against your WLR because you and your team failed. This isn't rocket science. Sometimes things don't go your way, but given a statistically meaningful amount of matches if what you're doing is on average beneficial to your team it will come out in the WLR. Just as it will if it's on average harmful.

Quote

For an example of how Win Loss doesn't account for everything, consider a light that does a lot of damage during a match, such as in my incubus where I score over 500, and we lose the match. That counts against a light's WLR, but it should count for it.

You lost, period. Your consolation prize are C-Bills, XP and PSR. Do not expect damage vomit to pad your WLR by itself.

Quote

Lights, many of them now, are not poor performers. They just lack the metrics to show what they can do.

Then define those metrics and propose appropriate adjustments to the score formula. Not rocket science.

Edited by Horseman, 09 February 2022 - 01:31 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

If lights are "turning Assaults", "harassing", "turning the tide of battle" and all the other things that are apparently influencing the match in a positive way then that would be reflected in WLR. That is simply indisputable.

To date - that isn't the case. So the claim it's happening to a degree that is consistently influencing is not true as light.


It really is that simple.

[SockSlayer]

Lights may perform less attack wise in a battle, but if they are fast enough, imagine the missed attacks that wouldn't happen if it was an assault due to the lights graceful speed. Its that their effectiveness really can't be measured by speed of which they walk, with the exception of how important they are in conquest. Its kind of the same issue with using flamers, as it is with a light, damage translates to cbills, and assaults can always earn more in damage.

Edited by SockSlayer, 09 February 2022 - 04:43 PM.

[NoxMorbis]

You guys all keep forgetting that even if a light does all of the things it can do, it may have a bad WLR.

Knownswift, on 09 February 2022 - 10:14 AM, said:

Every in game emergent event you have mentioned is represented in the win loss ratio. Light mechs are; The least winning, least played, lowest scoring class in the game.



Whats mystifying is that you refuse to understand some pretty basic statistics.

I think it is you who doesn't understand stats. At all.

Theoretically, a light can KMDD 11 out of 12 mechs, and still lose the match. Just theoretically speaking, that would be a really bad WLR. How would you account with current metrics that?

[NoxMorbis]

justcallme A S H, on 09 February 2022 - 02:18 PM, said:

If lights are "turning Assaults", "harassing", "turning the tide of battle" and all the other things that are apparently influencing the match in a positive way then that would be reflected in WLR. That is simply indisputable.

To date - that isn't the case. So the claim it's happening to a degree that is consistently influencing is not true as light.


It really is that simple.

It's really not that simple.

They don't have to turn the tide of battle or anything else, but they do all of those things that help matches, but currently, no metric to account for that. And no, it would not necessarily be accounted for in WLR.

Why do you all assume that position?

I'm mystified why you all think current metrics account for all things performance wise for all mechs.

Like I said before, if that is true, then lights need HUGE buffs to get in line with other mechs,. And, if you do that, MWO become LMWO (Light Mech Warrior Online), yet the 'metrics' show it's all fairly balanced.

So yeah, I hope lights get enough buffs to armor and damage so they can perform as well as other mechs, and we'll see how you like your metrics then.

Lights are NOT suppose to perform as well as other mechs given current metrics! They can't, or like I keep saying, MWO becomes LMWO.

[NoxMorbis]

Horseman, on 09 February 2022 - 09:31 AM, said:

Assuming they can't amounts to conceding that you have no way to improve the current system.
The first part is covered by the existing Flanking score kicker.

This is a good example of how you all are assuming current metrics account for all things performance wise. Flanking kicker DOES NOT account for constantly shooting a mech in the back. You get a flanking bonus, but that's it. You don't get a flanking bonus for each shot in the back.

In that sense, the flanking metric is not counting how many times you actually turn that other mech around off the front line.

But I'm done guys. Obviously you're all correct and anyone who says otherwise is all wrong, so I hope you get your huge light buffs so light metrics are inline with other mechs metric assessed performance. We'll see how you like the game then.

Edited by NoxMorbis, 09 February 2022 - 06:23 PM.

[John Bronco]

NoxMorbis, on 09 February 2022 - 06:02 PM, said:

You guys all keep forgetting that even if a light does all of the things it can do, it may have a bad WLR.


I think it is you who doesn't understand stats. At all.

Theoretically, a light can KMDD 11 out of 12 mechs, and still lose the match. Just theoretically speaking, that would be a really bad WLR. How would you account with current metrics that?

One bad match does not make a bad WLR, and if your theoretical light is doing that on a regular basis they will win most games, thus having a good WLR.

[justcallme A S H]

NoxMorbis, on 09 February 2022 - 06:14 PM, said:

Spoiler

It's really not that simple.

They don't have to turn the tide of battle or anything else, but they do all of those things that help matches, but currently, no metric to account for that. And no, it would not necessarily be accounted for in WLR.

Why do you all assume that position?

I'm mystified why you all think current metrics account for all things performance wise for all mechs.

Like I said before, if that is true, then lights need HUGE buffs to get in line with other mechs,. And, if you do that, MWO become LMWO (Light Mech Warrior Online), yet the 'metrics' show it's all fairly balanced.

So yeah, I hope lights get enough buffs to armor and damage so they can perform as well as other mechs, and we'll see how you like your metrics then.

Lights are NOT suppose to perform as well as other mechs given current metrics! They can't, or like I keep saying, MWO becomes LMWO.

It is that simple. You have a half dozen people all saying the same thing and explaining 3-4 different ways. Does that not tell you that perhaps you that you might possibly be wrong? That maybe you don't understand as you think?


If you look at the past months of patch notes lights have been receiving buffs. They however have not been receiving huge buffs. They are receiving buffs inline with what Cauldron feels appropriate.

Everyone that has taken a different standpoint has done so because it is true. As everyone has said - if lights were having the level of impact you claim, WLR would be posititively influenced. It isn't, so you're just wrong. Sucks to hear, but that is the reality.

NoxMorbis, on 09 February 2022 - 06:14 PM, said:

Lights are NOT suppose to perform as well as other mechs given current metrics! They can't, or like I keep saying, MWO becomes LMWO.

By all the measurable metrics lights to this day are not performing as well as bigger mechs.

You're talking as if lights are overpowered now. They aren't. That is also inline with your own expectation.

No one has said there are giga-light buffs on the horizon or anything yet it seems you have completely misread a post somewhere and assumed that is happening (or will). It isn't.

So really, what is the issue?

[C337Skymaster]

So as much as I hate to agree with the mob, since I'm usually on the other side, Win/Loss Ratio is the real be-all, end-all metric of how a 'mech contributes to matches on average across all players in all configurations at all tiers. PGI has access to each chassis' WLR across everybody, and that will typically average out any inconsistencies in grouping, skill, build, etc.

That said, I think "least played" is not so much a metric of how well or poorly Lights perform in the game, so much as a reflection of the fact that there are only 113 lights (standard and hero) to choose from, as opposed to 173 mediums, 168 heavies, and 178 assaults. If every single 'mech gets played exactly equally, lights as a weight class will always be "least played". Add to that the fact that non-damage rewards are frequently less than damage-rewards, and 'mechs that can rack up high damage numbers over the course of a match are regularly favored over those that cannot. If a skilled player (Tier 2 or above) cannot achieve 1000 dmg in a particular 'mech during a single match, that 'mech falls quickly behind in favor in the general population, even if it does a perfect job of stealthing through the entire enemy team and maintaining 12 NARC locks for the entire match (or similar).

[Knownswift]

NoxMorbis, on 09 February 2022 - 06:02 PM, said:

You guys all keep forgetting that even if a light does all of the things it can do, it may have a bad WLR.

I think you're forgetting that all emergent events/behaviors are reflected by the win loss ratio.

Quote

I think it is you who doesn't understand stats. At all.

Okay. Explain them to me.

Quote

Theoretically, a light can KMDD 11 out of 12 mechs, and still lose the match. Just theoretically speaking, that would be a really bad WLR. How would you account with current metrics that?

Theoretically, that's a hypothetical situation that basically proves the point; All emergent events are represented by the win loss ratio. The game can only resolve itself in three ways, and they all represent a win or a loss (a draw is counted as both teams losing)

Light mechs are globally, statistically, empirically, the worst performing class in the game regardless of any of the emergent events or actions you pull out of your hat.

[Horseman]

NoxMorbis, on 09 February 2022 - 06:02 PM, said:

You guys all keep forgetting that even if a light does all of the things it can do, it may have a bad WLR.

Then it's objectively not well performing, regardless of any special pleading to the contrary.

Quote

Theoretically, a light can KMDD 11 out of 12 mechs, and still lose the match. Just theoretically speaking, that would be a really bad WLR. How would you account with current metrics that?

You're still hung up on thinking with outliers. A sample size of one match is useless.

NoxMorbis, on 09 February 2022 - 06:14 PM, said:

And no, it would not necessarily be accounted for in WLR.

Anything that affects your team's chances of success comes out in the WLR in the end. If it doesn't positively impact WLR, it's not helping as much as you'd like to think.

Quote

I'm mystified why you all think current metrics account for all things performance wise for all mechs.

The metrics aren't supposed to account for "all things" directly, they are supposed to be an abstraction of your overall performance. Which WLR is.

NoxMorbis, on 09 February 2022 - 06:22 PM, said:

This is a good example of how you all are assuming current metrics account for all things performance wise. Flanking kicker DOES NOT account for constantly shooting a mech in the back. You get a flanking bonus, but that's it. You don't get a flanking bonus for each shot in the back.

The flanking bonus triggers every twenty seconds. How many shots do you need to get that mech's attention or, failing that, kill it?

One thing that I think we can agree on is that the scoring for individual kickers probably needs a once over - it's very biased towards damage farming. With PGI's level of access to match results it should be possible to collect the output of multiple matches with that information, chassis and game modes; then it's possible to apply regression analysis to recalculate the scoring to more accurately represent the value of each player's individual contributions.

Edited by Horseman, 10 February 2022 - 02:17 AM.

[D V Devnull]

TheUltimateGhost, on 23 January 2022 - 07:17 AM, said:

Okay so if I understand you right, you're saying that balancing lock-ons around top players will make lock-ons unusable for lower-tier players (if that was not your point, please correct me).

Lock-ons let the game aim for you. There is almost no way for you to influence where / how accurately they hit. Whether it's a completely new player or a top-tier comp player, as long as they have a lock, the missiles will hit the same components.

So by design lock-ons are stronger the worse you yourself can aim. Very simply said:
If the game aims better than you, lock-ons are the best weapons.
If the game aims worse than you, lock-ons are the worst weapons.

With that in mind, balancing lock-ons around top-tier gameplay would make them stupidly overpowered in lower tiers.

Now for my personal opinion:
Lock-ons currently are slightly overpowered. They are still a decent weapon even at the highest level of play. This shouldn't be the case in my opinion.

Hi there... I've been down for ~20 days (give for minimal online blips to finish the January HBK-IIC-A Event anyway and very brief Forum poking) due to some computer problems. Don't ask. It was one of those hardware-related inevitables that happens to everyone after so many years on a single computer. At least I'm back up and running.


Anyway, it seems that I need to give you a rough idea of what's really happening with players of various Tiers who use Lock-On Weapons and why. Please pardon my being rather verbose about this, because that's the only good way by which I can really draw the whole picture. I'll start with the Tier-based part, albeit I should note this is coming from a Solo player type of view in the scope of what I've been able to observe...

• Tier 1 — Always able to use Lock-Ons with ease. Never a problem to them, because it's the player's skill, body stability, mental speed, and computer power all at once which is making Lock-Ons remain constantly OverPowered to them.
  
• Tier 2 — Able to use Lock-Ons somewhat proficiently, but not near easy as Tier 1 people can. Also not suffering from any noticeable issues either, even though their situation is not near as perfect as Tier 1 people have.
  
• Tier 3 — Lock-On Weapon usage here is suffering from the effects of people only having locally-average capability, not the best computer, a Team that usually doesn't work together well enough, and Game Mechanics that really leave something to be desired (more on that shortly)...
  
• Tier 4 — Players at this Tier and lower have a very hard time getting any Locks at all without being blasted to hell before they can fire anything using a Lock-On generally... Very heavy involvement of slower computers, worse bodies, bad Teams, and so on.
  
• Tier 5 — Worst possible situation here... Lock-Ons are generally literally worthless unless you happen to get that one random Team which is willing to help the Lock-On user with helping them... Probably better off using a MRM instead, or relying on Lasers/Ballistics/PPCs for doing damage. Of course, if the player's body/mind/aim are junk, then the end result is that they're going to ultimately quit MWO anyway, even if they enjoyed the concept of MechWarrior in general.

...and that brings me to the core stack of reasons for which the Tiers have ended up this way. Let's go over that here...

• MatchMaker — Whether anyone wants to accept it or not, MWO's MatchMaking Systems have unfortunately hit an unwanted point of failure. I'm rather sure you have seen it... many different Match scenarios happen where the MatchMaker's brakes have come completely off, and people in Lower Tiers are being made as lambs to a slaughter for the Higher Tiers to feed upon. Nobody is able to implement additional measures at this time without causing extreme Match delays, even though this is the first & largest layer of what is hurting the Player Base as a whole. If things weren't problematic at this stage, then MWO might have recovered the size of the Player Base from December 2015 once again.
  
• In-Game Communication — While there may be things both good and bad being said about the Community at large, the biggest problem that I'm constantly hearing (and obviously observing from others) during any Match is the severe lack of Comms between players. People need to use their Microphone, Command Wheel, and/or Target-locking Key far more than they do now, or they're going to lose the Match over not having their Team being aware of what's around them. You might be seeing better activity up in Tier 1 gameplay on a regular basis, but it is far worse down in Tier 3 through Tier 5 on that same normal basis.
  
• Lock-On Mechanics, part 1... Angles & Times — I constantly get angry remarks from other people about this. Sadly, that's something which even those in The Cauldron can't fix because of the requirement for hard MWO Game Client program code changes. Certain people who I'm avoiding naming here (but would most certainly enjoy blasting down into a heap of rubble on the battlefields) totally messed up Lock-On Angle & Times so horrifically that one must have the ability to afford a super-fast computer, a perfectly stable & quick combination of body, mind, and aiming capability coupled with the lightning ability to dodge Enemy fire, and all while waiting up to 4 Seconds getting a Direct Line-Of-Sight Lock at around 300 Meters with a TAG in use. Most people will unfortunately get wiped out in that situation, even though they're probably firing some Line-Of-Sight Weapons while they're trying to get that critical Lock completed. Unlike some of your above remarks, the Lock-On Angle has been effectively removed (I certainly can't find the available Angle to use either.) while gaining the initial Lock to fire with, therefore requiring an aim better than a Laser/Ballistic/PPC User happens to have. That was never how the Lock-On System was meant to operate, but getting the needed fix applied will be like pulling the teeth of a mythical dragon. And firing in any manner that maintains the Lock to deliver with? One must keep their Mech's own Center Torso constantly and perfectly aligned with the Target which they're firing upon, thereby requiring that they launch from a safe place. But with the way things are designed at current, doing so works against the Lock-On user even though they're supposed to get a good position and think tactically on how to land the shot. It's like someone took the whole "Thinking Man's Shooter" aspect out of MWO entirely, and turned the game into another "Hawken" equivalent. But where did that get "Hawken" today? It's essentially gone from the public eye, if not entirely dead now. I'm rather sure we both never want MWO to end up dead like that. Topple on this the Lock Time being far too heavily linked to Sensor Range as well, and far too penalized at longer Range brackets. Most of the Teammates which I've been made aware of are unwilling to help set the Lock up for delivering with. Nobody has more than around 7 Seconds at 800 Meters on an ECM-covered Enemy Mech to wait for a Friendly Teammate beginning to deliver damage upon the opposing forces. When one is at 300 Meters to the Enemy Target on the field and has a Direct Line-Of-Sight standing, getting a Lock to fire with should never take more than three-quarters of a single Second (as in, 0.75 Seconds) with an ECM-covered opponent. Both of these factors (again, Lock Angles & Time) need serious repairs done, as those waiting patiently for the Lock-On Missiles to land on the opponent are expecting some rather fast gratification for sticking their necks out in a "Let's Help Each Other" manner and trying to get the Team as a whole moved forward in order to gain the Match Victory from what battles occur there. Even so little as getting a Team re-positioned requires that people and their equipment can all work together.
  
• Lock-On Mechanics, part 2... Missile Spread — And the above in "part 1" doesn't even account for the OverNerfed Baseline Spread (set by the same nuts who messed up the Lock Angles & Times before those of The Cauldron first arrived) on most Lock-On Weapons themselves. Along with the Artemis Versions generally being considered not worth the weight expenditure by most people, the Spread in general (regardless of Artemis being used) makes the largest launchers rather prohibitive to even think of equipping for use. People can understand additional Missiles not hitting due to things like ECM/AMS or the Mech being small, but having more than 1 Missile from a Standard LRM20 which was chain-fired (regardless of whether or not it was part of a LRM-boating setup, as chain-fire means sequential shots and not big Alphas being thrown) end up subsequently not hitting on an Assault that wasn't covered by any ECM/AMS protection is outside reasonable expectation (such as the expectation level from that of how a person feels after being made super-exhausted from a nine-hour day or more of work with two additional hours lost in transit) in general. They invested the Tonnage & Slots for all the Weapons/Ammo/Equipment and any other things which enable their Loadout, then put in all the required effort to get that Lock and finally deliver the damage while leaving their Center Torso vulnerable to taking one heck of a severe wrecking in return. What justice is there in making 40% of their Lock-On Damage miss by default, when being behind a hill is no longer feasible? It certainly is not in the way that MWO's Lock-Ons are designed at this time.

...and now I get to one final note of summary on this...

Simply put, all Lock-On Weapons at this time have been balanced in design currently so that they fail to be of much use in the Lower Tiers while those in Higher Tiers get to enjoy them with impunity. (I think you understood my point earlier, even if the knowledge/understanding of game implementation state was unclear, which I hope is now far more clear with this post.) Even if reworks in the methodology still need to be done, all Lock-On Weapons need to have their capability curve fixed up so that even those with shaky hands, slow bodies, slow minds, and/or slow computers can use them at least 50% better than they are able to now. There is no reason to continue leaving the useability so far down the hole on players in Lower Tiers that they have no choice other than avoiding equipping those various Lock-On Weapons for operation. I'm sure you're even thinking of complaining back at me about things getting OverPowered in the final result, but I'm going to kindly ask you to squelch that thought, because it happens I explicitly don't want any form of adverse result to happen either. If there's one thing I probably share with you in terms of thought, 'TheUltimateGhost', it would be that I also do not want Lock-On Weapons to become the "No Skill Weapon" which people (likely rather falsely) complained about a few years back. (And that's even though I know Lock-On Weapons take a huge amount of Skill to use!) That said, Lock-On Weapons still need to be more functional in the Lower Tiers than they are now. Managing to fix that would likely lead to Higher Tiers getting more players who have enough learning as to incur Lock-On Weaponry being naturally less effective at that level of play too. Hmm... Maybe some of those in The Cauldron can take a better look over the matter and work toward getting it fixed up a bit???


~D. V. "seeing correlation or connection which goes beyond the scope of just the Lock-On Missiles alone" Devnull




(p.s.: I have likely missed something which I meant to say with this post. Knowing my self the way I do, it will probably lead to me doing a facedesk in about 8 hours. Feel free to chuckle!!!)




[Minor Edit by the Post Author for some mixed-up wording... How the hell did that happen?!?!?]

Edited by D V Devnull, 12 February 2022 - 06:59 AM.

[SockSlayer]

Valentines days is close...give the flamer some love... either make it at least half the damage of light mg so we can earn something cbill wise off damage, or finally just make the range an even 100m...at least for the slower fatties.

Though I keep hearing from the 'elites' they are fine as is, I still get the occasional comments that they are not. Though since last time I don't hold that they are severely underpowered after testing.

I conclude that it is mainly the IS flamer that is underpowered, and not so much the clan one. Splitting weapon groups will cause heat penalty skipping on flamers but you have to watching firing timing, plus I find my mouse will only do 3 groups at the most. Banking clan flamers works still, with plenty of room for backup weapons since the max possible is 16.

By contrast, the IS flamer is a whole ton, would you want that or a medium laser? Answer is obvious. Also, IS can only hold 9 at most...and since you have less energy slots to spare than clan, it has to go all to weapons pretty much. IS mechs tend to be slower than clan with exception of some lights. So the IS flamer needs help while clan is stable.

Edited by SockSlayer, 12 February 2022 - 03:52 PM.

[Roodkapje]

Is it just me or does the MAD-IIC-A(S) we got for free in December just fall apart as soon as it's hit ?!

Even a bit of damage makes it lose an arm or side-torso very quickly!

I think it's very fragile for an Assault mech and a lot less useable than the MAD-3R equivalent which is only a Heavy mech

In fact I think it's just as fragile as the HSN-8P that was a free mech last year in terms of how quickly it falls apart...

Edited by Roodkapje, 13 February 2022 - 10:49 AM.

[Horseman]

D V Devnull, on 12 February 2022 - 06:43 AM, said:

Anyway, it seems that I need to give you a rough idea of what's really happening with players of various Tiers who use Lock-On Weapons and why. Please pardon my being rather verbose about this, because that's the only good way by which I can really draw the whole picture. I'll start with the Tier-based part, albeit I should note this is coming from a Solo player type of view in the scope of what I've been able to observe...

You're looking at it from the operator side only... while the target gets to employ what they know about LRMs to avoid the fire. In T4-5 which are filled with players who don't quite understand the usage of cover a mediocre IDF user can farm ridiculous amounts of damage over the match. In T1-2, that's much harder since the opponents are both more aggressive and able to effectively evade your fire.