|
I received a steam gift card from a friend and without anything else I cared to spend it on I made the bad decision to give PGI money for the Stalker mastery pack (forgive me). What builds are people using on the Misery, specifically I want to know what engine people use because the 255 it comes with means that it's going to be awfully slow even for an assault.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
All new people should follow guides from https://www.metamechs.com and not listen to goons, especially goons on mumble. Some of them are not totally optimal but they are all at least solid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:I received a steam gift card from a friend and without anything else I cared to spend it on I made the bad decision to give PGI money for the Stalker mastery pack (forgive me). What builds are people using on the Misery, specifically I want to know what engine people use because the 255 it comes with means that it's going to be awfully slow even for an assault. http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=75&l=304d50191916fe8766f03d894fa734f520e6cbe0 This is a build from metamechs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Number19 posted:The Monday workday is not over yet. Do you guys have no idea how to manage expectations? If you're going to wait until the end of the day to release the notes, just say they are going to be released on tuesday, then magically astound people with your competence by releasing them late on monday. Is this sort of poo poo lostech at  ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:Do you guys have no idea how to manage expectations? If you're going to wait until the end of the day to release the notes, just say they are going to be released on tuesday, then magically astound people with your competence by releasing them late on monday. Is it a lawyer thing to ask questions you already know the answers to?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Washout posted:All new people should follow guides from https://www.metamechs.com and not listen to goons, especially goons on mumble. Some of them are not totally optimal but they are all at least solid. Or at least read the theorycrafting stuff. Metamechs doesn't ALWAYS have the best stuff for group/solo queue (its a lil out of date), but most of hte builds are gonna be where you wanna go with the mech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Washout posted:All new people should follow guides from https://www.metamechs.com and not listen to goons, especially goons on mumble. Some of them are not totally optimal but they are all at least solid. also, the mech guides are often more resourceful than the tier lists, especially if the pinpoint alpha laser meta isn't your thing. you'll find various builds that suit nearly all the different playstyles and gman goes indepth on what works and doesn't for each chassis. running a mech build from the tier list is great if you have a competent team that can support that build. a lot of those builds will not work when playing with the majority of goons, especially how a good majority run with very low back armor and run too hot for a brawl. also cross reference builds from the individual is/clan, competitive and meta tiers. they often have different builds featured. teepo fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
teepo posted:
It's always great when a goon rips on me for having back armor and then gets cored from behind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:Do you guys have no idea how to manage expectations? If you're going to wait until the end of the day to release the notes, just say they are going to be released on tuesday, then magically astound people with your competence by releasing them late on monday. PGI are on PST. Its not even 1PM there yet. Calm your tits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Washout posted:http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=75&l=304d50191916fe8766f03d894fa734f520e6cbe0  Talk about guns that don't mesh well. Holy crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Pattonesque posted:what's your Thunderbolt build? Most of the good ones can get away with no XL TDR-92, 2XAMS, 6XMPL, an LB10X, full armor and an XL 315 under the hood. I built it before bothering to look around into min maxing builds. I mostly hang with the assaults and harass the mid range with he MPLs on chainfire. I enjoy it. I'll just grab the Stormcrow. I just needed someone to talk me down once I crunched the numbers on the TBR. So much grinding again once I drop that 11 mill...
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:
AC/20 and 2 PPC has been standard for the Misery for a while though? I can see the value in it TheStampede posted:TDR-92, 2XAMS, 6XMPL, an LB10X, full armor and an XL 315 under the hood. I built it before bothering to look around into min maxing builds. I mostly hang with the assaults and harass the mid range with he MPLs on chainfire. I enjoy it. So if you wanna do MPL on a TDR, grab the -5SS and try this. 7 MPL is Ghost Heated now so you're gonna have to fire in torso/arm groups, but it's still p. good: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=115&l=be47274a5c14456e3896779ee9cea1863d0df921 The -9S is quirked for ERPPCs, so this could work well: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=155&l=cccb36c0a6e75620e1c263983f391deca544ff75 -9S used to be phenomenal, but they nerfed it so it's just OK, but it can still do some work
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
I'd think that 3LL and 1 AC/20 would be a better fit for the misery, plus it wouldn't leave you with two useless guns at point blank.teepo posted:six back armor on a stalker With ammo stored in the CT, no less! 
A.o.D. fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
six back armor on a stalker 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Washout posted:http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=75&l=304d50191916fe8766f03d894fa734f520e6cbe0 PPC efficacy aside. No. Stop. No. Quit with the sacrificial arms. Dumping your armor on a component for one more heat sink or one more ton of ammo is not worth the cost of the extra damage you could potentially be soaking with it. Even on something like the Stalker where they don't block a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
TheStampede posted:So I've got a bit of a dilemma. Honestly it's almost never worth it to outright sell a mech. Plus, Shadow Cats are actually pretty fun and an okay robot to drive. Plus plus, Stormcrows are basically Best In Slot mediums right now, followed only by maybe the Crab. Get the crow. Or keep saving. Or get the Crow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
If I wanted to make myself miserable, I'd probably drive this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Even just switching the PPCs on that Misery build to LPLs makes it like a thousand times better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Pattonesque posted:some top-tier popcorn in this brown sea thread I'm kind of curious, since a pubbie made a half decent point. It seems like the structure bonus addition, other than simply being another way to manipulate mech stats to make them work in context of others, seems to be most explicitly intended to counteract the survivability aspect that is offered by clan xls. As I understand it, in tabletop a mech is out if it loses 3 engine slots (and has extra heat added for each one lost), and since obviously a destroyed component loses all its bits, the 3 slots in the side torsos of IS mechs thus make them prone to exploding and dying, while since only two are there for clans, they could keep going provided a slot hasn't been destroyed elsewhere. It would seem that PGI is attempting to balance IS vs Clan mechs as being more a difference in choices, because in tabletop BV is another balancing factor (and something I have argued in past could very well be used in replacement of tonnage to balance quick play composition/drop decks). Is adding engine slot damage/crits not another reasonable way to mitigate the extreme effectiveness of clan vs IS XLs? I get the sense that balance decisions are now oriented around manipulating current values but are held back by strange adherence to tabletop values. Barring some fundamental change and actual vision for long term balance decisions though, I can't see anything of this sort added purely because of arguments against added complexity (despite quirks being fundamentally an incredibly complex balancing mechanism). tl;dr I don't get the basis for balance decisions in this game and I wish that whoever is in charge of it had a more concrete idea of where they want it to go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:Do you guys have no idea how to manage expectations? If you're going to wait until the end of the day to release the notes, just say they are going to be released on tuesday, then magically astound people with your competence by releasing them late on monday. Sometimes they get delayed a bit to ensure that they are accurate and that all the stakeholders have verified things. This is a new patch cycle for us so the patches are bigger. The process will get smoother once we're used to the newer cadence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I really want to make a huge  post about quirks, but nobody cares.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:I'm kind of curious, since a pubbie made a half decent point. It seems like the structure bonus addition, other than simply being another way to manipulate mech stats to make them work in context of others, seems to be most explicitly intended to counteract the survivability aspect that is offered by clan xls. As I understand it, in tabletop a mech is out if it loses 3 engine slots (and has extra heat added for each one lost), and since obviously a destroyed component loses all its bits, the 3 slots in the side torsos of IS mechs thus make them prone to exploding and dying, while since only two are there for clans, they could keep going provided a slot hasn't been destroyed elsewhere. It would seem that PGI is attempting to balance IS vs Clan mechs as being more a difference in choices, because in tabletop BV is another balancing factor (and something I have argued in past could very well be used in replacement of tonnage to balance quick play composition/drop decks). Is adding engine slot damage/crits not another reasonable way to mitigate the extreme effectiveness of clan vs IS XLs? I get the sense that balance decisions are now oriented around manipulating current values but are held back by strange adherence to tabletop values. Barring some fundamental change and actual vision for long term balance decisions though, I can't see anything of this sort added purely because of arguments against added complexity (despite quirks being fundamentally an incredibly complex balancing mechanism). BV won't work in MWO (and some could argue never worked in TT, either) because there are too many factors that don't translate directly to a mathematical reduction. In MWO, you have things like hardpoint placement, hitbox size, boatibility, etc. But your tl;dr is better summed up as "Welp, that's Paul"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:tl;dr I don't get the basis for balance decisions in this game and I wish that whoever is in charge of it had a more concrete idea of where they want it to go. lmao dude come on you aren't new here
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Here's a lot of words about an upcoming patch: http://mwomercs.com/game/patch-notes quote:Tuesday, January 19th @ 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM PST
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Pattonesque posted:Warhammer/new map stream Here's the recording of the robot and new map: http://www.twitch.tv/ngngtv/v/36244906 My opinion: It's Canyon Network but with shallower inclines. Almost like they took Alpine Peaks and squished down a lot of the hills so that they're all Canyon Network-sized, then smoothed out the inclines so you don't need jump jets to climb up and peek. Love Stole the Day fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:I really want to make a huge Well, I'd read it, and probably pass it along to my friend who is getting into the game. Speaking of coaxing friends into bad ideas, anyone have good Top Dog builds? I know bracketing is frowned on but without a coordinated group he's settled into using two ERLL in the shoulder slots to poke with and the rest as mediums for when things get close. I'm sure there are better builds that can fight at close and mid range though, but the best I came up with used six ML, three MPL, and an STD310. Sard fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
new map has nice graphics
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:I received a steam gift card from a friend and without anything else I cared to spend it on I made the bad decision to give PGI money for the Stalker mastery pack (forgive me). What builds are people using on the Misery, specifically I want to know what engine people use because the 255 it comes with means that it's going to be awfully slow even for an assault. Zenobia and I got the same pack over the weekend and have been loving it, especially for brawling. We've used the 5 aSRM6 build, but changed from the metamechs misery build since neither of us like PPCs. We went with 4 MPL instead and kept the armor to really make use of torso twisting. It netted me 1000k damage and 7 kill match, so it works well enough. I think the SRM boat is my favorite though. I didn't use the other stalker that comes in that pack since I had the one with large laser quirks, but she was running four LPL and 2 ml, averaging 400-500 damage a match (which is really good for her).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:I really want to make a huge I WOULD CARE MAYBE. I would think at the very least it might help newbies understand that the gently caress is going on with them and why they matter. Finster Dexter posted:BV won't work in MWO (and some could argue never worked in TT, either) because there are too many factors that don't translate directly to a mathematical reduction. In MWO, you have things like hardpoint placement, hitbox size, boatibility, etc. Sure, but those can be managed by changing the BV of the mechs themselves in theory. That would obviously require some sort of large effort to make that happen, and would have been enormously easier when this game was initially released, but that cannot be changed at this point. It also doesn't fix issues related to matters of long range/short range specialization that this game rotates through like a loving blender, but at least it would be possible, in theory, to make all mechs potentially valuable/useful. abuse culture. posted:lmao dude come on you aren't new here I know, I know, but I like to think that it is possible for Paul to wake up one day and realize that a lot of these things require not only advanced planning but a clear understanding of what the gently caress it is you want to have happen to the game other than playing balance whack-a-mole, which is what we have right now. Also, name and post combo As a somewhat aside, and since everyone who writes on this is a gigantic mongoloid apparently: I assume that the crit damage done by weapons applies only to the modules that they hit, and not the internal structure itself (as in, I get some crits on some components, does the extra crit damage only apply to the critted modules or does it hit them and also effective cause multiple hits to structure HP)? The way things are written implies the former, as well as my own experience with orbit shooting, but I want to make sure I am misunderstanding. This is yet another half-implemented system that could be made to be relevant with some changes, as crits to actuators or the like would make that whole "piloting a hosed up robot" feel a lot stronger, as well as making crits more useful at incapacitating mechs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:I really want to make a huge  Make the post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
TheStampede posted:So I've got a bit of a dilemma. Don't sell your shadow cat(s). Once you know how to make it dance, you'll have a wonderful time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Sure, but those can be managed by changing the BV of the mechs themselves in theory. That would obviously require some sort of large effort to make that happen, and would have been enormously easier when this game was initially released, but that cannot be changed at this point. It also doesn't fix issues related to matters of long range/short range specialization that this game rotates through like a loving blender, but at least it would be possible, in theory, to make all mechs potentially valuable/useful. You'd have to balance every single possible loadout completely on a case-by-case basis, down to the level of arbitrating which weapon is placed in high shoulder mounts or not and whether weapons are hidden behind a giant shield arm, etc. So, what you're saying is actually impossible. Coolwhoami posted:I know, I know, but I like to think that it is possible for Paul to wake up one day Also impossible
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
imagine a mechcommander game with these mechanics http://www.polygon.com/2016/1/15/10776486/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-gameplay-preview
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
quote:• Emerald Taiga: Trees are now breakable (all 6000 of them). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
 name change holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Summary: quirks should be location specific, and more strongly emphasize a mech's role. In MWO, what decides how good a mech can be is a factor of speed, mech geometry, weapon location, weapon slot availability, and hitboxes. On top of that, you have a quirk layer that improves or hampers a mech. With that said, the first factors I mentioned are the most important. At this time, it looks as though the Marauder is a good robot, and it is not particularly strongly quirked. The Stormcrow has no positive quirks of note, and yet it's widely accepted as the best medium mech. The awesome is a strongly quirked mech, and yet it doesn't see meaningful play at almost any level of the game. Furthermore, quirks as they stand now tend to not take into account the mounting location of the weapon systems they benefit, nor do they properly reward role specialization. Let's look at a few examples: The Jaegermech JM6-S is the inner sphere's best heavy dakka boat. It is strongly quirked and has outstanding high gunmounts that can clear almost any terrain the pilot can see over. You can fit 2x AC/20s, 2x gauss rifles, 4x UAC/5s, or almost any other ballistic configuration you can conceive of. A similar mech is the Cataphract CTF-4x. It also has 2 ballistic mounts in its arms. However, it doesn't have enough room to mount an AC/20, and those arm mounts are much closer to the ground than the Jaegermech's. It has to completely expose itself if it wants to shoot at range. Furthermore, compared to the Jaegermech, the Cataphract 4x's quirks are essentially non-existent. Basically, the CTF-4x has absolutely no reason to exist. There is nothing it does better or differently than the similar Jaeger, and in fact comes with max engine penalties. It has a nearly useless head missile slot, and 2 fewer energy mounts, and those that it does have are critically space limited. Basically, the Cataphract needs a really hard looking at. It's in a bad place. In order to be effective in the same game as the Jaeger, it needs stronger quirks, possibly on the order of 50 to 100% stronger. Furthermore, with the numbers of mechs ever increasing, PGI needs to look at the roles mechs should fulfill. With the release of the Warhammer tomorrow, now's a good time to compare the Warhammer and the Marauder. Both mechs are very energy weapon focused, with a few small differences: Several marauders can fit jumpjets, but can't make full use of their torsos. The Marauder has a massive side profile, but can make excellent use of one side to shield the other. The Warhammer doesn't shield as well, but presents a much narrower profile in an engagement, and has enough torso slots to operate with a dead side. Ultimately, both mechs operate in the same tactical space, which are as heavy energy boats that allow for tanky play style. Currently the real difference is if you want a high autocannon/laser mount, or if you want a high missile mount with lots of torso utilization. I think that a better differentiation would be to give the mechs more clearly defined roles through quirks. Both mechs are heavy support platforms, but Warhammers have always been more brawly and better defended. I'd remove the WHM's mobility quirks and instead give it moderate general purpose energy quirks and strong structure boosts. The Marauder, since it's more of a stand off mech, and has jump jets and less protection, would receive better mobility quirks, and weapon quirks that were more focused on PPCs and Large Lasers (depending on the specific mech) at the cost of removing or reducing general energy bonuses. In short, decide what a mech's role is, and focus quirks on that role. Finally, I think that quirks should be locked to a specific location on a mech. A warhammer has large, vulnerable, and low slung PPC arms. It also has a gob of torso energy hardpoints that are tighter to the center axis and mounted higher up on the mech. If I were building a WHM, I'd absolutely put my main guns on the torso, and either ignore or place secondary weapons in the arms. Under the current system, why even bother to model the arms on the mech in the first place? If you pilot a WHM the way it was designed, you have to stand out in the open on a hill to use your main guns. There's very little reason to take on that risk when you could place your guns in a much more advantageous location. Make it so that when you have weapons in vulnerable locations, they really do extra work. Give MASSIVE velocity, rate of fire, and heat bonuses to PPCs mounted in those arms, but weapons mounted elsewhere don't get those benefits. Make it worth it to stand your mech out in the open so that you can use your best weapon systems. Mechs that can fire all their guns while only exposing a sliver of themselves should enjoy nowhere near the benefit that a mech that has to stand and deliver. tl;dr: there is no tl;dr
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
**Important Note: Changing your Pilot Name will create a new profile in your \Saved Games\Mechwarrior Online\Profiles directory. As a result, your new Pilot Name will not carry over your existing custom key maps, in-game settings, or weapon groups!** Well, at least you get one for free!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
quote:• Emerald Taiga: Trees are now breakable (all 6000 of them).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:You'd have to balance every single possible loadout completely on a case-by-case basis, down to the level of arbitrating which weapon is placed in high shoulder mounts or not and whether weapons are hidden behind a giant shield arm, etc. So, what you're saying is actually impossible. After now having bothered to even touch the calculation system for BV, I am now inclined to agree, given its high degree of complexity as well as similar lack of basis for what it is trying to accomplish (similar to other tabletop strategy games). Furthermore after having thought about the implications or trying to hang loadout balance on this poo poo without it breaking in one direction (It appears that BV rewards fitting excessive weapons in TT because the reduction in BV applied due to heat inefficiency is so beneficial), This would just add a new system in which the same sort of optimization hunts would occur, with the slight benefit of having shittier mechs not necessarily dragging the team down so much. quote:Also impossible This is the real reason, although I have to assume this whole iterative balance pass initiative was at least somewhat had him involved, and its done wonders for the game. e: I strongly agree with this, to the former naturally, and to the latter I think is an excellent way to get past this whole "we don't want to balance mechs via hardpoints" thing that I think stems from them not wanting to remodel mechs in order to do that. Coolwhoami fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:23
|
|