692 replies to this topic

[IraqiWalker]

Lily from animove, on 08 August 2014 - 01:34 AM, said:

you mean those waifu pillows?

Thank you Lily for making my nights very disturbing with one sentence.

[PitchBlackYeti]

Mcgral18, on 07 August 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

Well, 62% of the players did fail to get the pathetic damage of 200...

Maybe its because of the simple fact that they got blasted by clan firepower before they could even start fighting? Hasn't that occurred to you?

[Noth]

PitchBlackYeti, on 08 August 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:

Maybe its because of the simple fact that they got blasted by clan firepower before they could even start fighting? Hasn't that occurred to you?

But you'd see the same stuff before the clans were around. That is not unique to clan v IS battles.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 01:41 AM, said:

But you'd see the same stuff before the clans were around. That is not unique to clan v IS battles.

No... Everyone had the same effective engagement envelope because there was only 1 type of Tech - Inner Sphere.
Now you have 2 different Tech types - Clan and Inner Sphere. Clan Tech has increased effective range.

[Docta Pain]

Clans are SUPPOSED to be FAR FAR FAR superior technologically. 90% is a little on the low side from The Invasion's perspective. That's why a Binary takes on a Company and can still win more than half of the time. 12 v 12 and the invasion would have been over before it began.

Good points have been made about clans better (non-humanoid) shape and weapon placement (not on hips) and about how that now they have been mastered we see how much more powerful they are... which is what you'd expect from an invasion force that is FAR FAR FAR superior technologically.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 01:46 AM, said:

No... Everyone had the same effective engagement envelope because there was only 1 type of Tech - Inner Sphere.
Now you have 2 different Tech types - Clan and Inner Sphere. Clan Tech has increased effective range.

Not what I was saying. Even with IS versus IS you still see a large amount of players fail to get even 100 damage. Such thing is not solely because clans. Many of those that failed to get good damage against clans would and do fail to get good damage scores against IS. Players really are that bad.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 01:49 AM.

[Voidcrafter]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 01:26 AM, said:

Trying to maintain a position when everything points to you being wrong is pretty difficult. Facts always win not just "because", but by the virtue of being true.

Again mate:
Those people don't play the game - they just watch the numbers.
And you never said anything about owning and piloting a clan mech yourself - which makes huge difference - I've played with my IS mechs against the clans before purchasing clan mechs - after playing with my clan mechs I've played again with my IS mechs.
As I pointed out - the difference is huge.
No matter how many times you paste that thing it's not enough as a "fact" to change my mind.
As a fact I can take the opinion of someone who has played both sides for some time and actually put a reason to the "OP" stuff rather than PGI staff watching the numbers not considering core stuff like mech variety, trial mechs and etc. - which I've pointed out earlier like 2 times.
Coding and playing something is two entirely different things - I know this cause I do both.
Playing few matches just for the frack of it is not enough to make an opinion.
I am not afraid of any nerfs and stuff - I pointed out that I play brawler - so even if they change lasers, LRMs, PPCs Gausses - it doesn't concern me - in fact it will make my life way easier.

I am against the idea of stomping something just cause people don't understand it well enough.
Clans are different than IS mechs - and as I stated somewhere else - the word "different" makes people afraid.
Cause the word "different" requires from the people to change their ways, to put an effort to adapt.
No matter how many words you, I, the others waste - it's still the easier solution - it's easier than to try think out of your own box - something I know from experience too.
"Different" requires "change" - I agree on that - I just don't agree on the methods you're suggesting that to happen
You know what's a fact?
I've played more games both with IS and Clans than you have.
And I'm not the only one.
And yet you take on trust the statements of some people that haven't.
But no matter the outcome of this sillyness - I'll be fine with it - I'm not arguing of selfish reasons - you gotto know that by now.
Anyways I hold on to my words - this would be my last post on similar topics - I see no further use of my opinion anyways.

[Flapdrol]

I can't believe people are still trying to argue clans are balanced.

You can tell clan is more powerful just by looking at the possible builds on smurfy. One of my main mechs is a 4P hunch laserboat, and I do pretty well in it. With a nova I can build one that is faster, has a higher alpha, more range and has jumpjets. Yeah, that 30% longer burntime balances that right out, oh wait, it also has 30% more sustained dps. :S

these are not minor advantages.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Voidcrafter, on 08 August 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

Again mate:
Those people don't play the game - they just watch the numbers.

And yet multiple people have already debunked this claim. The developers can be seen on identifiable accounts playing this game regularly. Keep em coming.

Voidcrafter, on 08 August 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

And you never said anything about owning and piloting a clan mech yourself - which makes huge difference -

I've already stated in previous threads from the start that I do not own nor plan to own any Clan Mechs. I'm perfectly fine playing my XL VTR brawler. If I were to get a Mech that suits my playstyle I would get a Timber. There's no question I would do better because I won't die after having a Side Torso blown off.

Voidcrafter, on 08 August 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

after playing with my clan mechs I've played again with my IS mechs.
As I pointed out - the difference is huge.

So what is it then? First you say Clan Tech doesn't give you an advantage. Then you say it's the people/Elo. Now you say there's a difference between Clan and IS Mechs. Try to agree with yourself instead of contradicting what you say in different posts.

Voidcrafter, on 08 August 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

No matter how many times you paste that thing it's not enough as a "fact" to change my mind.

So numerical evidence supporting the "Pay to Win" argument presented by the company itself isn't enough to convince you that you're wrong on all counts? Thank you for stating your position so clearly.

Voidcrafter, on 08 August 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

I've played more games both with IS and Clans than you have.

How is this relevant? You've played the game longer so that somehow automatically means the bullsh*t you type up suddenly has factual basis? You said facts won't change how you view things. Enough said.


^That proves you're wrong on all counts. Sucks that you don't accept it.

Voidcrafter, on 08 August 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

And yet you take on trust the statements of some people that haven't.

Since the developers do play this game, your entire post and the position you're trying to defend is false.

ggclose

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 02:16 AM.

[MysteryNotes]

I'm just glad i wasn't tricked into buying the 240 dollar clan package, seeing as the clan mechs are about to be nerfed into oblivion.

Pretty soon they won't even be deserving of clan mech status. Just "Different".

[Turist0AT]

rageagainstthedyingofthelight, on 07 August 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

The stats on the IS vs Clan queues came in with clan wining 90% of the time. 90%.

So I thought I'd start a thread where everyone who said Clan mechs weren't more powerful could apologize, you know, to keep it all in one place. You were wrong, there's no shame in that, but you were wrong.

They are clans. Kinda suppose to win by 90% Its a Battletech game remember.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

^That proves you're wrong on all counts. Sucks that you don't accept it.

ggclose

I just want to give you a simplistic example of how the use of average can be misleading.
Team A: 5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5 = 60 total ave: 5
Team B: 2,2,2,2,2,2,5,6,9,9,9,10 = 60 total ave: 5

According to averages and totals, both these teams are the same. Mode however is different with Team A having the higher mode. Now due to how things can snowball in this game from just losing one mech fast (seriously, a dc or two is considered a big disadvantage), those better players on team B has to carry harder and harder as more of the lower players die (note even the best players in this game struggle to carry a team when half die).

This is very very simplistic on why just average is poor to judge things by. That is the reason why I want to see more than just averages.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 02:19 AM, said:

I just want to give you a simplistic example of how the use of average can be misleading.
Team A: 5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5 = 60 total ave: 5
Team B: 2,2,2,2,2,2,5,6,9,9,9,10 = 60 total ave: 5

According to averages and totals, both these teams are the same. Mode however is different with Team A having the higher mode. Now due to how things can snowball in this game from just losing one mech fast (seriously, a dc or two is considered a big disadvantage), those better players on team B has to carry harder and harder as more of the lower players die (note even the best players in this game struggle to carry a team when half die).

This is very very simplistic on why just average is poor to judge things by. That is the reason why I want to see more than just averages.

Awesome. Another cherry-picked argument to support a claim that has already been debunked.


I called it on Page 5 of this thread:

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 07 August 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

Here it is, people. We have now witnessed the shift of focus heading towards "Elo is no longer valid" now that we have a clear indication that Clan Tech gives you a 90% chance to win.

It's not the Tech, it's the people!

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 02:22 AM.

[Utilyan]

Thunder Child, on 08 August 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Sorry, let me rephrase that Kyle. Meta in general scares me, because of it's ability to shred a mech rapidly at long range. I say IS Meta, because they have More Mechs able to run it effectively. That said, the PogoWolf really pisses me off.

As to your comment Utilyan, I.... don't get it.... How can 2 million players who DON'T PAY ANYTHING, fund CW. Fair enough, if they all paid $1 each, that'd be 2 Mill for CW funding. And I do believe that if MWO was cheaper, they'd probably have more money coming in. Assuming they could improve the new player experience to make it friendly enough to retain the new players.
But, if they had 2 Million Free to Play players, and no one paying anything, the game would die. Unless they could convince companies to pay for adverts. Personally, I think the Awesome would make a perfect walking billboard. Players could all be given a free Awesome on account creation, with a choice of advert.

They are paying, TIME. The free Awesome with choice of advert.......Not a bad idea, I don't think they are that desperate . If I only got a nickel for each whats that $100k? And if they like the game? They pull folks who do pay. Your free players are content, it means you got a packed playground. It means this is where its at, this is where its happening. Your already my advertisement when you play this game.


Its like the CW merc unit is pay only to create(from what I read like months ago im prob way off), I think what they should have done is make it open and free limited-wise including the creation and get that free player to the point there is an incentive to commit to paying for it. You want to encourage that whole "brotherhood" and friendships in game. They might even consider it paying for itself even if it was free, because now you got this incentive to see what your gaming partners are up to. If I could hook you with that invested interest even if you can't pull your wallet now, your making me money by keeping the game interesting and then later if this is "your" game you will pull out your wallet because you want to rather then because you had to.





BTW, Im not a business man......just a sneaky mf'r

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

Awesome. Another cherry-picked argument to support a claim that has already been debunked.

Again, they are speaking on averages. Averages do not tell the entire story. How many more vets? What was the elo break down on the teams (I just showed you how two teams could have the same ELO and average ELO, yet drastically different teams, one being weaker than the other due to the snowballing nature of the game). You could take the same data and display it in different ways to try and have the data proves two opposite things. That is why I want more raw data.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 02:26 AM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

Again, they are speaking on averages. Averages do not tell the entire story. How many more vets? What was the elo break down on the teams (I just showed you how two teams could have the same ELO and average ELO, yet drastically different teams, one being weaker than the other due to the snowballing nature of the game). You could take the same data and display it in different ways to try and have the data proves two opposite things. That is why I want more raw data.

Cherry-pick cherry-pick cherry-pick. PGI doesn't provide you with "complete" numbers; just numbers that don't agree with your view of the matter. Because they do not agree with how you view things automatically means it's false? Rationalize away that you're right when PGI says you're wrong.

• What numbers do you have to support your unsubstantiated claims?
  
• What numbers do you have access to that proves PGI wrong?
  
• What evidence can you possibly provide that isn't conjecture to prove you're right?
  
• What do you have that definitively proves you're right and PGI is false?

I've love to see any evidence you have that disproves what PGI announced.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 02:36 AM.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 02:31 AM, said:

Cherry-pick cherry-pick cherry-pick. PGI doesn't provide you with "complete" numbers; just numbers that don't agree with your view of the matter. Because they do not agree with how you view things automatically means it's false? Rationalize away that you're right when PGI says you're wrong.

What numbers do you have to support your unsubstantiated claims? What numbers do you have access to that proves PGI wrong? I'd love to see them posted.

I could have plenty if I saw the data. But since they are set on using averages to give us data I don't have them. I just don't like being told only part of the picture. I like taking the info in myself and drawing the conclusion myself. I don't like being told that such and such is this thus that, because it is so easy to either purposefully mislead or accidentally mislead.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 02:35 AM, said:

I could have plenty if I saw the data... I don't have them...

Thank you for admitting you have nothing of substance to base your opinion on. Who needs facts when you have conjecture!

ggclose.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 02:43 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 02:31 AM, said:

Cherry-pick cherry-pick cherry-pick. PGI doesn't provide you with "complete" numbers; just numbers that don't agree with your view of the matter. Because they do not agree with how you view things automatically means it's false? Rationalize away that you're right when PGI says you're wrong.

• What numbers do you have to support your unsubstantiated claims?
  
• What numbers do you have access to that proves PGI wrong?
  
• What evidence can you possibly provide that isn't conjecture to prove you're right?
  
• What do you have that definitively proves you're right and PGI is false?

I've love to see any evidence you have that disproves what PGI announced.

So the fact the company in question don't give you the facts and data automatically means they are "right"?

Because nobody ever presents false information when they withhold the information you need to verify it.

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 02:40 AM, said:

Thank you for admitting you have nothing of substance to base your opinion on. Who needs facts when you have conjecture!

ggclose.

Im sorry sir but you don't have the facts either.

[Thorn Hallis]

Conclusion: Clans are unbalanced in PUG play.