25 replies to this topic

[grendeldog]

Hey there. So I used to run a Misery, a Grasshopper 4H, a Hunchback 4P(C), and a Firestarter S in CW. That only brought me to 240 tons - 85 + 70 + 50 + 35 - but I didn't have enough of a selection of IS mechs to do anything heavier since I had initially gone for an even IS and clan split for pugging.

So I wanted to get up to a full 250 and thus bought a Thunderwub. I spent all the time with that variant as well as the 5S and 9SE to get them elited with double basics. My deck was going to be Misery, Thunderwub, HBK-4P, HBK-GI (85 + 65 + 50 + 50).

Now I wake up today and see there's a forum topic on reducing the IS drop limit to 240. I cannot express how boneheaded this is - when one faction wins a major event and then the other faction begins to win during normal play I would call it balanced. Furthermore, the IS side has gained a lot of the top units like Mercstar - and also has a higher player population - so it's no wonder that they're taking a lot of planets.

But apparently PGI thinks that you should 'balance' the factions by gimping whichever one is doing better at any given time - except they didn't bother to do anything when the clans won Tukayyid (and I would argue they shouldn't have done anything to either side). I was actually really pleased with PGI lately - the new map revisions were a bolt from the blue I did not expect, and destructible doodads were something I never bought we would see at all. And then they have to go and do something so ridiculously nonsensical as reducing the IS drop tonmage limit.

So now that we have less weight to work with, what are you all planning on dropping with?

[Tiamat of the Sea]

grendeldog, on 12 May 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

But apparently PGI thinks that you should 'balance' the factions by gimping whichever one is doing better at any given time - except they didn't bother to do anything when the clans won Tukayyid (and I would argue they shouldn't have done anything to either side). I was actually really pleased with PGI lately - the new map revisions were a bolt from the blue I did not expect, and destructible doodads were something I never bought we would see at all. And then they have to go and do something so ridiculously nonsensical as reducing the IS drop tonmage limit.

Stop panicking. The increased dropdeck tonnage was an experiment. That it has returned to original value indicates that either PGI has determined that the change did not have the desired result, or that it was intended as a temporary experiment to begin with and they are now considering the data gathered from such.

The reasoning given in the announcement post was fluff reasoning, written as a silly amusing thing like most of the references to the state of the war placed via the account used to post that statement.



As to what I'm planning on dropping with? I change it constantly. I'll probably continue using my BLR-3M and QKD-4G, though I'm unsure yet what I'll wind up substituting most often for my CTF-2X and PNT-9R.

[grendeldog]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 12 May 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

Stop panicking. The increased dropdeck tonnage was an experiment. That it has returned to original value indicates that either PGI has determined that the change did not have the desired result, or that it was intended as a temporary experiment to begin with and they are now considering the data gathered from such.

The reasoning given in the announcement post was fluff reasoning, written as a silly amusing thing like most of the references to the state of the war placed via the account used to post that statement.

As to what I'm planning on dropping with? I change it constantly. I'll probably continue using my BLR-3M and QKD-4G, though I'm unsure yet what I'll wind up substituting most often for my CTF-2X and PNT-9R.

I'm not panicking - I'm complaining. And then I am posing a question based on the consequences of the change I am complaining about.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

grendeldog, on 12 May 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

I'm not panicking - I'm complaining. And then I am posing a question based on the consequences of the change I am complaining about.

You're 'complaining' by making spurious assumptions about what PGI perceives as balance that essentially accuse them of being stupid. Your response is thereby out of proportion. If you are not panicking, you are still being unreasonable and distinctly not calm.

[grendeldog]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 12 May 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

You're 'complaining' by making spurious assumptions about what PGI perceives as balance that essentially accuse them of being stupid. Your response is thereby out of proportion. If you are not panicking, you are still being unreasonable and distinctly not calm.

How so? I am saying that I believe their decision to drop the IS tonmage back to 240 is incorrect. I am also saying that the recent gains made by the Inner Sphere can be attributed to greater population as well as several of the top units switching from clans to IS. This means that the gains made by the IS ars not because they have greater tonnage and thus an unfair advantage but rather because of the large quantity and newly increased quality of the IS units and pilots.

If the gains are attributed to the players on the IS side, reducing drop deck tonnage is not a fitting 'fix' to a 'problem' that I don't think is at all problematic. As I said the clanners took Tukayyid quite well, and now that many top units switched sides the IS is rebounding; this means that pilot skill is the deciding factor, not tonnage. If pilot skill and pilot quantity are the issue there are better ways to balance things out. For example, if the greater IS population is allowing them to ghost drop the clanners to death, then increase the amount of time that IS ghost drops require, or limit the number of ghost drops that can take place simultaneously - or any other number of things could be done that address the actual issue at hand - greater population and several top units that have switched to the IS.

You are in fact the one who is not treating this discussion in a calm fashion. There is no need to read false motives or intent - that PGI is stupid or whatever - into my argument. You are the one who is acting out of proportion by trying to diminish the value of my argument through suggesting it is motivated by panic and childish anger. You haven't made a single point yet that addresses what actually motivated this change and what the actual factors may be that need to be addressed - population and pilot skills are not related directly to drop deck tonnage.

I suggest you step back and reread your posts, keeping an eye out for uncalled for aggression and overreaction. Thanks.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Meanwhile, you have decided that you absolutely know why PGI made this change, based on nothing at all. No statement has been made of the actual developer-side reason for the change back to a 240-tonne dropdeck, and yet you've assumed that it's an attempt to 'fix' balance and your initial post approaches things from the perspective that you are correct in this assumption.

I have chosen to engage back on your level of assumption partly so as to show how such assumptions can warp things.

Thank you for pointing out how both arguments are warped.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 12 May 2015 - 11:51 AM.

[Aiden Skye]

You do realize IS has most of the top competition teams in the game right now + way more players. Best premades + more players + more tonnage? Can't have it all.

Edited by W A R K H A N, 12 May 2015 - 12:22 PM.

[Crotch RockIt]

Back on topic (although I pretty much agree with QC about the QQ), I change my drop deck often, although I don't play CW on a regular basis. I usually do one of the following drop combos.

85 - Stalker 4N or Battlemaster 1S
65 - Thunderwub
55 - Griffin 2N or Sparky or Shadowhawk 2K
35 - Firestarter 9S

65 - Thunderwub
65 - Lightningbolt
55 - Griffin 2N
55 - Sparky

85 - Stalker 4N or Battlemaster 1S
55 - Griffin 2N
55 - Sparky
45 - Blackjack 1X

85 - Stalker 4N
60 - Dragon 1N
50 - Hunchback 4J
45 - Blackjack 1X

[quantaca]

i don't really see the problem here, you already had the 240 dropdeck so just continue with it, or swap out the grashopper with the tbolt, the 5SS does everything it does only better (except jumping obviously).

i can get that it sucks having to change your plans, i liked 250 it gave me a whole lot of possible dropdeck options, but to be fair my 240 dropdeck works just as well

[grendeldog]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 12 May 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

Meanwhile, you have decided that you absolutely know why PGI made this change, based on nothing at all. No statement has been made of the actual developer-side reason for the change back to a 240-tonne dropdeck, and yet you've assumed that it's an attempt to 'fix' balance and your initial post approaches things from the perspective that you are correct in this assumption.

I was going by their statement that the recent gains made by the IS was a motivating factor. As you pointed out, that could indeed be fluff and nothing more - a statement made to add in-universe flavor with no relevance to gameplay. Since neither of us is privy to their actual motivation, I guess neither of us can say with any confidence why they decided to return the IS to a 240 ton limit. Since the only reason that was mentioned was the gains made by the IS as of late, I am taking that as the cause in lieu of anything more concrete; I could be right or I could be wrong.

Quote

I have chosen to engage back on your level of assumption partly so as to show how such assumptions can warp things.

Thank you for pointing out how both arguments are warped.

Yes, we both made assumptions for sure. Thanks for stepping back and checking your temper - I am trying to do the same thing with this post myself.

Mostly I was just curious about how people would choose to compose their decks with the lower limit back in force; I may end up returning to my original STK / GHR / HBK / FS9 deck, or I may go STK / TDR / HBK / FS9 and go five tons under the limit. Or I may do something else entirely, like a KGC / HBK / Griffin / Firestarter, or something with a Blackjack, or any number of other things.

You have solid points and I think I do as well, so I would prefer to concentrate on the original subject of possible.

[grendeldog]

W A R K H A N, on 12 May 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:

Quit crying. IS has most of the top competition teams in the game right now + way more players. Best premades, more players and more tonnage? Can't have it all.

There's no need to be rude. In my opinion things were balanced well with the IS 250 ton limit. Having gone up against the clanners many times I am assured that they have any number of entirely viable and brutally competative drop options.

quantaca, on 12 May 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

i don't really see the problem here, you already had the 240 dropdeck so just continue with it, or swap out the grashopper with the tbolt, the 5SS does everything it does only better (except jumping obviously).

i can get that it sucks having to change your plans, i liked 250 it gave me a whole lot of possible dropdeck options, but to be fair my 240 dropdeck works just as well

I know that not everyone will agree with me that the switch back down to 240 is a mistake; I was just curious to see how people would react to the change as far as what mechs to bring.

[Amsro]

10 ton difference makes no significant boon or detriment either way.

Basically the point is moot. Changing it back to 240 will not have any visible/tangible effect on CW.

[Shadey99]

Amsro, on 12 May 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

10 ton difference makes no significant boon or detriment either way.

Basically the point is moot. Changing it back to 240 will not have any visible/tangible effect on CW.

Well it will make mediums more common and assaults less. It's the same weight as the clans who hardly ever bring Assaults to CW (according to PGI, though I saw plenty in CW) or lights. So I'd expect lots of mediums and heavies, though I can't think of a solid IS medium as durable and quick as a Storm Crow...

Personally I wish I could bring more lights and mediums to CW, but the tactics used just don't work well with lights and mediums as they do with normal 12v12 games of mixed weights.

[Kelenas]

Amsro, on 12 May 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

10 ton difference makes no significant boon or detriment either way.

Basically the point is moot. Changing it back to 240 will not have any visible/tangible effect on CW.

It will have a psychological impact if nothing else. Having played on both sides of the coin lately I can tell you it's frustrating as hell clan side to know that not only are you losing more than winning, but the other side is allowed a straight up number advantage on top of everything else. 10 tons doesn't seem like much, but it's the difference of what you have to sacrifice to bring assaults to the front.

[Frytrixa]

2xStalker 2xRaven done!

[grendeldog]

Amsro, on 12 May 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

10 ton difference makes no significant boon or detriment either way.

Basically the point is moot. Changing it back to 240 will not have any visible/tangible effect on CW.

That's kinda ridiculous in my opinion. Ten tons may not be much in and of itself, but it can make the difference between two assaults, a heavy, and a medium, and one assault, one heavy, one medium, one light. So the point is that by reducing the number of assaults or heavies that can be taken, the effect is greater than if you just look at the abstract number of tons.

Basically I'm saying that it's not ideal to look at tonnage alone without consideration of how those tons are composed.

[Nightshade24]

Before we continue I want to point the flaw in your statement.


You are upset because the IS dropped to 240 tons from 250 tons after an event and think it's unfair due to reasons not involving this particular issue directly.

MAY I remind you that this change that made IS initially go from 240 to 250 gimped clan mechs for the exact same reasons.

They reverted IS back to 240 because the exact problem (a MM bug that made games very one sided) was identified and is fixed now. Thus this IS buff/ Clan nerf was no longer needed.

This change is essentially getting a cut on the knee and putting a bandage on your forehead. It may have helped a little but didn't fix the problem at all besides make you look like an idiot with a bleeding knee and a bandage on the wrong place.



I want to put that out there first before we continue with this topic.

[grendeldog]

Nightshade24, on 12 May 2015 - 08:49 PM, said:

Before we continue I want to point the flaw in your statement.

You are upset because the IS dropped to 240 tons from 250 tons after an event and think it's unfair due to reasons not involving this particular issue directly.

MAY I remind you that this change that made IS initially go from 240 to 250 gimped clan mechs for the exact same reasons.

They reverted IS back to 240 because the exact problem (a MM bug that made games very one sided) was identified and is fixed now. Thus this IS buff/ Clan nerf was no longer needed.

This change is essentially getting a cut on the knee and putting a bandage on your forehead. It may have helped a little but didn't fix the problem at all besides make you look like an idiot with a bleeding knee and a bandage on the wrong place.

I want to put that out there first before we continue with this topic.

Indeed, this has been pointed out before but it is important to emphasize that this is in fact a return to 240. However, I still maintain that the issues which are causing the recent resurgence of the IS are extrinsic to the drop deck tonnage limit.

For example, the matchmaking bug you mentioned was preventing clans from taking planets. As I understand it this was a problem in the capture mechanic, not a problem related to the actual gameplay. The greater number of IS players is another factor, because it allows the IS to capture a lot of territory through ghost drops. Third, many of the top units were playing as clanners during Tukayyid, and the clans won. Now many of those units have moved to the IS side, and thus the IS is winning on the CW star map.

All three of those things are extrinsic factors; they are related to pilot skill, number of pilots, and the matchmaking algorithm. So the gains made by the IS do not directly relate to how many tons they are allowed.

I maintain that the game was well balanced with the 250 ton limit for the IS and a 240 ton limit for the clans. This is demonstrated by the fact that whichever side has the preponderance of top competative units wins - clans during Tukayyid, IS after Tukayyid. This suggests that pilot skill is a major factor in the performance during matches and thus the performance of factions on the star map, and is a sign that things were balanced just fine.

[Lugh]

Waaaah we can't out weight them anymore waaaah....

I remember challenging my unit mates to drop in only heavies during the poptart mania, we won more than we lost, and had the 'aw but we were outweighed' when we lost.

Get over it. Now you simply have to be 'better'

[grendeldog]

Lugh, on 13 May 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Waaaah we can't out weight them anymore waaaah....

I remember challenging my unit mates to drop in only heavies during the poptart mania, we won more than we lost, and had the 'aw but we were outweighed' when we lost.

Get over it. Now you simply have to be 'better'

Oh come off it - there's no need to be rude.

If you disagree with me and think that there's no problem at all with the 240 t limit, that's fine; you're entitled to your own opinion. But posts like this don't serve any purpose besides being mildly insulting - and they don't address the actual question I asked, namely how you will compose your dropdeck with the lower tonnage limit.

In fact only one or two people have bothered to address the actual topic I asked about - your dropdeck composition - instead choosing to argue the validity of the reduction.

So yeah, we disagree and that's cool. With that firmly established, how about we actually talk about the topic of dropdecks instead of further debating the merits of the tonnage reduction?