556 replies to this topic

[IraqiWalker]

JakeEDogge, on 20 June 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

It's this kind of arrogance that really pisses me off. Last time I looked CHUCKLENUTS it's not YOUR Mechwarrior. Good pilot or bad shouldn't make a difference though I can understand your head is prolly so far up your butt the only opinoin you can see is your own and to hell with every-one else.

I completely agree. Plus the guys running around yelling "clans are supposed to be OP" clearly don't know what they are talking about. This isn't MW4, where you just upgrade from IS to clan tech. This is a multiplayer game where balance is a thing that needs to be considered. In fact, they have been detrimental to almost any argument being made about how the clan mechs are actually balanced.

pwnface, on 20 June 2014 - 03:30 AM, said:

Honestly at high level gameplay the Inner Sphere pinpoint alpha builds are still superior to clan mechs. People that think Clans are overpowered really need to learn how to play the game. The Clans are relatively well balanced right now, maybe the clan er-medium laser could use a very slight damage nerf to 6.5 or 6 but other than that I'm pretty happy. I've actually been getting more 1k+ damage matches (7 or 8 today instead of usual 2 or 3) consistently in my meta builds now that I'm not facing as many enemy 733c/Dragon Slayers. This is coming from someone who doesn't own a single clan mech.

Didn't you kill a Daishi from full to zero with your no-armor spider? That video was impressive. Same with the Masakari that followed, although that one was kinda wrecked to begin with. You should meet Wolf of the Sea, I think you two spider lunatics will be perfect together.

Roland, on 20 June 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

No one is really equipped to judge the balance issues yet.

Most folks really have no grasp of how balance works anyway, but even for those folks who do, it'll take a bit for better players to develop optimal configurations that really abuse the current balance situation.

For the time being, you're seeing a bunch of random stuff because most players don't really know much about mech design, and the designs of those players who do haven't been seen on the field enough for them to propagate through the ranks of the derps.

My god, I can't agree enough with that statement. People don't understand balance half the time. They care about their particular toy, and if something changes, they can't handle it and what to change things back, instead of shift and adapt.

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

Ah I love these "it's the pilot not the mech" guys. So let's test that theory, shall we? Take your 2ppc/3ac5 banshee you like so much and remove a PPC and an AC5. Are you winning as often? Remove another AC5 and replace the PPC with a large laser. Still winning? Maybe just 1 small laser. How's that mech working for you? Do you suppose that changing the equipment might have an effect on your performance? Your assertion does not stand up to reductio ad absurdum, so go ahead and stop asserting it now.

They would still win with a different mech. Mostly because they know how to build mechs properly. Half the builds you've given them are just awful. Reduce their weapons, they'll put a bigger engine and more heatsinks. However, even with small lasers on a banshee (which they wouldn't do as that is just a bad decision), good players will still wreck you, one way or another.

Do you understand what reductio ad absurdum mean? Your statement by it's very nature is false. That's how this argument archetype works. Seriously, google it or something. Good players will always be good. Even in "bad" mechs (no such thing exists in the game as of yet), or poorly built ones. That mostly comes from them knowing how to pilot and build mechs.

The proper way of making your challenge isn't with reducing the weapons they can mount on a mech, it's by putting them in a different mech. For example, a locust, or a commando. They would still win, because they know how to build, and how to pilot.

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

I once saw a screen shot of a spider who did around 1800 damage in a match. The logical conclusion must be that spiders are the best mech in the game, right? It can't be that from that cherry-picked sample size of one you can't draw any reliable conclusions.

He's not wrong though. Go brawl, and see what happens. Experimentation is a thing. Get acquainted with it.

[Mavairo]

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

I once saw a screen shot of a spider who did around 1800 damage in a match. The logical conclusion must be that spiders are the best mech in the game, right? It can't be that from that cherry-picked sample size of one you can't draw any reliable conclusions.

Look at the other top performer in the match, a founders atlas.

If you like I've got several more screen shots of an ever growing sample pool.
Clan Mechs aren't nearly the be all end all mechs the steering wheel underhive thinks they are. Especially in close in fighting.

Pretty consistently the best mechs in the match tend towards IS on the winning side. There's several reasons for this of course, vastly superior hit boxes, cooler running mechs, pin point FLD damage, lasers which require significantly less time on target to deal the full damage in both pulse and standard lasers, better LRMs, more AMS and ECM options, and vastly superior light mechs. Aside from the Lolcust and Trollmando, the IS kicks the ever living **** out of Clan Lights, which means in a match with Clan lights on a given team you're already one foot in the bucket, if the other team is carrying IS lights if the pilots are otherwise equal.

Edited by Mavairo, 20 June 2014 - 09:38 AM.

[Mystere]

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

Ah I love these "it's the pilot not the mech" guys. So let's test that theory, shall we? Take your 2ppc/3ac5 banshee you like so much and remove a PPC and an AC5. Are you winning as often? Remove another AC5 and replace the PPC with a large laser. Still winning? Maybe just 1 small laser. How's that mech working for you? Do you suppose that changing the equipment might have an effect on your performance? Your assertion does not stand up to reductio ad absurdum, so go ahead and stop asserting it now.

I think you better read things again because you missed some subtle details. The person to whom you replied to specifically stated:

Quote

it's the skill of the pilot using the mech and the build the pilot is running on the mech

Edited by Mystere, 20 June 2014 - 09:42 AM.

[Atheus]

IraqiWalker, on 20 June 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

They would still win with a different mech. Mostly because they know how to build mechs properly. Half the builds you've given them are just awful. Reduce their weapons, they'll put a bigger engine and more heatsinks. However, even with small lasers on a banshee (which they wouldn't do as that is just a bad decision), good players will still wreck you, one way or another.

Do you understand what reductio ad absurdum mean? Your statement by it's very nature is false. That's how this argument archetype works. Seriously, google it or something. Good players will always be good. Even in "bad" mechs (no such thing exists in the game as of yet), or poorly built ones. That mostly comes from them knowing how to pilot and build mechs.

The proper way of making your challenge isn't with reducing the weapons they can mount on a mech, it's by putting them in a different mech. For example, a locust, or a commando. They would still win, because they know how to build, and how to pilot.


He's not wrong though. Go brawl, and see what happens. Experimentation is a thing. Get acquainted with it.

You seriously need to use your brain before you accuse someone of not understanding a logical principle. Reductio ad absurdum is the correct principle here, and this premise is horribly foul of it. The statement is "It's the pilot that matters, not the mech". You don't get to adjust the statement to only apply to an assumption of fantastic mech builds. If it's truly the pilot that matters, and not the mech, then indeed a pilot should be able to get similar results from any mech, BECAUSE THE STATEMENT ASSERTS THAT THE MECH HAS NO EFFECT ON THE RESULT.

You intentionally ignore this logical absurdity. Why?

[East Indy]

It's more that teams show up with eight MadCats and a backup band.

That's a lot of weight.

Otherwise, I'm Inner Sphere only and haven't found anything glaring. Let's see what 3s do.

[IraqiWalker]

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

You seriously need to use your brain before you accuse someone of not understanding a logical principle. Reductio ad absurdum is the correct principle here, and this premise is horribly foul of it. The statement is "It's the pilot that matters, not the mech". You don't get to adjust the statement to only apply to an assumption of fantastic mech builds. If it's truly the pilot that matters, and not the mech, then indeed a pilot should be able to get similar results from any mech, BECAUSE THE STATEMENT ASSERTS THAT THE MECH HAS NO EFFECT ON THE RESULT.

You intentionally ignore this logical absurdity. Why?

No, you ignored half the guy's statement.

Also, go and re-read your textbooks, the basis of reductio ad absurudum, is using false statements. Usually fantastical ones.

here you go mister cherry picker, the full quote. Not what you pick and choose of it.

00ohDstruct, on 20 June 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

it's the skill of the pilot using the mech and the build the pilot is running on the mech. Introduction of clan mechs changed the dynamics of the game, it didn't give the new mechs an iWin button.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 20 June 2014 - 09:46 AM.

[Rampancy]

Was just in a match where my side had 4 clan mechs (including a kit fox) to the other team's 8. Other team got wreckeddddd.

It really does just come down to pilot skill at the end of the day. I'm fully comfortable going 1v1 vs. most other clan mechs in my Centurions and Hunchbacks, my Jenner does just fine if I can close range, and my Awesome is still devouring any clan mech I catch in the open.

[Rampancy]

As a side note, since the "ZOMG SHINY" factor has worn off of my Nova, I still really like the mech and think it has a solid role but between its profile, the long burn times on lasers, and low weapon mount points keep it from being overpowered and give it some solid disadvantages to exploit.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

Ah I love these "it's the pilot not the mech" guys. So let's test that theory, shall we? Take your 2ppc/3ac5 banshee you like so much and remove a PPC and an AC5. Are you winning as often? Remove another AC5 and replace the PPC with a large laser. Still winning? Maybe just 1 small laser. How's that mech working for you? Do you suppose that changing the equipment might have an effect on your performance? Your assertion does not stand up to reductio ad absurdum, so go ahead and stop asserting it now.

I see you decided to rage because I used the word "skill." That's an understandable reaction if it somehow hit close to home, so I apologize. I didn't mean to offend you. Allow me to explain.

Actually, in a Jenner, Commando or a Spider yes, a few small or medium lasers works out very well, especially if it is clipping along at 150kph+, weaving in and out of cover and around the slower mechs. A lot of the more skilled pilots can and will vouch for this. Now to retort, yes I could throw all small lasers onto a Banshee. Even flamers, because it's fun. Now can I play it like a long distance shooter? No, because that would be stupid and something a less skilled pilot would be likely to assume. To survive, I would have to change my tactics, use cover to my advantage, and be a team player. I.E., skill.

Now to use your "fallacy", if a light mech pilot comes to a dead stop in front of an assault mech and tries to exchange fire, will it win or die? Or if the light mech runs away in a straight line with its back towards a mech, will it survive? Most likely not. Therefore, to survive, skill is required to pilot a mech, regardless of loadout or technology level. QED.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Let us have the shiny newness wear off a little before WE start screaming NERF NERF NERF. OK?

I do not have any clan mechs. Still get kills and good damage. Clans are supposed to be more powerful. However they feel pretty balanced. Especially if you do not stand in front of them and try and duke it out turret style with them. That will get you killed quick.

Edited by Bartholomew bartholomew, 20 June 2014 - 10:25 AM.

[Biaxialrain]

Comparable Clan weapons do more damage and at greater ranges, how is that not OP?

They are OP by design so that people that spend $55 to $500 feel rewarded, and they were/are.

[Aresye]

JakeEDogge, on 20 June 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

Good pilot or bad shouldn't make a difference though

Quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've read on these forums.

Edited by Aresye, 20 June 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[Atheus]

Mystere, on 20 June 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

I think you better read thing again because you missed some subtle details. The person to whom you replied to specifically stated:

You're absolutely right. I did skim right past that detail and put him in with a group he doesn't belong in, since this guy (somewhat subtly) acknowledges that the equipment matters. He got me going by warming up with "The biggest thing to remember is the mech doesn't win the game". This statement is obvious, but takes great measures to take the focus off of the equipment. Ok so mission accomplished. I'm not thinking about the equipment, what should I think about? "it's the skill of the pilot using the mech and the build the pilot is running on the mech." Sure, but what happens when you take that build and make it stronger, or make it weaker? He has taken my focus off of the mech for some reason, so how can you blame me for treating his statement as if it favors the skill element over the mech? So yeah, I screwed up in saying that he committed a logical fallacy, but he came right up to the line, regardless.

With that cleared up, if the skill of the pilot is equal to the skill of the opponent, can I ignore it?

victory potential = skill * mech power (v = s * p)

so if we compare 2 pilots in 2 different mechs, we get

v¹ = s¹ * p¹
v² = s² * p²

But we're trying to balance the game, and we have no control over pilot skill, but we want to think that pilots of equal skill have equal chance at victory, so if we should assume s¹ = s², we can just take it out.

v¹ = p¹
v² = p²

if v¹ = v², then p¹ = p²

There you go. Since game designers can't control pilot skill, but they can control mech power, they should balance the game by ensuring mech power is similar. This is how we demonstrate elementary things that should be intuitive.

So now that we don't give a **** about pilot skill any more, how do we calculate mech power?
We compare various things like their speed, weapon range, heat efficiency, armor, hit boxes, the number of hard points, accessibility of highly stacked loadouts (6xCUAC/5) for massive dps or alpha damge, expected missile hits etc.

Surprise surprise! Clan comes out a long way ahead in most of these categories, and behind in few. In the few they are behind (hit boxes) I would bet a pound of my finest cheese that they will be improved, but that's just speculation. Regardless, they are already ahead in most categories. That is what happens when you take every weapon, make it lighter, smaller, then increase its range and damage. And the omni pods which were supposed to make clan mechs less versatile actually just wind up making them more versatile than IS mechs.

Time for a side point

He says he can still pull off a 1000 damage match, just like before. Not too surprising, considering his mech didn't change, only the nature of the return fire. Also, he's got 11 other targets on his team, many of whom are clan, so generally the matches are even. If clan mechs are say 10-20% stronger, then yeah, this is pretty much as expected.

If he did the same build with clan tech, though, it would be much better, so point worthless. I would expect the results to appear most noticeably in big data in about 1-2 months when people finish xp grinding and go back to playing mastered, best builds.

[qki]

oooohh, math...
can't argue with math. Not when there's equations and sh*t...

Are you another one of those "if you don't play the game my way, you might as well not play at all" types?
The self-professed, "super-elite" competetive crowd.

I find it amusing how completely out of touch with reality your case examples are, and the argument always boils down to "anyone not playing the absolute best mech is not playing right".


First, there are two distinct environments in this game:

the PUGs, and the 12-man tryhards. In the world of pugs, people play all sorts of zany loadouts. Either because they don't know better, or because they don't care. You can take an ac20 Wang to a pug and come away with 4 kills, and have fun all the way.
And in this environment, all those "worthless" mechs are perfectly viable. Not only that, but running into your "equally skilled opposite number" on the enemy team in an "inferior" mech likely doesn't matter. Because preexisting damage, and a myriad of other battlefield variables vill screw up any math you bring to the table.

And then you have the "competetive" crowd. The players who simply will not experiment, relying on the "tried and true" solutions. That's just the way of the world.

Take for example the "meta" 2ac5ppc loadout. Is it the best way of doing damage? Hell no. But people use it, because it is a very convenient way of doing damage (some might even argue this makes it the best).

Clan mechs' biggest advantage is in their smaller xl engines. Many IS loadouts have to use XLs to load all the weapons they need, and keep a good pace, which can be exploited by focusing on the side torso. Clan mechs cannot be focused in this way, as they have to lose both sides.
Another thing is greater weapon range, which may, or may not make a difference depending on the situation.
Lower weapon weight leads to more agressive loadouts, more ammo, or extra heat sinks.

On the flip side, IS mechs with their autocannons, are more focused on FLD, which lends itself to more underhanded tactics.

All in all, both IS and Clan mechs are a viable choice. Neither gives an advantage in and of itself, despite looking that way on paper.

[Noth]

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

You are still ignoring the fact that clan weapons take longer to do their damage, thus expose the mech to damage for longer and naturally spread their damage around the target mech. IS mechs can fire, hit one spot and get back to shielding and torso twisting much quicker. Raw damage doesn't kill mechs well, pinpoint damage does and IS mechs accell at that.

[Aresye]

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Maths and stuff.

So the main point you're driving at is better players will have an advantage in better mechs? I don't think you need to bring in math formulas to state the obvious.

Of course better players are going to have an advantage in better mechs, and while certain players can (and will) gimp themselves intentionally to give them a bigger challenge, it's not something that you can rely on them doing.

They're good, and they're going to pilot what's good in order to give themselves and their team the best chances of winning.

Before the Clans if you wanted to do well, the poptart meta was a necessary evil. Sure, I could do some good damage, kills, and win games in a non-meta build, but against a premade team full of meta on the other side, the only way to stand a chance is to run the meta myself, which ultimately led to a confusing moral dilemma as a player:

- If I run a meta build, I run the chance of stomping a team of pug players and feeling bad for taking it.
- If I don't run a meta build, I run the chance of going against a team of meta players and feeling bad for not taking it.

With the Clan mechs though, I don't get this moral dilemma.

- If I run a Clan mech, I don't necessarily run the chance of stomping a team of IS mechs.
- If I don't run a Clan mech, I still have a good chance of succeeding against a team with Clan mechs.

[Mystere]

Atheus, on 20 June 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

With that cleared up, if the skill of the pilot is equal to the skill of the opponent, can I ignore it?

victory potential = skill * mech power (v = s * p)

so if we compare 2 pilots in 2 different mechs, we get

v¹ = s¹ * p¹
v² = s² * p²

But we're trying to balance the game, and we have no control over pilot skill, but we want to think that pilots of equal skill have equal chance at victory, so if we should assume s¹ = s², we can just take it out.

v¹ = p¹
v² = p²

if v¹ = v², then p¹ = p²

That only works if skill and power are in a simple multiplicative relationship. But, what if it is really:

v = maximum([p * e^f(s)], [s * e^f(p)])

where:

f(s) = some function based on player skill
f(p) = some function based on mech build
p * e^f(s) = victory potential of a mech when piloted by someone with a specific set of skills
s * e^f(p) = victory potential of a player when piloting a specific mech build

Something to think about.

Edited by Mystere, 20 June 2014 - 11:22 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Mystere, on 20 June 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

s * e^f(p) = victory potential of a player when piloting a specific mech build

Something to think about.

That is probably the most important factor so far.

I've been playiing light mechs for almost 90% of my MW:O career. I can pull good damage numbers in all of them. Even the SDR-5V. However, The Jenner and Ember are considered the very best. Put me in a Jenner and I will clip 400+ damage and get a couple of kills without trouble. Put me in my COM-2D (slower,since I use XL195, less armor, and a lot less firepower), a mech considered inferior to it in all aspects but ECM, and I regularly pull 500+ damage in it, a lot more kills and assists across the board, and more than likely survive the entire engagement.

The player's comfort level with the mech is a very important factor. If they let me mount JJs on my COM-2D I will probably never play another mech, no exaggeration. I'm still a better light pilot in My Locust 1V than I am in a raven 3L, with any build. (Note: the raven will regularly pull more damage and kills/assists than the locust, but sniping in a raven is a bit easier than Booming-and-Zooming in a 1V in the middle of a fire fight, and survive after getting a kill/crippling damage on a hostile. Also, more adrenaline in the 1V)

EDIT: grammarzzz and stuffs

Edited by IraqiWalker, 20 June 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[Lightfoot]

The best weapons the Inner Sphere had for fighting the Clans and competing with Clan tech were PPCs/ERPPCs before Ghost Heat and their heat increases and the normal functioning Gauss Rifle without the PGI de-sync. Just because these weapons are closest to their Clan tech counterparts.


General rule of thumb is you never nerf Inner Sphere tech right before the Clan invades.

Edited by Lightfoot, 20 June 2014 - 12:04 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Lightfoot, on 20 June 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

The best weapons the Inner Sphere had for fighting the Clans and competing with Clan tech were PPCs/ERPPCs before Ghost Heat and their heat increases and the normal functioning Gauss Rifle without the PGI de-sync. Just because these weapons are closest to their Clan tech counterparts.


General rule of thumb is you never nerf Inner Sphere tech right before the Clan invades.

Pretty sure the ACs, Gauss, and (ER)PPCs are still pretty VERY viable. In fact the ACs are still the most OP weapon in the game.

As everything stands right now, the IS ACs are superior to clan ACs.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 20 June 2014 - 12:12 PM.