364 replies to this topic

[Siriothrax]

It's a good thing all of those clan mechs die from getting a single side torso blown off, right?

Way to completely ignore one of the biggest flaws in your argument.

[InspectorG]

Kyle Wright, on 13 July 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

here you Lore nuthuggers go again. If we are going to do lore them most of us should be forced into mediums and heavies, with assaults being reserved for commanders and royalty as they are so rare.

To be fair, remove the lore and this is just 'some videogame'. Might as well be Hawken or CoD reskinned with robots.

I have no problem using mainly lights and mediums. I have no problem with Clans being stronger than IS because it balances out later. If we had CW, it would be obvious and play out over a story arc.

If that makes me a 'lore nuthugger', fine. It also makes you either a euro-gamer(which is fine...if you know what that definition means and if you did, you wouldnt make the above statement) or someone who doesnt understand branding.

No lore and this would be World of Two-Leg Tanks.

[Roland]

That's not really much in terms of actual analysis or facts, Gyrok. Those are just a selection of random statistics on various mechs... generally, pretty pointless ones (torso twist?).

I mean, I think that's why no one's really that impressed with that post. It doesn't really analyze any real aspects of the game, and kind of demonstrates a failure to grasp certain core fundamentals.

[Mcgral18]

Roland, on 14 July 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

That's not really much in terms of actual analysis or facts, Gyrok. Those are just a selection of random statistics on various mechs... generally, pretty pointless ones (torso twist?).

I mean, I think that's why no one's really that impressed with that post. It doesn't really analyze any real aspects of the game, and kind of demonstrates a failure to grasp certain core fundamentals.

Kinda like blaming it on a single chassis, instead of a game mechanic.

[MischiefSC]

So Grok - are you saying a ctf, orion or even vtr is a match for a tw 1 v 1? Same pilot skills? Cuz thats what you implied.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Mizeur, on 14 July 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

I think the bigger problem is that we can alpha strike twice before having to worry about heat management. And there's no penalty for staying at 90-100% heat once you get up there.

No debate, but that is still only a piece of the problem.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

MischiefSC, on 14 July 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

So Grok - are you saying a ctf, orion or even vtr is a match for a tw 1 v 1? Same pilot skills? Cuz thats what you implied.

I mean...depending on the build and the map...1v1? Yeah I mean...it could be.

[Philldoe]

Gyrok said:

...Things...
TW - (375) 89 kph 57.32 Deg/s (90Deg Twist -20% for S model Side Torsos)
ON1 - (375) 89 kph 57.32 Deg/s (90 Deg Twist)
...Things...

So... You're saying the TW is no more OP than an Orion?

That's true... if you ignore the Orion's ****** hitboxes, it's inability to roll damage, it's lack of Jumpjets, and it's massive CT, Oh at it's poor crit slot placement.

When you ignore all that stuff the Timberwolf doesn't look so bad. In fact it looks totaly fair and not OP at all. I'm super glad you posted those numbers, they really opened my eyes to how balanced the Timberwolf is.

Edited by Philldoe, 14 July 2014 - 05:16 PM.

[InspectorG]

Louis Brofist, on 14 July 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

I just need to point one more thing out. This is the only game forum I've ever been to where if you point one aspect out, people automatically assume you SUCK, HATE and are AGAINST everything else. Be it a mech, a game mechanic, a playstyle or method. Just because I'm focusing on one attribute of this game doesn't mean I hate or suck at the other parts of it.

I honestly don't understand this community one bit, people's egos are so on edge its like an electronic **** measuring contest for every post, its actually funny to watch, but boring, because you get the SAME discussion no matter what the original post was.

Internet Warrior Syndrome.

Not all THAT bad here. For a good chuckle of how the MIGHTY WARRIORZ of Teh KEEBOARDS can derail a thread go to youtube or forums and read conversations about boxing or MMA. Two guys start an intelligent conversation, 500 jump in and comment even though they never laced up and been in the ring.
It QUICKLY devolves into nationalistic/race hate with Nbombs, call outs to fight(which never happen and if it actually did, no one films )
Just people talking about what they dont know. Or worse, people who THINK they know, but cant prove it.

Like some kid who has been in 3 fisticuffs thinks he knows more than a retired pro who trains future pros. One has proof in the pudding, the other...just words.

If competitive LEETS say the Twolf is OP, i would tend to believe them. Specially pertaining to comp play. I would give them credence in pugland too. Specially if they post pugland vids.
Some guy who might be better than me, but low end comp or just a pugger? He may have good ideas, but i doubt he would have the scope of the comp leets.

I really dont see how this is so complicated to understand. And its subject to change. At least there will be moar entertaining QQ!!!

[Adiuvo]

Gyrok, on 14 July 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

To quote myself, from this very thread on page 4.

That's not numerical analysis. That's you quoting torso twist numbers. You're also making your augment from a completely flawed premise, in that engines are not the same between clans and IS.

I explained that in this post here. You have yet to refute any of the points I've made in it. You've also yet to refute anything in the google doc I've linked, and instead went on a little thing about how you're an engineer (congrats?).

[InspectorG]

Gyrok, on 14 July 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

All things considered, I would say they have done the best job they possibly could have to protect lights/mediums to this point...

I disagree. Lights and meds could get some module love to give them more of a role that just 4x3 reqs.

In another thread i posted about 10 module ideas(some may be good, or not) for lights to give them a recon/espionage role. Stuff like damage buffs vs heavies/assault, stuff to fool radar, flash bangs, JJ mods, etc.

Otherwise, with no role warfare, or significant bonuses to cap/spot, there is no reason to pilot a light. Other than challenge, or speed addiction.

[Rim Kerenski]

Having OP, pay to win mechs helps though. Even a casual player can do twice the damage as the best IS mech.

[ShinobiHunter]

Found this video on Youtube, maybe it doesn't mean anything, but still worth a watch:

[Mcgral18]

Rim Kerenski, on 14 July 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Having OP, pay to win mechs helps though. Even a casual player can do twice the damage as the best IS mech.

And with half that damage....guess who gets more kills?


Damage can be a worthless stat pad.

[Grey Black]

Gyrok, on 13 July 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Ok guys, something has been beaten like a dead horse and it just has no ring of truth to it...

Clan Mechs are NOT OP.

Skill is absolutely OP.

Myself, and the average guys on our comp team for my Clan Wolf unit, typically spend something in the neighborhood of 30-35 hours per week dropping in MWO.

Seriously...it is like a second full time job.

If any of you who drop less than 10 hours per week on MWO think you are going to be able to play even remotely close to the skill level of dedicated players, who play this game every moment they are not doing anything else...then you are deluding yourself and over evaluating your skill level.

This is not just twitch skill, it is also time spent in game, in mechs, dropping. Getting familiar with chassis, figuring out how to kill them, and kill with them.

So, while you may take L2P as derogatory, and in shortened form it may come off as that. However, the reality is...skill is OP. No mech is unkillable, no loadout is completely foolproof, and no pilot is completely unerring. Some just commit fewer errors than others.

So, next time you die and you think it is not fair...please sit back and evaluate what YOU did in game, and how that might have lead to you being in a situation where you were exploited for making a mental mistake.

-my 2 cents

THIS!

[Mystere]

Adiuvo, on 14 July 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

If you're interested in another, very indepth POV, here you go.

That's a good start.

But, you have a preponderance of the phrase "massive" without actually clearly quantifying them, or without giving how you arrived at your numbers. You seem to have downplayed (i.e. brushed off) the difference between burst-fire and single-shot weapons without going into the necessary details, including a dynamic analysis which I think is required in this area (i.e. mechs don't exactly just stand face to face while shooting at each other). You even (surprisingly) offered SRMs as a reasonable alternative to the IS AC20. You also claim Clan superiority with respect to the Gauss rifle without quantifying why. Finally, you hint that the CLBX/20's scatter shot is almost as good as a single projectile without, again, giving any supporting evidence.

Also, your work sounds more like an "observation" instead of a real "analysis" given the absence of a general analysis model/methodology, not to mention -- again -- the lack of supporting evidence. This and the items I mentioned above give me the impression, rightly or wrongly, of an inherent bias, as if the point was to "prove" that the Clans are OP, and not to determine whether or not they actually were (i.e. predetermined conclusion driving your "analysis").

I'll go over your work again later on to add more things, if any.

Edited by Mystere, 14 July 2014 - 06:07 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 14 July 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

That's a good start.

But, you have a preponderance of the phrase "massive" without actually clearly quantifying them, or without giving how you arrived at your numbers. You seem to have downplayed (i.e. brushed off) the difference between burst-fire and single-shot weapons without going into the necessary details, including a dynamic analysis which I think is required in this area (i.e. mechs don't exactly just stand face to face while shooting at each other). You even (surprisingly) offered SRMs as a reasonable alternative to the IS AC20. You also claim Clan superiority with respect to the Gauss rifle without quantifying why. Finally, you hint that the CLBX/20's scatter shot is almost as good as a single projectile without, again, giving any supporting evidence.

Also, your work sounds more like an "observation" instead of a real "analysis" given the absence of a general analysis model/methodology, not to mention -- again -- the lack of supporting evidence. This and the items I mentioned above give me the impression, rightly or wrongly, of an inherent bias, as if the point was to "prove" that the Clans are OP, and not to determine whether or not they actually were (i.e. predetermined conclusion driving your "analysis").

I'll go over your work again later on to add more things, if any.

It seems to avoid the effect of AMS on cLRMs as well.

[Adiuvo]

Mystere, on 14 July 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

That's a good start.

But, you have a preponderance of the phrase "massive" without actually clearly quantifying them, or without giving how you arrived at your numbers. You seem to have downplayed (i.e. brushed off) the difference between burst-fire and single-shot weapons without going into the necessary details, including a dynamic analysis which I think is required in this area (i.e. mechs don't exactly just stand face to face while shooting at each other). You even (surprisingly) offered SRMs as a reasonable alternative to the IS AC20. You also claim Clan superiority with respect to the Gauss rifle without quantifying why. Finally, you hint that the CLBX/20's scatter shot is almost as good as a single projectile without, again, giving any supporting evidence.

Also, your work sounds more like an "observation" instead of a real "analysis" given the absence of a general analysis model/methodology, not to mention -- again -- the lack of supporting evidence. This and the items I mentioned above give me the impression, rightly or wrongly, of an inherent bias, as if the point was to "prove" that the Clans are OP, and not to determine whether or not they actually were (i.e. predetermined conclusion driving your "analysis").

I'll go over your work again later on to add more things, if any.

I didn't write that. Peter did.

Edited by Adiuvo, 14 July 2014 - 06:28 PM.

[Mystere]

Adiuvo, on 14 July 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

I didn't write that. Peter did.

My bad then. I thought your real name was Peter.

[Gyrok]

MischiefSC, on 14 July 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

So Grok - are you saying a ctf, orion or even vtr is a match for a tw 1 v 1? Same pilot skills? Cuz thats what you implied.

I have seen a Jagermech destroy a TW.

I have seen a CTF destroy a TW.

An Orion...? Have not seen that in a 1 v 1, does not mean it could not happen.

Want to have a go? CTF vs. TW? Zellbrigen style?

Since you issued the batchall, these are my terms:

Circle of Equals on Tourmaline Desert

300m Diameter

No consumables

If you agree, we will do this.

Roland, on 14 July 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

That's not really much in terms of actual analysis or facts, Gyrok. Those are just a selection of random statistics on various mechs... generally, pretty pointless ones (torso twist?).

I mean, I think that's why no one's really that impressed with that post. It doesn't really analyze any real aspects of the game, and kind of demonstrates a failure to grasp certain core fundamentals.

Mcgral18, on 14 July 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

Kinda like blaming it on a single chassis, instead of a game mechanic.

I think he answered that for me...however, the agility was being disputed...so how can you dispute the facts about the agility of the mechs? That is what is hard coded into the game. Clans play by no different rules about engines or turning or torso twist.

Additionally, you all dispute IS mechs do not run those big engines...but they did before...? Why the sudden change?

You can elect to have speed, or you can elect to have survivability. You can choose firepower, or agility.

The point is...YOU make that choice for what YOU want to do with YOUR mech. There are people who put XL400 engines in Battlemasters to do 84 kph in an 85 ton assault mech and roll face. There are people who do it and fail miserably.

Now we get back into the difference being beyond the chassis.

Sure with clan mechs the XL engines can take a ST loss...but you are horribly crippled typically just like an IS mech with a STD engine...typically losing the ammo for all your weapons short of energy weapons...you may as well be dead...though you ignore that point...

You also ignore that mechs like the centurion can run around with nothing but a CT left and still do damage to others until they kill you...have you all forgotten the zombie craze so suddenly? It was not all that long ago. Additionally, what happens when the Kingfisher comes with a Clan STD engine? Will you cry OP then too because it can lose both STs and continue to fight?

You can all complain all you want, you will always find something to complain about...just like the guys who start the "LRMs are OP" threads all the time...you and your clan threads...no difference.

Adiuvo, on 14 July 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

That's not numerical analysis. That's you quoting torso twist numbers. You're also making your augment from a completely flawed premise, in that engines are not the same between clans and IS.

I explained that in this post here. You have yet to refute any of the points I've made in it. You've also yet to refute anything in the google doc I've linked, and instead went on a little thing about how you're an engineer (congrats?).

LOL...if mine is NOT numerical information that is empirically indisputable, then yours was cocktail napkin scribble with a beer spilled on it.

GG...that was a good laugh...thanks!

Mystere, on 14 July 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

That's a good start.

But, you have a preponderance of the phrase "massive" without actually clearly quantifying them, or without giving how you arrived at your numbers. You seem to have downplayed (i.e. brushed off) the difference between burst-fire and single-shot weapons without going into the necessary details, including a dynamic analysis which I think is required in this area (i.e. mechs don't exactly just stand face to face while shooting at each other). You even (surprisingly) offered SRMs as a reasonable alternative to the IS AC20. You also claim Clan superiority with respect to the Gauss rifle without quantifying why. Finally, you hint that the CLBX/20's scatter shot is almost as good as a single projectile without, again, giving any supporting evidence.

Also, your work sounds more like an "observation" instead of a real "analysis" given the absence of a general analysis model/methodology, not to mention -- again -- the lack of supporting evidence. This and the items I mentioned above give me the impression, rightly or wrongly, of an inherent bias, as if the point was to "prove" that the Clans are OP, and not to determine whether or not they actually were (i.e. predetermined conclusion driving your "analysis").

I'll go over your work again later on to add more things, if any.

That is exactly my point...no hard evidence to back up the claims, and a slanted perspective with sensationalist words...speculation with some mixed observation...