364 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Gyrok, on 15 July 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

What? Where are those numbers...still waiting?

If you are talking about what Adiuvo linked...that was a cocktail napkin write up with a biased expectation heading into it, and no real objective study.

Go back two pages. Actually, I'll make it easy for you. You missed the original post I made because you were too busy arguing about whose unit is better. The post included plenty of numbers.

I never even read what Adiuvo linked. Reddit is a cesspit, regardless of its utility.

Spoiler

Mizeur, on 15 July 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

My point is that your comparison isn't complete, even without accounting for the new JJ mechanics. You can't compare the loadouts straight up. You need to adjust them for the optimal min/maxed loadout. This is because things like a weapon's tonnage and critical slots are balanced around each faction's build restrictions. Clan mechs would be DOA if they kept the current build restrictions but had equipment with Inner Sphere critical slots and tonnage. You also need to account for the fact that the sword & board builds also min/max their armor (especially the head, board arm, and legs) to use the tonnage for equipment. This affects how much ammo or DHS you have available both of which have heat implications. And post-patch, it also affects how many JJs you take, which also has heat implications. Also, you misread the optimal Inner Sphere loadout. It's not PPC+2xERPPC.. It's Gauss Rifle, PPC, and ERPPC because it runs cool. I'm calling the Clan loadout heat limited because it carries 2 C-ERPPCs where the Inner Sphere can opt for 1 ERPPC and 1 PPC to complement the Gauss. That DS vs TBR test falls under the category of "the plural of anecdote isn't data." And lastly, if we're talking about numbers-based analysis, then it really does need to simulate some volleys. The math says that the TBR runs hotter and has to pace its fire more slowly than the IS versions. In a 1v1, the speed advantage is enough to prevent trouble. But in a team situation, that means that the Inner Sphere can pour more focus fire for longer while being exposed to less return fire.

1. You can't sword and board with an XL-equipped Inner Sphere 'Mech.

2. Let's take a look at heat. I don't even have to do the math here because Smurfy does it for me. Let's say I'm running that CTF-3D with a STD275 so that I can sword and board. I run at 70 kph tops, I have two and a half tons of ammo for the Gauss, I have a PPC, I have an ERPPC, and I have two Class III Jump Jets. Do you know how many seconds I get to fire all of my weapons before shutdown? 13. You know how long that TBR build gets to fire before shutting down? 13. TBR has better range, better damage, and dissipates heat faster. Let's say the engagement is at around 800 meters. The TBR is dealing more damage than you are in your CTF. You will both reach your heat caps at roughly the same time. Now, it's down to the wire firing one ERPPC and the gauss as soon as you can. Guess what, your heat dissipation in the CTF-3D is worse and the TBR can fire more volleys per minute than you can. You don't want to be using the regular PPC to compensate because it's going to be doing even less damage than your ERPPC.

You can drop down to a STD 250 so you can get your max DPS time up to 16 seconds by adding 3 more DHS, but your dissipation still doesn't match the TBR and now you are running just under 64 kph. The TBR runs 89.1 kph. The TBR can relocate, cool off, and then come back whenever he wants. The TBR can hold you at that 810 max optimum range, too. There is nothing about the CTF that gives it any real edge. You get one more full volley and then you are at the mercy of the TBR, even in a close-range vertical brawl, all because the TBR can dissipate heat faster.

Even the sustained DPS on the TBR is higher no matter what.

What it would cost the CTF to be able to match the TBR's heat dissipation is way too much armour and quite a bit of top speed (which also lowers twist rate, in case anybody did care about that). Oh, and let's not also forget that you can similarly min/max a TBR to have better heat dissipation and/or more ammo as well.

3. Yes, Clan 'Mechs would certainly be DOA without the slot and tonnage advantages. That doesn't mean those advantages don't overshoot the limitations they were meant to overcome.

4. I most definitely can compare the load-outs straight-up. You have to. The whole point of the exercise was to try and build an Inner Sphere 'Mech that can do what the Mad Cat can do because the claim was that you can build an IS machine to be equivalent. The lesson? It can't be done. You can build rough analogues, but you can't replicate the actually very well-balanced (with itself) formula of speed, heat management, firepower, and protection that is present on the TBR.

5. Ultimately, I think you and I are both arriving at the same conclusion: that the pilot makes the machine and some of these differences are so narrow that the pilot is the determining factor. I definitely agree, and this is why it is backwards to try and rely on the numbers alone. You need to run hundreds, if not thousands, of matches on the same map in the same mode with the same people mixed around in the same two 'Mech chassis in order to be able to say within margin of error that yes, one chassis is better than the other. Using just the numbers Gyrok demanded, however, the TBR shows itself as better, period.

[Sandpit]

Yeonne Greene, on 15 July 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

snip

just because I'm bored and looking for a challenge, post your smurfy link to said TW build and I'll give it a shot. Give the specific parameters you want the IS mech built to.

I have a few caveats as well though
no restrictions on engine types (that's one of the clans downsides in my opinion, they CAN'T mount std engines)
no restrictions on how I build the mech as long as it is legal and can drop in a game

challenge accepted

[SolasTau]

I just wanted to take a second to say that I think Gyrok has made some good points. Someone mentioned MM setting people up to fail, which I can relate to.

I also wanted to say that as a new player, I've been thinking about trying to find a group to drop with for a few sorties just so I can have some experienced players look over what I'm doing right and what I'm doing horribly, horribly wrong. There's some things that will come more with time (torso twisting is a big one IMO), but there's other things like learning the map and basic strategic elements that can help enormously.

The big thing that no one has mentioned is that even a novice is still driving around a multi-ton purpose built war machine. ANYONE can be dangerous, and underestimating an opponent just because you think you've got the touch is a quick way to discover that a pair of PPC's and an Autocannon will make you bleed too.

[Sandpit]

SolasTau, on 15 July 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

I just wanted to take a second to say that I think Gyrok has made some good points. Someone mentioned MM setting people up to fail, which I can relate to.

I also wanted to say that as a new player, I've been thinking about trying to find a group to drop with for a few sorties just so I can have some experienced players look over what I'm doing right and what I'm doing horribly, horribly wrong. There's some things that will come more with time (torso twisting is a big one IMO), but there's other things like learning the map and basic strategic elements that can help enormously.

The big thing that no one has mentioned is that even a novice is still driving around a multi-ton purpose built war machine. ANYONE can be dangerous, and underestimating an opponent just because you think you've got the touch is a quick way to discover that a pair of PPC's and an Autocannon will make you bleed too.

check the unit sub-section, tons are always recruiting or check out the ngng and/or comstar teamspeak servers. You can usually find pugs looking to group up there as well if you'd jsut like to see what the group queue is like without committing to a unit.

I'm still waiting for someone to post a smurfy link for me

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 15 July 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

check the unit sub-section, tons are always recruiting or check out the ngng and/or comstar teamspeak servers. You can usually find pugs looking to group up there as well if you'd jsut like to see what the group queue is like without committing to a unit.

I'm still waiting for someone to post a smurfy link for me

Which one? The poptart one? Its gauss in the torso and 2 ERPPCs in the arm. I'm not that impressed with it. There was also a brawler link for 4xSRM6A and 4xCERMLs with a class 1 TC - which, admittedly, I haven't been as impressed with. SRM4As have the exact same cycle time as the CERMLs and the 2 extra missiles from 4 to 6 always fly so wide, you get more love more quickly and with less heat with the 4s. Also... why the TC with no ballistics? The extra crit chance only affects the lasers, not the missiles. The tiny range boost?

TW sword and boards like a PIMP though. Weapons load of an XL, takes abuse like an STD. Just load up an arm and side torso with all the grief you want and shield with the other side. The loadout is almost irrelevant. Go SRMs and LB20X, doesn't matter. It's 'take hits, pivot back, EXPLODE IN FACE, turn away. Take hits, pivot back, EXPLODE IN FACE, turn away'.

It's like sexy with a crazy girlfriend. Did you date in college? It's like that.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 15 July 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

Which one? The poptart one? Its gauss in the torso and 2 ERPPCs in the arm. I'm not that impressed with it. There was also a brawler link for 4xSRM6A and 4xCERMLs with a class 1 TC - which, admittedly, I haven't been as impressed with. SRM4As have the exact same cycle time as the CERMLs and the 2 extra missiles from 4 to 6 always fly so wide, you get more love more quickly and with less heat with the 4s. Also... why the TC with no ballistics? The extra crit chance only affects the lasers, not the missiles. The tiny range boost?

TW sword and boards like a PIMP though. Weapons load of an XL, takes abuse like an STD. Just load up an arm and side torso with all the grief you want and shield with the other side. The loadout is almost irrelevant. Go SRMs and LB20X, doesn't matter. It's 'take hits, pivot back, EXPLODE IN FACE, turn away. Take hits, pivot back, EXPLODE IN FACE, turn away'.

It's like sexy with a crazy girlfriend. Did you date in college? It's like that.

you pick the mech bud, I'm just interested to see if it can be done and I happen to think I'm a pretty good mech designer. You build the TW and I'll build a counter. I think it can be done, I think I can build a mech to counter any clan mech design.

To make it interesting I think tonnage should go out the window. It should be matched by weight class since that's how the MM works.

[Gyrok]

I find it particularly interesting that the truth comes out in that reddit post. Specifically the post saying "I would prefer stagnation over power creep..."

Now what I find to be interesting, is that suggests you would rather see dragonslayers and cataphracts and the current meta reign supreme over the other components of the game. You would rather not see something that can challenge the current meta, and you find the current meta fun. Now, I think I am not alone in saying the current meta is stale, and no longer pleasant for far more of the playerbase than it is fun for the few who enjoy it.

In short, the cries to nerf the TW are specifically because you do not want the meta to change and this furthers your hidden agenda. (Not that there were not people who suspected as much already).

[Adiuvo]

Gyrok, on 16 July 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

I find it particularly interesting that the truth comes out in that reddit post. Specifically the post saying "I would prefer stagnation over power creep..."

Now what I find to be interesting, is that suggests you would rather see dragonslayers and cataphracts and the current meta reign supreme over the other components of the game. You would rather not see something that can challenge the current meta, and you find the current meta fun. Now, I think I am not alone in saying the current meta is stale, and no longer pleasant for far more of the playerbase than it is fun for the few who enjoy it.

In short, the cries to nerf the TW are specifically because you do not want the meta to change and this furthers your hidden agenda. (Not that there were not people who suspected as much already).

Likewise I can spin that around and say that since you apparently want powercreep, you just want your clan mechs to stay more powerful than everything else so you can roleplay and beat IS mechs all the time just like lore says.

Yep, just as stupid as what you just said.

The reason I don't want powercreep is so that existing mechs aren't further invalidated more than the Dragon Slayer and Cataphract have already made them. I've been calling those mechs overpowered for so long it's really funny that you're trying to take a conspiracy route and think it's just because I have some weird, weird love for the Victor. Despite me playing lights. Despite me being known for NEVER hopping in anything else but a light. Despite me literally playing every competitive match I have ever played in a light.

Yeah, I totally just want to TW nerfed so my Dragon Slayer can wreck everything all day long

Edited by Adiuvo, 16 July 2014 - 07:20 AM.

[Gyrok]

Adiuvo, on 16 July 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

Likewise I can spin that around and say that since you apparently want powercreep, you just want your clan mechs to stay more powerful than everything else so you can roleplay and beat IS mechs all the time just like lore says.

Yep, just as stupid as what you just said.

The reason I don't want powercreep is so that existing mechs aren't further invalidated more than the Dragon Slayer and Cataphract have already made them. I've been calling those mechs overpowered for so long it's really funny that you're trying to take a conspiracy route and think it's just because I have some weird, weird love for the Victor. Despite me playing lights. Despite me being known for NEVER hopping in anything else but a light. Despite me literally playing every competitive match I have ever played in a light.

Yeah, I totally just want to TW nerfed so my Dragon Slayer can wreck everything all day long

I never said you played those mechs, just that you want them to stay on top. Which is obviously true if you are trying to spin it and play it off now.

You would prefer stagnation in a game with IP that MANDATES progress be made as tech evolves? What about when LosTech comes? It will be here soon enough...then what?

Want to bet when LosTech comes, it will only fit in IS Omnimechs? Want to bet you will still be able to put the older IS versions in there too if you wanted? I bet you could...but I do not see any way that PGI could bring LosTech to the IS without the same restrictions on chassis that the clans have.

All things considered, IS tech SHOULD be much farther behind than what it is...seriously. That being said, they have accomplished keeping the 2 VERY close in terms of performance with some advantages for each side. Which I think is a truly fair way to do it.

Clans do more DPS as a whole, but it is DOT damage, and less per weapon typically, and they require more time on target to do that DPS. Which is a fair trade off.

[Adiuvo]

Gyrok, on 16 July 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

I never said you played those mechs, just that you want them to stay on top. Which is obviously true if you are trying to spin it and play it off now.

You would prefer stagnation in a game with IP that MANDATES progress be made as tech evolves? What about when LosTech comes? It will be here soon enough...then what?

Want to bet when LosTech comes, it will only fit in IS Omnimechs? Want to bet you will still be able to put the older IS versions in there too if you wanted? I bet you could...but I do not see any way that PGI could bring LosTech to the IS without the same restrictions on chassis that the clans have.

All things considered, IS tech SHOULD be much farther behind than what it is...seriously. That being said, they have accomplished keeping the 2 VERY close in terms of performance with some advantages for each side. Which I think is a truly fair way to do it.

Clans do more DPS as a whole, but it is DOT damage, and less per weapon typically, and they require more time on target to do that DPS. Which is a fair trade off.

I don't care what the IP mandates, I care about game balance. The IP mandated that clans be the most broken thing ever. Thankfully PGI ignored that part of the IP and made them not the most broken thing ever. They're pretty nicely balanced. They don't just see IS mechs and poop on them like they do in lore. I expect PGI to do the same thing with other tech upgrades as they come.

The only time I'm OK with powercreep is when it's available for everyone, such as double heat sinks. Otherwise I don't want to see older mechs invalidated simply due to the fact that they're older.

Also...

Quote

Which is obviously true if you are trying to spin it and play it off now.

Dude. What kind of argument is that. I feel like I'm arguing with some climate skeptic or really really self-conscious creationist.

[meteorol]

Gyrok, on 16 July 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

I never said you played those mechs, just that you want them to stay on top.

Why would Adiuvo, or any of the top tier competitve guys want the DS to "stay on top"?
That doesn't make any sense. Top tier guys use the best mech available. It doesn't matter if it's the DS or the TBR. They will just use the best mech, no matter which one it is.
They have like... zero egomaniacal incentive to get the TBR nerfed below the DS, because each and every one of them can just use the TBR once it is allowed in league play. They don't need the "meta" to stay on top. They will be top tier players no matter what the meta is, especially since the TBR can run a meta build aswell.

[Mystere]

Adiuvo, on 16 July 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

They're pretty nicely balanced.

Thank you for admitting as such. Now we can close this thread as well as all other "Clans are Op!" threads.


I am also saving your entire post for posterity.

Adiuvo, on 16 July 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

I don't care what the IP mandates, I care about game balance. The IP mandated that clans be the most broken thing ever. Thankfully PGI ignored that part of the IP and made them not the most broken thing ever. They're pretty nicely balanced. They don't just see IS mechs and poop on them like they do in lore. I expect PGI to do the same thing with other tech upgrades as they come.

The only time I'm OK with powercreep is when it's available for everyone, such as double heat sinks. Otherwise I don't want to see older mechs invalidated simply due to the fact that they're older.

Also...

Dude. What kind of argument is that. I feel like I'm arguing with some climate skeptic or really really self-conscious creationist.

Edited by Mystere, 16 July 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Adiuvo]

Mystere, on 16 July 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

Thank you for admitting as such. Now we can close this thread as well as end all other "Clans are Op!" threads.

All the big, general, 'ALL CLANS ARE OP!' threads? Yeah, that would be nice. The more specific ones, no.

[Mystere]

Adiuvo, on 16 July 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

All the big, general, 'ALL CLANS ARE OP!' threads? Yeah, that would be nice. The more specific ones, no.

Argh! But, but, but, you just said:

Adiuvo, on 16 July 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

They're pretty nicely balanced.

Please explain yourself.

Edited by Mystere, 16 July 2014 - 09:06 AM.

[Roland]

Most of the truly good players really have no particular incentive to make any specific mech strong or weak.

What the best competitive players want is to simply have a well balanced game, with many options for play style and tactics.

A well balanced game allows a competitive player to change up his play style, while still being competitive, which ultimately makes the competitive experience more engaging. A competitive player can play in a game with poor balance, simply by using the most powerful tools, but that gaming experience will eventually get stale and boring, since there will be a limited number of ways to play it while still performing at the top levels of efficiency required for competition.

The only people who prefer imbalance in a game are players who are limited in their competency, and can only effectively engage in a limited play style. For instance, you may have players who oppose strengthening of brawling, because they are not competent at it.. or oppose strengthening of ranged combat, because they are not competent at it, etc.

Additionally, you will have players who simply lack the foresight to grasp the inevitable results of imbalance, especially when faced with a situation as you see with the clans currently, where only a portion of the overall player base can even use those mechs. For some players, generally poor ones, they may enjoy the advantage that they gain from using a particularly strong tool in a game, without grasping the fact that eventually everyone will gravitate to that tool, and they will no longer have an advantage. Indeed, all that will happen is that they will have lost the option to play in other ways, using other tools in the game. They will have effectively had some portion of the overall game REMOVED from them, by virtue of obsolescence.

In the case of imbalanced options being put behind a paywall, this overall power-creep is delayed, as any advantage held will continue to be in place while non-paying players are prevented from gravitating to the new tools. But again, failure to recognize the inevitable end-state is merely a case of a lack of foresight on their part.

[Mystere]

Roland, on 16 July 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

The only people who prefer imbalance in a game are players who are limited in their competency, and can only effectively engage in a limited play style. For instance, you may have players who oppose strengthening of brawling, because they are not competent at it.. or oppose strengthening of ranged combat, because they are not competent at it, etc.

I'm all for strengthening the lacking aspects of the game (e.g. brawling). But, with regards to nerfs, not so much. Unfortunately, most calls for "balance" in these very noisy forums are nerfs, especially given the preponderance of what I dub as "one-dimensional thinkers" that plague the player base. And doubly unfortunate, we also have seen how PGI "fixes" things by nerfs.

So, any topics or posts of the form "XXX is OP!", without a detailed end-to-end analysis worthy of a scientific journal, I view with extreme suspicion.

Edited by Mystere, 16 July 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[Jman5]

Quote

Clans do more DPS as a whole, but it is DOT damage, and less per weapon typically, and they require more time on target to do that DPS. Which is a fair trade off.

You cannot keep making this argument when there are clearly counter examples that the clans use. Clan ER PPC are not DOT weapons. They are like regular ER PPC, but they are 1 less slot, weigh less, and gets 50% extra damage in the form of splash tacked on.

Clan Gauss is not DOT. It is just like the IS Gauss except it weighs 3 tons less, takes 1 less slot, and comes with a convenient built-in CASE for whatever component you put it in.

If we make Clan PPC and Clan Gauss DOTs than you can make the argument that Clans do DOT damage. But when you have these glaring exceptions, which happen to be the areas where we have problems, you can't just handwave it because most clan weapon is DOT.

Either way, this whole argument is pointless. You wont change your mind because having imbalanced clans fits your philosophy for how you want the game designed.

Just out of curiosity, can you tell us one specific area you think clan tech/mechs should be nerfed?

[Gyrok]

Adiuvo, on 16 July 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

I don't care what the IP mandates, I care about game balance. The IP mandated that clans be the most broken thing ever. Thankfully PGI ignored that part of the IP and made them not the most broken thing ever. They're pretty nicely balanced. They don't just see IS mechs and poop on them like they do in lore. I expect PGI to do the same thing with other tech upgrades as they come.

The only time I'm OK with powercreep is when it's available for everyone, such as double heat sinks. Otherwise I don't want to see older mechs invalidated simply due to the fact that they're older.

Also...


Dude. What kind of argument is that. I feel like I'm arguing with some climate skeptic or really really self-conscious creationist.

Erm...what universe do you live in? Awesome? Hunchback? Trebuchet? Locust? Thunderbolt? Kintaro?

Those were all invalidated for comp play long ago...you BARELY see any Centurions any more, and even then it is primarily due to drop deck restrictions and trying to squeeze every ton you can out of something like a 550 drop deck. When you do see them it is basically the YLW or bust, too.

Things are going to get invalidated. As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, something will always be stronger than something else in certain arenas. Now, if LRMs were meta, the AWS would be a top tier IS mech, so would the Treb, Kintaro, and several of those others. By the same token, those mediums would be much more highly thought of if SRMs were a big part of the meta as well.

Those issues invalidate those mechs. By the same token, the Griffin is only good as a skirmisher with SRM loadout, even then, there are more preferable mediums in spite of the good geometry and other perks the GRF has going for it.

There are good mechs out there that are STILL invalidated by PP FLD. So, sitting back and saying..."why not nerf this chassis because the old meta was a problem and still is...?" Makes ZERO sense.

I feel like I am trying to have a discussion with a stubborn zealot. You fail to see the validity of the counter points to any of your arguments and continue to ignore the glaring flaws in your solutions.

[Mystere]

Jman5, on 16 July 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

You wont change your mind because having imbalanced clans fits your philosophy for how you want the game designed.

Well, there are people in this game (I'm looking at you, Inner Sphere diehards! ) who do want the Clans to be the ball-breaking foes that they were in lore. It's admittedly not good in terms of eSports (but then again this can be handled by imposing an appropriate set of tournament rules). But, it does fit with the source material.

And by the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention the obligatory:

**** eSports!

<maniacal >

Edited by Mystere, 16 July 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[Gyrok]

Jman5, on 16 July 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

You cannot keep making this argument when there are clearly counter examples that the clans use. Clan ER PPC are not DOT weapons. They are like regular ER PPC, but they are 1 less slot, weigh less, and gets 50% extra damage in the form of splash tacked on.

Clan Gauss is not DOT. It is just like the IS Gauss except it weighs 3 tons less, takes 1 less slot, and comes with a convenient built-in CASE for whatever component you put it in.

If we make Clan PPC and Clan Gauss DOTs than you can make the argument that Clans do DOT damage. But when you have these glaring exceptions, which happen to be the areas where we have problems, you can't just handwave it because most clan weapon is DOT.

Either way, this whole argument is pointless. You wont change your mind because having imbalanced clans fits your philosophy for how you want the game designed.

Just out of curiosity, can you tell us one specific area you think clan tech/mechs should be nerfed?

You cannot keep coming in and cherry picking parts of my post while ignoring the portions of other posts that speak about the issue that underlies the entire game.

On numerous occasions I have stated that PP FLD IS OP ON BOTH SIDES.

Pointing at one clan chassis and saying it is the boogeyman because of a broken game mechanic does not solve the issue.

Read more QQ less.

EDIT: As for CERPPC, it suffers from the issue of requiring 1.83 DHS per ton to be sustainably fired, while the IS PPC requires only 1.14 per ton. Meaning that the IS variant is superior in every way except range, even then, that is a minor trade off considering the enormous difference in DPS versus tonnage/crit cost.

Edited by Gyrok, 16 July 2014 - 09:34 AM.