364 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Jman5, on 14 July 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

In the past PGI has said they wanted to bring Pinpoint front loaded alphas down to no more than 30-35 damage.

The problem is...30-35 damage is still too much when it can be applied at long ranges and especially when put together with jump sniping.

Then when you start having 9 of your 12 team mates doing the exact same thing to the exact same hitboxes...it just escalates quickly.

Why is why I think limiting alpha's to two weapons that do 10 or more PP damage is the answer.

Your highest damage combination would be dual AC/20's, which we all know has a fair amount of draw backs.

Your highest range/damage combination would be dual Gauss, which also has good draw backs.

It would leave a Dual PPC/AC/5 Combo in tact, but we're now at 25 damage as the max alpha. Which I think is really a solid point to be at.

And we have precedence with the recent Gauss charging changes.

The more I think about it the more I like that.

[Nightmare1]

Gyrok, on 14 July 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

Do not recall coming up on Jin-Roh, though that does not mean it was not some of our unit. They have been running lots of 6-12 man drops getting junior officers experience leading drops. We are always up for scrims though, you can contact us anytime...link to the homepage is in my sig, and a link to our TS is on the homepage.

We'll have to do that sometime! Jin-Roh has predominately confined itself to the Merc Halls, but we'd like to reach out to other Units too. Personally, I think that rubbing shoulders that way helps strengthen the Unit internally and it makes for good neighbors.

[Koniks]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 July 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

The problem is...

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.

[Sandpit]

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

there's no penalty for staying at 90-100% heat once you get up there.

ding ding ding

that right there would alleviate a lot of the "balance" issues.
Things like
70% heat = less convergence
80% heat = slowed movement
90% heat = blurred vision and sketch hud that flickers due to heat affecting electronics

That simulates heat penalties from TT, which makes TT players happy
It reduces the effectiveness of just blasting away non-stop, which reduces poptart effectiveness
It reduces the effectiveness of pinpoint damage at high rates, which makes another section of the population happy
It increases the need for heat management overall

Of course, this was suggested by myself and many others for years now. It was apparently "better" to go with what we have now though according to PGI.

This is just another example of the community trying to help PGI make parts of the game more enjoyable for more people and getting completely ignored because pgi "knows best" in all things MWO.

[Jman5]

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

The direction seems to be things like the Mauler and other mechs coming...

I think many fail to understand...BT itself is power creep. This will happen, PGI can do it slowly, or in waves, or however they want...

That does not change things like the HAG40 being completely better than any other ballistic weapon for the tonnage, period.

Wait until you see streak MRMs or LRMs, or ATMs, or heavy lasers, Heavy Gauss, and all kinds of other crazy things that are yet to come (if the game survives long enough to implement them).

What is going to happen is each "jump" the tech will even out before the next one. Things like MASC and superchargers and other things will allow things like the Fire Moth to go 216 kph for short bursts, making them likely 2-3 times more effective at hit and run than any mech in the game.

You simply cannot change that...

I will say straight to your face, the current mechs are not OP.

When the Gladiator arrives at 95 tons with JJs and MASC going 86 kph for bursts packing UAC20 + beam weapons...you will all begin to know what OP really is...

That is not even getting into the really advanced tech either...Fafnir anyone? Devastator?

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

The thing is PGI has the freedom to make any mech, any weapon, any technology as overpowered or underpowered as they desire. You don't have to do something just because Page 5, Paragraph 6 subsection 32 of the battletech rulebooks states the locusts shoot fire out of their nostrils.

You say they can't change power creep, but I disagree. They can do whatever they want. To be perfectly honest I would argue that the people who care about tabletop rules are a very small subset of the game's population. (yet over-represented on this forums...)

The only area that I can live with power creep are in areas that are more or less open to everyone. So for example Double heatsinks are without a doubt an example of power creep. However because everyone can equip dhs, it essentially just became a money sink. Even the trial mechs now all come with DHS.

Despite the grumbling, I am optimistic that balance will improve eventually. I suspect PGI more or less applied their BT : MWO conversion formula for most of the clan weapons and just released it raw. That is why some of the laser balance was initially so off. They didn't take into account the nerfs PGI made to regular IS lasers and buffs to IS pulse lasers. IMO over the coming months we will likely see a lot more stuff pulled back slightly as they are aligned with how PGI has balanced IS tech in the past.

I think there are some good examples of where PGI balanced clans right. I think there are areas that are in the "needs improvement" section.

Edited by Jman5, 14 July 2014 - 01:42 PM.

[Lightfoot]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 July 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

The problem is...30-35 damage is still too much when it can be applied at long ranges and especially when put together with jump sniping.

Then when you start having 9 of your 12 team mates doing the exact same thing to the exact same hitboxes...it just escalates quickly.

Why is why I think limiting alpha's to two weapons that do 10 or more PP damage is the answer.

Your highest damage combination would be dual AC/20's, which we all know has a fair amount of draw backs.

Your highest range/damage combination would be dual Gauss, which also has good draw backs.

It would leave a Dual PPC/AC/5 Combo in tact, but we're now at 25 damage as the max alpha. Which I think is really a solid point to be at.

And we have precedence with the recent Gauss charging changes.

The more I think about it the more I like that.

I accept your challenge. You nerf it and I'll beat it with something better. Something you haven't thought of. If you get my meaning. Nerfing as a way of balancing can only do so much. There will always be one weapon that becomes the new best OP weapon.

Sometimes it's easily predictable like FLD pinpoint damage getting worse when players stopped using the Gauss Rifle. It did you know? 2xAC5's do about double the DPS of the Gauss Rifle for about the same tonnage and same range. It was just that the Gauss was adaptable to any Mech with a gun-slot and was a more elegant weapon. But the Gauss Rifle's DPS/payload ton is very low so basically PGI just turned up the damage Mechs were doing by nerfing it. I mentioned it before the Gauss de-sync went Live. Still don't know why PGI took the normal Gauss Rifle out of MWO, but I do know it had the opposite result that they were seeking because the Gauss Rifle substitutes do double or more the damage for the same payload requirements. Ahh, but it was what the players were begging for! FLD hell unleashed.

[Roland]

We really shouldn't accept power creep just because it existed in BT.

In BT, it existed to sell source materials... not because it actually made the game better or anything.

It also took place over years... not mere months.

A dynamic gaming environment should be the product of well balanced weapons and chassis, which enable a wide variety of playstyles which are all equally competitive... Such an environment then produces a dynamic and fluid metagame which will constantly evolve as various tactics and strategies develop to counter those that are currently dominant.

One of the major problems with MWO thus far has been that a very small set of effective builds tend to become dominant, which results in a very static metagame.

[Praehotec8]

Adiuvo, on 14 July 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

I already explained how the clans have more effective tonnage free despite their engine rating than IS mechs, due to changes in equipment weight and 7crit endo/ferro. What numbers do you want exactly? Do you want me to somehow numerically quantify how going 89kph is an advantage over going slower? Do you want me to somehow numerically quantify that a 2xPPC/1xGauss build that puts all its damage on a single component from 800m is better than some LBX10/AC20 piece of garbage? Do you want me to numerically quantify what makes a hitbox good and why it's possible to shield one side entirely with it?

I don't know about Gyrok, but prior to any consideration to nerf the timber wolf or any of the clan mechs, I want to see a sizable amount of data comparing outcomes between IS and clan mechs of similar composition. In other words, I don't care about what the uber-competitive elite feels from their matches, nor the casual player, nor do I want to see three screenshots showing one team beating another.

What I would want is real statistical analysis of pure IS:Clan matchups of enough matches to achieve an appropriately powered study. Any side that feels strongly enough ought to get some 24-man groups and start running trials. Otherwise we have to hope that PGI is monitoring data appropriately.

As I have said before, I have not seen any significant change in my K:D or W:L ratio with any of the clan mechs. As a mediocre player (yet one who has definitely contributed to the funding of this game!) I don't see the overpowered part of the clans. However, if I am presented with data showing that 354 out of 400 times a timberwolf beats a similarly equipped orion, then I would be more willing to accept that.

Anything less than statistical evidence is pointless, even coming from the "best" players.

[Lightfoot]

Roland, on 14 July 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

We really shouldn't accept power creep just because it existed in BT.

In BT, it existed to sell source materials... not because it actually made the game better or anything.

It also took place over years... not mere months.

A dynamic gaming environment should be the product of well balanced weapons and chassis, which enable a wide variety of playstyles which are all equally competitive... Such an environment then produces a dynamic and fluid metagame which will constantly evolve as various tactics and strategies develop to counter those that are currently dominant.

One of the major problems with MWO thus far has been that a very small set of effective builds tend to become dominant, which results in a very static metagame.

The reason that the number of effective builds is so low is all the apocryphal nerfs PGI has added. Sure they had a balancing affect, but at the cost of a dynamic game where all the mechs are viable.

[Sun Cobra]

If Gyrok had any credibility among high level players, it's all gone now. What kind of data can be put forth that would prove the points Adi discussed previously? I don't need statistical proof, but I guess some of you won't budge without it. If somebody doesn't consider those points to be anything valid, it is their problem. They lack the knowledge that would allow them to see just how significant they are.

Edited by Sun Cobra, 14 July 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[Jman5]

Praehotec8, on 14 July 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

I don't know about Gyrok, but prior to any consideration to nerf the timber wolf or any of the clan mechs, I want to see a sizable amount of data comparing outcomes between IS and clan mechs of similar composition. In other words, I don't care about what the uber-competitive elite feels from their matches, nor the casual player, nor do I want to see three screenshots showing one team beating another.

What I would want is real statistical analysis of pure IS:Clan matchups of enough matches to achieve an appropriately powered study. Any side that feels strongly enough ought to get some 24-man groups and start running trials. Otherwise we have to hope that PGI is monitoring data appropriately.

As I have said before, I have not seen any significant change in my K:D or W:L ratio with any of the clan mechs. As a mediocre player (yet one who has definitely contributed to the funding of this game!) I don't see the overpowered part of the clans. However, if I am presented with data showing that 354 out of 400 times a timberwolf beats a similarly equipped orion, then I would be more willing to accept that.

Anything less than statistical evidence is pointless, even coming from the "best" players.

http://mwomercs.com/...00-more-charts/

This was done the week clan mechs were released so this is how they played straight out the gate when a lot of people were trying things out for the first time and still not basic'd.

[Gas Guzzler]

I don't think any of the Clan mechs are OP.....

... except the TW is a bit. It is without a doubt, the best heavy, at doing just about anything. I guess if I wanted to lurm I would probably take a Catapult but I don't want to lurm. When cER PPC hit reg is fixed and you don't have those phantom 50% heat shots that do 0 damage, it will be extremely powerful. The brawl build Adiuvo posted is very strong, as are several other builds. I think the DS is definitely a match for it, and is what the IS has to offer against it when it comes to a jump sniping deal. It has better hit boxes in my opinion and can field IS ACs, but the IS XL is much more of a liability. I don't have a problem with it because it is not unbeatable, but I'm sure PGI will make some adjustments to it.

[Sandpit]

Jman5, on 14 July 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...00-more-charts/

This was done the week clan mechs were released so this is how they played straight out the gate when a lot of people were trying things out for the first time and still not basic'd.

problem with that is that it skews data both ways. It's easy to advertise it as "Clans will only get better" which discounts that IS pilots were and are still feeling out clan mechs and how to counter them.

In order to get a good sample you'll need to give it a couple of months and see how those IS pilots do once they figure out how to counter the new clan builds. There's a learning curve on both sides of that equation

[Gyrok]

Sun Cobra, on 14 July 2014 - 02:18 PM, said:

If Gyrok had any credibility among high level players, it's all gone now. What kind of data can be put forth that would prove the points Adi discussed previously? I don't need statistical proof, but I guess some of you won't budge without it. If somebody doesn't consider those points to be anything valid, it is their problem. They lack the knowledge that would allow them to see just how significant they are.

Swag Cobra....I personally care not what you think or feel. As an engineer/game designer/number cruncher by trade and by habit, I am drawn to a more scientific need to quantify things in relative terms and compare them on even fields to determine something above and beyond "because it feels like it".

Sorry that goes beyond the grasp of what you find to be reasonable, though it seems that there are many people here that feel FAR more analysis is needed beyond "HoL said so..." Whether it is Adiuvo or you or heim, or whomever has no impact in my mind. If you cannot produce facts, then it is ONLY speculation at best, and misguided conjecture at worst.

[Adiuvo]

Gyrok, on 14 July 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

Swag Cobra....I personally care not what you think or feel. As an engineer/game designer/number cruncher by trade and by habit, I am drawn to a more scientific need to quantify things in relative terms and compare them on even fields to determine something above and beyond "because it feels like it".

Sorry that goes beyond the grasp of what you find to be reasonable, though it seems that there are many people here that feel FAR more analysis is needed beyond "HoL said so..." Whether it is Adiuvo or you or heim, or whomever has no impact in my mind. If you cannot produce facts, then it is ONLY speculation at best, and misguided conjecture at worst.

As an engineer you should know that there are varying forms of evidence and not everything is quantifiable.

I have provided a large amount of reasoning as to my viewpoints that you have failed to address. As such I can only surmise that you agree with it. Glad we got that sorted.

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

[BigFatGator]

I think there can be absolutely no doubt that the Clanners are OP. None whatsoever. However the secret to their success lies not in their mystical XL's that survive side torso destruction, Heavies with medium speed and assault firepower, nor a quirk of their hitboxes. The clue lies here:

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

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.

Clanners reproduce by the means of an ungodly and un-natural artificial breeding program. Unlike us in the Inner Sphere, the clanners do not have to devote hours upon hours of courtship, gifting, impressing, and long slow kisses followed by wondrous and passionate... well use your imagination- not saying more, younglings read this forum I'm sure so I keep this PG.

Because of this unpleasant and revolting perversion the Clanners have all this extra time to spend on skills and mastering their... uh... domain. This makes them not only better experienced (in a mech) than their IS counterparts but also angrier. Desperate to release their energies on the battlefield. This makes Clanners unbalanced... as much so as their mechs. Even some elite IS pilots seem to follow this trend toward extreme time in the cockpit (seems odd to use this word now) without leaving time for furthering their kind through courtship and long slow walks on hot summer planets....

So as a public service message, if you are frustrated with game balance please stop spending so much time on the game or posting on this forum and spend some time finding a worthy mate. This helps. Trust me.
Keep the IS weird, the Clans down, and the arachnids out.

TheBFGator... freebirth and proud.

[Joseph Mallan]

BigFatGator, on 14 July 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

I think there can be absolutely no doubt that the Clanners are OP. None whatsoever. However the secret to their success lies not in their mystical XL's that survive side torso destruction, Heavies with medium speed and assault firepower, nor a quirk of their hitboxes. The clue lies here:



Clanners reproduce by the means of an ungodly and un-natural artificial breeding program. Unlike us in the Inner Sphere, the clanners do not have to devote hours upon hours of courtship, gifting, impressing, and long slow kisses followed by wondrous and passionate... well use your imagination- not saying more, younglings read this forum I'm sure so I keep this PG.

Because of this unpleasant and revolting perversion the Clanners have all this extra time to spend on skills and mastering their... uh... domain. This makes them not only better experienced (in a mech) than their IS counterparts but also angrier. Desperate to release their energies on the battlefield. This makes Clanners unbalanced... as much so as their mechs. Even some elite IS pilots seem to follow this trend toward extreme time in the cockpit (seems odd to use this word now) without leaving time for furthering their kind through courtship and long slow walks on hot summer planets....

So as a public service message, if you are frustrated with game balance please stop spending so much time on the game or posting on this forum and spend some time finding a worthy mate. This helps. Trust me.
Keep the IS weird, the Clans down, and the arachnids out.

TheBFGator... freebirth and proud.

So if I get your meaning here. All we need to do to beat MW:O Clanners is... Introduce them to real girls???

[Gyrok]

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

As an engineer you should know that there are varying forms of evidence and not everything is quantifiable.

I have provided a large amount of reasoning as to my viewpoints that you have failed to address. As such I can only surmise that you agree with it. Glad we got that sorted.

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

While I can appreciate the time taken to write that down, it is mostly observation with a consistently perceptible bias...

That is why I seek facts, and as an engineer, I know to avoid bias, you must ultimately end up with numbers, because commentary always shows a perspective. Now, some may be more or less biased than others, however, there is always a bias. To one engineer a problem is unsolvable, to another engineer it is a simple matter of breaking the problem down differently and addressing it in a different manner. This separates good engineers from average engineers, and also separates people who overcome from people who fall into ruts.

Facts speak far louder than a long document. I have provided numerical analysis and facts. I still see conjecture and speculation. No formulae, no statistics, no study put into it...just observations.

If there are numbers behind these observations, they have gone undocumented and essentially act to the detriment of the work put into the document itself. Without supporting facts, your case is easily dismissed, were you an engineer yourself, you would also know this. If you went to microsoft as a hardware engineer, and told MS that you thought the Xbox One would benefit from a different type of bus system, and a redesign should be done because you felt it would work better for the platform. The first question would be..."what facts or evidence do you base your conclusions upon?" When you said, well, this is what I observed, but I have no numbers, data, or supporting facts to support my case...what do you think they would say? "Thanks for your interest...we will look at that sometime when we get around to it..."

Edited by Gyrok, 14 July 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[Roland]

Gyrok, on 14 July 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

Facts speak far louder than a long document. I have provided numerical analysis and facts. I

I didn't see where you provided numerical analysis and facts.
The forums may have ate that post though, as they do that sometimes. Could you post your numerical analysis and facts again?

[Gyrok]

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

Gyrok, on 13 July 2014 - 06:30 PM, said:

You have never presented real numbers, and the burden of proof lies firmly at your feet sir. You claim something is out of round "because you said so" and due to this fact, you claim it should be nerfed.

Clan mechs are already nerfed...HEAVILY. Sure, they put out high DPS, however, they only have a few viable PP FLD builds, everything else is high DOT DPS. Which is a MASSIVE difference...

As for your claims of turning radius, let us have a look from Smurfy's with the in game numbers taken out shall we?

VTR - (XL360) 80 kph 51.59 Deg/s (90 deg Twist)

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)

SMN - (350) 89 kph 57.32 Deg/s (100 Deg Twist)
CTF - (350) 89 kph 57.32 Deg/s (90 Deg Twist)

WHK - (340) 71.2 kph 45.86 Deg/s (90 Deg Twist)
BLR - (340) 71.2 kph 45.86 Deg/s (80 Deg Twist)

DW - (300) 53.5 kph 34.39 Deg/s (60 Deg Twist)
Atlas - (300) 53.5 kph 34.39 Deg/s (80 Deg Twist)

Nova - (250) 89 kph 57.32 Deg/s (100 Deg Twist)
Cent - (250) 89 kph 57.32 Deg/s (100 Deg Twist)

SCR - (330) 106.9 kph 68.79 Deg/s (130 Deg Twist)
WVR - (330) 106.9 kph 68.79 Deg/s (125 Deg Twist)

KFX - (180) 106.9 kph 68.79 Deg/s (120 Deg Twist)
SDR - (255) 151.5 kph 97.45 Deg/s (110 Deg Twist)

ADR - (210) 106.9 kph 68.79 Deg/s (120 Deg Twist)
JR7 - (300) 152.7 kph 98.27 Deg/s (120 Deg Twist)

Notice anything? Anything glaring (besides the lights who are at a disadvantage in Turning and Speed)?

Amazingly, ALL THE IS MECHS AND CLAN MECHS HAVE THE SAME TORSO TWIST (relatively), TURNING AND SPEED WITH THE SAME SIZE ENGINE!?

WHAT? But Clan mechs are OP right?

Oh, wait, IS mechs can choose to carry more firepower over speed...clan mechs do not get that opportunity.

THAT is the balancing factor of the clans, THAT is also why the weapons are balanced considering their weight.

OMNI construction rules are the balancing factor...the TW might be in a pretty close to right place in terms of weight versus speed, however, it is absolutely NOT OP in terms of agility.

Add in the fact that the hitboxes on the TW are not great, nor are they terrible, and people are screaming bloody murder because no one has the balls to run a CTF with XL 340 with similar mobility.

Now, consider one of the most popular comp builds for the CTF...2xGauss + ERPPC, which is a total of 4T ammo + 30T Gauss + 7 Tons ERPPC + 1T JJ.

You cannot even fit 2 Gauss Rifles and ammo on the TW, much less the rest of that. That is literally 42T of weapons and equipment and still reasonably well armored to boot, and still mobile enough.

Also, if you come back with..."but the TW does 89 kph" one more time I call BS. The mech is STUCK with that engine. Whether you love it or hate it, that is what it is...and you will NEVER get the speed changed for the engine. PGI would have to change the entire coding for their engine formula for every mech. Also, consider this, if you change the speed on the TW, then EVERY OTHER MECH IN GAME will also become slower.

As for the hitboxes, they really are pretty average. The CT is just a tad smaller than the catapult, but what does that really say? You can easily core them out...if you twist well the massive ST will also get blown off easily.

The TW seems OP compared to other clan mechs because the DOT nature of the weapons makes it harder to take down. The PP FLD IS mech builds have zero trouble with them. Which is what you guys supposedly thrive in...so how is it that I am explaining something you already know?

Besides, in the 12 man pub queue you cannot take more than 3, private lobbies may allow flexibility, but you would have to sacrifice assaults that can carry A LOT more firepower to run more TWs. Even then Leagues have tonnage and Chassis limitations that prevent you from doing so if you wanted.

Now, I have set forth my argument, let me see your math...or can you not provide any real proof that the TW is OP as you claim? I am betting on the latter, as it seems to be the modus operandi of people such as yourself. Claim something you cannot prove because you want us to "trust you" or because you "think this is so..." even though the rest of us "simply cannot see it".



I can put up stupid damage numbers in LRM boats...but they are not OP...