522 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

OMG... ok let me point out the IS advantages.

-IS standard engines allow a mech to loose both side torso's and still function.
-IS weaponry does it's full damage faster.
-IS can change engine sizes
-IS can change Armor type
-IS can change internal structure type.
-IS does not have hard mounted equipment.


Clan Advantages
-Can swap bodyparts at will to change it's loadout.
-weaponry is smaller in critical size generally.
-weaponry is lighter.
-Weaponry has longer range.
-DHS are 2 crits.
-Clan XL's can survive a single side torso loss.

IS disadvantages.
-Shorter overall ranges on all laser/ballistic weaponry.
-larger critical sizes on most things.
-dies to single side torso shot with an XL engine.

Clan Disadvantages
-Hardmounted crit points that cannot be removed[sometimes including entire weapons]
-inability to change armor type
-inability to change structure type
-inability to change engine at all.
-ER Large Laser duration 2 seconds.
-All damage delt by clan mechs is spread with the exclusion of Clan Gauss.

Clans have a greater list of disadvantages over IS... HOWEVER, Clans are able to make up for this by mounting larger amounts of weaponry than the typical IS mech. [the Timberwolf alone can mount enough weaponry that an AS7-D has a hard time keeping up.]

Two pilots of equal skill, piloting same tonage machines, one IS and one Clan, the Clan mech is probably going to win... if only because it can begin engaging at range genrally sooner. [this is if the IS machine doesn't mount LRM's/Gauss.]

But there's more to take into account than just the pure numbers. and at the end of the day, the telemtry that was brought down was that clans win too easily. And while I don't entirely agree, I DO find myself winning a bit more often in my clan machines than when I take my IS ones, but that doesn't mean I don't end up having just as much fun in my IS machines... it just means I have to play IS differently.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Gyrok, on 20 August 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

COVER and or TERRAIN while you are running 30+ kph faster...



People complain the TW is too fast and it is only 15-20 KPH faster than your average CTF....

I can see his point...you are clearly not seeing the forest for the trees...

Your right on the money. My Battlemaster runs at 74 kph. That is only 15 kph (about the speed of person at a fast run 6 mph roughly) slower than a Timber Wolf so they aren't exactlly running off and leaving me in the dust.

Also 90% of the time, if I am running an IS (or a even a mid-short range Clan mech), I can use cover and terrain to pretty much totally negate the Clan range advantage, honestly is is not that hard even in a slower mech.

Then if your talking IS lights.....thats easy, my IS lights are running at 150 kph. That is 43 kph faster than the fastest Clan light mech. He might get off one shot before I get in range of my faster firing weapons, if I am stupid enough to rush across an open field. Then, however, he will be in range of my faster firing weapons, plus at those speeds I can out circle him with the ultimate outcoming being the same as it would be for an Assault mech.

So yeah apply some tactics and your fine.

[Darzok]

I do like how people are trying to fool not only them self but other people the clans are not OP but stupidly OP.

I know people will rage and disagree that is fine you can tell you`re self its all balanced as much as you like but its not.

Once all clan mechs are out for Cbills its going to become Clan mech warrior online END OF no one will use any IS mech apart form Spiders since there still stupidly broken Hit reg wise.

The Clans are most likely the killing blow to MWO it can still be saved but odds are nothing will be done and the Clans will be the end of the game killing it slow.

[AlmightyAeng]

Flash Frame, on 21 August 2014 - 02:05 AM, said:

OMG... ok let me point out the IS advantages.

-IS standard engines allow a mech to loose both side torso's and still function.
-IS weaponry does it's full damage faster.
-IS can change engine sizes
-IS can change Armor type
-IS can change internal structure type.
-IS does not have hard mounted equipment.


Clan Advantages
-Can swap bodyparts at will to change it's loadout.
-weaponry is smaller in critical size generally.
-weaponry is lighter.
-Weaponry has longer range.
-DHS are 2 crits.
-Clan XL's can survive a single side torso loss.

IS disadvantages.
-Shorter overall ranges on all laser/ballistic weaponry.
-larger critical sizes on most things.
-dies to single side torso shot with an XL engine.

Clan Disadvantages
-Hardmounted crit points that cannot be removed[sometimes including entire weapons]
-inability to change armor type
-inability to change structure type
-inability to change engine at all.
-ER Large Laser duration 2 seconds.
-All damage delt by clan mechs is spread with the exclusion of Clan Gauss.

Clans have a greater list of disadvantages over IS... HOWEVER, Clans are able to make up for this by mounting larger amounts of weaponry than the typical IS mech. [the Timberwolf alone can mount enough weaponry that an AS7-D has a hard time keeping up.]

Two pilots of equal skill, piloting same tonage machines, one IS and one Clan, the Clan mech is probably going to win... if only because it can begin engaging at range genrally sooner. [this is if the IS machine doesn't mount LRM's/Gauss.]

But there's more to take into account than just the pure numbers. and at the end of the day, the telemtry that was brought down was that clans win too easily. And while I don't entirely agree, I DO find myself winning a bit more often in my clan machines than when I take my IS ones, but that doesn't mean I don't end up having just as much fun in my IS machines... it just means I have to play IS differently.

Wow...how do you leave out "Clans do more damage compared to IS counterparts" from Clan advantages? That's kinda important, too, lol.

[Mystere]

Darzok, on 21 August 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

Once all clan mechs are out for Cbills its going to become Clan mech warrior online END OF no one will use any IS mech apart form Spiders since there still stupidly broken Hit reg wise.

Speak for yourself please.

Both "Mystery Babe" (Pretty Baby) and "Charlie" (Ember) disagree with you.

Edited by Mystere, 21 August 2014 - 06:42 AM.

[Jman5]

• Fact: In the Clan vs IS test, Clans won 90% of matches Despite Elo predicting a 60/40 win/loss.

• Fact: In the 10vs12 Clan vs IS event, Clans still won most of the matches despite being down 2.

• Fact: In the Clan vs IS Leaderboard challenge, The average score of the top 15 Clan Mediums, Clan Heavies, and Clan Assaults out performed their IS counterparts. The only one the IS beat out the Clans was in lights and it was a smaller margin of difference than any of the 4 chassis type.
  
• Personal Anecdote: The only clan mech I own, the Kitfox, has about 100 matches played total giving me a 4.5 Win/Loss ratio. That's higher than any other IS mech I own. In fact it's 3 times higher than my best performing IS mech.

You people can keep quibbling and trying to muddy the issue, but what I have written here are facts and not debatable.

Edited by Jman5, 21 August 2014 - 06:41 AM.

[Mystere]

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

• Fact: In the Clan vs IS test, Clans won 90% of matches Despite Elo predicting a 60/40 win/loss.

Fact: The "test" involved a lot of uncontrolled variables.
Comment: You do not use crop duster pilots to compare a French Rafale to a Russian SU-27.

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

• Fact: In the 10vs12 Clan vs IS event, Clans still won most of the matches despite being down 2.

Fact: It was not a scientific test either.
Comment: It was not even a test.

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

• Fact: In the Clan vs IS Leaderboard challenge, The average score of the top 15 Clan Mediums, Clan Heavies, and Clan Assaults out performed their IS counterparts. The only one the IS beat out the Clans was in lights and it was a smaller margin of difference than any of the 4 chassis type.

Fact: The top scorers were within 15% or less of the opposing faction.
Comment: The challenge promoted individualistic behavior, much of which was detrimental to the team effort.

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

• Personal Anecdote: The only clan mech I own, the Kitfox, has about 100 matches played total giving me a 4.5 Win/Loss ratio. That's higher than any other IS mech I own. In fact it's 3 times higher than my best performing IS mech.

Personal Anecdote: My best mech is still an Awesome 9M, followed by the Ember. The Warhawk A comes in at #3.
Comment: I hate assaults and much prefer lights.

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

You people can keep quibbling and trying to muddy the issue, but what I have written here are facts and not debatable.

Fact: So-called "facts", absent the proper context, are next to worthless.
Comment: I will just leave this here:

Quote

Real science is hard. That is why politicians and other folk just settle for pseudoscience.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Hades Trooper, on 21 August 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

IS won't save Terra from being taken over, PGI will save you.

Well, ComStar are the ones who originally halted the invasion. Guess who PGI is in all of this?

[Legion]

Rouken, on 21 August 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

Well, ComStar are the ones who originally halted the invasion. Guess who PGI is in all of this?

Yes they will save terra by nerfing clan weapons down to party poppers and laser pointers with some bottle rockets thrown in for good effect: P

[Mcgral18]

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

• Fact: In the 10vs12 Clan vs IS event, Clans still won most of the matches despite being down 2.

They release the data from this yet?

Mine were 50/50.

[Jman5]

Mystere, I'm done trying to convince you. Your burden of proof is so high we would have to restart the Apollo program just to reach it.

Mcgral18, on 21 August 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

They release the data from this yet?

Mine were 50/50.

These were the recorded matches. You would have to ask Sean, for the rest.

Edited by Jman5, 21 August 2014 - 08:20 AM.

[Legion]

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

Mystere, I'm done trying to convince you. Your burden of proof is so high we would have to restart the Apollo program just to reach it.



These were the recorded matches. You would have to ask Sean, for the rest.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. You are using a stat that supports your side but when someone questions it you answer is find the proof yourself? If your going to use a stat you need to be able to back it up otherwise it pointless and wastes everyone's time.

Edited by Legion, 21 August 2014 - 08:24 AM.

[Mystere]

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

Mystere, I'm done trying to convince you. Your burden of proof is so high we would have to restart the Apollo program just to reach it.

What I am asking for isn't even close to being "rocket science".

In any case, has anyone actually released an analysis that is "scientific" enough? Even that seems to be absent in spite of all claims being made -- on either side.

Edited by Mystere, 21 August 2014 - 08:26 AM.

[Roland]

Mystere could totally take it on herself to produce the argument she suggests could be made, and the data could simply support her position.

But she won't do this, because she realizes that the requirement she has laid out is clearly unachievable. Indeed, this was the intended goal of producing those test requirements. To try and create an insurmountable obstacle to demonstrating the inherent strength of the clans.

And then she just falls back onto the totally baseless suggestion that "the burden of proof is on the people saying certain clan tech is overpowered!"

No, the burden of proof lays just as much upon those who suggest it's balanced. Indeed, at this point, given that ALL evidence suggests that clan tech is significantly stronger than IS tech, the burden of proof is no on you, Mystere. So go perform the analysis you describe, since you have absolutely no evidence to support your position currently.

Go run your analysis. We eagerly await your results.

[Jman5]

Mystere, on 21 August 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

What I am asking for isn't even close to being "rocket science".

In any case, has anyone actually released an analysis that is "scientific" enough? Even that seems to be absent in spite of all claims being made -- on either side.

You always comes into these threads saying the proofs and analyses aren't up to your level of scrutiny. If you want to do a detailed analysis that meets whatever level you think will convince you then go ahead. Prove or disprove it and I'll give it a read. But I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who just stands there with arms crossed saying: Nope not convince, nope not convinced in every thread.

No offense, but I don't need to convince you to get this game balanced better.

[Mystere]

Roland, on 21 August 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

Mystere could totally take it on herself to produce the argument she suggests could be made, and the data could simply support her position.

But she won't do this, because she realizes that the requirement she has laid out is clearly unachievable. Indeed, this was the intended goal of producing those test requirements. To try and create an insurmountable obstacle to demonstrating the inherent strength of the clans.

And then she just falls back onto the totally baseless suggestion that "the burden of proof is on the people saying certain clan tech is overpowered!"

No, the burden of proof lays just as much upon those who suggest it's balanced. Indeed, at this point, given that ALL evidence suggests that clan tech is significantly stronger than IS tech, the burden of proof is no on you, Mystere. So go perform the analysis you describe, since you have absolutely no evidence to support your position currently.

Go run your analysis. We eagerly await your results.

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

You always comes into these threads saying the proofs and analyses aren't up to your level of scrutiny. If you want to do a detailed analysis that meets whatever level you think will convince you then go ahead. Prove or disprove it and I'll give it a read. But I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who just stands there with arms crossed saying: Nope not convince, nope not convinced in every thread.

No offense, but I don't need to convince you to get this game balanced better.

Both of you should read again (and highlighted for emphasis):

Mystere, on 21 August 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

What I am asking for isn't even close to being "rocket science".

In any case, has anyone actually released an analysis that is "scientific" enough? Even that seems to be absent in spite of all claims being made -- on either side.

And yes, the burden of proof is indeed on those making the claims. It is how things should be done, apparently with the exception of politicians ( ).

Also, let me ask you this. Is there any analysis out there that you think is scientific enough? Please show me one and I'll tell you what I think.

Edited by Mystere, 21 August 2014 - 08:53 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Mystere, on 21 August 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

What I am asking for isn't even close to being "rocket science".

In any case, has anyone actually released an analysis that is "scientific" enough? Even that seems to be absent in spite of all claims being made -- on either side.

You have a poor understanding of science. I work in a biomaterials laboratory at my university, and I use the same statistical tools that social science uses. Why is this? Because I do a lot of surface chemistry, and there are (similar to human behavior) many factors at play that you simply can't see, or that controlling for takes too much time/money/unavailable equipment.

This is similar to the situation we have in MWO. We have a lot of players, using a lot of weapons, piloting a lot of mechs, with wildly different amounts of experience in the game.

So what do you do? You change *one* factor, and see the results. You then run the statistical analysis to see if the results you got were because of changing that one factor.

In this game, they did exactly that. They changed the one factor (clans and IS on same team) and looked at the results. They were pretty conclusive in showing that the Clans have a distinct advantage due to the equipment.

At this point, you're just arguing against math, and math is never wrong.

[Mystere]

Lefty Lucy, on 21 August 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

You have a poor understanding of science ...

I use the same statistical tools that social science uses ...

This is similar to the situation we have in MWO. We have a lot of players, using a lot of weapons, piloting a lot of mechs, with wildly different amounts of experience in the game ...

I will just quote myself, and hope you get the point:

Mystere, on 21 August 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

You do not use crop duster pilots to compare a French Rafale to a Russian SU-27.

Also, why would you want to use social science tools for a technical analysis such as this?

This is not a taste test, or an election poll, or ...

Edited by Mystere, 21 August 2014 - 09:04 AM.

[Roland]

Mystere, on 21 August 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Also, why would you want to use social science tools for a technical analysis such as this?

Statistical analysis is not something which is only done in the social sciences.

As I said though, if you believe you have a better methodology, then DO THE TESTS YOURSELF.

Stop demanding that higher quality tests be done by other folks, without investing any time yourself.

[Jman5]

Mystere, on 21 August 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

And yes, the burden of proof is indeed on those making the claims. It is how things should be done, apparently with the exception of politicians ( ).

Also, let me ask you this. Is there any analysis out there that you think is scientific enough? Please show me one and I'll tell you what I think.

Most reasonable people would look at those three events I listed that all went in Clan's favor and go: "Whoa there's something wrong going on here at least in the heavier chassis. There is likely some imbalance that we need to find and address in some way."

However it's been made clear to me in many of these discussions we have had on the subject that you are not a reasonable person. Therefore I am not going to try to convince you to see reason. Feel free to keep nitpicking and handwaving every single Clan vs IS test that comes out.