279 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

So clan weapons have better damage, range, weight, crit space. To balance the clans better weapons and heat sinks, its only fair if IS gets better armor.

IS armor improvement to offset Clan weapons and, IS module so that IS XL doesnt go boom on side torso loss. Done right and maybe the easy mode mechs could have some self respect again.

Edited by Johnny Z, 22 September 2014 - 07:47 AM.

[Hoax415]

I don't know how you ended up waking up on the reasonable side of the bed Walker but it is appreciated I guess.

That said, the solution to any of these problems is not to buff IS weapons.

PGI needs to stop talking about short TTK being a #1 problem while doing **** that makes TTK even shorter.

Buffing IS weapons is the opposite of what we want to do big picture wise which is increase TTK.

Its frustrating that the community is so distracted by the Clan vs IS thing that we can't even talk about how the module changes recently have been just plain awful in light of PGI stating that TTK is something they aren't happy with.

Why did we get cooldown modules with zero drawback? I can't even handle how stupid that is in light of the position PGI claims to have on the matter of TTK.

Edited by Hoax415, 22 September 2014 - 07:47 AM.

[Johnny Z]

If IS got better armor to offset clan OP weapons, then it may even be acceptable to allow the IS side torso loss = boom disparity to stand as a way to offset clan lack of customization. Not sure but that may be balanced. No matter what, clans XL side torso loss has to slow thie mech and heat disappation. Although I personally prefer the IS pilot module allowing for IS XL engine side torso loss and no boom idea. This would take up an important mech module slot so there is a defenite draw back.

Edited by Johnny Z, 22 September 2014 - 08:03 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Johnny Z, on 22 September 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

If IS got better armor to offset clan OP weapons, then it may even be acceptable to allow the IS side torso loss = boom disparity to stand as a way to offset clan lack of customization. Not sure but that may be balanced. No matter what, clans XL side torso loss has to slow thie mech and heat disappation.

Can we lower the heat on cMPLs then? 150% is hot.

2 points too high. WubFox haz sad.

[Johnny Z]

Mcgral18, on 22 September 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

Can we lower the heat on cMPLs then? 150% is hot.

2 points too high. WubFox haz sad.

Hey if its so bad lets trade for a week, and see how it goes.

[Mcgral18]

Johnny Z, on 22 September 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

Hey if its so bad lets trade for a week, and see how it goes.

You mean nearly half burn time isMPLs? I'm already using them on the WubShee, since they are so much better.

Cooler, slightly less damage, less range, but two thirds the damned burn time!


I wish I could throw them on the Clan mechs. They were barely worth it before the nerf, now pretty much worthless. They have the same heat as the ERMLs.

Edited by Mcgral18, 22 September 2014 - 08:14 AM.

[Gallowglas]

IMHO: You're not going to get a truly representative test by using public, random testing without incentives. It would be a much better idea to sponsor an IS versus Clan tournament with prizes for actually doing well within your faction and with segregated teams. That way people have a motive to do their best. Then run it all weekend in both the team and solo queues and see how things pan out. Post a detailed analysis here on the forums afterwards so we can see how different chassis and weapons performed alongside the general faction stats.

Edited by Gallowglas, 22 September 2014 - 08:32 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Johnny Z, on 22 September 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

So clan weapons have better damage, range, weight, crit space. To balance the clans better weapons and heat sinks, its only fair if IS gets better armor.

IS armor improvement to offset Clan weapons and, IS module so that IS XL doesnt go boom on side torso loss. Done right and maybe the easy mode mechs could have some self respect again.

Johnny Z, on 22 September 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

If IS got better armor to offset clan OP weapons, then it may even be acceptable to allow the IS side torso loss = boom disparity to stand as a way to offset clan lack of customization. Not sure but that may be balanced. No matter what, clans XL side torso loss has to slow thie mech and heat disappation. Although I personally prefer the IS pilot module allowing for IS XL engine side torso loss and no boom idea. This would take up an important mech module slot so there is a defenite draw back.

No, the clan engines should stay as they are IS XLs should stay as they are. Add the (canon, lore, and TT) penalties for losing a side torso on a clan mech and we're good. Those penalties being: Increased heat, reduced heat threshold, reduced movement speed, reduced torso, and arm movement speeds, and ranges.

That should put some actual drawbacks to using clan XLs.

Also, buffing IS armor does nothing if I can still bazooka you within 0.5 seconds from 900 meters away with quad gauss.

No first, you need to bring the weapons in line, IS and clan weapons are actually very close right now, still need more tweaking, but very close to being balanced.

Let clan weapons be smaller and lighter, with more damage, but they take longer to deal the damage, they generate a LOT more heat, and take longer to fire again. That's actually balanced.

For the record, balanced doesn't mean identical. Balance means that both choices have valid merits for why you would take one over the other.

If I want to go long range and don't mind the increase in heat, and face time, I'd go with the C-ERML. If I want to get close, and do snap fire hit and run attacks, or brawl I'd go with the IS ML. It's half the heat, for 80% of the damage, and 2/3rds the burn time. THAT is proper balance, not make all the weapons have similar costs, and stats. That's boring.

Hoax415, on 22 September 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

I don't know how you ended up waking up on the reasonable side of the bed Walker but it is appreciated I guess.

That said, the solution to any of these problems is not to buff IS weapons.

PGI needs to stop talking about short TTK being a #1 problem while doing **** that makes TTK even shorter.

Buffing IS weapons is the opposite of what we want to do big picture wise which is increase TTK.

Its frustrating that the community is so distracted by the Clan vs IS thing that we can't even talk about how the module changes recently have been just plain awful in light of PGI stating that TTK is something they aren't happy with.

My girlfriend switched sides with me

Since we're talking about clan tech, and specifically the weapons here, I tried to stick to that subject. However, TTK is a big factor for most complaints and increasing it can be done in many ways.

My personal favorite suggestion was scaling convergence for all weapons, and it would vary from one weapon to the other, and from one hardpoint location to the to the other (Torso hardpoints would converge faster than arm hardpoints, for example. If they are carrying identical weapons)

It would increase TTK without having to double/triple or whatever other multiplication players will want of armor and internals. The convergence speed would also be impacted by the mech's movement speed. Stationary, or slow moving mechs will be able to fire more accurately than mechs moving at full speed, which makes sense. It would also not deprive players of having their shots be skill based, instead of being based on some random cone of fire mechanic.

Another suggestion made in regards to FF getting a quirk that adds more protection (15% increased damage resistance for example) when it's installed, making it a proper armor upgrade, instead of a competitor for weight saving with Endo (it would still save some weight, without having that be it's only virtue.)

Hoax415, on 22 September 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Why did we get cooldown modules with zero drawback? I can't even handle how stupid that is in light of the position PGI claims to have on the matter of TTK.

I've been banging my head against a wall trying to figure out the logic behind that idiotic move. The range modules should ABSOLUTELY have an increase in heat. instead of just being a straight up improvement. You want more range and damage (increased range means damage drops off at farther ranges, increasing damage over all), you pay in heat.

The cool down one I can understand not having a cost, as it's in the mechanics. The more you fire, the more heat you generate.

No modules instead of being a tweak, or a specialization choice, are just absolutely mandatory. If you're not running them, it's like you're not running an elite mech.

There should always be a trade off when doing things like that.

Gallowglas, on 22 September 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

IMHO: You're not going to get a truly representative test by using public, random testing without incentives. It would be a much better idea to sponsor an IS versus Clan tournament with prizes for actually doing well within your faction and with segregated teams. That way people have a motive to do their best. Then run it all weekend in both the team and solo queues and see how things pan out. Post a detailed analysis here on the forums afterwards so we can see how different chassis and weapons performed alongside the general faction stats.

Similar to my suggestion of making it like the Faction Warfare event we had a few months back.

You would also get great data if you force the MM to only do IS vs. Clan on all queues. With no mix groups.

However, that should be done after the quirk passes, and the suggested fixes for the out-dated over-zealous nerfs to IS tech.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 22 September 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Molossian Dog]

Lily from animove, on 22 September 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

...
Its right dmage per tic is higher, but a clanmech reaches heat cap faster ...

You are right, It reaches heat cap faster because the chassis advantage (crits and tons on FF, Endo, magic engine, DHS) allows it to pack ... wait for it ... a metric crapton more weapons. More like in more damage.

With each ton being worth more because: more damage per ton. See C-ER-M-Laser example.

And sorry, I won´t even respond to your anecdotal evidence. (for which you chose a ballistic heavy mech, of all things)

Your example of a 40 heat threshold doesn´t convince me either. You realize chassis advantages allow the clan mech to pack more heatsinks? The "problem" clan Mechs have and you describe is that crits/tons allow them to pack such an insane amount of weapons that their 2 crit DHS can´t keep up.

Essentially the advantages the clan DHS provide can´t keep up with the advantages in damage output/weight efficiency of the clan weapons.

Don´t expect much sympathy for your luxury problem.

IraqiWalker, on 22 September 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

<snip>...

I appreciate that you realize something is wrong with the C-ER-M-Laser. I completely disagree with your solution of buffing IS weapons, because I think the game is already fast paced enough. But ultimately this is a question of preferences and style, so I see no point in discussing this aspect at lenght.

-------

I have to say, though, that your example "Right now C-ERML is 0.40 damage per second higher than IS ML, for 0.40 heat per second more than the IS ML." is over-simplifying things to a degree it becomes misleading.

1.) Summoning the all-powerful spectre of FLD of which we heard so much about in this thread. If you graze your target for 0,5 secs, you do more damage than the IS equivalent. Hereby you can actually break off your attack mid-beam and still do more damage. Fear the FLD!
2.) The C-ER-M-Laser has IS-Large Laser range. That equals even more damage over the course of a battle.
3.) The C-ER-M-Laser will partner with more heat sinks or additional (maybe low heat?) weapons, because...Clan.
4.) The whole skill-necessary-evil-burn-time argument is bonkers. You got more time to adjust aim. You don´t need to hold aim as long as an IS weapon. It is actually easier to take out the hit location of your choice. So much for the PP argument.

If PGI would really put the M-Laser back to 3 heat we can talk again. But remember that increase in heat had a reason. I wouldn´t like to put a band-aid on another band-aid that would require yet another. But as previously mentioned, that is almost a discussion on its own.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 22 September 2014 - 08:50 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Mystere, on 20 September 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

(Should a crop duster pilot be used to compare the French Rafale to the Russian SU-27?)

If anything, Independence Day should have taught us the answer to that. YES.

[AlmightyAeng]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 September 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

That Nova Prime is a nightmare.....0.9 heat eff....yikes.....that 12 lasers is entirely overkill. Even chain fired in groups of 4 its to much to fire it with any sustainability. That is totally the WRONG mech to give to a newbie....

As opposed to all the IS lore builds BEFORE they switched all the trial mechs to 'champions.' ??? Why are we evaluating stock and and new player quotients for balance? You compare the end game results of building up a decent mech...not my stock can beat up your stock. Leave that for Stock Mondays

[Murphy7]

OK, I have seen this several times and several places, but where are people getting the engine criticals = loss of movement speed from?

You lose movement points and accuracy with weapons as you climb the heat scale, whole or damaged.
You gain fixed heat amounts for every engine critical applied each round (added fixed heat) which could exacerbate the point above.

I would prefer that the game just kept track of engine criticals (it did at one poine with Repair & Rearm, not sure if that still happens) and applied the penaltis accordingly.

It would be conceivably possible for a mech to die without losing ANY of its torsos if it accumulated 3 engine criticals across those torsos. Added heat per engine critical added to the heat scale floor (kind of like being on a hot map) reduces your capacity to fight beyond whichever weapons / ammo might now be missing. And best of all, it would inherently scale with the introduciton of Light fusion engines later on.

[IraqiWalker]

Gonna break it down point by point if you don't mind.

Molossian Dog, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

-------

I have to say, though, that your example "Right now C-ERML is 0.40 damage per second higher than IS ML, for 0.40 heat per second more than the IS ML." is over-simplifying things to a degree it becomes misleading.

That was just a statement of one facet. I didn't mean it to be the only difference between the two.

Molossian Dog, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

1.) Summoning the all-powerful spectre of FLD of which we heard so much about in this thread. If you graze your target for 0,5 secs, you do more damage than the IS equivalent. Hereby you can actually break off your attack mid-beam and still do more damage. Fear the FLD!

Remember though that I said burn times should be tweaked a bit as well. Leading to over all equal if not better DpS on the IS ML. So it deals similar if not better damage per tick compared to the C-ERML, and the extended burn time on the ER ML would allow it to deal the rest of it's damage.

It wouldn't rob the clan mechs of their ability to win stare down contests, and it wouldn't rob the IS mechs of their ability to win hit'n run engagements.

Range should stay as is, in my opinion. The whole point of having different cultures is having different approaches to warfare. The clans will want to engage you in open fields and at range. While IS pilots will want to draw you into rough terrain with lots of cover where they can pop, hit, and hide before you can deal them more damage than they dealt you.

So, clans win long range trades, IS win short range trades. Which fits the flavor, and what the weapons are capable of doing.

Molossian Dog, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

2.) The C-ER-M-Laser has IS-Large Laser range. That equals even more damage over the course of a battle.

I disagree with that one. Long range means you can engage earlier, but that's not true on all maps, and as such does not correlate to more damage.

On short range maps like River city, Forest Colony, Frozen City, Caustic Valley, or Terra Therma, short range engagements are far more likely to happen, and long range weapons end up being a hindrance since they will get you to over heat quickly, or fire less often. Allowing the short range, colder builds to close distance with you.

(Notice I rarely bring Crimson Strait, because I feel that map has a great balance of long and short range combat on it.)

This particular point is more impacted by map design than anything else, and I feel like it should stay as is. Some maps are great for long range, weapons, others are not. Some maps are heavenly for LRMs, while others are an absolute nightmare for an LRM boat. I personally feel that part should stay as is.

The trade off of having almost a 50% increase in range, for a 200% increase in heat seems okay. Could be tweaked mybe, but for now, it's fine.

Molossian Dog, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

3.) The C-ER-M-Laser will partner with more heat sinks or additional (maybe low heat?) weapons, because...Clan.

As for the DHS, remember that you're talking about a weapon that will be dealing 2 points more damage, for double the heat. You will need 3 DHS to cool only that C-ERML, while you only need 1.5 to cool the IS ML (with my stats, or 2 with current stats totaling up to a 6 slot cost right now, for both sides).

The DHS argument is somewhat ineffective, since most IS mechs and clan mechs are cooling at comparable, rates, or the IS is cooling better. No, one or two builds don't count as all clan mechs.

(for example, the Nova Prime with only 8 ERMLs and 1 ERSL (18DHS), compared to the stock HBK-4P (8MLs, 1SL, 23 SHS), still has worse heat efficiency, even though the 4P is using SHS.

the high heat cost tends to either normalize, or give favor to the IS in terms of cooling.

NVA-Prime with 9 ERMLs and 21DHS has a cooling efficiency of 26%

HBK-4P with 9MLs and 18 DHS has a cooling efficiency of 36%
If it wasn't for the slot cost of the DHS I would have used a STD 200, and slapped 4 more DHS in there, for the HBK.

Molossian Dog, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

4.) The whole skill-necessary-evil-burn-time argument is bonkers. You got more time to adjust aim. You don´t need to hold aim as long as an IS weapon. It is actually easier to take out the hit location of your choice. So much for the PP argument.

Unless you're facing lobotomized players you're not putting your damage where you want. With longer burn times you have more chance for your target to twist, and spread/waste your damage. The problem is that right now, the DpS is making the IS ML lose even though it shouldn't.

Molossian Dog, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

If PGI would really put the M-Laser back to 3 heat we can talk again. But remember that increase in heat had a reason. I wouldn´t like to put a band-aid on another band-aid that would require yet another. But as previously mentioned, that is almost a discussion on its own.

The ML was nerfed because people were complaining that the ML was the most used weapon in the game, and is therefore OP. While the MPL was very bad. So PGI upped the heat on both, and completely missed the point.

The ML (The 3 heat old one) is in this sweet spot where it deals good damage for good heat, and people confused the weapon being efficient, with being broken. That nerf was put as a band-aid to keep the ML balanced while the rest of the tech was getting added to the game. We've reached the point where that band-aid is no longer needed.

We now have ERMLs, we have SRMs that work again, AC2s that don't ghost heat themselves to death, we have large lasers with good damage-to-heat ratios. We have Pulse lasers that STILL suck though (doubly so for the clan MPLs) (Except for the IS SPL, that is the bread and butter weapon for my locusts, although to be honest it's heat needs to be brought back down by 1 point as well.).

Murphy7, on 22 September 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

OK, I have seen this several times and several places, but where are people getting the engine criticals = loss of movement speed from?

That one is from a logical conclusion to those same rules you're stating below:

Murphy7, on 22 September 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

You lose movement points and accuracy with weapons as you climb the heat scale, whole or damaged.
You gain fixed heat amounts for every engine critical applied each round (added fixed heat) which could exacerbate the point above.

I would prefer that the game just kept track of engine criticals (it did at one poine with Repair & Rearm, not sure if that still happens) and applied the penaltis accordingly.

It would be conceivably possible for a mech to die without losing ANY of its torsos if it accumulated 3 engine criticals across those torsos. Added heat per engine critical added to the heat scale floor (kind of like being on a hot map) reduces your capacity to fight beyond whichever weapons / ammo might now be missing. And best of all, it would inherently scale with the introduciton of Light fusion engines later on.

Damage to the engine raises the heat of the mech, and reduces the threshold, meaning your climbing the heatscale is made easier, leading to these penalties. Right now we don't have anything resembling those penalties in here.

Plus, most people think damaged engine = less working engine, so losing some speed wouldn't be a stretch really. Same with losing maneuverability.

[Molossian Dog]

Sorry Walker, but for most of your post you are arguing from a point of view as if the IS M-Laser had already been put at 3 heat.

Well, it hasn´t.

If that would come to pass, we have to talk again.

But as long as the clan equivalent has a higher DPS, on top of all other advantages, most arguments people make that support an end of clan nerfs just evaporate. The rest is just "what if".

Edited by Molossian Dog, 22 September 2014 - 10:46 AM.

[Hoax415]

Gallowglas, on 22 September 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

IMHO: You're not going to get a truly representative test by using public, random testing without incentives. It would be a much better idea to sponsor an IS versus Clan tournament with prizes for actually doing well within your faction and with segregated teams. That way people have a motive to do their best. Then run it all weekend in both the team and solo queues and see how things pan out. Post a detailed analysis here on the forums afterwards so we can see how different chassis and weapons performed alongside the general faction stats.

Once again I find that the "clans are fine" side of things just does not actually understand statistics or testing.

Running a tournament is 100% a horrible test compared to random public testing. If you don't understand that then you are so clueless to how to collect data and what makes data meaningful that you really should just bow out of this discussion.

There are legit concerns one can have with the 73% test. First and foremost that it was very short and did not collect anywhere near as many matches as the previous test.

I have questions about the 73% test results myself:

-what is the clan winrate if we eliminate games involving teams with low average elo? average elo? Basically as players get better does clan winrate go up or down?

-what is the clan winrate if we only take matches with close average elo? Basically in well matched games does clan winrate go up or down?

-what is the clan winrate if we eliminate matches where the IS team had mechs that were not at least fully elite skill unlocked? Do we see some big shift when we eliminate new players or people playing mechs they aren't familiar with?

-what was the nature of IS wins compared to Clan wins, is the average IS win the same as the average clan win killscore wise? If the average clan win is 12-4 and the average IS win is 12-7 that is meaningful.

I also find it funny that nobody from the "boo hoo poor clan mechs" side is asking PGI to tell us if an imbalance of clan tonnage seems to override the expected winner (based on elo) in group queue matches by a significant amount.

Surely we have 100's of group queue matches that fit these criteria:
-group queue
-not 12 man versus mixed team
-clan tonnage of team A is at least 150 tons higher than clan tonnage of team B

If you took those games and compared them to group queue matches that are:
-group queue
-not 12 man versus mixed team
-clan tonnage of team A is 0-50 tons more than team B.

If the clan balance is as out of whack as it seems comparing those two datasets that should give us evidence of it. I'm not going to spell out why this would be useful information unless someone asks as I'm sure my post as usual is getting too damn long.

Edited by Hoax415, 22 September 2014 - 11:59 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Molossian Dog, on 22 September 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

Sorry Walker, but for most of your post you are arguing from a point of view as if the IS M-Laser had already been put at 3 heat.

Well, it hasn´t.

If that would come to pass, we have to talk again.

But as long as the clan equivalent has a higher DPS, on top of all other advantages, most arguments people make that support an end of clan nerfs just evaporate. The rest is just "what if".

There were only a couple of locations where I was arguing from that perspective, and I made sure to mention the 3 heat variable for those.

I argued against your point about DHS using the current numbers we have, and mentioned what it would be like with my numbers.

However, the builds, and the stats in them were all using current data.
The only place where that misconception can apply is where I put "200% increase in heat" instead of 150%. Which is a mistake on my end.

Everything else is argued from a heat=4 point, and arguing for heat=3.

[Fire and Salt]

Hoax415, on 22 September 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

Who are you disagreeing with? The OP is claiming that clan mechs are overnerfed. They are not. The clan weapon nerfs are stated to be finished. Nobody saying "clan isn't UP, this thread is a joke" has stated that more across the board weapon nerfs are needed in this thread. Find me a quote if they have I haven't seen it. You are arguing with a total strawman.

I was responding to the post DIRECTLY ABOVE MINE, which specifically mentions the HGN and VTR.

Thought it would be easy enough to follow since there were no intervening posts.


I edited the post to add a quote, if that helps.

[Triskelion]

Archon, on 20 September 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

The Direwolf desperately needed the CT fix; it was nothing but an LRM magnet until it got one. Otherwise I agree with you.

People forget that really quickly. It was a bloody nightmare to use when everyone was swapping to mass LRM.

I main it, and that's obviously a bias, so I get that. However, I VERY rarely run into other direwolves that last long, it's incredibly easy to CT them. A lot of people go for weapon stripping, which is a silly plan against one anyway. The CT is still quite easy to hit, and can be hit FROM BOTH SIDES, which a lot of people don't know. It can't twist away from damage, and it can't back out of arty strikes. It's already in a decent spot, it's not my problem that people try to facetank it. The whole point of a direwolf is big, slow, and lots of guns. I've mulched them in a Jager (as it's meant to do), and I've mulched them in Atlas/Stalkers without much of an issue. (I DID IT SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY EASY, LET ME POST A 4000 DAMAGE MATCH TO PROVE IT)
(funny thing is that this was with a gauss/M&Llaser/LRM direwolf. I barely got shot at the whole game, which is part of my point. I stood on a hill and let them poor into base, which is so far beyond dumb it should barely be treated as having happened. This was also before the group changes, so some of these were pub players, and some were groups. Absolutely outstanding stupidity, and absolutely not a typical experience.)

The Gauss builds? Yeah, they can be a problem in pubs (see above). This mitigates the problem of it being so slow, and allows it to perform when people take long-range shots at it. If you get sandblasted by a 6 UAC-5 DWF (or similar ballistic build), it's kind of your own fault for letting it get so close, or it was well-enough defended in a group game that it managed to get to you. That's on player cooperation, not being overpowered. It's going to win staring matches. It SHOULD win staring matches, or else it has no use whatsoever.

Timber wolves? They merc you. The issue isn't that it's got a lot of guns, or the issue that it's fast, or the issue that it's not particularly fragile. It's the fact that it's the best all-rounder of the clan collection, and it performs everything pretty well. It also has good slot choices, decent weapon tonnage, and the ability to take jump jets. It's not specialized, it's not for mowing down a bunch of idiots, it's for everything. it's what's for dinner. (and it could probably use some tuning)

On the flipside, the Cataphract is also a very strong mech, and can perform a lot of the same direct-fire duties, possibly even better (while still not being overly-large). But it's not particularly fast.

I haven't personally had much of a problem with stormcrows, but that might be due to playing assaults more than anything else. They don't fare particularly well against larger targets from my personal experiences. They're decently fast, and appear to have enough weapon tonnage to outgun a lot of smaller and equal-sized mechs, which is an issue. It might be a serious issue, but personally I haven't noticed it.


Plus, pub games and organized play are extremely different beasts, and though one might argue that pub games are more valuable, balancing things for the lowest common denominator makes the game worse, not better. This is where you see the kitfox more frequently, since it really the god-king of AMS and ECM. It's a wonderful support mech that is often overlooked because it's usefulness in pubs is severely limited.

Edited by Triskelion, 23 September 2014 - 01:47 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Molossian Dog, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

You are right, It reaches heat cap faster because the chassis advantage (crits and tons on FF, Endo, magic engine, DHS) allows it to pack ... wait for it ... a metric crapton more weapons. More like in more damage.

With each ton being worth more because: more damage per ton. See C-ER-M-Laser example.

And sorry, I won´t even respond to your anecdotal evidence. (for which you chose a ballistic heavy mech, of all things)

Your example of a 40 heat threshold doesn´t convince me either. You realize chassis advantages allow the clan mech to pack more heatsinks? The "problem" clan Mechs have and you describe is that crits/tons allow them to pack such an insane amount of weapons that their 2 crit DHS can´t keep up.

Essentially the advantages the clan DHS provide can´t keep up with the advantages in damage output/weight efficiency of the clan weapons.

Don´t expect much sympathy for your luxury problem.


I appreciate that you realize something is wrong with the C-ER-M-Laser. I completely disagree with your solution of buffing IS weapons, because I think the game is already fast paced enough. But ultimately this is a question of preferences and style, so I see no point in discussing this aspect at lenght.

-------

I have to say, though, that your example "Right now C-ERML is 0.40 damage per second higher than IS ML, for 0.40 heat per second more than the IS ML." is over-simplifying things to a degree it becomes misleading.

1.) Summoning the all-powerful spectre of FLD of which we heard so much about in this thread. If you graze your target for 0,5 secs, you do more damage than the IS equivalent. Hereby you can actually break off your attack mid-beam and still do more damage. Fear the FLD!
2.) The C-ER-M-Laser has IS-Large Laser range. That equals even more damage over the course of a battle.
3.) The C-ER-M-Laser will partner with more heat sinks or additional (maybe low heat?) weapons, because...Clan.
4.) The whole skill-necessary-evil-burn-time argument is bonkers. You got more time to adjust aim. You don´t need to hold aim as long as an IS weapon. It is actually easier to take out the hit location of your choice. So much for the PP argument.

If PGI would really put the M-Laser back to 3 heat we can talk again. But remember that increase in heat had a reason. I wouldn´t like to put a band-aid on another band-aid that would require yet another. But as previously mentioned, that is almost a discussion on its own.

The way you think is wrong, and you may probably not understand it anyways, not every clanmech can put lots of wepaons AND more heatsinks on, only TW and DW can do this to that crazy degree and SC to some degrees., but thats not a general clan issue, this is purely a chassis issue with these mechs. Clanners are high instant dps wollowed by low constant dps. While IS are way better in dealing constant dps but on a lower instant push. You can use this ability for yourself. but as long as everyone playes the scary cornerpopping game retreating after every slight laser hit, the clanners will outplay the IS since they give the clanners the vital time to cooldown.

[Molossian Dog]

"The way you think is wrong and you probably dont understand it anyways."

Man, really, that is how you want to discuss things? You´re sure that will make your points more convincing?

-------------

If you had cared to read what you respond to you would have found that the fact that there are bad Clan chassis is true. I agreed to that. More than once.

But...surprise...the IS has bad ones too! Many, in fact.

So we have good and bad chassis on both sides. Can we agree to that or do I have to repeat myself yet again and point out all the sucky IS chassis? Do I also have to repeat that new clan chassis are -already- announced? Do I have to explain -yet again- that some will be good and some not?

So, would you guys kindly stop making the same pointless argument?
Bad chassis are gonna be bad. Good ones good. Ok?
There is no difference in that between the IS and the Clans.


To use that to argue about clan tech not having huge advantages is a strawman argument at best. Wilful ignorance at worst.

---

More later.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 23 September 2014 - 03:58 AM.