279 replies to this topic

[SaltBeef]

Unless the big ones carry the smaller ones and manufacture them as they go.

[IraqiWalker]

SaltBeef, on 26 September 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

There will not be a man on the modern battle field in 20 yrs... Robbie the robot will dominate it.



http://www.liveleak....=b52_1411601207

Quite sad and pathetic really. War is supposed to be horrifying, that's the way to stop us from having one every picnic. Once there is no real cost in lives, people will have no worries or qualms about wars. It might as well be playing Madden, and streaming it live.

Lily from animove, on 26 September 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:

making a manhunter serveral times the size of a human is mostlikely going to fail in its purpose, because every hiddne hideout with solid structure and small entrances will be unaccessable for him. Thats like trying to train an elephant for hunting moles.

SaltBeef, on 26 September 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

Unless the big ones carry the smaller ones and manufacture them as they go.

Or they carry Nukes

After all Maxim 25 states : If a manufacturer's warranty covers the damage you do, you didn't do enough damage.

(I also love that an Urbie killed the Kell Hounds)

[Ultimax]

Molossian Dog, on 26 September 2014 - 12:52 AM, said:

@Ultimatum X

I think we have to start from the beginning to make sure you realize what we are discussing here:

That's not what our little side conversation was about.


I told you that CGauss being lighter is irrelevant (minimal value) for Clan Dual Gauss builds.


This was your response:

Molossian Dog, on 26 September 2014 - 12:52 AM, said:

The "locked" DHS -can- be used for other weapons. They should be. That is the benefit.

You made this statement, I asked you to back it up or prove it - and perhaps you realize you can't?


So I will re-iterate, lighter Clan Gauss is irrelevant for clan Dual Gauss builds because (most) of those builds will have tonnage dedicated to things that they can't even make use of.


The only thing I challenged you to do, was to step up and prove your own words that you could in fact use the locked DHS for other weapons on those mechs who are not called "Dire Wolf".



The truth is that the Summoner can't even run Dual Gauss even though it weighs as much/more than Jagers & Cataphracts.

The TBR can barely even get 2x Gauss onto it, much less other weapons - and certainly not enough weapons to justify 5 extra heat sinks.

The Warhawk has some extra tonnage left over, but has no where to slot more than 1 energy hardpoint - clearly not enough to justify TEN TONS OF DHS.



The point of all of this goes beyond dual gauss, it illustrates the build limitations on clan mechs due to things the player has zero choice in.

These are drawbacks that I do not have on my IS mechs, like my heavies that can carry upwards of FOURTY TONS of ballistics if I want builds that aren't constantly running the redline on heat.

IraqiWalker, on 26 September 2014 - 01:27 AM, said:

What does one have to do with the other, and did you actually read the description? It's not arbitrary. The engines cannot be made in pod form, and so must be hardwired into the structure, and the core of the mech.

I read it.


It defined modular as what you can do with Omni-pods.

Then I posted that Omni-pods and their gear can be changed or repaired in as little as 30 minutes.


So by those excerpts they defined "modular" as something you could change in as little as 30 minutes.



Clearly, sending your mech into orbit is not "modular" under that definition laid out in Sarna.

Neither is changing the CXL on a Clan mech, that doesn't mean it is impossible - as is clear in the case of Endo, which we can add or remove on a whim.



Alternatively, can you show me the excerpt that says IS engines are modular or even easy to remove in a few days?

[LauLiao]

lartfor, on 20 September 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

A player posted some very detailed stats showcasing some 1500+ games a couple weeks back. When looking at these more specifically... A good IS team with good IS mechs vs a good clan team with good clan mechs showed less than a 4% difference in overall effectiveness.

So someone cherry-picked their data set to prove a point? How very scientific.

[Ultimax]

LauLiao, on 26 September 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

So someone cherry-picked their data set to prove a point? How very scientific.

He's talking about Kiiyor's thread.


I'd give it a good, long, read before you decide to call what he's done "cherry picking".

[IraqiWalker]

Ultimatum X, on 26 September 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

I read it.


It defined modular as what you can do with Omni-pods.

Then I posted that Omni-pods and their gear can be changed or repaired in as little as 30 minutes.


So by those excerpts they defined "modular" as something you could change in as little as 30 minutes.



Clearly, sending your mech into orbit is not "modular" under that definition laid out in Sarna.

Neither is changing the CXL on a Clan mech, that doesn't mean it is impossible - as is clear in the case of Endo, which we can add or remove on a whim.



Alternatively, can you show me the excerpt that says IS engines are modular or even easy to remove in a few days?

Let me rephrase that: Did you understand it?

Engines are not modular like pods, they are specifically stated as such. While standard mechs don't have that problem. The engines for non-omni mechs are not hardwired into the chassis. In fact, I don't remember any piece of equipment being hardwired to the chassis on non-omnis.

Omni mechs get fast repair and ease of maintenance at the cost of not having full customization, and hardwired components.

While standard mechs take much longer to modify, but have absolute freedom in how they are modified.

LauLiao, on 26 September 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

So someone cherry-picked their data set to prove a point? How very scientific.

I wouldn't call it cherry picking. Kiiyor went all out on this one, and his data is far more reliable than most posts you'll see on these forums, including PGI's tests.

Also, cherry picking is doing 1500 games, and only picking 10 or so of them. Not doing 1500 drops, and then cataloging ALL of them.

[Ultimax]

IraqiWalker, on 26 September 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

Let me rephrase that: Did you understand it?

Engines are not modular like pods, they are specifically stated as such. While standard mechs don't have that problem. The engines for non-omni mechs are not hardwired into the chassis. In fact, I don't remember any piece of equipment being hardwired to the chassis on non-omnis.

Omni mechs get fast repair and ease of maintenance at the cost of not having full customization, and hardwired components.

While standard mechs take much longer to modify, but have absolute freedom in how they are modified.

Yes I understood all of that.

The point is that standard mechs in this game do not take longer to modify.


So we are holding clan mechs to a fairly arbitrary ruling, when IS mechs are not being held to any of the rules associated with their construction.


Which gets back to the original points I was making.


I was OK with the inability to change those hardwired aspects in exchange for the benefits.

Those benefits are have been and continue to be devalued, CXL ST penalties, Clan weapon heat values, no good ballistic options outside of CGauss or Boating on a DWF, etc.


Now that I'm going to be stuck with a riskier engine in my DWF & WHK, I think some of the restrictions on these mechs should be loosened.


If I can swap endo onto every single IS mech I own in the mechlab pretty much instantly, reconfigure all of their weapon load outs with the same speed as my omni-mechs, add or remove artemis in between matches, then I also want the ability to adjust some of the things on my omni-mechs in light of the coming engine nerfs.



We can talk about rules all we like, but there is no rule that will allow you to so easily focus fire onto a DWFs STs in TT - not like this game where it can be surgically removed with ease.


So penalties that seem fair in a game with random to-hit rolls, aren't nearly as fair in a game with skill based precision that is much, much more consistent and accurate.

[Hoax415]

Ultimatum X, on 26 September 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

He's talking about Kiiyor's thread.


I'd give it a good, long, read before you decide to call what he's done "cherry picking".

I love when this thread gets brought up like its gospel.

Without knowing elo (PGI does we do not) that data has fairly large holes in what we can learn from it.

I'm also on the record, repeatedly, as being highly skeptical of Kiiyor's data after his original "science" thread had so many flaws (that he did acknowledge and somewhat disclaimer at the time) that it "somehow" managed to lead him and everyone who believed it to the conclusion that Clan mechs in June were not at all OP. Remember how many nerfs we have had since June?

Yet his "data" basically says the same thing now as it did then...

I love how people can totally believe that many IS players are intentionally losing games to throw games to get clans nerfed. But Kiiyor (a clear clan partisan) who just happens to always have data that shows Clans are fine. Well that is beyond reproach even though he's already been proven completely wrong the first time he presented his "science".

Edited by Hoax415, 26 September 2014 - 03:21 PM.

[LauLiao]

Ultimatum X, on 26 September 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

He's talking about Kiiyor's thread.


I'd give it a good, long, read before you decide to call what he's done "cherry picking".

I'm going to skip reading it since the op himself states right at the beginning: "So, it's not really Science, it's more of a questionable statistical analysis of a (probably too small) small sample size of matches."

[Gyrok]

Hoax415, on 26 September 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

I love when this thread gets brought up like its gospel.

Without knowing elo (PGI does we do not) that data has fairly large holes in what we can learn from it.

I'm also on the record, repeatedly, as being highly skeptical of Kiiyor's data after his original "science" thread had so many flaws (that he did acknowledge and somewhat disclaimer at the time) that it "somehow" managed to lead him and everyone who believed it to the conclusion that Clan mechs in June were not at all OP. Remember how many nerfs we have had since June?

Yet his "data" basically says the same thing now as it did then...

I love how people can totally believe that many IS players are intentionally losing games to throw games to get clans nerfed. But Kiiyor (a clear clan partisan) who just happens to always have data that shows Clans are fine. Well that is beyond reproach even though he's already been proven completely wrong the first time he presented his "science".

Do you have better data presented and digested into a more easily verifiable trend than the statistical analysis...(that kiiyor down plays because he is hyper obsessed about accuracy, and a good thing he is too...) He is not trying to pass it off as a definitive "this is what it is..." He is offering trends in observations based on the data sent to him to make the samples increasingly large. The only way he can get more data would be to have more data from people doing matches...

[Ultimax]

Hoax415, on 26 September 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

I love when this thread gets brought up like its gospel.

I love when players who put zero effort into anything even 1/10th on the scale of what Kiiyor is attempting think they can shoot his entire thread down with a few lines in a post.



By all means, feel free to link me to your thread where you do...anything...containing that much effort and value to the community.

LauLiao, on 26 September 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

I'm going to skip reading it since the op himself states right at the beginning: "So, it's not really Science, it's more of a questionable statistical analysis of a (probably too small) small sample size of matches."

Feel free to sell yourself short, and I suppose what I responded to hoax is probably fitting for you as well.

[Gyrok]

IraqiWalker, on 26 September 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

Let me rephrase that: Did you understand it?

Engines are not modular like pods, they are specifically stated as such. While standard mechs don't have that problem. The engines for non-omni mechs are not hardwired into the chassis. In fact, I don't remember any piece of equipment being hardwired to the chassis on non-omnis.

Omni mechs get fast repair and ease of maintenance at the cost of not having full customization, and hardwired components.

While standard mechs take much longer to modify, but have absolute freedom in how they are modified.


I wouldn't call it cherry picking. Kiiyor went all out on this one, and his data is far more reliable than most posts you'll see on these forums, including PGI's tests.

Also, cherry picking is doing 1500 games, and only picking 10 or so of them. Not doing 1500 drops, and then cataloging ALL of them.

To be fair,a refit of an Inner Sphere mech with the complexity of changing an engine, or adding EndoSteel...(ferro was MUCH easier to add to a mech than changing internal structure or engine) was a refit the likes of which was said to require the mech be sent back to the factory that produced it for a retrofit, and typically took upwards of an entire year or more depending on the magnitude of the change.


Clan mechs change omnipods in 30 minutes or so...
Issue observed for the full effect yet?

I would be ok with things as they are, if it cost say...20 mil cbills to send a mech to the factory, do the retrofit for the engine change + endosteel on top of the cost of the component changes to the chassis themselves.

[Mcgral18]

Hoax415, on 26 September 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

I love how people can totally believe that many IS players are intentionally losing games to throw games to get clans nerfed. But Kiiyor (a clear clan partisan) who just happens to always have data that shows Clans are fine. Well that is beyond reproach even though he's already been proven completely wrong the first time he presented his "science".

There's a small handful who do throw games. I only saw three or so myself.

Also, mind telling us why his data is wrong?

[JohnnyWayne]

For the same reason it is right to you. It gives your point hold.

I have to agree with the OP. Sort of. I think numbers and values are false because life measureing is not accurate.

[Mystere]

Hoax415, on 26 September 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

I love when this thread gets brought up like its gospel.

Without knowing elo (PGI does we do not) that data has fairly large holes in what we can learn from it.

I'm also on the record, repeatedly, as being highly skeptical of Kiiyor's data after his original "science" thread had so many flaws (that he did acknowledge and somewhat disclaimer at the time) that it "somehow" managed to lead him and everyone who believed it to the conclusion that Clan mechs in June were not at all OP. Remember how many nerfs we have had since June?

Yet his "data" basically says the same thing now as it did then...

I love how people can totally believe that many IS players are intentionally losing games to throw games to get clans nerfed. But Kiiyor (a clear clan partisan) who just happens to always have data that shows Clans are fine. Well that is beyond reproach even though he's already been proven completely wrong the first time he presented his "science".

On one hand, we have you and others saying that Elo is important in analyzing matches. On the other, there are those who claim that a blind test with a large enough sample size eliminates Elo from the equation. What's a simple person like me supposed to believe?

Well then, I have been waiting for a while for the following that is totally devoid of the human variable:

• chassis analysis, including all variants and IS/Clan configurability
  
• weapons analysis, including damage, rate of fire, duration, burst vs single-shot, weight, slots, ammo, impulse
  
• equipment options analysis, especially those that affect speed, agility, and heat efficiency
  
• time and spatial-based dynamic models of how the above interact in 1 vs. 1, 1 vs. N, lance vs. star, and team vs. team encounters

Do you have something close to the above for me?


The best way to debunk "bad" science is by using "good" science. Anything else is just "opinion".

LauLiao, on 26 September 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

I'm going to skip reading it since the op himself states right at the beginning: "So, it's not really Science, it's more of a questionable statistical analysis of a (probably too small) small sample size of matches."

It's actually a good read, whether or not you agree with his method.

Edited by Mystere, 26 September 2014 - 04:04 PM.

[Molossian Dog]

Ultimatum X, on 26 September 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

That's not what our little side conversation was about.

That is what the whole thread is about. Reference: Thread title.

Ultimatum X, on 26 September 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

You made this statement, I asked you to back it up or prove it - and perhaps you realize you can't?

I did. In one sentence. 8 C-ERMLs.

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

Then you decided that the very specific restrictions you threw together to make your point valid weren´t enough.
So you came with yet additional restrictions.

I told you that inventing artifical restrictions is a game two people can play.
("Build me an IS light with one gauss that doesn´t suck")
And that it doesn´t lead anywhere.

And then, just now, you throw in another restriction. "May not be Direwolf."

What´s next? It may not be mondays, tuesdays and fridays? May not be above 30 degrees celsius? May have no stripes and not the colour red?

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

In my last post I already conceded that the warhawk and summoner are probably not the best dual gauss builds. And (hear, hear!) !!!yes!!! giving them the option to change their engine would give them an additional edge under these, very specific circumstances.

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

Now...

The conclusion that
because some clan chassis could be even more optimized with dual gauss
=> the weight/crit savings of C-Gauss mean nothing
is still bonkers.

It is a so terribly deluded statement you actually need to set so many artifical restrictions as you did, if you want to salvage anything from the train wreck that your claim is.

In the real world the weight/crit savings of the C-Gauss do matter.

Random examples:
Have you ever considered using one (like in 1) Gauss Rifle? Wow, your unused DHS get used! Miracle!
Have you considered it could be good to have even light Mechs carry a Gauss? Because, you know, weight.
Have you considered that there are new clan chassis coming which migh pull dual gauss off?
Ever stood in lava and fired all you had? (Wooo, what was that? A very specific circumstance that made my point valid? Mayhaps...)


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

You would love to mount a STD engine in your Warhawk. I get it.
It would like a C-Gauss on my Wolverine.
I won´t get.
You won´t get it.
Tough cookies.

I already accused people in this thread of having luxury problems. Your "problem" is the pinnacle of that.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 26 September 2014 - 05:17 PM.

[Ultimax]

Molossian Dog, on 26 September 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

I did. In one sentence. 8 C-ERMLs.

So you think one exception mech negates the build restrictions nearly every other clan mech has with regards to locked DHS they can't remove in order to run ballistic focused builds?

Builds that really need the tonnage from those DHS to even be viable and simultaneously have zero use for heat sinks?


One exception does not change any of that, which is why you are wrong and your statement is invalid.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 26 September 2014 - 05:18 PM.

[Molossian Dog]

Like the one exception:

"MUST have dual gauss or clan mechs suck?"

You sure you want to continue this?

EDIT: Spelling.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 26 September 2014 - 05:20 PM.

[Ultimax]

Molossian Dog, on 26 September 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

Like the one exception:

"MUST have dual gauss or clan mechs suck?"

That's not even remotely what I said, so you have either resorted to strawman attacks because you have run out of ways to avoid proving your own statement or you are too obtuse to deal with the actual details in my posts.

[Molossian Dog]

You set restrictions, not me. Your claim is based on them.

"Dual Gauss build suffer from locked DHS."
True in some cases not so in others, I said.
Under most circumstances not. Like only one Gauss.
I added, the savings from C-Gauss allow to make even more powerful builds.
By making use of these DHS.

Now you throw your own restriction out of the window and choose another set of circumstances.

Well then.

If you restrict yourself to use no other weapons than those that won´t tax your DHS, then, -bravo-, you created an inferior Mech.
But the beauty of Clan tech is, that you can have everything. Ballistics plus energy. Because...weight/slot savings. And more of everything. Because, you might have guessed...savings!
Not using that is your own fault. Outright refsuing to make use of that is your own fault.

I could also create a Spider -5D with XL engine and not use the tons for a ECM. Your logic: XL savings mean nothing, right? Great, ain´t it?

Luxury problems all around.


EDIT: We will have to continue this tomorrow. Have fun thinking about more circumstances that will make less heavy and smaller clan weapons a disadvantage. Oh, and smaller DHS too.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 26 September 2014 - 05:47 PM.