146 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 May 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

If I were saying nothing specific, yes. But I have looked at and considered the 'mechs and tried to figure out why they outperform, and what can be done to bring them closer in line with other Clan 'mechs without just nerfing things wildly and hoping it works. Which requires an actual analysis.

I hate nerfs, absolutely hate them. Cries for nerfs just remind me of the crab mentality that so many people have.

Why not just improve the durability of the other mechs instead? Doing so ruffles very few feathers, if at all.

Edited by Mystere, 04 May 2015 - 05:59 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

I am not asking for nerfs. I am asking for adjustments.

The fact that you're deciding that any decline in capability of -anything- constitutes an outright nerfing and is a bad idea indicates clearly that you have no interest in actual game balance.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 04 May 2015 - 05:59 PM.

[Mystere]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 May 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

I am not asking for nerfs. I am asking for adjustments.

A decrease in performance is a nerf.

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 May 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

The fact that you're deciding that any decline in capability of -anything- constitutes an outright nerfing and is a bad idea indicates clearly that you have no interest in actual game balance.

Why make something worse, when you can improve the rest instead and at the same time avoid ruffling any feathers? Doesn't improving performance of the rest not also help game balance? It also solves the low TTK problem that so many people constantly complain about.

Edited by Mystere, 04 May 2015 - 06:06 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Mystere, on 04 May 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

A decrease in performance is a nerf.

No, a reduction to the point of ineffectiveness is a nerf. A decrease in performance is a debuff, a decrease, or an adjustment. 'Nerf' is not the opposite of 'buff', it is a pejorative term indicating that something has been reduced to the point that it is no longer viable or of no comparative quality whatsoever to its previous state.

Mystere, on 04 May 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

Why make something worse, when you can improve the rest instead and at the same time avoid ruffling any feathers?

Crab mentality, I tell you.

Because while the effect on gameplay of both alterations is the same, and from your personal perspective buffing everything else would not bother you, increasing numbers consistently results in a badly inflated game system where it isn't needed and would produce just as much outcry, even if you personally wouldn't be involved.

Furthermore, you are not actually providing any arguments. Please leave the thread.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 04 May 2015 - 06:07 PM.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 04 May 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

I hate nerfs, absolutely hate them. Cries for nerfs just remind me of the crab mentality that so many people have.

Why not just improve the durability of the other mechs instead? Doing so ruffles very few feathers, if at all.

You're going to have to buff multiple mechs, which may invalidate other mechs at the same time.

Essentially, you either "adjust one" or you have to fix "the rest".

That isn't a really good solution if you're not willing to nerf one mech for that reason alone.

It ultimately depends on what is affected before making such a decision (the Stormcrow is head and shoulders above the alternatives, which means the alternatives would need some decent buffs).

Edited by Deathlike, 04 May 2015 - 06:13 PM.

[Mystere]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 May 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

No, a reduction to the point of ineffectiveness is a nerf. A decrease in performance is a debuff, a decrease, or an adjustment. 'Nerf' is not the opposite of 'buff', it is a pejorative term indicating that something has been reduced to the point that it is no longer viable or of no comparative quality whatsoever to its previous state.

Sigh.

nerf:

• To diminish the power or effectiveness of...
  
• To make less potent.
  
• It was adopted by the online gaming community to refer to the reduction in power of a game feature for the sake of balance.

Enough said.

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 May 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

Because while the effect on gameplay of both alterations is the same, and from your personal perspective buffing everything else would not bother you, increasing numbers consistently results in a badly inflated game system where it isn't needed and would produce just as much outcry, even if you personally wouldn't be involved.

You are making things more durable to be in line with the best performers, not "badly inflating a game system".


I think you seriously need to revisit the definitions of the words you use.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 04 May 2015 - 06:12 PM, said:

You're going to have to buff multiple mechs, which may invalidate other mechs at the same time.

Essentially, you either "adjust one" or you have to fix "the rest".

That isn't a really good solution if you're not willing to nerf one mech for that reason alone.

It ultimately depends on what is affected before making such a decision (the Stormcrow is head and shoulders above the alternatives, which means the alternatives would need some decent buffs).

Players have been constantly whining about low TTK. Improving the durability of the "lesser" Mechs helps solve that particular problem. And as I said previously, it also has a much lower probability of ruffling any feathers.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 04 May 2015 - 06:18 PM, said:

Players have been constantly whining about low TTK. Improving the durability of the "lesser" Mechs helps solve that particular problem. And as I said previously, it also has a much lower probability of ruffling any feathers.

Low TTK is a consequence of focus fire (indirectly bad/poor positioning), perfect convergence, and firepower that is a bit out of whack compared to the TT values (weapons firing at rates far beyond what they were intended for - and poor cooldown values/recycle times to boot aka firing things frequently/rapidly).

So, it's not just "one thing", it's a conglomeration of poorly designed/thought out systems.

When matches can end under 3 minutes vs good teams, it says a lot about the system at hand.

Edited by Deathlike, 04 May 2015 - 06:36 PM.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 04 May 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:

Low TTK is a consequence of focus fire (indirectly bad/poor positioning), perfect convergence, and firepower that is a bit out of whack compared to the TT values (weapons firing at rates far beyond what they were intended for - and poor cooldown values/recycle times to boot aka firing things frequently/rapidly).

So, it's not just "one thing", it's a conglomeration of poorly designed/thought out systems.

When matches can end under 3 minutes vs good teams, it says a lot about the system at hand.

Yes, low TTK is a result of a conglomeration of many things. And so, why not, when considering any changes, also consider how TTK can be improved?

[Tiamat of the Sea]

This thread is for the Stormcrow and the Timber Wolf specifically. Given that you are not discussing those two chassis specifically, please leave the thread, both of you.

[Mystere]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 May 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

This thread is for the Stormcrow and the Timber Wolf specifically. Given that you are not discussing those two chassis specifically, please leave the thread, both of you.

But it is related. Instead of making the Stormcrow and the Timber Wolf worse, improve the Mechs that need to be improved. As an added bonus, something else (i.e. TTK) is also improved instead of being made worse as a side effect. And another added bonus is that player unrest is also not increased while goodwill towards PGI is improved.

That has been my point all along.

Finally, sometimes an alternative and better solution can and does arise from the original proposal. That is always a good thing.

Edited by Mystere, 04 May 2015 - 07:09 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Mystere, on 04 May 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

But it is related. Instead of making the Stormcrow and the Timber Wolf worse, improve the Mechs that need to be improved. As an added bonus, something else (i.e. TTK) is also improved instead of being made worse as a side effect. And another added bonus is that player unrest is also not increased while goodwill towards PGI is improved.

That has been my point all along.

Finally, sometimes an alternative and better solution can and does arise from the original proposal. That is always a good thing.

If that is your point, support your point. I do not think an alternative and better solution is a bad thing.

I do not, however, see how 'adjust everything but the Stormcrow and possibly the Timber Wolf upwards' is a better solution. If you wish to take that stance, please provide coherent arguments backed up by sound reasoning and/or information, rather than just appearing in order to claim I'm doing it wrong by approaching this from the idea of bringing the top down a bit.

As things stand currently, you're unfortunately close to having jumped into this thread just to say 'you're doing it wrong' without providing an actual argument, and Deathlike clearly came here just to say 'you're doing it wrong' to you.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 04 May 2015 - 07:19 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

this thread is a perfect example of a vocal minority at work

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 04 May 2015 - 07:19 PM.

[Fenris Kell]

Yet another thread about these 2 Mechs. The reason that these 2 are so prominent isn't because they are OP it's because the rest of them are so lackluster. I put in a lot of time fighting for the clans during the event... A LOT. It is no exaggeration to say that my 1st CW match with an IS deck felt like cheating. Stalker 4N/T-Bolt/T-Bolt/Firestarter. With no Clan drop deck was I able to put out such heavy and constant.... Constant.. DPS. With that deck my dmg and kill count surpasses anything acheiveable with clan mechs. When we have an event that requires a min score to qualify, I turn to the 'Thunderwub' or FS-9S not a clan mech to easily get the job done.

The clans have nothing that compares to the punishment the 4N can dish out without over heating. Cycling 3lg lasers over and over with the high mounts for peeking... I hate how the stalker looks, but i can't argue it's performance... And neither can anyone that is being honest. Then there's the buzzsaw thunderwub with 7 med pulse that if broken into a couple groups AFTER your 1st 2alphas you can fire almost non-stop. Lets not forget the grid iron with the rapid-fire guass, or dragon 1N with AC5s..and anyone that can torso twist can easily protect those weapons. So yeah keep beating the dead horse with regards to the TW and Scrow. But don't be hypocritical about how broken SEVERAL IS mechs are. The proof is in the pudding; When comp teams or `try hards` are doing their thing, they are using the IS mechs listed above, not clan mechs.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Fenris Kell, on 04 May 2015 - 07:21 PM, said:

But don't be hypocritical about how broken SEVERAL IS mechs are.

Not only are you off topic talking about how certain other 'mechs are overpowered, but you are claiming that at some point I said there were no excessively strong Inner Sphere 'mechs. Please leave the thread.

[Sundervine]

I see nothing wrong with the arguments presented in the OP. I also see an issue with Nerf that has become a word meaning more than its original definition.

I also do not see a problem with the very low degree of 'nerfing' in the OP.

I do also see others points on they seem better due to other items needing to be addressed.

My favorite solution, still, is instead of 'nerfing' buffing anything, make a mech have two quirks. They would symbolize the team effectiveness of a mech in general. Say for this thread the Stormcrow. It would have a quirk that made it equal a heavy mech of a higher tonnage say for example, 75 tons. That would limit them in drop decks and take a heavy slot instead of a medium slot in either solo, or group drops. Timberwolf would be the same. Make it equal a 90 ton mech for example. This would limit them in the same way the stormcrow was limited. On the other side of the coin a dragon might only equal a 50 in a drop deck. Remove most other quirks and just make it take a medium slot.

Those are examples only not real stats. Those would need to be worked out of course.

This would also allow the removal of almost all quirks. I can see the small quirks as good things. A hunchback getting a better AC20 because it was designed for it. Fine by me just make it at most 5% across the board for the ac20. Nothing else. Just that.

[Fenris Kell]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 May 2015 - 07:27 PM, said:

Not only are you off topic talking about how certain other 'mechs are overpowered, but you are claiming that at some point I said there were no excessively strong Inner Sphere 'mechs. Please leave the thread.

lol a little pretentious to ask someone to leave a thread. That's cute. I claimed nothing of the kind, you presented a cliche (at this point) and one sided view. Which is nothing new for these threads, a call for adjusting, (a nerf by any other name), 2 of the 3 clan mechs that are actually usable, without acknowledging the several IS mechs that out perform the 2 clan mechs you want to 'adjust' is hypocritical by their omission. It's not just you, everyone that starts these threads are guilty of the same thing.

[ShinobiHunter]

Fenris Kell, on 04 May 2015 - 08:02 PM, said:

lol a little pretentious to ask someone to leave a thread. That's cute. I claimed nothing of the kind, you presented a cliche (at this point) and one sided view. Which is nothing new for these threads, a call for adjusting, (a nerf by any other name), 2 of the 3 clan mechs that are actually usable, without acknowledging the several IS mechs that out perform the 2 clan mechs you want to 'adjust' is hypocritical by their omission. It's not just you, everyone that starts these threads are guilty of the same thing.

No offense intended but he is trying to discuss these specific mechs in this thread. Perhaps if you feel the need for a "nerf IS mechs" thread you could go start one, rather than hijack his?

Do you think the TBR and SCR are okay where they stand now?

If I'm correct, this thread is just as much about making other clan mechs viable alternatives. As it stands now you see Timbers, Crows and Hellbringers in CW, and pretty much nothing else.

Edited by ShinobiHunter, 04 May 2015 - 08:16 PM.

[Mystere]

ShinobiHunter, on 04 May 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

If I'm correct, this thread is just as much about making other clan mechs viable alternatives. As it stands now you see Timbers, Crows and Hellbringers in CW, and pretty much nothing else.

It is actually better to improve the viability of a mech by making it better, not by making something else worse. That is a point that is always ignored on many of these threads.

It's just crab mentality in another form.

[Fenris Kell]

I actually think that they under perform when capared to the IS Cw mainstays. ESPECIALLY when compared to IS mainstays. Yet people keep creating these threads and conveniently leaving out the otherside of the coin. I am not calling for a nerf or...LOL..an adjustment to any mechs. I am calling for people to quit vilifying one group or type when the other side is just as bad if not worse. It's slanted, misleading, and at this point as I said, hypocritical. At the bare bones, under the walls of text and screen shots of hit boxes, it's the same message as all the other threads: 'omfg, th3 clanz are OP N3RF them noah'.