Is Dropdeck Tonnage Reduction Now In Effect
#172
Posted 11 May 2015 - 07:52 PM
Yes. I play Clan.
In the majority of the drops I played during Tukayyid, it was as a PUG or in a small group.
More often than not, the matches were quite even and good enjoyable battles.
More often than not the IS team won, particularly if they were defending.
Congrats to them. I experienced my share of defeats and was on the wrong end of a stomping more than once.
Can't expect every match to play out the same way, but I'm not concerned that an IS team played better in the match.
Overall, the whole event was very close. You can't say it was one sided as there was only a small percentage difference in the win.
I would like to see the introduction of stars for the Clan in CW mainly because that's what they used in the board game.
I fully expect that the difference in team numbers would lead to other changes to keep it competitive.
10 Clan with a total of 2400 tons vs 12 IS with a total of 2880 tons is fairly significant. Would have been 3000 tons for IS. Perhaps this is what is coming?
I agree that changing the tonnage of the drop decks isn't going to do much other than perhaps shuffle one mech to something else.
There hasn't been a development reason for why there has been the change, only the story reason.
@Adamski, I was only surmising that this might be a way that a form of logistics could be introduced. There are plenty of posts out there about introducing some form of logistics, having some reason to attack a planet etc. Most involve something to do with reducing the cost of buying mechs if you belong to the faction which might be a benefit for controlling the planet, but it's not really a logistics/supply line solution.
It occurred to me that the drop deck weight limit could be used to simulate it.
The further your lines extend, the less resources you get to draw upon, ie. less tonnage. But if those supply lines can be strengthened the tonnage can be increased again. Particular planets may be key as they could have more resources therefore allowing a higher limit.
But it would need to be based on distances on the map from these key planets to where the contested planet is, otherwise you would have areas like Steiner and Davion with much larger weight limits compared to say Liao.
Consider the capitals as an example.
You don't really want these planets changing faction, there has to be a stronghold for each side as the epitome of that faction's power.
If you were to be fighting for that planet or close to it, you could expect the defending forces to be significant, ie. their weight limit is much higher. I would fully expect to have to face wave after wave of Steiner 'scout' lances if Tharkad were the target.
By altering the tonnage limit you create different games with different styles of play thanks to different mech selections.
While it's not overly difficult to change the drop deck, being able to setup more than one would certainly help.
So I hope that has helped clarify what I was thinking of.
#173
Posted 11 May 2015 - 07:53 PM
#174
Posted 11 May 2015 - 07:55 PM
Slambot, on 11 May 2015 - 07:51 PM, said:
Considering top 3 were crows its more than xl, its the broken hitboxes.
#175
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:00 PM
Frost Lord, on 11 May 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:
This right here is what I'm talking about when it comes to population disparity - the amount of "new" or "casual" IS players outnumbered that who were playing for the clans by a completely staggering amount, which is why you saw qeues of 30+ IS teams at any given time waiting for a fight.
That's why the IS didn't just outright sweep the event. Without that population disparity (and without -MS- being -MS-), the IS would have had a LANDSLIDE win.
#176
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:06 PM
#177
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:07 PM
Adamski, on 11 May 2015 - 05:23 PM, said:
I believe that teamwork is always the deciding factor in a team game, and that the clans had better composed teams. Better composed teams being a general statement meaning that a higher percentage of the teams playing were in fact premade and organized teams. Even when its a pug group there are a lot of people who care and do their best to organize the company.
The clans managed, albeit just barely, to scrape together the minimum number of teams to hold the 63 zones against the IS zerg war of attrition when it mattered. Also on every occasion when it mattered [you know the last few hours of the event] rushing the base and taking the win and claiming the zone for clan.
It was taking about 4 minutes to get a win not including loading time for my group when we were lucky enough to get an attack.
TLDR; Organized clan teams had no wait time and therefore shattered through Tukayyid defenses.
#178
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:16 PM
As of my disposition right now, I probably won't play more than 1-2 matches a week until July when my Shadowcat comes out... and even then, unless there is some drastic change (incentive to play CW) I'll probably only be around for a couple weeks.
There just isn't any reason to do it; getting your name on a planet is 98% dependent on having more players in your group than the next clan, with minimal consideration of skill gap.
Too many other games out there with some sense of personal or unit Advancement; here... not so much.
250-> 240 ...whatever, didn't notice the difference anyways.
#179
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:16 PM
Kay Wolf, on 11 May 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:
I think they should give BV a shot. That would involve a whole-hearted commitment to it, removal of quirks[lets say some durability quirks are acceptable], actual true weapon stats, and the normalizing of grey areas around weapons[laser duration, removal of ghost heat, ect].
#180
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:28 PM
Telmasa, on 11 May 2015 - 07:51 PM, said:
Assumptions? Here is proof perfect that you have no idea what you are talking about:
You're quoting numbers that are completely out of context and represent a wholly different set of statistics than what you are claiming. That event win rate has almost nothing to do with actual performance, and everything to do with population disparity; in fact there's plenty statistics to suggest that throughout the Tukkayid event, the IS consistently outperformed the Clans per each match.
The reason the Clans won at all was because of population disparity, plain and simple. And we already all know about -MS- and what they've been up to.
"don't brawl", are you serious? The Thunderbolt-5SS has DOUBLE RANGE on MPLs so that they are effectively Large Lasers *PLUS* heat reduction *PLUS cooldown; the 9SE (which I use to troll pug matches) fires 3 LPL like they're medium lasers (while simultaneously doing double-gauss damage) at LL max range; the Thunderbolt also manages to have a compact hitbox with god-mode hardpoints combined with mobility that allows it to advance with almost complete impunity, where as the Timberwolve's ears will pop off with a mere 2 alphas from any of your precious IS superquirk laser boats.
The superquirked IS mechs stomp all over any competition in the game, especially other non-quirked IS mechs. The Grid Iron with a single Gauss Rifle has more DPS than a double-gauss Jagermech or King Crab.
It's a complete joke, nothing but a gimimckry B.S. contest; and you try to justify it with a fake boogeyman ghost story about the Timberwolf and Stormcrow.
The only justified complaints about the Stormcrow are that its hitboxes need the Jenner treatment & that Streak-6s need range reduced to 270, plus a possible ghost heat scale increase. Everything else is totally ignorant hogwash.
To all the other IS players instantly jumping on the cry bandwagon here: You Don't Know What You Are Talking About.
You haven't played Clan Mechs. You haven't experienced how one-sided the Stalker/Thunderbolt deathball is without having your own Stalker/Thunderbolt deathball to counter it.
I've been on both sides of this, and the favor is overwhelmingly on the side of the IS superquirked mechs.
As I stated before: the problem here is the quirks. Fix the quirks, provide nerfs to Streak-6 boating, let the tonnage be the same for both sides, and work out the balance from there.
You trollin right? The TDR has a compact model / hitbox? They gave it ST structure quirks because its so fat and juicy.
The 5SS has an optimal of 353m with quirks and modules, which is less than a IS LL (450) base range. I'm not going to bother refuting anything else you have to say regarding mech or equipment balance since its obvious you have no F'ing clue what you are talking about.
Yes, the 60% / 53% clan win rate does not represent everything, but it does represent the in match balance when done over a large enough sample of matches. (Tukayyid being an especially good example because you can drill down and see the different premade 12 man win%).
What the win rate does not represent, is population imbalance / territory gained, which is IRRELEVANT when discussing faction/mech balance.
#182
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:37 PM
Telmasa, on 11 May 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:
The tonnage wasn't the issue, the superquirks WERE.
If you reduced the super-quirked IS mechs to a reasonable norm (and brought other underquirked mechs up to that norm), while keeping that tonnage limit difference, I really think most players could have been happy with that.
You want IS mechs to behave like they did in BT canon? Why don't clanners start by behaving like clanners did in BT canon and stop focus firing/spawn camping/using arty and start demanding to drop in stars rather than companies. Never been more frustrated than getting demolished by clan lights swarming a drop zone shooting and dropping arty on anything in front of them. This won't happen, of course, but don't complain of disparity on one side and ignore it on the other.
#183
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:37 PM
Kay Wolf, on 11 May 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:
I think the only way you could do it would be to assign each weapon a value dependent on what Mech it's installed in. By that I mean a large laser has X points on a Thunderbolt and Y points on a Locust. Add up all the point values for all the weapons in your build, and that's your value. You have to do it this way so that if you take a really crappy build on a Thunderbolt, you aren't penalized for the Thunderbolt itself.
If you don't do it that way, all the "You brought <Mech Name> to CW? You can't bring <Mech Name> to CW..." will just turn into "You brought <Weapon Type> on a <Mech Name> to CW? You can't bring <Weapon Type> on a <Mech Name> to CW..." and that's not really an improvement at all.
Having said that, how many Weapon and Mech combinations are possible right now? Pretty sure that's a gigantic number that would require way too many games' worth of data to establish an accurate baseline.
#184
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:46 PM
Adamski, on 11 May 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:
Clan are OP, their movement, XL engines, perpertual laser vomit, so blatantly tiring.
but the quirks are a quick jab to a clanners face if they aint prepared...
the jaeger A... twin gauss, 9 tons ammo.
module.
gets 2564m+-..?! max range.
856m effective... 1700m droppoff....
hitting pin point.
support your group and stll get 600-800 per jaeger.
top that clanner, but get in close, and youll mop the floor..
Jaeger A is OP.
#185
Posted 11 May 2015 - 08:55 PM
#186
Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:04 PM
#187
Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:22 PM
Perhaps they use the Mercs that switched to measure balance. Same pilots in different mechs, are they doing more damage/kills/etc in IS or Clan mechs? They doing 2800 in Clan and 3200 in IS?
Who knows. If it was as simple as encouraging population like in the past, they would probably just do the CBill/GXP modifiers. Kurita would be at 50%, CSJ & CGB would be at 200% bonuses.
#188
Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:24 PM
#189
Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:24 PM
There is no real reason to defend or conquer planets. Most people playing CW just want their loyalty points to get ranks and the stuff that comes with them.
Give a damn reason to care about what happens on the map, THEN start balancing the game mode IS vs Clan based on what's happening on the map.
edit: my IS drop deck is already 240 tons, so this doesn't affect me in any way. Also, my unit's home faction is CGB. The reasoning to this is just stupid, I'm not crying about losing my crutch.
Edited by Kyynele, 11 May 2015 - 09:27 PM.
#190
Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:25 PM
this ....is... CW. (front kick)
#191
Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:27 PM
Domenoth, on 11 May 2015 - 08:37 PM, said:
If you don't do it that way, all the "You brought <Mech Name> to CW? You can't bring <Mech Name> to CW..." will just turn into "You brought <Weapon Type> on a <Mech Name> to CW? You can't bring <Weapon Type> on a <Mech Name> to CW..." and that's not really an improvement at all.
Having said that, how many Weapon and Mech combinations are possible right now? Pretty sure that's a gigantic number that would require way too many games' worth of data to establish an accurate baseline.
Ohh, but didn't you know? here everyone is a game developer, what do PGI know after all? A neckbeard is all the qualification you need in the magical forumland.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


























