407 replies to this topic

[Ace Selin]

So instead of adding incentives for people to play as Clanners you shaft everyone by reducing IS dropdecks, when clearly going by Tuk and all other stats im aware of, the Clans have predominantly beaten IS. LOL way to not know why your game is in the state it is.

Edited by Ace Selin, 12 May 2015 - 03:47 PM.

[VoodooLou Kerensky]

Adamski, on 12 May 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

Honestly, I could care less about the META being changed, I care more about BALANCE, and PGIs apparent lack of concern over how changes will impact it.

If PGI wants to provide reasons for doing things that will disrupt or shift the balance, then we could examine and debate them on their merits. Instead PGI implements changes often with no reasoning other than "to see how things change" with no regard to the current state of the game or how the changes will effect it.

And this is how they get by that being an issue. WELCOME TO BETA TESTING

[CrushLibs]

CW started with 240 vs 240 so its not a "nerf" its re-balancing.

In game testing both mechs are VERY close with a slight edge to the stalker

Atlas Damage to CT
STK = 94% (first alpha) , 88% (second alpha) , 5 shots out of 6 (5/6th alpha) to kill atlas
WHK = 94% (first alpha) , 89% (second alpha) , 4 shots out of 4 (full alpha) to kill atlas

[Adamski]

Yep, the Stalker does 27 with each firing group, the WHK does 26. The STK has higher hard points, the WHK moves faster and has longer range, the WHK also is able to keep cool just a little bit better than the STK.

[chaas]

Things that tick me off in this thread:

People yelling "I quit because you changed something in a Beta."

Yep. That about sums it up for this community. High five, team!

[Twilight Fenrir]

This only bothers me... because I paid money for the Griffon 2N to replace my Cicada 3M and eat up my spare tonnage... Now I don't have a use for it XD

Oh well, I'm sure when -MS- switches back to clans, and the map starts looking like it did before, we'll get our 10 ton buff again

[Twilight Fenrir]

Adamski, on 12 May 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:

Yep, the Stalker does 27 with each firing group, the WHK does 26. The STK has higher hard points, the WHK moves faster and has longer range, the WHK also is able to keep cool just a little bit better than the STK.

Really? I hated my Warhawk, but I didn't try to put on ERLL on it... maybe I should...

[Crockdaddy]

0phialacria, on 11 May 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Can someone from the IS even adequately tell me what the REAL advantage clans have over you is? You have massive quirk mechs, you all KNOW that a Stalker 4N is ridiculously Meta, along with the firestarter. WHAT exactly are you complaining about?
As sarcastic as this may sound, I really am curious. I feel like I must be missing something that that extra 10 tons really gave you, because WE sure as hell didn't have it. We don't have any advantage except having XL engines that are tougher. Range? Not anymore. Heat? We're hotboxes! Damage? Our lasers take longer to cycle, meaning we can't armor roll like you can. AC's? We all know Clan AC's are terrible, because we miss even one shot out of an AC-10 and we lose base damage. You pop a single shot and get full damage out of all your guns. Your lasers recharge faster, take less time to burn, and generate less heat.

WHAT is the PROBLEM here? Look at the CW map! LOOK AT IT. We haven't taken a SINGLE planet besides Tuk in almost 2 months. 2 MONTHS. What am I missing that makes this such a huge deal? WE don't have flexibility, how come YOU get to?

Your one of the clanners whom drop in mismatched Timbers / Stormcrows or gasp ... use LRM 15 racks on your timbers. For that I must thank you. You effectively take the best mech in the game out of its greatest strength ... Laser Vomit Sniper or Fast all powerful brawler. To this very day I don't understand why you don't use the best mech in the game to your advantage ... If I could ever get NS to take a short term clan contract I know I would love it.

[Ace Selin]

CrushLibs, on 12 May 2015 - 04:30 PM, said:

CW started with 240 vs 240 so its not a "nerf" its re-balancing.

In game testing both mechs are VERY close with a slight edge to the stalker

Atlas Damage to CT
STK = 94% (first alpha) , 88% (second alpha) , 5 shots out of 6 (5/6th alpha) to kill atlas
WHK = 94% (first alpha) , 89% (second alpha) , 4 shots out of 4 (full alpha) to kill atlas

No need to talk about Warhawk when Clanners are predominantly piloting the 2 best mechs in the game, the Timberwolf and Stormcrow.

Edited by Ace Selin, 12 May 2015 - 06:44 PM.

[White Bear 84]

Bulletsponge0, on 11 May 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

no..its because after the reset, the clans have been getting pushed out of the IS

Because a tonne of mercs left the clans after the event. PGI must pay attention to merc dynamics - course people switch to clans to play Tukayyid..

Right now imo there is too much too-ing and fro-ing with merc units.

[Threat Doc]

Freebrewer Bmore, on 12 May 2015 - 07:19 AM, said:

Static valuation is the problem, though, whether you're talking in terms of tonnage or of BV. We need a dynamic system that continually adjusts itself against the OP flavor of the month, because there will be an OP flavor of the month regardless of how well you try to devise BV, or tonnage allocations, or quirk/weapon balances, or whatever.

Static valuation is not the problem with Battle Value, any more than Battle Value has anything to do with controlling flavor of the month. I'm talking about putting 'Mechs together using static component values so you can have the same valuation across ALL 'Mechs. A Hunchback mounting 6 Medium Lasers -with the current hardpoint system of the game- would have the same valuation from those 6 Medium Lasers as any other 'Mech carrying them. That's the way it should be. Flavor of the month is always going to be a problem, and that problem should not be fixable through Battle Value. If some jerk designs their 'Mech to be meta, then meta values are what they are going to get from them. The POINT of Battle Value is that it not only accounts for the pilot, it also accounts for the strength of the machine in combat. Will you have machines that are fairly powerful but have a low BV? Yes. I'm not saying you won't have builds that are fairly light on BV and fairly powerful; what I am saying is that BV will allow the use of actual buckets for matching teams based on the build values you get in the MechLab, as coupled with the MechWarrior's Piloting and Gunnery Skill. Battle Value is not meant to help flavor of the week, it is designed to make it more likely to have even buckets in all game types, using a single value, as opposed to using Pilot Elo's -which none of us can be made aware of, for whatever reason-, followed by age of a MechWarrior or group in the matchmaker, followed by weight class mixtures, and finally by tonnage matching, which then have these "valves" open up the longer the matchmaker is searching.

This allows for many matches that are fairly even, but it allows for more matches that are lopsided. With BV bucket matching, the only number you would need, teams can be matched up even faster, more evenly, etc. Remove all of the quirks from 'Mechs, let them be as they are, put Battle Value on them IN THE MECHLAB, use a multiplier to that Battle Value based on a game-determined Piloting and Gunnery Skill IN THE MECHLAB, right as the 'Mech is saved and, then, when the pilot hits Play, that value for that 'Mech and that pilot are dumped straight into the bucket with the rest, the matchmaker works to level the numbers, and it doesn't have to be 12 vs. 12, within 5% of each other's number, and away we go!!!

I don't care, at this point, about handling monster of the week builds, as I have been learning to ignore those types of builds, and beating them, anyway. A 'Mech is a 'Mech, it has tonnage, critical slots, and PGI added hardpoints for weapon limitations; 'Mechs have to be built within the rules, and all of the individual values of the 'Mech are added together to make the whole.

Would you have Jesse Owens and Jackie Joyner-Kersey, separated into the parts of them that make them who they are, and those parts valued individually and dynamically, to compare them? No, JJKs muscle strength, endurance, bone density, heart health, and many other factors would be placed each on the same scale as the corresponding parts on Owens. It's got to be the same with 'Mechs to be fair. After all, why would a Large Laser mounted on a Locust behave any differently than one on a Wolverine? It's the very same weapon, it should have the very same stats, period.

[Twilight Fenrir]

White Bear 84, on 12 May 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

Because a tonne of mercs left the clans after the event. PGI must pay attention to merc dynamics - course people switch to clans to play Tukayyid..

Right now imo there is too much too-ing and fro-ing with merc units.

Soon as Wave III hits... I'm hopping over to the Clans... Can't wait to swing my Ebon Jaguar around >:3

[CrushLibs]

We are comparing the Warhawk to the stalker due to size.

The TW with 4 LPL can only take 20 DHS vs 28 for the warhawk thus the TW runs even hotter and has less armor.

So comparing the stalker to the TW is not really doable.

[White Bear 84]

Twilight Fenrir, on 12 May 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

Soon as Wave III hits... I'm hopping over to the Clans... Can't wait to swing my Ebon Jaguar around >:3

Mmmm Ebon..

[Void Angel]

CrushLibs, on 12 May 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...fc18ce10e999aeb

Heat Generation 9.15

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5028a0f2434393a

Heat Generation 9.88 - 20% = 7.904

So 9.15 = 7.904 ???? don't think so TIM

/fail. Click on the weaponlab in the tool you just linked, on the builds you posted. Now notice the times to overheat. Adjust for quirks. Better yet, just look at sustained dps. Smack yourself on the forehead. Repeat as needed.

Both of these 'mechs are fairly balanced against each other for what they're trying to do. The Stalker's time to overheat is about 19 seconds, compared to the Warhawk's 22, but the Warhawk's weapon cycle is longer. Their expected DPS are similar, thought the Warhawk still has more alpha flexibility and speed v. the Stalker's extremely high weapon mounts and better hitboxes from the front. This is not the Clan "meta" being unable to match the Inner Sphere - rather, it looks a lot like the claim you were correcting.

You even go on to note that they're very close in the testing grounds. Since you're comparing Clan weaknesses to Inner Sphere strengths, that's not a very convincing argument anyway, even if I'm no longer clear whether you're arguing that the two factions are or are not balanced. Clans and Inner Sphere are pretty balanced, but their respective metas do not match up very well.

Edited by Void Angel, 12 May 2015 - 09:27 PM.

[CTsai]

DarkExar, on 11 May 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

....Following their loss to the Clans in the First Battle of Tukayyid,
... meeting the Second Clan Invasion with greater strength and ferocity than ever....
... such gains come at a cost...
....already being stressed by extended Clan occupation...
....even greater turmoil in the wake of immense losses experienced at the Battle of Tukayyid....
....Inner Sphere forces have stretched their supply lines too thin....


All above epic bullcrap story gives 4% tonnage reduction?? 4%????
FFS PGI if you want to "ballance" (lol?) something please kindly don't bother to waste time on bleach storytelling.
At least now I know - the victory was worth exactly 10 tonnes!!!!!!!!

EDIT: sorry, I forgot to say - thats totally pathetic!

You know what else is pathetic?
4% Quirks on clan omnipods.

Die, Clanner.

[Novawrecker]

Kin3ticX, on 11 May 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

I am perplexed

What's perplexing about it? PGI has made it clear, ye who whines the most, gets results from PGI. I thought this was pretty cut 'n' dry since first nerf IS received vs. clanners

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Now give me a 25 ton Commando instead of a Raven that isn't useless and I may forgive you.
I demand:
- ECM
- Engine Cap at least 225
- 5 Laser Hardpoints (2LA, 2RA, 1 Head)
- Quirks for (Medium) Laser Range and (Medium) Laser Heat Reduction
- Quirks for armor strength on LT, RT and legs

(Hey, someone said whining helps, right? )

[Pragr]

InnerSphereNews, on 11 May 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

Greetings MechWarriors,



Following their loss to the Clans in the First Battle of Tukayyid, Inner Sphere forces have been meeting the Second Clan Invasion with greater strength and ferocity than ever.



Many territories have been won by the Inner Sphere forces since the borders were reset at the end of the battle, and such gains come at a cost: Inner Sphere supply lines and infrastructure in the outer territories, already being stressed by extended Clan occupation, have experienced even greater turmoil in the wake of immense losses experienced at the Battle of Tukayyid.
In their noble efforts to prevent such a defeat again, the Inner Sphere forces have stretched their supply lines too thin.



Effective from 3PM PDT today, Inner Sphere DropDeck tonnage limits have been reduced from 250 tonnes to 240 tonnes.

I have no idea who composed this message, but it makes me laugh. Extrapolating these statements to their extreme it means that when clanners win the vast majority of CW battles, the IS tonnage would be limited to 0 tons. Maybe it is the direction you want to point the CW. I doubt however.

As I wrote before I don't consider the 10 tons decrease as a big deal. But please, next time try to think at least 1 minute before you post/make some logical nonsense like this one. With all respect and no offence.

[Twilight Fenrir]

Pragr, on 13 May 2015 - 05:28 AM, said:

I have no idea who composed this message, but it makes me laugh. Extrapolating these statements to their extreme it means that when clanners win the vast majority of CW battles, the IS tonnage would be limited to 0 tons. Maybe it is the direction you want to point the CW. I doubt however.

How do you figure that? O.o If anything, as the clans took over the majority of the map, their tonnage would drop, or the IS would increase...

It's about spreading yourself too thin. If you have 1000 mechs, and hold 100 worlds, that's 10 mechs to a world for garrison... You keep conquering, and make it 125 worlds, then you only have 8 mechs for garrison. The available tonnage on any given world drops.

Ultimately, of course, it's just blanketing a balance change with a story, which I like, actually. And it's quite a reasonable one.