170 replies to this topic

[Duke Nedo]

Ronyn, on 28 July 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

I really am enjoying watching this conversation unfold. The bias against Clans is overwhelming. Feelings and opinions are being thrown around as if they represent fact and as soon as something is brought up that would negatively impact anything Inner Sphere related the entire post is marked as improper and not factual. Do you guys even listen to yourselves? Seriously. This is just a long troll thread. I thought you wanted to balance the Clan/Inner Sphere, not give Inner Sphere more stuff and nerf the Clans, which is exactly what this post is about.

On my behalf, this is truly not trolling. Can we make it more concrete for you? Let me ask you a very concrete question regarding weapons Balance discussed above:

Which build would you build on any of Your clan mechs using only IS weapons that would make it better than Your current best build on that chassi. I am genuinely curious. I thought I would come up With more, but all I can think of is stuff like 10+ MPLs on an Executioner or something like that.

[Duke Nedo]

Jeb, on 27 July 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

I stopped reading at "For now, let's ignore hitboxes, geometry and quirks."

Honestly you have to take everything into account for mech balance...

Mech Balance yes, but not Tech Balance. That's the Whole point With this thead, to lobby for better Tech Balance so that we can then achieve better mech Balance by the upcoming quirk pass.

Doing it all by quirks will mean super quirks and super tears... if the inherent powergap from the Tech is smaller, it will be much easier to get the quirks right to compensate for geometry, hardpoints and hitboxes.

[Phlinger]

Duke Nedo, on 28 July 2015 - 07:17 AM, said:

Do you argue that EBJ and SCR for example are affected negatively by the locked jumpjets on SMNs?

It's like I would say that IS are underpowered because Commandos have bad hardpoints.

As long as you don't need to use Summoners in CW, the locked Equipment on Summoners do not affect Clan vs. IS Balance in the slightest bit. That is a fact.

It does however break a fair number of Clan chassi, which is a shame! Both Clan- and IS- intra-balance needs a lot of work, but it does not affect Clan vs IS Balance as long as it doesn't buff or nerf the top chassi.

Will you please stop approaching this as a Meta Tryhard. The Timberwolf, Stormcrow and Direwolf have all been nerfed, but because they are good chassis does not mean that the rest of the Clan mechs should suffer because of it. The Inner Sphere has good chassis as well, does that mean that the rest need to be nerfed?


Just because a mech is abused in CW by spreadsheet whiners and psuedo-factual thinkers does not mean that the game is as unbalanced as people claim it is.

I was melted by a 6 Large laser Stalker today, I fail to see how these are different than the mass PPC Stalkers of yesteryear that warranted a hefty nerf, but instead, now a days they are being praised as 'Almost balanced with Clan tech' when the loadout is simply preposterous. It's not the Chassis that is the problem, it's not the tech, it's the Meta tryhards that abuse everything they can get so their spreadsheet says .0002% Gain.

The true way to Balance both Clans and Inner Sphere is not in mixing tech, not in quirks, but limiting/controlling how this tech can be applied. In order to balance, they have to shape the Meta to what they want the game to be, not let the Meta shape the game.

[Duke Nedo]

Ronyn, on 28 July 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

Will you please stop approaching this as a Meta Tryhard. The Timberwolf, Stormcrow and Direwolf have all been nerfed, but because they are good chassis does not mean that the rest of the Clan mechs should suffer because of it. The Inner Sphere has good chassis as well, does that mean that the rest need to be nerfed?


Just because a mech is abused in CW by spreadsheet whiners and psuedo-factual thinkers does not mean that the game is as unbalanced as people claim it is.

I was melted by a 6 Large laser Stalker today, I fail to see how these are different than the mass PPC Stalkers of yesteryear that warranted a hefty nerf, but instead, now a days they are being praised as 'Almost balanced with Clan tech' when the loadout is simply preposterous. It's not the Chassis that is the problem, it's not the tech, it's the Meta tryhards that abuse everything they can get so their spreadsheet says .0002% Gain.

The true way to Balance both Clans and Inner Sphere is not in mixing tech, not in quirks, but limiting/controlling how this tech can be applied. In order to balance, they have to shape the Meta to what they want the game to be, not let the Meta shape the game.

You can't change player behavior. People will gravitate towards the best.

You can however Balance Techs and mechs so that there is less to abuse by min-maxing.

You can also restrict building rules, but that's another discussion.

Ps. If you got melted by a single 6x LL stalker (i.e. a 2x 27 point alpha), then you didn't duck.

[Phlinger]

Duke Nedo, on 28 July 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

You can't change player behavior. People will gravitate towards the best.

You can however Balance Techs and mechs so that there is less to abuse by min-maxing.

You can also restrict building rules, but that's another discussion.

Ps. If you got melted by a single 6x LL stalker (i.e. a 2x 27 point alpha), then you didn't duck.

Seriously man, you are trying to solve a problem while dealing with the secondary symptoms. You have to get to the root of the problem, and yes, I will admit there is indeed a problem. But, you are quite frankly, barking up the wrong tree.

And your approach.... you didn't duck? Seriously? Duck the damned Timberwolves.... there, problem solved, right? Okay, problem is solved, (Shouts at the crew in the back) The guys didn't duck... it wasn't the Timberwolf at all, they just didn't duck.

[Duke Nedo]

Ronyn, on 28 July 2015 - 07:47 AM, said:

Seriously man, you are trying to solve a problem while dealing with the secondary symptoms. You have to get to the root of the problem, and yes, I will admit there is indeed a problem. But, you are quite frankly, barking up the wrong tree.

And your approach.... you didn't duck? Seriously? Duck the damned Timberwolves.... there, problem solved, right? Okay, problem is solved, (Shouts at the crew in the back) The guys didn't duck... it wasn't the Timberwolf at all, they just didn't duck.

Did you read the OP at all? This thread is indeed about addressing the root of the problem. The powergap comes mainly from 1. clan XL ST survivability and 2. Equipment/weapons weight efficiency. These are Tech imbalances.

Because of these two, IS are heavily quirked. That's it really.

I am not complaining about Timberwolves or clans being OP. I am playing clans and IS both. I have no problems killing clan mechs and IS mechs both. But, I do wish we had better Balance because that would make MWO a better computer game. Balance is not broken, but it's also not very good. It is band-aided^2 making it very circumstantial, inconsequent and convoluted.

PGI has the chance do address this now that they are giving it an overhaul.

[Phlinger]

Duke Nedo, on 28 July 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

Did you read the OP at all? This thread is indeed about addressing the root of the problem. The powergap comes mainly from 1. clan XL ST survivability and 2. Equipment/weapons weight efficiency. These are Tech imbalances.

Because of these two, IS are heavily quirked. That's it really.

I am not complaining about Timberwolves or clans being OP. I am playing clans and IS both. I have no problems killing clan mechs and IS mechs both. But, I do wish we had better Balance because that would make MWO a better computer game. Balance is not broken, but it's also not very good. It is band-aided^2 making it very circumstantial, inconsequent and convoluted.

PGI has the chance do address this now that they are giving it an overhaul.

I read it. What you veil in 'Balance' I call 'Homogenization'. What most, including you, Inner Sphere pilots fail to realize, is that there is more to 'Balance' than just making things equal. It's a tug of war, akin to walking a tight rope. one side gets something, then the next gets something different to counter, then the other side gets something to counter that, and so forth.. THAT is how Balance works.

I thought we already resolved this, man. You need to duck more.

(Shouts at crew in the back) He didn't get it. I already pinpointed his agenda. Did he duck? Nah, guess not. Carry on!

[Kristov Kerensky]

Sjorpha, on 25 July 2015 - 04:53 AM, said:

The DRG-1N is actually a great example of the imbalance, because not even that extremely silly strong AC5 quirk has managed to make it worthwhile in comp matches.

If we had balance between IS and Clan tech you shouldn't need a quirk for the mech to be good, except maybe some minor armour/structure buffs to compensate bad hitboxes, but the need for those would be in both the factions.

So the "overquirked" IS mechs are actually one of the strongest evidence we have that the tech is very imbalanced.

You have to understand that the quirks aren't arguments in the balance discussion, balance is achieved when we can remove most of the IS quirks because they are no longer needed.

You do realize that PGI's solution to balance between the 2 Techs is quirks, right? They aren't actually balancing the TECHS against each other beyond what they've done so far, they are using quirks to do the rest of the balancing. See the recent changes to the Omnipod quirks for Timbys and SCrows, the quirks given to the Wave III Mechs, quirks given to the Resistance and Resistance II Mechs.

Hell the entire rebalance that is coming is all about resetting the Tiers of the Mechs and redoing their quirks based on their new Tier assignment! They aren't redoing WEAPONS, they are requirking Mechs.

Quirks ARE the balance tool that PGI has decided to use. I for one think it's a crock and I got a refund on my Resistance II pack due to that, and I won't be getting the Origins IIC pack, or spending another dime on the game due to that choice by PGI.

[Duke Nedo]

Ronyn, on 28 July 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

I read it. What you veil in 'Balance' I call 'Homogenization'. What most, including you, Inner Sphere pilots fail to realize, is that there is more to 'Balance' than just making things equal. It's a tug of war, akin to walking a tight rope. one side gets something, then the next gets something different to counter, then the other side gets something to counter that, and so forth.. THAT is how Balance works.

I thought we already resolved this, man. You need to duck more.

(Shouts at crew in the back) He didn't get it. I already pinpointed his agenda. Did he duck? Nah, guess not. Carry on!

I'll answer the first bit and forget the silly bit at the end. I am not suggesting identical Tech, but closing the powergap. Biggest elephant is that IS XL dies from a lost ST. That's a real Balance breaker. The best way imo is to "normalize" engines like a few including me has suggested, giving for example a penalty per engine crit slot in the ST destroyed, meaning that IS XL gets a bigger penalty for losing a ST than a clan XL does, but it doesn't kill them. That is not identical, but its similar enough not to break Balance. Instead of trying to heal broken Balance by strong quirks, you could og to the root of the problem and instead settle for weaker quirks. Much smarter design strategy imo.

Kristov Kerensky, on 28 July 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

You do realize that PGI's solution to balance between the 2 Techs is quirks, right? They aren't actually balancing the TECHS against each other beyond what they've done so far, they are using quirks to do the rest of the balancing. See the recent changes to the Omnipod quirks for Timbys and SCrows, the quirks given to the Wave III Mechs, quirks given to the Resistance and Resistance II Mechs.

Hell the entire rebalance that is coming is all about resetting the Tiers of the Mechs and redoing their quirks based on their new Tier assignment! They aren't redoing WEAPONS, they are requirking Mechs.

Quirks ARE the balance tool that PGI has decided to use. I for one think it's a crock and I got a refund on my Resistance II pack due to that, and I won't be getting the Origins IIC pack, or spending another dime on the game due to that choice by PGI.

PGI doesn't have to stick to only using quirks... they can do it like that, but if they do I Guess it will have to mean rather strong ST armor/structure buffs to ALL IS mechs, which is kind of silly. It would probably work in a way, but I think it would be smarter to just normalize the XL engines a bit before applying the band-aid. PGI will have enough of a headache adjusting for clan weight effective Equipment With quirks, cause I assume that these numbers will never be touched because of Lore and Stock builds... the way XL engine ST loss is treated though is low hanging fruit and could easily be adjusted without any implications other than improving Balance.

[Phlinger]

Duke Nedo, on 28 July 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

I'll answer the first bit and forget the silly bit at the end. I am not suggesting identical Tech, but closing the powergap. Biggest elephant is that IS XL dies from a lost ST. That's a real Balance breaker. The best way imo is to "normalize" engines like a few including me has suggested, giving for example a penalty per engine crit slot in the ST destroyed, meaning that IS XL gets a bigger penalty for losing a ST than a clan XL does, but it doesn't kill them.

Sure, then Clan Omni-mechs can select their engine sizes? And IS XL's ane locked into the ONE size. Right? I mean, because that is one of the perks for Clan mechs, you are locked into the engine, but can lose a ST and still go.

This debate, isn't really even a debate, you just want what the Clans have and none of the downsides and refuse to see that Clan has any.

[Duke Nedo]

Ronyn, on 28 July 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

Sure, then Clan Omni-mechs can select their engine sizes? And IS XL's ane locked into the ONE size. Right? I mean, because that is one of the perks for Clan mechs, you are locked into the engine, but can lose a ST and still go.

This debate, isn't really even a debate, you just want what the Clans have and none of the downsides and refuse to see that Clan has any.

Troll. I'll answer this one politely as well, then you're on ignore.

IS have Battlemechs (and could get Omnimechs in the far future, not imminent though according to Russ)

Clans have Omnimechs and are getting Battlemechs With the Origin packages on sale right now, implemented in Dec 2015.


Omnimechs have locked engines/Equipment. That is not a clan/IS Balance factor, that is an Omnimech Balance factor. Pro: flexible hardpoints, Con: Locked stuff

Battlemechs have full customization, but "locked" hardpoints. Battlemech Balance: Pro: Flexible stuff, Con: locked hardpoints

Again, Clans will soon have both Omnimechs and Battlemechs. IS only have Access to Battlemech (so far).

Omnimech vs Omnimech Balance is horrible, that is granted, but that is not an Clan vs IS Balance factor since Clans have both Omnimechs and Battlemechs, and also because not all Omnimechs are crippled by locked stuff, like Stormcrows and Ebons. Those come shipped the way you would want them, though locked.

PGI has helped bad hardpointed Battlemechs in the past by hardpoint inflation (i.e. adding extra hardpoint to starved mechs), so there is no point why PGI should not be able to unlock some stuff, or rebuild them, to help the crippled Omnimechs. I am all for helping Summoners etc, be that by quirks or by unlocks or New omnipods or by redesigns or whatever, I don't mind.

[Widowmaker1981]

Duke Nedo, on 28 July 2015 - 11:55 PM, said:

Clans have Omnimechs and are getting Battlemechs With the Origin packages on sale right now, implemented in Dec 2015.


Omnimechs have locked engines/Equipment. That is not a clan/IS Balance factor, that is an Omnimech Balance factor. Pro: flexible hardpoints, Con: Locked stuff

Battlemechs have full customization, but "locked" hardpoints. Battlemech Balance: Pro: Flexible stuff, Con: locked hardpoints

The problem here is that the con of locked stuff FAR outweighs the pro of swappable hardpoints. All that really does it make every single variant of each clan mech useful, unlike IS battlemechs where only 1 or 2 are any good. That doesnt matter once the mech is elited though, because you ONLY DRIVE THE GOOD ONE ANYWAY.

Even the least screwed over omnis like the EBJ still have serious issues to contend with, limiting their builds greatly, if you actually understand efficient mech building:
unable to use crit space in the best places (legs, CT, Heat)
locked DHS preventing fully efficient use of ballistics (especially gauss)

I understand your point regarding IICs. They SHOULD NEVER have introduced them, because now, if you balance the tech so that IICs arent OP, all omnis apart from the Dire will become 100% obsolete (maybe not with the first wave of IICs, but soon after) since unlocked customisation is FAR FAR FAR more valuable than legomech.

[Duke Nedo]

Widowmaker1981, on 29 July 2015 - 12:33 AM, said:

The problem here is that the con of locked stuff FAR outweighs the pro of swappable hardpoints. All that really does it make every single variant of each clan mech useful, unlike IS battlemechs where only 1 or 2 are any good. That doesnt matter once the mech is elited though, because you ONLY DRIVE THE GOOD ONE ANYWAY.

Even the least screwed over omnis like the EBJ still have serious issues to contend with, limiting their builds greatly, if you actually understand efficient mech building:
unable to use crit space in the best places (legs, CT, Heat)
locked DHS preventing fully efficient use of ballistics (especially gauss)

I understand your point regarding IICs. They SHOULD NEVER have introduced them, because now, if you balance the tech so that IICs arent OP, all omnis apart from the Dire will become 100% obsolete (maybe not with the first wave of IICs, but soon after) since unlocked customisation is FAR FAR FAR more valuable than legomech.

Not sure I can agree completely there. I mean, for some mechs like Summoners they suffer huge cons from locked Equipment, while some chassi like Stormcrows and Ebons hardly suffer at all. Fixed structure on the legs... sure, you can't put DHS there but that is really neglible. Remember that no IS mech can ever put DHS in the legs since they are 3 slots. For the good Omnis (non handicapped ones) I'd argue that they are getting all the Pros but hardly any Cons at all from being an Omni. For that reason I am not that concerned about the IICs... they need to ship With really good hardpoints in order to become better than the EBJ or SCR. For that reason I bought the Hunchback pack, I cannot see anything that the Orions or Highlanders will do better than the Omnis we have because of their hardpoint layout. Timberwolf > Orion IIc and Highlander could possibly be useful or fun, I don't really think I will use it after mastering it. Like you say though, future IICs that ships With better geometry and hardpoints can become absolutely lethal! But they will need excellent hardpoints to beat the lego of the non-crippled Omnis...

In any case, Omni to Omni Balance is horrible and needs to be worked on. The Whole Omni system makes balancing factions very difficult indeed... It's as bad a factor for the bad clan chassi as IS XLs are for all IS non-lights. Some redesigns of the Omni-implementation would be as useful as XL engine normalization to achieve better Balance, I fully support that.

The only thing I don't support is using the locked Equipment on Summoners as an argument for that Stormcrows are not OP... it's a quite common opinion it seems but it's honestly a non-factor for faction Balance.

To sum up I think what we need is to buff IS XLs up a bit by removing the immediate Death by ST loss. I.e. not nerf clan Tech as such. Likewise, I would be all for also helping the crippled Omnis by softening their handicap rather than handicapping the good Omnis With more nerfs.

[Widowmaker1981]

Duke Nedo, on 29 July 2015 - 01:37 AM, said:

Not sure I can agree completely there. I mean, for some mechs like Summoners they suffer huge cons from locked Equipment, while some chassi like Stormcrows and Ebons hardly suffer at all. Fixed structure on the legs... sure, you can't put DHS there but that is really neglible. Remember that no IS mech can ever put DHS in the legs since they are 3 slots. For the good Omnis (non handicapped ones) I'd argue that they are getting all the Pros but hardly any Cons at all from being an Omni. For that reason I am not that concerned about the IICs... they need to ship With really good hardpoints in order to become better than the EBJ or SCR. For that reason I bought the Hunchback pack, I cannot see anything that the Orions or Highlanders will do better than the Omnis we have because of their hardpoint layout. Timberwolf > Orion IIc and Highlander could possibly be useful or fun, I don't really think I will use it after mastering it. Like you say though, future IICs that ships With better geometry and hardpoints can become absolutely lethal! But they will need excellent hardpoints to beat the lego of the non-crippled Omnis...

In any case, Omni to Omni Balance is horrible and needs to be worked on. The Whole Omni system makes balancing factions very difficult indeed... It's as bad a factor for the bad clan chassi as IS XLs are for all IS non-lights. Some redesigns of the Omni-implementation would be as useful as XL engine normalization to achieve better Balance, I fully support that.

The only thing I don't support is using the locked Equipment on Summoners as an argument for that Stormcrows are not OP... it's a quite common opinion it seems but it's honestly a non-factor for faction Balance.

To sum up I think what we need is to buff IS XLs up a bit by removing the immediate Death by ST loss. I.e. not nerf clan Tech as such. Likewise, I would be all for also helping the crippled Omnis by softening their handicap rather than handicapping the good Omnis With more nerfs.

Im sorry, but that means you dont understand efficient mech building.

1) ammo usage. We are locked into a situation where ammo is used in a set order, RT -> CT -> LT -> RA -> LA -> RL -> LL -> HD - this means when trying to place ammo so that you still have some late in the game when one ST is blown off, you must place it in the legs or head if you have right sided ballistics. Clan mechs cannot, generally, do this. The legs are BY FAR the best place to put ammo, and its nothing to do with ammo explosions which are incredibly rare anyway and can be ignored as an issue.

2) Heatsinks - this is less of an issue, to be sure since they dont get used up, but bear in mind that to be close to as heat efficient as an IS mech (not possible due to quirks, but anyway) a clan mech must mount many more heatsinks, so the leg and CT space would be useful for that, along with the situational bonus of doubling the leg heatsinks when in water.

3) Shield arms - even with entirely torso based weapons, clans dont get to use shield arms, because the crit slot allocation forces them to stuff them full of ammo or heatsinks. The only real exception to this is the Hellbringer, and thats because it doesnt have ES or FF.

You may discount these issues as minor, but they do make quite a large difference to how effective damaged clan mechs are, and mean that the only close to efficient way of building them is as pure energy boats to sidestep the ammo placement issues (which is why thats 90% of what you see). Try building a Timber wolf with a torso mounted gauss, and tell me where the ammo is - its either in the arm, so if you lose the arm there goes all your ammo, or it is in the left torso, so at that point you lose the Gauss regardless of which torso is destroyed when a ST goes -either the gun is gone, or all the ammo is.

and all that isnt even touching on the fact that running 89.1 is unnecessary for a heavy (80+ is fine) and in all cases dropping the engine for more tonnage would be better.

Again, if your mech has good hardpoints, like many do, legomech is ZERO advantage. NO Omnimech is properly MWO optimised, and of course some are much worse than others. The only Omni i know of which is close to as optimal as it could be is the Blood Asp.

edit: Surrrree, make IS mechs not die on ST loss with XLs. Ill never step out of my Banshee-3M ever again. Or This unholy terror

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 29 July 2015 - 02:31 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Yes, I do think these are minor points compared to most other things discussed here . My first choice is to place ammo together with the gun sometimes leg if free, in the gauss case for padding and in other cases because of free clan case so if you lose the gun you don't need the ammo anyways and you don't risk other compartments on explosion . But sure, perfect hardpoints on battlemech somehow corresponds to perfect engine/structure on an omni. Both avoids the cons they supposedly have...

[Widowmaker1981]

Duke Nedo, on 29 July 2015 - 02:56 AM, said:

Yes, I do think these are minor points compared to most other things discussed here . My first choice is to place ammo together with the gun sometimes leg if free, in the gauss case for padding and in other cases because of free clan case so if you lose the gun you don't need the ammo anyways and you don't risk other compartments on explosion . But sure, perfect hardpoints on battlemech somehow corresponds to perfect engine/structure on an omni. Both avoids the cons they supposedly have...

Except no omni (apart from the Blood Asp) has a perfectly optimal setup, whereas MANY battlemechs have sufficient well placed hardpoints to not have any need to swap them, and bear in mind, Omnis are still restricted by the available pods. I wish there was a RT energy for the Hellbringer for example, but wishing doesnt make it so - NO omnipods have have had ANY hardpoint inflation at all, whereas almost all Battlemechs do.

I still think that Clans should have stayed 100% Omnis, and IS 100% Battlemechs. IICs break everything, and will either destroy Clan/IS balance, or will obsolete Omnis unless the flavour of Omnis is removed by making them fully customisable.

[Duke Nedo]

Widowmaker1981, on 29 July 2015 - 03:26 AM, said:

Except no omni (apart from the Blood Asp) has a perfectly optimal setup, whereas MANY battlemechs have sufficient well placed hardpoints to not have any need to swap them, and bear in mind, Omnis are still restricted by the available pods. I wish there was a RT energy for the Hellbringer for example, but wishing doesnt make it so - NO omnipods have have had ANY hardpoint inflation at all, whereas almost all Battlemechs do.

I still think that Clans should have stayed 100% Omnis, and IS 100% Battlemechs. IICs break everything, and will either destroy Clan/IS balance, or will obsolete Omnis unless the flavour of Omnis is removed by making them fully customisable.

Perhaps, we'll see... all Depends on which battlemechs PGI releases (and if they are Nice With inflation when needed). Perfect hardpoints are also hard to find. Looking at the released Origin mechs their hardpoints are not at all what I would choose if I could swap pods around on them. Neither are the engines though, except maybe the Jenners.

In any case, if ammo Space not being available in the legs is the biggest problem for SCR and EBJ, these particular Omnis are not in any serious trouble in the grand scheme of Things...

Edited by Duke Nedo, 29 July 2015 - 07:50 AM.

[Phlinger]

Okay, I guess since I'm a 'Troll' because I have a contradictory opinion that refutes Nedo's opinion by using his own methods, I'll post this since I'm also on his ignore list apparently.

Quote

For fun, I tried a SMN vs CTF-3D comparison. If I do that on the 1x gauss+4xcERML build, the corresponding performance would require 1x gauss, 3x LL on the CTF-3D, and in order to squeeze that in I'd need to use an IS 280 XL engine (vs the SMN 350 cXL), and in addition to dying from a ST loss and having much worse speed/agility (89 kph+5% + agility quirks vs 71 kph), it's also slightly worse in heat efficiency, alpha and jumpjets.

Yes, let's do this for funsies..... but this time, we'll actually list each 'Mechs pro's and con's while we do it.

Cataphract 3D, because JJ's
Vs.
Summoner D(The best of the lot as posted on the Tier list--- Oh how I hate that list)

Now, I went with a comparison of the exact same build, 1 AC/20 and 4 Medium lasers, why, because each IS and Clan versions have their own perks, just wait, I'll detail them, and NO range is not the main determining factor. If range is all you care about, then go range, but stop with the comparisons, because they aren't there like many claim.

Cataphract 3D 4 Medium Lasers, 1 AC/20 in RT STD 300
Perks:
Shorter Laser burn time than Clan medium Pulse lasers (Because of Quirked Laser Duration)
4 JJ's, removeable
Single Fire Ballistic
30.1 Jump Distance
1.29 Heat Scale
4.5 tons AC/20 ammo
Can lose BOTH torso's before dying
2 Double heatsinks, removeable to upgrade engine or add more armor
416/434 Armor, Max armor minus 9 from each leg
7.5% Ballistic Velocity
7.5% laser Duration
Can remove AC/20, upgrade to Gauss and swap engine to XL, NO Clan mech currently can do this, with new found weight gained from XL swap can now remove 4 Medium Lasers and upgrade to 3 Large Lasers, making it OUTRANGE the Summoner AND giving it 38 tons of carry weight with an XL 300/ 28 Tons with Standard 300 engine

Negative perks
13 kph slower than Summoner
If upgrade to XL dies at the loss of 1 torso, but can out range Summoner
With Medium Lasers less range, longer with Large

Summoner D
+20% Acceleration
+5% Speed Boost
+2.5% Laser Cooldown
+2.5% ER Laser Cooldown
-4% Laser Heat Gen
-6% Laser Duration
1.14 Quirked Burn Time
Longer Range Medium Lasers
Ultra AC
37.6 Jump Distance
1.2 Heat Scale
Can survive 1 Torso loss
Max armor minus 6 from each leg 422/434
Pre-Loaded case
48 point Alpha, but due to rapid Fire AC, this is a variable, UAC can double fire, but again, variable considering Jam Chance

Negative perks
Engine is Locked
4 extra Heatsinks are locked, why does this mech have worse heat efficiency with more locked heatsinks?
5 Locked JJ's
Multiple Slug AC, with Jam chance
Only 21 Tons of available tonnage
Only 3 tons of available Ammo with equal build
Longer Burn Time of lasers



I'm not complaining about Summoners, I'm not complaining about Cataphracts, I'm saying that if you do a comparison, do it right.....


Now why do I hate MetaMechs lists? Because, they are ACCEPTING the fact that not all mechs are balanced, and providing a way circumvent the balancing that we see in game. Lists like that allow the game to continue to be unbalanced, and you don't even see it or understand it.

[Lugh]

Ronyn, on 29 July 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:

Okay, I guess since I'm a 'Troll' because I have a contradictory opinion that refutes Nedo's opinion by using his own methods, I'll post this since I'm also on his ignore list apparently. Yes, let's do this for funsies..... but this time, we'll actually list each 'Mechs pro's and con's while we do it. Cataphract 3D, because JJ's Vs. Summoner D(The best of the lot as posted on the Tier list--- Oh how I hate that list) Now, I went with a comparison of the exact same build, 1 AC/20 and 4 Medium lasers, why, because each IS and Clan versions have their own perks, just wait, I'll detail them, and NO range is not the main determining factor. If range is all you care about, then go range, but stop with the comparisons, because they aren't there like many claim. Cataphract 3D 4 Medium Lasers, 1 AC/20 in RT STD 300 Perks: Shorter Laser burn time than Clan medium Pulse lasers (Because of Quirked Laser Duration) 4 JJ's, removeable Single Fire Ballistic 30.1 Jump Distance 1.29 Heat Scale 4.5 tons AC/20 ammo Can lose BOTH torso's before dying 2 Double heatsinks, removeable to upgrade engine or add more armor 416/434 Armor, Max armor minus 9 from each leg 7.5% Ballistic Velocity 7.5% laser Duration Can remove AC/20, upgrade to Gauss and swap engine to XL, NO Clan mech currently can do this, with new found weight gained from XL swap can now remove 4 Medium Lasers and upgrade to 3 Large Lasers, making it OUTRANGE the Summoner AND giving it 38 tons of carry weight with an XL 300/ 28 Tons with Standard 300 engine Negative perks 13 kph slower than Summoner If upgrade to XL dies at the loss of 1 torso, but can out range Summoner With Medium Lasers less range, longer with Large Summoner D +20% Acceleration +5% Speed Boost +2.5% Laser Cooldown +2.5% ER Laser Cooldown -4% Laser Heat Gen -6% Laser Duration 1.14 Quirked Burn Time Longer Range Medium Lasers Ultra AC 37.6 Jump Distance 1.2 Heat Scale Can survive 1 Torso loss Max armor minus 6 from each leg 422/434 Pre-Loaded case 48 point Alpha, but due to rapid Fire AC, this is a variable, UAC can double fire, but again, variable considering Jam Chance Negative perks Engine is Locked 4 extra Heatsinks are locked, why does this mech have worse heat efficiency with more locked heatsinks? 5 Locked JJ's Multiple Slug AC, with Jam chance Only 21 Tons of available tonnage Only 3 tons of available Ammo with equal build Longer Burn Time of lasers I'm not complaining about Summoners, I'm not complaining about Cataphracts, I'm saying that if you do a comparison, do it right..... Now why do I hate MetaMechs lists? Because, they are ACCEPTING the fact that not all mechs are balanced, and providing a way circumvent the balancing that we see in game. Lists like that allow the game to continue to be unbalanced, and you don't even see it or understand it.

The power gamers see it exploit it and say everything is fine. The purists hate it because it's not true enough to TT.

Battle Tech was never a game about balance it was about force exploitation and getting more from your given BV than the other guy was able to.

This changed when the computer games came along because you no longer had to work out all the math in your head as much. So it got much much easier to compute which builds were optimal for which situations in mere minutes. And see it played out in a similar time window.

None of the computer games has EVER really done an exceptional capturing of the feeling of Mechs being LostTech that was so precious and rare, and so little understood that the mechanics that worked on these behemoths would say, I KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, But I am not willing to risk my execution if your gambit fails. It will also take 36months to reframe this 80 ton monster from the inside out. Can you REALLY afford to wait that long?

[Widowmaker1981]

Lugh, on 29 July 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

The power gamers see it exploit it and say everything is fine. The purists hate it because it's not true enough to TT.

Battle Tech was never a game about balance it was about force exploitation and getting more from your given BV than the other guy was able to.

This changed when the computer games came along because you no longer had to work out all the math in your head as much. So it got much much easier to compute which builds were optimal for which situations in mere minutes. And see it played out in a similar time window.

None of the computer games has EVER really done an exceptional capturing of the feeling of Mechs being LostTech that was so precious and rare, and so little understood that the mechanics that worked on these behemoths would say, I KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, But I am not willing to risk my execution if your gambit fails. It will also take 36months to reframe this 80 ton monster from the inside out. Can you REALLY afford to wait that long?

What you want is a battletech game with no customisation at all, and thats fine but its a different game. A LOT of other people would not play it without the ability to customise.