460 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 05:48 AM, said:

Weird then how the overquirked Tbolt is fricking everywhere.

That is weird that there's a bunch of over quirked Thunderbolt sprouting gauss rifles.........

Oh wait, you mean one had nothing to do with the other. Huh.

Moving the target, much?

[Revis Volek]

Heart of Storm, on 13 July 2015 - 03:19 PM, said:

Seeing lots of mention of gauss quirks here... dont recall seeing many on my IS mechs...

Do clanners just assume IS mechs have quirks for every weapon?

Its called ballistic cool down and yes LOTS of IS mechs have them...

Grid Iron ever?

[Dimento Graven]

Johnny Z, on 15 July 2015 - 06:45 AM, said:

I will point this out again, but among the other 500 reasons this isnt a good idea,

This is an opinion, one that many of us do not agree with.

Quote

how can one team or guild be expected to field more players than another team or guild? For that fact alone 10 v 12 isnt fair.

Actually clans might find it easier to organize 10 man groups vs organzing 12 mans. In my experience it's easier to get 10 people than 12.

Quote

10 v 12 would cut Mechwarrior Online sellable mechs in half, they may as well take heros out of the store...

All in game prices would have to be changed, as well all mech pack prices.

Explain your reasoning on this. To me, reading it and interpreting it word for word, makes no sense, so obviously I've missed something. Elaborate please.

Quote

All the none faction queues would need to be split in two.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I specifically stated that this should be done for CW only. Which is already separate from the public queues. Let the public queues remain as is, as both sides of the public queues, having no faction restrictions theoretically have an equal chance of ending up with clan tech dropping with them.

Quote

Most important of all its bad sportsmanship which explains everything anyway.

Again, explain. Based on Lore the over powering superior technology the Clans brought to battle was ALWAYS balanced by the IS's much greater numbers.

It's 'bad sportsmanship' to knowingly continue to bring OP tech against an enemy that has inadequate balance compensators.

[Revis Volek]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 06:37 AM, said:

Yeah that and the fact that clan laser vomit load outs typically run cooler and hit farther and harder than most of the closest IS equivalents, while STILL maintaining the "I won't die with a ST loss" XL advantage, allowing them to not only typically have more fire power at longer distances, but also have faster more nimble 'mechs.

Since, in CW, clans get to drop with 12 'mechs they have extremely few balancing disadvantages.

Which is why I've stated all along:

Let's un-nerf EVERYBODY, both IS and Clan, and limit the CW drop queues to 10 clan pilots verses 12 IS.

Then the clans would have their proper technological advantages, and the IS would come closer to having it's "numbers" advantage.

We know you have been saying this but YOU dont realize this breaks the normal queue. If we had CW only then sure....but your "numbers advantage" doesn't work outside CW. Its not an opinion its a bad idea and its not even yours.

So try again...

and i prefer dual Gauss jager over dual Gauss EBJ, too wide, too short and bad ammo placement made for very painful game play. You may THINK its better but you also think 10v12 is a good idea despite it breaking half the game and creating a undesirable mechanic where you all become cannon fodder.

Edited by DarthRevis, 15 July 2015 - 07:49 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 06:58 AM, said:

Because currently the clan mechs aren't any where near as good as they should be. That's why.

Go back and read my posts, I clearly state that for the CW queue, un-nerf EVERYONE (both Clan and IS) and go to a 10v12 drop system.

Clans get their OP tech, IS gets their greater numbers.

Theoretically (and according to Lore and the original TT game) balance is achieved...

[CrushLibs]

Prosperity Park, on 13 July 2015 - 03:03 PM, said:

The Clan Gauss Rifle weighs 3 tons less than the IS version. What are the balancing factors used to compensate for this?

1. no standard engine option
2. no swap for engines
3. heat penalty for loss of side torso
4. fixed armor type
5. fixed endo
6. fixed armor and endo slots (not dynamic like IS)
7. more heat and longer beam duration for back up weapons to gauss
8. IS quirks for faster cool down times

[Dimento Graven]

Water Bear, on 15 July 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:

I'll just jump in here and add that the devs did a period of 10 clan vs 12 IS, IIRC before quirks, and clans won that more often than they lost it.

At least this is what I read here, no telling if it's true.

Then the obvious thing, least effort required, to try is to increase the drop weight allowance for IS.

At equal drop weight allowances, and un-nerfed clan tech, it's possible Clan tech might still overpower IS, in a ton-for-ton matchup. If that does indeed occur, increase the IS allowance by 15 tons, and see what happens. If after 2 or 3 increases Clans are still considered OP, decrease clan drop pilots by 1, so 9 v 12, OR, increase IS drop pilots by 1, 10v13, and so on, until a parity is reached.

As it is now, tweaking, re-tweaking, nerfing, un-nerfing, quirking, un-quirking weapon by weapon, mech by mech doesn't really seem to be getting us anywhere.

Time for a paradigm shift, no?

[Dimento Graven]

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

Its called ballistic cool down and yes LOTS of IS mechs have them...

Grid Iron ever?

oOooh AAHHHH, a MEDIUM mech that can fire ONE gauss really fast, and that very fragile, very explody weapon system happens to be a GIANT target on its shoulder, which should it die and the pilot made the decision to include an XL in his build out causes a 90% chance of "instant game over" should the weapon get crit'd.

Yeah... It's a REAL "OP" monster, isn't it?!?!?

LOL...

[Hit the Deck]

People always talk about dual Gauss but what about when we look at single Gauss? This is what you can get with 3 tons less:

35 tons Raven

VS

35 tons Adder

[IraqiWalker]

LordBraxton, on 15 July 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

(and SCat soon)

can we PLEASE call it by any other name?

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

Its called ballistic cool down and yes LOTS of IS mechs have them...

Grid Iron ever?

There are Literally 6 mechs with GR CD quirks. Ballistic cooldown exists on many IS and clan mechs, and most of it is insignificant, and a regular module gives you a bigger benefit than it does.

CrushLibs, on 15 July 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

1. no standard engine option
2. no swap for engines
3. heat penalty for loss of side torso
4. fixed armor type
5. fixed endo
6. fixed armor and endo slots (not dynamic like IS)
7. more heat and longer beam duration for back up weapons to gauss
8. IS quirks for faster cool down times

Cool list. Let's keep the ones that are actually relevant to the Gauss Rifle:

CrushLibs, on 15 July 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

1. no standard engine option
2. no swap for engines

There we go. Those are actually relevant to the Gauss Balance (I already covered why quirks is really false, and back up weapons don't mean diddly, since you won't be firing them at 800+ meters). It should be mentioned that no upgrades on a clan mech prevent it from mounting a Gauss Rifle (except in the case of the Kitfox S STs {it can still mount it in the arms}, and the Mist Lynx JJs) Which means that out of the ENTIRE Clan line up, only 1 mech can't mount a Gauss Rifle, and it's the Mist Lynx, a 25 Tonner.

Hit the Deck, on 15 July 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

People always talk about dual Gauss but what about when we look at single Gauss? This is what you can get with 3 tons less:

35 tons Raven

VS

35 tons Adder

Oh NO! You can mount HALF a ton more, by using an XL 180 (slower by 30 ratings than the ADR's 210), on an IS light that would die should it lose the Gauss rifle (the GR explosion will probably take out the ST). Yes, that raven is clearly OP.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 15 July 2015 - 08:05 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

CrushLibs, on 15 July 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

1. no standard engine option
2. no swap for engines
3. heat penalty for loss of side torso
4. fixed armor type
5. fixed endo
6. fixed armor and endo slots (not dynamic like IS)
7. more heat and longer beam duration for back up weapons to gauss
8. IS quirks for faster cool down times

That is a great list of bullet points on the properties of a general clan chassis. Not sure what it has to do with clan gauss properties vs the IS counterpart. Thanks for describing how a clan chassis can or can't be configured though.

Just in case your curious, I'm not really pushing for a clan gauss nerf, maybe a different characteristic so they aren't completely identical (such as clan vs IS A/Cs or energy) but not a straight up nerf. I just commented because I find that argument off way base.

BTW, why do people keep thinking the IS STD engine is a plus for the IS side and a Clan XL a negative? Like I said before, I don't know anyone who effectively wants to run around as a cored CT stick. STD engines are equipped to allow a side torso loss so that a mech can fight with weapons in their other torso or arm. We don't equip a STD engine to run around with 1 MLaser in the head and often no CT armor a long with internal damage from damage transfer from losing both side torsos. Basically, IS pays a huge weight penalty to do what Clan XLs do.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 15 July 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

DarthRevis, on 15 July 2015 - 07:47 AM, said:

We know you have been saying this but YOU dont realize this breaks the normal queue. If we had CW only then sure....but your "numbers advantage" doesn't work outside CW. Its not an opinion its a bad idea and its not even yours.

So try again...

Again, HOW does this break the normal queue, since CW and "normal" queues are separate? The pug queue has ZERO to do with CW, hence there's no 3/3/3/3 limitations in the CW queue, and no drop weight limitations in the pug queue, or hadn't you noticed that?

Also, keep in mind, I've stated regularly, in the pug queues both sides are theoretically apt to have Clan tech drop, so there's some chance at parity there.

So... You go try again...

Quote

and i prefer dual Gauss jager over dual Gauss EBJ, too wide, too short and bad ammo placement made for very painful game play. You may THINK its better but you also think 10v12 is a good idea despite it breaking half the game and creating a undesirable mechanic where you all become cannon fodder.

Considering your lack of understand that actual impact of my suggestions, your opinion is rather 'light' in any sort of thought...

[Hit the Deck]

Soon there will be a Clan 'Mech which "prefers" to mount an STD to carry its dual Gauss: the Orion IIC

[Dimento Graven]

CrushLibs, on 15 July 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

1. no standard engine option

How is this a detriment?

Quote

2. no swap for engines

Only a minor inconvenience especially when (and this goes towards your number 1 as well) Clan XL's survive losing an ST?

Quote

3. heat penalty for loss of side torso

Can I have that disadvantage in my IS XL's when they lose a side torso?

Quote

4. fixed armor type

Considering that the Clan Ferro only requires 7 slots, vs. the IS 14, it's not MUCH of a disadvantage when your armor type is already FF.

Quote

5. fixed endo

Again, same as above, considering that Clan Endo only requires 7 slots, vs. the IS 14, it's not too much of a disadvantage when your internal structure is already endo.

Quote

6. fixed armor and endo slots (not dynamic like IS)

Again, Clans require only HALF the slots that IS does.

Quote

7. more heat and longer beam duration for back up weapons to gauss

Clan energy weapons have more damage, greater range, greater DPS, greater DPS/ton

Quote

8. IS quirks for faster cool down times

See number 7.

Hit the Deck, on 15 July 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

People always talk about dual Gauss but what about when we look at single Gauss? This is what you can get with 3 tons less:

35 tons Raven

VS

35 tons Adder

While it's seriously cool to bring single gauss lights to battles (I've got a Firestarter and Urbie with single gauss) it's not something you do for CW or competitive play, I don't think there's much relevance to this discussion.

However, dude, seriously, cool links! Thanks man!

[DONTOR]

Widowmaker1981, on 15 July 2015 - 06:03 AM, said:

5 locked DHS you dont need, and that entirely cancels the weight saving from the Gauss being lighter, and then you have the issues of 3 locked ES/FF crits per ST, and no space in the legs or head, forcing you to hang ammo in the arms.

Which is exactly why no one uses it, not to mention its hard to ring any JJ on that build.

[IraqiWalker]

Hit the Deck, on 15 July 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

Soon there will be a Clan 'Mech which "prefers" to mount an STD to carry its dual Gauss: the Orion IIC

2 Gauss in one ST. It's gonna be a fun one for the solo queue.

[Sjorpha]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

Go back and read my posts, I clearly state that for the CW queue, un-nerf EVERYONE (both Clan and IS) and go to a 10v12 drop system.

Clans get their OP tech, IS gets their greater numbers.

Theoretically (and according to Lore and the original TT game) balance is achieved...

Do you really think it is feasible to have two separate versions of IS and Clan tech balance, one for CW and one for Public, with all the work that would involve with separate balancing (balance wouldn't be magically achieved in CW just because you did this, you'd still have to make sure the matches were balanced which ever way you design it) , new releases and so on?

I think that's pie in the sky, PGI struggles enough to keep track of one iteration of the tech, they could never handle two, and it would be terribly unintuitive for the players as well.

Edited by Sjorpha, 15 July 2015 - 08:16 AM.

[Vanguard836]

Thread is derailed from "nerf C gauss because reasons" to the ol clan vs IS debate again...

[DONTOR]

Hit the Deck, on 15 July 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

Soon there will be a Clan 'Mech which "prefers" to mount an STD to carry its dual Gauss: the Orion IIC

F*** ya, i forgot about that! That will be one explosive side torso though...

[Dimento Graven]

Sjorpha, on 15 July 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

Do you really think it is feasible to have two separate versions of IS and Clan tech balance, one for CW and one for Public, with all the work that would involve with separate balancing (balance wouldn't be magically achieved in CW just because you did this, you'd still have to make sure the matches were balanced which ever way you design it) , new releases and so on?

I think that's pie in the sky, PGI struggles enough to keep track of one iteration of the tech, they could never handle two, and it would be terribly unintuitive for the players as well.

Nope not at all, un-nerf all technology, for both public and CW queues.

In CW queues the balance would be maintained by numbers.

In public queues both sides have the potential to drop with opposing clan tech.