460 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Adiuvo, on 15 July 2015 - 12:09 PM, said:

Isn't tabletop itself an adaptation of the actual lore? Why should it be paid any mind?

Other way around, I thought. TT is the whole thing, the lore is there to add background to the game and provide context for the rules.

That said, TT is also trying to abstract things that don't need abstracting in a real-time simulation. Things like recoil, pilot aim, movement, etc.

PGI absolutely should focus on making a good game, first. Strict adherence to misappropriated, non sequitur rules is bad.

[Andi Nagasia]

@Dimento Graven
i want Balanced Faction Tech, so that Everyone can have fun,
i dont think 10v12 will work for Reasons that have been Stated bu Russ and others,
i think this up and coming MWO BattleValue will help with Balance,

MWO is in a Much better Place than it was a Year ago at this Time,
so i have Hope that, this will give us a more Complete and Balanced Game,
so ill wait until the new MWO BattleValue, then we will see,

[Dimento Graven]

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

Oh, so now it's BT even with matching numbers.

Wow, excellent 'taking out of context', go reread what I posted the entire text of it, including what was included about the BV system.

Sure, if IS were allowed to bring assaults, and Clans weren't allowed to bring any 'mech heavier than a medium to battles, THAT would be BattleTech.

Ton-for-ton matching however, isn't... Or have you forgotten the Batchall?

Quote

Look, the long and short of it is this:
1- No, you can't "F" the public queue.

Opinion, you can actually, but does PGI have the balls?

Quote

2- Seems we're stuck with 12 v 12. So we should work on parity

Fine then be prepared for never ending tirades from Clanners, who WILL have point when they bring up the fact that this is supposed to be a BattleTech game.

Quote

3- Public queue is still BT, more than you could possibly think. I look at it as Jihad era fights. You've got omnis and battlemechs fighting side by side, and You've got some seriously advanced tech on all the mechs running around. So looks like the public queue is still very battletech. Just not the era of battletech you want.

Yeah, sure it's BT when it's limited to 3/3/3/3, and any faction can have any other AND every other faction on their side, facing their own faction and any other and every other faction on the opposing side.

Again, that really isn't BattleTech, that's just 'Random Big Stompy Robot Battles'.

I'm fine with it being 'Random Big Stompy Robot Battles', but I don't want the fact that 'Random Big Stompy Robot Battles' exists to F up my BattleTech in CW.

We're not getting a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup mixing chocolate and peanut butter here, we're getting a mediocre diarrhea soup.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 15 July 2015 - 12:44 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Andi Nagasia, on 15 July 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

...

i think this up and coming MWO BattleValue will help with Balance,

...

Ok I missed this, has PGI actually stated that they are going to add a BV system to CW match making? I wasn't aware of it, but depths of my ignorance have yet to be fully explored!

Quote

MWO is in a Much better Place than it was a Year ago at this Time,

Only moderately and just barely, but not because Clan vs IS in CW is balanced, but because we've gotten new toys and modes to play with that have not yet gotten entirely stale allowing more of us to notice the flaws in the implementation.

Quote

so i have Hope that, this will give us a more Complete and Balanced Game,
so ill wait until the new MWO BattleValue, then we will see,

If PGI is going to implement BV, that may do the trick... It will be interesting to see the results for CW queues, DEPENDING, on how PGI decides to implement BV...

[IraqiWalker]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Wow, excellent 'taking out of context', go reread what I posted the entire text of it, including what was included about the BV system.

Sure, if IS were allowed to bring assaults, and Clans weren't allowed to bring any 'mech heavier than a medium to battles, THAT would be BattleTech.

Ton-for-ton matching however, isn't... Or have you forgotten the Batchall?

I haven't however even ton for ton matching worked. Maybe not for 3052 tech, but it did work.

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Opinion, you can actually, but does PGI have the balls?

Fine, PGI technically /can/. The shouldn't do it. Not if the game is to survive.

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Fine then be prepared for never ending tirades from Clanners, who WILL have point when they bring up the fact that this is supposed to be a BattleTech game.

They'll have a point that the tech is supposed to be better. That's it. This is a 12 v 12, no respawns, pvp game. Balance is what matters, and the point they are trying to raise there is beyond irrelevant. BT or not, this is a PVP game, and balance is one of the biggest pillars.

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Yeah, sure it's BT when it's limited to 3/3/3/3, any faction can have any other AND every other faction on their side, facing their own faction and any other and every other faction on the opposing side.

Again, that really isn't BattleTech, that's just 'Random Big Stompy Robot Battles'.

I'm find with it being 'Random Big Stompy Robot Battles', but I don't want the fact that 'Random Big Stompy Robot Battles' exists to F up my BattleTech in CW.

We're not getting a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup mixing chocolate and peanut butter here, we're getting a mediocre diarrhea soup.

There are no factions in the public queue beyond blue vs. red. So yes, that sure seems an awful lot like the Jihad times.

[Lugh]

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 07:04 AM, said:

You love those scatterbrained discussions don't you. The second you start losing on one front, you immediately try and switch to a different one with a "Look over there!".
I have yet to switch position or 'lose' an argument point. People routinely attempt to take the argument away from THERE IS CURRENTLY PARITY, and you need to recognize how your side can 'exploit' there advantage within that parity.
The T-Bolt has bad hitboxes. It's the Awesome of the heavies. The quirks are the only thing keeping it competitive. I KNOW that you were here before quirks happened. Remember how many people were piloting T-Bolts regularly? Yeah. There was like 5 of them.
Nope I've been on break since the Poptart apocalypse as I'd gotten bored of people complaining about how this and that are so broken and can't be countered. It was ******** then, it's ******** now.
Not to mention that this isn't really an argument, because the T-Bolt + quirks, is the best we've got in the heavy section, and it's still outmatched by it's competitors.
Again wrong, I see plenty of the competitive IS teams using them in community warfare ALL THE TIME, to totally roll teams on the clan side.

Well, if you don't know how to torso twist, then yes, it can be a disadvantage. I run a Summoner with a UAC20 in the ST, and the ammo is in the adjacent arm. I've almost never lost the ammo arm before running out of ammo (I think I have about 6 tons or so). That's with a so much taller summoner.

Let me break this one down into 2 sections:


No, not really. You don't seem to understand how heatsink counts work. See, the more heatsinks you have, the bigger the heat threshold your mech gets. Clan mechs on average have more DHS than their IS counterparts. So they end up with a much bigger heat pool, which means that even if the laser is hotter at base levels. It uses less percentage of the pool, compared to it's IS counterpart.
I do and have no trouble understanding that the lower heat generation(~20%lower) on the IS side, at a cost of ~2-4 Heatsinks, leads to the 'advantage' on clan heat being 10% higher threshold with the same dissipation as the IS. All that leads to in practice, is the IS being able to fire on avg, 3 times for every two times the clan side can fire. Guess who wins on the total damage output in that exchange?
Quirks help IS mechs compensate for that disparity, a bit. So please, don't base your statements on what one or two mechs can do, when the rest of the lineup can't even get close to that.


This part is purely stupid. I'd like to see you charge through laser fire that burns your mech at 1.5 times the range of your own, without taking cover. Go ahead. You know what, let's do this. I'll jump into my DWF. You hop into an Atlas or King Crab, and let's see how you handle receiving consistent 60+ damage at 800 meters. When you duck for cover, I'll get the right to call you "Victim mentality Lugh" every time we meet on the forums for the next 18 months.

Only on you misquoting ranges again. The ER large laser has a difference of only ~10% BETWEEN THEM. Oh but you didn't mean the ER large did you, you meant the pulse, which matches that estimate. Ducking for cover is the proper response to sniper fire. The victim mentality comes in when the ID10T stays still there, and doesn't find an avenue to advance or retreat because he chose the wrong approach.

What sort of fool charges through fire lanes to get to his targets?

It's possible to brawl successfully on every map in the game and do it successfully.
Edits within your own still completely wrong and unreasonable arguments.

[Dimento Graven]

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

I haven't however even ton for ton matching worked. Maybe not for 3052 tech, but it did work.

The only era I remember it really 'working' is the 3175 time frame, so yeah, we're bit far away from getting there.

Unless PGI wants to accelerate the time line, and I'm fine with that too.

Quote

Fine, PGI technically /can/. The shouldn't do it. Not if the game is to survive.

I and many others feel that it can't survive as is now.

Quote

They'll have a point that the tech is supposed to be better. That's it. This is a 12 v 12, no respawns, pvp game. Balance is what matters, and the point they are trying to raise there is beyond irrelevant. BT or not, this is a PVP game, and balance is one of the biggest pillars.

CW is 4 respawns, you're describing the 'Random Big Stompy Robot' game, which is different from the CW 'BattleTech' game.

Quote

There are no factions in the public queue beyond blue vs. red. So yes, that sure seems an awful lot like the Jihad times.

What makes me wonder though is that EVENTUALLY CW factions will matter and theoretically affect the technology/mechs/quicks IS and Clan can bring to the table.

At least that's the last word I remember from PGI on CW and how they intended to make capturing planets 'matter'. They're already planning on having an extremely different version of MWO from the public queue just on that basis alone (unless they've changed their plans, if so I'm not aware of it, does anyone know?)...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 15 July 2015 - 12:56 PM.

[Lugh]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2015 - 07:34 AM, said:

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?

Nope. Position has always been that there is parity. It hasn't changed. There have been plenty of time where game bugs and unintended consequences had to be adjusted for... Light Clan Gauss is due to the locked equipment that the Clan mechs cannot in any way change.

This basic fact bears repeating so often because the IS is so forgetful that they can't remember how to beat build X from match to match.

[Andi Nagasia]

@Dimento Graven
Here are some of Russ's Twitter Quotes,

Twitter said:

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Jul 13 Vancouver, British Columbia
Those concerned about IIC balance issues - in theory we are not worried cause new BV system can handle this

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Jul 13 Vancouver, British Columbia
@BishopSteiner well it's all new - all new - all new - old quirks etc may or may not exist anymore

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Jul 13 Vancouver, British Columbia
Aiming for a PTS of the new BV system in July Or early Aug

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Jul 13
@Hoenemeyer we need a couple more weeks to solidify a plan for both posts and a PTS - but yes we have been working on this for a while

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Jul 13
@Tomcat0815 @EineNeueWelt but now with the quirks system and other bits we have enough ability to create an MWO BV system - we will try

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Jul 13
I should also state that yes some of the additions we are putting in for the new MWO BV system will increase role warfare-think sensor range

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Jul 13 North Vancouver, British Columbia
@Harold_the_Wolf no it's MWO BV - FASA BV would be beyond useless for our real time game

Paul_Inouye ‏@Paul_Inouye Jul 14
@H4RDC0R3_G4M3R @russ_bullock Just a bit of info.. the new system we're working on is not TT BV. It may have similar traits but it is not TT

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Jul 14
@Paul_Inouye @H4RDC0R3_G4M3R Yes its our very own formula - we use the things that matter to MWO a real time game to determine values

[Y E O N N E]

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

Light Clan Gauss is due to the locked equipment that the Clan mechs cannot in any way change.

Not that I really think C-Gauss is OP, but light Clan equipment is the reason for locked slots and other things beyond what the builder rules require, not the other way around.

[Mystere]

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:

I'm 100% for tech vs tech balance. Since that's the more feasible of the two. (Not to mention that the "unnerf everyone" approach will bork the public queue, because the whining becomes "we need clan mechs to be distributed equally across teams, otherwise, the team with most clan mechs wins".

So tech for tech balance is the safest approach here.

At this point, I no longer give much of a flying **** about what happens in the public queue. I want Battletech, even if that is only confined to CW.

[Mystere]

Andi Nagasia, on 15 July 2015 - 10:05 AM, said:

lots of players play Public Que, many dont care that its not a BattleTech Thing,
in any MMO you Cant Alienate players that may have never heard of your Lore before,

In that case, can I have Kilrathi Dralthis and Colonial Vipers dogfighting over the public maps? As you said, lore does not mean a thing.

[Dimento Graven]

Andi Nagasia, on 15 July 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

@Dimento Graven
Here are some of Russ's Twitter Quotes,

Thank you very much Andi, I was unaware of that. I am of the old school and think that trying to keep your customers informed via Social Media is unprofessional, and ultimately, stupid, so I don't even subscribe to Twitter.

I don't discount the probability that I've missed other announcements elsewhere about it.

A properly implemented BV system would make a significant difference, I am interested in seeing PGI's implementation of BV. For example, I would hope that a Clan XL has a BV at least 50% more than that of an IS XL since the IS XL is only half as survivable as a Clan XL when it comes to ST loss.

I'll be optimistic about it...

[IraqiWalker]

What on earth did do there? Do you not know how to copy paste? I'll try to respond to this, but seriously, learn to copy past, or use the quote function or ANY kind of formatting.

I'll break it down:

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:

It's possible to brawl successfully on every map in the game and do it successfully.
Edits within your own still completely wrong and unreasonable arguments.

Possible, and viable/feasible is not the same thing. Tell me you can brawl on Alpine peaks effectively? Can it happen? Yes. Is it likely to happen as the opening gambit? Hell no. Long range will take out half the mechs on the board, before a brawl even starts.

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:

I have yet to switch position or 'lose' an argument point. People routinely attempt to take the argument away from THERE IS CURRENTLY PARITY, and you need to recognize how your side can 'exploit' there advantage within that parity.

Yes. You have switched position, when you brought up the T-Bolt, after realizing you had no leg to stand on with your previous argument. So you went with a "Look at the T-Bolts then!"

There is no parity yet. We're close, but we're still not at parity. If there was Parity there would be no exploiting of advantages. That statement shows there is no parity by existing.

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:

Nope I've been on break since the Poptart apocalypse as I'd gotten bored of people complaining about how this and that are so broken and can't be countered. It was ******** then, it's ******** now.

When you say *****, are you referring to the T-Bolt? Because if you are, you just shot your own argument in the foot.

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:

Again wrong, I see plenty of the competitive IS teams using them in community warfare ALL THE TIME, to totally roll teams on the clan side.

Oh, so it was just a 12 v 12 fight then, and the T-Bolts won? Also, I'm not wrong, simply because I said it's the best we've got, so of course we'll be using it. The fact that IS teams won with it, doesn't mean it's beating the competition. Espeically when you take a look at the CW map.

I've also seen a 12 flamer Nova get 3 kills in one match. That doesn't mean 12 flamer novas are suddenly uber good.

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:

I do and have no trouble understanding that the lower heat generation(~20%lower) on the IS side, at a cost of ~2-4 Heatsinks, leads to the 'advantage' on clan heat being 10% higher threshold with the same dissipation as the IS. All that leads to in practice, is the IS being able to fire on avg, 3 times for every two times the clan side can fire. Guess who wins on the total damage output in that exchange?

Clans. Unless the IS mech is face hugging the clan mech, then over the entire engagement, the IS mech has a chance at winning.

This also depends on what range the engagement was had. Not to mention how many lasers were being fired by each mech. On average, the clans have the advantage at both of those sections.

While the main point you raised is about heat, you still really haven't made the point that IS is colder than clans, when on average, it really isn't. Not if we're going by same range engagements. Short range is where the IS can have an advantage in heat.

You seem to ignore all other factors involved here. Just focus on heat. Ignore range, weight, slot cost, burn duration, and damage. This is of course before we bring in hard point locations, and the mechs themselves.

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:

Only on you misquoting ranges again. The ER large laser has a difference of only ~10% BETWEEN THEM. Oh but you didn't mean the ER large did you, you meant the pulse, which matches that estimate. Ducking for cover is the proper response to sniper fire. The victim mentality comes in when the ID10T stays still there, and doesn't find an avenue to advance or retreat because he chose the wrong approach

What ranges did I misquote? Actually, better yet, what ranges did I specify? I mentioned no specific energy weapons here, and Kudos, you found 2 energy weapons that don't have a 1.5 range disparity. It still doesn't change anything else.

You duck for cover, and let's see how you can close distance, without exposing your self to more fire at long range. By the time you get to close range. IF you get to close range. Your mech will be melting around you.

For the record, other than the ERLL, every single clan energy weapon is somewhere between 1.47 - 1.62 times the range of it's IS counterpart.

If we go with the LPLs, I'll still be dealing 6.5 or so damage to you, while you're far beyond your zero damage range at 800 meters.

[Lugh]

Yeonne Greene, on 15 July 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

Other way around, I thought. TT is the whole thing, the lore is there to add background to the game and provide context for the rules.

That said, TT is also trying to abstract things that don't need abstracting in a real-time simulation. Things like recoil, pilot aim, movement, etc.

PGI absolutely should focus on making a good game, first. Strict adherence to misappropriated, non sequitur rules is bad.

But, that is precisely where they went wrong in Alpha, and closed beta when they took 10 second damage numbers and applied them to weapons that can fire 3 times in that space of time.

That increases the Firepower 3x and they only ever Doubled the TT armor values once.

They need to increase the Firepower and the armor / structure in equal measure to have any chance whatsoever of having a game that lives and breathes the way the TT game does.

[Lugh]

IraqiWalker, on 15 July 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Yes. You have switched position, when you brought up the T-Bolt, after realizing you had no leg to stand on with your previous argument. So you went with a "Look at the T-Bolts then!"

There is no parity yet. We're close, but we're still not at parity. If there was Parity there would be no exploiting of advantages. That statement shows there is no parity by existing.

I don't have the time or the inclination to do a Mech by Mech comparison Clan v IS for you to show you that the IS comes out on top more often than not. And again you show your complete ignorance on understanding what asymetrical Parity is. That means (because I know you are slow to understand). That while the clans have a marginal range advantage, the IS can cancel that range advantage with moving smartly about the terrain. In doing so they can reach ranges where their rate of fire and lower heat outpaces the longer burn times and higher heat output (that's slower and less often firing salvos) is completely mitigated. ....

Nevermind. You didn't understand this point the last three times I saw you arguing about it. You won't now, and you'll stay ignorant and crying about things you don't even care to understand.

[Mystere]

Andi Nagasia, on 15 July 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

i want Balanced Faction Tech, so that Everyone can have fun,

As the old saying goes, attempting to please everyone will just result in pleasing no one.

[IraqiWalker]

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

I don't have the time or the inclination to do a Mech by Mech comparison Clan v IS for you to show you that the IS comes out on top more often than not. And again you show your complete ignorance on understanding what asymetrical Parity is. That means (because I know you are slow to understand). That while the clans have a marginal range advantage, the IS can cancel that range advantage with moving smartly about the terrain. In doing so they can reach ranges where their rate of fire and lower heat outpaces the longer burn times and higher heat output (that's slower and less often firing salvos) is completely mitigated. ....

Nevermind. You didn't understand this point the last three times I saw you arguing about it. You won't now, and you'll stay ignorant and crying about things you don't even care to understand.

Good god the stupidity in this post is amazing.

I understand asymmetric BALANCE, I've argued for it many times. I'm just calling BS on your posts, and arguments. Since they are wrong.

ESPECIALLY since you only cherry pick specific conditions, and ignore everything else.

What is it that you think I'm "crying" about? No, seriously, what do you think it is?


EDIT: Also, good dodge on avoiding the rest of the post showing why you're wrong.

EDIT2: was gonna do a bit about Asymmetric parity, but Dimento beat me to it.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 15 July 2015 - 02:50 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Lugh, on 15 July 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

I don't have the time or the inclination to do a Mech by Mech comparison Clan v IS for you to show you that the IS comes out on top more often than not. And again you show your complete ignorance on understanding what asymetrical Parity is. That means (because I know you are slow to understand). That while the clans have a marginal range advantage, the IS can cancel that range advantage with moving smartly about the terrain. In doing so they can reach ranges where their rate of fire and lower heat outpaces the longer burn times and higher heat output (that's slower and less often firing salvos) is completely mitigated. ....

Nevermind. You didn't understand this point the last three times I saw you arguing about it. You won't now, and you'll stay ignorant and crying about things you don't even care to understand.

Quote

a·sym·met·ric
(ā′sĭ-mĕt′rĭk) also a·sym·met·ri·cal (-rĭ-kəl)
adj.
1.
a. Having no balance or symmetry: an asymmetric design.

b. Uneven in distribution.

2.
a. Existing or occurring between two incommensurate entities, especially to the detriment of one.

b. Characterized by an imbalance in power between two opponents in an armed conflict, especially one in which a weaker force uses unconventional means, such as guerilla or terrorist tactics: asymmetric warfare.

3. Chemistry Of or relating to a carbon atom having four different atoms or structural groups attached to it, resulting in an unbalanced spatial arrangement of atoms in a molecule, so that the molecule cannot be superimposed on its mirror image; chiral.

Quote

par·i·ty 1
(păr′ĭ-tē)
n. pl. par·i·ties
1. Equality, as in amount, status, or value.

2. Functional equivalence, as in the weaponry or military strength of adversaries: "A problem that has troubled the U.S.-Soviet relationship from the beginning has been the issue of parity" (Charles William Maynes).

3. The equivalent in value of a sum of money expressed in terms of a different currency at a fixed official rate of exchange.

4. Equality of prices of goods or securities in two different markets.

5. A level for farm-product prices maintained by governmental support and intended to give farmers the same purchasing power they had during a chosen base period.

6. Mathematics The even or odd quality of an integer. If two integers are both odd or both even, they are said to have the same parity; if one is odd and one even, they have different parity.

7. Abbr. P Physics
a. An intrinsic symmetry property of a physical system, such as a subatomic particle, that specifies how the system would behave if the three spatial coordinates were reversed from x, y, z to -x, -y, -z.

b. A quantum number, either +1 (even) or -1 (odd), that mathematically represents this property.

8. Computers
a. The even or odd quality of the number of 1's or 0's in a binary code, often used to determine the integrity of data especially after transmission.

b. A parity bit.

Given the definitions of the root words of the term, 'asymmetric parity' it seems to be an oxymoron.

I tried to find a specific definition to the term 'asymmetric parity' that made any kind of real sense, and the googleinterwebnet couldn't come up with one.

Do you have one?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 15 July 2015 - 02:50 PM.

[Star Wolves Admin Account]

Sjorpha, on 15 July 2015 - 02:06 AM, said:

The Jager is not a top tier mech in the current meta, nor is it significantly quirked out or expensive to field.

The EBJ is the strongest current dual gauss heavy by far, it's so much better than the Jager it's not even funny.

Dual Gauss EBJ is not top tier; laser blarg is. Compare the weapons systems under question directly before we start throwing in mechs like Tbolts, Dragons, Crows etc.

The discussion is whether clan gauss is broken vs IS. My position is simple that the IS Gauss is equivalent or better than the clan gauss on certain IS mechs when compared to your typical clan mech due to the quirks and high weapons mounts.