367 replies to this topic

[Lucky Noob]

what i find most iteresting is the Different Match Score on the Blue Team, avaen no one did Damage

[Mystere]

Alwrath, on 21 October 2015 - 06:59 AM, said:

Although you are correct some of the time, in the end it is up to this community of players right now. The players have the choice, and whats wrong with that? Honestly, last night I had more fun than I have had in 2 years with this game. Facing off against a whole wave of Wangs/4G's/BJ's/Stormcrows was alot of fun. Also, if your team brings alot of BAP and streaks, you will completely murder Cheeto dropdecks. There is a counter to every strat, you just gotta play the game.

But I need to win, 99% of the time. And it can't be 100% because that would be an indication of something fishy happening behind the scenes.

[Mystere]

Jman5, on 21 October 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

Sorry I don't buy into this circlejerk that playing 10 stormcrows and 2 blackjacks make you unstoppable. What I do believe is that blackjacks and stormcrows are great medium mechs, but more importantly BMMU has a lot of very strong players. When you create a 12 man BMMU premade they will probably win 90% of their matches regardless of restrictions. I think all the people here implying that BMMU only wins because of mech choice are doing a disservice to their players.

I prefer this current system over the one where every small group overloaded on assaults and heavies leading to outrageous tonnage mismatches.

Things are going to be shaken up, but I find it kind of disingenuous to think that anyone can come up with the best drop deck possible under these new rules a couple hours after patch went live. Or that a hodge-podge of small groups losing to a 12 man of BMMU is a sign of the apocalypse.

I think it's going to be fun to see what sort of drop decks people come up with.

Unfortunately, the path of least resistance dictates that running to the forums is the best approach.

[Kristian Radoulov]

@ Dimento

If you will rememeber Tukayyid had nearly every major merc unit go clans. That skewed so many of the matches right there.

I agree that clan mechs are generally easier to do well in, but many IS mechs can more than hold their own, especially if they play to their strengths.

Let's call a spade a spade here and not go throwing out hyperboles.

[PharmEcis]

Dimento Graven, on 21 October 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

And there goes ANY credibility you may have had.

It's a proven fact that Clan 'mechs ARE in fact OP by a minimum 10%, and on average 20%.

If clan mechs are so OP why are we winning matches in NBT as IS against equivalent tonnage Clan mechs? We haven't lost a match yet...

Like I said, get 12 of your best clan mechs and pilots against 12 of us in an IS drop deck and let us see what is what shall we?

You are totally ignoring that there is one MASSIVE statistic that cannot be fully quantified by any metric currently in place and that is the ability of the player when using the force multiplier known as teamwork. 12 highly skilled players who don't play as a team will always do worse than 12 good players who have excellent teamwork. Teamwork cannot be quantified because there are simply too many variables to account for but in the end, TEAMWORK IS OP.

[Mystere]

InRev, on 21 October 2015 - 07:34 AM, said:

But please, first show us on the doll where 'Murica touched you ...

Since you asked.

And by the way, it was a joke addressed to a Canadian who clearly took it as it was meant.

Edited by Mystere, 21 October 2015 - 08:12 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Kristian Radoulov, on 21 October 2015 - 07:59 AM, said:

@ Dimento

If you will rememeber Tukayyid had nearly every major merc unit go clans. That skewed so many of the matches right there.

I agree that clan mechs are generally easier to do well in, but many IS mechs can more than hold their own, especially if they play to their strengths.

Let's call a spade a spade here and not go throwing out hyperboles.

What hyperbole.

Yeah a FEW IS 'mechs approached matching some aspect of Clan advantage, but I really can't think of a SINGLE IS 'mech that can match its Clan counter part in SPEED, ALPHA, and SURVIVABILITY.

Yes, a few IS 'mechs got quirk that allowed them to fire lasers as far as/minimally farther than Clans, BUT, they still couldn't move as fast the clan 'mechs in their weight class, without loading up an XL, and in so doing, lost SURVIVABILITY.

Sure, sure, the Hunchback GI with its gauss quirk could fire ONE gauss fast enough to COME CLOSE to having the same DPS as a dual gauss 'mech, BUT, if you wanted to have any sort of speed, and the ability to carry enough ammo, with some backup lasers, THAT'S RIGHT, you got to load an XL, and on that 'mech that's like going to a convention of 'Knee Jerkers' without a cup on...

The population "numbers" aspect of mercs joining clans has ZERO to do with the fact that on average a Clan 'mech can absorb AT LEAST 10% MORE damage, and can fire AT LEAST 10% farther, and AT LEAST 10% harder than the IS equivalent.

Mercs switching to clan didn't make that happen, that's a design factor that makes clans OP, period.

[Mystere]

Dimento Graven, on 21 October 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

Turkayyid showed that Clan 'mechs destroyed 10% MORE 'mechs but did 10% LESS damage.

I call that efficiency.

[Dimento Graven]

PharmEcis, on 21 October 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

If clan mechs are so OP why are we winning matches in NBT as IS against equivalent tonnage Clan mechs? We haven't lost a match yet...

Like I said, get 12 of your best clan mechs and pilots against 12 of us in an IS drop deck and let us see what is what shall we?

You are totally ignoring that there is one MASSIVE statistic that cannot be fully quantified by any metric currently in place and that is the ability of the player when using the force multiplier known as teamwork. 12 highly skilled players who don't play as a team will always do worse than 12 good players who have excellent teamwork. Teamwork cannot be quantified because there are simply too many variables to account for but in the end, TEAMWORK IS OP.

You have ZERO credibility, give it up.
Because of the MINIMAL 10% OP factor of Clan 'mechs the IS has to do AT LEAST 10% MORE damage JUST TO KEEP PACE with the Clan 'mechs, which also means that the IS pilot has to make LESS mistakes than the Clan 'mech.

Yes, absolutely teamwork can do help.

The fact that you're team isn't losing against Clan 'mechs doesn't speak to clan 'mechs not being OP as much as you're coordinating that much better than your opponents. I would be surprised if many of your IS 'mech load outs included XL engines on any weight class above medium.

There's NO DENYING the fact that a Direwolf can pretty equip a LARGER alpha than Kingcrab, or an Atlas, AND also survive a side torso loss. You can't say that about an Atlas or Kingcrab if you've loaded an XL to try and have more speed and more weight available for a larger alpha.

There's NO DENYING that the Arctic Cheetah with its XL, enhanced leg structure, jump jets, alpha potential and ECM is MORE than a match for any IS 'mech of its equivalent weight class.

THERE IS NO DENYING that a Streakcrow build is faster, more survivable, and packs a harder hitting alpha than an IS 'mech that attempts any sort of similar load out.

Stop trying to deny the facts, Clan 'mechs are OP, period.

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

What is NOT supposed to be is that the Clans be allowed to match the IS in numbers.

The whole point of the Clan vs. IS dynamic was Superior Technology vs. Superior Numbers.

We don't have that dynamic, PGI says "Programming is hard" and instead fritters around with tweaks, quirks, nerfs, and other silly time and resource wasting idiocy.

Mystere, on 21 October 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

I call that efficiency.

Says the clanner. I call it the difference in a ST loss...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 21 October 2015 - 08:19 AM.

[PharmEcis]

You've been called out. Form up and let us test shall we? Words mean nothing, let us settle this on the field of battle.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I am.

*edit*

How about we put $100 each in on the match. Total amount donated to a charity of the winner's choice.

Edited by PharmEcis, 21 October 2015 - 08:29 AM.

[Davers]

Mystere, on 20 October 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

So it was a 12-man meta vs. an 8-man casual plus fillers. I still do not see the problem.

Problem was the team with smaller units didn't maximize their tonnage. Assuming a 4 man plus an 8 man, they had 130 unused tonnage. They actually dropped 30 tons lighter than the 12 man.

The whole point of the system was for smaller groups to have extra tonnage than large groups to even things out. Posting pictures of groups that "bid low" and lost doesn't prove anything.

What PGI can't seem to understand is that people don't want to be forced into picking "max tonnage" all the time- it really limits what you can run, more so than any previous system. I really don't see how this system is much of an improvement over 3/3/3/3/.

[Mystere]

Davers, on 21 October 2015 - 08:30 AM, said:

Problem was the team with smaller units didn't maximize their tonnage. Assuming a 4 man plus an 8 man, they had 130 unused tonnage. They actually dropped 30 tons lighter than the 12 man.

The whole point of the system was for smaller groups to have extra tonnage than large groups to even things out. Posting pictures of groups that "bid low" and lost doesn't prove anything.

What PGI can't seem to understand is that people don't want to be forced into picking "max tonnage" all the time- it really limits what you can run, more so than any previous system. I really don't see how this system is much of an improvement over 3/3/3/3/.

Here's one: better freedom of choice.

[Davers]

Mystere, on 21 October 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

Here's one: better freedom of choice.

But that same freedom of choice allows players to create the unbalanced matches they were complaining about in the first place. Every 2 man group that isn't running a 100 ton and a 75 ton mech is screwing their team out of the tonnage advantage they are SUPPOSED to have over larger groups.

Not that tonnage is a great indicator of strength. There are SO MANY mechs that perform better than other mechs that are heavier than them.

[TLBFestus]

Mystere, on 20 October 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

You Canadians should really erect a Berlin Wall type of border with your southern neighbor. Their bad influence is obviously rubbing on you.

Actually, our plan is to saw through the border and let the US drop down into Mexico. If there's time, some of us are thinking of including parts of Quebec.

[AdamBaines]

Mystere, on 20 October 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

I think the new drop weight rules are just something new for people to ***** about. There's really nothing to see here.

+1000 to you!!!!!

[Veritae]

Jman5, on 21 October 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

Sorry I don't buy into this circlejerk that playing 10 stormcrows and 2 blackjacks make you unstoppable. What I do believe is that blackjacks and stormcrows are great medium mechs, but more importantly BMMU has a lot of very strong players. When you create a 12 man BMMU premade they will probably win 90% of their matches regardless of restrictions. I think all the people here implying that BMMU only wins because of mech choice are doing a disservice to their players.

I prefer this current system over the one where every small group overloaded on assaults and heavies leading to outrageous tonnage mismatches.

Things are going to be shaken up, but I find it kind of disingenuous to think that anyone can come up with the best drop deck possible under these new rules a couple hours after patch went live. Or that a hodge-podge of small groups losing to a 12 man of BMMU is a sign of the apocalypse.

I think it's going to be fun to see what sort of drop decks people come up with.

Preach.

[Mystere]

Davers, on 21 October 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

But that same freedom of choice allows players to create the unbalanced matches they were complaining about in the first place. Every 2 man group that isn't running a 100 ton and a 75 ton mech is screwing their team out of the tonnage advantage they are SUPPOSED to have over larger groups.

Following that logic, we should all be forced to use stock Mechs/Omnipods/Heroes. But we all know what kind of ****storm that's going to create.

Davers, on 21 October 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

Not that tonnage is a great indicator of strength. There are SO MANY mechs that perform better than other mechs that are heavier than them.

Didn't 3/3/3/3 also have it's Meta selection.

And in the end, it's still: Teamwork is OP.

[Davers]

Mystere, on 21 October 2015 - 09:08 AM, said:

And in the end, it's still: Teamwork is OP.

In the end, that is the problem. Big groups= big teamwork. Smaller groups= smaller teamwork.

[Mystere]

Davers, on 21 October 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

In the end, that is the problem. Big groups= big teamwork. Smaller groups= smaller teamwork.

Is that really so bad in a team-based game?

And what about my "stock only" comment? No reaction? I'm disappointed.

[Davers]

Mystere, on 21 October 2015 - 09:21 AM, said:

Is that really so bad in a team-based game?

And what about my "stock only" comment? No reaction? I'm disappointed.

Depends on if you are the 2 man or the 12 man I guess.

If the game had been built around 'stock only' with custom mechs being relegated to Solaris or something...but it wasn't.