215 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Quote

[color=#959595]1. If the BJ-1X is NOT OP, then why do I see so many competitive players running this mech so often?[/color]
[color=#959595]2. If the BJ-1X is NOT OP, then why were there SIX of them on my team last night?[/color]

[color=#959595]3. If the BJ-1X is NOT OP, then why is my non-elited BJ-1X giving me better games, higher damage, more kills, and longer survivability, than my fully mastered SCRs?[/color]

When your scientific basis for your argument is based on "I seens a lot of em in a couple of games and I see competitive players using them" to determine whether a mech is "op", I sincerely doubt the validity of anything else presented.

It's hard to take people seriously when they very seriously consider the above "good" data collection to make an argument for balance.

[pwnface]

El Bandito, on 03 December 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

You do that and show me the screenshots. I will make my judgement then.

I'm space poor and can't afford to buy 3 duplicates of the same chassis!
How about you send me 30million c-bills to buy more BJ-1X and I'll send you a screenshot.

Have you even played the BJ-1X? How about you make your own assessment? Do you seriously think there isn't a problem?

[Deathlike]

Drunk Canuck, on 03 December 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

Prior to quirks they were quite underwhelming. Laser boats that over heated and couldn't even use the hardpoint effectively. JagerMech style torso in a smaller form factor, they were easy to kill and couldn't run XLs very well, meaning they were hot AND slow.

I ran them w/o quirks and they were OK. I ranked #24 in the tourney that first introduced the BJs (those grindfests were something - not that you'd believe me). Mind you Clans and other things changed the landscape, making mediocre mechs looks worse than they were. Without a semblance of balance, there was always a better option available...

[pwnface]

Sandpit, on 03 December 2015 - 11:19 AM, said:

When your scientific basis for your argument is based on "I seens a lot of em in a couple of games and I see competitive players using them" to determine whether a mech is "op", I sincerely doubt the validity of anything else presented.

It's hard to take people seriously when they very seriously consider the above "good" data collection to make an argument for balance.

While Areseye's "evidence" of the BJ-1X is flawed, he isn't wrong. The BJ-1X is way too strong right now, especially for a 45t medium mech. Anytime I can put together 3 or 4 matches in a row breaking 1k damage WHILE leveling my basics, I know something is not right.

[El Bandito]

pwnface, on 03 December 2015 - 11:19 AM, said:

I'm space poor and can't afford to buy 3 duplicates of the same chassis!
How about you send me 30million c-bills to buy more BJ-1X and I'll send you a screenshot.

Have you even played the BJ-1X? How about you make your own assessment? Do you seriously think there isn't a problem?

My CW deck includes one BJ-1X, but I score about twice more points in my STK-4N and BLR-1G than the BJ-1X. There is no reason to assume that running four BJ-1Xs and limiting my tonnage to 180 tons in CW will bring better results.

[pwnface]

El Bandito, on 03 December 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

My CW deck includes one BJ-1X, but I score about twice more points in my STK-4N and BLR-1G than the BJ-1X. There is no reason to assume that running four BJ-1Xs and limiting my tonnage to 180 tons in CW will bring better results.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe you are bad at mediums? I don't know what to tell you. The BJ-1X performs on par with both the STK-4N and BLR-1G for me currently and I think it's disgusting.

Edited by pwnface, 03 December 2015 - 11:27 AM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

The BJ-1X was baller prior to this patch. Not quite Doomcrow, but baller.

Now I think the BJ-1X can compete with the Doomcrow in the laser vomit department.

And the only thing that pushed it into proliferation was it getting doubled internal structure. Which I think a lot more mechs need.

[Ghogiel]

Drunk Canuck, on 03 December 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

Prior to quirks they were quite underwhelming. Laser boats that over heated and couldn't even use the hardpoint effectively. JagerMech style torso in a smaller form factor, they were easy to kill and couldn't run XLs very well, meaning they were hot AND slow.

Prior to quirks the BJ with AC20 was epic. Then they decided that jump sniping with AC20s had to go and made a series of nerfs that all but removed the weapon from the game, solidifying the AC5 ppc meta.

[0bsidion]

Aresye Kerensky, on 03 December 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

We're talking about the mech, right?

I mean don't get me wrong, I love this mech. I also love the new PPC poptart version that's the BJ-3. Last night Gas Guzzler and myself were trading midair PPC shots at each other on Frozen City, so that was fun. It's a very fun mech to play.

The thing is, it can remain fun (assuming they can balance it right and there's a lot of assumption needed there). Being nerfed doesn't mean it has to become non-fun, or non-effective to run. It's just that, we're talking about a 45t here. There needs to be at least "some" form of cautious play in running a 45t.


Perhaps a terrible idea for Boreal Vault since it lacks the extreme ranges often fought on that map, but on any other CW map I fail to see why a 4x BJ-1X deck would be anything short of effective.

Actually with the 20% Energy range quirk, the 1X running ER LLs will out-range stock c ER LLs by 140 meters. Maybe I should invest in one of these myself If only laser vomit wasn't so bloody dull...

[Alistair Winter]

Tanar, on 03 December 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

remember the good 'ol days when blackjacks were DOA? how times quirks have changed

Fixed that for you.

This is all about quirks. That's basically all it is.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 03 December 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

Let's for the sake of argument remote tonnage limits. If you were to pick an IS Heavy at that time, what would it have been?

It would have been the same mech chosen, and TL's only exasperated it because trying to use a bigger heavy would have taxed your weight limit in addition to the difference in effectiveness.

Deathlike, on 03 December 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

...It still says more about poor interchassis balance than anything else....

That's why I think the interchassis balance should be the focus instead of trying to limit the mechs people can use, so that there would be no reason for the game to say "Oh, you can't use that mech because we're not gonna let you, you hit the limit."

pwnface, on 03 December 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

The whole game is based on tonnage limit or at the very least weight class restrictions. There is a major issue when a mech can easily and consistently out-perform almost every mech 20-30 tons heavier than it.

Maybe it shouldn't be based on tonnage limits or weight class restrictions?

I still don't buy the "X tons heavier" argument because as said earlier, it implies a direct upgrade path. It's one of the parts that I hate the most about the BT construction system, that with all other variables being equal (e.g. tech, loadout/role, etc.) then the heavier mech is the better mech period.

As an example, let's look at the infamous ACH. If we took the Arctic Cheetah and pushed it up to 35 tons, while keeping the same top speed (XL280 engine needed), it would gain 2 more tons of pod space, some more armor and structure, and a bonus internal engine "Trudub." Pure upgrade with no compromise. Well, okay, due to MWO's JJ mechanics, I guess it would lose a little bit of jump height...but all those other benefits massively outweigh the slightly higher jumping.

Limiting mech total weight and/or weight classes is kinda like saying "Clan ER Medium Lasers are too good, so we're going to limit you to only carrying 3 from now on." In that case, the ERML itself should be adjusted, rather than creating an artificial limit on how many you can use.

Edited by FupDup, 03 December 2015 - 11:51 AM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 03 December 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

It would have been the same mech chosen, and TL's only exasperated it because trying to use a bigger heavy would have taxed your weight limit in addition to the difference in effectiveness.

Even then, what would have been decent alternatives?

Black Knight didn't have very good hitboxes, let alone durability quirks.

Grasshopper has its own limits, despite having JJs.

Dakka Dragon-1N was literally a one-arm gimmick (not that it couldn't be useful, but you couldn't get away with it vs good/beter players).

I could probably list more, but the point was mainly that the alternatives were generally just inferior. It doesn't matter WHAT limits you put in place... the valuation of a mech relative to the criteria to fit within those limits only came to a few options. Limits only emphasize/reflect that disparity even more.

Quote

That's why I think the interchassis balance should be the focus instead of trying to limit the mechs people can use, so that there would be no reason for the game to say "Oh, you can't use that mech because we're not gonna let you, you hit the limit."

There needs to be a limit, in the sense that if the best option was always the largest mech in its weight class... then that has to be rectified. Why would anyone decide to run a Spider (outside of the 5D) when the other 35 ton IS options are generally better? I get that there should be a relative effectiveness difference (within reason - 5 to 10% going either way), but there are some mechs that have stupidly high dropoffs that there would literally be "replacements" (anyone who continues to endorse that the Arctic Cheetah should always be a wholesale replacement to the terribad Mist Lynx needs to be slapped). That's not how balance is ever supposed to occur.

Limits are used in competitive leagues for a reason... because left to our own devices, we'll have more of the Beta 1 Team Tourney dropdecks than the "crappy" limits of CW. So, we have to make sure every option isn't total garbage like we have now.

Edited by Deathlike, 03 December 2015 - 12:01 PM.

[xe N on]

IS medium mechs in general all have been boosted quite a bit. And they really needed it.

I took out my CN-AL (3xLL + 2x SRM4) and SHD-5M (UAC5+2LPL) for a ride. Quite solid. Griffins should have been slightly more buffed.

Finally, I don't necessarily need to drop in my Stormcrow Prime, -C or -D.

Edited by xe N on, 03 December 2015 - 12:04 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

FupDup, on 03 December 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

I still don't buy the "X tons heavier" argument because as said earlier

It only matters when there is a huge tonnage differential and that goes down to basically a hitpoint pool.

Like last night, QQ had an 8 man going. I know QQ only brought 500 tons of mech (of I think 530 available) and we had a 4man that brought 210 tons, so our weight was sitting at 710 tons. The other side was three 4mans, with 9 75tonners, two 65 tonners, and an 85 tonner for a total of 890 tons.

It was a close match, but they a lot of armor and structure to eat through and they won out the attrition fight.

Same when we dropped (same tonnage for our 8man) against a side that brought 5 Atlai and 4 Marauders and a some lights. They had a total of 800 tons in those 9 mechs alone. It's hard to each up that many hitpoints sometimes.

Edited by Lord Scarlett Johan, 03 December 2015 - 12:03 PM.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 03 December 2015 - 11:59 AM, said:

Even then, what would have been decent alternatives?

Black Knight didn't have very good hitboxes, let alone durability quirks.

Grasshopper has its own limits, despite having JJs.

Dakka Dragon-1N was literally a one-arm gimmick (not that it couldn't be useful, but you couldn't get away with it vs good/beter players).

The BK and Grass are heavier than the Thud, so TL's hurt them more than they help them.

The Drag does get a tiny benefit over the Thud there, but probably not enough to matter.

Deathlike, on 03 December 2015 - 11:59 AM, said:

There needs to be a limit, in the sense that if the best option was always the largest mech in its weight class... then that has to be rectified.

Yes, we would and should have to fix that issue to bring about the inter-chassis balance talked about earlier. I view the limits as a symptom of underlying problems.

Edited by FupDup, 03 December 2015 - 12:05 PM.

[pwnface]

FupDup, on 03 December 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Maybe it shouldn't be based on tonnage limits or weight class restrictions?

I mean that's nice and all, but this is the game that we have today. More tonnage typically means more combat effectiveness.

There is a huge problem when 45t medium has more internal structure than 85t assaults but also move twice the speed and output similar DPS.

[FupDup]

pwnface, on 03 December 2015 - 12:05 PM, said:

I mean that's nice and all, but this is the game that we have today. More tonnage typically means more combat effectiveness.
-

And it's my pipe-dream for that game we have today to be altered in this regard.

Nice things cannot be had.

[pwnface]

I face tanked a brawler Timberwolf in my BJ-1X in CW last night. Guess who won?

The kicker: I started the fight with no CT armor. 56 CT internal structure is too beast when the STK and BLR only has 54.

Edited by pwnface, 03 December 2015 - 12:12 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

pwnface, on 03 December 2015 - 12:05 PM, said:

I mean that's nice and all, but this is the game that we have today. More tonnage typically means more combat effectiveness.

There is a huge problem when 45t medium has more internal structure than 85t assaults but also move twice the speed and output similar DPS.

I'd basically like for mechs to have doubled IS across the board, if I'm honest. Then just adjust up or down from there on a chassis by chassis basis.

[Big Tin Man]

pwnface, on 03 December 2015 - 12:05 PM, said:

There is a huge problem when 45t medium has more internal structure than 85t assaults but also move twice the speed and output similar DPS.

...and 1/3 of the target profile