215 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 December 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

While you, Fup, McGral, Deathlike, all seem to be of like mind on everything, collectively you are not always correct.

Actually those guys are more knowledgeable about MWO than most of the forumers, such as you. They were here during most of MWO and made tons of threads and posts about it. Sure, everyone can make mistakes but you have so far not made a convincing argument on the contrary.

Edited by El Bandito, 06 December 2015 - 06:46 AM.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 06 December 2015 - 06:41 AM, said:

Actually those guys are more knowledgeable about MWO than most of the forumers, such as you. They were here during most of MWO and made tons of threads and posts about it. Sure, everyone can make mistakes but you have so far not made a convincing argument on the contrary.

While part of my ego likes to get stroked here, I do think that Yeonne has a decent level of knowledge about the game mechanics. I have plenty of [sometimes fierce] disagreements for sure, but many of those seem to be over preference/opinion/etc. than one person being outright wrong and the other being outright right.

Edited by FupDup, 06 December 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 06 December 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

While part of my ego likes to get stroked here, I do think that Yeonne has a decent level of knowledge about the game mechanics. I have plenty of [sometimes fierce] disagreements for sure, but many of those seem to be over preference/opinion/etc. than one person being outright wrong and the other being outright right.

That's why I tend to keep to the higher-level mechanics and leave the handling of the numbers and coding details to others. I haven't taken the time to peel those apart to internalize how things like critical hits work or what the magic formula is for 'Mech twist/run/turn speed vs. engine size. I try to only bring the numbers in when it's a high-level concept such as damage-per-tick or cyclic damage-per-second and it's a straight-forward calculation.

Also, I do enjoy our debates, Fup, they are probably the best conversations I've had on this forum.

El Bandito, on 06 December 2015 - 06:41 AM, said:

Actually those guys are more knowledgeable about MWO than most of the forumers, such as you. They were here during most of MWO and made tons of threads and posts about it. Sure, everyone can make mistakes but you have so far not made a convincing argument on the contrary.

And now I have to question: do you actually read, measure, and consider what is said before you dismiss a different take or do you dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't align exactly with what others have said and because it is coming from somebody relatively new? Is there not merit in having a less crystalized mind with a fresh set of eyes working a problem?

And for the record, I still don't know what you were snapping at me for in this thread. It wasn't a topic with a right or wrong answer, it was a subjective thing. I did with Blackjacks what I claimed I did, when I claimed I did (and I have screenshots, if that means anything), and you want me to prove it with dozens of pilots' experiences? What for? That's like writing a literary research paper where you are supposed to support your opinion on a piece of literature with the opinions of other critics or reviewers: it's ultimately pointless because it doesn't establish any sort of objective ground and instead just becomes an exercise where you give authority to people who don't actually have any reason to receive any. Maybe I did better because Blackjacks and Locusts are the primary 'Mechs I learned to play on and I know how to play them very effectively, while other players better and more experienced than me have habits they got from playing other chassis that hold them back on these two? One of my own unit-mates is for sure better than me and is a definite T1 to my 1/6th T2, but he won't touch a Locust with a 10-foot pole because he says he just can't make them work. Hell, I know that's got to be a thing because when I started playing my MADs, I was doing miserable in them, trying to play them like a big BJ-1 or BJ-1X, but then they clicked now they are regular 500, 600, 700+ machines and I'm wholly addicted. The 'Mech is amazingly solid and serviceable, but it's also not comp (too slow or short-ranged on a STD, too easy to side-core on an XL, stuck with nearly vanilla IS guns in vulnerable arms).

TL;DR: the point was not that the Blackjacks were comp at all.The point was that the they were still serviceable 'Mechs even when they were worse than they are now and up against greater odds. I was regularly performing in them, as well as Locusts (which I also have screenshots for) which were considered to be the trolliest of troll 'Mechs back then except for maybe the SDR-5V. It's not a boast, it's just a point of fact. If me, the newbie, could do it, then it probably wasn't oh-my-gosh-the-sky-is-falling terrible. And the number of comp-worthy 'Mechs has always been low, so losing one is not a huge deal (though granted it's not a good thing, either). While I think the BJ-1X needs to have at least 10% duration for ML vs ERML fairness reasons and would happily trade some of the durability for it, I'm really not too broken up over the hot-fix because I was playing Blackjacks before they were cool. [/hipster]

[Appogee]

Dawnstealer, on 04 December 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

Huh - 1X was always my favorite BJ, but I haven't run it for a long while. Your post has convinced me I should probably load it back up.

It seems not everyone realises that PGI stealth-nerfed the 1X just prior to Tukayyid, halving most of its energy quirks, removing some.

ACH is still the most OP Mech in the game. Several times in this event I've seen a CW victory completely reversed because the opposition sent in a full wave of ACHs. Either they simply ran through our defenders and killed Omega, or in defence, they ran concentric rings around every Heavy Mech in turn to take it down.

Game over, there is no effective IS counter to it.

(And don't tell me "shoot the legs". You can't shoot 24 of their legs in time to stop a wave of them, even if your ping is something less than my 250.)

By contrast, when I play Clans, I just take a StreakCat with SSRM6s and BAP and vaporise any FS9s.

Edited by Appogee, 06 December 2015 - 10:30 AM.

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 06 December 2015 - 09:54 AM, said:

And now I have to question: do you actually read, measure, and consider what is said before you dismiss a different take or do you dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't align exactly with what others have said and because it is coming from somebody relatively new? Is there not merit in having a less crystalized mind with a fresh set of eyes working a problem?

And for the record, I still don't know what you were snapping at me for in this thread. It wasn't a topic with a right or wrong answer, it was a subjective thing. I did with Blackjacks what I claimed I did, when I claimed I did (and I have screenshots, if that means anything), and you want me to prove it with dozens of pilots' experiences? What for? That's like writing a literary research paper where you are supposed to support your opinion on a piece of literature with the opinions of other critics or reviewers: it's ultimately pointless because it doesn't establish any sort of objective ground and instead just becomes an exercise where you give authority to people who don't actually have any reason to receive any. Maybe I did better because Blackjacks and Locusts are the primary 'Mechs I learned to play on and I know how to play them very effectively, while other players better and more experienced than me have habits they got from playing other chassis that hold them back on these two? One of my own unit-mates is for sure better than me and is a definite T1 to my 1/6th T2, but he won't touch a Locust with a 10-foot pole because he says he just can't make them work. Hell, I know that's got to be a thing because when I started playing my MADs, I was doing miserable in them, trying to play them like a big BJ-1 or BJ-1X, but then they clicked now they are regular 500, 600, 700+ machines and I'm wholly addicted. The 'Mech is amazingly solid and serviceable, but it's also not comp (too slow or short-ranged on a STD, too easy to side-core on an XL, stuck with nearly vanilla IS guns in vulnerable arms).

TL;DR: the point was not that the Blackjacks were comp at all.The point was that the they were still serviceable 'Mechs even when they were worse than they are now and up against greater odds. I was regularly performing in them, as well as Locusts (which I also have screenshots for) which were considered to be the trolliest of troll 'Mechs back then except for maybe the SDR-5V. It's not a boast, it's just a point of fact. If me, the newbie, could do it, then it probably wasn't oh-my-gosh-the-sky-is-falling terrible. And the number of comp-worthy 'Mechs has always been low, so losing one is not a huge deal (though granted it's not a good thing, either). While I think the BJ-1X needs to have at least 10% duration for ML vs ERML fairness reasons and would happily trade some of the durability for it, I'm really not too broken up over the hot-fix because I was playing Blackjacks before they were cool. [/hipster]

There will always be a subjective element as experience contributes to opinions.

I do think however that for some variants/builds require a particular mindset... and some people are not as compatible with that (I would consider it a mental block or a playstyle issue).

Bad mechs tend to require more effort to perform at reasonable levels.

Appogee, on 06 December 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

ACH is still the most OP Mech in the game. Several times in this event I've seen a CW victory completely reversed because the opposition sent in a full wave of ACHs. Either they simply ran through our defenders and killed Omega, or in defence, they ran concentric rings around every Heavy Mech in turn to take it down.

Game over, there is no effective IS counter to it.

(And don't tell me "shoot the legs". You can't shoot 24 of their legs in time to stop a wave of them, even if your ping is something less than my 250.)

By contrast, when I play Clans, I just take a StreakCat with SSRM6s and BAP and vaporise any FS9s.

ACH Waves are beatable, but you need discipline, positioning, and obviously aim. If you've never practiced against them, you wouldn't know how to properly deal with it.

Last night... DERP ran such a wave, and we won. It wasn't easy, but with good positioning and directions, it was overcome.

It was a good game nonetheless.

Edited by Deathlike, 06 December 2015 - 11:41 AM.

[Ted Wayz]

So happy PGI was quick to fix the BJ. Now the Cheetah can go back to being the most broken mech. Avoided a close one there PGI!

[Lyoto Machida]

YueFei, on 03 December 2015 - 11:16 PM, said:

I think the problem is the balance paradigm they think they're trying to adhere to, which is:
Assault > Heavy > Medium > Light > Assault.

Very very few people stop to think that even if 1 Light always beats 1 Assault, it falls apart as soon as you get into team vs team. 12 Assaults covering blindspots against 12 Lights? Sorry Lights!

I think maybe a more interesting balance paradigm to use would be something like:

• Brawler Assault > Long Range Assault (requires enough hitpoints to close in through long range fire)
  
• Long Range Heavy > Brawler Assault (the faster Heavy can zone using greater speed and range)
  
• Long Range Heavy < Long Range Assault (both have similar range, Assault has more armor and firepower)
  
• Brawler Heavy > Long Range Heavy
  
• Long Range Medium > Brawler Heavy
  
• Brawler Medium > Long Range Medium
  
• Long Range Light > Brawler Medium
  
• Brawler Light > Long Range Light

etc....



The idea here is that it's a combination of weight class / load-out that gives situational advantages.

That helps break-apart the possibility of stacking a drop deck all one way and utterly dominating a match. You could setup nothing but long-range mechs, and the other team could push in with brawlers of the same weight class and survive long enough to close in and win. But a team can't stack with nothing but big brawlers, because if they do, the other team could bring a handful of lighter-weight long-range mechs and zone them to death while their own big guns play keep away until the enemy's big brawlers are sufficiently weakened.

And yet, a team couldn't just stack lighter-weight long-range mechs because another team could just stack lighter-weight brawler mechs and run them down and crush them.

And round and round we go.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think it has a good chance of forcing diverse team compositions.

PGI can't balance 4 variables and you expect them to balance 8???

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 06 December 2015 - 11:40 AM, said:

There will always be a subjective element as experience contributes to opinions.

I do think however that for some variants/builds require a particular mindset... and some people are not as compatible with that (I would consider it a mental block or a playstyle issue).

Bad mechs tend to require more effort to perform at reasonable levels.

This is always true. Some do require considerably more effort to overcome their deficiencies, than others, though. My hat is off to players making the Dragon work for them; I love that 'Mech but I am a complete terribad with it and even after many attempts to play it I have yet to pin down what part of my play-style is holding me back from using its potential.

[Iskareot]

I remember using my Dragon Slayer... ahh good times........


Funny purchase... we all buy it and I think a week later its first major nerf hit.

Bait and switch to the best level. I think this game after these few years should be called MWOnerfingmonthly.

[MischiefSC]

Because balance is so bad and swings so wildly from variant to variant and loadout to loadout you end up with situations where you either bring one of the 2 or 3 (4 or 5 if you're a Clanner) optimal mechs with optimal loadouts and wreck face or you bring something else and just suck, or you bring one of the 90% of mechs that are absolutely **** compared to the top 3 and you literally sandbag your team.

That is the balance that a quirk based system gets us. This is the game we've said we wanted. Why are we so surprised it still plays like that? It's not new - that's the point. It's the exact same broken we've had for almost 2 years.

[DaFrog]

Aresye Kerensky, on 03 December 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

Note, when I talk about the term, "broken," I'm talking about tonnage vs. effectiveness. As in earlier example, the FS9 was broken, especially when the FS9-A was at its all time high with its massive SPL quirks before they got throttled back a bit. Then the ACH became the most broken mech in the game.

After this most recent patch however, the award for most broken mech in this game goes to the BJ-1X.

In this brutal 45t package, we have:
- Doubled internal structure.
- Very good high mounts.
- Slim front and side profile.
- Incredibly maneuverable with MASSIVE acceleration and deceleration quirks.
- Very good laser quirks, including shorter duration.

There is no mech at 45t that comes close to the amount of firepower, maneuverability, survivability (post-patch), hardpoints, and scaling.

It has two weaknesses when compared to the 10t heavier SCR:
- The SCR is better at long-extreme ranges.
- The SCR can run streaks.

Against both Clan and IS laser boats at medium-short engagement ranges however, this mech can out-trade practically everything. Even losing all your armor and having open torso structure doesn't necessitate a switch up in tactics or play style. You can literally keep fighting with near impunity until one of your torsos is cherry red.

Some of the best competitive players have been running the 1X for quite some time now. Even prior to this most recent patch, this mech was the more underground, "secret," meta mech that everybody knew deep down, was way too good for its own good, but nobody would ever admit it, because it's both a medium mech, and an IS one at that.

Now, for those IS purists who will never admit that an IS mech would ever be OP, I'd like you to explain why:

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

And don't try and throw the whole, "Clan XL" thing in here. The doubled internal structure, accel/decel quirks, and slim profile all make the IS XL disadvantage a completely moot point. Any good player in a 1X that knows how to trade and spread damage well can easily make the 1X survive the entire game.

Hell, even if you make a MASSIVE tactical error, such as last night when I was the last mech on my team and I accidentally poked too far out, facing 3 Marauders with all guns trained on me with all 3 of my torsos down to internals, you can survive. I just simply turned around, rapidly twisting my torso in the process, and got back behind cover. I was hit by 2 of the 3 Marauders during this. My torso internals, which were yellow and orange before, were now dark orange and red, but I survived, and was able to kill 1 of the 3 remaining mechs before finally going down.

This wasn't against bad players either. Last night was full of games with 228, EmP, Tool, -42-, and other groups comprised of very competent players. This mech is just over the top ridiculous.

I almost agree: it's almost as broken as an Arctic Cheetah.

[SkippyT72]

This is funny when comparing ANYTHING that is IS and op, it always comes back to the AC or Stormcrow. So because the AC is 15 tons ligher with NOTHING in the way of quirks now, it's still op compared to the BJ-1x with the 60+ extra structure quirks and it still has some cool down quirks as well, yet you guys always try to compare everything in the med range to the storm crow which is at the top of the Med range at 55 ton's.

The mech was a beast before esp in the hands of a good pilot's the structure as it stand right now is just too much, let's treat it like the cheeta and remove 1/2 of it and see what happens, after all of SALT comming on these forums till the Cheeta at 30 tons lost all of it's structre yet a large number of IS noew have leg ST quirks, it's still not enough for folks to whine about, just too funny.

[Karmen Baric]

El Bandito, on 04 December 2015 - 05:15 PM, said:

Actually the majority prefer weapon quirks over structure quirks on a fast skirmisher like the BJ-1X. I had no issue with survivability pre-Dec 1 patch in CW with my BJ-1X cause of its high mounts. The structure quirks IMO were not worth the laser duration removal and energy range and heat reduction nerfs.

This! The BJ1X was badly nerfed after most recent quickpatch

[Kristian Radoulov]

Deathlike, on 03 December 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

I'm already aware of that. The funny thing is... it was under our balance overlord's watch.

Such greatness!

I actually called out this glaring oversight in my PTS4 report, but it was not heeded. Your balance overlords did their part, but PGI did not.

Edited by Kristian Radoulov, 06 December 2015 - 02:37 PM.

[Jun Watarase]

http://webm.host/86a7f/

Look at this BJ tank 18 small pulse + 2 C-ERPPCs to the side torso...

[Xoco]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 06 December 2015 - 01:53 AM, said:

The structure quirks made it have the durability of a 70T mech. This is really evident especially in CW when say both sides have used up tonnage in the first two waves, and now the lighter weight mechs are starting to take the field. The weapon quirks were never the problem.

It maybe my preference, but I prefer clan style survivability--not getting hit in the first place because I'm faster and can shoot further. Guess that's why I usually default to fast Lights.