354 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

MischiefSC, on 25 January 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

Like I said. Happy to see it on the PTS. I suspect what you'll find is it's either better than lasers or they are not. They compete directly with lasers for the same hardpoints and for the same roles - either long range or mid range direct fire energy weapon. If it can do the role viably with less exposure (which directly reduces the effectiveness of enemy lasers) then it's a better weapon. If not.... it's not.

It can be better than lasers at range, but DPS limited by cooldown.

Suppose you had ERPPCs/PPCs that were 2000 m/s for 10 heat with current range, but had a cooldown of 8 seconds...?

How could you possibly fire them often enough to make them flat out better than lasers?

The answer is you cannot at that point.

There can be drawbacks to the weapon system that hard limit their efficacy in other ways...the issue here mschief is your "system" for working this out plays within a set space inside a box, and you are not considering other options.

Jabilac, on 25 January 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

C-ERLL is weaker then IS-ERLL but C-LPL is stronger then IS-LPL as is the C-ERSL, C-ERML, C-Streaks and C-SPL. Maybe the next 8v8 battle should just be SPL's.

Actually...no...

In terms of damage per heat, and about oh...3-4 other metrics, clan lasers are outright worse than quirked IS lasers of similar class (beam duration, dissipation, ghost heat limitations, indirect nerfs via DHS nerfs to clans).

Even the once vaunted CERML is typically outdone by heavy quirks on the IS ML that make the IS ML effective to often times 700m, while the CERML has had the falloff nerfed to be effective to about 600m at most.

Edited by Gyrok, 25 January 2016 - 12:39 PM.

[pattonesque]

FupDup, on 24 January 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

It's a Gyrok thread that people are...actually taking seriously. Especially when it's a thread about faction balance. Never thought I'd see that in my lifetime.

At this rate, maybe Russ will finally get around to fixing Flamers...

you know, blind squirrel, stopped clock, etc.

[Gyrok]

pattonesque, on 25 January 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

you know, blind squirrel, stopped clock, etc.

Why do you even bother posting specifically to troll?

[nitra]

Yosharian, on 25 January 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

People criticizing the clan builds/play need to step up and do better, maybe? At least the people involved here are trying to gather some data on the situation, even if they are biased as you claim. And they are certainly not poor players, regardless of how you think they played.

i would not praise the attempts of those involved in this video as an effort to gather data.

watching the video demonstrates some of the worse mistakes that pugs make when playing mwo.

then a thread is created stating that this video is prime example as to why clans are inferior to IS.

when all it demonstrates is what we already know ... that ttk is to low and walking mechs single file in to the enemies line of fire will get you killed.

but now to many people are lending way to much cred to this vid.. show me some real engagements with clan vs IS i wanna see a peek a boo match of a raven vs cute fox fire starter vs cheetah timber wolf vs orion etc etc etc .. not this sit back and hide and do nothing matches we just watched ...


anytime i engage a clan mech its not fading me nor is it hiding from me it actually maneuvering to get to me and hammer the hell out of me .

i did not see any clan mechs attempt to maneuver or even try to hammer the hell out of the IS players. they just sat back and got wasted.

thats not how this game is played.

and trying to contrive an argument for balance using this video as evidence is plain just terrible it would be better served as a training video for noobs. on what not to do when playing mech warrior online.

[Gyrok]

nitra, on 25 January 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

and trying to contrive an argument for balance using this video as evidence is plain just terrible it would be better served as a training video for noobs. on what not to do when playing mech warrior online.

The people involved are competitive players.

I realize that you likely do not who they are, or how talented they are as players, and that will be your excuse to say that this was contrived and ineffectual toward the conversation.

However, I would invite you to try to bring a clan mech against one of those players in an IS mech and watch how quickly you die.

The issue arising from this video is the fact that not just 1 group, but both groups failed to have much if any success at all as clans. The IS was outright superior, and you could not get in range to make better trades as clans because of the flat superiority of IS mechs due to the quirks.

Edited by Gyrok, 25 January 2016 - 02:42 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Y'know, I always felt that the 40% reduction in Clan max-range would come back to bite us. And it has. It's like, oh boy, we have Stalkers shooting out to an optimum of 563 meters with six Large Lasers and a total 3+3 burn equivalent to the single burn from the Clan 'Mechs. We should totally remove the entire reason for providing that buff in the first place by cutting effective C-ERML range down by 25%.

Wat.

[Gyrok]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 January 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

Y'know, I always felt that the 40% reduction in Clan max-range would come back to bite us. And it has. It's like, oh boy, we have Stalkers shooting out to an optimum of 563 meters with six Large Lasers and a total 3+3 burn equivalent to the single burn from the Clan 'Mechs. We should totally remove the entire reason for providing that buff in the first place by cutting effective C-ERML range down by 25%.

Wat.

Whoa...that is some crazy talk right there...

[Gas Guzzler]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 January 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

Y'know, I always felt that the 40% reduction in Clan max-range would come back to bite us. And it has. It's like, oh boy, we have Stalkers shooting out to an optimum of 563 meters with six Large Lasers and a total 3+3 burn equivalent to the single burn from the Clan 'Mechs. We should totally remove the entire reason for providing that buff in the first place by cutting effective C-ERML range down by 25%.

Wat.

Yeah....

[Adamski]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 January 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

Y'know, I always felt that the 40% reduction in Clan max-range would come back to bite us. And it has. It's like, oh boy, we have Stalkers shooting out to an optimum of 563 meters with six Large Lasers and a total 3+3 burn equivalent to the single burn from the Clan 'Mechs. We should totally remove the entire reason for providing that buff in the first place by cutting effective C-ERML range down by 25%.

Wat.

So you are saying the 5 ton 2 slot IS Large Laser should be balanced against the 1 ton 1 slot cER Medium Laser?

Am I reading this correctly?

Wouldn't the better comparison be the IS LL having less range and less damage, but lighter than a cLPL, but less range and less heat but heavier and larger than a cERLL?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Adamski, on 25 January 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

So you are saying the 5 ton 2 slot IS Large Laser should be balanced against the 1 ton 1 slot cER Medium Laser?

Am I reading this correctly?

Wouldn't the better comparison be the IS LL having less range and less damage, but lighter than a cLPL, but less range and less heat but heavier and larger than a cERLL?

I'm pretty sure he was alluding to the fact that cLPL-cERML boats were hurt at the 600m range hard with the nerfing of the cERML max range since very few mechs boated only cERMLs.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 January 2016 - 03:17 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 January 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure he was alluding to the fact that cLPL-cERML boats were hurt at the 600m range hard with the nerfing of the cERML max range since very few mechs boated only cERMLs.

Exactly this. With the raising of isLL ghost heat to come into play at 3, the increases to range, and the decreases to burn time (not that the STK-4N has duration quirks), it seemed a bit over-zealous to hit the Clans so hard in range right after allowing the IS to have unprecedented access to it.

[Gas Guzzler]

So.....

Restore ER ML range?

[Y E O N N E]

Gas Guzzler, on 25 January 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

So.....

Restore ER ML range?

Maybe? I haven't run the numbers so I can't tell you whether or not I think that's the right approach. That said, the IS have almost the exact same capability the Clans now lack, so would it hurt to try it? I mean, they left the Clans squishy ostensibly because of CXL and the lack of a need to get as close to do damage. IS got structure for isXL deficiencies and the need to get closer. PGI kind of did do a double-fix here as well...

Honestly, I wish PGI would just turn off stat tracking for a few months and rapidly iterate through some weapon/quirk tweaks on the main servers so they can get a properly good sampling.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 January 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

Maybe? I haven't run the numbers so I can't tell you whether or not I think that's the right approach. That said, the IS have almost the exact same capability the Clans now lack, so would it hurt to try it? I mean, they left the Clans squishy ostensibly because of CXL and the lack of a need to get as close to do damage. IS got structure for isXL deficiencies and the need to get closer. PGI kind of did do a double-fix here as well...

Honestly, I wish PGI would just turn off stat tracking for a few months and rapidly iterate through some weapon/quirk tweaks on the main servers so they can get a properly good sampling.

I'm still game for upping the cLPL and cERLL ghost heat limit, just because cERMLs feel more limited like iMLs currently. Then again bringing back cERMLs would also boost the cERML-Gauss vomit into safer levels.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 January 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

I'm still game for upping the cLPL and cERLL ghost heat limit, just because cERMLs feel more limited like iMLs currently. Then again bringing back cERMLs would also boost the cERML-Gauss vomit into safer levels.

I also like the idea of boosting C-ERLL to 3. It can and should have a harsher penalty for dipping into 4 than the IS, since the IS dipping into 4 is merely splitting the difference between 3 and 4 C-ERLL, but I don't think it's at all unfair to allow Clans to have 33 extreme range damage when you've got IS 'Mechs ignoring ghost and alpha-striking for 36 already.

I'm also not sure that a return of Goose-vomit is necessarily bad, not when isLL vomit is so powerful and the cool-down on Goose is increased. Further tweaks to Goose can be made, if necessary. I've always been a proponent of adding a non-trivial heat component to it to make it less complementary to lasers.

[Adamski]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 January 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

Maybe? I haven't run the numbers so I can't tell you whether or not I think that's the right approach. That said, the IS have almost the exact same capability the Clans now lack, so would it hurt to try it? I mean, they left the Clans squishy ostensibly because of CXL and the lack of a need to get as close to do damage. IS got structure for isXL deficiencies and the need to get closer. PGI kind of did do a double-fix here as well...

Honestly, I wish PGI would just turn off stat tracking for a few months and rapidly iterate through some weapon/quirk tweaks on the main servers so they can get a properly good sampling.

IS got Structure because of the smaller weapons payload that taking a STD entails.

Clans got reduced range, because they have increased speed with their light weight but sturdy cXL engines.

eg: TBR will move 25% faster than a MAD (87kph v 70kph), and have 25% more firepower. The MAD gets 25% more structure (48 + 12), but will still have less range.

[Mystere]

Eboli, on 25 January 2016 - 01:33 AM, said:

Sorry but all I see is a thread where biased clan comp players want their winning edge back.

I'd rather you dispute the test conducted via the scientific method. Otherwise, what you wrote is all just words.

Edited by Mystere, 25 January 2016 - 04:07 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Adamski, on 25 January 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

IS got Structure because of the smaller weapons payload that taking a STD entails.

Clans got reduced range, because they have increased speed with their light weight but sturdy cXL engines.

eg: TBR will move 25% faster than a MAD (87kph v 70kph), and have 25% more firepower. The MAD gets 25% more structure (48 + 12), but will still have less range.

That doesn't compute, because those are not the most direct complementary items. More durability to offset smaller payloads due to STD engines only makes sense if you are face-tanking, otherwise the pilot can limit his exposure to enemy fire all on his own. And that's easier done with an XL than a STD, which also has the benefit of allowing a more comparable weapons payload.

It's a similar problem to where people say range begets duration. That isn't actually right. Increased range is most directly reigned in by increased cool-down to lower the DPS and allow more chance to approach and to make the gun less effective up close. Increased damage is most directly reigned in by increased duration to soften the absolute advantage over weaker lasers. You can reduce strength of either of those two more direct counters and mix with additional heat to provide more flexibility at the pilot's discretion.

[Mystere]

pbiggz, on 25 January 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Wow gyrok, this is totally impartial and not at all tilted in favour of IS winning to fit your battered clan narrative.

We all know the clans are in the ******* and we all know why. Do us the favour if actually asking for real balance instead of 10v12 and TT values on clan weapons, which we all know you want.

Do you even know who were the participants in that test? <smh>

Gyrok, on 25 January 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

10v12 is not going to happen, not at this stage in the game. Much as I, and many others likely, would have preferred they at least attempted...it is not going to happen.

[MischiefSC]

PPCs don't need more than 2 and you don't need more than 35 pts of PPFLD. That's 3 hits over the time it takes the enemy to close with you. Each exposure is only a fraction of a second, which is all it ever was.

What irritates me about this discussion is how people think that somehow because other stuff got changed that stacking gauss or 2xAC5 with 2 PPCs would work differently than it ever did if PPCs worked approximately as well as they ever did.

The viability of other weapons vs PPCs didn't change because other weapons really did, it changed because PPCs became too hot and too inaccurate at long range poking.

Like I said I'm happy to play with it on the PTS but a shift to short exposure long range trades eliminates the viability of lasers for anything but the brawl. Saying they are all but guaranteed to win the brawl by keeping PPCs hot and/or slow doesn't really make that any better of an idea.