138 replies to this topic

[IraqiWalker]

Todd Lightbringer, on 06 February 2016 - 07:18 PM, said:

THIS RIGHT HERE! High alpha builds need to go out the window.

Yes, because we never had 90+ damage alphas in TT </sarcasm>

[DivineEvil]

IraqiWalker, on 06 February 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

Yes, because we never had 90+ damage alphas in TT </sarcasm>

What TT has to do with it?

In TT, one round is 10 seconds, and whether all the components of the alpha-strike would actually hit and where is random, and serious heat penalties start from 15 overheat level.

[IraqiWalker]

DivineEvil, on 07 February 2016 - 05:34 AM, said:

What TT has to do with it?

In TT, one round is 10 seconds, and whether all the components of the alpha-strike would actually hit and where is random, and serious heat penalties start from 15 overheat level.

Usually, when people talk about high alpha builds needing to go out the window, they bring up TT.

As for randomness of hitting. Not really. Unless you were playing stock only, with meh gunnery pilots, you will usually run into people landing consistent called shots with high alphas (or in the case of one of my Novas, 10 ERMLs slaved to a targeting computer allowing it to consistently land all 10 on one location, or just never miss the targeted mech, ever).

I agree we need better heatscale penalties, though. Sustaining 90% heat for 30 seconds should not be a regular occurrence.

[DivineEvil]

IraqiWalker, on 07 February 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

Usually, when people talk about high alpha builds needing to go out the window, they bring up TT.

As for randomness of hitting. Not really. Unless you were playing stock only, with meh gunnery pilots, you will usually run into people landing consistent called shots with high alphas (or in the case of one of my Novas, 10 ERMLs slaved to a targeting computer allowing it to consistently land all 10 on one location, or just never miss the targeted mech, ever).

I agree we need better heatscale penalties, though. Sustaining 90% heat for 30 seconds should not be a regular occurrence.

Again, TT doesn't matter by itself, and I've never were involved with it and only ever use it as a reference point. The problem is not that MWO values are derived from TT, but is how they were changed relative to it.

The armor have been doubled, the sturcture were doubled, the reload rate were more than doubled, the heat capacity is effectively doubled, and additional heatsinks adding up to it, but heat dissipation is not even increased, but outright nerfed. As result we need twice as much damage to destroy a component, has weapons that fire fire roughly twice as fast, possess twice or more as much heat capacity, but regular dissipation from engine HS and even less dissipation from external HSs.

Long story short, heat capacity, which regulates the alpha-strike limits, was adressed, while heat dissipation, which regulates sustainability over time, was not adressed at all and actually was nerfed later on. That is a major overlook by PGI, which shapes the combat dynamics for all mechs and all weapons towards alpha-strike supremacy, because severely penalyzed dissipation makes almost any prolonged combat unsustainable, while oversized capacity allows for extreme numbers we are stuck with.

More than that, PGI implemented Heat Scale, which not only treats weapons and factions unequally, but also is completely concealed from players regarding the actual ratios. They also artificially limited Clans by adressing the DHS capacity, even though with sensible fundamental values, more heat generated by Clan energy weapons would naturally make the same effect.

All of that combined creates an invalid mathematical foundation, atop of which no respectable and obvious balance cannot be achieved. Again, we need to somehow consult PGI either to remove base heat capacity, or to remove HS capacity bonus to cut away the unnecessary alpha-strike abuse. In either circumstances, Heat Scale will be redundant and free to be removed as well, and we would also need either base or HS dissipation rates appropriate for increased weapon reload rates to compensate for capacity reduction. It should not be doubled, of course, becuse then the low TTK values, and maybe even some of the laser-vomit mentality will persist.

Then we will be able to actually think about how to adjust weapons to their efficiency, HeatSinks will worth the tonnage they require, PPCs will be usable without insane heat reduction quirks, Flamers will be competetive due to reduced capacity to burn trough, etc. Until then, we're stuck with slating dozens of band-aids one over another on top of a broken leg.

Edited by DivineEvil, 07 February 2016 - 11:31 AM.

[Void Angel]

Bud Crue, on 05 February 2016 - 04:36 AM, said:

So in the end, while the whines may be annoying and even absurd, the devs apparently agree with their underlying assertions. What's that tell ya? (tells me that it pays to whine like crazy in order to get your way in this game).

Bud Crue, on 05 February 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

So where does this leave us? We know the community* didn't like weapon specific quirks, we now know they don't like general class quirks. Who knows if/what PGI will try next. Whatever they do, I am sure it will be nicely divisive and thus entertaining.

*by community I mean those that PGI apparently listens to, whomever that may be.

I have to vehemently disagree with you on a point here - you've succumbed to an urban legend about how developers balance games based on a correlative fallacy. The legend goes that developers will "cave in" on changes if enough people complain, making changes based on forum feedback instead of doing what's best for the game. The legend seems reasonable because people are often complaining about game systems or mechanics that get attention (and it seams feasible that devs would worry about negative "customer" feedback) - but in fact it claims a causative relationship where none usually exists.

In every game I've played, the developers use forum complaints as a guide to where they will focus their attention, not as a dartboard for change. While they do look at the forums to see where problems might lie, they will make their own decisions on if and where a problem actually exists - and what to do about it. This process involves theorycrafting alternatives, internal testing, demographic analysis, and other methods to determine what should be done, and solutions often go counter to many players' desires.

I've seen this happen many times; I'll spoiler the examples for space.

Spoiler

• Possibly the best example I can muster is Ghostcrawler's developer blog post from just after the launch of WoW's Cataclysm expansion. Difficulty of the game's dungeon instances was much harder than previously, causing a massive storm of player complaints. But as the lead systems designer explained, the problem was with faulty expectations set during the last expansion - and Blizzard's decision to leave the difficulty in place was the right one.
  
• From MWO, take the history of ECM. Prior to the recent range nerf, the power of ECM systems has been complained of ad nauseum practically since its inception - yet the system has remained essentially unchanged during all this time. If player complaints drive change, why didn't they "fix" ECM a long time ago? The conspiracy theorists will usually move the goalposts here, claiming that this or that dev considers ECM to be their personal baby, and won't allow to be changed, despite a "majority," (meaning the theorist) of players who want it "fixed." In reality, PGI did take the complaints seriously - but determined that the biggest problem with ECM wasn't its own effect, but the fact that its primary (at the time) carrier - the Raven 3L - had hitboxes that made it very hard to kill. So, they reworked the hitboxes instead of nerfing ECM, rather than just caving in to the loudest voices. Whether this was a bad or good decision isn't important here - the takeaway is that PGI used forum complaints to identify which issues were important to players, and made their own decisions.
  
• As a positive example, take the subject at hand: Clan v. Inner Sphere tech balance. The Clans have been crying sweet, sweet Clanner tears about quirks for a while now; PGI has largely ignored them, even nerfing their overperforming chassis at one point. With the latest round of quirks and adjustments (particularly since December 1st of last year,) the Clans have lost some of their general advantage in range, while the Inner Sphere has enjoyed massive quirks to the range of certain weapons. This isn't a really big problem with random teams, but in organized play, it creates a situation where the Clans have to deal with Inner Sphere teams whose 'mechs can excel at both brawling and long-range trades. While the Clans are still paying premiums in dps/heat, burst-fire autocannons, and long laser burn times, some of the most popular Inner Sphere builds can damage Clan 'mechs from outside the Clanner's maximum range. This is a hole in PGI's balance strategy, and they're actually overdue to tone it down, in my opinion - it's not that the Clans are completely unplayable (try Medium Pulse Lasers and SRMs,) it's that the excessive range granted by overquirking certain Inner Sphere chassis creates a situation that invalidates Clan long-range builds and is legitimately frustrating for Clan players.

In all of these cases, the devlopers used the forums to see what perceived problems were important to players. But the first thing they did afterward was to ask themselves, "is this really a problem?" If the answer was "yes," they'd brainstorm solutions (including forum suggestions) and then do internal testing, etc, etc. No developer will simply lick their finger and stick it in the metaphorical air to see which way the wind is blowing when they decide to enact a balance change, because they know that even if they get it right, the complaints will still be endless. Instead, they look at their numbers and try to find a change that will work best for the overall health of the game.

[Bud Crue]

Void Angel, on 07 February 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

In all of these cases, the devlopers used the forums to see what perceived problems were important to players. But the first thing they did afterward was to ask themselves, "is this really a problem?" If the answer was "yes," they'd brainstorm solutions (including forum suggestions) and then do internal testing, etc, etc. No developer will simply lick their finger and stick it in the metaphorical air to see which way the wind is blowing when they decide to enact a balance change, because they know that even if they get it right, the complaints will still be endless. Instead, they look at their numbers and try to find a change that will work best for the overall health of the game.

You say you disagree with my assertion that whining apparently is effective with PGI, but that does appear to be the perception that PGI has created no?

Your example above with the developer rhetorically asking "is that really the problem?" may in fact be the truth, but as long as PGI (or at least Russ) does not communicate with the players on these issues, and is exclusively reactive in a vacuum, reasonable people are going to draw the conclusion that whining is indeed the way to get results. Case in point: the dust up over MS' twitter request to move factions early, and the resulting fall out. I think this sort of thing goes along way in creating the perception that this is how PGI does business not only in something as silly as unti faction changes, but perhaps other decisions as well (e.g. game balance).

Perception is reality, regardless of truth.

Edited by Bud Crue, 08 February 2016 - 08:13 AM.

[Ey3cD34Dppl]

I've played IS since the very beginning. As (almost) all the Clan players cried I've started to play Clan Mechs, which resulted into a KDR and W/L ratio that's about double as high as I have ever achieved in an IS Mech. Maybe it is just me, but I honestly do not think we got a balancing issue on the IS side. The above mentioned results were achieved in an EBJ brawler build and the nerfed version of a Timber Wolf.

Based on this experience I can not understand all the complains and the announced quirk adjustments. It feels like PGI is overshooting the mark.

[Surn]

The large units all went IS at the same time in order to troll PGI into buffing their favorite clan mechs and to eliminate the one weakness clan mechs have, less range on 1 cold CW map.

If you watch MS attack planets, they can rarely take Boreal Vault vs a coordinated group of long range IS mechs. Why, because clan mechs have use tactics to win on that map instead of just relying on better mechs that move faster with more ecm as a group... aka.. Deathball.

The slight IS range advantage, means they have to fight through the gate and then fight again when they get to the base. For the IS to capitalize on this advantage, they must be coordinated and know how to counter the Clan speed by moving at the right times with anticipation.

Further, if the clanners are on Hold territory, exclusive deathball clanners have a hard time pushing to the IS spawn if the IS team is outfitted with the right range mechs.

So.. .in order to eliminate these challenges... these groups all went IS and used numbers of players to wipe out the clans who had grown dependent upon them for protection.

It had NOTHING to do with clan/Is balance.. the balance is as good or better than ever.. it is about a bunch of babies crying to ensure they have EVERY advantage at ALL times so their egos don't get bruised when someone like me organizes a bunch of pugs and refuses to get STOMPED.

Now that MS has gone smoke Jag, they are tearing through Kurita and FRR due to NUMBERS OF PLAYERS again. Go look at Luzerne... Several groups opposed MS, we stopped them from taking the planet for a few ceasefires, but eventually they overwhelmed us because MS likely has more players than the entire faction of Kurita. Nerfing the IS mechs will just make this worse.

NERFING IS MECHS WILL ONLY MAKE THIS GAME WORSE!

[Void Angel]

Ey3cD34Dppl, on 08 February 2016 - 09:00 AM, said:

I've played IS since the very beginning. As (almost) all the Clan players cried I've started to play Clan Mechs, which resulted into a KDR and W/L ratio that's about double as high as I have ever achieved in an IS Mech. Maybe it is just me, but I honestly do not think we got a balancing issue on the IS side. The above mentioned results were achieved in an EBJ brawler build and the nerfed version of a Timber Wolf.

Based on this experience I can not understand all the complains and the announced quirk adjustments. It feels like PGI is overshooting the mark.

Are these stats from the solo queue - I'll bet they are. Your tier may or may not also be a factor, but, as I've mentioned before, the range quirks aren't as important in solo queue, or even with small groups - yet when you look at organized play, where teams can and are organized to accomplish a specific strategy, that extra range really helps the Inner Sphere while curtailing the Clans' viable options. That's why the nerf is happening, and why it needed to happen. Honestly? It's not generally a huge nerf, in most cases; nothing I've seen from PGI has indicated that they're going to eliminate any quirks, so for a 'mech with specialized and general range quirks, you should still see a 20% total range increase. Nothing to sneeze at, but the Clans can still compete. However, there are a few cases where insane quirks completely override weapon balance. The Commando 1D's 40% energy range quirk means an ER Large Laser will do full damage at over a kilometer (base range, 675m;) two Locust variants can get out to nearly 1100m before losing damage on the beam. Of course, those are just lights, and tiny ones at that; so consider that the Thunderbolt, Mauler, Stalker, Battlemaster, and Victor (just to name a few) also have a 25% general quirk to either ballistic or energy range.

Bear with me here; multiple balance factors are involved here, so my explanation will be likewise. Spoilering for space:

Spoiler

Currently, the Clan ER Large Laser has a base range of 740m, and the Inner Sphere version has 675m. This means that the difference in ranges is slightly over 9.6% of the Inner Sphere range - if he brought a range module, he already outranges the Clan laser by an insignificant amount. But say he brought a Battlemaster 1S (you know, the missile variant;) now his range, with modules is 911m. The most that Clan player can get is 869m - and that's if he was dumb enough to bring seven tons of targeting computer. A sane Clanner will have 830m or so, depending on if he needed a computer.

So, those quirked 'mechs have an insurmountable range advantage over the Clans; but so what? Clans have advantages over the Inner Sphere, too - but they also have drawbacks. Part of the premium the Clans are paying for their advantages is substantially longer burn time on all of their lasers. Taking the ER Large as the example again, the Clan ER's burn duration is thirty percent longer than the Inner Sphere laser. This makes a large difference in practice, because in order to deal all of the Clanner's theoretically superior dps, you have to stare at your target longer, allowing enemy marksmen an easier time landing all their shots together. It gets more interesting, though; the Clan ER does just slightly more damage per tic than its counterpart, so even if you only use the same amount of burn time that the Inner Sphere guy got, you did the same damage - you just wasted some of the beam. However, even if you get all of your beam's damage - for higher dps than the Inner Sphere - your DPS per heat is lower. This means that while the Inner Sphere's ER Large "only" requires 18 "effective heat sinks" to neutralize its heat buildup, the Clan version requires 22 (with the heat sink changes and doubled basics, that works out to about 2.5 tons of DHS.) So not only are the Clans paying extra burn time for a lower range, they're being charged 2.5 "tons worth" of heat sinks in efficiency. And the Inner Sphere can even alpha more without incurring a heat scale penalty! And the Clans close-range lasers are even less comparatively efficient in terms of dps/heat...

This is why so many Clanners are up in arms over the recent nerfs and Inner Sphere quirks (to be fair, they've been screaming like children about voicing calm and reasonable objections to quirks since day one, before they hit current levels.) The Clans pay a high premium in weapon efficiency for their range advantage, and the quirks for some (but not all) Inner Sphere chassis have eliminated (or even exceeded) that advantage. This doesn't show up much in public games because the entire team isn't organized according to a plan - but in Community Warfare, Clan players who are trying to use long-range builds find themselves outranged and outgunned by the Inner Sphere. That's why they're complaining, and (this time) they're right.

Bud Crue, on 08 February 2016 - 08:03 AM, said:

You say you disagree with my assertion that whining apparently is effective with PGI, but that does appear to be the perception that PGI has created no?

Your example above with the developer rhetorically asking "is that really the problem?" may in fact be the truth, but as long as PGI (or at least Russ) does not communicate with the players on these issues, and is exclusively reactive in a vacuum, reasonable people are going to draw the conclusion that whining is indeed the way to get results. Case in point: the dust up over MS' twitter request to move factions early, and the resulting fall out. I think this sort of thing goes along way in creating the perception that this is how PGI does business not only in something as silly as unti faction changes, but perhaps other decisions as well (e.g. game balance).

Perception is reality, regardless of truth.

No, it isn't. Truth is reality, by definition, regardless of perception. Someone can choose to believe in urban legends justified from an argument from silence if they like - I can't stop them. But while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. Using subjective interpretations of events as "proof" that PGI isn't doing what they've actually told us they do doesn't meet the rules of evidence.

Edited by Void Angel, 08 February 2016 - 01:37 PM.

[Void Angel]

PS: Good grief, really? "It's all a conspiracy by the big merc units to make PGI buff their 'mechs!" You can keep on repeating that nonsense as much as you want - it's still a lie you made up to support your view of the game, not a conclusion proven from facts.

[Bud Crue]

I agree with you in principle Void, my point is that Pgi just perpetuates the perception that it responds to whining by, well, responding to whining. Go listen to the last town hall. What are you hearing when Russ proposed an across the board nerf to is energy range? Well reasoned and critically analyzed solution to specific problems? That's certainly not how it played to me. You may have evidence to the contrary, but I'm not seeing it. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

As to your P.S. post, no idea who that is directed to as I have never held that position in re units, etc.

Edited by Bud Crue, 08 February 2016 - 05:06 PM.

[Ey3cD34Dppl]

Quote

Are these stats from the solo queue - I'll bet they are. Your tier may or may not also be a factor, but, as I've mentioned before, the range quirks aren't as important in solo queue, or even with small groups - yet when you look at organized play, where teams can and are organized to accomplish a specific strategy, that extra range really helps the Inner Sphere while curtailing the Clans' viable options. That's why the nerf is happening, and why it needed to happen. Honestly? It's not generally a huge nerf, in most cases; nothing I've seen from PGI has indicated that they're going to eliminate any quirks, so for a 'mech with specialized and general range quirks, you should still see a 20% total range increase. Nothing to sneeze at, but the Clans can still compete. However, there are a few cases where insane quirks completely override weapon balance. The Commando 1D's 40% energy range quirk means an ER Large Laser will do full damage at over a kilometer (base range, 675m;) two Locust variants can get out to nearly 1100m before losing damage on the beam. Of course, those are just lights, and tiny ones at that; so consider that the Thunderbolt, Mauler, Stalker, Battlemaster, and Victor (just to name a few) also have a 25% general quirk to either ballistic or energy range.

Bear with me here; multiple balance factors are involved here, so my explanation will be likewise. Spoilering for space:

You are right. My experience is based on "Quick Play". Nevertheless it is still a valid point. I specifically made a build that has no range advantage - which I have to play like a IS mech. And it gave me far better results.

Regarding the mentoned mechs. I could agree with you if PGI would set the general "Energy Range"-quirk to a maximum of 10 % and buff the weapon systems they want to be better in addition to that with a certain percentage. For example the mentioned Battlemaster. I really think it is meant to buff the TAG laser in general. Not large or ER large lasers.

Quote

This is why so many Clanners are up in arms over the recent nerfs and Inner Sphere quirks (to be fair, they've been screaming like children about voicing calm and reasonable objections to quirks since day one, before they hit current levels.) The Clans pay a high premium in weapon efficiency for their range advantage, and the quirks for some (but not all) Inner Sphere chassis have eliminated (or even exceeded) that advantage. This doesn't show up much in public games because the entire team isn't organized according to a plan - but in Community Warfare, Clan players who are trying to use long-range builds find themselves outranged and outgunned by the Inner Sphere. That's why they're complaining, and (this time) they're right.

I could agree with you if there wouldn't be a big IF. You just mentioned that in CW some clan units find themselves outranged and outgunned. What do you think are the IS unit do if the February patch comes? I guess they find themselves in a similar situation. But this time it is a general one which is not restricted to certain Mechs.

If the IS players are going to complain and cry about it there will be postings like "adjust your gameplay" or whatever from the Clan fanboys. So isn't it a bit irritating that some players have to adjust and others are just not willing to do so?

Of course this doesn't change a thing. PGI will do whatever PGI wants to. I'm just disappointed that a company like PGI does not have a agenda on its own and listens to crybabies instead.

Just my 2 cents

Cheers
Ey3

[Koshirou]

Void Angel, on 08 February 2016 - 01:32 PM, said:

Currently, the Clan ER Large Laser has a base range of 740m, and the Inner Sphere version has 675m. This means that the difference in ranges is slightly over 9.6% of the Inner Sphere range - if he brought a range module, he already outranges the Clan laser by an insignificant amount. But say he brought a Battlemaster 1S (you know, the missile variant;) now his range, with modules is 911m. The most that Clan player can get is 869m - and that's if he was dumb enough to bring seven tons of targeting computer. A sane Clanner will have 830m or so, depending on if he needed a computer.

Easy solution number one.
- Remove all range quirks.
- Remove range buff from TC, give it some other function.
- Give all IS weapons the same basic range as their Clan equivalents.

Do this and you'll never need to talk about balancing this factor between Clans and IS again, ever. And it'd be a lot more honest than this inane pussyfooting with quirks and TCs and whathaveyou.
But we all know that's not what Clan players want. They sure want to keep their range advantages for just about all other energy weapons, and they want their rightful advantage over the IS ERLL restored as well.

Easy solution number two:
Since basically all arguments about this terrible IS range advantage are centered on the mighty IS ERLL, how about just reducing the range of this single weapon? That seems to make a lot more sense, even and especially for the TT/Loremongers, if you consider that its range has already been considerably buffed compared to its TT equivalent.
But of course that's not what Clan players want either. They feel they are not winning enough, so the IS needs to be hit with the broad-spectrum nerfhammer.

Since PGI did not take into account either of these simple solutions to the alleged problem, but instead opted for just giving in to the demands of a certain player demographic, the conclusion is: Yes, PGI just responds to whining without thinking things through.

P.S.: "The missile variant"? Seriously? As if Mechs in this game had a predefined role due to their stock loadout?

[Ariesmercwar]

if you want to complain to me about how overpowered clan mechs, clans etc are, maybe you would get more sympathy from me if clans had swallowed the IS whole not the other way around. We only have one planet now, botany bay. Meanwhile inner sphere rules the galaxy. Screw the IS and all their overpowered mechs.

[Koshirou]

Awwwww, you lost, like, 10 planets? Come back when you lost 200, like Steiner did in the last CW phase. But of course, you can't lose 200 planets, since you only start out with a handful. And because of this setup, the IS can't steamroll the Clans and still leave something to fight as it used to be with reversed roles. And because of this the setup is bonkers and doesn't work on a strategic level.

But that's a.) something that I've mentioned before a gazillion times and b.) not related to the topic at hand.

[DivineEvil]

Ariesmercwar, on 09 February 2016 - 04:39 AM, said:

if you want to complain to me about how overpowered clan mechs, clans etc are, maybe you would get more sympathy from me if clans had swallowed the IS whole not the other way around. We only have one planet now, botany bay. Meanwhile inner sphere rules the galaxy. Screw the IS and all their overpowered mechs.

In case you didn't knew, this is how map begins. For a year it was the reality - Clans took just as much planets as they liked to. We do not claim that Clans are OP now - we're arguing that factions are balanced. The fact, that Clans do not take planets hinges on the amount of players on the opposite sides, and their actual skill and depth of understanding of CW tactics.

Edited by DivineEvil, 09 February 2016 - 05:46 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Ariesmercwar, on 09 February 2016 - 04:39 AM, said:

if you want to complain to me about how overpowered clan mechs, clans etc are, maybe you would get more sympathy from me if clans had swallowed the IS whole not the other way around. We only have one planet now, botany bay. Meanwhile inner sphere rules the galaxy. Screw the IS and all their overpowered mechs.

Not only is this how the map begins, but you lost them because 90% of your actually good players (mercs) switched to IS

Edited by IraqiWalker, 09 February 2016 - 11:26 AM.

[Void Angel]

Koshirou, on 09 February 2016 - 01:39 AM, said:

Easy solution number one.
- Remove all range quirks.
- Remove range buff from TC, give it some other function.
- Give all IS weapons the same basic range as their Clan equivalents.

Do this and you'll never need to talk about balancing this factor between Clans and IS again, ever. And it'd be a lot more honest than this inane pussyfooting with quirks and TCs and whathaveyou.
But we all know that's not what Clan players want. They sure want to keep their range advantages for just about all other energy weapons, and they want their rightful advantage over the IS ERLL restored as well.

Easy solution number two:
Since basically all arguments about this terrible IS range advantage are centered on the mighty IS ERLL, how about just reducing the range of this single weapon? That seems to make a lot more sense, even and especially for the TT/Loremongers, if you consider that its range has already been considerably buffed compared to its TT equivalent.
But of course that's not what Clan players want either. They feel they are not winning enough, so the IS needs to be hit with the broad-spectrum nerfhammer.

Since PGI did not take into account either of these simple solutions to the alleged problem, but instead opted for just giving in to the demands of a certain player demographic, the conclusion is: Yes, PGI just responds to whining without thinking things through.

P.S.: "The missile variant"? Seriously? As if Mechs in this game had a predefined role due to their stock loadout?

You sound like Trump: "My solutions are easy! The people in charge just aren't willing to man up and make Mechwarrior Online great again!" Forget that the devs have considered the very issue your "solutions" address, and decided to give the Clans weapons designed to be equal, but with a different flavor - including range. Forget that "simple" is not the same as "workable." Just proposing something you say would fix everything is sufficient, and it's just self-evident that you're right! In reality, your proposed "solutions" have a wide array of consequences, miss the point completely, and serve only to prop up a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that runs exactly counter to facts. How long has ECM been whined about on the forums, with no "caving in" done? But I don't want to confuse you with facts - you're obviously comfortable without them.

Your whole diatribe is based on faulty assumptions, straw man smear tactics, and proof by assertion. Your snide parting shot is a great example - the Battlemaster 1S is the missile variant of the chassis. This is obvious to any reasonable person, since it is the only Battlemaster with any number of missile hardpoints. That doesn't mean that you have to put any particular weapons on it, but it does mean that my characterization of the 'mech accurate. But you don't like my opinion, so you fluff up a nice straw man and "debunk" the idea that stock loadouts determine a 'mech's "role."

Edited by Void Angel, 09 February 2016 - 11:19 AM.

[Russhuster]

@ Void Angel

Then maybe you like to introduce your way of a "workable" solution for this problem

[Void Angel]

What problem? You mean excessive quirks breaking one aspect of game balance? Why not fix the problem and reduce the offending quirks - just as the devs intend to do? That solves the problem without screwing with a balance paradigm that seems to be working overall.