555 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 27 March 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

Max range is ~200m without range 5 module after fall off nerf...I do not want to be that close in a clan mech...pretty much ever...

You've always had trouble with PGI's math, you always got ERMLs wrong.

"THEY CAN'T HIT PAST 600M!!!"
Then people show you they can hit at 700M and you still continue your tirade...will it be the same for SPLs?

165 base range, 297 max falloff without the module or a TC1. Add a TC1, past 300M, add the module, you get 185 (or slightly greater after the buff?) optimal range.
333M falloff range.

Sure, it's not 370M anymore, and it hurt a little but, but if you hadn't noticed, it reaches FURTHER than SRMs, and brawls wonderfully.


Your arguments are becoming jokes full of false information.

[Gyrok]

@deathlike:

You fail to explain what the TW does better.

Also, i consider weight in same tech comparisons.

Since mixed tech is not a thing, and never will be, I see weight as moot in comparison.

The CMPL is a perfect example. It compares favorably to the IS MPL, and poorly with longer duration, than the IS LL. Comparing it to the IS LPL is disingenuous beyond simply range comparisons.

@mcgral:

Was posting from work, cannot access that stuff at work, but base range is 150 *70% fall off is not 297, 165 is after range module.

[Deathlike]

Gyrok, on 27 March 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

@deathlike:

You fail to explain what the TW does better.

I've already explained it.

More heatsinks (sustainability) and more mobility (in the form of JJs).

I'm not sure what you're skipping.

Quote

Also, i consider weight in same tech comparisons.

Since mixed tech is not a thing, and never will be, I see weight as moot in comparison.

The CMPL is a perfect example. It compares favorably to the IS MPL, and poorly with longer duration, than the IS LL. Comparing it to the IS LPL is disingenuous beyond simply range comparisons.

It's actually VERY IMPORTANT.

While mix tech isn't in play, comparing the two actually matters in terms of the overall balance.

For instance, the # of Clan DHS that can be fitted on a laservomit Timberwolf FAR exceeds the # of IS DHS that can be fitted on any laservomit IS mech of choice. This is not debatable. This in part is why we have heat gen quirks up the wazoo and also why heat gen quirks on sub-250 mechs are actually necessary (both Clan+IS).

This isn't even talking about weapons, but other equipment.

For instance, Clan Gauss is literally MORE DURABLE than IS Gauss by design. There's nothing to suggest otherwise. Same with BAP vs CAP (CAP has an increased shutdown detection range to boot). Clan NARC is much more efficient than IS NARC and it's not like anyone gives a damn about NARC. Mind you, there are more options and direct comparisons (Clan ECM is better than IS ECM by current values just as well), but you can't just "write it off" as is.

To say it doesn't matter on a tech level is disingenuous, and is NOT LIMITED TO JUST WEAPONS, thus why comparing CMPL to NOT JUST ISMPL but also ISLPL is warranted due to what the actual tradeoffs are... they belong in the same area just as much as CERMEDs are compared to ISMEDs AND ISLL.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 March 2016 - 05:01 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Gyrok, on 27 March 2016 - 12:31 PM, said:

I disagree...they are not drastically off...but things are still slanted ever so slightly to the IS side of the scale...the IS has fewer trade offs than what has been forced on clans.

I refer everyone back to the statement I made where there are people posting on this forum that begrudge (read: whine incessantly, go into Chicken Little histrionics) the IS ANY aspect of ANY weapon/technology, that matches, or even slightly exceeds Clan capability.

In their minds, it's not 'balanced' until The Clans are superior to IS tech in every single way, and they won't STFU about it until they get their way.

Thank you, and good night...

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 27 March 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Was posting from work, cannot access that stuff at work, but base range is 150 *70% fall off is not 297, 165 is after range module.

<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\ClanSmallPulseLaser.dds" descTag="@ClanSPL_desc" nameTag="@ClanSPL"/>
<WeaponStats maxDepth="10.0" volleydelay="0.0" speed="0" lifetime="0" duration="0.75" tons="1"
maxRange="297"
longRange="165"
minRange="0" ammoPerShot="0" ammoType="" cooldown="2.25" heat="3.0" impulse="0.0" minheatpenaltylevel="7" heatpenalty="1.0" heatdamage="0" damage="6" numFiring="1" projectileclass="" type="Energy" slots="1" Health="10" effectscale="1.0" heatPenaltyID="10"/>

[Karmen Baric]

wow Gyrok seems to be like the biggest whiner on these forums. He is also really really wrong a lot of the time, not sure if he believes the crap he is saying or not, because its so wrong and hes just that bad at the game or he simply wants Clan mechs to be OP over everything in every respect.

Amsro, on 27 March 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

I play 95% IS, and yet my best matches are almost always in my timberwolves, with the appropriate play style adjustments the great clan mechs still wreck anything you throw at it.

Same for me, Timberwolf is best mech

Edited by Karmen Baric, 27 March 2016 - 06:28 PM.

[Gyrok]

Deathlike, on 27 March 2016 - 04:59 PM, said:

I've already explained it.

More heatsinks (sustainability) and more mobility (in the form of JJs).

I'm not sure what you're skipping.

Mobility in the form of JJs I conceded, more DHS is disingenuous...the EBJ can mount as many...

Quote

It's actually VERY IMPORTANT.

While mix tech isn't in play, comparing the two actually matters in terms of the overall balance.

For instance, the # of Clan DHS that can be fitted on a laservomit Timberwolf FAR exceeds the # of IS DHS that can be fitted on any laservomit IS mech of choice. This is not debatable. This in part is why we have heat gen quirks up the wazoo and also why heat gen quirks on sub-250 mechs are actually necessary (both Clan+IS).

Sure, and CDHS are nerfed, 30% less heat cap...and a measly ~7% increase in dissipation does not offset a 30% loss of heat cap. I would be more accepting had they at least made dissipation something like .165 or something in the arena of 15-20% to make it at least seem like they tried. As it stands that was a poor substitution and a blanket nerf to many mechs that did not need it...

Quote

This isn't even talking about weapons, but other equipment.

For instance, Clan Gauss is literally MORE DURABLE than IS Gauss by design.

The only partially valid argument I could possibly see coming from this is the single less crit slot. If you are talking about a slightly less typical chance to be crit in an exposed component, there is a tiny bit of water in the bottom of the bucket. We are talking literally about an 8% difference in opportunity to crit.

If you want to make a mountain out of an ant hill...so be it.

Quote

Same with BAP vs CAP (CAP has an increased shutdown detection range to boot).

Source? I have never seen a documented difference in detection range...unless that was a nerf overlooked at some point...PGI and their "features".

Quote

Clan NARC is much more efficient than IS NARC and it's not like anyone gives a damn about NARC. Mind you, there are more options and direct comparisons

Efficient in what way? Tonnage?

Really? NARC is not something to parade out as a game changing difference maker...

Quote

(Clan ECM is better than IS ECM by current values just as well), but you can't just "write it off" as is.

Tonnage? Again?

To point out, there are mechs with locked CAP that do not need/want/use it...

There are also no clan battlemechs that can mount ECM. Since that is the case, omnimechs with ECM mounts have many other hard locked components. If the TW could mount a cXL325-350 instead, it would be amazingly OP that clans have lower tonnage weapons/equipment. Since it cannot, that weapon system is designed around locked equipment. IIC mechs were actually a later thing than the original omnimechs, and partially get some benefit from it. However, IIC mechs being what they currently are, I doubt anyone would insinuate that they are OP by any stretch.

Quote

To say it doesn't matter on a tech level is disingenuous, and is NOT LIMITED TO JUST WEAPONS, thus why comparing CMPL to NOT JUST ISMPL but also ISLPL is warranted due to what the actual tradeoffs are... they belong in the same area just as much as CERMEDs are compared to ISMEDs AND ISLL.

IS needs ER lasers across the board, I have said so on numerous occasions.

As long as people draw disingenuous comparisons on separate tech trees that cannot properly be compared as they are separate classes of weapons, there can be no real comparison.

Conversations we have about balance now all go out the window the day IS tech 2-4 drops. Why? Because IS will have OP new toys that change the game. This tech is coming at some point, we can either get it out of the way now and balance everything as it should be balanced equally...or we can keep arguing over disingenuous comparisons that flatter one side or the other because we are comparing apples and oranges.

Apples are OP because they weigh different than oranges and taste differently.

Oranges are OP because they are softer and juicier than apples.

You see my point?

These conversations, especially the BS about "make the XL engines the same" is disingenuous. You cannot compare asymmetrical balance in tech terms using mirror balance comparisons. It does not work that way...and until you get even tech in the game, the entire conversation is essentially a waste of time beyond trying to get the "Clamz OP" ******** to go away...which is the only reason I bloody well bother with this worthless **** anyway...

Clans are not OP, IS is stronger right now.

Karmen Baric, on 27 March 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

wow Gyrok seems to be like the biggest whiner on these forums. He is also really really wrong a lot of the time, not sure if he believes the crap he is saying or not, because its so wrong and hes just that bad at the game or he simply wants Clan mechs to be OP over everything in every respect.


Same for me, Timberwolf is best mech

I am not bad at the game, I do not want clan mechs to be OP.

Right now IS is a bit stronger in terms of balance, and I want equal scale tech trees with actual balance being done between comparable weapon systems.

The game designers at FASA who wrote BattleTech rules knew enough that comparisons between IS tech 1 and Clan tech 4 were asinine. How on earth the people on these forums, and the developers of this game are so ignorant of that fact is beyond me.

Edited by Gyrok, 27 March 2016 - 06:32 PM.

[Space Dog]

Because you can't have a faction based game with the same numbers on each side if the sides are not balanced. That's about as basic as it gets. Clan mechs can't follow lore because IS would not stand a chance.

[Khobai]

The solution has always been glaringly obvious. PGI is just bad at balancing.

Clan tech needs to be nerfed to an equal level as IS tech. IS weapon quirks need to be removed.

And ISXL and CXL they need to both survive side torso destruction so IS structure quirks can be removed.

There is no other way to achieve 1:1 balance.


But also note that equal doesnt mean identical: two weapons can be equal but they can have different traits. IS weapons should be more heat efficient and do more pinpoint damage while clan weapons should weigh less and have more range, but also more heat and longer beam durations/burst fire.

We can have asymmetrical equality. But first we have to get rid of balancing using quirks. Because thats screwed everything up beyond measure.

Edited by Khobai, 27 March 2016 - 06:41 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 27 March 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

Sure, and CDHS are nerfed, 30% less heat cap...and a measly ~7% increase in dissipation does not offset a 30% loss of heat cap. I would be more accepting had they at least made dissipation something like .165 or something in the arena of 15-20% to make it at least seem like they tried. As it stands that was a poor substitution and a blanket nerf to many mechs that did not need it...

Gyrok, we did the Math already.

You lose, at the greatest end of the spectrum, 96-86.4=9.6 heat capacity (both having 30 DHS), which isn't even possible.
That's a 10% difference, FYI, with likely a 5% bonus to dissipation (it's pretty consistently half the heat cap lost in %).


Stop making grandiose, false claims. They were cut, but not the GRAND MAJORITY of the heat (TrueDubs+30).

[RedDevil]

Khobai, on 27 March 2016 - 06:39 PM, said:

The solution has always been glaringly obvious. PGI is just bad at balancing.

Clan tech needs to be nerfed to an equal level as IS tech. IS weapon quirks need to be removed.

And ISXL and CXL they need to both survive side torso destruction so IS structure quirks can be removed.

There is no other way to achieve 1:1 balance.


But also note that equal doesnt mean identical: two weapons can be equal but they can have different traits. IS weapons should be more heat efficient and do more pinpoint damage while clan weapons should weigh less and have more range, but also more heat and longer beam durations/burst fire.

We can have asymmetrical equality. But first we have to get rid of balancing using quirks. Because thats screwed everything up beyond measure.

Or we can stop balancing mechs by their tonnage

[Deathlike]

Gyrok, on 27 March 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

Mobility in the form of JJs I conceded, more DHS is disingenuous...the EBJ can mount as many...

Well, I built it, and it's probably not optimal, but this is what I came up with.

EBJ-B

TBR-S

Both 4 CERLL with 26 DHS, but the Timberwolf has +1 JJ. While I don't think the Timberwolf would try to avoid running the JJ, the Timberwolf is ahead in this matchup overall despite the minute differences (unless tonnage is an actual factor here).

Quote

Sure, and CDHS are nerfed, 30% less heat cap...and a measly ~7% increase in dissipation does not offset a 30% loss of heat cap. I would be more accepting had they at least made dissipation something like .165 or something in the arena of 15-20% to make it at least seem like they tried. As it stands that was a poor substitution and a blanket nerf to many mechs that did not need it...

The math doesn't suggest a 30% heat cap loss (your application of the math is faulty).. it's only per external DHS and thus the change is mitigated.

While a Grasshopper or Black Knight is trying to run approximately +9 external DHS with its laservomit, the Timberwolf is sporting at least +10 (closer to at least +12) external DHS more or less making up for said capacity.

Quote

The only partially valid argument I could possibly see coming from this is the single less crit slot. If you are talking about a slightly less typical chance to be crit in an exposed component, there is a tiny bit of water in the bottom of the bucket. We are talking literally about an 8% difference in opportunity to crit.

If you want to make a mountain out of an ant hill...so be it.

Tonnage FFS is another factor. Seriously, the Clan Gauss Rifle is 3 tons Lighter than the IS equivalent. I mean, let's conveniently forget this fact.

Quote

Source? I have never seen a documented difference in detection range...unless that was a nerf overlooked at some point...PGI and their "features".

It's in the data. Smurfy's confirms the difference. I'm just talking about shutdown distance (not that it is really useful).

Quote

Efficient in what way? Tonnage?

Really? NARC is not something to parade out as a game changing difference maker...

It's beyond tonnage +crit (if there was a head missile in a Clan mech, well, it's there)... it has more range than the IS version.

Quote

Tonnage? Again?

To point out, there are mechs with locked CAP that do not need/want/use it...

There are also no clan battlemechs that can mount ECM. Since that is the case, omnimechs with ECM mounts have many other hard locked components. If the TW could mount a cXL325-350 instead, it would be amazingly OP that clans have lower tonnage weapons/equipment. Since it cannot, that weapon system is designed around locked equipment. IIC mechs were actually a later thing than the original omnimechs, and partially get some benefit from it. However, IIC mechs being what they currently are, I doubt anyone would insinuate that they are OP by any stretch.

Ignoring the saved tonnage (though it's only .5 tons) and the crits (which effectively increases the durability of the component - particularly ECM) does actually matter.

In the case of the classic Raven-3L (or Spider-5D), the ECM slot is 2 of 5 possible rollable crits when you factor in the XL engine (the other 3 of 5 crits) as the buffer. The Arctic Cheetah has an ECM slot is far more compact (1 slot) while being buffered by 2 Clan XL slots (2 of 3 total crits consumed) and that's before we add in a laser to the mech (fairly common).

ECM is literally more durable in Clan form.

So, in essence.. what people don't talk about other stuff, it does actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

You can feel free to ignore it, but the reality is that the minute differences do add up into the overall picture.

Quote

IS needs ER lasers across the board, I have said so on numerous occasions.

As long as people draw disingenuous comparisons on separate tech trees that cannot properly be compared as they are separate classes of weapons, there can be no real comparison.

Conversations we have about balance now all go out the window the day IS tech 2-4 drops. Why? Because IS will have OP new toys that change the game. This tech is coming at some point, we can either get it out of the way now and balance everything as it should be balanced equally...or we can keep arguing over disingenuous comparisons that flatter one side or the other because we are comparing apples and oranges.

Apples are OP because they weigh different than oranges and taste differently.

Oranges are OP because they are softer and juicier than apples.

You see my point?

These conversations, especially the BS about "make the XL engines the same" is disingenuous. You cannot compare asymmetrical balance in tech terms using mirror balance comparisons. It does not work that way...and until you get even tech in the game, the entire conversation is essentially a waste of time beyond trying to get the "Clamz OP" ******** to go away...which is the only reason I bloody well bother with this worthless **** anyway...

Clans are not OP, IS is stronger right now.

I'm not in the "XL engines should be made the same" department. They have to be balanced to somewhat effectively "normalize TTK" (for Clan XL) while not just making it a mindless straight up upgrade which they were in the first place (when Clan XL had zero penalties). The differences in IS XL is pretty significant for straight out insta-death, and indirectly have to be addressed in some way (which is kinda done through quirks, but not through any consistency). Even if/when the IS gets their own version of Clan XL, the inferior gains by that version will mostly obsolete Standard Engines (especially those that don't have a CT+Head weapon) and it becomes blatantly obvious that STD engines will need some sort of buff to compensate (possibly with a nerf to the new IS tech, but not to the same degree as Clan XL for obvious reasons).

In any case, just no.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 March 2016 - 07:39 PM.

[Adamski]

Khobai, on 27 March 2016 - 06:39 PM, said:

The solution has always been glaringly obvious. PGI is just bad at balancing.

Clan tech needs to be nerfed to an equal level as IS tech. IS weapon quirks need to be removed.

And ISXL and CXL they need to both survive side torso destruction so IS structure quirks can be removed.

There is no other way to achieve 1:1 balance.


But also note that equal doesnt mean identical: two weapons can be equal but they can have different traits. IS weapons should be more heat efficient and do more pinpoint damage while clan weapons should weigh less and have more range, but also more heat and longer beam durations/burst fire.

We can have asymmetrical equality. But first we have to get rid of balancing using quirks. Because thats screwed everything up beyond measure.

Just no.

Even if they made IS XL engines survive side torso loss, and gave the Clan weapons the same stats as IS weapons.

You still have the problem of the IS XL engine takes up more slots, IS Endo takes up 2x as many slots, IS Ferro takes up 2x as many slots, IS DHS take up 50% more slots, IS PPC/ERPPC take up 50% more slots, IS ECM takes up 50% more slots, IS Ballistics all take up more slots, IS Missiles all take up more slots, etc, etc, etc.

There are too many fundamental differences between the tech bases to do something like equalize stats and call it a day.

[EAP10]

I got two kills easily with a kitfox with a gauss rifle last night. I think this level of sheer power for a 30 ton light mech is over the top and needs to be nerfed.





/SARCASM over

[Gyrok]

Deathlike, on 27 March 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

Well, I built it, and it's probably not optimal, but this is what I came up with.

EBJ-B

TBR-S

Both 4 CERLL with 26 DHS, but the Timberwolf has +1 JJ. While I don't think the Timberwolf would try to avoid running the JJ, the Timberwolf is ahead in this matchup overall despite the minute differences (unless tonnage is an actual factor here).

This is why the EBJ over the TW. Everyone knows the Blackout Jag is a better config than this poor TW.

Additionally, when you mount the A-LT omnipod, you end up with that lovely -30% twist rate, and -10% twist...meaning your mobility is essentially offset by the JJs you gain to carry equal firepower to the EBJ which, while not having JJs, also does not have the mobility penalties...

Quote

The math doesn't suggest a 30% heat cap loss (your application of the math is faulty).. it's only per external DHS and thus the change is mitigated.

While a Grasshopper or Black Knight is trying to run approximately +9 external DHS with its laservomit, the Timberwolf is sporting at least +10 (closer to at least +12) external DHS more or less making up for said capacity.

Actually...Clans have to carry approximately 15 DHS to equal 10 IS DHS, as you go up in IS DHS the disparity grows largely. Which is where the 30% heat cap nerf number comes from. What is 33% of 15? 5 you say?

Also, mcgral's comparison is disingenuous, because he is not looking at the heat cap difference in the heatsinks to show the loss of heat cap, he is comparing to look for a number that suits his agenda.

IS DHS do + 1.5 to heat cap


Clan DHS do + 1.1 to heat cap.

What is the gap in heat cap per single DHS there? 30%? My god...it is almost like that was reflected in other numbers elsewhere!!!!!

You can manipulate things to make it seem your way all you want...the reality is anyone with a brain can manipulate the data.

Quote

Tonnage FFS is another factor. Seriously, the Clan Gauss Rifle is 3 tons Lighter than the IS equivalent. I mean, let's conveniently forget this fact.

That makes the Gauss tougher? I am confused...what is your argument, initially you said Clan Gauss was tougher...both have virtually no hit points and 100% chance to be crit when hit.

Now you are talking about lower tonnage makes the Clan Gauss tougher? WTF?

Quote

It's in the data. Smurfy's confirms the difference. I'm just talking about shutdown distance (not that it is really useful).

Likely not intended, and as you said, insignificant.

Quote

It's beyond tonnage +crit (if there was a head missile in a Clan mech, well, it's there)... it has more range than the IS version.

More RANGE? Have you ever tried to use a Narc? Legitimately? Range is not something I would be too concerned about...

Quote

Ignoring the saved tonnage (though it's only .5 tons) and the crits (which effectively increases the durability of the component - particularly ECM) does actually matter.

In the case of the classic Raven-3L (or Spider-5D), the ECM slot is 2 of 5 possible rollable crits when you factor in the XL engine (the other 3 of 5 crits) as the buffer. The Arctic Cheetah has an ECM slot is far more compact (1 slot) while being buffered by 2 Clan XL slots (2 of 3 total crits consumed) and that's before we add in a laser to the mech (fairly common).

ECM is literally more durable in Clan form.

Sure...the chance to crit is less by 20-40% depending on how you manipulate the data...if it is you talking, probably about 20%, if it is mcgral talking, probably 40%.

Quote

So, in essence.. what people don't talk about other stuff, it does actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

Ok, let us talk about structure quirks shall we? Range quirks? Duration quirks? Mobility quirks after clan agility was blanket nerfed and never restored? Speed loss on ST destruction?

See all the rest of that forest you keep overlooking yet? I am waiting...if I am ignorant of those tiny, pretty much irrelevant things...you are not seeing the real mountains in front of us.

Quote

You can feel free to ignore it, but the reality is that the minute differences do add up into the overall picture.

You should take your own advice.

Quote

I'm not in the "XL engines should be made the same" department. They have to be balanced to somewhat effectively "normalize TTK" (for Clan XL) while not just making it a mindless straight up upgrade which they were in the first place (when Clan XL had zero penalties). The differences in IS XL is pretty significant for straight out insta-death, and indirectly have to be addressed in some way (which is kinda done through quirks, but not through any consistency). Even if/when the IS gets their own version of Clan XL, the inferior gains by that version will mostly obsolete Standard Engines (especially those that don't have a CT+Head weapon) and it becomes blatantly obvious that STD engines will need some sort of buff to compensate (possibly with a nerf to the new IS tech, but not to the same degree as Clan XL for obvious reasons).

To be quite honest...

TTK in BKs and WHMs right now is longer in my experience than it is in a Clan mech. You can at least maintain speed, and with the structure quirks, you can continue to spread damage to the point I often wonder how on earth my mech was still alive at the end of matches.

Sure, once you lose a ST you die...but you live so much longer with both torsos, that is really irrelevant. The speed loss to clans is absurd.

I would recommend removing that entirely from anything ever...leave clans at 20% heat penalty, and make IS LFEs 10% heat penalty...

[Dimento Graven]

Gyrok, on 28 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

...

That makes the Gauss tougher? I am confused...what is your argument, initially you said Clan Gauss was tougher...both have virtually no hit points and 100% chance to be crit when hit.

Now you are talking about lower tonnage makes the Clan Gauss tougher? WTF?

I'll respond to this as I am very qualified to talk about gauss.

The Clan gauss being smaller in size is what makes it more durable. You can more easily crit pad a gauss in a Clan mech primarily because of it's smaller size, and the smaller size of most of the other Clan equipment as well.

1 less slot available to hit is one less opportunity to be dinged by a 90% explosion chance, IT DOES MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENE!

The weight issue with gauss is, having that tonnage available means you can invest in more ammo or equipment, again, crit padding, than you're able to with the IS variant.

So, add up smaller, lighter gauss, toss in free zero weight, zero crit slot CASE, a generous heaping of side torso loss survivable XL engines, a smattering of every other smaller, lighter clan weapon/equipment, and IN GENERAL you have Clan 'mechs being more durable, with larger alphas, and more maneuverability than their IS equivalents.

The MAJORITY of Clan 'mechs have that holy trifecta where as only a minority of IS 'mechs do.

But please Gyrok, I love watching your self destruction here continue screaming that the Clan sky is fallilng.

Quote

... More RANGE? Have you ever tried to use a Narc? Legitimately? Range is not something I would be too concerned about...

LOL, up until the point you have a Clan 'mech firing one of those at you, and 3 to 4 enemy missile boats waiting for that upside down x-mas tree to show up stuck to your ***.

Yeah, pfft, extra range on Clan NARC, pfft, "what evs..." LOL...

That's pretty damn funny!

Quote

...Sure, once you lose a ST you die...but you live so much longer with both torsos, that is really irrelevant. The speed loss to clans is absurd.

Someone should take a poll of MWO players:

"After an ST loss, would you rather be DEAD, or just 20% slower?"

If the majority of responses are "dead", I'll eat my keyboard...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 28 March 2016 - 07:11 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

@Gyrok

You are applying the DHS numbers incorrectly. "30% less heat cap" makes it sound SO much worse than it actually is. Weren't you already shown in this very thread that on typical builds it amounts to between 6-8% less heat cap and ~4% more dissipation?

Saying that Clan DHS have 30% less heat cap when there is not one mech in this game where you could say "This Clan mech with X amount of DHS has 30% less heat cap than this IS mech with X amount of DHS" is manipulating data to support your own argument. The numbers are correct, but how they are applied is not how you suggest. The actually as built heat cap difference starts at 0 with 10 truedubs, and gradually rises from there, but it is NEVER 30%, and Clan mechs can use their lack of crit slot shortage, and lighter weapons to stack more DHS than possible/practical on an IS mech. That is how these things are balanced. If you want to attack a Clan mech disadvantage, attack a different one.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 28 March 2016 - 08:26 AM.

[Gyrok]

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

@Gyrok

You are applying the DHS numbers incorrectly. "30% less heat cap" makes it sound SO much worse than it actually is. Weren't you already shown in this very thread that on typical builds it amounts to between 6-8% less heat cap and ~4% more dissipation?

I am looking at the tonnage required to eat the gap.

15 IS DHS = 20 CDHS = 33% gap

20 IS DHS = 25 CDHS = 25% gap

30 IS DHS = 35 CDHS = ~17% gap

So, the most practical comparison of those is 15 vs 20. Mostly because IS does not often mount 20 or more DHS, and clans typically do not mount over 25 in most cases. You have some exceptions there...but if we play the average between those 2, we end up at an average clan disparity around ~29-30% more tonnage required for DHS to get equal heat cap.

They are pointing at a different side of the equation...and neglecting to consider average heat per volley of each side as well.

Additionally, people keep jumping from tonnage, to crits, to cooling, to whatever else. As soon as I talk about the issue they are discussing, they change the angle of attack, and get on a different subject because it is no longer convenient to discuss a losing battle.

Edited by Gyrok, 28 March 2016 - 08:39 AM.

[Gyrok]

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

If you want to attack a Clan mech disadvantage, attack a different one.

I am attacking the argument about lighter weapons with less crit slots...with this argument.

If the weapons are lighter/fewer crits, but require 5-6 tons more heat sinks than an average IS mech build to get roughly equal heat cap, and similar cooling efficiency comparatively due to hotter weapons...then there is no real advantage to the lighter tech with fewer crit slots because you cannot legitimately say it is not accommodated for elsewhere...

Edited by Gyrok, 28 March 2016 - 09:06 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Gyrok, on 28 March 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

I am looking at the tonnage required to eat the gap.

15 IS DHS = 20 CDHS = 33% gap

20 IS DHS = 25 CDHS = 25% gap

30 IS DHS = 35 CDHS = ~17% gap

So, the most practical comparison of those is 15 vs 20. Mostly because IS does not often mount 20 or more DHS, and clans typically do not mount over 25 in most cases. You have some exceptions there...but if we play the average between those 2, we end up at an average clan disparity around ~29-30% more tonnage required for DHS to get equal heat cap.

They are pointing at a different side of the equation...and neglecting to consider average heat per volley of each side as well.

Additionally, people keep jumping from tonnage, to crits, to cooling, to whatever else. As soon as I talk about the issue they are discussing, they change the angle of attack, and get on a different subject because it is no longer convenient to discuss a losing battle.

Actually, there's almost a point here. This 33% gap represents 5 tons and 10 crit slots worth of DHS's the Clans might have to equip if they're worried about matching a theoretical IS 'mech running 15 DHS's.

The issue is however, that I doubt very many Clan 'mechs would have a problem with this if the goal was to simply MATCH the theoretical IS 'mech's alpha. After all, with the Clan smaller, lighter weaponry, there's tonnage to spare, and due to that fact alone, means, probabilistically, the Clan 'mech will actually end up with a larger alpha.

This brings to mind the other point Gyrok tried to make about Clan XL engines with a missing ST causing extra heat and a slower 'mech.

If heat is such an important argument as to why the Clans are "so UP" I don't get why the difference in requiring 33% more tonnage to match IS heat dissipation (and still very much exceed IS heat capacity) suddenly isn't so important vs. a side torso loss and his preference to keep the extra heat generation but eliminate the speed penalty...

I see this as one of those "cake and eat it" moments...