1017 replies to this topic

[Sjorpha]

Gyrok, on 01 June 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

Actually, the genetic fallacy is true here.

The argument is that the skill level those players possess makes their opinion more valuable than other opinions not coming from them.

By default, that argument is set to assume that the players who are not as skilled at the game have less fundamental understanding.

No that is not the assumption. I explained why.

It's true that anyone with a good head for game balance can look at the best players results and analyze them, what you can't do is use bad players results. Good players are more likely to be the ones doing this, because they are producing these results themselves and are directly invested in the competitive meta. Professional coaches, good referees, experienced tournament organizers and others with incentive to invest in understanding the meta are also more likely to make good predictions.

Beyond that you have to look at the actual analysis to determine if it's good, my assertion is that Twinky etc has made a good judgement about the 3, I think they are correct about it and that this will show in the upcoming tournament results.

I assume you think they are wrong and that the tournament will prove them wrong, so we'll actually be able to wait for the experiment to be done and revisit this after.

Quote

The reality is, skill at playing the game only comes from understanding the victory conditions and how to best achieve them. It means little, or, often times, nothing about how the mechanics of a game work or function.

Yes, knowing the winning moves is all you need to know.

Choosing mech and build is one of those moves, thus you need to be very good at evaluating the strenght of mechs to be competitive.

Thanks for proving my point.

Quote

I agree with your point about being able to use opinions to refute blanket statements. That is a point where anecdotal evidence *can* refute something.

Yes, but it can not refute the strength of a move by using examples of bad results. That is one the things where anecdotal evidence is useless, and quite frankly any evidence short of shooting down the credibility of the demonstration itself which you try to do here:

Quote

Having said that, your assertion that the results from a weekend event, with a queue filled full of returning players who were higher tier and not performing at their best (because of long breaks), as well as other potatoes from tier 2 and tier 3 who were playing their "new shiny" assaults, and likely never played assaults prior to that (or very little), as having more than an anecdotal impact (at best) on the evidence is a complete misstep. The reality is that the conditions were rife with the perfect storm of results. The players who formed opinions of it being overly strong were assessing the mech based on criteria that will likely never again be fulfilled. The case that it is a strong PUG mech is one thing (it is strong in the PUG queue), the case that it is overly strong is another.

This assertion that the demonstrated peaks are against so called "potatoes" etc definitely requires more than anecdotal evidence to be believable. Again an example where anecdotes would be useless since the claim is that of a general trend.

It's just as likely that the increased player count temporarily improved matchmaking, as matchmaking quality requires many players, and therefore it's entirely possible that Twinky et al even met stronger resistance than ususal.

I'm not claiming either of these scenarios is correct, just demonstrating that you can't speculate your way to knowing it. I think in absence of knowing the basic position is that the opposition was pretty much as usual.

We do know that the matches was full of assaults, but as has been pointed out the kill efficiency has been just as good as ususal among top kdk 3 users, there is no really good basis for claiming that the results are "bloated"

Quote

Case and point: The mech does not produce 1000 damage matches consistently across all pilots. Some pilots have shown that their performance in the KDK3 is less than their performance in other assaults as well.

Did I not just explain why anecdotal evidence is useful to demonstrate peak performance but not useful to demonstrate low performance?

Yes I did, you are now trying to use anecdotal evidence for one of those things it is actually useless for.

As with the example of the "valle CC" streetfighter move, anecdotal evidence is plenty enough to demonstrate a new peak. Conversely a player trying to use the Valle CC and failing would not be evidence against it's strength, it would just be a bad player.

I understand that it feels unfair that something is useful only for the other side of the discussion, but it's true.

Quote

This anecdotal evidence refutes the idea that the KDK3 is so strong that it outperforms all other mechs in the same weight class.

No it doesn't, as I just explained subpar performance can not be useful in anecdotal evidence. Only different kinds of peaks or cases that refute a general absolute assumption are useful.

Quote

Since the assumption that the Kodiak is the strongest assault does not require that everyone must perform well with it, even the most OP mech imaginable would have people fail in it, it cannot be refuted by example of bad results or failure to realize it's potential. If the assertion was for example "The KDK-3 cannot lose" it would be refuted by examples of bad performance, that is probably why people like to strawman balance concerns that way. You can see examples of that on the forums, the typical strawman phrase is "it's not a win button", seeing that kind of phrase is a certain way to spot a useless post.

At best you can use that kind of data to demonstrate that a high performance peak move also has a high or low skill threshold, but the actual strength of the move must still be judged by it's highest consistently achievable peak, in other words what can the best players consistently do with it.

The truth is that no amount of demonstrated bad results in the Kodiak would refute the demonstrated peak, not even a thousand or a billion screens could do it.

The peak has been demonstrated in both height and consistency.

Quote

Some people have playstyles that mesh well with specific mechs/builds. Players who mesh well with ballistic builds will probably do similar things as they would with the MX90. Players who play laser builds, or other sorts best, will likely not perform as well in the KDK3 as they would the BNC-3M.

That argument completely refutes any attempt to justify the argument that personal opinion about the mech being too strong is valid.

That doesn't actually matter and it doesn't refute anything. The best demonstrated results and the best possible analysis of those results are the relevant thing.

If someone good is much better at ballistics than lasers the only consequence of that is that his results in ballistic mechs will be useful in balance discussion and his results in laser mechs will not.

Obviously it's a very good idea to also balance things across different skill brackets, because you don't want imbalances among weak players to make the game to hard to get into, but you have to start at the top and balance your way down without compromising the top balance. The top is easier to analyze since it is only at the of the skill curve that it is easy/possible to isolate away skill as a factor.

Edited by Sjorpha, 01 June 2016 - 02:31 PM.

[Darth Hotz]

1453 R, on 01 June 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Destroy the Spirit Bear's mobility? Or the KDK-4's mobility? Those 'Mechs will be devastated. The KDK-4 will be forced to fall back onto being half of a KDK-3, as it will no longer possess either the agility or the durability to last any meaningful amount of time in the scrum. However overpowered you or anyone else may think the KDK-3 is, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that half of a KDK-3 is not going to be giving anyone the heebie-jeebies any time soon. And the Spirit Bear? The Spirit Bear would just vanish outright. it has one meaningful configuration - AC/20&cASRM murderbrawler. A job the Fatlass required enough overquirk insanity to constitute an entire 50-ton 'Mech by itself to become proficient in given its immense target profile and lack of concentrated firepower - disadvantages the Kodiak shares.

I get that the cXL is a big edge. That is an undeniable fact, and one that has stuck in the craw of the vast majority of the playerbase for quite some time. But when your AS7-S is faster and more agile than your Spirit Bear (discounting M.A.S.C.), as well as arguably better armed and possessed of 150 tons' worth of durability, on top of six weapon modules' worth of weapon overquirks...well, who's ever going to run the Spirit Bear again, cXL or not.

...

Has anyone asked McGral or Twinky why the Kodiak as a whole needs to be destroyed? They keep pointing to those guys as reasons why the KDK-3 can't stand as it is, but the rest of the Kodiak variants sitting there in the guillotine next to the 3 would really, really like to know why they're slated for execution for crimes they explicitly didn't commit.

Could you, Bishop, Gyrok and some others please stop to talk crap and start reading and understanding what others write? The whole discussion is exclusively about the KDK 3. Noone is talking about nerfing any of the other Kodiaks. It is just lame that you people make up arguments noone uses to protect your new toy.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

alright this is getting downright stupid.

mischief, mgral or whoever im calling you out to defend your position in a concise, straightforward and logical manner.

no bs about "the comps have reached a consensus", it means exactly nothing because comp games often have their own rules which would skew any objective analysis anyways. point blank and period they do not reflect the experience of 99% of the player base and are thus irrelevant. It it is argument from elitism and again on its face is illogical.

further more i have killed many of these supposed "comp" players in head on fights, many times. i have seem them fall. they are not impervious or perfect by any measure and i would say the hardened wolves of the pug que are far far superior in skill IE your ability to focus fire with your buddies has no real bearing on YOUR individual skill level, your ability to find success amongst chaos and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat are what do reflect actual skill.

some people are calling for the kodiak 3 to have all its quirks removed over exactly one build, even on its face this is clearly illogical and plain stupid. it will turn the kodiak 3 into a "one trick pony" where if you DON'T use that specific build (because it is min/maxed) every other build that one would run has been nerfed directly even if it is not min/maxed at all.

and if the problem is the quad ultra 10's then adjust the quad ultra 10's. it makes no sense to remove all quirks, or to give it negative quirks to address this one build. the weapons are the problem not the mech.

from the outset of this debate the question has been wrong, its not "is the kodiak 3 op?" its "are ultra 10's op?" or "can ultra 10's become op with a sufficient amount?"

defend your position with no bs and no WOT mental gymnastics, this includes you to gyrok, you could have easily stated what you mean in a much shorter post.

Edited by Col Jaime Wolf, 01 June 2016 - 02:46 PM.

[1453 R]

Darth Hotz, on 01 June 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Could you, Bishop, Gyrok and some others please stop to talk crap and start reading and understanding what others write? The whole discussion is exclusively about the KDK 3. Noone is talking about nerfing any of the other Kodiaks. It is just lame that you people make up arguments noone uses to protect your new toy.

I DON'T GIVE A GOOD GODDAMN ABOUT THE KDK-3!

What I care about is Piranha's historical, demonstrated inability to make the same distinctions the Ultracomp folks do, and the fact that this demonstrated inability means the Ultracomp guys' crusade to remove the KDK-3 from competitive play is going to slop over onto every other Kodiak, too.

And onto the Night Gyr, when it releases in September and we get this whole song and dance all over again because ANYTHING that can carry multiple heavy Quacks is going to be considered overpowered and harmful to the health of the game because spending the weight for one AC/10 and getting two AC/10s instead is never going to be balanced.

Ultra Autocannon mechanics in general need to be redone - double-tap autocannons are going to be a balance problem any time you can get more than one of them on a 'Mech. They're only not a problem on the Dire Whale because the Whale's hardpoints are all knee-mounted and the Whale itself is as maneuverable as a burial barrow - and even then, we still get frequent threads in here from people who haven't figured out that standing still in front of fifty-one tons of weaponry is going to end badly.

The Kodiak chassis is. Not. The. Issue. Here. Those of us who remember the Victor are trying to forestall another VTR Giganerf that accomplishes the exact same thing - ruining an otherwise fun and viable chassis without actually fixing the thing that made certain loadouts on the chassis a problem in the first place!

PARDON ME for having a functional memory, man!

[MischiefSC]

Wow. Way to totally dodge the point and make false comparisons.

Both of you.

Every balance discussion we've had prior, every balance issue, was identified in this way. Every new meta originated this way too.

Trying to turn this into some classist valuation comparison is total BS too.

There is no difference in the value between one person as a person as another. How good you are at mwo in no way relates to your value as a person and one person being better at this game than another isn't some moral judgement.

If you're pugging in FW and Pat Kell and a KCom 6man tells you what deck to being and what sstrat to run you'll do it even if it sounds risky or different. If Scrubby McDerpson tells you to bring something risky and different you probably won't.

A million ways to explain this and it's fair, sane and reasonable. Hell no everyone's experience and opinions are not of equal value. Some people understand things better than others. None of you guys get to design the fuel mixture for my rocket ship, even if you promised you Googled it from a reputable site. I'll trust a rocket scientist for that.

All data on mech balance is in part opinion based. Right now though we've got a reasonable consensus from all the most competitive players vs a semi-consensus from some of the middling players.

That's not a hard one to gauge.

[wanderer]

Quote

but just because a single talented player can dominate with 1 type of mech doesn't mean the mech itself is flawed. Now if I can get into a KDK-3 and start putting up 1000+ matches you know there's a problem.

I just happened to have those handy because it was part of a series of stomps I SS'd for idle amusement.

He's not the only one putting up those numbers in KDK-3's. Check the Kodiak leaderboards- the -3 outperformed the others, with the Spirit Bear being a distant second.

The top fifteen KDK-3's were better than the best in any other category. Take away the Spirit Bears, and it's the top twenty-eight. In the hands of a competent pilot with a proper UAC/10 build, they're deadly.

Honestly, just start by removing the quirks it has. Less agility and a bit less structure means that giant CT will catch more fire and reduce the KDK-3's lifespan. Nerfing UAC/10's isn't needed. It's not the guns, it's that they're finally on a good chassis.

[Bishop Steiner]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 01 June 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

alright this is getting downright stupid.

mischief, mgral or whoever im calling you out to defend your position in a concise, straightforward and logical manner.

no bs about "the comps have reached a consensus", it means exactly nothing because comp games often have their own rules which would skew any objective analysis anyways. point blank and period they do not reflect the experience of 99% of the player base and are thus irrelevant. It it is argument from elitism and again on its face is illogical.

further more i have killed many of these supposed "comp" players in head on fights, many times. i have seem them fall. they are not impervious or perfect by any measure and i would say the hardened wolves of the pug que are far far superior in skill IE your ability to focus fire with your buddies has no real bearing on YOUR individual skill level, your ability to find success amongst chaos and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat are what do reflect actual skill.

some people are calling for the kodiak 3 to have all its quirks removed over exactly one build, even on its face this is clearly illogical and plain stupid. it will turn the kodiak 3 into a "one trick pony" where if you DON'T use that specific build (because it is min/maxed) every other build that one would run has been nerfed directly even if it is not min/maxed at all.

and if the problem is the quad ultra 10's then adjust the quad ultra 10's. it makes no sense to remove all quirks, or to give it negative quirks to address this one build. the weapons are the problem not the mech.

from the outset of this debate the question has been wrong, its not "is the kodiak 3 op?" its "are ultra 10's op?" or "can ultra 10's become op with a sufficient amount?"

defend your position with no bs and no WOT mental gymnastics, this includes you to gyrok, you could have easily stated what you mean in a much shorter post.

It's the KDK3 OP, or the UAC10?

Neither. If there's an issue it's a perfect storm of factors. The sole build anyone is whining about is the 4xUAC10 one. And even then, we have comps like Quicksilver who seem to feel it's much ado about nothing. So even the Ultracomps are not in agreement.

But tune UAC10 is certainly not op, our people would be spamming it on DWFs. They aren't. And literally no other build is causing issues with the KDK. None.

It's the combination of high hardpoints and the weapons. In an artificial fatboy shooting gallery that had been the issue.

Thus, to any reasonable person, the correct answer would not be to destroy the KDK3 or the UAC10. But to nerf that weapon on this specific variant via quirks surgically addressing the actual "problem ", be it a GH modifier, cool down, heat gen, jam rate, etc.

Instead we have people calling to blindly carpet bomb the whole chassis back to the stone age.

And that's just stupid.

[Darth Hotz]

"from the outset of this debate the question has been wrong, its not "is the kodiak 3 op?" its "are ultra 10's op?" or "can ultra 10's become op with a sufficient amount?"

In parts I agree. But it is the KDK 3 that makes this enormous firepower possible and puts agility and high hardpoints on top of it. So how do you want to deal with it? Nerf the UAC 10 across the board? The real problem is not the weapon but that the KDK 3 can stack 4 of them. So if you dont want to cut of one of the hardpoints you need to try to balance some other way and that way would be to take away the agility quirks.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

MischiefSC, on 01 June 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

Wow. Way to totally dodge the point and make false comparisons.

Both of you.

Every balance discussion we've had prior, every balance issue, was identified in this way. Every new meta originated this way too.

Trying to turn this into some classist valuation comparison is total BS too.

There is no difference in the value between one person as a person as another. How good you are at mwo in no way relates to your value as a person and one person being better at this game than another isn't some moral judgement.

If you're pugging in FW and Pat Kell and a KCom 6man tells you what deck to being and what sstrat to run you'll do it even if it sounds risky or different. If Scrubby McDerpson tells you to bring something risky and different you probably won't.

A million ways to explain this and it's fair, sane and reasonable. Hell no everyone's experience and opinions are not of equal value. Some people understand things better than others. None of you guys get to design the fuel mixture for my rocket ship, even if you promised you Googled it from a reputable site. I'll trust a rocket scientist for that.

All data on mech balance is in part opinion based. Right now though we've got a reasonable consensus from all the most competitive players vs a semi-consensus from some of the middling players.

That's not a hard one to gauge.

you did not make an actual point or argument, why exactly should the kodiak 3 lose all of its quirks over one build when ultra 10s are the problem?

are not quad ultra 10's the problem?

if "comp" players opinions are really more valid why have they failed to identify the problem for what it is? and instead have pointed the finger at the chassis? this would tend to devalue a groups opinion if they cannot even identify the problem correctly.

how do i know you truly speak for all the comp players? how do you know you have consensus and not just "parroting of opinion", was their a proper poll of the majority of comp groups? or just from what people say in game? be specific.

if lets say we get an annihilator IIC wont it need the same nerfs the kodiak 3 would get as a result of being able to boat quad big ballistics?

would you not say that the problem is the guns and not the mech? and if not why?

your right not everyone's opinion is equally relevant to a specific subject, depending on their backround and knowledge thats why logic and the rules of debate have been set down. they allow people to be judged on the merit of their argument and not the merit of their rank in a given field.

Edited by Col Jaime Wolf, 01 June 2016 - 03:26 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Darth Hotz, on 01 June 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Could you, Bishop, Gyrok and some others please stop to talk crap and start reading and understanding what others write? The whole discussion is exclusively about the KDK 3. Noone is talking about nerfing any of the other Kodiaks. It is just lame that you people make up arguments noone uses to protect your new toy.

Lol. Irony or idiocy, I cannot tell. No, the who're discussion is not and had not been about the KDK3, exclusively. McGral has largely focused on it, and when addressing him we'd have focused on his specific comments. The rest? Not even close.

wanderer, on 01 June 2016 - 02:54 PM, said:

I just happened to have those handy because it was part of a series of stomps I SS'd for idle amusement.

He's not the only one putting up those numbers in KDK-3's. Check the Kodiak leaderboards- the -3 outperformed the others, with the Spirit Bear being a distant second.

The top fifteen KDK-3's were better than the best in any other category. Take away the Spirit Bears, and it's the top twenty-eight. In the hands of a competent pilot with a proper UAC/10 build, they're deadly.

Honestly, just start by removing the quirks it has. Less agility and a bit less structure means that giant CT will catch more fire and reduce the KDK-3's lifespan. Nerfing UAC/10's isn't needed. It's not the guns, it's that they're finally on a good chassis.

And yet the top Hellslinger score is higher than all but the top 2 KDK3 scores..... And only barely behind those.

Where's the call to nerd it?

[Darth Hotz]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 June 2016 - 02:58 PM, said:

Instead we have people calling to blindly carpet bomb the whole chassis back to the stone age.

And that's just stupid.

Please show these people. I followed all the Kodiak threats and I have not seen them. Only you and some other claiming that the exist.

[oldradagast]

The fix for the Kodiak is simple.

The KD-3 has very good quirks, better than some of the weaker versions that have no quirks at all.

Shuffle the quirks around so the weaker the base version, the better the quirks. End result is less of a nerf to the Kodiaks as a whole and more of an honest rebalancing in the truest sense of the word, with the one abnormally powerful one brought back in-line, and with the weak ones buffed.

[Mcgral18]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 01 June 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

alright this is getting downright stupid.

mischief, mgral or whoever im calling you out to defend your position in a concise, straightforward and logical manner.

no bs about "the comps have reached a consensus", it means exactly nothing because comp games often have their own rules which would skew any objective analysis anyways. point blank and period they do not reflect the experience of 99% of the player base and are thus irrelevant. It it is argument from elitism and again on its face is illogical.

further more i have killed many of these supposed "comp" players in head on fights, many times. i have seem them fall. they are not impervious or perfect by any measure and i would say the hardened wolves of the pug que are far far superior in skill IE your ability to focus fire with your buddies has no real bearing on YOUR individual skill level, your ability to find success amongst chaos and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat are what do reflect actual skill.

some people are calling for the kodiak 3 to have all its quirks removed over exactly one build, even on its face this is clearly illogical and plain stupid. it will turn the kodiak 3 into a "one trick pony" where if you DON'T use that specific build (because it is min/maxed) every other build that one would run has been nerfed directly even if it is not min/maxed at all.

and if the problem is the quad ultra 10's then adjust the quad ultra 10's. it makes no sense to remove all quirks, or to give it negative quirks to address this one build. the weapons are the problem not the mech.

from the outset of this debate the question has been wrong, its not "is the kodiak 3 op?" its "are ultra 10's op?" or "can ultra 10's become op with a sufficient amount?"

defend your position with no bs and no WOT mental gymnastics, this includes you to gyrok, you could have easily stated what you mean in a much shorter post.

What's there to defend? It's an easy mech to use.
You get 1500 damage where other mechs get 1000 damage, effort wise. In 120 matches, it's broken the majority of my personal records (1000 matches in Banshees, 9 kills, ~1450 damage in that time)
SupaHunch has gotten 8 kills (respectable) and 1945 damage (holy balls dat dam, praise be RNGeesus)

It's my SupaHunch. Very similar tracking ability to the mech half the weight, with twice the guns and twice the ammo. Only Light issue is when an Oxide comes to give you a BJ (you can't aim that far down)
If he's 20M away? You're good. Well, maybe not good, but not helpless.


On another note: It's not the UAC10

It's a good weapon, on a good robot, with good quirks and good weapon mounts.
That's a lot of good, and some of it makes no sense (the quirks)



Other builds are also good, such as Dual Gauss and Dual 6 ton Energy (50 PP FLD, or 56 damage LOLpha) with a large TC, for example (good long range, not terrible arm mounts). You can also use MGs to high mount dem Goose Waffles, but not required.

I was personally trolling around with a TC5/6, Dual Gauss and Dual AC2 (going for dem headshots with 2600M/s weapons). It also got 1000 damage with minimal effort, but certainly more than the UAC40 (because so much less DPS, your team needs to be higher on the Potato scale to pump enough out)


This mech does not need quirks, because it has nearly every positive characteristic a mech can have. Come the hitbox adjustment, the CT can no longer get hit from every frontal angle, and that removes one of the few negatives.

[Mystere]

Darth Hotz, on 01 June 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Could you, Bishop, Gyrok and some others please stop to talk crap and start reading and understanding what others write? The whole discussion is exclusively about the KDK 3. Noone is talking about nerfing any of the other Kodiaks. It is just lame that you people make up arguments noone uses to protect your new toy.

Ahem! See below:

MischiefSC, on 23 May 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

What I expect to happen is the arms to be made part of the CT and them to get engine cap reduced to 325.

[1453 R]

Mcgral18, on 01 June 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

On another note: It's not the UAC10

It's a good weapon, on a good robot, with good quirks and good weapon mounts.
That's a lot of good, and some of it makes no sense (the quirks)

wanderer, on 01 June 2016 - 02:54 PM, said:

Honestly, just start by removing the quirks it has. Less agility and a bit less structure means that giant CT will catch more fire and reduce the KDK-3's lifespan. Nerfing UAC/10's isn't needed. It's not the guns, it's that they're finally on a good chassis.

Darth Hotz, on 01 June 2016 - 02:59 PM, said:

"from the outset of this debate the question has been wrong, its not "is the kodiak 3 op?" its "are ultra 10's op?" or "can ultra 10's become op with a sufficient amount?"

In parts I agree. But it is the KDK 3 that makes this enormous firepower possible and puts agility and high hardpoints on top of it. So how do you want to deal with it? Nerf the UAC 10 across the board? The real problem is not the weapon but that the KDK 3 can stack 4 of them. So if you dont want to cut of one of the hardpoints you need to try to balance some other way and that way would be to take away the agility quirks.

Sphere slug-firing autocannons are nigh universally considered garbage unless you can get 3 or more of them on a chassis. The entire reason the Mauler has found a place in Ultracomp Comp Decks of Competition is its unique ability to mount five AC/5s instead of four and actually keep them fed. Dual AC/10 builds for the Sphere are generally lulz trollbuilds folks use in the quick play queue for giggles - they're not considered competitive. Dual AC/20 Boom('Mech) builds haven't been relevant in a couple of years now. Mounting one or two Sphere autocannons gets one laughed off the game.

LBX autocannons are universally considered garbage in all cases, across both tech bases, in any quantity.

Ultra autocannons are two autocannons taped together for the weight and critical space requirements of one autocannon. They have double the everything of a standard autocannon, limited only by the Ultra jam chance - and mounting multiple Ultra autocannons on a machine significantly mitigates that risk as 4+ Ultra autocannons are not generally going to jam all at once.

My most competitive Shadow Cat (yes, I said Shadow Cat) uses a Quack/10, and is semi-useful solely and specifically because that one, singular autocannon gives the Shadow Cat the firepower of an entire Legend-Killer. It's still not enough, but when I can hit the field with two AC/10's worth of damage output for the cost of one AC/10, it can almost salvage even a miserably underarmed chassis like the poor Shadow Cat.

Yes, the KDK-3 is an excellent ballistics platform. The first such platform available to the Clans period. I have experienced, in other games, issues of 'delayed balance problems', where an underlying imbalance issue was not discovered until long after the conditions for that balance issue to exist were technically possible. It is, in fact, entirely conceivable that Ultra autocannons have always been the problem, but it has taken the KDK-3 to illustrate this problem to the masses.

Again - would a KDK-3 equipped with cAC/10s rather than Quacks be even a quarter as terrifying as it currently is? Does anyone not believe that a Sphere UAC/20, which double-taps two single 20-damage slugs, is not going to be an enormous issue? Even a Sphere UAC/10, with two 10-damage slugs, would be a massive advantage over every other ballistic weapon currently in the game!

Whether or not the Quack/10 needs to be hammered down, I don't know. At this point I honestly believe the entire Ultra autocannon mechanic needs to be looked at, because there is zero reason to ever use a standard or an LBX version of any autocannon for which an Ultra variant exists. And the Kodiak chassis certainly doesn't need to be destroyed because of one build on one variant using weapons which have been questionably overpowered and just hiding it better than usual since the Quack burst time updates!

[IQcreditscore]

Mcgral18, on 01 June 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

What's there to defend? It's an easy mech to use.


It's a good weapon, on a good robot, with good quirks and good weapon mounts.
That's a lot of good, and some of it makes no sense (the quirks)

Regardless of who the player is. Starting at 1:22:00.

https://www.twitch.t..._spz/v/69157566

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 01 June 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

Ahem! See below:

I noticed you left out the whole post to take it out of context.

Go ahead, quote the whole post.

[Kul Tigin]

Kodiak-3 op?? .. who said that, who claims that?? .. any obsolete IS players who are envious again on the cool clan mechs? haha .. it's typically, clan mechs are just OP for them forever! .. More than half the fans play on the side of the IS, the Invasion mode for the clans is just being farm fodder for the IS, except a few good units. But yeah, the clan mechs are still OP for them, Kodiak-3 is too OP .. bla bla bla .. This IS players, they're like little crying kids, always ready to begin to cry when they see much coolier things in others.

I am and was always a fan of Kodiak at Battletech tabletop. I Pre-Ordered the mech in February. As a new player in the game, my max. performance was 430 dmg in a quickplay game with the Kodiak-3. In FactionPlay only 280 dmg.. and that with those "OP dakka dakka Weapons" ! In my Opinion, the Kodiak-1 should have those quirks too, like the SpiritBear and Kodiak-3 ! ALSO, the TimberWolf, Highlander HGC-II and co. could have quirks too! .. OP?? .. pfft , not even slightly. Seriously, the IS Mechs could be very normal and not so overquirked like they're yet and the IS could simply fight against 10 better clan mechs with 12 their crap mechs, just like in Battletech! just like the things should be.

But, these IS People would cry more and more, like a plague, they would try everything to make IS mechs better than clan mechs, just as it is the case now.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 01 June 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

I noticed you left out the whole post to take it out of context.

Go ahead, quote the whole post.

As you wish:

MischiefSC, on 23 May 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

I think the mobility quirks are un-needed while the 1 needs some structure quirks. They all need some hitbox fixes.

What I expect to happen is the arms to be made part of the CT and them to get engine cap reduced to 325.

So, did you mean to say that the underlined portions only apply to the KDK3?

And this particular one:

MischiefSC, on 23 May 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

arms to be made part of the CT

How is that even possible? Either way, that's one gigantic nerf for a chassis. ...






<You're too fast in replying and as such ruined my plans. Meh!>

Edited by Mystere, 01 June 2016 - 03:46 PM.

[MischiefSC]

1453 R, on 01 June 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Sphere slug-firing autocannons are nigh universally considered garbage unless you can get 3 or more of them on a chassis. The entire reason the Mauler has found a place in Ultracomp Comp Decks of Competition is its unique ability to mount five AC/5s instead of four and actually keep them fed. Dual AC/10 builds for the Sphere are generally lulz trollbuilds folks use in the quick play queue for giggles - they're not considered competitive. Dual AC/20 Boom('Mech) builds haven't been relevant in a couple of years now. Mounting one or two Sphere autocannons gets one laughed off the game.

LBX autocannons are universally considered garbage in all cases, across both tech bases, in any quantity.

Ultra autocannons are two autocannons taped together for the weight and critical space requirements of one autocannon. They have double the everything of a standard autocannon, limited only by the Ultra jam chance - and mounting multiple Ultra autocannons on a machine significantly mitigates that risk as 4+ Ultra autocannons are not generally going to jam all at once.

My most competitive Shadow Cat (yes, I said Shadow Cat) uses a Quack/10, and is semi-useful solely and specifically because that one, singular autocannon gives the Shadow Cat the firepower of an entire Legend-Killer. It's still not enough, but when I can hit the field with two AC/10's worth of damage output for the cost of one AC/10, it can almost salvage even a miserably underarmed chassis like the poor Shadow Cat.

Yes, the KDK-3 is an excellent ballistics platform. The first such platform available to the Clans period. I have experienced, in other games, issues of 'delayed balance problems', where an underlying imbalance issue was not discovered until long after the conditions for that balance issue to exist were technically possible. It is, in fact, entirely conceivable that Ultra autocannons have always been the problem, but it has taken the KDK-3 to illustrate this problem to the masses.

Again - would a KDK-3 equipped with cAC/10s rather than Quacks be even a quarter as terrifying as it currently is? Does anyone not believe that a Sphere UAC/20, which double-taps two single 20-damage slugs, is not going to be an enormous issue? Even a Sphere UAC/10, with two 10-damage slugs, would be a massive advantage over every other ballistic weapon currently in the game!

Whether or not the Quack/10 needs to be hammered down, I don't know. At this point I honestly believe the entire Ultra autocannon mechanic needs to be looked at, because there is zero reason to ever use a standard or an LBX version of any autocannon for which an Ultra variant exists. And the Kodiak chassis certainly doesn't need to be destroyed because of one build on one variant using weapons which have been questionably overpowered and just hiding it better than usual since the Quack burst time updates!

For the love of god.

Removing the quirks on the KDK3 isn't destroying it, especially with a hitbox fix.

You guys are getting really dishonest here. Nobody is talking about anything g but the following:

Remove quirks From KDK3.

Fix hitboxes on all KDK3s.

That's it. Additional most of us would agree:

After that give structure quirks to under performers.

There's some debate on boated UACS. This is the first dakka boats for the lightweight, small, stackable Clan ballistics that can actually use its weapons effectively. However the KDK overall is the most maneuverable assault with the best ballistic mounts.

You don't want to balance a weapon around the absolute best possible platform for it. If you balanced LPLS around the Banshee 3M they would be worthless on most bad mediums.

I'd almost rather see chassis specific negative quirks on the uacs than nerf the weapon right now. I'd much rather just pull quirks and wait to see how it handles.

Mystere, on 01 June 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

As you wish:



So, did you mean to say that the underlined portions only apply to the KDK3?

And this particular one:



How is that even possible? Either way, that's one gigantic nerf for a chassis. ...






<You're too fast in replying and as such ruined my plans. Meh!>

Should have used the sarcasm tag.