426 replies to this topic

[Grus]

MovinTarget, on 02 February 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

Some people will laugh but don't discount LB10Xs... May not get all teh pellets on one component/mech but it is forgiving, doesn't jam and AC10 class of weapons have best shots/ton ration IMO...

Also, LBX have *no* ghost heat. that's why you see Kodiaks with 4 LB10X on hot maps...

Played with a marauder 2c last night with 2lbx 10 2 larg pulse and 2 med Las. Damn fine build, little hot for sustainable fire but with enough ammo I can just fire the 10's and back off to cool down.

MovinTarget, on 02 February 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

Some people will laugh but don't discount LB10Xs... May not get all teh pellets on one component/mech but it is forgiving, doesn't jam and AC10 class of weapons have best shots/ton ration IMO...

Also, LBX have *no* ghost heat. that's why you see Kodiaks with 4 LB10X on hot maps...

Played with a marauder 2c last night with 2lbx 10 2 larg pulse and 2 med Las. Damn fine build, little hot for sustainable fire but with enough ammo I can just fire the 10's and back off to cool down.

[Edward Hazen]

Zergling, on 03 February 2017 - 01:46 AM, said:

With the context of reply about the Grasshopper torso-twisting to spread damage, my statement of "I like the potato-tier assumption that the Hellbringer will just stare at the IS laserboat.", quite clearly becomes "I like the potato-tier assumption that the Hellbringer will just stare at the IS laserboat when the Hellbringer would also be torso twisting to spread damage in such circumstances".

If the Grasshopper is staring at the Hellbringer, the Hellbringer only has to stare at the Grasshopper to win.
If the Grasshopper is torso twisting to spread damage, then the Hellbringer can do the same, and still win.

Pretty much the only way the Grasshopper can beat the Hellbringer (when both players are equally skilled) is to poke shoot, which will negate the Hellbringer's sustained DPS advantage and the Grasshopper's structure quirks will give it the advantage.
And that isn't an even fight; that is a fight where the Grasshopper has positional advantage. If the Grasshopper pilot can reliably get positional advantage, then that player has the skill advantage and as said before, skill should be neutral for balance discussions.

But gee, context is hard, isn't it?

Supposing your calculations are correct and that Smurfy's is including quirks and the differences between how Clan and IS heatsinks dissipate heat in their heat efficiency statistic, then all you have proven is that Clan equipment is better as it is meant to be. Ultimately it would be up to the skill level, internet latency and frames per second to decide the duel, as will always be the case. Also, you neglected to take into account the Grasshopper using its jump jets to turn faster or to jump spread some of the damage to its legs. A better duel would be a Hellbringer vs a Black Knight.

Edited by S0ulReapr, 03 February 2017 - 03:53 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

Uncle Totty said:

Zergling said:

You're both idiots, what you fail to realise is because you're too focused on your starring-twisting-extravaganza out strolls an Urbie and BOOM!!! AC20 right up the centre rear!

[Zergling]

S0ulReapr, on 03 February 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Supposing your calculations are correct and that Smurfy's is including quirks and the differences between how Clan and IS heatsinks dissipate heat in their heat efficiency statistic, then all you have proven is that Clan equipment is better as it is meant to be. Ultimately it would be up to the skill level, internet latency and frames per second to decide the duel, as will always be the case. Also, you neglected to take into account the Grasshopper using its jump jets to turn faster or to jump spread some of the damage to its legs. A better duel would be a Hellbringer vs a Black Knight.

Smurfy doesn't account for quirks, but it might account for the heat skills.

Clan equipment is not supposed to be 'better' in a balanced PvP game. Having one set of equipment have such advantages over other equipment is terrible balance that completely screws with a game.

And I repeat again: I'm comparing one of the best (heck, probably even the best) IS heavy mechs versus one of the average Clan heavy mechs.
If the Grasshopper 5P is compared versus the Timber Wolf or Night Gyr, then the Grasshopper is clearly heavily outclassed.

You also didn't look at the builds I posted and was calculating for: the Grasshopper was a maximum heat efficiency and sustained DPS build for the 5P, so it didn't have jumpjets.
Here is the Grasshopper 5P with jumpjets; it drops from 70.9 kph to 64.7 kph, 35.7% to 33.97% heat efficiency and 3.92 to 3.73 sustained DPS.

As for Black Knight, it is inferior to the Grasshopper 5P.

I'm also not comparing for mixed IS large laser/medium laser builds, because those are drastically outclassed in range versus Clan laser vomit while also being on slower mechs, which renders them doubly disadvantaged (with a speed advantage, the Clan mech can more easily choose the range of engagement to favour themselves).
And if I compared those IS mixed laser builds to shorter ranged Clan laser vomit, the Clans still have a large advantage in firepower, going from around 25% greater sustained DPS to 50-60% greater.

Edited by Zergling, 03 February 2017 - 07:38 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

Zergling, on 03 February 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

Clan equipment is not supposed to be 'better' in a balanced PvP game. Having one set of equipment have such advantages over other equipment is terrible balance that completely screws with a game.

This is where you lose me. Clan equipment IS supposed to be better in "A BATTLETECH GAME".

[Zergling]

S0ulReapr, on 03 February 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

This is where you lose me. Clan equipment IS supposed to be better in "A BATTLETECH GAME".

Then go play a single player PvE MechWarrior game, because balance is paramount in a PvP game like MWO.

The ideal of balance in a PvP game is for their to be diverse weapons/equipment, but all those weapons/equipment being equal in effectiveness, with skill being the determining factor in who wins.

When some options are clearly better than any other, diversity is killed because the majority of players will use the better weapons/equipment simply so they aren't disadvantaged against other players using those better weapons/equipment.

This is why so many competitive/high skill players use Clan mechs in FW and elsewhere; they want an even playing field, and the only way to secure that is to use the most powerful mechs to prevent themselves being disadvantaged against players that are using the most powerful mechs.

Edited by Zergling, 03 February 2017 - 05:32 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

Zergling, on 03 February 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

Then go play a single player PvE MechWarrior game, because balance is paramount in a PvP game like MWO.

If PGI changes this :



to read "A Balanced PVP Game Based on BattleTech", then I would agree with you, but until then, or until the BattleTech rules are reconned to make Clan Invasion era Clan tech equal in power / efficiency / effectiveness to Clan Invasion era IS tech, it would be false advertising to call this "A BattleTech Game".

[Zergling]

S0ulReapr, on 03 February 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

If PGI changes this :



to read "A Balanced PVP Game Based on BattleTech", then I would agree with you, but until then, or until the BattleTech rules are reconned to make Clan Invasion era Clan tech equal in power / efficiency / effectiveness to Clan Invasion era IS tech, it would be false advertising to call this "A BattleTech Game".

Being a subtitled 'A Battletech Game' doesn't mean PGI have to keep everything exactly the same as in the Battletech tabletop wargame, because that would be counterproductive, given a first-person action video game is entirely different to a turn-based tabletop wargame designed to be run with pen and paper.

From the very start MWO broke away from keeping things exactly the same as TT Battletech, with weapons cycling faster than once every 10 seconds, to the hardpoint system, to weapon damage and heat values being adjusted.
Even the Battletech turn-based game being made by Harebrained Schemes isn't anywhere near an exact copy of TT rules, despite it having a similar turn-based format.

If you're gonna have a hissy fit and cry 'false advertising!' because you can't get your jollies off by crushing Spheroids with your uber Clan mech, then the door is that way; don't let it hit you in the *** on the way out.

In the mean time, those of us that actually have a clue about balance and how to play the game will be laughing at those that complain about 'underpowered Clans!' and 'overpowered IS megaquirks!'.

Edited by Zergling, 03 February 2017 - 07:19 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

Zergling, on 03 February 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

Being a subtitled 'A Battletech Game' doesn't mean PGI have to keep everything exactly the same as in the Battletech tabletop wargame, because that would be counterproductive.

From the start MWO broke away from keeping things exactly the same as TT Battletech, with weapons cycling faster than once every 10 seconds, to the hardpoint system, to weapon damage and heat values being adjusted.
Even the Battletech turn-based game being made by Harebrained Schemes isn't anywhere near an exact copy of TT rules, despite it having a similar turn-based format.

If you're gonna have a hissy fit and cry 'false advertising!' because you can't get your jollies off by crushing Spheroids with your uber Clan mech, then the door is that way; don't let it hit you in the *** on the way out.

Actually, I play both Clan and IS mechs FYI. And maybe I should have rephrased "false advertising" to something more like "misleading". And it seems like you are the one "having a hissy fit" because you insist on PGI gimping "top-tier" Clan Mechs because you prefer to play a less effective mech, but believe that it should be equally effective.

Edited by S0ulReapr, 03 February 2017 - 07:19 PM.

[Zergling]

S0ulReapr, on 03 February 2017 - 07:18 PM, said:

Actually, I play both Clan and IS mechs FYI. And maybe I should have rephrased "false advertising" to something more like "misleading". And it seems like you are the one "having a hissy fit" because you insist on PGI gimping "top-tier" Clan Mechs because you prefer to play a less effective mech, but believe that it should be equally effective.

Oh, I play both Clan and IS mechs too; I just don't have my head stuck up my *** when it comes to the bad balance in the game, and don't try to excuse it for lore reasons.

If you think bad balance is at all excusable, then you shouldn't be playing a PvP game, but should stick to killing brainless AI bots in PvE games.

But hay, go ahead and blame your sub-1.0 W/L and sub-200 average MS on 'overpowered light mechs' and 'underpowered Clans'.
All you are doing is demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge about the game by making hilariously wrong excuses to cover your inability to play the game.

Edited by Zergling, 03 February 2017 - 07:24 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

Zergling, on 03 February 2017 - 07:22 PM, said:

Oh, I play both Clan and IS mechs too; I just don't have my head stuck up my *** when it comes to the bad balance in the game, and don't try to excuse it for lore reasons.

If you think bad balance is at all excusable, then you shouldn't be playing a PvP game, but should stick to killing brainless AI bots in PvE games.

But hay, go ahead and blame your sub-1.0 W/L and sub-200 average MS on 'overpowered light mechs' and 'underpowered Clans'.
All you are doing is demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge about the game by making hilariously wrong excuses to cover your inability to play the game.

I PUG mostly solo or in small groups, so winning the game is mostly dependant on the quality of the other PUGs on my team. My overall K/D Ratio is respectable though and I rarely do sub-200 damage matches. Before we compare e-peens, remember that consistently dropping in a large group of competent players makes it much easier to climb to higher tiers, so make a new account and play it solo or in small groups (> 4) and then see how fast you get to tier 2 or 1.

Edited by S0ulReapr, 03 February 2017 - 07:35 PM.

[Zergling]

S0ulReapr, on 03 February 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

I PUG mostly solo or in small groups, so winning the game is mostly dependant on the quality of the other PUGs on my team. My overall K/D Ratio is respectable though and I rarely do sub-200 damage matches. Before we compare e-peens, remember that consistently dropping in a large group of competent players makes it much easier to climb to higher tiers, so make a new account and play it solo or in small groups (> 4) and then see how fast you get to tier 2 or 1.

And I only play solo, never grouped.

K/D by itself (as with any other stat) is worthless; a decent player will have good W/L, K/D, Kills/Battle and average match score, even when they play solo.

To be fair, your stats aren't terrible compared to the averages; you are either almost exactly average or very slightly below average at worst.
But the thing is, the average player is kinda terrible when compared to the good players, because the average player really doesn't know how to play the game; the skill difference between an average and good player is just huge.

The skills aren't just twitch ability either; that is actually the least important 'skill' in MWO. More important is understanding the game and basic tactics.


Example, this is the only battle I played last night:


Most of the players on the enemy team were actually around average in stats, with a few below average. And tbh, they were all awful.

It also shows the PSR matchmaker isn't working; at least one of the enemy players was a definite Tier 5, so he shouldn't be in the same battle as a Tier 2 like me.

Edited by Zergling, 03 February 2017 - 08:05 PM.

[MovinTarget]

PGI introduced clans and couldn't put the cat back in bag...

Unless they had qp games where it was only ever clan v clan or IS v IS, balance would have been not possible without some tech tweaking. It would be stupidly lopsided, in fact, it rather *was* until the first quirk pass.

Once FP came about and they couldn't balance 12v10 the disparity became even worse and thus more tweaking.

So I guess the game should have died a one-sided death, let clams be op as in lore... right? I can't say i agree with every last decision PGI has made, but its clear they are trying to appeal to the widest population possible and it would be STUPID not to.

Think about this from a lore perspective... would IS pilots, given the choice of fighting wars against their equals or fighting against the clan invasion at its onset and getting slaughtered... which would they choose? Yeah, its a story... they didn't get to choose.

However, we all get to choose what game(s) we play so put in that position, waiting for the timeline to advance to a point where tech is a bit more normalized... PGI would have lost so many players, players that had invested alot of $$$ in the game, just so clams could be OP in an imbalanced game? Yeah that'd be a dumpster fire...

So before you pooh pooh PGI for being misleading, consider the likelyhood that the game would be quite dead(er) and/or boring had they not made an effort to normalize tech.

So if you had a choice between this game or *no* game, which would it be?

Edited by MovinTarget, 03 February 2017 - 08:32 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

Zergling, on 03 February 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

And I only play solo, never grouped.

K/D by itself (as with any other stat) is worthless; a decent player will have good W/L, K/D, Kills/Battle and average match score, even when they play solo.

To be fair, your stats aren't terrible compared to the averages; you are either almost exactly average or very slightly below average at worst.
But the thing is, the average player is kinda terrible when compared to the good players, because the average player really doesn't know how to play the game; the skill difference between an average and good player is just huge.

The skills aren't just twitch ability either; that is actually the least important 'skill' in MWO. More important is understanding the game and basic tactics.


Example, this is the only battle I played last night:

Most of the players on the enemy team were actually around average in stats, with a few below average. And tbh, they were all awful.

It also shows the PSR matchmaker isn't working; at least one of the enemy players was a definite Tier 5, so he shouldn't be in the same battle as a Tier 2 like me.

I was in a match with Sean Lang on my side a few days ago and I am tier 4, our team was slaughtered and Sean and I were the last two alive, I got one kill and did about 300 damage and died just before Sean did. Yes, I was a tier 4 in a Tier 1-3 match because of matchmaker. Also, my account is only a couple months old and and only two of my mechs are mastered, so that does affect my stats when I am levelling mechs.

Anyway, I am done with nerdy arguments, I have had a rare better than average day and I have some good beer to drink while I blow up Mechs. Hell I will even play my unmastered Trebuchet and not complain about not being as effective as a Stormcrow

[Edward Hazen]

MovinTarget, on 03 February 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

So if you had a choice between this game or *no* game, which would it be?

I agree that adding the Clans was a bad idea and that PGI only did it to boost their profits since they did not have the rights to the unseen mechs at the time and they needed to renew their IP license. But the game will do fine if they stick to lore, there are plenty of old BattleTech fans who spend way more money on the game than FTP shooter kids.

[Edward Hazen]

Ok, played a few games, got progressively worse the more I drank and had more fun BSing with team mates than actually playing. So yeah, that is why I play a PVP game and not a solo game, even though I have to argue with elitists on the forums who think that having a differing opinion means that you have your " head in your a**".

[Uncle Totty]

S0ulReapr, on 03 February 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

I was in a match with Sean Lang on my side a few days ago and I am tier 4, our team was slaughtered and Sean and I were the last two alive, I got one kill and did about 300 damage and died just before Sean did. Yes, I was a tier 4 in a Tier 1-3 match because of matchmaker. Also, my account is only a couple months old and and only two of my mechs are mastered, so that does affect my stats when I am levelling mechs.

Anyway, I am done with nerdy arguments, I have had a rare better than average day and I have some good beer to drink while I blow up Mechs. Hell I will even play my unmastered Trebuchet and not complain about not being as effective as a Stormcrow

Been in matches like that before.

[TwoUps]

YUyahoo, on 20 January 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

I've never understood why mechs that are performing well are considered to be "overperforming" and PGI feels the need to weaken them to be more "in line" with all of the "underperformers". I understand that balancing is tough to do but I have always believe it better to strengthen the "bottom" than weaken the "top" (...summoner performing "much better than its popularity" and needs to be nerfed, major lols!!!)

well said.. nerfing (taking away) usually attract negative responses.. instead, buffing (BONUSSS) seems to get more positive response... so if PGI is interested in more positive responses for the balancing, try buffing the mechs from the bottom of the barrel instead. This will generate interest in forgotten mechs.. "Shelving a fav mech" or "unshelving or getting a mech with new potential", I know which one will make me happier...

In addition, wouldn't hurt to have the patch notes being introduce in the mind set of MWO universe/story line... if PGI don't "justify" the quirks changes with statistic and logic, it will be hard for anyone to fault it with another sets of statistic and logic... It just the way the story line developed or as events unfold...

For example:
Dragon Design Notes: Continuing the work started last month, the Dragon is seeing its existing Structure Quirks converted into Armor Quirks. We've also provided the chassis with a slight mobility boost. Our intent here is to reinforce the high-durability/high mobility role that the Dragon is known for in lore.

- With the input from Captain **** of House ***** (an elite hero infamous for his unique customization of DRG), the ***** Industry had release a software update for the DRG chassis. MW should experience a slight mobility boost with the installation of the new software. In addition, **** Industry also implemented a more cost efficient approach towards DRG durability by converting some of its Structure into Armor. This new configuration of DRG will be roll out off the factory and repair bay effective immediately.

Edited by TwoUps, 06 February 2017 - 01:31 AM.

[Silme]

MovinTarget, on 03 February 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

[...]

So if you had a choice between this game or *no* game, which would it be?

No game. Because then the likelihood that we finally get a good first-person Battletech/Mechwarrior interpretation that can actually make use of modern gaming paradigms would only be a year or two away, instead of another decade.

[VonBruinwald]

YUyahoo, on 20 January 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

I've never understood why mechs that are performing well are considered to be "overperforming" and PGI feels the need to weaken them to be more "in line" with all of the "underperformers". I understand that balancing is tough to do but I have always believe it better to strengthen the "bottom" than weaken the "top" (...summoner performing "much better than its popularity" and needs to be nerfed, major lols!!!)

TwoUps, on 05 February 2017 - 10:21 PM, said:

well said.. nerfing (taking away) usually attract negative responses.. instead, buffing (BONUSSS) seems to get more positive response... so if PGI is interested in more positive responses for the balancing, try buffing the mechs from the bottom of the barrel instead.

The issue isn't with nerfing and buffing 'mechs, it's with the perception of players.

It makes sense to nerf overperformers when you have the option, if you have 20 base 'mechs, 1 underperforming and 1 overperformering, nerfing the overperfomer gives you 21 viable 'mechs and 1 underdog as opposed to buffing the underperformer and having 1 viable 'mech and 21 underdogs. It brings greater balance to the game for less work and it's certainly more practical than buffing 21 other 'mechs just so you don't have to nerf the best 'mechs. That much should be understandable.

As for how players react... it's all about the ego. Players like to believe they're good because of their own skill and nothing else (it's never the quirks/tech). If you have a player in an overperforming 'mech they think they're doing well because they're good at the game, bring that 'mech in line with the rest and they'll suddenly find they're not doing as well, they never saw the quirks as having an effect on their abilities and when they're gone they don't want to admit they were doing better because of them, so they look for someone/thing else to blame and find any reason they can to criticise it.

Unfortunately we don't have access to the data sets and metrics used to make these decisions but it's not a coincidence that all the best pilots happen to use the same roster of 'mechs.