253 replies to this topic

[Bombast]

50 50, on 22 January 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

It may be different according to timezones, but it is an extremely popular mech, particularly in Faction Play.
It would be the premier 70 ton option and while you do see quite a few Grasshoppers, you do not see as many Archers these days and it is fairly rare to see a Cataphract.

I don't play FP, so that could explain it. Solo queue, afternoons, EST, it's all Marauders (The Inner Sphere kind), the typical Clan heavy spectrum, and weirdly, quite a few Firebrands. I don't know why.

[50 50]

MischiefSC, on 22 January 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Only for poking at 500m. Better speed and maneuverability, 1 v 1 a splat TBR (SRM6s+SPLs) kills a WHR without even losing all his armor in a single hit location up close. 2LPL, 4/5CERML TBR will pull a ST off a WHR before the WHR can CT the TBR. With the new structure nerfs this puts the TBR more than 30pts of armor/structure ahead of the WHR CT vs ST.

This is also comparing a 75 ton mech vs a 70 ton one.
When it comes to Clan vs IS comparison there is obviously a distinct difference in the tech which need to be balanced using other options such as at an equipment level with heat, duration, cool down and so on.
With some of the other equipment factors that there is no balance to, it would then suggest that making a tonnage to tonnage comparison between Clan and IS mechs is a flawed view. It may be better to compare a Clan mech with an IS mech 10, 15 , 20 tons heavier than it or something like that. That's where it can be applied with the drop deck tonnage in Faction Play, but there is no comparable option in Quick Play at the moment. That's for a different discussion though.

Right at the moment, the question that needs to be answered is:
"Why would you take a Cataphract, Archer or Grasshopper over a Warhammer?"

If a reduction in the armour/structure of the Warhammer lessens this decision so players will not feel like they doing the wrong thing by taking a different 70 ton mech, surely that is a good thing.

[Bloody]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 January 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

says the guys with immortal XLs, 2 crit DHS, half crit Endo, Half Crit actually USEFUL Ferro, free CASE in all locations, 3 ton Lighter Guass Rifles, 1 ton Lighter ERPPC, halfweight Missile Racks, FulL Streak options for smacking around Lights, customizable hardpoints, etc.

Yes Bloody, do tell us about spoiled.

errrr my hot cocoa actually stays hot in my Clan Mech !!

[Y E O N N E]

50 50, on 22 January 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

This is also comparing a 75 ton mech vs a 70 ton one.

I find this to be a silly argument, especially when every Clan Heavy 'Mech and half of the Clan Mediums punch way above their weight.

Make all heavies perform on par with each other, then you can balance drop-decks by weight class, as it should be done.

[50 50]

Bombast, on 22 January 2017 - 05:52 PM, said:

I don't play FP, so that could explain it. Solo queue, afternoons, EST, it's all Marauders (The Inner Sphere kind), the typical Clan heavy spectrum, and weirdly, quite a few Firebrands. I don't know why.

I have not seen a Firebrand for a long time and until recently had not seen any Enforcers for about a year but I must have seen three over the weekend which felt kind of special.

It would not be too unusual to see the 'typical' clan Heavies or any clan mechs more regularly considering the difference in quantity available.
IS has 13 heavy mech chassis while Clan has 8, and with the omnipods the variants on the Clan side tend not to matter as much where as the harpoint and engine options for the IS can make one variant quite different to another making it seem like there is a much greater variety.

[50 50]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 January 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

I find this to be a silly argument, especially when every Clan Heavy 'Mech and half of the Clan Mediums punch way above their weight.

Make all heavies perform on par with each other, then you can balance drop-decks by weight class, as it should be done.

Why?

Mischief was comparing the Warhammer (70 tons) vs the Timberwolf (75 tons) so had already handicapped the comparison by saying the Warhammer should be on par with the Timber even though it is a lighter mech. Taking the tech differences out of the equation, would you compare the Warhammer with the Marauder and say they should be equal? I would think that the Marauder would be expected to have a slight advantage.

But when we start comparing across tech (IS to Clan) we both agree that ton for ton the Clan mechs tend to perform above their weight so it would seem more logical to compare a Timberwolf (75) vs a Battlemaster (85) or something like that. I am not sure what that tonnage difference actually might equate out to, that's just an example.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 January 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

I find this to be a silly argument, especially when every Clan Heavy 'Mech and half of the Clan Mediums punch way above their weight.

Make all heavies perform on par with each other, then you can balance drop-decks by weight class, as it should be done.

B-b-b-but I'm 5 tons heavier so I should autowin all the time with no compromises or drawbacks!

[Y E O N N E]

50 50, on 22 January 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

Why?

Mischief was comparing the Warhammer (70 tons) vs the Timberwolf (75 tons) so had already handicapped the comparison by saying the Warhammer should be on par with the Timber even though it is a lighter mech. Taking the tech differences out of the equation, would you compare the Warhammer with the Marauder and say they should be equal? I would think that the Marauder would be expected to have a slight advantage.

Yes, I would say they should be equal, because to imply 75 must be better than 70 also implies that Lights should be effectively useless. PGI's stance is that it shouldn't be a race to the top of the tonnage range. You want it to be a race to the top?

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 22 January 2017 - 06:34 PM.

[ingramli]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 20 January 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

Warhammers are the most widely seen IS heavy in FW, since you know, it can somewhat compete with clan mechs until it gets a ST opened up. It's a nerf that's not needed. Guess I'll be using Grasshopper-P's for the next month

Any further nerf to IS mech wont do any harm to me, because i have decided to grab 3 timberwolf variants as soon as i grind enough C-Bills, and switch side to Clan in FP, thank you PGI, u help me to make up my mind not to waste further time and effort on the inferior IS tech.

[MacClearly]

50 50, on 22 January 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

This is also comparing a 75 ton mech vs a 70 ton one.
When it comes to Clan vs IS comparison there is obviously a distinct difference in the tech which need to be balanced using other options such as at an equipment level with heat, duration, cool down and so on.


Right at the moment, the question that needs to be answered is:
"Why would you take a Cataphract, Archer or Grasshopper over a Warhammer?"

If a reduction in the armour/structure of the Warhammer lessens this decision so players will not feel like they doing the wrong thing by taking a different 70 ton mech, surely that is a good thing.

No what this does is make the only 70 ton mech with decent hardpoints and competitive with clan mechs worse. Phracts and Archers aren't viable or competitive against Ebons and Hellbringers. You can make a Grasshopper work but it's huge.

[50 50]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 January 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

Yes, I would say they should be equal, because to imply 75 must be better than 70 also implies that Lights should be effectively useless. PGI's stance is that it shouldn't be a race to the top of the tonnage range. You want it to be a race to the top?

No, only suggesting that if we are comparing one mech to another ton for ton that it needs to be done at the same tonnage.
If you stand a lighter mech against a heavier mech and then sit (stationary) there blazing away at each other. The heavier mech should win and it should be more noticeable the greater the tonnage difference.

[Y E O N N E]

50 50, on 22 January 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

If you stand a lighter mech against a heavier mech and then sit (stationary) there blazing away at each other. The heavier mech should win and it should be more noticeable the greater the tonnage difference.

That's going to happen regardless, though. That kind of test tells you nothing. When we say "as good as xyz heavier 'Mech" we mean that it has the same value on the field, which is a combination of everything about the 'Mech and not just its armor values.

Like, if I need a Heavy, and I need it to do a certain job, it shouldn't matter whether I take a 60 tonner or a 75 tonner, otherwise it is literally a race to the top of every weight class. You can still differentiate them by making the lighter ones more offense-oriented and the heavier ones more defensive-oriented, but they should have the same potential utility.

[Duke Nedo]

50 50, on 22 January 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

No, only suggesting that if we are comparing one mech to another ton for ton that it needs to be done at the same tonnage.
If you stand a lighter mech against a heavier mech and then sit (stationary) there blazing away at each other. The heavier mech should win and it should be more noticeable the greater the tonnage difference.

Pick another pair then, say MAD-iic and KGC, the clan mech is still better. We compare WHM with NGR and TBR because they are the best in the weight class, and so is the WHM for the IS. Not IS fault that they don't have a competitive 75 tonner.

[a gaijin]

Sjorpha, on 21 January 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

I'm in MJ12, a unit mostly active in faction play, though we've had some stabs at competitive play in MRBC and the World Championships, with very underwhelming results I might add.
So in other words there are real competitive players that are much more up to date with the exact state of balance than I am being mostly a casual player, and perhaps they would correct me on something that I'm getting wrong. I think I'm right in this case.

It's a strong build yes, I think so, because you still get the very significant quirks helping PPCs. It's not over the top though, that only happens when you add the second torso E hardpoint.

The SRM build doesn't require the loyalty pods, but it gets a little stronger quirked if it does. It's good either way.

The leaderboards are relevant data or not depending on the sample size. So in other words it gives a very good indication of skill level if that player has hundreds of matches and not so good if he or she has few matches. A player at the top of the leader board that ALSO has hundreds of matches logged is actually that good, yes. A player at the top with 5 matches during the period? That could be luck so who knows?

A major flaw of the leaderboard is that it is independent of tier, which is itself a kinda weird and inaccurate system, though not "only and XP bar" like some like to say to sound cool. In any case you can make an alt account and smurf your way up the leaderboards in low tier matches. In other words the leaderboard data is less useful the lower tier the player is, and the newer the account is. So if you add a 3rd condition to reading the leaderboard stats on top of large sample size and good placement, you can also require that the player is tier 1 and has played more than a year to say that the data is reliable, then you're reasonably safe to say this represents the skill of that player.

If anything the leaderboards and other sources of data on this game are an underrated source of information, because people around here loves to say things like "that means nothing..." etc to sound like they're cool and cynical internet badasses, especially if they don't have good stats to show themselves.

Thanks very much for answering my questions.Everything you state makes complete sense.
Sharing your view of loyaty pod SMNs vs "normal" SMNs is really helpful to me from a learning perspective.
Do you pilot regular SMNs or the LP Version? Also, with mediums, are you a HBKIIC pilot or something else?
And just out of curiosity, which assault mech(s) were you using this season?

Regarding your answer to my inquiry on the validity of leaderboard scores, the comment you made on sample size is really what spoke to me. I absolutely agree with that. I think the scores do matter, but more so if there is a lot of matches (more data) to validate.

Thanks again for sharing your logic and perspective. Much appreciated

[a gaijin]

MacClearly, on 22 January 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

Guess am a bit sore because I generally run 3 Ebons or 3 Hellbringers and a Shadow Cat. Since my Clan only account is puggalishious I usually start off in the Scat and a lot of times it lasts very long and does well for me, especially the 2 cPPC version.

Oh and you can still find pug buffoons who regularly schedule in Kodi's in FW. Not even shocked anymore when they are lrm Spirit Bears....

If you are a strong medium pilot the Marauder IIC isn't thaaat bad a choice.

Speaking of being sore, I'm getting ready for the patch tomorrow. It looks like my poor Summoners are getting hit with the nerfbat this time
EB J's are nice. If they had JJs I'd switch to those. Need those JJs!

Maybe I should just throw up my arms, yell "facQet!" and start piloting LRM Kodiaks


(kidding!!)

[Oberost]

50 50, on 22 January 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

If a reduction in the armour/structure of the Warhammer lessens this decision so players will not feel like they doing the wrong thing by taking a different 70 ton mech, surely that is a good thing.

Even with the quirks reduction the WHM will be better than an Archer or Cataphract, and you know why? Because bad geometry/hardpoints placement on those mechs. So you will still need to further nerf the Warhammer to make the choice a real option OR you can buff those underporming mechs to a level where everyone is as close as possible in performance to each other AND also they can compete against the Clan mech. Right now you are just saying: all IS 70 tonners should suck because they all should be equal to the worst one...

[Sunstruck]

There are better heavies than Warhammers, Marauders, the Bounty Hunter, and all the Orions are better at brawling with ballistic and srms.

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

Lets not forget that clan mechs might be able to punch above their weight like a good boxer, but they cant take many hits because they are flimsey. It's something that''s always forgotten. Just from one tiny mistake like a pop tart in the wrong place = orange core on a heavy mech... nice.

I honestly hope PGI take a vote from the public on whether to just share tech. I am trying to understand what the reason is, to avoid this. I am guessing slowing the timeline allows them to release mechs for monies.
But not equalising the game? Is it cause it might make all the mechs feel too samey?

[Duke Nedo]

Sunstruck, on 22 January 2017 - 11:35 PM, said:

There are better heavies than Warhammers, Marauders, the Bounty Hunter, and all the Orions are better at brawling with ballistic and srms.

You can build a pretty OK brawler on the 7S, but in any case, brawling is brawling, and you can't really play the brawling card with slow mechs that can't dictate the range. The TBR with SRMs and cSPLs/cMPLs tho, that is one strong brawler with enough speed to reliably close distance and dictate range. The TBR does PPFLD and brawling better than the WHM, the only thing WHM has is dps dakka, but the NGR does that better, as well as PPFLD with jumpjets.

There is no logical reason to nerf the WHM other than to normalize it down to the level of the worse IS mechs. By that logic, also NGRs, TBRs, KDKs should be nerfed, and nerfed harder... The best clan mechs are not touched == faction balance is broken further than it already is.

Even metamechs agrees: http://metamechs.com...meta-tier-list/

High Tier 1 listed: KDK-3, NGR, TBR
Low Tier 1 listed: BLR-2C, BLR-1G, WHM-BW, WHM-6R, SMN-M, HBK-IIc-A,

All nerfs PGI does this time is in the low tier 1, the high tier 1 is untouched.

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 22 January 2017 - 11:45 PM, said:

But not equalising the game? Is it cause it might make all the mechs feel too samey?

Yeah, would think so. Shared tech would be boring imo. Make an effort to actually balance the techs instead. Getting it perfect is impossible, but it's not hard to improve faction balance. Instead they decide to nerf WHMs to make faction balance worse. Derpity derp.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 23 January 2017 - 12:05 AM.

[ingramli]

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 22 January 2017 - 11:45 PM, said:

But not equalising the game? Is it cause it might make all the mechs feel too samey?

Negative. The truth is, some degree of unfair advantage to the users of different mech/equipment/weapon at certain period (and it rotates periodically) is in their best interest. In this way folks (who try to be competitive) will spend for mechs that are not yet available in CB, or acquire extra mech bays to keep new mech that are relatively powerful after the buff/nerf of the new patch comes into effect. If folks keep on using the same mech they feel comfortable and/or powerful, and have little incentive in getting new mechs, PGI would have a hard time to generate income to continue running the game.