253 replies to this topic

[Chester Rico]

I don't even own any WHMs (yet), but I feel this nerf is just unneeded. Whammies are so easy to destroy (and lots of them are running XL, which makes it even easier.)

In fact I think nerfing ANY IS mech is just idiotic at this point.

Edited by Chester Rico, 23 January 2017 - 12:25 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

ingramli, on 23 January 2017 - 12:14 AM, said:

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.

But to be fair, PGI has not done this toooo much, at least imho. The TBR has been one of the strongest mech since Clan invasion for example. To me the metashifts we have had has been more about kneejerk overnerfs of for example Jumpjets, PPCs, Gauss, the big quirkening and dequirkening etc.

The last year or so it seems like PGI has caught on a little and made sure that new releases are on the upper half of the performance band and that the paywalled mechs are the better ones, but it's not obviously so that each new release is a power creep. We have to give PGI that one.

In any case, this thread I think is more about how they are destroying faction balance by nerfing the wrong mech(s).

[ingramli]

Duke Nedo, on 23 January 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

In any case, this thread I think is more about how they are destroying faction balance by nerfing the wrong mech(s).

Sort of. I am about to switch side to Clan as soon as i grind enough CBs for 3 Timberwolf or Night gyr. Constantly play on the losing side in FP is not interesting, it is time for the change to be made.

[Chester Rico]

ingramli, on 23 January 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

Sort of. I am about to switch side to Clan as soon as i grind enough CBs for 3 Timberwolf or Night gyr. Constantly play on the losing side in FP is not interesting, it is time for the change to be made.

Forgive my cheekiness, but it sounds like you just need to find a better unit ;3

[50 50]

Duke Nedo, on 23 January 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

In any case, this thread I think is more about how they are destroying faction balance by nerfing the wrong mech(s).

At least in Faction Play there are other mechanics that can be used to balance between Clan and IS such as the Drop Deck tonnage limits. There are other options that are as yet unexplored, but that is one.

Before looking outside of the Factions and delving into different tech, it should be possible to take a mech of one tonnage and have it be the equal of another of the same tonnage.
So for this thread, why is an Archer not the Equal of a Warhammer.
It should probably be more of a scissors, paper, rock balance at each tonnage level but effectively the mechs should be equal to each other.

[KuroNyra]

Am I the only one who remember the time of the Thunderbolt 9S and the PPCalypse?


My Timber Wolf is still scarred of theses guys.
Ho well...

I just hope PGI wake up and give the IS some good stuff...

[ingramli]

Chester Rico, on 23 January 2017 - 12:39 AM, said:

Forgive my cheekiness, but it sounds like you just need to find a better unit ;3

In FP, It is quite often that we (IS side) is out-ranged, we need to get closer to wreak havoc, but the reality is, we either having hard time to chase them (on s STD engine), or being sent off to spectating straight-away (wonderful isXL ST death ^TM), it is so often that the K/D ratio in invasion game for IS is 0.5 or worse.

Edited by ingramli, 23 January 2017 - 12:50 AM.

[MischiefSC]

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.
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.

Except now you've got a 'why would you take an IS heavy, save a ERLL GHR, instead of an 85 ton BLR 2C?'

You wouldn't, because other than maybe a poke GHR this leaves the IS with no real top tier heavies that can directly compete with any top tier Clan heavies in brawling, mid range or poke.

So either you're balancing with things like tech in mind and FW in mind or you're not.

If you're not then why would you take any IS heavy vs a TBR, loyalty Summoner or Night Gyr? Only if you wanted to play something flat out inferior for kicks and giggles, in which case balance doesn't matter because you're knowingly taking an inferior mech.

All this does is cement IS heavies as being flat out inferior and a poor choice for drop decks or choices in any competitive setting, be that players who want to feel like they're not gimping themselves all the way up to competitive environments like MRBC/RHoD.

That makes it a terrible choice and a very incompetent one, especially when taken in the light of the stunningly oblivious and disconnected statement PGI made about 'IS XLs can't be balanced to Clan XLs because.... Standard engines'. That's like saying you can't work out a way to feed the hungry people in the world or else who's going to go to soup kitchens? It's the sort of answer that implies the person giving it doesn't really understand not just the question but doesn't really even understand the context and world the question is asked in.

50 50, on 23 January 2017 - 12:41 AM, said:

At least in Faction Play there are other mechanics that can be used to balance between Clan and IS such as the Drop Deck tonnage limits. There are other options that are as yet unexplored, but that is one.

Before looking outside of the Factions and delving into different tech, it should be possible to take a mech of one tonnage and have it be the equal of another of the same tonnage.
So for this thread, why is an Archer not the Equal of a Warhammer.
It should probably be more of a scissors, paper, rock balance at each tonnage level but effectively the mechs should be equal to each other.

Let me know when the Night Gyr gets nerfed down to be equal to the Orion.

Until that happens arguments over nerfing the WHR because the Archer is bad is sophistry. Intentional or otherwise.

[Kmieciu]

MischiefSC, on 20 January 2017 - 11:18 PM, said:

I heard a rumor that a Kit Fox actually got a kill, so an alarm went off at PGI and nerfs were prepared immediately.

I've also heard that rumor, but it has nothing to do with MG quirks...

PS. Warhammer is not only the best IS heavy weapon platform, it is also most durable. It has great hitboxes: shield arms that soak damage and perfectly balanced CT hitboxes. Loosing a couple of extra structure points is not going to change it.

What I'm excited about is the armor buff on the Dragon, Cataphract, Orion, Highlander and Atlas. Bonus armor is much more important than bonus structure. Those mechs won't be able to out-trade the Warhammer, but they will be able to tank much more effectively during hard pushes.

Edited by Kmieciu, 23 January 2017 - 02:36 AM.

[50 50]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 01:27 AM, said:

Except now you've got a 'why would you take an IS heavy, save a ERLL GHR, instead of an 85 ton BLR 2C?'

Wait... I think I've heard this one.
I don't know.
Why would you take and IS heavy save an ERLL GHR instead of an 85 ton BLR 2c?

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 01:27 AM, said:

You wouldn't, because other than maybe a poke GHR this leaves the IS with no real top tier heavies that can directly compete with any top tier Clan heavies in brawling, mid range or poke.

Is this under the context of something like the MRBC where there are no restrictions? Why would we leap into comparing an IS heavy vs a Clan heavy when we can't even compare one IS heavy to another IS heavy... even with the exact same tonnage?
The Clan mechs have the same issue except it is less pronounced due to having half as many different mech chassis.
Yeonne wants all mechs to be equal regardless of tonnage or tech base, but if the mechs within a tech base of a certain tonnage can't be balanced against each other first, how can we expect to balance them against mechs of different tonnages or different techs?

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 01:27 AM, said:

So either you're balancing with things like tech in mind and FW in mind or you're not.

Balance before factoring in tech. Tech can be balanced by itself independent of the mechs, but a tonnage handicap will assist balance between the mechs.

I guess the point I'm trying to get to is this:

There are 4 Inner Sphere 70 ton heavy mechs.
There should be an advantage for taking any one of them over the other, a reason to say "Yes, I'll take the Archer because it's good at X and the Warhammer isn't. Or I'll take the Grasshopper because it is good at Y and the Cataphract isn't."
It should not be a situation of: "Take the Warhammer because it's flat out better than any other IS heavy mech"

With more tonnage comes more armour and larger weapon loadouts at the expense of mobility.
So when comparing between different tonnages, the lighter mechs should gain parity due to increased mobility. Not just speed, but turning, acceleration/deceleration, torso twist etc etc. Even then, the comparison becomes dubious the greater the tonnage difference between two mechs as the benefit of mobility is harder to quantify without additional factors such as terrain and pilot skill.

As soon as we start comparing across tech trees, then there are a lot of additional factors to take into consideration. We start talking about heat, range, damage, cool down, single shot vs burst shot etc. While the function of the equipment can be balanced separately, there is a tonnage saving that can be taken into account when comparing mechs. That's why I was suggesting that when comparing a Warhammer to a Timberwolf is not a great idea as it already creates a 5 ton difference in the comparison before factoring in the tonnage difference of the equipment. Hence suggesting that thanks to the tonnage difference in the equipment, a Timberwolf may be more comparable to a Battemaster, ie. a 10 ton handicap.

Yet the Timberwolf still has the advantage of speed which a Battlemaster would have to negate by sacrificing equipment to achieve the same level of mobility. If we know that thanks to the equipment there is a 10 ton advantage to the Timberwolf, we can then look at all IS mechs of the same tonnage and define what they would need to help address that difference. This has most commonly be done with the structure and armour buffs but there are there are other options to look at as well. If all of those mechs are adjusted equally, it should not disrupt the balance within that little group.

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 01:27 AM, said:

If you're not then why would you take any IS heavy vs a TBR, loyalty Summoner or Night Gyr? Only if you wanted to play something flat out inferior for kicks and giggles, in which case balance doesn't matter because you're knowingly taking an inferior mech.

All this does is cement IS heavies as being flat out inferior and a poor choice for drop decks or choices in any competitive setting, be that players who want to feel like they're not gimping themselves all the way up to competitive environments like MRBC/RHoD.

Well, not sure about RHoD but if there are no restrictions other than X mechs of a weight class, why wouldn't you take a mech that performs outside of it's weight class?
That is a flaw in the design of the tournament/s.
Easily fixed though, don't allow mixed tech. It's either pure IS or pure Clan.

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 01:27 AM, said:

That makes it a terrible choice and a very incompetent one, especially when taken in the light of the stunningly oblivious and disconnected statement PGI made about 'IS XLs can't be balanced to Clan XLs because.... Standard engines'. That's like saying you can't work out a way to feed the hungry people in the world or else who's going to go to soup kitchens? It's the sort of answer that implies the person giving it doesn't really understand not just the question but doesn't really even understand the context and world the question is asked in.

Well, I understand that we don't want to completely invalidate the use of different bits of equipment. Making the IS XL not instant death on loss of a side torso would mean the Standard engine might as well be in a museum. I don't believe comparing the IS XL to the cXL is a great idea. The LFE will make a better comparison as then it is not about the difference in critical spaces, but back to a simple tonnage difference which fits in line with all the other equipment.

Where there will be a benefit is in choice. Light mechs are starved for tonnage but typically have plenty of space so the IS XL would be better value in these mechs. Carrying the risk of the side torso destruction should be alleviated by the mech's speed and ability to avoid damage. The other interesting option that we will hopefully see is the compact engine. While heavier, there are a few mechs that might enjoy having additional space for weapons in the CT.

We might still ask: "Why would we take the Standard Engine over these more advanced alternatives?" But I feel this may be solved by having even the smaller engines equipped with the default 10 heatsinks. Not sure, but something else to ponder as we approach the dawn of new tech.

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 01:27 AM, said:

Let me know when the Night Gyr gets nerfed down to be equal to the Orion.

Sure. For the same reasons as above. I have no objection. Balance the Night Gyr against the Orion IIC and the Timberwolf.

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 01:27 AM, said:

Until that happens arguments over nerfing the WHR because the Archer is bad is sophistry. Intentional or otherwise.

That's the point though.
The Archer should not be bad compared to the Warhammer. Merely different.

It's difficult to discuss these things over a medium such as forum posts but I'm agreeing that there is more to be done. I'm just looking at and discussing the method.

[Duke Nedo]

50 50, on 23 January 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

Lots of text.

Now, there will always be good and bad mech designs/geometries, that's unavoidable. PGI tries to compensate with quirks here and help the doomed designs, and they do OK there to be honest. Mechs like Orions, Dragons or whatever have gotten quite a bit of help and can perform decently. If you want them to perform exactly as well as the best designs, then you need to give them absurd quirks. It can be done, it has almost been done, but then there was a river of tears because the DRG-1N had a DPS of a 100-tonner. It more or less had, but it still wasn't truly competitive.

If you just let go of that for a moment, the key issue here with the WHM quirks is that in terms of faction balance, where the best clan designs are balanced vs the best IS designs, PGI is nerfing the ONLY competitive heavy IS mech while leaving the two best clan competitive heavies untouched. These two heavies were better than the WHM to start with, and now they increase the performance gap!

That's the take home message, and the reason why I am righteously pissed off right now.

[El Bandito]

50 50, on 23 January 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

Balance the Night Gyr against the Orion IIC and the Timberwolf.

And against IS Orion.

[Bannok]

IS heavies are miles behind their clan counterparts. Hardpoints, geometry, tech. A new skill tree, available to both the IS/Clan arent going to help, especially with the removal of quirks. Better Clan mechs will just get better. Where once you could utilize the Quickdraw, Hopper, Blacknight, T'bolt or Warhammer, it feels like they have slowly made them nothing but walking biscuits to be fed upon by Clan Heavies.

[Ultimax]

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

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

The problem is that the IS does not now, nor will likely get anytime soon, another viable competitive 75T heavy mech.

The Black Knight at one time, through powerful quirks, was a beast but it was primarily those quirks (most of which are now gone) that made it what it was.


We are unlikely to see quirks like that again, and therefore unlikely to ever see IS mechs on 1:1 footing vs. Clan equivalent tonnages (unless PGI just continues to nerf Clan mechs to the point where they are likely to become unwieldy, unfun or both with the CERLLAS being a prime of example of how far nerfing has to go and what that means for actual play-ability vs. numbers on a spreadsheet)

This is why the WHM was a go-to in these comparisons as it was the last of the IS heavy holdouts that had both strong offensive & strong defensive quirks.

Edited by Ultimax, 23 January 2017 - 10:03 AM.

[MischiefSC]

The Archer is never going to compete with the WHR without clown shoes wearing quirks. The Orion is never going to compete with a bowl of moldy fruit without all the quirks that ever quirked. Or may, just crazy crazy maybe, the geometry rework every other mech got so that if I don't have LRMs in the side torso it's not bigger than the CT of most mechs in big flat open spaces.

Of course being an IS mech it can't get the Clan-special 'all extra hardpoints are cockpit level, torsos get shrunk vertically and all arm weapon mounts are nipple height' thing that's been the rage for the last year.

The WHR is the go-to because it carries energy and ballistics and has good hitboxes and the hardpoints are not dragging on the ground. The Cataphract has horrible hitboxes and always will. It has low hardpoints and always will. It has JJs, which is great, but it doesn't make up for the other two failings. It will never, ever be able to use an XL because it's shaped like a barn door. As such it will never be able to boat as much firepower as its Clan counterparts and will, always and in every way, be inferior to similar tonnage Clan mechs because PGI has clearly stated that they are either unable or unwilling to balance critical tech differences.

The Archer will never, ever and in any way be comparable to the WHR because missiles, LRMs or SRMs, will always be second place to energy and ballistics because precision direct fire > splatter effects. If IS missiles weight 1/2 what they do now, like Clan mechs do, you might see something akin to the TBR splat build on an Archer - but it lacks the JJs, the speed and due to IS v Clan XL balance the ability to safely use an XL to carry the tonnage.

Nothing you do short of truly stupid quirks will make the WHR an 'equal' choice to the Archer and Cataphract because the other two have **** physical designs and loadout options and PGI has spent several years abjectly and completely failing to balance IS to Clan tech and shows absolutely no signs, at all, of ever fixing that and have flatly stated in this same patch they are either incapable or unwilling to do so.

So the only thing, at all, in any way, shape or form that the nerf to the WHR does is remove IS heavies save from ERLL GHRs from the equation. Full stop. End of topic, end of relevance. Unless the Archer and Phract get ERPPC Lightning Voimt TDR level quirks they will never be able to compete because what they need to do so is something PGI will not do, because it would greatly help balance the game and that's a concept they have spent years resisting.

So all this does is eliminate IS heavies and push decks to 2x assault, 2x medium and ensure you won't see an IS heavy save the GHR in any comp matches.

As such it's a stupid choice to cap off years of consistently bad balance decisions.

YEARS.

To put it into perspective you can meet a girl, have coitus, she can conceive, carry that baby to term, it can then learn to crawl, then to walk and toddle along and start learning to speak in the time that PGI has consistently failed to balance IS/Clan tech.

When someone fails that consistently at something it's not a failure - that failure is their business model.

[Bud Crue]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

When someone fails that consistently at something it's not a failure - that failure is their business model.

Yet, they apparently are so flush with cash that they can fund MW5 and this game. That seems to suggest that their failing at balance doesn't seem to be affecting their business, regardless of what we may think of it. They may even have "data" showing that every time they nerf something they sell more of something else. That's not a bad model business, that's stupid customers.

[Mystere]

Bud Crue, on 23 January 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Yet, they apparently are so flush with cash that they can fund MW5 and this game. That seems to suggest that their failing at balance doesn't seem to be affecting their business, regardless of what we may think of it. They may even have "data" showing that every time they nerf something they sell more of something else. That's not a bad model business, that's stupid customers.

Is it too early for me to call it?

Mystere, on 21 January 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

Given that PGI is a business, in the end what matters most is income. If they think doing what they do will result in an increase in income, then that is what will happen. Whether you or I like it or not does not matter.

Economics vs. Science.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bud Crue, on 23 January 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

That's not a bad model business, that's stupid customers.

That's not a "bad" business model for them but it is an flawed model for the sake of the game.

[Oberost]

Bud Crue, on 23 January 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Yet, they apparently are so flush with cash that they can fund MW5 and this game. That seems to suggest that their failing at balance doesn't seem to be affecting their business, regardless of what we may think of it. They may even have "data" showing that every time they nerf something they sell more of something else. That's not a bad model business, that's stupid customers.

Well, you have a perfect example everytime they release a Mech pack: a lot of people just start drooling over their new toy and quickly forget all the past mistakes because hey, IT'S A NEW MECH!!!

[Bud Crue]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 January 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

That's not a "bad" business model for them but it is an flawed model for the sake of the game.

No argument from me...but PGI seems to think it is not flawed, but apparently rather lucrative. I've tried to argue before that if they worked toward balance rather than power creep, former whales (like me) would return to their free spending ways. The fact that they appear to have embraced perpetual power creep shows, at least to me, that they think attempts at balance...serious attempts at balance are not worth bothering with.

Now, how's about a nice new Javelin to replace all your pos Spiders hmm?