181 replies to this topic

[The Lighthouse]

Bombast, on 30 January 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

I just went through the thread again. No stats were provided by you, or anyone else, on the other league activity. Only people 'saying' whats good there, no hard numbers that I can find.

Of course, I just realized I didn't provide anything either, for which I apologize. I had the links, just forgot to post them.

Here's a half minute spreadsheet I was logging stuff on as I checked...

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

EDIT: I wouldn't trust the variants I scribbled in, though. For some reason, the mech board on the stream gets a bit wonky, and the lets go i and out.

And here's the Twitch stream I was pulling the mechs from, though I cannot find the shortcuts at the moment.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/105055090

I have been keep saying that Clan Battlemechs, which have both advantages of IS AND Clan, are the most powerful mechs.

It seems a lot of competitive players have same thoughts as this lowly tier 2 player has. It's literally filled with battlemechs.

[PhoenixFire55]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 January 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

Having skilled teams is not equivalent to being of equal skill. EON and probably RJF are the only ones that I would say actually contend with NA Div A (well prior to the massive burnout for NA teams).

This statement clearly shows you are even more ignorant of what happens in EU comp scene than I am of NA side. Nor did you even bother to simply look at MRBC EU standings in any of the last 3-4 seasons.

You don't know everything either, so stop acting like you do.
There isn't much left to discuss.

Mcgral18, on 30 January 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

This triggered me, because of the misinformation...
I went and spent 5 minutes in Blender to show you how wrong you are

Clams are Red, Spheroid are Green

Dem worthless, 1.5 ton less SRM+A launchers.

I take it you pictured the SRM spread patterns? ... So please point where did I mention anything about SRM spread?

[PhoenixFire55]

Bombast, on 30 January 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

Here's a half minute spreadsheet I was logging stuff on as I checked...

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

EDIT: I wouldn't trust the variants I scribbled in, though. For some reason, the mech board on the stream gets a bit wonky, and the lets go i and out.

And here's the Twitch stream I was pulling the mechs from, though I cannot find the shortcuts at the moment.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/105055090

Oh dear ...

These are from MWOWC again. For god knows what time ... the MWOWC has been run on a client version dating back to May 2016. That is 7 months old client version.

We understood already that MWOWC is the only competitive tournament you are aware of, but sadly for you it is totally irrelevant in regards of game balance for half a year. I can give you a screenshot of a top division competitive match with 10 Highlanders + 2 Spiders vs 10 Highlanders + 2 Ravens dating back to 2013 and start discussing game balance. Now wouldn't that be fun?

[Bombast]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

Oh dear ...

These are from MWOWC again. For god knows what time ... the MWOWC has been run on a client version dating back to May 2016. That is 7 months old client version.

We understood already that MWOWC is the only competitive tournament you are aware of, but sadly for you it is totally irrelevant in regards of game balance for half a year. I can give you a screenshot of a top division competitive match with 10 Highlanders + 2 Spiders vs 10 Highlanders + 2 Ravens dating back to 2013 and start discussing game balance. Now wouldn't that be fun?

And... still no data presented.

Completely missing the point here, aren't you? As of right now, the only competitive analysis available in this thread is, in fact, from MWOWC, from me. Getting indignant and hissy is not a counter argument or opposing data.

The amusing thing is that what I provided is hilariously flimsy. And yet you can't be bothered to provide anything in opposition to it. If what you claim is true, it should take all of two minutes to prove it.

Edited by Bombast, 31 January 2017 - 06:13 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

I take it you pictured the SRM spread patterns? ... So please point where did I mention anything about SRM spread?

You mentioned splat cat and SRMs in the same sentence.... so very clearly

Quote

Not really, no. SplatCat is better IMO, mostly because it isn't plagued by useless clan SRMs.

you should mention the additional armor of SplatCats missile doors to bolster your statement

[PhoenixFire55]

Karl Streiger, on 31 January 2017 - 06:26 AM, said:

You mentioned splat cat and SRMs in the same sentence.... so very clearly

you should mention the additional armor of SplatCats missile doors to bolster your statement

You know your joke would have been funny if you yourself had half a clue ...
Its not like IS SRMs do .15 more damage per missile ...
Or have higher projectile speed and cooldown rates due to quirks ...
Or much better average hit reg ...

[Mcgral18]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

You know your joke would have been funny if you yourself had half a clue ...
Its not like IS SRMs do .15 more damage per missile ...
Or have higher projectile speed and cooldown rates due to quirks ...
Or much better average hit reg ...

Shitreg would be identical
3 points of damage is not really worth mentioning for twice/+1.5 tons per launcher
Quirks are not a universal thing

There's a half meter radius difference, times .66 for Art

[PhoenixFire55]

Bombast, on 31 January 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

And... still no data presented.

I'm not here to tie your shoes or spoonfeed you. All leagues that are worth mentioning provide free access to screenshots of all matches.

Bombast, on 31 January 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

Completely missing the point here, aren't you? As of right now, the only competitive analysis available in this thread is, in fact, from MWOWC, from me. Getting indignant and hissy is not a counter argument or opposing data.

Its not like I want to spoil your self admiration or anything, but the analysis of MWOWC drop decks were available on this forum since 2 weeks into the tournament somewhere around the start of July 2016. But this thread isn't about MWOWC, nor was the discussion regarding "competitive scene" directed at you at any point of it.

Bombast, on 31 January 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

The amusing thing is that what I provided is hilariously flimsy. And yet you can't be bothered to provide anything in opposition to it. If what you claim is true, it should take all of two minutes to prove it.

Well since you posted a really relevant data, here is my response ...
Link.
Note how all mechs on both sides are IS mechs.
IS OP, please nerf.
Now I wonder how long it'll take you to finally figure it out ...

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 31 January 2017 - 06:47 AM.

[Mawai]

All of the above.

Balance isn't one thing ... it is all of them put together.

If you want equally effective but different then you implement different mechanics for each side that counter the weaknesses on the other.

e.g. if Clan XL do not die on ST death but IS XL do ... then if you keep that as a distinct play difference between clan and IS you have to balance it elsewhere. Perhaps ... IS STD engines provide large structure boosts. Clan STD provide some structure boosts. IS XL provide structure boosts though not as much as an IS STD engine. This trades engine vulnerability for survivability if you can spread damage.

You could introduce tech differences for upgrades like Endo and Ferro perhaps providing additional benefits. IS Endo and Ferro take twice as many crit slots ... so boost the performance of these on IS mechs to help balance it. Maybe using Endo allows for a 5% speed boost for IS or faster torso twist. Ferro provides 5% laser damage mitigation. There are a huge number of things that could be done.

The real issue is that balance is everything put together and unless you want a truly boring game you can't work on this by balancing each piece separately ... to get equally effective but different you need to balance on a holistic basis ... which is more difficult but ultimately more fun and rewarding in my opinion.

One thing to keep in mind ... creating balanced, fun and different clan vs IS mechs WILL BREAK LORE. There is no way around this at all. In Lore the clan technology was strictly superior across the board. MWO has been wrestling with this since the beginning and clan mechs are still 10% to 50% more effective than IS counterparts.

Will creating actually balanced mechs offend clan fans? Probably yes ... but if the balancing is done by buffs to IS tech rather than nerfs to clans then there will generally be far less complaint.

[Bombast]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

Well since you posted a really relevant data, here is my response ...
Link.
Note how all mechs on both sides are IS mechs.
IS OP, please nerf.
Now I wonder how long it'll take you to finally figure it out ...

2014. That's even older than what I'm running with.

Invalid right off the bat. If your argument is that the MWOWC teams were running off of teams too old, than your own data is twice as useless. Try again.

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

I'm not here to tie your shoes or spoonfeed you. All leagues that are worth mentioning provide free access to screenshots of all matches.

No, you're here to argue. Providing arguments and proof to back them up is how you do that.

Unless your just here to **** post and, more annoyingly, **** talk. If that's your objective, then please say so, so we can all go about the business of discussing the topic at hand while ignoring you.

Edited by Bombast, 31 January 2017 - 06:50 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Mcgral18, on 31 January 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

Shitreg would be identical
3 points of damage is not really worth mentioning for twice/+1.5 tons per launcher
Quirks are not a universal thing

There's a half meter radius difference, times .66 for Art

I can play the 'I pretend to be an idiot' game as well.

Clan ML is worse than IS ML, it only deals 2 more damage and barely has a 100m longer effective range but generates 50% more heat and has much greater burn duration.

[PhoenixFire55]

Bombast, on 31 January 2017 - 06:49 AM, said:

Invalid right off the bat.

Same as yours.

Bombast, on 31 January 2017 - 06:49 AM, said:

No, you're here to argue. Providing arguments and proof to back them up is how you do that.

I've clearly made my point in my first post in this thread, everything else comes from the lack of comprehension on some peoples part. As for arguments, you clearly have zero clue about the competitive scene apart from the MWOWC that was a dumbed down tournament with a horrible format dragging over 6 month on an outdated client and yet you plunge yourself into a discussion that people with inside knowledge are having making demands left and right. As I've said, not here to tie your shoes. Do your homework.

[Mcgral18]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

I can play the 'I pretend to be an idiot' game as well.

Clan ML is worse than IS ML, it only deals 2 more damage and barely has a 100m longer effective range but generates 50% more heat and has much greater burn duration.

You see, one of us is being objective, the other asinine
One costs the same tonnage, has higher dam, higher dam/tick and longer range, for more heat
The other gains a half meter (4.5 to 5) spread advantage and 0.9 damage, for 1.5 tons


You sure you aren't Gyrok?

[Bombast]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 07:00 AM, said:

I've clearly made my point in my first post in this thread, everything else comes from the lack of comprehension on some peoples part. As for arguments, you clearly have zero clue about the competitive scene apart from the MWOWC that was a dumbed down tournament with a horrible format dragging over 6 month on an outdated client and yet you plunge yourself into a discussion that people with inside knowledge are having making demands left and right. As I've said, not here to tie your shoes. Do your homework.

Points are useless without evidence. Which you refuse to provide. Which is depressing, because I'm basically softballing this in to you in an attempt to get any proof out of you.

I hereby declare you absolutely useless in the terms of any meaningful discussion, and decree that everyone is, from this point onward, perfectly justified in ignoring you, and are advised to do so. So sayeth the Bombast, and so it is true.

Edited by Bombast, 31 January 2017 - 07:18 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Bombast, on 31 January 2017 - 07:04 AM, said:

I hereby declare you absolutely useless in the terms of any meaningful discussion, and decree that everyone is, from this point onward, perfectly justified in ignoring you, and are advised to do so. So sayeth the Bombast, and so it is true.

*Shrug*. Good riddance.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

This statement clearly shows you are even more ignorant of what happens in EU comp scene than I am of NA side. Nor did you even bother to simply look at MRBC EU standings in any of the last 3-4 seasons.

EoN has only been around for 2 of those seasons (being formed much like EmP was) and RJF isn't new per se (I recognize names from my MW4 days), and comparing only the EU side against each other seems disingenuous when comparing against NA is it not? I have played against BSMC (without Proton) and EU AS in scrims and wasn't really impressed when they were still around so again I will say that EU is still not up to par with the competitiveness of NA with exception of those two teams I mentioned who can actually hold their own.

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

You don't know everything either, so stop acting like you do.
There isn't much left to discuss.

Double edged sword because you seem to be acting like you know everything. I think you may actually be projecting at this point because clearly you are out of touch with the meta among other things.

PhoenixFire55, on 31 January 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

I'm not here to tie your shoes or spoonfeed you. All leagues that are worth mentioning provide free access to screenshots of all matches.

Actually, they are currently removed from MRBC so you have to use the recordings to get that data, still I'm the only one that has presented recent data (again, I posted some stats from the top 2 teams of both divisions) and they seem to tell a different story than you do, so you wanna talk out of your butt some more or do you wanna help do some groundwork on actually getting some truth to this and add stats to my sheet?

For reference this is what I got after an hour of tedious work: https://docs.google....KDmwhfPhoE/edit

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 31 January 2017 - 09:46 AM.

[Tiantara]

- Ok let's put together all what make new players and players from tier 5-3 suffer more when they use XL engines on IS mech.

1. Less firepower and must have at least 2-3 DHS on many light and medium mech. Even if mech already have bigger than 1.4 heatmanagement.
2. More fragile mech because of low armor on side torso (both front and back sides) or with big side hit-boxes.
3. Less reward due fast death in QP and FP games (not enough damage or low reward for other activities).
4. Shorter game play (comparing to playing on Clan mech) due fast death from loosing side torso.
5. Many mech with hardly limited hardpoints and in same time limited firepower (some heavy and even assault mech have only 20-32 firepower sometimes with max possible builds).
6. Less effective scouting components (narc for example, bigger beagle probe by tonnage with same effect)
7. Totally fragile 80% of all light mech due XL engine side torso death penalty.
8. Extreme cost of XL engine. They was nice when we play against IS mech - so expensive engine give better speed over STD and compensate less fire power for better maneuverability. Right now - two mech with same XL engine rate have bigger difference in firepower, range and survivability. IS have nothing to overplay Clan unless more skilled pilots, luck or... enough maps with brawling\ambush possibility. But we have no such map in FP. Slow and really vulnerable mech walks on open space.

So... what can be changed easier than total revision each mech and another round of weapon balance (I saw how it was on PTS an I think right now weapon pretty close to balance).
- Change death penalty to -80% speed penalty. That make new strategy in gameplay - cover your become slow teammates and use their firepower or abandon them as decoy. I think - pro gamers will just eject from become so slow mech for new one, less skilled pilots maybe will fight to the death (until second side torso fell off). So changing from instant death to really slow motion change less in pro gamer playstyle but make less negative impact to other players (Yeap you loose side torso and become reeeeaaalllly slow, but you can still do a bit shoots. And maybe your teammate cover you from enemy fire, make teamplay more... team?). Especially of those who bought mech for real money or collect c-bills for one with XL engine (or for XL engine).

- Change all PPC mechanic to armor-burning gun. From pinpoint to splash with fixed core damage.
Core damage + splash (by arc) like:
- PPC - core damage 5-6 + splash damage 2+2 - 1.5+1.5 (-1 heat)(same range, maybe without minimum range) (change to 7 - 9 damage from 10 but not pinpoint)
- ER PPC - core damage 7 + splash damage 1.5+1.5 (-0.8 heat) (same 10 damage but not pinpoint)
- C-ER PPC - core damage 7 + splash damage 2+2 (-0.5 heat) (change to 11 damage from 15)
That make less effective poptarting, allow burn armor and kill some components placed on arc splash damage (as Clan have), eliminate such think as pinpoint impact from PPC. Allow more mech have quirks on speed or cooldown.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tiantara, on 31 January 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

- PPC - core damage 5-6 + splash damage 2+2 - 1.5+1.5 (-1 heat)(same range, maybe without minimum range) (change to 7 - 9 damage from 10 but not pinpoint)
- ER PPC - core damage 7 + splash damage 1.5+1.5 (-0.8 heat) (same 10 damage but not pinpoint)
- C-ER PPC - core damage 7 + splash damage 2+2 (-0.5 heat) (change to 11 damage from 15)

I'm just going to quickly point this out here but you can't nerf pinpoint AND damage output like that and expect the weapon to remain relevant....

[Tiantara]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 January 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

I'm just going to quickly point this out here but you can't nerf pinpoint AND damage output like that and expect the weapon to remain relevant....

- Arc splash damage can be tweaked as well as core damage. Even make it depending on how much PPC placed in mech. Why not? Its for example. Right now Clan PPC have 15 damage 10 from which come to pinpoint.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tiantara, on 31 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Why not? Its for example. Right now Clan PPC have 15 damage 10 from which come to pinpoint.

Yes, and you are talking about nerfing the only real viable PPC right now. Splash isn't the only solution to balance PPCs.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 31 January 2017 - 11:20 AM.