86 replies to this topic

[Ewigan]

Reported for personal Insults.

And no: i did not look at the leaderboards, but thanks for noting that there do exist (a lot of) players who play more then i do.

but kudos to you to at least notice the only actual fact that we have

[Bud Crue]

Leone, on 02 May 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

It pains me to bypass the Hunchback Mark Two an the Nova, But my suggest would be as follows:

Madcat, Cauldron Born, Loki, and a Jenner Mark Two, Clan Edition, (IIC for short.)

I cannot, in good conscience, suggest an assault if you're not gonna have other mechs to switch out based on the map you get. Whilst many a glorious mech and a hefty allocation of tonnage, an assault is often to well specialized to be used as a generalist mech.

~Leone.

Thanks Leone.

As to your last comment...not even a Mad IIc? I see em all the time in group que along with a Night Gyr (seemingly the most common clan mechs in group queue of late) and both seem tougher than cobs so my impulse was to acquire them. I admit that is a fairly slow start to a drop deck (intent was Hunch IIc and then AC for differnce), and my fear is exactly what you hint at regarding the need for more flexibility due to the QP maps. I'll keep thinking on it. I appreciate the advice.

[Damnedtroll]

Maybe something like ''battlevalue'' that's used on the board game. You can have a certain amount of battlevalue for your drop deck and it's based on what's in your mech but also your tier.

I know tier is not the mirror of skill but at least it's something that exist... You need to remove all quirk and buff before for this to work...

Edited by Damnedtroll, 03 May 2017 - 12:58 PM.

[Leone]

Bud Crue, on 03 May 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

Thanks Leone.

As to your last comment...not even a Mad IIc? I see em all the time in group que along with a Night Gyr (seemingly the most common clan mechs in group queue of late) and both seem tougher than cobs so my impulse was to acquire them. I admit that is a fairly slow start to a drop deck (intent was Hunch IIc and then AC for differnce), and my fear is exactly what you hint at regarding the need for more flexibility due to the QP maps. I'll keep thinking on it. I appreciate the advice.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying my Marauder IICs, but I was thinking in terms of movement profile. You're never going to get those two upto standard clan speed. The Hunchback you could, but I feel that defeats the point of that mech too. All three of those are designed for more firepower at the expense of speed. Which, hey, if that's your thing, go for it! I'm all for it myself, but I can tell you, there are matches where I struggle to keep up with my team if'n I'm in a slower mech. And then there are the pug matches were the drop caller makes a bad call, I move up to help out, and the team abandons me cuz I'm too slow to pull out with em.

There are definite uses for the slow overgunned design, and if you were looking at multipule mechs, I'd be all for it. I'm thinking maximum utility with but four choices. And that means considering the conquest levels where your running everywhere, and the times you drop with a team that likes to move. (Also, if you like the arctic cheetah more'n the Jenner IIC, then take it. What's five tonnes between comrades, am I right?)

Sometimes the ability to be where your needed is more important than the ability to tank a little more an shoot a little harder. A good pilot can compensate a bit for those two. I mean, I suppose you can also try to find optimal pathing routes for your slower mechs and learn to anticipate enemy movements, but well, even then the ability to disengage and reposition is just too good.

~Leone.

Edited by Leone, 03 May 2017 - 09:08 AM.

[Lovas]

Ragnar Baron Leiningen, on 01 May 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

I say instead of bringing IS down 5 tons just bring clans up 5 tons. You achieve the same result
That would be 3 65 ton mechs and a 50 ton mech. That's a hell of a lot of good options for clan.

I could get down with this

justcallme A S H, on 02 May 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

Agree and don't. If they actually FIXED the tech imbalance (IS XL, Potarting PPFLD) then you'd find a lot of Merc units will happily play both sides once you also tie in the fix for the contract calculations as you also stated (another appalling oversight).

Didn't think of it quite that way, but I see your point and agree with it.

Ewigan, on 02 May 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

Honestly, do you guys even play FP?

I faction play bro...

Edited by Lovas, 03 May 2017 - 09:27 AM.

[R Valentine]

Leggin Ho, on 21 April 2017 - 08:03 PM, said:

So if anyone from PGI would like to I'd love to see the tonnage be set back to even as it's at a stupid level when you have two teams that are equal it comes down to the extra tonnage for the IS and the ability of them to run assaults and heavies on 3 wave and still have a Med on the last wave. You can win the 1st two waves and still lose when you have to bring med or lights vs their heavies or even assaults at the end of the match.

Looks like Clan Crocodile Tears got a new member!

[Charles Sennet]

Tarl Cabot, on 21 April 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

You dont really have to. But geez, look at the IS map, Clan are still heading south....You would have a point if IS was pushing Clans back to the Periphery but I am not seeing that happening, do you?

This is mostly due to the quality of PUG's. Organized IS teams certainly do not need an extra 300 tons which is more like an extra 400 tons when you factor in their durability quirks. People (including PGI) need to stop citing the map as a measure of balance. As long as one side is the most common entry point into the game for newer players, the map will naturally tilt the other way.

Edited by Charles Sennet, 09 May 2017 - 03:34 PM.

[Leggin Ho]

Actually using Faction play in ANY way is a stupid way to try to balance mechs, but what else is PGI using.........

[justcallme A S H]

Lovas, on 03 May 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

Didn't think of it quite that way, but I see your point and agree with it.

Yeah that's the problem it's not just a "single" thing to sort/fix or what have you. It's many things given the amount of breaking that's gone on since FP3 and FP4.1 - I honestly think FP2 was better.

[Tarl Cabot]

Charles Sennet, on 03 May 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

This is mostly due to the quality of PUG's. Organized IS teams certainly do not need an extra 300 tons which is more like an extra 400 tons when you factor in their durability quirks. People (including PGI) need to stop citing the map as a measure of balance. As long as one side is the most common entry point into the game for newer, the map will naturally tilt the other way.

Late to the party, aren't we? The map is simply a byproduct due to PGI lack of foresight and the unwillingness to completely break away from the actual boardgame rules, rules that instead should be used more as a guideline.

Hai, allegedly (who am I kidding) IS has more pugs than Clans, but then many of the more active veteran units tend to side with Clans more than IS. Which, as announced in Dec 2016 before the holidays, is the primary reason PGI changed the tonnage parameters. Then during a twitter w/another player, Russ also made the comment that it was also a bandaid when the player asked what about the tech imbalance.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 04 May 2017 - 04:34 PM.

[Jubblator]

Leggin Ho, on 21 April 2017 - 08:03 PM, said:

So if anyone from PGI would like to I'd love to see the tonnage be set back to even as it's at a stupid level when you have two teams that are equal it comes down to the extra tonnage for the IS and the ability of them to run assaults and heavies on 3 wave and still have a Med on the last wave. You can win the 1st two waves and still lose when you have to bring med or lights vs their heavies or even assaults at the end of the match.

And youre loosing exactly how much? Oh wait lets look at the counter over there...

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

For what it's worth :

Tina Benoit, on 04 May 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

Perhaps these stats may peak your interests too!
Out of a total of 93 recent Conflicts:

Total Clan victories (actual): 9
Total IS victories (actual): 7
Total Stalemates (actual): 77
Total Clan victories, if counting just 1 point of Clan progress along the Tug of War (a Tukayyid victory condition): 55
Total IS victories, if counting just 1 point of IS progress along the Tug of War (a Tukayyid victory condition): 36

[Lily from animove]

Tarl Cabot, on 21 April 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

You dont really have to. But geez, look at the IS map, Clan are still heading south....You would have a point if IS was pushing Clans back to the Periphery but I am not seeing that happening, do you?

because mechbalance and faction balance is the same?

Edited by Lily from animove, 06 May 2017 - 05:27 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

[Trenchbird]

My reaction to OP;

[SirMad]

THE event shows: The clans need more help!

[C E Dwyer]

Bad will still be bad, no matter what tech they use.

I played both sides yesterday, played five as clan four as IS. Contract changed.

Only lost one game, that game was an I.S game.

Also look at where the bar is in the event, so um yeah, guess what I think this is a case of.

[myhorseisamaz1ng]

man do u see current overall progress graph? it is not 40\60 or 30\70, its not even 80\20, ITS 0\100!
and u whining that not enough mass at clan dropdeck? rly?

[Leggin Ho]

SirMad, on 07 May 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

THE event shows: The clans need more help!

The even shows that the majority of the good teams are were clans when it started, nothing more.

SirMad, on 07 May 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

THE event shows: The clans need more help!

The even shows that the majority of the good teams were clans when it started, nothing more.

[MustrumRidcully]

Of course, the Clans naturally attract the best players, because everyone knows in Battletech Clan Pilots were better, too .The bad players gravitate towards the IS, because they know that's where they belong. That makes perfect sense.