26 replies to this topic

[Direwoof]

I play both clan and is but have been having a lot more fun on the is side of things. No clue why is still get 25 more tons to play with, I personally feel clans should get 265 as well because is mechs are just as good on a 1 to 1 basis if you play the right ones. Compare the battlemaster with the warhawk or the annihilator with the Kodiak or the direwoof and the is mechs are probably better.

[El Bandito]

Direwoof, on 26 January 2018 - 08:13 PM, said:

I play both clan and is but have been having a lot more fun on the is side of things. No clue why is still get 25 more tons to play with, I personally feel clans should get 265 as well because is mechs are just as good on a 1 to 1 basis if you play the right ones. Compare the battlemaster with the warhawk or the annihilator with the Kodiak or the direwoof and the is mechs are probably better.

Why are you comparing T1 IS mechs with T2-3 Clan mechs? You should instead compare the Battlemaster to MAD-IIC. In general Clan mechs are still more powerful than IS mechs due to tech imbalance. Clans mechs trade better, Clan mechs take objectives better, and only in terms of durability do IS mechs have the edge.

Sure, both sides should have equal tonnage in FP, but the tech on both sides should be near equal competence in return. Otherwise, Clan mechs will always stay superior overall.

Edited by El Bandito, 26 January 2018 - 08:22 PM.

[SeventhSL]

Direwoof, on 26 January 2018 - 08:13 PM, said:

I play both clan and is but have been having a lot more fun on the is side of things. No clue why is still get 25 more tons to play with, I personally feel clans should get 265 as well because is mechs are just as good on a 1 to 1 basis if you play the right ones. Compare the battlemaster with the warhawk or the annihilator with the Kodiak or the direwoof and the is mechs are probably better.

I play FW on both sides too. I agree with levelling the scouting tonnage. CSPL nerf, Civil War tech and the release of a couple of good Mechs for IS has really helped them out in scouting. We will see how this turns out.

I don't think Invasion decks should be the same though. I feel that IS is better then people give them credit for but ton for ton my Clan Mechs generally hit harder.

In my option it is unrealistic to expect Mechs to be balanced ton for ton or by class as we saw in the Mech selection for the worlds. Using those methods we are only ever going to see the best Mechs in those tonnage or classes. I think we need a battle rating for each Mech. In this way Mechs don't need to be nerfed or buffed to fit a particular power level.

[Direwoof]

SeventhSL, on 26 January 2018 - 09:51 PM, said:

I play FW on both sides too. I agree with levelling the scouting tonnage. CSPL nerf, Civil War tech and the release of a couple of good Mechs for IS has really helped them out in scouting. We will see how this turns out.

I don't think Invasion decks should be the same though. I feel that IS is better then people give them credit for but ton for ton my Clan Mechs generally hit harder.

In my option it is unrealistic to expect Mechs to be balanced ton for ton or by class as we saw in the Mech selection for the worlds. Using those methods we are only ever going to see the best Mechs in those tonnage or classes. I think we need a battle rating for each Mech. In this way Mechs don't need to be nerfed or buffed to fit a particular power level.

Yeah I like the idea of having BV from battletech. But some mechs are much better than they should be in this game. An anihilator or an atlas are never supposed to be better than a Kodiak but they are in this game.

[justcallme A S H]

El Bandito, on 26 January 2018 - 08:16 PM, said:

Why are you comparing T1 IS mechs with T2-3 Clan mechs? You should instead compare the Battlemaster to MAD-IIC. In general Clan mechs are still more powerful than IS mechs due to tech imbalance. Clans mechs trade better, Clan mechs take objectives better, and only in terms of durability do IS mechs have the edge.

Sure, both sides should have equal tonnage in FP, but the tech on both sides should be near equal competence in return. Otherwise, Clan mechs will always stay superior overall.

Because it's easier to prove your totally incorrect point if you marr discussion with some irrelevant comparisons.

[A Man In A Can]

SeventhSL, on 26 January 2018 - 09:51 PM, said:

I think we need a battle rating for each Mech. In this way Mechs don't need to be nerfed or buffed to fit a particular power level.

This is why I have a feeling the Solaris mech tier rating system proposed at MechCon won't be limited to just Solaris. The way I figure, PGI plans to use Solaris as a proof of concept to hammer out the kinks of specific mech ranks before such a rating system gets baked into the matchmaker algorithms for all other modes. Even if the 1v1 nature of Solaris gets abused, and a majority of existing players avoid it, the effort put into ranking mechs by tier won't be wasted.

Not that the 1v1 option won't be wasted either, but that's for a different discussion.

[XDevilsChariotX]

I'd like to see Clan tonnage moved up to 250t. I think that's reasonable.

[ROSS-128]

You know, the IIC mechs kind of give us a rather clear way to compare tech-bases by putting nearly-identical loadouts in nearly-identical mechs.

HBK-4P

HBK-IIC-A

Just take a look at that. The clan mech gets a bigger alpha, higher DPS, it's more heat efficient, and has longer range. All for the price of 0.3s of burn time. That poor, poor clan mech, so "underpowered".

Now obviously neither of those are meta builds, so how about we cram an ERLL boat build into both of them and see what happens?

HBK-4P

HBK-IIC-A

So, the clan mech runs a little hotter now mostly because the IS mech pulled most of its extra weight for the LLs from its engine and the fact that going from 9ML to 3LL freed up enough space to put endo on, while the clan mech had to pull most of its weight from heatsinks because it was already running XL and Endo. But 42% isn't bad. It still has nearly double the alpha, higher DPS, and higher speed because a half-ton left over from taking Ferro (which it has slots to take, unlike the IS mech) was enough to bump it up 15 engine rating. It also, of course, still has longer range.

If it doesn't mind sacrificing that range advantage of course, it can swap two of the ERLLs for HLLs to increase its alpha even more and allow it to fire all four lasers together.

The medium laser version can also do a similar trick if it doesn't mind having to deal with its range being merely equal to the IS:

HBK-IIC-A

Though it does have to take endo off to make room for HMeds being 2 slots. Which basically just means it has to drop two heatsinks and shave a half-ton of armor.

That's why IS gets extra tonnage. You take two nearly-identical mechs, put IS tech in one and Clan tech in the other, and that's what you get.

Edited by ROSS-128, 27 January 2018 - 09:21 AM.

[Luminis]

ROSS-128, on 27 January 2018 - 09:20 AM, said:

If it doesn't mind sacrificing that range advantage of course, it can swap two of the ERLLs for HLLs to increase its alpha even more and allow it to fire all four lasers together.

ER Larges and Heavy Larges are GH linked.

ROSS-128, on 27 January 2018 - 09:20 AM, said:

That's why IS gets extra tonnage. You take two nearly-identical mechs, put IS tech in one and Clan tech in the other, and that's what you get.

Despite them being kinda sorta equal 'Mechs, I don't think the HBK makes for a good comparison. The IS HBK isn't a top tier Medium while the HBK-IIC is (same fallacy OP made when comparing the Anni and the Direwolf). On other 'Mechs, you have quirks to compensate which ought to be more of a balancing tool than tonnage in FP.

[ROSS-128]

Luminis, on 27 January 2018 - 09:30 AM, said:

ER Larges and Heavy Larges are GH linked.


Despite them being kinda sorta equal 'Mechs, I don't think the HBK makes for a good comparison. The IS HBK isn't a top tier Medium while the HBK-IIC is (same fallacy OP made when comparing the Anni and the Direwolf). On other 'Mechs, you have quirks to compensate which ought to be more of a balancing tool than tonnage in FP.

I think the tier difference actually just illustrates the point further.

If you take a T3 IS mech and stuff clantech in it, you suddenly get a T1 mech. Gee, I wonder why. The world may never know.

Now, granted they're not 100% identical because the 4P has the single hunch while the IIC has it split on both sides... but isn't that technically supposed to be an advantage to the 4P? Sure doesn't seem to help.

I will concede though that the Orion/IIC and Highlander/IIC might make slightly more accurate comparison sets overall (though both families are less meta-friendly in general because their hardpoints are a wee bit schizo), because their hardpoints and geometry are more strongly preserved across tech bases. The Orion 1k and Orion IIC base variant have 100% identical hardpoints, which may make those two a particularly good control group.

[Luminis]

ROSS-128, on 27 January 2018 - 09:38 AM, said:

I think the tier difference actually just illustrates the point further.

If you take a T3 IS mech and stuff clantech in it, you suddenly get a T1 mech. Gee, I wonder why. The world may never know.

Now, granted they're not 100% identical because the 4P has the single hunch while the IIC has it split on both sides... but isn't that technically supposed to be an advantage to the 4P? Sure doesn't seem to help.

I will concede though that the Orion/IIC and Highlander/IIC might make slightly more accurate comparison sets overall (though both families are less meta-friendly in general because their hardpoints are a wee bit schizo), because their hardpoints and geometry are more strongly preserved across tech bases. The Orion 1k and Orion IIC base variant have 100% identical hardpoints, which may make those two a particularly good control group.

I don't think anyone is gonna disagree with the assertion that ceteris paribus Clan Tech is just better. One glance at the isXL of the isDHS pretty much confirms that.

But with overall balance, which is what matters in FP, that's still slightly besides the point. The HBK-IIC being way better than the IS counterpart says nothing about whether a 25 ton advantage for the IS is still necessary if both factions bring good Mechs and builds.

IS and Clan tech being equally powerful but in different ways is a great goal and we're still a ways off, but thanks to quirks and unique load outs on either side, it's not quite as clear cut as the HBK "benchmark" suggests.

Edited by Luminis, 27 January 2018 - 09:57 AM.

[K O Z A K]

You can't really compare clan and IS hunchbacks, despite the names/looks they're very different mechs occupying very different roles

As for OP, if you're having more fun with it, why not stay IS for a while? IS is much more forward push oriented, and some players prefer that

[Khobai]

clan tonnage should be moved upto 250 at least so clans can bring at least one assault without ruining their dropdecks

[Novakaine]

Nope Clans have clear and distinctive advantage.
PGI has stated that themselves.
Which is why now Clan wait time are ridiculous in FW.
Anything else you might say is just being disingenuous.

[K O Z A K]

Novakaine, on 27 January 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Nope Clans have clear and distinctive advantage.
PGI has stated that themselves.
Which is why now Clan wait time are ridiculous in FW.
Anything else you might say is just being disingenuous.

here come the "I play IS so clam OP" and the "I play clan so IS OP" players

I've had 3 ghost drops since I switched to clan a few weeks ago, most of the time instadrops

[Mystere]

Instead of using tonnage (or just using tonnage), we should have ... drum roll please ...

Clan Formations vs. IS Formations

and tailored to the drop at hand.

Edited by Mystere, 27 January 2018 - 12:18 PM.

[Khobai]

what do you mean by formations

like 3/3/3/3?

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 27 January 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

what do you mean by formations

like 3/3/3/3?

Clan are organized into a number of Stars, Binaries, or Trinaries. IS are organized into a number of Lances, Companies, or Battalions.

Edited by Mystere, 27 January 2018 - 12:31 PM.

[ROSS-128]

The only way "12v10" would work would be if it was more like 16v10, and the IS side was actually between one and four players controlling one to four lances per player RTS style. So basically, if you tried to balance with body count, you wouldn't even be able to pilot IS mechs at all because if each IS mech needs a pilot, you'll never find enough bodies to fill the seats.

And the bots on their RTS mechs would need to be pretty damn competent.

[Luminis]

ROSS-128, on 27 January 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:

The only way "12v10" would work would be if it was more like 16v10, and the IS side was actually between one and four players controlling one to four lances per player RTS style. So basically, if you tried to balance with body count, you wouldn't even be able to pilot IS mechs at all because if each IS mech needs a pilot, you'll never find enough bodies to fill the seats.

And the bots on their RTS mechs would need to be pretty damn competent.

I think we're far too deep down the rabbit hole to seperate IS v. Clan in QP and revert to a bespoke, asymmetric balancing scheme. I mean, if that was to be done, having just more players play on one team would be possible, but assuming both teams have an equal shot at winning, you'd be struck with a lower KDR on the IS side, so I doubt the IS would be very popular.

Be that as it may, PGI is implementing their Mech Tiering System with Solaris. I doubt much good will come from it, to be perfectly honest, but if it was implemented well (as if) and used properly (as if), it micht make for a nice basis for a makeshift BV for Quick Play and Faction Play.