114 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Zergling, on 02 August 2017 - 11:20 PM, said:

3-3 firing would lower its sustained DPS from 5.83 to 4.70 (no skills).

Warhawk C without ER PPC splash being counted is 3.73 sustained DPS, 5.59 sustained DPS if it is counted.

Yeah so it depends... for a minimum exposure poke 3-3 would be better, you can do it twice before shut down, so thats a total of 132 damage at 800+m before having to hide. If fending off a push then yeah 2-2-2.

[Lucifaust]

I like to hop in fw matches just about every time I play mwo. I always play clan ( just because I like the lore/aesthetic). I'm not affiliated with any big group/unit, though I am a permanent wolf loyalist (their lore sounded coolest to me).

What I've noticed is that in-game clan on whole has been gradually getting weaker. It's a trend I've been aware of for a while now. Originally, clan were powerful, big muscular and angry new kids in town, right? Now they're pretty damn atrophied, like the 40k god emperor of man who was once a force to be reckoned with, but now weak and impotent, though he supposedly still rules.

Clan doesn't really rule anymore. Clans have been targeted for nerf so long, you have to be a masochist to like playing them. A single IS assault (annihilator?) cored my fresh dire wolf in 3 shots one time. full armor. Needless to say, we've been losing most matches lately, and it's disheartening, so I just stopped playing fw.

[Zergling]

Lucifaust, on 03 August 2017 - 01:46 AM, said:

A single IS assault (annihilator?) cored my fresh dire wolf in 3 shots one time. full armor.

Even if you had 10 rear armor and no survival tree armor/structure nodes, that is still 176 damage, for 58.67 damage per salvo.

Did you really just let a 2x Heavy Gauss + PPC Annihilator, fire 3 alphas into your CT from under 200 meters?

Edited by Zergling, 03 August 2017 - 01:58 AM.

[DrxAbstract]

Carl Vickers, on 01 August 2017 - 06:23 PM, said:

That will more than likely change when IS tonnage goes to 250 as well. Too many terribads relying on extra tonnage to win the match bringing too many assaults.

First off, a 15 ton differential is not huge--It's meager. 180 Tons split between 12 people (Assuming all 12 actually utilize a full 265 Tons) puts 3,000 Tons of Clan Tech against 3,180 Tons of IS Tech in a setting where Clans typically have the advantage: Range, Durability and DPP(Dmg per poke).

Secondly, you're asserting that the tonnage difference allows some absurd, assault-laden decks when the class of choice is currently, and has historically been, Heavies. Especially with IS's utter lack of an FW compatible, or competitive-level, Assault Mech beyond the Battlemaster, whereas Clans have KDKs, MAD IICs and now MC IICs.

I mean really, take the extra 15 tons. I'll swap out my Cicada for a Mando, which is a lot more annoying and harder to kill anyway, and keep my 3xHeavy line-up. What was accomplished? Absolutely nothing... which is what the tonnage difference essentially amounted to in the first place; A distraction and empty solution to the wrong problem.

[Racerxintegra2k]

OH no clans are losing in faction play for once ... lets nerf the other side quick. We cant possibly let the IS players that have suffered for years get a couple wins. Give me a break.

Playing field is relatively level now. IS players that had to get gud aren't fighting with one arm tied behind there backs anymore.

If you are getting stomped, your coordination as a team sucks period. This is not a tech imbalance issue. Tech imbalance issue was the last 2 years. Clans held a significant advantage and yes i'm bitter and want revenge.

PS: I have both an IS account and Clan account. My stats were significantly better on my clan account for years... only recently have they achieved relative parity.

[Luminis]

Racerxintegra2k, on 03 August 2017 - 02:33 AM, said:

This is not a tech imbalance issue.

No tech balance issue = equal tonnage, right?

[Formosa The God]

DrxAbstract, on 03 August 2017 - 02:23 AM, said:

First off, a 15 ton differential is not huge--It's meager. 180 Tons split between 12 people (Assuming all 12 actually utilize a full 265 Tons) puts 3,000 Tons of Clan Tech against 3,180 Tons of IS Tech in a setting where Clans typically have the advantage: Range, Durability and DPP(Dmg per poke).

Secondly, you're asserting that the tonnage difference allows some absurd, assault-laden decks when the class of choice is currently, and has historically been, Heavies. Especially with IS's utter lack of an FW compatible, or competitive-level, Assault Mech beyond the Battlemaster, whereas Clans have KDKs, MAD IICs and now MC IICs.

I mean really, take the extra 15 tons. I'll swap out my Cicada for a Mando, which is a lot more annoying and harder to kill anyway, and keep my 3xHeavy line-up. What was accomplished? Absolutely nothing... which is what the tonnage difference essentially amounted to in the first place; A distraction and empty solution to the wrong problem.

3180 IS
2880 clan
300 ton difference, not much when you show it in a vacuum, but when you consider that IS can outrange clan (quirks and skill tree) and bring more tonnage for assaults, combined with a 20 ton mech (clan lowest is 30), the disparity is even larger, IS can simply fit more into there drop decks, this is not a complaint, its just a fact, I like playing both IS and Clan in FW (i prefer IS as the mechs just look so cool).

There seems to be this myth that clan also out range IS, this is not true for the top tier of games, quirked out IS mech i use out range my clan mechs by quite a margin, i had a 1050m effective range ERPPC battlemaster and 900+ ERLL, combine this with duration quirks (and skill tree), you get longer range, lower heat, shorter burn but more slots and heavier.

As to the tonnage, wasnt it made the way it is as the more skilled players are on the clan side? i was told this is what Russ said?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Formosa The God, on 03 August 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

quirked out IS mech i use out range my clan mechs by quite a margin, i had a 1050m effective range ERPPC battlemaster and 900+ ERLL, combine this with duration quirks (and skill tree), you get longer range, lower heat, shorter burn but more slots and heavier.

I can get 931m ranged cERPPCs on a Supernova and have the cooling to actually use them better than a Battlemaster. I can use the Supernova for 4 cERLL with a TComp 7 (get's me 10% extra range) and have much sustained than the Battlemaster as well on top of equivalent range.

[Racerxintegra2k]

Luminis, on 03 August 2017 - 06:54 AM, said:

No tech balance issue = equal tonnage, right?

You have my support, in fact i'd rather see clans bring heavier mechs. I've lost more CW matches because of arctic cheetahs capping as opposed to MAD IIC crushing through IS lines.

[Formosa The God]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 August 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

I can get 931m ranged cERPPCs on a Supernova and have the cooling to actually use them better than a Battlemaster. I can use the Supernova for 4 cERLL with a TComp 7 (get's me 10% extra range) and have much sustained than the Battlemaster as well on top of equivalent range.

Um... well done I suppose, your 5 ton heavier mech, that is slower and less useful has less range and lower arm mounts, is better? Plus your 90tons is taking up a lot more relative space in your deck, can you fit 2 supernova in your deck, a heavy and a light?

I'm not sure if your trying to prove my point?

[FupDup]

Formosa The God, on 03 August 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

Um... well done I suppose, your 5 ton heavier mech, that is slower and less useful has less range and lower arm mounts, is better? Plus your 90tons is taking up a lot more relative space in your deck, can you fit 2 supernova in your deck, a heavy and a light?

I'm not sure if your trying to prove my point?

Quicksilver is talking from a competitive standpoint, not CW. In competitive, they typically limit mechs by weight class rather than tonnage.

CW in its current form should never be used as a balancing baseline, and tonnage limits in general are a broken balancing tool.

[Gas Guzzler]

Formosa The God, on 03 August 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

Um... well done I suppose, your 5 ton heavier mech, that is slower and less useful has less range and lower arm mounts, is better? Plus your 90tons is taking up a lot more relative space in your deck, can you fit 2 supernova in your deck, a heavy and a light?

I'm not sure if your trying to prove my point?

How fast is a quad ERPPC Battlemaster? Are you using a light engine or an XL?

[Christophe Ivanov]

I got tired of getting my *** handed to me in my DW's...So now stomp in my King Crabs. While the RAC's have problems, I still like them and hope they fix the complaints posted about them. In all honestly, I wish they would listen up and fix the UAC's bad issues that have bee going on for months. If they did, I would hop back into my DW's.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Gas Guzzler, on 03 August 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

How fast is a quad ERPPC Battlemaster? Are you using a light engine or an XL?

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...d392e3b3bb0af14

66.7 KPH if running LFE.

FupDup, on 03 August 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Quicksilver is talking from a competitive standpoint, not CW. In competitive, they typically limit mechs by weight class rather than tonnage.

CW in its current form should never be used as a balancing baseline, and tonnage limits in general are a broken balancing tool.

This topic is about CW anyway, hence the war log in the OP. Thus we're talking balance in CW, in which the IS has more tonnage than Clans, who can't spare putting a heavy Assault in their deck without crippling themselves later. Battlemasters wouldn't really compare to Supernovas in CW, they'd compare to 75 ton mechs, though after the tonnage gets decreased on IS side they'd compare to 80 ton mechs, though considering the Clan's lack of meta mechs at the 20 ton, 60 ton, and 80 ton level its not much of an improvement.

Though CW isn't really decided by assaults mostly with the exception of 12 man teams bringing 12 of the same assault and crushing an enemy, but they'd do that with any mech. CW's mostly decided by heavies. Right now the IS can bring a Black Knight, Warhammer (or Cataphract if they're trying to go for more armor), and 2 Dragons, all of these mechs have defensive quirks that make them as hard to take down as mechs a weight class higher. Clan would be bringing 3 65 tonners and a 45 tonner in response.

IS's best response in CW is not to just out trade clans in damage, but rather use their advantages in heat per shot, sustained DPS, and armor. An IS force should push into the Clan force, not allowing them to get a moment to cool off between alphas, and allowing the triple LPL+(1-3)ML builds go to work. Most CW maps don't have long open areas for Clans to use their range advantage, even the notorious Boreal Vault has a path that's covered up until it gets to the upper area of the map to conceal a push.

Comparing Warhammer to Hellbringer:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e9d99cb31f46447
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7d0c02fbc93d544

Before we even take into account quirks Warhammer has more sustained DPS, maximum DPS, and armor. One could also go for the Grasshopper 5J, swapping torso mounts for arm mounts but getting 10% cooldown and heat reductions and higher defensive quirks.

Even ton for ton using the Thunderbolt in this example, the IS holds up:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...79c1ebb850b8a89

You lost 5 points off the alpha strike and move 10kph slower but your duration is about 70% of a Clanner's your sustained DPS is higher, your max burst DPS is higher, your armor is higher, your agility is higher, and you have the option to bring a heavier mech than the Clanner to put your odds higher. As long as you use cover to get into optimal ranges and push forward instead of letting the Clan team win by being passive you'll crush them. The main issue is many pugs will be passive and give up a win.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Formosa The God, on 03 August 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

Um... well done I suppose, your 5 ton heavier mech, that is slower and less useful has less range and lower arm mounts

The SVN-C doesn't use arm mounts. Sure it is slower, but it can still be used at range and can actually do damage if the enemy should close because it takes much longer to get heat capped. Compare them on an even standpoint not from a CW perspective (because CW is stupid and borked to begin with).

Dakota1000, on 03 August 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

This topic is about CW anyway, hence the war log in the OP.

False, it is using CW to justify some sort of standpoint on faction balance.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 August 2017 - 10:56 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dakota1000, on 03 August 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...d392e3b3bb0af14

66.7 KPH if running LFE.

Compared to 4 cERPPC SNV-C I think I know which wins (this build could probably be better optimized if you wanted the TComp for velocity).
The Supernova can only get 2175 m/s velocity compared to the 1G's 2470 m/s and goes about 8.2kph slower, BUT I do gain more damage out of it for having more DHS and better damage from the cERPPCs which is worth the trade-off.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 August 2017 - 11:03 AM.

[Maxor]

I agree the tech pendulum has swung the other way (not a good thing!) but its really just 2 weapons that give IS an edge.
RACs because of it's damage mixed with it's ******** crit capability on an exposed mech and MRMs because many IS players are dropping SRMs for their point blank alpha.

I've tried both pieces of tech and I really like them but they still need to be tweaked. RAC 2s need to jam faster when you hit the red and RACs overall need a crit reduction while MRMs just need a minimum distance like 120-ish.

MRMs not having a minimum distance is a tad funny given RLs got one since the devs were worried about point blank alpha.

I'm glad they are finally lowering the tonnage disparity but overall though in FP we Clans just need to get our **** together before we lose the season in 3 days (atleast IS will have set a record then...).

But tech imbalance aside the OP brings up a greater issue with FP most people have given up on arguing and that is Mercenary population swings and FP not being about factions.

Its too easy to just switch sides every week as a merc unit. Not to mention on average mercs actually get more rewards than Loyalists. Doing some rough estimates based on average win rewards of merc vs loyalist. By the time either them finish their respective faction rep tree the merc ends with potentially 400 million more c-bills.

If the devs restricted merc units a bit more and gave reasons to actually be Loyalists you'd prolly see more units actually stay with a certain faction. With the last Tukayyid event we saw the same thing half way through. Droves of player abandoned the IS side to join the winning Clans. Ideally for an event like this you shouldn't even be able to switch sides otherwise people will just game the system while ******* over those that stay with the losing team.

My suggestion is to make Merc contracts 2 weeks to a month long so units need to think ahead of time on who they will support and prevent many people from gaming the system by switching sides half way through an event.

This is coming from someone who is a clan merc and just tired of seeing whole units flip flop mid event.

[Zergling]

Dakota1000, on 03 August 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

Comparing Warhammer to Hellbringer:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e9d99cb31f46447
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7d0c02fbc93d544

297 vs 400 meter optimal range

Compare the Warhammer instead to a 330 meter optimal range Hellbringer.
297 vs 330 meter optimal range
69.4 kph vs 81.0 kph top speed
No ECM vs ECM
4.93 vs 6.26 sustained DPS

[Y E O N N E]

Zergling, on 03 August 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

297 vs 400 meter optimal range

Compare the Warhammer instead to a 330 meter optimal range Hellbringer.
297 vs 330 meter optimal range
69.4 kph vs 81.0 kph top speed
No ECM vs ECM
4.93 vs 6.26 sustained DPS

THANKYOU.gif

Seriously, every bupkus keeps comparing a build optimized to poke at 450-600 meters to one optimized for 350-450 meters. No **** you are going to get rolled. And you know what? Same build on an EBJ, plus this here TCII and cERPPC, gives you a 57-poke with a solid sustained DPS of 4.79 before skills and 380 meter cMPL with just 10% of the range nodes, with near-enough-as-makes-no-difference in laser duration and an insta-boop of 10 damage.

Like, goddamn, the whole point of the cLPL+cERML and Clan Goose-vomit is that it can fight outside the optimum IS range if the game turns into a standoff poke (and it often does in CW). If you are going to choose to fight within the IS power zone, the kit exists to do so as well or better. Rarely do I ever say this, but people...stop relying on the copy-paste cookie-cutter bullsh*t and figure out what are trying to do and what the best implements to do it are. If your fights are getting down in the weeds with the IS, isolate the tools that best fit the use case and build accordingly. That's what meta-gaming is.

[Carl Vickers]

DrxAbstract, on 03 August 2017 - 02:23 AM, said:

First off, a 15 ton differential is not huge--It's meager. 180 Tons split between 12 people (Assuming all 12 actually utilize a full 265 Tons) puts 3,000 Tons of Clan Tech against 3,180 Tons of IS Tech in a setting where Clans typically have the advantage: Range, Durability and DPP(Dmg per poke).

Secondly, you're asserting that the tonnage difference allows some absurd, assault-laden decks when the class of choice is currently, and has historically been, Heavies. Especially with IS's utter lack of an FW compatible, or competitive-level, Assault Mech beyond the Battlemaster, whereas Clans have KDKs, MAD IICs and now MC IICs.

I mean really, take the extra 15 tons. I'll swap out my Cicada for a Mando, which is a lot more annoying and harder to kill anyway, and keep my 3xHeavy line-up. What was accomplished? Absolutely nothing... which is what the tonnage difference essentially amounted to in the first place; A distraction and empty solution to the wrong problem.

Big difference at the end of the match when you are clanners bringing cheetas vs meds/heavies on the IS side, u are still out tonned, good knoweldge there buddy.