19 replies to this topic

[Jim thorne]

swap the max engine of 3l to 245 and let the other two have 295. this will give the other two versions of the ravens a better chance and balance out 3l.

[Aurrous]

why not just give them all the same engine size?? why does the 3l have to be the magic raven what can fit more mass in it than the others??

[Deathlike]

You would unprecedentedly put the Jenner back in power single-handedly.

People really need to rethink their suggestions fully.

[Gaan Cathal]

Honestly, the whole business where different variants (perhaps excepting Hero Mechs) of the same chassis can fit differing engine sizes is just......stupid. It's the same chassis for ***** sake, to say nothing of the balance advantages.

[Aurrous]

Deathlike, on 14 May 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

You would unprecedentedly put the Jenner back in power single-handedly.

People really need to rethink their suggestions fully.

I do not understand how giving all of the ravens the ability to carry a 295 engine and making everything = the raven engine world puts another mech frame anywhere..

If anything the ravens without the ECM should run faster than the one with it..

Lets give the one with the invisible cloak the ability to Run 300 miles an hour.. and his brothers without the invisible cloak can run 5.. OK that sounds great!

Edited by Aurrous, 14 May 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[General Taskeen]

This game is such a mess, amiright?

[Deathlike]

Aurrous, on 14 May 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

I do not understand how giving all of the ravens the ability to carry a 295 engine and making everything = the raven engine world puts another mech frame anywhere..

If anything the ravens without the ECM should run faster than the one with it..

Lets give the one with the invisible cloak the ability to Run 300 miles an hour.. and his brothers without the invisible cloak can run 5.. OK that sounds great!

The OP's solution is to swap the fastest engine on the 3L with the engine that it's "weaker brethren" use. I hate to tell you this, but a 245XL on a Raven-2X for the most part makes it one of the weakest targets ever even with the speed tweak. ECM would not help a slow mech in any significant way (especially with the upcoming BAP+Streak combo). Even the Spider-5D has an actual chance of surpassing a slow Raven 3L in usage.. and that's saying a lot.

[Jim thorne]

Light fights are just c.o.d and would not change the way 3l performs. it will just take a longer to get there and running away.

[Deathlike]

Jim thorne, on 14 May 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Light fights are just c.o.d and would not change the way 3l performs. it will just take a longer to get there and running away.

It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

There is a reason why people openly mock the Raven-2X because the Jenner-K is a superior mech... due in most part to the engine limitation.

Giving the 3L the engine limit of a 2X makes it worse than the Spider-5D.

It sounds to me that you are not a good light pilot and/or you are bad at facing fast lights.

[Jim thorne]

its that simple, and the spider-5d is not a bad mech .

[Deathlike]

This is why people don't take these radically bad balance ideas seriously.

[Voridan Atreides]

General Taskeen, on 14 May 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

This game is such a mess, amiright?

I don't know. Have not played in some time.

[Aurrous]

Deathlike, on 14 May 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

The OP's solution is to swap the fastest engine on the 3L with the engine that it's "weaker brethren" use. I hate to tell you this, but a 245XL on a Raven-2X for the most part makes it one of the weakest targets ever even with the speed tweak. ECM would not help a slow mech in any significant way (especially with the upcoming BAP+Streak combo). Even the Spider-5D has an actual chance of surpassing a slow Raven 3L in usage.. and that's saying a lot.

I'm sorry if you miss understood what i suggest.. which was give them all 295 engines and call it equal..
playing a non ecm raven, that's slower is kind of pointless.

Furthermore, the engine sizes for the game should be standardized based off of the weight..
The Spider, Jenner, Commando, all have standardized Engines.. and they are incrementally increased by weight..
until you get to the raven.. then things get screwy..
A jenner gets at 35 tons gets a 300 eng.. but a Raven at 35 gets a 245? and the 3l who also gets an ECM gets an 295..

Give them all 300 based on the same weight..

continuing down the list..

Kickadas get 340 stand...

Centruions are all over the map..
cN9-a,al get a 275,
while the 9d gets a 390, and a lowang gets a 300..

Keep in mind only 2 other mech in the games gets a 390+ engine, and thats a AWS-9m at 400.. and a TBT-3C

So 1 80 ton and 2 50 tons get a bigger engine than an ATLAS or a highlander??

Keep in mind a Standard 400 Eng is 60 tons.. and a 390 is 53 tons.. Which weights more than a 50 ton mech..

Can we just say that a mech can't have more than 34% of its body weight as the upper weight limit in the XL size and be done with the whole thing..

IE 100 tons x .34 = 34 tons on the XL table is a 400 engine.. DONE..

Yes, i know this affects the light and slows them down a bit.. but 60% engine is a bit much.. its would slow down the smaller mechs and speed up the larger ones.. and create a balance in the middle.

Watching a 295 raven its pretty laggy and its no wonder they are hard to PING.

Edited by Aurrous, 16 May 2013 - 11:57 AM.

[Sephlock]

Nevermore.

[Deathlike]

Aurrous, on 16 May 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I'm sorry if you miss understood what i suggest.. which was give them all 295 engines and call it equal..
playing a non ecm raven, that's slower is kind of pointless.

My overall comment was not in response to you... as giving the Raven-2X or 4X an engine increase is too much IMO, but I was already advocating for a similar buff to that already (to at least increase it to 255 at a minimum). However, I'm addressing the OP's really silly comment.

Jim thorne, on 14 May 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

swap the max engine of 3l to 245 and let the other two have 295. this will give the other two versions of the ravens a better chance and balance out 3l.

I swear, if I ever see the OP in a match, I would find an excuse to rage with a Jenner and see how nerfing the 3L will change the current meta.

[MasterErrant]

the engine cp thing is an ill considered "Balance" thing on the devs part. if you are going to have a cap it should be the same for every varient except the Heros. "As hey are custom rebuilds." (Except for it's ability to mount a 400xl Pretty baby is a POS. six hardpoints on an 80 tom mech and one is in the head.)

[Gaan Cathal]

Deathlike, on 16 May 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

My overall comment was not in response to you... as giving the Raven-2X or 4X an engine increase is too much IMO, but I was already advocating for a similar buff to that already (to at least increase it to 255 at a minimum). However, I'm addressing the OP's really silly comment.

Too much? They've got identical armour to, and less firepower than, a Jenner. How would going slightly slower than one be 'too much'? The Jenner will still be unarguably the superior mech.

[Ohgodtherats]

Deathlike, on 14 May 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

You would unprecedentedly put the Jenner back in power single-handedly.

People really need to rethink their suggestions fully.

I'm sorry but to understand you completely I'm going to need you to jam more buzzwords and catch phrases into your sentences.

[Deathlike]

Gaan Cathal, on 17 May 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

Too much? They've got identical armour to, and less firepower than, a Jenner. How would going slightly slower than one be 'too much'? The Jenner will still be unarguably the superior mech.

I don't necessarily have a problem that a Raven-2X/4X is slower than your average light... but I believe at minimum that their engine restriction is too low. You know there's something wrong when a Cent-D or Trebuchet-3C can be faster than them. Of course the Jenner would be better... although the 4X has been used for "more interesting stuff" these days.

Ohgodtherats, on 17 May 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

I'm sorry but to understand you completely I'm going to need you to jam more buzzwords and catch phrases into your sentences.

Sorry, being over the top is natural. I simply hate the OP's post, and I'm pretty sure that's really obvious to everyone.

Edited by Deathlike, 17 May 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

I once put 15 Italians (yes, I am Italian) into a Beetle (that's a car), that had a suitcase in the front trunk (yea, I know, silly right; trunks belong in the rear).

Anyways, I put the suitcase in the back seat, and at which point, being an odd fit, could only get 13 Italians in the car. One in the trunk, 12 in the cab.

Why is this?