133 replies to this topic

[Howdy Doody]

Jman5, on 28 June 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

One of the consequences people will need to adjust for is that base capturing will be easier.

• It's harder to beeline back to base because you will have to follow winding paths instead of going straight over mountains.
  
• Many scouting perches are now inaccessible
  
• The changes to terrain will mean teams will be more committed toward a single divergent path instead of sitting on some ridge in between the two. Teams that don't bother to scout (aka 90% of games) will risk getting completely sideswiped.

Alpine, Forest Colony, Tourmaline, and Canyon will be much easier for a capping team.

Excellent point. Going to be really important to have folks scout/travel lanes. Should spread out the death balls a bit more on those bigger maps.

[One Medic Army]

Jman5, on 28 June 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

One of the consequences people will need to adjust for is that base capturing will be easier.

• It's harder to beeline back to base because you will have to follow winding paths instead of going straight over mountains.
  
• Many scouting perches are now inaccessible
  
• The changes to terrain will mean teams will be more committed toward a single divergent path instead of sitting on some ridge in between the two. Teams that don't bother to scout (aka 90% of games) will risk getting completely sideswiped.

Alpine, Forest Colony, Tourmaline, and Canyon will be much easier for a capping team.

This combined with the narrower pathways (which restrict the ability for the whole team to stand side by side) might encourage splitting the team, so as to maximize the firepower that can be brought to bear.

[Coralld]

This pretty much my reaction when I first found out about this.

[Accursed Richards]

keith, on 28 June 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

no this is bad. look at alpine, the places u can't no go up hills and make u funnel into. there are now maybe 4 routes to go with ground pounded mechs. how does this make game play better? with how jj work most of the hills u will not be able to get up with jjs. pgi keeps dumbing down the game. this is a bad thing

Fewer matches where both teams miss each other and engage in a cap war; that can't be a bad thing.

[Lyoto Machida]

Jman5, on 28 June 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

One of the consequences people will need to adjust for is that base capturing will be easier.

• It's harder to beeline back to base because you will have to follow winding paths instead of going straight over mountains.
  
• Many scouting perches are now inaccessible
  
• The changes to terrain will mean teams will be more committed toward a single divergent path instead of sitting on some ridge in between the two. Teams that don't bother to scout (aka 90% of games) will risk getting completely sideswiped.

Alpine, Forest Colony, Tourmaline, and Canyon will be much easier for a capping team.

So wait...teams might have to divert assets to...defend???

[Odins Fist]

MeatForBrains, on 27 June 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

"Next Patch Implements End To Ridge Humping? Nerf To Assaults."

This is only one example of one current map.
.
Example: (River City) Going to upper city from dockside (water side start) there will be only (1) viable route to upper if I estimate the level of incline correctly. The broken overpass, the left path up seems too steep, and even if you can climb that your speed would be reduced to the point of creating a traffic jam, if the enemy team uses the long bridge from base to upper city you will have a turkey shoot, consisting of (2) possible murder holes, not to mention the streets between buildings in lower.. That example is of course using non jump jet mechs as a majority of the attacking force from lower city.. This would definately create an advantage for the enemy team starting on the high side of the map, and if the high side team uses this to their advantage it would also create an easy cap scenario for the team starting high side, all they have to do is wait for the lower city team to move across the water and try to attack from that direction (that already occurs presently). Also any kind of frontal attack down the middle would be suicide, at that point only one way into the enemy base would be possible (the curved ramp), and again anything without decent jump jets would have (1) way in to enemy base.

No jump jets would be bad on river city.

I see more forced contact at pinch-points, I see murder holes being a big thing, and I see (fish in a barrel) being quoted soon. River City is only one example, a very easy example to explain..
Take note though, terrain that one team cannot climb means that the enemy team has the same disadvantage if they fall down, or get caught in a position with no way up and over, BUT the intial advantage will still be there for the high side enemy team.

With the current maps we have, I see "stand off" being the tactic of necessity, more so on some maps over others. What impact 12 v 12 instead of 8 v 8 will have is unkown at this point..

Will terrain changes/mech mobility changes cause more varied strategies being used, or fewer.??
Yet unkown, I will be watching this carefully.

Edited by Odins Fist, 28 June 2013 - 02:08 PM.

[Mr 144]

I have completely mixed feelings on this one.

On the one hand, I certainly like the concept of impassable terrain, visual logic of climbable hills, and most importantly...movement penalties (slowdown) dependant on Terrain and 'size class'.

The obvious problem, is mispatched modeling to tonnage descrepencies becoming even more impactfull to chassis selection. This is a past mistake that already results in poor/good mech hitboxes that now also nerfs/buffs movement. Technically, this could and should be addressed by re-scaling the models to appropriate size ranges for there tonnage. I doubt this will happen....ever.

The biggest issue I have is the buff to JJs. It makes perfect sense though, as JJs should be movement modifiers and reflects the anti-poptart shake addition. The two compliment each other very well. The problem lies in the fact PGI keeps pumping out JJ chassis like no tomorrow. I only really use bare minimum JJs (usually only one) for movement bonuses anyhow, so it fits me fine...however...what incentive is there to run a non-JJ chassis? Speedy mechs could get by without them a lot easier than slower heavies and assaults. I see this literally killing non-JJ chassis. Even Mediums...why a hunchie, when you can run pretty much identical loadouts with a treb?

I think, unfortunately...the only way to not destroy non-JJ chassis would be to increase JJ tonnage across the board. I know this sound bad...and I don't like it much either, but there needs to be a respectable build advantage to running non-JJ chassis. Right now, the difference in build is minor...but the advantages for non-sniping roles was minor as well...If Jumpers get a buff....non-jumpers need one as well. Tonnage would be my first choice...firepower vs movement should be a fair trade...as described, 2 tons on a highlander is a huge advantage.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Mr 144, on 28 June 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

I have completely mixed feelings on this one.

On the one hand, I certainly like the concept of impassable terrain, visual logic of climbable hills, and most importantly...movement penalties (slowdown) dependant on Terrain and 'size class'.

The obvious problem, is mispatched modeling to tonnage descrepencies becoming even more impactfull to chassis selection. This is a past mistake that already results in poor/good mech hitboxes that now also nerfs/buffs movement. Technically, this could and should be addressed by re-scaling the models to appropriate size ranges for there tonnage. I doubt this will happen....ever.

The biggest issue I have is the buff to JJs. It makes perfect sense though, as JJs should be movement modifiers and reflects the anti-poptart shake addition. The two compliment each other very well. The problem lies in the fact PGI keeps pumping out JJ chassis like no tomorrow. I only really use bare minimum JJs (usually only one) for movement bonuses anyhow, so it fits me fine...however...what incentive is there to run a non-JJ chassis? Speedy mechs could get by without them a lot easier than slower heavies and assaults. I see this literally killing non-JJ chassis. Even Mediums...why a hunchie, when you can run pretty much identical loadouts with a treb?

I think, unfortunately...the only way to not destroy non-JJ chassis would be to increase JJ tonnage across the board. I know this sound bad...and I don't like it much either, but there needs to be a respectable build advantage to running non-JJ chassis. Right now, the difference in build is minor...but the advantages for non-sniping roles was minor as well...If Jumpers get a buff....non-jumpers need one as well. Tonnage would be my first choice...firepower vs movement should be a fair trade...as described, 2 tons on a highlander is a huge advantage.

Increasing tonnage on JJs is all well and good for you because you are one of those people who don't really use JJs like they are suppose to be used and mount only one. However someone like me who pretty much exclusively uses JJ equiped mechs would get totally screwed. My QDs for example rely completely on their JJs and any heavier than they already are would totally destroy their ability to mount a competitive weapons loadout.

The good news is that I don't think there will be a problem. Sure at first it is going to cause a major uproar and the forums are going to be lit up like a volcanic inferno but once people get used to it and adapt, they will likely forget all about their complaints.

Also, sure it will change the game but people will figure out new tactics and life will move forward yet again hehe.

[Accursed Richards]

Lyoto Machida, on 28 June 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

So wait...teams might have to divert assets to...defend???

Or both teams just sit near their base and wait for the other guy to show up.

[Mr 144]

Viktor Drake, on 28 June 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Increasing tonnage on JJs is all well and good for you because you are one of those people who don't really use JJs like they are suppose to be used and mount only one. However someone like me who pretty much exclusively uses JJ equiped mechs would get totally screwed. My QDs for example rely completely on their JJs and any heavier than they already are would totally destroy their ability to mount a competitive weapons loadout.

The good news is that I don't think there will be a problem. Sure at first it is going to cause a major uproar and the forums are going to be lit up like a volcanic inferno but once people get used to it and adapt, they will likely forget all about their complaints.

Also, sure it will change the game but people will figure out new tactics and life will move forward yet again hehe.

yes, yes...tactics and such The simple fact is there really is little reason to take a non-jumper after this. Limited funneled movement routes good tactics do not make. Sure....better tactics can overcome purposeful handicaps, but's that's not balance. All things (tactics, skills, etc) being equal...JJ chassis will have a very large benefit over non jumpers on quite a few maps now.

My reference to single JJ users was simplifying to show the very minor 'sacrifice' JJ chassis make over non-jumpers when not in a sniper role. If you're a fan of super-jumping, but not sniping...then yes, that should be a large sacrifice. Trebs can literally duplicate speed and firepower of most hunchies with a 1 JJ investment...thereby negating any real reason to be completely screwed on Canyon with a hunchie. Even energy loadouts (4P) can achieve relative firepower/speed using JJs with the Jumping BJ. Even the tonnage difference between the highlander C and an Atlas is moot....the atlas simply cannot get to the fight, while the highlander running a single can jump up the ledges. It literally affect all non-jump chassis/variants way to much.

Again, I like the basic idea...but I don't like forcing JJs for realisticly competetive match-ups.

[ICEFANG13]

I think it would be a lot better if more JJs were a lot better, and the less than normal amount (like 1 or 2) provided a lot less lift, maybe make it exponential. Right now, since 1 JJ is as good in many ways as 4-6, it's a bad thing, but mechs making the room, even the Shadowhawk (who makes the least amount of sacrifice) putting (4 is max right?) 4 on it is still a fair investment, although much smaller than 4 on a Catapult or 5 on a Jenner.

[Thugskull]

Hills were nerfed to much in my opinion!! Makes assault mechs almost worthless just standing in the wide open or stuck on rocks. I agree the hills needed to be addressed but this is ridiculous it really takes the fun out of the game for me.

[Jaguar Prime]

Jaguar Prime, on 27 June 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

It will not stop hill humping. 40 degrees is more than enough to do it.

And I am still hill humping. like I said before.

[3rdworld]

Other than making piloting an assault, incredibly frustrating. Didn't really do much as far balance goes.