109 replies to this topic

[Kaldor]

Murzao, on 19 July 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Other than the Spider (that like the Raven) that needs their hitboxes tweaked to the size of a Commando....tweaking mech sizes isn't gonna help much as people will just aim lower. Might as well fix Awesomes/Dragons/Pults too......still though why bother if you make the game faster those deficiencies become a lot smaller in magnitude. When you miss it's because they're going fast....not because they were 4m tall instead of 5m.


If seismic only had a 50m range it'd be useless too....that's what artillery/airstrike are currently at. Remove the canister at the very least....bump up the power by a small bit. Right now that smoke bomb canister should only be used in a separate module as a defensive tool to advance and make it 5X bigger radius area......then you have 3 more modules that actually do something.

Its a combination of size and speed. If you make the target smaller its harder to hit am I not right? What is so hard to understand about that? I think the speed of mediums is just fine.

The problem is no body cares about those modules. People want to run things that give an advantage for the entire match.

How I rate the modules, top to bottom

Seismic: Pretty fricking obvious, (legal wall hack) and rightly deserving a nerf which it will get.
Sensor Range: Knowing is half the battle am I right?
Target Info Gathering: Helps to know what your fighting and where to shoot them
Target Decay: must have for any LRM boat
360 Target Retention: I dont use it, but I can see its usefulness
Capture Accelerator: Dont have one, but I can see its use in some circumstances

The modules that are consumable ALL suck in comparison to these. Make them too OP, and suddenly it turns into who can spend the most MC or CBills to buy the win. Screw that.

Edited by Kaldor, 19 July 2013 - 09:05 AM.

[Angry Viking]

The only reasons mediums and light heavy/assaults aren't as good is because of a lack of need to slim down your drop composition. They need to suck it up and either add in BV or some sort of tonnage match maker. We should see like 1 assault and 2 heavy mechs per drop, the rest should be mediums and lights. I've already played mech warrior 4, i don't need to play it again PGI.

[Deathlike]

This is the worst suggestion I've ever heard.

Mediums are not really big weapon platforms... and if you wanted make them that, they wouldn't really have the tonnage to be effective at them (especially when you need more DHS to cool them off and/or spend more tonnage for ammo).

I'm not sure in what actual way this is beneficial.. even if I agreed with the premise.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

PEEFsmash, on 19 July 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

No. None of this would help. They already max their tonnage with the hardpoints they have. That is not their limitation. There are SRM boats (9A), Laser boats (4P/1X), and mixes (4SP). The medium class actually has quite good HPs. The problem is that they are too slow, and Seismic is too effective to let them do their business better than a heavy brawler.

Holy crap agreeing with a PEEF post.

[King Arthur IV]

i think med laser cool down could be reduced further. 1 second duration plus the current 3.25 cooldown = 4.25 second imo. ppc/ac20/gauss all have 4.00 second cooldown.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

It's awesome how PP has just exitted this thread entirely.

[Bagheera]

hammerreborn, on 19 July 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

I already admitted being wrong =P

Ah, sorry. I missed that. State of the TBT is a pet peeve of mine.

hammerreborn, on 19 July 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

And it doesn't matter in the end, you can add a million hardpoints to mediums but it still won't stop them from getting gunned down prior to being able to use them. The downrange fire needs to be curtailed (such as the effect with heat scale that we are starting to see), and the movement uprange needs to be increased (which hopefully will be addressed with the seismic nerf and the introduction of the flea/locust/masc).

The seismic nerf + ppc heat increase should lead for interesting results on the 30th for being able to get into brawler (srm + medium laser) range of the big guys again.

Actually, I agree with all of that.

In the case of the TBT though I really think the hardpoint layouts should be re-thought with the new state of missiles in mind. It does not necessarily need more, but a couple of the variants could be re-tooled to make them the "missile medium" they are supposed to be.

The 5J is probably fine at 5/1, and can be pretty decent if you put a lot of work into it. Though, honestly, it would be more interesting with 2 in that shoulder, but whatever. 7M/7K seem to benchmark the series, for what that's worth, but taking a second look at the 5N and 3C models might be the place to start.

Right now there's basically no reason at all to take the 5N (and frankly, the 3C) over any other TBT. Even if you switched it to 4M/2E, which would give it desperately needed flavor, it would not be some ludicrous SRM high-speed medium death machine of the closed beta days. I'm talking when the 4SP still had 3 missile hardpoints, which is what the devs were trying to avoid by nerfing the TBT series in terms of missile placement and hardpoints. Anyway, with them on different rets and with the way weight works out differently now vs. then (ie gyro weight change from closed beta changed the way a lot of fast meds were built) and with the broken splash now gone, we just can't build those mechs anymore. 3C is just wonky all around. With 1 hardpoint in the CT there's no real zombie mode for it, and the 4/2 layout is scattered all over the place. It's just a faster, clumsier, yet easier to kill 4SP.

So yeah, I'm hoping the flea/locust/masc intro comes along with some serious netcode fixes and opens up the field so that mediums can be made more maneuverable without obviating lights. But even in that perfect world, Trebuchet is stuck with the Cry Alones.

Edited by Bagheera, 19 July 2013 - 09:46 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Prosperity Park, on 16 July 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

I think the Hunchback 4J and 4SP should have more missiles, the Cent AL should have more energy, the Ballistic Hunches and Cents should have more Ballistic points... I don;'t have enough experience with the BJ's though, to judge.

I just frequently find myself getting mad that my Hunchback Missile "Boats" only have 2 hardpoints each, while the Heavies and Assaults get 4+ missile hardpoints for their boats. If the Hunchies want to carry more than 2 SRM6, they should be allowed to because they are Short-Ranged fighters. They had 4 hardpoints back in Closed Beta, but those were toned down during a tuning pass. i think they should be brought back, now.

The problem, though, is that you only has so much weight with which to use on weapons, power, and cooling. Even if you had more hard points, you'd still be limited in how many weapons you could carry without sacrificing either your speed or your heat efficiency. Slowing Mediums down/making them hotter for more weaponry isn't the answer.

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 19 July 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

The problem, though, is that you only has so much weight with which to use on weapons, power, and cooling. Even if you had more hard points, you'd still be limited in how many weapons you could carry without sacrificing either your speed or your heat efficiency. Slowing Mediums down/making them hotter for more weaponry isn't the answer.

The reverse is a better option (increasing engine options and/or increasing turning speeds)... even though the weapon loadout would look more like a light mech, at the very least, it has the armor to fend of a light mech. That cannot go unnoticed. I had the most fun with a Cent-D, despite it having a mediocre firepower, it was fun to scare the crap out of lights.

[Joseph Mallan]

Prosperity Park, on 16 July 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

More hardpoints means the capacity to carry more lightweight, short-range weapons -> means more use overall of those Mechs and more brawling. The Stalker, for example, can carry more firepower than most Mechs simply because it has many Hardpoints (hardpoints is a much greater factor than Mech Weight when it comes to Brawling Energy Weapons and SRMs)

Sweeping through the Medium Mech class and providing an overall-infusion of more hardpoints would give them the capacity to hold their own against Heavier Mechs because the Meds could carry more powerful-but-short-ranged weapons to counteract the Heavies'/Assaults' loadouts.

If Mediums get more hardpoints, then more Mediums will be on the field using their speed and maneuverability to deliver the hurt from their short-ranged weapons. This will curb the Sniper Meta a bit, too, because a Medium Mech bristling with MLs and SRMs can out-firepower a Gauss+ PPC sniper of a heavier weight class.


How do others feel about this?

I feel like we have been hamstrung in our Medium Mechs. Mostly cause we lost the Phoenix builds which were faster than most of what had been introduced into the MMO.

Second and I think more important is that a Medium anything is not as good as a light or large. Face it a medium is often to slow to compete with the speed of lights and to small to carry enough weapons/armor to brawl larger. A Medium is supposed to be passable at filling a role.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Deathlike, on 19 July 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

This is the worst suggestion I've ever heard.

Mediums are not really big weapon platforms... and if you wanted make them that, they wouldn't really have the tonnage to be effective at them (especially when you need more DHS to cool them off and/or spend more tonnage for ammo).

I'm not sure in what actual way this is beneficial.. even if I agreed with the premise.

Worst suggestion ever? You need to spend more time on the forums

When you say "Big Weapons Platforms" do you mean they should not carry Big Weapons, or just not huge lots of firepower? I think that Medium Mechs do have the potential to carry large amounts of weapons, yes.

Does anyone here own a Hunchback 4SP? It has two 6-tube launchers for launching SRMs in the Torsos, but only 2 Missile Hardpoints total to do it with. If the Hunchback 4SP was randomly assigned to the Heavy Mech class, then it would have been given 4 missile hardpoints.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 July 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[Ngamok]

Prosperity Park, on 19 July 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Worst suggestion ever? You need to spend more time on the forums

When you say "Big Weapons Platforms" do you mean they should not carry Big Weapons, or just not huge lots of firepower? I think that Medium Mechs do have the potential to carry large amounts of weapons, yes.

Does anyone here own a Hunchback 4SP? It has two 6-tube launchers for launching SRMs in the Torsos, but only 2 Missile Hardpoints total to do it with. If the Hunchback 4SP was randomly assigned to the Heavy Mech class, then it would have been given 4 missile hardpoints.

Well, the 4SP is pretty much what Sarna lists it's loadout as except we seem to have 1 extra energy hardpoint which I assume they left the head laser in.

HBK-4SP - The 4SP variant replaces the Autocannon with two SRM-6 launchers. These missile launchers provide the 'Mech with a great deal of damage capability at close range, but they do not have the same raw power as the original Autocannon/20. The 'Mech also has four Medium Lasers as secondary weapons. BV (1.0) = 854, BV (2.0) = 1,043^[10]

As far as if it were a heavy well, it would be a Quickdraw then.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Deathlike, on 19 July 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

The reverse is a better option (increasing engine options and/or increasing turning speeds)... even though the weapon loadout would look more like a light mech, at the very least, it has the armor to fend of a light mech. That cannot go unnoticed. I had the most fun with a Cent-D, despite it having a mediocre firepower, it was fun to scare the crap out of lights.

I'm not saying that an increase in harpdoints is "all it would take" to make the Medium Class what it should be: the default go-to Mechs of the IS. More speed and more maneuverability would be nice additions, as well as the ability to optionally carry more firepower.

I want to see what the opponents of this idea have to say:

How would adding more hardpoints to the Medium Mechs detract from the current Gameplay experience? (please refrain from saying "it would not help," as I am currently asking how it would *hurt.* Failure to solve a problem without causing any observable harm does not constitute a detraction from the current gameplay experience.)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 July 2013 - 12:54 PM.

[Peter2000]

Prosperity Park, on 19 July 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Worst suggestion ever? You need to spend more time on the forums

Gotta agree with this. While I think this proposal won't do anything useful (for the reasons others have outlined, including that they already boat light weapons to full tonnage, and have trouble surviving the approach) - it at least fails to break anything that was previously working. Based on those standards, I nominate you to replace Paul.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Prosperity Park, on 19 July 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Worst suggestion ever? You need to spend more time on the forums

When you say "Big Weapons Platforms" do you mean they should not carry Big Weapons, or just not huge lots of firepower? I think that Medium Mechs do have the potential to carry large amounts of weapons, yes.

Does anyone here own a Hunchback 4SP? It has two 6-tube launchers for launching SRMs in the Torsos, but only 2 Missile Hardpoints total to do it with. If the Hunchback 4SP was randomly assigned to the Heavy Mech class, then it would have been given 4 missile hardpoints.

So lets give it 4 Missile Hardpoints. Between the launchers, artemis, the ammo, and the back up lasers....how fast do you expect it to go? And how does it not get carved up by a 3 PPC + 1 Gauss Highlander who can shoot for 35 damage with no penalty, and 45 damage pinpoint if it is safe enough not to worry about the overheat?

[Felicitatem Parco]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 July 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

So lets give it 4 Missile Hardpoints. Between the launchers, artemis, the ammo, and the back up lasers....how fast do you expect it to go? And how does it not get carved up by a 3 PPC + 1 Gauss Highlander who can shoot for 35 damage with no penalty, and 45 damage pinpoint if it is safe enough not to worry about the overheat?

If I had more missile tubes, then I would have the option to drop some ML's in favor of the more heat-efficient SRMs, and I could also drop the Artemis if given the option to put more missiles/minute downrange.

This is only one example where I would receive a gameplay experience buff without causing any undue harm to the gameplay experiences of others, and for minimal Developmental resources required to implement it.

Would it "cure" Sniping? No. Would it encourage more Medium Mech use because we have more MechLab freedom and access to more short-range weapon loadouts? Maybe.. I think it would. Now, would it hurt anyone? Probably not.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 July 2013 - 01:19 PM.

[skullman86]

Giving mediums more hardpoints wont do anything because their low tonnage makes it impossible to make use of the extra weapons. Changing how heavies and assaults are equipped through hardpoint sizes, however, gives lights/mediums a higher survival rate and allows them to compete -- it also forces heavier chassis into specific weapon roles instead of giving them carte blanche.

Heat penalties, convergence changes, matchmaker and all that other stuff is able to slow the overall pace of the game (how fast people deal damage) to some degree, but they do nothing to address mech balance. If PGI wants a balanced game, they need to look into adjusting the hardpoint system because that is where the loadout issues start. Don't fiddle with secondary features and band-aid everything, just go directly to the core of the problem and fix it.

[Xie Belvoule]

Prosperity Park, on 19 July 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

If I had more missile tubes, then I would have the option to drop some ML's in favor of the more heat-efficient SRMs, and I could also drop the Artemis if given the option to put more missiles/minute downrange.

This is only one example where I would receive a gameplay experience buff without causing any undue harm to the gameplay experiences of others, and for minimal Developmental resources required to implement it.

Would it "cure" Sniping? No. Would it encourage more Medium Mech use because we have more MechLab freedom and access to more short-range weapon loadouts? Maybe.. I think it would. Now, would it hurt anyone? Probably not.

Again and again your posts and ideas prove how out of touch you are Prosperity Park. This is as stupid as your post about "light hunting" tactics. Sadly your just as out of touch with the current game play and meta as the devs.

[VanillaG]

Prosperity Park, on 19 July 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'm not saying that an increase in harpdoints is "all it would take" to make the Medium Class what it should be: the default go-to Mechs of the IS. More speed and more maneuverability would be nice additions, as well as the ability to optionally carry more firepower.

Medium mechs don't have the available weight to mount more weapons even if they had the hardpoints. With the current meta of pinpoint damage being king, a medium does not have the tonnage to mount enough of those types of weapons to be as effective as heavier mech.

Your statement is true about speed and manueverabilty as there is too much overlap between medium and large mechs in that regard. You could do a couple of things to try and increase the gap between the classes:

• Only have the engine size affect top end speed, not any other the other attributes such as twist and arm speed.
  
• Change the pilot lab efficiencies so that they are more specific to the class or variant. For example, make the speed tweak for lights and mediums +15% and +5% for heavies and assaults. Conversely you increase some he quirks for heavies and assaults and nerf the lower weight mechs. That would give each class/variant some quirks to differentiate them from each other.

More hardpoints does not solve the problem but increasing the maneuverability for mediums and potentially decreasing it for heavies give it more a gap. Mediums will really start to shine once drop tonnage limits are in place. Right now there is no incentive to bring a medium because a heavier or lighter mech can do the job better.

[Murzao]

VanillaG, on 19 July 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

• Change the pilot lab efficiencies so that they are more specific to the class or variant. For example, make the speed tweak for lights and mediums +15% and +5% for heavies and assaults. Conversely you increase some he quirks for heavies and assaults and nerf the lower weight mechs. That would give each class/variant some quirks to differentiate them from each other.

More hardpoints does not solve the problem but increasing the maneuverability for mediums and potentially decreasing it for heavies give it more a gap. Mediums will really start to shine once drop tonnage limits are in place. Right now there is no incentive to bring a medium because a heavier or lighter mech can do the job better.

This right here......I only said it 2 pages ago lol......remove speed/turnspeed pilot bonuses for heavies/assaults and let them keep their big weapons. Then it's a true tradeoff between firepower and speed. Aka a real actual balance. What's a few more hardpoints gonna do.......give me 3 more small lasers?? lol

Not that killing assaults or heavies is hard in a medium it isn't.

If they remove the canister from airstrike/artillery then you can bomb some turretwarrior sniper noob with the standard cbill version and do some damage and punish slow turtling behaviour...get this game faster. But for sure the best patch in a long time was the SRM 2.0 buff.....hopefully some at PGI have seen the light.

Edited by Murzao, 19 July 2013 - 02:14 PM.