105 replies to this topic

[2Slice]

Personally, I think the Jenner is here to stay. I enjoy the firestarter, but love my jenny

The key with the firestarter is the xl295 engine limit, which means (unlike the Jenner's xl300 limit), you can only put one dhs into the engine. The loss of three slots is what will make the firestarter a more challenging build, and not make it a better-than-jenner simply due to hardpoints.

From my limited experience, the firestarter's key advantage seems to be against Jags (and possibly blackjacks). I chest-bumped and pressed the ct of a ac/40 jager, and he couldn't hit me. the snub-nose design on the jenner on the other hand gives the jager the ability to move his arm's reticule onto the Jenner, unlike the slimmer (front-to-back) design of the FS9.

[warner2]

True, and the Firestarter has those lower arm actuators too which take up a slot each. Build a Firestarter with FF and you start to run out of slots. I'm interested to see what the light experts come up with for it.

[Aym]

SuckyJack, on 11 February 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

As pointed out before this design completely wrecks Heavy and Assault Mechs since they have very low variances under that formula and would give massive boons to light mechs.

Show your work. Most assaults I know don't max armor, I contend the ball is in your court to prove otherwise.

[Koniving]

SuckyJack, on 11 February 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

The problem is that when you limit variance of total armor to "Stock Armor + Flat Value" you are reducing mobility at a far greater rate than you are increasing armor as you move up the weight classes. Light mechs end up receiving a boost in survivability compared to now while in many cases Assaults will face a reduction.

This design ends up decreasing TTK against larger targets, which are already slow and easy to hit.

If you wanted to do a formula anywhere near that then it would have to be a % value, which would add insurmountable amounts of armor to Assaults compared to the meager offerings lights would get.

And all of that, trying to find some hybrid balance there that doesn't break the game by bringing TT Design and Armor rules into the game in an even more complex fashion than we already have is completely pointless. Currently the TT Armor Rules for Maximum Armor generally work after minor, simple tweaking of the values.

If you want to talk about ways of improving the system then talk about Hit Location Shapes and Percents. Right now you're shooting a pipe dream that is -even worse- than what we already have by making more chassis death traps. If you want to argue that, go launch mechs with stock armor and watch how fast you melt to weapons.

More over, there has been buzzing around PGI that they want to increase the Time To Kill of the game slightly, not cut it down further.

I addressed percent values before; problem is the intention of the source material becomes A) lost and depending on how the percentages are done causes either superior lights, mediums, heavies, or assaults and whichever gets superior the others become drastically inferior rather than the originally intended balance.

A fixed value creates an increase (at cost of weight of course) that is even across the board. It's literally just an enhanced stock value. If you go by percentages, the intention of stock values is completely lost and what you wind up with is Ghost Armor. We have enough convoluted systems as it is.

[Der BruzZzler von Wiesndoof]

ARTWORK ... WHERE ARE YOU ????

[Vidarok]

So from this day forth, the Commando and Locust are dead?

[Odanan]

I really liked my Ember.

Firestarter = a very angry little mech.

PS: I don't think it will replace the Locust, Jenner, Spider and Commando, which are much more agile. (tough Commando and Locust deserve a buff - if not more hardpoints, at least more modules)

PPS: would like more painting customization to the Ember.

PPPS: no S1 variant, one of the very few ECM mechs in our timeline? I guess it would be too OP... ;(

PPPPS: where the hell is the Concept Art?

PPPPPS: Banshee next month?

[s0da72]

Death knell seems rather out dated by the Ember. Ember is almost as fast, has jumps jets plus 4 ballistic
hard points as well as the 4 energy hard points.

[Cimarb]

s0da72, on 12 February 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

Death knell seems rather out dated by the Ember. Ember is almost as fast, has jumps jets plus 4 ballistic
hard points as well as the 4 energy hard points.

And weighs more. It's almost a third more weight (10 tons). Does the Trebuchet make the Commando seem outdated too, I guess?

[Bilbo]

SAHIL 619, on 12 February 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

WHY DO THEY FIRST SELL IN MC??
AND THEN IN C-BILLS.

WHATs THE USE??

It makes them money.

[Felio]

The hero is the weakest one? Pay 2 lose?

[Ngamok]

Victor Morson, on 11 February 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

Ah thanks for confirming that. I want to buy Griffins and have absolutely zero interest in Wolverines.

Griffins look amazing and have amazing torso twist (better than the Hunchback) but easy to de-fang.

[SgtMagor]

wish they would consider the FS9-S1, I still like my Ember, but the S1 is a no brainer. the hero mechs they should have made was the S, and the S1. would have been like Fang and Flame. 2 mechs that compliment each other , one with BAP the scout, the other with ECM, stealth mech to hide team from radar.

Edited by SgtMagor, 12 February 2014 - 08:21 AM.

[Ngamok]

Felio, on 12 February 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

The hero is the weakest one? Pay 2 lose?

Not really.

[C E Dwyer]

Victor Morson, on 11 February 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

Ah thanks for confirming that. I want to buy Griffins and have absolutely zero interest in Wolverines.

They all play slightly different, shads,griffs, wolvies even though they are basically the same mech in a different skin, griff's run by a pilot that knows how to shield performs the better of the three, those who don't shouldn't go near it, though the non jumping wolverine is the suckiest of the bunch, the other two play well.

[Khan Hallis]

Bilbo, on 12 February 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

It makes them money.

What he said. Cash grab. No thanks. Not for MC. I'll wait until they are available for C bills. No real world money being put into this game yet. My requirements to do so are still not there.

[Fang01]

Victor Morson, on 11 February 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

That is dead too. Unless you want to be firing 2 SSRM2s at a pack of 'mechs with twin AMS.



Ah thanks for confirming that. I want to buy Griffins and have absolutely zero interest in Wolverines.

Thats at your peril. Wolverine was FAR superior

[Koniving]

Reno Blade, on 11 February 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

From the rulebook:

Spoiler

Add Armor
Armor helps protect the BattleMech’s internal structure
and critical components. For each ton of armor selected, the
BattleMech has 16 Armor Points.
Determine the total tonnage of armor the BattleMech
will carry. Armor must be added in 1/2- or 1-ton increments.
Multiply the tonnage of armor chosen by 16 to find the ’Mech’s
total Armor Points.
Divide the total Armor Points carried by the BattleMech
among the eleven different locations shown on the Armor
Diagram. The player chooses the exact number of Armor Points
used to protect a given area, but the number of Armor Points in
a single location may not exceed twice the number of Internal
Structure circles in that location. For example, if a BattleMech
has 10 Internal Structure circles in its left arm, then the left arm
can carry no more than 20 Armor Points. The only exception to
this rule is that all BattleMechs may carry up to 9 Armor Points
on their heads.
Note that the center, left and right torso locations mount
both front and rear armor. The armor allocated to the front of a
torso location cannot be used to protect the rear of that location,
and vice versa. The total armor allocated to the front and
rear of a torso location cannot be greater than twice the number
of the location’s Internal Structure circles.
Use the Armor Diagram on the record sheet to indicate
the number of Armor Points protecting each part of the
BattleMech’s body. Mark out any excess circles in the same way
as for the Internal Structure Diagram.

Maximum Armor:
For ease of reference, the maximum
total Armor Factor for each tonnage of ’Mech is shown on the
Internal Structure Table (p. 56). Note that it is always permissible
for a ’Mech to have the maximum possible armor, even if this
requires leaving a few points of armor unallocated. For example,
a 50-ton ’Mech can have a maximum armor factor of 169. In
order to get this much standard armor, a ’Mech must have 11
tons of armor (11 x 16 = 176). The extra 7 points of armor that
cannot be assigned are simply lost.

Total ’Mech / Maximum
Tonnage / Armor
20 / 69
25 / 89
30 / 105
35 / 119
40 / 137
45 / 153
50 / 169
55 / 185
60 / 201
65 / 211
70 / 217
75 / 231
80 / 247
85 / 263
90 / 279
95 / 293
100 / 307

PGI is also known for breaking rules in the name of game balance, and also ALL variants of a weight class can equip the same engine sizes. For example 3-L, 2X, and 4X Ravens can equip the same maximum engines. PGI didn't follow that and as such created an imbalance. Also all mechs can equip any weapon; the Inner Sphere limitation is that it took weeks to months to change loadouts and great expense; things that don't apply to this game and with limitations created by hardpoints.

Therefore, if variants are forced with identifiers such as engine limits, hardpoint limits...but not armor limits which are key to making the variant unique compared to other mechs especially when considering the limitations placed upon the mech, PGI has created a grave imbalance. Reasserting the original armor differences between the mechs as new maximums would then complete the set of limitations, creating a much more balanced game.

We're in a game where maximization is everything. For all mechs to compete, either all mechs need to have no limits or the limits need to be complete, in this case different limits on armor based on the variant. Otherwise the entire game may as well be thrown out the window as balance cannot exist without it.

Edited by Koniving, 12 February 2014 - 09:19 AM.

[SweetJackal]

Koniving, on 11 February 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

I addressed percent values before; problem is the intention of the source material becomes A) lost and depending on how the percentages are done causes either superior lights, mediums, heavies, or assaults and whichever gets superior the others become drastically inferior rather than the originally intended balance.

A fixed value creates an increase (at cost of weight of course) that is even across the board. It's literally just an enhanced stock value. If you go by percentages, the intention of stock values is completely lost and what you wind up with is Ghost Armor. We have enough convoluted systems as it is.

Your entire post -just- addresses what I said about percentages and actually agrees with what I said without touching on how imposing limits on Maximum Armor based on a Variant's Stock Armor would have the same extreme negative effect just in a different direction.

If you're trying to hammer in that there are underperforming Variants and Chassis in MWO then yes, I agree. But to take the BT TT game and transfer it to a Simulation/Shooter Video Game requires adding in a ton of systems that did not exist in the TT game. Variables for Torso Twists and Arm Movement, Movement Profiles, Hit Location Hitbox sizes and locations just to name a few.

If you want to fix Underperforming mechs then you examine the mechs and tweak them as required. There are plenty of mechs that do need to be revisited, the Jenner-F is now one of them and many of the early mechs were hit with a balance pass in the early closed beta and haven't gotten a review since.

MWO currently follows the BT rules for mech customization, it just currently ignores the time and labor costs for doing so. To limit customization on armor would further turn the game offensive, further tilt the favor in weapons or it would gut the customization aspect of MWO completely in an attempt to balance around that.

The system you propose is completely convoluted in that you are creating a situation where one Jenner Variant cannot have the same amount of armor as another Jenner Variant. Stock Variants were created through the customization and refits of the chassis, very rarely will you find a complete redesign of a chassis within two variants.

You want a convoluted system to add meaning to underperforming chassis and variants when we are trying to get rid of convoluted systems like Ghost Heat. No, lets get PGI to look at Mechs that don't have a place in the game instead of completely putting the system on it's head in a manner that will make some mechs less obsolete and obsolete different mechs instead.

[Voivode]

Vidarok, on 12 February 2014 - 02:48 AM, said:

So from this day forth, the Commando and Locust are dead?

I think this will steal the Jenner's thunder more than the Commando or Locust. After all, these things are capping out at 150.2 KPH, not 171.1KPH.