115 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

This bodes well. I don't know if it will take it anywhere near the meta but it will make it more viable for sure. I always wanted to buy one as I like the mech ... I have an affection for it I guess but could never see it being viable before
. As Roland said though making the arms better shields with these changes would make it a really cool and much more hardy mech

It also makes me happy they can do these changes to mechs. The hunchback could use a damage reduction on it's gun for instance and the trebuchet could use some love amongst others

This helps balance and gives character to mechs! We have been asking for these things for aaaages so I am super happy they decided to start doing them

I am pretty happy with PGI for this and hope they keep on top of it I might just buy an awesome

[Deathlike]

Sephlock, on 28 July 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Damage reduction, like on closed missile panels.

My prediction is that some people will start using chain fired PPCs and the least skilled players will start whining about that (or maybe boated Llas... even i have more faith in the baddies than to imagine that they'd whine about mlas boating Awesomes).

If only someone would do the math on how much "effective armor" that damage reduction would generate...

Hans Von Lohman, on 28 July 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Centurion = 10% more armor for left arm (shield is actually a shield)

Finally? I kinda liked the semi-broken hitboxes better... because that was true "durability".

This only "amounts" to 1.6 more pts of armor.

Quote

Hunchback = 10% internal Structure in Right Torso (to make the AC-20 last longer)

That's only amounts to 2.4 pts of armor... which is as laughable as the 5% leg armor quirk for all Lights (it amounts to under 1 pt of armor).

It has been asked quite a bit, so the current number IMO is a complete joke really.

Quote

Dragon = 5% faster rate of fire for Ballistics, 5% less heat from Ballistics, 10% faster torso twist

I don't see how that helps the MG... or the Dragon's large CT...

5% less heat on ballistics... you might as well just say "1m Flamer Module" (it's a negligible change).

The ideas based around it seem sound, it's the #s that seem "bad" or "poorly thought out". I thought someone knew something about "math".

If you wanted to "buff" the Hunchback, start by increasing the RT internals by ~5 pts (20% to 25% increase).

If you wanted to "buff" the Centurion's shield arm, start by increasing the LA internals by ~4 pts (25% increase).

I'm just saying...

Edited by Deathlike, 28 July 2014 - 07:27 PM.

[Coralld]

Napes339, on 28 July 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

This could be huge... Extra armor for the hunchback's RT please!

I think you mean damage reduction. That being said... YES!! Damage reduction to Hunchbacks RT would be amazing!!
My only gripe is that some of these numbers should be a bit higher.

As for possibly have people QQ about the Awesome being, well, awesome... I so want that to happen.

Edited by Coralld, 28 July 2014 - 07:30 PM.

[Tezcatli]

What about my poor trebucket?

[Biglead]

I will take great joy in gutting these cattle mechs upon their re-arrival.

[Sug]

Hans Von Lohman, on 28 July 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

12.5% less heat from energy weapons
10% faster heat disapation
17% less damage to hits to the Center Torso.

My 9M is quivering in anticipation.

Seriously if the Comcast tech can get my internet fixed by patch time you guys are going to need to have your mechs remodeled so they can bend over at the waist.

[Deathlike]

Well, the math "agrees" that it makes the Awesome's max CT armor (internal+external) "slightly" greater than the Highlander's CT.

Unlike the Highlander (despite the JJ nerfs), the Awesome has a barn of a CT. I'm not sure if it's enough, but it's a legitimate start though. The rest are jokes when you do the math to them.

[Khobai]

Of all things why did the dragon get a ballistic buff?

The dragon uses a mixed loadout so 5% faster weapon cooldown on ALL weapons wouldve made far more sense. Also the dragon couldve used damage reduction on its CT and/or legs. Its not uncommon for the dragon's legs to get shot out to deny its speed.

Lastly the dragon couldve used a hill climbing bonus.

Edited by Khobai, 28 July 2014 - 08:53 PM.

[LoneMaverick]

While the buffs are definitely nice to at least see someone noticed a problem with a good portion of IS mediums and the "line straddlers" the Awesome and the Dragon, I'm with Deathlike on this in that other than the Awesome buffs, which still wont be that noticeable, the rest are mostly null and void.

Small %'s scale very badly in this game, giving a straight up boost of +Armor/Ton and max Tonnage to specific parts to armor them more efficiently and straight -Heat/Ghostheat/Recycle time would be a lot better of an idea though I'd imagine it might take a bit more work to do so(+/- a half hour perhaps).

I just hope this isn't the "hey we did something, and you're still complaining?!" tweak we've all been looking for who have been losing half their mechs to small mistakes like being glanced at by a TBR, DWF deciding its now your time to die, or a NVA getting his arm pointed in your general direction.



Just as a quick aside, I decided recently that I wanted to try to step into something heavier than my usual Mediums just to see if I can take a little damage while dishing it out, and purchased myself a CTF-2X. Looking to brawl with it and thinking that it'd be a decent mech to do so, I've went thru many different builds with it and with the amount of DPS that is tossed around in the field atm, I get CT cored faster than in any of my mediums.

So, I put 2 ERLLAS and a GR on it, XL and loaded it with heatsinks, now get 400-500 damage and a couple kills per game and don't have to worry about that pesky "range" issue. Really wish they'd start looking into lowering the DPS of anything with a range of 500+ meters(discounting LRMs) by increasing the cooldowns significantly. Hell I think the Gauss could lose its charge up mechanic if it had an 8-10 second recycle time, but perhaps then they'd be next to useless in close combat, that'd be a shame.

Edit: Fract sob story.

Edited by LoneMaverick, 28 July 2014 - 08:00 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'm certainly taking my Awesomes out for a few matches to see how it works out.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 28 July 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

And of all things why did the dragon get a ballistic buff? An energy buff wouldve made far more sense.

I think PGI's trying to encourage the use of the tri-AC2 dakka.

The thing is, it's better on a Shadowhawk (at least the last few times I've seen it), despite the lack of arm articulation... it is far better protected on the SH, and I don't actually remember seeing AC2s in action... outside of the just the occasional lol bad build.

Edited by Deathlike, 28 July 2014 - 07:53 PM.

[Sandslice]

Deathlike, on 28 July 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

If only someone would do the math on how much "effective armor" that damage reduction would generate...



Finally? I kinda liked the semi-broken hitboxes better... because that was true "durability".

This only "amounts" to 1.6 more pts of armor.



That's only amounts to 2.4 pts of armor... which is as laughable as the 5% leg armor quirk for all Lights (it amounts to under 1 pt of armor).

It has been asked quite a bit, so the current number IMO is a complete joke really.



I don't see how that helps the MG... or the Dragon's large CT...

5% less heat on ballistics... you might as well just say "1m Flamer Module" (it's a negligible change).

The ideas based around it seem sound, it's the #s that seem "bad" or "poorly thought out". I thought someone knew something about "math".

If you wanted to "buff" the Hunchback, start by increasing the RT internals by ~5 pts (20% to 25% increase).

If you wanted to "buff" the Centurion's shield arm, start by increasing the LA internals by ~4 pts (25% increase).

I'm just saying...

Actually, double your armour numbers; remember that armour and internals are both doubled from TT. The Cent's buff puts its full armour just above 35 pinpoint, and its armour + internals just above 50 pinpoint. Minor, but it does give you those potential thresholds.

The Awesome's buff, likewise, is a full half-ton of armour, nothing to sneeze at. The heat efficiency buff works out to about +25.7% overall (1.1 divided by 0.875,) which isn't shabby at all.

[Deathlike]

Sandslice, on 28 July 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

Actually, double your armour numbers; remember that armour and internals are both doubled from TT. The Cent's buff puts its full armour just above 35 pinpoint, and its armour + internals just above 50 pinpoint. Minor, but it does give you those potential thresholds.

If the increase of the internals translated into "increased external armor limits", then I would've already been able to add said armor on every light I can field (it would only be 1 pt [rounded down], but it's 1 pt nonetheless). As of right now, the internal armor increase is ONLY .9 pts of internal structure armor for each leg on a 35 tonner.

That's just not the case with these changes though, so it's not translating into anything else.

The Awesome's armor changes translates into BOTH internal AND external armor increases without changing the armor values.

Edited by Deathlike, 28 July 2014 - 08:05 PM.

[Sandslice]

Deathlike, on 28 July 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

If the increase of the internals translated into "increased external armor limits", then I would've already been able to add said armor on every light I can field (it would only be 1 pt [rounded down], but it's 1 pt nonetheless). As of right now, the internal armor increase is ONLY .9 pts of internal structure armor for each leg on a 35 tonner.

That's just not the case with these changes though, so it's not translating into anything else.

The Awesome's armor changes translates into BOTH internal AND external armor increases without changing the armor values.

I admit some misinterpretation of the different terms, then. ^^;

[Khobai]

Quote

I think PGI's trying to encourage the use of the tri-AC2 dakka.

Then maybe they should give the AC2 its range back? And increase the heat on the AC5 so its not outright better for dps per heat.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 28 July 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

Then maybe they should give the AC2 its range back? And increase the heat on the AC5 so its not outright better for dps per heat.

The AC2 range isn't really its problem... it's the DPS (and heat/ghost heat) that this weapon actually relies on (however inaccurate you will be, because you'll be rapidly spreading damage @ long range) is the actual problem at hand.

[Khobai]

the range is a problem, because the AC5 does more damage than the AC2, at the AC2s optimum range.

[XX Sulla XX]

I do not own one but I am glad they did this. I like seeing positive changes to mechs instead of just nerfing everything.

[MonkeyCheese]

I havent piloted my 9M Awesome much lately because it is fully mastered I have such a big list of mechs I must OCD grind to at least full elite skills.

But this finally is fantastic news!

I love my 9M Awesome it has always been a max XL engine brawler with 3ML 1LL and either srms or ssrms depending on my mood and I have always done fairly well in it, modern stats are 33 matches, 32 kills 19 deaths with archived stats telling me that it has the most kills of any specific mech and double the matches of the 2nd mech, then there is all the pre stat days of driving my 9M Awesome.

I just wish I could go back to the 3 Large Laser days before ghost heat =( as I was never a ppc Awesome person.

[El Bandito]

It is still an XL unfriendly 80 ton energy boat, with much less hardpoints than the Stalker, and generally similar top speed, except the 9M and the Hero. I'll still stick with the Stalkers.

Edited by El Bandito, 28 July 2014 - 09:24 PM.