20517 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 20 May 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Try using the Atlas. It's also slow, in addition to being as maneuverable as a building. Pretty sure, of ALL mechs it got screwed the most, relative to how it performed pre-patch.

Atlas though was never a true Brawler, even if that is what MWO converted it to. Also unlike the KDK, various Atlases have INSANE levels of Armor/Structure.

[Juodas Varnas]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

Atlas though was never a true Brawler, even if that is what MWO converted it to. Also unlike the KDK, various Atlases have INSANE levels of Armor/Structure.

Funnily enough, pretty much nobody uses the Atlases that have the armor quirks.
Don't remember the last time i saw a AS7-D or -K.

And the structure quirks? Well, the only thing they seem to do is pad out the damage score of the enemy team, because you lose all of the components about as soon as the armor is stripped.

Besides, no amount of structure quirks can compensate for the cXL engine, 7 slot Endo/Ferro, free CASE and so on and so on.

On other note, i'm trying to rethink my loadout build on my DDC, because the SRMs+AC20 doesn't work with the whole "turning slower than a broken clock" thing.
Maybe cram it full of LRMs?

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 20 May 2017 - 11:16 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 20 May 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Funnily enough, pretty much nobody uses the Atlases that have the armor quirks.
Don't remember the last time i saw a AS7-D or -K.

And the structure quirks? Well, the only thing they seem to do is pad out the damage score of the enemy team, because you lose all of the components about as soon as the armor is stripped.

Besides, no amount of structure quirks can compensate for the cXL engine, 7 slot Endo/Ferro, free CASE and so on and so on.

1) Compared to Clan Mechs, IS mechs hold on to their components much longer. Unless they changed something when I was not looking (which is possible)
2) People are using the 7S still (which is a whopping 4 pts shy per location from the RS, D, etc), and raving about it. Show me the Spirit Bear user doing the same.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 20 May 2017 - 11:19 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

Show me the Spirit Bear user

I can't find one.
Though, i couldn't find anyone in an Atlas-S either.

There are still a crapload of Gauss+ERPPC Kodiak-3s.

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 20 May 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

I can't find one.
Though, i couldn't find anyone in an Atlas-S either.

There are still a crapload of Gauss+ERPPC Kodiak-3s.

which is funny because the Comp Guys are already starting to claim those are outdated. I've seen several 7S. Only saw SBs right after the patch. Didn't take long for people to abandon ship on them.

[Juodas Varnas]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2017 - 11:30 AM, said:

which is funny because the Comp Guys are already starting to claim those are outdated. I've seen several 7S. Only saw SBs right after the patch. Didn't take long for people to abandon ship on them.

Mhmmm...
Too early to tell, i'd give it a week or two for the whole chaos of "WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING, WHY ISN'T THIS WORKING ANYMORE?!" to die down and the meta to settle into a new norm.

Still, the Atlas WAS nerfed with the patch and it really did not need to be. (according to Deathlike's agility reference chart, the Atlas was hit the hardest of all mechs in the game by the decoupling + agi quirk removal, even more so than the Kodiaks).

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 20 May 2017 - 11:42 AM.

[Requiemking]

Imperius, on 20 May 2017 - 10:25 AM, said:

Where did I say i wanted to go faster? 52.3KPH is pretty damn slow...

No, you just want Assaults to be as agile as a 60 ton Heavy so that they dominate the game.

[Juodas Varnas]

Requiemking, on 20 May 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

No, you just want Assaults to be as agile as a 60 ton Heavy so that they dominate the game.

Well, the Gargoyle (80 tons) is as agile as the Centurion, Crab, Hunchback, Enforcer and Trebuchet (50 tons) now.
And the 95 ton Executioner is as agile as a 60 ton Rifleman.

Also a 65 ton Linebacker is MORE agile than 35 ton Ravens, Firestarters and Panthers.

Dartboard of balance STRIKES AGAIN

This whole decoupling thing is like a really bad joke that doesn't know when to end.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 20 May 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[Requiemking]

Juodas Varnas, on 20 May 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

Well, the Gargoyle (80 tons) is as agile as the Centurion, Crab, Hunchback, Enforcer and Trebuchet (50 tons) now.
And the 95 ton Executioner is as agile as a 60 ton Rifleman.

Also a 65 ton Linebacker is MORE agile than 35 ton Ravens, Firestarters and Panthers.

Dartboard of balance STRIKES AGAIN

This whole decoupling thing is like a really bad joke that doesn't know when to end.

As I told Gyrok in another thread, I don't mind having a couple of abnormally agile mechs in a given weightclass, as long as they pay the appropriate price for said agility. Gargoyle and Executioner both pay that price via hardlocked equipment.

[Juodas Varnas]

Requiemking, on 20 May 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

As I told Gyrok in another thread, I don't mind having a couple of abnormally agile mechs in a given weightclass, as long as they pay the appropriate price for said agility. Gargoyle and Executioner both pay that price via hardlocked equipment.

I'd happily hardlock a bunch of equipment into my Atlas, if it could be as agile as a 50 tonner, lol

Here's the thing, though.
I don't mind "abnormally agile" mechs in a certain weight class too. As long as their agility doesn't creep over an entire weight class and become absolutely ridiculous, like the 65 ton HEAVY mech being more agile than 35 ton LIGHTS and 80 ton ASSAULT mech being as agile as 50 ton MEDIUMS.
I wouldn't mind the heavy mech being MAAAAYBE as agile as a 55 ton medium, BUT NOT A 35 TON LIGHT MECH.

It's just so bloody random and nonsensical...

[FupDup]

Juodas Varnas, on 20 May 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

In my opinion, both the mech's weight AND the engine in use should have affected it.

That actually is exactly how it worked. If it was based purely on engines, then a Jenner with an XL300 would have the same agility as a Dire Wolf with an XL300. We know that wasn't the case.

Agility was based off of your top speed, which in turn factored in both weight and engine.

Edited by FupDup, 20 May 2017 - 12:16 PM.

[Juodas Varnas]

FupDup, on 20 May 2017 - 12:15 PM, said:

That actually is exactly how it worked. If it was based purely on engines, then a Jenner with an XL300 would have the same agility as a Dire Wolf with an XL300. We know that wasn't the case.

Agility was based off of your top speed, which in turn factored in both weight and engine.

You're right. I worded it incorrectly.

Let me try again... I think that a 50 ton mech going at 64kph should be more agile than a 100 ton mech going at 64 kph, the same way a truck that goes a maximum speed of 64 kph will accelerate and decelerate slower than moped capable of the same top speed (due to the whole inertia thing).
In the old system both the 50 tonner and 100 tonner would've been equally as agile (barring any quirks, that is) if they have the same top speed.

Does that make sense?

[Imperius]

Requiemking, on 20 May 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

No, you just want Assaults to be as agile as a 60 ton Heavy so that they dominate the game.

The dire wolf when first implemented was hardly dominating. The only thing it has going for it was boating. I want my pre-nerf torso twist back!

Besides you've established you understand very little about balance since your MK II hate sermons.

[Metus regem]

Imperius, on 20 May 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

The dire wolf when first implemented was hardly dominating. The only thing it has going for it was boating. I want my pre-nerf torso twist back!

Besides you've established you understand very little about balance since your MK II hate sermons.

I distinctly remember the Dire Wolf being a very dominating mech after it dropped.... It was the best assault mech for a rather long time, post quirks it took a hit on that throne, but it was the Kodiak that completely dethroned it.

[Sereglach]

FLG 01, on 20 May 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

This means PGI has to take even greater care regarding the choice of their heroes. They have to find a hero Mech filled with SL-era Tech.
I don't mind if they come up with their own non-canon hero, but I do mind if they violate the canon by giving 3rd SW-era pilots Mechs that would make the ComGuards envious. It is just an unnecessary violation and an easily avoidable one.

In case of the Assassin it would have been extremely easy actually, since the few surviving Assassins of 3052 were almost all heirlooms, usually modified as we are told (TRO:3050U) - the perfect opportunity to create a plausible, lore-friendly hero. (Still non-canon but at least not anti-canon). But no, they took a pilot who died in 3033 and had zero SL-tech on his Mech. It is certainly no surprise to me that we did not see a nice lore write-up by Randall Bills for that...

Regardless, the point's already been made, PGI and the majority of the community (as per the last time this came up a few years ago in 2014) made it clear that they'd rather take canon hero pilots and their mech concepts, and then update them to new tech and at least modestly optimize them to MWO standards (Endo, DHS, etc. where appropriate to the mech), rather than leave heroes at baseline tech that they could/would/should have had given their era. PGI, also, is likely to take the most popular or most well known pilot of any given hero option, rather than a more obscure hero that's more "era appropriate" (not saying that's true in the Assassin's case, just letting you know) which means 3rd and 4th succession war hero options are the more likely candidates for any mech available in that timeframe . . . since that's where more nostalgia lies.

So, sorry, you can have the opinion you want on this, but that ship sailed about 3 years ago. You can, and should, expect to see any hero mech PGI puts out updated to newer tech levels regardless of what era the original hero concepts comes out of.

Also, I could care less what Randall Bills writes lore posts for in MWO; and that's nothing to judge what PGI puts out. I wouldn't expect Randall to do write-ups for a game he gets basically nothing out of on every little mech release . . . only the big nostalgia hypes that harken back to TT and the old novels (like the Marauder and Warhammer releases). The game is completely non-canon, anyway (seriously, if it were we'd have to rewrite the loss of Tukkayid to the clans 3 times now); and the only time Randall has written anything is when they wanted to create a lot of hype, like with the early Classics and the Roughneck (since it was christened Battletech Canon by CGL).

Edited by Sereglach, 20 May 2017 - 01:35 PM.

[Requiemking]

Imperius, on 20 May 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

The dire wolf when first implemented was hardly dominating. The only thing it has going for it was boating. I want my pre-nerf torso twist back!

Besides you've established you understand very little about balance since your MK II hate sermons.

Erm, the Dire Wolf was the best Assault for a long time because of how much firepower it carries. The only reason it was dethroned was because of the Kodiak. Also, my "hate sermons" were me pointing out exactly what flaws the Knockoff was going to suffer from in MWO, your response to which was a series of rose-colored glasses rants and several anecdotal points which did nothing to counter it's flaws. And now I can throw another one into the mix. The Knockoff is going to have poor agility due to it being a 90 ton Assault mechs, and thus appears the real reason you want engine sync back. You want your 90 ton FatCat to twist like a small Heavy to try to counter it's other flaws.

Edited by Requiemking, 20 May 2017 - 02:06 PM.

[Metus regem]

Requiemking, on 20 May 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Erm, the Dire Wolf was the best Assault for a long time because of how much firepower it carries. The only reason it was dethroned was because of the Kodiak. Also, my "hate sermons" were me pointing out exactly what flaws the Knockoff was going to suffer from in MWO, your response to which was a series of rose-colored glasses rants and several anecdotal points which did nothing to counter it's flaws. And now I can throw another one into the mix. The Knockoff is going to have poor agility due to it being a 90 ton Assault mechs, and thus appears the real reason you want engine sync back. You want your 90 ton FatCat to twist like a small Heavy to try to counter it's other flaws.

More elegant translation:

Metis called it a while ago, the 90t Mk II will likely not twist like the 75t version used too with similar hit boxes the are average at best, this will leave the Mk II either on par or slightly worse than the Marauder IIC in terms of game play.

[Requiemking]

Metus regem, on 20 May 2017 - 02:16 PM, said:

More elegant translation:

Metis called it a while ago, the 90t Mk II will likely not twist like the 75t version used too with similar hit boxes the are average at best, this will leave the Mk II either on par or slightly worse than the Marauder IIC in terms of game play.

Swap he Marauder IIC for the Warhawk, and you've got it.

[Metus regem]

Requiemking, on 20 May 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

Swap he Marauder IIC for the Warhawk, and you've got it.

No, the Mk II will come out a head of the Warhawk by virtue of being a battlemechs in MWO.

[Requiemking]

Metus regem, on 20 May 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

No, the Mk II will come out a head of the Warhawk by virtue of being a battlemechs in MWO.

But it will be worse than the MAD-IIC due to having worse hitboxes.