I'm of the opinion that putting an XL in an Atlas is wrong. A STD 300 can net you 50-60 point alpha easy and goes fast enough.
It's not wrong. I used to run a gauss with that until they broke the gauss. Best thing you could do to the Atlas. Good speed, good firepower, good heat management and good armor. Sure you are dead when your gauss torso gets mauled but high risk high reward. You guys want low risk high reward.
A STD 350 is the option for you then. But at the cost of firepower. If you focus too much on your alpha, dont cry when your team leaves you slowpokes behind. In case you didn't notice Clans introduced speed kills.
It's not wrong. I used to run a gauss with that until they broke the gauss. Best thing you could do to the Atlas. Good speed, good firepower, good heat management and good armor. Sure you are dead when your gauss torso gets mauled but high risk high reward. You guys want low risk high reward.
A STD 350 is the option for you then. But at the cost of firepower. If you focus too much on your alpha, dont cry when your team leaves you slowpokes behind. In case you didn't notice Clans introduced speed kills.
Clans introduced safe-XL's, that's the main difference.
Yes, give him some additional armor, instead of more weapon quirks. Or maybe PGI could rework command console again. Right now it is pretty pointless. No one is using it.
If command console provided some really significant bonuses (boni?), it would be a buff for the Atlas and other assault mechs, that have the free tonnage to take it.
So, to combat the power creep we ... power creep some more?
Wouldn't it be wiser to stop the power creep, reign in some of the worst offenders a bit, and try to get at least a semblance of balance?
You're talking sense and logic! Bad! These people don't have common sense or logic (PGI especially considering that they are the ones that are using bandaids to patch over old problems while creating new ones).
Quote
The Atlas is only "bad" because 'mechs that have arrived later have had an extra hard point here, some extra agility there, a few quirks, a couple of modules, and so on and so forth. Power creep.
Atlas was king of the assaults - when it was the only one we had, and after the Awesome (poor thing, never got a fair break). But even as our third assault arrived (the Stalker), the Atlas lost its top-of-the-heap crown. And then, in quick succession: The poptart kings Highlander and Victor; the Battlemaster (wub wub!), the Banshee, the King Crab (hello dual AC/20), and now the latest, the Zeus. All outshine the Atlas in most regards.
It reminds me of the fact that my Commandos only have four hard points while most every other light has more - some, like the FS9, twice as many.
Power creep.
Jenners have on average 6 hardpoints. One -- a particularly awful one -- has 5.
Meanwhile there's a light mech with 10 hardpoints. Ten!
Know what would have made the Locust 1V a better competitor than the Spider 5K? Simply having two more ballistic hardpoints or one more energy hardpoint. A simple, solid little edge; you either run a Locust to get good speed and a few extra lighter weapons or you ran a Spider, packed in a heavier weapon with some MGs and some jumpjets. More lighter weapons would have helped the Locust have its own unique edge and playstyle. But since they have identical hardpoints, the 5K is always going to be better. Slapping on a boatload of quirks has helped the Locust, but that Spider 5K still outclasses it since it got its own quirks.
Ever wonder why the Atlas K has always been on the crap list? It was the only Atlas to get ZERO inflation, on a mech that already had issues. Want to know why the D-DC was popular before the ECM craze? It got inflated more than any other Atlas with that third missile launcher. I know it isn't the one with the most hardpoints, but the Atlas D is only one hardpoint beyond the stock build. The Atlas D-DC is 3 hardpoints beyond stock. Atlas RS is only two hardpoints more than stock and the Atlas K is zero hardpoints beyond stock. By technicality you can't count its extra AMS, as all mechs (short of the X-5) get 1 AMS added to them and if they had an AMS they still get one added to it. That's a universal thing so it isn't something that can be singled out for the Atlas K.
Meanwhile, the King Crabs are all universally 4 hardpoints greater than stock.
The stalkers never had hardpoint inflation (at all) and as such certain variants were always deemed inferior. Had there been a hardpoint size system those 'inferior' ones would have been the go to Stalkers for the big guns. Had the lesser hardpoint ones been given some inflation they'd probably be all about 'the same' anyway. They have between 8 and 11 hardpoints each.
Every single Victor is a beneficiary of inflation.
Every single Awesome has hardpoint inflation but it just didn't help the Awesome's plight. It went from being a tall skinny mech to being a short, wide mech with a big vertical hop (instead of something more side to side for movement), so there's no real way to miss or spread damage against those large vertical hitboxes.
The Battlemasters do not have inflation, but since they focused on a lot of smaller weaponry they often have lots more hardpoints.
The Cataphract 4X is a mech which got three additional hardpoints which didn't even bring it up to the same number of its comrades. It was forced to keep a small engine limit because it had a small engine -- which it did to make room for the heavy weapon load. A lot of different things could have been done to showcase a huge difference in the 4X, but none of them happened. Rather than shining because it carried larger, heavier weapons... it was shunned with a small engine limit and slapped out there...and left to mothball.
The Zeus isn't very popular and with good reason. Compared to all the mechs above, the Zeus only has 6 or 7 hardpoints and that is after inflation!
Still better than most Atlases, but it says something.
Buff Atlas CT. Then they cant storm around abnormally laying waste with weapons if their side torso's gone but also dont drop to easy either even after side torso gone. I don think the rest of the mech needs to much more durability. Thats taking into account some Omni mech power will be reduced some time.
The AC20 is taken out when the Armor is gone bcs when the Armor is gone the Enemy starts to crit Equipment Slots and the AC20 occupies 10 Equipement Slots giving it a Sky High chance being crit ASAP - more Structure only means you carry your dead AC20 longer around...more ST Structure would mean you have the ST attached Arms longer funtional...not the ST Hardpoint placed AC20...
Another solution would be to give all Equipment 10 Health per Slot which would make Multi-Slot Equipment more durable (keep in mind the chance of a Crit Hit in general is ~42%).
I agree the Atlas needs more armor, specifically side torso armor.
They should remove the Atlas' +9 structure quirks from its arms, and instead give it +9 armor quirks on its side torsos.
Assault mechs should also lose anchor turn/speed tweak from their skill trees and gain shake reduction/damage reduction skills instead. This would help the issue with lights/mediums not being agile enough compared to heavies/assaults and also make assaults like the Atlas more tanky.
Quote
Another solution would be to give all Equipment 10 Health per Slot which would make Multi-Slot Equipment more durable (keep in mind the chance of a Crit Hit in general is ~42%).
10 health per slot is way too much.
8 base health + 2 additional health per slot would be more reasonable.
So an AC/20 that takes up 10 slots would have 8+(2*10) or 28 health (thats 10 more health than it has now)
Adding a head energy hard point to the Atlas would also be a small step in the right direction. Atlas builds benefit from artemis so putting a missile slot in the head won't be much use.
Give the RS and the D-DC 1 energy in the CT as well.
yeah but the Atlas is a 100 tonner with few hardpoints so that RT is almost always carrying a big gun which takes up a LOT of slots. The extra (and lets be honest, minor) structure does not protect said gun. Basically you lose the AC20 just as early as prior to those quirks and now simply get to keep a largely useless ST for a weee bit longer...
The Atlas should have received armor quirks instead of structure.
The Atlas should have received armor quirks instead of structure.
True but now PGI will double the internals and up the armor 15% THUS making the atlas OP and further pushing the DW down the food chain. year from now the DW will be a tier 4 mech along with the nova
Imho we have so much Firepower and so much Crit-Chance (Clans have the Target Computer on Top) that 10 Health per Equipment(Crit)-Slot would be in a good relation to the incoming damage.
PS: Btw could that be used to Balance IS vs Clans:
IS gets 10 Health per Crit-Slot bcs the IS has bulky, heavy but sturdy Equipment
Clan gets 5 Heath per Crit Slot bcs the Clans have advaced, lightweight and thus more fragile Equipment
True but now PGI will double the internals and up the armor 15% THUS making the atlas OP and further pushing the DW down the food chain. year from now the DW will be a tier 4 mech along with the nova
Ok, lets step away from the hyperbole, and not pretend like the DW is struggling...
But it's not just the Atlas that's underperforming. It's the Atlas, Victor, Awesome, Battlemaster (and Gargoyle and Warhawk). That seems to indicate a systemic problem rather than the Atlas just being undesirable. Also, the fallacy you were looking for was the slippery slope fallacy, gambler's fallacy has to do with odds prediction.
You're right about the structure quirks though. PGI at least seems to have realized that with the Zeus, so maybe there is hope for the future.
You may be correct about the current state of Assaults - my point was that it's not a priori bad to buff something. Even if other chassis are underperforming, you could still get better results by buffing the lowest performers and then knocking down the most powerful chassis. Note, for example, that you did not list the Highlander - it's so underused that you apparently forgot about it, even though it is the poster child for Assaults that need help. Nerfing down to that level of performance would be a major undertaking involving nearly all Assault chassis - so it would be better to buff the Highlander alone regardless of what you did to the rest of the playing field.
You're right about the misidentified fallacy. I was thinking the slippery slope was a subset of the gambler's fallacy (I've seen it described that way,) but you're correct - thanks. 'S what I get for posting as the drop is starting.
The King Crab twists faster; I believe they have the same movement profile, and I know they have the same engine range. The Crab also has more armor on its arms but, like the Atlas, nobody specifically focuses a Crab's arms.
Also noting that the moment I lost my armor on my side torso both my ballistic weapons were instantly taken out even if the internals were barely scratched. Quite sad.
I find Atlases most functional with a 325 engine and above. 300 is much too sluggish to keep up with the team.
Comparing the Atlas to a King Crab, I'd say it's also reasonable to raise torso and arm yaw further (throw in slightly increased rate as well).
And lastly, I agree with the widely held view of Atlas needing to be more durable. Either reduced damage to CT and ST, or increased armor to said locations. Question is... how much would be enough?
I Agree atlas needs some love, and making it just more durable is one way to do it. and its slowness is good balance to added armor...
I miss those days it was about skill, not hey I got just biggest guns and I just took your armor in instant... Ive always hoped they approach this problem otherway also...pilot skill system, but thats been ages "in works"...
8
Xetelian, on 09 May 2015 - 06:02 PM, said:
