244 replies to this topic

[Insects]

stjobe, on 09 May 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

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?

Yes but they aren't going to touch the three $240 pack mechs which are the upper bar.
They are the reason everything else has had to play catchup.

It is too hard to Nerf, lots of anger and claims for refunds etc.
So instead everything else has to be buffed.

Armor buffs are a good way to do it, it helps increase TTK instead of shortening it.

Atlas should be the games tank mech.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Xetelian, on 09 May 2015 - 06:02 PM, said:

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.

The sole, single and only exception to this is putting an XL400 in a Boars Head to simulate the Stalker 4N build. Otherwise, as above, XL engines in an Atlas are a terrible idea.

[Clownwarlord]

Im not sure if it should have armor quirks (the Atlas), but I believe it should have a lot of internal quirks just for its size it has to have loads of fibers covering up critical internals like gyros or other equipment.

[FupDup]

stjobe, on 09 May 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

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?

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.

To be fair, the Commando was inferior to the Jenner since the the first day the Commie hit the game, which was actually later than the Jenner IIRC?

I also wouldn't really list the Battlemaster as "power creep," because even with quirks it doesn't really have much of a reputation.

[Void Angel]

stjobe, on 09 May 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

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?

Power creep is a very legitimate concern - but you're inadvertently committing a gambler's fallacy here. Just buffing a 'mech today doesn't mean that we must always buff 'mechs in the future. And if a single chassis, like the Atlas, is underperforming, it's much better to simply deal with that one - you use much less effort and are more likely to hit your intended balance target. Additionally, it's much more difficult to remove hardpoints (or add them) because then you get into uniqueness of 'mechs. Not impossible, but more difficult, and with many more emergent ramifications than a durability quirk (although 15% armor on all components is insane.)

So if the Atlas is underperforming, it's the best choice in this particular instance to buff it - however we go about that.

CrushLibs, on 09 May 2015 - 01:33 PM, said:

you do realize the atlas gets internal quirks


ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (LT): 11.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (RT): 11.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (LA): 9.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (RA): 9.00 AC/20 VELOCITY: 5.00 % BALLISTIC VELOCITY: 5.00 % LASER DURATION: -7.50 % MISSILE COOLDOWN: 7.50 %

You don't seem to realize how effective structure quirks for Assault chassis are - not very. By the time that extra structure is taken off my Atlas, I have almost invariably lost the weapons in that component beforehand. Same with the arms, though no one ever kills the arms on my Atlas. (I've even taken to using them as my armor hedge for getting more tonnage - hence why I think the Atlas should work out and get bigger arms.) So the most that extra structure is doing for me is to delay the loss of a medium laser for one more shot; I'm afraid it's not noticeable.

By contrast, you could ask any Hunchback pilot how much they love the armor buffs to their hunch - but you don't need to ask them, because (challenge aside) there are Hunchback pilots again, while the Atlas is often piloted for non-light ECM. That tells you everything you need to know.

Xetelian, on 09 May 2015 - 06:02 PM, said:

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.

Yeah, Blinky McClevarname up there dropped his credibility in a cowpie when he chastised the other guy for specializing as a brawler - and then jumped up and down on it with cleats when he advocated an XL engine.

[Void Angel]

PS: I've found the fearsome reputation of the Battlemaster to be rather nonexistent as well - in keeping with its performance. It's moderately good, and some people love it, but I haven't really found or seen it to be a standout chassis.

[Elizander]

Losing my side torsos on my Atlas quite a lot.

[Wild Hamster]

Yes I agree. Let's give the Atlai +50pts to each section and reduce speed by 30% as a tradeoff

[Navid A1]

I totally agree with this. Atlas is my only favorite mech in all BT universe
(that's the reason Atlas was my only and only mech till the clans came)

Atlas is currently undergunned and outclassed compared to KGC and banshee.
It should be the hardest mech to kill in battletech... it should be able to look eye to eye to an entire enemy lance and cause fear into their hearts.

PGI please... give atlas what it deserves... give it crazy high armor quirks.

[MauttyKoray]

The consensus among many players I've talked to have agreed with me, that the Atlas should be the mech that keeps coming. The one you shoot and shoot and it drags its war torn carcass shuffling towards you. The Atlas doesn't do heaps of damage with its arsenal compared to most Assaults, but it should be able to take hits and keep coming to compensate for that.

Even before, the Atlas getting large Internal/Armor quirks was heavily backed by players during the second IS quirk pass. It got some small Internal quirks, but was entirely passed over for any real armor quirks. Its still my belief that the Atlas should get some major armor/internal quirks, as it was supposed to be one of the most heavily armored 100 tonners in the field and would benefit from being able to soak up damage in MWO.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'd consider two ideas to boost up the Atlas. The first is making adjustments to base armor distribution and allow armor quirks to compensate mech geometries / hit boxes (many mechs can benefit from doing this), since it's not an isolated problem to the Atlas. The Second is raising total Hardpoints for each variant to 10 each.

---

This first idea would simply separate the front torsos from sharing with the rear torsos with armor point allocation. So that armor quirks can be added to compensate for surface areas.

So with the Atlas it will be a max of 64/96/64 for the front sections and 20/28/20 for the rear sections.

This way The Atlas can get Armor Quirks that can be +20/+22/+20 for the Front sections for a new total of 84/118/84 and the rear unchanged, as a base line for the Atlas.

Than from here, further boosts can be considered as necessary to increase the toughness of the Atlas. From here, maybe they would simply need more boosts to internal structure. Or instead from increasing armor quirks.

Applying Armor idea to other Assault Mechs in spoiler

Spoiler

King Crab: Front 60/ 96/ 60 _ Rear 24/ 30/ 24 _ Front Armor Boost +18/+20/+18 _ New Front 78/116/ 78

Direwolf: Front 64/ 96/ 64 _ Rear 20/ 28/ 20 _ Front Armor Boost +14/+18/+14 _ New Front 78/114/ 78

Banshee: Front 60/ 86/ 60 _ Rear 20/ 34/ 20 _ Front Armor Boost +12/+24/+12 _ New Front 72/110/ 72

Highlander: Front 56/ 82/ 56 _ Rear 20/ 32/ 20 _ Front Armor Boost +14/+18/+14 _ New Front 70/100/ 70

Battlemaster: Front 56/ 86/ 56 _ Rear 16/ 22/ 16 _ Front Armor Boost +12/+12/+12 _ New Front 68/ 98/68

Stalker: Front 54/ 86/ 54 _ Rear 18/ 22/ 18 _ Front Armor Boost +12/+12/+12 _ New Front 66/ 98/ 66

Warhawk: Front 52/ 88/ 52 _ Rear 20/ 20/ 20 _ Front Armor Boost +12/+12/+12 _ New Front 64/100/ 64

Awesome: Front 48/ 60/ 48 _ Rear 20/ 40/ 20 _ Front Armor Boost +20/+28+20 _ New Front 68/ 88/ 68

Gargoyle: Front 48/ 76/ 48 _ Rear 20/ 24/ 20 _ Front Armor Boost +16/+12+16 _ New Front 64/ 88/ 64

Victor: Front 48/ 70/ 48 _ Rear 20/ 30/ 20 _ Front Armor Boost +18/+18+18 _ New Front 66/ 88/ 66

Zeus: Front 51/ 73/ 51 _ Rear 17/ 27/ 17 _ Front Armor Boost +17/+15+17 _ New Front 68/ 88/ 68

---

So allowing 10 hardpoints, with each variant having at least one in the CTs, also allows each variant able to zombie. Here's the breakdown I'd consider:

Spoiler

So the BH gets Tube count boosted to 15 and one CT Energy

The D gets one Ballistic added

D-DC gets either 2 CT Energy and goes down to 1 Ballistic, (or gets one CT Energy and keeps 2 Ballistic)

K gets Tube count raised to 20, 1 Ballistic and one AMS (Plus quirks to Missile Spread)

RS gets two CT Energy

S has no change

Edited by Praetor Knight, 09 May 2015 - 08:41 PM.

[100 Tonne]

just a thought, the new HGN-732b has Additional armour 29 CT and 19 for LT and RT.

The Atlas should be getting something like this.

[The Iron Chancellor]

Big Grimm, on 09 May 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

just a thought, the new HGN-732b has Additional armour 29 CT and 19 for LT and RT.

The Atlas should be getting something like this.

Which would invalidate an already underwhelming variant of an underwhelming chassis.

I think what they should do is simply increase its torso yaw speed, by what % I dont know, but those beefy arms
sure would be very handy if it could twist fast enough to use them, thus making the mech live far longer at the hands of a capable
pilot.

I think they do not wish to turn any one assault mech into a genuine bonified bullet sponge, and while that may be how it is portrayed in BT (novels or otherwise), video-game interpretations must compromise a bit.

~Regards The Iron Chancellor.

[Mcgral18]

That Dawg, on 09 May 2015 - 12:26 PM, said:

Server stats disagree
Even factoring in trials and the mediocre mechs, Clan® mechs win more

Quirks and quirks alone are what allowed IS mechs to be marginally competitive.
sorry, I know the truth hurts, I have half a dozen I can't bring myself to sell, but never run them anymore.

Server stats? wat?


Quirks are also...what fail to save the bad Clam robots. Not sure what truth you're talking about...but it seems to be highly opinionated "facts".

Remove the two God Tier robots, Clams become mostly garbage, with the Loki being the next runner up?

[Ragtag soldier]

if they'd fix the issue of this pinpoint convergence, you'd have to chew through a LOT more of the armor to silence the big guns which would go a long way towards fixing the problem. my AS7-D works well enough if i can shield my approach until i'm in range, but literally every gun in range of me points directly at the ballistics side torso as soon as it's in view.

[Appuagab]

In current meta Atlas became one-off underbrawler. It's capable of making quick solokill or even two, but then he's useless (dead or damaged). You can play smart, seesaw, stay in covers and use lighter teammates as a bait, but that's definitely not what 100-ton assault mech should do. Direwolf has long-range supression, King Crab has strong pinpoint alpha, they both can use their advantages when staying at range, but Atlas needs to cut distance to use all of its firepower, and more armor required for it.

[The Mechromancer]

Appuagab, on 09 May 2015 - 10:40 PM, said:

You can play smart, seesaw, stay in covers and use lighter teammates as a bait, but that's definitely not what 100-ton assault mech should do. Direwolf has long-range supression, King Crab has strong pinpoint alpha, they both can use their advantages when staying at range, but Atlas needs to cut distance to use all of its firepower, and more armor required for it.

This

[aniviron]

Void Angel, on 09 May 2015 - 06:55 PM, said:

Power creep is a very legitimate concern - but you're inadvertently committing a gambler's fallacy here. Just buffing a 'mech today doesn't mean that we must always buff 'mechs in the future. And if a single chassis, like the Atlas, is underperforming, it's much better to simply deal with that one - you use much less effort and are more likely to hit your intended balance target. Additionally, it's much more difficult to remove hardpoints (or add them) because then you get into uniqueness of 'mechs. Not impossible, but more difficult, and with many more emergent ramifications than a durability quirk (although 15% armor on all components is insane.)

So if the Atlas is underperforming, it's the best choice in this particular instance to buff it - however we go about that.


You don't seem to realize how effective structure quirks for Assault chassis are - not very. By the time that extra structure is taken off my Atlas, I have almost invariably lost the weapons in that component beforehand. Same with the arms, though no one ever kills the arms on my Atlas. (I've even taken to using them as my armor hedge for getting more tonnage - hence why I think the Atlas should work out and get bigger arms.) So the most that extra structure is doing for me is to delay the loss of a medium laser for one more shot; I'm afraid it's not noticeable.

By contrast, you could ask any Hunchback pilot how much they love the armor buffs to their hunch - but you don't need to ask them, because (challenge aside) there are Hunchback pilots again, while the Atlas is often piloted for non-light ECM. That tells you everything you need to know.


Yeah, Blinky McClevarname up there dropped his credibility in a cowpie when he chastised the other guy for specializing as a brawler - and then jumped up and down on it with cleats when he advocated an XL engine.

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.

[Duke Nedo]

Totally agree that the Atlas needs some Armor quirks, ST (and CT). We don't need to mix up clans in the discussion, just compare it to the Crab on which you can make the same builds with spare hardpoints, and most importantly the hardpoints are better placed high on the STs. The crab can do both long range and brawling, but the Atlas imo can only brawl and must fit a STD engine while the Crab is a bit more XL-friendly.

It's not that all chassi need to be competetive, but the bottom line for me is that the Atlas is far too iconic so be obsolete. More durability would be perfectly in theme and would not break balance in any way or form.

Side note: Victors need ST armor too, and just a lil bit of JJ lift.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 10 May 2015 - 03:12 AM.

[Kh0rn]

The atlas could do with additional armor quirks and a relook into the model it self. Give it the banshee treatment return its torsos too be more slimmer like the original atlas and enlarge its arms too cover better.