228 replies to this topic

[Domenoth]

process, on 15 June 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

I guess the narc and AMS ones make sense since they're Clan-weapon-specific...

But that's what I'm saying. They aren't Clan-weapon-specific are they? Am I just wrong about that?

[process]

Domenoth, on 15 June 2015 - 05:37 PM, said:

But that's what I'm saying. They aren't Clan-weapon-specific are they? Am I just wrong about that?

I haven't used any of those four in a loooooong time so I can't recall, but I would understand why they're expanding those two to IS and Clan versions. The other two don't make sense to me.

Edited by process, 15 June 2015 - 05:40 PM.

[Dakkss]

Domenoth, on 15 June 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

Would we call that the most famous part of an adder?

No, but he has a point. Why do so many mechs have quirks that have nothing to do with their stock weapon/equipment loadout? For example a while back when the Thunderbolt had amazing PPC quirks (leading to CW nonsense) instead of the Awesome. Firestarter gets no flamer quirks yet it was designeds specifically with them in mind. Why not extended Flamer range or damage? The quirk system makes me scratch my head.

[process]

Flamers need a complete rework, taking it off the Adder was a good solution in the meantime.

[ALKALIN3]

Domenoth, on 15 June 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

Would we call that the most famous part of an adder?

And here I thought it was...you know...the erppcs...

[Goose]

heh: that damn lantern …

[Nightshade24]

Domenoth, on 15 June 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

Would we call that the most famous part of an adder?

In terms of arnament, yes.

Tied with it's long range abilities. but Cl ER PPC nerfs, Cl LRM nerfs, etc kind of make it difficult to do that. Would love a quirk for the adder that removes all splash damage from ER PPC's to a pinpoint 15 damage weapon. Then the problem (quote quote problem...) wouldn't be an issue.

However regardless. It's an iconic feature present on all adders and just thinking of something else there instead of the flamer doesn't go right in my mind.

I would prefer if PGI right now rename the adder to something else nad start making up there own variants for it because it is not the adder anymore really. Would better suit the meta as well alas =l

[J0anna]

Not one EBJ can mount a lower arm actuator, the "A" really should be able to. Oh well another mech to gather dust.

[t Khrist]

[The Mechromancer]

IS MASC?

Which mechs can have that?

If I can slap it on anything.. .exe refund incoming!

Edited by The Mechromancer, 15 June 2015 - 06:12 PM.

[045]

I gotta say this patch looks a lot better than the last two. Looking forward to my Cauldron-Jaguar.

[Kael Posavatz]

Where is the River City Map? Is there not supposed to be a new River City map?

[Twilight Fenrir]

The Mechromancer, on 15 June 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

IS MASC?

Which mechs can have that?

If I can slap it on anything.. .exe refund incoming!

Certain variants will have a slot for it, like certain variants can sport JJs, or ECM.

Currently, there are no such mechs in game. However, there are two Wolverines capable of sporting it, and a Cataphract in 3050. I expect to see the 'Phract in the gift store soon, probably the Wolverine too.

Kael 17, on 15 June 2015 - 06:15 PM, said:

Where is the River City Map? Is there not supposed to be a new River City map?

If you look at the June/July roadmap, it got pushed out to July 7th patch. They wanted a bit of extra time to set the standard high.

Edited by Twilight Fenrir, 15 June 2015 - 06:16 PM.

[Destructicus]

The Mechromancer, on 15 June 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

IS MASC?

Which mechs can have that?

If I can slap it on anything.. .exe refund incoming!

FLEA CONFIRMED

[LordLosh]

If you like the adder with a flamer, here is an idea LEAVE IT!!!!! Jesus they do something awesome that does not affect you at all and a few of you complain. Get over it real quick. and comparing it to lore when we don't follow a lot of things in lore and haven't for a long time need to just relax, breathe and go outside smell a flower.

[Sereglach]

El Bandito, on 15 June 2015 - 04:57 PM, said:

Adder players rejoice!

And Jenner is less of a walking CT!

I'd rejoice more if Flamers received their promised rework instead of just allowing them to be removed from Adders. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice move, and I do appreciate more building flexibility. I know that not everyone wants fixed weapon systems on mechs in ANY way.

However, I am still quite peeved that my beloved flamer is being thrown into the trash and not getting any love. . . . Rather than fix the flamer they're just removing them from the equation. I don't think people would be quite as excited about this change if Flamers were fixed and put in a usable state.

FupDup, on 15 June 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

I don't like that the MASC percentage buff gets lower as your mech's weight gets lower. :\ Why does Scat only get 10% when the Exe gets 20%? Sadface.

Two main reasons for this:
1. Prevents light mechs from blowing too far past the current speed cap. I am actually really excited about this. It means that the Dasher and Flea are more likely to enter the game, now. A Dasher/Fire-Moth typically runs at 162kph, which would only push the MASC to 180kph (only 10kph past the current speed cap, and not as huge of a deal as trying to compensate for over 200kph). The Engine Caps of a Flea would probably lead to a comparable speed (if not exactly the same with current engine cap standards).

2. A 20% buff for a mech running 70kph is only going to bump it to 84kph (a 14kph difference). Meanwhile a 10% buff for a mech running at 150kph is going to push it to push it to 165kph (a 15kph difference). Honestly, it's a wise move to ensure a reasonable and consistent speed boost across the board.

[Pariah Devalis]

MASC values bother me for a couple reasons:

• 
  
  
  MK I and MK II of both tech trees are the same flat 10%, but it suddenly starts to jump at MK III, and jumps again at MK4. Either have them all scale up or set them all to a fixed, flat %.
  
• 
  
  
  
  IS MASC is removable, but weighs more, but you can change engine sizes on IS mechs. Clan MASC is fixed with no option to tweak the engine, but weighs less and takes one less crit. Considering Clan MASC is something we are stuck with, with no option otherwise, why are the values, even if just experimental, faster for IS MASC than Clan? An absolutely unnecessary deviation between IS and C MASC.
  
• 
  
  
  
  Similarly, why are the tonnage ranges for IS and Clan MASC versions different? I am not sure I see the point in that, exactly. Like jump jets, MASC class I-IV should also be standardized by weight of mech, if only to avoid confusion.

Yes, yes, I know no IS MASC mechs are out yet. And yes, I know Clan MASC is hardwired - and I have no problem with them being hardwired. However, there is unnecessary variation here. Not everything needs to be different just to be different. We are talking about an extremely temporary speed increase, in which period you are unable to shoot with any sort of accuracy whatsoever, with the totally avoidable possibility of causing some internal leg damage. MASC units were the control computers for the system. The rest of it was the Myomer in the mech as is standard across other mechs. Bigger mech, more myomer, larger control system needed, but ultimately the myomer is the same and the purpose for it was the same, regardless of tech (IS or Clan) or weight.

I know the values are subject to change, and I do sincerely hope you change them.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 15 June 2015 - 06:37 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Sereglach, on 15 June 2015 - 06:17 PM, said:

I'd rejoice more if Flamers received their promised rework instead of just allowing them to be removed from Adders. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice move, and I do appreciate more building flexibility. I know that not everyone wants fixed weapon systems on mechs in ANY way.

However, I am still quite peeved that my beloved flamer is being thrown into the trash and not getting any love. . . . Rather than fix the flamer they're just removing them from the equation. I don't think people would be quite as excited about this change if Flamers were fixed and put in a usable state.



Two main reasons for this:
1. Prevents light mechs from blowing too far past the current speed cap. I am actually really excited about this. It means that the Dasher and Flea are more likely to enter the game, now. A Dasher/Fire-Moth typically runs at 162kph, which would only push the MASC to 180kph (only 10kph past the current speed cap, and not as huge of a deal as trying to compensate for over 200kph). The Engine Caps of a Flea would probably lead to a comparable speed (if not exactly the same with current engine cap standards).

2. A 20% buff for a mech running 70kph is only going to bump it to 84kph (a 14kph difference). Meanwhile a 10% buff for a mech running at 150kph is going to push it to push it to 165kph (a 15kph difference). Honestly, it's a wise move to ensure a reasonable and consistent speed boost across the board.

Fire Moth is actually ~178 Kph with a 200 engine. Speed tweak, can't forget it.
Locust is ~170 with a 190, and they're the same tonnage.

So, already pushing the speed limit, +10% brings it to 195.


Cat will go ~130; I think I'd prefer the 2 tons and grab a Gauss rifle.

[Pariah Devalis]

Mcgral18, on 15 June 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

Cat will go ~130; I think I'd prefer the 2 tons and grab a Gauss rifle.

Cat will go 116, actually. For some odd reason, MK1 and MK2 are 10%. Then it jumps at MK3, and again at Mk4. *Confusing and unnecessary.

*the lack of jump between Mk I and Mk II

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 15 June 2015 - 06:28 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Pariah Devalis, on 15 June 2015 - 06:27 PM, said:

Cat will go 116, actually. For some odd reason, MK1 and MK2 are 10%. Then it jumps at MK3, and again at Mk4. Confusing and unnecessary.

Well, that sucks balls then.

2 tons back, PGIplz



*sigh* I guess we get that acceleration and stuff.