60 replies to this topic

[Chimera_]

Adamski, on 13 May 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

So you admit that the IIC mechs are better than some IS variants but worse than others, but they still need to be buffed? Are they then only balanced once they are better than every IS variant?

I'm saying the best of the ON1-IIC and HGN-IIC are weaker than the best of the IS HGN and ON1.

Regardless, IS Orions and Highlanders are both complete joke mechs currently, so even if the ON1-IIC and HGN-IIC were buffed to surpass them, they would still be hard pressed to compete with Black Knights, Maulers, Timberwolves, Banshees, and so on.

[Moldur]

Adamski, on 13 May 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

I just have ZERO trust that Paul & Russ can even see straight enough to do the right thing anymore.

Good point.

[Wintersdark]

Snowbluff, on 13 May 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

The 4B/2E should probably get quirks, yes. It's worse than the 2B/4E by a pretty wide margin, since carrying 4 ballastic weapons is kind of insane. I like x4 AC2, though.

the 4B is better then the other for 2xuac10. Mounting in one side gets you tighter convergence, a shield side, and corner peeking. The mech is small enough to work that sword and board too.

The IIC-C has its own roles, but for 2xUAC10, it's all IIC.

Edited by Wintersdark, 13 May 2016 - 05:05 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Chimera11, on 13 May 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

I'm saying the best of the ON1-IIC and HGN-IIC are weaker than the best of the IS HGN and ON1.

Regardless, IS Orions and Highlanders are both complete joke mechs currently, so even if the ON1-IIC and HGN-IIC were buffed to surpass them, they would still be hard pressed to compete with Black Knights, Maulers, Timberwolves, Banshees, and so on.

The IS HGN is superior to the HGN IIC, no doubt. It's a veritable dancer compared to the IIC, with massive agility and structural buffs. The Clan HGN IIC doesn't particularly benefit from the cXL (nearly as much as other mechs) because it lacks engine cap/hardpoints to use that tonnage effectively. The IS HGN, however, is far tougher due to massively higher twist and turn rates and structural buffs, then sports weapon quirks as well.

That said, yeah, all HGN's and ON1's of either flavour are poor and need some love.

[J0anna]

Adamski, on 13 May 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

Here's where I'm coming from:

ON1-IIC > ON1-P
HGN-IIC > HGN-HM

So it is hard for me to swallow the IIC mechs getting a balance pass distinct from a general balance pass, especially after the big sloppy felatio that the Kodiak just received. (Most notably the KDK-SB having both MASC and 30%+ movement and twist quirks)

Ok here's where the rest of us are coming from. If you compare the Highlander IIc with it's max engine (325), to an Atlas with the exact same 325. A basic only (only the basics done) Atlas can out accelerate, out Twist, and out Turn a Completely Mastered HGN IIc. Nobody is asking for weapons quirks for the Highlander IIc, but agility quirks are sorely needed OR let people choose to put in a bigger engine (thus giving up some weapons), but the mech is not played simply because it can ONLY perform as a back line mech. The HGN IIc carries less weapons than the AS7D, they can be setup to give very similar DPS and/or alphas. The Atlas gets well deserves agility and durability quirks as well as weapon quirks, there is no reason the HGN IIc should be just barely more agile than a Dire Wolf.....I could compare it to the IS version of the HGN, but the IS version gets a 55% acceleration/deceleration rate buff as well as a 35% turn rate buff and a 15% torso turn rate (twist) buff (as well as weapon and structure buffs) and has the around the same number of hard points - it's even more of a mismatch....

[Wintersdark]

Also needed, for the highlander (both flavours) to make sense, is having hoverjets fixed. Jump jets are what differentiates the Highlander from Generic Heavy Assault, but as is they're largely worthless.

Edited by Wintersdark, 13 May 2016 - 06:56 PM.

[Adamski]

The IS Highlander has to equip a STD engine, giving up a lot of speed or firepower, or it has to take an iXL engine, making it vulnerable to torso death after losing as little as 28% of its torso HP (a single ST) while a cXL has to lose at least 43% of its torso HP (CT core).

Then we get into how the IS Highlander loses 2x as many slots to equip Endo Steel, and each DHS it adds takes up 50% more space. Every weapon system it adds is heavier or bulkier or both than the Clan version.

To compensate the IS Highlander gets some structure buffs (comes out to a 15% increase in HP) and accel/deceleration quirks, so that it being almost 2x easier to kill or being 15% slower, it is roughly just as tanky.

[Chimera_]

Adamski, on 13 May 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

The IS Highlander has to equip a STD engine, giving up a lot of speed or firepower, or it has to take an iXL engine, making it vulnerable to torso death after losing as little as 28% of its torso HP (a single ST) while a cXL has to lose at least 43% of its torso HP (CT core).

Then we get into how the IS Highlander loses 2x as many slots to equip Endo Steel, and each DHS it adds takes up 50% more space. Every weapon system it adds is heavier or bulkier or both than the Clan version.

To compensate the IS Highlander gets some structure buffs (comes out to a 15% increase in HP) and accel/deceleration quirks, so that it being almost 2x easier to kill or being 15% slower, it is roughly just as tanky.

I think what you're underestimating is how much of a difference in agility there is between the HGN and HGN-IIC. The HGN-IIC is (afaik) the 2nd-clumsiest mech in the game, behind the Direwolf. Some variants of the Stalker might be able to compete, but point being is it's incredibly slow to maneuver. The only reason the Direwolf is able to compensate for this is by its sheer firepower, though even then it's not that common anymore. The Stalker compensates by having insanely high mounts and good hardpoints for laser vomit.

The IS HGN has pretty similar hardpoints to the IIC, but has the advantage of significant durability, agility and offensive quirks. If the IS HGN didn't have these quirks, then yes the IIC would be pretty much strictly better.

This is getting to be a tired discussion. You seem set in your opinion, so I don't really have anything else to add. If you ever get some HGN IICs, just don't get mad when it handles like a brick.

[Adamski]

I drive DWF and I drive BLR, the accel / deceleration isn't what makes something nimble, its the Anchor Turn skill, which isn't quirked on any mech.

The next strongest point for maneuverability is Engine size, as that will also impact turn rate. Since all the HGN & HGN-IIC have similarly low engine caps, that wont make a huge difference.

For how useless the accel / deceleration quirks are, note how many months the quirks were only in display and not active in game, and how nobody could tell. Then once PGI made a big fanfare about enabling those quirks, I tested them out with my HGN-HM and VTR-DS and ON1-P, they really didn't do much at all, certainly nothing to help with brawling where anchor turn and engine size is the biggest factor.

EDIT: You know, if they want to give the IIC mechs the same acceleration / deceleration profile as the IS versions, that's fine. I really only care if they start granting them structure quirks too.

Edited by Adamski, 13 May 2016 - 07:30 PM.

[J0anna]

Adamski, on 13 May 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

The IS Highlander has to equip a STD engine, giving up a lot of speed or firepower, or it has to take an iXL engine, making it vulnerable to torso death after losing as little as 28% of its torso HP (a single ST) while a cXL has to lose at least 43% of its torso HP (CT core).

Then we get into how the IS Highlander loses 2x as many slots to equip Endo Steel, and each DHS it adds takes up 50% more space. Every weapon system it adds is heavier or bulkier or both than the Clan version.

To compensate the IS Highlander gets some structure buffs (comes out to a 15% increase in HP) and accel/deceleration quirks, so that it being almost 2x easier to kill or being 15% slower, it is roughly just as tanky.

Yes I run a standard 310 or 305 in my IS highlanders, giving up 3 kph and around 3 DPS, for significantly better turn speed, better twist speed, far better acceleration, over 25% more structure and 25% more armor on my arms (oh and better cooling ratio, heat capacity and almost 30% lower time to cool off)...and my IS highlanders are poor mechs to boot.........

[Adamski]

J0anna, on 13 May 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

Yes I run a standard 310 or 305 in my IS highlanders, giving up 3 kph and around 3 DPS, for significantly better turn speed, better twist speed, far better acceleration, over 25% more structure and 25% more armor on my arms (oh and better cooling ratio, heat capacity and almost 30% lower time to cool off)...and my IS highlanders are poor mechs to boot.........

3 DPS on a mech that has less than 10 DPS is HUGE.
That bonus armor & structure your wanking off over only accounts for a 15% increase in total HP.

I don't know how you are building your HGN vs HGN-IIC but if you give them similar range & burst profiles, the IIC should have room for 50% more heatsinks which will give it a LARGER heat capacity, and MUCH MUCH LARGER cooling profile.

Remember, an IS DHS takes up 3x slots, while the C DHS only takes 2x slots. The IS Endo takes up 14 slots, the C Endo only takes 7. The IS XL engine takes up 14 slots, while the C XL engine only takes up 10.

[Wintersdark]

Adamski, on 13 May 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

I drive DWF and I drive BLR, the accel / deceleration isn't what makes something nimble, its the Anchor Turn skill, which isn't quirked on any mech.

The anchor turn skill is irrelevant, as its a constant on every mech (and minor anyways).

Quote

The next strongest point for maneuverability is Engine size, as that will also impact turn rate. Since all the HGN & HGN-IIC have similarly low engine caps, that wont make a huge difference.

No. Engine size is irrelevant, max speed is what matters. A 400 rated 100t assault is clumsy, while a 250 rated light is agile. The difference is important though because engine size change has very little impact on speed at high tonnages. A 400 Kodiak will torso twist slower than a 300 Atlas.

Still, the same speeds for both.

Quote

For how useless the accel / deceleration quirks are, note how many months the quirks were only in display and not active in game, and how nobody could tell. Then once PGI made a big fanfare about enabling those quirks, I tested them out with my HGN-HM and VTR-DS and ON1-P, they really didn't do much at all, certainly nothing to help with brawling where anchor turn and engine size is the biggest factor.

They don't help brawling, but they are critical to make good trades in the peek and poke game. People didn't notice they weren't there because nobody had them, you couldn't see the difference in trading contests.

Quote

EDIT: You know, if they want to give the IIC mechs the same acceleration / deceleration profile as the IS versions, that's fine. I really only care if they start granting them structure quirks too.

It's not accel decel we're concerned about here, it's twist and turn. Twist and turn mean the IS HGN twists fully 50% faster than the HGN IIC. That's a tremendous difference and is the difference between spreading damage and taking it all on your CT, or wherever the firing emch wants to put it.

[Adamski]

Wintersdark, on 13 May 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

The anchor turn skill is irrelevant, as its a constant on every mech (and minor anyways).

No. Engine size is irrelevant, max speed is what matters. A 400 rated 100t assault is clumsy, while a 250 rated light is agile. The difference is important though because engine size change has very little impact on speed at high tonnages. A 400 Kodiak will torso twist slower than a 300 Atlas.

Still, the same speeds for both.

They don't help brawling, but they are critical to make good trades in the peek and poke game. People didn't notice they weren't there because nobody had them, you couldn't see the difference in trading contests.

It's not accel decel we're concerned about here, it's twist and turn. Twist and turn mean the IS HGN twists fully 50% faster than the HGN IIC. That's a tremendous difference and is the difference between spreading damage and taking it all on your CT, or wherever the firing emch wants to put it.

You are right, my bad, give the IIC mechs the same mobility quirks as the IS versions, just don't give them any structure / armor / weapon quirks.

[Lord0fHats]

The Orion IIC and Highlander IIC need them. The Hunchie and the Jenner don't need the help.

I doubt the Orion, with its low weapon mounts and terrible hit boxes will ever replace the Timber... Unless PGI does something insane. Same for the Highlander. Low mounts, mediocre hit boxes, and a horribly low engine cap. Still. A little attention could at least give them a niche where they're not crap.

[Andi Nagasia]

sadly ive noticed every(Buff to Clan Under Performers) has the Same Problems,
People always bring up 2 things to Say why they should never be Buffed,

1) Clan XL Engines Dont Die on ST loss,
2) Clan Weapons are Lighter and Smaller,

Solutions for these (Problems) can be found all over the Forums, so ill just leave mine here,
1) Engine Changes(Coding Std / Xl & Sub250 Engine Balance!)
2) Tonnage & Crit Balance(Is To Clan Tonnage To Crit Problem Solved!)

[Lord0fHats]

people blow the weight issue out of proportion. Clan mechs save little in tonnage on Energy, because they need so many more heat sinks to manage firing. meanwhile, Clan autocannons eat ammo faster with lower damage efficiency, and Clan SRMs are less efficient due to wider spread. There's no real net gain on tonnage or crit slots from Clan tech. It all kind of evens out in the end. The big issues were Clan Side Torso != death, and clan range advantage, and I think both of those have been addressed.

Edited by Lord0fHats, 13 May 2016 - 09:32 PM.

[Adamski]

Andi Nagasia, on 13 May 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

sadly ive noticed every(Buff to Clan Under Performers) has the Same Problems,
People always bring up 2 things to Say why they should never be Buffed,

1) Clan XL Engines Dont Die on ST loss,
2) Clan Weapons are Lighter and Smaller,

Solutions for these (Problems) can be found all over the Forums, so ill just leave mine here,
1) Engine Changes(Coding Std / Xl & Sub250 Engine Balance!)
2) Tonnage & Crit Balance(Is To Clan Tonnage To Crit Problem Solved!)

I know you are really proud of your ideas, and you should be, keep thinking outside the box.

But 1. your engine ideas are far too convoluted, it would be simpler if PGI just made every heatsink whether it be internal or external to the engine equally powerful, just like they are supposed to be. The fact that they behave differently is a FAILURE on PGI's part, and should not be further bandaged, it should be fixed at the source.

And 2. your idea of giving IS ballistic weapons preloaded (phantom/ghost) ammo to account for the tonnage & crit slot disparity has merit, but the stats you pulled aren't always comparing the proper weapons.
ie: UAC10 is 4 slots & 10 tons vs AC10 is 7 slots & 12 tons
cUAC5 is 3 slots & 7 tons vs isAC5 is 5 slots & 9 tons
This doesn't even get into issues like how do you compare a weapon that has Ultra mode but fires a burst of pellets against a weapon that fires a single slug but at a slower rate. (ideally this should be compensated by normalizing the projectile speeds based on the damage per projectiles, ie: AC2 is 2kmps AC5 is 1.1kmps, so the cUAC20 with 4 slugs of 5 damage each should be doing 1.1kmps vs the current 0.65kmps)

You also ignore all the energy weapon imbalances. (such as the cERPPC being more damage for less slots and tonnage, with otherwise identical stats), and you ignore that Clan SSRMs have 90m more range than the IS versions (360m vs 270m)

[Adamski]

Lord0fHats, on 13 May 2016 - 09:31 PM, said:

people blow the weight issue out of proportion. Clan mechs save little in tonnage on Energy, because they need so many more heat sinks to manage firing. meanwhile, Clan autocannons eat ammo faster with lower damage efficiency, and Clan SRMs are less efficient due to wider spread. There's no real net gain on tonnage or crit slots from Clan tech. It all kind of evens out in the end. The big issues were Clan Side Torso != death, and clan range advantage, and I think both of those have been addressed.

Clan SRMs have a tighter spread than IS SRMs given the same or less tonnage investment. (cSRM6a has a tighter spread and less tonnage than iSRM6, cSRM4a has a MUCH tighter spread and same tonnage as iSRM4)
Clans receive almost identical damage per ton of ammo as the IS (only outlier is non streak SRM ammo where IS gets 7.5% more damage per ton of ammo)
If Clan mechs downgrade their lasers to have the same range profile as the IS, then they can use the weight savings to get equal or better dissipation to make up for the heat differences (ie: use cMPL instead of cLPL when compared to the isLPL)

Edited by Adamski, 13 May 2016 - 09:41 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Adamski, on 13 May 2016 - 08:51 PM, said:

You are right, my bad, give the IIC mechs the same mobility quirks as the IS versions, just don't give them any structure / armor / weapon quirks.

That's exactly what we've been saying from the start, more or less.

Agility only to HGN, and structure (only) to the ON1. Note that twist&turn is way more valuable than structure.

[WarZ]

Adamski, on 13 May 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

Hooray! Let the Power Creeping begin jogging!

WTF are they thinking giving quirks to mechs that have access to all the clan equipment and upgrades and weapons, with the only downside being fixed hardpoint locations and a smaller engine cap on the HGN-IIC

Any model / hitbox issues really better be fixed by the release of the rescaling next month, so no excuse to leave those weaknesses on the table.

Because IS quirks are so damn strong the clans actually need a couple to compete now. They could always y'know ... back off some of the stupid IS quirks, but why do that ? Lets convolute the whole f'ing system, and make it really really messy. Quirks everywhere, for everything, way over the top, to make them on par with other over the top ones, to compete with ... you get the idea. F'ed up.