24 replies to this topic

[BumbleBee]

Gyrok, on 03 June 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

So, you are proposing a world where light mechs are confined to baby sit assault mechs instead of scouting, back hunting, or being disruptive?

Good luck selling that to anyone else.

Actually i proposed lighter units as in not assaults. I was picturing a medium or 2 escorting a lance of assaults. What I proposed was some light Mechs as scouts (with sensor quirks) and other light Mechs as skirmishers (as you said, backhunting/disrupting)

[Weeny Machine]

Gyrok, on 03 June 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

If you think assaults are too agile as a light pilot, then you simply need to "git gud".

Oh come on. "Git gud"? Really?

The class distinction is off. Especially when you take the agility of the heavies and of a lot of assaults. A KC which can fire in its rear arc under 1.5 sec is just wrong.

However, it is not even the lights which lack a role. Their speed still sets them apart (, however, it is mostly compensated by the agility of the fatties). Compare the agility of mediums and heavies, then add firepower to the comparision. Guess why the heavy queue is usually that long...

[Nerdboard]

I dont care about the assaults vs lights argumentation but I think Gyrok has a point. If 70% of all mechs (exaggerated, guessed number) have agility quirks then maybe the base stat should be increased instead of random quirking. The quirk way of doing things just leads to PGI forgetting about single mechs which would need them as well and leaving them in a crappy state for months or even years. And on the other side some already good mechs in terms of hitboxes and hardpoints get ridiculous accel/decel/turn rate quirks just because someone wanted to put some numbers there.

[Wintersdark]

Raso, on 03 June 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

They might have. I don't really follow them that well these days. I find it hard to believe, though, as leading a target with AC10s on a Jagermech I know full well that the two rounds will hit (or miss) independently of each other and will often land on two separate components. Maybe that's different on one level or another but I know for a fact that that un-convergenced rounds are a thing.

As McGral said, it's because as soon as you move your crosshairs off the target (to lead it) your weapons converge on the distant terrain/skybox. This can create a situation where it is literally impossible to hit your target, when it's a small light.

Because of how this works, the further your weapons are from your center of mass the worse the effect is. Note that having all your weapons on one side doesn't necessarily fix the problem, either.

Consider: You have an AC10 in your left arm. There is a Arctic Cheetah running right to left across your field of vision. He's clipping along, and you need to lead just a little bit to hit him; a directly aimed shot will miss, while leading too far will also miss (he's small and distant). However, the terrain on the other side of him is 500m further away.

The instant your crosshairs move off him, your left arm moves from being pointed inwards (because it was converged at the distance to the target) to being much closer to pointed straight, as it now converges on the distant terrain. That extra movement results in your shot missing due to leading too much, despite your crosshairs only being a tiny bit in front of the mech: now you miss in front of him instead of behind him.

To explore this, use lasers in the testing grounds, drag your crosshairs off the target in a place where they'll converge on very distant terrain/the skybox, and watch just how much your arms swivel at a distance. It's very pronounced when your target is fairly close but the distant terrain is very far.

Edited by Wintersdark, 04 June 2016 - 10:06 AM.

[Darian DelFord]

Gyrok, on 03 June 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

Nope. Not even close.

If you think assaults are too agile as a light pilot, then you simply need to "git gud".

Sorry...even Gman thinks assaults need more agility

Once again read what I said. Most assaults can face their rear arc in less than 2 seconds. Heavies even quicker. This is a problem. Everyone wants to pilot BIG STOMPY ROBOTS but they do not want them to handle like BIG STOMPY ROBOTS. They want them to all be ballerina's.

And in regards to "git gud" Please, trying to stay in the rear arc of any assault pilot who knows what the heck he is doing is damned difficult at best and impossible at worst.

WarZ, on 03 June 2016 - 06:53 PM, said:

I hate to say it, but the more I think about this suggestion the more I think it's good. Each mech has a set agility. It would make another substantial layer of balance for the devs to work with, and create a more uniform experience in terms of handling.

A uniform nerf to a lot of mechs, yes, but it would create a much higher level of distinction between the classes and certain chasis.

My suggestion really is the easiest way to handle it. De-couple the correlation between engine size AND agility. Then give every chassis a set number then "quirk or adjust" as needed. This way it would actually be a bit more realistic as well as separate roles a tad.

Bush Hopper, on 03 June 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

Oh come on. "Git gud"? Really?

The class distinction is off. Especially when you take the agility of the heavies and of a lot of assaults. A KC which can fire in its rear arc under 1.5 sec is just wrong.

However, it is not even the lights which lack a role. Their speed still sets them apart (, however, it is mostly compensated by the agility of the fatties). Compare the agility of mediums and heavies, then add firepower to the comparision. Guess why the heavy queue is usually that long...

Do not mind Gyrok, he ignores facts and when he can not provide any of this own results to insults. He has been bested many times on the fact path.