426 replies to this topic

[Edward Hazen]

Zergling, on 29 January 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

Lights don't just do badly in damage and score, but in winning battles.

See these QP leaderboard stats. While there are a couple exceptions, almost all the time lights are the worst in W/L.

Those are weighted statistics because lights are consistently less than 10% in QP queue, which is where they should be. PGI needs to adjust the matchmaker so mediums make up the majority of each team like they should, lights and assaults should be equally rare and there should be less heavies than mediums. Maybe 2L/5M/3H/2A .

Edited by S0ulReapr, 29 January 2017 - 01:26 PM.

[Zergling]

S0ulReapr, on 29 January 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

Those are weighted statistics because lights are consistently less than 10% in QP queue

There are more than enough people playing lights for those statistics to be valid; it is a proven fact that lights are underpowered, not OP as you attest.

[SuperFunkTron]

Zergling, on 29 January 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

There are more than enough people playing lights for those statistics to be valid; it is a proven fact that lights are underpowered, not OP as you attest.

I think lights simply lack a meaningful role at the moment. It seems a little odd that lights should be regularly putting out as much damage as heavies and assaults rather than scouting and providing other speed related tasks. Then again, with most of the mechs being heavies and assaults, and not having a clear role to perform in the battle, death match style scoring is what gets points.

[Edward Hazen]

Zergling, on 29 January 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

There are more than enough people playing lights for those statistics to be valid; it is a proven fact that lights are underpowered, not OP as you attest.

Not necessarily OP, but better at brawling than they should be. Yes, it may be that there are just more bad COD shooter players who flock to lights because they are fast. I will admit, I am probably one of the worst light mech pilots, I am too slow and need more armor.

SuperFunkTron, on 29 January 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

I think lights simply lack a meaningful role at the moment. It seems a little odd that lights should be regularly putting out as much damage as heavies and assaults rather than scouting and providing other speed related tasks. Then again, with most of the mechs being heavies and assaults, and not having a clear role to perform in the battle, death match style scoring is what gets points.

As I had suggested earlier, PGI needs to tailor the match scoring mechanism to reward playing your mech in it's intended role.

[SuperFunkTron]

S0ulReapr, on 29 January 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Not necessarily OP, but better at brawling than they should be. Yes, it may be that there are just more bad COD shooter players who flock to lights because they are fast. I will admit, I am probably one of the worst light mech pilots, I am too slow and need more armor.



As I had suggested earlier, PGI needs to tailor the match scoring mechanism to reward playing your mech in it's intended role.

already working on an idea for that

[Grus]

Dee Eight, on 27 January 2017 - 10:28 PM, said:

Only the core heatsinks contained automatically inside an engine can be true doubles. All heatsinks external to the engine and beyond the first ten inside the engine are only doubles in name. In effect they're One Point Five heatsinks. A kit fox with 7 heat sinks inside its engine only has 7 true doubles. The other 3 that come external in its fixed slots of its omni pods are 1.5ers. A summoner with 14 engine mounted heatsinks has 10 true doubles and 4 that are 1.5ers.

sso..why call the ones outside dubble? Kinda false advertising if you ask me.

[SuperFunkTron]

Grus, on 30 January 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

sso..why call the ones outside dubble? Kinda false advertising if you ask me.

How often do you think your all beef fast food burgers are really all beef?

[Grus]

SuperFunkTron, on 30 January 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

How often do you think your all beef fast food burgers are really all beef?

well if it's from 5guys...

But still why hasn't PGI giving us true dubble heat sinks? I don't get it..

[Mechwarrior4670152]

Grus, on 30 January 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

well if it's from 5guys...

But still why hasn't PGI giving us true dubble heat sinks? I don't get it..

In the Tabletop game this is based on, DHS ARE double.

Having that in this game dropped the TTK far far too low

[Sigmar Sich]

For true double heatsinks, base heatcapacity should be cut from 30, lets say to 10. Than you can have DHS for fast cooling and sustained fire, or boat SHS for capacity to do huge energy alpha once in a while.
Sadly, as many other good suggestion over the years, it was ignored.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sigmar Sich, on 30 January 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

, it was ignored.

well, they have a ton of ideas from many different people who all want something different. Don't come with this attitude that they are just ignoring because you didn't get the exact thing that you wanted. FP 4.1 is a accumulation of ideas that were not ignored so you are going to need a better approach than that. If you are going to end it with saying they are going to ignore it, don't be surprised if it is ignored.

[Uncle Totty]

Wence the Wanderer, on 30 January 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

In the Tabletop game this is based on, DHS ARE double.

Having that in this game dropped the TTK far far too low

If they did something like dynamic reticle shake based on how much damage you are dishing out.

[Sigmar Sich]

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 January 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

Don't come with this attitude that they are just ignoring because you didn't get the exact thing that you wanted. FP 4.1 is a accumulation of ideas that were not ignored so you are going to need a better approach than that. If you are going to end it with saying they are going to ignore it, don't be surprised if it is ignored.

It is not about me or what i want. Idea about lowering base heatcapacity was suggested many times by different people, over the years. And i guess you can agree, it is sane idea, which helps to deal with heatsink balance.
And i said it was ignored because it was ignored, not because my attitude or something. I'm actually positive about game, and very patient. But it does not change the fact, that very small amount of good suggestions was even noticed, not saying about implemented.
To my opinion problem is in too soft and forgiving forum rules, and how people abuse it, creating tons of garbage threads and posts. I was really shocked about chaos and disorder on this forums, when i joined the game. No wonder you can't expect devs to waste their time here, searching for suggestions in this mess.

P.S. Well, sort of garbage post itself, same as quote, but i thought that unprovoked lecturing needed answer.

[Grus]

So we can't have true DHS because clan mechs will kill too quickly... do we need to talk about ttK of the battlemaster or the grasshoppers? How about the wolfhound? Large Lazer vomit....

[BLOOD WOLF]

Grus, on 01 February 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

So we can't have true DHS because clan mechs will kill too quickly... do we need to talk about ttK of the battlemaster or the grasshoppers? How about the wolfhound? Large Lazer vomit....

Point at anything IS, and you will get a huge "I don't see a problem"

[Grus]

BLOOD WOLF, on 01 February 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

Point at anything IS, and you will get a huge "I don't see a problem"

Well yeah because it's nice to be able to alpha 8 9 times before you have to shut down. Vs 3....

[MovinTarget]

Okay, i will bite...

How many erll IS builds can *alpha* 8-9 times w/o shut down? I am pretty sure the answer is ones with 3 or less erll...

But I am surely splitting hairs right?

I almost wish loyalists would be forced to drop on the other side from time to time because its kinda funny how you guys all seem to have tech-woodies for what the other side has...

Clanners want cooler sturdier mechs...
IS wants higher damage, better range and clan xls...

The question is, are you willing to give up the inherent advantages of your native tech for that of the other side?

If so, leave your faction and try a tour on the other side... you may find yourself singing that song "You don't know What you've got (until it's gone)"

My theory is that most of the whiners are either inflexible in a game that practically demands adaptive behaviors to win, or they simply want all the advantages and none of the drawbacks...

Edited by MovinTarget, 01 February 2017 - 03:31 PM.

[Grus]

MovinTarget, on 01 February 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Okay, i will bite...

How many erll IS builds can *alpha* 8-9 times w/o shut down? I am pretty sure the answer is ones with 3 or less erll...

But I am surely splitting hairs right?

I almost wish loyalists would be forced to drop on the other side from time to time because its kinda funny how you guys all seem to have tech-woodies for what the other side has...

Clanners want cooler sturdier mechs...
IS wants higher damage, better range and clan xls...

The question is, are you willing to give up the inherent advantages of your native tech for that of the other side?

If so, leave your faction and try a tour on the other side... you may find yourself singing that song "You don't know What you've got (until it's gone)"

My theory is that most of the whiners are either inflexible in a game that practically demands adaptive behaviors to win, or they simply want all the advantages and none of the drawbacks...

I gave 3 earlier I thought. Grasshopper, battlemaster and wolfhound.
And I started with IS.. heLl I have the founders pack, it dosnt make sense that with the way maps are set up to promote a corridor shooter mechanic at close range 500m and less that you can't tell me with a straight face that IS with all its quirks does not have a huge advantage.. I have a BM and I take it out time to time, it does realy well with 6 larges. I can do a similar build with a mad2c and I'll alpha twice and shut down.. "superior clan tech" my ***.

[MovinTarget]

Grus, on 01 February 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

I gave 3 earlier I thought. Grasshopper, battlemaster and wolfhound.
And I started with IS.. heLl I have the founders pack, it dosnt make sense that with the way maps are set up to promote a corridor shooter mechanic at close range 500m and less that you can't tell me with a straight face that IS with all its quirks does not have a huge advantage.. I have a BM and I take it out time to time, it does realy well with 6 larges. I can do a similar build with a mad2c and I'll alpha twice and shut down.. "superior clan tech" my ***.

Well, if you are trying to do the same build, thats part of the problem... they are inherently different technologies, they are not supposed to be the same. Again, i ask, would you be willing to give up all the advantages of clan tech for the scant few IS mechs with quirks to make them stand out?

It sounds like you don't understand your own tech advantages...

Besides, since its just a few mechs that are quirked, it will be suddenly gone in a few months... one way or another.

But lets play your game, if they take away all the IS range quirks, what are you willing to give up? All your armor and struct quirks? You may think there are not that many, but thats my point you think your tech is inferior, but its more likely you've just forgotten what makes clan mechs good. Or, again, you seek to have and advantage over inner sphere when would not be very appealing in a game trying to seel the whole IS v Clan conflict.

If you can't adapt as lots of other players have to the changing scenery, I don't what to say... All I know is there are lots of players that can win in clan tech, if they learn to group up, coordinate, and focus fire.

Edited by MovinTarget, 01 February 2017 - 04:04 PM.

[Zergling]

If you're doing badly with Clan mechs, then the problem is between keyboard and chair.

Edited by Zergling, 01 February 2017 - 05:04 PM.