30 replies to this topic

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Duke Nedo, on 18 February 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

You both touch upon the same thing there, that high mounted arms may get undeserved benefits. I half-agree, half-unsure. Perhaps it would be a good idea to do that, on the other hand the mechs with high mounted cannon arms can't shield their STs with their arms so they have +1, -1 to some degree at least...

The biggest trouble in terms of effective geometry imo are the mechs that have great shielding arms and all their weapons high up in their torsos... they get the best of both worlds.

This is why I proposed smaller bonuses for 'stumpy' arms and bigger for low-slung arms. Now, generalising, we could categorise mech construction from best to worst like that:

1. High torso mounts, shield arms - best
2. High arm mounts, no shield arms - good
3. Low arm mounts. - bad

So it's only logical to distribute the bonuses like that:

1. - no bonuses
2. - small bonus
3. - bigger bonus

Again, it would be also very logical, IMHO. The bigger and more "far away" from the torso are the arms, the more heat exchange area with the environment, and less with the mech torso. Of course, we're leaving those few low torso mounts+big arms mechs (like the Atlas) from the equasion, but still, overall balance would improve with such change.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 18 February 2017 - 08:04 AM.

[Deathlike]

My conclusion is pretty much is that PGI is incapable of accomplishing this.

I would've liked some quirks to be location specific (so the PPC-Summoner wouldn't be the thing that it is with the loyalty omniods with the Prime's PPC quirks).

So, I'm just at the point where I'm resigned to it never happening.

[PhoenixFire55]

Or actually make ES/FF locations locked on IS mech where they are supposed to be. And this'll actually make sense unlike your heat thingy. Or at least make destroying locations with ES/FF crits mean something, like weakening the remaining internals / armor etc.

[Duke Nedo]

PhoenixFire55, on 20 February 2017 - 01:10 AM, said:

Or actually make ES/FF locations locked on IS mech where they are supposed to be. And this'll actually make sense unlike your heat thingy. Or at least make destroying locations with ES/FF crits mean something, like weakening the remaining internals / armor etc.

Locking IS endo/ff would make sense if your goal was to buff clan omni mechs... and that's like the last thing we need right now.

If you want it to, it can make sense that less heat transfers into your cockpit/core from the arms compared to your torsi. It's an explanation that's good enough for me atleast, I would not lay sleepless from flawed logic if it was implemented.

The main idea was to generally help mechs with most of their weapons in the arms, a list which includes many of the weak mechs that needs help and very few of the best meta-mechs. While not perfect, it wouldn't be the worst aimed sweeping "fix" in history of MWO...

Edited by Duke Nedo, 20 February 2017 - 03:42 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Duke Nedo, on 20 February 2017 - 03:41 AM, said:

Locking IS endo/ff would make sense if your goal was to buff clan omni mechs... and that's like the last thing we need right now.

First of all the idea was to lock location of ES/FF slots, period. On all IS and clan mechs. While retaining the ability to add/remove ES/FF for mechs that currently have it.

Second, there is nothing wrong in buffing clan omni mechs per se. Because for each "good" clan omnimech like an ACH there are several "bad" ones like KFX, ADR and everyones favorite MystLynx. Now I'm not sure if you get a hint yet or not, but mech "goodness" isn't determined by being an omnimech or not being an omnimech, because if anything the IIC mechs are currently among the best ones in game.

Duke Nedo, on 20 February 2017 - 03:41 AM, said:

If you want it to, it can make sense that less heat transfers into your cockpit/core from the arms compared to your torsi. It's an explanation that's good enough for me atleast, I would not lay sleepless from flawed logic if it was implemented.

Since mechs aren't cooling by the means of heat transfer through its structure and/or both internal and external environment, but rather through special means called "heat sinks" that create a singular flow of heat throughout the entire mech your idea makes zero sense.

Duke Nedo, on 20 February 2017 - 03:41 AM, said:

The main idea was to generally help mechs with most of their weapons in the arms, a list which includes many of the weak mechs that needs help and very few of the best meta-mechs. While not perfect, it wouldn't be the worst aimed sweeping "fix" in history of MWO...

No, because any arbitrary "fix" is bad. What next? -20% heat to mechs that have CT hardpoints? I for one welcome the return of Awesome-9M overlords ...

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 20 February 2017 - 04:57 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

PhoenixFire55, on 20 February 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

First of all the idea was to lock location of ES/FF slots, period. On all IS and clan mechs. While retaining the ability to add/remove ES/FF for mechs that currently have it.

Of course. I assume you meant that all battle mechs would be affected the same (both IS and IIc's), and thus this would be a buff for omnis relatively speaking since they would not get any new nerfs from this. Nerf everything else = buff to omnis.

Quote

Second, there is nothing wrong in buffing clan omni mechs per se. Because for each "good" clan omnimech like an ACH there are several "bad" ones like KFX, ADR and everyones favorite MystLynx. Now I'm not sure if you get a hint yet or not, but mech "goodness" isn't determined by being an omnimech or not being an omnimech, because if anything the IIC mechs are currently among the best ones in game.

Buffing clan omnis is wrong because of NGR, TBR, ACH, SCR, EBJ. Any sweeping change with regard to omnis will be a bad idea since the second best mech in the game (NGR) and some really bad mechs (MLX, WHK etc) and everything in between are omnis. Changes should not be a matter of omni/not omni simply because some omnis are very near optimal.

Quote

Since mechs aren't cooling by the means of heat transfer through its structure and/or both internal and external environment, but rather through special means called "heat sinks" that create a singular flow of heat throughout the entire mech your idea makes zero sense.

Lore makes zero sense. By common sense heat needs to be transported, and heat dissipation in general is easier to manage if the heat generating spots are not clustered tightly together close to the things they should not be heating up (like the cockpit). Any heat excess (i.e. heat that your singular mumbojumbo can't manage) will emit as direct heat radiation, which will transfer to the neighboring compartments. If the heat radiation source is right next to the cockpit, the cockpit will get hot... non-dissipated heat should be the same as heat radiaton, makes enough sense to me.

Quote

No, because any arbitrary "fix" is bad. What next? -20% heat to mechs that have CT hardpoints? I for one welcome the return of Awesome-9M overlords ...

This suggestion is much less arbitrary than quirks. In fact not arbitrary at all. It's a common rule that would apply to all mechs, thus it's a tiny mechanics addition.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 20 February 2017 - 05:40 AM.

[ice trey]

I would be pro for buffs for those designs with low-slung hardpoints like the Atlas, but not simply for the arms. Jagermechs and Blackjacks really don't need any sort of boost in that regard.

I want to see a level playing field when it comes to choosing a mech. So long as there are people complaining that certain chassis are "Bad", there's a problem.

Edited by ice trey, 20 February 2017 - 06:18 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

ice trey, on 20 February 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

I would be pro for buffs for those designs with low-slung hardpoints like the Atlas, but not simply for the arms. Jagermechs and Blackjacks really don't need any sort of boost in that regard.

I hear ya, but it's not only good to have these high cannon-arms that jagers, ebon jags, blackjacks, shadowcats etc have, they are really poor shields and if you try to tank with them you can quickly disarm yourself... so the strongest geometries are still the mechs with shielding arms that don't house your main weapons, but just protect your torsos with the high mounted weapons in them... like whammys, kodiaks, banshees, battlemasters etc. So I am not sure it would be too bad if also the mechs you mentioned got some love.

[Lykaon]

Duke Nedo, on 17 February 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

So, what would happen if torso mounted weapons generated 10% more heat than arm mounted weapons? (or vice versa, arm mounted weapons generate 10% less heat)

Jagers, BJs, Stalkers, Rolfmen, Jenners, Ravens, would be extra happy. All humanoid mechs would be happy.

Warhammer torso builds, Hunchies(IIC), nipple-summoners, grasshoppers, battlemasters, thunderbolts, ebon jags, some nightgyr builds, timberwolves, CTF-3D etc would be less happy.

Probably wouldn't break things, main drawback I believe would be that KDK-3 with 2x ERPPC in the arm and NGR poptart that on only uses one ERPPC wouldn't be affected while some competitors would.... so some adjustments would be required but it's not like it's very good now - these adjustments are needed anyways.

Just an idea that popped up that I found mildly intriguing as a means to blanket-buff (humanoid) designs with important hardpoints in the arms.

Have a good weekend!

Why?

Isn't the faster tracking and wider arc on many arm mounts advantage enough? Torso mounts already suffer heavily with limited pitch.

[Duke Nedo]

Lykaon, on 20 February 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

Why?

Isn't the faster tracking and wider arc on many arm mounts advantage enough? Torso mounts already suffer heavily with limited pitch.

Not really the way the game plays right now, it's all about peek-a-boo with high mounted PPFLD damage, like gauss/ppc. In that meta the best is to have high torso mounted weapons with good shielding arms that you can use to protect your STs while you retreat.

If the meta had been more about brawl or if lights had been much stronger, then perhaps arm mobility would matter more...

Edited by Duke Nedo, 21 February 2017 - 12:21 AM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

ice trey, on 20 February 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

I would be pro for buffs for those designs with low-slung hardpoints like the Atlas, but not simply for the arms. Jagermechs and Blackjacks really don't need any sort of boost in that regard.

I want to see a level playing field when it comes to choosing a mech. So long as there are people complaining that certain chassis are "Bad", there's a problem.

Yeah, but all the mechs you listed are quirked quite heavily to compete. This alone means that they're not THAT good. Quirks can be downgraded if needed.

My main "goal" with bonuses to the stumpy arms was to promote more lore-like builds, as current min-maxing actually often promotes ignoring the stump arms if the torso hardpoints are there and high enough. Just look at the Catapult K2: it's actually more effective to put PPCs in the torso and leave the iconinc PPC arms empty - this saves tonnage (less armour needed) and improves your aim (less convergence needed due to PPCs being closer together). It's kinda sad actually. If stump arms were to give some additional bonus, you could at least have some choice in the matter (better heat vs some free weight and convergence), not be given only 1 better option which is "just ignore any and all arm hardpoints if you can".

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 21 February 2017 - 12:38 AM.