121 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Bud Crue, on 06 July 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Equal enough to dump quirks; all quirks?

Edit: I ask because this is where Chris appears to be headed.

well lets look at things, the NVA still have Quirks, it seems like Structure(Clan) & Armor(IS) quirks will stick around,
but other wise, IS has options with their weapons, and now more options with their Upgrade and Engine Selections,

we could get into the debate which Faction has stronger Ballistics, Lasers, or Missiles,
but id rather not, as you can find many people on both sides that feel the other is OP,
but i feel, most feel Balance it in a Good Place, although it can always get better,

do i feel all Quirks should go away? no i think Structure and Armor Quirks help greatly,
but i feel they are there more to help mechs with bad Geometry then to help Faction balance,
which is how it should be, Balance Tech not Quirks, which seems to be where we are heading,

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

count the number of weapons each side gets

you are flat out wrong about clans getting way more weapons than IS. period.

Good job I said "For years, Clan had more options than IS."

Which you even admitted. So I am right, by your own admission.

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

Yeah I can play that game too.

If only I wasn't talking about the historic imbalance, to show that "less options" does not mean "should be better", you may have a point. As is, you don't.

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

Since IS tech will be far more diverse and specialized with a deeper pool to draw from, Clan tech is going to need to be more flexible and versatile to make up for having considerably less
options.

Again, historically, you are incorrect.

[Bud Crue]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

For the most part. Although ISXL is still the elephant in the room. And Id like to see an engine crit system like the one I described above.

I just don't see how a mech like the Atlas is viable without structure and/or armor quirks or a Vic, or a Phract, or a Dragon, or an IV-4, or a Panther, etc. is viable against equal weight respective clan mechs regardless of LFE, or the incredible diversity of weapons that the IS is about to be blessed with. I just don't see anything in the new tech that changes the current dynamics of the game to assert that such "for the most part" equality exists between the techs. The commentary from the devs worries me a bit (6% equality or whatever the hell number was asserted) but in the end it is of course their call what gets whacked and what doesn't. The major rebalance that they have planned following the new tech introduction fills me with dread.

Edited by Bud Crue, 06 July 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I just don't see how a mech like the Atlas is viable without structure and/or armor quirks

Like I said quirks should still be used to differentiate mechs and buff weaker mechs.

But quirks shouldnt be used for balancing things like XL engines.

So the Atlas should still get quirks from the standpoint that its a weaker assault and needs a buff.

But the global structure buffs given to all IS mechs so they can use XL engines need to be removed. Preferably in favor of a new engine crit system that buffs ISXL so it can survive a torso destruction.

Quote

I just don't see how a mech like the Atlas is viable without structure and/or armor quirks or a Vic, or a Phract, or a Dragon, or an IV-4, or a Panther, etc. is viable against equal weight respective clan mechs regardless of LFE

Right but im also not just talking about LFE. Im also talking about buffing the ISXL so it can survive torso destruction.

Since ISXL is the major reason the defensive quirks were added, it seems like many of them could be removed if ISXL could suddenly survive side torso destruction.

Quote

Good job I said "For years, Clan had more options than IS."

yeah 2 more options. wow such advantage in weapon variety.

Quote

If only I wasn't talking about the historic imbalance, to show that "less options" does not mean "should be better", you may have a point. As is, you don't.

historic imbalance is irrelevant unless youre a perpetually bitter individual that cant get over the fact the game wasnt balanced for IS for like 2 years. Im really getting sick of the attitude that "IS HAVE HAD IT BAD FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS SO CLANS SHOULD SUFFER FOR THE NEXT 2 YEARS SO THEY KNOW HOW IT FEELS". get over it.

what actually matters is how the game is balanced now. and that its balanced properly. not balanced vindictively.

Quote

Again, historically, you are incorrect.

and historically I dont care because I dont dwell on the past.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 09:49 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:32 AM, said:

Like I said quirks should still be used to differentiate mechs and buff weaker mechs.

Well I certainly hope PGI agrees with you. If we keep quirks to buff weaker mechs then I think my fears will be unfounded.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:32 AM, said:

historic imbalance is irrelevant unless youre a perpetually bitter individual that cant get over the fact the game didnt used to be balanced like 2 years. get over it.

what actually matters is how the game is balanced now.

and historically I dont care because I dont dwell on the past.

Either;
1. Having less variety means having stronger weapons.
or;
2. Having less variety does no matter.

We can only predict what PGI will do, based what they have done in the past. In the past, less weapon variety did not matter. Going forward, it should continue to not matter. Only a fool would disregard past evidence.

So they could buff the HPPC to 15 PP and there would be no grounds to complain "but what about the C-ERPPC?", as it has never mattered before, so why should it now?

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:32 AM, said:

Im really getting sick of the attitude that "IS HAVE HAD IT BAD FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS SO CLANS SHOULD SUFFER FOR THE NEXT 2 YEARS SO THEY KNOW HOW IT FEELS". get over it.

I, too, am sick of the attitude of "BUT MY SUPERIOR CLAN TECH!"

This is not TT. Get over it.

[Khobai]

Quote

I, too, am sick of the attitude of "BUT MY SUPERIOR CLAN TECH!"

This is not TT. Get over it.

Except I dont have that attitude at all. I even think ISXL should survive side torso destruction.

And yes I still maintain that if IS has 5 choices of PPCs and Clans only have 1 choice of PPC. Its not completely unreasonable to expect the 1 and only clan choice to be better. Its not that I think clan tech should be generally superior, its because when one side has less options, that option needs to cover more bases. If clans had 5 different PPCs and IS only had 1 PPC, I would say the IS PPC should be better too.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 09:54 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:32 AM, said:

what actually matters is how the game is balanced now. and that its balanced properly. not balanced vindictively.

So you agree that, since the C-ERPPC is already better than the IS-ERPPC, it does not matter if the HPPC is better than it in some ways? You wouldn't just be spiteful if another IS weapon could compete with a Clan one?

Good, I am glad we agree.

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

Except I dont have that attitude at all.

Then why do you think the (arguably still) best PPC, the C-ERPPC, would need more damage if the HPPC got 15 PP?

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

And yes I still maintain that if IS has 5 choices of PPCs and Clans only have 1 choice of PPC. Its not completely unreasonable to expect the 1 and only clan choice to be better. Seems fair to me.

Yet, as demonstrated, this is not the case.

[Khobai]

Quote

Then why do you think the (arguably still) best PPC, the C-ERPPC, would need more damage if the HPPC got 15 PP?

Its called being facetious.

Because IS players were using the justification of splash damage being worthless as a reason for why the HPPC should do 15 damage.

I personally feel the HPPC is fine at 13/1/1 because I dont view splash damage as being worthless.

but if splash damage was actually worthless then the CERPPC would certainly need a buff.

Quote

it does not matter if the HPPC is better than it in some ways?

it already is better than it in some ways. it does 30% more pinpoint damage. it fires faster. and it should have lower heat (I would like to see the HPPCs heat go down to 12.5 or so)

I just dont think its necessary to push it all the way upto 15 pinpoint damage. And certainly not for only 15 heat and getting to keep its exponential dropoff. Thats too good.

Thats all ive ever said.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 10:10 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

I personally feel the HPPC is fine at 13/1/1 because I dont view splash damage as being worthless.

but if splash damage was actually worthless then the CERPPC would certainly need a buff.

While I don't feel like splash is worthless, it is certainly worth less.

I am much happier with 13/1/1 than I was with 12/1.5/1.5 but am still hopeful it gets a plain old 15.

I also hope they further adjust LPPC GH to 4 and not 3, but that's another topic.

Perhaps they could add the EERPPC for Clans?

12 PP, maybe up the heat a little from 15 to 16.5 / 17.

Same slots and tonnage as the IS-ERPPC, but hotter and with more damage.

Seems reasonable.

Glad we could kinda-sorta agree

[Khobai]

Quote

I also hope they further adjust LPPC GH to 4 and not 3, but that's another topic.

That still doesnt inspire me to use LPPC.

I feel they need better range and velocity too. Not quite ER range. But somewhere in between.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jay Leon Hart, on 06 July 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

Perhaps they could add the EERPPC for Clans?

12 PP, maybe up the heat a little from 15 to 16.5 / 17.

Same slots and tonnage as the IS-ERPPC, but hotter and with more damage.

Seems reasonable.

unlikely as its Extinct and actually i dont think it comes back sadly,
personally i would Much Rather have the I-PPC, Same Tonnage/Crits as C-ERPPC, but PPC Stats,
(10Damage, 10Heat, 90-540Range, 6Tons, 2Crits) would give Clan More Options,

[Jackal Noble]

Couple of other factors to consider;
-Two HPPCs will do 30 pin point damage, weigh 20 tons and generate 29 heat
-Two C-ERPPCs will do 20 pinpoint damage, weigh 12 tons and generate 28 heat. To get to that 30 pinpoint with C-ERPPCs would cost 18 tons (still lighter), generate 42 heat, and substantially trigger Ghost Heat. So that's not possible

I think HPPCs could and will get away with being buffed to 15 points, because they are dastardly hot for IS mechs, due to crit space requirements for DHS and teh weapon itself.
However, I also think some very dangerous builds are going to be created from that buff if it goes through and there will be a fine line of viability to OP for this weapon. If 15 goes through, I imagine the minimum should be kept idk.

looking at you Kaiju with 2 HPPC and Hgauss. or a multitude of the heavier weights

That said, PPCs in general run quite hot. IS ERPPC is honestly going to get pushed farther to the back out of all of this. Maybe find a niche with the light gauss.

Finally, not like any of these changes are going to matter anyways other than to net positive towards IS. That and UAC20.
UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20. UAC20.

Jay Leon Hart, on 06 July 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

While I don't feel like splash is worthless, it is certainly worth less.

I am much happier with 13/1/1 than I was with 12/1.5/1.5 but am still hopeful it gets a plain old 15.

I also hope they further adjust LPPC GH to 4 and not 3, but that's another topic.

Perhaps they could add the EERPPC for Clans?

12 PP, maybe up the heat a little from 15 to 16.5 / 17.

Same slots and tonnage as the IS-ERPPC, but hotter and with more damage.

Seems reasonable.

Glad we could kinda-sorta agree

Can we has the Pulverizer too, while we are at it?

[Jay Leon Hart]

I would like to add that, if HPPC did get the full 15 damage, it should have a GH cap of 1. Unless they let the 4 "regular" PPCs fire 3 and the LPPC fire 6, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

[Khobai]

Quote

I would like to add that, if HPPC did get the full 15 damage, it should have a GH cap of 1

that was one of my suggestions and id be perfectly okay with that

my only real problem with the HPPC at 15 PPFLD is the pinpoint damage potential when multiple are fired together.

I was creating builds with HPPCs on PTS that could kill heavy mechs in one shot. I dont think thats right as is. And I dont see the need to jack the damage up on it even more. PPFLD has already gotten pretty out of control in this game and I dont think it needs to be made worse.

Alternatively, while a bit weird, linking all gauss and all PPC in the same ghost heat group would work too.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 10:47 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Nah, GH of 2 if HPPC gets 15, due to Gauss being capped at 2 as well. Same damage, seems reasonable to me.

[Khobai]

Quote

Nah, GH of 2 if HPPC gets 15, due to Gauss being capped at 2 as well. Same damage, seems reasonable to me.

Except its not reasonable because you can combo them together for massive PPFLD. I had a sleipner build on PTS that killed an undamaged archer in one hit. And killed most heavier mechs in 2 hits. The PPFLD that you can do now is completely ridiculous.

If gauss and ppcs are both capped at 2 then logically 2 gauss + 2 ppc shouldnt be allowed either.

which is why linking all gauss and all ppc in the same ghost heat group is another possible solution

it still wouldnt prevent you from using gauss and ppcs together, it just forces you to fire them half a second apart to avoid a massive heat spike.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 10:56 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

Alternatively, while a bit weird, linking all gauss and all PPC in the same ghost heat group would work too.

You know, I had a similar, albeit more extreme idea.

Add Gauss to the GH table of everything.

Yes, even Small class lasers.

No more 2 PPC 2 Gauss
No more 2/3 LPL 2 Gauss
No more 6 ML 2 Gauss

Inelegant, but effective. It also gets around Gauss weapons having virtually no heat.

Then, remove the charge, maybe?

[Mister Blastman]

Khobai, on 06 July 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

Except its not reasonable because you can combo them together for massive PPFLD. I had a sleipner build on PTS that killed an undamaged archer in one hit. And killed most heavier mechs in 2 hits. The PPFLD that you can do now is completely ridiculous.

If gauss and ppcs are both capped at 2 then logically 2 gauss + 2 ppc shouldnt be allowed either.

which is why linking all gauss and all ppc in the same ghost heat group is another possible solution

it still wouldnt prevent you from using gauss and ppcs together, it just forces you to fire them half a second apart to avoid a massive heat spike.

Why resort to stealth quoting? Don't want a reply?

I don't mind having gauss and PPC in the same group... but it would be kind of silly because gauss doesn't make heat. So where would the sudden ghost heat come from???

However... limiting 2x of whatever combination of PPC or gauss is fine by me.

2x HPPC
2x Gauss
1x Gauss 1x HPPC

I'm okay with that.

As long as HPPC = 15 pinpoint.

BUT

It would have to be extended to include...

2x Gauss = 30 pp
1x Guass 1x PPC 1x LPPC = 30 pp
-or-
1x Guass + 1x PPC = 25 pp (can't do 2x PPC because that would be 35 pp)

If we're proposing a 30 pp cap.

60 ppfld could get ridiculous... fast.


edit: This of course means... ready for it? *drumroll*
3 PPCs could be allowed, too, because... 30 pp damage!
*crowd cheers*

Edited by Mister Blastman, 06 July 2017 - 11:01 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Add Gauss to the GH table of everything.

Might be a bit extreme.

I could definitely see adding Gauss to the GH table for PPC and Large Pulses though.

Quote

Why resort to stealth quoting? Don't want a reply?

No its because im on my crappy tablet and the quote button doesnt work right. I have to copy paste everything manually. its also why my posts always get edited because I make a lot of typos.

Quote

I don't mind having gauss and PPC in the same group... but it would be kind of silly because gauss doesn't make heat. So where would the sudden ghost heat come from???

That was always a running joke. Because ghost heat violates the laws of thermodynamics.

It creates energy from nothing.

Why do mechs still use fusion reactors when they could have ghost heat reactors.

Edited by Khobai, 06 July 2017 - 11:03 AM.