124 replies to this topic

[Ovion]

Again, you don't LIST what is on sale, just that 'some things are'.

List the items that are on sale.

[Vordhosbn11]

"Oh look, a sale!! I wonder wha- oh, its the Kodiak"




lol PGI ggclose

Edited by Vordhosbn11, 17 August 2017 - 09:40 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Man, there is a lot of salt over Kodiaks having been brought back in line with other mechs of similar weight. I had no idea that the balance so many demanded was just as offensive as "power creep" and grossly over performing mechs.

[Cub]

I've pretty much stopped playing this game since they did what they did to the Spirit Bear but still come back to monitor if any changes have healed my favorite 'mech of all time. Had started a few threads, sent in e-mails, messaged various members of the team through Twitter, sat in on Town Halls....nothing. Well, I did get one response during the a Town Hall, but it was from that NGNG midget Wolverine wannabe, and he basically said I was a ****** Kodiak pilot if I can't still put up huge damage numbers in the Spirit Bear in it's current state. So...on a fundamental level, I'm not sure the folks over there understand why we are upset and despise any plea for reconsideration. I really hope they take another look at the problem and I will take this opportunity to once again ask, please tweak acceleration and deceleration rates on the Spirit Bear.

Oh well...in a way I'm thankful, I've discovered some really great new games and companies that are much more deserving of my financial support. Good play PGI. Normally I'd be buying packs for friends (as I've done in the past) of the beautiful Kodiak with what could have been an incredible deal. But in it's current state......are you kidding me?

[Vordhosbn11]

SuperFunkTron, on 17 August 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

Man, there is a lot of salt over Kodiaks having been brought back in line with other mechs of similar weight. I had no idea that the balance so many demanded was just as offensive as "power creep" and grossly over performing mechs.

What you don't seem to understand, and why most people are frustrated, is that the KDK-3 was over performing yet ALL chases were nerfed, and nerfed hard. The other variants certainly didn't deserve it, and now they're on the verge of uselessness (i.e. Spirit Bear). It's ironic because PGI nerfed all chases into the ground, and is trying to sell them now for real $$ at a discount. Which, as myself and a few others have pointed out, seems like a silly thing to do.

Edited by Vordhosbn11, 17 August 2017 - 11:04 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Cyclops is 50% more agile all the time, even without a 360 rated engine, has a greater torso twist range, and the same 400 rating cap. If willing to accept death from side torso, a 360XL'ed cyclops has more tonnage available than a 400XL'ed kodiak as the weight difference between the two engines is exactly 10 tons. So you're automatically ahead by the difference in internal structure weight. Plus the cyclops have torso structure quirks, and minimal weapon quirks, and a boosted sensor range.

If next week's sale is the roughneck vs night gyr... again it comes down to agility being majorly in the IS side's favour... not to mention the mech is super tanky.

[SuperFunkTron]

Vordhosbn11, on 17 August 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

What you don't seem to understand, and why most people are frustrated, is because the KDK-3 was over performing yet ALL chases were nerfed, and nerfed hard. The other variants did't deserve it, and now they're on the verge of unusably bad (i.e. Spirit Bear). It's ironic because PGI nerfed all chases into the ground and is trying to sell them now for real $$ at a discount. Which, as myself and a few others have pointed out, seems a little silly.

I understand very well that 100 ton mechs had their agility reduced so that they would behave like 100 ton mechs. I believe some vague semblance of physics may have inspired it as changing the direction of a 100 ton object would be much more difficult than that of a 40, 70, or even 90 ton object. How that throws all the mechs out of balance is beyond me, especially considering how the other 100 ton mechs seem to also suffer from low agility courtesy of their weight.

[ShooteyMcShooterson]

Arnfinn, on 16 August 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

Who would buy a Kodiak or a Night Gyr after you molested them? And with actual RL dollaridoos/blood diamonds from Sierra Leone? That's like paying someone to pull out your nails.

I don't even play the NTG anymore. The lack of mobility makes it a sitting duck against all but the most static of opponents. And if a light or two get you isolated, you might as well press P and go get a snack while they snack on you, cuz your match is over.


Edit: Thanks for making me think about this. I just realized that the mechs bays I need can be had by dumping NTGs. Why keep more than one of a mech I don't play anymore? One is enough to have in case it's buffed back into playability.

Edited by ShooteyMcShooterson, 17 August 2017 - 11:29 AM.

[Vordhosbn11]

SuperFunkTron, on 17 August 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

I understand very well that 100 ton mechs had their agility reduced so that they would behave like 100 ton mechs. I believe some vague semblance of physics may have inspired it as changing the direction of a 100 ton object would be much more difficult than that of a 40, 70, or even 90 ton object. How that throws all the mechs out of balance is beyond me, especially considering how the other 100 ton mechs seem to also suffer from low agility courtesy of their weight.

While the desync did effect '100 ton mechs', the "KDK-3 nerfs" had nothing to do with other 100 ton mechs or the engine desync, and were applied across all KDK chases despite relative even performance of the other variants that were not the KDK-3. Also, the KDK runs an XL400 - the most powerful engine in the game. That is reason enough to be incrementally more agile than, and incomparable to, the agility of other 100t assaults that are capped at say, an XL300 (DWF).

In short, the engine desync/blanket mobility nerfs =/= KDK nerfs brought on by the OP KDK-3.

Edited by Vordhosbn11, 17 August 2017 - 11:43 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Vordhosbn11, on 17 August 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

While the desync did effect '100 ton mechs', the "KDK-3 nerfs" had nothing to do with other 100 ton mechs or the engine desync, and were applied across all KDK chases despite relative even performance of the other variants that were not the KDK-3. Also, the KDK runs an XL400 - the most powerful engine in the game. That is reason enough to be incrementally more agile than, and incomparable to, the agility of other 100t assaults.

I think there might be a misunderstanding in agility here. I can understand a larger engine giving a better top speed, maybe even some improvement to the acceleration, but where do you get the idea that it should be able to turn more efficiently while within the same frame and structure?

Do we have any mechanics or engineers here that could give us a solid real world example illustrating this?

[ShooteyMcShooterson]

I think some people are missing the part where PGI nerfed the mobility of some Clan mechs below the post-engine desync baseline for their weight. I know all variants of the KDK, NTG and MAD IIC are nerfed below baseline, basically by negative quirks PGI doesn't disclose in the mech lab. There could be others, idk.

[Mikayshen]

Zookeeper Dan, on 17 August 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

I really enjoy the Cyclops! I'd pick up the Slepnir if I didn't own it already! I'll have to think about the reinforcement pack for the ECM 11-P, although the Stalker 3FP has been my go-to ECM assault recently. The 11-A-DC looks like it could run a mini-atlas setup that would be fun!

You can still purchase it. Just buy it as a gift code then once you have the code send PGI support an email with the code in it that you need it injected into your account and they need to because you already purchased it before. I did that with a mech pack before and it was no problem at all.

[cougurt]

SuperFunkTron, on 17 August 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

I think there might be a misunderstanding in agility here. I can understand a larger engine giving a better top speed, maybe even some improvement to the acceleration, but where do you get the idea that it should be able to turn more efficiently while within the same frame and structure?

Do we have any mechanics or engineers here that could give us a solid real world example illustrating this?

you are way too hung up on the idea of it being "realistic". balance should come first, always. your argument is pretty weak anyway seeing as how there are already significant agility differences between mechs of the same weight class, and even between variants of the same chassis in a lot of cases.

[SuperFunkTron]

cougurt, on 17 August 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

you are way too hung up on the idea of it being "realistic". balance should come first, always. your argument is pretty weak anyway seeing as how there are already significant agility differences between mechs of the same weight class, and even between variants of the same chassis in a lot of cases.

So all reality should be dumped? Or just selective bits that are convenient to your liking? Are there not differences in agility among similarly weighing sports cars and even differing agility within the same model line? What part of real life examples are weak? We could look at the 2016 mustang if that helps. The base V6 mustang ways more and has slightly less power than the turbo 4 version which is not only lighter, but faster AND more agile. Same type of car, different agility and acceleration.

Variations in agility (turning, not straight line movement) can easily be made sense of if you look to the real life example of vehicles with different intended functions. A sports car will likely be more agile than a truck with the same HP and weight because it is built for that. Not all things with similar stats are equal, buddy.

[vibrant]

SuperFunkTron, on 17 August 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

So all reality should be dumped? Or just selective bits that are convenient to your liking?

SuperFunkTron, stop for a moment and think, please. This is a videogame, based on a fantasy world. There are no giant stompy robots in reality. None of this is real. So yes, reality holds very little bearing. There's no repair and rearm. You can battle in the sound place countless times. If you've lost a match, you can drop in the same mech again the next round. This is more arcade than simulator. Fun and balance should come first.

Edited by vibrant, 17 August 2017 - 03:23 PM.

[SuperFunkTron]

vibrant, on 17 August 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

SuperFunkTron, stop for a moment and think, please. This is a videogame, based on a fantasy world. There are no giant stompy robots in reality. None of this is real. So yes, reality holds very little bearing. There's no repair and rearm. You can battle in the sound place countless times. If you've lost a match, you can drop in the same mech again the next round. This is more arcade than simulator. Fun and balance should come first.

I know this is a fantasy world, but throwing physics out of a game that utilizes it for simple mechanics like gravity, and clearly to have some bearing on mobility, it doesn't make sense to throw out sense and a logical basis for how they determine certain characteristics. If we leave all reality behind, we might as well play a Gundam game where we can jump and fly incredibly fast regardless of weight or physics.

[cougurt]

SuperFunkTron, on 17 August 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

So all reality should be dumped? Or just selective bits that are convenient to your liking? Are there not differences in agility among similarly weighing sports cars and even differing agility within the same model line? What part of real life examples are weak? We could look at the 2016 mustang if that helps. The base V6 mustang ways more and has slightly less power than the turbo 4 version which is not only lighter, but faster AND more agile. Same type of car, different agility and acceleration.

Variations in agility (turning, not straight line movement) can easily be made sense of if you look to the real life example of vehicles with different intended functions. A sports car will likely be more agile than a truck with the same HP and weight because it is built for that. Not all things with similar stats are equal, buddy.

selective bits that are convenient for the purpose of balance, yes. kind of like how most games work. this should be an extremely minor point of contention considering how unrealistic nearly every other aspect of the game is.

and to be clear, i am perfectly okay with there being agility differences between similar mechs. you seemed to imply that this was not true to life, unless i'm somehow misinterpreting what you said.

[rolly]

Really? WHY?

Its 2017 PGI, get with your own program. There is no need to still push the "Gotta have them all" 3 mech pack used-car gimmick anymore. Your sales team and marketing strategy needs an overhaul or fresh hiring. Or both.

At very least allow people to buy the Hero/Champions directly without selling the superfluous packs.

Edited by rolly, 17 August 2017 - 06:03 PM.

[Tarriss Halcyon]

cougurt, on 17 August 2017 - 05:03 AM, said:

even calling it situational is being pretty generous. i struggle to think of a situation in which i would prefer it over any other mech that can run a similar loadout. it's not tanky, it has very poor agility, and MASC takes so long to get up to full speed that its distinction of being the fastest assault brawler means practically nothing.

I dunno; I mean I've played it since engine desync and killed full lances by positioning myself right and a few smart shutdowns for the extra "stealth" - note that my Spirit Bear is canary yellow and is by no means stealthy. You can't simply spearhead the way an Atlas can - you don't have the outright bulk, and most brawler Atlas that I see run standard engines for the extra durability. It was always a flank assault; unlike the KDK-3 which could simply outstare anything with four UAC10s or the double-10 double-5 combo. The engine desync and Kodiak nerfs on top of that cost the Spirit Bear all of it's acceleration/deceleration and most of it's ability to dance and spread damage. MASC is still useful on it; but only as a last resort to help with positioning before a fight.

I just played a number of games in a KDK-5, running twin PPC and five MPLs. It does alright still; but I just... nowadays; if I go against my normal "use RNG to pick mech" and I want a Clan assault; I'm probably going to grab a Gargoyle, Marauder IIC or Mad Cat II over my Kodiaks. It went from the Clan's answer to the Atlas to something a lot less potent. Strong? Eh; it can be, but as I said before, it's situational.

All we need now is for PGI to give the Clans another 100-tonne Assault; something like the Bane or the Stone Rhino, and then buff the other variants aside for the KDK-3. Seriously; isn't that what quirks are for?

Edited by Tarriss Halcyon, 17 August 2017 - 11:00 PM.

[dominikabra]

I'll ask for it again, you know, because... reasons. Could we have come kind of corresponding "regular variants for c-bill" sale (not necesarily the exact same chassis)? Please, please, please?