90 replies to this topic

[YueFei]

They're not going to scale the Atlas, so forget about that.

What's more feasible to expect from PGI is buffing its agility. That's just a matter of editing some XML crap. My recommendation is to increase to 44 deg/sec and 22.5 accel/decel. And of course torso yaw range and pitch range increase.

Swapping structure quirks to armor quirks, too.

And then give it the old HBK-4SP quirk treatment and turn it into a brawl DPS monster with insane cooldown quirks and heat gen quirks. So even if all you have left by the time you close in is half an Atlas, even half an Atlas is dangerous. =P

[GrimRiver]

fAtlas is rendered obsolete by Kcrab and the Annihilator by these reasons.

Kcrab and Anni: Can carry more weapons, more heatsinks, most if not all variants have high armor buffs, decent quirks and better hitbox profiles.

Anni is slower but still better than fAtlas for the reasons listed above.

fAtlas tend to lose it's ST's before anything so I think it could use better armor and structure buffs to ST's, 15% heat reduction, +10% range and 10% cooldown on all variants.

[Khobai]

Quote

Thats not a good comparison. part of an Annis ability to "tank" is because when you mount 5UAC 5s, 4lbx/ac10s and someone peels around the corner...well they won't peek out again and if they do you punish them.

nah I dont believe that. the atlas can do mrm60 + uac20, thats 100 damage and just as scary and punishing as any annihilator build.

the reason the annihilator tanks so much better is because its torso is half the size across

so the damage gets distributed more evenly between its CT and STs, while the Atlas just gets nailed in the CT

if the atlas' torso was the same width as the annihilator's torso it would be just as tanky.

Quote

They're not going to scale the Atlas, so forget about that.

then it will never be fixed. because thats what it needs above and beyond anything else.

Quote

What's more feasible to expect from PGI is buffing its agility

except PGI nerfed its agility deliberately because they didnt want 100 tonners to be agile

and theyre right. the atlas shouldnt be agile lol.

it should be both unagile and difficult to kill, like the annihilator

so the choices are: doing nothing, rescaling it so its smaller, or piling on an absolutely re tarded amount of armor/structure quirks.

Edited by Khobai, 18 December 2017 - 12:01 PM.

[Troa Barton]

How to play an Annihilator:




VS

How to play an Atlas:

Spoiler

[Y E O N N E]

The CP-9-A-DC is currently everything the AS7-S wishes it was.

[Kalimaster]

Lets buff all the Assault Mechs while we are at it. Lets face it. They are big nice targets.

[burns]

Garran Tana, on 18 December 2017 - 04:55 AM, said:

This is the iconic mechwarrior mech. Skilling it up was a nightmare. It should be buffed, but a lot of assaults should be also. There are some great ones, but the lower performing once should get an upgrade.

Closed Beta is a long time gone but i don´t remember my DD-S on old forest colony being a nightmare to level up. Much to the contrary, people were retreating left and right wherever that 2xLBX-10, 3xSRM6, 2xML "monster" rounded a blind corner.


I´m with the peeps on 8v8 and SHS and if nothing else helps stock mode or R&R on this one!
The power creep really has gone out of control when skill is being determined by raw datamining :E

[The6thMessenger]

I'd rather they just switch structure quirks to armor quirks, and see where it goes from there.

[Khobai]

but even the atlases that already have armor quirks still suck

switching structure quirks to armor quirks for all the atlases isnt going to fix them

[Roughneck45]

It could use some torso speed and crit chance reduction.

Its weakness is always going to be that it isn't a strong ranged weapon platform.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 December 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

but even the atlases that already have armor quirks still suck

switching structure quirks to armor quirks for all the atlases isnt going to fix them

But then having unprecedented amount of armor would probably be a large step.

[Khobai]

Quote

But then having unprecedented amount of armor would probably be a large step.

the atlas needs needs both armor and structure quirks (double the existing quirk amounts, but split it up so its half armor and half structure)

its torso pitch increased to 25 degrees

1 additional missile hardpoint on most atlases (or +1 ballistic hardpoint on the atlases that already have enough missile hardpoints)

and an acceleration buff (most 90+ assaults need an acceleration buff so they can actually move out of artillery in time)

if it got those 4 things, then it might not be completely terrible

Quote

Its weakness is always going to be that it isn't a strong ranged weapon platform.

thats not as serious of a weakness if its at least good at brawling

unfortunately the atlas isnt a very good brawler either compared to the annihilator

the atlas needs to be better than the annihilator at <270m brawling

which means it needs to be better at facetanking and better at doing splat damage

Edited by Khobai, 18 December 2017 - 08:53 PM.

[YueFei]

Khobai, on 18 December 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

except PGI nerfed its agility deliberately because they didnt want 100 tonners to be agile

and theyre right. the atlas shouldnt be agile lol.

it should be both unagile and difficult to kill, like the annihilator

so the choices are: doing nothing, rescaling it so its smaller, or piling on an absolutely re tarded amount of armor/structure quirks.

If it is un-agile, it lowers the skill cap, making it far less interesting to pilot and reducing its potential. You could make it viable with obscene armor quirks, such that even as a slow plodding target absorbing everything to the CT, it can still survive to contact and dish out return fire.... but then if you did it that way, there's very little difference in its durability in the hands of a novice or in the hands of a master.

Using my figures for turn rate and acce/decel would give it the baseline it needs to juke quickly enough to spread the damage. Increase the torso twist speed to help with shielding against incoming damage also, and you would have a skill-based way to tank effectively in an Atlas. Atlas would be about juking/shielding with gigantic bursts of damage.

Add in some armor quirks to it as needed, and you have a mech that might have a slow top speed and crappy hardpoint mounting locations that could still be kited to death by faster mechs with long range weapons.... but against anything in its weight class moving at similar speeds, it would be an inexorably marching machine of death. It becomes something that pins the enemy team on the horns of a dilemma, forcing them to respond to it and deal with it somehow.

Edited by YueFei, 19 December 2017 - 01:17 AM.

[Troa Barton]

The6thMessenger, on 18 December 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

I'd rather they just switch structure quirks to armor quirks, and see where it goes from there.

This needs to happen first.

Khobai, on 18 December 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

the atlas needs needs both armor and structure quirks (double the existing quirk amounts, but split it up so its half armor and half structure)

its torso pitch increased to 25 degrees

1 additional missile hardpoint on most atlases (or +1 ballistic hardpoint on the atlases that already have enough missile hardpoints)

and an acceleration buff (most 90+ assaults need an acceleration buff so they can actually move out of artillery in time)

if it got those 4 things, then it might not be completely terrible



thats not as serious of a weakness if its at least good at brawling

unfortunately the atlas isnt a very good brawler either compared to the annihilator

the atlas needs to be better than the annihilator at <270m brawling

which means it needs to be better at facetanking and better at doing splat damage

The other Atlas' may need more help but if an AS7-S had armor quirks and met an annihilator at close range it would completely wreck the annie.
4 SRM6 + UAC 20 + more armor than the annie = either dead ANH or it walking funny for a week.

[Khobai]

fixing the survival skill tree so it isnt completely terrible would also help the atlas

something like:



-shock absorbance and reinforced casing are now combined together as more worthwhile skill nodes

-there are now energy and ballistic/missile damage reduction skills to make putting points into the wings of the survival tree more worthwhile

-there are reinforced structure/heavy armor skills that give you significant armor/structure bonuses but come with the tradeoff of reducing the max available tonnage of your mech.

Edited by Khobai, 19 December 2017 - 12:40 PM.

[CuriousCabbitBlue]

GIVE THE ATLAS A LONG TOM CANNON

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 19 December 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

-there are reinforced structure/heavy armor skills that give you larger bonuses but also reduce the max available tonnage of your mech.

No one is going to want skills that have negative effects when literally all other skills are purely positive.

I'm also just not a fan of armor skills that start eating into the intended niche of actual armor types like Reflective, Reactive, Ballistic-Reinforced, etc.

If any part of the survival skill is lacking, I'd start by making Reinforced Casing increase item health and have a higher crit chance reduction.

As a whole I wouldn't say the tree is lacking because I take 32/35 survival on literally every mech of every class and every role and notice a tangible difference in how much damage I can take before going down.

[Khobai]

Quote

No one is going to want skills that have negative effects when literally all other skills are purely positive.

then dont take them

thats why theyre at the bottom so you dont have to take them

OMG ITS A CHOICE. like a skill tree is supposed to have.

do I want more internal structure and armor, or do I want more weapons and speed?

its essentially a more balanced version of reinforced structure and hardened armor...

reinforced structure and hardened armor let you pay extra tonnage for extra structure and armor. SAME THING except its more balanced and omnimechs have access to it too.

And youre wrong no one would take them. I would take all those skills on assaults, because -2% tonnage and 4 skill points for 10% extra structure and 5% extra armor is awesome. Thats a 10% survivability increase.

Quote

I'm also just not a fan of armor skills that start eating into the intended niche of actual armor types like Reflective, Reactive, Ballistic-Reinforced, etc.

reflective armor giving 50% damage reduction vs energy weapons would just plain be broken.

and remember omnimechs cant use reflective armor either. so it just makes omnimechs way worse if battlemechs get major damage reduction and they dont. why even use omnimechs that point?

im glad its not in the game.

putting it in the skill tree where omnimechs can access it makes way more sense to me.

Unless you want omnimechs to be completely terrible...

Quote

If any part of the survival skill is lacking, I'd start by making Reinforced Casing increase item health and have a higher crit chance reduction.

its already combined with shock absorbance and the five shock absorbance skills each give +2% reinforced casing for a total of +10% crit reduction. so for 5 skill points you get 10% crit reduction and 50% fall damage reduction.

thats way better than the 8% you got before with 8 nodes.

its condensed what was previously 13 skill nodes into only 5 skill nodes. And the crit reduction is 10% instead of 8%.

I think its fine.

Edited by Khobai, 19 December 2017 - 01:07 PM.

[CuriousCabbitBlue]

LONG TOM ATLAS!

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 19 December 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

then dont take them

thats why theyre at the bottom so you dont have to take them

OMG ITS A CHOICE. like a skill tree is supposed to have.

do I want more internal structure and armor, or do I want more weapons and speed?

its essentially a more balanced version of reinforced structure and hardened armor...

reinforced structure and hardened armor let you pay extra tonnage for extra structure and armor. SAME THING except its more balanced and omnimechs have access to it too.

And youre wrong no one would take them. I would take all those skills on assaults, because -2% tonnage and 4 skill points for 10% extra structure and 5% extra armor is awesome. Thats a 10% survivability increase.

Do you remember the first version of weapon modules that increased your heat in exchange for longer range? They sucked popsickles and went nearly unused for a reason.

Khobai, on 19 December 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

reflective armor giving 50% damage reduction vs energy weapons would just plain be broken.

and remember omnimechs cant use reflective armor either. so it just makes omnimechs way worse if battlemechs get major damage reduction and they dont. why even use omnimechs that point?

im glad its not in the game.

putting it in the skill tree where omnimechs can access it makes way more sense to me.

Unless you want omnimechs to be completely terrible...

PGI can and probably will change the armor damage resistance stats to be much lower than 50%. The only sacred cows are tonnage and critslots.

Omnis can totally use Reflective if they have it stock, like the Wendigo. Not being able to customize your armor type does not equal "can't use it," otherwise you might argue that Omnis can't use FF since many don't have FF stock...