258 replies to this topic

[Horseman]

Korz, on 14 September 2018 - 05:01 AM, said:

See if you can float changing the engines so IS get engine heat sinks sooner say 200 rated engines, and then can mount two additional heats sinks for each engine then a clan mech ( more or less, there will be some over lap areas and some where it is only one additional).

Also add in an additional leg only heat sink for IS. This will be a two slot leg heat sink more expensive then a standard double heat sink

Breaking canon loadouts is a nope. Which those suggestions both do.

Quote

and it will add external fins to any mech they are mounted on. They will have a higher chance of being crit when armor is gone as they are both internal and externally mounted.

We're talking about game balance, not cosmetic assets. Anything that requires new mechanics and new assets would be much more complicated for PGI to implement.

[Venatos]

so... we get more(higher heatthreashold) and more frequent(higher disipation) alphas? and clan-laserboats get a buff because the can carry a lot more DHS?

odd... i thought you wanted to increase timetokill and balance clan and is laserboats...
guess i missunderstood. carry on then.

[Bud Crue]

Venatos, on 14 September 2018 - 07:58 AM, said:

so... we get more(higher heatthreashold) and more frequent(higher disipation) alphas? and clan-laserboats get a buff because the can carry a lot more DHS?

odd... i thought you wanted to increase timetokill and balance clan and is laserboats...
guess i missunderstood. carry on then.

Dude, they are reducing HLL damage by 2 points! And CERML and CMPL by a half a point.
Boom, TTK is gonna go through the roof!

Plus they are getting rid of quirks that represent a “barrier to entry” (teehee) on select IS mechs. So higher TTK AND all sorts of new and amazing builds will suddenly be viable and competitive on more IS mechs! It’s a magical win-win situation.



(Was the sarcasm obvious? If not, yes, that was sarcasm)

[Nightbird]

Any chance for this to come out in Sept (next week?), since it's just a few spreadsheet changes. Might help with player pop.

[Grus]

Really not looking forward tp these nerfs...

[Windscape]

Lotta strange descions being made in the past couple days.

[Bud Crue]

Chris,

Another thing from up above, in regard to my complaint about your removing quirks, you made the following comment: "At no point are we advocating the reduction / removal of quirks that are needed for under performers..." So as to those "under performers", you apparently know not only which are under performing, but why (see entire quote). If you have this information, why are such under performers allowed to remain under performers for such long periods of time and when select known under performance issues are addressed they are addressed in such a manner that doesn't actually deal with the clear and objectively observable cause of the under performance (see for example a total lack of improved pitch in the announced Firestarter agility buffs). Not a biggie at this point. Just curious how these decisions are made given the precise awareness of the cause of mechs' under performance that you are implying you have in the above commentary.

[Dungeon 206]

DWF needs more torso yaw angle please.
lots of pro players have asked for this many times already.

[Nightbird]

Bud Crue, on 15 September 2018 - 04:37 AM, said:

Chris,

Another thing from up above, in regard to my complaint about your removing quirks, you made the following comment: "At no point are we advocating the reduction / removal of quirks that are needed for under performers..." So as to those "under performers", you apparently know not only which are under performing, but why (see entire quote). If you have this information, why are such under performers allowed to remain under performers for such long periods of time and when select known under performance issues are addressed they are addressed in such a manner that doesn't actually deal with the clear and objectively observable cause of the under performance (see for example a total lack of improved pitch in the announced Firestarter agility buffs). Not a biggie at this point. Just curious how these decisions are made given the precise awareness of the cause of mechs' under performance that you are implying you have in the above commentary.

Giving the firestarter 5 degrees* torso pitch would be better than all the other agility buffs, 15% is ridiculous for any mech.

Edited by Nightbird, 16 September 2018 - 02:20 PM.

[FupDup]

Nightbird, on 16 September 2018 - 08:44 AM, said:

Giving the firestarter 5% torso pitch would be better than all the other agility buffs, 15% is ridiculous for any mech.

Do you mean 5 percent, or 5 degrees? Because a 5% buff would only give you 15.75 degrees of pitch.

[Khobai]

no mech should have less than 20 degree torso pitch. that should be the absolute bare minimum.

and no mech without arm weapons should have less than 25 degree torso pitch.

[Reno Blade]

If the skill tree gave you much higher percentage (for more investment even) the low-agility/mobility mechs could still be skilled to push it into the direction you prefere.
With the current values, it's mostly not worth without already high base values.


With the high heat cap + higher dissipation, we could even get back to the point of adding heat effects (slowing down agility/movement) similar to the cXL-side-torso-destruction effects (see other forum posts already mentioning this).
This would allow for a big buff to base stats, as there are a lot of "penalties" expected (e.g. starting 5% slow of all stats at 50% heat).


Also reduce cooldown of pulse lasers to 1/2 or even 1/3 of the time without chaning anything else.
This would give the low-hardpoint variants a great dps weapon without buffing every single one with cooldown quirks.
(you could even go as far as reducing all cooldowns, but increasing/keeping heat for the same effect)

e.g. you could use a PHawk with 2x MPL, 1x LPL with very short cd and a few extra DHS for some high burst dps (not sustainable because of high heat-per-second also), or you can use 3x ERLL but then have less dps and higher range.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Reno Blade, on 17 September 2018 - 01:04 PM, said:

If the skill tree gave you much higher percentage (for more investment even) the low-agility/mobility mechs could still be skilled to push it into the direction you prefere.
With the current values, it's mostly not worth without already high base values.

The very fact the skill tree gives percentage is exactly WHY the agility part of the tree isn't worth it. Low agility + percentage = still low agility unless you make the percentages insane, at which point high mobility makes can get massive gains compared to lower agility mechs if that were the case.

[Sereglach]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 September 2018 - 08:48 PM, said:

The very fact the skill tree gives percentage is exactly WHY the agility part of the tree isn't worth it. Low agility + percentage = still low agility unless you make the percentages insane, at which point high mobility makes can get massive gains compared to lower agility mechs if that were the case.

You'd think they'd do the inverse to agility skills that they currently do to armor/structure nodes. Start at lower percentages for lights and move to larger percentages as you go up the weight classes. Of course, agility isn't the only skill tree that needs help, but some -like jumpjets- needs buffs to the core equipment as well as doing something to make the tree worthwhile.

It'd be nice if PGI would get around to addressing all of those issues . . . maybe someday.

[Reno Blade]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 September 2018 - 08:48 PM, said:

The very fact the skill tree gives percentage is exactly WHY the agility part of the tree isn't worth it. Low agility + percentage = still low agility unless you make the percentages insane, at which point high mobility makes can get massive gains compared to lower agility mechs if that were the case.

Sereglach, on 17 September 2018 - 09:18 PM, said:

You'd think they'd do the inverse to agility skills that they currently do to armor/structure nodes. Start at lower percentages for lights and move to larger percentages as you go up the weight classes. Of course, agility isn't the only skill tree that needs help, but some -like jumpjets- needs buffs to the core equipment as well as doing something to make the tree worthwhile.

It'd be nice if PGI would get around to addressing all of those issues . . . maybe someday.

Yes that is true.

They could also change (some) mobility numbers:
- to flat numbers
- to different numbers for each mech/variant

first one is probably better and the second one is probably too much work (for pgi).
The values for pitch/twist angle need to be checked to not be clipping, but at least speed values can be flat numbers.

This could also give speed tweak a twist.
If it would give you 7 kph instead of 7% the slower mechs would gain more than the already fast mechs.

[Horseman]

Or, not unlike how Speed Retention works, a % buff that has a guaranteed minimum cap (so if the % would be less than the min cap, you get the minimum value instead).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Reno Blade, on 17 September 2018 - 11:34 PM, said:

Yes that is true.

They could also change (some) mobility numbers:
- to flat numbers
- to different numbers for each mech/variant

first one is probably better and the second one is probably too much work (for pgi).
The values for pitch/twist angle need to be checked to not be clipping, but at least speed values can be flat numbers.

This could also give speed tweak a twist.
If it would give you 7 kph instead of 7% the slower mechs would gain more than the already fast mechs.

How about this? Get rid of the skill tree: done.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2018 - 02:53 PM, said:

How about this? Get rid of the skill tree: done.

Gottem!

[Sable Dove]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2018 - 02:53 PM, said:

How about this? Get rid of the skill tree: done.

But how would they sell Premium Time with out that massive time/money sink?

[Jonathan8883]

Hey Chris, when is the lock-on nerf for missiles under 500m (cone change) going to be un-done?

I wish I had an easy way to take video in game. I have stopped using locking missiles most of the time since the nerf, but I still have at least a half dozen examples where I have the reticle midway between the edges of the target box and the middle of the box, and have not been able to get my mech to even start locking missiles on. Light mechs at short range are nearly impossible to get a lock on, unless their pilots are stupid. It's killed most of my Streak brawling boats, including my "most fun mech ever" Mishipeshu (2 SSRM4, 3 MPL, ECM).

I also am not seeing LRMs used at short range any more - only at long range. The LRMpocalypse continues, but it's only from the back line - the most toxic form of LRMing to the game. Bringing my Catapult up to the 400m mark (formerly optimal) means that I can't get or maintain locks reliably against any but the slowest enemies.

I haven't even tried my ATM mechs...too discouraging.